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.

...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...

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.

This blog entry was prompted by the Formula 1 Blog entry "Vox Certatus: Playing Favourites", which was about favourite teams and drivers and why we thought them so. Initially I took the question at face value, providing a somewhat lengthy response covering Force India, Hill, Fisichella and... ...Montoya. With stating why I disliked the latter, I inadvertantly kicked over a hornet's nest.

When next I visited, I cleared up a small misunderstanding concerning how I'd worded one particular phrase (or so I thought), but then the discussion drifted in a way I hadn't expected. F1 Kitteh asked me:

So you would rather have ‘scripted **’ than ‘verbal abrasiveness’? 

This is the question which I intend to answer here, since the "essay" proved too long for the comments section of Formula 1 Blog.

In my opinion, there are three kinds of verbal abrasiveness. One of them can be a good thing. Another is generally a somewhat bad thing, but can be very bad depending on the particular circumstances. The third one is always very harmful, and unlike the second one it harms everyone, not just the speaker.

To indicate these, here is my personal sliding scale of verbal abrasiveness and scripting, from best to worst:

Situational, justified verbal abrasiveness <- scripting/situational unjustified verbal abrasiveness <- persistent verbal abrasiveness

 
If someone is liable to be sharp-tongued only in specific situations and there appears to be good reason (e.g. they've just had a really stupid steward's decision against them), that would be better than any form of scripting.

An unjustified sharp-tongued incident tends to lead to biologically scripted behaviour, which is about as accurate as behaviour scripted by the powers-that-be (i.e. not very). This is why I rate behavioural and psuedopolitical scripting on the same level. I don't expect those involved to give the explanation for their behaviour as it is frequently obvious in context, but without some reason for being abrasive, one often finds that common sense and logic go out of the window alongside the politeness. I would consider Scott Speed as an example of someone who washed out of F1 partially because there was confusion over whether his situational abrasiveness was justified or not. I thought it was (from what I heard of it) but Franz Tost differed in opinion.

It's the people who are always abrasive, who cannot seem to go five minutes without denigrating someone or pointlessly attacking some slight, who are the least accurate and the most likely to drive me up the wall even reading their words. Most people like that end up putting off their sponsors and mechanics early in the junior formulae and therefore never get seen by the talent scouts, let alone anyone in F1.

Nonetheless, a few do drift into F1. Some people really like such people, possibly because they are so different to those around them or because they can identify better with them. Personally I cannot identify with them at all because I am accustomed to people who have a reasonable (though frequently imperfect) concept of keeping a civil tongue in their heads. People who don't get mad or dismissive at absolutely everything. And it's this which made me dislike Juan Pablo Montoya and Eddie Irvine. However good they may have been as drivers, as people they disappointed me and their ways of talking about others was the primary clue for me to come to this opinion.

(Incidentally, I prefer truthfulness - whether that's Mark Webber's brand of bold statements or Kamui Kobayashi's calmer candour - over any of the above).  

Ultimately, the limitations of particular drivers' attitudes, personalities and methods of thinking have a large influence on their enduring support base. Performance comes and goes but character tends to stay stable - most of the time. Different people tend to resonate with different drivers according to those characters, unless they are the sort of people who support based on performance (be that success or underdog status) or who support more abstract entities such as teams. Even then, teams have group cultures which invoke the general principles discussed here.

Speech is one of several doorways to the revelation of character. It's one of the more accessible ones to the general spectator, especially when spoken in places where journalists have taken the trouble to record the results. Look closely enough and the clues are all there.

Which drivers really think a given way v. those who are claiming it due to conditioning. 

Which drivers really respect - or even like - another v. those who pretend to respect another v. those who have dropped the pretence.

What each driver is hoping for in F1.

Which ones are likely to be around in a strong enough position to achieve those hopes.

Some signals in speech are more obvious indicators of character than others. A habit of persistently abrasive speech is pretty obvious. I just didn't realise it would be so controversial.

Script Frenzy Update:  20 pages of prose, which should become 40 pages of script when formatted. I feel confident about this challenge.