FHC to DHC - should I be wary?

[jimbo]

Hi,

Apologies if this is daft newbie question, but I've been considering buying an Elan for a while and have noticed there are quite a few cars that started life as a FHC that are now selling as DHC's.

Is this something to be wary of?

Thanks,

James

[Elanintheforest]

Nothing to be worried about from a safety point of view. The shell is exactly the same for both cars, with the fhc having a roof bonded onto a pair of stubs on the standard shell...the dhc has the stubs cut off.

The only thing to think about is the old 'originality' issue. Some folks wouldn't buy such a conversion because it's not one thing or the other. But of course you can convert so that the converted fhc is indistinguishable from a dhc. Check out the hood frame and hood tray, and the windscreen surround to make sure that original bits have been used.

It used to be the case that the fhc was a lot cheaper to buy than the dhc, but that gap has narrowed considerably. So if you're buying a car to improve or make into showroom condition, I'd start with the correct spec....you'll get far more for it if and when you come to sell. If you just want a car to have a play with and then move it on....or keep it forever....then paying less for a converted car makes sense.

Mark

[jimbo]

Mark, many thanks for the reply. I'm looking to buy a Sprint for occasional pleasure use and have come across a couple of converted FHC's, hence the question.

Your comments are in line with what I've been told by private sellers and specialists. I have to admit I'd prefer a car that was an original DHC though ...

On a slightly different tack, would fitting a roll cage and harnesses impact the value or perceived originality of the car? My biggest concern about buying an Elan is the increased exposure to other peoples bad driving!

Cheers,

James

[Elanintheforest]

James...I don't think that adding a roll cage or full harness belts will make any difference...to the value of the car or your safety, on the road at least.

Sure if you roll the car your head won't get squished. But that's an unusual accident on the road. You're more likely to have something pull out in front of you because they haven't seen you, or have an idiot jump the lights as you're going through. Even in the last case, the sill mounted side impact bars aren't going to make any difference...they are way too low. Driving an Elan, or a Seven, TVR or any small 2 seater on the road you've got to think more like a bike rider and drive defensively and not get into the situation where you'll get squished.

I think the main problem with fitting the roll bars, full harness etc. is the Volvo syndrome...you'll feel a lot safer so will drive faster and may take more risks with other drivers incompetance, so increase the liklyhood of an accident.

If you're going to do a lot of track days then get the car kitted up, but otherwise I'd leave it standard. I'm sure others will have different views though
Mark

[jimbo]

I've owned a couple of Elises and a Caterham so I know all about feeling vulnerable on the road!

The 7 was a road legal race car so it had a full roll cage and side impact bars. Whilst it didn't make the car invincible, I at least felt I taken every precaution possible. The downside was it wasn't exactly pretty and it made the car almost impossible to get into. The novelty of undoing the harnesses and climbing out through the roof at petrol stations soon wore off!

I'm hoping the wife will use the Elan (I'm talking like I've already got one), so I'd feel better knowing it had the best possible protection for the type and age of car.

Thanks again!

James

[Frank Howard]

James,

The Elan started off as a DHC as the type 26. Lotus then made a racing version which was designated the type 26R. Later, the FHC was developed and it was assigned the type number 36. Besides the obvious top configurations, there were many more differences between the 26 and the 36. For instance the doors were cut completely different. So Lotus had a set of moulds for the 26 and another set for the 36. As this was a rather expensive way to produce what was essentially the same car, they decided to dispense with the 26 molds and simply cut the top off type 36 FHCs at the factory in order to produce DHCs. These cars were designated as type 45. If you look closely at a type 45, you will see where the recess for the coupe rear window was moulded into the body.

Years ago, before I purchased my first Elan, I went to look at one that was for sale. There were two reasons why I didn't buy it. It was a FHC, and it had right hand steering.

Our local club has only one other Elan. It's a beautiful right hand steering DHC that has been completely restored. It was only recently that I realized that this was the same car that I had rejected years ago. The owner did the conversion himself (but he kept the right hand steering). I had no idea.

Elans appear to be totally different cars with the top up vs. down. One of the differences is that with the top up, mechanical noises are heard from the engine. With it down, all you hear is the exhaust. When I take passengers out for a ride with the top down, many of them ask me if the engine is in the back! It's so much more fun with the top down that I rarely erect the top at all.

In my opinion, it really doesn't matter if someone at the factory cut the top off, or if an owner did it, as long as the owner did a good job. Lotus didn't have saws that were any better than those owned by private owners. As long as the owner did a good job and used the same conversion parts (top of the windscreen, hood tray, top frame, etc.) that the factory did, I don't see any disadvantage. If the factory had used two different moulds, one for the 36 and another for the 45, then it would be much more difficult for an owner to convert a FHC to a DHC that was indistinguishable from that of the factory, but that is not the case. The same mould was used for both the 36 and the 45, so I don't believe it makes a difference who's saw was used to complete the conversion. The only difference between a factory conversion and a good home conversion is that the factory conversion serial number begins with 45, while the home conversion serial number begins with 36.

OK, let's hear it from all of you FHC owners who think I've lost it!

[types26/36]

James,

The Elan started off as a DHC as the type 26. Lotus then made a racing .
OK, let's hear it from all of you FHC owners who think I've lost it!

Frank you lost it in the 1st sentence ....the type 26 cars are roadsters not DHC

[elansprint71]

it had right hand steering.

The same mould was used for both the 36 and the 45, so I don't believe it makes a difference who's saw was used to complete the conversion.

Close, but no cigar, Frank! I spoke to a Mr Hickman about my topless 45 conversion and he confirmed that the main body moulds were in fact modular- the header rail on the DHC is nothing like the header/front roof of the FHC. They just put in which pieces of mould they needed for open or closed cars.
I know that Chris Harvey's book refers to one mould and cut off roofs in 66 but the accompanying photo clearly shows a DHC header rail and the "frayed edges" of the end of the lay-up of the "B" posts. Also you can see the raised flange where the Tenax fasteners go on the DHC, this is not present on the FHC, who's rear window goes right down to the rear deck. Page 32 in my edition. He goes on to talk about new moulds on pages 48 & 49. Can you imagine Chapman wasting materials on a roof which was then thrown away?
There were lots of other moulds for repair sections, somewhere I have a photo of them all chucked out in the yard at Hethel.
Cheers,
Pete.

[nebogipfel]

......the main body moulds were in fact modular- the header rail on the DHC is nothing like the header/front roof of the FHC. They just put in which pieces of mould they needed for open or closed cars.

Absolutely correct

There is no problem laminating the correct screen header frame onto a chopped FHC and extending the rear deck flange to take the tenax fasteners for the hood. - Assuming the parts are bonded on properly .... after lots of careful measuring the shell will be as good as any DHC.

The only real issue is that the car remains a Type 36 on paper and you have to make a decision about whether it does (or should) affect the value of the car.

[Frank Howard]

[/quote]the type 26 cars are roadsters not DHC [/quote]

Brian,

Thanks for the education. In the US, cars that have removable tops are commonly known as convertibiles. I thought the British term for convertible was either roadster or DHC. Reading your post, I assume the difference is that a roadster is purpose built, while a DHC is a coupe that has had it's top removed. Have I got it right?

[Frank Howard]

[/quote]the header rail on the DHC is nothing like the header/front roof of the FHC. They just put in which pieces of mould they needed for open or closed cars.[/quote]

Pete,

Well I asked for it, and I got it! I always wondered how my friend dealt with the top of the windscreen. Probably should have asked him directly to begin with.

I realize it would be wasteful for the factory to cut the entire top and throw it away each time, but I believe the mould for the coupe top was used (at least for the rear of the coupe top as it was modular as Mr. Hickman said it was) but was glassed up to the bottom half of the rear window only. That's why you see only the first 3" of the B pillars on page 32.

The rear window on a coupe may go down to the deck, but the flange that the window is glued onto must rise about 1" above the deck or there would be nothing to glue the bottom of the window onto. I believe the B pillars were cut down to the same level as the 1" window flange at the factory forming a flange shaped like the letter "C" that went from the rear of one door all the way around to the rear of the other door. The Tenex fasteners were attached to the flange.

This explains why instead of the flange forming a perfect "C", it is interrupted by the recessed flange that the bottom of the rear window was supposed to glue onto.

So when you look at the flange on page 32, you are looking at where the bottom of the glass window would have glued onto had the car been designated a type 36 FHC. Make sense?

[types26/36]

the type 26 cars are roadsters not DHC [/quote]

I assume the difference is that a roadster is purpose built, while a DHC is a coupe that has had it's top removed. Have I got it right?[/quote]

No Frank, the definition of a Roadster (in Lotus terms) is that it has no built in window frames (on the doors) where as with the DHC the window frame is still on the door. (I'm not sure if it also includes the front screen) as the windscreen on Type 26 cars are removable with the frame)

[elansprint71]

Frank,
The flange on the FHC does not rise far enough for the Tenax fastners, on my conversion there has been a piece added (very expertly, I have the bills and it cost the PO a fortune!). I suspect that when the factory brought out the Coupe they tried to use the same mould, hence the story in the book but when the demand rose they had to do the job properly. G. Arnold told me about the unbelievable penny-pinching which went on.
If you can find a copy, read the book by Robin Read (Sales Director prior to Arnold) absoluteley fascinating: Chapman's Elan? No, Hickman's Elan. Chapman strut? No, contract draughtsman's strut!

Cheers,
Pete.

[Frank Howard]

Brian,

So the designation DHC must be exclusive to the Lotus Elan because I can't think of any other car on earth that has a removable top and non-removable window frames. Can you?

[elansprint71]

the type 26 cars are roadsters not DHC [/quote]

Brian,

Thanks for the education. In the US, cars that have removable tops are commonly known as convertibiles. I thought the British term for convertible was either roadster or DHC. Reading your post, I assume the difference is that a roadster is purpose built, while a DHC is a coupe that has had it's top removed. Have I got it right?[/quote]

Also applies to Jaguar E-type (XKE), the V12 cars gained a window frame and became Drop Head Cabriolet, as opposed to Roadster.