Differences to Westfield
Discussion
Hi,
I promise this isn't trolling
genuinely curious to find out what the differences are between a Caterham and a Westfield.
Looking at early 90s eaxamples, both have a very similar tubular steel spaceframe and both tend to have ford cross flows. The Westfields of this age and spec are around £4k, the Caterhams are in the region of £8k.
Why do they command so much higher prices?
Chris
I promise this isn't trolling
genuinely curious to find out what the differences are between a Caterham and a Westfield.Looking at early 90s eaxamples, both have a very similar tubular steel spaceframe and both tend to have ford cross flows. The Westfields of this age and spec are around £4k, the Caterhams are in the region of £8k.
Why do they command so much higher prices?
Chris
Pre-lit Westfields are meant to be unsurprisingly similar (hence the litigation and being forced to change!).
I believe post-lit Westies have independent rear suspension (usually the main reason that Westie owners fire up for having one
), different spaceframe and bodywork that looked like a Caterham's that had been popped in the oven for a few hours on a low heat.
Think they also cater for the bigger of build more readily (somewhere between a std S3 chassis and the portly SV. Nearer the former though).
Like ewenm I've never driven one, but have heard of many people who have gone from a Westfield to a Caterham but not one that's gone the other way.
End of the day, I can buy a pair of jeans for 10 quid from Tesco. But for some reason I always spend 30 quid on a pair of Levis. Whether there's a technical difference (and I can tell you there is!) I don't give a monkey's. I want the originals, so I save to buy the originals.
I believe post-lit Westies have independent rear suspension (usually the main reason that Westie owners fire up for having one
), different spaceframe and bodywork that looked like a Caterham's that had been popped in the oven for a few hours on a low heat.Think they also cater for the bigger of build more readily (somewhere between a std S3 chassis and the portly SV. Nearer the former though).
Like ewenm I've never driven one, but have heard of many people who have gone from a Westfield to a Caterham but not one that's gone the other way.
End of the day, I can buy a pair of jeans for 10 quid from Tesco. But for some reason I always spend 30 quid on a pair of Levis. Whether there's a technical difference (and I can tell you there is!) I don't give a monkey's. I want the originals, so I save to buy the originals.
Murph7355 said:
Pre-lit Westfields are meant to be unsurprisingly similar (hence the litigation and being forced to change!).
In terms of superficial appearance, pre-lit Westfields (the ones without the 'swage lines' arond the outer edge of the wings) do indeed look very similar to Caterhams. However, there are many technical differences: 1) The main body tub on the pre-lit Westfield is all-glassfibre, whereas the Caterham main tub is alloy panelled.
2) The front suspension of the Westfield is based on Ford Cortina uprights, which were readily available at the time but are much heavier than the Triumph uprights used on Caterhams and don't offer such good suspension geometry.
3) The front supension of Caterhams incorporates an anti-roll bar (either doubling-up as one link of the top wishbone (on earlier cars) or as a separate item in parallel with the top wishbone (later cars). Westfields don't tend to use anti-roll bars as standard, though they can be specified as an addition.
4) The rear axle location is different; live axle Caterhams use an A-frame for transverse location, whereas the Westfield uses a 5-link set-up with Panhard rod. The Caterham set-up is lighter and gives better geometry, but puts heavy strain on axle casings and A-frame bushes. Later Caterhams use DeDion rear suspension rather than live axle; later Westfields (SEi's) use fully independent double wishbone rear suspension.
5) There are many detail differences to the spaceframe chassis
6) 'Traditional' Caterhams use a handbrake mounted horizontally under the passenger dash, leaving the transmission tunnel (which is a sheet of alloy with a curved top) free from obstruction other than by the gear lever. Westfields frame the transmission tunnel using sqaure section tubes, so the top of the tunnel is flat, with the handbrake in the normal tunnel-mounted location. Recent Caterhams have moved the handbrake to the tunnel as well, though.
The above list is by no means exhaustive; I'm sure others will be along to add further items!
The main differences for practical purposes are that the body, chassis and panelling of Caterhams tends to be higher quality (though the Westfield isn't bad in this respect) and, more significantly, the superior geometry and long years of development mean that Caterhams tend to have the edge in ride and handling over equivalent spec/generation Westfields.
The Westfield is a good car, so to be honest it's difficult to make a strong case for the much higher cost of the Caterham unless you are willing to accept arguments of perceived quality/image/heritage (with consequent stronger residual values) in addition to its minor technical superiority over the Westfield... for road use the Westfield offers very nearly as much performance and fun for quite a lot less money.
If you've got the money to buy a Caterham in the first place, though, the strong residuals mean that extra quality, pride of ownership and better technical development of the design make it an equally justifiable purchase.
You pays your money and you takes your choice... contrary to the usual received wisdom, I've never encountered any animosity between Westfield and Caterham owners from either side (having owned both cars, so seen it from both sides of the fence).
I've got both a Westy (an XTR2) and a Caterham (Duratec R400). The Westy is a great car, but not quite as well engineered in some areas. The Caterham is slightly higher quality all round - and this translates into slightly better handling/braking/gearbox/electrics/bodywork/reliability. I would take the Caterham on long or short trips, I would only take the Westy on short trips and expect to work on it more.
I like the Tesco Jeans vs Levis analogy - its very relevant here. Given enough available cash, I would prefer the Caterham, if budget is tighter then the Westy is fine. They will both deliver great thrills on the road!
I like the Tesco Jeans vs Levis analogy - its very relevant here. Given enough available cash, I would prefer the Caterham, if budget is tighter then the Westy is fine. They will both deliver great thrills on the road!
Thanks guys. That was a very balanced response - I'd been led to believe it was quite an emotive subject
I must admit, I went to look at a Westfield a few nights back and (as a former Locost constructor) something seemed odd about it's appearance, but I couldn't work out what until I realised there were no alloy side panels! Do you know if there is much weight difference? Like you said, I get the impression the whole Westfield design is somewhat more 'built to a cost'. Whether or not this justifies the base model Caterhams being nearly twice as much, I suppose comes down to personal taste like you say.
Also, as the first time I'd sat in a genuine Caterfield, I was quite surprised how much room there was. Obviously it wasn't huge, but it was the narrow bodied version and the owner was getting on for 6' and a little stocky. At 5'10 and average build I had plenty of room. That said the only Westfield owners I know are friends of my parents in mid life crisis' with some middle aged spread and a SEiW to go with it. I defintely prefer the narrower pre-lit/Caterham looks.
Can you ellaborate on the handling differences due to the different geometry? As I understand it, the effective rear swing arm length is shorter on the Westfields. Never heard an explanation of the problems with the Cortina uprights, but I presume this fixes the outboard mounting points somewhere you don't want them What does this translate to when you're sat in the car?
I suppose to an extent this is all academic. I'm on the (lower) edge of the Westfield price range and whilst I should be able to contemplate the bulk of the price range for earlier cars soon, it would be a long time before I could seriously consider a Caterham.
I must admit, I went to look at a Westfield a few nights back and (as a former Locost constructor) something seemed odd about it's appearance, but I couldn't work out what until I realised there were no alloy side panels! Do you know if there is much weight difference? Like you said, I get the impression the whole Westfield design is somewhat more 'built to a cost'. Whether or not this justifies the base model Caterhams being nearly twice as much, I suppose comes down to personal taste like you say.
Also, as the first time I'd sat in a genuine Caterfield, I was quite surprised how much room there was. Obviously it wasn't huge, but it was the narrow bodied version and the owner was getting on for 6' and a little stocky. At 5'10 and average build I had plenty of room. That said the only Westfield owners I know are friends of my parents in mid life crisis' with some middle aged spread and a SEiW to go with it. I defintely prefer the narrower pre-lit/Caterham looks.
Can you ellaborate on the handling differences due to the different geometry? As I understand it, the effective rear swing arm length is shorter on the Westfields. Never heard an explanation of the problems with the Cortina uprights, but I presume this fixes the outboard mounting points somewhere you don't want them
What does this translate to when you're sat in the car?I suppose to an extent this is all academic. I'm on the (lower) edge of the Westfield price range and whilst I should be able to contemplate the bulk of the price range for earlier cars soon, it would be a long time before I could seriously consider a Caterham.
Chris71 said:
Can you elaborate on the handling differences due to the different geometry? As I understand it, the effective rear swing arm length is shorter on the Westfields. Never heard an explanation of the problems with the Cortina uprights, but I presume this fixes the outboard mounting points somewhere you don't want them What does this translate to when you're sat in the car?
What does this translate to when you're sat in the car?
Complicated question!Brief answer.
Yes the rear trailing arm length is shorter, which means more rear end bump/roll steer, but also Panhard rods don't give such 'pure' geometry as an A-frame... when the axle bumps or rolls, the Panhard rod forces it through a sideways arc. Roll centres are different, too, leading to different weight transfer characteristics (roll centre with the A-frame is where it attaches to the bottom of the diff; roll centre with the Panahrd rod is where the rod crosses the centreline of the car, which moves as the axle moves up and down). The asymmetry of Panhard rods also leads to variations in grip, as you apply power out of corners, due to the torque effect of the axle.
Cortina uprights are very heavy, and Sevens tend to be sensitive to unsprung weight due to low overall wieght, but its more a case of the geometry of the Triumph upright being so good rather then the Cortina being so bad. The Cortina upright was designed for a much heavier car than a Triumph Herald/Spitfire, of course. The Triumph upright is a little odd in modern terms because the steering axis is separated from the bottom suspension pick up by the old fashioned trunnion arrangement, rather than using a bottom ball joint like the Cortina and most other modern cars. I don't know that anyone has ever fully analysed the reasons behind it, but the Lotus cars taht use the Triumph upright (Seven, Elan, Europa) all have spectacularly good steering feel and I suspect that it's the particular geometry of the upright that is mainly responsible for this.
What does it translate to when you are sat in the car? Probably not as much as you'd think... the Westfield doesn't have such sensitive steering, the back end of the live-axle car perhaps doesn't give quite so much grip, and the handling isn't quite so well balanced and predictable, but we're talking fairly subtle differences, so unless you were familiar with Caterhams you'd probably not notice anything with a Westfield worth criticising.
Having built a brand new Westfield from scratch myself, (fitted with a two litre Pinto), several years ago, it was great, but I always felt I was driving a poor man's Caterham....
Also, obviously Caterham's have far better residuals, but the downside is they cost more to start with....
Also, obviously Caterham's have far better residuals, but the downside is they cost more to start with....
juansolo said:
Racecardoctor's response in the following thread pretty much sums it all up as far as I'm concerned:
clickme
Yep - seems logical. In summary, a Caterham is pretty much a production sports car with some degree of quality control, whereas the Westfield is a slightly more old school kit car and hence more of a mixed bag.clickme
Chris71 said:
juansolo said:
Racecardoctor's response in the following thread pretty much sums it all up as far as I'm concerned:
clickme
Yep - seems logical. In summary, a Caterham is pretty much a production sports car with some degree of quality control, whereas the Westfield is a slightly more old school kit car and hence more of a mixed bag.clickme
For whatever reason facory Westfields always seem to be set up rather soft and as a result, rarely do well in magazine reveiws etc... If you know what you're doing you can make a Westfield handle just as well or better than a Caterham, but you either have to do it yourself or know what you're doing and buy a car that's already been modified. My last Westfield cost me £8k and was a great car but had been extensively modified for track use, I'd prefer it to a £8k Caterham but I'd take the £8k Caterham over something like a standard Westfield 1800 Speedsport. So it comes down to what you want out of the car. By the way, somebody mentioned the Cortina uprights Westfield use. I'm not sure what is standard on new cars but my car had factory aluminium uprights as an upgrade and they are far lighter than the Cortina ones.
Ultimately, if you know what you are doing you can turn either into something very very quick.
There was a discussion about track records at various hill climbs and tracks on 7Torque a while ago... pretty much 50/50 between the two it turned out. Although a lot of that is down to the driver.
Brodie Branch's (ex) 'Busa Caterham is not particularly standard it has to be said, as he holds a lot of records. But then I think he would as quick in a well developed Westie.
Out of the box, no fiddling, a Caterham is probably the quicker machine. More development in factory perhaps.
There was a discussion about track records at various hill climbs and tracks on 7Torque a while ago... pretty much 50/50 between the two it turned out. Although a lot of that is down to the driver.
Brodie Branch's (ex) 'Busa Caterham is not particularly standard it has to be said, as he holds a lot of records. But then I think he would as quick in a well developed Westie.
Out of the box, no fiddling, a Caterham is probably the quicker machine. More development in factory perhaps.
Well, I'm looking for fun factor. Would probably do some trackdays and maybe the occasional club sprint or autotest, but it's primarily intended for taking the interesting way to work!
I can definitely see the appeal of a Caterham, but it strikes me that entry level cross flow powered Caterham money buys you a Vauxhall 16v or bike engined Westfield, although I appreciate there is more to it. This is perhaps a bit irrelevant as I don't even have entry level Caterham money at the moment, so I'd be looking at cross flow powered Westfields and such like.
I can definitely see the appeal of a Caterham, but it strikes me that entry level cross flow powered Caterham money buys you a Vauxhall 16v or bike engined Westfield, although I appreciate there is more to it. This is perhaps a bit irrelevant as I don't even have entry level Caterham money at the moment, so I'd be looking at cross flow powered Westfields and such like.
rubystone said:
Murph7355 said:
rubystone said:
Murph7355 said:
I want the originals, so I save to buy the originals.
...sorry, couldn't resist it....
Back to the original question, the reason Caterhams command higher prices second hand is purely down to supply and demand.
Both cars will be great fun if properly assembled and set up.
I would advise getting a relatively low cost Caterham and seeing if you use it (how many Caterhams are there with 1,000 a year on the clock?). If you don't use it, sell it and lose less on the Caterham. If you do use it and love it, you will soon want to change it (a biy like a mountain bike) but then you will know what you want.
Both cars will be great fun if properly assembled and set up.
I would advise getting a relatively low cost Caterham and seeing if you use it (how many Caterhams are there with 1,000 a year on the clock?). If you don't use it, sell it and lose less on the Caterham. If you do use it and love it, you will soon want to change it (a biy like a mountain bike) but then you will know what you want.
Not sure if anyone else can back me up on this one, but I always thought that Westfields were a spaceframe with a non structural fibreglass body, whereas Caterhams were hybrid chassis/monocoque with the aluminium panels being stressed to provide structural support? I thought that was the main reason that Caterhams are always considerably lighter than Westfields.
From a driving perspective, I've seen several track tests (the most notable being the Mark Hales Circuit Driver test from a few years ago), where the Caterham comes out on top for handling, feedback and lap times despite being down on power.
From a driving perspective, I've seen several track tests (the most notable being the Mark Hales Circuit Driver test from a few years ago), where the Caterham comes out on top for handling, feedback and lap times despite being down on power.
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff