The FIA caused some unexpected action yesterday. It pointed out that several teams, particularly Ferrari, Mercedes and Force India, were in some error concerning their overalls and they were going to enforce the regulations as of this race.

It is the first and probably last time anyone outside motorsport paddocks cared about the contents of Appendix III of the FIA Standard 8856-2000. Specifically, the label confirming the suit complies with this high safety standard "must be embroidered onto the outermost layer of the outer garment". Ironically, using a different method to indicate compliance means that the FIA no longer considers those overalls compliant due to not indicating their status correctly.

By not using thread, some were saving a little weight. Ferrari, Mercedes and Force India's drivers all went to scrutineering in Germany with overalls not in compliance with the regulations in this respect. It is unclear how many teams would not have been in compliance had overalls intended for Saturday and Sunday been checked as well (drivers often use a different overall each day for freshness and weight reasons).

It may seem a nit-picky regulation, but it ensures the compliance sign is clear throughout the life of the overall. Thread is harder-wearing than even the best screen-printing, even though in the case of a F1 overall the wear difference is not really tested. The surprise is that it took so long for the overall manufacturers to come into compliance and for the FIA to notice there was a problem. I find it hard to believe that this is the first time all year someone has turned up with a screen-printed compliance logo. Maybe it just proves different scrutineers focus on different potential problems.

Warning! Long entry alert!

I've been thinking what to write for this for most of the week. Normally F1 tackles politics by avoiding it with a 10-foot bargepole; Bernie focuses on the almighty [insert currency here] and the FIA is apolitical by statute.

The events of the past week in the Middle East have prevented the possibility of solution through ignorance.

First of all, some background. The chain of events that led to the current FCO travel advice not to go to Bahrain unless strictly necessary started in December 2010 over in Tunisia. The recession, poor living conditions, corruption and dissatisfaction with a lack of political freedoms resulted in a population ripe for turning into a mob.

The eventual spark that ignited the fire of rebelliousness was caused by a dispute over a vegetable cart licence. Cart owner Mohamed Bouazizi, after apparently being assaulted by a police officer and unsuccessfully attempting to get the local police station to hear his complaint, set himself on fire in protest. The people, for the most part, sided with the cart owner. Initial protests concerning his treatment by the police were met with tear gas, obstructionism and a "quasi-curfew".

The people increased their demands in response, eventually demanding the removal from government of the entire ruling party (RCD) and release of political prisoners. Even a reformation of the government with a reduced number of RCD members did nothing to quell the uprising. Eventually the army sided with the protesters and mass resignations followed.

This Sidi Bouzid Revolt triggered a chain reaction across the Middle East. Most of the world is currently in recession, but many if not most countries in the Middle East are characterised with various types of authoritarian regime. While the majority have democratic layers, there have been as many ways of implementing them as there are countries.

Authoritarian regimes tend to be associated with corruption and generate nations of layered societies.As Frank Herbert correctly noted, "The layered society is an invitation to violence". This is because each layer tends to envy, covet and/or despise the other layers, resulting in rampant power abuse. In turn, a desire is created to take what rightfully belongs to others, which remains undisclosed and unsatisfied due to fear of said power abuse and the lack of incentive for the powerful to enable uncontrolled social movement.

The countries of the Middle East have shared a bond with one another since Islam first united their common ideologies. They have also experienced common changes that have made them more vulnerable to a tidal change in popular thinking. The average population has slowly become younger, therefore less likely to think conservatively or in accord with the opinions of their elders. They have been typically better-educated than before; in many of the Middle Eastern countries, agriculture has become less important as more highly-skilled services such as banking and business administration have increased in importance.

Oil, which has slowed the transition from agriculture to service-based industry, is becoming less important as it is increasingly clear the resource is finite. Many of the countries which had oil have diversified successfully, but it has broadened horizons.

Most importantly, many people are engaging with the internet and social media - which are proving more difficult to censor than more traditional communication channels. Newspapers, broadcast channels and even static web sites can easily be influenced by rulers in their home nation should they be so inclined. Trying to influence thousands or even millions of individual connections and accounts across multiple networks, many of which aren't even in the Middle East, has proven vastly more complicated.

The reduced censorship has not only emboldened people but provided easier access in materials on how to voice their complaints. Non-violent manuals easily downloadable (PDF) from the internet have contributed to the ability of protest organisers to make their protests effective. People who have been involved in previous protests can share their expertise.

Furthermore, it is easier for the people to give direct accounts of what they believe to the world and for the world to answer back. Most of the traffic on social networks consists of spam, banter and matters of relatively minor importance (in approximately that order). However, it is also possible for a large number of people to give the same message to those involved in political strife. It reminds those people that the world is watching. It can help people remember that those people have standards and thus utilise peer pressure to modify behaviour. It can demonstrate the failure of censorship and the politics of fear. It can even encourage normally-apathetic people to engage with the issues of the day, thus increasing pressure on the governments not directly involved to state their stance and bring their great powers to bear.

All this provided a highly unstable backdrop; the governments of many Middle Eastern countries simply hadn't adapted to the changes enforced by the passing of time. Protest dominoes suddenly looked likely, just as Gdańsk had become the trigger for the downfall of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and pan-European revolts in the 1840s started with the Chartists in Britain.

Egypt was the next to feel the wrath of a dissatisfied people. Change happened over a period of weeks, as various measures were tried and found wanting by a population wanting wholesale regime change rather than just dismissing the odd minister.

In fact, there had been resistance for years but it took the Tunisian experience to catalyse it into the violent clashes, mass striking and constant demonstrating that eventually ensued. By February 11, even President Mubarak had seen the writing on the wall and resigned. Since then, things appear to have stayed calm (touch wood) pending discussions on how to ensure the reduced repression and application of a stronger democratic structure demanded by the population. Events have demonstrated that the old regimes cannot be replaced like for like and that something new is needed - and not just in Egypt.

15 other countries in the Arab world have featured protests - or more than protests - since Tunisia's revolution began. These had been going on for six weeks before the F1 world noticed, for Bahrain looked to be among the most stable of the Arab nations.

Bahrain has a prosperous economy and has had democratic institutions in its constitution for a decade. The trouble was that many people, particularly among the Shia, had not had their fortunes uplifted in line with those of their nation and the institutions are easily overruled by the King and other members of the royal family. The protestors tried to keep the sectarianism out of the equation but the government still saw a sectarian threat, which increased tensions. There were also complaints about the number of political prisoners in Bahrain. The success of the Egyptian revolt in particular inspired the dissatisfied to action.

The King paid 1000 Bahraini dinars (£615.10) to every citizen in the country on February 14, the 10-year anniversary of the constitution that should have ensured the democratic institutions were powerful. It is rumoured that this was an attempt to head off the demonstrations. If so, it failed. On February 14, there was a mass occupation of the streets across Bahrain. One protester died, but it was his funeral next day that turned the situation from a purely political problem to one that involved the motorsport community.

Police fired at the funeral procession, killing one person, injuring 25 and pushing thousands into believing the powers-that-be had abandoned them. It was into the resulting bloodstained fury that the GP2 Asia circus entered the country. Will Buxton vividly described the situation in the country on the relatively quiet day before first practise was due to begin. The reports from others indicated that increasing amounts of violence were being employed by the police and army, a tactic which never helps calmness of people or encourage stability of government. The official position attempted to reassure foreigners that they were still safe in Bahrain, but increasingly people were having doubts.

Practise itself started with the ART and iSport teams playing football against each other because the medical staff due to support the race's requirements were recalled to Manama to assist the injured. The riot police had started using live bullets in addition to the tear gas and batons used previously. Clearly, it was dangerous for the GP2 Asia people to remain in Manama and there was no prospect of getting the medical staff back in time to run the race anyway. This was sufficient reason for the FIA's Bahrain branch to cancel the race, using Article 1.3 of Appendix O of the International Sporting Code:

"Recommendations regarding the number of personnel should be complied with throughout the event; if it is not possible... ...the programme of the event should be rearranged".

The press release was rather less verbose, but it posed a clear message to F1. If Bahrain could not safely host a GP2 race, what chance a F1 test two weeks later - or indeed the F1 race a week after that? Many people on the internet were arguing against going to Bahrain, and not because of the complaints of previous years concerning low overtaking opportunities and general blandness. The violence in the region is ongoing, despite the Crown Prince's pleas for calm and orders for the army to leave Manama having resulted in an entire day without bloodshed.

Insurance for many people in the F1 paddock is currently invalid with respect to travel to Bahrain, and is likely to remain so unless and until the various international travel advisers are assured the current peace is permanent. Sponsors may be reluctant to associate themselves with the country for the time being. Nick Heidfeld, one of the more thoughtful drivers on the F1 grid, has urged sensitivity - a level-headed approach, but is there time between now and the point where visa applications and freight transportation demand an answer?

How can F1 justify sending its people into a country where there is probable danger over and above the inherent danger of racing at over 200 mph? What ethical responsibilities does the sport have, given that ethical expectations have changed across the world as well as in the Middle East? Politically, what can - or should - F1 do to prevent itself from facing similar problems in future? Oh, and is there anything F1's own psuedopolitical structures can learn from the lessons of the Middle East?

I hope to answer these in my next blog entry. Until then, I leave you with a link to a comment I made on F1 Fanatic that may convince you that F1 - whatever it does - cannot be truly apolitical about this.

AKA the FIA's Selective Updating

AKA the FIA's Selective Updating

Date: October 27 2007

 

[ Mood: Slap ]

[ Currently: Reading The Krytos Trap by Michael A. Stackpole ]

After three days of waiting, details of the technical updates (or some of them) the FIA promised for 2009-spec Formula 1 are beginning to emerge. Allegedly. It is said that the changes for 2009 are:

40cm wider and shorter wings. This would help aero control at the front, since the air the front wings pass through to the rest of the car will be less disturbed by subsequent aero. As a pro-aero rule, this is not necessarily a good thing. What is needed is a better balancing between aero grip (which is relatively transient, and apt to reduce at the least disturbance) and mechanical grip (relatively permanent and thus more useful for overtakers).

The "spoons" in the middle of the front wings will be considerably less pronounced, when this is taken in combination with the ride height rules.

The middle part of the car will become standard. Now this was a rule mooted to be coming in for 2011. Perhaps it was predictable that the FIA would be impatient to impose such a problematic rule. Come on, this is Formula 1, not a vintage racing series...

There will be adjustable front wing flaps. They may be adjusted twice a lap, by six degrees or less each time. This is the sort of rule that makes me wonder how many hours of daydreaming must have gone into such a daft regulation. Quite apart from the amount of alteration being really quite small (I'm sure the flaps could be adjusted a lot more if that was a desirable trait), there is the small matter of what the point of allowing this sort of behaviour would be.

And the FIA intends to enforce the restrictions how?!?

The rear wing will now be shorter and taller. This is meant to have the opposite effect of the front wing and clean up the airflow for the oncoming car a little. This rule isn't too bad. Unfortunately it is more than counterbalanced by the other rumoured rules.

I say rumoured... ...because the FIA still hasn't updated its own regulations. The 2008 regulations were last updated (at the time of writing) on March 28th 2007. The 2009 regulations were last updated even earlier, on December 22nd 2007. I said yesterday that the FIA needed to improve its internet presence, but this is ridiculous! With three days between the decision and now (and still no update), I am beginning to suspect that the rule updates are being withheld from the public is deliberate.

While I am not familiar with f1.automoto365.com, I suspect that the fact that it does not have much of a reputation (good or bad) among Formula 1 addicts is important here. Either it's made up these rules (in which case they are scarily plausible - but then so was Luc Domenjoz's "quote" about Hamilton's gearbox) or the FIA has deliberately tipped them off and not other sources (in which case the FIA is playing a very dangerous game).

The internet, contrary to popular belief, does have a successful, if informal, authority system. This is the "if I've heard of the source, preferably off-line as well as on-line, it's valid" for the more casual internet users, and "if it's a site known for having an accurate view on the subject, it's good but not necessarily valid" for more experienced internet users. By picking only sites that have low authority ratings in both criteria, the FIA will be suspected of dodgy behaviour. Especially as it's not told its own site about the changes yet...

Apologies to f1.automoto.com's admins. While I am sure their site is respectable (I can't get it to load on my computer, admittedly), but a site has to be reasonably well-known among a niche crowd to do well on the "accurate-view" score. Until then it's neutral - a source that can be interesting, but not believed over and above better-rated sources until it's proved itself. Sites climb up and down the informal authority ratings as individual users see how well the site's viewpoints correspond with that user's perception of reality.

The perception now is that the FIA are, at best, hiding something. The FIA and f1.automoto.com update contradict each other, so at least one of them is wrong. On the face of it, we'd go for the latter. The trouble is that the FIA itself said that it was changing the rules three days ago, yet it hasn't changed them on its own site. So the FIA's on-line authority has gone down. In fact, given the FIA's off-line specialism (politicking) we cannot rule out the possibility that it has simply taken its politicking into the digital realm for the benefit of... ...well, who?

The moral of the story? Be honest on the internet - it really does help your credibility, whether it's in F1 or any other field.