Ponderbox

[mario]

I wonder if Kolles is gonna buy up either Lotus or Caterham? With the rumours of costs for both teams being a bit up the creek, buying up their assets would be one way to get on the grid, especially with Haas ruling out buying either

Didn't he get an entry with something called Forza Rozza?

I've yet to hear from them since Haas got their entry on the grid, so it would be fair to assume Kolles might still buy out a team. Caterham is the most likely since Fernandes said (correct me if I'm wrong) he'd pull out if the team didn't score points in 2014. Given their current pace this year, well....

He is rumoured to be involved with the 'Forza Rossa' project, but that particular project is still being evaluated by the FIA and has not yet been granted an entry.

I agree that it might make more sense in some ways to buy out an existing outfit - whilst Lotus probably has the greater depth of talent and better facilities, there is the downside that it would also come with considerably higher overheads (which is the main reason why the team have struggled with their finances since Renault withdrew their support).

With that in mind, Caterham might be the more practical outfit - they would be a lower cost outfit that nevertheless has a reasonably solid facility to work from, and given Fernandes's pre-season frustrations the team could probably be purchased at a knock down price. I don't think that Fernandes explicitly demanded points, but he did at least state that the team had to beat Marussia in the WCC - something that is vital given that it could cost Caterham $30 million in lost TV revenue rights (which Marussia would gain by virtue of having finished in the top 10 of the WCC twice in the past three years).

[lgaquino]

Interesting article about how F1 would benefit with a return of cigarrette sponsorship:
http://jalopnik.com/we-need-cigarette-c ... socialflow

What your take on this?
I tend to agree with the author's point:
+ Classic Liveries
+ Much needed money injection
+ Teams being able to afford/pay for better drivers
Not to mention that any sane person wouldn't simply start smoking [or drink red bull, or buying blackberries, etc] because the brand appeared on TV.

[girry]

Yeah it was a huge blow for motor racing in general to have cigarette sponsorship banned (and a huge relief for the tobacco companies, basically the revenue stayed intact and they no more had to put hundreds of millions into sponsorship). But if I understand correct it's not exactly in motorsports' hands whether or not to allow tobacco sponsorship.

However, I can see tobacco companies start going around the ban in the near future by marketing their e-cig brands (indycar, for example, has had Mistic and Blu e-cigs sponsor the cars already).

[FullMetalJack]

You'd think cigarette sponsorship wouldn't be as looked down upon as alcohol sponsorship, especially if you consider the consequences of drink driving, as smoke driving isn't a thing.

[mario]

Interesting article about how F1 would benefit with a return of cigarrette sponsorship:
http://jalopnik.com/we-need-cigarette-c ... socialflow

What your take on this?
I tend to agree with the author's point:
+ Classic Liveries
+ Much needed money injection
+ Teams being able to afford/pay for better drivers
Not to mention that any sane person wouldn't simply start smoking [or drink red bull, or buying blackberries, etc] because the brand appeared on TV.

If advertising really had no effect at all, than by that logic there would be no need to advertise a product at all...

To be honest, that Jalopnik article reads more like the inane rantings of a nostalgia blinded fool whining about the 'good old days' rather than a coherent argument.

Firstly, the financial side - whilst budgets were bolstered in the past by tobacco advertising, these days the strong social stigma against smoking does put off other potential advertisers. Williams found that, when they moved away from tobacco advertising in the early 2000's, that they were able to increase their budget because sponsors who would otherwise baulk at being associated with tobacco companies were more willing to invest in the team. If anything, reintroducing tobacco advertising might prove counter productive and drive away sponsors, therefore driving budgets down rather than up.

As for the notion that pay drivers would reduce in numbers because the budgets would magically soar (which I doubt) - frankly, I don't believe that. If anything, back in the 1980's and 1990's, a number of drivers were as good as pay drivers because of their associations with particular tobacco companies who acted as financial intermediaries - all you've really done is switch source of cash for another in that instance.
And where exactly do you define the cut off point for a pay driver? The term is far too easily thrown about these days - there were hundreds of complaints before the season that Kvyat was a pay driver, yet he has proven his worth this season. It's become a cheap term of abuse that can be thrown against a driver that people dislike irrespective of the truth.

As for the return of classic liveries - pardon me saying this, but that seems like an utterly asinine reason for wanting to see tobacco advertising back. It's a bit like the childish ranting over the engine noise from those who seem to want to drag the sport back to about 1990 and obliterate the past generation of evolution of the sport - why can't they accept that time has gone and will not come back? They complain about artificial tricks such as the 'megaphone exhaust', and yet demanding that the sport becomes an anachronistic shadow of itself is somehow a badge of honour...

[dr-baker]

You'd think cigarette sponsorship wouldn't be as looked down upon as alcohol sponsorship, especially if you consider the consequences of drink driving, as smoke driving isn't a thing.

Have you ever seen the film, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"? Where the car explodes in a ball of fire because of a cigarette on the back seat?

[Jocke1]

Have you ever seen the film, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"?

I have. Probably more times than I have fingers. I saw it in '90 for the first time.
Funny thing, Ray Charles 'Mess Around' was on the radio the other day.
John Candy stole most of the scenes in that film, such a great actor. I miss him.

[girry]

Interesting article about how F1 would benefit with a return of cigarrette sponsorship:
http://jalopnik.com/we-need-cigarette-c ... socialflow

What your take on this?
I tend to agree with the author's point:
+ Classic Liveries
+ Much needed money injection
+ Teams being able to afford/pay for better drivers
Not to mention that any sane person wouldn't simply start smoking [or drink red bull, or buying blackberries, etc] because the brand appeared on TV.

If advertising really had no effect at all, than by that logic there would be no need to advertise a product at all...

To be honest, that Jalopnik article reads more like the inane rantings of a nostalgia blinded fool whining about the 'good old days' rather than a coherent argument.

Firstly, the financial side - whilst budgets were bolstered in the past by tobacco advertising, these days the strong social stigma against smoking does put off other potential advertisers. Williams found that, when they moved away from tobacco advertising in the early 2000's, that they were able to increase their budget because sponsors who would otherwise baulk at being associated with tobacco companies were more willing to invest in the team. If anything, reintroducing tobacco advertising might prove counter productive and drive away sponsors, therefore driving budgets down rather than up.

As for the notion that pay drivers would reduce in numbers because the budgets would magically soar (which I doubt) - frankly, I don't believe that. If anything, back in the 1980's and 1990's, a number of drivers were as good as pay drivers because of their associations with particular tobacco companies who acted as financial intermediaries - all you've really done is switch source of cash for another in that instance.
And where exactly do you define the cut off point for a pay driver? The term is far too easily thrown about these days - there were hundreds of complaints before the season that Kvyat was a pay driver, yet he has proven his worth this season. It's become a cheap term of abuse that can be thrown against a driver that people dislike irrespective of the truth.

As for the return of classic liveries - pardon me saying this, but that seems like an utterly asinine reason for wanting to see tobacco advertising back. It's a bit like the childish ranting over the engine noise from those who seem to want to drag the sport back to about 1990 and obliterate the past generation of evolution of the sport - why can't they accept that time has gone and will not come back? They complain about artificial tricks such as the 'megaphone exhaust', and yet demanding that the sport becomes an anachronistic shadow of itself is somehow a badge of honour...

Fair arguments, and the jalopnik article indeed is a bit naive, but still not completely devoid of sense. I'd suggest the nostalgia for tobacco sponsorship derives more back to the early 2000's, when the tobacco companies had sort of switched to straight up sponsoring the teams themselves rather than drivers and and the whole field was more or less healthily sponsored, and less to the Andrea de Cesarises of the 80's and 90's you point out, mario.

[pasta_maldonado]

The tobacco ads do not influence non-smokers to start smoking (unless you are a brain dead fool), but merely persuade already existing smokers to change brands.

Most people, I would presume, start smoking as a teenager for whatever reason, not because 'I saw it on a Ferrari and Ferrari's are fast so I will start smoking'. To assume anyone thinks that way is moronic.

[mario]

The tobacco ads do not influence non-smokers to start smoking (unless you are a brain dead fool), but merely persuade already existing smokers to change brands.

Most people, I would presume, start smoking as a teenager for whatever reason, not because 'I saw it on a Ferrari and Ferrari's are fast so I will start smoking'. To assume anyone thinks that way is moronic.

To a certain extent it might extend to new smokers, in as much as it may subconsciously push them towards a particular brand once they begin smoking - it may not be the initial trigger in and of itself, but it may direct people towards an outfit like Marlboro (who are still de facto sponsors of Ferrari).

Interesting article about how F1 would benefit with a return of cigarrette sponsorship:
http://jalopnik.com/we-need-cigarette-c ... socialflow

What your take on this?
I tend to agree with the author's point:
+ Classic Liveries
+ Much needed money injection
+ Teams being able to afford/pay for better drivers
Not to mention that any sane person wouldn't simply start smoking [or drink red bull, or buying blackberries, etc] because the brand appeared on TV.

If advertising really had no effect at all, than by that logic there would be no need to advertise a product at all...

To be honest, that Jalopnik article reads more like the inane rantings of a nostalgia blinded fool whining about the 'good old days' rather than a coherent argument.

Firstly, the financial side - whilst budgets were bolstered in the past by tobacco advertising, these days the strong social stigma against smoking does put off other potential advertisers. Williams found that, when they moved away from tobacco advertising in the early 2000's, that they were able to increase their budget because sponsors who would otherwise baulk at being associated with tobacco companies were more willing to invest in the team. If anything, reintroducing tobacco advertising might prove counter productive and drive away sponsors, therefore driving budgets down rather than up.

As for the notion that pay drivers would reduce in numbers because the budgets would magically soar (which I doubt) - frankly, I don't believe that. If anything, back in the 1980's and 1990's, a number of drivers were as good as pay drivers because of their associations with particular tobacco companies who acted as financial intermediaries - all you've really done is switch source of cash for another in that instance.
And where exactly do you define the cut off point for a pay driver? The term is far too easily thrown about these days - there were hundreds of complaints before the season that Kvyat was a pay driver, yet he has proven his worth this season. It's become a cheap term of abuse that can be thrown against a driver that people dislike irrespective of the truth.

As for the return of classic liveries - pardon me saying this, but that seems like an utterly asinine reason for wanting to see tobacco advertising back. It's a bit like the childish ranting over the engine noise from those who seem to want to drag the sport back to about 1990 and obliterate the past generation of evolution of the sport - why can't they accept that time has gone and will not come back? They complain about artificial tricks such as the 'megaphone exhaust', and yet demanding that the sport becomes an anachronistic shadow of itself is somehow a badge of honour...

Fair arguments, and the jalopnik article indeed is a bit naive, but still not completely devoid of sense. I'd suggest the nostalgia for tobacco sponsorship derives more back to the early 2000's, when the tobacco companies had sort of switched to straight up sponsoring the teams themselves rather than drivers and and the whole field was more or less healthily sponsored, and less to the Andrea de Cesarises of the 80's and 90's you point out, mario.

The way the article was written, it seemed to be implying that no drivers had come into F1 through personal tobacco sponsorship - that was one reason for some of my more barbed comments about Jalopnik's naivety (hell, BAR was basically a personal vehicle for Jacques Villeneuve to stay in the sport).

As for the 2000's, is it necessarily the case that the 'healthy sponsorship' of the early 2000's was solely as a result of tobacco companies? The period from about 2000-2004 saw the highest level of manufacturer participation in the sport in its history, with BMW, Ford, Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari, Honda and Toyota all participating at the same time. Those manufacturers pumped in a sizeable amount of money through engine development deals, which would have boosted the coffers of a number of teams.

Furthermore, those manufacturers would, in turn, tend to promote their own favoured drivers who, having tended to have been backed through their junior careers by manufacturers, would therefore tend to be the more professional drivers in motorsport - to a certain extent, therefore, that would be another major influence on driver selection policies of the era.

[sswishbone]

With most convenience stores being forced to hide the cigs they have on sale behind screens I really cannot see how advertising will be allowed back in motorsport or any sport for that matter.

[mario]

With most convenience stores being forced to hide the cigs they have on sale behind screens I really cannot see how advertising will be allowed back in motorsport or any sport for that matter.

Certainly not under the current regulations governing tobacco advertising - it's only because Bernie was involved in some rather questionable "negotiations" with the Labour party that F1 seems to have been allowed to retain tobacco advertising for as long as it did.

As you say, realistically it would be impossible to reintroduce tobacco advertising due to the attitude of the regulators in a number of countries. Hell, we saw a few years ago that the Lotus team very nearly were refused entry into Canada because, unbeknown to them, JPS were piggybacking off Lotus's revival of the old JPS livery to promote that particular cigarette brand in parts of Europe (that was merely an instance where there was coincidental advertising that made the Canadians suspicious, let alone if it was officially reintroduced).
It would make it virtually impossible to show the sport in Europe - which would destroy F1's largest market by far - and probably also wreck any chance of promoting the sport in the US as well, a market which FOM are so carefully trying to cultivate. About the only place where they might get away with that would be in certain parts of Asia - but given that is a market where F1 is struggling a lot, realistically such a move is completely unworkable.

Moreover, it would require a fairly sizeable shift in cultural attitudes towards the tobacco industry given the increased awareness of the impacts of tobacco products on human health - in certain nations, such as Australia, it is posited that smoking may well effectively die out in the longer term simply because of the awareness of the long term health risks.

[Rocks with Salt]

If we're going to going to go that route, what is the FIA and the EU's approach to e-cigarettes? Here in America, e-cigs have taken the place of regular cigarettes among people my age; walking down University Ave. I see way more people "vaping" than outright smoking. American lawmakers are also slow to pass legislation defining what the relation to e-cigarettes are to regular cigarettes and if they should be treated as the latter. This means there are now commercials of them on TV, radio, billboards, etc., and giraurd already pointed out how they have started to appear in IndyCar, with Mistic E-Cigarettes sponsoring Sebastian Bourdais' car. Established tobacco companies like Lorillard, British-American Tobacco, Altrias (Marlboro, Benson & Hedges, Skoal, etc.), and Reynolds have all jumped on the e-cig bandwagon and I imagine they're going to try to reestablish themselves in lost markets like auto racing. This is why I wonder what the laws are for e-cigarettes in the EU, because if they're as vague as they are here, we might see some new liveries soon...

Imagine Ferrari plastered with "MarkTen" across the back, or the new Puritane McLaren-Honda team, or the Vype Williams, or the new Blu-Haas venture. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but the potential is there. It makes me wonder what the liveries would even look like...

[Nuppiz]

A couple of days ago I saw an e-cig advert in a magazine. That was the first time I saw a cigarette advert after they disappeared from Baltic cruise ships in the late 1990s (they had vanished from mainland Finland a long time before). Considering how much our government wants to restrict smoking (they could as well outright ban it at this rate), that's quite surprising. So at least for the time being it could be possible for e-cigarette brands to sponsor F1 teams.

On the other hand, traditional smoking doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I work in retail and probably 75% of the customers every day buy tobacco products of some kind...

[Aerospeed]

There's an ad in Motor Trend that's advertising some sort of chewing tobacco where half the ad is the warning telling you that the product's dangerous

[MorbidelliObese]

The tobacco ads do not influence non-smokers to start smoking (unless you are a brain dead fool), but merely persuade already existing smokers to change brands.

Most people, I would presume, start smoking as a teenager for whatever reason, not because 'I saw it on a Ferrari and Ferrari's are fast so I will start smoking'. To assume anyone thinks that way is moronic.

That's true in my case anyway. Don't think I'd even had my first cigarette until it was in the final stages of banned from F1 (only a few subliminal Marlboro logos on Ferraris remained) - admittedly if I was a few years older that might be different. But I do find myself buying brands that I remember from seeing on F1 cars as a kid without thinking about it, but seeing them on the cars didn't make me start back then as a teenager.

Don't think e-cigs will ever fully replace the massive tobacco sponsorship of old though, from what I remember growing up, tobacco advertising was already banned on TV, newspapers, billboards etc. so sports sponsorship was one of the few remaining avenues for them to pour their not inconsiderable marketing budgets into, while perceived "athletic" sports (emphasis on the "perceived" there) such as football etc. weren't really a good fit so it all went on stuff like motor racing, snooker etc. For now e-cig advertising seems pretty much legal everywhere (I've seen TV ads), and if it's banned in the future I guess sports sponsorship will be included in that.

[Aerospeed]

I read on Eurosport that someone from Lotus is worried that Romain Grosjean could be moving elsewhere in 2015 - but I'm not too sure where Grosjean could go that would be better and have an improvement on his career. It's obvious that Grosjean is a good driver, but his options other than Lotus are limited. Red Bull and Mercedes obviously have their lineups confirmed for the long term, Ferrari probably does if Alonso and Raikkonen are content, and I'm certain Hulkenberg would get the job before Grosjean, McLaren are happy with their drivers, and as mentioned, if Hulkenberg goes to Ferrari there's an option there, but who goes to Force India for a better drive? It looks like Lotus may be the best option for Grosjean, as long as Lotus can haul their effort in the long-term, and as long as they keep their progress going into getting their car back on the podium.

[watka]

I read on Eurosport that someone from Lotus is worried that Romain Grosjean could be moving elsewhere in 2015 - but I'm not too sure where Grosjean could go that would be better and have an improvement on his career. It's obvious that Grosjean is a good driver, but his options other than Lotus are limited. Red Bull and Mercedes obviously have their lineups confirmed for the long term, Ferrari probably does if Alonso and Raikkonen are content, and I'm certain Hulkenberg would get the job before Grosjean, McLaren are happy with their drivers, and as mentioned, if Hulkenberg goes to Ferrari there's an option there, but who goes to Force India for a better drive? It looks like Lotus may be the best option for Grosjean, as long as Lotus can haul their effort in the long-term, and as long as they keep their progress going into getting their car back on the podium.

Grosjean has one advantage which the money from Total. Total are big company who aren't going to go down the drain any time soon, they could pretty much knock on the door of any team and offer a wad of cash for some decent sized stickers and Grosjean in the car. Can I see any openings? I suspect one of the Ferrari seats in up for grabs in 2015 and maybe Button's McLaren seat. Shame then that Ferrari is very closely tied to Shell and likewise McLaren is very closely tied to Mobil-1 (whether that is due to Mercedes though I'm not sure).

Out of interest, did Jan Magnussen even carry any cigarette sponsors with him? And if we're talking about drivers supported by cigarette sponsors, they don't come much bigger than Arturo Merzario.

[good_Ralf]

I think Grosjean will be a candidate for a 2015 McLaren seat mainly because Eric Boullier is there and he might be able to pull some strings if you know what I mean or Button decides to retire after this year. Moving to the team, judging by their current form, is a risk in case the new car is another dog, plus he'll arrive as everything is being changed as Honda take over. Or indeed he might go to Ferrari, but I'm not too sure about that,
Also Kobayashi might be a candidate because of his Japanese heritage and is also pretty fast himself, although he was of course a Toyota protegee at the start of his career. Speaking of Honda protegees, Bruno Senna to McLaren-Honda in some kind of test role next year?!

[lgaquino]

That would be become unbearable way before melbourne, surely!

[mario]

I think Grosjean will be a candidate for a 2015 McLaren seat mainly because Eric Boullier is there and he might be able to pull some strings if you know what I mean or Button decides to retire after this year. Moving to the team, judging by their current form, is a risk in case the new car is another dog, plus he'll arrive as everything is being changed as Honda take over. Or indeed he might go to Ferrari, but I'm not too sure about that,
Also Kobayashi might be a candidate because of his Japanese heritage and is also pretty fast himself, although he was of course a Toyota protegee at the start of his career. Speaking of Honda protegees, Bruno Senna to McLaren-Honda in some kind of test role next year?!

Whilst Boullier might have a preference for Grosjean, on the other hand Honda seems to have indicated that they are interested in different drivers - Button appears to be reasonably popular with them, partially because of their long former working relationship and Button's popularity in Japan, and there was a rumour kicking around a while ago that they were pushing McLaren to try and sign Alonso (though that rumour has gone quiet for now).

I'd agree with the sentiment that Grosjean's options to move elsewhere are probably limited though - it is unlikely that Mercedes will change their line up for 2015 (why would they want to?), and the BBC is reporting that Rosberg is due to extend his stay at Mercedes for another two years. Similarly, Red Bull is likely to keep the same drivers for 2015 too. If Alonso leaves Ferrari, then Hulkenberg would probably be the favoured replacement - I could only see him having a slim chance there if both Kimi and Alonso were leaving the team, but in that instance I expect Ferrari might promote Bianchi. McLaren, right now, would probably be looking at either maintaining their current line up or, if they could, lure a driver like Alonso back to the team - apart from that, I can't really see Grosjean being able to move that far up the grid given that most teams seem satisfied with their line ups.

[CoopsII]

I think this could be Alonso's last season with Ferrari as there's more noise from them stating how much support he has within the team. Thats always a bad sign and its not the first the year.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

I think this could be Alonso's last season with Ferrari as there's more noise from them stating how much support he has within the team. Thats always a bad sign and its not the first the year.

I personally disagree, mainly because I can't see anywhere else realistic for him to go. I expect him to stay

[CoopsII]

I think this could be Alonso's last season with Ferrari as there's more noise from them stating how much support he has within the team. Thats always a bad sign and its not the first the year.

I personally disagree, mainly because I can't see anywhere else realistic for him to go. I expect him to stay

There is that, I agree. However, despite some of us expecting fireworks from him being paired with Raikkonen it appears something isnt right with the relationship between the team and Alonso, and it hasnt been for some time. Im sure Alonso would put up with any amount of crap as long as he's winning but now, lets face it, Ferrari aint gonna win any titles this year.

[Cynon]

I think this could be Alonso's last season with Ferrari as there's more noise from them stating how much support he has within the team. Thats always a bad sign and its not the first the year.

I personally disagree, mainly because I can't see anywhere else realistic for him to go. I expect him to stay

There is that, I agree. However, despite some of us expecting fireworks from him being paired with Raikkonen it appears something isnt right with the relationship between the team and Alonso, and it hasnt been for some time. Im sure Alonso would put up with any amount of crap as long as he's winning but now, lets face it, Ferrari aint gonna win any titles this year.

Reject of the Year is still possible!

[FullMetalJack]

Reject of the Year is still possible!

Don't count on it. Not with the seasons McLaren and Sauber are having at the moment.

[good_Ralf]

Reject of the Year is still possible!

Don't count on it. Not with the seasons McLaren and Sauber are having at the moment.

And Maldonado, Spain was the 3rd straight weekend in which he was caught up in some kind of incident.

[madmark1974]

Reject of the Year is still possible!

Don't count on it. Not with the seasons McLaren and Sauber are having at the moment.

And Maldonado, Spain was the 3rd straight weekend in which he was caught up in some kind of incident.

He's the Anti-Chilton!

[pablo_h]

Interesting article about how F1 would benefit with a return of cigarrette sponsorship:
http://jalopnik.com/we-need-cigarette-c ... socialflow

What your take on this?
I tend to agree with the author's point:
+ Classic Liveries
+ Much needed money injection
+ Teams being able to afford/pay for better drivers
Not to mention that any sane person wouldn't simply start smoking [or drink red bull, or buying blackberries, etc] because the brand appeared on TV.

If advertising really had no effect at all, than by that logic there would be no need to advertise a product at all...

To be honest, that Jalopnik article reads more like the inane rantings of a nostalgia blinded fool whining about the 'good old days' rather than a coherent argument.

Firstly, the financial side - whilst budgets were bolstered in the past by tobacco advertising, these days the strong social stigma against smoking does put off other potential advertisers. Williams found that, when they moved away from tobacco advertising in the early 2000's, that they were able to increase their budget because sponsors who would otherwise baulk at being associated with tobacco companies were more willing to invest in the team. If anything, reintroducing tobacco advertising might prove counter productive and drive away sponsors, therefore driving budgets down rather than up.

As for the notion that pay drivers would reduce in numbers because the budgets would magically soar (which I doubt) - frankly, I don't believe that. If anything, back in the 1980's and 1990's, a number of drivers were as good as pay drivers because of their associations with particular tobacco companies who acted as financial intermediaries - all you've really done is switch source of cash for another in that instance.
And where exactly do you define the cut off point for a pay driver? The term is far too easily thrown about these days - there were hundreds of complaints before the season that Kvyat was a pay driver, yet he has proven his worth this season. It's become a cheap term of abuse that can be thrown against a driver that people dislike irrespective of the truth.

As for the return of classic liveries - pardon me saying this, but that seems like an utterly asinine reason for wanting to see tobacco advertising back. It's a bit like the childish ranting over the engine noise from those who seem to want to drag the sport back to about 1990 and obliterate the past generation of evolution of the sport - why can't they accept that time has gone and will not come back? They complain about artificial tricks such as the 'megaphone exhaust', and yet demanding that the sport becomes an anachronistic shadow of itself is somehow a badge of honour...

A good post as always Mario.

For later replies talking about e-cigs taking over as the lesser of two evils, forget it.
I'm a long time smoker and recent e-cig user, so I follow what is going on in that world.
I'm in Australia, where it's illegal to locally sell nicotine juice (unlike the USA, or europe), things are different here because people have to DIY more and order any nicotine for personal use from overseas. Hardly any brick and mortar shops at all, and no advertising and only ex-smokers looking to switch bother to do the research and order from overseas make the switch. Down here e-cigs or"vaping" is very much a cottage industry, and the businesses we order from overseas are very small time people too (in europe or USA) that couldn't afford sponsorship of anything. We don't use the products that tobacco companies own overseas - the ones who you see advertising over there.

In the USA, the FDA has made moves to shut down vaping/e-cigs, trying to regulate the industry with costs upwards of $10k for testing for each flavour or product they sell etc. In Europe the EU is trying to shut down e-cigs. In Australia they are trying to ban them because they still look like smoking and might "renormalize" peoples opinions on regular smoking again. Lot's of officials who have gainful employment to cut smoking for health reasons are bashing e-cigs without a shred of evidence to protect their own income or because they have fanatical beliefs against smokers. I don't use the term fanatical loosely , they are zealots that have moved the goal posts from "smoking is harmful" to "Even if you are getting nicotine from a way that does not have the health harm of smoking it, you should just quit it", when nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine in the opinion of others that don't have an axe to grind.
IMO it's all a load of crap, ie pharmaceutical companies can sell nicotine inhalers in Australia, and the only winners in Europe and the USA with advertising and the new laws will be the traditional tobacco companies anyway.
Small business owners in USA or Europe making hardware or juice will be forced to close.
China (to their credit did invent the ecig), will continue on selling overseas, and tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies will make heaps of dollars, but innovation is going to be killed anyway soon.

Here's what I was puffing away on while writing this

Sales of any e-cig device were banned in Western Australia last month - for normalizing smoking no matter what it looked like LOL. It's shiney stainless steel, 22mm dia and 150mm long for goodness sake!

e:

A couple of days ago I saw an e-cig advert in a magazine. That was the first time I saw a cigarette advert after they disappeared from Baltic cruise ships in the late 1990s (they had vanished from mainland Finland a long time before). Considering how much our government wants to restrict smoking (they could as well outright ban it at this rate), that's quite surprising. So at least for the time being it could be possible for e-cigarette brands to sponsor F1 teams.

On the other hand, traditional smoking doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I work in retail and probably 75% of the customers every day buy tobacco products of some kind...

Many people buy snus?
Lots of people in Australia tried to quit smoking also buy Swedish snus. (That's also banned in Australia for sale just like nicotine juice here, but people take the risk to personally import it too). It's about $1 a cigarette here to buy in packs from the shops, a lot of people can't afford that, especially since a lot of smokers are low income earners, mainly older pensioners who are heavily addicted, or people that suffer mental issues like depression or anxiety and many other things that of course mean they aren't exactly the highest income earners and might even be unemployed. Hence they look into importing nicotine for e-cigs or buy snus even if they are banned. Importing cigs or tobacco has huge penalties like hefty fines or jail, so not an option. While with nicotine or snus the worse they do is just confiscate it with no other penalties.

[dr-baker]

Many people buy snus?
Lots of people in Australia tried to quit smoking also buy Swedish snus. (That's also banned in Australia for sale just like nicotine juice here, but people take the risk to personally import it too). It's about $1 a cigarette here to buy in packs from the shops, a lot of people can't afford that, especially since a lot of smokers are low income earners, mainly older pensioners who are heavily addicted, or people that suffer mental issues like depression or anxiety and many other things that of course mean they aren't exactly the highest income earners and might even be unemployed. Hence they look into importing nicotine for e-cigs or buy snus even if they are banned. Importing cigs or tobacco has huge penalties like hefty fines or jail, so not an option. While with nicotine or snus the worse they do is just confiscate it with no other penalties.

I don't know what snu is (and before anybody starts, I am aware that I could Google it ), but it did make me think of this from Futurama - "Death by snu snu!"

[pablo_h]

Much like the other day (when you could have googled it to prevent huge derail), I wish you would have googled snus and not try to start another derail.
But really, this is an off topic thread so not going to say much more than I hope any smokers that lurk these threads do look into proper e-cigs, (the type that don't look like a cig), or snus to get them off smoking because bans (e: on alternatives, not the cash crop of regular tobacco!) are coming, start now and organize your supply and get educated while it's legal/semi legal. Later on it may be too hard...

[Jocke1]

I don't know what snu is

s..it's 'snus'.
Snus, unlike cigarettes, smell pretty nice actually. My granddad used snus and I guess the smell reminds me of him.
I think he smoked from a pipe, too.

Anyway, I have a co-worker who smokes about 15 cigarettes / working-day and another who takes snus frequently.
There is a slang word for snus in Sweden - 'prilla'.

[Rocks with Salt]

I hate to change the subject here, but as I look back into races from the late-80's/early-90's era, I have to ask what was with all the Italian drivers?! In 1989 alone there were fourteen total Italian drivers, and yet today we haven't had an Italian driver since Liuzzi and Trulli back in 2011! Were there a lot of Italian sponsors back then to promote the home-grown talent, or was there simply an Italian racing renaissance of sorts back when these drivers were karting in the 1970's? Was Ferrari a huge motivator? Above all, I can't really get a bead on any particular pattern for driving records: Some like Patrese, Alboreto and Nannini were consistently quick, then you had drivers that had one or two days in the spotlight a la Larini, Modena, and Morbidelli, and the rest were either mediocre or outright rejectful (Ghinzani, Montermini, etc.)!

I can't think of a time where one country had such massive participation in F1, but I'm sure the British or the French must have comprised a good portion of the field during one season or another. What's even more interesting is how all those Italian drivers started thinning out and by the late 90's you only saw about 2-3 Italian drivers in a season, usually just Fisichella and Trulli. Surely there must be some reason for the emergence and then disappearance of Italian drivers in F1, and I figured you guys might have an explanation as to why.

[Shizuka]

Italy was big in the eighties. And not just because of Ferrari, mind you: remember how Alfa Romeo returned first as an engine supplier to Bernie's mob, and then as a works team (while supporting Osella, another Italian team). And then there's Minardi and Dallara as well, both under the same flag. So if you look at 1988, you had no less than five Italian teams, because Coloni also appeared by then.

And Italian teams obviously had some nice local sponsorship as well, so you are right on that front.

[mario]

I hate to change the subject here, but as I look back into races from the late-80's/early-90's era, I have to ask what was with all the Italian drivers?! In 1989 alone there were fourteen total Italian drivers, and yet today we haven't had an Italian driver since Liuzzi and Trulli back in 2011! Were there a lot of Italian sponsors back then to promote the home-grown talent, or was there simply an Italian racing renaissance of sorts back when these drivers were karting in the 1970's? Was Ferrari a huge motivator? Above all, I can't really get a bead on any particular pattern for driving records: Some like Patrese, Alboreto and Nannini were consistently quick, then you had drivers that had one or two days in the spotlight a la Larini, Modena, and Morbidelli, and the rest were either mediocre or outright rejectful (Ghinzani, Montermini, etc.)!

I can't think of a time where one country had such massive participation in F1, but I'm sure the British or the French must have comprised a good portion of the field during one season or another. What's even more interesting is how all those Italian drivers started thinning out and by the late 90's you only saw about 2-3 Italian drivers in a season, usually just Fisichella and Trulli. Surely there must be some reason for the emergence and then disappearance of Italian drivers in F1, and I figured you guys might have an explanation as to why.

There was a strong French contingent in F1 in the early 1980's, with Prost, Jarier, Jabouille, Arnoux, Pironi, Laffite, Depailler and Tambay, amongst others, competing at the same time, whilst you also had Renault, Michelin and Ligier cropping up as well.

In that instance, one reason that was cited was strong French involvement in the junior racing series, particularly the European Formula 2 series, in the 1970's (to the point where F2 was briefly nicknamed "Formula Renault" because Renault engines, in partnership with Elf, were so prevalent). However, that support did gradually fade away during the 1980's, partially because Renault's upward move into Formula 1 left something of a vacuum in the junior series that was filled by Honda, such that in the longer term there were fewer replacement French drivers to fill the seats of the previous generation.

As for Great Britain, their period of relative dominance would have been in the 1960's due to the fact that the British car industry was, at the time, still relatively strong, the high number of British teams that could draw on a wide skill base and the relatively large number of tracks that were in operation at the time.

[Aerospeed]

Now there actually is a Formula Renault, which I find kinda funny

[Nessafox]

Italy was big in the eighties. And not just because of Ferrari, mind you: remember how Alfa Romeo returned first as an engine supplier to Bernie's mob, and then as a works team (while supporting Osella, another Italian team). And then there's Minardi and Dallara as well, both under the same flag. So if you look at 1988, you had no less than five Italian teams, because Coloni also appeared by then.

And Italian teams obviously had some nice local sponsorship as well, so you are right on that front.

Make that 5,5, as Eurobrun was partially Italian too, at least in theory. 1990 also had the greatest Italian team ever (Life) joining, making it 6,5. 1991 had 6 with Lambo/Modena, 1992 had 5 and from then on, it only went downhill. If we include the name changes from Coloni and Osella to Andrea Moda and Fondmetal as well, that's 9,5 teams in a period of 5 years. We can obviously conclude that the demise of Italian teams are all Forti's fault!

[Aerospeed]

Italy was big in the eighties. And not just because of Ferrari, mind you: remember how Alfa Romeo returned first as an engine supplier to Bernie's mob, and then as a works team (while supporting Osella, another Italian team). And then there's Minardi and Dallara as well, both under the same flag. So if you look at 1988, you had no less than five Italian teams, because Coloni also appeared by then.

And Italian teams obviously had some nice local sponsorship as well, so you are right on that front.

Make that 5,5, as Eurobrun was partially Italian too, at least in theory. 1990 also had the greatest Italian team ever (Life) joining, making it 6,5. 1991 had 6 with Lambo/Modena, 1992 had 5 and from then on, it only went downhill. If we include the name changes from Coloni and Osella to Andrea Moda and Fondmetal as well, that's 9,5 teams in a period of 5 years. We can obviously conclude that the demise of Italian teams are all Forti's fault!

We can also blame the 107% rule as well, as it partially led to it's demise.

[MrMG]

For now e-cig advertising seems pretty much legal everywhere (I've seen TV ads), and if it's banned in the future I guess sports sponsorship will be included in that.

I actually recently noticed that the UK E-Cig TV ads never actually show the product in question, guess that's a big restriction.

Wouldn't matter on the side of a car though!

[Jocke1]

Why is Hamilton moaning/telling Sky how McLaren used to operate with their race strategies? And how the Mercedes way of doing things is less good.
He should concentrate on his own team in the now, and not openly reminisce how McLaren used to race a couple years ago.