Talk:Formula One

Template:Facfailed Template:WikiProject Formula One Archived talk

Templates and categories relating to Formula One:

• Category:Formula One
• Category:Formula One drivers
• Category:Formula One circuits
• Category:Formula One Grands Prix
• Template:Formula One
• Template:Formula One teams
• Template:Formula One races
• Template:Formula One people
• Template:F1 team (custom template for constructor articles)

Contents

1 FAC criticisms 1.1 Removal of 'duplicate links' 1.2 History section 1.3 Some suggestions 2 Midland F1 3 WikiProject Formula One 4 References 5 Champcar comparison 6 Popularity 7 FAC again 8 Descriptive subsections 9 Indianapolis 10 Quibbles 11 Section and articles

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. [[User:Rdsmith4|]] 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)

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. [[User:Rdsmith4|]] 00:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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|]] 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 belive that the "future" section is the most relavent 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. [[User:Rdsmith4|]] 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)

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" (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=motorSportsNews&storyID=6448720&section=news), 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. — [[User:Rdsmith4|]] 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)

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. [[User:Rdsmith4|]] 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)

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).

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. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 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. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 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.

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)

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)