Talk:List of Formula One driver numbers

Alternate table format
Hello. Please consider the table format used in my sandbox. In my opinion, we do not need to list unused numbers. Further, practice/test numbers are not assigned to drivers. For example, 41 does not belong to Susie Wolff, it belongs to the Williams team. Further, the article is heavily undersourced.

I am in favor of this article existing, and with the handful of new drivers in 2016, the table can be sizeable enough. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 11:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of Formula One driver numbers. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117883

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

2017 Vandoorne or Stroll
Who gets first choice in 2017 for available numbers Stoffel Vandoorne or Lance Stroll? Mobile mundo (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither. Drivers can reveal their numbers whenever they want and it's up to FIA or FOM (don't really know who's responsible for this) in letting them use one or another number. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So if they both wanted the same number then would it be whoever sends their request first?(Mobile mundo (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Yes, that's how it should work.Tvx1 23:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why can't Antonio Giovinazzi be listed here?
He raced two GPs in 2017 and has, as far as I can tell, locked the number 36 for himself until 2020. So why was he removed from this article's table? JCCyC (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No he has not. Stand-in drivers do not get to pick their own career numbers, they use a reserve number allocated to the team. Gustav Malja and Noboharu Matsushita have used that number later in the season as well.Tvx1 16:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Earliest year available"
This article bothers me because right now it has very little encyclopaedic value. It seems that the audience that will get the most out of it is aspiring drivers wanting to double check if their preferred number is available. This is because of the "earliest year available" column and the habit of removing drivers once their number is put back into rotation. The article really needs to address who used which number and when regardless of whether or not they are still active&mdash;so Chilton, Kobayashi, Maldonado, Rossi and Sutil (and anyone else I have missed) all need to be added. The "earliest year available" column should instead be retitled "last used", because what are we going to do if someone chooses a number that another driver previously used? Are we just going to pretend like nobody else drove with it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it has even less encyclopedic value now. Now it just arbitrarily shows a set of numbers used during a certain period within the history of the sport, ignoring the numbers used during the preceding 60+ years. Listing no longer used numbers makes this utterly confusing. All in all I feel this is trivia. It's tabulating F1 related information for the sake of it.Tvx1 16:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

First time a new driver chose an old number
Gasly has chosen #10, already taken by Kobayashi in 2014. Should we write it in the Notes column, like "Previously used by Kamui Kobayashi (2014)"?

Brendon Hartley contradicts the intro text
I have just noticed that the introduction text of this article states:

"Numbers that were used most recently in the 2016 season can be reallocated at the beginning of 2019"

However, the number 28 was last used by Chilton Stevens in 2015, therefore implying cannot be used again until 2018 but Hartley is using 2017. I am presuming that as the FIA allowed this to happen the introduction is incorrect and has been misunderstood by whomever wrote it?

Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1 this seems like something you'd know about?

MetalDylan (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This article just list the rules as they are published in the reliable sources. It seems the FIA has made an exception for Hartley or simply forgot that Stevens had used that number.Tvx1 12:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I myself don't know. And to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Timeline
I've added a new section to the article with a timeline showing the usage of each number over the seasons. I thought this would give a more visual indication of how often each number has been used and is a useful addition to the more detailed existing table. My only concern is that as the years go on it will become too wide, but I think it's ok right now. It's possible that some people will think it is just a duplication of what's there already, but I think it's worthwhile having it. &mdash;  Gas Head Steve [TALK] 13:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The timeline adds nothing to the article. The numbers are purely cosmetic and serve no purpose beyond identifying a car, so the subject of the article is pretty superficial to begin with. The timeline just rearranges the existing table into a different format. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The existing table only shows the driver numbers as they are currently, whereas the timeline that GasHeadSteve made shows the numbers over time. They both display different information. If the reader only wants to see the current driver numbers, they can do that with the existing table. If they want to see how they have changed over time, they can do that with the timeline table. Regarding the superficiality of the article subject, that's your opinion, but it's no reason to remove an entire section just because you personally don't find it necessary, other people may find it useful. Also, please, in the future, don't remove entire sections of articles without reaching a consensus on the page's talk page. Thank you, 79.97.111.137 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The existing table only shows the driver numbers as they are currently...They both display different information. - not true, it lists every number used since 2014 and includes drivers such as Will Stevens who only raced in 2015. They therefore show the same information. There is nothing in the timeline which can not be infered from the first table. If they want to see how they have changed over time, they can do that with the timeline table. - they can do that with both tables. Look at #99. The first table clearly shows it was used by Sutil in 2014 and by Giovinazzi since 2019. Regarding the superficiality of the article subject, that's your opinion - not an opinion as they both show the same information, just presented differently. other people may find it useful - not a reason for inclusion, see WP:USEFUL. Also, please, in the future, don't remove entire sections of articles without reaching a consensus on the page's talk page. - this is not a requirement, see WP:BOLD.
 * All in all I agree with, it is completely redundent as nothing new can be gleaned from this that isn't already being shown in the first table. Also within 5 years the table will become so large that it will no longer be useful in any sense. It will no longer fit on most screens. SSSB (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They therefore show the same information. There is nothing in the timeline which can not be infered from the first table. - not true, look at George Russel for instance. The first table only shows his the number he used from 2019, whereas the second table shows him using the number 35 in 2017, and 63 from 2019. You can't infer that information from the first article. I realise now that WP:USEFUL isn't a valid argument in and of itself, however, I would still consider the second table encyclopedic enough to remain included since this is a list class article and the table is a more inclusive list than the first one, but that's just my take as a fairly new editor. 79.97.111.137 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes this page notable is that drivers picked those numbers, Russell never picked 63 or 35 (in the same way Schumacher was given 1), therefore him using those numbers isn't notable (like Vettel using 1 in 2011-2013 isn't notable) and this arguable shouldn't be included at all. Also think of the practicalities of the table. Very soon we are going to reach a point where the table becomes so wide it's of very little use to anyone (especially those on mobile or even laptops) SSSB (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just arguing the practicalities of the table, I don't believe the size of the table will become a major issue anytime soon, more or less 10 ems gets added every year, so it will take quite a considerable amount of time for the table to reach an uncomfortable size (if you want to see uncomfortable, just look at any comparison page, such as Comparison of web browsers. Now obviously, way in the future, the table will reach a size where it becomes uncomfortable to navigate, and in that instance, it can use Template:Scrolling table or something similar to make it more navigable. 79.97.111.137 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just arguing the practicalities of the table, I don't believe the size of the table will become a major issue anytime soon, more or less 10 ems gets added every year, so it will take quite a considerable amount of time for the table to reach an uncomfortable size (if you want to see uncomfortable, just look at any comparison page, such as Comparison of web browsers. Now obviously, way in the future, the table will reach a size where it becomes uncomfortable to navigate, and in that instance, it can use Template:Scrolling table or something similar to make it more navigable. 79.97.111.137 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

But again, it comes down to the question of what the timeline adds. If the best you've got is that it adds numbers which a driver used during FP1 sessions (which are assigned to a driver, not chosen by them), then I'm afraid you'll need a lot more than that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Convenience break
In response to an edit summary (Special:Diff/1008318525): SSSB (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Information is useful - see WP:USEFUL, this is not a reason to retain information.
 * Information is ... not organised elsewhere on the internet. - Not true. and even if it were irrelevant We are not an WP:indiscriminate collect of information, we don't not include information just because no one else does, if anything we do the opposite, we reflect other sources.
 * The table is used as reference information as numbers drivers have once drove under even if said numbers belong to teams. - Numbers that drivers choose are already in the above table. Numbers that weren't choosen, but allocated, are outside the scope of the article. The article is about career driver numbers, and numbers assigned by the FIA do not impact upon this.
 * Given that no further meaningful arguments were provided in favor of this section, I've gone ahead and removed this section per the consensus of this discussion. I don't even understand why that wasn't done back then.Tvx1 17:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Asterisk instead of cross?
Dear Guys, with all my respect, in the table couldn't we use asterisk instead of cross? For a first time visitor it's frightening how many F1 pilots are deceased... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molitor5901 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The asterisk is already used to denote something else. However if you can think of a better system to denote the information you are of course welcome to be bold and change it yourself. Just remember to leave an edit summary. SSSB (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And most importantly, make sure it is properly accessible to all readers.Tvx1 15:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Aitken's number
Why isn't Aitken's number in the 2020 Sahkir Grand Prix signed as a subsitute driver? He was replacing Russell in that race. XMillennium94x (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't a temporary, team-allocated number. He got to choose it. MSport1005 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've never actually seen a source confirming this. Can we have one please? SSSB (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * . Williams' test numbers were 40 (which Aitken used in FP1 in Styria) and 41 until 2020 and are 45 and 46 now. MSport1005 (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Does the number designate the driver and/or the car they race in?
When thinking about Max becoming #1, this "shower thought" came to mind. I've seen FIA documents with references such as "Car 33 breached article..." and "The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 5 (Sebastian Vettel)" Also a table like this:

Here is a lot of info here perhaps taken from or contributing to this article. I'm getting conflicting information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherkobin (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Conflicting how? I'll try to explain this article, but it's hard as I don't understand where the conflict is. This article lists the car numbers used since 2014 (when drivers picked career numbers). This will reflect the numbers used in official documentation, but is based on the documentation from entry lists (and entry lists only). SSSB (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is conflicting about this? Verstappen used #38 in his 2014 FP1s, so stewards' documents from those sessions would read "Car #38 breached article...". For his race debut in 2015 he chose #33 and has raced with it ever since, hence "Car #33 breached article...". This year, as the reigning World Champion, he's exercised his right to use #1, so they will say "Car #1 breache article...". Broadly speaking, until 2013 car numbers were team-allocated, since 2014 they're the drivers' election. Not sure if this answered your question as I don't really understand what you mean. MSport1005 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline section
So, as per, I'm re-opening this discussion because User:Tvx1 keeps removing the timeline section alluding to an imaginary consensus and is refusing to open the discussion themself, which should be their business. The 1st discussion on the matter happened two years ago and didn't get anywhere: two users supported the section and two opposed it. SSSB resumed it in February 2021 but there was no response, and the version with the section has since prevailed and remained established for 15 months. You can see all my edit-summary conversation with Tvx1 on the article's history. (On another note:, stop reverting and leave the content of the article as is while this discussion is ongoing.) MSport1005 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is redundant. All the relevant information is already in the above table. The only information unique to the timeline are assigned (non-chossen numbers) which are outside the article scope. In short the table is redundant, and will shortly becomes so wide that it will be near impossible to interpret. It has no place. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If anything it gives more information than the above table. It's just a different way of displaying it anyway—both are equally useful even if the content is (partly) the same. While I do have worries that it will become too wide soon, the timeline allows the reader to know how the use of a number has changed over time, which you can't with the above, as it only mentions the first and last year a driver used it. That in itself is one thing unique to it that isn't the FP1 numbers. Another is the team-allocated numbers that have been used in races (e.g. Lotterer's #45, Vandoorne's #47 or Fittipaldi's #51). That is one piece of information that definitely needs to be specified somehow, and I believe the timeline reflects it better than anything else. Which other options would you suggest: prose? footnotes? All in all I see no overwhelming argument towards removing it, not even towards prioritising the 1st table over this one. You could make a case about getting rid of all the FP1 numbers. MSport1005 (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am making a case of getting rid of all the FP1 numbers, because it is outside the article's scope. Likewise team-allocated numbers. All we need is a brief explanation that not all drivers who have driven in F1 since 2014 have chossen their own number. Listing them is excessive and pointless. The scope of this article is to outline the numbers in use, and available at any time. the timeline allows the reader to know how the use of a number has changed over time, which you can't with the above, as it only mentions the first and last year a driver used it. - then we list the years each number was used (like this:)


 * Problem solved. Then you can "know how the use of a number has changed over time"
 * All in all, your arguments for keeping it are "I want to know things outside the article's scope" and "I want to know something which is best intergrated into the other table." which aren't arguments for keeping it all. SSSB (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So your solution for a table that will become too wide is a table that will ultimately become too wide as well? Team-allocated numbers aren't the focus of the article, but that doesn't mean they're outside the scope thereof. I disagree that listing them is excessive and pointless. I'm still yet to see an argument from you other than the weak "it's redundant" one. Either table serves a different purpose and they are perfectly compatible—that is it. MSport1005 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So your solution for a table that will become too wide is a table that will ultimately become too wide as well? - no. It won't become too wide, because it will only ever be 4 rows, if it exceeds the width of the screen on one line, it will spread over two. Meanwhile, the timeline is already 10 rows wide and will grow wider every year. Team-allocated numbers aren't the focus of the article, but that doesn't mean they're outside the scope thereof. - They are outside the scope of the article, because the article's scope is the career number of drivers. If it's not their career number, it's not within the article's scope. I'm yet to see an argument other than WP:ILIKEIT from you. Tell me, what does the timeline convey, that is both not shown by the first table, and within the article's scope? I'll awnser for you: nothing. SSSB (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with on this one. The timeline has no added value and is impractical on the long term. And I don't even know why a change to the first table is even needed. It already shows from which year until which year a driver used a certain number through the third and fourth columns. And if a certain number is used by multiple drivers at different points in time, all those drivers are listed next to that number.Tvx1 21:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with too. The section adds no value, as the years used are already in the first table. The timeline is also improperly sourced (the "source" links to results pages on F1 website, and so is expecting the user to click through 9 years of results to verify the driver numbers for those years), and so fails WP:VERIFY. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To which better source would you suggest? Every official Grand Prix session can be easily accessed from that single link–it takes a minute for anyone to verify any number from any year. It's either that or over 40 sources that would take ages to go through. In what world is that a WP:V fail? To  fair point, but what the first table doesn't reflect is all the years a number has been used: only the first and the last. See Albon or Kubica for example. To  let's stop trying to diminish each other's arguments, shall we? Now first of all, I assume when you say "rows" in your first sentence you mean "columns"... Secondly, the article's focus is career numbers—its scope, though, is evidently broader, and there's key information that needs to be specified. For example: when, and by whom, #1 has been used. Or would you suggest removing that too? Team-allocated numbers that have been used in races (emphasising because I am not on about FP1 numbers) fall under that group too. MSport1005 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The statement it takes a minute for anyone to verify any number from any year. is misleading on several counts. The source needs to not only verify the number was used, but also that the other numbers weren't used. This means, for example, that you need to check 63 results pages to verify that #13 wasn't used in 2019 (FP1, FP2 and FP3 for each of the 21 races.) and that's assuming that the person checking the source knows the obscure rule that you need to have done an FP before you can qualify or race. You are therefore combining 63 individual pages to reach the conclusion that #13 wasn't used that year. This takes longer than a minute, or even 10, and is also WP:OR. To source the table properly, you have three options:
 * Find a source which has a timeline like us.
 * Find a source that lists every number for any given year on one page, and cite each column (year) individaully.
 * Find a source that lists all occurances a number is used, and cite each row (number) indivally. (StatsF1 do that, but they only list race numbers, and don't differentiate if the number was chossen or assigned).
 * Secondly, the article's focus is career numbers—its scope, though, is evidently broader, and there's key information that needs to be specified. - I'm not going to waste time going in circles. We are going to have to agree to disagre. I continue to believe that only numbers chossen by the driver is relevant or within the article's scope. Team allocated numbers (for FP or races) are outside the scope, and therefore shouldn't all be listed explicitly. You just need to mention that it happens.
 * Now first of all, I assume when you say "rows" in your first sentence you mean "columns" - in my first paragrapgh? Yeah, I meant columns. SSSB (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So what if not every single year is spelled out in the first table. The start year and the end year for each driver's use of a number give the period just as well. And for the world champions who interrupted the use of their career number to use the one, we convey that with footnotes. Everything is there in the first table.
 * ...and there's key information that needs to be specified - According to whom? You?? You're not the owner of this article and can't dictate what must and must not be here. We are not under any obligation to do anything. Article content is decided through community consensus. And with regards to that number. The usage of number 1 is already conveyed in the first table. The couple of team-allocated race numbers are in the prose. An entire timeline to repeat all of that is utterly unnecessary. It's undue and impractical. It has reached the width limit already and once 2023 is added, it'll go offscreen. Completely inappropriate for mere repetition. And FP1 and testing numbers are outside of the interest of this article.Tvx1 16:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like you (Tvx1) are missing all the points I'm trying to make. I know number 1 is shown in the first table. What I'm saying is it's outside the article's focus/scope, so by SSSB's logic, it should be scrapped as well. This isn't about you or me—I don't think there's any discussion that #1 usage and team-allocated race numbers have to at least be mentioned in the article. About the latter: this hasn't occurred "a couple of times", it has occurred 9 times in eight years. I agree FP1 numbers are irrelevant. Either way, there seems to be consensus among all three of you that the timeline is unnecessary and team-allocated race numbers shouldn't be detailed one by one, so if there are no more comments in the coming days I would agree that removing the section is appropriate. MSport1005 (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Section removed SSSB (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Mazepin, Kubica and Fittipaldi 's 2022 Appearance
Since the rules said "A driver’s career in Formula 1 will be deemed to have ended if he does not participate in an Event for two entire consecutive Championship seasons.", does Mazepin, Kubica and Fittipaldi's participation in the Barcelona test with their respective 9, 88 and 51 number count? Jebwizoscar (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Having looked at all mentions of the word "Event" in the sporting regs ( my interpretation is that "Event" refers to a Grand Prix weekend. And therefore the Barcelona test doesn't count as an "Event", and therefore doesn't count. SSSB (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is correct, with the caveat that it only refers to drivers who have competed in an event, or at least been entered as such (like Rossi in 2014). FP1 participations do not count. MSport1005 (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pietro Fittipaldi's #51.
Was it ever confirmed that it was used because it was Haas' testing number? Interviews with Fittipaldi seem to imply that he chose the number as a permanent number at the time? (Interesting coincidence with the testing number?). It's something to think about.

I'm not sure if we'll ever get an official differentiation from the FIA about it, so it might not ever affect the article but if Aitken chose one, surely it begs to think Fittipaldi did too - and he ran two races, which is very unusual to do with a test number. 2A01:4B00:8574:B500:292F:F75D:9840:6EC7 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If you can find a source that confirms he chose it... MSport1005 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Car number 0
Currently, within this article, there is one source that says drivers can choose the car number 0, and one source that says they can't. Does anyone know where the regulations are for this issue, so that we can know definitevly. Or else a more reliable source than the two already present in the article (preferable a news article from the time). Pinging with whom I have been debating this. SSSB (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Bearman's preferred number
I don't think it is appropriate to include Bearman's 87 at this stage. Firstly, it is speculative as it is only the number Bearman has stated he would like to race with, it isn't his yet. He may change his mind. The FIA might not give it to him. Secondly, it's inclusion in the table is mis-leading. The table is a list of used numbers - 87 has not been used by Bearman yet, and he is not with any team yet. If if we included Bearman in the table, filling the 2024 team with Haas and the last used as 2025 would simply be incorrect - it is just plain wrong. At the very least, those two cells should be blank. SSSB (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we should simply this to the numbers of the active season at the latest. 2025 is a future season, so those numbers shouldn’t be included yet. Tvx1 19:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)