rnr Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Great article on Zenos cars which was founded by the former MD of Caterham http://skiddmark.com/2014/01/behind-story-zenos-cars/ An older article about their tech: http://skiddmark.com/2013/09/zenos-cars-breaks-mold/ Their new car is launching of Thursday and should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carsport Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Took me back in time with that frame configuration. Center tunnel old school Lotus Europa and Elan?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffersonRaley Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Very interesting. Their website shows specs of 1400 lbs and 200 bhp, which is basically Elise territory. Not sure why it weighs so much with a carbon/aluminum monocoque and no doors. I definitely want to learn more about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It does remind me of my old Europa... the thought of 1/8in fiberglass between me and everything helped with my decision to sale it (California smog rules as well). I find it hard to believe that cockpit would give enough protection... though I guess it works in F1. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Automoda Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I'm going to keep an eye on it. What about the Factory 5 "818"? https://www.factoryfive.com/kits/project-818/ Seems like it has the same philosophy, though its still a kit. But the cost + performance seems to be the focus of both cars. Probably the 818 is significantly cheaper though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnr Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Very interesting. Their website shows specs of 1400 lbs and 200 bhp, which is basically Elise territory. Not sure why it weighs so much with a carbon/aluminum monocoque and no doors. I definitely want to learn more about them. 1400 and 200 hp is waaaay faster than an Elise. The federal Elise was 1950 lbs and 189 bhp and the fastest S1 was 1600 and 143 bhp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffersonRaley Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) 1400 and 200 hp is waaaay faster than an Elise. The federal Elise was 1950 lbs and 189 bhp and the fastest S1 was 1600 and 143 bhp. Of course you're right - I misspoke and meant the 211. I actually pulled together a comparison table of ridiculously fast/light cars. It's obviously incomplete, especially since Sevens can be almost any price and power level. Also, I had to guess at Zenos' pricing. Edited January 7, 2014 by JeffersonRaley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdog Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Of course you're right - I misspoke and meant the 211. I actually pulled together a comparison table of ridiculously fast/light cars. It's obviously incomplete, especially since Sevens can be almost any price and power level. Also, I had to guess at Zenos' pricing. I would think the Radical SR3 might be over done in the bang for buck column. Last I remember it can't be street registered in the USA. So it then becomes a narrowly focused tool, Maybe this is a track centric list though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Automoda Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Thats a great chart. Thanks! Like you say, the 7s can vary so much its hard to fit them in a chart like that. Its possible there's a missing variable: "Awesomeness" The 818 looks like a ricer on the outside. Compared to an Atom or a 7 or Xbow, both looks and driving experience would not really compare that well. That'd push the 818 down the chart a bit. But some of those cars are so expensive they deserve to sit on the bottom forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnr Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Of course you're right - I misspoke and meant the 211. If only the 211 was street legal here - I imagine a lot of Seven owners would at least seriously consider it if not switch all together. The Zenos project is interesting if for no other reason than the Caterham pedigree of the people involved - I guess we'll find out on thursday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffersonRaley Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The 818 looks like a ricer on the outside. Compared to an Atom or a 7 or Xbow, both looks and driving experience would not really compare that well. That'd push the 818 down the chart a bit. Yep, there are several other factors that are going into my decision. As BigDog mentioned, the Radical SR3 is not streetable (though apparently you can import them as kit cars and make them street legal in US). And having tracked other Factory Five products, I don't have a lot of confidence in the 818. Looks like a great car though if price is the main factor. Sevens are just so much fun to drive, and have so many years of development, that they stay at the top of my personal list. Plus they exude 1960's coolness. I am leaning toward Birkin, mostly because they depreciate, so I can buy a used one for a great price. Caterhams seem to hold their value forever. I think the Zenos might be the only thing that could tempt me away from a Seven. An acquaintance/friend is talking with them this week and I am looking forward to his feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcarguy Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Of course you're right - I misspoke and meant the 211. I actually pulled together a comparison table of ridiculously fast/light cars. It's obviously incomplete, especially since Sevens can be almost any price and power level. Also, I had to guess at Zenos' pricing. Thats a great chart. Thanks! Like you say, the 7s can vary so much its hard to fit them in a chart like that. Its possible there's a missing variable: "Awesomeness" The 818 looks like a ricer on the outside. Compared to an Atom or a 7 or Xbow, both looks and driving experience would not really compare that well. That'd push the 818 down the chart a bit. But some of those cars are so expensive they deserve to sit on the bottom forever. For the sake of comparison, the power, weight and performance of the 818 might need to be revisited. I’m assuming the HP numbers for the cars in the chart (excellent chart, BTW) are flywheel HP, not RWHP. If so, parasitic loss will have to be taken into account for the HP number of the two 818’s in the following videos. I’ve seen parasitic loss numbers of anywhere from 12% to 21%; 15% may be a fair ‘ballpark’ number. I’m also assuming the weights of the cars are dry/curb weights (no driver/no fuel or no drive/with fuel). In all fairness to the total weight given for the 818 in the video below, there is no mention of what was included in the corner weighting of the car (and, unfortunately, there is only a brief shot of the weights). Based on the FF advertised weight of 1800 lb vs. the recorded weight displayed in the video, one might assume that driver and fuel weights were added. As for how an Atom or an X-Bow compares, performance wise, to the 818, I can’t say as I have never driven any of these cars nor do I have any real firsthand knowledge of these cars other than what I've read or seen in videos; the closest I've come is seeing two Atoms up close and personal, and both of these cars were sitting in garages. As for how the 818 looks in comparison . . . . Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.:drool::puke: If you would care to add the Brunton Stalker (V8 version) to the chart, I can provide the specs for my car. My car, being LS6 powered, would represent middle-of-the-road numbers regarding V8 powered Stalkers as most of the V8 cars are powered by an LS3. 818 dyno at 4:40 and 818 corner weight numbers at 5:23 Also, the builder of the 818 seems to be a locost 7 enthusiast. Anybody know him? 818 dyno at :30 (this is the GRM 818 build) 818 at Watkins glen Edited January 7, 2014 by xcarguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffersonRaley Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 For the sake of comparison, the power, weight and performance of the 818 might need to be revisited. Yeah, I went with the stock horsepower number for a WRX donor. Obviously those can easily be tuned to ridiculous horsepower. That is definitely one of the issues with comparing kit cars. If you would care to add the Brunton Stalker (V8 version) to the chart, I can provide the specs for my car. My car, being LS6 powered, would represent middle-of-the-road numbers regarding V8 powered Stalkers as most of the V8 cars are powered by an LS3. I think that's a great idea. Send me the info and I'll add. Happy to add any other data folks have - just need price, weight and crank horsepower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitcat Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The 818 vid above shows a lap time of 2:02 at Watkins Glen, or abt 8 seconds faster than the fastest E-Prod Caterham record. Just a point of reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scannon Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The 2002 WRX which is the main donor car for the 818 and the first WRX sold by Subaru in the USA came with 227 HP as rated by Subaru. Later models had HP increases, my 2014 WRX is rated at 265 HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcarguy Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think that's a great idea. Send me the info and I'll add. Happy to add any other data folks have - just need price, weight and crank horsepower. JeffersonRaley, I’m providing the additional/supporting information here so all can see exactly from where I derived my conclusions. Regarding the information below pertaining to parasitic loss, others (much more knowledgeable than I) may choose to disagree with, or challenge, the parasitic loss value (as well as parasitic loss origin) I chose to use as this is very much a debatable topic. However, it should put us in the ballpark with my car. The empty weight of my car (per corner weighting) is approximately 1650 lb. (no driver, fuel or aero). With driver, fuel and aero added, track weight (again, per corner weighting) comes in right at 1900 lb. Current RWHP is 425 (chassis dyno measurement; 500 crank HP estimated). Power-to-weight values are listed at the end of this post. The 425RWHP number was achieved using a Comp Cams cam (custom grind), TEA Stage II heads (factory heads, modified), ported throttle body, 42 lb injectors and supporting modifications such as LS7 lifters, hardened push rods, headers, cold air intake, a conservative (street) speed density tune and all nonessential ancillaries removed. Prior to the aforementioned modifications, RWHP was measured at 370 (chassis dyno measurement). This number was achieved using a stock LS6 (all nonessential ancillaries removed), headers, a cold air intake and conservative (street) speed density tune. My personal observation has been that parasitic loss for an internal combustion engine (automotive application) can range anywhere from 12% to 21% (my observed/derived values per written articles, discussions, dyno sessions, etc.). It has also been debated as from where, or how exactly, parasitic loss is measured. Take my car for example; assuming a 15% parasitic loss value, if the 425RWHP (chassis dyno measurment) were to be viewed as being 85% of the power that was originally available at the crank, then my engine would be rated a 500 crank HP: • 500 x .85 = 425 or 425 + 75 (15% of 500) = 500 crank HP However, if the 425RWHP were viewed as being 85% of the total power available (15% more available at the crank than that measured at the wheels) then: • 425 + 63.75 (15% of 425) = 488.75 crank HP My personal view is that measured RWHP is a result of what was not lost (HP wise) between the crank and the wheels (as originally measured at the crank), thus, 425 being 85% of what was originally available at the crank. Therefore: • 425 / .85 = 500 crank HP Personally, I prefer using the 15% parasitic loss value as it tends to be just a bit more conservative than an interpolated value of 16.5% (interpolated from 12% to 21% values). So, once again, assuming a 15% parasitic loss between the crank and the rear wheels: • (Stock LS6) 370RWHP / .85 = 435 crank HP (rounded value) • (LS6 with modifications) 425RWHP / .85 = 500 crank HP (exact value) Power to weight values: • Stock LS6 and empty weight of 1650 lb: 1650 / 435 = 3.8 lb/crank HP (rounded value) • Stock LS6 and track weight of 1900 lb: 1900 / 435 = 4.4 lb/crank HP (rounded value) • Modified LS6 and empty weight of 1650 lb: 1650 / 500 = 3.3 lb/crank HP (exact value) • Modified LS6 and track weight of 1900 lb: 1900 / 500 = 3.8 lb/crank HP (exact value) As for cost, Scott Mineheart will build you a new Stalker with pricing and options reflected in the following list: • Low Mileage Naturally Aspirated 3.8 V6 with rebuilt T5 transmission. 200hp, 200lbft at wheels – $36,990 • Low Mileage L32 supercharged 3.8 V6 with rebuilt T5 transmission. 260hp, 300lbft at wheels – $37,490 • New crate LS1 5.7 V8 with T56 magnum 6 speed transmission 350hp, 350lbft – $44,990 • New crate LS3 6.2 V8 with T56 magnum 6 speed transmission. 430hp, 424lbft – $44,990 • New crate LS3 6.2 V8 Hot Cam with T56 magnum 6 speed transmission. 480hp, 475lbft – $45,390 • New crate LS3 6.2 V8 ASA Cam with T56 magnum 6 speed transmission. 525hp, 490lbft – $46,390 Options • Full roll cage – T-Bar or Halo style +$425 • Aluminum Shock upgrade +$200 • Electric in column power steering +$1099 • Fiberglass top (m-spec cage/windshield only) +$900 • Canvas top +$1200 • 6l80E Automatic 6 speed transmission (LS V8 only) +$1600 • ISIS electrical system with Tablet/phone interface +$2000 • Race Logic variable traction control +$2400 • Windshield wipers +$700 • A/C and Heat (XL only) +$2500 Obviously, an owner-built car will be cheaper than a factory-built version, and buying used will be cheaper still. :svengo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlumba81 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The 818 come from their goal of the car to weigh 818kg. So about 1803lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FE07 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The 818 vid above shows a lap time of 2:02 at Watkins Glen, or abt 8 seconds faster than the fastest E-Prod Caterham record. Just a point of reference. 2:02 at the Glen for that car seems awfully optimistic to me. Driven by Vettel?? I race a Formula Enterprise. Nope, I'm not at the pointy end of the grid but I hold my own and I have a tough time breaking 2 minutes regularly. Thats in an open-wheel, winged formula car, 1250 lbs/180 HP. 2:02 sounds a little fishy. Having said that, I think the 818 is pretty nice looking and appears well engineered. Not even close to a Caterham however. Jim A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerd68 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The 818 come from their goal of the car to weigh 818kg. So about 1803lbs. 818 kg was the goal. There is a video out there if the final weigh in and the street version came in at 1828. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerd68 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sorry I didn't add the lbs to the 1828. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now