Spyder vs Original Chassis - The debate

[Elanintheforest]

I would love to hear your views on the old chestnut. What is best...Spyder chassis or original Lotus chassis?
I'm thinking about it from the following viewpoints:
What development has been done to both over the past 30 years?
Does either of the chassis have a more positive impact on the handling of the car, on the road or track?
Does the Spyder chassis make maintenance any easier? And by maintenance, I mean getting the engine in and out, getting the differential in and out, and anything else you can think of.
Does fitting one or other of these chassis have an effect on the value of the car...i.e, how highly prized is originality?
I have a couple of views which I'll chip in if they don't get covered...so over to you guys....

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

Who's been pulling your strings?
I'm looking forward to looking in again on Monday.
No harm meant
John

[Elanintheforest]

No strings being pulled! I have two Elans, both with Lotus chassis fitted. I put a replacement chassis on one in '78, and the other needs doing. I have been out of touch with such things for a few years...well, probably about 10, and genuinely need to catch up and decide which to fit.
My questions probably do look a little leading, but I wanted to try and get some quantification around the difference.
About 15 years back, I got to know Miles Wilkins and had the same debate with him. His views, as those of you who know him will appriciate, were very, shall we say, firm. The car was designed with that platform...the suspension and steering were tuned to the given torsional rigidity for the desired balance between handling, comfort and feel of the car...the definition of 'the Elan'. Any changes to that original specification would compromise one of the original design criteria. I caught up with him a few months later where, outside his workshop was a skip with 12 brand new galvanised chassis thrown in. They were all scrap as they were so distorted by the galvanising process. Are they any better now? What sort of quality controls are in place to ensure decent product? He didn't want the debate again! So in my mind I have probably swung from 'originality is everything' to considering a product that has been improved over the years and looks really well engineered. But I don't want it if it upsets the original feel of the Elan as a road car.
So, no strings being pulled!

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

Oops sorry about the outburst but this can of worms has been opened before.
To be rational however.
I fitted a Spyder frame to my Elan because the original was finished & at the time I got a good deal due to a special offer that Spyder were offering at the time.
Most people looking for Elans to buy, are looking for originality; one very good reason for staying with the Lotus part.
If you want to go down the Zetec / Sierra diff' route then about the only alternative is Spyder but then you will need their specially Sierra adapted frame & rear suspension. (No going back to original diff' etc.)
If you've seen a well sorted 26R driven well on a race track, I think you will agree that you will never ever need that sort of speed handling on any road. These cars have Lotus frames.
On the other hand, if you one day want to race your car; your entry will be limited due to the restrictions on use of anything other than original Lotus frames.
Both frames have been developed over the years but not necessarily by Lotus. TTR sells an FIA approved Lotus 26R frame which has been developed.
In my oppinion the Spyder product is a tidy piece of kit & it looks like a bit of race car engineering instead if a piece of bent sheet steel. However the claims made about weight & stiffness have never been substantiated with engineering values as far as I know. In any case stiffness comparisons should only be made when the frame is fitted to the body because both compliment one another.
The diff' mounting is well up to the standards of the improved Sprint spec' & fitting the diff' is easier.
Fitting & or removing the engine & or G/box remains the same except that the space frame perhaps allows a bit more freedom of movement for at least your hands & spanners in the engine bay. Replacement of the front suspension bits is easier due to long removable studs being used, that is if you make all the precautions to stop them rusting in place.
You will also be able to take off the sump due to the removable cross member.
Well that was me being rational but I still can't help thinking that this is a bit of a wind up.
John

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

Looks like we overtook one another on the keyboard.
Just having read your posting, my car is great to drive, I get a big buzz every time.
It's sunny out here I'm off for a blast.
Nice weekend!
John.

[1964 S1]

Hi John, What looks like a piece of bent sheet steel? Cheers, Eric

[nebogipfel]

Hi All,

I can't comment on the later Spyder spaceframe designs although I suspect having had many years development now they are even better ......... but "back in the day" I fitted one of the original pressed steel Spyder chassis to a car and it was clearly a better engineered and stronger construction than the Lotus original, having among other things eliminated the horrible front turret rust traps. Most of us who have played a bit with Elans have seen fatigue cracks appearing at various points on the chassis.

My own S4 came with one of the original Spyder replacements (I'm delighted to say) and although this frame is many years old after a light blast and repaint it is nearly as good as new.

Originality is always a bit of an old chestnut. How many 30+ year old Lotus's are anywhere near original anyway?

As for handling, in my simplistic view if the frame is stiffer then surely the car should behave more predictably within the design parameters of suspension etc although in truth I suspect the difference, if it exists, is largely in the drivers imagination.

I was out of the Elan scene for a few years but have heard lots of negative comment about the galvanised replacements from Lotus. I assume they are OK now?

[1964 S1]

Greetings, "...a bit of an old chestnut." I'm not sure what that means but an original Elan in my opinion is something of a work of art considering its age. The S1's in particular. I'm not sure if there are many of us who can claim to drive the car to anywhere near it's maximum potential, stock frame or not... I may be old fashioned or just old but a lot of these modifications to an Elan seem to be gilding a very quick lily.

[Elanintheforest]

I totally agree in the car being a work of art and no need to further guild the lilly. For me, originality is everything otherwise you have a car loosly based on something else rather than the real deal. If I wanted a faster car or better handling car I'd buy a TVR or an Elise! Just sold a TVR Griff 500, and boy that thing didn't want to go round corners other than backwards!!
My only concern now is the quality of the 'original' Lotus frames after the horror stories (and fact) of them being so distorted by the galvanising process. And nobody is coming forward to say that the problem is fixed!! And let's not forget that the Elan wasn't originally designed to have a chassis, but as a monocoque a la Type 14. The chassis was just a 'buck' onto which the mechanicals were assembled to try them out. OK, so some design work was done after that!!
So I guess 'old chestnut' (or should it be Cheshunt) for me means a topic often raised, hotly debated and never resolved. If that is the proper definition then we sure have one here!!

[miked]

I have a spyder on a S4. I dearly wanted a Lotus chassis and waited for one. I measured it (Lotus one that is) when it arrived and found it to have a larger dimension betwen the two left chassis legs than the right ones. I rejected it and waited for another. When this landed it to was the same but worse. I rejected this. All this was 3 years ago so dont know whether things have changed. The business about hot dip galv' had nothing to do with these dimensions. this was poor build quality. I tracked the supply chain and questioned calibaration of the jig that it was fabricated on. What a mistake? Some people can be rude.

I then went a bought a spyder and had a good experience. If they are now ok fair enough?? I am not racer or anthying so limited. It is great to work on. I agree with what John says.

Mike

[nebogipfel]

Exactly; the "old chestnut" is the debate NOT the car.

The Elan is indeed a work of art and design brilliance and certainly deserves its place in automotive history as one of the true greats.

I don't think this changes if the car has replacement parts which are not entirely original. Were it not for often non original parts many Elans (including my own) would probably not be on the road.

The problem arises for me when so much of the car is changed that it ceases to be an Elan ............... But that is another well worn debate!

[ppnelan]

Whatever the chassis, I say just GET OUT THERE AND USE IT !!

It is sometimes easier to use or obtain non-standard parts, but if you're building it to USE then what does it matter ?! The greatest enjoyment is from driving them...

[1964 S1]

Thank you for the chestnut clarification. Factory variations abound, but not with chassis. Spyder vs. Original, values = ? Originals are worth more but may be slower on a few corners over 110 MPH, the "bent sheet steel" seems to work fine, (Provided you clean a couple of crevices every year or so.)

[nebogipfel]

A totally original, unrestored car with a full history will always command a price premium to some extent.

However, on the basis that most Elans have now been repaired/restored at least once and probably quite a few times in the last 30 odd years these "time warp" cars are thin on the ground.

On the specific point of the chassis I would personaly pay more for a car with a shiny new Spyder frame than one with a x years old Lotus original of dubious condition. I might use it as a bargaining point however!!

[Robbie693]

Strangely enough I have come across three or four Plus 2's recently that had their original chassis. Each time I have been assured by the vendor that they were fine and in good condition.

Personaly I am sceptical of this as, even if they have not succumbed to rust, the stresses and strains of 30-odd years of driving is bound to have resulted in a bit of fatigue and/or cracking.

I have heard often the theory that most original chassis were knackered after about six years... true or not, it makes one wary.