Is the MEV Exocet the modern day Caterham Lotus 7 ?
Discussion
Your quite right, I have amended it, did not intend to offend, it is just interesting comparing today with how it all was 50 years ago. I will leave you all to discuss further if you wish and leave my manufacturer status/opinion out of the debate, I have spent far too much time on this already.
Stuart Mills said:
Does anone know what you got for £399 from Lotus in 1960? It appears that was the kit price but I am not clear if it was based on a donor car or was actually a kit in a box with a brand new everything. I hope it included everything as a new Mini was only a few quid more in 1960.
<pulls out the good book>The 6 was maybe £400 on the road in the mid 50s. But you sourced your own engine+box and axle (which was then modified by Lotus).
The S1 7 was available ready built from the factory in 1957/8 for the princely sum of £1036. Average earnings were about £850...today they are nearer £40,000. Bear in mind that a road going version of the Eleven was £1500 !!!!
In kit form, £536. No "donor" (although the bits, as today, came from all over) - you got the full kit with most of the wiring and plumbing done.
The "Super" Seven (as driven quite well by some bloke called Graham Hill) was £700 in kit form. So just under a years wages for something that could do 0-60 in 9.2 seconds and 100mph
S2 was at the bargain price of £499 in 1961. The Cossie version (some bloke called Mike Costin did a lot of the early work, before going off to do something in engines
) was £645. 0-60 in 7 seconds. Mental in 1962. So...7 months salary maybe ?Spin on to the S3...£1600 fully built in 1969, £1225 in kit form for the iconic Twin Cam version. Maybe 9 months average salary.
Caterham started selling S4 kits in 1973 for £1487. You could get a 1700 Supersprint in 1985 for £8700 (about my annual salary in my first job in 1986).
They were never *that* cheap.
My view as the OP, and having given much thought to that said on both sides, it is clear to me that the MEV Exocet holds both the original attributes of Colin Chapman's desire to introduce to a larger motor racing audience, (via the introduction of the iconic 'lotus 7') a lowcost quality vehicle by which one can get involved on track, as well as Graham Nearn's desire through Caterham to develop the 7 further in terms of technology. Inevitably through time the cost of ownership of both a Caterham and Lotus 7 have crept up, taking it out of the reach of many of whom 'just wish to give it a go'.
There will always be advocates on both sides of any fence, and I severely doubt that the introduction of the MEV Exocet will in any way reduce the popularity of the Caterham 7. It’s far more lightly that the opposite will happen and that the Exocet will become, what the Lotus 7 used to be, the first step on the ladder in introducing new blood into motorsport, possibly even leaving Exocet Owners to be future customers of Caterham.
Quite where the MEV sits in Caterhams range in terms of performance, whether it be the Roadsport B or R300 Superlight is in many ways irrelevant to the Motorsport beginner, although it’s very comforting to know, from the people in the know that in the right hands the MEV Exocet can hold its own.
I’d like to take the opportunity to thank all who have contributed to this thread.
There will always be advocates on both sides of any fence, and I severely doubt that the introduction of the MEV Exocet will in any way reduce the popularity of the Caterham 7. It’s far more lightly that the opposite will happen and that the Exocet will become, what the Lotus 7 used to be, the first step on the ladder in introducing new blood into motorsport, possibly even leaving Exocet Owners to be future customers of Caterham.
Quite where the MEV sits in Caterhams range in terms of performance, whether it be the Roadsport B or R300 Superlight is in many ways irrelevant to the Motorsport beginner, although it’s very comforting to know, from the people in the know that in the right hands the MEV Exocet can hold its own.
I’d like to take the opportunity to thank all who have contributed to this thread.
Interesting discussion; dropping 'Caterham' & 'Lotus' from the title might have made the debate a little less partisan.... Even so, it's not really a valid comparison unless we're being very specific about the parameters of the debate.
The Exocet lacks the engineering purity of the Seven, because a) with donors like the MX5, why reinvent the wheel & b) as good as Stuart is - and I'm sure he'll forgive me for saying this
- he's not the engineering genius (& I don't use the term lightly) Chapman was. This doesn't make it unfit for purpose. That the Seven is so well regarded more than half a century on is a testament to its achievement; that a relative upstart has provoked such debate is not be sniffed at either.
BTW, Exocet is only a rebody if you don't know the difference between a chassis and a torque tube (in which case I'm relieved the engineering careers were reconsidered). Similarly, I'm not sure there's an engineering principle that states load can't be maintained by an unsupported beam without corrupting geometry: would simply require much beefier section than otherwise required. Probably achievable, but definitely not efficient (or ever likely to be the product of a mind like Chapmans): but then, exos are about the aesthetics of engineering...
FWIW (as someone who's neither driven or owned either) in essence they both seem a response to the same challenge: maximum performance / fun at minimum cost (though the contemporary Caterham has moved upmarket, a trend likely to accelerate under new ownership). Yes, they're very different in any number of ways, but shaped by their times and enviroment: the 2CV, Beetle, Mini & 500 are all answers to the same question in varying contexts.
Finally, is it only me that sees the whole 'circle of life' thing? Exocet based on MX5, whose inspiration was (clearly, almost actionably) the Elan, from the man who brought us.... Seems He still exerts an influence, even at a remove. First you sow the seed, then nature grows the seed...
The Exocet lacks the engineering purity of the Seven, because a) with donors like the MX5, why reinvent the wheel & b) as good as Stuart is - and I'm sure he'll forgive me for saying this
- he's not the engineering genius (& I don't use the term lightly) Chapman was. This doesn't make it unfit for purpose. That the Seven is so well regarded more than half a century on is a testament to its achievement; that a relative upstart has provoked such debate is not be sniffed at either.BTW, Exocet is only a rebody if you don't know the difference between a chassis and a torque tube (in which case I'm relieved the engineering careers were reconsidered
). Similarly, I'm not sure there's an engineering principle that states load can't be maintained by an unsupported beam without corrupting geometry: would simply require much beefier section than otherwise required. Probably achievable, but definitely not efficient (or ever likely to be the product of a mind like Chapmans): but then, exos are about the aesthetics of engineering...FWIW (as someone who's neither driven or owned either) in essence they both seem a response to the same challenge: maximum performance / fun at minimum cost (though the contemporary Caterham has moved upmarket, a trend likely to accelerate under new ownership). Yes, they're very different in any number of ways, but shaped by their times and enviroment: the 2CV, Beetle, Mini & 500 are all answers to the same question in varying contexts.
Finally, is it only me that sees the whole 'circle of life' thing? Exocet based on MX5, whose inspiration was (clearly, almost actionably) the Elan, from the man who brought us.... Seems He still exerts an influence, even at a remove. First you sow the seed, then nature grows the seed...
te as their car's asthetics.OlberJ said:
The 7 is hardly the last word in looks.
Purposeful, yes, good looking, no.
It's about the proportions of the car.Purposeful, yes, good looking, no.
The Lotus VI, Lotus7 and Caterham 7 are all well proportioned. You sit them next to any seven clones and they'll stand out as the nicest looking ones.
Whether or not the Exocet is well proportioned is opinion.
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder
OlberJ said:
Aye, i'm well versed in proportions, it's a key to what makes things look good.
FWIW, there is another aestheticly pleasing option for these chassis' if the Exocet doesn't sit right with you.
Well Westfield do a seven kit based on an MX5 donor...but Westfield's proportions are...different...FWIW, there is another aestheticly pleasing option for these chassis' if the Exocet doesn't sit right with you.
Apart from fire, what's the other suggestion?
ApexJimi said:
He's probably referring to MEV's coupe body for the MX5.
Which I don't really see the point in, as it takes away what is arguably the MX5's defining feature - the convertible aspect.
I think it's for people who firstly, like the MX5 except for it's rag roof and secondly, like the way the MX5 goes, but would like something that stands out rather than making you look like a sheep...Which I don't really see the point in, as it takes away what is arguably the MX5's defining feature - the convertible aspect.
Iwantoneofthose said:
OlberJ said:
Not the coupe, the superlight.
I do think that the MEV range really is outstanding currently amongst the Kit Car world. Brilliant execution of exceptionally good designs. Offering remarkably different individual vehicles with the same essential mechanical underpinnings.
These really are an exceptionally good range from one manufacturer.
The Kit buyer needs to decide his priorities and look around. Well worth the drive there is NI substitute for seeing the cars themselves.
If anyone knows of equal buildability and price I would be very interested to hear of the cars. With several Kit Car shows coming up I strongly advise attendance to see the offerings in the flesh.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff