£8-10K and crazy fast??
Discussion
Hi guys
I am considering all kinds of vehicles at the moment and the thought has occured to me that I could sell my motorbike and instead of getting a faster everyday car I could go for a westfield or similar. I may only own it for year so something that won't drop in value loads would be good.
I've had a day driving a caterham SV 1.8 and loved it but would ideally like something a fair bit quicker (motorbike style acceleration) what would you kit car connoisseurs recommend?
Cheers
Simon
I am considering all kinds of vehicles at the moment and the thought has occured to me that I could sell my motorbike and instead of getting a faster everyday car I could go for a westfield or similar. I may only own it for year so something that won't drop in value loads would be good.
I've had a day driving a caterham SV 1.8 and loved it but would ideally like something a fair bit quicker (motorbike style acceleration) what would you kit car connoisseurs recommend?
Cheers
Simon
If you want quicker than a 1.8 Caterham at those prices - and it's going to be a toy not a daily driver - then a Bike Engined 'Seven' type will probably fit the bill best.
Try looking at Sylva/Raw Strikers, Sylva/Stuart Taylor Phoenix, Fisher Fury Spyders (all originating from the Sylva stable, designed by Jeremy Phillips) or a Westfield.
I suspect that you'd be lucky to find a decent bike engined Dax Rush within your budget and Westfields are likely to be limited to Blade engined cars, unless you drop lucky, but if you hunt aroud you should be able to pick up an R1 engined Striker/Fury/Phoenix no problem for that money.
Personally I'd avoid Locost derived cars like the MK, but there are those that reckon they're ok and they're certainly a cheaper option.
Try looking at Sylva/Raw Strikers, Sylva/Stuart Taylor Phoenix, Fisher Fury Spyders (all originating from the Sylva stable, designed by Jeremy Phillips) or a Westfield.
I suspect that you'd be lucky to find a decent bike engined Dax Rush within your budget and Westfields are likely to be limited to Blade engined cars, unless you drop lucky, but if you hunt aroud you should be able to pick up an R1 engined Striker/Fury/Phoenix no problem for that money.
Personally I'd avoid Locost derived cars like the MK, but there are those that reckon they're ok and they're certainly a cheaper option.
I bought a 300bhp 4.6 v8 Westfield for 8500 and sold it for 10000 so it's doable if you're in the right place at the right time and that was very very fast indeed.
Nothing wrong with locosts especially if you buy one made from a pre-made chassis from someone like mk. There's a lovely looking zx9r engined car on locost builders right now for less than 6k. The prejudice against robin hoods is just about supportable from an engineering perspective but a locost is the same design as a westfield/caterham so unless the builder has deviated hugely you should get as good a car.
Edited to add: actually it's been sold. You have to be quick if you want something special
Nothing wrong with locosts especially if you buy one made from a pre-made chassis from someone like mk. There's a lovely looking zx9r engined car on locost builders right now for less than 6k. The prejudice against robin hoods is just about supportable from an engineering perspective but a locost is the same design as a westfield/caterham so unless the builder has deviated hugely you should get as good a car.
Edited to add: actually it's been sold. You have to be quick if you want something special
Edited by dern on Monday 12th February 09:34
dern said:
...a locost is the same design as a westfield/caterham
No it most certainly is NOT!!!
It is visually similar, but there are significant differences in both chassis and suspension design, not to mention potential issues with build quality and accuracy.
If I was the MD of Caterham, I'd be preparing to sue the ass of you for making that comment, Dern!
dern said:
...a locost is the same design as a westfield/caterham...
As Sam68 says above there are a lot of differences between a Caterham and a Locost. A Caterham chassis is definitely different from a Locost and looks beautifully made compared to most kits (i.e. locosts).
However the Westfield is a lot closer to a Locost, we actually have Westfield's word on this as they attempted to sue Ron Champion (the Locost designer) on this basis. Rons defence (which was accepted) was that every tube on a locost was a different length. Given the initial action by Westfield, inconsistencies in his book and IIRC some tube measurements that differed by only millimeters ,one design to the other, it's a fair bet they're pretty damn close.
I have seen a Caterham chassis next to a Westfield and they are very different but I have never seen a Westfield chassis next to a Locost. Has anyone actually done this?
Ive got a "book" Locost chassis and several friends have Westies. Mine is live axle whereas theirs are IRS so the back end is obviously different, but from the bulkhead behind the seat forwards its very similar, and Ive seen an old SE live axle Westie's back end and that looked very similar to mine the whole way through.
As others have said there's nothing wrong with Locosts and Locost derived cars like MK, MNR and MAC1. Westfield certainly make better bodywork than the vast majority of Locost manufacturers (MNR excepted from what I hear) but mechanically and dynamically there's little to chose between them, and the frequently developed chassis like the MNR are probably better than the Westie chassis, although in reality they probably have no more in common with the original Locost design than a Caterham.
As others have said there's nothing wrong with Locosts and Locost derived cars like MK, MNR and MAC1. Westfield certainly make better bodywork than the vast majority of Locost manufacturers (MNR excepted from what I hear) but mechanically and dynamically there's little to chose between them, and the frequently developed chassis like the MNR are probably better than the Westie chassis, although in reality they probably have no more in common with the original Locost design than a Caterham.
Edited by Locoblade on Monday 12th February 13:44
I had a look at the locost forum, god there's some real hate there between them and the Caterfield boys and girls which as an outsider I find a bit hard to understand.
Apparently if I was to buy a Westfield I would be selling out but the simple fact is I'm no mechanical genius and am simply looking for something light and fast. I had a look at the kit car classified and so far quite like the look of Sylva strikers, and some of the tiger models.
Dern, your car the 4.6 Westfield is my favourite so far based on looks and potential for great sounds
Apparently if I was to buy a Westfield I would be selling out but the simple fact is I'm no mechanical genius and am simply looking for something light and fast. I had a look at the kit car classified and so far quite like the look of Sylva strikers, and some of the tiger models.
Dern, your car the 4.6 Westfield is my favourite so far based on looks and potential for great sounds
alfa daley said:
I had a look at the locost forum, god there's some real hate there between them and the Caterfield boys and girls which as an outsider I find a bit hard to understand.
Think you have the wrong end of the stick there mate. Friendly banter maybe, real hate ? Don't think so. I can think of two threads on locostbuilders over the 6 or so years its been running where there may have been a few ott remarks, real hate, none, sorry too disappoint.
Back too topic, a MNR or the new style MK chassis will fit the bill perfectly. There are guys on locostbuilders making there own ally nosecones, works of art, guys making there own full bodied cars including the body moulds etc, dismiss the ethos of the locost at your peril. Things have moved on from the early days of the £250 book.
Sam_68 said:
dern said:
...a locost is the same design as a westfield/caterham
No it most certainly is NOT!!!
It is visually similar, but there are significant differences in both chassis and suspension design, not to mention potential issues with build quality and accuracy.
If I was the MD of Caterham, I'd be preparing to sue the ass of you for making that comment, Dern!
Apart from the much touted heritage what major differences do you think there are?
Locoblade said:
Ive got a "book" Locost chassis and several friends have Westies. Mine is live axle whereas theirs are IRS so the back end is obviously different, but from the bulkhead behind the seat forwards its very similar, and Ive seen an old SE live axle Westie's back end and that looked very similar to mine the whole way through.
You can build a locost with live axle, IRS or dedion though. Mine will be a dedion car. alfa daley said:
Dern, your car the 4.6 Westfield is my favourite so far based on looks and potential for great sounds
Thank you but I can't take credit as I didn't build it. I also no longer own it and believe that my locost will suit my requirements better than the westfield did. There's no animosity as far as I'm aware... just a lot of ribbing because they mistakenly believe their version is the superior one
Edited by dern on Monday 12th February 15:11
dern said:
Locoblade said:
Ive got a "book" Locost chassis and several friends have Westies. Mine is live axle whereas theirs are IRS so the back end is obviously different, but from the bulkhead behind the seat forwards its very similar, and Ive seen an old SE live axle Westie's back end and that looked very similar to mine the whole way through.
You can build a locost with live axle, IRS or dedion though. Mine will be a dedion car. Oh yeh I know, just saying that mine is pretty much original to Ron Champion's book, ie English live axle at the back and Cortina uprights etc at the front.
alfa daley said:
I had a look at the locost forum, god there's some real hate there between them and the Caterfield boys and girls which as an outsider I find a bit hard to understand.
As Jon said, you either picked the one thread where a few individuals did get out of hand (Caterham owners as well though) or you got the wrong end of the stick, as its 99% banter. If anything, the only significant "divider" in the community is a segment* of the Caterham ownering fraternity who genuinely do look down their noses at anything thats not a genuine Caterham.
* Note I said segment, by no means do I mean all Caterham owners!
Edited by Locoblade on Monday 12th February 18:03
Locoblade said:
LOL yep thats the one single thread we're on about 
Might be wrong but I seem to recall it only really kicked off when a few Caterham owners turned up and stoked the fire though, best left alone though
They used to do that on wscc too... and then they made their own forum members only and started slagging everyone else off on that instead Might be wrong but I seem to recall it only really kicked off when a few Caterham owners turned up and stoked the fire though, best left alone though
dern said:
... the original design of the locost was *very* similar to the lotus seven ...apart from the much touted heritage what major differences do you think there are?
They may look visually similar and share spaceframe chassis, but the differences are too numerous to list. Apart from the very significant structural differences in the spaceframes (
Cymtriks, would you care to step in here... I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through every detail!), try the following as a start: 1) Completely different front suspension geometry
2) Different uprights: the Seven uses Triumph uprights with trunnions, the Locost uses Cortina uprights. The Triumph upright is much lighter and gives very different steering geometry.
3) The original Seven used an anti-roll bar to form part of the upper front wishbone assembly. Modern Caterhams use a separate anti roll bar, to cope with increased tyre loads. The standard Locost design doesn't use an anti roll bar at all.
4) Rear suspension geometry is completely different; the Locost uses a live axle with four trailing armsn and a Panhard rod for lateral location. The Caterham uses a DeDion beam with two trailing arms and an A-frame for lateral location. The geometry is different; Panhard rod locates the roll centre differently (with major consequences for dynamic weight transfer) and causes some lateral displacement of the axle as it swings through its arc.
5) Modern Caterhams use honeycomb side panels to stiffen the chassis and a spaceframe that is, within the limitations of the basic 'Seven' arrangement, quite well developed and sophisticated. The Locost uses a simple ali-panelled spaceframe that is a good object lesson in how not to design spaceframe structures. Again, I'm sure Cymtriks will be happy to elaborate!
6) Caterham chassis are built by experts on precision jigs to a high degree of accuracy. Locost chassis are built on a bench in a shed by an amatuer with a hacksaw, a tape measure and a Machine Mart mig welder.
I could go on for pages with the detail differences , but the sum total is huge.
The usual argument that follows this is 'ah, but you could change this, that and the other to make the Locost more similar to the Caterham if you wanted!'. Well... yes, you could. You could build it to a set of Caterham drawings, but then it wouldn't be a Locost any more, would it?
Sorry. Despite having owned one in the past, I'm not a huge Caterham fan (they are a very good car, but overpriced - I prefer Sylva), but I can't stand by and let someone claim they are the same design as a Locost, 'cos it just ain't true!
Edited by Sam_68 on Monday 12th February 22:04
Sam_68 said:
dern said:
... the original design of the locost was *very* similar to the lotus seven ...apart from the much touted heritage what major differences do you think there are?
They may look visually similar and share spaceframe chassis, but the differences are too numerous to list. Apart from the very significant structural differences in the spaceframes (
Cymtriks, would you care to step in here... I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through every detail!), try the following as a start: 1) Completely different front suspension geometry
2) Different uprights: the Seven uses Triumph uprights with trunnions, the Locost uses Cortina uprights. The Triumph upright is much lighter and gives very different steering geometry.
3) The original Seven used an anti-roll bar to form part of the upper front wishbone assembly. Modern Caterhams use a separate anti roll bar, to cope with increased tyre loads. The standard Locost design doesn't use an anti roll bar at all.
4) Rear suspension geometry is completely different; the Locost uses a live axle with four trailing armsn and a Panhard rod for lateral location. The Caterham uses a DeDion beam with two trailing arms and an A-frame for lateral location. The geometry is different; Panhard rod locates the roll centre differently (with major consequences for dynamic weight transfer) and causes some lateral displacement of the axle as it swings through its arc.
5) Modern Caterhams use honeycomb side panels to stiffen the chassis and a spaceframe that is, within the limitations of the basic 'Seven' arrangement, quite well developed and sophisticated. The Locost uses a simple ali-panelled spaceframe that is a good object lesson in how not to design spaceframe structures. Again, I'm sure Cymtriks will be happy to elaborate!
6) Caterham chassis are built by experts on precision jigs to a high degree of accuracy. Locost chassis are built on a bench in a shed by an amatuer with a hacksaw, a tape measure and a Machine Mart mig welder.
I could go on for pages with the detail differences , but the sum total is huge.
The usual argument that follows this is 'ah, but you could change this, that and the other to make the Locost more similar to the Caterham if you wanted!'. Well... yes, you could. You could build it to a set of Caterham drawings, but then it wouldn't be a Locost any more, would it?
Sorry. Despite having owned one in the past, I'm not a huge Caterham fan (they are a very good car, but overpriced - I prefer Sylva), but I can't stand by and let someone claim they are the same design as a Locost, 'cos it just ain't true!
In summary you can't say that the locost isn't and can't be equal to a caterham. Granted to can't build one like that for £250 but even if you built it match a caterham it'll still be relatively locost compared to a caterham in money terms.
The modern Caterham is different from the original Locost (which was blatantly nicked off Westfield, who nicked their design off Caterham remember), but given that the locost is built by someone, and I must say in a much better way than you portray, it could quite easily equal a Caterham. Yes the suspension is different, but haven't Caterham just gone IRS and therefore changed too? As to the honey comb side panels, that can be replicated too. As can anti-roll bars if so required. It is also worth pointing out that Caterham have lots of money to put into R&D, whilst the locost builder only has people like Cymtriks to help, and some common/engineering sense. Have a look at the latest MNR chassis for what can be achieved by small companies.
dern said:
A locost is a car inspired by the Ron Champion book. I say inspired because there is no complete set of instructions in the book.
And the 'Book' Locost is in turn inspired by the Lotus/Caterham Seven. So you could try arguing that all current Seven-type cars draw from the same inspiration. That doesn't mean they are all the same!
The term 'Locost inspired' is pretty meaningless. You might as well say 'Lotus Seven inspired, but on a tight budget'.
Having said which, the critical parts of the design are pretty well detailed in the book...there is enough information to build a 'definitive' Locost chassis, for example, with 'definitive' Locost suspension geometry (these being the two areas where the Locost falls critically short of the Caterham's design).
Even if you include for the variations allowed by your 'Locost inspired' terminology, your original statement, that 'a Locost is the SAME DESIGN as a Westfield/Caterham' is simply not true. It couldn't be unless it was built to either Caterham or Westfield blueprints. Even then it patently couldn't be the same as Caterham/Westfield, because those two cars themselves have significnat design differences.
Really quite minor design differences between cars built on a similar theme can have dramatic effects on performance, so it's quite wrong to suggest that because they look similar, they will perform to the same level.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff