Discussion
The earliest date I've seen appears to be the first of May 2020, so it got to Pistonheads pretty quickly. But I don't know where it started, except for that first mention by Carl Draper on Twitter of an earlier Facebook post.............
"Carl Draper
@explodingwalrus
·
1 May
no idea, found on a Facebook post, everyone is baffled over what it is"
"Carl Draper
@explodingwalrus
·
1 May
no idea, found on a Facebook post, everyone is baffled over what it is"
borrani72 said:
The earliest date I've seen appears to be the first of May 2020, so it got to Pistonheads pretty quickly. But I don't know where it started, except for that first mention by Carl Draper on Twitter of an earlier Facebook post.............
"Carl Draper
@explodingwalrus
·
1 May
no idea, found on a Facebook post, everyone is baffled over what it is"
Someone said it was on Reddit 8 years ago."Carl Draper
@explodingwalrus
·
1 May
no idea, found on a Facebook post, everyone is baffled over what it is"
here is exactly what is written for 7 dpu.
"Peter Ashdown raced 7 DPU from July 1955. He continued to race it in 1956 including taking it to Sweden where he won the 1500cc race at Karlskoga.
He bought a new Lotus Eleven in 1957 and sold his mark IX to pay for it. He later became a successful Team Lotus Driver and then achieved even more success with the Lola Sports racing car alongside Peter Gammon in 1959/60. 7 DPU was bought by the same private collector in the 1960s who had bought Edward Lewis's car and this also remained unrestored."
Edward Lewis car was 86-EVV 717.the private collector (same one as 7 DPU) kept this car. It was left unrestored right up until 2014. As for 7 DPU it seems the private collector still has it in its unrestored state although no confirmation of that can be found.
"Peter Ashdown raced 7 DPU from July 1955. He continued to race it in 1956 including taking it to Sweden where he won the 1500cc race at Karlskoga.
He bought a new Lotus Eleven in 1957 and sold his mark IX to pay for it. He later became a successful Team Lotus Driver and then achieved even more success with the Lola Sports racing car alongside Peter Gammon in 1959/60. 7 DPU was bought by the same private collector in the 1960s who had bought Edward Lewis's car and this also remained unrestored."
Edward Lewis car was 86-EVV 717.the private collector (same one as 7 DPU) kept this car. It was left unrestored right up until 2014. As for 7 DPU it seems the private collector still has it in its unrestored state although no confirmation of that can be found.
lotuslover69 said:
here is exactly what is written for 7 dpu.
"Peter Ashdown raced 7 DPU from July 1955. He continued to race it in 1956 including taking it to Sweden where he won the 1500cc race at Karlskoga.
He bought a new Lotus Eleven in 1957 and sold his mark IX to pay for it. He later became a successful Team Lotus Driver and then achieved even more success with the Lola Sports racing car alongside Peter Gammon in 1959/60. 7 DPU was bought by the same private collector in the 1960s who had bought Edward Lewis's car and this also remained unrestored."
Edward Lewis car was 86-EVV 717.the private collector (same one as 7 DPU) kept this car. It was left unrestored right up until 2014. As for 7 DPU it seems the private collector still has it in its unrestored state although no confirmation of that can be found.
Thanks. "Peter Ashdown raced 7 DPU from July 1955. He continued to race it in 1956 including taking it to Sweden where he won the 1500cc race at Karlskoga.
He bought a new Lotus Eleven in 1957 and sold his mark IX to pay for it. He later became a successful Team Lotus Driver and then achieved even more success with the Lola Sports racing car alongside Peter Gammon in 1959/60. 7 DPU was bought by the same private collector in the 1960s who had bought Edward Lewis's car and this also remained unrestored."
Edward Lewis car was 86-EVV 717.the private collector (same one as 7 DPU) kept this car. It was left unrestored right up until 2014. As for 7 DPU it seems the private collector still has it in its unrestored state although no confirmation of that can be found.
Looks like Peter Ashdown in the car. Apparantly, he had a few works drives for Lotus after this.
Sounds like the author has a good idea as to the status of known cars. What's the book/author? Perhaps an e-mail may clear-up whether there are any Mark IXs that could be 'KUR 3C'.
Those modified wheel nuts are so distinctive, and appart from our mystery car, I've only seen them on a couple of Mk IX Lotus. I haven't found (so far) any other period pictures with them in - Lotus or other makes.
The hubs and nuts used by Lotus seem to be pretty standard parts......
“The Borranis were okay, just expensive [about £16 each]. With either Dunlop or Borrani wheels you had to have the expensive splined hub, and the wheel nuts weighed a ton". - Mike Costin
It looks like the idea didn't catch on. Even Lotus, with their fixation on reducing unsprung weight, gave-up on the idea! I'm guessing it wasn't an easy job drilling them. They would be difficult to grip securely in a vice.
It's a clue that cries-out 'Lotus' to me, though it is possible somebody else had the same idea, or copied what Lotus had done.
You mentioned the possibility of the car being a Lotus Mark VI. My concern was that the VI came with a live axle, so wouldn't have the inboard brakes seen (or, more precisely, not seen) on 'KUR'. But I came across a reference to five Climax-engined Mk VI supplied with the de Dion axle.
Are these cars accounted for?
The Mark ix used a slightly modified MkVI chassis for customer cars. Only 2 MK IX cars had unique chassis which were the Team Lotus cars. This was so Privateer cars would not be competitive with Team Lotus cars.
The novel is the history of the MKvi including mkviii mk ix and mkx, novel is by Graham Capel.
The novel is the history of the MKvi including mkviii mk ix and mkx, novel is by Graham Capel.
I've sent querries to the author of your book, Graham Capel, c/o the North Kent Lotus Club, as well as to Mike Marsden, Lotus IX Registrar at the Historic Lotus Register. Hopefully they can shed a little more light on any Lotus chassis that could be the mystery car.
I'll post replies here as I get them.
I'll post replies here as I get them.
Looking through a few old Lotus road-tests I came across a couple of other similarly proportioned vehicles, so did a little research into these as well, to explore other potential doner-vehicles.
Of these, Cooper only produced mid-engined models, except the big Cooper-Bristol and Cooper-Jaguar T33s. I don't belive the mystery car is that large.
Lola started making their Mark 1 in 1958, but from the start they only came with bolt-on alloy wheels.
Elva, on the other-hand, seemed worth further investigation. The Mk1 has outboard brakes, so doesn't match, however the Mark 2 and Mark 3 had de Dion rear suspension (so inboard brakes), centre-lock wheels, and broadly similar proportions to 'KUR 3C'. The Mark 4 was only supplied with bolt-on wheels, so again, this doesn't appear a good match.
Elva Mark 2
Elva Mark 3
By comparing the Lotus's proportions (which are a good match to 'KUR') to the Elva, I found that the Elva-driver seems to sit higher, and a few inches further forward than in the Lotus, and that the steering-wheel, likewise, is further forward. The CAD model has the wheelbase and track from the Mark VIII, IX and X, though to save some time, the model itself was adapted from the Lotus 'Eleven' model I created earlier.
The blue steering wheel is from the 'Eleven', the yellow one is from the Lotus VI, IX etc. As can be seen, that of the Elva sits further forward.
Matching images from different viewpoints, theses differences in proportion seemed consistant, so I don't think 'KUR 3C' can't be the Elva.
Of these, Cooper only produced mid-engined models, except the big Cooper-Bristol and Cooper-Jaguar T33s. I don't belive the mystery car is that large.
Lola started making their Mark 1 in 1958, but from the start they only came with bolt-on alloy wheels.
Elva, on the other-hand, seemed worth further investigation. The Mk1 has outboard brakes, so doesn't match, however the Mark 2 and Mark 3 had de Dion rear suspension (so inboard brakes), centre-lock wheels, and broadly similar proportions to 'KUR 3C'. The Mark 4 was only supplied with bolt-on wheels, so again, this doesn't appear a good match.
Elva Mark 2
Elva Mark 3
By comparing the Lotus's proportions (which are a good match to 'KUR') to the Elva, I found that the Elva-driver seems to sit higher, and a few inches further forward than in the Lotus, and that the steering-wheel, likewise, is further forward. The CAD model has the wheelbase and track from the Mark VIII, IX and X, though to save some time, the model itself was adapted from the Lotus 'Eleven' model I created earlier.
The blue steering wheel is from the 'Eleven', the yellow one is from the Lotus VI, IX etc. As can be seen, that of the Elva sits further forward.
Matching images from different viewpoints, theses differences in proportion seemed consistant, so I don't think 'KUR 3C' can't be the Elva.
Here's my recent conversation with Mike Marsden, the Mark IX Registrar for The Historic Lotus Register.............
Hi Mike,
we have a mystery special that we are trying to identify (sadly just from photo's), and what evidence we have leads me to suspect that under that modified Devin(?) body, lurks a mid 1950s Lotus of some type, possibly with a works connection.
Apart from the general proportions, which don't fit much else, the wheel-spinners are drilled just like on 'XPE 6' immediately after Le Mans in 1955, and also seen on '7 DPU'. I discovered that Mike Costin has been quoted as saying that these wheel nuts “weighed a ton.”
I have used a computer model, initially of the 'Eleven' chassis, then altered to MKIX dimensions, to match with the images. The proportions of the car match the MKVI and VIII / IX / X, and the car also appears to have inboard rear brakes. The 'Eleven' is not such a good match as a IX, as the length of the steering column won't fit, suggesting perhaps it's one of the earlier cars.
We would like if possible to know of any chassis not accounted for since before 1966 (when the 1965 'KUR 3C' number would have been issued), to see whether this could indeed be a MKIX or similar.
One possibility might be '7 DPU', which is stated by Graham Capel in his 'History of the Lotus VI' to have been purchased by a collector in the 1960s who also, shortly afterwards, purchased the Edward Lewis car (#86, 'EVV 717'). The latter was sold a few years ago, but where is '7 DPU'? Is it possible that the owner only kept one car, selling '7 DPU' in the '60s when he acquired 'EVV 717,' or is the car still known to the club?
Another possibility that suggests itself is the Edward Lewis Special. The de Dion axle and the proportions would be correct, and from what little I have been able to find, the car was acquired by Colin Chapman in the late 1950s, and stored at the works for a time. This would at least open the possibility of the drilled hubs finding their way onto the car. Is anything known of it since?
We would be most grateful for your thoughts!
From Mike..............
Thanks for your message - interesting. First of all, I’m impressed with the way you have ghosted an old Lotus frame on to the photos; i’m not terribly IT literate, so I regard that as very clever!
Those wheel spinners in the photos don’t look much like the ones used on early Lotuses, i have to say. The spinners, chrome plated brass and fairly massive, are certainly quite heavy, and many cars (including my Mark Nine) had them drilled for lightness. So I would not read much into that as far as a Works connection is concerned.
Regarding your specific Mark Nine suggestions, as far as I know the ex-Peter Lumsden car, 7 DPU, is still with a private collector. EVV 717, the ex-Ted Lewis car, did not have rear inboard brakes or wire wheels after 1957; it was converted to a completely side valve Ford specification when Ted Lewis sold it - he kept the Climax engine, de Dion, big brakes etc and used them on the Lewis Lotus Special. Ted told me that Colin Chapman rapidly sold the latter, on Ted’s behalf to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1957.
Sorry I can’t help more than that, except perhaps to comment that it would be easy enough to shorten a steering column if that was a problem.
If that car was based on an early Lotus, I can tell you that it would have been incredibly noisy for use on the road and, on a warm day, unbearably hot inside. Lots of heat comes back from the engine, the aluminium undertray above the exhaust gets very hot, and of course the gearbox is inside the cockpit with you. On a cold winter’s day, you certainly don’t need a heater driving an open Mark Nine - it’s quite a comfortable experience, not so nice on a hot summer’s day though.
...................
High Mike,
many thanks for your reply.
I fear I may have caused some confusion here. I had assumed that the spinners being used by many sports racers at the time were some obscure off-the-shelf part, and that the large centre-hole was normally (for road cars), simply blanked-off.
From what you have said, they were using standard spinners as found on MG, Triumph, Healey etc, but with a large hole bored through the centre.
The drilled holes I was originally referring to, and that look like those on '7 DPU' and 'XPE 6', also have two holes drilled through each 'ear' (ie, four extra holes per spinner). They have a very distinctive pattern to them, with a larger hole nearer to the centre, and a smaller one near the tip. This I have not seen anywhere else (except in one very recent picture of a silver Lotus Eleven).
Looking at the wheel of the mystery car, what I suspect is a blanked-off centre-hole appears to have an uneven (out-of-round) edge as though perhaps plugged with body filler to keep road dirt out.
Just to clarify an earlier point, was it the Ted Lewis Special that went to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 1957, or 'EVV 717'?
..................................
Yes, the MG/TR spinners were the ones used, suitably lightened with holes.
It was the Lewis Lotus Special which went to Rhodesia, and has not been heard of since.
The last record I have for EEV 717 still as an 1172 cc Ford car was again 19158, being raced by J Cuff.
.............................
The Ted Lewis Special - a Mark VI Lotus, with de Dion rear-end and Climax powered. The one-off body - designed by Lewis - was built by Williams and Pritchard, who also built the aluminium bodies used by Lotus at the time. Chapman was so impressed by the car, that he swapped it (for the prototype Lotus 'Seven') with Lewis. This is the car (below) that Mike tells me was sold by Chapman in 1957and last seen on its' way to Rhodesia.
This is the prototype 'Seven', with Lewis at the wheel. This was the very first Lotus 'Seven'.
Unlike the production car, the prototype 'Seven' again featured the de Dion axle and Climax power.
Mike got me thinking about the length of the steering column, so I compared the Mark VI, the 'Seven', and 'KUR 3C'.
The blue wheel is in proportion to that of the 'Eleven'. The Yellow wheel as per Mk VI, Mk IX etc.
The CAD model (Lotus IX dimensions) matches the Lotus VI steering wheel position, as would be expected. They were, in essence, the same car.
Compared to the CAD model, the 'Seven' steering wheel is further forward,
The position of the steering wheel on the 'KUR 3C' pictures is comparable to the Mk V, Mk IX, but NOT the 'Seven'. Similarly, it doesn't appear to fit the 'Eleven'
Here's dandarez's picture from page 2 of the thread, with what appears to be the top of the steering wheel arrowed.......
To get an accurate fit, the standard wheel needs to be replaced with a smaller one (12 inch diameter), but otherwise is a precise match to the Lotus Mk VI/VIII/MK IX/X, and to the position indicated by dandarez. If it was a Lotus 'Eleven', the column would have needed to be lengthened, not shortened...............
Hi Mike,
we have a mystery special that we are trying to identify (sadly just from photo's), and what evidence we have leads me to suspect that under that modified Devin(?) body, lurks a mid 1950s Lotus of some type, possibly with a works connection.
Apart from the general proportions, which don't fit much else, the wheel-spinners are drilled just like on 'XPE 6' immediately after Le Mans in 1955, and also seen on '7 DPU'. I discovered that Mike Costin has been quoted as saying that these wheel nuts “weighed a ton.”
I have used a computer model, initially of the 'Eleven' chassis, then altered to MKIX dimensions, to match with the images. The proportions of the car match the MKVI and VIII / IX / X, and the car also appears to have inboard rear brakes. The 'Eleven' is not such a good match as a IX, as the length of the steering column won't fit, suggesting perhaps it's one of the earlier cars.
We would like if possible to know of any chassis not accounted for since before 1966 (when the 1965 'KUR 3C' number would have been issued), to see whether this could indeed be a MKIX or similar.
One possibility might be '7 DPU', which is stated by Graham Capel in his 'History of the Lotus VI' to have been purchased by a collector in the 1960s who also, shortly afterwards, purchased the Edward Lewis car (#86, 'EVV 717'). The latter was sold a few years ago, but where is '7 DPU'? Is it possible that the owner only kept one car, selling '7 DPU' in the '60s when he acquired 'EVV 717,' or is the car still known to the club?
Another possibility that suggests itself is the Edward Lewis Special. The de Dion axle and the proportions would be correct, and from what little I have been able to find, the car was acquired by Colin Chapman in the late 1950s, and stored at the works for a time. This would at least open the possibility of the drilled hubs finding their way onto the car. Is anything known of it since?
We would be most grateful for your thoughts!
From Mike..............
Thanks for your message - interesting. First of all, I’m impressed with the way you have ghosted an old Lotus frame on to the photos; i’m not terribly IT literate, so I regard that as very clever!
Those wheel spinners in the photos don’t look much like the ones used on early Lotuses, i have to say. The spinners, chrome plated brass and fairly massive, are certainly quite heavy, and many cars (including my Mark Nine) had them drilled for lightness. So I would not read much into that as far as a Works connection is concerned.
Regarding your specific Mark Nine suggestions, as far as I know the ex-Peter Lumsden car, 7 DPU, is still with a private collector. EVV 717, the ex-Ted Lewis car, did not have rear inboard brakes or wire wheels after 1957; it was converted to a completely side valve Ford specification when Ted Lewis sold it - he kept the Climax engine, de Dion, big brakes etc and used them on the Lewis Lotus Special. Ted told me that Colin Chapman rapidly sold the latter, on Ted’s behalf to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1957.
Sorry I can’t help more than that, except perhaps to comment that it would be easy enough to shorten a steering column if that was a problem.
If that car was based on an early Lotus, I can tell you that it would have been incredibly noisy for use on the road and, on a warm day, unbearably hot inside. Lots of heat comes back from the engine, the aluminium undertray above the exhaust gets very hot, and of course the gearbox is inside the cockpit with you. On a cold winter’s day, you certainly don’t need a heater driving an open Mark Nine - it’s quite a comfortable experience, not so nice on a hot summer’s day though.
...................
High Mike,
many thanks for your reply.
I fear I may have caused some confusion here. I had assumed that the spinners being used by many sports racers at the time were some obscure off-the-shelf part, and that the large centre-hole was normally (for road cars), simply blanked-off.
From what you have said, they were using standard spinners as found on MG, Triumph, Healey etc, but with a large hole bored through the centre.
The drilled holes I was originally referring to, and that look like those on '7 DPU' and 'XPE 6', also have two holes drilled through each 'ear' (ie, four extra holes per spinner). They have a very distinctive pattern to them, with a larger hole nearer to the centre, and a smaller one near the tip. This I have not seen anywhere else (except in one very recent picture of a silver Lotus Eleven).
Looking at the wheel of the mystery car, what I suspect is a blanked-off centre-hole appears to have an uneven (out-of-round) edge as though perhaps plugged with body filler to keep road dirt out.
Just to clarify an earlier point, was it the Ted Lewis Special that went to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 1957, or 'EVV 717'?
..................................
Yes, the MG/TR spinners were the ones used, suitably lightened with holes.
It was the Lewis Lotus Special which went to Rhodesia, and has not been heard of since.
The last record I have for EEV 717 still as an 1172 cc Ford car was again 19158, being raced by J Cuff.
.............................
The Ted Lewis Special - a Mark VI Lotus, with de Dion rear-end and Climax powered. The one-off body - designed by Lewis - was built by Williams and Pritchard, who also built the aluminium bodies used by Lotus at the time. Chapman was so impressed by the car, that he swapped it (for the prototype Lotus 'Seven') with Lewis. This is the car (below) that Mike tells me was sold by Chapman in 1957and last seen on its' way to Rhodesia.
This is the prototype 'Seven', with Lewis at the wheel. This was the very first Lotus 'Seven'.
Unlike the production car, the prototype 'Seven' again featured the de Dion axle and Climax power.
Mike got me thinking about the length of the steering column, so I compared the Mark VI, the 'Seven', and 'KUR 3C'.
The blue wheel is in proportion to that of the 'Eleven'. The Yellow wheel as per Mk VI, Mk IX etc.
The CAD model (Lotus IX dimensions) matches the Lotus VI steering wheel position, as would be expected. They were, in essence, the same car.
Compared to the CAD model, the 'Seven' steering wheel is further forward,
The position of the steering wheel on the 'KUR 3C' pictures is comparable to the Mk V, Mk IX, but NOT the 'Seven'. Similarly, it doesn't appear to fit the 'Eleven'
Here's dandarez's picture from page 2 of the thread, with what appears to be the top of the steering wheel arrowed.......
To get an accurate fit, the standard wheel needs to be replaced with a smaller one (12 inch diameter), but otherwise is a precise match to the Lotus Mk VI/VIII/MK IX/X, and to the position indicated by dandarez. If it was a Lotus 'Eleven', the column would have needed to be lengthened, not shortened...............
Does anybody know how to extract metadata regarding when the original picture was taken, or would such details have been deleted when it went onto Twitter/Pistonheads/Imgur etc?
I tried a reverse image search through Google, but can't find any dates or other details under Available Properties on any of the forums where the image appears.
Also wondering what that is parked behind the bushes? I doubt there's enough there to see what it is, though it looks fairly modern and could give a clue about the earliest the picture could have been taken.
I tried a reverse image search through Google, but can't find any dates or other details under Available Properties on any of the forums where the image appears.
Also wondering what that is parked behind the bushes? I doubt there's enough there to see what it is, though it looks fairly modern and could give a clue about the earliest the picture could have been taken.
[quote=Loose_Cannon]Range Rover Sport?
Good thought. It could easily be some type of Range Rover. The rear pillar is at the right sort of angle, and it's black. It also seems to have the lip spoiler over the rear window. Assuming that the ground is level, it's much taller that 'KUR', so the size seems about right.
Are there other 4x4s with similar features?
Good thought. It could easily be some type of Range Rover. The rear pillar is at the right sort of angle, and it's black. It also seems to have the lip spoiler over the rear window. Assuming that the ground is level, it's much taller that 'KUR', so the size seems about right.
Are there other 4x4s with similar features?
Edited by borrani72 on Tuesday 17th November 09:58
Here are my recent discussions with Lotus racer, historian and author Graham Capel. Thanks Graham.
________________
David
Your E Mail eventually reached me via North Kent Lotus Group, and also Mike Marsden of the Historic Lotus Register sent me a copy.
I see that there have been various quotes from my last Book – Lotus History 1951-1955 - The History of The Lotus VI including the Mark III,VIII, IX and X. My earlier book on The Lotus Eleven 1956-59 is now long out of print.
I have trolled through the 5 pages of Piston Heads rambling on the car in question – what a load of rubbish has been stated! You will never identify the car just from a couple of pictures unless someone actually recognises it. It has a 1965 UK registration. Someone in the Hertfordshire area must have built it in the first place with a bunch of mates. Locals must have seen it or known about it. The registration number is quite distinctive. Do Hertfordshire County Council have their old car records – some Councils still do? Has anyone tired the 750 Motor Club for specials. They were in existence in the 60s/70s and still are. Hertfordshire was a nest of special builders and special body manufacturers in both fibreglass and aluminium in the 1950/60s.
However, I do not think that the car in the picture was a 1965 special. The car in the picture is more 1970s. It may well have been rebodied from a 1965 special, but quite possibly not in Hertfordshire where it originated which makes tracing it origins even harder. Is the car still in UK, in which case why has no one tried to find where it was first advertised and try to contact the person who took the photos. It has obviously been under wraps for a long time but I guess that the pictures were in the past 2 years. That must be the first line of investigation, not ‘pie in the sky’ guesswork!
The only way anyone will ever identify it in the absence of direct memory from the 1960/70s, will be by looking at its chassis and suspension. That will identify what it was built from. External pictures will do nothing unless someone recognises it.
There were specials built out of 1950s Sports Cars, TR2 and 3s, MGAs, Austin Healey 100/4, 100/6, and 3000 models. Most of these had wire wheels like the car in the picture. Then there were the 1960s production specials like the Peerless GT and Warwick based of TR parts but with a new chassis, Gilbern, Bond Equipe and Falcon, etc. Any of these would convert well to a thing looking like that! Do people think that it is fibreglass or aluminium? Probably fibreglass if it was 1970s.
As for a Lotus origin, there were many Lotus Specials built from original Lotus Sports Racing cars. In the 1960s I built 4 Lotus 11GTs based on 1957/8s Lotus Elevens. I have seen Lotus Specials built on the Mark VI, Mark VII, Mark VIII and Mark IX. I even discovered Tim Dutton’s first kit car, the Dutton Mantis which was built from an old Lotus VIII, and it was a hard job to recognise it from what Tim had done to it!
Grahams very interesting Mantis pictures..........
The wire wheels in the picture look to me to be heavier weight that a 1959s Lotus. The spinners are too big – possibly Jaguar or Aston Martin or even American. The wheels are obviously more modern and wider that a 1960s car. The whole car looks too bulky to have any 1950 Lotus connections. Colin Chapman was a ‘lightweight’ car designer. His motto: ‘add lightness’. The car in the picture does not look very lightweight!
Thee only was to trace its origin is chassis and suspension. No other guesswork will do, particularly some of the ideas stated so far.
Graham Capel – Lotus Historian
________________
2
Hi Graham,
thank you for a long and detailed reply. Some useful thoughts in there.
I would totally agree with you that it is not possible to make a positive identification of the car in question from just a couple of pictures, though if you look at some of the attached images you will see that a computer model, utilising mathematically precise perspective regression, can soon eliminate many of the cars that it isn't. In each case, please note the different position of the steering wheel/column, and of the two circles representing the head of a circa 5'10” driver. Also, for any of them to have been the basis of 'KUR 3C', their seat-pans would need to be re-positioned to protrude through the chassis to get the driver low enough.
Photo-matches for Bond Equipe GT4S (back and front views), Gilbern Invader, Gilbern GT, Peerless GT, MGA. All cars and CAD models are right-hand-drive.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no way of identifying the original photographer – the picture has been through numerous internet discussion threads, but the who/where/when/why of the original pictures has sadly been lost. Google 'reverse image search' has been used to find all examples of the images currently on the internet, but there is simply no trail to follow. We therefore only have these two images to go on.
What I was really hoping was that those 'in-the-know' might have the other end of 'our' cars story - a missing Lotus with special, lightweight spinners and perhaps a badly damaged original body.......
It was worth asking, at least!
Your reference to the Dutton Mantis is very interesting. This was one of which I was previously unaware, though the history of this car does seem something similar to what I am imagining might have been the case with 'KUR 3C'.
Re-registered, to make it look new, the original shape entirely disguised, but with the same distinctive chassis proportions as the base vehicle (was the wheelbase of the Mantis altered slightly from the original MK VIII?). Of course, the Mantis, being based on a Mark VIII Lotus, had bolt-on wheels, not centre-locks, but the essential idea of a road-going coupe built from a cheap (at the time) old Lotus shows that it could be done. Please see the computer model comparison in attached images.
Lotus MKVI/MKIX dimensions compared to the Dutton Mantis (Lotus MKVIII chassis). All three Lotus share variations of the same chassis and their key dimensions.
Whilst there are inevitably some wild guesses on discussion forums, I have found that there are also a lot of extremely knowledgeable people on Pistonheads who will quickly spot whatever useful information is in any given picture. If it were a production car, standard kit car or whatever, it would have been recognized within 20 minutes on Pistonheads.
Of all the cars you mention – big Healeys, Warwick, Gilbern, Bond Equipe, TRs, MG, I cannot think of any variants that would have had the inboard rear brakes that were spotted very quickly by someone on Pistonheads.
Of the various Falcon models, the Mk2/Competition model has broadly compatible proportions, but did they ever have inboard rear-brakes? Please see again the attachments for a comparison of the computer model, which shows clearly that the Lotus steering wheels (in all images, yellow = MKVI/MKIX, blue = Eleven) sit further back and lower than the Falcon Mk2/Terrier chassis. The driver also appears lower and further back in the chassis.
Falcon MKII - the green one is a works car, the Terrier chassis was available through Falcon, though the body could be bought on its own and fitted to other chassis.
Terrier chassis
As you say, the wheels, as fitted, are definitely chunkier than a Lotus VI, IX or Eleven (as I already mentioned somewhere back in the discussion thread), but my contention is that they would be later 13 inch rims, which would explain why the spinners look proportionately too big by comparison.
The most common 13 inch wires available would have to be from the Spridgets. Even in 1965, these tyres had that chunkier proportion. Would a Spridget wheel fit the Lotus MkVI or MKIX hubs? Spridgets had a 42mm hub and an 8TPI thread. The standard tyres were 5.20-13. I don't know how long the wheel centre-tube would be in either case.
The front brakes on 'KUR 3C' have less clearance in the 'chunkier' wheels than is seen on a disc-brake Lotus on 15” wheels. This looks about what I would expect to see if you fitted 13 inch rims to a Lotus IX.
The final two attachments show a 1965 midget wheel compared with 'KUR 3C', and then a comparison with the Lotus IX front brake.
'KUR 3C' wheel and 1965 Midget wheel
Comparison between 'KUR 3C' front wheel and the Lotus MKIX 15" wheel/front brake. Note greater clearance between brake and rim on the Lotus.......
I think the reason for the car looking somewhat more bulky than the original Lotus is that the Lotus body was extremely low in the mid-section with much taller wheel-arches. Aftermarket bodies (such as the Devin '295') were often not as low-built, so the cockpit area belt-line would have to be taller than the (Lotus) original to allow the wheels sufficient clearance. This would explain why 'KUR 3C' looks somewhat more bulky that a Lotus, but also how it can have such a low roofline. The view out would have been very shallow and restricted!
Out of curiosity, is there is anything left of the Dutton body?
I should have asked before, but are you happy for me to post your replies on the forum?
Best regards,
Dave.
________________
3
David
Firstly, there is no positive evidence that the mystery car in the photo and the subject of the lengthy discussions on Pistonheads is a Lotus. Therefore it is totally wrong and misleading to state in the heading MYSTERY LOTUS. It is a MYSTERY SPECIAL and nothing more at this stage.
You are more than welcome to put my comments on Pistonheads.
Both the Peerless GT and the subsequent Warwick had de Dion rear axles with inboard disc brakes. The front end was all TR3. With the larger body specification and good chassis either would have been an ideal basis for a larger special.
Your reference to 5.10in driver in the context of a possible1950/60s Lotus connection is presumption and wrong I am afraid! Colin Chapman was 5.8in and EVERY car up until he died in 1992 is built around this size driver. I had a 1974 Lotus Esprit JPS No 33 for a number of years and I am 5.10 and my head hit the roof all of the time. When I raced a Lotus Eleven I had to bend my knees up under the dashboard to keep my head from sticking out into the windstream above the screen! Neither were very comfortable!
In the 1960s it was common practice to fit 13in wire wheels from a Sprite/Midget to lower the car in relation to ground clearance from 15in wheels. This was the cheapest and most effective way of lowering a car, long before sophisticated suspension lowering and spring changes. I still have a 1962 Lotus Elite Mark 14 and it has 13in wide rim wire wheels which I had specially made by West London Wheel Repair Company at the time. The usual problem 13 in wire wheels created was overheating of the Aluminium Girling AR disc callipers as there was insufficient air circulation. It was a problem in racing but probably not for road use.
It is absolutely ridiculous to pick out of the air any old Lotus and try to claim that this might have be the basis for this special without any supporting evidence. Peter Ashdown’s Mark IX and Edward Lewis Mark VI are well known and well documented cars, both of which still exist. Similarly, to try to relate this special to any missing early Lotus is equally ridiculous. You must have evidence not just a wild guess? The only way of obtaining this is an inspection. In the meantime it is just a Special.
Of the 120 or so Lotus Mark VIs built probably about 25 are unaccounted for. Of the 8 Mark VIIIs, built all exist today. Of the 24/25 Lotus Mark IXs, half went to USA. Of the British cars almost all still exist except 2, one of which went to USA. Of the 12 American Mark IXs at least 6 are unidentified today. Was the picture of the special in USA? Of the 5 Mark X cars built, all exist today. Another possible donor car could be a Buckler which in some models did have inboard rear brakes. Also, Lotus sold their de Dion rear suspension with inboard rear differential separately, either drum brakes for the Mark IX or inboard discs for the Eleven. Many were bought by special builders at the time to build their own design cars. It did not have to come with a car! I found an American built special in Fort Pierce in Florida a number of years ago which had a Lotus Mark IX rear diff with inboard brakes. It was quite a nice special if I recall, but I did not buy it? Someone else did and it came back to Sussex.
The Dutton Mantis was an amazing re-creation from a Lotus Mark VIII. The only recognisable part was the side sponsons behind the front wheels. It was a Gull Wing creation with Sunbeam Alpine front and rear axles welded to the poor fragile lightweight Lotus chassis. See my book on the Lotus VI, Page 114 (I still have copies available at £25).
The ONLY way to identify the origins of the car in the photos is to examine it. Until then it is just a SPECIAL.
Best regards
Graham Capel – Lotus Historian
________________
4
Hi Graham,
thank you again for your thoughts, and for the intriguing images of the Dutton.
Apart from the (admittedly ill-chosen) Subject Line on my e-mail – which I shall change to simply 'KUR 3C' from now on - I really must make it very clear that I make no claim to have proven that the car is a Lotus! I refer you to the first paragraph of my previous message......
“I would totally agree with you that it is not possible to make a positive identification of the car in question from just a couple of pictures, though if you look at some of the attached images you will see that a computer model, utilising mathematically precise perspective regression, can soon eliminate many of the cars that it isn't. In each case, please note the different position of the steering wheel/column, and of the two circles representing the head of a circa 5'10” driver. Also, for any of them to have been the basis of 'KUR 3C', their seat-pans would need to be re-positioned to protrude through the chassis to get the driver low enough”.
I do stand entirely by what I have said here.
The computer aided design should really be seen as just another tool that can aid historical research. It has its advantages and its limitations, just like any other approach.
If you were able to compare side elevations from general arrangement drawings, printed on acetate, you can imagine overlaying one car on another to see whether the exterior of one could fit the mechanical parts, driving position and any other salient features of the other. If, say, the mechanical parts don't fit within the envelope, then either the base vehicle has been heavily modified, or it isn't the right base vehicle. If you find one where everything fits perfectly, then perhaps you have the right car!
I am most assuredly not saying that such evidence constitutes absolute proof. However, if you investigate numerous likely candidates, and only one fits, then it seems not unreasonable to make further investigations. I would say that this constitutes sound evidence, though certainly not proof-positive.
In cases where modifications would be required, judgement must be applied. If the drivers view of the road is blocked by the engine, the seating position would require serious alteration to structural frame members and the rear overhang of the chassis would protrude beyond the envelope of the unknown car, and the drivers head protrudes a foot above the roof, then there must clearly come a point where common sense suggests that the given car is not the correct one.
All I am claiming for this approach is that the power of modern computing allows for the creation of a 3-D version of the above. Matching appropriate features in the 2-D case is in essence no different from the same in the 3-D case, even if the latter is a little more complicated! The mathematics of perspective drawing are tried and tested. They have been around since the Renaissance..........
In the case of 'KUR 3C', what features we have in the pictures are a VERY close match to the Lotus VI, or the IX. The low bonnet line, seating set so far back and low in the chassis, and the very precise agreement of the position of the steering wheel.
The odds of all these features randomly aligning with such precision are very low. Compare the alignment (in the attachments from my previous e-mail) of the various other vehicles, and you will quickly understand how different they all are.
Add to this those very distinctive, drilled wheel spinners. I have yet to see them on anything other than 1950s Lotus race cars.
None of this by itself constitutes proof. Of course not! But I do totally believe that it represents very compelling evidence. I wouldn't be wasting your time with anything less.........
I have absolutely no problem with healthy skepticism, but would suggest you take a good look at those images before dismissing this approach entirely. There is a great deal more to it that guess-work!
The main question I originally had for you, which you have perhaps already answered, was whether anything here – registration number, distinctive spinners with 5 drilled holes (to date, I have only seen on Lotus IX and Eleven) or any other information/stories of which you may be aware, may seem familiar and suggest a new line of enquiry.
My reference to a 5'10” driver has no relation to Colin Chapman, but if you read my original posts again, you will see is actually referring to Graham Hill, who was, according to his brother, 5' 10”. The reason for including these circles, to give a good approximation of the drivers head, was to ensure an accurate assessment of the likely headroom when comparing the computer model to the images. Their position was ascertained by matching the chassis model to an image of a Lotus Eleven, with Mr Hill at the wheel, thus ensuring accuracy. This can be seen about half-way down on page 3 of the forum.
You state that “Peter Ashdown’s Mark IX and Edward Lewis Mark VI are well known and well documented cars, both of which still exist”.
From my conversations with Mike Marsden, (please see page 5, about half-way down)
“........he kept the Climax engine, de Dion, big brakes etc and used them on the Lewis Lotus Special. Ted told me that Colin Chapman rapidly sold the latter, on Ted’s behalf to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1957”.
“It was the Lewis Lotus Special which went to Rhodesia, and has not been heard of since”.
Are we talking about the same car here? The MK VI with a unique body, Climax power and a de Dion axle? Does it still exist?
With regard to the Peerless GT and the Warwick, you are correct about the de Dion rear axle, but the production cars all seem to have outboard rear brakes. These are still present, though now replaced with disc-brakes, on the Gordon-Keeble that was developed from them. Were some fitted with inboard brakes, as I cannot find any evidence for this?
In any case, if 'KUR' were based on a Peerless GT, then the chassis tubes behind the drivers seat appear to be in the way of the repositioned seat base, the Triumph engine is far too tall for the low bonnet (and visibility), and the steering linkages would need some serious re-thinking! The tubular structure that forms the door closer would also seem to be in a very awkward place, and the rear overhang of the chassis would have to be removed. Please see attached images to see what I mean.
The Peerless GT chassis...........
You can see the projected bonnet line on the two pictures of 'KUR', which may be compared with the image of the Peerless rolling chassis, where it cuts through the top of the engine. In the black and white image from 'The Motor', you can see the approximate centre-line transposed from 'KUR', along with Graham Hills head, the Climax engine (slightly out of position because it is left-over from the previous, Lotus Eleven model). The blue lines approximate the steering column and wheel from the Peerless. The top of the wheel may be seen in the original advert.
Peerless GT. In all images, the yellow steering wheel is in the Lotus MKVI and MKIX position, whilst the blue one is in the position found on the Lotus Eleven. The blue lines represent the approximate position of the steering column and wheel in the Peerless.
As to the original images, unfortunately I have told you all that seems to be known. Essentially nothing, I'm afraid. The only clue to location is the UK number plates which, without access to the vehicle, seem also to offer the only possibility of any solid evidence.
As regards the Buckler, those that I have seen all seem to have the seat too far forward, though there is certainly room for more investigation here as there seem to be several different models.
Best regards,
Dave.
________________
5
David
Thank you for your E Mail on the continuing saga of KUR 3C.
The trouble with computer aligning chassis dimensions to the photos is that it does not help to identify the actual car, only what type it might resemble dimensionally. The chassis dimensions of the Lotus VI and IX are different from the Lotus Eleven. Even if the computer generated image transposed onto the picture fits a Lotus Eleven for example, it does not help to identify the actual car, only possibly one of the many missing cars on the register. I already have listed about 20 unknown cars with either original registration numbers but unknown original driver or chassis numbers, or original 1950s cars which were re-registered in the 1960s. My first Lotus Eleven GT in 1964 was re-registered by me in 1965 HPC 10C to make it look more modern?
I agree that there is a possibility that this car might have been constructed from a 1950s Lotus and fitted with wider 13 in wire wheels. A number of ‘specials’ of the 1960s were. Lotus cars of this period were pretty obsolete and cheap in the mid-1960s. I bought my 2nd Lotus Eleven to make into a GT in 1965 for £300. An old running Lotus would make an ideal basis for a special as many were – the Dutton Mantis. They were also the most numerous type of sports-special of the time. I still feel that the body in the photos is not the original from 1965. It is 1970s in styling.
Drilled wheel spinners were not uncommon in the 1960s. They were drilled for lightness. I know of a Sebring Sprite in 1963 which had drilled wheel spinners and a racing Turner. I am certain that there were several Lotuses as well. It is not a very distinctive feature. They could have been drilled later than when the car was built in 1965, or in the 1970s when the body may date from.
Re the Lewis Lotus Special. I have some history of it in Rhodesia in the 1960s when it had a Ford Zephyr engine. It crashed into a tree killing the driver in about 1966. I am told the remains were then crushed by the family.
There must be some way in which the location of the photos can be established and the car itself. They are obviously fairly recent – 3-5 years? I feel that the photos came from the US. If the photos were UK then I would have expected the registration number to still be listed with DVLA. It is quite a valuable number plate. If the 1970s body style was made in UK, the DVLA records date from the mid-1970s?
What if the 1965 special was sold to USA in the late 1960s when many Lotus ex-racing cars were, and then rebodied there on the lines of a Kellison which it does resemble? They could have kept the UK registration on it so it could be driven on US roads as an import? Is there some way the photos could be circulated in USA?
Graham Capel – Lotus Historian
________________
6
Hi Graham,
thanks again.
I think you sum-up admirably what the computer modelling can do. It can extract more dimensional or proportional data from the picture than is possible with the naked-eye alone, but it can't extract what isn't there.
In a previous exercise, I was able to determine the wheelbase of an unknown special (to perhaps plus or minus 15mm), because the picture was almost side-on, and because I was able to identify the exact part (and therefore, size) of the wheel covers.
With 'KUR', the only known parts are the tail lights and number plate. And even then, there were two sizes of number plate digits! (Though the older, larger ones were a little out-of-date by 1965).
In this case, I can only work with proportion and alignments, not absolute dimensions. This is why, having established the close match to the proportions of the Lotus VI and XI, it is possible to use this model as a proxy to compare other vehicles which may in themselves be larger or smaller.
You stated that...
“I agree that there is a possibility that this car might have been constructed from a 1950s Lotus and fitted with wider 13 in wire wheels. A number of ‘specials’ of the 1960s were. Lotus cars of this period were pretty obsolete and cheap in the mid-1960s”.
“An old running Lotus would make an ideal basis for a special as many were – the Dutton Mantis. They were also the most numerous type of sports-special of the time. I still feel that the body in the photos is not the original from 1965. It is 1970s in styling”.
I would largely agree with you on this, (though perhaps I am somewhat more confident of what the matching proportions may be telling us).
Where I would perhaps differ is on the likely age of the body. To me, the rear view mirror looks like a 1970s accessory, though the body itself looks like a roadster body with a custom-made roof.
The rear window shape doesn't seem to fit anything that I'm aware of, and nobody on Pistonheads have suggested anything that looks to have the same proportions. It could come from something obscure, or it could be perspex.
The roof/door arrangement is quite bizarre, especially if it is rear-hinged – the forward edge of the right-hand door is standing proud as though unlatched, though could be a gullwing that is well out of alignment.
The 'A' and 'B'-posts are quite square-edged, and at odds with the curves everywhere else. The design would have been somewhat 'cleaner' if the door had extended forward to the 'A'-post (the fussy looking 'B'-post wouldn't have been needed at all).
Of course, if it has gullwing doors, then the shut-line could have followed the line of the 'A'-post, however, if the doors are rear-hinged (I think someone once referred to a similar idea as a 'suicide roof'!), then they would need the reverse-angle 'B'-post that the car has.
I am thinking that the body up to scuttle-height is very curvy, and has a very 1950s/1960s feel. If, as I suspect, the special started-out as a roadster, then I think one of the smaller/narrower Devin'295' shells looks to be the best match. In this case, the entire windscreen/roof/door arrangement would have been a later addition, with the rear wing-line raised to balance the near-horizontal rear window. It would have looked very odd with a 'drooping' rear wing-line.
If the roof is rear-hinged, this would seem to offer no practical benefits (and at least one obvious disadvantage), so would most-likely have been an aesthetic preference of the builder. As I mentioned in the forum, the clipped rear corner of the door window reminds me of the 1967 Chevrolet Astro 1 show car, which also had a (somewhat larger) rear-hinged roof......
Obviously, a fair bit of guesswork in there, but that could give us a timeline of, perhaps, re-body and re-registration in 1965, and the conversion to coupe form some time from 1967. The Astro 1 was well publicised in-period in various magazines, and Corgi Toys made a nice version that would have been widely available from about 1969.
As you say, the wheel-spinners could have been altered at any time, though the fact remains that the exact pattern they have is rather unusual. Many racers had the centre bored-out, and a few (very few) I have seen had a hole in each 'ear', but the two, differently-sized holes in each 'ear' (5 holes bored in each spinner) is unusual. The reduction in unsprung weight would be small, and given the diameter of the spinner itself, the benefits of reduction in rotating mass absolutely negligible. It seems to me to indicate very thorough race-prep.
Spinners like these appeared on the Ashdown MKIX, and Chapmans MKIX (XPE 6) had them fitted/modified shortly after the 1955 Le Mans appearance. Alan Stacey's Series 1 Eleven had them at a BARC Goodwood meet in 1956 (pictured, page 31, Lotus Racing Cars 1948-1968, John Tipler). I have also seen a recent picture of them on an unidentified, silver-painted Eleven, and they are currently fitted to the blue Eleven 'breadvan', though I don't know if these are recent additions. You may know more on the latter!
Bear in mind that the 'ear's of these spinners taper in both directions. You couldn't just clamp them in a vice and drill them. It would perhaps be possible to grip the 'ear' with some type of finger clamp, though these are not common tools. Alternatively, it may be possible to bolt it to a hub, and clamp that to a drill-press, but that would require a big drill and a spare hub.
Another way might be to clamp-down the centre of the spinner – presumably after the centre was drilled-out, as otherwise it would have a domed top surface. This would I suspect require some packing under the 'ear' that was being drilled to avoid some quite nasty vibrations.
A DIY-bodge method might be to drill them on the car, with a large block of wood to protect the spokes, but this wouldn't be easy, or advisable! You can see why drilling into the ears was not a common modification..........
On the cars that you've seen, did they have holes in the 'ears'? Did they have two holes in each 'ear'?
With regard to the location of the photo', there are various stories floating about online. Someone has been told that the pictures have been about for around 8 years, another that the 'poster' was going back to ring the doorbell. I don't think they can both be correct..........
According to the DVLA website, you don't need to tax or 'SORN' a vehicle which is kept off the road if it was last taxed before 31st January 1998. There are still quite a number of old cars in the UK like this that are not on the DVLA electronic database system, so won't show-up in a search (at least until someone wants to recommission them). The paper records may still exist – as you say, some councils still hold their own records, but most went back to the DVLA and are referred to in cases of establishing the identities of 'barn-finds' etc, but they refuse to access these files unless you are the vehicles owner/keeper.
I am currently trying to access such information for something else using the Data Protection Act, but right now they aren't being quite as helpful as they might be.............
Hertfordshire do still hold 'most' of their vehicle records from 1903-1977, and I have a request in presently for 'KUR 3C'.
There is something vaguely 'American' about the pictures, maybe the amount of empty space? In the UK or Europe, you usually find them tucked into a corner somewhere......
The only clue is the red truck(?) behind the bushes. There seems to be something parked there, possibly with an orange emergency-type roof light. It could be the rear-side of a 4x4 possibly? The only other thought is the metadata in the image files (modern cameras record time/date, camera model, lens, focus etc within images). The problem is, I think these are often erased when images are converted by websites. Not my area of expertise, but I think I might put the question on the forum.........
I took another look at the Bucklers you mentioned. To start with, they used similar numbering to Lotus, though their first model was the MKV! From what I found, the DD1 and DD2 were the only ones with a de Dion setup, so I should be able to do a photo-match. They seem low enough, but the seat is further forward. It will be interesting to see where the steering wheel falls.
Best regards,
Dave.
The Buckler DD1
The Buckler DD2. DD1 and DD2 both had the option of a de Dion axle.
[url]
________________
David
Your E Mail eventually reached me via North Kent Lotus Group, and also Mike Marsden of the Historic Lotus Register sent me a copy.
I see that there have been various quotes from my last Book – Lotus History 1951-1955 - The History of The Lotus VI including the Mark III,VIII, IX and X. My earlier book on The Lotus Eleven 1956-59 is now long out of print.
I have trolled through the 5 pages of Piston Heads rambling on the car in question – what a load of rubbish has been stated! You will never identify the car just from a couple of pictures unless someone actually recognises it. It has a 1965 UK registration. Someone in the Hertfordshire area must have built it in the first place with a bunch of mates. Locals must have seen it or known about it. The registration number is quite distinctive. Do Hertfordshire County Council have their old car records – some Councils still do? Has anyone tired the 750 Motor Club for specials. They were in existence in the 60s/70s and still are. Hertfordshire was a nest of special builders and special body manufacturers in both fibreglass and aluminium in the 1950/60s.
However, I do not think that the car in the picture was a 1965 special. The car in the picture is more 1970s. It may well have been rebodied from a 1965 special, but quite possibly not in Hertfordshire where it originated which makes tracing it origins even harder. Is the car still in UK, in which case why has no one tried to find where it was first advertised and try to contact the person who took the photos. It has obviously been under wraps for a long time but I guess that the pictures were in the past 2 years. That must be the first line of investigation, not ‘pie in the sky’ guesswork!
The only way anyone will ever identify it in the absence of direct memory from the 1960/70s, will be by looking at its chassis and suspension. That will identify what it was built from. External pictures will do nothing unless someone recognises it.
There were specials built out of 1950s Sports Cars, TR2 and 3s, MGAs, Austin Healey 100/4, 100/6, and 3000 models. Most of these had wire wheels like the car in the picture. Then there were the 1960s production specials like the Peerless GT and Warwick based of TR parts but with a new chassis, Gilbern, Bond Equipe and Falcon, etc. Any of these would convert well to a thing looking like that! Do people think that it is fibreglass or aluminium? Probably fibreglass if it was 1970s.
As for a Lotus origin, there were many Lotus Specials built from original Lotus Sports Racing cars. In the 1960s I built 4 Lotus 11GTs based on 1957/8s Lotus Elevens. I have seen Lotus Specials built on the Mark VI, Mark VII, Mark VIII and Mark IX. I even discovered Tim Dutton’s first kit car, the Dutton Mantis which was built from an old Lotus VIII, and it was a hard job to recognise it from what Tim had done to it!
Grahams very interesting Mantis pictures..........
The wire wheels in the picture look to me to be heavier weight that a 1959s Lotus. The spinners are too big – possibly Jaguar or Aston Martin or even American. The wheels are obviously more modern and wider that a 1960s car. The whole car looks too bulky to have any 1950 Lotus connections. Colin Chapman was a ‘lightweight’ car designer. His motto: ‘add lightness’. The car in the picture does not look very lightweight!
Thee only was to trace its origin is chassis and suspension. No other guesswork will do, particularly some of the ideas stated so far.
Graham Capel – Lotus Historian
________________
2
Hi Graham,
thank you for a long and detailed reply. Some useful thoughts in there.
I would totally agree with you that it is not possible to make a positive identification of the car in question from just a couple of pictures, though if you look at some of the attached images you will see that a computer model, utilising mathematically precise perspective regression, can soon eliminate many of the cars that it isn't. In each case, please note the different position of the steering wheel/column, and of the two circles representing the head of a circa 5'10” driver. Also, for any of them to have been the basis of 'KUR 3C', their seat-pans would need to be re-positioned to protrude through the chassis to get the driver low enough.
Photo-matches for Bond Equipe GT4S (back and front views), Gilbern Invader, Gilbern GT, Peerless GT, MGA. All cars and CAD models are right-hand-drive.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no way of identifying the original photographer – the picture has been through numerous internet discussion threads, but the who/where/when/why of the original pictures has sadly been lost. Google 'reverse image search' has been used to find all examples of the images currently on the internet, but there is simply no trail to follow. We therefore only have these two images to go on.
What I was really hoping was that those 'in-the-know' might have the other end of 'our' cars story - a missing Lotus with special, lightweight spinners and perhaps a badly damaged original body.......
It was worth asking, at least!
Your reference to the Dutton Mantis is very interesting. This was one of which I was previously unaware, though the history of this car does seem something similar to what I am imagining might have been the case with 'KUR 3C'.
Re-registered, to make it look new, the original shape entirely disguised, but with the same distinctive chassis proportions as the base vehicle (was the wheelbase of the Mantis altered slightly from the original MK VIII?). Of course, the Mantis, being based on a Mark VIII Lotus, had bolt-on wheels, not centre-locks, but the essential idea of a road-going coupe built from a cheap (at the time) old Lotus shows that it could be done. Please see the computer model comparison in attached images.
Lotus MKVI/MKIX dimensions compared to the Dutton Mantis (Lotus MKVIII chassis). All three Lotus share variations of the same chassis and their key dimensions.
Whilst there are inevitably some wild guesses on discussion forums, I have found that there are also a lot of extremely knowledgeable people on Pistonheads who will quickly spot whatever useful information is in any given picture. If it were a production car, standard kit car or whatever, it would have been recognized within 20 minutes on Pistonheads.
Of all the cars you mention – big Healeys, Warwick, Gilbern, Bond Equipe, TRs, MG, I cannot think of any variants that would have had the inboard rear brakes that were spotted very quickly by someone on Pistonheads.
Of the various Falcon models, the Mk2/Competition model has broadly compatible proportions, but did they ever have inboard rear-brakes? Please see again the attachments for a comparison of the computer model, which shows clearly that the Lotus steering wheels (in all images, yellow = MKVI/MKIX, blue = Eleven) sit further back and lower than the Falcon Mk2/Terrier chassis. The driver also appears lower and further back in the chassis.
Falcon MKII - the green one is a works car, the Terrier chassis was available through Falcon, though the body could be bought on its own and fitted to other chassis.
Terrier chassis
As you say, the wheels, as fitted, are definitely chunkier than a Lotus VI, IX or Eleven (as I already mentioned somewhere back in the discussion thread), but my contention is that they would be later 13 inch rims, which would explain why the spinners look proportionately too big by comparison.
The most common 13 inch wires available would have to be from the Spridgets. Even in 1965, these tyres had that chunkier proportion. Would a Spridget wheel fit the Lotus MkVI or MKIX hubs? Spridgets had a 42mm hub and an 8TPI thread. The standard tyres were 5.20-13. I don't know how long the wheel centre-tube would be in either case.
The front brakes on 'KUR 3C' have less clearance in the 'chunkier' wheels than is seen on a disc-brake Lotus on 15” wheels. This looks about what I would expect to see if you fitted 13 inch rims to a Lotus IX.
The final two attachments show a 1965 midget wheel compared with 'KUR 3C', and then a comparison with the Lotus IX front brake.
'KUR 3C' wheel and 1965 Midget wheel
Comparison between 'KUR 3C' front wheel and the Lotus MKIX 15" wheel/front brake. Note greater clearance between brake and rim on the Lotus.......
I think the reason for the car looking somewhat more bulky than the original Lotus is that the Lotus body was extremely low in the mid-section with much taller wheel-arches. Aftermarket bodies (such as the Devin '295') were often not as low-built, so the cockpit area belt-line would have to be taller than the (Lotus) original to allow the wheels sufficient clearance. This would explain why 'KUR 3C' looks somewhat more bulky that a Lotus, but also how it can have such a low roofline. The view out would have been very shallow and restricted!
Out of curiosity, is there is anything left of the Dutton body?
I should have asked before, but are you happy for me to post your replies on the forum?
Best regards,
Dave.
________________
3
David
Firstly, there is no positive evidence that the mystery car in the photo and the subject of the lengthy discussions on Pistonheads is a Lotus. Therefore it is totally wrong and misleading to state in the heading MYSTERY LOTUS. It is a MYSTERY SPECIAL and nothing more at this stage.
You are more than welcome to put my comments on Pistonheads.
Both the Peerless GT and the subsequent Warwick had de Dion rear axles with inboard disc brakes. The front end was all TR3. With the larger body specification and good chassis either would have been an ideal basis for a larger special.
Your reference to 5.10in driver in the context of a possible1950/60s Lotus connection is presumption and wrong I am afraid! Colin Chapman was 5.8in and EVERY car up until he died in 1992 is built around this size driver. I had a 1974 Lotus Esprit JPS No 33 for a number of years and I am 5.10 and my head hit the roof all of the time. When I raced a Lotus Eleven I had to bend my knees up under the dashboard to keep my head from sticking out into the windstream above the screen! Neither were very comfortable!
In the 1960s it was common practice to fit 13in wire wheels from a Sprite/Midget to lower the car in relation to ground clearance from 15in wheels. This was the cheapest and most effective way of lowering a car, long before sophisticated suspension lowering and spring changes. I still have a 1962 Lotus Elite Mark 14 and it has 13in wide rim wire wheels which I had specially made by West London Wheel Repair Company at the time. The usual problem 13 in wire wheels created was overheating of the Aluminium Girling AR disc callipers as there was insufficient air circulation. It was a problem in racing but probably not for road use.
It is absolutely ridiculous to pick out of the air any old Lotus and try to claim that this might have be the basis for this special without any supporting evidence. Peter Ashdown’s Mark IX and Edward Lewis Mark VI are well known and well documented cars, both of which still exist. Similarly, to try to relate this special to any missing early Lotus is equally ridiculous. You must have evidence not just a wild guess? The only way of obtaining this is an inspection. In the meantime it is just a Special.
Of the 120 or so Lotus Mark VIs built probably about 25 are unaccounted for. Of the 8 Mark VIIIs, built all exist today. Of the 24/25 Lotus Mark IXs, half went to USA. Of the British cars almost all still exist except 2, one of which went to USA. Of the 12 American Mark IXs at least 6 are unidentified today. Was the picture of the special in USA? Of the 5 Mark X cars built, all exist today. Another possible donor car could be a Buckler which in some models did have inboard rear brakes. Also, Lotus sold their de Dion rear suspension with inboard rear differential separately, either drum brakes for the Mark IX or inboard discs for the Eleven. Many were bought by special builders at the time to build their own design cars. It did not have to come with a car! I found an American built special in Fort Pierce in Florida a number of years ago which had a Lotus Mark IX rear diff with inboard brakes. It was quite a nice special if I recall, but I did not buy it? Someone else did and it came back to Sussex.
The Dutton Mantis was an amazing re-creation from a Lotus Mark VIII. The only recognisable part was the side sponsons behind the front wheels. It was a Gull Wing creation with Sunbeam Alpine front and rear axles welded to the poor fragile lightweight Lotus chassis. See my book on the Lotus VI, Page 114 (I still have copies available at £25).
The ONLY way to identify the origins of the car in the photos is to examine it. Until then it is just a SPECIAL.
Best regards
Graham Capel – Lotus Historian
________________
4
Hi Graham,
thank you again for your thoughts, and for the intriguing images of the Dutton.
Apart from the (admittedly ill-chosen) Subject Line on my e-mail – which I shall change to simply 'KUR 3C' from now on - I really must make it very clear that I make no claim to have proven that the car is a Lotus! I refer you to the first paragraph of my previous message......
“I would totally agree with you that it is not possible to make a positive identification of the car in question from just a couple of pictures, though if you look at some of the attached images you will see that a computer model, utilising mathematically precise perspective regression, can soon eliminate many of the cars that it isn't. In each case, please note the different position of the steering wheel/column, and of the two circles representing the head of a circa 5'10” driver. Also, for any of them to have been the basis of 'KUR 3C', their seat-pans would need to be re-positioned to protrude through the chassis to get the driver low enough”.
I do stand entirely by what I have said here.
The computer aided design should really be seen as just another tool that can aid historical research. It has its advantages and its limitations, just like any other approach.
If you were able to compare side elevations from general arrangement drawings, printed on acetate, you can imagine overlaying one car on another to see whether the exterior of one could fit the mechanical parts, driving position and any other salient features of the other. If, say, the mechanical parts don't fit within the envelope, then either the base vehicle has been heavily modified, or it isn't the right base vehicle. If you find one where everything fits perfectly, then perhaps you have the right car!
I am most assuredly not saying that such evidence constitutes absolute proof. However, if you investigate numerous likely candidates, and only one fits, then it seems not unreasonable to make further investigations. I would say that this constitutes sound evidence, though certainly not proof-positive.
In cases where modifications would be required, judgement must be applied. If the drivers view of the road is blocked by the engine, the seating position would require serious alteration to structural frame members and the rear overhang of the chassis would protrude beyond the envelope of the unknown car, and the drivers head protrudes a foot above the roof, then there must clearly come a point where common sense suggests that the given car is not the correct one.
All I am claiming for this approach is that the power of modern computing allows for the creation of a 3-D version of the above. Matching appropriate features in the 2-D case is in essence no different from the same in the 3-D case, even if the latter is a little more complicated! The mathematics of perspective drawing are tried and tested. They have been around since the Renaissance..........
In the case of 'KUR 3C', what features we have in the pictures are a VERY close match to the Lotus VI, or the IX. The low bonnet line, seating set so far back and low in the chassis, and the very precise agreement of the position of the steering wheel.
The odds of all these features randomly aligning with such precision are very low. Compare the alignment (in the attachments from my previous e-mail) of the various other vehicles, and you will quickly understand how different they all are.
Add to this those very distinctive, drilled wheel spinners. I have yet to see them on anything other than 1950s Lotus race cars.
None of this by itself constitutes proof. Of course not! But I do totally believe that it represents very compelling evidence. I wouldn't be wasting your time with anything less.........
I have absolutely no problem with healthy skepticism, but would suggest you take a good look at those images before dismissing this approach entirely. There is a great deal more to it that guess-work!
The main question I originally had for you, which you have perhaps already answered, was whether anything here – registration number, distinctive spinners with 5 drilled holes (to date, I have only seen on Lotus IX and Eleven) or any other information/stories of which you may be aware, may seem familiar and suggest a new line of enquiry.
My reference to a 5'10” driver has no relation to Colin Chapman, but if you read my original posts again, you will see is actually referring to Graham Hill, who was, according to his brother, 5' 10”. The reason for including these circles, to give a good approximation of the drivers head, was to ensure an accurate assessment of the likely headroom when comparing the computer model to the images. Their position was ascertained by matching the chassis model to an image of a Lotus Eleven, with Mr Hill at the wheel, thus ensuring accuracy. This can be seen about half-way down on page 3 of the forum.
You state that “Peter Ashdown’s Mark IX and Edward Lewis Mark VI are well known and well documented cars, both of which still exist”.
From my conversations with Mike Marsden, (please see page 5, about half-way down)
“........he kept the Climax engine, de Dion, big brakes etc and used them on the Lewis Lotus Special. Ted told me that Colin Chapman rapidly sold the latter, on Ted’s behalf to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1957”.
“It was the Lewis Lotus Special which went to Rhodesia, and has not been heard of since”.
Are we talking about the same car here? The MK VI with a unique body, Climax power and a de Dion axle? Does it still exist?
With regard to the Peerless GT and the Warwick, you are correct about the de Dion rear axle, but the production cars all seem to have outboard rear brakes. These are still present, though now replaced with disc-brakes, on the Gordon-Keeble that was developed from them. Were some fitted with inboard brakes, as I cannot find any evidence for this?
In any case, if 'KUR' were based on a Peerless GT, then the chassis tubes behind the drivers seat appear to be in the way of the repositioned seat base, the Triumph engine is far too tall for the low bonnet (and visibility), and the steering linkages would need some serious re-thinking! The tubular structure that forms the door closer would also seem to be in a very awkward place, and the rear overhang of the chassis would have to be removed. Please see attached images to see what I mean.
The Peerless GT chassis...........
You can see the projected bonnet line on the two pictures of 'KUR', which may be compared with the image of the Peerless rolling chassis, where it cuts through the top of the engine. In the black and white image from 'The Motor', you can see the approximate centre-line transposed from 'KUR', along with Graham Hills head, the Climax engine (slightly out of position because it is left-over from the previous, Lotus Eleven model). The blue lines approximate the steering column and wheel from the Peerless. The top of the wheel may be seen in the original advert.
Peerless GT. In all images, the yellow steering wheel is in the Lotus MKVI and MKIX position, whilst the blue one is in the position found on the Lotus Eleven. The blue lines represent the approximate position of the steering column and wheel in the Peerless.
As to the original images, unfortunately I have told you all that seems to be known. Essentially nothing, I'm afraid. The only clue to location is the UK number plates which, without access to the vehicle, seem also to offer the only possibility of any solid evidence.
As regards the Buckler, those that I have seen all seem to have the seat too far forward, though there is certainly room for more investigation here as there seem to be several different models.
Best regards,
Dave.
________________
5
David
Thank you for your E Mail on the continuing saga of KUR 3C.
The trouble with computer aligning chassis dimensions to the photos is that it does not help to identify the actual car, only what type it might resemble dimensionally. The chassis dimensions of the Lotus VI and IX are different from the Lotus Eleven. Even if the computer generated image transposed onto the picture fits a Lotus Eleven for example, it does not help to identify the actual car, only possibly one of the many missing cars on the register. I already have listed about 20 unknown cars with either original registration numbers but unknown original driver or chassis numbers, or original 1950s cars which were re-registered in the 1960s. My first Lotus Eleven GT in 1964 was re-registered by me in 1965 HPC 10C to make it look more modern?
I agree that there is a possibility that this car might have been constructed from a 1950s Lotus and fitted with wider 13 in wire wheels. A number of ‘specials’ of the 1960s were. Lotus cars of this period were pretty obsolete and cheap in the mid-1960s. I bought my 2nd Lotus Eleven to make into a GT in 1965 for £300. An old running Lotus would make an ideal basis for a special as many were – the Dutton Mantis. They were also the most numerous type of sports-special of the time. I still feel that the body in the photos is not the original from 1965. It is 1970s in styling.
Drilled wheel spinners were not uncommon in the 1960s. They were drilled for lightness. I know of a Sebring Sprite in 1963 which had drilled wheel spinners and a racing Turner. I am certain that there were several Lotuses as well. It is not a very distinctive feature. They could have been drilled later than when the car was built in 1965, or in the 1970s when the body may date from.
Re the Lewis Lotus Special. I have some history of it in Rhodesia in the 1960s when it had a Ford Zephyr engine. It crashed into a tree killing the driver in about 1966. I am told the remains were then crushed by the family.
There must be some way in which the location of the photos can be established and the car itself. They are obviously fairly recent – 3-5 years? I feel that the photos came from the US. If the photos were UK then I would have expected the registration number to still be listed with DVLA. It is quite a valuable number plate. If the 1970s body style was made in UK, the DVLA records date from the mid-1970s?
What if the 1965 special was sold to USA in the late 1960s when many Lotus ex-racing cars were, and then rebodied there on the lines of a Kellison which it does resemble? They could have kept the UK registration on it so it could be driven on US roads as an import? Is there some way the photos could be circulated in USA?
Graham Capel – Lotus Historian
________________
6
Hi Graham,
thanks again.
I think you sum-up admirably what the computer modelling can do. It can extract more dimensional or proportional data from the picture than is possible with the naked-eye alone, but it can't extract what isn't there.
In a previous exercise, I was able to determine the wheelbase of an unknown special (to perhaps plus or minus 15mm), because the picture was almost side-on, and because I was able to identify the exact part (and therefore, size) of the wheel covers.
With 'KUR', the only known parts are the tail lights and number plate. And even then, there were two sizes of number plate digits! (Though the older, larger ones were a little out-of-date by 1965).
In this case, I can only work with proportion and alignments, not absolute dimensions. This is why, having established the close match to the proportions of the Lotus VI and XI, it is possible to use this model as a proxy to compare other vehicles which may in themselves be larger or smaller.
You stated that...
“I agree that there is a possibility that this car might have been constructed from a 1950s Lotus and fitted with wider 13 in wire wheels. A number of ‘specials’ of the 1960s were. Lotus cars of this period were pretty obsolete and cheap in the mid-1960s”.
“An old running Lotus would make an ideal basis for a special as many were – the Dutton Mantis. They were also the most numerous type of sports-special of the time. I still feel that the body in the photos is not the original from 1965. It is 1970s in styling”.
I would largely agree with you on this, (though perhaps I am somewhat more confident of what the matching proportions may be telling us).
Where I would perhaps differ is on the likely age of the body. To me, the rear view mirror looks like a 1970s accessory, though the body itself looks like a roadster body with a custom-made roof.
The rear window shape doesn't seem to fit anything that I'm aware of, and nobody on Pistonheads have suggested anything that looks to have the same proportions. It could come from something obscure, or it could be perspex.
The roof/door arrangement is quite bizarre, especially if it is rear-hinged – the forward edge of the right-hand door is standing proud as though unlatched, though could be a gullwing that is well out of alignment.
The 'A' and 'B'-posts are quite square-edged, and at odds with the curves everywhere else. The design would have been somewhat 'cleaner' if the door had extended forward to the 'A'-post (the fussy looking 'B'-post wouldn't have been needed at all).
Of course, if it has gullwing doors, then the shut-line could have followed the line of the 'A'-post, however, if the doors are rear-hinged (I think someone once referred to a similar idea as a 'suicide roof'!), then they would need the reverse-angle 'B'-post that the car has.
I am thinking that the body up to scuttle-height is very curvy, and has a very 1950s/1960s feel. If, as I suspect, the special started-out as a roadster, then I think one of the smaller/narrower Devin'295' shells looks to be the best match. In this case, the entire windscreen/roof/door arrangement would have been a later addition, with the rear wing-line raised to balance the near-horizontal rear window. It would have looked very odd with a 'drooping' rear wing-line.
If the roof is rear-hinged, this would seem to offer no practical benefits (and at least one obvious disadvantage), so would most-likely have been an aesthetic preference of the builder. As I mentioned in the forum, the clipped rear corner of the door window reminds me of the 1967 Chevrolet Astro 1 show car, which also had a (somewhat larger) rear-hinged roof......
Obviously, a fair bit of guesswork in there, but that could give us a timeline of, perhaps, re-body and re-registration in 1965, and the conversion to coupe form some time from 1967. The Astro 1 was well publicised in-period in various magazines, and Corgi Toys made a nice version that would have been widely available from about 1969.
As you say, the wheel-spinners could have been altered at any time, though the fact remains that the exact pattern they have is rather unusual. Many racers had the centre bored-out, and a few (very few) I have seen had a hole in each 'ear', but the two, differently-sized holes in each 'ear' (5 holes bored in each spinner) is unusual. The reduction in unsprung weight would be small, and given the diameter of the spinner itself, the benefits of reduction in rotating mass absolutely negligible. It seems to me to indicate very thorough race-prep.
Spinners like these appeared on the Ashdown MKIX, and Chapmans MKIX (XPE 6) had them fitted/modified shortly after the 1955 Le Mans appearance. Alan Stacey's Series 1 Eleven had them at a BARC Goodwood meet in 1956 (pictured, page 31, Lotus Racing Cars 1948-1968, John Tipler). I have also seen a recent picture of them on an unidentified, silver-painted Eleven, and they are currently fitted to the blue Eleven 'breadvan', though I don't know if these are recent additions. You may know more on the latter!
Bear in mind that the 'ear's of these spinners taper in both directions. You couldn't just clamp them in a vice and drill them. It would perhaps be possible to grip the 'ear' with some type of finger clamp, though these are not common tools. Alternatively, it may be possible to bolt it to a hub, and clamp that to a drill-press, but that would require a big drill and a spare hub.
Another way might be to clamp-down the centre of the spinner – presumably after the centre was drilled-out, as otherwise it would have a domed top surface. This would I suspect require some packing under the 'ear' that was being drilled to avoid some quite nasty vibrations.
A DIY-bodge method might be to drill them on the car, with a large block of wood to protect the spokes, but this wouldn't be easy, or advisable! You can see why drilling into the ears was not a common modification..........
On the cars that you've seen, did they have holes in the 'ears'? Did they have two holes in each 'ear'?
With regard to the location of the photo', there are various stories floating about online. Someone has been told that the pictures have been about for around 8 years, another that the 'poster' was going back to ring the doorbell. I don't think they can both be correct..........
According to the DVLA website, you don't need to tax or 'SORN' a vehicle which is kept off the road if it was last taxed before 31st January 1998. There are still quite a number of old cars in the UK like this that are not on the DVLA electronic database system, so won't show-up in a search (at least until someone wants to recommission them). The paper records may still exist – as you say, some councils still hold their own records, but most went back to the DVLA and are referred to in cases of establishing the identities of 'barn-finds' etc, but they refuse to access these files unless you are the vehicles owner/keeper.
I am currently trying to access such information for something else using the Data Protection Act, but right now they aren't being quite as helpful as they might be.............
Hertfordshire do still hold 'most' of their vehicle records from 1903-1977, and I have a request in presently for 'KUR 3C'.
There is something vaguely 'American' about the pictures, maybe the amount of empty space? In the UK or Europe, you usually find them tucked into a corner somewhere......
The only clue is the red truck(?) behind the bushes. There seems to be something parked there, possibly with an orange emergency-type roof light. It could be the rear-side of a 4x4 possibly? The only other thought is the metadata in the image files (modern cameras record time/date, camera model, lens, focus etc within images). The problem is, I think these are often erased when images are converted by websites. Not my area of expertise, but I think I might put the question on the forum.........
I took another look at the Bucklers you mentioned. To start with, they used similar numbering to Lotus, though their first model was the MKV! From what I found, the DD1 and DD2 were the only ones with a de Dion setup, so I should be able to do a photo-match. They seem low enough, but the seat is further forward. It will be interesting to see where the steering wheel falls.
Best regards,
Dave.
The Buckler DD1
The Buckler DD2. DD1 and DD2 both had the option of a de Dion axle.
[url]
Lily the Pink said:
TL;DR ... your man Graham thinks you're mad.
I'll leave it to the Pistonheads community as to their opinions of Graham after reading the above missive.Thankyou for your efforts Borrani, not least in defending the integrity and motivations of genuine enthusiasts in this and other internet groups who to some older generations are wrongly dismissed as ill-informed square eyed socially inept lurkers.
Have you considered Marcos? The front and rear wing lines are similar to some of the early cars (e.g. https://classicmarcos.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/... ; they were very low built, and some (e.g. the early 1800) had a form of de-Dion rear suspension with inboard brakes.
So I joined PistonHeads specifically because of this stupid car that no one can figure out.
Let me say first that the amount of work and the level of work Borrani put into figuring this out is incredible and has to be commended.
Playing devil's advocate, and possibly going down a different rabbit hole than a Lotus, which someone mentioned on the first page, long ago, could this be a heavily modified Piper?
The long flat fenders definitely seem to fit, as well as the weird 'ghost' outlines from where it seems the door may have been(?).
The rear wheel arches dont really match in some of the pictures, but I also cant really figure out which Piper is which between the GT, GTT, and P2, but I admit I hadnt dug too deep there yet.
For some reason this thing, which is probably going to end up being a random VW based piece of nonsense, intrigues me way more than the other little blue car mystery.
Let me say first that the amount of work and the level of work Borrani put into figuring this out is incredible and has to be commended.
Playing devil's advocate, and possibly going down a different rabbit hole than a Lotus, which someone mentioned on the first page, long ago, could this be a heavily modified Piper?
The long flat fenders definitely seem to fit, as well as the weird 'ghost' outlines from where it seems the door may have been(?).
The rear wheel arches dont really match in some of the pictures, but I also cant really figure out which Piper is which between the GT, GTT, and P2, but I admit I hadnt dug too deep there yet.
For some reason this thing, which is probably going to end up being a random VW based piece of nonsense, intrigues me way more than the other little blue car mystery.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff