Lotus Elan

Q plates

PostPost by: Grizzly » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:26 pm

Has anyone read the brochure? It's classy :lol: Very 70's :D


http://storm.oldcarmanualproject.com/lo ... nt1971.htm
Chris
User avatar
Grizzly
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Location: Cheshire/UK

PostPost by: greg40green » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:40 pm

Re Kim's topic
Original chassis has massive, massive rust everywhere, all the usual places and more! But if I get my welder out, weld 4 new turrets, engine mounts (cracked and knackered) the lip that the body sits on, (paper thin) weld new metal in as and where required, diff mounts the lot that is ok, because the chassis will have twenty bits of new steel and a tiny bit that contains the chassis number, it would be a restored chassis. Alternatively, I could fabricate a whole new chassis and weld the tiny chassis numbered bit into that, and that, according to some, would not be acceptable, I fail to see the difference they both end up with the same proportion of new metal and old metal.

Pretend owner has an Elan that they have owned from new , genuine one owner car with the original subframe / chassis still fitted.
Pretend owner decides to restore the Elan.
During the restoration the pretend owner drops lucky and finds that the chassis / subframe has a number stamped on it say 123456.
Pretend owner decides that the original subframe / chassis is rotten and past repair after having to be brushed up off the floor and put in a sack in the garage for proof of ownership noting the chassis / subframe number.
New chassis / subframe is purchased but with no numbers stamped on it as supplied.
Pretend owner has the original chassis / subframe numbers of 123456 stamped / scribed on the new chassis / subframe.
Is this illegal / unlawful , if so why as the pretend owner can prove providence and the chassis / subframe is noted to be a serviceable item which is expected to eventually require replacement?

If the pretend owner fabricates his own chassis and fabricates the original top chassis section into his new fabricated chassis is this 'highly illegal?
If so why?
Are we going to start debating how much of a repaired chassis constitutes an 'original' chassis and if you exceed this percentage you should inform the DVLA?

Why is this topic being repeatedly raised and debated by some on this site ????????

No wonder Alan Morgan will not be drawn back into this topic if his written words are being analysed by some.

Lotus Elan owners have been repeatedly advised about the issues caused by informing the DVLA when you have changed your chassis by both Alan Morgan and the late Graham Arnold.
If you are daft enough to inform the DVLA of a chassis change you deserve everything you get.

Thats me out , no intention to offend , apologies if I have .
Thanks , Greg.
greg40green
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 182
Joined: 02 Dec 2007

PostPost by: Elanintheforest » Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:49 pm

Greg, I think that you need to consider the Theseus Ship paradox in all it's frustrating glory in order to come to a conclusion about the pretend owner's repaired Elan....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
User avatar
Elanintheforest
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Forest Of Dean, Gloucestershire

PostPost by: greg40green » Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:25 pm

Elanintheforest wrote:Greg, I think that you need to consider the Theseus Ship paradox in all it's frustrating glory in order to come to a conclusion about the pretend owner's repaired Elan....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus


You mean my granddads hammer isn't original even though it's had 3 new shafts and a replacement head in the last 75 years , now there's a surprise.
greg40green
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 182
Joined: 02 Dec 2007

PostPost by: MarkDa » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:11 am

Just like Trigger's broom!
MarkDa
Fourth Gear
Fourth Gear
 
Posts: 830
Joined: 15 Apr 2017
Location: Stroud

PostPost by: Elanintheforest » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:28 am

Except the Theseus paradox goes back well over 2000 years!

It's very interesting looking at the proposed resolutions on there, and applying that thinking to cars. The term 'original' or 'modified' take on a new meaning.
User avatar
Elanintheforest
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Forest Of Dean, Gloucestershire

PostPost by: daverubberduck » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:05 am

What about all of us? None of us have a cell in our body that we were born with, and yet we go on using the name we were given at birth :D

I actually believe that that an object retains an identity even when all its parts are replaced. An original car is an assembly of parts that has followed a single line through space-time from its construction to the present day, even if all of its parts have been replaced. At the end of the day, the only thing identifying that car is the VIN number. This is the only number that should be in that box on the V5, no other. Any number that happens to exist on the subframe is totally irrelevant, and people should stop talking about these numbers. And if you don’t believe it’s a subframe, here is the definition on Wikipedia:

"A subframe is a structural component of a vehicle, such as an automobile or an aircraft, that uses a discrete, separate structure within a larger body-on-frame or unit body to carry certain components, such as the engine, drivetrain, or suspension. The subframe is bolted and/or welded to the vehicle. When bolted, it is sometimes equipped with rubber bushings or springs to dampen vibration."

The club has come to an agreement with the DVLA that it is a replaceable subframe. The DVLA contains a lot of people who are all very busy and guess what, none of them knows a damn thing about Elans, or any other car for that matter. They are just following a set of rules. As Greg says, if you are daft enough to inform them that you have changed your chassis, then you deserve everything you get.

If anybody out there has any number in the VIN/Chassis/Frame Number section of the V5 other than the VIN number then they need to get it changed. BUT do not do it yourself. When I bought my Elan +2 I noticed that the VIN number on the V5 was prefixed with 36 instead of 50. I emailed Andy Graham about it and he wrote a letter for me to pass onto the DVLA. They changed it no problem. This is what you should do.

Please please please stop talking about chassis/subframe numbers.
daverubberduck
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 03 Aug 2009
Location: Essex, UK

PostPost by: EPC 394J » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:23 am

As Greg says, if you are daft enough to inform them that you have changed your chassis, then you deserve everything you get.

That encapsulates the entire argument.

If the part that the manufacturer refers to in all it’s reference material as a chassis, has been changed. And if that chassis (that many argue is a subframe?) is not to the original spec. But is a more ‘modern’/‘better’ design. Then the ‘best’ way to prevent problems is to just stay schtum. Because if you inform the licensing authority you have a spaceframe chassis. It’s possible that authority will award you a Q plate? As the licensing authority no longer accept it as a ‘historic’ vehicle, because it has clearly and obviously been the subject of a substantial and more modern ‘improvement’? It’s not about any numbers, which may or may not be stamped on the structure. It’s just a totally different design.

It does seem to be a Catch 22 situation? Push the matter with the authority, and run the risk of possibly achieving a result few seem to want. Or sweep it under the carpet?

Neither seem to be great options.

I imagine if this matter became more widely known in the marketplace, it could affect values.
Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?

Plus 2S

BLL 315H in white.
EPC 394J
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 159
Joined: 07 Feb 2014
Location: Caistor, Lincolnshire

PostPost by: rgh0 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:05 pm

The paradox is exactly what has caused debate for the last 100 years around cars "originality" and the value of "originality" and car "restoration" .

To much of the car community gets wrapped up in this paradox including the DVLA. It is good that much of the Lotus community on the other hand says -- "all this is hurting my brain to much I just want to go and drive it and enjoy it for what it is"

cheers
Rohan
User avatar
rgh0
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 6789
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPost by: Mick6186 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:01 pm

When I changed my rusty original subframe for an LR replacement I cut out the original subframe number on a rectangle of good metal and kept it in my garage. When I eventually sell the car I will pass on the original numberr to the new owner as part of the cars history. It would be a simple task by an unscrupulous owner to invisibly weld in this number in the existing subframe to make the car a 'matching numbers' vehicle (latest classic car fad). I wonder how many 'matching numbers' elans/+2s this has been done to,
Mick
Mick6186
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 186
Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Location: Gravesend

PostPost by: daverubberduck » Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:33 pm

Matching numbers? What matching numbers? The chassis/subframe number is totally irrelevant, many didn't even have a number as Rohan pointed out. As far as I know, there is no record anywhere of what chassis/subframe number was in the car when it left the factory. When it comes to Elans, matching numbers means it still has the original engine and that is all. There is a list of VIN numbers against original engine numbers, at least there is for +2s, not sure about baby Elans. Even body numbers are no good because they rarely matched the VIN number. My body number, which is original, is 14 less than the VIN number.

I'll say it again, chassis/subframe numbers are irrelevant. Anyway, nobody would believe that it was the original chassis/subframe, not unless the first customer built it himself and covered the thing with red lead :D .
daverubberduck
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 03 Aug 2009
Location: Essex, UK

PostPost by: Grizzly » Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:53 pm

The Triggers brush thing is right, not sure it's about keeping all the parts original but rather the car Lotus designed remains as per original design. The Purist view of every part lotus fitted on the production line is a different argument.

It's an amount of the German philosophy bleeding into the Uk thanks to the EU, as Practical classic's said in a country like the Uk with a culture of classic car modification for safety/reliability how can you have a non tolerance to modification or expect a 40+ year old car to pass a modern MOT (i believe they used a de dion as an example)
Chris
User avatar
Grizzly
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Location: Cheshire/UK

PostPost by: Grizzly » Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:08 pm

EPC 394J wrote:
As Greg says, if you are daft enough to inform them that you have changed your chassis, then you deserve everything you get.

That encapsulates the entire argument.

If the part that the manufacturer refers to in all it’s reference material as a chassis, has been changed. And if that chassis (that many argue is a subframe?) is not to the original spec. But is a more ‘modern’/‘better’ design. Then the ‘best’ way to prevent problems is to just stay schtum. Because if you inform the licensing authority you have a spaceframe chassis. It’s possible that authority will award you a Q plate? As the licensing authority no longer accept it as a ‘historic’ vehicle, because it has clearly and obviously been the subject of a substantial and more modern ‘improvement’? It’s not about any numbers, which may or may not be stamped on the structure. It’s just a totally different design.

It does seem to be a Catch 22 situation? Push the matter with the authority, and run the risk of possibly achieving a result few seem to want. Or sweep it under the carpet?

Neither seem to be great options.

I imagine if this matter became more widely known in the marketplace, it could affect values.

THIS^

If it was me i'd be more concerned about how many specialists, Books, manuals, Brochures etc refer to it as a back bone Chassis and the repercussions of that. BUT just like Engine, Colour etc no one will know if you don't declare it so does it make any difference what you call it? Or knowing all this why would you fit a Space frame and put yourself in this position in the first place? You would still have to inform a potential buyer wouldn't you? (or maybe you don't tell them either??)

I have confused the hell out of this by bringing in Numbers which is the usual way of this can of worms getting opened on other makes/models. I don't mind admitting i have become obsessed with the numbers on car's we restore, it can mean 20% of the finished value.
Last edited by Grizzly on Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Chris
User avatar
Grizzly
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Location: Cheshire/UK

PostPost by: EPC 394J » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:40 pm

It's an amount of the German philosophy bleeding into the Uk thanks to the EU, as Practical classic's said in a country like the Uk with a culture of classic car modification for safety/reliability how can you have a non tolerance to modification or expect a 40+ year old car to pass a modern MOT (i believe they used a de dion as an example)

I didn’t even know you could get a space frame chassis for a De Dion! :D
Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?

Plus 2S

BLL 315H in white.
EPC 394J
Second Gear
Second Gear
 
Posts: 159
Joined: 07 Feb 2014
Location: Caistor, Lincolnshire

PostPost by: Grizzly » Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:22 pm

Have you not seen the underground De Dion drag racing scene (It's hard core) :lol:
Chris
User avatar
Grizzly
Coveted Fifth Gear
Coveted Fifth Gear
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Location: Cheshire/UK
PreviousNext

Total Online:

Users browsing this forum: 65sunbeam and 7 guests