- Messages
- 887
- Reaction score
- 362
Anyone know if there are any hi-res photos of keso's 2011 Sprint Cup car out yet and where i could get them?
Latest resources
2011 Keselowski
- Thread starter TheSleekNinja
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 1,494
- Reaction score
- 720
This is all I could find, courtesy of the 2011 Image Thread above 
- Messages
- 6,580
- Reaction score
- 2,239
Fixed. Add the pint bottle and it's easily one of the worst. Could have been better with a solid blue with gold side skirts.
- Messages
- 6,416
- Reaction score
- 4,987
dalejrgamer said:
Um...well, not in my case. The look is fine, even if it looks like someone poured a bottle of Aqua Velva into the toilet they just urinated into.
It was the actual picture of the beer on the car that raised a drinking & driving-related red flag in my mind.
I'll go back to trying to figure out why anyone would want to drink something that looked like urine and tastes like cat urine mixed with sewer water.
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 106
Miller Light's not bad, if you're already half-blown, lol. I prefer Sam Adams or Guinness or Killian's myself, for mass-market beers. Of course, I live in Cleveland, and Great Lakes Brewing makes some great specialty beers.
The car is not too bad, although I think boring and uninspired. Basically the same #2 scheme we've had for years. The beer on the side doesn't bother me. I mean, the "drinking and driving" thing is the same to me with just the logos on the car. No more bothersome than truck stops on the freeway that service mostly truck drivers, yet have huge beer advertisements in the windows. Would a Marlboro car be any more or less offensive with a smoking cigarette on the side?
The car is not too bad, although I think boring and uninspired. Basically the same #2 scheme we've had for years. The beer on the side doesn't bother me. I mean, the "drinking and driving" thing is the same to me with just the logos on the car. No more bothersome than truck stops on the freeway that service mostly truck drivers, yet have huge beer advertisements in the windows. Would a Marlboro car be any more or less offensive with a smoking cigarette on the side?
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 413
You know how these taste...why?
- Messages
- 8,630
- Reaction score
- 4,372
Yuengling is the big thing here...but yeah...I only ever have a Coors Light or Miller Lite when I'm already pretty well gone and can't taste it for the awful piss water that it is :laugh:
As for the scheme itself...it is pretty poor IMO. However, alcohol related sponsors have been around auto racing forever...and until their advertising restrictions are as tightly regulated as tobacco's are, don't expect them to go away any time soon.
- Messages
- 6,216
- Reaction score
- 1,889
It's sad that kid is going to taint (no pun intended) the legendary Miller #2 cars. I wouldn't be surprised if his on-track attitude problems turned out to be worse than Kyle's in the future . . . . .
I'm also curious about how they'll censor that into any games that come out.
I'm also curious about how they'll censor that into any games that come out.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,416
- Reaction score
- 4,987
I have an overactive imagination combined with an above-average talent for analytics. Same mechanism lead me to the solution for the Nationwide/Cup drivers points problem.
To my knowledge no one's ever put an actual picture of a glass of beer on a car before. That's a little bit different than simply having a brand name & a logo.
When I was a kid I had no idea what a Skoal Bandit was, so seeing it on Harry Gant's hood didn't affect me at all. However, had I seen a glass of beer on Rusty's MGD car, I would have known exactly what that was, and the next time I saw a glass of beer, my mind would associate that with Rusty, and probably have created some juvenile interest in the beer just any other celebrity-endorsed product does.
That said, I don't think there'll be any legal ramifications either. It's just weird to contemplate seeing a glass of beer going 200mph. It connects the image of drinking & with the image of driving in a potentially dangerous way IMO. I have a similar dislike for the annual bar scene to annouce the starting lineup for the Bud Shootout.
The problem is brand awareness, especially among children. Best way to keep children away from drugs & alcohol is to keep drugs & alcohol away from children. The less they are aware of the brand, the better off they'll be. Going to a Nascar race and being a Nascar fan is a special part of a child's life. To invade that space with attractive images of products that will harm them before they know what's going on is especially cruel. I'm sure you wouldn't put a vile of poison with a picture of a happy face on it and the words "drink this to feel good" next to 11 year old Chad's Coke cans in the fridge. The one selling the poison ought not to have that opportunity either.
When tobacco companies invented cartoon characters/macho characters as product endorsers specifically designed to attract the attention of minors, and were successful in their goals, all the while denying the characters were aimed at kids, they crossed a line.
However, tobacco products have been legally connected with death & disease, specifically cancer, in a way no other "legal drug" like alcohol has. So if it doesn't make sense that tobacco plays by a different set of rules than alcohol, ask the U.S. court system.
Change "KURT" to "BRAD" and leave the rest of the scheme as is. It's still a blue car with urine trim. It just has a picture of a beer on it now. Obviously that's not going to be there in a game approved for minors' use.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,835
- Reaction score
- 2,224
I just don't understand the whole thing with tobacco brands being banned from sponsoring rides when alcohol is good to go in a motorsport. I know tobacco has been directly linked with illness and death, but so has alcohol through liver diseases, drunk driving deaths and alcohol poisoning, which is out of control, especially among high schoolers and college students. If anything, alcohol adds and commercials still glamorize how cool it is to drink with good looking people in various social settings. I don't need to hear all the reasons why because the bottom line is that they both can kill and that's all I need to hear, so if one can't sponsor, then why should the other? Oh, because so much money would be lost!!!
- Messages
- 6,416
- Reaction score
- 4,987
I agree. Let's ban alcohol advertising too.
- Messages
- 5,835
- Reaction score
- 2,224
I was just saying that it's stupid to ban advertising for tobacco while alcohol can do pretty much whatever it wants. But, to be completely honest, I'm against most banning altogether because if you think about it, once you start banning things, where does it stop? Yeah, alcohol and tobacco could be considered poisons that can cause health problems. But so can fatty foods and snacks. So can soda and sugary drinks. Same thing could go for guns. All of these could cause some sort of health related problem, but no one notices these things. To be honest, we don't really need to ban anything, but people have to be smarter, have a little common sense and self-control. People also need to be better parents and stop relying on the government or media to raise our children.
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 106
And while we're at it, let's stop sponsorship from Extenze because it promotes sex, and Target because thousands of chinese children are slaves to make their products, and Mobil 1 because they're owned by Exxon who has killed baby seals, and Aflac, because let's face it, nobody feels healthy around duck feces.
I'm sick of the "advertising nazi" mentality. Let whatever sponsors want to come in, come in. The bottom line is, NOBODY has EVER been forced into smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer. That is a personal decision, even for kids. Any 4 year old with a brain knows that those things are bad for you. I can see not aiming the advertising at kids, but to simple have a plain red and white Marlboro sign at a race track is not going to cause every kid watching the race to light up.
I do think that the pouring beer on the side of the 2 kinda crosses that line. It makes beer look so delicious (which is amazing, considering the beer that is being advertised). I have no problem with a billboard-style presentation with just a design and a logo. The beer on the side is pushing it.
- Messages
- 6,580
- Reaction score
- 2,239
And while we're at it, let's stop sponsorship from Extenze because it promotes sex, and Target because thousands of chinese children are slaves to make their products, and Mobil 1 because they're owned by Exxon who has killed baby seals, and Aflac, because let's face it, nobody feels healthy around duck feces.
I'm sick of the "advertising nazi" mentality. Let whatever sponsors want to come in, come in. The bottom line is, NOBODY has EVER been forced into smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer. That is a personal decision, even for kids. Any 4 year old with a brain knows that those things are bad for you. I can see not aiming the advertising at kids, but to simple have a plain red and white Marlboro sign at a race track is not going to cause every kid watching the race to light up.
I do think that the pouring beer on the side of the 2 kinda crosses that line. It makes beer look so delicious (which is amazing, considering the beer that is being advertised). I have no problem with a billboard-style presentation with just a design and a logo. The beer on the side is pushing it.
This. THIS. Winston never made me smoke. Budweiser never made me drink. Skoal never made me chew. I could care less about what logos are on the cars because, let's face it, it's just there for ad revenue.
- Messages
- 6,416
- Reaction score
- 4,987
I'll see your sign and I'll raise you a hospitality center with free samples.
Think those are ok because there are age limits do you? Think again.
When the tobacco compaines didn't have advertising limits, I went to the Camel sig booths and the Winston booths because they had the diecast cars that I needed to complete my collection. Problem #1 - As a kid, I couldn't get the cars at Target/Wal-Mart so I actually had to go to the tobacco companies' booth to get them because I knew they had them. I was a resourceful kid. If I couldn't find what I wanted at Target I knew why - before the internet ever existed.
When I was denied access because I was underage, the age limit was waived IF I was accompanied by an adult. Problem #2 - The tobacco companies, and the alcohol companies today, are willing and able to market to kids especially if the kid's guardian is attracted to the booth and is therefore likely willing to send a positive message about the company & its product to the minor.
Occasionally I was granted access ANYWAY even if I wasn't accompanied by anyone! Did anyone kick me out? No. They said they couldn't sell anything to me without an adult present, but I was free to roam around and drink in all the pro-Camel/Winston imagery I was surrounded by. Problem #3 - It's no secret who Joe Cool was designed for. They had no problem with being completely disingenuous as long as it served their purposes.
Somehow it was totally ok for my Dad to buy a little race car with me right there asking for it, as long there was some tiny sign on a wall somewhere that said "product not intended for minors' use" or some BS like that. Come on. Who do you think is going to use that #23 Smokin Joe's die cast car in his table top races? My Dad? Problem #4 - The tobacco companies knew full well who's going to be using that product and why, and they still had it manufactured and sold, completely in the presence of & at the request of a minor, anyway.
Do I need to keep going here?
The issue is not a simple sign, or a simple logo on the hood, or even the picture of a beer on the side of the car, even though that is upping the ante. The problem is the entire big picture. That's what the anti-advertising against the tobacco companies was all about. You all are pointing to the minutia that, I agree, by itself has little to no impact, but that feeling is merely a product of tunnel vision.
We don't want our kids to be lifetime drinkers, smokers, or any other sort of drug users. The manufacturers of those products, however, want that above all else. They want lifetime customers, and in the case of tobacco & alcohol, they're willing to mentally addict our kids in order to achieve their goals. As parents/guardians, we have an obligation to protect our kids. Taking legal action to limit our kids' exposure to them is a perfectly legitimate means of doing that.
- Status