Colin Chapman Automotive Mass Properties 3640

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/316375697
Colin Chapman and Automotive Mass Properties
Conference Paper · May 2015
CITATIONS READS
0 10,192
1 author:
Brian Wiegand
Northrop Grumman
10 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Advanced Automotive Design View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Wiegand on 23 April 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SAWE Paper No. 3640
Category Number 31.0
COLIN CHAPMAN AND AUTOMOTIVE MASS

PROPERTIES
By
Brian Paul Wiegand, P.E.
(Northrop Grumman Corporation, Retired)
For Presentation at the

th
74 SAWE International Conference
On Mass Properties Engineering
May 18-21, 2015
Crown Plaza Hotel
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Permission to publish this paper, in full or in part, with

credit to the Author and to the Society, may be obtained by request to:
Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc.

P.O. Box 60024, Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90060
The Society is not responsible for statements or opinions in

papers or discussions at its meetings. This paper meets all regulations for public
information disclosure under ITAR and EAR
SAWE Paper No. 3640
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter: Page:
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ i
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... ii
1 - Introduction: It Began With Light Weight ..........................................................................1
2 - Lotus Engineering Company ................................................................................................5
3 - Racing ..................................................................................................................................8
4 - Production...........................................................................................................................15
5 - Formula 1, Le Mans ............................................................................................................18
6 - Production Woes, Indy .......................................................................................................27
7 - In The Money ....................................................................................................................35
8 - Full Throttle ........................................................................................................................41
9 - The Finish Line ...................................................................................................................47
10 - Epilogue ............................................................................................................................55
References .................................................................................................................................61
Author’s Biographical Sketch ...................................................................................................62
Appendices ................................................................................................................................63
A - Symbolism ..............................................................................................................64
i
SAWE Paper No. 3640
ABSTRACT
As a small start-up company competing against long established automotive concerns

such as Ferrari, Colin Chapman’s Lotus Engineering Company 1 did not have the capability to
gain advantage through advanced engine design, or even via the design of most of the other
major mechanical systems. Most such components were commercially sourced, and so the only
way a decisive advantage could be obtained was through an uncompromising emphasis on
gaining performance “edges” from the remaining design elements of structure, body, and
suspension. Because the automotive performance aspects of acceleration, braking, and handling
are so dependent on various vehicle mass properties the optimization of those mass properties
became the “Holy Grail” of Lotus design as directed by Colin Chapman.
1
“Lotus Engineering Company” was the official name at the company’s founding on 1 January 1952; since then
the company has split into a number of semi-independent divisions united in nomenclature only by the word
“Lotus”.
ii
SAWE Paper No. 3640
1 – INTRODUCTION: IT BEGAN WITH LIGHT WEIGHT
Colin Chapman was born “Anthony Colin Bruce Chapman” on 19 May 1928 in
Richmond, Surrey, to Stanley and Mary Chapman, operators of the local Orange Tree Pub. When
Colin was two years old his father obtained the position of operator of the Railway Hotel,
necessitating a move to the suburb of Hornsey in London, and later to North Finchley. The
family did quite well by the standards of the time, and Colin’s father had great expectations for
his son, which may have had some effect in shaping Colin’s attitudes later in life.
In 1944 Colin Chapman met his future wife Hazel Williams at a dance in his new
neighborhood of Hornsey. In 1945 at the age of 17 Colin won entrance to the University of
London 2, where Hazel Williams, and his soon-to-be business partner Colin Dare, also attended
classes. While still in school in 1946 Chapman and Dare started a small used car business which
became quite successful; often business had to take precedence over study. However, by 1947
the post-WW II new car shortage eased and the market for used cars dropped off; Chapman was
left with one well worn 1937 Austin 7 in inventory.
Chapman, with the aid of various friends, began to modify this left-over into a “trials” 3
car which was destined to become known as the Lotus Mk I. Also while in school he learned to
fly as part of the University Air Squadron, which led to his leaving school in 1948 to begin a
short stint in the RAF. He used his leave time to work on what was to become the Lotus Mk II.
In 1949 he made up some delinquent math requirements to belatedly obtain his B. Sc.
degree as a structural engineer. Upon mustering out of the RAF he found employment with the
British Aluminum Company as a salesman in 1950 4. He formally founded Lotus Engineering
Company on 1 January 1952 as an auto racing competitor and manufacturer, ultimately to branch
out into making road-going sports cars. Somehow, despite all this other activity, Chapman found
the time to sequentially design his way up to begin work on the Lotus Mk VIII in late 1953,
marry Hazel Williams in October of 1954, and quit his day job to become full-time director of
Lotus on New Year’s Day, 1955 5.
2
The venerable University of London consists of a large number of semi-independent colleges of which Chapman
specifically attended UCL (University College of London); this leads to some confusion in the literature.
3
“Trials” are an English automotive competition wherein cars are driven in timed segments over challenging terrain
of various types.
4
Reference [7], pg. 13. Another source says that Chapman’s position was that of a “development engineer” but this
is quite possibly a consequence of Chapman’s tendency to “gild the lily”. Chapman’s job consisted of trying to
convince manufacturers to substitute aluminum for steel in appropriate applications.
5
Ibid, pp. 14 & 286. If that timeline sounds a bit hectic, that’s because it is; Chapman was a notoriously rather
driven and hyperactive individual.
1
SAWE Paper No. 3640
The development of Chapman’s design philosophy can be inferred from the series of
Lotus vehicles produced, with the desire for light weight observable from the very start.
Initially, all Lotus cars were just highly modified production vehicles. As noted, the Lotus Mk I
was a 1937 Austin 7 reworked to serve as a trials car. The Austin’s “U” section frame members
were boxed in, the body replaced with a new light weight sheet aluminum facings/wood core
structure with high sills and no doors 6; various minor modifications were made to the engine 7
and suspension. Late in 1948 Chapman scored two class wins with this car. Even later the front
beam axle would be split at the center to provide swing axle IFS, but still utilizing the stock
transverse leaf spring; larger tires and wheels would also be fitted.
Figure 1.1 – 1948 LOTUS MK I IN TRIALS COMPETITION
The 1949 Lotus Mk II was yet another modified Austin 7. The frame rails were boxed
and the cross members replaced with tubular braces. The Austin running gear was replaced with
a Ford 1172 cc (71.5 cid) engine and transmission, and the wheels also became Ford items in
6
The use of shallow cut-down openings at the sides instead of conventional doors provided greater strength with
less weight and, of course, was far simpler to fabricate.
7
The Austin 7 was a small, light (curb weight of about 794 lb/360 kg!), inexpensive car produced from 1922 to
1939. The original 696 cc (42.5 cid) 7.8 kW (10.5 hp) engine was replaced in 1933 with a 747 cc (45.6 cid) 12.7 kW
(17.0 hp) version; therefore the Lotus Mark I had the latter engine (which also had three main bearings, as in 1936
Austin went from two bearings to three). Production totaled over 290,000 examples, and the Austin 7 has an iconic
status in the UK similar to that of the Ford Model T in the USA.
2
SAWE Paper No. 3640
order to use heftier tires with more ground contact area. The body was again replaced with a
light weight narrow structure utilizing cycle fenders. A Mk II was later sold to Mike Lawson,
the uncle of Sterling Moss. Lawson went on to win various trials events with the car; he would
return to Lotus in the future to buy other cars. The car proved competitive not only in trials, but
also in circuit racing; on 3 June 1950 at the Silverstone racing circuit Chapman won his class 8. It
was from this point on that Chapman would focus on the wider world of circuit racing.
The 1951 Lotus Mk III was designed with the sole intent of competing in the Formula
750 racing venue which had debuted at Silverstone in 1950. To conform to the new series rules,
an Austin 7 chassis, transmission, differential, and engine (747 cc/45.6 cid) had to form the basis
of the race car. With the help of two talented brothers, Nigel and Michael Allen, Chapman would
modify these components to the very limit of the rules 9. The body was again a slender two-seat
racing body made of aluminum, this time weighing only 65 lb (29.5 kg). The chassis was again
boxed and fitted with tubular cross-members for torsional stiffness, but with the engine block
itself now contributing to frame strength 10. This last would become a major tenet of the Lotus
design philosophy, wherein one component would serve multiple functions.
An expression relating to this multiple functionality, “…simplicate, and add

…lightness…”, has been attributed to Colin Chapman, but actually seems to have originated
with Gordon Hooton, a member of William Bushnell Stout’s (1880-1956) design team 11. Stout
was an engineer of some fame for his work in the 1930’s on the Ford Trimotor aircraft and the
Scarab automobile, among other things, and is one of those whose design philosophy Chapman
adopted 12:
“The greatest study is made to make each part do the work of two
or three things to save weight, simplify, (reduce) cost, and add
strength.”
William Bushnell Stout (1880-1956),
on aeronautical engineering.
The Lotus Mk IV was yet another trials car built on an Austin 7 chassis. Once again
Chapman made the now “standard” modifications; reinforcing the frame, installing a simple
light weight aluminum body, and converting the front beam axle to a swing axle IFS. However,
free from the Formula 750 restrictions on drivetrain, he used a four cylinder 1172 cc (71.5 cid)
8
Reference [7], pg. 309. Reference [9], pg. 29. Chapman, like Ferrari, was a formidable driver and likewise one
whose interests would lead elsewhere.
9
Like a great many race car constructors, such as the American NASCAR great Henry “Smokey” Yunick, Chapman
would become famous for scrutinizing the rules looking for loopholes, and at times pushing the boundaries of what
was “legal”. The Mk III intake manifolds were modified to contain flow “splitters” hidden from the sight of race
scrutinizers, a move worthy of the great Smokey himself. The concealment was simply a matter of protecting a
competitive advantage, although ultimately the modification would be banned (Reference [6], pg. 18), but various
other ploys were definitely in violation of the rules, e.g., a “firewall” made from cardboard and painted silver
(Reference [7], pg 361).
10
Reference [7], pg. 179.
11
Ibid, pg. 205.
12
Ibid, pg. 125.
3
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Ford engine and a three speed Ford transmission. The Mk IV was a special vehicle for return
customer Mike Lawson who campaigned it with great success, adding to the growing Lotus
reputation. It was the overwhelming success of the Mk III and IV, with the subsequent demand
for copies, which led Chapman and Michael Allen to establish the Lotus Engineering Company
in an old stable at Hornsey on 1 January 1952 13.
13
Ibid, pg. 13. The company became “Lotus Engineering Ltd” on 25 September 1952.
4
SAWE Paper No. 3640
2 – LOTUS ENGINEERING COMPANY
The Lotus Mk V was stillborn, a victim of success. The demand for copies of existing
models, and for kits allowing for customer construction of said models, left Chapman and the
Allen brothers with precious little time for new projects. Conflict with the Allen brothers
stemming from a wrecked vehicle would lead to a buy out of their interest in the Lotus
Engineering Company by the Chapman family and Hazel Williams in 1953. After the departure
of the Allens, Mike Costin, a talented design engineer working at the famed de Havilland
Aircraft Company, would come to fill void as Chapman’s main collaborator.
However, late 1952 would eventually see the birth of yet another Lotus, the Lotus Mk VI
14
. This would become the first true “production” Lotus in 1953, with about 100 constructed by
1955, and 110 overall. The most significant engineering features of this model were that it was
the first to utilize a Lotus designed “space frame” chassis instead of a modified commercial unit,
and the first to utilize the Chapman implementation of coil-spring-over-dampers as a suspension
unit. This simple chassis, consisting of steel tubes welded together in a pattern designed to “take
out” loads in the most efficient way possible, weighed only 55 lb (25 kg); the total vehicle only
weighed about 952 lb (432 kg). The steel tubes were aided in their resistance to loads by being
riveted to stressed aluminum panels.
Figure 1.2 – 1952 LOTUS MK VI SWING AXLE, COIL-OVER-SHOCKS

The vehicle was generally sold as a kit, with many parts sourced from the Ford Perfect.
“Standardized” as far as possible for “mass” production, the chassis came with mounting points
allowing for the installation of any one of a number of popular engines 15. Most of the frames for
the Mk VI would be made by the Progress Chassis Company founded by John Teychenne and
14
This Lotus would have yet another secret engine modification, this time to the tappets in order to provide power
over a wider rev range (Reference [9], pp. 96-97).
15
One of the more popular engines being the English Ford 1172 cc (71.5 cid) as was used for competition in the
Formula 1172 series (Silverstone, Brands Hatch, and various other tracks). This engine was rated at 50 hp (37 kW)
@ 5000 rpm, and 57 lb-ft (77 N-m) @ 3000 rpm. With this engine Mk VI performance has been quoted at a top
speed of 93 mph (150 kph) and a 0-60 mph (0- 96.6 kph) time of 15.0 seconds.
5
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Dave Kelsey. John Teychenne, an old school friend of Chapman’s, also may have provided the
initial link between Lotus and the auto body firm of Williams & Pritchard, who circa 1951 had
constructed the body for Teychenne’s Formula 1172 special. Over the years Williams &
Pritchard would come to construct many bodies for Lotus 16.
Like many competition vehicles of the time, the Mk VI was designed to be grossly
“understeering” in its handling characteristics. The narrow front tires relative to the wider rears,
the character of the front swing axle suspension relative to the rear de Dion suspension (utilized
to reduce unsprung weight and eliminate wheel spin due to lateral torque reaction), the front
weight bias, the wide front track relative to the rear, etc., were all intended to produce
understeering behavior. Colin Chapman would adhere to this understeering philosophy up until
around the time of yet another epiphany, that of the mid-engine performance vehicle
configuration, with its attendant aft weight bias and low yaw inertia.
The “Lotus Mk VII” was to be the first monoposto racing car to be designed by Colin
Chapman, but was destined never to be fully accredited as a Lotus; it would find fame as the
“Clairmonte Special“. It was a special order designed for industrialist sportsman Clive
Clairmonte, who had been induced to place the order with Lotus by John Teychenne. Teychenne
was rewarded by Chapman with a position at Lotus, and with responsibility for seeing to the
completion of the Clairmonte car. The car as envisioned by Chapman was designed to a
wonderfully sophisticated specification: fully triangulated space frame, wishbone IFS with
inboard dampers mounted within the coil springs (as first used on the Mk VI) actuated by rocker
arms, de Dion rear axle located laterally by a central roller joint and longitudinally by twin
trailing arms, 11 in (28 cm) brakes with the rear units mounted inboard to reduce unsprung
weight 17, and rack and pinion steering.
However, by September of 1952 Clairmonte’s patience gave out; he took the unfinished
Mk VII to his factory for completion by his mechanic Fred “Sorrento” Boon. With significant
modification to Chapman’s original design, it would later compete in Formula 1500 racing
(using a Lea-Francis engine of 1496 cc/91.3 cid capacity) with significant success under the
“Clairmonte Special” title. How well it would have done if completed in accord with Chapman’s
original specification is open to speculation, but its significance is in the way it indicated the
direction of Chapman’s design philosophy18.
By late 1953 Colin Chapman had roughed out the frame for the upcoming Mk VIII,
which was intended to compete in the international 1.5 L (91.5 cid) class. Peter Ross and Gilbert
McIntosh, stress analysts for the de Havilland Aircraft Company, began working for Lotus.
Aerodynamicist Francis “Frank” Costin, also from de Havilland and brother to Chapman’s right
hand man Mike Costin 19, came to work for Lotus as well 20.
16
Reference [7], pg. 294. The Lotus-Williams & Pritchard relationship came to an end after the onset of fiberglass.
17
Early on Chapman had set the priorities for weight reduction by establishing the value of a pound: “I will pay £1
per pound saved in sprung weight, and £2 per pound of unsprung weight” (Reference [70], pg. 124).
18
Reference [9], pp.75-77.
19
Mike Costin and Keith Duckworth would found the engine company Cosworth (Costin + Duckworth) in 1958.
The company’s engines would build a winning record in Formula 1 racing second only to the engines of Ferrari by
2010.
6
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Work began in earnest on the Lotus Mk VIII in January of 1954. The Mark VIII was a
racing sports car and would be the first Lotus fully enclosed aerodynamic body design. The
design target weight was 1100 lb (499 kg), with a target maximum speed of 125 mph (201 kph),
a speed that was to be achieved by use of a modified MG 1500 cc (91.5 cid) engine of 85 hp
(63.4 kW). The chassis was to be a space frame, stiffened by integration with a stressed floor
panel, and the suspension was again the now familiar IFS swing axle/rear de Dion axle with
inboard brakes. The employment of Ross and Gilbert may have had some bearing on the fact that
the frame turned out to be one of the most efficient ever made by Lotus, weighing only 35 lb
(15.9 kg). No coefficient of drag is available for the Mk VIII; wind tunnel testing was still in the
future for Lotus, but the Frank Costin influenced design was widely admired for its sleek
appearance.
Figure 1.3 – 1954 LOTUS MK VIII BASIC CHASSIS

Chapman would set the fastest lap of the day in the Mk VIII prototype in its first race at
Oulton Park before retiring with a blown head gasket. Chapman would again be at the wheel in
the 1.5 L (91.5 cid) undercard that preceded the British Gran Prix at Silverstone in 1954; he won
the race despite a rapidly closing Hans Herrmann in a Porsche 550 Spyder. Herrmann, winner of
his class in that year’s Mille Miglia, was the favorite, but had suffered a minor delaying accident
at the very start of the race and was playing catch-up throughout, finishing third 21.
20
Frank Costin had been a participant in the design of the famous de Havilland DH.98 “Mosquito” fighter-bomber,
one of the most successful combat aircraft of WW II. The ultra-slick aircraft’s fuselage/wing/tail was constructed
mainly of various types of wood; there was only about 280 lb (130 kg) of metal in the main structure. Later in 1959
he and Jem Marsh would found the Marcos (Marsh + Costin) car company; early Marcos sports cars were noted for
their wooden monocoque construction.
21
Reference [7], pp. 310-311. Peter Gammon in a Lotus Mk VI placed second; this was an impressive show by
Lotus, and a harbinger of things to come.
7
SAWE Paper No. 3640
3 – RACING
1955 was the year Colin Chapman resigned from British Aluminum in order to devote his
full attention to Lotus Engineering, and Mike Costin became a full time employee. The Lotus
Mk IX and Mk X of that year were essentially variations on the successful Mk VIII. The Mk IX
was considerably shorter than the Mk VIII; the fuel tank had been relocated from the Mk VIII’s
rear position to positions either alongside the passenger or in the cowl 22, reflecting Chapman’s
new concern with how consumables affect the c.g., and thereby the handling, during operation.
It was designed for the 1098cc (67 cid) Coventry-Climax FWA 4-cylinder, but was often
produced in varying configurations with different power plants. It entered production in two
versions: the “Club” and the “Le Mans”, the two differing mainly in brake capacity. Two Mk IX
cars with Coventry-Climax engines were exported to the United States for competition in the 12
Hours of Sebring, but were beaten by Porsche. A Mk IX, possibly the first Lotus equipped with
disc brakes, was driven by Chapman himself at Le Mans that year, but was disqualified for an
infraction of the rules (driving, not mechanical). Altogether about thirty Mk IX’s were made and
competed all over the world 23.
The Coventry-Climax 1098cc (67 cid) FWA 4-cylinder weighed about 215 lb (97.5
kg) 24, and with that engine the Mk IX curb weight is given as 1080 lb (489.9 kg). This may have
afforded the basis for a Chapman “rule-of-thumb” expounded upon by the maestro at lunch after
a Milliken Lecture at London’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers in 1956. Colin Chapman
said that he made the initial estimate of a conceptual car’s weight by taking the weight of the
engine (usually a commercial component “given” or actual weight) and multiplying by five:
First Estimate of Concept Car Weight = 5 × Engine Weight (EQ. 1.01)
Although this formulation seems overly simplistic, using the Mk IX data as a test case
reveals that this formulation may indeed have had some validity for the type of automobiles
Lotus was building at the time:
1954/5 Lotus Mk IX curb weight = 5 × Coventry Climax 1098 cc engine
1080 lb = 5 × 215 lb
1080 lb ≈ 𝟏𝟎𝟕𝟓 𝐥𝐛
The Lotus Mk X was even more closely related to the Mk VIII, but designed for the 2
Liter (122 cid) Bristol 6-cylinder. Of this model only about 6 or 7 where made. The prototype
Mk X built for racer Mike Anthony is the first Lotus definitely known to be equipped with disc
22
Ibid, pg. 22.
23
The famed US actor James Dean had a 1955 Lotus Mk IX on order when he met his untimely end at the wheel of
a Porsche 550 Spyder on 30 September 1955 (Reference [6], pg. 32).
24
Ibid, pg. 218.
8
SAWE Paper No. 3640
brakes, the result of an agreement with Dunlop 25, which was the company that had supplied the
disc brakes for the 1953 Le Mans wining Jaguar C-Type sports racer.
By 1956 the Lotus Eleven was introduced, which was to prove to be the most successful
Lotus sports racer. The most distinctive feature of the car was the Frank Costin designed body,
which was so beautifully sleek that it would inspire imitation decades later by replica
constructers. Road & Track magazine estimated the drag coefficient to be 0.40 26, at a time when
the Jaguar D-Type tested at 0.49. The frontal area ranged from 11.1 to 14.0 ft2 (1.0 to 1.3 m2)
depending on the type of windscreen fitted.
Figure 1.4 – CHAPMAN’S ONE HAND LIFT OF LOTUS ELEVEN FRAME

The top-of-the-line “Le Mans” version had a 1500 cc (92 cid) Coventry Climax engine,
steel tube spaceframe (of just under 70 lb or 31.7 kg weight), IFS (initially an English Ford 93E
beam axle modified into a swing axle set-up), de Dion rear axle, and Girling disc brakes. The
two-seater in this configuration is said to have a “dry weight” (less the 9.31 US gallons capacity
fuel) of about 1000 lb (450 kg) with a weight distribution of 54/46 27. The lesser “Club” version
had a smaller 1098 cc (67 cid) Coventry Climax engine with the “curb weight” given as 910 lb
(412 kg), and there was also an even cheaper “Sports” version with a 1172 cc (72 cid) Ford Ten
25
26
“Road Test: Lotus Eleven”, Road & Track, March 1957. R&T admits to this being a “rough” figure.
27
Ibid.
9
SAWE Paper No. 3640
engine which reportedly had a “curb weight” of 970 lb (440 kg) with a 55/45 weight
distribution 28. Both of the lesser versions featured live rear axles with drum brakes 29.
In 1957 the Eleven underwent major design changes, mainly to the drivetrain and the
front suspension, which was changed to a “double wishbone” 30 design. Designated the Eleven
Series 2 31, this new version won the Index of Performance at Le Mans. This seems to mark the
point at which the Chapman philosophy underwent a conversion from swing axle IFS, which he
had so favored up until then, to the more sophisticated double wishbone IFS. There are a number
of disadvantages to swing axle suspensions, but one which Chapman took specific note of had to
do with mass properties 32:
“The drawback of gyroscopic ‘kick’ must be faced. On a small

light car the wheels can be made sufficiently light to make this
factor unimportant but…as the speed goes up the gyroscopic
forces increase.”
1957 also saw the first Lotus monoposto since the abortive “Mk VII” (“Clairmonte
Special”); the Lotus Twelve Formula 2 racer made its debut. Regarding the choice of fuel tank
location on this vehicle Chapman wrote 33:
“Fuel comes from a 12 gallon fuel tank mounted amidships over

the driver’s legs in the usual Lotus practice 34 of minimizing the
handling changes which can take place as the fuel level drops.
With only this tank in the car the weight distribution is 53% on
the rear wheels and 47% on the front. An [additional, for
28
“Road Test: Lotus Sports”, Road & Track, September 1957. The R&T weight is at odds with “Test Report on the
Lotus Eleven Sports”, Motor Sport, February 1957. That magazine gave a “road ready weight” of 1008 lb (457 kg)
with 2 Imperial gallons of fuel (not the full 7.75 Imperial gallon tank capacity!). Weight would seem to be such a
simple thing, and yet….
29
This profusion of “weights” highlights the need at that time for a standard weighing configuration/load
condition.
30
“Double wishbone” (a.k.a. “upper and lower A-arms”) is an independent suspension system that uses two lateral
arms to locate the wheel. Each arm has two pivot points on the chassis plus one ball joint at the upright/spindle.
Such systems allow greater kinematic control throughout the range of suspension travel, involving such parameters
as camber, caster, roll center, and tire scrub.
31
These late edition Elevens are sometimes called the Lotus “Thirteen”, but the designations “Thirteen” or “13”
were never officially used by Lotus, supposedly as the result of superstition (Reference [6], pg. 34).
32
Reference [7], pp. 110-111. The gyroscopic torque is directly proportional to the rotational inertia: “T = I ωr ωp”
(see Reference [10], page 49). The early Austin Seven axles had weak kingpins, prompting the initial concern with
gyroscopic reactions (Reference [9], pg. 33).
33
Reference [7], pg. 22. Ferdinand Porsche thought likewise with regard to fuel tank location on his 1920’s Austro
Daimler and Mercedes racers, as well as with his 1930’s Auto Union racers.
34
Thus what had begun with the Lotus IX had become the “usual Lotus practice” by the time of the Lotus XII, or in
just three short generations.
10
SAWE Paper No. 3640
endurance races] 10 gallon tank can be mounted in the tail,
which if used gives a 60/40 [rear/front] weight distribution.”
The first racing Lotus Twelve was a conventional front engine and transmission driving
the rear wheels through a driveshaft, differential, and a de Deon rear axle. Transfer gearing made
it possible to offset the drive shaft; offsetting and lowering the driveshaft was something
Chapman usually strived for with front engine configurations in order to be able to lower the
driver position in the car and thereby reduce vertical c.g. height and frontal area.
Figure 1.5 – VCG REDUCTION BY DRIVESHAFT OFFSETTING/LOWERING
However, in accord with Colin’s initial bias favoring a high yaw inertia, the Twelve
soon acquired a Lotus-designed (Richard Ansdale, Harry Mundy) transaxle based on a concept
pioneered by British innovator Archie Butterworth 35. The resulting unit weighed only 49 lb
(22.2 kg), but was to prove very problematic in use, earning the appellation “queerbox”. Keith
35
This adoption of a transaxle for a front engine car places the two largest mass concentrations at opposite axle
lines, in a sort of high yaw inertia “dumbbell” configuration (see Reference [1], pp. 93-95).
11
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Duckworth was given the unenviable task of sorting the new component out, and his heroic
efforts impressed Mike Costin. However, the projected cost of strengthening the delicate device
led to conflict with Chapman, and contributed to Duckworth’s later departure from Lotus.
Duckworth’s less expensive improvements were incorporated 36, but the Twelve’s transaxle only
acquired a marginal reliability through the expedient of a rebuild after every race. Still, the
essentials of the transmission would find application in future Lotus vehicles.
The original de Dion rear suspension soon morphed into what came to be known as the
“Chapman Strut”. This suspension system lent itself quite naturally to the inboard brakes that
were already part of the usual Lotus de Dion set-up, and was lighter in weight while providing a
fully independent action. The Chapman Strut is very similar to the “MacPherson Strut”
developed by Earl S. MacPherson of the Ford Motor Company (US) in the 1940’s (US patent
number 2,660,449); it was introduced to the world on the 1950 Ford (GB) Consul/Zephyr 37.
However, the Chapman Strut was intended for the rear (non-steering) suspension, whereas the
MacPherson Strut was intended for the front end; that and the consequent design variations
constitutes the only significant difference between the two suspension systems.
Figure 1.6 – A CHAPMAN STRUT SUSPENSION SYSTEM
36
The most significant improvement was Duckworth’s “positive-stop” gear shift which did away with the need for
a notched shift gate. To up-shift now only required that the shift-lever be pulled back; to down-shift only required a
push forwards. This feature would find use in future Lotus gearbox developments.
37
Reference [8], pp. 10-15. Reference [5], pp. 243-244. Reference [3], pp. 96-98. However, some sources credit the
French Ford Vedette of 1949 as being the first production car to incorporate MacPherson Strut suspension.
12
SAWE Paper No. 3640
The Twelve was the first Lotus car to originate with double wishbone IFS, and it had the
now ubiquitous coil-over-damper units. Significantly, the ARB served double duty as part of the
upper wishbone. To quote Colin Chapman 38:
“I realised that the high-speed F2 car would produce a further
increase in gyroscopic loading if the swing axle were retained, and
as I feel that the limit must nearly have been reached I decided to
adopt a fairly conventional wishbone layout. We now have double
wishbone location with the front member of the top wishbone
doubling as an anti-roll bar; the springing and damping still being
effected by one direct acting unit.”
Another innovation pioneered on the Twelve was the “wobbly-web” cast magnesium
wheels. These wheels represented a breakthrough in maximizing strength while minimizing
unsprung weight and rotational inertia. However, it should be noted that this “innovation” had
a number of precedents, any one of which may have provided the inspiration for the Lotus
implementation 39.
Figure 1.7 – LOTUS “WOBBLY-WEB” WHEELS

In Formula 2 configuration a Lotus Twelve weighed about 660 lb (299 kg); one driven
by Cliff Allison 40 won its class in the BRDC (British Racing Driver’s Club) 1958 International
38
39
The first known appearance of “wobbly-web” wheels was as a feature of Roy Fedden’s proposed light car design
for the Cosmos Engineering Company in 1919; it was never put into production. Later implementations of the
concept would appear on certain aircraft, such as the Convair CV-240 airliner of 1948.
40
Cliff Allison started his racing career in Formula 3 driving for Cooper in 1953 before being hired by Colin
Chapman. Allison won the performance prize driving a 744cc Lotus in the 1957 24 Hours of Le Mans. A Lotus
driven by Allison and Chapman finished sixth in the 1958 12 Hours of Sebring. Allison came in fourth with his
13
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Trophy race. Also that year, a Lotus Twelve, revised as a Formula 1 race car, was entered in
Lotus’ very first Formula 1 race at Monaco; it later won the first Constructor’s Championship
points for Lotus with a 4th place in the Belgian Gran Prix. However, despite these highlights the
Twelve was generally not successful despite the engineering advances; the chief reason for the
lack of success at the time seems to have been the overwhelming superiority of the competition
from the Cooper Car Company41.
Developed and marketed concurrently with other Lotus’ efforts was the Lotus Seven, the
car that truly established Lotus as a bona fide specialty vehicle manufacturer. The Seven was a
natural progression in development from the preceding Mk VI; the big difference from a
marketing standpoint being that it was a legal road car that could also be used for various sorts of
club racing. The Seven would be produced through the years 1957 to 1972, going through four
distinct generations, with more than 2500 cars sold. The cars were again mainly sold as kits, and
over time inspired more than 160 imitation or replica manufacturers. By 1973, in an effort to
shed its “kit car” image in favor of one as a “proper” automobile manufacturer, Lotus sold all
Seven design rights to Caterham Cars 42. Although its simplicity incurred extreme limitations as
a road car, the resultant light weight (early units weighed around 1100 lb or 500 kg) provided a
level of performance for the money that was simply unobtainable elsewhere, and that was the
key to its success.
Figure 1.8 – FORD HALF-SHAFTS AS USED BY LOTUS SEVEN SERIES 2

PRESENTED PROBLEMS
Lotus in the 1958 Grand Prix of Europe at Spa-Francorchamps, more than four minutes behind victor Tony Brooks
in a Vanwall.
41
Commencing in 1957 with the T41 for Formula 2, the Cooper Car Company built a series of advanced mid-engine
vehicles, with Jack Brabham winning the 1959 Formula 1 World Championship in a Cooper Climax T45.
42
This move was also motivated by the fact that the British tax system changed in 1973 as a result of having joined
the European Economic Community; although the new common tax system did allow for some leeway the
government decided simply to disallow the tax concessions that kit cars had enjoyed.
14
SAWE Paper No. 3640
4 - PRODUCTION
Making its debut in 1957 during the London Motor Car Show held at Earl’s Court was
the Lotus Elite (a.k.a. the Lotus Fourteen) road car; its understated appearance was styled by
Peter Kirwan-Taylor, and refined by John Frayling with some aerodynamic input by Frank
Costin. Like Ferrari, Chapman reluctantly entered the world of road cars as a way of paying for
his primary interest of automotive racing, particularly Formula One 43. Chapman immediately
realized that the complex, time consuming type of construction utilized for Lotus race cars would
not do for road vehicles if they were to be commercially viable. Ever the innovator, Chapman
decided that a chassis made of just five simple main fiberglass sections, bonded together to form
a monocoque, would be more efficient to produce yet still afford a light weight structure 44. To
this base was added an independent suspension of double wishbone/coil-spring-over-dampers at
the front and Chapman struts at the rear. Girling 9.5 in (241 mm) disc brakes were used at all
four corners (inboard at rear), with propulsion provided by a Coventry Climax 1216 cc (74.2 cid)
engine whose output that would vary with development over time from 75 to 105 hp (56 to 78
kW) 45.
Figure 1.9 – 1957 LOTUS ELITE
43
Reference [6], pp. 6 & 37.
44
Like many of Chapman’s “innovations”, this concept may have resulted from the example of others; the 1956
Berkerley SA322 sports car was constructed in a very similar fashion. In any case, the Lotus, like the Berkerley,
still required some metal reinforcement in the composite chassis.
45
This automotive unit (“FWA”) was developed from an unusually light weight engine (“FW”) intended to work in
conjunction with a water pump for military use as a portable fire extinguishing system. It was initially rated at 75 hp
(56 kW) at 6100 rpm/77 lb-ft (104 Nm) at 3750 rpm, but ultimately output was to increase to 105 hp (78 kW). In its
initial 75 hp (56 kW) incarnation the Elite generally returned fuel consumption figures around 35 mpg (6.72 L/100
km ), but that would fall to 33.7 mpg (6.97 L/100 km) by 1960. However, the engine was noted for producing
intense vibration in operation, especially at 4000 rpm.
15
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Figure 1.10 – 1957 LOTUS ELITE BODY/CHASSIS CONSTRUCTION

Produced from 1958 to 1963, the Lotus Elite was to be fairly successful, in that some
1030 to 1050 copies sold. Although designed for the road, the Elite proved to be an excellent
performer on the track; at Le Mans Elites scored several victories in class. This success was in
part due to an extreme aerodynamic efficiency for a road car; full scale testing has indicated a
coefficient of drag of 0.35, although 0.30 and even 0.29 has been claimed. Furthermore, the
frontal area was only 16.0 ft2 (1.49 m2) 46, and the Elite succeeded in being very light with an
initial curb weight of around 1110 lb (503.5 kg), growing to 1484 lb (673.1 kg) for later
versions. The low drag and light weight, in conjunction with the Coventry Climax engine,
46
The contemporary Porsche 356 had a drag coefficient of 0.40 and a frontal area of 17.4 ft2 (1.6 m2)
16
SAWE Paper No. 3640
resulted in a top speed of 120 mph (193 kph) and a 0-60 mph (0-97 kph) time of 10.7 seconds 47
for some later versions.
However, the one thing at which the Elite failed was the thing that mattered most; Lotus
lost money on every Elite made. The advanced construction methodology proved more
expensive than planned, and problems with cracks, noise, and vibration seemed impossible to
design out; many Elites had suspension attachment points rip through the GRP chassis!
Unsurprisingly, from 1961 onward the Elite was thoroughly trounced by the Jaguar E-Type in
the market place 48. This initial disillusion with a technology that was still in its infancy was the
reason for a reversion to a “conventional” steel chassis for the Elite’s successor, the Lotus Elan.
47
A 1960 model tested by The Motor magazine produced a top speed of 111.8 mph (179.9 kph) and a 0-60 mph (0-
97 kph) time of 11.4 seconds; fuel economy was quoted as 33.7 mpg (14.35 km/L, or 40.5 miles per Imperial
gallon).
48
17
SAWE Paper No. 3640
5 – FORMULA 1, LE MANS
In 1958 the Lotus Fifteen sports racer was introduced, as was the first Lotus designed
specifically for Formula One, the Lotus Sixteen. The Fifteen was very much like the Eleven, but
the sleek body was designed by the firm of Williams & Pritchard, although inspired by Frank
Costin’s earlier work. The chassis was again a steel tube space frame, and the Eleven’s Series 2
double wishbone IFS with coil-over-dampers was adopted en total. Also located at the rear were
the now ubiquitous Chapman struts providing IRS, a 19 gallon (72 L) fuel tank, spare tire, and
oil tanks. Engines varied from 1475 cc (90 cid) to 2495 cc (152 cid) and were front mounted, but
in a variety of angular relationships to the chassis.
As well as being at an angle to the longitudinal axis in order to offset the drive shaft,
initial placement of the Coventry Climax FPF engines included a 62 degree rotation “to the
right” (CCW viewed from the front) for reduced frontal area. The Series 1 utilized the notorious
Lotus “queerbox” from the Lotus Twelve 49. This gearbox was teamed with a ZF limited slip
differential within a common magnesium housing; the resultant transaxle plus inboard disk
brakes and half-shafts weighed only 85 lb (38.6 kg).
For the Series 2 version the engine orientation was revised to a 17 degree rotation “to the
left”, and the troublesome Lotus transaxle was replaced by a BMC 4-speed gearbox. In 1959 a
Series 3 appeared with a strengthened chassis (as a result of some failures, including a major one
for Lotus driver Cliff Allison in 1958), narrower front track, and enlarged radiator and oil cooler.
Factory Fifteens all had 15 in (38.1 cm) magnesium “wobbly-web” wheels, while customer cars
had center-lock wire wheels as standard with the “mags” available at extra cost.
Figure 1.11 – 1958 LOTUS FIFTEEN SPORTS RACER

In all its variations the Fifteen had a moderate amount of success, but was often out
performed by the Cooper T49 “Monaco”, a contemporary sports racer of mid-engine
configuration. Many losses would be attributable to structural or engine failure. Although
49
The “queerbox” was not only light weight and very compact, but featured a 5-speed constant mesh sequential
fore-and-aft shift mechanism that should have been very quick and foolproof, but in use wasn’t reliable.
18
SAWE Paper No. 3640
potentially a great vehicle, the Fifteen suffered from lack of development due to the focus of
attention being on the Lotus Sixteen and other Formula racers.
The Sixteen was a direct development from the Lotus Twelve, and would establish a
design direction which would lead to the Lotus 18 and 21. The space frame chassis was an
adaption of the previous Twelve’s, with the tubular members of an even thinner gauge than the
Twelve, sacrificing strength in Chapman’s quest for ever more reduction in weight. Initially the
chassis was designed with the engine offset to left of the longitudinal axis. This resulted in the
prop shaft passing by the driver on his left side, allowing for a lower c.g. and reduced frontal
area. The driver position of the Sixteen was not only close to the ground, but more reclined than
most contemporaries (this reclined position would grow more extreme in succeeding Lotus
designs until ultimately it would rival that of the NASA “couch”).
However, the consequent offset in vehicle lateral c.g. led to handling problems which
were resolved by returning the engine to a center placement, but at an angle to the longitudinal
axis which allowed for the offset prop shaft to be retained. Initially the engine was a 2.0 L (122.0
cid) Coventry Climax FPF straight-4, but that would grow to 2.2 (134.3 cid), and finally to a 2.5
L (152.6 cid) full Formula 1 specification for the 1959 season. The transmission was the Keith
Duckworth improved Lotus design, now as a 5-speed built by ZF of Germany. The whole was
covered in a very thin, non-structural aluminum skin designed by aerodynamicist Frank Costin,
and rode on the by-then iconic Lotus “wobbly-web” cast magnesium wheels.
The front suspension was also adapted from the Twelve with its outboard disc brakes,
double wishbone IFS with ARB doubling as an upper front member, and coil-over-damper units.
However, unlike the Twelve, the rear suspension of the Sixteen was designed as a Chapman strut
IRS with inboard disc brakes from the very onset. The suspension was very innovative in that
it marked the beginning of Chapman’s exploration of anti-dive geometry on a race car. Chapman
had come to value anti-dive/anti-squat as means of reducing the flux in ground clearance (as well
as attendant changes in camber, c.g., and aerodynamic loads) during braking and acceleration. In
the interest of lower vertical c.g. (and later also in the interest of aerodynamic ground effects)
the ground clearance of many race cars had gotten smaller and would get smaller still; dive and
squat came to mean an unacceptable variation in ground clearance during operation.
Despite the advanced specification, the Lotus Sixteen was not very successful. The
delayed introduction due to the engine placement problems, and the long wait before the 2.5 L
engine appeared, pretty much doomed the 1958 Formula One season. By 1959 the vehicle had
developed a very competitive performance capability, but reliability was still a problem; only
five World Constructor’s Championship points were captured that year.
The thin gauge of the chassis tubes, and all of the paring down of material to save
weight, often had unfortunate consequences, and not just for the Sixteen. The problem was that
the loads for which a car structure had to be designed were not well defined, and Chapman
would often force weight reduction beyond the point his stress analysts thought advisable.
Chapman himself addressed the need to find the limits to weight reduction 50:
50
Reference [7], pg. 149. Actually, Chapman’s statements regarding the difficulty of ascertaining such limits may
have been intended to be self-exculpatory with regard to his reckless type of weight reduction.
19
SAWE Paper No. 3640
“A car is but a structure, as amenable as a building to stress
calculation – if only one knows what stresses it must sustain and
what safety factors are required. There was the ‘rub’ because
nowhere could I find the ‘open sesame’. I haunted the Institute
of Mechanical Engineers Library and read everything from the
most learned papers to the non-technical articles in the motoring
press.”
Without theoretical guidance, the rational fall-back position would have been the
development of internal standards from an ongoing practice of extensive testing. However, funds
for such systematic testing were not within the Lotus budget, which during the early Chapman
years was always problematic. So, testing tended to fall in the province of the customer, out on
the road or on the track, during actual use. To paraphrase an authoritative source 51:
“Designing as light as possible, then waiting for things to fail in
use (there was virtually no budget for pre-production testing) so
that those specific pieces would then be appropriately
strengthened, was the traditional Lotus (Chapman) way of
obtaining an optimum structure.”
It might seem churlish to argue with success, and Lotus was very successful, but one is
left to wonder just how much more Lotus could have accomplished without the multitude of
DNF’s and accidents that undoubtedly were the result of such “empirical optimization”:
“I was becoming unhappy about the reliability of the car. Vital
bits kept falling off, like the steering wheel! He cut a lot of
corners, did Colin, and made things lighter than they probably
should have been.”
Cliff Allison,
Lotus Formula One driver, 1958 52.
“In one car at Monza… the mechanics found fourteen major

breaks in the chassis. I had breaks in the steering, wheels fell off,
wishbones breaking, anything that could happen to a car.”
Innes Ireland,
Lotus Formula One driver, 1959 53.
In any case, many failures other than structural contributed to the disappointing career of
the Lotus Sixteen. By the start of the 1960 season Lotus race team leader Innes Ireland would be
mounted in the brand new Formula 1 Lotus, the groundbreaking Eighteen, which would prove
51
Ibid, pp. 194, 383.
52
Reference [7], pp. 195-196.
53
Ibid, pg. 196.
20
SAWE Paper No. 3640
much more successful. However, given the sheer number of structural failures and fatalities (not
necessarily Lotus) during the 1958 season some began lobbying for minimum weight standards
in formula racing. This caused Chapman to write a spirited (and somewhat disingenuous)
defense of light weight design:
“Weight saving is a process which…is open to criticism if it

results in unreliability, or breakages under normal use, but there
is no doubt that a well-designed and properly constructed light-
weight car can stand up to very hard use.”
“Instead of reducing weight, however, it is better to design light
in the first place, modifying any components which may show
signs of stress during development…”
“The total weight of a racing car…is…determined by the weight
of the engine; if this can be decreased by one pound then the rest
of the car can be made four pounds lighter.”
“…tyres and wheels are…critical factor and their weight has a
considerable influence on the car as a whole…The job of the
designer is to keep the right relationship between sprung and
unsprung weight…”
The 1959 year saw the debut of the last Lotus front engine sport racer, the Lotus
Seventeen, which was the 1.1 L (67.1 cid) class replacement for the Lotus Elevens, which were
by then outclassed by the new Lola Mark 1’s of Eric Broadley 54. The single most significant
difference between the new Seventeen and the previous Eleven was the fact that the Seventeen
had “Chapman strut” suspension at all four corners. This feature was a major bone of contention
between Colin Chapman and designer Len Terry 55; Terry felt that the geometry resulting from
the force fit of the strut suspension into the forward low profile confines would render the
suspension susceptible to “stiction” 56. However, Chapman insisted and the car revealed itself in
competition as having extremely treacherous handling. In hard cornering the car became known
for initially strong understeer, which would suddenly switch to oversteer.
54
The 1958/9 Lola Mark 1 had a Coventry Climax 1100 cc (67.1 cid) of 83 hp (61.9 kW) and weighing less than
100 kg (220.5 lb). The chassis was a spaceframe design of 27 kg (59.5 lb) and the IFS was a double wishbone
design. By 1960 the body had changed from aluminum to fiberglass and the engine was rated at 90 hp (67.1 kW).
55
Len Terry would not only work for Lotus, designing the Lotus 17 and 38, but would also work for BRM (British
Racing Motors) to design the P126 & P207, and Dan Gurney’s AAR (Anglo American Racers) for the design of the
Eagle Mk I, plus many others.
56
The sliding action of the four struts and the spines of the two rear half-shafts provided plenty of locations for the
less than smooth transition from static to dynamic friction known as “stiction” to take place. After Chapman sacked
him, Len Terry’s design for a wishbone replacement of the front struts was offered as an early factory recall fix.
21
SAWE Paper No. 3640
The 1960 Eighteen, the first mid-engine Lotus, represented a reluctant break with earlier
Chapman design philosophy which was forced by Cooper and BRM 57. As champion racer Jack
Brabham noted “Colin Chapman used to tell me that the engine had to be in front” 58. With the
physical change would eventually come some accompanying conceptual changes: vehicle yaw
inertia would henceforth tend to be minimized instead of maximized, and handling behavior
would no longer be grossly oversteering. Colin Chapman would explain the transition as a matter
of logical progression, although at the time of the next quotation he had not yet come to grips
with the yaw inertia benefit 59:
“The rear-engine (sic) layout offers several advantages for
Formula 1…low frontal area, low center of gravity, no propeller
shaft problems, and minimum power loss…The chief
disadvantage…is a low polar moment of inertia.”
A benefit of the “rear” (mid) engine configuration that Chapman would quickly come to
exploit in future cars would be the opportunity to recline the driver’s seat more than his usual 20
degree from the vertical 60. Without the relatively high hood line of a front engine car, the driver’s
seat could be reclined significantly more than previous while maintaining reasonably good
forward vision, thereby reducing vertical c.g. height and improving aerodynamics (however, in
this as in many other things, Chapman would go to extremes). For this F1 version the dry weight
would be about 770 lb, to which about 270 lb of fuel, 50 lb of oil, and about 20 lb of water would
be added for a curb weight of 1110 lb (503.5 kg). With an approximately 180 lb (81.6 kg) driver
onboard the longitudinal weight distribution would be about 44/56. To keep that weight
distribution as constant during operation as possible the fuel burn was sequenced with the 26.4
gallon (US, not Imperial) center tank over the driver’s legs drawing down to some ideal level,
then switching over to the 11.4 gallon tank behind the seat, and ultimately back to the main
tank 61.
The sea-change in design philosophy would be reflected not only in the configuration,
but in the suspension detail. The Eighteen had two ARB’s, one front and one rear; no longer
would the front suspension supply the vehicle’s entire roll resistance as a means of helping to
ensure an understeering nature. The novelty of a rear ARB at the time caused BRM designer
Peter Berthon to remark: “There must be something dreadfully wrong with it; it’s got a roll bar
at each end.” 62 Furthermore, unlike the earlier Sixteen, the Eighteen did not require its ARB’s to
serve double duty as linkages, a change which Chapman explained as the result of the previous
design having insufficient rigidity for Formula One stresses; the IFS consisted of two dedicated
57
Reference [7], pp. 23-24. There are also pre-WW II examples of mid-engine race car design such as the 1930’s
Auto Union “P” (Porsche designed) Grand Prix racers. However, the competing conventional (front engine)
Mercedes Benz “W” series were much more forgiving in their handling. Both vehicle types were referred to as the
Silberpfeils (“Silver Arrows”) due to their use of a polished aluminum finish bodywork instead of the usual German
international racing white paint; supposedly this lack of paint was initially employed by Mercedes in order to save
weight of about 1 kg (2.2 lb) in order to comply with the then current 750 kg (1653.5 lb) maximum weight limit.
58
Ibid, pg. 24.
59
Ibid, pg. 25.
60
Ibid.
61
62
The fact that both ends had ARB’s signified the end of having the front suspension supply all the roll resistance
with consequent gross understeering behavior; Chapman’s design philosophy was undergoing major revisions.
22
SAWE Paper No. 3640
wishbone linkages and a dedicated ARB. At the rear yet more design tradition was shattered; the
Chapman strut was now rejected as requiring too much vertical space. The IRS consisted of
double-duty half-shafts (they transmitted power and served as upper suspension linkage), lower
reverse wishbones, twin longitudinal radius arm pairs, and coil spring/damper units. Extreme
downward extension of the upright lower connection point was required to accommodate the
length of the coil-over-damper units 63.
The Eighteen also featured a novel amount of adjustability. The damper/coil spring units,
camber, caster, and toe-in were all adjustable. And, of course, the tire pressures and ARB’s could
be changed. This was interesting in view of a quote attributed to Chapman: "Make the
suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong, look what they can do to a Weber
carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." All things considered, the
Eighteen represented quite a break with the past and an enormous leap of faith for Chapman;
such abrupt changes in direction was a key Chapman characteristic, and contributed to much
success as well as some failure.
The Eighteen was to reward Chapman’s faith; in 1960 Lotus scored its first Gran Prix
win at Monaco with a Lotus Eighteen driven by Stirling Moss 64. Lotus would collect 34 World
Constructor’s Championship points that year in Formula 1, and an adaptation of the Eighteen
would absolutely dominate Formula Junior (“FJ”). In 1961 Moss produced a déjà vu victory at
Monaco, again with an Eighteen.
The main difference of Eighteen FJ version with respect to the Eighteen F1 was that a
995 cc (60.7 cid) Cosworth-Ford engine supplanted the 2495 cc (152.3 cid) Coventry Climax.
The Eighteen would also be widened out and otherwise revised to form Lotus’ first mid-engine
sports racer, the Lotus Type 19, a.k.a. the “Lotus Monte Carlo”. It would be powered by 2.0
(122.0 cid) and 2.5 liter (152.3 cid) Coventry Climax FPF engines, with a single special 19B
version powered by a Ford 289 cid (4.7 liter) V8 built for Pacesetter Homes Racing to be driven
by Dan Gurney in America. Excluding the 19B, most 19’s weighed about 1412 lb (640.5 kg)
with driver (180 lb/81.6 kg) and 8 gallons (Imperial, total tank capacity was 12) of fuel, for
which the longitudinal weight distribution would be about 46/54 65.
By 1961 Chapman commenced with a vengeance an exploitation of the new opportunities
offered by the mid-engine configuration. For the Lotus 20 Formula Junior racer Chapman
jumped from his previous driver’s seat inclination of 20 degrees from vertical 66 to one of 50
degrees from the vertical. This lowered the vertical c.g. in operation slightly, but most
significantly resulted in a 30% reduction in frontal area with respect to the Lotus 18 67. As a
consequence of the new driver position the steering wheel diameter required a reduction to 13
63
Colin would not down-size the dampers due to fear of over-heating. The fact that the uprights came so close to the
ground would raise concerns among some about what might happen if a tire were to go flat and the corresponding
upright dug into the track surface at speed.
64
65
66
67
Ibid, pg. 27. A smaller radiator also contributed to the reduction in frontal area.
23
SAWE Paper No. 3640
inches. The vehicle rode on 4.50×13 tires front and 5.00×15 tires rear, with a starting line
weight distribution of about 40/60 68.
The Lotus 21 Formula 1 racer continued in this new practice with the seat back 50
degrees from the vertical like the Lotus 20. What was also new for this racer was its inboard
front springing; Chapman moved the spring-damper units inboard and out of the airstream to be
actuated by upper wishbone rocker arms 69. Also notable, the 21 used anti-dive front suspension
geometry, which resulted in handling characteristics under braking that Team Lotus driver Inns
Ireland did not like at all. Nevertheless, Innes Ireland won the first Grand Prix race for Team
Lotus at Watkins Glen in October of 1961, only to be fired by Chapman a month later in favor of
teammate Jim Clark becoming the lead driver for Team Lotus 70. However, even the more docile
Clark also had his complaints regarding Chapman’s design direction 71:
“I remember having great difficulty adjusting myself to that
[seat] position. The front wheels seemed much higher than eye
level…”
1962 saw the birth of the Lotus Types 22 and 23; the 22 was developed from the Type 20
Formula Junior and was intended to race in that same category, although 7 of the 77 units
produced were modified for Formula 1. The basic 22 had a Cosworth Ford 1098 cc (67 cid)
engine (just under the Formula Junior limit of 1100 cc or 67.13 cid) tilted 30 degrees over on its
side for reduced vertical c.g.
The 23 was the last “small” (997cc) engine (Cosworth Ford 109E @ 103 hp/77 kW)
sports racer, which featured a space frame chassis and GRP body. Team Lotus entered two at Le
Mans, only to be disqualified. Initial inspection revealed the racer had 4 lug nut studs forward
and 6 studs aft, which violated the rules for interchangeability of wheels all around. Lotus
machinists hustled and cobbled up aft hubs with 4 studs, only to be disallowed again, this time
on the basis that if 6 aft studs had been required initially for strength, then having only 4 aft
would be unsafe. This led to an angry explosion on Chapman’s part, which was only one of
Colin Chapman’s many disputes with race officials, but would be memorable for Chapman’s
swearing that Team Lotus would never compete again at Le Mans, a promise he kept until his
death.
That same year saw the appearance of the Lotus 24, which continued the 50 degree
reclined driver’s seat back position of the two previous Formula 1 racers. The 24 varied from its
sister car, the 25, mainly in that it had a space frame chassis, whereas the 25 was of the “new”
monocoque construction. The rationale for the simultaneous development of two F1 racers was
that the less sophisticated 24 would serve as a “back-up” for the 25 should that ambitious effort
hit a snag, and serve as a customer car for sale to independent teams should no snag occur. Still,
the attention to detail for the 24 was significant. For instance, Lotus adopted the Armstrong GT7
damper in order to achieve a very small reduction in unsprung weight; that particular damper
68
69
Designer Alberto Massimino had a similar design for the Maserati 4CLT/48 in 1948. Chapman’s first attempt at
this “bellcrank” design was for the “Clairmonte Special” in 1952.
70
71
Ibid, pp. 27-28.
24
SAWE Paper No. 3640
design had the heavy cylinder portion at the chassis mount instead of the suspension mount 72.
The car had the 1497 cc (91.3 cid) Coventry Climax FWMV V8 engine rated at 180 bhp (134
kW). In use the car exhibited a fair amount of instability at high speed, tending to dart right or
left, which was later attributed to air pressure build-up under the car due to the high nose
design 73.
Figure 1.12 – 1962 LOTUS TYPE 25 MONOCOQUE TUB

The Lotus 25’s monocoque “tub” design was revolutionary for automotive racing, and
was touted as being three times stiffer but half the weight of a Lotus 21 chassis 74. The central
tub was flanked by two large longitudinal fuel tanks, with one small fuel tank behind the
72
73
Ibid, pp. 232-233.
74
Reference [7], pg. 14. This is also more remarkable given the fact that the car had a frontal area of only 8.0 ft2
(0.74 m2), compared to the usual 9.5 ft2 (0.88 m2). The earlier Type 24 space frame only had about 650-700 lb-ft/deg
torsional stiffness; the Type 25 monocoque tub gave about 1500 lb-ft/deg, and 2400 lb-ft/deg with the engine in
place. However, Chapman would reduce the gauge 25% to save 73 lb (33 kg) which reduced the stiffness
accordingly (his target stiffness then was about 1000 lb-ft/deg). The monocoque structures were more costly and
time consuming to make, but required less maintenance.
25
SAWE Paper No. 3640
driver 75. The driver’s seat back now resided at a further 5 degrees from the vertical; the resultant
55 degree geometry required a further decrease in the steering wheel diameter to just 12 inches76.
The increasingly reclined seating position provided further miseries for Lotus F1 drivers, as
noted by Jim Clark in his usual understated manner 77:
“It was a great benefit for the designers from an aerodynamic
point of view, but…it held some difficulties for the driver.”
The 25 also had a 1497 cc (91.3 cid) Coventry Climax FWMV V8 engine, but was rated
at 200 bhp/149 kW (initially equipped with 4 Weber DCNL-4 carburetors, which was changed to
fuel injection by 1963). Internal air flow improvement was made by designer Len Terry when the
conventionally shaped oil tank, which sat just behind the front mounted radiator, was reduced in
size and made into a forward pointing “v” shape. This simple change allowed for a reduction in
radiator size and coolant amount. The total reduction in oil tank, radiator, and fluids saved 40 lb
(18.1 kg), with no increase in operating temperature. The vehicle weight was around 995 lb (451
kg).
75
Ibid, pg. 24.
76
Ibid, pg. 28.
77
Ibid.
26
SAWE Paper No. 3640
6 – PRODUCTION WOES, INDY
On the commercial side 1962 also saw some development with the initial appearance of
the roadster version of the Lotus Type 26, or Elan S1, styled by Ron Hickman 78. The Elan was
designed to replace the money-losing Elite, with the chief difference being a steel backbone
chassis (similar to those pioneered by Hans Ledwinka) instead of the troublesome GRP
monocoque structure, yet the chassis weighed about 75 lb (34 kg) and the curb weight about
1517 lb (688 kg). 79 Although deficient in torsional stiffness and side impact protection, the
backbone chassis simplified production, and was adopted by Chapman from a test mule chassis
that had been cobbled together by his engineers with no intent on their part for production use.
The Elan used a Ford based Lotus twin-cam 1499 cc (91.5 cid) 100 hp (74.6 kW) engine
developed mainly by Harry Mundy and Richard Ansdale; in recognition of this engine’s
significance for Lotus’ standing as an automotive manufacturer Chapman gave Harry Mundy a
£1000 (c. $1500) bonus for his efforts 80. At a time when a Ferrari might have rear drum brakes
and a Hotchkiss rear suspension, the Elan had disk brakes and independent suspension all
around. That suspension was surprisingly soft, 75 lb/in at the front wheels and 68 lb/in at the
rear, but with correspondingly stiff dampers 81. The Elan was maneuverable as a race car, yet
rode like a limousine. The Elan seemed like a remarkable sports car for the money but, in a way
that was essentially a Lotus leitmotiv, there were many drawbacks as noted in an issue of
R&T 82:
“Engines leaked oil prodigiously. Frames cracked apart in

everyday use. Due to the car’s dense packaging and tiny
footprint…service access was nightmarish. Early Elans flooded
when it rained and overheated in traffic, the Webers leaked fuel
directly onto the ignition system, and electrical problems were
legion.”
1963 had been decreed by the FIA as the last year for the Formula Junior classification,
yet Lotus still developed the new Type 27 as a replacement for the Type 22 to race in that class.
The 27 had a monocoque chassis with GRP body panels and a Cosworth Ford 109E engine of
1097 cc (66.9 cid) displacement and 110 hp (82 kW) output. The vehicle weight was reported as
being 880 lb (399 kg). The initial monocoque chassis proved to lack stiffness; it was beefed up
by replacing some of the “dead weight” GRP body panels with stressed aluminum.
78
Hickman supposedly left Lotus as a “burn out”, designed the “Workmate” shop bench manufactured by Black &
Decker, and reputedly made $47 million.
79
Ibid, pg. 30.
80
Ibid, pg. 14. Such largesse was very much out of character for Chapman.
81
82
Ibid, pg. 71. This doesn’t even mention the additional problems of chassis rust and fiberglass body cracking.
27
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Figure 1.13 – 1962 LOTUS ELAN BACKBONE CHASSIS

More significant for Lotus, financially and with respect to future alliances, was the
development of the Type 28 or Lotus Ford Cortina. Prior contact with Ford of Britain for the
development of the Ford based Lotus twin-cam engine ultimately led to a Lotus contract with
Ford for the development of the lackluster Ford Cortina sedan into a vehicle suitable for FIA
Group 2 83 “modified touring car” racing. The conversion of that family vehicle into a fire-
breathing racer followed a recipe well known to stock car racers everywhere.
Replacement of the anemic 75 bhp (56 kW) Ford engine with a 100 bhp (75 kW) Lotus
Ford unit for the sporty road version, and with a 125 bhp (93 kW) Lotus Ford unit for the
competition version, was an obvious step. Also obvious was the fitting of wider wheels and tires,
stiffer springs and dampers, with a front ARB. At the rear the leaf spring suspension became a
coil suspension with the live axle located by links (two longitudinal and one lateral) to the
chassis 84. Complementing the increased power and maneuverability, 9.5 inch (24.1 cm) diameter
83
Group 2 was replaced as “Group A” by the FIA in 1982.
84
This particular rear suspension setup was to prove more costly and less effective than a modified Hotchkiss setup;
by around 1965 Ford was to revert to a leaf spring rear suspension design.
28
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Girling disc brakes replaced the drum brakes at front. To complete the transformation new
instrumentation (with tachometer) and transmission from the Elan was added.
That, at least, completes some of the more obvious visual changes. Chapman’s forte of
gaining performance through the reduction of weight was also to play a major role. The front
bumper became a set of quarter bumpers, and the steel door skins, hood, and trunk lid became
aluminum stampings, while the steel castings of the differential 85 and transmission bell housing
became aluminum castings. All this was to prove not so much a matter of reducing weight as a
matter of weight maintenance in view of the larger engine, more robust suspension, and various
chassis reinforcements. Complementing the weight “reduction” (maintenance) items was a
small shift in longitudinal and vertical c.g. due to relocation of the spare tire to the trunk floor
(from an upright position aft of a rear wheel well), and of the battery from the engine
compartment to the trunk 86.
Despite Lotus involvement with Ford in the Cortina and other projects, Ford initially
chose Eric Broadley of Lola fame as partner in their Le Mans effort (which would ultimately
produce the winning GT40), which saved Chapman from violating his oath never to race at Le
Mans again. However, the design worked up by Lotus as a proposal for Ford’s Le Mans effort
would continue to undergo development and would resurface later as the Lotus Type 30.
By 1963 Lotus consummated a deal with Ford and Dan Gurney to produce an Indy car,
termed the Type 29, based on the successful Type 25 F1 car but using a large American type
engine. For the Type 29 Ford made a light weight (the use of an aluminum block alone saved 70
lb, or 31.8 kg) “dry sump” engine, based on a Ford Fairlane 4.2 L pushrod V8, of about 400 hp
(298 kW). The motivating idea was that a light weight Lotus would give a fuel economy
improvement from the usual 2.5 mpg to around 7.5 mpg, resulting in a competitive edge due to
fewer pit stops for refueling. This proved to be the case with Jim Clark finishing 2nd and Dan
Gurney finishing 7th. The Indianapolis 500 race winner that year was veteran driver Parnelli
Jones in a traditional Indy front engine roadster, the “Watson Offenhauser” (despite a horrendous
oil leak). Although Lotus did not have an outright victory, Indy was to prove to be the most
lucrative single race ever for Lotus, guaranteeing a return attempt.
The 1964 Lotus 30 sports racer had an ultra-reclined driver position, a Ford 4.7 L (289
cid) V8, a steel backbone chassis (which lacked torsional stiffness), a one-piece GRP body
(which hindered access), and small 13” wheels (which compromised braking). This was the
vehicle that had resulted from the aborted collaboration with Ford for a Le Mans racer in 1963,
and which would become the basis for future cars such as the Europa and Esprit 87. In the
commercial venue the chassis design was adequate, but for the very demanding rigors of racing it
proved a failure, although Jim Clark was able to wring some success out of it. However, Clark
was also to have a serious accident as a consequence of the backbone frame simply breaking in
half.
85
The aluminum differential casting was to prove fragile and ultimately required steel reinforcement, negating any
reduction in unsprung mass.
86
87
29
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Also in 1964 Lotus introduced the Type 31 for the new Formula 3 race series; it was
based largely on the Type 22. There was also a Type 32 designed for competition in the Formula
2 and Tasman 88 racing series; it was a development of the Type 27. For Formula 1 there was the
Type 33, based closely on the Type 25 but modified for the new wider tires that were coming
into vogue; tire widths (at the wheel) were now 8” front and 9.5” rear, while wheels went from
15” diameter cast “wobbly-web” (for Lotus) to 13” diameter 6-spoke cast magnesium “knock-
offs” 89. Type 33 weight was around 985 lb (447 kg), and torsional stiffness of the chassis was
around 2,400 lb-ft/deg. In the hands of Jim Clark the Type 33 was to prove very successful.
Figure 1.14 – 1964 LOTUS TYPE 33 REAR SUSPENSION

In 1964 Lotus made the inevitable return to Indy with the Type 34, which had a hybrid
monocoque/twin tube ladder chassis 90. For this car Ford supplied a quad overhead cam V8 of
425 hp (317 kW), and Dunlop supplied special tires which unfortunately tended to shred at full
fuel weight. The car was not a big success, with DNF’s in ‘64, but A.J. Foyt did make a good
showing in the 1965 Indianapolis 500 and he and Parnelli Jones scored various USAC wins. The
Type 34 weight was around 1250 lb (567 kg).
In contrast to Lotus racing, on the Lotus commercial front in 1964 there was only
moderate activity. The Elan S2 now had 1558 cc (95 cid) 105 hp (78 kW) and various
improvements, and the competition version Type 26R had engines from 140 hp (104 kW) to 160
hp (119 kW) with wider track/suspension. By 1965 the Lotus Type 36, a.k.a. the Elan S3 Coupe,
became more civilized with more passenger amenities and a fixed roof.
In 1965 the Lotus Type 35 appeared for racing in Formula 2, 3, and the Tasman series.
The car was similar to the Types 27/32, with a fully adjustable suspension and the ability to
88
The Tasman racing series was a formulation unique to Australia and New Zealand.
89
This increase of tire widths doomed the Lotus “wobbly-web” wheels as air flow through the wheel was now
required to cool the brakes, resulting in a 0.5 lb (0.23 kg) weight gain per wheel. Wider tires also had serious
consequences for suspension design as camber change had to be much smaller (Reference [7], pp. 132-135).
90
This was despite what Chapman had earlier said: “…I do not believe in the two-tube chassis principle, the type of
frame which has two large diameter steel tubes as the main frame members. Mathematically it is not as rigid as
the multi-tube space frame...” (Reference [7], pg. 151).
30
SAWE Paper No. 3640
house various engines; Jim Clark had various successes with this car. There was also the Type
37, which was designed for the new Clubman’s Racing Formula. Although sold as a kit car it
was still very expensive, which may explain why only one was ever built. However, in that lone
example Tim Gross was able to win the Clubman’s Championship in 1969.
The big news in ’65 was the third try at Indy with the Type 38, which was an offset
chassis (thus shifting the CG way L/H of centerline), mid-engine car similar to the Type 29. Jim
Clark won making the Type 38 the first mid-engine car to win at Indy 91. The vehicle weight was
still around 1250 lb (567 kg). Len Terry designed the car with what came to be called a “droop
snoot” in an attempt to generate some down force from the vehicle shape; this ultimately would
evolve into the famous Lotus wedge shape bodies of later years 92.
The 1965 Type 39 was designed to be yet another Formula 1 car, but the ill-fated
Coventry Climax 1.5 liter FWMW flat-16 engine intended for it never materialized 93. The
chassis was modified by Maurice Philippe for a 2.5 liter Coventry Climax FPF engine of about
230 bhp (172 kW), and was used for the 1966 Tasman Series races. Driven by Jim Clark, the 39
scored 1 win, 5 second places, and 1 third place. Clark finished second in that series
behind Jackie Stewart.
1965 also saw the continuation of the long, sad saga of the Lotus Type 30, now reborn as
the Lotus Type 40, which was termed the “Lotus 30 with ten more mistakes” 94. Equipped with
15in wheels, vented disc brakes, and a larger engine, the 40 was just as miserable a race car as its
Type 30 predecessor.
It should be noted that around this time Lotus racers began exhibiting changes in
suspension stiffness. Colin’s design philosophy had long mandated the “softest” springing
possible, but from 1962 to 1965 the suspension frequency changed from 72 Hz front/75 Hz rear
to 100 Hz front/110 Hz rear (with driver and half fuel), and damper settings went up too 95. These
increases in stiffness were necessary to prevent ground contact during operation due to the
reductions in ground clearance taking place. This was a harbinger of things to come, as future
use of wings (and later “ground effects”) to create “down force” would require immensely stiffer
springing to prevent ground contact.
91
The first mid-engine car intended for Indy was the 1937 “Lee Oldfield Special”. This advanced concept featured
IFS/IRS, I/B rear brakes, and a supercharged Marmon V16 engine of 6L capacity. Financier Joel Thorne withdrew
his support for the project at a late stage, so in desperation Oldfield (a veteran race driver turned constructer)
attempted to drive the unsorted vehicle himself, but failed to qualify. Indy rule changes regarding engine size
prevented subsequent attempts. Later mid-engine attempts by builders Harry Miller (Miller RE4D) and Nathan
Rounds (“Rounds Rocket”) in the years 1939, 1941, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1950, and 1951 failed to impress. However,
in 1961 Jack Brabham drove a mid-engine Cooper-Climax T54 to finish ninth and so impressed Dan Gurney that he
sought out Lotus for a mid-engine Indy car of his own. A 1964 Indy attempt by Smokey Yunick’s “Hurst Floor
Shifter Special” failed to qualify, but that car was so radical in configuration that “mid-engine” fails to adequately
describe it.
92
Reference [7], pg. 233. Although it created “down force”, the drawback to “wedge” body design was two-fold: it
incurred drag like the wings, but unlike the wings precluded any possibility of adjustment, except for the unusual
case of the variable attitude body Porsche-Keil racer designed by William Eichelberger (see Reference [1], pg. 131).
93
The FWMW proved to be a disaster for Coventry Climax, resulting in a withdrawal from Formula 1 engine
development. The unusual conjoined 8-cylinder cranks had extreme vibratory problems not solvable with 1965
technology.
94
This witticism is attributed to American race driver Richie Ginther.
95
31
SAWE Paper No. 3640
The negotiations that year between the racing teams and the FIA, regarding the upcoming
1966 Formula 1 engine limit, became a comedy of errors. The racing teams really wanted a 2L
limit, but overstated their demands thinking the FIA would then make a reduced counter offer;
the FIA did not. This resulted in a move from the then current 1.5L limit to a 3L limit (or 1.5L if
supercharged) 96. This would prove to have significant repercussions for the relationship Lotus
and Coventry Climax.
The 1966 Lotus Type 41 was designed by John Joyce, assisted by Dave Baldwin, and
was a Formula 2/3/B which made significant use of steel (!). The various versions of this car: the
41 (Formula 2), the 41B (Formula B, American), and the 41C (Formula 3) all made use of the
Cosworth MAE engine of about 100 hp (75 kW) and the Hewland Mk4 4-speed transmission.
By this time Lotus had come to do considerable wind tunnel testing at MIRA, and the Type 41
was subject to a thorough aerodynamic evaluation.
The 1966 Lotus Type 42 was an Indy car developed from the successful Type 38; the
aluminum monocoque chassis was designed around a proposed 4.2L BRM H-16 engine of 650
hp (485 kW) which was to serve as the rear structure; the design had great problems as the
engine was not ready. Consequently there was a Type 42F version which had a Ford Quad Cam
V8 as an attempt to fix problems for 1967 season; however it also had problems. Given this
situation all work on the Type 42 Indy car was halted.
The 1966 Lotus Type 43 Formula 1 car, as a result of the FIA rule change regarding
maximum engine capacity, was to use a 3L (2996 cc) version of the BRM H16 engine, also
serving as rear structure 97. The engine was to prove to be very heavy (555 lb, or 252 kg),
accompanied by a heavy 6-speed transmission/clutch (118 lb, or 53.5 kg), resulting in a total
vehicle weight of around 1105 lb (501 kg) despite the economy of using the engine as the rear
structure. With neither the 3L F1 (375 hp/280 kW) nor the 4.2L Indy (now 585 hp/436 kW)
version of the BRM H16 operative, and with Coventry Climax no longer building Formula 1
race engines due to their own debacle with the FWMW flat-16, Chapman was forced to
approach Cosworth 98 for a new 3L F1 V8 engine of 400 lb (181 kg) NTE (not to exceed)
weight. Chapman’s partner in this venture with Cosworth was Ford of Europe which budgeted
£100,000 for the effort 99. The resulting Cosworth Ford DFV (“Double Four Valve”) engine with
clutch (!) weighed only 370 lb (168 kg), well under the NTE. The original F1 version of this
engine was of 2993 cc (182.6 cid) capacity with 408 hp (304 kW) @ 9000 rpm power and 270
lb-ft (366 N-m) @ 7000 rpm torque, but those specs would change with development and
application as the Cosworth Ford DFV was destined to become one of the most popular racing
engines of all time 100.
As if Lotus didn’t have enough to do in 1966, in typical Chapman fashion there was also
the design of the Lotus Type 44 for Formula 2. The Type 44 was a development of the Type 35
suitable only for the last year of F2 racing with a 1 liter engine limit, so this was a project of very
96
Ibid, pg. 67.
97
Ibid, pg. 14.
98
This had to be difficult for Chapman considering the rift he had created with Keith Duckworth.
99
100
Engine development carried on up into the 1980’s and resulted in many variants for various venues, some of
which were: DFY (530 hp), DFW (360 hp), DFZ (560 hp), DFR (630 hp), DFX (840 hp).
32
SAWE Paper No. 3640
short term prospects. The Type 44 had a full monocoque chassis, widened suspension, a 997 cc
(60.8 cid) Cosworth SCA engine, and the Type 41 nose and tail.
Commercially, appearing around this time the Elan S3/S4 convertible version of the Type
36 Elan S3 Coupe (which itself was a refinement of the original 1962 Type 26 Elan S1 and 1964
S2); it was internally designated the Type 45.
Also appearing commercially was the all new Lotus Type 46, a.k.a. the Europa S1, styled
by John Frayling; it had the backbone chassis of the Elan 101 with a Renault 16 engine of 1470 cc
(89.6 cid) displacement, 78 hp (58 kW) @ 6500 rpm power, 74 lb-ft (100 N-m) @ 4000 rpm
torque. The Europa had a base curb weight of 1351 lb (613 kg), and initially a very reclined
driver position with a height overall of only 42.5 in (107.9 cm). The reclined position was made
more upright in 1971 to broaden its appeal; what race drivers had to accept the public did not.
The body was GRP and bonded to the chassis to provide more rigidity; the backbone chassis
thus became sufficiently stiff for such a low torque road car 102. The Europa had a Cd of around
0.33 as measured (by scale model) in a wind tunnel at MIRA 103.
Following fast on the heels of the Type 46 was the Type 47A, which was the competition
version of the Europa. The competition version had a Ford Cosworth “Twin Cam” 13C DOHC
1594 cc (97.3 cid) engine of 165 hp (123 kW), and a special light weight version of the steel
backbone chassis which initially was still bonded with the body for sufficient stiffness, but that
was changed to a bolted connection after the Type 47A for reasons of reparability and
maintenance. The car was very successfully driven by John Miles and Jackie Oliver, winning
many championship events and setting numerous records.
The 1967 Type 48 was a Formula 2 car. It featured the 1599cc Ford Cosworth FVA
DOHC producing 220 bhp (164 kW) fitted to a Hewland FT200 transmission. The car had a full
monocoque chassis forward with a rear space frame chassis supporting the engine. The car was
successful in the 1967 season with 5 wins, but the car’s real claim to “fame” was at Hockenheim
on April 7th 1968 when Jim Clark was killed driving a Type 48.
Also in 1967 the Lotus Type 49 appeared, which was an update to the Lotus Type 43.
The Type 49 was the first Lotus F1 car to get the Cosworth Ford DFV (Double Four Valve) V8
that had been developed specifically for Lotus as sponsored by Ford’s £100,000. As noted,
initially this engine was of 2993 cc (182.6 cid) capacity with 408 hp (304 kW) @ 9000 rpm/270
lb-ft (366 N-m) @ 7000 rpm. The vehicle weight was around 1100 lb (499 kg), just a tad lighter
than the Type 43 from which it sprang 104. The Type 49 proved to be the fastest car in Formula 1,
but DNF’s were to give the Manufacturer’s Championship to Brabham (“Motor Racing
Developments”) 105 that year. However, the Type 49 would take Jim Clark to his third World
101
The Elan was front-engine, so the chassis was now reversed with the engine bay “fork” located aft as appropriate
for the Europa mid-engine configuration.
102
103
Ibid, pg. 236.
104
The FIA 1967 minimum weight limit for F1 was 500 kg (1102 lb). The idea was to discourage excessive weight
reduction resulting in insufficient structural strength.
105
Race driver John Arthur “Jack” Brabham (1926-2014) won the F1 World Championship in 1959 and 1960, but in
1962 began constructing his own line of race cars. In 1966 he became World Champion again at the wheel of one of
his own cars; he has been the only driver in F1 history to do so in a car carrying his own name.
33
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Driver’s Championship, and Lotus to the World Constructor’s Championship, in 1968, despite
the fact that at the end of 1967 season Lotus was forced (by the FIA) to relinquish its monopoly
of the Cosworth Ford DFV engine, and the fact that the 1968 Type 49 would initially gain about
90 lbs in weight during development.
It should be noted that tire/rim widths had continued to increase, and by this time were
12” front and 15” rear, which made the cars even more sensitive to camber changes. Although
unforeseen at the time, this rapid increase in rear (drive) tire contact area, plus other tire
improvements and use of aerodynamic down force, was to ultimately render future
experimentation in Formula 1 with 4WD problematic. Subsequent variations on the Lotus 49
were to introduce many innovations to Formula racing, such as: airfoils, high mounted wings,
wedge shaped bodywork, anti-dive suspension, and ground effects.
By this time the changing circumstances of Formula racing had led Colin Chapman to
become an aficionado of anti-dive/anti-squat suspension geometry, although not initially a fan of
the Cooper implementation of such geometry. The motivation for controlling vehicle attitude
change during acceleration/braking was to minimize the accompanying aero, camber, and c.g.
changes so that the handling would be more constant with greater traction, plus also reduce the
chance of inadvertent body/ground contact. However, the drivers usually found each attempt at
implantation of anti-dive/anti-squat objectionable; the Type 49B was without anti-dive because it
seemed to cause some instability under braking 106. The Type 49B resulted mainly from a
suspension design overhaul to reduce camber change as required by the wider tires. It had “dive
planes” alongside the nose and an upswept engine cover to reduce rear lift 107. Initially regarded
by Chapman as 90 lb overweight, it was ultimately pared down to 1160 lb against the minimum
weight limit of 1102 lb 108.
Of course, this being Lotus, there was other activity in 1967. That remaining activity
involved such things as Graham Hill rejoining Team Lotus 109, the Elan +2 (Type 50) making its
public appearance, along with the Type 51 racer intended for the new Formula Ford race series.
106
107
Ibid, pp. 233-234.
108
Ibid, pg. 204.
109
Ibid, pg. 14.
34
SAWE Paper No. 3640
7 – IN THE MONEY
1968 was very significant for at least two things that were not directly related to new car
development. It was the year Colin Chapman became a multi-millionaire through a 48% sale of
Lotus on the London Stock Exchange. It was also the year Jim Clark was killed driving a Type
48 in a Formula 2 race at Hockenheim 110. Both events were to have an effect on Colin Chapman,
but not necessarily for the good.
Despite those momentous events, the year was to be one of the busiest yet for Lotus on
the engineering front. A good deal of that weight savings on the Type 49B came about around
this time through an improved internal/aerodynamic arrangement wherein the oil tank & cooler
were moved from the nose to the tail, closer to the engine and in better airflow. Reduced
plumbing, tank/cooler size, and oil amount should have resulted in a weight reduction
comparable to the 40 lb (18 kg) saved when the Type 25 had a similar reduction in oil-
tank/radiator/coolant/oil. Around this point the Type 49B was also to sprout the infamous high-
mounted (to get up into a “cleaner” airflow) inverted wings so as to use aero “down-force” to
maximize traction from the large rear tires; this was a tactic soon widely adopted wherever
possible by others.
Adding to the hustle and bustle was the development of the Lotus Type 52, a prototype of
the road going Lotus Europa reconfigured to be powered by the Ford Cosworth Twin Cam
DOHC 1594 cc engine as used previously in the competition Type 47A Europa; the production
version was destined to emerge in 1971. There was also some work on a Type 53 sports car that
never got very far, no doubt due to the volume of other business. There was further development
with the Europa as the Type 54, or Lotus Europa S2, used the Renault engine but now obtained
the refinements of electric windows, fully adjustable seats, upgraded interior, and a polished
wood dashboard fascia. Following the competition Europa precedent, the road car body was now
bolted, rather than bonded, to the chassis due to pressure from the insurance industry. Some of
the Europa S2’s were made to US spec as the Lotus Type 65 (1969-1971). Completing the model
sequence up to this point was the Type 55 (a.k.a. the Type 41X) which was a Formula 3
Prototype in what was to become the familiar Lotus wedge shape.
The most momentous engineering effort of the year was yet another Indy car, the Type
56, but with a Pratt & Whitney (of Canada) STN6/76 gas turbine engine 111, rated at 500 hp (373
kW), installed in a 4WD (Ferguson 112) monocoque/ladder frame chassis. The Lotus 56 was made
by Lotus as a follow-on to an earlier (1967) gas turbine attempt by STP Company CEO Andy
Granatelli and his designer Ken Wallis (relation of famed engineer Barnes Wallis) using a Pratt
& Whitney of Canada ST6B-62 rated at 550 hp (410 kW). That car weighed 1750 lb (794 kg),
which was considerably over the USAC Indy car minimum weight of 1350 lb (612 kg). That
110
Ibid, pp. 14-15.
111
Reference [1], pg. 177. All of the Canadian P&W gas turbines used in the STP Indy car attempts were members
of the famed PT6 family of turbo-shaft engines, which in US Military configuration are usually denoted with T74 or
T101 designations. Some sources give the Type 56 engine designation differently, such as “STNB6B-74”, but in any
case all the Indy race car engines were special variants exclusive to that particular race vehicle type.
112
Ferguson Research Ltd was an early developer of 4WD systems, and the 1961 Ferguson P99 racer was the first
4WD car to win an F1 event, and the last front-engine car to do so. The P99 went on to a fair amount of success as a
hill climb car, and around 1964 Ferguson withdrew from F1 racing and relinquished their exclusive hold on the
4WD technology.
35
SAWE Paper No. 3640
car, driven by Parnelli Jones, came spectacularly close to winning, with the consequence that
USAC “immediately” (in contrast to the usual two year lead time before such rule changes took
effect) severely restricted the air intake area for turbines, ostensibly to achieve “parity” with the
conventional piston engine Indy cars. This drove Granatelli to go to the masters of light weight
design, Lotus, to counter the effect of the USAC restrictions by achieving a more efficient
(reduced weight) design. The Lotus 56 certainly achieved that with a weight of 1345 lb (610.1
kg) that was almost exactly at the USAC minimum weight of 1350 lb (612.3 kg), plus having
the new anti-lift Lotus wedge shape.
The Type 56 was to prove to be spectacular, but Lotus driver Mike Spence would be
killed testing one. Nevertheless, three Lotus Type 56 Indy gas turbine cars were fielded by the
STP-Paxton team in 1968 113. The one driven by Joe Leonard (#60) was fastest qualifier at
171.559 mph and led the race until a DNF (fuel pump drive shaft failure) at 9 laps to go (lap
191) 114. Art Pollard and Graham Hill drove the #20 and #70 cars, respectively; each of which
DNF’d even earlier.
Figure 1.15 – 1967 LOTUS TYPE 56 GAS TURBINE INDY CAR

Despite the air intake area restrictions imposed by USAC, the Lotus Type 56 had still
come perilously close to winning the most prestigious racing event in the US. This resulted in
USAC dropping all pretenses at “parity” by banning gas turbine cars outright, and later banning
4WD as well 115.
Given the near success of the Type 56 turbine at Indy it was inevitable that there would
be attempts to adapt the design to other venues. Hence the Type 56B, which was a Type 56 with
the wedge shape body bulged out for more fuel in order to compete in Formula 1. Despite a
stupendous development effort, the gas turbine was just not as well suited for the repeated
acceleration-deceleration cycles of Formula 1 racing as it had been for the more constant high
113
For 1968 Ken Wallis had partnered with Carol Shelby to produce two new highly revised turbine cars, but those
vehicles never raced due to the USAC imposed air inlet restrictions.
114
Reference [7], pg.76.
115
So much for the slogan “Racing improves the breed”. Improving the breed is a not the motivating force behind
racing, making money by providing a public spectacle is.
36
SAWE Paper No. 3640
speed operation of Indianapolis. In Grand Prix configuration the STN6/76 gas turbine seemed
destined for success with about 600 hp (446 kW), in contrast to the 425 hp (317 kW) of the
contemporary F1 Ford Cosworth V8. However, the turbine’s high fuel consumption, lack of
engine braking, and a long (3 second) acceleration response lag was crippling in F1.
Development became a long struggle with the F1 turbine car not being really race ready until
1971.
Given the uncertainty concerning the F1 turbine car, Lotus decided not to “put all their
eggs into one basket”; there was also a conventionally powered F1 car, the Type 57, plus a Type
58 to be derived from it for F2. Both cars were to be built on essentially same monocoque
chassis, but neither design ever got very far. The F2 effort distracted from the more important
F1, but was engaged in because of an abundance of F2 engines at hand. Both vehicles had de
Dion rear suspension (initially beam axles at both front and rear had been considered) 116, a
design atavism indicative of the desperation prevalent due to the demands of finding a
suspension design capable of handling the camber requirements of the ever increasing tire
widths. The wedge shape cars initially had axles constructed like space-frames, with the front
axle having the rack & pinion steering gear built into it (Indy car style) for improved steering
precision at the expense of increased unsprung weight. The Type 58 suspension frequencies of
100 cps fwd and 105 cps aft (full up) were “harder” than earlier cars, but the vehicle still had too
much pitch. The suspension had low roll centers which made getting by without ARB’s another
problem; ultimately ARB’s were cobbled into the design. In the end, Type 57/58 development
would have to be abandoned due to the pressing needs of newer designs, but Colin Chapman
would continue to look to a high-tech return to beam axles as a solution to the camber control of
wide tires problem for some time after.
There was also a contemporary development of a Type 59 for F2 which was notable for
both front nose wings and a rear wing. From this vehicle there was a Type 59B variant for F3,
plus a Type 59F variant for Formula Ford. These vehicles all had a tube space frame chassis and
GRP body, with variations on a Holbay Ford R68 engine of 997 cc (61 cid) capacity rated at 117
hp (87 kW). The F3 version won its championship, while the F2 and Ford versions did not do as
well.
On the commercial side the Lotus Seven S4 got a new chassis, a revised GRP body, and
a choice of engines (Ford, Cosworth, and Coventry Climax), to become the Lotus Type 60.
Which brings the accounting up to the Type 61, which was a Formula Ford racer with a space
frame chassis, the now “traditional” Lotus wedge shape GRP body, plus a Holbay Ford LH105
1600E engine rated at 105 hp (78 kW); there was also a cheaper Type 61M non-racing variant
intended solely for use by the Jim Russel Driving Schools. From the Type 47 Europa road car
was developed a Type 62 for racing in the FIA Group 6 Prototype Sports Car class. Designed by
Martin Waide (of Lotus Components 117), the Type 62 had a space frame chassis, a GRP body,
the new Lotus LV240 118 DOHC 2 liter (1995 cc, or 122 cid) engine rated @ 220 hp (164 kW),
116
Reference [7], pg. 136. Reference [3], pg. 175.
117
In 1969 Lotus consisted of a Group Lotus holding company which held the subsidiaries Lotus Cars, Lotus
Components, Lotus Sales, Lotus Developments, and Team Lotus. To facilitate the covert shifting of money around
between these entities they tended to have different fiscal years.
118
Circa 1966 Vauxhall Motors unveiled a slant-four engine which coincidently turned out to be very close in
specification to an engine that had been in a conceptual stage at Lotus. In typical Chapman “short-cut” fashion; the
37
SAWE Paper No. 3640
and a ZF 5-speed transmission. In time the LV240 engine would become the Lotus Type 907
engine which ultimately would provide power for the road-going Elite, Esprit, Eclat, and Excel,
but in this early form what it mainly provided was problems which kept the Type 62 from being
very successful; only two Type 62’s were built.
A few months into the 1969 season at the Spanish Gran Prix two spectacular Lotus 49B
high wing failures lead the FIA to establish a high wing ban. Lotus had been raising the rear
wing ever higher to get it out of the turbulent air flow, with everyone else following suit. The
Lotus design was especially radical in that it was connected to the un-sprung suspension
components, and thereby was directly subject to road shock and vibration. And, as usual, Colin
Chapman kept the structure to an absolute minimum. Inevitably, the wing on Graham Hill’s
Lotus failed and the car crashed heavily into the barriers. Only 11 laps later teammate Jochen
Rindt’s Lotus was to have an identical failure in exactly the same place. Hill was able to
participate in the extraction of Rindt from the wreckage; only Rindt would be seriously injured,
but notice was taken. Along with the ban on high wings there would be limits on wing size; other
aero device restrictions were soon to follow.
Along with Chapman’s interest in wings and beam axles at this time, he retained an
interest in 4WD as a way to gain an “edge”. Despite BRM’s earlier failure to make 4WD a
success in F1 119, Colin Chapman based the Lotus Type 63 F1 on the Type 56 Indy car; it was
4WD with all I/B brakes, a 2993 cc (183 cid) Ford DFV engine mated to a Hewland ZF 5-speed
transmission, feeding into a fore-aft torque-split differential. Initially set to a 40%/60% fore/aft
torque split, that changed with experience to 18%/82% in order to make it handle more like a
RWD; but the car was still slow 120. The car was also heavy at 1,246 lb (565.2 kg) 121 and difficult
to drive; both Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt preferred the older Type 49. The real problem was
that, with the advent of wider tires and aft weight bias, F1 acceleration was not really traction
limited anymore:
“We slowly found out that two-wheel drive was just as quick as
four-wheel drive with half the problems.”
Bob Dance, Team Lotus mechanic.
The Lotus Indy effort for 1969, the Type 64, utilized a turbo-Ford quad-cam V8 of 1000
hp (746 kW) due to the USAC gas turbine ban. The Type 64 also had an aluminum monocoque
Vauxhall engine was seized upon and revised to have an aluminum block (instead of iron) and a special alloy Lotus
cylinder head with dual camshafts.
119
When Ferguson made their 4WD technology available, BRM utilized that technology to produce their P67 4WD
car for use in the 1966 F1 season. The P67 was to prove to be about 150 lb (68 kg) overweight and, when entered in
the 1964 British Grand Prix, the slowest in the field. Withdrawn from F1 racing, it was to prove successful in hill
climbs, especially in the wet.
120
121
McLaren’s 4WD weighed about the same, and Matra’s 4WD was about 100 lb heavier. It would seem that 4WD
was extracting somewhat more than the touted 90 lb (41 kg) weight penalty.
38
SAWE Paper No. 3640
chassis and 4WD as Colin Chapman still felt 4WD would provide benefits in racing, and the
USAC 4WD ban had yet to take effect. Again, the car was difficult to drive and Graham Hill and
Jochen Rindt disliked it, so Mario Andretti was enlisted to drive it. Mario crashed in practice at
190 mph due to a wheel hub failure resulting from the high rear wing loading input. This fault
was enough to prevent the qualifying of the remaining two cars 122. Contrary to usual Lotus
performance, the Type 64 scaled 166 to 302 lbs over the weight limit. A large part of this
overweight was attributed to the 4WD; in a 1969 interview with The Motor magazine Colin had
set the minimum weight penalty for 4WD to be about 90 lb (40.8 kg), but a more probable
weight penalty at the time would have been around 150 lb (68.0 kg).
Following on the heels of the Type 64 racer there was the Lotus Type 65 road car; The
Type 65 was just the US spec Europa with a slightly revised body and, to have sufficient power
despite the onset of crippling US emissions standards, a larger Renault-16 1565 cc (95.5 cid)
alloy engine. Despite this, it would not be long before Lotus would withdraw from the US
production car market because of the cost of complying with the ever increasing emissions and
safety regulations. However, Chapman did have some significant insights into the future of
commercial automotive manufacture:
“If you have a mold and lead a hose up to it and squirt something in a
hole and there was a complete motorcar…it can be stressed, in fact it can
be colored so you don’t have to paint it. This is what I would like to see
Lotus do on a commercial scale in a production car. And we will be doing
it within the next 10 years.”
True to form, Colin Chapman’s new mass production concept would materialize well
before the 10 year deadline he set for himself 123. And manufacturing was not the only area in
which Chapman was leading the technological charge; Chapman also set about sponsoring the
work of Shawn Buckley of the University of California at Berkeley regarding the under-side
aerodynamics of vehicles. Buckley had been the designer of the first high-mounted wing used on
an Indy racer, the Jerry Eisert “Bat Car” of 1966 124. Buckley was now investigating how, by
shaping a car's underside so that the air speed there would increase, the pressure could be
reduced generating a negative lift. His resulting test vehicles had a venturi-shaped channel on the
underside which was sealed by flexible side skirts from intrusion by “outside” air flow. Buckley
would also investigate how flow separation on the undersurface channel was influenced by
boundary layer suction and underbody surface divergence. Much of Buckley’s work would not
only influence Lotus, but Chaparral (Jim Hall), March (Robin Herd), Brabham (Gordon Murray),
and others. Later, as a mechanical engineering professor at MIT, Buckley would work with
Lotus on the development of the Lotus 78.
Rounding out the efforts of 1969, the Lotus Type 66 was a designation for a vehicle that
never materialized. Type 67 was a proposal for a Tasman series car, while Type 68 was a
122
123
Ibid, pg. 33.
124
Jerry Eisert was one of the top USAC mechanic/constructors during the 1960s. He worked with J. Frank Harrison
for much of the decade building "Harrison Special" USAC cars for 1965-1967. Eisert went solo at the end of 1967.
In 1969, Eisert Racing Enterprises produced a new wedge-shaped car for Formula A/USAC and sold four or five
examples in the years 1969-1970.
39
SAWE Paper No. 3640
prototype for Formula A/5000 that utilized a wedge shaped body, monocoque chassis, a Ford
Boss 302 V8, and a Hewland LG600 4-speed transmission.
40
SAWE Paper No. 3640
8 – FULL THROTTLE
In 1970 Lotus continued to keep its fingers in many pies. The Lotus Type 69 was loosely
based on the Type 59; the Formula 2 car had a revised suspension, forward monocoque chassis, a
Cosworth FVA/BDG engine (serving as the aft chassis), and the new “rubber bag” (fuel cell)
gasoline tanks in accord with the latest FIA regulations, which included a ban on moveable
aerodynamic devices 125. Versions of the Type 69 were to be also raced in Formula 3, Formula B,
and Formula F (Formula Ford). There was also a Lotus Type 70, a much modified Type 68 for
use in the USA Formula 5000. This car also had a wedge shape body on a monocoque chassis,
but with a Ford Boss 302 cid V8 engine (initially a Chevy 5 liter V8). It had some success in the
US and later (1971) in the Tasman series (Australia, New Zealand) and Formula A, but only
seven Type 70 cars were ever built. That would still be better than the Type 71, a still-born
design designation with no cars ever built.
More auspiciously, 1970 would be the year for the debut of the Lotus Type 72;
“auspiciously” because the Type 72 would become the most successful Formula 1 race car of all
time. The Lotus 72 sprouted what would become iconic side radiators because the “standard”
Lotus wedge shape body prompted the movement of the radiator away from the thin nose, and
the subsequent placement aftward near the c.g. on both sides reduced both vehicle weight (less
plumbing/coolant) and yaw inertia; this was the result of the combined ideas of Colin Chapman
and Chief Designer Maurice Phillippe 126 .
Other notable Lotus 72 design features include the wedge shape GRP body itself, a
forward monocoque chassis, with a stressed Cosworth Ford DFV 2993 cc (182.6 cid) V8 engine
aft, a Hewland FG 5-speed transmission, I/B front brakes, variable rate compound torsion bar
suspension all around 127, and a multi-element rear wing 128. At first Chapman had anti-dive/anti-
squat geometry (finally conceding to the Cooper type implementation) installed, but drivers
Jochen Rindt and John Mills found the handling adversely affected, as Inns Ireland had found
before 129.
Around this time the FIA (then acting through its arm the CSI) withdrew its restrictions
on sponsorship, so initially the 72 got to be sponsored by Gold Leaf, then by John Player 130, the
Type 72 set the paradigm to which Formula 1 race cars continue to be constructed. The Type 72
won the 1970, 1972, and 1973 World Constructor’s Championships; Jochen Rindt drove the
Type 72 to the 1970 World Driver’s Championship while Emerson Fittipaldi took it to the 1972
World Driver’s Championship.
125
Of course, Colin Chapman tried to evade the ban by installing hidden rubber mounts for his rear wing, which
allowed a certain amount of automatic “feathering” movement under load, but Jack Brabham “ratted out” Colin to
the FIA.
126
Reference [7], pp. 15, 235. However, in this as in so many other things, there was a precedent. The 1938 Indy car,
the Marchese Brothers Special, featured low side mounted radiators, along with a tube chassis and a Miller V8.
127
Such torsion bars had been used by Vauxhall in the 1930’s on its version of the Dubonnet front suspension, by
Mercedes Benz in 1954 on the front suspension of its W196 Grand Prix car, and again for the 1955 300SLR.
128
129
Ibid, pg. 140.
130
“John Player” & “Gold Leaf” are trademarks associated with Imperial Tobacco, a major tobacco products
manufacturer in the UK. Colin Chapman was a pioneer in bringing in such non-automotive sponsorships to
international racing. Today John Player cigarettes are very popular in the orient.
41
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Figure 1.16 – 1970 LOTUS TYPE 72 IN “GOLD LEAF” LIVERY
Figure 1.17 – 1972 LOTUS TYPE 72 IN “JOHN PLAYER” LIVERY
42
SAWE Paper No. 3640
However, the world title would be awarded posthumously for Jochen Rindt, as he would
be killed at Monza during practice 131. Although there would be a number of contributing factors
to Rindt’s death, an Italian court of investigation would conclude the accident was caused by the
failure of the right front inboard brake shaft while under hard use for navigating the Parabolica
corner. There had been no similar conclusion concerning the death of Jim Clark, but Clark’s
vehicle had also exhibited a sudden veering to the left and into the fencing (and off the track);
some speculated as the result of a sudden rear tire deflation (among other possibilities). The
deaths of these two great champions would come to represent only a very small part of an
extraordinarily long list of professional drivers killed or severely injured while driving a
Lotus 132.
In 1971 Emmerson Fittipaldi became the lead Team Lotus driver, with Reine Wisell as
his second. Chapman acquired Moonraker Boats, and developed advances in fiberglass
construction through a Lotus subsidiary (Technocraft) which ultimately lead to his patented
VARI (Vacuum Assisted Resin Infusion) process 133. Work on the Lotus Type 56B F1 with its
gas turbine and 4WD problems continued to divert much of Lotus resources 134, including taking
away from work on the Type 72 which was reacting badly to its new low profile Firestone tires.
The result of work on the Type 72 was the use of Koni shocks, reduction of the rising rate
springing, a return of rubber bump stops (which previously Chapman had deleted from the
design to save weight), a more moderate anti-squat, and the new Firestone tires. The
“improvements” set the stage for Fittipaldi’s championship 1972 season, but did little to improve
a forlorn 1971 F1 season 135.
Commercially in ’71, the Lotus Europa Twin Cam 105 hp (78 kW) production version
of the Type 52 prototype Europa (itself an extensive revision of the original Type 46 Europa)
became more luxurious, with a lower floor pan (allowing for a more upright seating position),
better rear vision, and lighter alloy wheels. By 1972 the upgraded Europa Special obtained even
more power with a rating of 126 hp (94 kW).
In 1972 the Lotus Type 72 reclaimed the promise it had shown in 1970; Emerson
Fittipaldi won the World Driver Championship with the Lotus 72, and the Type 72 won the
World Manufacturer Championship for Lotus 136. That year also saw the arrival of the Type 73
for Formula 3; it had a central monocoque chassis, side mounted radiators (à la the Type 72), a
sub-frame for the front suspension, a stressed Novamotor 137 Ford Twin Cam engine, and a
Hewland Mk 8 5-speed transmission. Raced as the “John Player Special” (only 2 were made) it
had some success in ’72 and more success in ’73, after which Lotus lost interest in Formula 3.
131
Ibid, pg. 15.
132
That list would include Stirling Moss (twice badly injured, 1960 and 1962), Alan Stacey (d. 1960), Ricardo
Rodríguez (d. 1962), Gary Hocking (d. 1962) Mike Taylor (severely injured in 1960 when Lotus 18 steering column
broke in two, he sued Lotus for damages and won), Jim Clark (d. 1968), Mike Spence (d. 1968), Bobby Marshman
(d. 1964), Graham Hill (injured in 1969, but died piloting his private plane in 1975), Jochen Rindt (d. 1970), and
Ronnie Peterson (d. 1978).
133
134
135
Ibid. pg. 143.
136
Ibid, pg. 15.
137
Located in Novara, Italy; Novamotor is a long established firm that specializes in the tuning of Formula race car
engines.
43
SAWE Paper No. 3640
The 1973 Lotus 74 was a Formula 2 Lotus raced by Team Lotus under the sponsorship of
Texaco, just as the Formula 1 and 3 Lotus efforts were by this time all sponsored by John Player.
The “Texaco Star” was the first Lotus to be designed by Ralph Bellamy (formerly of McLaren,
Brabham), who worked within the established Lotus paradigm: GRP wedge shape body,
aluminum monocoque tub, I/B brakes, torsion bar suspension similar to the Type 72, but
powered by the new Lotus 906 16-valve “2 liter” 1973 cc (120.4 cid) engine (which naturally, as
the 900 engine series was based on a Vauxall block design, would also be used by
Vauxhall/Jensen Healey in a detuned 155 hp/116 kW state). However, for racing the engine
needed more power and was upgraded by Novamotor of Italy to 275 hp (205 kW).
Unfortunately, the engine proved to be unreliable, at least in part because the block was not stiff
enough to constitute the aft part of the structure in the Lotus “tradition”; lateral acceleration
(turning) induced torsion played havoc with the crankshaft and camshafts. Lotus drivers
Emerson Fittipaldi and Ronnie Peterson grew disgusted with the effort and turned their
concentration on the action in Formula 1. Not long after Texaco withdrew its sponsorship, and
Formula 2 was totally revised by the FIA at end of the season, with the result that Lotus never
competed in the series again.
The Elite, or Type 75, was the first of a new line of commercial Lotus up-market cars in
1974; the Elite was the first Lotus production car to have a totally Lotus engine in the form of the
907 twin-cam of 1973 cc (120.4 cid) displacement and 160 hp (119 kW) power. It was also the
first Lotus car to be constructed using the new VARI process for GRP bodies. The Elite was a 4-
seat sports model styled by Oliver Winterbottom, but was considered heavy for a Lotus at
around 2240 lb (1016 kg) in curb weight. It had a low Cd of around 0.30 as determined by wind
tunnel testing at MIRA.
For Formula 1 the Lotus Type 76 was designed by Ralph Bellamy to include Colin’s idea
for an automatic clutch. While basically a great idea, the Lotus auto-clutch implementation had
big problems in operation 138. The Type 76 also proved to be too heavy, which was odd since in
concept it was supposed to be a “lighter Type 72”. To further complicate matters it was accused
of poor handling; Ronnie Peterson refused to drive it in preference of the older Type 72, and the
automatic clutch development got dropped due to workload 139. However, the idea received
validation in that automatic clutch control is now the norm in Formula 1 140. Again torsion bar
suspension was used, but this was to be the last time for Chapman as he reverted to his earlier
coil spring/damper units for the rest of his career.
The new Lotus series of commercial cars continued in 1975 with the Eclat, a 2+2, which
was essentially a Lotus Elite with the same chassis (and the same horrendous rust problem),
mechanicals, and interior, but now in a hatchback form which allowed for the addition of rear
seats 141. The Eclat itself went on to form the basis of the Excel in the 1980’s. Somehow Colin
Chapman found the time during all this hectic activity to write his famous “Future Spec for F1
Car” in which he stated a need for “a better determination of how tire grip varies with normal
138
Although the clutch was auto-controlled hydraulically with gear lever actuation during race operation, the
Chapman visualization of “two pedal” operation actually involved four pedals: a clutch pedal for start up only, two
linked brake pedals, and the accelerator pedal.
139
Reference [7], pp. 15, 34.
140
Ibid, pg. 101.
141
Ibid, pg. 15.
44
SAWE Paper No. 3640
load”(!), among many other things, including the need to set a “target..weight…well below the
legal minimum weight”. The tire grip portion set off a flurry of subsequent activity by Lotus
engineer Nigel Bennett by way of investigating tire behavior 142. Other revealing aspects of this
manifesto are 143:
“A racing car has only ONE objective: to WIN races…it does not
matter how clever it is, or how inexpensive, or how easy to
maintain, or even how safe; if it does not…win it is
NOTHING! 144”
“…increasing the surplus of power…over total resistance…is BY

FAR the most paramount item of performance…every other
consideration MUST be secondary to achieving absolute
minimum dead weight.”
The next of the new commercial series appeared in 1976; the Esprit S1 was a mid-engine
two seat sports car styled by the famous Giorgetto Giugiaro (but used Fiat X1/9 tail lights and
other “borrowed” components, in 1978 for the S2 version the tail lights would become Rover
SD1 units). It had a modified Europa back bone chassis, with a Lotus 907 16 valve DOHC 2 liter
engine of 145 hp (108 kW) power (US version, 160 hp or 119 kW European) and a curb weight
of about 2205 lb (1000 kg).
Despite sensational styling (showcased in the 1977 James Bond film “The Spy Who
Loved Me”) and superb handling, the S1 car had low power, overheating, chassis rust, and other
problems which were partly solved by the S2 in 1977, and mostly solved by the S2.2 in 1980.
The S2.2 got the Lotus 912 16 valve DOHC engine of 2.2 liter (134.3 cid)/ 160 hp (119 kW) and
a galvanized chassis. The Esprit had a Cd of around 0.34 as determined by wind tunnel tests at
MIRA.
142
Ibid, pg. 146. Nigel Bennett would go on to become a designer for Penske in the late 80’s/early 90’s. His PC17
design was the class of the CART field in 1988, and Bennett designed Penske cars were front-runners through 1995.
143
In this document Chapman also revealed that he was well aware that tire traction was significantly different in
behavior from classical friction in that “it is NOT independent of area”, but this does not signify he had a
completely modern understanding of the phenomenon.
144
In a broader sense this may be how Chapman regarded life; if one did not achieve great wealth and power in life
and become a “toff” then one’s life is NOTHING, which is probably a life lesson absorbed from his father.
45
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Figure 1.18 - THE 1976 LOTUS ESPRIT, “007”, AND “Q”

It was in 1976 that Colin Chapman would be awarded a patent on the VARI (Vacuum
Assisted Resin Injection) process for mass production of GRP structures. The process would
first be used on Moonraker boat production, then for Lotus car bodies, and finally would be
licensed to DeLorean as part of that fateful deal 145. That which Chapman had “prophesized” back
in 1969 for the production of car bodies had indeed come to pass, and in a good deal less time
than ten years.
145
46
SAWE Paper No. 3640
9 – THE FINISH LINE
It was somewhere around this point in time that a rather significant event occurred, at
least for Colin Chapman, which gets almost no recognition; Chapman’s father Stanley was killed
in a road accident. The impact of the death of one’s father is always significant to the individual,
but for Chapman the effect had to go a long way beyond the usual grief and sorrow. Chapman’s
whole lifestyle, his determination to succeed, may be attributable to his father’s influence.
Stanley Chapman had done very well for himself in what was still a very class conscious society,
and he had imparted to his son the drive to do even better. In large part all that Colin had
accomplished was done to acquire his father’s approval; now that his father was gone that source
of stability and motivation was gone as well. This goes a long way towards explaining the last
years of Colin’s life…
In any case, on the surface at least, things seemed to go on as before. In yet another
attempt to arrive at a lighter weight than the Type 72 or Type 76, the Lotus 77 Formula 1 was
tasked to be designed by Len Terry, with Geoff Aldridge responsible for the monocoque
structure and Martin Ogilvie handling the suspension. However, the 77 was also to be an
experiment in providing adjustability. Adjustability up to this time generally meant the ability to
change such detail settings as damper/spring stiffness, camber angle, caster angle, toe-in, tire
pressures, and anti-roll bar stiffness. The 77 was to go way beyond that sort of thing with the
ability to adjust fundamental dimensions such as wheelbase (±10”), front track (±9”), and rear
track (±4”) 146. This extreme adjustability may have come about from a case of not really
knowing what to do next, but Colin Chapman would rationalize the matter as follows 147:
“It was obvious that to optimize the design of a car to suit all
circuits was becoming much more difficult. Although we have all
been capable of making minor adjustments and changes to
things like springs and roll bars, dampers and so on...it has not
been possible up to now to change the basic configuration…This
car…is an attempt to produce what could be described as a
‘variable geometry’ racing car 148…”
However, when it came to making one part serve more than one function, Chapman
stayed in character. Contrary to previous practice, the Type 77 was fitted with O/B front
brakes 149; this design allowed the brake calipers to serve double duty as suspension attachments
thereby saving considerable structure 150. As weighed just before the Brazilian GP, the two Type
146
1955 Mercedes had approached the problem differently by creating three different wheelbase versions of its
W196.
147
Ibid, pg. 37. Chapman was well known for his ability to provide a seemingly reasonable, though not necessarily
truthful, rationale for just about anything.
148
This “variable geometry” terminology was applied earlier in the aerospace industry to aircraft such as the
Grumman F-14 Tomcat (1972). This may provide a hint as to what may have inspired the dimensional adjustability
of the Lotus 77; Colin Chapman was notoriously wide read.
149
150
Ibid, pg. 143.
47
SAWE Paper No. 3640
77’s of Team Lotus weighed 1,281 and 1,283 lbs, each just over the minimum weight of 1,268
lb (575 kg), with a fore/aft percent weight distribution of 34.5/65.5 which was about average
for such vehicles at the time; however, only the Lotus had a 50/50 lateral weight
distribution 151. For perspective, consider the weights of some contemporary F1 vehicles:
Table 1.1 – 1976 FORMULA 1 WEIGHT COMPARISON

Colin had also still maintained an interest in anti-dive/anti-squat (there was an anti-dive
provision on the Type 77 front suspension) 152:
“Anti-dive, although in theory desirable to reduce required ground

clearance, has proved enigmatic in practice and would tend to reduce the
car pitch change…(anti-dive) probably still desirable in order to provide
more outside rear wheel dynamic suspension travel.”
“Enigmatic” would prove to be a good word to use in conjunction with the Type 77; the
77 would exhibit strange handling problems: initially it would understeer, then oversteer. It’s
possible that having so much adjustability placed it beyond the Team Lotus capability to find the
right setting during the course of each race (this was before the advent of computer simulations
that would allow for the virtual testing of a vehicle over a course before the actual race). In any
case Mario Andretti, who had just that year joined Team Lotus 153, pronounced the car a “dog”.
The failure of the 77 to make up for the disappointing 76 as a replacement for the now obsolete
72 only served to spur on the next attempt: the Type 78.
151
Many contemporaries were quite cavalier about tracking and controlling lateral weight distribution; many
weight accounting ledgers only tracked the weight and the longitudinal/vertical CG coordinates (for an example
of what was then considered adequate weight accounting see Reference [4], pg. 110).
152
Ibid, pg. 144.
153
Reference [7], pg.101.
48
SAWE Paper No. 3640
The Type 78 would be the first full “ground effect” Lotus Formula 1 machine 154; ground
effects promised to provide as much, if not more, down force as wings but with less induced
drag. It was designed with numerous contributors, but mainly by Colin Chapman, Ralph
Bellamy, Peter Wright, Tony Rudd, and Martin Qgilvie 155. Shawn Buckley, now a professor at
MIT, assisted Lotus on the design. The Type 78 had large side-pods between the front and rear
wheels which were shaped as inverted airfoils, with tough flexible skirts “sealing” the ground
clearance gap. Cellite, a sandwich of aluminum honeycomb with Duralumin facings, was used
for some of the monocoque panels 156. To the vehicle Mario Andretti also contributed, with an
idea for a lock-up differential mechanism to be included in the new Lotus-Getrag “Goggobox”
transaxle, a device sought by Chapman as a replacement for the heavy and bulky Hewland. The
initially used “Goggobox” was based on the much earlier Lotus “queerbox” design; it was both
more compact and lighter (by 14 lb, or 6.4 kg) than the usual Hewland. However, the
“Goggobox” repeatedly failed in operation necessitating a return to the Hewland 157. Regardless,
with this design Team Lotus won five F1 races that year, and two more races in 1978 before the
even more extreme Lotus 79 could be deployed.
By 1978 Ralph Bellamy left Lotus for Fittipaldi Automotive 158, and Lotus (Chapman)
agreed to reengineer the nascent DeLorean car. The DeLorean prototype was regarded by Lotus
engineers as a hopeless mess, but Chapman was irresistibly drawn to the money and glamour of
DeLorean 159.
154
This is not the same “ground effect” as that incurred by an aircraft flying at an altitude above ground plane
roughly equal in magnitude to, say, about ½ of its wingspan, which is an increase in lift, not down-force.
155
In the US Jim Hall of Chaparral race car fame had experimented with “ground effect” as early as 1961, but
difficulties in generating a consistent aero-pressure differential between the top and bottom surfaces of the vehicle
resulted in a reliance on high mounted wings for “down-force” through 1966. By 1970 Hall was generating the
necessary pressure differential directly by using fans to “suck” air from under the vehicle, in conjunction with the
use of “skirts” (aero-seals) along the under-surface periphery to impede any normalizing return flow. By the end of
the year Hall’s fan generated down-force was eliminated as “movable aerodynamic devices’ were banned from most
automotive sport by US sanctioning bodies. In Europe the similar 1978 Brabham BT46B “Fancar” was designed by
Gordon Murray. Murray tried to claim the fan purpose was to provide engine cooling, but the FIA quickly enacted a
ban anyway.
156
Long used in the aerospace industry, the first automotive use of honeycomb panels was possibly by Ford in its J-
Car of 1966, which evolved into the Mark IV GT. Simple sandwich panel construction of wood (possibly balsa)
surfaced by metal sheets had appeared much earlier, long before Colin Chapman’s first builds.
157
Ibid, pg. 104.
158
In 1974 champion F1 driver Emmerson Fittipaldi and his brother Wilson had established their own race car
design and construction business in their native São Paulo, Brazil with the financial backing of the Brazilian sugar
conglomerate Copersucar; the vehicles produced by Fittipaldi Automotive were often referred to as Copersucar-
Fords, etc.
159
High-flying, and arrogant, American automotive exec John Z. DeLorean established the DeLorean Motor
Company with British government backing as a means to revive the impoverished Belfast area of Northern Ireland.
The design errors and mismanagement regarding the production of the subsequent DMC-12 would become the stuff
of case histories for business students. The prototype vehicle appeared in 1976, production began in 1981, and the
company was out of business by 1983 (Reference [6], pp. 170-171).
49
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Figure 1.19 – 1981 DeLOREAN DMC-12

Concurrently, the Lotus 79 was under development as an attempt to get more effective
ground effect, now with the assistance of David Williams of the Cranfield Institute of
Technology160. Williams helped set up instrumentated studies of the “ground effect” down-force
in order to discover the exact nature of the phenomenon that Lotus was trying to tame.
The implementation of ground effect at this time required a slim central chassis for
maximum negative pressure area down the sides, inadvertently resulting in poor chassis torsional
stiffness 161. The stiffness when new would be around 3,000 lb-ft/deg (4067 Nm/deg), somewhat
less than the preceding Type 78. But by the end of a season of racing the torsional stiffness
would be down to around 1,500 lb-ft/deg (2034 Nm/deg). The high down-force generated
dictated stiff springs, which in turn required a stiffer chassis, but any reinforcement conflicted
with Colin Chapman’s Holy Grail of light weight.
This situation “irritated” Mario Andretti, who could hear rivets popping as he drove.
Nevertheless, Mario won the 1978 Formula 1 World Driver Championship with the Lotus Type
79, with fellow Team Lotus driver Ronnie Peterson taking second place, albeit posthumously162.
A general smash-up on the first lap at Monza that year mangled Peterson’s legs, causing his later
death by means of a fat embolism.
160
Initially titled the College of Aeronautics in 1946, it became the Cranfield Institute of Technology in 1969, and
finally Cranfield University in 1993.
161
162
Ibid, pg. 15. Peterson would be driving the older Type 78 at the time of his accident; his Type 79 had been
damaged in practice.
50
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Figure 1.20 – 1978 LOTUS TYPE 79 INVERTED WING SIDE-POD CONCEPT

1979 saw continued Lotus ground effect effort with the even more extreme Type 80 for
Formula 1. Originally called the “Wingless Wonder” (later some wing area was adopted), to
cope with the down-force ultra-stiff springs of 2500 lb/in (446 kg/cm), five times stiffer than pre-
ground effect, were fitted to the vehicle as evaluated by test driver Stephen South; extremely
harsh shock and vibration was his complaint, yet the springs were still not stiff enough to
completely control unwanted vertical motions 163. The problem was that changes in vehicle
speed, attitude, and ground clearance would vary the pressure and cause the CP to move about
affecting vehicle behavior; these were effects not observable in the more idealized environment
of the wind tunnel. The situation was so bad that drivers such as Mario Andretti and Alan Jones
ceased working in Formula One. Mario also had a major complaint in that, while the spring
stiffness had gone up significantly in response to the increased down force, the monocoque
structure still had not been beefed up at Colin’s insistence. In an attempt to regain stiffness while
maintaining light weight a renewed emphasis on honeycomb panel and titanium use
ensued…Despite all the effort and the cost, the Type 80 can only be regarded as a further step on
the road to nowhere.
Despite the struggles with ground effect and the complications of the DeLorean deal, in
1980 Chapman piled even more on his plate as he branched out into the ultra-light aircraft field.
Chapman teamed with aeronautical genius and entrepreneur Burt Rutan 164 to design what would
be called the “Microlight” aircraft; essentially Rutan was to design the airframe and Lotus would
design the engine. Chapman may have received some relief from his increasing frustration with
formula racing with this aeronautical diversion, but it only added to the already numerous
distractions from the “racing business”.
163
Ibid, pg. 273. The “unwanted motions” had been observed earlier to a limited extent on the Type 79. Essentially
pressure variation under the car when in motion caused a “bobbing” or “porpoising” of the vehicle which probably
in turn affected the pressure…
164
Elbert Leander “Burt” Rutan (1943- ) is an American aerospace engineer noted for his originality in designing
innovative light, strong, energy-efficient aircraft. In 1982 Burt Rutan founded Scaled Composites, LLC, which was
to become one of the world's pre-eminent aircraft design and prototyping facilities.
51
SAWE Paper No. 3640
With regard to that “racing business”, Lotus now designed the Lotus 81 and the Lotus 86
for Formula 1. The Type 81 was not very different from the Formula 1 ground effects cars that
had preceded it; it would have flexible skirts, a weight of 1280 lb (580 kg), and would be used
with some success by Mario Andretti, Elio de Angelis, and new comer Nigel Mansell during the
1980 season. In the meantime the Type 86 was being developed as a test vehicle and prototype
for the upcoming Type 88; the 86 received extensive testing but never ran in competition. Fixed
side skirts were still legal, but flexible skirts that could follow the contour of the track
surface were banned for 1981. Reputedly Colin Chapman’s interest in Formula 1was waning
around this time, which would be understandable given the frustrations of racing and the
numerous distractions.
The large gap in the designation sequence between the Type 81 and the Type 86 is
indicative of the increasing activity of the commercial arm of Lotus. In fact, the commercial
business had become so significant that it is hard to understand why the increasingly frustrating
and costly formula racing was not simply discontinued in order to concentrate on the “core
business” 165. “Hard to understand” that is, until the character of Colin Chapman is taken into
account. In any case, the Type 82 was the new Turbo Esprit which made its initial appearance in
1980 as the “Essex Turbo Esprit” (a special edition in the new F1 sponsor Essex Petroleum’s
colors) 166. Perhaps the impetus to turbocharge the Esprit came from the success of Lotus dealers
Bell and Colvill, who had been offering their own privately developed version based on the
standard 1978 Esprit S2. The Type 82 was followed by the 1980 Type 83 or Lotus Elite S2.2, so
called due to an upgrade from the 2 liter (122.0 cid) Lotus 907 engine to the larger 2.2 liter
(134.3 cid) Lotus 912. 1980 also saw the same engine upgrade for the Eclat as the Type 84, or
Eclat S2 167. The Eclat S2 also got a galvanized chassis, as did all Lotus commercial cars around
this time. Lastly, for 1980 (another busy year!) there was also the Type 85, which was the Lotus
Esprit S3, also upgraded to the 2.2 liter (134.3 cid) Lotus 912. Both the Esprit S3 and the Turbo
Esprit would get improved head and leg room and BBS alloy wheel, but only the S3 would get
more robust bumpers for the US market.
Profiting from the lessons learned with the Type 86 F1 test vehicle, came the 1981 Type
88 “twin-chassis” (based on a concept by Lotus research engineer Peter Wright) Formula 1 car
with its innovative carbon fiber tub 168. This advance in materials was novel in racing for 1981,
but was paralleled by McLaren. However, Lotus formed the tub using a core of Nomex
honeycomb faced with skins of both carbon & Kevlar fibers 169, and capped the tub ends with
165
Lotus commercial car production was originally instituted as a means to support the costly Lotus racing effort,
and the relationship with racing was initially symbiotic; racing success was necessary for publicity and sales.
However, that had not been the case for awhile. Around 1970 Colin himself noted of the marketing and racing
divisions “These two activities detracted from the profit made by the car-manufacturing company.”(Reference [7],
pg. 298).
166
Two Essex Turbo Esprits, in lieu of Essex livery painted white and copper respectively, made their appearance in
the James Bond film “For Your Eyes Only” in 1981.
167
It should be noted that for the US market these engine upgrades did not increase power levels, but only
maintained them due to the effect of US emissions regulations.
168
169
The McLaren MP4 supposedly was constructed from carbon fiber (CFRP) alone. Colin Chapman was suspicious
of carbon fiber ability to withstand the impact loads associated with accidents, hence the use of Kevlar
reinforcement. Maybe he was thinking of the way the suspension often tore through the glass fiber chassis of some
of the Lotus road cars…
52
SAWE Paper No. 3640
machined aluminum bulkheads. This construction proved to be both lighter and stiffer than the
(by then) “conventional” aluminum monocoque structure. Yet, as advanced as it was, the
carbon/Kevlar fiber composite center structure was not the most innovative feature of the 88; it
had a most unique solution to the ground effect/stiff springing problem. The stiff “springs”
necessitated by the high down-force loads generated by the advanced ground effects didn’t
isolate the first chassis very well from road shock and vibration, but there was a second chassis
(!) isolated from the first chassis by much more compliant conventional springs; it was in this
second chassis the driver resided (along with the engine, transmission, and fuel). This chassis
was pretty conventional in that it had a stressed Cosworth V8 serving as the aft portion and
double wishbone suspension; the other “chassis” consisted of a carbon fiber body (with under
tray) and fixed side skirts in lieu of the now banned flexible ones.
Figure 1.21 – 1981 LOTUS TYPE 88

Simultaneously with the Type 88 there was a parallel development of the Lotus Type 87,
which was designed as a more conventional backup to the Type 88 should that vehicle run into
difficulty either of a technical or legal nature, a precaution which turn out to be was almost
prescient.
The 1981 season had hardly started when the Lotus 88 “twin-chassis” concept got
disqualified, on the basis of being in violation of the existing FIA bans on “aero surfaces feeding
directly into the suspension” (as per the earlier high wings) and on “movable aero surfaces”.
Anticipating this sort of official objection, the down-force generating under tray had been
designed to feed its aero load into the suspension through hard rubber “springs” onto which the
under tray was lowered only at race speeds, but the FIA saw this as the ploy it was. The
disqualification generated three immediate reactions: 1) apoplexy on the part of Colin Chapman,
2) motivation for Peter Wright to explore an “active suspension” concept suggested by the
Cranfield Institute of Technology consultant David Williams (active suspension promised to
53
SAWE Paper No. 3640
maintain constant ground clearance while reducing driver punishment inflicted by the necessarily
stiff springs 170), and 3) the movement of the Type 87 from back-up to Lotus standard bearer.
The Type 87 would first run at the British GP in July, but fail to qualify. Drivers Elio de
Angelis and Nigel Mansell would manage to win some points, but the weight was too much.
Towards the end of the year a lighter Type 87B would be introduced. The season would close
out with the realization of the anticipated FIA ground effects ban: no side skirts of any kind, a
flat bottom between the axles (leaving the way open for rear “diffuser” technology), and a
minimum ground clearance of 6 cm (2.4 in) 171. At the same time FIA would ban having more
than four wheels and 4WD, and would set the minimum weight to 540 kg (1190.5 lb). That
winter the Type 87 would evolve into the Type 91.
In the new year of 1982 the Lotus Type 89 would appear as the Lotus Excel, a new 2575
lb (1168 kg) curb weight road car of 50/50 weight distribution. It would be built utilizing many
Toyota components per a new cooperative agreement between Lotus and Toyota, but still had a
Lotus 912 engine. There would also appear a Lotus Type 90, also to be known as Project X100,
which was a prototype for a proposed new Lotus: the Elan. It was designed by Oliver
Winterbotton and was intended to utilize a Toyota 1.6 liter (97.6 cid) engine. The production
Elan that eventually would be offered to the public in 1989 would be quite different due to
termination of the Lotus-Toyota relationship.
That year would also see the dawn of the Lotus Type 91, also known as the “Weight
Watcher”; it would have a further weight reduction of 40 lb (18.1 kg) over the Type 87B; the
composite tub would weigh only 39.7 lb (18 kg). The 91 also featured “water cooled” brakes; the
ploy here was that the water was “consumable”. FIA regulation required that all fluids be
onboard before weighing; once the weighing for compliance with the minimum weight
requirement was over the water was quickly dumped during the race. De Angelis would win the
1982 Austrian GP, but generally the naturally aspirated Lotus was down on power with respect
to the turbocharged competition (a supply of turbocharged Renault racing engines was acquired
for 1983). As a result of the FIA banning of ground effects, work is actually started on the Lotus
Type 92 “active suspension” F1 car concept, which ultimately proved too heavy at well over
1280 lb (580 kg), requiring a redesign into the Type 93T. Late 1982 FIA regulatory activity
would include a ban of rotary engines, diesel engines, gas turbine engines, and Sarich orbital
engines; the Formula 1 minimum weight was set to 580 kg (1278.7 lb).
Work started late that year on the Type 93T F1, which was to be lighter and stiffer than
the 92 and use the recently acquired 1492cc (91 cid) Renault EF1 V6 Turbo (twin KKK
turbochargers) engines supplying 650bhp at 12,000 rpm (the FIA would ban turbo charging by
1989 and active suspension by 1994). Sadly, this would be the last Lotus that Colin Chapman
would ever have any personal involvement with; at 4 AM on the chill, dark morning of
December 16, 1982, Colin Chapman would cross life’s finish line, his heart no longer up to the
hectic pace.
170
171
Brabham would initially circumvent the 6 cm (2.4 in) clearance with a pneumatic suspension mechanism that
would lower the car to a lesser ground clearance when actually racing; FIA toleration of this violation incensed
Chapman further.
54
SAWE Paper No. 3640
10 - EPILOGUE
Much has been written about the Chapman methodology, the “how” and “why” behind
his accomplishments. What such detail studies of the Chapman “philosophy” often miss is the
natural consequence of the overwhelming compulsion behind what he did, which was “speed”;
he wanted to do it quickly, get it done, and move on. Use of components from the parts bins of
others was motivated as much by being a “short cut” as it was by economics. He was a man
racing, not just on the track, but through life. He didn’t have time for the details of engineering
development; he needed new concepts to keep him going. Toward the end of his life he had
exhausted all the fundamental concepts for improved vehicle performance such as light weight,
low VCG, low yaw inertia, low unsprung weight, reduced aero drag, supple suspension, etc.
To gain the necessary advantage in competition he could no longer rely on just the rigorous
application of these basic principles, applications at which everyone was now adept; he now
needed a “big idea” concept to win. Early “big ideas” included such things as monocoque
structure, the gas turbine, and 4WD. Later, the “big idea” for the Type 76 had been the
“automatic clutch”, for the Type 77 it had been “variable geometry”, for the Type 78 it would be
“ground effects”, for the Type 88 it was “twin chassis”, and for the Type 92 it would be “active
suspension”. An impatient Chapman would “cut corners” on safety, reliability, development,
and legality.
Colin Chapman was beset late in his career not just by the stress of staying ahead
technologically in his racing endeavors, made even more difficult due to adverse FIA regulation,
but by problems on the commercial side as well. The lucrative US market was slowly being
sealed off from Lotus due to increasing emissions and safety standards (adverse regulation
again!). Then there was the complexity of juggling all the different divisions of Lotus, as well as
all the extraneous companies that he acquired. To keep up with all the demands made on his
time, to maintain the incredible pace he had set for himself early on, Colin Chapman ultimately
may have resorted to artificial stimulants 172. Drugs would certainly help explain the bad
judgment regarding his involvement in a DeLorean scheme which resulted in the illegal
diversion of some $17 million (£11.5 million) in UK government funding 173, which must have
added to Colin’s stress level. When the totality of all his life’s circumstances are taken into
account, his early death by heart attack or stroke would seem to have been inevitable; may he
rest in peace. The following quotes highlight some of the notable aspects of what was a glorious
but flawed life of a great genius:
“Lotus engineering is the worst.”

Zora Arkus-Duntov, c. 1978 174
172
Stater, Brian; “Dark Clouds Taint Lotus Founder Colin Chapman”, The Telegraph, 14 December 2002. There are
many such “recent” articles, but none at the actual time of his death. Colin Chapman, after all, was a “Commander
of the British Empire” (CBE) and it simply “wasn’t done” to mention what may have been a major cause of his
untimely demise; even his alleged embezzlement of government funds was downplayed at the time.
173
174
Reference [7], pg. 10. The comment was made regarding Lotus commercial production standards.
55
SAWE Paper No. 3640
“Lotuses are all rubbish. They always fall apart.”
Tony Vandervell, c. 1960 175
“Colin Chapman never shook his passion for exploiting existing
components…”
Ron Hickman, Lotus Engineer, c. 1969 176
“We allowed the electrics to be developed on the line by the

electrical fitters that were making the harnesses, fitting the lights.
We never actually had a competent electrical engineer…look at
all the various loadings on the circuitry and design it…We never
had what I would call the correct facilities for doing our own
inspection.”
Mike Warner, Lotus Q/C, c. 1960’s 177
“Colin was totally uninterested in a car five minutes after it had

been launched. He was a great man for proving that something
could be done, but that was that.”
Graham Arnold, Lotus Cars Sales Director 178
“Chapman wasn’t very interested in development. He would find

the current situation totally boring. It was new ideas that kept
him going, trying to stay ahead.”
Nigel Bennett, Team Lotus Engineer 179
“Chapman saw the 80 as the next step. I think they should have
developed the 79. If Lotus had done that, they’d probably still
have had a winning car. But that wasn’t Chapman’s
philosophy.”
Geof Aldridge, Lotus Design Engineer 180
175
Ibid, pg. 206. Guy Anthony "Tony" Vandervell (1898–1967) was an English industrialist and founder of
the Vanwall Formula One racing team.
176
Ibid pg. 19.
177
Ibid.
178
Ibid, pg. 20.
179
56
SAWE Paper No. 3640
“I think of them (concepts) in the bath, and also in the wee small
hours of the morning, lying in bed…I need about five and a half
to six hours sleep a night, and when I’m thinking about
something I usually spend an hour or so just mulling it over.”
Colin Chapman 181
“I think that progress comes…from a cross-pollination of ideas

from other engineering fields…I like reading on a lot of subjects
other than racing…I get my ideas because I take in…information
and design philosophies from other fields. You got to have a pretty
general sort of knowledge.”
Colin Chapman 182
“Colin’s mind was going 24 hours a day. He was always thinking,

always probing, always asking questions. He was in a category of
his own.”
Mario Andretti 183
“When we first got together, Colin said ‘Mario, I always want to

make a car as light as possible’. I said ‘Well, Colin, I want to live
as long as possible. I guess we need to talk’.”
Mario Andretti, 1977 184
“Did I think the Lotus way of doing things was good? No. We
had several structural failures in those cars. But at the time I felt
it was the price you paid for getting something significantly
better.”
Dan Gurney 185
180
Ibid.
181
Ibid, pg. 25.
182
Ibid, pg. 26.
183
Ibid, pg. 38.
184
Ibid, pg. 191.
185
Reference [12], pg. N/A (Internet).
57
SAWE Paper No. 3640
“I always reckoned that Colin had the ability to design a winning
car. But what worried me was that it might kill me before that
happened! I had all sorts of problems with Lotuses. They were all
very, very light…”
Cliff Allison, Lotus Driver 186
“Development is the last refuge of an incompetent designer”

Colin Chapman 187
“Although the idea of ‘unions’ had always been anathema to me,

in this case (Bernie Eccleston’s FOCA 188) I quite liked it.”
Colin Chapman 189
“Colin was extremely sharp, clever and quick-witted, and very

charismatic, but not a really great engineer or designer. He had a
few principles which he pursued to great effect, such as light
weight…but he never had a really close grasp of fundamental
principles. Perhaps he might have had if he had more time to
learn. But in his hectic and unscrupulous life it was quicker to
rely on other people to whom he gave minimum credit.”
Charles Bulmer 190
“I believe in getting light weight from elegance of design rather

than from exotic materials…it isn’t only weight but cost as well.”
Colin Chapman 191
186
Reference [13], pg. N/A (Internet).
187
Reference [7], pg. 306, as quoted by Keith Duckworth.
188
“Formula One Constructor’s Association”.
189
Ibid, pg. 373. This is the attitude of many of the wealthy, including some who rose from humble status and who
owe their start to such concessions to the working class as “unions”.
190
Ibid, pg. 385; Charles Bulmer (1922-2012) was an English automotive journalist, editor of The Motor.
191
Ibid, pg. 186. If anything motivated Chapman more than weight it was money.
58
SAWE Paper No. 3640
“The modern sports/racing car such as the Lotus is designed to
be as light as possible…In this way less power is needed…With
less power the engine is lighter, the transmission is lighter, and
the frame that has to support those components can be made
lighter. Lightness can be said to breed lightness. As opposed to
the…vicious cycle we…call this the ‘benevolent cycle’, and no
designer…used this technique with more success than Colin
Chapman.”
Colin Campbell 192
“He never had any ideas of limits and fits.”
Keith Duckworth 193
“I don’t think I want to get involved with engines, I’m not an

engine man, really. Mr. Ferrari himself was an engine man;
Carlo Chiti is an engine man; Tony Vandervell is an engine
man, but I am a chassis man, loosely speaking. And I think good
engine men don’t necessarily make good chassis men, and vice
versa. Engine men feel that the way to win races is to get more
power from the engine. That’s what they understand, what they
like doing. I’d rather have a nice, reliable, standard engine just
like everybody else and try to build a better chassis.”
Colin Chapman 194
“Colin really didn’t know anything about engines. I sometimes

think he knew less than me.”
Walter Hayes 195
192
Reference [2], pg. 9. Colin Campbell is a noted automotive authority and the author of three of the books listed
as references for this paper.
193
194
Ibid, pp. 42-43.
195
Ibid, pg. 41. Walter Hayes, CBE, (1924– 2000) was an English journalist, and later public relations executive for
Ford.
59
SAWE Paper No. 3640
“He (Colin Chapman) realized that until Lotus created its own
engine it was never going to be recognized fully as a member of
the automotive world.”
Mike Warner 196
“…What set Colin apart from other contemporary racing car

designers was his very practical approach. This was in part
dictated by his almost total lack of capital. While other
companies could afford to start with a blank sheet of paper,
Colin’s first thought was ‘What existing part can be used or what
existing part can I adapt to do what I want?’…”
Peter Ross 197
196
Ibid, pg. 49. Mike Warner started as Q/C inspector on the Lotus “assembly line” and rose to become the
President of Lotus Components.
197
Ibid, pg. 17. Peter Ross was one of the stress analysts from de Havilland Aircraft who began working for Lotus
early on.
60
SAWE Paper No. 3640
REFERENCES
[1] Campbell, Colin; Design of Racing Sports Cars, Cambridge, Mass.; Robert Bentley
Inc., 1976.
[2] Campbell, Colin; The Sports Car, Cambridge, Mass.; Robert Bentley Inc., 1969.
[3] Campbell, Colin; New Directions in Suspension Design, Cambridge, Mass.; Robert
Bentley Inc., 1981.
[4] Costin, Michael, and David Phipps; Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design,
Cambridge,
[5] Gillespie, Thomas D.; Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Warrendale, PA; SAE R-
114, 1992.
[6] Hayes, Russell; Lotus, The Creative Edge, Sparkford, UK; Haynes Publishing, 2007.
[7] Ludvigsen, Karl; Colin Chapman – Inside the Innovator, Sparkford, UK; Haynes
Publishing PLC, 2010.
[8] Reimpell, Jörnsen; Helmut Stoll, and Jürgen W. Betzler; The Automotive Chassis;
Jordan Hill, UK; Butterworth-Heinemann, SAE R-300, 2001.
[9] Ross, Peter; Lotus, The Early Years, Luton, UK; Coterie Press Ltd, 2004.
[10] Wiegand, B.P.; “Mass Properties and Automotive Vertical Acceleration”, Los
Angeles, CA; SAWE #3521, 2011.
[11] Smith, Sam; “The Lotus Elan: 1962-1973”, Road & Track, December 2012, pp. 70-
71.
[12] Friedman, Dave; Indianapolis Racing Memories 1961-1969, Motorbooks

International; Osceola, WI; 1997.
[13] ______________; “Cliff Allison, Formula 1 Driver for Lotus and Ferrari”, The
Independent, 9 April 2005.
61
SAWE Paper No. 3640
AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Brian Paul Wiegand, now retired, was a Senior Weight Engineer and Mass Properties Handling
Specialist for the Mass Properties Analysis and Control Group of Northrop Grumman
Corporation, Bethpage, NY. He is a 1972 graduate of Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY, and a
licensed Professional Engineer registered in the State of New York (#58470). He continues to be
an active member of the Society of Allied Weight Engineers and of the Society of Automotive
Engineers, and in 2009 he reaffirmed his long-standing interest in automotive dynamics by
attending the SAE Seminar “Vehicle Dynamics for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks” (Troy, MI;
August 11-13). He has presented five SAWE papers, two award winning: “Mass Properties and
Automotive Longitudinal Acceleration” (SAWE #1634, 1984), “The Basic Algorithms of Mass
Properties Analysis & Control” (SAWE #2067, 1992), “Automotive Mass Properties
Estimation” (SAWE #3490, “Special Merit Award”, 2010),”Mass Properties and Automotive
Vertical Acceleration” (SAWE #3521, “L.R. ‘Mike’ Hackney Award”, 2011), and “Mass
Properties and Automotive Lateral Acceleration” (SAWE #3528, 2011). He has also published
a number of SAWE Journal (Weight Engineering) articles, including two award winning: “The
Weight and C.G. Implications of Obtaining Maximum Automotive Lateral Acceleration Levels”
(Winter 1982-83), “The Mystery of Automotive POI Values” (Winter 2011),”Ancient Mass
Properties Engineering” (Winter 2011-12, “Best Journal Article 2011-12”), and “An
Uncertainty Regarding C.G. Uncertainty” (Winter 2012-13, “Best Journal Article 2012-2013”).
He also is the recipient of the 2011 President’s Award for contributions to the SAWE, and two
Northrop Grumman “TAP” (Timely Awards Plan) awards.
62
SAWE Paper No. 3640
APPENDICES
63
SAWE Paper No. 3640
APPENDIX A – SYMBOLISM
AAR “Anglo American Racers” was a racing car team and constructor founded by Dan
Gurney.
ARB Stands for “Anti-Roll Bar”, which is a suspension component that increases
the roll stiffness while causing relatively little (or no) increase in vertical spring
rate. The first ARB patent was awarded to S.L.C. Coleman of Canada on April
22, 1919.
AIACR “Association Internationale des Automobile Clubs Reconnus” is the early title for
what eventually became the FIA.
BLMC The “British Leyland Motor Corporation” was a British automotive conglomerate
formed in 1968. It encompassed most of the British motor industry and was
partially nationalized in 1975. Continued decline led to a dismemberment and sell
off to various foreign companies in 2005.
BMC “British Motor Corporation Ltd” was formed in 1952 with the merger of the
Morris and Austin car companies; it later became part of the ill-fated British
Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC).
BRDC The “British Racing Driver’s Club” is an organization which represents the
interests of professional racing drivers from the UK. The club was founded April
1928 by Dr. J. Dudley Benjafield, one of an informal group of British racing
drivers known as the "Bentley Boys". By 1929 the club was organizing and
sanctioning various motor sport events.
BRM “British Racing Motors” was founded in 1945 by Raymond Mays and Peter
Berthon for racecar construction. In the years 1950-1977 BRM fielded its own
Formula 1 racing team with significant success.
CART “Championship Auto Racing Teams” was founded in 1979 by team owners who
disagreed with the USAC. CART went bankrupt at the end of 2003, but some
CART team owners acquired the assets and renamed it the Champ Car World
Series (CCWS). Financial difficulties caused CCWS to file for bankruptcy
before the 2008 season.
Cd The aerodynamic coefficient of drag (dimensionless).
CG, c.g. The center of gravity of a vehicle or other object.
CFRP Carbon fiber reinforced plastic.
Cl The aerodynamic coefficient of lift (dimensionless).
64
SAWE Paper No. 3640
CP The aerodynamic “center of pressure”.
CSI The “Commission Sportive Internationale” was entrusted with the regulation of
automobile racing from 1922 to 1993 by the FIA; in 1993 the FIA again took
direct control.
CW Clock-wise motion.
CCW Counter-clock-wise motion.
DFV “Double Four Valve” Cosworth V8 engine.
DMC American automotive exec John Z. DeLorean established the “DeLorean Motor
Company” with British government backing as a means to revive the
impoverished Belfast area of Northern Ireland. The design errors and
mismanagement regarding the production of the subsequent DMC-12 would
become the stuff of case histories for business students. The prototype vehicle
appeared in 1976, production began in 1981, and the company was out of
business by 1983. The corporate title is now used by a relatively small firm
headquartered in Humble, Texas, USA. That firm deals in used DMC-12
motorcars, parts, and service.
DMC-12 The only vehicle model produced during the short tenure of the original DeLorean
Motor Company in Belfast, Ireland.
DNF When a race vehicle crashes, breaks down, or otherwise fails to complete a race,
then it is listed in the finishing order as “DNF” (did not finish).
DOHC “Dual Over-Head Cams”.
DOT The “Department of Transportation” is a Cabinet level department of the United

States government established by act of Congress on 15 October 1966. It has the
responsibility for the regulation of all matters relating to transportation, and
consists of twelve agencies including the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration),
MARAD (Maritime Administration), FRA (Federal Railroad Administration),
NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), etc.
EPA The United States “Environmental Protection Agency” is an agency of the federal
government created by an executive order signed by President Richard Milhouse
Nixon on 2 December 1970. The EPA is entrusted to protect the public health as
it is affected by the environment through regulations based on laws passed by the
US Congress.
F1 Signifies “Formula 1”, which is a class of international automotive racing under

the aegis of the FIA.
65
SAWE Paper No. 3640
FHC “Fixed Head Coupe” is English terminology meaning “hardtop” (American
terminology).
FI “Fuel Injection” is a more precise means of supplying fuel to the ICE combustion
chamber than traditional carburetion.
FIA The “Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile” is a governing body for

international automotive racing established on 20 June 1904 and headquartered in
Paris, France.
FISA “Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile” was a later title for what was
initially the CSI.
FOCA The “Formula One Constructor’s Association” founded by Bernie Eccleston.
FPF Part of a chain of Coventry Climax engine development: FW, FWA, FWB,
FWF, etc.
FPS The English System of Units in feet, pounds, and seconds.
FRP “Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic”.
FVA “Four Valve (Type) A” was a Cosworth straight-four engine.
FW In 1950 the English firm Coventry Climax unveiled a high specific power (hp/lb)
engine produced in response to a government contract for a light weight portable
fire pump system; the engine was designated the “Feather Weight”. The engine
caught the attention of Colin Chapman and others in the automotive industry; this
resulted in a line of famous high specific power automotive engines. The FW was
a straight 4-cylinder SOHC of 1020 cc displacement and 38 hp (28 kW) with a
bare weight of 180 lb (81.6 kg).
FWA Around 1953, this was the first in a line of automotive engines derived from the
original Coventry Climax portable fire pump engine; it was designated the
“Feather Weight Automobile”. It was a straight 4-cylinder SOHC of 1098 cc
displacement and 71 hp (53 kW).
FWB This was the successor to the Coventry Climax “FWA” engine. It was a straight
4-cylinder SOHC of 1460 cc displacement and 108 hp (81 kW).
FWC This was a limited production (3 units) variant of the Coventry Climax “Feather
Weight” series of straight 4-cylinder SOHC engines intended for use by Dan
Gurney in the US and Lotus at Le Mans in 1957-1958.
66
SAWE Paper No. 3640
FWD “Front wheel drive”, which is a common drive configuration wherein only the two
front wheels supply propulsion.
FWE This descendent of the Coventry Climax FW straight 4-cylinder SOHC engine
was designed for use in the Lotus Elite sports car as a 1216 cc variant, but
eventually saw use by a number of sports racing firms in stages of tune from 75
hp (55 kW) to 105 hp (77 kW).
FWMV The V8 version of the Coventry Climax “Feather Weight” line of engine
development: “FW”, “FWA”, “FWB”,”FWC”,”FWE", “FWF”, “FWMV”. The
initial 1.5L FWMV in 1961 made 174 hp (130 kW), but successive generations
resulted in 213 hp (159 kW) by 1964.
FWMW The 3L FWMW flat-16 engine was to supersede the FWMV in 1965, but that
proved to be a failure in development, ultimately leading to Coventry Climax
withdrawal from Formula 1 engine manufacture.
4WD “Four wheel drive”, which is a drive configuration generally with an option to
shift to RWD.
GAC “Grumman Aerospace Corporation” unveiled the F-14 Tomcat air superiority
fighter plane in 1972 for use by the US Navy. Arguably the greatest fighter plane
ever built, its unique polymorphic geometry may have served as inspiration for
Colin Chapman’s (Lotus) Type 77 Formula 1 race car.
GB Stands for “Great Britain”, which constitutes England, Scotland, and Wales.
When Northern Ireland is included then the nation is referred to as the “United
Kingdom”.
GM, GMC “General Motors (Corporation)”, founded 16 December 1908, was once the
largest manufacturing concern in the world, but went bankrupt and was saved by a
US Government “bail out” in 2009. GM is still among the world’s largest
automotive manufacturers, employing about a quarter of a million people and
doing business in 157 nations.
GP A “Grand Prix” (French for “Great Prize”) is one of a yearly series of Formula 1
races leading to a FIA Championship.
GRP Glass reinforced plastic was one of the earliest of modern composite materials.
GT “Gran Turismo” is Italian for “Grand Touring”, and generally refers to a class of
automobile designed for elegant, luxurious, high-speed travel.
67
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Hz Hertz, or cycles per second, is a measure of oscillation frequency named in honor
of Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (1857-1894), who was the first to conclusively prove
the existence of electromagnetic waves.
I/B Inboard, or close to the vehicle longitudinal centerline.
IPS The English System of Units in inches, pounds, and seconds.
IFS Independent front suspension.
IRS Independent rear suspension.
LCG The vehicle longitudinal center of gravity (in, cm).
LCP The vehicle longitudinal center of pressure (in, cm).
L/H Left hand, as opposed to right hand orientation.
MAE A Cosworth 997 cc, 100-110 hp engine design for 1965 Formula 3 competition.
MG The “MG Car Company Ltd” was a British automobile manufacturer founded
in the 1920’s by Cecil Kimber acting for his employer William Morris; MG
stands for Morris Garages. In 1935 Morris “sold” MG into his holding
company, Morris Motors Ltd, before issuing shares in Morris Motors to the public
in 1936. The company underwent many subsequent changes in ownership:
becoming the Nuffield Organization, then merging into The British Motor
Corporation Ltd in 1952, then becoming the MG Division of BMC in 1967, and
then becoming part of the 1968 merger into the British Leyland Motor Corp. By
2000 MG was part of the MG Rover Group which entered receivership in 2005;
the assets were purchased by the Chinese firm Nanjing Automobile Group with
production since 2007 located in China, and some limited production in the UK
as MG Motor.
MIRA The “Motor Industry Research Association” (Ltd) was founded 1949 in the UK
and is now a major automotive test facility with aerospace, rail, and other
branches.
M/T “Motor Trend” magazine is a major automotive publication (US) founded in
1949.
mpg “Miles per gallon” is one of most commonly recognized measures of fuel
economy, but it is important to recognize that the UK and US gallons are different
(1 “Imperial” gallonUK = 1.200949 gallonsUS).
68
SAWE Paper No. 3640
NASA The United States “National Aeronautics and Space Administration” is the agency
entrusted by the US Government with the responsibility for the nation’s civilian
space program and general aeronautics/aerospace research. NASA was
established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act on 29 July 1958, replacing
its predecessor the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA).
NASCAR The “National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing” was founded by Bill
France Sr. in 1947. It sanctions and governs various auto racing events, and is the
largest sanctioning body for “stock car” racing in the United States.
NHTSA The “National Highway Traffic Safety Agency” is a major part of the US DOT. It
describes its mission as “Save lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle related
crashes”. The NHTSA is responsible for creating and enforcing Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and fuel economy regulations.
NTE “Not to Exceed” is a contractual obligation, usually referring to a limiting weight

or cost.
O/B Outboard, or far from the vehicle longitudinal centerline.
OHC “Overhead Cam”.
Q/C “Quality control” is a product oriented function that focuses on defect

identification. Today it is usually paired with “quality assurance” (“QA/QC”)
which is a function that focuses on defect prevention.
RAF The “Royal Air Force”. Colin Chapman spent some time in the RAF as a result of
having been in a UK version of the US ROTC while attending college.
R/H Right hand, as opposed to left hand, orientation.
R&T “Road & Track” magazine is an automobile enthusiast’s magazine founded at

Hempstead, NY, USA in 1947; it was perhaps the most technically orientated of
all major automotive publications.
ROTC The “Reserve Officers Training Corps” is a US military training program for
college students.
rpm “Revolutions per minute”, which might more correctly be termed “rotations per
minute”, generally refers to the angular speed of an engine or motor.
SAE The “Society of Automotive Engineers” (now “SAE International”) was initially
founded in 1904 as the “Society of Automobile Engineers”, mainly as the result of
the advocacy efforts of two journalists: Peter Heldt of The Horseless Age, and
69
SAWE Paper No. 3640
Horace Swetland of The Automobile. By 1916 the focus was broadened beyond
the automobile to include all forms of transportation.
SAWE The “Society of Allied Weight Engineers”, which is the premier professional
society for engineers involved in mass properties analysis and control. The
Society of Aeronautical Weight Engineers was organized in 1939 in Los Angeles,
California, and was incorporated as a nonprofit organization April 2, 1941. As
membership grew to include engineers associated with shipbuilding, land
transportation, and other allied industries and technologies, the Society name was
changed on January 1, 1973 to the Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc.
SCCA The “Sports Car Club of America” is a descendent of the Automobile Racing
Club of America founded in 1933 by brothers Miles and Sam Collier, which was
dissolved in 1941 at the entry of the US into WW II. In 1944 it was reconstituted
as the SCCA, and began sanctioning road racing events in 1948.
STP The STP (“Scientifically Treated Petroleum”) Company was founded in 1953, but
was acquired by Studebaker-Packard Corporation in 1961. Soon afterward the
flamboyant Andy Granatelli was named CEO of the automotive products
company, with the intent he should popularize the brand through the sponsorship
of automotive competition. It was a job that Granatelli did so well that the
subsidiary has long survived the parent company.
UCL “University College of London”, part of the venerable University of London

college system. It was at UCL that Colin Chapman received his education as a
structural engineer.
UK The “United Kingdom”, meaning England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern

Ireland, plus three British Crown Dependencies and fourteen British Overseas
Territories.
US The “understeering” condition of automotive handling, or the “United States”.
USA The “United States of America”.
USAC The “United States Automobile Club” was formed by famed Indianapolis Motor
Speedway owner Tony Hulman in 1956. It serves as the sanctioning body for a
number of “open wheel” racing series in the US, including Indy, Sprint, and
Midget cars.
VARI “Vacuum Assisted Resin Infusion” is a process used to make GRP structures. In
the automotive world VARI offers many advantages over traditional hand lay-up,
but the most significant gain is that up to six bodies a day, as opposed to just one,
can be produced from a set of molds.
70
SAWE Paper No. 3640
VCG The vehicle vertical center of gravity (in, cm).
V8 Refers to a reciprocating piston type ICE of eight cylinders arranged in a “V”

formation.
V16 Refers to a reciprocating piston type ICE of sixteen cylinders arranged in a “V”
formation. Historically there have been far fewer examples of V16 engine
construction than V8. Some “V16” engines in chronological order: Bugatti U16
(1915, actually two straight-8’s side-by-side), Marmon V16 (1931-1933),
Cadillac Series 452 V16 (1930-1937, actually two straight-8’s in a “V”), Auto
Union Type C GP V16 (1933-1938), Cadillac Series 90 V16 (1938-1940), Alfa
Romeo Tipo 162/316 V16 (1938), BRM V16 (1954-1955, actually two V8’s in
tandem), BRM H16 (1966, actually two stacked flat-8’s), Cizeta-Moroder V16T
(1991-1995, actually two V8’s in a transverse mounting), and Bugatti Veyron
W16 (2000- ).
WW II World War II.
ZF ZF Friedrichshafen AG is a company famous for the production of transmissions,

differentials, and other automotive components. It was founded in 1915
in Friedrichshafen, Germany by Ferdinand von Zeppelin, to produce gears
for Zeppelins and other airships. “ZF” is an abbreviation for “Zahnradfabrik”
(“Gear Factory” in German).
71
SAWE Paper No. 3640
[THIS PAGE DELIBERATELY LEFT BLANK]
72
View publication stats

Colin Chapman Automotive Mass Properties 3640

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colin Chapman Automotive Mass Properties 3640

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Colin Chapman and Automotive Mass Properties

Conference Paper · May 2015

Advanced Automotive Design View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COLIN CHAPMAN AND AUTOMOTIVE MASS

For Presentation at the

Permission to publish this paper, in full or in part, with

Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc.

The Society is not responsible for statements or opinions in

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ i

1 - Introduction: It Began With Light Weight ..........................................................................1

2 - Lotus Engineering Company ................................................................................................5

5 - Formula 1, Le Mans ............................................................................................................18

6 - Production Woes, Indy .......................................................................................................27

7 - In The Money ....................................................................................................................35

8 - Full Throttle ........................................................................................................................41

9 - The Finish Line ...................................................................................................................47

Author’s Biographical Sketch ...................................................................................................62

As a small start-up company competing against long established automotive concerns

Figure 1.1 – 1948 LOTUS MK I IN TRIALS COMPETITION

An expression relating to this multiple functionality, “…simplicate, and add

Figure 1.2 – 1952 LOTUS MK VI SWING AXLE, COIL-OVER-SHOCKS

Figure 1.3 – 1954 LOTUS MK VIII BASIC CHASSIS

First Estimate of Concept Car Weight = 5 × Engine Weight (EQ. 1.01)

1954/5 Lotus Mk IX curb weight = 5 × Coventry Climax 1098 cc engine

Figure 1.4 – CHAPMAN’S ONE HAND LIFT OF LOTUS ELEVEN FRAME

“The drawback of gyroscopic ‘kick’ must be faced. On a small

“Fuel comes from a 12 gallon fuel tank mounted amidships over

Figure 1.5 – VCG REDUCTION BY DRIVESHAFT OFFSETTING/LOWERING

Figure 1.6 – A CHAPMAN STRUT SUSPENSION SYSTEM

Figure 1.7 – LOTUS “WOBBLY-WEB” WHEELS

Figure 1.8 – FORD HALF-SHAFTS AS USED BY LOTUS SEVEN SERIES 2

Figure 1.9 – 1957 LOTUS ELITE

Figure 1.10 – 1957 LOTUS ELITE BODY/CHASSIS CONSTRUCTION

Figure 1.11 – 1958 LOTUS FIFTEEN SPORTS RACER

“In one car at Monza… the mechanics found fourteen major

“Weight saving is a process which…is open to criticism if it

Figure 1.12 – 1962 LOTUS TYPE 25 MONOCOQUE TUB

“Engines leaked oil prodigiously. Frames cracked apart in

Figure 1.13 – 1962 LOTUS ELAN BACKBONE CHASSIS

Figure 1.14 – 1964 LOTUS TYPE 33 REAR SUSPENSION

Figure 1.15 – 1967 LOTUS TYPE 56 GAS TURBINE INDY CAR

Figure 1.16 – 1970 LOTUS TYPE 72 IN “GOLD LEAF” LIVERY

Figure 1.17 – 1972 LOTUS TYPE 72 IN “JOHN PLAYER” LIVERY

“…increasing the surplus of power…over total resistance…is BY

Figure 1.18 - THE 1976 LOTUS ESPRIT, “007”, AND “Q”

Table 1.1 – 1976 FORMULA 1 WEIGHT COMPARISON

“Anti-dive, although in theory desirable to reduce required ground

Figure 1.19 – 1981 DeLOREAN DMC-12

Figure 1.20 – 1978 LOTUS TYPE 79 INVERTED WING SIDE-POD CONCEPT

Figure 1.21 – 1981 LOTUS TYPE 88

“Lotus engineering is the worst.”

“We allowed the electrics to be developed on the line by the

“Colin was totally uninterested in a car five minutes after it had

“Chapman wasn’t very interested in development. He would find

“I think that progress comes…from a cross-pollination of ideas

“Colin’s mind was going 24 hours a day. He was always thinking,

“When we first got together, Colin said ‘Mario, I always want to

Mario Andretti, 1977 184

“Development is the last refuge of an incompetent designer”

“Although the idea of ‘unions’ had always been anathema to me,

“Colin was extremely sharp, clever and quick-witted, and very