Re: X1 or not

[Lyndsay Wood]

Now Now Boys, do play nicely together....

I must say that I find some of the remarks regards orriginality and Lotus quite funny: Speak of an oxymoron! These claims being made on a car where I do not believe any two left the factory in essentially the same specification, and so claims to being 'orriginal' fourty years after the fact become stretched beyond the bounds of reality. (Nor do I wish to detract ANYTHING from those of you who do strive to keep your cars to the spec they are {or left the factory with}, that is also important to me, but beyond my means)

The Lotus X1 is a superb car, one of the most beautiful built, to my eye. That I do not have the wherewithal to own one only leaves me one alternative, and while my car is being built with the 'heartbeat' of Colin Chapman, it is being built with an eye to me really being able to enjoy what cars (certainly as Chapman built them) are made for -being driven hard for the purpose of having fun. Will my car ever be an X1? No, no real claim to be, but it will be every bit as fun to drive as any of the 'orriginals', and it will certainly be used on both the track and 'going down to the local'...And yes, like the Westfield, it will look like an X1 simply because that is what is pleasing to my eye.

Like the good old Tiger Moth, I doubt very much there is one X1 which is actually the worth of the sum of it's parts (in only pound terms), but it is that unique mystique that makes it what people have decided to accord it. And long may that be so. They do say immitation is the most sincere form of flattery...

ChucklingRegards
Lyndsay

--- On Tue, 26/5/09, Elton E. (Tony) Clark <elton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Elton E. (Tony) Clark <elton...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Westfield sold on ebay
> To: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, 26 May, 2009, 3:22 AM
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:50 PM,
> John Donohoe <jo...@ciesaonline.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Right, very cordial of you.
>
>
> Thank you,
> John D. 
>  
> Right, as was your:
>  
> "Surely there is a westfield list to
> which I've accidentally subscribed...
> #$%^(&*
>  
> (apologies to innocent
> bystanders)
> Tony in
> Texas
>
> >
>
>
>

[alba...@comcast.net]

Ahem, Lyndsay.  It was not my intention to "stir the pot" with my post regarding that little yellow car on flea-bay, but I'll stick with my original statements.  Long gone are the days when one could pick up an early Lotus for a few hundred dollars and then restore it.  Anyone wanting a car from the Chapman era today needs to have deep pockets as well as enthusiasm.  Another point I'll be so bold to make is: that at this point in time many of the surviving cars are "grandfather's axes" if indeed they were used as intended.  An early 23 which I owned (that car is now in the UK; she helped pay for part of my daughter's college education) required replacement of all the tubing aft of the cockpit.  The chassis was repaired to authentic spec and the car retains her eligibility for vintage racing,  but the fact remains that she is not 100% original.  Even in the best of cases, stuff wears out.  So to a degree it becomes a point of personal philosophy as to how much of the original construction a car must retain such that it can be considered "genuine" as opposed to "fake" or "replicated" or whatever.  As for cars such as Westfields, Caterhams et al.  if those cars are accurately constructed and help keep alive the essence of a by gone era, then why not let them play? 

George in Maryland (still have a 23b; interested in all accurately built early Lotus cars, geniune or not)

[John Donohoe]

Okay, my last comment on the subject -- can we please discourage the placement of a Lotus badge or chassis plate on a car which is not a Lotus?

The bottom line is that replicas are, knowingly or not, are very often offered for sale as genuine Lotus cars.

And Mr. Clark: my comment was general in nature and I presumed my 'cute' curse in the form of special characters would be taken in the light hearted manner it was intended. My apologies to the list if anyone was offended by it. I believe the phrase you directed specifically at me was without question offensive to many on this list.

Thank you,

John D.

PS Before I knew too much about Lotus cars, I did test drive a Westfield Eleven back in 1980-something. It was quite enjoyable, however, I was confused and put off by the placement of the Lotus badge on its nose.

[Lyndsay Wood]

Hello John D, et al,

I fully intend to put a Lotus badge on my car, it will certainly be very close to the orriginal in extrior detail, and I believe it is then fitting to 'honour' the orriginal. The car will be registered however, as a 'Wood n' Carr's' as are the two Sevens we have built, to the same ideal. There will certainly be no effort at all to conceal the fact that this is not an 'orriginal', and if ever sold (it is not being built with sale in mind) it will be for whatever an interested party is prepared to pay for it, as our first '7' has.

Neither are my comments made to 'stir the pot', simply explanation. I fully accept, and indeed laud, the Register's attempt to pull people of like mind together and hold a strong and accurate history of all possible 'orriginal' X1's, and have really appreciated input for my car from various people on this forum. Thanx!

However, I do think there is ample place for both groups to exist, provided we ALL remain true to the ideals of the Register. As Vic is no doubt aware, there were three X1'S in South Africa orriginally, and I believe there are now 5 (all of which were absolutely the personal car of both Jim Clark and Graham Hill...!)... I certainly could not part one car into two, but it would seem that some believe that to be perfectly acceptable...I suppose it really comes down to personal integrity in the end, and where some percieve there is money to be made...

My interest is in enjoying my driving, and classic racing cars, and not being endowed with the money, I have to rely on the skills I seem to have inherited to an extent that building my own 7, or X1, is my only real option to obtain one.

The whole debate about 'Orriginal' versus 'Replica' versus 'Continuation' versus 'Replacement' will always be with anyone involved with cars or aircraft with any provinance. Only real Honesty is of value when all is said and done.

But please do not let us all lose sight of the fact we are all involved with this beautiful car because it is mesmerising in so many ways: Let us all enjoy it for what it is, a classic!

StillWarmRegards
Lyndsay

--- On Tue, 26/5/09, John Donohoe <jo...@ciesaonline.com> wrote:

> Thank you,John D.

[Elton E. (Tony) Clark]

I coincidentally agree with Mr $%&%#*$% Donohoe on the badging:  my Eleven wore a Lotus badge, my Westfield wore a Westfield badge. 

Tony in Texas

 

 

[John Donohoe]

LOL :-)

John D.

[John W. Watson.]

Hi,

 

I have been weighing some Lotus 15” wheels as fitted to the Mark VI. Results thus far are as follows:-

 

15” x 4” Ballamy wheel - no tyre = 14.4 lbs.

 

15” x 4” New Elektron Turner pattern wheel - no tyre = 7.6 lbs.

 

15” x 3” Old Elektron Turner wheel - no tyre = 6.8 lbs.

 

15” x 4” Lotus supplied wheel – no tyre = 11.1 lbs  -  weighed by Mike Marsden.

 

These of course are all rims type wheels without centres. What is apparent is how heavy the Ballamy wheels are. All that unsprung weight ..  ..  ..  !!

 

However does anyone have figures for say:-

 

15” x 5” magnesium Wobbly Web wheel  - no tyre (as fitted to a Lotus Eleven) = ?

 

15” x 4” x 48 Dunlop pattern spoke wheel – no tyre (as fitted to a Lotus Eleven / Seven) = ?

 

15” x 4” x 48 spoke Borani – no tyre (as fitted by some racers) = ?

 

And anything else comparable.

 

Thanks.

 

Regards,

 

JWW

 

[Roger Sieling]

I can weigh several Lotus wobblies. Normal Eleven 15 x 4 wobbly fronts have the front wheel races installed, but this is deceptive, since there is NO separate front hubs. I also have 15 x 4, 15 x 4-1/2, 15 x 5 wobblies, 13 x 5  4 bolt wobbly, 13 x 6 6-spoke wobbly and 13 x 7 6-spoke Lotus 23C/35/41 wheel, 26R wheel etc.

Roger

---

From: j...@onetel.com
To: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Weighing Wheels.
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:09:17 +0100

---

Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it out.

[John W. Watson.]

Hi Roger,

 

I look forward, with interest, to seeing results from you.

 

Regards,

 

JWW

[belde...@sbcglobal.net]

I've checked three wheels; all 15X4 48 spoke wires for my IX. My scale would never pass at the National Bureau of Standards where one of my racing buddies spent his career; but for what it's worth:

 

Original Dunlop- 14.5 lb. 

 

Dayton replacement- 14.0 lb. Useable only on the rear of the IX, drop center won't clear the fins on the front brake drums.

 

MWS replacements- 16.2 lb.

 

Truly the tenths are probably a joke and it really might be better to figure they are all close enough to call

15 LB +/-. That's as much as I trust my measurement skills and equipment.

Dave Belden

Woodstock,CT 

----- Original Message -----

From: John W. Watson.

To: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com

[pe...@historiclotusregister.co.uk]

This thread is closed and has been renamed "Badges on Lotus Replicas"

The heading of the thread contained a spelling mistake. The roman
number XI is spelled with a capital "X" and a capital "I". The
heading incorrectly put a number "1" insaed of a capital "I"

[John W. Watson.]

"Colin Chapman - The Man and his Cars - The Authorised Biography" by Gerard
(Jabby) Crombac page 63

Quote:
<<< It would perhaps be as well to explain here why this car was always
referred to as the Lotus 'Eleven', with the mark number spelt out. Up to
this particular car . . . (etc. etc.) >>>

Either the heading of the thread is totally incorrect or Gerard Crombac has
got it completely wrong?!

Peter, if you are giving us a lesson in Roman numerals then fair enough, but
what has this got to do with the Lotus Eleven?!!

Perhaps we should refer to the replica as a W!£$%^&*d as an XI and the real
thing as a LOTUS ELEVEN? !!

Welcome back!

JWW

-----Original Message-----
From: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Lotus-...@googlegroups.com]

On Behalf Of pe...@historiclotusregister.co.uk
Sent: 27 May 2009 17:49
To: Lotus History
Subject: Re: X1 or not

[John Donohoe]

Seconded :-)

jd

[Peter Ross]

Dear John,

It is very simple. If you do a search using "XI" you do not get a thread titled "X1
or not" because X1 and XI are not the same thing.

I will always use the word "Eleven" rather than "XI" to avoid this sort of confusion.

heading incorrectly put a number "1" instead of a capital "I"








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.43/2138 - Release Date: 05/27/09 18:21:00


--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 146 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message

[Peter Ross]

Dear John,

What Jabby wrote was quite correct, and we always referred to it as the "Eleven" at
the time. It is true that some of the drawings and the early press releases used the
name "Lotus XI", but this was soon forgotten.

I always use the name Eleven to avoid this sort of confusion.

The reason for my complaint about the title to the thread is simple:

If you do a search using "XI" you do NOT get the thread "X1 or not" because "XI" and
"X1" are not the same. Much better to stick to "Eleven".

----- Original Message ----- . It

From: "John W. Watson." <j...@onetel.com>
To: <Lotus-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: X1 or not

"Colin Chapman - The Man and his Cars - The Authorised Biography" by Gerard
(Jabby) Crombac page 63

Welcome back!

JWW

heading incorrectly put a number "1" instead of a capital "I"

--

I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.

SPAMfighter has removed 148 of my spam emails to date.

[Elton E. (Tony) Clark]

Wull, here I go again . . The Eleven I owned for many years had a very correct chassis plate  that said:

 

MK11  153

 

 There's a photo of it on page 13 of Capel's book: "Lotus - the historic years 1956 - 1958"

 

Apparently, the very early cars were still styled as "MK 11's" and I think Victor has other examples. 

[Peter Ross]

Yes, but it did NOT say "Lotus Mk X1" which is the point I was trying to make.

----- Original Message --.---

From: "Elton E. (Tony) Clark" <elton...@gmail.com>

To: <Lotus-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:07 AM

Subject: Re: X1 or not

> *Wull, here I go again . . The Eleven I owned for many years* *had a very
> correct chassis plate * *that said:*
> **
> *MK11 153*
> **
> * There's a photo of it on page 13 of Capel's book: "Lotus - the historic
> years 1956 - 1958"*
>
> *Apparently, the very early cars were still styled as "MK 11's" and I
> thinkVictor has other examples.
> *

> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Peter Ross <
> pe...@historiclotusregister.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> What Jabby wrote was quite correct, and we always referred to it as the
>> "Eleven" at
>> the time. It is true that some of the drawings and the early press
>> releases used the
>> name "Lotus XI", but this was soon forgotten.
>>
>> I always use the name Eleven to avoid this sort of confusion.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.43/2138 - Release Date: 05/27/09 18:21:00

[Elton E. (Tony) Clark]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Peter Ross <pe...@historiclotusregister.co.uk> wrote:

Yes, but it did NOT say "Lotus Mk X1" which is the point I was trying to make.

Absolutely correct . . my only point was to note that a few early cars were termed "MK 11" before the spelled out "ELEVEN" took over; that subject had been touched on in the thread . . 

Tony

[Vic Thomas]

Dear Tony

You are quite right.

In fact all Eleven chassis

plates are stamped  Mk 11.

Best Regards

VFT

ps see long detailed article

on X1 chassis plates in the next

HLR Magazine. 

----- Original Message -----

From: Elton E. (Tony) Clark

To: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:07 AM

Subject: Re: X1 or not

[Vic Thomas]

Sorry Peter , but it did actually.
The printed heading on the plate
said Lotus Engineering and the
plate was stamped Mk 11 below
it.
I think any court would uphold
that the Lotus model was a MK 11.
Certainly DVLA use this.
Regards
VFT

[Elton E. (Tony) Clark]

All !?! . . I thought only a few earlies like o' 153. . sorry

[Roger Sieling]

I just checked and 4DTN's plate is marked "Mk11 Ser2  345", so they were still using that identification in 1958.

Roger

---

Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:39:09 -0500

Subject: Re: X1 or not

From: elton...@gmail.com
To: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com

</div

---

Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.

[Elton E. (Tony) Clark]

Yes Roger . . Vic's already posted that ALL Eleven plates say "MK 11" . . I thought I had a "scoop"!  Somethjing like 20 OTHER items on #153 were distinctive and I mistakenly thought this was one of them.

Tony

[Roderick McLellan]

Here are some links to some scans of the title blocks on some of the blue prints:

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc171/HockeyRoddy/elevenprogressmay.jpg

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc171/HockeyRoddy/elevenprogressmay081.jpg

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc171/HockeyRoddy/elevenprogressmay083.jpg

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc171/HockeyRoddy/elevenprogressmay084.jpg

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc171/HockeyRoddy/elevenprogressmay082.jpg

 

Whats interesting to me is that its referred to as the Mk 11, other than the Series Two body line drawing that refers to it as an XI Series 2.

 

By the way, feel free to scan through the photobucket album, by i must warn that its contents will not be to everyones liking.

 

Cheers,
Rod

[Roger Sieling]

But Roddy, that's exactly what the Elevens produced in 1957 and later were for the most part, Eleven Series 2. Since many of the ideas for the Ser 2 were similar to the twelve F2 car, many have speculated that the 11 Series 2 was actually the Mk13 that was skipped over for superstitious reasons.

Roger

---

Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:48:36 -0700

Subject: Re: X1 or not

From: roderick...@gmail.com
To: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com

---

Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.

[Roderick McLellan]

Roger,

I was surprised at the XI on the Series 2 drawing when the others had Mk 11. 

 

Rod

[Peter Ross]

Victor,

Please READ my email messages before replying.

"X1" and "XI" are NOT the same, and if Lotus ever put "X1" on one of their chassis
plates it would have been an error by someone who intended to write "XI".

I know that that sounds pedantic, but if you ever do a PDF search for "X1" you will
NOT get "XI", and vice versa.

Peter.

Peter.

Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.46/2143 - Release Date: 05/30/09 05:53:00

--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.

SPAMfighter has removed 149 of my spam emails to date.

[roger Sieling]

OK, this afternoon I loaded up eight wheels and took them up to my
local hardware store, who said I could use their digital scale.
Following is a list of my results, all in US measure pounds:

15 x 5 Lotus wobbly (orig) as used on the rear of S2
Eleven_____________________10.14

15 x 4 Lotus wobbly, Orig as used on my Eleven S2 including outer
wheel brg races__8.75

15 x 4 Lotus wobbly, orig used by me as a spare rear, could be 18
front____________7.14

13 x 5 Lotus 4 bolt orig 20/22/23 use, front,4-bolt
bare__________________________8.77

13 x 5 mag repro 20/22/23 front wheel, 4-bolt, incl metal inflate
valve ______________8.73

13 x 6 mag repro 20/22/23 rear wheel,
bare___________________________________8.75

13 x 7 Lotus orig 6-spoke type 35/41 wheel,
bare______________________________8.17

13 x 6 Lotus orig 26R 4-pin KO wheel, incl 3 of 4
pins__________________________9.13

I realize this more than covers the range in the discussion, but while
I was at it, I decided I'd open it up a little for comparison. Next
I'll have to weigh some of my 8-spoke American racing Silverstones
(sort of look like Minilites, but better) and some of the dymag wheels
I have for my 1976 Modus F3 car. I like to look at it as the car Lotus
would have produced if they'd kept Jo Marquart on payroll and
continued to produce customer racecars into the 70s.

Roger Sieling

On 5/26/09, John W. Watson. <j...@onetel.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have been weighing some Lotus 15" wheels as fitted to the Mark VI. Results
> thus far are as follows:-
>
>
>
> 15" x 4" Ballamy wheel - no tyre = 14.4 lbs.
>
>
>
> 15" x 4" New Elektron Turner pattern wheel - no tyre = 7.6 lbs.
>
>
>
> 15" x 3" Old Elektron Turner wheel - no tyre = 6.8 lbs.
>
>
>

> 15" x 4" Lotus supplied wheel - no tyre = 11.1 lbs - weighed by Mike

> Marsden.
>
>
>
> These of course are all rims type wheels without centres. What is apparent
> is how heavy the Ballamy wheels are. All that unsprung weight .. .. .. !!
>
>
>
> However does anyone have figures for say:-
>
>
>
> 15" x 5" magnesium Wobbly Web wheel - no tyre (as fitted to a Lotus Eleven)
> = ?
>
>
>

> 15" x 4" x 48 Dunlop pattern spoke wheel - no tyre (as fitted to a Lotus

> Eleven / Seven) = ?
>
>
>

> 15" x 4" x 48 spoke Borani - no tyre (as fitted by some racers) = ?

[ye...@allegro.com.au]

Hi everyone - been off line for several weeks and catching up on readings-
re the chassis plate info
"
I have often wondered if comments regarding chassis plates in HLR magazine from
time to time were opinions or factual and look forward to the article in the
upcoming magazine.
Around 8 years back an Aussie friend of mine mentioned to me over a glass of red
or 2 that he took ownership of the chassis plates amongst other items of stock
when he worked there, due not only to the purchase costs, but also the need to
ensure they were being better controlled. I think he mentioned that sometimes
mistakes were made in preparation of chassis plates and they would be amended
if possible rather than thrown away due to the costs involved.
As an aside he also mentioned that it was not unusual for him to have to run off
to a nearby garage/service station to purchase various small items to assist a
car in being prepared for delivery as sometimes their wholesale suppliers would
not have provided stock replenishment orders due to Lotus not paying their
bills promptly. Thus not all vehicles may not have been exactly the same
depending on what they purchased at the time.

re hsitoric comment issues

perhaps I can add an off the wall comment if we want to be pedantic re historic
issues- the plural of LOTUS is simply LOTUS-there is reference to this issue in
the UK sports car magazine of that time (and I think may have also been copied
in an early issue of HLR magazine or NALER magazine) when Lotus were asked in
the 50s by a reporter what should he use for the plural and he was advised
something to the effect that around here we use LOTUS for the plural-I notice
however that in my Aussie club that all newcomers (Elise etc) often use the
modern expression of LOTI or Lotuses in their various discussions-

Peter Yeomans

-----Original Message-----
From: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Lotus-...@googlegroups.com] On

Behalf Of Lyndsay Wood
Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2009 11:00 PM
To: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Badges on Lotus Replicas

Hello All,

The Lotus Register in South Africa had an interesting rule: Barties law on
Lotusesseses: "If a Lotus (7) looks like a Lotus from thirty feet, it is a
Lotus. If it is not a Lotus, it is a Birkin. If it is not a Birkin, then it IS
a Lotus"

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| This message was created using Allegro Networks webmail service.|
| |
| http://www.allegro.com.au |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

[Vic Thomas]

Dear Yeoey

Belatedly:
Hoping my article on XI chassis plates exposed the myths.
I have now found the fifth type of plate original to an Eleevn.
It was originally in Sports car and Lotus Owner
that ACBC declared the plural was "Lotus".
Best regards
VFT

[Roger Sieling]

Victor,

You should have a photocopy of 4DTN's chassis plate, from years ago. Dick Fryburger's ex- Peter Ashdown 349 is identical, save the chassis number. The plates look more like those on the team 15s of 1958, if you will remember.

Roger

> From: victor...@virgin.net
> To: Lotus-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Weighing Wheels.
> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:34:46 +0100
>
>
> Dear Yeoey
>
> Belatedly:
> Hoping my article on XI chassis plates exposed the myths.

> I have now found the fifth type of plate original to an Eleevn. Send