Talk:Team Lotus

Lotus 33

Can somebodby please find a non-copywright pic of the beautiful 33? We need one! Trekphiler 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What formula?

The article assumes too much prior knowledge. It says "Lotus achieved rapid success with the 1953 Mk 6, and the 1954 Mk 8," but it hasn't told us what formula this was in! The next paragraph goes on to casually mention Formula 2, which wasn't even wikilinked, but it's not clear if the 1953 and 1954 cars mentioned were F2. Please fix this and remember, your readers might know nothing at all about Team Lotus or racing. --kingboyk 06:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Lotus 109/Other Bits

Now, it's all a bit hazy, but didn't a 109 debut at the 1994 Spanish Grand Prix in the hands of Herbert (with Alex still stuck in the 107D), and turn out to be something of a dog, and the improvement at Monza was due entirely to a brand new Mugen engine simply pushing the thing down the straights a lot faster (and due to Johnny, of course)? The article as it stands makes it sound like the 109 chassis was responsible for the upturn in progress, when (again, this is dependant on my memory) the new car didn't actually bring around many changes - I remember an interview with Herbert some years later where he was actually very disparaging about it.

Also, I feel that the Mugen Honda/Jordan line (as well as containing the incorrect date) is a bit irrelevant... Someone hit someone, and the first person's team, using the same make of engine a few years later, won a race a few years down the line? It seems less relevant than, say, listing the points scored in 90/91, or Warwick's bravery at Monza/Jerez in '90, or the whole Senna/Warwick/Dumfries thing - none of which probably belong, being footnotes in the team's dying days, so I really don't see the need for the Jordan-Mugen reference...

And maybe Senna's time with the team needs a little expansion... for example, the number of poles he managed, or that in 1985 he was often the fastest man on the track, but the car usually let him down.

But I'm not going to edit anything without a bit of feedback - for one, I could be wrong ;)

Tom Prankerd 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the most successful?

other than Ferrari, Williams and McLaren...biased much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GarlicBreath (talk • contribs) 03:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's biased. If you consider number of wins, poles, points, fastest laps, WCCs and WDCs; in each case Lotus is in 4th place on the all-time list, a substantial margin ahead of the team in 5th place - I think that qualifies them as "one of the most successful F1 teams of all time". DH85868993 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lotus 77 or Lotus 79

There is a photo on the Team Lotus page which has a caption "Lotus 77". When the photo is enlarged it displays a name "Image:Lotus79.jpg". It looks more like a 77 than a 79 to me. How do we fix this please? GTHO (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lotus logo.png

The image Image:Lotus logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Pyrope 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

(comment added to article by 88.105.178.131, transferred to talk page by DH85868993):
This was a great racing team over many years and is done a great dis-service by the poor grammar used throughout this page; perhaps someone could clean it up forthwith? 88.105.178.131, 08:22, July 23, 2009.

2010 'Lotus F1 Team' nothing to do with 'Team Lotus'

I believe that the 2010 entry 'Lotus F1 Team' has nothing to do with the 'Team Lotus' of old. The new team is owned by Malaysian companies. Lotus Cars/Lotus Group is owned by Proton, which is (partly) owned by Petronas, I believe. So I reckon the 2010 entry bit is in the wrong place, here. Lustigson (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting that impression, too. But at this stage, with the new team having the rights to the Lotus name, this is the best place to have the info. When we find out more we can think about splitting it off into a new article. Apterygial 13:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am against a split. They could not use the Lotus name without owning the rights to it, therefor it IS the same things and DOES belong here. I is not a continuation of the same Team Lotus entity, which comprises people and facilities, but it is a following on of the same trademarked identity. Bugatti for example has ONE page encompasing ALL of that brand's history, as does MV Agusta. Both of these completely ceaced operations and were eventually sold on in name only to be created anew by different owners, and in the case of Bugatti in a completely different country (it was a French marque originally, Ettore Bugatti was a patriotic Frenchman, and is now a German owned Italian based car maker - only latterly have they have moved it back to France)! So those precedents say to me this article should stay as one and not be split.--Amedeofelix (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the split. Team Principal Mike Gascoyne has said in an interview [1] "We are not pretending to be the old Team Lotus. We are the new Lotus F1 team." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002thx1138 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? If so it is a point that deserves addressing I feel. If this is split then the pages I mention should be solidly split too.--Amedeofelix (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So? Gascoyne also says that it will be hard to live up to the Lotus name of the old days. He speaks about reviving Lotus and how it's a lot of pressure. It's clearly the same brand, hence it should be one article.SchumiChamp (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was continued at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Formula One#Lotus F1 Team - mspete93 [talk] 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately discussion was closed so I'd like to add a few words here. "Team Lotus" and "Lotus Racing" are just two different full team names like "Rothmans Williams Renault" and "BMW.WilliamsF1 Team". Take a look at http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/194. The team is called "Lotus" and "Lotus Racing" is the full team name. Moreover consctructors standing on the right side says there is a team called "Lotus-Cosworth" where "Lotus" is the consctructor and "Cosworth" is the engine supplier. Formula 1 is a consctructors championship, not a championship of team names. "Lotus Racing" everything to do with "Team Lotus" because Lotus is the constructor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.4.164 (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Team Lotus" is the name of a company not a constructor. "Lotus Racing" are (were) a distinct legal entity from "Team Lotus". The former use the Lotus name under licence and the latter were part of Group Lotus, building their cars in Norfolk - their cars were genuinely Lotus constructions. Lotus Racing cars are badged Lotus under licence - they're not even Protons! Until a few days ago Team Lotus remained a seperate entity and could feasibly have raced against Lotus Racing.

The news that Fernandes has bought Team Lotus muddies the waters a bit. Although I personally am a bit unsure about considering his team to be "Lotus" unless they're based in Norfolk the fact is that he now owns Team Lotus. I suppose that the Lotus Racing article will need to stay as a monument to this season, and from 2011 onwards the team will be documented in this article. Just to be clear, Fernandes is using his deal to acquire Team Lotus as a way of ending his deal with Group Lotus, so they are most definitely not the same thing. He's also said that Lotus are not Ferrari, that Chapman set up the cars and F1 divisions as seperate companies. He's now bought the real deal F1 team but until now was just licencing a name. Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86896 and http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86897 --kingboyk (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When Group Lotus was floated on the Stock Exchange in, IIRC, 1968, ownership of Team Lotus remained with the Chapman family for most of the remainder of its life. Chapman's advisers felt that an F1 team was probably not something with which investors would be entirely comfortable.

Lotus Renault GP

Now that Lotus Have bought 25% of the renault team should we add this to this page or should we create a new page for Lotus Renault GP?--Brainybrains 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainybrainiac (talk • contribs)

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:F1#Here we go again (Lotus/Renault). DH85868993 (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Prolog (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Classic Team Lotus → Team Lotus — Reversion of controversial move made without discussion. The racing team was not known as Classic Team Lotus at any point during its competition history and is completely unrepresentative. A little known retroactive renaming made by people who were not involved in Team Lotus is not grounds for renaming Team Lotus to Classic Team Lotus. --Falcadore (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support This move is utterly wrong and was made with no discussion whatsoever. This outfit was never called "Classic Team Lotus" at any point in its history, the move has screwed up hundreds of wikilinks and we'll need an admin to undo it all. Nightmare. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Falcadore and Bretonbanquet. Idiotic move. Jonchapple (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as per nom. - mspete93 12:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 13:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Classic Team Lotus is a completely separate company to either incarnation of Team Lotus. This renaming was clearly done by someone who doesn't understand the topic. Pyrope 14:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation?

Given that there are two distinct teams with the name 'Team Lotus' (the original Chapman team, and the current Fernandez team), the most logical move seems to me to introduce a Team Lotus (Disambiguation) page linking here and to the Lotus Racing (or Team Lotus 2011... or whatever)

Aegidian (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A disambiguation page already exists at Lotus. I'm not sure nesting the disambig pages will be helpful. --Falcadore (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and a whole separate page is certainly not required to disambiguate between just two pages. That's what hatnotes are for. Pyrope 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Feedback

What do you guys currently think about the new Team Lotus Navbox do you guys like it or does it need editing. Me12356 (talk) 13:44, 03 May 2012 (UTC)

Lotus 109

The article states that the introduction of the 109 was responsible for the performance at Monza in 1994. It wasn't - the 109 was a dog (I'm fairly sure Herbert said it was the worst car he ever drove); it was also introduced much earlier in the season (I want to say Spain, IIRC Herbert had one while Zanardi was still in the 107D for a couple of races) and made no real change to the team's form. The boost at Monza was from a new lightweight Honda engine. I can find multiple sources for both the 109's debut and the reason for the Monza qualifying performance if needs be; I might still have the magazine where Herbert batters the 109 in an interview too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.105.22 (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I see I raised exactly the same criticism five years ago and the misleading stuff is still in there. Well, as long as you've all got the page title sorted right it doesn't matter if the article's got at least one glaring inaccuracy. right? 89.168.105.22 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it myself. I remember now why I stopped editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.105.22 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you replaced a relatively factually neutral phrasing (they were hoping a new car would be better, he qualified in the new car) with one unsupported POV statement about the new car's performance, and one unsupported claim about a lighter engine. That's not an improvement. If you have evidence that the 109 was introduced earlier perhaps you could provide it? Somebody's "hazy recollections", "IIRC", and "I might still have the magazine" are hearsay. As it happens you are correct about the debut of the 109, but you are reading more into the paragraph than is there as regards its effect on the team's fortunes. I'll adjust the race debut information, but the rest seems perfectly accurate. Pyrope 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, only book I have directly to hand is Murray Walker's 1994 Grand Prix Year (Hazelton, 1994, ISBN 1-874557-01-2); can get Autosports & Autocourse if snobbier sources are needed, but I'm off on holiday for a week and thus there's no time to dig through them. Herbert's qualifying form in the 107 - 21-23-21-18; in the 109 it's 22-17-19-21-15-24-20 before Monza. Clearly no improvement. Page 52 confirms 109 debut as Spain, but then you knew that anyway and it can be found easily on any half-decent website (Alex had one from France onwards).

Page 103-104 - "...but fourth place was an eye-opener. It was filled by Johnny Herbert! All season 'the Imp' had been in a stae of open despair about his Lotus, whose heavy Mugen V10 engine made it impossible to balance and awful to drive. He had been clinging to the hope that a new Honda-inspired V10, promised for Monza, would solve the team's problems. Now it was here and it seemingly had. Lower, lighter and more powerful, it transformed the car, lifted Johnny's morale and cut lumps off his lap times."

Confirmed again on Team Analysis on page 108. Then on page 112 (from the Portuguese chapter)

"A major disappointment was the fact that Johnny Herbert was down in 20th place in his Lotus Mugen... sadly, the handling of the Lotus let him down in Portugal"

I'm 99% sure that the interview about the 109's inherent problems is in the first issue of the hubristic Jaguar Magazine, where Johnny relates the story of a test session at Estoril ahead of the Portuguese GP - the car was terrible and impossible to set up. In desperation they stuck the Monza settings back on and he went much faster - it was still a dog in corners, but went down the straights faster. I think I've still got the rag and can dig it out if wanted, but it's more of a tangiental anecdote than something that needs to be in the article.

I do love the way this works, though. The Monza engine update is fairly well known (it's in everything Bruce Jones has ever written and just about any summary of the 1994 season worth the paper it's printed on), but some guy's put it in the article wrong. I try to change a mistake and I'm being hit for citations - where was the citation for the 109 appearing at Monza and suddenly being much better? Sorry if my language left you unconvinced, I was trying to avoid being bombastic when I knew the original article was outright wrong. Next time I'll just state it flat.

Anyway. As said, I can dig out trendier sources if needs be, be it magazines or factual books or whatever, though anyone who's read one of the Walker yearbooks will tell you they're pretty solid (and benefit from being written in progress through the season) - indeed, I'd recommend them as a good budget alternative to Autocourses for anyone interested in classic late-1980s/early-1990s F1.

85.210.63.113 (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Though I can hook out the Jaguar magazine for a direct quote for the 109 page, I suppose. 85.210.63.113 (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Team Lotus (1958-1994) and Team Lotus (2010-11)

I propose to merge this page with Team Lotus (2010-11), because they refer to the same team. Tony Fernandes acquired all rights of Team Lotus (historical rights, naming rights and image). Team Lotus will come back in 2011 (in spanish) --Laln93 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

They aren't the same team, regardless of what Fernandes thought he bought and then basically gave away. This has been discussed on a anumber of occasions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why they aren't the same team, If Fernandez acquired all rights of Team Lotus (historical rights, naming rights and image)? I know this has been discussed, but I propose to merge this page with Team Lotus (2010-11), because in my opinion Team Lotus (1958-1994) and Team Lotus (2010-11) refer to the same team.

"A little over 1 year later, on September 24, 2010, it was announced that Tony Fernandes (Lotus Racing) had acquired the name rights of Team Lotus from David Hunt, marking the official re-birth of Team Lotus in Formula One". --Laln93 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That only happened under a licencing agreement with Group Lotus, who later terminated the agreement because Fernandes broke it. Fernandes even promised the Chapman family that he would not revive the Team Lotus name, and when he did, they withdrew their support. [2] [3] It ended in court, as you probably know. If Fernandes had free rein to use the Team Lotus name as he said, it seems unlikely that he would just give it up at the end of the season and rename his cars Caterham. Fernandes talks a lot of rubbish, like when he said after the court case, "No-one else can use the Lotus chassis name". So what is Raikkonen driving since last year? Fernandes is the archetypal "unreliable source", a bit like Ecclestone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Recorded history, or officially endorsed facts, can be changed at will with money and power, as evidenced by Pharaohs of Egypt all the way down to Venice fleet's invasion and ransacking of Constantinople. A court ruling in one country at a time, as it could be a reflection of the judge appointment power or a loophole in the law that was in effect at the time, should not be relied on as the guide to truth. It could be reversed later, or conflicting rulings could easily appear in a court in different countries.

Just as modern archaeology tries to do, I would think Wiki should record "the facts" from as many view points as deemed valid. From this stand point, I am for keeping the Team Lotus (2010-11) separate, and keeping the first line that says "This article is about the 1954–1994 motorsport team." with the possibility that "2010 – Lotus name returns to Formula One" section be deleted in its entirety at some time.

To me, the chaos was planted when Chapman made Team Lotus and Lotus Cars legally separate (for financial gains, in my opinion), and so it is somewhat self inflicted, and the name Lotus deserves it. Yiba (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Graham Hill

Hill was badly injured (broken legs broken, I believe) he was not killed racing a Lotus, but while piloting a private plane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.218.214 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, and if the article says that, it should be changed. Can't see where though, unless I've missed it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see how the list of "seriously injured or killed" drivers in the 1960s and 70s section could be easily misread this way. Britmax (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Who/what is Group Lotus?

The following is unclear/confusing because the name Group Lotus has not been previously introduced:

On 15 September 2009 the FIA announced that the Malaysian backed team Lotus Racing had been granted admission into the 2010 season.[9] Group Lotus later terminated the licence for future seasons as a result of what it called "flagrant and persistent breaches of the licence by the team".

The same goes for other mentions of Group Lotus, obviously. 81.191.184.223 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Team Lotus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150505003931/http://www.lotusracing.my/TL_Announcement.pdf to http://www.lotusracing.my/TL_Announcement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110530065625/http://www.planet-f1.com:80/driver/18227/6954901/Both-Lotus-claim-High-Court-victory to http://www.planet-f1.com/driver/18227/6954901/Both-Lotus-claim-High-Court-victory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)