Tracy's new colors

[Wheel-Nut]

http://www.cart.com/content/photos/2003/By800/20031010P_0002.jpg


http://www.cart.com/content/photos/2003/By800/20031010P_0006.jpg

Anyone have some different pictures of the new scheme?

[RaceChic]

Does anyone know how to find out if your name got on the cars or not???? :confused:

This is completely depressing.... I can't help but have tears in my eyes looking at the "Good-Bye" on the rear wing..... :cry:

I feel like the Canadian government has robbed us of our racing heritage from underneath us... :(

[JoeBob]

I'd think they'd put the list (or pictures of the car) on lastlap.ca

Interesting note - they're referring to the team as "PF Racing" in their press releases.

As for them tugging on emotional heartstrings, thats the whole point of this dog and pony show. If they threw a hissy fit screaming that they want to be able to market cigarettes in a form of sports that is popular with both kids and adults, they'd get no sympathy. So, they're going for the "Canadian Loyalty" angle, which is far more appealing - especially to Canadians who have an extraordinary amount of national pride, but only a handful of sports to rally around. However, when push comes to shove, this isn't about Canada. It is about selling cigarettes.

Personally, I think they should be allowed to sponsor the sport, but I also see this whole circus for what it is - marketing. They're milking this for every bit of publicity they can, and getting far more than they would have otherwise.

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by JoeBob
However, when push comes to shove, this isn't about Canada. It is about selling cigarettes.


Bravo, waiting for someone to point that out. :)

Don't make it sound like charity!

Player's aren't heros for "supporting" motorsport, they only did that as a way to push their smokes.

If it wasn't profitable to them, they wouldn't do it... which is of course proved by the fact that they pulled out as soon as they couldn't show their logo.

American companies use stars-and-stripes to push stuff to Americans, too, this isn't a uniquely Canadian phenomena, but we've got some real blatant ones... Molson being the absolute worst offender, of course. "Molson Canadian" - national pride in a can? :rolleyes:

I do try to support the companies who are in motorsports, though, since if the adverts don't work for them they'll pull their money and leave us without a sport. Within reason, of course, I won't be taking up smoking for them... ;-)

jono

[Canon2292]

Judging by the names I can read on that picture, I don't think anyone outside of Canada needs to bother checking back with lastlap.ca

[JoeBob]

Not unless you "accidentally" gave Toronto as your home town. ;)

[Ed_Severson]

"If it wasn't profitable to them, they wouldn't do it... which is of course proved by the fact that they pulled out as soon as they couldn't show their logo."

Is that wrong? Would you expect Lilly to continue sponsoring Newman-Haas if they weren't allowed to put their name on the car? I sure wouldn't.

Bottom line, this whole situation is one big mess born out of paranoid stupidity. There's nothing evil about a tobacco company wanting to advertise their product. People are killed by alcohol poisoning, car crashes and heart disease on a regular basis, but Budweiser, Nissan, and McDonald's continue to get advertising privileges that tobacco companies don't, because a few knuckleheads in elected positions think it's their responsibility to determine which products I am capable of evaluating rationally and which I am unable to resist.

I've never met a single smoker in my whole life who thought smoking was going to be a good idea because they saw a motor race. Player's should be furious over the inherent idiocy of a decision like this one, and has every reason to make as big a scene as possible as they're forced out of the business of sponsoring fun.

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by Ed_Severson
"If it wasn't profitable to them, they wouldn't do it... which is of course proved by the fact that they pulled out as soon as they couldn't show their logo."

Is that wrong? Would you expect Lilly to continue sponsoring Newman-Haas if they weren't allowed to put their name on the car? I sure wouldn't.


It's not wrong, no, but it's hardly altruistic.

jono

[Ed_Severson]

Nobody has said that it is altruistic.

They want to advertise their product. Why shoudn't they be allowed to?

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by Ed_Severson
Nobody has said that it is altruistic.

They want to advertise their product. Why shoudn't they be allowed to?

The only point I was making was that they have been in this business to sell cigarettes, and really don't deserve kudos for their contribution. It wasn't charity.

Whether they should be allowed to advertise their product or not is up to the government of the country they are from. I stand by Canada's decision, it's consistent with the WHO's recomendations.

Companies - tobacco, softdrinks, whatever - spend billions on advertising because it works. Nobody sits down and says, "I feel like a smoke because I saw a racing car". It's on a subconsious level, and it's one more influence that makes it appealing.

Riddle me this - if it doesn't work, why is advertising billion dollar industry?

jono

[Ed_Severson]

"The only point I was making was that they have been in this business to sell cigarettes, and really don't deserve kudos for their contribution."

Sure they do. They could have spent that money elsewhere, but they chose to spend it promoting not only their product, but something that anyone could enjoy whether you use their product or not. That's commendable. If you don't think so, write them a letter an tell 'em they suck for trying to put a smile on your face.

As for whether or not advertising works -- who in the world has claimed that it doesn't?

Player's isn't advertising smoking -- they're advertising a specific brand of cigarettes. That advertisement gets you nowhere if your audience doesn't want to smoke. If they do want to smoke, then maybe you'll influence their brand decision.

I've been watching motor racing sponsored by tobacco companies my whole life. It doesn't make me want to smoke -- it makes me want to drive faster. I don't know a single individual who has had a different experience than that one.

I suppose if we're going to start prohibiting tobacco companies from advertising at sporting events, we'd better do the same for alcohol brokers at rock concerts. Kids like music, too, and given the relative legal ages for smoking and alcohol consumption in most places, underage drinking must be more dangerous than underage smoking.

It's hypocritical to single out one industry in a situation like this, and the choice of this particular industry makes no sense whatsoever.

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by Ed_Severson
"The only point I was making was that they have been in this business to sell cigarettes, and really don't deserve kudos for their contribution."

Sure they do. They could have spent that money elsewhere, but they chose to spend it promoting not only their product, but something that anyone could enjoy whether you use their product or not. That's commendable. If you don't think so, write them a letter an tell 'em they suck for trying to put a smile on your face.

As for whether or not advertising works -- who in the world has claimed that it doesn't?

Player's isn't advertising smoking -- they're advertising a specific brand of cigarettes. That advertisement gets you nowhere if your audience doesn't want to smoke. If they do want to smoke, then maybe you'll influence their brand decision.

I've been watching motor racing sponsored by tobacco companies my whole life. It doesn't make me want to smoke -- it makes me want to drive faster. I don't know a single individual who has had a different experience than that one.

I suppose if we're going to start prohibiting tobacco companies from advertising at sporting events, we'd better do the same for alcohol brokers at rock concerts. Kids like music, too, and given the relative legal ages for smoking and alcohol consumption in most places, underage drinking must be more dangerous than underage smoking.

It's hypocritical to single out one industry in a situation like this, and the choice of this particular industry makes no sense whatsoever.

A few comments:

- There are very few events that tobacco companies in Canada could use. They were prevented from advertising on TV, magazines, etc... it was really sporting events or nothing. There's really no altruism here, they don't deserve kudos. du Maurier sponsored Jazz festivals and tennis, Players chose motorsports. All in a bid to get people smoking their brands.

- In Canada we have a universal health care system, so the taxpayers pick up the tab on smoking related illness. The public has a vested interest in a healthy popultion, beyond the parental protecting of individuals. I believe this industry has been singled out because smoking results in long drawn-out expensive-to-treat illnesses.

- Second-hand smoke - non-smokers' health is effected by smokers smoking in public. Alcohol isn't quite the same, although I suppose the argument could be made that drunk drivers kill people?

I'm not against tobacco advertising to adults.

I am very much against advertising to kids. Many of them watch racing, and I think this ban is fair in that context.

jono

[Ed_Severson]

"In Canada we have a universal health care system, so the taxpayers pick up the tab on smoking related illness."

Then maybe the more appropriate action is to let people pay for their own poor decisions rather than forcing the general populus to do so for them.

Maybe you think it's a great idea, but to me, it doesn't make any sense to ban tobacco advertising on the basis of the cost of healthcare to the average citizen, when there's no good reason the average citizen should be responsible for securing medical treatment for the guy down the street who made a conscious decision to kill himself by inhaling tar fumes through a cotton filter.

Chasing your tail, if you ask me. Instead of fixing the problem, you're compounding it with another one, just for the sake of consistency.

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by Ed_Severson
"In Canada we have a universal health care system, so the taxpayers pick up the tab on smoking related illness."

Then maybe the more appropriate action is to let people pay for their own poor decisions rather than forcing the general populus to do so for them.

Maybe you think it's a great idea, but to me, it doesn't make any sense to ban tobacco advertising on the basis of the cost of healthcare to the average citizen, when there's no good reason the average citizen should be responsible for securing medical treatment for the guy down the street who made a conscious decision to kill himself by inhaling tar fumes through a cotton filter.

Chasing your tail, if you ask me. Instead of fixing the problem, you're compounding it with another one, just for the sake of consistency.

I'm not sure I want to get into a debate about the merits of universal health care... :) A bit out of the scope of a racing forum.

I'll just leave it with this:
I would prefer there NOT to be tobacco advertising bans, since it's hurting my sport. Even so, I see well enough where the justification came from, and it's not unreasonable to me.

jono

[JT265]

"- Second-hand smoke - non-smokers' health is effected by smokers smoking in public.

And so is standing on a street corner breathing the foul air after a bus that hasn't had the proper level of maintenance roars by. Or, working on the 45th floor of the TD Center breathing regurgitated air. Remember Legionnaires disease? Or breathing the recycled oxygen in a jet while tons of sick people honk and gag their way across the ocean.

Point is, life sucks, wear a helmet. ;)


Alcohol isn't quite the same, although I suppose the argument could be made that drunk drivers kill people?"

Having had a brother-in-law that bought the farm in a particularly gruesome wreck caused by a drunk driver, I for one would rather have a serial smoker at the wheel of a pickup truck at 2am as opposed to a drunk. 'Course, I have more of a dog in that fight than most I suppose.

The big thing that chaps my ass in this whole situation is this. The government says they can't advertise their legal product at all, yet the hungry bastards scoop up close to 70% of the cost of the legal product in taxes. And before someone replies that "well, they have to fund the healthcare system", remember that they piss away about 80% of revenue collected on everything BUT healthcare.

If this government had any stones, they would BAN the legal product, and all the conundrum involved would stop. That in my view is the only way to maintain any sort of integrity.

It's kinda the same as Alfred E. Neuman, you know the guy that Ontario just elected? He made a speech that his government would dedicate a whopping 2% of the excise taxes collected on gasoline to public transit. Great stuff!!!! Anybody care to remind the fool that tax on gasoline was instituted to build and maintain the highway system and public transit in the 1st place????

[JT265]

Oh yeah, and DON'T get me started on universal health care. :D

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by JT265
[BIf this government had any stones, they would BAN the legal product, and all the conundrum involved would stop. That in my view is the only way to maintain any sort of integrity.

[/B]

Why shouldn't adults be allowed to smoke, though?

I figure it should be legal for adults to smoke, and it is. It should be illegal for kids, and it is.

With advertising, though, you get kids whether you're targetting them or not... I think that's where the distinction lies.

NOW I'm done. :)

jono

[JT265]

Jono, I believe that adults should be able to smoke. It's just that the hypocracy (for me at least) lies in the fact that the government stance is "well, we don't want you guys to OVERTLY advertise your products, but damn, we'll lose a BIG cash cow if you don't keep your sales up.

If we hold the breweries to the same standard, I conclude that drinking (insert brand name here) is gonna make me really popular with the scantily clad hotties at the lake.

Right? :saywhat: :D

Also, the beer co. marketing angle seems to be towards younger people, so are we trying to get younger people drunk and disorderly?

Now I'm outta synapses, so you're on your own. ;)

[Wheel-Nut]

So none of y'all have any other shots of the cars? This thread is not about smoking or the right to advertise, I wanted to see some photos of the new scheme.

Does EVERYTHING have to become an argument?

[mapguy]

Originally posted by Wheel-Nut


Does EVERYTHING have to become an argument?

Sorry, this is Abuse. Arguments are down the hall on your right.

[Ed_Severson]

"Does EVERYTHING have to become an argument?"

Why shouldn't it? ;)

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by Ed_Severson
"Does EVERYTHING have to become an argument?"

Why shouldn't it? ;)

I prefer the term "debate" or "discussion"... :-)

I don't think we were arguing, we weren't name calling or anything.

jono

[RaceGrrl]

Originally posted by mapguy
Sorry, this is Abuse. Arguments are down the hall on your right.

"Stupid git"

[nrc]

What the heck is that on top of Tracy's far sidepod?

Golly, the cigarette companies are in it for the advertising - there's a bulletin. While Player is milking it to the finish, I think the sentiment the Canadian fans feel is real and has nothing to do with cigarettes. American fans would feel the same if there were any sponsor with that kind of legacy of supporting American talent.

[pchall]

Is Paul getting his haircuts from Gentilozzi's barber?

[RARules]

Originally posted by nrc
What the heck is that on top of Tracy's far sidepod?

It's a Nordic - style woman (complete with the horned headdress), and she's carrying what looks like a double-bladed axe.

This determined through some graphics transformations.

My computer's behind a gateway that doesn't allow HTTP, so I can't easily post it. But I could mail it to anyone who asks and they could post it.

[FTG]

Originally posted by Ed_Severson
Nobody has said that it is altruistic.

They want to advertise their product. Why shoudn't they be allowed to?

For the same reason herion dealers aren't allowed to advertise their product: its addictive and lethal.

[RaceGrrl]

Spurious argument. Heroin is illegal.

[RARules]

Originally posted by RaceGrrl
Spurious argument. Heroin is illegal.

This is certainly true, but...

Selling tobacco is still legal because the lawmakers don't have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand and make its sale illegal.

Probably mostly because of lobbying efforts and an (implied?) threat of supporting competing candidates if they don't support tobacco's wishes.

I've known way too many people who've met a premature end because of smoking. And they all wished they had never started.

On the other hand, it's their lives. I pity the continuing smoker but laud those who have found the strength to quit.

Back the point: Don't allow cigarette advertising anywhere. Get over it. It's simply not ethical. I thank Player's for their long, unwavering support, but it's time to move on.

It's one small step in the direction of outlawing the sale of a very dangerous product.

[RaceChic]

Originally posted by RARules
Back the point: Don't allow cigarette advertising anywhere. Get over it. It's simply not ethical. I thank Player's for their long, unwavering support, but it's time to move on.

It's one small step in the direction of outlawing the sale of a very dangerous product.

Then we shouldn't allow Beer or any other alcoholic beverages on our cars as sponsors. I could tell you countless stories about all of the post-liver transplant patients I have taken care of due to alcoholism.

It is a part of the socity we live in. It is not perfect and never will be. :)

[nrc]

Originally posted by RARules
It's a Nordic - style woman (complete with the horned headdress), and she's carrying what looks like a double-bladed axe.

Ah, so it's over when the fat lady sings?

[nrc]

Originally posted by RARules
It's one small step in the direction of outlawing the sale of a very dangerous product.

Cars are dangerous. Alcohol is dangerous. Guns are dangerous. Racing is dangerous. Freedom comes with responsibility. We shouldn't have to give up the the former to save the idiots who can't exercise the latter.

Maybe some folks want to live in a Nanny State, but you can count me out.

[Canon2292]

Count me in with that last statement. Call it the "thinning of the herd". It's a good thing.:)

[Jag_Warrior]

Troublemakers!!! :flame:

Cigs are bad. Cig ads are bad. Cig taxes are good. Subsidies for tobacco farmers are good. Violence is bad. Movie violence is good. Guns in society are bad. Guns in movies are good. Censorship is bad. Eliminating "hate speech" is good. Madonna doing naughty things with furry little animals is bad. Madonna writing a children's book is good. War is bad. The "war on terrorism" is good.

All you CART fan Outer Party members and Thought Criminals repeat after me: "I love Big Brother! 2+2=5." And remember to say it like you mean it - there's a room for you at the Ministry of Love/Camp X-Ray (the Rumsfeld Room) in case you can't see the logic in this.

BTW, not getting to go to a single race for the first time in almost 15 years makes a fellow a bit cranky. :mad: