Talk:Formula One/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Content archived from Talk:Formula One on April 19, 2006 by 4u1e.

For archive material from 2003 - September 2004 see Talk:Formula_One/Archive_1

Contents 1 One new criticism 2 FAC criticisms 2.1 Removal of 'duplicate links' 2.2 History section 2.3 Some suggestions 3 Midland F1 4 WikiProject Formula One 5 References 6 Champcar comparison 7 Popularity 8 FAC again 9 Descriptive subsections 10 Indianapolis 11 Quibbles 12 Drivers & Constructors 13 Section and articles 14 Numbering 15 Renault Sport 16 Amount of US-Related Images 17 Bernievision 18 More quibbles 19 my last edition 20 Future of F1 in US 21 Glamour? 22 Wow.. Alonso champion 23 USGP 24 Not Classified 25 Early Years 26 Second Concord 27 Second Concord Agreement 28 Modern F1 29 Team mention 30 Spec Series 31 Grands Prix 32 Speed 33 Walk in, beauty 34 IRC Link 35 "Most Expensive Sport"

One new criticism

The NOTES at the bottom (above REFERENCES) are not needed. They refer to some recent news. This is very subjective as F1 has news all the time. I do not think that a couple of recent comments by Bernie or somebody else from Ferrary matters much.

FAC criticisms

Removal of 'duplicate links'

Regarding the recent edit, I guess as they were merely links, this is fair enough. However, I think it would be better to have a list of grands prix in the current season, which I seem to remember there was a while ago. Any other thoughts? doctorvee 17:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think some small bit of information should appear in the main article as a "summary" of each list (strange as that sounds). I'm about to change these a bit in accordance with WP:FAC criticisms. — Dan | Talk 20:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would seem right to include the 2004 races seeing as we have included the 2004 teams and drivers. I'm interested to see how you summarise the lists because I couldn't think how to do that. SamH 20:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think there are some fair points made in the WP:FAC discussion. To be honest, I think there is still a few of improvements to be made. Perhaps the criticism about lists is fair enough. If you take a look at Cricket, which was recently a Featured Article, there isn't a list of nations who take part in test cricket, for example. I think this is worth further discussion. I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll think of some suggestions I have to make the article and Formula One-related articles better. doctorvee 21:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me a listing of events is necessary. F1 has always been as much about the venue as the drivers or cars. Otherwise, why mention where the GPs are held? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

History section

I've done a bit of copyediting and addition to the history section of the article, and I'm trying to make sure it is only a summary of History of Formula One (i.e. short and concise), but it remains almost entirely concerned with technical regs and car evolution. Dominant drivers of each era at least deserve a mention, and maybe some of the minor formula changes can be removed since they aren't terribly necessary. — Dan | Talk 00:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The USAP 2005 fiasco should have a note about recent news of the williams team having 3 tyre failures in a recent GP. Toyota was the only team to have an on-track failure during practice in the USGP. This year in nascar there has also been multiple race weekends where excessive camber on the turns caused over 30 tyre failures which honed around a few teams rumored to be running 10-15 degrees of negative camber. The entire fiasco at the USGP could have been something inherently political or a false alarm.

Tyre failures occur at many Grands Prix, but most often due to car set up problems (which is what caused the Williams problems, and McLaren's issues at Italy this year). What was unusual about Indianapolis was that every Michelin tyre was at risk, and it was every Michelin tyre. Politics obviously had a part to play in the way the whole situation was handled, but it was not only Toyotas that were affected -- they were only the most visible victims. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with removing formula changes. They are a part of the history, and every article on F1 I've ever seen notes them, as well as the comparison between cars of different (but contemporary) spec, like the 4.5 liter Ferraris and tiny Coopers. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Some suggestions

As I said, I have a few suggestions to make regarding articles related to Formula 1. The recent changes to the main article are a step in the right direction. However, I feel that there should be a dedicated section for the current season (listing teams, drivers and grands prix) to allow the rest of the article to concentrate on history and suchlike. How do people feel about covering third drivers? Third drivers play a bigger role than they used to, as they now travel to grands prix for Friday testing. But they still don't score World Championship points or anything. Should they be included in, for example, the list of teams and drivers and the teams template? There are inconsistencies. For instance, the Sauber article has a list of all drivers who have raced for Sauber in the past. None of the other teams have this, and if they did, a lot of the lists would be too long. Perhaps categories should be created instead? It is possibly not important enough to have a category created for Sauber drivers. But I don't think listing them is entirely without merit. Something I'd like to see personally is an article of the Concorde Agreement. It seems to be quite important, but my knowledge of it is very patchy. What are other people's thoughts? doctorvee 17:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm neutral on whether to split this season's teams, drivers and races into a separate section. I'm also neutral on whether they should be included in the main article or kept in separate articles.

I don't think we should include third drivers in the list and template because they don't actually compete in the championships, only the constructors and the race drivers do. In know that third drivers play an important role, but so do say, chief engineers, but we don't include them. However, if there is a strong feeling to include them I would be OK with it.

As for listing teams' past drivers on their individual articles (as has been done on Sauber), I don't feel this is necessary, but if people want to do it then I think a category (e.g. Category:Sauber drivers) would be more appropriate. However, I don't feel that we need to worry about all F1 related articles at the moment, just the main ones.

Regarding the Concorde Agreement, I agree that it should be mentioned, but as I understand, its contents are secret so it would be difficult to discuss it in detail.

IMO, two main things need to be done to bring this article to Featured standard:

1. The future section (currently at the bottom of History of Formula One) needs to be taken into the main article, updated and expanded. This would be the place to talk about the Concorde Agreement.
2. The second half of the history summary needs to include info on dominant drivers and teams as well as major events in F1 (e.g. Senna and Ratzenberger deaths). SamH 09:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I already started editing the article when you wrote this. Hope it's okay though, I've shuffled a couple of things about and added third drivers and grands prix in a '2004 season' section. I agree with your other points though. doctorvee 10:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice work; definitely an improvement. SamH 11:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I very much like the 2004 section. However I'd like to point out that the first time this article went through FAC it was agreed that the 'future of F1' section had no place in the main article; perhaps a short Future bit as a subsection of ==History== would be appropriate. I also think the Concorde Agreement belongs in History - yes, it was important, but it does not need another section; details can go on its own (as of yet nonexistent) article. [[User:Rdsmith4|subst:User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 12:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Surely discussion about the future of the sport does not belong in the article "History of Formula One"? As for the Concorde Agreement, I'm not advocating a separate section, I'm just saying we should mention it's effect on the sport. I believe that the "future" section is the most relevent place to do this. SamH 13:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: including 'Future of F1' in main article, fair enough. The section needs work, however; I'll copyedit but it also needs expansion.

Also, the Concorde Agreement(s) is (are) more past than future - one, which ended the FISA-FOCA war, ran from 1981 to 1987. The second began in 1997 and will expire in 2007, so it's mostly over. — Dan | Talk 04:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware that there has been two Concorde Agreements. The reason I was suggesting talking about it (the second one) in relation the future was because of the speculation that a breakaway series could be created by disgruntled teams in 2008. I do agree though that the argreements are mainly related to the history of the sport. SamH 09:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd say leave out the third drivers. They're in the same category as test drivers. Unless they contribute something special to the team, or get moved up, or compete in another formula (GTP, F2, F3), leave them out. As for lists of past drivers, they're essential. Drivers make a team. Would Ferrari have been so successful in the '50s without Ascari or Fangio? Auto Union without Rosemeyer? McLaren-Honda without Senna and Prost? (Tyrell without...the guy that cost Prost the '84 title?) (I had to look it up: Stefan Bellof. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05)

Midland F1

It may need some editing relating to verb tense, but I included that the new team intends to bring in a Russian driver. The previous wording ("is expected to") left open the possibility that this could just be speculation. Since the page may disappear (I'm not sure about Reuters' archiving policies), I'll include their direct quote here:

• "Of course the team will have a Russian flavour and in time we hope to bring a Russian driver into Formula One," said Midland chairman Alex Shnaider, a naturalised Canadian citizen born in St Petersburg, in a statement.

(Source: Article titled "UPDATE 1-New team to enter Formula One in 2006", dated Fri 8 October 2004 07:41.) - Cafemusique 09:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Formula One

Because Formula One is an enormous subject area, because it has proven difficult to divide it into appropriate subtopics, and because there are numerous articles of the same type which should be standardized (GPs, constructors, circuits, etc.), I have drafted a WikiProject, creatively titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, and a Template:WikiProject Formula One to go on the talk page of all F1-related articles. Please share your opinions and feel free to edit my drafts. — — Dan | Talk 17:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that there is an article on Grand Prix motor racing in addition to this one on Formula one. Is a merge in order?Gzuckier 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. Grand Prix motor racing covers the sport of grand prix racing before the establishment of the World Championship in 1950, which is when Formula One as we know it today started (although the formula itself was devised before 1950). Hope this explains the logic of separate articles. SamH 22:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, OK, now I get it. Thanks. Gzuckier 03:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can somebody clarify the relationship between FIA and FOCA? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

References

I have added the sources I've used in my major edits to this article under the required heading at the bottom. If any of the article's other contributors have user other trustworthy sources (books, perhaps? nobody sells F1 books where I live), please feel free to add them. — Dan | Talk 03:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added the books that I used in my edits. I used my interpretation of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite sources and the style guides it links to. I don't have much experience of citation so I could be wrong, but wouldn't "bibliography" be a more accurate title than "references"? SamH 11:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Cite_sources, under 'Proposed citation style', it says, "At the end of an article, under a ==References== heading, list the references as a bulleted (*) list in alphabetical order by author (and by year for identical authors)..."

I take it we should place references for all Formula One related articles in this references section? I think it's a bit much to cite different sections of the same website separately. Would citing fia.com once do? doctorvee 12:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've seen a Guiness Book of F1 racing that includes all the results. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I'd guess, pretty good... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Champcar comparison

I've added a short paragraph comparing F1 cars to Champcars and Indy Cars, but I think my writing is a little ungainly. Would someone improve it? Also does anyone know if the 2004 Montreal poles I compared were both set in the dry? If they weren't, the comparison is a bit useless. Thanks, SamH|Talk 21:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Uh, SamH? Champcars are Indy Cars... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05 (P.S. Did you mean Indy roadsters?)

Popularity

In line with the criticisms on WP:FAC, I think something should be written on the popularity of the sport. I'm willing to have a go at writing something, but I have no idea where to find the necessary information from. Anyone have any ideas? SamH|Talk 11:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FAC again

I've tried to summarize the criticisms from the article's most recent FAC nomination so they can be addressed in an orderly manner. — Dan | Talk 02:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Safety not addressed thoroughly enough.
• Legends such as Senna and Lauda not mentioned.
• Lead section should be longer and present a better summary.
• The history section has seemingly random subsections.
• Maybe (not sure) it is better to split out the history of the evolvement of the car to the "The cars" section.
• Writing of the history section is not very fluent. One sentence paragraphs should be avoided; make it more of a story and less of a list of facts. There are also several facts that are too specific or irrelevant; For example, the disappearance of Prost and Arrows should be combined with the downsizing of the field from 40 in the early 1990s to the present number.
• Missing section on popularity of the sport, the size of the fanbase, coverage in the media, etc.
• The "Future of..." section discusses the main issues, but is still too much a collection of individual news facts. Also, historical perspective is needed; the three issues of internationalization, rule changes and financial problems for small teams are not new. Instead of only mentioning the new rules, mention the old rules as well (e.g. changes in the qualifying format, and the reasons to do so). Leave out specifics unless they are very important.
• Move all see alsos to a separate list below.
  • I disagree with this one - I think they're quite relevant. — Dan | Talk 02:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• A comparison with other and similar motorsport classes would be good for perspective. Especially the Europe (F1) vs. America (Indy) should be discussed.

• I agree, it needs coverage of the fan base and media coverage. Too many media outlets ignore F1 entirely... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Descriptive subsections

There's definetely a major evolution in 1968 : Sponsors, wings, change of mind about security and Cosworth DFV sold to everyone who wants buy it. It should be emphsized IMO. Ericd 21:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think a comparison above and beyond what is mentioned may be unnecessary given that there has been no driver to move up from Indycars since the break from CART to be able to compete in F1.

Indianapolis

IMO the Indianapolis is the worse we can use for this article. It gives the impression that F1 use oval tracks. Ericd 11:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I assume you are refering to the use of Image:Ims aerial.jpg in the "Circuits" section. I agree that it could give the impression that F1 races are held on ovals, but it is the only photo we have of a complete F1 circuit (as far as I know). Anyway, you don't have to look much closer to see the twisty infield, and the photo just above shows a section of Indianaoplis that clearly isn't part of an oval. SamH|Talk 13:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quibbles

I have two issues with this article:

1) In the "Rise in Popularity" section, the text claims: "These cars were and still are the most powerful circuit racing cars ever". The Porsche 917-30 Can Am cars produced significantly more power (1500 - 1700 bhp, nobody seems to know for certain) and, if I understand the term correctly, were also circuit racing cars.

2) "It ... is the most expensive sport in the world, as annual team budgets average in the hundreds of millions of US dollars." The total player payroll cost alone of Major League Baseball will be about $2.2 billion in 2005. I think it is quite unlikely that 10 Formula 1 teams will spend more than that, given that Ferrari, with the biggest budget, is expected to spend around $200 million. More to the point, I don't think it adds anything to the reader's understanding of Formula 1 racing to claim that it is more expensive than Major League Baseball, or the Premier League, or the America's Cup.

--Davidsteele 19:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David, you are totally right on the first point I've updated the article to "the most powerful circuit open wheelers cars ever".

On the second point I think it adds a lot to the reader's understanding of Formula 1 to than F1 is expensive because we have reached a point were the cost of F1 has rised to a point that may compromise its future. I'm unable to summarize it in a short sentence but IMO the economy of F1 is very different from the economy of baseball or American football.

I'm really ignorant about baseball. It seems you're trying to compare the global cost of Major League Baseball to the global cost of F1. In that maybe the F1 is not the most expensive sport in the world and maybe tennis for instance is also more expensive. But I think it would be more fair to compare the budget of a F1 team to the budget of a basball team. According to the article Major League Baseball there are 30 teams.

There's an other point. The player or driver payroll is a cost for the team OK but it's also a redistribution of the income generated by the sport. Some sports are expensive because they generate high income and thus the players are well paid. But what makes F1 expensive is not the drivers. F1 is expensive because its getting more and more high-tech and high-tech is expensive. I'm quite sure that if we compare F1 to Major League Baseball F1 will appear to have a very low profitability.

Ericd 22:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the use of the term "the world's most expenseive sport". First, it's not at all clear to me exactly what that means. Second, I am certain that there are reasonable interpretations of the phrase that for which F1 is not the most expensive sport. US Major League Baseball almost certainly has a larger total payroll. If you really believe this phrase is important, you need to qualify it or prove it.

--Rkstafford 13:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know for sure whether or not F1 is the most expensive sport in the world (although I did think it was). It's worth bearing in mind that teams' budgets are not the only things that contribute to the 'expense' of the sport. For instance, the upkeep of a racing circuit must be far more expensive than the upkeep of a baseball field. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 13:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely that we might need to consider all sorts of different costs, and that's exactly my point. By the way, why would you think that the upkeep of a race circuit would cost more than the upkeep of a baseball field? My belief, without more information, would be exactly the opposite. Baseball fields are used more than 80 days per year, and the players care every bit as much about the quality of the surface as racers do about the surface of a track. If we're going to throw in the cost of making the circuit available for testing, let's add 30 stadiums used for Spring Training to the other side of the scale. What's more, the 30 Major League Baseball stadiums will average almost 2 million visitors per year, with total attendance in 2004 of more than 50 million, wearing out the bathrooms, etc. Best I can figure, total Formula 1 attendance is less than 20% of that. If you're going to include the cost of other races in the upkeep, you've moved the definition again, and now we might compare that cost to the cost of all professional baseball in the United States, which will be several times the cost of Major League Baseball. My point is that I don't know whether Major League Baseball, or the Premier League, or Formula 1 is more expensive, but neither does anybody else. Readers are all going to have different notions of what it means to be "the world's most expensive sport", and by some defintions that this claim is likely to be wrong. The article could reasonably include a comment something like "Formula 1 cars are the most expensive race cars currently in production and the sport is among the most expensive in the world." The point that matters to the article, I believe, is that it's really expensive, not that it's more expensive than Major League Baseball. --Rkstafford 14:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I have to say we need to find an authoritative source to verify whether or not F1 is the most expensive sport in the world. But one reason why I think the upkeep of circuits is so much more expensive than the upkeep of baseball fields is because they are so massive. I mean, you have to cut grass around the baseball field, but at a circuit you've got to cut the grass around a circuit that is miles long. Circuits continually have to have tarmac relaid, and configurations have to change to adapt to increasing safety standards and the increasing speeds of the cars. In the past two years three new circuits have been added to the calendar. The Shanghai circuit alone cost $240 million. Still, I think you have a point and as I said we need this verified. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'd agree to mentioning profitability. MLB roster salaries are huge, but so are the profits. No F1 team makes a profit (as far as I know); Enzo had to form his car company to finance his racing... I'd also say "most expensive" reflects the cost to play against the profit earned: yachting is called "most expensive", too; anybody ever make a profit on a yacht race? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Drivers & Constructors

The "Drivers and Constructors" section says "Others, such as DaimlerChrysler, provide engines and sponsorship for privately owned teams in return for prominent advertisement on their team clothing and car livery." Team McLaren is not, in this context, a privately-owned team provided with engines by Daimler-Chrysler (in the guise of Mercedes); Mercedes-Benz is a 40% owner of the McLaren Group. Sbz5809 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This error has been there for a while - clearly DaimlerChysler should not be referenced in this context. In fact, while this arrangement was the norm in the 80s and 90s, it doesn't really exist at the moment. By my count there are 5 full manufacturer teams, McLaren in an intermediate 'partnership' arrangement, and another 5 teams paying for their engines. 4u1e 16:36, 3 April 2006

Section and articles

Hi. I had the impression that the "Rule changes" subsection is too specific about the 2005 season. I believe that, for this article, it should talk mainly about the trend to keep altering the rules to return competitiveness to the sport, reduce Ferrari's dominance, etc. And then we could create a new article, such as Formula One 2005, where we could discuss the specific changes for this particular season, as well as list the circuits that are going to be a part of the 2005 season, and even follow the drivers' and constructors' rankings for the year. Perhaps it would even be possible to create similar articles for the more recently passed seasons, maybe 2004 and 2003. I figure this would make this article more general and the new articles would go a long way to expand our coverage of the F1 world. I realize it would be a lot of work though, especially to set up the new season-specific articles. Any thoughts? Regards, Redux 20:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say a specific article on the 2005 season is overkill. Rules changes are a fact of life in motor sports; we need to keep a perspective. NASCAR makes changes during the season, after all... And changing formulae and qualifying formats are nothing new, either: recall the '23 Monaco GP, when grid position was determined by qual time, rather than luck of the draw (leading to the creation of the term "back marker"...?) On the subject of back markers, may I suggest a glossary of F1 terms? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Numbering

A minor featuer to be sure, but some of us are curious about things like that. I think it could probably use a bit of a language cleanup and a bit more factchecking...I know that the old system was implemented in 1974 based on the 73 results, but couldn't quite remember offhand when the current system started...was it 95 or 96? Also the examples given seem troublesome to me...there might be too many, and they aren't necessarily accurate (particularly with Ferrari and McLaren, who just as often ran under different numbers than the ones given). Kurohone 9 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)

Renault Sport

I noticed that Renault Sport redirected to Renault F1. As Renault Sport (offically Renault Sport Technologies) is now separate from Renault F1 I've created an independent article on that page to reflect that.

From research I think its true to say that Renault's participation in F1 was as Renault Sport from 1975 (creation of Renault Sport) to 1997? Is that right? Then with the purchase of Benetton Renault F1 was run as a distinct division (that I'm pretty sure of). As such I think it would be correct to change those links that refer to the 2000-Present team to Renault F1 and leave those that refer to the period up to 1997 as Renault Sport. Any thoughts? Mark 23:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Amount of US-Related Images

I object to the amount of US-related images in the majority of F1 articles, especially since quite a few seem to be from the 2005 race, which was objected to so vigorously by... the people who attended the US Grand Prix.

One example, which irritates me particularly, is having an aerial photograph of Indianapolis. Sure, it is the epitomy of racing in the US, but it means nothing to the history of F1. A more relevant and apt photograph of a circuit would be of the classic Nurburgring, addored by F1 fans, or the old (or current) Spa-Francorchamps. Why should Indianapolis get highlighted over Monza or Silverstone, circuits with real F1-heritage. These are F1 articles afterall, not Indycar or NASCAR ones.

This is not anti-US, it is just I think there could be more relevant images to F1's heritage involved in the project, rather than images central to racing in the US.

I think the problem is getting images that you are actually allowed to use. With Formula One in particular, I think it must be very difficult to use photographs without breaking copyright or something. I get a feeling that one contributor is from the US and goes the the GP to take photographs himself. So that's the photographs we end up using, because it's all we've got. doctorvee 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are several decent images I took of the 2003 Indy F1 race, that are in the public domain, if they're at all useful. I even got Schumacher's victory cheer, though from behind. --Interiot 03:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those photos are mostly mine and Rdikeman's, and they're used because they're freely licensed, which is a very rare thing in motorsport photography, most of which is copyrighted and jealously guarded because it's quite hard to come by. Unfortunately, it is beyond my means at the moment to attend any grand prix besides the one closest to home. I agree that an aerial photo of Spa or Monza would be far preferable, but unfortunately we don't have access to any such photos. — Dan | Talk 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

By complete chance, your wish is granted. ITV F1's website recently displayed an aerial image of Monza which was labeled "copyright free", so I uploaded it to Commons: Image:Monza aerial photo.jpg. — Dan | Talk 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Bernievision

The sentence about Bernievision contains this phrase: "by which a fan could purchase an entire F1 season," which doesn't seem right. Perhaps an explanation of what Bernievision offered that was different to the normal broadcasts (eg. more on-board cameras) would be more suitable, although I know little about Bernievision myself. Didn't viewers pay to watch all the action during a race weekend? \•/ doctorvee » Talk 16:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

More quibbles

Having been an F1 follower for 15 years, the introductory paragraph to this Wiki is very confusing.

"Formula One, abbreviated to F1, is a type of Grand Prix motor racing."

(Grand Prix racing IS F1, there are no other types of Grand Prix. Other classes are GP2, F3, etc).

"It is regarded as the highest class of single-seat open-wheel formula racing and consists of two annual World Championships, one for drivers and one for constructors (teams)."

Very confusing, as it implies that there are two parallel run series. It is infact a single series where manufacturers and drivers compete for separate championships.

On the first count I would say that you're wrong, because Grand Prix motor racing existed long before the first Formula One race was held in 1950 (although maybe the wording could be better). Mind you, I'm not sure about the status of the term 'grand prix'. I mean, GP2 races are called Grands Prix, as are MotoGP races, and many others. Also GPWC wanted to set up a Grand Prix World Championship and that certainly would not have been F1, so Grand Prix racing definitely is not the same as F1 in my view. On the second count I think the sentence could do with some clarifying, so I'll just edit it. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 19:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me started on "Grand Prix". Indycar has the nerve to call their events GPs... It's obscene. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

my last edition

Why the death of Ayrton Senna is considered ironic? This was written by nazi-Shumacher fans I suppose. --Mateusc 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Going by the definition "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs", there were a number of ironies about Senna's death. His signing by Williams, before Prost decided to leave as I recall, was certainly unexpected, particularly in light of their previous history. It was expected that when Senna arrived at the previously dominant Williams team, having left McLaren specifically to get in the best car, he would be unstoppable, but he didn't score a point in 1994. Finally, it may also be the case that the most naturally talented driver of his generation died after making an error, possibly in part due to his extreme 'will to win'. Schumacher doesn't come into it - he was just another frontrunning driver at the time. I fail to see the connection to Nazism. --4u1e 13 February 2006

Future of F1 in US

Does anyone other than Bernie Ecclestone believe that the US race will continue past its current contract? http://www.usgpindy.com/news/story.php?story_id=5472 This is about as unenthusiastic a defense of future races as I could imagine from Chitwood. This article's tone is also way too gentle with the 2005 US race - it was an unmitigated fiasco, and Michelin ended up refunding ticket payments. The Wikipedia article on the 2005 race does a much better job of capturing the tone. I would suggest that this article use a word like "farce" to describe the situation. --Rkstafford 13:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the very fact that the 2005 USGP is mentioned in the section about venue changes reflects the seriousness of what happened. The main article isn't the place to go in-depth about the events of one race, no matter how important it was. The article on the race itself is the place to put it in my opinion (there should also be bits about it in Future of Formula One). \•/ doctorvee » Talk 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Formula 1 was never a mainstream success in United States (as well the Soccer) the GPs (since Phoenix) is ever made for hardcore loving of European motoring supremacy, because north-americans they need proper categories and championships to not pass shame of the Europeans ahead. --Mateusc 20:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

Don't lay it off on Michelin! FIA knew the tires were unsafe, and refused to allow the teams to change. Were the principals suppsosed to tell their drivers, "Go risk your lives on tires we know are lousy", just to entertain somebody? Let loose the lions, Caesar... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

My comment was not intended to blame Michelin for the mess, only to point out that Michelin ended up paying for the refund. It was a complicated mess, and I think the article does a fine job of laying it all out. My impression is that Michelin had much less to apologize for than most of the rest of the significant players. --Rkstafford 20:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Glamour?

From the article: "In recent years, it has also become known for glamour". I have no idea what this means, the last I saw the racers were not particularly glamourous. Please can we clarify or remove. 194.106.59.2 02:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

F1 was always glamourous, sad the error is talk "recently". Either for representing the supremacy of European motoring, either for being a championship with much money involved, for Monaco, Italy, the best automobile race tracks of the world, and everything what the championship synthecizes in terms sophistication and technology. --Mateusc 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow.. Alonso champion

Finally someone takeover Schumacher. I hope F1 will can bright again like the Ayrton Senna/Mclaren golden ages. --Mateusc 18:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That was no golden age, and I was a fan of Senna. 1-team dominance is boring. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

USGP

It is either worth mentioning that the United States Grand Prix will be run on the road course at Indianapolis Motot Speedway next year, or the '05 USGP is not worth mentioning at all. Perhaps in a "popularity" section, but not in the "future" section. It's too big a non-issue to not be fully explained if mentioned. The consistant unpopularity of F1 in the US is more important than Bernie spoiling an entire afternoon for the american F1 fans that DO exsist.

Also it is worth mentioning that Renalut driver Fernando Alonso as unseated Ferrari's Michael Schumacher as world champion, although it might be prudent to wait until the end of the season and give his stats for the year.

I now defer to those more passionate than I to make the changes.

Not Classified

This is message is for the user who posts the race results. When I driver finishes the race 26 laps behind the leader whihc was the case with Mark Webber in the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix. He was listed as 'Ret' instead of 'NC'. I have send an email to formula1.com and ask them if they made a mistake in the race results and they told me you are right it should be NC not Ret. Here is their email reply to me ---> On 9/28/05, Formula1.com <webmaster@formula1.com> Thank you for your email. You are correct - he did finish - his status has been amended. formula1.com. So keep in mind its a NC (Not Classified) when a driver finishes the race out of the classifications. Andreasu

See Official Formula1.com site ---> http://www.formula1.com/race/result/748/8.html

Am I right F1 races are limited to 300km and 2 hr? Or has this rule been changed? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Yes, you are correct except for a small detail. Races are limited to the number of predetermined laps (usually the closest above the length of 305 km, but not in Monaco, only 260 km) and 2 hours of running, which ever comes first. // Kakis 2006-01-06

Early Years

Am I wrong, or was part of the Cooper's success due to its monocoque construction? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Oops, forget I said anything... It was Lotus. --squadfifteen.

Second Concord

Second Concord Agreement

I suggest deleting that one line, unless you explain why it matters. Also, could somebody buy a dictionary? It's concord, meaning agreement, not concorde, meaning airliner.... ==squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Maybe you should! Concord is an English word meaning agreement or treaty. Concorde is a French word which is analogous. Either way these definitions are academic as the original Concorde Agreement was a document named after the place it was signed, the headquarters of the FIA at the Place de la Concorde in Paris.

Also Concorde in a French dictionary isn't defined as "an Anglo-French supersonic airliner", the plane was called that because it was the product of an agreement (or Concord/Concorde) between the United Kingdom and France. Mark83 20:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern F1

Isn't that an oxymoron? How about "Contemporary F1"? --squadfifteen,17/10/05

Team mention

It seems to me necessary to mention the team, not just the driver, when talking about who may or may not have had a chance to win the title. While the driver's title gets most of the attention, the constructors are involved. Besides, it's not a footrace... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Spec Series

I'd say a clarification is in order. F3000 and IROC were "spec series" since all cars were built, and held, to the same spec; Champ cars and NASCAR stockers are built to regulations, just like F1. The regs allow Champ car teams to buy chassis, while F1 doesn't, which explains the homogenization; it may also explain the astronomical cost of F1. --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

I deleted "In 2005, we saw a new era in Formula One where 24 years old Spanish Fernando Alonso and Renault won both the driver and constructor championship. Renault won the first race in Australia and the last race in China, but Kimi Raikeneen and McLaren tryed to chalenged the french squad but came back too late." It's not clear this is "new era" and it's irrelevant to the broader history. It also strikes me as a "shout out" to Fernando's fans... --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

Grands Prix

You're wrong on one point. The very first Italian Grand Prix was not at Monza. It was (I think) Perugia. Also, hasn't Monaco also been on the schedule every time? --squadfifteen, 17/10/05

The first Italian Grand Prix in F1 (1950) was indeed at Monza, though the first ever was at Brescia in 1921; however, I don't think we need to consider pre-F1 races in this article (we have Grand Prix motor racing for that purpose). Also, though Monaco was on the 1950 calendar, it wasn't held again as an F1 race until 1955. — Dan | Talk 04:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speed

Someone has added this "and limiting the top speed to 250mph" to the Rule changes section. It looks wrong but I can't find anything other than the top recorded speed was 221.5 mph. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Walk in, beauty

Can somebodby please find a non-copywright pic of the beautiful Lotus 33? We need one! Trekphiler 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC Link

The IRC link at the bottom of the article seems more like an advertisement than something that will provide any useful information. In my opinion it does not belong. --Windsok 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Most Expensive Sport"

I noticed someone had changed F1 from being "the most expensive sport", to "one of the most expensive sports" I RV'ed this, as I found many, many articles in newspaper and journal databases referring to F1 being the most expensive sport in the world.

I made the change, consistent with a discussion that took place here several months ago. This has been bugging me for a while, but I just got around to changing it last night. I'd like to see your references, because I am deeply, deeply skeptical that that's even a meaningful concept, much less that Formula One is the winner. If you can prove that "the most expensive sport" is appropriate, I'll leave it alone, but I want to see some evidence.--Rkstafford 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Expensive for who ? The team owner, the spectator, the TV channels, the sponsors ? Ericd 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely the definition of the expense of a sport is the amount of money required to compete. For Formula One, this would be a figure for putting two cars on the grid 19 times a season and being able to compete at the high level. A total figure for all competitors would give a good indication as some entrants clearly will never get to the top unless they find a loophole in the reg, find a magician of a driver or spend spend spend. From the top of my head, I cannot think of any sports that would come close to Formula One. Certainly considering that Toyota is reportedly spending £275 million per year. I've had a look round for some evidence but can't find any. One thing to note is that there is a constant drive by the FIA to cut costs. One thing is for sure it's probably the most expensive because it provides the best platform in the world for advertising. It should be noted that this is where the very large majority of the money comes from: sponsorship. MonkeyMumford 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's where we go around again. Let me say right up front that I agree that F1 is very expensive and that it should be described as very expensive, but "the most expensive" is too broad. My point is that unless somebody can provide some evidence that F1 is the most expensive sport, measured in all of the ways that reasonable readers would understand that concept, than the text should be qualified. There are a bunch of ways that you could measure total cost, and I'm pretty sure that they lead to different answers. For example, I suspect that putting together a competitive America's Cup team is more expensive, measured in some ways, than fielding an F1 team. I'm pretty sure that the total budget for all 30 major league baseball teams is higher than the total budget for 8 F1 teams, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the aggregate payroll for the Premier League or Serie A is also higher. So, is "most expensive" meant to mean per team? And how do the expenses of the tracks and F1 itself fit in? And do we measure gross expenditures or net revenue? MLB probably has a better bottom line (net revenue, rather than gross expenses), while F1 in aggregate may well "lose money", but much of the money spent on an F1 team could reasonably be recategorized as R&D expenditure for the car companies. That's why I changed it to "among the most expensive"; I think that "most expensive by some measures" would also be accurate, but "the most expensive in the world" is at best unsupported and almost certainly not accurate. --Rkstafford 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week and the discussion has died, so I went ahead and changed the text (again). If anyone out there is tempted to revert it, I would appreciate it if you could address the issues raised here first. --Rkstafford 06:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some websites that mention F1 as the most expensive sport:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/circuit_guide/4244777.stm

http://formula1.about.com/od/whatisformulaoneracing/a/whatisformula1.htm

http://www.tata.com/tata_sons/articles/20050305_fuelling_karthikeyan.htm

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:S4rKUGsQ_oIJ:www.intel.com/cd/business/enterprise/emea/eng/189441.htm+%22most+expensive+sport%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a

http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/14443/.html

http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2005/jan26/wgrapevine.html

http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/176

--Windsok 13:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that some (not all) these references be included as part of a reference (or footnotes) section and be refered to from within the text. This would give at least some validity to what is a very broad statement style; a statement that I agree with by the way. Such bold statement styles do tend to be liable to challenge regardless of supportability. Thus the need for independant corroboration. If you need technical assistance on wiki footnotes please ask. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 14:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I still believe the statement is at best overly broad, and these references all sound like throw-away lines, rather than thoughtful statement supported by facts, but I accept that the burden is now on me to come up with information that disproves the statement, so I'll leave it alone until I have some facts. --Rkstafford 18:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd need equivalent figures from the other sports, but there's some indication of F1's expense at http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=35094 which further refers to the current F1 Racing magazine for more details. The headline figure is; "The study suggests that the entire pit lane spent a total of $2,814,720,000 to put 20 cars on the grid for 19 races last year" 4u1e 19:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)