I believe adults should be able to choose if they want to kill themselves with tobacco...or alcohol...or cheeseburgers. Alcohol is the next target of the people that want to tell other people how to live. There has already been pressure on the FIA to ban alcohol advertising as well. Maybe one day we can all live really boring lives to 150. I'll pass.
So surely you must advocate a minimum amount of exercise and specific diet? Must be enforced as well somehow or have penalties? The things people eat and how much they exercise has a massive effect on their health and the impact on your taxes. This is the slippery slope and why you can't tell people how to live.
Marketing directly to children should be banned. Problem is that kids are going to try things. Nothing you can do will stop that. There will always be something else. The reason they try "bad" or "cool" things is because they are forbidden, or not the norm. You can't control free will by trying to eliminate every bad option. That's no longer free will. That's a linear path to a life of robothood.
I agree. the fact that Tobacco sponsorship is banned is Crazy. its more about politics and money vs. actual health and wellness. Today- you can log on and see anything you like about Smoking - legal or not... so How will racing cars being sponsored by Marlboro drive people to smoke? if you want to kill your self by smoking - fine by me. if you get cancer and have to be treated by public healthcare - then when you check that box that says you smoked and for 20 -30 years, then you coverage should be reduced by that much. much simpler. and yes, I liked it better when teams had tobacco money - it was a better sport back then..... perhaps they could be sponsored by e cigarette companies? when Pot becomes legal ... what will that advert look like?
It's to create an image. Why do you thing tobacco companies need to associate their products with glamorous activities like sport, motor racing, the outback, cowboys, pretty women, etc... Because it show an enviable environment in your sub-conscience and depicts smoking as something cool, something that should be part of your way of life, something that made you part of society, etc... I think a few people on this forum should have attended some advertising classes and learn how publicity is a tool to convince people to try something, to buy a product or to make a certain choice. Advertising is very clever; in fact, it convinces everyday people to buy things they don't need, they can't really afford and that are harmless to them! And another question, Spirot, if putting its name on cars had no benefit for Marlboro, why do you think every year they spend £100M+ for the privilege and have been doing it for many years? Why did Philip Morris start to put its brand on BRM, then McLaren and Ferrari later?
The primary goal of entrenched product advertising is not to create new users, but to get users of competitor products to shift brands. Believe me, there's no one in a boardroom that believes painting your car like a brand of cigarettes is going to spurn new smokers.
That excuse is so, but so worn out ... It didn't even convince the legislators. Every year, there are hundreds of thousands of new smokers (if not millions), mostly teen-agers; surely something must have attracted them to tobacco.
Not in the US: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/ There's no question that targeting kids, as cig companies did in the US in advertising was wrong. But that's a lot different (creating a character and story - eg Joe Camel) than simply putting a logo on a car.
Because they can not show reality: a bunch of addicted standing in the freezing cold outside the pub in the designated smoking area trying to get their dose as fast as possible to get back inside into the warm to their friends
Well, I'm sure its the same reason that Shell, Agip, Digital, Boss, Dieago, Johnny Walker, Chandon, Martini, Kasperskey labs, Heuer, Rolex, and others do it.... I wear Boss because they sponsor racing - not because I need clothes. these are high end brands ... Marlboro is trying to equate themselves to a high end lifestyle... I don't think anyone who never smoked before - saw an F-1 race and said - I need to light up... in the 90's I spent a bit of time with Ligier team, as they were sponsored by Gitanes... you could get free cigarettes all you liked ... but just because they were there did not mean people who never smoked went after them... Smoking is a personal choice - becoming an addiction. you don't need F-1 to turn you into a smoker. So when Surtees was sponsored by Durex - condoms... did that make people start having protected sex?
Are you going to ban a clothing company because their clothes are made in China by underpaid child workers? We can go on an on about this topic. I'm less concerned by someone making an informed decision about smoking while watching an F1 race than I am about terrorist killing people by the thousands these days or countries like Russia invading other countries yet still host F1 races. Taking all of this to a logical conclusion... we'd end up just sitting inside in a dimly lit room hiding from all the bad things in the world. Jesus... F1 has enough problems. Restricting what logo they paint on the car should be the least of all topics.
You can deny the power of advertising if that's what you want, but it exists for a reason. Some of it is unethical; that's what I am saying. The ban on tobacco advertising was introduced for very valid reasons. F1 had to look somewhere for another source of funding. I doubt if we will ever turn the clock back.
You may also consider these issues if you want, but be careful about accusing Russia of aggression. "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stone!" If we boycott Every country that "invade" another one, it will be impossible to organise a world championship!
New F1 owners: No Friday practice & Two races per weekend https://thejudge13.com/2016/12/22/new-f1-owners-no-friday-practice-two-races-per-weekend/ Further Liberty proposals: Less races in Europe 25 by 2020 https://thejudge13.com/2016/12/23/further-liberty-proposals-less-races-in-europe-25-by-2020/
If a team buys its car from a competitor (customer car) then those teams should not be in the running for the Constructors championship (WCC), and thereby not be in line for the $$$ based on where the Constructors place at the end of the year.
No one buys their chassis from a competitor in F1, only engines and some other parts as allowed by the rules.
The Constructors Championship could be changed to a Team Championship. In the past (60s and 70s), customer cars could score points in the WCC. At the time only the first car of any constructors scored points, unlike now when the 2 cars score points. That's why some teams used to enter only one car. It's Bernie who imposed 2-car teams, banned customer cars and changed the scoring method.
