Talk:Sauber Motorsport

BMW Sauber F1 Team is still the official name of the team, and that is not gonna be changed for a while. Source: ^[1]. Someone should rebuild this article back, and continue BMW Sauber article. Case closed... for now. 81.197.79.202 (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Someone should do that. (Well don't look at me). Sk8er Boi (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I think this year's season should be covered in this article. The only reason for keeping 'BMW' in the name is a technicality. John Anderson (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been proposed at WikiProject Formula One that the BMW Sauber and Sauber pages are merged to provide one article to detail the history of what is essentually the same team, just with a different owner for a four year period. I suggest that they are merged to the Sauber page, as this title reflects the full history of the team, and despite the team being called BMW Sauber this year, it will commonly be referred to as just Sauber. - mspete93 10:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support.--Midgrid(talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose They are two completely different teams, Footwork and Arrows have two differnt pages for different ownerships despite being a continuation of the same team. However, it should be established this year whether the Sauber or BMW Sauber pages should be updated, I think it should be the Sauber page as it once again the team is owned by Peter Sauber and is only called BMW Sauber due to issues with the concorde agreement and would be called Sauber otherwise. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I wouldn't mind seeing Footwork Arrows and Arrows merged as well.--Midgrid(talk) 19:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Thought someone would say that :P --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not the same team. For example, Toro Rosso is the former Minardi but they have separate articles. YuckieDuck (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Exacly, just because these two pages have similar names does not warrant a merger, just maybe at the top of the Sauber article something like, this page is about the current formula 1 team, for the team during BMW ownership see BMW sauber --86.134.58.95 (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The Sauber situation cannot be compared to Toro Rosso and Minardi. Use the official Formula 1 website as an example. On the BMW Sauber page, the history and statistics refers to the team under both private and BMW ownership. Contrastingly, Toro Rosso only includes the history of Toro Rosso, and not Minardi. Same happens with Mercedes, Red Bull and Force India. The problem is, where do we talk about Sauber's 2010 activities? The team is called BMW Sauber, yet everything about the team is identical to when the team was known as Sauber. This is why a merger is needed. - mspete93 13:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Mainly to minimise confusion. I think that non-experts will find it very confusing that the activities of the 2010 "BMW Sauber" team are described in the Sauber article rather than the BMW Sauber article (and I can envisage that we will spend much of the 2010 season reverting well-intentioned updates to the BMW Sauber article). DH85868993 (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. per YuckieDuck comment. Cybervoron (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose BMW Sauber was a BMW works team. This year's team is once again the Sauber private team, only the 'BMW' part of the names is stuck because of a technicality. We wouldn't even have this discussion if BMW hadn't chosen to keep 'Sauber' in the name and 'BMW' now seems to be stuck for at least a year due to the aforementioned technicality. John Anderson (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: OK, I see your point about the BMW works team. However, it was only a works team in that BMW owned Sauber for a bit and put some money into it. There is no real need to seperate the BMW section of their history from the rest. Using the Sauber page to write about the 2010 activities of a team called BMW Sauber when there is a BMW Sauber article makes no sense and causes confusion (as per DH85868993). Consider also, Template:Formula One constructors. BMW Sauber is listed temporarily (until this debate is sorted) as a former constructor. If you ask FOM and FIA, they will say that BMW Sauber is a current constructor. There is no need to keep the two entities seperate. - mspete93 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, there is a very good reason to seperate the BMW section of their history from the rest, because the BMW years is a part of BMW history, while the rest of the team's history is not, not at all. John Anderson (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This is why we are proposing BMW in Formula One (see below) which will include BMW Sauber and the rest of BMW's history in F1. BMW Sauber is both part of BMW's history and Sauber's history, and should therefore be included in both Sauber and BMW articles, with no need for its own BMW Sauber article. - mspete93 11:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe wikipedia does not need to follow FOM. Grand prix racing existed even before Bernie Ecclestone became the commercial rightsholder. This can give the wikipedians alot more flexibility in following credible sources that are non-FOM. Example Red Bull-Renault instead of RBR-Renault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.99.210 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I do agree with the merger to avoid confusion and to bring coherence. BMW Sauber and Sauber are the same team. The name Sauber has always been kept and Peter Sauber was a minority stakeholder for 2006 to 2009. Also remember that the (BMW) Sauber 2010 is called C29, which suppose that "C25-C28" are the BMW Sauber F1.0X. Caldina (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's not like we had had two different Sauber teams between 2006 and 2009 - who, indeed, would need two separate articles. There was only one team Sauber the whole time. So only one wiki article, me thinks. --Oᴅᴏʀ (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course those were two different teams. If we merge this then we have to merge Brawn and Mercedes as well.  Dr. Loosmark  21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. One point to note is that even if we do consider them to be two different teams, that doesn't necessarily mean we have to have two separate articles - it's permissible to describe multiple entities in the same article if that's the most sensible/least confusing thing to do. I realise that we usually create a new article whenever team ownership changes, but I think this is a bit of a special case because the "new" team is still officially entered under the old name. I don't recall that ever happening before. DH85868993 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this happened before with Footwork/Arrows.  Dr. Loosmark  22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Support if we also merge Leyton House and March which would appear to be a near identical case, and possibly also Footwork/Arrows. --Falcadore

(talk) 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment And of course Frank Williams Racing Cars should be merged with WilliamsF1 for the same reasons. --86.180.250.228 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It appears to me that these are different teams. Frank Williams sold his team, and then set up WilliamsF1. - mspete93 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Totally different teams - FWRC went on to become Wolf Racing, and then merged into Fittipaldi. 4u1e (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Move BMW Sauber to BMW in Formula One. The new article will include BMW works team history in the 1952 German Grand Prix, the 1969 German Grand Prix, the BMWs on Lola chassis ('67, '68), BMW Sauber, and the engine history.
  • Comment: I would support the creation of BMW in Formula One, but only if the information in BMW Sauber is merged into Sauber as well.--Midgrid(talk) 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As a means of distinguishing this from other cases, is it worth considering that during BMW's ownership of the team, Peter Sauber retained a stake? If we look at selected points in it's history, ownership has varied - for example in 1994 Peter Sauber had 24.5% ownership, whilst Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz held 50%. Just prior to the team being sold to BMW, Peter Sauber owned around 35% and Credit Suisse owned ~65% of the team. It was Credit Suisse's stake that was sold to BMW, whilst Peter Sauber retained his. Do we have separate articles when Red Bull and Credit Suisse owned the majority stake in the team? No, so in theory, there should be no reason why BMW's period of majority ownership couldn't be included in with the others - the fact that Peter Sauber owned a percentage of the team has remained constant throughout. AlexJ (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

*Conditional Oppose if you do this then merge the Team Lotus with Lotus Racing because there's more similarity between those names than Sauber and BMW Sauber. If you do merge Sauber with BMW Sauber then for my support it would make logical sense to merge Team Lotus with Lotus. By the way the talk by AlexJ doesn't make sense. That's mere business talk. You can put that in the Sauber article but it doesn't support the merger. I will pull my support conditionally as long as we merge Team Lotus with Lotus Racing (Wiki id2 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC))

• Comment Lotus and Sauber cannot possibly be compared. Sauber/BMW Sauber is the same team (i.e. Hinwil-based team) under different majority ownership. Lotus Racing/Team Lotus are two entirely different teams, racing in different eras, set up by different people, just using the Lotus name. They are considered different teams, while Sauber/BMW are considered the same team. Formula1.com is proof of this, using new stats for Lotus but merged stats for Sauber. And Alex J's points are valid, showing that the team has gone through several stages of ownership yet we don't consider them different teams. - mspete93 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: editors should bear in mind that merging other articles will only happen if it is discussed at the relevant talk pages.--Midgrid(talk) 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Each prospective merge will be taken on its own merits, as they are all too different to be applying one rule. I would support moving BMW Sauber to BMW in Formula One as long as the BMW Sauber information was retained at Sauber as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Still Conditional Oppose Your lotus argument still isn't making sense. It's the word team and the word racing. Must we use up wikipedia's resources when we can save Lotus space as well. Anyway onto the Sauber topic the reason Formula.com has shown the Sauber stats in that Section is because the name is offcialy to be changed due to issues in the Concorde Agreement. (Wiki id2 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC))

• Comment How can the fact that the word Lotus mean that Team Lotus and Lotus Racing are the same thing? The word Dundee doesn't mean that Dundee F.C. and Dundee United F.C. are the same thing. We shouldn't merge just because they have similar names, and besides, that is not the only reason we should merge BMW Sauber and Sauber. Sauber was bought by BMW, making BMW Sauber. BMW sold back to Sauber, with the team still called BMW Sauber. It is still the same team. - mspete93 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Backup for oppose BMW Sauber should have it's own article as it's owned by BMW. Sauber is a reincarnation of the company. About the business thing Ross Brawn still owns 24.9% of mercedes GP do you suggest we merge Mercedes and Brawn together ? If you merge Sauber and BMW Sauber you need to merge several other F1-related articles as well. The lotus name change is less notable as it's the word team and word racing. In the news 'you recognise Lotus either in it's old or new carnation. You can't possibly do that with BMW Sauber and Sauber' Therefore I suggest we leave the Sauber article as it is. (Wiki id2 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC))

Regarding Mercedes/Brawn: Don't be silly. As for Sauber, the ownership is one of many factors that mean the two should be merged. It on its own is not the deciding factor. And I don't get your point in bold. The fact that you don't think of Sauber as old Sauber or new Sauber surely means the articles should be merged? - mspete93 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: When a team changes ownership we do not need a new page necessarily. We should always do what makes the most sense. For example, when Midland became Spyker became Force India, it made sense to create new pages each time. However, Sauber was always the Sauber team, it just was owned by BMW for a bit. Had BMW sold it to Qadbak, for example, we could give them all seperate pages. However, because BMW Sauber only represents a small period in the history of Sauber, it makes sense for them to be in the same article. Also, neither BMW Sauber nor Sauber can be called former constructors. They are, together, a current constructor. I would support moving BMW Sauber to BMW in Formula One on the basis that BMW Sauber's history, results and stats are merged into Sauber as well. Just bear in mind that we already have BMW in motorsport. - mspete93 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Deal or no deal? Deal! BMW Sauber move to BMW in Formula 1, but Sauber article shares the information. Also BMW in Formula One can be listed in the list of defunct constructors. This fixes it all. Request everyone change their vote to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.7.51 (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Support this proposal - BMW in motorsport can be the parent article of BMW in Formula One.--Midgrid(talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Support here also. - mspete93 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Supporting here too, thanks, that's great idea. MrEskola (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On the Sauber web site it states as BMW Sauber C29 chassis - . The stats should count towards the BMW Sauber team, as for 2011 the chassis will be Sauber and therefore the stats will continue for Sauber. The official name chassis is BMW Sauber for the moment Andreasu 20:17, 16 March 2010 (AUS)

• UPDATE: Sauber poised to request name change. Presumably this will drop the "BMW" from the name.--Midgrid(talk) 16:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that this will have little effect on whether the teams are seen as the same team. It would reduce the confusion, as BMW Sauber would no longer exist. It should also be noted that no date has been set. They just have plans - this could take time and so we cannot just say 'wait and see', as we'd be waiting a while. - mspete93 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: I believe that it is wrong to say that Sauber should be merged with BMW Sauber. They were indeed two different teams. Ownership does matter. e.g. in the Bugatti article we have an article called "Bugatti", we then have an article called "Bugatti Automobili SpA and then have an article since Volkswagen ownership called Bugatti Automobile S.A.S So this is a really little case wih SpA and SAS they went through different ownership and they still have seperate articles. Sauber and BMW Sauber case is no different. Therefore we should keep Sauber seperate. And BMW Sauber in its own guise as it was owned by BMW and it was BMW's f1 team. (Wiki id2 (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Comment: the difference in this case is that Sauber was majority owned by Peter Sauber, then BMW, and now Peter Sauber again, whereas Bugatti's change of ownership has been permanent and irreversible. Thus BMW Sauber can be seen as just one stage in the Sauber team's history.--Midgrid(talk) 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The team was at one point (majority) owned by Red Bull. At another it was owned by Credit Suisse. Looking at the company record, the team were even legally known as "Red Bull Sauber AG" at one point, yet I see little call for this part of the teams history to have it's own article. Apart from a slight name change, (not unlike when Williams were branded 'BMW Williams' when the two were in partnership), there is little difference between Sauber and BMW Sauber. Look at McLaren for example. We have a period when Bruce McLaren owned the team, a period when the reverse merger took place with Project 4 and Ron Dennis ended up in charge, a period when Mercedes took a significant stake (40%) and now a period when Mercedes are reducing that stake, all contained in the one article. AlexJ (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Sure, but McLaren was never formally made a works team for Mercedes, like Sauber was for BMW. We don't treat Brawn and Mercedes as the same team, now do we? John Anderson (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Generally speaking what we've always done before is to create a new article when both the name and the ownership change. Where only one changes - the numerous changes in ownership of Brabham, for example - we have kept one article. Generally speaking this has resulted in a common sense division of articles (I was a bit worried about Jordan/MF1/Spyker/Force India when it was changing every year, though...).
By name change I mean the actual name of the company (e.g. Toleman>Benetton), not the name on the entrants list which change from year to year in line with sponsorship deals (e.g. Motor Racing Developments>Martini Racing>Parmalat Racing Team, which are all entrants names used by Brabham).
If we didn't have the weird situation in which BMW remains part of the title, this approach would again give us a common sense answer: use the Sauber article for the team going forward and either keep a separate BMW Sauber article or merge the 2006-2009 material into the proposed BMW in Formula One article. My preferred option would be to do so anyway, and just live with the implied contradiction until the paperwork is sorted out.
I would also be happy with a situation in which we say that where a team has a brief period under a different name and ownership and then returns to its original situation, we put it all in one article. This would then apply to Arrows/Footwork and March/Leyton House as well. On that basis I would support the original proposal.
As a final thought, what will make most sense to the reader should be our guide, rather than strict technical accuracy. 4u1e (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I think, Sauber is only one team. Peter Sauber still owned in 2009 30% of the shares of "BMW" Sauber. I would think the official team name is BMW Sauber, but it's only Sauber with BMW engine. Sauber BMW? Man, why somebody even created article BMW Sauber? It should be in the Sauber article. There was called BMW Williams, but in reality, it is only Williams BMW. MrEskola (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Support for Oppose Keep the status quo temporarily. BMW Sauber is the BMW 'works' team. It was owned 10% by Peter Sauber during the ownership period but did anybody read the Bugatti argument I gave earlier. This is just like Bugatti and they have seperate articles. Besides if you merge BMW Sauber into Sauber then what will you do about the BMW Sauber logo. There you go the logo is different. During (2006-2009) the team was under BMW ownership and functioned under a diffrent name and the company was under BMW. Its not like Williams BMW when the name is used because of sponsorship and engine supply reasons. It's illogical to minimise the BMW history. BMW Sauber must be recognised. The only reason Sauber stayed at the end of the name was because Sauber owned 10% and had certain sponsorship rights. Williams BMW is a diffrent story. It was when Williams had a technical partnership with BMW and also supplied Williams engine. Which is why BMW is at the end of it. Just like Williams-Toyota or STR-Ferrari. (Wiki id2 (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC))
Comment: Wiki id2, can you please start your messages with comment, rather than oppose each time, as at a glance it looks like there are more users supporting the split than there actually are. AlexJ (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support I agree that BMW Sauber should be merged into Sauber, as they are the same team albeit with different majority ownership. Considering that Peter Sauber owned his stake still. I would say the same if Mercedes GP sold back to Ross Brawn also. Footwork and Arrows for arguments sake, should also be merged into Arrows. For people saying about the historical Lotus and the current Lotus team, it is owned by Malaysians the name coming from Proton's ownership to it. Does the ghost of Colin Chapman run it? I think not. They also raced in separate eras, rendering the link null. Sauber to BMW Sauber and back to BMW Sauber (owned by Peter Sauber) is a direct continuum, therefore should be one article.--Sotonfc4life (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose BMW Sauber and Sauber are different teams. BMW Sauber was a team which bought the shares from Peter Sauber and there is no any relationship to Peter Sauber, the only thing linked to Peter Sauber is only the name and the team is come from him. However, when the team sold to Peter Sauber, BMW has no any relationship to the new team and Peter Sauber wants to change the team name back, however, Concorde Agreement is the problem to make him to change the team name. That's why the team still use the name "BMW Sauber". Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: as has been mentioned above, Peter Sauber retained a minority shareholding in the BMW Sauber team, and was kept on as a consultant.--Midgrid(talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just as Brawn and Mercedes GP is also the same team, because Ross Brawn has kept a minority share and keeps heading the team. Right? Should we merge them? John Anderson (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

An example of the merged Sauber article is available here. - mspete93 10:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Support new Sauber article draft above, on condition that BMW Sauber move to BMW in Formula One. Lets end the vote and fix this already. Everyone please cross out your vote, and support this. 122.177.18.47 04:37, 30 March 2010; signature added later

I support this suggestion by 122.177.18.47! Strongly. John Anderson (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to re-open this discussion, and I think we should merge them with the name Sauber Motorsport. But about the 2006-2009 logo we make a new section. This means that in the page there will be 3 sections: Sauber, the team founded by Peter sauber that made its debut in 1993; section called BMW Sauber F1 Team that will include the BMW-owned team's logo and info; and then another section named Sauber Motorsport 2010, with the 2010 season information. Wild mine (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Sauber should have its own article for 1993-2005 and from 2010, but the years 2006-2009 should be in an article BMW in Formula One. The article on the Sauber team should have a separate section for these years but with just one sentence or so and a link to BMW in Formula One. John Anderson (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just completed the merger in Sauber. The plan was not to move BMW Sauber to BMW in Formula One but to create a new article covering BMW's full history in F1. User:Midgrid has been working on this at User:Midgrid/Sandbox. Due to other commitments he has been unable to finish this yet, so I will use it to create a brief round-up of BMW's F1 history at BMW in Formula One, and all users will be welcome to add to that to try and expand it. Not sure what to do with the old BMW Sauber talk page, which is now located at Talk:BMW in Formula One. That page will need a new talk page as it will be rewritten. I think I will move that back to Talk:BMW Sauber and then link that from here. Hope that all makes as much sense to you as it does to me. - mspete93 11:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OK - I moved the old BMW Sauber talk page located at Talk:BMW in Formula One to Talk:BMW Sauber and linked that using the template at the top. Problem is, the old page history is the history of BMW in Formula One. Can anyone think of a way to solve this problem? Could we simply create a new message for that talk page, or are we going to have to move that talk page back again. I should have thought about that first. - mspete93 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For anyone in any doubt here, the team is still called "BMW Sauber", and that is what we list them as in all cases for 2010. I understand this discussion to be about where the links direct to, not what the team is called. In all official documentation, the team is still called BMW Sauber. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, there does seem to be some doubt here. Somebody please produce the discussion where we all agreed to remove all reference to BMW from the team name for 2010. I am now seeing one editor change all references to BMW Sauber to display simply "Sauber". This is utterly wrong, and unverifiable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In what way is this "wrong"? Sauber is a part of the name, and since this year's Sauber is essentially a return to the pre-BMW team named Sauber, "Sauber" must be said to be the main part of the formal name (while "BMW" was the main part last year, when it was a subsidiary of BMW). One might argue what of "BMW Sauber" or "Sauber" is more correct, but none of them are entirely wrong. John Anderson (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should the name be shortened? "BMW" is hardly a long word. The FIA refused permission for the name change, and thus the team did not change it, so it must therefore be seen to be wrong to remove the "BMW" part of the name. It may "essentially" be a return to pre-BMW Sauber, but officially, it isn't. And that's all that matters. Also, I reiterate, it is unverifiable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

We are NOT bound by what FIA says. If we were, we would write Vodafone McLaren-Mercedes and not just McLaren-Mercedes. John Anderson (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We pretty much are. And they don't write that. Here is how the FIA show a race result . As far as I remember, we agreed to spell out Red Bull and Toro Rosso, and we agreed to go with the FIA's HRT rather than "Hispania" which is what some editors wanted. Nobody (until now) has ever expressed any dissatisfaction with BMW Sauber. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but doesn't FIA often write Scuderia Torro Rosso as STR rather than Torro Rosso? Should we change that too? John Anderson (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As I've just said, I believe this has been discussed and consensus was for "Red Bull" and "Toro Rosso". I'm happy with that, and so, apparently, is everyone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so in those cases it was OK to follow a consenus, but with Sauber we have to follow FIA not matter what? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic... John Anderson (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In those cases there was enough of a question about it for there to be a discussion, where a consensus was built. In the case of Sauber, there was no difference of opinion. It was not a case of blindly following the FIA, it was just that nobody except you had any doubts about it at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We are labelling people with incorrect facts. Sauber have never won a race. It was BMW Sauber. BMW Sauber is a different company. Merger being re-discussed. The facts are incorrect. BMW Sauber is a different company. And sauber are going to be re-named officially. (Wiki id2(talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

Maybe you would like to look here: http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/7/ They have won a race. BMW Sauber was not a completely different company. Just a renaming of the same company due to a change of ownership, which has now been reversed. Understand? - mspete93 20:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a bought and renamed company is still the same company.The³5₉ (Talk) 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not, because if that was the case, we should merge Brawn GP and Mercedes GP. John Anderson (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Brawn Grand Prix Limited and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Limited are still the same company, under new ownership and name. However, in this situation it is best to keep them in separate articles. We don't always need to use the same process in slightly similar situations like these. Each situation is different and needs to be treated differently. - mspete93 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree every situation is special and should be treated so. However, that goes against your own and 359's arguments from 9 May, where it seems you wanted to base your opinions in this case on a general principle. John Anderson (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just showing there was evidence for Sauber having won a race. Again, if you look at formula1.com, Mercedes GP and Brawn are treated as separate teams, unlike Sauber and BMW Sauber. I wasn't saying they should/shouldn't be merged simply on that basis. What I meant was that when we have changes of ownership or name for a team we do not automatically have them in separate articles, or in the same article. Each team should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I was citing the F1 website to back up my opinion when it comes to the Sauber matter, not saying it should be merged simply because of that. - mspete93 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This very wrong. Sauber won the race. http://www.sauberf1team.com/en/season/race_statistics.cfm?t=2 , http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/7/ , http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/2012/Pages/entry-list.aspx This wikipedia page shows false informations. This article nowhere says it's about Sauber as an independent team. It says it's about Sauber F1 Team. Unless this is made very clear in article that this about independent constructor, we should refer to official sources like FIA. I strongly recommend to use FIA criteria especially that there is no separate article about BMW Sauber and all official sources recognize Sauber as a winner. Possibly the Sauber stats has been changed retroactively by FIA, so we should refer to new stats. I also don't see why BMW in Formula One and Sauber shouldn't overlap some info.Krzyglo (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It says "The team went into the 1994 season as Sauber Mercedes, now officially Mercedes' works team". What does works team mean? I thought that was only a term for a car manufactors own team, owned and operated by the manufactor in question, but that does not seem to be the case here as Sauber was never what Mercedes GP is now. Only in 2006-2009 I thought Sauber was a works team for a major car manufactor, when it was owned by BMW and called BMW Sauber. The Great Cucumber (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this, though my knowledge of F1 back then is patchy. - mspete93 15:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to the term factory-backed, which seems more appropriate. The Great Cucumber (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a casual visitor, but there is a chunk of the article that has been (I'm sure accidentally) omitted. The team results for the BMW-Sauber period of 2006-2009 are missing. It goes from the BMW-Sauber 2006-2009 heading to the results for the Sauber F1 results of 2010-2012. LynnD71 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Results this way. The results box on the article details only the results of the independent Sauber team, without BMW involvement. Craig(talk) 14:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in that case it is confusing that in the second section ("Formula One"), there is a detailed history of the BMW years. If that belongs on another page, then there should just be a link to the BMW history for 2006-2009. I think it makes more sense to include the history of BMW-Sauber here, since to most F1 followers it's the same team with a direct transfer of people, IP, designs, F1 entry, etc., at all times. Either way however, a consistent approach to the inclusion of 2006-2009 would be clearer than having it in the textual history but not in the results.LynnD71 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nowhere written that they are results of independent team or that the article is about independent Sauber team, so I suggest including BMW-Sauber results too. Official sources include BMW-Sauber results. http://www.sauberf1team.com/en/season/race_statistics.cfm?t=2 http://fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/2012/Pages/entry-list.aspx Unless this is made very clear in article that it is about independent team we should include BMW-Sauber results too. But as Sauber is recognized as a team that raced continuously since 1993 till now, I don't see any reason of creating article about independent Sauber team. BMW in Formula One article can overlap some stats, but I don't think this is wrong. --Krzyglo (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Krzyglo seems to be agreeing with me, but I think it makes best sense to include all the results of the team that is seen as organically the same organisation. The periods where the team was owned by BMW can be clearly marked, and can be repeated in the BMW Sauber (2006-2009) page if required, but for a normal reader, you expect and want to see all the results of the team. This is clearly different to a case like BAR->Honda->Brawn->Mercedes, because at no point did that team return to a previous incarnation as Sauber has. Thanks. LynnD71 (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that as long as this is article about "Sauber F1 Team" as such we must include all past results, since they are recognized by FIA and other official sources. In this particular case I don't think this is wikipedia duty to make any criteria and use them to determine which results should be included or not, since we have official sources saying that Sauber is entitled to claim all BMW-Sauber results (including win and pole position): http://www.sauberf1team.com/en/season/race_statistics.cfm?t=2 , http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/7/ , http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/championships/f1/2012/Pages/entry-list.aspx Brawn and Mercedes results are separated because FIA and teams said so.--Krzyglo (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that the 2006-2009 results should be included in the results table, and the infobox. DH85868993 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Should the new BMW Sauber Navbox be included at the bottom of the page or not. HRT F1 Team (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the total of 236 races competed by Sauber to be wrong. Including 2010, I have calculated the number to be 271 (as of the 2012 Japanese Grand Prix). Is this just an error, or is there some reason behind this? —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you count the BMW Sauber years in there? because they're not included on this page. Otherwise i've no idea how it could be so inaccurate. BosleyTree (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The total I calculated was from 1993 to 2005, and 2010 to 2012. If 2010 is not included, then the number should be 252. It looks like an early season of 16 races has not be counted, and nor has 2010. This therefore must be an error. 252 or 271? —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the transition between Sauber and BMW Sauber has not been described clearly enough in this article.

While this article claims that the team changed its name to BMW Sauber before the 2006 season, the information on F1.com (see links) does not match this claim. The 2006 constructors' championship standings display the team as Sauber-BMW, meaning that the constructor name was still Sauber at that point, while BMW engines were used. For the 2007 season, the constructor name has become just BMW, with no mention of the Sauber name at all. This becomes BMW Sauber in 2008 and the same name is used in 2009. What happens after that is mentioned in the article, as the team continues to be known as BMW Sauber in 2010, in spite of BMW's withdrawal.

While teams and constructors are distinct entities (although not to the same extent as a few decades ago), taking these changes into account is important, at least in the constructors' championship tables each season (the constructor is currently listed as BMW Sauber in the 2006 and 2007 season articles).

There are also similar cases with some other constructors. The constructor previously listed as RBR-Renault became Red Bull Racing-Renault in the F1.com championship standings as well as TV graphics in 2011 (the only difference is that F1.com uses a hyphen unlike the TV graphics). Super Aguri Honda was sometimes listed as just Aguri Honda in the TV graphics although this variation is not used on F1.com. YuckieDuck (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In 2019 Sauber are renamed Alfa Romeo. So why are you not putting it in the Alfa Romeo in Formula One page. The reasons please? My Racer (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Information has been added RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2023 Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)