Caterham generations?

[Vovchandr]

I was thinking about it today. 

 

Nobody really talks about Caterham generations since it's mostly just S3 vs SV once it came out. 

 

If it's an S3 there is a divide on whether it's solid axle or de dion. From then on changes are just considered within S3 generational updates but not a different generation per se.

 

Even facelifts aren't really considered at such due to how minor they are (smaller headlights, move headlights forward, different roll cage). 

 

Im not sure if there is another car like this. The variety of motors alone that one can come with factory throughout the years and continents is huge, especially if you technically consider it all one to generation of the car. 

 

I get it that it's largely due to the "kit" nature of the car and anything can be optioned during the build but it's still very unusual in the car world to have such a long run of a model without generational designations and clear cut changes between those generations. 

Edited September 26 by Vovchandr

[KnifeySpoony]

I agree with solid axle vs de dion. There's also long vs short cockpit. Otherwise it seems the engine defines the era the most. Pinto/rover/vauxhall/zetec/sigma/duratec/etc.

[panamericano]

Volkswagen Type 1.  Built 1938-2003.  Same basic engine throughout.  Added FI etc. at the end.  But they all drove remarkably the same.  Same steering feel, same sound, same shifting...

[Vovchandr]

3 hours ago, panamericano said:

Volkswagen Type 1.  Built 1938-2003.  Same basic engine throughout.  Added FI etc. at the end.  But they all drove remarkably the same.  Same steering feel, same sound, same shifting...

 

That's a very good example but it does have distinct generations such as 1302 and 1303 etc. S3 is mostly just S3. Even when tooling changed from imperial to metric there isn't a generational name for it. 

[slowdude]

Imperial to metric chassis S3 seems to be a big enough generation development.

 

It looks like de dion would have been 3 or 4 distinct generations based on the de dion tube.

 

I think (but not really sure)

Like late 80s to 93: narrow de dion imperial chassis

 

93 to like 02? Normal width de dion imperial chassis

 

96 to like 02? Normal width reinforced de dion imperial chassis (maybe a model spec, not necessarily an engineering / chassis change)

 

02 onwards: Normal width de dion metric chassis.

 

Trying to figure out wtf my 95 de dion chassis belonged to was fun. I'm still not sure.

[Vovchandr]

3 hours ago, slowdude said:

Imperial to metric chassis S3 seems to be a big enough generation development.

 

It looks like de dion would have been 3 or 4 distinct generations based on the de dion tube.

 

I think (but not really sure)

Like late 80s to 93: narrow de dion imperial chassis

 

93 to like 02? Normal width de dion imperial chassis

 

96 to like 02? Normal width reinforced de dion imperial chassis (maybe a model spec, not necessarily an engineering / chassis change)

 

02 onwards: Normal width de dion metric chassis.

 

Trying to figure out wtf my 95 de dion chassis belonged to was fun. I'm still not sure.

 

You're right about all of those

 

My point is that we don't really have labels for those "generations" which are typically vin based or at least have a name "EF" for Honda, "e92" bmw, "993" Porsche etc, nor is the community keenly aware of them. 

 

Typically those generational distinctions imply changes which makes parts not interchangeable so they need an identifier when being sold. For Caterham it matters in some very specific aspects. Imperial vs Metric matters for some things like roll cages but not many others. Dedion vs solid rear matter for rear end but many other things are still interchangeable. 

 

Maybe that's why we don't have these distinctions in the community, because they matter so much less?

[wdb]

My 1995 S3 imperial solid (Ital) axle fits... where?

[slowdude]

17 hours ago, Vovchandr said:

 

You're right about all of those

 

My point is that we don't really have labels for those "generations" which are typically vin based or at least have a name "EF" for Honda, "e92" bmw, "993" Porsche etc, nor is the community keenly aware of them. 

 

Typically those generational distinctions imply changes which makes parts not interchangeable so they need an identifier when being sold. For Caterham it matters in some very specific aspects. Imperial vs Metric matters for some things like roll cages but not many others. Dedion vs solid rear matter for rear end but many other things are still interchangeable. 

 

Maybe that's why we don't have these distinctions in the community, because they matter so much less?

The series you refer to are based on product development stage gate processes.

 

For example, E90. This isn't brought by the product teams, or even the engineering teams. Within the series, there are technical and aesthetic updates, designed to prolong the project for the period of time as designed by the strategy etc. Car community latched on to this to determine model generations due to a lack of differences in model naming. Look at the 911 for example. There has been one 911 since the 60s, so telling a developmental status apart came from the community getting ahold of internal project codes and running with it.

 

They're usually initiatives determined by strategy / R&D.

 

Since caterham is a very small company, they most likely do not have the same product stagegate process as they are not developing new products. MB/Honda/etc are all in the business of conquering new markets and market segments, requiring the need for product stagegate processes etc.

 

I'd venture to say other low volume car manufacturers doing the same thing time and time again (Morgan, Ariel etc), are similar.

 

Just an apples to oranges comparison etc.

Edited September 28 by slowdude

[Vovchandr]

6 hours ago, slowdude said:

The series you refer to are based on product development stage gate processes.

 

For example, E90. This isn't brought by the product teams, or even the engineering teams. Within the series, there are technical and aesthetic updates, designed to prolong the project for the period of time as designed by the strategy etc. Car community latched on to this to determine model generations due to a lack of differences in model naming. Look at the 911 for example. There has been one 911 since the 60s, so telling a developmental status apart came from the community getting ahold of internal project codes and running with it.

 

They're usually initiatives determined by strategy / R&D.

 

Since caterham is a very small company, they most likely do not have the same product stagegate process as they are not developing new products. MB/Honda/etc are all in the business of conquering new markets and market segments, requiring the need for product stagegate processes etc.

 

I'd venture to say other low volume car manufacturers doing the same thing time and time again (Morgan, Ariel etc), are similar.

 

Just an apples to oranges comparison etc.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that. New generations carry internal generational codes and designations, as well as a new vin assignment which communities grab on to. 

 

Small volume manufacturers even such as Ariel have clear generational designations as 1, 2, 3 and 4 to designate different generations even though not a lot has changed to a naked eye. 

[IamScotticus]

20 hours ago, wdb said:

My 1995 S3 imperial solid (Ital) axle fits... where?

Still an S3.

[IamScotticus]

I have seen references to the S5 designation. Can someone provide a definition?

 

The S1 had both DeDion and live axles.  The axles, suspensions and engines came and went, but the basic form of a Lotus 7 has been maintained, metric, imperial, Caged, Arch, Uniroyal or otherwise. 

Perhaps a series sub designation is necessary when a percentage of  changes result in obvious external appearance changes to the basic form.  

For example,  the S2 replaces metal wings and nose with fiberglass.  The S3, a wider track, updated instruments panel and roll bar.  For Caterham that would include a taller and longer bonnet.

S4, we know what that was.

Back to S3, there is an S5 derivative.  CSR? That would qualify. 

 

[Croc]

1 hour ago, IamScotticus said:

Back to S3, there is an S5 derivative.  CSR? That would qualify. 

 

 

S5 = SV

 

CSR and S5 have also been used interchangeably so I think it is a size nomenclature and not a specification.

 

No one has mentioned the long cockpit change.

 

The Imperial to metric change was a significant evolution - sizing plus production change. 

[CarlB]

Is there anywhere where the evolutionary changes are documented? I would love to see what the actual changes have been. I believe it would have to consider the SV, CSR, different cars.  

[IamScotticus]

9 hours ago, Croc said:

No one has mentioned the long cockpit change.

Yes, a significant design improvement for the 7.

I wouldn't consider it a change that deserves its own series.

The back seat bulkhead was moved 2" back. The external chassis measurement didn't change. The change is almost imperceptible to the onlooker. 

 

I do agree,  the SV would deserve a series number

[IamScotticus]

7 hours ago, CarlB said:

Is there anywhere where the evolutionary changes are documented? I would love to see what the actual changes have been.

A good start is Tony Weale's book 

[inchoate]

Tony Weale's book is great.  Chris Rees' "Caterham Sevens: From Conception to CSR" is also a fantastic reference for this sort of stuff.

[CarlB]

3 hours ago, inchoate said:

Tony Weale's book is great.  Chris Rees' "Caterham Sevens: From Conception to CSR" is also a fantastic reference for this sort of stuff.

Thank You - I will try to get a copy of his book. Your post prompted me to remember I was given a book from the gentlemen I purchased my car from. He gave me a copy of The Magnificent 7. It has a surprisingly detailed history of all the cars up to 2001.  

[inchoate]

"The Magnificent 7" is a lot of fun.  Someone should put together a list of the various 7 related books.

[IamScotticus]

I can do that in another thread.

There may already be one.