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

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

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

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

Contents

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

Article 16

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

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

Article 20

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

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

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

Article 22

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

Article 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 25

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

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

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

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

Article 26

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

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

Article 28

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

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

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

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

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

Article 29

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

Article 30

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

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

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

Article 34

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

Article 35

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

Article 36

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

Article 38

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

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

Article 40

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

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

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

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

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

Article 42

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

I've had a bit of a creative dry spell recently. That changed this evening when I saw WTF1's entry about the Formula 1 Wikipedia game. This is a game where you have to try to get from a random Wikipedia page to the "Formula 1" page in 6 clicks or fewer using only links in the pages themselves. It's based upon the "six degrees of separation" concept and it helps if you can make broad associational links... ...while allowing for certain weaknesses in Wikipedia's articles.

Take my first successful attempt, for example. The "Random Article" button placed me at Omak Airport (an airport in Washington used in World War II). You might initially think such an article was about as helpful as Lake Tanganyika Stadium (where I started the previous - and first - time). However, the article mentions certain trivia about the airport, including the airstrip construction material... ...Asphalt.

Now asphalt is used in all sorts of roads. Sadly, there was no mention of motor racing of any kind in Wikipedia's asphalt article despite 85% of the USA's asphalt being used in road construction. That said, in 1835 - the early days of European asphalt usage - the largest project involving the new material had 24,000 square yards of ground was covered for easy access around the... ...Place de la Concorde.

When I saw that I thought, "Wow! This will be easy - the FIA lives at the Place de la Concorde and the FIA article surely mentions Formula 1 among its activities!" Not so fast! Pretty much every other significant feature of the Place de la Concorde is mentioned (it features, among other things, 8 statues representing major French cities, the French National Assembly and the American embassy), but no mention of the FIA offices that are also there. Oh well, at least France does have a long and storied history in Formula 1...

which isn't mentioned in the France article. There is a lengthy sports section which describes a great variety of sporting activities in France. There's even a motor racing bit. Which talks about the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

The article on the 24 Hours of Le Mans is lengthy. It turns out that in that length, there's a part about Peugeot introducing KERS for the 2009 event which mentions its similarity to the Formula 1 version, but I missed it because I thought I'd seen the perfect link in the "Purpose" section. The first line read, "At a time when Grand Prix racing was the dominant form of motorsport throughout Europe"

I thought "2 clicks and home in the 6 required!" and for once I was right. Grands Prix were the original form of motor racing and many of the series that followed adopted the terminology for their individual events. Formula 1 is the most famous of these. In the article, it mentions that motor racing was started in France, but France's accomplishments with regards to sports are so extensive that this didn't even warrant a mention in the France entry.

Some of my Wikipedia wanderings were a bit shorter. One of them started me at Way Out West (jazz group), which includes West African drums, a dan tranh (a Vietnamese zither) and dan bau (a Vietnamese one-stringed sound box). It has performed in several notable Canadian festivals but is based in the suburbs of Melbourne, Australia.

Melbourne is the second-biggest city in Australia, originally founded by settlers from Van Diemen's Land. Whether this has any non-coincidental connection to the Van Diemen single-seater car manufacturer is unknown. What is known is that it hosts the Australian Grand Prix (Formula One). So that particular wiki walk was completed in a mere two clicks. Maybe Way Out West should be invited to the 2012 F1 Rocks, seeing as the next F1 Rocks concert has such noted non-rock musicians as David Guetta, Taio Cruz and the Sugababes...

Amusingly, the next and final F1 Wikipedia attempt I did started in a motor sport article: the 2009 Formula Lista Junior season. It is a Formula BMW series running from April to September that started in 2000 and is still happening. Most of the drivers and all but one of the teams are Swiss, but the law in Switzerland means they cannot race in their home country. Instead, they race in France (including two visits to Dijon), Germany and Italy, benefiting from a rule allowing national-level racers from anywhere in the EU or a limited number of other countries reciprocal access to appropriate series in any country involved in that agreement.

That said, the 2009 title was not won by a Swiss driver, but an Italian one - Kevin Giovesi. He won 5 races out of the 12 and scored nearly 50% more points than the second-placed Sven Ackermann (who was the first in a cluster of six Swiss drivers). Some progression is clearly possible because even fifth-placed Sandro Zeller competed in three different F3 championships during 2010. Kevin Giovesi went into Italian F3 but came only 15th while Sven appears to have fallen off the radar completely.

Returning to the wiki walk, the final round happened at Monza.  Needless to say, the Monza article casually mentions the fact that it hosts Formula 1 once... ...or twice... ...or 27 times (admittedly including reference lists). So that wiki walk got me to the destination in 2 clicks, but in a very interesting way for a motor sports fan. It's always nice to discover a previously-unknown racing series :)

This entry was prompted by <a href=http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/...om-the-thieves>Joe Saward's blog</a> writing an entry on some rather blatant plagiarism between <a href=http://formula-1.updatesport.com/new...site/view.html>Update-F1</a> and <a href=http://www.f1-daily.com/news/article...site/view.html>F1-Daily</a>. The fact that F1-Daily has a story bearing the headline:

Not related to F1-Daily

perhaps suggests which party is the guilty one in this instance. F1-Daily also went down during the typing of this entry...

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping>Web scraping technology</a>, which has been partially prohibited in Australia since 2003 under <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_Act_2003>The Spam Act</a> but has ambiguous legality elsewhere, appears to be the cause. Surely such behaviour is against copyright if nothing else, considering that graphics and verbatim news items were copied and uploaded to the internet with only the briefest (and most unintentionally amusing) of edits.

Theft is also implied in the act. Not only is that the root of the anti-web scraping laws, but UpdateF1 had paid for material from GMM, which was scraped and published without permission. Since the information was GMM's and it was licencing it out to UpdateF1, F1-Daily was committing information property theft when it scraped that part of UpdateF1's site...

...or was it? You see, GMM, for all that it purports to produce "between 10 and 20 original, highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles for publication every day", doesn't own much content of its own. Rather, it looks through a quantity of journalistic output relating to F1, makes edits at most and then dumps it into an information stream. It doesn't apply the "two sources" rule that, for example, the BBC generally does. It's not clear how GMM acquires permission to re-publish such stories this way, but even if it did so by the expensive-but-legal method of agreeing article distribution rights, the theft would not be against GMM but its source publications (except, of course, for the aforementioned edits). Sometimes the edits might be enough for it to be considered distinctive content and therefore GMM's own material, but that simply raises it to the level of blogger.

As far as I can see, the main problem with GMM isn't the sourcing methodology, though I might question its legality (depending on how GMM came by that information in the first place). It is that it is not entirely honest about the nature of its output (this may be an understatement). If it was honest, fewer people would purchase its output. Those who did would not only be completely aware of what they were getting and make that clear to readers, but they could better hold GMM to account. For one thing, I'd like to see anyone acting as a professional information filter (i.e. taking other people's money for the privilege) to have at least some basic information literacy so that they could do their job properly. Simply dumping stories onto a feed and relying on feed recipients to do the hard work of filtering is not only amateurish, but fairly simple to replicate for free with Web 2.0 technologies such as Yahoo! Pipes.

It shouldn't be complicated. Everyone knows (or should know) that the journalists on the scene are necessary to understanding what's going on in F1. Logic suggests that they are the ones most likely to know the truth (or something close to the truth, where stories are at the guesstimate stage) and therefore the most authoritative sources. Sometimes other sources can come up with creative takes on a situation that shed more light on it - but they shouldn't be taken as gospel. For that matter, stories that sound completely ridiculous generally warrant further investigation before being believed.

Different circumstances affect the story. If you're in a paddock, you will see different things compared to being at the race but watching from the stands. In turn, someone watching from the stands will have a different perspective from someone watching at home. Indeed, the country "home" is in and (in some cases) the availability of broadband access or quality paper journalism can significantly affect what someone understands about a situation, for each country has a different combination of people analysing the typical race.

Furthermore, each of us has a particular talent for looking at different parts of the sport and for seeing it in different ways. When we write accordingly, our work improves and we help spread understanding and strength between one another. When we feign an expertise that belongs to another, we confuse ourselves and reduce the quality of everyone else's experience.

So let's acknowledge who and what we are. Let us try to fulfil the role(s) we claim to have to the best of our abilities, let others fill the roles we cannot and act with due respect to one another for helping build the F1 community. Some of us fill several roles - in fact most of us when we note that reading, commenting and posting replies can also be roles. In no particular order:

Journalists are journalists.

Bloggers are bloggers.

Podcasters are podcasters.

Forumites are forumites.

Commenters are commenters.

Media filters are media filters.

Thieves are thieves.

It's when we pretend to be what we're not that the troubles begin...

This is the second of a long series of entries attempting to explain the FIA Sporting Regulations. Here, I explain the things in Article 1 - which makes this a relatively short entry. Quote: 1.1 The final text of these Sporting Regulations shall be the English version which will be used should any dispute arise as to their interpretation. The FIA is based in France and its International Sporting Code is primarily in French. However most of the teams, the FOM and the locus of power in F1 are all English, which is reflected in the Sporting Regulations' language. Quote: Headings in this document are for ease of reference only and do not form part of these Sporting Regulations. This is the sort of extremely obvious thing that is only necessary because the main targets for this document are nit-picking lawyer and racer types who have learned to look for the slightest of loopholes. So if properly written, the Sporting Regulations can't provide any. Quote: These Sporting Regulations will only be amended in accordance with the provisions of The 2009 Concorde Agreement. I have never seen the 2009 Concorde Agreement - hardly surprising, since it's a secret document - but it does mean that the Sporting Regulations can't be changed on a whim. Somewhere there's a procedure which must be followed, but I don't know what that procedure is yet. Quote: 1/2 These Sporting Regulations were published on the date written below This is vitally important, especially in previous years when the regulations were frequently changed mid-season. Ironically it is only now that we have a president who makes changes far less frequently (at least on the small sample that we've seen) that the wording of Article 1.2 changed so that it didn't need to be rewritten every single revision. "Below" refers to the footer of each page of the Sporting Regulations, which has featured the date of publication for as long as I can remember. Quote: and shall apply in accordance with the provisions of The 2009 Concorde Agreement. This clause demonstrates that the Sporting Regulations are not the final word on how F1 is regulated. The Concorde Agreement doubtless has some clause which allows the FIA to apply its own Statutes and the International Sporting Code to the series, but it will have other principles that prevent the FIA from doing what it likes.