388 replies to this topic

[ANF]

I was wrong earlier then. I thought F1 (and 2 and 3) used actual pit speed and not the NASCAR-loops.

Marcus Armstrong explains how the pit lane speed limit is monitored in this anecdote (where he also reveals that drivers can/will get an audio cue when there is an accident). https://youtu.be/3YWq1AJ3EzQ?t=399 I don't think it's covered in the regulations though, and most commentators don't seem to understand how it works.

Edited by ANF, 12 March 2024 - 12:43.

[pup]

Ok, so if the sensor is only triggered by acceleration at the moment the lights go out, then I suppose you could bump the clutch slightly on the last light to get a bit of an early roll. You’d be coasting at the start but not accelerating, just like Perez and Norris, so no penalty. The trick, unlike with Norris, would be to line up at the back of your grid spot so that you can get rolling without crossing the front of the box or having to brake. Not a bad strategy, tbh. Maybe Norris has inadvertently exposed a little loophole.

Edited by pup, 12 March 2024 - 12:47.

[William Hunt]

Strange that the sensors were...  not working...

My opinion:
- He clearly moved before the start, which normally is illegal (if the sensors work), so should have received a penalty
- He didn't have any advantage of it  (the car moving a bit)
- I don't consider it a jump start because his car stopped again and was not moving when the lights turned green, but I guess that depends on your interpretation of the word 'jump start'.it's a huge difference if the car was standing still or moving already when the lights go green, because of traction off course

[Primo]

I can't tell, awful close.

Clicking the cog underneath the video you can set the playback speed to 0.25x, then just look at the markings on the tire. Or you can trust me - he did move

[Melbourne Park]

Nothing came up on tv here about 5 seconds. Just noted, and a pretty quick no further action.

 

Darn it ...  I may have to re-watch all that.  What a waste of time!! 

 

But my broadcast (Sky I think its called) had them saying that while Hamilton didn't overtake, he only had to stay within 5 seconds in order to get the two extra points. If I imaged all that, well ... I' m in real trouble eh!! I admit though, I fast forward a lot, so maybe I missed some thing said before. 

 

Are the team comments to the drivers available anywhere?

Edited by Melbourne Park, 12 March 2024 - 13:02.

[chrcol]

Good grief people. He moved an extremely small distance then stopped before starting again, and in no possible way was he advantaged or another driver disadvantaged. The move was small enough that the system considered it to be insufficient to constitute a jump.

 

Why on earth are people so invested in this? I get it when its fans of a driver who lost out or something.

It has been explained why in the thread.

[chrcol]

It's hard to see, but is it just me or was Perez rolling prior to the lights going out?

 

https://youtu.be/Llx...xvRUVrAGID&t=37

Nice catch, this isnt acceptable either.

[ASCBR]

Article 48.1(a) calls it a jump start and make absolutely no mention of "tolerance" for distance moved before the start signal.

Further, his car was clearly outside the box before the start signal which is a breach of article 48.1©.

The 2nd point alone should warrants a penalty which pretty much dispensés with any argument about sensor tolerances. No mention of this in the stewards ruling so they either missed it, or ignored it.

Some very shoddy stewardship indeed.

 

48) INCORRECT STARTING LOCATION

48.1 Any of the penalties under Articles 54.3a), 54.3b), or 54.3c) will be imposed on any driver who

is judged to have:

a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved

and supplied transponder fitted to each car, or;

b) Positioned his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder is unable to

detect the moment at which the car first moved from its grid position after the start signal

is given, or;

c) Any part of the contact patch of its front tyres outside of the lines (front and sides) at the

time of the Start signal.

54.3 The stewards may impose any one of the penalties below on any driver involved in an Incident:
a) A five (5) second time penalty...
b) A ten (10) second time penalty...
c) A drive-through penalty....

54.4 Should the stewards decide to impose any of the penalties under Article 54.3a), 54.3b), 54.3c)...

Also to mention:
54) INCIDENTS DURING THE SPRINT SESSION OR THE RACE
54.1 The Race Director may report any on-track incident or suspected breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code (an “Incident”) to the stewards. After review it shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation. The stewards may also investigate an Incident noted by themselves.
54.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide if any driver involved in an Incident should be penalised.

For me, it is clear that a penalty is not mandatory and at the end of the day, it is stewards' job to analyze any situation and make a decision.

And on Norris case, I agree with their decision.

Edited by ASCBR, 12 March 2024 - 13:38.

[AncientLurker]

This is typical messed up FIA/F1 lack of simple logic via overly complicated system that is unreliable.

 

Once a car is stationary on the grid and the light sequence has begun, any movement at all should be a jump start. If the forum here of die-hards is having trouble rationalizing it, think of how it looks to your average fan who clearly saw the car lurch forward, then are told it is not a jump start. Imagine this in track and field or swimming? Not a chance. F1 is so messed up with their over-complicated stupidity.

 

I don't care if Norris' start was or was not a jump start under the current 'regulations', it was a jump start.*

 

 

*I am a McLaren fan fwiw. This isn't anti-driver/team.

[AncientLurker]

 

48) INCORRECT STARTING LOCATION

48.1 Any of the penalties under Articles 54.3a), 54.3b), or 54.3c) will be imposed on any driver who

is judged to have:

a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved

and supplied transponder fitted to each car, or;

b) Positioned his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder is unable to

detect the moment at which the car first moved from its grid position after the start signal

is given, or;

c) Any part of the contact patch of its front tyres outside of the lines (front and sides) at the

time of the Start signal.

54.3 The stewards may impose any one of the penalties below on any driver involved in an Incident:
a) A five (5) second time penalty...
b) A ten (10) second time penalty...
c) A drive-through penalty....

54.4 Should the stewards decide to impose any of the penalties under Article 54.3a), 54.3b), 54.3c)...

Also to mention:
54) INCIDENTS DURING THE SPRINT SESSION OR THE RACE
54.1 The Race Director may report any on-track incident or suspected breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code (an “Incident”) to the stewards. After review it shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation. The stewards may also investigate an Incident noted by themselves.
54.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide if any driver involved in an Incident should be penalised.

For me, it is clear that a penalty is not mandatory and at the end of the day, it is stewards' job to analyze any situation and make a decision.

And on Norris case, I agree with their decision.

 

You missed the 'will be imposed'. The stewards do not have an option to not give a penalty under 48.1, they do however have the option to choose 'any one of' the penalties under 54.3. If in fact the transponder did not register a jump start (or register at all, as I just have quickly skimmed the thread), then I would argue 48.1b comes into effect and he is penalized for positioning his car too far forward so the transponder could not be detected.

Edited by AncientLurker, 12 March 2024 - 13:47.

[AncientLurker]

It's hard to see, but is it just me or was Perez rolling prior to the lights going out?

 

https://youtu.be/Llx...xvRUVrAGID&t=37

Great catch.

Just enough extra momentum to gain the advantage into T1 and pass Leclerc. Do the sensors even work?

[pup]

Imagine this in track and field or swimming? Not a chance.

*imagines Norris falling over sideways in his blocks before the gun goes off*

Edited by pup, 12 March 2024 - 14:00.

[Nathan]

Using F1TV I watched all 20 starts during morning coffee, just Perez and Norris moved.  Perez was moving after the 4th light came on.

[JeanAlesi27]

Many examples of what we saw with Perez and Norris last race escaped penalty.   Not saying it's right.    The fact that no protests were made after the checkered flag.. you can interpret that as you wish. 

[PayasYouRace]

Ok, so if the sensor is only triggered by acceleration at the moment the lights go out, then I suppose you could bump the clutch slightly on the last light to get a bit of an early roll. You’d be coasting at the start but not accelerating, just like Perez and Norris, so no penalty. The trick, unlike with Norris, would be to line up at the back of your grid spot so that you can get rolling without crossing the front of the box or having to brake. Not a bad strategy, tbh. Maybe Norris has inadvertently exposed a little loophole.

The problem is that it’s a loophole requiring luck to pull off. Asking a driver to game the system like that in a fraction of a second is beyond human ability. Lando was lucky that he hit that sweet spot.

Part of the problem is that measuring velocity is actually extremely difficult. Measuring the presence of something is easy. Measuring an acceleration is easy. Most velocity measurements you’ll encounter in technology rely on a derivation from either displacement or acceleration.

[ANF]

Here's an interesting case: FIA F3 race, Silverstone 2022, Laszlo Toth. Stops in his box, starts, stops again, which seems to be fine: the jump-start system says it's fine, the transponder is in a good position. But video footage shows he had stopped with one wheel outside the grid box. Penalty.
 

The Stewards reviewed video evidence and the jump-start report based on the information from the FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car. They summoned and heard the driver of Car 14 and team representative (document 35).

The Driver of Car 14 explained that as he approached his grid box and ended up having the car in an unusual starting angle due to the grid configuration at this particular circuit. He tried to position his car within the confines of the grid box.

Having considered the matter extensively, the Stewards determined that the jumpstart report shows no irregularity, and that Car 14 was positioned on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder was able to detect the moment at which the car first moved from its grid position after the start signal was given in accordance with Article 37.13(b) of the FIA Formula 3 Sporting Regulations. However, the video footage shows that the right-side wheel’s contact patch was over the grid box, which is a breach of Article 37.9 of the FIA Formula 3 Sporting Regulations, which states that cars “must stop within their respective starting grid positions”. The Stewards take note that the grid configuration at this circuit, in conjunction with the number of cars starting this race, makes entry to the last grid boxes somewhat challenging.

 

[Primo]

The problem is that it’s a loophole requiring luck to pull off. Asking a driver to game the system like that in a fraction of a second is beyond human ability. Lando was lucky that he hit that sweet spot.

Part of the problem is that measuring velocity is actually extremely difficult. Measuring the presence of something is easy. Measuring an acceleration is easy. Most velocity measurements you’ll encounter in technology rely on a derivation from either displacement or acceleration.

The problem with the problem of creating a perfect sensor is that creating a perfect sensor is very problematic. In fact, it is so problematic that it might even be impossible. The problem here is not the sensor though, it is the idea the sensor is the only way to detect a jump start. The steward saw that he jumped, most of us saw that he jumped. The sensor didn't. Should the sensor be almighty? That is one question. The other question is: Should be okay to jump if you yourself negate the possibly positive impact of your error? I don't think so because you action can trigger impulse reactions for other drivers and the safety concern is actually quite big here: What if Norris had stalled the engine? What if the driver behind have to make an evasive maneuver that quickly cause chain effects across the field? The start is already the most dangerous part of the race.

For me there are only two logical conclusions: 
1. The stewards must be allowed to make their own judgement regardless of what the sensors say
2. If you jump the start, it is done, it is jumped regardless of what you do after that.  

Edited by Primo, 12 March 2024 - 17:29.

[Ben1980]

If, the start line is, the end of the white line or where a sensor is. If you move before the start line, have you even started to have the jump.


What is am actual jump start.

[Red5ive]

8 pages on - Have the pitchfork wielding hordes managed to burn him at the stake yet ?

[pup]

8 pages on - Have the pitchfork wielding hordes managed to burn him at the stake yet ?

Do the rules allow that?  Sadly, I think the only remedy at this point is to void the race and declare Massa champion.  Wait, am I in the right thread?

[AustinF1]

I can't tell, awful close.

It's much harder to see than Norris's, which was obvious to me even 'live', but if you slow down the video you can see that Checo's wheels are rolling when the lights go out.  It's easiest to see if you look at the spec of debris on his front left tire.

[MikeTekRacing]

Checo's wheels are moving, he also jumped the start. Not as obvious as Norris, but a jump is a jump

[AustinF1]

This is typical messed up FIA/F1 lack of simple logic via overly complicated system that is unreliable.

 

Once a car is stationary on the grid and the light sequence has begun, any movement at all should be a jump start. If the forum here of die-hards is having trouble rationalizing it, think of how it looks to your average fan who clearly saw the car lurch forward, then are told it is not a jump start. Imagine this in track and field or swimming? Not a chance. F1 is so messed up with their over-complicated stupidity.

 

I don't care if Norris' start was or was not a jump start under the current 'regulations', it was a jump start.*

 

 

*I am a McLaren fan fwiw. This isn't anti-driver/team.

Exactly this. If it walks like a duck ... 

 

And I'm a big Norris and McLaren fan also. 

[1player]

8 pages on - Have the pitchfork wielding hordes managed to burn him at the stake yet ?

The Abu Dhabi thread lasted 222 pages.

The question is: how controversial is it that Norris jumped the start? Right now it's 3.6% of an Abu Dhabi 2021.

[MikeTekRacing]

This has nothing to do with Norris. It has everything to do the system being wrong.

Per the current system Norris can't be punished.

[MikeTekRacing]

Exactly this. If it walks like a duck ... 

 

And I'm a big Norris and McLaren fan also. 

I am also a Checo fan - but he clearly moved  before. He also super nailed the start, if the run towards T1 was double he would have been leading the pack.

[Melbourne Park]

8 pages on - Have the pitchfork wielding hordes managed to burn him at the stake yet ?

 

This is not about Norris. It's really about how the FIA runs things. We see a lot of inconsistencies in the interpretation of the rules. This is just one of those. The best way though would be to have rolling starts. But that is not good TV. F1 is already way too predictable and boring let alone removing the mayhem of grid starts with typically one side of the track faster ie grippier than the other. The interesting question for many here, is how come?? Many here including me, thought the decision did not make sense. We've also now found Perez moved early too, and that too brings into question the interpretation of the rules. 

[AustinF1]

I am also a Checo fan - but he clearly moved  before. He also super nailed the start, if the run towards T1 was double he would have been leading the pack.

Yep. Same here. Autographed pics of Checo - signed before he made it into F1 - hang on both of my sons' bedroom walls. OT story about that. Over the weekend, my wife and I went out to the Austin/Travis County Fair and Rodeo. It was Tejano night, and a Dad with his young son walked by wearing a Red Bull F1 team shirt. As he passed I said 'Vamos Checo!' I think I startled him a bit, as he probably didn't expect many people to know what that shirt represented, even in Austin. Then when he saw that I was a white guy the look of surprise on his face was priceless. Not super-hilarious, but it was fun. We all had a good laugh over it. BTW bullriders are legitimately insane. Right up there with IoM riders, IndyCar drivers, and rally drivers. Anyway ...

[Deeq]

The Abu Dhabi thread lasted 222 pages.

The question is: how controversial is it that Norris jumped the start? Right now it's 3.6% of an Abu Dhabi 2021.

👍😂

[w1Y]

He clearly didn't benefit from it but that's not the point. Maybe it actually impacted Russel who would have possible seen it and maybe caused him a miniscule delay.

IMO moving before the lights go out like that is a false start. Harsh but it is.

[Sterzo]

Does anyone know how the disgaced sensor works? (Or rather, didn't). Does it detect motion? Or is it ahead of the line and detects the presence of the car? Does it use ultrasound, infrared or something else? Presumably there's no reliance on a corresponding component on the car... or is there?

 

Whatever it is, might not rely on one for my burglar alarm in case Lando breaks in.

[Autodromo]

Does anyone know how the disgaced sensor works? (Or rather, didn't). Does it detect motion? Or is it ahead of the line and detects the presence of the car? Does it use ultrasound, infrared or something else? Presumably there's no reliance on a corresponding component on the car... or is there?

 

Whatever it is, might not rely on one for my burglar alarm in case Lando breaks in.

I had assumed it was an electromagnetic sensor that detects movement of a metal object.  But that is not precise for location, just movement (in the USA I believe this is how red light sensors know you are there and change the light to green).

[sketchy2001]

Does anyone know how the disgaced sensor works? (Or rather, didn't). Does it detect motion? Or is it ahead of the line and detects the presence of the car? Does it use ultrasound, infrared or something else? Presumably there's no reliance on a corresponding component on the car... or is there?

 

Whatever it is, might not rely on one for my burglar alarm in case Lando breaks in.

 

Looking at the framing of rule 48.1a, it looks like that the car transponder is used.

 

According to https://blog.v-hr.co...y-its-important it seems this is RFID-based.

 

...unless there is another transponder just for grid-box detection needs.

[ANF]

Looking at the framing of rule 48.1a, it looks like that the car transponder is used.
 
According to https://blog.v-hr.co...y-its-important it seems this is RFID-based.
 
...unless there is another transponder just for grid-box detection needs.

"Every morning before a Formula One race, a test F1 car is sent around the track to calibrate all the systems and ensure everything is working correctly."
Hmm, really?

[Sterzo]

Looking at the framing of rule 48.1a, it looks like that the car transponder is used.

 

According to https://blog.v-hr.co...y-its-important it seems this is RFID-based.

 

...unless there is another transponder just for grid-box detection needs.

Indeed it is an on-car transponder, I should have picked that up from the posts already made. And if it's the same transponder used for timing, I wonder how it managed one job and not the other. Maybe the fault is in the code used to analyse the transmitted readings on the FIA's Babbage machine.

Edited by Sterzo, 13 March 2024 - 16:19.

[dweller23]

Wonder if it is possible to put a signal jammer next to the transponder.

[CasualFan]

Nope. The lights went out while he was still rolling after jumping early, before he stopped. When the lights go out, the race is underway. And no, the incorrect grid position question is not the real question, because he hadn't stopped again in any position before the race started. He stopped there after the race started.

 

I found a video that more clearly shows what happened and it confirms your account, so my mistake. 

 

I wonder how often this sort of thing happens. If it is a regular occurrence and is not penalised then I'm okay with that. Otherwise, I think a 5 second penalty is reasonable.  

[MikeTekRacing]

I found a video that more clearly shows what happened and it confirms your account, so my mistake. 

 

I wonder how often this sort of thing happens. If it is a regular occurrence and is not penalised then I'm okay with that. Otherwise, I think a 5 second penalty is reasonable.  

It not being penalized shows a problem with the way rules are implemented. Norris was not in the wrong per that interpretation, but clearly in the wrong for the intent of the rule. They need a clear adjustment for the future

 

In terms of penalty, it has to be a DT. 5 sec for a jump start is too little, heck, it's worth taking one . You had a bad qualy but strong race pace? Just jump the start

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 14 March 2024 - 00:05.

[Lazy]

Checo's wheels are moving, he also jumped the start. Not as obvious as Norris, but a jump is a jump

Nothing is perfectly stationary ergo they all jump the start, every time.