#19d Lotus stumper.

[kwakers]

To complicate this Lotus even further, I visited a friend yesterday and he showed me a model he has with both front rings that is missing both of it's rear rings. His had the mixed script base, but I forgot to check for decal guides and label/ decals on it to code it. The rears seem very flat with no signs of the ring outlines at all, so this does not support the gradual removal theory because of our other known 2 rings being staggered front and rear. I believe his front left was a bit weak or shorter, but was still a very distinct ring. This Lotus casting seems so scattered in it's rings/rims, no wonder Mike Stannard did not deal with them as a casting difference. While visiting my friend, I also got to see my first open step Harvester in person. It has the base hole, and is still one I have looked for over the last two years now since I learned of it on this Forum. That was is also quite exciting because it came unexpectedly in a carrying case lot in June, from a known Lesney Seller who apparently missed that rare variation while selling the lot cheap. What excitement that one gave us both as he realized how 'special' that find was. kwakers

[kbean63]

kwakers wrote
To complicate this Lotus even further, I visited a friend yesterday and he showed me a model he has with both front rings that is missing both of it's rear rings. His had the mixed script base, but I forgot to check for decal guides and label/ decals on it to code it. The rears seem very flat with no signs of the ring outlines at all, so this does not support the gradual removal theory because of our other known 2 rings being staggered front and rear. 

I think the gradual removal theory is still valid if more than one mold was used - the rings could have been removed gradually in different order on different molds. I'm beginning to think that the rings must have been removed because they created frequent casting errors but due to time and production pressures they had to do it piecemeal, replacing the most problematic ones first. I'm pretty ignorant of the die-casting process, so it's just a guess.
-Kevin

[Brad Pittiful]

this is a type of variation that i hate...i might have one with the ring but it may not...does it have to be very noticable...or if a very small area looks like a ring or is it?

one i have looks like a 2er and they are both on the right side

how proud are these supposed to be of the suspension before they are counted as a ring?

[Idris]

The baseplate casting for this model is extremely intricate, and I am unsure how the skeletal wheel supports/suspension arms would have been cast, but I do think that more tooling elements than usual would have been required in order to be able to eject the finished casting.
Could I suggest that what may have been the case is that there were separate, movable (i.e. interchangeable) tools for the outer faces of the wheel supports. These tools were originally with ring but, as they wore out, were replaced one-by-one with tools of a new design without the ring. Depending on how the complete tool was assembled each time a new run of baseplates was required, the positioning of the ring(s) could therefore vary.

[nickjones]

Or the ring voids in the dies gradually filled in with mazac so the rings were no longer cast?.

[Idris]

Or the ring voids in the dies gradually filled in with mazac so the rings were no longer cast?.

I'd toyed with that idea as a possible explanation too. It certainly explains why the rings get shallower, but the fact that they ultimately disappear so completely leads me to believe that retooling took place.