> $Revision: 2.144 $, $Date: 2008/04/15 23:56:13 $
>
> This FAQ is posted approximately twice a month. (The subject should be
> the same; if you do not want to retrieve it, kill the subject.) Between
> postings you can find a reasonably current copy at
> http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson/rasf1m.html. For more information
> about the operation of this newsgroup, and a nicely-formatted version of
> this FAQ, see the rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated website at
> http://www.rasf1m.net/.
>
> *NOTE* The FAQ has been split into two parts to avoid it being too long
> for some people's rules.
>
> This FAQ originated on rec.autos.sport.f1, where it was ably maintained
> through mid-2001 by Stephen M Baines. Special thanks to him, and
> thanks also to the following people who, amongst others, have had
> contributions culled to make the FAQ:
>
> Kim Andrews, Paul B, Sven Baumer, David Betts, Sergiusz Boron, Alessio
> Bragadini, Lord Tim Brent, St�nio F. Campos, Simon "Bumble Bee Boy"
> Cossar, Andrew Cosstick, Emma Crawley, GD, BF Dehay, Doug Farrow,
> Pete Fenelon, Ken Fletcher, Mark J Frusciante, Tony Gartshore, Alan Gauton,
> GD, Thomas Gmuer, Lutz Goerke, Paul Harman, Ian Hill, Mark Jackson, Jak,
> Alan Jones, Brian Lawrence, Jeff "Eskimo Joe", Olav K. Malmin, Julie Miles,
> Ciro Pab�n, Dave Parker, Jon Petersson, Barry Posner, Rob, Duncan Rollo,
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro, Martin Schmidt, Peter Scoular, Johan V,
> Mike Whooley, Paul Winalski.
>
> Apologies to anyone whose name was missed - it's not deliberate!
>
> The FAQ may not have answers to everything you need - it is just a
> collection of *frequently* asked questions and their answers, not the
> answers to everything ;-)
>
> Corrections and additions are especially welcome. I do try to keep up
> with the newsgroup, but to make sure of something being considered for
> the FAQ mail me at mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu.
>
> The FAQ is divided into several sections.
>
> This introduction (Part 1)
> 1. Rules, regulations and governing body (Part 1)
> 2. The teams and cars (Part 1)
> 3. The drivers (Part 2)
> 4. The races (Part 2)
> 5. The circuits (Part 2)
> 6. Television (Part 2)
> 7. Sponsors (Part 2)
> 8. Manufacturers (Part 2)
> 9. Technical stuff (Part 2)
> 10. Miscellaneous (Part 2)
>
>
> 1. Rules, Regulations and Governing Body
> ===========================================
>
> Q: Who is the governing body of Formula 1?
> A: The F�d�ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), headquartered
> in Paris (F) and whose president is currently Max Mosley. In 1904
> various national motor clubs organized the Association Internationale
> des Automobile Clubs Reconnus (AIACR) to run international motor sport
> (reserving control of national events for themselves). The AIACR first
> issued an international sporting calendar and regulations in 1908, and
> in 1922 formed a Commission Sportive Internationale (CSI) to formalize
> the oversignt of Grand Prix and other forms of international racing.
>
> The term Formula 1 came into use in 1947, when the AIACR reorganized
> itself as the FIA. The World Championship of Drivers was begun in 1950.
>
> Q: Where can I find the regulations to Formula 1?
> A: The FIA's web site has the technical and sporting regulations; see
> http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html.
>
> Q: What are the main changes for 2008?
> A: In March 2006 the World Motor Sport Council, anticipating the
> expiration of the Concorde Agreement (see below), approved
> far-reaching changes to the sporting regulations for 2008.
> Proposed changes to the technical regulations followed; after
> considerable struggle some modifications were put in place
> and most provisions were brought forward to 2007. During 2007
> further changes were announced from time to time by the FIA,
> some of which seem to have been invalidated by agreements
> reached with the teams in early 2008. Here's what remains:
>
> An FIA-standard engine control unit (ECU) will become mandatory,
> enabling (in principle) effective enforcement of a ban on launch
> and traction control systems. Gearboxes will have to last for
> four events, with a five-place grid penalty for early replacement.
> (Gearboxes are complex things. The regulations permit changing
> some components to get the right ratios for each track, and to
> repair damage; time will tell whether this is abused.) The first
> engine replacement of the season for each car will not result in
> the usual 10 grid position penalty - unless it takes place for
> the final race, in Brazil. Engine development is frozen for 5
> years (reduced from 10 years) relative to a reference engine the
> teams must hand over early this year. As a cost-reduction
> measure spare cars have been banned; a spare chassis can be
> brought to races but can only be built up as a replacement
> overnight. The third qualifying period has been shortened from
> 15 to 10 minutes and refueling afterwards has been banned, which
> eliminates the laps spent burning off fuel. (What was
> introduced to give the spectators more track time to watch is
> now judged unacceptably eco-hostile!) Unintended consequences
> in Malaysia (cars that made their last run before the absolute
> end of the session crawling back to the pits to save fuel,
> thus impeding and endangering others still on qualifying pace)
> led to the imposition of a minimum partial-lap time from
> Bahrain.
>
> "Customer" cars - one team using another's chassis - were
> supposed to be legalized, but the use of such cars in 2007
> by Toro Rosso and Super Aguri triggered litigation; this
> led to the abandonment of Prodrive's planned 2008 entry of a
> customer McLaren chassis.
>
> Q: Are further changes planned?
> Yes, but it's hard to be sure exactly what. Although the
> purported 2009 technical regulations have been on the FIA
> website since December 2006 their relevance is unclear,
> since during 2007 a number of proposals were floated,
> then revised or dropped. The most recent announcement -
> of limits on the use of wind tunnels and aerodynamic track
> testing and other restrictions on resources dedicated to
> computational fluid dynamics (CFD), rig testing, other
> technical development areas, and the number of personnel
> brought to races - ran into strong opposition and seems
> to be off the table. This was followed by reports of
> serious discussion of a budget cap - to which Ferrari
> is known to be opposed.
>
> It has been reported that all have agreed that every team
> must again be a legitimate constructor (no customer cars)
> by 2010; this leaves the status of Toro Rosso and Super Aguri
> somewhat uncertain in the interim. A negotiated solution is
> being sought before the arbitration set in motion last year
> by Spyker reaches court in July.
>
> Team announcements of their 2009 efforts indicate that there
> will be significant restrictions on aerodynamics (targeting
> a 50%% downforce rediction) and the introduction of a
> "Kinetic Energy Recovery System" (KERS) for which open
> choice of technology is promised. The grooved dry-weather
> tires used for several years are on the way out (Bridgestone
> is testing compounds and constructions for slicks); the
> elimination of tire-warmers is also planned.
>
> Q: What is the Concorde Agreement?
> A: The original Concorde Agreement (so-called because it was signed
> at the FIA headquarters on the Place de la Concorde in Paris)
> was between the Formula One Constructors Association (FOCA)
> and the F�d�ration Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA).
>
> FISA, reorganized from the old CSI by Jean-Marie Balestre after
> he became its chair, was the arm of the FIA involved in
> sanctioning motor sport and had direct sanctioning responsibility
> for F1. FOCA was, as its name implies, an organization
> representing most of the F1 teams (but not all of them--Tyrrell
> and, I think, Ferrari were not FOCA members). Its president was
> Bernie Ecclestone, then owner of the Brabham F1 team.
>
> Through the 1970s the FIA had gradually allowed FOCA to
> take a greater hand in the financial, promotional, and
> organizational aspects of the F1 Championship. By 1980
> FOCA was organizing the races and the FIA's role was limited
> to rules-making and officiating. When Balestre took over
> as head of the CSI he set about trying to get control of F1 back
> from FOCA. FOCA baulked at some of Balestre's proposed rule
> changes, particularly the ones limiting ground effects, and
> a very ugly dispute ensued that threatened to split the sport.
> (One race was boycotted by the FOCA teams; another, organized
> by FOCA, was excluded from that year's Championship.)
> The sponsors and manufacturers (engines, tires, fuel) had the
> last say and forced both sides to hammer out the Concorde
> Agreement, which covers the whole financial and organizational
> side of F1 racing, rules stability, collection and distribution
> of monies, etc.
>
> FISA is no longer, its duties now being performed by the FIA's
> World Motor Sports Council. FOCA has evolved into Bernie's
> complex of companies; see "Who owns F1," below. Since the
> original Concorde Agreement there have been several revisions
> to it. In recent years the CA has required unanimous consent
> from the teams (almost impossible to obtain) or a couple of
> years' notice in order to change the regulations.
>
> The current, three-party version (FIA, Bernie, the F1 teams)
> expired at the end of 2007. In mid-January 2005 the FIA,
> Ferrari, and Bernie announced the signing of a revised Concorde
> Agreement, giving signatory teams a larger share of revenues,
> effective 2008-2012. Bernie gave the other teams an
> end-of-February deadline to sign on, which was ignored.
> Instead the remaining teams signed a memorandum of
> understanding with Bernie covering financial arrangements in
> mid-May 2006. Agreement between manufacturers and the FIA
> over governance and technical objectives was claimed by Mosley
> and BMW in November, and this was touted as having cleared the
> way for a fresh 3-way Concorde Agreement. However as of the
> beginning of the 2008 season such had yet to be signed - and
> may not be, both because it may run afoul of European Union
> antitrust holdings and because Max may not want to continue
> restrictions on the FIA's rule-making powers. Bernie's
> people are reported to be working to unify the various
> interim agreements between FOM and the individual teams.
>
> Q: Where can I see the Concorde Agreement?
> A: You can't. It's secret, although some of its known or suspected
> provisions are described in this FAQ. More detailed speculation,
> and pointers to an alleged copy of the 1997 agreement divulged
> in 2005 by a certain motorsport newsletter, can be found at
> http://www.concordeagreement.com.
>
> Q: How much do the teams get for winning races?
> A: The FIA doesn't get involved in money, which is controlled by
> Bernie through what used to be called FOCA. I believe that the
> Concorde Agreement describes the "prize money" for each race,
> and I think there are payments for the leading teams at quarter,
> half, three-quarter and full distance. Maybe something for most
> laps led too?
>
> The revenue from TV rights is partially distributed to teams using
> a points system derived from historical performances. As I understand
> it points are awarded for:
>
> * Placing in the constructor's championship (last 3 years)
> * Number of years in F1 (1 year = 4 points, 10 years = 165 points
> [Ferrari 50 yrs = 1200 points])
> * Constructor's titles (25 points each)
> * Constructor's championship points (last 2 years x 2)
> * " " 2 (all-time / 10)
> * Number of wins (last 2 years, 10 points each)
> * All-time number of wins (1 point each)
>
> Teams with points get a proportional share of the money. There is
> also a separate pool of money distributed based on the previous
> years constructor's championship. The *size* of the total payout
> (reportedly 47%% of TV revenues, nothing from the sanctioning fees
> and other income realized by Bernie) was one of the issues behind
> the breakaway manufacturers' movement (see next question).
>
> Q: Who owns F1?
> A: The FIA owns Formula 1, but licensed the commercial rights
> through 2110 (yes, for over a century) to a complex of companies
> effectively controlled by Bernie Ecclestone. The actual structure
> was Byzantine; in discussing it /The Economist/ used the words
> "complex tax-avoidance scheme."
>
> The key elements were:
> * Formula One Management (FOM), owned by the Jersey company Petara
> * Formula One Administration (FOA), which owns Petara and is in turn
> owned by Formula One Holdings (FOH)
> * SLEC Holdings, a Jersey company (evidently named for Bernie's wife
> Slavica, who controls Petara) which owns FOH.
> * Bambino Holdings, another Jersey company controlled by the
> Liechtenstein-based Bambino Trust (whose beneficiaries are members
> of the Ecclestone family).
>
> A few years ago Bernie sold 75%% of SLEC for a very large sum,
> while retaining a 25%% stake through Bambino Holdings - as well
> as effective control through arcane directorship arrangements at
> FOM and FOA. Due to financial difficulties ownership of this 75%%
> passed through the hands of German media companies EM.TV and Kirch
> and, following the latter's default, to three creditor banks.
> The banks were unhappy with the return on their unwilling
> investment and lack of the control that usually comes with 75%%
> ownership; legal actions followed.
>
> In November 2005 Ecclestone and the British private equity firm CVC
> Capital Partners agreed to form a new company, Alpha Prema, which
> was to reunite the bank and Bambino holdings with
> Ecclestone continuing as chief executive of the F1 group. Details
> were then worked out with the banks, conditional approval was
> granted by the European Commission (CVS being required to divest
> itself of its interest in MotoGP), and in March 2006 the purchase
> was completed. As of that date:
> * the Formula One Group is still 100%% owned by SLEC
> * SLEC is 75%% owned by Speed Investments (the former bank holding
> vehicle); and 25%% by Alpha Prema UK
> * 100%% of Speed is held by Alpha Prema UK
> * Alpha Prema UK is 100%% owned by yet another Jersey-based holding
> company, Alpha Topco
> * Alpha Topco is 75%% owned by CVC Fund IV and 25%% by Bambino Holdings.
>
> 2. The teams and cars
> =====================
>
> Q: When was the last time a privateer won a race?
> A: The last privateer to win a GP was either Jo Siffert in the Walker
> Lotus-Ford at Brands Hatch in 1968, or Jackie Stewart in the Tyrrell
> March-Ford in Spain in 1970. (Although Tyrrell bought both chassis
> and engine that season some feel that the support he was receiving from
> Ford, Elf, and Goodyear place him at least among the semi-works ranks.
> It's a judgement call, there being no official body empowered to bless
> privateership.)
>
> There has never been a privateer World Champion. Moss came closest in
> the Rob Walker-entered Cooper in 1959 when he finished third. Walker
> was the first privateer entrant to win a World Championship Grand Prix
> with Moss in a Cooper-Climax, in the 1958 Argentine Grand Prix.
>
> The Mugen-Honda engine used by the 2000 Jordan was a factory engine
> in all-but-name. The last World Champion to use an off-the-shelf
> engine was Keke Rosberg (1982, Williams-Ford).
>
> Q: Who owns which team?
> A: BMW Sauber - The former Sauber was restructured, if not
> fully renamed, in 2006 as the factory team for
> BMW, which holds the controlling stake.
> Ferrari - Piero Lardi Ferrari 10%%, the FIAT Group 85%%, and 5%%
> by the government-owned Mubadala Development Co. of
> Abu Dhabi.
> Honda - Honda.
> McLaren - TAG McLaren is 40%% owned by Daimler A. G., 30%% by
> the Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company, and 15%% each
> by Ron Dennis and TAG Group S.A. (Mansouer Ojjeh).
> Red Bull - (formerly Jaguar, ne� Stewart) Dietrich Mateschitz's
> Red Bull energy drink company.
> Renault - Renault.
> Scuderia Toro Rosso (formerly Minardi)
> - Dietrich Mateschitz's Red Bull energy drink company
> 50%%; Gerhard Berger 50%%. A new owner is being sought
> before 2010, when the "synergy" used to justify Toro
> Rosso running, essentially, the current Red Bull
> chassis with a different engine will be banned.
> Force India - (recently Spyker, formerly MF1 Racing, ne� Jordan)
> Orange India Holdings, itself equally owned by
> Strongwind (an investment company controlled by
> Michiel Mol) and Watson Ltd. (owned by Indian
> businessman Vijay Mallya)..
> Super Aguri - Aguri Suzuki and Fumio Akita, who are in the
> process of selling to the Magma Group, a London-
> based automotive consultancy. Financial backing
> from Dubai is suspected but not confirmed.
> Toyota - Toyota.
> Williams - Frank Williams and Patrick Head (said to be 80/20).
> Heavy sponsorship involvement by the Baugur Group
> has sparked rumors that they have taken an ownership
> position as well, but this has not been confirmed.
>
> Q: Who is supplying engines to which team in 2008?
> A: BMW Sauber - BMW [F]
> Ferrari - Ferrari [F]
> Honda - Honda [F]
> McLaren - Mercedes [F]
> Red Bull - Renault [C]
> Renault - Renault [F]
> STR - Ferrari [C]
> Force India*- Ferrari [C]
> Super Aguri - Honda [C]
> Toyota - Toyota [F]
> Williams - Toyota [F]
>
> [F] Factory [C] Customer
> *formerly Spyker F1
>
> Q: What happened to Prodrive?
> A: Anticipating the expiration of the Concorde Agreement (see above),
> which restricted participation in F1 to true constructors, the
> FIA abruptly opened entries for 2008 for the week of 24 to 31
> March, 2006. Twenty-two applications were received; the official
> entry list, announced by the FIA on April 28, consisted of the
> current 11 teams plus Prodrive (Dave Richards, former BAR and
> Benetton principal). The Prodrive entry, however, was predicated
> on the legality of "customer" cars - they negotiated with McLaren
> and others for a 2008 supply - and the ongoing legal questions over
> the 2007 Toro Rosso and Super Aguri entries, and the failure to
> agree on a new Concorde agreement permitting this for 2008,
> caused Richards to announce that Prodrive would not compete as
> scheduled.
>
> Q. How much does each team spend per year?
> A. Estimates are all that are available, and of course they vary. The
> March 2006 issue of /F1 Racing/ gave the following breakdown for
> 2005 (all figures in millions of US dollars):
>
> R&D WT Man. Eng. T&A Tests Races T-Sal D-Sal
> C.E. Total
>
> ===============================================================================
> Ferrari 26.60 15.55 1.80 150 19.46 75.75 37.28 51.04 46.50
> 9.00 432.98
> Toyota 63.40 13.14 2.80 180 12.97 77.50 29.71 68.53 39.50
> 11.50 499.05
> McLaren 45.66 15.93 1.99 140 14.05 65.86 25.33 62.23 40.00
> 8.50 419.95
> Williams 22.50 14.91 1.65 137 10.05 74.50 27.46 57.05 5.00
> 10.00 360.12
> BAR 33.40 11.62 1.37 170 8.53 54.00 23.24 40.70 10.25
> 7.05 360.16
> Renault 18.09 9.06 1.92 115 8.10 44.00 25.09 41.08 18.25
> 6.50 287.81
> Sauber 15.03 11.71 1.75 26 7.70 27.50 24.03 39.60 4.50
> 3.50 161.32
> Red Bull 13.48 6.78 1.25 18 5.72 37.50 19.51 23.78 2.50
> 10.70 139.22
> Jordan 12.20 5.10 0.80 15 4.86 26.50 21.34 16.50 0.50
> 1.40 104.20
> Minardi 0.45 3.40 0.75 10 2.47 10.00 10.25 12.24 0.35
> 0.40 50.31
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 250.81 107.20 16.08 961 93.91 493.11 243.24 413.47 167.35
> 68.55 2814.72
>
> (WT = wind tunnel, Man = manufacturing, Eng = engines, T&A = travel and
> accomodation, T-Sal = team salaries, D-Sal = drivers' salaries, C.E. =
> corporate entertainment)
>
> For comparison, /F1 Racing/'s team totals for 2004 and 2003:
>
> Ferra Toyot McLar Willi B.A.R Renau Saube Jagua
> Jorda Minar
>
> ============================================================================
> [2004Tot $2493] 418.2 368.5 359.2 359.0 309.9 255.2 154.6 141.9
> 79.92 46.58
> [2003Tot $2141] 443.8 290.4 304.6 353.3 225.1 206.8 119.5 78.8
> 79.20 39.60
>
> Q: Is it true that there was a 6-wheel F1 car that won a race?
> A: The Tyrrell project 34 had small, 10 inch diameter front wheels
> that could be completely hidden behind the front cowling then
> in common use on F1 cars. This removed the front wheels from the
> airstream and thus reduced drag significantly, resulting in the
> car going faster. The problem was that the tiny front wheels
> didn't provide enough surface area for proper braking. The way
> around this was to use 4 front wheels instead of the usual 2.
> The car was pretty successful in its first year and actually won
> at Anderstorp (Swedish Grand Prix 1976) for Jody Scheckter, with
> Depailler second. It was less successful in 1977 because the
> more complicated 4-wheel front suspension assembly added a lot
> of weight, and Goodyear wasn't keeping up on tire development of
> the 10" tires. Tyrrell went back to a conventional, 4-wheel car
> the next year. Pictures at http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/tyrp34.htm
> and http://www.evil-photographer.com/cars/tyrrell/P34/P34.htm.
>
> March also made some experiments with a 6 wheel car in 1977.
> The 2-4-0 (from rail locomotive terminology) sought increased
> traction by having a second set of rear wheels behind the first.
> Design and construction were very informal, development nonexistent
> (most running was done with only one set of rear wheels driven to
> avoid cracking the inadequate gearbox casing), and the car never
> competed; a successor machine did win several British hillclimbs
> in 1979 with Roy Lane at the wheel. Photo at
> http://www.geocities.com/simontmallett/240march1.html.
>
> Williams produced a 6-wheel variant of their FW08 in 1982, of
> similar layout to the March. The idea this time was to extend the
> area under the car available to venturi tunnels and to allow the
> rear wing to be mounted further back on the car. Cars were
> built and tested, but right about the time that they were ready
> to race the FIA came out with new regulations restricting F1 cars
> to 4 wheels mounted on 2 axles, so it never raced for the FIA World
> Championship. The cars still exist and have appeared in several
> historic races. Photo at
> http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/689-1.jpg.
>
> Q: Is it true about a "fan car"?
> A: The Brabham BT46B, which Niki Lauda drove to victory in the
> 1978 Swedish GP.
>
> This was an idea borrowed from Jim Hall's Chaparral CanAm cars.
> The idea was to put skirts on the sidepods to seal the undercar area,
> then to mount an extractor fan at the back to remove
> the air under the car, thus sucking it down onto the track.
> To get around the "moveable areodynamic device" ban, Brabham
> claimed that the fan was there to help cool the engine.
>
> Whilst this wasn't false, it wasn't the full reason behind the
> fan; the car actually squatted down onto the track if you
> blipped the throttle while it was stationary.
>
> But its biggest problem was that it was very successful, so
> all the other teams protested. There was also one legitimate
> (IMO) concern--the fan tended to pick up debris from the track
> and blow it into the face of a driver following closely. In
> any event, the car was very soon banned by the FIA because the
> fan was ruled to be an aerodynamic aid not in a fixed position
> relative to the sprung part of the car.
>
> Q: Why were Tyrrell thrown out of the 1984 championship?
> A: This is from Autocourse:
>
> "In the afterglow of 1984's chase-the-McLaren story, the
> FISA-versus-Tyrrell affair still rankles as being as distasteful as it
> was ill-considered. Whether or not Tyrrell was plying his 012 cars
> with lead ballast during a late-race pit stop or - and this is more
> far-fetched - mixing additive to the water injected into the engine to
> ward off piston and valvegear failures has become a moot case. What is
> more relevant is not only the way that FISA conducted his trial - for
> example, introducing fresh evidence at an appeal hearing and barring
> Tyrrell from approaching expert witnesses who had analysed water
> samples for FISA - but also the severity of the fine. If Andrea de
> Cesaris and Niki Lauda have their practice times discounted on the
> days at Dijon and Dallas where the Ligier was found to be running with
> an empty fire extinguisher bottle and the McLaren declared to have a
> rear wing 2mm too wide, then excluding Tyrrell from the World
> Championship for infringements committed during Martin Brundle's gutsy
> drive to second in Detroit ranks as a kneejerk reaction of an
> inappropriate magnitude.
>
> But the decision was final, costing Tyrrell his FOCA membership and
> USD 1,000,000 in concessionary travel arrangements to transcontinental
> races. Underlying the season had been the backstage arguments over the
> proposed 195-litre fuel capacity maximum intended for 1985: to stick
> at the current 220-litre allowance required team unanimity - and Ken
> Tyrrell was the only dissenting voice. Naturally, after he was barred
> from the Championship, so 220 litres became a fixed part of the '85
> technical regulations, neatly, tidily and with no outward fuss."
>
> Q: Who won the constructors championship in the year....?
> A:
> 2007 Ferrari (I)
> 2006 Renault (F)
> 2005 Renault (F)
> 2004 Ferrari (I)
> 2003 Ferrari (I)
> 2002 Ferrari (I)
> 2001 Ferrari (I)
> 2000 Ferrari (I)
> 1999 Ferrari (I)
> 1998 McLaren (GB)
> 1997 Williams (GB)
> 1996 Williams (GB)
> 1995 Benetton (GB)
> 1994 Williams (GB)
> 1993 Williams (GB)
> 1992 Williams (GB)
> 1991 McLaren (GB)
> 1990 McLaren (GB)
> 1989 McLaren (GB)
> 1988 McLaren (GB)
> 1987 Williams (GB)
> 1986 Williams (GB)
> 1985 McLaren (GB)
> 1984 McLaren (GB)
> 1983 Ferrari (I)
> 1982 Ferrari (I)
> 1981 Williams (GB)
> 1980 Williams (GB)
> 1979 Ferrari (I)
> 1978 Lotus (GB)
> 1977 Ferrari (I)
> 1976 Ferrari (I)
> 1975 Ferrari (I)
> 1974 McLaren (GB)
> 1973 Lotus (GB)
> 1972 Lotus (GB)
> 1971 Tyrrell (GB)
> 1970 Lotus (GB)
> 1969 Matra (F)
> 1968 Lotus (GB)
> 1967 Brabham (GB)
> 1966 Brabham (GB)
> 1965 Lotus (GB)
> 1964 Ferrari (I)
> 1963 Lotus (GB)
> 1962 BRM (GB)
> 1961 Ferrari (I)
> 1960 Cooper (GB)
> 1959 Cooper (GB)
> 1958 Vanwall (GB)
>
> (The Constructors Championship originated in 1958.)
>
> --
> Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson