Category talk:Formula One constructors

Name Change/Subpage?

Hi. I am wondering wether the name of this category is entirely applicable to many of the teams represented within it. While there are some undoubted "constructors" listed, there are also quite a few teams who ran customer cars built by other manufacturers. These teams (e.g. Ecurie Francorchamps) would be better described as "F1 Teams", "F1 Customer teams" or similar. This would also allow the inclusion of teams currently simply listed as "Auto Racing Teams" (e.g. Ecurie Ecosse) thouh they did run in F1. Any opinions on this please? Pyrope 08:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most F1 fans understand the meaning of the term "constructors". The winning team in F1 wins the "Constructor" World Championship. And as it says in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One, "Formula One teams must build the chassis in which they compete, and consequently the terms "team" and "constructor" are more or less interchangeable." Regardless of whether there might be a few exceptions to that rule, it is customary to refer to F1 teams as constructors, so I do not think a name change would be appropriate. Besides, Formula One is not about accuracy, it's about tradition. Scott Hutchinson 03:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points, but somewhat self-contradictory. Currently teams in F1 must ALSO be constructors (the rules you refer to) but this was not the case in the past. Frank Williams entered F1 by running Brabham-built cars, yet today WilliamsF1 make their own. Rob Walker Racing had perhaps their most famous victory when Stirling Moss won the 1960 Monaco Grand Prix in one of their team cars: a Lotus 18 (actually look at the race summary page and you will see that SM's victory is given to the "Lotus-Climax" team... Doh!). Tradition is very important in F1, I couldn't agree more, which is why it is a little baffling that you regard the two terms as interchangable. There is a long and honourable history of customer and privateer teams in F1 (quite a few of them) that were never constructors, and it is only modern rules that mean the two terms are used as synonyms. This lack of precision about terminology also means that we have F1 "Teams" credited with more victories than their due in the season and career summary pages, as wins by other teams running their cars are added the the list (Connaught, Cooper, Lotus and Maserati spring to mind). Surely there ought to be two categories: F1 Teams and F1 Constructors? Apart from the F1 arguments, this is an encyclopedia and accuracy is all. Pyrope 17:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you Pyrope. There should definitely be two categories - one for teams and one for constructors. I would recommend that teams who are also constructors (e.g. McLaren, Ferrari, etc) should be included in both categories; teams which are not constructors should only be included in the "teams" category. DH85868993 16:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of "Indy 500 only" constructors

I question the inclusion of the "Indy 500 only" constructors (Kurtis-Kraft, Kuzma, etc) in this category. Because they didn't construct Formula One cars. "World (Drivers) Championship" constructors? Sure. "Indycar" (in its broadest sense) constructors? Absolutely. But "Formula One" constructors? No. DH85868993 12:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is just another symptom of the fact that every Wikipedia article related to the World Drivers and Constructors Championships has the words "Formula One" in the title, even when it's not strictly accurate - consider that the article describing the 1952 WDC is entitled 1952 Formula One season even though none of the races in the Championship was run to Formula 1 rules.... DH85868993 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion on the WP:F1 discussion page, concensus is that we will retain the existing name for categories such as this one (even if they're not stricly 100% accurate) and add explanatory notes. DH85868993 11:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]