Jump to content


Photo

John Player Team Lotus


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 533 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:11

While perusing an article on a well-known web-based encyclopedia, I noticed that it said the 1973 International Cup for F1 Manufacturers was awarded to 'John Player Special'. I changed this to 'John Player Team Lotus', only to have it reverted because the FIA Yearbook says 'John Player Special'. I know the cars were referred to as John Player Specials, but was this the case for the team as well?


Advertisement

#2 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,364 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:35

The cup for manufacturers was - and is - awarded on the basis of chassis/engine combinations, not to teams (although in practice those are now indivisible). So, as a couple of examples, in 1969 the works Matras and the Tyrrell Matra-Fords were counted separately and in 1970 all points for March-Fords (Tyrrell and works cars) were counted together. Oh, and any points scored by Rob Walker's Lotus-Fords would count to a general Lotus-Ford total ...

The 1973 works Lotuses were officially registered as John Player Specials with the FIA: since they were the only Lotus chassis which scored points then showing the winners as "John Player Specials" is correct. Although I - and I suspect others - would call them Lotus-Fords.  ;)

#3 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 4,907 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:40

Or even Lotus-Cosworths

#4 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,543 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:47

Although I - and I suspect others - would call them Lotus-Fords.  ;)

... as does the official F1 website:

http://www.formula1....ults/team/1973/

Like Allen I call them Lotus-Cosworths.  ;)

#5 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,364 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:10

Well, I take your point, gentlemen, but to a certain extent that is a bit of retrospective revisionism isn't it? I don't disagree with it as a way of ensuring continuity of records, but in 1973 I'm pretty sure it still said "Ford" on the cam covers of a DFV - or even an FVA or FVC come to that.;)

#6 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,543 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:24

Retrospective revisionism? - not in my case. From its very first appearance I've called the DFV a Cosworth as it was built by Cosworth, not Ford. Similarly the 'John Player Special' was always a Lotus to me, and I regard 'Marlboro-Texaco M23' and other similar nonsenses with utter contempt.

#7 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:41

... From its very first appearance I've called the DFV a Cosworth as it was built by Cosworth, not Ford...

I sympathise with your view, Tim, but it can get a bit confusing if one engineering company designs and builds engines for several sponsors - and without whom the engines would not have been built. Ilmor produced engines for Chevrolet, Leyton House and Mercedes, and almost for Buick. To call them all Ilmors is not, in my view correct. I much prefer Ford Cosworth, Ilmor Chevrolet, etc. And yes, I know I have transposed the names, but they trip off the tongue more easily than Cosworth Ford and Chevrolet Ilmor!

#8 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:49

Retrospective revisionism? - not in my case. From its very first appearance I've called the DFV a Cosworth as it was built by Cosworth, not Ford. Similarly the 'John Player Special' was always a Lotus to me, and I regard 'Marlboro-Texaco M23' and other similar nonsenses with utter contempt.

If you were a journalist at the time you would know that the Ford Motor Company sent numerous letters to magazines insisting that the engines should be know as Fords

Personally, I tend to call the cars Lotus-DFVs (to distinguish them from Lotus-FVAs etc)

#9 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,543 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:00

I've absolutely no problem with 'Cosworth Ford', 'Ilmor Chevrolet' etc, as long as whoever is actually responsible for the thing gets some acknowledgement. Likewise, I was quite happy in 1971 when Britain's major race became the 'Woolmark British Grand Prix' but very unhappy the following year when it became the 'John Player Grand Prix'. If something is known only by its sponsor's name it can get very confusing when the sponsor moves on.

#10 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,777 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:02

Retrospective revisionism? - not in my case. From its very first appearance I've called the DFV a Cosworth as it was built by Cosworth, not Ford.

Which stance would make pre-2005 Mercedes engines Ilmors, McLaren's TAG-funded engines Porsches, and (all?) Renault's powerplants M├ęcachromes.

#11 David Beard

David Beard
  • Member

  • 4,894 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:21

Retrospective revisionism? - not in my case. From its very first appearance I've called the DFV a Cosworth as it was built by Cosworth, not Ford. Similarly the 'John Player Special' was always a Lotus to me, and I regard 'Marlboro-Texaco M23' and other similar nonsenses with utter contempt.


:up:

And as for the current Enstone car being called a Lotus... :rolleyes:

Edited by David Beard, 23 May 2013 - 09:22.


#12 john winfield

john winfield
  • Member

  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:24

Likewise, I was quite happy in 1971 when Britain's major race became the 'Woolmark British Grand Prix' but very unhappy the following year when it became the 'John Player Grand Prix'. If something is known only by its sponsor's name it can get very confusing when the sponsor moves on.


I felt the same, Tim, and began to resent John Player for appropriating both the Grand Prix and the Lotus name. (Although I assume the Grand Prix organisers, Brands Hatch and Colin Chapman were perfectly happy!) But like you, I was a real enthusiast, only a minor part of the JP target audience for their very clever marketing campaign. In retrospect, the beautiful design work (Barry Foley etc.), the use of the American style 'special' name for the Lotus 72, and simultaneously for the new cigarette brand, and the high-profile John Player presence at the circuits (cue photo of girls in hot pants) looks like a marketing masterclass. Shame that Geoffrey Kent of Players, and Colin Chapman, are no longer here to talk us through the campaign.


#13 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:49

I've absolutely no problem with 'Cosworth Ford', 'Ilmor Chevrolet' etc, as long as whoever is actually responsible for the thing gets some acknowledgement. Likewise, I was quite happy in 1971 when Britain's major race became the 'Woolmark British Grand Prix' but very unhappy the following year when it became the 'John Player Grand Prix'. If something is known only by its sponsor's name it can get very confusing when the sponsor moves on.


Like with the BP and Shellsport Formula 3 Championships? Vandervell? Shell Super Oil? Lombard North Central? Forward Trust?

Or the once mighty Winston Cup - whatever became of that, why did the series go under?

#14 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 4,907 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:11

Was the Eifeland a March?

Was the LEC a Pilbeam?

Was the BRM P126 a Terrier?



#15 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:16

And what about the McLaren-sponsored Hercules, the first carbonfibre F1 - it never gets mentioned in F1 statistics! :mad:

#16 john winfield

john winfield
  • Member

  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:18

Like with the BP and Shellsport Formula 3 Championships? Vandervell? Shell Super Oil? Lombard North Central? Forward Trust?


Michael, from my point of view, I think these all worked because the sponsor's name didn't replace the championship name, it sat alongside. From memory, I think 'Formula 3' or 'F3' remained in the title of all these championships. Whether the sponsorship proved successful commercially for the companies concerned, I'm not sure.


#17 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:44

The Americans have the right idea, at least we know where we stand with the Sugaripe Prune Special.

#18 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:25

Michael, from my point of view, I think these all worked because the sponsor's name didn't replace the championship name, it sat alongside. From memory, I think 'Formula 3' or 'F3' remained in the title of all these championships. Whether the sponsorship proved successful commercially for the companies concerned, I'm not sure.

For reasons of continuity, best identified by the organising club's name (RAC, BARC etc)


#19 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,364 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:27

The Americans have the right idea, at least we know where we stand with the Sugaripe Prune Special.

Or possibly where we sit ...

Advertisement

#20 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:28

Or possibly where we sit ...

Is that a typo?

#21 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,611 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 May 2013 - 00:24

I'm firmly with the purists on this, but what is [historically] interesting is that 'JPS/John Player Special' did catch-on (as did the 'John Player Grand Prix' to an extent), but the 'Marlboro MP/4' never did. And that was its official name. Likewise the 'Marlboro British GP' was never embraced as often as its predecessor was.

#22 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 828 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:18

Well. I must admit that in period neither I nor any of my contemporaries ever referred to the black and gold ones as anything other than Lotus 72s (et al). We may have mentioned JPS livery - and I certainly smoked the product - but only programmes , or so I thought, stuck to the sponsorship line . And nobody mentioned the engines much at all- because nearly everything had a DFV in the back. This fact alone drew me to the cars which sounded different- especially the red machines although the Matras were wonderful and the growly V12 bRM sounded marvellous. I do seem to remember that because of saturation Marlboro sponsorship- they even sent me their free rag before every GP (in common wioth a million others I assume ) - that 'Marlboro BRM ' did creep into one's lexicon though- as did Yardley ditto. Odd...

#23 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,765 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 24 May 2013 - 08:54

Was the Eifeland a March?

Was the LEC a Pilbeam?

Was the BRM P126 a Terrier?


Or was the Eagle a Terrier?

Or the Pilbeam MP22 a Waring & Gillow or even a Dungworth?

And what exactly were the Merzario, the Bellasi and the Scirocco?

It is after all just semantics.

#24 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,364 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:09

And what exactly were the Merzario, the Bellasi and the Scirocco?

Mobile chicanes :p

#25 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,705 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:09

Regarding the John Player Special Ford et al racing in the John Player Grand Prix is this a case of money talkng ?  ;)

#26 john winfield

john winfield
  • Member

  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:59

And what exactly were the Merzario, the Bellasi and the Scirocco?

Mobile chicanes :p


In retrospect, Mobil Oil missed a huge sponsorship opportunity with these slower cars. Plenty of television coverage while being lapped too. They could even have insisted on the car being called the 'Chicane'.

Edited by john winfield, 24 May 2013 - 10:00.


#27 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 1,606 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 24 May 2013 - 12:37

Mobile chicanes :p

:up:

#28 kento11

kento11
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 25 May 2013 - 03:10

Is that a typo?

or just a Brit dropping his Hs

and then you get energy drink maker building their own cars, it does get confusing

#29 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 533 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 25 May 2013 - 09:38

or just a Brit dropping his Hs

and then you get energy drink maker building their own cars, it does get confusing


Were Benetton the first sponsor/builders (or owners)?

#30 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,705 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 May 2013 - 13:19

Were Benetton the first sponsor/builders (or owners)?


Probably lots before that an immediate candidate I can think of are Benetton's predecessors Toleman who's primary business was/is (?) haulage of new Ford Motor vehicles from the factories to dealerships.

#31 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,082 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 25 May 2013 - 16:36

Does Jack Brabham's "Redex Special" count? Maybe not as it wasn't F1 or GP and had "Special" in the name.

And component manufacturers like Cromard and Laystall clearly don't count.

Did anybody at Brooklands get away with a product name?

#32 kento11

kento11
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 25 May 2013 - 21:47

Probably lots before that an immediate candidate I can think of are Benetton's predecessors Toleman who's primary business was/is (?) haulage of new Ford Motor vehicles from the factories toealerships.

maybe Copersucar?

#33 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,705 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:25

I wonder if the arrival of Phillip Morris and their red and white Marlboro brand with BRM had anything to do with Players switching their promoted brand from the red and white, and gold colours of the Gold Leaf brand to the black and gold colours of the John Player Special brand with Lotus for 1972 ?

 

Has anyone read anything to support or refute this proposition ?


Edited by arttidesco, 11 October 2013 - 09:26.


#34 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,097 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 11 October 2013 - 12:37

I certainly wouldn't have cared...

 

As an anti-smoker, it was all of very little interest to me. Unlike the cars under the signwriting.