150 replies to this topic

[Figure8]

Everyone at the magazine must know that what has happened is Proton have started sponsoring what used to be Renault F1? So can anyone tell me on what grounds Autosport are justifying their headline that Real Lotus are back?, it has no former Lotus people, is not based in Norfolk, does not carry on the records of (old) Team Lotus, so why has Autosport gone so hard on this angle?

I'm not even going on about the TF/Group debate, I'm perfectly happy to admit that TF Lotus Racing are not Perhaps 'Real Lotus' either but what makes Proton sponsoring a team real Lotus autosport? Why are they not presenting the news fairly what has actually happened and instead spinning away this lie that Real Lotus are back?....


Are Proton/Bernie on the magazine's back to make it seem legit, sad day if so.

[Little Leaf]

My thoughts exactly. Strange

[korzeniow]

Lotus Cars not only sponsor Genii, but also bought Renault's shares. Renault has 0% of the team.

They keept chassis name of Renault to keep FOM money, that's all. You should expect change of the team's name next year.

[tifosiMac]

Are Proton/Bernie on the magazine's back to make it seem legit, sad day if so.

Thats probably exactly what is going on.
It reminds me of the major gaming sites that have hailed Gran Turismo 5 the best racing game ever. The brand has obviously paid out lots of money to get the reviews it needs and takes attention away from the fact that the game has sub standard graphics, and is a 6 year old update for the previous version. I should imagine with the coverage Autosport gets, Bernie is eager for the mess with the Lotus wannabe companies to have the most positive coverage possible. It seems to be the way the media works.

[Nustang70]

My thoughts exactly. Strange

Ditto.

[korzeniow]

Thats probably exactly what is going on.
It reminds me of the major gaming sites that have hailed Gran Turismo 5 the best racing game ever. The brand has obviously paid out lots of money to get the reviews it needs and takes attention away from the fact that the game has sub standard graphics, and is a 6 year old update for the previous version. I should imagine with the coverage Autosport gets, Bernie is eager for the mess with the Lotus wannabe companies to have the most positive coverage possible. It seems to be the way the media works.

I love conspiracy

[Figure8]

OK Group/Proton have some shares, but that still doesn't make Autosports reporting any more truthful.

'The Real Lotus is back'?...says Autosport

How can it be if Proton now just have some of Renaults shares and own what used to be Toleman/Benetton, which raced against 'Real Lotus'.... the headline/reporting is a disgrace.

Why are they lying, the all know their history in the office's I'm sure?...

Been a subscriber for 20 years don't think I will be much longer, I think it's very sad they seem to be willingly misleading people like this.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well you could make the argument it's the 'real' Lotus in the sense that it's the company itself, rather than a sub-license which Fernandes was on in 2010.

[the9th]

I was going to post this in another thread, but what the heck! It's all in good fun. We have another new thread.

Team Lotus have a sporting pedigree, in marketing terms, that the Lotus car company doesn't. It's good for marketing. 'Fernandes Racing' or 'Team Air Asia' doesn't mean anything.

I'd go as far as saying that Litespeed's Team Lotus won't mean much, in a couple of years time. I hope that by then Mike has built a nice little infrastructure with Tony's money and Litespeed, Mike, David Hunt or whoever can have it all for a penny. Then you wait for another investor and race at the back of the pack for another couple of years. It's a nice way to make a living. Maybe they'll break though the top 5 teams one year, you never know.
That's what marketing is all about, most of the time - you sell yourself and a product you really don't have (ie, you don't really have Chapman, his men, nor their history), you make promises you can't keep, but you can only fool some people some time.
Lotus Cars is Lotus Cars, that's always been their identity. It was Chapman's business, too. They have an intertwined history.
But hey I may be wrong! Many people here would marry Fernandes if people started to call him Marilyn Monroe. That's the power of suggestion. It's good enough as long as you chose to believe in it.
About Lotus Cars not being British... Well Chelsea FC is a Russian Club, because it's owned by Roman. The State of California is indeed another province of Austria, because Arnold is the Governor. RBR as AUT as STR, IMO...

[One]

My thoughts exactly. Strange

Same here. Are they losing the journalistic credibility?

[Tsarwash]

How on earth has GT5 got substandard graphics ? It is the first game that I have seen in over thirty years of avidly playing games that is what I call effectively photo realistic. By all means criticise the game for dumbing down the idea and concept of a simulator, but surely the graphics are the strongest point of the game, and one of the main selling points of the game.

[Risil]

Well you could make the argument it's the 'real' Lotus in the sense that it's the company itself, rather than a sub-license which Fernandes was on in 2010.

Yes, but logically the argument would be the same if Lotus Cars had entered F1 while 'Team Lotus' was still campaigning. After all, they weren't one and the same for any length of time, and they always had the same relationship -- Cars was the car company, Team took care of its official racing operations.

It's an interesting argument, because had this occurred while Team and Cars were still on speaking terms, let's say in the 1970s, most likely Lotus Cars could've called themselves the 'real' Lotus without much complaint (though it would still have been liability-suicide). After all, they were the parent company and Team just a bit of legal manoeuvring. But I think when the brands/licences of the two become adversaries, then I think we should become very careful about assigning Clark, Fittipaldi and Senna to Cars, and equally careful about claiming Team's historical role in the (faded, and quickly being forgotten) British car industry. After all, that's what brand is about.

Wikipedia amusingly says on its Lotus Cars page:

It is now unclear who the "real" Lotus team is and who has the licence to use the name.

It would be nice if Autosport magazine took notice of this, instead of rushing to back one side over the other.

Haven't read anything in the website that suggests they've similarly abandoned editorial objectivity though.

Edited by Risil, 09 December 2010 - 21:40.

[le chat noir]

Very bizarre.

If Group is the 'real Lotus', then they aren't back, as they've never been in F1 before (pre 2010 licence to 1Malaysia).

Similarly, 2010's Lotus Racing, was just a licence from Group, and as such the same headline could not be made then.

The new 2011 entry list with Team Lotus, would warrant 'the real Lotus is back' however.

While the halt of Group Lotus licence to 1Malaysia, and the acquisition of Renault, would warrant 'the other Lotus is back' if we were to consider that they'd gone post Abu Dhabi, pre the recent announcement.

Was it just a poor picture choice tho? Cos the real Lotus, Team Lotus, is indeed back, but the picture you've put on the cover is a Renault.

Autosport making the issue clear as mud. Is this why Joe Saward is bringing up his unhappy departure?

[midgrid]

I too was puzzled by this upon reading Autosport earlier today - it seems that an editorial decision has been taken to favour Lotus Cars in this dispute, which is strange considering that the magazine usually attempts to report objectively, without bias. Either that, or the team have been charmed/otherwise persuaded by Dany Bahar. What particularly annoyed me was that there was a photo of Alessandro Zanardi driving the Lotus 109, captioned "Lotus Cars last raced in 1994" (paraphrase). Errr....

What I take from this is that the Autosport staff think that Lotus Cars will prevail in this dispute and want to avoid confusion later on, but I can't help feeling that this will antagonise two groups with their readership: Lotus Racing fans (of which there seem to be a large number), and traditionalists who remember the original Team Lotus, and don't care to see the team-formerly-known-as-Toleman sponsored by a Malaysian car manufacturer referred to as the "Real Lotus".

[midgrid]

Very bizarre.

If Group is the 'real Lotus', then they aren't back, as they've never been in F1 before (pre 2010 licence to 1Malaysia).

Similarly, 2010's Lotus Racing, was just a licence from Group, and as such the same headline could not be made then.

The new 2011 entry list with Team Lotus, would warrant 'the real Lotus is back' however.

While the halt of Group Lotus licence to 1Malaysia, and the acquisition of Renault, would warrant 'the other Lotus is back' if we were to consider that they'd gone post Abu Dhabi, pre the recent announcement.

Was it just a poor picture choice tho? Cos the real Lotus, Team Lotus, is indeed back, but the picture you've put on the cover is a Renault.

Autosport making the issue clear as mud. Is this why Joe Saward is bringing up his unhappy departure?

I don't know if you've read the inside of the magazine yet, but Autosport clearly backs Lotus Cars in this dispute.

The reason we've called the rebranded Renault F1 Team 'the real Lotus' is that it has the full might of the car company behind it and not just a team name.

[ensign14]

The real Lotus is whoever has the rights to the name Team Lotus. It's like when Bernie bought Brabham, within a dozen years it had changed entirely from BlackJack's day, but it was still the same entity.

[KateLM]

I found the headline completely baffling when I saw it and I wondered if it was just an attempt to draw readers in but no, they are backing Lotus Cars. By all accounts Tony Fernandes has a pretty solid claim to Team Lotus so I don't understand how they aren't the "real" Lotus. Lotus Cars were always separate from Team Lotus and that was the way Colin Chapman wanted it. I honestly hope there is no ulterior motive for this bizarre stance but to be honest I don't see any other explanation for it.

That article combined with the usual overestimation of how much their readership actually care about the Autosport Awards made it the least enjoyable issue for me for quite a while.

[Murdoch]

I found the headline completely baffling when I saw it and I wondered if it was just an attempt to draw readers in but no, they are backing Lotus Cars. By all accounts Tony Fernandes has a pretty solid claim to Team Lotus so I don't understand how they aren't the "real" Lotus. Lotus Cars were always separate from Team Lotus and that was the way Colin Chapman wanted it. I honestly hope there is no ulterior motive for this bizarre stance but to be honest I don't see any other explanation for it.

That article combined with the usual overestimation of how much their readership actually care about the Autosport Awards made it the least enjoyable issue for me for quite a while.

For both of those reasons I have now just ended my 14 year subscription. Over a few years now, Autosport has gone from the 'Guardian, Telegraph' of motorsport journalism, towards the 'Mirror, News of the World' of motorsport. Things seemed (at least to me) to change for the worse when Nigel Roebuck left...

[EnioG]

Same here. Are they losing the journalistic credibility?

I think they are definately loosing credibility in my eyes!!

I feel ver upset about their claim....

[August]

The real Group Lotus is back in F1 doing what they did to real Team Lotus in the 90s. Sponsoring a team, this time Genii Capital's Renault F1 Team.

[Risil]

The real Group Lotus is back in F1 doing what they did to real Team Lotus in the 90s. Sponsoring a team, this time Genii Capital's Renault F1 Team.

I was under the impression that Group Lotus never 'sponsored' Team; legally they were separate entities. Group Lotus didn't have the right to revoke Team Lotus's use of their name: should the ownership have changed hands, they couldn't tell Team that, say, Brabham had made a better offer and they were going to back them now. Or more pertinently, in the event of the car company going bankrupt, they couldn't call in the branding and sell it on behalf of its creditors.

I don't see how this case is any different to any of those I've mentioned. I'd also quite like Autosport magazine to give a detailed reason why it is, aside from some platitudes and assertions which seem to ignore all the facts of the case.

[ensign14]

Perhaps Renault Lotus has bought the name Team Lotus from Lotus Renault. There was some talk about that happening...

[TennisUK]

The Renault F1 team are "The Real Lotus" in precisely the same way as Proton "are the Real Lotus".

I.E they're not. As has been said Ad nausem on these fora, GL, while being A real Lotus, are not THE real Lotus, certainly not when compared with the return of Team Lotus. They own 50% of a company with an investment company, who happen to run cars made by Renault.

I wonder if there might have to be some kind of erratum in the next issue. I notice on page 12 they say "Lotus Cars bowed out of F1 at the end of '94." Which is factually untrue on many counts. Lotus Cars were never an entrant, ever - although they did sponsor Team Lotus regularly over the years, and indeed Lotus Racing last year. They may even have been involved in the commercial relationship between TL and Pacific in 95, I don't know. If they meant "Lotus cars" then even that is wrong - as they may not be aware there were two Lotus cars in the field last year...

Not a good day for Autosport's journalistic integrity.

[Mat]

I don't know if you've read the inside of the magazine yet, but Autosport clearly backs Lotus Cars in this dispute.

Who wrote the Autosport article? I won't have a chance to read the mag until this evening.

Strange that they are getting behind Group Lotus because their columns in the last 2-3 months by the likes of Jonathan Noble, Mark Hughes, Tony Dodgins and Rencken have been overwhelmingly in support of Fernandes and Team Lotus. There has been no implication other than Fernandes has a very good legal case.

I suspect that Fernandes will hold out for a financial settlement, then change the name to Air Asia GP.

Edited by Mat, 10 December 2010 - 02:49.

[Figure8]

Who wrote the Autosport article? I won't have a chance to read the mag until this evening.

Strange that they are getting behind Group Lotus because their columns in the last 2-3 months by the likes of Jonathan Noble, Mark Hughes, Tony Dodgins and Rencken have been overwhelmingly in support of Fernandes and Team Lotus. There has been no implication other than Fernandes has a very good legal case.

I suspect that Fernandes will hold out for a financial settlement, then change the name to Air Asia GP.

Having had the chance to sit and read the magazine I notice the pole position section says the following:

"The reason we called the re branded Renault F1 team 'the real Lotus' is that it has the full might of the car company behind it and not just a team name...."
Charles Bradley - Deputy Editor

Clearly the are aware of how crass and untrue this reporting is.

So Ross is correct if that really is their reasoning, I still think it's shockingly bad darts though and displays a certain level of arrogance/indifference that they feel towards reporting the true history of the sport and indeed Lotus.

This was never what I thought Autosport was about, clearly they have moved firmly into the realm of infotainment. Perhaps the more pertinent question is where is is the real Autosport magazine.

[Lifew12]

Perhaps the more pertinent question is where is is the real Autosport magazine.

That was lost in the wild yonder a good number of years ago. I used to wait eagerly for my Thursday fix; now I don't even flick through it on the news stand.

[Gareth]

"The reason we called the re branded Renault F1 team 'the real Lotus' is that it has the full might of the car company behind it and not just a team name...."
Charles Bradley - Deputy Editor

I guess can see how "the real Lotus" could be an arguable claim, although I would prefer "a" to "the".

I am struggling to see how "is back" is justifiable, though. If the justification for the "real Lotus" is that they are the car company, then "is back" is clearly unsustainable because the car company was never in F1.

[Dolph]

I guess can see how "the real Lotus" could be an arguable claim, although I would prefer "a" to "the".

I am struggling to see how "is back" is justifiable, though. If the justification for the "real Lotus" is that they are the car company, then "is back" is clearly unsustainable because the car company was never in F1.

Maybe before the split?

Anyway, I also find the title page disturbing. Can't think of any other reason than cash paid to certain parties.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Next stop: 9/11 was an inside job.

[Gareth]

Maybe before the split?

I understand that the split occurred in 1954, before their debut in F1 in 1958.

[le chat noir]

I guess can see how "the real Lotus" could be an arguable claim, although I would prefer "a" to "the".

I am struggling to see how "is back" is justifiable, though. If the justification for the "real Lotus" is that they are the car company, then "is back" is clearly unsustainable because the car company was never in F1.

the car company was in f1 before - last year, via licence to Lotus Racing. but its not back as it didn't leave, it just swapped teams. Funny to make a distinction now not last year tho. the actual real lotus is back as Team Lotus next year tho.

i suppose proton is offering more advertising than air asia.

amazing for there to have been this fake Lotus for so many years - it seemed to do quite well tho. i wonder if Autosport will choose to refer to Team Lotus as fake Lotus from now on, while it has the historic name.

Which team should we expect the real Senna to drive for?

[Ross Stonefeld]

He last drove a Williams.

[Risil]

Next stop: 9/11 was an inside job.

Surely it makes sense that a marketing and PR man like Dany Bahar would know how to get the media on his side? Motorsports or otherwise.

'The REAL Lotus' has a bit of the 'THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN FIVE STARS' film reviews that the News of the World seem to put out for whichever new blockbuster desperately needs some marketing CPR.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Oh I'm sure when it comes to the court of public perception GL will do a very good job with their communications. But that's quite far from the magazine being paid to run a headline.

[jcbc3]

We prefer to think that Autosport had a motive for the head line. If it isn't money the obvious answer is stupidity.

Which one do you prefer?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Oh humans are far more likely to do something out of mistake than malice.

I think they had a reason but I don't think they had a motive. As the editor explained, their rationale was that it was the car company rather than a sub-license.

Though I might disagree with them on real lotus 'being back'.

[Mat]

If thats justification then lunatics really are running the asylum.

[bduddy]

Former Renault is the "real" Lotus Cars. Former Lotus Racing (from last year) is the "real" Team Lotus. There, problem solved.

[dank]

Blimey, it's all going off on the Lotus Racing group page on Facebook: http://www.facebook....p;id=1794498147

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well that's a dick move. Posting what is effectively a private email in the public domain.

I do kind of agree with what he's saying. I can understand why people get their reaction, because cynical in common usage implies a sort of dishonest behaviour, but functionally it's correct. Tony Fernandes isn't trying to sell Lotus cars. He's trying to market the Lotus F1 image.

I think this is one of the (many)downsides of social networking. An email like that shouldn't be on Facebook and someone like Mike Gascoyne should be professional enough not to stir things up.

And so there isn't any doubt, I have no affiliation with Autosport or Haymarket.

[Risil]

I do kind of agree with what he's saying. I can understand why people get their reaction, because cynical in common usage implies a sort of dishonest behaviour, but functionally it's correct. Tony Fernandes isn't trying to sell Lotus cars. He's trying to market the Lotus F1 image.

Yes, Andrew vd Burgt's reasoning is the same reasoning that people have by and large accepted when it comes to the the current Merc 'Silver Arrows'. It's just the BAR/Honda/Brawn team with its carbon fibre painted to look like aluminium. If Lotus Cars want to sponsor/buy ownership of the Renault-Lopez team, then they're the 'real' Lotus just as much as Mercedes are the 'real' Mercedes. On the other hand they don't have the legal right to say that Lotus Racing can't run with Lotus branding, and by all reports they've been extremely unprofessional and graceless in refusing to admit this fact. Few people have said that the Group Lotus 'Lotus Renault' team is illegitimate, just that their claims to be The One and Only are flawed and unpleasant. And if one listens to Joe Saward, also rather foolhardy, given Fernandes's rather better track record in company management than the Proton Group.

Not sure about the reasoning that being in F1 'to promote and sell Lotus road and race cars' makes you a 'real' team. Williams and Sauber are certainly real teams. Fernandes acquired the Lotus name because he thought it would justify his wildly-off-the-pace new team's existence. Judging by BCE's comments about Lotus compared to Virgin and Hispania, it was a good move. Considering they had the consent and active support the integral parts of the 'Team Lotus' organisation, eg. the Chapmans (and their hats) and the owner of the 'Team Lotus' brand, don't see how this is different from any other branding exercise. Having sold his team to Walter Wolf in 1976, were Frank Williams's subsequent World Titles won by the 'real Williams'?

And finally, Autosport's editor has made the conscious decision to piss off a lot of F1 fans. Good luck with that one, I'm sure he had his reasons.

[This is coming perilously close to a 'Racing Comment', but I suppose this an official channel of communication of Autosport readers to Autosport magazine?]

Also, Ross, what are the rules for private/public correspondence with publications like Herr Exel's with Autosport magazine? We see a lot of responses to letters to magazines and so on published here, in TNF and RC. Obviously nothing Mister vdB writes privately to a correspondent can be construed as official Autosport policy.

Edited by Risil, 11 December 2010 - 16:05.

[blackgerby]

Just seen the facebook article. Autosport have lost the plot. I've subscribed for over 10 years, shan't be renewing again next year if this is their attitude. Very disappointing.
Autosport goes tabloid

Edited by blackgerby, 11 December 2010 - 16:26.

[ryan86]

It all seems so unnecessary, they've made themselves a mountain out of perfectly flat ground, there wasn't even a molehill there to begin with. All they needed to do was report the murky facts of this Lotus name mess, yet they try using their editorial hype to sell a few more copies and they seem to have just disgruntled everyone.

[Polle]

Do they take us for fools or something?

[D.M.N.]

Any response from Autosport? Unnecessary from Andrew van de Burgt.

[Figure8]

Right that's it magazine subscription cancelled after 20 years.

Final straw. The unnecessary attack on the motives of Tony Fernandes, what spiteful people Autosport have become. The sad thing is this wasn't even about the Lotus dispute but the inability of Autosport to stay neutral and maintain journalistic integrity until the full facts are known.

Autosport's current staff want to be judge and jury on which teams are worthy of their names and heritage. This desire seems to have overwhelmed the wish to report the news factually and show due respect to he history of the sport, this cheapens the value of the magazine immeasurably.

Autosport used to be such a fantastic source for factual news, then with that somewhere else within the magazine there would be thought provoking opinion pieces that would comment on that news and contextualise it accordingly.

The difference was the opinion was never presented as factual news as has happened here with the facts being twisted and distorted to fit the opinion. Perhaps it is just a error of judgement, perhaps there are other motives who knows, the only thing I do know is Autosport's standing is poorer for it.

I love Autosport it's an institution, I've grown up with it, it's informed me so much and helped my love for motor-sport grow, I never felt it was seeking to mislead me but simply inform, now it doesn't feel like that. Indeed the very reason I know the most recent addition is so factually wayward is because in the past it has informed me so well.

I hope those with the power to do so take a step back and ask themselves if they are really doing justice to the magazine with and taking it in a positive direction.

Edited by Figure8, 12 December 2010 - 13:10.

[BullHead]

Yeah. Ditto the majority of sentiment here. The "real" Lotus. I would have thought that Autosport staff would know what they saying?? Why the overt bias to Proton?

[primer]

Neither of the two are the real Lotus.

[aditya-now]

That was lost in the wild yonder a good number of years ago. I used to wait eagerly for my Thursday fix; now I don't even flick through it on the news stand.

Same here, last Autosport i bought was in 2007...

No journalistic integrity.

[Dudley]

How on earth has GT5 got substandard graphics ? It is the first game that I have seen in over thirty years of avidly playing games that is what I call effectively photo realistic. By all means criticise the game for dumbing down the idea and concept of a simulator, but surely the graphics are the strongest point of the game, and one of the main selling points of the game.

80% of the cars are recycled from a now 6 year old game, as are a majority of the tracks. GT5 is wildly variable in its graphical quality and the shadows look awful.

Choose a new track and "premium" cars and I can agree with you (so long as you don't look at the shadows) but there's a lot of slapdash work in GT5.

Well you could make the argument it's the 'real' Lotus in the sense that it's the company itself, rather than a sub-license which Fernandes was on in 2010.

It's not the company itself. It's a car company making their debut in racing.

I was under the impression that Group Lotus never 'sponsored' Team; legally they were separate entities. Group Lotus didn't have the right to revoke Team Lotus's use of their name: should the ownership have changed hands, they couldn't tell Team that, say, Brabham had made a better offer and they were going to back them now. Or more pertinently, in the event of the car company going bankrupt, they couldn't call in the branding and sell it on behalf of its creditors.

I don't see how this case is any different to any of those I've mentioned. I'd also quite like Autosport magazine to give a detailed reason why it is, aside from some platitudes and assertions which seem to ignore all the facts of the case.

Technically they did this year, but they also did back in 1991..

http://upload.wikime.../Lotus_102B.jpg

Oh I'm sure when it comes to the court of public perception GL will do a very good job with their communications. But that's quite far from the magazine being paid to run a headline.

At least if they were paid to run a headline it would have some justification.

Because the other alternative is editorial standards that would make the Daily Sport blush.

Edited by Dudley, 13 December 2010 - 07:10.