55 replies to this topic

[Sisyphus]

The more i look into it the more it seems the change from 25 to 33 designation was just arbitrary. the few things i thought were defining features of the 33 are nothing of the sort. I'm still intrigued about the changes that were made across the life of these car though. 

 

Are there any books that you would recommend on this subject?  

I have John Tipler's "Lotus 25 & 33" which you might find interesting.

[Ray Bell]

Mark Bisset has added this Iain McNeill photo to the 39 collection:



Clearly shown is the tubular structure behind the cockpit bulkhead. I don't think this was altered to fit the Repco V8 as that was one of the design features of the engine, that it would fit in where a Climax FPF came out.

[Roger Clark]

The tubular structure was added to the 39 when the FPF was fitted.  A photograph in Theme Lotus draws attention to "perforated-angle booms intended for the 16-cylinder" but I've never found out whether the Flt-16 Climax engine was intended to be a stressed part of the chassis.

[Roger Clark]

Lotus were not alone in changing type numbers without much change in specification.  Consider, for example, the differences between a Brabham BT7 and BT11 or between a Cooper T45 and T51.  Others would make quite fundamental changes without changing type number: e.g. BRMs P25 and P48 and the Maserati 250F.

[jeremy durward]

So, I finally got a copy of John Tipler's book on the 25 and 33 (via my partners parent's house in the UK then to Australia). In there is a story about how the sheet metal workers employed to build the 25 were fired and in revenge put the jigs for the 25 through the guillotine. This story seems to imply that the 33 was the response to losing all the chassis jigs and an excuse for a light redesign.is this perhaps the real reason for the number change?  

[cooper997]

Not your typical jeweller's bling... Lotus 33 Climax in the making

 

 

https://www.facebook...?type=3

 

Stephen