Tony Clark wrote:
<snip>
> ...Chapman's disagreement with chief designer (at the time) Len Terry
> over the backbone frame design. Chapman prevailed (of course)
> though Terry thought the 'bone impractical from both stiffness *and*
> construction problems.
<snip>
> In spite of it's design liabilities, the 30 had some successes: some
> wins and some 2nd & 3rd places behind the likes of Chaparral and
> McLaren. Not too lousy considering Lotus must have had it's hands full
> during the 1964 & 65 time period
The more I have thought about it over the years, the more I wonder if
that characteristic which has been variously described as "honesty", or
"predictability"l, or "the car doing exactly what you tell it, no less
and no more", is related to chassis stiffness. I'll go out on a limb,
and speculate that the degree to which you can learn to drive a car,
achieving the "horse and rider" effect, is in great measure related to
how predictable the handling is. AND, how predictable the handling is,
is in great measure related to how stiff the chassis is.
The 30/40 probably did not have nearly a stiff enough chassis, for all
its power and grip. Wonder what it would have been like with a tube
frame replacement for the backbone, ala the Spyder Elan or Europa
frames.
I wonder what Len Terry would have said about this.
Just some random synapse firings,
Erik Berg
PS> Tony, on the subject of replicas, Chuck Beck was showing off his
Lister/Chevy replica at the LA vintage race this weekend. WOW.
Looks very practical, and brutally fast. Wonder if it handles
worth a damn!
|