Yeah, not everyone can be let loose in a Westfield or similar. You see them stuffed up the scenery in the most unlikely places. Why would one be graunched into the central reservation on the way out of an easy roundabout on an A road in the dry? Diesel fuel? High tune and sticky throttle cable? Anyway they take people by surprise, on the road too.
It's obvious you need a tiptoe approach for a very long time after you get one of those. They can bite.
Must say I#d like a go in one with a decent (but not absurdly ferocious) engine.
|
The few times that I've driven one [some TVRs are just as bad] it's been terrifying. It only takes one tiny bump for them to go from "on rails" to "scene of the accident" - in milliseconds.
Although they're very catchable; the slightest lapse in white-knuckle concentration and you're history.
|
I owned a 1700cc ford with two twin webbers powered Caterham for a while. No other car has before or since has put such a grin on my face and I've owned a good few quick cars.
However, trying to negotiate a wet roundabout would result in the back end stepping out. It wasn't really a case of doing it deliberately. If you're stationary at a roundabout you have to accelerate onto it. The steering wheel isn't pointing straight so the back end would step out. It was supremely easy to catch, I never had a problem with the general direction of the car and it was small enough to keep on my side of the road even when very sideways. What did concern me was the reaction of people driving towards you who had never seen a car traveling towards them in a mostly sideways stance. In fairness, I don't think I've ever had one come towards me, so its not entirely surprising.
I never really found bumps to unsettle the car, but I think that the Caterham chassis is better then many of the lookalikes, it was just 130bhp and negligible weight over the rear wheels meant that if you couldn't opposite lock without thinking about it then you'd crash teh car every time you drove it in the wet.
As far as an extra test before you can drive them? where do you draw the line? The people paying huge insurance premiums are the young, in 1.2 Corsas &c, the same people who have most recently passed their test. Most "Seven" type cars are driven by the middle aged, who have plenty of experience, they're rarely crashed, probably less so than MX5's and the ilk.
So on that basis, I reckon that anyone wanting to drive an insurance group 1 or 2 car should pass an additional test, mostly relating to being able to control their hormones.
Anyone that wants to drive an MX5 or similar needs to pass a test showing that they're suffering from mid life crisis but are too poor to do it in style.
Anyone wanting to drive a BMW needs to pass a test showing that they understand the use of indicators.
Anyone wanting to drive a Boxster has to prove that they really can't afford a proper Porsche.
Anyone wanting to benefit from the economy of a common rail diesel, particularly a Ford one, should pass a test showing that they understand the economics of them going wrong.
Anyone else got any suggestions for yet more government interference in our lives or should we just accept that we all have some personal responsibility to drive within our talents.
|
|
|
|
I wonder if you have the answer hidden in your OP, these vehicles are obviously bought for fun, and i don't blame anyone who can afford them.
How many of the type of person who can afford a purely fun car like these (probably fairly mature anyway) will also be able to afford the very safe and easily controlled high performance luxury car for their everyday transport and have simply forgotten just how volatile these superlight and powerful cars can be on the road, and as Screwloose ( i think) mentioned they are probably on very wide summer tyres anyway which will be next to useless on a cold even mildly damp road.
I've been racking my feeble brains thinking of which recent modern high performance cars could possibly be any good to get the feel of one of these little flyers, the only one that springs up is the nissan 200sx, loads of power and superlight on the back, with rwd and no traction control.
I think virtually every car that could stand a hope of giving this sort of power to weight in the last ten years would have had asr or traction anyway.
Go back 20 years or more and you come up with the likes of sierra cosworth, and not much else RWD without traction.
Just what could the owner of one of these little flyers have been using to keep his or her hand in?
|
I'd agree - sort of.
I was intending to buy a caterham - until I frightened myself by parking one across the front of an SUV. I then took the motorcycle test, and followed that by the advanced bike test.
I've done the advanced car test and the advanced bike test is way better.
Training is available for motorcycles that goes far beyond what is generally available for car drivers. Orgs such as Rapid Training take motorcycle training beyond the IAM stage - and will probably take on a caterham driver.
However, for any prospective buyer of a powerful sports car, I would suggest doing the bike training and then go back to the car. Once you've got the bike, you won't want the car.
I view a motorcycle as safer than the caterham - especially something like a BMW 1200GS
|
|
|
|
|
