vincereynard wrote:JonB wrote:Now that is interesting. Vince's clip states that they chose doughnuts not because - as others have asserted - CV joints were not available at the time, but because of cost.
So who actually designed the chassis might be a matter of opinion. Didn't Chapman start out designing bridges? Basic stuff for him I would have thought. £10 each! How much did they charge for a replacement chassis back then?
Rotoflex are clever and a neat solution but probably not intended for Elan power and performance.
I don't think CVs were available in the early 60s? Nasty old Hookes were of course, which could have been used as a top link and eliminated the need for a full strut.
Minis had Cvs in 1959
Rotoflexs were and still are an industrial drive train component , they were never intended to have the degree of deflection required in an Elan suspension. Power and torque is fine they just dont like more than a few degrees of misalignment, 1000hp Porsche 917 used them !. They worked OK on race cars with little suspension movement and bigger donuts if needed for power and torque but on an Elan a fundamental design flaw with the suspension travel
Using Hookes joints in a drive shaft as the top link would have been a better solution as on my Esprit S1 but that needs proper inboard bearings on the diff output shaft to take the axial load which Lotus were clearly reluctant to do..... as per the Europa
. It would have also made the back end of the chassis even cheaper
Lotus engineering while innovative, was crude and took a huge amount of risks and a bet it would get past the warranty period.
cheers
Rohan