Lotus Elise Concept 2010

[Ferrer]

However Lotus doesn't want to be a Morgan or even worse, a Bristol - making a unique product that has a miniscule but loyal following. It's a company run to make money, and as such change is necessary.

Part of the reason I brought up the MX-5 is that, while it has changed in terms of body, it's essentially the same vehicle as at conception. This bodes well in the near future, but you get the feeling it can't stay where it is forever, acting as an entity unto itself. Perfection is rarely attained, and furthermore product planners do not believe it exists - otherwise why bother buying another new product.

So what you are actually saying, if I got it right, is that if you don't change the type of cars you make people get tired of them and stop buying them and you disappear?

Well I disagree. The Corvette has been made for more than 50 years now and it still sells well and the same can be said about the 911. Those are, I agree, extremes, but for instance Ferrari has been making front engined V12 berlinettas from the 50's and they haven't changed the receipe either and I don't think we see all them as comercial failure and lazy product planning.

If Lotus did the same, we would regard them as such? I don't think we should. Well executed the traditional Lotus philosophy is as valid as Ferrari's, Porsche's or Corvette's. Just because they are british I don't think they should be viewed as lightweight uncomfortable Bristols, should they decide to stick with tradition.

Tradition can be improved and refined and that doesn't necessarily make cars any worse. If anything I would say that working on traditional-lines is far more difficult than starting from a clean page. It takes a lot more effort to make you cars innovative and modern while staying true to your principle. It's much easier to start all over to get the feeling of novelty.

And that's what Lotus is doing. They aren't aming Lotuses anymore. They will probably be brilliant, and new, and modern and innovative. But they won't be a Lotus.

Jaguar, if I might make the point, has mass appeal now because it's and in-brand which has deftly maintained history while shirking it at the same time. A masterstroke and something to emulate, I suggest.

And unlike Lotus, they haven't changed their values. They've changed everything to actually stay the same. As I said I would consider that the current Jags are the most enthusiast oriented of the last 10 or 15 years probably.

The new XF is a worthy successor to the Mk2 from the sixties. It blends luxury and performance in a way only Jaguar does and inside it feels really special. And yet it feels new and modern at the same time.

And that in my opinion is Jaguar's genious. They feel like a proper Jaguar but from the 21st century. If there's something that modern Jags demonstrate is that it is possible to stay true to your principles without making your cars feel like they are from the 1930's. Something that, as it turns out, is not what Lotus is doing.

Only bad point in my opinion is that some modern Jags look a bit generic on the otuside (that's you XF).