Jump to content

Talk:Renault in Formula One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeFacto (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 30 March 2018 (→Infoboxes: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

We should move this to Renault F1. Renault sport is the engine division but has also a rich history (Le Mans, Rallyes etc...).

Agreed. --Pc13 16:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Renault logo on the page is outdated.82.127.133.240 19:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both the above issues are no longer relevant Mark 20:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team partners?

Is this section really relevant? I don't think any of the other F1 constructors have a list of their sponsors on Wikipedia. \•/ doctorvee » Talk 22:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I added it was to explain what these companies do - from watching Grands Prix I was curious what many of the sponsors did. For example I had never heard of Hanjin before I saw it prominently displayed on the Renault. The section is just a way of explaining this and anyone who are similarly curious. If you think it borders on advertisement I won't object to its removal. If however you feel its worthwhile for the reason I've offered, I will be happy to add similar info. to other constructor pages. Mark83 11:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentioning Sponsors/Team Partners with regards to Formula One is very relevant, and is not a form of advertising. For instance, what effect are the new EU regulations going to have on Tobacco Sponsorship of Formula One? From what I understand it at the moment, there are 3 teams heavily sponsored by Tobacco Companies. Lucky Strike Honda F1, Ferrari Marlboro & Mild Seven Renault. The phasing out of Tobacco Sponsorship has had a big effect on Formula One over the years and might still have some effect over the next couple of years. I understand 2006 is the final year in which Lucky Strike will be involved, but that Marlboro has extended its sponsorship of Ferrari until 2011, but what about Mild Seven with regards to Renault? I think its a very relevant point to make and if Mild Seven is pulling out after 2006 that could have a material effect on whether Renault continues in Formula One. Losing its best driver and its Main Title Sponsor at the same time might seem an opportune time to put the team on the block?

Secondary team partners

90's Engine

Weren't the engines they made in the 90's actually made by a company in England. Can anyone remember who they were? josh (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not - Renault Sport at Viry-Chatillon. Another French company, Mecachrome, built parts, and then whole engines for a while - to support the secondary teams and then to fill the gap when Renault was out of the sport. I think the development work was still done by Renault Sport, though. You may be thinking of Supertec, which as I understand it distributed the engines and may have been a UK company. See the grandprix.com entries for Supertec and Mecachrome. Complicated situation! 4u1e

Team principal

Who made Benito Mussolini as the team principal of Renault F1?It's Flavio Briatore.

Ghosn declaration

From the article : "'We are not in Formula One out of habit or tradition. We're here to show our talent and that we can do it properly... Formula One is a cost if you don't get the results. Formula One is an investment if you do have them and know how to exploit them.'

In short he will continue Renault's investment in F1 as long as the team is successful and can use the resulting publicity for wider commercial gain. Conversely if the team is unsuccessful in future it can be expected that Ghosn will withdraw resources from the sport."

Very partial and non-NPOV interpretation IMO. It seems to me that it's more balanced.... Ericd 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd like to declare an interest, I added that section. Second, I don't see your point. The quote is accurate and there is nothing wrong with the summary — if they continue to compete at the top level of the sport and can use it to sell more cars they will do so. If performance falls to the point where the team is not an advertising asset they will sell it. What is your objection? That I've pointed out the commercial reality or that you think I'm being cynical? Mark83 23:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

Renault F1 Blog In its Centenary year, Renault F1, the 2005 Double World Championship winning team has developed a weblog, blog, for their fans to follow them throughout the 2006 F1 season. Following the typically expected blog layout it combines text, images, and links to other F1 blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. At the start of the Formula One season Renault F1 decided that they would bring Formula One a little closer to the fans. Monday 30th January 2006 saw the launch of the Renault F1 weblog or blog (cited as the RenaultF1.com blog in one of the first three posts on its launch day). Initially the first time any Formula One team has attempted such a project, Renault’s main rivals Ferrari quickly jumped on the bandwagon and started their own as well around March 10th.

The Renault F1 blog is written by a character known as RF1 Paddock Pass. This is deliberately done as the blog is meant to be representative of the team, so it does not serve to identify one team member as being solely responsible for writing the blog hence the use of the pseudonym RF1 Paddock Pass.

Why do a Formula One Blog The Renault F1 team decided that in 2006 they wanted “to tell the story of a season with a race-winning F1 team”. By doing so they invite their fans or anyone who finds their blog board to interact with them and ask questions that they would not normally be able to ask. It means fans get to interact on a daily basis with other Renault F1 fans and more importantly the team.

To gain access to the Renault F1 blog board fans either require an e-membership (which involves registering your name and e-mail address) or club membership. Entries are made every race weekend, on testing days, and any other special times (the Laureus team award win in May 2006 or Goodwood Festival of Speed in July 2006) or if there is anything the team want to share or invite contributions from the fans such as birthday wishes for Fernando.

Development of the Blog The Renault F1 blog is a work in progress developing throughout the 2006 season, the latest development taking place on the 30th August. The Renault F1 blog is now bilingual, having added the facility for fans to blog in French. Fans have the choice of selecting which board they want using the links on the page and the two boards’ mirror each other in blog content.

Furthermore, as the Renault F1 team are keen to develop this project further, the Renault F1 bloggers have been asked for their thoughts on how they want to see the blog develop. Asking them to post their suggestions on the blog. Its been confirmed, this August, that the team is discussing further developments of how to improve the blog and that they will be talking to the fans this winter. The Renault F1 blog has been a success so far and will be returning for the 2007 Formula One season.

Other Renault F1 blogs Also running alongside the main Renault F1 blog there are additional blogs by test driver, Heikki Kovalainen and the four drivers who are in the Renault Driver Development programme, Lucas di Grassi, Romain Grosjean, Ben Hanley and José María López.

Reads like an advert? Mark83 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mark.. it would have been nice if you consulted me first before removing it.. I'd actually checked with the team first that is was okay before I put it up. Its not meant as an advert. Its just to let people know what the team is actually doing. considering the only other team in the paddock that is doing this as well is Ferrari, Renault and Ferrari are leading the field. now if you don't mind restoring it!!! I'm a little annoyed as that was my first entry on wikki and i feel like my efforts just been trashed.. Cheers Renault_fraggle 10:30, 7 September 2006

ING sponsors R1

Press release: [1]

I think it's a little early to change the name to ING Renault F1 Team now, but it will become the official name at the beginning of the 2007 Championship. Please change accordingly at that time. 145.221.24.8 13:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (=nl:Gebruiker:IIVQ, and I work for ING.)[reply]

Also discussed on WP:F1 talk page. Concensus was not to change it - article names should be the one readers 'expect' to find (i.e. most widely used and simplest) and we don't want to change the article name every time the team's main sponsor changes. It would also look rather odd for historical results. --4u1e 00:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear about history

This article is not very clear about the history of Renault F1. Before the current Renault F1 was formed, there were two predecessors: the Formula One division of Renault Sport (up to 1997) and Bennetton (and Toleman before that). Those two are completely unrelated, but the article fails to make a clear distinction (look at the way the number of championships is counted, for instance). I think some parts need to be rewritten to make the distinction clearer. 217.149.210.16 17:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. If you are trying to say this should only be about Renault since 2000 with a short background of the Benetton/Toleman team then you're probably right. However at present the article is about Renault in F1 (all periods) with a clear distinction between Renault in the 1970s and 1980s and Renault's purchase of Benetton. Is that such a bad thing? I would welcome some more opinions. Mark83 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current structure is OK - although I'm probably more familiar with its history than the average reader. The recent deletion of the Toleman and Benetton championships and win/point totals is probably beneficial for clarity. Your alternative suggestion would mean creating another article (or would this be Renault Sport?) for the 1970s/80s incarnation. 4u1e
At the risk of contradicting myself, I'm starting to think having 70's & 80's and Renault as engine supplier would be better at the appropriate article (I think Renault Sport) with a "main article" link here. I'm thinking this article should only deal with the Toleman/Benetton/Renault lineage in detail?? Mark83 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renault (Renault Sport F1), and Lotus Renault GP, Nee Renault F1, Nee Toleman, are separate entities. They always have been. Mixing them is just not accurate. Renault Corporation owns Renault UK Ltd, which, for a time, owned the race team which was then called Renault F1 Team Ltd. They sold it to Genii. Previous to Renault's ownership, the team was owned by Benetton and engines supplied by Renault. Prior to that it was Toleman. The engine Supplier Renault Sport F1 is based in Viry-Châtillon France. The Race team and chassis manufacturer is based in Enstone England, and previously Whitney England. They have a clear and separate history. They should definitly be seperate articles. 84.246.249.194 (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official Renault F1 website has been taken down in preperation for the launch of the new car on January 24th. However, it includes a flash animation with ends in what appears to be a new logo for the team, combining the old Renault F1 logo with the ING logo. Does anyone have a copy of this new logo so that it can be added to the team information? The359 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The team also used to combine their logo with the Mild Seven logo (simply one on top of the other) and we didn't include that here. The ING logo you mention does seem to be more "integrated" with the Renault logo, however might I suggest we wait until the start of this year's season to see in what situations it is used? Mark83 11:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altran Engineering Academy

I was going to add a statement about Renault's collaboration in the Altran project, but I am not sure where best it fits. In the 2006 section? Feel free to add it if you can find a good place for it. Here's a reference if you need more info. Adrian M. H. 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1983 championship

The article says:

It emerged later that the Brabham team had been using illegal gasoline in that race. Had Renault filed an official protest, Piquet would almost certainly have been disqualified, which would have subtracted the 4 points he earned in the race from his winning total of 59 and would have left Prost (DNF that day) to win the title with 57. However, Renault declined to do so on grounds that a World Championship won on a technicality would have been tainted in the public's opinion and therefore less marketable.

Even if Renault seemed to be certain that Brabham was cheating, there still is no proof that it ever occured. [2] If nobody protests, I will rewrite this section. J-C V 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 section - edit clash

Due to an editing clash between myself and another editor, we have two mentions of much the same information - my own edit which summarised the Renault statement, and another which quotes it verbatim. Both cite the same URL as reference. I'd suggest we don't need both, but as editor of one I don't want to make a judgement as to which one stays and which goes. I have no particular attachment to my edit, but I wasn't sure what policy was on quoting vs summary so would someone else like to make that decision? :) sjwk (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ING pullout

On thursday September 24, 2009 ING and Mutua Madrilena have decided to terminate with immediate effect the sponsoring of the Renault F1 Team, I think the logo of the team should be changed because it's not relevant since starting from the next grand prix onward it won't be called ING Renault F1 Team. Sources: http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090924204421.shtml http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/09/24/renault-loses-title-sponsor/ VincentG (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Renault GP

Now that Renault no longer own the team should we create a new page for Lotus Renault GP or should we add this to the lotus F1 page? Just a thought--Brainybrains 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainybrainiac (talk • contribs)

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:F1#Here we go again (Lotus/Renault). DH85868993 (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team name

I think the page should refer to the old team name(s) as well as the current one. see this discussion Tubefurnace (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

Boullier clarified that Lotus group is only sponsor of team and Genii in fact currently owns 100% of the team. Source: http://www.yallaf1.com/2011/01/19/boullier-clarifies-lotus-renault-ownership/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.108.116.58 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kubica

If Kubica still remains signed with the team, shouldn't he appear in the infobox? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What role is he performing? --Falcadore (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Wikipedia have SVG version for Lotus Renault GP logo. You can look at this link:
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:Lotus_Renault_GP.svg
F1fans (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name confusion

Please can someone explain the confusion of names used in this article? The registered name of the company appears to be "Lotus Renault GP", the article name is "Renault F1" and the first sentence introduces the article as the "Renault Formula One team". There is a warning inside the text of the article not to change the infobox title to include the word Lotus as Renault is the "constructor" name - is this still the case? Are the constructors and the team two different entities? -- de Facto (talk). 20:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus is the sponsor, not the constructor. In that sense the name of the team "Lotus Renault" and the constructor "Renault" are different. The article is called "Renault F1" and the first sentence is so constructed because this article describes the Formula One exploits of the Renault company, not just the current team. "Renault Formula One team" is not any kind of official title, just a description of the Renault team in F1, nothing more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, but I'm still confused. Do you know if there is a separate entity (the "constructor") registered somewhere simply as "Renault"? I know that the name of the team company itself was formally changed from "RENAULT F1 TEAM LIMITED" to "LOTUS RENAULT GP LIMITED" and am puzzled as to what or who the "constructor" actually is and what is their relationship to the team. -- de Facto (talk). 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The constructor is the person or entity that actually builds the cars. This is usually (but not always) the same people as constitute the team itself. Occasionally a team licences an outside constructor to build the cars, and the team prepares it for races and hires drivers etc. In Renault's case, the constructor is "Renault", because they build the cars themselves. Renault (constructor) and Renault (team) are the same people. A constructor name has to be chosen by the team and lodged with the FIA - usually this name does not include any sponsors - in Renault's case, the sponsor's name "Lotus" is strictly not part of the constructor name, and is simply a part of the team name, i.e. Lotus Renault GP Ltd. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the case then that this article, which is actually about the team, should be renamed from "Renault F1" to "Lotus Renault GP" to reflect the official name change of the team? -- de Facto (talk). 22:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Refer WP:COMMONNAME. All Formula One teams are refered to be generic names for the very simple reason that commercial identities change year-to-year and would leave a mess of hundreds of wikilinks across wikipedia. This discussion has been raised several times before both relating to Renault and the similar and connected discussion about the two Lotus teams, and the names of the three teams has settled in this fashion. Rather than bring this topic up again, I would first suggest you peruse previous discussions rather than go over old ground. I'm sure you'll find there the answer to most of your questions. --Falcadore (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one in particular. DH85868993 (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have replied. The reason for the article name is now clearer to me, and hinges (I think) on WP:COMMONNAME. What appears to be lacking though is a clear explanation in the article, supported by some WP:RS cites, of the various names and their staus and roles. There is plenty of evidence that the team name has changed to Lotus Renault GP, but very little supporting the continued use of the Renault F1 or simply Renault names. Also there needs to be an appropriate distinction made between the various uses of the Renault name - particularly in the lede where the name is also used when refering to the French car company. This would (hopefully) help other readers who may otherwise be similarly confused. -- de Facto (talk). 07:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split

What is the lifecycle of an F1 Team - and when does a team start and when does a team cease to exist? As far as I can tell, the "team" which is the subject of this article does not have continuity from 1977 to the present day. The current team is not an evolution of the 1977-85 Renault F1 team, but of the 1986-2001 Benetton team based on the same site, and which was itself an evolution of a previous team.

What makes up the "DNA" of a team? Is it the notional and headline team/sponsor name, or is it the group of people who design and produce the cars? This conundrum is exacerbated with Renault having withdrawn from the scene and been replaced by Lotus, and with, what is effectively the same "team", now being formally known as Lotus Renault GP, and even no longer competing under the French flag but under the British one.

Is it time for a split into three articles: one for the original Renault 1977-85 team, one for the Renault-branded former Benetton team (2002-10) and one for the current Lotus Renault GP team (2011-)? That would certainly mean that the article names could resemble the article content, and the continuity of teams (as opposed to brands) could be more easily followed, and there would be clearer and more focussed content.

Just my two-pence worth. -- de Facto (talk). 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is this article about Renault in Formula One, or two Formula One teams. The structure of how the article has been written should be the decider, bearing in mind that Renault the engine supplier bridges the gap between the two teams. --Falcadore (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should continue to cover Renault's total involvement in Formula One from 1977 to 2011. I would not be averse to the article being renamed "Renault in Formula One", akin to Alfa Romeo in Formula One and BMW in Formula One. DH85868993 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a split hasn't stirred too many passions then. Would that all suddenly change if the article were to be split into the following four separate articles?:

  1. Renault in Formula One - an overview of Renault involvement, including the engine side (as per DH85868993's comment)
  2. Lotus Renault GP - the current (former Renault F1) team.
  3. Équipe Renault - the 1977-1985 team.
  4. Renault F1 - the 2002-2010 (former Benetton) team.

-- de Facto (talk). 12:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in favour of any split. I'm with DH in that "Renault in Formula One" is ok as a title for this article, otherwise I think it's fine. I particularly disagree with splitting the 2002-10 team from the current one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bretonbanquet, would you mind sharing your reasoning with us? I'm concerned that the article is too big and cumbersome, relying solely on the continuity of the name to justify being a single article. The 2000s team had nothing in common with the 1970s/80s team - indeed it had much more in common with the Benetton team - so I'm not sure why they were ever lumped together here in the first place. The new Lotus-lead team is diverging away from Renault (it's already dropped the French licence in favour of a British one) - and that surely justifies the creation of a new article for it. -- de Facto (talk). 13:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure it's too big really, to be honest. The original Équipe Renault / Renault Sport was an arm of the same company that bought out Benetton in 2000, i.e. Renault, so the two teams have a lot in common. On and off, between 1985 and 2000, the same company produced engines for a large number of teams, so there is continuity there. It's all Renault-owned. In 2010, when most of the company was sold to Genii Capital, Renault still owned 25% and supplied the engines. More continuity. They still supply engines, as effectively the same company that built the first Renault cars in 1977. Only in 2011 does the team known as Renault not really have much Renault input beyond the engine supply, but the chassis is still called Renault, and a split article just for this year is not sensible. Per WP:COMMONNAME it's hard to think of another name for it anyway. There are two teams called Lotus-Renault, creating a problem there. This team is very widely known as Renault, and any new article can't really be called anything else. If and when the team/constructor name changes, then it'll get a new article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Falcadore (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear Falcadore, would you support a split into the four articles I outlined above? -- de Facto (talk). 13:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a direct answer to the question as posed by yourself. The answer to your new question is also a No. --Falcadore (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Please explain why you wouldn't support such a split. -- de Facto (talk). 13:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly RenaultF1 and Lotus Renault GP as you have defined them are not separate teams. The engine side of the business so to speak was a part of Equipe Renault, so separating them would be like separating the engine side of the business from Scuderia Ferrari. --Falcadore (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously not much appetite for a split, so I'll forget it for now, and take the template off. -- de Facto (talk). 11:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of a split and helping to do it. Just one dissenting voice. JonChappleTalk 09:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of a split as well, at least in two separate articles: Renault in F1 / Lotus Renault GP. Try to push for it on the French page, without much success. Why is the present status not satisfying for me? Because if the current article is about Renault in F1, it should cover equally RBR, LRGP and Team Lotus for 2011. If this article is about LRGP, it should only deal with the current year. A split would also be a great way to avoid misconceptions people can have by looking at the infobox such as "Lotus Renault GP is active since 1977". Possible summaries:
  • Renault in F1 > Engine + chassis (70's, 80's) / Engine only( 90's - 2000's) / Engine + chassis (2000's-2010) / Engine (2011)
  • LRGP > Renault F1 Team legacy, current drivers, results, sponsors... (End of 2010 - 2011)RSF1 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the problem, especially with the article being at "Renault F1", as Renault (the car company) are still involved in the sport, just not with this team. I thought I was going mad when I saw a "Renault Sport F1" motorhome on TV the other week (not in LRGP colours), but then I remembered of course they're still there supplying engines. There should be an article about Renault in F1, like BMW in Formula One, etc and one about the current team. JonChappleTalk 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People have already said that this article could be renamed "Renault in Formula One" if there's a consensus for it. Yes, this article should cover the engine supply to Team Lotus, RBR etc, so maybe someone should write it. It's not a reason to split the article. A new article that just covers the 2011 team is an arbitrary split, and not satisfactory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a split (Renault in F1 / LRGP) is arbitrary but we still want to improve the article consistency, we will have to change the title to "Renault in Formula One" and add the Austrian and Malaysian flag, as well as the Red Bull Racing and Team Lotus logos in the infobox and so on for drivers, management, results, history... As Renault sold their shares of Renault F1 Team in 2010, their involvement in LRGP is the same as in Red Bull Racing and Team Lotus: engine + KERS supply mostly. I am afraid the resulting article could look a bit messy.RSF1 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... not really, no. The article is about Renault, not Red Bull or Lotus, so those logos have no place in the infobox, nor the flags. What would that be consistent with? The Renault involvment may technically be the same as their involvement in those other teams now, but the glaringly obvious point is that those other teams are not called Renault, and neither are their chassis. Renault as a constructor is confined to the LRGP team, and has nothing to do with the others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Renault provide Red Bull and Lotus Racing... sell them actually, engines. Like Ligier, Benetton, Team Lotus and others. We don't treat other engine suppliers in the weay you suggest. No-one is suggesting Sauber and Toro Rosso drivers should feature in Scuderia Ferrari's infoboxes.
Similarly the current Renault team is still the same team as last year. Renault is still a partial owner, there has not been a complete ownership change, or a renaming of the team. We didn't split the McLaren article when Mercedes-Benz took a large ownership share. --Falcadore (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet when Renault re-branded the Benetton team, even though it continued to be the same team, based in the same facility in Enstone, the old Benetton article was 'closed', and the team was then added to this pre-existing Renault article. There are two entities: the team (the people and facilities concerned with designing and building the cars) and the engine supplier. There is also the team name (the notional 'constructor' name), the team owner's name and the engine brand name. This article confuses the two entities and the three names. The Enstone setup have never produced engines, the Renault engine company have never produced chassis, although they have supplied engines to several teams, including the Enstone team, both before it was branded as 'Renault' and since. The 1977-85 team has nothing in common with the 2002-10 team other than having "Renault" in the team name or owner's name or engine brand name, so I think that they should certainly be in separate articles. The engine supplier should, I think, have its own article. The current team (does Renault actually have any stake in it at all?) is still the same team as the 2002-10 team, but with a different name (as happened to Benetton when Renault took it over), so should ideally have its own article. Then there could be the overview article: "Renault in Formula One", or whatever, summarising their involvement (both as owners and in a technical capacity) in the various teams and as an engine supplier. I make that five articles for the price of one! :) -- de Facto (talk). 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think de Facto's proposal about separate articles about Renault in F1, both Renault's own teams, and LRGP is a good idea. First of all, Lotus Renault GP isn't anymore owned by Renault, the British licence highlighting that. Also, those two Renault teams were not the same team, so I think they could have separate articles. E.g. the revived NHL team Winnipeg Jets have an separate article from the original Winnipeg Jets. An article about Renault in F1 in general would be good, as Renault is also an engine supplier. --August90 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The constructor name has not changed. When the constructor name changes then I believe you will have an argument. --Falcadore (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to consider is that external sources such as formula1.com, FORIX and ChicaneF1 treat "Renault" as a single entity from 1977 to 2011, so it seems logical (to me) for Wikipedia to do the same. DH85868993 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As split didn't get much support I propose renaming this article Renault (Formula One constructor), as Renault F1 isn't anymore the official name of the team. This name would show the car company and F1 constructor are separate companies. Yet, I'd prefer splitting LRGP from this article. --August90 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't just about a constructor. All of Renault's engine manufacturing efforts are covered by this article. Renault F1 is the most accurate name. And Lotus Renault Grand Prix is the current name of the same team. If the constructor's name of ther current team changes to anything other than Renault then you would have a case, however under the FIA's own nomenclature, they are still the same team. --Falcadore (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Renault (Formula One) would be more appropriate. As it is, it kind of looks like "Renault F1" is a named used by the team, like Williams F1, rather than a description. JonChappleTalk 18:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A well written article lead would fix any confusion very quickly, just like the article lead is supposed to. --Falcadore (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - there's no need for anyone to be confused if the intro is written properly. If the article is renamed, let's do without the brackets - "Renault in Formula One" is fine, and consistent with similar articles, like Alfa Romeo in Formula One. Furthermore, while the FIA and our most reliable sources continue to treat the various guises of Renault as the same team, then so should we. We're here to reflect the sources, not disagree with them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this article isn't currently about only the constructor, but I think that we should have a separate article for Renault in F1 in general. Then we'd have this article for this team called Renault, for which Renault is nowadays only the engine supplier. --August90 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make things more complicated, Lotus have announced that their GP2, GP3 and Indycar teams will receive factory backing and will all run under the black-and-gold livery: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96726

Although these teams are run by separate groups, they will all be united by a common factor, Lotus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

My explanation for what I've just done... I've attempted to tidy the article a bit. It was confusing and conflating Renault, the French car company, and the Oxfordshire F1 team which bore the name Renault F1 for part of its existence. I've tried to clarify the distinction between the two different entities. -- de Facto (talk). 22:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between Renault (F1 Constructor) and Renault (carmaker)

The following subject can or cannot be important, but it is something I feel is no clear.

I think in this article two different (although with the same name)entities are no sufficient separated:

  1. Renault: An English F1 Constructor owned by Genii Capital (an investment firm from Luxembourg), which was formerly controled by the carmaker Renault.
  1. Renault: A global carmaker (headquarters in France)with sporadic participations in F1 as constructor as well as engine supplier. Today, its involvement is through the engine factory of Viry-Châtillon, renamed Renault Sport F1.

If this article will be maintained as the core source of Renault F1's activities, I consider it should be rewritten to reflect the present situation. Maybe a cleary separated introduction would be useful.

I am too new here in Wikipedia, and before to do such a deep change, I prefer put into consideration this idea.

The car maker is not called Renault F1 it is called Renault. The distinction is self-explanatory. No further disambiguation is either needed nor recommended. It is wikipedia policy not to add any bracketed disambiguator (like (car maker) unless there is a direct clash of terminology. The RenaultF1 has a built in disamibguator.
The Renault article also has a hat note to Renault (disambiguation) at the top so really, all your objections are already covered. --Falcadore (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Renault GP personnel changes

I think the staff list of Lotus Renault GP is wrong, because Jean François Caubet and Rob White are now employees of Renault Sport F1, the engine supplier. Both should be included in the list of former personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanoc (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Team name

The Team name needs changing to lotus f1 from renault as renault dont own the team anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me12356 (talk • contribs) 10:24:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Proposed move

The result was: Article moved.

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.

I propose that this article be renamed to Renault in Formula One, in line with this discussion at WT:F1 (and numerous other discussions over the past 12 months). DH85868993 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full Support. Renault F1 Team isn't anymore Renault's main activity in F1, and this article is about all Renault's F1 operations. Anyway, I wonder how to include Lotus Renault GP, especially in the statistics. We have three teams using Lotus chassises, yet consider them separate as they were representing different organizations. In 2011, LRGP wasn't anymore representing Renault, despite chassis name. A separate article for LRGP might be considered to be original research, as well as including it into Lotus F1, unless reliable statistics do that as well. Anyway, Sauber's 2010 results aren't included in BMW in Formula One article, as they weren't anymore representing BMW. So, it's OK for me to include LRGP into this article as other options would be even more controversial. But, should we have races started, podiums, etc. with and without LRGP, with either one in brackets, thus showing those numbers also how they were when Renault SA left F1 as constructor.
Anyway, I made a sandbox version of this article making the introduction less constructor-centric, and I added a short intruduction to LRGP section enabling Lotus Renault GP redirect straight to there. --August90 (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Renault's stats should definitely include LRGP/2011. As far as I'm aware, all the reliable stats sources (FORIX, ChicaneF1, statsf1, etc) do this, so we should too. I also think it's appropriate to include the description of LRGP's 2011 activities in the "Renault in Formula One" article. DH85868993 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but qualified. I think that we also need to carefully review the content of this article to ensure that it does not confuse or conflate the various F1 related activities of Renault with each other where it isn't appropriate to do so, and especiallly not attempt to imply integration of the activities of Renault's subsidiary "Renault F1 Team Limited"/"Renault F1 Limited" where there was no such integration. The activities of that subsidiary probably justify a separate artcile, with the appropriate activities summarised here in the Renault context of course. -- de Facto (talk). 15:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a no-brainer. The 2011 LRGP stats have to be included - there is no alternative for many reasons, chiefly that all our sources include them with Renault. We don't even have a choice on that. Therefore the description of the team's 2011 season has to be included as well. Where else would it go anyway? I am against splitting this article, unless it is for reasons of length, in which case the engine supplier section should be subbed off. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but we should think about this decision. We should keep lotus' involvement in 2011 because Renault is still in the name but reduce the section giving a brief summary of the team in 2011 saying it went over to Lotus. On the new Lotus F1 Team page we should move the section just mentioned over to that page because it is part of their history, it would be silly not to have it on.--Brainybrains 17:45, 24 January 2012 (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.

De-coupling the activities of Renault's former subsidiary

[Moved to here from inside the move/rename discussion above] -- de Facto (talk). 15:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful not to confuse the activities of the second team that competed under the constructor name 'Renault' with those of the first. They were two different and entirely separate teams. Whereas the 1977-85 team was a fully-fledged division of Renault, and should certainly be covered within this article, the 2000-2010 period of the Enstone team, albeit under Renault ownership, though not always competing as 'Renault', is a different kettle of fish altogether. The Enstone team has a life and a history of its own, independent of Renault, so should be documented in a separate article and mentioned in this article only as having been associated with Renault for a period as a subsidiary company. Indeed some of the members of the Enstone team that competed as Renault between 2002 and 2010 were also members of exactly the same team (then known as Toleman and based in Witney) when it competed against the original 'Renault' constructor in the early 1980s. The Enstone team came into existence almost 20 years before Renault became its parent company for a few years, and continues as an F1 team, first named "Lotus Renault GP" and now (or about to be) named "Lotus F1 Team", more than a year after Renault pulled out of it. -- de Facto (talk). 19:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is relevant about whether Renault has been one team or two is what the sources say. The sources merge the stats, and we cannot just split them up because some of us feel like it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about the stats really, they can be merged in any 'Renault in F1' for teams competing under the 'Renault' constructor name, of course - even for the year when Renault didn't even own or run it. I was more talking about being careful not to confuse the history of the Enstone team with that of Renault and the first 'Renault' constructor. -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way could they be confused? I'm not sure what you mean. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean confusing the distinct history of the Enstone team with that of Renault; for instance by implying that 'Renault 2' was a continuation or successor of 'Renault 1' or that the R2* cars were somehow successors of, or even related to, the RE* cars. Incidentally, there are sources (such as this and this) that treat the Enstone team (under various owners and name changes) as a continuum itself too. Perhaps we need an "Enstone in Formula One" article too. -- de Facto (talk). 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happened in the Enstone factory before Renault bought the team (or after it sold up) has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, that's the thing. That history belongs at Toleman and Benetton Formula and can be linked to from here. A Formula One team is not defined by the factory where the cars are built, nor the specific individuals that build them. It is defined by the name of the team and more specifically, the constructor name. Otherwise we'd be merging Minardi and Toro Rosso, and Jordan/Spyker/Midland/Force India, Tyrrell/BAR/Honda, Stewart/Jaguar/Red Bull etc etc. If we start having multiple rationales for splitting F1 teams, the whole F1 Wiki construct will be utterly unfathomable. Nobody's saying that the Renaults of the 2000s are a direct continuation of the Renaults of the 1970s and 1980s, but in terms of Formula One results and the general overview of the team (i.e. this article), they're the same constructor, and the 2000s outfit is a successor to the earlier one. We have dozens of sources that say so. An Enstone F1 article would just repeat what the individual team articles (Toleman etc) say - what more can be said about the place? The factory itself isn't notable anyway, I suspect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Caterham are moving into the Leafield factory, previously owned by Super Aguri and Arrows. You wouldn't suggest we have a Leafield in Formula One article. The base is completely irrelevant. By having the two Renault eras in the same article doesn't mean we consider them exactly the same team. That's why they'll have seperate sections in the article. There's nowt to get confused about. - mspete93 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not "Leafield in Formula One" if it proves to be another notable team? It's not a continuation of the previous Leafield team though is it? It's another team moving into the same site. An article named named "The Leafield F1 teams" might be appropriate too, to go along with "The Enstone F1 team". -- de Facto (talk). 21:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said you wouldn't want an article about Leafield. I was backing up Bretonbanquet's point that the base doesn't make the team, which seems to be what you are suggesting. And we really don't need articles for the bases like that. I've just found that Leafield Technical Centre actually already has one. And other bases can have them if we must. But they need to be specifically about the base, if notable enough. Not detailing the full history of every team (or other firms) to have run the place. - mspete93 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the base location that defines a team (it was just a convenient way of referring to them), after all the "Enstone team" started life a few miles away in Witney. What defines a team is its human members - but with the sucession of team name changes it's difficult to think of a sensible name - a name that transcends team name changes - to call them. -- de Facto (talk). 21:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We already have multiple rationales for splitting F1 teams - because of the confusion over the "team name", "constructor name", "sponsor name" and "owner name". We have different Lotuses, we have 'Team Lotus (2010-11)' and 'Caterham F1' (same team), we have Virgin and Marussia, 'Mercedes GP' with attempts to muddle Mercedes's previous era into it, the list goes on. You say that the non-Renault eras of this team don't belong in this article - what about 2011 when it competed as 'Renault' despite not being owned by Renault, or the 2000-2002 period when, although it was owned by Renault, it raced as 'Benetton'? You make a good case for merging the articles for badge-engineered teams rooted in the same physical "team". You say that teams aren't defined by the people that make them up, but by the sign over the front door - I'd argue it's the contrary. The name is incidental - it is the spirit, tradition, pedigree, camaraderie, etc. that make a team's DNA what it is - not the current owner or name. My opinion (modified recently) is that the best article scope is strictly one article per constructor period, and then we can build whatever notable umbrella articles ("Renault in F1", "The Enstone team", etc.) that we see fit on top of that. That way would be flexible enough to accommodate most of the scenarios that have thrown the current crop of illogically framed articles into disarray recently. BTW, the Enstone team is certainly notable in Wikipedia terms - it is mentioned as such in many reliable sources. -- de Facto (talk). 21:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to deal in cold hard facts here. Not the flimsy terms you used. The name is in no way incidental. It is its formal identity, and the name under which it enters the sport. - mspete93 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mspete, the hard facts are that, even if the name has changed, the team has remained the same for 30 years now. Did you read this article (or this one)? You see I'm not alone in considering the "team" to be the same team that began life as Toleman in Witney 30 years ago. -- de Facto (talk). 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be getting this. The people who work in an F1 factory are simply not the identity of the team. It has precisely nothing to do with any perceived "DNA". What you argue doesn't carry any weight - it's about how the rest of society treat these teams. We are supposed to reflect the majority of the sources, not make up our own stuff. Digging out a couple of lonely sources that detail the previous teams that used that facility don't outweigh all the sources that separate them out. I absolutely reject the idea of merging the articles I listed earlier - I was suggesting how thoroughly ridiculous it would be to do so. You also need to find out what badge-engineering is, because this ain't it. Teams enter F1 as named constructors, names with which they enter the WCC, names by which everyone calls them. That's how readers of this encyclopedia expect to see them. If we start using made-up terms like "the Enstone team" to lump together certain specific eras of global household names like Lotus and Renault, nobody will understand a word of it. It's got nothing to do with who works at the factory. If Honda sell a passenger car factory to Toyota, then the cars built after that are Toyotas, not Hondas, even if the same blokes are building them. The other teams (Virgin/Marussia etc) you mention have different constructor names which is why they have separate articles. That's how we separate F1 teams. It's also (not coincidentally) how the FIA separate F1 teams. I ask again, what would be in an "Enstone F1" article that isn't already at Toleman, Benetton Formula etc? What would be the earthly point of it? We don't need a name that transcends team name changes, because the team names are what we use to define the teams.
With regard to your question as to why the 2011 season is covered here - the constructor was Renault, regardless of owner or anything else. The 2000 and 2001 seasons are (rightly) not covered here because the constructor was Benetton Formula, and those seasons are covered there. It's really pretty simple. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bretonbanquet, we're not just talking about "the people who work in an F1 factory" though; we are talking about the people who make up the team - the designers, engineers, drivers, technicians, administrators... (see the "team" article). They are the team. And these teams don't have a complete personnel replacement each time the owner or the team name changes, or if their base location is changed, and certainly not if all they do is change their FIA administrative 'constructor' name. The 'constructor' name will be used for the collection and aggregation of their team stats, of course - as that is the name that they compete under, and that name may well be used by the media and others to refer to them for the same reason, but that in no way nullifies my opinion about who the actual team are, and certainly doesn't mean that we are therefore prevented, for some bizarre reason, from documenting the history of a team through all the various changes that they may undergo.
However, we are closer on how articles should be scoped and organised than you seem to realise. As I've said before my preferred option is strict scoping on 'constructor' name era, with umbrella articles to collect related 'constructor' summaries into a specific title. E.g. an article called "Renault in F1" could refer to the articles of its 2 constructor eras and put them in context with its other F1 activities. And there is no good reason why we shouldn't document a team's life, such as that of the Enstone team (a notable team by all accounts!), by stringing together summaries from the articles documenting each of their 'constructor' eras. -- de Facto (talk). 12:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude here, and unfortunately I wasn't able to rejoin this debate sooner, but I do beleive de Facto that it is time to drop this. You have made your argument several times now, and while you have thought this through and given good reasons from your point of view, your ideas based on having articles for the physical organisation have not gained any consensus from editors here. I brought this up before because the terms team and constructor already have a definition in Formula One terms; a team is the entity which enters the cars, a constructor is the enity which builds the cars. Nowadays they may be the same, but a team is not defined as the factory and engineers within.

Upon the subject of having an Enstone article, the reason one would not be appropiate is that it will be duplicating existing content on this page. We have drivers pages to cover their history, car pages to cover the cars history, and constructor and customer team pages to document their history. We have already got the history covered from multiple angles, we do not need to have it covered again. QueenCake (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QueenCake, based on your first paragraph, you haven't read anything I've written recently. My opinion is that articles should not be "for the physical organisation", but strictly 'constructor era' based. Not as in the present Renault F1 article either, where information about their non-constructor activities is also jumbled in, but purely and exclusively 'constructor era' based.
A team "whole life" article may overlap a "Renault in F1" article slightly, but if separate articles were created exclusively for each 'constructor era' bot could summairse them in the relevent context and and link to them as "main articles". And why not keep the article architecture flexible? -- de Facto (talk). 14:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, am I correct in believing that you support the moving/renaming of this article to "Renault in Formula One", but you have concerns about the content and/or structure of the article (e.g. in addition to this article, you would also like to see separate articles created covering "Renault 1977-1985", "Renault 2002-2011" and/or "the Enstone team")? If that's the case, could you perhaps indicate your support for the move/rename, and we can have discussion about the content/structure as a separate exercise (perhaps by moving the above discussion to a separate section of the talk page?) Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood your position. DH85868993 (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - and certainly - sorry I hadn't actually "voted", as such, already! -- de Facto (talk). 15:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved discussion as per DH85868993's suggestion. -- de Facto (talk). 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, de Facto. DH85868993 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Sport F1

I took the rather bold decision in merging in content from the Renault Sport F1 article to the engine section of this page. This was brought up originally in the recent discussions about the Renault Formula One activities (here), but was overshadowed by other issues. Most of the former article was basically a copy of this page, in being a history of Renault's engine operations rather than a description about that particular company, and did not seem to be salvageable beyond a basic short page. QueenCake (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, but a similar thing can be said about the Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains article. It mostly consists in a combination of the history of Ilmor as an independent company, semi-independent company, and its present as a entity completely owned by Daimler AG, without any other information of relevance (and without sources to prove the claims). The Viry-Châtillon factory existed as an independent company, then (since 1969) as a engine facility established by Ameedee Gordini, strongly related to Renault and, finally, as a base of Renault's full-owned Renault Sport. I don't think your idea is necessarily bad, and obviously you worked hard on combining the two articles (my only relevant criticism is in a later section). All I'm saying is we should take that approach for all other manufacturers or not take it at all.Urbanoc (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can make the same point about the Mercedes engines article, but the differences there are that Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains (and previous names) have always existed as a separate company, and the sole Ilmor years are only mentioned as backing information. Renault has only had a separate dedicated F1 engine supplier for the past year, before they were always an integrated part of the whole F1 operation; whatever happened in the Gordini facility beforehand is largely off-topic here as it had no involvement in Formula One. This is consistent with other manufacturers, (see Scuderia Ferrari, Honda in Formula One and Toyota Racing) Mercedes GP is currently the oddball and is under discussion about whether to make it consistent with other articles. QueenCake (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Engine supply history division

I believe the years' split in the section "Engine supply history" is wrong, if we take Renault Sport F1 as an entity that deserves a subsection of a subsection. After all, two distinct entities, which are considered more important within the article (Renault Sport and Renault F1 Team) are covered in the same period (1989—2010). A proper division would be as follows: 1977—1986, 1989—1997 and 2001—present. Those were the years when Renault was involved directly and continuously.Urbanoc (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did have some trouble choosing where to split the engine section, but I do feel the current splits are correct. The first subsection, 1983-1986 - not 1977 by the way as Renault did not supply engines until 83 - was the obvious one, being the continuous turbo years. The next was the tricky one, as although I thought of doing 1989—1997, 1998-2000 (for the indirect involvement with Mechachrome), and 2007-2010, this fragmented the text too much and left very short paragraphs, as the section is purely about the engine supplies. Having 1989-2010 seemed the smoothest and most sensible way of dealing with a largely contiguous part of their history. The last section, 2011-Present, is for the new Renault Sport F1 company and their future results, which should be separate from the joint works history. QueenCake (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Renault Gp

I think the Lotus Renault Gp Section should be moved to the Lotus F1 Team page as renault did not currently own or have any rights to the team at that time. It is more likely to be placed in the lotus f1 history. Me12356 (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a long discussion about this when the "Lotus Renault GP" name was first announced in December 2010. Consensus then (and since) has been that the 2011 season (i.e. the season when the team was called "Lotus Renault GP" but still used the constructor name "Renault") should be covered in this article and the new Lotus F1 article should cover from 2012 onwards (when they used the constructor name "Lotus"). DH85868993 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Renault in Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward opening line

I think the first line of the article is extremely awkward and kinda just jumps into the description of the current make-constructor. Could the opening be reworded a little bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.169.132 (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Predesessor/Succesor cars

I think the R202 and RE60, R31 and RS16 should be before/after each other, A team is a team. It shows the Re60 with nothing as Succesor. with the R202 it show the Benetton B201 as Predesessor. the R31 shows the Lotus E20 as Succesor with the RS16 it shows the Lotus E23 Hybrid as Predesessor. This is the way it should be. 88.106.224.170 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Car Predesessor Succesor
RE60 Renault RE50 Renault R202
R202 Renault RE60 Renault R23
R31 Renault R31 Renault RS16
RS16 Renault R31 Renault TBC

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Renault in Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull's engines

I've seen this a couple of times within the history now, where edits have been reverted due to Red Bull's "Tag Heuer" branded engines, whereby the results box and description doesn't include Red Bull's 2016 results.

This seems to be something of a misnomer, as they are still engines designed and manufactured by Renault. The fact the two companies have a commercial agreement whereby Red Bull can name their engines Tag Heuer dos not change the basic facts. As an encyclopedia, I feel that we should consider Red Bull's engine to be a Renault power unit, and merely specify that it was rebadged commercially where that fact is relevant. Audigex (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Renault in Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Renault in Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Renault in Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

I was disappointed to see my recent edits reverted. I had simply added three infoboxes and split another - basically providing four missing infoboxes (one for each incarnation of the constructor) and refining the original one to provide the appropriate information for an article covering the four different eras.

Can we please discuss alternate ways then of making the article usable and the different teams navigable and their data distinguishable. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be disappointed, but I don't think there're valid reasons to say the article isn't "usable" as it stands, or that made-up stats and mostly repetitive infoboxes will make it more useful. The improvements that this article need are a more professional-style writing and more sources, not more infoboxes. As I said in my edit summary, most "Something in Formula One" infoboxes are in fact covering constructors, with at least two different "eras" for most of them, and no-one seems to have a problem with that. This "Team Enstone exceptionalism" hasn't grips on reality. As you said in your edit summaries, there're no published stats for the individual "teams" covered into this article, so we need to actually engage in WP:OR to came with some form of them.
If you insist with adding those extra infoboxes, please publicise (or continue it there) the discussion at WP:F1, as this change has the potential to be implemented in all "Something in Formula One" articles if it get a consensus. As for me, I think the article infobox is OK enough and I don't see an scenario where section infoboxes here can be an improvement.
Lastly, if you don't want all your changes reverted, make small edits for the non-controversial things you change. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article to be unusable when trying to follow the "next name"/"previous name" chains starting from the infobox in Benetton Formula. The benetton article took me to the top of this Renault article, but the "previous name" link from there took me, not back to the Benetton article, but to the Lotus F1 article! So there was clearly something wrong there. The obvious solution was an infobox for each team in the Renault article with the next/previous links correctly chained. So I took it from there. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Renault_in_Formula_One&oldid=833282628"