Talk:2010 Formula One World Championship

Sauber Numbers

The editing in of Sauber has included giving them 26 and 27 but I can't find a source for this. In fact doesn't this throw the whole number table in doubt as Sauber might well get BMW's numbers back? Duds 2k (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not an official confirmation but it does say they will get 26 and 27. BMW's numbers have been taken, and this entry is probably technically seperate seing as they had to reapply for the space to be the 13th team. All other 12 were taken so Sauber will get the 13th set of numbers. This is the FIA press release which says they are the 13th team. That would suggest they would get 26 and 27. However it does say they will publish a new entry list. Also, it says it is BMW Sauber's entry, so it is possible they could get their numbers. - mspete93 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say it is BMW Sauber's entry, that just the name of the team still, like how Mercedes is still Brawn on the entry list. They have the 13th spot and thus #26 and #27. Eightball (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does say that it is BMW Sauber's entry - and it is, as BMW applied for the Qadbak-invested team back when Lotus got the place and it was BMW Sauber that held the reserve place since then. BMW Sauber have been awarded the place, its the same team, its just that BMW will now sell the team back to Peter Sauber. - mspete93 18:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading the press release. When you say "BMW Sauber's entry," what you are implying is that it will be treated as a smooth transition from last year, i.e. using BMW's numbers. That's not the case. The article says BMW Sauber applied for and was given an entry into the 2010 season. This is a NEW entry, because they didn't sign the Concorde Agreement in August. Eightball (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I know it is - I was saying BMW Sauber made the entry, so it is their entry. Not their entry that got them in the 09 season, but their newly applied-for entry after failing to sign the concorde, as they were right to do, unlike a certain Toyota. We might have to wait for a new entry list until we know more about the Renault situation. - mspete93 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, the fact that it's a new entry means they won't get to keep their numbers. Eightball (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said in the first line of my first comment. But we can't be sure. The FIA will publish a new entry list. This hints that it may not be as straightforward as you think. - mspete93 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You said this: "Also, it says it is BMW Sauber's entry, so it is possible they could get their numbers." And my whole point is that it's not BMW's 2009 entry and thus they won't get the numbers BMW earned in the 2009 WCC. And they are publishing a new entry list because they can't just go back and edit the old one. Eightball (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why they would need to publish a new entry list (and tell us in advance that they would) if it was as straightforward as #26 and 27. We don't know. Stop trying to guess. You don't know what the FIA will decide to do. Mercedes don't get new numbers do they? - mspete93 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes is using the same entry and is essentially a renamed Brawn team. Eightball (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And they are publishing a new list because it's a new team, team name, engine supplier, title sponsor, etc. There's a lot more to it than the numbers. Plus, they aren't making a new list just for Sauber. They release the things regularly. You're reading into this way too much. Eightball (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the above certainly demonstrates we're right to leave them blank for now. Hell, they might use 27 and 28. They've been on Ferrari powered cars before ;) 87.194.50.110 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Above was me Duds 2k (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see. The numbering system is not as hard and fast as some people think it is. Sauber (not BMW Sauber by the way) will probably get 26 and 27 but then again, they might not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I've said from the end of my first comment, leave them as TBA. - mspete93 21:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly is there TBA in Sauber numbers? If car numbers 1-25 are confirmed, what's left for Sauber? The idea they might receive numbers e.g. #0 & #13, or #101 & #102 is absurdly overcautious. And if it's about the (as far as I know) unbased idea that they will have BMW Sauber's numbers, other teams should also have TBAs, shouldn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.59.27 (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't add things because we "think" we "Just know them", we add them because there's a source. There is no source for Sauber car numbers. They're TBA in the most literal sense because they have in fact, not been announced. There's still a reasonable chance they'll get slotted in wherever their 2009 results have them (I can't be bothered to check where) and the others will change but again we don't TBA the rest of the grid because they WERE announced until the change is announced. We're all pretty damn sure the 2nd Toro rosso driver will be Jaime for instance but it's not announced so we don't it. Make sense? Duds 2k (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Renault

Renault are comfirmed to stay as Renault next year; http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8407138.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.105.13 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They're not confirmed, just BBC sources. The article states an official announcement is likely next week.

It is likely that the team name could change slightly to incorparate the new owners but the constructor will remain Renault. Therefore NO NEW ARTICLE SHOULD BE CREATED if this is the case, it will just be a continuation of the Renault team. Anybody disagree? - mspete93 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends, the article I read said the car would still be called Renault but the team might have a different name (and Renault would be minority shareholders), in which case we would need a new article. But it sounds more like the only thing that will change is the ownership structure, which wouldn't require a new article. Although, now that I reread your comment, it sounds more like a possible name change would be "Lopes Renault F1" (since one of the bidders is named Lopes), which would probably fall into the latter category of not needing a new article. Eightball (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As with manyh issues at Wikipedia, wait and it will become much clearer. We are not supposed to be first with the news. --Falcadore (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to discuss it now to prevent rash actions (which I am sometimes guilty of I admit) in the heat of the moment when the news is announced. I say we discuss it further when the information becomes availible (i.e. official announcement) on which we can decide on the matter. I see it as highly unlikely we need a new article, but what do I know? - mspete93 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A new article should only be created if the team name is revised. If they become known as Prodrive-Renault, for example, and it is made clear that the team will eventually be owned entirely by Prodrive, then I think a new article could be reasonably created with a bit of double-up on the Renault page. It seems Renault want to phase their sale, rather than do it all in one go. The need for a new article really depends on the nature of the sale. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is Prodrive and we do need a new article, move Prodrive F1 and do it there rather than creating a brand-new page. - mspete93 11:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sale to Genii announced, and team will continue to run as Renault, so no need for a new article, just carry on with Renault F1. (This was probably fairly obvious, just thought I'd round-off the discussion) - mspete93 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lotus F1 Team

Will present tomorrow their two new drivers, Jarno Trulli and Heikki Kovalainen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they'll present drivers tomorrow, but we really don't know who. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is almost guaranteed to be those two but that isn't the point. - mspete93 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Stupid question: how do we know Trulli is 18 and Kovalainen 19? The Autosport article makes no mention of numberings, and for all we know, if Trulli is lead driver, he could well have his choice of number and pick the 19. There's nothing in the rules to say the lead driver has to carry the lower number, is there? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In this situation the "lead driver" is pretty much entirely determined by the number. Lower teams don't typically have a lead driver like McLaren or Ferrari might. But I was wondering the same thing as you. I guess we could just keep Lotus in the same spot in the table to signify that they have 18 & 19 but replace the actual numbers with TBA. Eightball (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning is that "lead driver" status - if a team uses it - really boils down to how a team treats their driver, not by the number they are carrying. An since Lotus is a new team, their numbers are really only a formality. As we saw with Bruno Senna, he might be the first driver signed, but he can carry numbers for whatever reason (in his case, sponsors). The problem here is that we know the numbers and we know the drivers, but we don't know the order they go in. We've only got a 50% chance of being right. I'm against the idea of leaving either the numbers of the drivers out because to me at least, the idea of Wikipedia is that the information be as whole and compelte as possible. Knowlingly leaving information out goes against that, and it's going to create all manner of problems with people constantly editing nubmers or drivers in if we take them out. If we're wrong - though I think Trulli as 18 and Kovalainen carrying the 19 is right on the money - we can quickly swap them about when we know more since it's purely cosmetic. And no-one can say we knowingly posted false information if we do have them wrong. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving them as TBA would be a bit daft. Sometimes its better to use common sense and override our own guidelines. Apparently they only signed Kovalainen at the FIA gala. It's clear that Trulli will get the first number as he was almost certainly signed first and he finished higher in '09. Also, all the press releases and news stories have mentioned Trulli then Kovalainen. I will be very surprised if I am wrong with this one. [Insert a joke about eating a hat or something here.]- mspete93 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am 110% with you guys on this but I know for a fact that if we put Trulli at 18 and Heikki at 19 SOME PEOPLE are going to throw a fit because it's not completely confirmed. Eightball (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Teams might decide to change their numbers anyway, so we can never be certain of them. I think it happened in 09 with Ferrari and Toro Rosso. - mspete93 17:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And there are some people (not me. dear god, not me.) that would suggest that we not include any numbers at all because we can't be 100% sure that they won't be changed at the last minute. If it's just up to us then definitely let's keep Trulli at 18/Heikki at 19, but don't be surprised if people start complaining. Eightball (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, they've got all the opportunity in the world to state their case. If they dont, they haven't got much to complain about. Popular consensus so far - even if it is three or four of us - is that the article is fine the way it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone's added the TBA to Sauber with Kobayashi now so I think a format should be stuck to, either make Kova and Trulli TBAs or give Kobayashi number 26 until we know any different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.72.165 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sauber are not TBA because of the unknown order of their drivers, they're TBA because we don't know what number the TEAM will have. There's been no source giving numbers for Sauber at all whereas we DO know Lotus will have 18 and 19. Duds 2k (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a similar problem once and the way we solved it was to show each driver with both numbers i.e. instead of 18 for Trulli and 19 for Kovalainen, 18/19 for Trulli and 18/19 for Kovalainen. However I don't think it should be changed unless someone complains because it's blindingly obvious that Trulli is their senior driver. Eightball (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This solves the problem. - mspete93 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Bull Renault

This new source says RBR will use Renault engines for 2010: RBR Renault. I've given up on deciding what sources are okay (because apparently most aren't). Officially Mr X (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If a source is not a press release from the team/driver or features a quote from team/driver then treat it very cautiously. Best rule of thumb. And remember, Wikipedia is not a news source so there is no race to add news. Getting it right is far more important then getting it fast. --Falcadore (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we also confirm that Webber will be the number 1 driver and not Vettel. The website seems to give the idea that the senior driver is Webber and that he will retain his number 1 status over the junior Vettel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot recall anything to suggest Webber was the lead driver, 2009 or 2010. I think you will find that confirmation will not be forthcoming. --203.201.159.148 (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay cool. I suppose I'm as confused as Red Bull with the decision. Heads up he was the lead driver in 2009 (number 14) and Vettel was the understudy (number 15). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of teams don't have lead drivers, and numbers mean little. Rosberg has the lower number at Mercedes, but does anyone think he'll be the leader when they'll have Schumacher in the team? In 2009, Webber and Vettel competed freely until Vettel was the only one at Red Bull who could compete for the title. In 2008 technically Räikkönen was the lead at Ferrari, but Massa took it over around the middle of the season, and in 2009 Ferrari didn't have a lead driver even though Massa had the lower number. I believe Webber had the lower number in 2009 because his contract was renewed early on, before Vettel's transfer was finalised. XXX antiuser 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are irrespective of the titles fight midway in the season rather they are given earlier with generally the more senior/better/higher driver fielding the lower number except one number 13 IIRC is not fielded. They don't change numbers halfway because someone is doing better or changed contract. It really has nothing to do with competition in the sense that someone is doing better so they help that driver.

Renault bought by Genii Capital not Genii Campital

Typo error needs changing under "team changes" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.4.131 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

note mistake

Can someone correct the note mistake in the Teams/Drivers table? Notes 2 & 3 are the wrong way around!!! --86.25.170.239 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cs-wolves(talk) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Button's picture

I visit this page very often and each time it loads that picture makes me throw up. If someone has a little bit sense of taste, they should change the picture of Button, because it's a kind of picture that you delete immediately after you see how bad it is (Button's eyes are closed, bad lighting), and you especially don't put it on a Wikipedia page. I wanted to change it, but I couldn't find a picture that was copy-free, so please if someone has one then upload it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of JB must be on a suitable licence for Wikipedia to use. As he is a living person, copyrighted images are not allowed to be used (there are a very few exceptions, but not here). A poor free-use photo is better than no photo at all. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay, but I'm surprised that no one can upload a picture like the ones on the previous seasons' pages: Hamilton's, Massa's, Räikkönen's or even Vettel's. There are good pictures of these drivers and there's no good picture of JB?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.68.64 (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then take your pick from Commons Galery  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is File:Button.Spain.09.crop.jpg any better (still from the Brawn era, but a little less retch-worthy)? Apterygial 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Spain picture is a little bit better, but also not good. I think no one wants to use a Honda picture, and there is no good Brawn picture. I think I can make my peace with this picture for the next couple of months, and after that hopefully someone will upload a McLaren picture of Button. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't edit this page, so someone who can please change JB's picture to this: File:Jenson Button at Singapore GP 2009 cut.JPG! Underhill85 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dubfire 17:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

Kubica

Kubica may not be driving for Renault after all (BBC). Can someone add a note to the table. Looks a bit complicated for me . Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants a note yet, as it's all speculative. As of now he's still under contract with Renault and we're not supposed to decipher what "more information" means. XXX antiuser 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Grand Prix

Okay, I think Stefan GP is worthy of having its own page created. They've been pushing to get into the sport for a while, and are confirmed to have purchased the remains of Toyota, including the TF110 chassis, and it's believed that if they don't make 2010, they'll apply for 2011. We've created pages based on less substance, like Prodrive F1. So I'm going to go ahead and make one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And likely get rejected in 2011. I think creating an article for a racing team that might exist in 2011 in December 2009 is exceedingly premature, and a likely AfD candidate. If Stefan Grand Prix were racing in another category, then sure. But if all they have done is bought some equipment that they might never use, then no.

As for Prodrive F1, they were a team that not just applied, but had substantial infrastructure from existing mtor racing activities with manufacturer supprot, and got accepted into the 2009 season. That the team subsequently did not race is a different issue. --Falcadore (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Prodrive can not be used as an example, as it was accepted an entry, the same as Campos, USF1 etc. That's why a page was created. They can only enter in 2010/11 if someone else drops out, so therefore it is very speculative. - mspete93 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They applied for 2010, as did many others - it isn't worthy of an article. Applying for 2011 will be no different. Less competitors, but no guaranteed places available. - mspete93 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced allegation re Qadbak (BLP violation)

The section "Team changes" states that that BMW Sauber "was sold back to Peter Sauber and it became apparent that Qadbak Investments was a shell company owned and operated for the purposes of fraud." The source given doesn't make any mention of fraud though. This allegation of a criminal activity regarding the people behind Qadbak is a serious violation of WP:BLP and needs to be removed as quickly as possible. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - Thanks Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference used was a bad link; the wrong one being copy-pasted in place. I'm certain I've read something that states Qadbak and Bahrain Capital Investments - a sister-company - were owned by Russell King, a known fraudster. I do believe this particular article - http://www.sonntagszeitung.ch/home/artikel-detailseite/?newsid=108305 - describes as much, though I do not read German. If it's written in German, it's written in English somewhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want to be sued yourself, that's something you want to be very careful about. --Falcadore (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That link only says: "Aus der aktuellen Ausgabe / Publiziert am 01.01.1970" (From the actual publication / Published on January 1, 1970". I don't think a Swiss newspaper would have written about the Qadbak/Sauber case fourty years ago. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Test Pilots

Should all moving test pilots have it's entry on the Driver Changes? Fisichella has (even if under special circunstances), but no other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.126.143 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If a rookie is signed on as a test pilot, I don't think it needs to be mentioned. You get people who come and go all the time and never make a racing seat. Full-time drivers who go from race seat to testing (and the other way around as well) should get a mention, but I think that's the only necessity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Full Team Names

I've noticed that the full Mercedes name is listed as "Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team". This is pretty long, and the team is going to be listed as "Mercedes GP Petronas" most of the time. That, I know is hardly justification for shortening the team name, but looking trough some of the official team websites, it becomes apparent that other teams do it. McLaren describes itself as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes F1 Racing Team", but only appears in the table and most official literature as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes". I think the table should be listed as "Mercedes GP Petronas", with the actual page on the team giving the full name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. :) - oahiyeel ^talk 19:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find from now on in most circles and definately in the media the team will be referred to as Michael Schumacher's Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team, so we'll have to figure out a way to incorporate that.

Maybe MSMGPPF1T? ;) --Falcadore (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So, consensus? Should we simply fill the table with the "common" name (ie Mercedes GP Petronas) and let the actual team page carry the "formal" name (ie Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team)? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree.

That, I ca do - but I'm wondering about the others and where we stand on that: we can't rightly list Renault as Renault instad of Reanult F1, can we? The name that appears in race write-ups will simply be "Renault". I think those ones should stand; I just realised why it is that I have an issue with Mercedes: because Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team is redundant. If a team lists "GP" in their name, it's pretty much the same thing as "F1 Team". The team appears under the name "Mercedes GP, whereas other like Renault are "Renault F1". So I think Mercedes should be changed, but the others remain the same. I'll do that now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. Yes, it is long, but if that is the full team name, I don't see why it shouldn't be used in the table. McLaren doesn't describe itself as 'Vodafone McLaren Mercedes F1 Racing Team' in any other part of their website but the homepage, as far as a search can see. The 'F1 Racing Team' is only added to the homepage as a by-line to fully distinguish them as separate to the sports car program. If you were only to include 'common names', then you may as well remove F1 Team from every team. Force India is listed as just that most of the time, without the 'F1 Team' part (even the Wikipedia article name doesn't have the 'F1 Team' as part of it, unlike the other appopriate teams), but the official full name is listed in this table. I don't see why this is any different. If they want to call themselves such a long name, then so be it. I think that until the name is regularly shortened in press releases by the team, or a new FIA Entry List is released showing the shortened name, there is no reason not to leave it with 'F1 Team' included in the Mercedes name. SchueyFan (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

The BBC article used as a source to "confirm" Schumacher's return to F1 is quoting Das Bild, a German publication that's not exactly a beacon of credibility. We should leave this out until it's confirmed either by the team or Schumacher's people. XXX antiuser 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I fell for that one. Sorry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's now confirmed - I've added it back to the article with a ref to Autosport. XXX antiuser 10:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that autosport article in no way confirms it. It says there is a meeting later where it is believed Schumacher will be announed. They could announce that Ross Brawn has decided to leave the team to grow giant marrows on a farm on Norfolk for all we know. There is no need for us to scramble around for the 'scoop'. We are not a news site. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, read the first paragraph of that article: "Michael Schumacher will return to Formula in 2010, after Mercedes GP confirmed on Wednesday that the seven-time world champion is joining its team next year". The team has confirmed it, thus it goes in the article. XXX antiuser 10:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My aplogies, I must have missed that autosport article by a couple of minutes from my earlier look at the site. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Schumacher - Mercedes GP

http://www.crash.net/F1/news/154816/1/schumacher_mercedes_f1_move_is_going_to_happen.html

Schumi is going to move!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis trzn386 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for telling us! This is totally new to everyone; no-one saw this coming. We'll get right on to editing that one in ... while your contribution is apprciated, a general rule of thumb is that if it's something big, we already know about it. Look just above this section and you'll see it's already being discussed. And as a general rule of thumb, what you've linked to cannot be used as a source. It quotes neither Schumacher nor Mercedes; in order to be used as a reference, a new article must include some official word from someone directly involved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What did Luis trzn386 do to deserve such a cynical reply? This was his first post ever to Wikipedia. Please cut him some slack. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please don't BITE the newbies, especially when it is probable that their first language is not English. I've welcomed him to Wikipedia. Hopefully he won't have been scared off by the response. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes team numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official name of the Mercedes team

An official press release by the team states:

From 2010, the new team will compete in the FIA Formula One World Championship as the Mercedes GP PETRONAS Formula One Team [...]

So the official name of the team is Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team.
The Teams and drivers table and the Sponsorship changes section should be corrected accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.63.96 (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We discussed this above. It was felt that the full name was redundant, and that using the shortened "common" name was alright in the table, so long as the full "formal" name appeared on the actual team page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Toro Rosso Chassis Name

Hi, As i'm a new user I can't edit the page, but the Toro Rosso car of 2010 is called the STR5. My source is http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2009/news/Dec/article_Toro_Rosso_crash_testing_2010_car_STR5.html. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody59 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but the site you linked to may not satisfy Wikipedia's reliability guidelines. There should be confirmation of the car name from a reliable source soon (Autosport is always good). But Brody59 raises an interesting point (albeit inadvertently). Why is this page still protected? Is there still a pressing need for it? Apterygial 09:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The page was protected because of frequent vandal attacks and people posting incorrect information, particularly in the drivers' table. People would add a particular driver at the slightest whiff of a rumour connecting them to a team, and i would happen every five minutes. Now that all of the major drives and drivers are accounted for, protection could probably be removed - but I think the page is still vulnerable to vandals, particularly when it comes to USF1's drivers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think interest in USF1 is nearly as strong as it was for the other teams - and the occasional reversion is a small price to pay for letting everybody help improve the page. Apterygial 10:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

An Italian source has been added, but here's another source as well in English which confirms it as the STR5: http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1toro-rosso-crash-testing-2010-car/ The³5₉ (Talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips on reliability. Will be more careful in future! --Brody59 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sauber name

[2] [3] These articles state that Peter Sauber has not yet applied for a change of name from BMW Sauber F1 Team. I remember that when they were granted the entry it was officially BMW Sauber that was given the entry. The team is yet to appear on the F1 website's list of teams and drivers either. BMW Sauber however appear to be ready for a change of name. Opinions? - mspete93 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Points change

{{Editsemiprotected}}

I would like to add information about proposed rule changes to the 2010 season, most notably the proposed amendment to the already new points system. There is a "proposed" section. I am a very well educated formula 1 fan & writer and would like to help amend any Formula 1 articles in the future. Thank you.

It is about the proposal of points for fastest lap, and points for pole position Ferrari boss, Stefano Domenicali hinted & has proposed the change. Thank you.

Cubejam (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not believe that any rule change, proposed by one team boss in isolation of any consensus is sufficiently notable for inclusion. If it gets support from a number of team bosses, or the FIA, then sure, but given that a rule change like that will only be of assistance to the big teams, it's not likely to get the support of any of the smaller or the new teams. --Falcadore (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, why is this page still protected? Us "new" users can make a genuine contribution to the page. Just trial a lower level of protection, see if the page gets vandalized. If it does, at least you have a genuine argument for why it is still protected!--Brody59 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@Cubejam: have you got any independent, reliable sources for the changes? I thought the situation was as Falcadore states it: this proposal does not have the concensus of several teams at this time.

@Brody59: the protection isn't too restrictive: as long as your account is autoconfirmed (i.e. at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits) then you can edit the article. For example, if you had a further 4 edits, you would be able to edit the article, as you meet the "more than 4 days old" criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Launch Dates

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

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

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

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