Template talk:Lola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


What's the consensus for the inclusion of the following cars in this template?:

  • THL1, THL2 - called "Lolas" but neither designed nor built by Lola (although Eric Broadley is credited as Chief Engineer for the THL1)
  • Honda RA300 - designed by Broadley (based on a Lola Indycar) but not called a "Lola" (although it was colloquially referred to at the time as the "Hondola")
  • Honda RA301 - neither designed/built by Lola nor called a "Lola" - it seems to have earned inclusion on the basis of being "an update of the RA300".

I'd recommend retaining THL1 and THL2 and deleting the Hondas, but I'm not passionate either way. P.S. Feel freee to correct any inaccuracies in the above statements - I'm just going by what it says in the articles. DH85868993 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say keep them all, as the articles cover the degree of Lola influence.--Midgrid(talk) 23:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree on keeping them all. Even if the Haas Lolas weren't built by Lola, they're still associated with them (and really, their constructors points still went to Lola). The359 (Talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you do needs to be applied consistently across all F1 cars. The Lec was designed and built by Pilbeam but I wouldn't suggest calling it a Pilbeam. The BRM P126 was designed and built by Len Terry but I wouldn't suggest calling it a Terrier. Lots of other stories such as a Ferrari built by Thompson, etc, etc. I don't think the Honda RA300 should be included as a Lola because it was called a Honda in period; Hondola was only a nickname and I'm not sure it extended far beyond a single journalist. As has been said, this can be very tricky. Should the Eifelland 21 be called a Eifelland or a March? I can see both sides on that one but I'm certainly not going to start calling a Lotus 78 a JPS. Deciding exact rules is incredibly difficult. Sometimes you just have to accept what previous historians have done (Jenkinson, Nye, etc). The closest I've got to something that works is to ask who commissioned the project. That makes the Lec a Lec, the BRM a BRM and the Honda a Honda but makes the JPS a Lotus and makes the Eifelland a March because Eifelland merely bought a production March and then added new bodywork. You could argue that Honda bought a production Lola Indycar and just added an engine but I don't think that really fits the facts. Allen Brown (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend the removal of the THL1 & THL2. Including them perpetuates the myth that they were actually built be Lola. Similarly the Honda RA301. So it's an update of the Honda RA300. The Zytek 04S was an update of the Reynard 02S. Does that make the 04S, or the Creation CA06/H, a Reynard? Is the Caterham Seven a Lotus? --Falcadore (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion they should all be removed.  Dr. Loosmark  10:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)