Talk:List of Formula One constructor records/Archive 1

To do

 * Drivers
 * Most entries
 * Wins
 * Total
 * Percentage
 * Season
 * Consecutive
 * Rookie
 * Podiums
 * Total
 * Season
 * Consecutive
 * Poles
 * Total
 * Season
 * Consecutive
 * Points
 * Total
 * Season
 * (Season percentage??)
 * Fastest laps
 * Total
 * Season
 * Consecutive
 * (Youngest/Oldest??)


 * Constructors
 * Most entries
 * Wins
 * Total
 * Season
 * Consecutive
 * Podiums
 * Total
 * Consecutive
 * Season
 * Poles
 * Total
 * Points
 * Total
 * Season
 * Fastest laps
 * Total

Race Starts Error
I have come across with many race starts errors on F1 drivers on wikipedia. Too many to list. Patrese started 256 races not 257, its mention all the time on TV on grand prix weekends that he started 256. Andreasu 10:48 9 Thursday 2006.
 * Fixed (ages ago) DH85868993 11:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Update frequency
How often should the records be updated, considering that records would change pretty quickly while a season is in progress? Vikram 15:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's being updated after every race. DH85868993 11:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies
What is considered as the ultimate reference for statistics in F1, as there seem to be a few discrepancies on this page? Vikram 15:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalties
Damon Hill and Nigel Mansell are marked with British flags. Jakcie Stewert and Jim Clark are marked with Scottish flags. Either they are all British or they should all be mark with the respective flag ie England Scoltand Wales etc. Jimmmmmmmmm 00:19 21 March 2006

By a spooky coincidence, came up with the same thought at the same time. The concensus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_1#Flags a while ago was for the Union Jack, on the basis that that is what is used at the podium ceremony, which is as logical as anything else. I see you have already corrected for this. Cheers. 195.137.77.175 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Very spooky. I suspect a sneaky Scot putting those flags up. To be fair the Scots have a good F1 history so it made Scotland look good putting those flags up, but they take part as Brits so the it's gotta be the Union Jack. Jimmmmmmmmm 00:37 21 March 2006

Flags and Nationalities
There's something wrong with the flags on this page. I noticed that Jim Clark had an American flag on some bits, so I've been correctingn to UK flags. I now note that earlier on the page he has a Scottish flag, as does JYS, but our Nige and Damon Hill have the flag of the UK.

Logically and consistently this is all wrong - either you have the Union Jack for all British Drivers (including Edmund Irvine, I guess) or the different nations go with their own flags, in which case the Englishmen get the cross of St George. I'm not quite sure where that leaves the Welsh as they have considerably less independence from the rest of the UK than either Northern Ireland or Scotland.

The only thing that stops me changing it is the horrible sneaking suspicion that actually the usage on this page reflects what they do in F1, incorrect as it may be, and so it would be wrong to change it.

For now I'm changing Jim Clark to the Saltire, but does anyone know what the correct position is (unfortunately we're unlikely to get a Scottish winner any time soon to given me a clue!) 195.137.77.175 00:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken upon myself to make them all British. They represent Britain when driving not Scotland or England.

Jimmmmmmmmm 0:32 21 March 2006

Agreed that Britain is correct (not sure they're really repesenting a country though, F1 doesn't really work like that any more) 195.137.77.175 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you know what I mean. Jimmmmmmmmm 0:39 21 March 2006


 * Yeh they were all British until someone (a Scot, no less ;) ) changed them, including Nige Mansell's to Isle of Man. I reverted once but could not be bothered the second time. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 20:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know i've removed Fernando Alonso from the Grand chelem section. He didn't lead the whole race.

Page layout
I'm not liking this page layout anymore. The catogories for instance where it say under podium finish the sub heading is just consecutive for instance. I forget which section I'm in and I'm just looking at a list of consecutive names. Secondly the leader for almost one lap stuff just seems like a bad excuse to get people like Michael Schumacher top of another list it's not that much of an achievement. Jimmmmmmmmm 19:04 26 June 2006
 * Table headings have been clarified. DH85868993 11:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyre records
Silly little thing, but saying 'Goodyear won (x) races from (y) starts' takes on a different colour when pointed out that (z) of those starts were uncontested. eftpotrm
 * I've added a column to indicate how many races (and hence wins) were unopposed. DH85868993 11:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldest Grand Prix entered/started
The contents of the Oldest Grand Prix Entered and Oldest Grand Prix started tables are inconsistent: if Chiron and Etancelin appear above Legat in the Oldest Grand Prix Started table, then shouldn't they also appear above him in the Oldest Grand Prix Entered table? DH85868993 10:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Current drivers & teams
Having the records as well as name in bold seems a bit excessive to me. I propose that we continue to designate current racers by bold, but make it only for their names, not the achievement, year, etc. mattbuck 01:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Although we may wish to maintain consistency with List of Formula One drivers. -- DH85868993 10:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that page is harder to read anyway since it's just masses of figures in only 26 tables, which are all quite wide. I don't feel we really need to go to those lengths to make the tables here legible. mattbuck 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Much easier on the eye. Thanks for doing the hard work, mattbuck. DH85868993 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First season / Indy 500
Results in 1950 (the first ever world championship) should not be considered as rookies. Also, records should surely ignore the Indy 500 - in real terms that has no similarities to the F1 records of the day. The 'earliest winners' list is farcical in this situation. Ascari's successive wins sequence is 9, not 7, in real terms.--MartinUK 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but some from the start could still be listed, for Fastest Rookie to Champion (seasons) for example, Fangio's world championship in 1951 was in his 3rd season, as he only started racing in Grands Prix in 1949. - MTC 14:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad someone liked that table. I do agree, Indy 500 winners should be excluded from the lists. Not quite sure what to do about the first years of the championship... we can't really exclude them, but nor can they be properly included. They should probably be excluded from earliest race win lists, a note added in earliest championship wins, and otherwise included. We could add a note that 1st year records are excluded in the relevant categopries. mattbuck 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree about excluding Indy winners or the first year of the championship. For one thing, despite the name of the article, it's actually a list of World Championship records and, like it or not, the Indy 500 was part of the World Championship from 1950-1960. I think we have to include the results in their raw form with no "interpretation". By all means include explanatory notes (as I did for Ascari's sequence of wins), and let people make up their own minds. DH85868993 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with above, if the Indy 500 was part of the World CHampionship then it has to be included, even if many of the drivers only participated in that one race for the Championship. Schumi555 11:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand Chelem
Thanks for the translation Lynbarn. Which leads me to ask: Has anyone ever actually heard/seen this achievement described as a "Grand Chelem"? I haven't. Should we just replace "Grand Chelem" with "Grand Slam" (a term which I think most English-speaking readers would understand)? DH85868993 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to look it up (it's obvious when you know) and thought others might like to know!


 * A problem is though, that Grand Slam on wikipedia lists a whole lot of different meanings for different sports. I've not heard of either term used in F1 before, so I do wonder how common it is. It might be better just leaving the description we have now.  Regards, Lynbarn 09:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Most Races without a Win
The list of F1 records currently contains the section List of Formula One records. I want to add/suggest adding a new list right below this: Most Races without a Win. First on the list would be Andrea de Cesaris, who scored 0 victories in 214 races (208 starts). Second on the list would probably be Martin Brundle, who didn't win in 165 races (158 starts). Any thoughts? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 10:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do it mattbuck 11:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You could even just include them in the same list? I may have missed the point on this, but how come those two drivers "didn't win" in more races than they started? Just curious, Regards Lynbarn 11:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to make one thing clear: the existing list is about the number of races before the first victory. This means that the drivers did manage to win at least one race during their F1 career. The list I had in mind is about drivers who didn't win a single race in their entire Formula One career. People like Chris Amon, Martin Brundle, Andrea de Cesaris, Nick Heidfeld, Jos Verstappen, Mika Salo and (surprisingly) quite a lot of 100+ GP drivers. I'll gather and sort the data today and/or tomorrow. @Lynbarn: De Cesaris entered in 214 races, Brundle in 165 races. De Cesaris didn't start in 6 races, Brundle in 7. This could be due to not qualifying, crashing and injuring, technical failures, a crash during the warm-up lap, etcetera. I think the list is sorted by races started, not by races entered. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 11:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha! NOW I understand! thanks, Lynbarn 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Most Races without Scoring Points, for drivers who didn't score a single point during their entire career? Afaict Badoer is first in the list, with most drivers in the top ten having 30+ or 40+ GPs (Guerrero, Lammers, to name two). Would that be an addition to the list, or would it become listcruft? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 12:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's interesting, but I'm biased. mattbuck 15:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added List of Formula One records. I'm not very happy with the layout atm, so I'm open to suggestions and improvements. Jarier and Cheever were tied on 143 races, Salo and Ghinzani were tied on 111 races. I've used the number of starts as a tie-breaker in this case: Jarier and Salo have started in more races than Cheever and Ghinzani, so (?) had more chances of winning a Grand Prix. Feel free to merge them into one entry, based on the number of entries, though. A ecis Brievenbus 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion/proposal: adding "Most Podium Finishes without a Win" to List of Formula One records, for the Raymond Poulidor of Formula One. The winner: Stefan Johansson. Four second place finishes, eight third place finishes, but not a single victory. A ecis Brievenbus 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Race winners --> Wins
I renamed the "Race winners" sections to just "Wins": DH85868993 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * for consistency with the other sections "Pole positions", "Points", "Fastest laps", etc
 * to allow for the proposed "Most races without a win" table (that couldn't go in a section called "Race winners", now could it?)

Fastest Rookie to Champion (seasons)
If we maintain the same criterions for this section I think it is better using another format because we cannot let the same driver being placed on 2 or more positions! In your table, the positions are referring to seasons, not players, as it is correctly mentioned in the title, so the first column should be 'year', not 'driver'!

My suggestion is to order champions by the number of their participating season in F1 when they first took the title and list also the number of the participating seasons when they won the next titles, if it is the case. And the year for first title, of course. Example: Name_of_the_Driver | 1986 | 3rd, 5th, 6th. And links for all those numbers (3rd, 5th, 6th) to the corresponding season. And first title in bold, of course, as it is the criteria for ordering the champions.

I suggest to try to change the criterions to solve the problem of being in this table as a rookie when you were in fact the most experienced driver in that season (among others eventually). We should put this rule: "number of the participating season in F1 of the champion" < "number of the participating season in F1 of the most experienced driver(s)". Maybe we should make another table for this new rule and have both statistics! The first 4 seasons of Formula 1 were won by the most experienced drivers, participating since 1950! I don't know if there were new-comers in those seasons (1951-1953) or not, but I don't see how they can be still considered rookies (in 1950 they were all new-comers so speaking about rookies is senseless). So my conclusion is that it must be (or it must be possible to be) at least one more experienced driver than the driver becoming champion for him to be eligible for this kind of classification!

What is you opinion on this subject? If we change the term "rookie" with "number of attempt", I think it reflects more objectively what the current statistic is about.

What do you think we should do?

Daniel77o 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I've found a solution for this table format. I've renamed it "Fewest Participating Seasons Champion Title"


 * Daniel77o 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've retitled and rescoped the table to refer to a driver's first World Championship title, since I think the point of this table is to identify drivers who won the Championship soon after entering F1. Because the Championship started at a fixed point in time, the first few Championship seasons produced a few anomalies. Which is not to say that Farina, Fangio and Ascari don't deserve to be in the table, just that their results need to be annotated, which we have done. DH85868993 10:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Total Points
I don't know, but I would guess that the way points are allocated has changed over the years. How has this changed, and when?

If different points systems had been in place at different times, what differences would there be to these tables? Should (and if so, how?) these changes be reflected here? Regards, Lynbarn 09:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems for details of how the points-scoring system has changed over the years. The application of different points-scoring systems would have had significant effects - consider that undeΠr today's points-scoring system, Prost would have won the 1988 championship instead of Senna and Irvine would have won in 1999 instead of Hakkinen, just for a start. I suggest we don't even try to reflect the potential changes. DH85868993 10:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And Schumacher would have won in 1997. He would have scored 94 points under the current system, while Villeneuve would have scored 89 points. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Raikkonen would have won in 2005 under the old system, Schumacher in 06 probably... The examples are endless, so unfortunately we can't really list them. It MIGHT be worth editing the total points to be greatest % of a maximum. mattbuck 10:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I had previously thought about including "greatest % of maximum points". One thing to consider is that in the past, a driver could only count a specified number of results towards the championship, so their "% of maximum total points" was not necessary the same as their "% of maximum Championship points". For example, in 1963, Clark's total points score was 73 out of a maximum 90 = 81%. But only the best 6 results counted towards the championship, so in terms of Championship points, he scored 54 out of a maximum 54 = 100%. So we'd need to decide which (or both) of these we wanted to list, and if both, whether in one table or two. DH85868993 14:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a website with a list of all WDC with different points systems: http://f1-facts.com/statistics/regulations_comparison. By the way, Prost would've won the 1988 title under any points system if it weren't for that stupid dropped scores. Lustigson 19.45, 21 June 2007 (CET)
 * Thanks for the link! Great to see Damon Hill winning 1994 and Verstappen finishing ahead of Mansell :) Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a list with all alternative WDCs on different points systems, only mentioning those who were indeed different. I haven't made a Wiki page yet, but will probably do so either tomorrow or Saturday. Since it isn't a 'record', I'll make a separate page, which we might link to from here (and from other pages, too, of course). Lustigson 21.30, 21 June 2007 (CET)
 * Nothing personal, but I'm not in favour of the creation of such a page. It's pure speculation. Incidentally, have you taken dropped points and shared drives into account? Because they're just as much a part of the points system as whether you get 9 points for a win or 10. You also have to consider that drivers drove knowing what they needed to do to win the Championship under the prevailing points system; for example, if Lauda knew that to win the 1984 title he had to beat Prost in Portugual, then he might have done so. But he knew second place was good enough so he probably didn't even try. DH85868993 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speculation indeed. And I have tried to take dropped scores into account. What I'll do is post the page here first, then we can decide whether it's worth a seperate page or not. Lustigson 09.15, 22 June 2007 (CET)
 * We could introduce a correction factor for each point scoring system. I would suggest to use 10/(points for winner). In that case the scoring systems from 1991-2009 would be unaffected and for the current one, the total points would be divided by 2.5 . Marc w823 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is a four year old thread. Secondly, it's WP:Speculation and Wikipedia has a pilcy against that sort of thing. So, still no. --Falcadore (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)