David aka Blue7

No problems with mine

3 hours ago, Shortshift said:

Simon Lambert's written response in the Q&A facility was somewhat more informative than (and potentially at variance with?) Bob's verbal update and suggested a more fundamental reconsideration.  I quote:

"There has been extensive investigation with the DVSA and we are several design iterations through, which includes changes to the material, to the geometry, revised damper bushing and retainment and a potential change to the wishbone."

That sounds pretty fundamental to me, as someone who has owned three CSRs and still has a minter in the garage, and sort-of contradicts the line that the existing design is perfectly adequate (as in, no need for a compulsory replacement action).

James

Where can we find / access Simon Lambert's written response, I haven't heard any mention of that before now?

Bob and Simon both looked a bit "edgy" when answering the question, it would have been nice to hear some factual information like how many CSRs built, how many owners responded to the survey and how many reported faults, results of material analysis and stress testing etc. instead of "the problem being not as bad as social media suggested", in which case why go to the expense of redesigning the part or the whole of the rear suspension?  I would have liked to hear some facts but I suppose the subject will be swept under the carpet until there is a fatality and all this evidence will have some relevance.

3 hours ago, Gareth H said:

Did this get brought up during the webinar?

The webinar takes place on 22 February, some of us have proposed questions but there is no guarantee that they will be asked.

21 hours ago, BigCol said:

I never lock my fuel cap,

I agree, I never lock mine ... and I never lock my doors either

Good point, maybe that's why they are all "not in stock" but they must be fitting some version to the 485 and why are CC suggesting replacement, if damaged, and yet not listing a suitable replacement?  Such issues could be clarified by posing the question to CC

I have registered for the webinar and proposed two questions, one relating to progress to date, conclusions as to cause of failure and have the brackets fitted to the present Seven 485 CSR been modified or improved in any way.

My second question is why are the clevis brackets not being listed individually in the online store, they are currently only listed as just one component part of the whole upright assembly kits costing between £1293 and £1631 for one side only, to replace both sides would be double that price and to buy all those un-required component parts is not really "green" like (as was said in comparison of Rorkes Drift to Bala in the film Zulu).  Given the importance of replacement, why are they all listed as “not currently in stock”.

Failure of these brackets could have possible life threatening consequences so if the questions aren't put to CC a quote from Hamlet comes to mind including the words rotten and Denmark. 

Excellent suggestion , I haven't registered yet but will do so tomorrow

I'm surprised that you still have all the pieces especially that small section of the lug, were they all still attached to the bolt?  Do you intend to hand them to CC?  I am intrigued as to what CC are doing because I would have thought that any metallurgical tests would have been completed by now, along with conclusions regarding cause?  Maybe John Chilcot is in charge of investigations so we can expect publication of results in 7 years time, an appropriate period I suppose.

You might want to take a look at this discussion

I  fitted a JWM Jack Webb lithium battery and you can read my comments on the above link.  I had to drill out the tray and fit a new tray.  The basic difference is that with the immobiliser drain, the Banner lasted 4 weeks before discharge whereas the JWM lithium lasts just 2 weeks, if that.  The JWM also has the added complication of a Low Voltage Protector (LVP), which activates when it senses low voltage and shuts the battery down to prevent complete discharge and permanent damage.  You need a special CTEK charger that will override that LVP and allow the battery to charge, a normal charger thinks the battery is completely dead and will not charge it.  On some occasions even the CTEK will not charge it unless I disconnect the battery terminals.

My former Banners lasted 4-5 years and in hindsight I would have stuck with Banner, I don't see any advantage of a lithium battery other than a definite advantage in weight reduction, the lithium is a featherweight compared to the Banner and definitely fulfils the Just Add Lightness ethic.  I would say you made the right decision to stick with Banner

Good neat job, I think you would get a start with CC if ever you are looking for a job 😁 

I don't want to spoil your new year but have you seen the announcement in What Car magazine that Avon have announced that in 2024 their ZZS 195/50 R15 82W tyres will be replaced by ZZS 195/55, which means you will need to get your dremel out again when you replace your present tyres?

Don't worry ... just joking ... have a Good 2024!

1 hour ago, ScottR400D said:

They’ve just sent me a Christmas e mail trying to sell me a watch so they’ve obviously sorted all the real issues.

£3,480 !!!!!!! I was just about to turn my last radiator off and all the lights in the hope that I may be able to afford one, when I suddenly spotted that familiar red notice, oh well, I'll just have to continue to ask a Policeman, if I can find one. 😕

Is anyone taking bets that it will be longer than the Covid Enquiry?  A logical person would assume that by now all CSR owners that are aware of the problem will have replaced their clevis brackets for peace of mind and if nothing else for the safety of their passengers, other road users and pedestrians ... but ... I know of at least two that just take the attitude of "hey ho" I'll just have them checked at each service.  In any case, the cause of the problem is quite obvious, "climate change", only a doubter would disagree.

New customer update today, nothing new other than investigations still ongoing, not even a Merry Christmas   Meantime check your stockings ... you never know what Santa may bring

You're most welcome, please post some pics when you have finished

Yes I agree, it is a bonus that you have the wings off and elongating the holes as shown in red below, would allow you to heighten the wings, also required where the indicator fits on the other side.  Maybe a spacer of some kind, flat or maybe tubular to slide over the stay or just use more glue.

The bigheads I used are 30mm square and the loops are about 8mm high, the ones in the link above seem to be slightly larger at 38mm square. 

I won't, if ever, have to face that problem, I cheated and bought 4 x front CR500's which should see me out!

Just found my original post here

I have a lot of links to past discussions but none of them work so I assume they must be to discussions on the old yellow site.  From memory, when the wings came off my first 2008 CSR I just cleaned up the stay and wing and used the recommended sikaflex 292 for bonding.  There was a technique using big head fasteners glued to the wing that sat astride the stay and secured with cable ties so they could be easily removed and replaced.  I never used that method but I did use bigheads gluing two either side of the stay and running cable ties between each and across the stay.  There only seems to be one type of bighead in that above link, if I still have a spare I will measure the size later and get back to you.

Elongating the hole you mention seems to be the method used by most people to raise the height of the wing.  Whatever you do I would suggest you do it with wheel and tyre fitted so you are certain that the wing will not foul against the tyre once the glue has set.  With the wings removed I do wonder if a spacer of some kind could be fitted between the top of the stay and the inside of the wing which would raise the height of the wing at the rear?

Here are a couple of methods I seem to have saved as text, first by Mark

1. Open up the "wings" of the big head in a vice to let them straddle a little better over the wing stay

2. Roughen up the flat faces of the big head and clean with some acetone (nail varnish remover). Degrease the corresponding area on the inside of the wings too

3. Cable tie the big heads onto the wing stay loosely with a small cable tie

4. Place goo on big head

5. Drop wing into place and adjust until happy

6. Snip cable ties off and take wing onto bench. Turn over and carefully press the big heads into the goo so it comes out of the holes

7. Add more goo and smooth it over and around the bighead

8. Leave overnight to go off.

HTH
Mark

I also have this method saved as text:

Bighead fasteners fitted in 2 stages, I scrubbed the face of the fastener with emery paper then fitted the fasteners to the wingstays with tie wraps. Then daubed the face of the fastener with Sikaflex, the wing was prepped in the same way with emery and cleaned up. I then set the wing onto stay. Once cured I snipped the tie wraps and put extra adhesive over the fastener and onto the wing to increase the bonding area.

There are two options, one is made by David Lale Classic Carbon and sold through Andy Noble at Sevens & Classics but they are currently listed as Sold Out

The original supplier was Jon Vicker at Millwood Caterham who just used to make them to order but I see they are now listed on the website "wrap around stone guards", where there seems to be 5 identical twins working on a 7

On the old site my spellchecker worked but on the new site it is no longer functioning.  I have the MS spellchecker and I had installed the Firefox plugin spellchecker, maybe I need to reinstall the FF plugin?  I will try that but any other suggestions welcome.

Edited to confirm that adding English dictionary to FF solved the problem

Ditto JK, I have a new speedo for my CSR, not fitted yet but I appreciate the problem with incorrect mileage and will follow that procedure when I fit it.  I had to fit a new speedo to my first 2008 CSR, under warranty but CC advised that there was no way of increasing the odometer reading to match the reading on the faulty speedo.  When I traded it in with CC they advertised it with the mileage on the new speedo, despite the fact that I had told them to make it known to any prospective buyer that the true mileage was plus another 7k miles.  I emailed CC numerous times but they refused to change the mileage on the website.  It was only when I contacted Ansar direct that CC changed the advert to show the correct mileage.

I had a long chat with Richard Graham (ex Multimatic), at a car show on Saturday.  It is 20 years ago that he worked on the design of the CSR so specific details about components is not easy to recall but he couldn't recall a "clevis bracket" and thought the upright assembly was one unit but regardless of that, he couldn't recall using any aluminium components, just steel.  It could be that CC tweaked the design to save on component cost but we will never know unless Multimatic still have original drawings.  Neither of us could think why aluminium was used instead of steel unless it was somehow cost related.

I came across a good photo of the rear suspension setup from my archives.  It is taken from the Evo magazine article at the launch of the CSR is 2005, some good information about the design and this photo (click on the top photo to see all 9 photos).  To add more intrigue, the photo looks like the near or left hand side?  In which case the clevis bolt head is facing to the rear, when it should be facing forward but it could be just a CAD error.

David

What intrigues me is the pitted surface of the broken areas, they have all been rough and pitted and this one looks even worse almost as if the casting was contaminated in some way.

Interestingly I will be meeting Richard graham tomorrow at Nairn car show. He was a member of the CSR design team. I met him here last year and after he left i spoke to another person who told me about the suspension problem.  

David 

Steve, as Sam asked, is that a new failure or the one you reported earlier in this thread 1st July post #24, when you hit a pot hole?  I assume and hope this is not the replacement clevis that has failed?  Have you completed the two questionaries on the CC website?

David

That's odd, I haven't received any further communication from CC so I assume I must have provided sufficient details when I first contacted them?  What additional details have they asked you both to provide?

Edited to say I have found the CC email with second survey in my Spam folder so now completed

David

ULEZ it's an old story, even