Hey there! Thanks for dropping by my blog! Take a look around and grab the RSS feed to stay updated. See you around!

Posts tagged with "Analysis"

Crashes, Stoppages and Accuracy

May 31, 2011
Filed under: Uncategorized by Alianora_La_Canta — 10 Comments

Attempting to discuss things about Monaco has proved a frustrating experience. I am accustomed to being in discussions and even arguments about contentious bits of the race. I am not accustomed to major events happening in a race with seemingly only me noticing. 

 

Firstly, the crash that caused the red flag. It has been established that it was a complicated mess, but what sparked it? I've seen blame put on several people, primarily Adrian Sutil. What none of those blaming Adrian seem to have noticed was that he took damage in a collision three laps earlier with Kamui Kobayashi. This is clearly demonstrated in Adrian suddenly falling into the clutches of the midfield pack that was in process of being lapped.

 

He was one second than usual on lap 65 (the lap of the pass - note that all lap numbers on the graph are transposed by one lap), became 3 seconds slower than usual on lap 66 (the lap after Kamui passed him) and 4 seconds slower than usual on laps 67 and 68. On laps 69 and 70, Adrian is 20 seconds a lap slower than usual - but both include pit stop time for replacing tyres. This indicates progressive damage. Given that Kobayashi hit the right rear tyre and it was this tyre that ended up in need of a replacement, it is perfectly reasonable to consider that a weakness in the tyre (underinflation from a slow puncture would be most likely) contributed to Adrian's crash.

 

I cannot begrudge Kamui his 5th because he was overdue one, but I do not feel that this exempts him from having his race properly analysed.

 

Secondly, the whole raft of complaints about being able to change tyres/wings/springs on the grid and Pastor Maldonado's removal from the results by Lewis Hamilton. While I see a point to the complaints about the Lewis/Pastor crash in particular, all three debates have missed the most important point - that Article 18 of the General Prescriptions prevented the restart from happening in the first place.

 

Article 18 of the General Prescriptions (link in PDF) has three cases concerning red flags. Initially I'd thought this was in the International Sporting Code, but it appears this particular rulebook also applies to every international racing series (Article 1). Article 18 describes mid-race stoppages using Cases A, Case B and Case C. These will be familiar to those who recall the contents of 2003-era F1 Sporting Regulations documents. For the people who haven't done so, the cases refer to when the red flag is flown and determine what happens thereafter.

 

Case A is for when the red flag flies within the first 2 laps. Basically, the race is treated as if it never began.

 

Case B is for when the red flag flies between 2 laps and 75%. The race is restarted on a 10-minute procedure when possible and the running resumes from the lap where it ended.

 

Case C is for when the red flag flies between 75% and the end of the race. The race result is called then and there. No restart is attempted even if it would be easy to do so. The race is deemed to have finished when the red flag flies, though there is a countback rule.

 

72 laps out of 78 is 92.307% of the race, which is considerably more than 75%. Clearly this is a Case C situation.

 

The inclusion of the General Prescriptions in the list of regulations applicable to F1 on the FIA's website means that the document must be taken seriously. Nonetheless, the General Prescriptions is overruled by the F1 Sporting Regulatoins and the International Sporting Code if there are contradictory clauses.

 

However, no such clauses exist in either document on the question of Case C restarts. There is nothing in either the International Sporting Code or the F1 Sporting Regulations that allows for a red flag beyond the 75% mark to be interpreted as anything other than the end of the race.

 

Even Article 41 of the F1 Sporting Regulations (the regulation most often cited as justifying the restart) doesn't do that because Article 18 of the General Prescriptions says the race ends when the red flag is flown in Case C situations. Article 41 doesn't mention anything about the definition of a red flag or end-of-race signal changing. Therefore a Case C situation falls under Article 43 (the regulations for finishing). The lack of mention of Cases A, B and C in the F1 Sporting Regulations (they was removed in 2005) does not suffice to negate the power of General Prescriptions Article 18. Article 1 of the General Prescriptions specifically says that precedence only applies in the case of contradictory regulations.

 

So a lot of the arguments of yesterday should have been null and void. There should have been no argument over tyre or wing changes because there shouldn't have been any laps in which to use them. Pastor and Lewis shouldn't have crashed because there shouldn't have been any time for them to crash in.

 

Pity the powers-that-be didn't care about their own regulations - again. Double pity that even people like Ted Kravitz (in BBC TV's coverage of the race (iPlayer link; expires 5 June 2011)) and Joe Saward presented Article 41 as if it was the only relevant item, even though it proved not to be especially relevant. When none of the people at the circuit appear to care, how can anyone else be expected to do so (other than stubborn people like me)?

Read More & Comment
​

Re-Analysing the Championship Quintel* Part 1

December 5, 2010
Filed under: Uncategorized by Alianora_La_Canta — 2 Comments

Warning! Very long entry alert!

 

I recently cross-posted Re-Analysing the Championship Duel from the old wiki to here, which attempted to calculate what would have happened to the 2008 championship if the drivers had been unaffected by such vagaries as mechanical failures, pit-stop mess-ups and stewarding silliness.

 

2009 didn't really invite that sort of analysis because Jenson Button looked like the deserving champion for most of the year, only getting seriously challenged in a mid-season wobble that temporarily brought Rubens Barrichello and both Red Bull drivers into the championship fight.

 

However, 2010 was a very complicated season. It would be interesting to see how, with luck somewhat more equal, it would have panned out. How much of an effect did Red Bull's reliability had? Would Alonso have been as much of a contender if the FIA hadn't acted as it did? Did luck make any difference at all to the McLaren duo?

 

Firstly, a definition of “luck” for the purposes of this entry:

 

  • mechanical failures are considered unlucky unless they were demonstrably caused by bad driving. Any crash resulting from mechanical failure is also luck. This is meant to be a driver's title we're analysing today...

  • crashes obviously caused by another driver(s). Nobody can legislate for those.

  • slow pit stops. The driver is not in a position to do anything about these.

  • pit stops which go wrong in other ways, provided the reason is not the driver making a mistake. This highly intricate area of racing involves some driver skill, but is largely team-dependent.

  • stewarding decisions which are inconsistent with precedent and/or evidence presented. What can a driver do about poor judicial decisions?

  • Penalty-worthy behaviour by other drivers affecting the driver being analysed's performance. Luck isn't always targeted at the championship contender directly...

  • obvious penalty-worthy driving which garners no interest from the stewards is considered lucky if brought to the attention of the viewing public. (Penalty-worthy driving missed by everyone is the sort of fortune that cannot be analysed in this manner).

 

Things which are not considered “luck” for the purposes of this entry:

 

  • mechanical failures caused by contact with any element of trackside furniture. If you treat the car badly, it will break down on you...

  • crashes obviously caused by the driver being analysed, or only involved that driver because an obvious mistake was made by him. In F1, a certain standard of driving is expected.

  • crashes which are racing incidents. It's difficult to tell who is to blame and its exclusion from “luck” is marginal, but one of the skills of being a F1 driver is avoiding this sort of incident, or at least making sure such involvement doesn't end their race.

  • Pit stops which go wrong because the driver made an error (to name the three to come to mind first, missing the pit box, outbraked/stopped seriously short of the pit box or leaves the pits without being given the signal to do so). Yes, pit stops are difficult, but mastering the driving part of them is one of the key skills of a driver.

  • Penalties which are earned and handed out in the correct manner.

  • Incidents where ambiguity over whether a type of incident merits a penalty exists in precedent; the stewards are given the benefit of the doubt (whether that was for or against a penalty) unless it is clear a penalty was merited but not given or vice versa.

  • Being stuck behind another driver (unless that driver breached the blue flag rule). Overtaking is a driver skill usually necessary to take titles.

  • Poor strategy. Not because a driver is necessarily responsible for these but because the consequences tend to be too large to analyse properly.

  • Differences in driving “if only” some piece of luck had/had not happened. It's tough, but it's beyond pure analytical tools to suggest precisely how being treated properly by fate would have affected a driver's performance. The fans of a given driver are better placed to answer that sort of question.

 

I will go through this analysis race-by-race. The analysis is formatted with the cumulative points after each race title. It will be in the format (VET: x WEB: y ALO: z HAM: a BUT: b), with three-letter abbreviations of each driver's surname used to avoid confusion. At Germany and subsequent races, there is an oblique sign between two figures for each driver, depending on which route the FIA had taken in removing the "luck" of blatant team orders which, despite a guilty verdict, received no sporting penalty and should.

 

The first number by each driver underneath the race titles is the number of points actually scored in that race. After that, there is a modifier to take into account the effects of mechanical failures, pit-stop gremlins, bad stewarding and the effects of all these on drivers who would otherwise have finished in a position affecting their points scores. An explanation of all modifiers is given in brackets.

 

Reminder (primarily to self because even now I'm apt to forget what positions are worth in new money): the current points-scoring system goes 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 for 1st through to 10th.

 

I calculate the following fortune-correction for Vettel, Webber, Alonso, Hamilton and Button:

 

Bahrain (VET: 25 WEB: 4 ALO: 18 HAM: 12 BUT: 6)

 

Vettel: 12 + 13 = 25 (spark plug problem slowed him down a lot)

Webber: 4 + 0 = 4 (uneventful race)

Alonso: 25 – 7 = 18 (Vettel slowed due to car trouble)

Hamilton:  15 – 3 = 12 (Vettel slowed due to car trouble)

Button: 6 + 0 = 6 (uneventful race)

 

Australia (VET: 50 WEB: 10 ALO: 24 HAM: 27 BUT: 24)

 

Vettel: DNF + 25 = 25 (brake failure while leading)

Webber: 2 + 6 = 8 (hit by Hamilton twice, Vettel's brakes denied win)

Alonso: 12 - 6 = 6 (clouted by Button, Vettel's brakes denied win, Webber and Hamilton would have been ahead had they been more fortunate concerning crashes)

Hamilton: 8 + 7 = 15 (hit Webber through mechanical failure, hit Webber second time through own fault, Vettel's brakes denied win)

Button: 25 - 7 = 18 (clouted Alonso and Schumacher, surprised pits, Vettel's brakes denied win)

 

Malaysia (VET: 75 WEB: 35 ALO: 24 HAM: 35 BUT: 26)

 

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (uneventful victory)

Webber: 18 + 0 = 25 (uneventful victory)

Alonso: 13/DNF + 0 = 0 (bad quali down to poor strategy, engine failed passing Button)

Hamilton: 8 + 0 = 8 (bad quali down to poor strategy)

Button: 4 - 2 = 2 (bad quali down to poor strategy, Alonso would have beaten him had engine held)

 

China (VET: 81 WEB: 39 ALO: 39 HAM: 70 BUT: 36)

 

Vettel: 6 + 0 = 6 (racing incident with Hamilton, helped force Hamilton wide but possibly caused by Button)

Webber: 4 + 0 = 4 (forced off-track by Hamilton was a third party (Button's fault); ultimately only Button gained)

Alonso: 12 + 3 = 15 (jump-start own fault, but had Button been penalised correctly for Safety Car, a place would have been gained)

Hamilton: 18 + 7 = 25 (racing accident with Vettel, took to grass to avoid hitting Button and Vettel; would have won if Button penalised correctly)

Button: 25 - 15 = 10 (Safety Car bunching-up done erratically and should have been penalised)

 

Spain (VET: 91 WEB: 64 ALO: 57 HAM: 85 BUT: 44)

 

Vettel: 12 – 2 = 10 (Hamilton would have finished ahead without puncture)

Webber: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward victory)

Alonso: 18 + 0 = 18 (smooth second)

Hamilton: 14/DNF + 15 = 15 (crash due to puncture while 3rd)

Button: 10 - 2 = 8 (Hamilton would have finished ahead without puncture)

 

Monaco (VET: 109 WEB: 89 ALO: 65 HAM: 95 BUT: 50)

 

Vettel: 18 + 0 = 18 (straighforward second)

Webber: 25 + 0 = 25 (straighforward victory)

Alonso: 8 + 0 = 8 (poor quali own fault)

Hamilton: 10 + 0 = 10 (uneventful fifth)

Button: DNF + 6 = 6 (blocked cooling denies a finish; was behind Schumacher at the time)

 

Turkey (VET: 109 WEB: 114 ALO: 69 HAM: 113 BUT: 65)

 

Vettel: DNF + 0 = 0 (crash own fault)

Webber: 15 + 10 = 25 (hit by Vettel, losing victory)

Alonso: 4 + 0 = 4 (nothing done in the race fits the definition of “luck” given)

Hamilton: 25 – 7 = 18 (Webber would have won if Vettel hadn't hit him)

Button: 18 – 3 = 15 (Webber would have won if Vettel hadn't hit him)

 

Canada (VET: 119 WEB: 132 ALO: 81 HAM: 128 BUT: 80)

 

Vettel: 12 – 2 = 10 (Webber would have finished ahead without the gearbox change)

Webber: 10 + 8 = 18 (5-place gearbox penalty; originally qualified behind Hamilton)

Alonso: 15 – 3 = 12 (Webber would have finished ahead without the gearbox change)

Hamilton: 25 + 0 = 25 (unchallengable victory)

Button: 18 – 3 = 15 (Webber would have finished ahead without the gearbox change)

 

Europe (VET: 144 WEB: 132 ALO: 85 HAM: 146 BUT: 90)

 

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (hit Hamilton)

Webber: DNF + 0 = 0 (crash due to misjudgement)

Alonso: 4 + 0 = 4 (unaffected by chaos round him)

Hamilton: 18 + 0 = 18 (hit by Vettel but didn't lose places, overtaking Safety Car own fault)

Button: 15 - 5 = 10 (should have received a 20s penalty for being too quick under the Safety Car according to Article 16, not 5s)

 

Britain (VET: 159 WEB: 157 ALO: 85 HAM: 164 BUT: 100)

 

Vettel: 6 + 9 = 15 (puncture due to light clash with Hamilton)

Webber: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward victory)

Alonso: 0 + 0 = 0 (off own mistake, then pushed off due to Kubica and penalised, hit Liuzzi to get puncture. The bad luck cost him 2 places, but not enough to return Fernando to the points)

Hamilton: 18 + 0 = 0 (uneventful second)

Button: 12 - 2 = 10 (hit Vettel lightly; Vettel would have finished ahead had it not been for the puncture)

 

Germany (VET: 174/177 WEB: 165/167 ALO: 103/85 HAM: 176/179 BUT: 110/112)

 

Vettel: 15 + 0 = 15/18 (boring third)

Webber: 8 + 0 = 8/10 (uneventful sixth)

Alonso: 25 - 7 = 18/0 (only passed Massa through team orders. Correct penalty unclear but pass should not have happened. Therefore 2 numbers given; one if the pass had been reversed and the other if Alonso had been disqualified as the stewards were entitled to do.)

Hamilton: 12 + 0 = 12/15 (uneventful fourth)

Button: 10 + 0 = 10/12 (straightforward fifth)

 

Hungary (VET: 182/185 WEB: 190/192 ALO: 121/103 HAM: 191/194 BUT: 114/116)

 

Vettel: 15 - 7 = 8 (crossed grass verge in pitlane entry and should have been penalised; exceeding maximum gap to Safety Car own fault)

Webber: 25 + 0 = 25 (luck had nothing to do with victory)

Alonso: 18 + 0 = 18 (straightforward second)

Hamilton: DNF + 15 = 15 (gearbox failure; was behind Alonso at the time)

Button: 4 + 0 = 4 (quiet eighth)

 

Belgium (VET: 182/185 WEB: 208/210 ALO: 121/103 HAM: 216/219 BUT: 129/131)

 

Vettel: 0 + 0 = 0 (collisions with Button and Liuzzi own fault)

Webber: 18 + 0 = 18 (straightforward second)

Alonso: DNF + 0 = 0 (T-boned by Barrichello, but walloped barrier by himself later)

Hamilton: 25 + 0 = 25 (win nothing to do with luck)

Button: DNF + 15 = 15 (blameless in collision with Vettel; ahead of Kubica at the time)

 

Italy (VET: 194/197 WEB: 218/220 ALO: 146/128 HAM: 216/219 BUT: 147/149)

 

Vettel: 12 + 0 = 12 (engine issue didn't seem to affect him in the long run)

Webber: 8 + 2 = 10 (held up by Hulkenburg, who should have been penalised for chicane-cutting and wasn't)

Alonso: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward win)

Hamilton: DNF + 0 = 0 (caused own crash)

Button: 18 + 0 = 18 (straightforward second)

 

Singapore (VET: 212/215 WEB: 233/235 ALO: 171/153 HAM: 216/219 BUT: 159/161)

 

Vettel: 18 + 0 = 18 (lost no places when anti-stall kicked in during the pitstop)

Webber: 15 + 0 = 15 (racing incident with Hamilton)

Alonso: 25 + 0 = 25 (easy win)

Hamilton: DNF + 0 = 0 (racing incident colliding with Webber)

Button: 12 + 0 = 12 (quiet 4th)

 

Japan (VET: 237/240 WEB: 251/253 ALO: 183/165 HAM: 231/234 BUT: 167/171)

 

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward win)

Webber: 18 + 0 = 18 (quiet second)

Alonso: 15 – 3 = 12 (Hamilton would have beaten him without the gearbox penalty)

Hamilton: 10 + 5 = 15 (5-place grid drop; qualified behind Webber)

Button: 12 – 2 = 10 (Hamilton would have beaten him without the gearbox penalty)

 

Korea (VET: 255/258 WEB: 251/253 ALO: 198/180 HAM: 246/249 BUT: 167/171)

 

Vettel: DNF + 18 = 18 (Alonso would have beaten him if it weren't for a stuck wheel nut, but ahead of everyone else when engine blew)

Webber: DNF + 0 = 0 (crashed by himself)

Alonso: 25 + 0 = 25 (stuck wheel nut only reason wasn't ahead of Vettel when Sebastian's engine blew)

Hamilton: 18 – 3 = 15 (Vettel's engine blew)

Button: 0 - 0 (Vettel's engine blew, but Button was already out of the points by then)

 

Brazil (VET: 280/283 WEB: 269/271 ALO: 213/192 HAM: 258/261 BUT: 177/179)

 

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (luck didn't affect any of the championship contenders this race)

Webber: 18 + 0 = 18 (ditto)

Alonso: 15 + 0 = 15 (ditto)

Hamilton: 12 + 0 = 12 (ditto)

Button: 10 + 0 = 10 (ditto)

 

Abu Dhabi (VET: 305/308 WEB: 273/275 ALO: 219/198 HAM: 276/279 BUT: 193/195)

 

Vettel: 25 + 0 = 25 (straightforward victory)

Webber: 4 + 0 = 4 (hit barrier that necessitated tyre change through own error)

Alonso: 6 + 0 = 6 (poor strategy outside scope of analysis)

Hamilton: 18 + 0 = 18 (straightforward second)

Button: 15 + 0 = 15 (uneventful third)

 

I will complete the analysis (and correct this one if need be) tomorrow.

 

* - Until someone comes up with a proper word for the five-man equivalent of “duel”, this will have to do.

 

Read More & Comment
​

Re-Analysing The Championship Duel

December 2, 2010
Filed under: Uncategorized by Alianora_La_Canta — 0 Comments
Warning! Long entry alert!

This entry was inspired by a question asked by Lonny at F1 Insight. He wondered if Felipe Massa would have been champion if his engine failures and pit lane problem in Singapore had been taken into account, irrespective of the stewarding against Hamilton. As promised, I decided to do the maths.

I started doing a reply and then realised that it was much too long to work as a comment.

The analysis is formatted with the cumulative points after each race title. The original one is given first, then the modified one. A corrected analysis of Singapore changed the results towards the end; while the original is left in for historical purposes, the latter number should be taken as the more accurate final points count. Hamilton's score is always given before Massa's.

The first number by each driver underneath the race titles is the number of points actually scored in that race. After that, there is a modifier to take into account the effects of mechanical failures, pit-stop gremlins, bad stewarding and the effects of all these on drivers who would otherwise have finished in a position affecting their points scores. An explanation of all modifiers is given in brackets.

I calculate the following fortune-correction for Massa and Hamilton:

Australia (10-0 becomes 10-2)

Hamilton 10 + 0 (easy victory)

Massa 0 + 2 (engine failure while in 7th)

Malaysia (14-0 becomes 16-2)

Hamilton 4 + 2 (lost 15 seconds in botched McLaren pit stop)

Massa 0 + 0 (spun off on his own accord)

Bahrain (14-10 becomes 16-12)

Hamilton 0 + 0 (he clouted Alonso himself)

Massa 10 + 0 (easy victory)

Spain (20-18 becomes 22-20)

Hamilton 6 + 0 (uneventful third)

Massa 8 + 0 (uneventful second)

Turkey (28-28 becomes 30-30)

Hamilton 8 + 0 (uneventful second)

Massa 10 + 0 (easy victory)

Monaco (38-34 becomes 40-36)

Hamilton 10 + 0 (non-controversial victory, apart from the crash that he was lucky to drive away from)

Massa 6 + 0 (equally non-controversial second or third, as Nick subsequently corrected me)

Canada (38-38 becomes 40-41)

Hamilton 0 + 0 (he crashed of his own accord)

Massa 4 + 1 (lost a pitstop worth of time due to not being fuelable in first stop, a drama missed due to Hamilton's collision, but Raikkonen would have been ahead of him were it not for being hit by Hamilton. Net gain of one point.)

France (38-48 becomes 40-49)

Hamilton 0 + 0 (the chicane-cut rule may be woolly, but none of the known official interpretations permit the first-lap chicane-cut Hamilton did)

Massa 10 - 2 (would have been second but for Raikkonen's exhaust problem)

Britain (48-48 becomes 50-49)

Hamilton 10 + 0 (he won without controversy)

Massa 0 + 0 (he did all his own spins)

Germany (58-54 becomes 60-55)

Hamilton 10 + 0 (he won despite a tactical error)

Massa 6 + 0 (uneventful third)

Hungary (62-54 becomes 63-65)

Hamilton 4 - 1 (would have lost a position if Massa's engine had held. The potential win was lost by his own error)

Massa 0 + 10 (lost victory due to an engine failure)

Europe (70-64 becomes 71-73)

Hamilton 8 + 2 (would have gained Massa's place had a correct penalty been awarded)

Massa 10 - 2 (would have lost a pitstop had he been penalised correctly for unsafe release)

Belgium (76-74 becomes 83-81)

Hamilton 6 + 4 (controversial chicane-cut; on strict interpretation no modification should occur, but on the wording of the interpretations used both before and after the incident, Hamilton had given the place back and waited until Raikkonen erred before going through)

Massa 10 - 2 (would have lost the win if Hamilton had been adjudged by convention accurately instead of a misinterpretation of a post-dated interpretation)

Italy (78-77 becomes 83-84)

Hamilton 2 - 2 (should have been penalised for a chicane-cut against Heidfeld)

Massa 3 + 0 (uneventful sixth)

Singapore (84-77 becomes 91-85 or 91-87)

Hamilton 6 + 2 (Rosberg only finished ahead due to a slow penalty issue)

Massa 0 + 1 [3]
Original analysis comment:(he should have come out about ten seconds ahead of Raikkonen, but Raikkonen himself was sixteenth after all that. Giving Massa ten seconds more only promoted him to tenth, which would have become eighth after Trulli's retirement and Fisichella's performance fading)

Updated analysis comment(he should have come out one stoppage period ahead of Sutil. This would have promoted him to eighth, which makes him sixth after Trulli and Fisichella are taken into account)

Japan (84-79 becomes 93-85 or 93-87)

Hamilton 0 + 2 (the Massa/Bourdais thing wouldn't have been enough in itself to promote him any places as he was too far behind. The collection of penalisable incidents would have raised him one position, but he needed three more to gain a place. However, he should not have been hit by Massa in the first place and did nothing to earn the penalty issued to him from that incident. 43 seconds lost there. This gives him a net position of 7th, just behind Bourdais)

Massa 2 - 2 (should have received the penalty Bourdais got for the crash between them. Also should have been penalised for causing an avoidable collision in addition to one for a chicane-skip and another one for using a sterile area to pass Webber)

China (94-87 becomes 103-93 or 103-95)

Hamilton 10 + 0 (easy victory)

Massa 8 + 0 (technically receiving the position back from Raikkonen is against the Regulations, but convention says that in this situation it's OK. If I am to say Hamilton should not have been penalised for Spa, then I should also say that Massa was correctly unpenalised for this irrespective of my feelings about team orders)

Brazil (98-97 becomes 107-103 or 107-105)

Hamilton 4 + 0 (uneventful fifth from the perspective of this analysis)

Massa 10 + 0 (easy win)

The conclusion is that the gap was three [one if the updated score is used] points smaller than it would have been with all reliability issues, stewarding mishaps and so on taken into account. It remains in Hamilton's favour.
Read More & Comment
​

Thursday Thoughts - Blogging

December 2, 2010
Filed under: Site by Alianora_La_Canta — 0 Comments

Date: March 4 2010

 

The inspiration for this blog entry is this week's Thursday Thoughts question, posed by Maverick at Sidepodcast:

"Which blog article or articles have you written that you were most pleased with writing and why?"

This is a tough question for me. In the 1301 days since I started blogging, I've written hundreds of entries, some of which have pleased me greatly for different reasons.

In chronological order, the blog entries that have most pleased me are:

Renault and long-term driver strategy - April 29, 2007

This entry broke some boundaries for me. I'd happily discussed general F1 matters, stuff I'd done and stuff relating to Spyker, but this was the first time I'd done a blog entry at length on a team with no particular connection to the one I supported. Also, it was the most speculative blog entry I'd done up to that point.

Writing the entry entailed a lot of consideration of consequences and getting into the mindsets of various people to figure out what the situation was most likely to become. Getting my first link from another blog gave me a lot of confidence (thank you, Ollie!) It was also the entry that "launched" the blog into the minds of readers and established its reputation - I'd been writing articles nearly nine months with a readership in single digits up to that point.

To celebrate, I've reserved April 29 for Renault strategy discussions ever since. One Year On and Two Years On describe Renault's path to stagnancy pretty well, but I feel neither of them are quite as good as the original.

Spyker, Albers and the search for profits - July 10, 2007

This was the first time I felt that I'd managed to make a series work (later entries include driver speculation, sponsorship cookery and a thinly-veiled bit of Winklehock cheerleading. It wasn't a formal series; it just so happened that the Albers affair inspired me to write large amounts about the intersection of money and driving.

As Media Collide (Part 1) - October 26, 2007

I really enjoyed doing the thinking for this one and the ideas just flowed onto the screen. Unfortunately the FOM haven't implemented any of these ideas yet... (Oh, and it's a three-part series, with instalments on the FIA and Mosley on TV).

OK, Now I Believe The Rumour - January 10, 2008

Scoop by hairdo. That is all.

Racing For Ethics - February 24, 2008

This is my favourite blog entry of all. It started out with a news story, steamed in my head for three weeks and after a lot of passionate typing, resolved itself as a call for morality unfolding through the prism of festivals gone wrong, business "ethics" and counter-productive visas.

I felt incredible after I'd finished. Even more so when I saw that my research had caused fellow fans' thinking, and possibly behaviour, to change. Two years after I wrote it, I still smile - and try, so far in vain, to write so well again.

Pros and Cons of Driver Hierarchical Arrangements - July 16, 2008

This was an entry where I felt I made a distinctive contribution to the understanding of a concept in F1. I looked at how teams tended to structure their driver arrangements, categorised them and drew up advantages and disadvantages. While that may sound simple, it is also something I've not seen elsewhere before or since - and something that goes a long way towards explaining the diversity of driver arrangements seen on the grid.

It still doesn't explain everything about them though. Or why I still haven't got round to writing the driver-culture link entry...

Advantages Of Travelling By Rail Instead Of By F1 Car - September 25, 2008

Of the humorous pieces I've written for my blog, this is probably the one that will date slowest. The sheer absurdity of the analogy helped a lot.

Re-Analysing The Championship Duel - November 16, 2008

As soon as I picked up the question of whether Massa had lost through misfortune or something more arose, I knew there was going to be a good blog entry in it. The analysis was a lot of fun and there was a nice mathematical edge to the whole thing. I even ended up attempting to discuss objective v. subjective interpretations of Singaporean performance (in Portuguese) on a Brazillian blog (not easy considering I didn't even have my own Portuguese dictionary at that point...)

Leavetakings

When Honda left F1... ...I found myself thinking a lot about why manufacturers bother doing F1. While it didn't do much for my December 2008 theme of thanksgiving, I felt that it explained the whole sorry affair rather well. Thankfully, Honda did get a buyer as I'd hoped at the end of the article.

(There are some stupid sticky trackbacks here that I can't remove Sad )

My Silverstone Trip (Saturday) - June 30, 2009

My first full live F1 weekend made a huge impression on me. There's an entire swathe of entries about it, covering Thursday, Friday, Sunday and fuel stints.

Saturday, though, was the one I felt captured my feelings and the atmosphere of a magical weekend best. I think I managed to convey that whole sense of a special, shared sporting spectacle.

Fisi To Ferrari - An Emotional Moment

Any topic involving my favourites tends to read fairly well. However, this one was particularly tricky to write because I felt so many conflicting emotions... ...but I couldn't not write about something having that big an effect on me. The resulting entry expresses the bittersweet happiness pretty clearly.

Analysis of the 2010 Technical Regulations

FIA regulation documents, although frustrating, work well for me. They also seem to flow better each time. That said, this document almost defeated me - which made me particularly pleased when the result worked so well as a document.

Read More & Comment
​

Analysis of the 2010 Sporting Regulations

November 29, 2010
Filed under: FIA by Alianora_La_Canta — 0 Comments

Date: December 16 2009

Mood: Optimistically thoughtful (S)=:)

Currently: Reading the 2010 F1 Sporting Regulations


The FIA recently issued a brand-new version of the 2010 regulations. As such, I will be comparing this version of the document with the previous version and highlighting the changes. The fact that the FIA has not highlighted some of the alterations is annoying, but I will do my best.

Contents and Preamble


There is now a section on homologated parts, appended to the "Spare Parts, Gearboxes and Engines" section (Article 28).

The organisation agreement, rule changes, driver contract recognition bureau and cost cap regulations appendices have been removed. The latter will have gone because the Concorde Agreement was signed by all parties after the last version of the regulations was released. The organisation agreement and rule changes appendices also obsolete due to the Concorde Agreement. The CRB chapter never had anything shown in it, so removing it was probably a size-reduction exercise with no implications on the way that side of F1 is run.

The preamble no longer refers to Article 4 of the Sporting Regulations, instead invoking the Concorde Agreement.

Article 1


We no longer know when the FIA can make changes to the Sporting Regulations, these now forming part of the secret Concorde Agreement. This is slightly worrisome because if the FIA pulls a stunt like releasing a new version of the regulations a week before the first race, we won't be able to call them out for it with confidence. We will have to rely on the teams to know for certain... ...and since they missed several regulation changes within that late-changing document due to concentrating on the attempt to impose medals, I don't have a huge amount of faith in that route.

The regulations are now "published on the date below" which, when you think about it, makes more sense than re-typing the date into the text every time, given that the date of publication appears on the footer of every single page of the regulatory documents.

Article 2


There are no longer any exemptions for cost-regulated teams for the simple reason that the budget cap no longer exists.

Article 6


Article 6.3 now contains a provision concerning Listed Parts. These are the components of a car that define a constructor in the eyes of the FIA. It is OK to outsource these components as long as they are not used by any other teams. All references to intellectual property rights have been removed, meaning that a third party could design and build every part of the car - provided that they only allowed one team to use those parts. The Red Bull Technology/Paul White Racing trick (used by Red Bull and Honda respectively to allow whole cars to be used by two different teams - in the former case, simultaneously) is no longer possible.

The regulation change which has received the most attention so far is the points change in Article 6.4. Positions 1-4 and 7th place have had their points allocation multiplied by 2.5 and other positions in the top 8 also receive more points than before in order to extend the points system down to 10th. 5th and 6th become less valuable relative to 2009 while 8th-10th become more valuable (in the latter two positions' case, that was the point). It will still be trickier to score points in 2010 than in 2009 (40% of any given race entry list scored points each race in 2009, but only 38.4% will in 2010), but with six more cars on the grid something had to be done and this is probably the closest thing possible. It doesn't really change the status quo much, except for historians who have yet another statistical wrinkle to resolve.

Article 9


A very minor modification to refer to the Concorde Agreement instead of the obsolete arrangements in the previous Sporting Regulations for organisers of races.

Article 11


The FIA still retains the right to select an observer and a steward's advisor. Logically, this suggests that the former drivers Jean Todt has recently talked about will simply replace Alan Donnelly (apart from the chairman's role, which will now be held by one of the voting stewards), not perform some new role in the stewarding process.

Article 12


There is confirmation that whoever is the steward chairman will now have a vote.

Article 13


According to Article 13.1, entries into the 2011 championship will be accepted between 30 June and 15 July. This leaves a two-week window, just right for causing chaos if there is a stupid political situation. That said, the last few championship windows have been a bit... ...fluid, so this may change nearer to the time. Entry will cost the same (€309,000) for the 2011 season as it did for 2010, unless it is amended by the Concorde Agreement.

References to the year have been changed to refer to the date in the footer, thus saving whichever admin assistant types up these regulations some work in future years. This is a good thing.

According to Article 13.5, the F1 Commision, not the FIA, will decide if a team brings the sport into disrepute. This is presumably to allow the FIA to keep at arm's length from the impact of $100m fines and the like. It also proves that Jean Todt is serious about reviving the F1 Commision that Max Mosely allowed to wither away.

Article 16


If a driver has a penalty involving the pit lane issued within the last five laps of the race, the penalty now differs according to whether a drive-through or stop/go penalty was indicated. If it was a drive-through, then only 20 seconds instead of the previous 25 will be added. In practise, this makes the penalty lighter than if it had been issued in the race - possibly impetus for the stewards to make quicker decisions. However, stop/go penalties will now be 30 seconds (the new drive-through penalty plus 10 seconds), which is 5 seconds longer than before. Expect stewards to make greater use of stop/go penalties for bad behaviour penalised late in the race in order to discourage teams from deliberately waylaying penalties by asking for "clarification" or similar - or just plain discouraging drivers from behaving worse as the race goes on and the cut-off point approaches.

Article 16.4 means drivers may only drive for two laps before taking pit-lane-related penalties, not three. It is also specifically defined as "crossing the Line twice" rather than the slightly vaguer definition of "laps" and the prohibition on taking penalties under the Safety Car has been altered to reflect this. I think communication is just about good enough between driver and pit for this to work. It will also reduce the mitigation a driver can do by waiting until the last possible moment to take a penalty. Someone may get caught out at the start of the year though while everyone adjusts their thinking.

Article 19


Substitute drivers will have to take the engine and tyres allocated to the previous driver. I was under the impression that this was required in 2009 as well (and not just in the case of mid-race-weekend substitutions as already written in the regulations), but having it codified is no bad thing...

Article 22


Instead of three one-day driver tests, there will be one three-day driver test (which was what happened in 2009 in practise because the teams tested together in three adjacent days). The addition of "a site approved by the FIA for Formula 1 cars" is superflous becuase circuit testing (other varieties are covered under different parts of the Article) can only happen on FIA F1-approved sites - Article 22.1 e) is clear on that score.

In-season testing has been restricted but more options have been granted. Teams can choose between six straight-line/constant-radius corner tests, 24 hours of full-scale wind tunnel testing or a combination thereof (with 4 hours of full-scale wind tunnel testing in a 24-hour period being equivalent to one day of straight-line/constant-radius corner testing). Note that in 2009 full-scale wind tunnel testing was strictly forbidden. This reduces the effect of upgrades and will mean teams must plan carefully. Those who upgraded effectively in 2009 will do so even more effectively in 2010.

Article 22.1 c) has a new exception to it, which I would like to call "the Badoer rule". If a substitute driver is needed by a team and that driver hasn't raced in the last two years, that driver may do one day of circuit testing for familiarisation purposes. This test must be done at a track not hosting a round of F1 (so Silverstone and Barcelona are out, Fiorano and Jerez are in), it has to happen in a 28-day period around the first time where the substitution occurs (14 days before, 14 days after). Failing to make the substitution after declaring the test will result in one day of in-season testing being taken away from next year's allocation (what the FIA proposes to do about teams who break this rule and then quit F1 is unknown). In the specific case of the 2009 Ferrari, I'm not sure it would have been much help, but for easier-to-handle cars, it could save a lot of problems for rookies who are summoned to F1 under difficult circumstances.

Article 23


According to Article 23.1 a), Work in the fast lane is apparently forbidden if other cars could be impeded. The number of occasions when this could be invoked are limited, for work is only permitted in the fast lane in the build-up to a race start for those starting from the pit lane. I'd love to know what eventuality the FIA were trying to prevent with this that wasn't already prevented by some other part of the regulations.

Article 23.1 b) has changed a lot. All garage allocations must be equal, which the backmarker teams will love and the frontrunning ones will not (because someone must lose positions for equality to be achieved). All pit areas will be within a team's garage area, which I thought was always the case... ...maybe the FIA is attempting to prevent some sort of outlandish pit lane design or something.

No powered lifting devices are permitted in the pit lanes during races any more. This could cause a major problem if a driver needs a front wing changing because the standard lifting gear used by teams previously depended on either being able to use the front wing as a leverage point or power. Anyone in a first-corner bash may need to be taken into the garages for a front wing change, or else spend considerably longer having the change completed using manual labour. I can also see the mechanics at the front of the car in pit stops needing to increase their fitness training in case such a situation happens.

A driver who chooses to start from the pit lane by electing not to leave the pits until the 15 minutes are up, as opposed to one required to start there, for example because of a post-qualifying change of monocoque, would appear to now be exempt from 23.1 e). I say "appear" because without that regulation, such a driver would no longer be required to start from the pits! I suspect this was not the intention of the regulation, so don't be surprised to see the next amendment of the regulations iron out this flaw.

The requirement to release a car from a pit stop only when safe to do so has been moved to 23.1 j). I have no idea why.

Article 25


There is now a reference to the tendering process the FIA uses to select single tyre manufacturers.

Heating elements are permitted, but only if they heat the outer surface of the tyres (probably to prevent the heaters taking the form of whole-tyre boxes or heaters between the wheel hub and tyre).

Article 25.4 is written in such a way that races re-started under Article 42.5 a), in common with races started under the Safety Car, require all drivers to be on extreme wet-weather tyres. This should hopefully result in fewer problems when re-starting races under monsoon conditions (though it still won't help if the situation is like Malaysia 2009).

Interestingly, Article 25.5 prevents teams from using tyres on simulators, except for acquiring aero drag, tyre rolling resistance and purely vertical forces. Wheel rim producers are allowed to use F1 tyres solely to check their products work. I'm not sure how much of an effect this will have in practise - how easy would it be to collect extra data while the permitted data is being collected? Even if the teams aren't trying to collect that data?

Article 27


Tyre heating blankets are now permitted. This will be a relief to those who worried that the cars won't heat up their tyres correctly, especially given the large quantities of fuel that will be in the cars in 2010.

Article 28


The reference to fuel loads being free for anyone starting from the pits has been removed because the refuelling ban means it would make no difference to fuel load where a car is positioned on the grid - they'll all have just enough to complete the race.

Article 28.4 will make sure every engine replacement beyond the permitted eight is penalised. This gets round a proposed (but not acted upon) plan for Sebastian Vettel to take only one engine penalty by using engines 9 and 10 on the same Saturday. However, the proposed method (putting the second penalty for the next race) means such a plan could still be done at the final race of the season without penalty if the driver and team in question are not on the grid the next season (since I assume that if either were, the entity in question could take the penalty on the first race of next season).

Article 28.7 represents a significant change. It is only possible to have one survival cell, roll structure, impact structure, front and rear wheel design in a given year. These components are mostly safety devices that will reduce the workload the crash test centres and FIA beuracracy will have to deal with, but it means that any true monocoque design will effectively be fixed at the start of the year. I wonder about the possibility of making the aerodynamic parts a shell around the survival cell (and thus modifiable), but weight concerns would probably militate against that. This would prevent at least part of the McLaren upgrade that made them so powerful in the second half of the 2009 season.

Safety and reliability changes are permitted to all the components listed above at any time, so it is possible that some will shamelessly exploit the loophole. Adding "clear" into the sentence probably doesn't help, given that "clear" itself has multiple interpretations depending on who is looking at the situation.

Article 29


The refuelling article has changed substantially, as you'd expect given that refuelling (and removing fuel) between cars leaving the pits on race day and the moment the chequered flag is waved has been banned. When there isn't a race on, fuel can only be added or removed at a stately 800ml/second and the engine must be stopped when this is happening.

Article 34


Article 34.1 now permits fluids to be replaced in parc fermé, provided their specfic gravity is 1.1 or less. This is primarily to enable fuel to be added between qualifying and the race, thus allowing all qualifying sessions to be done on qualifying levels of fuel.

It will be compulsory for all cars to be covered with a FIA-sealed (but presumably team-provided) protective sheet after qualifying. This is instead of attempting to shoehorn 26 cars into the FIA garage for overnight parc fermé accommodation. Removal of the sheet may occur up to five hours before the race at each team's discretion.

Article 36


The reference to engine penalties has been amended to take into account a change of position of where engine penalties are described in Article 28. This has no material effect on the starting grid procedure.

Article 38


Article 38.4 has acquired a comma. This makes it grammatically incorrect because the comma is followed by the word "or", but makes no difference in the effect of the regulation.

Under Article 38.8, it is now possible to overtake another car if it's delayed anywhere on the lap, not just when it's slow off the line. This could be useful if a car has a technical problem, but I doubt it will be used very often. The car thus delayed has until the first safety car line (which is immediately before the pit entrance) to fully regain position, otherwise the driver must start from the pits. This won't help people who stall unless they get going before everyone passes them. The line used to determine what constitutes "everyone passes them" (1 metre ahead of pole position unless otherwise specified by that particular circuit) is now used for Article 42.6 as well as Article 40.15.

Article 38.11, which required pit lane starts for anyone moving when the one second light prior to the start of formation lap comes on or loses position on the formation lap, has been deleted. The "loses position on the formation lap" situation is covered by the re-write of Article 38.8 (which now gives such drivers more leeway), but it would appear that a driver can still be moving at the 1-second mark and not be penalised. This does not strike me as a good idea because having cars moving during a part of the procedure has resulted in dangerous situations. Particularly when the green lights come on and there are cars trying to slow down when others are speeding up...

Article 40


Article 40.7 has been changed in the light of Nico Rosberg's delta time in Japan 2009 being obscured by a "fuel low" message. While teams appear to still be allowed to overrule the delta time message, they do so at their own risk; it is explicitly stated that drivers must drive faster than the time given by the ECU until the safety car line is crossed for the first time.

There are some wording changes in Article 40.7 to make it clearer what is meant by a safety car period. Since it is from the "Safety Car Deployed" signs until the first safety car line after the safety car is called in (i.e. what the safety car period has meant ever since it was introduced), this makes no difference to the racing.

Article 40.11 has been highlighted as a change in Article number because lapped cars will no longer be permitted to overtake the safety car in a safety car period.  

The message put out when it's time for the safety car period to end is being changed to "SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP". Once the sign is out, the lead driver may drop more than ten car lengths behind the safety car. In effect, they will assume part of the safety car's job on the final lap of the safety car period, even before the safety car pits. Erratic acceleration and braking is also specifically banned on restarts, which will alter most drivers' methodology when it comes to restarting near the front of a race. There's a general ban on behaviour which could endanger other competitors or the restart as well.

Article 40.14 makes it possible to restart races under the safety car as well as begin races that way, with minor wording modifications made to reflect this. This has been done before (Nurburgring 2007 springs to mind), but now the formal conditions for such an event are listed in Article 42.5 a). Such situations will now be communicated through the timing monitors. This is especially important because Article 25.4 requires all such restarts to be conducted with everyone on extreme wet-weather tyres and timing monitors are much more reliable than e-mail for communication (ask Ferrari in Japan 2007).

Article 41


Following the mess that was the failed attempt to restart the Malaysia 2009 race, Article 41.2 no longer uses the grid as last seen on the timing screens to decide who starts where. Instead, the grid slots will be filled in order of cars arriving back to the grid. Yes, this will mean lapped cars in the middle of the pack and similar potentially-chaotic elements, but at least it won't take 10 minutes to figure out where everyone should be parked.

The safety car will take restarts from the front of the grid, not just position itself behind the red flag line (as it would for a standing-start course inspection). Work is permitted on cars once they reach thr grid. In practise, all this is likely to mean is that the red flag line is going to be taken out of the vocabulary needed to understand the regulations.

References to work permitted in the fast lane have been excised. Therefore, all work between a race suspension and restart must occur in the team's pit garage area or on the grid. This will reduce the risk of impediments to cars attempting to leave the pits.

Article 42


Lapped cars between the safety car and the leader will be waved off to complete a lap at the two-minute mark, as opposed to the previous vague "some point after the three-minute mark".

Under Article 42.5 a), wet weather is now a legitimate reason for a safety car restart, provided that the race director feels a formation lap under the safety car is insufficient to make the course safe for normal racing.

Article 42 has been modified to change all instances of "red flag line" with "grid".

Appendix 2


The team entry form no longer has lines across it. I hope nobody filling in that form has bad handwriting, or the forms could get tricky to read...

Changes to any element of the team appearing on the entry form must now be submitted to the FIA within 7 days of the changes being made, to give the FIA the right to refuse further participation in the championship should such changes breach the Concorde Agreement. This would appear to reduce flexibility in teams, but whether it actually does would depend on the contents of the Concorde Agreement.

The information is the same as last version of the document except that references to cost-cap regulations have been removed. Therefore, if a team changes its owner, address, contact information, directors, team principal, team manager, authorised representatives, engine supplier or drivers during the season, the FIA must be informed in case action needs to be taken. I can see this having some minor benefits (for example, the FIA need never worry about having a wrong number again!) but the lack of transparency over what the FIA could legitimately object to is causing me worry concerning potential abuse of the system - perhaps unwarranted worry, but some nonetheless.

Appendix 4


Note that, although this isn't a change, that the FIA is still permitting KERS engine fittings. I'd need to consult the technical regulations to see whether a KERS may be connected to said fittings.

Conclusions

 

These regulation modifications are mostly minor in nature. There are a couple of glaring errors in there, but they're the sort that will probably be corrected before too long. I particularly like the new safety car and restart regulations, but am slightly worried about the new entry form. Still, a generally positive document.

Read More & Comment
​
Older Entries »