Caterham realistic model numbers

[Vovchandr]

Caterham has always been a little optimistic about their model designations such as "360"/"480"/"500"/"620" being eluded to as HP per Ton

 

Two caveats, they round the HP numbers and use a metric Tonne instead of imperial ton and they round down the weight.

 

Lets take for example Caterham 360.

 

Caterham says it makes 182ps, weights 560kg and on their website already updates power to weight as 349 per tonne. 

 

PS hp becomes 180. 560KG = .62 of a ton. Simple math converts this to 290 as being a realistic HP per Ton number. 

 

Going further through the lineup and information available on the Caterham site now 420 becomes 339

 

Lastly 620 after doing the math 469. 

 

Amusingly this is the math that the website has for it

 

 

[JohnCh]

Caterham's current convention for the model names is to double the claimed bhp and round slightly when desired. It's no longer intended to represent an accurate bhp/ton.

 

620R = 310bhp

420R = 210bhp

360R = 180bhp

170R = 84 bhp

 

-John

[Vovchandr]

9 minutes ago, JohnCh said:

Caterham's current convention for the model names is to double the claimed bhp and round slightly when desired. It's no longer intended to represent an accurate bhp/ton.

 

620R = 310bhp

420R = 210bhp

360R = 180bhp

170R = 84 bhp

 

-John

 

Right. However even their claimed PS per Tonne is a bit misleading when the industry standard is HP per Ton and the figure looks different after doing the math that they aren't very transparent about. 

[JohnCh]

I'd argue the industry standard in the US is pounds/hp, whereas bhp/metric ton seems to be the popular measure in the UK for both manufacturers and publications.  I suppose that might not be clear to everyone reading the US Caterham site, but it shouldn't be surprising given that site also uses KG rather than pounds, KPH rather than MPH, and marginally higher PS (aka metric horsepower) rather than HP.  Then there is the use of the words hood to describe the soft top and bonnet to describe the hood.  It's all so confusing

 

-John

 

[Sean]

Units of measure are critical.  A tonne weighs a good bit more than a ton.

And a pound of feathers really does weigh more than a pound of gold.

[panamericano]

1 hour ago, Sean said:

And a pound of feathers really does weigh more than a pound of gold.

I'd prefer the pound of gold, thank you.

[Anker]

I'll take the tonne!

[IamScotticus]

Numerical naming is much simpler than having numerous meetings, anguish and gnashing of teeth, over clever names.

And the legal council.