Lotus Type and Mk numbers are incorrectly listed in the chassis number section for Lotus. They should be listed in the Model name section.

Except for the Lotus Seven and until the Lotus Eleven, Lotus models were referred to by their Mark number. I have seen two naming conventions. 1. The word "Mark" followed by a digit (e.g. Mark 6). 2. The abbreviation "Mk" followed by the Roman numeral (e.g. Mk VI).

After the Lotus Eleven, all Lotus models have a Type number. The number is a continuation from 11 and is specified as decimal digits (e.g. Type 25). When the development of a model would result in a new Type number does not always follow a logical pattern.

The road cars also have a model name. Because (Lotus founder) Colin Chapman likes the sound of "Lotus Eleven", they all start with the letter "E" (except for the Type 28, Lotus Cortina, which is a development of the Ford Cortina). Some of these are the Elite (Type 14), Elan (Type 26/Type 36/Type 45), Europa (Type 46/Type 54/Type 65/Type 74), Esprit (Type 79), Turbo Esprit (Type 82), Excel (Type 89) and Elise (Type 111).

During the mid-1970s, some Type numbers were assigned to multiple cars (e.g., Type 79 is both the Esprit and the 1978 Formula One car).

The Elan that went into production in 1989 is commonly referred to by its internal project number M100 (e.g. M100 Elan) to distinguish it from the earlier Elan.

Lotus sold the rights to the Lotus Seven Series 3 to Caterham cars in the early 1970s and Caterham continues to build its Seven to this day. Often these cars, particularly the earlier ones are hard to distinguish from a Lotus Seven.

alan

Hi,
It is indeed possible that there are some errors, but it is not always possible to list very accurately all car makes & models with the same generic system.
In addition to the fact that we do not especially have members on the site specialized in each make (and I am not sure that anyone really checked the coherence of the Lotus listing recently).

What we call "chassis" on the site is more a multi-purpose "common manufacturer code/reference" than only a chassis code. The "model" is the commercial name.
So for the Esprit, Elan, etc., it is normal to have that name as model and the Type as "chassis": it is what the latter field was made for.

For the older ones and the race cars however I am not sure what is the best way to list all these.
If you have more precise suggestions (examples) of what should changed, these would be welcome.

OK. It is a confusing because both chassis/product codes for a series of cars and chassis numbers for individual cars are listed in the Lotus Chassis/Code Names section. However, as is apparent looking through the Model Names section for Lotus, the "commercial" name for a model is very often the chassis code.

When the "commercial" name is the same as the chassis/product code, should it be listed in both sections?

Is the "commercial" name the official name from the mfg or the commonly used name?

Does IMCDB track chassis numbers (or vehicle registration numbers, which is common in the UK) for individual cars?

Once I have a better idea of what info should be there, I can make specific change suggestions.

commercial name is the one used in ads, brochures, badges, etc.
We usually do not store full vehicle numbers or licence plate numbers, just codes identifying model/generation, allowing to regroup different model names (like the W-codes of the Mercedes or E-codes of the BMWs), but for some like the Rolls-Royce we store the individual chassis number or licence plate of the car to be able to track them, as they are much less common and tend to be widely known by specialists (especially old models still on the road, or those used in several movies).

For the Lotus, there can be two names then, one more commercial and one more technical.
For the Esprit, Elan, etc. the technical one (chassis) is then the Type.
For the others, we could either always put the Type as chassis code like those mentioned above, or rather use it as model name if it fits better...

Lotus (and many other low-volume British cars) are known primarily by the license plate (registration number) in the UK, probably because they are visible and stay with the car all its life. I think keeping this info in the IMCDB would be useful. The reason I looked at ICMDB and noticed the issues with Lotus was that I was watching "The Yellow Rolls-Royce" and was wondering about the history of that particular car (and found out more than one was used).

As far as suggestions ...

First, I suggest standardizing the "Mark" numbered cars (Marks 1-4, 6, 8-10). The problem is what to standardize on. "Mark" and "Mk", and Arabic and Roman numerals were all used in promotional material produced by Lotus. Two books that list all Lotus cars (at the time of printing) standardize on "Mark" and Arabic numerals and then use Roman numerals in the descriptive text. Colin Chapman's biographer (who had a long-time association w/Lotus) use "Mk" and Roman numerals. A Lotus engineer who wrote a book on contemporary race car design in 1960 used "Mark" and Arabic numerals.

I think "Mark" and Roman numerals should be used.

So ...

The "IX" (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Lotus&model=IX&modelMatch=1&modelInclModel=- on) would become the "Mark IX".

The "Mk6" (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Lotus&model=Mk6&modelMatch=1&modelInclModel=- on) would become the "Mark VI".

The "VIII" (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Lotus&model=VIII&modelMatch=1&modelInclModel=- on) would become the "Mark VIII".

These appear in the Model section.

In the product/chassis code section, "Mark 10" (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Lotus&model=Mark+10&modelMatch=2&modelInclChassis=- on) should appear in the Model section as "Mark X".

The Eleven should appear in the Model list as "Eleven" and in the Chassis/Product list as "Mark XI", which it seems to do.

I have tried to tidy up bits of the Lotus collection every so often - perhaps completing [codes] for individual models when some were entered and others blank, or making model names consistent etc, but don't have a full grasp across all Lotuses to know whether we've got consistent referencing. I don't think we've got any major black holes or contradictions, but if you can spot any, shout loudly. There may be different [code] systems running with some of the race cars, where some have individual chassis numbers entered (particularly F1 cars), as with the Rolls-Royce reference ^ for the same reasons - we also do the same where possible with eg Ferrari racers, Ford GT40 etc.

Registration numbers would not normally goes as [codes]. Occasionally they go in Extra Info if very significant particular cars but it's far more common for plate info to appear in comments - if a car appears in several different films, we tend to provide page links in comments - random example to show how this works - http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=334456 .



Always welcome - the more knowledge we can accumulate the better. And we love accuracy so much it hurts sometimes.

Another category of changes involves "M" numbers. As previously noted, the M number is the internal project identifier. Sometimes they correspond to the Type number (M100 is the Type 100 Elan, M111 is the Type 111 Elise) and sometimes they don't (M50 is the Type 75 Elite, M52 is the Type 76 Eclat, M70 is the Type 79 Esprit).

In general, M numbers are not chassis/product numbers (per your definition) and shouldn't be listed. I suggest changing Type M111, Type M117, Type M121 in the chassis/product list to Type 111, Type 117, Type 121.

Also, there appears to be a typo related to this. "Typ M117" (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Lotus&model=Typ+M117&modelMatch=2&modelInclChassis=- on) was probably intended to be "Type M117" and I suggest it be changed as indicated above.

There are exceptions.

- M100 (Type 100 Elan). It is widely known as the M100 Elan, probably to distinguish it from the classic 60s Elan. However, I can't find any references to M100 Elan in any Lotus promotional material on the car.

I suggest changing the chassis/product from Type M100 to Type 100. I suggest changing the Elan model entries that refer to Type 100 Elans to "M100 Elan".

- M250. This was intended to fit between the Elise and the Esprit. One-sheet product specs and other promotional material was produced in (relative) volume. Hot Wheels made a toy version. And then the project was suddenly cancelled. It got a Type number (118), but never got a name.

Seems mostly fine, I'll do the changes...
However about the M100 Elan, you suggest to use "M100 Elan" as full model name?
On Wikipedia it seems to be used in the same way, I guess it does not harm to list the same way but I already know that it will be a subject of discussion between members

I think Elan system works as it is - all 60s/70s models entered with S1/2/3/4/Sprint (and the appropriate [Type xx]) so they separate nicely from the M100. I'm not keen on "M100 Elan" because I don't think that's the name people will look for - it may be a common usage nickname, but this is unofficial use for convenience.

By the way, it might be useful to give [M100] to both our Kia Elans???

The bigger point about replacing all [Mxxx] with just [xxx] - I'm uneasy, despite its claimed greater precision. I'm not sure it's an actual problem, but it would also force us into some sort of uneasy M100 Elan title to keep the M100 reference and there could be a tail-wagging-the-dog outcome. But looking through our [M111] and [M117] sets as blocks, I'm not sure we've got the usages totally correct - there seems to be some drift between similar Elise versions between the two codes and maybe a couple of Elise-related versions in [M111] which might have had different new codes we haven't discovered yet??

Re M250 - see http://www.pistonheads.com/lotus/m250/m250-launch.htm for Lotus PR statements that its name was M250. But 118 type number would be useful addition - [118] or [M118]??

Have fixed the Typ M117 typo.

I guess we could.
For the Mk/Mark style, we can switch to roman numbers as suggested then I suppose. They are listed that way on Wikipedia for example.

My preface on all of this is "do what you want". I am only going to note what Lotus or Lotus owners/enthusiasts call things and make suggestions.



I am confused. Here you are arguing against a commonly used name like "M100 Elan", but below are arguing for a made-up name like Type M117.

My opinion is that it will have little impact. "M100 Elan" will come up in a search for "Elan". The only place it would make a difference is in the Model list where it wouldn't be grouped with the other Elans.



Is that a chassis or model designation? Kia bought the tooling and molds from Lotus and built the cars themselves. Unless your DB can cross-reference fields between mfgs (so the model is a Kia, but the chassis/product is a Lotus), it doesn't make sense to link them. Besides, Kia tweeked enough of the car that it really is a Kia. Then again, IMCDB does not list Caterham as a mfg, so those cars



"Claimed greater precision"? Do you want me to quote books citing the difference between an M project number and a Type number at Lotus? Do I need to get someone from Lotus (or who used to work for Lotus) to send a statement confirming this?

If a Lotus name includes "Type" and has an M number, it is an incorrect designation.



Type 111 is the original Elise built from 1996-2000(?). The front end looks somewhat like a Europa. That is the easy way to tell them apart from the later cars. As I have one, I also like to remind people that they are 400 lbs lighter than the later cars.

Type 117 is the second generation Elise. In early PR, it was called the Elise 2000, but that name didn't stick around long. The front end looks like the US cars with the wasp-ish headlights.

The US (Federal) Elise is the Type 121.

Before the name Elise was chosen, Lotus kinda fell in love with '111'. One proposed name for the car was One-Eleven. When they upgraded the Elise, the names of many of the submodels were a variation on '111' (like '111S'). They even did this with later Elises that have different Type numbers. It is kinda like (but not to the same degree) that the 911 gets applied to newer Porsches that are developments of the original 911.



If the car had gone into production, it would not have been called the M250. For starters, it does not start with an 'E'. As I said, M numbers are internal project numbers.



Thanks.

For "M100 Elan" the problems for me are anticipating imcdb-user needs. Finding current model sets easily from lists is one issue - in general terms things should be where people expect to find them. This has to be a subjective judgement, and is open to discussion of different ways of expressing the model titles. However the bigger test is what happens when future entries occur - maybe next week or maybe in a couple of years time. If the protocol is not what folk expect, then things often get entered with the "wrong" title/code and the collection fragments into different groups, and it can be very difficult to realise when this starts happening and herd them back into the one pot. People come and go from imcdb - I/you/whoever can watch for specific fragmentation while we're active, but if that watcher moves on, then unfamiliar or particularly contrived designations are vulnerable to losing their guardians. Whatever we decide now needs to be robust enough for 5 or 10 years time and whoever the imcdb contributors and admins are by then and whatever level (or lack of) knowledge they might bring. This anticipation is definitely not scientific, but we have to keep trying.

We can and do change naming systems as we go, but for me, if you have a protocol which has several years of successful use without problems, you need a very clear advantage to justify changing it and educating everyone and subsequent monitoring/ensuring the new system takes root completely.

I ain't no Lotus expert but sort of watch over it to mop up spillages etc - there may well be others who do the same in our happy band so I'm not claiming any particular status - but what I can say is the current system on Elans chugs along quite happily - things get entered correctly without needing much additional intervention or correction. Ditto the [Mxxx] system. So I'm wary of changing to a new system unless it's really needed and the old system is definitely wrong by several units of measurement. Refinements are however much easier so 121 for US Elise could be added and probably taken up without much problem (although it seems we already have 121 for the 2006 Europa - if it's a double code, that's fine - we have loads of overlaps already).

I hope that all makes sense - sometimes ease and familiarity of use becomes dominant over strict accuracy because our systems have be simple to pick up by newbies and to work consistently. For instance, we recently discovered a huge swathe of Renault codes, but had to back off them as just not workable - http://imcdb.opencommunity.be/forum_topic-7755-58044-R20__R30_website.html#p58044 was one strand of a bigger thread (which I can't find at the moment).

For the Kia as M100 question, we can not link [codes] across different manufacturers on the current database, but it is one of the features anticipated for the next version, so useful to plug gaps now as we come across them to be ready for the new era.

Cool.

Maybe I can watch Lotus some time in the future. I recently stepped down as an officer in the local Lotus club after serving in multiple positions for several years, so I would like to enjoy some comparative free time for a bit.

The Type 121 thing is odd. Lotus apparently issued a Press Release indicating that the new Europa was Type 121. But, Lotus includes the Type number in the part number for parts for its cars, and parts for the US Elise have 121 in the Type number portion of the part number.

Just found a new Europa parts manual. The Type number encoded in the parts numbers is 124. According to the lists, Type 124 is the Evora race car. I think I am going to send Lotus some e-mail.

Actually, no, because the model search is by default done on the start of the name. But it is maybe not a big problem. It is difficult to say how people search the site, I do not know if they would rather do a search by typing a model name or browse it from link to link.



we have Caterham: http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles_make-Caterham.html
maybe not on the homepage though (as only the most common ones are there)


As Dsl said, it is sometimes better to keep a working system if the changes are not really important.
Anyway, in the next version of the site (when it will be done...) all that will be better handled, as names will be changeable more easily without much impact to the cars linked to them, and we'll be able to add navigation links between makes/models for helping the users (e.g. on the Elan listing, we could then add a link saying "if you search for the newer one, check the M100 Elan", or a link to Caterham & Kia on the main Lotus page, which is not possible currently).

Please do - more than welcome. The more the merrier. Particularly if you can check through the existing collection that we have individual entries correctly identified and coded against what they actually are. If you flag up errors on their pages, an admin will usually spot them fairly quickly and correct them.

Some of our expert watchers seem to note the number of their make and/or favourite model on the site every few days so that they know when new ones are added. I'm not sure how to do this, but another route is to bring up the make list http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles_make-Lotus.html , => (show all), and then change the display options box from Make-and-Model to Date-Added-(new-ones-first). New Lotus arrivals are probably not hourly occurrences ....

That's indeed the way to find the new ones
(there isn't another, at least not provided by the site itself)

Exchanged e-mail with Lotus. The Elise and Exige are Type 111. The new Europa is Type 121. The Evora is Type 122.

Starting at some point, Lotus broke with tradition and started using the "project" number in its parts numbers. I am awaiting confirmation on whether the project number is the same thing as the old M number. The project numbers mentioned in my e-mail with Lotus are 117 (S2 Elise/Rover engine), 120 (S2 Elise/Toyota engine), 121 (Federal Elise) and 124 (Europa).

I still have to fix these "Mark" model names, I forgot a little
I'll try to do that tomorrow.

I fixed the Mark names.
So about the M-codes, do we set the chassis code of the M250 as Type 118? Or Type M118? Or keep as M118 as currently?
I wait for the other M-codes then.

Maybe some older models or race models should have their name cleaned too.