New R500. Conventional or Sequential Box?
Discussion
Sequential will make it a much more special proposition. Manual is "just" another Caterham like all the others (albeit a very fast one 
).
I'd suggest that, providing there are no significant problems with the 'box (and that's potentially a big proviso), the sequential cars will be much more sought after.
).I'd suggest that, providing there are no significant problems with the 'box (and that's potentially a big proviso), the sequential cars will be much more sought after.
Pugsey said:
Thinking of getting one of these. Anyone got views on which box to go for. My thoughts are that on road I'll be glad of the conventional box but on track I'll wish I'd gone sequential. Struggling to decide frankly.
As long as you use the clutch coming back down the box, and are comfortable heel & toeing, I'd go for the sequential every time. Remember that in town you can still use the clutch on the way up. They tend to like revs to do clutchless upshifts, otherwise you'll end up with a really clunky shift. You may not be allowed to do clutchless upshifts unless revs are over say 3.5k. It may be worth comfirming this with caterham. For some reason caterham recommend a slight lift on the way up the box, rather than allowing full power upshifts as per most other seq. boxes. I'd bypass Caterham and speak to Quaife directly on that though.I race with one in my clio cup, and they really do make up a lot of time over a std box. I would take heed of the service intervals on the box and make sure the oil is changed probably twice as frequently as you change the engine oil (having seen what Sadev boxes do when they're not given fresh oil!). Only use *exactly* what quaife recommend.
jeremyc said:
Sequential will make it a much more special proposition. Manual is "just" another Caterham like all the others (albeit a very fast one ).
I'd suggest that, providing there are no significant problems with the 'box (and that's potentially a big proviso), the sequential cars will be much more sought after.
However, to retro fit a seq. box (assuming the bellhousing is the same as the manual box) is fairly easy...).I'd suggest that, providing there are no significant problems with the 'box (and that's potentially a big proviso), the sequential cars will be much more sought after.
Make the decision on your own preference - you have to test drive it. You might like it on the road, you may hate it. It would be horrible to spend all that money and hate it when you get it! In my experience a sequential box on the road is a very different experience to a h-pattern box.
Go for a test drive!
Bert
Go for a test drive!
Bert
Thanks guys. Yep a test drive is a must I think. I'm very used to the sequential box in my Radical and a number of other cars I've raced so know without a doubt that I'll regret it on track if I don't get one BUT I really worry that I might fall out of love with the car over time on road - where the car will get a lot of it use. On the other hand, as some has already said, if I go non sequential it's really 'JUST' a hot R300 or 400 isn't it? I'll get myself a good long on road test I think.
I have a radical too and the quaiffe seq box is much more physical than the bike ones. The thing about the seq box is that it works well under full beans. WOT banging through the gears up the box. In a caterham on the road with a seq box, you always end up doing this and just end up driving in licence-loosing-loony mode!
Out of interest, with both a Rad and an R500, how would you decide which to take on a track day?
Bert
Out of interest, with both a Rad and an R500, how would you decide which to take on a track day?
Bert
I'd agree that you need to try both, as they are a very different proposition and for me the decision would hinge on the amount of road use vs. track use.
I'm assuming (Caterham's website isn't very clear) that the H-gate box is Caterham's normal synchromesh engagement, whilst the sequential box will be dog engagement.
As such, I'd suggest that it's the method of engagement rather than the shift pattern that is the main factor: dog boxes don't like road use. They are clonky and agricultural unless you are driving at 10/10ths, and slow gearchanges tend to be hard on the dogs, so they need frequent rebuilds.
Recommended (kind) method for fast upshifts on a dog box is to 'load' the gearlever with light finger pressure in the direction of the shift, then (leaving the clutch well alone) quickly lift slightly on the accelerator. This wil unload the dogs and the next gear will select itself almost faster than you can think about it. You can get back on the power basically as fast as you can move your foot, and potential for damaging the dogs is minimised.
The problem is, it's not practical to do smooth upshifts in this manner at part throttle, unless you have very sensitive feet. So, for road use, you tend to have to use the clutch for the majority of upshifts (the ones that aren't taken flat out) and this is not kind on the box.
The bottom line is that dog boxes of any sort - sequential or otherwise - are not really suitable for road use, so if you insist on using them for such, you need to be willing to live with the consequences.
I'm assuming (Caterham's website isn't very clear) that the H-gate box is Caterham's normal synchromesh engagement, whilst the sequential box will be dog engagement.
As such, I'd suggest that it's the method of engagement rather than the shift pattern that is the main factor: dog boxes don't like road use. They are clonky and agricultural unless you are driving at 10/10ths, and slow gearchanges tend to be hard on the dogs, so they need frequent rebuilds.
Recommended (kind) method for fast upshifts on a dog box is to 'load' the gearlever with light finger pressure in the direction of the shift, then (leaving the clutch well alone) quickly lift slightly on the accelerator. This wil unload the dogs and the next gear will select itself almost faster than you can think about it. You can get back on the power basically as fast as you can move your foot, and potential for damaging the dogs is minimised.
The problem is, it's not practical to do smooth upshifts in this manner at part throttle, unless you have very sensitive feet. So, for road use, you tend to have to use the clutch for the majority of upshifts (the ones that aren't taken flat out) and this is not kind on the box.
The bottom line is that dog boxes of any sort - sequential or otherwise - are not really suitable for road use, so if you insist on using them for such, you need to be willing to live with the consequences.
I've recently converted my race CSR from h-pattern (standard caterham 6 spd) to sequential (caterham-supplied quaife straight cut, dogbox). This is a definite improvement on the track as per all the comments above. The sequential feels bullet proof and works really well when driving flat out. However it is pretty agricultural and noisy at lows speeds pootling round the paddock.
Assuming it is the same box, then you must test it on the road to see if you are happy with it in that environment.
Assuming it is the same box, then you must test it on the road to see if you are happy with it in that environment.
Sam_68 said:
Recommended (kind) method for fast upshifts on a dog box is to 'load' the gearlever with light finger pressure in the direction of the shift, then (leaving the clutch well alone) quickly lift slightly on the accelerator. This wil unload the dogs and the next gear will select itself almost faster than you can think about it. You can get back on the power basically as fast as you can move your foot, and potential for damaging the dogs is minimised.
Or just get flatshift electronics to do this for you Think a few people have done this for "car" engined sequentials. The main reason for clutchless shifts (other than being cool, or course) is to be able to keep the car settled when changing gear mid fast bend - not sure how often you really need that on the A25 !
I haven't found sequential boxes to be that painful, but low speeds are not fun. Crawling out of London on a Friday evening it would not be my first choice (nor would any manual !) but for weekend blats on the road they are great. Depends on theratio of track to road I guess.
Noger said:
Or just get flatshift electronics to do this for you Think a few people have done this for "car" engined sequentials.
Kind of defeats the object with a proper driver's car like a Seven, though? Think a few people have done this for "car" engined sequentials. If you want a PlayStation game, buy a Skyline.
Noger said:
The main reason for clutchless shifts (other than being cool, or course) is to be able to keep the car settled when changing gear mid fast bend.
Nope, the main reason for clutchless shifts is simply that they're faster (they actually unsettle a car more than the 'slurring' of torque transition that occurs through clutch slippage when you use the clutch on a change), though as discussed above, they're also the kindest way to treat your dogs.Bike and BEC racers might disagree
"We needed a boost to our World Championship campaign and the Pro-Shift provided us with that bit extra! We found that riding flat out became effortless both upshifting and downshifting worked perfectly all season with no detriment to the engine and gearbox."
"The speed of the gearshift enabled us to change gear mid corner with no loss of stability on the bike, unlike conventional gearshifting."
2002 World Sidecar Champions Steve Abbott & Jamie Biggs.
But you are right, the speed of the shift is important too.
"We needed a boost to our World Championship campaign and the Pro-Shift provided us with that bit extra! We found that riding flat out became effortless both upshifting and downshifting worked perfectly all season with no detriment to the engine and gearbox."
"The speed of the gearshift enabled us to change gear mid corner with no loss of stability on the bike, unlike conventional gearshifting."
2002 World Sidecar Champions Steve Abbott & Jamie Biggs.
But you are right, the speed of the shift is important too.
Edited by Noger on Friday 30th May 20:30
Noger said:
Bike and BEC racers might disagree
I don't dispute the fact that electronic shift systems can change gear faster and smoother than a human. An Airbus (fly-by-wire, naturally!) will get you from A to B faster than a Pitts Special or a Spitfire.Racers are out there to win at all costs. Certainly, if I was racing professionally, I'd fit whatever electronics I thought might give me the edge, even if that just mean I was just a passenger to a little black box, if the rules allowed it. But then if I was trying to win races for a living, I would be driving a Caterham unless I only wanted to win races against other Caterhams...
Track days are for fun. When I drive for pleasure, part of the pleasure comes from exercising my skill. There's a certain amount of satisfaction in executing a perfect series of manual gearshifts which, for me, would be lost if there was a computer there to do it for me.
But each to their own. If you get a buzz out of the sheer speed, even if you're relying on a computer to deliver it, then that's cool.
I get a buzz out of the weeeeeeEEEEEE-BANG-weeeeeEEEEE-BANG of the ignition cut 
Good point though, I am nowhere near a good enough driver to make best use of flat paddle shift on track, not going fast enough for it to matter So no doubt doing it manually would be a better learning experience for me.
Good point though, I am nowhere near a good enough driver to make best use of flat paddle shift on track, not going fast enough for it to matter
So no doubt doing it manually would be a better learning experience for me. fergus said:
BertBert said:
Out of interest, with both a Rad and an R500, how would you decide which to take on a track day?
looking to move into an SR3 next year (to race), but I'd imagine to have fun; the caterham, to go quickly the radical.The old sequential box is not unsmooth. Whats more I've had one for 7 years with only 2 minor failures requiring servicing.
The right electronics drastically reduces wear and tear and makes for a much more exciting drive.
I have to wonder how many people on here have driven the Type 9 sequential box, and which version they have used?
The right electronics drastically reduces wear and tear and makes for a much more exciting drive.
I have to wonder how many people on here have driven the Type 9 sequential box, and which version they have used?
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff