Visibility and recognition

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

...but this is F1 and only one person is allowed to make money and he believes that a hurricane of negative publicity is a good thing.

he is an expert in this and has once again achieved his goal of generating attention...

Ah, but is this an Ecclestone diktat though? I must admit that I was of the impression that this "brilliant" idea came from the FIA for a reason I am yet to fathom.

I am quite happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong (yet again).

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in a way, this point addressing the economic realities of F1 and a driver's need to find money from sponsors actually imo makes for one of the better arguments in favour of drivers being allowed more flexibility and freedom in how they deal with their own sponsors and their own branding issues.

but this is F1 and only one person is allowed to make money and he believes that a hurricane of negative publicity is a good thing.

he is an expert in this and has once again achieved his goal of generating attention.

helmets, past and present, are being discussed in a way they have not been in years and come OZ this will be a major talking point and an even bigger one if a driver chooses to flaunt the rules.

A consistent helmet design has never impeded sponsors on helmets.

Drivers and stakeholders should move together in the interests of the sport and gain from the resultant windfall rather than hurt the sport for their own narrow self interest. That too, is what is crippling the sport.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Ah, but is this an Ecclestone diktat though? I must admit that I was of the impression that this "brilliant" idea came from the FIA for a reason I am yet to fathom.

I am quite happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong (yet again).

Eccelstone in alliance with a defanged Todt is pushing this through as a compromise on bigger numbers and the teams are giving a non-plussed 'ok'.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Ah, but is this an Ecclestone diktat though? I must admit that I was of the impression that this "brilliant" idea came from the FIA for a reason I am yet to fathom.

I am quite happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong (yet again).

not wrong. just more about me being cynical because i usually suspect 'Machiavelli's' hand in everything F1 related. also agree about Todt.

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Drivers and stakeholders should move together in the interests of the sport and gain from the resultant windfall rather than hurt the sport for their own narrow self interest. That too, is what is crippling the sport.

also on this we agree.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Freedom of expression, lol.



Freedom of expression is curbed by overbearing sponsors terrified of the negative publicity that can erupt in the hurricane of the information age. So drivers speak in the synthetic language of press releases. That's what curbs freedom of expression.



Having and keeping a consistent helmet design is like a knight with his crest. It's badass, if done right. Changing the helmet every week is just flakey vanity.

There was nothing to stops a driver doing this badass thing. What we have now is something that stops a driver doing the opposite. As you now have to do it by rule it is worth less as a knight's crest.

Your second paragraph does not dismiss the point about freedom, no matter how many smilies you put after it. And this dismissive approach to your discussion is actually weakening your point. Annoying boring press interviews are not relevant, although they are not helped by similar rules that dictate exactly how these happen. When I think about it your point may supports a loosening of regulations about this kind of thing.

It is a (small) limit on their freedom. The previous rule allowed those of different opinions to all do what they wanted (as I said I prefer the keeping the one design for your entire career let alone one race).

The rule change stops some doing what they want. This is the modern world though. People thinking they have the right to tell other people how they should behave.

Here is something that I have got what I wanted, but I am not happy with how it is forced upon others. It's their helmet, their choice.

I wonder if now is a good time to mention Rossi. Is he a man with no brand?

[Adam43]

Might be worth checking out the classifieds:
http://sniffpetrol.com/2015/02/23/sm.../#.VOt6_YaQGK0

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

There was nothing to stops a driver doing this badass thing. What we have now is something that stops a driver doing the opposite. As you now have to do it by rule it is worth less as a knight's crest.

Your second paragraph does not dismiss the point about freedom, no matter how many smilies you put after it. And this dismissive approach to your discussion is actually weakening your point. Annoying boring press interviews are not relevant, although they are not helped by similar rules that dictate exactly how these happen. When I think about it your point may supports a loosening of regulations about this kind of thing.

It is a (small) limit on their freedom. The previous rule allowed those of different opinions to all do what they wanted (as I said I prefer the keeping the one design for your entire career let alone one race).

The rule change stops some doing what they want. This is the modern world though. People thinking they have the right to tell other people how they should behave.

Here is something that I have got what I wanted, but I am not happy with how it is forced upon others. It's their helmet, their choice.

I wonder if now is a good time to mention Rossi. Is he a man with no brand?

You have cleared this issue up for me Adam.

The 4 meanies and their cronies on the FIA are trying to stamp out custom helmets precisely because they are too effective.
Seb's various helmets, Jenson's pink helmet, Fred's farewell helmet to Ferrari and his 1000 point helmet, Massa's helmet supporting Schu, Lewis's various creations.

I can name these off the top of my head, despite not paying attention, and I would probably be hard pushed to name as many headline sponsors.

So on reflection, I think this is a power play designed to limit the drivers appeal and marketability. Not because the public associates various drivers with a particular design, but because the public takes huge notice of the special helmets,

Surprised myself with this conclusion!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Might be worth checking out the classifieds:
http://sniffpetrol.com/2015/02/23/sm.../#.VOt6_YaQGK0

[goingjag]

I agree with Chilly Bowl and Paradise City, Bernie is an expert and stirring up controversy on purpose and certainly he can get Todt to implement something like this with very little urging.

[Paradise City]

There's no serious curb on freedom of expression here.

By my mind, they can change their helmet every year, they can put decals to honour whomever whilst maintaining a consistent design and I would be surprised if they declined the use of 'special' helmets if there was a high profile event of tragic proportions. The restriction has a serious intent that is to strengthen driver persona in way that Mansell, Senna and Hill are intimately linked with their helmets. Driver creativity is still at play if they desire to change their livery before each new season commences if that is their wish.

There's a bit of trying have one's cake and eating it here I sense. Either this is a scandalous clamp down on freedom of expression (yeah, right) or it's a trivial issue not worth legislating on. I think it's a good move and in a broad sense if you want an assertive promotional effort, the FIA is going to have legislate and make that happen. If you want to a genuinely sustainable F1 then the FIA is going to in someway compel the individual stakeholders to move in the one direction.

[Mike Harte]

Whoever is behind this ridiculous diktat, it is stupid; it's almost as if he/they want to stamp out the driver's individuality, and rob them of what's left of any personality that they still retain having already gone through the teams' various charm schools.

I wonder, though, how some of their personal sponsors, as well as some of the teams' sponsors, feel about this new regulation. Do not forget that at least two helmets were specially decorated by one of McLaren's sponsors at Monaco with the addition of copious amounts of diamonds, and other designs have appeared on individual driver's lids at the behest of the financial backers from time to time.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Whoever is behind this ridiculous diktat, it is stupid; it's almost as if he/they want to stamp out the driver's individuality, and rob them of what's left of any personality that they still retain having already gone through the teams' various charm schools.

I wonder, though, how some of their personal sponsors, as well as some of the teams' sponsors, feel about this new regulation. Do not forget that at least two helmets were specially decorated by one of McLaren's sponsors at Monaco with the addition of copious amounts of diamonds, and other designs have appeared on individual driver's lids at the behest of the financial backers from time to time.

Switching your helmet design will nilly is what throws individuality into doubt. Maintaining a single design strengthens driver identity.

And sponsors will like drivers associated with a specific helmet design as it strengthens driver identity. As it did with Mansell and so on.

I get it that some of you people are upset at some of the control freakery and strong man antics that goes on. But this isn't an example of that of course. Being allowed to change your helmet livery once a year isn't a serious restriction.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

The restriction has a serious intent that is to strengthen driver persona...

i seriously doubt thats the reason for this but for arguments sake lets say i accept that this was the motivation of the rule.

do you really think the FIA/FOM has purview over telling drivers how to manage their own personas?

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i seriously doubt thats the reason for this but for arguments sake lets say i accept that this was the motivation of the rule.

do you really think the FIA/FOM has purview over telling drivers how to manage their own personas?

Of course. The FIA has an overall mandate to promote the sport and getting all stakeholders on the same page in the interests of the sport is an unremarkable expectation. Drivers operate under an FIA mandate and all teams are subject to reasonable regulation of this kind.

A good equilibrium has been struck. They can change the helmet every year and thus they can craft their brand identity whilst adhering to reasonable requirement to maintain a certain consistency so as help strengthen that brand identity in the minds of the viewing public. Eccelstone/Todt has gotten it right! My goodness!

[chillibowl]

and obviously i think its a huge over reach.

when the FIFA told Nico Rosberg he couldnt put a World Cup trophy on his helmet i felt that was petty. i think this is petty as well and sort of feels punitive. i think a drivers helmet is their personal space and its theirs to do what they will.

there's a line. will it lead to a drivers revolt....i doubt it but that would be something to talk about.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and obviously i think its a huge over reach.

when the FIFA told Nico Rosberg he couldnt put a World Cup trophy on his helmet i felt that was petty. i think this is petty as well and sort of feels punitive. i think a drivers helmet is their personal space and its theirs to do what they will.

there's a line. will it lead to a drivers revolt....i doubt it but that would be something to talk about.

Good post Chilli.

Plus One.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and obviously i think its a huge over reach.

when the FIFA told Nico Rosberg he couldn't put a World Cup trophy on his helmet i felt that was petty. i think this is petty as well and sort of feels punitive. i think a drivers helmet is their personal space and its theirs to do what they will.

there's a line. will it lead to a drivers revolt....i doubt it but that would be something to talk about.

I think that was to do with a copyright issue with FIFA as opposed to an objection from the FIA as such.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and obviously i think its a huge over reach.

when the FIFA told Nico Rosberg he couldnt put a World Cup trophy on his helmet i felt that was petty. i think this is petty as well and sort of feels punitive. i think a drivers helmet is their personal space and its theirs to do what they will.

there's a line. will it lead to a drivers revolt....i doubt it but that would be something to talk about.

Noone really thinks it's overreach. Retaining driver creativity but mandating a little consistency is sensible and moderate.

I think it's more general and legitimate resentment against Eccelstone feeding into this question. That's what I'm reading here.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Noone really thinks it's overreach. Retaining driver creativity but mandating a little consistency is sensible and moderate.

Your point about "overreach" is a bit of a stretch (no pun intended). I guess it depends upon your definition. Are those who make the rules stepping beyond their authority? Likely not. They could stipulate that the drivers all wear fuzzy pink bunny suits if they wanted. Hey, bunny suits... that might generate more viewership. Quick someone make this happen, but make sure to leave room for sponsor logos. And no changes to the bunny suits during the season!

I know this is an over the top statement but... I can't resist. Its a slippery slope that might lead toward Stroker Ace...

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I think it's more general and legitimate resentment against Eccelstone feeding into this question. That's what I'm reading here.

I appreciate that you support the idea from a "marketing" perspective, but you are reading to much into why people don't like it (i.e. it is a general reflection of dislike of BE). I could care less who came up with it, or approved it. For all I know BE dislikes it as much as I do. Dumb is dumb.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

On the subject of visibility and recognition, I wonder how long it will be until Red Bull unveil their livery because I quite like what they've been using so far. It's certainly different.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I guess it depends upon your definition. Are those who make the rules stepping beyond their authority? Likely not.

totally agree with your post but i was getting at stepping beyond their authority.

the FIA has domain over sporting regulations...there is no sporting issue here or at least not one anyone is making a case for. this is apparently about marketing which is commercial.

the FOM has control over commercial issues but their authority resides over the teams and tracks not the drivers.

of course control over the super licence is at the FIA's discretion so they could unilaterally force many things upon the drivers.

like radically increases licence prices, blocking talent based on age, and helmets. all of which done ostensibly without consent or consultation with those the rules effect. how is that sensible or moderate?

the larger issue here is who gets to control the drivers marketing choices and i question whether anyone other than the driver and their management team have control over that.

at best i could understand the teams saying they want consistency but short of that this is an over reach imo.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Your point about "overreach" is a bit of a stretch (no pun intended). I guess it depends upon your definition. Are those who make the rules stepping beyond their authority? Likely not. They could stipulate that the drivers all wear fuzzy pink bunny suits if they wanted. Hey, bunny suits... that might generate more viewership. Quick someone make this happen, but make sure to leave room for sponsor logos. And no changes to the bunny suits during the season!

I know this is an over the top statement but... I can't resist. Its a slippery slope that might lead toward Stroker Ace...




I appreciate that you support the idea from a "marketing" perspective, but you are reading to much into why people don't like it (i.e. it is a general reflection of dislike of BE). I could care less who came up with it, or approved it. For all I know BE dislikes it as much as I do. Dumb is dumb.

Richard

Drivers retain their creativity with a reasonable caveat that they stay consistent.

That's control freakery to you guys.

If the slippery slope means that the FIA is governing once again, then let's go with the slippery slope.

[bjohnsonsmith]

The FIA have set out the rules for helmet livery design.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117883

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The FIA have set out the rules for helmet livery design.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117883

Thanks for the link. Items of note...

1. It appears they can make small tweaks as long as the overall design is consistent. (glass half full)

2. Nothing says the helmets have to be different from each other. So there is still hope for a bunch of white helmets (I don't think that is really going to happen). But my point is that it is supposed to help with recognition, so nothing prevents drivers from having helmets that look similar enough that you can't differentiate them at speed. (glass half empty). I guess all you really need to do is differentiate yourself from your teammate? Assuming you are able to tell the cars apart!

Richard

[wdave0]

And still, all they need is larger numbers. After all, driver branding phooey - they aren't interviewed in their helmets.