Talk:2010 Formula One World Championship/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Mercedes Grand Prix Petronas chassis name and launch date

According to this article on Update F1:http://formula-1.updatesport.com/news/article/1262944213/formula_one/F1headlines/Mercedes-launch-January-25-/view.html

and a similar one on the Spanish version of the F1 2010 page,considers that the name of the chassis and the launch date has been said and confirmed.

I have not edited the English version of the F1 page,because i don't know whether i should do it or not.

So i leave up to you guys to decide whether this information should be added to the page or not,thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdlerd (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The article quotes Bild, not the Mercedes team. Therefore, it cannot be included in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish wikipedia articles on Formula appear to be completely unreliable and filled with rumours, it's essentially, an unreliable source. --Falcadore (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And what about the chassis sharing name with 2005 Red Bull Racing one? Why didn't they returned to the W series? Fsarmony (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Virgin-Marussia

I've changed the Virgin-Cosworth designation to Virgin-Marussia. According to this report (the one I referenced) - http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns22026.html - they have paid an extra 1.5 million quid to rebrand the Cosworth. I'm not sure how reliable the site is, but I'm pretty sure it's been used as a reference before. I expect we may know more tonight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them from the table as it is unconfirmed, but I left the note there - like we do with drivers. - mspete93 11:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read somewhere today (possibly James Allen although can't now find it) that this certainly isn't confirmed and may be a hoax. I will try to dig up the source again Oli.meggitt (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a very reliable source I know, but found it - Jonathan Noble has posted on his twitter feed "Ignore the stories suggesting Virgin's Cosworth engines are about to be rebranded as 'Marussia'. The company is simply a team partner" (http://twitter.com/NobleF1) - so certainly need to keep an eye on this Oli.meggitt (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The marque is Virgin-Marussia according to the Official Virgin Racing web site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.215.72 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? I don't see it. - mspete93 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe he's misread this... "This arrival on the global stage heralded the appearance of the first Russian sports car and further credence is added through Marussia’s technology partnership with the renowned British engineering organisation, Cosworth, which will be supplying engine, drivetrain and other engineering expertise to the Marussia marque." Cosworth are helping out Murussia with their road car program basically.Duds 2k (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Ericsson

The second Swedish thirdriver is here! Marcus Ericsson will be Mercedes GP´s test- and reservedriver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not confirmed yet, so it won't be edited in yet!--Brody59 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes team numbers

These have NOT been confirmed and when they are it is close to certain that Schumacher will race as No 3 and Rosberg as No 4. The current numbers against the Mercedes drivers should be removed forthwith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.29.78 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The last FIA entry list (here) listed Rosberg as #3. Regardless of Schumacher's status in the team there is not yet any justification to take the #3 away from Rosberg. Either Schumi fans will have to hunker down and cope, and wait for an updated FIA entry list to say otherwise, or they will just have to throw hissy fits, like this one. --Falcadore (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that it's "close to certain" that Schumacher would take the number three. Look at Ferrari - Fernando Alonso, double World Champion, is carrying the number eight while Felipe Massa, no World Championships, is number seven. Schumacher is such a professional that I doubt he'd be bothered by carrying the number four. Having the "better" number does not guaranee "number one" status within the team - performance does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the number has no bearing on the status, it is entirely up to the team to decide who gets the numbers. One year at Tyrrell Jeal Aelsi wore #4 and Satoru Nakajima wore #3 because Nakajima was superstitious about the number 4, and thought it a bad luck number. --Falcadore (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Esteban Tuero was - and still is, I guess - superstitious. He refuses to race with the numbers 13 and 17 because of their bad luck and religious significance respectively. I guess the point that I'm trying to make isthat there's a lot of cases you could make for Schuamcher being quite content with the number 4. After all, Ross Brawn didn't really approach him until after Button left. They wanted Button and were banking on Rosberg. Knowing how professional guys like Brawn are, I should think they'd let Rosberg keep the number 3 as a symbolic gesture - one that says he's not forgotten, not going to be snubbed, simply because of Schumacher's presence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is from the official F1 website: [1] 3. ROS 4. SCH Officially Mr X (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification here. This is not a particular superstition by Nakajima; the number four sounds, in east asian languages, like the word "death". See Tetraphobia.

Just noticed: the link to he official website that Mr X posted also gives the Lotus numbers, so that problem is solved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but for some strange reason Kamui Kobayashi of Sauber Ferrari does not appear on that list... --Oᴅᴏʀ (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sauber did not confirmed as a constructor in the documents by FIA, although they have been given a green light. That's why Kobayashi does not appear on the list. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 13:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And to add weight to both the status and "Death" points, Takuma Sato didn't have #4 a few years ago at BAR for that very reason. Duds 2k (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

2005 page says he did. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC

Hello im a New User here, I would just like to say that it is most likely that Nico Rosberg will Race with number 3, and michael Schumacher number 4, I have no sources for this but over the past few years the FIA have been more strict assigning who get what number with the Driver who finished highest in the getting the lower number i.e, Hamilton 1, Kovalienen 2, and example of this is Ferrari last year. They wanted Raikkonen to race with the number 3 and Massa with 4 even though Massa finished higher in the previous Championship but the FIA forced Ferrari to switch them around. So therefore with Rosberg should get a number 3 wile Schumacher who did not race in 2009 will get race the number 4 car. MrRacingMan(talk) 03:54, 4 January 2010 (GMT)

The FIA doesn't assign numbers for each driver on a team. That's left up to the team themselves to decide. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Except for #1, which always goes to the reigning champion. --Falcadore (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Schumacher is after number 3, since he says that Ross Brawn knows he prefers odd numbers, though it doesn't take a genius to realise that if you're in the top half of the teams that an odd number will put in front of your team mate in the numbering system... (http://www.bild.de/BILD/sport/motorsport/formel1/2010/01/20/michael-schumacher/wirbel-um-schumis-start-nummer.html) --roddie digital (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let this be a lesson to you all. I told you this a long time ago and was shot down in flames by people 'In the know'. They look foolish now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.55.10 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Nobody looks foolish. Nobody was wrong. Was it confirmed before today? No. Even the official Formula One website had Rosberg as 3 and Schumacher as 4. We always wait until official confirmation before changing things on the table. The reason: People don't trust Wikipedia because 'anyone can edit it'. The only way to build up trust is to wait for official confirmation of things. - mspete93 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Engine designations

I think it'd be useful to add engine designations (where known) to the teams and drivers matrix. For instance, Autosport recently confirmed Cosworth's new engine as the CA2010 (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80810). Can an admin unlock for these edits? --Supermoot (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No unlock, but they can be edited in by a regular. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done!!--Brody59 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I look forward to becoming a regular. ----Supermoot (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The engines haven't been re-tuned or changed at all since last season, so they should all be the same as last year. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The teams always change the designations each year, since they are allowed to change certain elements of the engine design. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes always seems to increment the trailing letter in their 108 designation, guessing that we'll see the "FO108X" this year. Renault has been running the RS27 since 2007 and Ferrari the 056 since 2006, so the best bet is that they'll continue with those designations. No hurry on changing them until they're confirmed at the car launches. --Supermoot (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

USF1 launch

I inserted USF1 into the car release schedule as we do know where they'll launch, just not when. Feel free to remove it, just thought if we have teams with a date and no place, why not have teams with a place and no date!--Brody59 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As we don't know the date - and the date is largely the point of the release schedule - I'll stick it as an invisible message, so that when we do know the date, we just have to cut a little bit of coding. There's nothing in the current version of the release table that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Our rules on driver signings

Just to say that De la Rosa's move to Sauber that was announced today proves that we have been making the right decisions with regards to the announcement of signings. Remember that Brazilian websites put De la Rosa and Senna at Campos, and that many tried to enter this to the table after it was used by more well-known sites? They may have got it right with Senna but this news shows that De la Rosa to Campos was indeed untrue. - mspete93 16:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that de la Rosa was lined up for a Campos drive and was to be announced at the European Grand Prix, but then BMW withdrew and de la Rosa wanted to see if Epsilon Euskadi woud get their berth. That way there would be two Spanish teams and he could see who he could get a better deal from. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Either way, he hadn't signed for Campos. - mspete93 16:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Alguersuari confirmed?

This list on Autosport lists Jaime Alguersuari as a confirmed driver for Toro Rosso. I don't think it's the case (yet, at any case). Has anyone seen anything different? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No I spotted that. The eighth point on this list indicates he has not been confirmed. The latest stories I've seen suggest there are just contractual issues to sort out before confirmation. - mspete93 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen on the BBC F1 Driver Line he's racing with them is well; http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/drivers_and_teams/default.stm - Zeo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.29.74 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - we don't add him until he or the team confirms it. They might say they want him and that they have a few contractual issues to sort out, but Mercedes wanted Jenson Button and had to work out a few similar things and look how that ended for them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Launch Dates

Hello, I'm new to editing Wiki so bare with me if I get this wrong. Noticed that there is a new launch date for Mercedes GP and also a chassis number as well. The car is now going to be released in Stuttgart on the 25th January rather than the 1st February quoted on the page. Also the Chassis will be called RB1 for "Ross Brawn 1". Heres the link where I found the information:

http://en.espnf1.com/mercedes/motorsport/story/6145.html

Saltire89 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"The story was leaked by German 'newspaper' (ahem...) Bild". I guess we need a better source than that. An official statement by the team would be good enough. --Oᴅᴏʀ (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why if you doubt this story would you include the launch date on the page?!? --Brody59 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello im new to this as well but i've heard a story that Mclaren is Launching their MP4-25 on February 1st heres the Info or link to the story

http://www.f1complete.com/news/2009-news/15761?task=view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.145.1 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That story is valid, although it doesn't give an exact date. We'll have to wait until an exact date has been given. Thanks anyway though! --Brody59 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the offical launch date for MCLaren; http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=47657 Also here is the current list of dates is well; http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=General&id=47653 194.165.29.74 (talk)Zeo —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

Can someone please change the Mclaren Launch location to Woking,United Kingdom its not in Newbury and make sure to put the references and plus Woking(Mclaren's HQ) is where their launching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.145.1 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because they are launching the car at Vodafone's headquarters, which is in Newbury, and not at the team's HQ which is indeed in Woking. Martocticvs (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell me again, why are launch dates important? When we get to the end of the 2010 season and look back over a hopefully mostly complete article, how will the team launch dates contribute to an understanding of the season? --Falcadore (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't seem important to you doesn't automatically make it so. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a convincing argument and show and tell party saying, 'this is our new car' is important to an article about a motor racing series then let's hear it. --Falcadore (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari Car Designation

In this Autosport article, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80783, it states the car will be designated the "281".... Although I have not seen any other reference to it being called this either on F1 news sites or an announcement from Ferrari - Hence I haven't edited the article until another reference can be found Oli.meggitt (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere else that this was just the codename, rather than the official name it will use. - mspete93 12:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be Codenamed F281 i think it makes a lot more Sense because all of Ferrari's F1 cars have always began with the letter F (for Ferrari) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.145.1 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No they haven't. There has never been any consistency, and rarely even any logic behind Ferrari's racing chassis designations. This lack of consistency forces us to wait for confirmation rather than make assumptions. --Falcadore (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree it may well be a 'codename', presumably the actual name will be announced at the car launch just before the first test? As to previous designations, even very recently their car was designated "248F1" - That was to signify a 2.4 litre V8 engine.... Other numbers have included F1-2000, F2001 etc and then F60 to mark Ferrari's 60th year. I'm struggling to even guess at what "281" could mean - hence my agreement with it being a temporary/codename.Oli.meggitt (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

281 is just the chassis number. The last F60 to come out of the factory was chassis number 280. No bearing on the chassis model/designation. XXX antiuser 12:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sébastien Bourdais

If Nelson Piquet, Jr. is included in the section of exiting F1, shouldn't Sébastien Bourdais also be as he exited mid last season and joined Spanish football club Sevilla FC in the Superleague Formula series?--Brody59 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Piquet Jr. should be there, TBH, as his exit is (or at least should be) documented in the 2009 Formula One season article, as well as Bourdais. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cdhaptomos. The changes section should reflect the order of how F1 was at the final race of the 2009 season. Driver's replaced mid-year should contained completely within the 2009 season article. --Falcadore (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats right, I was thinking that as well! --Brody59 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

'Pechito' Lopez

Looks like José María López is officially in at USF1, all bar an announcement: http://www.contexto.com.ar/vernota.php?id=16824 . Officially Mr X (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You just answered your own question: if there is no annoucement, then it does not get edited in. We've been over this time and again - Wikipedia is not a news source, and we deal in fact. Not speculation. You know this. You shouldn't have to be told. Also, that report is in Spanish. English-language references are the only ones that get added to the the aritcle, since this is the English version of the page. If Lopez is due to be announced on Monday, would it really kill you to wait two more days before editing him in? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Found an English-language reference from Reuters where Lopez's spokesperson confirms the drive. Official annoucement is still due Monday, but article contains the following: 'Argentine Jose Maria Lopez was confirmed as a driver for the new Formula One team USF1 on Friday, his spokesman Miguel Mattos said.' and '"Everything has been agreed and the official announcement will be made on Monday," Mattos told Reuters.' If that's not good enough, I don't know what is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, calm down! Your always attacking us rookies (and some very experienced people, as it turns out), just cool it! We (rookies) don't understand (yet) and we're just trying to help! He turned out to be correct (all bar his source), so cut us some slack!--Brody59 (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Offcially Mr X is no rookie - he's been around even longer than me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats sort-of why I said "(and some very experienced people, as it turns out)"!!--Brody59 (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"If that's not good enough, I don't know what is." <-- an announcement from the team perhaps? People's spokesmen say crap all the time. I won't edit it out but under the rules there's no way someone's spokesman saying "Yeah man he's totally got it" counts. Hell, Jamie's spokesmen said the same months ago and we didn't add it until the team did. Duds 2k (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

When it was Alguersuari, the team denied it within hours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I wholly trust the source so I'm happy with him in the table. I have added a note to say he will be officially announced on Monday. - mspete93 12:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just state that while English language sources are preferred on en:Wiki, non-English RSs are also permissible as references if the info is not available from an English source. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The note make it WORSE imo, especially the wording. It should at LEAST say "Lopez's management claims that". If we're going away from "We're not a news service, we only add official announcements" then we might as well add everything that comes out of grandprix.com's arse as well. We're not just "A news service" now, we're a "This is what might happen at some point in the future" service. Duds 2k (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the management bit out of the note. Happy now? I don't really mind whether he's in the table or not at the moment. Take him out if you like, but leave the note, as we should stop kidding ourselves that things won't happen. His management is almost the same as him saying it (unless the media are making it up (like Heidfeld), but Reuters won't do that). Besides I don't see what you are getting at as we have been extremely careful, waiting until confirmation. - mspete93 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that keeping Lopez in the table is perfectly legit. I know Alguersuari's people said he had been chosen by Toro Rosso, but the difference here is that Lopez's spokesperson has given a time and place for the annoucement to be made. It's also known that Windsor and Anderson and possibly a few senior team personnel are currently in Buenos Aries and have been for days. It's circumstantial evidence, I know, but as has been said, we'd be kidding ourselves otherwise. It's not a case of what might happen, it's a case of what will happen. Of course, this argument is a little redundant since it's ging to be happening in the very immediate future. I wholly expect that it will have been announced by the time I wake up tomorrow. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It used to not matter if we were "kidding ourselves", we used to wait for confirmation from the team. "If there's no announcement it doesn't get edited in" someone said not long ago. Apparently for this one guy we're completely ignoring that and I really don't see why. There's been plenty of things we've "known" will happen we didn't put in because we're not a news service. Or weren't. "It's also known that...."[Citation needed?]. That's slipping down from even "Dodgy news report" to "Things my mate said" Duds 2k (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I should add for full disclosure it was NOT me that edited him out (and the Mercedes chassis name apparently) Duds 2k (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored it. In Alguersuari's case the team explicitly said he hadn't been signed yet. USF1 haven't said anything and pretty much all of the established media has picked this up. If the announcement doesn't come, we can always change it back. XXX antiuser ^eh? 08:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"We can always change it back" could apply to anything anyone puts on wikipedia. It's either for established facts or it isn't. By adding it without a team announcement it becomes a rumour site rather than an authority, more concerned with being first than having the fact. Duds 2k (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A statement that clear from a driver's spokesperson is, in my opinion, just as valid as a statement from the team itself. The established motorsport media as well as general media have picked this up - we're not talking obscure little sites or random allegations here. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that his spokesman said Lopez would be officially announced on Monday, and here we are with no announcement (unless I missed something), makes the spokesman unreliable. Everything associated with this team, and any announcement concerning Lopez particularly, is shaky as hell. Months ago he was apparently given a week to find his pay-driver readies, and we still have nothing. We should be very careful with confirming stories concerning USF1. I'm half-expecting Tarso Marques to be announced instead. I suggest changing the note at the very least, since it's rapidly going out of date. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical. After I have a bit of a rant, I find that the team has announced it. Odd that Autosport, gp.com, F1.com etc haven't bothered to mention it yet. Still think this team is bent though ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gp.com have caught up a minute ago, still nothing from Autosport though. It's like nobody cares or something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you forgot to allow for the time difference from Argentina. - mspete93 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't - it still seemed rather late in the day for an announcement. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick Heidfeld as Mercedes 3rd Driver

Pleae note that the reports of Heidfeld moving to Mercedes as test and reserve driver are premature. Auto Bild ran the story, but a retraction was issued just hours later. Web sites like GP Update do not post breaking news; reports may takes days to get to them. They have run the Heidfeld-Mercedes story, but not the retraction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The sites that check their stories by contacting the people concerned (Autosport, BBC Sport etc.) have not mentioned it. What does that tell you? - mspete93 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That you're making my point for me? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was backing you up :) - mspete93 11:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have seen that. Anyway, there's been some contention of late: Yahoo Eurosport and GP Update have been running stories written off the initial Auto Bild report, and don't mention the retraction. I'm thinking we should wait until Autosport runs something on this one: I know we usually use them, but they're unlikely to get something like this wrong because of over-enthusiasm. If Heidfeld is indeed to be Mercedes' test-driver - and I kind of expect he will be - then I figure we'll know about it in twenty-four hours at the least when Mercedes present their team and 2010 liver on a BGP-001 in Stuttgart tomorrow. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah exactly I'm sure we can wait until Monday. The BBC gossip column is quoting the AutoBild story, but they haven't run it as a story for themselves, and they do like an exclusive. - mspete93 12:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Monday's certain announcement #2 = non-event #2. Nothing is guaranteed until it actually happens... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari's chassis

The Ferrari's chassis isn't 281, because in the official site of Ferrari (here the link) there is written that the 281 is a scossa, that is different from the chassis. I think we have to wait the official presentation of the car before we know the real name of the chassis. Restu20 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoever keeps putting "281" into Ferrari's chassis name, stop it!! It hasn't been confirmed and your source is useless!!!--Brody59 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see an explanation of how Autosport is "useless". Nor does it need to be confirmed by Ferrari, this is Wikipedia, we go by what can be reliably sourced, not what you think may be correct. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, i didn't call Autosport useless, I called your source on the ferrari chassis name useless! It doesn't support that the chassis name of the 2010 Ferrari F1 car sufficiently. And as a rebuttal to your last sentence, yes, we do go by what is reliably sourced, not what you think is correct! Plus, read the "Ferrari Car Designation" topic on this talk page, this discussion has been had and decided against putting it on the page!--Brody59 (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The359, and not simply because he knows what he's talking about. The article is from a website that constitutes 90% of the references on this page, and is generally accepted as being one of the most accurate sources for our purposes. The Ferrari website may claim otherwise, but it's not a English-language source. If you keep removing the chassis designation despite the proper references in place, you may get yourself reported for vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

...Autosport is the publication which is cited in the Ferrari chassis name. If you're not calling Autosport useless, what else is there to call useless? If a reliable source gives the name of the chassis, then it goes in the article. "Sufficiently" has nothing to do with it, one is all you need for something like this. There is no source at the moment claiming any other name. Yes, we are including the title given by a reliable source: Autosport.

The link posted by Restu20 does not work so it is impossible to see what exactly Ferrari has to say about this designation. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you tone down your attitude and reaquaint yourselves with some basic Wikipedia policies before shouting about what is or is not useful or useless. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at the Ferrari Car Designation topic, others have decided to not put it on the page, so therefore, it shouldn't be on there.--Brody59 (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a disagreement over what the "281" designation means. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All of which are assumptions without any referenced backing. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that there has been a mini edit war over this. At the moment, I am minded not to take any administrative action as long as it stops now. Consensus appears to be that Autosport is a WP:RS. If Ferrari make an official announcement that the chassis is something other than the 281, then a change can be made. Further reversion without a reliable source will be considered edit warring, and dealt with accordingly under WP:3RR. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, plus read this: For every individual chassis that is produced, Ferrari distinguish between them by giving them all a unique number. Towards the latter stages of 2009, Kimi was driving chassis 279 and Giancarlo was driving chassis number 280. The first 2010 Ferrari car to be produced (whatever they decide to call it) will be chassis number 281, the second 2010 chassis will be 282, but these numbers have no bearing on the cars name. The 2006 ferrari car was the 248F1 actually, but each individual 248F1 chassis had it's own unique number. The autosport press release is totally wrong, and I'm disappointed in Jon Noble who put that out. He got that from a confusing press release on the Ferrari website, which was written in Italian and then badly translated into English, which is what has led to this confusion. It is likely that this years Ferrari F1 car name will either be F2010 or F61 but we will have to wait and see what Ferrari decide themselves.--Brody59 (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brody59, what I'm saying is that at the moment a RS gives a designation for the chassis. This does not mean it is set in stone; but for the moment the designation can be used in the article, suitably referenced. verifiability beats truth every time. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but the article I put before seems correct, so it should remain a TBA until there is an official announcement. I had a similar article for Toro Rosso's Chassis but i got told it wasn't correct so someone found another. But whatever, if you insist that I can't be correct, go ahead!--Brody59 (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to be grasping this. All the information you just mentioned has no source. If you can provide a reliable source, then you have something to challenge the Autosport article on. But this is not a matter of whose correct. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it! I did find a page, but i dunno about the reliability of it. Have a look : http://www.f1carstoday.net/sida/Cars/Ferrari.htm. If this is correct, the 2010 car 'codenames' start at 281.--Brody59 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. For all we know, Ferrari will choose to designate the 2010 car the 281 because the 281 chassis was the first built in the 2010s. And you'll notice that the last F2008 chassis was given the number 271, but the first F60 was number 275. Anf the same thing happens between the F2007 and F2008: the last F2007 was 264, the first F2008 was 267. And nor does it actually include any information on the 2010 cars; it stops after the F60 model. And that means that anything to do with 2010 is nothing more than speculation. At Wikipedia, we do not speculate. If the Ferrari car is not numbered the 281, then we'll be the first to admit we're wrong and change it. But for now, we have a reputable source reporting that the Ferrari chassis will be designated the 281 - and we don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not sure why you're pursuing this: a moderator has already made it plain that the page will remain as is until we get reports that state otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because Autosport said the car is designated the 281, this does not neccesarily mean this is the official name of the chassis, just a codename it will use until launch. This is what I read somewhere else, unfortunately I cannot remember where. - mspete93 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking Autosport is wrong or means something different is an assumption. There's nothing in the article to indicate that it is a code. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting Autosport was wrong. I was saying that it was not clear what 'designated' was supposed to mean in this context. Type 'Ferrari 281 codename' into Google and you'll find similar versions of the article I read. In fact, here is a link to the English version of the official Ferrari news story mentioned at the start of the page, which appears to be what the other news sites have used. Codename to me suggests a temporary name used by Ferrari employees meaning the 2010 car. To quote Jon Noble, the main F1 man at Autosport "Ferrari confirms its new car, codenamed the 281, will run for the first time at the Valencia test from February 1. Expect a launch before". I've asked him what this means. Hopefully I'll get a reply. - mspete93 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And here is the reply. [2] Just a temporary name. - mspete93 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL!!--Brody59 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So it wasn't the 248. It's almost as if we should wait for confirmation before adding things or something... Duds 2k (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New rule change: Tyres on Quali/Race

From http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81069, though not committed to the regulations, teams have voted in favour of starting the race on the same tyres they qualified on. Is it worth adding to the page, or waiting 'til it becomes part of the regulations? (If it gets announced, that is). borandi (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is added to the page. There's a passage in the rule changes section that describes it, and makes a note that it still has to be approved by the Powers That Be. Once that changes, the page will be updated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 Young Driver Testing & Engine Denotations

Is it posible to take out the 2009 young driver test session that was on the 1st December and put it with 2009??? Its fecking me of having something of little relevance to the 2010 season with the 2010 season. Id like to see that put onto the end of the 2009 season page. The cars had little in common with the 2010 cars and was only a purpose to get the young guys acclimitised to a f1 car.

Also engines, they need their denotations;

Ferarri 056 Renault RS27-2010 Mercedes FOW108 (Last letter not yet known) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESPImperium (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your engine designations, or are you just making an assumption based on previous seasons?--Brody59 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do believe that the Young Driver tests are considered a part of the 2010 testing season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is very much 2010 season. --Brody59 (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Source for the Ferarri engine was the recent Clentli test with Rossi and Massa, they are usign the same 056 engine that will be used for 2010. As for the young guys, there has been young & development testing for tha past how many years, and according to my data (of whitch i have the past 4 seasons now) you may as well include Bruno Sennas Honda test in the post season 2008 in 2009s page. As well as put Marko Asmer in for BMW Sauber on the same bit for 2009. Please Annex it for the 2009 season, as it was 2009 and not 2010 in my eyes. Another back up to my argument is look at any website for F1, take [3] they dont have any of those young driver tests as 2010 season, as it was 2009 as is in their testing callender for 2009 [4]. Also wernt the guys testing 2009 machinery and not 2010 cars, VJM/2 for Di Resta and not the VJM/3??? Can someone tell me why it should be included for 2010 and not 2009??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESPImperium (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A source is defined as an external webpage that is reliable and true, as opposed to your knowledge (which you're using as your source). Also, please sign your posts! --Brody59 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not using my knowlege as my source, im actually using good journalism websites that are respected. And not to mention team web sites likt the STR website [5]. And if it was part of the 2010 shedule, wouldnt it be part of teams and other F1 web sites 2010 tesh shedules??? [6] --ESPImperium (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

Can you actually give us a good, reliable, clear source for the engine designations? The Toro Rosso site means nothing as far as I can see.--Brody59 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The test sessions may be held in 2009 in your eyes, but they are being reported as having been a part of the 2010 testing season, and popular consensus agrees with it. The section will not be annexed unless that consensus changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And what about the engine designations? We need a source for him to be correct, don't we?--Brody59 (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see where many of you are coming from, but young driver testing has been a traditional thing at the end of each season. And i have a source for the Ferarri powered cars using the 056 for 2010 now, as the Ferarri F10 uses the powerplant, that literally means STR and BMW Sauber will use the same. [7] ESPImperium (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC).

I think McLaren have the test programme down as this at the bottom of the new McLaren car technical specs page; [8], at the bottom of the page. Meaning that i could have a point. Also, look at the test shedule on another web site; [9]. Please annex it to the 2009 season. --ESPImperium (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop asking us to annex it; it's not going to happen. You've made your case and we all disagree with you. It's staying, unless you start getting more support. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, you may want to read the four rules at the top of the page. You are breaking most of them! Sure, he is wrong and he is being annoying about it, but don't just snap at people like that. Stay cool, calm and collected!!--Brody59 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Im gonna be totally annoying, and ask you guys who are against my argument to provide sources to back up your side of the argument, ive got my side, now i would like to see you guys. --ESPImperium (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't need a source. The 2009 season finished after the last lap of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix was completed. The point score was finalised and no further actions could take place to change the result short of disqualifiction.

Personally I would like all reference reduced to a single sentence, two at most. Testing has very little impact on the championship, it does not contribute to points, to qualifying, to any of the Grands Prix that make up the season. The championship is the primary focus of the article. --Falcadore (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your side of the argument is you. The other side of the argument is myself and Brody. No-one else has seen first to comment; hence, we are the popular consensus. If you like, you can raise the issue at the F1Project, but constantly asking people to change the page does not qualify as adding more weight to your argumet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, or the third side which suggests a much reduced presence. --Falcadore (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This test has nothing to do with the 2009 season or the 2010 season. It's a totally meaningless test apart from the evaluation of the young drivers. It's the F1 equivalent of three Premier League football teams having a youth team kickabout between seasons. If it has to be mentioned at all, cut it to a sentence. Preferably just get rid of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe there could be a small bit of info on this page and another page with everything on it. But I personally think it belongs on this page entirely!--Brody59 (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not sufficiently notable for its own page. It was a test session. We don't create pages for example every time Manchester United have a training run. --Falcadore (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just a suggestion, but I'm with you guys, just leave it the way it is! ESPImperium, we won't get rid of it, we may down-size it, but not delete or annex it! Please stop being annoying! You're outnumbered; majority rules!--Brody59 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the third compromise is the best for both parties, and lets aggree to disagree. And ill happily leave it at that. --ESPImperium (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes W01

Several websites, including Autosport and F1 Fanatic are reporting the launch of Mercedes car as being the Mercedes W01, not the Mercedes MGP W01. Should we change it and the relevant page? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The official website uses MGP W01. - mspete93 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Then again it may be that MGP W01 is used instead of Mercedes GP W01, with MGP just a shortening of Mercedes GP. The website just calls it the 'MGP W01', rather than Mercedes MGP W01 etc. Currently it is not clear whether MGP is part of the car name, or whether it is just a shortened version of Mercedes GP. - mspete93 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Formula 1 website is using Mercedes MGP W01. Personally, I'd stick with that until we hear otherwise. - mspete93 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the F1 site definitely says the car name is MGP W01. I hope they change it just to W01 though, but as it stands the car name is MGP W01 Jonathan McLeod (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes' "newly-formed" status

Right now, there's a bit of back-and-forth over a minor wording of the driver changes article. The exact wording is Nico Rosberg left Williams at the end of the 2009 season after four years with the team, moving to the newly-formed Mercedes Grand Prix; te point of contention is over the use of the words "newly-formed". Mercedes Grand Prix is indeed newly-formed. They might have fielded cars in the 1930s an 1950s but that was over fifty years ago. And although they supported McLaren for a decade, McLaren were not an official works team. The current incarnation of Mercedes Grand Prix is new to Formula One; therefore, it should be included as much. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Silly thing to get in an edit war over, but you are correct. - mspete93 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I see it the other way - apart from a few changes at the top level (e.g. Haug), isn't Mercedes GP effectively just Brawn GP under a new name? i.e. even though it's a new entrant in the eyes of the FIA, it's still the same team, i.e. the same people working in the same factory. But either way, to stop the edit-warring, I suggest leaving the words out, i.e. changing it to "... moving to Mercedes Grand Prix". It's an accurate statement, and it's not saying Mercedes GP isn't newly-formed. DH85868993 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the team is certainly not newly formed. Newly formed implies this year saw the team's formation when that is clearly not that case. This team has been together for over a decade originally as BAR. The team was sold, already formed, to Mercedes-Benz. --Falcadore (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I included it in the first place is because while the team was formerly known as Brawn, it is now known as Mercedes. The team hesitated in declaring Rosberg as their driver until the Mercedes deal was finalised, despite Rosberg confirming he had left the team something like a month beforehand. Maybe the sentence should be re-worded to state that Rosberg left Williams but did not join Mercedes until Mercedes was actually formed out of Brawn. Because right now, the implication is that Mercedes existed in 2009, which it clearly didn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Formed was certainly the wrong word. Newly purchased perhaps although that's a little clumsy. --Falcadore (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "Nico Rosberg left Williams at the end of the 2009 season after four years with the team and became the first driver to join Mercedes Grand Prix after the German car manufacturer purchased 2009 season champions Brawn" instead? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the only reason the phrase was there was because we had driver changes before team changes, but I've since swapped these round so we don't need an explanation that they are a new team. - mspete93 08:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Newly formed" is obviously wrong as the team has been around for years under various names. A more elaborate wording like Prisonermonkeys is awkward and unnecessary. Just dropping the two words results in a much better and encyclopedic statement. EeepEeep (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My big question is: is Mercedes GP a constructor's champion? Because if we say that it's a reformation of the 1955 team then it's not, and if it's the successor of the Brawn GP team then it is already a champion team, isn't it? When Schumacher joined the team, in his and Ross Brawn's interviews they referred to the team as a champion (and it's still the Brawn GP team in 25%). But the Mercedes Grand Prix page says: Constructors' Championships 0. So what's the answer? Dubfire 10:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

I'd say no. When Renault bought Benetton, Benetton's constructors' title didn't go in their stats. XXX antiuser 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess when they say that Mercedes is a champion team, that's just a way of speaking... - Dubfire 19:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

Pretty much. I mean, the team personnel is pretty much the same, except now with more Germans. As far as the FIA is concerned, though, it's a new entrant. XXX antiuser ^eh? 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Di Resta

Martin Whitmarsh has said in a Reuters report:

"Paul will be running I believe in the majority of the Friday sessions (at grand prix weekends) for Force India, so it's a great opportunity for him".

This to me sounds pretty much like confirmation he will be the team's reserve. However Autosport say:

"Di Resta is close to finalising a contract that will see him become Force India's third driver alongside Adrian Sutil and Vitantonio Liuzzi - with an announcement expected soon."

What do we think? - mspete93 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not confirmed by either of the parties involved then it's speculation and shouldn't be included. Readro (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait until the team annoujnce. Like we always supposed to do. --Falcadore (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Scotland's Paul di Resta will be unveiled on Tuesday as Force India's reserve driver for the 2010 season. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8492593.stm ... Lets just wait for this to become offical later today!!! (Zeoace (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Stefan GP

As I understand they are a test team, would it not be useful to mention their driver(s), as in this news source http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81219 it says that "AUTOSPORT has learned former Williams driver Kazuki Nakajima will be one of the team's drivers." with Autosport being a top source page for F1 I think it should be mentioned. (Zeoace (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Driving what exactly? They don't have an entry. --Falcadore (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is in fact mentioned in the Driver changes section under Exited Formula One - "After a poor 2009 season, Williams driver Kazuki Nakajima was unable to secure a drive for 2010, and has since joined aspiring Serbian start-up team Stefan GP." Schumi555 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell are they even in the table. They're not an F1 team. If they're there then F1 Clienti and Hamilton's new thing should be too. Even if they're testing all year they should NOT be in the table. They're not an official team in ANY form. They're just guys testing an F1 car. I'll take it out later if no-one gives a REALLY good reason why they should be there. They get added when they have an entry for a race. Duds 2k (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The ONLY entry for Stefan GP on the page should be under the new entries process. A note there saying they claim to be ready to replace a dropping out team is all that's needed. We don't even know that they would be allowed to anyway. Right now they have the same right to race as I do. Duds 2k (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In the complete absence of a dissenting voice of any type, I went ahead and removed all the information that implies Stefan GP are an FIA F1 team. They remain mentioned as a failed entrant (including the latest info on their plans) and in a sidenote to Kazuki Nakajima leaving full time F1. Obviously should they ever appear on an official entry list (even as some kind of reserve) or participate in an F1 timed session or race that decision should be reversed. On a personal level I wish they were allowed to enter and we could have 28 cars. Let the fastest 26 start, like they used to. Duds 2k (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alvaro Parente

Since when are non-english references allowed to serve as a reference??--Brody59 (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Mjroots said something about this the other day: "while English language sources are preferred on en:Wiki, non-English RSs are also permissible as references if the info is not available from an English source". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I was just confused!--Brody59 (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest Campos/Stefan edit

I've added a footnote to the teams and drivers table detailing reports of an alleged buy-out of the rights to Campos' chassis by Stefan. As I noted in the text, these reports remain unconfirmed by mainsteam media. That would normally be grounds to not include it at all, but there is a method to my madness: I wanted to make a note of it so that the article includes a reference to it and acknowledges it as being reported, but doesn't go so far as to overstep its mark and delete the Campos entry when it doesn't have cause to do so. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I read that twice and it still makes my head hurt. --Falcadore (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Read what twice? The edit I made to the page, or what I posted here? And why did it make your head hurt?

My logic is simple - I've included it because I have reports that support it, even if the sources are considered suspect. But I have acknowledged that fact in the article for a reason: because, as we've seen with drivers being connected to various roles, it's likely people will hear of it and come barging in and mess about with the page. What I wrote in that footnote is worded very carefully - it's a happy medium between ignoring the reports outright and taking them as gospel and deleting the Campos entry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This Autosport article rubbishes these rumours, saying the two projects are unrelated and that Stefan's agreement with Dallara is centered around development of the Toyota chassis. I find the whole story very odd. Why would Stefan want Campos's chassis when they are already commited to running the Toyota one. - mspete93 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed Prisonermonkeys notes as they are in CLEAR breach of Wikipedia policy. Please do not re-add this information until it is confirmed by a reputable source! Please refer to WP:NOTCRYSTAL if you have any problem with this. But DO NOT re-add this "infomation" until it is reported by a reliable source. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite an interesting story because the old anti-customer car rules used to basically be worded such that no two teams could use a chassis by the same people, even if they were different chassis. I.e- Scuderia Italia could buy Dallaras but no-one else could. If Stefan and Campos will both have unrelated Dallara machines (assuming stefan make the grid as replacement for someone at any stage) then this will certainly be of interest down at Red Bull. I certainly agree it currently has no place in the article though, if for nothing else than Stefan is still not any more of a Formula One team than say, F1 Clienti is so accurate or not there should be limited or no information about them in this article, just in their own. Duds 2k (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

mspete, Stefan would want the rights to Dallara's chassis because it would prevent them from joining the grid, thus freeing up a grid position that they could then apply to. They wouldn't run the Dallara chassis, just hold the rights to it. McLeod, you COMPLETELY missed the point of the edit: it was not to report something as happening, but to acknowledge that reports had emerged in an attempt to prevent people such as yourself who rush in without thinking about something and editing the table. Perhaps you should read WP:NOCRYSTAL yourself and compare it to what I wrote because I never actually tried to predict something - I simply said that "reports have emerged saying this". The addition of the line that it was yet to be confirmed by mainstream news sources was simply a boilerplate line so that people would not see the footnote, follow the article, read it and then ask themselves "Why are they reporting that? Shouldn't they be editing Campos out?". As I said, the point was not to predict the future, but to find a happy medium between ignoring the reports outright and taking them as gospel truth. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I'll return to my original point. This was still speculation, and Autosport (yes I know I'm also sick of using them all the time) have said they believe these rumours to be incorrect. - mspete93 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not they're correct is beside the point: the intention was to prevent people coming in and editing Campos in and Stefan out. I was acknowledging that the rumours existed, but also that they remain to be confirmed by mainstream media. If they turned out to be true, the article would contain that information, but if not, the article would also reflect it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As it stands it is really simple. Campos is an F1 team, Stefan is NOT. This is an encyclopedia after all. It will say Campos are entered to the championship and Stefan are not until such time the FIA confirms otherwise. The same goes for all other teams. WP:NOCRYSTAL means that this categorically should not be in it. Officially at least, Stefan are no closer than me to having an official entry to the championship, i.e., neither of us have them, and until Stefan do, they do not belong in the table. In fact WP:NOCRYSTAL specifically cites sports team line-ups as an example where this policy should apply.Jonathan McLeod (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I'm saying? Are you even reading what you're saying? This has nothing to do with Stefan's status as a team and everything to do with Campos'. I never said Stefan was a team, I said I was trying to prevent people from editing them in and Campos out by acknowledging the reports they were likely to quote. The whole point of the edit was to say "This has been reported. It hasn't been confirmed, but it hasn't been denied, either. So if you're thinking of making an edit, just wait - we're keeping an eye on it". Those reports have since been debunked, but like the incident with the Petrov edit, I did it because I felt I had cause to do so. As you said, this is an encyclopedia, and the entire point is to be as accurate as possible. Given that Campos' status is (believed to be) under question, I felt it was pertinent to include information on that, but without going so far as to dramatically edit information that relates to a current issue within the sport and therefore subject to change at short notice. So, as I have repeatedly said (and as you repeatedly seem to not pay attention to), it was an intermediary edit, a short-term solution to acknowledge the situation until such time as more detailed infromaton emerged. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire point is to be as certifiably accurate as possible. WP:NOCRYSTAL means that we don't just include anything that happens to have been reported. No where has it been reported than Stefan F1 are even being considered for an entry (at least not from the FIA, which is what counts). So far the story of Stefan F1 entering the series has as much official credibility as me entering. You have shown you don't understand what Wikipedia is by your last post. Wikipedia is not a news site, so if we're a few weeks late in adding something "people already knew" then thats a small cost for verifiability. Just read the message under this edit window! Jonathan McLeod (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Force India

Force India could face being dissolved. I'll leave it to the regulars to decide whether or not this should be in the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, because of the wording. It says "could", not "will be". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible worth keeping a weather eye on. Link is there if it is needed. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They're in no danger, it's entirely standard and companies do it all the time. Tabloid speculation isn't even a candidate for inclusion. If it actually happens, which it won't, we remove them from the entry list. Duds 2k (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sauber name

[10] [11] These articles state that Peter Sauber has not yet applied for a change of name from BMW Sauber F1 Team. I remember that when they were granted the entry it was officially BMW Sauber that was given the entry. The team is yet to appear on the F1 website's list of teams and drivers either. BMW Sauber however appear to be ready for a change of name. Opinions? - mspete93 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Retain BMW Sauber name in the chart with a hatnote. We did the same thing when Honda was sold but the name wasn't announced as Brawn for a while. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the country next to the team name still be Switzerland?--Brody59 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope - BMW Sauber was registered as a German team. The change of nationality will come with the change of team name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that calling the team Sauber, whilst strictly not accurate (yet) is more useful than something that whilst on a technically is right, is actually quite misleading. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely they would be a Swiss team: the only thing that made them German was the active presence of BMW, which is no longer there. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if they have not changed from BMW Sauber yet, they won't have changed their registered nationality, which is what matters here.

The media can call the team whatever they like, the truth is that Formula One is referring to them still as BMW Sauber. I know it is a little misleading, but that is why we have a note underneath the table. Peter Sauber has not even said what the team would be called if he applied for a change of name, so anything else is complete guesswork. - mspete93 12:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm OK with keeping the BMW Sauber team name and the German nationality, as long as a new application is not submitted. Though I don't understand why BMW is also listed among the constructors. — Luxic (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When changing the table I just assumed that they would have not changed the constructor name either. This is a safe assumption to make. - mspete93 17:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Um... you seem to have a point there. Even though I still cannot totally disagree with the user who said it's misleading. It's an odd situation. Let's just hope the FIA publishes a new entry list soon. — Luxic (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is silly, they're using Ferrari engines! How much effort does it take to fill out and send an application form? - mspete93 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It has to be agreed unanimously by all the teams. I have no doubt it will happen, but it's not nearly as simple as just sending in a form. Peter Sauber has been pretty busy with the buyout too. Eightball (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The official Formula One website is referring to BMW Sauber as "the Swiss team" Deaþe gecweald (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably in the same way as referring to Red Bull and Force India as British teams. They won't have changed the country of registration from German if they haven't bothered to change the name. Then again, maybe they applied as a Swiss team, but with the BMW Sauber name. That is feasible. However, we have no entry list yet so we can't tell. And I forgot about the agreement with the teams over the name. - mspete93 13:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now changed my mind on the nationality - their new website ends in .ch - It is possible the application was made with Swiss flag but with the old name. - mspete93 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The name will probably just be Sauber, especially since they are not even using BMW engines anymore, but they don't have to change the name before the start of the season anyway. I agree it is a bit misleading in the list, but let's keep it that way for the time being anyway, since we can't know better yet. John Anderson (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The car numbers for Sauber are still listed as "TBA", FIA has confirmed for some time now that they will be 26 and 27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForkScratcher III (talk • contribs) 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Then surely you'll be able to provide a cited source from the FIA which says this. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Petrov to Renault???

[12] Should this be taken as gospel, or should we wait till at least one other source has Vitally Petrov as a Renault driver??? --ESPImperium (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been talked about for a while and this is the first time anyone's said it's definite, but we have to wait for official confirmation before editing it in. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Like the other sources we've seen before, it does not actually quote anyone from Renault, just 'insider info'. I'm sure we can wait for the R30 unveil tomorrow, unless we see things from other, better known, sources. - mspete93 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Keith Collantine, Will Buxton, James Allen and Joe Saward - four of the biggest (and three of the best; I don't think much of Saward) F1 blog sites out there are all painting Petrov as speculation. They use phrases like "expected to be confirmed". Ergo, there are no more reliable sources out there. But the R30 launch is like twelve hours away, so while I agree Petrov is exceptionally likely for the role, it can wait. I on't think his heart will be broken if he wasn't added to the Wikipedia page at the earliest possible opportunity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Buxton says it's a go, and since he's a professional journalist and editor, I'd say his ources are goo. I'll ad Petrov, with a Lopez-esque note to cover it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not good enough for me. No-one from Renault directly quoted. It's still speculation. Needs to be removed. --Falcadore (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember: we are not a News source. You say the authors sources are good, but that is an assumption on your part. We wait until it is announced and confirmed. "Source close to the team told me" is speculation. Sorry. --Falcadore (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When did "sources close to the team" become good enough for anything here? That's what they said when Heidfeld was "definitely going to sign" for Mercedes last week, and look what happened. There's no word from Petrov or Renault, so we wait till they confirm it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

They're good enough when the man publishing it is the editor of a major motorsports magazine. It has since gone digital, but that does not diminish his credibility. Do you really think he's not going to check his sources on something like this? Buxton is far more careful than the likes of Saward. If James Allen, a noted and respected (at least in print) journalist had published this, would you still be questioning it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I just don't think journalists are as good as official confirmation from the driver or the team. In fact, I know they're not. I'd question anything that James Allen said as well, I think the guy's an idiot. We are only in the business of forwarding facts, not speculation, however well-intentioned that speculation may be. A note could be put somewhere that Petrov is expected by Journo X to be Renault's new pay-driver, but he can't go in the table until it's announced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, on the plus side, at least you'll only have to restore the page to my version since I tried to be thorough with everythng, inclusing sponsorship and the usually-overlooked driver changes section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it happens, all we'll have to do is revert and put in references from the proper sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In light of the comments above I would like to remind Prisonermonkeys that Wikipedia is not a news website. There is no need to present news immeidately as it happens. Add it when it is completely correct - announced by the team, and not before. --Falcadore (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not treating it as a news service. I had information that I saw as being a) relevant to the article, b) not yet included in the article and c) as coming from a source that I believed to be valid. Did you actually check the old revision and follow the link to the source I supplied, or did you just see Breton's comments and post the above? The article was posted by Buxton, the editor of a magazine who, given his position, is unlikely to have "sources" that are really just a lot of hot air or peddling an agenda. The infomation might have been second-hand, but it was certainly more credible than every other website and news service running the story because it came from a professional journalist. So in light of your comments, I would like to remind you that I know what I'm doing and that if I did it, I did it because I believed I had due cause, which you would have seen - if not necessarily agreed with - had you read Buxton's article. You also would have noticed that I footnoted the driver table just as we did for Jose Maria Lopez in the twenty-four hours leading up to his being signed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing with Lopez is that quoted his spokesperson. The Petrov reports you used did not quote anyone from Renault or Petrov's people. However, Autosport has now picked up on the story - saying he is in the Renault motorhome. Most trustworthy media are now reporting he will be announced. Therefore I've added a foot note, BUT I HAVE NOT ACTUALLY PUT HIM IN THE TABLE. NEITHER HAVE I SAID HE HAS SIGNED. The reason I have done this is because we should not kid ourselves that things are not happening. P.S. The Renault launch is due at 3.30 pm UK time. - mspete93 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. Thank you for telling me what I knew ten hours ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't telling you. I didn't need to. I was telling others. :) - mspete93 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. An intermediate edit that I missed before. I notice Confidential-Renault was quoted. They're an unofficial fan-run site; photoshop renders from them have been doing the rounds as the actual livery. Trust me when I say this: you'd rather use my misguided-but-well-intentioned sources before anything Confidential-Renault puts out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we mentioning anywhere the possibility that Petrov's seat is in doubt? Edible plywood (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it? Any links? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5926420,00.html or http://www.crash.net/f1/news/156658/1/petrov_renault_seat_in_doubt_as_klien_tung_and_jv_wait_in_wings.html Edible plywood (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if there's much that's concrete in that - nothing from Renault themselves, or from Petrov or any spokesman. Might not satisfy WP:RS, unless others disagree, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New points scoring system

I was looking at the current page for points, but i was wondering, if the fia hasn't officially approved the 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 system, and the official website still has the older system, then shouldn't it be left as 25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1 for now, or possibly be moved to the proposed section instead? 11rey619 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This has already been added about the new point system, it's the 4th bullet point from the bottom under comfirmed rule changes... A new points system has been ratified for 2010, in response to the increased grid. Since 2003, points had been awarded to the top eight finishers: ten points for first, eight for second, six for third and all the way down to one for eighth place. The 2010 system will see 25 points for first, 18 for second, with third receiving 15, 12 for fourth and then ten, eight, six, four, two, and one for tenth place.[148] http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81199 (Zeoace (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Sauber numbers (again)

A couple of websites - like this: http://www.onestopstrategy.com/dailyf1news/nieuw/article/10193-Sauber+numbers+decided%2C+points+tweak+approved.html - are reporting that Sauber were given the numbers 26 and 27 yesterday (several other sites reported that the decision was to be made yesteray), but there's been no official word. The article I linked to includes news on other rule changes that have been published by Autosport and which I added to the article, so would it be fair to say that the Sauber can finally be given numbers? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the hurry? --Falcadore (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sauber aren't even listed as a team on the Formula 1 website yet, never mind being given numbers. Edible plywood (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because the official Formula 1 website is the only source we use ... [/sarcasm]

They appear on the FIA's official entry list, which means they're a team. I suspect that the motion to assign them numbers has been passed, but most of th media missed it because of testing in Valencia and the other rules the F1 Commission has passed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There'd be a press release if anything happened, people don't just "miss" stuff. Eightball (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Either way, sooner or later there will be an F1 entry list and Sauber will be given numbers. On a related note though, while all the other teams in testing and even Virgin at their launch carried numbers, the Sauber as tested does not, implying they do not have them confirmed. Duds 2k (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Williams' Live test timings (http://www.attwilliams.com/test-timings) have assigned them numbers 61 and 62. Can we consider this a reliable source (maybe the teams already know the drivers' numbers) , or perhaps they have used a placeholder number for their timing service? XGargoyle (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No. --Falcadore (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Sauber cars were carrying 61 and 62 at the test it'd be worth considering but if they're not it's clearly not official Duds 2k (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering means you're thinking about it. If you have to think about it, you're not sure. Wait a few days while thinking and considering and the confirmation might show up. --Falcadore (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Racing numbers

I'm perfectly happy to be corrected here, but I assume that Lotus' numbers, despite their later entry than other new teams, are higher than others because they've got drivers from last season in them. In the same respect shouldn't Virgin Racing be higher because they've got Glock? Edible plywood (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the new teams were allowed to pick their own numbers and in most cases the numbers were announced before the drivers. - mspete93 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't know for sure ... but I think it's pretty telling that Bruno Senna is carrying the 21, which just so happens to be a number closely linked to his personal sponsor, Embratel. So I'd say the teams were asked which numbers they wanted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Test/reserve drivers column

Why are the drivers always changed to be listed in alphabetical order? Surely it makes more sense to put the reserve driver first, to differentiate? I know that's what we've always done... Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so but then I get reverted so I figure it's best to at least be consistent. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have the 3rd driver first. At the moment, only Ferrari and Renault are different when they're put alphabetically rather than in reserve order. At Ferrari that's Fisichella, at Renault it's Tung. Elsewhere, Hartley is ahead of Ricciardo alphabetically and in reserve order, as is Parente ahead of Razia at Virgin. It's only Ferrari and Renault that are the problems at the moment. If they're both changed, its consistent. - mspete93 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a footnote to the table marking all of the third drivers as third drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good god, don't we have enough hat notes already? Just list them alphabetical. The teams can chance their third driver at any time anyway, it's not like designating which driver happened to sit around in the garage on a GP weekend is that important. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the footnote, there is no need for it... any driver could be called up to replace another driver look at last year Ferrari used both test drivers and then hired another driver from another team, it's a pointless footnote!!! (Zeoace (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Removed it, as noted above its pointless. QueenCake (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Could everyone please when you edit the page fill in the summary box at the bottom of the editing page with what you did! This would make it so much easier if we need to reverse something you did!

Eg: If you change the name "Lotus F1 Racing" to "Lotus Racing", you would put: changed lotus name to new name, or something along those lines. Although I used that as an example, please don't change that until it is confirmed by the FIA. --Brody59 (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

... Alternatively, you could always just use the "Compare Stelected Revisions" function on the article history page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could, but that takes so much longer, and it'd be easier if everyone did this!--Brody59 (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a function somewhere that allows the system to remind you that you have not put anything in the summary box before you press "Save Page". And it only takes seconds to copy a short edit or put a handful of words explaining the change into the box. So why not? Britmax (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's My Preferences - Editing - Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (tick box) Britmax (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)