CtrMint

Guys, I'm at my wits end with the build...... I thought I'd finish off the head lights this evening. All I needed was to pass the wire through the head lamp arm and fit the two grommets, then mount to the chassis. I'm not sure if its just me, but that is impossible. The grommets don't fit. I've tried everything, including cutting the grommett, even drilled the hole out a bit. I'm just lost as to how you are supposed to do this. Arm looks a mess now as does the protect wrap. What am i doing wrong? Can i just buy these made up? Yours an very frustrated and disappointed owner :-(

Just catching up on posts. "Is Derek sending you a modified" I received two standard unmodified bobbins, I'll have a go and modifying them just to see how difficult it is, but since I've found an alternative I'm to go with that.

John, Nope no progress on the nose cone yet. I admit to some degree I'm putting it off until I'm comfortable the rad is central and mounted properly. Derek @ CC stated the nose "should" fit, and I don't have sufficient experience of their fitment to call him out yet. Unfortunately the nose of the car is quite close to the garage door and so I really need the door open to have a proper look from the front perspective when test fitting, that makes it a dry weekend job. I've yet to get that. As for alternatives, well I've no interest in the carbon, its not my cuppa tea. Also I feel painting Lotus Toxic green and adding stripes separately will come out looking like a dogs dinner. So really need it to fit. Example of the finish from my exige

Thanks for the help Elie. Sadly not, I'm looking for a female-male bobbin, however I may have cracked it. https://www.polymax.co.uk/anti-vibration-rubber-mount/cylindrical-vibration-bobbin-mount/ Article No. B2015M820-1.5

Scott you might be right, but there is little more I can practically do. i totally hear you on the special editions point too,

John, Derek did confirm I have the right nose cone, although I think we've all concluded what CC sign off as acceptable and what we feel is acceptable might be totally different so only time will tell. I'm still on the search for the right bobbin, plus Derek is sending one out.

James I understand your point regarding the nose cone, and foam. I'm planning on crossing that bridge when I get to it properly. I need to get the radiator and hoses installed, and in doing so properly centralized. If there is rubbing at the point I'll need to open another dialogue CC.

Think we are getting close to putting this to bed now. A chap called Simon Lambert contacted me today via email to discuss my feedback regarding the new design, while the chap was very open and approachable, the communication ultimately did not provide a resolution. I have to say, Caterham at least admitted the designed was flawed. I'll add the communication at the bottom of this post, as I'm sure there are some contributors interested in the background. Where am I going to going with this then? Simon Lambert has clearly stated the new design is an improvement over the old, so I'll stick with the design and cut the bobbin down, although I've requested a spare. I will also look at sourcing a bespoke item from one of the suppliers I posted earlier. If that is too expensive then I'll make do. I don't really have tools for this, so my plan is to mount the bobbin in a drill, rotate at a slow speed and use a fine file or possibly dremel to remove the excess. I want to keep the shape as best as possible. In terms of the hose and catch can, I'm looking at purchasing the following hose from Demon Tweeks. https://www.demon-tweeks.com/eu/samco-xtraflex-air-water-straight-silicone-hose-standard-colours-247873/ I hope to cut the existing hose down and use the flexibility of this hose to join across to the radiator, avoiding the catch can. I appreciate the hose is relatively expensive, but I think it will give the greatest flexibility when routing it round the catch can. I shouldn't need to worry about precise angles etc. Am I happy? Not really, I guess I just need to accept the feedback many of you have provided. Thanks again for all the support! ----------------------------------------- Comms. Email 1 "Dear Mark, As requested, Derek has escalated this matter to me for resolution. Firstly, I have to say that I agree with you in that the current solution is unsatisfactory. Earlier this year we adopted the Seven 420R race car radiator and oil cooler for the 420R road car, replacing the original standard radiator plus traditional front-mounted oil cooler. This was done for product-improvement; the race part offering superior performance. This part was originally designed to be rigidly mounted to the front of the chassis, which was the norm in racing for many years, but more recently, we have used a shallow-width bobbin to minimise the risk of vibration induced damage whist still having sufficient space for the front mounted fan. The addition of the bobbins came at the request of some of the race teams, for whom the compromise on the interference was accepted as it was a later addition not originally envisaged in the component design. Therefore, it was overlooked when we switched from the old design to the new for road, but has obviously been flagged-up since. Another factor at play is variation in the radiators, which means some require minimal modification, others a little more [we have recently invested in our quality dept, bolstering headcount, so that we can improve component quality issues like this]. Whilst I have explained the background, I have not so far offered a better solution and as we are now, I am unable to. The modified (and I use the term loosely) bobbin, whilst unsightly, is reliable, proven, and the method used in production. It is, however, hidden away once the car is complete, so has been deemed acceptable until a better solution can be engineered. Therefore, whilst it is with the engineering team to improve, it is having to wait its turn in a queue of engineering pressures which have been dominated by the likes of WLTP this year. I am sorry that I am unable to satisfy your reasonable request for something less jarring, but perhaps we could send you a factory-modified bobbin which may be an improvement? The alternative would be to revert to the old cooling system, but this would be an appreciable backwards step for the car (and the components may not be immediately available) I hope this information has been of interest to you and please contact Derek to arrange for a modified bobbin if you would like one. In the meantime, please enjoy the rest of the build. Regards Simon" Reply 1 " Hello Simon, Thank you for the timely response. The background information was interesting although as per your own admission not particularly beneficial with respect to a solution. I understand Caterham is a small company offering a kit car, however you have reached a price point where I feel certain expectations are not unreasonable, which includes ensuring appropriate revisions are carefully managed and executed. This statement is particularly true with respect to the affects of the radiator change. Procuring a correctly sized bobbin in low volumes from a parts supplier would offer a quick and simple interim and potentially permanent solution to the problem. I do not believe such an approach would place unacceptable demands on your engineering or procurement personnel and from my own research would be pretty cheap to implement. Doing so would also avoid any negative view of product quality which may occur as result of having to modify such a bobbin as a work around. I don’t subscribe to the mantra of because I can’t see it, it doesn’t matter. Caterham’s acceptance of such a solution also generates significant concerns over quality and the potential for other shortcuts which maybe less visible. There are other aspects to the change which I feel should be reviewed such as the shape of the top hose and the obstruction of the catch tank. I suspect these will also fall under a similar response. I am not particularly eager to swap the radiator for the previous design as I have no desire to go back through the process of refitting the oil hoses. One of the oil hoses was again clearly designed for fitment with the old design and had to be forced to fit. In terms of moving forward I would be more appreciative if you would consider supplying an appropriate bobbin, I’ve attached a couple of suppliers which might be of interest, both are able to facilitate low volume proto-typing production levels. https://www.accu.co.uk/en/1360-male-female-vibration-mount-spacers https://www.avmountsonline.co.uk/bobbin-mounts/male-female-bobbin-mounts I look forward to reading your response. Best regards, Mark" Email 2 "Evening Mark, I appreciate your feedback and understand your position. Your comment regarding the price point and quality level we need to achieve is very reasonable and we are striving to improve. However, as you say yourself, Caterham is a small company with extremely limited resources and it is easy to underestimate the challenges we face. Whilst your request for a more appropriate sized bobbin seems perfectly sensible, I do not have capacity to ensure sufficient mileage to validate a new bobbin quickly and without such cannot expose ourselves to the potential warranty implications. Obviously you are free to source there yourself, but I hope you can understand our position on warranty. I have a Seven 420R which I built myself and I know there are many areas where parts can be improved; it is a constant frustration to us that we do not have the resource to tackle all of these things quickly. However, I have no concerns over the performance of these parts in the most extreme of circumstances and the 420R race car is widely respected for its durability, which is reflected in the robustness of the road product. Our focus is on ensuring that the car delivers an unparalleled driving experience and in this arena, I am confident that you will not be disappointed. Regards Simon" Reply 2 "Simon, Thank you for your time with this matter. I am still disappointed by the response but have to accept the position. That said, it does make me smile that you are not prepared to warranty a new bobbin which is basically a revised size, yet will be happy to warranty a bobbin I’ve butchered too fit. Let’s both hope my skills to modify are up to the task. If you could supply a spare just in case I make a mess I’d appreciate it. Thank you Mark"

A quick update. I requested Derek escalate the situation and seek a more appropriate solution. He has confirmed he has raised the matter with their Head of Engineering. I therefore need to wait for a response. I've also taken a look at the bobbin to see if there was a quick and simple solution. I believe I have an M8 30x15 bobbin, but need something along the lines of M8 20x15 or M8 25x15. I've yet to find a bobbin in that configuration supporting an M8 bolt size. Suppliers checked include; https://www.accu.co.uk/en/1360-male-female-vibration-mount-spacers and https://www.avmountsonline.co.uk/bobbin-mounts/male-female-bobbin-mounts Both offer low volume / proto-typing custom services, which I've yet to check, a custom bobbin might be a better solution. Alternatively I could get a local engineering shop make a solid item. I appreciate these are for anti-vibration, but I do think it's better than butchering a rubber one, I'd of course only replace the single. Derek also stated the radiator "should" fit within the nose cone, he wasn't exactly convincing in his response. I'll therefore assume that is good and wait to see what happens with their response before properly considering changing the parts. Of course as JV points out, warranty would be a potential issue. in such scenarios I need to accept the terrible catch tank design and cable tie the held out of the hose so it doesn't rub on the nose cone receiver. I'll follow up once I have a response from CC engineering.

CC responded this morning to my additional questions, stating the following. "If you look at the photo attached we trim the bobbin down so the hose will fit." This is in reference to the hose fitment and bobbin interference. I stated in my original communication to CC I didn't find that acceptable, I had to push for a better response, only to get that exact response in the end! The volume of hacking/rubber removal required for this to fit is totally unreasonable and I feel unacceptable. see #38 for an image of my bobbin, just exactly how much needs removal! The other topics regarding the nose cone etc remain unanswered. I've replied stating I don't find the solution acceptable, but haven't yet requested the alternative radiator configuration. I'm still undecided as to whether to walk away. One side comment many of you have suggested funding the alternative configuration myself, and then selling the radiator. I don't feel confident with this as I've cut down the integrated bolts as per CC instructions which I guess limits the use of the radiator to that which uses the bobbins etc, i.e. this application. If I'd not cut them down as per the direction I might have been able to find a smaller diameter rubber bush and bolted straight through to the chassis. This might have avoided this ill thought through dogs dinner. sigh

Maybe, although I did want to start it and move it before then, mostly so I can create sufficient space to start my Lotus, I don't like the idea of leaving the car for more than 2 months. One thing for sure is this forum is the most friendly and helpful I've been a member of, so thanks all for such a welcome and your assistance, especially as I'm ranting a wee bit here.

it is a loss for sure, yes the total charge was 42,300. I've basically paid an extra 1k for delivery in there, so I guess the car would normally cost 41,300.00 to a mainland resident. I think a 4k saving to encourage a sale and overcome the location isn't unrealistic. I bought a Caterham as I always wanted to build one, having done 75% of it, I can honestly say I just want to see the back of it. I feel the customer experience is terrible, the engineering of the product highly suspect and honestly I'm just exhausted trying to get answers. Take my last email to Derek, as below; "Derek, I’m unfortunately again struggling with the radiator configuration, and I’m starting to suspect the setup is very poorly designed, given this I would like to raise certain issues. Before I do I would like to request photographs of an S3 420 installation using the same setup. I’d very much like to see how the factory is overcoming the issues I will describe below. Previous images sent were for an SV and so the dimensions were different. In summary there are a number of problem areas. Poor fitting of radiator top hose, specifically insufficient reception of hose to provide ample clamping surface of jubilee. Inadequate clearance of and interference with catch tank. Interference with rear left hand side nose cone receiver. Inability to mount nose cone due to interference with radiator.Details 1) The top hose supplied is clearly designed for the radiator not supplied in my kit, where the union between the hose and radiator top port is more central within the chassis. Whilst I can bend the hose down the proximity of the the port to the bobbin and chassis mount prevents adequate overlap onto the radiator hose port as shown in the images below. I have attempted various approaches to solving the issues, and found there to be none, other than hacking down the bobbin and forcing passed the chassis mount. I don’t believe such an approach to be acceptable. There is no vertical movement in the mounting so I don’t see how it is possible to achieve the clearance required for appropriate positioning of the jubilee. 2) Once the top hose is bent down to the radiator port the hose interferes with the catch tank which is now mounted as per the instructions. The interference is against the tank top and the existing rubber hose already installed. I’m not sure of the impact of the interference in terms of product longevity, however it is clear I cannot remove the tank without removing the top hose. I feel this is a significant design issue on both accounts. 3) Once the top hose is bent down, it rubs against the rear left hand side nose cone bracket, which I suspect in time would cause product failure. Whilst I maybe able to cable tie the hose to something I do feel this is a fudge to work around the root issue which is forcing the hose into a position it is not designed for as mentioned in point 1). I’ve yet to identify where such cable ties should be deployed. 4) I have to date been unable to mount the nose cone. Clearance between the radiator top and the nose seems to be zero or at least practically zero. At best I have been able to mount one side only, even then the nose appears to be resting on the radiator. Due to the position of the radiator within the nose it is difficult to assess exactly what the situation is here. Is there a compatibility issue here? Thank you for your time and support and I look forward to receiving your reply." And his response. "Hello Mark, I have attached some photos from a S3 car." ___ That is it, just some images! Should I have explicitly demanded a response to each item? I was so excited to get the kit and had such high expectations regarding the experience. Like many i started a blog of the build, bought a new GoPro to film. For a time I thought it was me expecting a better level of quality, but its become apparent from this thread that everyone contributing agrees. Someone earlier commented that they had to be sent 3 radiators before they got one that didn't leak.... speechless. I also got more insight into the CC's attitudes during the delivery issue. I asked said director to spend some additional time to verify the components in the kit, to help ensure that more deliveries to the IOM weren't required, resolving shortages. This seemed to me to be a sensible precaution given the apparent issue. He went on stating he couldn't do that as they weren't able to check, he then went onto explain how CC didnt use modern systems like bar codes etc. His attitude was almost celebratory in the fact not only is the car from the 50s so is the business. He was impressed that they had inherent operational inefficiencies. I just drew a conclusion, now I at least know why it costs 40k, management think its clever to be inefficient. Sorry this is turning it a proper CC bashing, but its a genuine insight, and as I say, I'm just exhausted trying to get the thing finished.

It is important to consider I have additional costs probably in the region of 2k to test and register this car in UK and then IOM. Adding costs of the rad and cooler starts to get very expensive. i think if I could achieve anywhere 37k I’d jump. Not even sure if that’s sensible, but based on used driven cars it seems sensible.

I've written a for sale ad now, I've just had my fill of it. Before posting in anger I'm taking the time to chill and get the decision straight in my head. I appreciate contacting "McDonald" might be an option, but I'm not interested in a fight with them. This might seem a little defeatist however my position is heavily influenced by CC's behaviour during the week of delivery, which left me feeling CC are pretty poor. I'll explain. When I ordered the car in May through Oakmere, Oakmere checked with CC and confirmed they could deliver to the IOM for a cost of 1500.00 inclusive. I thought bargain, fantastic I'm happy with the extra so I committed to the kit. CC also confirmed CC staff would handle the delivery end to end. As the estimated delivery date approached I attempted to contact Caterham to offer what assistance I could with respect to travel arrangements to the IOM, hopefully helping them pick appropriate ferry crossings etc. CC told me to speak to Oakmere only. I attempted to offer such support through Oakmere, but they were confident everything was in hand. I'm going to be clear here Oakmere have no responsibility or fault in anything here, I'd like to make that totally clear, and their customer care is always brilliant. They've taken care of me and my Exige brilliantly. I also have a degree of sympathy for Oakmere, because CC put them in a difficult position. During the week of delivery CC contacted Oakmere, and subsequently Oakmere contacted me. CC were seeking additional funds to cover the cost of delivery. In my view there was a lot of b******t offered, suggesting the ferry operators had changed schedules and costs. In the end I did get to the bottom of the situation, it turned out that nobody at CC had checked the cost with the ferry operator at the point of sale, instead they’d stuck a finger in the air and come up with a cost based on distance to Scotland, they were out by 1K. Oakmere eventually declined to get involved and referred me direct to some director at CC, sorry his name escapes me, probably for the better. Why? well during the conversations he had the arrogance to suggest that because I’d written the delivery cost on the order form it was not legally binding and that it was representative of a quote only at best. At this point I was fuming beyond belief. In response to his statement I suggested he reconsider his statement as I would be happy to void the entire legal agreement and request a full refund. Ultimately CC came back suggesting they could deliver using a race trailer. I was against this approach from the outset as I felt the engine and components wouldn’t be handled using the same processes normally used when their commercial wagon is in operation. CC (unnamed director) assured me they use both a race trailer and the wagon all the time for kit deliveries. At this point I had no real option with respect to refusal. The reason this worked for CC is a towed race trailer was not deemed a commercial vehicle by the ferry operator and was thus cheaper. I did of course question why the whole situation arose in the first, if this was standard practice. When my kit arrived, the very nice and friendly delivery bloke had a hell of job getting it all off and I suspected there is no way this is passing health and safety for lifting etc. So I asked the delivery chap whether this was normal and he clearly stated never, the race trailer is only used to pick up and deliver complete cars. Conclusions, I’d been sold a pack of b******t from the start. It’s for this reason I have little appetite to deal with CC in terms of any form of complaint and I feel they are both incapable and intentionally misleading. I know I’ve got off topic here, but it does add context to my reluctance to follow the recommendation many of you are offering. Support and help I truly appreciate! Sorry if I got on my soap box here!

I've an initial response from CC, although it's too brief to be of any help and so I've had to explicitly request Derek comment on the topics raised, so far I've only received photos. I did ask for photos however I was also hopeful Derek would also take the time to provide some written support on how to overcome the problems. One aspect has been clarified from the pictures supplied, the position of the catch tank and top hose. It would seem CC feel the placement of the catch tank under the top hose is acceptable despite the consensus present on this forum at least that it's a pretty poor configuration. I'm therefore not expecting to find a different outcome on this, the original topic of the forum post. Very disappointing. In a later image supplied you can also see the proximity to the nose cone catch. I'm not sure if the progress of this car means the builder hasn't addressed this. I hope CC will provide more information going forward. Concerns over the top hose fitment onto the radiator remain. Derek provided images from the above car showing better fitment than I can achieve, but no advice on what is wrong with my build or what I should do. No response or input on the nose fitment was provided either. I've replied to the email requesting comments on the ares of interest.

Nope no response yet, I emailed Derek today at 1pm.

The car will spend most of the time on the road, so I guess that's not great then. I also see what you mean about a number plate holder. At this point in time it certainly would be nice to speak to a fellow builder attempting a 420 S3 car.

I've had a look at the parts website now, I can see what you mean about the existence of a 420R race nose cone.

I will be writing to Derek again today on the matter, although I do feel a complete idiot due to the previous conversations we've had on the topic, although that doesn't change the experience I am having. For example, one of Derek's previous responses on the matter is as follows; "For the 420 R that is the correct rad/oil cooler I have attached a photo from your kit of what brackets you are looking for" I intend to cover the following areas; Poor fitting of radiator top hose, specifically insufficient reception of hose to provide ample clamping surface of jubilee. Inadequate clearance of and interference with catch tank. Interference with rear left hand side nose cone receiver. Inability to mount nose cone due to interference with radiator. I'll update the thread once I have a response.

I've got the first one.

Just been and had ago at fitting and I would say it doesn't fit. I can get the near side on but no hope of the offside, both are clearly butted against the radiator. I've tried to take photos but for obvious reasons its not easy. Does anyone know where there is explicit documentation that would clarify a race nose cone is needed for the race radiator?

Difficult to describe where it's catching. You can see where the radiator scuffed the inside of the fibre glass. I see further posts have suggested I may need a different nose cone, if so I will at that point call it a day and request a full refund. I paid 1K for a custom paint finish and while I've not checked the paint for how well body and nose match I hope CC's paint process at least took it into consideration. Any tips on fitting, help avoid getting it unduly tangled?

There isn't any wiggle room in the bracket, that side happens to be the worst side anyway as the welding against the port also interferes with the bolt head and prevents it from going fully across but I don't believe it would help much as we're talking only a few mill anyway. I'm not eager to start hacking the chassis for a few mill on the bracket too, I'd then need to cut a significant amount out of the bobbin too.

To help illustrate I've cropped the image and exaggerated the colours.

Thanks for the info Mark. I'm finding the chassis bracket is the first obstruction preventing the hose from fitting, so it's not actually the bobbin.