document reliability

Post by: **twincamman** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:12 pm

language Timmothy and eat your sprouts your mother made them for you

Post by: **elancoupe** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:01 pm

Spyder fan wrote:
Most people go to the trouble of trying to fake a car, but Ed bought one that was genuine that lacked authenticity.

.

This is not correct, the car is a documented old race car with some 26r parts. Beyond that, there is absolutely no proof of it being the real thing.

The famous "numbers on the rear firewall" do not read S233 as claimed, I have a copy of the photo, and suitably enhanced, the numbers read 3333 - which is THE BODY NUMBER, not the chassis number.

Post by: **Spyder fan** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:12 pm

elancoupe wrote:
Spyder fan wrote:
Most people go to the trouble of trying to fake a car, but Ed bought one that was genuine that lacked authenticity.

.

This is not correct, the car is a documented old race car with some 26r parts. Beyond that, there is absolutely no proof of it being the real thing.

The famous "numbers on the rear firewall" do not read S233 as claimed, I have a copy of the photo, and suitably enhanced, the numbers read 3333 - which is THE BODY NUMBER, not the chassis number.

"And some fell on stony ground"

my irony is not obvious enough for you?

Ed, please have a go at me.... People will talk otherwise :mrgreen:

Post by: **twincamman** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:18 pm

Alas fortune vomits on my eiderdown once again (blackadder)

sorry elan coup But the number is S2 33 its the assembly number or kit parts gathering number so all the bits get packed or hung on the correct car ?..ed

Post by: **Spyder fan** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:23 pm

twincamman wrote:Alas fortune vomits on my eiderdown once again (blackadder)

"Don't be revolting Darling!" (General Melchett - Blackadder goes forth)

Jeff
This guy is killing me!

Post by: **twincamman** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:48 pm

ok ?LETS BE SERIOUS FOR ONE MOMENT?settledown ?shshshsh... Who produced the cat eye bodys for Lotus ???.Anyone /?????ed

Post by: **twincamman** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:57 pm

Mike ?you seem very opinionated for some one who has never seen or touched the car ?.jumping to conclusions my friend ?you can read all about it on the tread started by Gary 26R . I wont be distracted from my statement that original company production documents are never, ever placed in private hands knowingly or legally .ed

Post by: **Spyder fan** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:14 pm

I try to diss him and he turns me into his Tag Team buddy

26 arrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhh!!!!

Post by: **elanfan1** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:32 pm

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Lotus were a global car company back in the sixties when they were actually little more than a cottage industry (albeit a brilliant one) set up to fund their racing. Lots of things happened back then that you couldn't get away with today i.e. cars sold off the books, duplicate cars sold, dodgy deals with others that eventually led to jail for some. Record keeping just wasn't their priority so it makes perfect sense that Peter Brand (the Lotus Archivist at the time and whose writing these lists are in) would pull the build cards and collate them onto a central list.

For these lists to find their way into private hands is not at all surprising nor illegal (unprofessional maybe but certainly not illegal - think your judgement is a bit off there). Photocopiers would have been around and once you'd spent many hours transcribing the records it is not at all unlikely that copies would have been made as you'd want more than one copy. back then there would not have been any way of electronically storing this data so a safe way of protecting the records would be to produce copies and keep them in separate buildings in case of fire/flood etc. it is probable that Peter would have taken copies home for this very reason.

The current Lotus Archivist Andy Graham has confirmed the writing, style of card etc is exactly the same as other in period records that they hold for other early Types. Maybe Andy would like to confirm this publically and hopefully put this to bed.

I think the Elan community in general is and should be very grateful that this happened or today there'd be a rather large hole in the records.

Post by: **vincereynard** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:58 pm

Just to poke my head over the parapet for a moment -

what is a cats eye body?

Post by: **elanfan1** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:00 pm

vincereynard wrote:Just to poke my head over the parapet for a moment -

what is a cats eye body?

A PC version of Chinese eye?

Post by: **mark030358** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:31 pm

Everyone has the right to an opinion, right or wrong. Just do t read it if you don't like it, simple.

Mark

Too many cars to list......

Post by: **twincamman** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:34 pm

the [politically incorrect] ?call the Chineese eyes body ??.never put your head over the sand bags ?. :lol:

I did once and its been sniped at ever since ..ed

Post by: **twincamman** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:52 pm

Too many cars to list?...are you used car dealer or is your last name Ford ? :shock:

...ed

Post by: **twincamman** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:28 am

And we are to accept Dave's rant just because he's Dave the 26r expert . Right? The Lotus factory does not know , but Dave knows .because some one told him and he knew ?.no paper work just word of mouth and perhaps some old cards .(...speaking of road apples and bull puckey) no I don't think so ? page 155 of Cris Harvys book Lotus dispells your build years according to him 1963 development and beginning production /64 with glassed in lights in the wings replacing the pop up head lights was the first year for the cars in competiton .but there is no reference of the information other than he was there and saw it happen ..ed

document reliability

Total Online:

Recent Forum Topics

Support LotusElan.net!

Recent Wiki Articles