Talk:History of Formula One regulations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

1952 to 1953 Formula One regulation were not 750 cc (compressor) or 2000 cc normally aspirated[edit]

These 2000 cc normally aspirated Grand Prix cars were built to the Formula 2 regulations and therefore has no place in this article. The 1952-53 World Championship was run to Formula 2 regulations.[1][2][3][4] Even though a reference has been quoted (which is why I didn't simply remove the text), I'm sure the current (30 Dec 2008) version is wrong in calling these Formula One regulations. In fact, true Formula One cars were raced in non-championship races.[5] --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I've updated the text accordingly (note that I've retained the F2 specs for completeness/clarity(?)). I'll try to find an appropriate ref in the next couple of days. DH85868993 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"2000 to 2010" title[edit]

I would argue that the lowering of costs, and the "Safeguarding against economic excess" has only been in effect in recent years, particularly during the past two seasons. As no refs given discuss this as being a decade-long trend, I have renamed the section "2000 to 2010: Modern era|2000 to 2010: Modern era", and reduced some emphasis on cost-cutting (particularly, changing "Most of the changes ... have been aimed ... (primarily) at reducing costs involved" to "Most of the changes [...] have been aimed [...], later in the decade, at reducing costs involved"). I personally think that "Modern era" is a pretty bland title (also, one decade is not really an "era"), so if someone can think of a different title, go ahead. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All of the titles are heavily biased. We should get rid of them altogether. LRT24 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. DH85868993 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

i have removed the section that read:[edit]

The rules between 2000 and 2005[6]__15_01_2000_WMSC.pdf stated that Formula One engines may be no more than 3 litres engine displacement and must have 10 cylinders. In order to curb increasing power levels, the maximum engine displacement was reduced to 2.4 litres, and the number of cylinders to 8 for 2006. However, a concession was made in the rules to allow some teams the option of running 10 cylinder 3.0 litre engines for 2006. This rule was intended to help smaller teams unable to produce an engine and chassis to comply fully with the new regulations in time for the 2006 season. All teams using the 10 cylinder 3.0 litre engines were subject to a rev limiter to limit power.

This is because it duplicates what was listed under the year 2005 and also because it has clumsily/lazily been placed in the middle of a section of text where it looks and reads as if it is out of place. Gdogg370 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

2000 to 2010[edit]

While I accept that my original title was not appropriate for this section I do not believe that 'The Modern Era' is suitable either. The definition of when such an era began is very subjective (i personally believe it began in 1978) and is subject to movement as a result of the onset of time. I believe my current header for this section is a more accurate revision of the original header. Gdogg370 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

2010[edit]

The second place points are given here as 20, but 18 points are shown at List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems. Whilst 18 is correct, do we have a good source? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(2014) Possible POV section: "1990s: Complacency proves costly"[edit]

I believe this section may exhibit POV in form of serious anti-FIA bias - the title alone implies wanton disregard on the part of the subject. Experienced editors must review this situation and advise, please. JDanek007Talk 21:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)