2006 Lotus Elise "chilli Red" on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lotus Evora, Exige, and Elise add lightness to Geneva

The folks at Lotus have been quite busy over the past few months adding lightness to their vehicles. Since December, the company has introduced lighter, quicker versions of the Evora, Exige, and Elise, and all three members of the trio are present at the 2016 Geneva Motor Show. Each one is special in its own way, but if you crave a nimble sports car, you probably wouldn't be disappointed with any of these new models. The Evora Sport 410 is the most luxurious member of the bunch, at least by Lotus standards. At 2,921 pounds, it's also the heaviest, but a 410-horsepower 3.5-liter supercharged V6 makes this one the most powerful, too. The coupe can rocket to 60 miles per hour in 3.9 seconds and to a 186-mph top speed. Lotus will make just 150 of these special Evoras per year, and they'll have carbon fiber parts for the roof, tailgate, sports seats, and more. Best of all, this will be the only one of these three that will get a North American version. The Exige Sport 350 Roadster is the coolest member of this group, featuring tartan seats that we absolutely love. It's also the quickest of the three, reaching 60 mph in just 3.7 seconds, and it tops out at 170 mph. The rapid sprint is possible because the 345-hp 3.5-liter supercharged V6 only needs to push 2,480 pounds. The Elise Cup 250 rounds out the group with the lightest weight at 2,053 pounds (2,030 pounds with the optional Carbon Aero Package) but the least power at 243 hp. However, it certainly isn't slow with a 60-mph run in 3.9 seconds and a top speed of 154 mph. Lotus plans to make just 200 of them year each year. If you could pick any one of the three, which would you choose? The Evora might be the most livable every day but chucking around the Elise could be a barrel of fun. There're also those fantastic seats in the Exige. Let us know in Comments which one you want the most.

Coca-Cola returning to F1 with Lotus sponsorship [w/videos]

Even before Red Bull Racing became a record-breaking three-time Constructor's Champion in Formula One, it has dominated conversations both as a team and as an energy drink. After seven years of "Red Bull this" and "Red Bull that," Coca-Cola is reportedly ready to jump into the F1 fray with its Sweden-based energy drink Burn.
Rumors had placed Coca-Cola's entry with McLaren F1, but it's actually Lotus that has secured the deal. We have no idea what the sponsorship will look like, but the website for Burn says that "We [intend] to foster that creativity by incorporating art and music in a way that will break the conventions of traditional F1 sponsorship," Lotus F1 team principal Eric Boullier adding "We are excited to partner with burn to build a new and innovative model for sponsorships that will combine experiences, content creation and social media..."
Since most - including this writer - have no idea what Burn is, we've included a couple of Burn commercial spots to help get us up to speed, which you'll find below. The 2012 season hasn't even ended, and we're already looking forward to 2013...

European commission investigating F1 finances and anti-competitive accusations

The Kingdom of Formula One reminds us of renaissance Florence - ruled by a singular chieftan behind a mask of representative involvement, rife with spectacularly convoluted machinations, awash in innovations that help define our world and far-flung, vindictive misery. If we found out Bernie Ecclestone's real last name was de Medici, well, it would explain a lot. Now after a bit of back-and-forth, the European Commission (EC) has taken aim at the kingdom, investigating whether F1 is anti-competitive and if the FIA has abused its antitrust agreement. The reason for EC scrutiny is that a British member of the European Parliament who represents an area in southwest England, Anneliese Dodds, has fielded complaints from engineering companies in her constituency that recent moves in F1 have put them out of business. She wrote to the EC to question why the FIA now has a stake in F1 when it signed an agreement in 2001 to be solely a governing body and abdicate any stakeholding in the sport. She also questioned the F1 Strategy Group, a group of the six top teams in F1 that makes decisions about the direction of the sport; she says that the Strategy Group not only appears to be a case of the F1 shirking its rule-making duty, it has resulted in unfair treatment of the small teams that aren't in the group. Dodds has a bit of a point. In 2001, the FIA sold F1's commercial rights to Ecclestone for 100 years for a sum of $313.7 million. That was done to placate European regulators who insisted that "the role of FIA will be limited to that of a sports regulator, with no commercial conflicts of interest." Although the rights are ultimately owned by the FIA and bring in a $10M fee every year from Formula One, those rights bring in $1.6 billion each year to Formula One Management (FOM), the company that owns F1. When Ecclestone was trying to get the new Concorde Agreement signed in 2013 that governs the running of the sport, the FIA wouldn't sign, saying it wanted F1 to share a larger slice of its revenue – the FIA has been losing money for years, see. To the get the FIA to sign, Ecclestone sold it a one-percent stake in F1 for $460,000 and gave the FIA a $5M signing 'bonus;' whenever F1 has its IPO, that stake is estimated to be worth about $120 million - not a bad return. Yet, according to the aforementioned 2001 agreement, the FIA can't have that equity stake.