DSK Seven (David Kaplan)

[DSK]

30 minutes ago, SevenAmerica said:

I was told that at some point, that Pat Prince produced the parts that David specified, perhaps with Tom Robertson's input (see the bottom half of this page in the DSK history: https://www.simplesevens.org/dsk/history/dsk11.htm)

Better take the material in that link with a grain of salt. We actually made only one, or maybe two, suspension parts whose design came from Tom Robertson's car. They were racing parts only, not suited for street use, so we sold two or maybe three of them over the next several years. Look, Tom did a terrific job building, innovating and driving his Lotus Seven racers. He won a lot of races and earned champion status. My hat is off to all that. But Tom makes far too much of his imagined grievances and supposed DSK Cars gains at his expense. Th fact is, we made pocket change and gave Tom a similar pittance. It is much ado about nothing. As I read Tom's gripe, I think of a mosquito floating on his back down the Mississippi with an erection frantically yelling "Raise the drawbridge, raise the drawbridge!"  Pat Prince's friendship and loyalty to Tom is admirable, but Pat was not around when DSK Cars and Tom Robertson did our paltry little deal. Tom never complained at the time, so his griping years later came as a surprise to me. Somebody please tell Tom that nobody wants or ever wanted his autograph. My word, what a bunch of BS!

[anduril3019]

On 4/16/2022 at 12:05 PM, DSK said:

Sorry for the delay in answering. I am all too easily distracted. DSK Cars and Dave Bean Engineering had no official connection, except perhaps that we were the two Caterham dealers in the US back them. We did cooperate with one another and pick each others brains, I bought some engine parts from Dave and he bought some chassis and suspension components from us. I admired his expertise and enjoyed his friendliness. 

I worked for Dave for a couple of years around 1990, I'll vouch for his expertise and friendliness!

[SevenAmerica]

1 hour ago, DSK said:

Better take the material in that link with a grain of salt. We actually made only one, or maybe two, suspension parts whose design came from Tom Robertson's car. They were racing parts only, not suited for street use, so we sold two or maybe three of them over the next several years. Look, Tom did a terrific job building, innovating and driving his Lotus Seven racers. He won a lot of races and earned champion status. My hat is off to all that. But Tom makes far too much of his imagined grievances and supposed DSK Cars gains at his expense. Th fact is, we made pocket change and gave Tom a similar pittance. It is much ado about nothing. As I read Tom's gripe, I think of a mosquito floating on his back down the Mississippi with an erection frantically yelling "Raise the drawbridge, raise the drawbridge!"  Pat Prince's friendship and loyalty to Tom is admirable, but Pat was not around when DSK Cars and Tom Robertson did our paltry little deal. Tom never complained at the time, so his griping years later came as a surprise to me. Somebody please tell Tom that nobody wants or ever wanted his autograph. My word, what a bunch of BS!

Haha l, well it looks like you get the last word David - I’m not sure if Tom is even with us these days. I would think though, that you must have expected that using a photo of his race car on your promotional folder, along with statements about testing development and preparation would be of some benefit to your operation? I mean, sure it was just marketing, but you must have thought some boy-racer Seven owner would take it all to heart? :-)

[DSK]

That was the actual deal. We discounted parts to him in exchange for using his name in promotions. Yes, it's marketing. Not sure why that is anything but routine USA capitalism. DSK Cars was a business after all. Tom used more of DSK parts than we used parts of his. 

[SevenAmerica]

Ahh, that’s makes sense then… it would appear he might have had some misgivings about the arrangement or how his likeness was used, hence his apparent annoyance.

 

Agreed, as far as I’m concerned: nothing more than pure capitalism and marketing angle for a small business. I’m sure you all had good fun concocting these schemes, and following the races, if not actually racing, nationwide.

 

I appreciate the addition details and clarifications David, thank you.

[EdWills]

Hi All.

I'm late getting to the party on this one, but enjoyed reading the thread after I just found it!

 

DSK (David Kaplan) produced very well engineered and well made parts for road and racing.  All the parts I purchased from DSK were excellent, and if there was a problem (a minor defect on a wishbone), David took care of it right away, no questions asked, with a replace or refund option.  He had excellent suppliers, and the quality of the parts I have reflect this.  His bulletins were well thought out, and were sound engineering practice.  Mr. Chapman and Carroll Smith would have approved, and I believe Mr. Smith worked on some chassis drawings and stress calculations for David.  I have all of the DSK technical bulletins, and if Lotus - under Mr. Chapman - had been truly interested in developing the Seven further (which he definitely wasn't), some of the DSK mods suggested by David may have been incorporated.  In fact Don Gadd, when he was working at Arch, incorporated some of David's modifications into at least one much modified chassis.  The integrated roll-over bar at the rear of the chassis was incorporated with a forward removable brace, a 1 inch x 1 inch x 18 gauge square tube - linking both sides of the chassis behind the seats - was considered essential by Mr. Gadd. The 2 inch by 1 inch heavier gauge rectangular tube at the lower front of the chassis was considered a good addition by Mr. Gadd to strengthen the front wishbone attachment points.  I am not sure if further chassis were produced by Arch in this format, as probably Caterham (under Messrs. Nearn and Wakefield) weren't prepared to go that far at the time due to higher cost of production. They did add further strengthening of course as per the Twin Cam Seven chassis, but that was about it.  (Note: When Caterham - under new management - decided to really go up-market with much more powerful engines etc., they completely redesigned the chassis and used another frame builder.  It looked like a Seven chassis, but all of the tubing and triangulation was different). The Caterham/Arch produced racing chassis specially developed for David Bettinson in 1975 for Modsports racing in the U.K. was much modified from a 'standard' Caterham 7 chassis. It had further external triangulation and a similar Panhard rod set-up at the rear as per the DSK road car (although a Cars and Car Conversions test of the race car notes that Caterham/Arch removed 18 pounds of metal to make it lighter for racing).  The DSK chassis was developed to remove all of the original design (read breakage) problems, plus added a turbocharger to the engine. Caterham considered this far too drastic and too far removed from what they were doing, and so cut the partnership with DSK.  I was fortunate to have a long chat with David Wakefield on this point on a visit to Caterham.  When Clayton Seitz took over DSK, he was similarly very helpful.  I have the original magazine road test of the DSK Seven and it has also been reproduced in some of the booklets on the Seven.  Looking back over the years, so many manufacturers have tried to copy the Lotus Seven, with different chassis arrangements and different looks.  Maybe DSK was ahead of its time?

[DSK]

Hi Ed, 

Thanks for all the kind words and for setting a few things straight. I was fortunate to work with Carroll Smith on the 1970 Dodge Trans Am team. He was team manager for the Autodynamics crew and I wrenched for him. We became friends and so years later I asked him to come back to Marblehead and help me build the prototype DSK TurboSeven. The rest of that story is here

https://www.simplesevens.org/dsk/history/dsk12.htm

He did all the technical drawings for the TurboSeven and our chassis components. He screwed the 1dt car together and also helped shepard that car through the Car & Driver road test with us, snatching our bacon out of the fire a couple of times. We stayed in touch for years, in large part because he loved Patty's cooking. 

We were US distributors for Caterham for years along with Dave Bean Engineering. It was an odd relationship and Graham Nearne always seemed a tad paranoid. Realistically, we were far too small to have much impact on their US sales. At times, they bought some of our improved components and eventually upgraded some of their own following our designs. It was a point of pride and I never griped. Those parts made Sevens safer. Better for everyone.

Once again, thanks for kind comments. 

Edited November 25, 2023 by DSK
Grammar, clarity

[IamScotticus]

DSK Technical bulletins?

Would these pertain to all 7, or just proprietary to DSK items?

[DSK]

We wrote technical bulletins on a wide variety of subjects. Most pertained to Lotus Sevens, a number were specific to dsk cars modified components. 

[theDreamer]

David, I found a Caterham for sale in Belgium that advertises:”The rear suspension has been adapted to the DSK 4-link system Ford 2000 rear axle with 3.45:1 ratio and with Quaife limited slip differential” I would take it that this is referring to an Escort solid axle.

How did your 4-link system differ from others? Did you sell a lot of parts to the UK or Europe?

[DSK]

I don't recall selling anyone the parts for 4-link unless they bought our chassis too. Our chassis had an integral rollover bar to protect the passenger compartment. It went all the way down to the floorpan. The rear suspension pickup points were welded into that rollbar inside the rear fender area. Since Lotus Sevens had a different chassis, they could not fit our 4-link without reworking the chassis quite extensively. I don't know of anyone who took that on. 

 

That said, it's not impossible that some clever (and skilled) fabricator could duplicate our 4-link, or something quite like it, to fit a Caterham, especially if the Brits finally upgraded that flimsy chassis they used to sell. 

 

[EdWills]

Hi Dreamer.  According to a January 1981 article in Motor Sport magazine (U.K.) Caterham were planning to use a 4 link with Panhard rod set-up on their basic 7 and Sprint models using the 1600 Crossflow for 1981 onwards cars.  In the same article, a road test of the Caterham race car prepared by Chris Meek with engine constructed by Clive Roberts mentions an upgraded rear suspension, but does not detail which type of rear suspension (i.e. 'A' bracket or 4 link with Panhard) was used on their race car. Note: I mentioned the 1975 Modsports car built by Caterham for David Bettinson.  I wrongly noted that the car had 18 pounds of metal removed after it had been strengthened.  This is totally incorrect as 18 pounds of tubing was actually added to strengthen the chassis making it over 4 times stronger, but 14 pounds of trim material was removed, making the car only 4 pounds heavier.  As I mentioned above, it had a 4 link with Panhard rod rear suspension. In other U.K. magazines featuring Caterham 7s that had been adapted for racing by their owners, some competition bodies required an original type of 'A' bracket at the rear.  Some referred to using a ball joint at the axle location, and one referred to a sliding 'A' bracket, which appeared on Rob Cox Allison's 'Black Brick' series of racing cars (I am fortunate to have an original blueprint of this set-up). The Motor Sport Jan. 1981 edition also mentioned that Clive Roberts had experimented with a turbocharged 7, so again, David Kaplan was ahead of his time once again.   EW