Howdy, all. I'm back after a couple weeks away from work.
I wrote:
>>as Tony has told us before, the configuration of the chassis
>>is pretty far down on the list of things that distinguishes a real 26R
>>from an Elan. Other than the all-important chassis number, they just
>>aren't very much different!
Tony corrected me:
>Hold on . . . . That's not what I said at all, but we must be talking
>about different things:
Yep. Terminology again.
>When I say "Frame" in reference to an Elan, I'm referring to just the
>backbone frame welded assembly. There was very little modification to that
>unit in the build of a 26R by Lotus Components.
>When I say "Chassis" in reference to an Elan, I'm referring to the frame
>_WITH and including all of it's suspension and drive train_. (my
>Webster's agrees)
Ironically, I used "chassis" instead of "frame" because I thought "chassis"
might be more universal, for those on both sides of the pond. But yes,
Tony, I agree completely with what you're saying. And yes, it was the
"frame" which I intended to comment on.
>Therefore, I would say that the 26R FRAME was little changed from a stock
>unit but the CHASSIS was vastly changed: Engine, transmission housing, diff
>housing, gearing on both diff and trans, drive shafts, suspension both front
>and rear, brakes, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yep. It was the many running gear changes on the 26R that makes it so
interesting.
>I hope this doesn't sound "picky" but, since the things we write about our
>cars tend to become "history", it's important that we be very clear.
It doesn't sound picky to *me*, but well, you know... fellow fanatics, and
all that. :-)
Erik "violent agreement" Berg
|