Evora Sport 410

[blindside]

1 hour ago, The Pits said:

It looks to me like an attempt to court controversy and I think you had it in for the 410 for whatever reason before you even got in the car.

 

 

 

 

+1. I suspected this would be the case as soon as James said he was producing a review. The video is a mass of subjective opinions and personal niggles. Some people relish that kind of stuff because they will never drive a Lotus of any description let alone own a 410.

[Snoopy1969]

Well, as I understand the idea of Coloin Chapman he produced road cars in order to make Money to go racing - nothing wrong with that (by while doing this he went upmarket with the road cars no doubt, I believe) - These day manufacturers (in my eyes) mostly go racing in order to help to sell the road cars (esp the 5 door suv league diver should feel (...at least) like he drives a car from a "sports car"-Company .....Marketing bla bla) , so it is vice versa these days

@JayEmm many thanks fo all the work, just a short Addition to your comments on the seats / Ingress: I have seaten in a 400 and a 410, the Ingress of the 410 is much easier than entering a S1 Evora, so the difference 400 / 410 should really make no difference in reality (Minority, personal view: I like the wider sills of an Evora s1 more because they remind you you are entering a sports car and you have room for nice leather and metal skid plate - ok entering the car in tight parking spots is sometimes a c h a l l e n ge  :-)

I believe that the difference betweeen 400 / 410 might shine more if someone would compare a 400 with a non optioned 410 without Sound insulation. As said before (and denied by @The Pits ;-) ) the whole concept of the 410 remind me a lot of the 911 clubsport from 1987 / 1988 (by the way: Golf GTI, some Seat high powered models can even be ordered today without airco in Germany, @The Pits) 

If Money is no object it is very nice that Lotus gives you an alternative within the range. I believe this alternative is more attractive if you have use for a non-optioned 410; in this case I am with the short Statement by @Trevsked 

[JayEmm]

I'm sorry if anyone thinks I am trashing the 410 out of some sort of personal spite or bitterness, it simply isn't the case. As for my commenters, yes they can frequently miss the point but that's the internet for you. As mentioned in the video, it is a brilliant car I just don't see a personal need for it. I would have preferred Lotus to go further with it. The Exige got 30bhp extra in a car that I didn't particularly think was crying out for it. Yes I formed prejudices about the car before driving it, that is inevitable. There was plenty about it that surprised me in a positive way (quality of CF, compliance of ride, good NVH, etc).

I've been lucky to drive quite a few cars this year, and hope to drive many more soon. Some have surprised me and some have not. I didn't expect to be a big fan of the Elise 220, as my 111R's engine has so much character, but I found myself really liking it and appreciating the tangible quality improvements over the S2.

My Caterham video also divided opinion. I am keen to see what the Exige owners on here think of my 380 review. A car I feel personally less qualified to discuss than the 410.

Edited June 7, 2017 by JayEmm

[cib24]

Come on guys, let's be real here. The 410 is a nice package but the difference in lap times to the 400 are seriously down to the slightly more aggressive geo and most importantly the freakin tyres. Pilot Sport Cup 2's are far more grippy than Pilot Super Sports. That tyre alone is worth probably 80-90% of the lap time difference at Hethel. Yes, it's that much better. I have had a set of Super Sports and they are a nice road tyre (way better for all weather driving too) but really lacking for real track work so I swapped them for a budget rival to the Pilot Sport Cup 2, the Nankang NS-2R (which is unfortunately not as good as the Sport Cup 2). The Pilot Sport Cup 2's are two leagues above at a minimum.

Pilot Sport Cup 2: Premier League

Pilot Super Sport: League One

1 hour ago, JayEmm said:

I'm sorry if anyone thinks I am trashing the 410 out of some sort of personal spite or bitterness, it simply isn't the case. As for my commenters, yes they can frequently miss the point but that's the internet for you. As mentioned in the video, it is a brilliant car I just don't see a personal need for it. I would have preferred Lotus to go further with it. The Exige got 30bhp extra in a car that I didn't particularly think was crying out for it. Yes I formed prejudices about the car before driving it, that is inevitable. There was plenty about it that surprised me in a positive way (quality of CF, compliance of ride, good NVH, etc).

I've been lucky to drive quite a few cars this year, and hope to drive many more soon. Some have surprised me and some have not. I didn't expect to be a big fan of the Elise 220, as my 111R's engine has so much character, but I found myself really liking it and appreciating the tangible quality improvements over the S2.

My Caterham video also divided opinion. I am keen to see what the Exige owners on here think of my 380 review. A car I feel personally less qualified to discuss than the 410.

People are just butt hurt about your conclusions because some on here own the car. I wouldn't worry about it. It was obvious in your review that you liked the car but I completely agree with you that the 410 just isn't quite enough, although if you want the carbon bits then you should spec the 410 because adding them onto a 400 will cost more. I mean, even you have negative things to say about your 400 which is a good thing because we all know it's not a perfect car (no car is) and its nice to hear about potential downsides. 

Keep up the good work but get more road driving shots. Think Matt Farrah of the Smoking Tire so that you can see the road ahead as you talk. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by cib24

[JayEmm]

@cib24 there is a shot looking forwards as I am talking and there's a reason I haven't included much of it! It is basically proof I really enjoyed driving that car

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by JayEmm

[cib24]

By the way, the exhaust in that video doesn't sound particularly exciting at all. I know its for legal track use but does it still retain the exhaust flap like OEM so it can be noisier on the road if you want it to be?

[JayEmm]

No, I believe most (if not all) of the track-legal exhaust sacrifice having a valve in order to keep weight low, and cost down. It's not the most exciting sound but I really can't lay blame at anyone other than local councils for that!

[The Pits]

If you want to be real you need to do away with assumptions and base your conclusions on actual evidence. You have no evidence to support "the difference in lap times to the 400 are seriously down to the slightly more aggressive geo and most importantly the freakin tyres".

Why is it so hard to believe that a 70kg weight reduction might improve track performance?

Some strange refusal to accept the laws of physics among the naysayers.

Ask anyone who's driven a V6 Cup, they'll tell you what a 70kg reduction can do for a car.

[JayEmm]

Genuine question for the 410 owners @blindside and @RJB as well as who ever has one - how much of the luxury stuff did you spec back in?

Even the demonstrator at Bell and Colvill I used, which was also the main press car I think, still has the AC and still has 90% of the ICE intact (just missing the head unit).

My issue was the fact they charge you to add in what they will delete for free from the cheaper car. I had always suspected they hoped people would add some things back in, as a slightly sneaky way of getting the price up. After all, I can't imagine ordering an Exige or Evora without air con. Even though I don't miss it in my Elise, I think were I ordering a new one I would probably have it. I'm pretty sure this is not a uniquely Lotus thing, but that doesn't mean I like them doing it any more.

I have absolutely no doubt a 5% weight drop would help on track, but I suspect the reality is the difference may not be anywhere near that for the majority of cars.

Edited June 7, 2017 by JayEmm

[JayEmm]

Cheque's in the post Buddsy

[JayEmm]

I trained at the William H Shatner school of acting I'll have you know.

There is! No! Finer! Institute! Of Learning!

[cib24]

43 minutes ago, The Pits said:

If you want to be real you need to do away with assumptions and base your conclusions on actual evidence. You have no evidence to support "the difference in lap times to the 400 are seriously down to the slightly more aggressive geo and most importantly the freakin tyres".

Why is it so hard to believe that a 70kg weight reduction might improve track performance?

Some strange refusal to accept the laws of physics among the naysayers.

Ask anyone who's driven a V6 Cup, they'll tell you what a 70kg reduction can do for a car.

I'm sorry but the weight of one passenger is not going to net you 4 seconds around Hethel. It's the tyres. Tyre technology is a huge reason why so many cars are capable of such outrageous lap times nowadays. Look at the Civic Type R or VW Golf Clubsport S around the Nurburgring. Those cars are outrunning much more powerful cars from just a few years ago around a power circuit that requires lots of grip to maintain traction in such high speed corners yet only running about 300bhp. They are doing that because tyre technology is light years ahead of where it used to be.

The lighter weight no doubt helps and no one is knocking the 410 for being an awesome car, but put the 400 and 410 on the track with the same geo setup and the same Pilot Sport Cup 2's and I bet you there is less than a second between them.

Edited June 7, 2017 by cib24

[Inkyfingers]

To be fair to James, he makes it pretty clear that these are just his opinions.

I'd rather that than yet another generic review, where everything is benchmarked against a Porsche.

[The Pits]

@cib24 I have never doubted the contribution of the tyres, I'm questioning the assumption that it's 'just the tyres and geo' put forward by your earlier post and James's video. You could have written 'mostly' the tyres but you chose to write "seriously down to the slightly more aggressive geo and freakin' tyres". James dismisses the car as "an Evora 400 plus 10" which, I think, shows a complete disregard for the work Lotus has done to take weight out of the car. Surely it would have been cheaper for them to produce a 1400kg Evora '430'? Simple remap.

Until your last post there had been a complete denial of the weight loss and its benefits. Now we have an acknowledgement that "the lighter weight no doubt helps" it makes your previous statements look like you were exaggerating to make a point all along. Popular approach on the internet I know but the trouble is, there are now people out there who believe that it's all bollocks and the only difference is the tyres. I would urge reasonable the minded people out there to question that.

Any extra grip the tyres make is barely relevant for road use, I never got near their limits but I could feel the overall change to the 400 within the first mile of driving the car. It's impossible to say which is most responsible between the different geo, weight, driving position, seat height, seat shape, centre of gravity or weight distribution, they are all blended together. But I'm not sure it would be worth much to find the answer anyway, apart from trying to re-create a 410 feel on the cheap perhaps? The differences add up in my opinion and that seems to be the general consensus.

I've seen all this before with the V6 Cup, same power, only a passenger lighter, over-priced, more money for less car, same geo, Lotus have lost the plot and so on. I'm glad to say that there appears to be much greater recognition of the Cup cars now but it has taken some time to overcome the cynicism.

[Gm77]

2 hours ago, JayEmm said:

@cib24 there is a shot looking forwards as I am talking and there's a reason I haven't included much of it! It is basically proof I really enjoyed driving that car

 

I hope there were no children watching James...!

[pickle]

I think that when you consider the cumulative effect of the weight reduction and modest power increase you realise that it's not just tyres and geo that result in the different feel of the 410.

The 400 has 286hp/tonne and the 410 309hp/tonne. Even if you add 25kg back in through options you're still at around 304hp/tonne. 

To put it another way, a car the weight of a 400 would need around 430hp to match the 410 (as alluded to in @The Pits post).

[blindside]

2 hours ago, cib24 said:

Look at the Civic Type R or VW Golf Clubsport S around the Nurburgring. Those cars are outrunning much more powerful cars from just a few years ago around a power circuit that requires lots of grip to maintain traction in such high speed corners yet only running about 300bhp. They are doing that because tyre technology is light years ahead of where it used to be

This is an incomplete one dimensional example. No one is suggesting that tyre selection & tech does not have a very significant impact on track performance. All the ring spec hot hatch models are also highly modified to remove weight from the base car & get the seats/driving position right.

The Megane Trophy R summary spec is a good illustration: Using the standard Megane 275 Trophy as a starting point, the ‘R’ strips out 100kg of weight by deleting the back seats (-20kg), air-con (-6kg), rear wiper (-1kg) and almost all the sound deadening (-21kg). It then adds comfier-than-they-look Recaro bucket seats (-22kg), 19-inch Speedline alloys (-5kg) and Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tyres.

[KAS-118]

I can't understand the criticism of Jay's Review -  reviews, by their nature, are a mixture of objective facts and subjective opinion.

Personally If i wanted a track car that was capable of road use I'd go for the 410 - but for a road car hat will be a great drive I'd go for the 400. 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by KAS-118

[JayEmm]

I just want to echo @The Pits statement and something else I have mentioned in my own thread. For some time I have been driving around in my Cobra seats, which are lower and lighter than the regular 400 items.

It was a night and day difference to me in the way the car drove and felt with the new seats, the guys at the factory have also said they feel the lower seats are a very large benefit.

It is entirely possible I am not as receptive of the 410 as some might like because I have already been enjoying one of the major benefits in my 400.

Edited June 7, 2017 by JayEmm

[LF1]

It's each to their own on the seats, we have the carbon cup ones in the Elise. Great looking but give me killer back ache on the road (although oddly fine on track), and I am someone that has never ever suffered from any form of back ache. For me the best seats are those found in the club racers, looks the most uncomfortable but were perfect for me. I think it's important for people to try the seats before committing as everyone's different.

[ephancock77]

I like the fact that James is happy to express what he sees as flaws in some of the cars within the Lotus range.  You don't have to take his opinion as gospel its simply just his opinion and not fact and I think he makes that very clear.

I'm happy to admit I'm a Lotus fanboy and I believe James is too but he's not shortsighted enough to believe every product Lotus releases is perfect.  I'm also fairly convinced he'd like to see all the 410's sold regardless of whether he likes the car or not. The fact he currently owns an Evora 400 makes him the ideal person to have an opinion and I for one am happy he's willing to share his thoughts with us.

 

 

[JayEmm]

Every one except the blue one at Silverstone. That's mine;)

[The Pits]

No-one here believes every product Lotus releases is perfect.

Read the articles, threads and posts, there's plenty of criticism in there if that's what's what anyone's looking for.

Really winds me up this idea that TLF doesn't do criticism.

[Cypriot]

I will say what I said when I first drove the 410: the 410 feels like a very different car from the moment you first start rolling compared to a 400. Forget performance, there isn't much between them. To say that the 410 is pointless on the basis that is doesn't move performance on enough is like saying the mclaren 570s is pointless as it's not really that much faster than the 570gt.  They aren't though, as they are very different handling cars. I think this point is the one thing overlooked in james' video, and what many people will struggle to grasp unless they drive a 400 and 410 back to back. The 410 may not crush a 400 round a track/road, but the guy behind the wheel of the 410 will definitely have a more involving drive, if a bit bumpier! That is the crucial difference to me, not the performance. Both great cars, and both have their place. 

[Trevsked]

You get it, as do I but it seems James misses the point unfortunately. Like you, the first few hundred metres were immediately different for me over the standard 400, the 410 just felt more eager and less like a GT.

 

Trevor.