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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

This weekend, Viva F1 has organised the third Blogger's Swap Shop. It is a fantastic idea where 15 motorsports bloggers write for each other's blogs. An entry from me will appear at The Formula 1 & Motorsports Archive today. La Canta Magnifico Blog is honoured to host a guest entry by Maverick of Viva F1 (please ignore the entry by-line as I haven't figured out how to get it to change yet).

Formula One has more than its fair share of rules. There's not even a single rule book - please refer to the International Sporting code, F1 Sporting Regulations and F1 Technical Regulations as well as all the attached appendices while not forgetting the Rules of the FIA International Court of Appeal [and the Concorde Agreement - ed]. Undoubtedly the vaguest of all the rules, and quite deliberately so, is Article 151c which concerns "any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally." In other words, ‘bringing the sport into disrepute’.

The ‘disrepute clause’ gives rise to concerns not only about its ill-defined and wide-reaching nature but also about its potential for abuse. So vague is the clause, who is to define what is and what isn't against the interests of the sport? Furthermore, having lost the case, while there is scope to challenge the decision in the Court of Appeal how can you possibly argue that it didn't bring the sport into disrepute? It's an immeasurable concept. Taking a case even further, with notable exceptions, the courts are generally reluctant to intervene in the internal disputes of voluntary associations and not inclined to review the decisions of tribunals.

Last month, the FIA scrapped the team orders rule but with the caveat that "any actions liable to bring the sport into disrepute are dealt with under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code and any other relevant provisions". So are team orders banned? Ferrari's decision to manipulate Michael Schumacher past Rubens Barrichello on the last lap of the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix induced boos from the watching spectators and widespread condemnation from the media. It ultimately led to the banning of team orders, but how would it be dealt with today? It clearly sounds like a case of bringing the 'sport into into disrepute' but at the time, the WMSC "recognised the long-standing and traditional right of a team to decree the finishing order of its drivers in what it believes to be the best interest of its attempt to win both world championships" and hence took no action. Does tradition trump public opinion?

Moving onto 2010 and Hockenheim and this time it was Felipe Massa who was giving way for Fernando Alonso. The stewards acted by issuing the maximum fine allowed to them but the WMSC chose to not extend the penalty, instead going as far as recommending that the ban on team orders be abolished, which it subsequently was. However, what about bringing the sport into disrepute? There was uproar amongst groups of fans and the media, so was there a case for turning to Article 151c? The trouble is that while large parts of the media were unhappy (the Brazilian castigation of Massa being particularly venomous) it certainly wasn't the case everywhere. The Italian media sided with Ferrari, the Spanish media sided with Alonso and the German media, seemingly conditioned by the Schumacher-years, coolly seemed to think that it was business as usual - which in reality it probably was.

Another example from 2010, which might have resulted in Article 151c being brandished in anger, was Ferrari's and Alonso's claims that the European Grand Prix was fixed. If this was football there would have been repercussions - earlier this week, Liverpool's Ryan Babel picked up a £10,000 fine for retweeting a link to a mocked-up picture of referee Howard Webb in a Manchester United shirt after Liverpool lost 1-0 to their rivals. The stewards may have done a poor job that weekend but for drivers and teams at the centre of it all to suggest bias at the FIA could easily be seen as damaging to Formula One.

On the other hand, others may suggest that it was the actual stewarding that was damaging - which begs the question of whether the FIA themselves should be able to be found guilty of ‘bringing the sport into disrepute’? While many fans have been suggesting that for years, the nearest anyone on the inside has come to suggesting such a thing in recent years is in 2008, when Mark Webber accused Max Mosley of damaging the sport following allegations about his private life.

In the end, the Hockenheim result is forgotten largely thanks to a combination of a close-fought Championship and the fact that Alonso didn't take the title thanks to those points gained in Germany. How might the issue have rumbled on down the years if 'Alonso's title' had been questioned by some? Of course, one whole problem with the question of ‘bringing the sport into disrepute’ is that public exposure is central to the accusation and yet, by simply pursuing an issue, the FIA can generate even more publicity for a case, causing further damage. Yet, does it all really matter?

Formula One thrives on controversy, the politics is as much a part of the drama as the racing - an ongoing soap opera. Admittedly, the politics occasionally takes too much precedence over what is happening on the track (Max Mosley and FOTA's wranglings at the end of his reign being a prime example). Yet has any of it really damaged F1's reputation? Renault were found guilty of manipulating a race but fans never stayed away from the subsequent Singapore Grand Prix. McLaren were found guilty of stealing Ferrari information but Formula One is still seen as a glamorous sport. In short, the concept of the ‘disrepute clause’ seems like a misnomer as far as Formula One is concerned. Perhaps it comes down to that image of glamour - a bit of palace intrigue is expected to be part and parcel of the show?

But then maybe Bernie Ecclestone already knows that - a man who could probably earn himself three or four disrepute charges a year.