Talk:2022 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contracts

Can someone retrieve the contracts for 2022, perhaps from the deleted version of the page?
5225_C (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I've done it.
5225_C (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just added contracted circuits. All relevant contracts shoud now be in the article.
SSSB (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... as a direct result of the coronavirus pandemic, the sport was forced to delay the introduction of a major change to its technical regulations—possibly the biggest change in the sport's 70 year history. These regulations and the circumstances behind their delay are covered in significant detail throughout the article, with a wide variety of reliable sources. --Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Do the new additions to the article mean it shouldn't be speedily deleted for the WP:G4 reason?

Hi all,
@Ubaldocoldagelli, SSSB, Mclarenfan17, Tvx1, 5225C, and Sandstein: I've had a look at the version of the article as it was on 8:40 5 Feb 2020 UTC, which was the version immediately before it was deleted as the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Formula One World Championship. Rather than going through the unnecessarily WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY fussy second AFD, I think the question to be answered on the articles talk page is: do the recent

• From the section...

No, cancel that. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Well to awnser the question of the level 3 header, yes. The first sentence of G4 states This applies to sufficiently identical copies. A large volume of new content has been added meaning that G4 doesn't apply in any way and its deletion would be contraversial.
SSSB (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pretty much just going to echo what I said at the second AfD and what SSSB has said. The two versions of the article (that which was deleted and the current one) are not at all similar, and there is no reason to delete the article.
5225_C (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Entry List

As of the announcment of the signing of the Concorde Agreement on August 19, 2020, 10 teams are contracted for entry and participation in the 2022 Formula One Champsionship. These teams include: Alfa Romeo Racing, Alpha Tauri-TBA, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Haas, McLaren-Mercedes, Mercedes, Red Bull Racing-Honda, Renault, and Williams-Mercedes. The Concorde Agreement contracts these 10 teams to the sport from 2021 through to 2025.[1]

There has been dispute as to whether or not Alpha Tauri-TBA, Haas, and Mercedes should be on this list. Concerns expressed include: speculation about no 2022 contract existing, and the possibility of extenuating circumstances causing these teams to drop out (due to contract termination, name change, etc.). As of present, 10 teams are contracted for the entry list for 2022: the Concorde Agreement is the contract that covers years 2021 to 2025 (including 2022). The possibility of the entry list changing due to extenuating circumstances does exist. However, the entry list currently does contain 10 teams. If and when that changes, the entry list should be modified for this page. While these concerns have been made in good faith, the accuracy of this page would be compromised if Alpha Tauri-Honda, Haas, and Mercedes were omitted. Cheers! --TJBakerScala (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@TJBakerScala: As I understand it the Concorde agreement concerns teams, not constructors. There are therefore no sources which verify Mercedes, Haas or AlphaTauri will be in F1 in 2022. There is no team column, only a constructor one. Therefore including Haas, AlphaTauri and Mercedes is speculation as these constructors could change.
SSSB (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: Does this argument not apply to everyone though? Do you not want to include them in case they change their names? I'm a bit confused here. FozzieHey (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Red Bull wouldn't have contracted Verstappen till 2024 (or whenever his contract expires) if they planned to sell the team before then because Verstappens contract (most likly) is to Red Bull (as a company), not the team.
SSSB (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying if Red Bull renamed then Verstappen's contract wouldn't be valid? FozzieHey (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That's speculation on my part. It's a matter of might not be valid. I don't have a copy of the contract but contracts are to companies, not teams (Verstappen is contracted to the same people as Kvyat even if the terms might be different for the Red Bull drivers compared to the AlphaTauri ones) if Red Bull is sold it Verstappens contract might be valid or it might not, Red Bull might violate the contract with Verstappen by selling the team. Additionally, Verstappen's contract does 2 things a) it signifies Red Bull's commitment to the sport in a way the Concorde agreement doesnt (all teams sign to the same length) and 2) it means that even if the same argument could be applied we should still include it as they have other contracts with drivers/engines which could be bought out with the team (in theory) and are independently (and more) notable than concorde.
SSSB (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is all based on speculation though on which entity the Concorde agreement is signed with, unless there's a source I don't have any opposition with including this in the article. FozzieHey (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Since the 1980s, when F1 instituted the requirement that teams construct their own chassis, "team" and "constructor,” though distinct terms, have become ostensibly synonymous while this rule framework persists. (Constructors produce chassis or engines). As of present, Alpha Tauri-Honda, Haas, and Mercedes are constructor outfits that have committed to the sport via the teams that they supply. If any of these constructors terminate their participation with their associated teams, then we can make a change to the list. Until then, to omit any of these ten teams would be inaccurate, given that they’ve all signed on to participate until 2025.

I appreciate the speculation, but drivers are only a small slice of the contracted bodies in F1. If Redbull Racing didn’t have any contracted drivers for 2022 and onward, they would still be on the 2022 season entry list (just like Alfa Romeo Racing and Williams, who don’t have contracted drivers for 2022 yet). —TJBakerScala (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

They’re not on the entry list because simply no 2022 entry list has been published yet. Hence we do not mention them being entered in the prose. The signing of the Concorde agreement is in reality only a declaration of intent to enter for each of those years. There have been many cases however of teams not fulfilling the entire period covered by the agreement they signed. Some of them didn’t even last one full season. Therefore there is justification to be prudent and to want some specific aspect for a specific season to be contracted before inclusion.Tvx1 00:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that many teams do not fulfill the entire duration of their agreement to participate in F1. However, the Concorde Agreement is not an expression of intent. It is a contractual agreement that indicates that the underwritten teams will pariticipate until 2025. Individual teams can terminate their participation in the contract, but right now, there are 10 partipants. F1 does not have specific season-to-season contracts for constructor participation. Constructors who wish to join sign onto existing Concorde Agreements that cover mulitple years. When the agreement was ratified, all 10 teams have agreed to participate until 2025. By your logic, would it not be prudent to exlude all constructors until a 2022-specific entry list is published (in addition to the Concorde Agreement)? If not, what is your reasoning to selectively exclude Alpha Tauri, Haas, and Mercedes? Signing drivers into 2022 is a poor selection criteria, as Alfa Romeo and Williams remain on the list without having signed drivers for 2022. All ten teams have staff contracted to work well into 2022 (whether those staff are drivers, mechanics, admin roles, department heads, etc.).

I'm seeing inconsistency that should be clarified. —TJBakerScala (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

In any case stop reverting while the discussion is ongoing. And certainly through sockpuppeting. That’s highly disruptive. You brought yourself in serious trouble and this just wasn’t worth that. The rule of thumb is that they need to have a contract for a major aspect (e.g. driver, PU supplier) for that specific season. That’s why Alfa Romeo and Williams are included.Tvx1 09:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Teams and constructors are not the same. Haas could sell there team at the end of next year to Porsche, Lambourghni or to SSSB Racing. To say Haas are going to enter in 2022 (not we don't have a team column, only a constructor one) is speculation. You can't say that Haas (the construtor) tend to still be here in 2022. The constructor simply intend to be here next year and in order for that to happen they had to sign the team on till 2022. With the other teams the constructor has contracts. Either for engines, or drivers.

As for All ten teams have staff contracted to work well into 2022 (whether those staff are drivers, mechanics, admin roles, department heads, etc. - even if you meant construcotrs rather than teams, you can't say this without proving it, definitivly, and proving they are contracted to the constuctor and not the team.

I see no inconsistencies here.
SSSB (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There have been multiple reportings of the Concorde agreement being signed by both "teams" and "constructors", in the case of the media I don't think they are different entities. I think it's crystal balling in both interpretations by assuming the agreement is signed to a specific entity with no source. FozzieHey (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that this is the appropriate place to accuse me of creating a sock puppet. Investigation of this allegation has revealed that this is untrue.

This “rule of thumb” is news to me, @Tvx1:. If that is the case, why is Alfa Romeo on the list? They have neither a PU supplier or drivers confirmed for 2022. What is the reasoning for their inclusion?

To @FozzieHey:’s point, whether or not the agreement is with teams or constructors, the precise terms of Concorde Agreements are always confidential. We’re never going to know for sure either way. My earlier point was to demonstrate that since the 1980s, F1 has mandated that teams must produce their own chassis. This ostensibly means that every team performs the function of a constructor, by constructing their own chassis. Though, not every constructor is a team, such as in the case of Honda only supplying engines. This article outlines the point nicely. Check it out @SSSB:. I think that we might have differing understanding about constructors, and this is why we are talking past one another.

This reasoning that you are employing, @SSSB:, doesn’t reliably hold. Several questions and points: (1) We agree that teams and constructors are not the same thing. But under the current rule framework dating back to the 1980s, every team must supply themselves with their own chassis. For example, Haas is a constructor, given that they build a chassis for their team. (2) In your view, what news would need to surface in order for you to warrant the inclusion of Alpha Tauri, Haas, and Mercedes that hasn’t already surfaced for the other 7 teams? (3) I don’t think that it’s necessary to prove that the any of the entrants are unlikely to pull out, but if you do think so, what evidence is there that the 7 on the page won’t?

Cheers! - TJBakerScala 17:59 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Alfa Romeo. You were correct that they should not have been included and they have been removed now. As for your point two, what needs to surface for the now four not listed teams is an announcment of something 2022 specific like a driver or a PU supplier.Tvx1 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why though? If a team left after signing a driver they'd be in breach of a contract, if they left after signing a Concorde agreement it'd still be a breach of contract right? FozzieHey (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've removed Alfa Romeo Racing, for the sake of consistency @Tvx1:, but I'm unclear as to where this rule of thumb was codified. It seems, that your standard for inclusion is fulfilling 2 of 3 requirements: Chassis supply, Engine supply, and/or driver contract(s). Is this your rule, or is there an official standard for this type of article that you can direct me to? My current perspective, is that 10 constructors (all of whom produce their own chassis) have signed up to participate in each F1 season from 2021 to 2025. F1's Chairman and CEO has also confirmed their participation. Why is this not sufficient confirmation? Waiting for a given team to secure a constructor supply for a chassis, an engine, and to lock down a driver lineup seems unnecesarily exhaustive, and to the determinant of the list's accuracy. If a given team pulls out at a later date, why can we not just modify the complete list then? The way that the article is written now, the casual F1 fan viewing this page, would conclude that Alfa Romeo Racing, Alpha Tauri, Haas, and Mercedes are withdrawing from F1 at the end of 2021, despite having agreed to participate until 2025. Seems misleading. Cheers! - TJBakerScala 19:43 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that this discussion reduces down to the fact that the column is for constructors - each of the 10 teams are constructors by producing their own chassis. As engine suppliers and driver contracts are confirmed, we can add those in. Eg. For now, Alfa Romeo Racing, Alpha Tauri, Haas, and Mercedes could be included by documenting their appropriate naming conventions as we currently know them: Alfa Romeo Racing-TBA, Alpha Tauri-TBA, Haas-TBA, and Mercedes. Driver contracts can also be added as they're confirmed. Thoughts? TJBakerScala 19:52 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, one more question. Williams-Mercedes have contracted supply for both their chassis and engine for 2022, as have Mercedes. Both teams have not confirmed any of their drivers. Under your rule of thumb, @Tvx1: would you include Mercedes, or exclude them both? This is all to say that I think that the best practice is to include information as we currently know it, and modify later if and when it changes. TJBakerScala 19:59 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@FozzieHey and Tjbakerscala: both of you are using constructor and team as though they are synonmous. Whilst most of the time they can be, this is not always the case and certainly not the case with the concorde agreement. For example, Red Bull Racing and Jaguar Racing are the same team but different constructors. The media may consider them the same entitiy but legally they are not and the concorde agreement is a legal document. If Haas sell their team the constructor would change but this wouldn't breach concorde as the team is still in F1. Just as a different constructor. The definition is who built the car. If Haas become SSSB Racing in 2022 then Haas can't be a 2022 constructor, SSSB Racing would be.

@FozzieHey: this means that this: If a team left after signing a driver they'd be in breach of a contract, if they left after signing a Concorde agreement it'd still be a breach of contract right? - yes. But if a constructor left then there would be a potential (it depends on the small print) breach of driver/engine contract but not a breach of the concorde agreement as the team is still in F1, just under a different constructor name.

@TJBakerScala: For Haas, Mercedes and AlphaTauri to be included I would want to see contracts from the constructor not the team. And no, it is not necessary to prove teams won't pull out but it is necessary to prove that they will stay in, it is the constuctor specific contracts which do this. your standard for inclusion is fulfilling 2 of 3 requirements: Chassis supply, Engine supply, and/or driver contract(s) - well, chassis supply is dictated by the constuctor. So its fulfilling 1 of 2: either engine or driver contracts, once we have one of those we can determine chassis supply as these contracts are to the constructor, not the team. My current perspective, is that 10 constructors (all of whom produce their own chassis) have signed up to participate in each F1 season from 2021 to 2025 - then why does the cited article say team, I thought we agreed they are not the same in this context. the casual F1 fan viewing this page, would conclude that Alfa Romeo Racing, Alpha Tauri, Haas, and Mercedes are withdrawing from F1 at the end of 2021, despite having agreed to participate until 2025. - no, the casual fan will see that the constuctors have not confirmed they are running in 2022, which is accurate since the only teams are tied down, not constructors.

I think that this discussion reduces down to the fact that the column is for constructors - each of the 10 teams are constructors by producing their own chassis. - yes but if the team was sold the constructor would change. Therefore we don't know that Haas will still be a constructor in 2022.

Williams-Mercedes have contracted supply for both their chassis and engine for 2022, as have Mercedes. - Mercedes haven't. Mercedes may decide that they want to sell their team after 2021 meaning they won't be a constructor anymore. Only an engine supplier. Therefore we would include Williams as Williams the constructor have a contract (for engine) but Mercedes as a car constructor don't have any relevant contracts.

The problem we have here is that you are using constuctor and team as synonyms (which in most context they are) but in this context they are not. As I said before the Red Bull Racing the construcor has been in F1 since 2005. But the team has been in F1 since 1997. First as Stewart Grand Prix and then as Jaguar Racing and currently as Red Bull. Haas have no constructor specific contracts and could therefore sell there team on to another constructor.

I had quite a lot to cover so it is plausible I missed something, bring it up agin if I have.

Maybe we need to find some kind of compromise where we add a team column so we can make it clear that 10 teams are contracted to the season but we only know the constructors of 7 of those teams? Any suggestions (pinging @Tvx1: as I haven't yet and he should see this broad compromise proposal).
SSSB (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And of course what you explained is evidenced with the current constructor Racing Point stopping at the end of the ongoing season to be replaced by the new constructor Aston Martin next season. In any case a prefer to keep the table as is. I just don't see the benefit of adding rows wich would only have TBA's in all but one of their columns.Tvx1 11:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

certainly not the case with the concorde agreement Can you provide a source that the Concorde agreement is signed by the entity and not by the team? I've seen both used as editoralised by the media. FozzieHey (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read SSSB's post properly? They wrote that the teams did sign the Concorde agreement , but not the constructors. They didn't mention entities at all.Tvx1 12:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm using "entity" as a word for company here as there have been mentions of both "constructor" and "teams" signing the agreement in the media. FozzieHey (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I asked in a previous comment about your rule of thumb. I’m still unclear on your answer to that question. Is this your rule, or is there an official standard for this type of article that you can direct me to?

I think that the casual fan will not be cognizant of the nuances that differentiate teams, constructors, and entrants. For this reason, I think that @SSSB:'s suggestion of a compromise might bring the four of us closer to consensus than we have been able to get thus far. In the spirit of best serving the average reader of this article, I suggest tweaking the table a bit. Maybe we could have the following columns:

Team, Chassis, Engine, Driver Number, Driver Name, Reference. This format strikes me as slightly more informative, it would include all ten teams reflected in the signing of the Concorde Agreement, it would reduce some of the ambiguity around constructors, etc. What you you think? @SSSB:, @FozzieHey:, @Tvx1:?

Here’s a rough draft of what I’m thinking.

If and when information changes, we could modify some of the table cells, and replace those TBAs with the correct information. I don’t feel negatively toward TBAs in a table. I think that they inform the reader that some information will still be forthcoming (but given that this article is about a forthcoming season, I think that’s expected by the reader). Looking forward to getting this resolved - Cheers! TJBakerScala 16:46 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft contains incorrect/misleading information. Your team column doesn't list teams, it lists constructors. This is the best I have come up with this far which doesn't include WP:CRYSTAL or misleading information.

Given this table will have empty rows, maybe the text above the table needs to be changed from The following constructors and drivers are currently under contract to compete in the 2022 World Championship. All teams will compete with tyres supplied by Pirelli. to something along the lines of The ten teams from the 2021 Championship are due to take part in the 2022 Championship. Of these ten teams the following seven have confirmed their constructor with some kind of footnote explaining the difference between teams and constructors.
SSSB (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding from this piece is that an alternative team naming convention: Chassis supplier-Engine supplier. If we don't agree with that, we could go with the current F1 Team names, and modify if and when the team names change. The chart in this article is what I'm going for. Thoughts? TJBakerScala 17:19 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd also be happy with following the format of the 2021 article and adding team name (instead of entrant) and chassis columns. Tjbakerscala (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What we have in the 2020 article is ultimately what it eventually should evolve to in this article as well. However it is just to soon for that right now. And I'm sorry but I cannot support SSSB's proposal add for rows with nothing but TBA's is no improvement in any way. Why is it such a drama to wait until these constructor announce some 2020 specific aspect like a PU supplier or a driver? Why can just no accept that? We have uses that approach successfully for years. It's not my personale rule, nor is it an official Wikipedia "standard" as Wikipedia simply doesn't have official rules. It's simply the Formula One's Wikiproject general practice as documented here.Tvx1 19:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My aim is to provide the most up-to-date information possible, and then add in more as we learn it. Would @SSSB:, @FozzieHey:, @Tvx1: support a compromise like this? No drama, just constructive discussion. If we're not bound by any specific rules, sometimes change can be a good thing! Tjbakerscala (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And what’s not up to date with the article currently. All the information that’s already known is included. We literally know nothing 2022 specific for the four missing constructors.Tvx1 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The missing pieces right now are the teams themselves and four of the chassis constructors. I understand your reservations against including the four missing chassis constructors, though we slightly disagree. But I think that this might be a nice compromise. As you've said, the end product in 2022 will likely look similar. I don't see a downside to this compromise. If there is, what are your concerns? Tjbakerscala (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

How is it a compromise? There is nothing about it sensing of compromise. It just adds more columns to have a weak justification to suit your demand that all current F1 teams are listed in the 2022 season table. Again why is it such an obsession for you to include them right now that you cannot leave this be? Why can just not wait???Tvx1 11:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be constructive and helpful of you to state your specific concerns with this draft as you did with @SSSB:'s draft. You've stated that this section of the article will eventually look similar to this draft. With the recent signing of the Concorde Agreement, 10 teams have confirmed that they will participate in this season. Is there a recognizable downside to including a "team" column? Is there a specific inaccuracy on this draft, or a disservice to the reader, that we can work together on to correct or improve? I'm looking to work with you @Tvx1:.

This isn't an "obsession" nor is it a "demand," just a sincere and good faith attempt at discussion to make the article better. I inadvertently entered into an "edit war" earlier (I didn't actually know at the time that was a thing haha. And that's my fault), and was advised to discuss things with you. This is me doing that. If you could detail your substantive reservation to this compromise, or offer your own, we could bridge our misunderstanding and disagreement.

I encourage you to be cognizant that your desire to maintain the status quo in this case has some downside:

(1) It omits all ten teams, despite all of them being confirmed for 2022 by F1's Chairman and CEO

(2) It omits all of the chassis constructors

That strikes me as a disservice to the reader: a withholding of information that we do know, and that can be accurately sourced. If we agree that this article should exist in 2020, this is why I don't think it advisable to wait until 2022.

Let's work together? Tjbakerscala (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that none of the proposals would improve the article in any way. SSSB's proposal adds four rows with TBA's in every cell. To be blunt, that's nonsense. If nothing is announced yet for these rows there's no point in having them. Your proposal then adds a column we have never had before purely to have a poor excuse to prematurely add four "missing" constructors. And furthermore that column contains original research with regards to those four constructors. It has not been announced at all that chassis suppliers for 2022 are the ones you have listed. These things can change from the present. Just look at how Force India changed to Racing Point and Sauber to Alfa Romeo during the current Concorde agreement's period and to how Racing Point is going through a change to Aston Martin by the next season. There's just not enough information available to be including these constructors already. Just wait until they announce something.Tvx1 18:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've already heard your concern with @SSSB's draft. We do disagree on the utility of TBAs in a table. I'm a bit discouraged that you are falsely imputing my motives though. My intention, as I've already stated, is to improve the quality of the article by including:

(1) the missing 10 teams as reflected in the singing of the new Concorde Agreement, and;

(2) the missing chassis suppliers.

You didn't address my concern about missing teams from my last comment. Maybe a compromise looks like this: excluding a column for chassis suppliers, and including the team column as I have in this draft. Including the ten teams that have signed up to participate strikes me as a significant improvement to the section. Right now, the reader might think that only 6 teams will be competing in 2022. I do understand your concern about teams changing hands, but frankly, that situation could apply to any of the 10 teams. That isn't reason to exclude them. If things change, we can edit the article to reflect those changes. Are you willing to meet halfway, @Tvx1:? Tjbakerscala (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1. Firstly because my original proposal was bad and secondly long lists of TBA's are pointless. I don't even know why I though my original proposal was a good idea. @Tjbakerscala: the problem with your proposal is that the for all teams the team name is specualtion and frankly the only way that any table could include all ten teams at this time is if we include a 2021 constructor column and have the rest of the columns as TBA (this). Anything other than TBA's in those columns would be speculation. What do we think of my second proposal? (notice the sentence above the table).
SSSB (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not do the same as we do for Grands Prix and have a list below the table for 2021 teams without a 2022 contract? See here for an example.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Just like your first propsal it does nothing than adding a set of nearly empty rows. That just doesn't improve the article in any way. Tjbakerscala, you state that you want to improve the quality of the article, yet you remain utterly unwilling to accept that adding the four teams of which we know nothing meaningful 2022 specific does not equate to improving the article at all. The chassies suppliers is a concept we have not given speficic attention to at all ever, so I cannot see the point in starting to do that here. If there is concern that readers might think no more than 6 team will compete in 2022, we can always tweak the prose to make the situation clearer. But I really don't see the article hinting in any way that the currently presented list is final. There is a reason we avoid the word will alltogether in these article. We have worked in the current way for years and it has always worked perfectly. So I have no idea why this needs to such a problem all of a sudden. Our readers have proven well enough that they easily understand that these articles deal with not set future events. Just wait until these constructors announce something specific.Tvx1 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an issue, but to resolve this discussion, what do you think of my proposal?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, maybe we could just mention them in a sentence or two of prose, instead of a list. I'm not convinced though it's really necessary.Tvx1 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I think your getting confused. My second proposal doesnt add any empty rows. I think 5225C's proposal does work but I agree one sentence would be better (as opposed to a bullets list).
SSSB (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB:, @FozzieHey:, @Tvx1: I like @5225C:'s proposal. I've tweaked it a bit though: here. I've maintained all along that I would like the article to reflect that 10 teams are currently contracted for all seasons from 2021-2025: this is factual info that @Tvx1 seems very resistant to including. I understand that any team name can change (or not change), but I don't think this cautious speculation is grounds for excluding any of them. Several compromises have been offered, and @Tvx1 has declined all of them. I'm really hoping that we can settle on something. It sounds like we're all passionate F1 fans, and we should be able to work together :) Tjbakerscala (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Your tweak implies incorrect information as those teams are contracted but not under those names. But your tweak implies the names are contracted, which in turn implies the constructors are contracted. The only tweak that needs to be made in @5225C:'s proposal is where it says The following four teams are under contract for 2021, but not for 2022: it should say The following four constructors are under contract for 2021, but not for 2022: with a note explaining the difference between constructor and team.
SSSB (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood, @SSSB:. Can you direct me to a source that indicates what names these teams are contracted under? I assumed that because Concorde was signed recently by the ten current teams, those teams' names would be in the contract. I'd like to see these tens teams mentioned under the table by the correct names. If you can provide a draft of them, I'd say we're set? Tjbakerscala (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you point me to a source which says team names are contracted at all, because I didn't think they were. We won't know the team names are until the season entry list comes out in 2022. In terms of what teams will be competing in 2022 the best we can do is specify the constructor the teams used in 2021.
SSSB (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel you're starting to become quite demanding here. Why would we have to do what you would like? This article isn't written for you. If we agree to a change, I don't think we need a list and certainly not one that mostly repeats what's already in the table. There's no need to mention all ten teams below the table? Just a sentence or two dealing with the missing four should suffice.

SSSB, I'm sorry for mixing up your proposals. The links didn't work properly when I tried and thus I have to search a bit for them myself and I thought this was your last proposal and that's what I referred to. With regards to what you actually refer to as your second proposal, I don't really see how it's different to what we already have in the article.

On a side note, there's no need to ping me in almost every post. I have this page on my watchlist and I'll know when there are new replies.Tvx1 14:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's different based on the sentence above the actual table. The one which acknowledges that 10 teams are contracted but only 6 of them have constructors at this time.. Basically a physical version of what you suggested at the ned of your first paragraph. I agree with Tvx1. The other 4 teams require nothing more than a sentence.
SSSB (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Honda's McLaren supply

Could somebody - perhaps User:Island92 - please explain why Honda supplying McLaren from 2015 to 2017 is a detail important enough to go into the 2022 article? By thr time Honda withdraw, they won't have supplied McLaren for FIVE YEARS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.111.197 (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Mclarenfan17, you could spare a couple of seconds to log into your account and stop IP hopping, seeing that you have edited from four separate IPs in the past two days? Fecotank (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty much retired these days. Mostly because I got sick of dealing with the attitude "it makes sense to me, so it must make sense to the average reader" and we ended up with three articles with three different title formats and no apparent justification in the article. I might swing by and do a little bit of maintenance here and there, but I don't intend to contribute anything significant. My curiosity was piqued when I saw someone added prose to this article that was effectively a list of all the teams Honda had supplied and the dates that they supplied those teams. By 2022, one of those contracts would have been terminsted five years previously, and one of those contracts would be with a team that (officially) no longer exists. I was under the impression that this was the 2022 article and thus should focus on things that affect 2022. I might have been semi-retired for a while now, but my presence cannot be the only thing that kept people remembering that. I don't see how a contract terminated in 2017 fits this article, so it should either be removed or justified in the article. Perhaps you would like to explain this instead of dodging the question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.111.177 (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. I fail to see how contracts which expired before the end of 2021 are remotly relevant to this article.
SSSB (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment the list of who Honda have supplied since 2015 was just removed by 5225C.
SSSB (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, per this discussion.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I am late to the party, but I was actually the one who inserted it into the page first. It seemed major enough a detail to be included but I can see the other side's POV so I am completely neutral on including it or not. Admanny (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Team changes section

I have a problem with this phrasing:

[...]would allow Red Bull Racing the capacity to develop engine technology immediately

Reading the given source, it seems to say just the opposite. Red Bull argues it can't develop engines, so a development freezing was a condition sine qua non for them continuing in the series. I propose a rewritting of that phrasing to some like "allowing Red Bull to continue using the former Honda power units". Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: I would prefer allowing Red Bull to run the engine programme previously run by Honda.
SSSB (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: seems OK to me. I support your phrasing. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Aren't we talking about the Constructor in this sentence? I may be wrong... Island92 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: I don't get what you mean. "Develop" seems wrong in any case. If you mean it's confusing if the entity we are talking about is the contructor, the team, or the (future) engine supplier owned by the team's operating company, yes it is, but sources aren't that clear either, and Red Bull isn't making things easier branding everything with its name. An alternative solution I propose is to remove the phrasing entirely and left it at just "The ten teams agreed to an engine development freeze until 2025", I think the previous sentences make things as clear as they can be... --Urbanoc (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Island92 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Urbanoc (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

car number

If a person becomes a champion in 2021, he can choose the number 1 of his choice. Is not it better to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad.darg (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That's covered at List of Formula One driver numbers and isn't really relevant here unless it actually occurred.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Tyres section Edit Request

To the tyres section you could add that 18 Inch rims have been been used by F1's main feeder series-Formula 2 since the beginning of the 2020 edition of that series. Engine V10R (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

Sergio Perez's car number is 11 and not 22 as shown in the page. 46.11.197.199 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done by another user
SSSB (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Standardised components contradicts itself

The section on Standardised components says that These standardised components include the gearbox and fuel system. and also "Transferable parts" are parts that a team can develop and sell on to another team, such as the gearbox and the clutch. So, is the gearbox a standardised or a transferable part? Both things seem to be well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reading the sources is seems that the gearbox is standardised but the casing isn't (although one source suggests that the casing would be a listed part - not a transferable one). There is also the point that the rules may have changed between the publications of the relevant sources. The most recent source (and the only one which came after the full publication of the rules, 31 October 2019) is the youtube video, which descibed the gearbox (as a whole) as transferable. I suggest we use the most recent source we have (i.e. identify the gearbox as transferable) while pointing out that it was earlier intended to be a standardised component. SSSB (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Aston Martin have officially announced their driver line-up for the 2022 season.

Link here: https://www.astonmartinf1.com/en-GB/news/feature/aston-martin-cognizant-formula-one-tm-team-announces-2022-driver-line-up 46.11.222.69 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Drfebusinc SSSB (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Change Aston Martin's driver line up to Sebastian Vettel and Lance Stroll instead of TBA as declared in a press release by the team https://www.astonmartinf1.com/en-GB/news/feature/aston-martin-cognizant-formula-one-tm-team-announces-2022-driver-line-up --Parampopat (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)https://www.astonmartinf1.com/en-GB/news/feature/aston-martin-cognizant-formula-one-tm-team-announces-2022-driver-line-up Parampopat (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Param Popat

 Done by Drfebusinc SSSB (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

- 2402:B801:2846:3100:84A7:56F4:6CC6:777E (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No request made. Please specify changes you want made in the form "change X to Y". Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinese GP

It was expected to take place, but was dropped- how is this not notable for the article? It seems similar to Vietnam last season (that was dropped before the calendar was released). This is different to 2021, when it was planned but postponed then cancelled. As such, it is a change, and is therefore worth being in the article. The fact it isn't happening doesn't preclude it from being in the article, Qatar after all never planned to have a race in 2022, but apparently we have no problem with that being in the article. So why not China? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention it. The non-inclusion of the race on the calendar seems to have received substantial attention from high-profile mainstream reliable sources like the BBC and Reuters. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that Chinese Grand Prix should be mentioned. Pinging @Cherkash: who keeps removing it. SSSB (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need to have all these bullet points to explain these things? I don't understand the advantage of doing this over explaining what's happening in running prose. All it seems to cause is disputes over what does or doesn't get to be a bullet point. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

More than happy for it to be prose. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be mentioned. It wasn’t on any provisional calendar. It wasn’t expected to take place. There was some hope to have it on the calendar, but that quickly faded. This is not a calendar change and it is therefore not relevant to this article. The explanation on China’s continued absence belongs in the article on the Grand Prix itself.Tvx1 11:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree that it wasn't expected to take place. It had previously been reported that the race was under contract to take place, and as I said before, sources like the BBC and Reuters clearly considered it to be highly noteworthy that it wasn't included on the calendar. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It wasn’t on any provisional calendar. It wasn’t expected to take place. It had a contract to take place every year until 2025. That's reason enough to believe it would take place, and the fact that it therefore didn't, in spite of a contract to do so, is noteworthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No it’s not. There are plenty of examples of Grands Prix that had a contract, but never appeared on a calendar or even had a remote expectancy to realistically take place. It’s only October and it isn’t even on the first calendar. That’s actually because it was clear very quickly that there was no realistic expectation of being able to take place. This information just doesn’t belong here. We have always applied a black and white line that a grand prix had to be on some formal calendar. I cannot see a good reason to deviate from that now.Tvx1 13:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the main title above. Putting calendar expansion and changes from 2021 to 2022 it should not be mentioned. Chinese race was not run in 2021. Putting calendar expansion and changes we can mention it. Island92 (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

We can’t mention it in either case. It’s neither a calendar change, nor expansion. And we shouldn’t be changing the premise of article sections just because some editors obsessively demand content to be in it. That’s poor editor practice.Tvx1 13:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I agree to obmit this information.Island92 (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I agree with the premise that this isn't a calendar change from the previous year. The Chinese Grand Prix originally appeared on the 2021 calendar before being postponed and then effectively cancelled. This time it isn't appearing on the calendar from the outset. I would personally consider this to be a change from the previous year. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a technicality many readers will miss. There really is no need to include this information. The explanation on China's continued absence can easily be provided in the article on that grand prix.Tvx1 17:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: you've just removed it claiming "see talkpage", yet I see nothing resembling a consensus here. If anything, the consensus currently points the other way. SSSB (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok.--Island92 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

From the perspective of following sources I believe it should be mentioned. Both the BBC and Reuters seem to treat the removal of the Chinese Grand Prix from the calendar as being the headline-worthy aspect of the schedule, while the Guardian, Autosport, the BBC, and Sky Sports all note that the Imola race is taking the spot that the Chinese Grand Prix would have had if not for the travel restrictions. I don't think this instance is directly comparable to previous cases because the circumstance of a well-established race being left off the calendar in this manner despite being under contract to take place is relatively unprecedented. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No one is claiming that it has no nobality whatsoever and thus should not be on Wikipedia at all. Just because some sources give attention doesn’t however mean that we should dump it in this article. I really don’t understand this obession that it MUST be mentioned here. Use the article of that well-established grand prix. @SSSB, there is not considerable more support to include it than there is to remove it, so it’s wrong to claim a consensus pointing towards keeping it.Tvx1 20:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m relatively late to the discussion, but since I seem to be the person whose edits prompted this discussion in the first place, I’ll comment on this anyway. I don’t think we should mention Chinese GP here - any mention of it not being held for such and such reasons belongs to the Chinese Grand Prix article, and not here. This is neither a “change from 2021 to 2022” (so doesn't belong to that section), nor really should even be mentioned in the calendar section (as there was no provisional calendar published which would have included the GP in question). Just because the race had some long-term contract to be run for a number of years, doesn’t make it noteworthy in a given year when it had almost no chance to appear on the calendar (and indeed didn’t appear on any published provisional version of the calendar at all). So simply because some sources (BBC, etc.) mention it in their narrative doesn’t make it relevant to this article for the reasons mentioned above. cherkash (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Alex Albon

The World Doping Angency has declared Thailand non-compliant. This means that Alex Albon will probably not be competing under the Thai flag in 2022. Suggest that we use TBA for now with an explanatory footnote. Mjroots (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

A nation being deemed non-compliant doesn't automatically mean athletes can't use the flag. That was the penalty imposed in Russia's case, but that doesn't mean it will be used for Thailand's case, and might not apply to motorsport. Removing the flag now would be a case of original research, so we must wait until an announcement is made before changing anything.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should wait until F1 broadcasts start using his name at the start of the next season - after all, he could just be taking the British flag then.
H4MCHTR (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, but in that case a hidden note referring editors to this discussion might be a good idea. Mjroots (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That would still be original research. The flag in the article reflects his sporting nationality, and for now we know he is registered as a Thai driver. Until his license officially changes, he can only be shown as Thai in this article.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Did anyone read the source Mjroots provided? It contains the following passage:

” Athletes from the three countries will be allowed to compete in regional, continental and world championships but their national flags will not be flown other than at the Olympic Games.”

That is clear cut that Albon cannot use the Thai flag. Don’t see a difference with Mazepin.Tvx1 19:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that we have a source that mentions the F1 situation explicitly. In this case, F1 isn't explicitly mentioned so saying it applies to F1 is technically WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

We know from the Mazepin case that Formula One is a World Championship like any other official one. Claiming that it doesn’t apply to this one is what is actually OR.Tvx1 20:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Still just inferring it from precedent, which is still original research. As mentioned above, we don't actually know what flag he'll take. No source, no change.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, just reflecting the source. We know he cannot use the Thai flag. So leaving the Thai flag in this article while acting like nothing is amiss is just unacceptable.Tvx1 23:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If you say so. {{noflag}} or {{flagicon image|Flag of none.svg}} then?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the chain of logic (Russian's can't compete in World Championships,[source] Mazepin isn't competing as Russian,[source] Thai's can't compete in World Championships,[source] so Albon can't compete as Thai[no source]) is WP:SYNTHESIS, by definition - as much as I agree it is common sense. Luckily, I managed a source: [2] and am therefore happy to include a footnote to this effect with one of the options outlined by 5225C. SSSB (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: Please do that. The footnote can also state that Thailand is to appeal the decision. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done SSSB (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No, SSSB what I did was no synthesis. There actually always was a source. The resistance to the change was ridiculous. The source you provided actually does nothing but rehash what was already in the other source and adding the word F1 in their reasoning. Exactly what we did here. That source's conclusion stems from the exact same evidence we already had. Thanks for making the change though.Tvx1 11:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The "rehash[ing] what was already in the other source and adding the word F1 in their reasoning." is the WP:OR (which sources are allowed to do, and we are not.) SSSB (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No it isn’t. We know black and white that Formula One has no special status whatsoever with regards to these rules. Requesting another source that explicitly mentioned “F1” is nonense elitism.Tvx1 20:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Use The British Flag Raymond Cirera (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Raymond Cirera: do you have any evidence he will use the British flag? SSSB (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes Raymond Cirera (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you care to provide it for us? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Zhou first Chinese driver

Multiple sources are calling Guanyu Zhou the first Chinese F1 driver e.g. Autosport, BBC. However, Ma Qinghua competed as a test/free practice driver in 2012, so surely Zhou is just the first full-time Chinese driver? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This is probably what these sources mean. If it isn't what they mean, they need to start doing their jobs properly. SSSB (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to say Zhou is due to become the first Chinese driver to compete in Formula One. Free practice sessions aren't really competitions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. SSSB (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Panthera Team Asia

I think the current paragraph regarding this entity is probably WP:UNDUE and possibly tending towards WP:FRINGE at this point. At the very least it looks more and more like a case of WP:NOTNEWS with every passing week. I would suggest that this section either be re-worded or excised entirely. Edit: The most recent source I could find on the team (Goodwood Road & Racing Club) actually notes the Wikipedia article as one of the few places with any information about this entity. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, should be removed. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, I've removed it. It's outdated and clearly no longer relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

Request that Verstappen’s Driver number go to TBC as he hasn’t confirmed his driver number for the 2022 season 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:18FD:DF66:3BDF:FAD4 (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, Tvx1 15:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021 (2)

Request Verstappen’s driver number be changed to number 1, as that is what number he has stated he will drive with 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:18FD:DF66:3BDF:FAD4 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - @Sirdog and 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:18FD:DF66:3BDF:FAD4: I've amended the number and added a reference, per Verstappen's stated intention. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: - the reason for my edit. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Today, the main source cited for the table says 33. As soon as this document is updated by FIA, we will put number 1.--Island92 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: OK, but can we put an explanitory note that VER is entitled to use #1 and has expressed an intention to exercise that entitlement? Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically, we can do it, but I'd rather wait in any case. It has been confirmed that the classification is subject to an appeal lodged with the ICA. Source.--Island92 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

New twitter post from Red Bull - twitter.com/redbullracing/status/1470140146242756610 - Should we wait for confirmation from the FIA? Btad16 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes.--Island92 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I think what Mjroots suggested at 20:34 yesterday is the perfect compromise: put that Verstappen is officially listed as #33, but has the right, and has stated his intention to use #1. To me, putting details of the pending appeal is WP:UNDUE here. SSSB (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxBdYC6CQDc At the end of this interview Max says he will take #1 for next season so I think its all but confirmed now Btad16 (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Condense Red Bull powered teams in the constructors collumn

I feel that the Red Bull Powertrains powered teams have an unnecessary large column width and should be condensed.

Current format:

Teams and drivers that compete in the 2022 World Championship

Entrant	Constructor	Power unit	Race drivers
			No.	Driver name
Scuderia AlphaTauri	AlphaTauri-Red Bull Powertrains	Red Bull Powertrains	10	Pierre Gasly
			22	Yuki Tsunoda
Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-Red Bull Powertrains	Red Bull Powertrains	11	Sergio Pérez
			33	Max Verstappen

My proposed format (like the example of Mercedes and McLaren):

Teams and drivers that compete in the 2022 World Championship

Entrant	Constructor	Power unit	Race drivers
			No.	Driver name
Scuderia AlphaTauri	AlphaTauri-Red Bull	Red Bull Powertrains	10	Pierre Gasly
			22	Yuki Tsunoda
Red Bull Racing	Red Bull	Red Bull Powertrains	11	Sergio Pérez
			33	Max Verstappen

Phoenix84621 (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

AlphaTauri-Red Bull Powertrains and Red Bull Racing-Red Bull Powertrains will be their constructor name according to the current source.--Island92 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That source is not as clear cut as you claim. According to your reasoning, we should also have Mercedes-Mercedes and Ferrari-Ferrari.Tvx1 21:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically, it is a provisional entry list. In Bahrain 2022 we will be reading the official one. Therefore, everything might change. In any case, we have never put Mercedes-Mercedes as we read e.g. Mercedes (name of chassis) and Mercedes (make of the engine) in the table.--Island92 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

So using your theory it should be as the proposed above then?Phoenix84621 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

My theory? Actually not. We don't read Red Bull Racing twice in the last two columns on the right. We read Red Bull Racing-Red Bull Powertrains. Island92 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

We do read Red Bull twice though. In reality Mercedes’power units are Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains, but we don’t use that name in our tables.Tvx1 00:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Updated. I left only Red Bull, as Mercedes, for the power unit column. If we don't put Mercedes Powertrains we don't put Red Bull Powertrains. I put Red Bull Racing-Red Bull and AlphaTauri-Red Bull for the constructor column. This should be the name in the future classifications for tables and standings. "Red Bull" simply replaces "Honda".Island92 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. It should be Red Bull and AlphaTauri-Red Bull. Tvx1 and Phoenix84621 are correct. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, should be Red Bull and AlphaTauri-Red Bull, in the same way as it's Mercedes and McLaren-Mercedes, or Ferrari and Alfa Romeo-Ferrari. We don't need the exact name of the company making the engines, and don't need to duplicate for Red Bull. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I;m going to change this now since we have only one dissenter to a well-established practice. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's wrong. For table results you won't read only Red Bull Racing next to the driver name but rather Red Bull Racing-Red Bull according to the information we have today. Island92 (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What I mean:

Race classification

Pos.	No.	Driver	Constructor	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Points
1	33	Max Verstappen	Red Bull Racing-Red Bull	58	1:30:17.345	1	261
Fastest lap:
Source:

Drivers' Championship standings

	Pos.	Driver	Points
	1	Max Verstappen	395.5
	2	Lewis Hamilton	387.5
	3	Valtteri Bottas	226
	4	Sergio Pérez	190
2	5	Carlos Sainz Jr.	164.5
Source:

Constructors' Championship standings

	Pos.	Constructor	Points
	1	Mercedes	613.5
	2	Red Bull Racing-Red Bull	585.5
	3	Ferrari	323.5
	4	McLaren-Mercedes	275
	5	Alpine-Renault	155
Source:

• Note: Only the top five positions are included for both sets of standings.

--Island92 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Would a WP:COMMONSENSE approach not be the best one? SSSB (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure is. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think here F1.com will put only Red Bull Racing because it is the source we normally add in the tables. But let's wait and see in 2022.--Island92 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to follow the formatting decisions of the FIA or F1.com. I fail to see how this situation is any different from the Mercedes situation, apart from Red Bull have taken a slightly different approach when filling out their entry forms. SSSB (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Max car #1

Do we need to source this? I know Max himself stated he would take the #1 at the end of his youtube interview with F1. Or since the champion default is #1 and Lewis has just been the the exception for the past 7 years (sans the retiring Rosberg), we don't need to source? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Verstappen has already confirmed going to use the number, so we can source this.Tvx1 01:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hamilton's continuity

Should we adress at some point of the article that Hamiltons' continuity is not confirmed? i mean, not to delete Hamilton form the Drivers' list, but it should be wirtten in some point that it's possible that until further confirmation, Hamilton could leave F1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.115.34.122 (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The same is true for all drivers. Hamilton is on the 2022 entry list. Until he is removed, his entry is confirmed for next year. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with 5225C. Hamilton is contracted for next year. Yes, he could choose not to fulfil that contract (legally or illegally), but the same is true of literally every contract (race, driver, engine or team). SSSB (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Add the Chassis Names

Mercedes have confirmed their car will be the W13 - https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1474036575331889152?s=20

Alfa Romeo are going for C40, as last years was the C41 but 2020's was the C39

Red Bull are going for RB17 said Horner a few months ago

Ferrari are undecided, Haas, McLaren, Alpine, Aston Martin, AlphaTauri and Williams are set to follow their naming conventions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norgz1328 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

We can add Mercedes, but not the others ("said Horner" isn't good enough without a source, and your analysis of Alfa Romeo, Haas, McLaren, Alpine, Aston Martin, AlphaTauri and Williams is WP:OR). SSSB (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Red Bull are going for RB18 - https://racingnews365.com/horner-explains-why-the-red-bull-rb17-will-never-exist - my apologies for that. Haas have today confirmed their VF-22 has passed the crash test - https://twitter.com/HaasF1Team/status/1474038276579287043?s=20 --Norgz1328 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added the chassis names that can be reliably sourced. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

Williams Racing website does show that Alex Albon will be racing with the Thai Flag. Please make the necessary changes. 116.74.159.90 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, nobody is going to make a change if you don't source your claims in the form of, at the very least, a url (unless they hunt for a source themselves, but most people won't bother, the onus for sourcing your edit (requests) lies with you.)

Secondly, the flags in this article reflect official usage, which is not dictated by Williams, and (having looked at Alex's page on the Williams website) there is no indication of what flag he will race under, and there is no indication that Williams' page dedicated to the 2022 season reflects racing nationality (what the flags for drivers in this article refer to), as opposed to his actual nationality (which is Thai, even if he can't race as Thai, in the same way Nikita Mazepin is still Russian, even if he can't compete as a Russian).

In short, what the Williams website says isn't relevant to this article's flag usage. SSSB (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

History note

I can't be bothered to go back into the history to see who first added this note (or at least a variation thereof) to the article, but I think it warrants discussion. I see it as relatively harmless in its current form; however, I do think it is a little overly specific for an F1 season article. Perhaps something along these lines would be better:

The '''2022 FIA Formula One World Championship''' is a planned motor racing championship for [[Formula One cars]] which will be the 73rd{{efn|See [[history of Formula One]] for why this is considered the 73rd.}} running of the [[Formula One World Championship]].

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The note can simply say that the world Championship has been run every year since the inaguaral 1950 season, making 2022 the 73rd season. The longer note (the one currently in use) is only really justified at the articles which contain the line "xth Formula One season", where editors occasionally edit it, confusing "season" with "World Championship". SSSB (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a note at all - 70 season articles are perfectly fine without it. the current note just seems like unneeded bloat for a question that isn't commonly being asked. either of the abocve suggestions seem like a reasonable compromise if a note must be thereUnbh (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

Hi, I was only going to suggest that the details under the picture of Verstappen be changed to "...will be the defending champion..." only because the season hasn't actually started yet. Once the season starts then he "is" the defending champion, & it can be changed back. Hope this makes sense. Thanks, Michael 120.16.16.23 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right but we are already in 2022 actually.--Island92 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. While it is true the racing hasn't started, I would argue the season already has. The teams are working, the employees are being paid, most (if not all) of the cars have undergone their initial crash tests, and drivers have already begun to fulfill some of their 2022 sponsorship obligations. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. More or less. The article deals with the world championship, not a season of formula one activities. The championship hasn’t started yet and he isn’t defending his title yet. There are things that might prevent him from doing so.Tvx1 15:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Albon’s Nationality

Why is Alexander Albon flag not a Thai flag when you can’t change your racing nationality after you have made it and since he has already raced under the Thai nationality he will again in 2022 just like Nico Rosberg raced under as a German even know he raced under a Finnish flag in his career before F1 and he picked German and never went back to the Finnish flag.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazza20006 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Read the note beside his name in the entry list. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, you can "change racing nationality after you have made it". Robert Doornbos comes to mind. SSSB (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

F1.com has put the Thai flag but in any case it is too much early. Island92 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's also not up to F1.com, what they say is irrelevant. It's up to the FIA. SSSB (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

He can compete under Thai flag, source. Note for him is no longer necessary into Entries table. Island92 (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Per that source, the law changes still need to be accepted in parlement. It’s thus not dealt with yet.Tvx1 00:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok.--Island92 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Even more news coming out about the World Anti-Doping Agency reinstating Thailand. [3] Manvswow (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Set to" doesn't mean officially confirmed. Source says "with official confirmation expected to follow in due course". Therefore we should wait. Island92 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Even more news speaking in the future tense. As long as the WADA has not accepted Thailand's efforts and not officially lifted the sanctions, we cannot report this as fact.Tvx1 16:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1 and Island92: we can report it as fact now. SSSB (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Perfect. Island92 (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

US states listed- inconsistent?

On the calendar table, for the two US Grands Prix, we have the circuit locations listed as Miami International Autodrome, Miami Gardens, Florida, and Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas (US states Florida and Texas listed). To me, this seems inconsistent, as for the other 21 non-US races, we don't list the state/province/county of the circuit e.g. we don't list the state Styria for Austrian GP, the county Northamptonshire for British GP, the state Victoria for Australian GP etc.) Surely for consistency we therefore don't need the US state names? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I would argue the opposite (in the sense that it is consistent, with common practice). It is standard/convention to mention the state for US place names, but this is not the case for the rest of the world (with the possible exceptions of Australia). SSSB (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It is common practice to include the state when referencing a location in the US. The relevancy of a state or province differs greatly between nations. In the case of Australia I do suppose Victoria could be relevant, but as a foreigner to both nations I hear American states included much more frequently. This has to do with America being a federation, the size of the federation (Texas itself is bigger than many other countries on the calendar), and culture. Counties, like Miami-Dade County and Travis County in the case of Miami Gardens and Austin, is of course not included. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It should have been better to delete the state description in the second part of the US Grand Prix. That is the same as injustice to other countries. Because other countries have territories, only the American series has the state description written on the calendar KusumaSPMTickford (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Incidently, there are multiple Austins in the USA, so we need the "Texas" to disambiguate. SSSB (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Likewise there are multiple Miamis. That’s why the states need to be there.Tvx1 16:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry, countries have no right to "justice" on Wikipedia, and we're not gonna make an article less clear because of some misunderstood feeling of "injustice" in what is a purely practical question. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Melbourne has also multiple, there called Greater Melbourne. Albert Park is located in the suburbs of St. Kilda, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The state in Australia is actually 2x the size on the Australian continent than the United States

KusumaSPMTickford (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No, there is one Melbourne is Australia (according to Melbourne (disambiguation)), even if "Melbourne" can refer to any one of several overlapping regions depending on context. SSSB (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There's multiple Spielbergs (Spielberg (disambiguation) has more than one place listed), multiple Le Castellets and multiple Suzukas. So if that's the reason for adding the US state, surely we should add the state/province for these three as well for consistency? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There is one Suzuka listed. There is only one Spielberg in Austria, so disambiguation is already provided in that cases by the country. Secondly, the disambiguation is a secondary reason to the common convention argument. Thirdly, I would support the addition of "Var" to disambigaute Le Castellet within France. SSSB (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Haas to drop Uralkali sponsorship on livery at Barcelona Testing

As you are very well aware, The current administration of Russia has become very unpopular over the last 48 hours, and that is putting it very lightly. Due to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, HAAS has dropped all Uralkali logos from their liveries and is running a plain white livery for their cars. I just wanted to see if this would warrant a mention on this page, or the page for the VF-22, whenever that is created.

Source: https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/33362478/haas-removes-uralkali-branding-final-day-f1-testing OrlandoApollosFan69 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• It is relevant for both. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is relevant here. We don't mention Alpine taking on BWT as a sponser, so I don't see why we should cover Uralkali being dropped. As far as I'm concerned its relevance is limited to Haas F1 Team and possibly Haas VF-22 SSSB (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, my bad, I didn't realise what article this comment was on. The Haas and VF-22 articles are the appropriate places. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, just making sure where the information should go. OrlandoApollosFan69 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

russian grand prix

shouldn't the russian grand prix be removed from the list, they have confirmed it is impossible to host the russian grand prix due to the invasion. TTTTRZON (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A long talk about is just above.--Island92 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, they have stated they couldn’t host it NOW, but it wasn’t supposed to take place NOW anyway.Tvx1 17:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How F1 has stated about running the Russian Grand Prix is very vague. They haven't 'Cancelled' the event, they stated that it's "Impossible to hold the Russian Grand Prix in the current circumstances", which means that it could go ahead, if the situation dies down between now and September. Hiflex480 (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, in wikipedia terms literally nothing has changed, the Grand Prix is on the official calendar so it should stay on this one. Equally the entry list still shows Haas entered as Uralkali so that should really be what it says on the page too Duds 2k (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian GP

Obankston added info that the Russian GP may be in doubt, but was reverted by Island92.

IMvHO, Obankston's edit was a good one. It was reliably sourced and there are many calls for the 2022 Russian GP to be axed, including from Sebastien Vettel and Max Verstappen. To avoid an edit war, I'd rather this issue was thrashed out here on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Each race may be in doubt regarding Covid global pandemic. I suggest waiting final decisions made by FIA rather than adding Notes, prose, drivers' opinions and many others. How much is sure that the Russian Grand Prix could be replaced by the Turkish Grand Prix? It's speculation, like the case I read today Qatar could replace Russian Grand Prix from another site. Personally, I'd rather not read an entire paragraph of what could happen in the future, unless we have an official statement by the Federation.--Island92 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Island92: - the bit about a possible replacement can probably be omitted. This is part of the discussion here, to try to reach a consensus. What is more important is that there are calls for the Russian GP to be cancelled, and pressure is being put on the FIA to act sooner rather than later. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Calls from outside parties to cancel it does not mean it is in doubt. The race is scheduled for 7 months from now. That's a long time from now, during which a lot can happen. As long as no party directly involved in the contract for the race comments that it is in doubt, we should not report that it is.Tvx1 20:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

FIA knows when it's time to make a crucial decision, according to what happen now, in the next hours, or in the next weeks. FIA, the governing body of international motorsport, sets the calendar. IMO, it isn't important how much pressure is coming from external calls to have this GP ruled out from the calendar. Haas have already decided to remove Uralkali sponsor from car livery for tomorrow test. That means we don't necessarily have to remove Uralkali next to "Haas F1 Team" into Entries table, unless the entry list source is updated differently. And the entry list is updated by FIA.--Island92 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Until the FIA confirm anything, it's just WP:SPECULATION. And is therefore not needed on a factual, encyclopedic article- our calendar matches the FIA calendar, in that the official calendar still includes Russia currently. If/when the FIA change the calendar, then and only then should Wikipedia make any changes to it. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It may be relevant and reliable if there are a large number of stakeholders calling on the FIA to make a change, without having to say that there is a possible change. The former would not be speculation, the later would be. I have no idea if there are reliable sources calling for such call to action, though. Just noting that if there is, that's how I would include it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't think anyone is suggesting changing the calendar here. The discussion deals with the removal of a paragraph, claiming the race to be in doubt, that someone had added earlier. Even that was inappropriate, since no involved party has announced replacement of the race actually bein considered.Tvx1 21:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Like others have concluded, I don't believe "The Russian Grand Prix is uncertain because of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is an appropriate addition to the article, as it is a clear case of WP:SPECULATION about the "certainty" of an officially scheduled – and thus certain – event. Rather, I believe the appropriate discussion to have is whether or not drivers pulling out of the event and/or calling for the event to be cancelled, is in fact of encyclopedic value. If this information can be verified through WP:RELIABLE sources, I absolutely believe drivers boycotting an event is relevant. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying it in doubt is silly, because all races are in some level of doubt, and there is zero indication that any cancellation is even being discussed (by those who make these decisions). However, I think it would be appropriate to mention that there are calls from drivers/teams/media to cancel the race, and that some drivers/teams/media are also considering a boycott. SSSB (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is no one is boycotting anything right now. I find it strange that this discussion acts as if we're dealing with a race that is supposed to take place in the next couple of weeks. In reality, it's a race not scheduled to happen for another SEVEN months. An immense amount of things can happen in such a time. For all I know, the international community might rebuff the Russian forces, their current government might be overthrown and replaced by a peaceful one and Putin could end being eliminated in all of those months. There is so much that can happen in that many months, so why is there such a rush to report on event not expected to happen for many months?Tvx1 00:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia is updated as time moves on. If a driver decides to boycott an event seven months in advance though, that's on them, the decision to boycott is just as relevant regardless of when the decision was made (unless you believe boycotts aren't relevant, of course). If things develop in the opposite direction before then, those drivers might change their decision, and then we'll have to update our information as well. Until then, I treat information about a confirmed, future boycott of an event from a driver the same way I treat information about the confirmed, future event itself, however uncertain it might actually be. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Tvx1, I'm sorry but your basis for not including this information is that the basis for the boycott might no longer apply. That sounds like speculation to me. SSSB (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

But there is no official boycott at the moment, that's the point. There is one statement from one driver including many conditionals. His statement directly conveys that he would participate if there is no more war, that's not speculation. Those ar his words. At least now though, the sport has officially put the race in doubt.Tvx1 12:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Cancellation statement?

Russian Grand Prix was just cancelled. https://twitter.com/F1Media/status/1497179625625055232 https://www.racefans.net/2022/02/25/formula-1-confirms-it-will-not-race-in-russia-this-year/ Manvswow (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

https://corp.formula1.com/formula-1-statement-on-the-russian-grand-prix/ Manvswow (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that statement supports cancellation. It's simply saying that if this situation hasn't changed by the time we get to the Russian Grand Prix it will be cancelled. Of course, this is my WP:OR analysis and if secondary sources are reporting this as a cancellation so must we, but I don't think that's what the statment is saying. SSSB (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Page restored. It isn't an official cancellation.--Island92 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's not a very clear statement to me either. Seems to me that it has been suspended from the calendar, but could be reinstated should circumstances change.Tvx1 12:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Metro reporting that the Russian GP has been cancelled. Am on my phone so can't post a link. Mjroots2 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm watching Al Jazeera right now and they have said this amounts to a cancellation. Is it ambiguous? Perhaps. I think it has been cancelled, but it will have to be clarified soon enough anyway. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Every source I have seen is calling it a cancellation. Can we think of a way to strike a balance between "not officially cancelled", and "secondary sourced consider statement to amount to cancellation" without going into WP:OR? SSSB (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The only good enough source is this, coming from FIA, who sets the calendar. It's a statement regarding current impossible condition to hold the race, not that race has been definitely called off for 2022.--Island92 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

May we suggest adding an asterisk indicating something in the lines of "event to be confirmed regarding the consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine", or any similar sentence, and placing the FIA statement as source? Sjælefred Herm (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would actually go as far as putting a sentence in the "calendar changes" section (or whatever it's called} together with an {{efn}}. The former or both explaining that the statement, the general interpreation by sources (that it's cancelled), whilst noting that the cancellation isn't official). SSSB (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There should very much be something. It has been officially downgraded to a conditional status.Tvx1 13:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of, "On 25 February, following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the FIA released a statement saying that "it is impossible to hold the [2022] Russian Grand Prix in the current circumstances." This was interpreted as a cancellation of the event.[ref]"? SSSB (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I support SSSB's statement as a footnote in the calendar changes section alongside Island92's note which has already been added.Sjælefred Herm (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Just added a Note to clarify what it's happening.--Island92 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The note seems sensible to me. Sources are assuming it's cancelled, but I agree that the statement from FIA is ambiguous (as the event is 7 months away, they could change their mind many times before then). The note covers both scenarios, so seems like best solution to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Island92's note is enough (it's a start, but not enough), as proven by this edit. That edit is the constant war we will be fighting, for the next however many months. SSSB (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but we added a Note following a FIA statement. For the next one, we will act again, basing on what FIA decides to do (to call it off definitely for example).--Island92 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Something should be added to the changes section.Tvx1 14:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

We had a separate table for suspended/postponed/cancelled GPs that were in the original calendars for 2020 and 2021; what's stopping us from doing the same here? Sceptre (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Because the FIA statement doesn't conclusively cancel it, as per the rest of the discussion in this section. It says the race cannot go ahead in these circumstances, but doesn't explicitly say "it is cancelled". Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It is an ongoin fight of edits. In order not make things worse, I propose to leave the race as "cancelled".--Island92 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That the situation is very different. Previous seasons had calendars that were changed extensively while the season was ongoing. This is one isolated race and having an entire table for that would be overkill.Tvx1 14:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Additionally, the tables for the 2020 and 2021 season was because multiple rounds were suspended/postponed/cancelled. I beleive that we had previously reached a consensus that a table would be unjustified for seasons which saw only one change. SSSB (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian Grand Prix removed from the calendar. What should we do now?--Island92 (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Page updated. I think now is more relevant that the Grand Prix is no longer listed, which means it was dropped from the calendar.--Island92 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the race’s contract has been suspended, but the promoter claims it could still take place.Tvx1 21:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This calendar which is more important, on FIA.com, still includes the Russian race. Page updated.--Island92 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's unrealistic for us to expect FIA.com or F1.com to be updated instantly... SSSB (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would that calendar on the FIA site more important? That sort of webpage is always late on being updated.Tvx1 09:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If it gets unsuspended before September.... SSSB (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit notice

*Admin's hat on*

If we can agree on what wording / end notes are to be used, I can create an edit notice saying not to change such wording without first gaining consensus at talk, subject to gaining consensus here to have an edit notice, of course. An alternative would be a temporary increase in protection to EC level, but I'd rather not go that way. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

seems wise to me. SSSB (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The current listing as a separate entry under the main calendar is, to me, a good solution. Can we agree that this is the best way to cover the situation? Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, until FIA shares more information status for this affected Grand Prix. Island92 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. SSSB (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Race cancelled.--Island92 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And with that it looks like we won't be needing an edit notice, although it remains an optio should it be required.Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that it isn't worth keeping a table for just one Grand Prix called off. Had we had multiple races called off (as 2020 and 2021) a table would have been suitable. Prose below is sufficient to explain why this determined Grand Prix was called off.--Island92 (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The MOS says that prose should be used rather than tables. So have 1 bullet point in the calendar changes section rather than a table of 1 item. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Russian drivers banned from competing in the UK

Mazepin isn’t competing in 2022
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.
Motorsport UK has announced that it will not recognise Russian or Belarusian driving licences following the Russian invasion of Ukraine (per BBC), which would preclude Mazepin from competing at Silverstone. How should we cover this? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC) We should wait, as the British Grand Prix is over 4 months away, and so the situation could well change again before then. If/when Mazepin cannot compete at Grands Prix and has to be substituted, it should be added to a "Mid-season changes" section like we do for any other mid-season changes. But right now, Mazepin hasn't raced at all, and it's 4 months until a race he may be banned from. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Assuming Mazepin is not replaced by the Haas team for this season entirely (which seems increasingly likely), I would suggest handling it the same way as we would when any driver is unable to drive in a specific round and they are substituted for another driver. For example, when the Kimster got COVID Kubica drove in his stead. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC) We should wait and be patient. Things may change rapidly in base on what's happening in UKR.--Island92 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC) The FIA have decided that drivers with Russian or Belarussian licences won‘t compete with them anyway, but rather as neutral conpetitor. So this doesn‘t make much difference for Mazepin.Tvx1 13:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC) I concur with the previous comments. A lot can change in 4 months. To say that Mazepin won't be allowed to race is WP:CRYSTAL and to say that he might not be able to race is WP:UNDUE at this time, because it is 4 months away. SSSB (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC) It's not just about which country's competition licence is used though. There is also the question of which country's passport an individual holds. A ban on holders of Russian and Belarusian passport holders from entering the UK would not be beyond the realms of possibility. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC) This is just about the license. Banning Russian citizens from entering the UK is both highly unlikely and, regardless, just WP:SPECULATION. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for discussing what might or might not happen in the future. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC) I realise this may be a bit forum-y, but this issue may well be decided imminently and independent of what is happening with the British GP. It has been suggested that Haas is poised to drop Uralkali sponsorship, which pays for Mazepin's ride. Such a decision would likely be made well in advance of the season opener, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that Mazepin is dropped in favour of Pietro Fittipaldi. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Looks like Mazepin is out and Fittipaldi is in. Obviously we need to wait for the official announcement before the article can be updated. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC) I don't need to mention that Wikipedia is not a forum, nor that speculation on Twitter has no encyclopedic value regardless of what user it comes from; but even by those standards, the user you're linking to is highly unreliable, meaning pure guessing would be as good of a source for what looks to be happening. The reality is we simply don't know. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC) An FIA accredited journalist "highly unreliable"? Unusable for Wikipedia purposes yes, but that accreditation does carry weight. Like I said above, we do need to wait for an official announcement by Haas though. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Only sources coming from FIA, Formula 1 and, in this case, Haas F1 Team, are trusy. For something else we cannot rely on. Island92 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Why are you attacking Mjroots. He acknowleged that the tweet is not good enough to use as a citation. SSSB (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry if you considered it to be an attack. It wasn't my intention, and never had it been intended. Just to clarify those sources linked to FIA, Formula 1 and, in this case, Haas F1 Team, have a better reputation than Twitter (usually).--Island92 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC) That doesn't mean we can't discuss information coming from other sources here, even if they are not useable in the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC) What purpose would that serve beyond WP:FORUM? Ved havet ≈ (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Latest from Sky Sports Germany (in German). Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC) We may discuss whatever you want regarding current Mazepin's status, but this is an encyclopedia, isn't it? As well as the fact you might provide as many sources as you can (maybe we should call them rumors instead, suppositions, things going to happen soon...) but it doesn't make a difference because they are not official basically. Would you like to make us aware of them? Ok, I will be enjoying reading them. And this is not an attack, but a simply consideration. This latest source coming from Sky GER was added this afternoon but the edit was reverted by Jestal50 as it is not confirmed by the team. Island92 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Once again, what purpose does posting links to unusable sources on talk pages serve? I'm also not looking to "attack", but I'm suggesting you take this to a Discord server or some other platform rather than keep posting these links here. Article talk pages is not your source of speculation until the news isn't speculation anymore, WP:SPECULATION has no place on Wikipedia talk pages either. Please be advised on WP:TALKNO and WP:FORUM. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC) @Ved havet: Sky GER meets WP:RS and is a secondary source. HAAS are a WP:PRIMARY source, as are the FIA. I was hoping that a sensible discussion could have been had about using that source and inserting the information into the article. I did not do so myself as my German is not good enough to be able to extract the info without the use of an online translation website. I was unaware that the info had already been added and then removed by Jestal50. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC) You’re mixing up Primary with dependent.Tvx1 06:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC) No, in terms of who will be racing for Haas this year, Fittipaldi (stating he will drive), Haas (and their staff involved in making the decision), FIA (the entry list, not necessarily their news articles), Mazepin (stating he won't drive) are all primary sources, as well as dependent ones. Posting links that are not suitable as citations serves to prepare us that new/inexpirenced editors may request/make changes based on these unsuitable sources. It acts as an early warning system of potential vandalism/speculation that may be added to the article in the near future. SSSB (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) I read nothing to suggest that to have been the intention. Mjroots requested a sensible discussion on using the information from Sky in the article. To answer that request: Just because Sky meets WP:RS doesn't mean that everything they write is of encyclopedic value. It means that we can rely on them on telling the truth when something isn't official (and thus not appropriate for an encyclopedia yet), and they did. When reliable sources report on official news, only then is it approproate. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Mazepin's flag (centralized discussion)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per the FIA's statement, it looks like Mazepin will be running as a neutral competitor under the FIA flag until further notice, as opposed to under the RAF's flag from last season.

I've edited the article, but I'm aware that it was a quick edit and for the purposes of other articles (e.g. GP articles, the WEC articles for Kyvat), we should agree on a consensus wording for the footnotes. How's this for a start?

“ Nikita Mazepin is a Russian driver, who is taking part in the championship as a neutral competitor, due to the FIA's ban on Russian emblems in response to the Russo-Ukrainian War.[cite] ”

Sceptre (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I'd use this as the reference, rather than the tweet. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds really good to me, really sensible.--Island92 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Added a similar sentence based on 2021 style. Island92 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

My issue is here that we‘re stating that Mazepin IS taking part as a neutral competitor, even though we only have a general FIA statement offering Russians and Belarussians the option to compete as neutrals. We have nothing from Mazepin confirming he‘ll use that option. He could also simply request a different nationality.Tvx1 14:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically, Mazepin is Russian. FIA states Russian driver can compete under FIA flag. Island92 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH.Tvx1 15:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sentence fixed. Island92 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

But the FIA does not state that he does. He has other options.Tvx1 17:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Good point, Tvx1. I've tweaked the wording of the endnote to say that he "can compete under the FIA flag". Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Although, realistically, if he could compete under another flag, he would've done so last year when the RAF doping ban was in effect (like how Albon was speculated to be racing under the British flag this year if the TAF got a doping ban).

In any case, the news coverage of the FIA's restrictions on Russian (and Belorussian) drivers has been almost entirely focused on Mazepin—especially due to his father's links with the Kremlin—so the SYNTH violation would be de minimis (indeed, nearly all sources are taking it as a fait accompli that if he races this season, it will be under the FIA flag). Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

He could still apply for citizenship of a different country now, if he didn’t have one already, if he wishes to sever his ties with Russia entirely.Tvx1 07:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Out of necessity I think we need to wait until the entry list is updated or the next test (whichever comes first) to assess how Mazepin's nationality will be treated. I would also like to point out that our current FIA flag graphic appears to be inaccurate. Also, as discussed elsewhere, it is fairly likely this entire discussion will be a moot point if Haas drop Mazepin as a result of losing Uralkali's support. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I seem to recall last year where someone tried to argue that we should use a white flag for Mazepin, when in fact the FIA graphics didn't have a flag for him at all, and it was just a blank space where the flag goes. We did have that flag as an image, but it was deleted yesterday/this morning as a copyright violation. SSSB (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to me last year, I argued we should use the RAF graphic (which I created) because it was exactly what the FIA used, instead of being a blank white square which is what some editors preferred (despite no official source using a blank square). The flag used previously was blue on white rather than white on blue, but either way I'm just pointing out I don't think we should be changing the flag before it's updated on the entry list. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

We don’t know exactly what the «FIA flag» will look like, and a render of a physical flag used in an article is not necessarily a good source. It’s safe to assume it will be the FIA logo on a canvas though, but because the FIA logo is above the threshold of originality for copyright protection, we can not use it everywhere we’d like to. When the logo can be considered replacable, meaning we can find alternative solutions like what I’ve done with the current graphic (only using the text of the logo), that’s what we’re supposed to do per copyright guidelines. If the flag used turns out to be e.g. white on blue rather than blue on white, it can be updated to better match. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, my point was more that we've gone and tried to predict the FIA's flag custom rather than wait for the entry list to be updated. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and see what the FIA do. Having something as a placeholder is okay for now, but when we get to the first race (and assuming Mazepin is driving), then we can see what flag or non-flag they use to represent him. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call it «trying to predict the future». It’s an interim solution, considering the decision is confirmed and thus there are no other options at this time with both the Russian flag and RAF flag being out of the question. If there comes a graphic that’s in official use, we’ll either update the file or (if it’s copyright protected), try to match it as best as we can. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I was suggesting we should have remained with the RAF flag until the entry list was updated, but given how clear the FIA has been I agree that keeping it there would be inappropriate. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mazepin's flag could be seen after Bahrein first day testing on 10 March. Example after Spanish test second day testing.--Island92 (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mazepin's RAF flag from testing is the same flag he raced under last year, but it is no longer permitted. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I know. Until Spanish test he used that flag. From Bahrain test onwards he's due to use another flag, unless he's replaced.--Island92 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what we're talking about, that other flag would be the FIA flag, which we have a version of in the article currently but don't know exactly what will look like. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

For this reason I posted that message before. Not until Bahrain first day running test results are published can we see the new flag close to Nikita Mazepin's name.--Island92 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If we want a placeholder flag, there's ([[File:Flag of None.svg|22px]]). Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel need to put it for the time being. Anyway, as we kept Albon "without" flag there was {{flagicon image|Flag of None.svg}}. Island92 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

We should have done so. We clearly jumped the gun here. He was never entered under the FIA flag and his contract has been terminated now.Tvx1 09:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tyres

Looking for consensus of the group instead of edit war. Island92 has reverted this edit twice, once citing that the word "diameter" was not well known[4], and the second time without explanation [5]. Should we say the change in wheel size is "the championship moving", or should we say... it is a change in wheel size? RemotelyInterested (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

One of those reverts was me. The current (i.e. not your) version is easier for people to understand. Diameter is a technical term, better to use no technical terms. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really hoping that others do not feel that "diameter" is a technical term. Other wise, Wikipedia is going to be full of phrases like, "The straight line distance across the middle of the circle made by the wheel...". RemotelyInterested (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)".

@Joseph2302: diameter is not a techincal term, it is common and plain english (to awnser RemotelyInterested's edit summary, knowing the defintion of diameter is on the UK national curriculum for year 6 students (10-11 years old)[6]), and less ambigous than the current The championship will move from 13 inches (33 cm) to 18 inches (46 cm) wheels where we don't define what measurement this is changing. Even if diameter were a technical term (it isn't) the solution would be a simply wikilink. SSSB (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The section is literally titled "Technical regulations" and this is not Simple English Wikipedia; and even it it was a technical term (which it isn't), trying to skip around them just makes the information vague or straight-up untrue. That's why we use words like ground effect – not "suction", bargeboards – not "pointy bits", and motor generator unit–heat – whatever that is. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The other wording is much more simple to understand, we don't need to make it verbose for no benefit. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

As Ved havet and I have pointed out, your prefered wording is actually harder to understand, (as it is vague), and it isn't verbose, the word count decreased and the wording is equally plain and basic. SSSB (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're really overexaggerating how complicated of a word "diameter" is. Regardless, going from "The wheels are 18 inches" to "The wheels' diameter is 18 inches" doesn't make it more confusing, the information about something with the wheel being 18 inches is still there – but you also have the opportunity to know what specifically about the wheel is 18 inches. If you don't know what a diameter is, which is a bit unusual, there's a wikilink for you right there. What I'm confused about is why you've picked "diameter" as the word that's too technical, out of all the technical words in this section of the article. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The word "diameter" is needed for clarity. A reader unfamiliar with F1 might think that 15-inch refers to the width of the tyres. With diameter included, it is crystal clear what is meant. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Imola announced til 2025, changes to calendar ASAP

via F1.com https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.formula-1-announces-it-will-race-at-imola-until-2025.Rrtuijub7DtSJKD1uqmIq.html Propork3455 (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is that relevant to this article, which already mentions that it's on the calendar this year? That info should be on the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix page, not here. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be changed ASAP. It was in the calendar already.Tvx1 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

At the time, the Calendar section stated that the calendar is subject to change due to the Imola contract, but obviously that has been deleted since there is a new contract for Imola. Propork3455 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hamilton name change

Hamilton's name change is not confirmed [7] Hamilton, 37, doesn't expect name change for this season but wants it "soon", and is going to be a middle name anyway: [8] The 37-year-old Briton will include 'Larbalestier' as a middle name rather than adding it to his surname. Unless this changes how he's refer to commonly and in official FIA sources, we shouldn't be changing his name on this article. Courtesy ping to RxxingAddict. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, we include names as they are reported for each Grand Prix entry list. We have the wikilink Alex Albon , but into official documents we read Alexander Albon. In addition, FIA has never put "Sir" next to Lewis Hamilton. Island92 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but that deals with the shortening of a first name. Not really the same thing. More to the point their are countless examples of drivers not having used all of their legal family names in Formula One. Drivers like Sergio Pérez Mendoza, Fernando Alonso Díaz, Esteban Ocon-Khelfane, Pastor Maldonado Motta, Carlos Sainz Vázquez de Castro, Lance Strulovitch, Esteban Manuel Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, Marc Gené i Guerrero, Cristiano Monteiro da Matta, Tiago da Costa Monteiro, Pedro Falleiros dos Santos Diniz, Ayrton Senna da Silva, Bruno Senna Lalli, Nelson Piquet Souto Maior, Nelson Tamsma Piquet Souto Maior, Emerson Wojciechowska Fittipaldi and so on and on.Tvx1 13:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Has nobody heard of WP:COMMONNAME? Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, I just pointed out that there are many drivers who do not commonly use (all of) their legal names and hence we don’t either.Tvx1 13:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

fastest lap bonus point for short distance races

The bonus point for fastest lap was reintroduced in 2019 but only drivers and constructors who finished in the top ten are eligible to score the point. From 2022, the fastest lap point will only be awarded if more than 50% of the scheduled race distance is completed. 61.124.245.51 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Added to the article (with different wording, the above was copy and pasted from List of Formula One World Championship points scoring systems and contains details not relevant to this page. SSSB (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Bodywork must be coated in rubber?

There is a sentence in this article that has been there in some for or another since 2020, which reads:

"Bodywork will be required to be coated in rubber to reduce the risk of components breaking off cars to minimise the risk of local yellow flags, safety cars, and stoppages."

I cannot find this anywhere in the technical regulations, and visually it does not look like it's the case with the new cars.

Is there a source for this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:3781:10FB:1:61BE:E73E:48AC:E64F (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the offeneding sentence: Special:Diff/1078001418 SSSB (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)