150 replies to this topic

[Ross Stonefeld]

I'd be much more willing to forgive inadequacy than corruption.

[kar]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 13 2010, 08:30, said:

I'd be much more willing to forgive inadequacy than corruption.

That of course, is a little bit like saying I'd rather lose a toe, than a leg.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well, wouldn't you?

[Polle]

Quote

Neither of the two are the real Lotus.

This has nothing to do with which one is the real lotus... But rather the integrity of the magazine itself when publishing articles

[Ross Stonefeld]

Hold on. I thought the entire argument is that it does have to do with which one is the real Lotus and the disappointment of people that Autosport backed the 'wrong' Lotus. Or is it that in the intellectual echo chamber that is the internet it is now undisputed fact that there is payola going on?

[noikeee]

I don't want to speculate about the motives, but it does seem mega weird that Autosport is backing one of the parts in a dispute. At first I thought they just went for the nice positive headline, but reading this thread it becomes evident that it goes a little deeper than that. Quite strange.

The point is not about figuring out who is the real Lotus, the point is that "the real Lotus" is something currently disputed by 2 parts. A neutral, respectable magazine can give opinion articles on it by their journalists but shouldn't report their opinion as fact. The only fact is that "the real Lotus" is something disputed at the moment.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I don't think they're backing it legally, Autosport's statement wouldn't be used as evidence in a trademark dispute for instance. I think they are giving their opinion/assesment of it, that it is the real Lotus because it is the genuine company getting involved.

[noikeee]

I don't have a problem with them giving their opinion on it. I have a problem with them reporting their opinion as fact.

But then again I don't buy the magazine so I guess it doesn't affect me. They just get minus points on the respect scale.

[Matti Poika]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 13 2010, 12:46, said:

I don't think they're backing it legally, Autosport's statement wouldn't be used as evidence in a trademark dispute for instance. I think they are giving their opinion/assesment of it, that it is the real Lotus because it is the genuine company getting involved.

The problem, as I see it, lies in the fact that Autosport have picked a side and are twisting facts to support their decision which is why their integrity is being called into question.

It’s fair enough that certain reporters have an opinion and lots of readers are happy to read about it but they are presenting this opinion as fact, which is very damaging to the reputation of the magazine.

What they should be doing is reporting the facts impartially and letting the reader decide for themselves, instead they are going down the Fox News route and can no longer be relied upon as a trust worthy news source.

It’s a shame but it has also been a long time coming, over the past few years Autosport has slowly been morphing into a motorsport version of Heat magazine and this weeks issue has just pushed it over the edge into trashy weekly publications.

Such a shame given it’s long history

[le chat noir]

Also tho - if Group is the real lotus, then they were back last year, licensing 1Malaysia.
All they've done is switch the licence and bought some shares.

What is indisputable tho, is that previously all Group has ever done is provide sponsorship of a team, most usually Team Lotus, then 1Malaysia, now Renault.

The team that fans consider 'Lotus' in F1, was Team Lotus, not anyone else. Which is kinda what the headline is also hinting at, in that it suggests AVDB did not consider the licence last year to herald the team's return. But he does now.

Its just very very confused. And in no way certifiable.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well this one would appear different due to the share ownership rather than just sponsorship, no?

[le chat noir]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 13 2010, 15:17, said:

Well this one would appear different due to the share ownership rather than just sponsorship, no?

Indeed. One might call it a new venture for them.

Rather than a return to something they've done before.

They aren't that Lotus, is the point.

[Dudley]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 13 2010, 12:28, said:

Hold on. I thought the entire argument is that it does have to do with which one is the real Lotus and the disappointment of people that Autosport backed the 'wrong' Lotus. Or is it that in the intellectual echo chamber that is the internet it is now undisputed fact that there is payola going on?

I do believe they're backing the wrong Lotus.

But they shouldn't be backing any Lotus on the front cover and certainly shouldn't be misusing facts, outright lying and having senior personnel write insulting emails to those that disagree.

[mdecarle]

Tony Fernandez bought Team Lotus Ventures (TLV), did he not? And TLV did buy the naming rights from the executors of Pacific Team Lotus? Pacific Team Lotus was the merger of Pacific GP and Team Lotus?

Does the magazine say "Team Lotus" and feature Renault cars? Or does it say "Lotus" and feature Renault cars? "Back" seems to be the wrong word to use in the given circumstances.

The posted-at-facebook email is not very friendly for a guy and his team who did their best and have a good racing attitude, and which may in 2011 be good midfielders.

What Lotus Racing did in 2010 is exactly how I see Lotus Cars: the little guy who maybe doesn't make the fastest car, but does do the best he can, keeping a good attitude and racing spirit while doing so. It seems Lotus Cars wants to turn into something like Ferrari overnight.

[Gareth]

paranoik0, on Dec 13 2010, 12:44, said:

A neutral, respectable magazine can give opinion articles on it by their journalists but shouldn't report their opinion as fact.

I agree. Seperation of opinion pieces and reporting is an important part of journalism, IMO. I would never want a publication to shy away from expressing it's (or it's writers') opinion, but making the distinction clear between when this is happening and when facts are being reported is key.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

I thought it was a refreshing article that didn't buy into the PR spin of TF and just gave the facts. That some people don't like the facts is another story I guess.

In any case, the way the private Autosport emails were then posted on the TL facebook pages was poor form.

[Figure8]

CaptainJackSparrow, on Dec 15 2010, 16:10, said:

I thought it was a refreshing article that didn't buy into the PR spin of TF and just gave the facts. That some people don't like the facts is another story I guess.

In any case, the way the private Autosport emails were then posted on the TL facebook pages was poor form.

You think it just gave the facts?

"The real Lotus is back" Autosport - How is the real lotus back given that the DNA of this team is pure Toleman/Benetton/Renault?.... The real Lotus is certainly not back Renault have had a buy in... it's dead simple stuff.

It's such outlandish nonsense from Autosport that even Gerard Lopez had said the following

""There is no claim that this has anything to do with the Lotus racing team of old"

Now this is the Renault team chairman saying this for goodness sake, he clearly doesn't think Autosport are reporting the facts and is indeed distancing himself from them, he knows the real Lotus is not back, so why doesn't Autosport?

Lets try put it another way, if Proton had purchased a stake in Williams in 1997 and stuck a Lotus badge on the car, would Villeneuve have won his first championship in a 'Real Lotus'?.... Or would it have been a Williams with a badge on?

[greenblood]

Magazines have a right to publish contributors' opinions, as long as they give a right to reply for those who disagree so a debate can be had. The issue is putting a disputed opinion the front cover, presented as fact, where it could mislead the public. What Autosport did was irresponsible and wrong and they should be dealing with this subject in a more balanced, responsible way.

[Drinky]

I haven't posted in years, but I'd like to chime in that I too find this a surprising move for a magazine of the supposed reputation of Autosport. I'm not a reader, so it doesn't affect me in any direct way, but the current Lotus conundrum is yet more evidence of the fact that F1 can be just as interesting off-track than it is on-track. There can be no doubt that they do appear to have taken sides on an issue that simply has not yet been resolved. It's pity that we'll have to wait until August before we know for sure if there are in fact two Lotus entities in racing (though it wouldn't surprise me if FIA/FOCA/FOM intervened before then, or some other gentleman's agreement).

CaptainJackSparrow, on Dec 15 2010, 17:10, said:

In any case, the way the private Autosport emails were then posted on the TL facebook pages was poor form.

People whining about this do not seem to understand that privacy does not mean that anything you say is automatically a secret. Unless the email included a footer that specifically mentioned the information contained therein was confidential even to the recipient, posting the mail is no different than e.g. relaying a verbal communication. He was answering someone who was critical of a published article and chose to do so in an inflammatory, defiant way; if Mr. Van de Burgt didn't realise he was going on the record with that, he is an even less capable journalist than he already appears to be.

[TennisUK]

mdecarle, on Dec 14 2010, 13:30, said:

Tony Fernandez bought Team Lotus Ventures (TLV), did he not? And TLV did buy the naming rights from the executors of Pacific Team Lotus? Pacific Team Lotus was the merger of Pacific GP and Team Lotus?

Not quite. TLV purchased the whole team in late 1994 when it was in administration (and still an F1 entrant). They formed the management team which took them to Japan and Oz that year. The following season they couldn't raise adequate funds and made the remaining staff redundant. TLV (it may have had a different name back then, I'm not sure) licensed the name to Pacific Grand Prix for the 1995 season. TLV MD David Hunt has since demonstrated in court - to the judge's safistfaction (on several occaisions) - that TLV had not been a dormant company and that they thus continue to own a number of trademarks of which Group Lotus cannot lawfully use.

Hence the doublespeak, contradictions and side stepping Mr Bahar has had to do when speaking to the media. Just today...

Quote

No. We are not claiming to be Team Lotus or to become Team Lotus. Team Lotus is something that should rest in peace. They had a glorious past, and incredible success. All we are trying to do is to make use of the heritage, as probably any other car company would do as well to support their sales and to market their products.

Which is simply a flat-out admission that they are using Team Lotus IP to help market their cars.

[mdecarle]

TennisUK, on Dec 15 2010, 22:50, said:

Not quite. TLV purchased the whole team in late 1994 ...

Thanks for the addition, I thought I knew some facts but didn't know the details.

[Dudley]

I see it's still happening.

Quote

With F1 still facing the prospect of there being two Lotus names in the sport next year

Except they're not, there's one Lotus and a Renault.

And it's about as problem as it is a problem we have 3 Mercedes names in the sport next year.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Oh come on. This thread and multiple others are proof that there is going to be confusion or at least questions over which Lotus is which, why there are multiple, etc, et al. How many threads have we had about there being three Merc powered teams?

And they didn't say two Lotus chassis, they said two Lotus names. Which is correct. Both teams will be branded as Lotus in one form or another.

[primer]

Dudley, on Dec 17 2010, 10:06, said:

Except they're not, there's one Lotus and a Renault.

You mean there's one Lotus and 1 Malaysia.

[Risil]

Actually you're all wrong; failing a 107% rule disaster, there'll be four Lotuses next year.

[Dudley]

primer, on Dec 17 2010, 13:16, said:

You mean there's one Lotus and 1 Malaysia.

The entry list says no. But thanks for playing.

[Dudley]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 17 2010, 10:11, said:

Oh come on. This thread and multiple others are proof that there is going to be confusion or at least questions over which Lotus is which, why there are multiple, etc, et al. How many threads have we had about there being three Merc powered teams?

And they didn't say two Lotus chassis, they said two Lotus names. Which is correct. Both teams will be branded as Lotus in one form or another.

In which case there really are 3 Mercedes. Of course we're ok because Autosport have never called Force India "The real Mercedes".

[Ross Stonefeld]

No because those are just engine deals. Having multiple teams run the same engine is nothing new.

[greenblood]

If journalists and commentators stick to the convention of always qualifying their use of "Lotus", so they would always say Team Lotus or Lotus Renault, there will be a lot less confusion. Throwing around phrases like "the real Lotus" will only add to the confusion, plus it will put fans in the position of feeling like they have to choose one of the two to support and one of the two to dislike, which shouldn't be necessary. The official results will confuse people a little, but I'm sure that most viewers look for the driver's name rather than the team name, and casual viewers are probably already a little confused about why the Red Bull is called an RBR Renault and the Toro Rosso is called an STR Ferrari, for example.

[Dudley]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 18 2010, 11:04, said:

No because those are just engine deals. Having multiple teams run the same engine is nothing new.

Neither would be having 2 teams with the same title sponsor.

So a title sponsor and a team should cause no confusion whatsoever.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It seems to, otherwise Bahar and Fernandes wouldn't be throwing quotes at each other and we wouldn't have had all the threads on this board. You can't see that it is at least a popular discussion? The sponsor comparison would only be applicable if one team was Apple(records) and the other team was Apple(computer).

[Polle]

Quote

You mean there's one Lotus and 1 Malaysia.

Sometimes I wonder if you're being serious or not...

As of current, we will have a Renault and Team Lotus if we correctly followed the constructor name list. Lotus Cars, despite buying a slab of the team, does not effect the constructor name. Similar to how Marussia bought into Virgin. The livery of the cars are often portrayed by their sponsors, hence why Renault will be going JPS next year. In similar fashion I expect Virgin and Sauber to follow that trend.

In a few years time, maybe we'll see 2 Lotus teams, depending if the constructor name change is accepted, but as of current. That car which is running the black and gold livery will still be a Renault.

[Risil]

Team Lotus rebrands factory

Quote

Group Lotus CEO Dany Bahar said last week that his company had no intention of trying to grab the Team Lotus brand, or making a claim to the heritage of the name.

"We are not claiming to be Team Lotus or to become Team Lotus," he said. "Team Lotus is something that should rest in peace. They had a glorious past, and incredible success. All we are trying to do is to make use of the heritage, as probably any other car company would do as well to support their sales and to market their products.

"But we do not want to become a second Team Lotus. We will never be. It is just, as you say, a car company trying to come up with a new Formula 1 programme."

Interestingly, Team Lotus has been forced to use a British domain name for its website, with the international www.teamlotus.com directing viewers to the web pages of Group Lotus.

At least Dot Com seems to be doubting the editorial line, if indeed there is one.

[Teamlotus.com seems to have been taken down, incidentally.]

Edited by Risil, 21 December 2010 - 13:58.

[Dudley]

Well all credit to the website people at least.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/88812

They still can't hire a proofreader but at least they're not toeing the party line but actually reporting accurately.

[Kif]

Dudley, on Jan 5 2011, 15:56, said:

They still can't hire a proofreader but at least they're not toeing the party line but actually reporting accurately.

Ha-ha-ha!

Edited by Kif, 06 January 2011 - 10:24.

[mechadaniel]

Dudley, on Jan 5 2011, 15:56, said:

Well all credit to the website people at least.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/88812

They still can't hire a proofreader but at least they're not toeing the party line but actually reporting accurately.

Accurately?

Renault team owner Genii sold a stake in the team to Group Lotus last month, in a deal due to run until the end of 2017. Renault will remain as engine supplier to the team.

I don't think Group Lotus have bought into the team - despite what it said in Renault pre-xmas press releases.

According to James Allen, all he got was evasion at a press lunch with Bahar & co, but he did get out of them that Group Lotus own zero shares of the team.

Joe Saward wrote on his blog yesterday that Group Lotus had bought 100% of the team - he then retracted the story and in the comments of the blog gave the reason for the retraction being an email from Genii, that said that Group Lotus own 0% of the team.

F1 reporters really need to scrutinise very carefully any Press release from Renault...

[Dudley]

Well on the bright side, at least this time it's incompetence rather than malice.

[Mastah]

This week - "Free 20-page Lotus in motorsport supplement Inside" and on the left Lotus Renault logos like here. OK.

Edited by Mastah, 06 January 2011 - 09:09.

[Kif]

mechadaniel, on Jan 5 2011, 17:48, said:

F1 reporters really need to scrutinise very carefully any Press release from Renault...

Especially if it comes across that Autosport are writing them on Renault's behalf...

With the arrival of the Lotus supplement, on top of everything else, with regret I am now less inclined to believe recent GL/Renault features and 'news' merely co-incide with exclusives given to the A/sport and ASI.

This is very worrying.

Edited by Kif, 06 January 2011 - 12:05.

[Dudley]

Mastah, on Jan 6 2011, 09:04, said:

This week - "Free 20-page Lotus in motorsport supplement Inside" and on the left Lotus Renault logos like here. OK.

Wow.

Well I hope they're being paid a lot to torpedo 60 years of integrity.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Surely a supplement is better than whatever forces you're imagining being present in the editorial sections? Are you perhaps auditioning for an amateur theatre role?

[Kif]

Ross Stonefeld, on Jan 6 2011, 12:13, said:

Surely a supplement is better than whatever forces you're imagining being present in the editorial sections?

Hi Ross.

I'd be grateful if you could care to expand on your reasoning for the distinction to better understand your viewpoint.

Thanks.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Supplements, whether magazine or newspaper, are often sponsored. Straight up product endorsements are tagged as 'advertorial'. The Le Mans supplement/guide usually has a sponsor to help pay for the costs.

[Kif]

Ross Stonefeld, on Jan 6 2011, 12:36, said:

Supplements, whether magazine or newspaper, are often sponsored. Straight up product endorsements are tagged as 'advertorial'. The Le Mans supplement/guide usually has a sponsor to help pay for the costs.

I understand. Thanks for that, Ross.

This labelling would obviously depend on accurate tagging by the journal in which the material appears, and in this specific instance the supplement is not associated to a major sporting event, such as LM24H, the Indy 500 or the GBGP, where the contents covers many competitors and other aspects of the event. However, I take your general point that if readers are made aware that there is a commercial interest associated with the work, those readers can then weight the contents accordingly.

I'm nevertheless interested in how this would be less open to abuse, in (say) a situation where undue prominence for one competitor could be used to obtain favourable access to exclusive material.

(I'm afraid I have to be elsewhere, so apologies if I go silent for a while.)

Edited by Kif, 06 January 2011 - 13:21.

[KateLM]

Dudley, on Jan 6 2011, 11:44, said:

Wow.

Well I hope they're being paid a lot to torpedo 60 years of integrity.

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but I think I'll take anything they write about Lotus Renault and the Lotus dispute with a very large pinch of salt from now on.

[Kif]

KateLM, on Jan 6 2011, 21:14, said:

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but I think I'll take anything they write about Lotus Renault and the Lotus dispute with a very large pinch of salt from now on.

It seems that's a reluctant sentiment we share on both counts, Kate.

Edited by Kif, 07 January 2011 - 12:15.

[Mat]

The supplement makes it very clear where Autosport Magazine's editorial stance lies with regard to the Lotus dispute.

Lotus Group will be expanding their marketing in a huge way in 2011. There is no way Haymarket will want to miss out on those well needed dollars.

[Ross Stonefeld]

No, as I pointed out a supplement is different. If anything it's better because it's not in the editorial section. And supplements aren't a great way to make money as they add costs.

[Kif]

Ross Stonefeld, on Jan 9 2011, 06:39, said:

No, as I pointed out a supplement is different. If anything it's better because it's not in the editorial section. And supplements aren't a great way to make money as they add costs.

In which case this might not be the kind of supplement that fits into your model, Ross.

It's part of the fabric of the magazine (not an insert), is edited by the magazine's editor, using Autosport staff writers (so there is an editorial connection), and is not an overtly sponsored section. There are no tags that it is a paid advertising feature. In all respects, it appears to be an extended feature of Autosport's own creation.

It does, however, contain some advertising which would've gone towards paying for the extra wordage. Lotus Cars have two of the four adverts (the Indy 500 and Cozzie provide the other two), although one of LC's ads also promotes the Autosport International Show at the same time.

In terms of content Renault F1 features prominently (although Lotus Cars is only the team's sponsor), and the nose of the new livery appears on most pages, including those covering Team Lotus' F1 history. Notably, Lotus F1 does not appear in the article "Lotus in F1", and neither does the 1995 tie-in with Pacific GP; it doesn't even mention that the team was sold. The article otherwise is a mini-history of Team Lotus all way to 1994, although the racing division was spun-off (pardon the pun) from the car-making side in 1954, four years before Team Lotus entered F1. This is also omitted in the history. So read into that what you will.

While Lotus Cars have said that they are not the inheritors of the 'original' Team Lotus' heritage (and that neither is 'new' Team Lotus), the Autosport supplement does seem to be making that connection for them, with the feature on Renault F1 being followed by the history of Team Lotus, plus the regular appearance on the Lotus-Renault logo throughout, with a selective history which, to the uninformed reader, would give the impression that Lotus is one company, not two. The supplement seems to be reinforcing the earlier claim by Autosport that "the real Lotus is back", even though Lotus Cars have never participated in F1.

Edited by Kif, 10 January 2011 - 15:33.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I've just read the thing from first page to last and it is quite clearly what you would call a supplement. The cover page is about the motorsport activities of Lotus in 2011, it's basically a brochure.

Wasn't there a Ford 100 WRC wins or something similar during the summer?