lffr : Messages : 1502-1536 of 1536

#1535 From: "Carl McLelland" <carlynneracing@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:56 pm
Subject: HAM carlp468
Offline
Send Email

Howdy Guys and Gals,

A Merry Christmas and Happy New YEar to everybody. May all your 'Lotus' dreams and desires be achieved and then some in the year to come.

So if anybody out there is into amateur radio, just give me a reply, and we will have to get together on the air some time soon..

And again, Happy Holidays everybody,

Carl 61/FF/79 and KF7GJO

carlynneracing@...

#1534 From: "collinsdean3429" <collinsdean@...>
Date: Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:50 pm
Subject: Lotus 51 for sale collinsdean3429
Offline
Send Email

Notice everyone! I sold my 51 two weeks ago. It's gone so you can stop asking me
about it.
Please!
Dean Collins
collinsdean@...

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1533 From: "Carl McLelland" <carlynneracing@...>
Date: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:33 pm
Subject: Passing of Chuck Weinstein carlp468
Offline
Send Email

I don't know how many of you might have known Chuck Weinstein, but he was our starter with HSR-West and HMSA for many, many years.

Chuck and I always had a standing joke.... As I started getting faster, we "agreed" that he would indiscriminately black flag any competitor who was in front of me and wouldn't get out of my way, then throw the Checkered Flag as soon as I had taken the lead! Chuck was also the first to notice, and comment upon my habit of always throwing a 'crisp salute' (in lieu of wave) at the end of a race.

The last time he 'started me' was at the HMSA Reno Historics at Reno Fernley last May. I'm happy that I was the recipient of his 'winners flag' on both days...

There's a little more info on the HMSA website: http://www.hmsausa.com/news/releases/chuck.html

Carl

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#1532 From: "villigerus" <villigerus@...>
Date: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: 2010 Lime Rock Park Vintage Festival - Labor Day Weekend villigerus
Offline
Send Email

wihiii@...

--- In lffr@yahoogroups.com, "villigerus" <villigerus@...> wrote:
>
> Bill Hollingsworth has volunteered to run this race at Lime Rock in 2010 as
Mike Rand has to be at Mid Ohio for the FF2000 finale. If you wish to be on the
e mail update list drop Bill a line at wihiii@...
>
> David
> 71 Lotus 69FF
>
> --- In lffr@yahoogroups.com, <ed.luce@> wrote:
> >
> > Consider my calendar marked, but only in pencil - attendance may depend
> > upon the more local schedule.
> >
> > Ed
> > 51A/FF/70
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > villigerus <villigerus@>
> > Sent by: <lffr@yahoogroups.com>
> > 11/12/2009 12:04 PM
> > Please respond to
> > lffr@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> > To
> > lffr@yahoogroups.com
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > [lffr] 2010 Lime Rock Park Vintage Festival - Labor Day Weekend
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please mark your calendars; Murray Smith has given FF's their own race
> > group if we can get 25 cars+. Intention is to have 2 classes (pre and post
> > 1973). The event was a huge success this year with lots of track time (we
> > had over a dozen FFs) but we need more than one Lotus entered in 2010.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Notice:
> > This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are
> > intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is
> > addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the
> > sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended
> > recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or
> > attachments in whole or in part.
> >
>

#1531 From: "villigerus" <villigerus@...>
Date: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: 2010 Lime Rock Park Vintage Festival - Labor Day Weekend villigerus
Offline
Send Email

Bill Hollingsworth has volunteered to run this race at Lime Rock in 2010 as Mike
Rand has to be at Mid Ohio for the FF2000 finale. If you wish to be on the e
mail update list drop Bill a line at wihiii@...

David
71 Lotus 69FF

--- In lffr@yahoogroups.com, <ed.luce@...> wrote:
>
> Consider my calendar marked, but only in pencil - attendance may depend
> upon the more local schedule.
>
> Ed
> 51A/FF/70
>
>
>
>
>
> villigerus <villigerus@...>
> Sent by: <lffr@yahoogroups.com>
> 11/12/2009 12:04 PM
> Please respond to
> lffr@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> To
> lffr@yahoogroups.com
> cc
>
> Subject
> [lffr] 2010 Lime Rock Park Vintage Festival - Labor Day Weekend
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please mark your calendars; Murray Smith has given FF's their own race
> group if we can get 25 cars+. Intention is to have 2 classes (pre and post
> 1973). The event was a huge success this year with lots of track time (we
> had over a dozen FFs) but we need more than one Lotus entered in 2010.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Notice:
> This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are
> intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is
> addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the
> sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended
> recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or
> attachments in whole or in part.
>

#1525 From: <ed.luce@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: 2010 Lime Rock Park Vintage Festival - Labor Day Weekend bomber_8ca
Offline
Send Email

Consider my calendar marked, but only in pencil - attendance may depend upon the more local schedule.

Ed
51A/FF/70

villigerus <villigerus@...>
Sent by: <lffr@yahoogroups.com>

11/12/2009 12:04 PM

Please respond to
lffr@yahoogroups.com

To	lffr@yahoogroups.com
cc
Subject	[lffr] 2010 Lime Rock Park Vintage Festival - Labor Day Weekend

Please mark your calendars; Murray Smith has given FF's their own race group if we can get 25 cars+. Intention is to have 2 classes (pre and post 1973). The event was a huge success this year with lots of track time (we had over a dozen FFs) but we need more than one Lotus entered in 2010. David ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lffr/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lffr/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: lffr-digest@yahoogroups.com lffr-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lffr-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Notice:
This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.

#1524 From: "villigerus" <villigerus@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:04 pm
Subject: 2010 Lime Rock Park Vintage Festival - Labor Day Weekend villigerus
Offline
Send Email

Please mark your calendars; Murray Smith has given FF's their own race group if
we can get 25 cars+. Intention is to have 2 classes (pre and post 1973). The
event was a huge success this year with lots of track time (we had over a dozen
FFs) but we need more than one Lotus entered in 2010.

David

#1523 From: "mcbltd" <mcbltd@...>
Date: Mon Nov 9, 2009 10:16 pm
Subject: Re: Lotus 61 Rear WB mcbltd
Offline
Send Email

Henrik,
   I remembered you asking for this recently. My bottom rear arms measure 14" in
outward length and 8-3/4" from outside to outside on the little outer bushing
tubes. As far as I know these are stock. However in a prior note I mentioned
something I discovered in my restoration. Even though at a glance you may think
that the tabs for the sway bar links are veritcle, they are not. They need to be
welded on at an inward angle of 10-15 degrees. And note that they have
reinforcing tubes for the bolt to pass through. And they would have to be at
least tack welded in place with a bolt holding every thing in alignment and with
the rod end for width spacing.
    You can maybe find my previous post, but if this stuff is verticle the
reinforcing tubes will not allow the rod end to angle over enough to line up
with the sway bar without bending something.
    I forgot to check the thread diameter of the inner rod end.
Later, M.B.

--- In lffr@yahoogroups.com, Henrik Hansson <hansson_henrik@...> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I'm about to make new wishbones for my car
> The lower rears have been cut off, can anyone please measure the total length
(see attachment)
> Should the inner uniball be 5/8" UNF thread?
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>

#1522 From: incwyvern@...
Date: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 pm
Subject: Re: Colorado 61 For Sale lotusf2
Offline
Send Email

John: Thanks for your interest, you can see photos in the LOCO 61 #2 file (I had trouble in loading these pictures, hence 2 files!!), please let me know if you would like more information.

Best regards, John.

In a message dated 10/28/2009 7:32:15 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, john.greeven@... writes:

Can you please send me the file with pictures to which you refer?

John

From: lffr@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lffr@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lotusf2
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:02 PM
To: lffr@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lffr] Colorado 61 For Sale

I intend on putting my Lotus 61 for sale on e-bay very soon. I will be using a reserve price of $15,000.00 which I believe is a very fair starting point and I will consider reasonable offers before the auction. This car has been fully freshened to original specs with new plating including the calipers with new seals, bushes, joints, fuel tank and all new fiberglass bodywork. The car has been set up and aligned for the new Dunlop FF tires and for a 185lb driver. I have created a file with pictures showing all details. I am offering here to give members of our group fist chance, please let me know if there is any interest.
Regards, JohnA, Colorado.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1521 From: "Greeven, John C (Juan Carlos)" <john.greeven@...>
Date: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:21 am
Subject: RE: Colorado 61 For Sale jcgreeven
Offline
Send Email

Can you please send me the file with pictures to which you refer?

John

From: lffr@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lffr@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lotusf2
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:02 PM
To: lffr@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lffr] Colorado 61 For Sale

I intend on putting my Lotus 61 for sale on e-bay very soon. I will be using a reserve price of $15,000.00 which I believe is a very fair starting point and I will consider reasonable offers before the auction. This car has been fully freshened to original specs with new plating including the calipers with new seals, bushes, joints, fuel tank and all new fiberglass bodywork. The car has been set up and aligned for the new Dunlop FF tires and for a 185lb driver. I have created a file with pictures showing all details. I am offering here to give members of our group fist chance, please let me know if there is any interest.
Regards, JohnA, Colorado.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1520 From: "lotusf2" <incwyvern@...>
Date: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:01 am
Subject: Colorado 61 For Sale lotusf2
Offline
Send Email

I intend on putting my Lotus 61 for sale on e-bay very soon. I will be using a
reserve price of $15,000.00 which I believe is a very fair starting point and I
will consider reasonable offers before the auction. This car has been fully
freshened to original specs with new plating including the calipers with new
seals, bushes, joints, fuel tank and all new fiberglass bodywork. The car has
been set up and aligned for the new Dunlop FF tires and for a 185lb driver. I
have created a file with pictures showing all details. I am offering here to
give members of our group fist chance, please let me know if there is any
interest.
Regards, JohnA, Colorado.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#1519 From: Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...>
Date: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:05 pm
Subject: Re: Lotus 61 Rear WB fawcettweb
Offline
Send Email

they are screwed all the way in and need to go in more!

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Carl McLelland <carlynneracing@...> wrote:

�

Andrew,

How far are�your frame attachment Heims screwed in? By unscrewing them which pushes the uprights further out you'll likely get enough that you can correctly set the toe. Try and get the same width on both sides, otherwise your changing a lot of dimensions as the suspension moves up and down.

�

If you shorten the A arm your actually going to make the problem worse, not better regarding toe; not to mention altering all the suspension geometry. If anything, I would prefer lengthening the A arms and control rods to widen the rear track to improve handling: but that's pushing the envelope regarding originality..

�

The car is loaded and ready to depart for Phoenix in a few minutes. If this is still an issue next week when we get back I'll measure mine and send all the numbers. In the meantime, looking at this photo below, by moving your shim pack on the inboard Heim you can effectively alter the angle of the A arm, which should help acheive toe in for you.

�� Carl�� 61/FF/79

�

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

From: Andrew Fawcett

To: lffr@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:05 AM

Subject: Re: [lffr] Lotus 61 Rear WB

�

interesting to me that they have been cut.� I cant get the toe�i need on my rear, with the joint screwed all the way in, and have been thinking of cutting them.

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Henrik Hansson <hansson_henrik@...> wrote:

�

[Attachment(s) from Henrik Hansson included below]

Hello

I'm about to make new wishbones for my car
The lower rears have been cut off, can anyone please measure the total length (see attachment)
Should the inner uniball be 5/8" UNF thread?

Regards
Henrik

#1518 From: "Carl McLelland" <carlynneracing@...>
Date: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: Lotus 61 Rear WB carlp468
Offline
Send Email

Andrew,

How far are your frame attachment Heims screwed in? By unscrewing them which pushes the uprights further out you'll likely get enough that you can correctly set the toe. Try and get the same width on both sides, otherwise your changing a lot of dimensions as the suspension moves up and down.

If you shorten the A arm your actually going to make the problem worse, not better regarding toe; not to mention altering all the suspension geometry. If anything, I would prefer lengthening the A arms and control rods to widen the rear track to improve handling: but that's pushing the envelope regarding originality..

The car is loaded and ready to depart for Phoenix in a few minutes. If this is still an issue next week when we get back I'll measure mine and send all the numbers. In the meantime, looking at this photo below, by moving your shim pack on the inboard Heim you can effectively alter the angle of the A arm, which should help acheive toe in for you.

Carl 61/FF/79

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

From: Andrew Fawcett

To: lffr@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:05 AM

Subject: Re: [lffr] Lotus 61 Rear WB

interesting to me that they have been cut. I cant get the toe i need on my rear, with the joint screwed all the way in, and have been thinking of cutting them.

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Henrik Hansson <hansson_henrik@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Attachment(s) from Henrik Hansson included below]

Hello

I'm about to make new wishbones for my car
The lower rears have been cut off, can anyone please measure the total length (see attachment)
Should the inner uniball be 5/8" UNF thread?

Regards
Henrik

#1517 From: Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...>
Date: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: Lotus 61 Rear WB [1 Attachment] fawcettweb
Offline
Send Email

interesting to me that they have been cut.� I cant get the toe�i need on my rear, with the joint screwed all the way in, and have been thinking of cutting them.

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Henrik Hansson <hansson_henrik@...> wrote:

�

[Attachment(s) from Henrik Hansson included below]

Hello

I'm about to make new wishbones for my car
The lower rears have been cut off, can anyone please measure the total length (see attachment)
Should the inner uniball be 5/8" UNF thread?

Regards
Henrik

#1516 From: Henrik Hansson <hansson_henrik@...>
Date: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:56 pm
Subject: Lotus 61 Rear WB hansson_henrik
Offline
Send Email

Hello

I'm about to make new wishbones for my car
The lower rears have been cut off, can anyone please measure the total length (see attachment)
Should the inner uniball be 5/8" UNF thread?

Regards
Henrik

1 of 1 Photo(s)

l�nkarm bak.jpg

#1515 From: "Elton E. (Tony) Clark" <eltonclark@...>
Date: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:50 pm
Subject: Re: Windscreen for 61 lotustonyclark
Offline
Send Email

We've bought two (!) windshields from them for the Lotus 51

and the quality and service was good . . . the price was� . . �not.

�

Tony�

#1514 From: "Carl McLelland" <carlynneracing@...>
Date: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:21 pm
Subject: Re: Windscreen for 61 carlp468
Offline
Send Email

Al,

That's the place where the former owner of my car had the new windscreen made 25 years ago!! I recognized it as soon as I saw it. Thanks Ron!!

Carl 61/FF/79

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

From: Ron Greenwell

To: lffr@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:49 PM

Subject: Re: [lffr] Windscreen for 61

Al,

I purchased a Lotus 51 Windscreen from the following a few years ago.....Good service:

Aircraft Windshields

Judy Gallo

(562) 430-8108

fax (562) 598-0716

Email gallo1313@aol.com

10871 Kyle St

Los Alamitos CA 90720

Ron Greenwell

On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:30 AM, alexandr_brussich wrote:

Anyone have a source for the Lotus 61 windscreen?
May have to make my own but do not really have the tools or the knowledge at making one.

Al B.

#1513 From: Ron Greenwell <ron@...>
Date: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:49 pm
Subject: Re: Windscreen for 61 rongwell1
Offline
Send Email

Al,

I purchased a Lotus 51 Windscreen from the following a few years ago.....Good service:

Aircraft Windshields

Judy Gallo

(562) 430-8108

fax (562) 598-0716

Email gallo1313@...

10871 Kyle St

Los Alamitos CA 90720

Ron Greenwell

On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:30 AM, alexandr_brussich wrote:

Anyone have a source for the Lotus 61 windscreen?
May have to make my own but do not really have the tools or the knowledge at making one.

Al B.

#1512 From: "Carl McLelland" <carlynneracing@...>
Date: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: Windscreen for 61 carlp468
Offline
Send Email

Al,

There used to be a place in Southern Calif that made my "new" windscreen, but they made it about 25 years ago and I don't know who they were. But here's a clue....

Go by your local (small, not international) airport, go to a Fixed Base Operation and ask a mechanic where they get replacement plexiglass windscreens for planes? They could direct you to someone. Assuming you have an old one (even if cracked, crazed and maybe broken in two) they can make a pattern and heat it for the correct bends. The '61 windscreen is really simple, unlike a 51 screen which is a BIG piece of plastic.

Carl 61/FF/79

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

From: alexandr_brussich

To: lffr@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:30 AM

Subject: [lffr] Windscreen for 61

Anyone have a source for the Lotus 61 windscreen?
May have to make my own but do not really have the tools or the knowledge at making one.

Al B.

#1511 From: "alexandr_brussich" <al.brussich@...>
Date: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:30 pm
Subject: Windscreen for 61 alexandr_bru...
Offline
Send Email

Anyone have a source for the Lotus 61 windscreen?
May have to make my own but do not really have the tools or the knowledge at
making one.

Al B.

#1510 From: Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...>
Date: Thu Oct 8, 2009 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: Weber 32/36DGV Problem fawcettweb
Offline
Send Email

i'd say the point would be to keep an expert like ivey in your toolbox...

�

not quite related, but on the darn fangled dcoe carbs i run, the emulsion tube fuel port is "sealed" to the carb port (kind of where the brass tube in the DGV's get's it fuel from) by a small piece of�spring steel in the carb throat that presses the venturi body over.�� i learned the hard, long�way that this spring, not part of a rebuild kit, eventually weakens and fuel can leaks out and the vacuum suction diminishes, really playing with your mixture!

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Carl McLelland <carlynneracing@...> wrote:

�

Howdy Everybody,

An interesting thing happened to Chuck Pittenger at Willow Springs last Saturday. (Mark 6 Titan formula Ford, Ivey engine). Chuck was having a serious problem with his engine. It idled perfectly but application of throttle made the engine sound like it wanted to die and there was virtually no rpm increase. (I would have equated the performance to an accelerator pump failure but the accelerator pump was working fine). Thinking it was a bad condensor, Chuck borrowed one from me. Roland Johnson came over to install it and when it made no difference in performance he got on his phone to Jay Ivey.

�

Jay immediately knew what the problem was and told Roland to replace the emulsion tube in the primary side of the carburetor (Weber 32/36DGV). Looking down into the carburetor throat you could clearly see the opening in the emulsion tube (brass tube) port had somehow rotated so that it was pointed straight up instead of straight down. I gave Chuck a spare emulsion tube, Roland installed it and the engine ran perfectly.

�

Here is a normal 3.5mm emulsion tube I took out of a junk' carburetor.

�

This is looking straight down into the emulsion tube venturi. You can clearly see the top of the brass (emulsion) tube. (No comments about the buildup of crud please. I said this was a junk carburetor).

�

And looking into the bottom of the emulsion tube venturi. Here you can clearly see the metered opening in the brass (emulsion) tube. Somehow the brass tube had rotated 180 degrees so you had this view looking straight down into the carburetor on Chuck's engine.

�

The point of all this; if a good running engine should suddenly lay over on you and stall or refuse to accelerate with throttle application, among other things to check should be the carburetor emulsion tubes. I likely wouldn't have believed it had I not been present and seen it.

�

Happy racing......

�� Carl�� 61/FF/79

�

�

#1509 From: "Carl McLelland" <carlynneracing@...>
Date: Thu Oct 8, 2009 3:12 pm
Subject: Weber 32/36DGV Problem carlp468
Offline
Send Email

Howdy Everybody,

An interesting thing happened to Chuck Pittenger at Willow Springs last Saturday. (Mark 6 Titan formula Ford, Ivey engine). Chuck was having a serious problem with his engine. It idled perfectly but application of throttle made the engine sound like it wanted to die and there was virtually no rpm increase. (I would have equated the performance to an accelerator pump failure but the accelerator pump was working fine). Thinking it was a bad condensor, Chuck borrowed one from me. Roland Johnson came over to install it and when it made no difference in performance he got on his phone to Jay Ivey.

Jay immediately knew what the problem was and told Roland to replace the emulsion tube in the primary side of the carburetor (Weber 32/36DGV). Looking down into the carburetor throat you could clearly see the opening in the emulsion tube (brass tube) port had somehow rotated so that it was pointed straight up instead of straight down. I gave Chuck a spare emulsion tube, Roland installed it and the engine ran perfectly.

Here is a normal 3.5mm emulsion tube I took out of a junk' carburetor.

This is looking straight down into the emulsion tube venturi. You can clearly see the top of the brass (emulsion) tube. (No comments about the buildup of crud please. I said this was a junk carburetor).

And looking into the bottom of the emulsion tube venturi. Here you can clearly see the metered opening in the brass (emulsion) tube. Somehow the brass tube had rotated 180 degrees so you had this view looking straight down into the carburetor on Chuck's engine.

The point of all this; if a good running engine should suddenly lay over on you and stall or refuse to accelerate with throttle application, among other things to check should be the carburetor emulsion tubes. I likely wouldn't have believed it had I not been present and seen it.

Happy racing......

Carl 61/FF/79

#1508 From: Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...>
Date: Tue Sep 8, 2009 6:30 pm
Subject: Re: 51 chassis 121 for sale fawcettweb
Offline
Send Email

understood; i realize you are just looking it over.� I do the same thing - every one i've seen is different somewhere.

�

by chassis 121 i meant frame 121, as in the number on the frame, not the lotus number on the lotus id plate.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:39 PM, <ed.luce@...> wrote:

�

Andrew said:
> � those front wheel spacers look like what i have.

FWIW, mine look the same too. �Quite thick, and holes sized specifically for the 3/8" front wheel studs.

>if his car is chassis 121,

It does say "Frame Number: AM 121 " in the spec sheet. � The sheet also says steel Koni's, BTW.

Also BTW, just to be clear here, I'm not trying to pick this car apart. �I'm just curious as to what is "vintage" and
as to what is race-worthy. �It surely is a nice looking job (with the possible exception of those shoulder belt mounts).

Ed

Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...>
Sent by: lffr@yahoogroups.com
09/08/2009 12:09 PM

Please respond to
lffr@yahoogroups.com

To
lffr@yahoogroups.com

cc

Subject
Re: [lffr] 51 chassis 121 for sale

those front wheel spacers look like what i have.� on the chassis you can still see the mounting hole insert for the mid-height trailing arms to mount.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...> wrote:
the early 51's had the upper trailing link mounted halfway up the upright and chassis, not on the top as this car shows.� Somewhere in the 51a-c this was changed to the top.� if his car is chassis 121, as opposed to lotus 51 #121, then his car is a bit earlier then mine so should have had the mid-mounted arms.� If its car 121 then he is two after me and so maybe they switched right after me?�
�
he has made quite a few mondifications to get that non-lotus sideplate hewland in there.� some modificiations to the (custom) radiator mount, and then the front suspension arm modifications.�� originally those would have all been rubber mounts straight out of a street car, not ball joints.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, <ed.luce@...> wrote:
�

Carl noted:

>The upper rear trailing links are correct. The rear geometry is established by the control rods and lower 'A' arm.

I thought that the upper trailing arm was originally mounted about half-way up the frame and connected to the rear upright/bearing
holder at about axle elevation, and that this arm was moved to the top of the frame and connected to the very top of the rear upright
only in a type 61. �I'm kind of curious about this point, because the car that was on display at the Barber Motorsport Museum, identified
as a type 51, had the same mounting points as this car.

I did notice that those front upper A-arms had a few more adjustment points than mine... �He's done away with the upper ball joints, and
the steering ball joints too.

Ed

Notice:
This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.

#1507 From: <ed.luce@...>
Date: Tue Sep 8, 2009 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: 51 chassis 121 for sale bomber_8ca
Offline
Send Email

Andrew said:
> those front wheel spacers look like what i have.

FWIW, mine look the same too. Quite thick, and holes sized specifically for the 3/8" front wheel studs.

>if his car is chassis 121,

It does say "Frame Number: AM 121 " in the spec sheet. The sheet also says steel Koni's, BTW.

Also BTW, just to be clear here, I'm not trying to pick this car apart. I'm just curious as to what is "vintage" and
as to what is race-worthy. It surely is a nice looking job (with the possible exception of those shoulder belt mounts).

Ed

Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...>
Sent by: lffr@yahoogroups.com

09/08/2009 12:09 PM

Please respond to
lffr@yahoogroups.com

To	lffr@yahoogroups.com
cc
Subject	Re: [lffr] 51 chassis 121 for sale

those front wheel spacers look like what i have. on the chassis you can still see the mounting hole insert for the mid-height trailing arms to mount.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...> wrote:
the early 51's had the upper trailing link mounted halfway up the upright and chassis, not on the top as this car shows. Somewhere in the 51a-c this was changed to the top. if his car is chassis 121, as opposed to lotus 51 #121, then his car is a bit earlier then mine so should have had the mid-mounted arms. If its car 121 then he is two after me and so maybe they switched right after me?

he has made quite a few mondifications to get that non-lotus sideplate hewland in there. some modificiations to the (custom) radiator mount, and then the front suspension arm modifications. originally those would have all been rubber mounts straight out of a street car, not ball joints.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, <ed.luce@...> wrote:

Carl noted:

>The upper rear trailing links are correct. The rear geometry is established by the control rods and lower 'A' arm.

I thought that the upper trailing arm was originally mounted about half-way up the frame and connected to the rear upright/bearing
holder at about axle elevation, and that this arm was moved to the top of the frame and connected to the very top of the rear upright
only in a type 61. I'm kind of curious about this point, because the car that was on display at the Barber Motorsport Museum, identified
as a type 51, had the same mounting points as this car.

I did notice that those front upper A-arms had a few more adjustment points than mine... He's done away with the upper ball joints, and
the steering ball joints too.

Ed

Notice:
This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.

#1506 From: Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...>
Date: Tue Sep 8, 2009 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: 51 chassis 121 for sale fawcettweb
Offline
Send Email

those front wheel spacers look like what i have.� on the chassis you can still see the mounting hole insert for the mid-height trailing arms to mount.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...> wrote:

the early 51's had the upper trailing link mounted halfway up the upright and chassis, not on the top as this car shows.� Somewhere in the 51a-c this was changed to the top.� if his car is chassis 121, as opposed to lotus 51 #121, then his car is a bit earlier then mine so should have had the mid-mounted arms.� If its car 121 then he is two after me and so maybe they switched right after me?�

�

he has made quite a few mondifications to get that non-lotus sideplate hewland in there.� some modificiations to the (custom) radiator mount, and then the front suspension arm modifications.�� originally those would have all been rubber mounts straight out of a street car, not ball joints.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, <ed.luce@...> wrote:

�

Carl noted:

>The upper rear trailing links are correct. The rear geometry is established by the control rods and lower 'A' arm.

I thought that the upper trailing arm was originally mounted about half-way up the frame and connected to the rear upright/bearing
holder at about axle elevation, and that this arm was moved to the top of the frame and connected to the very top of the rear upright
only in a type 61. �I'm kind of curious about this point, because the car that was on display at the Barber Motorsport Museum, identified
as a type 51, had the same mounting points as this car.

I did notice that those front upper A-arms had a few more adjustment points than mine... �He's done away with the upper ball joints, and
the steering ball joints too.

Ed

Notice:
This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.

#1505 From: Andrew Fawcett <mini64@...>
Date: Tue Sep 8, 2009 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: 51 chassis 121 for sale fawcettweb
Offline
Send Email

the early 51's had the upper trailing link mounted halfway up the upright and chassis, not on the top as this car shows.� Somewhere in the 51a-c this was changed to the top.� if his car is chassis 121, as opposed to lotus 51 #121, then his car is a bit earlier then mine so should have had the mid-mounted arms.� If its car 121 then he is two after me and so maybe they switched right after me?�

�

he has made quite a few mondifications to get that non-lotus sideplate hewland in there.� some modificiations to the (custom) radiator mount, and then the front suspension arm modifications.�� originally those would have all been rubber mounts straight out of a street car, not ball joints.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, <ed.luce@...> wrote:

�

Carl noted:

>The upper rear trailing links are correct. The rear geometry is established by the control rods and lower 'A' arm.

I thought that the upper trailing arm was originally mounted about half-way up the frame and connected to the rear upright/bearing
holder at about axle elevation, and that this arm was moved to the top of the frame and connected to the very top of the rear upright
only in a type 61. �I'm kind of curious about this point, because the car that was on display at the Barber Motorsport Museum, identified
as a type 51, had the same mounting points as this car.

I did notice that those front upper A-arms had a few more adjustment points than mine... �He's done away with the upper ball joints, and
the steering ball joints too.

Ed

Notice:
This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.

#1504 From: "Carl McLelland" <carlynneracing@...>
Date: Tue Sep 8, 2009 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: 51 chassis 121 for sale carlp468
Offline
Send Email

I hadn't noticed the Heim replacing the ball joint on the steering; probably because my '61 is set up the same. That would be an "allowable" change because you've not altered the mounts or geometry in replacing the 'ball joint' with a 'Heim'.

For you TRUE '51 Guru's out there: are those aluminum or steel bodied Koni shocks. Not that anybody would notice it, but per Monoposto they must be steel bodied shocks. (And yea.... I'm illegal... I have aluminum bodied Carrera's on my '61).

We're about to head out the door Ed but when we get home Thursday I'll look this car over more in-depth. I just noticed the gearbox is wrong: it's a Hewland Mk9 with differential covers for other than a Lotus '51 or '61. The rear cradle on the Lotus has been altered to fit it. I'll send photo's of what correct after we get home. In the meantime, looking at photo # "donut", those side covers are for a Hewland Mk9: note the threaded lugs for inboard mounting of the brake calipers. I'm glad to see "axle savers". If you have NOT purchased "donuts" for your car yet, Ed, I strongly recommend getting the Volvo (740??) Turbo donuts... (Cheaper and stronger, and they fit correctly without compressing them).

For the Lotus 51 'guru's'; note the extremely FAT front wheel spacers..... Are those standard for a '51??

Refer to photo # "lft rear"... That is the correct A arm, link, control rods, sway bar and upright for a '51 or '61.

The 'Jet Hot' exhaust looks good but you'll get better performance form a 4 into 1 collector than a 4 into 2 into 1 system.

Till Friday or so.....

Carl

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

From: ed.luce@...

To: lffr@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:18 AM

Subject: Re: [lffr] 51 chassis 121 for sale

Carl noted:

>The upper rear trailing links are correct. The rear geometry is established by the control rods and lower 'A' arm.

I thought that the upper trailing arm was originally mounted about half-way up the frame and connected to the rear upright/bearing
holder at about axle elevation, and that this arm was moved to the top of the frame and connected to the very top of the rear upright
only in a type 61. I'm kind of curious about this point, because the car that was on display at the Barber Motorsport Museum, identified
as a type 51, had the same mounting points as this car.

I did notice that those front upper A-arms had a few more adjustment points than mine... He's done away with the upper ball joints, and
the steering ball joints too.

Ed

Notice:
This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.

#1503 From: <ed.luce@...>
Date: Tue Sep 8, 2009 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: 51 chassis 121 for sale bomber_8ca
Offline
Send Email

Carl noted:

>The upper rear trailing links are correct. The rear geometry is established by the control rods and lower 'A' arm.

I thought that the upper trailing arm was originally mounted about half-way up the frame and connected to the rear upright/bearing
holder at about axle elevation, and that this arm was moved to the top of the frame and connected to the very top of the rear upright
only in a type 61. I'm kind of curious about this point, because the car that was on display at the Barber Motorsport Museum, identified
as a type 51, had the same mounting points as this car.

I did notice that those front upper A-arms had a few more adjustment points than mine... He's done away with the upper ball joints, and
the steering ball joints too.

Ed

Notice:
This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.

#1502 From: "Carl McLelland" <carlynneracing@...>
Date: Tue Sep 8, 2009 2:41 pm
Subject: Re: 51 chassis 121 for sale carlp468
Offline
Send Email

Ed,

While I only gave the photo's a quick glance and didn't read the listing itself, and while it looks like a truly professional restoration your far beyond the point of diminishing return. A Lotus 51 is not worth 36k unless you have such an attraction for a '51 that price doesn't matter. If you want a good competition car I'll let you have my '61 for 11k less. But on to your questions:

The upper rear trailing links are correct. The rear geometry is established by the control rods and lower 'A' arm. A Lotus 20 didn't even have that link; it was established by the axles.

The curled black hose on the gearbox vent is acceptable although I drill and tap the end cap for a 1/4" i.d. curly hose just to enable a little more venting. The Hewland "Mark" series gearboxes are lubricated by splash so no pressurized oil to blow out. If it leaks it means the car is upside down...

The shoulder strap mounts..... no, No, NO, Absolutely not!!! I can't think of any tech inspector who would allow a welded ring on the rollbar. The ring, or eyebolt must be through bolted through a frame tube or cross tube. (The lap belt mounting tabs are welded to the frame but the belts bolt to them in-line with the frame tubes, They are not in shear as are those rings welded to the rollbar.An even better method is wrapping the belt fabric around a frame tube. Also, as high as those mounts are you probably don't achieve the recommended "wrap angle" over the drivers shoulders, and it would be especially bad wearing a HANS device.

One other thing I noticed is the incorrect front upper 'A' arms. Originally they used bushings and these 'A' arms have been fabricated to use Hiems. This gives the ability to individually micro-adjust the front caster and wheelbase and that's not original. The front upper 'A' arm rear mount on the frame has been modified from a bush to a through-bolt for the Heim joint and Monoposto rules state you cannot change the original suspension mounts or mounting points. As a tech inspector I would not approve the car because of that.

I have given thought to fabricating new A arms for my 61 and using Heims in lieu of bushings but I would retain the original bushing sleeves on the frame.

The car in other aspects appears Very "period-correct" which makes me wonder why they altered things like they did. If you want a "front row" racer then you don't want a Lotus anyway, you want a Mk6 Titan. And if you want the car truly period correct you woldn't want these modified A arms. (Case in point is my friend Jim Brown. On his Lotus 20 {FJr.} restoration he replaced the disc brakes with drum brakes just so the car would be totally, completely, 100% period correct, no matter how slow it made him!).

Given that I didn't study the listing in-depth, there may be other questionable items, but the workmanship appears impeccable.

Carl 61/FF/79

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

From: ed.luce@...

To: lffr@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 6:46 AM

Subject: Re: [lffr] 51 chassis 121 for sale

>check out the price:
>http://race-cars.com/carsales/lotus/1250439183/1250439183ss.htm

Price notwithstanding, can I ask the group a couple of ignorant questions about the way this car is set up?

- is the location of the rear suspension upper trailing arm 'correct' for a type 51?

- is that curled up black hose an acceptable way of venting the Hewland gearbox (i.e. no catch tank?)

- are the little tabs used to attach the shoulder belts to the roll bar a common means of securing the harness?

TIA,
Ed

Notice:
This message and any attachments are the property of Novelis and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.