Caterham Seven 50th anniversary

[Tornado]

And about the weight: I'm holding the 2001 Autocar 0-100-0 results, with the Westfield Megabusa (Hayabusa-engine) against the Caterham Superlight "Blackbird" (Honda Blackbird-engined). Leaving the actual results away, they point out - even with some carbon-fiber parts, the Caterham was 20Kgs heavier. And that's while both are bike-engined, even though the Megabusa had a slightly larger engine (1100cc on the Blackbird, 1300cc on the Hayabusa). I assume that with similar car engines, they'll weigh about the same.

That may have been 5-6kg right there.

 

[Metar]

That may have been 5-6kg right there.

Yeah, I didn't really think that those 0.2cc made the difference.

The other 7-clone they car that year was a twin-Kawasaki engined Tiger - 350HP of pure Bike power. Set the fastest time there (for that year), but lost a bit in the braking.

 

[Tornado]

Yeah, I didn't really think that those 0.2cc made the difference.

But truthfully, in cars as light as those, I'm surprised the 10 BHP alone didn't account for a greater difference in time than 4 seconds. The fact that the Caterham "kept up" as well despite being as disadvantged as it was speaks volumes for something (perhaps suspension tuning or brake modulation).

 

[Cobra_UK]

I was referring to the V8 powered Westfield because someone mentioned it on an earlier post. I don't really know much about the bike engine powered versions. I guess, from what you say, there the Westfield has the advantage.

Still, aren't the bike engine models supposed to be a bit strange to drive because the clutch? I heard something about that on Fifth Gear, I think.

 

[TheCracker]

If you're talking engines that should be put in a Caterham - look no further than the Powertec V8, as used in the Radical SR8. Loosely based on a pair of 4cyl bike engines joined by a common crank. 2.6ltr - 360bhp - 90kgs - revs to 12,000. Anyone fancy 750-800bhp per ton?

 

[Metar]

If you're talking engines that should be put in a Caterham - look no further than the Powertec V8, as used in the Radical SR8. Loosely based on a pair of 4cyl bike engines joined by a common crank. 2.6ltr - 360bhp - 90kgs - revs to 12,000. Anyone fancy 750-800bhp per ton?

Sounds lovely and unreliable...

You heard of the Tiger Z100? Twin Kawasakis (Option: Suzuki GSXR1000)... The version with the Kawasaki ZX9R engines was 340HP, 8-Cylinders Inline, Twin gearboxes.
The Suzuki-powered version has twin GSXR1000s - with which results in even more power.

 

[TheCracker]

Sounds lovely and unreliable...

Why unreliable?

http://www.powertecracing.com/index.php

They've been supplying the engines for the Radical SR8 for the past two seasons and have been extremely reliable under hard race conditions.

As Mark Hales - one of England's top road tester/racing driver put it:

"it is uncannily smooth and devoid of temperament. Twin balancer shafts live opposite the quartet of oil scavenge pumps down in the crankcase which, together with rubber rather than solid mounting in the chassis, makes for an extremely refined engine. It is punchy too, pulling hard all the way from 3000rpm to the day's max of 10,000 without a step or hiccup.

 

[Metar]

Why unreliable?

http://www.powertecracing.com/index.php

They've been supplying the engines for the Radical SR8 for the past two seasons and have been extremely reliable under hard race conditions.

As Mark Hales - one of England's top road tester/racing driver put it:

"it is uncannily smooth and devoid of temperament. Twin balancer shafts live opposite the quartet of oil scavenge pumps down in the crankcase which, together with rubber rather than solid mounting in the chassis, makes for an extremely refined engine. It is punchy too, pulling hard all the way from 3000rpm to the day's max of 10,000 without a step or hiccup.

Well, the Unreliable was because, it being two joined bike engines, it shouldn't be more reliable than just one. And I've read mostly bad stuff about the reliability of bike-engined cars - mainly, because those things rev up to 12,000RPM. I thought it was similar to the idea of a Quad-rotary setup...

EDIT: I just now realized, it's two Hayabusa engines joined... Which gives it 5 extra points

 

[TheCracker]

Well, the Unreliable was because, it being two joined bike engines, it shouldn't be more reliable than just one. And I've read mostly bad stuff about the reliability of bike-engined cars - mainly, because those things rev up to 12,000RPM. I thought it was similar to the idea of a Quad-rotary setup...

It's not actually two bike engines joined together - it just shares a similar engine architecture to the bike engine. It has a bespoke crank and case, just similar heads. High reving japanese 4cyl bike engines are super reliable anyhow.



Doesn't look much like a roughly cobbled together engine to me

 

[Metar]

Well, the Radical homepage states that it's based on two Hayabuse engines. It looks really smooth, nothing "amateur" - but it's basically a Hayabusa...

And here's, they state something about the reliability: Ran 30 hours non-stop producing 380HP at max...

 

[Cobra_UK]

Radical engine is a great piece of engineering but Gingiba is right in a way. bike engines have a shorter life than car engines. However, cars like the Westfield or Caterham or the Radical are not the type of cars that would be driven daily and they'd probably get a lot more maintenance than most...

I'm still not sold on bike engines though. I'm into high revving engines, I own a 9000RPM built engine, tuner car so I do appreciate that aspect of things but bike engines are too high pitched, to noisy, even at slow speeds, they're not as flexible and most of all I'm still dubious on how it would feel like to drive compared. /points to the post earlier mentioning something of this nature in a Fifth Gear episode.

 

[Metar]

Well, Caterhams are indeed known for having the following pose:

(Alternator fell off this one in the 'Ring carpark)

So I don't suppose a bike-engine helps that case. I'd love to own one - but I'm aware that they're no bulletproof Toyotas.

BTW: Caterhams and Westfields are regular roadcars. Not regular, but still cars that people use everyday. Sure - no luggage-space, dangerously-low driving if an SUV pulls up, and not many creature comforts - but still everyday cars (At least, the base models are).
Radicals are different: They produce so much downforce, that the bottom of one fell off during a test-drive, at 100MPH. That's not normal and usefull, loosing your bottom of the car during a drive down the highway...

 

[ExigeEvan]

Well, Caterhams are indeed known for having the following pose:

*SNIP*
(Alternator fell off this one in the 'Ring carpark)

So I don't suppose a bike-engine helps that case. I'd love to own one - but I'm aware that they're no bulletproof Toyotas.

You can't really judge these cars by them falling apart. Engine failures yes, but falling apart no. Simply because some are assembled in garages and not by caterham/westfield themselves.

BTW: Caterhams and Westfields are regular roadcars. Not regular, but still cars that people use everyday. Sure - no luggage-space, dangerously-low driving if an SUV pulls up, and not many creature comforts - but still everyday cars (At least, the base models are).
Radicals are different: They produce so much downforce, that the bottom of one fell off during a test-drive, at 100MPH. That's not normal and usefull, loosing your bottom of the car during a drive down the highway...

They're not really everyday cars by any means. And you'd have to have either really stretched to afford one and had no money left for anything else, or they would be incredibly brave. Most will be used to get to the track, do some laps, and then drive back.

A radical can't really be driven to the track. Yes, it is road legal (in the UK) but it can't clear a speed bump.

 

[Layla's Keeper]

Congrats to Caterham for keeping Colin's dream alive for so long.