Lotus Elan and Lotus Elan Plus 2 Forums

https://www.gartrac.com/fabrication/lot ... lLotus.htm

I’ve not been able to view (No flash player) this but it’s apparently a video of an Elan chassis being manufactured. Someone report back please. Wonder if they could do atomised zinc wire spraying? On another shot blasters website they claimed it offers 40 years protection.

alan.barker wrote:Hi alanr,
as you like it's a personal choice.
It's a bit like when i talk about comparing TVR and Lotus. Many Lotus owners consider TVR as no good or visa versa.
I must say it's nice to know of the different possabilites .
Alan

Alan,

Yes I totally agree...
If for instance I needed a new chassis for my Landrover it would be a no brainer, I would definitely want a galvanised chassis. But for a lightweight unit like a Lotus chassis I personally think the risk of distortion is too great.

Just my two penn'th of course

Alan.

elanfan1 wrote:https://www.gartrac.com/fabrication/lotusfab/carouselLotus.htm

I’ve not been able to view (No flash player) this but it’s apparently a video of an Elan chassis being manufactured. Someone report back please. Wonder if they could do atomised zinc wire spraying? On another shot blasters website they claimed it offers 40 years protection.

I've checked the link for you : what you see is someone laying a bead of weld with a MIG. Nothing about galvanization at first glance...

Hi. I agree with Alan Barkers comment. We do not know how accurate the chassis are that were not galvanised. I fitted a galvanised chassis to my Sprint in the late 80's early 90's and it fitted perfectly. i used less shims than the original (one actually) and it has handled perfectly from then. Including some track experience. I painted it after treating the galv with a Hammerite product for garage doors. The paint has survived very well.

Thanks, my garage doors need painting again, never thought of Hammerite for the job.

My factory original chassis was so far off that we had to de-manufacture it and move the driver side lower pin over 1/8 inch to fit in the welding jig we made

Car has had Spyder since 94 tho....

this is a Spyder Chassis with a bottom Pin problem too
Alan

I bought a 26R-spec frame from Tony Thompson several years ago, which Tony advertised as being very accurately built. I believe it was. When ordering it asked Tony if he could have this galvanised, and he advised against it, almost agitated. He said galvanising, particularly the heat, would distort the frame and nullify all the careful work in fabricating it to spec. I believe that to be true.

I had the frame carefully painted by a local paint shop on a zinc-chromate-based primer base. It’s still in great shape.

Andy

This will always be an endless story and personal opinions.
Something like trying to convert from one Religion to another. Or for or against Brexit.. Or maybe to eat Marmite or not
Alan

alan.barker wrote:This will always be an endless story and personal opinions.
Something like trying to convert from one Religion to another. Or for or against Brexit.. Or maybe to eat Marmite or not
Alan

who eats marmite except a few strange people who live on a small island ridden by disease in the northern hemisphere.... vegemite for real people down under

cheers
Rohan

I think it’s just a simple engineering issue. Heating a frame to the degree needed for hot-dip galvanising relieves stresses in the frame, changing its alignment., allowing it to trust, etc., albeit slightly.

I don’t think it will distort sone time after installation. It will be “distorted” (I.e., different from before galvanising in dimensions relative to points in the chassis) the moment it comes out of the galvanising shop.

Does it matter? For most, maybe not.

My opinion only.

An interesting article. The thin-gauge sheet used in the Elan chassis and it’s design don’t seem suited especially yo hot-dip galvanising.

https://az276019.vo.msecnd.net/valmonts ... nizing.pdf

I understand all the different opiñions and opinions are great. We all have them. But the fact is that when I installed my galvanized chassis in about 1991, the distance between the top of the rear tire and the body was the same on both sides. In 2004 it was not, even after installing new springs
Only explanation I can think of was that the chassis warped. Body did not warp. Car was not hit. People that that have the required experience and that we have determined through group consensus are knowledgeable in this hobby say that that galvanizing can cause this. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Oh,
I think there are a few Politicians that are Quackers toooo
Alan

tvacc wrote:I understand all the different opiñions and opinions are great. We all have them. But the fact is that when I installed my galvanized chassis in about 1991, the distance between the top of the rear tire and the body was the same on both sides. In 2004 it was not, even after installing new springs
Only explanation I can think of was that the chassis warped. Body did not warp. Car was not hit. People that that have the required experience and that we have determined through group consensus are knowledgeable in this hobby say that that galvanizing can cause this. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

The change in tire clearance at the rear can be due to ducks, geese or chickens

The chassis may have moved over time, the body may have distorted overtime or the suspension ( especially the springs and the new ones may not have been identical ) may have changed overtime. Note changes to the front can have a big impact on the rear also as it changes the weight transfer to the rear wheels especially the cross weights.

cheers
Rohan