Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Formula One This non-article page 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.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
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.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Archived Talk page

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

What constitute a Flop in F1 racing

Can somebody tell me what really constitute a flop in F1 as I have added some of them as suggested by a friend and I had to delete some that were not expected as a flop, I added some including Jaguar Racing and three GPs so correct me if I'm wrong as I don't get any chance to follow F1 much these days. Also can anybody please add some if they know of any for the following page. That edit can be found here. Willirennen 15.14 26 November 2006 (utc)

A 'flop' can be several things, but mainly it's either something that's (a) a complete failure or (b) something that's expected to be a success but isn't.
Examples of (a) are Life (Racing Team), who had a seasonful of DNPQs in 1990 (even Andrea Moda qualified in one race; drivers such as Jean-Denis Deletraz, Alex Yoong and Zsolt Baumgartner; the Lotus 88; Nigel Mansell at McLaren in 1995.
Examples of (b) are Jan Magnussen; British American Racing during the Jacques Villeneuve years; the Lotus 76; Four Wheel Drive F1 cars.
Trouble is, without appropriate stats and references it rapidly strays into POV territory. Lec CRP1 08:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess F1 Rejects would be a good source for F1 Flops - Wouldn't it? --Skully Collins Edits 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a good place to start, and it provided the only details about Tom Jones, possibly the least successful F1 driver ever with a perfect 0% qualification record. However, to illustrate my next point, I wouldn't count him as a flop. His car was old, privately entered and was running a 1.5L engine two years after F1 had reintroduced 3.0L cars (and in the DFV's first season). The fact that he even tried to qualify is impressive, and his failure to do so is hardly surprising. A flop has to contain some measure of expectation. Pyrope 09:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Still, we do need to draw the line somewhere on qualifying for this "award". I do agree with you on the Jones thing (As long as Michael Andretti can replace him), that is indeed unfair to call someone a "flop" when it clearly is not the drivers' fault. I guess we should try and contruct a criteria for flops, shouldn't we? --Skully Collins Edits 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, seem that this whole thing is a touch nebulous. It is shot through with POV issues. I like that the list has been cleaned up, but I think the only criteria we can apply is a requirement that whoever adds to the list does so with a fully explained justification (i.e. at least a couple of lines). Single names are to be avoided. Pyrope 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A flop will be impossible to define for Wikipedia, without simply having 'as defined on F1 rejects', which would be dubious from a copyright point of view. What you could do is have 'drivers who never qualified for an F1 race' - verifiable - or 'teams who never scored a point in Formula One' - again, verifiable. You could come up with other, similar, definitions. That's my view anyway. 4u1e 20:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Note - obviously that would be 'drivers who entered an F1 race but never qualified', otherwise I and most of the rest of us would have to be listed..... 4u1e 20:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I must just stick up for Zsolt Baumgartner. His career can't be construed as a flop since he scored a World Championship point. He wasn't Ayrton Senna by any means, but neither was he Jean-Denis Deletraz. Bretonbanquet 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. His team mate Gianmaria Bruni was highly rated, yet Baumgartner was arguably the more impressive of the two. Readro 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now added some from that above lists, with it being separated into sections, I have to admit, it isn't realy that easy to define Willirennen 13 December 2006

Brabham

Sorry - I've got a bit of a one-track mind at the moment.:D

The Brabham article currently lives at 'Brabham Racing Organisation'. Brabham has an interesting history in terms of its name. In short, the company that built the cars was actually called Motor Racing Developments (MRD). A separate company called the 'Brabham Racing Organisation' (BRO) was Jack Brabham's private team between 1963 and 1965 and the 'works' entrant in Formula One, but not other categories. BRO disappears from the record after 1968 and the F1 entrant after that was always MRD. On that basis, BRO is not really the right name for the article. MRD would be more logical, but rather unexpected - so I propose that the article should be re-named to simply 'Brabham', with redirects from both MRD and BRO to the page. This would fit with the Wikipedia policy of using the most commonly recognised name.

Before I embark on this, does anyone have any objections? And does anyone know how to use a bot to change the multitude of pages which currently link to 'Brabham Racing Organisation'? Cheers 4u1e 20:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with "Brabham", given that is the name most recognisable. Wikipedia:Bot requests would be the place to request a bot - it shouldn't be too hard as I imagine this kind of thing is done quite regularly. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 20:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No objections at all. Seems to simplify the title issues. I would always prefer proper titles for articles where possible, but in confused cases like this Occam's Razor seems a good guide. But you don't need a bot. Most pages link to Brabham already, and they will direct straight to the new page. Then just set the old page to redirect the other way and Bob's your mother's redneck hick brother with the big dog and attitude problem. Pyrope 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you know Bob then? ;-) OK, I'll get on with it. The reason for wanting to change existing links, rather than relying on the redirect is a) to be tidy and b) to avoid future problems if we agreed to change the article title again. I'm not sure how well multiple stage re-directs work. Still time for others to comment btw, I probably won't get around to this before this evening at the earliest. Cheers 4u1e 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the input. Cheers. 4u1e 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More Info for Construsters

It would be nice if each team had this sort of info added:

-Budget -Number of employees The previous unsigned comment was added by User:Theboywhohasnolegs at 18:39 (UTC) 31 December 2006

Response: Budgets can only be estimated, and estimates do not belong on Wikpedia, even if they are considered interesting. The number of employees could be added, provided a verifiable source could be found. It can be a somewhat transient figure, however. Adrian M. H. 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, please sign your posts and place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Adrian M. H. 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mauricio Gugelmin

Hi guys,

I've been working for a while on Mauricio Gugelmin. I felt my WIP was ready to "go live", so it's now on the main page. If anyone has any comments, or could add the article then I would most appreciate it. Readro 22:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job, well done indeed! One tiny quibble: I would prefer to see Gugelmin's potrait photo at the top of the infobox. As we have one it seems silly that we can't see his face under his name. The shot of him in the car would be a good addition to the appropriate year section, or just as a random illustrative shot. Otherwise very good. Pyrope 14:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else? I put the article up for peer review but barely anyone bothered to reply. How close do you think the article is to GA status? Readro 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Grands Prix in Argentina

I know this sounds a bit picky, but shouldn't it be the Argentinian Grand Prix instead of the Argentine Grand Prix? That's what I believe is the correct word, and it's what the races were billed as by the FIA. Readro 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it Argentinian is "an inhabitant of Argentina" whilst Argentine is "of or relating to or characteristic of Argentina". Don't quote me on that. Atlas/Autosport use Argentine as do GrandPrix.com, I don't mind either way though. Alexj2002 09:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the country's official name is the Argentine Republic, which supports Alexj2002's interpretation. It seems to be similar to the British/Briton distinction, with one meaning "of Britain", and the other an inhabitant of Britain. Pyrope 10:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Just had a quick trawl through the records and the race is almost always listed as the Grand Prix of Argentina or the Gran Premio de la Republica Argentina. Pyrope 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
All my books list it as the Argentinian Grand Prix. I remember it being called that on TV as well. Here's an interesting discussion - [1]. It seems that the name "Argentine Republic" has slipped out of usage, and that the word argentine is rarely used. Readro 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Autosport/Atlas uses Argentinian - [2], [3], [4] etc. etc. Readro 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems Autosport/Atlas are inconsistent - [5] Alexj2002 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lola

Just a word of notice, that the page Lola no longer goes to the racing constructor/team. Lola has instead been turned into a redirect to a disambiguation page. The constructor/team page is now located at Lola Racing Cars. This is going to require people to go through not only all season pages and individual race pages, but also through all the F1 teams that have used Lola chassis, and change the links to their appropriate location. Bit of a hassle, I know. The359 23:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And all the driver pages - bit of a pain in the ass. Bretonbanquet 17:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
...And the new page name is incorrect. The long-standing company name is Lola Cars, or a derivative thereof. Lola Cars Ltd. originally, more recently Lola Cars International Ltd. (commonly referred to simply as Lola Cars), a division of Lola Group. I can't find a listing anywhere for Lola Racing Cars. Pyrope 09:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Lola Cars International already redirects to Lola Racing Cars, so I guess a swap is in order. However, make sure Lola Racing Cars stays a redirect, because that's the link I've been using with all the Lola edits. The359 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think they're all done now (except User and Talk pages). And yes, it was a pain in the a** :-) DH85868993 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

2005 United States Grand Prix achieved Featured Article status today, becoming the fifth Formula One related article to do so. Congratulations to everyone who's worked on the five. The even better news is the number of articles that are on their way to FA status, there are seven articles at Good Article status, just one final push away from becoming Featured. Hopefully we can get at least one more of these submitted as a FA candidate before the year is out. Alexj2002 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to second that. Congrats to everyone who worked on the FAs. Hopefully we can catch up with the WikiProject Football (soccer) in terms of FAs! Once again, congrats everyone! --Skully Collins Edits 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup - well done all. Noting Alex's comment, I've finally got round to putting Brabham up for FA. Please feel free to add your support, or rip the article to shreds, as you see fit. ;-) 4u1e 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And again, well done all. And Brabham is really looking good now 4u1e, liking what you did with the summary table. Pyrope 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Brabham's gone FA too. Thanks to all those who contributed. 4u1e 11:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archived

This talk page was getting long again so I've archived everything before Novemeber that appeared to be inactive. Alexj2002 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, except that you have archived quite a few active discussions, as well as the archive summary section! Doh... Pyrope 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew I wouldn't do it right! Anyway, the only active topics I've found that I've archived are the Infobox: points? discussion and a part of the Non-results: Injury/Illness, no-shows and bans discussion (strangely the active part is in the middle of that section. My apologies for that but I feel especially in the second case where it was lost inside a much bigger partially inactive conversation that perhaps someone should summarise what's been discussed so far to get more opinion. The archive summary section isn't a permamnent fixture, just like this one it's intended just to be a standard talk page message. Alexj2002 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. It doesn't matter what you archive really, so long as we know what is where. That was really my point about the summary. Yes, in reality it is just another message, but it is an imporant information piece that should reduce the number of times we have endlessly repeated discussions on the main page. Having it at the top helps. Pyrope 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Potential Category Deletion

There's a chance that Category:Formula One drivers who entered but not started will be deleted as a result of someone merely trying to change the category name for stylistic purposes. I think it's a valid category and maybe some people from here would like to vote for a rename to outnumber the deletionists. Vote here. Thanks. Bretonbanquet 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to those who voted - it looks like the category will be kept :o) Bretonbanquet 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Name that car

Ferrari F2001
Ferrari F2001
Lotus 49
Lotus 49

Transferring some photos from flickr to commons, found some that are unlabelled and would appreciate help in trying to create as complete a description as possible for them.

  • First up is a Ferrari. I'm going to place it somewhere around the 1999-2001 season. Any takers on which season (and car) it actually is?

More to come! Alexj2002 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Definately a Ferrari F2001. The wing is too high to be the F2000, and Tic Tac was no longer on the side-pod on the F2002-GA. The359 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Alexj2002 23:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC). Right next up is this Lotus. Alexj2002 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This indicates it's a Lotus 49 (Clark, #5, Ford engine); this looks like it is the same chassis that is in the pic. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's a 49. Click here for a similar pic. Adrian M. H. 15:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Commons has a nice couple of shots of this same car [6] [7] but whoever uploaded them misidentified it as a 33. Take a look at the DFV, these are nice shots! Pyrope 14:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Picture peer review

Mark Webber driving for Williams at the 2006 French Grand Prix.
Mark Webber driving for Williams at the 2006 French Grand Prix.

I have put this image up for peer review here. Please feel free to leave comments!--Diniz 14:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Circuit Maps

Before, most of the circuit maps were of the same style providing consistency (and a more professional look to Wikipedia IMO) amongst circuit articles. I notice some are being replaced now (e.g. Bahrain International Circuit) and wondered what others thought about this. Should we try and keep them all in the same style (and in vector .svg format for easy adjustments?) Alexj2002 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it until you mentioned it, but I actually prefer this new design. It's attractive and gives a good impression of the position of significant areas like the paddock and grandstands. If the artist responsible is willing and able to commit to creating equivalents for the other circuits, then it could be adopted. Would it just apply to current GP venues or former GP venues, or even all circuits? One would have to draw the line at current venues, I think; otherwise there would be far too much work involved for the artist. Adrian M. H. 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the new design. However, I would like to see the turns (and straights) labelled and in .svg format if possible.--Diniz 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Numbered with a key, perhaps. Avoids squashed up text labels. Adrian M. H. 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There might be a problem with getting the artist to do other tracks - the artist drew the image for Bahrain International Circuit. A look at the uploaders talk page and then a quick google search turned up with this http://www.bahraingp.com.bh/virtual-tracks.html therefore I'm removing the image and marking for deletion as a copyvio. Perhaps instead we could make suggestions for improvements that could be made to the 'blueprint' design. Alexj2002 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Pedro Rodriguez

The article Pedro Rodriguez (racing driver) needs to be moved to Pedro Rodríguez (racing driver) i.e. with the accent over the 'i', in order to match his brother Ricardo Rodríguez. I don't know how to change the titles of articles - can someone do it or let me know how to do it? Thanks. Bretonbanquet 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Readro 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That was quick! Bretonbanquet 12:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


1952 Formula One season article

Since (as noted in the article), all the races counting towards the 1952 FIA World Championship (except the Indy 500) were run to Formula Two regulations, I propose that this article be renamed as "1952 FIA World Championship season", with a redirect from "1952 Formula One season". And likewise for 1953. I realise that this would make these two articles inconsistent with all the other "19xx/20xx Formula One season" articles, but it's really just not accurate to refer to the 1952 WDC as the 1952 Formula One season. DH85868993 17:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Again - technically correct, F1 did still exist during those two seasons outside the WDC, but I haven't yet come across another reference that does it that way. We should get a very solid consensus before going for such a change. 4u1e 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That's why I raised it here rather that just "jumping in and making changes". DH85868993 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given this some more thought. The real issue is that many of the articles which claim to be about "Formula One" are actually about the CSI/FISA/FIA World Championship(s). For example, the List of Formula One drivers is not (as claimed) "...a list of all drivers who have entered a Formula One Championship Grand Prix since 1950", it's "...a list of all drivers who have entered a World Drivers Championship race (since 1950)". What we need to decide is how to handle instances where the terms "Formula One" and "World Championship" are not synonymous (e.g. 1952-1953, 1950-1960 Indy 500 and the "summary" articles which cover both F1 and non-F1 events). One option would be to rename all the articles accurately, e.g. List of Formula One drivers --> List of WDC drivers, Category:Formula One constructors --> Category:World Championship constructors, 1952 Formula One season --> 1952 WDC season, etc. But I think this would probably be confusing to the average browser for whom the terms "Formula One" and "World Championship" are effectively synonymous (and who probably doesn't care that the 1952 WDC was composed of F2 rather than F1 events). I think a better approach would be to leave the article names as they are (even if they're slightly inaccurate) but make sure the wording within the articles is accurate, e.g.

  • in 1950 Formula One season, change: "The 1950 Formula One season saw the inaugural FIA Formula One World Championship competition." to "The 1950 Formula One season saw the inaugural CSI World Drivers Championship competition."
  • in List of Formula One drivers, change "This is … a list of all drivers who have entered a Formula One Championship Grand Prix since 1950" to "This is … a list of all drivers who have entered a World Drivers Championship race".

etc. Thoughts? DH85868993 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds logical. Any such anomalies can be discussed in the text, while the titles can be kept unchanged for sake of clarity. Adrian M. H. 14:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that't the best approach - if we make sure the article Formula One explains this clearly it will also help. Actually, the whole of that article could probably do with a overhaul ahead of the coming season anyway! 4u1e 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've added a new section to the Formula One page explaining the distinction between "Formula One" and "World Championship" races. My thought is that we can link to this section from wherever it's necessary to distinguish the two, e.g. as I have done in Category:Formula One constructors. - DH85868993 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Could I ask you to resize your project banner please?

Could you greatly reduce the size of your project banner please (as placed on talk pages of articles in this category). It is massive and its listing of tasks is out of line with other project banners such as the motorsports wikiproject one, and hundreds of others. See Talk:1994 San Marino Grand Prix for an example of a correctly sized banner next to your bloated banner. Please resize this banner in line with other banners, project banners do not by convention list all tasks of the project, that is better done on the project page itself. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in response to the above request, I've had a go at slimming it down - had to lose the task list, but left a link in its place. Hope it looks okay. Adrian M. H. 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Much better :-) Thanks for the prompt action - PocklingtonDan 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Renault Sport vs Renault F1

When should "Renault" link to Renault Sport and when should it link to Renault F1? My thought is that instances prior to 2002 should link to Renault Sport, and instances from 2002 onwards should link to Renault F1. My rationale is:

  • I'm 99% confident that Renault's first WDC foray (1977-1985) was conducted under the "Renault Sport" banner.
  • Autocourse 1989-90 confirms that when Renault returned as an engine supplier in 1989, the engines were made by "Renault Sport".
  • I believe the "Renault F1" entity came into being when the Benetton team was renamed as Renault (i.e. for 2002).

Part 2 of the question is where should the various parts of Renault's F1 history be documented - currently Renault's entire F1 history is documented on the Renault F1 page. - DH85868993 10:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this [8] lists all Renault's team (not engine supply) F1 activity under Renault F1 (including their 1977-1985 entries). This [9] on the other hand lists their 1977-1985 entries under the title 'Equipe Renault'. Alexj2002 10:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Renault F1's own website specifically cites the 1970s-80s period as a part of their history. It seems that they regard themselves as the same entity as Equipe Renault Elf. The engine issue is a touch more complex, as you have to factor in the Mechachrome years as well. Personally I'm inclined to keep it all under the Renault F1 aegis, just for simplicity, and to mention in the text the various names under which the team and engine supplier operated. After all, at the end of the day they are all subsidiaries of the same organisation and staff movement between them is fairly free. Pyrope 12:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Are we also counting the Supertec and Playlife days as well? BTW, it's spelt Mecachrome ;-).--Skully Collins Edits 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Mecachrome (lazy typo on my part, sorry) made (or refurbished) the engines in all cases and these were then rebranded Supertec and Playlife according to sponsorship. Pyrope 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Sports Car Racing will likely expand Renault Sport into covering Renault's sportscar history (1970s Renault-Alpine days). Touring car history can also be added as well. So it's probably best to keep all the F1 stuff on Renault F1, even though it can be mentioned briefly on Renault Sport. The359 16:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
So, do you think we should also link all F1-related instances of "Renault" which are currently linked to Renault Sport to Renault F1 instead? DH85868993 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion; no. I would agree with your earlier rationale that it is "era-sensitive", to coin a phrase. Where the era is relevant, it seems logical that should be taken into account; where it is not applicable, it can link to the modern-era article. Adrian M. H. 22:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand I would say; yes. Renault F1 consider themselves as a continuation of Equipe Renault (and they should know), so the two should be considered together. It also seems more tidy to keep all the F1 information under one heading, as Renault Sport will have an awful lot about touring cars, rallying, single-make, and Formula Renault racing. Pyrope 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
p.s. As an example, this is how the Honda F1 article has been handled and I think it works well. Pyrope 08:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In summary then, we think Renault's entire F1 history should be documented in the Renault F1 article (where it already is), and all the F1-related instances of "Renault" which currently link to Renault Sport should link to Renault F1 instead. I'm cool with that. (Although it will be a big task to change all those links!) - DH85868993 13:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution, since 'Renault F1' could also stand for 'Renault in F1'. It would be good though, to avoid historical, erm, revisionism (a word I saw bandied around your TNF discussion on F1 and Indy rather a lot!) if the article could make it clear that this is the new name for the team and it was previously run directly by Renault Sport (if that was the case!). Cheers. 4u1e 15:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And, likewise, F1-related links to Renault should be changed point to Renault F1 as well. DH85868993 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All appropriate links to Renault and Renault Sport have now been changed to Renault F1. Thanks to Mark83 for his help. DH85868993 02:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Constructors that "don't look right"

Throughout the 1950s Grand Prix reports (and linked driver and constructor articles), there are several "constructors" (i.e. combination of chassis manufacturer + engine manufacturer) which "don't look right" to me:

  • Talbot-Lago-Talbot: In my experience, a Talbot-Lago chassis fitted with a Talbot engine is usually referred to as just a "Talbot-Lago"
  • Simca-Gordini-Gordini, Simca-Gordini-Simca, Simca-Gordini-Simca-Gordini: In my experience, a Simca-Gordini chassis fitted with a Simca, Gordini or Simca-Gordini engine is usually referred to as just a "Simca-Gordini"
  • Connaught-Lea-Francis: In my experience, a Connaught chassis fitted with a Lea-Francis engine is usually referred to as just a "Connaught"

Note that the existing values match what's in www.grandprix.com (which is where the data originally came from?). I recognise that even if we all agree that a "Connaught-Lea-Francis" is usually referred to as just a "Connaught", we might decide to leave it as "Connaught-Lea-Francis":

  • for consistency with www.grandprix.com,
  • for consistency with all the other constructors where constructor = chassis manufacturer + engine manufacturer (e.g. Lotus-Renault = Lotus + Renault), and/or
  • so that the user can access both the chassis manufacturer and the engine manufacturer via wikilinks.

Thoughts? DH85868993 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A Formula One constructor is defined by the FIA as being the car manufacturer followed by the engine manufacturer, unless both are the same (eg. Ferrari), when the name is included once. Unless a Connaught was fitted with a Connaught engine, it cannot be called a Connaught, but a connaught-Lea Francis. Regarding Talbot-Lago-Talbot, Talbot-Lago was the chassis builder, but the engine was built solely by Talbot, and not by Talbot-Lago. With Simca-Gordini-Gordini (and variations), Gordini originally built engines/chassis with Simca (hence the name), but split in the 50s (Don't know the exact date). Chassis/engines before they split continued to be named Simca-Gordini, but chassis/engines afterwards were named Gordini. The Simca-Gordini-Gordini you mentioned there was a Simca-Gordini chassis (built before split) fitted with a Gordini engine. For it to be accurate, I advise leaving it as is. But I don't think wanting to change it for cosmetic reasons merits a change. Manipe 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. Accuracy beats oddity. Adrian M. H. 17:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
...and the Connaught example wasn't great as they ran with Alta engines in later years, so the distinction is significant. Pyrope 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm convinced! DH85868993 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)