#19d Lotus stumper.

[Idris]

Kwakers' comment that the rings were removed over time rather than added is an interesting one because deleting these rings would have required the addition of material to the tooling. That is a whole lot harder than removing material.

[Ewan]

Kwakers' comment that the rings were removed over time rather than added is an interesting one because deleting these rings would have required the addition of material to the tooling. That is a whole lot harder than removing material.

It would help explain one thing about my orange '2 ringer' as well. If you check out the photos (it's in the Authenticate Your Toys thread) and look at the photo of the front side without the ring it does in fact have a very slight ring - the casting is not perfectly flush. This was one of the reasons I posted in that thread originally - it was my first #19 lotus and I had nothing to compare it to so I had no idea how pronounced the rings should be.

[kwakers]

Just a hypothesis on Idris' 'addition of material to the tooling' statement. The axle ends are the extreme outer points of the molten material flow of this casting if the base dies were filled in the center. Is it a stretch to say that the outermost cavities of these rings/rims may have been tough to fill consistently because of the material cooling before these outermost rings were completely formed? If Lesney filled the dies under pressure, this would not have occurred. But.....If the molten material was simply poured, Lesney may not have been concerned with these poorly or partially formed outer rings/rims. If a replacement die was cut with the rings/rims on it perfectly flat as it now seems, both type dies still continued in use well into the later label variations. The original die with rings/ rims may have kept giving inconsistent ends that varied without ever being modified. Just a thought. My examples without certain rims/ rings also are not as clean as those later ones without any hint of ring showing at all. The ring outlines still may be partially seen just as on yours Ewan. Stannard may have chose to call the models with mis-formed rings/rims errors, and never even noted their variances. I am sure he had seen many of these while compiling his Guide, just as we have.
Just for a note on Nick's listing of this Lotus in it's two colors. Stannard gave the green models codes 1 through 9. The orange Lotus Racers were given codes 9 through 16. Nick's Guide is set up just like that now. Bob's NAMC Guide did the same. Harold in his AIM Guide had green with decals followed by orange with decals. He continued with green with labels, then orange with labels. Harold's Guide is more precise in my mind.
Because Nicks Guide has always been production timeline based on ALL models, these Racer's codes are not presently accurate. This just occurred to me tonight as I checked Nick's Guide on the Lotus casting variations. The original models with the short exhaust brace should be codes one and two in their respective green and orange colors. When all other early features were kept the same, but the long brace replaced the short one on the exhaust, the green version should be code 3, and the orange code 4 to be 'production timeline correct'. (that has always driven us a bit nuts about Nick's listings as he inserts new 'early' variations). As other features were changed on this Lotus one at a time, the same marrying of the two colors should technically be done to make each newer variation timeline correct also. This is totally Nick's decision to update his timeline precise Guide with a little more accuracy or not. A Major change, YES, consistent with the stages of it's production, YES. kwakers

[nickjones]

The only problem I have with the wheel rings being removed is that all of the no decal guide variations have no wheel rings.
So either the decal guides were removed and the wheel rings were removed or the theory is wrong.

[kwakers]

It still fits Nick, but I am wrong in that they apparently quit using the rim/ ring type bases before the new body mold was in use. The 'New Die' without rings/rims was produced late enough that most codes using that base are without the decal guides (Last Body casting) which were found to interfere with the application of the later labels. I do have a version with the guideline body that has the later base with two sizes of lettering and still has rings/rims on it. That combination is not listed in Stannards, but I am off to my Lorry almost on time.......more later as I try and 'Nick Code' that odd one.....kwakers

[kbean63]

Ewan wrote:
Fascinating stuff Kwakers and thanks very much for all the extra info. Confession time - I had thought that the axle rings were added over time to strengthen the baseplate rather than deleted because they were wearing out

Wow. I was with Ewan on this. I thought the rings were an addition. So do we know for a fact that they were a subtraction? I assumed they were added to prevent the tires from rubbing on the squarish ends of the struts. I've noticed that on the model I have with mixed rings the wheels with rings do turn a little better. Sounds like maybe that was the original intention but they may have caused casting issues?

Kevin

[kwakers]

I had a Post just about done, but it disappeared today......Oh well Here I go again.......
We do know for sure that the rings/ rims were first on the base because the first early short exhaust brace model had them in both green and in orange body colors according to both Stannard and Nick's guides. The short exhaust braces are now very hard to find, and must have been a very short run before they were lengthened for better support of the exhaust tips.
My mint decal model in green with only 3 rims/ rings has the right rear one missing. This would seem to be the first version after the four rims/ rings because it still has the early decal guide body and the base with all the same size lettering.
I also have a two rim/ring green LABEL version with the later body without guides which has the later two size lettering base. It has rims/rings on the right front and left rear just like your two examples and Mike's. We now have 4 documented, others will follow I am sure.
I did find that the odd model I mentioned in my Post above is a mint Biggles variation like Nick's new code 1A, but mine has all LABELS over the guides on the body. I bought it brand new out of a store, so I know it is completely original.
As if 2 'New' models were not enough, I went through my beater box to find a very rough green Lotus with the same 'Biggles' mixed size lettering and with all four rims/rings but with the later body WITHOUT guides but WITH DECALS. Being it was in my beater box from 40 years ago, it also is very beat and original, well played with and enjoyed by someone a long time ago.
I did look at the orange Lotus I have recorded with only 3 rims/rings and found that the left rear is still there but very faint and not tall like the other three. I would call that a casting flaw?, but it is nearly perfect. Maybe nothing to log as a variation, but odd....... 'No File in my Hand' kwakers

[kbean63]

So, I forget, has anyone found a one-ring model at this point?

[kwakers]

I had said I had one originally, but on close inspection decided in fact that my model had the same two rims that you guys had found in the same locations as yours. I was mistaken in my original description of that one in my cataloging. We have my three ring, 4 two rings, but no single ring as of yet. kwakers

[kbean63]

I just picked up another #19d today. It's clearly a 4-ringer, but it looks as if the front left ring is just about gone.