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)?

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...

N.Technology, a hitherto-almost-unknown Italian wannabe F1 team (not to be confused with Stefan GP, a wannabe Serbian team, as I did in the original version of this entry), surprised everyone in September in two ways. Firstly, it announced its existence. Few people had even heard of the organisation before it declared that it had lost out on a place in F1.

Secondly, it was prosecuting the FIA. This is normally considered an unwise move given the FIA's power in F1, but N.Technology had nothing to lose. Its point of argument was that the FIA's entry criteria were unfair, specifically that Cosworth engines were made an unwritten minimum criterion for entry. This meant that N.Technology wouldn't lose anything except a little time and money whatever the courts decided.

It appears that N.Technology has lost the case, though we still don't know why. The full reasons will make for interesting reading, for they will affect how exactly the FIA's role in selecting the 2010 entrants is seen. They will also affect what happens with Stefan Grand Prix's anti-competition case against the FIA, currently before the EU.

Since I wrote the above paragraphs, I have discovered via Joe's blog that the judgement has been leaked, which raises some doubt as to the veracity of the information. It certainly explains why there is, as yet, no reasoning for the decision.

Date: November 27 2009

Currently: Reading two Autosports (March 19 and November 19 editions) in preparation for a podcast

Mood: Very Happy :D

Two items of news today made me very happy.

First of all, Force India has taken a sensible approach to its driver line-up for 2010. It has taken on Adrian Sutil, who has blossomed into a leader in the last few races and is also a good qualifier. He will be joined by Tonio Liuzzi, who acquitted himself well when asked to step into the Force India at Monza and is the only driver to out-qualify a team-mate in 2009 without having started the season for the team in question. Both of them should do well.

Also, BMW has given up on the idea of selling its F1 team to Qadbak and is instead selling to the man who founded BMW Sauber in the first place - Peter Sauber. I hope he gets a grid slot in which to insert his team (Joe Saward reckons Stefan GP may have snuck onto the grid?!?) because Peter did an excellent job of running Sauber and will surely do so again.

Date: November 24 2009

Currently: Reading F1 Magazine (December 2001 edition)

Mood: Thoughtful O=:)

Joe Saward's blog has a very interesting entry today, quoting Carlos Ghosn's perspective on F1. It is not exactly sweetness and light. Charles seems rather annoyed about a variety of things.

Firstly, he is unhappy about unequal treatment in F1. Renault of all F1 teams should know, since it's experienced that unfairness from both sides. On the one hand, Renault has benefitted from a surprisingly lenient decision with regard to its acquiring McLaren information in 2007, alongside a relatively light (if logical from a certain point of view) penalty from the Nelsinho Defence. On the other hand, Renault has lost out on such matters as the mass damper case in 2006 (where the justification for the technology ban implicitly banned all F1 cars which have ever raced) and has also seen other teams - notably Ferrari - receive concessions that could be deemed unequal.

After Crashgate, Renault must know that at the Bank of Luck (or at least the Bank of FIA Leniency) it's hit the credit limit. As a racing team and a business, Renault naturally looks for advantage wherever it can find it. If there is zero possibility of special favours coming its way, then it can call for the cessation of special favours to others and advance its cause that way. Whether the bartering of special favours is appropriate behaviour for a racing team is for those of us who worry about ethics to debate, but from a strictly logical point of view, it makes sense for the Renault team to fight this particular battle despite the inevitable accusations of hypocrisy.

Part of that battle is internal. This is made clear from the strong emphasis on the environment that Carlos placed. The only reason I can see for casting doubt on the FIA's environmental policies is if the team's controlling influences doubt the possibility of their success soon enough to help Renault out of recession. A F1 racing team may be an attractive accessory for a broader company but ultimately it is only an accessory. If Renault has decided that the environment is the next big selling point that will convince people to buy cars, then they will insist that their marketing aligns with that concept. If F1 is seen as a waste of time, energy and fuel, then it will be jettisoned. After all, it's not like Renault can point to recent success as justification to stay.

After three years of struggle in the mid-field, slipping down the table despite talisman Alonso coming back to aid them, Renault need a strong justification to avoid having their funding cut by the board. Worse still for them, Alonso is leaving again, implying that something is seriously wrong with Renault (else why would someone so successful and determined leave it for Ferrari?) If it can't be found, Enstone and Viry-Chatillon will face an uncertain future. F1 has become known for cheating and dodgy behaviour - ironically due to scandals including the Nelsinho Defence - and perhaps being seen as part of the reason for the improvement of F1 will help Carlos justify to the rest of the board why Renault should stay in F1.

Carlos came into Renault with a reputation for being "The Cost-Cutter" and for a long time there was concern that the F1 programme would be cut. Then came the championships and everyone stopped worrying. However, Renault could easily have walked away last year and didn't, despite Honda doing so. This gives me a certain amount of hope that Carlos has become pro-F1, even if other members of the Renault board are anti-F1 and could out-vote him.

However, this outburst probably won't help Carlos get the answers it wants. The FIA is perhaps the only body able to answer these questions and it is likely to keep its silence until Renault leaves it with implicit permission to gloat at the folly of manufacturers who believed its words and then leave despite contracts when they are proven wrong. It will probably say this means commitment, development and competition mean nothing to manufacturers. What it really means is that sensible rule-making, protection of the sport and the needs of other stakeholders mean little if anything to the FIA.

I want Jean Todt to prove me wrong. Time will tell.