CSR Front Suspension ???!!!***...

[PaulD]

I've just recieved the November issue of Low Flying. Maybe I'm getting too critical, but, the front suspension on the CSR has to be one of the worst pieces of engineering design that I have seen for a long while. Does anyone else agree? In particular:

 

Lower spring / damper mount - seems to be floating in mid air with a few tubes, all in ineffective directions, supporting it. All it needed was a couple of plates between the lower mount and the rocker pivot.

 

Rocker -Very long with insufficient depth.

 

ARB - hung off the top of the damper with an ugly spacer and a huge offet. I am sure that as soon as you put a stiff bar in, it will very quickly break something.

 

What does anyone else think?

 

Paul

[V7 SLR]

Given the reputation of the company that Caterham commissioned to design it, I think I'd have to say it's probably very clever and will undoubtedly work very well.

[Bare]

Really??.. They actually PAID $$ for someone else to draw this for them?

Sure it's Clever.. but the Design is errr... Dumb.. Brings to mind Ettore Buggati's view on the Rolls Royce of his era.. "a triumph of craftsmanship over design"

Love the Nifty Dash layout too.. pray tell .. even if it was not so stomach turning.. how that would pass the Safety scrutineers in any jurisdiction with a Government?

All of the above, obviously created by the same people who thought out the Caterham 21 :-)

Seems Colin 's design will remain the high water mark.. for some time to come.

[dino ferrana]

They commisioned Multimatic AKA Dynamic suspension to design the suspension. From what I have dug up on their background they know their onions. I am personally waiting to pass judgement on it until someone independent has driven it or I have personally experienced it!

 

I am quite lost as to why Caterham are being so roundly rubbished by a few for this positive step forward?

 

I guess there are around 100 people who think differently!

[DanB]

I suppose it's because some people like to think things through themselves, and apply their own intellect and critical analysis. Rather than going 'Oooooh, look, it's done by [brand name] so it must be good'.

 

It doesn't look too bad to me TBH although I agree that the ARB mount could be more elegantly constructed. I've been doing a few preliminary designs for a pushrod/bellcrank system, and from the FEA analysis I've done so far (quick'n'dirty but useful) the rocker arm on the CSR should be OK, as long as it's made from a suitable grade of ali.

[Gambo]

Why does every body seem to want to critisze the CSR? isn't it a good thing that Caterham are trying to move the seven forward? Personally, I can't wait to have a go. I'll judge it then.

 

Repairing broken car. ❗

[Normans_Ghost]

I think you may be missing the point. Looking at this car I think it's ben designed for export markets. If it gets lots of orders from overseas markets and none from the UK, they'll carry on making the SV etc. If the UK take to it then the "old" range will die on the vine.

 

You may not like the new version, if you were prepared to buy it then Caterham would say "well if you don't like the new car, buy one of the old ones"

 

Norman Verona, 1989 BDR 220bhp, Mem No 2166, the full story here

[PaulD]

Let me explain where I see the fault, maybe I have missed something, maybe this is a pre-production chasis.

 

If you look at the section where the dampers and rockers are, it is a quadrilateral truss divided in two with a vertical strut, to the bottom of which, are mounted the dampers. The horizontal component of the damper loads will either, cancel out in two wheel bump, or is fed back to the lower wishbone mounts by the cross of tubes below the dampers - all nicely thought out. What about the vertical component? As far as I can see, there is no triangulation to help resist this, it would be taken out by bending the horizontal tubes top and bottom - not good spaceframe design.

 

I can only think that there must be bolt in diagonals that were not fitted for the launch.

 

Paul

[I.Mupferit]

I don't wish to appear biased but I do think the Freestyle pushrod front is a far more elegant design. Whether or not it is more or less effective remains to be seen, however, I do applaud CC for moving the car forward a few steps.

 

How many times have we heard CC's development programme unfavourably compared to Westfield for example. As soon as they develop something to move the concept forward then out come the detractors.

 

If they genuinely do have 100 or more orders for the CSR then they must be doing something right and let's not forget, CC are a business and not just in the game of supplying the same old product for the 'dyed in the wool' traditionalist. If they only did that, they wouldn't survive very long to keep making our favourite toy ❗

 

Even Morgan have a development programme...............of sorts 😬

 

Any business has to keep on moving forward and seek new markets or simply die on their feet. If the traditionalists among us still want the old car then I feel certain CC will continue to provide it albeit, maybe, to special order eventually. As a company they are small enough to retain flexibility in the products they supply so I am sure we won't see the traditional design thrown in the bin any time soon.

 

Brent

 

2.3 DURATEC SV. Gad these things are expensive ❗

[caterhamnut]

Morgan have a development programme..

...small forestry commission site in Scotland perhaps? 😳 😬

 

HUGE UPDATE ALMOST WITH VIDEO

here

70,000miles in 3 years

 

Edited by - angus&tessa on 1 Dec 2004 15:23:07

[Dannyboy]

Saucer of milk for Angus 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬

 

mmeeeeeeeooowwwwww!!!

 

Dannyboy

[caterhamnut]

😬 - nothing against them - just seemed like an obvious joke (maybe too obvious!)

 

On a more serious note - why is it that the Caterham set up actually still sticks out into the airstream, rather than being totally in-board like the Freestyle set-up for example.

 

Reputation of the development company not withstanding, there are certainly rumours of some rather serious re-thinks and re-jigging of geometry, which I would have thought would have been sorted out before actual testing on all the very expensive complicated computer simulations which were apparently used.

 

I think it will be a while before we can compare fairly - speaking to peole at Caterham it is clear that the launch car is still very much in development. Nothing wrong with that - most manufacturers do the same - but I guess that is why no one 'outside' has driven a road version of the race car yet.

 

HUGE UPDATE ALMOST WITH VIDEO

here

70,000miles in 3 years

 

Edited by - angus&tessa on 1 Dec 2004 15:42:03

[Normans_Ghost]

I think Brent said the same as I. Did you?

 

I'll critisize caterham where I think it's justified. I think they've done a very good job with the new car.

 

Some of us, me included, like the trad approach. That doesn't give us the right to criticize every step forward made by CC.

 

What would the 7 be like today if Lotus still made it and Chapman was still alive? I guess something like the CSR.

 

Norman Verona, 1989 BDR 220bhp, Mem No 2166, the full story here

[Jason Plato]

So its *still* slower around the track than a conventional suspension R400 racecar then ?

 

 

 

C7 TOP

Powered by Hellier Performance 😬

Now updated

[caterhamnut]

Oh yes, and Norman is spot on - a lot of the 'new' stuff on the CSR is to enable the car to be sold in more overseas markets - a strong move by Caterham IMO - and most bits are optional.

New dash, massive exhaust cover, emissions etc etc all enable it to be sold more easily elsewhere - which when you look at the current export figures, has got to make good sense from a point of view of expanding markets.

For example - the new dash increases the distance between head and hard bits quite a lot, and allows, amongst other things, a collapsable steering wheel boss to be used.

 

HUGE UPDATE ALMOST WITH VIDEO

here

70,000miles in 3 years

[caterhamnut]

Dave - is it not still in its development program though?

 

 

HUGE UPDATE ALMOST WITH VIDEO

here

70,000miles in 3 years

[I.Mupferit]

No Norman, I said it first, you just have faster fingers........so it is alleged.

 

Anyhow, it just shows how us olduns think alike. 😬

 

Brent

 

2.3 DURATEC SV. Gad these things are expensive ❗

[Blackbirdman]

Also looking at the pictures I can't see how you get the diff in (or out). Has anyone seen it in enough detail to answer this? I looks to me as if it's in a welded cage

 

matt

 

 

 

Life begins at 10,000

 

Edited by - Blackbirdman on 1 Dec 2004 18:11:09

[James Tricker]

From what I recall from looking at the chasis at Brands there is room to go straight down.

 

James (1.8 SV)

[Paulo]

Having seen them racing, they seemed pretty quick to me. wether that means that the suspension works is maybe another story ❗

[bongomania]

They seemed faster on the straights but slower in the corners to me.

 

Seven-Ecstasy.co.uk

Without a seven and unhappy ☹️

 

[Rob Morris]

Not got time to read all the entries, but must agree with start of thread......when I first looked at the pictures I couldn't help but chuckle at the inherant deflection potential.............tell me I'm wrong if you wish as I'm only an automotive engineer......!I'm sure it will work but it could have so much better..........!

 

😳

[PaulD]

Having looked again, I must appologise to CC, the triangulation is there.

 

Paul

[Jason Plato]

"Dave - is it not still in its development program though?"

 

Yes agreed Angus - my comment was following reports that times were down but if you studiy in greater detal the spec of the cars , Apparently the UK spec CSR at brands ( as from the french ones that were using R400 K series race engines @200bhp) only had 200bhp Duratec like Jakals . So i'm not surprised they were of the same pace or slower than a R400 .

 

The CSR did appear to carry more speed into the corner - or maybe it was the driver ? . Exit speed and the drag down to Paddock hill was much the same with no advantage of drafting .

 

I guess we can only wait and see how the times stack up when the series is launched - but my guess is the 9" rear "CR500" tyres will have a dramatic negative effect on lap times compared to the R400 slicks so a direct comparison wont actually be possible .

 

This will lead to comments that the CSR is slower than the inboard R400 ☹️ - not good press 🤔

 

C7 TOP

Powered by Hellier Performance 😬

Now updated

[Stuart Faulds]

Dave, I think you're a bit confused about the 2005 tyre regs. The CSR will run on slicks, while the UK R400's will move onto a development of the CR500.