Talk:Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Formula One article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Former featured article Formula One is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2005.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Templates and categories relating to Formula One:

Contents

[edit] Archived Talk

[edit] Circuits

Hi! new vecrotized circuit layouts are available at commons:Category:Racing circuits that may be useful. Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Street Circuits

The article says that Monaco is currently the "only real street circuit". The Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne is held on a street circuit. Also, what is meant by "real" street circuit?


The Melbourne Grand Prix is on a street-circuit, but it was a specially modified street-circuit, so in that sense its not a so-called `real' street-circuit. I should know, I go every year.

Much of the track layout at Albert Park was relaid prior to the inaugural grand prix in 1996, with some of the layout changed (anyone have a Melway street directory from the early 90's?). Part of this was to remove the camber and improve drainage. The pit building is also a permanent structure. This is in contrast to, say, the Adelaide street circuit, where (as far as I know) everything was temporary, although I've not seen any photos of the Adelaide track during the off-season. ozzmosis 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
'real street circuit' = urban, temporary and the other 360-odd days of the year the *whole circuit* (less the pits) is public road. Monaco, the American street races (Phoenix, Detroit etc) and Adelaide are/were of this type. Other circuits have used *sections* of public road - Spa Francorchamp certainly used to, although I'm not sure if it still does - and Le Mans is famous for it, but I wouldn't categorize that as the same thing. I think you *could* argue that Melbourne is a street circuit, but for me the degree of modification and the much more open setting makes it more like, say, Montreal than Monaco. What do others think? 4u1e 16:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Just an FYI, none of the Spa citcuit is used as public road any more. anon, 7 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.29.83 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Adelaide is/was pretty much a 'real' street circuit save for the pit straight track section (pit building is temporary) which was especially built for the first GP. It's not used as a road for the rest of the year although you can walk on it.

[edit] Formula One Editing

It is becoming aparent that many of the articles on Formula One are starting to be updated at a high rate due to users adding speculation and unconfirmed news. Suggest putting all news and speculation in the news section of Portal:Formula One only. Articles such as 2008 Formula One season should not really be used for speculation. The info here should only be confirmed info. Portal:Formula One can be used for day to day news and the other articles on Formula One should be kept for reference info only, not news. Anyone agree? MonkeyMumford 12:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. --Richard Clegg 17:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
100%. Excellent suggestion. Now, how do we make it happen! :-D. History sections are particularly prone to this. 4u1e 17:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Future of F1?

Do we really need this article, let alone having a section in the main page? It seems that this must have been included by someone who does not like F1. -Krazy

I suspect not. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." - WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --ozzmosis 10:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So can we delete this article? It is a lot of misinformation. - Krazy
If speculation is sourced I don't see how it can be original research ? Ericd 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
MonkeyMumford suggested above that speculation should go in the news section of the portal - which seems logical. Firmer information on future changes (i.e. Alonso to McLaren) could go in the appropriate season article. I think there is room for a small section on 'future F1' here - but it would be things like the regulation changes for 2008 (In 1994 it would have been the 1995 reg changes)- really big changes that are pretty definite and will change the way F1 works drastically. It shouldn't be the latest gossip on Super Aguri etc. 4u1e
On further reflection - some of this material can be taken into the History of Formula One section - the demise of small teams is complete at present (we will see what happens in 2008) and so can properly go in a history section. I'm happy to do this, if there's no disagreement.
I say delete it. -Krazy

OK - small teams section deleted and its content (where it didn't already exist) has been moved to Super Aguri F1 and History of Formula One.

I suggest that the rest of the 'Future of F1' section on this page can be reduced to the following:

  • A brief mention of the proposed rule changes for 2008 - this is a very significant change and may radically alter the face of the sport.
  • A mention that a number of new teams are trying to get the 12th place (Reluctantly, as it will attract the kind of drive by bloating that I ranted about below)

I don't think anything else in this section needs to be here, it can all be moved either to other sections on the main page (doubtful) or to other pages, if it is not already there. On that basis I would also rename the section '2008 Rule changes' or similar.

Do you agree or disagree? I'll give it a couple of days before starting the process. 4u1e

It occurs to me that if I'm going to start in a couple of days, I should tell when now is! Now is 20 April 2006. 4u1e
OK, no comment, so next bit to go will be the 'Future of F1 - 2005 regulations'. This bit is particularly misleading as it is now historical anyway! Suggest that what needs to be kept is the raw facts of the regs for that year. I think these are already adequately summarised in the F1 Regs article, but will compare and add anything that is missing. Some of the reasoning for the changes may be added to that page, if not there already, and perhaps to the History of Formula One as well. 4u1e 24 April 2006
Done. Material mostly already appeared in 2005 Formula One season, Formula One regulations and Future of Formula One articles. Moved a couple of bits to the F1 regs and Future of F1 articles. 4u1e 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggest 2006 rules changes should be next up for the chop. This is a bit different to the 2005 changes, as these are the current regs and mostly already covered in the Racing and strategy section. As previously I will check whether this material needs to be moved elsewhere on the main page or to the 2006 Formula One season page. 4u1e 25 April 2006

Started taking out the 2006 bit. Have deleted duplicate description of the 2006 qualifying regs - they're long and hard enough to plough through as it is, we don't need it twice! Left the shorter version. 4u1e 27 April 2006

Deleted F1 Future bit on 2006 tyres regs. Some of it has been moved to Racing and Strategy and the bit on the reasons for the change this year has gone to talk:2006 Formula One season to see if anyone has any refs for the reasons it offers for the changes. If they have, then they belong on that page, with the other changes for this season. 4u1e 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting fairly close now to what I proposed above (20 April). Just the detailed section on venues to go. Will retain a mention of the changes in this area, and move detail to Circuits or possibly to the individual circuit or race articles. 4u1e 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Venue changes material has almost all gone to Future of Formula One and Circuits. Retained a bit as the core of a remaining 'Future of F1 section'. This will need re-writing as well to be coherent, referenced and up to date, but I don't think what I have left is any more incoherent than what was there before. There's still a bit left on the 2006 engine changes - the material already exists in the 2006 Formula One season, Formula One cars and Scuderia Toro Rosso articles, but I think some of it should also appear in a section on the cars and engines to be added to this article as suggested below. I may delete it for now, however as it appears in many other places. 4u1e 14:00 28 April 2006

Changed the title to Future Developments of Formula One, because "Future of F1" sounds so negative, like the future would be uncertain.

[edit] 2007?

Where is the 2007 season calendar? (actually and the 2007/2008 rule changes for that matter). --Richard@lbrc.org 11:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The 2007 calendar hasn't been released yet. Also, the 2007/2008 rule changes haven't been confirmed yet either. Manipe 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
When they are confirmed (but only then :-))they will appear at 2007 Formula One season

[edit] Archive

I've archived a big chunk of this talk page - see top of the page. Was getting too long to see anything. 4u1e 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyres vs Tires and other UK vs US spellings

Obviously there isn't actually a correct answer to this one. IIRC, Wikipedia simply says keep it consistent on any one page, and don't go through an article changing it to your native version just 'because'. I've just changed back a bunch of tires to tyres (you missed quite a few, by the way, 70.147.228.234) on the basis that they've been that way for a while (so why the need to change them?), that this is very much a sport with European origins, and that most of the teams are based in the UK, so as we have to be consistent on something it might as well be the UK version. Happy to discuss if there is strong disagreement. 4u1e 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I've changed that kind of thing on other pages, not realizing folks would get upset. I have to tell you as an American I think you are right that it should be tyres (even though it looks totally wrong to me) for the reasons you gave about it being a Euro sport. I wish folks here had more appreciation for it instead of fawning over rednecks driving around in circles. I agree that the spelling should go along with where the activity or item is native to. I have changed some cars' classification from coupé to coupe - but only for American cars. European cars should remain coupé and therefore also in this case tyres instead of tires. Not much diff any which way anyway. Semantics. Highonhendrix 06:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia used American English? -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.136.5 (talk)

[1] -- Ian Dalziel 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it but, why bother. This is a site for both the USA and the UK so I think that they should just keep it one way and be done with it. Then this debate can be at pace. But before that happens, we need to decide which one we will use. I am going to stay out of that one thank you very much... LB22 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of Article

This is obviously my night for ranting about various topics :-D. This article is getting way too long. It's up at 51kb now, which is absolutely massive and there is a lot of duplication. There seem to be two reasons for this:

1. There is a reluctance to delete out of date material. Quite of few sections of this article currently read "In 2005 things were mostly like this, but in 2006 they have changed to mostly be like the other". Come on! This article need only really state what things are like now. History section excepted, of course, and except the rare occasions where the current situation is impossible to understand without a bit of historical context. When things change - cut out the old version and just describe the new one. Consider putting the old material in History of Formula One, or in one of the other subsections.

2. This leads me onto the other problem. It seems that everyone who goes through here adds their little piece. Some of these are, frankly, rubbish (yes, that probably includes mine). Many of them are useful and interesting, but over time and combined with the reluctance to delete anything they mean the article just gets longer and longer. There are quite a few areas in which this main article actually carries more detail than the relevant sub-article. Please - consider whether your contribution really adds anything. If it does, consider whether it would be better suited to one of the sub-articles, which are edited far less often. There are hundreds of articles one or two clicks away from the front page (see the Articles related to Formula One box), many of which are stubs or at any rate rather underpowered. It seems a shame that the main article is getting to be so bloated while they are given little attention.

There is a very useful (but also difficult) job here for someone to go through and carefully trim back this article - reducing the number of words while keeping the content, or transferring it to a more suitable home.

OK - rant over. Anyone agree? 4u1e 23:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

With some depression I note that some complete codswallop has been added to the page over the last week or so. Cheers to those who have been busily removing it again. 4u1e 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

.. 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 ([2], [3] and [4]), 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 !!

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. [5] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sports Infobox

So, how do we feel about Howard the Duck's sports infobox? I'm not averse to the idea, although I think the current layout is now a bit of a mess - could the picture and boxes at the top of the page be reorganised. It would also have been nice to have discussed the idea before changing an FA page. --4u1e 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some problems with it for sure, it looks quite ugly at the moment. Transparency on the logo seems not to be working, and generally I'm not sure it conveys anything any better than it was before. Alexj2002 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's a new standard for sports pages I don't mind, but I couldn't find anything about it at a quick look! --4u1e 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
To make it clear, it is not a new standard for sports pages. However, everybody is encouraged to improve the current infobox (like the formatting and programming). It is optional and you can remove it if you like. I've tested several ways on how to make the page neater, but my programming skills (or lack thereof) can't do it. For me the problem seems to be on how to place the portal and related topics pane at the bottom of the infobox. --Howard the Duck 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I sort of fixed it already. Is it OK now? --Howard the Duck 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Howard. Thanks for the explanation. What do people think? Is this adding to the article? --4u1e 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets say I don't know anything about F1, and I'm too lazy to read the entire text. Then I see the infobox which gives me the basic info: what sport it is, the date it is founded (for an FA, this article omits the foundation year), the number of teams, the country (in this case, worldwide) and the current champs. Then it gives me somewhat of an impression what F1 is. --Howard the Duck 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television broadcaster table

I believe this information should be either removed altogether or converted into prose. Any thoughts? Mark83 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to a seperate page? I've no argument with having a section on TV, quite appropriate really, but I'm not sure what the table really adds to the topic of F1 itself. 4u1e
What it adds to the topic? Nothing IMHO. And available on satellite free-to-air? How is that more important than who does the commentary, the production company, broadcaster's website etc. etc. Mark83 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
TABLE CAPTION
Country TV Network Language Available SAT FTA
Austria ORF2 German  ?
Switzerland SF2 German  ?
Germany Premiere (PayTV) German (they do have commentators)  ?


[edit] Namethatdriver.com

The link to Namethatdriver.com [6] should have been written in a better way, but how is it spam? Isn't it useful and interesting? andy29 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it doesn't look very encyclopedic; Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a link directory. But if you want to re-add it (without the all-capital letters and at the bottom of the list rather than the top), I wouldn't mind. Wmahan. 20:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, done! andy29 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Nah I'm sorry but it may be interesting and a tiny bit useful in specific cases, but I count only 20 F1 drivers (+ or - a few testers) out of 791 in the history of the sport. The website is not about Formula One the sport – if it had at least all of the current drivers and no non-F1 drivers it might be useful for the list of Formula One drivers or 2006 Formula One season but it serves no purpose in this article. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Driver contracts

Who says that Alonso and Raikkonen are contracted until 2006-12-31? That's been added to their infoboxes. I think this is just an assumption. I don't think there's a standard contract dating template?? Mark83 00:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate logo

"During the early 2000s, Bernie Ecclestone's Formula One Administration created a number of trademarks, an official logo, and an official website for the sport in an attempt to give it a corporate identity"

By official logo I assume it means the 'Motion Blur' logo used in the infobox (not the old FIA logo). If that's the case it doesn't really make sense. It wasn't created during the early 2000's because it existed at least as far back as 1994 (Source:[7]) Any suggestions on what to do with the sentence? Alexj2002 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It might have been in existance, but was it a trademark? If not, then the statement is true. Manipe 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Mmm. That's really confused me. It was my understanding (obviously wrong) that the small FIA logo you can see (with the car superimposed) was the only one used in the 1990s. I didn't write the sentence but I'll try and find out more! Mark83 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A little research with the UK patents office shows that the trademark was filed on 12 March 1994 [8] (that link only works between 8am-10pm UK time) Strangely it would appear that the FIA car logo was only trademarked the previous year (23 March 1993) - [9] (again same time restrictions). Now the reason for it's lack of widespread use during the early 90's might be down to the fact it would appear it was only trademarked for merchandise. In September 1997 [10] a whole new load of uses were added including "Arranging, organising and staging of sports events", "Radio and television broadcasting;", "computer games" and much more. Alexj2002 09:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] List of broadcasters

Would anyone object if I moved the list of broadcasters to a page of its own? The article is getting quite long now and the list is very long now and isn't the most relevant part of the article. I'll leave it for a week and do the move if I get no comments to the contrary. 4u1e 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion, what does everyone else think? A move to 'F1 broadcasters' would neaten the page considerably. Then again, a new page containing the element, with a history to F1 broadcasting may be more appropriate. F1Reader 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No comments in support - as for the previous mention of this idea. Moved list to List of Formula One broadcasters. 4u1e 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forumula1.net as an External Link

I would like to throw this subject to the floor for consideration.

The site has been included within the external links section (by a number of different users) over the past year, and I feel there should be a final decision on whether or not it should have a place on the page.

For

The site is independent, not overly monetized by design (no pop-ups or intrusive banners), provides unique daily news and features, and supports an informed community.

Against

It's not the largest F1 site on the internet, nor is it well known. The site does not have a pictures contract.

I personally believe its independence and lack of commercial nature, offers something different and unique over the other external links, and probably deserves to be included. However, what are everyone elses thoughts on this? F1Reader 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe it's not already included. Like you say f1read, the site doesnt have any annoying ads popping up Like many others listed there, and it's articles are well written. Its one i've added to favourites. --81.153.228.84 12:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Senior Editor and Further Discussion Call

I find it outrageous that an attempt is made to endorse a website which adds little to the article. Forumula1 is primarily a blog / forum and you do not run your own news gathering agency. If you allow Forumula1 to be added, you have no justification of not adding other blogs / forums (that offer a little news too). This opens the floor for this article to become a directory more than informative resource.

For example for January 30, you have 3 news items. ITV-F1 reported more than 15 unique news items. It becomes apparent that news is not your specialization, but a forum / blog coupled with as menu disguised google ads.

I request a senior editor take a careful look at this and suggest exclusion. What should also be pointed out that in my SPAM clean-up, you did not defend any other site except Forumula1, despite these sites having more experience and more information. Many sites would like to be included in Wikipedia, but there are strict regulations that everybody needs to abide by. --62.135.93.206 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the removal yesterday I disagreed with it. However given the explanation just given I think that user is correct. If we include this it opens a can of worms regarding forums/blogs etc. Mark83 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
First and foremost, I have no connection to the site, and have only acted to include the site within this section for the community to decide whether it is worthy of inclusion, something that I would personally support.
Secondly, having researched my argument (hint) you’ll be relieved to hear that the site does actually write its own news. The sub-editor I managed to contact this afternoon attended 13 Grand Prix last season, and has been writing in a journalistic capacity for sixteen years, with eight following motor sport. Had the anonymous user actually read and compared the articles offered by ITV and Forumula1.net, they’d have found the latter to offer inside information, insight and well written articles. ITV does provide more news on a day to day basis, but when one article is sufficient, why split it into four?
I believe that covers most of their unfounded drivel. I suppose we could discuss the fact that the site has a community (ie repeat visitors meaning a good user experience), a forum and advertising – shock horror! For their information, ITV-F1 has also recently introduced a forum and has far more obtrusive advertising.
I would like to see further constructive discussion regarding the sites inclusion. It is independent but I feel it is worthy of being one of the recommended external links. Until agreement can be reached, the link will remain outside of the external links.
Thanks. F1Reader 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of F1 sites which are just as well constructed and could be considered equally worthy of inclusion, but just like Formula1.net, linking to them adds very little (if anything) to the encyclopediac content of the Wiki Formula One page. However well-loved, well written or well-informed Formula1.net may be, Wiki is not a newspaper or a collection of links. I agree the ITV website often leaves a great deal to be desired, I would not justify the link to it on the basis of the material on the web-site, but rather on the fact that they offer the official TV coverage of F1 in the UK. Mighty Antar 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] References

I added some references in the Cars and technology section but I'm not really sure if I did it correctly. Also I couldn't find a reference for the 2.4 liter V8 engines making 250+ hp, although I don't believe the Toyota engine is the most powerful engine in the series. Anyone know where there might be a reference for the more powerful engines? IJB TA 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future of Formula One

I notice this section opens with unreferenced comments about Michael Schumacher and Ferrari. While I accept this does reflect the perspective of some fans and probably the opinion of those who don't directly follow the sport, it certainly doesn't reflect the results of the Autosport magazine Survey held a few years ago which, if I remember correctly had an overwhelming response and put the introduction of compulsary fuel stops as the sports biggest failing. This article also avoids any mention of controversy or the significance of politics within F1, e.g. The 1984 Tyrrell incident, Ayrton Senna's ban in 1989 for dangerous driving, Fuel stops being banned originally on the basis that they were too dangerous and then reinstated when it was felt that the lack of on-track overtaking had started to make things rather boring. This seems to me a very positive promotional page for F1, but it is rather polite at the moment! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC). Sorry had a browser problem when I did my preview and forgot Mighty Antar 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've never been very keen on that section. The whole article is shamefully underreferenced. If you can find appropriate sources and write a nice neutral piece on the future of Formula One, go for it. I think politics is also a good section to add, but be very careful about picking your sources - there's a lot of gossipy stuff out there that would probably not be a useful addition. Enjoy! 4u1e 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'One' or '1'?

It seems to me that this article incorrectly uses the word 'One' instead of the number '1' in the name 'Formula One'. As evident in the 'F1' logo, it is spelled with the number, and referance to their official site, they use the number and not the word, as well. Is this a common mistake or is there a specific reason that the word is exclusivley used?

Aelange 07:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See discussion here. In summary, current usage is largely, but not exclusively, 'Formula One'. The FIA, the sport's governing body, normally use 'One'. 4u1e 22 February 2007 14:33

[edit] Ferrari dominance - 2001-2005

Should this be used as a heading seen as Ferrari were no way dominant in 2005?

Confusing to those who don't follow the sport closely I should think... Lradrama 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd split the history section into four sections, with a short prelude on pre-championship F1:
    • 1950-1958 The return of racing
After the war, the sport was dominated by the large European car manufacturers who had competed before the war. Cars are front engined. Fangio dominates the period.
    • 1959 - 1980 The 'Garagistes'
British specialist manufacturers come to dominate with mid-engined designs, using off the shelf engines - mainly the Cosworth DFV from 1966 to 1980. Ferrari also competitive.
    • 1981 - 2000 Formula One becomes big business
Turbos and Ground Effect start the FISA-FOCA war as manufacturers return, mainly as engine suppliers. F1 becomes a global money spinner. Senna and Prost dominate the first half of the period, Williams and Renault the second.
    • 2000 - present
Teams owned by large car manufacturers make up most of the field, Ferrari and Schumacher start the decade with an unprecedented period of dominance.
Three to four paragraphs only on each section, except the shorter last section which should be two at most. Constructive criticism always appreciated! ;-) 4u1e 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


That's fine, a much better idea. Lradrama 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


As I predicted, people are changing it to 'Ferrari dominance 2000-2004' which is true, but there simply is nowhere for the 2005 seasont to go, unless we group all the 21st century years together, which would mean we have a huge section on our hands. Mmmmmm... Lradrama 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


MUCH BETTER!Lradrama 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and deleted or moved a large amount of material from the 2000-2006 section. There was much too much detail in there relating to the last few years, including more detail on individual races and seasons than the relevant articles. This is only a summary, there are many other articles which badly need the content. Happy to discuss. 4u1e 14 March 2007, 17:32

[edit] Incorrect statement?

"It is a massive television event, with millions of people watching each race in more than 200 countries."

Am I missing something, because as far as I'm concerned, there are only 193 countries in the world. It's impossible for there to be viewers in 200 countries. м info 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia there are 245. -- Ian Dalziel 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But only 193 soverign states. I wonder if the people of Sealand enjot F1 racing? м info 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What have sovereign states to do with watching motor racing on TV? Are you saying no-one in Scotland follows F1 racing? -- Ian Dalziel 08:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the real problem is that it's an unsourced statement. Find a source and reference it. If we need to explain differences in counting countries, but until then, I think the proper thing to do is to eliminate the reference to the number of countries. - Cafemusique 14:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's taking the narrowest possible view of what constitutes a country - states with unchallenged international recognition. So 193 excludes, for example, Taiwan, where there's no reason to think that people don't watch F1. (For that matter, what makes you think whoever's currently in residence in Sealand doesn't watch it? They can get Sky satellite if not terrestrial broadcasts from the UK.). However, despite all that, I do agree that the statement should be referenced, I just don't feel it's inherently unlikely. 4u1e 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref'd. I suppose that still leaves the question of 'how many countries are there', which could disprove the reference used. Wikipedia, for what it's worth, seems to be saying that there are more than 193. 4u1e 15:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the reference used does state that there are 200 countries watching F1. It's a speculative article about what the author believes F1 will be like in 2010 (almost fifteen years after he wrote the article). In context, I believe this is his speculation about what that fifteen-years-away future F1 would be like, not a statement that it is presently broadcast to that many countries. - Cafemusique 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
(Fair point - that was careless of me. 4u1e 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
(Actually, not quite as sloppy as that suggests. The article says "With TV coverage going out [Present tense] to 200 countries around the world, there is the potential for each advertising hoarding to be sold to 200 different sponsors". Seems to be that the author is saying that it goes to 200 countries now, which means that with future technology the potential is etc etc. Still not a good reference because 'now' is 1996. 4u1e 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Do a search on google for "f1 broadcast 200 countries", there are many articles stating this is the case, inc. this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/1842217.stm Davesmith33 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've modified again, becuase if we want to get really picky, that was the situation in 2001. The problem here of course is that the 200 countries figure will be coming from the promotional team at whichever company owned the rights at the time, and that the media are not usually very careful about checking these things for accuracy. 4u1e 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved ref to body of article as there is a whole subsection on television. Lead should only be a summary of article body anyway, so repeat references not required (This is a style thing, not an attempt to hide it!) Happy to discuss. 4u1e 23:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drivers and Constructors

I've been wondering about the 'Drivers and Constructors' section for a long time. It's an odd mix of information, and I've never been able to understand why you would lump the two together like that. I've just had a look at the version of this article which was first suggested for FA (back in June 2004), and all became clear: It was originally a list of the 2004 drivers and constructors! Now I understand how far from its original purpose it has drifted, I feel happier about re-structuring it. The most obvious solution is to have 'Drivers' (facts about drivers) and 'Constructors' (about constructors). Anybody got a better suggestion? Cheers. 4u1e 15 March 2007, 16:36

[edit] McLaren-Mercedes links

As far as I can tell in all instance of McLaren-Mercedes, the Mercedes part of this name links to the standard Mercedes article. However surely it should be Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines (currently a redirect to Mercedes-Ilmor)? Mark83 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We had a discussion about what F1-related instances of "Mercedes" should be linked to, but I don't think it actually reached a firm conclusion. Perhaps it's time to revive that discussion. -- DH85868993 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure about Mercedes in general, but in the McLaren-Mercedes context I believe the Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines/Mercedes-Ilmor is the correct link? Mark83 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circuits?

Hey boys, still kind of new so I don't know the proper format for how to do talk pages and such, but irregardless I've removed the following from the "Circuits" section of the article, because it's pretty bad grammar and isn't cited... perhaps someone can readd it with the proper changes? Here's what I removed: "The newest F1 circuit came in 2005 which was in Istanbul, Turkey. The next known circuit that is coming out is Abu Dhabi in 2009" Punctuation left as is.Riskbreaker927 03:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


New Sentence/Section

The newest of the F1 circuits that has come into the F1 calender was the introduction of the Istanbul track (Designed by Herman Tilke)in 2005. The track features 14 turns (left:8) (right:6)- that includes the exciting "Turn 8". There has been talk of a new track in France to take over from the current Grand Prix track as early as 2008 and also a new confirmed "Street Circuit" in Spain next year.


~ Sounds slightly better but still can be improved.

McLaren_Rules 12:11, 5 June- 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alonso / Schumacher first picture

Why has the opening picture been changed from Alonso to Schumacher?

Well, it was done by an editor called Schumacherfan, so I guess that may have something to do with it :D. I guess you can argue it either way, Schumacher is the most successful driver in the history of the sport, and Ferrari the most successful team, so that picture is relevant. On the other hand, Alonso and Renault are the reigning champions, although they're no longer together, so perhaps the Schumi pic is best. I don't feel strongly either way, to be honest. 4u1e 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But the same picture and text is shown further down the page. Davesmith33 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is - I've put Alonso back, then. I assume Schumacherfan got carried away in his enthusiasm. Cheers. 4u1e 13:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The most successfull driver in F1 is contested though. It could be different drivers from different eras such as Senna, Fangio etc. So maybe a nice collage of all three would be nice 8-) McLaren_Rules,12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Most successful, by one definition at least, is probably not disputed - Schumacher won more races and titles than any other driver (Although his percentages are lower than Fangio's). A collage doesn't really solve the problem - Why Senna and not Prost? Prost won more races and titles than Senna (and more fastest laps, iirc). Why not Clark? Or Stewart? As keen as I am on representing the history of the sport, I think a reasonably current pic is probably the best choice for the header for the article. I'm not overly fussed which one it is, though. 4u1e 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feeder Series

As I'm quite new to Formula One, I thought something that could be added to this article are the feeder series. Even if it is just listing the links to them at the bottom of the page, I think it will help newbies (like myself) learn more about Formula One and how drivers work their way to the top. 209.247.22.209 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll take a look at it. mattbuck 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to everyone's attention. I'm sure it will be followed up. Lradrama 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I added in a fairly brief section about feeders and post-F1. I'm sure others will join me. mattbuck 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the latter part of this section which discusses alternate paths to F1, 'Michael Schumacher raced in sports cars', which is just a tad misleading. He competed in the WSPC for around a year, but before that took fairly standard paths (F3 etc) and even briefly raced in the Japanese F3000 series. To say he got into F1 via sports cars is simply not very accurate IMO. Thoughts? Tomjol 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to say that 'following a spell in sportscar racing, Schumacher graduated to F1.' or something like that? Lradrama 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've read the section and decided to write it like this - '...sports cars (albeit after climbing through the junior single-seater ranks).'
What do people think about that? It seems to be addressing the issues stated just above. Please comment if you feel improvements can be made further. Lradrama 08:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Better. Personally I'd probably word it more as 'Michael Schumacher, having climbed through the junior single-seater ranks, spent a year racing sports cars' but that's no more than personal taste. Either way, much better. Tomjol 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading to say that he got into F1 from sportscars. Most of Schumacher's biogs make quite a big thing of the benefits he got from racing in sports cars: Backing from Mercedes (who paid for his F1 debut race with Jordan), experience in powerful cars (He claimed at the time that his ability to continue at racing speed with only fifth gear in Spain 94 was down to his sportscar experience) and with pitstops, and experience with a major manufacturer, including the PR angle, which was not such a big thing in the junior leagues at the time. He raced in sportscars over about 18 months. He only raced in one Japanese F3000 race, by the way.

[edit] Prize?

what do they race for other than to be first? i can't find anywhere that mentions what the prize is for winning, if there even is one. much thanks. Sahuagin 02:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some prize money that goes to the teams. See Formula One Management. However, you also have to keep in mind that the commercial value to sponsors of winning drivers and teams far outweighs that of losing drivers and teams, and those financial rewards probably far outweigh the prize money handed out by Bernie.--Robert Merkel 05:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Robert Merkel is correct, there is prize money awarded. However, the amounts are kept confidential.Mustang6172 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Related discussion here btw.
I know it's confidential, however F1 Racing manages to make estimates about team budgets/advertising income etc. - and both of those figures are non-public as well. I'm suprised that nobody has ever 'ballparked' the prize money. Do we even know the structure? i.e. Do teams only get prize money according to final place in WCC? Do teams get paid for results, i.e. x times 10 for a win, x times 8 for 2nd.. etc. etc.? I can't believe that these ratios aren't even public knowledge. Robert makes an excellent point about sponsorship being more important. Catch 22 - back of the grid teams will value the prize money more than say McLaren, however they also don't have the chance of luring Vodafone as title sponsor!
A major issue regarding renewal of the Concorde Agreement has been commercial revenue. Teams want/wanted a much bigger slice of F1 revenues - i.e. track side advertising, race fees, TV rights revenues etc. I think I read that they have won this and to continue Robert's point, these revenues probably make prize money look even less important.
As for 'why race than other to be first'?? That confused me -- it's a sport. Human nature makes people want to win. You'll find few members of a GP team that don't want their drivers to finish 1st and 2nd. If they can't manage that they'll take 2nd and 3rd. If they can't manage that they'll take 3rd and 4th... etc. etc.
I don't think prize money is anything like such a big deal in F1 as it is in the States. The very top drivers receive huge retainers from their teams and from sponsorship (reputedly up to $100M annually for Schumacher). Any race prize money is likely insignificant by comparison. 4u1e 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't all this be mentioned in the article? For someone unfamiliar with the sport, or racing bodies in general, there's no indication of any of this. 154.20.185.255 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One and Television - in-text citations

I've changed the 'average audience of 58 billion' sentence slightly so that it matches more closely the facts I could find on-line. Several news sites mention the Official FOM "Formula One Global Broadcast Report" or reports, but these stats don't seem to appear on any official site, anyone know where to find them? Mighty Antar 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big business (1981–2000) In-text citations

Trying to find missing citations for the above, its clear that the third paragraph in this section is wrong. In simple terms, all three developments listed could be said to have already been present in road cars before the basic principles behind them were adopted and vastly reconfigured for F1 use. Quantifiying them as 'borrowed' or 'primarily developed' as stated, simply does not match up with the facts. Here's the paragraph as it is now:-

In the early 1990s, teams started introducing electronic driver aids such as active suspension, semi-automatic gearboxes and traction control. Some were borrowed from contemporary road cars.[citation needed] Some, like active suspension, were primarily developed for the track and later made their way to the showroom. The FIA, due to complaints that technology was determining the outcome of races more than driver skill, banned many such aids for 1994. However, many observers felt that the ban on driver aids was a ban in name only as the FIA did not have the technology or the methods to eliminate these features from competition.

Does anyone object if I change some of the wikilinks and the wording of the paragraph to read as follows?

In the early 1990s, teams started introducing electronic driver aids such as active suspension, semi-automatic gearboxes and traction control. The FIA, due to complaints that technology was determining the outcome of races more than driver skill, banned many such aids for 1994. However, many observers felt that the ban on driver aids was a ban in name only as the FIA did not have the technology or the methods to eliminate these features from competition.

The only other contentious point would be that Lotus bought in its active suspension in 1987, but I think early90s is close enough.

Mighty Antar 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current wording is correct, in that active does seem to have been first developed for the track (although not raced) by Lotus, then transferred to their road cars and raced at about the same time, and then developed by larger road car manufacturers for wider use. ("The Lotus system was born from F1 and has now returned to F1 and seems to have set a trend...having first toyed with a prototype F1 active suspension system in 81-82..." (Nye, Autocourse 87 p.69) & "One [ Lotus 92, a 1983 car] was used in active suspension trials" (Hodges 'A-Z of Formula Racing Cars' p.152). Semi-automatic gearboxes also seem to have transferred from racetrack to the road - the first semi-auto in F1 was Ferrari's 1989 device: My recollection is that Porsche, Ferrari, Jaguar et al didn't start putting them into road cars until the mid-1990s. I agree that traction control went the other way.
I don't agree (sorry!) that 'the early 90s' is a good approximation. I think we've got to put active suspension into context in the late eighties somewhere in the article. Lotus started developing it in 1982. Lotus and Williams both raced active in 87 and 88, both winning races in 87 with it. The 1987 Autocourse season review identifies it as the 'major technical talking point of the season'. Lotus also had a hydraulic 'ride height adjuster' in 1986 - a simple mechanism to lower ride height as fuel was burned off. As I said above, Ferrari introduced semi-automatic gearboxes in 1989, so the individual elements are more properly identified as coming from the late eighties. I do agree that the package really came together in the early 1990s. 4u1e 11:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll recant slightly on semi-automatic transmission. The 1950s Citroen and NSU road car systems described in the Semi-automatic transmission article do seem to do much the same job as the original Ferrari F1 gearbox, albeit without the electronic component. I'd discount the other earlier examples as being effectively automatic gearboxes (with torque converters) rather than hydraulically or electro-hydraulically operated clutched systems. 4u1e 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
With reference to Active Suspension, a couple of articles on the web [[11]] and [[12]] are worth looking at. The point that I've read before was that Lotus had developed the system for the Esprit having rejected developing it for F1 after the problems with the Lotus 81 and 88 and I remember the first time I ever saw the concept demonstrated on TV it was on a road car - and I was a F1 fanatic long before then! Anyone got any comprehensive books on Lotus? Anyway, going on your own comments above I think you must recognise this paragraph does now require a bit of work. Mighty Antar 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup. That's what I get for relying on my memory! I still think active originated in F1 though, the fact that it wasn't raced before it appeared on the road is slightly beside the point, surely? 4u1e 14:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the following?

The development of electronic driver aids began in the 1980s. Lotus began to develop a system of active suspension which first appeared in 1982 on the F1 Lotus 91 and Lotus Esprit road car. By 1987 this system had been perfected and was driven to victory by Ayrton Senna in the Monaco Grand Prix that year. In the early 1990s, other teams followed suit and semi-automatic gearboxes and traction control were a natural progression. The FIA, due to complaints that technology was determining the outcome of races more than driver skill, banned many such aids for 1994. However, many observers felt that the ban on driver aids was a ban in name only as the FIA did not have the technology or the methods to eliminate these features from competition.

Seems reasonable to me - needs cites as well though! 4u1e 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is in the news

Don't know if it merits a mention in the main article but this article was used to decide a court case today. See here [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelpin (talk • contribs)

I don't think it was a court case - just a trademark application denied. It doesn't warrant mention in the article. Mark83 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right - sorry I misread the article first time.Kelpin 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Noted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2007. Mark83 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I didn't know that page existed. Kelpin 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.187.122 (talk)

[edit] F1 season

When does the F1 season start and end? Christopher Connor 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

These days, the season usually starts in early-mid March and finishes in mid-late October. You can find the exact start and finish dates for each season in the relevant season summary article, e.g. the opening paragraph of 2007 Formula One season states that the 2007 season started on the 18th of March and will finish on the 21st of October. DH85868993 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Historically it has started as early as January 1 (South African GPs in 1960s, IIRC) 4u1e 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Stewart and Hill image

I've removed this image as it seems to me to quite clearly contravenes point 1 of WP:BFAQ Mighty Antar 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Inaugural season

I believe that either the year or the wording should change

  • If its Inaugural F1 season then the year should be 1950 the first year a season (a series of races counting towards a championship) took place
  • If its Inaugural F1 race it should be 1947
  • If its the year the F1 formula was defined (1946) the wording should change

Personally I think it should say 1950 since that was the first season and also the year "Formula One" became the official name (it was called Formula A before that) Chris Ssk 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Most books agree on 1950. mattbuck 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now that the infobox has changed to say "Inaugural season", I think 1950 is the most appropriate year to display. So I've updated it to say 1950, but with an explanatory note mentioning 1946 and 1947. Ideally, I'd like the title of the infobox to be "Formula One World Championship" to make it even clearer, but the template doesn't seem to offer that option. DH85868993 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constructors' Champion in infobox

I'm not whether Ferrari should be listed as the Constructors' Champion yet - it seems a bit weird listing the 2006 Drivers' Champion but the 2007 Constructors' Champion. DH85868993 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. Maybe we should put the year in brackets after the competitor? mattbuck 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is because they are the current champions. Even though the 07 drivers' championship has not been decided, while the constructors' has, both Alonso and Ferrari are equal championship holders, while Renault no longer is. I have, however, added a note for clarification. Charles 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ferrari are not the current champions. Although they cannot now be overtaken for the constructors championship (barring further Stepneygate revelations - a not improbable occurence!) the champions are not formally announced until the end of the season, to the best of my knowledge. Renault remain the reigning world champions. In any case, as DH says above, it's confusing having champions listed from two different seasons.
Unless and until anyone can come up with an FIA press release announcing Ferrari as the 2007 F1 champions, Renault should remain in the infobox. I have edited to that effect. Happy to discuss. Cheers. 4u1e 08:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine F1 championship

I've deleted this section on the basis that although it may have been called 'Formula Una' - the cars were not Formula One cars. See this forum thread. The main thing is that the cars seem to have used exclusively 4.2 litre stock blocks, way over the F1 3 litre limit. The South African and British series were much closer to being real F1 series, with numbers of ex-championship cars, and (I think) the locally built cars built to F1 regs. Although F5000 cars did run in the Aurora series in some (all?) years as well, I think there's a clear distinction here. This is, however, a rather obscure topic: Anyone know more about it? 4u1e 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year links

Easter egg links are generally discouraged because their destination is not obvious. This article has many links to "Year Formula One season" piped down to just the year, thus breaking the guideline. However, links to those articles are relevant and useful so it would be good to keep them. Possible ways around this would therefore to change, for example, "1999" to "1999 (see 1999 Formula One season)" or "the 1999 season". There may be other ways around it, and it would be nice to fix such links. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to! ;-) I tend to go for your latter suggestion myself - the wordage still needs to be readable and the full version is a bit of a mouthful. 4u1e 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I recommend discussing this on WT:F1 first? A lot of F1-related articles use a lot of these type of links. DH85868993 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably a good idea - and it's not quite as mechanical as just subbing '1999 season' for 1999 - I don't suggest for example having 'Michael Schumacher was champion in the 1994 season, the 1995 season, the 2000 season, the 2001 season, the 2002 season, the 2003 season and the 2004 season'! 4u1e 09:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Are they true Easter Egg links though? They just take you to the page on that year that is most relevant to the topic. The "xxxx Formula One season" is basically a "xxxx in Formula One" page, and it's very common in music articles, for example, to have links to a year go to "xxxx in music". Everyone knows what a year is (I believe!), so for the year to be linked usefully, it needs to go to a page with information on that year relevant to the topic. AlexJ 16:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Alex here -- it fits with others widely accepted. Guroadrunner 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GrandPrix+

GrandPrix+ is the first e-magazine about F1, available at 0900 GMT on the Monday after each race. It is produced by experienced FIA-accredited journalists and photographers and is sent in PDF format. It includes between 50-60 pages of news, features, opinion and photography. I would like to propose that a link be added to the Formula One wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish collector (talk • contribs) 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 g's of lateral force?

This seems extremely high. Every other web site I can find on currrent Formula 1 race cars indicates a max sustained lateral force of about 3.5g's of lateral force on certain high speed turns. The 2005 and older cars could pull 4 g's, but they had about 125hp more power with the 3 liter engines, and lower wings. The newer cars don't have the power to maintain the speeds required for a 4 g turn, while overcoming drag and energy losses to cornering forces.

A quote from this link below: "The vast loadings that Formula One cars are capable of creating, anything up to a sustained 3.5 g of cornering force" formula1.com Jeffareid (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

while I agree 5 may not be reached anymore, the g-meters shown in races often get to the 4g, so i'd say it's best to go with that. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
4g's sound resonable, the tires have improved to the point that brake overheating at some tracks is becoming an issue now. Jeffareid (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The highest maximum value I've seen on the g-meters on TV was 4.7g, so 5g sounds about right. 82.135.69.223 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I´m missing a paragraph about criticism on Formula 1. On the internet there are more and more fans being very critical to the state of Formula 1 and the proposals for the future. PG, 23 december 2007, 17:27

[edit] 7 post shaker add to see also list

I would like to add the article about the 7 post shaker technology. I feel this is a worthwhile add, since it relates to racing technology across all genres of racing. Let me know what everyone thinks and I'll add it sometime soon. Thank you!!Rooney McFaddy (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't be in favour. If we're going to add 7 post shaker, then why not other elements of racing technology which are used in F1, such as Wind tunnel or Telemetry or Computer-aided design? I think the "See also" section in this article should be for articles which are particularly associated with F1, rather than racing in general. DH85868993 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the list would get rather long if we included all racing tech articles. I would like to see a link to an article on vehicle technology specifically in the area of racing. There are thousands of articles on vehicle technology but few of them incorporate racing. To find these articles requires tediously searching through many different categories. I would like to see a racing technology and how it applies to F1, CART, NASCAR, etc. on each of those article's see also list. Thank you for responding to me and I will not post this add. Rooney McFaddy (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to feeder series section

Anon 60.48.179.193 and I have been reverting back and forth a bit over the 'Feeder series' section. The changes I introduced (see diff) were intended to give a bit more of a historical perspective on this by mentioning F2 prior to F3000 and giving a slightly bigger historical spread of driver. Some minor corrections were also bundled up in the change: Karts are not single-seaters; Zanardi raced in F1 before he raced in Champ Car, so he is arguably not a good example here; better to give the start year for GP2 than to say 3 years ago (since it will not then go out of date); having added mention of Mario Andretti it then became necessary to amend mention of Champ Car and CART to American Championship Car Racing, as neither CART nor CCWS existed when he transferred to F1. This all seems reasonable to me (of course) - if anyone wants to revert it, I'd be grateful if the reasoning could be given here. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NEWS (New Regulations for 2009 and 2010)

I just placed the topic far towards the top of the main heading, to grab the attention, this article can be moved towards the end at a later stage!
Kind regards XTerminator2000 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for DELETING my article already ! Now there is NO reference to Hybrid Engine in the whole article! If you think you are better than the rest - "Why don't you just go and build this whole thing yourself?" Kind regards !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by XTerminator2000 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) XTerminator2000 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caption Slightly Incorrect?

This caption: "Nick Heidfeld and Nico Rosberg battle on the street circuit of Albert Park in the 2008 Australian Grand Prix" seems to be slightly wrong, as they wouldn't be battling if the safetly car was out (the SC sign). --71.120.75.145 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the word "battle". DH85868993 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Sport?

Why is there no mention of the fact that few people believe that Formula One is really a sport and not a marketing technique? Given that both Stirling Moss and Fernando Alonso have stated that they don't believe modern F1 is a sport, is this not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.84.253 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

'Sport' is a very vague word and I do believe F1 is a sport. F1 involves 'competeive activity', which is the first deffinition of sport in the OED. Shooting Deer with machine guns is a sport in some parts of the world. By your arguement is the film 'Crash' not a film because it's esentially a Cadilac advert? Or iRobot which was a feature length Audi Add? F1 is a sport.(Morcus (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC))