Talk:List of Formula One driver records/Archive 1

Idea

Just an idea, someone might add entries for most records held and youngest record holder. --711groove (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Others records I haven't found here : "the highest number of races with the same engine brand/maker" and "the highest number of consecutive races with the same engine brand/maker". I know that Felipe Massa only raced with Ferrari's engines since he began his F1 career in 2002 (10 seasons so far). Schumacher ran for Ferrari from 1996 to 2006 included but certainly with less races each season (but I haven't check for the total). In the late 60s, then 70s and 80s, some drivers might have only raced with Ford Cosworth engines. So I don't know the answer but I'd be interested to know.

Shortest Formula One career (having qualified for at least one race)

Purely on the grounds of accuracy and without wishing to cause offence, shouldn't this be Riccardo Paletti? Mighty Antar (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Paletti completed 7 laps of the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I remembered it being said at the time that it was his first Grand Prix but I hadn't checked the stats Mighty Antar (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else should have the same thought I did, I looked up the race report published in the Autocar magazine for the 1982 Canadian Grand Prix and it does state that it was Paletti's first ever F1 race and it also states this on the video review of the 1982 GP season, however he is listed in results published in Autosport for the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, so the Canadian GP reports are incorrect, probably confusion at the time over the status of the San Marino GP due to the boycott. Mighty Antar (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be confusion arising from Canada being his first start from the grid; at Imola he started from the pit laneMr Larrington (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Most points in season without winning world championship

Might be an idea to add this to the page. - ARC Gritt^TALK 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is already included in Most championship points in a season. --FeinerMax (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Points for 7th and 8th

As the points system changed so dramatically in 2003, we might need to find a way of showing what the records would be without this chance, or what they would be if 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 had always been used. Two of the 3 youngest points finishers took theirs with an 8th and a 7th (although both scored again within a few months), and DC's total is a lot higher than it would've been in the 10-6-4-3-2-1 days, for example.--MartinUK (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your thinking, but there are several issues to consider:

• As soon as we start talking about what the records would be, we are speculating. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be about the facts, i.e. what the records actually are.
• Drivers drove knowing the points system that was currently in force. For example, with about 20 laps to go, Nelson Piquet was comfortably leading the 1983 South African Grand Prix, but dropped back to 3rd at the finish, secure in the knowledge that that was sufficient for him to win the World Championship. If he had needed to win the race to take the title, he possibly/probably could/would have.
• In the 1950s, multiple drivers used to be able to share a single car and split the points. These days they cannot. So, in the alternative points system(s), do you allow shared drives or not? It makes a big difference to Fangio's points total in 1956, for example.

In summary, I think the simplest and best approach is for Wikpedia to present the facts and leave the interesting theoretical exercises for others. (From memory there's a website that recalculates each year's World Championship under the various pointscoring systems (conveniently ignoring the shared drives issue!) - I think it's listed in one of the WT:F1 archive pages). DH85868993 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

MartinUK has a point that is being reinforced. The changes in the point system mean that comparisons are essentially meaningless. There should either be a note on all of records regarding points that the system changed or the records should be broken up into the years they were in force. I prefer a little note reminding people that the points system changed. Mr-914 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Indy 500

Can we extend a few of these tables to show the top 10 drivers who could igf the Indy 500 is ignored? Things like 'fewest starts before first win' are really ruined by it--MartinUK (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite it's name, this article is actually a list of World Drivers' Championship driver records and, like it or not, for the first 11 years, the Indy 500 was a round of the Championship. So Wallard's win in his first WDC race is just as valid as Baghetti's or Farina's. DH85868993 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Many (most?) of these records have nothing to do with the Driver's Championship per se. The 500 was part of the World Championship but was not a Formula One race. It should not be included in an article with this title. Rdikeman (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant is that this article lists records achieved during races which were part of the World Drivers' Championship (which is now known as the Formula One World Drivers' Championship). Regarding your point about the Indy 500 not being a Formula One race - none of the WDC races in 1952 or 1953 were Formula One races either - are you proposing we should remove them from the lists as well? DH85868993 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

DH85868993 is right, the records should stay as they are, as the Indy 500 was part of the World Drivers' Championship between 1950 and 1960. If you look at reliable sources, for example formula1.com, they include the Indy 500 as part of the '1950 FIA Formula One World Championship', and for all Championships upto and including 1960, so if this page is to be named 'List of Formula One driver records', then the Indy 500 records must be included for it to be complete. Schumi555 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The distinction that is being obfuscated (including on the Formula One site!) is between "World Championship" (a season title) and "Formula One" (a set of sporting regulations). It's understood that the Indy 500 was part of the World Championship for a time, but there were no Formula One cars in those races. I was not aware of the Championship being run according to Formula 2 regulations for two years ('52-'53) because of a lack of Formula One entrants; thanks for that. :-) You could follow Formula1.com's lead by calling the article "Formula One World Championship driver records," I suppose. It's a mess, to be sure. Rdikeman (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive fastest laps

Should we have this one? Either as a full table or just the record holder in the 'Other Records' section? Madraykin86 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Added. DH85868993 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Classified retirements

Those finishing statistics included races where driver didn't finish but was classified, having run over 90% of race distance. Namely these:

• Heikki Kovalainen retired at the 2007 Monaco Grand Prix, so he finished only four races from the start of his career, making Tiago Monteiro record-holder alone.
• Andrea de Cesaris retired all 16 races during 1987 season. While adding retirements of 1986 and 1988 into that, he retired 22 races in a row. He is however classified as finishing 3rd in the Belgium grand prix in 1987, even though he pushed his car over the line. This should reduce his number of retirements.
• Nick Heidfeld retired at 2007 Japanese Grand Prix, meaning that his current streak is at 16.

BleuDXXXIV (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Grand Chelem?

Is there a reliable source for this term being applied to motor racing? There are half a dozen instances on the web, but I suspect those are quoting Wikipedia - I've never seen it before. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't see why we shouldn't use the term to describe F1. It's a lot less cumbersome than the alternative. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It ain't a matter of us *using* the term though - it's documenting that the term is in use in motor racing, which I don't believe. Without a source, why is it better in the English Wikipedia than "grand slam" or "full house"? Or, for that matter, "flump", if we're allowed to coin the phrase ourselves! :-) -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've never heard it used. The question is 'what should we call it instead?' - logically it would be 'perfect race', but this has another (less perfect) meaning.--MartinUK (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd never come across the term at all until I encountered it here on Wikipedia. As for an alternative, I guess we could always use "Grand Slam" (i.e. the literal translation). DH85868993 (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The only place I've ever seen it is on Forix, where I suspect the term was copied from. Readro (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am re-opening the discussion on Grand Chelem/Grand Slam term. In my experience (which pre-dates Wiki), this term is relatively widely used among people familiar with Formula One history and statistics. Also, searching the web, it appears there are plenty places where either "Grand Chelem" or "Grand Slam" are used in conjunction with Formula 1, some of them are definitely after the change was made to this page which eliminated the term from it (which negates this specific argument used earlier). So I disagree with the arguments used earlier, which led to removal of the term from here. I would strongly support restoring the term to this page, since this term is used on and off the web for quite a while. cherkash (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some cites, then? --Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Olav Mol, the Dutch commentator of Formula One since 1991, has used the term several times since I've been following formula one (1996). GameLegend (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

These are couple recent online sources that mentioned the term: [1], [2], and [3]; but you can also see it used here and here, which are examples of real-life use of the term where people used it in online dicussions and apparently nobody needed to be told what the term meant and it was in general widely understood.

Apart from online sources, I've heard it used numerous times in TV broadcasts, read it in books, journals and newspapers, and in general encountered it many times in my 20 years of following Formula 1.

cherkash (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I want to shift the topic of discussion slightly from whether the term is used in motor-racing (it is!) to the question of which version of the term ("Grand Chelem" or "Grand Slam") has preferred use in English (I've personally seen both versions used, so it may as well be that none of the two is obviously more used than another). Here's my hunch: since both terms are used interchangeably (with the first one being of clear French import), and since French wikipedia explains here that the term was originally derived in French language from (American) English term "slam" meaning "crush", we may as well standardize this article to use the "Grand Slam (Grand Chelem)" instead of "Grand Chelem (Grand Slam)" or even "Grand Slam/Grand Chelem", since "Grand Slam" would seem to be an original term in English as opposed to the re-imported "Grand Chelem".cherkash (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer the English term (as I said two years ago). The French term was completely new to me when it first appeared here - I do think its increasing use in English stems from the web, if not actually from Wikipedia. "Grand Slam" is less likely to be picked up by users of WP as a motor racing specific term.

Oh, and if we're willy-waving about the extent of our OR, I've been following the sport and collecting books about it since 1962...

Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The alleged OR is not an OR in this case - see, e.g., the recent sources I provided.

But besides this, it really sounds to me that we don't disagree about the fact that the term "Grand Slam" is in common use, and your original questioning was of the term "Grand Chelem" specifically. I wouldn't object to restoring the "Grand Slam", with "Grand Chelem" in parentheses.

Unfortunately, your original inquiry caused "Grand Slam" to be removed as well, which I assume was an unintended consequence. So I vote for at least restoring "Grand Slam", and also acknowledging the (not uncommon nowadays) term "Grand Chelem" as well. Although I'd be ok with just restoring the "Grand Slam" alone. Thoughts?

cherkash (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If my original comment caused it to be removed it was a slow burn, because I made the comment two years ago! I don't actually see why it needs a name at all, but I've no real objection to it saying "Grand Slam". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been following the sport for two decades and I've never heard either of these terms even once. Nor is it even common to hear "hat trick" used to describe the pole/win/fastest lap combo. I think it's stupid to try and force a term into the article when it's not actually used. If some Dutch guy says it, put it into the Dutch Wikipedia. English-speaking formula one fans simply don't use the term. It doesn't appear anywhere on grandprix.com, fia.com, or formula1.com. Google searches throw up mostly French tennis results, with English-language F1 results far from the top. It's pretty weird to insist on using obscure terms for things that are much more clearly described without them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.15.124 (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This topic is mostly closed now. To summarize (and to clarify!) the subject: there was a misunderstanding at some point, since the original question was posed about the French-originated term "Grand Chelem" specifically as opposed to the term "Grand Slam". It was since agreed to use "Grand Slam" (a widely known term, even if not uniformly and very widely used) - and there was supporting evidence given in the English-language sources. So although the discussion was revolving around the term "Grand Chelem" specifically, the original conclusions circa 2008 may have been misunderstood by at least some participants to encompass "Grand Slam" as well - but it was not as much a discussion about "Grand Slam/Grand Chelem" term, but specifically about "Grand Chelem" variation. We since re-considered the discussion and agreed to use the term "Grand Slam" and this wasn't met with any reasonable objections.cherkash (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The reasonable objection is that the term is seldom if ever used in motor sport. Nor is "hat-trick", or "double". It is ridiculous to try to force into this article terms that are simply not used by anyone connected with motor sport. There is no need to make up names for things in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.86.15 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We have previously established that the term IS used in motor sports; the fact it is seldom used, is because it seldom happens. But if you want to antagonize against the use of it, please first rebute why you believe our previous establishment is incorrect. GameLegend (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I obviously missed where you established this is used anywhere other than a few recent blogs, only one of the sources you've given above looks even remotely valid. Other than Wikipedia I've never come across Grand Chelem being used in the 50 years I've followed motorsport in the UK and whenever "Grand Slam" is used, it's where a team of several cars (like Ford at Le Mans) has finished in sequential places e.g. 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th. Both terms are used regularly in Tennis though, so perhaps it's a US thing? Please provide a couple of mainstream news sources from the last 60 years. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hat trick is used a LOT in F1 from what I've seen. Double rarely. I've never heard of grand slam or chelem or whatever it's called and I've been watching F1 for 15 years at least.Whatzinaname (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

2013-02-01, neither term "grand slam" nor "grand chelem" appears in the article so I have deleted the following entry from the WP:DAB page Grand Slam.

(quote) "Grand Slam, leading every lap of a Formula One Grand Prix after starting from pole position, while also setting the fastest lap"

If this article is revised to support currency of the term, at least in French-language coverage of F1 Grand Prix races/circuit/series/whatever, then some restoration to the disambiguation will be warranted. The link, at least, must be revised for use there but I will know how to do that after reading the revision here. --P64 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC) --P64 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Grand Chelem inconsistency

The article states that Mansell achieved the "Grand Chelem" (or whatever we choose to call it) in the 1991 British Grand Prix. The article for that race states that Senna took the lead very early in the race. One must be incorrect. Does anyone know which is wrong? Julianhall (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It depends how you define "Grand Chelem". Senna took the lead at the start, but Mansell reclaimed it before the end of the first lap. So, if you define "Grand Chelem" as "led the entire race", then Mansell didn't do it. But if you define it as "being in the lead at the end of every lap", then he did.... DH85868993 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Entries and starts

From this Sunday on, shouldn't those two be listed separately? The way it is, the list is flawed. If you count only starts, not entries, Jean Alesi should be there on 9th place, with 201 starts, ahead of Trulli's 200. And not Michele Alboreto, who only started a race 194 times. If you count only entries, then Alboreto makes the list. Could this be changed? JimboB (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I changed this? Does anyone oppose? JimboB (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Please remember to update the Table of Contents at the top of this article and also the one in List of Formula One records. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. JimboB (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most amount of laps lead in one race

Jenson Button led all 58 laps at Australia + Schumacher in 2004 and I was just wondering whether it was liable to be put on the table and if anyone else has done so? Chubbennaitor 17:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look in the Grand Chelem section, you'll see 40 plus Grands Prix where a driver has led the entire race from pole. Taking the 1998 Monaco Grand Prix as just one example, that was led for all 78 laps by Mika Häkkinen. Julianhall (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Least days as world champion

Just wondering, which world champion, discounting Button, held the title for the shortest time? I'm thinking claimed it late in the season and next season a walkover for someone else. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the "Clinched" column of the table in List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions suggests the following as likely candidates:

• Surtees (clinched the 1964 title at race 10 of 10; Clark clinched the 1965 title at race 7 of 10)
• Rindt (clinched the 1970 title at race 12 of 13; Stewart clinched the 1971 title at race 8 of 11)
• Hunt (clinched the 1976 title at race 16 of 16; Lauda clinched the 1977 title at race 15 of 17)

But you'd need to look at the actual race dates to work it out for sure. If you're looking for minimum number of days a particular WDC title was held (rather than "minimum total number of days as WDC"), then you can add Fangio 1951, Brabham 1959, Hill 1962, Hill 1968, Lauda 1984, Senna 1991 and Schumacher 2000 to the list of likely candidates. DH85868993 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's very interesting, mostly because it is not something that a driver has much influence on.GameLegend (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New points system

Next year, there will be a new points system, which is more dramatically changed then ever before. Since it's better to be early than late, I think it would be good to discuss it here. Before, the point was made for 7th and 8th position points, and I agree that that is not worth speculating about, but with the winner getting 25 points, any comparisons are completely off. GameLegend (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the difficulty of comparing points totals in the future, but I'm unclear as to what you're suggesting - are you suggesting that we include "scaled" points (i.e. how many points each driver would have scored under the 2010 points scheme) or that we just remove the points tables altogether? If you're suggesting including "scaled" points, then I would be opposed, for the same reasons as previously expressed. DH85868993 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why I bring this up well in time now so we can brainstorm.

The 2 ideas I have right now, but I'm very open to other suggestions, are:

Make 2 lists for everything, keeping the old records as is, and starting anew next season

Keep the old records, and for the new point system, only make a new average point list

But yes, please, any ideas or suggestions, are very welcome (and happy new year!) GameLegend (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Propose different comparison tables for points systems based on seasons where same maximum was available - notably 10 points for a win period and 25 points for a win period. As we can't undertake any independent research or speculation here we can only list points that were actually scored. This does not change the fact that it is misleading to display (as currently) a table where half way through this season the top 4 drivers are appearing in the 'Most points in a season' table. The effect of 7th and 8th place points on tables like this is minimal by comparison. If nobody disagrees I will make this change as I don't want all these tables to become meaningless. 86.29.37.24 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You have my blessing. GameLegend (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. There have been five main different points systems: 8-,9-,10-6, 10-8 and now 25- points. The 25 point thing is by some margin the most drastic change and hence I think it is totally appropriate to treat it as unique, although for things like 'Most points in a season' you could have one table for each system. Statistician's nightmare all these changes - imagine the outcry in Cricket if they suddenly started giving 10 runs for a boundary and all the modern players passed Don Bradman's batting average. Doesn't bear thinking about. Btljs (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Schumacher and Räikkönen, active?

In this page, both Schumacher and Räikkönen are shown as active F1 drivers. IMHO this is a mistake; if we mean drivers who were active during the 2009 season, Schumacher shouldn't be, while Räikkönen isn't an F1 driver anymore. I wouldn't mark Kimi as an active driver. 88.2.190.104 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's incorrect for both Räikkönen and Schumacher to be marked in bold. I think it's simpler to highlight drivers who competed during the 2009 season (i.e. per the existing statement at the top of the article), to avoid disputes about who is/isn't a "current" driver, e.g. Heidfeld. DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hat trick (pole, win & fastest lap in same race) ordering

Looking at the article as a whole, there seems to be some inconsistency over the ordering of drivers who hold equal positions for a record; for example the Hat trick section lists the drivers sharing 5th, 7th and 9th places alphabetically, whereas other sections such as Race leaders (Stewart and Barrichello in 9th) and Consecutive podiums from first race of season are listed with the most recent achiever at the bottom. Could we decide on a consensus on how the drivers should be listed? Regards, Schumi555 14:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is confusing. There are occasions when there might be a reason to put one driver over another, say if their record is better somehow (e.g. with most finishes in a season, you could argue that Heidfeld deserves to hold the record more because he finished 18 races out of 18, and perhaps could have finished more if there had been more races, whereas Monteiro failed to finish one of his 19 races). If we're not going to be consistently alphabetical, could we consider a convention that the driver who took the record most recently comes out top? This would be valid because the most recent record will be most relevant to the current F1 experience.Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Hat trick I notice there's no mention to Juan Pablo Montoya's (2003 Germany GP) Fabiogil (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because (like the majority of the article) the table only lists the "top 10", which in this case means drivers who have achieved the feat 5 or more times, which Montoya has not done. DH85868993 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is not what it was

With the new points system I have started to find this page Un-Useful. By the end of the season all the results on this page will be tainted. --81.6.215.1 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for making it less "Un-Useful" ? DH85868993 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we convert the points or at least have some comparison feature.

Or maybe devide Pre-2010 and Post-2010. Its the start of the season so not too hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.215.1 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The point conversion was mentioned before, and not much liked (agree with that).

I do support a split list though. GameLegend (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How about changing from most points in a season, which was always a bit odd as there have been loads of different systems over the years, to highest % of possible points. Admittedly that's still not a perfect solution, for instance 4 wins and 6 2nds from a 10 race season would be 76% under the 10-6-4 system, 88% under 10-8-6 and 83.2% under the latest method, but it's a start. Another option could be to convert old scores into new ones, although this falls into trouble with different season lengths. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See above discussion under 'New points system' and my changes to see if they meet with approval. Career records (which tend to bridge different points systems) have to be left in one table but a pre 2010 column at least gives some perspective. Single seasons just need breaking up according to the points system in place - to me there are five categories 8-, 9-, 10-6, 10-8 and 25 points but the 25 point change is of a different order to the others so needs to be treated as a new starting point for things like most points in a season. Until we have several seasons we don't even need a table for the new scoring system - you never know they might scrap it next season and we can all go back to normal again. Btljs (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Most races without points

I think this should be added 112.2.254.238 (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix -if a Red Bull driver takes the title

If one of the Red Bull drivers takes the title this weekend, there is another record: "most championship leader changes in a season: 9 in 2010" GameLegend (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO this would not be a driver record. The answer to the question needs to be a driver's name - i.e. "What is the most number of leader changes in a season?" gives the answer "9", not "Sebastian Vettel". So, no. But this could be a general F1 record, for which I think there is another page. Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Most wins in the same Grand Prix

Shouldn't we remove all the mentions to drivers who won 5 times the same Grand Prix? If you go from Schumacher/France to the ones with 6 wins per race, that already makes 10 items, which is kind of the template for these tallies, isn't it? JimboB (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Done. DH85868993 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fewest races before first win

Should Emerson Fittipaldi be in this table as well? He won his fourth start; he was a DNS at Monza in 1970 following the death of Jochen Rindt. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The section title is somewhat ambiguous. The table actually lists fewest *entries* before first win; while as you correctly point out, Fittipaldi's first win was his 4th race start, it was his 5th race entry. DH85868993 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Highest percentage of races finished in the points" table

I question the completeness of the "Highest percentage of races finished in the points" table. It's missing at least the following drivers:

• Oscar Alfredo Gálvez, Dorino Serafini and Eric Thompson (racing driver) (each with 1 points finish from 1 entry = 100%)
• Luigi Musso Luigi Fagioli (6 points finishes from 7 entries = 85.7%)
• Paul Goldsmith (2 points finishes from 3 entries = 66.7%)

I suspect that wherever the table was originally sourced from had a caveat such as "minimum 10 entries" or something like that. So, should we:

• complete the table (which might involve original research),
• decide and apply a "minimum number of entries" threshold, noting that we don't do this for any other tables on the page,
• just delete the table altogether, or
• something else?

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it adds anything to what we already have here. Once you start qualifying the table, "minimum 10 entries" etc. and combine that with the vagaries of the points system over the years it all becomes rather subjective anyway. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than this table, it only applies to "percentage wins" and "percentage podium finishes".

Why I'd like to have 'less than 10 entries' marked or included in a special way- is that I'm trying to think of what the readers are looking for. When looking up information on the top so many drivers in something, I don't think many are looking for a couple drivers that just drove 1 or 2 races. If we'd include the above examples, and let them push the 'more than 10 entries' drivers out, the only driver on that list that's a 'full season driver' would be Paul di Resta. I don't think that's really the kind of information people are looking for in an article.

I think if we base the tables on "minimum 10 entries", and mix the "less than 10 entries" in between, it would be a much more valuable article, rather than just the facts outside their context.

In order of my preferences, first most preferered, I would suggest

• Make a seperate table for "drivers with less than 10 entries".

Highest percentage of races finished in the points (minimum 10 entries)

	Driver	Entries	Points Finishes	Percentage
1	Michael Schumacher	271	203	74.9%
2	Lewis Hamilton	73	54	74.0%
3	Fernando Alonso	161	109	67.7%
4	Alain Prost	202	128	63.4%
5	Sebastian Vettel	64	40	62.5%
6	Kimi Räikkönen	157	94	59.9%
7	Ayrton Senna	162	96	59.3%
8	Jenson Button	193	95	49.2%
9	David Coulthard	247	121	49.0%
10	Nelson Piquet	207	100	48.3%

Highest percentage of races finished in the points

	Driver	Entries	Points Finishes	Percentage
1	Paul di Resta	2	2	100.0%
	Dorino Serafini	1	1	100.0%
	Eric Thompson	1	1	100.0%
	Oscar Alfredo Gálvez	1	1	100.0%
5	Luigi Fagioli	7	6	85.7%
6	Michael Schumacher	271	203	74.9%
7	Lewis Hamilton	73	54	74.0%
8	Fernando Alonso	161	109	67.7%
9	Paul Goldsmith	3	2	66.7%
10	Alain Prost	202	128	63.4%

• Include the <10 drivers in the list, but mark them mixed in with the 'main drivers'.

	Driver	Entries	Points Finishes	Percentage
	Paul di Resta	2	2	100.0%
	Dorino Serafini	1	1	100.0%
	Eric Thompson	1	1	100.0%
	Oscar Alfredo Gálvez	1	1	100.0%
	Luigi Fagioli	7	6	85.7%
1	Michael Schumacher	271	203	74.9%
2	Lewis Hamilton	73	54	74.0%
3	Fernando Alonso	161	109	67.7%
	Paul Goldsmith	3	2	66.7%
4	Alain Prost	202	128	63.4%
5	Sebastian Vettel	64	40	62.5%
6	Kimi Räikkönen	157	94	59.9%
7	Ayrton Senna	162	96	59.3%
	Sam Hanks	8	4	50.00%
	Mauri Rose	2	1	50.00%
	George Amick	2	1	50.00%
8	Jenson Button	193	95	49.2%
9	David Coulthard	247	121	49.0%
10	Nelson Piquet	207	100	48.3%

• Make a mention of the "less than 10 entries" drivers in a note.
• Should neither idea be supported, I'm equal to include these or delete them.

GameLegend (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: I mistakenly wrote "Luigi Musso" instead of "Luigi Fagioli" in my original post; I've corrected it there and removed Musso from GameLegend's tables, to avoid confusion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My preference is to list just the top 10, regardless of the number of entries (i.e. like the second table above - the one that goes from Di Resta down to Prost) for simplicity and consistency with the rest of the article, also noting that the table isn't swamped by "one hit wonders" as I feared it might be. DH85868993 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the table in the article to match the second table above. Note that I'm not trying to pre-empt the outcome of the discussion but the existing table was definitely incomplete/inconsistent/inaccurate - at least now we have a table that's accurate, even if we subsequently decide to change it to something else. DH85868993 (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support removing all drivers below a certain threshold in these percentage statistics - it's not very notable to e.g. reach 1 podium position in 2 races, because that is not "statistically significant" at all. Also, the current "podium percentages" table is inconsistent since it already misses one such statistical outlier, when comparing to [4]: Serafini with one podium finish in one race. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to see changed are the shared drives: IMO an entry/win/podium with a shared drive should only count as half an entry/win/podium for each of the two drivers - this is just fair since they did only "half the work" each, and since championship points were also halved between "shared drivers". For their "two shared drives" in one 1951 race by Fangio and Fagioli, this would result in 0.5 wins and podiums for each, and 2*0,5=1 entry each. This would slightly decrease Fagioli's, Fangio's and Hank's "podium percentages", moving Hanks out of the Top Ten (behind Ayrton Senna) and thus eliminate one of the "minor drivers" even without a threshold. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One difficulty with omitting results which aren't "statistically significant" is deciding what falls into that category. You believe that 1 podium from 2 races is not statistically significant; someone else might think it is. IMO, it's preferable for this page to just "present the facts" and allow the reader to make their own decision. Thanks for identifying Serafini's omission; I have now added him to the table.

Regarding shared drives: Most reliable sources (e.g. FORIX, Autocourse GPA, etc) count shared wins and podiums as "full" achievements (e.g. they show Fangio with 24 wins and 35 podiums), so IMO Wikipedia should do the same. DH85868993 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that deciding on a "significance" threshold is somewhat subjective, but I think no-one would seriously consider 1 podium in 2 races more significant than e.g. Senna's 80/162 ratio, which is currently left out by restricting the table to "top ten" (which is also a subjective cut-off) without a significance threshold. E.g. GameLegend's "10 entries" cutoff suggested above is even stronger than the "5 podiums" cut-off I tried to apply.

It's good to look at what reliable sources do, but since there's no "official source" available, we should judge if their way of counting is really sensible. To me it's absurd to give a driver the possibility to score two podiums with a single "race entry", as is apparently done currently with e.g. Farina and Fagioli. Had Farina only performed the one race in which he gained two three-shared podiums, he would stand at an absurd 200% in our table, in spite of him not even driving the entire race distance with the two cars combined.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: One of the two "References" given in the article actually counts shared drives differently than this article does: ChicaneF1 counts shared drives "full", but counts multiple shared drives in a single race as several "entries: E.g. Fagioli has 7 races, but 8 entries [5]. This also avoids the "200%" problem I mentioned (and gives a "fairer" representation of a driver's percentual achievement than "our" system, IMO), so I would also prefer this method to the one currently used.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My first impression of a table like this is fancruft which should be deleted.... On thinking about it, I have to wonder if it's not also sythesis. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Trek here, this table by design has a limited use. I'll go further and say most tables on this article dealing with points are not only fancruft but not even factually reliable either. Some try to make different columns to deal with the most recent points change, but make no mention of previous changes and result drops - and nothing taking account of the fact that seasons have gradually gained more and more races. There really is limited purpose to them - if you really want to compare points systems, just look up the comparison table on F1 facts. QueenCake (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the third table is the best, because it shows the "one hit wonders", but it does not include them in the rankings. This way, if the reader can see which ever list he/she likes. THEY can choose whether to include the "one hit wonders" if they like. I think it properly gives them credit, however it does not take away from the "main drivers'" achievements. Editadam 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a significant enough statistic to track? My privisional vote is to delete as it is an obscure statistic. Is this a stat in use anywhere or is it OR? --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's listed e.g. on the StatsF1 site referenced in the article (as a total list sortable by percentage; with slightly different numbers than here as they divide by starts, not entries). I consider such average performances notable enough to include here (at least after excluding the "one-hit-wonders" which are likely just "coincidential" records). IMO this table is more notable than e.g. all the "negative records" ("Most races without a win" etc.) listed, or most of the "Youngest" Top Ten. I'd rather delete/reduce those than the percentage tables. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Percentage pole positions

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask my question.

I noticed that in the section of percentage of pole positions, it is mentioned that Vettel has 18 poles and a certain percentage (which is less important for my point)

I also noticed on top of the document that article is updated including the malaysian GP 2011.

To my knowledge, Vettel only scored 17 poles up till malaysia. So unless his pole from this morning has already been included, according to my info the number is incorrect; 2008- 1 pole; 2009 - 4 poles; 2010 - 10 poles; 2011 - 2 poles (3 including China); Total = 17 poles

Can anyone else verify this to make sure I'm not mistaking?

Thx Glenn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionscum (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Vettel's total of 18 pole positions includes the one from China. Ideally, everyone would wait until after the race and then update this page in its entirety. But there's usually someone keen who updates the pole position and front row stats immediately after qualifying, thereby making that information inconsistent with "accurate up to and including" statement. Past experience has shown that if we change the information back, someone else keen will come along and update it again. So we usually just live with the inconsistency for 24 hours until the whole page is updated after the race. I guess we could consider having a separate "accurate up to and including" statement for the pole position and front row tables. DH85868993 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

How come only one listing has a "pre-2010" rules category?

Only the points per race has a pre-2010 listing, yet there are many more categories that have been highly influenced by the point changes. Either all of them should have pre-2010 listing or none of them.Whatzinaname (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. And I think it should be all of them, as there are now two drastically different data-sets, and the information included in each is worthwhile. We don't want to lose 60 years' worth of information due to a points change. EdwardRussell (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the tables in the points section are a waste of space because of the changes to the points systems over the years. Why should the changes in 2010 be a special case? We could add columns to show what the points would have been under the differing sets of rules over the years, but it's all a bit academic. We haven't yet got a table for most different helmets worn by a driver in a season, but rather like having separate tables on this page for all the records accrued in the Colin Chapman or Jim Clark Trophies, all it does is dilute the significance of the other stats. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Double / hat-trick

The term "hat-trick" is far more commonly used to describe three victories in a row than it is to describe pole, win and fastest lap (eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/formula_1/315829.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7413474.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/1492666.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3598455.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7706496.stm. The term "double" is not widely in use for a pole and win (eg http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=formula+one+pole+win+double&pbx=1&oq=formula+one+pole+win+double). Forcing the use of terms which are not widely accepted is original research. Encyclopaedias should describe, not prescribe. 90.199.34.136 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm pretty sure both "double" and "hat-trick" are used in this context in TV and radio commentary (in the UK), although I would admit that they do use the other variations too, but "hat-trick" is definitely used on the leading F1 statistics website FORIX. Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Expanding the tables

Might be a good idea to expand the tables from 10 to 20 entries. This way the information presented would be much more dynamic, as some of the info available right now, even though very important, are pretty static, being really hard to break in the top 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florins1 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think including places 11 through to 20 would perhaps overstep the mark as being too trivial. Readro (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "top 10" is a more common benchmark than "top 20" ("top 10" returns about 700 million ghits versus about 165 million for "top 20"). Plus, FWIW, I think it should be hard to break into one of the "top N" lists of a competition that's been going for more than 60 years. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Readro and DH85868993 that top ten is enough - this article is already extremely long, and places 11-20 are not really notable for most categories. Also, even the "Top Ten" here are not really static, with e.g. Vettel entering lots of them within just two years. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fewest seasons before first title

Would it not make sense to remove Nino Farina from the top of this table (ie. alter the title of the table to say "(excluding 1950)"), as the deserving holders of this record are surely Fangio & Hamilton? Farina only tops the table as a result of it being the very first f1 season. EdwardRussell (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fangio deserves it no more (actually less) than Farina, since they both competed from the first F1 season. It would make sense to remove all drivers that debuted in 1950, however. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Jacques Villeneuve would also be joint with Hamilton and Fangio.Bigdon128 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue resolved. EdwardRussell (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Most laps in last position

I've recently calculated which driver has spent the most laps in last position over his entire career (some races couldn't be counted as no data exists, for example the Indy 500s, the 1950 French GP, the 1953 Italian GP and the 1954 Argentine GP).

That driver turned out to be Christijan Albers. Should this record be added or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.144.190 (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's original research, which isn't allowed. Readro (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If this research has been published somewhere else, is it still original? Just asking. Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wins with most different teams

The current "record" is by Stirling Moss with 5 teams. However, his wins in Lotus and Cooper came in the same team (Rob Walker Racing Team). What should we do with this? 213.186.254.196 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Most different circuits races (or entries)

I have a proposal for this new category. It should be Schumacher with 34 different circuits:
Abu Dhabi, Adelaide, Aida, Bahrain, Buenos Aires, Catalunya, Donington Park, Estoril, Greater Noida, Hockenheim, Hungaroring, Imola, Indianapolis, Interlagos, Istanbul, Jerez, Kyalami, Magny-Cours, Melbourne, Mexico City, Monte Carlo, Montreal, Monza, Nürburgring, Sao Paulo, Sepang, Shanghai, Silverstone, Singapore, Spa, Spielberg, Suzuka, Valencia, Yeongam.
Am I right? Or it is Barrichello? Maiō T. (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fewest races before first win

Should Nino Farina be included at the top of this table for his win at the 1950 British Grand Prix or not? The article would probably need an explanitory if he is to be. Bigdon128 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

His name was there until this edit a couple of days ago. I believe it should be there (as well as Fangio's, which was also removed). The established practice for this page has been to present the "raw" information (with footnotes where appropriate) and allow the reader to perform any interpretation they might feel necessary (e.g. discounting drivers who only particpated in the Indy 500, discounting records set in 1950, etc). DH85868993 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed Farina and Fangio in line with the discussion on a similar topic above. I don't think their records should remain, since such "trivial records" are not at all notable IMO - the winner of the first Grand Prix (whoever it would turn out to be) gained it "automatically". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information.

There is a difference to the Indianapolis winners, where participants of previous Grand Prix were in principle able to win, if they had chosen to compete. (The current footnote on the Indy race does not actually state why this race was "special", unfortunately.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I added Nino Farina again, as the 'rule' stated by Roentgenium111 is extremely arbitrary and applies not really comprehensible double standards regarding the Indy 500 drivers. Either have them all in or have them all out, but nothing in between.--Wackelkopp (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

For consistency, I've added Fangio back in as well. DH85868993 (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The "rule" is not at all arbitrary: 1950 Indianapolis 500 wasn't the first Grand Prix ever, so it could in principle have been won by a non-first time driver, just like the 1961 French Grand Prix. I don't mind also excluding the first Indianapolis winners if there's a good argument for it, but you didn't give any. (An argument would be that all participating drivers were first-time drivers, if that's true - but Ascari did participate at IND 1952, so we would exclude Parsons and Wallard but not Ruttman, which seems strange as well). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Error

The article currently states at the bottom that Andrea de Cesaris hold the record for the most consecutive retirements (did not finishes) from first race of season. This is incorrect because he finished third in the 1987 Belgian Grand Prix, the third of the sixteen races which it is said he holds this record for. However, I haven't changed the page because I don't know what the 'new record' would be. I thought it may possibly be Jacques Villeneuve's start to the 1999 season, but I wasn't sure. Bigdon128 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

According, to this [6] he run out fuel on the final lap.--Kingjamie (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this issue today - regardless of the fact he had car troubles on the last lap and actually pushed his car over the line, he still finished the race as the car did cross the line. Even if he had stopped short of the line he would still have completed 41 of the 43 laps and thus more than 90% of the race distance, so it is not a retirement. A similar thing applies when we have seen drivers completely wipe out and crash spectacularly on the final lap - so long as they have already completed 90% of the race distance this is not a retirement according to the rules, strange as it might seem. Similarly, I suppose, if you were to be lapped so many times that you completed fewer than 90% of the actual race laps but were still running, you wouldn't be classified and it would go down as a DNF - perhaps it is just the word 'retirement' that we're getting confused by.

Anyway, I have installed Capelli on 14 consecutive DNFs and Villeneuve's start to '99 in his place, as from some searching they are the next in line from what I can see. They may be wrong so feel free to correct, but as the de Cesaris records were definitely incorrect and these ones are possibly incorrect, it is a step in the right direction at least. BroSwerve (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Pole, led entire race & scored fastest lap

Why the removal of the pilots who achieved this feat only once? Until this morning they were all present in this list. With today's accomplishment of Vetel (his second of this type in his career), all other drivers below him were deleted. I know that the other lists in this article tend to stop at 10 names or close to that, but this is such a rare accomplishment in F1 that I think the other names should be back here, this list should be complete, it wouldn't be such a big list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.38.136 (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not rarer than winning a championship, and much less notable. And even the championships list stops at position #10. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Idea: Most nations raced in by a single driver

Thought this would be a good random record to put in there, if someone could word it better. It would go to Michael Schumacher, who has raced in 26 of the 30 nations to have held a World Championship race (all but Morocco, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland). Excellence Of Execution (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Highest percentage of points in a season: Error for Jim Clark

It says that Jim Clark has achieved 100 % in both 1963 and 1965, which is not correct according to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clark#Complete_World_Championship_Formula_One_results . Sporally (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely correct because not all points counted to the Drivers' championship. Cybervoron (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Driver" records?

It seems to me that a number of records have crept into this page that are not, strictly speaking, "driver" records. IMO a driver record should be one that can be framed by a question in the form "Which F1 driver has... (insert record here)?" and to which the answer is a driver's name. Like "Which driver has the most race wins in his F1 career?", for example. Hence, records like "Youngest (or oldest) average age of podium finishers" are not really driver records because the record holder, so to speak, is a grand prix. The same (or similar) goes for "Most different race winners in consecutive races from first race of the season", "Most different race winners in consecutive races", "Most race winners in one year", "Most championship leader changes in a season", "Most championship contenders going into the final race of the season", "Most World Champions competing in a season", etc etc etc. If these belong anywhere, they belong on the general List of Formula One records page, surely? Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a Formula One cruft page? Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this page uses a broader definition of "driver record", i.e. any record related to drivers (as opposed to constructors, or engines or tyres, etc). DH85868993 (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Keeping records simple...?

It also strikes me that there are a number of very contrived records that seem to have been developed in order to increase Sebastian Vettel's presence on this page (although IMO he is doing a very good job of that himself without any help from us!). I give you "Youngest Grand Prix winner at the same Grand Prix on 2 occasions", "Most consecutive top two results, in both qualifying and race", "Most consecutive top two results, in both qualifying and race, from the start of the season". If we start working like this, we'll have records for everything! "Most consecutive seventh places at a grand prix with the letter 'p' in the circuit title" anyone? And second place in a race isn't in itself notable in grand prix racing. You win, you're on the podium, or you've lost. Let's keep this page pure, eh? Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "records" have been recorded somewhere else? In other words, without a source for the record (not the raw data) it's OR?

Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree. In fact, I think that the page should be purged for all records that do not have a reference/citation. Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree there are a number of contrived records and that we possibly/probably should have references to confirm the notability of the various records. But I think it may prove difficult to gain consensus on what constitutes a suitable reference - in the past I have see the inclusion of trivial factoids justified by the fact that "a commentator mentioned it" during a Grand Prix telecast, and F1 stats sites record some fairly obscure stuff, e.g. ChicaneF1 records the fact that Michael Schumacher holds the record for "Most 2nd Fastest Laps in a Season". I would also hope that before any programme of mass deletion was undertaken, that some effort would be made to find references for the "inherently notable" contents of the page, e.g. I would not like to see the "Total wins" table deleted simply because it does not currently have a reference. DH85868993 (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Youngest 4x and 5x World Champion

Should we add this in as well? I think up to 5 is good and this 2 are not easily achievable stats. StandNThrow (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Youngest out of a total number of two or three 4x resp. 5x World Champions is rather trivial information - e.g. there's no other 5x World Champion except the youngest and the oldest 5x Champion. What's notable is being Champion 4 or 5 times at all, and this is already listed.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Most consecutive wins in one season

The article mentions that Alberto Ascari won 9 successive races in two seasons 1952–1953, and that Nigel Mansell achieved "most consecutive wins (5) from first race of season" (1992). An obvious list is missing though: who had the most consecutive wins in one season? Correctascari (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Makes sense. Might separate the tables then. StandNThrow (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Recalculated Points Button and Piquet

By my calculation Piquet has 1672 points and Button has 1670.5 points. Taking into account the half-points in Australia '91 and Malaysia '09 respectively, it seems it was applied to Piquet once to often and not at all to Button. Could somebody please doublecheck. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.22.40 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your totals. I have updated the article. DH85868993 (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Percentage starts from front row

I try to understand these section.

First of all, I think the number of front row starts are the "real" front row starts (3 or 4 cars in the front row in former years).

But I miss Alberto Ascari (25 front row (21x first or second) and 32 starts --> 78,1%; Guiseppe Farina (27 front row, 33 starts --> 81,8%), Luigi Fagioli (4 front row, 7 starts --> 57,1%); Stirling Moss (37 front row, 66 starts --> 56,1%), Eugenio Castellotti (7 front row, 14 starts --> 50%), Jose-Froilan Gonzalez (12 front row, 26 starts --> 46,1%). I have not included drivers who drove only the Indianapolis 500. The stats are from StatsF1 (http://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote.aspx).

Is there a reason why these pilots are not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y0011216 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Drivers' Championships without Constructors' Championship

This table has a note that Räikkönen originally achieved this during the 2007 season. This is untrue, however. Even if you count the points scored by Mclaren and disregard their disqualification Ferrari would have still outscored them by one point and would have been the winning constructor. Tvx1 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, no and no. The two McLaren drivers scored 218 points (109 points each) and Ferrari scored 204 (Räikkönen 110, Massa 94) so if McLaren hadn't been disqualified they would have been constructors' champions. See the season article for 2007.178.55.142.29 (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you do count Mclaren's points they would have scored 203 points. You cannot take into account the points they could have possibly scored in Hungary. It was announced BEFORE the race that they were ineligble for constructors points from that Grand Prix as a penalty for the Hamilton/Alonso qualifying incident and they were never awarded those points, irrespectivallly of the Espionage disqualification. Furthermore, the Drivers' and Constructors' Championships are two independent championships and the amount of points scored by the drivers is, for the rules, completely irrelevant to the amount of those points that will count for the Constructors' Championship for those drivers' team. Tvx1 (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You are lying about Hungary and learn to write McLaren correctly please.87.93.111.205 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not lying about anything by any means. During qualifying for the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix there was a well documented incident between Alonso and Hamilton which was penalized with 5 place grid penalty for Alonso and a non-eligiblity for CONSTRUCTORS' points for McLaren for the race. McLaren never received any CONSTRUCTORS' points from that race. They submitted an appeal to that disicion, but later withdrew that after being disqualified from the Constructors' Championship altogether. Please do some research before calling anyone a liar! Tvx1 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

McLaren only lost those points after the season as a penalty so technically they were constructors champions for a while but then Ferrari got it as FIA imposed sanctions on McLaren.178.55.212.50 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I take it your answer relates to their disqualification from the Constructors' Championship. I'm not certain that this is correct either as as far I can remember McLaren were disqualified with immediate effect as result of the WMSC hearing in between the Italian and Belgian Grands Prix, but fair enough. This, however, is irrelevant to the result from the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix. McLaren were never credited with Constructors' point from that race. Read the article and the 2007 season article as well as the sources provided in those articles and you will find confirmation that they weren't. So even when you disregard the disqualification from the Championship they scored 203 point which is one less than Ferrari. Tvx1 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

McLaren were penalised their potential constructors points on Saturday before the race after - and I quote:

The actions of the team in the final minutes of qualifying are considered prejudicial to the interests of the competition and to the interests of motor sport generally.

Here are some sources which underline that McLaren would not have received any constructor's points from Hungary.

F1 Fanatic

Grand Prix.com where Norbert Haug is quoted directly.

Formula One's official website

British newspaper The Guardian

Please, in future, do not make accusations of another editor of lying without at the very least doing them the basic courtesy of research beforehand. Google is your friend and memory can cheat. Look it up and confirm first, then make your complaints known. I assure you you will get a fair hearing. --Falcadore (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that the issue has been resolved now. Yet, l'd like to give one more note to wrap this up and to shed some clarification because I feel the issue came about as a result of a misunderstanding of the working of the World Championships. The World Drivers' and World Constructors' championships are de facto independent championships. The constructors' championship is not simply made up by "adding up the drivers' championship points". Most of the time the points are the same, but in same rare cases, like in 2007, they're not. The Constructors' Championship is made up by totaling the points scored by each constructor at each Grand Prix. In 2007 McLaren did not score any points at Hungary. The drivers were allowed to keep their points, but that only relates to the Drivers' Championship and NOT to the Constructors' Championship. The only thing the championships have in common is that de facto the same individuals are scoring the points for them, although by the rules that's not technically the case. The drivers, the actual persons, score the points for the Drivers' Championship (i.e. Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton), whereas the cars score the points for the Constructors' Championship (i.e. Car No. 1, Car No. 2). I hope this has clarified the working a bit. Tvx1 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Alberto Ascari consecutive wins dilemma

Some sources extend Ascari's sequence to 9 wins, by including the subsequent 1953 Dutch and Belgian Grands Prix, and discounting the intervening 1953 Indianapolis 500, on the basis that although the Indianapolis 500 was part of the Drivers' Championship from 1950 to 1960, very few of the European drivers and teams ever competed there.

The person who edited Alberto Ascari page have changed his wins in a row from 9 to 7.

Maybe a general census if Ascari's record should hold at 9 or 7. StandNThrow (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a more general issue - whether or not to include races for which a driver/team was not entered when considering "consecutive" streaks - it affects the following:

• consecutive wins - Ascari/Ferrari 1952/53 - 9 if you ignore the 1953 Indianapolis 500; only 7 if you take it into account
• consecutive podiums - Ascari 1952/53 - ditto
• consecutive wins - Clark 1965 - 6 if you ignore the 1965 Monaco Grand Prix; only 5 if you take it into account
• consecutive finishes - Räikkönen 2009-2013 - 38 if you ignore 2010-2011; only 30 if you take 2010-2011 into account

For what it's worth, I think the races for which the driver/team were not entered should be taken into account (i.e. Ascari/Ferrari should be credited with only 7 successive wins in 1952/53). It will come to a head if Vettel wins the next race and we see whether or not reliable sources describe 8 wins in a row as "a new record". DH85868993 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would include an asterix in all those cases, either way, explaining the situation. However, much as I've been thinking about it, I'm not sure yet personally what I'd prefer. Hope to get some more input here. GameLegend (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've advertised this discussion at WP:F1 in the hopes of attracting further input. DH85868993 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As a suggestion for these, is the way I've (or someone else) done the table of consecutive wins on the F1 Wiki workable here on Wikipedia? However, I'm going to discuss the issue over there which should be quite apparent – whether to move Vettel to first on the table if he wins the next race. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The table looks good. Anyway, Vettel is 11 wins in 2013 now. The table just above the consecutive one. StandNThrow (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Could I note that if Ascari has seven in the table, why is Clark's 1965 streak listed on six? —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted Clark to 5, for internal consistency, pending the outcome of this discussion. Thanks for pointing it out. DH85868993 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've also removed Ascari's "9" from the consecutive podiums table, again for internal consistency. DH85868993 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that Ascari should have the 9 consecutive victories on here as the Formula 1 world count it as 9 and I think that they are ina better position to decide what counts as 'consecutive' than we are. I think it should be changed back to 9. --Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "the Formula 1 world" that counts it as 9? Officially, Indianapolis belonged to the Formula 1 season, so the wins were not consecutive.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, numerous (reliable?) sources have made reference to "Ascari's record of 9 wins in a row" in the past few days, e.g. Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, Daily Online News, BBC Sport, although the BBC Sport article has "a bet each way" by describing Vettel's 8th win as "breaking the mark held by Michael Schumacher and Alberto Ascari" but also noting that if Vettel won in Brazil he would "equal Ascari's record for consecutive F1 world championship victories". DH85868993 (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What I mean by the "F1 world" is that on the offical Formula 1 website it says things like "matching Ascari’s nine in a row from 1952-’53" (http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/11/15313.html) and "The victory puts Vettel on course to match Alberto Ascari’s record of nine straight wins" in the Austin post race report. Also many of the teams/drivers hold this record as being 9 as was the case when Sebastian and Christian were being interviewed after the Brazil race. I think the fact that Formula One counts Ascari's record as being 9 then this should be more than good enough for us. --Colinmotox11 (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I see; but strangely, the same official website lists Indianapolis as a normal Grand Prix (without even a footnote), with Vukovich interrupting Ascari's winning sequence: http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1953/ So the site contradicts itself and doesn't take a definite position...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from but I think the fact that it clearly states that Ascari's record is 9 is stronger than a results list. Formula 1 seem to count it as 9 so I feel this page should be consistent with that. It doesn't say anywhere on the F1 website (that I can find) that says Ascari's record is 7. --Colinmotox11 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I also see your point, but I put more trust in a factual results table than in a brief mention in what amounts to a news report - the latter are always at risk of factual errors due to time constraints. FWIW, both F1-Fanatic and StatsF1 explicitly state that it's seven (and both are used as references in the article, so are deemed reliable). Note also that Ascari did drive in Indianapolis in 1952, so he had no good excuse not to do so in 1953... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion multiple articles which state something explicitly are stronger evidence than a table which does not mention the record. Yes you are right that factual errors could be made but I find it highly unlikely that they would make the same mistake more than once, particularly on the offical F1 website. My concern is that people who do not know about the Indy500 situation may have watched the TV broadcasts (which say 'Vettel has equalled Ascari's record' etc) and then visit this page and be confused as to why there is inconsistency. I think we should bypass the technicalities of what 'consecutive' means and keep this in line with what Formula 1 seems to have agreed on. Thoughts? --Colinmotox11 (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Which "multiple" official articles do you mean? After the Austin race you mentioned, they actually explicitly stated that Ascari did NOT achieve 9 consecutive wins: "Before Sunday, no man had ever won eight consecutive FIA Formula One World Championship rounds".

To avoid confusion, we already have a footnote explaining the situation. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I meant the one I quoted earlier plus there was another one in the run up to the Austin Grand Prix. However I am happy with the compromise of a footnote explaining. --Colinmotox11 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Trivial and OR records

I'm getting a bit concerned about some of the records appearing on the page here. Most pole positions/fastest laps without being champion? Seriously? That's a stat in common usage anywhere? Should be deleted as OR or trivia. Any and all tables regarding recalculating pointscores to pre/post the 2010 points score change is definately OR and trivia as it has no real world basis whatsoever. If those appeared on a Formula One season article it would not last a day without being deleted - there should be no double standard here. It is absolutely not Wikipedia's role to provide any sort of WHATIF speculatory data. It's just made up stuff. --Falcadore (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wot 'e said. There should be a source for the record, not just for the base data. Ian Dalziel (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate all the work that is being done in good faith, I can't help feeling that this is getting very silly indeed... Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I propose to delete the following records immediately:

Most pole positions by drivers that have not won a World Championship - pole positions do not in any way contribute to the winning of world championship - it is an unrelated intersection of statistics.

Most fastest laps by drivers that have not won a World Championship - fastest laps only contributed to the championship in the 1950s - it is essentially an unrelated intersection of statistics.

Most podium finishes by drivers that have not won a World Championship - trivial intersection of statistics.

Career points recalculated to the 2010 scoring system - this is an original calculation not refered to anywhere by anything remotely official. Completely fancruft.

Total races finished in the points, recalculated to the 2010 scoring system - this is an original calculation not refered to anywhere by anything remotely official. Completely fancruft.

Highest average points per race started, recalculated to the 2010 scoring system - this is an original calculation not refered to anywhere by anything remotely official. Completely fancruft.

Most championship points in a season, recalculated to the 2010 scoring system - this is an original calculation not refered to anywhere by anything remotely official. Completely fancruft.

Drivers' Championships without Constructors' Championship - something that has only been achieved once or twice by each driver is not worth tabulating.

Any objections? --Falcadore (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No objections here. May I also suggest for immediate deletion:

Youngest drivers to set the fastest lap time in an official Grand Prix session - pure trivia.

Front row in starting grid - this whole section is likely original research and of little notability. Leaving out the Indy 500 due to the three-car row suggests a prime case of making up statistics.

Total Second/Third Place finishes - this has seen any real usage.

I'm sure we can prune the page even more, as some records in the points section and the big table at the bottom appear to be of dubious importance. QueenCake (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking further, I find myself agreeing with the editor above who suggested someone has been making up records to give to Vettel. I mean,"Youngest Grand Prix winner at the same Grand Prix on 2 occasions"? Really? QueenCake (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole page, like all articles titled "List of..." is not the business I thought we were in. Britmax (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That is perhaps an argument you'll have to take up with the higher ups... Generally most lists begin life within a parent article before being split out when they become unwieldy, and it's the same I think with most of the decent records on this page.QueenCake (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone and deleted the "records" mentioned by Falcadore and myself. If anyone does object to their removal, I suggest you try and source the existence of these records first. I'll be looking at removing more things like "Consecutive fastest laps at the same GP", objections aside. QueenCake (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the points lists recalculated to the 2010 points system. Specifically Career points recalculated to the 2010 scoring system and Most championship points in a season recalculated to the 2010 points system. I can live with the removal of the other lists though. The reason why I object to the removal of these two lists, is that they are the only two concerning points that give even a remote opportunity to compare drivers. The "normal" career points list is completely senseless since the different points system (in some of them not all of the points scored even counted towards the world championship) are ignored. Allow me to illustrate why that list is so senseless: even if 5-time world champion Juan Manuel Fangio won every Grand Prix he ever participated in he would not have scored as many points in his whole career as one could nowadays score in one single season! A list where all the drivers' results are recalculated to one system gives a least some representativity. Tvx1 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

But even the recalculated tables are still biased towards recent drivers, because there are so many more races now than there were in the 1950s. Consider that Fangio (who raced more seasons than Vettel has, and has a better win and podium percentage) doesn't appear in the top 10 in the recalculated "Career points" table (whereas Vettel does), and Ascari, who scored 74.3% of the total available points in 1952, doesn't appear in the recalculated "Most championship points in a season" table. So while the tables perhaps offer an improved comparison between drivers of the last 30 years or so (when there have been 16-20 races per season), they still don't provide proper representation for drivers from the 1950s and 1960s. And they're still OR. DH85868993 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course they are biased. Just like statistics in virtually EVERY sport are biased towards recentism. Cricketters play many more games now than they used to and against quite a few ore teams. Javelins are different shapes so throwers don't impale the spectator in row FF. The fact that they are biased is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. It is completely against wikipedia's purpose to compile a list of "what if" statistics. Instead of "what if the points were different" we could have a list of "what if the world championship was decided by pole positions and fastest laps" or by drivers IQ, or best looking car. This is pretty much exactly what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought is for.

Recalculation of points is based on events which never happenned. It misrepresents history and is based on fictional events.

If the points system were different, teams would employ different tactics. Racing for sixth place would be a lot more different if 7th-10th no longer got points for example and there would be a lot more DNFs as drivers but bigger risks on the equipment to get further up the grid. It is not Wikipedia's job to give a "proper representation". Recalculation is original research. Life is not fair. Deal with it. --Falcadore (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the recalculated lists have their flaws as well. But they are at least better than the normal lists. I can't see why you don't have a problem at all with a career points lists that claims Alonso has scored most all-time points, while e.g. Juan Manuel Fangio (a five time world champion) could have scored a maximum of 468 points, which is 7 less than you can nowadays score in one season, if he would have won all the races he ever participated in. Arguably, the best way to try and make a comparison would be to use a list where a percentage of points scored from those possible to score by each driver is used. Tvx1 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And the best place for that comparison would not be Wikipedia. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason that Garfield Sobers or Dennis Lillie is no longer holder of test cricket wicket keeping record. The Fangio reference is more than a little odd as he surrended the points record to Jackie Stewart I think in about 1970, nothing to do with 25 points systems.

Put at it's most simplest, you are advocating the keeping of a completely invented record with no basis in fact. That is so far from Wikipedia's principals I'm surprised you can even suggest it. --Falcadore (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You can argue that Alonso's record of total points is rather pointless, but nonetheless it is a record that is in existence outside this page and merits inclusion. As an encyclopaedia, all information should only be exist here if it can be reliably sourced. No matter how useful you believe some of these records to be, unless you can produce a source stating the existence of the record - not just the existence of the statistics - they can not be included on this page. QueenCake (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want some proof that this approach to this record has been used outside wikipedia, no problem. Here are couple of sources.

[7]

[8]

Note that they were published before the last race of this season and are not necessarily entirely up to date.

I'll be happy to give some more if needed Tvx1 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those two sources, one of which is a fan blog the other an Spanish site with unproven reliability, have proven the existence of a points recalculated to the 2010 system record. That is simply proving the existence of the calculations. Further, it does not change the fact this record is pure fabrication, and even if this was in common use in reliable sources (which it isn't), it still may not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I advise you to read What Wikipedia is not, with particular focus on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. QueenCake (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Queencake is absolutely right. You can't include the points scores of events which never actually happenned. It is directly against Wikipedia's purpose, regardless of how many Formula 1 fancruft sites compile it. WP:FANCRUFT

If you want to provide some proof, then provide proof that 10-8-6 etc pointscore system has been officially awarded and recognised in recent seasons, because that is the only way it gets in. --Falcadore (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting that previous points systems can be grafted onto future seasons misses a central problem. Points systems are usually altered to encourage more exciting racing. If, for example, even one driver achieves a win when they would have settled for second under the old system then all the results changed by that are different. This means we cannot know what would have happened as the change is not merely a mathematical one and assuming that the only difference is mathematical is OR. Britmax (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Queencake suggests for removal further: Youngest drivers to set the fastest lap time in an official Grand Prix session - pure trivia.

Front row in starting grid - this whole section is likely original research and of little notability. Leaving out the Indy 500 due to the three-car row suggests a prime case of making up statistics.

No problem with either of those. If one can't even be researched accurately there is no reason to keep. And any record that includes unofficial practice sessions is trivia. Lose it. --Falcadore (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any new arguments to keep the recalculated points tables I presume we have a consensus, so I've removed them again.

Time permitting, I will try and find some references for the "obvious" records. I was thinking we should have a source that proves the existence of the record, and another if necessary to support the data in the table. For illustration, the "Career points" table could be referenced with this news article, which shows that the total number of points is considered an actual record, as well FORIX or somewhere so that the actual data can be verified. Hopefully, we can move this page from the current sprawling, unreferenced mess, to an article where every record is either reliably sourced or removed from the page. QueenCake (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed records

To carry on with the above discussion, I've removed a number of record tables that are clearly trivia, and have no existence beyond fan sites or statistic compilations. I've listed them below for convenience:

• Most consecutive pole positions at the same Grand Prix
• Most consecutive fastest laps
• Most consecutive fastest laps at the same Grand Prix
• Highest percentage of possible championship points in a season
• Highest percentage of total possible points in a season
• Most consecutive races won with all laps in the lead
• Most consecutive races won with all laps in the lead at the same Grand Prix

If anyone wishes to re-include these or add new records, I advise that you first read what Wikipedia is not, and find reliable sources that note the existence of the record. QueenCake (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To really turn it into a discussion: I was the one assembling the consecutive at the same grand prix records (so lost research work here, but whatever). As I can follow the removal of points (under the guidelines) 1, 3, 4 and 6, I do not with the other ones, because in my opinion they deliever a certain kind of better insight or comparability (e.g. percentage of total possibale points makes a better understanding of the archievments over the decades and different eras of points systems). Point 7 has the same value than most consecutive laps in the lead and shows a dominant phase of a driver, otherwise every consecutive record would make no sense at all, because they all have the same intention of showing a streak of successes.

I would also suggest the installtion of the section "Most consecutive world championships". By the way, the finishes section in the other record table has become more confusing by removing the consecutive and total finished races, because now it is not clear to detect what is meant by the term finsh. First it's finishes (Schumacher), than consecutive classified finishes (Heidtfeld) and than only finishes again (Räikkönen and Chilton). I think the differancial between classified finishes and finishes should be better highlighted or explained and in my opinion the best wayto do it is, to bring back the old records for both finishes and classified finishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.54.198 (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"lost research work here"

a) Nothing is lost - it's all in the history.

b) You're calling it research yourself - what argument can there be? Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That is what strikes you?. Noticed.

Anyone with real suggestions or ideas for the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.54.198 (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The real suggestion is that you follow Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:OR and find reliable sources for anything you want to add. Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.54.198 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. The implication of OR is these records have been made up or calculated specifically for the purposes of this article. If they haven't where is the external reference that says otherwise? Where are the references which demonstrate that these are regularly used statistics and not trivial quirks? --Falcadore (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Come on guys, please don't make this a discussion about citing, it's about whether the deleted sections should be excluded, which, as stated in the opening arguement, is absolutly not about giving missed sources. Please check again and let us know what you thing about the actual topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.54.198 (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

To Ian: The lost research work is supposed to relate to the hours it costed me, to look and add up all the numbers of the statistics. Of course the work, in the sense of the endproduct, is still available. Maybe that clears it up for you. But nevertheless I would really like to know what others think of the above stated opinions. THX in advance.84.63.54.198 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations proves the stats are valuable and not made up statistics that nobody ever uses. If you want to keep track of various minor F1 statistics then Wikipedia is not the place for it. --Falcadore (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Listcruft. --Falcadore (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So we finally have the first step into the right direction. A definition of "minor" would be helpful, because there is no clear system recognisable, which is in use at the moment to define what's a "proper" record table. (e.g. consecutive poles at the same GP, oldest polesitter, most runner-up finishes etc. would be minors as well, in my opinion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.54.198 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

While it is likely that more records should be deleted, their presense is NOT a justification for the re-instatement of any other records. Each record needs to stand on its own merits, not those of its neighbours. --Falcadore (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Shortest time elapsed before earning a penalty

The record for "Shortest time elapsed before earning a penalty" is frequently changed (both on this page and Vettel's own page) from six seconds to nine seconds or vice versa, depending on which source is quoted. This contemporary BBC Sport report says nine seconds, whereas this Sky Sports page detailing Vettel's F1 records says six seconds. Does anyone have any other (reliable) sources so that we can make a definite decision one way or the other? DH85868993 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a completely trivial record. Remove it. --Falcadore (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Points recalculated to the 2010 points system

I notice the recent addition of several tables of points recalculated to the 2010 points system. What do people think of this idea? DH85868993 (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I like it, though it might be OR. (BTW, Vettel should be in the recalculated Career Points Top Ten by now, by my calculation he is above 1500.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, well since there's support for these tables to stay, we need to decide how to handle shared drives, because it affects the "Average points per race" table. As I see it, we have three options:

1. Award full points ("because there are no shared points in the 2010 scoring system")

2. Award shared points (i.e. as was done at the time), or

3. Award no points (noting that the scoring system was changed in 1958 such that no points were awarded for shared drives and presumably that rule is still in force?)

I favour either option 2 or 3, but am open to other opinions. I believe the "Average points per table" currently awards shared points for Fangio, Fagioli, Ascari and Farina but full points for Serafini. DH85868993 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Average points per table" now "shows" shared points for Serafini (i.e. by omitting him from the table). DH85868993 (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there is a need for interpretation just underlines that this is OR and should be removed. --Falcadore (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not object to that. DH85868993 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Why was this "record" re-inserted into the article? How has it's status as a work of fiction changed? --Falcadore (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's explain this once more and see if someone shoots me down in flames. Points systems are changed to stimulate more interesting racing, as a win is worth more points than it used to be, and the difference is more rewarding and worth the extra effort and risk. This means that a driver who would have settled in the old system may make the extra effort to achieve a win instead. As this is the case we cannot extrapolate from one scoring system to another as the relationship is no longer a purely mathematical one. Trying to do so is therefore WP:OR. Any questions? Britmax (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary that accompanied the table's reintroduction was "Reinstated since it is now credited in a mainstream reliable source", in reference to this BBC Sport article. I offer no opinion on whether that's sufficient/suitable justification for the table to be reintroduced. DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So it's main stream fiction now? Can we please see the world championships where these points occurred? --Falcadore (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have notified User:Tvx1 (who reinstated the table to the page) about this discussion. Note that they don't seem to edit every day, so they may not see the notification for some time. DH85868993 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's credited by and sourced to a mainstream reliable publication. As a result of that, it does NOT qualify as OR and it's inclusion is justified now. Falcadore's made definition doesn't matter as it does not claim that these points occurred in every World Championship. The lead for the table makes it very clear that they are recalculated points and not effectively awarded points. As for Britmax, what you claim is pure speculation. Please provide proof that drivers "settled" for positions purely because of the points system that was in use if you want to justify your claim. Tvx1 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know how it is not considered a distortion of history. You are assigning points to drivers who never received them and by extension re-evaluating past championships based on facts not in evidence.

What is the purpose of career points tally? I adds up points scored by drivers over the course of their career. A recalculated points tally is a compilation of fictional events that never happened. How do you justify mis-representing history and by recalculating points using only ONE criteria. For example no allowance is made for 20 race seasons instead of six race seasons. No allowance is made for how races are shorter now than in past seasons. --Falcadore (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Please provide proof that drivers "settled" for positions"? That's the point. I don't know, and neither do you, and nor does anyone else know "what would have happened if...". Britmax (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore, those issues exist with any career points total list. The "normal" list puts Alonso as record holder. But that is equally biased. E.g. If Juan Manuel Fangio would have won every race he ever participated in he would still have collected less points than any driver can now gain during just one season. The concerns you raise apply to any career points table, not just this one in particular. Most, importantly you shouldn't aim your complaints at me. I didn't publish the article. BBC did, and that is a reliable source hence justification for inclusion here. Tvx1 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As I already stated, it has ALWAYS been biased - eg the number of races per season, eight then nine then ten points for a win, and so on. The argument that the current points is biased based only the 25 point system remains utterly irrelevant. By adding a recalculated table it is violating NPOV because it is essentially an opinion and is not factually based.

Put most simply, a recalculated points table is still fiction and should not be displayed in wikipedia under any circumstances. --Falcadore (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Or rather to clarify, your recalculation of the points to the 2010 point system selectively removes only one component of bias, while leaving others intact. Rather than equalizing the result, it just alters the squew. And does it in away that substitutes reality for your own version of it. --Falcadore (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally to claim that the BBC is responsible for your contributions is ludicrous. --Falcadore (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The writer of the article admits that there is no definitive answer and it's all a bit of fun. Which it is, and worthy for that: but that also means that it has no place here. Britmax (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not my recalculation, it's not my reality, it's not my table. It literally comes from a source, and the person who wrote the sourced article is named in the citation. That's why the table is accompanied with a citation in the first place. I literally cited what a source said, that's nowhere near my personal opinion. This is sounding very much like a personal attack to me. Ever heard of good faith?

When you say Most, importantly you shouldn't aim your complaints at me. I didn't publish the article. BBC did, I don't believe criticising that to be a personal attack. You are always responsible for your own edits, regardless of source. --Falcadore (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Grand Slam 2013

The 'consensus' last time the Grand Slam was discussed, was that it should not be used because there was not enough proof the term was actually used for the feat of winning from pole position, leading every lap of the race and setting the fastest lap. Following the recent Grand Slams by Sebastian Vettel, I believe it is fair to accept it is a generally used term in motorsports. [9][10][11][12][13][14]

Anyone opposed to this? GameLegend (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Grand Slam (or Grand Chelem) is used by FORIX and has been for ages, so I'm not sure why the hostility to this. Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Used by FORIX (which was not originally English) and by nothing else. It has never been a motor racing term. It has been brought into English usage by FORIX and Wikipedia. Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to change it, you should at least keep the current wording in parantheses as its "definition". Note that four out of the five valid references you give do so, most even put "Grand Slam" in quotation marks; they don't expect their readers to know the term. (Your fourth reference ([15]) is actually about the tennis term.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, never was planning differently :) GameLegend (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

How many sources does it take for this term to be accepted? A quick scan yields: this (a fan site - so fans are using this term); this, this and this from f1fanatic; this; this from the Guardian; this from Times of India; this from the Independent; there are also mentions in The Express and other newspapers. The stats site list it. What is the problem here? Is it a purist view that it is a 'johnny-come-lately' term coined by people who don't really know the sport? The fact that the term is explained in these sources is irrelevant - this is mainly because it doesn't happen very often. I've known the term 'grand chelem' since I was a child some thirty odd years ago via my father who was an F1 fan in the Moss/Hill era. I'm happy with either term being used but I really can't see why people feel the need to remove it altogether.Btljs (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The effort over several years now to force terms that are seldom if ever used into the article is in flagrant violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Google searches for "grand slam formula one", "grand slam motorsport", and "grand slam grand prix" reveal few uses outside wikipedia and its mirrors, and all of the ones you quote are from the last 2-3 years. It's entirely possible that these few recent uses have resulted from the presence of the term in Wikipedia. 190.161.182.12 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not true: this is from 2009. You have a view that these uses stem from Wikipedia but where is your evidence for this? In the absence of a direct link from e.g. a wiki site to a Guardian article, you have no right to disallow the article. How long would you like to wait before you consider these uses to be unpolluted by their origin? There's a book here: but you'll probably say "it's 2011 so it obviously copied Wikipedia." Anyway, I have no particular axe to grind, so do as you see fit - I'll revisit in 10 years and we'll see whether the term has stuck or not. Btljs (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You might have a point if the reason the term is seldom used was because another term is more often used. However, that is not the case. Between 2004 and 2010, there has not been a single Grand Slam. That is why "it is seldom used", not because it is not a valid term. GameLegend (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is no way that Wikipedia can avoid influencing people unless nobody reads it, which rather defeats the object. So, this term was not created by Wikipedia and sooner or later somebody will come up with a reference which pre-dates the web, so the only argument here is whether Wiki has brought the term (back) into the popular vernacular, which is unavoidable, since it is one of the most accessed reference works around. To throw your line back at you "we take the world as it is not as we think it should be" and "as it is" includes Wikipedia for better (we hope) or worse. Btljs (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

List of drivers winning the world drivers championship with two or more teams

This is an interesting stat and in my opinion it should be added. Winning the world driver championship with two different teams (or more) happened only to very few drivers in the history of F1 (only 10) and it is very significant when evaluating the career of a F1 driver (in particular it shows well J.M. Fangio greatness). I know there is a mention of "World Champion with most teams" in the "Other driver records" section, but I think the full list should be reported. Here's the list:

• (4) Juan Manuel Fangio (Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Mercedes, Ferrari)
• (2) Jack Brabham (Cooper, Brabham); Graham Hill (BRM, Lotus); Jackie Stewart (Matra, Tyrrell); Emerson Fittipaldi (Lotus, Mclaren); Niki Lauda (Ferrari, McLaren); Nelson Piquet (Brabahm, Williams); Alain Prost (McLaren, Williams); Michael Schumacher (Benetton, Ferrari); Lewis Hamilton (McLaren, Mercedes). --Liongalahad (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You shown one of the stats flaws right there. Jackie Stewart only won World Championships for ONE team. Two constructors yes, but those Matras he raced were owned and run by Tyrrell Racing. If the stat can't be effectively defined it should not be included. --Falcadore (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you consider that of the 16 drivers who have won two or more championships, over half of them have done so with two or more teams, it's not really that uncommon. DH85868993 (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This page is called Formula One records not stats. The discussion we had this time last year made it quite clear we only add records that have seen significant use elsewhere (e.g number of wins), not just statistics you have calculated yourself or mildly interesting factoids. QueenCake (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the "record" is already there, in the section "Other records", go and check it yourself, I only said that maybe a full list should be put as I find it interesting. The fact that you consider this "record" as trivial or of scarce interest is your mere opinion, the "record" was mentioned in few articles (e.g. on the Telegraph 2 days ago) and thought that it could be an interesting "record". While you are mildly (?) mocking me, I haven't modified the actual article as you can see, just politely suggested it on the Talk page (it's there for this reason, no?), if the suggestion doesn't make it to the actual article I'll quickly get over it, no big deal. --Liongalahad (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposal. There's been significant discussion about this recently in light of Vettel's move to Ferrari, that some claim his four world championships carry less weight as they were won with a single team. Plus Schumacher's achievements are often talked about in light of the fact that won with two different teams and played a role in turning them from race-winners to championship-contenders. Finally, numerous articles on Hamilton's WDC have cited that he has now won with two different teams.78.149.207.8 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

On those instances when they talk of Vettel moving to Ferrari, and of Hamilton's new championship, do they then go on to mention that Fangio won the title for four teams? If not, they are not talking about the record are they? ::::::If displayed, should it describe teams or constructors? If the intention is to underline a drivers ability by winning with two teams then Stewart should not be included. --Falcadore (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

incorrect numbering of positions in the tables?

Seems a little strange ...

Most wins at same GP has:

• 1st Schumacher
• 2nd Schumacher
• 4th Three more drivers and Schumacher again.

When I was at school we were taught that the "three more drivers and Schumacher" would be 3rd, not 4th.

Now, I realise that things change over time, so can someone please explain who came third on that list?

• This may be due to the curse of people trying to be clever by amalgamating fields in these tables. However, even two seconds' thought might have shown that these records are given as a combination of driver and event, not simply by driver. The list is actually 1) Schumacher, 8, French GP; 2=) Schumacher, 7, Canadian GP; 2=) Schumacher, 7, San Marino GP; 4) "Three more drivers and Schumacher again." The table format may be obtuse, but the data is sound. Pyrope 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The same also appears to be true of Most consec. wins:

• 1st Senna
• 2nd Fangio, Clark, Senna & Schumacher

So, that's 5 drivers, the next one should be 6th shouldn't it? Apparently not!!

• 8th thirteen more drivers

• Again, the record is a combination of driver and event, not simply the driver. Hence, there being seven event-driver combinations before Fangio's Italian GP hat trick, that achievement is joint 8th with the 18 other hat tricks in F1 history. The first of the twice consecutive records, not shown, would therefore be 27th. See how this works? Pyrope 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Most consecutive pole positions"

• should be 9th not 10th

• See two previous comments. Pyrope 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Most pole positions at the same Grand Prix"

• should be 4th not 5th
• should be 6th not 8th

• Yawn. Pyrope 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Most pole positions in a season"

• should be 5th not 6th
• 8th not 9th

• Oooh, ooh, ooh. This answer is different! This time the table is a combination driver and season. Pyrope 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Highest percentage of pole positions in a season"

• ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz........ Pyrope 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

the list goes on.

So, has someone maliciously deleted a driver, or have people been editing at not bothering to check their work?

I am not sure, so I will leave it for someone else to look at for now. I got here because it was linked from an F1 fan site, with 12,000+ members - all who will have seen the link, and will perhaps have read the charts and gone away thinking

"If Wikipedians cannot even count, what hope is there of their 'facts' being right?"

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Specific replies intercalated above. Mostly they boil down to "If Facebook bunnies cannot even read, what hope is there of their 'comments' being worthwhile." Pyrope 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL. If someone achieves something 3 times then the next best achievement is the 4th (not the 2nd). 'facts' in quotes - ouch! Btljs (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Percentage podium finishes (Minimum 15 Starts)

I notice the recent addition of a "Percentage podium finishes (Minimum 15 Starts)" table. Is this desirable. We have previously rejected the idea of applying a "minimum number of races" threshold to a table. DH85868993 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a table which excludes Indy 500-only entrants, but otherwise no requirement for races. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Most consecutive Pole Positions from first race of season

Hamilton's today got his third consecutive pole from the start of the season. The commentators said it was the first time Hamilton achieved that in his career so I went and checked what was the actual all time record for this and found out that the record is not mentioned here. So I went and checked the various years and if I'm not wrong this is the top 10 of this record : 1)Alain Prost (1993) 7 poles 2)Nigel Mansell (1992); Ayrton Senna (1988) 6 poles 4)Mika Hakkinen (1999); Ayrton Senna (1989) 5 poles 6)Ayrton Senna (1991); Jacques Villeneuve (1997); Sebastian Vettel (2011) 4 poles 9)James Hunt (1977); Ayrton Senna (1986); Ayrton Senna (1994); Mika Hakkinen (2000); Michael Schumacher (2001); Michael Schumacher (2004); Lewis Hamilton (2015) 3 poles. Since the "Most consecutive wins from first race of season" record is present, I would insert this one too, if not the full list at least the Prost record of 7 poles. Also, the record could be significant I think as drivers that did 4 poles or more at the start of the season, also won the drivers championship that year (with the exception of Senna in 1989). --Liongalahad (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit trivial isn't it? Pole positions don't towards championships or anything like that. --Falcadore (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but then also the "most consecutive pole positions" record is trivial, for the same reason. I reckon it simply denotes how much a driver was dominant in a given season, right from the start of it. Maybe not as much as the number of wins form the first race of the season, but almost as much. I think that at least Prost record should be mentioned in the "Other drivers records" section, but it's just my opinion I guess. Liongalahad (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but consecutive poles from start of season is a derivative record of consecutive poles. It's the same record, but with an additional condition, so it will always be less important. --Falcadore (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Most consecutive points finishes

Sebastian Vettel is listed as having achieved 19 consecutive points finishes (as of the 2015 British Grand Prix) but by my count this should be 20. He achieved 11 last season[16] and 9 so far this season[17].

Burnsie84 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons

According to WP:MOSFLAG and WP:SPORTFLAG flags should only be used next to spokespersons representing their country. I think the use of flags on this page is over the top and misleading. Each driver represents a manufacturer team which is often from a different country and both national anthems are played when they win. There is no England team or Germany team. I would propose removing all flags apart from where nationality is relevant to the table. Btljs (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Btljs (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

These has been discussed extensively at the MOS:FLAGS talk page and resulted in a near-unanimous consensus to allow flags next to Formula 1 driver. There is a clear form of national representation as the winning drivers' national anthems are played and flags are hoisted after a race. This is then repeated for the country the constructor represents. And some of the drivers in these tables from the early decades did actually drive for national teams decorated in a national color scheme. Tvx1 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not this again. Drivers represent their country in motorsport, just like they do in every other sport. Flags are used next to sportspeople in tables per the overwhelming consensus every time this subject has come under discussion. Deal with it. QueenCake (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's 2015, I imagine (and hope) that WP is around in 2115, so you'd better get used to questions being raised over and over. No they don't. Another example of consensus being at odds with MOS. I've dealt with it; it won't keep me awake. Btljs (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you have the opinion they don't. That doesn't make it a fact. The sport itself says otherwise. Consensus at odds with MOS? No, not by any means. The use of flags where we use them is perfectly allowed through MOS:SPORTFLAGS, which has existed straight away from when MOS:FLAGS was incorporated. The discussions I linked to (and which actually happened at the MOS:FLAGS talk page) only serves to confirm that. Tvx1 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Chill. The person above didn't say 'in my opinion': I was just echoing their style. I've turned flags off in my style sheet so that the pages reflect my opinion of what the MOS says. I highly recommend it: much less distracting. Btljs (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That they are distracting is just as much your opinion, not a fact. Tvx1 13:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Most consecutive retirements

Both Most consecutive retirements and Most consecutive retirements from the start of a season are incorrect as Andrea de Cesaris did finish the 1987 Belgian GP (3rd race of the season) by finishing the race in 3rd position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.150.254 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

He had to push his car across the line as it was out of fuel, so it is argueable. However is this a regularly cited statistic? Does it pass WP:GNG? --Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it WP:GNG is for stand-alone lists, not one list of many within an article (or one item within a list): see WP:NNC. More to the point, a retirement is not recorded as finishing 3rd, so the OP is entirely correct. There are lots of occasions where cars don't actually cross the finish line under their own steam, but they are not retirements. Btljs (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

StatsF1 has the record for 'retirements' so it does stand. The article called them DNFs, which is incorrect, so I've added a note. For what it's worth (nothing without a source), this is not my understanding of a retirement any more than a disqualification after you crossed the line would be called a non-finish, but hey-ho. Btljs (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, GNG is for EVERYTHING in wikipedia. There are no exceptions. It is an important part of the second of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia WP:5P2. So perhaps we can establish that this record is considered notable? --Falcadore (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

http://formulaspy.com/features/classic-f1/whatever-happened-to-andrea-de-cesaris-2739 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11146661/Andrea-de-Cesaris-obituary.html for example. However, the Telegraph obituary considers his 14 non-finishes in 1986 as the record, so it agrees with the OP that Belgium 87 doesn't count.

In terms of notablility, I think it is clear that (interpretation aside) news sources did report 1. Most retirements and 2. Most consecutive retirements, and no doubt would again if anybody had a run of retirements (e.g. "most retirements since..." as they are unlikely to break his records). I'm all for weeding out some of these records, like 'most grand prix starts before a lap led' type things. Btljs (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You quoted WP:GNG and I stated it is for stand-alone articles and lists. Please read it before you chuck 5 Pillars at me. In particular, where is says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." and at the top of the page: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So yes, we need sources for these records (which we have) but you quoted the wrong WP:PG. Btljs (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Or alternatively, I misread your intent, thinking your meaning that notability did not apply. It is still my fault of course. Not trying to justify myself, only explain. And apologise, I am sorry for my error.

However, if there is a conflict, both records should be stated with an explanatory note. --Falcadore (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Just thought I'd see if I could find any corroborating sources. Btljs (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Senna Hamilton career entries

I've put a temporary footnote on the victories tables just while Hamilton and Senna have the same number of entries as I suspect people are going to come along and "correct" this to one more start for Hamilton. This can be ditched after the next race. Btljs (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did warn you, but someone decided to revert my changes so you'll have a fortnight of reverting eager revisionists. Btljs (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

New record category : "Clean Sweep"? (Winning all records over a weekend)

After Monza today, I wanted to check which other drivers had won every 'event' over a race weekend, but I don't believe its being listed on this article. This record would include A Win, Pole, Fastest Lap, Leading all Laps, 'plus the fastest laps for all Practice Sessions, and all Qualification Sessions. I think this is more than trivia; a driver achieving a 'Clean Sweep' can be said to have a perfect weekend, something very rare indeed. I imagine this would take some time to research and verify, but I, for one, would welcome having it included. Is that possible ? PS The article is a great resource - thank you! Stephen 2601:401:C301:B540:30C8:E15:AD63:209A (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea, though we'd really need to get some sources which made it something noteworthy. We currently have the Grand Chelem, iirc for pole, fastest lap, win and leading every lap; but your idea goes a bit further. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's something a news source would probably mention at the time, so it would be a case of checking sources for all the existing Grand Chelems to see if any mentioned the other sessions. Of course, qualification has not always had different sessions so pole would have meant fastest in a single qualification session anyway. Also, I wonder if anybody has set all the fastest laps in a race (ie. held fastest lap from start to finish) Btljs (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

How about fastest pit stop as well? Btljs (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

By constructor (total races)? I don't think that's something we can do due to lack of data for most of F1 history. You certainly can't compare a 2015 pitstop to a 2008 pitstop, so there's no point in an "overall record". Besides, any time someone came through the pits and pulled in only to be waved on would win at 0s. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks exactly like WP:FANCRUFT to me. --Falcadore (talk)

You misunderstand me. I meant (humorously) to continue the perfect weekend idea by getting the fastest pit stop as well. Btljs (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Replying to Stephen, not you. Hence the outdent. --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice, sorry. Btljs (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Article prone to vandalism

I would like to ask the community about one important issue: This article contains information that many would consider extremely useful and, as most people would expect from Wikipedia, accurate. Today, I saw an IP change marked "fixed typo" that replaced the name of a driver in one chart. Doing a bit of research in the article's history I realised that there are several changes that modify a number here and there and I could not find a practical way of verifying this change. In addition, there are changes that seem a bit strange: In this change the number of entries of Massa was changed from 232 to 231 -- clearly not consistent with the fact that Massa actually increased his number of entries in Melbourne.

Do you think there is a way to protect the integrity of this article? Semi-protection might be an option, but I think it is necessary to review the article content as the probability it includes wrong information is rather high. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I (for one) closely scrutinise all the changes to this article (I usually check the post-race updates a couple of days after the race, i.e. once "the dust has settled") and I suspect other members of the F1 WikiProject do the same. So while it's true that this article is not 100% accurate all the time, I would say it's usually pretty close to 100% accurate most of the time. Having said that, I wouldn't object to the article being semi-protected, to avoid IP vandalism. DH85868993 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My concern regarding semi-protection is that if you see the history page of the article, many edits are made by IPs, which is in principle very welcome. The problem is that determined vandals are easily hidden within these IP contributors. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I support semi-protection. There is a semi-regular occurrence of people changing a driver name to something else just for kicks, or people only updating their favourite driver in a table. Real tlhingan (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Youngest Champions

There is a bit of an editing war going on about alleged duplicate tables for youngest champion. For clarity, the "Youngest Champion" tracks the age of a driver when he clinched the championship, be it his first, second or more championship, whereas the other 3 tables track the age of a driver when they clinched a specific championship (their first, their second or their third). The significance of the latter 3 tables is that we know:

• the youngest champion ever
• the youngest double-champion
• the youngest triple-champion

The significance of the "Youngest Champion" table is that it highlights the multiple achievements some drivers have accomplished early in their careers. For example, Sebastian Vettel's 4 championships each rank in the Top 10 youngest champion, as do both of Fernando Alonso's championships.Real tlhingan (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit War part 2: I've added external sources where people were mentioning the significance of these events when they happened. Real tlhingan (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)