
John Player Team Lotus
#1
Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:11
Advertisement
#2
Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:35
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
Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:40
#4
Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:47
... as does the official F1 website:Although I - and I suspect others - would call them Lotus-Fords.
http://www.formula1....ults/team/1973/
Like Allen I call them Lotus-Cosworths.

#5
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:10
#6
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:24
#7
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:41
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!... From its very first appearance I've called the DFV a Cosworth as it was built by Cosworth, not Ford...
#8
Posted 23 May 2013 - 08:49
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 FordsRetrospective 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.
Personally, I tend to call the cars Lotus-DFVs (to distinguish them from Lotus-FVAs etc)
#9
Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:00
#10
Posted 23 May 2013 - 09:02
Which stance would make pre-2005 Mercedes engines Ilmors, McLaren's TAG-funded engines Porsches, and (all?) Renault's powerplants Mécachromes.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.
#11
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.

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

Edited by David Beard, 23 May 2013 - 09:22.
#12
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
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
Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:11
Was the LEC a Pilbeam?
Was the BRM P126 a Terrier?
#15
Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:16

#16
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
Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:44
#18
Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:25
For reasons of continuity, best identified by the organising club's name (RAC, BARC etc)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.
#19
Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:27
Or possibly where we sit ...The Americans have the right idea, at least we know where we stand with the Sugaripe Prune Special.
#21
Posted 24 May 2013 - 00:24
#22
Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:18
#23
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
Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:09
Mobile chicanesAnd what exactly were the Merzario, the Bellasi and the Scirocco?

#25
Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:09

#26
Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:59
Mobile chicanes
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
Posted 24 May 2013 - 12:37
Mobile chicanes

#28
Posted 25 May 2013 - 03:10
or just a Brit dropping his HsIs that a typo?
and then you get energy drink maker building their own cars, it does get confusing
#29
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
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
Posted 25 May 2013 - 16:36
And component manufacturers like Cromard and Laystall clearly don't count.
Did anybody at Brooklands get away with a product name?
#32
Posted 25 May 2013 - 21:47
maybe Copersucar?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.
#33
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
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.