Caterham's future questionable? Toniq better?
Discussion
With the "7" market in decline, and the rise of the Brooke 2 seater and cars like the "Sub 3-wheeler", does anyone think Caterham need to raise their game or go bust? IMHO my Striker is as well built as the Caterham's I saw at Stoneleigh (Striker built privately but not by me!) apart from the use of more numerous finer guage tubes in the Caterham. Caterham are playing catch-up on suspension at the mo at a truly gross price. Is any R&D money going towars a total replacement?
I think the new Toniq-R represents a glimpse of "Seven" future in it's style at least. Given a bespoke chassis similar to the Ariel Atom, but front engined, and the option (currently being developed) of a coupe roof, the Toniq is the 21st Century 7, and Caterham are out of touch. Their cars have aerodynamic limitations that bigger engines should not have to excuse, and the burgeoning market of track day cars may see Caterham squeezed by more realistic Seven alternatives. Considering they are listed by most mainstream car-mags you'd expect a more forward looking policy. Caterham used to be good bang-per-buck; resting on their laurels methinks.
I wish the creators of the Toniq all the luck in the world, and i hope to be a customer when I can afford it.
I think the new Toniq-R represents a glimpse of "Seven" future in it's style at least. Given a bespoke chassis similar to the Ariel Atom, but front engined, and the option (currently being developed) of a coupe roof, the Toniq is the 21st Century 7, and Caterham are out of touch. Their cars have aerodynamic limitations that bigger engines should not have to excuse, and the burgeoning market of track day cars may see Caterham squeezed by more realistic Seven alternatives. Considering they are listed by most mainstream car-mags you'd expect a more forward looking policy. Caterham used to be good bang-per-buck; resting on their laurels methinks.
I wish the creators of the Toniq all the luck in the world, and i hope to be a customer when I can afford it.
Is the 7 market really in decline?
I think the Toniq-R is nice but the styling isnt to everyones tastes. It certainly isnt a huge improvement over the seven aerodynamics wise either.
I certainly wouldnt accuse caterham of resting on their laurels with the CSR
Have you not seen the telly program from a few years ago about caterham's search for a replacement to the seven. They knew a full bodied, front engined roadster wouldnt work (caterham 21) and that a mid engined roadster would compete (and probably loose) against the elise. In the end, after months of work, meetings and quite a bit of money, they ended up deciding to stick to the seven format as it was (and presumably is) still selling well.
I think the Toniq-R is nice but the styling isnt to everyones tastes. It certainly isnt a huge improvement over the seven aerodynamics wise either.
I certainly wouldnt accuse caterham of resting on their laurels with the CSR
Have you not seen the telly program from a few years ago about caterham's search for a replacement to the seven. They knew a full bodied, front engined roadster wouldnt work (caterham 21) and that a mid engined roadster would compete (and probably loose) against the elise. In the end, after months of work, meetings and quite a bit of money, they ended up deciding to stick to the seven format as it was (and presumably is) still selling well.
baddie said:
With the "7" market in decline, and the rise of the Brooke 2 seater and cars like the "Sub 3-wheeler", does anyone think Caterham need to raise their game or go bust? IMHO my Striker is as well built as the Caterham's I saw at Stoneleigh (Striker built privately but not by me!) apart from the use of more numerous finer guage tubes in the Caterham. Caterham are playing catch-up on suspension at the mo at a truly gross price. Is any R&D money going towars a total replacement?
Not sure about the terminal decline of the "7" market; where do you get your figures from?
The volumes of Caterhams sold mean that they are always going to be slower to market with innovation because it takes longer to implement changes within a larger manufacturing process than a one-off type operation. It also means that they must ensure that any changes result in an increase in market share because the larger business becomes, the more dependant it is on maintaining volume. The Caterham market is very conservative. Their product appeals because it is stable, and continues to attract a large number of repeat buyers, who are the cheapest customers to sell to.
The numbers sold each year provide a r&d budget that the some other 7esque manufacturers can only dream of. Nothing stays the same for ever, but I'd be v.surprised if Toniq took over Catreham's market share in the near future. When you talk about the rise in sales of other products, how much impact does their increase in volume have on the Caterham market?
The companies who have built their business over the years and are selling the most, will always be slower to bring new ideas to market. It isn't because they lack the ideas or engineering ability, it's due to the inertia of protecting successful activity, and implementing changes in volumes.
I think you can safely say that any small volume car manufacturers future is questionable as there's not a huge amount of money to be made.
Caterham has heritage on it's side, plus it's the 'real' thing so will always have a unique selling point compared to the others.
The toniq has done great in getting publicity but hasn't delivered so far IMHO. The gestation period has been too long to the point that it's now quite tedious reading the next press release. It will undoubtably get a few sales but I'm guessing will remain one of the smaller kit 7 manufacturers, ie nothing for Caterham to worry about.
John
Caterham has heritage on it's side, plus it's the 'real' thing so will always have a unique selling point compared to the others.
The toniq has done great in getting publicity but hasn't delivered so far IMHO. The gestation period has been too long to the point that it's now quite tedious reading the next press release. It will undoubtably get a few sales but I'm guessing will remain one of the smaller kit 7 manufacturers, ie nothing for Caterham to worry about.
John
Thank you for such stout replies. It's heartening to hear a British manufacturer being defended so passionately.
I perhaps didn't express myself clearly though. I don't think the actual Toniq is a direct replacement for Caterham - it's chassis is still generic kit car. But the Toniq has at least challenged the accepted style with a modern exterior. I think a challenger for the Caterham should have more modern underpinnings too.
In the same way motorbikes went from steel tubes to aluminium frames with underslung engines, should a company such as Caterham not be moving forward? Improving aerodynamics does not have to mean a closed body, and improved crash protection does not necessarily mean added weight. I think the 3 wheeled "Sub" from, sadly, America also moves the game forwards in style and construction, although it comes at a price! I'm not advocating 3 wheels or a mid-engine, but the CSR is slower than the R500, still has de Dion rear end, is heavier with little improvement in safety and reduced efficiency. How long will it be before Caterham is playing the same game as the Germans and seeking performance simply through power? A 300BHP Caterham is surely not far off, and it may weigh 600+kg. This is a blind alley, is it not? VW's (sorry - 3 wheeled) canned sportster was an exciting possibility from a boring company.
I perhaps didn't express myself clearly though. I don't think the actual Toniq is a direct replacement for Caterham - it's chassis is still generic kit car. But the Toniq has at least challenged the accepted style with a modern exterior. I think a challenger for the Caterham should have more modern underpinnings too.
In the same way motorbikes went from steel tubes to aluminium frames with underslung engines, should a company such as Caterham not be moving forward? Improving aerodynamics does not have to mean a closed body, and improved crash protection does not necessarily mean added weight. I think the 3 wheeled "Sub" from, sadly, America also moves the game forwards in style and construction, although it comes at a price! I'm not advocating 3 wheels or a mid-engine, but the CSR is slower than the R500, still has de Dion rear end, is heavier with little improvement in safety and reduced efficiency. How long will it be before Caterham is playing the same game as the Germans and seeking performance simply through power? A 300BHP Caterham is surely not far off, and it may weigh 600+kg. This is a blind alley, is it not? VW's (sorry - 3 wheeled) canned sportster was an exciting possibility from a boring company.
baddie said:
In the same way motorbikes went from steel tubes to aluminium frames with underslung engines, should a company such as Caterham not be moving forward? Improving aerodynamics does not have to mean a closed body, and improved crash protection does not necessarily mean added weight. I think the 3 wheeled "Sub" from, sadly, America also moves the game forwards in style and construction, although it comes at a price! I'm not advocating 3 wheels or a mid-engine, but the CSR is slower than the R500, still has de Dion rear end, is heavier with little improvement in safety and reduced efficiency. How long will it be before Caterham is playing the same game as the Germans and seeking performance simply through power? A 300BHP Caterham is surely not far off, and it may weigh 600+kg. This is a blind alley, is it not? VW's (sorry - 3 wheeled) canned sportster was an exciting possibility from a boring company.
I think you are missing the point. Don't expect Caterham to be at the cutting edge in their market offerings. Every change they make needs much more work for their sort of volumes than it does for a tiny manufacturer. You are comparing their existing market offerings with other companies' 'blue sky' work. We don't know what they are currently playing with for their future improvements.
I don't know the detail comparison of the CSR v any other model. It has inboard front suspension and fully independent rear with double wishbones - wasn't that the point of the new chassis? You say it is heavier with little improvement in safety and reduced efficiency, yet how do you know that increased safety is a market requirement for Caterham, and how do you measure efficiency?
mr clive said:
Have you not seen the telly program from a few years ago about caterham's search for a replacement to the seven. They knew a full bodied, front engined roadster wouldnt work (caterham 21) and that a mid engined roadster would compete (and probably loose) against the elise. In the end, after months of work, meetings and quite a bit of money, they ended up deciding to stick to the seven format as it was (and presumably is) still selling well.
So "they knew a full bodied, front engined roadster wouldnt work (caterham 21)" did they?
How did they work that out? The 21 didn't fail because no one wanted a great looking car with track bred dynamics! It failed because the design was bodged by being based on a Seven chassis. With a backbone chassis the concept would have worked just fine, the doors would actually have made sense as opposed to being laughable covers for a 13 inch high sill. Also with deeper doors the windows might actually have been openable. Oh, and the inside might not have been so hoplessly cramped for what was supposed to be a bigger car.
If they truly "knew" that a 21 was a bad idea then they still haven't worked out why the idea failed, and that really is worrying. I suspect that the real reason is that making a new bodyshell and a new chassis would be too much to take on and the "21 didn't sell" argument is just an excuse.
The alternative is bizzare. Can you imagine that line of thought in another context? "We know hoovers won't sell because we made one 15 years ago that was too heavy to carry upstairs" or "We know no one wants carpets because 15 years ago we made bright purple ones with yellow spots and they didn't sell".
Personally I can't think of a car that looks better from the front, that bonnet is a masterpiece. Has anyone ever approached Caterham for the molds? A great kit car opportunity awaits! The same could be siad of Evante which while not as good looking as the 21 is still a decent looking bodyshell that no one seems to have picked up.
You say it is heavier with little improvement in safety and reduced efficiency, yet how do you know that increased safety is a market requirement for Caterham, and how do you measure efficiency?[/quote]
While Sevens aren't exactly NCAP 5star cars, surely a nod to safety wouldn't go against their market appeal, and might even draw some of those who are put off. I would have thought efficiency can be measured simply by the amount of horsepower increase required to sustain lap times/acceleration.
Caterham do not need to be cutting edge, but some consideration of the future is surely in their interests? Besides, aluminium tub technology, for example, is hardly cutting edge anymore.
While Sevens aren't exactly NCAP 5star cars, surely a nod to safety wouldn't go against their market appeal, and might even draw some of those who are put off. I would have thought efficiency can be measured simply by the amount of horsepower increase required to sustain lap times/acceleration.
Caterham do not need to be cutting edge, but some consideration of the future is surely in their interests? Besides, aluminium tub technology, for example, is hardly cutting edge anymore.
baddie said:
surely a nod to safety wouldn't go against their market appeal, and might even draw some of those who are put off. .
You are making assumptions about their market. I wasn't aware that increasing safety was a requirement for their target market.
baddie said:
Caterham do not need to be cutting edge, but some consideration of the future is surely in their interests? Besides, aluminium tub technology, for example, is hardly cutting edge anymore.
We still don't know what they are working on. Since the management buy-in, and under the leadership of Answar Ali; they have relieved Jez Coates of his production responsibilities specifically so that he had concentrate on technical developments. Don't think that just because you can't see development going on that there isn't any being done.
I'm bored now, and expect all of the rest of you are as well. Bye.
fuoriserie said:
something different..
www.thec7.co.uk/images_c7.htm
Ok, please tell me I'm not the only one that feels like heaving whenever I see this car.
Can't see the appeal at all, looks like a mini noddy car.
There, it had to be said.
John
gotta agree here - C7 does look simply ridiculous.
Interesting earlier point raised about the Evante (a kind of less dainty looking Elan) - a great set of moulds must be stored somewhere for this? Saw a red one at Stoneleigh and still looks great.
Thought the Ginetta G27 Series 4 deserved to do better, but that I guess gave way to the G20 - now I see the car has been reborn (or should that be aborted?)into the market, hideously disfigured (see cover of latest WK?). Tragic.
Caterham like Morgan I reckon - will still be around for years to come.
Interesting earlier point raised about the Evante (a kind of less dainty looking Elan) - a great set of moulds must be stored somewhere for this? Saw a red one at Stoneleigh and still looks great.
Thought the Ginetta G27 Series 4 deserved to do better, but that I guess gave way to the G20 - now I see the car has been reborn (or should that be aborted?)into the market, hideously disfigured (see cover of latest WK?). Tragic.
Caterham like Morgan I reckon - will still be around for years to come.
cymtriks said:
So "they knew a full bodied, front engined roadster wouldnt work (caterham 21)" did they?
How did they work that out? The 21 didn't fail because no one wanted a great looking car with track bred dynamics! It failed because the design was bodged by being based on a Seven chassis. With a backbone chassis the concept would have worked just fine, the doors would actually have made sense as opposed to being laughable covers for a 13 inch high sill. Also with deeper doors the windows might actually have been openable. Oh, and the inside might not have been so hoplessly cramped for what was supposed to be a bigger car.
If they truly "knew" that a 21 was a bad idea then they still haven't worked out why the idea failed, and that really is worrying. I suspect that the real reason is that making a new bodyshell and a new chassis would be too much to take on and the "21 didn't sell" argument is just an excuse.
The alternative is bizzare. Can you imagine that line of thought in another context? "We know hoovers won't sell because we made one 15 years ago that was too heavy to carry upstairs" or "We know no one wants carpets because 15 years ago we made bright purple ones with yellow spots and they didn't sell".
Personally I can't think of a car that looks better from the front, that bonnet is a masterpiece. Has anyone ever approached Caterham for the molds? A great kit car opportunity awaits! The same could be siad of Evante which while not as good looking as the 21 is still a decent looking bodyshell that no one seems to have picked up.
Personally, I love the looks of the 21 and I like the idea of fullbodied seven style cars such as the 21 & the fury.
From what I remember of the program, caterham did look at designing another front engined car but in the end they didnt want a repeat of the 21 so settled on a mid engined idea, only to scrap it and stick with the seven lol.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff