21 replies to this topic

[SchuMic]

Read on today's edition of Planet-F1 (http://www.planet-f1.com

----------------
Utter madness

January 8: As Formula One prepares for the end of tobacco sponsorship, there are moves afoot that could destroy the sport's heritage.
It is common knowledge that Formula One's thirty-odd year relationship with 'the weed' is set to come to an end in the not too distant future.

Despite the best efforts of Bernie, and various other interested parties, tobacco sponsorship will be banned in 2006.

Over the years, F1 teams have come to depend on tobacco sponsorship in much the same way as smokers rely on tobacco itself. Faced with stark reality that they will have to find their funding elsewhere, teams have been forced to look at alternative sources, with Internet providers and Telecommunications companies receiving a lot of attention.

Since the Gold Leaf Lotus cars rolled out on to the grid at Jarama in May 68, Formula One has never looked back. And those (of the old school) who shuddered when they first caught sight of the 'garish' red, white and gold Lotus now look back affectionately at the Gitanes Ligier, the Samson Shadow and of course the JPS Lotus.

In this week's edition of Autosport, Marcus Pye reveals that the FIA is being pressured to ensure that tobacco liveries of all F1 cars are free of tobacco sponsorship by 2006, and that includes historic F1 cars.

If the 'do gooders' have their way, future generations of motorsport fans will be deprived of their heritage.Like Marcus, I have been a motorsport fan for over thirty years and despite having been subjected to Marlboro, John Player Special, Tabatip, Gitanes and Embassy, I have never smoked a single cigarette.

Such a move would virtually destroy the (now healthy) Thoroughbred Grand Prix championship… no pun intended, for all entries must run in their original livery. Faced with the possibility of having to radically change the appearance of their cars, owners could well decide to lock them safely away thus depriving us all the pleasure of enjoying them.

Although we must appreciate the clear dangers of smoking, what possible good can come of this sort of legislation?

We can all visualise the bright yellow of Ayrton Senna's helmet, just as we can 'see' the red and white livery on his Marlboro McLaren. We all remember the black and gold John Player Lotus of Ronnie Peterson shadowing team-mate Mario Andretti throughout the 1979 season and the bright blue Citanes sponsored 'flying teapot' back in '76.

This is yet another wilful attempt to destroy our sport's fabulous heritage. It is utter madness and it must not be allowed to go ahead.
----------

As the author said, it is ABSOLUTE NON-SENSE. These old F1 cars belong to history, their design and ALSO their livery!

With the new european tobacco ban that will take effect in 2006, any form of tobacco advertising will be banned, even the logo will be forbidden. That will mean the the old red/white livery of the Mclarens will have to be removed on public performances or expositions?!

Come on guys! That's crazy! Stop smoking the carpet! :-)

SchuMic

[Dudley]

Complete crap, hope it doesn't get through.

The only reasons F1 has to succumb to this that I was aware of is TV, the actual advertising on the cars is legal. I suppoe if it becomes not so on new ones it will on old.

Certinally at the Coy's festival this summer there was a stunning Lotus JPS 72. If I was an owner I'd lock than up rather than change the livery.

[Gil Bouffard]

Way back in 79-81, I used to pull a trick on many "F-1 enthusiasts," by showing them a picture of a McLaren or a Ligier racing at Hockenheim and ask them what it said on the side of the car. The answer usually was, "Marlboro," or "Gitanes." Show them a picture of a Lotus and the answer was "JPS," or "John Player Special."

I could also do this with pictures from the GP of England. There was no Marlboro, Gitanes or John Player Special logo on those cars. The Marlboro they saw was actually vertical black stripes. The Gitanes Woman logo was on the side of the Ligier and Olympus graced the side pods of the Lotus.

I doubt many people have taken up the habit of smoking because of a logo on the side of a car. I smoked because everybody around me smoked. I certainly didn't smoke because my favorite drivers smoked. Because to my knowledge neither Harry Schell or Stirling Moss smoked. At least I had never seen a picture of them smoking. And if they did, I still would not have used such a lame excuse as that to start.

Gil

[Megatron]

Perhaps they will make all F1 fans burn all thier F1 magizenes with tobacco logos in them.

This is absurd. I hope the people that do this desend into the darkest regions of hell with a can of gasoline straped to their back. (ok, maybe not that bad, but you get my point).

[Clatter]

We wont be able to watch footage from old races either unless they are digitally remastered.

[desmo]

The absurdities that result from creating a legal classification that lies somewhere akwardly and logically untenably between legal and illegal are inevitable. The politicos lack the courage to make tobacco illegal as it surely would be if it was held to a consistant standard, and simulateously they lack the courage to stand up to the anti-tobacco lobbyists. If the stuff is as bad as it is supposed to be, then why the hell is it legal to sell? And if it is not, what's up with all the censorship? The absurdities we face now are the direct result of spineless politicians and bureaucrats.

[SlateGray]

One way to get around the anti smoking Nazis. Bring out your new car with a new livery in 2006. Call it "STICKS", Run the car under the "STICKS" logo for a year or two, under the guise of selling (tooth picks, hockey sticks whatever). Retire the Logo from the car while at the same time comeing out with your new brand of smokes called "STICKS". Brand swapping. The hardest part would be hiding the real source of "STICKS" money.

[LUCKYSTRIKE]

Originally posted by desmo
The absurdities that result from creating a legal classification that lies somewhere akwardly and logically untenably between legal and illegal are inevitable. The politicos lack the courage to make tobacco illegal as it surely would be if it was held to a consistant standard, and simulateously they lack the courage to stand up to the anti-tobacco lobbyists. If the stuff is as bad as it is supposed to be, then why the hell is it legal to sell? And if it is not, what's up with all the censorship? The absurdities we face now are the direct result of spineless politicians and bureaucrats.

could not have said it better myself ;)

[Todd]

Governments make more money from tobacco than any of the growers, distributors, or vendors. They will not ennact any legislation that puts their own revenue at risk. In order to obscure this fact, they will vigorously attack side issues like tobacco liveries on racing cars. The scariest part is the revisionism present in initiatives like removing historic tobacco markings from old racing cars. It is all too Orwellian for me. Enjoy your big government.

[FordFan]

Ah, the lure of taxes. Of course, states want to sue tobacco companies for the harm they've caused - forgetting to count, no doubt, the billions of dollars, pounds, francs, etc. they have collected on their sales along the way. The do-gooders would probably like to see an end to smoking, just not quite yet. Banning advertizing on F1 cars probably makes them feel alot better about taking the tax money.

[alain]

well i hate tobacco,but f1 will lost some money without it .

[AyePirate]

It just makes me wonder "What's Next?".
When is the government going to decide
that it would be better for society as a
whole if we banned butter because it's
bad for you. Believe me this isn't too
far fetched once the lawyers manage
to mine the "cigarettes are evil" vein
for all the cash it's worth.

I don't smoke and I'm glad that they're
banned in most public indoor places in the
U.S., but I think people should be
allowed to exercise their free will to
make their own choices, even bad
ones.

As Gil pointed out, advertising
has a neglible impact, it's
your environment that determines
whether or not you are likely
to become a smoker. The single
greatest determiner is whether or
not one of your parents was a
smoker.Lawyers,just can't make
that much money
suing the parents of smokers.

BTW a lot of people don't realized
that smokers tend to die younger
and quicker than non-smokers,
in the process actually being less
of a financial "burden" to society.
Which is not say that we should
force granny to take up smoking,
but the arguement that cigarettes
smoking increases total
health care expeditures is false.
One of the pillars of this whole
mania is a lie.

[Eric McLoughlin]

Whatever the pros and cons, cigarette advertising OF ANY SORT is history in Europe from 2006. I am in favour of the general principle and hope, and expect, that there will be many companies willing to step in and take the place of the tobacco companies in F1 when the time comes. Williams have shown what can be done without cigarette sponsorship. However, I DO NOT agree that the cigarette logos should be removed from historic cars. I am a great fan of historical accuracy and running the cars in some hybrid livery would be trying to deny history. I even get annoyed that no F1 models (apart from some of the more historic ones - ironically) ever carry full cigarette logos.

This leads me to a question - are there any countries in the world today where 1/43 models (Minichamps, Quartzo, Onyx, Brumm etc)are sold with full tobacco advertising?

[andy_bee]

Eric

I'm not sure about other countries, but go to the mclaren website and to the team mclaren shop area and you can buy west branded McLarens. Not sure how they get around that although the box does say not for under 18s instead of the usual 36mths

[mono-posto]

This same issue recently came up on the F1 modeling email group as one of our members was contacted by one of the modeling companies and asked to remove any pictures from his website that showed THIER models with tobacco decals!

Even though they INCLUDE the tobacco decals in thier kits in a little black bag. (It was Tameo for any interested).
This member did so out of respect for the company in question, but to the great annoyance of many others!

Someone mentioned historical accuracy and we model builders take that oath clutching every holy book available...If car 'x' ran at the Belgian Gp of 1988 with tobacco marking then come hell or high water, if we have to print them ourselves, our model will have tobacco markings!
(Though compared to the guys who model WWII armor and want historical accuracy, we're quite well off. Swastica decals are like a black market item!).

I'm beginning to wonder if we are about to face huge book burnings and soldiers will storm houses looking for old 'Autocourse' books or your collection of F1 mags!?

Being here in the US I am patiently waiting for the day that Congress finally does away with that pesky First Ammendment.

I myself still have the nieve notion that it protects my right to free speech, so I challenge anyone to ask me to remove pictures of models I built from a website!

I am nearly expecting a 'For US audiences' Autocourse next year with pictures whited out. It has gotten insane!

[pa]

Ladies, ladies, don't be so quick to piss your pants. This story is a total crock of ****. The FIA has absolutely no legal authority over cars that don't race in FIA series.[p][Edited by pa on 01-08-2001]

[mono-posto]

Yes pa, but the pending tobacco ban is not just for FIA races but for all Motor Sports in the EEC. With simiular legislation just a matter of time in the USA.

Historical racing could be just as effected as FIA racing or any other series for that matter, unless the racing moves to nations that don't have such legislation.

[pa]

That's just "coulds" and "mights", monoposto, not the story I posted on.

Originally posted by SchuMic

In this week's edition of Autosport, Marcus Pye reveals that the FIA is being pressured to ensure that tobacco liveries of all F1 cars are free of tobacco sponsorship by 2006, and that includes historic F1 cars.

Owners of historic F1 cars are not paid by cigarette companies to carry advertising, therefore, as such, there is no sponsorship arrangment or contract. The fact that a corporate logo is on the car does not in itself constitute a sponsorship arrangment.

The story is complete nonsense. "Being pressured" is a long way from fact or an attributed quote. Strictly National Enquirer-grade drivel. Or do you guys believe the tabloids too? Bah!

THINK!!!![p][Edited by pa on 01-09-2001]

[mono-posto]

Hmm. Mighty touchy....

[pa]

I just have no patience with people who don't dissect what they're reading before jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle.

[SchuMic]

pa, you pointed out an interesting view of the article.

Yes nothing has been decided yet but it shows the direction that some authorities take and the absurdities that come from anit-tobacco war.

Some politicians think that fighting against tobacco implies to remove all form of public tobacco advertising or promoting. Push to its extremity, this way of thinking just could lead to see all tobacco brands removed from object of the past like F1 historical cars in that case.

F1 historical cars often appear on public shows and places where tobacco brands will be forebidden even if the events are not sponsored by the tobacco brand itself. We all agree that it is pushing too far and that is not what the ban intent to but...The frontier is very narrow if you consider the tobacco ban and some may easily cross it.

Yes it's may be too anticipated but we all knows that politicians and good sense are often a paradox.

The anti-tobacco crusade often miss its goals and fight the wrong guy!

SchuMic

[Eric McLoughlin]

Swastika decals are very easy to obtain - totally legitimately. There are quite a few companies who make specialist decal sheets for military modellers - both aircraft and armour and most of them do feature a range of German Swastika sets depicting the many versions of the Swastika insignia as used between 1933 and 1945.
As a matter of interest both the Finnish Air Force and the Latvian Air Force (I think) used the Swastika as their national markings during World War Two. The Finnish Swastika was pale blue and the Latvian red.

Most of the pre-war German record breaking Auto-Unions and Mercedes cars also carried Swastikas, usually on the driver's headrest. On the recent re-created Auto-Union streamliner, the Swastika was notably absent!