Talk:History of Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Formula One This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Benetton - Ford or Renault engines?

Kurohone, I have to disagree with you about Benetton's engine supplier for 1994. Every source I look at claims they used Ford engines for that season. This includes the archive of the official F1 website [1] and the Cosworth (Ford engines) website which claims "In 1994, the Zetec V8 F1 engine was introduced and powered Michael Schumacher?s first world driver?s title.". Tell me if this changes your mind because I want to reach a consensus before I change the article any further. Also, if anyone has info that could shed some light on the situation, please tell us.

I apologise for forgetting to sign the message above when I posted it earlier today. 999 20:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely Benetton used Ford in 1994. Ericd 19:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

My mistake then...I was virtually certain that Benetton only made the final push tot he top when they got the Renaults...presumably in 94. Revert back to Ford then with my apologies. Kurohone 05:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FISA?

in this paragraph: "In contrast, ground-effects were relatively cheap, and could be well-suited to the narrow (and VERY cheap) Ford-Cosworth engine, still used by teams like Lotus, McLaren, and Williams. These two groups were represented by two political bodies, FISA, headed by Jean-Marie Ballestre, and FOCA, headed up by Bernie Ecclestone."

does anyone know what FISA stands for? i just created a FISA page for the international rowing association. If you know what this FISA refers to (I presume it doesn't refer to a rowing society), then we can create a disambig page... -Lethe

I think i got it. Federation International du Sport Automobile, right? -Lethe 09:50, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile, French is the official language for auto racing regulations. Ericd 13:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London Street F1

I understand Ken Livingstone has agreed to an F1 race around the streets of London. I'm sure you aficionados could add a decent paragraph on this.

Done. I felt that this info is most relevant in the British Grand Prix article so that's where I've put it. BTW, Livingstone hasn't agreed that a F1 race is going to happen in London, he's just said that he supports the idea. SamH 09:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough 21:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Formula 1 existed before 1950

Formula 1 didn't start with the World Championship in 1950. The rules were laid out in 1946 when the FIA was organized, although whether they were called Formula 1, Formula I or Formula A is still a point of contention. The first Grand Prixs using F1 rules were held in 1947. Non-championship races were a regular fixture in the calendar during the 50s and 60s. --Pc13 18:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I disagree with the move

This article is not dealing with history of F1, it's more accurate to present it has an history of the World Championship for drivers. The championship was raced with F2 for 2 yeras and they were non championship races in the seventies and F1 raced in Hillclimb as late as 1968. Ericd 13:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is incomplete; however, it has long been agreed that an article covering the history of F1 (which, according to every source I have seen, began in 1950) is necessary, so the article should be improved, and not the title changed. — Dan | Talk 13:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The move can be counter-intuitive but it's the result of a serious one-man brainstorming. Formula one was defined in 1947. In fact F1 was the pre-war "Voiturettes" category. The World Drivers Championship started in 1950 and was competed with F1 for 2 years and then with F2 for 2 years. And they were historically significant race winning F1 like the Ferguson that never won any championship race. There was also a South-African championship in the early seventuies and a later a British F1 championship (as far I remember Aurora F1). Thus I think an history of the World Championship for Drivers is by far more pragmatic and logical. BTW, redirects exists. Ericd 13:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree what we've got now is a history of the F1 World Championship(s). It's not purely the Drivers one though, because there's quite a lot of constructors material here as well. I also think that it ought to become a history of F1, although the World Championships are going to form by far the majority of it. I'm inclined to make 'Formula One's status as a category, not just the well known championship, clear somewhere up front, and try and work in something on the other F1 series. Possibly the material on the F2 years should be skipped over a bit more lightly. I would suggest only including contemporary F1 series (In the sense that Aurora F1 was contemporary in the late 70s (?)). There are also several historic F1 series (No, I don't mean Super Aguri's four year old tubs!), but I would think those belong somewhere else. 4u1e 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
OK - have put my keyboard where my mouth is. Added a couple of short paras on 4WD as suggested by ericd at the appropriate points, which also start to work in the non-championship thing. I'll have a look at domestic F1 championships next. 4u1e 14:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Done - a couple more paragraphs on the SA and UK domestic championships. I can't see any other significant F1 championships out there. Plus a note on the final non-championship F1 race at Brands Hatch in 1983. It could probably use a bit more on the non-championship F1 scene in the 1950s, though. The whole article is getting rather long now though. I think the sections from 'Turbo F1' to 'Schumacher & Ferrari' could usefully be compressed without losing any content. I might give that a go next. 4u1e 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Always easier to write longer than shorter! I've added a little more meat to the pre world championship days - again bearing in mind that this is a history of F1, not the world championship. It was quite a complicated genesis, so I'm not sure I've really nailed down the details correctly. I will go back and compress some of the other sections to compensate. 4u1e 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
They were South African F1 races I believe ? Ericd 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a para on SA domestic F1 under 'Technology emerges', which covers 62 to 67. The SA championship ran from 1960 to 1975, but Love's 67 result provides an interesting hook for mentioning the series. The UK Aurora series was 78 - 80. I've stuck that at the end of 'The turbo F1 era' which goes from 77 to 80, although I'm not entirely happy with its positioning. Regards non-champ F1 in the 50s, there's some quite promising looking stuff here: http://www.formula2.net/index.html but I'm still trying to work out some words I'm vaguely happy with, and I'm not sure I'm convinced that everything listed there as an F1 race really is. --4u1e 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Would the authors of this article be so kind as to list their sources in a "References" section at the bottom? — Dan | Talk 00:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As it is this article is full mistakes and POV contributions. Reguarding references I have a serious problem as I a lot of my contributions come directly from my memory. Ericd 09:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added a couple of the ones I've been using - not entirely sure I've got the format right, and hard to be precise - The FerrariWorld site is a flash site for example, so I can't give the exact address. 4u1e 9 Feb 2006

[edit] Consistency questions

A few consistency points:

Should it be litres or L for the engine capacity. I personally feel litres reads better, but don't know if an agreement has been reached elsewhere.

OK to use GP as an abbreviation in the text for Grands Prix? Occurs in scattered instances, but doesn't seem consistent. Again I probably prefer spelling it out in full....

References to Lotus - should these link to Team Lotus (seems more logical to me) or to Lotus Cars?

Cheers


4u1e


  • agree with your points. Litres should be "litres" not "L". "Grand Prix" (signular) and "Grands Prix" (plural) should be used instead of "GP" and "GPs". Linking Lotus Formula One and other racing activity to Team Lotus is best. I assume there is a link from Team Lotus to Lotus Cars. MonkeyMumford 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Well, if no-one's got any objections, I'll do a bit of editing then. Cheers. 4u1e 19:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Link to Team Lotus. Chapman made them independant companies. If someone could knows when it happened this could be useful. Ericd 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of introduction of traction control

With an eye to the 'Domination of McLaren and Williams' section, anyone know when traction control first appeared? www.formula1.com and www.williamsf1.com hedge their bets slightly. The earliest I'm positive it was around (and acknowledged) is 1992 on the FW14B - although the F1 website makes coy reference to early forms having been around since the 1980s 4u1e 08:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Williams F1 site (which ought surely to be the definitive source!) doesn't carry much in the way of history. Going by google there used to be a lot, but this seems to have been screwed up by the BMW - Williams split, with the result that many google hits now just lead to a 'Do you want Williams or BMWSauber' front page. I'm tentatively going for 1991 now - as the more comprehensive websites (www.f1-grandprix.com and www.motorsport.com) go that way and the story of the unreliable but quick FW14 in 1991 being followed by the very similar, but reliable, FW14B in 1992 rings a bell for me. I don't really regard those sources as definitive though, so I'm open to counterargument. 4u1e 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre 1998

Does anybody know what was 'bizarre by any standards' about 1998? See 'Safety rules and regulations' sub-heading. At a quick look we've got the temporary absence of Renault with the use of rebadged Supertecs/Renaults by Williams and Benetton. Rebadged engines are hardly unique to that season (Ferrari as Petronas (Sauber), Ferrari as Acer (Prost) for example. Or does anyone remember the Subaru (Motori Moderni) flat 12?). Nor are customer engines (Cosworth, Judd et al). There doesn't seem to have been a particularly high turnover of teams or drivers in that year and I don't remember any more arguments than normal on tech regs - Any ideas? 4u1e 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this line then. 4u1e 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The early years - motorsport bans

Article mentions two countries banning motor racing post the Le Mans '55 accident. Not strictly on topic, although justified as explanation of Merc's withdrawal. Switzerland is the one I know of - does anyone know what the other one is? 4u1e

I ended up deleting this anyway - mention of the crash is sufficient to justify Merc's exit. 4u1e 08:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006

Should a 'History of Formula One' article really have a section on the upcoming season? The same sort of material is covered in the main F1 article, as well as there being a free-standing 'Future of F1' article. My inclination would be to finish the article with the last complete season - you need a certain degree of 'standing back' to see what the historical picture is. 4u1e 08:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - no comment, so I'm deleting this, just leaving the link to the 2006 article. There's nothing in this section that doesn't also appear in the 2006 Formula One Season section, and towards the end of the main F1 article 4u1e 20:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauda's crash

ericd, glad to see I'm not the only one fiddling with this page! I see you've moved Lauda's crash back to 74. Are we talking about the same crash? Lauda did have an accident on the first lap of the 1974 German GP - see for example http://www.formula1.com/archive/grandprix/1974/482.html for results for that race - but he continued to compete that year - he is shown in the results for each of the following races. The famous accident in which he was given the last rites was on lap 2 of the 1976 race. See http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/lauda_bio.htm , http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/drv-launik.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niki_Lauda .In that year he was fighting James Hunt for the title. You can see that Lauda does not appear in the results for the next two races (Austria and Holland) - http://www.formula1.com/archive/season/1976.html 4u1e

It seems you're right... Go on and correct it. However it's worth mentionning the 1974 crash too, as it was really the turning point of the season. Ericd 10:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiF1

http://www.wikif1.org (in French) Ericd 15:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good resource! I think my french reading is still up to the task - although my writing is certainly not, alas. Cheers. 4u1e 19:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW as of today I don't know to what extend the wikif1 license is compatible with wikipedia GFDL. If it is compatible we can translate some material. Ericd 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, It says:

You are free:

   * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
   * to make derivative works

Under the following conditions: by Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. nc Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. sa Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

   * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
   * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Which I take to mean that we can't just use the material direct as transferring the conditions would conflict with the GFDL. I believe that would apply even to a translation. Doesn't mean that it can't be used as a reference source for information and facts, though. 4u1e 08:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wing mount collapsing

I have to admit, I was thinking of Rolf Stommelen's really big accident at Montjuich, which was definitely a wing mount. However, I failed to remember (or check!)that that accident was actually in 1975, 5 years after the period I was referring to in the history article. I'd still be amazed if it wasn't the mounts breaking that caused the accidents, they're such fragile looking devices, and in any case why change the rules to direct fixing on the bodywork if it's not the not the mounts you're worried about. I'll try and find something more concrete to back up my views, though. 4u1e 07:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a pretty in depth discussion here: http://forums.atlasf1.com/showthread.php?s=ad99c88dca5aa865587f9649efde67cb&threadid=56111. About 50% of it is to do with the failure of Rindts brake shaft, but the rest is on wings and mounts. There's a list towards the end of the discussion of wing and strut failures. Would you be happy with the use of the words 'struts', which I would take as synonomous with mounts? 4u1e 07:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well my expertise in English doesn't allow me decide if strut is better than mount. Use what is the most usual in English.

Several remarks about this :

  • They were several crashes but none fatal, I think there was only one fatal accident during the 1968 championship : Jo Schlesser at Rouen with the new air-cooled Honda V8. Wings were not the cause of the accident the car had no wing at Rouen. See this photo : http://www.thef1.com/diversion/gpf1game/foto_030701.shtml (The surviving RA302 at the Honda museum has a wing.).
  • It was obvious to everyone that the high mounted mobile wings were dangerous :
    • They were several case of cars losing a wing what was obviously dangerous for the driver of the car but also his followers and the spectators,
    • The mobile wing were acting as an air brake when something went wrong in the mechanism commanding the wing incidence the driver could brake too late.
    • The mobile wings were designed to have a 0° incidence in the Straight a problem in the supension, the command, or simply a hump and the wing will generate lift.
  • Wings struts of 1968 seems fragile. No doubt that some were as some cars lost their wing. However the designers were not mad, thoses struts were designed to resist a vertical force. Modern wings use a concept introduced with the Lotus 72 that had a wing overhanging behind the rear wheel (BTW this should be inserted in the article) and thus requiring stronger struts.

Ericd 20:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current wording is OK - I've introduced 'strut' again, but there's now no mention of fatalities. Cheers. 4u1e 08:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

Eric - good work on the article. Hope my rejigging of your words fits with your intentions! We need to think about article length, though. The article is now up at 58k. I know the 32k limit is not a hard one, but I think it is still not a bad guide, and certainly the wikipedia guidance says that people tend to stop reading after 30-50k.

I'm in no hurry to change things, but I would like to put a suggestion forward and see what you think. The season articles sometimes, but by no means always, have a half page or so 'season summary' (see 2005 Formula One season or 1982 Formula One season, for example). Could we edit this article down closer to 32k (covering the same topics, but in less depth) and move whatever isn't needed here to the season summaries? There is also some good material that could be moved to the team/constructor articles - the Matra and Tyrrell articles in particular are rather weak, and could do with the kind of material we've got here.

What do you think?

Please don't stop adding material to this history article as you have been. If you agree to this approach we can move it later. Moving this amount of material would be a big job, so I'd like to think over the idea for a while. As I say I'm in no hurry.

What I may do in the meantime is copy (not remove) some of the material from 'Sponsorship arrives' to other places where I think it could go to show how we could move material away without losing anything. I've been doing something similar on the main Formula One article.

I look forward to your views. Cheers. 4u1e

Hi I'm also concerned by the length of the article. Of course some of the info could be useful to feed articles about individual seasons, drivers or manufacturers.

However, I've tried to feed the article with an historic perpespective. I mean to bring the reader to an understanding of the evolution of Formula One while trying to remain concise. I don't think individual seasons articles are at the right time scale to have an historic perspective. IMO the way to go is to adopt a structure similar to History of the Soviet Union : summing up each significative period with a few lines of basic information and connecting to a larger article about this period ?

Ericd 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a third option, of course, which is to just split the article in two: History of Formula 1 (1946 - 1968) and History of Formula 1 (1969 - present), for example. I'm not sure I'm keen on that one though, it probably makes it harder for a casual reader to orientate themselves.

As a first step, can we agree that the current article should retain more or less its current structure, but with summary versions of the curent words under each section? As for where the current material would go, I agree that the purpose of the piece is largely to explain the story of how F1 came to be as it is, and that the historical perspective is therefore needed. I take your point about the 'History of the Soviet Union' approach, which would maintain perspective within each period, but I wonder if 50-odd years of F1 history justifies having full articles for each of several periods, as well as having summaries for each year. I'm not looking to rush into a solution to this one, I may knock up some experimental pieces to see how it would work. 4u1e 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'm starting to try out how this might work. On the principle that a more specific article (Matra, Tyrrell Racing) should contain more detailed information than a less specific one (History of Formula One) I have copied over some of the info from History of Formula One#Sponsorship Arrives to the Matra article, and will do the same for other relevant material. I will then produce a dummy condensed version of this section, maintaining the overview of the period, on my page (for lack of anywhere better!) so we can see what that would look like. Slowly is the way to progress here! 4u1e 1 June 2006

[edit] I need an advice

Do you think the long-haired guy is James Hunt ?

Ericd 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, could be - right team and year, open shirt is quite Hunt, right general build, hair colour etc etc. I've glanced though the pics in my copy of Gerald Donaldson's biography and the only thing that puts me off is that Hunt seems to have frequently parted his hair on the left, which isn't the case here. Oh, and wearing team gear seems a little conventional for him. My gut reaction is that it's not, but I think it's going to be impossible to tell without seeing his face, or without a corroborating photo of him wearing the same watch! 4u1e 10 May 20:11

I ask it because this one was taken soon after Monaco 79 more and Hunt announced his retirement soon after the race. When I shooted this one most teams had already loaded they cars in the truck. The more I look to their expressions, the more I think they're discussing about something important. Ericd 19:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

After looking to some photos of Hunt, by the way he parted his hair, if he is on the pic he's the guy you can barely see on the right ? Ericd 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so, but I think you'll have trouble convincing anyone, because you can see so little. Interesting pic, though! 4u1e 20:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The guy on the far left is H (Hawky) Stromberg a Mechanic to the Wolf Racing team, previously Ronnie Petersons Mechanic. Second from left whose face you cant see is Vic Warren One of Wolf racings Truckies, and later became Truckie for Paul Newman Racing in the States. Next from left I dont know. Next is the late Harvey postlethwaite. And the Face obscured by Harvey is Either Nigel Stroud, Designer/Mechanic or Frank Durney, it is not James Hunt as James was taller than Harvey and you can clearly see this guy isn't. So I can confirm that Keke Rosberg or James Hunt are not in this Photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Levitt (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great pics

http://www.f3history.co.uk/Racingpics/index.htm

I know, I've e-mailed the guy to ask about using pictures of various Brabhams and of the Fittipaldi brothers in F2, but I've had no response yet and the site was last updated a couple of years back. 4u1e

"Please feel free to download anything you find of interest and if you do use it in a web site of your own a name check would be nice." It seems that we could find a agreement ? Ericd 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For various reasons I find the picture of Ickx at the 1974 Race of Champions being a very interresting document. Ericd 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why so in particular?

I've been in contact with Mr Swan (via the e-mail address at www.f3history.co.uk, not the one on the picture page) and he says he's happy to release the pictures under GFDL, so I've started using them on the Brabham page. 4u1e 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F1 Improvement drive

The article has been selected as the November F1 improvement drive. I reckon the big thing with this one is referencing - although some editing to get the length down would be good too (There's a conversation somewhere higher up this page about this, which didn't come to any firm conclusions). 4u1e 9 November 2006

Suggest we reference all facts in the article first then work on removing any POV/weasly statements (should be mostly things that references couldn't be found for). A removal of trivial information and a copyedit should then be enough to get GA status. Alexj2002 13:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds about right - maybe just keep an eye on whether the story told here is 'strategic' enough - this is about the development of the sport over 50 years, not about the detail of each season as such, which can be covered in the individual season articles. Cheers. 4u1e 13 November.

[edit] GPWC

Should the article mention the GPWC breakaway series that was threatened during the early 2000's? The 2000- section consists mainly of race information at the moment, which can be obtained from the related season article. Maybe adding some behind the scenes politics such as the GPWC would add a bit of variety. Your opinions appreciated! Alexj2002 15:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes - and probably tie it in to the 'rise of the manufacturers'. I didn't realise until I looked back, but there's been a real sea change in F1. Ten years ago, manufacturers were strictly engine suppliers, and they needed the expertise of the specialist teams to compete. Nowadays manufacturer teams are suddenly in the majority and a team like Williams are struggling to maintain a place at the table without manufacturer support. (I confidently predict that Mercedes will complete their purchase of McLaren in the next two years, btw). 4u1e 13 November

[edit] Headings

Any suggestions for changing the headings? "Next generation heroes" for example seems a bit POV whilst "After the Ferrari dominance?" seems incorrect as Ferrari seemed anything but out during the 2006 season. Alexj2002 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well "Next Generation Champions" wouldn't be POV, as it's fact Hill and Villeneuve were both champions. As for Ferrari dominance, I'm guessing we could have "Rise of Renault?" or does that seem too POV?--Skully Collins Edits 07:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How does "Return of Renault" sound? Alexj2002 14:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We could revert to 1950 - 1960, 1961 - 1970, etc etc. which is definitely neutral. However, the periods of interest don't necessarily match the complete decades, so I think that's probably not a good idea. 'Next generation champions' or 'Second generation champions' seems OK. 'After the Ferrari dominance?' was written in early 2006 when it seemed more appropriate! Obviously it's not right now. I hate to focus too much on Schumacher, but is the historically most significant element of the last two years going to be the end of his career? If so, should the title be something like: 'Schumacher retires'. Alex's suggestion is also good - or we could have 'Renault displace Ferrari'. 4u1e 07:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Article is about 65kb now - there're no tables etc to distort that figure. This is at least 15kb too long.

Ericd and I discussed two alternatives above:

  • Split the article in two (for now): 1950 - 1980 and 1981 - 2006, (see History of the Soviet Union).
  • Edit the article down to 50kb in length and move the material removed to the season summaries, race summaries or team histories, depending on its nature.

I favour the second approach, although it is more work. My reasoning is that there are plenty of articles already to cover the detail of F1's history. Longer and more detailed histories will probably duplicate material that should also appear in other articles - this article is already more detailed in some places than the specific team articles it links to.

What do other editors think? 4u1e 07:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said I would do long ago (oops) I have started copying the relevant content from 'Sponsorship arrives' to other articles (Matra, Tyrrell Racing, 1968 Formula One season and 1969 Formula One season so far). When I've finished doing that, I'll produce a dummy edited down version of 'Sponsorship arrives' to put here to aid the debate. 4u1e 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Have also copied some material to Team Lotus.
Article is certainly too long - ought to be broken out into differnt sections.

[edit] Suggested briefer version of 'Sponsorship arrives'

For 1968 Lotus lost its exclusive right to use the DFV. McLaren built a new DFV-powered car and a new force appeared on the scene when Ken Tyrrell entered his own team using Matra-Fords driven by ex-BRM driver Jackie Stewart. Clark took his last win at the 1968 season opening South African Grand Prix. On 7 April 1968 the double champion was killed at Hockenheim in a non-championship Formula Two event. The year saw two significant innovations. The first was the arrival of unrestricted sponsorship, which the FIA decided to permit after the withdrawal of support from automobile related firms like BP, Shell and Firestone. In May the Lotus Formula One team appeared at Jarama in the Red, Gold and White colors of Imperial Tobacco's Gold Leaf brand. The second innovation was the introduction of wings as seen previously on various cars including the Chaparral endurance car. Colin Chapman introduced modest front wings and a spoiler on Graham Hill's Lotus 49B at Monaco. Brabham and Ferrari went one better at the Belgian Grand Prix with full width wings mounted on struts high above the driver. Lotus replied with a full width wing directly connected to the rear suspension that required a redesign of suspension wishbones and transmission shafts. Matra then produced a high mounted front wing connected to the front suspension. This last innovation was mostly used during practice as it required a lot of effort from the driver. By the end of the season most teams were using sophisticated wings. Lotus won both titles in 1968 with Graham Hill. Safety became a major issue in Formula One. The Belgian Grand Prix at Spa did not take place due to the drivers boycotting the circuit after safety upgrades were not installed as demanded.

For 1969, Matra withdrew its works team and instead focussed its efforts on the Tyrrell team (renamed Matra International) and built a new DFV powered car. After several incidents in which the wings, struts, or the suspension (to which they were attached) collapsed, wings were banned from Monaco 1969. They were reintroduced later in the season but were to be restricted in size and height, and attached directly to the chassis in a fixed position. Stewart won the 1969 title easily with the new Matra MS80, which corrected most of the weaknesses of the MS10. Stewart's title is the only one won by a chassis built in France. It was a spectacular achievement from a constructor and a team that had only entered Formula One the previous year. 1969 also saw a brief resurgence of interest in four wheel drive following a number of wet races the previous year. Johnny Servoz-Gavin became the one and only driver to score a point with a 4WD, finishing sixth with the Matra MS84 at the Canadian Grand Prix. Wide tyres and downforce quickly proved to be superior means of increasing grip, and the technology was largely abandoned. Jacky Ickx finished second in the championship for Brabham, competitive again after dropping its Repco engines in favour of the DFV.

For 1970 Tyrrell were asked by Matra to use their V12, but decided to retain the Cosworth instead. As Matra were now a Chrysler affiliate, and Tyrrell derived much of its income from Ford and Elf (associated with Renault) the partnership ended. Ken Tyrrell bought March 701 chassis as an interim solution while developing his own car in secret; the first Tyrrell bore much resemblance to the MS80. The new wedge-shaped Lotus 72 was a very innovative car featuring torsion bar suspension, hip-mounted radiators, inboard front brakes and an overhanging rear wing. The 72 originally had suspension problems, but when anti-dive and anti-squat were designed out of the suspension the car quickly showed its superiority and Lotus' new leader, the Austrian Jochen Rindt, dominated the championship until he was killed at Monza when a brake shaft broke. He took the 1970 title posthumously for Lotus. 1970 saw the introduction of slick tyres by Goodyear.

After Rindt's death the Lotus team had a desultory 1971 season with its two new and inexperienced drivesr - Fittipaldi and Reine Weisell. The team spent a lot of time experimenting with a gas turbine powered car, and with four wheel drive again. After Jack Brabham's retirement, his old team went into a steep decline. Using their own chassis heavily inspired by the Matra MS80 but with conventional tanks, Tyrrell and Stewart easily took success in 1971.

For 1972 Lotus focussed again on the type 72 chassis, now fielded in Imperial Tobacco's black and gold John Player Special livery. Lotus took the championship by surprise in 1972 with 26-year old Brazilian driver Emerson Fittipaldi who became the then youngest world champion. Stewart came second in the championship (his performance compromised by a stomach ulcer).

In 1973, Lotus teammates Fittipaldi and Ronnie Peterson raced each other while Stewart was supported by François Cevert at Tyrrell. Stewart took the Driver's title, but then at the final race of the season, the United States Grand Prix at Watkins Glen, Cevert crashed during Saturday practice in the notorious esses and was killed instantly. Stewart and Tyrrell withdrew from the race effectively handing the Constructor's title to Lotus. At the end of the season Stewart made public his decision to retire, a decision that was already made before the US Grand Prix. By the end of 1973 season the best car on the track was probably the new McLaren M23, a wedge-shaped car following the same concept as the Lotus 72 but with more conventional suspension and up to date aerodynamics.

Still needs a lot of work, but I think this length and density of detail is about right. Other views? 4u1e 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's definitely an improvement. Alexj2002 11:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think its better but I would cut the Lotus 72 suspension problems. (BTW I'm unsure there was a anti-dive system this has to verified) and keep something about the structural tank stuff and the radical strategy of Matra.
Cut "This last innovation was mostly used during practice as it required a lot of effort from the driver." Not very important and difficult to source.
I also disagree with "on various cars including the Chaparral endurance car". As far as I know wings were introduced in Canam in 1966 with the Chaparral 2E and first seen in Europe with 2F endurance car. On the other hand spoilers were already fairly common in endurance and GT, I think they Ferrari pioneered spoilers.
Ericd 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"After several incidents in which the wings, struts, or the suspension (to which they were attached) collapsed, wings were banned from Monaco 1969." I would suggest something like : "After several incidents in which the wings, struts, or the suspension (to which they were attached) collapsed. Both Lotus (Hill and Rindt) broke they struts crashed at the Spanish GP 1969 and wings were banned for the next GP at Monaco.[1]" Ericd 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I take the initiative to incorporate the new version because it will be a bit difficult to handle 2 versions with my referencing effort. Ericd 03:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety tanks

Rubber bag tanks (Safety tanks) were introduced in 1972 not 1970 see http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/safety.html. This was definitely not the reason for the disappearance of the spaceframe in F1 as the F2 Elf 2 used a spaceframe with safety tanks as late as 1976. Ericd 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Weslake

The victory of Gurney with the Eagle Weslake in 1967 should be included as it is the first victory of an American chassis. Ericd 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todt

That article badly needs something about Todt before Ferrari ! Ericd 20:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about my edit

I removed :

(Their car was notable for being the only design so far to have a transversely mounted engine.)

Well the the Bugatti 251 had also a transversely mounted engine. At first I believe the the 1.5 L Honda was was the only F1 car with transverse engine to race in GP, but it appeared that the Bugatti 251 raced one GP.

Ericd 13:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)