Talk:Formula One/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Formula One. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

French national F1 series

217.10.60.85 added mention of a French F1 series to the History section on the 18 April. Has anyone got a reference for this? I can believe it on the basis that many non-world championship races were held in France in the 1950s, so a French championship would make sense. On the other hand I haven't found any reference to it anywhere and simply holding races in France need not necessarily be the same as holding a French championship. Ta. 4u1e 23:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it - I've been looking for some confirmation since the change appeared, but I haven't found any. As you say, it's possible, though. -- Ian Dalziel 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ericd suggests the following: I recently read something about it. There was a very succesfull French "Grands Prix" serie in the fifties. As far as I know it was raced with F2, I don't think it was ever raced with F1. When the World Championship for driver was also raced with F2s, the French GP serie was in many way as prestigious as the World Championship. The series had more race than the World Championship, and the Works Ferrari 500s entered all the races as well as (less suprising) the Gordinis, while the British team and also ran most of the races. With the French privaters there (the mos notable being Louis Rosier with private Ferrari 500) there was often more competitor than in World Championship races.

I think on that basis I will delete the reference as it wouldn't be a Formula One championship. If, of course, anyone has a reference to an F1 championship, then we can reinstate it. 4u1e 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

10 cylinder engines

"The year 2005 marked the end of the era of the 10-cylinder engines, in which both normally-aspirated and turbocharged engines were used in F1 cars for more than two decades." (from the Modern F1 section).

I can't get my head around what this is trying to say. It seems to be referring to a homogenous '10-cylinder era' starting a little while before 1985. The first 10 cylinder F1 engine was (I think) Renault's 1989 3.5 litre engine, four or more years after the beginning of the proposed period. Turbo engines were around from 1977 to 1988, which doesn't seem to correspond to anything either. F1 was a V10 only formula from late 1990s(?) to 2005, which again doesn't seem to relate to the suggested two decade period. The sentence also implies the existence of a turbo-charged V10 engine - what would this be? As far as I remember, the turbos were straight 4 (BMW, Hart?), V6 (Honda, Ford, TAG) or V8 (Alfa).

The sentence would make sense if it read "The year 2005 marked the end of the decade-long 3 litre V10 era".

So what is meant by this? Can anyone help me? 4u1e 21:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, well if no-one's got any ideas, I'll change it. According to the Formula One regulations page, V10s have been mandatory only since 1998 and V8s were being used by the smaller teams up to 1997 (see http://www.f1db.com), so decade is stretching it a bit. I'm going for "2005 marked the end of the V10 era in Formula One. First introduced in 1989 after the banning of turbos, the configuration had been mandatory since 1998". 4u1e 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing - a section on the cars!

It's taken me a long time to notice - there isn't a section on the cars in the main article! I'm sure something can be confected from the Formula One cars article - anyone got any objections? 4u1e 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The bit on engines in the lead

This section gets changed quite frequently - I think the problem is the sheer number of engine types that have been used in over 50 years and trying to sum up the range in only one sentence. The current version is good, but I wonder if it is going to get changed again. Looking at the List of Formula One engines article the range of engines can be described as:

From straight 4 to H16 (with flat 4, V-4 (Zakspeed V4 turbo), straight-6, V-6, Flat 8, V8, V10, Flat 12, V12, flat 16, V16 and H-16). The range here is from the simplest (straight configuration, smallest number of cylinders) to most complex (BRM's H configuration with 16 cylinders!).
Normally aspirated and forced induction. NA has been used on everything from the list above except the V4. Forced induction (i.e. supercharging or turbocharging) has been used on everything except the flat 4, flat 8, V10, V16 and H16. The only common configuration that hasn't had forced induction is the V10.

I suggest the description should therefore be: there have been many different types of engines, ranging from straight fours to an 'H'-16, with displacements from 1.5 litres to 4.5 litres. They have been normally aspirated, supercharged and turbocharged, but the most powerful engines in the history of the series raced in the 1980s 'turbo era' when outputs reached 1200 bhp.

Comments? 4u1e 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this: there have been many different types of engines; normally aspirated, supercharged and turbocharged, ranging from straight-4 to H16, with displacements from 1.5 litres to 4.5 litres. The maximum power achieved in the history of the series has been around 1200 bhp, during the 1980s turbo era. C trillos

Sounds good to me. I'll put it in. Cheers. 4u1e 18:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

194.72.92.36 Sorry but I disgree with C trillos' wording. 4u1e's proposal flows better, and the final use of "has been" by C trillos is poor English. RJM 194.72.92.36

Circuits

Someone had added yet another example (making 5 in total) to the sentence stating that some corners have become famous in their own right. I've trimmed it back down to three examples - it's not supposed to be a list of all famous corners, just some examples to illustrate the point. The sentence had become unreadable with badly structured additions.

The three I have left are:

Eau Rouge
Parabolica
Tamburello

I picked them on the completely unscientific basis of googling "'Eau Rouge' Spa", "130R Suzuka", "'Curva Grande' Monza", "Parabolica Monza", "'Turn 8' Istanbul" and "Tamburello Imola" and taking the three with the most hits.

By all means substitute another corner for one of these three, but please try to be sure that there is a good case for doing so. I suggest that three is as many as is needed to make the point, though. 4u1e 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment saying monaco is the only street circuit is inaccurate, as the Melbourne GP (Australia) is also a street circuit. All sections of the track are used during the rest of the year as regular roads and have traffic lights, intersections and parking along the route.

Maximum Speed

well, we all know what Formula one has been capable of... but with this new formula everything is nothing but opposite of what it was planned... the cornering speeds are greater and the top speeds are lower... so far the figure of 320km/h has not been seen in excess to say in the article that is everyday thing...

cars have problems to reach the 300km/h in circuits like imola when last year the reported speeds were about 318kmh down the hill in variante alta... the same goes for the rest of the tracks this year ,even bahrain.. sure the cars will be racing at montreal and at monza but those are exceptions... so I am reverting the figure of 320km/h to 300km/h. C trillos

BAR Honda expected to reach more than 400 km/h at Bonneville but the attempt was cancelled. Ericd 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but although that car is built to F1 regs, you wouldn't ever run it on a track in that configuration, so it's probably best to quote the top speeds achieved in race trim. I thought I heard that Honda were resurrecting that speed record programme? 4u1e 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As the setup will vary for each track maximum speed of the car doesn't make sense IMO. What do you think writing something like : "In theory, with a minimal downforce setup a F1 car should be able to reach a top speed over 400 km/h but no car would be run in that configuration on a real F1 track in that configuration. The maximun speed observed in race and practice are around 300 km/h." Ericd 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can still quote the maximum speed achieved by any of the cars in a race - it doesn't really matter which track it was. With enough space and a smooth enough surface I'm sure you can top 400 km/h by a significant margin with a 'no-drag' configuration. (Top speed will be limited by three factors - aerodynamic drag/power, rolling resistance, and time available to reach the top speed - rate of acceleration will decrease as maximum speed is approached). The 400 is still limited by the 'track' - which in this case is the Great Salt Lake, which is large but not infinite and not all that smooth compared to tarmac. I think your suggested phrase would make a very interesting addition to the Formula One cars article though! 4u1e 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I know, that one team reached over 400 kph on a test track (with minimal drag), but I forgot the details and it was under old regulations, where motors where limited to 3.0 litre (they were used until the 2005 season), at that time some motors had >950 hp, now they have <800 hp. --MrBurns (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I found this: Formula_One_cars#Top_Speeds. So they reached 400 kph in 2006 and most of the cars was compliant to the F1 regulations, so from what I understand the regulations from 2006 are meant, so it uses a 2.4l motor. The speed 2006 is 13 kph lower then 2005, the top speeds on F1 tracks also dropped ~10-15 kph in 2006 according to the Formula One Cars article. --MrBurns (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

.. The 2006 F1 car can reach 330+ km/h on more than half of the circuits with Monza being the highest this year: 360 km/h. Source to backup: [here So I suggest to quit this 300 km/h nonsense. (130.113.226.6 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

That's not true, these year's maximum speed was 342km/h at monza and was not the general rule, the BAR was making 320 km/h while the avergage top speed was 330 km/h... for the rest of the circuits (excluding the north americans) the maximum speed is between 300 km/h and 317km/h.

360-370km/h figures were under the past formula.

Can I suggest we stick with 320kph, as before? If the wording is 'up to' and such speeds were achieved at 3 circuits this year ([1], [2] and [3]), then it is accurate and not misleading. I will amend to this - using the same ref in the lead as is used in the 'Cars and technology section'. Cheers. --4u1e 07:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, went for a different solution, given the context of the words in the lead. Any better? --4u1e 07:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The top speed is 200mph. (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Grand Prix - the sport of Grand Pricks

Why is there nothing on the environmental impact of Formula One? Topics that should be covered include wastage of scarce fuel resources (as it doesn't provide any useful output), contribution to climate change, noise pollution, etc. It must have the worst record of any major sport. - MPF 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely illogical argument. Most improvements to car fuel efficiency, safety and performance have been pioneered in motorsport. Many championships are moving towards bio-fuels and showing them to have little or no performance disadvantage. Trees are planted by F1 to completely offset the carbon emissions. I'd be happy to bet that soccer uses more fuel in a year (let alone a World Cup year) than Formula One does. Motorsport provides employment for tens of thousands of people, entertainment of millions (if they weren't sitting at home watching it, maybe they'd be driving somewhere or having a barbecue?). The overall social effect of motorsport is probably positive - nobody has ever attacked a rival fan in a pub, as far as I know. --MartinUK 10:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This subject was studied with respect to NASCAR and IndyCar racing in the U.S. during the oil embargo of the 70s, and it was concluded that major stick-and-ball professional sports, such as baseball and football, consumed significantly more fossil fuel than auto racing. The study took into consideration such factors as the movement of teams between events, fuel used by spectators to attend races, and so on, as mentioned by some commentors in the threads below. If I can find a reference I will add it.--Tedd (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont have any sourceable facts for you, but I have read in the past that in an entire season, F1 racing uses less fuel than a single city petrol station sells in one day. --Windsok 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A comparison that has been used in the past is that it is overwhelmingly likely that recreational angling uses far more fossil fuel over the course of a year than does F1 - just because the number of participants in F1 (or even in all motorsport) is so small in a global context. However, I don't have any proper facts either - would be very interested to see some, though. user:4u1e

Maybe if we just start a little collection here, with some links, and then we can add them when we have enough. Manipe 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How is Formula One more guilty of these offenses than other forms of auto racing? SubSeven 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not - it just has a higher profile. I suppose there may be differences between F1 and those forms of motorsport that use methanol or other fuels, but I don't know whether it's better or worse. 4u1e

It's maybe not a bad idea to have something on the topic (I'm always surprised how little flak the sport seems to draw on this one). I really don't have time to get into it now, but as a thought for one way to rustle up some background, see scholar.google.com. 4u1e 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that Formula1 engines would be some of the most efficient engines in the world, as they want every last bit of performance that they can get from the fuel. They also want the smallest amount of fuel onboard as possible, as every bit of weight reduces performance. Formula1 R&D has probably signifigantly contributed to the increased efficiency of modern day engines. Another statistic I have read in the past is that in an entire season, formula1 uses less fuel than 1 large aeroplane flying from America to Europe. --Windsok 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One would conclude that the amount of fuel used in transportation between F1 venues of all the team members, cars and equipment would presumably be considerably greater than the amount of fuel used during the race weekend itself. --ozzmosis 13:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No doubt. --Windsok 13:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Which would of course contribute to the total environmental impact of the sport, but is no different from many other global 'entertainment' activities. Think of the resources consumed by the average Hollywood blockbuster, for example...... 4u1e

See FIA press release for some of Max's ideas for improving fuel efficiency: www.fia.com 4u1e 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thought - fairly easy to compare the known fuel capacity of the cars (80 - 90 litres?) refuelled once or twice in the race with the known race distance (~200 miles at most) to get the fuel mileage, which is likely to be poor - all that efficiency is going into generating vast amounts of power. On the other hand, we can also calculate the total amount of fuel consumed in a race (22 cars x 150 litres??) = 3300 litres+, which I would imagine to be rather less than an busy service station sells in a day. The above is Original Research and is also based on assumptions I've taken out of thin air, but you may find that someone else has already done these calculations or something similar in a format that could be referenced.

Figures from this weeks Autocar magazine say that Audi's R10 diesel achieved 7mpg at Le Mans compared to 6.3mpg for the petrol R8. Sportscars tend to be more aerodynamically efficient than Formula cars and run to more of an 'economy' formula anyway, so F1 figures must be rather lower than this. 4u1e 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a fairly extensive looking article in this week's Autosport (paper version - although it may be in the online edition as well) on the topic of 'green' F1. I reckon with that and some of the other links here there's enough for someone to write a good (short!) piece. 4u1e 27 July 2006

I think its more a question relative to automobile racing as a whole. Ericd 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, but a potential article on Environmental effects of motorsport should be linked to from here, if created. F1 has the highest global profile of any motorsport category. user:4u1e

For what its worth, I would think it good to put something in on this subject. something brief and factual, or as you say a link to another suitable article. IceDragon64 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the FIA actually offsets all the carbon emissions used in transport/race by planting trees and stuff. Can't give an actual cite, but... mattbuck 23:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a single Trans-Atlantic flight in a Jumbo Jet uses more fuel than an entire F1 season, makes the discussion on the environmental-unfriendlyness of F1 useless. 62.177.157.82 (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

F1Complete.com

Link just added to the F1 main page. At first glance looks quite comprehensive, but on further inspection it seems that the contents may be lifted in their entireity from other places - the technical section seems to have been adapted, rather carelessly, from Wikipedia's own Formula One cars article!

Which is all fine and good, but perhaps doesn't add much value! I suggest it be deleted if my first impressions are correct. user:4u1e

I agree. I removed that link and a few others as spam. Wmahan . 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

2008 F1 Spotters Guide

Sorry if I'm going about this wrong way, but. I produced a Free PDF Spotters Guide and was wondering if it could be include it here. http://www.spotterguides.com

Its Free and not commerical, its for fans. All the cars are vector based, so you can print it at any size without loosing quality. I'll leave it up to you guys to decide if it should be included. -andy

F1Online

Why the F1Online link was removed ? That link is like Manipe or F1-Live. They have news about F1 and some commercial links and not more ... The others links have the same.

I've included the F1Online website again. It's like the others sites, with news about F1 and some commercial links. Just ! Please compare before removing !!

formula1.co.uk

I removed a few links that appeared more devoted to making money through advertising than to providing useful information that isn't in the article. An anonymous user re-added the link to forumula1.co.uk, with the comment no reason why this external link should be removed while others remain (not associated with site).

This isn't a valid reason for including an external link. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#Common spammer strawmen. If there are other links inappropriately added to the article for promotional purposes, they should be removed as well. As far as I can tell, the link in question is just a forum, and doesn't provide anything beyond the links we already have. Wmahan . 22:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit:

It is my opinion that Forumula1.co.uk deserves to be on the list of URLs appearing within the F1 section. The link itself has been on Wikipedia for sometime now (circa 3-6 months) and the site is not of a commercial nature. What attracted me to upload such a link was their mission statement as follows, "to provide a place where F1 fans could meet and freely discuss Formula One without fear of over-moderation or bias". I believe this to be akin with the efforts of Wikipedia, and while more commercially focused sites such as ITV-F1.co.uk remain (a site without a forum), I will continue to include this wonderful little independent community within these listings. Again I feel it necessary to state that I am independent of this aforementioned site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.14.240 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 2006-06-22 06:02:05 (UTC)

The fact that the link remained for 3-6 months is not a good reason to include it either; please see Wikipedia:No binding decisions. In fact, the site certainly is commercial: there's a column of ads on the front page. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but I don't think the site adds any useful value because there are already three links to forums.

I think it's worth pointing out that you added the original link. A different anonymous IP added the same link to 31 articles it isn't specifically related to, even continuing after being warned. [4] Regardless of your relationship to the site, it's quite clear that someone intended to use Wikipedia to promote it, and so I consider it spam in the absence of a good argument otherwise. Wmahan . 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

ITV-F1.com

I haven't a strong opinion either way but I have to take issue with the description of ITV-F1.com. Commerically focused?? It has adverts yes, but it is also one of the best sources of F1 News (and importantly free). The presence or lack of a forum on that site is irrelevant. Mark83 17:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

GlobalF1.net

Ok, just had a link removed from the Formula One section, it was a forum, which I think should be allowed to remain. I believe this, because people interested in Formula One can gain a wide expanse of further knowledge on such forums, and they are very useful as places where Formula One fans can discuss the ins and outs of the sport. Forums can act as a further research tool, and I firmly believe that the link to GlobalF1.net which I added - should remain. If I wanted to advertise the site, bearing in mind I don't even run it, then I would go about it in a totally different way. Thanks. Paul M

WP:EL says : 9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

I guess that was the reason for reverting your link. -- Ian Dalziel 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - I think that should be reconsidered, in the forum instance for sure. They really can be a valuable resource. Never mind. Cheers, Paul M.

Wmahan

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to report Wmahan regarding his actions here if things don't change, I’ve been watching this thread for sometime and disagree with his premise that some F1 sites listed above are more interested in making money than offering a good user experience. Wmahan should realise that revenues from such sites go nowhere to cover the cost of designing and hosting, and to suggest that some sites meet the Wikipedia’s guidelines, and those listed above don't is absolute madness. Wmahan, I suggest reinstating such sites, or at least looking at their current content and try to understand just how hard these people work to create such sites - his tirade, seems only targeted at independent, unbiased sites, which in light of Wikipedia's goals is absurd. Can you please look into this Wmahan? Nichola, LA

www.crash.net

Please could I suggest adding a link to http://www.crash.net (or direct to F1 http://www.crash.net/f1) It has a very comprehensive Formula 1 section, fantastic pictures from each and every race and columns from Sir Stirling Moss, Mark Blundell and Alan Henry. The Crash.Net website also has a 24/7 motorsport radio station which covers Formula 1.

Hi - there used to be a link to Crash.Net (www.crash.net). As stated in the previous paragraph it has regular columns from people in the know/industry such as Mark Blundell and Sir Stirling Moss. I can see from above it states sites will be removed with commercial adverts etc which Crash.Net has but the site itself has it's own costs of coverage, imagery yet online site maintenace. Ben 11-May-07

www.pitpass.com

Hello, I added a link to pitpass.com http://www.pitpass.com. It was removed twice. What is the reason for this? The site is independent and informative. Sparkyf1 23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some rule about not linking to pages with adverts? mattbuck 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is, it is an extremely stupid rule. How many ad free websites are out there? Websites require ad funding to survive. Sparkyf1 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One reason the link would have been removed was because it hadn't been discussed here first (as requested by the wikicomments). Now that you've "done the right thing", I'll try to direct some of the members of the Formula One WikiProject here so we can reach a consensus on whether the link should be added or not. DH85868993 11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

www.live-racing.tv

Hello, just wondered if it's possible to add a link to f1 live TV broadcasting site like http://www.live-racing.tv or if it violates some rules here. P.S. I'm a customer but not affiliated with the site. Thank you for consideration. James 4 July 2007

Formula 1 History Database

Database in Mircosoft Excel (*.XLS) format. It contains ALL results from 1950 to last race of 2007 (Great Britain Grand Prix). Link is http://www.geocities.com/f1db2000/. Vote please ! --F1ever 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need three links in a row, all to comprehensive databases of results since 1950? I don't think so, particularly since results are available from existing links, for example formula1.com SheffieldSteel 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Animated F1 Car Guide

I have added a link to a GREAT animated walk-through of an F1 car's technology. Please check it out if you have a chance. Highonhendrix 04:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read some of the other comments about discussing EVERYTHING on this page before adding, etc. etc. I've never added to a FA page before, hope I haven't stepped on any toes. Please follow my link and have a look at the animation before you call me names or get rid of it. Thanks Highonhendrix 05:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/default.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrcf1 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The history sections

The history sections are getting too long again. A bunch of stuff has been added today which should probably mostly be in some of the daughter articles - it's too detailed for here. I'll have a go at it later. 4u1e 3 August 2006

POV

The opening sentence of this article (Formula One, abbreviated to F1, and also known as Grand Prix racing, is recognised as the highest class of auto racing in the world) seems awfully point of view. I'm sure Indy Car fans and NASCAR fans feel that their type of racing is of the highest class as well. Bad way to start an article. It should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.87.130 (talk) (21 August 2006)

I disagree. Most fans of IRL, ChampCar and Nascar would agree that F1 is the pinnacle.

For example the NASCAR article says the following: "It is also notable that while attending the Formula 1 2006 United States Grand Prix, Jeff Gordon said that when he drove Juan Pablo Montoya's F1 car in June 2003 he was shocked at the speed, braking, and handling of the vehicle and that driving one is on a whole different difficulty level."

The Champ Car article contains the following: "In recent years it has been possible to compare the respective performance of the two series. Since 1978 Formula 1 has made an annual visit to the Circuit de Villeneuve in Montreal . Champ Car added this circuit to their tour in 2002. During the inaugural Champ Car visit in 2002 Cristiano Da Matta won the pole position in the Champ Car race with a lap time of 1:18.959. Several weeks before former Champ Car Champion Juan Pablo Montoya seized P1 in the Formula 1 race with a lap time of 1:12.836. The performance superiority of the Formula 1 machines were also demonstrated in 1989 when Champ Car began to race on a street circuit in Detroit that had served as the Grand Prix of the United States just one year prior."

Formula One is a World Championship, sanctioned by the international motorsport federation and as such is followed by countries in all continents. Indy Car and NASCAR are primarily US series and whilst very popular over there, are much less followed in other countries.Alexj2002 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a source to back me up. Toyota (who compete in F1 and NASCAR and previously IndyCar) state that their involvement in motorsport "extends from the very pinnacle of motorsport in Formula One" to "the biggest motor sport stage in the United States in 2007." when describing the NASCAR Nextel Cup. Alexj2002 18:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Indycar and NASCAR, realy, are national championships. But thats americans for you, what with there "world series" :-) (only Kidding). I think though it would be worth addin that F1 is only the pinical of single seater. Realy it is on a leval with the WRC and the ALMS (being the rally and endurance equivelant) which are arguably as fast (for the conditions) and as teknical.

Actually the article only states that it is "the highest class of auto racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), motor sport's world governing body." Nascar and IRL are not governed by the FIA and so are not placed below F1 by this statement. The statement is totally valid and should stay with no revision. Highonhendrix 06:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

With the above reply considered, I shall edit the sentence in question to be technically and politically correct: "Formula One is the highest tier of FIA-governed, graduated open-wheel Forumla racing."--Setsunakute (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Standard Engine

Surely there should be a section on the proposed "Standard Engine" built by Cosworth?--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Inaugural Season

Have I missed some discussion on this? As far as I am concerned Formula One is NOT synonymous with the World Drivers Championship, nor does "season" imply "championship". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest Class of Racing/Highest class of open wheel/highest class of FIA sanctioned racing

I think the first paragraph needs a clarification on this.

some Facts:

-The FIA does not use the name Open wheel to refer to Formula One cars. I think there should be some merging in the articles of Open wheel car and Formula Racing as the difference is only the name used; Therefore referring to Formula One as open wheel Formula racing cars is blatant redundancy.

-There have been Formula One cars that were Not open wheel, like those Mercedes drove by Fangio (which he didn't like because he couldn't actually see the tires). We shouldn't refer in general to Formula One cars as 4 wheel vehicles either as there have been 8 wheel vehicles in the history of the sport.

-the FIA has a ranking of Driving Licenses being the Super Licence the top one, in terms of both requirements (skills, experience, success) and money (it actually costs quite a bit); A driver with an International driving license class A, recognized all over the world as the top "normal" racing license, is good for participating in th World Rally Championship, CART IndyCar World Series (when existed with whatever name they were using), Endurance racing (Le mans, daytona, Nurburgring), stock cars, etc.. except Formula One! where only Super License is good enough then: Where The top Racing License is required for Both Constructors and drivers alike, is called the Top racing category in this case F1; Since Super License is a FIA thing then it is the top category according to the FIA.

-The Monaco Grand Prix shouldn't be highlighted as it is, as despite the fact being one of the most watched sports events in the world, Monaco is not so definig to F1 as is the case with Indianapolis500 to IndyCar or 24 Du Mans to LeMans Endurance (AMLS and others), or Daytona 24 to Grand-Am, Monaco is more the exception than the rule in F1.

-Also Bahrain, China, turkey are highlighted it should simply be stated Asia and middle-east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.151.102 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole article needs a serious overhaul. Regarding your points:

True, it's a UK vs UK thing, I think.
There have been closed wheel F1 cars; I can't think of any eight-wheelers but one six-wheeler (Tyrrell P34) has raced and others (March 2-4-0 and Williams FW08 derivative) have tested. however, cars are now formally restricted to four wheels and having no bodywork over them, so provided we're clear that we're talking about the modern sport, it's a true statement.
I've not heard of the team license, but if so let's find a reference and put it in.
But if Monaco is much more known than the other races, then surely it should be highlighted.
Agree about Bahrain, China etc. 4u1e (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

About UK being the center of F1, let's put it in terms of:

-Tyres, very critical for the performance of the car (in fact there is no good racing sometimes because the cars cannot go outside the racing line with those soft compounds... anyway). recently: bridgestone, Michelin, Goodyear, all of them base outside UK with production plants outside UK. 3 out of 3 not in UK

-Engines, the central part of every car. Honda (with mostly japanese engineers) is developed in Japan, Toyota (Italians, British) based on Germany as it is the case with BMW and Mercedes (I don't think there's anyone speaking english), and Ferrari in Italy. 5 out 6 engine supliers out of UK.

You might want to read Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-Aerodynamics, in this respect I think nearly every Aerodynamics Engineer (or Aerodynamicist) is British, this is huge point for UK.

-Electronics, now Microsoft does everything but it is a division based on UK, but until very recently there was Magnetti Marelli and others, so not a big point for UK.

-Teams HQ, 4 teams out of UK (Ferrari, Toro Rosso, BMW, Toyota), 3 splited (half in UK half outside (Renault in france (a joke) McLaren Mercedes in Germany (the half of Mercedes I mean) Honda in Japan (they actually take the decisions from US))) that leave us with 3 pure British teams (Williams, Force india, Red Bull...) so all of that doesn't make it for majority of F1 being british and it cannot be stated so in the article.

Mercedes F1 engines are produced by the former Ilmor company, now owned by Merc but based firmly in the UK. Mercedes also owns half of McLaren, but the entity is British - and officially competes as such. As for the rest, you're mixing up ownership and where the teams are based: Honda and Renault are based in the UK, not in Japan or France. Yes, Honda is owned by a Japanese company and Renault by a French one, so they are subject to their decisions, but the actual teams are based in the UK. There is no American connection at all that I am aware of with the Honda team - the Indycar operation was a minor satellite. A majority of the teams, not their parent companies, are based in the UK: Williams, McLaren, Honda, Renault, Red Bull and Force India. 4u1e (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

About the 8 wheeled cars, yeah, I'm a dumb, sorry for that, you're right it's the tyrrel using 4 front tyres (plus 2 rear tyres) what I was referring about.

About the Monaco GP. you've certainly got a point but I'm still dubious as I said it's the exception and not the rule in F1, it could be added to the part of watching figures, But why don't you put it in the place you'd like it to be and then we see how it looks like?

I've got a bit of an issue with the opening sentence of this article. It says that "Formula One ... is the highest class of auto racing sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA)." But auto racing is a very broad term, which covers everything from open wheel racing to touring cars to rallying. F1 is not the highest class of all of these sports, it's on par with the WRC and the WTCC. I think it would be better to call Formula One "the highest class of open wheel racing sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA)." 94.212.31.237 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right (although the FIA seem to attach far more importance to F1 than to the others) and it used to say something very similar. Open wheel is more of an American term, but I've edited to add single seater to the opening sentence. 4u1e (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

4u1e, This has been discussed so much, you seem to return after some time to see if you can make it the way you want after some time, The FIA designates the super License as the highest class of license that they issue, and you cannot drive F1 with any other license, therefore where the highest class of racing license is needed is called the highest class of racing, it has been discussed and agreed so many times now, even with you

Piffle, and furthermore, balderdash! I think this was discussed on one other occasion before this thread, although I can't find it in the archives. IIRC that discussion led to the previous consensus that F1 is the highest level of single seater racing. Then you (presumably) mentioned the topic among several others in the comment that started this thread, but it wasn't discussed further and we came to no agreement about changing the wording. Another editor, nothing to do with me, raised it for a third time much more recently in a separate thread which you have now moved up into this one and I changed it back to a previous consensus. Interesting point about superlicenses, but are you sure that it's not original research to infer that this makes F1 the highest category of all forms of racing? Superlicenses are only for drivers as far as I know - you didn't provide any reference for the team superlicenses you mentioned last time we discussed this. If you can find a reference that the FIA explictly considers F1 the highest form of motorsport, by all means include it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, the teams, and other people (including track marshals) have to have super licences dude, again I'm telling you. read the references carefully 4u1e. (The references are the official FIA information and application forms...) so read them all first before coming and changing it back to the point you like it... I'm later going to revert to the point it had been agreed ages ago, references are provided, .... and yes the FIA do state the superlicence is the highest classs of license they issue. Now in your logic, we cannot say F1 is any bigger than GP2 because the FIA doesn't say so explicitly, so saying F1 is the highest type of single seater racing sanctioned by the FIA is wrong by that logic as well (But you know we have these clues like they have a ranking for licenses, a multiple wrc champion doesn't get that top license when he wants it, a driver holder of that license can take on wrc when he pleases, the top license costs a mint) so you tell me how using the ranking for licenses from the FIA is "original research" and if the licenses ranking thing cannot be used to rank the sports they are associated to, then based on what Do you say F1 is bigger than GP2? (ahh and f1 is still called the pinnacle of motorsports by media (not only FIA sanctioned series)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.200.79 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What about drag racing? Wouldn't a dragster be classed as a single seater? And as far as I can tell, will always require a separate licence: the "FIA International Drag Racing Licence". So can we say that F1 is higher than Top Fuel Drag Racing? (I'm not disputing that it would certainly take more skill to drive an F1 car, but they are quite different and both come under the FIA). Just a thought. An Interested Bystander (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If Drag Racing had a World Championship, you'd have a point. And before you point out the FIA International championship, that series is not even even considered the pinnacle of Drag Racing because of the NHRA series. --Falcadore (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

FIA Formula One World Championship

regarding the recently revert changes:

Legally speaking, and according to the FIA (http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/Pages/SeasonGuide.aspx), F1 is named FIA Formula One World Championship, with F1 and Formula One being registered brands of the Formula One Group for commercial use.

Historically F1 has allways been a world chamionship with the first drivers' champion Farina being named a World Champion. There was Grand prix Racing before WWII and it was not a World Championship, and there have been Grands Prix that were not World Chamionship events. The term FIA Formula One World Championship is recent though, as legally speaking the current Governing Body is not the same as in the 70's or 60's let alone the 50's. Bernie Ecclestone is the main investor of the formula one group from very recently and the actual structure of the FIA is recent as well (the actual structure is after the FISA and FOCA thing). So even though it is recent it has to be included in the article as it true and verifiable. The rest is just copy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.212.103 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Only time for a very quick comment, but you're wrong on pretty much every count. F1 existed before the world championship (from 1948), the world championship was run to F2 regs, not F1, in 1952 and 1953, for 10 years (1950 to 1959) the world championship included the Indy 500, which has never been an F1 race, and almost every year from 1950 to 1983 F1 races were run outside the championship. The championship and F1 have been the same for the last 20 years or so, but historically they are quite separate entities. There was a Grand Prix world championship pre-war in 1925-27, although it was for manufacturers, not drivers and the governing body of motorsport is the same as it has always been - the FIA. Pre-1950 it was known as the AIACR, and from pre war until 1991 it managed motorsport through a subsidiary body (the CSI, later known as FISA), but legally it's the same entity. The copyediting you suggest may be OK, but I'm afraid your facts are not. 4u1e (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Having said all that, the current wording at the start of the lead is probably fine - the issue is that F1's historical status is missing from the lead. Suggest something like: "Historically the FIA World Championship and Formula One were separate things. Although most World Championship races were run to Formula One rules, some were not (most notably the 1952 and 1953 World Championship seasons), and many Formula One races were run outside the World Championship until 1983." 4u1e (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that - it is quite wrong for the lead to contradict the body of the page and wikilinks to the page, though, which is the case as it now stands. We also need a cite for the team franchise being called a super licence - it clearly does amount to the same thing, but I hadn't heard the term used, and the current ref seems be specifically about drivers. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

mmmmhh, I think that part of the article is already citing actual (current): performance figures (cars), championship structure (drivers (it didn't exist back in the days of Nuvolari let's say) and constructors (it didn't exist back in the days of Mercedes (pure Mercedes) let's say) also watching figures and internal structure (like FOM), so I think the lead refers to the F1 as it is today and therefore it should be referred as it is legally named. For instance, Nigel Mansell won the CART IndyCar World Series but Zanardi won the CART Championship series and bourdais won the Champcar World Series then if they name it the "Hello kitty F1 World Championship" then that's how it has to appear on wikipedia. I do agree that very little is hinted in the lead part of the article about the rich history of F1 (There is just a small mention to the formula changes) perhaps that's what is missing, to add some lines about where F1 is coming from so the uninformed reader is not left with the impression of a some sort of newly created racing series. and yes there is no reference for constructors being required to be holders of super licences (a missing reference should be added... quite tricky to find though) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.134.20 (talk • contribs)

Granted the wording is present tense, but that needs to be reinforced, for example by explicitly saying "currently". As it stands someone following the link from Oulton Park International Gold Cup might get the impression that the Gold Cup was part of the World Championship. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, i was thinking myself the "currently" was missing as well... it was added the missing fact. As always, you have the right to change it to better resemble the real thing.

Adding F1Badger.com as a link

Would this be ok to add a link to the recently refreshed "F1 Badger" website. It provides readers with an insight into the sport, in a more casual fashion, taking itself less seriously than the plethora of other independent F1 websites.

What's the policy on this?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsmills (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion (Urgent)

I have visited many past F1 race pages and all of them have been flagged for speedy deletioon because noone has added the redesigned nav box at the bottom. I am worried that many will be deleted if no one does anything about it. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.212.69 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The new navboxes were only added to those race pages which were part of the F1 championship, non-championship races are not part of the template. I'm not personally sure of the notability guidelines for non-championship F1 races, do we even have defined rules? Aptery gial 07:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what happened was that the old navbox template was nominated for speedy deletion while it was still transcluded into dozens of race report articles, which may have given the impression that the race report articles themselves were nominated for speedy deletion. But it's all been resolved: all instances of the old template were replaced with the new template and the old template was eventually deleted. To my knowledge, no F1 race report articles are in danger of imminent speedy deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 data

Do we really need all the 2009 lists and tables in this article? It's just something else to update after every race. DH85868993 (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend towards thinking not, provided we have a c lear link to where the results are. 4u1e (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I think its presence implies that it is hugely more important than the ~60 other seasons. Aptery gial 07:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them twice, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formula_One&diff=283543993&oldid=283534081 here] and here but they keep getting added... D.M.N. (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why have u del the calendar ??--Wrcf1 12:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

References

The article makes a great number of unreferenced statements, specially regarding figures (performance, general statistics, historic facts).

Since wikipedia guidelines instruct to every statement to be verifiable and since the number of un-sourced statements is rather high, in the lead section and in the article body as well, then the missing references tag has been added to the article head and should not be removed nor the missing fact inline tags as it has been done citing "better looks and better readability", this is an encyclopedia, if there are no sources the statements have to be either tagged or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.134.41 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Performance Figures

2009

Top Speed

Top Speed during 2009 has been in the neighborhood of 310 Km/h (slipstreaming). 360 km/h figure in the lead paragraph is likely incorrect, and as of today it is unsourced.

Lateral/Braking Forces

In 2009 a new formula was introduced, with more restrictions regarding the aerodynamics which should decrease aerodynamic downforce and grip at the front axle. The rear diffusor is aimed at increasing air speed beneath the bodywork thus increasing the downforce generated at the front but the "Brawn diffuser" works in the way of stabilizing the rear end by taking the fluxes from the sidepods and directing them to the double decker "hole" at the back, in other words the teams have now less aerodynamic grip on the front and more mechanical grip overall, with the brawn diffuser advantage of more stability in the rear (less oversteery car) then the lateral forces are expected to be significantly lower than the previous years. (the times will be quickier because of the slick tyres help a lot in slow speed corners). 5G in 2009 is very unlikely.

In the first few paragraphs it says traction control has been banned since 1991, but it was alowed from 2000-2007. It was re banned in 2008.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find references for this year's performance figures, please do edit the article to suit. It's one of the problems of this topic that some bits of it change on a fairly continuous basis. 4u1e (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

OK, so it's probably best to discuss this stuff here - you, or somebody (please sign your posts ~~~~) have started a discussion on performance above, so I'll concentrate on the other stuff.

"Michael Andretti didn't win anything". Not in Formula One, no. But he did win the 1991 CART World Series season, so the statement that "Other CART or ChampCar Champions, like Michael Andretti and Cristiano da Matta won no races in F1." is factually correct. Could 190.28.147.50 explain what I'm missing here?

Sorry, that was my mistake, I was truly believing Michael Andretti had not ever won the CART championship ! I didn't have it in my mind and I think I checked the IndyCar stats instead... Nevertheless, the CART/Champcar champions not to score a victory in f1 is incomplete: M. Andretti, Zanardi, Da Matta, Bourdais are the ones, two names missing... (I had one name missing)...

But we're not looking to have a complete list - these are examples only. Bourdais is not a good example because he may (unlikely, I admit!) find success, and Zanardi competed in F1 before as well as after his Champ Car career, so he doesn't illustrate the point being made about career progression. 4u1e (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Refs in the lead. You say "Sorry but lead sections do need references, Always." You might want to have a look at the list of FAs from March of this year (April's list isn't complete yet). Of the first ten promoted articles I looked at, six have no refs in the lead, the other four had a couple. None were fully referenced: common practice is not as you suggest. The logic behind this is that since the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, all material that appears there will be referenced in the main body of the article, which is usually a more appropriate place to do it. Having said that, and despite being pretty sure that this used to appear in WP:REF, I can't see it now. Current practice may not have caught up with a change in the guidelines, so I'll leave a note at the FA page asking for advice.
190.28.147.50's recent edits removed the 'Beyond F1' section - I assume this was an error?
The 220 mph statement is referenced in the section 'Cars and technology' - it may well be out of date, in which case please delete the out of date reference and replace it with a tag, or even better, find a ref for the now correct figure. The 5G figure is also given in the section on the cars, but is not ref'd there, so I added a ref tag to it, which by the logic given above is the best place to do it (IMHO!).

Happy to discuss all of this. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the out of date tag to the formula one cars article (and fell kind of doing the same to the f1 article as well, but I think it's ok like that) , about the references, you know it's always a real pain finding those ones specially regarding performance figures... Licenses and stuff is easier since there is the FIA page... let's see when linkable info is available. thanks for the clarification on guidelines for the lead section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.145.94 (talk • contribs)

Ah, found the guidance on citations in the lead: Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations. I think the most relevant bit is "The need for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." So, the question becomes: are the items tagged for reference complex, current, controversial or contentious? I'd suggest not: living people are no really involved and surely there's no controversy over the meaning of formula, tv viewing figures, who owns the commercial rights or that teams have extremely high budgets. People do like to squabble over top speeds and cornering forces for some reason, so there may be a case for that - although I'd still contend that the best place to ref is in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4u1e (talk • contribs)

Wet races

Perhaps an intriguing idea...a category for all Formula One events held in the rain (such as Donnington Park in 1993, Fuji in 1976, Spain in 1996, etc). Since such races often produce unpredictable results, a new category page with all such races may be much appreciated by those who are interested. 97.125.93.25 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we should create Category:Formula One races affected by rain as a sub-category of Category:Formula One race reports? Also would you agree that the category should include races such as the 2009_German_Grand_Prix? The race itself was dry, but it did rain during qualifying. AJCham2097 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but some other points you may wish to consider:

whether you want a category, or a list (like List of red-flagged Formula One races). I think a list might be better, because you can display information such as how heavily it rained and at which stages of the event, without the need for people to visit each individual race article.
whether or not to use the word "affected" in the category/article name as it's somewhat ambiguous, i.e. "races affected by rain" can be interpreted as "races where it rained" or "races where the outcome was affected/altered because of rain" (although you could always clearly state the interpretation at the top of the article/category).

DH85868993 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A third thought, and iirc the reason we didn't take this up last time it was suggested, is what is the reliable source that defines whether a race is wet or not? Without such a source, we can't support the category without straying into original research. 4u1e (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At track officials do make declarations at the start of the race whether it is 'wet' or not, something made necessary by the increasing strictness governing the use of tyres, but this is a recent development and does not extend back to the series beginnings in 1950. --Falcadore (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is a parallel discussion occurring at WP:F1. As pointed out in that discussion, we discussed this idea in August last year and an article called List of rain affected Formula One Grands Prix was deleted (here's the AfD). DH85868993 (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Constructors time line

Jordan is in there twice. The one that is green should be Jaguar. I don't know how to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.68.133 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Well spotted. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't quite know where else to raise this point, but 'Lotus' are perceived by the FIA to be the same constructor that competed since 1962, the difference is in name and nationality only, consider this, if Lotus were to win a constructors championship, we would say it is their 6th, not their first, so surely the graph should show a line going back to 1962, with a gap from 1994 to 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.55.15 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Renault isn't in the timeline from 1977 to 1985. It was the same Renault F1 team, wasn't it? Dubfire 13:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

No, it wasn't. Modern Renault evolved from Benetton Formula, who evolved from Toleman, who the original Renault raced against from 1981-85. --Falcadore (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above that Lotus Racing is - in part - the same team as the original Team Lotus given that Lotus Cars was the founder of Team Lotus and Lotus Cars is part owner of Lotus Racing. The time-line should reflect this as suggested below, but note Team Lotus first entered F1 in 1958 not 1962 as said below (they had won a F1 race before 1962!).Tartanperil (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed that both F1 constructors timelines templates be deleted (which would result in both timelines disappearing from this article). Please add any views you may have on the matter at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:F1_constructors_timeline. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Breakaway threat in 2009

This year's game of brinkmanship was largely a non-event in terms of F1's 60 year history. As such its coverage in this article is hugely disproportionate. The section should be massively scaled back. In a few years time it will only warrant a couple of lines as an aside. danno 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Recentism is a contuining problem with Formula One articles. Agree. --Falcadore (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. A couple of lines in the history section would be more than adequate. 4u1e (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Needless Trivia?

This user [5] is adding "important facts" to F1 articles. I think that some or all of them are needless trivia and under the title "Trivia" would be deprecated, at least. Opinions are sought before all articles have these sections and they have to be pruned. Britmax (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia. Also the Alonso one is a BLP and the other one was confusing due to the way it was written. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Going solo

This page says the Concorde Agreement banned privateers, & this page says 1984, but without cite. If somebody can cite, can you add to both? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An ambiguity in the article you quote has led you to believe that privateers were banned when actually what was banned was running a car not constructed by your own team. I will try to clarify this. Britmax (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is what privateering is. I'm not the one confused. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, not actually. The term privateer, comes from privately funded, ie, not supported by a manufacturer. So in effect, any team running Cosworth engines in the last decade almost is effectively a privateer, and more besides. --Falcadore (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Any purchaser of a chassis, rather than a manufacturer of same, has been & is described as a privateer. There were a great many privateers in the '50s & '60s who purchased & ran F1 Alfas & Coopers. The usage you describe is much more recent, describing the likes of Jordan or Williams. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many privateers, and I feel the need to point out that this is not a Formula One exclusive term within motorsport. and this could be part of the problem, built their own equipment. I was merely pointing out that while not referred to as such, several current F1 teams could be, but aren't called privateers. Even so, several 1990s teams like Larrousse, Pacific and Scuderia Italia purchased their chassis from outside firms (Lola, Reynard and Dallara specifically), so your argument is still not without flaws. --Falcadore (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's more semantic than substantive. It may not be common to call them privateers, but Eddie Jordan's as much as done it, IIRC, & he'd know better than either of us. If you've got a way to describe the private users & the likes of Larrousse without creating more confusion, I'll happly use it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's perhaps more important to clarify what was banned by the Concorde Agreement, stepping back to your original question, and customer cars is more probably what the terminology you might be looking for. It was this part of the equation that caused Prodrive to step away from F1 having planned to use a customer McLaren chassis. Is that what you were asking? --Falcadore (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good term; it'd cover the '30s-'60s privateers & the likes of Larrousse & Toro Rosso (unless I'm mistaken). My question, tho, was less on the existence of them than on the contradiction on when the prohibition was...& we managed to get sidetracked. ;p Not that settling the usage issue was pointless. :) Addressing exactly what & when is a good idea, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Showing the flag

When was the blue flag rule introduced? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Viewing Figures

I was finding it hard to belive that 600 million people watch each GP (that is a significant percentage of the global population). The link says that 29 million watch in the UK (approaching half the population). It would seem that the figures are multiple counting individuals. For example if I watch all three practice sessions, the qualifing and then the race then that is "5 viewers". Seems a bit misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.102.97 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you accept about a billion (1000 million) watch the Oscar^TM telecast, 600M isn't beyond belief. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

TV figures like these are usually generated by 'counting' every time someone sees any footage of the event - so if I watch the race, see the highlights in the evening and then catch a clip on the news, I'd count as three viewers. That's how the figures get so ridiculously inflated. Most of the viewers will have seen a 5-second clip in a news programme. Daft as it is, it is the standard, as evidenced by the Oscars numbers. 4u1e (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if I understand the Nielsens correctly, you actually have to tune in during. It still might only be 5sec... (And I'm so embarrassed I didn't think of that sooner. :( :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the actual Formula1 press release and it isn't 600 million viewers per race, so I've corrected the article to match what F1's press release says and changed the citation to point to the press release instead of some fan site. I live in Austin and our local newspaper quoted the 600 million viewers per race building up the excitement that Austin getting F1 is going to be the biggest deal in our history, I'm sure they read that from this posting, and it's possible our local government has been making uninformed decisions based on a gross inaccuracy (order of magnitude). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.246.126 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

World's Most Expensive Sport

I respectfully suggest that the phrase in the fifth ¶ of the introduction, "As the world's most expensive sport..." may not be entirely correct. Please consider the astronomical cost of participating in America's Cup Racing. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to cite a source saying any America's Cup competitor has spent over US$300 million in a single year, as has been claimed for Ferrari's F1 effort. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

America's Cup occurs only every three or four years? It would need to be three or four times more expensive than a single F1 season then wouldn't it? --Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

On that order, at least, IMO. Or measure it against how much is spent developing one boat against one car, which may be the fairer way (since season costs will include travel & crew salaries, for a start, tho IMO they're a small fraction of the total); how much do the top teams spend a season, against the cost of a single boat (which may race once, or more than once)? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, these finer points of how exactly to define the most expensive sport illustrate neatly why it's ridiculous to think we need to make such an assertion. I've replaced it by a statement of the combined team budgets - which were $3bn 3 years ago (according to the article), but 3 years is a long time in F1 so I've gone for just "billion". This is open to improvement, but the concept of a "most expensive sport" is an encyclopedic dead end. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Future section

I was looking for the 'future of Formula One' article, but I found out that it has been deleted. So I've come to this article, instead, as it has a section called 'future'. After reading the first paragraph of this section, though, I'm getting ready to delete it, as it makes no reference to the future. However, I then read on, and find that things don't improve, much. There used to be a whole article about this topic. Where has all that information gone? Redv Blue 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted. It was always out of date and was an absolute magnet for huge amounts of rumour, speculation and original research. Changes that are announced often don't come to pass, which makes keeping on top of the topic really tough. There doesn't need to be very much on the future in the F1 main article: new engine rules for 2013(?), one or two new tracks that have cast iron contracts for future years and this year's competition for the final place on the grid. If you want to write a suitable (referenced) paragraph, and you're willing to keep it up to date, that would be brilliant. On the other hand, be prepared to have to tear it all up every few months. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get another new team for next year, for example. 4u1e (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was more about the fact that half of the section refers to the past, and it's not actually about the future. Should I (or someone else) delete it? Redv Blue 13:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph can probably go. The second paragraph just needs to be updated with the current situation regarding bio-fuel and KERS (i.e. KERS is in for 2011; I don't know the current status regarding biofuel). I think the third paragraph is OK as is. DH85868993 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in the article, we need to update the future races; we already have India and United States, but we need to add in Russia and Rome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not... given the 60+ year history of F1 any mention of future races, which in Rome's case continue to look far from certain, needs to be kept to a minimum. Be wary of WP:Speculation. --Falcadore (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not Rome, as Rome is not likely to happen (read 'failed race bids' in 2013 Formula One season) but i have added Greece to future races as the Greek government have announced plans for a 5.2 kilometre (3.23 mile) circuit in Piraeus. I think that is how you spell it. Ther is a link but I haven't bothered to check if it is correct. TollHRT52 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2012 (AEST)

Definition of "manufacturers"

From the section "Manufacturers' decline and return of the privateers":

This leaves Mercedes, Renault, McLaren and Ferrari as the only car manufacturers in the sport.

Is McLaren really a "car manufacturer"? It's not as if they manufacture millions of cars and also race in F1 on the side. It's the other way around: They race in F1, and every twenty years or so, they also manufacture a few road cars for sale. As I understand it, that means Mercedes and Renault and Ferrari are (primarily) car manufacturers, but McLaren is not; it is (primarily) a racing stable. I think McLaren should be removed from that sentence; if need be, something like "actual" or "mainly" or "primarily" could be inserted. -- CRConrad (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove it. It's an extroadinarily technical point as best. --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Conrad, Ferrari are in exactly the same category as McLaren here. Enzo never intended to make road-going cars. All the company's income is effectively derived from the immense media/advertising exposure it gets from F1, which is where all that money is subsequently pumped back into. Their production vehicles are if anything just spin-offs from this motor racing background, and given their high prices and inevitably low sales figures, it's unlikely that the brand would really survive outside the sport. AyrtonProst ^Pitwall 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No they are not. Ferrari has been continuously been producing road cars for over 50 years. McLaren built a car once, then stopped. And they did not sell it to the general public either as they picked and chose who could buy them. Not even remotely comparable. --Falcadore (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, Enzo started making road cars as a way to finance the Scuderia. He never liked it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)pg

Nonetheless, Ferrari do manufacture a few hundred cars every year, and have done for a very long time. McLaren built 100-odd F1s in the mid 1990s and just over 1000 SLRs in the mid-2000s, as far as I can see. I question the statement that Ferrari (as opposed to the Scuderia) makes all its money from F1 advertising. Do we have a reference for that? I also note that Ferrari is 85% owned by Fiat, which is definitely a bona fide road car manufacturer. As and when the new McLaren road car goes into production we may see a shift in McLaren's status. 4u1e (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Team Super licence

How do teams get their Super Licences to qualify to participate? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bernie says there is a spare licence, now offer him some money. We reserve the right to keep the money and kick you out if you're incompetent. --Falcadore (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have something besides stupid remarks to offer? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Formula One grid slots are limited in number and are bid for. Formula One then awarded on the basis of the bid. As the 2010 grid expansion process showed, and the subsequent fortunes of the winning tenderers, Manor, US F1, Campos and Lotus showed during the 12 odd months they went from winning bidders to the first race of 2010, (and for that matter the losing tenderers like Stefan GP) it did not matter whether you had money or not, form in junior categories or not, a history in Formula One or not, the backing of major sponsors or not, the capability to build a car or not. FOM made their own assessment as to who would and would not get slots. If you think there is a hard and fast criteria, then either FOM ignored it or decided that Super Licence would not neccessarily help you get on the grid.

So how is that really different to what I wrote before? --Falcadore (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's less flip, for a start. And it actually answers the question, for another, since it actually mentions the Super Licence & criteria, or lack of, for getting it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:38 & 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming it's not that there isn't a criteria, they're just deciding the criteria privately and not telling anyone. But the end point is that it does not lead to anything we can add to the Formula One article. The bid process was discussed and written about extensively in the 2009/2010 season article and covers the subject adequately. --Falcadore (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And the award for 'Best Race Director' goes to...

Is there a list somewhere of past Race Directors? (If so, I'd strongly suggest adding a link here.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ground Effect cars 1981 documentary

There's a BBC Horizon documentary on the later-banned Ground Effect F1 cars on YouTube here that might interest some of you: Gentlemen, Lift Your Skirts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.64.94 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian Grand Prix

Falcadore, strange you missed such an important event like new GP contract sign. BBC, Russia Today. Autosport article was posted few hours before announcement as an agenda. And essentially doesn't matter what it says as the fact has happened. It was just selected by editor back then. It just remains the source as what it tells about essentially happened. Elk Salmon (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so strange. It's three years into the future. Not a particularly relevant addition in 2011, I refer you to the Rome Grand Prix, and additionally I refer you to the very long history (20 years plus) of repeated false starts for the Russian GP. That far into the future I think it is not seem the page should describe as definite, unless I see a compelling reason not to, I feel likely to revert again. --Falcadore (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rome and rest is not the case. Russian GP contract was singed with FOA on October 14, 2010. Like you it or not. In includes 7 year deal with 5 year option on street race designed by Tilke in Olympic park. It's happened. Elk Salmon (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous - 2014. Time travel's not a done deal. There are very good reasons why 2014 Formula One season has not been created, and for that matter 2013 Formula One season has been deleted about six times. Those reasons apply just as much here. --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mate, the contract is signed. It's official. So it's worth to be noted in the article as fully meets WP:NOTE, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Rome GP is just about talks, just like South African GP, just like Russian GP was before October 14, 2010. Just rumors, talks and wishes. 2014 and 2013 season articles were deleted because lack of information that could be provided, so main Formula One (or former future of F1) article can handle most of information for now. Elk Salmon (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Translating "Grands Prix" into English

I don't think it's necessary to offer a translation of "Grands Prix" into English. In English, we call "Grand Prix" a Grand Prix, with the French pronunciation (or a reasonable facsimile of it). I don't think it adds anything to the content of the article.

Thanks! TheBaron0530 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)theBaron0530

I'd disagree. Just because it's in common use doesn't mean translation isn't of value. Blitzkrieg is pretty common, too, but it gets translated. I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't know what GP means & want to. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blitzkreig gets translated in Blitzkreig, but not in World War II. Grand Prix gets translated in Grand Prix. I feel that having this in the lead section of the article is messy, if we need a translation it should be included further down. I'd prefer to remove it. 88.111.127.168 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

During? In!

Why does the word 'during' occur so often, virtually always replacing 'in' before years (e.g. during 1961)? This is not natural English in most cases. I may change some of them. 87.112.115.96 (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

feeder series/lewis hamilton

"Most champions from this level graduate into F1, but 2006 GP2 champion Lewis Hamilton became the first F2, F3000 or GP2 champion to win the Formula One driver's title in 2008" this sentence doesn't make sense. if I knew what the original writer was actually trying to say, I might have a stab at restructuring it. does anyone know? is it meant to suggest that, despite GP2 being the main source of F1 driving talent, only one of them has ever gone on to win the championship? it seems unlikely, no? duncan (not logged in, for which I humbly & profusely apologise) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.1.135 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"is it meant to suggest that, despite GP2 being the main source of F1 driving talent, only one of them has ever gone on to win the championship?" I believe that's exactly what it means to suggest. DH85868993 (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction of sponsorship

In the section titled 'The Garagistes', it states that Lotus introduced sponsorship to Formula 1. It is probably very hard to define what would constitute sponsorship exactly, but the Gold Leaf cars were preceded by the Team Gunston Repco Brabham of John Love at the opening 1968 round in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piglos (talk • contribs) 10:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Time for an update?

The historical section under the headline "Manufacturers' decline and return of the privateers" seem to be up-to-date only until the beginning of the 2010 season. Nothing there about Renault leaving as a manufactor (albeit letting the former works team use its name during 2011) or much about the 2012 return (or what you may want to call it) of Lotus and the entering of a Caterham team. Bianessås (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Environmental damage

this edit has been reverted. Although I agree that it may be written a bit harsh, the information in the article is certainly valuable to this article. I thus propose to rewrite the section a bit an reintroduce it.

Also mention the WorldFirst F1 car, made by the people as the Eco One.

91.182.197.249 (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The World First car is actually a Formula Three, not a Formula One. Not really relevant.

Also Wikipedia is not really in the habit of comparing subjects in such a manner. There are not for example extensive essays on environmentalism in articles about aircraft manufacturers, weapons constructors or on articles of each indivdual polymer. Also bicycles are not given paragraphs descrbing how wasteful the exotic metals, rubber, plastics and carbon is mined, refind and built and compared to walking as an alternative mode. Perhaps the an essay paragaph should be written at the Tour de France article advocating the race be changed to walkers only? Wikipedia describes a subject for what it is, not for what it is not. There are no paragraphs in the Formula One article about why Formula One cars do not break the sound barrier. Or why they are not made out of glass. Or paper. Or watermelons.

If you see Wikipedia as an opportunity to further an agenda, of any description this is not a criticism of envionmentalism, then I fear you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is for. --Falcadore (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Falcadore summed it up well there, Wikipedia is not the place for that type of content, at least on properly constructed articles. While there may be a place to mention environmental concerns somewhere in the article, there certainly does not need to be a entire section on it, especially once you cut out the heavily point of view content. I would also want some better sourcing to back up the information provided by environmental pressure groups - and without completely irrelevant data from the Football World Cup. QueenCake (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Pole Position

On the Drivers and constructors standings on the Formula one season pages there seem to be a constant adding of a bold P after each pole position driver which is only present between the qualifying and the race. One user claimed it was customary to do so. The information is already available in the race summaries. Pole position does not give any additional points and does not change where a driver is in the standings. As such it is superfluous, meaningless, duplication of information and is wholly not needed in the standings tables.--Jimjames1989 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Would like that practice stopped. --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

How do we go about making it known that this practice is undesirable?--Jimjames1989 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it is to remind the editor filling in the results that the polesitter's result should be in bold. Is it really such a problem? And this discussion is in entirely the wrong place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion transcribed to here -- Jimjames1989 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pit Stops in tables

It just came into my head there, but in the Race table of the Grand Prix pages, could we also put the number of Pit Stops? Just an idea. So for example, the top 4 from the 2012 Chinese Grand Prix:

Pos.	No.	Driver	Constructor	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Pit stops	Points
1	8	Nico Rosberg	Mercedes	56	1:36.26.929	1	No. of Pit stops	25
2	3	Jenson Button	McLaren-Mercedes	56	+20.626	5	No. of Pit stops	18
3	4	Lewis Hamilton	McLaren-Mercedes	56	+26.012	7	No. of Pit stops	15
4	2	Mark Webber	Red Bull-Renault	56	+27.924	6	No. of Pit stops	12

I'm really not seeing the value. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just an idea, for example it may show a reason why someone comes a lower position if they had more pits or something. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many reasons why someone comes a lower position. Do you want to include all of them or just the ones you think you can tabulate? How far do you take this? You'll end up writing whole sentences in the table and at that point you've tabulated prose, making the situation ridiculous. --Falcadore (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

How far do you go and where do you stop with this fluff and cruft, there is a danger of nonsence being added in the name of trying to explain everything, and give information overload. These tables are fine as they are and my even need trimming slightly. For example is the car number and grid position really essential information, when the grid position is in the qualifying table and does the car number really add anything?--Jimjames1989 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all Grand Prix articles have qualifying tables, so that would be why grid and race number are included. --Falcadore (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Then surely that means that you need to add te qualifying table rather than cluttering up another table. These tables are in danger of becoming overly complicated and the table information being lost. --Jimjames1989 (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sure I agree, I was explaining the background. But we're getting off topic. --Falcadore (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding the extra column for # of pit stops is unnecessary, and it over complicates the table. If you want to include how someone has managed to move from a lower position on the grid, to a high position in the race, write it in prose; it would be much less complicated. Editadam 11:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Folks, this is the talk page for the Formula One article, not WP:F1. Please only discuss issues directly related to the content of this specific article here. Pyrop e 12:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Photograph of Putin

The photograph of Putin "driving an F1 car" is incorrect. If you watch the video, he's actually driving a Formula Renault 3.5 (or World Series by Renault) car, and not a Formula 1 car. This photograph should be removed.

Even if it was an F1 car, I don't think it would have any relevance to the article anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.131.218 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Grand Prizes - come off it

Article currently [6] reads in part The F1 season consists of a series of races, known as Grands Prix (in English, Grand Prizes) (my emphasis) and has for a while at least [7].

Not true. The Australian Grand Prix for example is never called the Australian Grand Prize. That is not English at all.

Grand Prix is French, that much is true and is probably the intended meaning. But in this context it is also English. It is a recent borrowing. The article as it stands, suggesting that Grand Prix in this context is not English but that Grand Prize is the English equivalent, is just plain wrong.

Use of the pural doesn't save it. The Australian and British Grands Prix are not Grand Prizes any more than the British Grand Prix is a Grand Prize. True, the plural is a little awkward to some English speakers, but so are many English plurals, particularly of borrowings.

Comments? Anyone like to have a go at fixing it? I will if nobody comments or fixes it. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. Have indeed had a go. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you've fixed it - thank you! Andrewa (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

While not denying your point, the original US Grand Prix had the forced translation name of American Grand Prize. --Falcadore (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)