Jump to content


Photo

Renault livery cleared for Canada


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 June 2011 - 12:16

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/91972

"Renault says it has been given clearance to run its current livery in next weekend's Canadian Grand Prix by the Quebec authorities after discussion over whether it complied with the region's anti-tobacco legislation."

I know it's not much of a news and probably doesn't deserve a topic in the forum but I just had to say this....................sometimes I'm ashamed of being Québécois.

How many countries hosting a race, out of 20 this year, have anti-tobacco laws ? Why does Quebec have to shame itself (and me) by doing this when obviously none of the other countries have an issue with this.

And even worse, they're not even thorough in their stupidity because they never bothered Ferrari and yet, I'd say that for most people here, red and white is much more a reminder of Marlboro than black and gold can be of JPS.

But then, why should I be surprised, after all the same people fined the Gilles Vllleneuve Museum 2500$ last year (which was dropped later) for displaying pictures of Gilles with the Marlboro logo on his suit outside of the museum.

Ok, rant over............but I do want to thank my government for making us look like a bunch of morons to the rest of the world.



Advertisement

#2 wattoroos

wattoroos
  • Member

  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 June 2011 - 12:24

i thought it was quite strange when i read the article. As long as there is no direct sponsorship i cant see why this is even an issue or better still why is this in the news, it would be a bit harsh to make them change their livery because they look like something bu that is just imo

#3 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 04 June 2011 - 12:56

Yeah, I admit when I first read story I did have a brief WTF moment.

#4 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,320 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 June 2011 - 13:12

How many countries hosting a race, out of 20 this year, have anti-tobacco laws ? Why does Quebec have to shame itself (and me) by doing this when obviously none of the other countries have an issue with this.


Pretty much every country F1 races in now has laws banning tobacco advertising...

The only country that still legally allows any kind of tobacco advertising it is China I think?

Not that it really matters since this is the first year there isn't any tobacco advertising on any of the cars.
inb4 someone comes to moan about the new Ferrari logo still looking Marlboro ish...

#5 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 8,065 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 June 2011 - 13:19

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/91972

"Renault says it has been given clearance to run its current livery in next weekend's Canadian Grand Prix by the Quebec authorities after discussion over whether it complied with the region's anti-tobacco legislation."

I know it's not much of a news and probably doesn't deserve a topic in the forum but I just had to say this....................sometimes I'm ashamed of being Québécois.

How many countries hosting a race, out of 20 this year, have anti-tobacco laws ? Why does Quebec have to shame itself (and me) by doing this when obviously none of the other countries have an issue with this.

And even worse, they're not even thorough in their stupidity because they never bothered Ferrari and yet, I'd say that for most people here, red and white is much more a reminder of Marlboro than black and gold can be of JPS.

But then, why should I be surprised, after all the same people fined the Gilles Vllleneuve Museum 2500$ last year (which was dropped later) for displaying pictures of Gilles with the Marlboro logo on his suit outside of the museum.

Ok, rant over............but I do want to thank my government for making us look like a bunch of morons to the rest of the world.


Seriosuly mate, with everything going on in the world at the moment with respect to governments and their citizens and you think this is a reason to be ashamed of yours?

#6 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 June 2011 - 13:23

Seriosuly mate, with everything going on in the world at the moment with respect to governments and their citizens and you think this is a reason to be ashamed of yours?


Yes.

#7 Starish

Starish
  • Member

  • 986 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 04 June 2011 - 13:46

Seriosuly mate, with everything going on in the world at the moment with respect to governments and their citizens and you think this is a reason to be ashamed of yours?

There's always someone on a BB that seems to relate a thread to " with everything going on in the world" :lol: for once can't we forget about some stuff, if we studied it all the time we'd all die. I wouldn't be ashamed though, but a little confused that it became a matter like that.

#8 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,293 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 June 2011 - 13:52

Wow that is a bit extreme. There's anti-tobacco laws, which are perfectly acceptable, and then there's this apparent lunacy that a colour scheme could in some way be linked to cigarette advertising decades ago.

#9 morrino

morrino
  • Member

  • 154 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 04 June 2011 - 14:10

You cannot ban colors just because there's a cigarettes brand using them. Its stupid. Then HRT should be banned because its livery is similar to Marlboro.

#10 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,408 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 04 June 2011 - 14:14

Have to wonder, are JPS actually give a few Euros for Renault running that livery ?

#11 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 767 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 June 2011 - 14:38

Strange that Ferrari had to take off a bar code yet Renault have a whole car in ciggie colours....

#12 greenblood

greenblood
  • Member

  • 153 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 June 2011 - 14:40

There's no logos and no money changed hands, so no problem. It'd be like associating Ajax with Embassy. It's just a pointless press release issued as a way of getting coverage.

The thing I thought was most strange was, "The Quebec authorities noted that the current livery makes a reference to images from the 1980s when the car was sponsored by the tobacco industry". Which car does he mean? Neither Renault nor Toleman had a tobacco-themed livery in the 1980s, did they?

#13 greenblood

greenblood
  • Member

  • 153 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 June 2011 - 14:41

Strange that Ferrari had to take off a bar code yet Renault have a whole car in ciggie colours....

Ferrari are sponsored by Marlboro, that's the difference.

#14 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 June 2011 - 14:57

The thing I thought was most strange was, "The Quebec authorities noted that the current livery makes a reference to images from the 1980s when the car was sponsored by the tobacco industry". Which car does he mean? Neither Renault nor Toleman had a tobacco-themed livery in the 1980s, did they?


Second paragraph of Autosport's article.


As part of Renault's title sponsorship deal with Group Lotus, the team carries a black and gold colour scheme inspired by the original Lotus Formula 1 team's 1970s and 1980s livery - when it was backed by cigarette brand John Player Special. Although JPS does not feature anywhere on the 2011 Renault, there were concerns that the colour scheme still carried implicit tobacco overtones.


And here's what it looked like.

Posted Image

Edited by Touti, 04 June 2011 - 14:58.


#15 greenblood

greenblood
  • Member

  • 153 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 June 2011 - 15:12

Second paragraph of Autosport's article.




And here's what it looked like.

Posted Image


That's a completely separate and unrelated team's car.

#16 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 04 June 2011 - 15:31

But that's what they seemed to have a problem with. It's a Lotus and now Group Lotus is Renault's title sponsor.

I know............you don't have to say it :rolleyes:

Edited by Touti, 04 June 2011 - 15:32.


#17 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 04 June 2011 - 15:33

Well, didn't the (former) Players CART team change the livery for a race at Montreal for just this reason? The livery was too similar with the livery that they used when being sponsored by Players.

#18 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 June 2011 - 16:10

Wow that is a bit extreme. There's anti-tobacco laws, which are perfectly acceptable, and then there's this apparent lunacy that a colour scheme could in some way be linked to cigarette advertising decades ago.


Laws are laws and cigarette smoking advertising is banned period. Canada has even gone to the length of not allowing cigarette packaging to be shown at stores and they are now behind a black curtain/metal cabinets. I personally do not see anything wrong with the government reviewing whether any participant is breaking Canadian law considering the government funds a significant amount of the race. In addition, the race is broadcast nation wide and will receive serious amount of advertising and promotion in print and on television locally in Canada.

The retro scheme is very much based on the cigratte legacy... sure it's nice and cool to have back but the country was just making sure it wasn't pushing it laws. I loved the Williams Rothmans scheme and the B&H Jordans.. doesn't mean they should be back. It wasn't long ago that we had a number of races in a given year that modified liveries due to the bans placed on cigarettes advertising ..

Edited by Paco, 04 June 2011 - 16:12.


#19 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,592 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 05 June 2011 - 01:38

Laws are laws and cigarette smoking advertising is banned period. Canada has even gone to the length of not allowing cigarette packaging to be shown at stores and they are now behind a black curtain/metal cabinets. I personally do not see anything wrong with the government reviewing whether any participant is breaking Canadian law considering the government funds a significant amount of the race. In addition, the race is broadcast nation wide and will receive serious amount of advertising and promotion in print and on television locally in Canada.

The retro scheme is very much based on the cigratte legacy... sure it's nice and cool to have back but the country was just making sure it wasn't pushing it laws. I loved the Williams Rothmans scheme and the B&H Jordans.. doesn't mean they should be back. It wasn't long ago that we had a number of races in a given year that modified liveries due to the bans placed on cigarettes advertising ..


Actually that's a point - didn't Williams say that their colour scheme for this season was inspired by the old Rothmans scheme of previous years?

Edited by krapmeister, 05 June 2011 - 01:40.


Advertisement

#20 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 04:52

Pretty much every country F1 races in now has laws banning tobacco advertising...


Yet alcohol adverts are just fine. Johny Walker anyone? And drunk drivers causing deaths and domestic issues FAR out weigh the effects of tobacco any day. It's the world that should be ashamed of itself!

#21 sergeym

sergeym
  • Member

  • 533 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 June 2011 - 05:04

Yet alcohol adverts are just fine. Johny Walker anyone? And drunk drivers causing deaths and domestic issues FAR out weigh the effects of tobacco any day. It's the world that should be ashamed of itself!


I'm not sure it outweighs tobacco harm actually. How many people die every year because of smoking related lung cancer?

#22 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 05 June 2011 - 05:53

The whole issue is a tobacco advert in the first place... practically!

#23 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 06:53

I'm not sure it outweighs tobacco harm actually. How many people die every year because of smoking related lung cancer?


You choose to smoke or be near smokers, one does not choose to be killed by a drunk driver. A wife does not choose to be bashed by her drunk husband etc.

#24 Muppetmad

Muppetmad
  • Member

  • 2,488 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 07:24

You choose to smoke or be near smokers, one does not choose to be killed by a drunk driver. A wife does not choose to be bashed by her drunk husband etc.


What about children who have parents who smoke? They don't choose to be near their smoking parents.

#25 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 June 2011 - 08:39

Yet alcohol adverts are just fine. Johny Walker anyone? And drunk drivers causing deaths and domestic issues FAR out weigh the effects of tobacco any day. It's the world that should be ashamed of itself!


You are aware that drunk driving and domestic violence are also against the law in most countries, right? Not all drinking results in getting behind the wheel or beating up a loved one.

Edit: My point being, you can't ban advertising a product because some people misuse it. Maybe we should also ban adverts for cars because of all the drunk drivers causing deaths with them. We could also ban adverts for power tools because lord knows they can make some potent and scary weapons. Tabacco however, causes damage through it's intended use, and that's the difference.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 05 June 2011 - 08:45.


#26 OSX

OSX
  • Member

  • 4,251 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 05 June 2011 - 08:53

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/91972

"Renault says it has been given clearance to run its current livery in next weekend's Canadian Grand Prix by the Quebec authorities after discussion over whether it complied with the region's anti-tobacco legislation."

Huh? This is like some bad April fools day joke.

#27 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:03

I don't drink nor smoke, and am proud of it. And yes no amount of advertising of tobacco or alcohol will ever induce me to doing that. So yes in effect, the bans are pointless, unless one is weak minded.
Yes the kids always suffer when the parents are fools sadly.

#28 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,320 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:06

Yet alcohol adverts are just fine. Johny Walker anyone? And drunk drivers causing deaths and domestic issues FAR out weigh the effects of tobacco any day. It's the world that should be ashamed of itself!


And your point is?
We should allow tobacco advertising because drunk driving and domestic violence exist?

What kind of argument is that?

#29 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:10

And your point is?
We should allow tobacco advertising because drunk driving and domestic violence exist?

What kind of argument is that?


Ha! Coz there are many weak minded people so it seems, no advertising should be allowed, I just meant to me it seems that why be a hypocrite with banning tobacco advertising when, in my view, well it seems a more shocking consequence with alcohol, so why not ban them both then? I guess I am just sick of alcohol related crimes is all...

#30 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,320 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:28

Ha! Coz there are many weak minded people so it seems, no advertising should be allowed, I just meant to me it seems that why be a hypocrite with banning tobacco advertising when, in my view, well it seems a more shocking consequence with alcohol, so why not ban them both then? I guess I am just sick of alcohol related crimes is all...


While the results of alcohol abuse might be more visually shocking, i'm pretty sure in the UK that smoking related deaths far outweigh any alcohol related deaths, 100,000 people a year die from smoking/passive smoking related illnesses and about 10,000 a year die from alcohol abuse and drunk driving.

This despite the percent of people who drink being far higher than smokers.

So your assumption that they are equal evils and should be treated the same is wrong.

#31 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:32

Wow that is a bit extreme. There's anti-tobacco laws, which are perfectly acceptable, and then there's this apparent lunacy that a colour scheme could in some way be linked to cigarette advertising decades ago.


Surely you jest? The Renault colour scheme is directly linked to cigarette advertising. I don't find it at all strange that the Quebec authorities atleast clear the issue.

#32 sergeym

sergeym
  • Member

  • 533 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:49

Surely you jest? The Renault colour scheme is directly linked to cigarette advertising. I don't find it at all strange that the Quebec authorities atleast clear the issue.

So what? Nothing on their livery directly mentions JPS. Only fans familiar with Lotus history will see any connection, and i doubt it will in any way affect JPS sales.

#33 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 June 2011 - 11:05

So what? Nothing on their livery directly mentions JPS. Only fans familiar with Lotus history will see any connection, and i doubt it will in any way affect JPS sales.


It is a strong enough connection that Group Lotus paid top dollar to have the Renault painted like that. And it's not about if JPS makes any sales, it's about whether it's legal or not. I'm surprised no one else seemed to question it when the livery was revealed - "nice cars, but, well, we are not allowed to paint cars like fag packets anymore?"

#34 sergeym

sergeym
  • Member

  • 533 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 June 2011 - 11:22

It is a strong enough connection that Group Lotus paid top dollar to have the Renault painted like that. And it's not about if JPS makes any sales, it's about whether it's legal or not. I'm surprised no one else seemed to question it when the livery was revealed - "nice cars, but, well, we are not allowed to paint cars like fag packets anymore?"


The point was to associate current team with past success of Lotus. They decided that this livery is the best for this purpose. So i see connection to Lotus history there, but not to JPS.
For me personally - as long as JPS logo is not on the car, and they do not receive money from JPS it's perfectly legal.

#35 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 June 2011 - 11:25

The point was to associate current team with past success of Lotus. They decided that this livery is the best for this purpose. So i see connection to Lotus history there, but not to JPS.
For me personally - as long as JPS logo is not on the car, and they do not receive money from JPS it's perfectly legal.


Which the Quebecois(?) government agreed with, and I think I agree as long as JPS doesn't pay, but i don't think it strange that the QUESTION arose - is this really legal? I assume Quebec needed some assurance that JPS really doesn't pay a dime. And I directly challenged the poster who said there was "no connection" - there clearly is.

#36 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 13:11

So your assumption that they are equal evils and should be treated the same is wrong.


Who said they were equal evils? I think alcohol is far more dangerous and violent than smoking will ever be. I've passed by many smokers and have said hello and gotten one back. Doubt the same could be said for a drunk.

Anyway, even though the numbers are far greater for smokers, it's the violence that I hate associated with alcohol and I hate it when the excuse for being drunk causes leniency in courts. I just hate that!

#37 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,067 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 13:25

I'm not sure it outweighs tobacco harm actually. How many people die every year because of smoking related lung cancer?


However many people die every year from smoking-related cancers, 99% of them are people that consciously decided to smoke, knowing the risks, and should take responsibility for their actions, however unpleasant the consequences. Compared to how many sober people each year are killed or abused by drunk people, the numbers for that don't even come close to 99 in 100.

#38 sergeym

sergeym
  • Member

  • 533 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 June 2011 - 13:33

However many people die every year from smoking-related cancers, 99% of them are people that consciously decided to smoke, knowing the risks, and should take responsibility for their actions, however unpleasant the consequences. Compared to how many sober people each year are killed or abused by drunk people, the numbers for that don't even come close to 99 in 100.


But those drunk people already violate the law. So they cause harm not because they are drunk, but because they think law does not apply to them.

#39 Touti

Touti
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 05 June 2011 - 14:42

This forum really is an amazing place. How does a topic about one team's livery turn into a discussion about drinking and driving ?

The title does say "livery".............not liver :rotfl:

Edited by Touti, 05 June 2011 - 14:42.


Advertisement

#40 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 June 2011 - 14:43

While the results of alcohol abuse might be more visually shocking, i'm pretty sure in the UK that smoking related deaths far outweigh any alcohol related deaths, 100,000 people a year die from smoking/passive smoking related illnesses and about 10,000 a year die from alcohol abuse and drunk driving.

This despite the percent of people who drink being far higher than smokers.

So your assumption that they are equal evils and should be treated the same is wrong.


how many people die as a direct result of unhealthy diets, coronary artery disease etc? Yet McDonalds can still advertise, bacon is legal and there's no EATING THIS STICK OF BUTTER WILL SLOWLY KILL YOU warning labels etc ;)
I don't smoke personally, never have, but I do feel the anti-smoking thing has gone a bit too far.

#41 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 14:47

how many people die as a direct result of unhealthy diets, coronary artery disease etc? Yet McDonalds can still advertise, bacon is legal and there's no EATING THIS STICK OF BUTTER WILL SLOWLY KILL YOU warning labels etc ;)
I don't smoke personally, never have, but I do feel the anti-smoking thing has gone a bit too far.

If you eat a Big Mac or a few bits of bacon does it affect the people around you? That's the main difference with smoking.

#42 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 05 June 2011 - 14:56

If you eat a Big Mac or a few bits of bacon does it affect the people around you? That's the main difference with smoking.


we are discussing advertising :)
Legislation with regards to where smoking is permitted (so as to ensure people don't suffer the consequences of second hand smoke) is separate to laws banning advertising. Besides, it's as legal to lock your self in your own house and smoke 200 fags a day as it is to eat 20 big macs a day. The theory behind the advertising ban on tobacco is that it influences young people who would otherwise not smoke and makes them take up smoking. Isn't that the same with any Junk Food chain?

#43 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 15:04

we are discussing advertising :)
Legislation with regards to where smoking is permitted (so as to ensure people don't suffer the consequences of second hand smoke) is separate to laws banning advertising. Besides, it's as legal to lock your self in your own house and smoke 200 fags a day as it is to eat 20 big macs a day. The theory behind the advertising ban on tobacco is that it influences young people who would otherwise not smoke and makes them take up smoking. Isn't that the same with any Junk Food chain?

Yep, it is about influences on young people and there are parallels to be drawn with junk food. However, there are some defining differences. Firstly the fact that tobacco is highly addictive and secondly the fact that the effects of smoking have a much greater impact on society (mainly by it not only affecting those who actually do it but also those around them) than junk food. And the effects of smoking are pretty much always detrimental to your health, junk food is perfectly possible as long as your diet is a bit balanced out by food on the other end of the scale.

#44 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 June 2011 - 16:27

The way i see the smoking vs. alcohol debate is very simple.

The consumption of Alcohol only affects the individual and the secondary affects of abuse/violence/drunk driving are illegal acts for which the individual is responsible for.

The consumption of Smoking affects the individuals health but the secondary affects everyone in their promixity. Often times, you don't have the choice but to be exposed to toxic chemicals from the burning of the cigarette but also the 2nd hand smoke that is exhalled by the user. So not only does it directly affect the user but also has significant affects to the people around them even though they may not be commiting any acts of agreesion or unlawfulness. I can't stand walking into a building and have 5 smokers outside puffing away as I make my way into a building. If I go out to a restaurant etc., why do I have to be subjected to 2nd hand smoke when entering the building?????

We do now have laws protecting children in vehicles as it's now illegal to smoke in a car with children. Frankly, I wish more countries would follow New Zealands lead out setup a system to completely ban smoking in the entire country...

Trying to compare smoking and alcohol consumption and the negative affect is really apples and oranges and shouldn't even be spoken in the same context.

And before you go into Pot/THC and it's potential health benefits.. sure... but then you shouldn't be smoking it.. vapourizing is significantly healther and more beneficial.

At least minor consumption of certain forms of alcohol has potential health benefits as well. The same can not be said of cigarettes.



#45 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,885 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 June 2011 - 16:41

while I agree with you regarding smoking effects on other people, and understand what you mean... You can't really say alcohol has no effect on other people, many families have been ruined because of that. More than because of smoking I think. This is not as simple as you want it to be.

Having said that, I hate cigarette smoke, as for the alcohol... Vodka FTW!