Page 2 of 2

Re: Why plus 2?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:02 pm
by Craig Elliott
I don't think it's quite true to say that Chapman was disinterested in the conception and design of the Elan and +2 - although Ron Hickman did design them I understand it was to Colin Chapman's brief. I also seem to recall that it was Colin Chapman that designed the chassis/sub-frame (if I remember correctly this was in an article by Ron Hickman).


Re: Why plus 2?

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2011 5:09 am
by 1964 S1
When I first read this thread, I thought it was an idiotic topic.
Then Dan's comment about the +2 being in a shadow changed my thinking. I'm fortunate enough to own an Elan and a +2 and as difficult as it is for me to write this, the +2 drives "better" here in the urban USA (read bumps and some potholes) than the Elan. Take them out on country roads and other than not being able to put the top down, the +2 still shines in my mind.
....and after that ramble... Dan's comment makes me wonder,,, what IF the Lotus Elan +2 had been given a totally different name? I too think it could stand alone.
Alas, Mr. Chapman was smart enough to build on the Elan's popularity, name, and excellence in handling, defining the word elan.
As far as the comments about Colin Chapman's involvement in the design, I can honestly say, without him, our beloved Elans would not exist. He attracted genius. Engineers, designers and, obviously, drivers. Give the guy a break.