IBJNews

Lotus may leave IndyCar one year into five-year deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Group Lotus Plc is considering leaving the IndyCar Series as an engine supplier at the end of this season—its first as a part of a five-year deal it signed last year to supply turbo engines to IndyCar teams.

Lotus' IndyCar project manager, Olivier Picquenot, said, “we are still committed to the end of the season,” but admitted the company’s plans after this year are unclear.

“Our owners will study every department at the end of the year,” Picquenot said Thursday. “It’s very difficult to say if they will be committed for the next four years.”

The IndyCar season only has four races remaining, concluding Sept. 15 at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, Calif.

Lotus and IndyCar officials had no comment on how the contract might be settled if the engine maker decides to bolt the series.

The agreement was much celebrated by IndyCar Series CEO Randy Bernard last year when Lotus, along with Chevrolet, joined the series to compete with Honda as the open-wheel series unveiled its new turbo engine formula. This season marks the first in seven years that the open-wheel series has had more than one engine supplier.

Bernard initially announced that Lotus, Honda and Chevy would each supply engines for one-third of the field. He backed off that statement early this year when it became clear Lotus’ engine-development program was significantly behind Honda's and Chevy's.

The John Judd-built Lotus engine was a late arrival to the IndyCar field last winter and faced further obstacles when the Malaysian-owned, British-based sports car manufacturer was sold, which resulted in a freeze on its accounts and strained relations with Lotus’ partner teams in IndyCar.

In April, Dreyer & Reinbold Racing and Bryan Herta Autosport broke off relationships with Lotus to pursue faster, more competitive engines and because Lotus was having difficulty meeting supply demands.

By the time May rolled around, HVM Racing’s entry, piloted by Simona de Silvestro, was Lotus’ sole IndyCar entry apart from Jean Alesi’s Indianapolis 500-only run. Both Lotus-powered cars were quickly black-flagged on race day at Indianapolis because they were dramatically slower than the other cars. De Silvestro has regularly been at the back of the field in subsequent races despite a series-approved upgrade to the Lotus V6 earlier this month.

If Lotus, which is owned by DRB-Hicom, does decide to end its program, it would have to negotiate an exit from its contract with IndyCar. Series officials said they have not had conversations with Lotus about the company’s future.

Lotus’ decision on whether or not to stay in the series beyond this season could be based on how much improvement it is able to make before the end of the season and how much ground it can make up on Honda and Chevy, Picquenot said.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Turd Class
    That is exactly how Derrick Daly would say it. Heads should roll for this....bring me ***** ********* head on a platter! Rumor has it KIA is interested...

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT