LOTUS V SPYDER

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

Rohan,
I completely agree with your comments. Graham Arnold was indeed a salesman who liked to portray himself as understanding the technical issues but didn't really. I once talked to him about tyres and he couldn't understand why anyone would want to use modern tyres on an Elan - 1960s tyres were good enough for Jim Clark and Colin Chapman so why would mere mortals want anything better was the gist of his argument!

Lotus has employed a long line of experienced test drivers. John Miles was regarded as one of the best in the business for many years, he was reputed to be fantastic at getting suspension settings spot on.

Mike

Well Mike, with all due respect why did you bother to post the bollox that emanated from Mr. Arnold's (learned?) Gob?

My understanding of all the things I've read about Lotus design was that maximum chassis rigidity coupled with complaint suspension was of utmost importance.
Sacrifices in order to save weight & cost were made which would have impacted on the total rigidity concept within reason.
The Elan cut & bend along the lines frame was used instead of a number of originally conceived separate metal "body stiffeners", apparently because the desired stiffness could not be realised in the Elan's open body & that the "all in one" frame provided an economical solution rather than positioning the various planned separate stiffeners.
As mentioned earlier Vic Moore was basically forced by Lotus to stop reproducing the Lotus frame & his alternative "space frame" design was the result.
It also is a compromise design due to cost & the limitations of available space within the existing Elan bodyshell, but I think that he did a damned good job of it.

Also earlier on in this thread mention was made of "racers" wanting everything as tight & compact as possible.
Is that really an excuse for the lack of space around the engine in the engine bay & major problem of replacing the diff' unit in the back of the car?
In a competition car that is where the "racers" need tons of space to make regular maintenance, change back axle ratios etc. so simple & quick as possible.
I think that if historic racing reg's allowed it, every Elan competitor would put a Spyder frame into their Elans straight away.

You can do lots of "acceptable mods" to stiffen a Lotus frame but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Cheers
John

[bcmc33]

My understanding of all the things I've read about Lotus design was that maximum chassis rigidity coupled with complaint suspension was of utmost importance.
Sacrifices in order to save weight & cost were made which would have impacted on the total rigidity concept within reason.
The Elan cut & bend along the lines frame was used instead of a number of originally conceived separate metal "body stiffeners", apparently because the desired stiffness could not be realised in the Elan's open body & that the "all in one" frame provided an economical solution rather than positioning the various planned separate stiffeners.
As mentioned earlier Vic Moore was basically forced by Lotus to stop reproducing the Lotus frame & his alternative "space frame" design was the result.
It also is a compromise design due to cost & the limitations of available space within the existing Elan bodyshell, but I think that he did a damned good job of it.

Also earlier on in this thread mention was made of "racers" wanting everything as tight & compact as possible.
Is that really an excuse for the lack of space around the engine in the engine bay & major problem of replacing the diff' unit in the back of the car?
In a competition car that is where the "racers" need tons of space to make regular maintenance, change back axle ratios etc. so simple & quick as possible.
I think that if historic racing reg's allowed it, every Elan competitor would put a Spyder frame into their Elans straight away.
You can do lots of "acceptable mods" to stiffen a Lotus frame but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Cheers
John

Well said, John - that just about sums up what I was going to say.

[mikealdren]

John,
with all due respect, I was agreeing with Rohan about the Bollox that emanated from Mr Arnold, god rest his soul!!!!!

As to Vic Moore, I have his stressed skin chassis number 12 in one car and a spaceframe in the other.


Mike

[GrUmPyBoDgEr]

John,
with all due respect, I was agreeing with Rohan about the Bollox that emanated from Mr Arnold, god rest his soul!!!!!

As to Vic Moore, I have his stressed skin chassis number 12 in one car and a spaceframe in the other.


Mike

Mike, I know that you know that I meant nothing personal in that reply
After posting it I had a vision of the famous Mr. Moore after showing Lotus his alternative answer to the lotus frame; that being him grinning ear to ear & giving them something similar to the Sebastian Vettel number one salute!

John

[ardee_selby]

Mr. Pete wrote:

"The way I see it is that the Lotus Elan is a monocoque fibreglass car which has a large steel subframe, whereas I see a Spyder chassis Elan as a steel chassis car which has a monocoque fibreglass body attached."

(Ref: post32821.html?hilit=spyder#p32821)

I've not understood what he was on about...until now. At least I think I do

Cheers - Richard

[abstamaria]

When I was restoring my Elan in 1980-81, I cleaned, carefully prepared, and spray-painted the original frame. While doing other jobs on the car, I had the bare frame sitting on axle stands in our library. It was beautiful, and I almost just wanted to keep it there.

A friend's son, then in his early 20s, saw that frame in the library and was smitten and inspired by it. He left for graduate work in the US and eventually decided to live there. He soon bought an Elan to restore. He is 50 now, with his own kids, but still has that Elan (with the original frame).

I seriously considered a Spyder frame, got all the catalogs and made the inquiries, but decided against it for many reasons, but principally because it was not "Lotus" and was heavier, and also because it was not as lovely as the original. These are stupid reasons, of course, but those are what swayed me.

I had an off at a vintage race in the late 90s and bent the left-front corner of the frame. I had this straightened on a computerized jig and gave it to a friend. To help me get enthusiastic over the forced restoration of my Elan, I decided on a new frame. Again I considered Spyder, but ultimately bought a "26R" version from Tony Thompson. At least, it was based on the original design and had historical basis. It looked like the original frame on steroids, what with all the gussets and stiffeners. It was not as lovely as the original, though, and sometimes I regret not returning to the priginal frame.

Andy

[rgh0]

Andy

I agree the original frame is a beautiful and elegant piece of work which is why I have the oringal one I removed my my Elan hanging in my house as a light fitting

cheers
Rohan

[abstamaria]

Funny, Rohan. At least you kept it. My friend has the frame I gave him hanging too, in his garage above his Lotus Seven; he is still hoping to get an Elan. He is a retired engineer and used to make very authentic Cobra, MG TC, and Porsche 550 and Speedster replicas. He is making me a 1/12 scale Lotus Elan frame out of thin brass sheet. It will look great on my desk.

Andy

[bcmc33]

Andy

I agree the original frame is a beautiful and elegant piece of work which is why I have the oringal one I removed my my Elan hanging in my house as a light fitting

cheers
Rohan

Picture, Rohan, Picture.

[ardee_selby]

<snip> ...It was beautiful, and I almost just wanted to keep it there.

I seriously considered a Spyder frame...it was not as lovely as the original. These are stupid reasons, of course, but those are what swayed me.

Andy

Andy,

Not in the least "stupid" !!!!! This image has stuck with me for some reason.

Cheers - Richard

[ardee_selby]

<snip> He is making me a 1/12 scale Lotus Elan frame out of thin brass sheet. It will look great on my desk.

Andy

Please, please, some pictures when available...

Cheers - Richard

[elj221c]

I know which one I think is best and it's not just because my favourite is shiney!

[ardee_selby]

Andy

I agree the original frame is a beautiful and elegant piece of work which is why I have the oringal one I removed my my Elan hanging in my house as a light fitting

cheers
Rohan

Picture, Rohan, Picture.

Archives, Brian, archives.

http://www.lotuselan.net/publish/article_351.shtml

Cheers - Richard

[Robbie693]

Now that looks cool!

[mikealdren]

Mike, I know that you know that I meant nothing personal in that reply

No problem all John, Mr Arnold had that effect on me too!

regards
Mike