New 2013 Lotus Evora S Ips 2+2 Nightfall Blue Ivory Factory Warranty New Quick! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lotus Elise returning to US in 2020

If you've been hoping to get your hands on a new Lotus Elise, we've got mixed news for you. The good news is that Lotus will bring the Elise back to the US market. The bad news is that it won't happen before 2020. Lotus was forced to withdraw the model (along with the Exige) from the US market in 2011 after it no longer complied with US safety regulations and its temporary exemptions expired. Lotus first launched the Elise in 1996 when the company was still owned by former Bugatti chief Romano Artioli. It rolled out the current Series 2 model in 2001, and brought it to America for the first time in 2004. The larger Evora faced similar issues, and was modified in the form of the new Evora 400 that now meets US regulations. Lotus CEO Jean-Marc Gales tells Automotive News that doing the same with the Elise would be unfeasible. "We'd need smart airbags, plus side airbags and to change the whole front crash structure. It would add 100kg," or 220 pounds, said Gales. While modifying the current Elise would be prohibitive, the next version is being designed to meet American standards. That won't happen before 2020. In the meantime, Lotus continues to sell a small number of certain variants of the Elise and Exige for use exclusively on tracks. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2011 Lotus Elise News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Lotus Lotus Performance

Lotus reveals new LMP1 at Le Mans

Lotus is at Le Mans this week where it has unveiled its new LMP1. Only it's not racing at Le Mans. And it's not really a Lotus, either.
The prototype belongs to an independent German team that ran a Lotus chassis in the LMP2 category last year, but was granted license by the FIA and ACO to step up to the top-tier LMP1 category to dice it with the front-running hybrids from Audi, Porsche and Toyota this year. Unfortunately, the team - which licenses the Lotus name from the automaker, much as the F1 team does - faced some setbacks. Not the least of those delays resulted from a mid-stream switch in engine suppliers from the Audi-sourced, naturally aspirated V8 it was originally set to use to a new turbocharged V6 from Advanced Engine Research.
As a result it wasn't ready for the Silverstone race that kicked off this season's World Endurance Championship in April. Nor was it ready for the second round at Spa in May or not for the headline event this weekend at Le Mans, but it aims to be on the track at the next round in Austin.

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.