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.

The FIA and VW have announced a partnership series called FIA Volkswagen Scirocco R-Cup, which will be for young female racers using cars powered by natural gas technology. Guess which of these two unique selling points ended up being the bigger topic of discussion.

If you guessed "natural gas technology"... ...your thinking is laudable from a technical perspective but you would be wrong. 

This blog entry started life as a comment at F1 Kate, which was in response to that announcement. The FIA is serious about doing something to encourage more women into racing, so it seems a good time to cover the obstacles that it faces in achieving that goal.

There are a number of barriers to women participating fully as drivers in motorsport. Removing them would benefit everyone. It wouldn't take affirmative action but it would take a lot of effort, and unfortunately for the FIA it can't directly make many of the necessary changes.

It's already broadened the age range in which one can transfer from karts to cars (it's now about 14-18 instead of being about 16-18), which indirectly resolved the problem where the initial swapover was at a bad time for young women hormonally (men have a similar effect in their late teens but by then they've generally got a working base from which to establish a career - or at least funding).

Overscrutineering is a problem, but that is likely to resolve itself as more women enter the system and succeed. Everything that is new and different gets extra scrutiny in the beginning, and a time will come when women are seen as neither.  

The biggest problems are the perennial issue of funding (which is even worse for women than men because companies perceive them as more of a risk due to lack of previous successful women) and societal attitudes, primarily at the family/close-friend level. Even places where broad societal expectation tends towards equal rights and responsibilities, individuals frequently do not live up to their society's expressed ideals in their day-to-day attitudes.

Men frequently find this statement strange. This is because male and female social circles, particularly in the pre-teen and early teenage situations, are very different. Prior to that age, girls and boys often mix to some extent, so the ambience of a friendship group tends to be more a reflection of who is in it than of any broad stereotype. However, at a certain point the two genders drift apart and form new social groups, partly composed of whoever of their own gender was in the friendship group before and partly with "outsiders". This is the time when girls and boys tend to orient their thinking more towards what they believe is the thinking of (young) women and men. This is shaped by a complicated mixture of the group's dominant individuals, people's interests and their accessibility, the available attractive role models, biology, cultural norms (at the broad ambient "macrosociological" level and, more so, the local "microsociological" level) and what sort of future is on offer for people with given skills, connections and attitudes.

It is beyond the scope of this blog entry to say exactly how all of these promote and demote the possibilities of a given individual getting the necessary social support (or at least avoid sufficient social antagonism) to make a decent attempt at motorsports in the critical teenage phase. However, it is within its scope to say that the ways immediate social networks function is important - and often different depending on gender.

Social groups of young men tend to be  wired towards being tolerant of "specialisms". Men often require less direct social interaction than women and are more tolerant of divergence. This is not to say they don't need any socialising time or that "anything goes". It means they are more likely to accept shared experiences that don't involve constant conversation as valid forms of socialising, and that when they do speak they are more likely to be primarily interested in what each other did rather than how they thought or felt about it. Actions are usually quicker to explain than thoughts or feelings. Furthermore, provided that certain specific group norms are kept, they often instinctively accept each member of the group being quite different. This means they bring different actions, experiences and skills to the group, which means each member of the friendship group brings different "specialisms". Depending on the particulars of the friendship group, these may get more or less detailed, but at the very least, you are apt to get get the leader, the sidekick(s), the comic, the "techy" one, the "cool" one... ...which means there's more likely to be space for "the speedy one" or "the racing one".

A lot of young women's friendship groups are different. Their role models, as encouraged by the dominant force(s) in the group, tend to be a lot more similar to one another than for men. Women tend to expect more direct socialisation, for friends to open their hearts and minds to other women. All this tends to lead to convergence, settling around a comfortable kernel of shared beliefs over a comparatively narrow range of subjects. Shared experiences tend to have to enable and encourage lots of conversation - but only over the same few topics. Having an opinion on the appearance or scent of something, or the suitability of some young man to some equally young woman, takes rather more common and less specific knowledge than having an opinion on, say, whether it's better to take a corner wide or tight... ...and in the typical young woman's friendship group, less specialism means more scope for mass participation and bonding, and therefore more attractiveness to the group.

Specialisms in studying are rarely much of a barrier because the time lost to studying would be lost anyway; arranging a group shopping experience when those going are all meant to be doing GCSE Maths class is a recipe for disaster and the desire for bonding does not preclude the acquisition of common sense, even among its most extreme exponents. Specialisms involving hobbies, especially ones that can't be indulged properly in school, are a much bigger problem from the social perspective.

A young man who decides to race is likely to be tolerated by his friends. Given the cultural approval given to young men in particular going fast, many friendship groups composed of young men would welcome having a "racer" among the group. A young woman deciding to race is likely to be distrusted by friends for having a dangerous desire to do activities that make the conversation-orientated group bonding process common among her likely friendship group difficult. It takes a strong woman who doesn't mind sacrificing their entire social group, an atypical social group that is less interested in conversational sense/gossip-related bonding or some means of making motorsport make sense to the typical young woman's social group. Atypical groups are by definition rare and the first option isn't promising for reasons discussed below, so progress in equality of opportunity most likely rests on the latter option - with the note that "making sense" is a matter of persuading the unconverted rather than changing the sport's essence.

For those suggesting that all women should simply sacrifice their entire social group, note that friends of young racers are often key to getting sponsors from outside the immediate family that are based on that individual racer. Without that, sponsorship of racers often comes down to pure commercialism - and junior racing only offers benefits to pure commercialism to companies willing to take a fair bit of risk that they have a future star on the books. Even a very successful racer in, say, Formula Ford will get little coverage at that level. Many risk-averse sponsors fail to look beyond past patterns when it comes to gender, meaning they do not consider the possibilities of the young woman in front of them the way they would when considering the possibilities of an otherwise-identical young man. This isn't particularly fair - 99.999% of men who hold a racing licence don't make it to F1, but if Joe Bloggs in front of a sponsor has excellent results, a sparkling personality and clear skills in both racing and marketing, a company inclined towards racing as a promotional tool will likely take him on. The broad statistic doesn't matter because the company's only sponsoring one driver. If that driver is the next Sebastian Vettel, or even the next Yuji Ide, that investment will pay off bigstyle.

If Jane Bloggs is there with the same results, personality and skills, the sponsor might consider it... ...but history suggests they'll lower their expectations according to historical expectations and either not sponsor her or expect her to market herself at least somewhat "stereotypically". This makes it more difficult to be taken seriously in a realm where ability, bravado and credibility are vital, which then leads to a downward spiral unless the young lady is lucky enough to be the next Danica Patrick.

A sponsor introduced via a friendly peer circumvents all or most of that. A sponsor linked to a young driver through friendship is more likely to see that person as an individual and make the sponsorship decision accordingly, which tends to result in more sponsorship anyway and a disporportionately positive increase in all kinds of non-traditional prospects. Yes, people with sponsors introduced via parents are the mainstay of sponsors,  You'd be surprised at how many young men have benefitted from having that sort of help... ...which they got because typical male social circles are more welcoming of specialist concentrations. A young female racer may or may not lose such a connection by dispensing with their peer friendships, but it does show that certain advantages in the vitally important commercial sector are being lost due to unequal indirect access to sponsors. The front door is equally open to all, but many of the deals done regarding racing are done through the tradesman's entrance, and due to microsociological pressures, the emphasis remains inadvertently on the man.

It's difficult to make progress if companies are being risk-averse and consider proven prior gender success as more important than individual results. 

It's even more difficult when friends tease, bully and ostracise because the racer is more interested in racing than studies and social fripperies (male social circles, especially in youth, tend to be much more tolerant of specialised dedicated interests than female ones).

If the family refuses to fund a girl to the same extent as it would an equally-talented boy, perhaps due to implicitly understanding the aforementioned microsociological pressures... ...then that girl might as well forget about becoming a professional racer (she'd be better off trying to become an engineer, business manager or even a team boss because those emphasise strengths that current cultural mores are more likely to let a girl acquire for herself).

The FIA needs to try to persuade people, one family and one friendship cluster at a time, to be supportive of the ambitions of their talented youth on an equal basis. It's already had experience of broadcasting messages intended to change societal and individual attitudes through its road safety work, so it should be well placed to persuade people of the benefits of equal access to the world of motorsport filtered primarily by merit and what such an attitude entails.

 Good luck, FIA. It's worthy work with potentially rich rewards.

In this entry, I log penalties after each race, primarily for figuring out who is on the path to a grid drop.

Each race, I will list steward's investigations as indicated on the FIA website and on other reputable sites. For each driver who has been subject to such an investigation, I will list how many reprimands (with "procedural" reprimands such as missing the driver parade in brackets), incidents attracting more than reprimands and investigations where no penalty was given. Reprimands are the lowest penalty the FIA can give, so there is no need for a "penalties less than a reprimand" category.



Try not to worry if you see your favourite driver with a long list of "investigations", for I intend to include any incident where they were cited in the investigation. It may be more helpful to think of it as a "trouble magnet" score than a "trouble causer" one. If your driver (or team) does not appear at all, they haven't been involved in anything that has attracted the stewards' attention so far.



Some penalties do not appear to be put onto the FIA website. As far as possible, I will track these too, linking to where I found out the infraction had occurred.



Teams aren't affected by this directly, but I decided to track their penalties too. Just because I felt like it. Also in the "just because I felt like it" category is the steward tracker, giving who's done how many races and where. Both start counting from the British Grand Prix.

Stewards this meeting:

Tom Kristensen, Garry Connelly and Farhan Vohra. This is distinctly odd as there should be four stewards each race. However, the FIA official documents had become locked before I was able to read them, so it's possible the fourth steward's identity simply wasn't recorded elsewhere.

Once this year:

 Nigel Mansell, Nicholas Deschaux, Lars Osterlind, Dennis Carter, Tom Kristensen, Garry Connelly and Farhan Vohra.

Incidents this race:

Speeding in pit lane

Involved: Lewis Hamilton

Penalty: Fine

Fuel not matching pre-race sample

Involved: Sebastien Buemi

Regulations cited: Article 19.8.3, Technical Regulations

Penalty: Qualifying times cancelled 

Collision between Paul di Resta and Nick Heidfeld (lap 1)

Involved: Paul di Resta and Nick Heidfeld  

Penalty: Drive-through for Nick Heidfeld (unserved due to incident below)

Collision between Nick Heidfeld and Sebastien Buemi (lap 11)

Involved: Nick Heidfeld and Sebastien Buemi

Penalty: 5-place grid drop for Buemi at the next race (Hungary) 

Driver penalty tracker:

Mark Webber

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (DRS FP1 - Britain)



Lewis Hamilton

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (Fine for speeding - Germany)

Investigations: 1 (DRS FP1 - Britain)



Jenson Button

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (Unsafe release - Britain)



Michael Schumacher

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (10-second stop/go for collision with Kobayashi - Britain)

Investigations: 0

Nick Heidfeld

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (collision with di Resta - Germany)

Investigations: 1 (collision with Buemi - Germany)



Kamui Kobayashi

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 2 (Unsafe releae & collision with Schumacher - Britain) 

Paul di Resta

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (collision with Heidfeld - Germany)

Sebastien Buemi

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 2 (Non-matching fuel & collision with Heidfeld - Germany)

Investigations: 0 

Team penalty tracker:



McLaren

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (€5000 fine for unsafe release - Button - Britain)

Investigations: 0


Sauber

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (€20000 fine for unsafe release - Kobayashi - Britain)

Investigations: 0  

A while ago, I blogged about the creation of the FIA Women & Motor Sport Commission's formation. Since then, it's kept a fairly low profile, until a couple of days ago. Now it has created a shootout for 13-15 year-old female karters, the winner of which will get a paid place in the Karting Academy Trophy series. Also, 10 young karters have been selected to participate in the first running of the shootout, on April 27/28.

Entries are by invitation only, with a selection of National Sporting Authorities nominating which of their karters meeting the necessary criteria (apart from the gender and age restriction, competitors must have an international kart licence of some description) would be best suited to the opportunity. This is a good idea as the NSAs are likely to have enough distance from the ground not to be influenced by false rumours that happen to have started near nomination day.  

Interestingly, 8 of the 10 competitors are European. This may be a function of the short notice given and subsequent difficulty in securing visas. Hopefully in future this scheme will be expanded so that female karters in underrepresented parts of the world get the same opportunity. 

The format is similar to the shootout for the FIA Academy for under-23 circuit and rally racers - two days of competition with the winner receiving the prize. The difference is that instead of there being 10 winners from 20, there will be 1 winner from 10. The odds are much lower, but with such short notice it would have been difficult to arrange for multiple winners (simply reducing the shortlist to more representative odds would merely have robbed competitors of a good opportunity to show their skills and gain confidence).

The winner will get three paid races and a test in the KF3 category, with the additional promise that things not included in the prize (accident damage, fuel, service team and testing tyres) will be cheap. This has got to be helpful, but one cannot build a season around three races. Presumably this is aimed at people who have already managed to get into the "bottleneck zone" without losing the funding, support or motivation needed to continue. Those who have encountered the start of the "bottleneck" prior to turning 13 will not be able to "save" their participation through this scheme, no matter how talented they are.

It's a good first step. The problem of low female participation driving racing cars may be largely cultural, but the surrounding culture is more likely to alter if people can see women succeeding - if not in getting all the way to F1, at least in breaking the bottleneck between the 14-year-old karters and the 16-year-old junior formula racers.

Script Frenzy Update: I've started a script for Script Frenzy this year. I got off to a great start and have managed 16 pages of prose. I estimate this will equal 32 pages of script. Just as well because I'm unlikely to get much done tomorrow due to a swimming gala. 

Contents

In Article 28, "Homologated parts" has been dropped from the title after being added in 2010. Seems quite odd, since I had expected there to be some homologated parts.

Article 16

The stewards have been granted wider-ranging powers under Article 16.2. Stewards may now issue post-race time penalties of any length for an incident under Article 16.2 c). Reprimands, exclusion from results and one-race suspension have also been included, though all three of these powers were already granted to the stewards under the International Sporting Code. The reprimands in particular were already commonly used. However, the one-race suspension has to be for the next event, which was not previously the case (before the suspension could be applied at any time, which was useful because it allowed time for teams to appeal against unfair uses of the power).

The only completely new power is the ability to issue post-race time penalties of any length. However, the new specifics of the suspension power worry me.

Article 20

A dramatic number of additions have been made to Article 20. In 2010, there was only one sentence: "The driver must drive the car alone and unaided". Now there are four paragraphs. Therefore the following actions have been formally banned:

- Actions that could hinder other drivers
- More than one blocking move per straight
- Leaving the circuit boundaries (defined as four wheels beyond the track edges, kerbs being outside the edges)
- Rejoining the track in a dangerous manner
- Rejoining the track having gained an advantage from leaving it
- Ignoring blue flags

Those of you who have been following F1 for a while will notice that all of those things were already prohibited. This is because they are in the International Sporting Code, with the exception of defining kerbs as not being part of the circuit (it's left to the interpretation of individual series). The additions strike me as pointless repetition.

Article 22

It has been decided that "chequered flag procedures must be respected" in testing. Technically speaking, testing isn't subject to the International Sporting Code, but red flag procedures already had to be respected. It's a sensible addition, but not one that's likely to change anything.

Article 23

There have been several changes of wording in Article 23.1 a) - "shall" has been changed to "will", the first "is" becomes the grammatically-improved "will be" and the second "is" also becomes "will be", which not only corrects the tense but also the number. Pedants everywhere will rejoice.

More importantly, Article 23.1 a) now says the "fast lane" in the pits cannot be more than 3.5 metres. In wider pit lanes, this will give the mechanics considerably more room in which to work.

Article 23.1 d) has a paragraph for the order in which cars should queue up out of the pits. They must queue up in the "fast lane" only, in the order they got there, and leave in the same order unless a car is delayed. It does not clearly answer the question of what happens if someone chooses to do a practise start.

The reference for the circumstances in which equipment can be left in the pit lane has been corrected in Article 23.1 h). It's permitted only if a car has to go to the pits between the pit lane closing and the start of the race.

An important change has been made to Article 23.1 j). Teams must provide a way of knowing when a car was released from a pit stop. This must be visible from the front of the car (implying that both the driver and the on-board camera must be able to spot this indicator). As a result, expect many fewer near-collisions in the pits and less work for the stewards to do when it comes to deciding who was wrong in the remaining cases.

Article 23.2 allows the pit lane to be closed for safety reasons. An example of when this might be done is if a car has broken down in such a way as to block the entire pit entry. Cars can still enter the pits, but only for essential and obvious repair work - perhaps to replace a puncture or a broken front wing. How that would work with the above example is unclear, but the power may still prove useful.

Article 25

Article 25.1 has been updated to indicate that the current tyre manufacturer (Pirelli) will be the sole supplier until the end of 2013.

Tyres will be considered used once they've left the pit lane according to article 25.4. Since that was already being applied in F1 on an informal basis, nothing will change, but codifying informal rules into demonstrable regulations is generally a good idea.

Articles 25.4 a) and b) have been reworded to give the FIA technical director responsibility for allocating tyres to drivers in practise sessions.

A paragraph has been inserted to deal with those situations whereby a race ends prematurely but some drivers haven't used both compounds of dry-weather tyre (assuming that driver also hasn't used a wet-weather tyre). Any driver in that situation will receive a 30-second time penalty, which is the equivalent of a stop/go penalty. Completing a normal-length race while only using one dry-weather compound (and no wet-weather ones) still means exclusion.

Article 26

Cars in Q3 will no longer be weighed during the session due to a modification to Article 26.1 a) 2). It's not clear any cars were ever weighed in the 10-minute version of Q3, but it's a good safeguard.

The reason cars in Q3 definitely won't be weighed is because Article 26.1 a) 5) makes it compulsory for all cars in Q3 to be weighed at the end of the session, either with the driver on board (as per Q1 and Q2 weighings) or separately (as per post-race weighing).

Article 28

Gearboxes must last five races instead of four due to a slight change in the wording of Article 28.6 a).

If a driver cannot start a race, does not have a substitute starting the race for them and the reason is not a penalty from the stewards, that driver is allowed to have a new gearbox next race, just the same as they would have done if they had started but failed to finish. Several parts of Article 28.6 have been modified to account for this, but it is Article 28.6 a) which rules the change in.

Dog rings on gearboxes may be changed if a gearbox changed is required during the first day of practise. This will give a little bit more flexibility to teams in the latter part of the season because they can use different gearboxes for the first day's running that are not part of the main sequence.

Article 28.6 f) will allow one additional change of gearbox outside the permissions granted without penalty. This is similar to the exemption granted for the first engine change in 2007 and could signal a transition to the "X gearboxes a season" system currently in use for engines.

Importantly, Article 28.7 has gone. Teams are now allowed to change their survival cell, wheels and crash structures whenever they like after the first race of the season, subject to normal crash testing if it's a survival cell or crash structure. Hopefully, this will prevent a repeat of the F-duct situation, where the inability to modify the monocoque meant teams were using any old hole anywhere in the cockpit for the devices, to the detriment of usability and potentially safety. Also, large differences in the handling of the wheel specifications should be easy to resolve - Ferrari got an advantage on other teams from having a particularly unusual wheel psuedo-fairing that could not inspire any improved efforts from elsewhere all season.

Article 29

Article 29.3 has had the indent removed for consistency reasons. No difference to anything on track, but much more pleasing to the eye.

Article 30

A new Article 30.3 has been inserted. Unnecessarily slow, erratic and dangerous driving is banned at all times. The International Sporting Code already bans all of the above, but this echoes and emphasises the wording used for the Article 40.5 regulation covering proper driving conduct behind the Safety Car.

More importantly, all driving between the pit exit and pit entry (defined by their respective Safety Car lines) must now be done in 145% of the fastest whole-lap time set in the first day of practise. In practise this will typically mean that nobody can do a lap in more than 150% of the time the fastest driver lapped. This appears to be designed to prevent people from trying to get severely damaged cars to the pits, doing particularly thoughtless mass blocking or doing really slow in- or out-laps (or really slow formation laps, for that matter). Laps in wet-weather running are also affected but the margin is so big that an honest lap that was too slow would indicate the session should be stopped for wet weather reasons. Note that if a slow lap is due to a problem on the main straight or in the pits (such as stalling), that delay wouldn't influence anything because of the pit straight being ignored.

Between 10 and 4 hours before the start of first and third practises, nobody from any of the teams may be at the circuit. Each team is allowed four individual exemptions per year (that is to say, four people can work overnight for one race each, or at one race a four-person squad could be present at night). It is difficult to work on a car with only four people, so all but the most urgent and straightforward all-night shifts for mechanics have now been banned. Finally people associated with teams can (usually) be assured of a half-decent night's sleep!

Article 34

Under Article 34.1, wheel fasteners may be attached and removed in parc fermé. Pitot tubes may be covered and uncovered in parc ferme but only if a change in the weather has been declared.

Article 35

The compulsory autograph signing session is now at a time and place determined by each individual promoter and does not have to happen on the first day of practise. Procedures will also be determined locally. It will be interesting to see what is done with the new freedoms.

Article 36

The 107% rule in qualifying can be found in Article 36.3. Drivers whose fastest qualifying lap is more than 107% off the fastest time set in Q1 will only be allowed to start at the discretion of the stewards and no appeals (either way) will be permitted. The stewards are at liberty to decide the order if multiple people miss the 107% benchmark and get re-admitted in the same race.

Article 38

Drivers on their formation lap will have to keep to the pit lane speed limit until they pass the pole position slot, according to Article 38.6. It's not entirely clear to me why - wasn't "greatly-reduced speed" precise enough?

An entire paragraph has been removed from Article 38.8. Cars delayed on leaving the grid may now overtake at any time prior to the pit entry in order to resume their original starting position.

Article 40

Article 40.5, which used to ban slow, erratic and dangerous driving behind the Safety Car, has been re-worded... ...but is still redundant in the face of the new Article 30.3 (and, technically speaking, the International Sporting Code that preceded both). The only difference is that behaviour that "could be deemed" dangerous is banned behind the Safety Car, while at other times only driving that is dangerous is banned.

Article 40.7 has had a couple of clauses reworded with no apparent change to their effects on the racing.

The phrase in Article 40.9 requiring the Safety Car formation to be kept as tight as possible after the Safety Car has left the scene has been deleted. This may be due to the massive pile-up in China.

Article 40.11 continues to have the clause whereby last-lap Safety Cars are not followed by green flags for the last few metres of the race.

The last two paragraphs of Article 40.14 have been modified to account for drivers being allowed to resume their previous positions on formation laps (and condensed into one paragraph in the process).

Article 42

The second paragraph of Article 42.6 has been modified to take into account the new permission to resume previous position on formation laps.

Conclusions

Most of the changes made this year are minor and repeating what already exists in the International Sporting Code. However, some important changes are hidden among them. Wider pit lanes will be nice but the mechanics will be happier with the fact that most of them won't have a single "all-nighter" all year.

Methods of identifying when a release was done should increase pit lane safety. Minimum lap speeds on track through all sessions could get interesting. However, the change I like the most this year is that the horrible homologated survival cell regulation has been thrown away.

Hopefully future years will feature less cosmetic alteration and more of the type of red-tape paring seen with the removal of certain homologated components.