EdWills

Hi Scott. I was checking out the Holden Vintage (U.K.) web site, and they sell this type of mirror and also variations with curved stem etc. If you can get them to send as noted in another forum, you may not have to pay too much to import them? W.

Burton Power U.K. sells a brand new 701M 1500cc Lotus block with the same specs. as the 1600cc block as sold by Ivey, Pegasus, BAT etc. Part No. FL105. 7.8" deck height, bores semi finished to 3.228", 40,000 PSI grey iron, includes cam bearings, upper and lower thrust washer on centre main, etc. L3000.00 Pounds Sterling without tax for export (L3600.00 Sterling in the U.K.) Produced by Ford Racing. With tariffs added on, won't be cheap, but it is available brand new, and stronger than original. Perhaps Ivey or Pegasus can bring one in for you Craig? W

@craig chima. I like the way you have engineered the top suspension link. With your racing rules, are suspension, tires and engine modifications all free choice? W

@MV8 I have the same page and totally agree with you. It shows 'Seven Ser. 1 as 93 F, 65 R'. 'Seven Ser. 2 as 95F 54 R.' I also have a 'blow-up' of the page, and the 'Rate 105 in' is actually "RATE lbs in.' The lbs has been lazily written and on my copy is a tad blurred and looks a lot like 105. However, a page from the Armstrong catalogue that was sent to me by one of the members of this forum notes: "Mark 7 Series 1 up to C/No. 1000 1959 - 60, spring rate lbs/inch is 93 front , 65 rear". "Mark 7 Series II and Super 7 1960 the spring rate lbs/inch is 95 front, 50 rear" Tony Weale advised in the appendix to his book that the Series 1 used the same Spax damper and spring combination as the Series 2 and 3 on the front of the car. In an article from a 'Motor Sport' magazine (U.K.), Caterham raced an early Seven built by them and the rate was 105F/75R, but the springs sagged due to manufacturing errors. They then tried 90F/70 R. These spring rates were controlled by rules in the British 1980 Prodsports Championship. The same article advised that for a road-going Caterham 7 (1980-81) fitted with an Ital axle, the rates were 100 F/ 55 R. Later in Series 2 production (and later copied for Series 3), Mick Lincoln, former co-director at Redline, advised me that Lotus changed their specifications to 105 front, 75 rear as standard. DSK (U.S.) used to offer street springs rated at 85F/60 R. Their auto cross springs were 125F/90R. Tom Robertson used 140F, 100R. on his Series 2 race car (1977). Dave Bean recommended 115F/75 rear for standard road use. Mick Beveridge, formerly of Xtra Special Sevens (U.K.), liked 125/11" free length F, with 80/14" free length R. on his road cars, but noted that most companies in the U.K. don't make the 80s, so he went to 100 lbs/inch with 14 inch free length. W.

Hi Scott. I think the magazine writer also got the spring rate numbers for the basic Seven Series 2 and 3 wrong. They were originally 105lbs on the front and 75lbs on the rear (o.k. we'll give them 80!) @SENC very kindly sent me a list of Armstrong dampers and springs a while back from an old catalogue. Not sure if they are in the library though? W. My wife thinks that I am lotus intolerant. I think she meant to say lactose, but either way seems to fit!

If you can purchase a copy of the late Dennis Ortenburger's book "Legend of the Lotus Seven" (or perhaps you have one already?) he has a chapter on some racing Sevens and their owners in the U.S., one of them being Tom Robertson who ran a Series 2. His Seven had fairly soft springing, beefed up chassis frame, spherical joints on suspension arms, Spitfire diff. nose piece and TR7 axles. The engine was the 116E over-bored with dry-sump. He also used adjustable anti-roll bars front and rear as @craig chima recommends. Robertson was able to make use of Goodyear Formula Ford tires, which heavier cars could not use. He beat the works Triumph TR7 team to take the Class 'D' Championship (1977) even after an appeal was launched by Triumph over the use of the nose piece. Ortenburger features other U.S. racing Sevens in his book, and I wonder where they are now? Reading stories out of the U.K. and the U.S., it reveals that the Lotus Seven has often (always?) been placed at a deliberate disadvantage by being classed in racing categories with cars that were way over the top in terms of power and engine capacity. Even so, the Lotus Seven gave them a run for their money. It probably gave Colin Chapman a good chuckle too, even though he had really lost interest in the car. Thank you Craig for all the information..

Thank you @panamericano for the attachment. That's a great looking Seven and Craig's hints at improving a race car are invaluable.. I enjoy reading Classic Motorsports magazine, and they have featured Lotus Sevens in the past. Craig Chima has built and raced some very successful Lotus Seven based cars in the past, and is selling or sold a couple of them on (see https://simplesevens.org) for details on these cars along with his racing successes). Thank you to those who submitted their Lotus Seven serial numbers. I will add them to my list. There is also a Lotus Seven owner in the U.K. who has purchased a few Lotus Sevens from the U.S., and shipped them back to the U.K. for refreshing or rebuilding. The Historic Lotus Register (U.K.) has featured some of this gent's cars. Cheers, W.

Thanks all. It's not really a problem, but the Unirad built Lotus Seven chassis, and the Arch built Lotus Seven chassis have slightly different ways to mount the handbrake (along with a few other frame differences). I have a replacement Arch built Seven space-frame that replaced my original damaged Unirad frame. On the Arch frame, 2 bolts are required - 1 of 7/16" x 2-1/4" long, and 1 of 1/4" x 2-3/4" long (per Tony Weale). They go right through the flat panel that the scuttle slots into, and the heads sit just beside the battery mount. If memory serves, the Unirad chassis had a solid boss with a groove machined in the end, which was welded into the square tube, the handbrake fit over it, and was then secured by a circlip. The 1/4" bolt for the ratchet plate also did not go all the way through, but threaded into a blind tapped bush welded into the frame tube. No big deal, but the Unirad method was possibly a cleaner way to mount the handbrake? W

I think that @slngsht did a great job of creating this site, and I realize of course that it's specifically called 'USA7s' to cover all of the models that have copied the Lotus Seven in appearance, and not just the marque produced by Lotus. Even the Lotus and Caterham 7 Club U.K. have moved on from when I joined. At that time the editor and some of his staff owned and raced their Lotus Sevens. For unknown reasons, they were ousted from their positions on the magazine, and then the club evolved more and more to predominantly cover Caterham produced cars. As I believe you may be aware John, I started contributing to John Donohoe's web site and then with more information piling in, I started my own web site to give J.D. a break, dedicating the site to just the Lotus Seven, which is still accessible on Simple Sevens. I have "spread the word" as much as I can with my limited resources and minimal knowledge of computers. I still keep in touch with JD, John Watson, and other Lotus Seven owners, technicians and designers as time allows. I have received requests for information on USA7s by private message regarding parts and fixes specifically for the Lotus Seven, and I have also used this method to gain information from other Lotus owners. I like this site as there are professional engineers, technicians - some still working and some retired, who provide excellent advice and feed back on many automotive topics that cover many of the various cars that look like a Lotus Seven. Also, the pictures and drawings are really valuable as sometimes just a written description of a process doesn't always become clear. My comment was merely that the number of owners of Lotus Sevens that were on this forum years ago (2014 for example), have possibly (question mark) not continued with their posts, have perhaps sold their cars, or have no need to post. You may note that one poster above has been wondering the same thing as I have. No biggy, and I'm not trying to make any waves, bellyache about it, or change the format. I think we can agree that Caterham built cars do appear to be the most popular for questions and answers on this forum, and it's how it should be as they are in the majority. If I have missed your point John, my apologies. Cheers, W.

Very good to hear, thank you. I am not sure how your and my information can be tabulated, and how it can be used to perhaps give a heads up to prospective purchasers of any type of Lotus Seven considering privacy concerns? I feel that I need to contact John Watson in the U.K., to see how he disseminates the information he obtained from the Lotus factory regarding Seven production, which he uses to provide confirmation of a genuine Seven to interested buyers. For some reason, he didn't have the information on my car until I forwarded it to him. I had received the history of my car direct from Lotus. W

In 1992, a very considerate Lotus Seven owner in New York - who had started a Lotus Seven Registry detailing North American Sevens only, decided to relinquish his entire collection, including a couple of magazines that he had produced, and sent them to me free of charge. Along with his list, my list of Canadian Series 2 and 3 Lotus Sevens (collected in the early 1980s), listings from 'Bring a Trailer', plus magazines, as well as six Lotus Sevens with serial numbers provided on this forum from 2014, I have a total of 155 Lotus Seven Series 1,2,3, and 4 Cars recorded in the U.S. and Canada to date. Some have full specifications and some just partial information (name and Lotus build number only) provided by the owner. Some may now have been exported back to the U.K., and some to Europe from N. America. The list also includes 16 early Caterham 7 cars in N. America, with Caterham and Arch numbers provided. Note: I do not make the list public, it is just for my interest in order to see how many Lotus Sevens may have survived. John Donohoe on his Simple Sevens site, currently lists Lotus Sevens where owners have provided the Lotus serial number along with their name - some with just a photo of their Seven, or full details of their cars in others. J.D. also provided further details on other Lotus Sevens in a C.D. that he made available for sale, and it contains even more Seven information along with owners' details and car serial numbers. There is a lotus@se7ens forum in the U.K., but there have been minimal postings since Covid struck, and there is no function to post photos or drawings unfortunately. The library on this U.K. forum - dedicated to Lotus Sevens only - is extensive, with information provided by Seven racers, technicians or just owners like myself. It is still available to join, and it worked very nicely side-by-side with USA7s, until posters unfortunately lost interest. There is also a forum that can be accessed from this same U.K. site for Caterham 7, Caterham 21, and other 7 lookalike owners. W

I've been re-reading a book by Graham Arnold a former Director at Lotus in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. Chapman fired him in 1971, and then Mr. Arnold was hired back from 1977 to 1981. Arnold notes: "Lotus cars were designed to make the biggest profit possible. The formula was quite simple. He (Chapman) took the materials and labor and multiplied them by a factor of 2.8 (which eventually increased to 3) to get the U.K. retail price. Cutting the material or component costs without reducing the retail price gave good extra profits. For example, I (Arnold) discovered that Ford had produced a semi-close-ratio gearbox for the Corsair 2000 in 1964. This, with the 3.7:1 differential could be bought to save $75 per car or return us an extra profit. Similar savings were used to stave off price increases. We acquired as many parts as possible from other manufacturers' parts bins, and frequently found their van parts costing less than car parts." Note: Regarding the cost of parts mentioned by Graham Arnold, it seems possible that van parts may have been cheaper for Lotus to purchase due to U.K. Govt. tax breaks on commercial vehicles as opposed to regular road passenger vehicles (example: the Seven and 11 handbrake?). Arnold: "Almost every year the company organized a campaign to "take pounds out of cars". Of course, we were talking about both pounds in weight and pounds sterling!" Mr. Arnold goes on to describe testing cars to their limit (on U.K. roads) until they almost - or did - fall apart. "One of our favourite money-saving ideas was to push the frontiers of other manufacturers' "overengineering," which meant a part built for a smaller car would be tested in a Lotus to see if it was sufficiently overengineered and understressed to give adequate life." W.

Hi. I just posted on this forum after checking Lotus Seven technical information on-line, and found that a number of years ago (2014 in one case) there seems to have been a few Lotus Seven owners who detailed facts about their cars, provided Lotus serial numbers (V.I.N.s) and made general inquiries about parts etc. I do not see any posts from them in the last few years. Have these cars been sold, or is there still a following on USA7s for Lotus manufactured cars, or have the more popular Caterham productions (and other similar makes) taken over? Just curious. Thanks, W.

I have been installing body panels on my chassis, and had to drill 2 holes through the flat panel (that the scuttle slots into) for the handbrake. The Arch built chassis already had the welded sleeves in place, and I have new bolts for the handle and ratchet mechanism. I did some checking on-line regarding the handbrake, and found that in the past, Lotus Seven owners on this forum - as well as Lotus and Caterham Seven Club U.K. members, had inquired regarding the origin of the handbrake. Weale, in his book notes: "The handbrake lever itself, with its angled stem, is one of the few early Lotus parts used on the present day Seven. Intended for mass production use, it is supplied in "straight form" and has to be dismantled and bent to shape" etc......... I discovered through another source that it was a mass produced handbrake for U.K. trucks and vans (small trucks apparently?) - manufacturer unknown, and purchased in sufficient quantities by Lotus, similar to many of their other parts for the Seven and other Lotus cars. This follows on with examples such as the rear lights that were originally manufactured for the trailer industry (Thorpe or Wingard), as well as parts from major manufacturers such as Standard Triumph, Ford, BMC, Lucas, etc., etc. It made sense to purchase as much as they could from companies that already had the necessary parts that could be modified for their purpose, or already fitted the cars being produced, rather than starting from scratch by manufacturing in-house. The handbrake on my 1969 Series 3 was not functioning at all when I purchased the car, and I had to dismantle it to see why it was not working properly. It was quite difficult to reassemble it with the curved rod that didn't want to go back into place around the curved neck of the handle. I believe that the newer (Caterham?) sourced handbrake levers have a rubber thumb press to operate the brake lever, but mine has a turned aluminium thumb press that wouldn't have been cheap (even at the time) to mass produce. I wouldn't recommend disassembly of the unit if you don't have to. W

Pegasus still offers shipping by USPS into Canada (and the U.S.), and both the USPS service and Canada Post have never given me any trouble with deliveries. If the item requires duty here in Canada, Canada Post works out the value, sends a note to your address, then you pick the item up at the post office where you pay for their service (currently $9.00 plus the duty/taxes), or they sometimes do the transaction at your door (if the postal worker has time). If it doesn't require duty or taxes (similar to the previous U.S. de minimus system) it's left in your securely locked roadside post box. I do realize that this method means that you are not in a hurry for the part(s). DHL has always been good when I am in need of an item quickly from the U.K. I attempted to take in a neighbour's parcel (at her request - she had gone out) that had just been dropped off by a courier driver, and he told me "That's theft!". I told him in that case, be my witness in court. He thought about it for a second, then drove off. "They say the darkest hour is just before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbours newspaper, that's the time to do it."

@MV8. I just received a reply from Alex Miller who wrote the papers, and he felt that the Burton distributor set-up would not work with the vintage Smiths tach. He is experimenting with a points system using a 'MSD5' ignition for the benefit of his members. The Burton dist. kit is probably using the 25D Lucas distributor with side entry cap, with the Bosch coil. Holden Vintage U.K. also sell this same model of Lucas 25D distributor labelled as a 'Competition Distributor for tuned Ford Crossflow engines'. It is described as: 'A non-vacuum distributor which suits most tuned crossflow Ford engines using camshafts such as A2, BCF1, Piper HR270-285 and Kent 'Fireball' 234-244 in conjunction with side-draught carbs. This distributor is fitted with a side entry cap for clearance' My notes: It is fitted with points and condenser. It does not come with a clamp or coil which have to be purchased separately. Holden also sell Lucas coils. Lucas has received a bad name in the past - particularly with Lotus owners claiming poor quality and reliability, but maybe these new Lucas productions are an improvement? I searched the web for a side entry Ford Fomoco/Motorcraft dist. cap, found one listed on ebay, but it was incorrectly listed as it was a top entry for a Pinto. Incidentally, the much sought after Bosch dist. for the Ford Crossflow engine (desirable for FF and used on the 1-2-3 system), apparently came from the European Ford Capri 1600 model. A web forum with a note from a former Bosch importer advised that he could never obtain any, and they are long out of production. I see that Ivey Engines show the 1-2-3 system on their web site, but as @7Westfield advises, this set-up is not legal with FF so they must be making it available for other road/racing activities. EW.

Thank you MV8. This is the set-up that I purchased from Burton U.K. some time ago. It came with the Bosch coil. Being an electronic system, this is why I wondered about using it with the aging Smiths tach. Thanks again. EW

Thank you very much @MV8 and @7Westfield. My bad on the 2 counts. I had been reading the FF engine prep. book by Jake Lamont/Tom Andresen, and back then, only points were permitted.. Obviously FF has had to change with the times a tad, and I missed the boat. Also, apologies for 'Mopar' instead of Motorcraft. Senior moment and not sure why that crept in? Messrs. Lamont and Andresen recommended removing the vac advance on the Motorcraft distributor for FF use, and welding the point plates together (also on the Bosch), but I take your advice regarding the necessary idle on a road car. Both authors also recommended the ACCEL heavy duty points, but noted that wear on the rubbing block can be excessive but specifically in FF racing of course. Do you know if Ford/Autolite/Motorcraft produce a suitable side entry distributor cap, as available for the Lucas and Bosch? I think it would help with clearance underneath Weber carbs? I haven't researched it, but sometimes other Ford models are used to provide parts for the Crossflow. I really appreciate the advice, and may just stick with the Ford set-up, as after all, the car came equipped with this equipment, and it's not going to be anywhere near a modern Caterham version. Points were o.k. for the car way back when and will be fine now. I managed to buy a few sets of points and capacitors from a fellow in my city that sold his car, but the buyer didn't want many of the spare parts for unknown reasons. Anyway, thanks a bunch for the advice, and I will keep on with the rebuild. Cheers. W.

Hi MV8. Thank you. The article is from the Triumph Owners' Club of New Zealand (Christchurch) and has been written by Alex Miller. There are 5 downloads pertaining to the Smiths tachometers along with a guide to other Smiths instruments. see: https://triumphclub.co.nz He has titled the papers "A Gentleman's Guide to Smiths Tachometers" and also "A Gentleman's Guide to Classic Smiths Automotive Gauges". A ton of detail is provided with diagrams and identification of the various instruments Smiths produced for car manufacturers (OEM) and also for aftermarket use circa 1960s to 1970s. Cheers W.

My Lotus Seven Series 3 is fitted with an original working Smiths electronic tachometer and is in the RVI series 1003/00. I found an excellent web site from New Zealand where the author describes this model of tach and also the RVC type manufactured by Smiths. In the article, the author notes that the RVI tach can only be used with points in the distributor, not electronic ignition (another site noted not without modifying the tach internals - which is expensive - using a kit from the U.K.). Not having had any experience of electronic ignition, would a Lucas distributor that has been converted to pointless operation still be considered 'electronic' and prohibit the use of the tach that I have? I have a Lucas pointless distributor and a Bosch Blue Coil set originally from Burton U.K., but I have not installed them yet. I am rewiring the connections to the tach (external wiring) and have the wiring diagram for the correct connections (+12v power, negative earth/ground, connection to the coil etc.). I also have 2 original good condition Ford Mopar distributors fitted with points and with extra spares for both. I may end up using one of these sans advance mechanism. I read that Formula Ford rules require distributors with points, and the series runs very well using these apparently (Bosch/Mopar/possibly Lucas), but with constant attention given to wear on the points and adjustment of the timing. Any electronic whizzes (digital or analog) on the forum with sage advice please? W.

It is possible that hot glue from a glue gun has been used due to the 'string' across the plastic surface. If the glass is not attached quick enough and the glue is left to cool, the holding strength is diminished. Hot glue looks like the above, and don't touch it when it is hot, as it does cause painful burns. It can be removed easily with isopropyl alcohol (an original fix from the great Norm Abrams on the PBS programme 'This Old House'). W You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends' nose!

Right on Scott. In an interview posted on YouTube (as well as interviews for magazines), Colin Chapman notes that the Seven was a 'bread and butter line', which allowed Lotus (and of course Chapman) to venture into Formula 1 and other racing categories. Lotus lost money on the Elite Type 14, cut down build expenses on the Seven Series 2 by removing metal, but gained a profit when they went to DIY kit construction for the Seven. It became a reliable source of income for lotus. Chapman had started out with trials cars for his first builds based on Austin 7 parts, so it shows that he was always interested in motor sports from the get go. With his aeronautical background plus those of his original associates, his fondness for lightness was apparent from the very beginning. Fitting a Lotus twin cam engine, the Seven chassis frame had to be beefed up to take the power, but the Standard Triumph rear axle was still the weak spot for the car. Unfortunately for the Series 3, a stronger axle was incorporated, but the chassis frame remained the same as the Series 2 with which it was almost identical, and suffered the same frame failures. On SimpleSevens.org, John D. has an article from Mac McIntosh (Lotus 11 designer) who breaks down the problems with the Seven chassis weaknesses. The Seven Series 4 was no stronger than the Series 2 and 3, and the fibreglass body took the brunt of the failures and hid rust prone areas that were not accessible or noticeable. Caterham of course corrected all this on their Series 3, but it is a whole different car from the original Lotus model (and dare I say it, a whole lot better?) W.

Hi @hahuang65 Just watched a few of your YouTube videos. You keep your garage very clean and orderly for the build. Any chance you can lower the camera (for a close up) when you take the engine out to investigate the fluid leak and show us what happened? Cheers Harold. W.

A company in the U.K. producing parts for the Lotus Elite type 14, (enquiries@mk14components.com part #FS02) has just finished machining a batch of reconditioned track arms for some of their customers on an exchange basis. As suggested by MV8, they machine out the old ball joint, but replace it with a new removable ball joint assembly that can be changed for future repair. However, they advise that this process is very expensive, and they have been losing money by doing this. They are considering remanufacturing the cast part themselves, but prices will rise. Right now, they charge 375.00 U.K. Pounds Sterling (without tax) on an exchange basis for a pair of reconditioned arms. Regarding @7Westfield's accurate assessment (thumbs up to you), they are producing arms as shown in this attachment. They feel that it will be aesthetically o.k. for an Elite, as the bodywork covers the front suspension, but on full view for a Seven if authenticity is not a problem. Also, cheers MV8 for the diagram. W

Hi MV8. Brilliant idea to renew the ball joint. Didn't think of that, but it would work. It would make a sound unit that could be renewed as necessary. W