Formula One Template‑class

This template is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The name "constructor" is misleading because a F1 constructor is the combination of car manufacturer and engine manufacturer, e.g. Williams is a car manufacturer and Williams-Toyota is a constructor. This a general problem at the en wiki and because it's is frequently read, people may think it's correct. The official http://www.formula1.com/ is using the word "team" which is better, but it's historically not the same. The discussion above moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Constructors --Rosp (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the link text for Haas Lola from "Haas" to "Haas/Lola". I accept The359's point that Embassy Hill is just listed as "Hill", and agree that "Haas/Beatrice" is inappropriate. However, I don't think the cars were ever referred to as just "Haas"es. I'd also be happy with "Haas Lola" (i.e. with a space instead of the slash). DH85868993 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do the current 2009 constructors need to be repeated in the 2010 part? The 2010 bit is only there so that Campos, Manor and USF1 were included in the template so that it was easy to navigate (seeing as that's kind of the point in templates) between them. - mspete93 [talk] 11:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've no knowledge on the topic, but at a glance that looks to be reasonable - it's kind of silly to duplicate information that's already there. The header would have to be changed, I think, to something like "Additional 2010 Participants" or the like, to make sure it's implied that the regular 2009 crew is there as well. Maybe. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The header used to be something like 'Confirmed New Constructors (2010)'. If I'd noticed the change when it happened I would have immediately reverted it. - mspete93 [talk] 14:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, the split between BMW Sauber and the rest of the constructors is unnecessary; the 2009/2010 (current/future) division should suffice.--Midgrid(talk) 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. DH85868993 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree as well - mspete93 [talk] 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mercedes aren't a new constructor of 2010, are they? It's just new owners of an existing team. It's still Brawn, just not named Brawn anymore. --Chrill (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, but can you come up with a better way of doing it? Nothing drastic, it's only a short term thing. - mspete93 [talk] 21:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just removed Dome from the list of former constructors - their car was built, but never entered for the championship. This no doubt applies to many others who are not on the list. DAMS was one that came to mind.

I then noticed that Reynard is also on the list. Although Reynard was involved in a whole slew of F1 programmes in the 1990s, starting with its own failed attempt to go it alone (various bits of which were sold to other teams) and ending with its partnership with British American Racing, I don't believe they were ever officially listed as the constructor of any cars that were entered for a race. Interested to hear others comments. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They should go. We also have Cosworth listed when their car never raced, and First who never raced themselves and whose only car turned up as the Life. Readro (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess it depends how you define "Formula One constructor" - if you define it as "a company which constructed a Formula One car" (regardless of whether or not it raced), then Cosworth, Dome, DAMS and First should all be included. Whichever definition we use, there should be consistency between this template, List of Formula One constructors and Category:Formula One constructors. Perhaps we should take the discussion to WT:F1 to attract wider opinion (mindful of the fact that this template might not be on too many people's watchlists). DH85868993 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still not happy that the template seems inconsistent. we include the Formula Two constructors whilst leaving off the Indy 500 constructors. We ought to have either a World Championship constructors template (in which case we list F2 and Indy constructors) or a Formula One constructors template (in which case we don't list F2 or Indy 500). Readro (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that the Finnish version of this template includes the Indy 500 constructors, but the Portuguese one does not. DH85868993 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd basically be happy with any consistent approach, but I'm not sure the current one is. A couple of other oddities:

• Delahaye never built an F1 car that I can see.
• Greifzu - not listed in Mike Lawrence's Grand Prix cars 1945-1965 (which lists some pretty obscure stuff!). The name's not listed in the articles for either the 1951 or 1952 German Grand Prix and he was killed in 52, so I guess he entered a special at the German GP in the F2 class.

Judging by what's been put in and left out, I'd say that the list is intended to include all constructors who officially entered a world championship F1 race, excluding Indy 500 only entrants and cars entered under F2 rules other than 52-53. Agree it's one for wider discussion at WT:F1. 4u1e (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviving this briefly... I see that Lola is included as a constructor, as it should, but Haas/Lola has a separate listing when they were a team using Lola chassis. Scuderia Italia, who also was a team using Lola (and Dallara) chassis however is not listed. Perhaps this discrepancy could be cleared up at least, either by removing HAAS/Lola or adding Scuderia-Italia. --Falcadore (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I'm right in saying that Lola had little to nothing to do with the Beatrice/Haas/Lola entity -the cars were built and designed elsewhere. The name was used because of Haas' role as Lola importer to the US. Is that reason enough to treat them differently? What were the cars entered as? Lolas or Beatrice-Lolas? 4u1e (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renault is no longer an F1 constructor and has no shareholding in the constructor whose name is "Lotus Renault", not "Renault", it is merely a major supplier. 'Constructor' does not mean engine supplier in the context of F1. I am unsure why an editor is insisting on presenting Renault as a continuing constructor.

Similarly the constructor called 'Lotus' in the template is actually called 'Team Lotus', this distinction is important as the company most famous for the Lotus name has no involvement in that team, and the High Court has actually ruled that the team cannot use the "Lotus" name on its own. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been discussed extensively. WP:F1 consensus is that for 2011, the constructor name for Lotus Renault GP is "Renault" and the constructor name for Team Lotus is "Lotus". Refer to the "Constructor" column of 2011 Formula One season#Teams and drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps, but it remains factually incorrect and misleading to readers.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It actually isn't. Maybe in 2012 it will be, but right now, it isn't. --Falcadore (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what are the reasons why what I have said above is wrong?Rangoon11 (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Becuase this is a constructors list, not a team names list. The two terms shouldn't be confused. It seems you don't actually understand what the term constructor means. --Falcadore (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't respond to the points I have made above at all. Renault is no longer a constructor, merely an engine supplier to the constructor called "Lotus Renault", in which Renault has no ownership stake. The constructor described as Lotus in this template is actually called 'Team Lotus', and the use of the full name is important as that constructor has no connection with the company which owns the Lotus name.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It actually does, because it demonstrates that you do not understand what the term Constructor means in Formula One. It does not refer to the name of the team. It does not refer to the ownership of the team. --Falcadore (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constructor is a registered term which refers to the combination of chassis and engine together and refers collectively to anyone runnign that combination of chassis and engine. For example two cars is the same team can belong to different constructors and several different teams can contribute to the same constructors points tally. It is only in relatively recent times that Constructor has come to closely resemble team names, but the comparison is not perfect and there are examples where the two do not correlate. --Falcadore (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the distinction and understand that 'team' and 'constructor' are not always the same, but fail to see how can 'Lotus' (which means Lotus Cars, the sole owner of the name 'Lotus' in an automotive context) is the constructor for 'Team Lotus', which it has zero connection with?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, here is the long version as you still seem to fail to understand what Constructor refers to. The correct Constructors terminolgy for Sebatien Vettel and Mark Webber's team is not Red Bull Racing, it is Red Bull-Renault. This refers to the race car, the Red Bull RB7, and the engine, the Renault RS27 V10 in combination. In the case of Lotus Renault Grand Prix's case it refers to the car: which is called the Renault R31, and the engine which is the Renault RS27. Technically it should be called Renault-Renault, but following the long standing example of Ferrari it is shortened to just Renault. Similarly Team Lotus is refered to as Lotus-Renault because of the combination of the chassis, the Lotus T128, and its engine, the Renault RS27 V10.

Does that explain it to your satisfaction? --Falcadore (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the analysis, which does now explain why 'Lotus Renault' is simply 'Renault' in the template (at least until the end of the season), but not why 'Team Lotus' is simply 'Lotus'. 'Lotus' means, in both a common useage and a legal sense, Lotus Cars. Lotus Cars is not, so far as I am aware, the supplier of the engine or chassis for Team Lotus.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again - because the car is called the Lotus T128. Ferrari does not refer to Ferrari the road car manufacturer, it refers to the race team, Scuderia Ferrari. This is a template of Formula One Constructors. Who builts what kind of publically available road car is not relevant. --Falcadore (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaving aside the legal ownership of the Lotus name, following your analysis should the constructor for 'Team Lotus' not therefore be 'Lotus-Renault'?Rangoon11 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not should be, it actually is. The template shortens for the sake of berevity and the keep the template to a single line. The legal battle over the name Lotus occurred during this season and will take effect over Formula One terminolgy in the 2012 season. --Falcadore (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]