LOTUS chassis vs Spyder someone pls help!

[Craven]

Cracks appear where stress raisers occur this does not mean flexing is only limited to this local area it indicates excess flexing is present.
It seems at odds to me that Lotus would add weight by introducing these modifications to a racing car that?s sole purpose is longevity, ACBC was infamous for paring structures down to the absolutely minimum.

[miked]

maybe drifting here a bit.
I don't know about the modern source but 17 years ago I rejected two Lotus Elan Chassis's based upon dimensional inaccuracy. As Greg says nothing to do with hot dip. I don't know were they come from now but hope they are now good. One was 3/8 inch out (too long) on passenger side (UK) from turret to turret. The second 1/2 inch out same side. Jig problems! Also going to give set up problems.
I went for a Spyder one for that car after wasting months waiting for the above. No problems. They even told me were the others would be wrong before I told them, so a known defect. Conversation with THE source was beyond rude.
To buy a Lotus one these days I would be all over it like a rash to ensure it was accurate. Having used Spyder I was well happy with the increased stiffness, robustness, accuracy and accessibility. Never afraid to jack up.
I have an other car now with Zetec motor that has a Spyder chassis. I would have been concerned if not.
I did build a S4 with a 26r chassis that was NOS. That was accurate. Given the choice I would always go Spyder. That rear diff area strong square section and the access does it for me.
Something that used to stress me was jacking up Plus 2's with a Lotus chassis. I have had three. You have to be darn careful under the diff area with spreading the lifting weight along the chassis. How many top hat sections do you see distorted under the diff by poor lifting. Also damage to A frame bushing chassis brackets.
For originality people tolerate a lot.

Mike

[gus]

Spyder chassis since at least the early 90's have had reinforcement in the area of the pictured failure, it is no longer really relevant to the conversation. Since there is but the one picture we really don't know how common that failure is.
We do know tower failure on an OEM chassis is, essentially, inevitable. The problem is the rusting of the closing plate at the bottom of the shock tower is invisible until the tower starts twisting, cracking and failing. A car that is never in the rain, never dirty, never sits on damp ground, sure, they will last. Can a buyer know every bit of history of a car? No. A replacement chassis, galvy, 26R, or Spyder, is the only way to be assured that one is not facing a big bill shortly into ownership. Yes many people have original chassis, that does not affect the wisdom of paying big money for a car with a huge unknown.

On my OEM chassis the lower driver side suspension pin was out of position by about .100 inch. In reconstructing the chassis we cut it out and repostioned it so it would fit in the fixture we made to reweld the towers.

[rgh0]

Cracks appear where stress raisers occur this does not mean flexing is only limited to this local area it indicates excess flexing is present.
It seems at odds to me that Lotus would add weight by introducing these modifications to a racing car that?s sole purpose is longevity, ACBC was infamous for paring structures down to the absolutely minimum.

I have never seen any photos of original 26R chassis. Do we know if Lotus did the various reinforcing mods or did these evolve later after owners started racing Elans for extended periods and started having cracking and distortion problems as they went to stiffer and stiffer suspensions and raced the cars over more and more years.

Yes flexing occurs in the the total chassis and the small fillet reinforcements done do little to prevent the torsional twist induced in the chassis as the car corners. Torsional stiffness is mainly a function of the overall chassis cross sections dimensions and has much less to do with stiffening of the various flanges and brackets

For a road Elan chassis torsional stiffness is not critical given how soft the suspension is particularly the rear. In a race Elan it may be more important depending on how you like your suspension setup.

cheers
Rohan

[patrics]

Sandy, this is a rubbish topic!
Driving on any race track then then it has to be a Lotus style chassis or the car is not a Lotus and your not racing, so track times are obviously irrelevant.
Driving around Sainsbury's supermarket island then who can tell the difference anyway?
Good or bad then a Spyder chassis only has relevance to somebody wanting ease of maintenance or some such.
Many years a go then Spyder were filling a void when Lotus couldn?t be bothered and if they did then it was crap - these days it is different so no point using Spyder unless going down a non TwinCam route.
Lotus were not the only car company making crap they all were, differences of an inch in wheel base side to side wasn't unusual but these days that kind of tolerance only exists in the China market
Regards
Steve

[Davidb]

Rohan: The two 26Rs that I owned the eighties did not have such modifications. In fact, apart from the raising of the rear suspension mounts I do not recall any serious modifications or reinforcements. And yes, I am sure they had their original chassis.

[rgh0]

Rohan: The two 26Rs that I owned the eighties did not have such modifications. In fact, apart from the raising of the rear suspension mounts I do not recall any serious modifications or reinforcements. And yes, I am sure they had their original chassis.

Thanks for confirming that David. I suspected the so called 26R mods were a later invention as people stiffened up the suspensions to handle modern sticky tyres and found the weak points

cheers
Rohan

[Davidb]

26-r-5 had a perfect chassis-it was like new, reflecting the fairly small amount of racing it had done prior to being put in storage through the seventies/early eighties.

26/S2/18 was a different story! It had been raced hard and put away wet many, many times. The engine mounts were torn out of the side rails. There is a modification to the rear of the chassis that I will not disclose but one would need to be under the very rear of the car to find it. In the Barber Motorsport Museum.

I have the side windshield still-covered with plaques from all the races it ran in Eastern Canada-I offered it to them and they were uninterested so it stays in my office!

[The Veg]

26/S2/18 was a different story! It had been raced hard and put away wet many, many times. The engine mounts were torn out of the side rails. There is a modification to the rear of the chassis that I will not disclose but one would need to be under the very rear of the car to find it. In the Barber Motorsport Museum.

Will have to remember that next time I'm there, and hope they have it parked where I can take a look.

[alan.barker]

Sandy, this is a rubbish topic!
Driving on any race track then then it has to be a Lotus style chassis or the car is not a Lotus and your not racing, so track times are obviously irrelevant.
Driving around Sainsbury's supermarket island then who can tell the difference anyway?
Good or bad then a Spyder chassis only has relevance to somebody wanting ease of maintenance or some such.
Many years a go then Spyder were filling a void when Lotus couldn?t be bothered and if they did then it was crap - these days it is different so no point using Spyder unless going down a non TwinCam route.
Lotus were not the only car company making crap they all were, differences of an inch in wheel base side to side wasn't unusual but these days that kind of tolerance only exists in the China market
Regards
Steve

+1
Alan

[Craven]

Reading of posts is NOT mandatory

[Spyder fan]

I will award can of worms to the first person to settle this discussion.



I will always use chassis that have been fabricated by Spyder, the distributor of the other item is far too rude.

[alan.barker]

May i suggest "un Entant Cordial".
I think i prefer to eat this than worms

Alan