Talk:Formula One/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

One new criticism

The NOTES at the bottom (above REFERENCES) are not needed. They refer to some recent news. This is very subjective as F1 has news all the time. I do not think that a couple of recent comments by Bernie or somebody else from Ferrary matters much.

FAC criticisms

Removal of 'duplicate links'

Regarding the recent edit, I guess as they were merely links, this is fair enough. However, I think it would be better to have a list of grands prix in the current season, which I seem to remember there was a while ago. Any other thoughts? doctorvee 17:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think some small bit of information should appear in the main article as a "summary" of each list (strange as that sounds). I'm about to change these a bit in accordance with WP:FAC criticisms. Dan | Talk 20:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It would seem right to include the 2004 races seeing as we have included the 2004 teams and drivers. I'm interested to see how you summarise the lists because I couldn't think how to do that. SamH 20:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think there are some fair points made in the WP:FAC discussion. To be honest, I think there is still a few of improvements to be made. Perhaps the criticism about lists is fair enough. If you take a look at Cricket, which was recently a Featured Article, there isn't a list of nations who take part in test cricket, for example. I think this is worth further discussion. I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll think of some suggestions I have to make the article and Formula One-related articles better. doctorvee 21:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me a listing of events is necessary. F1 has always been as much about the venue as the drivers or cars. Otherwise, why mention where the GPs are held? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

History section

I've done a bit of copyediting and addition to the history section of the article, and I'm trying to make sure it is only a summary of History of Formula One (i.e. short and concise), but it remains almost entirely concerned with technical regs and car evolution. Dominant drivers of each era at least deserve a mention, and maybe some of the minor formula changes can be removed since they aren't terribly necessary. Dan | Talk 00:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The USAP 2005 fiasco should have a note about recent news of the williams team having 3 tyre failures in a recent GP. Toyota was the only team to have an on-track failure during practice in the USGP. This year in nascar there has also been multiple race weekends where excessive camber on the turns caused over 30 tyre failures which honed around a few teams rumored to be running 10-15 degrees of negative camber. The entire fiasco at the USGP could have been something inherently political or a false alarm.

Tyre failures occur at many Grands Prix, but most often due to car set up problems (which is what caused the Williams problems, and McLaren's issues at Italy this year). What was unusual about Indianapolis was that every Michelin tyre was at risk, and it was every Michelin tyre. Politics obviously had a part to play in the way the whole situation was handled, but it was not only Toyotas that were affected -- they were only the most visible victims. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with removing formula changes. They are a part of the history, and every article on F1 I've ever seen notes them, as well as the comparison between cars of different (but contemporary) spec, like the 4.5 liter Ferraris and tiny Coopers. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Some suggestions

As I said, I have a few suggestions to make regarding articles related to Formula 1. The recent changes to the main article are a step in the right direction. However, I feel that there should be a dedicated section for the current season (listing teams, drivers and grands prix) to allow the rest of the article to concentrate on history and suchlike. How do people feel about covering third drivers? Third drivers play a bigger role than they used to, as they now travel to grands prix for Friday testing. But they still don't score World Championship points or anything. Should they be included in, for example, the list of teams and drivers and the teams template? There are inconsistencies. For instance, the Sauber article has a list of all drivers who have raced for Sauber in the past. None of the other teams have this, and if they did, a lot of the lists would be too long. Perhaps categories should be created instead? It is possibly not important enough to have a category created for Sauber drivers. But I don't think listing them is entirely without merit. Something I'd like to see personally is an article of the Concorde Agreement. It seems to be quite important, but my knowledge of it is very patchy. What are other people's thoughts? doctorvee 17:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm neutral on whether to split this season's teams, drivers and races into a separate section. I'm also neutral on whether they should be included in the main article or kept in separate articles.
I don't think we should include third drivers in the list and template because they don't actually compete in the championships, only the constructors and the race drivers do. In know that third drivers play an important role, but so do say, chief engineers, but we don't include them. However, if there is a strong feeling to include them I would be OK with it.
As for listing teams' past drivers on their individual articles (as has been done on Sauber), I don't feel this is necessary, but if people want to do it then I think a category (e.g. Category:Sauber drivers) would be more appropriate. However, I don't feel that we need to worry about all F1 related articles at the moment, just the main ones.
Regarding the Concorde Agreement, I agree that it should be mentioned, but as I understand, its contents are secret so it would be difficult to discuss it in detail.
IMO, two main things need to be done to bring this article to Featured standard:
  1. The future section (currently at the bottom of History of Formula One) needs to be taken into the main article, updated and expanded. This would be the place to talk about the Concorde Agreement.
  2. The second half of the history summary needs to include info on dominant drivers and teams as well as major events in F1 (e.g. Senna and Ratzenberger deaths). SamH 09:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oops, I already started editing the article when you wrote this. Hope it's okay though, I've shuffled a couple of things about and added third drivers and grands prix in a '2004 season' section. I agree with your other points though. doctorvee 10:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nice work; definitely an improvement. SamH 11:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I very much like the 2004 section. However I'd like to point out that the first time this article went through FAC it was agreed that the 'future of F1' section had no place in the main article; perhaps a short Future bit as a subsection of ==History== would be appropriate. I also think the Concorde Agreement belongs in History - yes, it was important, but it does not need another section; details can go on its own (as of yet nonexistent) article. [[User:Rdsmith4|subst:User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 12:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Surely discussion about the future of the sport does not belong in the article "History of Formula One"? As for the Concorde Agreement, I'm not advocating a separate section, I'm just saying we should mention it's effect on the sport. I believe that the "future" section is the most relevent place to do this. SamH 13:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Re: including 'Future of F1' in main article, fair enough. The section needs work, however; I'll copyedit but it also needs expansion.
Also, the Concorde Agreement(s) is (are) more past than future - one, which ended the FISA-FOCA war, ran from 1981 to 1987. The second began in 1997 and will expire in 2007, so it's mostly over. Dan | Talk 04:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't aware that there has been two Concorde Agreements. The reason I was suggesting talking about it (the second one) in relation the future was because of the speculation that a breakaway series could be created by disgruntled teams in 2008. I do agree though that the argreements are mainly related to the history of the sport. SamH 09:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd say leave out the third drivers. They're in the same category as test drivers. Unless they contribute something special to the team, or get moved up, or compete in another formula (GTP, F2, F3), leave them out. As for lists of past drivers, they're essential. Drivers make a team. Would Ferrari have been so successful in the '50s without Ascari or Fangio? Auto Union without Rosemeyer? McLaren-Honda without Senna and Prost? (Tyrell without...the guy that cost Prost the '84 title?) (I had to look it up: Stefan Bellof. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05)

Midland F1

It may need some editing relating to verb tense, but I included that the new team intends to bring in a Russian driver. The previous wording ("is expected to") left open the possibility that this could just be speculation. Since the page may disappear (I'm not sure about Reuters' archiving policies), I'll include their direct quote here:

  • "Of course the team will have a Russian flavour and in time we hope to bring a Russian driver into Formula One," said Midland chairman Alex Shnaider, a naturalised Canadian citizen born in St Petersburg, in a statement.

(Source: Article titled "UPDATE 1-New team to enter Formula One in 2006", dated Fri 8 October 2004 07:41.) - Cafemusique 09:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Formula One

Because Formula One is an enormous subject area, because it has proven difficult to divide it into appropriate subtopics, and because there are numerous articles of the same type which should be standardized (GPs, constructors, circuits, etc.), I have drafted a WikiProject, creatively titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, and a Template:WikiProject Formula One to go on the talk page of all F1-related articles. Please share your opinions and feel free to edit my drafts. — Dan | Talk 17:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that there is an article on Grand Prix motor racing in addition to this one on Formula one. Is a merge in order?Gzuckier 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think so. Grand Prix motor racing covers the sport of grand prix racing before the establishment of the World Championship in 1950, which is when Formula One as we know it today started (although the formula itself was devised before 1950). Hope this explains the logic of separate articles. SamH 22:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, OK, now I get it. Thanks. Gzuckier 03:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can somebody clarify the relationship between FIA and FOCA? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

References

I have added the sources I've used in my major edits to this article under the required heading at the bottom. If any of the article's other contributors have user other trustworthy sources (books, perhaps? nobody sells F1 books where I live), please feel free to add them. Dan | Talk 03:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added the books that I used in my edits. I used my interpretation of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite sources and the style guides it links to. I don't have much experience of citation so I could be wrong, but wouldn't "bibliography" be a more accurate title than "references"? SamH 11:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Cite_sources, under 'Proposed citation style', it says, "At the end of an article, under a ==References== heading, list the references as a bulleted (*) list in alphabetical order by author (and by year for identical authors)..."
I take it we should place references for all Formula One related articles in this references section? I think it's a bit much to cite different sections of the same website separately. Would citing fia.com once do? doctorvee 12:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've seen a Guiness Book of F1 racing that includes all the results. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I'd guess, pretty good... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Champcar comparison

I've added a short paragraph comparing F1 cars to Champcars and Indy Cars, but I think my writing is a little ungainly. Would someone improve it? Also does anyone know if the 2004 Montreal poles I compared were both set in the dry? If they weren't, the comparison is a bit useless. Thanks, SamH|Talk 21:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Uh, SamH? Champcars are Indy Cars... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05 (P.S. Did you mean Indy roadsters?)

Popularity

In line with the criticisms on WP:FAC, I think something should be written on the popularity of the sport. I'm willing to have a go at writing something, but I have no idea where to find the necessary information from. Anyone have any ideas? SamH|Talk 11:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FAC again

I've tried to summarize the criticisms from the article's most recent FAC nomination so they can be addressed in an orderly manner. — Dan | Talk 02:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Safety not addressed thoroughly enough.
  • Legends such as Senna and Lauda not mentioned.
  • Lead section should be longer and present a better summary.
  • The history section has seemingly random subsections.
  • Maybe (not sure) it is better to split out the history of the evolvement of the car to the "The cars" section.
  • Writing of the history section is not very fluent. One sentence paragraphs should be avoided; make it more of a story and less of a list of facts. There are also several facts that are too specific or irrelevant; For example, the disappearance of Prost and Arrows should be combined with the downsizing of the field from 40 in the early 1990s to the present number.
  • Missing section on popularity of the sport, the size of the fanbase, coverage in the media, etc.
  • The "Future of..." section discusses the main issues, but is still too much a collection of individual news facts. Also, historical perspective is needed; the three issues of internationalization, rule changes and financial problems for small teams are not new. Instead of only mentioning the new rules, mention the old rules as well (e.g. changes in the qualifying format, and the reasons to do so). Leave out specifics unless they are very important.
  • Move all see alsos to a separate list below.
    • I disagree with this one - I think they're quite relevant. — Dan | Talk 02:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A comparison with other and similar motorsport classes would be good for perspective. Especially the Europe (F1) vs. America (Indy) should be discussed.
  • I agree, it needs coverage of the fan base and media coverage. Too many media outlets ignore F1 entirely... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Descriptive subsections

There's definetely a major evolution in 1968 : Sponsors, wings, change of mind about security and Cosworth DFV sold to everyone who wants buy it. It should be emphsized IMO. Ericd 21:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think a comparison above and beyond what is mentioned may be unnecessary given that there has been no driver to move up from Indycars since the break from CART to be able to compete in F1.

Indianapolis

IMO the Indianapolis is the worse we can use for this article. It gives the impression that F1 use oval tracks. Ericd 11:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I assume you are refering to the use of Image:Ims aerial.jpg in the "Circuits" section. I agree that it could give the impression that F1 races are held on ovals, but it is the only photo we have of a complete F1 circuit (as far as I know). Anyway, you don't have to look much closer to see the twisty infield, and the photo just above shows a section of Indianaoplis that clearly isn't part of an oval. SamH|Talk 13:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quibbles

I have two issues with this article:

1) In the "Rise in Popularity" section, the text claims: "These cars were and still are the most powerful circuit racing cars ever". The Porsche 917-30 Can Am cars produced significantly more power (1500 - 1700 bhp, nobody seems to know for certain) and, if I understand the term correctly, were also circuit racing cars.

2) "It ... is the most expensive sport in the world, as annual team budgets average in the hundreds of millions of US dollars." The total player payroll cost alone of Major League Baseball will be about $2.2 billion in 2005. I think it is quite unlikely that 10 Formula 1 teams will spend more than that, given that Ferrari, with the biggest budget, is expected to spend around $200 million. More to the point, I don't think it adds anything to the reader's understanding of Formula 1 racing to claim that it is more expensive than Major League Baseball, or the Premier League, or the America's Cup.

--Davidsteele 19:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David, you are totally right on the first point I've updated the article to "the most powerful circuit open wheelers cars ever".

On the second point I think it adds a lot to the reader's understanding of Formula 1 to than F1 is expensive because we have reached a point were the cost of F1 has rised to a point that may compromise its future. I'm unable to summarize it in a short sentence but IMO the economy of F1 is very different from the economy of baseball or American football.

I'm really ignorant about baseball. It seems you're trying to compare the global cost of Major League Baseball to the global cost of F1. In that maybe the F1 is not the most expensive sport in the world and maybe tennis for instance is also more expensive. But I think it would be more fair to compare the budget of a F1 team to the budget of a basball team. According to the article Major League Baseball there are 30 teams.

There's an other point. The player or driver payroll is a cost for the team OK but it's also a redistribution of the income generated by the sport. Some sports are expensive because they generate high income and thus the players are well paid. But what makes F1 expensive is not the drivers. F1 is expensive because its getting more and more high-tech and high-tech is expensive. I'm quite sure that if we compare F1 to Major League Baseball F1 will appear to have a very low profitability.

Ericd 22:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I still don't agree with the use of the term "the world's most expenseive sport". First, it's not at all clear to me exactly what that means. Second, I am certain that there are reasonable interpretations of the phrase that for which F1 is not the most expensive sport. US Major League Baseball almost certainly has a larger total payroll. If you really believe this phrase is important, you need to qualify it or prove it.

--Rkstafford 13:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know for sure whether or not F1 is the most expensive sport in the world (although I did think it was). It's worth bearing in mind that teams' budgets are not the only things that contribute to the 'expense' of the sport. For instance, the upkeep of a racing circuit must be far more expensive than the upkeep of a baseball field. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 13:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely that we might need to consider all sorts of different costs, and that's exactly my point. By the way, why would you think that the upkeep of a race circuit would cost more than the upkeep of a baseball field? My belief, without more information, would be exactly the opposite. Baseball fields are used more than 80 days per year, and the players care every bit as much about the quality of the surface as racers do about the surface of a track. If we're going to throw in the cost of making the circuit available for testing, let's add 30 stadiums used for Spring Training to the other side of the scale. What's more, the 30 Major League Baseball stadiums will average almost 2 million visitors per year, with total attendance in 2004 of more than 50 million, wearing out the bathrooms, etc. Best I can figure, total Formula 1 attendance is less than 20% of that. If you're going to include the cost of other races in the upkeep, you've moved the definition again, and now we might compare that cost to the cost of all professional baseball in the United States, which will be several times the cost of Major League Baseball. My point is that I don't know whether Major League Baseball, or the Premier League, or Formula 1 is more expensive, but neither does anybody else. Readers are all going to have different notions of what it means to be "the world's most expensive sport", and by some defintions that this claim is likely to be wrong. The article could reasonably include a comment something like "Formula 1 cars are the most expensive race cars currently in production and the sport is among the most expensive in the world." The point that matters to the article, I believe, is that it's really expensive, not that it's more expensive than Major League Baseball. --Rkstafford 14:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I have to say we need to find an authoritative source to verify whether or not F1 is the most expensive sport in the world. But one reason why I think the upkeep of circuits is so much more expensive than the upkeep of baseball fields is because they are so massive. I mean, you have to cut grass around the baseball field, but at a circuit you've got to cut the grass around a circuit that is miles long. Circuits continually have to have tarmac relaid, and configurations have to change to adapt to increasing safety standards and the increasing speeds of the cars. In the past two years three new circuits have been added to the calendar. The Shanghai circuit alone cost $240 million. Still, I think you have a point and as I said we need this verified. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd agree to mentioning profitability. MLB roster salaries are huge, but so are the profits. No F1 team makes a profit (as far as I know); Enzo had to form his car company to finance his racing... I'd also say "most expensive" reflects the cost to play against the profit earned: yachting is called "most expensive", too; anybody ever make a profit on a yacht race? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Drivers & Constructors

The "Drivers and Constructors" section says "Others, such as DaimlerChrysler, provide engines and sponsorship for privately owned teams in return for prominent advertisement on their team clothing and car livery." Team McLaren is not, in this context, a privately-owned team provided with engines by Daimler-Chrysler (in the guise of Mercedes); Mercedes-Benz is a 40% owner of the McLaren Group. Sbz5809 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This error has been there for a while - clearly DaimlerChysler should not be referenced in this context. In fact, while this arrangement was the norm in the 80s and 90s, it doesn't really exist at the moment. By my count there are 5 full manufacturer teams, McLaren in an intermediate 'partnership' arrangement, and another 5 teams paying for their engines. 4u1e 16:36, 3 April 2006

Section and articles

Hi. I had the impression that the "Rule changes" subsection is too specific about the 2005 season. I believe that, for this article, it should talk mainly about the trend to keep altering the rules to return competitiveness to the sport, reduce Ferrari's dominance, etc. And then we could create a new article, such as Formula One 2005, where we could discuss the specific changes for this particular season, as well as list the circuits that are going to be a part of the 2005 season, and even follow the drivers' and constructors' rankings for the year. Perhaps it would even be possible to create similar articles for the more recently passed seasons, maybe 2004 and 2003. I figure this would make this article more general and the new articles would go a long way to expand our coverage of the F1 world. I realize it would be a lot of work though, especially to set up the new season-specific articles. Any thoughts? Regards, Redux 20:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say a specific article on the 2005 season is overkill. Rules changes are a fact of life in motor sports; we need to keep a perspective. NASCAR makes changes during the season, after all... And changing formulae and qualifying formats are nothing new, either: recall the '23 Monaco GP, when grid position was determined by qual time, rather than luck of the draw (leading to the creation of the term "back marker"...?) On the subject of back markers, may I suggest a glossary of F1 terms? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Numbering

A minor featuer to be sure, but some of us are curious about things like that. I think it could probably use a bit of a language cleanup and a bit more factchecking...I know that the old system was implemented in 1974 based on the 73 results, but couldn't quite remember offhand when the current system started...was it 95 or 96? Also the examples given seem troublesome to me...there might be too many, and they aren't necessarily accurate (particularly with Ferrari and McLaren, who just as often ran under different numbers than the ones given). Kurohone 9 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)

Renault Sport

I noticed that Renault Sport redirected to Renault F1. As Renault Sport (offically Renault Sport Technologies) is now separate from Renault F1 I've created an independent article on that page to reflect that.

From research I think its true to say that Renault's participation in F1 was as Renault Sport from 1975 (creation of Renault Sport) to 1997? Is that right? Then with the purchase of Benetton Renault F1 was run as a distinct division (that I'm pretty sure of). As such I think it would be correct to change those links that refer to the 2000-Present team to Renault F1 and leave those that refer to the period up to 1997 as Renault Sport. Any thoughts? Mark 23:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Amount of US-Related Images

I object to the amount of US-related images in the majority of F1 articles, especially since quite a few seem to be from the 2005 race, which was objected to so vigorously by... the people who attended the US Grand Prix.

One example, which irritates me particularly, is having an aerial photograph of Indianapolis. Sure, it is the epitomy of racing in the US, but it means nothing to the history of F1. A more relevant and apt photograph of a circuit would be of the classic Nurburgring, addored by F1 fans, or the old (or current) Spa-Francorchamps. Why should Indianapolis get highlighted over Monza or Silverstone, circuits with real F1-heritage. These are F1 articles afterall, not Indycar or NASCAR ones.

This is not anti-US, it is just I think there could be more relevant images to F1's heritage involved in the project, rather than images central to racing in the US.

I think the problem is getting images that you are actually allowed to use. With Formula One in particular, I think it must be very difficult to use photographs without breaking copyright or something. I get a feeling that one contributor is from the US and goes the the GP to take photographs himself. So that's the photographs we end up using, because it's all we've got. doctorvee 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Here are several decent images I took of the 2003 Indy F1 race, that are in the public domain, if they're at all useful. I even got Schumacher's victory cheer, though from behind. --Interiot 03:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, those photos are mostly mine and Rdikeman's, and they're used because they're freely licensed, which is a very rare thing in motorsport photography, most of which is copyrighted and jealously guarded because it's quite hard to come by. Unfortunately, it is beyond my means at the moment to attend any grand prix besides the one closest to home. I agree that an aerial photo of Spa or Monza would be far preferable, but unfortunately we don't have access to any such photos. — Dan | Talk 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
By complete chance, your wish is granted. ITV F1's website recently displayed an aerial image of Monza which was labeled "copyright free", so I uploaded it to Commons: Image:Monza aerial photo.jpg. — Dan | Talk 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Bernievision

The sentence about Bernievision contains this phrase: "by which a fan could purchase an entire F1 season," which doesn't seem right. Perhaps an explanation of what Bernievision offered that was different to the normal broadcasts (eg. more on-board cameras) would be more suitable, although I know little about Bernievision myself. Didn't viewers pay to watch all the action during a race weekend? \•/ doctorvee » Talk 16:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)