Talk:2006 Formula One season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Alex Zanardi will test a BMW Sauber in Spain and he should be credited as a test driver for 2006. Thanks.

His drive is a prize for his connection to the BMW WTCC team, he's not actually "testing" anything so I don't think he classifies as a true test driver. The359 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Midland Germany[edit]

For who ever edits the results, both midland cars have been disqualified over a rear wing issue in the Germany Grand Prix. Thanks.


Tobacco might be (and possibly will be) banned from Formula One from 2006 onwards.So I am not sure that the title sponsors (Ferrari,Renault,BAR,Midland) will stay that way.

Ferrari will anyway! Philip Morris have extended their deal to 2011 which F1 Racing estimates will earn Ferrari $1 billion. Tobacco hasn't been banned from F1 anyway. The EU has issued a directive requiring national govs to ban tobacco advertising. Hence the tobacco teams have run with "subliminal" tobacco branding in specific countries. If it was up to the FIA, Ecclestone and most of the teams I suspect tobacco would still be welcome with open arms!
However BAR (being British based) is subject to more stringent laws and seems to have dropped "Lucky Strike" from its official "long" name.Mark83 23:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

2006-spec 'Midland M16'[edit]

The first Midland F1 car will be called 'M16', in recognition of the disappearing Jordan name's fifteen year GP history. The car designation is a combination of 'M' for Midland, but also acknowledging that it will be the sixteenth formula one design built in the Silverstone factory since Eddie Jordan's team debuted in 1991. The current Jordan is called EJ15. Andreasu

Constructor is Midland not MF1 - Well then you guys have to change the Constructors name for Red Bull to RBR, SCUDERIA TORO ROSSO to STR. By the way that entry list out dated on FIA site... Also Midland is written all over the rear wing on the new chassis. Even it is stated as Midland for the chassis name not as MF1, MF1 is just short name like it is for RBR. Midland Official Site - Andreasu 23:47, 05 February 2006 (UTC).

  • I agree that they needed to be changed to the respective ones on the entry list, as they are the Official entries of the 2006 season. Just because Midland is written all over the back of the rear wing, it doesn't mean that that is their name. It's called advertising, advertising for Midland Group. Renault have Telefonica all over their rear wing, but it's not their name. Manipe 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • MF1 is not necessarily just the team writing their name in shorthand. Every thing I've seen has refered to the team as MF1, even on their own website. The359 22:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I know how advertising works. I have been involved in Formula statistician for 12 years, now also a statistician on and because of accurate research. Even have corrected several times with their heaps of data errors. Well, lets wait and see what the first round of the championship is going to list the chassis as in the constructors points after round one. I say it will be Midland, but I may can even be mistaken. MF1 does sound silly as a constructor, rather see it as Midland. Even on the testing time sheets the car is listed as Midland-Toyota M16. Andreasu 10:01 6 February 2006.
        • All testing data is unofficial, as there is no official timekeeper for the tests unlike the races. Regarding the sillyness of the name, there have been names just as silly in the championship, like BAR. BTW, it doesn't take a genius to spot the mistakes on, and I can say that after only two years of experience with F1 and motorsport. Manipe 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Ha-ha, stick this in your pipe and smoke it. Manipe 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Unfourtantly this are the entrants name for their teams. Those names won't show up as their Chassis in the FIA points table. We are talking about chassis names not team entrants or constructors. Andreasu 10:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I'd have to disagree. The column of the table is headed "Constructor", and this is the same heading which is given on the FIA page. Midland is the name of the owner's group of companies, and MF1 Racing is one of them. The official website is titled "Midland MF1 Racing", which indicates that Midland is the title sponsor (eg Panasonic Toyota Racing, West McLaren-Mercedes) and MF1 Racing is the constructor. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
              • So it is pssible the team will be listed as MF1-Toyota M16 on the official race results. I hope they will make it as Midland-Toyota M16, sounds much better. Well lets wait and see what the first round of the championship will give us. Best solution! Don't you all agree. On the Midland web page the car is listed as MIDLAND TOYOTA M16 Have a look for yourself. Even when Midland bought Jordan, the chassis was renamed to Midland EJ15B over the winter pre-season testing. Midland is yet to do a official pre-season testing with the Midland M16. Wouldn't it be easier if they just named the chassis as Midland MF1 M16 so that won't confuse everyone, :) 12:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
              • I contacted Midland Group themselves and they have responded to my email, the Chassis is Midland-Toyota M16, MF1 is just the trademark, if you all don't believe I can forward the email to you all. Regards. Andreasu 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
                • I think the argument is a bit pointless, but the heading on the table is "Constructor" not "Chassis" (you said above "We are talking about chassis names not team entrants or constructors"). But yeh I don't think it makes that much of a difference either way. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • I think most television networks and news sites will end up referring to Midland F1 as MF1, so why complicate things for casual viewers of the article? :-) Hurrispike 21:23,5 March 2006
  • Coming back to the Midland-Toyota/MF1-Toyota debate, I'd like to draw your attention to the official F1 website, [1]. It clearly states that Midland's Formula One constructor name is "MF1-Toyota". It also states Red Bull as RBR-Ferrari, Scuderia Toro Rosso as STR-Cosworth. I'm changing them now in the article, but please post here before you change it back, because I don't think you should. Manipe 16:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Than explain why it says Sauber-BMW (on your lovely official web page) instead of BMW Sauber-BMW. As even BMW shows it as BMW Sauber on their web page. Sauber is no more the constructor, it is as BMW Sauber, also goes the same for the other three teams if you actually take time and read the cars specs for each team they have it as Midland, Red Bull and Toror Rosso. Seriously I am going to give up with your guys on wikipedia, as there are way too many arguements on there, and I have come across many people who use to deal with wikipedia who also have given up and I don't blame them. Andreasu 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll explain. BMW Sauber F1 Team is the "ENTRANT" name of the team. Constructor names are taken from the chassis builder and the engine builder. If both are the same, for example Ferrari, Toyota, Renault, Honda etc, the CONSTRUCTOR is simply that. If they are different, the constructor takes account of both names, for example Williams-Cosworth, Super Aguri-Honda. BMW Sauber F1 Team registered (With the FIA) their chassis constructor as Sauber and the engine as BMW. This was because the whole factory at Hinwil is all Sauber staff, and because the development for the C25 (Or whatever it would have been called) was already underway under the Sauber name. When this changed to the F1.06, BMW, presumably for the reasons above, decided to keep the chassis constructor as Sauber. If you don't take into account what the teams have registered their teams as to the FIA, the only official account that can be given, then why bother taking anything from them into account, ie. rules, results etc. But as I say, BMW Sauber is the ENTRANT. Manipe 08:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Cars[edit]

Is it ok for me to put images of the new car in the Drivers table. 01sbrightwell 16:00, 8 Febuary 2006


I was always quite sure that Renault and McLaren were running Michelin tyres for '06. In fact, I never knew any doubt existed. Despite this, under tures is says TBD. If I could be absolutely positive that they were running Michelins, I'd change it, so can someone give me the latest on this--M Johnson 03:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

- AutoSport is reporting that Michelin has signed to supply tires for Toro Rosso, and in the article mentions that they will also be supplying Renault, McLaren, BMW, Honda, and Red Bull. --The359 28 November

This section could use some updating in various areas. I might do it tonight. Counterfit 01:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sauber as Constructor[edit]

In the Teams and drivers table it says that BMW Sauber F1 Team will use Sauber as constructor. Is that really correct? I thought BMW Sauber would construct their own car, now when they have factories both in Hinwil, Switzerland and in Munich, Germany. --Boivie 11:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The FIA's official entry list for 2006 says that the team will use Sauber-BMW as a constructor, not just Sauber. That's because the car will be made by what used to be Sauber, and the engine will be made by BMW.Manipe 22:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We will see on January 17th what Sauber-BMW officially names the car, so I think it's a bit useless to speculate when it's only a matter of days away.The359 05:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the F1.06 is out. All of BMW-Sauber's press releases seem to call the car the "BMW-Sauber F1.06", so I'm not sure what the constructor should be listed as. 04:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Constructor should be BMW-Sauber. The guys who design and build the cars are now BMW-Sauber employees. BMW has called the team BMW-Sauber. MonkeyMumford 08:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Driver/Team Table[edit]

Anyone know why the Team/Driver table is appearing at the bottom of the article? In the editing, it appears in the right place. Also, I think the layout of this artcle needs a bit of clean up. MonkeyMumford 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

2006 Belgian GP[edit]

Just to clarify, the Belgian GP, according to the sources available, is not yet cancelled. (22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)) The one source that is being used ([2]) is not a quote from Bernie, but a quote from Serge Kubla, who claims to be quoting Bernie. This is not yet confirmed, nor can Bernie be contacted for a comment, as he is "out of the country" [3] Any further changes, please cite a new source. -slowpokeiv 22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cancelled. New sources cited, including FIA. -slowpokeiv 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have the gen one engines?[edit]

I believe I heard Martin Brundle say during last weekend's commentary that a race engine had to be used for two races (successive I guess). Did I misinterpret what he said? If I heard correctly, can a Bahrain engine be stripped down this week and be rebuilt for Malaysia? Moriori 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. If you're asking whether engines must be used for two successive races, then, yes they do, same as last year. As for being stripped down, I haven't heard about that - last year the FIA put a tamper-proof seal on them between races so that they couldn't be rebuilt. I don't know if they've changed that for this year. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's the same as last year. The engines must be used in two consequtive races, ie. the exact same engines. The engines can't be rebuilt, otherwise they'd be brand new. It must be the same as the previous race. Same as last year. Manipe 23:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Tks to you guys. Perhaps the engines section of the article should say so. Moriori 23:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

After watching Malaysian qualifying today, I think there are quite complicated regs re use of engines. Michael Schumacher qualified 4th but starts 14th on the grid because he needed to change an engine. Massa has had two engine changes (post Bahrain) but he starts ahead of Scott Speed who has no engine probs. Anyone know a site which explains the rules in plain English? Moriori 08:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

Is there any difference(in terms of appearance) between the Red Bull Racing cars and the Scuderia Toro Rosso cars? It's hard to tell based on the photos.

Well, all F1 cars look the same these days anyway, don't they? Well, strictly speaking, the STR01 is basically an updated RB1 (last year's RBR car), wheras the RB2 is a new concept, built from stratch. STR say that the car is not an updated RB1, because all teams have to build their own chassis, but one can only assume it is. Manipe 12:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're talking about livery, STR updated their livery from the one they used off season, it's now a darker blue with a bit of dark red on the engine cover. Looks a bit like the Midland from a distance, head-on. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Constructor in "Drivers and constructors" table[edit]

Can we come to some sort of an agreement regarding the constructor in the above mentioned table. The table heading clearly states that the second column should contain the F1 Constructor names, but as of now, they don't. Instead they contain a mix of the constructor names and race entrants. I think this has arisen from confusion as to what the meaning of the constructor is. The problem arises with teams like Williams, Red Bull Racing, BMW Sauber, MF1, STR and Super Aguri. Their construcor names are Williams-Cosworth, RBR-Ferrari, Sauber-BMW, MF1-Toyota, STR-Cosworth and Aguri-Honda respectively but this is not the case on the page. If we want to be consistent, the names need to be changed, but I'm not going to do it until we agree on what is right, otherwise we'll just be changing back and forth all the time, and not helping anyone.

Opinions? Manipe 22:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I always thought the "Constructor" name was specifically the name of the constructor of the chassis, while Entrant name (as specified in FIA regulations) is the "Team Name"-"Engine" (engine omitted where same as team). So Williams is the constructor and Williams-Cosworth is the Entrant. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If you look at article 20 of the 2006 Sporting Regulations, you will see that "If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car.", meaning that the car name, or constructor name (Which is the same thing), is the car manufacturer's name, followed by the engine's manufacturer name (If it is different). In other words, Williams' constructor name is "Williams-Cosworth". Also, the official 2006 entry list clearly states that the Constructor of each team is the car manufacturer and engine manufacturer. The Team Name, or entrant name, is something different. Manipe 18:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Entrant is known as when the main sponsor is included, so the official entrant name for Williams-Cosworth is "WilliamsF1 Team", for Renault is Mild Seven Renault F1 Team, Honda is Lucky Strike Honda Racing F1 Team, and so on. I think we should change constructor to Chassis in the Entry Lists so people don't get confused as most people do get the names correct for the teams.Andreasu 08:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh OK sorry. Changing to "Chassis" sounds good as it is redundant to list Williams-Cosworth and then put Cosworth again in the Engine column. :) AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't be sorry, its the FIA that stuffs around with many errors all the time, I don't even bother with at all way too many errors. Andreasu 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand what an entrant is, I understand what a Chassis manufacturer is and I understand what an Engine manufacturer is. Under the FIA regulations as posted above, the constructor is the name of the car, which is consisted of the chassis manufacture followed by the engine manufacturer, if it is not the same as the car manufacturer. IMHO, we should have the engine column like the chassis column, just naming the engine designation, and the capacity/cylinders. With teams like Renault, Ferrari, Toyota, Honda, the engine name is repeated again, which is the same as the constructor. I don't understand how you think that the constructor can be anything else, when it clearly states in the FIA regs that it is a combination of chassis and engine manufacturers' names. Manipe 14:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, but something like this?
Team Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No Driver No Third driver Test driver(s)
France Mild Seven Renault F1 Team Renault R26 RS26 2.4 V8 M 1 Spain Fernando Alonso n/a Finland Heikki Kovalainen
2 Italy Giancarlo Fisichella
United Kingdom WilliamsF1 Team Williams-Cosworth FW28 CA2006 2.4 V8 B 9 Australia Mark Webber 35 Austria Alexander Wurz India Narain Karthikeyan
10 Germany Nico Rosberg

Yes, exactly. Constructor equals Car-Engine, Team equals Entrant. Manipe 17:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it like that. Wasn't sure if it should be BMW Sauber-BMW or just BMW Sauber. Also engine links to Honda (Aguri) and Ferrari (RBR) – should they be to the car company or the F1 team? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just changed them to the official names (Which appear on the television broadcasts). BMW are Sauber-BMW, Red Bull/Toro Rosso actually use abbreviations of their names (RBR and STR) and Super Aguri only use the Aguri part. I think the engines would be better linked to the F1 team, as it's really the F1 teams that are building them. Manipe 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
TV broadcasters don't decide the official names. We should adopt the style used on this official F1 website -- so it is Super Aguri, not Aguri. Also, there is no hyphen in BMW Sauber -- see the official BMW sports site. —This unsigned comment was added by Moriori (talkcontribs) .
Yeh the reason the TV does it is probably just for space/aesthetic (sp?) reasons. They've got nothing to do with determining the official names. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Super Aguri's press releases have stated that the car is an "Aguri-Honda". Also, Red Bull Racing's cars last year were refered to as "Red Bull-Cosworth", so I believe this year's cars should be "Red Bull-Ferrari" and "Toro Rosso-Cosworth". The359 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I know this may not be a popular idea, but why not just eliminate the constructor column altogether, and simply write the chassis name in the chassis column (as "Red Bull RB2") and the engine name in the engine column (as "Ferrari 056 2.4L V8), and just leave it to people to figure out on their own that, if combining in shorthand, it is written with the dash inbetween, instead of a seperate column to just repeat "Red Bull-Ferrari". The359 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that would be a good idea. For people not that familiar with F1 it would be difficult to make out, and anyway it will enable people to have a link between what they see on TV and here on Wikipedia. As regards Red Bull's teams, they are Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso respectively, and the constructor name uses the initials (RBR and STR). Manipe 15:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how "RBR-Ferrari" is less difficult then having "Red Bull RB2" in one column and "Ferrari 056" in another, and I think anyone who watches F1 on TV can figure out that even though the graphic says RBR, the announcers and anyone else call it Red Bull. The359 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm against it anyway. Manipe 20:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well clearly states on all correct names for the constructors. eg MF1 is Midland. Andreasu 08:15, 29 March 2006
They're not the constructor names these are. The other ones are just a name which most people will recognise the team by. Manipe 19:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I no longer need to worry too much about wikipedia as I have been accepeted to work for and at least they have it all correct, nothing against wikipedia just people don't seem to agree with each other here. I will still support the stats side of it. :) Andreasu 08:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Manipe, the site just uses RBR and STR for space. Have a look at the official 2006 entry list as submitted to the FIA and read the "Make" row of the tables. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Albinomonkey, you are correct uses RBR, STR and Sauber-BMW for space ss I have been told so by them thru email as I have enquired about this. But note the error on the official site as they have listed BAR Honda as the make. That is why us at AUTOSPORT/FORIX have given up with theso called official sites. Andreasu 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Another problem I have with having a seperate constructor column and leaving the chassis and engine columns full of just their coded names, is that, as mentioned, the inexperienced or uninformed casual viewer might have a hard time figuring out who exactly builds the chassis and who builds the engine. Sorry if it sounds like nitpicking, but I just feel the whole constructor column is redundant. The359 04:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It won't be in a couple of years time if teams will be able to buy chassis from other teams, and for what it's worth, the lack of seperation of 'team' and 'constructor' cause confusion for any year before about 1980 - for example no visible wins for Rob Walker's team because they mostly raced Cooper or Lotus chassis. 4u1e 16:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
True... The359 20:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

British drivers' nationality[edit]

In the tables, Coulthard is listed as Scottish, while Button is listed as British. This obviously isn't consistent. They're both British, or Button is English. On Button's website he is listed as British. Anyone care to comment? --Wernher 04:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we've tried to keep all British together, as that is the nationality they are registered as. A couple of times people have gone through and separated them (including Nige Mansell to Isle of Man), but IMO they're all British. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If Button is listed at British at his webpage, let him be British here as well. From what I've understand, Coulthard is very proud to be Scottish. Why not let him be Scottish here? The consistency is that both are listed by the nationality that they use themselves. The UK is very special, by having three nations and Northern Ireland within one state. --Boivie 11:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It can not be done I am affraid, as Formula 1 and many other racing series list them as British. Would be nice to seperate them all into their actual born country.Andreasu 08:31, 31 March 2006
Might be nice, but would not match with the way the FIA treats them. Motorsport, like the Olympics, but unlike football, works at the level of the UK. All the English, Scottish and Welsh drivers are also British and are treated as such by the FIA as far as I can see. Better I think to stay with the 'official' position on this. 4u1e 15:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Del Monte as third driver?[edit]

I didn't hear anything about Del Monte becoming MF1's third driver for San Marino. After the signing, Kolles said that "we look forward to seeing more of his potential at a future Grand Prix weekend." [4] That doesn't suggest San Marino. As far as I know, MF1 are yet to confirm their third driver for San Marino. I expect a preview from them in the coming days, but until then we should leave Del Monte in the test drivers column. Also, I think they should be kept in the test driver column until they actually appear as third driver at a Grand Prix weekend, like Adrian Sutil who has yet to appear as a MF1 third driver. Manipe 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Midland says he is joining as "test and reserve driver" ([5]). Doesn't that mean he's the third driver?? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned a reserve driver doesn't mean third driver, although for most teams it usually does. A reserve driver is one who steps in for a driver who is unable to drive, in the presence of sickness. This driver doesn't have to be the team's third driver. Manipe 17:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Since Mondini will be MF1's third driver for Imola [6] I've taken Sutil and Del Monte from the third driver column and put them in the test drivers column. Manipe 15:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for change to tyre rules[edit]

I've just removed the following: "The thinking behind this (meaning the change in tyre regs for 2006) is that the reduced engine size will offset any performance gain. However, the 2005 Indianapolis Grand Prix controversy may also be responsible for the return of tyre changes." as being surplus to requirements on the main F1 page.

Logically it would go here, as an explanation of a rule change for this year, but it's unreferenced and possibly POV. Thing is, I've had a quick look at the FIA press release [7] and the BBC reports from the time [8] and there's no mention of what the reason for the change was. The squabbling between Michelin and the FIA does make me think it very likely that it was in fact done to boost Bridgestone competitiveness and possibly punish Michelin for the US GP, but I've got no evidence.

Anyone got a good ref for what the reason for the change was? 4u1e 06:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the reason but an interesting fact is that Mateschitz (sp?) voted for the return of tyre changes, despite it losing Michelin's advantage over B'stone. He was the only Michelin team boss to vote for it, and it was not expected to pass. I have a reference for this. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be Mateschitz, new best buddy of Ferrari, aka the new Peter Sauber, would it? :-D I suppose it would be nice to have the official reason (with ref!) followed by some referenced speculation about murky dealings behind the scene. 4u1e 17:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah - found this [9] which is an FIA press release including the official FIA reasons for going to a single manufacturer, which they give as

  • a single supplier would allow a bigger safety margin
  • the absence of competitive tyre testing would reduce costs
  • as relatively small differences in tyre compound and construction can have a significant effect on lap times, a single tyre supplier would simply ensure that no team would be adversely affected by being contracted to the “wrong” supplier
  • slick tyres would be re-introduced as a part of the low-downforce and highmechanical-grip package
  • lower profile tyres would be introduced in order to give the wheels and tyres a more modern look and also permit more freedom on brakes and suspension
  • a ban on tyre heating

which can probably be fairly summarised as 'reducing costs, increasing safety and contributing to shift away from aerodynamic grip and towards mechanical grip'. Along with a ref to the 2005 Michelin USGP debacle and your ref on potential block voting by RBR Albino, that might make quite a nice explanation! 4u1e 10:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops - that's the 2008 regs. Not relevant here, but might be of interest to someone, so I'll leave it. 4u1e 10:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done a bit of searching. says almost exactly what our article said (apart from the Indygate reference): "The thinking behind this is that the reduced engine size will offset any performance gain." As would be expected, Michelin complained ([10]), saying there was a ulterior motive behind the decision. The FIA's reply ([11]) didn't shed any light on the situation, apart from saying that the change was voted for in the usual process – and they couldn't resist a go at Michelin: "As Michelin themselves point out this is the same regulation as in 2004 when, we must remind them, their tyres ran without problem at Indianapolis.". I'm not sure what they're getting at in the last paragraph, although a link could be made that the reason for the change was due to Indygate. But IIRC both Ralf Schumacher and Fernando Alonso had big Michelin tyre failures at Indy in 2004, so it's a strange thing to say in any case. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, AlbinoMonkey. That's a bizarre reason for changing the rules - why would you make the engines smaller in order to slow the cars down and then allow them to speed up again by going for softer (i.e. shorter lived) tyres! I'll see if I can cook up some (referenced!) words on speculation on other reasons then. In the meantime, I guess I'll put the "The thinking behind this is that the reduced engine size will offset any performance gain." in somewhere. Cheers 4u1e 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NOT Qualified[edit]

Since FIA remove the 107% gap in the qualifying session in 2003, that's are not driver could be excluded in race day. So why you still include driver not qualify in the color code??? I really not understands??? Aleenf1 08:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The colour codes are constant over every season on Wikipedia, so if we removed it then it wouldn't be an option for all the seasons when the 107% (and other) rules were in place. I don't think it makes that much of a difference to be honest. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ide Out[edit]

Ide had been stripped his Super License and miss out F1, and Montagny will race in Spain and Monaco. While no mention about it??? Aleenf1 07:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and add it. (Note that the replacement is already mentioned in the article, but the FIA's revocation of Yuji Ide's Super licence is not.) Majin Izlude 07:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Red Bull UK or Austrian[edit]

Anyone know what nationality Red Bull are registered as? Previous versions of this page had Red Bull as Austrian, but it has recently been changed to UK. The registration with the FIA is the only way to cover this (although it leads to oddities like Benetton having been registered as both a UK and an Italian team during its lifetime.....). 4u1e

(P.S. if anyone knows what nationality Brabham was registered as, I'd be interested. The article currently calls it an Australian team, but in practice it was based in the UK but largely staffed by Aussies and Kiwis. I suspect it was not registered as Australian, but would like confirmation. Ta. 4u1e)

(P.P.S If Red Bull is Austrian, then this page needs swapping back. If it is UK, then the 2005 season article needs altering to reflect this).
I cant find any confirmation on, but lists them with the Austrian flag. --Windsok 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
According to this FIA statement (released 2 days ago), RBR are most certainly Austrian. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC) WilliamsMCMXC

Thanks for sorting that out. By the way, is that a wacky decision from the FIA or what! The French, Japanese and Austrian teams are based in the UK anyway, and how exactly is Williams 'senior' to McLaren, an older team with as far as I remember more success (I actually support Williams more than McLaren as it happens, but I never like it when Max's manipulations of the sports rules are too obvious!) 4u1e

Introduction too long[edit]

You either need to move some information down below the results table or create sections and sub sections - it's nearly 2000 words and I'm put off reading it. TheTallOne 12:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC) I agree. A short intro the a bigger section later on (maybe after drivers and constructors table) with all the info about the season. Manipe 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree also, but I think the problem is that news, rumours and everything else has gone into the intro, so much of it belongs either in subsections or on pages for specific races. Is anyone already working on this because if not I'll do it Jsydave 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with comments above on structure. Don't worry too much, the page should settle down over the year - that's the problem with current sporting events! By the end of the year we should end up with a nice clean summary of the season's racing and the major stories. As minor rumours develop they can either be moved to the appropriate team or driver article (if they occur) or be deleted (if they don't). 4u1e
I've started on this deleting text which had actually been duplicated more or less entirely in articles for Minardi, SuperAguri and Yuji Ide. Also, moved a driver change section. Any comments welcome Jsydave 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Finished cleaning up as far as the mood took me! Have left the "cleanup" tag for now and would appreciate someone looking over the changes and removing the tag if they feel that appropriate. Thanks Jsydave 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Team Nationalities[edit]

There are two weird things to do with Team Nationalities in this article:

1. Red Bull is listed as British and Austrian at different parts of the article, which are they?
2. Why are MF1 listed as Russian? Apart from one of their extra drivers being Russian, I can't see an association, I can't see any reason not to list them as British but I won't change it as there must be a reason for this. - MTC 17:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Officially, a team nationality is determined by which national motorsport authority they get their racing license from. MF1 are Russian, because they run under a Russian license (, but Red Bull are currently British (Because they run with a British license), but have lodged an application for an Austrian license, thus it is showing in the constructors' table that they are Austrian. Officially though, they are not. You may change it to British if you want, and then we can change it back when they do get their license from Austrian authorities. A team's nationality has no connection with the nationality of their drivers, though. Manipe 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
See also discussion two headings up ^^. The conclusion there was that Red Bull is effectively Austrian. The FIA are treating them as such, at least, although I imagine Manipe is correct on the rules. The article should certainly be internally consistent. 4u1e 12:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well just to make the entire article consistant I've chnged the UK flag into an Austrian flag in the constructors points table, everything now says they're Austrian - MTC 16:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I had taken the liberty of changing Red Bull's flag from Austrian to British for the 2005 season, because they entered undera British licence that season. The changed to Austrian for 2006, IIRC. Lustigson 15:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A related problem, the opening paragraph says that no British team won a race, yet if you click on the definition for the champions (Renault F1), you're told: "The Renault Formula One team, now registered as Lotus Renault GP,[2] is a British Formula One racing team. It has competed in various forms since 1977, winning Constructors' and Drivers' titles in 2005 and 2006."

Surely it's the location of the team that meaningfully denotes its nationality. Is Manchester United a british football club?!?! Tjamesjones (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Renault is a British team now, but it wasn't in 2006. Team nationality is determined by its racing licence - if it runs with a British licence, it's a British team. They had a French licence in 2006, and a British one now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

new constructors table[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm missing something completely obvious, but what is the difference between the Constructors - Standing by Team and Standing by Driver sections, apart from that in one, each row is split into two whilst in the other they're just on different lines??? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I see very little difference also, and would like to get rid of the "Standing by Team" table. The colors were originally distributed after which team got the most points in a race – i.e. in the Spanish GP, McLaren's best result was Räikkönen 5th place, but the team would still be colored bronze, as they were the 3rd most scoring team. I found that to be very confusing. I'd like for that table to be deleted. (See also 2005 Formula One season#Standing by team) --Fred Bradstadt 13:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the contructors tables that has the summary of team start, wins etc have 22 starts? Each team has two starts per race. Jimmmmmmmmm 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

British GP[edit]

The discussion of the British GP says that Alonso for only one lap not clinched Grand Chelem. Can someone translate that into English? HenryFlower 14:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it means he got the win from pole, led every lap and got fastest lap, but yes it does need a translation or something. Can someone confirm my understanding? --Jsydave 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It means he got pole, win, fastest lap, and led every lap except one. ie, if it had not been for that lap, he'd have got the "Grand Chelem". – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"Chelem" is literal translation French for "Slam". Grand Chelem means winning everything; Grand Slam. Bit like Grand Prix is French for Big Prize. F1 has French influences. --MonkeyMumford 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried to make that sentence easier to read... Majin Izlude 05:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yamamoto replacement and change in qualifying[edit]

Could someone write about the fact that Sakon Yamamoto will be replacing Montagny from the German GP and that Super Aguri will be introducing their new car as well.

Also the change in qualifying rules need to be reflected. I cannot do the same myself as I am still new to using computers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 10:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Both have been noted in the article already. The qualifying change is discussed here, and Yamamoto is mentioned in the article's Notes section along with the other in-season driver changes. --Majin Izlude 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass Damper[edit]

Anyone care to include a section on the 'Mass Damper' that seems to have caused such a turnaround in Renaults fortunes, i know nothing personally about what it is, but it may turn out to be crucial for the rest of the season. --born against 08:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a go :-) --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 09:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There - I had a good go at it and as many of you guys probably know, my grammer sucks, so can someone do a copyedit for me, thanks :-) --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 10:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have researched the background and edited, including the rule number from the Regulations, the dates etc. I think my review must have immediately followed somebody else's (anon user - apologies!... --Hassocks5489 12:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem ;-) Anyway, thanks for the quick repsonce and copyediting, much appreciated :-) --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 12:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


I think it's totally unnecessary to have a column for the lubricant suppliers to teams. Whoever supplies lubricant and fuel to a team has no bearing on the outcome of a race or season as much as the other columns, and the extra addition severly cramps the table. It is my strong opinion that the column should be removed, and not re-instated. If we add a column for lubricant, why not wheel supplier, helmet supplier, clothing supplier, footwear, carbon-fibre, caterer, trucks... The list goes on. Car, engine, tyre, driver and test driver is plenty. It's all the information a regular fan needs, and more enthusiastic fans know where to look for additional information. Manipe 00:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would prefer for the chap to discuss this. --Golbez 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats why I deleted it 14:42, Kingjamie 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It is no more useless then then tyres 01sbrightwell 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Manipe: Lubricant information is more useless than tyres information. Fred Bradstadt 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Tyres have no bearing on the success of a Formula One team? Interesting. Ferrari might disagree given the disaster of last season, and Renault obviously disagreed at Hockenheim. Lubricants don't win or lose championships (unless a lubricant is deficient, causing failures etc.) We have to draw a line, or else we'll end up with a team title along the lines of "Vodafone McLaren-Mercedes Johnnie Walker SAP Emirates Hugo Boss at&t Hilton Schuco Tag Heuer Direxiv, eh.... Team" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark83 (talkcontribs) 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The place for this level of detail is within the team sections, i.e. Put all of the detail of Ferrari cars in the Ferrari F1 team area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macwomble (talkcontribs) 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Foot notes[edit]

I'm going to change the references into the preferred standard. I've made a small start on the information that I added today, and I'll finish the job later. Its on my todo list. --T. Moitie [talk] 13:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To Long?[edit]

Is the artical not a bit long and takes a while to read. I have tried deleting repeat information etc. But there are 4 tables in a row and the consurutors and drivers tables have the same data twice just in a different order —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Constructors table shows the current standings of the constructors and the drivers table shows the current standings of the drivers. They are not the same!!--Macwomble 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
User: was referring to the big race result table and the smaller starts/points/poles/wins/podiums/fastest laps table for each group as having "the same data twice." I disagree, as the latter has stats that are not present in the former (namely poles and fastest laps) as well as stats that can be compiled (but take a great deal more time to tabulate) from the big table. Majin Izlude talk 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Spyker is name of Midland F1 after Italian Grand Prix, why the team name doesn't change? --Aleenf1 06:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I mean, they changed their name to Spyker MF1, and they are now referred to as Spyker by both the FIA and the FOA, as well as by the media. On Wikipedia itself there are already two different articles for Midland and Spyker. So, I think the name should be changed. Nevertheless, it's unclear whether they were allowed to change the Russian license with a Dutch one. See also Spyker MF1 – formula1.comLuxic 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Accident etc[edit]

To those debating the Schumacher incident at Monaco: Schumacher's admission refers to his initial mistake in locking up at the end of his lap - putting this in is not slanderous (would it not be libel if written anyway? :)). Perhaps the wording could be clarified? 4u1e

If he said "he locked up", you can say he said "he locked up". If he said "he made a mistake" you can say he said "he made a mistake". Do you need more examples for clarification? Ernham 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I think I understand it quite well! 'Locking up' is of course a mistake, so it wouldn't really be a problem to say 'mistake'. However, I think the current wording covers his mistake using the words he used. Cheers. --4u1e 18:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Specualtion on Alonso's qualifying run in Monaco[edit]

You can state that Alonso was x tenths faster at the end of the first sector, or the beginning of the second, but you cannot say "he was likely". That is entirely speculative.Ernham 17:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this one, though - the implication is sufficient and I've seen plenty of laps that looked fantastic halfway through peter out before the finish line. --4u1e 18:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but considering he missed out by only 0.064 of a second, if you subtract the time he lost when having to slow down as he came across Schumacher, I'm 110% certain that Alonso would have taken pole. He was definitely likely to take pole, at the very least. Manipe 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Spyker MF1 or Spyker F1[edit]

I have some doubts on the treatment of MF1 Racing in this article. Though MF1 Racing (as Midland F1 Racing) and Spyker F1 (as Spyker MF1 Team) are described in parallel at "Drivers and constructors", is this correct? It is true that Spyker purchased MF1 Racing. But, was constructor's name (MF1 Racing) in the entry list changed at the last 3 races? In my recognition, I think that Spyker arranges her own name as a title sponsor in front of the name of the MF1 Racing, because the approvals of other all team were necessary for the change the constructor's name (Or, did Spyker obtain this approval for the participation in 2006 season? ). To begin with, wasnot the name of the constructor's name in the entry list not Midland F1 Racing but MF1 Racing? --Morio 17:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The team name at the start of the season was MF1 Racing, and Spyker became title sponsor for the last three races. Don Speekingleesh 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Spyker was not title sponsor. All FOM information refered to the team as "Spyker." They would not refer to a team by their sponsor. The359 23:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what the FOM say. All the matters is what the FIA say. And they refer to the team as MF1 Racing. See the Brazil results: --Don Speekingleesh 11:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC) The constructor's championship lists them as Spyker MF1 Team. The359 12:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Because that season guide lists the title sponsors.Don Speekingleesh 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
So does every other team on the results page you linked to. So clearly the FIA is contradicting itself. The359 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's confused about the status of Spyker as title sponsor, but it's clear the team name didn't change. It was MF1Racing all year.--Don Speekingleesh 12:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and confirmed at [12]. The team was officially named MF1 Racing at the start of this season and was not able to change its name without unanimous consent which was never granted (nor was it sought as far as I know). Neither Spyker F1 nor Spyker MF1 exist at present (although the 2007 entry list may say different - I haven't checked!) Jsydave 15:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure name changes are allowed during the season, only between seasons - which may require consent, depending on a few factors, like number of previous changes and the timing of the change (if the new name is given when the team lodge their entry form they don't need permission). They're entered next year as Spyker F1 Team.[13]Don Speekingleesh 15:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then the pages are set up right enough. Spyker MF1 redirects to Spyker F1 and MF1 Racing redirects to Midland F1. Only question I have is that the results for the team are reflected on the info boxes for both. I would say Spyker F1 did not take part at all in 2006 so they should not have a 2006 championship position - even though it refers back to MF1 it is still misleading Jsydave 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I've added a "Budget" column in the "Drivers and constructors" table on 25 April 2007. I found this information important for this money-driven modern sport, and that should benefit the article. It was removed on 17 July 2007 by User:Mark83 giving two resaons: "1) It's not standard" "2) They are presented as FACT, however they are a magazine's educated GUESS)"

2. They aren't facts, that's true, so I replaced the information under a "estimated budget" title, but they are better than just a guess: they are the closest possible estimations from a specialized publication, and real figures are unavailable.

1. I wish it could be standard! This information is precious, and I would ask wikipedia to provide the teams budgets for each season. Standards can evolve.

But feel free to remove again this column, I won't argue. -- Marc Lacoste 11:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Link is now broken and therefore the numbers have no source. When a new source appears, perhaps the numbers could be added somewhere else. As for now, I've removed them and made the table conform to the standard used for every other F1 season table on Wikipedia. --Jimmy Magnusson (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Renault china race.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Renault china race.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone have the skills/enthusiasm to crop the Alonso, Fisichella and Schumacher/engine photos? They each have a lot of "white space" around the car. DH85868993 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Test drivers[edit]

Why are drivers who did not participate in races at all during the year being included in drivers tables? Delete immediately please. --Falcadore (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 10[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)