Talk:Lotus 49

Work to be done

Hey everyone! I added an infobox for this and did a little work. But I find the article unsatisfactory content-wise. Important stuff like the addition of wings during 1969 and so forth is missing form the competition history section. I therefore downgraded this to C-status, but will start copyediting it. Feel free to chip in. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

merge with Lotus 49

Agree Only logical step, since there is no version powered by anything other than a Cosworth (were these entered as Lotus-Cosworths or Lotus-Fords, by the way? If the latter then the article title is wrong anyway). As a general point I think it is probably best not to include the engine name in a racing car article title, since in some cases versions powered by different engines exist and I think it unlikely that you would want separate articles for each version. Such articles would be largely taken up in repetition, or would be very short. 4u1e

To clarify the above statement, it has been suggested that Lotus-Cosworth 49 be merged with this article. Seems the logical course to me. 4u1e 17:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Racing car template

I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 09:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Takuma Sato

Remember in the 2002 Monaco Grand Prix support race where Takuma Sato crashed with a Lotus 49? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.41.238 (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

IP changes

92.21.244.49 has gone beserk on this article. At least I now got him to move his flood of images into a gallery. But I'd much prefer it to go back to the way it was were some specific photos were showcasing specific points in the article body. If I can get a quick consensus on that, I get go ahead and make the necessary changes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of a gallery but think it was better as it was, any photos that overlap or duplicate should be removed. Eagleash (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate image and he puts it back in, unbelievable! I am so close to having this guy blocked...! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Just report the person if they keep acting against consensus. Tvx1 15:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

First engine used as a stressed member in a successful F1 car

Surely that accolade goes to the Lancia D50 of 1954, a full 13 years before the Lotus 49. It was most definitely a successful Formula One car, winning five out of the fourteen F1 Grand Prix it was entered in. There is plenty of verification of this, both online and in print. Apart from the Wikipedia entry which clearly states this fact, I've listed a couple more sites, and I imagine any web site, book or article about the D50 will say the same.

In fact the citation given for this claim for the Lotus by John Krewson (May 2013), "Fast, Present, Future: 1967 Lotus 49 vs. 2013 Corvette ZR1", Road and Track, retrieved 2013-06-13, does not agree with the claim itself, stating "It used its drivetrain as a stressed member, being not the first F1 car to do so but the first to apply the technique so well that everyone copied it."

http://www.grandprixhistory.org/lancia.htm

https://www.classicdriver.com/en/article/recreation-lancia-d50-grand-prix-car

Can you remove this claim from the Lotus 49 page, and put it where it belongs on the Lancia D50 page.

Patrickblue (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lotus 49. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512214448/http://www.formula1.com/results/season//2014/919/7341/ to http://www.formula1.com/results/season/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

42 entries

What's the source for this? It's not cited and I've also heard 41 and 39 being claimed. Heavywick (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The race entries and results are cited (see references section) and these seem to add up to 42, so I'd be interested to know what the other sources you mention have used as their criteria. Pyrope 14:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)