2000 Lotus Esprit on 2040-cars

Auto blog

In hindsight, Musk wouldn't use Lotus for Tesla Roadster

The world will be a different place after Elon Musk builds a time traveling device (don't ask us how we know that will happen). For one thing, the Tesla Roadster of the rewritten future will not have been built using the chassis of the Lotus Elise. Also, verb tenses will be becoming even more confusing and, possibly, awkward. "We ended up changing most of the damn car" – Elon Musk We know about the not-using-the-Lotus thing because the Tesla Motors CEO said as much yesterday at the World Energy Innovation Forum at the Tesla Factory in Fremont. The two-day event, which also offers Model S test rides and a factory tour for attendees, featured a fireside chat with the electric automaker's CEO and Ira Ehrenpreis. During the discussion, Musk revealed that if he had to do it over again, he would have built the Roadster from the ground up instead of using the Lotus Elise chassis. "We ended up changing most of the damn car, so we thought later, why did we do that," he said. Another problem with the original idea for the car was the drivetrain. At first, Tesla had meant to use the motor and other propulsive bits from AC Propulsion, only to find that powertrain didn't work well in a commercial application. Instead Tesla only licensed the reductive charging patent, which allowed some integration of the inverter and charger. Besides knocking Tesla's own early efforts, the outspoken entrepreneur took a couple swings at other technologies with quotable quotes such as: "The internal combustion engine is a ridiculous thing!" and "Current lithium ion technology is better than theoretical fuel cell limits. So, game over. Why bother with fuel cells?" Looks like there are some things Musk is not interested in going back in time and changing.

Race Recap: For the 2013 Monaco Grand Prix, NASCAR comes to the principality

Lots of contact, debris cautions, trips into the wall, full-course yellows and a red flag - these are the kinds of racing terms you unbox when you want to have a conversation about NASCAR... or the Formula One grand prix of Monaco. In this case we're not talking about the Coca-Cola 600 at Charlotte, we're talking about 78 laps in the South of France that even featured a fallen camera cable just like that stock-car race.
This year, Mercedes-AMG Petronas drivers treated their chassis' like busses instead of F1 cars, Romain Grosjean treated his Lotus like a battering ram, Sergio Perez kept sticking his McLaren's nose in places and eventually got it smacked, and maybe the size of the drivers' mirrors should be changed instead of the tires as there were almost as many firsts as there were crashes. Plenty of F1 fans wish Monaco were removed from the calendar, yet even though it doesn't specialize in traditional thrills, that doesn't mean nothing happens during the parade through - and into - the barriers.

Lotus' new position: Much improved, if Volvo's experience is a guide

Out today is the news that Geely Holding will acquire controlling interest in British sports car maker Lotus Cars. While some 20 years ago the Chinese acquisition of a British automaker might have inspired grumbling from aggrieved Brits (and the handful of Lotus enthusiasts), the world has moved on. And so – thankfully – can Lotus. To suggest Lotus' business history has been checkered is to broaden the definition of "checkered." With its beginnings in the early '50s as a maker of component cars for competition, Lotus founder Colin Chapman – in a manner not unlike his postwar contemporary, Enzo Ferrari – was always hustling, living a hand-to-mouth existence in the production of road cars to support a racing program. Regrettably, Chapman never found a Fiat, as Ferrari did toward the end of the 1960s. Lotus had Ford in its corner for racing and as a resource for powertrains, and later benefited from the corporate support of both GM and Toyota for relatively short periods. Lotus Cars, however, never enjoyed the corporate buy-in that would have allowed Chapman to race and let someone else build the cars. Regardless of what Consumer Reports or Kelley Blue Book might have thought (if they had ...) about those early Lotus cars, a great many are now regarded as classics. My first knowledge of a production Lotus was when Tom McCahill, the 'dean' of automotive journalists in the US, tested an early Elan for Mechanix Illustrated. While we're still not sure, some 50 years later, how McCahill's XXL frame fit into the tiny roadster, he had nothing but praise for the Elan's athletic chassis and now-timeless design. In today's Lotus portfolio, the Elise and Exige continue that light, athletic tradition, while the larger Evora seems to strike wide – literally and figuratively – of the "less is more" ideal. With the Toyota-powered Evora, more is more. But in an eco-sensitive era demanding more of the original Chapman mantra – add lightness – there's little reason that Lotus can't regain relevance if given the financial resources. Geely's acquisition of Volvo, the fruits of which appear regularly not only in the news but on the streets, suggests the Chinese investment will provide strategic vision (along with money) while allowing Lotus talent to do what it does best: Create an exciting product. And while at various periods in its history the product has been worthy, Lotus in the US has been ill-served by a flailing dealer network.