CSR Article in Pistonheads

[lucky dawg]

For anyone who may be interested in a brief history of the Caterham CSR https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1771698#message1

[TurboWood]

Thanks for sharing!

[Vovchandr]

I'd be quite open to idea of CSR's if they weren't all SV based =/

[TurboWood]

I'd be quite open to idea of CSR's if they weren't all SV based =/

 

They really should throw the IRS into a std. chassis. The front shock arrangement is cool, but doesn't bring a lot of function. It also make shock/spring changes more difficult.

 

Daniel

[Nick OTeen]

They really should throw the IRS into a std. chassis.

I'd like to see the IRS thrown into a deep canyon; but I digress.

 

The front shock arrangement is cool, but doesn't bring a lot of function.

It does improve the aerodynamics to some degree by cleaning things up and reducing drag. Maybe not by a huge amount but some and, besides, inboard, rocker arm suspension is downright cool.

 

Daniel

Nick

[lucky dawg]

I'd like to see the IRS thrown into a deep canyon; but I digress.

Nick

Out of curiosity, is this because you are a traditionalist or based on the time you have spent driving CSRs?

[Nick OTeen]

Neither. I was speaking about a different IRS.

[lucky dawg]

Neither. I was speaking about a different IRS.

Well, that's something most can agree on.

[Sean]

The front shock arrangement is cool, but doesn't bring a lot of function.

It does improve the aerodynamics to some degree by cleaning things up and reducing drag. Maybe not by a huge amount but some and' date=' besides, inboard, rocker arm suspension is downright cool.[/quote']

If I understand it correctly, the primary advantage is that using the pushrod/rocker arm inboard set-up turns the standard widetrack's falling-rate suspension into a rising-rate suspension, which is good. Or so a suspension engineer has told me, anyway.

[coffee break]

My guess is the SV was used for these modifications has something to do with its' width. More room to hide the bits inside the bodywork.

[Croc]

Sean - That was definitely achieved by the modification. But there were others. Below is a link to the original Multimatic project powerpoint (spelling mistakes and all!)

https://www.sevener.fr/fichiers_articles/caterhamsuspension.pdf

 

 

Coffee Break - you are right. There were a couple of things causing the decision to fall that way 1) It was easier to start with the SV chassis for packaging purposes while testing - the rear end takes up a lot of room 2) There was discussion about then engineering it for the regular chassis but it was cost prohibitive - it is quite an expensive chassis to build relative to the regular S3/SV since it still has to come from Arch and 3) I have heard it said that the original marketing plan for the CSR was to be a grand tourer and a range leading model that attracted a new segment of customers to Caterham looking for a more refined product - something that was partially achieved. There were at least 2 IRS cars built on the S3 chassis. I think one of those may have been a Caterham technician building his own personal car in his own time. They have come up for sale in the UK from time to time.

[John B]

Sean - That was definitely achieved by the modification. But there were others. Below is a link to the original Multimatic project powerpoint (spelling mistakes and all!)

https://www.sevener.fr/fichiers_articles/caterhamsuspension.pdf

 

 

Wow Croc! That's awesome, How did you get that?

[Croc]

John - I found it when noodling for a new kit in 2009. It is hosted by a keen Caterham owner in France. Not sure where he found it from? The other information came from one of my discussions with Caterham senior management over the years.