I sent it to your email last week, I'll send it again
I sent it to your email last week, I'll send it again
I sent it to your email last week, sent again at 9.30 this morning
Special thanks as I did not receive the previous message.Originally Posted by S4seven
When enlarged on my Mac. the photo you have kindly sent, shows a registration plate Q9169, as against my car GR7169. I do not see it as being the car I owned.
After purchasing the car, I talked to someone in the Auckland Lotus Club, who knew something of its previous club racing history, which as I understood it only involved North Island circuits. There was no suggestion of it ever having been fitted with wire wheels, with the main topic of the conversation covering a period of rather harsh treatment.
Whatever, thanks for your efforts to assist.
Trevor.
Trevor. The picture I sent has GR7169 sitting next tp GR7171.
Gr7169 reregistered as NR8468 and now FLP100 The car is now white and living in Christchurch which I think it always has done?
The Chassis Numbers are listed in the CAMS Log Books for the two "wide body" (Australian version) cars that we have. The 3995 was logged in 1978 but the 3060 was logged in 1980. Both cars have documented ASCC history, the question we have is are they Steel Bros cars or Norwich cars?
Any hints as to where chassis numbers or ID can be found on the cars?
CCC
Chassis 3060 if a Steel bros. car would have been built in '76 and sorry 3995 doesn't seem to fit, is this the black car with yellow strip for sale at the moment?. Only NZ built cars seem to come with a wide body.
Both cars have widened bodies but I don't think were based on the Steel Bros wide body as being discussed here. I will attempt to post a photo of my car.
Hi Paul, and congratulations with Your S4. As it happends I just bought one myself here on the other side of the worldIt is just a normal S4, but I will somehow modify it along the way. I have to questions for you: is the track with up front the same as an S4 or is it wider? Secondly, do you have and pics of the rear setup?
If you are interested to see my car, I have started a thread on Pistonheads:
Hello down under,
I found this thread the other day and have read it with great interest. I have done a lot of research on the Lotus 7 and the Lotus approved Seven derivatives. I take pride in getting the history as accurate as possible, because I believe that there are enough inaccurate books on the Seven already. I have during the past 20 years personally talked to many former Lotus employees involved in the Seven. Unfortunately there is only one remaining former Lotus executive left who I finally got to talk the other day. I am a Lotus owner myself. I have done some research on the "company X 7", but after reading this tread I believe that my research is far from over
“Company X" build Lotus 7 S4 in a "country close to Australia". Caterham and/or Lotus send a frame jig and a body mold to them. These Sevens were build from approx. 1973 to 1976 on a 3 year licenses issued by Caterham. They made 97 cars - 50 with the Lotus twin cam engine & 47 with the Lotus 907 engine. They used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus. They even tried to get the 907 EPA/DOT approved for export to the US but that never happened.”
Please feel free to correct the above.
*It has been told that it was Lotus who licensed "Company X", but according to reliable source that is probably incorrect because Lotus reached a binding agreement with Caterham in July 1971. In that agreement Caterham took over the production rights of ALL Lotus 7 types and committed themselves to support existing Lotus Sevens. The agreement was however first finalized in May 1973.
*Does anybody have the VIN numbers for the "company X 7"? I have some.
*Is the 907 engine "company X 7" all widebody Super 907?
*Was the Super 907 ever approved for road use?
*Paul (Wilkinson) the VIN (chassis) no. 3094 you display – Is that the VIN for your widebody Seven?
I am looking forward to be hearing from you all.
Mike
Last edited by cossie; 03-19-2012 at 07:04 AM.
Hi Paul,
Colin Chapman could be a devious so and so but I don’t believe that he would do anything in this case that could jeopardize the deal with Caterham. He absolutely wanted to get rid of the Seven and as fast as possible.
Colin Chapman had to protect the Lotus name for legal reasons (I have the full story about that) and therefore nobody (to my knowledge) have never been permitted to use the Lotus name on cars or kits not produced by Lotus England. Not even Caterham and they tried hard to keep the Lotus name on the Seven.
What I am told is that with the exception of Lotus & Caterham, 3 other manufactures have been allowed to manufacture the Seven under license. "Company X" was one of them.
So the displayed chassis number is for the red one you displayed (engine compartment)? What’s the chassis number on your “black monster”?
Where can I find a list of the "Company X 7" chassis numbers on this board as you wrote?
Cheers,
Mike
Last edited by cossie; 03-19-2012 at 07:06 AM.
Widebody S4 Lotus Seven
Hi Paul,
The 50 S4 kits (some say a lot more) were delivered to "Company X" from Lotus before "Company X" started their own Seven production. These cars are genuine Lotus Sevens. The Sevens produced by "Company X" from 1973 – 1976 ? were Sevens using the original Lotus jig and molds.
There are made approx. 2400 genuine Lotus Seven (all models) and out of them around 5000 have survived
Anyway I am very interested in more info. on the "Company X 7" regarding chassis numbers, production numbers, photos Etc.
Cheers,
Mike
Last edited by cossie; 03-19-2012 at 07:09 AM.
Kia ora Mike,
With due respect, New Zealand does not harbour or condone fraud and corruption of any sort is exceedingly rare. Our laws support international branding and laws relative to copyright. Steele Bros (NZ) Ltd constitutes a well known legitimate substantial enterprise engaged in the heavy transport sector and as such would not have contemplated risking their substantial good will by illegally using the Lotus name.
Exactly from where are you compiling your alleged expert information? You may be 52 and be pretty sure, but I am 83 and well remember the advertising and sales promotion relative to the local building of the Lotus S4. At the time severe import restrictions were in place and only locally assembled cars were readily available. The possibility of local manufacture was very much in the news and Steele Bros activity was widely publicised. There were reports on how arrangements were made after personal visits to the Lotus organisation.
You are stating that Steel Bros were operating illegally. Provide proof or desist from distributing slander, you could be judged liable.
I drove a Lotus S4 constructed locally and it certainly was not imitation or bogus.
Cheers,
Trevor.
Hi Trevor,
I initially wrote to this thread in order find out more about the "Company X 7" (not the S4 kits imported from Lotus) and not to start a “war” on whether Lotus had aproved the use of their badge on it or not. I am absolutely not accusing anybody of anything but if you are so sure that Lotus had approved in writing that "other Seven manufactures" could use the Lotus badge on the cars they build entirely, then give me some proof instead of threatening me with liability issues. Put your word where your mouth is my friend, and if you are right and I am wrong – I will eat my words and write here that I was wrong.
Again I am interested in the "Company X"produced Sevens history and not in “mudslinging” as mentioned above.
If that’s not possible I am sorry that I spend my time writing to this thread and we might as well stop here. My spare time is too valuable for non constructive conversations.
Cheers,
Mike
Last edited by cossie; 03-19-2012 at 07:11 AM.
Hi Paul & Trevor,
I fully agree with you Paul that I can be percived as a bit arrogant even though I am not. I am a no nonsense guy who absolutely hates politics and injustice. What I have to say, I say directly to people.
I have really researched the Lotus 7 and 7 licensed derivatives very thoroughly during many years. I have talked to almost all the Colin Chapman Lotus era top people involved with the Seven and sadly there are now only one left. I have spoken to key Lotus people no other authors of any Seven books have spoken to! Without sounding arrogant I don’t believe that anybody has researched as much as I have regarding the Lotus 7. Therefore it really pisses me off when somebody like you Trevor accuses me of: “Stating that "Company X" were operating illegally, distributing slander, so I could be judged liable” Etc. That very OTT and not called fore.
The following has been said by many of the ex. top Lotus people I have interviewed:
“When Caterham took over the Seven production they wanted very much to use the Lotus Name. Colin Chapman checked that possibility with his attorneys. However the problem was that Lotus could still be held liable for independent manufactures possible legal problems if they used the Lotus name on their cars and registrations. So that was declined.”
Knowing that it is not very likely that "other Seven manufactures" were given that permission – is it?
That does not make the "Company X 7" an inferior product and that is NOT what I am saying. In a matter of fact the car was probably better than the original Lotus 7 S4, especially the “wide body”. I wouldn’t mind having a Super 907 myself and that was the reason why I previously asked if that car was approved for road use. I know that you all are proud of the "Company X 7" and rightfully may I say and it has never been my intention to challenge that.
If there still are some key "Company X 7"people around, please give them my e-mail: agmni@aol.com. I would like to get their storeys.
Cheers,
Mike
Last edited by cossie; 03-19-2012 at 07:15 AM.
Attention Mike,
You made this direct statement --- “They (Steel Bros.) used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus.” What is more you included significant associated asides, all of which damages the goodwill of Steele Bros.
It is especially significant that you continue not to provide the factual evidence which I requested, i.e. “You are stating that Steel Bros. were operating illegally. Provide proof or desist from distributing slander, you could be judged liable.”
You have rudely posted, ----
” if you (Trevor) are so sure that Lotus had approved in writing that Steel Brothers could use the Lotus badge on the cars they build entirely, then give me some proof instead of threatening me with liability issues. Put your word where your mouth is my friend, and if you are right and I am wrong – I will eat my words and write here that I was wrong. I am waiting.”
I now “put my word where my mouth is” and again categorically state, what I have outlined is sound and logical fact. N.B. Steele Bros. would not have blatantly publicised a product, branded it and widely used the name “Lotus”, unless they were legally entitled to do so. This would have amounted to outright commercial stupidity, leaving the door open for litigation and costly damages.. I trust the intelligence of readers to carefully read your posts together with statements by Paul and myself and come to logical conclusions.
You now obtusely if not slyly, address me within your latest post --- “So this is not a matter of somebody has done something illegally Trevor, but again that is not the same as they were given a written permission to use the Lotus name is it?”
In answer I say, stop beating about the bush dodging the issue. You have here in print, made absolute and direct unproved derogatory statements relative to Steele Bros. What is more, you now claim authority in respect of making your allegations by stating, “Without sounding arrogant I don’t believe that anybody has researched as much as I have regarding the Lotus 7.”
At this point I restrain from more aptly worded comment. However I do call for an apology, particularly towards Steels Bros. and without attendant qualification and or sarcasm.
Without repent,
Trevor.
P.S. It is rather significant that I am called upon to defend myself against text from a dot in cyberspace, whereas by contrast I post in my true name, which appears with my address in the Auckland telephone directory, available on the internet.
Last edited by Trevor Sheffield; 03-18-2012 at 07:58 AM. Reason: P.S. Added.
Hi Trevor,
Why do you keep attacking Mike and create a bad environment here with all your threats about legal actions??
This is a CAR forum for exchanging information and should not be used as your personal platform for vendetta or boredom.
Apparently I have to choose my words carefully here or you will probably also threaten to sue me too.
Here is a Section from CAMS:
”Note: Only Lotus built cars or Lotus kits assembled by Steel Bros (NZ) are elgible for classification in this group. Later cars built by Steel Bros commonly known as “New Zealand 7” with altered mechnical and body specifications, are not elgible. Please refer to notes in addendum to this sheet.”
Question: Why are these Steel Bros Sevens not eligible if they are Lotuses as you claim?
Let’s close this discussion and move on.
Cheers,
John
Just a wee question for you from the sidelines.
When did CAMS, who has nothing whatever to do with NZ have the power to make a decision affecting NZ?
From the sidelines, it is not Trevor who has made the threats, it was Mike/Cossie who intimated that Steels had been acting illegally.
All Trevor (who I do not know) pointedout was that making these intimations could be libellous.
Jan, did you join the forum just to jump on this issue?
At the time of Steele Bros production we had numerous visits from Lotus staff, if the cars were illegal from a name point they could hardly have been unaware.
I have a vague memory of cars being displayed with race cars, but this could be a vague old memory and be incorrect
Last edited by Oldfart; 03-18-2012 at 04:00 PM.
Hi all,
It’s getting late and I do not really want to get into this but I do see a pattern of a “lynching mob” from NZ and that is not right.
I am sorry but I do not see any threats from Mike. However I can associate with his frustration in trying to gather a historically correct Lotus 7 history and not getting any help.
I am aware of that CAMS has nothing to do with NZ! so what you are saying is that Steel Bros Sevens were only allowed to be called Lotuses in NZ. Is that correct understood? You are also saying that Australian CAMS (our national body) know absolutely nothing about the Steel Bros Seven! Isn’t that what Trevor calls slander?
As indicated I could care less here and I do not know Mike but after reading this thread again, I actually believe that it is Trevor who are threatening Mike.
Anyway I believe that Trevor has taken this thread way off topic and that we should get back on topic.
No this I by far my first contribution (if you must know!) but instead of changing my old profile which contains all my personal details such as e-mail address I have made a new one. I do not want persons like Trevor to have my e-mail address (for obvious reasons may I say).
Cheers,
John
FWIW Steel Bros had been in the fabrication business for almost 100 years, before the Lotus venture. The quality of their fabrication(s) and their honesty in their dealings was, and is, unquestioned.
This was very far from a 'nickle and dime' outfit, trying to assemble kit cars in a back shed.
Steel Bros, was then and is to this day, a large, well respected business
I'm sure the Lotus venture was a minor diversion, possibly to keep employees occupied during inevitable 'slow times' that were endemic in those industries, at that time.
Also FWIW, they were probably far better capitalized than any other of Chapman's customers, possibly better than Lotus themselves and, in my direct experience, Steel Bros paid their bills...on time...a characteristic attractive to ANY supplier of theirs, including Lotus.
Neville Milne
As a relative newbie here, I have been reading this thread with interest. I got the impression that any warnings were given in a friendly/advisory manner not as a threat of action to be taken by anyone here on the forum. Over the years I have read many books and articles about the S4 Sevens and all too few even acknowledge the NZ built cars, it therefore not surprising that there is little knowledge outside NZ about them. The CAMS reference is irrelevant in as much as we have no idea why NZ built cars were classified as they were in Australia. I doubt anyone involved in any licensing or business transactions with Lotus or Colin Chapman would be willing to have any documentation posted on the net. I only reponded due to my interest in these cars for many years and the desire to own one myself.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote