The whole point

[Guest Terry]

As we all know the original concept of the 7 was a light weight sports car that provided a thrilling driving experience which didn't require a shed load of power. My feeling is that most of the replicas including the original (Caterham) seem to have moved way past what Chapman had envisioned. The original Lotus 7 weighted in under 800 lb., a long way short of what we are producing today. My Caterham Super Sport is 1140 lb., god only knows what a Stalker sits on the scales at.

 

Which brings me to the recent launch of the Caterham 160R

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/291082/caterham_seven_160_review_price_and_specs.html

 

Maybe at long last we are returning to the original roots of what Sevening is all about!!!!!!

:party:

Edited December 9, 2013 by Terry

[bigdog]

Just look at the post about a titanium chassis. We Americans have been brought up to over do just about everything in the quest for the fastest, Most powerful, Biggest engine. Even though most don't need it nor could they even come close to using it. It's all about the bragging rights. I.E. brochure racing or top trumps with cars and their specs.

[Davemk1]

EVO magazine has a good test of the car in the newest issue - a good read.

 

dave

[Guest Terry]

Just look at the post about a titanium chassis. We Americans have been brought up to over do just about everything in the quest for the fastest, Most powerful, Biggest engine. Even though most don't need it nor could they even come close to using it. It's all about the bragging rights. I.E. brochure racing or top trumps with cars and their specs.

 

I understand that you colonials have got side tracked away from what the whole point of the 7 is, and in many ways so have we Europeans, but its not about power.

 

Last year at the Caterham Dealers meeting in the UK, I drove and SP-300R, and 260 CSR, and R400 and a 1.6 Super Sport, although the SP300 was a thrill to drive out of all the Caterhams the Super Sport was the one that put the biggest smile on my face.

 

New manta

 

In stead of asking "how much power does it have" EGO issues, lets ask "how much does it weight" that was Chapman's agenda. Somewhere we have gotten derailed.

[Guest Terry]

EVO magazine has a good test of the car in the newest issue - a good read.

 

dave

 

At present I own a Caterham Super Sport, but am VERY tempted to buy a Caterham 160, the 600cc Suzuki engine sound a blast.

[Guest Terry]

Just look at the post about a titanium chassis. We Americans have been brought up to over do just about everything in the quest for the fastest, Most powerful, Biggest engine. Even though most don't need it nor could they even come close to using it. It's all about the bragging rights. I.E. brochure racing or top trumps with cars and their specs.

 

I would wager $50 that my Stock 1.4 Caterham Super Sport would thrash a V6 Stalker around a tight Track. Any offers? As its Christmas I feel the need to make a few quick dollars.

:party:

Edited December 9, 2013 by Terry

[slngsht]

I would wager $50 that my Stock 1.4 Caterham Super Sport would thrash a V6 Stalker around a tight Track. Any offers? As its Christmas I feel the need to make a few quick dollars.

:party:

define "tight". Who's driving each car?

[xcarguy]

:lurk: Wish I had a Coke.

Edited December 9, 2013 by xcarguy

[slngsht]

:lurk: Wish I had a Coke.

[DeanG]

As a working definition I would think that any course where a 7 couldn't get above 50 mph is tight. Autocross style.

[xcarguy]

New manta

 

In stead of asking "how much power does it have" EGO issues, lets ask "how much does it weight" that was Chapman's agenda. Somewhere we have gotten derailed.

 

Okay, I'm all out of popcorn, so let me poke a little humor at this thread. Here goes.

 

Dang the luck! And I just did a dyno tune on my Stalker this past Wednesday (yes, really) after having added a head/cam package (yes, I did).

 

Well, here are a couple of excerpts from the Caterham web site for the R500 and 620 R:

 

Extreme performance is attained through cramming the engine bay with as many horses as possible - 263 of them to be precise. Mathematicians amongst you will have already calculated that anyone committed enough to strap themselves into the Kevlar race seats will be deploying a mighty 520 bhp-per-tonne with their right foot, capable of firing the car from 0-60 mph in just 2.88 seconds.

 

Lurking at the heart of the car (620 R; my emphasis) is the same 2.0 litre engine as found in the R500. Except we Supercharged it. That's right, we have done the automotive equivalent of attaching a rocket to a missile. We've taken something really fast and made it really fast. Delivering a mighty 310bhp and a huge amount of torque, the 620 R is equipped with the sort of performance that is very hard to explain within the constraints of the English language or the laws of physics.

 

What with the new manta (should that be ‘mantra’?), perhaps Caterham should consider changing the names of the R500 and 620 R to 506KG and 545KG respectively. Naming a car based on its HP/ton-weight sounds a bit egotistical . . . just sayin’. :rofl:

 

Okay, seriously, we're all on this forum because we all enjoy the 7 concept. Regardless of manufacturer, engine size, weight or HP rating, these cars are fun and we come here to share our passion with like-minded enthusiasts. I can appreciate (and do) all types of 7's . . . . but I can't do a thing about another man's ego or his opinion of mine.

 

Anyway, time for a refill. :lurk:

Edited December 9, 2013 by xcarguy

[Guest Terry]

Okay, I'm all out of popcorn, so let me poke a little humor at this thread. Here goes.

 

Dang the luck! And I just did a dyno tune on my Stalker this past Wednesday (yes, really) after having added a head/cam package (yes, I did).

 

Well, here are a couple of excerpts from the Caterham web site for the R500 and 620 R:

 

Extreme performance is attained through cramming the engine bay with as many horses as possible - 263 of them to be precise. Mathematicians amongst you will have already calculated that anyone committed enough to strap themselves into the Kevlar race seats will be deploying a mighty 520 bhp-per-tonne with their right foot, capable of firing the car from 0-60 mph in just 2.88 seconds.

 

Lurking at the heart of the car (620 R; my emphasis) is the same 2.0 litre engine as found in the R500. Except we Supercharged it. That's right, we have done the automotive equivalent of attaching a rocket to a missile. We've taken something really fast and made it really fast. Delivering a mighty 310bhp and a huge amount of torque, the 620 R is equipped with the sort of performance that is very hard to explain within the constraints of the English language or the laws of physics.

 

What with the new manta (should that be ‘mantra’?), perhaps Caterham should consider changing the names of the R500 and 620 R to 506KG and 545KG respectively. Naming a car based on its HP/ton-weight sounds a bit egotistical . . . just sayin’. :rofl:

 

Okay, seriously, we're all on this forum because we all enjoy the 7 concept. Regardless of manufacturer, engine size, weight or HP rating, these cars are fun and we come here to share our passion with like-minded enthusiasts. I can appreciate (and do) all types of 7's . . . . but I can't do a thing about another man's ego or his opinion of mine.

 

Anyway, time for a refill. :lurk:

 

Excellent post :party:

[Guest Terry]

define "tight". Who's driving each car?

 

Each person drives his own car, Track with less than 1/4 mile straight :auto:

[Boxologist]

As we all know the original concept of the 7 was a light weight sports car that provided a thrilling driving experience which didn't require a shed load of power. My feeling is that most of the replicas including the original (Caterham) seem to have moved way past what Chapman had envisioned. The original Lotus 7 weighted in under 800 lb., a long way short of what we are producing today. My Caterham Super Sport is 1140 lb., god only knows what a Stalker sits on the scales at.

 

Which brings me to the recent launch of the Caterham 160R

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/291082/caterham_seven_160_review_price_and_specs.html

 

Maybe at long last we are returning to the original roots of what Sevening is all about!!!!!!

:party:

 

Internet is wonky at work so I suspect that the 160 is update to the Sigma powered Roadsport.

 

Chapman wanted to build racecars. Some of those races needed cars that were also roadworthy. Lotus really wasn't on 'solid' footing till the Elite from what I remember, if I am in error, please correct me.

 

You must also consider what engines and tires were available in the 1950s. Today I can order street tires have more grip than their race tires. I believe that Chapman would have used a more powerful motor that what you would expect an built the chasis' rigidity accordingly. I would expect than a modern design of the 7 from Colin Chapman would actually be very close to a closed body Ariel Atom/Exocet. If he did not opt for the rear mid-engine layout, I would imagine that the traditional layout would weigh ~1400lbs, include the full cage as standard(easy huge increase in rigidity if not added afterwards), and come with an engine that make 180hp quite easily. I would also expect a very functional IRS...

 

I would not expect a low price on such a car. And this is essentially the market that we see today.

[Guest Terry]

The 160 is 160 per ton, its 75BHP

[s2k7]

xxx

Edited January 24, 2014 by s2k7

[speedwagon]

A couple of summers ago i was given a few laps around the Grand Junction,Co go-kart track (short track?) in one of Flying Miata's LS powered Miatas and there is no way that my S1 could ave stayed with it even with the same driver. hp/kg rules even on short tracks. With that said would still rather have the S1 and a stock Miata for longer trips. nuff power.

[Guest Terry]

My Classic Mini Cooper S Race Car 1310 lb, 148 BHP will lap Stratotech Motor Sport Park where I work as an instructor in 64.3 seconds, my best lap in a 550 BHP GTR at the same track in 68.5 seconds. Bottom line is in 15 laps my 148 BHP Mini will have lapped the GTR.

 

I rest my case

[Manshoon11]

It wasnt until I became a competent driver that I learned that I didn't need insane amounts of HP. The 3-400 hp difference between my elise and vettes accounted for very little. I gained that back and more under braking. Some people get slower with more power, as they Tend to not get on the power until they are at track out.

[escondidoron]

The original Lotus 7 weighted in under 800 lb., a long way short of what we are producing today.

 

 

Well not exactly. While your heart is in the right place, your numbers for the original Seven's weight are off a bit:

 

The original Lotus Seven Series 1 from 1957-1960 was equipped with an 1172cc 4-cyl 100e Ford flathead that produced a claimed 36BHp @4500 RPM and 53 lbs-ft torque @ 2500 RPM. Lotus' published curb weight for the S1 was 950 Lbs. The S1, when equipped with the 1098cc OHC Coventry Climax FWE engines, were the original Super Seven.

 

In 1960 Lotus introduced the Series 2. In an effort to reduce production costs structural components that were deemed unnecessary were removed from the relatively reinforced S1 chassis. The engine choices at this time were 948cc BMC A-series engines producing 43BHp @ 5200RPM and 52.8 lbs-ft Torque @ 3000 RPM or the then new 997cc Ford 105e with 3-main bearings and dual 1-1/4" SU carbs producing 39BHp @ 5000 RPM and 52.5 lbs-ft torque @ 2700 RPM. Published weights for the BMC engined cars was 960Lbs and 957Lbs for the Ford powered cars.

 

In late '61 the first S2s with the 1340cc Ford 109e, still 3-main bearing, were produced with Cosworth modifications to the head. These pre-crossflow engines were equipped with either single or dual side draft Weber DCOE40 carbs. The Lotus claimed output for either variant was 85BHp @ 5800 RPM and 80-85 lbs-ft torque @ 4000 RPM. Weight was unchanged from the 105e equipped model. The cost of the car, in kit form in the UK, was 499GBP for the 105e, 511GBP for a BMC A-series engined car and 599GBP for the 109e Super Seven.

 

Somewhere around '65 or '66 S2s got the pre-crossflow head 5-main bearing 1498cc Cortina engine as the high output engine. Weight was up to 1064Lbs by this time.

 

Next up was the Series 3 car introduced in '68. By this time the S3 used the crosflow headed 1498cc Ford engine as standard equipment. The base 1500 engine had a single Weber carb producing 66BHp @ 4600 RPM and 78.5 lbs-ft torque @ 2300 RPM. The big kahuna 1500 sported dual side draft DCOE40s producing a claimed 95BHp @ 6000 RPM and 95 lbs-ft torque @ 4500 RPM.

 

The S3 cars tipped the scales at a published 1204Lbs. The weight increase was incremental over the years, due mainly to the incorporation of continuous upgrades like the reintroduction of chassis stiffening tubes in several locations, increasing the fuel tank from 5.5 gallons to 8 gallons as well as replacing the exhausted supply of the Standard 10 rear axles with the upgrade to the more robust Ford rear axle originally sourced from the Cortina.

 

All cars equipped with the 1340cc 109e or larger engines were referred to as Super Sevens. S1s and early S2s had rarely used designations for their engines; "A" for A-series BMC engines, "F" for Ford and "C" for Coventry Climax. Additionally S1 and early S2 cars built for export to the U.S. were designated as "America" models.

 

When Caterham reintroduced their version of the S3 in '74 the standard engine was the 1600cc crosflow Ford engine. It produced 84BHp @ 5500 RPM and 91 lbs-ft torque @ 3500 RPM when equipped with a single Weber 32DGAV downdraft carb. The optional dual sidedraft Weber 40DCOE equipped 1600 Sprint engine gave 110BHp @ 6000 RPM and 105.5 lbs-ft torque @ 4800 RPM. The weight ranged from 1106Lbs to 1275Lbs depending on options.

 

 

 

Which brings me to the recent launch of the Caterham 160R

 

Maybe at long last we are returning to the original roots of what Sevening is all about!!!!!!

:party:

 

Concur. :iagree:

My '62 S2 is a Cosworth 109e with the very light weight Standard 10 rear axle. It weighs in at a svelte 960Lbs with a full tank of 5.5 gallons fuel. It's been dyno'd at ~74BHp at the rear wheels. So this equates to ~85BHp at the crank assuming 15% driveline losses.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6075/6042544340_4bba67e17d_b.jpg

 

And it's able to keep up with the larger engined Cat's out in the real world on weekend drives as long as there aren't any long straights involved. Once a straightaway is longer than about 150 yards the old girl can't keep up. :rofl:

 

So I'm guessing that the performance of the new 160R, with its claimed weight of 1080Lbs and power of 80BHp, is pretty much similar to my old 1962 S2!