Ponderbox

The place for speaking your mind on current goings-on in F1
User avatar
Wallio
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2697
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 22:54
Location: The Wyoming Valley, PA

Re: Ponderbox

Post by Wallio »

mario wrote: 19 Jan 2025, 23:16
Additionally, although there was talk of significant backing from Beatrice Foods, I wonder how much of that money did actually end up going to the team in the end. Whilst the company was sold at the very end of 1986 to KKR, Jim Dutt, the CEO who signed the deal with the FORCE F1 team, was forced out of his position in August 1985.
It does seem that the team was at least flush with cash at first. But building the factory, setting up FORCE, coming to the weird arrangement with March over Newey, and essentially designing 2 cars at once (the THL1 only appeared at Monza, but was carried over in '86 while the THL2 was being built and tested.) all combined to drain the team quickly. Plus Jones was given a healthy retainer.
MyHamsterRacedAnOnyx wrote: 20 Jan 2025, 01:27 Interesting to note that after Patrick Tambay had to miss the '86 Detroit Grand Prix due to an accident, Eddie Cheever substituted. Haas' original choice was Mario Andretti since he was driving for Haas in Champcar.Mario declined,so they tried-but failed to get-a superlicence for Michael Andretti to drive instead!
It really is unbelievable how many brushes with major names the team had. F1's own version of "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon."
Professional Historian/Semi-Retired Drag Racer/Whiskey Enthusiast

"When I was still racing, I never once thought 'Oh, I can't damage the car here'." - Jolyn Palmer
Me either Jolyn, maybe that's why we're both out, eh?
User avatar
noiceinmydrink
Posts: 349
Joined: 30 Sep 2012, 15:40
Location: ziggurat

Re: Ponderbox

Post by noiceinmydrink »

Was watching the '94 British GP some time ago and noticed a big ol Marlboro sign facing down the hangar straight despite tobacco advertising being a no-no (I assume anyway, all the other cars had their stuff censored), what's the deal?

Image
User avatar
Wallio
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2697
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 22:54
Location: The Wyoming Valley, PA

Re: Ponderbox

Post by Wallio »

noiceinmydrink wrote: 29 Jan 2025, 10:54 Was watching the '94 British GP some time ago and noticed a big ol Marlboro sign facing down the hangar straight despite tobacco advertising being a no-no (I assume anyway, all the other cars had their stuff censored), what's the deal?

Image
Perhaps the UK had a similar version of the regs the US adopted not long after? In the US, only one entity could be sponsored by a cigarette brand. Its why famously Ferrari had to drop their Marlboro logos, while "Marlboro Team Penske" did not. Winston went from sponsoring NASCAR, NHRA, and IHRA, to just NASCAR.
Professional Historian/Semi-Retired Drag Racer/Whiskey Enthusiast

"When I was still racing, I never once thought 'Oh, I can't damage the car here'." - Jolyn Palmer
Me either Jolyn, maybe that's why we're both out, eh?
User avatar
noiceinmydrink
Posts: 349
Joined: 30 Sep 2012, 15:40
Location: ziggurat

Re: Ponderbox

Post by noiceinmydrink »

Wallio wrote: 29 Jan 2025, 15:00 Perhaps the UK had a similar version of the regs the US adopted not long after? In the US, only one entity could be sponsored by a cigarette brand. Its why famously Ferrari had to drop their Marlboro logos, while "Marlboro Team Penske" did not. Winston went from sponsoring NASCAR, NHRA, and IHRA, to just NASCAR.
Ah right, that makes sense then - I had no idea that was a thing even in the US!
User avatar
Bleu
Posts: 3418
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:38

Re: Ponderbox

Post by Bleu »

In mid-90s I think Canada had a rule where only brands available locally were permitted to advertise. Benetton is in non-tobacco form while Williams and Ferrari have theirs.

Image
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8269
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: Ponderbox

Post by mario »

noiceinmydrink wrote: 29 Jan 2025, 15:08
Wallio wrote: 29 Jan 2025, 15:00 Perhaps the UK had a similar version of the regs the US adopted not long after? In the US, only one entity could be sponsored by a cigarette brand. Its why famously Ferrari had to drop their Marlboro logos, while "Marlboro Team Penske" did not. Winston went from sponsoring NASCAR, NHRA, and IHRA, to just NASCAR.
Ah right, that makes sense then - I had no idea that was a thing even in the US!
It is also possible that some of those modifications were made to permit the races to be broadcast in other countries - in 1992 and 1993, French anti-tobacco advertising legislation threatened to prevent Formula 1 from broadcasting any races in France, and it seems that, in late 1992, a French court imposed a fine on Williams and threatened to seize their equipment if they entered the country again (which resulted in the FIA initially striking the French GP off the 1993 calendar). It seems that the FFSA eventually managed to strike a deal with the French government that allowed some tobacco advertising to continue in the short term, provided that it was phased out by the end of 1995.

As an aside, whilst trying to find an answer to it, I did also stumble across an extract of a debate in the House of Lords from 1997 when the UK initially passed an exemption allowing Formula 1 to continue with tobacco advertising (https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hans ... motorsport). It is rather interesting to see how the members there were complaining that it was necessary for tobacco advertising to be kept up in order to keep the UK motorsport sector going (this being around the time that Ecclestone was also donating money to the government, followed by them giving Formula 1 an exemption to tobacco advertising).
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
Post Reply