R500 with the sequential box
Discussion
The diff has been braced on the race cars as these are using the "race chassis" which is basically the pre 1996 tranny tunnel and diff design (weak)
the diff has not been braced on the dedion 96> chassis design
Arnie
Call Stuart Faulds @ fauldsport. I'm sure he will know from the cars he runs in the superlight series
the diff has not been braced on the dedion 96> chassis design
Arnie
Call Stuart Faulds @ fauldsport. I'm sure he will know from the cars he runs in the superlight series
Dave J said:
The diff has been braced on the race cars as these are using the "race chassis" which is basically the pre 1996 tranny tunnel and diff design (weak)
the diff has not been braced on the dedion 96> chassis design
That is an understatement.the diff has not been braced on the dedion 96> chassis design
So does this mean a sequential equipped R500 has a pre 1996 chassis - i.e no handbrake ob the tunnel? I somehow doubt that would fly from a marketing perspective.
If Caterham are using the std clutch and prop, and even if the 96 on chassis has the Arch brace across the diff mount, the car is going to be rather less than reliable long term. And that's based upon my standards of reliability :-)
If this is true, I suspect the new R500 sequential option will be removed from the list pretty quick! Repairs to the centre of the chassis are both expensive and complex, and cannot be done at Dartford. And thats setting aside the many clutch and prop failures (and any PI liability claims from wayward props)which could result.
Sequential boxes are simply not compatible with the standard Caterham chassis, if they are used as intended (clutchless downshifts).
Fat Arnie said:
Dave J said:
The diff has been braced on the race cars as these are using the "race chassis" which is basically the pre 1996 tranny tunnel and diff design (weak)
the diff has not been braced on the dedion 96> chassis design
That is an understatement.the diff has not been braced on the dedion 96> chassis design
So does this mean a sequential equipped R500 has a pre 1996 chassis - i.e no handbrake ob the tunnel? I somehow doubt that would fly from a marketing perspective.
If Caterham are using the std clutch and prop, and even if the 96 on chassis has the Arch brace across the diff mount, the car is going to be rather less than reliable long term. And that's based upon my standards of reliability :-)
If this is true, I suspect the new R500 sequential option will be removed from the list pretty quick! Repairs to the centre of the chassis are both expensive and complex, and cannot be done at Dartford. And thats setting aside the many clutch and prop failures (and any PI liability claims from wayward props)which could result.
Sequential boxes are simply not compatible with the standard Caterham chassis, if they are used as intended (clutchless downshifts).
Only on an internet forum could someone make a statement that shows that they haven't even seen a car, let alone sat or driven one, before going on to insinuate that the design of the car is bad.
You seem to be quite negative about the car - is there something i should know? (i have one on order)
Cheers,
Mick
The superlights (C400) with the seq box are all arch chassis, the R500 is a metric chassis like the new R300, although the R500 has the shortened footwell and the race chassis does not ?!?, so they have nothing to do with arch at all. The new metric chassis in roadsports have performed very well on track, can't see why the superlights will be different.
I have not heard of any chassis failures so far this year in C400's which use the Arch chassis and sequential, so would presume any issues have been ironed out.
I have not heard of any chassis failures so far this year in C400's which use the Arch chassis and sequential, so would presume any issues have been ironed out.
Edited by James.S on Thursday 4th September 09:37
atom-ick said:
Brilliant!
Only on an internet forum could someone make a statement that shows that they haven't even seen a car, let alone sat or driven one, before going on to insinuate that the design of the car is bad.
You seem to be quite negative about the car - is there something i should know? (i have one on order)
Cheers,
Mick
Mick, You will notice the use of the word "IF" in my post. I have plenty of experience of sequetial gearboxes, caterham propshafts and caterham clutches in both my pre 96 chassis car (referred to by Dave J) and the cars of other people who have also experienced serious failures.Only on an internet forum could someone make a statement that shows that they haven't even seen a car, let alone sat or driven one, before going on to insinuate that the design of the car is bad.
You seem to be quite negative about the car - is there something i should know? (i have one on order)
Cheers,
Mick
Certainly, the modifcations made to the pre96 chassis by Arch to strengthen the diff mountings does not work and is wholesomely inadequate for a sequential box. The diff rips itself clean from the chassis. A sequential box creates significantly greater torque reactions through the driveline than any conventional gearbox. FACT.
I've driven a Seven with sequential box 17,000 miles BTW. Have you ordered the seqential box? I'm interested to find what Caterham have done on the new car to address the issues, that is all. And what makes you believe I haven't even seen a car, let alone sat or driven one?
Implying nothing, just asking a question. You state you have driven a 7 with a sequential gearbox for 17000 miles and this coincidentally is the stated mileage of your car in the recent ad. So it is not unreasonable to assume this is where you suggest you gained your 17000 miles of experience driving a seven with a sequential as the car in the ad was so fitted. Yet I am sure I recall seeing your car with an H pattern gearbox during the first several years of its life. Maybe even until the early 2000s?
2002 I have just been told.
So possible conclusions to be drawn are that the car had done considerably more than 17000 miles as a lot must have been with the H pattern or your 17000 miles of experience were not all in this car or you just had a lapse of memory. You can see where the confusion comes from I am sure.
I was just asking for the confusion to be cleared up. Nothing more
2002 I have just been told.
So possible conclusions to be drawn are that the car had done considerably more than 17000 miles as a lot must have been with the H pattern or your 17000 miles of experience were not all in this car or you just had a lapse of memory. You can see where the confusion comes from I am sure.
I was just asking for the confusion to be cleared up. Nothing more
Edited by P.Nott on Thursday 4th September 15:13
dino ferrana said:
The R500 with sequential is not for clutchless downshifts, this has been stated in all the articles I have seen so must be something Caterham tell everyone.
Caterham also recommned lifting off slightly before clutchless upshifts, presmuably to reduce shock loads.
The need to lift off is due to them not having fitted an ignition cut (which effectively lifts the throttle and reduces the backlash on the dogs enough for the gears to mesh). My Clio cup car has flat shift on the seq. box, but you still have to be very firm with it. It is not like a BEC with a cassette g/box designed for low torque. Caterham also recommned lifting off slightly before clutchless upshifts, presmuably to reduce shock loads.
The lack of an ign. cut almost negates the purpose of this box, as you can shift very quickly with an h pattern gate (assuming your synchros are in fine fettle) and the dogs aren't worn.
Clutchless downshifts are VERY agressive on the box and not necessary unless you are going 10/10ths on the track. Even when racing, I probably only execute 1 or 2 each lap, and that's to get the car slowed down quicker than H&T allows me to.
Hi, I race in the C400's. Not sure about the R500 chassis, but I believe the Race chassis has extra diff bracing as mentioned. In terms of the propshaft and diff, I know that the R500 is the same as the race car, which currently is standard however Caterham have issued a Tech Update early in the season to us that also applied to the R500...
Caterham Tech Update said:
We are currently investigating the cause of a propshaft failure in a Superlight during qualifying at Castle Combe. We have also previously advised of the propshaft failure in the development CSR during winter testing caused by a dry bearing. Whilst there are similarities between the two failures, they are far from identical and we are waiting a report from the manufacturer. In the meantime, we would strongly advise that you ensure that propshafts are sufficiently greased and consider replacing them periodically, especially those in older cars.
In the meantime, we will be assessing a revised propshaft with heavy duty joints and also introducing an engineering solution to contain to the propshaft within the tunnel. This will be applied to C400, CSR and the R500 road car which also uses the sequential transmission.
This will be automatically distributed to all upgraded cars when available.
There have been one or two cases since then, but all on older cars. We haven't heard anything on this since. Basically, on a new car, its not fairly unlikely to go on a new car. I'd worry more about the wiring loom personally! Keep a regular eye on your coil-pack leads if its the new 'single connector' loom. An improved loom has been issued to us, but its still not perfect.In the meantime, we will be assessing a revised propshaft with heavy duty joints and also introducing an engineering solution to contain to the propshaft within the tunnel. This will be applied to C400, CSR and the R500 road car which also uses the sequential transmission.
This will be automatically distributed to all upgraded cars when available.
dino ferrana said:
The R500 with sequential is not for clutchless downshifts, this has been stated in all the articles I have seen so must be something Caterham tell everyone.
Caterham also recommned lifting off slightly before clutchless upshifts, presmuably to reduce shock loads.
I've had a clutch pipe burst during a race and had to do clutchless downshifts... it works but the rear wheels lock under compression. A small lift is necessary for the box to unload and engage as there isn't a 'flat shift' switchCaterham also recommned lifting off slightly before clutchless upshifts, presmuably to reduce shock loads.
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff