Lotus vs. Lotus

nome66 · Post by **nome66** » 16 Sep 2011, 22:11

he didn't infringe anything. he went to the lotus guy in britain to ask for the naming rights, instead of group Bahahahahahar.
Bahahahahar naming renault "lotus" is what i like to call spite.
and the way i see it, Fernades comes out on top because caterham builds old lotus' anyways.
no matter what happens, i will still refer to the current renault team as Alfa.

to be honest, i still can't quite determine where bahahahahar is from. any leads?

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 16 Sep 2011, 22:43

nome66 wrote:he didn't infringe anything. he went to the lotus guy in britain to ask for the naming rights, instead of group Bahahahahahar.
Bahahahahar naming renault "lotus" is what i like to call spite.
and the way i see it, Fernades comes out on top because caterham builds old lotus' anyways.
no matter what happens, i will still refer to the current renault team as Alfa.

to be honest, i still can't quite determine where bahahahahar is from. any leads?

Well Wiki says he was born in Turkey & grew up in Switzerland; but I'm guessing that's not the information you were looking for.

nome66 · Post by **nome66** » 16 Sep 2011, 23:58

i was born in germany, raised in arizona and maryland.
....no it does not help. his accent messes me all up.
by the way that stuff is true.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 17 Sep 2011, 12:12

Faustus wrote:
dr-baker wrote:AND I just went and bought 70 euros' worth of green-and-yellow Team Lotus merchandise in Monza (only partly out of loyalty to one of my school's old boys), but also because they are the leading team of the current teams to currently hold reject status. Surely for this final reason, we ought to be backing this team of Fernandes on here?

Don't wear it, keep it in the original wrapping and in a couple of years it will be collectible.

It didn't come in any wrapping - neither the cap nor the rucksack.

But the cap still has its tag on. Which shall stay on.

Post by **mario** » 10 Oct 2011, 18:22

I'm bringing this thread back to the top because of the recent news concerning the efforts of Team Lotus and Group Lotus to sort out the names of the F1 teams. At the moment, whilst Fernandes and Boullier seem to have notified the F1 Commission that they want to change the names of their respective teams, a handful of teams are thought to be opposed to the plan and have demanded that a formal debate, instead of just a fax vote, should be held; Autosport is reporting that those teams are Ferrari, Sauber and HRT.
Now, in theory it is unlikely that those teams will be able to block the name change by themselves since only a two-thirds majority (i.e. 18 out of the 26 representatives from the teams, governing body and FOM) would be required for the motion, but it is interesting to see why those teams are complaining. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95088

Sauber, currently, seem to be opposed to the move because they are unhappy about seeing team names being changed on a whim, which might make the sport less attractive to sponsors (who might be put off by the prospect of uncertainty). That said, Sauber and HRT also have a potentially quite substantial financial incentive to oppose a name change - if they could force one or both parties to change their name without permission, those teams would have to forfeit their TV revenue, which would then be redistributed to the remaining teams. It might be bad enough for Team Lotus to lose out on that revenue - losing a few tens of millions of TV revenue would be a big hit for them - but perhaps more so for Renault, given that they'd also have to potentially forfeit the bonus the team gets for having a historically valuable name.
So, as far as Sauber and HRT are concerned, that could be vital revenue (especially for HRT, given that there is thought to be a very big difference in revenue between 10th and 11th in the WCC), and it's not surprising that they might be trying to get their hands on what could possibly be a few tens of millions more revenue.

Why Ferrari would be hostile to the move is perhaps less clear though - some have suggested that they might be trying to prevent Bahar from using Formula 1 as an advertising platform for Group Lotus, and thereby hindering his attempts to muscle onto their territory. Equally, could there be an element of spite in Ferrari's decision, given that Bahar worked for them only to defect almost immediately to Group Lotus?

nome66 · Post by **nome66** » 10 Oct 2011, 18:42

the F-I-A(remember what that stands for) will probably oppose the decision to change names.
also, Ferrari being negative toward bahar for leaving them is also a huge possibility.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 10 Oct 2011, 20:43

Joe's Award reckons Gerard Lopez will buy Lotus Cars from Proton in the immediate future

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/10/ ... otus-land/

Even if Dany Bahar remains as Lotus CEO, Lopez (which I keep typing as 'Lopex') would have ultiamte control over the company, which would satisfy all the teams except HRT, who still want to discuss tihngs because they want a name change, too.

nome66 · Post by **nome66** » 10 Oct 2011, 21:02

name change? why? representing an entire nation not shameful enough?

[/sarcasm]

....don't flame me for that

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 11 Oct 2011, 01:13

Because 'HRT' stands for 'Hispania Racing Team'; the FIA did not recognise 'Hispania' as a word. And while 'Hispania' is an ancient name for the Iberian Peninsula (it's where we get the denonym 'hispanic' from), it is also the name used by the Hispania Group, led by Jose Ramon Cabarante. However, Cabarante sold the team to Thesan Captial, so as far as names go, 'HRT' is an indirect reference to a team's former ownership. Thesan are talking about consolidating the team, relocating it to a base in Valencia (possibly with the help of Alejandro Agag and Barwa Addax) and buying up the assets controlled by Colin Kolles. I would not be surprised if they then sell the team on for a tidy sum once it has been restructed and simplified. Hence, a name change is apt. Why should new owners of a team be forced to run under an old name that is not representative of them?

Waris · Post by **Waris** » 12 Oct 2011, 17:22

Captain Hammer wrote:Because 'HRT' stands for 'Hispania Racing Team'; the FIA did not recognise 'Hispania' as a word. And while 'Hispania' is an ancient name for the Iberian Peninsula (it's where we get the denonym 'hispanic' from), it is also the name used by the Hispania Group, led by Jose Ramon Cabarante. However, Cabarante sold the team to Thesan Captial, so as far as names go, 'HRT' is an indirect reference to a team's former ownership. Thesan are talking about consolidating the team, relocating it to a base in Valencia (possibly with the help of Alejandro Agag and Barwa Addax) and buying up the assets controlled by Colin Kolles. I would not be surprised if they then sell the team on for a tidy sum once it has been restructed and simplified. Hence, a name change is apt. Why should new owners of a team be forced to run under an old name that is not representative of them?

AFAIK, Thesan Capital bought Hispania Group and all its assets, including the Hispania Racing Team. So technically the team is still owned by the Hispania Group.

nigellamansell · Post by **nigellamansell** » 12 Oct 2011, 22:25

I think the main reason Sauber want it to be debated is because if you remember last year they were forced to still be called "BMW Sauber" even though they had already been sold when they were readmitted or else lose the TV money.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 12 Oct 2011, 23:50

But Renault - who want the name change - have been running under the Renault name for two years to preserve their position under the Concorde, so Sauber's argument that "we were forced to run under a name that was not our own for a year" is invalid.

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 13 Oct 2011, 09:13

Captain Hammer wrote:But Renault - who want the name change - have been running under the Renault name for two years to preserve their position under the Concorde, so Sauber's argument that "we were forced to run under a name that was not our own for a year" is invalid.

Yes, it's true. But they have Kobayashi and when you have Kobayashi on your side every argument used becomes instantly valid. By magic.

Ferrim · Post by **Ferrim** » 13 Oct 2011, 20:59

Waris wrote:AFAIK, Thesan Capital bought Hispania Group and all its assets, including the Hispania Racing Team. So technically the team is still owned by the Hispania Group.

Not from what I've read. Although I admit there was a bit of confussion in that point.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 19 Oct 2011, 02:12

Despite dark predicitions that Ferrari will block any attempted name change by Dany Bahar, they're cool with it. Their concerns are that there appears to be no real provision for preventing constant name changes - and I suspect none up and down pit lane are too happy with the way they're forced to run under old names to preserve their position in the Concorde Agreement. For example, what would have happened if Renault (the manufacturer) had withdrawn ahead of Singapore 2008, but the team retained the Renault name when they fixed the race? Renault's name would have been ruined when they had no part in the proceedings. I think that's what Formula 1 needs: a system where a team's name is representative of their ownership, whilst allowing them to retain whatever right they have to FOM rights payouts, but preventing constant name changes.

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 19 Oct 2011, 09:58

Captain Hammer wrote:Despite dark predicitions that Ferrari will block any attempted name change by Dany Bahar, they're cool with it. Their concerns are that there appears to be no real provision for preventing constant name changes - and I suspect none up and down pit lane are too happy with the way they're forced to run under old names to preserve their position in the Concorde Agreement. For example, what would have happened if Renault (the manufacturer) had withdrawn ahead of Singapore 2008, but the team retained the Renault name when they fixed the race? Renault's name would have been ruined when they had no part in the proceedings. I think that's what Formula 1 needs: a system where a team's name is representative of their ownership, whilst allowing them to retain whatever right they have to FOM rights payouts, but preventing constant name changes.

It might be hard to prevent constant owner changes, like say, Jordan -> Midland -> Spyker -> Force India, if the teams future depends on it. Otherwise I would say that in the year after the ownership change they retain a part or the whole name. In that way, it would have been Jordan Midland-> Spyker Jordan Midland -> Force Spyker Jordan Midland India! Perhaps some owner changes could be prevented this way.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 19 Oct 2011, 10:31

DanielPT wrote:Perhaps some owner changes could be prevented this way.

Why would you want to prevent ownership changes like that? If people can't buy into struggling teams, then those teams will either be forced to close straight away, or will gradually be run into the ground. All it will do is damage the sport.

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 19 Oct 2011, 10:42

Captain Hammer wrote:
DanielPT wrote:Perhaps some owner changes could be prevented this way.

Why would you want to prevent ownership changes like that? If people can't buy into struggling teams, then those teams will either be forced to close straight away, or will gradually be run into the ground. All it will do is damage the sport.

At the start of my post I tried to say that it might be hard to prevent ownership changes if the team future depends on it, because obviously no one wants teams to close. Then I tried to say that, for the cases where the team future is not at stake (usually when a manufacturer comes barging in), this 'keep the name for a year' proposal might prevent some ownership changes. That was the idea, it might not have been that clear though...

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 19 Oct 2011, 12:05

But ... why do you want to prevent ownership changes? If I own a team and I decide that I don't want to be a part of the sport anymore, then I should be able to sell the team if I want to, even if the future of the team is not at stake. I can't be forced to keep the team against my will.

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 19 Oct 2011, 12:19

Captain Hammer wrote:But ... why do you want to prevent ownership changes? If I own a team and I decide that I don't want to be a part of the sport anymore, then I should be able to sell the team if I want to, even if the future of the team is not at stake. I can't be forced to keep the team against my will.

Of course not. Nor do I want to prevent ownership changes. My proposal of sorts was just to avoid constant renaming. I only think that it would prevent those "let me join the sport for a year, profit on increased brand awareness, see what happens and then ditch the team for a fee, preferably close to what I've paid for it, if we don't win or get podiums instantly" (aka Midland, Spiker, BWM, etc...), which, IMHO, only hurt the target teams. You, as a team owner, have the implicit responsibility to find someone really interested in spending some time in the sport.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 19 Oct 2011, 12:24

I don't think the likes of Midland and Spyker did that. I think they just under-estimated the difficulty of Formula 1. They knew they were buying bottom-tier teams, but they no doubt thought progress would come easier than it did. And when they realised just how much they would have to spend in order to simply retain their position, much less move up the grid, they also realised that they had probably bitten off more than they could chew.

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 19 Oct 2011, 13:22

Captain Hammer wrote:I don't think the likes of Midland and Spyker did that. I think they just under-estimated the difficulty of Formula 1. They knew they were buying bottom-tier teams, but they no doubt thought progress would come easier than it did. And when they realised just how much they would have to spend in order to simply retain their position, much less move up the grid, they also realised that they had probably bitten off more than they could chew.

Having said that, how might they have fared in the present day with costs much lower than what they were? Neither did a bad job with the remains of Jordan, as you say they just under-estimated things.

dinizintheoven · Post by **dinizintheoven** » 19 Oct 2011, 17:33

Hmmm. Spyker, I reckon they knew what they were getting into and were prepared to try and make it work if necessary, but Midland... I remain to be convinced. When Alex Shnaider bought the Jordan team, Eddie Jordan did say (on TV) "any time Alex needs any advice, I will be on hand to offer it" - but I have never seen the slightest shred of evidence that EJ's advice, or that of anyone else, was called on. Neither did I get even the merest impression that Alex Shnaider was ever interested in running the team - he bought the team, was never seen again, and bailed out after just under two seasons when the team had not magically risen to the level of the McLarens that the Midland livery vaguely imitated. Finally leaving Spyker to clean up the mess that they really never had a hope of being able to do** - I'd be tempted to speak of Alex Shnaider in the same breath as those other ultra-reject team bosses who had ideas so far above their station that they caused this site to be made in the first place - the Ernesto Vitas, Andrea Sassettis and Enzo Colonis of this world. Say what you like about Vijay Mallaya as a person, but he does want his team to succeed, he does go to the races, he is the serious team boss that Eddie Jordan should have handed over to in 2005.

** I mean, who buys Spyker road cars anyway? How does their cashflow keep on coming in, to the point where they can run a Formula 1 team, if unsuccessfully, for just over a year, and buy Saab and haul it back from the brink of extinction, bringing out a much-needed new model at the same time? Somewhere, the figures cannot be adding up. It's the same with Marussia; who buys their supercars? I don't even think it's the super-rich Russian oligarchs, they'll prefer their Ferraris and Rollers just the same as Western billionaires, so, as with Spyker, where does the money come from to fund the Virgin team? Is it the Russian government? Is it the Russian Mafia? Or is it, improbably though it should not be given the name, Richard Branson? Answer me these and win something completely... mundane.

Post by **mario** » 19 Oct 2011, 18:50

dinizintheoven wrote:** I mean, who buys Spyker road cars anyway? How does their cashflow keep on coming in, to the point where they can run a Formula 1 team, if unsuccessfully, for just over a year, and buy Saab and haul it back from the brink of extinction, bringing out a much-needed new model at the same time? Somewhere, the figures cannot be adding up.

The figures have never really added up for Spyker Cars - in the past, it seems that the Mubadala Development Company (perhaps better known for their investment in Ferrari, amongst other manufacturers) helped prop Spyker Cars up by providing them with loans and investing in the company, whilst Antonov, the Russian businessman who is connected with the Renault team (he owns Snoras, the bank which was behind the loans Genii took out to buy the team), also provided them with loans, and in particular he provided them with some of the money they needed to complete the purchase of Saab.

The Saab deal, as far as I can tell, seemed to rest on a number of events which have, for various reasons, been blocked - the Swedish Government did provide Spyker with some funding, but is refusing to release the remainder of the money it promised until new investors are found for Saab, Antonov's plans to invest in Saab have been held up by the European Investment Bank after allegations, later withdrawn, of connections with the Russian mafia (so it is only this year, now probably far too late, that Antonov has been allowed to buy the supercar division of Spyker Cars), and now what remains of Spyker Cars is, it appears, being sold off to a venture capitalist firm as of September this year as a way of raising funds for Swedish Automobile (the holding company that also owns Saab).

So, the answer is simple - Spyker Cars relied heavily on the fact that, when they bought the team, credit was widely available and cheap enough for them to just about get by on the advertising revenue they could claim. It's perhaps not coincidental that the tightening of the credit markets has seen them beginning to take increasingly desperate measures (like selling off some of their assets).

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 03 Nov 2011, 18:16

*Bump*

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95874

It is now over. Finally, Lotus Renault - Renault will be Lotus - Renault and Team Lotus - Renault will be Caterham - Renault. On a side note Virgin Racing will be Marussia.

So, Tony Fernandes, a couple of years after bringing the true spirit of Team Lotus into F1, all that love and fight for the Team Lotus comes to an end and for what? A few million pounds/euros/whatever... HATE! :evil:

nome66 · Post by **nome66** » 03 Nov 2011, 19:32

wait... what?

mediocre · Post by **mediocre** » 03 Nov 2011, 19:48

They should've called it Lotus Marussia to complete the mess.

Post by **mario** » 03 Nov 2011, 20:40

DanielPT wrote:*Bump*

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/95874

It is now over. Finally, Lotus Renault - Renault will be Lotus - Renault and Team Lotus - Renault will be Caterham - Renault. On a side note Virgin Racing will be Marussia.

So, Tony Fernandes, a couple of years after bringing the true spirit of Team Lotus into F1, all that love and fight for the Team Lotus comes to an end and for what? A few million pounds/euros/whatever... HATE!

Given that Proton, the owners of Group Lotus, have more leverage with the Malaysian Government (who were pressurising Fernandes and Proton to come to an agreement), and that Group Lotus were prepared to continue legal action against Fernandes until they got their hands on the Lotus mark (don't forget that they brought a second case against Fernandes almost immediately, and only stopped it because he started negotiating with them), I can see why Fernandes might have been wary of continuing with the Team Lotus mark.

Post by **Londoner** » 03 Nov 2011, 21:23

And so Bahar gets his way after all. At least we get to root for Caterham next year. It would be really funny if the new Group Bahar car for next year is actually worse than the Caterham car. I think we should be seeing Caterham consistantly in the midfield, maybe nabbing a few points here and there in 2012.

RonDenisDeletraz · Post by **RonDenisDeletraz** » 03 Nov 2011, 22:17

GO HOME DANY BAHAR :evil:

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 03 Nov 2011, 22:48

However, there are no reports that says that Team Lotus is sold. As far as the information goes, it looks like TF still owns the Team Lotus trademark.

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 03 Nov 2011, 23:02

Myrvold wrote:However, there are no reports that says that Team Lotus is sold. As far as the information goes, it looks like TF still owns the Team Lotus trademark.

Don't.....just don't....

Cynon · Post by **Cynon** » 03 Nov 2011, 23:08

East Londoner wrote:And so Bahar gets his way after all. At least we get to root for Caterham next year. It would be really funny if the new Group Bahar car for next year is actually worse than the Caterham car. I think we should be seeing Caterham consistantly in the midfield, maybe nabbing a few points here and there in 2012.

No sympathy for Fernandes, he only used the Team Lotus moniker to give himself an instant fanbase with people wanting to see the Lotus name and their old paintjobs back in F1.

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 04 Nov 2011, 00:21

DanielPT wrote:On a side note Virgin Racing will be Marussia.

Cryyy...

DanielPT wrote:So, Tony Fernandes, a couple of years after bringing the true spirit of Team Lotus into F1, all that love and fight for the Team Lotus comes to an end and for what? A few million pounds/euros/whatever... HATE!

Cynon wrote:No sympathy for Fernandes, he only used the Team Lotus moniker to give himself an instant fanbase with people wanting to see the Lotus name and their old paintjobs back in F1.

I agree with all of that, Fernandes might seem like a really nice, genuine guy, which I'm sure he is, but he clearly mis-used the name, the icon and the history if he's prepared to walk away from the entire affair so easily. It really is quite annoying that he took us all on a ride for the past two years or so. I shan't be directly supporting either next year, that'll be reserved for Marussia *shudder* and the Brits at McLaren.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 04 Nov 2011, 00:31

I can't find it within myself to care what any of these teams are called.

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 04 Nov 2011, 03:00

eagleash wrote:
Myrvold wrote:However, there are no reports that says that Team Lotus is sold. As far as the information goes, it looks like TF still owns the Team Lotus trademark.

Don't.....just don't....

No problem though. It will most likely be Lotus F1 Renault, or Lotus Racing Renault or something

But so far, it looks like Team Lotus is running under the Caterham name.

So... how to put it this way... statistics are now impossible to follow.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 04 Nov 2011, 06:35

Or maybe they'll just stay as "Lotus Renault GP" and change their constructor name (which is what they were applying to do).

mediocre · Post by **mediocre** » 04 Nov 2011, 08:09

How about 2013:

Lotus Scuderia Ferrari
Lotus Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
Lotus Mercedes GP Petronas
Lotus Team Lotus Renault
Lotus HRT
...?

Post by **Londoner** » 04 Nov 2011, 08:13

mediocre wrote:How about 2013:

Lotus Scuderia Ferrari
Lotus Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
Lotus Mercedes GP Petronas
Lotus Team Lotus Renault
Lotus HRT
...?

Lotus Williams! :lol:

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 04 Nov 2011, 09:44

Captain Hammer wrote:Or maybe they'll just stay as "Lotus Renault GP" and change their constructor name (which is what they were applying to do).

Can't see Renault wanting that. They cannot use the Renault name if Renault does not want it unless if it's for the engine and the way things are going, Renault want less to do with Enstone than with Milton Keynes. What could happen is Renault to change the label in those Group Lotus engines to something else... Datsun for instance!