Talk:Mercedes-Benz in Formula One/Archive 1

Archive 1

Co-ordinates

Why does this article have co-ordinates? I know they're for the Brackley base, but this is a motorsports team, not a location.--Midgrid(talk) 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Full name

Source. Cybervoron (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you watch the video fully, the first time he called it Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Team, the 2nd time, he called it Mercedes Grand Prix Team. Please stick to name given in official statements released to the press, which is Mercedes Grand Prix. - oahiyeel ^talk 13:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a video. I think he means 'the Mercedes Grand Prix team' (with team not part of the title). The press release just says Mercedes Grand Prix - we must use this for now. - mspete93 [talk] 13:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Er, sorry to bring this up again as I can see that it has been discussed above, but the article is still inconsistent in its treatment of the various Mercedes incarnations. At present we're listing the 1950s F1 results and attributing the wins, points and championships to this team, but there is only a brief summary of that part of Mercedes history in this article. Surely either we have the full results and the full history of the 1950s F1 team, or only a brief background of it and no results. Can anyone explain the logic of the current position? 4u1e (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know why the results were allowed to be moved to a separate page. There weren't exactly a lot of them. As for the logic of the current incarnation of the article, I'm a bit stumped too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a hell of a lot of them now. Someone has gone in and added all of Mercedes' results as an engine supplier. I don't really see how these are more relevant to this page than to the Mercedes-Benz in motorsport page since this is about the 2010 incarnation of the racing team, not about Mercedes' participation in motorsport as a whole. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that since this article seems intended to be about the team, the engine supplier results should certainly not be here. I can see that the 1930s and 1950s team results should be here - but only if the wordage is going to cover them as well. I auggest that if we want to pull together all their grand prix results (pre and post war, team and engine supplier) it should be as a dedicated Mercedes Grand Prix results page, similar to the Brabham Grand Prix results page. 4u1e (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We already have Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results. ;) --Midgrid(talk) 13:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is intended to detail about the 1950's team as well as the new one. Maybe somebody who knows more than me (which isn't much) about racing from that era could expand that section. - mspete93 [talk] 13:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done a very quick job by cutting and pasting from other articles. Needs refs. At least it now has the same leve of detail as its parent article! 4u1e (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the engine supplier results. - mspete93 [talk] 15:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Complete Formula One Results

Just like the time that Renault bought benetton it says in Renault's complete formula one results that 1986 - 2001 Renault doesn't compete as a team. I do the same thing over here but somebody keeps deleting it can somebody tell me why all I do is add from 1955-2009 Mercedes doesn't compete as a team. Mercedes purchased Brawn GP thus ending Mercedes' 55 year absence.(Wiki id2 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

I can only guess its because the team has only competed 54-55, and therefore this isn't needed until the team restarts in March 2010. I wasn't reverting it though. - mspete93 [talk] 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the people reverting it. It's unnecessary because (a) including the purchase details is not necessary, as it is already mentioned in the text (it's unnecessary in the Renault article as well), and (b) there is no 2010 row yet; I think the 1956-2009 row should only be added when there is something to go underneath it.--Midgrid(talk) 23:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-on question, why have the F1 results been put back on the page, but not the European Championship results? The reason for removal in the first place was that the page was "getting too big". I didn't think so, given some of the other teams' pages. Readro (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the European Championship results, as they are an extremely important part of the works team's sporting history. Both these results and the 1950s results should be included, with the Mercedes engine results on the dedicated results page.--Midgrid(talk) 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Without either results table, the article is less than 8,000 bytes long. That is by no means "too big"; quite the opposite, in fact.--Midgrid(talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to "hide" the table for the old Mercedes-Benz under Complete European Championship results by default, with a button reading "Show" or "Expand" or similar? It's quite a long string of information without much relation to the new Mercedes team --Chrill (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Logo of Mercedes GP

Hi, does any one no were you can get a logo of Mercedes GP. And as far as I'm aware as I've seen a Nico Rosberg interview there is a "Mercedes-Benz" logo on his shirt. And almost nothing else. I believe that is the logo. Somebody go on BBC and search something like "Rosberg excited if Schumi returns". If it's not the logo does anyone know where I can find the right one. (Wiki id2 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

It is unlikely that the car company logo will be used. The team does not have a website yet. When they do, we will know the logo and we can use it. - mspete93 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

I'm wandering why isn't there anything to do with Michael Schumacher on the article. I mean I know its speculation but it should be included just like theres speculation about Jacques Villeneuve at Lotus or US F1. Is there a reason why Schmacher is not there. I didn't add anything just to take a general consensus about weather we need it. But the speculation is becoming true as it has been said by Ferrari that he's about to be released for Mercedes. (Wiki id2 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Add it NOW then, because it is no longer speculation... --Amedeofelix (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned - I added it this morning following the BBC anmnouncement. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nazi/German flags

Overnight, someone changed all the flags to the current German flag. Seems they wanted to remove all the Swastika imagery. I have reverted those edits. To include them is not an endorsemnt of Nazism, the Nazi Party, Nazi Germany or Adolf Hitler. The Nazi Party came into power at the time Mercedes were racing, and so the official state flag was one that carried the Swastika imagery. As such, it's the one we use here. Like I said, it's not an endorsement - it's a simple statement of fact. If you read the page on Rudolph Carioccala (sp?), you'll see that he was never a member of the Nazi Party and only fraternised with them out of necessity. Please don't change it again, mmmkay? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just realised - Nazi Party wsn't in power until 1936; have change flags to that used by the German empire in 1935. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, they were originally the empire flags but also got changed - not entirely sure why. Readro (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis came to power in 1933. According to this article both the empire flag and the one with the swastika were used until 1935, when the latter took over. I think for the sake of consistency in this article we should use that flag for all times 1933-1945 (the duration of Nazi rule). As I think Readro said above it would be Pov to avoid using the flag simply because some are offended by it; it's history and there is nothing we can do to change that. Apterygial 22:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just used the empire flags to reflect the Mercedes-Benz in motorsport article. And I know about the OPV stuff; that's why I changed them back to Nazi flags in the first place. This isn't the first time this issue has come up, either; someone above was asking "Why are the Nazi lags necessary? Couldn't you use a nice German flag instead?". If people are upset about it, they can speak to the Powers That Be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems a little confusing in this article when you have the empire flags for 1935 and then swastika flags then on; still the same people, from the same country. Apterygial 10:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I never was a student of history - for all I knew, the Nazi party didn't change the flag until 1936. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nick Heidfeld and Mercedes GP

In regards to the speculation that Nick Heidfeld will become the test driver for Mercedes GP, at the moment it is just that - speculation and rumours. He has NOT been officially announced by the team and, considering that there was no mention of him at the official Mercedes event today, the chances of him being the test driver are even lower now. Please do NOT add Nick Heidfeld as a test driver UNLESS there is an official announcement made by the team. Any edits to the contrary should be reverted on sight. Bolmedias (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

GP or Grand Prix?

Yes I know, another new team naming debate. The current title of the page is Mercedes Grand Prix, yet the team is entered as Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team, and its website is http://www.mercedes-gp.com. The copyright at the bottom of the website says Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited, which is obviously the company name rather than the team name. Per WP:COMMONNAME I feel the page should probably be Mercedes GP, especially as all links during the season will say Mercedes GP rather than Mercedes Grand Prix. What do others think, allowing for the fact that the article covers Mercedes's history in Grand Prix racing? - mspete93 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes GP for sure. It's the name that they themselves always use to refer to the team. The fact that the article contains the stuff about the history of Mercedes in Grand Prix racing doesn't make a difference. Case in point would be the article for Honda Racing F1, or that for Renault. The article should definitely be given the team's current name, and the name that is always used by the team is Mercedes GP, not Grand Prix. Bolmedias (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At their website - [1] - it says at the bottom "© 2010. Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited." It suggests that the full name is Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix and that they use GP as an informal name. Readro (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I explained in my original comment. Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited is obviously the registered company name, while Mercedes GP (Petronas) is the team name. - mspete93 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait until they reveal their car. If they refer to the team as 'Mercedes GP' during the announcement, then the article's name should be changed likewise. Bolmedias (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody is already referring to the name as 'Mercedes GP', as did the team during the livery launch on Monday. - mspete93 16:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. We should definitely request a move for the page, although I still think that waiting for the launch of the actual car will be of great use, as it will give us a concrete reason why the name should be changed. Bolmedias (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page as there were no objections over the three days since I'd raised it. I felt that the reasons I had given showed that the page should be moved. After Monday's team launch, I doubt the car launch would be anything special. - mspete93 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Slight problem - this talk page has not moved. Any administrators out there? - mspete93 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've requested that Talk:Mercedes GP is deleted to make way for the move. - mspete93 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Move done - mspete93 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This has now been moved again by a vandal, and it will take an admin to move it back. Anyone know what to do? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Prolog (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Mercedes GP Petronas F1 Team → Mercedes GP — Page was moved to non-stable (sponsored), non-common form without discussion, by a persistent wikitroll. Needs admin move to revert. Pyrope 18:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment this qualifies as a speedy revert, with new poll for new name. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment disruptive user responsible for the move - User:Zackyusoff - is now indefinitely blocked, so hopefully that might help. Suggest moving the page back to Mercedes GP. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Norbert Haug

To point out, Norbert Haug is not the Team Principle. He is the Vice-President of Mercedes Motorsport so attends races to oversee operations. I live in Brackley so have cofirmed this with a member of staff. Ross Brawn is the Team Principle only Mjohnson553 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Results tables

I propose that the results tables in this article (and the ones in Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines) be replaced by a link to Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results (which contains similar tables). If you have any views on this proposal, please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Mercedes_results_tables. DH85868993 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Test drivers in 2011?

It says "Test drivers TBA" in the table. When are they going to be announced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.61.234.225 (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

European championship results

I get having the results from the 1950s posted, But I don't think the European championship results table is necessary at all. It's seventy yeas old, I'm pretty sure it's covered elsewhere and it has no bearing on Mercedes Grand Prix because the Euopean championship wasn't run to Formula One rules. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the same team as in the 1950s and the championship was run to Grand Prix rules. If the 1950s counts, the European Championship does as well. Readro (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Then remove both. Mercedes might have entered cars in the championship, but they were not considered a constructor as there was no such thing as the constructors' championship, which is what Mercedes Grand Prix is competing in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be in a constructors championship to be a constructor. If they weren't constructors then how did the cars get built? This is an article about the Mercedes works team, and they built all those cars in the 1930s and 1950s, just like they'll build the 2010 car. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just the way the article is structured to my eyes. This is about the 2010 team, but right now there's more stuff on the 1930s and 1950s than on the twenty-first century. I'll probably be happier once the article is fleshed out a little more. It just seems a little unbalanced to me. And Mercedes entered those old cars under the name Mercedes-Benz, not Mercedes Grand Prix. It feels a little like the distinction between the two incarnations of Lotus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well of course there should be more to write about the old incarnations of the team - they raced over several years, whereas the 2010 team is one day old. But yes, similar to Lotus, its hard to say whether the articles should be the same or not. For Lotus, I think they should also be in the same article, because I read somewhere that any statistics the new team gets, will go onto the record of the old Lotus team. SchueyFan (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But Lotus consider themselves to be a new team. Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I'm warming to the idea. I suppose that my issue is that the tables are quite big and tend to dominate (is there some way to simplify it? The European championship table is quite complex with all the footnotes and addendums attached). But once we know more and the 2010 season is underway, there will be frequent updates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisonermonkeys (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be made clear that this is not the post-WWII or 1950s team reincarnate. Yes Mercedes-Benz had a team but this team is Tyrrell-purchased by BAR-purchased by Honda-purchased by Brawn-purchased by Mercedes. That there was a Mercedes-Benz team is relevent and should be included, but this is not the same team. (This is my understanding, I could well be wrong!)--Pretty Green (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We treated Renault as the same Renault from the 1970s and 1980s, despite being a buyout of Benetton-Toleman. Readro (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be, but there was only a twenty-year gap between the Renault of the 1980s and the Renault of the 2000s. Here, the difference is about sixty years for the cars of the 1950s and eighty for the cars of the 1930s. That's a big difference, and the team is clearly not the same as it was. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't just define an arbitrary limit after which we need a new article. The circumstances behind these modern incarnations of historic teams are identical and as such, they should be treated the same. Readro (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The two Mercedes teams should be in this same article for 2 reasons. Firstly, the old team never had a proper page, just Mercedes-Benz in motorsport. Secondly, the two teams are both the works teams of Mercedes-Benz. Lotus is different and very complex. The old Lotus team was not always related to Lotus Cars and neither is the new one really linked. But there's no reason to open that can of worms again. However, I question whether it is necessary to include results from this European championship. - mspete93 [talk] 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the article has been re-formatted chonologically. I disagree with this; the Formula One results should come before the European ones since this is about a Formula One team, not a European championship one. There is absolutely no way they should come before the results from 2010 onwards. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind if you include the table, but do you need to include the Swastika's in it? Why not a nice German flag? Wikipedia.de doesn't have Swastika's all over its articles on the same subject, and some - myself included - would consider it POV. Rgds, --86.144.217.226 (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe (somebody can confirm this) that we use whatever flag would have been used at the time. See old F1 seasons - 1950s etc. - mspete93 [talk] 11:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is the appropriate historical German flag. Anything but the Swastika would be POV. Readro (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The German version of Wikipedia does not have Swastika flags, because I do believe it is illegal to display them in Germany - Inglorious Basterds had all of the Nazi symbolism removed from it for the German release. However, while Mercedes may have raced under the Nazi flag, that does not make them Nazis, except maybe by association. The Swastika flag was the official flag of Germany at the time, and so is the one displayed in the article. It's also worth noting that during the days of Carriolica (sp?), the Silver Arrows ran with a small Swastika insignia painted on the car over the engine cowling. I think that if anyone changes the flags to German ones, it should be considered vandalism. Wikipedia deals in fact, and fact alone. Not facts obscured in the name of one person's taste. Cold, but true. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried changing the past results to the same order as Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results, with the F1 results ahead of the European Championship ones (which seems likely to be much more useful) but someone reverted it. Shouldn't they at the very least use the same order as each other? (82.26.191.83 (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Why is a non-chronological order more useful? Readro (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please just have individual pages for the different Mercedes teams as incarnated in the different eras, and links at the top of the article to those other pages? That would make very clear that a Mercedes team(s) existed in the past, but also that there is a major difference between the teams - its not like Ferrari which has been continuous. Also, this would allow us to put the racing results of each team/era on the page of that team, and avoid the excessive clutter. The current arrangement, though well-intended, is untenable: about half the information on the racing results page is irrelevant to what the reader wants to know (whether they want to know about the current team or the past teams, they are presented with info from both), and yet the main page for this 2010-2011 team does not have the race results at all. If there are several smaller pages, but which are well-organized and have good references to each other, then the collection of articles should provide the desired information and background with the most convenience. The sections of the current page, in my opinion, are excellent, but ideally we should add the 2010-2011 race results to it. I believe the article(s) for Renault would be improved if treated the same way. Chris45215 (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Change of name for 2012?

Seeing as Mercedes will now be known as Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team, and will no longer have GP or Grand Prix in the title, would this warrant a change of name, possibly to Mercedes F1 or something along those lines? Bpool1994 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose a move from Mercedes GP to Mercedes in Formula One, following this discussion about the need for a new article title now the current team name has changed, and to also bring it in line with other manufacturers who have entered Formula One at different times and have an article detailing their activities. (See Renault in Formula One, BMW in Formula One, etc) QueenCake (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It ought to be Mercedes-Benz in Formula One. Readro (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually suggested that in the discussion but no-one brought it up again. I would support that fully. QueenCake (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. We need to think carefully about the new name. Whereas there is a car company called Renault and there is a car company called BMW, there is no car company called "Mercedes". Mercedes is merely a brand of Daimler - check the DAB page: Mercedes. Currently, for Daimler's F1 activities, the "Mercedes" brand is applied to the two British companies (neither with any Daimler or Merecedes heritage) - the Brackley "Mercedes" F1 team and the the Ilmor/"Mercedes" F1 engine manufacturer - and they are both currently subsidiaries of Daimler AG - the car company. -- de Facto (talk). 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is all I have to say to that. Daimler hasn't really appeared in Formula One, but Mercedes has. QueenCake (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The article really needs renaming, following the drop of "GP" from the team name. But, I don't think Mercedes in Formula One is the best option. That kind of article would suggest this article contains all information about Mercedes's F1 activities, but we have a separate article for their engine supplying activities, and the information from McLaren partnership is in the McLaren article. Also, because Mercedes AMG team is a continuation of Tyrrell/BAR/Honda/Brawn, this article has to tell the history of that continuation enough comprehensively. And that continuation isn't part Mercedes history. So, I think this article should have its main focus in Mercedes as F1 chassis constructor, and especially in the current Mercedes team. And if the article's main focus is in the team, I think the article name should refer straightly to the team, just like Renault F1 and Honda Racing F1 did when there was active Renault and Honda teams.

Another issue when thinking about the article name is AMG's role in the team name. It can be considered as a sponsor, as it's not a part of the constructor name, it's added to promote AMG. But, on the other hand, AMG isn't a paying sponsor, it's a subsidiary of team owner. And, as the Mercedes's F1 engine factory also has nowadays AMG in its name, it appears that Mercedes want to brand themselves as Mercedes AMG in motorsports. So, I would include AMG in the article name. Only time will tell whether people talk about Mercedes or Mercedes AMG, so there may be need to check the article name later, whatever name we use. And, as Mercedes AMG or Mercedes might be ambiguos, I would name the article as Mercedes AMG F1 or Mercedes F1, as we usually use form "XYZ F1" if a team's non-sponsored name is "XYZ F1 Team" or "XYZ Formula One Team", like Mercedes (AMG) Petronas Formula One Team. --August90 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support a move to Mercedes F1, skipping the "AMG" for the time being unless it becomes part of the team's constructor name. Oppose a move to Mercedes in Formula One for the reasons put forward by August90. JonC^Talk 23:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Mercedes F1" is a fairly meaningless and fairly ugly construction, quite apart from using an abbreviation in an encyclopedic article title. Renault F1 and Williams F1 were used as they were the formal or habitual names of the companies involved, but Mercedes F1 is a complete fabrication. "Mercedes in Formula One" is a good article name - it is a discursive article, after all, not a directory entry - that allows all of Mercedes' involvement, both in the '50s and in modern times, in the sport to be considered, and follows both the common names policy and the principle of least astonishment. I don't understand why August90 seems to think that we need to discuss all issues at length within the article; that's what {{main}} is for. HPE (or whatever it is called at the moment), McLaren, Brawn, and so on should be discussed at those articles, and only a brief mention and description of their link to the main Formula One activity need appear on this page. Pyrope 05:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The company is called Mercedes-Benz and has been since 1926. It should be "Mercedes-Benz in Formula One". Readro (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Which company - and what is its relationship to the current F1 team? -- de Facto (talk). 11:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The automobile company. The cars were entered in the 1950s as Mercedes-Benzes and the current team is clearly a subsidiary of Mercedes-Benz. Readro (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Mercedes-Benz article describes Mercedes-Benz as a division (not even a subsidiary) of Daimler. The current F1 team and F1 engine manufacturer are both UK-based subsidiaries of Daimler, not of Mercedes-Benz. -- de Facto (talk). 12:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ownership doesn't necessarily mean anything, see the Renault example. Both the team and engine supplier use the Mercedes brand. They've always competed in F1 as Mercedes or Mercedes-Benz. Daimler means nothing to a lot of people. - mspete93 12:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. And all that I'm trying to do is to ensure that we understand the issues, and that our decisions are based on facts, not on any of the current myths, with respect to constructor names and team owners, that are floating around at the moment. -- de Facto (talk). 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no myths here though. The ownership of the team and the engine development can be addressed in the article, but the name has to reflect the name used by Daimler in the sport, the name that is widely recognised and commonly referred to in reliable sources. It has been agreed that Renault in Formula One covers 2011 (when the team was owned by Genii but competed as Renault) but not 2001 (when the team was owned by Renault but competed as Benetton). This was agreed to be the best way of doing it by consensus, and so the same should apply to Mercedes in the name of consistency. Who owns the team can be covered in the article, but the article name must be Mercedes. - mspete93 15:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The main myth I think, is that the brand name "Mercedes" is anything more than a brand name owned by Daimler. -- de Facto (talk). 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it's relationship with Daimler, Mercedes-Benz has always been the name in Formula One. We could have a note stating it is owned by Daimler if you feel it is necessary - which it may well be. I do support Readro's proposition of renaming it "Mercedes-Benz in Formula One". QueenCake (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd support either Mercedes-Benz in Formula One or Mercedes in Formula One, noting that we have Mercedes-Benz in motorsport, but that in our F1 race reports, etc, the cars and engines are always styled as just "Mercedes". I would not support any title including "Daimler". DH85868993 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is indirectly associated with the article name; should we merge Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains with this article? Renault Sport F1 was already merged with Renault in Formula One. One reason to a separate article may have been that Ilmor wasn't originally a Daimler subsidiary, but the pre-Mercedes history of Ilmor is explained in the Ilmor article, too. Usually the engine supplying is explained in the article about the team, even if the engine plant is separate from the team. Also, if you look at the logos on the webpages of F1 team and engine plant, you can see the logos are quite similar, highlighting the team and the engine plant have the same Mercedes AMG brand. So, I'd merge those two articles, but wouldn't include Ilmor's pre-Mercedes history in this article.

That leads to the naming issue. In my opinion, Mercedes-Benz's current identity in F1 is Mercedes AMG. I still think "(Daimler AG brand) in Formula One" isn't the best name, in my opinion the name should be as close to F1 activities' current name as possible. "(Daimler AG brand) in Formula One" would be almost the same as "Grand Prix racing sanctioned by FIA" instead of Formula One, it doesn't tell the name explicitly. Those "XYZ in Formula One" article names are OK for me, if there's no current name (i.e. inactive team), and the name had changed over the years.

So, after all, my preferred option would be Mercedes AMG (Formula One) or Mercedes (Formula One), depending on whether we consider AMG as a sponsor. Despite the brackets, I prefer those to my earlier proposals of Mercedes AMG F1 or Mercedes F1, because F1 isn't a part of the engine plant's name. We already have Mercedes (car) with brackets, so why not Mercedes (Formula One)? But, if we end up to "(Daimler AG brand) in Formula One", then use Mercedes-Benz in Formula One, as we have Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results, and in 50s, their F1 cars were Mercedes-Benzes. --August90 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We have Mercedes (car) because that was the Daimler-owned company before the merger with Benz in 1927. If you go to the team's current website, you can see that the full name of the current team is Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited. Mercedes without Benz hasn't existed since the late 1920s and just because people tend to skip the Benz bit for convenience, it doesn't mean we should. AMG is clearly only there to promote the AMG brand and is not part of the team's identity. As to the brackets, they look messy. Mercedes-Benz in Formula One is much nicer. Readro (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

August90, as I said above, you do not need to have everything all on one page. In fact, for longer articles it is actively discouraged. The Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains article is a reasonably substantial, substantive one that can stand alone perfectly well. In addition, whether or not they have similar branding they are separate corporate entities with distinct roles and histories. As for your name suggestions, they are pretty messy and imprecise, and if you are happy with Mercedes (Formula One) why not the more meaningful and grammatical Mercedes in Formula One? Pyrope 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is just that the article name should be the team's common name. M-B in Formula One isn't that, we don't say Schumacher drives for M-B in Formula One, we say he drives for Mercedes or Mercedes AMG. But that's just my opinion, obviously most users prefer "(Daimler AG brand) in Formula One".

And when it comes to merging the engine plant article with this article, I think there is no need for a separate article. The engine plant makes only F1 powertrains, as is said in its webpage.

At Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains we design, develop, manufacture and race Formula 1 powertrain units. Currently, this covers all aspects of the Formula 1 engine and hybrid systems (i.e. Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems).

Renault and Honda also had separate engine plants, yet we still included engine supplying information into the team's article. And, that's the case also with Mercedes, especially is the article is renamed as M-B in Formula One. Also, if a separate company is enough for an article, then the Brackley-based team's article shouldn't include the M-B's F1 history from 50s. But we include it, according to a Wikipedia practise. And I think we should follow the practise of including engine supplying information into the constructor article. --August90 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So, what are we going to do about this? None of the team names - constructor, formal, short name, common name; none of them - contain "GP" or "Grand Prix", so I think we defiantely need to move the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually one name still contains "Grand Prix, the company name Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited. Still, I don't think we should use the company name, otherwise we'd have an article also about e.g. 1Malaysia Racing Team. But, I have yet an argument in favour of naming this article Mercedes AMG F1 or even Mercedes F1. The team's Twitter account's name is MERCEDES AMG F1. That implies also that Petronas (of course) is a sponsor and left from twitter account's name. But AMG is part of the team name. --August90 (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You can change your name on Twitter whenever you like. Your argument is speculation and we have to stick to facts. As far as I can see, the best we've come up with is Mercedes-Benz in Formula One. Readro (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Mercedes-Benz in Formula One works nicely for me too. Looking at the discussion as there was a) fair support for that name, b) opposition to other suggestions and c) agreement that the current name isn't suitable, that's probably enough of a consensus to go ahead with a move. QueenCake (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer just Mercedes in Formula One, but I can certainly see the reason for using Mercedes-Benz, so I'll go along with that and support it. - mspete93 18:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution, but the current name is no good. So I think a move to Mercedes-Benz in Formula One is the best idea, and we should get on with it. There's nothing to say we can't move it again if a better name turns up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Mercedes-Benz in Formula One is the best compromise. -- de Facto (talk). 19:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. DH85868993 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. I'll move the page now, and adjust the content accordingly. I'll model the changes on Renault in Formula One. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Following the article's renaming, I'd like to come back to the engine plant. As Renault Sport F1 article was merged with Renault in Formula One, and also the engine supplying histories of Ferrari, Honda, and Toyota are covered in same articles than chassis manufacturing, I propose merging M-B engine plant's article with this. Especially, as the Brackley-based team's relationship with Honda's engine plant wasn't any closer than currently with M-B's engine plant, I see no need for a separate article. There is already another article that contains Ilmor's early history. --August90 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Team´s statistics

Could anybody explain me why at the official F1 website www.formula1.com are given the following statistics for Mercedes: number of wins - 1, number of pole positions - 1, number of fastest laps - 0 ?? It is contrary to wikipedia statistics in this article. See http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/190/ On the basis of that, we should correct statistics in this wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.35.240 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:F1 talk page for my answer. Pyrope 20:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Seperate team pages

I propose the creation of seperate team pages, but still retain this one. I suggest maybe Mercedes GP (1954-1955) and Mercedes GP (2010- ). TollHRT52 (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2012 (AEDST)

We did have a Mercedes GP article for the new team, it was merged into this one. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I say yes as the official Formula one website say the team's First Season was 2010 so it is a new team Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.61.66 (talk • contribs) at 12:47 on May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Logo change?

Mercedes AMG is now renamed Mercedes GP once again. Do we need to revert to the old Mercedes GP logo or wait for the 2013 logo to be released?

Nothing from the team indicates a change. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with that guy. The team is now called Mercedes GP JerichoNation (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, where is the team stating that? Only the FIA entry list makes any mention of this, and we're need stronger evidence than that to change the article. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Relating to this discussion, should the full name for '13 in the infobox be Mercedes GP... or Mercedes AMG...? I'd say Mercedes AMG... because the team hasn't announced a name change. FIA entry list isn't always correct, it doesn't have e.g. Infiniti in RBR's name. --August90 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Until the team itself or any official source officialy announces a name change, then it will be changed. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes AMG

Since when has the constructor name been changed to "Mercedes AMG" when its been just "Mercedes" for the past three years and the team itself has not annouced anything, The 2013 FIA entry list refers them to being still called just "Mercedes" not "Mercedes AMG" I think their needs to be a strong reliable source to back this name change up, Because anybody could just refer to the team or constructor as being "Mercedes AMG" for short instead of "Mercedes" when officialy its still "Mercedes" if people are just going to change the constructor names when they want we might as well change the "Red Bull" constructor name to "RBR" or Toro Rossos to STR and ect,As people refer to that as being the constructor name when its not. This is why the constructor name should be changed back to "Mercedes". Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed on the talk page of the F1 W04. You should limit these discussions to one talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Mercedes" Constructor name

The constructor name of the team has allways been "Mercedes" since 2010 and has never changed, so theirs no reason why Prisonermonkeys should of changed it. Until somebody can actually show me some hardcore sources then it should just remain "Mercedes" as alot more people would agree with me. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 9:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to the discussion directly above this, which in turn refers you to this discussion. You should be acutely aware of both of these discussions since you started them. It has been explained to you on multiple occasions why the pages are titled the way they are, and you have conclusively failed to address any of those issues. This amounts to little more than "I want it to be this way, so it should be this way". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Spinoff from above conversation

It should be made clear that this is not the post-WWII or 1950s team reincarnate. Yes Mercedes-Benz had a team but this team is Tyrrell-purchased by BAR-purchased by Honda-purchased by Brawn-purchased by Mercedes. That there was a Mercedes-Benz team is relevent and should be included, but this is not the same team. (This is my understanding, I could well be wrong!)--Pretty Green (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC0

There used to be a thing added to the team pages that showed the trajectory of team ownership. In the case of this page, it would have read Tyrrell -> British American Racing -> BAR Honda -> Honda F1 Racing Team -> Brawn GP -> Mercedes Grand Prix ... why did we get rid of it? It was a quick, effective visual way to prepresent a team's history, particularly for a complex one like this or Jordan/Midland/Spyker/Force India. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an identical situation to Renault F1, who had previously had their own team, before buying out a successful British team. Please read Renault F1 and you will find it details both old and new teams. It takes until seven lines down to mention the current team. Therefore Mercedes should be done in the same way. See here for the reason those history things were removed. - mspete93 [talk] 12:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, when Honda purchased BAR we did exactly the same thing. Readro (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It does seem contradictory to state (in the info panel) that the previous team name was Brawn GP and the team last won the World Championship in 1954/55. In fact Brawn won in 2009. Tyrell have several championships. This team that now operates under the Mercedes name didn't start racing in Formula 1 until 1968. --82.9.70.201 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mercedes-Benz 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:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.brawngp.com/readstory.asp?bgp=j%C1%AA%C0rZ%7Df

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 04:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Winning margin" unclear

The "Winning margin" column of the table in 'Domination of the V6 Turbo Era' - is it the cumulative winning margin of victory, the average margin, the biggest margin, the median margin?! Needs clarifying. Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I read it, I didn't know what it meant.RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The preceding paragraphs explain it as the "average winning margin to the nearest non-Mercedes competitor", for the races Mercedes won during the season. But I agree it needs to be clarified in the table - I also saw it first in the table and thought "what does that mean" and then had to hunt backwards for the explanation. DH85868993 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added a tooltip. DH85868993 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

@Speedy Question Mark: you asked by re-reverting and adding an edit summary, rather than by raising it on this talkpage, for clarification of my revert of your recent modification to the first sentence.

Referring to my edit summary... The inaccuracies are that Daimler AG rather than the implied Mercedes-Benz own the team and that M-B is no longer really involved in F1 as Daimler have decided to use another of their brands, Mercedes-AMG, to brand their F1 team and F1 engine supplier this year. The omissions are that Daimler AG are the owners and that Mercedes-AMG are involved, not only as a constructor, but as an F1 engine manufacturer too, with Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains. The spelling error is that the word "licence" was spelled as "license". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If the spelling is wrong then correct it but changing the whole first paragraph isn't needed, the article is about "Mercedes-Benz" in Formula One and the current team is a Mercedes-Benz factory team using the AMG branding as sponsorship, that doesn't mean removing the mention of Mercedes-Benz from the opening paragraph, plus their engine involvement is already mentioned in the first paragraph and below including the separate Mercedes HPP article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark: if the spelling was the only problem, then that would have been all I changed, of course (and I see you left my version of that, despite what your edit summary says), however it wasn't - the inaccuracies and omissions are the main problem - which you have now reinstated. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I only just realised that I used the American way of spelling licence, haha. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Pole positions

On Formula 1 website it says mercedez has 94 pole positions but here there are more. Any thoughts Michalis2504 (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

StatsF1 and FORIX (subscription site) both agree with Wikipedia's total of 102 pole positions. It's possible that formula1.com is showing the number of pole positions for the current Mercedes team (2010-2019), whereas our infobox shows stats for Mercedes' entire history as a constructor (i.e. 1954-2019). DH85868993 (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This whole page is likely to seem incoherent to someone without prior knowledge of the subject.

I don't know if this page needs to be split into multiple articles or anything like that, but at present it at the very least needs a substantial rewrite. This article seems to be trying to cover Mercedes two very separate stints as a works team as well as its history as an engine supplier all in one place and the result is something which is likely to be highly confusing to anyone who isn't already familiar with the history of the sport and numerous pieces of jargon used within it. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:DDA:D67F:428F:41C7 (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Having made some small edits to the lead it's already significantly more coherent. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:DDA:D67F:428F:41C7 (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

More information about the teams withdrawal from F1 in 1955 should be added, there is no mention of the Le Mans disaster which was one of the key reasons for the withdrawal. Furthermore, I believe it inaccurate to state that Mercedes "returned" to F1 in 2010, as they active as an engine supplier from the early 1990s.(talk) 15:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right about the second part. I've tried rephrasing the section to not use the word "returned" (as that may prove confusing) but I'm sure someone else could do a better job. It is worth noting that the Le Mans disaster is mentioned in both the lead and later in the body of the article though. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:DDA:D67F:428F:41C7 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)