I read the 'Build you own sports car for £250' book about a year and a half ago now, and since then have always been interested in building
my own. With the new Chris Gibbs book being released I have a question in need of answering.
I have always been interested in Caterham roadsters rather than any other 7 inspired roadster, however what are the main differences between Locost
and Caterham chasis construction? As with many builders my budget cannot stretch to that of a Caterhams and I am seriously considering in building my
own Locost, however I do prefer the looks of the Caterham Roadsport/R400.
I think Caterhams now have their chassis robotically welded but thats only happened in the last year or so. I think I'm right in saying that
they also sub out the chassis work.
Locost manufacturers weld the chassis' themselves.
Caterhams are also a 7 inspired roadster though - the Lotus 7 was the (only) original
........
and runs for cover
Size and the greater use of grp instead of Ali for body work
Cats have purpose made parts
locosts have adapted parts
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/upload/archmotors%20catervan%20chassis.jpg
[Edited on 26-5-07 by mangogrooveworkshop]
Caterhams are smaller and use a lot more round tube (nearly all of it) and a lot of the triangulation that is now being done by some of the
manufacturers was done by Colin Chapman eons ago.
For me, the Caterham is far better looking - something to do with the proportions. But the cost is a bit prohibitive (though I read in Total Kitcar
this month that you can apparently build a starter kit for £8,500. Sounds a bit optimistic to me!)
£8,500.00 is a ridiculous figure, surely not. So is the Caterham drastically different in size or does it share proportions with the Locost or other inspired seven roadsters?
The "Original" Cats are notably smaller (Based on the Lostus Seven Series III.
IIRC they are about 4-5 inches narrower than a "Pre-Litigation" Westfield... which I think is what the original Locost is based on. The New
Cat SV is 4 inches wider,or about the same as the aforementioned Westie. However as stated above the proportions are different.
T
quote:
Originally posted by StevieB
Caterhams are smaller and use a lot more round tube (nearly all of it) and a lot of the triangulation that is now being done by some of the manufacturers was done by Colin Chapman eons ago.
For me, the Caterham is far better looking - something to do with the proportions. But the cost is a bit prohibitive (though I read in Total Kitcar this month that you can apparently build a starter kit for £8,500. Sounds a bit optimistic to me!)
quote:
Originally posted by Tralfaz
The "Original" Cats are notably smaller (Based on the Lostus Seven Series III.
IIRC they are about 4-5 inches narrower than a "Pre-Litigation" Westfield... which I think is what the original Locost is based on. The New Cat SV is 4 inches wider,or about the same as the aforementioned Westie. However as stated above the proportions are different.
T
Look into my Photo archive.
There are some details about the caterham frames.
quote:
Originally posted by jnormandale
£8,500.00 is a ridiculous figure, surely not. So is the Caterham drastically different in size or does it share proportions with the Locost or other inspired seven roadsters?
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
If I had real money to spend on a Seven chassis I would buy a Birkin.
If you like the caterham proportions, looks up the stuart taylor locost (sold to someone else a couple of weeks ago but i can't remember who). Very similar size.
http://www.georgecushing.net/Lotus7.html
Is the link above close to the dimmensions of the new model Caterhams such as the R400 and roadsport? I know the website states that they are a combination of seven models.
The difference in proportions between a caterham and a locost is the size of the cockpit area, in a caterham it is a bit short/smaller which changes
the location of the taper of the chassis to where it evens out, this then affects the bonnet length/line etc and in turn the proportional look of the
car, imho.
Also, most caterhams use smaller wheels and tend to run lower ride heights, they sit quite low, whereas many locosts and derivatives people use
15" and sometimes larger wheels which changes the proportions again.
That's not to forget how high caterham mount the headlights which also appears different to most other sevens.
Ned.
[Edited on 30/5/07 by ned]
As MikeR said, have a look at teh stuart taylor locosts, now under another name, as these are very similar to caterham proportions, though longer in
the cockpit area.
They look much more balanced and pleasing to the eye in my opinion than most of the "sierra based" kits, which to me look bulky and wide.
The ST requires either a std escort axle or shortened sierra driveshafts, and has a lower bonnet line than any others apart from caterham and pre-lit
westies.
As was mentioned about headlights, most locosts fit them lower than caterham, though i know I am not the only one who has raised the headlights on a
ST car to get better lighting of the road, which again looks more like the caterham idea.
Hi the new owners of St locost are LINK.
The only problem with the lower bonnet line is that as with the caterham and modern engines you have an awful lot of sump hanging out the bottom and
then a high chassis ride height to compensate.
And also the later ones have been made wider and a bit more cockpit room given.
cheers matt
What would suggest is the best option as I want the entire locost experience, with building the chasis from scratch. The link a few posts above has provided excellent dimmensions which have been built up from a variety of lotus chasis models. But on the other hand St locost seem a very viable option and look fantastic propotionally, however as i want to construct the chasis myself what do you think is the best option?
I'm building my own chassis by using the AVON-book and the 250 book.
My chassis is longer and wider in the cockpit, less widht bonnet as the avon. wheelbase 2380 mm
But if i knew all the things a know now a would build a mc-sorly.
[Edited on 31/5/07 by t.j.]