Talk:2010 Formula One World Championship

Nick Heidfeld

What happened to him? Is he leaving F1 or joining another team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.171.23 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He was linked with Sauber but they annonced they will sign a Experienced driver not Heidfeld and he also linked with a Reserve/Test Role for Mercedes but he's only options are Renault and Campos but Campos and USF1 arent interested in Heidfeld so he's only options is Renault Really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.145.1 (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes team numbers

These have NOT been confirmed and when they are it is close to certain that Schumacher will race as No 3 and Rosberg as No 4. The current numbers against the Mercedes drivers should be removed forthwith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.29.78 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The last FIA entry list (here) listed Rosberg as #3. Regardless of Schumacher's status in the team there is not yet any justification to take the #3 away from Rosberg. Either Schumi fans will have to hunker down and cope, and wait for an updated FIA entry list to say otherwise, or they will just have to throw hissy fits, like this one. --Falcadore (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that it's "close to certain" that Schumacher would take the number three. Look at Ferrari - Fernando Alonso, double World Champion, is carrying the number eight while Felipe Massa, no World Championships, is number seven. Schumacher is such a professional that I doubt he'd be bothered by carrying the number four. Having the "better" number does not guaranee "number one" status within the team - performance does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the number has no bearing on the status, it is entirely up to the team to decide who gets the numbers. One year at Tyrrell Jeal Aelsi wore #4 and Satoru Nakajima wore #3 because Nakajima was superstitious about the number 4, and thought it a bad luck number. --Falcadore (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Esteban Tuero was - and still is, I guess - superstitious. He refuses to race with the numbers 13 and 17 because of their bad luck and religious significance respectively. I guess the point that I'm trying to make isthat there's a lot of cases you could make for Schuamcher being quite content with the number 4. After all, Ross Brawn didn't really approach him until after Button left. They wanted Button and were banking on Rosberg. Knowing how professional guys like Brawn are, I should think they'd let Rosberg keep the number 3 as a symbolic gesture - one that says he's not forgotten, not going to be snubbed, simply because of Schumacher's presence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is from the official F1 website: [1] 3. ROS 4. SCH Officially Mr X (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification here. This is not a particular superstition by Nakajima; the number four sounds, in east asian languages, like the word "death". See Tetraphobia.

Just noticed: the link to he official website that Mr X posted also gives the Lotus numbers, so that problem is solved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but for some strange reason Kamui Kobayashi of Sauber Ferrari does not appear on that list... --Oᴅᴏʀ (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sauber did not confirmed as a constructor in the documents by FIA, although they have been given a green light. That's why Kobayashi does not appear on the list. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 13:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And to add weight to both the status and "Death" points, Takuma Sato didn't have #4 a few years ago at BAR for that very reason. Duds 2k (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

2005 page says he did. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC

Hello im a New User here, I would just like to say that it is most likely that Nico Rosberg will Race with number 3, and michael Schumacher number 4, I have no sources for this but over the past few years the FIA have been more strict assigning who get what number with the Driver who finished highest in the getting the lower number i.e, Hamilton 1, Kovalienen 2, and example of this is Ferrari last year. They wanted Raikkonen to race with the number 3 and Massa with 4 even though Massa finished higher in the previous Championship but the FIA forced Ferrari to switch them around. So therefore with Rosberg should get a number 3 wile Schumacher who did not race in 2009 will get race the number 4 car. MrRacingMan(talk) 03:54, 4 January 2010 (GMT)

The FIA doesn't assign numbers for each driver on a team. That's left up to the team themselves to decide. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Except for #1, which always goes to the reigning champion. --Falcadore (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Schumacher is after number 3, since he says that Ross Brawn knows he prefers odd numbers, though it doesn't take a genius to realise that if you're in the top half of the teams that an odd number will put in front of your team mate in the numbering system... --roddie digital (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sauber name

[2] [3] These articles state that Peter Sauber has not yet applied for a change of name from BMW Sauber F1 Team. I remember that when they were granted the entry it was officially BMW Sauber that was given the entry. The team is yet to appear on the F1 website's list of teams and drivers either. BMW Sauber however appear to be ready for a change of name. Opinions? - mspete93 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Retain BMW Sauber name in the chart with a hatnote. We did the same thing when Honda was sold but the name wasn't announced as Brawn for a while. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the country next to the team name still be Switzerland?--Brody59 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope - BMW Sauber was registered as a German team. The change of nationality will come with the change of team name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that calling the team Sauber, whilst strictly not accurate (yet) is more useful than something that whilst on a technically is right, is actually quite misleading. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely they would be a Swiss team: the only thing that made them German was the active presence of BMW, which is no longer there. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if they have not changed from BMW Sauber yet, they won't have changed their registered nationality, which is what matters here.

The media can call the team whatever they like, the truth is that Formula One is referring to them still as BMW Sauber. I know it is a little misleading, but that is why we have a note underneath the table. Peter Sauber has not even said what the team would be called if he applied for a change of name, so anything else is complete guesswork. - mspete93 12:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm OK with keeping the BMW Sauber team name and the German nationality, as long as a new application is not submitted. Though I don't understand why BMW is also listed among the constructors. — Luxic (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When changing the table I just assumed that they would have not changed the constructor name either. This is a safe assumption to make. - mspete93 17:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Um... you seem to have a point there. Even though I still cannot totally disagree with the user who said it's misleading. It's an odd situation. Let's just hope the FIA publishes a new entry list soon. — Luxic (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is silly, they're using Ferrari engines! How much effort does it take to fill out and send an application form? - mspete93 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It has to be agreed unanimously by all the teams. I have no doubt it will happen, but it's not nearly as simple as just sending in a form. Peter Sauber has been pretty busy with the buyout too. Eightball (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The official Formula One website is referring to BMW Sauber as "the Swiss team" Deaþe gecweald (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably in the same way as referring to Red Bull and Force India as British teams. They won't have changed the country of registration from German if they haven't bothered to change the name. Then again, maybe they applied as a Swiss team, but with the BMW Sauber name. That is feasible. However, we have no entry list yet so we can't tell. And I forgot about the agreement with the teams over the name. - mspete93 13:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now changed my mind on the nationality - their new website ends in .ch - It is possible the application was made with Swiss flag but with the old name. - mspete93 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Points change

{{Editsemiprotected}}

I would like to add information about proposed rule changes to the 2010 season, most notably the proposed amendment to the already new points system. There is a "proposed" section. I am a very well educated formula 1 fan & writer and would like to help amend any Formula 1 articles in the future. Thank you.

It is about the proposal of points for fastest lap, and points for pole position Ferrari boss, Stefano Domenicali hinted & has proposed the change. Thank you.

Cubejam (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not believe that any rule change, proposed by one team boss in isolation of any consensus is sufficiently notable for inclusion. If it gets support from a number of team bosses, or the FIA, then sure, but given that a rule change like that will only be of assistance to the big teams, it's not likely to get the support of any of the smaller or the new teams. --Falcadore (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, why is this page still protected? Us "new" users can make a genuine contribution to the page. Just trial a lower level of protection, see if the page gets vandalized. If it does, at least you have a genuine argument for why it is still protected!--Brody59 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@Cubejam: have you got any independent, reliable sources for the changes? I thought the situation was as Falcadore states it: this proposal does not have the concensus of several teams at this time.

@Brody59: the protection isn't too restrictive: as long as your account is autoconfirmed (i.e. at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits) then you can edit the article. For example, if you had a further 4 edits, you would be able to edit the article, as you meet the "more than 4 days old" criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Launch Dates

Hello, I'm new to editing Wiki so bare with me if I get this wrong. Noticed that there is a new launch date for Mercedes GP and also a chassis number as well. The car is now going to be released in Stuttgart on the 25th January rather than the 1st February quoted on the page. Also the Chassis will be called RB1 for "Ross Brawn 1". Heres the link where I found the information:

http://en.espnf1.com/mercedes/motorsport/story/6145.html

Saltire89 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"The story was leaked by German 'newspaper' (ahem...) Bild". I guess we need a better source than that. An official statement by the team would be good enough. --Oᴅᴏʀ (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why if you doubt this story would you include the launch date on the page?!? --Brody59 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello im new to this as well but i've heard a story that Mclaren is Launching their MP4-25 on February 1st heres the Info or link to the story

http://www.f1complete.com/news/2009-news/15761?task=view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.145.1 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That story is valid, although it doesn't give an exact date. We'll have to wait until an exact date has been given. Thanks anyway though! --Brody59 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari Numbers/ Driver Order

Alonso will be the first number (Number 7) as he scored more points than Massa (who will be Number 8) in the 2009 championship. Someone please change. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.33.13 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The official F1 website lists Massa as number 7 and Alonso as 8. The entry list also places Massa as 7 and Alonso as 8. See here: http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/drivers/ - just because Alonso scored more points does not guarantee him the "better" number. Ferrari is allowed to assign driver numbers however they choose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes' "newly-formed" status

Right now, there's a bit of back-and-forth over a minor wording of the driver changes article. The exact wording is Nico Rosberg left Williams at the end of the 2009 season after four years with the team, moving to the newly-formed Mercedes Grand Prix; te point of contention is over the use of the words "newly-formed". Mercedes Grand Prix is indeed newly-formed. They might have fielded cars in the 1930s an 1950s but that was over fifty years ago. And although they supported McLaren for a decade, McLaren were not an official works team. The current incarnation of Mercedes Grand Prix is new to Formula One; therefore, it should be included as much. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Silly thing to get in an edit war over, but you are correct. - mspete93 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I see it the other way - apart from a few changes at the top level (e.g. Haug), isn't Mercedes GP effectively just Brawn GP under a new name? i.e. even though it's a new entrant in the eyes of the FIA, it's still the same team, i.e. the same people working in the same factory. But either way, to stop the edit-warring, I suggest leaving the words out, i.e. changing it to "... moving to Mercedes Grand Prix". It's an accurate statement, and it's not saying Mercedes GP isn't newly-formed. DH85868993 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the team is certainly not newly formed. Newly formed implies this year saw the team's formation when that is clearly not that case. This team has been together for over a decade originally as BAR. The team was sold, already formed, to Mercedes-Benz. --Falcadore (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I included it in the first place is because while the team was formerly known as Brawn, it is now known as Mercedes. The team hesitated in declaring Rosberg as their driver until the Mercedes deal was finalised, despite Rosberg confirming he had left the team something like a month beforehand. Maybe the sentence should be re-worded to state that Rosberg left Williams but did not join Mercedes until Mercedes was actually formed out of Brawn. Because right now, the implication is that Mercedes existed in 2009, which it clearly didn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Formed was certainly the wrong word. Newly purchased perhaps although that's a little clumsy. --Falcadore (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "Nico Rosberg left Williams at the end of the 2009 season after four years with the team and became the first driver to join Mercedes Grand Prix after the German car manufacturer purchased 2009 season champions Brawn" instead? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the only reason the phrase was there was because we had driver changes before team changes, but I've since swapped these round so we don't need an explanation that they are a new team. - mspete93 08:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Newly formed" is obviously wrong as the team has been around for years under various names. A more elaborate wording like Prisonermonkeys is awkward and unnecessary. Just dropping the two words results in a much better and encyclopedic statement. EeepEeep (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My big question is: is Mercedes GP a constructor's champion? Because if we say that it's a reformation of the 1955 team then it's not, and if it's the successor of the Brawn GP team then it is already a champion team, isn't it? When Schumacher joined the team, in his and Ross Brawn's interviews they referred to the team as a champion (and it's still the Brawn GP team in 25%). But the Mercedes Grand Prix page says: Constructors' Championships 0. So what's the answer? Dubfire 10:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

Campos Launch

Should I include Campos' launch date from http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-campos-to-be-ready-for-first-valencia-test/ ??--Brody59 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No. That article only says that Campos will be at the tests in Valencia. It does not actually give a release date; a team can launch their car before they test it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats the same with the Lotus launch then. The link says that they will be at the test on the 17th Feb but in the article it says they may "fire up" on the 5th Feb. Maybe check it out see what you think. Saltire89 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"May" is a modifier, like "might" or "could". It is not a confirmation, only the suggestion that something has the potential to happen. Therefore, it's not valid as a reference. As a general rule, we've had it decided for a long while now that a reference should only be included if it directly quotes someone within the team (and names them). So something like "We're going to launch our car on this day, in this place," said Adrian Campos is a good reference, one that can be included. But Sources within the team believe that the car could be launched as early as this date, and in this place is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

Ferrari Car Designation

In this Autosport article, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80783, it states the car will be designated the "281".... Although I have not seen any other reference to it being called this either on F1 news sites or an announcement from Ferrari - Hence I haven't edited the article until another reference can be found Oli.meggitt (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere else that this was just the codename, rather than the official name it will use. - mspete93 12:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be Codenamed F281 i think it makes a lot more Sense because all of Ferrari's F1 cars have always began with the letter F (for Ferrari) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.145.1 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No they haven't. There has never been any consistency, and rarely even any logic behind Ferrari's racing chassis designations. This lack of consistency forces us to wait for confirmation rather than make assumptions. --Falcadore (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree it may well be a 'codename', presumably the actual name will be announced at the car launch just before the first test? As to previous designations, even very recently their car was designated "248F1" - That was to signify a 2.4 litre V8 engine.... Other numbers have included F1-2000, F2001 etc and then F60 to mark Ferrari's 60th year. I'm struggling to even guess at what "281" could mean - hence my agreement with it being a temporary/codename.Oli.meggitt (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes Grand Prix Petronas chassis name and launch date

According to this article on Update F1:http://formula-1.updatesport.com/news/article/1262944213/formula_one/F1headlines/Mercedes-launch-January-25-/view.html

and a similar one on the Spanish version of the F1 2010 page,considers that the name of the chassis and the launch date has been said and confirmed.

I have not edited the English version of the F1 page,because i don't know whether i should do it or not.

So i leave up to you guys to decide whether this information should be added to the page or not,thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdlerd (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The article quotes Bild, not the Mercedes team. Therefore, it cannot be included in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish wikipedia articles on Formula appear to be completely unreliable and filled with rumours, it's essentially, an unreliable source. --Falcadore (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And what about the chassis sharing name with 2005 Red Bull Racing one? Why didn't they returned to the W series? Fsarmony (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari's chassis

The Ferrari's chassis isn't 281, because in the official site of Ferrari (here the link) there is written that the 281 is a scossa, that is different from the chassis. I think we have to wait the official presentation of the car before we know the real name of the chassis. Restu20 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoever keeps putting "281" into Ferrari's chassis name, stop it!! It hasn't been confirmed and your source is useless!!!--Brody59 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see an explanation of how Autosport is "useless". Nor does it need to be confirmed by Ferrari, this is Wikipedia, we go by what can be reliably sourced, not what you think may be correct. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, i didn't call Autosport useless, I called your source on the ferrari chassis name useless! It doesn't support that the chassis name of the 2010 Ferrari F1 car sufficiently. And as a rebuttal to your last sentence, yes, we do go by what is reliably sourced, not what you think is correct! Plus, read the "Ferrari Car Designation" topic on this talk page, this discussion has been had and decided against putting it on the page!--Brody59 (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The359, and not simply because he knows what he's talking about. The article is from a website that constitutes 90% of the references on this page, and is generally accepted as being one of the most accurate sources for our purposes. The Ferrari website may claim otherwise, but it's not a English-language source. If you keep removing the chassis designation despite the proper references in place, you may get yourself reported for vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

...Autosport is the publication which is cited in the Ferrari chassis name. If you're not calling Autosport useless, what else is there to call useless? If a reliable source gives the name of the chassis, then it goes in the article. "Sufficiently" has nothing to do with it, one is all you need for something like this. There is no source at the moment claiming any other name. Yes, we are including the title given by a reliable source: Autosport.

The link posted by Restu20 does not work so it is impossible to see what exactly Ferrari has to say about this designation. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you tone down your attitude and reaquaint yourselves with some basic Wikipedia policies before shouting about what is or is not useful or useless. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at the Ferrari Car Designation topic, others have decided to not put it on the page, so therefore, it shouldn't be on there.--Brody59 (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a disagreement over what the "281" designation means. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All of which are assumptions without any referenced backing. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that there has been a mini edit war over this. At the moment, I am minded not to take any administrative action as long as it stops now. Consensus appears to be that Autosport is a WP:RS. If Ferrari make an official announcement that the chassis is something other than the 281, then a change can be made. Further reversion without a reliable source will be considered edit warring, and dealt with accordingly under WP:3RR. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, plus read this: For every individual chassis that is produced, Ferrari distinguish between them by giving them all a unique number. Towards the latter stages of 2009, Kimi was driving chassis 279 and Giancarlo was driving chassis number 280. The first 2010 Ferrari car to be produced (whatever they decide to call it) will be chassis number 281, the second 2010 chassis will be 282, but these numbers have no bearing on the cars name. The 2006 ferrari car was the 248F1 actually, but each individual 248F1 chassis had it's own unique number. The autosport press release is totally wrong, and I'm disappointed in Jon Noble who put that out. He got that from a confusing press release on the Ferrari website, which was written in Italian and then badly translated into English, which is what has led to this confusion. It is likely that this years Ferrari F1 car name will either be F2010 or F61 but we will have to wait and see what Ferrari decide themselves.--Brody59 (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brody59, what I'm saying is that at the moment a RS gives a designation for the chassis. This does not mean it is set in stone; but for the moment the designation can be used in the article, suitably referenced. verifiability beats truth every time. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but the article I put before seems correct, so it should remain a TBA until there is an official announcement. I had a similar article for Toro Rosso's Chassis but i got told it wasn't correct so someone found another. But whatever, if you insist that I can't be correct, go ahead!--Brody59 (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to be grasping this. All the information you just mentioned has no source. If you can provide a reliable source, then you have something to challenge the Autosport article on. But this is not a matter of whose correct. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it! I did find a page, but i dunno about the reliability of it. Have a look : http://www.f1carstoday.net/sida/Cars/Ferrari.htm. If this is correct, the 2010 car 'codenames' start at 281.--Brody59 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. For all we know, Ferrari will choose to designate the 2010 car the 281 because the 281 chassis was the first built in the 2010s. And you'll notice that the last F2008 chassis was given the number 271, but the first F60 was number 275. Anf the same thing happens between the F2007 and F2008: the last F2007 was 264, the first F2008 was 267. And nor does it actually include any information on the 2010 cars; it stops after the F60 model. And that means that anything to do with 2010 is nothing more than speculation. At Wikipedia, we do not speculate. If the Ferrari car is not numbered the 281, then we'll be the first to admit we're wrong and change it. But for now, we have a reputable source reporting that the Ferrari chassis will be designated the 281 - and we don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not sure why you're pursuing this: a moderator has already made it plain that the page will remain as is until we get reports that state otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because Autosport said the car is designated the 281, this does not neccesarily mean this is the official name of the chassis, just a codename it will use until launch. This is what I read somewhere else, unfortunately I cannot remember where. - mspete93 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking Autosport is wrong or means something different is an assumption. There's nothing in the article to indicate that it is a code. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting Autosport was wrong. I was saying that it was not clear what 'designated' was supposed to mean in this context. Type 'Ferrari 281 codename' into Google and you'll find similar versions of the article I read. In fact, here is a link to the English version of the official Ferrari news story mentioned at the start of the page, which appears to be what the other news sites have used. Codename to me suggests a temporary name used by Ferrari employees meaning the 2010 car. To quote Jon Noble, the main F1 man at Autosport "Ferrari confirms its new car, codenamed the 281, will run for the first time at the Valencia test from February 1. Expect a launch before". I've asked him what this means. Hopefully I'll get a reply. - mspete93 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And here is the reply. [4] Just a temporary name. - mspete93 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL!!--Brody59 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Engine designations

I think it'd be useful to add engine designations (where known) to the teams and drivers matrix. For instance, Autosport recently confirmed Cosworth's new engine as the CA2010 (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80810). Can an admin unlock for these edits? --Supermoot (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No unlock, but they can be edited in by a regular. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done!!--Brody59 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I look forward to becoming a regular. ----Supermoot (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The engines haven't been re-tuned or changed at all since last season, so they should all be the same as last year. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The teams always change the designations each year, since they are allowed to change certain elements of the engine design. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Virgin-Marussia

I've changed the Virgin-Cosworth designation to Virgin-Marussia. According to this report (the one I referenced) - http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns22026.html - they have paid an extra 1.5 million quid to rebrand the Cosworth. I'm not sure how reliable the site is, but I'm pretty sure it's been used as a reference before. I expect we may know more tonight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them from the table as it is unconfirmed, but I left the note there - like we do with drivers. - mspete93 11:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read somewhere today (possibly James Allen although can't now find it) that this certainly isn't confirmed and may be a hoax. I will try to dig up the source again Oli.meggitt (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a very reliable source I know, but found it - Jonathan Noble has posted on his twitter feed "Ignore the stories suggesting Virgin's Cosworth engines are about to be rebranded as 'Marussia'. The company is simply a team partner" (http://twitter.com/NobleF1) - so certainly need to keep an eye on this Oli.meggitt (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The marque is Virgin-Marussia according to the Official Virgin Racing web site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.215.72 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? I don't see it. - mspete93 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe he's misread this... "This arrival on the global stage heralded the appearance of the first Russian sports car and further credence is added through Marussia’s technology partnership with the renowned British engineering organisation, Cosworth, which will be supplying engine, drivetrain and other engineering expertise to the Marussia marque." Cosworth are helping out Murussia with their road car program basically.Duds 2k (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Ericsson

The second Swedish thirdriver is here! Marcus Ericsson will be Mercedes GP´s test- and reservedriver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not confirmed yet, so it won't be edited in yet!--Brody59 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

USF1 launch

I inserted USF1 into the car release schedule as we do know where they'll launch, just not when. Feel free to remove it, just thought if we have teams with a date and no place, why not have teams with a place and no date!--Brody59 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As we don't know the date - and the date is largely the point of the release schedule - I'll stick it as an invisible message, so that when we do know the date, we just have to cut a little bit of coding. There's nothing in the current version of the release table that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Our rules on driver signings

Just to say that De la Rosa's move to Sauber that was announced today proves that we have been making the right decisions with regards to the announcement of signings. Remember that Brazilian websites put De la Rosa and Senna at Campos, and that many tried to enter this to the table after it was used by more well-known sites? They may have got it right with Senna but this news shows that De la Rosa to Campos was indeed untrue. - mspete93 16:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that de la Rosa was lined up for a Campos drive and was to be announced at the European Grand Prix, but then BMW withdrew and de la Rosa wanted to see if Epsilon Euskadi woud get their berth. That way there would be two Spanish teams and he could see who he could get a better deal from. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Alguersuari confirmed?

This list on Autosport lists Jaime Alguersuari as a confirmed driver for Toro Rosso. I don't think it's the case (yet, at any case). Has anyone seen anything different? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No I spotted that. The eighth point on this list indicates he has not been confirmed. The latest stories I've seen suggest there are just contractual issues to sort out before confirmation. - mspete93 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)