free hit
counters's Content - The Lotus Forums #ForTheOwners Jump to content

[email protected]

Basic Account
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by [email protected]

  1. Yes, paddleshift, no stick to grab.... driver - that would be me then! I'm ~5'10" although I have short legs and long body, and the seat in that car is a std road car seat so quite high (too high)
  2. as in November has passed nothing has changed, no more money has appeared.
  3. do you mean wheel bolts? they are M12x1.5 (pretty standard)
  4. hate to state the obvious, but we are in October....
  5. at a guess, std elise radiator pack with AC etc is not going to cope with a 350hp in-efficient engine in a hot climate. uprated ones wihout AC etc can only just cope 350-380hp engines
  6. This may be of interest to to you guys......
  7. Just watched this, must say, Mike Kimberly must be spitting! Evora was way before Dannyboy's time not that you would know from this ... all the way though, some real howlers, like the definition of mid-engined - between the rear wheels! and a close ratio box gives a smoother ride. Who writes this stuff? do they not have somebody to prof-read the scripts? Laughable, just laughable.
  8. Been to Bathurst with the sequential, took over 6 sec's out of the lap record with it, video of the lap here: this is the car it's in.
  9. Video's of the prototype sequential (complete with Geartronics paddleshift). 1st test 1st race (and win!) Drive-by video (sorry about the 'tiss' noise on the on-board vids, found it to be the camera's lanyard clip!)
  10. your implying that TF only went back to David Hunt /after/ GL revoked their licence... not sure that's the case...
  11. on what grounds? his trademark was 'Team Lotus' not 'Lotus' etc. That aside, at the time, it was easier/faster/cheaper for TF to 'buy' a licence from GL, longer term, he was always going to try and buy 'Team Lotus', just in the timeframe of 2009, this was not high up the list of things to do I suspect.
  12. long term, I can see TF buying Group Lotus from Proton (the Malaysian Government) when they run out of money.... I suspect that was always the game plan.
  13. don't get me wrong, but I keep hearing about the 'if you had kids' argument for the Evora, however, the point is, how many of them have actually been sold and of them how many with the rear seats (if you exclude the launch spec cars)? the very fact that you don't own one rather nails the point - if you could justify the cost, would you honestly buy this as a car to drive your kids around in compared to another equally priced 4 seat car? Not being a 2+2 has hardly hurt Cayman sales has it?
  14. point >>>>> missed. Lotus are supposed to be at the cutting edge of car design/development so we are always being told, yet what have they got to show for it? McLaren have used Ricardo heavily for the MP4-12C, you know, another automotive engineering consultancy (ie. not Lotus) McLaren zero history in making road cars other than 100 odd F1's (for the record, I think probably one of the most iconic cars ever), whereas Lotus have many years at it. My point is why did Lotus not make this car? yes it's full of technology, but, apart from the tub manufacturing, none of it is 'new' as such. instead, Lotus make the Evora, a 2+2 that nobody wanted, underpspec'ed, over-priced etc. who do you think will sell the most?
  15. if you think about it, what's Lotus's excuse for NOT making this car? this is what the Evora should have been.
  16. Lotus marketing will want Senna, but Heidfeld will wipe the floor and Renault will use him.....
  17. true, although it's backed by government grants... (I note int he news the current goverement has just relaise how much this is being taken the piss out of.) Telegraph link
  18. do you have a fuel card? (or more to the point, your going to need one!)
  19. as a UK taxpayer, I think the whole scheme is a total sham, we the Tax payer are basically paying for in-efficient, expensive, pointless installs, the only people that will benefit is the people making/welling this stuff (BP anyone?) this is an even worse deal that the current one supporting windmills... My only hope is that the current government realise how much this is costing the Taxpayer and they scrap these stupid schemes. (we need to wake up and realise that we need a proper energy policy that actually adds up and meets the need)
  20. I know this is not quite the same thing, but look at the cost/history of the carrier project, then compare with MS Queen Elizabeth: MS Queen Elizabeth. Tonnage: 90,901 gross tons Length: 294 m (965 ft) Beam: 32.3 m (106 ft) Draught: 8 m (26 ft) Cost ~£350M Build time <16 months (Laid down: 2 July 2009, Maiden voyage: 12 October 2010) HMS Queen Elizabeth. Displacement: 65,600 metric tons Length: 284 metres (932 ft) Beam: 39 metres 73 metres overall Draught: 11 metres Cost ~£3Bn build time 10+ years?
  21. Interesting thread... I have mixed feeling about it all, having worked for/around bit's of Bae/Gec/etc in the past, I remember some of this stuff being a disaster area 20 years ago... Yes, it's sad that some kit is retired, but it's always going to happen sooner or later, the issue is when it's kept on for no other reason that there is no realistic alternative because of dithering/muddled thinking 10+ years before. Take the aircraft carriers, ignoring the need argument for a moment, just how long have we been messing around with these projects? how many re-designs have they gone though? how much crazy thinking has been implanted into them due to politics etc? For example, the decision not to use nuclear propulsion, how many times has this gone round the houses? so what we end up with is a carrier that have limited range (as in they will have to be shadowed by oilers) and the fuel tanks will displace aviation fuel for the aircraft, as opposed to nuclear with 20-25 year fuel life (and we already have to make/support these for the Astute submarine fleet), and this is before you consider the need for a steam plant for the catapults (assuming they don't then ditch them too!) The same crap with Nimrod, what the hell is that all about? £4Bn+ on something that is still not finished and based on a long forgotten Comet airframe? Now, I am not a Boeing fanboy, but the P8 is looking like costing ~£140m a pop, you have to question the decision making behind this? (P8 is based on a 737-800 as in a commercial airframe that's been manufactured on the thousands, with easy maintenance, parts, etc.) Now, is the intention of defence spending policy is to keep the British defence industry in business or actually buy military capability? (not suggesting we buy everything from the yanks, just that we should make design and spending decisions based on real tangible needs/benefits/costs, not political expediency )
  • Create New...