Talk:2009 Formula One World Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Liuzzi[edit]

After a bit of reverting today, a reminder that Liuzzi is not yet classified in the WDC, as he hasn't been classified in a race yet. Yes, good old F1.com lists him as 24th as do the BBC, who copy F1.com, but none of the other usual sources do, e.g. Autosport [1], motorsport.co.uk, gp.com, even Manipe F1 [2]. Also, after the race on Sunday, the TV captions didn't list him as 24th, ans they won't prior to the Singapore race in a couple of weeks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For final proof, The FIA's F1 page does not list Liuzzi in the championship at all. IIIVIX (Talk) 04:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much trumps the lot. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyres[edit]

Is there really any point in having a tyre column for years in which there is only one tyre provider? Plugwash (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time this issue was discussed the decision was to retain the Tyres column. DH85868993 (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renault name[edit]

Is there a better solution for the name of the Renault team in the teams and drivers table? Having ING Renault F1 Team followed by Renault F1 Team looks pretty silly to be honest. I'm happy just to do away with the ING but I know that will cause issues seeing as they were 'ING Renault' for more than the first half of the year. - mspete93 [talk] 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard at the moment, see MF1/Spyker in 2006 and McLaren's sponsorship change in 2005. IIIVIX (Talk) 19:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've added a † note to explain it as it will confuse those unaware of the change. - mspete93 [talk] 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teams and Drivers table[edit]

The table needs a tweak. Currently it is showing Alguersuari, Coulthard and Hartley as test drivers for Red Bull and Toro Rosso! Or is this correct? Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is correct. 272812A (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Glock & Kamui Kobayashi[edit]

Should the replacement of Kobayashi for Glock in Practice 1 & 2 of the Japanese Grand Prix be classified under Mid-Season changes? I know that it was only temporary due to his fever, but it was a driver change, so shouldn't it be classified? 121.214.48.53 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Practice doesn't count for anything. --Falcadore (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if he races tomorrow then yes it should be mentioned. If he doesn't then no. - mspete93 [talk] 13:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that he will? --Falcadore (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FIA would have to change the rules to let him race. They specifically state that any driver who does not take part on Saturday is not eligible to race on Sunday. Not only that, Kobayashi has had zero dry running, and given the difficulty several of the other drivers had in adapting to running in dry conditions, he'd be a liability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FIA has also allowed teams to let their third driver take a primary driver's place in Friday practice. It happened a few times in recent years, but this is the first time it's happened this season. It needs no mention here in the season article, it's easily covered at 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. IIIVIX (Talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply saying in the small possibility that he might race having read this article. If he doesn't race, it doesn't need a mention. - mspete93 [talk] 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toyota have withdrawn the car. Dead issue. --Falcadore (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Kobayashi be included in the Drivers table and given a 'PO' under the Japanese Grand Prix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereswollonia (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He can be shown in the drivers table once he's taken part in a race. Until then, he isn't eligible to be in that table, just like any other driver who hasn't raced. He has been edited into the table, but he's hidden for now, and will be 'unhidden' once his result in Brazil is known. Then he'll be given a position in the table accordingly. At the moment, he is not 25th, as some editors keep insisting. He has to be classified in a race before he's classified in the WDC. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say that Jackie Stewart is Scottish rather than English?[edit]

I know that this would really bother my Dad! Jim Clarke - clearly English. Jackie Stewart - clearly Scottish (Please also see helmet design)

Could we say that they were both British? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.133 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither raced in 2009, but all English, Scottish, Welsh, Guernsey Islanders like Andy Priaulx, are all British. --Falcadore (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Clark clearly English?! Were you thinking of Damon Hill? Falcadore is correct, although if we're referring to these guys outside of their competitive career, then I would think calling them English or Scottish as appropriate would work. 4u1e (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(i) I put British for Jackie Stewart (and Graham Hill) because that's what is stated in the article which I cited:

Button becomes the 10th Briton to claim the honour, taking over from compatriot Lewis Hamilton, who finished the race third. It is the first time in 40 years Britain has had back-to-back world champions since Graham Hill and Sir Jackie Stewart.

(ii) In the same article Jackie Stewart himself is quoted as saying:

... it's 40 years since there's been a British champion back-to-back. I was that person, I took it over from Graham Hill ...

(iii) What is the racing nationality of these drivers (Jim Clark included)? To find out, look at their racing licenses, or the little flag on the waistband of the overalls (if you don't have these, see the drivers' articles, in the infobox beneath the photo and above the "Formula One World Championship career" bar); I think that you'll find they were all registered as British.
If the article text be amended to English (for Hill) and Scottish (Stewart), the paragraph not only loses its significance but becomes incorrectly referenced and should therefore be struck out as WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who/What is BOB?[edit]

"BOB was suspended from FOTA on the 27th May 2009" Sorry, I haven't a clue how to use wikipedia - but is this vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.186.149 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. I have reverted it. Thanks for flagging it up. - mspete93 [talk] 20:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Season graphs[edit]

I have created two graphs which I believe could be useful to include in this article

Drivers Championship - Top Four
Constructors Championship - Top Four

I attempted to add them to the article but my contribution was undone pretty quickly so I thought I'd bring it up here to see what others think.

While technically they are redundant, I believe that the graphs present the existing information in the tables in a much better format for human viewing. They show a good summary of the seasons progression in terms of points, the relationship between different drivers/teams and how they change over the season and the graphs also reveal the 'bursts' and 'slow' patches experienced by drivers/teams which I think is interesting. --F1Graphs (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They look terrible. And the information contained is entirely duplicated by the points chart already indicated. The format they were displayed was huge. Absolutely no on inclusion. There are too many charts and tables in this article already, these just make it statitistics overload. --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but the graphs simply seem to have been chewed out by Microsoft Excel, which I don't think quite makes their licensing what you think it is. Also, the data on them appears to be quite wrong. For instance, Button should have 20 points by Round 2, when your chart seems to show 15-ish.
If people want to see when teams and drivers had bad runs, they can look at the results table. It should be pretty evident when teams and drivers have won races, and when they have failed to score points. IIIVIX (Talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch the error part, I forgot about the Malaysian half points. The other problems stand however. IIIVIX (Talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok obviously people are getting hung up about the fact that they were generated in excel, while I personally don't think they look too bad they can easily be regenerated in MATLAB or any other graphing program on the face of the planet, the style is not that important. The licensing issue is something admittedly I didn't consider but as said before it would be trivial to regenerate. But I still maintain that they provide some useful compliment to the tables in the article (the little mistake above proves that the tables are not really adequate). Also its not entirely a duplication as the graphs shows the cumulative sum of the points something which is pretty much impossible to do in your head after say 4-5 races. Finally just to be clear on terminology currently there isn't a single chart in this article only tables of data (some people seem to be confused as to the difference) --F1Graphs (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake carries no weight. I was simply going on memory, not based on the results table. The graphs are wholly redundant. If people want standings at certain points in the season, we have "Standings as of..." in each individual race article. IIIVIX (Talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regenerated: with more pleasing styling --F1Graphs (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reservations about stats overload on this article page still stands. Widespread across motorsport season articles is that they are incredibly statistics heavy and short on actual text. Even then some text is presented in bullet point style, it's a major weakness, and these charts make that trend worse. The biggest problem though is it does not display any new data at all, it is just a re-interpretation of existing data already presented in the season results matrix, and even though only showing the top four.
It's incomplete and its duplication. From me, no in any form. I'm sorry, but it's not a worthwhile addition in my opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just entered (and had deleted) a similar chart to that posted by F1Graphs, before reading these posts, I have to say that I agree with all of the comments made above by F1Graphs. I fully accept the argument that it is repetition of data, however taking this argument to the extreme surely the subsequent Constructors table and Driver and Constructor statistics tables also duplicate the same information. Should these also be removed, based on Falcadore's argument, because anyone looking at the drivers table alone, should also be able to work out, in their head, the constructors table and the statistics tables. I fully agree with F1Graphs that such a graph allows people to see at a glance when drivers have peaks and troughs in form, which in graphical form is much easier for the human brain to process than a table of numbers.

This is clearly a contentious matter and seems to be an argument between three (now four) individuals, one of which clearly knows very little about Formula 1, given their mix up about the Malaysian grand prix. I would further note that Falcadore's opening comment is a matter of personal preference and should not be used in deciding whether to remove other people's posts. Is there some way of obtaining further consideration of this issue, given that it seems neither side is going to back down?

Thanks. Curtholr (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knows very little about F1 because I made a mistake regarding the rare occurance of half points...? I dont see any arguement here that changes my opinion against the matter, nor do I think the statistics section is completely necessary, but I do see the benefits of it. The graphs offer no benefits over either chart. Simple color coding on the chart easily identified highs and lows over the season. The359 (Talk) 21:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Firstly, saying things like one of which clearly knows very little about Formula 1, given their mix up about the Malaysian grand prix is most disingenuous, and I strongly suggest that an apology is in order. A cursory glance at his contributions to this wikiproject would have shown that the editor in question knows plenty about Formula One, and made a simple mistake. Curtholr, on the other hand, appears to have made no contribution whatsoever to any F1 article, hardly qualifying him/her to judge anyone else's knowledge.
Secondly, there are far too many tables already in the season articles. These graphs, in my opinion, add little to the casual reader's understanding of the season, and add much to the general clutter. I appreciate that people have put considerable effort into them, but this should not be a contributory factor in their inclusion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The colour coding allows at a glance for people to see how drivers have done in a particular race or two. It doesn't allow people to see, easily, how the strength of their position in the championship is increasing or diminishing in relation to that of their competitors. This is what the chart is intended to do and I reiterate that this is a more user friendly presentation than a table of numbers. Again, is there a way of obtaining further opinion on this subject, given that neither groups seem willing to back down. Thanks. Curtholr (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I retract, and apologise for, my comments regarding F1 knowledge. I would note however that simply because I have not contributed here before does not discount my own knowledge of the subject. I disagree with your comment on the casual user, becuase once again a visual chart is much easier to interpret than a table of numbers. The effort put into the production of the chart is not the issue here. It's an issue of providing something in a format which is easy to interpret for the causal user. Curtholr (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to know other people's views on this, if there is a way of doing so on Wikipedia. Thanks again. Curtholr (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of contribution here does not discount your knowledge of the subject, or your future contribution, but it does more or less discount your opinion of anyone else's knowledge. Thanks for striking that comment. To the subject at hand, I believe that the colour-coded tables are informative enough for any and all readers, and any extra tables or charts are clutter. Like you, I question the presence of the extra grey tables in the "Statistics" section, since they are nothing but a repeat of information already given. Let's not have two repeats. The graphs cannot replace the tables, and they only add minimal extra information, or none at all.
For possible further comment, it might be worth taking the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One, as the graphs would have to be rolled out across the 60-odd F1 seasons for consistency. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you Bretonbanquet. For the record, I do not question the inclusion of the statistics tables. Like a chart I consider these to present useful information in a user-friendly format, without the need for people to take the available data and siginifcantly manipulate it. I fully agree that the charts should not replace the tables, becuase as you say they do not present any extra hard information (in fact from a pure data perspective they if anything present less data). However this isn't really what the argument is about. It's about presenting existing information in a more user-friendly manner. But thank-you again for your help. Curtholr (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion hasn't changed, this is an article already over-bloated with statistics. It is still a duplication of material already contained within the article. What the graph does show slightly differently who is in front of which driver in the points race during the season, but in keeping with Wikipedia's principles that can be far better represented in the text report on the season. Clear and well-written prose trumps tables and charts almost everytime. --Falcadore (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check[edit]

this - I have no expertise. Josh Parris 14:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure[edit]

This article is obviously the collective work of many many people, and the problem is that it shows. The structure is really poor - why is there a huge block of text about pre-season testing right at the beginning, yet the report about the actual season is not only smaller but hidden much further below? Can someone do something about this? --Noikeee (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gilsta's just happened to spend a lot of time re-organizing and re-writing this article, it is looking much better now. QueenCake (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, there is no table for season results, you cannot see standings, a very poor structure. It is very hard to read who is first or second in drivers or teams championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.183.88 (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Drivers' and Constructors' Championship tables are included in the "Results and standings" section. DH85868993 (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official Race Edit Songs section[edit]

Many may have noticed that the Official Race Edit Songs section has been added to this article.
This is because the previous article it was included in was deleted because it was not a stand-alone article.

Please leave this section in this article.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyBranton (talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except the article that the section was "spun off from" is now at AFD, so it may be an inevitability that it will get removed soon. ZappaOMati 04:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on 2009 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=1196543822"