Bando may be able to answer this better but Fernandes had the blessing of the Chapmans but now the Genii Lotus does. I think Renault may have completely pulled out by now, that's why Red Bull are now the works team. The name is Lotus F1 team: Renault supply the engines, Genii are the backers. I don't know anything about any plans for them to become Lotus-Genii.
Ahh got you now, I forgot Renault also backed the team as well as supplying the engine. So Genii is like the Infiniti of RB and the Petronas of Mercedes.
As I understand it, Gérard Lopez of Genii is more involved in the team than just as a sponsor/funder, though this may have been to aid the transition of the team into what they are now. For some perspective, it's worth bearing in mind that this whole saga played out during the credit crunch/financial crisis and into the cautious age of austerity we're in now. This helps to explain the precarious situation and funders pulling out, getting cold feet etc. I think Bando's the man who can explain this better though. I expect that if I've got anything wrong he'll be able to clarify.
Genii are the majority owners of the team. They took over for the last 2 years of the team being known as Renault who sold their remaining 25% to Genii (after crash-gate infact) Group Lotus then came in as a sponsor of the team for the 2nd of those years before the team became known as Lotus F1 rather than Lotus Renault. As far as I know, Group Lotus are now Partners with Genii in the team. Also there were rumours Genii were wanting to buy group lotus from proton. Lotus Racing on the other hand who are run by 1Malaysia and Tony Fernandez had a licence from Group Lotus (Proton) to use the lotus name. Things got ugly when the team took on the Team Lotus name and Group Lotus pulled out. Team lotus had initially have the blessing of the Chapman family but then they too pulled out as they didnt approve of a few things. So Fernandez bought Caterham cars and called his Team Caterham.
Ernie: your passion is showing! – But I like it! Although this thread might be something of a rehashed theme, I've enjoyed the very good responses it has stirred. I also find it quite fascinating, since it leads one to explore the whole idea of authenticity. As you have acknowledged, things move on and evolve but perhaps the sad thing (to the purist, such as yourself), is that ultimately it boils down to nothing more than branding. Is it really that dissimilar to the name of one's family or the concept of nationality – since these also become lost in a misty past? (Bear with me on this tangent…!) Family-name conventions mean that tracing one's own tree necessarily causes one to identify with one 'line' more than another; western conventions leading us to adopt one's paternal line as somehow more relevant than one's mother's. And whilst one may rightly object "hang on, at least it's got a real blood-line connection!", how would this affect the great-great-grandchild of someone who, long ago, chose to 'buy' a new name through 'Deed Poll'? The ancestor might invent a name such as 'Becclestone' or might equally choose 'Churchill'; but does this invalidate the identity of all future generations so that they are not really 'Becclestones' or 'Churchills'? If so, I would posit that we might all consider ourselves inauthentic unless, for the sake of convenience, we apply some rule of convention; and that ultimately this applies to everything beyond the 'authentic', original Becclestone, Churchill or Low Tuss. Besides, the original chap or man also chose to apply a novel label to his product, rather than call it by his own name. As an aside, you and I both know 'Ferrari''s lineage would be more accurately described as pertaining to Alfa Romeo…- - -o0o- - - Authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. made or done in the traditional or original way, or a way that faithfully resembles an original. based on facts; accurate or reliable As has been mentioned, I do not believe the present 'Lotus F1' team makes any claim to be authentic. And finally, on the point of the British National Anthem being played on Sunday, the convention is that the nation where the team is based defines its 'nationality'. Hence its location in Enstone defines this team as British, despite the name of its engine and the nationality of its Team Principal. And as can be seen in the foregoing discussion, this is just another 'convention of labelling', which serves as nothing more than a marque(sic) of convenience…
Interesting post, Cosi. As usual, I like you thinking. Just one query: if "the nation where the team is based defines its 'nationality'", why does Red Bull have the Austrian anthem?
I was going to argue the same point. Force India too! And Marussia and Caterham Dont the teams get a licence to race from their country? Im not too sure how it all works out.
Yeah but I think this ties back in nicely with Cosi's musings on authenticity, branding and choice. I think in the end though, it probably boils down to 'He who pays, says'.
(Note to self: "How did I know this was coming?"). You've got me! All I can say is this: who said conventions do not have exceptions?…
The real reason is to do with where the team register their entry from. Therefore it is essentially what both Max and Bando say, since a team's owner(s) may agree to choose to register its entry from their own country.
Branding, yes exactly right, I understand the motives for such "marques of convenience" it's just I don't fully appreciate Renault's or whomsoever's corporate pretense. Kraft have similarly acquired the Cadbury brand and can now rape and pillage the middle eastern markets, simply to promote American products where they have not been traditionally appreciated for some peculiar reason !!! Apologize for exposing my passion. Oh yeah, Alfa, but that's another story.
A couple of seasons ago there was Team Lotus and Lotus F1 or something like that? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. To me, it was confusing and annoying but in a few years time I doubt we'll be talking about it as much.
