Talk:Lotus Seven

message: I know this is being pedantic, but I am bothered by the word "simple" in the first sentence.  The Lotus Seven (and earlier variants) were among the first autos to possess a fully stressed space frame designed for lightness and strength.  Far from being simple, the car's basic design (space frame) was extremely complex.  Agreed, the Seven did not have opening doors or conventional windows, but the looks of the Seven belie the complexity behind the engineering.  --Tom Bartlett 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many years after the fact, I have to disagree with your assessment of the "extremely complex", and even the "complexity behind the engineering".  That's not to belittle the design; it's just that the load analysis of a space frame structure is really a pretty straightforward engineering task, even with manual calculations.  (Keeping all the details simple is another story.  As Keith Duckworth said, designing something complicated is easy; what's difficult is designing something simple that does the job. But that's a matter of ingenuity, not complexity.)  BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The word "simple" in the first sentence

message: Peter Egan from Road & Track magazine has covered this car (specifically restoration and racing) for quite a few years. Those should be at the very least listed as references/further reading/etc.  Pvera 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Egan? 

message: The Lotus Seven and Caterham Super 7 are not quite the same car.
* How do I get a Caterham 7 page created? It's currently a reditrect to here, and this statement is right -- they're not the same car. Alex 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherham Super 7 

message: I have just moved a block of text from Caterham to 'Historical note' here. The paragraph beginning a shrine has been erected leads me to doubt the whole of the section - there is no such place as Kayseries (K-series?) and I can get no Google hits for any ststue. -- RHaworth 2005 July 7 02:19 (UTC)
"It is characterised by extremely high acceleration (0 - 60 mph in 3.1 seconds) and a mid-range top speed (155 Mph)"
True for some recent Caterham 7s, but certainly not true for the original Mark 1 Lotus 7.
Yes, my Louts has a top speed like that of a Volkswagen.  The thing about it is that the handling makes you feel like Superman.  You have to recall carefully whether you had to turn the wheel or whether you only thought you didn't want to hit the truck.
David R. Ingham 05:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  K-series? 

message: "Fenders" seems quite standard US English to me and I think I have heard the British use "wings".  "Wheel arches" is not even entirely clear to me.  The Series I had motorcycle fenders and the later models had fenders similar to usual 1930s and 1940s cars but skimpier, so I don't see why this word would not apply.  David R. Ingham 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wheel arches or fenders or wings? 

message: I am not sure of the relevance, for others, of this paragraph, but will provide arguments that it is correct, from an engineering point of view.
To me, this is an important consideration in my pride of ownership.
I am not sure if the statistical and economic aspects are in disagreement or not.
To start the engineering discussion, see There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom.  I did not believe what he said about small engines either, at one time, but when I did the back of the envelope calculation correctly I agreed with him.  Breathing does not scale so well as stress but it clearly favors small scale.  David R. Ingham 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of "only because they are both expensive" 

message: I cleaned up through "Low speed acceleration", but the rest of the article is in need of attention.  DocWatson42 05:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: If you want to charachterize this car by anything, it certainly shouldn't be its straight-line speed. Like all Loti, what makes it special is it's handling. I'd like to remove this section in the first paragraph, but I don't know what to replace it with. Any ideas?
* Couldn't agree more. The whole article is badly put together imho. OK, that means I should do something about it, but it really needs a complete restructure. Look at the section on handling; it talks about the height off the ground and "curtains"! Or the Frame and Body section that repeats the section Rigidity of the frame; dreadful! It's a tubular frame chassis, not a frame. "optional heaters and engine fans"; since when is an engine fan optional? The picture looks like a Birkin, not a Lotus; the indicators are square and should be round. Have a stab at it; you can't do any worse! Alex 10:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph is aweful 

message: Shouldn't it be possible to include some pictures of the car? // Liftarn
I agree so have added an existing picture from commons. 86.111.169.120 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have a look at the category on Commons. Some of them is perhaps the real deal. // Liftarn
What about :Image:LotusMk4.JPG? Is it a four or a seven? // Liftarn
* It's a seven. Unusual in that it has an ali nosecone, a plain bonnet & wire wheels; which probably makes it a pre-1960 series 1. Here's a mark 4; http://www.speedace.info/automotive_directory/car_images/lotus_mark_iv.jpg Alex 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: The main paragraphs of this article, from Lotus_Seven#Analysis_of_the_Seven.27s_performance down, are pretty dire. It's my humble opinion that 90% of it could be removed on several grounds;
* it refers to the wrong car, the much later Caterham 7, not the Lotus
* it's incoherent in places; the section on handling is not about the handling at all. And Alignment of the wheels -- Nothing unusual is a spectacularly stupid non-observation.
* it's just plain wrong in a lot of places.
I'm going to rip & burn this, unless someone has some really novel reasons for keeping it. Alex 09:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing the edits.... 

message: The article says the 7 was sold CKD to avoid tax laws. Did this apply to the Lotus 6, too? Was that 1 reason Chapman offered it as a kit? If so, add it to 6 page.  Trekphiler 14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CKD6?

message: Series 4 obviously comes after Series 1, but there is a need for an explanation of the differences between each of the series.  The Caterham page, for example, refers to Caterham's purchase of the rights to build the Seven (all Series?) and its switch from Series 4 to Series 3.  Isn't Series 4 the boxy fiberglass 1970s version?  That needs a photo.  Or was that a Caterham-only product?--Editing 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of "Series 1," etc.

message: The image :File:Auberge.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Auberge.jpg

message: I am most concerned about the photograph of the Series II. So many of the things about that car are plain 'wrong'!
It has the Caterham raised nose which required the raised bonnet ('hood' for you Americans), too. This reduces the gap between the bonnet/nose and the headlights as can be clearly seen in the picture. It has Caterham rear wings. Lotus ones on the SII were in 2 sizes, standard and wide/American spec (4.5 inches and 6 inches, I believe) and both of these types were narrower than the ones in this picture. All the 'Lotus' rear wings (after Series I) 'sloped' outward from the car to the outer edge: the ones in the picture have their top surface parallel to the ground and that makes them of 'Caterham' origin.
The front wings used on this car cover the front wheels which are considerably wider than were supplied on SII cars. SII wings were narrower because the fashion for wide wheels had hardly started by the time the last SIIs were built. 
In a Series II, there were small 'cut-outs' around the exit of the lower wishbone or else they fouled the bodywork. This car doesn't have them and is thus (probably) rebodied by someone who was not Arch Motors (who made built the chassis and the aluminium 'bodywork'). Etc., etc.. All you need to do is to look at stills from 'the Prisoner' to see a difinitive Series II
If you want a picture of a substantially 'correct' SII, I have some from one that I renovated.....! If not, use pictures from the Prisoner!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proituk (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series II 

message: My nomenclature plate says "Lotus Components".  David R. Ingham (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lotus Cars" ? 

message: What is the point of this? There is nothing elsewhere in the text that seems to justify/explain it. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Broken off splines" picture 

message: From  Lotus_Seven#Suspension in the article : "The disadvantage of live axles is higher unsprung weight since the springs (and shock absorber) have to carry the weight of the axle and differential, affecting handling and ride on rough surfaces."
I think this part is wrong: "since the springs (and shock absorber) have to carry the weight of the axle and differential". The suspension carries everything but the unsprung weight! The rest of the sentence seems right. Maybe the reason is some confusion about live (solid) axle or independent suspension. 81.231.164.31 (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the part I thought was wrong.81.231.164.31 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspension 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lotus Seven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210153730/http://www.7rcb.be/SevenModels.htm to http://www.7rcb.be/SevenModels.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "Braking" section mentions:
:"... but one of the effects of light weight and powerful (non ABS) brakes is the tendency to lock up, especially at the front under strong braking."
That's wrong on two counts: Light weight does not contribute to lock-up, and under strong braking, it's the rear that will be more prone to lock-up.
If there are no objections, that quoted part should be removed entirely.
BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brake lock-up 

message: The "Frame rigidity" section describes the frame as "stressed skin", with aluminium panels providing triangulation to a "largely rectangular" tube structure.  That's very dubious.  For one thing, the riveting would be under extreme stress.  But most of all, I just can't see Chapman designing a tube frame that wasn't a true space frame (everything triangulated, so there are no bending loads on individual tubes).  (And the frame is described elsewhere in the article as a space frame.)
My experience with a Seven (as a mechanic) was too long ago for me to remember frame details, so I can't do an edit, but can someone please fix this?  BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stressed skin frame??