Talk:Lotus Eleven

Untitled

In reference to the derivation of the Lotus Eleven, my understanding of the history (according to Peter Ross) is that the Eleven was produced and marketed first (before the Seven was ever conceived), and the Seven was derived as a lower-cost club racer from the more expensive-to-produce Eleven. --Tom Bartlett 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you are right (I also always thought the 7 was based on the 11), but I cannot find any hard references for that at the moment...I asked User:Liftarn, who made the edit to the article, if he can provide a reference -- Ferkelparade π 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my fault. The 7 was based on the 11. I must have thought about the 11 inspired cars based on the Locost chassis or something. For a reference see www.se7enup.hopto.org/se7enup/default.asp?id=2&mnu=2 // Liftarn

Corrections to the Lotus Eleven description

In the last few years efforts have been made by several people to correct basic errors in the current (as of May, 2011) description of the Lotus Eleven, but these efforts have been blocked by others for reasons unknown. It should be seen as fair and appropriate to bring these differences out in the open and discuss what the problems might be. For example:

-- The Lotus Eleven Series 2 was never referred to as the Lotus 13, and why the assertion otherwise is so prominent in the Wikipedia entry is baffling. Lotus never had a type 13, and the supposition that the Eleven S-2 was that is not based on facts. Why not call the Lotus 3b the Lotus 4, or the Elite S-2 the type 15 or some other number? Even the Series 1 designation for the Eleven came at a later date, to differentiate it from the S-2. An Eleven is either just that or an Eleven S-2.

-- The Eleven LeMans was usually fitted with a Coventry Climax FWA 1100cc engine. The car was designed for this engine and horsepower output, although it obviously could handle more. About twenty Elevens were fitted with Climax FWB engines (1500cc) and they did just fine with them. But the assertion that "LeMans" Elevens were generally 1500c (supported only by a single coffee-table book as reference) doesn't change the facts. Factory records, contemporary and preserved histories, and anecdotal evidence show the vast majority of Elevens with Climax engines had FWAs. Remember, the car dominated the 1100cc class worldwide, and they did it then with just an 1100cc engine.

-- Why is the description of this vintage racing car allowed to be a lead-in to a commercial advert for a replica? The description of the Westfield as a faithful copy of the real thing is laughable. Another two hundred pounds and lower horsepower? Chapman and those who helped him design the Eleven would be sick if they saw this nonsense. The flattery of imitation is one thing, but to group an agricultural-tech replica with what was a cutting-edge milestone among racing cars is not truth but silliness.

The entire description of the Eleven is worthy of a complete re-write. My question is who is going to try and obstruct this. If the points raised above (and there are more) can be challenged, this would be a good place for those who have thus far blocked corrective efforts to state their cases. Regards, Lotusjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusjay (talk • contribs) 02:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lotus Eleven/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would like to restore the original version of this article that included a description of the Kokopelli 11. I would also like to add information on the WCM's R11 which is another recent variant of this great car. I do so not to "advertize" but to make the reader aware of all the possibilities that this great car has spawned, including Westfield. I aplologize that my clumsy attempts to do so inadvertantly "erased" the Westfield part. No vandalism was intended. ThanksSpitzerej (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)