Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship

Free practice driver rule (again)

I edited off the mention of rule change where FP1 drivers for inexperienced drivers were mandatory. It was supposed to be introduced for this year, but in the end 2021 sporting regulations don't include it (rule 26.1 b). However, 2022 sporting regulations have such a rule mentioned (numbers of rules were changed, now rule 3.12.2).

Also we have seen that seven teams never fielded an extra driver for FP1, only Williams, Alfa Romeo and Alpine did that. Guanyu Zhou did only one FP1 so Alpine doesn't escape with that. Callum Ilott did two FP1 sessions for Alfa Romeo while Williams fielded Roy Nissany in three and Jack Aitken in one sessions. Also, according to the spirit of the rule, AlphaTauri and Haas fielded rookie driver(s) so they are deemed to use such driver in Bahrain and Emilia Romagna GPs.

I pointed this in April (see in archive 2) but it didn't get any reaction. Would it be suitable to mention that the rule was postponed until 2022? BleuDXXXIV (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

What we need is a source which says that the rule was delayed from 2021 to 2022. SSSB (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: Would any of these potential sources help? 1: Formula 1 is set to introduce a regulation from 2022 that mandates teams to run young drivers in certain free practice sessions. - 2: From 2022, all 10 teams will be forced to run a rookie driver in two different Friday practice sessions during the year. - 3: Formula 1 teams will all have to run a rookie during a given number of grand prix practice sessions from the 2022 season in an effort to create more opportunities for young drivers. At present, teams have the option to replace one of their race drivers with an alternative driver during Friday practice – but only Williams, Alfa Romeo and Alpine have taken up that opportunity during the current season. - 4: All 10 Formula 1 teams will be forced to run a rookie driver on two Friday practice occasions in 2022 following a change in the sporting regulations.

Sadly, none of them mention that there was a delay that caused it. The closest I could find for that was this article: 5: Earlier this month, F1, the FIA and all 10 teams unanimously agreed to delay the introduction of the 2021 regulations by a year to 2022. The WMSC has now rubber stamped the move, allowing the relevant regulations to be adjusted. (...) Teams will also be able to hold a one-day test within 48 hours of the final race of the season to run young drivers. Up to two cars may be used for this test but it remains optional. Hopefully, something from this will be useful. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Mercedes protests

The controversial end of the final race, and the two Mercedes protests, made the news yesterday. I'd previously been unaware of the event. So I came here hoping to learn what the protests were about. But I find that covered in just two sentences, with nothing about the substance of the protests – despite it being the most notable event of the race, maybe of the whole championship. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: it is covered extensively (possibly excessivly) at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. SSSB (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

So it is. I know so little about the subject that I can't judge whether it should be discussed more deeply in this article as well. I don't even know how the two articles' subjects differ (and I don't want to know, please don't tell me). Maproom (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I definetly think it should, but to a lower level of detail. SSSB (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

In the first paragraph below the picture, the first sentence has a grammatical error. It says, “... an end the...” and it should say, “and end to the...” 24.184.190.225 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Error in "World Constructors' Championship standings" table

A number of Norris and Ricciardo race results are the wrong way round under the "World Constructors' Championship standings" table. It looks as if Norris' results should be on the top line and Ricciardo's on the bottom. The errors are as follows;

Hungarian GP - It states Norris can 11th and Ricciardo retired. These need to be switched. Belgium GP - It states Norris came 4th and Ricciardo came 14th. These need to be switched Italian GP - It states Norris won and Ricciardo came second. These need to be switched. Russian GP - It states Norris 4th and Ricciardo came 7th. These need to be switched. USA GP - It states Norris 5th and Ricciardo came 8th. These need to be switched. Saudi Arabian GP - It states Norris 5th and Ricciardo came 10th. These need to be switched. 90.251.38.240 (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Constructors' table isn't "one line per driver", the best result goes on top - regardless of whose result it was. SSSB (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This article must make the F1 comms dept proud

Doesn't Wikipedia realise its whole model is a tool for weaponising the truth through circular re-publication of so-called sources? The Hamilton Verstappen saga is a prime example of this.

My main gripe is this article might as well as be a PR release from FIA and its hopeful view that this season and the corruption it shone a light on will be quickly forgotten. The report it released a week ago was called out as early as in January that it would be a whitewash, then 97 days after the race ended it shamelessly did just that! It whitewashed conclusion was the end of the Abu Dhabi race was simply "human error". But the report barely mentions Masi and the role he played in the decision. Good grief, the radio messages between Red Bull and Masi clearly reveal he was doing exactly what Red Bull wanted - let Verstappen on the newer tyres have a free run at Hamilton. That's not human error that's collusion. FIA's report also tries to obfuscate that clear breaches in its own rules were made by saying in the report that those rules were ambiguous; not they weren't (lapped cars must all unlap and the safety car must complete one full lap before racing can resume).

Sorry but this article's presentation of facts is false and a misrepresentation of available facts because it can be only written (using Wikipedia's own rules) using cut and pasted clips from sources that are themselves based on FIA claims and what it wants in the news. The 2021 F1 season ended, so get over it. Hence my statement that FIA's PR dept must love this article. The publication of the report that is supposed to draw a line under this season actually does the opposite because it fails to address the egregious events while highlighting (ie undue) mundane and non-contentious issues too prominently.

In conclusion, the 2021 F1 season article should be written up as a watershed moment for revealing for publicly - what many have known for years - is how money, relationships and outcomes are all intertwined in such a high profile event (no one remember how Sepp Blatter ran FIFA?) This article normalises and promotes the PR from FIA, none of which is supported by the evidence.

Moving forward and starting with this article, Wikipedia should carry a disclaimer at the top of every article stating that articles are a work of opinion based on what has been published by others and therefore is not based on actual facts or evidence.146.200.202.126 (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The 2021 F1 season ended, so get over it. - that's what I suggest you do. It is clear that you reject the FIA's conclusions, but Wikipedia reports secondary sources, not your opinion. And secondary sources seem to accept the FIA's report. If there is a source which has the same conclusions as you do, by all means share it. But your opinion of the matters are irrelevant and will be ignored. SSSB (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I share SSSB's general conclusions (although from my perspective I would have toned down the way it was said, as the general quote [and this is a quote that is repeated and not directly from SSSB] "get over it" might be construed as slightly divisive, and now thinking about it slightly gas lightly). The entire model of Wikipedia is reporting verifiable facts, and it might be worth looking at the main WP guidelines to get an idea of this (see also Wikipedia:Five pillars). Whilst I note your concerns about the F1 2021 season, we can't have everyone writing their personal opinion on this page. WP is supposed to be a spring-board for readers to go do further research, which is why there are references. When you note that "FIA's PR dept must love this article" maybe yes, maybe no; I suspect the "chatter" in mainstream news outlets forced their hand to actually consider a report, which they wouldn't otherwise have done, which is the power of modern social media to force mainstream media to take concerns like these more seriously nowadays (I'm sure there must be an academic study examining this). More constructively I'll suggest the following: (1) register for Wikipedia, (2) find some reputable sources that argue the a different point of view, (3) edit them into the article. I am sure there are many articles supporting somewhat your opinion. As another alternative you could make the primary source yourself? - consider writing an opinion piece for a newspaper, or maybe even your own fact-checked book? If you write a book, you can get an ISBN number, and then potential cite it (there's a guide to referencing things). Sorry this isn't an "easy" answer, but there is a guide to what Wikipedia is and isn't. If there are secondary sources that support a position then edit the article and cite them. I hope this helps. Have a look at the pages I've wiki linked, and if you have more questions please continue the comments on this talk page. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Writing an opinion piece for a newspaper won't get you into the article unless the newspaper recognises you as an expert either in Formula One, or (possibly) corruption in sport or law (based on the angle you are going for). Extending on what I said earlier and following up of Master of Ninja's point about research, "lapped cars must all unlap" wasn't the rule at the time. SSSB (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification re: the opinion piece - which is something I've should have picked up on and self-corrected. For the top poster, WP is easy to get into, but there are some rules to make sure everything is as verifiable as possible. A person can be dubious about some of the positions that the FIA have taken (and I will admit I am astonished about the mental-gymnanstics about what they do, as I still don't get the ?2020? Ferrari engine secret agreement they enforced), but the concepts that the top-poster has outlined are not Wikipedia issues to an extent - they're the basis of strength across the whole encyclopedia. Whilst top-poster has posted anonymously I am more than happy to engage to bring you into the general community if you wish. As SSSB's reply - maybe you should consider becoming a topic expert for a newspaper? If you write enough publicly, you can potentially become a more reliable source for WP. [I'm going for the positive encouragement of becoming the subject expert that you were meant to be - it's needs dedication and commitment though]. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2022

In the Constructors Standing section, the results for Red Bull at the Italian Grand Prix are mixed up, while the results imply that the upper row refers to Verstappen and the lower row refers to Perez, by association, Verstappen is credited with a 5th place finish, and Checo with a DNF, when reality states the other way around. https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2021/races/1076/italy/race-result.html 2806:10AE:8:A94F:8D7B:1FC4:7E65:D0DC (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The results are correct. It is not one row per driver, as has been explained countless times before. --Marbe166 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

For the "World Constructors' Championship standings" Results for each constructor have been listed in an order which is inconsistent with the previous table for World Drivers' Championship standings, with the results not being displayed aligned with the drivers.

For example in Alpine, Esteban Ocon placed 11th (and therefore 2nd amongst Alpine), however his Win in Hungary is displayed on the first Alpine line entry. Later on, Fernando Alonso secured 3rd place in Qatar, and is similarly shown on the first Alpine line entry.

This implies the same driver secured both 1st and 3rd for Hungary and Qatar respectively.

My suggestion would be to re-order these slightly to show the first line entry for each constructor to be the result of their best placed finisher for the SEASON in order to keep this consistent and easier to read when comparing the Drivers Championship standings (i.e. it would enable easier to compare results between teammates within the same constructor team) Gurin jeimuzu (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)