RE: Is Lotus in proper bother this time?
Discussion
Tydeides said:
Lotus has been limping as a car company since the early eighties. Even Chapman lost interest, taking a Seagull management approach whilst he played in F1.
In 2005 Mike Kimberly was asked take over as CEO of Lotus, where he worked to turn the company from an £11m operating loss in 2006 to a £2m operating profit in 2009. With the achievement of a turn-around of financial decline, Kimberley retired in July 2009, and was replaced by Dany Bahar.
Bahar’s vision for the Lotus has been expressed as “It's not really rocket science. What we want is simply to return the Lotus brand to its rightful place in the public's hearts and minds - back to where it was 25 years ago, alongside the likes of Porsche and Ferrari.’”
Who amongst the real Lotus fans thinks this is a bad ambition? Kimberly’s skill helped Lotus to keep limping along, but for Lotus to survive long term something more radical was required.
Bahar and Chapman have a lot in common in their approach. When Lotus F1 was sponsored by Essex, the Esprit launch was the most expensive car launch in history, with Shirley Bassey at the launch event it was huge.
Bahar’s plan was sound, but brave. Car manufacturing required huge gearing; Lotus would not survive producing a few low cost units a year. It will be sad if Bahar fails, but it’s not over yet.
I’m sorry for all those who own old Lotus’, who feel that they understand how to turn around a struggling company, but the market for old track cars is not the same market identified as the only viable outlet for a resurgent Lotus.
Bahar was simply trying to pick up the vision that Chapman left behind.
Good luck to him.
Some of what you say is true, but the trouble was his plan threatens/threatened to throw the baby out with the dishwater. There is a middle ground between the purist cars they currently make and the more bling approach Bahar proposes/proposed. The thing that got up the nose of Lotus purists was his apparent unconcern, despite all his going on about brand DNA, with some fundamental aspects of what Lotus is and was all about - summed up by the quote "Simplify and then add lightness". I know that is a cliche but it is as good an approach to making performance cars as any I've heard of, and is arguably all the more relevant today as economies around the world make it more and more expensive to own high-performance and therefore high-polluting vehicles. A wiser strategy would be simply to spin the Elise out as the most basic model for as long as it could be, bring in a more convincing Boxter/Cayman-level sportscar/coupe and perhaps a 911-level junior supercar/GT model, rather than the confused and duplicated models they have proposed. All should emphasise a more straightforward approach to performance, because really this is where Lotus could find a differentiating factor. In 2005 Mike Kimberly was asked take over as CEO of Lotus, where he worked to turn the company from an £11m operating loss in 2006 to a £2m operating profit in 2009. With the achievement of a turn-around of financial decline, Kimberley retired in July 2009, and was replaced by Dany Bahar.
Bahar’s vision for the Lotus has been expressed as “It's not really rocket science. What we want is simply to return the Lotus brand to its rightful place in the public's hearts and minds - back to where it was 25 years ago, alongside the likes of Porsche and Ferrari.’”
Who amongst the real Lotus fans thinks this is a bad ambition? Kimberly’s skill helped Lotus to keep limping along, but for Lotus to survive long term something more radical was required.
Bahar and Chapman have a lot in common in their approach. When Lotus F1 was sponsored by Essex, the Esprit launch was the most expensive car launch in history, with Shirley Bassey at the launch event it was huge.
Bahar’s plan was sound, but brave. Car manufacturing required huge gearing; Lotus would not survive producing a few low cost units a year. It will be sad if Bahar fails, but it’s not over yet.
I’m sorry for all those who own old Lotus’, who feel that they understand how to turn around a struggling company, but the market for old track cars is not the same market identified as the only viable outlet for a resurgent Lotus.
Bahar was simply trying to pick up the vision that Chapman left behind.
Good luck to him.
Leaving that marketing aside, the fact of the matter is that without the manufacturing facilities and depth of engineering resources of a major manufacturer behind it, Lotus would never ever reach the levels of build quality and showroom appeal apparent in a Porsche, their aspired-to competitor. If we're honest, its only since Fiat got serious that a Ferrari is a well-built car, ditto Lamborghini with VW, and to a lesser extent Porsche themselves with VW. Proton never had that, but perhaps these new guys might if they can learn from the brands they manufacture on behalf of. A better answer would be for one of the existing Japanese or European manufacturers to take them on.
Personally, I would have thought that keeping the idea of a super nimble sub £40k car that could be churned out in number etc but at the same time deliver something right at the top, a modern Esprit. Keep it simple but at the same time use modern techniques and materials but recognise that at that end of the market it needs to work very well and be comfortable.
A small company could focus on one top product and carve a strong niche off which the flagging small car sales could piggyback.
A small company could focus on one top product and carve a strong niche off which the flagging small car sales could piggyback.
Another thread prompted this 7 minutes of nostalgia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovXO2vpGOpY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genii_Capital
Can they bring it back together?
Meanwhile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_F1_Team
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovXO2vpGOpY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genii_Capital
Can they bring it back together?
Meanwhile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_F1_Team
wikipedia said:
This article is about the Formula One team that are competing as Lotus during the 2012 Formula One season. For the original 1954–1994 motorsport team, see Team Lotus. For the team that competed in 1995 as Pacific Team Lotus, see Pacific Racing. For the team that competed in 2010 as Lotus Racing and 2011 as Team Lotus, see Team Lotus (2010–11).
At least that clears things upEdited by saaby93 on Sunday 15th April 21:17
DonkeyApple said:
Keep it simple but at the same time use modern techniques and materials but recognise that at that end of the market it needs to work very well and be comfortable.
A small company could focus on one top product and carve a strong niche off which the flagging small car sales could piggyback.
Very much the right sort of direction IMO. They can't compete with Porsce so there's no point trying to compete with Porsche. Lotus needs to be Lotus. Very fast, very nimble and sensibly priced.A small company could focus on one top product and carve a strong niche off which the flagging small car sales could piggyback.
Bahar's dream of going head-to-head with Ferrari and Lamborghini is pure insanity.
Exige V6 convertible sounds like it should work very well and be comfortable. Build it and they will come!
Al 450 said:
The Chinese won't buy anyone out. They'll wait until the company is in administration and then buy the assets.
Volvo managed to be bought out by a chinese firm, so it could happen. Although how marketable are Lotus in china, do they really have the volume potential and appeal to risk spending hundreds of millions in buying the firm?davepoth said:
Thats not a good sign, but not surprising.Ozzie Osmond said:
I think Lotus would be a whole lot cheaper than that! The big question is whether you'd be buying an "asset" or a "liability".
Even if it was alot cheaper the cost of doing anything with it would take it to the hundreds of millions cost wise.Concentrate on a single model as opposed to stupidly trying to make 5 and hybrid tech plus expand or slightly refresh the core model range as that wont cost much.
Ozzie Osmond said:
After_Shock said:
....to risk spending hundreds of millions in buying the firm?
I think Lotus would be a whole lot cheaper than that! The big question is whether you'd be buying an "asset" or a "liability".Ozzie Osmond said:
I think Lotus would be a whole lot cheaper than that! The big question is whether you'd be buying an "asset" or a "liability".
You kind of imagine that any sale would be at the traditional value of £1 with a write off of all debts and probably a new loan facility thrown in as well. Wills2 said:
not sure I buy the "legal" argument myself as it's their business they can fund it if they want to
I'm regurgitating what I've been told here, but as far as I'm aware Malaysian law prohibits trading activities/cash flow during the takeover.Edited by Wills2 on Friday 13th April 23:37
There are V6 Exiges sitting in the factory waiting to be assembled, but Lotus are not allowed to stump up the cash for the parts due to the Malaysian legal situation.
Sounds like horribly bad timing to me. Frustrating for those at Hethel, I'm sure.
veevee said:
otolith said:
veevee said:
otolith said:
If the only market for Lotus is turning out more of what one can already buy elsewhere, why should anyone care?
Where?Ozzie Osmond said:
Tuna said:
As much as I love the Excel, it was a middle of the road car and not capable of setting the world alight.
It took Lotus nearly a decade to get the 2+2 Elite/Eclat/Excel into good enough shape to be a saleable motor car. Why they have repeated the same mistake defies understanding because they aren't going to be given a decade to get the Evora right! It's nice to call them driver's cars, and to wish for the days when they were cheap little rockets that excused the fact that they were sometimes quite hard to live with. These days, that's not enough to survive on, and one of the reasons the Elise sales were only heading in one direction.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff