Talk:Formula One

Standard Engine

Surely there should be a section on the proposed "Standard Engine" built by Cosworth?--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Inaugural Season

Have I missed some discussion on this? As far as I am concerned Formula One is NOT synonymous with the World Drivers Championship, nor does "season" imply "championship". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest Class of Racing/Highest class of open wheel/highest class of FIA sanctioned racing

I think the first paragraph needs a clarification on this.

some Facts:

-The FIA does not use the name Open wheel to refer to Formula One cars. I think there should be some merging in the articles of Open wheel car and Formula Racing as the difference is only the name used; Therefore referring to Formula One as open wheel Formula racing cars is blatant redundancy.

-There have been Formula One cars that were Not open wheel, like those Mercedes drove by Fangio (which he didn't like because he couldn't actually see the tires). We shouldn't refer in general to Formula One cars as 4 wheel vehicles either as there have been 8 wheel vehicles in the history of the sport.

-the FIA has a ranking of Driving Licenses being the Super Licence the top one, in terms of both requirements (skills, experience, success) and money (it actually costs quite a bit); A driver with an International driving license class A, recognized all over the world as the top "normal" racing license, is good for participating in th World Rally Championship, CART IndyCar World Series (when existed with whatever name they were using), Endurance racing (Le mans, daytona, Nurburgring), stock cars, etc.. except Formula One! where only Super License is good enough then: Where The top Racing License is required for Both Constructors and drivers alike, is called the Top racing category in this case F1; Since Super License is a FIA thing then it is the top category according to the FIA.

-The Monaco Grand Prix shouldn't be highlighted as it is, as despite the fact being one of the most watched sports events in the world, Monaco is not so definig to F1 as is the case with Indianapolis500 to IndyCar or 24 Du Mans to LeMans Endurance (AMLS and others), or Daytona 24 to Grand-Am, Monaco is more the exception than the rule in F1.

-Also Bahrain, China, turkey are highlighted it should simply be stated Asia and middle-east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.151.102 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole article needs a serious overhaul. Regarding your points:

1. True, it's a UK vs UK thing, I think.
2. There have been closed wheel F1 cars; I can't think of any eight-wheelers but one six-wheeler (Tyrrell P34) has raced and others (March 2-4-0 and Williams FW08 derivative) have tested. however, cars are now formally restricted to four wheels and having no bodywork over them, so provided we're clear that we're talking about the modern sport, it's a true statement.
3. I've not heard of the team license, but if so let's find a reference and put it in.
4. But if Monaco is much more known than the other races, then surely it should be highlighted.
5. Agree about Bahrain, China etc. 4u1e (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

About UK being the center of F1, let's put it in terms of:

-Tyres, very critical for the performance of the car (in fact there is no good racing sometimes because the cars cannot go outside the racing line with those soft compounds... anyway). recently: bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear, all of them base outside UK with production plants outside UK. 3 out of 3 not in UK

-Engines, the central part of every car. Honda (with mostly japanese engineers) is developed in Japan, Toyota (Italians, British) based on Germany as it is the case with BMW and Mercedes (I don't think there's anyone speaking english), and Ferrari in Italy. 5 out 6 engine supliers out of UK.

You might want to read Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-Aerodynamics, in this respect I think nearly every Aerodynamics Engineer (or Aerodynamicist) is British, this is huge point for UK.

-Electronics, now Microsoft does everything but it is a division based on UK, but until very recently there was Magnetti Marelli and others, so not a big point for UK.

-Teams HQ, 4 teams out of UK (Ferrari, Toro Rosso, BMW, Toyota), 3 splited (half in UK half outside (Renault in france (a joke) McLaren Mercedes in Germany (the half of Mercedes I mean) Honda in Japan (they actually take the decisions from US))) that leave us with 3 pure British teams (Williams, Force india, Red Bull...) so all of that doesn't make it for majority of F1 being british and it cannot be stated so in the article.

Mercedes F1 engines are produced by the former Ilmor company, now owned by Merc but based firmly in the UK. Mercedes also owns half of McLaren, but the entity is British - and officially competes as such. As for the rest, you're mixing up ownership and where the teams are based: Honda and Renault are based in the UK, not in Japan or France. Yes, Honda is owned by a Japanese company and Renault by a French one, so they are subject to their decisions, but the actual teams are based in the UK. There is no American connection at all that I am aware of with the Honda team - the Indycar operation was a minor satellite. A majority of the teams, not their parent companies, are based in the UK: Williams, McLaren, Honda, Renault, Red Bull and Force India. 4u1e (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

About the 8 wheeled cars, yeah, I'm a dumb, sorry for that, you're right it's the tyrrel using 4 front tyres (plus 2 rear tyres) what I was referring about.

About the Monaco GP. you've certainly got a point but I'm still dubious as I said it's the exception and not the rule in F1, it could be added to the part of watching figures, But why don't you put it in the place you'd like it to be and then we see how it looks like?

I've got a bit of an issue with the opening sentence of this article. It says that "Formula One ... is the highest class of auto racing sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA)." But auto racing is a very broad term, which covers everything from open wheel racing to touring cars to rallying. F1 is not the highest class of all of these sports, it's on par with the WRC and the WTCC. I think it would be better to call Formula One "the highest class of open wheel racing sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA)." 94.212.31.237 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right (although the FIA seem to attach far more importance to F1 than to the others) and it used to say something very similar. Open wheel is more of an American term, but I've edited to add single seater to the opening sentence. 4u1e (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

4u1e, This has been discussed so much, you seem to return after some time to see if you can make it the way you want after some time, The FIA designates the super License as the highest class of license that they issue, and you cannot drive F1 with any other license, therefore where the highest class of racing license is needed is called the highest class of racing, it has been discussed and agreed so many times now, even with you

Piffle, and furthermore, balderdash! I think this was discussed on one other occasion before this thread, although I can't find it in the archives. IIRC that discussion led to the previous consensus that F1 is the highest level of single seater racing. Then you (presumably) mentioned the topic among several others in the comment that started this thread, but it wasn't discussed further and we came to no agreement about changing the wording. Another editor, nothing to do with me, raised it for a third time much more recently in a separate thread which you have now moved up into this one and I changed it back to a previous consensus. Interesting point about superlicenses, but are you sure that it's not original research to infer that this makes F1 the highest category of all forms of racing? Superlicenses are only for drivers as far as I know - you didn't provide any reference for the team superlicenses you mentioned last time we discussed this. If you can find a reference that the FIA explictly considers F1 the highest form of motorsport, by all means include it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, the teams, and other people (including track marshals) have to have super licences dude, again I'm telling you. read the references carefully 4u1e. (The references are the official FIA information and application forms...) so read them all first before coming and changing it back to the point you like it... I'm later going to revert to the point it had been agreed ages ago, references are provided, .... and yes the FIA do state the superlicence is the highest classs of license they issue. Now in your logic, we cannot say F1 is any bigger than GP2 because the FIA doesn't say so explicitly, so saying F1 is the highest type of single seater racing sanctioned by the FIA is wrong by that logic as well (But you know we have these clues like they have a ranking for licenses, a multiple wrc champion doesn't get that top license when he wants it, a driver holder of that license can take on wrc when he pleases, the top license costs a mint) so you tell me how using the ranking for licenses from the FIA is "original research" and if the licenses ranking thing cannot be used to rank the sports they are associated to, then based on what Do you say F1 is bigger than GP2? (ahh and f1 is still called the pinnacle of motorsports by media (not only FIA sanctioned series)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.200.79 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FIA Formula One World Championship

regarding the recently revert changes:

Legally speaking, and according to the FIA (http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/Pages/SeasonGuide.aspx), F1 is named FIA Formula One World Championship, with F1 and Formula One being registered brands of the Formula One Group for commercial use.

Historically F1 has allways been a world chamionship with the first drivers' champion Farina being named a World Champion. There was Grand prix Racing before WWII and it was not a World Championship, and there have been Grands Prix that were not World Chamionship events. The term FIA Formula One World Championship is recent though, as legally speaking the current Governing Body is not the same as in the 70's or 60's let alone the 50's. Bernie Ecclestone is the main investor of the formula one group from very recently and the actual structure of the FIA is recent as well (the actual structure is after the FISA and FOCA thing). So even though it is recent it has to be included in the article as it true and verifiable. The rest is just copy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.212.103 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Only time for a very quick comment, but you're wrong on pretty much every count. F1 existed before the world championship (from 1948), the world championship was run to F2 regs, not F1, in 1952 and 1953, for 10 years (1950 to 1959) the world championship included the Indy 500, which has never been an F1 race, and almost every year from 1950 to 1983 F1 races were run outside the championship. The championship and F1 have been the same for the last 20 years or so, but historically they are quite separate entities. There was a Grand Prix world championship pre-war in 1925-27, although it was for manufacturers, not drivers and the governing body of motorsport is the same as it has always been - the FIA. Pre-1950 it was known as the AIACR, and from pre war until 1991 it managed motorsport through a subsidiary body (the CSI, later known as FISA), but legally it's the same entity. The copyediting you suggest may be OK, but I'm afraid your facts are not. 4u1e (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Having said all that, the current wording at the start of the lead is probably fine - the issue is that F1's historical status is missing from the lead. Suggest something like: "Historically the FIA World Championship and Formula One were separate things. Although most World Championship races were run to Formula One rules, some were not (most notably the 1952 and 1953 World Championship seasons), and many Formula One races were run outside the World Championship until 1983." 4u1e (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that - it is quite wrong for the lead to contradict the body of the page and wikilinks to the page, though, which is the case as it now stands. We also need a cite for the team franchise being called a super licence - it clearly does amount to the same thing, but I hadn't heard the term used, and the current ref seems be specifically about drivers. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

mmmmhh, I think that part of the article is already citing actual (current): performance figures (cars), championship structure (drivers (it didn't exist back in the days of Nuvolari let's say) and constructors (it didn't exist back in the days of Mercedes (pure Mercedes) let's say) also watching figures and internal structure (like FOM), so I think the lead refers to the F1 as it is today and therefore it should be referred as it is legally named. For instance, Nigel Mansell won the CART IndyCar World Series but Zanardi won the CART Championship series and bourdais won the Champcar World Series then if they name it the "Hello kitty F1 World Championship" then that's how it has to appear on wikipedia. I do agree that very little is hinted in the lead part of the article about the rich history of F1 (There is just a small mention to the formula changes) perhaps that's what is missing, to add some lines about where F1 is coming from so the uninformed reader is not left with the impression of a some sort of newly created racing series. and yes there is no reference for constructors being required to be holders of super licences (a missing reference should be added... quite tricky to find though) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.134.20 (talk • contribs)

Granted the wording is present tense, but that needs to be reinforced, for example by explicitly saying "currently". As it stands someone following the link from Oulton Park International Gold Cup might get the impression that the Gold Cup was part of the World Championship. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, i was thinking myself the "currently" was missing as well... it was added the missing fact. As always, you have the right to change it to better resemble the real thing.

Adding F1Badger.com as a link

Would this be ok to add a link to the recently refreshed "F1 Badger" website. It provides readers with an insight into the sport, in a more casual fashion, taking itself less seriously than the plethora of other independent F1 websites.

What's the policy on this?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsmills (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion (Urgent)

I have visited many past F1 race pages and all of them have been flagged for speedy deletioon because noone has added the redesigned nav box at the bottom. I am worried that many will be deleted if no one does anything about it. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.212.69 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The new navboxes were only added to those race pages which were part of the F1 championship, non-championship races are not part of the template. I'm not personally sure of the notability guidelines for non-championship F1 races, do we even have defined rules? Apterygial 07:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what happened was that the old navbox template was nominated for speedy deletion while it was still transcluded into dozens of race report articles, which may have given the impression that the race report articles themselves were nominated for speedy deletion. But it's all been resolved: all instances of the old template were replaced with the new template and the old template was eventually deleted. To my knowledge, no F1 race report articles are in danger of imminent speedy deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 data

Do we really need all the 2009 lists and tables in this article? It's just something else to update after every race. DH85868993 (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend towards thinking not, provided we have a c lear link to where the results are. 4u1e (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I think its presence implies that it is hugely more important than the ~60 other seasons. Apterygial 07:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them twice, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formula_One&diff=283543993&oldid=283534081 here] and here but they keep getting added... D.M.N. (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why have u del the calendar ??--Wrcf1 12:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

References

The article makes a great number of unreferenced statements, specially regarding figures (performance, general statistics, historic facts).

Since wikipedia guidelines instruct to every statement to be verifiable and since the number of un-sourced statements is rather high, in the lead section and in the article body as well, then the missing references tag has been added to the article head and should not be removed nor the missing fact inline tags as it has been done citing "better looks and better readability", this is an encyclopedia, if there are no sources the statements have to be either tagged or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.134.41 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Performance Figures

2009

Top Speed

Top Speed during 2009 has been in the neighborhood of 310 Km/h (slipstreaming). 360 km/h figure in the lead paragraph is likely incorrect, and as of today it is unsourced.

Lateral/Braking Forces

In 2009 a new formula was introduced, with more restrictions regarding the aerodynamics which should decrease aerodynamic downforce and grip at the front axle. The rear diffusor is aimed at increasing air speed beneath the bodywork thus increasing the downforce generated at the front but the "Brawn diffuser" works in the way of stabilizing the rear end by taking the fluxes from the sidepods and directing them to the double decker "hole" at the back, in other words the teams have now less aerodynamic grip on the front and more mechanical grip overall, with the brawn diffuser advantage of more stability in the rear (less oversteery car) then the lateral forces are expected to be significantly lower than the previous years. (the times will be quickier because of the slick tyres help a lot in slow speed corners). 5G in 2009 is very unlikely.

In the first few paragraphs it says traction control has been banned since 1991, but it was alowed from 2000-2007. It was re banned in 2008.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find references for this year's performance figures, please do edit the article to suit. It's one of the problems of this topic that some bits of it change on a fairly continuous basis. 4u1e (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

OK, so it's probably best to discuss this stuff here - you, or somebody (please sign your posts ~~~~) have started a discussion on performance above, so I'll concentrate on the other stuff.

• "Michael Andretti didn't win anything". Not in Formula One, no. But he did win the 1991 CART World Series season, so the statement that "Other CART or ChampCar Champions, like Michael Andretti and Cristiano da Matta won no races in F1." is factually correct. Could 190.28.147.50 explain what I'm missing here?

Sorry, that was my mistake, I was truly believing Michael Andretti had not ever won the CART championship ! I didn't have it in my mind and I think I checked the IndyCar stats instead... Nevertheless, the CART/Champcar champions not to score a victory in f1 is incomplete: M. Andretti, Zanardi, Da Matta, Bourdais are the ones, two names missing... (I had one name missing)...

But we're not looking to have a complete list - these are examples only. Bourdais is not a good example because he may (unlikely, I admit!) find success, and Zanardi competed in F1 before as well as after his Champ Car career, so he doesn't illustrate the point being made about career progression. 4u1e (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Refs in the lead. You say "Sorry but lead sections do need references, Always." You might want to have a look at the list of FAs from March of this year (April's list isn't complete yet). Of the first ten promoted articles I looked at, six have no refs in the lead, the other four had a couple. None were fully referenced: common practice is not as you suggest. The logic behind this is that since the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, all material that appears there will be referenced in the main body of the article, which is usually a more appropriate place to do it. Having said that, and despite being pretty sure that this used to appear in WP:REF, I can't see it now. Current practice may not have caught up with a change in the guidelines, so I'll leave a note at the FA page asking for advice.
• 190.28.147.50's recent edits removed the 'Beyond F1' section - I assume this was an error?
• The 220 mph statement is referenced in the section 'Cars and technology' - it may well be out of date, in which case please delete the out of date reference and replace it with a tag, or even better, find a ref for the now correct figure. The 5G figure is also given in the section on the cars, but is not ref'd there, so I added a ref tag to it, which by the logic given above is the best place to do it (IMHO!).

Happy to discuss all of this. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the out of date tag to the formula one cars article (and fell kind of doing the same to the f1 article as well, but I think it's ok like that) , about the references, you know it's always a real pain finding those ones specially regarding performance figures... Licenses and stuff is easier since there is the FIA page... let's see when linkable info is available. thanks for the clarification on guidelines for the lead section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.145.94 (talk • contribs)

Ah, found the guidance on citations in the lead: Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations. I think the most relevant bit is "The need for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." So, the question becomes: are the items tagged for reference complex, current, controversial or contentious? I'd suggest not: living people are no really involved and surely there's no controversy over the meaning of formula, tv viewing figures, who owns the commercial rights or that teams have extremely high budgets. People do like to squabble over top speeds and cornering forces for some reason, so there may be a case for that - although I'd still contend that the best place to ref is in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4u1e (talk • contribs)

Wet races

Perhaps an intriguing idea...a category for all Formula One events held in the rain (such as Donnington Park in 1993, Fuji in 1976, Spain in 1996, etc). Since such races often produce unpredictable results, a new category page with all such races may be much appreciated by those who are interested. 97.125.93.25 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we should create Category:Formula One races affected by rain as a sub-category of Category:Formula One race reports? Also would you agree that the category should include races such as the 2009_German_Grand_Prix? The race itself was dry, but it did rain during qualifying. AJCham2097 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but some other points you may wish to consider:

• whether you want a category, or a list (like List of red-flagged Formula One races). I think a list might be better, because you can display information such as how heavily it rained and at which stages of the event, without the need for people to visit each individual race article.
• whether or not to use the word "affected" in the category/article name as it's somewhat ambiguous, i.e. "races affected by rain" can be interpreted as "races where it rained" or "races where the outcome was affected/altered because of rain" (although you could always clearly state the interpretation at the top of the article/category).

DH85868993 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A third thought, and iirc the reason we didn't take this up last time it was suggested, is what is the reliable source that defines whether a race is wet or not? Without such a source, we can't support the category without straying into original research. 4u1e (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At track officials do make declarations at the start of the race whether it is 'wet' or not, something made necessary by the increasing strictness governing the use of tyres, but this is a recent development and does not extend back to the series beginnings in 1950. --Falcadore (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is a parallel discussion occurring at WP:F1. As pointed out in that discussion, we discussed this idea in August last year and an article called List of rain affected Formula One Grands Prix was deleted (here's the AfD). DH85868993 (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Constructors time line

Jordan is in there twice. The one that is green should be Jaguar. I don't know how to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.68.133 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Well spotted. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't quite know where else to raise this point, but 'Lotus' are perceived by the FIA to be the same constructor that competed since 1962, the difference is in name and nationality only, consider this, if Lotus were to win a constructors championship, we would say it is their 6th, not their first, so surely the graph should show a line going back to 1962, with a gap from 1994 to 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.55.15 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Renault isn't in the timeline from 1977 to 1985. It was the same Renault F1 team, wasn't it? Dubfire 13:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

No, it wasn't. Modern Renault evolved from Benetton Formula, who evolved from Toleman, who the original Renault raced against from 1981-85. --Falcadore (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above that Lotus Racing is - in part - the same team as the original Team Lotus given that Lotus Cars was the founder of Team Lotus and Lotus Cars is part owner of Lotus Racing. The time-line should reflect this as suggested below, but note Team Lotus first entered F1 in 1958 not 1962 as said below (they had won a F1 race before 1962!).Tartanperil (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:F1#Lotus_in_F1_timeline. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed that both F1 constructors timelines templates be deleted (which would result in both timelines disappearing from this article). Please add any views you may have on the matter at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:F1_constructors_timeline. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Breakaway threat in 2009

This year's game of brinkmanship was largely a non-event in terms of F1's 60 year history. As such its coverage in this article is hugely disproportionate. The section should be massively scaled back. In a few years time it will only warrant a couple of lines as an aside. danno 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Recentism is a contuining problem with Formula One articles. Agree. --Falcadore (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. A couple of lines in the history section would be more than adequate. 4u1e (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Needless Trivia?

This user [1] is adding "important facts" to F1 articles. I think that some or all of them are needless trivia and under the title "Trivia" would be deprecated, at least. Opinions are sought before all articles have these sections and they have to be pruned. Britmax (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia. Also the Alonso one is a BLP and the other one was confusing due to the way it was written. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Going solo

This page says the Concorde Agreement banned privateers, & this page says 1984, but without cite. If somebody can cite, can you add to both? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An ambiguity in the article you quote has led you to believe that privateers were banned when actually what was banned was running a car not constructed by your own team. I will try to clarify this. Britmax (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is what privateering is. I'm not the one confused. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, not actually. The term privateer, comes from privately funded, ie, not supported by a manufacturer. So in effect, any team running Cosworth engines in the last decade almost is effectively a privateer, and more besides. --Falcadore (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Any purchaser of a chassis, rather than a manufacturer of same, has been & is described as a privateer. There were a great many privateers in the '50s & '60s who purchased & ran F1 Alfas & Coopers. The usage you describe is much more recent, describing the likes of Jordan or Williams. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many privateers, and I feel the need to point out that this is not a Formula One exclusive term within motorsport. and this could be part of the problem, built their own equipment. I was merely pointing out that while not referred to as such, several current F1 teams could be, but aren't called privateers. Even so, several 1990s teams like Larrousse, Pacific and Scuderia Italia purchased their chassis from outside firms (Lola, Reynard and Dallara specifically), so your argument is still not without flaws. --Falcadore (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's more semantic than substantive. It may not be common to call them privateers, but Eddie Jordan's as much as done it, IIRC, & he'd know better than either of us. If you've got a way to describe the private users & the likes of Larrousse without creating more confusion, I'll happly use it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's perhaps more important to clarify what was banned by the Concorde Agreement, stepping back to your original question, and customer cars is more probably what the terminology you might be looking for. It was this part of the equation that caused Prodrive to step away from F1 having planned to use a customer McLaren chassis. Is that what you were asking? --Falcadore (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good term; it'd cover the '30s-'60s privateers & the likes of Larrousse & Toro Rosso (unless I'm mistaken). My question, tho, was less on the existence of them than on the contradiction on when the prohibition was...& we managed to get sidetracked. ;p Not that settling the usage issue was pointless. :) Addressing exactly what & when is a good idea, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Showing the flag

When was the blue flag rule introduced? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Viewing Figures

I was finding it hard to belive that 600 million people watch each GP (that is a significant percentage of the global population). The link says that 29 million watch in the UK (approaching half the population). It would seem that the figures are multiple counting individuals. For example if I watch all three practice sessions, the qualifing and then the race then that is "5 viewers". Seems a bit misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.102.97 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you accept about a billion (1000 million) watch the Oscar^TM telecast, 600M isn't beyond belief. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

TV figures like these are usually generated by 'counting' every time someone sees any footage of the event - so if I watch the race, see the highlights in the evening and then catch a clip on the news, I'd count as three viewers. That's how the figures get so ridiculously inflated. Most of the viewers will have seen a 5-second clip in a news programme. Daft as it is, it is the standard, as evidenced by the Oscars numbers. 4u1e (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if I understand the Nielsens correctly, you actually have to tune in during. It still might only be 5sec... (And I'm so embarrassed I didn't think of that sooner. :( :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the actual Formula1 press release and it isn't 600 million viewers per race, so I've corrected the article to match what F1's press release says and changed the citation to point to the press release instead of some fan site. I live in Austin and our local newspaper quoted the 600 million viewers per race building up the excitement that Austin getting F1 is going to be the biggest deal in our history, I'm sure they read that from this posting, and it's possible our local government has been making uninformed decisions based on a gross inaccuracy (order of magnitude). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.246.126 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

World's Most Expensive Sport

I respectfully suggest that the phrase in the fifth ¶ of the introduction, "As the world's most expensive sport..." may not be entirely correct. Please consider the astronomical cost of participating in America's Cup Racing. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to cite a source saying any America's Cup competitor has spent over US$300 million in a single year, as has been claimed for Ferrari's F1 effort. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

America's Cup occurs only every three or four years? It would need to be three or four times more expensive than a single F1 season then wouldn't it? --Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

On that order, at least, IMO. Or measure it against how much is spent developing one boat against one car, which may be the fairer way (since season costs will include travel & crew salaries, for a start, tho IMO they're a small fraction of the total); how much do the top teams spend a season, against the cost of a single boat (which may race once, or more than once)? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, these finer points of how exactly to define the most expensive sport illustrate neatly why it's ridiculous to think we need to make such an assertion. I've replaced it by a statement of the combined team budgets - which were $3bn 3 years ago (according to the article), but 3 years is a long time in F1 so I've gone for just "billion". This is open to improvement, but the concept of a "most expensive sport" is an encyclopedic dead end. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Future section

I was looking for the 'future of Formula One' article, but I found out that it has been deleted. So I've come to this article, instead, as it has a section called 'future'. After reading the first paragraph of this section, though, I'm getting ready to delete it, as it makes no reference to the future. However, I then read on, and find that things don't improve, much. There used to be a whole article about this topic. Where has all that information gone? RedvBlue 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted. It was always out of date and was an absolute magnet for huge amounts of rumour, speculation and original research. Changes that are announced often don't come to pass, which makes keeping on top of the topic really tough. There doesn't need to be very much on the future in the F1 main article: new engine rules for 2013(?), one or two new tracks that have cast iron contracts for future years and this year's competition for the final place on the grid. If you want to write a suitable (referenced) paragraph, and you're willing to keep it up to date, that would be brilliant. On the other hand, be prepared to have to tear it all up every few months. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get another new team for next year, for example. 4u1e (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was more about the fact that half of the section refers to the past, and it's not actually about the future. Should I (or someone else) delete it? RedvBlue 13:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph can probably go. The second paragraph just needs to be updated with the current situation regarding bio-fuel and KERS (i.e. KERS is in for 2011; I don't know the current status regarding biofuel). I think the third paragraph is OK as is. DH85868993 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in the article, we need to update the future races; we already have India and United States, but we need to add in Russia and Rome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not... given the 60+ year history of F1 any mention of future races, which in Rome's case continue to look far from certain, needs to be kept to a minimum. Be wary of WP:Speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "manufacturers"

From the section "Manufacturers' decline and return of the privateers":

This leaves Mercedes, Renault, McLaren and Ferrari as the only car manufacturers in the sport.

Is McLaren really a "car manufacturer"? It's not as if they manufacture millions of cars and also race in F1 on the side. It's the other way around: They race in F1, and every twenty years or so, they also manufacture a few road cars for sale. As I understand it, that means Mercedes and Renault and Ferrari are (primarily) car manufacturers, but McLaren is not; it is (primarily) a racing stable. I think McLaren should be removed from that sentence; if need be, something like "actual" or "mainly" or "primarily" could be inserted. -- CRConrad (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove it. It's an extroadinarily technical point as best. --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Conrad, Ferrari are in exactly the same category as McLaren here. Enzo never intended to make road-going cars. All the company's income is effectively derived from the immense media/advertising exposure it gets from F1, which is where all that money is subsequently pumped back into. Their production vehicles are if anything just spin-offs from this motor racing background, and given their high prices and inevitably low sales figures, it's unlikely that the brand would really survive outside the sport. AyrtonProst ^Pitwall 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No they are not. Ferrari has been continuously been producing road cars for over 50 years. McLaren built a car once, then stopped. And they did not sell it to the general public either as they picked and chose who could buy them. Not even remotely comparable. --Falcadore (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, Enzo started making road cars as a way to finance the Scuderia. He never liked it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)pg

Nonetheless, Ferrari do manufacture a few hundred cars every year, and have done for a very long time. McLaren built 100-odd F1s in the mid 1990s and just over 1000 SLRs in the mid-2000s, as far as I can see. I question the statement that Ferrari (as opposed to the Scuderia) makes all its money from F1 advertising. Do we have a reference for that? I also note that Ferrari is 85% owned by Fiat, which is definitely a bona fide road car manufacturer. As and when the new McLaren road car goes into production we may see a shift in McLaren's status. 4u1e (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Team Super licence

How do teams get their Super Licences to qualify to participate? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bernie says there is a spare licence, now offer him some money. We reserve the right to keep the money and kick you out if you're incompetent. --Falcadore (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have something besides stupid remarks to offer? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Formula One grid slots are limited in number and are bid for. Formula One then awarded on the basis of the bid. As the 2010 grid expansion process showed, and the subsequent fortunes of the winning tenderers, Manor, US F1, Campos and Lotus showed during the 12 odd months they went from winning bidders to the first race of 2010, (and for that matter the losing tenderers like Stefan GP) it did not matter whether you had money or not, form in junior categories or not, a history in Formula One or not, the backing of major sponsors or not, the capability to build a car or not. FOM made their own assessment as to who would and would not get slots. If you think there is a hard and fast criteria, then either FOM ignored it or decided that Super Licence would not neccessarily help you get on the grid.

So how is that really different to what I wrote before? --Falcadore (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's less flip, for a start. And it actually answers the question, for another, since it actually mentions the Super Licence & criteria, or lack of, for getting it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:38 & 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming it's not that there isn't a criteria, they're just deciding the criteria privately and not telling anyone. But the end point is that it does not lead to anything we can add to the Formula One article. The bid process was discussed and written about extensively in the 2009/2010 season article and covers the subject adequately. --Falcadore (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And the award for 'Best Race Director' goes to...

Is there a list somewhere of past Race Directors? (If so, I'd strongly suggest adding a link here.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ground Effect cars 1981 documentary

There's a BBC Horizon documentary on the later-banned Ground Effect F1 cars on YouTube here that might interest some of you: Gentlemen, Lift Your Skirts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.64.94 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian Grand Prix

Falcadore, strange you missed such an important event like new GP contract sign. BBC, Russia Today. Autosport article was posted few hours before announcement as an agenda. And essentially doesn't matter what it says as the fact has happened. It was just selected by editor back then. It just remains the source as what it tells about essentially happened. Elk Salmon (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so strange. It's three years into the future. Not a particularly relevant addition in 2011, I refer you to the Rome Grand Prix, and additionally I refer you to the very long history (20 years plus) of repeated false starts for the Russian GP. That far into the future I think it is not seem the page should describe as definite, unless I see a compelling reason not to, I feel likely to revert again. --Falcadore (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rome and rest is not the case. Russian GP contract was singed with FOA on October 14, 2010. Like you it or not. In includes 7 year deal with 5 year option on street race designed by Tilke in Olympic park. It's happened. Elk Salmon (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous - 2014. Time travel's not a done deal. There are very good reasons why 2014 Formula One season has not been created, and for that matter 2013 Formula One season has been deleted about six times. Those reasons apply just as much here. --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mate, the contract is signed. It's official. So it's worth to be noted in the article as fully meets WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Rome GP is just about talks, just like South African GP, just like Russian GP was before October 14, 2010. Just rumors, talks and wishes. 2014 and 2013 season articles were deleted because lack of information that could be provided, so main Formula One (or former future of F1) article can handle most of information for now. Elk Salmon (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Translating "Grands Prix" into English

I don't think it's necessary to offer a translation of "Grands Prix" into English. In English, we call "Grand Prix" a Grand Prix, with the French pronunciation (or a reasonable facsimile of it). I don't think it adds anything to the content of the article.

Thanks! TheBaron0530 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)theBaron0530

I'd disagree. Just because it's in common use doesn't mean translation isn't of value. Blitzkrieg is pretty common, too, but it gets translated. I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't know what GP means & want to. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blitzkreig gets translated in Blitzkreig, but not in World War II. Grand Prix gets translated in Grand Prix. I feel that having this in the lead section of the article is messy, if we need a translation it should be included further down. I'd prefer to remove it. 88.111.127.168 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

During? In!

Why does the word 'during' occur so often, virtually always replacing 'in' before years (e.g. during 1961)? This is not natural English in most cases. I may change some of them. 87.112.115.96 (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

feeder series/lewis hamilton

"Most champions from this level graduate into F1, but 2006 GP2 champion Lewis Hamilton became the first F2, F3000 or GP2 champion to win the Formula One driver's title in 2008" this sentence doesn't make sense. if I knew what the original writer was actually trying to say, I might have a stab at restructuring it. does anyone know? is it meant to suggest that, despite GP2 being the main source of F1 driving talent, only one of them has ever gone on to win the championship? it seems unlikely, no? duncan (not logged in, for which I humbly & profusely apologise) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.1.135 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"is it meant to suggest that, despite GP2 being the main source of F1 driving talent, only one of them has ever gone on to win the championship?" I believe that's exactly what it means to suggest. DH85868993 (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction of sponsorship

In the section titled 'The Garagistes', it states that Lotus introduced sponsorship to Formula 1. It is probably very hard to define what would constitute sponsorship exactly, but the Gold Leaf cars were preceded by the Team Gunston Repco Brabham of John Love at the opening 1968 round in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piglos (talk • contribs) 10:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Time for an update?

The historical section under the headline "Manufacturers' decline and return of the privateers" seem to be up-to-date only until the beginning of the 2010 season. Nothing there about Renault leaving as a manufactor (albeit letting the former works team use its name during 2011) or much about the 2012 return (or what you may want to call it) of Lotus and the entering of a Caterham team. Bianessås (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Environmental damage

this edit has been reverted. Although I agree that it may be written a bit harsh, the information in the article is certainly valuable to this article. I thus propose to rewrite the section a bit an reintroduce it.

Also mention the WorldFirst F1 car, made by the people as the Eco One.

91.182.197.249 (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The World First car is actually a Formula Three, not a Formula One. Not really relevant.

Also Wikipedia is not really in the habit of comparing subjects in such a manner. There are not for example extensive essays on environmentalism in articles about aircraft manufacturers, weapons constructors or on articles of each indivdual polymer. Also bicycles are not given paragraphs descrbing how wasteful the exotic metals, rubber, plastics and carbon is mined, refind and built and compared to walking as an alternative mode. Perhaps the an essay paragaph should be written at the Tour de France article advocating the race be changed to walkers only? Wikipedia describes a subject for what it is, not for what it is not. There are no paragraphs in the Formula One article about why Formula One cars do not break the sound barrier. Or why they are not made out of glass. Or paper. Or watermelons.

If you see Wikipedia as an opportunity to further an agenda, of any description this is not a criticism of envionmentalism, then I fear you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is for. --Falcadore (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Falcadore summed it up well there, Wikipedia is not the place for that type of content, at least on properly constructed articles. While there may be a place to mention environmental concerns somewhere in the article, there certainly does not need to be a entire section on it, especially once you cut out the heavily point of view content. I would also want some better sourcing to back up the information provided by environmental pressure groups - and without completely irrelevant data from the Football World Cup. QueenCake (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)