RE: Brand new sports car due soon
Discussion
ettore said:
dick dastardly said:
Coventry Climax? Might as well have called it the West Midlands W@nk.
Coventry Climax did win several Formula 1 world championships...?
Why do people persist in resurecting long dead names. They're not worth it. Marketing advantage? you're having a laugh! Only PHers and a couple of OAPs have a clue what Coventry Climax did way back in the fifties and sixties. The same could be said for many other "historic" names that get the revival treatment. Healey?, Alvis?, Jensen? All better known but still long faded from popular awareness. How many people in the sportscar segment of the market would be turned on by a car name that his grandpa once owned? If you asked a thousand car buyers how many wouldn't ever have heard these names?
For every pound they spend on an old name they could be pushing a new one. If you want proof of this look at how a serious company did it, Toyota. When they wanted a luxury brand they had a choice, buy an old (still going or defunct) name or make a new one. They chose to make a new one. Ford, VW and BMW bought old established names (Jaguar/Aston-Martin/Lagonda/AC, Bentley/Lamborghini/Audi/Bugatti, Rolls-Royce (cars only!, not the Aero engine company, who still own the RR trademarks)). But there's still not much of an argument for doing this as PAG (the Ford lot) haven't made much money, the others probably haven't made any yet, and those names were far, far, more famous than most companies could ever hope to be.
For every sale they gain due to someone remembering the Coventry Climax name they'll lose one for exactly the reason Dick points out.
Nice car though.
joust said:
Aero screen. Roads. I think not....
J
J
Why not, Joust?
I've owned a couple of aeroscreen'd cars for road use, and there are plenty of lightweight kitcars that run lack full windscreens. In bad weather, you use a full face helmet (or, more realistically, the family saloon), in good weather, you just need a decent pair of sunglasses or some ski goggles.
Sam_68 said:
Sub-500 kilos really ought to be possible, if you are careful/clever enough.
Sub 500 is quite hard for 35k. Caterham have to work quite hard to get below 500 with a light engine made of cheese. So for a futuristic car with anything like a proper engine (if it's a scooby flat 4 as someone mentioned it's not light) you will have to use a very clever chassis and composites. Doing that, having 270 horses in a new low volume car all for £35k. That's a challenge!
Graham
Stubby Pete said:
joust said:
Aero screen. Roads. I think not....
J
J
With no roll bar, you'd want a helmet anyway wouldn't you?
What's all the fuss about roll bars. I've had performance and competition cars for over 30 years. I don't recall rolling a car ever - and I don't now anyone who has......
gridgway said:
Sam_68 said:
Sub-500 kilos really ought to be possible, if you are careful/clever enough.
Sub 500 is quite hard for 35k. Caterham have to work quite hard to get below 500 with a light engine made of cheese. So for a futuristic car with anything like a proper engine (if it's a scooby flat 4 as someone mentioned it's not light) you will have to use a very clever chassis and composites. Doing that, having 270 horses in a new low volume car all for £35k. That's a challenge!
Graham
My Sylva Phoenix clocks exactly 508 kilos on the corner weight scales, complete with cast iron Crossflow attached to cast iron bellhousing thence (via a propshaft} to a live rear axle with a cast iron diff nose on it. The last time I checked it had a 1950's technology steel spaceframe chassis and plain, old fashioned glassfibre bodywork. The modern Caterham is not especially light by 'Seven' standards.
edited to add: ...and it would be a hell of a challenge to figure out a way of spending £35K building a Sylva. Divide that figure by 5, and you should still have some change left over!
Edited by Sam_68 on Friday 21st July 13:31
Sam_68 said:
[quote=r988]
The Elise is overweight. Not as overweight as most other modern cars, but certainly no lightweight when you compare it to '60's generation Lotuses or current lightweight kitcars. Remember that stuff like windcreens, wind up windows, wiper motors etc. adds a substantial amount of weight.
The Elise is overweight. Not as overweight as most other modern cars, but certainly no lightweight when you compare it to '60's generation Lotuses or current lightweight kitcars. Remember that stuff like windcreens, wind up windows, wiper motors etc. adds a substantial amount of weight.
...all of which the original Elan had! ;-)
JJ
cymtriks said:
ettore said:
dick dastardly said:
Coventry Climax? Might as well have called it the West Midlands W@nk.
Coventry Climax did win several Formula 1 world championships...?
Why do people persist in resurecting long dead names. They're not worth it. Marketing advantage? you're having a laugh! Only PHers and a couple of OAPs have a clue what Coventry Climax did way back in the fifties and sixties. The same could be said for many other "historic" names that get the revival treatment. Healey?, Alvis?, Jensen? All better known but still long faded from popular awareness. How many people in the sportscar segment of the market would be turned on by a car name that his grandpa once owned? If you asked a thousand car buyers how many wouldn't ever have heard these names?
For every pound they spend on an old name they could be pushing a new one. If you want proof of this look at how a serious company did it, Toyota. When they wanted a luxury brand they had a choice, buy an old (still going or defunct) name or make a new one. They chose to make a new one. Ford, VW and BMW bought old established names (Jaguar/Aston-Martin/Lagonda/AC, Bentley/Lamborghini/Audi/Bugatti, Rolls-Royce (cars only!, not the Aero engine company, who still own the RR trademarks)). But there's still not much of an argument for doing this as PAG (the Ford lot) haven't made much money, the others probably haven't made any yet, and those names were far, far, more famous than most companies could ever hope to be.
For every sale they gain due to someone remembering the Coventry Climax name they'll lose one for exactly the reason Dick points out.
Nice car though.
You do have a bit of a chip about this issue don't you, lol!
AFAIK they aren't reviving an old name... Climax is in the dictionary. It means "culmination", "end" or "peak". Very apt.
Plus I'm sure the plan is to aim the car at discerning enthusiasts, and not the kind of people that spend hours sniggering behind bike sheds at what they interpret the name means to them (whilst demonstrating this over the latest copy of Max Power :-p)
JJ
crbox said:
Stubby Pete said:
joust said:
Aero screen. Roads. I think not....
J
J
With no roll bar, you'd want a helmet anyway wouldn't you?
What's all the fuss about roll bars. I've had performance and competition cars for over 30 years. I don't recall rolling a car ever - and I don't now anyone who has......
Perhaps the point is, that without a roll bar, you'd only ever get the chance to do it once.
Do you want to take that chance?
"and it would be a hell of a challenge to figure out a way of spending £35K building a Sylva. Divide that figure by 5, and you should still have some change left over! "
HA! just give it to the boyes at SSC to build and they'll merrily spend more than that and still fail to have finished it!
Miles
HA! just give it to the boyes at SSC to build and they'll merrily spend more than that and still fail to have finished it!
Miles
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff