Talk:2007 Formula One season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on January 9 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

WikiProject Formula One (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bruno Senna- STR rumours.[edit]

Rather similar to the Bourdais stuff, but there was a rumour regarding Bruno Senna being given a run-out in an STR.. See AutoSport May 17, page 13. This went along with the rumour that Toro Rosso was for sale. Maybe this is a bit trivial and unimportant though.. (I'm not going to add it, cos I don't know if it should be added.. Opinions please) ALCUS36 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Race Winnings[edit]

I am kind of new to Formula 1, but do drivers get race winnings like in NASCAR or IndyCar? or are they just paid their salary after each race and that's it? I don't see this in any of your Formula 1 articles and as a new fan was just wondering.-Melo1522

I've no idea but it's a great point. I think teams get prize money according to race position and/or final championship points. Either drivers too got such prize money allocation or it's up to their contracts to stipulate if the teams get bonuses if they win etc. There should be section in Formula One detailing such things. Mark83 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe the constructors are paid, and then the constructors pay the drivers as they see fit. For example, I've heard tell that although McLaren only pays its drivers a base salary of $100,000 a year, they also earn $100,000 for each championship point. I have only heard this, though. --Golbez 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the problem here is the Concorde Agreement (which at least specifies how F1 commercial revenues are split and possibly how points prizes are awarded) is secret. And it's no suprise that however secret or not the Concorde Agreement is, the team/driver contracts are even more hidden from the public eye. Sure salaries are widely known either by admission or intelligent estimate be people/media organisations in the know, but the minutatie of 'pay by point' or whatever else are only known by the driver, the senior people in the team and their lawyers -- Not much interest among those parties in leaking such details. Mark83 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's interesting! I guess if it's so secret then it probably doesn't need to be added to any of the articles. I have one last question about race winnings, and then we can probably close this discussion. does the FIA post race winnings for the public to view? Or is that also something the FIA keeps secret?-Melo1522

New Table[edit]

I like the new table of qualifing what do you all think.-MotorSportMCMXC

Apart from the fact that it's wrong; hardly any of the Car No's match up to the name of the driver. chem_tom 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fixed the table. I also want to include two tables that show the average positions of drivers in qualifying and races. The qualifying table (based on average position, not average time) should be pretty interesting. I'm not sure about the average race position though. I'm expecting it to be slightly different than the standings, but then DNFs and DQs might make it totally meaningless.--Ademkader 02:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother with average race position; as you have identified, DNFs and DQs make it meaningless. If you want to include average qualifying position, I'd recommend just adding another column to the existing table, rather than adding another table. DH85868993 03:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this table really add anything to the article? I mean qualifying position doesn't really effect points and the only position everyone cares about is pole, which is already established through the calender table and the enbolded position in the results table. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Honda running the RA106 again?[edit]

SpeedTV's commentators made mention today that Honda has apparently decided to abandon the Honda RA107 for the rest of the season, and that during this weekend's British Grand Prix they're now running "last year's car". Considering how arbitrarily the definition of what each car is, should the Honda RA106 be added to the chart? I can certainly confirm that the car is at least running some of the RA107's aerodynamics, but I'd like to hear what others think of it all.

(Also, this happens to put another twist in the debate of whether or not Aguri is using an illegal car, especially if Aguri and Honda are now using the same car...) The359 18:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll need a better source than Speed's commentators I think; considering the amount of press that follows F1 around, if this is indeed true there should be no trouble in finding a print/web source. And if it is true, mention both cars, yeah. As for Honda, I think Speed put it perfectly: "Ten million dollars of research and they managed to make a car three seconds slower than last year's." "It would have been cheaper to just load 20 pounds of weight onto last year's car. They should bring it back." "They can't, they gave it to the Aguri boys." I loved Super Best Friends before this year, and Taku's pass of Alonso in Canada was the moment of the season. I hope nothing bad happens to them. :| --Golbez 00:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Speed were talking bullshit, anyone with half a knowledge of F1 could spot that. Also, can we please leave crass nicknames like "Super Best Friends" off an encyclopedia? Duds 2k 22:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nigel Stepney[edit]

Not even a mention of the spy row? --Howard the Duck 11:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A "main" link to 2007 Formula One espionage controversy with a short summary would do. Mark83 11:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Where would I put it? Between what sections? --Howard the Duck 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Why exactly is Bourdais listed as a test driver for STR? He has tried for the team, but he's hardly done an actual testing work, nor is he actually employed by STR. I think he should be removed. The359 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and unless someone can find a reference with the words "Bourdais is STR's test driver" in it. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 10:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Car images[edit]

Car colors should be quoted or box colored with appropriate background color. Car color is specific to season like renault had different color in 2006 than 2007. Preferably in section Constructors or Constructors statistics. "teams and drivers". 09:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to know the colors of the car, they can easily click on the individual article on this season's cars. Every article has a picture of their respective car. The359 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How'bout inserting images Fernando Alonso 2007.jpg in table of section teams and drivers, with rowspan 2? can i go ahead? (Tyres column is redundant after season 2006. ) 10:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. Anyway what colour would you say the Renault was for example? It's "painted" like a rainbow this year! Mark83 11:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Plus, I don't like that picture idea. We've already had that idea and the table looked ugly and also took more room than it really should have. Not only that, but some of the images used were FU images -- although I do believe we have Free images for all the cars now, I don't think it's still appropriate because, as 359 has stated, the car's colour is merely a click away. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks not so good, but informative for people who watch on TV 12:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC) new, improved! seeking yes votes 06:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Entrant Constructor Chassis Engine1 Car No Driver No Test driver(s)2
United Kingdom Vodafone McLaren Mercedes McLaren MP4-22 Mercedes FO 108T Fernando Alonso 2007.jpg 1 Spain Fernando Alonso 31 Spain Pedro de la Rosa
United Kingdom Gary Paffett
2 United Kingdom Lewis Hamilton
France ING Renault F1 Team Renault R27 Renault RS27 Giancarlo Fisichella 2007 (crop).jpg 3 Italy Giancarlo Fisichella 32 Brazil Ricardo Zonta
Brazil Nelson Piquet Jr.
4 Finland Heikki Kovalainen
Italy Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro Ferrari F2007 Ferrari 056 5 Brazil Felipe Massa 33 Italy Luca Badoer
Spain Marc Gené[1]
6 Finland Kimi Räikkönen
Japan Honda Racing F1 Team Honda RA107 Honda RA807E Rubens Barrichello 2007.jpg 7 United Kingdom Jenson Button 34 Austria Christian Klien
United Kingdom James Rossiter
United Kingdom Mike Conway[2]
8 Brazil Rubens Barrichello
Germany BMW Sauber F1 Team BMW Sauber F1.07 BMW P86/7 75px 9 Germany Nick Heidfeld 35 Germany Sebastian Vettel
Germany Timo Glock
10 Poland Robert Kubica
Germany Sebastian Vettel[3]
Japan Panasonic Toyota Racing Toyota TF107 Toyota RVX-07 B 11 Germany Ralf Schumacher 36 France Franck Montagny
Japan Kohei Hirate[4]
Japan Kamui Kobayashi[4]
12 Italy Jarno Trulli
Austria Red Bull Racing Red Bull RB3 Renault RS27 B 14 United Kingdom David Coulthard 37 Netherlands Robert Doornbos
Germany Michael Ammermüller
15 Australia Mark Webber
United Kingdom AT&T Williams Williams FW29 Toyota RVX-07 B 16 Germany Nico Rosberg 38 India Narain Karthikeyan
Japan Kazuki Nakajima
17 Austria Alexander Wurz
Italy Scuderia Toro Rosso Toro Rosso STR2 Ferrari 056 B 18 Italy Vitantonio Liuzzi 39 France Sebastian Bourdais
19 United States Scott Speed
Netherlands Etihad Aldar Spyker F1 Team Spyker F8-VII Ferrari 056 B 20 Germany Adrian Sutil 40 Malaysia Mohamed Fairuz Fauzy
Spain Adrián Vallés
Germany Markus Winkelhock
Netherlands Giedo van der Garde
Austria Christian Klien
21 Netherlands Christijan Albers
Japan Super Aguri F1 Super Aguri SA07 Honda RA807E B 22 Japan Takuma Sato 41 Japan Sakon Yamamoto
United Kingdom James Rossiter [5]
23 United Kingdom Anthony Davidson

No, the pictures are way too small for people to use - I wouldn't be able to tell you that's a Renault if it weren't for the "Renault F1" team name in the cell next to it. Not only that, but those pictures are too small and you can see they're been compressed too much for them to look tidy. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Add my name to the list of "No" votes. DH85868993 13:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyre option[edit]

Since Bridgestone only produce two types of tyres during each GP weekend, i think it is possible to add the tyre option as here. But I'm quite doubt is that necessary, by among editors, and where should it put. Please give some comment. Thanks! --Aleenf1 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

McLaren score points or not?[edit]

I believe that since McLaren ran the Hungarian GP under appeal, they actually score points as constructors. Only when they meet with the FIA Court will that appeal be decided and those points possibly taken away. I think the points chart should reflect this until the Court meets. The359 18:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They haven't actually appealed - they've announced their intention to appeal. ITV suggests they may even decide not to appeal.[1] Mark83 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NO, they are not given trophy so they did not win constructors, so that field should be kept blank. Tikitiki-tikito 08:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But - according to, they have now appealled against the FIA decision, so I guess it is watch this space! Regards, Lynbarn 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
According to the BBC they have dropped there appeal KevS 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
McLaren withdrew their Hungary appeal. This has nothing to do with their espionage appeal. The359 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Points removal[edit]

  • Does the points deduction apply for all the Grand-Prix, or just the ones already raced? - In other words, do Constructors points in Belgium onwards get counted?

StuartDD ( tc ) 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

They won't score any points this season. mattbuck 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Do all the other teams from the previous races now move up one in the standings, or is it simply, they keep the points they had, and if McLaren comes in first in any future races this season, simply no team gets 10 constructors points? --Golbez 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
All previous results remain the same, and teams will not score additional points in future events if McLaren finish in front of them. Think of it this way - McLaren are still scoring points, just those points are then removed at the end of the season. If we then apply the precedent set in the 1997 season when Schumacher was excluded, then everyone else stays on the same points. Now here's a thought... if Mclaren are excluded, does this mean they need to give back a load of constructors' trophies? For that matter, who got the trophy in Hungary? mattbuck 01:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The FIA's press release stipulated that McLaren will not receive constructor's trophies at any of the four remaining races. The same thing occured at Hungary, no trophy was awarded. However, I'm sure McLaren will not be forced to hand back the constructor's trophies, although I am not sure. They will be forced to forfeit all of their TV Revenue from so far this season though, which will go towards paying their $100mil fine. The359 03:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

In my edit summaries I've put HUN GP, I meant TUR GP. Sorry for any confusion! chem_tom 15:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mclaren points being droped[edit]

Pattav2 12:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)If you check on it will say the news from the courts in Paris that Mclaren's points have gone to 0 due to the team having Ferrai documents. If someone could change please because I don't know how to edit tables. thankyou

McLaren points situation[edit]

The constructors points should remain in the article for two reasons:

  1. McLaren may appeal the ruling (though it seems unlikely they will get anywhere).
  2. They will get a rebate on their $100m fine that is calculated by the winnings they would have received, based on the points they should have been scoring (this may reduce their fine by as much as 50%).

Perhaps the best solution would be to put McLaren at the bottom of the constructors statistics table, but still with their points tally intact? -- Scjessey 17:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As per precedent set with Michael Schumacher on 1997 Formula One season, they should stay in whatever position in the table they would have been, with points total intact, but with their position blacked out. This is how the article is presented atm. mattbuck 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Schumacher was not stripped of his points, though... Majin Izlude talk 00:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The FOM graphics are showing them as having 0 points as is How about putting the points in the table to 0 but keep track of the points they would have scored in the notes? Madraykin86 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
He was excluded though. Are there any other precedents we can draw on? mattbuck 10:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
On the 1984 page Tyrell are listed as having no points (I don't know if they had any to begin with though). Also the FIA statement does say that McLaren have been stripped of their points, not just excluded. Madraykin86 11:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
(They did, as it happens) 4u1e 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Schumacher was allowed to keep his victories, trophies, AND the points for his career total. However, he was disqualified from second in the championship. McLaren loses all its points and TV revenue, and will not be allowed to even stand on the podium in the final four races, let alone earn any trophies, money or points. McLaren is excluded from the championship, meaning they have NO point total. I don't mean just zero, I mean they are incapable of even having a point total because McLaren is literally not taking part in the championship now. Hence, they are excluded, not disqualified. The359 18:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Max Mosley has stated that McLaren is considered to be 11th place. [2] Big Merl 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The current version of the table seems OK to me. The points have to be mentioned for each race because they must be comparable with other teams in the table. At most we can put a note like † but different from those used for disqualification at Hungarian GP. I propose using the same double cross sign ‡ for marking the same event. And we must change the legend colour for EX (Black). PS: Even that we put 11th place instead of EX, McLaren can't change that place, because they can't get any points. So i think it's better as it is. --Daniel7 16:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC) --daniel7 15:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the money deducted from their fine that they'd have got from TV revenues and stuff is from their points total pre-exclusion, or what it would be if they scored points to the end of the season? mattbuck 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(answering above question here to stop the indentation madness) The text of the WMSC Judgment (section 9.2) calls for "a fine of USD100 million (less any sum that would have been payable by Formula One Management Limited on account of McLaren’s results in the 2007 Constructors Championship had it not been excluded). This fine shall be payable within three months from the date of this Decision." It seems that it includes the points that would have been scored in the last four races as well, though that is not explicitly stated. Majin Izlude talk 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are the flags?![edit]

What is happening?! I saw this on different pages but I can't explain the problem... Daniel7 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be some sort of technical glitch. Currently being discussed at the Help Desk. DH85868993 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Black boxing is not consistent[edit]

the legend for DSQ has a black background while for EX it has not ;( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Black should be used for both DSQ and EX, and change the legend. Daniel7 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel77o (talkcontribs)

Your SineBot is working wrong! I have signed my comments using an option from my preferences. So it is a valid signature! Because of your bot, I can't update my comments, as it is resulting an edit conflict. I have to copy-paste my comment and try again. --Daniel7 16:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel77o (talkcontribs)

It is translation error for that option in the interface for my country's language. --daniel7 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest addressing this at Wikipedia Talk: WikiProject Formula One before you continue, as changing the legend would necessitate a change in every F1 result table with an "EX" on Wikipedia. Majin Izlude talk 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

McPoints - there's a clear precedent set[edit]

Ten years ago Michael Schumacher was excluded from the championship due to his wreck on JV. In that article, he got put in the position where he would have finished the championship, with points total in tact, and position listed as DSQ rather than 2nd. Surely that should be the case for McLaren this year? Duke toaster 20:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The punishment 10 years ago is not the same as the one this year. McLaren is excluded from the constructors championship, they do not take part in the championship (no constructors trophies, no money for their constructors championship position) therefore it is impossible for them to be listed. They are literally, retroactively, not participating in the constructors' championship. Michael Schumacher was allowed to keep his points (McLaren is not) and allowed to keep his trophies (McLaren will not be allowed to gain anymore trophies this season). The359 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari title[edit]

in the opening paragraphs the article currently states "ferrari clinched the championship at the Belgian Grand Prix" - i suggest this puts a little bias in the view that ferrari actually WON the championship at spa. perhaps something like "ferrari were GIVEN the constructors title..." or "ferrari were DECLARED constructor champions at ..."

if nobody objects i will change it Stuckster 13:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying they didn't? I don't see any constructor in the running for the championship that could have possibly beat them. They clinched the championship, that's not remotely biased. They don't actually WIN it until after Brazil. --Golbez 17:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"clinched" gives the impression to a reader with no knowledge of the current scenario (mclaren ejection from constructors champ) that after a close run contest ferrari "just" won the championship. I'm just saying different wording should be used, perhaps suggesting that because of mclaren ejection (mentioned in the previous sentence of the article), no other teams were in the position to compete. without speculating, i feel that in the future, ferraris constructors championship win will only be seen as a technicality, and that the opening of the article should imply this. (And i agree with your point golbez about not winning until after brazil!) Stuckster 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time McLaren were excluded from the championship (just before Spa), Ferrari were not assured of the title. BMW Sauber would still have been able to beat them in the unlikely event that BMW Sauber came 1st and 2nd and Ferrari failed to score points in all the remaining races. Ferrari became mathematically assured of the title by scoring enough points at Spa to be unable to be caught by BMW Sauber. - MTC 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is too long[edit]

Does anyone else think that this article is too long? Some things just don't seem necessary, such as the driver and constructor statistics. Also, do we really need to include things like "On September 6, 2006, Renault confirmed Heikki Kovalainen as the team's replacement for Fernando Alonso"? I just think that sentences such as that are unnecessary because you can just deduce that fact from looking at the table. Sausageman 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I for one appreciate the nicely encyclopedic verbosity (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, remember?). Some redundancy between tables and texts can't be avoided anyway. 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
What?! The "nicely encyclopedic verbosity"? I never thought I'd see the day when that could be appreciated by anyone.. Moriori 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The driver and constructor stats are the whole point of the article. As for length... it'll probably be edited down after the season is over. mattbuck 22:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the original post. The details are there in the table. If a reader wants to know why and how the drivers got their seats they can read the driver articles. Mark83 10:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably too long, and certainly too listy. Having said that, there's probably little point in clearing it up until the season finishes. Once all the hoo-ha is out of the way, someone (anyone volunteering?) can clear out all the verbiage that has accumulated throughout the season. My suggestion would be that, as Mark suggests, trivial stuff like the minutiae of drivers' contracts and the endless rumours from throughout the season can be safely ditched then. Details of how some drivers came by their seats (Alonso, Hamilton and possibly Raikkonen) are probably relevant as they have had a bearing on how the season turned out. The tables on the other hand I think should stay - as they contain useful information. 4u1e 13:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I just thought that since no one, other than the top four, have scored a win, pole, or fastest lap, and there have only been four other podium places, the drivers statistics table seems unnecessary. It's pretty much just the top four that's interesting and the rest is just 18 rows of '0's.Sausageman 06:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we (try to) have a consistent table format for all seasons.Having all results confirms that the others really didn't score anything much. Why leave out the (very few) other drivers who scored a podium during the season? 4u1e 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Hamilton listed ahead of Alonso?[edit]

They have an equal number of points, wins and podium finishes, so why is Hamilton listed higher? Kie 14:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they finished on the same number of points, it goes down onto a tie-breaker of highest finishes. As they both had 4 wins, it went onto second places, and as Hamilton has 5 and Alonso 4, he is listed above Alonso. Eddie6705 16:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You'll hear it described as "countback" in the media. Mark83 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Spy Scandal[edit]

An article on BBC news, stated as BBC SPORT: Renault face McLaren spy charge has claimed that Renault has also been involved into the Spy Scandal that excluded McLaren out of this championship. Can someone please kindly have a look about it? --Blackhawk charlie2003 14:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Layout[edit]

Is it just me or does it seem like the results and standings are too far down in the article? You have to scroll half way down the page to get to the results table. If you look at the 2006 Formula One season, the results table is featured more prominently. In my opinion, the results table is the main reason for the page and should be listed above the Rule Changes & Pre-season Sections.Orsoni (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, but it seems sensible to have the article in "chronological order" as it were. And I guess if people are only interested in the results, they can go straight there using the TOC. DH85868993 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

13th place[edit]

Why is the list of teams and drivers (first list) skipped number 13 as a driver? Is it always like that? Do they believe in superstition or why? Cunikm (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Number 13 is never allocated (presumably) for superstitious reasons. DH85868993 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


There is a reference made to an "OBN" network in the television section - I'd like to fix the DAB link that OBN refers to, but the only "OBN" television stations I find on WP are a small-time American outfit and a Tongan station that shut down in 2006 (so it can't be the one referred to here). Any more info you can give? Duncan1800 (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My guess is it's Televizija OBN, a terrestrial television network in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I've updated the link accordingly. DH85868993 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

test drivers[edit]

Why are drivers who took no part in the races being incuded in the table? --Falcadore (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


Someone has replaced all the Lewis Hamilton references with Tiger Woods, needs a revert I think

It's been fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry, I reverted all of these back. Lmcintyre1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcintyre1 (talkcontribs) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (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) 13:31, 15 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) 13:32, 15 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) 13:32, 15 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) 13:32, 15 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) 13:32, 15 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) 13:32, 15 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) 13:32, 15 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) 13:33, 15 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) 13:33, 15 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) 13:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 11[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) 13:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 12[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) 13:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 13[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) 13:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 14[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) 13:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 15[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) 13:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 16[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) 13:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 17[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) 13:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why "First races without Michael Schumacher"[edit]

Aside from the obvious - the first races without MS where in the 50s :-), this section make no reference to the significance of MS not being there - not that there is any really - He didn't come back in 2007 and it wasn't like one of his records was broken in this period of races.

Also I haven't seen other years include first races without Prost, or Lauda or Piquet etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair comment. I've changed it to "Early season". The absence of Schumacher was a fairly big deal at the time (he'd been dominant/competitive for such a long time), but you're correct that without any context it seems odd. And it could be misinterpreted as "First races (of the season) without Michael Schumacher, as opposed to later races where he was present", of which of course there were none (as you pointed out). DH85868993 (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, the section titles as a whole are rather poor. "Drama", during an F1 season? I'm fairly certain drama exists in every race of the season, so how is this seperating the season at all? And dramatic conclusion? This makes it sound like it's a fictional story, and not a historical retelling of an event. The359 (Talk) 08:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I would not object to all the sub-headings of "Season review" being removed. DH85868993 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
In fact, I've removed them, noting that most of the other season summary articles don't have subsections in the "Season review"/"Report" section. DH85868993 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Constructors' Championship[edit]

What's the point of showing McLaren's points total including the points they could have scored in Hungary between parentheses in the Constructors' Championship table. They were penalized with ineligibility for constructors' points after qualification for the Hungarian Grand Prix and thus BEFORE the race and as a result they were never awarded those points. Indeed, Hamilton en Alonso were allowed to keep their drivers' points but that only relates to the Drivers' Championship and not by any means to the Constructors' Championship. They never scored those points and I can't really see why a total including them should be here. Tvx1 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well... look at it this way. If the season exclusion hadn't have happened, we would still have needed an explanation for the discrepancy between the drivers' points and the constructor's points, because that is pretty unusual. Someone doing the math themselves would find they didn't add up. So a note would have to be made about the 15 point difference. Since the season exclusion happened, that's more academic than pertinent, but it's still useful information. Now, should this be in the table, in the parenthetical, and not in a footnote? Probably should be in a footnote, because it's unsound to have a bunch of numbers there that are later explained. But I can understand why the number is given. So, instead of having either number in the table, the explanation and numbers should be moved entirely to the footnotes. --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that. A 0 with footnote and 203 with a second footnote is more than enough. The 218 is unnecessary and misleading because they never scored those points. Tvx1 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)