Gene_Carter@avid.com wrote:
> If I may offer my opinion,
>
> A Lotus is a Lotus is a Lotus. They're all unique and wonderfully interesting
> cars. No sense in bickering amongst a small but very discerning, intelligent
> and knowledgeable group of enthusiasts ; - )
>
> Gene
Actually, from the point where Lotus chose to produce a fwd car, and then had
the
nerve to call it "Elan", there was a giant gap between Lotuses. Lotus
enthusiasts are so for a number of diverse reasons (apparently). If a badge on
the nose is all it takes for a car to be impressive, well then, a Lotus is a
Lotus is a Lotus. The Chapman-era list exists for those of us who are more
discriminating than that.
I too have driven an M100 on a race track and in my opinion, its a very nice
Honda (except, it seems, not as reliable) but there is absolutely no comparison
and no similarity to Chapman era Lotuses. As to whether M100s are "real"
Lotuses
or not, that is up to the factory. They can make anything they want and call it
anything they want.
As consumers though, we have the same right. There is a HUGE difference between
Elans and M100s. If you and Steve want to kid yourselves, that's up to you but
most of us old time Lotus enthusiasts know better.
Rod Bean
Elans :-)
(How's that Tony?)
|