Talk:Caterham 7 CSR

Lots of vandalism

This article seems to be peppered with small, hard-to-find vandalism that I personally don't have time to get all of. Can someone else look through it and clean it out?

• Thanks for your help. I've looked through and I think it's all gone. Riguy 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK issues

Who declared the Caterham CSR dangerous on normal roads, and put it on the Did You Know? section on the Main Page?Ricky540 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yea, I suppose that could've been reworded, perhaps to say "unsafe". Oh well... Riguy 20:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reworded to match. Feel free to report any similar corrections on WP:ERRORS. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a message on WP:ERRORS. just to summarize, I don't know if the safety features were designed with racing in mind, but I do know that it lacks safety features because of Caterham and Super Seven tradition (minimalism, add lightness, etc). Please update as necessary, Thanks, Riguy 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point is being missed here, just because the CSR doesn't have modern saftey features doesn't in any way, make it less dangerous or unsafe on the road, if that was true, you could make a case that most cars made before 1980 are dangerous or unsafe on the road also.--Ricky540 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much to be done about it now. The DYK I submitted talked about the performance of the car, not the safety. Someone else must've submitted it. Riguy ^talk/_contribs 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA

Congrats, it's a Good Article. I do have some slight reservations about the tone of the article, it comes close to the "sounding like an advertisement" argument in places but not enough to keep it out. Good job. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always kind of hard to edit one's own writing and it would be helpful to have an example or two so I can spot the problems more easily and fix them. Feel free to post them either here or in the peer review listed above. Riguy ^talk/_contribs 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's hard to phrase the concerns, primarily because I don't know how they could be redone "more neutrally" without losing what's being said. After a re-read I don't think it's really an issue. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll read through it as well and see if I can spot anything. Riguy ^talk/_contribs 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Two Cosworth engine factual errors

Being in the finishing stages of building a CSR260 engine, I can point out that the 260 engine (which has 250HP in the US) runs an unmodified block, possibly with the exception of the main bearing shells. Also, the "custom chip" actually is a standard MBE or Emerald club racing ECU (I forget which) with a Cosworth developed map. Shall I fix? Tomtefar (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Braking distance comparison

For comparison, an average car takes 315 feet (96 m) to completely stop from 70 mph (110 km/h)

...I would never drive such an "average car" on a highway - that almost suicide. This value is ridiculous and even the linked source of this doesn't explain where it comes from and what's meant with "average car". I don't know any average street legal car produced in the past 15 years that had a braking distance of more than 50m from 100kmph (62mph) to zero. The average car needs 40m to 45m. Here are some braking distances of what I call average cars:

• VW Golf 1.9 TDI -> 41 m
• Peugeot 307 HDi FAP 110 -> 41 m
• Opel Astra CDTI Enjoy -> 41 m
• Renault Mégane 1.9 dCi -> 40 m
• Ford Focus 1.8 TDCi Futura -> 43 m
• Mazda 3 MZ-CD Sport Top -> 41 m
• Toyota Corolla 2.0 D-4D Sol -> 43 m
• Fiat Stilo 1.9 JTD 115 Basis -> 45 m

Okay, it's about 110kmph and it's anon-linear thingy, but 96m come one... according to the formulas that would still be less than 60m for an average car. --91.14.237.246 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caterham 7 CSR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113135242/http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/showroom/superlight.html to http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/showroom/superlight.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209125323/http://www.autozine.org/html/Ferrari/Enzo.html to http://www.autozine.org/html/Ferrari/Enzo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)