388 replies to this topic

[Bliman]

How did you enjoy Lando staying infront of Lewis?

I didn't enjoy that Norris could do a jump start and the weaving part.

[Ruudbackus]

I didn't enjoy that Norris could do a jump start and the weaving part.

Yeah agree, Norris escaped a penalty twice today.

[Primo]

I think the only reason why Norris should escape a penalty would be if the car jumped when he put it in gear, but replay shows it was not the case so Hamilton had one position stolen from him.  This is worse than AD!

[JeanAlesi27]

I didn't enjoy that Norris could do a jump start and the weaving part.

 

He didn't jump the start.. he was out of position.  His error actually slowed his own start.

[Cadence]

He didn't jump the start.. he was out of position. His error actually slowed his own start.

He still broke the rules.

[Bliman]

He didn't jump the start.. he was out of position. His error actually slowed his own start.

He most certainly jump started. How else could he be out of position? It doesn't matter it slowed his start. Because he was out of position.

[Ruudbackus]

The people who enforce them disagree with you.

So there was nothign wrong with ad 21 then as the people who enforced them disagreed with almost everyone

[NewYorkF1]

He still broke the rules.

He did not. He stopped before the line and stood still when the lights went green. I know half the people here think that Hamilton got robbed because of that but he was not. What happened was within the rules and Norris also had no advantage of it(he was last off the line from everyone).

[Mat13]

He still broke the rules.

He didn’t.

[BoDarvelle]

The people who enforce them disagree with you.

 

The people who enforce them are very inconsistent.

[pRy]

He most certainly jump started. How else could he be out of position? It doesn't matter it slowed his start. Because he was out of position.

 
Depends on if any advantage is gained which clearly was not the case in this instance.

[KWSN - DSM]

I personally think the easy way to call a jumped start would be, after coming to a complete stop, the car does not move until the lights go out, they could even use a sensor for that.

[Heyli]

The people who enforce them are very inconsistent.

In many areas, but not with regards to the jump starts. We've had a couple of similar cases that also resulted in no penalty.

[Garagista]

People are discussing Norris having a penalty or not.

I think the question is when are we gona see a consistent number of clean weekends from Norris. I know today wasn't really a costy error, but there wasn't any need for that "almost error".

I have the impression since Mclaren joined the "top tier", the number of Weekends that Norris has a self-imposed issue are starting to be a concern.

[Primo]

 
Depends on if any advantage is gained which clearly was not the case in this instance.

Unless I am very much mistaken - that has never been the case, not in any form of motorsport. One of the reasons is that when someone "jumps" like Lando did, it very easily triggers others to do the same.  

[pRy]

Unless I am very much mistaken - that has never been the case, not in any form of motorsport. One of the reasons is that when someone "jumps" like Lando did, it very easily triggers others to do the same.

 
That's a good point. It's very possible I'm talking cobblers.

[jwill189]

It's funny how last year Alonso was penalised immediately for starting to the left of his grid box (and even dirtier part of the track) but Norris wasn't at all for jumping the start. The stewards didn't even note it until the commentators said it was obvious.

[Ben24]

He didn't jump the start.. he was out of position.  His error actually slowed his own start.

I thought he both jumped the start and was out of position. Have to watch it again but pretty sure he was still moving and didn't stop in time before the lights went out. He was also clearly out of the box so totally avoiding a penalty seemed strange

[Muppetmad]

Using sensors to monitor jump starts makes sense, but they should be supplementary: when video footage makes clear somebody has jumped the start, what the sensors say shouldn't really matter.

[Cadence]

He didn’t.

His car was moving when the lights went out.

It's immaterial that he stopped afterwards.

[southernstars]

It was an absolute slam-dunk jump start.

[Disgrace]

Looking at it again, I think the call is actually correct. Norris was just insanely lucky. A bit like Bottas was once upon time in Austria. The lights went off just as he was about to cross his grid slot.

[JeanAlesi27]

In many areas, but not with regards to the jump starts. We've had a couple of similar cases that also resulted in no penalty.

 

 

 

The rule is “any part of the contact patch of its front tyres outside of the lines at the time of the start signal”.    So If his fronts were still touching the line and he was stationary before the lights went out..  no penalty.  End of story.

Edited by JeanAlesi27, 09 March 2024 - 19:23.

[Primo]

He didn't jump the start.. he was out of position.  His error actually slowed his own start.

Hmm, and his "error", what would you call it if you use racing terms?

[JeanAlesi27]

Looking at it again, I think the call is actually correct. Norris was just insanely lucky. A bit like Bottas was once upon time in Austria. The lights went off just as he was about to cross his grid slot.

 

Indeed he was.   Stewards have all the data and would have seen what would clear him despite what everyone assumes,  just because he moved.  

[Cadence]

Article 48.1: « One of the sanctions provided for in articles 54.3a), 54.3b) or 54.3c) shall be imposed on any driver deemed:

a) having moved before the starting signal is given;This judgement being made by an approved transponder provided by the FIA installed on each car, or;

b) Placed his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder cannot detect the moment at which the car left its position on the grid for the first time after the start signal, or ;

c) A portion of the contact zone of its front tires is outside the lines (front and lateral) at the moment of the starting signal. »

[Cadence]

Mercedes should contest it.

[Ben1980]

Just checking, people think they are correct, from a few replays compared to a team, who have all the data?

[JeanAlesi27]

 

a) having moved before the starting signal is given; 

 

If the stewards deemed he stopped moving before the signal is given and his front tires were touching the lines...  he's cleared..   

[Disgrace]

Just checking, people think they are correct, from a few replays compared to a team, who have all the data?

 

The stewards get it wrong all the time, in all series. Often hopelessly so. But not on this occasion, in my view.

[dweller23]

I really can't justify Norris not being penalized for a jump start when Magnussen got 20s of penalties (which he kinda escaped thanks to Verstappen lapping the backmarkers). I just rewatched Norris onboard on F1TV and it's a very clear jumpstart.

[Deeq]

Depends on if any advantage is gained which clearly was not the case in this instance.

There is nothing in the rules "about gaining an advantage!" Or not.
You have either moved/jumped or not, hence why they today disingenuously charged/noted him with "out of position" bs in order to clear him..
He moved before the lights got out. End off

[Anderis]

Reading responses in this read I have an impression that whatever commentary you were watching, they have not explained it as well as Polish comentators did.

 

If Norris' front wheels hadn't crossed the white line of his start box before the lights went off, there's no penalty regardless if his car was moving or not. Such are the rules (because F1 cars during the starting procedure always tend to move a bit so defining jump start as any movement of the car wouldn't work).
 

I'm sure the stewards had good tools to determine whether that was the case or not and I trust their judgement unless someone provides evidence to the contrary.

Edited by Anderis, 09 March 2024 - 19:35.

[Deeq]

Just checking, people think they are correct, from a few replays compared to a team, who have all the data?

They hade all the data, footage etc back in 2003 in Brazil yet got it so wrong they proclaimed the wrong guy for the win! 😀

Sorry that argument by authority is just wrong.

Edited by Deeq, 09 March 2024 - 19:36.

[JeanAlesi27]

Reading responses in this read I have an impression that whatever commentary you were watching, they have not explained it as well as Polish comentators did.

 

If Norris' front wheels hadn't crossed the white line of his start box before the lights went off, there's no penalty regardless if his car was moving or not. Such are the rules (because F1 cars during the starting procedure always tend to move a bit so defining jump start as any movement of the car wouldn't work).
 

I'm sure the stewards had good tools to determine whether that was the case or not and I trust their judgement unless someone provides evidence to the contrary.

 

  Said it a few times already....  

[Heyli]

Article 48.1: « One of the sanctions provided for in articles 54.3a), 54.3b) or 54.3c) shall be imposed on any driver deemed:

a) having moved before the starting signal is given;This judgement being made by an approved transponder provided by the FIA installed on each car, or;

b) Placed his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder cannot detect the moment at which the car left its position on the grid for the first time after the start signal, or ;

c) A portion of the contact zone of its front tires is outside the lines (front and lateral) at the moment of the starting signal. »

What about this part then?

[Ben1980]

They hade all the data, footage etc back in 2003 in Brazil yet got it so wrong they proclaimed the wrong guy for the win! 😀

Sorry that argument by authority is just wrong.

Things have moved on in 21 years.

[Deeq]

What about this part then?

That explains alot.. stewards as defective devices!

[Cadence]

What about this part then?

What about it?

If you have watched any post race analysis you know that Lando's car was in motion before the lights went out.

That the stewards either missed that or ignored it doesn't mean Lando wasn't in breach of the regulations.

He got lucky and dodged a bullet.

Edited by Cadence, 09 March 2024 - 19:43.

[PlatenGlass]

I mean, he jumped the start but then stopped again. But he jumped the start because whatever the rules say, they can't redefine the words in the English language.

[Heyli]

What about it?

If you have watched any post race analysis you know that Lando's car was in motion before the lights went out.

That the stewards either missed that or ignored it doesn't mean Lando wasn't in breach of the regulations.

He got lucky and dodged a bullet.

It literraly states that the judgement is made by a transponder... So if the transponder judged it not to be a jumpstart, it does mean that Lando wasnt in breach of the regulations.

[Anderis]

What about it?

If you have watched any post race analysis you know that Lando's car was in motion before the lights went out.

That the stewards either missed that or ignored it doesn't mean Lando wasn't in breach of the regulations.

He got lucky and dodged a bullet.

Have you read my post earlier?

The car being in motion is not what constitutes a jump start according to the rules. F1 cars always move a bit during the starting procedure. It's only penalised if the front wheels cross the line (stop touching it) of the starting box before the lights go out.

Edited by Anderis, 09 March 2024 - 19:49.

[Clrnc]

Have you read my post earlier?

The car being in motion is not what constitutes a jump start according to the rules. F1 cars always move a bit during the starting procedure. It's only penalised if the front wheels cross the line (stop touching it) of the starting box before the lights go out.

Exactly. Thought we had the exact same situation last year with another driver and it was explained super clearly already

[DeKnyff]

Concerning the start, I don’t think he gained any unfair advantage, so the outcome is ok for me.

[Cadence]

Have you read my post earlier?

The car being in motion is not what constitutes a jump start according to the rules. F1 cars always move a bit during the starting procedure. It's only penalised if the front wheels cross the line (stop touching it) of the starting box before the lights go out.

Did you read article 48.1(a) that I posted?

It absolutely does constitute a false start.

They've literally replayed this a dozen times in both Sky Sports and F1TV post race analysis. His car is moving before the lights go out.

And I'll bet that the transponder data proves it.

E. I won't be surprise in the least if this decision is overturned.

Edited by Cadence, 09 March 2024 - 19:57.

[Ben1980]

https://www.the-race...on his Mercedes.

[JeanAlesi27]

Have you read my post earlier?

The car being in motion is not what constitutes a jump start according to the rules. F1 cars always move a bit during the starting procedure. It's only penalised if the front wheels cross the line (stop touching it) of the starting box before the lights go out.

 

 Just saw the replay on Sky, Ant believes he was past the white lines.   In that case he should have had a penalty..   but perhaps the angle on TV doesn't tell the tale. 

[jonpollak]

Just saw the incident and what’s the excuse for no penalty please?

And
The defensive weaving ? Is that not allowed as well ?

Jp

[Autodromo]

If that was okay, then if I am an F1 driver I am pulling farther forward in the box in Australia (edit: or starting farther back and trying to jump the lights)

Edited by Autodromo, 09 March 2024 - 20:00.

[RoryFormula1]

Just saw the incident and what’s the excuse for no penalty please?

And
The defensive weaving ? Is that not allowed as well ?

Jp

You can break the tow but can’t weave in the braking zone. I think Norris made a last minute move under braking.

Edited by RoryFormula1, 09 March 2024 - 20:07.