Colin Chapman Museum and Education Centre Newsletter January 2014

Newsletter – Number  45

  1. Boxing Day Romsey Classic car show
  2. Museums around the world you may not have heard of
  3. Questions from our readers,
  4. Chapman and Lotus –Formula Junior –No Minor Achievement
  5. Design Heroes: Jean Prouve [1901-1984]
  6. London and Lotus: The Epicentre of Post War British Motor Racing
  7. Lotus books one for the library 
  8. Lotus collectables
  9. Lotus interest on YouTube

All previous articles relating to these are held on the website.

1. Boxing Day Romsey Classic car show

This show goes from strength to strength.

jn 001 jn 004 jn 010 jn 005 jn 002

2. Car Museums you may never of heard of: Good Old Days Vintage Motorcar Museum

Many who pass through Hardy, a town of roughly 772 people 60 miles northwest of Jonesboro, have to put on the brakes for the police car sitting on the south side of the highway 412. But one need not worry about being pulled over. The squad car is just a small practical joke by Ernest Sutherland, the owner of the “GoodOldDaysVintageMotorcarMuseum.”

Complete with a dressed up dummy sitting in the driver’s seat, the patrol car has fooled its fair share of motorists.

“You would be surprised at the amount of people who will drive up there, pull into the parking lot of the museum up to where the police car is at, get out of the car, go over there and knock on the glass to ask for directions,” Sutherland said.

The squad car is the first visible “exhibit” of the museum, which has a small place in the history of automobiles, but also the history of Hardy. The car, a model from the early 80s, was the first police car purchased by the small town. When a second car was eventually purchased, the town sold it to Sutherland and his museum.

Sutherland, who works in the plastics industry and resides in Memphis, Tenn., started up the museum in March of 1996 when he needed a place to store his collection of cars he had restored, many of them Model –T’s, the car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company from 1908 to 1927.

“It was a hobby that got out of control. I bought my first car (a 1926 Model-T), restored it and thought ‘that looks pretty good.’ My intention was to buy a car, restore it and then sell it,” Sutherland said. “But every one I’ve restored I’ve fallen in love with and couldn’t part with it. Next thing I knew, I had 20 to 25 cars and I had to look for a place to put them. I ended up in Hardy. I thought someday when I retire, Hardy might be a good place to retire to. That’s never happened.”

 The reason for Sutherland’s fascination with the car that occupies half of “Good Old Day’s” showroom is the longevity of that first era of vehicle.

“That really was the first car that was affordable for someone who was working.  Back then of course a Model –T was a lot of money, but you could buy one for $300 to $325,” Sutherland said. “1927 was the last year the Model-T’s were made and basically the components and parts that went into a 1927 model were the same ones that were used in 1909.”

“He’s the sweetest man in the world,” said Mary Hambrice, the museum’s caretaker for the last three years. “One of the cars, a Skyline, the gentlemen that owned it loved his car. (Before he) passed away, he had asked if he could have his car put in here and it’s been here ever since just to keep it in good condition.”

Hambrice has been in love with cars ever since her older brother drove a candy-apple red 1969 Ford Mustang.

“I’ve always been fascinated by older cars,” Hambrice said. “My grandmother used to tell stories about (getting) gas, scrounging up 75 cents to fill the tank up.”

While half of the vehicles at “Good Old Days” are from the dawn of the automobile industry,  a fair share are from the latter half of the 20th Century. Among them is a red 1910 Kissel Car, a vanilla colored 1924 Falcon Knight and a silver 1989 Pontiac Turbo Trans-AM emblazoned with stickers identifying it as a replica of the official pace car used at the 1989 Indianapolis 500.

But just a few feet away from the Pontiac sits a precursor to todat’s four-wheeled gas guzzlers. From the streets of Thailand sits a Ricksaw, a vehicle best described as part bicycle, part taxi, which while sporting a 1911 license plate, is really from the late 1800s.

The museum’s relatively isolated location, albeit in a tourist-heavy town like Hardy, hasn’t kept it from hosting a wide variety of visitors since its opening 17 years ago.

“We’ve had 20-30 people come through in a day or one person in a day,” Hambrice said. “You meet a lot of interesting people who come in here. I’ve met people from Australia, Germany, Austria, Japan, Scotland, England, Sweden and Norway.”

When Hambrice, a native of Louisiana, asks these distant visitors how they came to find the museum, the frequent response is through Google.

“So (I ask them) ‘do you like classic cars’ (and) they say ‘yes we do,’ so I give them brochures for other places to go to if they want,” Hambrice said. Last year the museum hosted the Model-T Club of America, a group that picks a town as a meeting place and then travels the back roads of America to get there.

The museum has had to adjust its seasonal openings in recent years because of the opening of a bypass around Hardy. With a drop in foot traffic, the museum now only opens in the summer, opening for seven days a week beginning in May.

Another force working against Sutherland and his museum is that which it documents: the passage of time. With each passing year the time from which all of the vehicles originated slips away. With it are those who are experienced at working on and maintaining the life spans of the vehicles.

 “The old-timers are fading away fast,” Sutherland said. “Technology has changed.” The museum owner did say parts for old cars can be reproduced.



3. Questions from our readers

Good afternoon Neil

I wonder if you have information to hand as to whether Lotus ever produced a “Black Edition” Lotus Eclat?

The only special edition I have found is the sprint. I only ask as I am looking to buy an Eclat and I’ve seen one in “black spec” that I fear is being mis-sold and I wanted to be pre-armed if I was to go and view it!
I look forward to hearing from you.


4. Chapman and Lotus –Formula Junior –No Minor Achievement


The editors of the A&R would be unable and unwilling to campaign for the establishment of the proposed CCM&EC if there was not overwhelming evidence and current justification for its existence.

Colin Chapman’s/Lotus success, impact and achievement in Formula Junior go far beyond the track and have major consequences / implications/ lessons for today. The contribution of Colin Chapman and Formula Junior embraces:-

  • Democratization and affordability of the sport
  • The essential belief that there was a level playing field and participants could have a chance of success
  • It inspired a vast array of engineering talent and , innovation/ concepts as witnessed by the marque list and the affordability
  • It enriched British engineering and specialists [ again refer marque list]
  • It gave opportunity to some of the foremost drivers of the generation like Jim Clark
  • It operated as a feeder escalator inspiring drivers and engineers upwards.

This was healthy meld of aspiration, participation and innovation from a low cost base placing emphasis on ideas and an opportunity to experiment.

Formula Junior also had a beneficial economic dimension. Participants could be involved with a low cost base but if successful had the means to expand and diversify as many did.

Subscribers will recognize many of participants were successful in other branches of motorsport some continue in existence today. We shall therefore look at the opportunity for low cost participation and the means by which the proposed CCM&EC can develop this with the associated historical benefits remaining relevant today.

The editors appreciate that formula Junior like other classes intended for low cost entry eventually were partly killed by their own success. In all competitive arena’s technology increased with associated costs and what was perhaps meant to be amateur sporned professional works teams attracting the better drivers etc.

This is an initial article establishing the primary context and parameters .A fuller series  will follow in which we can examine in detail:-

  • Lotus compared and contrasted with its Formula Junior contemporaries.
  • Expanded technical and competition history.
  • Formula Junior today – the contemporary scene.

The Enabling Role of Formula Junior.

  • Designers
  • Mechanics
  • Drivers
  • Team managers
  • Engine manufacturers and tuners

Marriot observes:-

“It has always proved necessary to have some form of training ground  for potential Grand Prix drivers………..after the Second world War certain constructors turned their attention  to the building of Formula Three cars……..the primary object of this racing was to provide a form of racing within the reach of any enthusiast  possessing some mechanical knowledge. However a side result of this formula was to provide the best ever training ground for young drivers prior to their entry into the intermediate Formula Two class then existing. Almost directly as a result of this class of racing, Great Britain found her self-possessed of the majority of the world’s best Grand Prix drivers.

So apparent was this that other nations began to look for an alternative when interest in formula three diminished .A well-known motor racing personality and Italian representative of the FIA; Count “Johnny” Lurani hit on the idea of a formula which would lead to the construction of a relatively cheap and orthodox racing car based on components used in normal production salon cars.

Immense interest was aroused immediately and many of the first Formula Juniors cars as they came to be known were constructed and driven by Italians”

Marriott seems to fully appreciate the training and experience opportunity that Formula Junior provided. He observes that:-

“Because they compete in the exhilarating atmosphere of an international Grand Prix .This is good schooling for any up and coming driver”

The Spirit and Specification

Twite records a slightly different emphasis to that of Marriott:

“Credit for the idea of Formula Junior goes to Count “Johnny” Lurani the Italian former racing driver .his idea came at a time when enthusiasm for the current 500cc formula 3 , never very strong on the Continent was very much on the wane, for it had developed into one country , one car domination , namely Britain and Cooper. Lurani’s scheme was for cheap racing cars as possible, and when the formula was made international the rules stated that the engine and gearbox must come from a production car which more than 1,000 had been made in 12 months……….As it was an Italian idea it was no surprise that Italian cars and drivers dominated early races, the Stanguellini, with front mounted Fiat engine being the most successful car. This featured the front suspension from a Fiat production car as well as a rigid back axle and was relatively cheap to produce. When the British constructions began to take an interest their approach was more professional and by the end of 1959 Elva, Lola, Gemini, Lotus and Cooper all had cars in advance state of construction…………. From then on British cars dominated Formula Junior almost exclusively with Lotus generally taking the honours”

The class of racing has been attributed to the Formula allowed cars to be constructed around Fiat parts.

It became international in 1958 but not until 1959 did Britain join with the likes of Cooper and Elva using BMC components whilst Lola and Lotus opted for Ford Anglia [see Cosworth below]

The Formula required that production engines and gearboxes should be used along with brakes from the same vehicle .Overhead camshafts were prohibited. Two engine sizes were allowed – 1100cc and weight of 400kg or 1000cc and 360kg.There were additional fixed measurements of the car.

Formula Junior was very evocative and in many respects emulated GP cars at an affordable cost. In particular many looked like scaled down Vanwalls etc. Cars and technology were a healthy diverse mix including front or rear engines, front wheel or rear wheel drive, two stroke, four stroke, air cooled, water cooled with multiple cylinders .Chassis ranged from ladder construction to monococque.

Formula Junior FIA Requirements

Marriott quotes the FIA regulations for Juniors as comprising:-

  • The cars are defined as being single seater ; the fundamental elements of which are derived from touring cars  recognized as such by FIA  production must have exceeded 1,000 units in any consecutive twelve months]
  • Minimum wheel base:6’-7.75”
  • Minimum track:3’-7.252
  • Maximum width [ outside measurements]:3’-1.5”
  • Maximum cylinder capacity:1,100 cc
  • Minimum weight: 881.8lbs [400 kg.] [See & relate technical specification tabulation] reduced to 793 lb. for models with capacity of 1,000cc or less.
  • Cylinder block and cylinder head must be those of the engine belonging to a car classed by the FIA
  • The gearbox must also be that of recognized touring model. There are no restrictions on the number and staging of gear ratios
  • The system and principle of fuel feeding must be the same as that of the car from which the engine is taken
  • Same rule applied to braking system but this rule has been modified and disc brakes now permitted
  • The cylinder capacities specified may be reached by modifying the original bore [increase or reduction] but no alteration of stroke is allowed.
  • The vehicle must be fitted with a self-starter device
  • The body, open and giving provision for ne seat must also incorporate a roll bar round the driver’s seat protecting him from being crushed should the car turn over.
  • Adequate fire protection is also required.

 The following are prohibited:

  • Use of an engine with overhead camshaft,
  • Self-locking differential
  • The number of crankshaft bearings
  • Changing camshaft location

Commercial fuel only as defined by the FIA must be used and every car must be equipped with a certificate of authenticity issued by the national sports authority concerned, at the beginning of any event

The Competitors

or Comparative Specifications.

This information has been taken from Twite and Roberts. The editor’s hope by providing a wide cross section of cars /technical specifications several objectives can be achieved. These include:-

  • To analyses Lotus against the competition
  • To make deductions why it was superior
  • To examine the rich , healthy and international diverse composition of the class
  • To examine to what extent the class achieved its objectives of affordability
  • To reveal the popularity and extent of the participation

There are many lessons to be learnt here alone.

Following specifications taken from :-

  • Racing Cars of the World by Peter Roberts
  • The World’s Racing Cars. M.L.Twite.[1964]
  Stanguellini FJ [1958] Brabham Cooper T65 BMC [1960]
Engine /Cyli Fiat, 4 4 4 4
Bore /Stroke 68×75 mm 85×48.4mm 85×48.4mm 64.6×76.2 mm
CC 1,098 cc 1,098cc 1.098cc 996 cc
Valve Gear Not stated OHV OHV
Comp Ratio Not stated 10:01 12:01
Carburettors 2x Weber 2xWeber 1xWeber  1 TC weber
Max.Power 75-80 bhp 100 bhp 98 bhp 86.5 bhp
Trans/Gears 5 5 6 4
Front Brakes Fiat 9.8″ drums Disc 9″ Lock’ Disc Drum integral /wheel
Rear Brakes Fiat 9.8″ drums [inboard] Disc 9.5″ Lock’ Disc
Steering Worm & roller Rack/pinion Rack/pinion
Front Susp’ W’Bone & CS W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS W’ Bone & CS
Rear Susp’ W’Bone & CS W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS CS & transv links,RR
Chassis Not stated Multi-tubular Multi-tubular Warren girder type
Wheel base 6′-8″ 7′-6″ 7′-6.5″ 6′-8″
Front Track 4′-00″ 4′-0″ 4′-2.25″ 3′-10″
Rear Track 4′-0.5″ 4′-0″ 4′-3″ 3′-9″
O’length 11′-9″ 12′-0″ 11-10″ 10′-6″
O’width.body 4′-6″ 2′-2″ 2′-4″ 3′-9″
Kerb weight 860 lbs. 882lbs 882 lbs. 798 lbs.
Front Tyres 5.30×13 4.50×13 4.50×13 5.20×13
Rear Tyres 5.20×14 5.50×13 5.50×13 5.90×13
  Lola Formula Junior Merlyn Gemini 4A Volpini FJ [1959
Engine /Cyli 4 4 4 Fiat ,4
Bore /Stroke 85×48.4mm 85×48.4 85×48.4mm 68×75 mm
CC 1.098cc 1,098 1.098cc 1,098 cc
Comp Ratio 10:01 10:01 10:01 Not stated
Carburettors 2xWeber 2xWeber 2xWeber 2x Weber
Max.Power 100 bhp 100 bhp 100 bhp 87 bhp
Trans/Gears 5 5 6 Fiat ,4
Front Brakes Disc 9.5 Girling D 9″ Girling D 9.5 Hydraulic TLS
Rear Brakes Disc 9.5 Girling D 9″ Girling D 9.5 Hydraulic TLS
Steering Rack/pinion Rack/pinion Rack/pinion Not stated
Front Susp’ W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS W’Bone & CS
Rear Susp’ W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS CS & Radius rods
Chassis Multi-8″ Multi-tubular Multi-tubular Ladder frame
Wheel base 7′-8″ 7′-6″ 7′-10″ 6′-10″
Front Track 4′-2″ 4′-4″ 4′-6″ 4′-.05″
Rear Track 4′-1″ 4′-4″ 4′-6″ 3′-11.5″
O’length 12′-0″ 12′-0″ 12′-8″ 11′-1.75″
O’width.body 2′-2″ Not stated 2′-2″ Not stated
Kerb weight 882 lbs. 882lbs 882 lbs. 902 lbs.
Front Tyres 4.50×13 4.50×13 5.20×13 4.25×15
Rear Tyres 5.50×13 5.50×13 5.50×13 5.20×14
  Lola [1960] Condor S111 [1961] Gemini Mk.II Elva [1959]
Engine /Cyli Lola mod 4 Ford 105 E Mod 4 Ford 105 E BMC A / Ford 105 E [4] Mitter tuned DKW [3]
Bore /Stroke 90.9648.41 mm 80.9×48.41 mm 80.96×48.41 mm 78.2x76mm
CC 997 cc 997 cc 997 cc 1,097 cc
Valve Gear Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated
Comp Ratio Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated
Carburettors 2xWeber 2 X Weber 2 x Weber 3x dell ‘Orto
Max.Power 75 bhp 80 bhp 88 bhp 85 bhp
Trans/Gears Not stated Not stated BMC A 4 speed 4
Front Brakes Lockheed 9″ Alfin  drum Girling /Condor 9″ Lockheed 10″ drums Lockheed 10″ drums
Rear Brakes Lockheed 9″ Alfin  drum Girling /Condor 9″ Lockheed 10″ drums Lockheed 10″ drums
Steering Rack/pinion Space frame + Mod’ Triumph Herald R&P Not stated
Front Susp’ W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS W’ Bone & CS
Rear Susp’ W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS Strut type with CSD Coli spring dampers +
Chassis Not stated Space frame + Multi-tubular plus reinf’ Multi- tube space frame
Wheel base 6′-10″ 7′-4″ 6′-10″ 7′-5″
Front Track 3′-9″ 4′-0″ 3′-11″ 4′-00″
Rear Track 3′-9.5″ 4′-0″ 4′-00″ 4′-00″
O’length 10′-8″ 11′-6″ 11′-6″ 12′-1.5″
O’width.body 4′-4″ 4′-6″ 4′-2″ 4′-4″
Kerb weight 810 lbs. 812 lbs. 805 lbs. 800 lbs. approx.
Front Tyres 4.50×13 4.50×13 4.50×15 15″
Rear Tyres 5.25×13 5.25×13 5×15 15″
  Lola [1961] Deep Sanderson [1959] Gemini Mk.IIIA [1960] Elva [1960]
Engine /Cyli Superspeed mod Ford 105 E Lawrencetune Ford 105E [4] Mod’ Ford 105 E [4] Mod’ BMC A [4]
Bore /Stroke 80.96×48.41 mm 80.96×48.41mm 80.96 x 48.41 mm 64.4×76.2 mm
CC 997 cc 997 cc 997 cc 992 cc
Valve Gear Not stated OHV Not stated OHC
Comp Ratio Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated
Carburettors 2xWeber 2x Weber 2xWeber 2x SU
Max.Power 85 bhp 86 bhp 88 bhp 87 bhp
Trans/Gears Mod VW Volkswagen 4 speed Mod ‘Renault Dauphine Volkswagen 4 speed
Front Brakes Alfin/  Girling 9″ Alfin/ Girling 10″ Lockheed 10″ drums Lockheed 9″
Rear Brakes Girling 9″ inboard Girling 9″ Lockheed 8″ drums Lockheed inboard
Steering Lola rack and pinion Not stated Alford & Adler R & P Rack and pinion
Front Susp’ W’Bone& CS Converging axis trailing links W’Bone& CS W’ Bone & CS
Rear Susp’ W’Bone& CS Converging axis trailing links W’Bone& CS Parallel trailing arms +
Chassis Not stated Space frame + Not stated Space frame /stressed
Wheel base 7′-4″ 8′-4″ 7′-3″ 7′-3″
Front Track 4′-1″ 4′-00″ 4′-3″ 4′-00″
Rear Track 4′-00″ 3′-11″ 4′-3″ 4′-00″
O’length 12′-00″ 11′-1″ 11′-00″ 11′-1″
O’width.body 4-4″ 4′-6″ 4-9″ 4′-6″
Kerb weight 810 lbs. 810 lbs. 806 lbs. 815 lbs. approx.
Front Tyres 4.50×13 4.50×15 4.50×13 4.50×15
Rear Tyres 5.25 or 5.50 x13 5.00×15 5.25×13 5.00×15
  Emeryson [1960] Envoy Mk.I [1960] Cooper Mk.1 J [1960] Dolphin Mk.II [1961]
Engine /Cyli Mod Ford 105 E Barwell mod’ Ford 105 E  [4] Mod’ BMC A series Superspeed Mod Ford 105 E [4]
Bore /Stroke 80.96×48.41 mm 80.96×48.41mm 64.4×76.2 mm 80.96×48.41 mm
CC 997 cc 997 cc 994 cc 997 cc
Valve Gear OHV OHV OHV Not stated
Comp Ratio Not stated Not stated Not stated
Carburettors 2x Weber 2x Weber 2xSU or 1 tc Weber 2x SU
Max.Power 80 bhp 75-80 bhp 70-75 bhp 80 bhp
Trans/Gears  Mod’ Volkswagen 4 speed Volkswagen 4 speed Citroen ERSA 4 speed Fiat 600 , 4 speed
Front Brakes Girling 8 drums” Girling 10″ drums Lockheed 8″ 8.5 ” Aluminium finned drums
Rear Brakes Girling 8 drums” Girling 10″ drums Lockheed 8″ 8.5 ” Aluminium finned drums
Steering Emeryson R&P Rack/pinion Cooper R&P Not stated
Front Susp’ W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS W’ Bone & CS
Rear Susp’ W’Bone& CS W’Bone & CS Trans ‘Leaf Spring &WB W’ Bone & CS
Chassis Space frame Ladder frame 1.5″ tubing + light alloy Multi- tube space frame
Wheel base 7′-2″ 7′-3″ 7′-2″ 7′-6″
Front Track 3′-10″ 3′-10″ 3′-10.5″ 3′-11″
Rear Track 3′-9″ 3′-9″ 3′-9.5″ 3′-10″
O’length 12′-7.25″ 11′-1″ 11′-00″ Not stated
O’width.body 4′-3″ 4′-2.5″ 4′-4″ Not stated
Kerb weight 799 lbs. 800 lbs. Not stated Not stated
Front Tyres 4.50×15 4.50×15 4.50 x15 4.50×15
Rear Tyres 5.25×15 5.00×15 5.00 x15 5.00×15
  Kieft Junior [1960] Bond  Formula J [1960] Cooper Mk II J [1960] Lotus Type 18 [1959]
Engine /Cyli Arden mod’ Ford 100E [4] Cosworth Ford 105 E [4] Mod’ BMC A series [4] Cosworth Ford 105 E [4]
Bore /Stroke 80.96×48.41 mm 80.96×48.41mm 64.4×76.2 mm 80.96×48.41mm
CC 997 cc 997 cc 994 cc 997 cc
Valve Gear OHV Not stated OHV Not stated
Comp Ratio Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated
Carburettors 2xWeber 2xWeber 2xSU or 1 tc Weber 2xWeber
Max.Power Not stated 80 bhp 75-80 bhp 75 bhp
Trans/Gears Mod’ Renault Dauphine Ford Anglia 4 speed Citroen ERSA 4 speed Mod; Renault 4 speed
Front Brakes Girling 9″ drums-outboard Girling 9″ in Bond drums Cooper/Wellworthy drum Lockheed 9″ outboard
Rear Brakes Girling 9″ drums-outboard Girling 9″ in Bond drums Cooper/Wellworthy drum Lockheed 9″ outboard
Steering Kieft R&P Rack/pinion Cooper R&P Rack/pinion
Front Susp’ W’Bone & CS W’Bone & CS W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS
Rear Susp’ W’Bone & CS Low pivot swing axle W’Bone& CS W’Bone& CS & drive shafts
Chassis Not stated GRP reinforced alum’& steel 1.5″ & 1.25″ tubing Multi- tube space frame
Wheel base 7′-00″ 7′-3″ 7′-5″ 7′ ‘-6″
Front Track 4′-1″ 3′-10″ 4′-00″ 4′ ‘-1″
Rear Track 4′-1″ 3′-11″ 3′-11″ 3′ ‘-11″
O’length 9′-8″ 11′-10″ 11′-6″ 11′ ‘-3″
O’width.body 4′-6″ Not stated 4′-6″ 4′-8″
Kerb weight Not stated 796 lbs. 795 lbs. 800 lbs.
Front Tyres 4.50×15 Not stated 4.50×13 4.50×15
Rear Tyres 5.00×15 Not stated 5.25×13 5.00×15
  PM-Poggi FJ [1959] Osca FJ [1960] Mitter FJ [1959] Lotus Type 20 [1961]
Engine /Cyli Mod’ Fiat 1,100 cc [4] Mod’ Fiat 1,100 cc [4] D.K.W. [3] Cosworth Ford 105 E [4]
Bore /Stroke 68×75 mm 68×75 mm 78.2×76 mm 80.96×48.41mm
CC 1,089 cc 1,089 cc 1.097 cc 997 cc
Valve Gear Not stated OHV Not stated Not stated
Comp Ratio Not stated Not stated 9.6:1 Not stated
Carburettors 2xWeber 2xWeber 3x dell Orto 2xWeber
Max.Power 76-78 bhp 85 bhp 85 bhp 85 bhp
Trans/Gears Fiat 1,100 4 speed Fiat 4speed 4 CR 4spees
Front Brakes Gatto 9.8″ drums Twin leading shoe hydraulic Porsche Carrera 11″ Hydraulic Drum
Rear Brakes Fiat 9.8″ drums Not stated Not stated Hydraulic Drum
Steering Not stated Not stated DKW rack & pinion Rack/pinion
Front Susp’ W’Bone & CS W’Bone & CS Top transf leaf spring W’Bone & CS
Rear Susp’ Cantilever 1/4 elliptical spring Live axle with coil S/dampers DKW dead axle/leaf spring Fixed length articul’sharfts
Chassis Not stated Ladder frame Not stated Multi- tube space frame
Wheel base 6′-9″ 6′-7″ 6′-10.5″ Not stated
Front Track 4′-12 3′-10.5″ 4′-3″ Not stated
Rear Track 4′-00″ 3′-9″ 4′-5.5″ Not stated
O’length Not stated Not stated 11′-3″ 11′-7″
O’width.body Not stated Not stated Not stated 4′-9″
Kerb weight 896 lbs. Not stated 910 lbs. 805 lbs.
Front Tyres 5.20×12 5.20×14 1.55×15 4.50×13
Rear Tyres 5.20×12 5.20×14 1.55×15 5.00×15
        Lotus Type 27
Engine /Cyli 4
Bore /Stroke 85×48.4mm
CC 1,098cc
Valve Gear OHV
Comp Ratio 10:01
Carburettors 2xWeber
Max.Power 100 bhp
Trans/Gears 5
Front Brakes Disc 9.5″
Rear Brakes Disc 9.5″
Steering Rack/pinion
Front Susp’ W’Bone& CS
Rear Susp’ W’Bone& CS
Chassis Monocoque
Wheel base 7′-6″
Front Track 4′-3.5″
Rear Track 4′-2″
O’length 11′-7″
O’width.body 2′-0″
Kerb weight 882lbs
Front Tyres 4.50×13
Rear Tyres 5.50×13

The Terrier

The Terrier was typical of the front engine Juniors are captured an appearance of their much bigger/ faster GP fellows. It was designed with space frame by Len Terry. The power being provided by the Ford Anglia. Due to the layout and need to keep the driver low the engine is engine dropping downwards at the rear and resultant prop shaft facing upwards. Tyres are believed to have been 5.00 L x 13 front and 5.50 Lx 14 rear on steel wheels to keep costs down etc. the front suspension incorporated Triumph Herald uprights. The weight is estimated at approximately 10cwt.

Lola first Fomula Junior & Mk.II

Peter Roberst observation was that :-

“Elva opted for the 1100 cc upper limit. Eric Broadley produced a car based on the concept and components used in the successful Lola Mk.I [Climax powered sports racing car].The design used a tubular space frame with increased stiffness from a solid riveted under shield and stressed prop shaft tunnel. Broadley used a front engine layout with offset drive line and the rear axle and suspension to compensate. It’s believed that 13” wheels were used. Weight is estimated at 9 cwt.

It has been suggested that approximately 29 cars were built. They were not as successful as the sports racing cars


Marriott writing about formula Juniors in 1962 commented:-

“At the end of the 1960 season the Lotus had firmly established itself as the most successful Junior car in the field. Indeed it became something of a yardstick for many constructors and their design was closely, even slavishly, followed. It was called the Lotus 18 and during its first year of production a total of 125 came off the line”


Discussing the Elva Mk.I Junior, Marriott comments:-

“ The front engined version of this car was first available to private buyers in Britain in , early in 1959.It gained  a rapid popularity on both sides of the Atlantic…….and sold for the low basic price of £900 which included a fully tuned engine and magnesium wheels. These were powered by either BMC or DKW”


Marriott in his account of the Formula Juniors commented:-

“The first Formula Junior Cooper made its appearance in 1960 and logically the basic design remained very close to the highly successful Formula One, Two and Three cars from the same stable. There were no radical design changes incorporated into the Junior”

Twite’s observation being:-

“The Cooper formula Junior cars followed closely the design of the Formula I car and tended to be stronger and heavier than their contemporaries. The multi tubular chassis has large diameter tubes as the main members with the minimum of bracing tubes…….”

Cooper as a major competitor / contemporary of Lotus deserves a fuller developed article and this will follow shortly.


The Condor is thought to have been devised and built by Michael Thorburn, Ted Whiteway, Bert Barrett and draughtsman Dick Barrett. Cars it’s believed were retailed at £1250 c 1961.


It’s believed that Leslie Richmond [1928-1985] built the Moorland c 1958/59 whilst based in Southall, West London. There is a possibility that the body was built by Williams and Pritchard. There are suggestions that the Moorland Junior was retailed at £950 or £800 less engine and gearbox. It’s possible that 30 cars were sold before the Chequred Flag adopted and upgraded the car. It’s possible that Les Richmond, Derek Taylor and Brad Ward and Graham warner made a contribution to design and construction.


Marriott makes the assessment reflected by others that:-

“This brilliant Italian car was constructed entirely around fiat components and its distinctive, traditional appearance stems from  … building racing cars ……The finished product has the hard functional look of a thoroughbred…….Vittorio Stanguellini , an ace Fiat engine tuner , was one of the first in the field to produce a Junior. Production of his car has proceeded at a steady pace since 1958 and the total number of Formula Junior cars probably exceeds 200 to date.”

Roberts’s comments:-

“When the    Junior Formula was evolved in Italy Stanguellini became the first manufacturer to put one on the market. His Stanguellini, though appearing bulky and old fashioned by British standards , became the most successful car in Italian races.”


Marriott believes:-

“The Dolphin is one of the few American built Juniors able to give good account of itself when competing against European contemporaries”

The Dolphin was designed by John Crosthwaite who it’s believed worked at both Lotus and Cooper. The Junior comprises elements of both. It’s believed that the car was built by Crost & Robert Hull, of La Jolle, California. It was considered to incorporate the best of European and American design features.


This is believed to be the abbreviated name of British Motor Car Distributors Ltd; of San Francisco and designed by Joe Huffaker.

Produced during 1960 it’s believed that approximately 20 cars were built.


It’s believed that 2 Formula Junior cars were built at Laurie Bonds garage at Loxwood, Sussex. C 1960. The design concept was quite radical comprising front wheel drive and forward power unit mounted back to front. It seems the intention was to provide an opportunity to race with minimum costs and maintenance.


Roberts’s comments:-

“Because the Volpini  was one of the first formula Juniors on the market, it has the simple construction that was one of the objectives of the Formula. But because of its fine workmanship, the price is quite high”

The Volpini is believed to have ben created by Arzani –Volpini a possible partnership between Gianpaolo Volpini and engine builder Egiolio Arzani from c 1954.


Roberts observes:-

“The OSCA cars were produced by the Maserati brothers, who left the main company in Italy…….This car unusually attractive for a Formula Junior vehicle, sold well in America.”


Again Roberts observes in his book “Racing cars of the World” that:-

“Gerhard Mitter  is the DKWagent for Stuttgart and has for many years raced Junior cars with DKW components. In 1959 he brought out his first Formula Junior which had great success particularly in hill climbs. Later, he has produced ten cars on the line of the prototype………for the 1961 season he fitted a DKW engine into a Lotus”

Subscribers might like to note that a Mitter tuned DKW engine was also adopted by Elva [see specifications and notes above]


This Formula Junior range is believed to have been developed by Selwyn Hayward and John Lewis of Colchester Racing Developments.

Later they would design and construct a sports racing car that would compete against Lotus in another class.

Engines and Cosworth

The engines that emerged in Formula Junior were primarily [see technical specification];-

  • BMC “A” series
  • Ford 105 E and Classic engines
  • Fiat 1,100
  • DKW

Perhaps naturally many of the Italian constructors have adopted the Fiat 1,100 cc engine the original design around which the Junior Formula was virtually framed.

Alternatively the auto-Union DKW two stroke has provided an opportunity for some marques.

To a lesser extend the French made Renault, Peugeot, Simca and DB Panhard have provided sources of engine.

It’s worth noting that the basic reliable engines were capable of considerable tuning potential. Marriott suggests for example

“Maximum bhp figure for the “A2 series [as fitted in original touring car]; 34 bhp at 4,750 rpm. Maximum bhp [on modified Elva unit], 87 bhp at 7,200 rpm

Duckwoth and Costin both ex Lotus set up Cosworth. One of their first private ventures was the Ford based MAE. [Modified Anglia Engine] see advertisement “Sisters under the Skin”. This engine was used with considerable success by Lotus and other formula Junior competitor’s c 1959-1963.some observers noting that the best Formula Junior engines were Ford based. Marriott states:-

“Cosworth Engineering Ltd; are undisputed leaders in the field of 105 E conversions.Their version features high lift camshafts, special main and big end bearings, pistons, connecting rods, valve gear, modified cylinder head and inlet and exhaust manifolds. They[j4]  also feature solid rocker shafts and twin double –choke Weber carburetors.Bench test versions have been made to peak at over 90 bhp whilst standard units [as fitted in the Ford New Anglia] develops 39 bhp.”

Super Speed [Conversions] Ltd

This company was based in Ilford, Essex. They tuned the Ford 105 E engine and were used by many of the manufacturers [see tabulation]

Works Teams

Marriott makes the important and pertinent observation that needs to be factored into assessments:-

“Works cars can be –and are –stripped after every meeting , then rebuilt, brake tested  and so on, in order to eliminate the slightest fault.no private driver could hope to compete with any chance of success  against such procedure where cost is only incidental”

Lotus Achievement in a Competitive /Commercial Free Market

Marriott records that:-

“But there is no mistaking the superiority of the British Formula Junior marques which swept the international board in 1960 and 1961, winning nearly every major event, with honours, in the main, being distributed between Lotus and Cooper”

Time and Place: London and the Swinging Sixties

Marriott discussing Formula Junior c 1962 noted:-

“Currently over fifty different makes of formula Junior cars are available, an indication of the strength of the movement …….In Britain, many hundreds of Juniors have been built during the last two years …….Junior racers have been exported, particularly to America ……. Although there are over one hundred different marques , the field is dominated  at present , by a group of seven of which no less than five are British…………..”

The London Racing Car Show

Marriott recalls “but complacency does not exist in the world of motor racing, constructor Colin chapman came up with a brand –new Lotus, the 20 at the 1961 Racing Car Show”

London Home Counties based Manufactures Names and Addressees


Jack Brabham Motors Ltd;

Leatherhead Road,




British racing Partnership Ltd;

Dukes Head Yard,

Highgate High Street,




Grosvenor Garage,




Cooper Car Co;

243, Ewell Road,



Deep Sanderson

Laurencetune Engines Ltd;

69a Avenue Road,





Tunex Conversions Ltd;

94 Camberwell Road,




Elva Cars Ltd;

Purley Way,



and Elva Engineering Co; Ltd;

Grove road,





Ian Raby,

Empire Cars Ltd;

85 Preston Road,




Fairthorpe Ltd;

Market Place, [and /or 40 Station Road]

Chalfont St.Peter



Moorland Cars

518-522 Lady Margaret Road,



And ….

The Chequred Flag Ltd;

High Road,





Lola Cars Ltd;




Lotus engineering Co; Ltd;

7 Tottenham [j5] Lane,




and Delamare Road,




Colchester Racing Developments Ltd;

Little Bentley,



The Proposed CCM&EC

The proposed museum believes that commercial considerations are both necessary and complementary with its educational objectives.

For these reasons our Business Plan includes provision for promoting products and services which share Chapman’s ideals of mechanical efficiency and sustainability. In addition we propose merchandising that explain and interprets the social and cultural context of Chapman’s designs in period. It’s suggested there will be catalogue for on line purchasing.

In particular:


Marriott summed up a general consensus when he commented:-

“The Junior category developed, in two seasons, into one of the most successful ever devised. Indeed , it has become the type of racing that spectators have seen more than any other and its rise to top popularity in Britain since 1959 has been nothing short of meteoric……. Within four short years of its existence ,Formula Junior has become the most successful formula ever devised for it provides  racing cars of an advanced  design on which to train drivers  and has already become firmly established as a logical introduction to Grand Prix racing…….Thus the aspiring driver can graduate smoothly from one single –seater to the next ”

Twite records in 1964:-

“Formula junior is now dead but its effect on motor racing has been far reaching and although the formula had only five years of International life it has led to many interesting developments in the motor racing world”

Formula Junior ended in 1963. It was replaced by formula 2 and 3 [see A&R article on F3].During its brief existence a major technical revolution and overall evolution of motor racing was taking place rapidly. It started with front engine cars scaled down GP cars like the Vanwall and ended with rear engine cars predominant.Fomula Junior and particularly Lotus played a very significant part in advancing the technology and performance.

Formula Junior delivered its promise and provided a future generation of FI drivers across the international spectrum not least: Jim Clark, Jocken Rindt[j6] , John Surtees and Peter Revson.

It fulfilled Count Lurani’s objectives and more.


Formula Junior Guide. Harry Morrow. Sports Car Press.1961*


Formula Junior 1958-2008


Formula Junior Cars Remembered. Bernard Cowdrey.Bookmarque.1993*

ISBN: 1870519175

Formula Junior. John Blunsden.Mercian Manuals.1999*

ISBN: 9780953072156

Formula Junior. Colin Pitt.Unique Books.2007

ISBN: 9781841551432

Lotus Formula Junior.Robinshaw and Bouckley.RB Publications.1996*

ISBN: 9780952808602

Historic Formula Junior .Rabagliati, Page/Sheldon. Lancing .2008*

Into the Red.Mason & Hales.Virgin.1998

ISBN: 1852277173

Lotus Racing Cars.Tipler.Sutton.2001

ISBN: 075092389X

Colin Chapman’s –Lotus engineering.Haskell.Osprey.1993

ISBN: 1855323761

The Worlds Racing Cars.Twite.Macdonald.1964.

Racing Cars of the World.Peter Roberts.Longacre Press.1962

Racing and Sports Cars.M.Marriott.Burke.1962




  • Accessed through The British Library

Lotus Single Seaters Magazine [see website www.lotus-single-seaters.co.uk]


5. Design Heroes: Jean Prouve [1901-1984]


The A&R has argued that Colin Chapman ought to be considered Industrial Designer of International repute. This has not always been the case but we hope to rectify this omission by a series of articles and benchmarking. There is some evidence of change and more academic published authorities are now including his work. In this article we will compare and contrast both men and allow our subscribers to make their own evaluation.

In this instance we discuss the industrial design of Jean Prouve whose work extended from newspaper kiosks to bicycle trailers ,a live in trailer [ designed with Jeanneret] to a bicycle with a sheet steel frame , demountable prefabricated emergency houses , curtain walling and a mass of contract furniture and some highly regarded minor masterpieces of architecture in conjunction with others.

Both Chapman and Prouve believed in technology and the mutation of materials [both extensively used aluminum] and technologies from other industries; mainly aviation and advanced motor production. Both men were capable drivers and handled a motor car well. It’s believed both might have significant contributed to their own personal residence and factories as well as furniture ranges.

In this article we will provide some detailed analysis of specific examples from both Prouve’s furniture and architecture.

Subscribers may wish to look at other A&R articles in the Design Heroes series:-

  • Isambard Kingdom Brunel
  • Buckminster Fuller
  • Chairman Chapman- Colin Chapman and Furniture Design
  • Marcel Breuer
  • Minimalism and the Motorcar
  • Architects as Car Designers [A&R book Review]
  • Eileen Gray [ to be published shortly

Jean Prouve: Brief Biography

Prouve was born into a craftsmen/ artisan / artistic family that extended back generations. Parents and grandparents were artists and craftsmen. His father was ceramicist and worked in marquetry and associated with the leading designers of the day. His father also founded the “School of Nancy” The Nancy region of France held a concentration of iron and steel works plus crafts in furniture and glass.Jean Prouve had hoped to become a professional engineer but circumstance forced him to compromise although it’s evident he retained an engineers disciplined and focused practicality in every design he undertook. Throughout his career he would be optimistic, experimental and progressive. He could certainly be provocative and unconventional.

Prouve underwent an apprenticeship c 1916-19 and this probably included metal forming, craftsmanship, light engineering and almost certainly traditional blacksmith. It’s possibly that during this period he produced some pieces to his own design. He expressed like Chapman an interest in aviation and of making things.

It’s believed that Prouve undertook military service between 1921-23 and opened his own workshop on leaving possibly in 1924.

The 1920’s were an exciting time in Paris between the wars as many of the early Modernists were declaring their manifestos and their work was emerging.Formost[JS2]  amongst these would have been Corbusier, Robert Mallet-Stevens ,but it’s possible that Prouve also meet Walter Gropius and Eileen Gray. His design skills and practical construction techniques permitted him to register his first patents.

Significantly in the early 1930’s Prouve was confident enough and possibly respected to have co-founded U.A.M. [Union des Artistes Modernes]

In the early 1930’s possibly 1931 Proud started Ateliers Jean Proud which has been assessed as being part laboratory, part design studio cum factory in conjunction with social experiment. Prouve was advanced in social and worker organization as he believed and implemented teamwork and worker participation. This formed the basis of a social and economic organization of a collective work team. Profits were reinvested in equipment and plant. The editors deduct that it has certain similarities with the Bauhaus possibly seeking the alliance of craftsmen, industry and art but actually established and delivered on a more commercial scale. This was in Nancy. It’s been suggested that about this time he might have 30 co-workers employed.

During his time he produced some significant pieces of furniture like the “Grand Repos” and his work bears some comparison with his architect peers [see tabulation in Chapman and furniture].His reputation was possibly established with the entrance Portal for Villa Reifenberg [1927] and furniture for the Cite Universitaire in Nancy.

During the Second World War Prouve was active in the resistance and due to the shortages mentioned he improvised many designs to overcome limitations by working with substitutes. This possibly rather suited his pragmatic and craft based approach.

Post war like Britain France suffered shortages and housing crisis to which Prouve would provide some excellent practical solutions. Whereas Britain ran up the “prefabs” Priuve offered several government and charitable institutions emergency preassembled accommodation units that were both reasonably cheap and quickly constructed [potentially by the occupants] or two semi-skilled craftsmen.

Through the late 40’s and 50’s Aluminum was a leading technological material through aviation. [Note that in America Buckminster Fuller would adopt techniques and Chapman was briefly employed in the aluminum industry].Prouve design approach and new capital and office building created considerable opportunities for the material. He briefly joins a larger organization to contribute .Throughout the 1950’s he seems to have abandoned furniture for the more lucrative and expanding architectural work.

Prouve is not a qualified architect and unable to adopt this title although he makes considerable contributions both directly and indirectly [see dedicated paragraph]. In 1955 Prouve co-founds “Les Constructions” and under reorganization and grouping he possibly decides to leave and return to a greater independence.

In 1968 at the age of 67 he forms an independent architectural consultancy in Paris. During his career Prouve was honored and decorated for his design work. This is possibly why at age of 70 he was adopted as the president of the Jury for the Centre Pompidou in Paris. During his later career Prouve had proved a popular lecturer.

Sadly after a lifetime of design and practical construction and design patents Jean Prouve died in 1984

Contemporaries: Architects and Designers

Prouve was fortunate to mix with and be influenced by one of the greatest generation of architects in Europe at the early birth of Modernism. It included:-

  • Le Corbusier
  • P.Jeanneret
  • C.Perriand
  • Robert Mallet-Stevens
  • E.Beaudouin
  • M.Lods
  • Tony Garnier
  • Jacques Andre
  • Henri Prouve [brother?]
  • Andre Sive
  • M.Novarina
  • Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer of the Bauhaus School
  • Eileen Gray [ although not mentioned as meeting they were contemporaries in Paris during the 1920’s & 30’s and shared similar group of Avant -garde designer friends]
  • Rogers ,Piano and G.Franchini

Aesthetic and Design Methodology

Proud is considered by design critics to be left leaning with a predisposition in design aesthetic towards austerity, functionalism and economy. The editors detect however that he was not dogmatic.He did not publish manifestos and that is work was rather special for the approach that he adopted. His approach was more humanitarian, more sympathetic, less rigid and his techniques although part borrowed from aviation and motor manufacturing still contained a craft element i.e. semi mass production which was possibly also consistent with the volumes/ size of the contracts he won.

Foremost in our assessment of Jean Prouve we ought to remember first that he adapted and responded to two World Wars with all the consequences and impacts on materials availability, technological advances and scarcity as did Chapman. Secondly Prouve directed his design and production to the contract market essentially within the public sector which comprised, hospital, schools, universities, public utilities and other related institutions particularly social housing. Thirdly he designed and manufactured in an intermediary sector between mass production and one off commissioned pieces. This is quite significant and will be elaborated. For example it is evident in his work and the photographs of his ateliers that he adopted and worked with cheaper materials, low to medium technology plant and craft skills and that the spot welding and general forming and bending of his furniture reinforces this. He was also to adopt Formica in his furniture.

Prouve’s own statement helps clarify:-

“It was sheet steel that inspired me – folded, ribbed then welded”

Prouve had a particular affinity with this thin sheet steel material and the technologies for welding aluminum and stainless steel. He invested in equipment that would produce results.

Jean Prouve is considered to be a visionary humanist by many design critics. The editor’s share this believe and feel that Prouve’s aesthetic and oeuvre substantiate this. Prouve like many of the modernists and contemporaries of the 1920’s [see below] believed in technological advancement [ the aero plane and the motor car were held up as the noble examples and vanguard and particularly the achievements of Henry Ford in regard to exacting standards , price and  volume i.e. accessibility] as means of  social advancement and improved quality of life. However he was rather special. Rather than an outright theoretician Prouve remained a powerful mixture of craftsman/artisan designer dedicated to practical and affordable solutions whether they be in architecture of furniture. He was dedicated to the function of the object but related this to the materials available the industrial methods by which they would be produced but his overriding concern was that they would serve everyday use. Although not without some arrogance. There is an example where his co-workers suggested that a chair designed for university students was to low and therefore impractical but defended the design refereeing to the agility of youth.

Prouve is reputed to have said of himself that he possessed:-

“A 2CV way of thinking” and that he described himself as a “factory man” allowing for translation this indicates both a modesty but possibly more importantly his rejection of theory. It is evident that he was inspired by the Citroen 2CV [see A&R article on Minimalism and extended reference to the 2CV.]   Many of the modernist designers liked to believe their design aesthetic was practical and embracing the poetry of industry but Prouve actually delivered in a considerably way. Prouve was driven by an aesthetic and construction technique that was founded on savings of materials, manual labour and time [see A&R article on Minimalism].It was a simple elegant style born from the deployment of inexpensive materials and production methods. It might be expressed as optimizing and simplifying. As such he did not pursue an aesthetic for its own value or statement but rather a workmanlike practicality, serviceability and user friendliness.  Peter’s assessment of Prouve is that:-

“In his work Prouve pursued everything but the creation of the monumental. His primary concern was the notion of human beings living in a flexible and changeable modern environment”

Prouve’s designs both in furniture and architecture are considered “nomadic” because of their essential lightness, maneuverability/ transportable and demountable nature. These are engineering qualities particularly associated with the airplane. They are essentially sustainable through their nature to rest on the ground without irrevocable damage.

The editors assess Prouve as being inspired by the Bauhaus school. However in many respects he achieved greater results in his furniture design [he was quite critical of Marcel Breuer’s bent tube furniture. Although not expressly stated he might have found the exaggerated aesthetic and high price contrary to its design objectives, overelaborate ad expensive for the intended clientele and not easily translated into mass production]

Prouve was equally practical delivery in his social housing particularly the Maisons a portiques, Standard Houses, Maisons coques and houses for Abbe Pierre. Although of course the Bauhaus did produce prototype prefabricated houses and a low cost home ownership estate of houses for workers.

The Prouve family residence indicates that the designer was not a hypocrite and the modest home is not ostentatious[JS3]  but follows the general scale and layout that he has adopted for other families. It was economical yet friendly and relaxed.

Jean Prouve: Architectural contribution

Prouve was not a qualified architect and was unable to adopt this title. He was however a significant designer and consultant and contributed with architects. The editors consider some of his most significant work to include:-

  • 1935-36         Aero Club, Airfield Pavilion
  • 1935-39         Maison du Peuple in Clichy
  • 1939-47         Maisons a portiques
  • 1949-52         Standard House, Cite “Sans Souci”,Meudon with Henri Prouve & A.Sive
  • 1949               House for the Tropics,Niamey,Niger and Brazzaville, Congo, with Henri Prouve
  •  1950              School in Vantoux with Henri Prouve and stair case and other fittings for Corbusier at unite d’   habitation ,Marseille
  • 1950-51         Grand Palais of Lille with Herbe, Gauthier, Douniaux
  • 1950-52         Maisons coques, Saloon des arts Menagers,Paris; Cite “Sans Souci”,Meudon
  • 1950-52         Shed roofs for the Mame Printing Works with Drieu-La-Rochell & B.Zehrfuss
  • 1953-54         Façade of Apartment Buildings on Mozart Square with Mirabeau Architects
  • 1953-4            Prouve Residence
  • 1955-56         House for L’Abbe Pierre; “House of Better Days”
  • 1956               Pump house for Evian Mineral Water at Cachat with Novarina and Ketoff
  • 1962               Gauthier House, Saint –Die with Bauman and Remondine
  • 1967               Youth Centre in Ermont
  • 1971               Chairman of Judging Panel for the Pompidou Centre, Paris

The editors highlight the following as they are considered worthy of greater analysis. Perhaps it ought be recorded that some design and architectural critics consider the Evian pump room a minor masterpiece and that Grand Palais of the Lille Fairground as of greater significance.Peters observes about the Grand Palais:-

“Can be seen as the forerunner of many modern buildings, for example the Centre Pompidou in Paris…. And the Lloyd’s building in London. It served as a model for many high tech buildings whose supporting structures were aesthetically engaged as expressive elements in their construction”

1949-52 Standard House at Meudon [see editors sketch plans and elevation drawings]

This example is selected for its essential sustainability [for wider and related understanding see A&R article on Minimalism].The Standard House was an extension of Prouve’s demountable barrack units and the Maisons a portique. They also integrate and link with Maisons coques, the houses for Abbe Pierre and the integrity of the Prouve residence. They were built like the British prefabs for emergency rehousing of the homeless and possibly ex-servicemen. A number were built in a parkland location in Meudon which is a suburb of Paris.

The Standard Houses were offered as a modular concept at 8m X 8m or 8m x 12m. These detached homes offered the opportunities for small families and might provide two or three bedrooms. They were constructed of steel and aluminium.ie steel floor and supporting frames for the roof with modular 1 m panels which could be interchanged for the external walls. This provided flexibility, responded to necessity and individual taste.

They were very advanced for their era and were insulated with glass wool. Care was taken in the design to prevent thermal bridge which can be a flaw in his type of construction.

Importantly once the main supports were fixed only one worker was required to assemble the home. Evidence suggests that Prouve took care to ensure that the prefabricated parts were easily transportable and their weight controlled so they could be man handled.

Peters tell us that the estate of homes are still serviceable today and some of the original occupants remain .The photographs that Peters provides shows these light airily and flexible homes offering attractive and healthy lifestyle along with examples of his furniture pieces notably the Standard chairs and “Gueridon” table. The editor notes that Prouve was a family man and his designs encourage family interaction and togetherness. Hence the private spaces like bedrooms are relatively small and the living spaces larger and reasonably open plan.

Peters suggests these homes may have been more expensive to construct than conventional design and materials but the respective prices are not given. The evidence suggests that the properties were sold to wealthy clients which implies they were beyond the means of low income families for whom they were probably intended. The prefabricated construction with the potential  for self-build seems very evident with possible cost saving.

The Standard House  is worthy of comparison with the Dymaxion  Houses designed by Buckminster Fuller [ see A&R article ] and the self-build modular construction system although in timber advocated by Walter Segal in the UK. Prouve’s Standard Homes along with the Bauhaus /Gropius designs for low cost homeownership for working people seem to be extremely honorable attempts to create affordability and quality along the lines of Henry Ford whom as we have noted provided inspiration and the evidence through technology and organizational methods [although we ought note that the dark side of Ford was less democratic].This prefabricated construction is still being advocated today amongst self –builders and IKEA offer a flat pack system. In the editors estimation it seems to possess considerable sustainable potential and perhaps in the third world where an incremental build up system could be flexible to changing circumstance and low income. Of course the down side can be the labour cost of the actual components prior to delivery.

Jean Prouve: Furniture and Fittings

Prouve designed furniture in the context of schools, offices, universities, railway stations, universities , kitchens and related architectural fittings such as screens, bannisters notably for staircase at Unite d’ habitation by Le Corbusier at Marseilles and  windows .The editors consider some of his most significant pieces to be :-

  • 1929                                                               Folding chair, reclining armchair , aeronautical table
  • 1920   Electric Power Co.                           Office furniture including swivel chair
  • 1930                                                               “Fauteuil Grand Repos” armchair
  • 1931   Cite Universitaire in Nancy                        Beds, desks, bookshelves, armchairs, standard chairs, “Cite Armchair”
  • c1934                                                             Standard Chair “300”
  • 1935   Hospital                                             Bed with special features
  • 1936   Classroom                                         Table and chairs
  • 1937   UAM Pavilion                                   Garden furniture with Jacqes Andre and Childs school chair
  • 1939                                                               Granipoli Table
  • 1942                                                               Wooden  Chair, “Fauteuil visiteur” chair
  • 1945                                                               Oak and metal wardrobe, Tarrazo Table
  • 1948                                                               “Kangoutou” Armchair
  • 1949                                                               “Gueridon” Table & “Gueridon” Cafeteria Table
  • 1950                                                               Bridge Director Armchairs [ various styles] and Potence lamp
  • 1952                                                               “Trapez” Table
  • 1951   University of Aix Marseilles            Lecture hall chair
  • 1952                                                               Double fronted “Mexico” bookcase [ with C.Perriand] ,Tunisien shelves
  • 1953                                                               “Compas” Table & chair
  • 1954                                                               “Antony” Chair, and Banquette bench
  • 1956                                                               Amphitheatre Banquette
  • 1978                                                               Dangari armchair

1936 Classroom Table with Two Chairs [

The combination table and chair for two students was developed from a series initially conceived for 1935 commission received in connection with expanding and modernizing the Ecole Nationale Professionnelle [ E.N.P.] in Metz…….The connecting of the table and chair complies with Prouve’s affinity for multifunctional building parts , also visible in other designs for his furniture and construction works .Again Prouve formulated  the solution that a single structural part would assume several functions ………….Every supporting element serves the table as well as chair leg. The construction consists of welded steel sheet…………..This particular model was so successful that it was produced in large numbers in several different series………….The extremely dynamic appearance of Prouve’s combination table –and-chair design divulges his deep fascination with cars and airplanes”

Peter’s also provides a reproduction of the furniture catalogue/ brochure entitled “Le Pupitre Scolaire produced by Ateliers Jean Prouve distributed by Steph Simon.

This was significant piece considering the date and radiates an idealism and optimism with particular regard to the importance of egalitarian education and the dual seating implying friendship and companionship in learning.

The class room table although stark and functional is very practical. Its scale and construction is not intimidating or authoritarian .It combines a pleasant natural combination of materials offset against each other namely the sheet steel frame and the solid wooden top and formed plywood back rests and seat. This series was practical stable and repairable .Reasonably light it would have offered maneuverability. This school [JS1] furniture is shown in use and is complementary with the School in Vantoux designed with Henri Prouve, 1950.

1954 “Antony” Chair [see editors sketch drawings]

Peter’s notes:

Specifications for this piece are published in “Pioneers of Modern Furniture”

This item was designed for the University of Strasburg c 1950.It was manufactured by Les Ateliers Jean Prouve S.A. in Maxeville between 1950-1954.It was distributed by Steph Simon [Paris]

The construction comprised bent tubular iron and iron frame, painted black with seat in bent plywood lacqured.Assembled using aluminum screws.

Height                        87cm              34 ¼”

Width              50cm              19 5/8”

Depth             70cm              27 ½”

Seat Height   42cm              16 ½”

Some critics of Prouve claim that his furniture was over strong or engineered and that the aesthetic suffered or was compromised as a result. Prouve defended this by explaining the weight they would withstand. The editor’s assessment is that these pieces were fundamentally robust and would withstand considerable use and abuse by nature of the location and that furthermore they were essentially sustainable and repairable. Furthermore the relatively low tech construction methods are sustainable being more appropriate to craftsmen with moderate mass production assembly as opposed to ultra-high end labour intensive and skill content or robot assembled. Therefore in the editors eyes retain a practical and utilitarian aesthetic across competing criteria.They were possibly affordable in moderate volume but the tendency was that the cost was not particularly cheap and it’s unlikely they would not have been bought by low income private households. The “Antony” chair is regarded as a classic amongst design critics. However the editors would suggest that in period it might have been assembled in a jig from parts produced in volume outside i.e. subcontracted. The raw materials are likely to have been reasonably inexpensive but there was some wastage as result of the boomerang support shape; and the chair is estimated to weigh approximately 5 kg. Assembly of the components might take ½ hour i.e. welding and depending if painted. The plywood “Seat” is likely to have been fixed with rivets. This style chair might have been capable of being stacked in limited number.

The editors estimate [see annotated sketch diagram] that the Antony chair was comprised of the following components:-

Plywood “seat” possibly performed and subcontracted and lacquered before delivery [A]

4    Fixing rivets to frame [B]

2    End caps knocked onto tube ends [C]

2    Boomerang shape steel supports for “seat”possibly subcontracted and drilled to marry with cross tube [D]

1     Heavy duty steel cross tube support drilled to accept tube leg [E]

2     Bent tube lengths threaded through cross support forming legs [F]

4     “Feet” welded to ends of legs [G]

Modern reproductions are produced under license by Vitra. On line the following modern prices apply to reproductions:-

  • Antony chair             £249
  • Standard chair          £179
  • Potence lamp           £119
  • Gueridon table         £99


Jean Prouve is believed to have held at least two significant patents. These include:

  • 1929               Moveable partition wall
  • 1939               Portable / demountable house
  • 1950               Prefabricated roof elements [ see architecture list above] Mame Printing Works
  •                     Window systems?

The Proposed CCM&EC

The proposed museum believes that commercial considerations are both necessary and complementary with its educational objectives.

For these reasons our Business Plan includes provision for promoting products and services which share Chapman’s ideals of mechanical efficiency and sustainability. In addition we propose merchandising that explain and interprets the social and cultural context of Chapman’s designs in period. It’s suggested there will be catalogue for on line purchasing.

In particular through a series of exhibitions showcasing the designs of leading Industrial Designers is possible to extract and educate in design awareness and literacy.

This provides for exciting and dramatic counterpoise and juxtaposition to challenge comprehension and conceptualization focusing on the relationship between design and problem solving. With exhibits available for examination the “proof [JS2] is in the pudding”.

All the Design Heroes including Chapman were practical problem solvers and manufactures of products. All had a design methodology, concepts of the market place and aesthetic sensitivities. Chapman’s we know were well developed.

In the contact of the museum with interactive exhibitions and exhibits ensures the fullest appreciation can be extracted .Furthermore such exhibitions are inseparable and totally integrated with educational / learning and business skills and opportunities.

The proposed museum provides the opportunity and means to stage interpretation of the design process using hands on experience, elementary model making, and access to CAD and laser systems with multi-layered forms of participation. Through the declared aims of uniting education with entertainment learning is provided by intellectual challenge and problem solving through creativity and innovation.

Furthermore such exhibitions have considerable marketing and merchandising opportunities above and beyond the conventional. Creativity in linking, uniting and challenging comprehension permits a fusion of multi directional linkages and connectivity. It also serves to prevent restrictive vision and foremost serves the Chapman philosophy of lateral thinking. Such exhibitions are perceived to appeal across a wide gender and generational base increasing overall participation and attracting the maximum visitor attendance.


By studying Design Heroes we examine how practical problems are tackled, designed and solutions manufactured. We are able to assess and compare both approaches and outcomes and judge their success whilst drawing inspiration from the best available.

The great Industrial Designers were not exclusive or restricted in their topics. They focused their creativity and entrepreneurship into diverse fields but invariable brought experience, knowledge and experimentation. Both Prouve and Chapman sought design and manufacturing solutions by importing and extrapolating materials and technologies e.g. aluminum .Both enjoyed considerable success. It is evident that both explored and borrowed from aviation and motor car technologies and pushed the envelope in their determination to bring fresh solutions and products to the market place. Both designed well engineered equipment however we ought to note this was not necessarily cheap. The construction methods required relatively costly labour and procedures. Therefore despite some intentions of accessibility they often remained the preserve of the enthusiast.

However the editors would comment that Prouve’s prefabricated and demountable house and the component car of Chapman have much in common. They share the concept of building up from standard components into a totality of operating machine. Both are capable of customization to individual needs, both might be financed according to budget with inbuilt capacity for upgrades on an incremental basis and perhaps significantly both involve the owner directly in the assembly and act as a learning opportunity. The skill the owner acquires permitting an ability to understand and maintain and this with serviceability is a basis for sustainability.

But nothing can detract from the aesthetic and inspiration they continue to provide and how they drive aspiration towards designed solutions

In contrasting the styles, methodology and achievements of the Design Heroes the A&R invites debate and challenges a re-evaluation of Chapman as an Industrial Designer. The editors consider that objective critical comparative analysis is a rewarding and demanding means to achieve benchmarking and that Chapman emerges with an improved status in the process.


Prouve. Nils Peters.Taschen.2013. [Contains an excellent bibliography]

ISBN: 9783836545433

Jean Prouve.Penelope Rowlands. Chronicle Books.2002

ISBN: 0811832600

Design-Intelligence Made Visible.Bayley and Conran.Firefly.20007

ISBN: 9781554073108


ISBN: 3822855073

The A-Z of Modern Design.Polster, Neumann, Schuler, Leven Merrell.2009

ISBN: 9781858945026

Pioneers of Modern Furniture. Fischer Fine Art.1991.

ISBN: 0853315922

Internet references:



Please note the editors of the A&R attempt to give the broadest spectrum of references but not all are available for consultation in an article. However by noting their existence it may assist students in their research.

*Items in italics non A&R library books.



Le musee de Jean Prouve; (1901-1984) contains information about the works of French Designer Jean Prouve; French Industrial- and Furniture Designer and 

6. London and Lotus: The Epicentre of Post War British Motor Racing [and the economic case for locating the proposed CCM&EC here]


This article is written to highlight two interrelating subjects simultaneously. They relate to the mutuality that exists between Lotus and London as the epicenter of post war British motorsport.

This article is written also to articulate the case for a museum devoted to Colin Chapman preferably based on the old Lotus works site in Hornsey.Based upon the fact that it was here that Chapman really helped establish and eventually near dominate international motor racing and that London has along and proud reputation in engineering that contributed to his success.

In this discussion we set out many of the cultural and related institutions of London that make it an international tourist magnet

The proposed CCM&EC is a natural ally contributing significantly to the experience economy and easily integrated and complementary to the cultural/ entertainment package that London has to offer.


Here it’s not felt necessary to provide a detailed evolution of the city but a broad appreciation helps understand context and particularly London’s connection with motorsport .London particularly in the 20th /21st century is and has  been:-

v  Capital of the nation and on occasions the empire ,colonies and Commonwealth

v  The seat of Royalty, tradition , heraldry and ceremony

v  The seat of law, government and administration

v  Centre for trade, banking, finance, investment, insurance etc.

These activities attract in turn a population who tend to generate a sub supporting culture that includes:-

v  Education particularly universities

v  Professional bodies and institutions

v  Social clubs

v  Arts, culture, theatre, galleries museums, ballet, opera cinema etc.

v  Café, bars, restaurants hotels

v  Centre of publishing, communications, TV and the press.

v  Design, Retail, fashion and shopping

v  Markets

v  Transport for goods and services , raw materials and workers which interconnect and permit the conduct of multiple transactions between the parties

v  All the functions mentioned above whatever their source have produced unique architecture and a distinctive townscape which has evolved to adapt to changing needs, circumstances and events.

In the process cities tend to become self-generating economic dynamos that and exercising a magnet pull and multiplier effect because of the interaction between choices, opportunities, culture and employment. These factors obviously produce a working population with various levels of disposable income

Thus London became the intoxicating cosmopolitan cocktail of culture and enterprise. This cannot happen without some conflict as often the interests and needs can be in competition. Equally technology and manufacturing does not stand still and a cities magnet can wane and points can be reached where congestion, investment lag and other negative economic forces can begin to provoke reverse reactions. This is perhaps certainly true of London and the fact must be recognized. This allows constructive and positive sustainable policies to be pursued to rebalance. These[j1]  should play to strengths like the creative industries and design.

All the factors we have recorded also create the magnet of tourism.Tourism is a complex subject and mixture of factors that we ought to endeavor to understand. Increasingly it has a massive economic role too. It comprises elements of:-

Human psychology and curiosity and a sense of adventure or pilgrimage

Individuals have choice of destination and sense of satisfaction and value for money

Cities like London enjoy the privilege of concentrated resources at the tourist’s disposal. Meaning that an entire family’s needs might be meet under one umbrella

London being a 24 hour city means that a tourist can be stimulated and provided for and this contributes to satisfaction and value for money

The established cultural institutions and museums have some unique exhibits

Since our weather cannot be guaranteed the museums, galleries and shopping provide daytime indoor activity as required and the theatres, nightlife, restaurants etc.  ensure full coverage

Tourism cannot function without accommodation transport, translation and a feeling of being welcome and an ease of getting to and from destinations .proximity also helps.

As the world becomes smaller, the internet changes and brings facilities to people rather than they travel, then tourism has to adapt and other factors can influence decisions. These can include feelings of safety, disability access, transport connections ,quality and costs of accommodation /transport and a host of subtle considerations not present in the past

People become more educated and have greater income whilst expectations tend to increase. As tourism is just as much a market there is also increased competition to attract and retain visitors

The evidence is that there is increased demand for the experience economy. This is simply a higher level mixture of learning , entertainment with participation , direct experience , empathy or acquaintance / persuasion, stimulation ,enquirey,deduction ,exploration and greater intellectual satisfaction .It particularly applies to those for whom a holiday is justified in its learning skill acquisition  and how this might be represent personal self-investment


The 20c /21st witnessed the exceptional growth in motor transport. There were particular concentrations in cities like London with huge populations and cargo traffic to move. Transport obviously required a skilled engineering base. The mechanical transport that London possessed during the 20c /21st included:-

  • Trams
  • Trollies
  • Buses
  • Trains
  • Underground tubes
  • Aircraft and aerodromes

These are essentially public transport to which we can add the private vehicles comprising:-

  • Cars
  • Lorries
  • Coaches
  • Vans
  • Taxis

London enjoyed what might be considered a beneficial multiplier effect especially during the 1930’s that was created as result of the interrelationship of suburban home ownership [Metroland] the jobs this created and the employment generator in the Tube network .The two were symbiotic. These tendency created further employment especially in the electricity industry, distributive trades and consumer goods.

Although there was considerable disparity of wealth and poverty in the 1930’s London and the South East enjoyed perhaps greater disposable income. Those in fixed employment were able to obtain mortgages and perhaps also credit which possibly accounts along with the location of new homes the growth in private car ownership.

Of course the humble Austin Seven and Ford Popular would be inexpensive family cars and later be the basis of the racing specials and indeed Lotus models in the late 1940s and 50’s.

The increase in motoring created new skills, and employment.

During the 1930’s new main arteries were driven out of London on a western axis and these included:-

  • Western Avenue [home to Vandervelle Bearings/ Vanwall  and Park Royal – see both illustration of Park Royal Underground Station, and A&R articles dedicated to Chapman,costin and Vanwall. Also make reference to appendix below.
  • Great West Road ,Brentford comprised many motor related component manufacturers


These statistics were taken from the sources given in references.

Applying to the UK:-

150,000 licensed motor vehicles in 1910

650,000    ditto                                   1920

1.5m                                                    1930

3m                                                       c1939

5.5m                                                    1960

13.5m                          projected         1975

We use figures that cover the primary Chapman era whilst based in and around London.

As London was the capital city and possessed largest population and traffic movements it might be assumed that a large proportion of the figures applied to London.

It is suggested that between the 1920’s private car ownership increased from 300,000 to almost 2m by 1938.


Essentially during the period under consideration London had two race tracks .These were:-

  • Brooklands
  • CrystalPalace


London has essentially two transport museums. These are:-

  • The LondonTransportMuseum with a primary focus on Public Transport
  • The BrooklandsMuseum which is located at the old race track and has focus on pre-war racing and the aviation industry that was based on the site.

It’s considered that neither promote the role of London in motor sport post war as their primary priority/ focus nor serve to interpret the wider role of specialist engineering that contributed so much.

Although the much of the post war motor sport engineering has relocated to a corridor along the M1 and centred on Silverstone; the editors consider it negligent that the roots of post British war motorsport are not recorded or celebrated more. This includes Cooper for example. It’s known that tourists like to complete a heritage trail yet this has been ignored in London and could so easily for a distinctive necklace and chain of outstanding museums, race tracks, manufacturing centres, libraries and locations that have contributed to success that Britain enjoys today.


The list services to illustrate the concentration. Diversity, quality and importance of motorsport in London not least the momentum carried forward from prewar.

No. of Motor Clubs and HQ [e.g., The RAC and 750 Motor Racing Club]



Olympia and Earls Court Motor Shows

London Racing Car Show – later The International Racing Car Show [see devoted/ exclusive A&R article]

Photographer’s eg.G.Goddard [see devoted / exclusive A&R article]

Picture Libraries

Press and Journalism

Trade and Trade Association

Specialist Engineers and Component Manufacturer’s. [See tabulation appendix below]

Specialist sports car sales

International Sponsors [see tabulation appendix below]

Park Royal through West London and Middlesex Engineering base. [See tabulation appendix below]

Ford manufacturing plant at Dagenham [not strictly London but on periphery]

During the 1960’s and 70’s London possible serviced the great majority of the Formula 3 and Formula Fords that sprang up and which democratically provided a spring board into higher levels of motorsport participation [ for evidence and details see tabulations /spreadsheets which accompany A&R articles Lotus and Formula Junior/Ford]


Subscribers may wish to consult A&R articles Lotus Design Decades 1950 and 1960’s to have the widest possible interpretation of the socio-economic context of post war London. The appendix is also a useful reference tool giving the range of types and addresses relevant to specialists etc.

During the 1950’s British and particularly the London based Motorsport industry was achieving considerable impact and international results .Examples are:-

v  Jaguar success through the 1950’s with British drivers particularly at Le Mans

v  Vanwall, Moss and the 1957 British GP win [ see Chapman/Costin involvement] and constructors championship 1958

v  Mike Hawthorne World FI GP champion 1958

v  Many of the British racing drivers had a connection with London through racing and its related institutions

v  During the 1950’s Lotus competed and dominated Club racing but also beat International competition at Le Mans in its class

v  Chapman/Lotus achieved their 1st GP in 1960 [Monaco GP] whilst based Honsey /Cheshunt

v  Throughout the 1960 &70s Lotus dominated many lesser classes of racing not least Formula Junior and Formula Ford [ see A&R articles]

v  Many of Chapman’s most iconic and successful racing cars were made and launched with the London connection i.e. The Racing Car or Motor Show

v  From this early London base cars were exported and this called attention to London. Many aspiring drivers and mechanics gravitated here seeking experience and employment

v  During the 1960’s Chapman enjoyed the collaboration with Ford [based at Dagenham] re Twin Cam. Ford Lotus Cortina and Ford Cosworth DFV etc. Ford engines were the mainstay of the Seven etc.

v  Lotus won the 1963 World Constructors and Drivers Championship.2nd place at Indianapolis

v  Lotus won the 1965 World Constructors and Drivers Championship.1st place at Indianapolis

v  Lotus won the 1968 World Drivers and Constructors Championship

v  Lotus won the 1970 World Drivers and Constructors Championship

v  Lotus won the 1972 World Drivers and Constructors Championship

v  Lotus won the 1973 World Constructors Championship

v  Lotus won the 1978 World Drivers and Constructors Championship

The editors draw the distinction that during the early 1960s Chapman moved to Cheshunt and later Hethel.However right up until the late 1980’s London retain much of its predominance.


With a view to making the proposed CCM&EC a reality the following documents articulating the case have been produced:-

ü  Planning permission

ü  Scoping report by consultants

ü  Impact analysis

ü  SWOT analysis

ü  Education, work experience, apprenticership programmes

ü  Business Plan and budgets etc.

ü  Sustainability

ü  Exhibition themes and interpretation

ü  London motorsport trail and experience

The proposed museum believes that commercial considerations are both necessary and complementary with its educational objectives.

For these reasons our Business Plan includes provision for promoting products and services which share Chapman’s ideals of mechanical efficiency and sustainability. In addition we propose merchandising that explain and interprets the social and cultural context of Chapman’s designs in period. It’s suggested there will be catalogue for on line purchasing.

In particular the proposed CCM&EC has developed plans to provide the motorsport experience by linking and integrating a unique group of related activities and locations. By which means students, visitors and tourists can relive the Lotus connection in London. This can be accessed by various means; the foremost by specialist guided tours, by classic car hire by public transport and coach trips. Various themes or programmes can be adopted with multiple options ranging from:-

  • Location-Location! London –Lotus location and Motor racing manufactures and specialists in context
  • The Prisoner and advertising locations
  • Testing and development
  • Race tracks and track experience days and simulators
  • Motorsport institutions and clubs
  • Retail, Culture and Lotus, Fashion, Carnaby Street and the 1960’s etc.
  • London by Lotus : the unique City seen from a Unique car and angle [ photo-shoot opportunities]
  • Designers London –Chapman’s impact and contemporaries in Industrial Design
  • Galleries, shared exhibition themes , exhibits and experience opportunities
  • Lotus dealers networks
  • London –Lotus the Sights and Sounds by day and by night
  • London –Goodwood  recreation of 1950’s atmosphere and ambience [ see A&R article / description]
  • On Tour with Lotus –the Transporter be transported back in time
  • London-Chapman and aviation the links and flight experience
  • Reality and virtual exploring and experiencing by interrelationship with the net. Designing and assembling a personalized package on line.
  • Pits, paddocks and mechanics –The role of the racing mechanic
  • Social History –Lotus and &Chapman –Through the Eyes –the life and times of contemporary London –Time and Place feel the beat- be in the place on the streets places and pavements /locations behind the scenes that influenced the events
  • Beating a Pathe London and Lotus making the news


The conclusions that the editors draw are that:-

  1. London is a foremost tourist magnate for all the compound reasons explained
  2. That London has been and to a certain extent remains associated with Moto racing
  3. That economies, society, technology, education, creativity are not static and there is no room for complacency. They move on.
  4. In a free society there is both choice and competition and more sophisticated societies have greater needs
  5. That the enormity and richness of the London motorsport connection has been misunderstood , ignored and underexploited to its detriment

The editors make the case for the proposed CCM&EC based on the following:-

  • That the proposed CCM&EC [ The Exploratory –Laboratory]  can enhance, enrich, extend and complement existing tourism
  • That it can achieve this particularly through the experience economy/ participation “driving” entertainment /education
  • That it services the creative industries / industrial design through inspiration and design example
  • It has the means to provide training and work experience
  • That the dual nature of its role lends to sustainability and mitigates against over specialism and vulnerability in an economy
  • That it promotes British engineering and offers a show case for what remains a foremost British export
  • That the modest investment capital offers considerable return in the long term  and might service to prevent further decline; furthermore the investment has a double return serving simultaneously existing and future local community educational interests as well as international tourism


Life in Britain between the Wars.LCB Seaman.Batsford.1970

From Rationing to Rock, the 1950’s revisited.S.Hylton.Sutton.1998

ISBN: 0750917334

The proposed CCM&EC documentation pertaing to planning application for Tottenham Road, Hornsey etc.

Please note the editors of the A&R attempt to give the broadest spectrum of references but not all are available for consultation in an article. However by noting their existence it may assist students in their research.


London Motor Sports Specialists

The Changing Economic, Technological Location Patterns of British Motor Sport. 1London     DateCompanyLocationCountyPost codeDateLocation1903-1927NapierActonLondonW3  1920-1931BentleyCricklewoodLondonNW21966London1922-c 1963Aston MartinFelthamMiddlesex 1966Newport Pc1906LagondaStaines  1963Feltham1931-c1947AltaChessingtonSurrey   1936-1956HRGChessingtonSurrey   1950-1956HWMWalton on TSurrey   c1955-1960VanwallActonLondonW3  1948-CooperSurbitonSurrey   c1952LotusHornseyLondonN8c1963Cheshuntc1962BrabhamChessingtonSurrey   1958-LolaBromleyKent   1903-1938TalbotActonLondonW3/10  1924-c1963Frazer NashIsleworthMiddlesex 1966Isleworth1908-A.C.Thames Ditt’Surrey 1966Thames Ditt1960SpeedwellFinchleyLondonNW11  1960DerringtonKingston ‘TSurrey   1960WillmentTwickenhamMiddlesex   1960ServaisCricklewoodLondonNW2  1960YimkinSloan Sq.LondonSW1  1960BullancoPeckhamLondonSE15  1960Cambridge EKew greenSurrey   1960JamesKingsburyLondonNW9  1960PalaceGateG?LondonSW7  1960Jack KnightBatterseaLondonSW11  1960Nicholls Eng.’EalingLondonW5   Performance

CarsBrentfordMiddlesex    Chequered F”ChiswickMiddlesex    MarshallsNeasdenLondonNW6  1960BarwellChessingtonSurrey   1960AlbanyParkKingston ‘TSurrey   1960Stabilizer PrCricklewoodLondonNW2  1951-1957Arnott S-CarWillesdenLondonNW10  1955/56Auto Temp.Kings CrossLondonWC1  1955/56BoshHendonLondonNW9  1955/56BowdenWillesdenLondonNW10  1955/56ChampionFelthamMiddlesex   1955/56CordsWillesdenLondonNW10  1955/56DaniellForest HillLondonSE23  1955/56DuckhamHammersmith’LondonW6  1955/56ENV Eng.’WillesdenLondonNW10  1955/56Don ParkerClaphamLondonSW11  1955/56Esso LondonSW1  1955/56GallayWillesdenLondonNW10  1955/56Greene&MayWillesdenLondonNW10  1955/56Holt LondonWC1  1955/56JacksonWembleyLondonNW10  1955/56JohnsonNew Bond StLondonW1  1955/56KLGPutney ValeLondonSW15  1955/56LancefieldS.NorwoodLondonSE25  1955/56LeonardCroftonParkLondon   1955/56MarchalBrentfordMiddlesex   1955/56Nat Fire ProtFelthamMiddlesex   1955/56Newton&BennActonLondonW3  1955/56JA PrestwickTottenhamLondonN17  1955/56Regent Oil LondonW1  1955/56RomacColindaleLondonNW9  1955/56SerkPark RoyalLondonNW10  1955/56Shell-MexThe StrandLondonWC2  1955/56SolexMaryleboneLondonNW1  1955/56Speedometer’ LondonWC2  1955/56Speedy Cable LondonW1  1955/56Stoneham LondonEC2  1955/56UniversalHolland PkLondonW11  1955/56VacumnoilWestminsterLondonSW1  1955/56Vigzol Oil LondonSE10  1955/56Wakefield LondonW1  1955/56WardPutneyLondonSW15  1955/56ZenithStanmoreMiddlesex   1981Ray Race     1981Wimhurst      B.B.C. LondonW12   R.A.C. LondonSW1   B.P LondonSW1   Smiths InduNeasdenLondonNW2   VandervelleActonLondonW3 Maidenhead BrooklandsWeybridgeSurrey   1960Northdowns ECaterhamSurrey   1960Caterham CCaterhamSurrey   1960Wilen Eng.EsherSurrey    Ian  Allan Middlesex    Batsford  W1   HamlynFelthamMiddlesex    Haymarket  W8   Octopus  W1   Patrick StephLondon  Cambridge Williams&PHornseyLondonN8 Edmonton ArchTottenhamLondonN8 Cambridge Autosport LondonW8   Brooklands Bk Surrey    British Jaeger London   1966Illfe LondonSE1  1966″Motor Sport”LondonEC1  1966AAL’SquareLondonWC1  1966SoMM&T LondonSW1  1966″Motor”Tpre LondonEC1  1966MoTtransp LondonSE1  1966RSPA LondonSW1  1937-1960AllardPutneyLondonSW15  1966Simoniz LtdHigh HolbornLondonWC1   BSMotoringChelseaLondonSW3   Phillips Elec LondonWC1   British AlumSt. James Sq.LondonSW1  1960cVanden Plas LondonNW91963Birmingham1966Remax LondonSE11  1932-1936ValeMaida ValeLondonW1  1966Mulliner PWWillesdenLondonNW10  1966Firestone TyBrentfordMiddlesex   1966Uniroyal LondonSW1  1966Pirelli LondonNW1  1966Glacier MetaWembleyMiddlesex   1966Connolly LondonNW1  1966ClevitePerivaleMiddlesex   1966Berger LondonW1  1966TriplexPiccadillyLondonW1  1966DualloysWembleyMiddlesex   1966PyreneBrentfordMiddlesex   1966Castrol LondonNW1  1966ZFMaida ValeLondonNW8  1937-1939AtalantaStainesMiddlesex   1934-1939British SalmRaynesParkLondonSW20  c1963EmeryFulhamLondon   1949-1961EmersonTwickenhamMiddlesex   1959-1963GeminiChiswickLondonW4  1961-1965HeronGreenwichLondonSE10  1954-1956J.A.G.Thames Ditt’Surrey   1950-1952J.B.SFelthamMiddlesex   1954-1955Lester London   1964-McLarenCroydonLondon   c1970RoyalePark RoyalLondon   1960-1965Super TwoBromleyKent   c1966UnipowerPerivaleMiddlesex   1997Barber MotorCroydonSurrey   1997Datum CarbWalton on TSurrey    750 Motor C      16x M’Clubs     1960sDeepSanderActonLondon    Diva      CSS Promot  WC2   AerosparesHolbornLondonWC1   Alfred&AdlerWalworthLondonSE17   AndrePutneyLondonSW15   BarimarFulhamLondonSW6   Beard&Fitch LEC1   Bramber Eng. LondonNW2   British Gear LondonNW10   BTHAldwichLondonWC2   Budenberg LondonW1   BilsteinWembleyMiddlesex    CaxtonKew greenLondon    Collett LondonEC1   Courage LtdStainesMiddlesex    Covell LtdActonLondonW6   DE HavillandEdgewareMiddlesex    Delaney Gall LondonNW2   Elf WembleyMiddlesex    FJ EvansWillesdenLondonNW10   Fish Optical LondonWC2   GandyShoreditchLondonEC2   Goodlass LondonW1   Laystall London    Lodge LondonW1   LucasActonLondonW3   MaskellBrixtonLondonSW9   Microplas LtdMitchamSurrey    Mollart Eng.SurbitonSurrey    NKGHendonLondonNW9   Nestle LondonSW1   Olympus C LondonEC1   Palmer Aero LondonSW1   Pepe Jeans LondonWC2   w.Potter LondonNW10   PowerFlexTu LondonN4   Power PlantWest DraytonMiddlesex    RacingEngi LondonN8   Rayment LondonSE15   RedexChiswickLondonW4   StenorRichmondSurrey    P/EStoneham LondonEC2   Technical PlaTeddingtonMiddlesex    TelcalemitBrentfordMiddlesex    TexacoCanary WhaLondonE14   Trico-FolbretBrentfordMiddlesex    Valli ToolUxbridgeMiddlesex    WeberSunbury on TMiddlesex    Wellworthy LondonW1   Wilde &Sons LondonEC2   WoodheadHounslowMiddlesex    Autolite Middlesex    Aeon LondonN1

Manufacturers. [See separate list]

7. Book Review


Date: 19/10/2013

Author: John Cutler

Title: Understanding Aircraft Structures

Publisher &Date: Blackwell Science.1999

ISBN: 0632050012

A&R library copy: No

The A&R contests that the fullest appreciation of Colin Chapman and Lotus cannot be achieved without an appreciation of aviation engineering. This is because the theory was carried over and applied throughout his designs and determined his design methodology and mantra.

The A&R seeks out books that help comprehend the theory and practice and hence resonate when examining and analysing the designs of Chapman.

The editors consider that one of the most useful works helping to achieve is – “Understanding Aircraft Structures” by John Cutler. Although not written for the motor engineer is objectives serve very well and provide a powerful introduction and vocabulary with which the complex subject can be grasped and some of the principles applied. Furthermore we need to appreciate it was possible similar works in period that Chapman absorbed and the aviation  engineers that assisted him would have been fully proficient in the discipline.

“Understanding Aircraft Structures” is a practical, readable and worthwhile introduction to the main principles and practice described in comprehensible terms for the layman. It comprises 13 chapters, an appendix, and index and contains approximately 200 pages. It’s well illustrated with technical and supportive diagrams or pictures.

The editors consider it of particular value to understand most of the technology and craft aspect of aviation present when Chapman was designing and Williams and Pritchard were executing bodies [see A&R articles on Chapman and British Aviation, book reviews and Williams and Pritchard]

Culter defines his objectives early on and these are then consistent throughout. He explains:-

“The aim of this book is to present the principles of aircraft structures to the interested reader in a manner that is both clear and thorough whilst avoiding the necessity for complex mathematical formulae. No previous knowledge is assumed, only the desire to know”

The editors feel this is a very honourable and powerfully practical approach. The student is invited to comprehend the principles and how they are applied. They can proceed to focused learning and execution where required. Motivated, striving for an outcome and the theory becoming a servant not a master. This work genuinely assists comprehension ; the reader is able to move through understanding by grasp of vocabulary to appreciation to impact and application and consequence .For this very reason the editors commend it highly.

“Understanding Aircraft Structures” comprises 13 chapters these are:-

  1. Introduction
  2. History
  3. Parts of the aircraft
  4. Loads on aircraft
  5. The form of structures
  6. Materials
  7. Processes
  8. Corrosion & protection  treatment
  9. Detail design
  10. Composite materials and aircraft structures
  11. Quality and airworthiness
  12. Stressing
  13. Presentation and modifications and repairs

The editors had provided a book review on Shorts but until reading Cutler had not made the connection between flying boat hulls and the fuselage skin forms of aircraft i.e. forming the integral working part of the structure. From this base the evolution of stressed skin or semi – monocoque shapes can be made.

Cutler offers the Douglas DC3 as an example of design simplicity and elegance co-existing.

Possibly not all the chapters need be read by the motor engineer but there is much to be learnt for example about the aircraft use of composite materials primarily carbon-fibre and Kevlar.

It’s possible at the end of the work in his chapter relating to stressing that the motor engineer and student of Chapman will comprehend the design methodology of aircraft design reiterated and re-intrepriated into motor engineering.

Culter suggests that stressing:-

“stressing or stress analysis is primarily that process which estimates whether  or not the proposed structure is strong enough to carry the loads which will be imposed on it by the operation of the aircraft”……………

It is the nature of the aircraft that the lighter they are, the better they perform their role. Also commercially, the cost of carrying superfluous weight in terms of total fuel consumed in the life of the aircraft is very high………….

The designer’s task then includes achieving the maximum lightness and to do this he will employ the most advanced materials and construction techniques which are within the production capacity of his company.”

Cutler suggests the stressmans work comprises:-

  1. Determine the load distribution throughout the structure
  2. Determine the extent to which the elements of this structure are capable of supporting the loads imposed on them

To reinforce the theory and practice Cutler quotes and incorporates Edward Henry Heinemann the self-taught American military aircraft engineer:-

“Simple solutions are almost always the best for any design problem. One of the greatest aircraft designers Ed Heinemann said “simplicate and add lightness”

Of course we appreciate that since this publication date of 1999 technology will have moved on. Aircraft engineers and possible apprentices’ will seek a more recent edition; however for a comprehension of the Chapman design methodology in the period of the early 1950’s this remains an excellent introduction.

Packed with quotations and illustrative diagrams the editors consider this one single work one of the best methods of understanding Chapman i.e. in the parlance where he was coming from. On reading this work further analysis of his designs and indeed those of aerodynamic will be better understood. In addition the principle of fuel economies and sustainability are enshrined in the detail of aircraft design for those that care to establish the connection.

Our subscribers might also like to cross reference with:-

Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design by Costin and Phipps, Batsford, 1974 [copy in A&R library]

Which draws directly on and illustrates Chapman design up to the Type 25

Absorbing the facts and principles outlined in these works with their high quality and relevant diagrams are considered amongst the best the serious student can obtain in order to achieve somewhere near parallel knowledge with that of Chapman during the early part of his career. We ought not to lose sight of the many engineers particularly from De Havilland that gave expert advice and design guidance.


8. Lotus collectables

Lotus 40


9. Lotus interest on YouTube

One item on Youtube maybe of interest our readers

A lot of great footage.

Lotus Cars at Pittsburgh Auto Show 2013

Thank you for your continued  interest and support


Editors of the newsletter

John Scott-Davies

Neil Duncan

Jamie Duncan  (webmaster)