Talk:FISA–FOCA war

I deleted the civilian water injection as irrelevant, and of questionable accuracy. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

The 'Boycott & Water Injection' part was almost completely inaccurate. What was described is (as is correctly stated) what happened with the Tyrrells in 1984. The Brazil 1982 controversy was actually over water cooled brakes. Sources are an article from AtlasF1 that I can't find now (called 'The Seaosn of Seasons or something like that by Don Capps) and Nigel Roebuck's book Chasing the Title. --Max, 4/11/05 141.161.119.62 20:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, those teams who had backed out of the 1982 San Marino boycott were harshly (though perhaps deservedly) dealt with. The Tyrrell team was the last team to obtain a turbocharged engine contract (de rigeur for Formula One from 1983 onward), finally signing a deal to run "customer" Renault turbos in the latter part of 1985 (roughly three years before turbo engines were ultimately banned). 

I find this statement strange. As I've understood it, Tyrrell got permission from the other FOCA teams to race at Imola (they had a new Italian sponsor, wich was important for a team with economic problems). For me, it seems that economics and not some kind of punishment led to Tyrrell's problems with finding turbo engines. J-C V 09:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference possibilities

The next project for this article is likely that it sorely needs references as it was a complicated issue.

There is a book on the history of Ferrari from circa 1983 that could make for a good reference - I believe it was called "Great Marques - Ferrari".

There's also another book in my local library about F1 that is from 1981/82 but I don't think it gets into the FISA/FOCA war.

Guroadrunner 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup time

[This site] lists many of the references you guys seem to be talking about. I'll take a look at my own local library too, but that should be a start. Also, I'm going to look into renaming the article "FISA-FOCA conflict" or something like that, as this certainly doesn't deserve to be up there with WW2 or the French and Indian War in search results. If that happens, I'll certainly go around and make the proper re-links as well. Duncan1800 (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Attendance

Interestingly the requirement for all teams to attend all races seems quietly to have fallen by the wayside recently with the Caterham and Marussia teams sitting out the US and Brazilian rounds. Initially Bernie seems to have claimed that this was all down to a special dispensation from him, but it has subsequently turned out that teams are allowed to skip up to three races without penalty. No idea when that was slipped into the rules but then Mr €cc£e$tone is not known for letting the public know what's actually happening round the back. Mr Larrington (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudos for a well written sentence

This may be just a minor grammatical point, but given the much, much too common problem of very bad grammar in other articles on Wikipedia, I would like to congratulate whoever wrote this sentence (especially that part of this sentence which I here highlight in bold): "In addition, the battle revolved around the commercial aspects of the sport (the FOCA teams were unhappy with the disbursement of proceeds from the races) and the technical regulations which, in FOCA's opinion, tended to be malleable according to the nature of the transgressor more than the nature of the transgression." This written phrase so succinctly sums up the dispute over technical regulations, I just had to make note of it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlg666666 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Order of events

How is it that, as the page says, "Things came to a head just before the beginning of the 1982 season" and "The war culminated in a FOCA boycott of the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix three months later" - but "the FISA–FOCA war was ultimately put into more or less permanent abeyance by the Concorde Agreement to which both parties agreed at the beginning of 1981"? That is plainly contradictory.

I'm not asking for me personally, but in order that editors more familiar with the events could try and make it make more sense. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)