Mike Rohaley

The route I went was to reduce drag by making a belly pan for the rear, the benefits of this don't really come into play at autoX speeds though. If you are looking for downforce at lower speeds (below 70) you will need a large and agressive wing (like Mazda suggested) that will definately look odd if it is street driven but will do the job around the cones. Then again, nothing comes for free. With downforce comes drag unless you do something cool like the Chaparal did with an adjustable wing angle of attack. http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/310887855_ZChaparral2F.jpg

The video is called Caterham- Suvival of the Fastest produced by BBC4. It provides great insight into the hurdles involved in getting our brick walls to slip through the air.

It's not a great shot but it is the only one I could find here on the work computer. As you can see it matches up well and since the cap is aluminum you can polish it up to match perfectly. Once assembled the only black visible is the outer 3/8" ring and the lockset surround in the center. http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/1200284279_solon car show metropolitan 035.jpg

I wasn't too happy about my filler cap either (it's the same one as yours). I will post a picture of what I did to it to minimize the boring black blob look. My solution will look better on a bare alloy car but you may find it to be a fine option on any color combo. Until then I will give you a basic description: If you look closely from the inside of your cap you will see that the plastic cap cover can be removed by popping out a few clips. The removed part looks like a big plastic washer with a hole in the center for the lockset. Once removed I used some .030"ish aluminum with an adhesive backing and stuck it to the "washer" and trimmed out the inside and outside diameter with an Exacto blade. Give it a quick polish to give the aluminum some luster, pop it back onto the cap and tada! You have some bling for that fast thing. I have a huge roll of this adhesive backed aluminum in the garage and if you decide to try it I will gladly mail you enough to do a few caps.

Sorry, I couldn't find the video on YouTube. I believe that it was a BBC documentary on the development of the SV and the time spent with Reynard developing the "next" Caterham (before they closed up shop). If anyone has it occupying hard drive space it would be greatly appreciated if you could post it here.

Is your main goal to increase downforce or to decrease drag? Depending on your goal I may have some usefull stuff that I have developed. Also, I found a video a while ago that followed the Caterham SV through wind tunnel testing that explained many of the difficulties of streamlining while maintaining the character of the car. They even documented a much unloved front wing design and how well it fared in testing.

Update on my ScanGauge II purchase: I have been using it for the last few days in my wife's MX-5 and it works great. As luck would have it (bad luck that is) the CEL came on the morning before the unit arrived, I was quickly able to find out the problem without a trip to AutoZone to beg them for their tool to diagnose the problem. I also found that the Caterham has been been running in "Open Loop" mode which means that the oxygen sensors are not functioning properly which makes the ECU use a baseline fuel map (not good for getting the most out of the engine). That will surely need fixed before it hits the road again. The information provided by the gauges are slick too. You can display four sensors at the same time, For example I am running the water temp, intake air temp, battery voltage and fuel system loop status. An added perk is that you can review your maximum numbers afterwards (such as max. RPM). The unit has more options that I have not yet checked out but will in due time. Overall I am very happy with the new tool, assuming your car has OBD-II and you want to be armed with neat can't-live-without info like throttle position percentage or ignition timing degrees this may be for you.

Hmmmm. My buddy Frank has the CSR 260 bit covered but I have no clue on how to get my grubby little hands on someones 240S. Anyone foolish enough to........I mean willing to lend me their pride and joy for the sake of literature? I'll even fill the tank back up.

I case you didn't bail on my above posted article, I also wrote a comparison article between a my good friends 1962 Series 2 Lotus Seven and my 2001 Caterham. A Tale of Two Sevens By Michael Rohaley 2007 marks the 50th year of production for one of Colin Chapman’s most loved and certainly most duplicated designs, the Lotus Seven. In that time the world has changed quite a bit, but somehow the basic principals used to develop this car from that time have remained largely unaltered to this day. By staying true to the theory that “less is more” when it comes to fun on the road and track, this most basic of cars remains relevant to this day and beyond. While this car has been around, it has evolved to keep up with the changing landscape of the automotive world. The first Seven, while looking very similar to the current generation, is truly worlds apart from the car you can purchase new today. Underneath the skin the most critical part of any Seven, the chassis, has undergone many number of changes that allow the car to handle the ever-increasing stresses put upon it by modern powerplants and advancing tire technology. What this all makes for is a car with a developing personality that changes with age. For better or worse is what we are going to determine today. The cars we will be comparing will range from an early 1962 Series 2 Lotus Seven and a late model 2001 Caterham Seven which is based on the later Series 3 design. At first glance to the novice eye they are extremely similar save for the larger section tires and corresponding wider rear wheel arches of the Caterham. The basic dimensions of the bodies are identical and their classic look would lead many to think that there are much less than forty years of age separating these two. Once you get up close and take in the variances of the two you begin to see just how different they really are. Starting with the interior, the Series 2 Lotus has 1” thick upholstered padding lying directly on the floor and rear of the cockpit to provide a nonadjustable seat for both driver and passenger, lack of seat belts also stand out by their absence. The interior appears very open and accommodating. The classic wood-rimmed wheel completes the simple dashboard of toggles and gauges, fuel not being on of them. A wooden stick kept in the back of the car allows for checking the level. The idea with this omission is simple, if it does not make the car faster or keeps it from running, leave it off. The Caterham seems much more snug with its bucket seats mounted on adjustable tracks in an all black cockpit. Six point harnesses and a small diameter suede steering wheel along with a relatively complex dash panel of gauges and rocker switches complete the interior; a fuel gauge is included here. With a quick walk around the outsides, you will notice that the exposed front suspensions are of very different design; the Lotus uses a very Chapmanesque technique of having the front anti-roll bar form the front half of the upper wishbone while the Caterham uses a separate upper wishbone along with the anti-roll bar. The reason for this change came when tire technology advanced to a point that exceeded the capability of the earlier system to keep the front suspension from binding under the higher loads now capable by these new shoes. This is just one of those evolutionary changes that make these cars so different in character. This change also most likely added some weight to the car by no longer having one part doing two jobs. While not noticeable without crawling under each car, the Lotus uses a live rear axle while the Caterham uses a DeDion setup which reduces unsprung weight at the back of the car allowing for a nicer quality ride compared to the earlier system. Again this inevitably added a few pounds over the old design. You are probably now figuring out just how a 950 pound Lotus grows into a 1200 pound Caterham, the answer is “A little bit here, a little bit there”. Getting ready for a drive in the Lotus is a ver

I wrote an article on this subject last year for publication in our club newsletter. I know that Sports Car International will never offer me a job for this but I thought you guys may at least find this of interest. From the Drivers Seat - A comparison test: Lotus Elise and Caterham Super Seven By Michael Rohaley Many consider the Lotus Elise to be the 21st century version of the ultimate elemental sports car. Those same people are likely to consider the Lotus Seven (later the Caterham Seven) the 20th century version of the same. Assuming you agree with these opinions, you may wonder what has changed in those years and how two similarly focused cars differ in the areas of performance, comfort (a relative term in this category) and seat of the pants feel in comparison to each other. Well, lucky for you we have done just that. What are they like? I recently had the opportunity to drive the first car in our comparison, a 2005 model year version of the Lotus Elise. For those that don't know the specs off the top of their head, the base car tips the scales at 1984lbs. and packs 190hp in its 1.8 liter mid-mounted engine bay. With a claimed 0-60 run of 4.9 seconds this car is definitely no slouch. The great part about a modern car such as this is that it is capable of such a potent performance while at the same time providing its occupants with such niceties as air conditioning, ABS, driver and passenger side airbags, stereo and optional power windows. These items are something the other car in our comparison has never offered. The Caterham, a 2001 model weighs in just under 1200lbs. and produces 147hp from its 2 liter engine. A claimed 0-60 time of 4.7 seconds makes for a quick trip to ticket town if you should let it loose on the public roads. The amenities that the Caterham provides are very different than the Elise, paint, for instance is on the option list. Items such as individual seats versus the standard bench are on the list along with a heater. Aside from your choice of the DeDion rear end over the standard live axle version this pretty much concludes the major options on a Seven. While these cars will never be mistaken for each other they do have many similarities, they both seem to attract about as much attention as a U.F.O. landing wherever they go. They are also similar in the fact that you cannot get into them quite as simply as you would a traditional road car. When you open the door in the Elise you will need to clear the wide sill and drop gracefully into your seat, the "gracefully" part takes some practice but once seated the interior has a very open feeling to it. For me, this exercise was done with the top off and open to the sky, if the hard or soft top was in place it might not have been so simple. The Seven makes ingress a bit harder, when dropping into the seat you must slide your legs down into the black hole that serves as a foot well all while trying to safely clear the steering wheel that seems impossibly close to the seat. This too is assuming you are in topless mode, with the weather equipment in place you will need to accomplish the previous tasks while trying to fit through a 20"x 30" opening provided by the flap that calls itself a door. Once settled into your seat with the roof off the main sensation is a feeling of total exposure, instead of feeling that you are "inside" it you feel as though you have "put it on". For those familiar with the feeling of exposure vou get on a motorcycle, imagine that with vour head at hubcap level. While this may not sound like a fun experience, once you do get acclimated to your surroundings it is very comfortable car for the average sized person to drive for any distance. For instance, my wife and I did a 12 hour straight drive from Birmingham Alabama in our Seven with no problems at all. The seats hold you in like an adult sized child safety seat and no chiropractic care was required when we got home. What are they like to drive? The mid-engine layout of the Elise places the drive

Jay Lamm gets my vote for favorite writer. If I ever find myself laughing out loud at an article I can count on seeing his name in the corner of the page. He is the guy behind the 24 hours of lemons race and his article on it in C&D will crack you up.

Gary, In reference to your qoute "I'm looking for more HP & RPM" Probably the most important thing you will want to do to meet your goal will be to replace the stock long-runner plastic intake with something like an individual throttle body setup. The reason is that the stock unit which is very long promotes power down low while a short-runner promotes power in the upper end of the RPM range. The stock Zetec runs out of steam at around 6500 RPM because of that. Check out Porsche's VarioRam system or the SVT Zetec intake for a great example of what can be done with this single change. The Porsche and Ford system utilize a long runner for the lower part of the range and then transfers to the short runners in the upper end. Without this snazzy technology we must pick the components that are biased toward the type of engine we are building (a high end screamer or low end monster). A great book that covers much of this information specific to the Zetec is called High Performance Ford Focus Builders Handbook. I realize that I may very well be telling you something that you already know but based only on the above post I would hate to see you have the head cut down only to find that the higher compression doesn't translate into the engine that you had in mind.

That is a great article, very funny and touching at the same time.

The Kent engine was only used in 1971 & 1972 on the Pinto (1600cc). Here is the list of engines used in the Pinto throughout its life: 1971 1.6 L (98 CID) Kent OHV I4 - 75 hp (56 kW) and 96 ft.lbf (130 Nm) 2.0 L (122 CID) EAO SOHC I4 - 100 hp (74.5 kW) 1972 1.6 L Kent - 54 hp (40 kW) 2.0 L EAO - 86 hp (64 kW) 1973 2.0 L EAO - 86 hp (64 kW) 1974 2.0 L EAO - 86 hp (64 kW) 2.3 L OHC - 90 hp (67 kW) 1975 2.3 L OHC - 83 hp (62 kW) 2.8 L (170 CID) Cologne V6 - 97 hp (72 kW) 1976 2.3 L OHC - 92 hp (69 kW) and 121 ft.lbf (163 Nm) 2.8 L Cologne - 103 hp (77 kW) and 149 ft.lbf (201 Nm) 1977 2.3 L OHC - 89 hp (66 kW) and 120 ft.lbf (162 Nm) 2.8 L Cologne - 93 hp (69 kW) and 140 ft.lbf (189 Nm) 1978 2.3 L OHC - 88 hp (66 kW) and 118 ft.lbf (159 Nm) 2.8 L Cologne - 90 hp (67 kW) and 143 ft.lbf (193 Nm) 1979 2.3 L OHC - 88 hp (66 kW) and 118 ft.lbf (159 Nm) 2.8 L Cologne - 102 hp (76 kW) and 138 ft.lbf (186 Nm) 1980 2.3 L OHC - 88 hp (66 kW) and 119 ft.lbf (160 Nm)

I just jumped over to the Pegasus site to get some more accurate info for you. They do not list the bare aluminum head but do sell a complete Ivey prepared one for $2,550.00. Also, in my experience I have found that you will want to keep a close eye on your seals to keep the engine from leaking oil like a seive. the biggest culprits we have are the front main seal and the oil pan gasket. It seems that as soon as we solve one source a new one pops up. www.apexspeed.com has a Formula Ford forum section where with a bit of digging you may be able to find answers to some of your future questions.

You are correct that the Kent engine is the engine long used in the Formula Fords, it is also the same engine as used in the Pinto. Generally speaking, the racers have over the years snapped up nearly all of the original spares which makes looking for cheap replacements a bit trickier. For example, two years ago the SCCA had to start allowing the use of aftermarket crankshafts because the original stuff was getting very hard to find. A good place to look for parts would be Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies and other race-based suppliers. The aluminum head is a very desirable modification which saves some weight and adds some power, it is known in the racing community as a "national head". The down side is that the bare head alone is around a grand (if memory serves). If you were going to be racing the car an aluminum head would be the simple choice but since it is mainly going to be used for street use you need to consider if the negligable gain in HP (and loss of some weight) is worth the cost.

Speaking of rain issues http://usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/1374788864_eleven in the rain.jpg

Nice Stan, is the 90 degree rubber-looking piece a stock Birkin part? Mimicking your box and maybe (just maybe) adding a NACA duct on the side of the bonnet instead of injesting the pouring rain would work nicely. Actually, that brings up yet another question: Do you guys who run exposed Webers have any issues with water injestion or is it a positive in that it helps to cool the fuel charge? I may very well be worrying about a problem that doesn't even exist. FYI I did some digging and found a few pictures of Christine's plumbing work. Notice the adjustments required to the radiator to get some airflow above because the stock unit runs too close to the underside of the nosecone to allow a simpler method. That and the relocation of the overflow resevoir. http://usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/669719728_BeaveRun 6-17-06 001.jpg http://usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/579792031_BeaveRun 6-17-06 002.jpg http://usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/745088347_BeaveRun 6-17-06 003.jpg http://usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/1489121174_BeaveRun 6-17-06 004.jpg

Thanks John, I appreciate your insight. Also, I am going to give your VW solution a shot. It sounds perfect.

Refering to :the biggest pickup in power is just getting the better ECU in there and tuned. What sort of gains could I expect with a switch to another system? I would have assumed that the factory programming would be pretty close to optimized for most situations. Unless Ford is undertuning the engine by more than about 20% I would have a tough time ponying up a grand or more for only a 10 HP gain at an RPM that I may rarely visit. Keep in mind that I know very little about fuel mapping and spark curves, my knowledge on the subject is based on superstition and stories passed down from town elders (spooky stuff to me).

Come to think of it, the roller-barrel intakes on Frank's CSR are reallllly cool. Maybe I can convince Jen that I absolutely MUST change them out this winter.

That is promising. I live in an E-Check area which means that I need to be careful with any modifications that I make to the car, no matter what they end up being. Either that or I will need to switch the car back to stock once every two years. Not only would that be a pain in the butt but it is not exactly legal.

soareyes: That was one option but I was a bit concerned with two issues actually. First is the potential lack of airflow and secondly, the rain water issue since I use the car rain of shine. A drain hole at the bottom of the box may work great and not add a measurable amount of heat to the air temp though. And yes, I would love to see what you have done. Dave W: What you have done is exactly what I wanted to do. What intake system is that on your car? My car uses the stock Ford long intake plastic runners which mounts the throttle body horizontally and does not give enough physical space to run it that way. However, Christine Fox who races a Caterham in SCCA E-Production showed me a couple years ago that she was able to do it using a specially modified radiator and some silicone hoses. The cost of the custom radiator was my only major problem at that time which kept me from persuing that route. Your solution looks to be about as good as it gets. Al: Right now I am a bit weary about starting down that downward spiral of changing out intake parts of that sort. Doing that will no doubt lead me to a stand alone ECU and a ton of dyno time to dial it in (hopefully). And from what I have read (High Performance Ford Focus Builders Handbook) you will not see a noticable gain on the dyno until you reach 175 wheel HP or more with intake mods (that test was between a stock Zetec and a FocusSport 65mm throttle body). According to the book, I will see much more performace for the dollar if I can increase flow in the cylinder head itself which is why I am focusing (pun) my attention for more HP on that. I have a cylinder head at home that I will be (someday) porting myself, then it will be decked by about .030" and topped off with some mild cams to gain a hopefull 35HP. The desire to decrease my intake temperature is one of those relatively simple solutions that should be done first if I am really serious about making power.

My 2001 Caterham (Zetec VCT with F.I.) uses the "stock" method of picking up air from directly behind the engine (in front of the fresh-air heater). This may very well be in the absolute worst position to locate it and I am sure someone out there has found a better way, I am looking to fix this deficiency over the winter. Question is: What is your solution to get some good cool air into your throttle body setup without cutting the bonnet up for some sort of scoop? Any photos to show off your workmanship would also be greatly appreciated. Some background information: I have investigated modifying the glassfiber airbox to get air from the front of the engine (versus the rear) and relocating the coolant resevior to do so but found that the throttle mechanism intrudes greatly and would bottleneck the airflow around it too greatly. From there I am just stuck scratching my head looking for a better way. Thanks in advance.

I suppose that I fall somewhere in the middle. I am not at all techy with the desire to get my hands into every element of the cars operating systems while at the same time I want to be armed with as much information as is resonable. The ScanGauge II unit at $170.00 and the DashDaq at $700.00 are both great examples of the options available to us (assuming we have OBD II onboard). Based on your backround Slngsht, there is only one option for you. Let us know what kind of cool stuff you figure out with your new toy. As for me, I think I am going to go the cheaper route because I will probably wrap myself around a pole watching the screen and not the road (I am not so good at multitasking).