Always thought Ferrari admirable for keeping non-trade sponsors off its GP cars, and this is indeed a sad time when the combination of the Marlboro and Vodafone logos completely drown out the traditional purity of Ferrari red.
In fact, I believe McLaren's general presentation is now closer to its own particular legend ("Silver Arrows", etc) legend than Ferrari is. The Williams also has a more corporate blue-and-white BMW look; whereas Ferrari is not even Italian racing red any more.
A sad development.
Marlboro/Vodafone Scuderia Ferrari
Started by
Mohican
, Feb 12 2002 14:05
16 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Rainer Nyberg
-
- 1,768 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 12 February 2002 - 21:49
Well I agree, but I guess it could be worse than it is.
Sure the blood-red or corsa rosso colour no longer exist but at least they are kinda reddish still. Will there be a time when the dollars will make Ferrari yellow/white/black/green/purple/blue/silver/gold or even pink??
Sure the blood-red or corsa rosso colour no longer exist but at least they are kinda reddish still. Will there be a time when the dollars will make Ferrari yellow/white/black/green/purple/blue/silver/gold or even pink??
#3
Speed Demon
-
- 157 posts
- Joined: April 01
Member
Posted 12 February 2002 - 21:58
Deep breath, start of personal rant...
I just find it sad that the evil Vodafone has got its claws into Ferrari, although I don't find it all that surprising, given that they sponsor Manchester United. Kids these days end up brainwashed into supporting teams for all the wrong (marketing) reasons. What ever happened to supporting something because of its heritage and charisma?
I speak as a lifelong Manchester City supporter who has never bought products by Sharp or Vodafone!
I just find it sad that the evil Vodafone has got its claws into Ferrari, although I don't find it all that surprising, given that they sponsor Manchester United. Kids these days end up brainwashed into supporting teams for all the wrong (marketing) reasons. What ever happened to supporting something because of its heritage and charisma?
I speak as a lifelong Manchester City supporter who has never bought products by Sharp or Vodafone!
#4
Darren
-
- 593 posts
- Joined: April 00
Member
Posted 13 February 2002 - 01:36
Originally posted by Mohican
Always thought Ferrari admirable for keeping non-trade sponsors off its GP cars, and this is indeed a sad time when the combination of the Marlboro and Vodafone logos completely drown out the traditional purity of Ferrari red.
Marlboro was a trade sponsor? Guess you have to keep the mechanics happy some way...
In fact, I believe McLaren's general presentation is now closer to its own particular legend ("Silver Arrows", etc) legend than Ferrari is. The Williams also has a more corporate blue-and-white BMW look; whereas Ferrari is not even Italian racing red any more.
A sad development.
The Silver Arrows is a McLaren "legend"? Guess Bruce must have been channelling Neubauer. Williams' corporate BMW look is truer than Ferrari's not-what-it-was red? Guess Brabham must be feeling good now that they're at home in the Williams factory.
#5
Ross Stonefeld
-
- 70,106 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 13 February 2002 - 02:47
Ferrari are *terrible* Its like they dont have a graphics deparment
#6
Mohican
-
- 1,986 posts
- Joined: May 01
Member
Posted 13 February 2002 - 08:41
Darren:
I said the COMBINATION of Marlboro and Vodafone. Of course it is alreday quite bad enough with having Marlboro all over the cars.
As long as Marlboro was "just" a Ferrari driver sponsor (in fact, I understand that they paid the major part of the drivers retainers ever since 1983) it was acceptable, but now Ferrari is just another F1 team.
As for McLaren, they are 40 % owned by Daimler Chrysler, and Dennis has a minority share (given TAG's part shareholding) - so in fact, I think it would be quite justified in becoming Mercedes-McLaren rather than the other way round. Just look at "BMW-Williams".
As for Bruce etc. - give us a break ! You know perfectly well that the McLaren family has been nowhere near the McLaren team for many years. Bruce left us in 1970 - over 30 years ago - and Ron Dennis has been in the driving seat (as it were) since 1981. He should be credited for keeping the name; which of course he has done for branding reasons more than anything else.
As for the Williams blue/white look compared to the Parmalat Brabhams: the original Williams colour was dark blue, and FW himself is on record as saying that it is his favourite colour. Just look at the '69 Brabham BT26, '71 March, 72 Politoys, 76 Wolf-Williams, etc.
In fact, I understand the Saudia Williams cars were green/white rather than blue/white on the express wish of the sponsors, who were of course mainly Moslem companies.
The Parmalat Brabhams were at first red/blue (red in recognition of the engine supplier, Alfa Romeo) and then switched to Parmalat's corporate colours from 1980. Note that it was Parmalat's colour preference rather than Ecclestone's; I am sure that Bernie would have been happy either way, as long as the cars looked nice (he was always a stickler for presentation, which is only good commercial sense). Note also that the very first BT49-DFV, introduced for the North American races in late '79 and driven by Lauda(briefly), Piquet and Zunino, was still red with blue Parmalat stripes. It was only for the 1980 season that the colours changed. And later still, in mid-83, they were inverted so that the predominantly blue car with white panels became predominantly white with blue panels (like the current Williams) - better on TV, apparently. Bernie always looked ahead.
I said the COMBINATION of Marlboro and Vodafone. Of course it is alreday quite bad enough with having Marlboro all over the cars.
As long as Marlboro was "just" a Ferrari driver sponsor (in fact, I understand that they paid the major part of the drivers retainers ever since 1983) it was acceptable, but now Ferrari is just another F1 team.
As for McLaren, they are 40 % owned by Daimler Chrysler, and Dennis has a minority share (given TAG's part shareholding) - so in fact, I think it would be quite justified in becoming Mercedes-McLaren rather than the other way round. Just look at "BMW-Williams".
As for Bruce etc. - give us a break ! You know perfectly well that the McLaren family has been nowhere near the McLaren team for many years. Bruce left us in 1970 - over 30 years ago - and Ron Dennis has been in the driving seat (as it were) since 1981. He should be credited for keeping the name; which of course he has done for branding reasons more than anything else.
As for the Williams blue/white look compared to the Parmalat Brabhams: the original Williams colour was dark blue, and FW himself is on record as saying that it is his favourite colour. Just look at the '69 Brabham BT26, '71 March, 72 Politoys, 76 Wolf-Williams, etc.
In fact, I understand the Saudia Williams cars were green/white rather than blue/white on the express wish of the sponsors, who were of course mainly Moslem companies.
The Parmalat Brabhams were at first red/blue (red in recognition of the engine supplier, Alfa Romeo) and then switched to Parmalat's corporate colours from 1980. Note that it was Parmalat's colour preference rather than Ecclestone's; I am sure that Bernie would have been happy either way, as long as the cars looked nice (he was always a stickler for presentation, which is only good commercial sense). Note also that the very first BT49-DFV, introduced for the North American races in late '79 and driven by Lauda(briefly), Piquet and Zunino, was still red with blue Parmalat stripes. It was only for the 1980 season that the colours changed. And later still, in mid-83, they were inverted so that the predominantly blue car with white panels became predominantly white with blue panels (like the current Williams) - better on TV, apparently. Bernie always looked ahead.
#7
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 13 February 2002 - 21:45
I grew up in the seventies, so sponsor's logos and "non-national" colours have always been natural to me. I despise chauvinism anyway. And, btw, Ferrari has always been "just another F1 team".
#8
Bernd
-
- 3,313 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 13 February 2002 - 23:49
Not to mention a rather shabby one more often than not Michael.
#9
Kaha
-
- 74 posts
- Joined: November 01
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 00:00
Originally posted by Mohican
Always thought Ferrari admirable for keeping non-trade sponsors off its GP cars, and this is indeed a sad time when the combination of the Marlboro and Vodafone logos completely drown out the traditional purity of Ferrari red.
In fact, I believe McLaren's general presentation is now closer to its own particular legend ("Silver Arrows", etc) legend than Ferrari is. The Williams also has a more corporate blue-and-white BMW look; whereas Ferrari is not even Italian racing red any more.
A sad development.
Rosso Corsa is NOT a colour.
You can go to a paint shop and order "Rosso Corsa"!
The exact colour depends on both the manufacturer and the time.
Every italian manifacturer has used different versions at different times.
Just like BRG it has changed a lot (even excluding Jaguar F1).
Don't even get a Bugatti fan started about what is the exact colour of Bugatti (french) blue,
you will get a lecture of more than a hour about what makes their interpritation of Bugatti blue the correct one!
#10
Rainer Nyberg
-
- 1,768 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 00:16
Well, colour shades are difficult, even if I would order original touch-up paint for my car from the OEM, it still would not match...possibly if I have a black or white car...but then again those are not any colours at all...
We have all seen that what appears to be one colour IRL is not the same on TV.
Not even the famous black-and-gold JPS Lotuses were not black and gold.
And Jordan had to change their gold B&H livery for mustard yellow for the same reason...
We have all seen that what appears to be one colour IRL is not the same on TV.
Not even the famous black-and-gold JPS Lotuses were not black and gold.
And Jordan had to change their gold B&H livery for mustard yellow for the same reason...
#11
Groom
-
- 89 posts
- Joined: February 01
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 00:55
To add a different angle to all this color talk... I realized some time ago that color perceptions vary from country to country.
For example public buses in my hometown (Thessaloniki, Greece) are considered red. However this one time I was talking to a British guy and he told me that he saw them as orange.
p.s. The buses that I am talking about were the old ones that were replaced by some others that are clearly orange even for Greek standards.
For example public buses in my hometown (Thessaloniki, Greece) are considered red. However this one time I was talking to a British guy and he told me that he saw them as orange.
p.s. The buses that I am talking about were the old ones that were replaced by some others that are clearly orange even for Greek standards.
#12
goGoGene
-
- 2,937 posts
- Joined: March 00
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 02:00
Come on, the Ferrari F1 car is daygo red, not even close to any of the standard variation of corsa rosa, which doesn't stand out nearly as much as daygo red. I don't think anyone would say that F1 Ferrari's are in corsa rosa these days.
McLaren is very close to it's original B. McLaren color scheme, which was black with silver highlights. Later he converted to orange for increased noticibility, but black and silver go farther back for McLaren the racer.
Silver arrows should refer to Merc, not McL, which wasn't paint, it was the lack of paint on the Mercedes and Audi's aluminum bodywork. I always thought that Merc and Audi should not paint their cars, instead of painting them silver. And I was pleasantly surprised to see that the black parts of the McLaren F1 car actually isn't, for the most part, painted black, it's actually raw carbon fiber with a high gloss on it.
To see corsa rosa look at the 333SP that raced at Daytona, or the 550's at this years Le Mans.
ggg
McLaren is very close to it's original B. McLaren color scheme, which was black with silver highlights. Later he converted to orange for increased noticibility, but black and silver go farther back for McLaren the racer.
Silver arrows should refer to Merc, not McL, which wasn't paint, it was the lack of paint on the Mercedes and Audi's aluminum bodywork. I always thought that Merc and Audi should not paint their cars, instead of painting them silver. And I was pleasantly surprised to see that the black parts of the McLaren F1 car actually isn't, for the most part, painted black, it's actually raw carbon fiber with a high gloss on it.
To see corsa rosa look at the 333SP that raced at Daytona, or the 550's at this years Le Mans.
ggg
#13
Bex37
-
- 2,487 posts
- Joined: November 98
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 02:00
The Ferrari paint job is more than just hard on the eye. I'm sure that car would look gorgeous with a classy paint job. Such a shame that all the "five times world champion" history books will show this car and not something prettier. 
#14
Bernd
-
- 3,313 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 04:32
Actaully ggg the original Mclaren F1 car the McLaren M5A-BRM was painted a light red and had a light blue stripe down the middle.
Sir Jack Brabham owns this car and doesn't think much of it. Here's a quote from him after a drive a few years ago
Well it wasn't any good back then and it certainly is no better now!
Sir Jack Brabham owns this car and doesn't think much of it. Here's a quote from him after a drive a few years ago
Well it wasn't any good back then and it certainly is no better now!
#15
cabianca
-
- 712 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 05:14
I must take exception to Bernd's characterization of Ferrari as just another team, and a shabby one at that. We all know that they didn't win a Driver's championship between Schecter and Michael, but a quick review of the record will reveal that Ferrari has finished out of 3rd in both championships as follows:
1950s - only once, 1950
1960s - 5 times
1970s - twice
1980s - 4 times
1990s - twice
21st century - never
So, over fifty-two years of racing, they've only been totally off the pace in 14 seasons, or 26% of the time. I don't think being one of the top three teams 74% of the time qualifies as being "shabby more often than not". Perhaps Bernd can suggest a team with a better record.
1950s - only once, 1950
1960s - 5 times
1970s - twice
1980s - 4 times
1990s - twice
21st century - never
So, over fifty-two years of racing, they've only been totally off the pace in 14 seasons, or 26% of the time. I don't think being one of the top three teams 74% of the time qualifies as being "shabby more often than not". Perhaps Bernd can suggest a team with a better record.
#16
Bernd
-
- 3,313 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 07:56
They have always been rather prone to totally come of the rails that is all I meant.
#17
Mohican
-
- 1,986 posts
- Joined: May 01
Member
Posted 14 February 2002 - 08:44
Contrary to how some of you may have interpreted my initial remarks, I do appreciate that modern F1 requires commercial sponsorship - and that Ferrari is no different from other teams in this respect; their annual driver bill alone would keep Minardi going for several years.
However, I think that this is a particular sad development when it comes to ferrari given their history and traditions.
Which leads me on to a slightly different subject. I agree with Cabianca that Ferrari is no "shabbier" than anybody else, but the Anglo-Saxon teams love to portray them in this light. Given the record of some of the British teams (the Tyrrell water tanks and Brabham suspension come to mind, to take just two examples), I see no resaon to castigate Ferrari particularly.
Also, what other team has been in F1 for as long, in essentially the same guise ? Do not forget that Ferrari was in Grand Prix racing long before the World championship was created in 1950.
Looking back, we have Williams - in F1 since 1969, and a real force since 1978. Long may Sir Frank and Patrick continue. We have McLaren - but the current incarnation of the team started in 1980, when Project Four (Ron Dennis) took over.
Who else ? Lotus, Brabham, Tyrrell, Ligier/Prost, Toleman/Benetton and other long-running big names of yesteryear are all gone. Arrows has survived, but has nothing in common with the original team. In fact Jordan and Sauber are part of the establishment, and - which is not a coincidence, I think - are still run by their founders.
To my mind, Ferrari's real problem is that the manufacturer support that everybody appear to have taken for granted so long, i.e. Fiat (whose stickers first appeared on the cars in 1977, but whose financial support goes back to the 60's when it first took a financial stake in the company - or, depending on your point of view, back to the 50's when the Agnelli family enginereered Ferrari's takeover of the assets of the Lancia GP team in 1955), may be ebbing.
Ferrari/Maserati is not a part of Fiat Auto, it is held outside that channel - which both safeguards it against GM's coming takeover of Fiat Auto (surely just a matter of time) and limits the financial resources available to it. Hence the growing dependence on commercial sponsors.
As I have said before, this is something that has been apparent for the past 20 years with Marlboro. it has however suddenly become much more brazen (FedEx, TicTac, etc - and now Vodafone). Which I find both worrying and sad.
However, I think that this is a particular sad development when it comes to ferrari given their history and traditions.
Which leads me on to a slightly different subject. I agree with Cabianca that Ferrari is no "shabbier" than anybody else, but the Anglo-Saxon teams love to portray them in this light. Given the record of some of the British teams (the Tyrrell water tanks and Brabham suspension come to mind, to take just two examples), I see no resaon to castigate Ferrari particularly.
Also, what other team has been in F1 for as long, in essentially the same guise ? Do not forget that Ferrari was in Grand Prix racing long before the World championship was created in 1950.
Looking back, we have Williams - in F1 since 1969, and a real force since 1978. Long may Sir Frank and Patrick continue. We have McLaren - but the current incarnation of the team started in 1980, when Project Four (Ron Dennis) took over.
Who else ? Lotus, Brabham, Tyrrell, Ligier/Prost, Toleman/Benetton and other long-running big names of yesteryear are all gone. Arrows has survived, but has nothing in common with the original team. In fact Jordan and Sauber are part of the establishment, and - which is not a coincidence, I think - are still run by their founders.
To my mind, Ferrari's real problem is that the manufacturer support that everybody appear to have taken for granted so long, i.e. Fiat (whose stickers first appeared on the cars in 1977, but whose financial support goes back to the 60's when it first took a financial stake in the company - or, depending on your point of view, back to the 50's when the Agnelli family enginereered Ferrari's takeover of the assets of the Lancia GP team in 1955), may be ebbing.
Ferrari/Maserati is not a part of Fiat Auto, it is held outside that channel - which both safeguards it against GM's coming takeover of Fiat Auto (surely just a matter of time) and limits the financial resources available to it. Hence the growing dependence on commercial sponsors.
As I have said before, this is something that has been apparent for the past 20 years with Marlboro. it has however suddenly become much more brazen (FedEx, TicTac, etc - and now Vodafone). Which I find both worrying and sad.
