Talk:List of Formula One constructors

Alpine
Alpine constructed one formula one (or in fact 2 as the Renault F1 prototype was an Alpine chassis) but none was raced. Ericd 20:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Abarth did not race in F1~, it was associated in Cisitalia design. Ericd 20:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There was a project in 1968 to build a 3.0 V12 engine from the sportscar 2.0 V8, but nothing came out of it. --Pc13 19:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they built some 3 litre prototypes powered by a V8 but no F1. Ericd 00:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Dates
Can we get dates for at least some of these constructors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.224.241 (talk • contribs) on November 5, 2005

Bugatti
While its founder was Italian, Bugatti was a French, not an Italian constructor, isn't it?
 * Bugatti was a French make in Formula 1. Bugatti was first based in France, than Italy and also once in Germany. When Bugatti raced just the only one race in Formula 1 it was a French marque at the time. --Andreasu 07:32, 01 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Scuderia Italia
Should Scuderia Italia not be listed as a team that never constructed their own chassis? At present they are listed as a constructor, but for most of their existence they ran Dallara designed and constructed chassis, and one final season with a disastrous Lola design (albeit not as bad as Lola's Mastercard effort). The official F1 site lists the constructor as Dallara. 4u1e 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes definately a constructor only running mainly Dallaras as you've said here. --Jsydave 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Prodrive
The heading for this page does imply that teams planning to enter F1 should be included, so I would think Prodrive should be in, but does anyone have a view on how it should be done - simply as a new team with a brief note in brackets or a footnote maybe? --Jsydave 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * New section added to the page with the heading "Future Constructors" Jsydave 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider Prodrive a constructor, actually. Dave Richards has admitted he's planning on using some other team's chassis and engine, alledgedly McLaren-Mercedes. That makes Prodrive a competitor, but not a constructor. On the other hand, doesn't the FIA consider any competitor a 'constructor' while referring to a car designer/builder as a 'make'? Lustigson 15:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right of course; if Prodrive use someone else's chassis, then they won't be a constructor. I think a few of us (at WP:F1) have probably realised that listing Prodrive in a section labelled "Future constructors" is, strictly speaking, incorrect but haven't bothered to change it, perhaps in the knowledge/expectation that the whole article will probably need an overhaul once "customer chassis" become legal (again) in 2008. My guess is that some of the editors who have contributed to this article over time haven't fully appreciated the distinction between "team/entrant" and "constructor" (a forgivable error, considering that the terms have been effectively synonomous for at least 10 years). -- DH85868993 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Entries
If a team enters two (or more) cars for a race, does this count as one entry? The total entries for Arrow (368) implies yes, but I feel that number of entries should be the (total) number of cars entered. Whatd do people think? Tom pw (talk) (review) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fifth column in the table is the number of races the constructor has entered, as opposed to the total number of cars entered. Both numbers can be useful/relevant, depending on the situation. If you're considering the number of pole positions or wins a constructor has scored, then the number of races is perhaps more relevant, since only one of their cars can win or score pole position in a particular race, regardless of how many of their cars are entered. On the other hand, if you're considering how many podium positions they've scored, then the total number of cars entered is perhaps more relevant, since more than one car can score a podium position in a given race. DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Privateer Teams
The list of privateer teams is very incomplete. There are other many privateer teams, for example: Brands Hatch Racing (in 1980), Horschell Racing Corporation (in 1950), and more... Moeover there are many drivers who entered with their own names as, for example, Peter Whitehead in 1950. Stanza13 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are indeed many entrants missing from the list. However, I think to claim that many of them were "teams" is pushing things a bit. Horschell Racing Corporation was, for example, just Harry Schell, his brother and a mechanic, as was Ecurie Bleue. Similarly, Ecurie Maarsbergen was just Carel Godin de Beaufort. This is precisely why I dislike the term "team"; it doesn't really mean much pre-1980. I think, if you wanted to do a proper job, you would need to create a second List of non-constructor Formula One entrants, or similar. I know how long this table took to compile and I'm not mad keen to delve into that particular can of worms, but if you want to do it then go ahead.  Pyrop e  02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Grand Prix Nationality
Any reason why Jordan's nationality is marked as disputed?

They ran under an Irish racing licence, and the Irish national anthem and flag were used in any podium events. Laylaholic (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But, notice this British flag at this picture: http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A photograph with a garage in the background is not a reliable source. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eagle, Penske, Shadow and Wolf Nationality
Could anybody resolve problem of nationality of these teams ? I tried to find it out but I found no convincing evidence of their nationalities. It would be the best if someone has some video from races which were won by these teams to hear what national anthem was played for winning constructor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.31.100 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No it wouldn't, that would be original research. We need references that explicitly state these teams' nationalities to comply with WP:V. Finding them is the hard bit, which is why they are listed as they are.  Pyrop e  14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Eagle, Penske and Shadow were American teams that had manufacturing or other facilities in the UK and mostly ran their team from the UK. Wolf, on the other hand, were UK in all respects except that the owner was Canadian (or Austrian-Canadian to be exact). If Wolf is "disputed" then look also at Theodore who were entirely UK-based but had a Hong Kong owner. So yes, I can resolve the problem but amusingly you can't use this because it's original research. I have to put it on my website (OldRacingCars.com) first and then you can take it from there. Funny old world, isn't it? Allen Brown (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Tis indeed, but them's the rules. Wikipedia lives by an odd axiom that is isn't the truth that counts, but verifiability. Your website is indeed a very reputable source and we use it often for verifying facts, but the say-so of one individual simply isn't sufficient, after all we have only your word that you are indeed the owner of OldRacingCars.com and not some troll.  Pyrop e  15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If Wolf would have been british team, then e.g. Jordan or Force India are british as well. Their owners are Irish and Indian respectively, but both teams are based in the UK. I think that the only key to resolve this problem is not matter of nationality of team´s owners nor location of team´s headquarters but only the statement of team´s nationality clearly written in the Super Licence issued by the FIA. The question is, if such licences existed in the '60s and '70s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.26.17 (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite so. There was no such strict licencing system in the 1960s and 1970s, certainly not in the way that you have now.  That only started to emerge after 1982.  So for 1960s and 1970s teams there simply isn't a definitive answer to this question.  I have seen an entry list that says Shadow were a UK team but I would guess that's only because the cars were coming to that GP from the UK.  Shadow's Can-Am team was run out of the US and Don Nichols was based in the US but when the F1 team was formed it was headquartered in Northampton.  Nobody was ever asked to fill in a form stating the nationality of the team but I'm sure Nichols regarded it as American.  Magazines at the time referred to it as an American team.  Compare that with Wolf which was a takeover and renaming of an existing British team (Williams) by a man born in Austria at a time when it had been annexed by Germany, brought up in Yugoslavia (modern Slovenia) and West Germany (modern Germany) who later earn his fortune in Britain and became a naturalised Canadian.  So that makes the team what nationality?  Allen Brown (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that pictures of Wolf or Shadow cars could partially help to us. Website http://www.racesimulations.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=20378&start=510 shows a lot of F1 cars including Wolf and Shadow car. We can notice Canadian flag painted on Wolf car ( driven by Jody Scheckter from South Africa) and US flag painted on Shadow car ( driven by Jean Pierre Jarier from France ). If flags do not represent nationality of drivers, what is obvious, then they must represent nationality of the teams, Wolf as Canadian team, and Shadow as American team, though both teams were based in the UK. By this way, we managed to resolve nationality of these teams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.26.17 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of lack of any relevant informations about Shadow and Wolf nationalities from official FIA source, in my opinion the only means how to find out their true nationality are pictures of their F1 cars on which there are painted US flag and Canadian flag respectively. See http://forums.autosport.com/lofiversion/index.php/t82034.html and http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricardipus/3646450337/ as a proof of american nationality for Shadow and canadian nationality for Wolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.26.17 (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate where you are coming from with your reasoning, unfortunately what you are talking about is primary research and inference. Please go away and read WP:V before you spend any more time on this. We need secondary sources that state, unambiguously, that each team was of that nationality. Fora, blogs and photos, especially modern photos (because, lets face it, vinyl stickers are cheap, aren't they Allen? ;-), are not suitable. This sort of research has been shown in the past to be flawed, and definitely contravenes the MoS. For that reason I reverted your edit. If you are hell-bent on sorting this out I suggest a trip to your local library.  Pyrop e  12:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What about http://www.racingsportscars.com/covers/_Monza-1976-09-12e.jpg or http://www.racingsportscars.com/covers/_Watkins_Glen-1978-10-01e.jpg ?? Are that suitable sources for wiki articles ? These sources clearly state both Wolf and Shadow as british teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.26.17 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They are certainly much better (see my comments on the topic below).  Pyrop e  16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * These issues have now been resolved - see below. DH85868993 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Eifelland
Sticking bodywork on a March 721 does not make one a constructor. Eifelland would not have owned the intellectual property of any other bit of the car. Allen Brown (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rules on what does and doesn't constitute a "constructor" change through the years, and at times the criteria were extremely flexible. You only have to look at how poorly BRP were treated by the other teams to see that a constructor judgement was, pre-1980, an extremely mutable beast. As I said above, we are bound by Wikipedia's remit to use only secondary sources, so we rely on relating the opinions and conclusions of others. Eifelland are listed as a constructor by many other reputable sources and they appear on entry lists as Eifelland and not March. Admittedly the official organ of FOM lists Stommelen's entries as being March-Fords, but they are in the minority and have been shown on previous occasions to be a surprisingly unreliable source for most things historical. However, we are well aware that Wikipedia's Formula One coverage is an imperfect resource at present, and we are working to rectify that (e.g. the source used for Rolf Stommelen's career results summary used an "Eifelland" source, while the 1972 Spanish Grand Prix page used a "March" source) so hopefully this will come together in time.  Pyrop e  15:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The treatment of BRP was more because a newly-formed club were sniffy about a team who had rather blatantly tried to copy the Lotus 25 chassis (combined with Lotus 24 suspension) rather than doing their own design. The same sort of copying happened often - the Tyrrell 009 and 010 were blatant copies of other designs and the Rebaque, like BRP, copied the chassis of one car and the suspension of another.  It's a fine motor racing tradition, especially in Indy car racing.  On the other hand, there is also the case of a team building an exact copy - with or without permission - and entering it under the original constructor's name: for example the Parnell team's Lotuses 24s or BS Fabrications' McLaren M23.  Or even building a variation on a design and entering under the original constructor's name, such as Parnell's "VR" in 1961.  When Grant King built a precise copy of the 1972 Indy Eagle but entered it as a Kingfish, the world accepted him as the constructor but I would guess Dan Gurney asked him not to do it again.  Similarly when Tyrrell built the 009 there were probably some sharp words behind closed doors but nobody tried to claim Tyrrell's constructor's points.  However, when a private company was commissioned to build a car (Lec by Pilbeam, Ferrari by Thompson, BRM by Terrier), you follow the intellectual property, not the man holding the rivet gun.  It is possible to construct rules, you just need to work through these cases and make sure your rules hold.


 * In sorting this out, you are allowed to use primary sources, you're just not allowed to do original research. However, this is more to do with applying a consistent approach and it appears that you are allowed to be original when it comes to deciding organisation structures.  Convention is a great thing, but sometimes consistency has to trump it.  There are other examples similar to Eifelland, where a team modified somebody else's car - usually just in the bodywork - and entered it under their sponsor's name.  The Apollon was a second-hand Williams with new bodywork by Fly Studio and the Boro was a second-hand Ensign.  Curiously, the Apollon is listed on Wikipedia as a Apollon but the Boro as an Ensign.  I am at a loss to understand why they would be treated differently.  I think it is fine to list the car in results as an Apollon/Eifelland/Boro because that's how those cars were entered but when you get to a list of constructors, you really have to omit these three and list them under Williams, March and Ensign respectively. Allen Brown (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that you are right, unfortunately. The great advantage that you have with ORC is that you set the ground rules and can set up the sort of deductive logic model that you suggest, while Wikipedia is ruled by the MoS which was developed to cover the whole project, not just racing entries. I'd be interested to know what you consider a primary source. We most certainly can't go digging up original works chassis records and interviewing guys who were on the shop floor at the time these cars were built, we have to wait for third parties to do that and then we can then reference their material. As I stated above, we rely on secondary sources and we have to follow what is verifiable in these, not necessarily what is factually accurate. This does result in inconsistencies (as I have already pointed out) as not only do some records get referenced to one source and others to a different source, but even some of the more reliable sources do occasionally treat similar situations differently. It also is certainly not up to Wikipedia editors to make the sorts of judgement calls that you are suggesting - if the secondary sources list a car as having been built by a certain "constructor" then that is what Wikipedia will say. Even in your note above you contradict yourself a number of times on this issue; on the one hand you can't see why Apollon and Boro are treated differently, but at the same time you suggest that we should treat the 009 as a bona fide Tyrrell. Also, you want us to treat a car one way in one set of records but another way in another set. This won't wash. As you note there is no absolute line between an entirely original vehicle and one that reuses parts, designs, or simply ideas from another. Put simply, if the FIA were happy to register a car to a certain constructor then this is how it will be listed here and in driver records, race results, season summaries and so on. Then at least we are consistent in how we treat our sources. Had Rolf scored points March wouldn't have benefitted in period and it isn't Wikipedia's job to rectify what Max and Robin's lawyers didn't set straight at the time. Details about how a car came into being are more suitable for prose entries on that car's own page or the main team/entrant/constructor page.  Pyrop e  15:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If I appear to contradict myself it's only in pointing out the many variations that exist. Rules can be constructed but it's certainly not easy!  To answer your question, I would regard a primary source as an entry list or a set of organiser's results, either of which would be a fair source for Wikipedia if you happened to have them, but I also include a magazine or newspaper report as primary in that it is the account of a reporter who was actually there.  That said, the results within his report are probably secondary.  If you had access to an original entry list (http://www.oldracingcars.com/Images/entrylists/EntryList-I73.jpg) you could use it couldn't you?  You wouldn't have to wait for someone to republish it if it had already been published once before in a race program.  I realise that talking directly to people whose fragile memories may be regarded as primary sources are out of your scope.  A secondary source - to me - would be the Formula 1 Record Books or a website such as ... actually, I won't name one ... that works from primary sources or from other secondary sources.  You say that "Had Rolf scored points March wouldn't have benefitted in period".  Are you sure of that?  From the point of view of the constructors' title, I thought it was a March-Ford.  But even the entry in the constructors' title is no certain guide - the 1973 Williams cars were entered as Iso-Marlboros and probably got points as Iso-Fords but are now regarded, quite rightly, as Williams.  Sorry if I'm throwing up random examples; I'm just pointing out that order does need to be placed on history and, at the very least, Wikipedians can choose whichever source best gives you that structure.  If you use ORC, for example, you can lose Apollon and Eifelland from your list. Allen Brown (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The status of an entry list very much depends on where it was published. If it appears in the race program or has since been republished by another source then it actually forms a secondary source. If it just a banda-copied piece of paper found in an old driver's log book then it is primary. Similarly the results; if they were official results published for public consumption then they are secondary, if you are talking about a guy watching a race then using his lap chart, that is primary. Fragile memories are definitely primary sources, and for this reason we can't give weight to comments on chat boards or to what you or I might think. Secondary in Wikipedia terms generally means that the editor themselves didn't do the research and that the data has been published by a reliable source. On that point we pretty much agree. Where sources disagree then Wikipedians can step in and use judgement and discuss which to go with, and it is possibly at this point that some sort of standard protocol could be adopted. In the case of Eiffeland the only source that unambiguously treats them as a March is Formula1.com. However, WP:F1 tends to be a bit leery of that source because we have found so many flaws in it in the past, despite it's seemingly "official" status. On the flip side some respected journalists - such as Joe Saward - have compiled Eiffeland as a separate or at least distinct entity. Iso cars are, as you rightly state, commonly regarded as Williams machines, although I note that Williams themselves (when they celebrated their 30th year as a constructor) only start the count at the FW01 for model names, and the FW06 in terms of the present Williams GPE constructor entity. Yes, another contradiction. One major problem we have is that it we decide, for whatever reason, that one source should be regarded as canonical for a given set of data we then get accused of copyright infringement... which I believe you have some experience of. Hence we have to apply some degree of judgement, and where there are humans involved this isn't always a consistent process.  Pyrop e  13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kojima Engineering


The article Kojima Engineering has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not seem to meet WP:N and fails WP:V, tagged as unreferenced for 4 years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sorting bug?
In the table of Former Constructors' Statistics the PP column sorts alphabetically rather than numerically, unlike the other columns. Is this because there are non-numbers in that column? PeterGrecian (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "Pts."? PP has only got number isn and sorts fine, but Pts. and WCC both have "n/a" fields which has, yes, broken the sorting.  Pyrop e  16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nationality of arguable constructors definitely resolved
I tried definitely to resolve the nationality of important constructors (= constructors which achieved at least one race victory) whose nationality was disputable. That means the nationality of Eagle, Penske, Shadow, Wolf, Jordan, Benetton. Prior to the 2000s, the FIA did not issue the official Entry list with explicit statements about constructors nationalities. At disputable constructors therefore I was forced to look for other solution. I found some explicit statements on the internet. Website http://www.racingsportscars.com/ helped me very much. It provided original authentic Entry lists for many races in the 1970s and thus it helped me to resolve of nationality for Penske, Shadow and Wolf. Nationality (and change of nationality for Benetton) for Eagle, Jordan and Benetton was resolved by explicit original statements made by their owners Dan Gurney, Eddie Jordan and Luciano Benetton. I provided all links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucullus19 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice work, well done.  Pyrop e  18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Benetton at first British, then Italian, then British again
See the discussion at Talk:Benetton Formula/Archive 1. DH85868993 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect info in "Races" Column
The info in the "Races" column is incorrect. A quick audit has revealed the following discrepencies when the table was up-to-date as of the 2016 Italian GP:
 * Ferrari are listed as having entered 922 races: as of that date, Ferrari had entered 924 races and had started 921 of them.
 * McLaren are listed as having entered 794 races: as of that date, McLaren had actually entered 797 races and had started 794 of them.
 * Williams are listed as having entered 652 races: as of that date, Williams had entered 651 races and had started 650 of them.
 * Sauber are listed as having entered 417 races: as of that date, Sauber had indeed entered 417 races, but had only started 414 of them.

I obviously didn't audit the entire list, but the info if terribly inconsistent. Some teams have their starts llisted intead of their entries, some teams have their actual entries, and some teams have incorrect info. Do we want starts or entries? Or create yet another new column to have both starts and entries (my vote)? Real tlhingan (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Formula One constructors. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804222124/http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/149730155__2007_F1_SPORTING_REGULATIONS.pdf to http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/149730155__2007_F1_SPORTING_REGULATIONS.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Total entries of current constructors
I would like to know how the total entries of the current constructors as of 2017 are calculated, because to be quite honest, I can't do the math. If someone can elaborate and explain to me how it works, it would be greatly appreciated.RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From memory, at one point someone went through and counted the individual number of entries for each constructor, and then they just get incremented by the appropriate number after each race. For modern teams like Haas, the number is usually 2 x number of races entered, but of course teams like Ferrari and Mercedes sometimes used to enter 3 or 4 cars per race back in the 1950s. DH85868993 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, it's clearer for me now.RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are big problems with this section. So far as I can see, the numbers there don't match with any of the more established stats sites out there. When I went through and tabulated all the defunct constructor stats (many moons ago...) I specifically and intentionally didn't go near the current data precisely because I knew it would end up a dogs' breakfast. Philosophically (and bearing in mind WP:NOT and WP:OR) I am not at all sure that we should be maintaining databases such as these in the manner that we are doing, but trying to persuade people that it is a bad idea for a community wiki with pretty weak oversight to be maintaining relatively complex live stats is like pushing water uphill so I generally haven't bothered. Sadly, I no longer have a Forix subscription so I can't check against that, ChicaneF1 has gone seriously downhill of late, StatsF1 has always been a bit wayward, AllF1 was last updated in 2015, Motor Sport's database doesn't include detailed constructor stats, and the previously excellent Autocourse stats website went the way of the dodo when Crash Media sold the title. I haven't had time to check the reliability of many other F1 stats aggregators out there so I can't comment on them, but I think this whole section really does need sourcing to a good WP:RS rather than us tallying numbers for ourselves. Pyrop  e  05:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it's misleading and maybe not that accurate I propose that the total entries by the current constructors be deleted from the database. I think that the rest of the database is interesting and gives accurate informations.RafaelS1979 (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So rather than fix it, destroy it? That doesn't sound very productive to me. If it is annoying you that much, how about putting in the digital legwork to cross-check with reliable sources? Pyrop  e  18:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was only making a suggestion, nobody has died in case you didn't notice.RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you may have read too much into my comment. Pyrop  e  15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
I propose this compromise wording to include a link to the F1 constructors and still comply with MOS:BOLDAVOID:

The following is a list of Formula One constructors. Constructors are entities that build Formula One cars and have competed or plan to compete in the FIA World Championship.

A second alternative more based in regulations:

The following is a list of Formula One constructors. Constructors are entities that have the intellectual property of Formula One cars and have competed or plan to compete in the FIA World Championship.

Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That looks like a good, uncontroversial compromise. I'll implement it on the page with a couple of minor tweaks for flow. Pyrop  e  15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree and I don't want to be harsh, but I'm not quite sure that the user who has reverted my changes knows what he is doing and if it continues, I'll report him for irrelevant removal of content. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't understand what you agree with, as you reverted who implemented an improved version of the compromise wording. The IP was basically right from Wikipedia's guidelines perspective. As I said in my self-revert, I missed its MOS:BOLDAVOID comment in one of its previous edit summaries (the fact that he/she edited from an IP registered in the UAE and then one in the Netherlands didn't help), which was a valid concern. --Urbanoc (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Urbanoc I meant that I agree with the compromise and my apology for reverting ' version it wasn't my intention, I reverted the wrong version. RafaelS1979 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I reverted back to 's version. RafaelS1979 (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for clarifying that. I was a little perplexed, but I also make mistakes when editing. And you're a very active (and good) contributor, so the chances to "mess up" are there. Keep up the good work. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistenties
I noticed some inconsistenties regarding the list of Formula One constructors and the template that list all Formula One constructors.

The MBM is listed in the template but not in the list of Formula One constructors while it was entered for the 1961 German Grand Prix.

The Greifzu appears in the list of Formula One constructors but it does not in the template.

The Modena team is refered to as Lambo in the list of Formula One constructors and as Modena in the template.

And for some reason Delahaye is listed in the template but they did not compete in or entered any World Championship Grand Prix.

Is there any reason for this? Or are there just a few mistakes here and there. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think the inconsistencies are intentional; I think the list and template have just become unsynchronised over time. Further, I believe MBM, Greifzu and Lambo should be in both the list and the template, and Delahaye should be in neither. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I will re-synchronise the lists and delete Delahaye from the template. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Cosworth is also listed in the template. Cosworth does not appear in the list of Formula One constructors but they did enter (or at least appeared on the initial entry list) the 1969 British GP. Should we list them in the Former constructors' statistics? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that their entry was withdrawn, and they're not listed at 1969 British Grand Prix, I'd be tempted to remove them from the template instead. But I don't really mind either way, as long as the template and the list are consistent. DH85868993 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll remove them from the template. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Double wins
It would be good to add double (1-2) win statistic in the table if that stat is available. That stat shows the dominance of a team in a way that is less dependant of a (one star) driver. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , hmm, personally (and this is nothing more than an opinion) I feel that this would risk violating WP:NOSTAT. Take the profiles on the Official F1 website (linking to Ferrari's), they don't mention this stat and I therefore think we shouldn't either. the more appropriate place for this is at List of Formula One records (where it incidently is)
 * I also feel your rational is flawed, take a look at construcors by one-two, Ferrari are shown a long way ahead of the next constructor, this suggests that Ferrari are the most dominant but this is simply untrue. Mercedes are significantly more dominant but have less have competed in less races, but I suppose this is true of all the listed
 * statistics.
 * But, this is just my opinion though and I am open to further discussion. SSSB (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also feel your rational is flawed, take a look at construcors by one-two, Ferrari are shown a long way ahead of the next constructor, this suggests that Ferrari are the most dominant but this is simply untrue. You read statistic in a wrong way. Ferrari has 1-2 win every 12 races, Mclaren every 18 races, Mercedes every 4 races. This shows dominance. Of course it's not perfect but it's not off the mark as you mentioned.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a different statistic. That statistic would be "rate of 1-2 finishes", not "1-2 finishes". Rate of 1-2s can be deduced when combining this stat with others (namely race starts, or entries), but its not what the 1-2 finshes stat shows. SSSB (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also feel your rational is flawed, take a look at construcors by one-two, Ferrari are shown a long way ahead of the next constructor, this suggests that Ferrari are the most dominant but this is simply untrue. You read statistic in a wrong way. Ferrari has 1-2 win every 12 races, Mclaren every 18 races, Mercedes every 4 races. This shows dominance. Of course it's not perfect but it's not off the mark as you mentioned.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a different statistic. That statistic would be "rate of 1-2 finishes", not "1-2 finishes". Rate of 1-2s can be deduced when combining this stat with others (namely race starts, or entries), but its not what the 1-2 finshes stat shows. SSSB (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus to maintain the current title. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Formula One constructors → List of Formula One chassis constructors – Now that there is a List of Formula One engine constructors page, the current name of this page does not unambiguously define the topic of the article as per WP:PRECISE. Constructors are comprised of both chassis and engine (see Lotus-Climax, Lotus-BRM and others in 1963 for example), so naming this page as a list of constructors is inaccurate as this page only covers chassis constructors. While the term "constructor" is quite often used to refer to just the chassis, such use of the term is generally somewhat negligent without really thinking or knowing what the term actually means. Then having a page title based on casual use of the term can cause confusion when the terms are used accurately like here for example. Besides, WP:COMMONNAME states that Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. I think naming this page "List of Formula One chassis constructors" is the best solution to avoid confusion. Carfan568 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, so your major problem here is that you are misrepresenting the truth. The combination of a car's chassis and engine names is considered a "make", not a constructor. I see that in the current 2021 technical regs, the FIA doesn't use the term "constructor" at all. Anywhere. In the sporting regs the definition is that "a constructor is the [entity] which designs the Listed Parts set out in Appendix 6." Those listed parts are (or were, before Appendix 6 was superseded by Article 22 of the tech regs... which replaced the concept with LTCs, which are outlined in Appendix 4 of that document, but they didn't update the sporting regs, it's all a bit confused!) the survival cell, the front impact structure, roll structures, bodywork, and air ducts. Article 22 specifically states that all power unit components are not considered LTC, and Appendix 4 adds cooling components to the list. Note the lack of anything to do with the engine on those lists. In the past the two have usually been differentiated as a chassis constructor and an engine manufacturer. I'd argue that the article name at fault in this circumstance is the engine one. It should be List of Formula One engine manufacturers. Pyrop  e  19:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The current sporting regulations do mention that "The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." That section used to state "The constructor of an engine or rolling chassis is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which owns the intellectual property rights to such engine or chassis. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor." The race entry lists also list the chassis-engine combination as the constructor. Carfan568 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I did say it was a bit confused. However, the Constructors' Championship is only awarded to chassis makers, and in general usage you don't talk about 'constructing' an engine. Pyrop  e  20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The entities that are classified in the Constructors' Championship include the engine maker though, they just (currently) award prize money etc. for the chassis maker. Carfan568 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per Pyrop. They're constructors, not chassis constructors. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not reason for us to move this article, and again per Pyrop, it's the engine article that's possibly misnamed. What do you want to do here, move it, then delete all the privateer teams, which then wouldn't belong in the article? How is any of this serving the reader? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sporting regulations and entry lists, and sources like this, have clearly mixed both engine and chassis in the explanation of a constructor. How would the privateer teams not belong here if "chassis" is added to title any more than they currently do? Carfan568 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is not about just chassis manufacturers, as seen by the definition given by the article if the chassis and engine are made by different entities, the constructor comprises both...—blindlynx (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The proposal seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the established conventional usage of the term "constructor" in a post-1981 Formula One context. The engine article should be moved to "List of Formula One engine manufacturers". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How does the fact that an entrant needs to make their own chassis after 1981 affect this? Look at 1983 with McLaren-Ford and McLaren-TAG for example. Carfan568 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The constructor is both together according to the article and the 2018 regs cited in it—blindlynx (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you contributed to the debate when you opened it by making the proposal. Can I suggest that attempting to rebut every other contributor is a bit counter-productive, and you may want to read WP:BLUDGEON. Cheers, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I replied to try to better understand their reasoning. For example, you made a statement that I think does not affect this discussion. Carfan568 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose if the engine article has a problem then move that one. But this is a sensible, WP:CONCISE name for this article. And please don't WP:WALLOFTEXT this reply like you have every other reply. I have read the whole discussion before posting, so I don't need to be retold why you think I'm wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Firstly, I want to stress that I agree with all the opposes above. Secondly, my specific reasoning is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When sources use "constructor" they almost exclusivly refer to the chassis:, , , without refering to the engine part of the team. As this source shows, sources use engine suppliers or manufactorers, not constuctors. I agree with the above that the list of engine constructors is incorrectly named. SSSB (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment page move discussion opened at Talk:List of Formula One engine constructors‎. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, this is a list of constructors, which are distinct from chassis constructors. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 00:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)