343 replies to this topic

[MikeWazowski]

I initially thought it was a Jump start and this seems to suggest it is one:

 

https://media.giphy....tfv1e/giphy.gif

[GoldenColt]

I think this is similar to Vettel's start in Suzuka 2010:

 

 

Sorry about the horrendous .gif. Here's more info on it: http://www.f1fanatic...t-suzuka-video/

[Domi]

I just wonder how the sensor called this 0.2 and not -0.2 

[Okyo]

It's a closed case. Wasn't jumped. 

The only thing you can talk about is the way they track if it was done, but it doesn't have anything to do with IF what he did was illegal in the current regs. 

It wasn't. Move on.
 

Edited by Okyo, 09 July 2017 - 16:31.

[Disgrace]

No jump start, but it was a complete fluke. Enjoy witnessing such a low-probability event.

[BuddyHolly]

I will hold my hands up and admit that at first I honestly thought it was a jump start, glad to see I was wrong. 

Well done Bottas!

[Enzoluis]

Domi, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:29, said:

I just wonder how the sensor called this 0.2 and not -0.2

Because the sensor has a delay too. In other categories if the driver moves before a certain time after the green lights there is penalty. As it is impossible for a human been start so fast. Then is a jump start or machanical aid. This is certainly a jump start but if the regulation states that the sensor should indicate zero is a cae of bad regulations not bad stewards.

[SolalMS]

GoldenColt, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:31, said:

Depends on where the sensor is and how Bottas has placed his car. Maybe he hasn't crossed the sensor's position despite rolling away already before lights went out?

The sensor is on the grid position or on the car ?

[GoldenColt]

SolalMS, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:38, said:

The sensor is on the grid position or on the car ?

Forget about my comment, I mixed something up.

[Ricardo F1]

MikeWazowski, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:27, said:

I initially thought it was a Jump start and this seems to suggest it is one:

 

https://media.giphy....tfv1e/giphy.gif

You are Sebastian Vettel and I claim my five pounds!

[ArrowsLivery]

I would say it was a bit of a fluke. He definitely gambled on it, it could've bitten him in the ass.

[keksche]

The car moved before the lights went off though.

[MikeV1987]

Nbd if his car lurched a tiny bit imo, it was pretty much a perfect start.

Edited by MikeV1987, 09 July 2017 - 16:42.

[xtremeclock]

https://www.motorspo...ria-fia-928763/

 

Basically they (FIA) acknowledge Bottas moved before the 'lights out' but it was within a margin they are not willing to disclose.

 

We can call it, a legal jump start 

 

[Bloggsworth]

There's nothing to discuss. It wasn't a jumped start, end of. It is amazing just how much magical thinking goes on in this forum.

[keksche]

xtremeclock, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:48, said:

https://www.motorspo...ria-fia-928763/

 

Basically they (FIA) acknowledge Bottas moved before the 'lights out' but it was within a margin they are not willing to disclose.

 

We can call it, a legal jump start 

 

No wonder people hate lawyers           

[johnmhinds]

MikeV1987, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:42, said:

Nbd if his car lurched a tiny bit imo, it was pretty much a perfect start.

 

Nah it was one fluid motion. He just nailed the perfect start.

 

[keksche]

johnmhinds, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:53, said:

Nah it was one fluid motion. He just nailed the perfect start.

 

The steering wheel lights change right before the lights go out by the looks

Edited by keksche, 09 July 2017 - 16:55.

[Jvr]

Already posted to the race thread: Mika Salo who was part of the Stewards team told that it was not 0.201 seconds but 0.003 seconds.

 

According to him the Stewards reviewed all the data (getting all of that took so long to pass the decision) and video footage and the main thing clearing Valtteri was the sensor data.

[Mr.Wayne]

He reacted before it was humanly possible to interpret the lights had been off (he probably reacted *even* before the lights had been commanded by Charlie to go off). 

But inertia on his car and sheer luck deemed him to fall within the allowed tolerances for such instances. 

I call that 'luck'

[johnmhinds]

How is the signal sent from race control to the start lights? Is it a wired or wireless system?

 

If it is wireless it would be sneaky for a team to detect that signal and give the driver a visual/audio indication of when that was happening.

[Ricardo F1]

I think its a long piece of string that Charlie pulls and it removes the tin cans from in front of the light behind.  

[Beyond]

from frame by frame footage the car moved a tenth or so before the lights went out. fia says that they give tolerance but they should review their method as this start gave a clear advantage to bottas. it was a case on the limit but such starts should not be possibile in the future so less tolerance please.

[Knowlesy]

Mr.Wayne, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:59, said:

He reacted before it was humanly possible to interpret the lights had been off (he probably reacted *even* before the lights had been commanded by Charlie to go off).
But inertia on his car and sheer luck deemed him to fall within the allowed tolerances for such instances.
I call that 'luck'

It is luck to an extent and he will never do a start like that again.

Still legal though.

[Mr.Wayne]

Knowlesy, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:03, said:

It is luck to an extent and he will never do a start like that again.

Still legal though.

Yes.  Is the whole discussion of what is written in the rule, and what was the intention of the rule.  I think that what he did today is against its intention, but certainly within what is written. Whether there should be any concern for such a difference is a whole different debate

[Mendel]

I say this as a big Bottas fan... That start was barely but clearly a jump start and not penalizing Bottas for that is simply WRONG!

IMO Bottas should have received 5 sec penalty and Vettel should have deserved the win.

 

As much as I enjoy the Bottas win, this puts a sour taste of unfair on it.

 

edit: if it was not a jump start by the letter of the rules, it was certainly a jump start by the spirit of the rules. I guess that is just not a thing. I guess I should just accept the win and enjoy that it happened but... I dont know, this makes me feel ankward. Just feels wrong.

 

edit2: and why would he take such a risk as to anticipate the start like that?!?! Seems silly to me.

Edited by Mendel, 09 July 2017 - 17:14.

[Marklar]

Jvr, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:57, said:

Already posted to the race thread: Mika Salo who was part of the Stewards team told that it was not 0.201 seconds but 0.003 seconds.

 

According to him the Stewards reviewed all the data (getting all of that took so long to pass the decision) and video footage and the main thing clearing Valtteri was the sensor data.

Not a perfect start then. Must. try. harder 

 

I'm surprised that this is even a discussion as it's not the first time that a driver has such a quick reaction time.

[Nonesuch]

I suppose it was technically a false start in that he was moving when the lights went out, but it was such a minuscule difference that it's one of those freak moments that you can't replicate if you tried it a hundred times. So I don't mind that it wasn't penalized.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

For all intents and purposes I think he jumped, but the lights just happened to go out at the right time with probably not a millisecond to spare.  And if Salo is correct about 0.003 second reaction time and wasn't taken out of context, then it should've been judged a jump start.  Every other sport that I know of has a minimum reaction time considered when making such calls.

[ExFlagMan]

There appears to be an error in part of the FIA statement as reported in Autosport.

Quote

Such a system has been in place for 20 years and has been accepted by all competitors.

I think that is meant to say 'accepted by all bar 1 competitors'

Edited by ExFlagMan, 09 July 2017 - 17:11.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Help me understand what happened there.  Did Bottas start moving before the start (or the allowable reaction time), but didn't exceed the movement tolerance until he exceeded the minimum reaction time?

[Nonesuch]

xtremeclock, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:48, said:

Basically they (FIA) acknowledge Bottas moved before the 'lights out' but it was within a margin they are not willing to disclose.

 

While that's a nice policy to have, why can't the FIA just write this into the regulations?

 

You can read all the FIA and series' regulations and still have no idea how something is going to be handled.

 

It puts a lot of arbitrary power in the hands of the race director and stewards. Far too much, I'd say.

[quaint]

I don't mind at all that gambling with the start is allowed. The penalty (versus the gain) is so significant that the drivers won't probably go for it anyway (even if it worked today perfectly). I of course understand different view points, but bear in mind that this is not a 100m sprint.

 

(Edit: <ot> in sim racing I've slipped my finger off clutch a handful of times. In this particular sim the rule is clearly that you are punished if you move a certain small distance before it's allowed which has produced "perfect" start a time or too.)

Edited by quaint, 09 July 2017 - 17:23.

[johnmhinds]

Nonesuch, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:16, said:

While that's a nice policy to have, why can't the FIA just write this into the regulations?

 

You can read all the FIA and series' regulations and still have no idea how something is going to be handled.

 

It puts a lot of arbitrary power in the hands of the race director and stewards. Far too much, I'd say.

 

Answered your own question.

 

The FIA regulations are written that way so that race control can interpret them in any way they choose.

[Fastcake]

A perfect start shouldn't really be possible, as to start immediately as the lights go out requires you to take the decision to start while the lights are still on. Hence the purpose of having a reaction time.

 

 

It was just a complete fluke start by Bottas, both by the way he started so quickly and the sensors in use not picking up any movement before the lights went out.

[ExFlagMan]

It's a lot less arbitrary than the system they used before the transducers!

The reason they brought in the transducer system was because earlier systems relied on a series of start line judges watching the cars to see if anyone moved, which required 20+ boss eyed people each capable of looking at their allotted car and the lights at the same time and making a 'value judgement' as to whether or not a transgression occurred. Of course this system was 'pre-internet' and hence there was very little discussion as to whether they got it right or wrong.

Just imagine that system in use today - Autosport would need multiple additional servers to handle the traffic!

[garagetinkerer]

quaint, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:21, said:

I don't mind at all that gambling with the start is allowed. The penalty (versus the gain) is so significant that the drivers won't probably go for it anyway (even if it worked today perfectly). I of course understand different view points, but bear in mind that this is not a 100m sprint.

 

(Edit: <ot> in sim racing I've slipped my finger off clutch a handful of times. In this particular sim the rule is clearly that you are punished if you move a certain small distance before it's allowed which has produced "perfect" start a time or too.)

They discourage anticipation. iirc some time ago there was a penalty for a driver wrt anticipating a start, can't remember which driver though & what race.

Edited by garagetinkerer, 09 July 2017 - 17:28.

[Nonesuch]

johnmhinds, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:21, said:

Answered your own question.

 

The FIA regulations are written that way so that race control can interpret them in any way they choose.

 

I get why they'd want it, that's only natural for the kind of people that want to be in charge of something for 20+ years.

 

But what I don't understand is why the participants - or even just other people at the FIA - put up with this. There is enough room for debate in matters of fighting for position and the like; these things are so simple to measure that it's bordering on ridiculous that the FIA takes the trouble to write down that moving when the lights go out is a false start and then approves people adding shady clauses to that statement that they don't even want to discuss.

 

Again, I don't mind that Bottas was given the OK - but at least put these things in the rules.

Edited by Nonesuch, 09 July 2017 - 17:33.

[DutchQuicksilver]

Why is there a topic about this? It's pretty clear from the footage that it wasn't a jump start.

[Claudius]

I don't think Bottas should have been punished as sensors showed he didn't move before the lights went off, at least that's how I uderstood it.

To me it doesn't matter if reaction time is 0,001 or 1,2, he started moving after the light went off.

[prty]

xtremeclock, on 09 Jul 2017 - 16:48, said:

https://www.motorspo...ria-fia-928763/

 

Basically they (FIA) acknowledge Bottas moved before the 'lights out' but it was within a margin they are not willing to disclose.

 

We can call it, a legal jump start 

 

 

 

On Movistar (the Spanish TV which broadcasts F1), Toni Cuquerella (for reference https://twitter.com/tonicuque ) and Pedro de la Rosa, who are commenting F1 this year, were saying from the begining of the race that the tolerance was 0.2 secs. So the FIA does disclose it, maybe just not to the general public.

 

[Mr.Wayne]

prty, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:43, said:

On Movistar (the Spanish TV which broadcasts F1), Toni Cuquerella (for reference https://twitter.com/tonicuque ) and Pedro de la Rosa, who are commenting F1 this year, were saying from the begining of the race that the tolerance was 0.2 secs. So the FIA does disclose it, maybe just not to the general public.

 

Ted Kravitz was saying it was .1; so I don't think either of the three were actually talking from knowledge, but rather from an 'educated guess' position.

[prty]

Mr.Wayne, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:45, said:

Ted Kravitz was saying it was .1; so I don't think either of the three were actually talking from knowledge, but rather from an 'educated guess' position.

 

Well Cuquerella said that he did a lot of analysis of start and reaction times for the teams he worked for, so I'd trust him. Let's remember that Bottas' official reaction time (from the lights off until when the car is moving, not until when the driver reacts) is 0.201, so he was 0.002 away from a penalty.

Edited by prty, 09 July 2017 - 17:51.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

DutchQuicksilver, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:40, said:

Why is there a topic about this? It's pretty clear from the footage that it wasn't a jump start.

Jump starts are not that cut and dry.  In a 100 meter dash, leaving after 0.05 seconds is a jump start, for example, because knowing what we know about human physiology, we know that the runner who left that quickly took off before the gun fired.

[xtremeclock]

http://www.auto-moto... F1 (Englisch))

 

"Bottas reacted 0.06s BEFORE the lights went off" 

Edited by xtremeclock, 09 July 2017 - 17:52.

[Knowlesy]

I hope this isn't the future. Arguing over thousandths of seconds in reaction times.

[l2k2]

Fastcake, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:22, said:

A perfect start shouldn't really be possible, as to start immediately as the lights go out requires you to take the decision to start while the lights are still on. Hence the purpose of having a reaction time.

 

 

It was just a complete fluke start by Bottas, both by the way he started so quickly and the sensors in use not picking up any movement before the lights went out.

 

Well, according to the third steward, Bottas released the clutch before the lights turned off. The car, however, only started to move (beyond the undisclosed allowance) by the sensors, 0.003 seconds after the lights.. 

 

DutchQuicksilver, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:40, said:

Why is there a topic about this? It's pretty clear from the footage that it wasn't a jump start.

 

If Mika Salo (the driver steward) did not lie to Finnish media, this was so close to a jump start that you cannot tell a difference between this and a jump start from the normal TV footage. Rather, you'd need a high-speed camera for that. The car started to move 3 ms after the lights, and a single frame at 60 FPS takes 17 ms.

 

I do not know how much closer to a jump start one can get. (For reference, a typical video camera sensor has a readout time of 3 ms, that is the time difference between the top and the bottom of an image in a single still frame is 3 ms.)

 

Mr.Wayne, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:45, said:

Ted Kravitz was saying it was .1; so I don't think either of the three were actually talking from knowledge, but rather from an 'educated guess' position.

 

Mika Salo from the stewards said it was 0.003 s, with the sensor data, which I think is the best estimate we have.

 

 

prty, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:50, said:

Well Cuquerella said that he did a lot of analysis of start and reaction times for the teams he worked for, so I'd trust him. Let's remember that Bottas' official reaction time (from the lights off until when the car is moving, not until when the driver reacts) is 0.201, so he was 0.002 away from a penalty.

 

Where you got the 200 ms rule from. Hint, as far as I know, it is not real.

 

Dmitriy_Guller, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:51, said:

Jump starts are not that cut and dry.  In a 100 meter dash, leaving after 0.05 seconds is a jump start, for example, because knowing what we know about human physiology, we know that the runner who left that quickly took off before the gun fired.

 

Yes, 100-metre dash has a 100 ms forbidden zone. It it because most sprints are won with much smaller time differences than F1 races, and there would be a real incentive to cheat with by trying to guess when the signal is given. In F1, as far as I know, no such rules exist.

[Hati]

I don't know why this topic exists, it was investigated and found legal. If someone thinks that Bottas got an unfair advantage that someone can do exactly same thing in next GP.

[Diablobb81]

Lucky guy.

[ionutf1fan]

DutchQuicksilver, on 09 Jul 2017 - 17:40, said:

Why is there a topic about this? It's pretty clear from the footage that it wasn't a jump start.

Then you are blind.

How is not clear from the first gif that he moved before the lights gone out?