Widebody S4 Lotus Seven

Trevor Sheffield · Post by **Trevor Sheffield** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:53 pm

Kia ora Mike,

With due respect, New Zealand does not harbour or condone fraud and corruption of any sort is exceedingly rare. Our laws support international branding and laws relative to copyright. Steele Bros (NZ) Ltd constitutes a well known legitimate substantial enterprise engaged in the heavy transport sector and as such would not have contemplated risking their substantial good will by illegally using the Lotus name.

Exactly from where are you compiling your alleged expert information? You may be 52 and be pretty sure, but I am 83 and well remember the advertising and sales promotion relative to the local building of the Lotus S4. At the time severe import restrictions were in place and only locally assembled cars were readily available. The possibility of local manufacture was very much in the news and Steele Bros activity was widely publicised. There were reports on how arrangements were made after personal visits to the Lotus organisation.

You are stating that Steel Bros were operating illegally. Provide proof or desist from distributing slander, you could be judged liable.

I drove a Lotus S4 constructed locally and it certainly was not imitation or bogus.

Cheers,

Trevor.

cossie · Post by **cossie** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:34 am

Hi Trevor,

I initially wrote to this thread in order find out more about the "Company X 7" (not the S4 kits imported from Lotus) and not to start a “war” on whether Lotus had aproved the use of their badge on it or not. I am absolutely not accusing anybody of anything but if you are so sure that Lotus had approved in writing that "other Seven manufactures" could use the Lotus badge on the cars they build entirely, then give me some proof instead of threatening me with liability issues. Put your word where your mouth is my friend, and if you are right and I am wrong – I will eat my words and write here that I was wrong.

Again I am interested in the "Company X"produced Sevens history and not in “mudslinging” as mentioned above.

If that’s not possible I am sorry that I spend my time writing to this thread and we might as well stop here. My spare time is too valuable for non constructive conversations.

Cheers,

Mike

Paul Wilkinson · Post by **Paul Wilkinson** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:20 am

Hi Mike,

Sorry, but you have to see where Trevor is coming from. What you are saying, or at least the way you are saying it is coming across as a bit arrogant. The provenance of these cars has been proven previously and when you say you need to see the proof or you won't believe it, I suppose our natural tendency is to say 'who are you that we should care?' As mere car owners, we obviously don't have licensing contracts etc to hand and telling us to prove it or you won't believe us comes across as being a bit rude and smacks of lazy research to be honest. Ask the people who managed Steel Brother's relationship with Lotus. They are easy to find on the 'net and I put a link to one of them in a previous message.

The arrangement with Steel Brothers was basically the same as with Caterham before they sold them the rights if you think about it. Caterham made the 'original' Lotus 7's for years, not Lotus. If you look at the NZ situation, it was a natural progression and makes perfect sense. Steel Brothers were happily assembling kits (albeit with locally manufactured content for tariff reasons), obviously badged and marketed as Lotus, and Lotus was probably grateful for the revenue. When the UK could no longer supply kits or no longer wanted to, Lotus sold a set of jigs and moulds to Steel Brothers. Given all their hard work, Steel Brothers weren't going to want to market the cars as anything other than being original Lotus Sevens and given that the situation wasn't much different from before, Lotus licensed them to use the name. Interestingly there was a court case around the use of the name Lotus but only once Steel Brothers sold the production equipment and the new owners tried to use the Lotus name - an obvious sign that Lotus had sight of what was happening in NZ. As an aside I agree that there were several cars made later where Steel Brothers stretched the terms of their licensing agreement and these cars shouldn't be called Lotus. I'm thinking of those LHD 'Duttonesque' things...

Send me your email address to s4 lotus 7 at hotmail dot com (trying to avoid spam) and I will forward it to a chap that can answer most of your questions if he wants to. I don't know him personally other than through email communications so I'm not happy to forward his details directly. Anything I say regarding numbers etc would be guesses, albeit educted guesses. He has the actual production figures etc. In fact he sent me a picture of my car on the production line and another of it leaving the factory!

I briefly owned the body moulds and it was interesting to see how the wing moulds had been modified for the top-mounted indicators, indicating that it was an early set that was sent to New Zealand.

Cheers,

Paul.

cossie · Post by **cossie** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:23 pm

Hi Paul & Trevor,

I fully agree with you Paul that I can be percived as a bit arrogant even though I am not. I am a no nonsense guy who absolutely hates politics and injustice. What I have to say, I say directly to people.

I have really researched the Lotus 7 and 7 licensed derivatives very thoroughly during many years. I have talked to almost all the Colin Chapman Lotus era top people involved with the Seven and sadly there are now only one left. I have spoken to key Lotus people no other authors of any Seven books have spoken to! Without sounding arrogant I don’t believe that anybody has researched as much as I have regarding the Lotus 7. Therefore it really pisses me off when somebody like you Trevor accuses me of: “Stating that "Company X" were operating illegally, distributing slander, so I could be judged liable” Etc. That very OTT and not called fore.

The following has been said by many of the ex. top Lotus people I have interviewed:
“When Caterham took over the Seven production they wanted very much to use the Lotus Name. Colin Chapman checked that possibility with his attorneys. However the problem was that Lotus could still be held liable for independent manufactures possible legal problems if they used the Lotus name on their cars and registrations. So that was declined.”

Knowing that it is not very likely that "other Seven manufactures" were given that permission – is it?

That does not make the "Company X 7" an inferior product and that is NOT what I am saying. In a matter of fact the car was probably better than the original Lotus 7 S4, especially the “wide body”. I wouldn’t mind having a Super 907 myself and that was the reason why I previously asked if that car was approved for road use. I know that you all are proud of the "Company X 7" and rightfully may I say and it has never been my intention to challenge that.

If there still are some key "Company X 7"people around, please give them my e-mail: mailto:

?subject=&body=

. I would like to get their storeys.

Cheers,

Mike

Trevor Sheffield · Post by **Trevor Sheffield** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:51 am

Attention Mike,

You made this direct statement --- [I]“They (Steel Bros.) used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus.” [/I] What is more you included significant associated asides, all of which damages the goodwill of Steele Bros.

It is especially significant that you continue not to provide the factual evidence which I requested, i.e. “You are stating that Steel Bros. were operating illegally. Provide proof or desist from distributing slander, you could be judged liable.”

You have rudely posted, ----

” if you (Trevor) are so sure that Lotus had approved in writing that Steel Brothers could use the Lotus badge on the cars they build entirely, then give me some proof instead of threatening me with liability issues. Put your word where your mouth is my friend, and if you are right and I am wrong – I will eat my words and write here that I was wrong. I am waiting.”

I now “put my word where my mouth is” and again categorically state, what I have outlined is sound and logical fact. N.B. Steele Bros. would not have blatantly publicised a product, branded it and widely used the name “Lotus”, unless they were legally entitled to do so. This would have amounted to outright commercial stupidity, leaving the door open for litigation and costly damages.. I trust the intelligence of readers to carefully read your posts together with statements by Paul and myself and come to logical conclusions.

You now obtusely if not slyly, address me within your latest post --[I]- “So this is not a matter of somebody has done something illegally Trevor, but again that is not the same as they were given a written permission to use the Lotus name is it?” [/I]

In answer I say, stop beating about the bush dodging the issue. You have here in print, made absolute and direct unproved derogatory statements relative to Steele Bros. What is more, you now claim authority in respect of making your allegations by stating, “Without sounding arrogant I don’t believe that anybody has researched as much as I have regarding the Lotus 7.”

At this point I restrain from more aptly worded comment. However I do call for an apology, particularly towards Steels Bros. and without attendant qualification and or sarcasm.

Without repent,

Trevor.

P.S. It is rather significant that I am called upon to defend myself against text from a dot in cyberspace, whereas by contrast I post in my true name, which appears with my address in the Auckland telephone directory, available on the internet.

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:02 pm

Hi Trevor,

Why do you keep attacking Mike and create a bad environment here with all your threats about legal actions??

This is a CAR forum for exchanging information and should not be used as your personal platform for vendetta or boredom.

Apparently I have to choose my words carefully here or you will probably also threaten to sue me too.

Here is a Section from CAMS:

”Note: Only Lotus built cars or Lotus kits assembled by Steel Bros (NZ) are elgible for classification in this group. Later cars built by Steel Bros commonly known as “New Zealand 7” with altered mechnical and body specifications, are not elgible. Please refer to notes in addendum to this sheet.”

Question: Why are these Steel Bros Sevens not eligible if they are Lotuses as you claim?

Let’s close this discussion and move on.

Cheers,

John

Oldfart · Post by **Oldfart** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:55 pm

Just a wee question for you from the sidelines.
When did CAMS, who has nothing whatever to do with NZ have the power to make a decision affecting NZ?
From the sidelines, it is not Trevor who has made the threats, it was Mike/Cossie who intimated that Steels had been acting illegally.
All Trevor (who I do not know) pointedout was that making these intimations could be libellous.
Jan, did you join the forum just to jump on this issue?
At the time of Steele Bros production we had numerous visits from Lotus staff, if the cars were illegal from a name point they could hardly have been unaware.
I have a vague memory of cars being displayed with race cars, but this could be a vague old memory and be incorrect

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:44 pm

Hi all,

It’s getting late and I do not really want to get into this but I do see a pattern of a “lynching mob” from NZ and that is not right.

I am sorry but I do not see any threats from Mike. However I can associate with his frustration in trying to gather a historically correct Lotus 7 history and not getting any help.

I am aware of that CAMS has nothing to do with NZ! so what you are saying is that Steel Bros Sevens were only allowed to be called Lotuses in NZ. Is that correct understood? You are also saying that Australian CAMS (our national body) know absolutely nothing about the Steel Bros Seven! Isn’t that what Trevor calls slander?

As indicated I could care less here and I do not know Mike but after reading this thread again, I actually believe that it is Trevor who are threatening Mike.

Anyway I believe that Trevor has taken this thread way off topic and that we should get back on topic.

No this I by far my first contribution (if you must know!) but instead of changing my old profile which contains all my personal details such as e-mail address I have made a new one. I do not want persons like Trevor to have my e-mail address (for obvious reasons may I say).

Cheers,

John

Neville Milne · Post by **Neville Milne** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:32 pm

FWIW Steel Bros had been in the fabrication business for almost 100 years, before the Lotus venture. The quality of their fabrication(s) and their honesty in their dealings was, and is, unquestioned.
This was very far from a 'nickle and dime' outfit, trying to assemble kit cars in a back shed.
Steel Bros, was then and is to this day, a large, well respected business
I'm sure the Lotus venture was a minor diversion, possibly to keep employees occupied during inevitable 'slow times' that were endemic in those industries, at that time.
Also FWIW, they were probably far better capitalized than any other of Chapman's customers, possibly better than Lotus themselves and, in my direct experience, Steel Bros paid their bills...on time...a characteristic attractive to ANY supplier of theirs, including Lotus.
Neville Milne

stirlingmac · Post by **stirlingmac** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:34 pm

As a relative newbie here, I have been reading this thread with interest. I got the impression that any warnings were given in a friendly/advisory manner not as a threat of action to be taken by anyone here on the forum. Over the years I have read many books and articles about the S4 Sevens and all too few even acknowledge the NZ built cars, it therefore not surprising that there is little knowledge outside NZ about them. The CAMS reference is irrelevant in as much as we have no idea why NZ built cars were classified as they were in Australia. I doubt anyone involved in any licensing or business transactions with Lotus or Colin Chapman would be willing to have any documentation posted on the net. I only reponded due to my interest in these cars for many years and the desire to own one myself.

Oldfart · Post by **Oldfart** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:04 pm

Jan wrote:Hi all,

I am aware of that CAMS has nothing to do with NZ! so what you are saying is that Steel Bros Sevens were only allowed to be called Lotuses in NZ. Is that correct understood? You are also saying that Australian CAMS (our national body) know absolutely nothing about the Steel Bros Seven! Isn’t that what Trevor calls slander?

No this I by far my first contribution (if you must know!) but instead of changing my old profile which contains all my personal details such as e-mail address I have made a new one. I do not want persons like Trevor to have my e-mail address (for obvious reasons may I say).

Cheers,

John

John, it is not, nor was not, my intention to "slander CAMS". I was curious as to why CAMS would have any mention of the Steele cars in their rules at all. I don't even know if they were exported. (Nor do I care).
As for a "lynch mob"! We obviously have different slants to reading, I read it and still do that Mike had made comments re the rights which Steeles did, or did not have to call them Lotus. Trevor made a comment that I felt warned Mike about making such comments, no more. You interpret that differentlly.
I agree with all the parties who actually care, that someone needs to "put up or shut up". That can be either Mike with documents to show that Steeles were acting illegally, or someone in NZ showing that there was some agreement. Of course the chances of finding something at the UK end would be nigh on impossible, even if they did exist in the time. That means that the only option is at the NZ end, again if those records still exist, after all how many years ago was the operation closed down?
I re-iterate, AT THE TIME, NZ had numerous visits from Lotus staff, surely action would have been taken rather than the tacit support which was shown?

zakspeed65 · Post by **zakspeed65** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:32 pm

Hi All,

I have been reading this thread with interest and a little disbelief!!

I am quite passionate about Lotus 7 cars, having restored a couple of Series 2 a Series 3 and a Series 4.

It is quite well known here in NZ that Steel Brothers did in fact build these cars, if the did or did not have the OK from Lotus (which I am quite sure they did) this many years on it will be very hard to get to the bottom of the real story.
Colin Chapman was great at doing deals, with many parties!! Talking to him to get the real answers is not going to happen.

The rest is as they say "IS HISTORY" Debate all you want, even say things you may regret, but the fact remains you will never know the true story. Well not 100%.

Cheers,

Gary.

Rod Grimwood · Post by **Rod Grimwood** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:48 pm

John, CAMS over the years have not recognized a number of vehicles from NZ, as is their right.
Cossie/Mike, The "Mother Land" (GB) is also not the only country to have produced or still have certain makes of cars. There is a bit more to NZ history than being discovered by a explorer as a "little island" in the Pacific (actually 2 little islands). Been there done that on another thread.
Being involved in a wee bit of documentation over the years, “They (Steel Bros.) used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus.” is a statement.

A lot is answered by Neville Milne and Zakspeed65

Paul Wilkinson · Post by **Paul Wilkinson** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:58 pm

Yeah, I think we all need to take a deep breath.

We all know that Steel Brothers were making and badging the cars as being 'Lotus' albeit 'Steelbro-Lotus' on the chassis plates. We also know that Lotus were not only aware but were a party to it, the evidence for that is overwhelming. Even if the small step from assembling imported parts made by UK contractors to assembling parts made by local contractors wasn't formalised (which I believe it was), I am certain the man on the Clapham omnibus would say they are Lotus cars.

Whatever my car is, I love the ugly thing! (and by god that rear spoiler is ugly!)

Trevor Sheffield · Post by **Trevor Sheffield** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:07 pm

As my input and the essence of my complaint is becoming somewhat buried, I again repeat:-

You (Mike --- ? ) made this direct statement --- “They (Steel Bros.) used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus.” What is more you included significant associated asides, all of which damages the goodwill of Steele Bros.

I trust the intelligence of readers to carefully read your posts together with statements by Paul and myself and come to logical conclusions.

At this point I restrain from more aptly worded comment. However I do call for an apology, particularly towards Steels Bros. and without attendant qualification and or sarcasm.

Let it be clear that I have made no threats, but I certainly have made accusations which still stand and the name of Steele Bros remains maligned.

Sincerely, Trevor.

P.S. As I have stated, Steele Bros. would not publicise if they were not entitled to do so. Please go here and refer history, period 1970 - 1980 for the facts:-

http://www.steelbro.com/en/about-us/history.html

markec · Post by **markec** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:16 pm

Is the next thing to be discussed, that all the CKD's that were assembled in NZ, not genuine Fords, Humbers, Rovers or Vauxhalls.

Paul Wilkinson · Post by **Paul Wilkinson** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:25 pm

markec wrote:Is the next thing to be discussed, that all the CKD's that were assembled in NZ, not genuine Fords, Humbers, Rovers or Vauxhalls.

He replies, tongue firmly in cheek - Yes, unless you still have a copy of the licensing contract to prove otherwise!

I think it's time to let it go and just enjoy our cars. Of course, I can't enjoy mine as we've just sold our house and my restoration budget has been re-allocated to the purchase of another house.... Looks like my ugly duckling will be mothballed for quite some time to come!

Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na BATMAN!

AMCO72 · Post by **AMCO72** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:34 pm

I have been re-reading this thread from the start, as I was wondering why there was all this passion for such an ugly car. [your words Paul] Just to defuse things a bit here, could I ask someone what these things sold for when new? I remember when they appeared on the market, and wondering, who would willingly part with money to be seen in 'THAT'. Charlie Conway traded one on a Pantera....'a de-tomato-sauce' as we used to call them, and I'm not sure who got the better deal, but Charlie was a pretty shrewd character and knew his 'motors'. By all the comments I have been reading, the car was a complete dog, that required lots of mods from owners to get it right.....for track use anyway. Maybe Chapman and Co never intended it to be a race car, but should have guessed that it would be pressed into service. My knowledge of these things has taken a huge leap since Paul started this thread, so lets just move on, as we will NEVER know the true story, as dealing with the likes of Colin Chapman and Co, was as frustrating as duct-taping eels to a greasy pole.

Paul Wilkinson · Post by **Paul Wilkinson** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:51 pm

Around $4300 new according to the Motorman article.

I actually think they are great looking cars. Definately a product of their time and I really like that about them. I only think my one is ugly because of that rear spoiler and I'm not quite sure how to feel about that.... It's silly - I can't chop if off because it was made like that but it would look so much better without it. It was the only one made with a spoiler and I can see why. I can picture them standing back, sucking their teeth and saying 'Don't think we'll do that again...'

aussiemonza · Post by **aussiemonza** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:20 am

Jan wrote:Hi Trevor,

Why do you keep attacking Mike and create a bad environment here with all your threats about legal actions??

This is a CAR forum for exchanging information and should not be used as your personal platform for vendetta or boredom.

Apparently I have to choose my words carefully here or you will probably also threaten to sue me too.

Here is a Section from CAMS:

”Note: Only Lotus built cars or Lotus kits assembled by Steel Bros (NZ) are elgible for classification in this group. Later cars built by Steel Bros commonly known as “New Zealand 7” with altered mechnical and body specifications, are not elgible. Please refer to notes in addendum to this sheet.”

Question: Why are these Steel Bros Sevens not eligible if they are Lotuses as you claim?

Let’s close this discussion and move on.

Cheers,

John

Hi John,

What is the context of the CAMS section? Is it to do with the eligibility of Steele Bros Lotus S4's for Group D Production Sports in the late 70's - early 80's?

CCC

The Roaring Season