What would a 2020 Lotus Elan +2 be like ?

[HustleRussell]

Equus said:

HustleRussell said:

I think I'm correct in thinking that the clever people invented monocoque construction, or were at least the first to apply it in the automotive sphere

Not even close!

They were the first to try on a Formula 1 car (the 25), and among the first to try a fibreglass monocoque (with the Type 14 Elite), but there had been lots of automotive monocoques before those, not least the Jaguar D-type, which everybody knows about.

The first true monocoque I'm aware of was Howard Blood's Cornelian, driven by Louis Chevrolet in the 1915 Indy 500, but there were others like the Voisin Laboratoire, the Killeen series of cars - even production cars like the Mini, if you accept modern Unibody construction as a form of monocoque.

I didn't actually say 'the clever people at Lotus', although we all know damn well I meant to.

I have had the good fortune to spend a lot of time around historic racing cars lately, my Dad sold his Elan and bought a Lotus 22- we were told it should be a competitive Formula Junior unless a 27 turns up, which of course owes a lot to the 25...

[Equus]

Lotobear said:

A picture is always useful

Well, it's a backbone chassis, I suppose, but couldn't you have found a picture of a proper Lotus one?

[Lotobear]

..far superior, stiffer, longlasting and so much easier to work on. What Lotus should have done

[Equus]

Lotobear said:

..far superior, stiffer, longlasting and so much easier to work on. What Lotus should have done

But not a Lotus chassis: much too heavy and MUCH too expensive to be something that Colin Chapman would have ever countenanced.

I fitted one to my first Elan (back when Elans weren't all that valuable), but I certainly wouldn't do so now.

[Lotobear]

...very slightly heavier than a folded steel chassis in fact but greater torsional stiffness as a trade off. Same price as a replacement folded tin chassis (currently unavailable) and dimensionally more reliable - replacement folded steel chassis' can be way out especially when galvanised.

I'm all for improving my cars to make them more usable and the Spyder chassis is certainly an improvement over the folded steel version. For the same reason I've fitted wasted spark ignition (shortly to go to full FI), adjustable spring perches, CV driveshafts, Konis, 15 fuses in the harness, electric headlight lifters and the list goes on. This means that I can jump in my Elan and drive whenever and wherever I wish to and enjoy it.

As you can tell I'm no purist and the fact that the chassis is not a lotus chassis (which you can't buy anyway) matters not to me. The point is the car gets driven regularly and thrashed which is what they should be about IMO

[Equus]

Lotobear said:

...very slightly heavier than a folded steel chassis in fact but greater torsional stiffness as a trade off. Same price as a replacement folded tin chassis

It's actually quite a bit heavier. I weighed them when I swapped mine over - I've lost the figures (it was years ago), but I remember that it was quite a bit. The unit cost as a production chassis (ie. if Lotus were to entertain the idea themselves) would be very substantially more, due to the extra complexity and welding.

The big advantage of the Spyder chassis, I found, was the ease of mechanical access, but you're kidding yourself if you think you can tell any difference as a result of the torsional stiffness on a road car - they feel identical to drive.The big downside - unless they've improved in recent years - is that the paint on the Spyder chassis chipped and cracked if you as much as looked at it, particularly around the welds, so it actually started looking dog-eared and gravel-rashed much quicker than even an ungalvanised a pressed steel one (I ran mine as my daily driver).

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't averse to the Spyder spaceframe back in the days when the Elan was still fairly cheap, but you have to accept that what you're creating isn't a Lotus any more: it's a kit car that just happens to look like a Lotus (particularly with the other mods). Not that I've got anything against kit cars, either (I've owned several), but with the increasing rarity and value of an Elan, I wouldn't want to turn a good car into one.

[Lotobear]

...an Elan is a kit car though

Except for the Plus 2S of course which was the first Lotus to be only avialable factory built.

you're right about the Spyder powder coating though which is why the chassis you see had been chilled grit blasted and given 3 coats fo zinc phospate and a 2 pack finishing coat (and not a speck of rust after 11k hard miles).

In my humble opinion the Spyder chassis is superior. I wouldn't use one on a S1 Elan but in a Plus 2 designed to be used it's the way forward and no collapsing front towers to worry about!

[Equus]

Lotobear said:

In my humble opinion the Spyder chassis is superior.

It's more robust, for sure.

But if you buy a '60's Lotus, you're onto a loser all round if 'robust' is high on your list of priorites.

[Lotobear]

fair point which goes back to my originally expressed philosophy of making these cars more useable by 'adding robustness' if not necessarily lightness!

I've done 11k miles since I completely rebuilt my Plus 2 from the ground up and I've not had a single failure or breakdown, including a 1200 trip around Scotland last month so these cars can be made robust so long as you accept a stringent maintainance regime and avoid cheap parts.

[Equus]

Lotobear said:

... these cars can be made robust so long as you accept a stringent maintainance regime and avoid cheap parts.

I would agree with that - but you don't need to change to a Spyder chassis (or solid driveshafts, which actually change the driving character of the car quite a lot) to achieve it. Full fuel injection will substantially change the feel of the car still further, I can tell you: you'll have destroyed a large part of the car's original behaviour and character. It really will be just a pastiche of the original.

I've done a lot more mileage in Elans than you - I was doing more than that a year in mainly city driving in my first S4 (including for work all over the city as a Surveyor for the Council) - and yes, the trick is to go through the car thoroughly when you first acquire it, then be scrupulous about ongoing maintenance. But the standard design and components work fine when you look after them.

There is no need to destroy the car's originality, if you are mechanically competent and sympathetic.

[Lotobear]

Crikey