When another opinion is voiced to the Renault boys – who have CONVINCED themselves that their car doesn’t look totally shite – they may freak out.
‘What? You DON’T think our muddy black and creme-caramel car looks good? You think it looks more like a 70s ashtray?’
The sheer volume and amount and number and force of times that they have press-released their opinion that their own car looks really, really, REALLY good, smacks of more than a hint of desperation and insecurity.
Firstly – it does not look good.
Secondly – points are not allotted to Formula 1 teams based on car colour. You do know this, don’t you? You actually need to WIN RACES, or finish high up.
The spokesman chappie article says:
“The team has followed McLaren in getting sponsors to place their logos not in their own corporate colours, but in a team colour scheme, in this case gold lettering on a black background. I’ve always thought this must be a tough sell as it makes the logos harder to identify. “You have to get them to understand that it’s a culture change for us and get them on board and most of them have been great, ” says Woods.
However contractually Total have insisted on their logo being on a red background, which features on the front and rear wings. Jon describes the red as an “accent” colour, “Three colours is always stronger than two and the accent colour is something that catches the eye, you don’t need a lot of it, but it just works that way.”
It’s not that Total insisted that they stay red (after all, they are not recognisable unless they are red), no, it’s some corporate speaky bullshit that is related to ‘colour accents’ and some secret tri-coloured bullshit that ‘just works that way’.
“It’s not that we are hiding the obvious fact that Total wouldn’t switch colours and we wanted their money, it just works that way”. Ya.
“Three colours is always stronger than two”. Hands down!
There’s that eternal playground argument settled then.
In the same article that is on James Allen’s site, he also says:
“One of the advantages of having a black car is that you need less layers of paint to cover it than a white car, so you save weight, probably worth up to half a tenth of a second per lap. Painting an F1 car white, requires three or four layers and uses around 4 kilos of paint. A black car needs only one base layer and one top coat, so saves around 30% of paint. At a race like Barcelona in pure performance terms that equates to four seconds over a 66 lap race, although the cars have to hit a minimum weight, it still confers a saving.”
So the last part of that shows it’s just not true. You DON’T save weight and gain 0.5 seconds a lap, because you STILL have the minimum weight requirement!
If this was the case, then every car on the grid would be black. And ‘confers a saving’ is just silly. For when Renault don’t win any races (unless the top 4 teams call crash out of have problems), will it really matter what special and fox-like bonus they have achieved with their paint-work?
More on corporate crap from our own Silverstone:
In 2008, they gave some tickets away to Santander staff, with a letter, explaining the sponsorship. They said that the race “highlights the synergies” between Santander and Silverstone. Well, it truly is soooo synergistic that sometimes I sit awake at night, weeping softly to myself and saying “YES! sob…. OH GOD YES!!…”. Purely due to the intensity and scale of the synergy.
Hurry up testing, hurry up testing… then we can actually talk about lap times, not colour accents, however manly and petrol-related that may or may not be.
Until then, I will be smugly telling all within ear-shot that “three colours is stronger than two” and then running away giggling.