...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...

In this entry, I log penalties after each race, primarily for figuring out who is on the path to a grid drop.

Each race, I will list steward's investigations as indicated on the FIA website and on other reputable sites. For each driver who has been subject to such an investigation, I will list how many reprimands (with "procedural" reprimands such as missing the driver parade in brackets), incidents attracting more than reprimands and investigations where no penalty was given. Reprimands are the lowest penalty the FIA can give, so there is no need for a "penalties less than a reprimand" category.



Try not to worry if you see your favourite driver with a long list of "investigations", for I intend to include any incident where they were cited in the investigation. It may be more helpful to think of it as a "trouble magnet" score than a "trouble causer" one. If your driver (or team) does not appear at all, they haven't been involved in anything that has attracted the stewards' attention so far.



Some penalties do not appear to be put onto the FIA website. As far as possible, I will track these too, linking to where I found out the infraction had occurred.



Teams aren't affected by this directly, but I decided to track their penalties too. Just because I felt like it. Also in the "just because I felt like it" category is the steward tracker, giving who's done how many races and where. Both start counting from the British Grand Prix.

Stewards this meeting:

Tom Kristensen, Garry Connelly and Farhan Vohra. This is distinctly odd as there should be four stewards each race. However, the FIA official documents had become locked before I was able to read them, so it's possible the fourth steward's identity simply wasn't recorded elsewhere.

Once this year:

 Nigel Mansell, Nicholas Deschaux, Lars Osterlind, Dennis Carter, Tom Kristensen, Garry Connelly and Farhan Vohra.

Incidents this race:

Speeding in pit lane

Involved: Lewis Hamilton

Penalty: Fine

Fuel not matching pre-race sample

Involved: Sebastien Buemi

Regulations cited: Article 19.8.3, Technical Regulations

Penalty: Qualifying times cancelled 

Collision between Paul di Resta and Nick Heidfeld (lap 1)

Involved: Paul di Resta and Nick Heidfeld  

Penalty: Drive-through for Nick Heidfeld (unserved due to incident below)

Collision between Nick Heidfeld and Sebastien Buemi (lap 11)

Involved: Nick Heidfeld and Sebastien Buemi

Penalty: 5-place grid drop for Buemi at the next race (Hungary) 

Driver penalty tracker:

Mark Webber

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (DRS FP1 - Britain)



Lewis Hamilton

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (Fine for speeding - Germany)

Investigations: 1 (DRS FP1 - Britain)



Jenson Button

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (Unsafe release - Britain)



Michael Schumacher

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (10-second stop/go for collision with Kobayashi - Britain)

Investigations: 0

Nick Heidfeld

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (collision with di Resta - Germany)

Investigations: 1 (collision with Buemi - Germany)



Kamui Kobayashi

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 2 (Unsafe releae & collision with Schumacher - Britain) 

Paul di Resta

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (collision with Heidfeld - Germany)

Sebastien Buemi

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 2 (Non-matching fuel & collision with Heidfeld - Germany)

Investigations: 0 

Team penalty tracker:



McLaren

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (€5000 fine for unsafe release - Button - Britain)

Investigations: 0


Sauber

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (€20000 fine for unsafe release - Kobayashi - Britain)

Investigations: 0  

The FIA's recent regulation changes (technically not permitted as it is mid-season and not safety-related, but not a battle the teams chose to fight)  include giving 10-place grid drops to any driver getting three reprimands in a season. Article 18.2 says that drivers receiving 3 reprimands in a season will receive a 10-place grid drop at the next race where it is possible to enforce the penalty. 

It is unclear whether penalties more severe than reprimands will be counted towards the three. What is known is that being late to the driver's parade or press conference 3 times won't trigger the 10-place grid drop - at least 2 of the reprimands must be for dodgy on-track driving of some description. All grid drops will be in addition to any fines or other penalties deemed appropriate at the time of the incidents.

Counting starts as of the British Grand Prix, so even if a driver had 100 reprimands beforehand (as it feels as if Lewis Hamilton's had) will not be penalised for having a somewhat wild early season. 

I intend to log penalties after each race to enable us to figure out who's where along the route to grid drops. Each race, I will list steward's investigations as indicated on the FIA website and on other reputable sites. For each driver who has been subject to such an investigation, I will list how many reprimands (with "procedural" reprimands such as missing the driver parade in brackets), incidents attracting more than reprimands and investigations where no penalty was given. Reprimands are the lowest penalty the FIA can give, so there is no need for a "penalties less than a reprimand" category. 

Try not to worry if you see your favourite driver with a long list of "investigations", for I intend to include any incident where they were cited in the investigation. It may be more helpful to think of it as a "trouble magnet" score than a "trouble causer" one. If your driver (or team) does not appear at all, they haven't been involved in anything that has attracted the stewards' attention so far.

Some penalties do not appear to be put onto the FIA website. As far as possible, I will track these too, linking to where I found out the infraction had occurred. 

Teams aren't affected by this directly, but I decided to track their penalties too. Just because I felt like it. Also in the "just because I felt like it" category is the steward tracker, giving who's done how many races and where. Both start counting from the British Grand Prix.

Note: all links are to the FIA document unless otherwise indicated. They won't work after the build-up to next race unless you have a password, but I don't know anywhere else that keeps copies of the original documents on the internet. 

Stewards this meeting:

Nigel Mansell, Nicholas Deschaux, Lars Osterlind and Dennis Carter. 

Steward tracker: 

Once this year:

Nigel Mansell, Nicholas Deschaux, Lars Osterlind and Dennis Carter. 

Incidents this race:

DRS activation in (wet) FP1 session (document 18)

Regulation(s) cited: None

Involved: Mark Webber and Lewis Hamilton

Verdict: No further action required (possible glitch?)

Unsafe release of Jenson Button in race (document 43)

Regulation(s) cited: Article 23.1 (j), Sporting Regulations

Involved: Jenson Button

Verdict: €5000 fine for McLaren, but no penalty for Button (he parked as soon as practicable, but a badly-attached wheelnut is a badly-attached wheelnut)

Unsafe release of Jenson Button in race (document 44)

Regulation(s) cited: Article 23.1 (j), Sporting Regulations

Involved: Kamui Kobayashi

Verdict: €20000 fine for Sauber, but no penalty for Kobayashi (fine possibly bigger than McLaren's due to Pastor Maldonado being lightly hit and a Force India airgun being broken, but Kamui not deemed to have aggravated the incident)

Collision between Kobayashi and Schumacher (grandprix.com race report)

Regulation(s) cited: None (Article 16 Sporting Regulations implied)

Involved: Kamui Kobayashi and Michael Schumacher

Verdict: 10-second stop/go for Schumacher. No penalty for Kobayashi 

Driver penalty tracker:

Mark Webber

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (DRS FP1 - Britain)

Lewis Hamilton

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (DRS FP1 - Britain)

Jenson Button

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 1 (Unsafe release - Britain)

Michael Schumacher

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (10-second stop/go for collision with Kobayashi - Britain)

Investigations: 0

Kamui Kobayashi

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 0

Investigations: 2 (Unsafe releae & collision with Schumacher - Britain) 

Team penalty tracker:  

McLaren 

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (€5000 fine for unsafe release - Button - Britain) 

Investigations: 0

Sauber

Reprimands: 0

Penalties exceeding reprimand: 1 (€20000 fine for unsafe release - Kobayashi - Britain) 

Investigations: 0 

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.