The F1 circus going to Bahrain on the FIA's orders despite this contravening the FIA's own Statutes (more detail in the "UniFacepalm" entry) for those who are interested) and then being further in breach due to one of Force India's hire cars being attacked despite safety reassurances from the FIA. This means the event technically doesn't meet Article 17 of the International Sporting Code any more. This in turn means that F1 cars can no longer partake of the race, if Article 5.2 of the Sporting Regulations is anything to go by. As such, there are two very good regulatory reasons why F1 cannot race in Bahrain.

In light of the above, the F1 race, by the FIA's own regulations, should not be happening at all. Therefore I intend to ignore all sporting aspects of the Bahrain weekend. There will be no live-commenting on Twitter or the Fisichella Forum (as I normally provide), nor will I comment on any aspect of any driver's on-track performance.

Discussions of non-sporting aspects of F1, and of non-F1 events, will continue as normal and appropriate.

I hope this is OK with everyone and apologise to anyone who is inconvenienced by this service interruption/boycott. Non-F1 items are unaffected by this boycott, and I intend to resume live-commenting F1 events in Spain and (possibly) the Mugello test beforehand, subject to the FIA not breaking any regulations in the course of going there.

First of all, sorry for the long absence. I've had a lengthy spell where everything I've wanted to write has been either live-commenting or small enough to fit in a tweet or two. Neither fits my blogging style. I'll try not to let 10-week absences happen again.

Fury ignited this entry. It's the ongoing situation in Bahrain. Up until now, it's been a matter of ethics and safety whether F1 goes or not. Thanks to the Bahrain organiser's actions, it's become a matter of regulations.

I speak of the "UniF1ed" campaign - something which apparently has been happening for a while but only came to my attention last night.  The organisers of the race may or may not have originated the campaign, but they are enthusiastically participating in it. Little do they appear to realise that they have endangered their race by doing so.

I draw your attention to the tagline "One Nation in Celebration". The pedants among you will deem this false - F1 is a worldwide event so, barring disaster, "Many Nations In Celebration" would be more accurate. The font used for it on the poster is difficult to read, but that's even more nit-picky. The big problem, however, is that it expresses a link between F1 and national unity. 

Linking F1 and national unity probably doesn't seem that big a problem. It may even seem close enough to pro-social and "sport is good" themes to be helpful. I can only assume that was what the organisers thought when they decided to go down that path. Unfortunately for them, Article 1 of the FIA Statutes (PDF), in wording combined with its application and the reason for its existence, indicates otherwise.

Article 1 of the FIA Statutes says, among other things:

"The FIA shall refrain from manifesting racial, political or religious discrimination in the course of its activities and from taking any action in this respect."

Many thanks to the Midweek Motorsports Listener Collective on Facebook, particularly with regard to finding an ad in the campaign that further demonstrates the link the organisers are making between F1 and politics.

You may be wondering why I am using "linking F1 and politics" as synonymous with the "racial, political and religious discrimination" actually mentioned in Article 1 of the FIA Statutes. This is down to two things: the way Article 1 has been implemented and the reason Article 1 is required to exist.

The most recent use of Article 1  was to convict the Turkish GP organisers (TOSFED) of using the 2006 podium ceremony for political gain. Mehmet Ali Talat presented one of the trophies. This in and of itself wasn't a breach of Article 1. Had he been described as the regional governor of Turkish Cyprus, everything would have been fine (except for possible grumblings within Cyprus and Turkey). However, he was described as the head of state of the Republic of Cyprus, a state not recognised by the UN but is recognised by Turkey. That was deemed a breach of Article 1 of the FIA Statutes and of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code. This was for a one-off incident that was relatively subtle in its political aims and, importantly, did not connote political discrimination, only express a controversial political point. 

Yes, part of the fine was for Article 151c, but a more significant breach of Article 1 would be sufficient for any penalty the FIA has to be levied. The "UniF1ed" campaign is clearly not a casual breach, nor is it a question of tick-boxing. Article 35 b) specifically mentions that any club not acting according to the expectations of the FIA (including by breaking any of the Statutes) can be struck off the roll. That is to say, the entire club and all associated activities can be dissolved. Obviously, this would include the very Grand Prix Bahrain was attempting to protect.

There is nothing in the Statute that requires a political statement to be true or demonstrable in order for it to be usable. Technically speaking, even explicit FIA approval wouldn't work, unless the message was specifically against racial, political or religious discrimination. "UniF1ed" isn't. Instead it is a message suggesting political unity already exists, which doesn't meet the exemption requirement. 

As for why Article 1 of the FIA Statutes exists, it's mandatory for non-political organisations registered in France. This is because anti-discrimination and apolitical approaches are considered key elements in the sorts of groups France allows to be registered with them. If the FIA overlooks a breach of Article 1, it is under serious risk of being sent to the French civil courts and penalised. Dissolution is entirely possible, as is a large fine and (at least partial) loss of its autonomy over judging its own motorsports events.

That would open the door to everything from pitlane speeders to technical flouters to use the civil courts to challenge every single decision the FIA makes. Motorsport would grind to a halt. That assumes a lack of dissolution - that scenario would obviously have a serious deletrious effect on every branch of motorsport, including ones that never in a million years considered going to Bahrain.

Clearly none of this is in any motorsport fan's interest. It certainly doesn't help Bahrain organisers any! 

There is no longer any need to reference political strife or anyone's safety to justify not going to Bahrain. Regulations now demand refusal to race - and refusal to support the race. Many have suggested this be done in the form of a boycott.

Thanks to the combined efforts of Sky (inaccessible, unaffordable and unethical) and BBC Radio (unintelligible in the races), I won't have a choice about watching the race. The most I'd have been able to do was follow it on Twitter. Having already had the difficult bit taken out of my hands, I am quite happy to boycott the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix completely. The powers-that-be have already demonstrated they don't care about viewer figures due to sending the UK live rights to Sky, so I doubt the boycott will achieve anything. 

For that matter, I'm not convinced the situation is safe enough to enable a viable attempt to hold the 2012 Bahrain GP. If inviability makes for a race cancellation on force majuere (which incidentally has to be done by the FIA if there is to be a Bahrain 2013), that would be helpful in the short term.

The breach of Statute would make the validity of copyright use of "F1" within "UniF1ed" questionable too. The licence the organisers have to include F1 in their marketing would surely not include uses in materials breaching the regulations, particularly ones underpinned by law. Some of the cases Bernie has lost on the topic mean there is not sufficient evidence for certainty in either direction. Even so, that wouldn't be Bahrain's biggest likely problem.

Its biggest problem in that scenario is that Bahrain would likely lose the race... ...on account of there being no viable authority to contract the race from in the first place. 

For these reasons, it is wrong to support a race that's being used to support political strife in contravention of Article 1 of the FIA Statutes. As in, it's such a big contravention that, at minimum, the FIA will lose its ability to be the first and final place of judgment for matters involving its own series (everything would have to be made subject to the French civil courts). The French courts are rather sensitive about the whole "no politics" thing for non-political organisations. The moment Bahrain's organisers issued the "UniF1ed" ad campaign, it was in contravention of the regulations. That the FIA has (so far) let that campaign go ahead without comment is contemptible and puts the FIA - and every single series it runs, including those who'd never have gone to Bahrain in a million years - in a very vulnerable position.

It's in F1's and the FIA's interest not to wait for force majuere to come into effect, but to protect themselves by cancelling on the grounds of FIA Statute Article 1 breaches.

Until then... ...I don't see why I should have to applaud or condone the FIA's attempted self-destruction.

- Snacks (several bars of chocolate and a flapjack) ready

- Support gear (Fisichella/Force India T-shirt, Force India wristband, Jordan hat, Force India/Jordan lanyard) on

- Reading material (lots of it...) to hand

- Drink (litre of orange squash) next to my computer

- White earphones applied to speaker and ears

- Computer activated

- Unnecessary software turned off

- Paint activated in case anything screenshot-worthy happens 

- Main browser open with 2 instances of Twitter, 2 instances of Fisichella Forum, LCMB, Radio Le Mans, translation software and a few spare browser windows

- Secondary browser open with 2 instances of Grand-Am (defaulting to live timing)

- Comfy chair with cushion found

- Cleaning cloth ready

- Me ready for 24 hours of fun 

Here is a primer for the 24 at Daytona this weekend (also known as the Rolex 24 Daytona in deference to the provider of the traditional* prize of a watch to class winners).

Where can I watch/listen to it?

Motors TV and Speed have TV coverage for Europe and the USA respectively. Magnus Racing (one of the GT teams, running car #4) will have an on-board camera accessible via the internet all race. Please consult your TV listings if you live elsewhere and post if you are in a position to augment or correct my information.

Where is it?

The race is held at a tri-oval with infield section called the Daytona International Speedway, in Florida, USA. It is 5 hours behind GMT. The track is 3.56 miles long, with very fast corners (aided by the 31-degree banking) and somewhat trickier (but still fast) final sector.

How old is it?

The 24 at Daytona celebrates its 50th birthday this year, having run a race every year since 1962. It has "only" been 24 hours long since 1967, which is still long enough to be considered one of the three races in the Triple Crown of endurance racing (albeit Petit Le Mans is sometimes substituted for it).

Points situation?

It's the first race of the Grand-Am season, so nobody has any points at the moment. Many of the entries have no intention of completing the whole season, but some will complete the 13-race calendar. For those doing so, the points on offer go from 35 for the winner to 1 for 30th place. Only finishing positions score points.

Who and what is in it?

The entry list is divided into prototypes (which are all a Grand-Am specific class called Daytona Prototypes) and GT cars (which are also a Grand-Am specific class, similar to GT3s in performance level). It's a very long list, so I will simply provide a link to the full list and highlight some names who may do well.

Prototypes

#01 Chip Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates, BMW-Riley (Hand, Pruett, Rahal, Rojas)
#02 Chip Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates, BMW-Riley (Dixon, D Franchitti, McMurray, Montoya)

Chip Ganassi has raced at Daytona for 7 years, with Scott Pruett having been there since the beginning. It won the 24-hour race last year as well as in 2007 and has three championships under its belt in this series. It is difficult to find any weak link in this team, though Corvette is providing strong competition.

#2 Starworks Motorsport, Ford-Riley (Hunter-Reay, Kanaan, M Potolicchio, Scala, Viso)
#8 Starworks Motorsport, Ford-Riley (Dalziel, Luhr, McNish, Popow, E Potolicchio)

Starworks is running a pair of grandfathered cars this year, in contrast to the likes of SunTrust (car #10) who have a 2012-spec car. In testing, the #2 had the fastest grandfathered car in the "Roar Before the 24" test. Allan McNish of Audi is in #8, while the #2 car is full of Indycar stars.

Sadly the #2 StarWorks has since been withdrawn.

#10 SunTrust, Corvette DP (Taylor, Angelelli, Briscoe)

By some margin the fastest prototype overall (though not the holder of its fastest lap), SunTrust has clearly learned the Daytona circuit well. Keep a close eye on SunTrust as it is arguably the strongest contender for the overall win.

#60 Michael Shank Racing with Curb-Agajanian, Ford-Riley (Allmedinger, Negri, Pew, Wilson)

Like the #2 Starworks, this car is full of Indycar experts. Michael Shank Racing has previously qualified on pole in Daytona, back in 2008.

#76 Krohn Racing, Ford-Lola (Braun, Jonsson, T Krohn, Zonta)

Nic Jonsson turned the fastest lap of the "Roar Before the 24" test, suggesting that Krohn will be extremely quick in qualifying. He and Tracy Krohn teamed up to great effect in the GTE-Am class of ILMC last year, while Ricardo Zonta is an ex-F1 driver.

GT cars

#03 Extreme Speed Motorsports Ferrari 458 (Brown, Cosmo, Sharp, van Overbeek)

It's the first time the Ferrari 458 has been used at Daytona and it is proving to be a very quick car in Daytona configuration. Ed Cosmo produced the fastest GT lap of the final day. Extreme Speed hasn't done Daytona before but it is already a very strong prospect.

#45 Flying Lizard Motorsports with Wright Motorsports, Porsche GT3 (Bergmeister, P Long, Neiman, Rockenfeller)

Last year, Flying Lizard took overall pole and second place in the race with a prototype. In GT they will be with a car they are even more familiar with, making them a big threat for the top positions. Mike Rockenfeller will be familiar to most sportscar fans from his work at Audi. His talents will be complemented by Joerg Bergmeister and Patrick Long, who drove commendably for Flying Lizard in ILMC last year. The weak link is likely to be Seth Neiman, but even so, car #45 should not be lightly discounted.

#48 Paul Miller Racing, Porsche GT3 (Bell, Maarsen, Miller, Wilkins)

Rob Bell impressed enormously at JMW last year and his addition to the squad will help it a lot. The others are experienced at Daytona. Expect car #48 to run quietly under the radar and surprise with a good result at the end of the race.

#51 APR Motorsport, Audi R8 Grand-Am (Baas, Canache, Norman, Pirro, Moltke)

APR Motorsport has two things in its favour; the Audi R8 (as a new car to this category, a surprise could be sprung) and the evergreen skill of Emanuele Pirro. The car will probably run in the back half of the grid most of the time but have some spectacular stints from Pirro to enliven the race.

#55 AF Waltrip, Ferrari 458 (Augas, Kauffman, Pastrana, Waltrip)

European powerhouse AF Corse and Michael Waltrip team up with 24H Le Mans team-mate Rob Kauffman. Expect Rui Augas, who raced well in GTE-Am ILMC last year, to be quick. It is not yet clear how fast Travis Pastrana will be, but this year is mostly a learning experience for the AF Waltrip alliance.

#59 Brumos Racing, Porsche GT3 (Davis, Haywood, Keen, Lieb)

Brumos is a highly experienced squad, with all four of its drivers having done the race in its car last year. They carry the confidence born of winning the Grand-Am championship last year. Marc Lieb is one of the fastest GT drivers in ILMC and Leh Keen is doing very well in GTC. Hurley Haywood is doing his 40th and final Daytona, so it would be good to see him and his team-mates have a great race to remember.

#62 Risi Competizione, Ferrari 458 (Bruni, Fisichella, Matos)
#63 Risi Competizione, Ferrari 458 (Beretta, Bertolini, Vilander)

Risi Competizione hasn't visited Daytona in over a decade, not that anyone would have known from looking from the timesheets. Toni Vilander produced the fastest GT lap of the entire test. The Risis have been slightly inconsistent, but much of this is due to three of its six drivers having never driven in a Daytona race before. By race day, expect both cars to be up there with the best. Each car is only going to use three drivers in a race that normally uses four, but everyone in the squad is experienced either with Daytona or Le Mans' 24-hour races, so fatigue shouldn't pose a significant problem.

#64 TRG, Porsche GT3 (Ardagna, Costobal, Da Guida, Orjuela, Salazar)
#66 TRG, Porsche GT3 (Farnbacher, Keating, Pilet, Simonsen)
#67 TRG, Porsche GT3 (Bertheau, Bleekemolen, Goosens, Henzler, Pumpelly)

The record of TRG is excellent at Daytona. They've put 5 cars into the race, 3 of which are likely to be of particular interest. The #66 TRG has got the core of the old Spyker GT2 team in its driving squad, plus Patrick Pilet from the IMSA Performance Matmut team. This balanced squad should help it do well in the race. The #67 TRG also has a high-quality driver line-up, ranging from Jeroen Bleekemolen (one of the stand-out talents in GTC last year) to Wolf Henzler, who was in a huge variety of GT races last year and did respectably well in all of them. While the #64 TRG probably won't be as quick as either, it does feature ex-F1 racer Eliseo Salazar.

#70 Speedsource, Mazda RX-8 (Bomarito, M Franchitti, Hinchcliffe, Tremblay)

Marino Franchitti knows sportscars well and will be the key to this car's speed. Promising Indycar driver Jamie Hinchcliffe has joined in and the other two drivers are experienced with the Mazda RX-8. They've looked pretty good throughout the "Roar Before the 24" test.

#88 Autohaus Motorsports, Camaro GT.R (Edwards, Marsh, Milner, Taylor)

Autohaus is a strong team that came 2nd in the Grand-Am championship last year. The only car out of those I've highlighted to be using the Camaro GT.R, the balanced line-up is likely to be strong.

#93 Turner Motorsport BMW GT3 (Auberlen, Dalla Lana, Marsal, D Muller, J Muller)
#94 Turner Motorsport BMW GT3 (Auberlen, Dalla Lana, Johnson, Said, Werner)

While there are BMWs in the prototype race, this is the place to look for the drivers who previously competed in the ILMC and ALMS series. There is a lot of talent here. Granted, many of the drivers don't have Daytona experience, but they are all likely to learn the ropes quickly. Also, the Auberlen and Dalla Lana mentions are not typos; in Grand-Am, drivers are allowed to swap cars if entered for both, provided drivers doing so only take points for the first car they drove out of those listed.

* - I say "traditional" but it's only been awarded since 1991, the point where Rolex began the sponsorship.

LCMB is back in action after my off-season sort-of-break. Given that the off-season is especially short this year (for me, it started after the 6 Hours of Rome race in the second week of Dember and ends this Wednesday with the start of the 24 at Daytona weekend), I thought it important to relax a bit, do some planning and simply enjoy being part of the off-season "motorsports fan" scene. (Also, I've been playing Civilization III and watching Star Wars: Clone Wars a lot).

First of all, the annual blog tradition of sifting through the new regulations. This entry will deal with the technical regulations while other entries will handle the sporting regulations and assorted other changes. If you don't have any of the latest F1 documents yet, I strongly recommend you wander over to fia.com and download yourself copies. If nothing else, they will help you link the comments I make here to what is recorded by the powers that be.

Contents

The font has been changed to something more rounded, with more width and slightly wider kerning. This is the main reason why the Technical Regulations are 5 pages longer this year (77 as opposed to 2011's 72) despite removing an entire Article.

The contents section for the Technical Regulations has been altered slightly. There are now page spreads for each Article, just like the Sporting Regulations have had for years. This is a good idea for navigation purposes.

Also a good idea is that the Article headings in the contents are now in bold. Hurrah!

Article 5 has new headings: Article 5.5 is re-labelled as "Engine torque demand" instead of "Engine throttles" while new sections are in place for Engine Control and Engine High Rev Limits.

Article 9 now covers "Gear changing" as a separate section within the topic as Article 9.8.

Article 12.7 is no longer called "Tyre gases" but "Treatment of tyres".

Article 18.9 has had its heading slightly changed to reflect the fact that there are now multiple "Side impact push off tests".

Article 21 was about changes for 2012. It has been removed, but I will discuss which of those changes actually happened towards the end of this entry.

Article 1 (Definitions)

The reference to Drawing 6 in Article 1.15 is no longer capitalised. Yes, this is completely trivial but it indicates a change in the house formatting at the FIA. Proofreading geeks like me thrive on this sort of thing.

Article 3 (Bodywork)

Article 3.7.9 bans any bodywork more than 19.5 cm ahead of the cockpit opening from being more than 55 cm above the reference plane. In practise, this is likely to force all aerials and similar devices on cars to be in that 19.5 cm area, because most drivers have legs longer than 19.5 cm (meaning the bodywork of the car cannot be dropped significantly below the 55 cm limit to accommodate aerials/devices).

The area defined by Article 3.8.4 is being treated slightly differently. The size of the area itself is the same as the 2011 regulations. It covers the area behind the cockpit which is above a certain height (anything from 10 cm to 67.5 cm, depending on which part of the area) and a certain amount away from the car's central lengthways line (between 2.5 cm and 35 cm, depending on the area) and can be summarised as "the area around the sidepods and around the engine cover top surface". In 2011, this area could have as many gaps as desired for things like exhausts to poke through. Now, cars may only have one per suspension member to ban top-exiting exhausts.

Article 3.10.1 now allows multiple sections to be in the area 15 cm or more behind the rear wheel axle, between 15 cm and 73 cm above the reference plane and between 7.5 cm and 35.5 cm from the central lengthways line. There is a proviso however - the sections must be purely vertical because there can still only be one section horizontally. The effect is that provided the left and right of that area of the car is the same, there is more freedom in the rear wing area of the car in terms of bodywork.

Article 3.10.2 allows similar freedom with any part of the rear wing over 73 cm above the reference plane, specifically including gurney flaps.

Article 3.12.1 prevents any sprung parts of the suspension from interfering with the any part of the car described by Article 15.4.8. Since this is the survival cell covering, that seems like a good idea from a safety perspective.

Article 3.12.6 was to be simplified. Instead of different tolerances being permitted on different bits of the bodywork when it comes to parts being visible from beneath the car, all measurements would be permitted a 3 mm tolerance (a reduction from the 5 mm allowed in some areas and an increase from the 0 mm allowed in others). The same tolerance would be applied to vertical measurements for anything above the step and reference planes. However, no tolerances are permitted for any other measurements for bodywork, which was previously the case.

Here I wish to highlight something which hasn't changed: Article 3.15, concerning compliance regulations for anything with an aerodynamic effect. This is because Lotus has recently had its reactive adjuster banned on this category of grounds. Had it been introduced in 2011, presumably it would have been banned on the exact same grounds as it was this week with regard to 2012.

Article 4 (Weight)

The requirement to have at least 291 kg of weight through the front wheels and at least 342 kg of weight through the rear wheels (leaving 7 kg that may be placed anywhere if the car is at its minimum weight) was originally meant to be for 2011 only, but has been extended into 2012 and 2013, with Article 4.2's wording changed accordingly.

Article 5 (Engines and KERS)

Article 5.5.1 requires that a single pedal be the only method of controlling engine torque, in order to stop fancy systems developed in 2011 from being used again. This pedal is officially known as the "accelerator". Before, the pedal was the only method of controlling throttle positions but nothing was said about torque. Due to the restrictiveness of the engine regulations, dropping all mention of throttle positions from the regulations does not create any new freedoms for designers.

Article 5.5.2 has been adjusted slightly because of the adoption of "accelerator" as the throttle pedal's new official nonemclature.

The rewording of Article 5.5.3 is wordy but really is a rewriting of the old requirement that the minimum and maximum pedal positions correspond to the engine's minimum and maximum capabilities, expressed in this new method of torque and accelerators.

What is new is Article 5.5.4. There are only two versions of accelerator mapping allowed now: dry and intermediate/wet-weather tyres. Before, 12 engine maps were permitted and the pedal could have its behaviour adjusted for any of them in whatever way teams wished. From what I can see, 12 engine maps still are permitted but there is more restriction on some parts of the maps than others.

Article 5.5.5 requires that a smooth increase in torque arises from increased pressure on the accelerator and vice versa. A smooth increase in accelerator pedal pressure is no longer permitted to produce an irregular increase in torque. This is followed by an Article (5.5.6) covering the minimum torque increase for each engine revolution speed increase, further restricting the performance qualities of the engine. In an environment of engine sorbet, it is difficult to see how this can be complied with if anyone is breaching the regulations. If they weren't breaching them before... ...what was the point of putting the rule in this year instead of in the new engine regime of 2014?

The accelerator signal must be acted upon by the engine within 0.005 seconds of the pedal being pushed into the appropriate position, according to Article 5.6.1.

Teams will be required to prove their engine configurations are accurate under Article 5.6.2, though under Article 3.2 of the Sporting Regulations, teams had to do that anyway.

The maximum engine torque must always be achievable using a given engine map under Article 5.6.3, though targeting may be used to prevent variance in that maximum (thus providing a small loophole).

The clutch cannot influence the ECU due to Article 5.6.4.

Engines are now forbidden from idling above 5,000 rpm as a result of Article 5.6.5. Idling that high seems odd behaviour for an engine, but one has to imagine there was a reason for it if the FIA needed to ban it.

Ignition-offsetting is permitted under Article 5.6.6 but the offset cannot be more than a fifth of normal, can only occur above 15,000 rpm and are only allowed to affect cylinder pressure. Other forms of engine protection are covered Articles 5.6.7 and 5.7. Those permitted at any time are:

- Air tray fire detection protection
- Throttle failsafe
- Stall protection (which indeed must activate within 10 seconds of the car stalling)
- Scenario-based protections (specifically neutral gear, clutch more than 95% active, bite point finder mode, the formation lap and Safety Car situations)

Engine protection is also allowed in practise for any reason or none. Otherwise, engine protections may only activate nine seconds after the scenario triggering them has begun, and only if that scenario has remained for the whole nine seconds.

In situations where engine protection is not permitted, ignition, throttle and fuelling can only be used to adjust rev response if the engine is within 1000 rpm of its maximum (which means 17000 rpm in the current scenario, but may change after the 2014 regulations are introduced). Presumably revs can still be adjusted with the accelerator, otherwise this will be a very short season.

Article 5.8 requires that fluids only enter the exhaust through leaks or the engine exhaust ports.

There may be no leaks in the exhaust itself, according to Article 5.9.1, and exits must must not pass through the engine cover or other upper bodywork (due to the bodywork regulations and Article 5.9.2 combined).

Any exhaust must finish with at least 10 cm of circular cylinder that is no more than 7.5 cm wide. The angle it must point upwards is between 10 and 30 degrees. The hole must be at the end of the exhaust (sounds obvious, but somebody would surely have exploited the loophole had it been left). It has to exit between 50 and 120 cm of the rear wheel axle. There also can't be any bodywork too close to the end of the exhaust.

The stall prevention system (Article 5.19) requires the clutch to be be diengaged until the driver activates it using at least 95% of the clutch travel. Gear changes are allowed in stall prevention mode only if the car is in 2nd gear or higher, and then only downshifts.

Article 8 (Electrical Systems)

The Appendix to the Technical Regulations now lists the only methods the FIA will accept to verify the software on a car, ECU set-up issues, wiring regulations and the homologation process for control sensors and actuators.

Article 8.2.3 demands that all wiring looms be approved by the FIA before use. Electronic components in the looms must be approved separately. Before, only the wiring loom's connections needed FIA approval.

Control and logging-only elements of wiring must be separated by the wiring loom.

Back-up sensors are banned from improving the performance of the car by Article 8.2.4. This would seem odd; if a sensor improved performance, wouldn't it be a first-line sensor anyway?

Somewhat more sensibly, driver defaults in instances where first-line sensors have failed must remain in default mode until the first-line sensor is available again.

Article 8.2.5 requires that pneumatic valve pressure is controlled by either the ECU or a passive mechanical device. Previously, any method was acceptable provided the ECU monitored the process. Said monitoring is still compulsory.

Article 8.3 states that the FIA will block some engine and clutch activities after starts and pit stops, much as it currently controls DRS activation and de-activation.

The FIA is now allowed unfettered access to rea-time telemetry data, anything logged by the telemetry system and application parameter configurations, due to Article 8.4. The format for sending telemetry to the FIA is standardised. If a team is asked to send telemetry data to the FIA, it must do so immediately. Teams must also provide a jump battery so that the FIA can use it, some cables and a laptop to check the car's on-board software at any time.

Logs can only be cleared during sessions if a FIA engineer grants permission, and must be capable of logging at least two hours and fifteen minutes of events without exceeding the memory (strangely, other technical limitations that could prevent comprehensive logging are not addressed).

Article 8.4.2 no longer requires complete isolation of logging and control sensors, only physical separation and electrical isolation. Telemetry units, power supplies not connected to any control devices, time/engine synchronisation lines and umbillical looms no longer need even that.

Only one device for grounding a car's electrical charge is now permitted, as a side effect of changes to Article 8.4.2's wording.

Juction and break-out boxes are specifically banned from team and ECU systems.

FIA approval is now required for anything linking one sensor on the driver's control interface (steering wheel, pedals and so on) to multiple ECU inputs.

The connections for the ADR are given in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

Article 9 (Transmission System)

The clutch can now only be automatically engaged in limited circumstances. These are when the stall prevention program is activated, during gearshifts, in bite point finder mode, drivetrain protection when not in a race start and in the garage. This is due to Article 9.2.5.

Article 9.2.6 means the clutch must be capable of going from fully activated to fully deactivated (or any other % of activation) within 0.05 seconds.

Clutch state must now be detected by the driver by his or her own faculties, as Article 9.2.7 bans systems that notify the driver that clutch slip or disengagement is happening.

The size of the "N" button label must now be at least 4 cm tall, with a black outline of at least 4 mm. Article 9.4 mandates this to make it easier for marshals to find the button.

There is a new section within Article 9 about gear changes. I'm pretty sure automatic gears were considered a driver aid as long ago as 1993, so how it only made it to the regulations in 2012 remains a mystery. Clutch and throttle aids during gear changes are allowed, however, presumably to avoid banning semi-automatic gearboxes by mistake.

Every gear has to be able to reach at least 100 km/h. This prevents deliberate use of short gears to aid starts and is required by Article 9.8.2.

Gear changes are not allowed after pit stops until the car reaches either 50 km/h or 90km/h (depending on whether the 60 km/h or 100 km/h limit is in use for that pit lane at that time).

Every gear must be accessible while the car is moving. That's been mandated for years to stop people from making non-functional reverse gears, so why does the 2012 regulations now feature a requirement under Article 9.8.3 making the minimum selectable gear fixed? Unless the FIA's trying to ban people from attempting to finish races with broken lower gears (some such drives, and even some unsuccessful attempts, have been great to watch, so it would be a shame if that was so).

Multiple gear changes are only allowed if going to neutral or activating an anti-stall routine.

The time taken for the complete process of upshifting (including but not limited to 0.05 seconds for signals to reach the ECU) is 0.2 seconds, while downshifts are allowed to take 0.3 seconds. If that is not possible, the gear change must be stopped, leaving the car either in its original gear or defaulting it to neutral.

Gearboxes are not allowed to take track position into account, which makes sense considering the driver is meant to control gear changes. (Note: everything in the last 4 paragraphs is from Article 9.8.3. It's a bit long).

Article 9.10.5 now requires an international sign for high voltage, 3 cm or more wide, to be used to indicate the KERS status light.

Article 10 (Suspension and Steering Systems)

Wheel tethers, as specified in Article 10.3.6, no longer have to be on opposite sides of the wheel they tether, as long as they're not in the same quadrant of it.

Article 10.5.3 bans suspension uprights from being more than 18 cm closer to the car centre line than the relevant axle. That would ban the uprights from extending far behind the front wheels or far in front of the rear ones. There would be no ban on them stretching well beyond the front of the front wheels or the back of the rear ones. They also could not extend more than 9 cm from the centre of the wheel in either direction.

Article 12 (Wheels and Tyres)

Article 12.7.3 forbids any method of heating tyres except resistive elements on the tyre surface. This has been the case since 2009, but has been moved from Article 25.3 of the Sporting Regulations to here.

Article 12.8 now allows wheel fasteners to be attached to the wheel. Hold on, they're saying it was previously against the regulations to use anything to hold the wheels onto the car (other than tethers)? How strange.

The power source for anything that fits or removes tyres can only be compressed air or nitrogen. Previously, any compressed gas was fine, but Article 12.8.4 reduced the options.

Article 14 (Safety Equipment)

The "E" inside the emergency button must now be at least 8 cm tall and 8 mm thick for ease of reading by marshals. Article 14.1.8 can be thanked for making

Article 18 (Static Load Testing)

Article 18.9.2 introduces a second static test on the survival cell. This will test the ability of the survival cell to withstand an impact from below, to a power of 10 Newtons. This should mean less shock being sent through the car when landing after a "take-off" and also when bounding through things like high-kerbed chicanes.

Article 19 (Fuel)

Article 19.4.5 has been amended in a complicated way. Hydrocarbons and oxygenates may now form part of the fuel without being quantifiable or of biological origin, but can only be counted as part of the 5.75% biomass requirement if they are both.

Article 20 (Television Cameras and Timing Transponders)

Two sections have been added to this Article. These require two cameras to have their views unobstructed by any kind of bodywork. These are the left-hand one on the nosecone (Article 20.3.4) and the one on the roll hoop (Article 20.3.5).

Which predictions for 2012 shall come true?

No, I'm not talking about the supposed end of the world. I refer to the statements made in the 2011 concerning what changes would appear in 2012. Let's see what came of those predictions:

Article 3.12.1

An area of the car described by Article 15.4.8 (the survival cell covering) would no longer be permitted to be connected to the sprung suspension. Sensible, and it happened.

Article 3.12.6 was to be simplified and this happened in the manner specified.

Article 8.7 made clear that there would be no circumstances where making driver radio accessible to broadcasters was not appropriate. It has happened as promised.

Article 10.5.3 would ban suspension uprights from being more than 18 cm closer to the car centre line than the relevant axle. That would ban the uprights from extending far behind the front wheels or far in front of the rear ones. There would be no ban on them stretching well beyond the front of the front wheels or the back of the rear ones. They also could not extend more than 9 cm from the centre of the wheel in either direction. This has happened.

Article 15.4.4 would ban the cockpit survival cell from being more than 55 cm higher than the reference plane. This has happened by implication because the cockpit survival cell must extend far enough to be hit by the blanket ban on bodywork above that height given by Article 3.7.9. In fact, the cell will need to be a bit lower than 55 cm above the reference plane because Article 3.8.6 bans the survival cell from being an outside surface - the thickness of the bodywork shielding would have to be taken into account. Then, in the area where higher bodywork is theoretically permitted, the cell still couldn't be raised because it would create problems for the driver exiting the car within the 5-second time limit in Article 13.1.4. Beyond the driver, there is no engineering reason why the survival cell would need to be higher.

Article 15.4.6 would control the areas where the survival cell could be wider than the minimum specified by the FIA in Article 15.4.4 (limits which themselves were not due to change). This has been quietly dropped.

Article 19.4.5 would clarify the definition of a hydrocarbon as being that given in Article 19.2 (a clarification that should not have been needed). It also makes the acceptance of hydrocarbons and certain kinds of oxygenates as part of the 5.75% biomass requirement for fuel conditional on their being quantifiable and verifiably of biological origin. This seems like a method of making F1 greener, or at least more rigorous, except that in the original 2011 regulations, that was a condition of those hydrocarbons and oxygenates being allowed in the fuel at all. So F1 fuel would go from being 100% biological origin (if not necessarily the full 5.75% biomass intended) to being 5.75% biomass and the other 94.5% possibly not even quantifiable, let alone anything else. This has been implemented in exactly that form.

Article 20.3.4 would require that bodywork does not obscure the direct line of sight for any on-board camera. Having components in the peripheral vision would be fine but the central bit of the camera would have to be able to see some element of the outside world. This could be rephrased as the "cameras must be useful" rule. It happened but only for two of the many cameras position the FIA is entitled to use.

Conclusions

Most of the changes promised in 2011 have occured, which is a welcome change from previous FIA policy. The typographical and layout decisions regarding the regulations have been well-judged. The relatively short list of changes includes a lot that are in the realm of software engineers, which could be a challenge to enforce. To its credit, the FIA has thought about that. It will be interesting to see how the clutch and engine lockouts play out and this will probably be the only significant controversy in the Technical Regulations changes this year.