La Canta Magnifico Blog

Pre-24 at Daytona Checklist

2012-01-28T12:12:00-08:00

- 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

Primer for 24 of Daytona for Rookies

2012-01-24T07:22:00-08:00

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.

Changes to the 2012 F1 Technical Regulations

2012-01-23T07:31:00-08:00

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.

Calculating Sky

2011-12-18T14:12:00-08:00

Following a rather odd conversation on The Formula 1 Blog with Anonymous, it is becoming increasingly clear that a breakdown of what it would take for Sky to break even is necessary. This is, after all, the main reason why the attempt to transfer the UK rights from free-to-air to pay-TV is likely to have medium-term consequences on non-UK F1 fans. It's a bit rough-and-ready because of the timing, but I will happily tidy up anything that you think needs tidying later.

Wimbledon never fails to get full crowds even though few people in Britain follow tennis otherwise. Silverstone never failed to get full crowds even in years where British F1 figures fell like a stone due to Schumacher dominating. You'd be surprised at how low an audience conversion is needed to fill a stadium, so saying that test cricket grounds are still full doesn't say anything about what's going on with the TV side of things. Attending a cricket match is a special occasion. It does not mean that watching cricket is still bread-and-butter to people. The BARB statistics do not lie and they say that Sky struggles to get a seventh of the audience Radio 4 Longwave does for cricket matches, and that both combined are far lower than cricket got before Sky took over. The numbers end up working for the sport largely because Sky can afford more, but that is reliant on capping the level sports can charge it. That works financially for sports that seriously undervalued themselves (primarily by only considering the BBC pre-Sky, which of course can't run adverts to offset its expenses) but F1 hasn't done that since 1981...

I suppose if one calls 234,000 rugby viewers (2008 League World Cup) with Sky compared to over 2.6 million for the previous version* pre-Sky a success, then rugby might be considered a success. From Sky's perspective, it's a relatively successful sport because the low sanctioning fees means it can make quite a bit from the deal; from the perspective of a rational outsider surveying the effects on the sport's support base, it is a disaster.

The more one looks at the effects of Sky getting involved in sport, the worse it looks for sport. If a sport wants to go from being a majority sport to a minor one, going the pay route's a pretty effective way of doing it. That's been demonstrated time and again.

Advertising is of course part of Sky's arsenal when paying for things. However, Bernie fees are not the only costs it faces, and F1 isn't football. It costs £10 m per year to produce F1 the BBC 2011 way and to do all the extra features Sky has said it'll do, it will need to spend even more than that. ITV couldn't get that much from sponsorship when it had F1 in boom time, so given that Sky isn't having in-race advertising and is operating in a recession, it'll struggle to even meet its production costs through advertising, let alone start tackling marketing, satellite rearrangement fees (yes, making a new channel costs money) and the Bernie fee (which is now four times higher for Sky than the BBC's production fee was).

Even so, my original calculation of a million new customers being needed assumed, optimistically, that the non-Bernie fees would be entirely covered by advertising. (Before the amount Sky paid was announced, I tended to say "between 0.5 and 0.88 million" when commenting on the internet; I was bargaining on Sky doing some sort of cost calculation prior to purchase). The £40 m from subscriptions prior to F1's arrival has to be ignored on the grounds that they'll have bought other contracts with them. These naturally must be maintained, with the possible exception of programs that directly clash with F1 programming. Other sports may not be as expensive as F1 but they do have acquisition and production fees. Instead, the calculation has to be done from base.

There are two ways of getting Sky F1 - one using the HD pack and the other using Sky Sports. The Entertainment pack cost (common to both routes) has to be ignored because the channels on the pack are funded by it, along with all their programming. Much like the BBC, each Sky channel is funded separately. Terra Nova, for example, is not a free show. Even through the HD route, the HD money is not free because all the programming on Sky has to be converted to HD. If Entertainment and Sports are priced in relation to their values to Sky, then only half the HD top-up can be assumed to be available for F1.

Let's assume that the only sport that the people are interested in is F1 and that HD buyers don't buy any other packages (if we don't, again, the figures look even worse for Sky, as that person's subscription fee would then need to be shared among however many additional contracts corresponded to that individual's customised viewing habits). The cost of Sky Sports 1 and 2 on top of that package is £20 and this is the maximum amount Sky can take in per customer per month with regard to F1. HD, once the half for Entertainment package upgrading is removed, only contributes £6.125 per customer. Only new-to-Sky customers can be assumed to be taking the package for the full 12 months, so only the 7 months where Sky has an exclusive race can be safely counted for Sky's revenue (let's assume for now that Bahrain goes ahead).

I am also going to assume that everyone who watches F1 is a singleton who never has the TV on when entertaining and doesn't have lodgers or other unrelated co-residents similar sneakily "borrowing" a chair during races. Otherwise, each viewer is only contributing part of the subscription payment. I'm also assuming none of these people are bar, pub or club owners because then every patron of the bar/pub/club is contributing towards the subscription.

Remember that the Bernie escalator ensures that prices go up at least 10% every year (that fee quoted for Sky's acquisition will be the first-year price; Bernie rules ensure it goes up and up after that). The £40 m initial annual price becomes £77.95 m by the end of the contract Sky has. If that sounds high, the fee the BBC paid went from £25 m to £40 m a year from one end of its contract to the other (projected but never reached due to renegotiation) end; if it hadn't it probably wouldn't have needed to let F1 go. That's compounding for you.

At the moment, 30% of Sky customers are on HD (therefore using the cheap route) and 70% on SD (therefore would need the expensive route). Being optimistic and assuming this proportion does not move any further towards HD despite more HD subscribers being in Sky's overall business plan, Sky needs 0.95 million new subscribers (rounds up to 1 million to the nearest 100,000 subscribers) that didn't care for any Sky-carried sport bar F1. To break even. Compounding means it doesn't have to get them all immediately - a 2012 figure of 0.53 million is enough for that specific year - but Sky's sales definitely aren't going up by the 10% per year needed simply to keep up with Bernie (they only increased by 3% per year for the last 2 years - it's pretty consistent at the moment).

Even 0.53 million is over twice as many viewers than Sky gets for any part of its non-football programming. It is unlikely Sky will get the figures it needs because past and present data demonstrates it. This is before considering that every assumption I've just detailed here - advertising revenue, house occupancy, HD, caring about other Sky sports, Bahrain, the extent of Bernie escalator - is more likely to go against Sky than in its favour with regard to making F1 pay, and therefore require even more people to sign.

(For the curious, on the assumptions made in this item, it would take 2.08 m cumulative new customers for Sky to be able to justify taking all 20 races in the first year of the next broadcasting contract of 2018, assuming the minimum number of new customers were signed up as needed to let it break even in each previous year, that no additional fee was made for exclusivity and assuming Sky merely wished to break even with F1 due to its high profile).

Japan F1 is mostly free Fuji TV. There is a pay option (Next) but it gets 1/6 of the audience the free version does (helped by the fact the same provider on the same platform shows the free and pay options - not the case in the UK). Brazil is primarily covered by GloboTV, which is free-to-air and easily beats the pay option for popularity. Italy and Germany used to have pay TV options (through Sky) but they've folded due to lack of interest. Some other countries with smaller audiences have pay-only, and their audiences went through the floor. This has left some channels dropping F1 altogether and others putting it on progressively higher-cost options. That's what always happens with pay TV concerning sports that were previously shown just fine on free-to-air**. The audiences shrink and so the pay TV provider has to rely on cheap rates to keep the option alive. Here's a hint: Bernie will never, ever, provide cheap rates.

So why are the likes of rugby and cricket succeeding despite their TV mistakes? Because other avenues of revenue exploded in the last decade or two. Sponsorship, once quite rare for a series, has become huge money, especially for drinks companies who would struggle to advertise in certain international markets through the standard methods. Ticket prices skyrocketed, turning the weekly patronage of a favourite sport to an occasional treat for the poor without turning away the rich (in fact, with more focus on rich clients as seen in the past decade, the rich are pouring in as they spy networking and hob-nobbing opportunities). The sponsorship alone accounts for why there's more money in disability swimming than ever despite it having no media profile worthy of the name and free tickets to nearly all events. The latter is why the Paddock Club in F1 is worth over 10% of the total income of F1 despite serving a maximum of 5000 people per race.

After all is calculated, Sky's chances of making F1 break even are remote. The chances of Sky keeping a sport that doesn't break even is even remoter. The chances of Bernie finding anyone willing to pay more than Sky pay him now in those circumstances is nil. That means Britain's fees will drop. It's not clear who'd pick up the rights then - it depends who has most to spare at that moment out of the not-recently-"burned" parties. What is clear is that it would cause a domino effect. Other countries would see that pay TV does not work and be able to call Bernie's bluff by not engaging in bidding wars with such channels. It would mean the prices paid by channels would fall through the floor. So would F1's revenues.

F1 would have to either seriously tighten its belt (and hope it's no longer up to the neck in debt) or die.

Quite how not want F1 to kill itself counts as "not loving F1", as Anonymous alleged, remains a mystery.

* - In case you're wondering, rugby union suffered even worse. The Heineken Cup final, for example went from 9 million in 2005 to below 185,000 in 2007. The only reason it's still on Sky is because the Heineken Cup charges much, much less for its tournament broadcast rights than Bernie does and the BBC is currently trying to sell sports rights rather than buy them.

** - Football, in case you're wondering, was not shown fine free-to-air before Sky got the rights; the BBC could typically only show one match a day - and hardly ever in primetime - due to broadcasting balance requirements, whereas Sky was able to show multiple ones, at any time of day, almost immediately. Being able to see twice as many matches means twice as many people are going to be interested, so it matters less if no single match gets much in the way of viewing figures compared to free-to-air - the sheer number of matches viewable through the multi-channel, more specialised pay TV system meant that many small parts became a bigger sum than the BBC could achieve. Also, people can't advertise on the BBC, so when Britain's favourite sport went to the advertisable platform, advertisers naturally paid top dollar to be associated with the sport. Football is, economically speaking, pay TV's one big sporting success.

Microsociology and Sciroccos

2011-11-05T06:04:00-07:00

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.

Plug: Free Practise 2 Korea 2011

2011-10-14T04:06:00-07:00

This is a short plug. I've helped Kate Walker write a post about second practise at the Korean Grand Prix. It's been a pleasure to work with Kate, who is a talented journalist with a good sense of humour.

(Non)-competitive Logic

2011-09-25T02:13:00-07:00

...and what to do about it

Yesterday, we saw Force India choose to not run in Q3 at Singapore. This is the second time this season they have taken this option. In DRStrategy, this was recommended as the solution for a team which cannot seriously compete for pole in Q3. There was no possibility of Force India managing a much higher position if it ran than if it didn't, so it was sensible to save a set of tyres to preserve strategy and perhaps pass the more profligate Mercedes team through strategy.

This may seem a rather mercenary attitude, but remember Force India is in a battle between Renault and Sauber over 5th place in the championship. Sauber is very close behind Force India, so it needs points. In addition, Renault is having a lousy weekend in Singapore, making this the best opportunity Force India is likely to have to close the gap between the two. Logically, Force India has to prioritise racing well to qualifying well.

So all is well? Not to judge from the large number of disappointed fans. The best I've seen of their reaction came from @LewisBarthaud:

something needs to be done, this 3 phase format came about to improve the show, you can't call it the "top 10 shootout" with only 7

You can't argue with that logic. Also, there's an emotional argument which presumably wouldn't condense into the remaining characters.

There is a massive visceral pleasure in seeing a racing car on track. When there are many racing cars doing likewise and competing powerfully with one another, the pleasure is multiplied. So to take it in reverse, removing 30% of the expected competitors will take out an average of well over 30% of the excitement (exact percentage depending on exactly who "forfeited" the session and who's watching).

This is an example of perverse incentives - the regulations, designed to provide excitement and happiness to the multitudes who watch F1 racing, create the exact opposite effect in qualifying if played out to their logical conclusion.

The first thought might be to penalise those who do not run in Q3 on purpose through a grid penalty. However, this ends up creating perverse incentives of its own. One of the main ways people have been able to overcome the zero-sum passing engendered by DRS is by having more sets of unused soft tyres. What this means is that everyone will, barring unforeseen punctures or crashes, everyone will have the same number of sets of soft tyres remaining. By insisting everyone must have the same number of unused sets of soft tyres, the racing will become even more predictable and samey - under the rippled surface of inconsequential passes. Only someone setting their fastest time with hard tyres will be able to break the cycle.

So that method of making a more exciting qualifying would make a rather dull race. However, this is not an insoluable equation. Changing the way tyre allocations work may help.

My proposal works thus:

- 3 "hard" sets given out on Friday. This will encourage race set-up and endurance work, shift tyre comparison work to Saturday, possibly encourage more teams to use unproven drivers. More importantly for the specific problem under discussion, it means a "soft" set can be awarded later in the weekend without making Pirelli bring any extra tyres. You've got to adapt to cost-cutting...

- 1 "soft" and 1 "hard" tyre set given out at the start of Saturday

- 1 "soft" and 1 "hard" tyre given out at the start of Q1. Any of the three sets of softs given out thus far may be used in qualifying.

- 1 "soft" given out at the start of Q2 - but only to drivers who set a time on the soft given out in Q1.

- 1 "soft" given out at the start of Q3 - but only to drivers who set a time on the soft given out in Q2.

- 2 "soft" and 1 "hard" set given out on Sunday - but only to drivers who set a time on the soft given out in Q3 (or Q1/2 if they were eliminated there). Q3 runners will be permitted to use this instead of the tyre they did their time on, should they be eligible to receive such tyres. Teams will hand back 3 "hard" and 2 "soft" sets of their choice, leaving them with the same number of tyres for the race as they have now.

Stewards' discretion will be used for anyone who makes a genuine attempt to qualify but has a technical issue on-track, crashes on their "sighter" Q1 run on hard tyres or during their soft-tyre run. The idea being that genuine accidents would be treated the same as people who were knocked out at the same stage but completed the soft-tyre run. Anyone of whom foul play is suspected (or had such serious problems that they wouldn't have used up much/any of the soft tyre's longevity) will receive no such privileges and be treated the same as those who never attempted the run.

This would mean qualifying would influence how many tyres on has available in a more sensible way.

Someone who didn't run in Q1 on soft tyres would have no unused "soft" tyres.
Someone who chose not to run in Q2 or Q3 on soft tyres would have 1 set of unused "soft" tyres (the one they got for running in Q1 on softs).
Someone who chose to run soft tyres in all sessions for which they were eligible would get 2 sets of unused "soft" tyres (for running in Q3).

This should re-align incentives for the race in favour of having both an exciting qualifying and an exciting race.

The one thing this doesn't prevent is a team not running because they don't think they will lose anything, despite the disincentives in place. This is the frustrating position I am in with my other favourite team, AF Corse. It is in Portugul for the Le Mans Series race but due to some terrible luck involving a lorry accident, a broken tail-lift and an hastily-completed new car presenting problems, is apparently comtemplating a deliberate non-finish for its hitherto most competitive and popular car (the #51 driven by Giancarlo Fisichella and Gianmaria Bruni). It's already team champion, with the #51's drivers also confirmed as individual champions, so they not particularly worried about points. The car is in one piece and is very fast when it works, but could break at any moment and the staff all need to be in America as soon as possible because Petit Le Mans, part of an Intercontinental Le Mans Championship that the team hasn't fully secured yet, is next week and everyone on the the team needs to be there for early scrutineering. I can see the logic but am still upset with the idea a team might forefeit a race where it has somehow managed to qualify 2nd. Much as the people watching the logical withdrawal of the Force Indias from Q3 were upset about them "forfeiting" the last bit of qualifying when they were good enough to at least set representative times.

Intellectually logical, emotionally tough to accept...

Kurburgring Revisited

2011-09-04T10:07:00-07:00

On Thursday I went karting at the Kurburgring again, this time with a carrier bag holding my shoes, earplugs and a spare pair of gloves. My brother didn't kart this time but he and Dad spectated. The staff on reception remembered us well from last time. It turned out they'd even read my blog and liked it, which was nice.

The briefing this time focused more on the correct lines to take around the circuit because the marshal leading it reckoned I could improve if I could get my lines right more consistently. Given that my times on my previous visit had ping-ponged to some extent, I could understand that line of thinking. To this end, one of the other marshals offered to show me the correct lines.

For the first 20 minutes of my allotted half-hour, I had company on the track. Two other people were already there when I headed out. The marshal was not among them. I got going and tried to get into a rhythm. This happened surprisingly quickly. The first lap was not a complete embarassment and the second one a 34.518 - faster than all but 6 of the laps I'd done on my previous visit.

The next seven laps showed slow but steady improvement, apart from one where I lost the rhythm of the lap entirely. I was faster than the other two karters on circuit and was gradually catching them.

Lap 9 of my run involved a big jump in performance. Having previously done 34.4s, I went down to 33.424, which was 0.4 seconds faster than my previous lap record. I was getting close to one of the other karters and starting to plan how to do the overtake...

The next lap was even faster (33.301) and I was nearly on the guy's rear bumper as I noticed another karter join the track a short way behind me. Knowing that overtaking was forbidden into the banked Karusell, I tried to take a cautious approach into the hairpin. Unfortunately I forgot to take into account that karts don't steer so well when driven slowly. The driver in front of me had a poor line into the turn and was slow coming back onto the power. We both crashed, leaving the somewhat bemused marshal looking back at us with "What did the pair of you think you were doing?" body language.

It took a while for us to get going again. So what do I do next? Crash at the same corner next lap, all by my little lonesome! After that, the marshal caught up with me and I was able to follow him for a few laps. My times went all over the place - as I tried to learn the improved lines for different parts of the circuit, I would lose track of what I was supposed to be doing for others. It's difficult to track another kart closely and maintain quality of driving in your own kart simultaneously. Eventually, I turned in a lap that was considered acceptable and the marshal motioned for me to go past.

A few minutes later, everyone left the track except me because I had 10 minutes more to go. This was going to be a great opportunity to put what I had learned into practise. Except that my fingers were getting tired. I was struggling to turn the kart. I responded to it by slowing down, which of course made the kart gradually less responsive to the turning I was managing to do. I ended up stopping for nearly 4 minutes to let my fingers recover.

After I got going again, I nearly matched my previous fastest time and managed to consistently be within 0.4 seconds of that time on the other laps. I could feel things were much better after my break. On the penultimate lap, I thought something in the glove had worked loose, but carried on regardless - no sense stopping again...

After the chequered flag, I had a "debrief" with Dad and my brother. They reckoned I hadn't managed to get everything right on a single lap; every time there was at least one corner where I'd made an error. If I'd managed to string my best corners together, they reckoned I could have been over a second faster. Still, the "acceptable" lap turned out to be 33.104 seconds. An improvement of 0.6 seconds on my fastest lap and 1.88 seconds on my average (non-crash/break) lap was good work.

The "debrief" got interrupted when I got round to removing my gloves. Nothing in the glove had got loose. I had simply got a thumbnail-sized blister on the base of my right hand, which had popped. I heard motorsport was dangerous but that wasn't quite what I had in mind... Just to make it worse, I'd left my first-aid kit in my karting bag at home. Good thing the reception staff had plasters.

I am now the 7th-fastest woman to have driven at the Kurburgring, just 0.6 seconds slower than one of the members of staff. Just in case anyone thinks I should replace Felipe Massa, I should point out that there is a junior who, despite using a kart with less than half the engine displacement of the kart I used, has a fastest lap 0.195 seconds faster than me. Clearly I have targets at which to aim...

LMS Championship Permutations

2011-08-30T06:35:00-07:00

The next race of the ILMC (Intercontinental Le Mans Cup) and LMS (Le Mans Series) championships is in Silverstone. The ILMC championship has three rounds to go and there's everything to play for, but in the LMS there are only two races left. As a result, some of the class championships in LMS are close to a resolution.

In this blog entry, I will attempt to summarise the championship situation in each class. This will serve the dual purposes of explaining what is needed for given competitors to win their class championships and giving a summary that will enable a newcomer to pick up what's where.

LMP1

It's a tight championship at the moment:

Tinseau/Collard/Jousse (#16 Pescarolo) lead on 28 points (other points in this list relative)

Belicchi/Boullion (13 Rebellion) -3 points

Jani/Prost (#12 Rebellion) -3 points

Piccini/Cortes (#23 MIK Corse) -26 points

In theory, everyone entered for the LMS can still win because there are more points on the table (30) than the leading drivers possess (28). However, some teams have withdrawn from Silverstone. These teams' drivers (Hope's and Quifel's Pla/Amarel) are too far away to catch up the gap in a single race and therefore are not included in the above list.

Incidentally, all of these cars are petrol entries - Hope was the sole hybrid entry and all the diesel entries are ILMC-only (they'll be in the race for ILMC things and can deny points to LMS entries by finishing ahead of them, but they don't compete for the LMS themselves).

It is theoretically possible for Tinseau, Collard and Jousse (the Pescarolo trio) to take the title at Silverstone. However, if they win and get pole, they still need both Rebellions to finish in 9th place or below for that to happen. This is in a class with only 10 cars total, so really that's saying the Rebellion drivers need to retire or have a total disaster of a race if the title is to be settled in Silverstone. Tinseau, Collard and Jousse look good to get the title because they've been consistently slightly better than the Rebellions, but in Imola the tables were turned, so it would be foolish to bet on any of the three driver combinations taking the trophy. Better to enjoy the fight unfold and, most likely, continue into Portugal.

Silverstone is likely to be a low-scoring round for all 4 because the big points are likely to be taken by the diesel cars. This is bad news for Piccini and Cortes, who need to win in order to stay in the title hunt. It would take a bizarre set of circumstances for that to happen.

Teams

Rebellion has two cars in their team while the other contenders have only one. This puts Rebellion in a strong position for the team title because it is matching Pescarolo for points. All they need is to have one of their cars ahead of Pescarolo in both races. If it's #12 in one race and #13 in the other, the Rebellion will take the team title but Tinseau, Collard and Jousse will have the driver title.

LMP2

Drivers

The LMP2 class has been riven with conflict all year due to a cost-cutting formula running alongside the previous unrestricted spending regime. Hopefully the fact that 2012 will make the cost-cut method mandatory will reduce the arguing that has overshadowed a tightly-fought season.

Ojjeh/Kimber-Smith (#41 Greaves Motorsport) 35 points (other points relative)

Watts/Kane/Leventis (#42 Strakka Racing) -5

Kraihamer/Crem (#45 Boutsen Energy Racing) -10

Firth/Beche/Thriet (#46 TDS Racing) -12

Companc/Russo/Kaffer (#39 Pecom Racing) -13

Gates/Garoffel/Phillips (#43 RLR Motorsport) -18

Lombard (#41 Greaves Motorsport) -20

Rosier/Basso (#44 Extreme Limite) -21

Frey/Meichtry (#40 Race Performance) -22

Collins/Newton/Erdos (#36 RML) -27

Half of the LMP2 field is likely to be out of the running for the title at the end of Silverstone. Collins, Newton and Erdos require 3rd to keep their chances going, while Frey and Meichtry "merely" need 7th and pole or 6th without pole to stay in. Silverstone is likely to be a low-scoring round due to the presence of the ILMC LMP2 entrants Signatech and OAK, even if the problem is not as pronounced for the LMP1s.

Rosier and Lombard need 8th place (or 7th and pole) to stay in. Gates, Garoffel and Phillips merely need to finish because there are only 11 cars and 11th yields 2 points.

It would take a pretty remarkable set of circumstances for Ojjeh and Kimber-Smith to win the title here. Even if they won and got pole, they'd need OAK and Signatech to share the podium with them and for Watts, Leventis and Kane to finish 8th or worse in class.

Lombard is a special case. He joined the #41 Greaves car in Imola, so short of his longer-standing team-mates getting injured before the race without making the car unraceable (which is virtually impossible), he cannot gain the title due to Ojjeh and Kimber-Smith scoring many points before his arrival. He'll definitely be able to contribute to the team title though.

Teams

All the teams have only one car in LMP2, so the team fight is as above.

GTE-Pro

Drivers

This is arguably the most complicated of the five championships to explain. There are two reasons for this.

Firstly, this is one of the series for which there are bonus points for making an engine last 15 or more hours. The 15 hours do not all need to be in a race but they do need to be in ACO-sanctioned events (which in practise means Sebring and Le Mans count towards engine timings). The other classes have them, but in LMP1 hardly anyone runs an engine long enough to get the bonus point, LMP2 has only had 2 cars get the bonus points so far and in GTE-Am, virtually everyone is going to get the same points at the same race because the cars are nearly all synchronised in terms of engine hours. The GTE-Pro drivers will all get an engine point barring mechanical failures, but some are due to get it in Silverstone and others in Portugal. The effect on the title fight is subtle.

Secondly, GTE-Pro, and only GTE-Pro, has a "dropped score" system for this year. Originally, all scores were meant to count, but at the start of the first race at Paul Ricard, a "Safety" Car caused a crash that took out nearly all the Porsches... and affected hardly anyone else. In an attempt to make up for this huge mistake, the "dropped-score" rule was put in. For championship purposes, the Porsches could pretend Paul Ricard was just a bad dream.

Currently, the GTE-Pro title chase stands thus:

Fisichella/Bruni (AF Corse #51) have 44 points (other points given are relative to this)
Melo/Vilander (AF Corse #71) -16 points
Simonsen/Farnbacher (Hankook #89) -17 points
Walker/Bell (JMW #66) -22 points
Lieb/Lietz (Farnbacher #77) -26 points
Goosens/Holzer (Prospeed #75) -27 points
Hancock/Dolan (JOTA #79) -30 points

Granted, some of the gaps are larger than in either prototype class. However, the "dropped score" system means that there is still plenty of opportunity for a fightback, even without relying on retirements.

Fisichella and Bruni are due to get an engine point in Portugal and currently would drop their second-place-with-pole at Le Castellet - a rather hefty 14 points. The latter is why the championship is nowhere near a done deal. Had all scores counted, scoring more points than Melo and Vilander would have almost been sufficient to take the title (other people would also have needed to be not too far ahead) - and only once so far this season has that happened. For Silverstone to be guaranteed to count towards their score it would be necessary for Fisichella and Bruni to win. Sealing the title in Silverstone would take some major misfortune for their competitors.

Vilander, Melo, Simonsen and Farnbacher are their closest rivals. They are due to get their engine point in Portugal. Vilander and Melo would currently drop 1 point from Spa and Simonsen and Farnbacher would drop a non-score. To guarantee staying in the title chase, they all need seventh with pole or sixth without. For each race which any of the four has finished, they have been at least fourth.

Walker and Bell are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop a non-finish at Imola. They need third place to guarantee staying in the title chase. They've been quite unlucky this year but also fast, so it is possible for this to happen.

Lieb and Lietz, the defending champions, are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop the non-finish in Le Castellet. To guarantee staying in the title fight, they need to score second with pole and not need an engine change, which is a pretty tall order.

Goosens and Holzer are due to get their engine point in Portugal and would drop the non-score at Le Castellet. To guarantee remaining in the title chase, they need to come second, get pole and hope Fisichella and Bruni don't win.

Hancock and Dolan cling to the title chase by the skins of their teeth on account of getting their engine point at Silverstone. They also drop a non-finish at Le Castellet. They need to either get second and pole, or win and hope Fisichella and Bruni do not get pole, in order to stay in the title fight.

Teams

AF Corse 46 points - to drop 14 points at Le Castellet (other teams' points relative)

Hankook -21 points - to drop 0 points at Imola

JMW -24 points - to drop 0 points at Imola

Felbermayr -30 points - to drop 0 points at Le Castellet

AF Corse are likely to win this one, simply because they have two cars in the LMS (compared to everyone else's one) as well as a points lead of which Red Bull in F1 would be jealous, proportionally speaking. Given that an AF Corse car has only retired once out of 6 LMS entries, it would be asking a lot for anyone to take the team title off them at this point.

GTE-Am

Drivers

Armindo/Narac (#67 IMSA) 41 points (other points relative)

Cioci/Perrazini/Lemeret (#61 AF Corse) -2 points

Felbermayr Jr (#88 Felbermayr) -17 points

Christodolou/Quaife (#82 CRS) -23 points

This is the tightest class battle in the series. Unless Armindo and Narac win their class and get very lucky with opponents' results, the battle will go to Portugal. Felbermayr Jr needs to finish the race or get class pole to stay in the title fight in Portugal, while Christodolou and Quaife must get seventh with pole or sixth stay in the title fight.

Teams

All four teams have one car apiece, so the team battle is in the same state as the driver one.

Kurburgring

2011-08-18T10:04:00-07:00

Just after lunch today, Dad, my brother and I went to the Kurburgring in Sutton-in-Ashfield. Never mind the punny title - it was the first time I'd karted in a while and as a bonus I would get to compete against my brother! He has had some road car driving experience but between the sessions I've done at Elk Karting and the one at Amen Corner, I've got slightly more experience of karts.

The reception was nice, with race-themed chairs and friendly staff. Our luck was in because it turned out that Thursday afternoon is "happy hour", so there was a discount on the karting. One downside became apparent immediately; it was noisy, largely because there were petrol karts on an indoor track. This was an issue for me as I have sensitive hearing. I'd brought earplugs but the staff provided some as well. The other issue with using petrol karts indoors is ventilation, though the place didn't have much in the way of fumes in the air.

The briefing was not the usual set-up of someone standing at the front of the classroom going through the rules. It started that way, with a staff member pointing out the basics as well as briefly explaining circuit-specific things like where different rooms were and the evacuation procedure, but then we were left watching a video with the rules on there. If I'd been a first-timer, I do wonder what would have happened if I hadn't understood the video properly, but fortunately I've karted before and the rules were only slightly different for the Kurburgring. The big circuit-specific rule was that the banked Karusell Corner/Turn 2 was a half-speed corner with no overtaking permitted.

This banked corner was the big "selling point" of the Kurburgring; a square hairpin with a very uneven surface unlike the rest of the track surface. The bank was steep enough that it was impossible to see what was on it from the spectator area, but there was a marshal position inside the corner in the (likely) case of someone getting it wrong.

The corner was important but it wasn't the most important one on the circuit. That was the double-apex Turn 6, which had a deceptive amount of run-off and invites two major faults - excessively early turn-in and excessive entry speed. I found the early turn-in issue to be quite a fault in my driving during the early stages, resulting in two small crashes. Once I got myself out but the other time I had to wave a marshall over to help me.

The excessive entry speed problem was more noticeable in the group that raced before my family descended upon the track. Two karters in particular had a tendency to try going full-pelt through the first apex, slam on the brakes, skid, barely make it through the second apex... ...and get passed by the karter who'd gone wide and let them make their mistake. Apart from the times the karter who'd gone in too fast simply found the barriers and had to get help.

The karts in question have 270 cc, which is as much as a single-engine arrive-and-drive kart can be expected to do. The circuit is also fairly new, so we're talking about karts in a reasonable state. For the first five laps, I also missed the barriers. With that in mind, note this:

The Kurburgring is 450 metres.
My first lap was 62.343 seconds.
This is a rather stately 16.147 mph.

My first lap round the track may be the slowest one of the day (and certainly was as of the time I left the track). My next three laps were nothing special either because I was still learning the track. This involved nearly stopping the kart at each corner because I was figuring out apexes and braking points. I even had to apply the brakes a little on the flat-out Devil's Elbow/Turn 1. My brother was long gone, having passed me halfway round the first lap.

Apparently Dad, on the sidelines, was getting worried that I might not be enjoying myself. Admittedly, the point in the opening lap where I got cramp in my right foot was no fun at all, but it wore off (the cramp not the foot) and fun started to creep in. Then I suddenly went 4 seconds faster than my previous lap - and 27 seconds faster than my first one - to put in a respectable 35.932 second lap. That was more like it :) This gave me more confidence - perhaps more than was warranted. Next lap, I spun at the second of three hairpin corners called "Mirabeau" (or Turn 8). There was no Monaco-esque crane, only the need to wave over an ever-willing marshal. My brother crashed at the same corner later in the lap, which made me feel better and got me within half a lap of him.

I'd almost caught my brother again when I had the first of my crashes at Turn 6, followed by another crash in the second Mirabeau hairpin two laps later. So much for getting a rhythm and now my brother was threatening to pass me again.

Fortunately, something had clicked in my head. I pulled out a string of laps in the high-35 to low-37 second range, gradually getting better until lap 23. Then I had another breakthrough and did 7 of the next 8 laps within a second of one another, the fastest at 34.008. The one lap that wasn't was the lap I caught my brother. He was beginning to get tired and make mistakes. I spent much of one lap following him (his basic technique was good) but when he made an error of concentration at Turn 3 of the following lap, I cut to the inside and overtook him. He retired 3 laps later due to tiredness and spent the rest of the session with Dad, watching me.

I was worried for a time that I'd missed the chequered flag signal because I didn't see any indicator that proved I should be the only kart on track. It was only when I saw Dad and my brother not waving their arms round trying to get me to notice them that I worked out everything was OK. Whereupon I crashed at the double-apexed Turn 6. Oops.

That was my last major error of the session. I turned in a series of reasonably consistent laps. There was a lap in the high-35 seconds, two in the low-36 seconds and then 8 of the last 9 laps were within half-a-second of one another, in the high-34 seconds and very-low-35 seconds.

There was something a little bit different about the other lap, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I was still very happy as the chequered flag was waved, though - I can't see times from the kart but I could feel a pattern beginning to settle into my muscles. I cruised round one last time, parked the kart and scrambled over the barrier separating kart from staff. The staff member who met me (who'd also initiated my safety briefing) told me I'd done very well. I assumed she meant I'd behaved well and not been a complete embarrassment to anyone, so I said "thank you" and went to Dad and my brother.

Who then pointed me to the timing screen. It's a good system that clearly indicates best times, recent times by everyone on track and a leaderboard of times for the day. I'd beaten my brother (whose time of 34.408 seconds was itself very respectable), which was hardly a surprise given I'd had the unfair advantage of 16 more laps. The odd thing was that I had the fastest time of anyone who'd come to the track today. Especially odd when the staff member who'd said I'd done well observed that a lot of the others had previously visited.

That lap which felt a little bit different? It was 33.755 seconds, beating the next-fastest time by 0.289 seconds. Turned out that it was fast enough to get onto one of the leaderboards. I am officially the 15th-fastest woman at the Kurburgring in terms of fastest laps - all of those with better times having set them on second or subsequent visits. Yippee!

On discovering this, we collected our timesheets, returned the borrowed kit and left to tell Grandma what had happened. She said she never wanted to be my passenger in a road car. That's fine by me as it is unlikely I will even have a road licence any time soon ;)

I very much want to go again - and hopefully this time warm up a little quicker! Until then, my brother has the consolation of having a faster average time than me...