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 <eltoncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Elton E. (Tony) Clark <eltoncl...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Westfield sold on ebay
> To: Lotus-History@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
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)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyndsay Wood" <lyn_lea...@yahoo.co.uk> To: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:27:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: X1 or not
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 <eltoncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Elton E. (Tony) Clark <eltoncl...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Westfield sold on ebay > To: Lotus-History@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
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.
On May 26, 2009, at 9:58 AM, albau...@comcast.net wrote:
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)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyndsay Wood" <lyn_lea...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:27:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: X1 or not
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 <eltoncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Elton E. (Tony) Clark <eltoncl...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Westfield sold on ebay
> To: Lotus-History@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
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:
> From: John Donohoe <jo...@ciesaonline.com>
> Subject: Re: X1 or not
> To: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, 26 May, 2009, 3:15 PM
> 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.
> On May 26, 2009, at 9:58 AM, albau...@comcast.net
> wrote:
> 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)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lyndsay Wood" <lyn_lea...@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:27:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
> Eastern
> Subject: Re: X1 or not
> 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 <eltoncl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > From: Elton E. (Tony) Clark <eltoncl...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Westfield sold on ebay
> > To: Lotus-History@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
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
*I coincidentally agree with Mr $%&%#*$% <$%&^%$*@$%> Donohoe on the badging: my Eleven wore a Lotus badge, my Westfield wore a Westfield badge. * *Tony in Texas* **
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-History@googlegroups.com
Subject: Weighing Wheels.
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:09:17 +0100
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) = ?
I look forward, with interest, to seeing results from you.
Regards,
JWW
From: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com [mailto:Lotus-History@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Roger Sieling
Sent: 27 May 2009 03:19
To: Lotus History
Subject: RE: Weighing Wheels.
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-History@googlegroups.com
Subject: Weighing Wheels.
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:09:17 +0100
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) = ?
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
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"
"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? !!
On Behalf Of pe...@historiclotusregister.co.uk
Sent: 27 May 2009 17:49
To: Lotus History
Subject: Re: X1 or not
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"
On May 27, 2009, at 1:59 PM, John W. Watson. wrote:
"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!£$%^&*d as an XI and the
real
thing as a LOTUS ELEVEN? !!
]
On Behalf Of pe...@historiclotusregister.co.uk
Sent: 27 May 2009 17:49
To: Lotus History
Subject: Re: X1 or not
This thread is closed and has been renamed "Badges on Lotus Replicas"
The heading of the thread contained a spelling mistake. The roman
number XI is spelled with a capital "X" and a capital "I". The
heading incorrectly put a number "1" insaed of a capital "I"
----- Original Message ----- From: "John W. Watson." <j...@onetel.com>
To: <Lotus-History@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: X1 or not
"Colin Chapman - The Man and his Cars - The Authorised Biography" by Gerard
(Jabby) Crombac page 63
Quote:
<<< It would perhaps be as well to explain here why this car was always
referred to as the Lotus 'Eleven', with the mark number spelt out. Up to
this particular car . . . (etc. etc.) >>>
Either the heading of the thread is totally incorrect or Gerard Crombac has
got it completely wrong?!
Peter, if you are giving us a lesson in Roman numerals then fair enough, but
what has this got to do with the Lotus Eleven?!!
Perhaps we should refer to the replica as a W!£$%^&*d as an XI and the real
thing as a LOTUS ELEVEN? !!
Welcome back!
JWW
-----Original Message-----
From: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com [mailto:Lotus-History@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of pe...@historiclotusregister.co.uk
Sent: 27 May 2009 17:49
To: Lotus History
Subject: Re: X1 or not
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" 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
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-History@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
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-History@googlegroups.com [mailto:Lotus-History@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of pe...@historiclotusregister.co.uk Sent: 27 May 2009 17:49 To: Lotus History Subject: Re: X1 or not
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" 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. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
*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 <
> 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.
----- Original Message --.--- From: "Elton E. (Tony) Clark" <eltoncl...@gmail.com>
To: <Lotus-History@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
-- 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.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
> 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 . . *
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-History@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:07 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 think Victor 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.
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
> 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" <eltoncl...@gmail.com>
> To: <Lotus-History@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
> -- > 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.
> Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
> The Professional version does not have this message
> *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 <eltoncl...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Lotus-History@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 3:07 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
> think Victor 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.
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: eltoncl...@gmail.com
To: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com
All !?! . . I thought only a few earlies like o' 153. . sorry
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Vic Thomas <victor.tho...@virgin.net> wrote:
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.
*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*
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Roger Sieling <sar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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: eltoncl...@gmail.com
> To: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com
> *All !?! . . I thought only a few earlies like o' 153. . sorry*
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Vic Thomas <victor.tho...@virgin.net>wrote:
> *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 <eltoncl...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Lotus-History@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 3:07 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
> think Victor 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.
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.mclel...@gmail.com
To: Lotus-History@googlegroups.com
Here are some links to some scans of the title blocks on some of the blue prints:
|
