Talk:List of Formula One constructors

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think they built some 3 litre prototypes powered by a V8 but no F1. Ericd 00:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alpine

message: 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)
thread_title: Bugatti

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes definately a constructor only running mainly Dallaras as you've said here. --Jsydave 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scuderia Italia 

message: 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)
replies: text: New section added to the page with the heading "Future Constructors" Jsydave 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prodrive 

message: 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? Tompw (talk) (review) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Entries 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Pyrope 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Privateer Teams

message: 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)
replies: text: You're right. Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

text: A photograph with a garage in the background is not a reliable source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jordan Grand Prix Nationality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Pyrope 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: '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. Pyrope 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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. Pyrope 12:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

text: They are certainly much better (see my comments on the topic below). Pyrope 16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These issues have now been resolved - see #Nationality of arguable constructors definitely resolved below. DH85868993 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagle, Penske, Shadow and Wolf Nationality

message: The article Kojima Engineering has been proposed for deletion  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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Kojima Engineering]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Pyrope 16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorting bug? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nice work, well done. Pyrope 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality of arguable constructors definitely resolved 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect info in "Races" Column 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, it's clearer for me now.RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Pyrope 05:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? Pyrope 18:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only making a suggestion, nobody has died in case you didn't notice.RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have read too much into my comment. Pyrope 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total entries of current constructors 

message: 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)
replies: text: That looks like a good, uncontroversial compromise. I'll implement it on the page with a couple of minor tweaks for flow. Pyrope 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I reverted back to 's version. RafaelS1979 (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  My thoughts exactly. I will re-synchronise the lists and delete Delahaye from the template. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   I agree. I'll remove them from the template. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistenties 

message: :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)
replies: text: List of Formula One 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  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)

text: 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. Pyrope 19:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Pyrope 20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The constructor is both together according to the article and the 2018 regs cited in it—blindlynx (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

text: , 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, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 April 2021