"I don't like Caterhams. It felt like the front half othe car and the back half of the car are different cars."

[Vovchandr]

As posted in the video thread but the comment bears discussion.

 

Quote

"I reviewed a 420R, I didn't like it very much. It felt like the front half othe car and the back half of the car are different cars. Like the way the front took a bump and the way the rear took a bump were completely different. It might have been a DeDion rear or whatever. I'm not saying they are wrong. People love them. But I just thought they were weird"

 

This is coming from an extremely seasoned and experienced automotive persona. Between personal cars and well more than a decade of reviewing custom and other performance cars he's quite well versed or experienced in vehicle dynamics.

 

We all know this is partially why CSR was made and it is a problem of the car, but people like @Croc (who does happen to like his CSR) or others who had a pleasure of experiencing much much wider variety of cars on track and on the street that many of us have had otherswise, do you share his opinion? Is it truly a bad flaw and it's fine to overlook it or is he being dramatic?

 

Personally I'm not bothered enough to ever have it noticeable to me to such a degree.

 

About 1 hour 8 mins in.

 

.

[KnifeySpoony]

TBH I take Matt's opinions with a large grain of salt - I consider him opinionated but not necessarily an expert. However I can see why someone would say that with a stiffly sprung 7 on bad roads. The high unsprung to sprung mass ratio in the rear, as well as sitting so close to the rear axle makes you feel the bumps in the rear in a very different way. He later drove a 360 in the US and had no complaints. Probably smoother road and/or softer springs.

[Croc]

 

I think it is a valid comment relating to De Dion rear end cars.  I can understand the sensation.  I would not use the same words.  Different people describe it different ways.  Some say the De Dion is lively.   Others say it is sensitive or unsettled or active.  Some people like that and others do not.  

 

As I think of the problem, it derives from the inability of the De Dion rear end to absorb bumps or rough surfaces without transmitting some of the forces through to the chassis and rear end grip.  As a result, the bumps unsettle the rear and makes it hard to put down power or sustain rear end grip in certain circumstances.  I want to stress this is primarily a road observations where rough surfaces and camber changes make it more pronounced.  On a race circuit, the smooth surface means this is a non-event for the most part unless you are running over kerbs.  The feeling is either accentuated or suppressed by the suspension firmness.  Softer suspension makes it far less pronounced.  I know the journalist was driving a 420R but it does not say which suspension option out of the 4 was selected (road, sport, track, race)?  

 

The CSR does overcome this handling characteristic through its independent rear end.  The CSR feels and drives as if it is a much heavier car.  However, it was not as sales successful as the regular De Dion Caterham as:

1) It was a lot more expensive to make

2) A lot of people did not like the less active feel it gave on the road. 

 

The design limitations of the De Dion rear end cars are really evident if you drive a 620R.  It just struggles to put the power down, even on a race circuit.  The power overwhelms the rear end design - and not in a good way.   The 420R its somewhat there but not especially intrusive.  By the time you get down to a 310S, its unobtrusive. 

 

This topic is an illustration of why I have always felt the best handling Caterhams are those with softer suspension as this gives the ability to absorb bumps and rough surfaces that would otherwise throw a Caterham offline. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JohnCh]

54 minutes ago, Croc said:

Some say the De Dion is lively.   Others say it is sensitive or unsettled or active.  Some people like that and others do not.

 

 

To me, this is the key.  It's about feel and preferences.  Given Farah's perspective differs from most reviews -- including from other "extremely seasoned and experienced" journalists -- I suspect this is something to which he is either more sensitive or dislikes more than others.  I have driven cars with specific characteristics that spoiled the car for me but speaking with others who have driven the same car, they either didn't notice those things, or they did and for them they were non-issues.  That's why it's always desirable to drive a car yourself to see how it maps to your preferences.  Now if you are concerned with lap times, where quantifiable data matters, that's a different story.

 

Another possible factor in this instance is setup.  Farrah is not a light guy.  If the car was set up for a much lighter driver, it would be riding much closer to its rear bump stops with him in the car, thereby impacting available suspension travel (and rake) and exacerbating the points made above about the de Dion.

[IamScotticus]

I love Sevens.

No part of a Seven feels like a car.

[panamericano]

It always seems to me that a lot of "criticism" is related to lake of experience with a certain car.  I once had a discussion with an old, experienced F5000 friend.  We agreed that in a car you really know well, you know in advance how the car will react to something like a bump.  Take a car whose tail likes to step out over a bump.  The front may stay planted, but the tail hop/slide is different.  Knowing the car, you can anticipate it accurately and already have the tiny correction dialed into the steering almost before, or exactly as the tail jumps.  No sweat, even entertaining,.  Maybe an aid to rotation.  Of course, if you didn't know the car, you'd call it a scary flaw.

[Vovchandr]

Part of this discussion is defining exactly what handling is. 

 

It's not stiff race suspension, it's not necessarily traction..

 

Some define it as predicability and being able to respond to your inputs and be an extension of you. 

 

Now with enough seat time almost any car can satisfy that requirement, some are a lot easier and quicker and capable of doing that than others. 

 

In theory a "good handling car" you should be able to jump into and be able to control. 

 

If it takes time to learn how to handle it for it to be "good" (air cooled 911?) That can be a fair criticism. Unpredictability I believe is a fair criticism. 

[slowdude]

I've had the fortune to drive a lot of performance cars, and non performance cars from across a wide variety of brands.

 

From RWD, 400 hp roadsters, to V12 sedans, across many brands, one thing I've noticed across modern cars is that they're all the same.

 

People (especially car journos, which I won't get into), think they can really feel a difference between modern cars, but it is very different to go from an M5 to an MGB.

 

Modern cars have modern grip, modern tires etc. A caterham, an MGB, a 70s corvette, an 80s Toyota station wagon all feel markedly different. Advances in auto technology over the years have taken modern cars to the same platform. They're different, but not <i>that</i> different.

 

Some will argue with me and that's fine, but the majority of these journos, and modern car owners can't tell the difference between brand a/b/c nor notice weight loading on suspension etc. Spec sheets are all the same- average (and above average) people don't notice. We do a lot of product benchmarking etc.

 

And that's OK, a lot of people get tesla to get from point a to point b.

 

It's all personal preference, and what our mind thinks it notices within segments and that's ok.

 

I'll drive my caterham and wave to other cars, I support everyone's passion (except the 911 LA scene) 😀. 

[Marek]

Having never driven a De Dion Caterham; but having extensively enjoying De Dion Alfas, this does not seem a limitation of the De Dion as a design, but rather in setup.  The transaxle Alfas (Alfetta, GTV6, Milano/75) work best when run soft.  Even on the track.  Stiff or metal bushings and pivots are fine.  But don't push the spring rates or over damp the rear of the car.

 

As I am currently wrestling with an over-sprung Seven, I can understand the source of Farrah's comments.  But I suspect what he is describing is less a 'disconnected' feel and more likely an unfamiliarity with driving from so close to the rear axle.  It changes how the front communicates and I find that until a driver dials into that communication it can be harder for them to be precise in describing the front mechanical grip.

 

@slowdude is on to something regarding modern and non-modern cars.  Modern car all live in a narrow range of (safe, predictable, comfortable) behaviors.  Cars from the 80s and before have a wider range of handling behaviors and driver feedback.  I've found drivers without older car experience often struggle to be as comfortable driving or precise in describing car behaviors outside their experience. 

Edited February 29 by Marek

[Vovchandr]

Just to play devil's advocate on the behalf of the source of the original quote (Matt Farah) he's no stranger to old cars. 

 

Not even counting all the modern cars/super cars and hyper cars he experienced hes in the episode talking about his experience in both Morgan 3 wheelers (he loved the first gen) and he personally owned a high horsepower Fox body Mustang (live axle?), air cooled 911s, still has a first gen NSX, Lamborghini Countach, older Ferrari (don't recall model), e46 M3 and god knows whatever else.  

 

His opinion certainly didn't come from being sheltered from experience with older cars. 

 

It might have been setup wrong for him sure, but that's another argument. Maybe light cars require more finesse when drivers are more husky but he didn't have similar comments to Morgan 3 wheeler in the review. 

[Croc]

Lets keep in mind there is no one definition of handling.  What handles well for each of you, likely may not be as good for any other individual in this thread. 

 

The current 911 is a great case for this.  With the Porsche Active Steering System option (Porsche Ass?  Probably another acronym?) where the rear wheels steer in a coordinated fashion to the front wheels, the intent was to make the 911 more lively, active and nimble.  What I found is it was too nervous, unsettled and gave exactly the impression Matt Farah used to describe the Caterham - (paraphrasing) front end disconnected from back end/uncoordinated.  And its not just me who thinks this, as I have heard a very experienced Porsche race instructor say the exact same thing.  Yet a team of very experienced Porsche factory engineers dialed this feature into the model and thought it was good.  Who is right?  All of us, as we all have different expectations for how a car should handle.  The car is just a dumb animal that reacts to our clumsy inputs. 

 

The level of electronic driver assistance has changed car character over time and made them somewhat all similar.  I'm old school.  I grew up learning to drive around the inherent problems in a car to make it go as fast as possible without any form of driver aids.  So I am wired to trust me before I trust the car. The first time I drove a car with active suspension on a race track (a Caterham at Donington), I fought the effing thing for 10 laps until I came in and was given a good bitch slapping by the engineer that I needed to trust the car and let it go without fighting to control it.  Once I overcame that mental issue (and trust me it was a big one), it was a revelation - it was genuinely better and much faster than the car without active suspension.   Then again if you have ever selected the sport steering option in a new BMW then you know an engineer screwed up badly!

 

Whether you agree or disagree with the journalist is irrelevant.  He is a very experienced driver.   He is quite a good communicator of what he is feeling and has identified an essential part of the car's character that struck him as important  to communicate and it is definitely something a potential owner or casual reader should think about.  Not every car journalist is as good at doing that. 

[slowdude]

1 hour ago, Croc said:

Lets keep in mind there is no one definition of handling.  What handles well for each of you, likely may not be as good for any other individual in this thread. 

 

The current 911 is a great case for this.  With the Porsche Active Steering System option (Porsche Ass?  Probably another acronym?) where the rear wheels steer in a coordinated fashion to the front wheels, the intent was to make the 911 more lively, active and nimble.  What I found is it was too nervous, unsettled and gave exactly the impression Matt Farah used to describe the Caterham - (paraphrasing) front end disconnected from back end/uncoordinated.  And its not just me who thinks this, as I have heard a very experienced Porsche race instructor say the exact same thing.  Yet a team of very experienced Porsche factory engineers dialed this feature into the model and thought it was good.  Who is right?  All of us, as we all have different expectations for how a car should handle.  The car is just a dumb animal that reacts to our clumsy inputs. 

 

The level of electronic driver assistance has changed car character over time and made them somewhat all similar.  I'm old school.  I grew up learning to drive around the inherent problems in a car to make it go as fast as possible without any form of driver aids.  So I am wired to trust me before I trust the car. The first time I drove a car with active suspension on a race track (a Caterham at Donington), I fought the effing thing for 10 laps until I came in and was given a good bitch slapping by the engineer that I needed to trust the car and let it go without fighting to control it.  Once I overcame that mental issue (and trust me it was a big one), it was a revelation - it was genuinely better and much faster than the car without active suspension.   Then again if you have ever selected the sport steering option in a new BMW then you know an engineer screwed up badly!

 

Whether you agree or disagree with the journalist is irrelevant.  He is a very experienced driver.   He is quite a good communicator of what he is feeling and has identified an essential part of the car's character that struck him as important  to communicate and it is definitely something a potential owner or casual reader should think about.  Not every car journalist is as good at doing that. 

The GT3 RS is incredible -> it is so damn flat around the track. The pursuit of handling in a modern car has made the most precise thing possible, at the expense of it being so good, it is numb. It's a fantastic vehicle to throw around the track, but you're left with, wow it's so good, it has no character. 

 

And yes, Matt, from a content perspective, provides more than others.. looking at a motor trend contributor.

 

 

 

 

[CarlB]

What do you feel when driving that conveys control or fun? For me I love the in-your-face direct feel of a Caterham. I love the sensation of being close to the rear axle that is nothing more than a sophisticated solid axle. I used to race go-karts and they are driven off the rear axle I love the feel conveyed from the De Dion axle, it is like a go-kart with more power so you can change the handling balance with your right foot. I get the part about bumpy roads. There are limitations. An independent rear suspension would be better over bumps, but the car would feel different.       

[Lancefitzgiben]

I don't regard Farah's opinion in very high regard - he seldom actually has an opinion actually, he usually just regurgitates the words of someone else. That said, I can understand what he's saying. I use my Caterham on the road where there are inconsistencies and plenty of lumps and bumps - the car is honestly a challenge to drive well and smoothly.. but it's so rewarding when you get it right. My miata "handles" much better, it's much more stable and predictable - more of a putty in your hands feeling, it's not a challenge though. The Cat is a challenge and I love it.

[CBuff]

It seems like he based that opinion on a rhd he drove in the uk. His follow up he seems to have soften on his critique.