Talk:Formula One/Archive 2

message: Regarding the recent edit, I guess as they were merely links, this is fair enough.
However, I think it would be better to have a list of grands prix in the current season, which I seem to remember there was a while ago. Any other thoughts? doctorvee 17:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think some small bit of information should appear in the main article as a "summary" of each list (strange as that sounds). I'm about to change these a bit in accordance with WP:FAC criticisms. — Dan | Talk 20:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem right to include the 2004 races seeing as we have included the 2004 teams and drivers. I'm interested to see how you summarise the lists because I couldn't think how to do that. SamH 20:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I think there are some fair points made in the WP:FAC discussion. To be honest, I think there is still a few of improvements to be made. Perhaps the criticism about lists is fair enough. If you take a look at Cricket, which was recently a Featured Article, there isn't a list of nations who take part in test cricket, for example. I think this is worth further discussion. I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll think of some suggestions I have to make the article and Formula One-related articles better. doctorvee 21:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'duplicate links' 

message: I've done a bit of copyediting and addition to the history section of the article, and I'm trying to make sure it is only a summary of History of Formula One (i.e. short and concise), but it remains almost entirely concerned with technical regs and car evolution. Dominant drivers of each era at least deserve a mention, and maybe some of the minor formula changes can be removed since they aren't terribly necessary. — Dan | Talk 00:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Tyre failures occur at many Grands Prix, but most often due to car set up problems (which is what caused the Williams problems, and McLaren's issues at Italy this year). What was unusual about Indianapolis was that every Michelin tyre was at risk, and it was every Michelin tyre. Politics obviously had a part to play in the way the whole situation was handled, but it was not only Toyotas that were affected -- they were only the most visible victims. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 13:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: It may need some editing relating to verb tense, but I included that the new team intends to bring in a Russian driver.  The previous wording ("is expected to") left open the possibility that this could just be speculation.  Since the page may disappear (I'm not sure about Reuters' archiving policies), I'll include their direct quote here:
* "Of course the team will have a Russian flavour and in time we hope to bring a Russian driver into Formula One," said Midland chairman Alex Shnaider, a naturalised Canadian citizen born in St Petersburg, in a statement.
(Source: Article titled "UPDATE 1-New team to enter Formula One in 2006", dated Fri 8 October 2004 07:41.) - Cafemusique 09:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Midland F1

message: Because Formula One is an enormous subject area, because it has proven difficult to divide it into appropriate subtopics, and because there are numerous articles of the same type which should be standardized (GPs, constructors, circuits, etc.), I have drafted a WikiProject, creatively titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, and a Template:WikiProject Formula One to go on the talk page of all F1-related articles. Please share your opinions and feel free to edit my drafts. — — Dan | Talk 17:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't help but notice that there is an article on Grand Prix motor racing in addition to this one on Formula one. Is a merge in order?Gzuckier 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Grand Prix motor racing covers the sport of grand prix racing before the establishment of the World Championship in 1950, which is when Formula One as we know it today started (although the formula itself was devised before 1950). Hope this explains the logic of separate articles. SamH 22:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK, now I get it. Thanks. Gzuckier 03:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One|WikiProject Formula One]] 

message: I've added a short paragraph comparing F1 cars to Champcars and Indy Cars, but I think my writing is a little ungainly. Would someone improve it? Also does anyone know if the 2004 Montreal poles I compared were both set in the dry? If they weren't, the comparison is a bit useless. Thanks, SamH|Talk 21:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Champcar comparison

message: In line with the criticisms on WP:FAC, I think something should be written on the popularity of the sport. I'm willing to have a go at writing something, but I have no idea where to find the necessary information from. Anyone have any ideas? SamH|Talk 11:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity

message: I've tried to summarize the criticisms from the article's most recent FAC nomination so they can be addressed in an orderly manner. — Dan | Talk 02:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC again 

message: There's definetely a major evolution in 1968 : Sponsors, wings, change of mind about security and Cosworth DFV sold to everyone who wants buy it. It should be emphsized IMO. Ericd 21:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptive subsections 

message: IMO the Indianapolis is the worse we can use for this article. It gives the impression that F1 use oval tracks. Ericd 11:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are refering to the use of :Image:Ims aerial.jpg in the "Circuits" section. I agree that it could give the impression that F1 races are held on ovals, but it is the only photo we have of a complete F1 circuit (as far as I know). Anyway, you don't have to look much closer to see the twisty infield, and the photo just above shows a section of Indianaoplis that clearly isn't part of an oval. SamH|Talk 13:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indianapolis 

message: I have two issues with this article:
1) In the "Rise in Popularity" section, the text claims: "These cars were and still are the most powerful circuit racing cars ever". The Porsche 917-30 Can Am cars produced significantly more power (1500 - 1700 bhp, nobody seems to know for certain) and, if I understand the term correctly, were also circuit racing cars.
2) "It ... is the most expensive sport in the world, as annual team budgets average in the hundreds of millions of US dollars." The total player payroll cost alone of Major League Baseball will be about $2.2 billion in 2005. I think it is quite unlikely that 10 Formula 1 teams will spend more than that, given that Ferrari, with the biggest budget, is expected to spend around $200 million. More to the point, I don't think it adds anything to the reader's understanding of Formula 1 racing to claim that it is more expensive than Major League Baseball, or the Premier League, or the America's Cup.
--Davidsteele 19:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know for sure whether or not F1 is the most expensive sport in the world (although I did think it was). It's worth bearing in mind that teams' budgets are not the only things that contribute to the 'expense' of the sport. For instance, the upkeep of a racing circuit must be far more expensive than the upkeep of a baseball field. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 13:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree completely that we might need to consider all sorts of different costs, and that's exactly my point. By the way, why would you think that the upkeep of a race circuit would cost more than the upkeep of a baseball field? My belief, without more information, would be exactly the opposite. Baseball fields are used more than 80 days per year, and the players care every bit as much about the quality of the surface as racers do about the surface of a track. If we're going to throw in the cost of making the circuit available for testing, let's add 30 stadiums used for Spring Training to the other side of the scale. What's more, the 30 Major League Baseball stadiums will average almost 2 million visitors per year, with total attendance in 2004 of more than 50 million, wearing out the bathrooms, etc. Best I can figure, total Formula 1 attendance is less than 20% of that. If you're going to include the cost of other races in the upkeep, you've moved the definition again, and now we might compare that cost to the cost of all professional baseball in the United States, which will be several times the cost of Major League Baseball. My point is that I don't know whether Major League Baseball, or the Premier League, or Formula 1 is more expensive, but neither does anybody else. Readers are all going to have different notions of what it means to be "the world's most expensive sport", and by some defintions that this claim is likely to be wrong. The article could reasonably include a comment something like "Formula 1 cars are the most expensive race cars currently in production and the sport is among the most expensive in the world." The point that matters to the article, I believe, is that it's really expensive, not that it's more expensive than Major League Baseball. --Rkstafford 14:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I have to say we need to find an authoritative source to verify whether or not F1 is the most expensive sport in the world. But one reason why I think the upkeep of circuits is so much more expensive than the upkeep of baseball fields is because they are so massive. I mean, you have to cut grass around the baseball field, but at a circuit you've got to cut the grass around a circuit that is miles long. Circuits continually have to have tarmac relaid, and configurations have to change to adapt to increasing safety standards and the increasing speeds of the cars. In the past two years three new circuits have been added to the calendar. The Shanghai circuit alone cost $240 million. Still, I think you have a point and as I said we need this verified. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quibbles 

message: The "Drivers and Constructors" section says "Others, such as DaimlerChrysler, provide engines and sponsorship for privately owned teams in return for prominent advertisement on their team clothing and car livery." Team McLaren is not, in this context, a privately-owned team provided with engines by Daimler-Chrysler (in the guise of Mercedes); Mercedes-Benz is a 40% owner of the McLaren Group. Sbz5809 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Drivers & Constructors

message: Hi.  I had the impression that the "Rule changes" subsection is too specific about the 2005 season.  I believe that, for this article, it should talk mainly about the trend to keep altering the rules to return competitiveness to the sport, reduce Ferrari's dominance, etc.  And then we could create a new article, such as Formula One 2005, where we could discuss the specific changes for this particular season, as well as list the circuits that are going to be a part of the 2005 season, and even follow the drivers' and constructors' rankings for the year.  Perhaps it would even be possible to create similar articles for the more recently passed seasons, maybe 2004 and 2003.  I figure this would make this article more general and the new articles would go a long way to expand our coverage of the F1 world.  I realize it would be a lot of work though, especially to set up the new season-specific articles.  Any thoughts?  Regards, Redux 20:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section and articles 

message: I noticed that Renault Sport redirected to Renault F1. As Renault Sport (offically Renault Sport Technologies) is now separate from Renault F1 I've created an independent article on that page to reflect that.
From research I think its true to say that Renault's participation in F1 was as Renault Sport from 1975 (creation of Renault Sport) to 1997? Is that right? Then with the purchase of Benetton Renault F1 was run as a distinct division (that I'm pretty sure of). As such I think it would be correct to change those links that refer to the 2000-Present team to Renault F1 and leave those that refer to the period up to 1997 as Renault Sport. Any thoughts? Mark 23:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renault Sport 

message: I object to the amount of US-related images in the majority of F1 articles, especially since quite a few seem to be from the 2005 race, which was objected to so vigorously by... the people who attended the US Grand Prix.
One example, which irritates me particularly, is having an aerial photograph of Indianapolis.  Sure, it is the epitomy of racing in the US, but it means nothing to the history of F1.  A more relevant and apt photograph of a circuit would be of the classic Nurburgring, addored by F1 fans, or the old (or current) Spa-Francorchamps.  Why should Indianapolis get highlighted over Monza or Silverstone, circuits with real F1-heritage.  These are F1 articles afterall, not Indycar or NASCAR ones.
This is not anti-US, it is just I think there could be more relevant images to F1's heritage involved in the project, rather than images central to racing in the US.
: I think the problem is getting images that you are actually allowed to use. With Formula One in particular, I think it must be very difficult to use photographs without breaking copyright or something. I get a feeling that one contributor is from the US and goes the the GP to take photographs himself. So that's the photographs we end up using, because it's all we've got. doctorvee 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are several decent images I took of the 2003 Indy F1 race, that are in the public domain, if they're at all useful.  I even got Schumacher's victory cheer, though from behind.  --Interiot 03:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, those photos are mostly mine and Rdikeman's, and they're used because they're freely licensed, which is a very rare thing in motorsport photography, most of which is copyrighted and jealously guarded because it's quite hard to come by. Unfortunately, it is beyond my means at the moment to attend any grand prix besides the one closest to home. I agree that an aerial photo of Spa or Monza would be far preferable, but unfortunately we don't have access to any such photos. — Dan | Talk 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: By complete chance, your wish is granted. ITV F1's website recently displayed an aerial image of Monza which was labeled "copyright free", so I uploaded it to Commons: :Image:Monza aerial photo.jpg. — Dan | Talk 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of US-Related Images 

message: The sentence about Bernievision contains this phrase: "by which a fan could purchase an entire F1 season," which doesn't seem right. Perhaps an explanation of what Bernievision offered that was different to the normal broadcasts (eg. more on-board cameras) would be more suitable, although I know little about Bernievision myself. Didn't viewers pay to watch all the action during a race weekend? \•/ doctorvee » Talk 16:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernievision