Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 32

F-duct
I don't know if this was already discussed here but should there be an article on the F-duct? Dr. Loosmark 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe not an article, but certainly an entry on List of motorsport terminology would be worthwhile. --Falcadore (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I propose adding blown diffuser there as well. Actually I think it would be nice to have an article dedicated to the technical innovations in F1 in 2010. F-duct, blown diffuser, red-bull flexi wings. etc. etc. The article could describe the concept behind each innovation and then mention which team introduced it and then list when the other teams copied it. Dr. Loosmark  21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds way too specific for Wikipedias scope. Also, Im sure information on the F duct can be integrated into an existing aerodynamics article, since it is doubtful to be a new engineering concept.  The359  ( Talk ) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or detailed information about the F-duct could be put in McLaren MP4-25, and information about the blown diffuser and flexible wings could be added to Red Bull RB6.-- Midgrid  (talk)  22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's already some information in the MP4-25 article, so I've redirected F-duct there.-- Midgrid  (talk)  22:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As with everything in Wikipedia, if you can write an informative, interesting, and well-referenced article on the subject then go ahead. You don't need the permission of any group of other editors. On the flip side, not can you demand that someone else writes an article that you want to see. WP:F1 is more to do with quality control and coordination of the efforts of those of us who have an interest in Formula One, we don't own the topic, and it isn't really up to us to say yay or nay to any particular topic.  Pyrop e  01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Formula One articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Formula One articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the list I can see a few anomalies, most particularly with importance rating. Should retired drivers who did not win world championships be deserving of high priority ratings for the F1 Wikiproject? While David Coulthard is still a regular figure in the F1 paddock and a noted Grand Prix winner it may not neccesarily mean demoting him, but certainly Luca Badoer is not desrving of a 'high', and might even struggle to rate a 'mid' considering he never even took a top three race result, going by memory. Alex Wurz should also be demoted as should Takuma Sato and Sébastien Bourdais. Anthony Davison probably does not deserve a 'mid' and Nelson Piquet, Jr. only has recentism to support his 'mid'-ness I'd suggest. Do A. J. Foyt and Valentino Rossi even deserve to be listed on the F1 wikiproject? --Falcadore (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment - the drivers (other than Coulthard) should all be low importance now that they are no longer current. I've re-graded them, although I left Piquet at mid due to his involvement in the Singapore affair. Foyt competed in three of the Indy 500s that formed part of the WDC, so by normal convention he belongs. I wouldn't include Rossi personally, but I know others like to include test-only drivers for completeness. I also suggest that the current season is not top importance - high at most by analogy with the driver importance scale. Should the 1997 European GP should be higher up the list? I've re-graded it as high importance. Are the 2007 and 2008 Brazilian GPs really high importance (bearing in mind that somebody wins the championship every year)? Why are the 1989 and 2006-2009 seasons of high importance? Finally, the qualifying car articles (Brabham BT19 and BT49) have been missed out. 4u1e (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rossi was a test driver in the sense that Mick Doohan and Sebastien Loeb were test drivers. Anything else was spin. Ferrari were never going to hire him in any capacity no matter what his test results. As big as Rossi is if he wasn't immediately faster than Massa or Raikkonen at the time then they were wasting everyone's time as a serious test, but the coverage as a cross promotion stunt was pure gold. Delete his F1 status, same with any driver who does a one-off test. One-off doesn't even scratcgh the surface of notability. Andy Priaulx would be more deserving of WP:F1 rating than Rossi. --Falcadore (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lotus
Interesting news:. What are we going to do? Dr. Loosmark 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait and see how the official F1 sources list the team's history. The359  ( Talk ) 14:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Personally, I don't see how the current team can be considered a brand new team for 2010, then in 2011 that same team suddenly be considered an extension of the old Team Lotus, just because the name might have changed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What they said :) although I reckon we will have little choice but to eventually merge the team pages. QueenCake (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Until the team officially rebrands themselves the two articles must stay separate. If and when they change to Team Lotus, there is little we can do other than consider them the same entity. This is not so much because of the issues disambiguating between the two when they are both called Team Lotus, but more because in purchasing and using Team Lotus, the team are putting out a statement that they want to be considered the same thing. To give you some more info into the move, in an interview with the BBC this afternoon, Tony Fernandes said that their current use of the Lotus name was on lisence from Group Lotus, and that he wanted the team to have its own identity going forward. This might mean that Group Lotus is not willing to renew the lisence, or Fernandes is worried that this may happen at some point in the future. He admitted that the whole ownership structure of Lotus was confusing, even to him. Please understand that until the team rebrands itself (which is unlikely to be possible until after the season - even if an announcement is made at Singapore) the pages must stay separate. - mspete  93  15:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should consider them one and the same. They are owned and operated by compleltely separate entities. If you look at the template of former constructors in particular, you'll see there are two ATC entries, listed as ATS (Italy) an ATS (Germany). There's also two for Williams; WilliamsF1 and Frank Williams Racing Cars. So I don't see why we can't have both the team known as Team Lotus, with one listed as Team Lotus (1958) and the other as Team Lotus (2010) to reflect the year each was founded. Or something similar. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The two ATSs were completely different companies, not one team attempting to revive the ATS name. But it's hardly the first time a team under one name has been sold to a completely different entity and yet retained the records and history (McLaren before and after Project Four?  Renault in 2010 after being sold?)  And certainly something can be said about the two companies not being entirely different, as they are both still related to Lotus Cars.  The359  ( Talk ) 05:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lotus Racing is not related to Lotus Cars. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The team is partially owned by Proton, who owns Lotus, so yes they are related. Not directly, but still related.  The359  ( Talk ) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lotus Cars is owned by Proton, which is one of the companies in the conglomerate that partially owns the team. Proton itself does not own any part of Lotus Racing. Also of course, Proton had nothing to do with Team Lotus when it raced in F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What does Proton's history with the original Team Lotus have to do with the fact that it's still related, far more closely related than some other examples of teams being bought and sold? The359  ( Talk ) 18:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The relation is very tenuous - and it's a relation to Lotus Cars of course, not Team Lotus, which were always fairly separate. I'd like to hear about other teams that are as distantly related but which have been treated in one article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of Project Four, the McLaren name was included as a part of the deal. This is Lotus buying the rights to the Team Lotus name after the fact. It's like if I went out tomorrow and purchased the Ferrari name and started racing with it. Am I the same as Ferrari? No. So why would my results be included under the Ferrari page? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to be considered the same Ferrari, then yes. As I said earlier, in purchasing and using the Team Lotus name (as well as heritage rights, which includes ownership of all the Team Lotus cars) the team are indicating they want to be considered the same team. I therefore feel the most common sense thing is to have them under the same article. I am waiting for the rebranding to actually happen though, so we can find out more. - mspete  93  10:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to consider the nature of a merged article - we would have one article made up of two completely unrelated groups of people, two unrelated stories, two unrelated histories. Whatever anyone thinks about "buying a team's history", which is what Fernandes and co. are doing - a merged article would be a bit of a mess. I would also be dead against any thought of reducing the size of the original Team Lotus article just so we can include awful race-by-race reports about the latest 18th place for Kovalainen. It really has zero to do with what the team "want to be considered as", and everything to do with what reliable sources consider them as. Incidentally, this idea of buying all the old Team Lotus cars is a red herring - they're just buying Chapman's private collection. Anyone could do that. It's just an exercise in devaluing the team's history anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An exercise in devaluing the team's history? How so? Dr. Loosmark  12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I don't think people's rose-tinted views should come into this. - mspete  93  12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing rose-tinted about it, thanks for your opinion. It's just buying a history for a company that doesn't have one of its own. I don't think there's any denial of that. I think it's unhelpful to just blindly follow whatever line Lotus Racing come out with and attempting to apply it to Wikipedia, as some editors are openly advocating here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are Frank Williams Racing Cars and WilliamsF1 different articles. Will they also be merged? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any similarities with the Lotus situation. Frank sold the Frank Williams Racing Cars team to Walter Wolf and started a new team. Dr. Loosmark  15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)It may not be a popular decision with some people, but if the team is going to be regarded as Team Lotus reincarnated we must merge the two articles. It's not our place to change any decisions we don't like on Wikipedia, they have every right to be known as Team Lotus. There is already precedent, in Mercedes GP and Honda Racing, to have two articles with two widely different teams and histories contained on the same page. QueenCake (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely people can restart something that has ceased and it can still be considered a continuation of the same thing, even if it appears different? Regarding Williams, I remember it being mentioned during the Sauber merge discussions, but I can't remember the outcome. Agreeing with Loosmark, there seem to be few similarities to Lotus - FWRC was bought out and then renamed Wolf, with Williams later leaving and setting up a new team.
 * Back to Lotus, I think we can agree that if they are the same thing they should have the same article. The issue is agreeing whether they are the same thing, for which we will have to wait for a) the team to official announce the change, and b) the rebranding to actually happen. We may also have to wait for c) next season to start. - mspete  93  15:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing is cast-iron certain - nothing will happen this year. Next, no-one is saying they can't be called Team Lotus. The thing is, how much sense is there in having a long article that contains large amounts of info on what are basically two different teams with the same name? Mercedes and Honda each had two teams run by the same company, not a new company rebranded - they just discontinued their F1 teams and later reactivated them. So, no, I don't agree that we should just merge the two articles, even if the name changes. Wikipedia is not under any obligation to merge if there are good Wikipedia reasons not to do so. The two Lotus teams have nothing else in common - nothing, not even a country of origin. Far more lies in common between the two Williams teams, yet they have separate articles - why, because they're different companies. So are the Lotus companies different. The old Team Lotus went bust - defunct. This would be a new company with the same name - NOT the same company. So by the Williams token, they should have separate articles. Williams were two different companies run by the same person. Lotus is two different companies run by different people. Just what does the new Lotus have in common with the old Lotus, apart from the name?
 * How will the 2010 team fit into the article, given that by all accounts and sources, the 2010 team is a separate team from the old Lotus? Or are we going to revise history in 2011 and pretend that the 2010 team was an extension of the old team? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just what does the new Lotus have in common with the old Lotus, apart from the name? Well and what does the current Enstone based Renault team (ex-Benetton, in turn ex-Toleman) have in common with the old Renault team from the later 70s and early 80s? Not so much I would say and in 2009 they sold the majority shareholding to the investment company Genii Capital. Nevertheless there is a single article about the team, Renault F1. Dr. Loosmark  16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Renault F1 has far more in common with the old Renault team than Lotus Racing has in common with Team Lotus, namely they're owned and operated by the same people! Renault, who owned and operated the original 70s F1 team, bought Benetton Formula in 2000 and then ran it as their own team, just as they did 30-odd years previously. The same company operated both teams, same as Honda operated both the original 60s Honda team and the post-BAR team, for example. Even though most of the shares in Renault F1 are now owned by Genii, the team is still 25% owned by Renault, and there is a direct continuation of operations. Lotus has none of that - nothing. Team Lotus and Lotus Racing have even less in common than do Spyker F1 and Force India - that team just changed name and ownership (they even ran the same chassis!) yet Spyker and Force India have different articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Renault operated by the same people?!? You cannot be serious. When Renault returned in 2002 it was operated mainly by ex-Benetton personal. Dr. Loosmark  17:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about pit crew... I'm talking about the company that runs the team - Renault S.A. - I did explain that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently the majority owner of Renault F1 is Genii Capital. Dr. Loosmark  17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read my post? Renault still own 25% and there is clear continuation of operations, something which Lotus can only dream of. What about the Spyker / Force India question? Or is that a bit inconvenient? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your comparison with Spyker F1 and Force India. True, they had much more in common than the "old" Lotus and the "new" Lotus, but when Vijay Mallya bought the team he was not interested in continuing the Spyker team (and legacy and tradition and what not), he wanted to build a new entity. We had the same situation with Minardi/Torro Rosso, Jaguar/Red Bull, Honda/Brawn, Brawn/Mercedes etc etc etc etc etc Dr. Loosmark  17:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that you can't buy history, you can only buy a name. It seems that most of you here think that if a name is the same, then nothing else whatsoever matters. If I buy the BRM name and set up a team in a different country and claim to be a continuation of the original team, then... it is. It's ridiculous. Spyker and Force India were far more closely related than Team Lotus and Lotus Racing, yet for the former there are two articles, and for the latter, you want one. What is the rationale for that? It's illogical. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look I can understand your point but I don't think you are correct. When you buy a name you sort of do buy the history, in fact that's the whole point isn't it? The difference with Spyker/Force India the case is that the owners did not want to use the name.  Dr. Loosmark  23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the Bentley Team who won the Le Mans 24 hours in 2003 or 2004? Dr. Loosmark  23:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that you can buy history. History is not a tangible asset that can be bought. So Jim Clark raced for the same Malaysian Lotus team that flounders around today? Really? If they are to be the same team, then that fact has to be true. And so a team's identity hinges on nothing but a name, even one contrived in a cynical PR exercise? I could change my name to Tony Blair and pretend I was Prime Minister once - it doesn't make it true, regardless of whatever anyone here thinks.
 * With regard to Bentley, it's a piece of badge engineering which makes the link between the modern Le Mans Bentleys and the vintage ones a bit tenuous. But at least there is continuity of operations within the Bentley road car manufacturing company through all of its many owners, and the company has continued to exist throughout. Team Lotus (as distinct from Lotus Cars, as it was always pretty separate) went bust and disappeared. A resurrection is not a continuation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Jim Clark did not race for the same Malaysian Lotus team that "flounders around today" as you say. But neither did Fangio race for a re-badged Brawn. Dr. Loosmark  00:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mercedes owned the 50s Mercedes GP team, and it owns the current one, so Fangio would at least recognise the connection... Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok we can argue about these things all day. In my view it doesn't really matter if the owners are now Malaysians, hell Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen and when they launch a new car nobody is complaining: Germans are running it, it's not Lamborghini!. Dr. Loosmark  16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok everybody what's wrong with merging to articles. If the team is called Team Lotus next year will we bundle all the information in a Lotus Racing article No. in the F1 results table of "Team Lotus" we will add the table for lotus Racing and in the entrance box call it lotus racing does everybody understand what I'm trying to say Wiki id2  (talk)  16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. It's going to take a lot more debate than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claim of how related the team is to its original seems to be arbitrary. If the team and the series and even the FIA consider it one in the same, then it's not open for Wikipedia to debate.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any claim for or against that is currently arbitrary. I have never said that we would go against what the FIA say, but they will not say whether or not we should merge the articles. That is our decision, and there are other reasons why we could split articles, as we have with other, less closely-related teams. I reiterate that the team's desires and claims are irrelevant until the FIA agree with them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen guys I have another thing to say that if the team is called Team Lotus next year we can't keep the name Lotus racing but if we don't merge it where will we store the information of two seperate teams because otherwise it will confuse the readers. Wiki id2 (talk)  15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also Mike Gascoyne has stated that when Lotus collect a win it will count as the teams 80th victory not it's maiden victory I think Gascoyne also thinks the two teams share something valuable. Furthermore I have an article by BBC for everybody to read Didn't lotus run a sticker on there cars stating '500th Race' in one of the races this season I think it was Valencia when at Lotus' 500th race Webber and Kovalinen had that collision this shows that Mike Gascoyne believes the teams are intelinked.
 * It's really not up to the team to decide whether they're a continuation or not. They are bound to want it to be a continuation anyway, because of all the extra publicity and cash they'll get for it - they're not objective. The FIA are the people who actually decide this stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree we should listen to what the FIA has to say on the issue, although it is worth bearing in mind that they don't merge stats for Mercedes or Renault. I know what your response to that will be, but it shows we shouldn't go completely by what the FIA (or FOM) says. As I said in my last post ages ago, we should wait for more development before discussing this further - we are not getting anywhere and are wasting our own time. - mspete  93  16:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the FIA don't merge stats for Mercedes or Renault, and it begs the question - why do we? Do any other reliable sources merge the stats? A rhetorical question in terms of this argument, but still. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A non-rhetorical answer, and the answer is "yes, most of them". Autocourse and ChicaneF1 being the two most notable/reliable. Indeed, these two also merge Lotus already. I'll just echo and reiterate a point made by The359 and 'Pete above: it is not our job to decide whether these two entities will be treated as one, we must reflect how the majority of reliable sources (and the wider media) treat them. If you want to show both sets of stats (i.e. Lotus undivided, and Lotus pre- and post-Tony Fernandes) then you'll need to find a reliable source to quote. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that we need to treat the two entities in one article. If this article is, as has already been suggested, over long and needs to be split into two then we can simply have the History of Team Lotus (pre-2010) on one page and Team Lotus (2010 onward) as the other, with Team Lotus becoming the disambiguation page, or similar. This would keep the two sets of information largely separated, but keeps it all linked together as someone with no prior knowledge of the subject (our hypothetical reader, remember) would be expecting to find it, based on the principle of least astonishment. As a very long standing Formula One/Mansell/Andretti/Peterson/Tony Rudd fan (right back to black and gold JPS days) and someone who shares a surname with the sainted Anthony Colin Bruce (so have always had a soft spot for the plastic pocket rockets) this whole hijacking of Lotus winds me up a treat. But that is my own POV, and when I edit Wikipedia I try to leave that at the door and reflect the aims and conventions of the project. It is our job to explain, not change, the way that things are viewed in the wider world.  Pyrop e  18:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't just be a matter of the article(s) of course - will we continue to list ye old Team Lotus as a former constructor? Again, sources will need to be used to determine that one. - mspete  93  20:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't understand you. You claim Team Lotus (1958-1994) and Lotus Racing (2010-) have common the name only. So, why there aren't separate article about Mercedes (1954-1955) and Mercedes (2010-), Alfa Romeo (1950-1951) and Alfa Romeo (1979-1985), Honda (1964-1968) and Honda (2006-2008) or Renault (1977-1985) and Renault (2002-)? You are telling about owner. Proton is owner of Lotus and owner of rights to Lotus' name! And if ownership is so important, I suggest to create new articles: Renault F1 (early), Renault F1 (post-Benetton) and Renault F1 (Genii Capital). That's strange! Nowadays shortened constructor's name known as Lotus Racing is Lotus. Shortened constructor's name in 1958-1994 was also Lotus. What's going on? Don't you like "new" Lotus as Malaysian and not British constructor? Is this the problem? And maybe you don't like Brabham as British (non-Australian) or McLaren as also British (non-New Zealand). I suggested not to create separate article on Polish Wikipedia and we could write about Team Lotus and Lotus Racing in one article and consider Lotus as only one constructor! Very, very strange is merging BMW Sauber with Sauber, and not Team Lotus with Lotus Racing. Yurek88 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read this discussion, you'll see the arguments for and against merging the Mercedes / Renault / Honda etc articles. Yes, Proton owns Lotus, but it only owns Lotus Cars (road cars), not any Formula One company associated with Lotus. They were and are separate companies. Maybe you didn't know that. Why do you think Fernandes is currently working so hard to own the rights to the Team Lotus name? You seem to think he already has those rights. Lotus Cars want to use the Lotus name for other motorsport, so Fernandes has to find another way to use the Lotus name for his F1 team - that way is to buy the Team Lotus name, and that hasn't been confirmed yet. And obviously, Polish Wikipedia has no bearing on the English version. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

An interesting story here regarding the use of the Lotus name in F1: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/a-mess-developing-in-malaysia/ - mspete  93  16:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would completely throw a bomb into this situation. Lets hope we just have one Lotus to debate over. QueenCake (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This has the potential to be a full-on nightmare. I'm glad it's the FIA and not us who will be deciding if Fernandes, Bahar or nobody is the rightful continuation of Team Lotus. But there might well be "reliable sources" to back up all of those views, so we need to be on the look-out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Team Lotus IP editor
Hi people. A misguided anonymous editor, apparently on a dynamic IP, keeps trying to add speculative cruft to the Team Lotus article, despite being told to go away and find a citable source for the "information". Could people keep an eye on this please as entering into a discussion with this editor seems tricky as messages left on their talk page aren't picked up as the next time they edit they are on another IP address.  Pyrop e  11:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Korea and Silverstone
I mentioned this about a month ago, but it hasn't happened yet - we need updated images for Korea and Silverstone. Korea is the big concern because some of the corners have been changed (turns one and two are a sharp entry with gentle exit, the long straight has been extended and turn four is now a hairpin); Silverstone just needs some corner names added. I'd do them myself, but I'm hopeless with graphics programs. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Prodrive F1
I have nominated Template:Prodrive F1 for deletion. Please add any opinions you may have on the matter to the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Formula One driver records
I propose deleting the section Drivers' Championships without Constructors' Championship. I don't see how is that a "record", it's more a curiosity rather than anything else. Dr. Loosmark 16:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. DH85868993 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

2013 Formula One season
I see that 2013 Formula One season has been recreated. I think it's still too early for this article. I started an AfD, but got in a muddle with the templates (and didn't have time to sort it out). I'll try again within the next 24 hours (unless someone else beats me to it). Note that I didn't just prod the article on the assumption that the prod would be challenged by the author and so it would have to go to AfD anyway. DH85868993 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, it was speedily deleted as a "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". --TreyGeek (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we generally don't create pages until the new one has begun. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Modena Team SpA and their cars
Good day folks. I'm new in here, but I'm an avid Formula One fan and have recently taken an interest in the forgotten and failed Formula One teams of the early 90's. One team that really intrigues me is Modena Team SpA/ScuderiA Modena SpA. It was originally a Mexican outfit, GLAS, that had commissioned Lamborghini, operating under their Lamborghini Engineering Formula One division, to design and build them a chassis as well as supply the engines. This would be Lamborghini's first attempt at designing a Formula One car. Once the first prototype was ready for testing, the Mexican investor Fernando Gonzalez Luna, disappeared and left the team in a financial hole. Lamborghini Engineering, having engines as well as a chassis now, decided to go through with the project. They relocated the team to Modena, Italy and this resulted in a change of name too. Now, Lamborghini were well aware of the difficulties facing the team, it was new, it's business plan was shaky and Lamborghini had never built a Formula One car before, so they insisted on having the team named differently from them to not harm their reputation, even though the chassis (Lambo 291) and the engine (Lamborghini 3512 3.5L V12) were all built by them. So, they officially entered the team into the 1991 Formula One season as Modena Team SpA (English)/Scuderia Modena SpA (Italian). It must be kept in mind though, that after an initial investment by Lamborghini to save the project in it's infancy, they would never provide financial assistance to the team again, leaving Modena as an entirely independent business entity, having to attract sponsorhip on their own and keep their own finances in order.

My argument is, is that throughout Wikipedia, the cars are referred to as Lambo-Lamborghinis. While I am well aware of the fact that the chassis are in fact called Lambo 291's, and that Mauro Forghieri, a Lamborghini employee, was it's Technical Director, Modena was entered as the team and thus constructor, making Modena-Lamborghini the correct names for the cars. I know it is confusing, but Lamborghini deliberately done this to disassociate themselves from the team. As an example, Larrousse actually had Lola Cars and Venturi Automobiles design and build their cars from 1987 - 1992, yet the cars were referred to as Larrousses throughout, even though Larrousse never built them, they were the registered team and constructor. So, I feel that the Lambo-Lamborghinis should be corrected to Modena-Lamborghinis. Sorry for the long-winded story, but I felt the full situation should be layed out. Hope to have some encouraging debates. Thesmartstag (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Thesmartstag (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too sure on the details of this case myself, but the policy WP:VERIFIABILITY should sort out the right answer. In other words, what do the major reliable sources (autocourse, forix, etc) call them? I seem to recall by the way that Larousse were booted out of the championship one year precisely because they claimed to be the constructor when they were not, so that may not be the greatest example! 4u1e (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * F1 Rejects might be an unconventional source, but I'd say it would be reliable enough. They documented Andrea Moda's woes pretty accurately. Link: http://www.f1rejects.com/teams/lambo/profile.html Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Thesmartstag, welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, in this matter you are arguing from a position of false logic. Just because the team was called Modena doesn't mean that the cars should be called Modenas. F1 has a long tradition of selling naming rights, and although this normally relates to engines (TAG, Petronas, et al.) it has also sometimes been applied to the cars. The only requirement that the FIA makes is that the entrant owns the intellectual property rights to the cars. For example, we have seen Arrows-built chassis entered as both Minardis and Super Aguris at various points, and although this year's HRT was designed and built by Dallara it is still referred to as a Hispania. The Lambo/Lamborghini cars were badged and entered as Lambo cars, as all the reliable sources I can find attest. Speculation about Lamborghini's ongoing contribution to the team and the justifiabiliy of referring the the cars as "Lambo" vehicles isn't really something that we can have a debate about: they were called that and so that is how we must treat them.  Pyrop e  14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The basis for my argument is, in the event of a Modena car finishing in a points position, this nearly happened with Eric van de Poele at Imola, the points would be attributed to Modena and not Lambo/Lamborghini, as they were the team registered with the championship and by default, the constructor. You could not have the car listed as a Lambo in the race classifications but the points going to Modena in the constructor's standings. Lambo/Lamborghini were not registered as a Formula One constructor or team for the 1991 season. Pyrope, those examples are exactly my point; Dallara designed the car, but Hispania Racing is the registered team and de-facto constructor, the cars are known as HRT's. Same case with Modena. Maybe I'm being too picky over something trivial, but Lamborghini explicitly went about their business to not have the cars or team officially linked to them as a full-blown factory effort, regardless of how damning the evidence was. Thesmartstag (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume that the team and constructor are the same thing? BMS Scuderia Italia never constructed any of their cars, their designated constructors were Dallara and Lola.  Unless the FIA designated the constructor as Modena, then you cannot simply change the use of the constructor Lambo.  The359  ( Talk ) 19:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The chassis was designated as a Lambo. There's not really any getting around that fact. The difference with Dallara / Hispania is that the cars are designated as Hispanias, not Dallaras. Not the same with Modena / Lambo at all. If Lamborghini were so bent on distancing themselves from the cars, they shouldn't have called them Lambos. Modena was not the designated constructor. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything, simply that if a car representing Modena had a points finish, the constructor's points would be attributed to Modena and not Lambo/Lamborghini as Lambo/Lamborghini was not the registered entity with the FIA for the 1991 Formula One season, Modena was. Another recent example is Super Aguri and Honda. Honda was far and away the single largest financial supporter of the team, it was in essence a Honda B-team, motivated by the desire to get Takuma Sato a regular Formula One seat amidst public pressure in Japan. In fact, in 2007 & 2008, the Super Aguri SA07 and SA08 chassis were really Honda RA106 & RA107 chassis, as used by the works Honda F1 team in preceeding years, that underwent minor aero alterations to meet changes in regulations. I realise I am the only one who sees it differently, so I'll leave it be. I just feel all evidence points to Lamborghini themselves in no way wanting the team or cars to be viewed as a works effort and hence labelling them as such is a misnomer. Lamborghini's own article on Wikipedia makes mention of this too. Thesmartstag (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That assumption is incorrect anyway. Had the Lambo scored points, the points would have been awarded to Lambo-Lamborghini. When BMS Scuderia Italia scored points, Dallara was listed in the Constructors' Championship tables. Similarly, Lola were listed when Larrousse scored points. Here for example, is the WCC table for 1991 as it appears at F1.com. In their infinite wisdom, they retrospectively include constructors that didn't score points, but they clearly use the named constuctor in the table, not the team name.
 * The Super Aguri cars may have been essentially Hondas, but the chassis were called Super Aguris. Likewise, the Lambo cars were called Lambos, not Modenas. Regardless of anyone's opinion that these are misnomers, these are the names of the cars, according to all sources. Likewise the engines - everyone knows that Minardi's European engine was a Cosworth, and the Playlife / Supertech / Asiatech / Acer engines were all other things, but those were the actual names given. That's where it all begins and ends, really. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thesmartstag, you claim to be an avid F1 fan but you clearly don't understand the distinction between entrants, constructors and makes. These days they tend to get lumped together under the umbrella term "team", but they are distinct and have correspondingly distinct meanings. Modena was the entrant, Lambo was the chassis make, and Lambo-Lamborghini was the constructor. You can't simply alter history to fit your misinformed assumptions. It isn't that you are "the only one that sees it this way", you are in fact "the only one who is wrong".  Pyrop e  15:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I further researched the FIA's Sporting Regulations and came across this; ''6.3 A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Schedule 3 to the 2009 Concorde Agreement. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by it's constructor.'' I will say that I can understand why the team created a great deal of confusion. Also, considering I am new and we are all here to help improve and expand our own knowledge and that of others, a few of you have come across as rather condescending. Thesmartstag (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Selectively quoting the 2010 regulations isn't really helpful, especially as the section regarding the definition of "constructor", "entrant" and "make" has been greatly slimmed down in the last few years. Even here your omission of the next paragraph ("The obligation to design and use Listed Parts shall not prevent a constructor from outsourcing the design and/or manufacture of any Listed Parts to a third party in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 to The 2009 Concorde Agreement.") skews the meaning of the section you present. This paragraph includes the huge caveat that this regulation is modified by Schedule 3 of the Concorde Agreement, which is usually understood (although not being a published document we can't check) to be the IP angle on what it is that actually makes a constructor a constructor. Even allowing for this there are many many examples down the years of entrants running cars that don't bear the entrants' name, Brabham/MRD probably being the most famous. I'd like you to find me a reliable source that lists Motor Racing Developments as a World Championship-winning constructor. As far as the tone goes, you rather set that with your rather patronising manner and comments such as "I realise I am the only one who sees it differently, so I'll leave it be", indicating that you actually think that we are the ones who are wrong here but that you'll humour us; not exactly a constructive attitude. Rather than coming here and saying "hi folks, why is it that we treat the Modena team this way?" you jumped in with both feet and decided to take a didactic route and tell us that we, and a huge number of other experienced F1 websites, are flat wrong. That puts people's backs up and you are never going to get the best that way. If we seemed condescending then I assure you it wasn't our intent; terse, certainly, even a little exasperated, possibly, but if people come here genuinely intending to collaborate and work together we are always open and welcoming. You did not come across that way.  Pyrop e  13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)