Printable View
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88902Quote:
The Renault team is to switch to a British racing licence this season...The Enstone-based outfit has raced as a French outfit for the past few seasons, but with Lotus now playing a central part in its future plans it is to switch its official team nationality before the start of the season.
:crazy:
Ah the Malaysian-backed, French chassis and engine-supplied, British team. All makes perfect sense...
They never moved the factory when they took over Benetton so the team was always English with a French veneer.
It's still a little odd seeing "Renault" with "Britain" next to it though.
No, LOTUS is British. ;)
IMHO, it was never a French team and it's essentially always been an English team. The Chassis has always been built in England. Lotus is a malaysian owned English company. Makes sense. I guess I'm not having as hard of time as many seeing this team as Team Lotus (powered by)Renault as others. I missed the engineers program the engine to play La Marseillaise. ;)
It is essentially back to the way Lotus was in the 70's and 80's, minus their legendary founder: Lotus Car company, and Lotus Racing company, both owned by the same owner, both using Renault engines.
It is not Renault racing any longer, it is Lotus. The rules on F1 team names with the licensing, TV and purse money are what is keeping the team name officially Renault this season so they don't loose their $$. How many times has the former Jordan team changed its' name and country flag? That team has never moved.
Lotus is an english company, building road and f1 racing cars in England. Makes sense to me. I'm sure it doesn't make the French fans very happy as they now have neither an F1 team or and F1 race, but........... it is what it is. Thank Bernie.
No. It's Proton.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Lotus is nothing more than a livery now (and a commerically valuable one!).
Could you elaborate what Bernie has to do with France not having an F1 team or race?Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
lol, you're Joking right?
Bernie's financial demands to participate in F1 or hold an F1 race have priced entire Countries out of F1. Why doesn't France Have an F1 race? Because no one in France can afford Bernie's sanctioning fees. Bernie's rules and fees have priced Renault right out of F1 as a constructor.
So, with that logic, Ferrari is little more than Fiat, right?? They are buying the team, jsut as spyker, Midland, Toro Rosso, Sauber BMW Sauber Ferrari, etc. have changed ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Considering Renault doesn't own any of the team from the detailed reports I've read, How it is Renault? Renault is now an engine supplier to three teams, Two of which happen to be calling themselves Lotus/Renault. It's still Renault in name per the regs so the team retains the team's 2010 purse money, television share and travel funds, etc...
I guess I just don't understand how and more importantly WHY everyone is so tied to the fernandes group's claim to being Lotus any more than the former Toleman team now called Lotus considering the Malaysian owned subsidiary of manufacturer Proton, called LOTUS chose to buy an existing F1 team. Lotus got a bigger and better deal. The difference is this time, The team purchased has a few championships under their belt.
That's the way you do it. While Honda, Toyota and BMW left chaos behind them Renault pulled out of f1 (as a constructor) without most of the people noticing they're gone.
Have Proton actually bought the Toleman/Benetton/Renault team, or is it just a sponsorship deal? I know there was talk of them buying the 25% that Renault still held, but I don't know if even that actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
But in any case, neither of these two teams is the "real" Lotus team. However I think people warmed to Fernandes and his team last year, and liked the way they about their business; while Proton coming in a year later are seen as bandwagon-jumping. That's why a lot of people are more sympathetic to the Fernandes side in this argument.
There's probably a perceived element of David vs Goliath in it as well - one guy starting a new team and being personally involved in it, vs. a multinational corporation grabbing an established team that already has its own history. Which of those is more true to the spirit of Chapman's venture.
For me it's not about who has the "right" to be Team Lotus, because neither can truly claim that right; it's about who I'd prefer to see carrying the name, given that at least one of them will be.