Talk:Caterham Cars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

CSR 0-100-0[edit]

Removed the phrase "However, the new Caterham CSR model surpasses the R500 in power, and although significantly heavier, may take the records for itself." Tests have shown the CSR to be nearly a full second slower than this in the 0-100-0. Weight's a killer. --128.114.6.104 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, no Caterham currently holds the record - the Autocar 0-100-0 record is currently held by an Ultima GTR (9.4 or 9.6 seconds?), with a Veyron coming faster than the Caterham too, with a 9.9. Gingiba 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Superlight picture[edit]

The pic doesn't look like a superlight to me; it's got a spare wheel carrier? Alex 09:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a 2004 superlight R. (The R500 or 200 are the British models.) The spare wheel carrier is an option. Trust me on this one; it was mine until it was destroyed in a flood. But I'm building a CSR, so stay tuned for some pictures of that.
I'm sure everyone will agree on the new R300 Superlight picture I posted yesterday... -Wikigi 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea, no problem. My pic wasn't exactly the best angle. Glad you have a better one. Riguy talk/contribs 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fenders? Cycle wings, please...[edit]

Riguy, the objects in question are "cycle wings", not fenders; this is a very American term. Please reconsider, or change to cycle wings; see Caterham's own web site [1] where cycle wings are mentioned, but no fenders. Alex 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. In my Caterham Assembly guide, it mentions fenders. I misinterpreted your comment in the history as thinking of front and rear fenders, i.e. bumpers, and not about the use of fenders over cycle wings. I'm fine with either term. Riguy talk/contribs 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyperion[edit]

Should Hyperion be listed here? They just look like a commercial company that works on Caterhams.

Fair use rationale for Image:CATERHAM LOGO.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:CATERHAM LOGO.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned by the FIA?[edit]

Does anyone know the 'official' rationale for the FIA bans? They surely cannot have just said "the cars are too fast" (even if that was the 'real' rationale). I've edited the relevant section to balance it a little more, but a reference or two would probably be worthwhile. Spider1 06:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC) It's probably a safety concern relating to the fact that the 7 is a 50yr old lightweight. Hence, if a much heavier & more modernly designed car crashed into it, the 7 driver would more than likely suffer life-threathening injuries. Just a thought. --Kikimaru 10:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Agree with Spider1 that we need a credible source to the FIA ban statement. Until then, maybe we should edit out that part from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.58.180 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the ban has been in place for a long time (about 30 years but I'm trying to find an exact date) so I doubt safety relative to other cars would have been the original reason.Colin Mill (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the four drivers who drove the factory Superlight to 11th in Nurburgring 24hrs in 2002. At that stage there were quite a few Sevens in the field and absolutely no barrier to entry. I think our success that year left a sour taste in the mouths of the big budget German teams and they basically decided they didn't want us back. The official line is that the cars were too difficult to see when in the mirror blind spots of other cars - which, frankly, is an absurd assertion. If anything, it's the Caterham drivers that were dissadvantaged with poor visability but safety really didn't come into it. I certainly found the biggest safety issue in the 24hrs to be the huge differential in the performance of the different classes of race cars taking part, and that particualar issue still exists today. Haynsey (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Peter Haynes

Here is a quote from the Caterham Racing wikipedia article (this is also without a credible source cited): "The car was banned from racing in the USA in the 1960s, as being "Too fast to race" and again in the UK in the 1970s for the same reasons, which prompted Caterham Cars boss Graham Nearn to produce 'T' shirts with "Caterham Seven, the car that's "Too Fast to Race. ..". Both bans were later lifted. In 2002 an R400 won its class (and came 11th overall out of 200 starters) at the Nürburgring 24-hour race by 10 laps, ahead of competition that included Porsche and BMW racecars, leading, once again, to a ban on entry in subsequent years."93.92.58.180 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the original racing bans were instituted because the 1500cc/1600cc Seven (Lotus) was too fast for the other cars of the same engine capacity that competed in the races it was eligible for. It wasn't so much that it was faster in top speed, as the Seven wasn't that fast, but it went round corners flat out that other cars had to brake for. It also handled almost like a contemporary Formula One car, or as near to one as was possible in a two-seater road car. Most of the other competitors cars were modified normal road cars that although faster than the production road cars, handled and cornered little better. The Seven being designed as a clubman's weekend racer, was simply in a different class - it weighed about half what the other cars weighed - and won almost everything it was entered in. So it was deemed unfair to allow what was effectively a semi-racing car to compete against what were basically slightly-modified saloon or sports cars that differed little from what one could find in any street. The Seven thus ended up as too fast for other cars of the same engine capacity, but too slow in top speed to compete with cars of the next category up - 2000cc IIRC. So it fell between classes.
IIARC, a Seven Series III with an unmodified Ford Kent 1300GT engine in 1970 would do 0-60 in around 7.2 seconds, which may not sound that good today, but compared with a Sunbeam Alpine, Frogeye Sprite, MG Midget, or similar, was pretty good for the time. Top speed for a 1300GT Seven IIARC, was around 98mph. The larger engine capacities mainly improved acceleration, which I think came down to about 5.2 seconds 0-60mph for a 1600cc BDA (RS1600) engined Series III.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CATERHAM LOGO.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:CATERHAM LOGO.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Company Logo Needs updating[edit]

Although it has still not appeared in its main website, Caterham cars has changed its logo (which is seen on the badge of the SP300R). The campany's buildings and facebook page have been updated with this new logo. The image of the logo used in this page therefore needs to be changed to the updated one. 95.151.187.96 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Caterham has actually moved out of Caterham‽[edit]

The headquarters for Caterham Cars is no longer situated in Caterham. I know this because I live in Caterham and am angry that they are changing the building into retirement homes. I would tell you where the headquarters now reside but I don't know.... If you want to look it up on the Caterham Cars website then feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.213.217 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caterham Cars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)