Talk:2009 Malaysian Grand Prix

You know ...

Maybe just one of us should edit everything. Otherwise we're going to be screwing each other's work up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Grid positions

Both Vettel and Barrichello were given penalties. If they are applied in the order they were given, Vettel would go from 3rd to 13th, promoting Barrichello to 3rd. Barrichello would then take his 5 place penalty, dropping him to 8th. Is this correct or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

Correct. Vettel's penalty is applied first as it was announced earlier. P3 + 10 = P13. Barrichello originally qualified in P4. Vettel was P3, but he got moved, so Barrichello up to P3. P3 + 5 = P8. D.M.N. (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the order would've mattered anyway. Even if Barrichello had first received the penalty, he would've dropped from P4 to P9, but then Vettel's penalty would still bump Barrichello up one position = P8. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Finish under safety car?

I added that the race finished under safety car, but it occurs to me that actually on lap 31 the safety car wasn't out... so... did it finish under safety car or not? The SC was certainky out when the red flag was shown. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a red flag not a safety car. The final standings were under race conditions. Chubbennaitor 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Safety car was definately on track, but had yet to catch the race leaders so the race had yet to come under control.

Also, I notice it says the race was called after 33 laps, this was not the case. Brundle explained on camera why it jumped from 32 laps to 33 which occurred some 20 minutes after the race was red-flagged, what the timekeeping system does is that after a car is stationary in a sector for some 20 minutes it jumps up to the next lap, assuming the car was retired on the track on that lap. The race was red-flagged on the 32nd lap. --Falcadore (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Brundle was wrong (though vaguely in the right area as there was some sillyness with the timing system), and the race definitely finshed on lap 33. The reason (I believe) the timing jumped after about 20 minutes was that as Button was rolled up the grid by his team to take the pole place he would be starting from if the race re-started, his car crossed the line which was recorded by the timing computer, jumping the race from 33 to 34. The race was definitely stopped on 33, otherwise the timings would be taken from lap 30, not 31 as has happened. In the event a suspended race isn't restarted, the timings aren't (as everybody on TV kept stating wrongly) taken from the last complete lap but the lap before that (regulation 42.8 if you're interested - If the race cannot be resumed the results will be taken at the end of the penultimate lap before the lap during which the signal to suspend the race was given.).

I'll get my coat. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This had a similar end to that of the 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix. The safety car was deployed after the original crash of Mark Webber towards the end of the lap, but had not picked up Giancarlo Fisichella who was leading, before Fernando Alonso's race-stopping crash. In another instance the 1997 Canadian Grand Prix, which ran under the safety car for five laps (three after countback) before being red flagged after Panis' accident. This means that it wasn't a safety car finish. Cs-wolves(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Half points

It should be mentioned somewhere in the article that this was the first race where half-points were awarded since (whenever the last time was). Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it already was; the 1991 Australian Grand Prix. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, missed that in the lead.Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Necessary?

"Background

The Grand Prix was contested by 20 drivers, in 10 teams of two.[5] The teams, also known as "constructors", were Ferrari, McLaren–Mercedes, Renault, Brawn, Force India, BMW Sauber, Toyota, Red Bull Racing, Williams and Toro Rosso.[5]"

Is this really necessary? There's sufficient information on the page already to know who competed...I, for one, wouldn't like to see it on each of the seventeen pages this year! db1987db (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to assume that someone with no knowledge of F1 whatsoever may stumble across this page. And if that happens, he/she will probably not be able to get his/her head around half of what is going on. Though the above may seem tedious and unnecessary, it may actually serve in good stead. ayrton_prost 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough. However, couldn't something like 'the same ten teams that entered the season competed in this Grand Prix' then if a team were to drop out something like, 'Team A dropped out of F1 before this race, they competed from B to C GP's this season'. I dunno though, i'm just throwing a few ideas around :) db1987db (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with it is that it then has to go into every race article - might be safe to assume a layperson would visit 2009 Formula One season to pick up basic info like this. Might well be a topic for the WP to get a consensus on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, because the minority would look for this race in particular, even though it was an eventful in its' own right... db1987db (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If we used your format, Db, one would have to include more and more information to make up for the initial shortcomings. Questions such as "who were the teams that entered?" crop up, and unnecessary links to other topics such as the current season's space need to be included. The current way of introducing the weekend means you don't have to put in small text oh, and by the way, so and so dropped out beforehand due to reason(s) x and/or y. Ultimately, such a layout will most probably mean that one may end up writing more what otherwise can be explained with the simple, current, two lines or so. (my initial response was lost due to edit conflicts, it was more detailed than this response, but carried the same fundamental message) ayrton_prost 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's enough of an issue for the WP to decide upon, so I'll bring it up over there. That way there's a clear mandate for or against. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing's for certain though - at the moment we have mixed terms for the team names. If we have 'McLaren-Mercedes', then we need 'Brawn-Mercedes', 'Toro Rosso-Ferrari' etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'm just bringing it up because it's the first time i've ever seen that in an individual races' page. Do we then update every single one of the other 800 or so races there have been '1950 British Grand Prix - there were 22 drivers competing in five different makes of car which were Alfa, Maserati...etc'? db1987db (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same thought - for 1950s and 1960s races, this convention is impossibly complicated. I think it's a recent thing - at least I haven't seen its use much before. Hopefully we'll get a concrete idea of how to progress. The discussion is here by the way, although it's not much of a discussion yet ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just had an idea, going back to Ayrton_Prost's last comment, if we were to say 'the same ten teams that entered the season competed in this Grand Prix' and have a link to the entry list on the 2009 main article next to it. Something like (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_F1_Season#Teams for full details). db1987db (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See, I would prefer that. There will be a lot of people who look at all the race articles and/or go through the links following the season's progress, and to have the same information repeated to them on each page seems like overkill to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess that would work. I could imagine it looking like "The same ten teams that entered at the start of the season competed at this meet/race". OK, sure. I'll be happy to let that slide. ayrton_prost 22:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I added it into the first article, 2008 Japanese Grand Prix, after complaints at the FAC that the article assumed an intimate knowledge of the players in F1. At FA and GA they dislike the idea that a link to where the list is given is a good substitute for listing them on the page, something about hard copy books or something. That's not to suggest that sentence doesn't need improvement, but my impression is that it is necessary. If you had "The same ten teams that entered at the start of the season competed at this meet/race." as suggested above, you would get killed at FAC. Not every article goes to FAC, but I think it's worth writing every article as if it would, i.e., as good as possible. Apterygial 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW the links to the F1 Portal and 2009 season seem to me to be sufficient, regarding the issue of making one of the F1 pages intelligible to someone who knows nothing @ motorsport, and perhaps some standardized verbiage recc. that readers go to one of these for additional explanations of terminology, context, etc. It IS possible to dumb it down too much-- I note the article on Dario "Mr. Ashley Judd" Franchiti appears like non-motorsports persons have edited it, much to its detriment. versen (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As a witness to FAC Apterygial mentioned, I'd side with keeping the info. If and when this article would reach that stage, in all likelihood you'd be asked to enter some sort of basic information giving understanding about the structure of an F1 race. Of course this won't necessarily happen (see 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, another FA by Apterygial), but I don't see the harm in including such basic one line info into the start. And citing it only shows responsible behavior. ^LeaveSleaves 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090407075453/http://argent.fia.com:80/web/fia-public.nsf/B875CF540CCF75E5C125758300329A2B/$FILE/1-2009%20F1%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%20(Showing%20Alterations)%2024-03-2009.pdf to http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/B875CF540CCF75E5C125758300329A2B/$FILE/1-2009%20F1%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%20(Showing%20Alterations)%2024-03-2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090405102704/http://www.itv-f1.com:80/news_article.aspx?id=45471 to http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=45471

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)