My first Westfield! but which one?
Discussion
Looking for advice, a friend & I have pulled together enough finance to purchase a weekend toy (a 2nd hand kit car, yippee)! But which one and what engine? The realistic budget is between £5 & £6k
Westfield wide body my initial thought as I am 6'4", though I understand a Tiger E1 is quite generous inside. How do the likes of Locust and MK compare?
Also which engine? We would like to do some track days, and use it for road blasts as well. At our budget xflow, pinto or cvh seem to be the options.
Additional consideration is the maintenance as neither of us are experts (though a further friend is switched on, but you can't abuse his friendship to much).
Westfield wide body my initial thought as I am 6'4", though I understand a Tiger E1 is quite generous inside. How do the likes of Locust and MK compare?
Also which engine? We would like to do some track days, and use it for road blasts as well. At our budget xflow, pinto or cvh seem to be the options.
Additional consideration is the maintenance as neither of us are experts (though a further friend is switched on, but you can't abuse his friendship to much).
Westfield would be a good choice, particualrly the SEi version with independent rear suspension.
The Tiger E1 was designed as a budget 'single donor' kit and is rather compromised as a result; mainly because it re-uses the donor Sierra semi-trailing arm rear suspension, which is fundamentally unsuited to a 'Seven' type car. It's ok as a budget fun car, but you can do better...
Don't get confused between the LocUst and the LowcOst. The Locust was a plan-built car with a plywood body mounted on a very simple ladder frame chassis. It was a nice DIY project for the builder, but personally I wouldn't want to pay actual money for one.
The Lowcost started out as a plan-built car, from a Haynes published 'build manual' by a guy called Ron Champion. It has a steel spaceframe chassis - which is a huge step forward from the Lowcost - but it's one of the worst designed 'Seven' spaceframes you'll come across anywhere (with the possible exception of some of the Robin Hood monstrosities). The concept was taken on by several companies (including MK) who started by fabricating chassis to the book pattern for people who didn't trust their own welding skills, then went on to supply other parts and eventually full cars. They tend to have developed the deeply flawed 'book' design to a point where some of them are quite nice cars. While there are plenty on here who swear by them, I've not been impressed by the ones I've driven and I'd still tend to go with a car that was competently designed from the outset (Westfield or Sylva, in your budget range), rather than one that has merely had the worst of the bugs developed out of it by necessity.
If you don't mind the slightly less authentic looks, the Sylva is head and shoulders above anything else in you price range in terms of design and handling (Sylva-derived cars have won the 750MC Kit Car Race Championship so many times it's getting embarrassing), but if you're 6'4", you might find them a tight fit.
The Tiger E1 was designed as a budget 'single donor' kit and is rather compromised as a result; mainly because it re-uses the donor Sierra semi-trailing arm rear suspension, which is fundamentally unsuited to a 'Seven' type car. It's ok as a budget fun car, but you can do better...
Don't get confused between the LocUst and the LowcOst. The Locust was a plan-built car with a plywood body mounted on a very simple ladder frame chassis. It was a nice DIY project for the builder, but personally I wouldn't want to pay actual money for one.
The Lowcost started out as a plan-built car, from a Haynes published 'build manual' by a guy called Ron Champion. It has a steel spaceframe chassis - which is a huge step forward from the Lowcost - but it's one of the worst designed 'Seven' spaceframes you'll come across anywhere (with the possible exception of some of the Robin Hood monstrosities). The concept was taken on by several companies (including MK) who started by fabricating chassis to the book pattern for people who didn't trust their own welding skills, then went on to supply other parts and eventually full cars. They tend to have developed the deeply flawed 'book' design to a point where some of them are quite nice cars. While there are plenty on here who swear by them, I've not been impressed by the ones I've driven and I'd still tend to go with a car that was competently designed from the outset (Westfield or Sylva, in your budget range), rather than one that has merely had the worst of the bugs developed out of it by necessity.
If you don't mind the slightly less authentic looks, the Sylva is head and shoulders above anything else in you price range in terms of design and handling (Sylva-derived cars have won the 750MC Kit Car Race Championship so many times it's getting embarrassing), but if you're 6'4", you might find them a tight fit.
Sam_68 said:
The Lowcost started out as a plan-built car, from a Haynes published 'build manual' by a guy called Ron Champion. It has a steel spaceframe chassis - which is a huge step forward from the Lowcost - but it's one of the worst designed 'Seven' spaceframes you'll come across anywhere
Surely not that much worse than the car that allegedly inspired uncle Ron in the first place?Don't forget there's a difference between the LocOst and the LocUst - not sure what the OP meant.
The Locust is a plan-built car that has nothing (really) to do with that Haynes manual, and predates it somewhat - http://www.locust.org.uk/ - for the enthusiasts' club. It's still available from BWE in plan form.
The Locust is a plan-built car that has nothing (really) to do with that Haynes manual, and predates it somewhat - http://www.locust.org.uk/ - for the enthusiasts' club. It's still available from BWE in plan form.
Mr2Mike said:
Surely not that much worse than the car that allegedly inspired uncle Ron in the first place?
You're 'aving a larf, right? 
Chassis stiffness of the Lowcost is probably comparable to the original Lotus Seven (which was designed for much softer suspension and more compliant tyres than current trends, so didn't need the same rigidity), but the steering and suspension geometry of the Lotus are in a different league altogether. One was designed by probably the greatest race car design genius ever to put pen to paper, the other was designed by a middle-aged metalwork teacher. 'Those who can, do, those who can't...'
Or was he 'inspired' by a badly built Robin Hood?
Edited by Sam_68 on Monday 12th November 12:17
Jeez Sam give it up please, how many times are you going to regurgitate the same old mis-informative tripe about the Locost on this forum? 
The original "book" Locost (no W) as penned in Ron Champion's book is an almost exact copy of an old Westfield which is where I assume the comment about its inspiration was aimed at, not Lotus / Caterham. There were some measurement errors in the first edition book (rather than design flaws) which did cause issues with the front suspension geometry if followed to the letter, but those were corrected in the second edition of the book and by virtually any builder with half a brain. The fact remains though that you'll never accept is that in its correct (second edition book) guise, its a perfectly well designed and capable car in the context of what it is. Yes it may not have the trick inboard suspension or some of the nice dsign touches that you see on other cars, but fundamentally its a sound car.
You always bring up the chassis stiffness issue as the main reason you think its a poor car and why it "probably" compares to the original Lotus 7, but you're basing that on a detailed chassis thesis done on a Locost chassis and picking the lowest stiffness numbers available with a completely bare chassis, no panels, no engine bracing etc, which is not representative of its stiffness in roadgoing trim, and is not a representative figure to compare against manufacturer claims(!) of other marques.
At the end of the day, I don't think many would contest that things like the Phoenix, Fury and Caterham ARE better designed, but there isn't that much difference in them, they certainly aint that much better dynamically. Ive driven similarly spec'd Furys and Westfields and although they all feel a bit different to each other, they are ALL in the same performance ballpark.
Ignoring all the "theory" though, I'll give a real world example. My own car is a "book" chassis Locost with live axle, with an R1 bike engine installed and used for trackdays. Here's the only clear complete lap of Cadwell Park I did in my car on a trackday earlier this year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0pMnaJrPA
My car runs very similar technical spec to RGB, it has the same size A048 tyres as RGB, the same spec engine (as RGB Class B), and the car weighs a similar amount as an RGB spec car.
If the Locost chassis was so bloody compromised and as was as dynamically bad as you seem hellbent on portraying, that must make me Michael Schumacher's long lost brother because that lap in the video is within half a second of the Class B RGB lap record for Cadwell, a record held by a round-tube STM Phoenix chassis with an identical R1 engine in it!
I'd love to hear your explaination as to how a car can be so bad yet put in competitive laptimes such as that?
Chris
The original "book" Locost (no W) as penned in Ron Champion's book is an almost exact copy of an old Westfield which is where I assume the comment about its inspiration was aimed at, not Lotus / Caterham. There were some measurement errors in the first edition book (rather than design flaws) which did cause issues with the front suspension geometry if followed to the letter, but those were corrected in the second edition of the book and by virtually any builder with half a brain. The fact remains though that you'll never accept is that in its correct (second edition book) guise, its a perfectly well designed and capable car in the context of what it is. Yes it may not have the trick inboard suspension or some of the nice dsign touches that you see on other cars, but fundamentally its a sound car.
You always bring up the chassis stiffness issue as the main reason you think its a poor car and why it "probably" compares to the original Lotus 7, but you're basing that on a detailed chassis thesis done on a Locost chassis and picking the lowest stiffness numbers available with a completely bare chassis, no panels, no engine bracing etc, which is not representative of its stiffness in roadgoing trim, and is not a representative figure to compare against manufacturer claims(!) of other marques.
At the end of the day, I don't think many would contest that things like the Phoenix, Fury and Caterham ARE better designed, but there isn't that much difference in them, they certainly aint that much better dynamically. Ive driven similarly spec'd Furys and Westfields and although they all feel a bit different to each other, they are ALL in the same performance ballpark.
Ignoring all the "theory" though, I'll give a real world example. My own car is a "book" chassis Locost with live axle, with an R1 bike engine installed and used for trackdays. Here's the only clear complete lap of Cadwell Park I did in my car on a trackday earlier this year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0pMnaJrPA
My car runs very similar technical spec to RGB, it has the same size A048 tyres as RGB, the same spec engine (as RGB Class B), and the car weighs a similar amount as an RGB spec car.
If the Locost chassis was so bloody compromised and as was as dynamically bad as you seem hellbent on portraying, that must make me Michael Schumacher's long lost brother because that lap in the video is within half a second of the Class B RGB lap record for Cadwell, a record held by a round-tube STM Phoenix chassis with an identical R1 engine in it!
I'd love to hear your explaination as to how a car can be so bad yet put in competitive laptimes such as that?
Chris
Edited by LocoBlade on Sunday 11th November 14:01
I have two Westfields and would always suggest these are better, but Caterham owners would suggest otherwise.
For you budget you will get a good Westfield, but it might get you a very good MK or Stuart Taylor. The best way is to look at as many as you can and decide yourself. The self built Locost where they have built the chassis, personally I would not buy as this is the foundation and you want one where the chassis is not compramised by a weekend welder with a £50 mig welder. Get to Exeter next weekend and you will see lots of cars and can discuss the pros and cons with real owners not those who have read a book.
If you join the local westfield club you can get to have rides in various cars.
Wide bodied versions are the ones to go for unless you are racing snake proportions, where a narrow body version will be okay and to my eyes much prettier.
For you budget you will get a good Westfield, but it might get you a very good MK or Stuart Taylor. The best way is to look at as many as you can and decide yourself. The self built Locost where they have built the chassis, personally I would not buy as this is the foundation and you want one where the chassis is not compramised by a weekend welder with a £50 mig welder. Get to Exeter next weekend and you will see lots of cars and can discuss the pros and cons with real owners not those who have read a book.
If you join the local westfield club you can get to have rides in various cars.
Wide bodied versions are the ones to go for unless you are racing snake proportions, where a narrow body version will be okay and to my eyes much prettier.
spaximus said:
The self built Locost where they have built the chassis, personally I would not buy as this is the foundation and you want one where the chassis is not compramised by a weekend welder with a £50 mig welder.
Yep, I agree with this, unless its a "book" chassis supplied by a manufacturer like Stuart Taylor or MK, it is a bit of a risk. You can inspect welds and get a good idea of the skills of the person who built it, but you can't really check their dimensional accuracy.
Thanks for the advice, I think I will avoid Locosts for the moment. How about engines? X flow old light but light & tunable, CVH can this match the xflow for power? Pinto heavier 2.1 litre what the advantages/drawbacks?, or at a push 2litre vauxall? any thoughts. Also on the Westfield side is the SEI W that much better than the straight SEw?
For trackdays and the Sunday morning adrenalin fix, forget all this x-flow, CVH, Pinto nonsense and go for something like this
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/286062.htm
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/286062.htm
LocoBlade said:
Jeez Sam give it up please, how many times are you going to regurgitate the same old mis-informative tripe about the Locost on this forum?
For as long as you Locost obsessives continue to portray it as a competent design. LocoBlade said:
The original "book" Locost (no W) as penned in Ron Champion's book is an almost exact copy of an old Westfield
I'm not going to get into a detailed explanation of the differences (though 'almost exact copy' is certainly stretching the truth a little), but in any case the old (live axle) Westfield did indeed have some of the suspension geometry flaws of the Locost. The difference is that it's designer was prepared to admit (in writing) that it was far from perfect and to explain why he had accepted its deficiencies (for easy of availability of donor parts and for aesthetic reasons).LocoBlade said:
You always bring up the chassis stiffness issue as the main reason you think its a poor car
I think you're confusing me with Cymtriks. I'm not obsessive about chassis stiffness; I own probably the stiffest 'Seven' type ever built and also own a car with an unexceptionally stiff spaceframe, so I can say from direct, back-to-back comparative experience that it isn't that important. LocoBlade said:
At the end of the day, I don't think many would contest that things like the Phoenix, Fury and Caterham ARE better designed, but there isn't that much difference in them, they certainly aint that much better dynamically. Ive driven similarly spec'd Furys and Westfields and although they all feel a bit different to each other, they are ALL in the same performance ballpark.
I wouldn't disagree with any of that. It just doesn't make sense to me why anyone would want to spend identical money on a car that is worse designed and/or even slightly worse dynamically. But my main worries with genuine Locost-type cars (ie. cars predominantly fabricated by their individual builder) are the uncertainties about chassis accuracy, build integrity and quality control that can be much reduced by buying a car that was built from a kit by a competent and we-established manufacturer.LocoBlade said:
I'd love to hear your explaination as to how a car can be so bad yet put in competitive laptimes such as that?
Easy. A race track is very different to the road. A kart, with negligible chassis stiffness and no suspension whatsoever can put up a fast time around a circuit, but would be completely undriveable on the road. Probably the most important factors on a race track are power:weight ratio, low CG and tyres. With current trends for very stiff suspension, everything else makes only limited difference.
It's on the road where the differences between a good car and a bad car will be most evident. On a race track, you might find that for cars of similar weight, layout, tyres and power, the different between a really good design and a really average one might be as little as, oooh, say half a second a lap.
powerstans said:
Thanks for the advice, I think I will avoid Locosts for the moment.
Is this because of what Sam has said about them?Sam, I wasn't going to comment on this thread which seemed like the usual old shit from you but this is really beyond the
ing pale. Read what locoblade has said about the difference between the locost chassis you believe is representative of the breed and what actually represents a locost chassis these days and take this in to account before you continue slagging them off or just do us a favour a off and get a life. Your ignorance and inability to listen to a reasoned well put argument from locoblade is staggering. I don't much care what your opinion is to be frank and I've no interest in taking part in another discussion with you. Just stop feeding people your version of the story as fact because it's *far* from it.Powerstans, the comments about home built chassis are fair enough even though I'm building my own but please don't write off the breed as a whole. There are plenty out there with manufactured chassis if you aren't able to inspect the home buildt chassis yourself.
Edited by dern on Monday 12th November 12:48
Thanks to both of you, obviously you are polar opposits about this matter.
In respect of the lowcost issue from my point of vue I am still not sure if:
a, the locost is big enough for me as I am 6'5".
b, as a first car I would avoid a chasis home build due to my own mechanical ignorance.
I am a going to the Exeter show and will take a view after this.
Cheers
In respect of the lowcost issue from my point of vue I am still not sure if:
a, the locost is big enough for me as I am 6'5".
b, as a first car I would avoid a chasis home build due to my own mechanical ignorance.
I am a going to the Exeter show and will take a view after this.
Cheers
Sam_68 said:
Thank you for your opinion, Dern.
As balanced and erudite as ever!
Just do us all a favour Sam and take on board some of the stuff that locoblade has told you... the stuff about your view of the chassis being out of date with reality. I don't care what your personal opinion is but please stop slagging off our cars because of your own prejudices which are based on incorrect information. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? You can't just write a load of derogatory crap and expect me not to be 'erudite' especially when instead of taking the information given to you on board you just wait a while and spew all your original crap up again to some other poor bastard who just wants a balanced view. The hypocrasy of you suggesting my view isn't balanced just beggers belief.As balanced and erudite as ever!
powerstans said:
In respect of the lowcost issue from my point of vue I am still not sure if:
a, the locost is big enough for me as I am 6'5".
b, as a first car I would avoid a chasis home build due to my own mechanical ignorance.
It all depends on the car to be honest. A standard locost chassis is substantially smaller than a westfield widebody. There were some larger versions of it made by Viento I think and some chassis manufacturers do make larger versions. If you're looking for a ready built car then there probably aren't many of these kicking about. The other thing that people do is to simply move the pedals are far forward as they go and the seat as far back and to use carbon fibre or glass fibre seats to get the room but you won't get any more width. Ultimately though, if you're looking for a bit of comfort and space then a westfield widebody will be just the thing. I had one and I'm 6'2" and I had the seat quite a bit forward from the back stop (and I don't have unnaturally short legs for my height a, the locost is big enough for me as I am 6'5".
b, as a first car I would avoid a chasis home build due to my own mechanical ignorance.
). As ever the best thing to do is sit in a few and both the westfield club and the locost club will be full of helpful people who will let you sit in their cars I imagine. Sadly this time of year fewer people take their cars to meetings but you'll find some owners clubs at the shows I guess. This is a very good time of year to buy a car though.
Good luck.
Deep breaths, Dern... deep breaths!
Think about it... from his first post, the OP has no experience of kit cars and is looking to buy a second-hand 'Seven' type that will not present too many challenges to his fairly limited technical experience.
As I stated in my original response, some of the Locost derived marques have developed the design into quite acceptable cars, but the problem is that if you treat the Locost as a genre, then you have to be fairly clued-up to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
A car built from a modern MNR or MK Indy kit will probably be pretty good (though the original Lowcost design doesn't stand much comparison with either - especially the MNR), and some plan-built cars will have been done competently and to a high standard. Unfortunately, you might also encounter a plans-built car which is geometrically inaccurate and poorly fabricated, or cars built on early MK chassis, which were not much better than the original 'book' chassis, and have been finished to an extreme budget using components begged, borrowed and stolen from wherever the builder could find them.
Locoblade concedes that Sylvas, Fishers and Caterhams are better designed, even if he stops short of awarding Westfield the same accolade. I assume you can't think Westfields are too inferior, otherwise you wouldn't have bought two of them yourself?
Spaximus made the same point as me, that the quality and competence of a home-built chassis is questionable, without getting your foaming-mouthed, rabid response, and even you admit that my comments on home-built chassis are valid.
I've owned Westfields, Caterhams and Sylvas and have driven examples of many other Seven types (including MK's)over a period of almost 20 years, so my opinions are based on experience, not predjudice, but in any event I can't see how it would be sound advice to suggest to a newcomer that he should buy a car that, at best, is not quite as well designed as some of the available competition and at worst might be a dangerous shed.
I know you are a zealous believer in the Lowcost concept, but surely even you must admit that a newcomer to Sevens would stand a better chance of consistent quality and integrity by buying a car from one of the better respected and longer established marques?
But please... continue your rabid, ranting, personal abuse. The fact that you can't come up with a reasoned technical argument is the best proof I have that my opinions are valid.
Think about it... from his first post, the OP has no experience of kit cars and is looking to buy a second-hand 'Seven' type that will not present too many challenges to his fairly limited technical experience.
As I stated in my original response, some of the Locost derived marques have developed the design into quite acceptable cars, but the problem is that if you treat the Locost as a genre, then you have to be fairly clued-up to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
A car built from a modern MNR or MK Indy kit will probably be pretty good (though the original Lowcost design doesn't stand much comparison with either - especially the MNR), and some plan-built cars will have been done competently and to a high standard. Unfortunately, you might also encounter a plans-built car which is geometrically inaccurate and poorly fabricated, or cars built on early MK chassis, which were not much better than the original 'book' chassis, and have been finished to an extreme budget using components begged, borrowed and stolen from wherever the builder could find them.
Locoblade concedes that Sylvas, Fishers and Caterhams are better designed, even if he stops short of awarding Westfield the same accolade. I assume you can't think Westfields are too inferior, otherwise you wouldn't have bought two of them yourself?
Spaximus made the same point as me, that the quality and competence of a home-built chassis is questionable, without getting your foaming-mouthed, rabid response, and even you admit that my comments on home-built chassis are valid.
I've owned Westfields, Caterhams and Sylvas and have driven examples of many other Seven types (including MK's)over a period of almost 20 years, so my opinions are based on experience, not predjudice, but in any event I can't see how it would be sound advice to suggest to a newcomer that he should buy a car that, at best, is not quite as well designed as some of the available competition and at worst might be a dangerous shed.
I know you are a zealous believer in the Lowcost concept, but surely even you must admit that a newcomer to Sevens would stand a better chance of consistent quality and integrity by buying a car from one of the better respected and longer established marques?
But please... continue your rabid, ranting, personal abuse. The fact that you can't come up with a reasoned technical argument is the best proof I have that my opinions are valid.
I love a well balanced chat between friends. In my comments I suggested for a first time owner the best route would be to buy a known quantity. For this it will be from an established manufacturer, Westfield, MK, MNR, Stuart Taylor to name a few, don't dismiss a locost because many are built from a chassis from the above. But you need to know what you are looking at first. Now that doesn't mean all home built locosts are bad, in fact many are superb, but it is hard to tell without some technical knowledge.
Decide what you want it for road or track and then look at what fits your size, and pocket. Bike engine good on track less good on road where the constant high revs are wearing.
I bought my first Westfield ready built and used it for a year or so then having found what I liked and more importantly didn't I then built my second one. Engine wise Toyota, crossflow, pinto all have a place but for me VX power takes some beating for £ v performance.
Good luck
Decide what you want it for road or track and then look at what fits your size, and pocket. Bike engine good on track less good on road where the constant high revs are wearing.
I bought my first Westfield ready built and used it for a year or so then having found what I liked and more importantly didn't I then built my second one. Engine wise Toyota, crossflow, pinto all have a place but for me VX power takes some beating for £ v performance.
Good luck
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff