Re: What's wrong with the term 'Baby Elan' ?
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:08 pm
ardee_selby wrote:
That's just pure filth, we can't have any of that on here, there might be children browsing this.
The complete information source for Lotus Elan sportscars.
https://lotuselan.net/forums/
ardee_selby wrote:
nebogipfel wrote: spreading the word old chap
LotusElan+217 wrote:Not hot under the collar at all, just trying to put the record straight.
LotusElan+217 wrote: That's just pure filth, we can't have any of that on here, there might be children browsing this.
ardee_selby wrote:PS. Who is Nigel?
nebogipfel wrote:LotusElan+217 wrote:Not hot under the collar at all, just trying to put the record straight.
simonknee wrote:ardee_selby wrote:PS. Who is Nigel?
simonknee wrote:ardee_selby wrote:PS. Who is Nigel?
Hmm, good point. Since the word "nebogipfel" means nothing to me I always thought of you as nigel bopfe. You mean this isn't your name! Sorry it's the dementia setting in. I've been a Lotus owner since 1846, bleee
stevebroad wrote:I have been calling my Elan a baby for the last 30-35 years
stevebroad wrote:big brother and therefore the Elan is the Plus 2's baby brother.
stevebroad wrote:...just interested in whether I am in the minority in being happy calling my car a baby Elan?
LotusElan+217 wrote:Very good point Brian, you may well be right that Graham Arnold didn't like the term, memory plays funny tricks but I do seem to recall the article you are referring to, and almost certainly if it exists it will be in my catalogue of Club Lotus magazines, it would be great if one of us could dig it out.
Of course that would be conclusive evidence that it was a widely used term. The Christopher Neil connection is also hugely relevant, in 1977 they were the only major supplier of cheap parts as they were back then independent of Lotus, I either ordered new parts from them or if they didn't have them in stock I used to take a short drive to Edgware and buy over priced parts from the official dealer, the other alternative was a trip to Derek Dean in Ruislip for secondhand parts.
If CN referred to it as the Baby Elan then it is inconceivable that Lotus owners of that period would not have heard of it.
AHM wrote:Nigel who?
AHM wrote:Your baby is a she!
UAB807F wrote:LotusElan+217 wrote:Very good point Brian, you may well be right that Graham Arnold didn't like the term, memory plays funny tricks but I do seem to recall the article you are referring to, and almost certainly if it exists it will be in my catalogue of Club Lotus magazines, it would be great if one of us could dig it out.
Of course that would be conclusive evidence that it was a widely used term. The Christopher Neil connection is also hugely relevant, in 1977 they were the only major supplier of cheap parts as they were back then independent of Lotus, I either ordered new parts from them or if they didn't have them in stock I used to take a short drive to Edgware and buy over priced parts from the official dealer, the other alternative was a trip to Derek Dean in Ruislip for secondhand parts.
If CN referred to it as the Baby Elan then it is inconceivable that Lotus owners of that period would not have heard of it.
Well, I'll bite.
Seeing how the thread has gone on for 3 pages I've just spent 10 minutes looking through some old CL newsletters and in the 1986 #4 issue, p23 there's a page that can only have been written by GA where he writes a paragraph headed "Kill the Baby !". He goes on to say that "we have never used the word "baby" to refer to the Elan, and don't plan to." But given how at the time CN used to be very big advertisers in the mag and it was certainly in their literature I guess it would have been widespread knowledge by the 80s, long before this fancy interwebby thing came along.....
(I'm now wondering how I can remember a quote from GA going back over 25yrs ago, and yet forget when the missus asks me to do the washing up....)
stevebroad wrote:big brother and therefore the Elan is the Plus 2's baby brother.