Key Takeaways:
- Branding tells us who something is for and who it isn’t.
- Small visual elements (like type and tone) carry huge meaning.
- Questioning visual defaults opens space for new narratives.
As part of my research, I looked at how karting brands present themselves visually, specifically I looked at local karting tracks. I noticed how many rely on the same tropes: red and black (strong colors in general), metallic type, gradient flames. The messaging is almost always about winning, pushing, proving with very little variation in tone or audience. What if a karting brand focused on joy instead of aggression? What if the visual language was approachable, gender-neutral, or even playful? There’s rarely any other emotion or playfulness. I want to start sketching out how “alternative” karting brands could look and feel that are more inclusive, for example by using bold colors, accessible fonts, illustrations instead of photos. Im not sure this will work, but I want to try it anyway. This then helped me understand how branding choices shape who feels welcome, that brand identity can also be a gatekeeper as it defines who feels welcome. Motorsport claims to be for everyone, but the design often says otherwise. I want to investigate further how brand identity could play a role in broadening the audience and challenging the status quo. I could create a speculative brand for an inclusive motorsport academy, or develop a visual toolkit for karting teams to adapt their look based on context and audience, using branding not as a fixed style guide, but as a flexible narrative tool.
