Why Bahrain isn't part of Formula 1's safety crusade

A substantial part of Formula 1's fascination lies in the sport's ability to manage risk. True, drivers rely on gut feel and the sensitivity of their posteriors to push their projectiles to the absolute limit with utmost confidence, but data analysis - the art of dissecting car performance in digital form - plays a major role in guiding them to their personal limits.

Back at base, physics, chemistry and computer science combine to calculate the strength of materials, enabling engineers to manage the risk of component failure; research into rubber, polymers and composites enables Pirelli to reduce the risk - last year to absolute zero - of tyre failure, and various failsafe systems, ranging from bag tanks to deformable structures ensure the safety of F1's energy installations, whether fuel or electric - the latter including, of course, KERS.

F1's obsession with safety and security does not stop there, either: drivers are kitted out with triple-layer fireproof overalls, with full suits of underwear tailored from the same materials providing additional protection in the event of mishap; certified helmets are mandated, their visors bulletproof; and all participants are required to pass stringent medical tests. Even the grades of CONFORS, the deformable material specified for cockpit surrounds, vary according to ambient temperature to ensure maximum absorption, thereby minimising risk.

Patented HANS devices protect head and neck, energy-absorbent barriers line those parts of (Grade 1 licenced, regularly inspected) circuits their gravel traps can't reach, speeds in pitlanes are restricted to F1's equivalent of walking pace, and quadruple tethers restrain errant wheels on each corner of the car.

Noses have this year been lowered to the staggered point of ugliness to restrict aviation tendencies, and staff forced to work to curfew to minimise risks through shoddy (i.e. dangerous) workmanship. Said crews are required to wear fireproof kit during races - despite refuelling currently being banned - while pitlane and track access is tightly controlled during competition - a point taken so seriously that it is included in the Concorde Agreement's schedules.

Wet races are delayed or started behind safety cars, which are in turn deployed at the slightest sniff of danger, and red-flagged when conditions deteriorate - so prolific has the latter activity become of late that a four-hour start-to-finish limit has this year been imposed - while practice sessions are regularly cancelled when weather conditions/poor visibility have grounded medical helicopters lest they be required for casualty evacuation.

Pit crew safety is taken seriously, hence the fireproof overalls... © XPB

Over the past thirty or so years various FIA-backed bodies and other institutes have ploughed millions into research to reduce the risks of what is, in world terms, a trivial pursuit, and there exists zero doubt whatsoever that F1, led firmly by the governing body, has proven extremely adept at managing such risk: to the degree that F1 has not experienced a single tragedy in almost 20 years, and no fire to speak of for a similar period.

Correction: In 2000/2001 respectively the sport lost a marshal in each Monza and Melbourne through flying tyres, and immediate action was taken - wheel tethers were developed and mandated, their cords progressively strengthened such is the FIA's commitment to saving lives.

Where serious injuries do occur - such as Felipe Massa's Hungary accident, caused by a wayward spring off a car ahead all but piercing his helmet - immediate steps are taken to reduce the risk of reoccurrence to an absolute minimum. It would not be overly dramatic to hazard that it is doubtful whether the full 2012 grid would still be active had it not been for the measures listed above.

This noble and laudable dedication extends well beyond F1 or other motorsport: the FIA, as guardian of the welfare of motorists worldwide, is on a mission via its global Action for Road Safety campaign, which endorsed by drivers and celebrities across the globe, and, saliently, supported by Formula One Management, the sport's commercial rights' holder headed by F1 tsar Bernie Ecclestone. Thousands, if not multiples thereof, of lives have been saved over the years, and for that the world's citizens should be truly thankful.

Still the quest for improvement continues in all areas - where the minutest threat suspected by the authorities, all stops are pulled to ensure maximum safety - for which read minimal risk.

The other side of the coin is that F1 could go racing without any of said safety devices or procedures - much as it did before John Young Stewart in the sixties questioned the wisdom of a tree-lined Spa-Francorchamps (and was widely ridiculed for his efforts) - and there is a optimistic school of thought which says 'nothing would happen; no deaths or serious injuries would result'. Thankfully F1 does not take any chances.

...but yet the paddock is potentially being endangered by a trip to Bahrain © LAT

All of which makes F1's seeming willingness to take risks over matters Bahrain Grand Prix utterly incomprehensible. That lives - over 50, arguably more than were lost in the 'bad old days', as Jackie Stewart described the dark period that sparked off his safety crusade in the 1970s - have been taken on both sides of the political divide is indisputable; that the event is a target for protests and demonstrations before and during the weekend is a stated fact.

Yes, the pro faction argues that none of the deaths to date can be directly linked to the grand prix, but the event is part of the bigger picture on the island, and F1 cannot allow itself to be contaminated by the goings-on. Equally, whenever strife on the island is reported in the world's media, the words 'Formula 1' and 'Grand Prix' invariably feature on the same page/website.

In the event of the violence escalating in the run-up to next weekend's race - indeed certain factions are predicting tragedy - F1's very presence in Bahrain could be perceived as have a direct influence on the bloodshed. Yet the entire sport - from governing body through commercial rights holder and reigning champions to the team which finished 12th in last year's constructors' championship - seems content to simply pass the buck.

And Sakhir International Circuit? Given that the entire affair tops the list of Bahraini royal family vanity projects, the circuit's executives are adamant that the race will go ahead and that the place is safe - even as seven policemen were injured by Molotov cocktails.

That the race is not welcome in Bahrain is clear: already visuals of graffiti featuring a corruption of F1's 'flying logo' - with a Kalashnikov rifle turned 90° to provide the 'F' and the red portion of Bahrain's jagged national flag serving as 'flying 1' - are doing the rounds, all of which is extremely damaging to the trademarks FOM so diligently protects, and stands in stark contrast to the race's slogan Unif1ed...

Does it matter who committed which killings? The bottom line is human lives lost regardless of where specific culpability lies, and these deaths are at odds with the FIA's (and sport's) hard-earned image as a life-saver.

Bahrain's royal family has a strong influence over the GP's future © LAT

Yet, so strong is the rhetoric emanating from the offices in Sakhir's desert flower-like control tower - and so acidic the retorts to criticism of the race - that one would swear the unrest-riven desert island is doing F1 a massive favour by hosting a race which ultimately makes up but 5 per cent of the world championship.

Were the consequences not so serious this blame-game being played by the sport's players would be rather amusing. On the one hand we have Ecclestone stating he cannot force the teams to participate, while on the other he knows better than anybody on this planet that the majority of teams are commercially beholden to him - and hence his sabre-rattling.

However, for the record, the teams do NOT need to go race in Bahrain next weekend, with the perfect out being provided by the Concorde Agreement:

According to a team source the document, which binds FIA, FOM and the teams together until end 2012 by setting out their mutual obligations, effectively states each team undertakes to participate in every round of the FIA (note) F1 Championship and will use all reasonable endeavours to compete save if excluded or disqualified or if prevented from doing so either by 'genuine force majeure circumstances', which are described as 'including war, insurrection, earthquake, riot [note], fire and flood...'

Saliently the words are not further defined, and thus the question now being asked in the paddock is 'precisely what constitutes riot?'

However, given that the event, should it go ahead, pays the same number of points as any other, teams run the risk of losing out on F1's benefit packages which include substantial payment for final championship positions and various transport subsidies amounting to millions for the top ten teams. Thus, for the cash-strapped teams it is a no-brainer, and Ecclestone knows it...

However, Concorde contains another interesting clause, namely one governing race hosting contracts. It makes provision for cancellation of a race in the event of 'force majeure', which this time is described as including 'civil strife; aircraft, flood or fire damage; and acts of God'. Saliently the words are not further defined, and thus the question now being asked in the paddock is 'precisely what constitutes civil strife?'

The last Bahrain Grand Prix took place in 2010 at Sakhir © LAT

Not even the most subservient citizen of Bahrain could possibly argue against the point that the island is currently beset by 'riot' or 'civil strife' - meaning any signatory of Concorde could ask for the race to be, at the very least, postponed. 'Signatory' includes Ecclestone, who consistently maintains the power of cancellation lies with the FIA or Bahrainis. Incidentally, the contract makes provision for all parties to be released from their obligations in the event of force majeure - thus the promoters are under no obligation to pay the hosting fee. Could that be the reason Ecclestone seems reluctant to act?

Talking of which, the majority shareholder in FOM is CVC Capital Partners, which owns two-thirds of the holding company in addition to a portfolio of over 50 investments worldwide, including outright or majority ownership of the likes of Belgian Post, Samsonite, Spanish toll companies, Malaysian lotteries and Virgin Active.

Given that F1 is taking flak across the world for its stance on Bahrain, but that CVC stands to gain (by far) the most commercially from the grand prix - yet has so far kept stumm on the subject despite the controversy surrounding the event - how long before companies within CVC's portfolios, and the fund's investors, which include institutional investors and public pension funds, find themselves tainted by association, much as multinationals found themselves ostracised for doing business with apartheid South Africa?

Still, the paddock is looking to the FIA for guidance, with the governing body once again maintaining radio silence - as it did in 2011 - while it awaits movement from Bahrain, movement which is unlikely to come any time soon unless matters on the island deteriorate markedly, as they are expected to do this weekend.

However, once again the Concorde could prove to be the savior, for the document requires that the organiser satisfy the FIA that only duly authorised persons will gain access to any part of the Circuit (namely the competitive area) and they (the organisers) have absolute authority over the race for all sporting, technical and safety aspects on the property. Given prevailing events in Bahrain, how can the organisers provide any guarantees as required? (In fact, the kingdom has stated security will not be beefed up substantially, nor can the safety of F1 personnel be guaranteed...)

Thus it is clear, the teams, commercial rights holder and governing body are individually and collectively empowered by Concorde to take the only logical action - namely postpone the race until total peace returns to Bahrain.

Ecclestone is a master of crisis management © XPB

Formula 1 has proven extremely adept at risk management, but only where such risk rests within its area of expertise - and mastering of complex Middle Eastern politics is not among the sport's skill sets, yet the promoters (with an obvious vested interest), FIA (ditto), CRH (ditto) and 12 subservient teams seem content to stage the race in the desert - previously held under the slogan 'Feel the Heat'.

In doing so, F1 faces not only international condemnation, but places at risk the welfare of all those who attend the race - whether these are F1 personnel or not. If but one tragedy results - and chaos has been vowed by aggrieved protesters - Formula 1 will have squandered its hard-earned reputation for managing risk all for a single event with no history or standing to speak of.

Yet, as things stand in China, F1 seems willing to take even that risk...

Read an analysis of how the Bahrain situation differs from 2011, and why the final decision is likely to fall only after Sunday's Chinese Grand Prix.