51 replies to this topic

[HSJ]

Well, I've mentioned Benettons unbelievable starts since Spa already, although few people noticed them so early. Already at Spa, both cars in BOTH starts made unbelievable get-aways, which made me think they have some amazing LC. They did. From www.f1-live.com (http://www.f1-live.c...018050556.shtml)

(part of the article only, click the link above to read all)

Well, this is the way it normally works, however there is another aspect of the starting procedure that drivers don't have a say in and that is the official ‘jump start system'. This system helps officials determine if a driver has jumped the start and is situated under the surface of the track. Incorporated into the lights sequence that allows the drivers to get the race underway, the system is activated as soon as the lights go on, sending a basic pulse type carrier frequency signal to race control.



Jenson Button

If a car moves whilst the system is activated the signal is automatically cut and race control knows which car moved and when. As soon as the lights go out, the signal is deactivated and cars are free to leave the grid. Therefore, so long as a car doesn't move before the lights go out, the system has no idea how quick they actually leave the grid.

Now, according to an inside source, Benetton have integrated the two systems. Each individual grid slot has it's own frequency, which can be picked up by any type of multi band receiver and Benetton then program this information into their launch control. When the lights go out, the car is automatically launched off the grid without the driver even needing to focus on the lights. By doing this, they have cut human reaction time down from about a quarter of a second to a millisecond, hence both Benetton's getting off to an absolute flying start from the Suzuka grid.

BAR actually knew of this system and tried to incorporate in at the American Grand Prix, however it failed to work correctly, testing time left in the season down to a bare minimum by the time they actually realized what Benetton were doing. The ingenious system, at the time, was perfectly legal however, according to the new regulations for the 2002 season, any form of this has now been banned.

Regulation 8.2: START SYSTEMS.
Any system, the purpose and/or, the effect of which is to detect when a race start signal is given, is not permitted.

[Clatter]

The surprising thing is that none of the top teams cottoned on to this.

[Garagiste]

Staggering! Just goes to show there is still some room for inventiveness, brilliant interpretation of the rules by the Benneton team!
I agree Clatter, that it's suprising nobody else sussed this out. Like so many things though, it's only obvious after the event - Like putting the brake calipers at the bottom of the disc. Blindingly clear that this helps the COG, but until Minardi did it...

[BRG]

Well, if it works as Jenson says, then there is no "kind of" cheating involved. It would be a clear breach of the new Regulation 8.2: START SYSTEMS that is quoted. So will they stop using it now?

Of course many people (including Frans) have suspected for years that Bennetton's electronic systems were not always kosher...;)

[Donovan]

I thought I read earlier in the year that any form of computer detection of the start was illegal...

[JBDrake]

If the top teams tried to do something like this, then it is likely that it would have immediately been declared unsafe, or against the spirit of the rules & then banned. Hardly worth the resources of developing a system they could only use once.

Now all that remains is to think of a reason why Benetton were allowed to get away with it without sounding like too much of a conspiracy theorist.

[Smooth]

If there was no rule against it, they did nothing wrong. they will, obviously, have to change it to comply next year.

Good, inventive thinking by the Benetton boys!

[Breadmaster]

without sounding like a conspiracy theorist?

sorry can't explain it then ;)

[BMW FW22]

AH

Schumacher with a V8 @ P3 behind 2 V10's

After the start Schumacher was P1

strange

Could there be any link?

[Smooth]

Originally posted by BMW FW22
AH

Schumacher with a V8 @ P3 behind 2 V10's

After the start Schumacher was P1

strange

Could there be any link?

Hmmm.... McLaren consistently whipping Ferrari off the line for two years until one magic EE defected from woking to Maranello. Could there be any link?



Why don't you attempt to prove your 'link'? A consistent practice would be a good start.

[Ursus]

Reg 8.2 have been in force si´nce April 16th according to the FIA website so IF they were using such a system it was very illegal.

[BMW FW22]

Originally posted by Smooth



Hmmm.... McLaren consistently whipping Ferrari off the line for two years until one magic EE defected from woking to Maranello. Could there be any link?



Why don't you attempt to prove your 'link'? A consistent practice would be a good start.

Relax amigo

Think about it. I do not say there was a link or something but i ask if there could be a link.

[Peter Perfect]

A clever system, but rightly banned.

[Takahashi]

Benetton's starts this year, even before the reintroduction of traction/launch control, were suspiciously good anyway ...

At the moment, because some teams have better launch control systems than others, the start is still interesting, and there is still jostling for position.

Can you imagine if everyone copies Benetton/Renault's system next year? So that everyone gets off the line perfectly? We might as well have a rolling start behind the safety car ...

[HappyDude]

I bet you that Benetton will argue this one, and maybe this is why they felt they could get away with it until it is cleared up. I know this sounds hokey but it's the only excuse I could think of - they are not actually detecting the race start, or the race start signal. They are looking at a completely separate mechanism which is used as afalse-start detector. It just happens to be shut off at the same time the lights do, but the false start detector is not used to signal the race start. So if they had something that watched the red lights go out and launched the car it would be illegal.

Sounds lame and it may be overturned, but I bet Benetton would jump all over that.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by HappyDude
I bet you that Benetton will argue this one, and maybe this is why they felt they could get away with it until it is cleared up. I know this sounds hokey but it's the only excuse I could think of - they are not actually detecting the race start, or the race start signal. They are looking at a completely separate mechanism which is used as afalse-start detector. It just happens to be shut off at the same time the lights do, but the false start detector is not used to signal the race start. So if they had something that watched the red lights go out and launched the car it would be illegal.

Sounds lame and it may be overturned, but I bet Benetton would jump all over that.

They may well have argued it during the season, but I doubt they would now. Any advantage they gained would be nullified by the fact that all teams would be using it.

I wonder how the FIA will police it. If they couldnt work out what cars had TC then how will the detect this.

More likely they will change the detector procedures. Instead of turning it off, just leave it running. They would still be able to detect a real false start from the reaction time.

[vapaokie]

Why not let them do whatever you want to launch the car, but follow NHRA rules- less than 0.5 sec reaction time is judged a false start. Time determined as the limit of human reactions to lights, and then acting to make the car go.

[KenC]

Originally posted by HappyDude
I bet you that Benetton will argue this one, and maybe this is why they felt they could get away with it until it is cleared up. I know this sounds hokey but it's the only excuse I could think of - they are not actually detecting the race start, or the race start signal. They are looking at a completely separate mechanism which is used as afalse-start detector. It just happens to be shut off at the same time the lights do, but the false start detector is not used to signal the race start. So if they had something that watched the red lights go out and launched the car it would be illegal.

Sounds lame and it may be overturned, but I bet Benetton would jump all over that.

Absolutely, the way I interpreted it. F1's rulebook is all about the words, and how they are interpreted. Detecting when the false-start signal is turned off, is different than detecting when the race-start signal is given. However, one could also interpret the words, "the effect of", and ban the system.

[RJL]

I don't know about everyone else, but HATE this sort of thing. I tune into F1 to watch the best drivers in the world have at it. Is f1 sport or has it become some sort of geeky technological exercise? Don't bother replying, unfortunately I already know the answer.

[DEVO]

Originally posted by vapaokie
Why not let them do whatever you want to launch the car, but follow NHRA rules- less than 0.5 sec reaction time is judged a false start. Time determined as the limit of human reactions to lights, and then acting to make the car go.

NHRA teams know this and add the (min reaction time) amount into their launch control systems.

[vapaokie]

Does work though, as red lights are hardly a thing of the past.

[A3]

Next year, when data is allowed to be send from the pits to the car, there will be another oppurtunity to achieve this. A sensor aimed at the lights can pick up when the lights go out and send a start signal to the car. They'd have to hide the sensor though, but I don't think that'll be a problem.

This sucks

[jetsetjim]

A sensor pointing at the lights wouldn't work.. one very simple reason - Range!

For a sensor like that to work, everywhere would have to be in total darkness. Given that races are held in daylight, this kind of causes a slight techincal hitch....

[A3]

I've read somewhere that it's possible. The sensor doesn't react on the light itself, but on the change from red to black. A very narrow beam is used for this.

[jetsetjim]

it wouldn't matter how narrow the beam is.. I have severe doubts about it.. how would it work for the cars further back on the grid.... wouldn't the system be affected by "heat haze" refracting the light source?

[AD]

The type of starts decribed are not allowed.

Looking at the starts Renault don't seem to be any faster in terms of reactions. However they seem to have majestic grip off the line for the first 2 gears. Would it have anything to do with the very low centre of gravity of their engine.

[berge]

Originally posted by AD
Would it have anything to do with the very low centre of gravity of their engine.

Bingo!!

[jetsetjim]

it will help, but isn't the only reason......

[berge]

Originally posted by jetsetjim
it will help, but isn't the only reason......

may not be, but don't underestimate the advantages of it. Everyone's regulated to the same track width, min. ground clearance, tire size, etc. The lower C.G. of their engine would help tremendously with their rear tires mechanical grip, which, besides engine torque and electronics of T.C., is the biggest factor with standing start acceleration.

[jetsetjim]

I am fully aware of the advantages, however you are not correct in what you state as limitations..

Teams are not restricted in track, they are restricted in maximum width. It is not unusual for a RWD car to have a slightly narrow track than maximum to aid traction.

Teams are not restricted to a minimum ground clearance. The only regulation is that the 10mm plank underneath the car must not show more than 10% wear over a race distance.

Finally, tyres are not the same size. The regulations state a maximum width for the tyres, that is all. I would imagine there is quite a difference in diameter between a Bridgestone and Michelin.

A lower C.G helps, but it is also it's position along the X-axis (normally the axis that travels from front to rear of car) is also crucial, and perhaps more critical as it determines the weight distribution of the car. (Consider 40/60 % split front/rear to be average for RWD car).

Suspension geometry helps.. if the car is designed with Pro-Squat in the rear geometry, that again aids traction.

[A3]

Originally posted by jetsetjim
it wouldn't matter how narrow the beam is.. I have severe doubts about it.. how would it work for the cars further back on the grid.... wouldn't the system be affected by "heat haze" refracting the light source?

I see what you mean. I forgot to mention that the device should not be on the car, but on the pit wall for example. Then they could radio-signal the car when the lights went off.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by BRG
Well, if it works as Jenson says, then there is no "kind of" cheating involved. It would be a clear breach of the new Regulation 8.2: START SYSTEMS that is quoted. So will they stop using it now?

Of course many people (including Frans) have suspected for years that Bennetton's electronic systems were not always kosher...;)

I thought Article 8.2 was very clear. 'Any system, the purpose and/or effect of which is to detect when a race start signal is given, is not permitted'

It is in bold & underlined. Such a system, in effect detects the launch signal, and is in my view illegal. If such allegations are in fact true, I would strip Benetton of their points from Spa afterwords.

Probably why I'm not in the FIA ;)

[baddog]

Originally posted by jetsetjim
A sensor pointing at the lights wouldn't work.. one very simple reason - Range!

For a sensor like that to work, everywhere would have to be in total darkness. Given that races are held in daylight, this kind of causes a slight techincal hitch....

if a human can easily see the change, you can damn well make a machine that detects it.. all you have to do is point a slightly rejigged video camera pointed very directly at the lights.. got a laptop fed off the camera, some simple code, no problems with time as detecting it would take microseconds.. and booom you'r off.

Shaun

[jetsetjim]

The only cameras that are allowed to be fitted to the cars are those used by Bernie-vision......

A standard light sensor wouldn't work..... how would it differentiate between the red lights and the background light provided by the sun....

Another thing.... how would it work in the rain, where perhaps the system would be even more useful?? A drop of water on the lens would cause havoc with the system......

[jetsetjim]

I thought Article 8.2 was very clear. 'Any system, the purpose and/or effect of which is to detect when a race start signal is given, is not permitted'

There is a thread going on about this in The Technical Forum.

We have come to the conclusion that if this rule is taken literally, then all cars are illegal because they are fitted with.... (wait for it)..... A DRIVER! Which, in absolute terms, is a device which detects when a race start signal is given.

[A3]

Originally posted by jetsetjim
The only cameras that are allowed to be fitted to the cars are those used by Bernie-vision......

Again, sorry. Not on the cars, but somewhere on the pit wall.

[baddog]

sorry I assumed you got the point that this was supposed to be setup OFF the car not on it. hence no problem with the dozens of cameras the teams use all over the show

really the only engineering tricks would be:

1: making it fast enough, removing delays in the camera,transmission,coding

2: making the data transfer to the car secret enough

3: making the whole system reliable enough to trust for a 'got to work every time' start

Shaun

[ehagar]

Originally posted by jetsetjim

We have come to the conclusion that if this rule is taken literally, then all cars are illegal because they are fitted with.... (wait for it)..... A DRIVER! Which, in absolute terms, is a device which detects when a race start signal is given.

You know, your right!

[jetsetjim]

I apologise Shaun.... I didn't realise you were talking about systems for next year. Such a system couldn't be in force this year, as pit-to-car communications are illegal.

[berge]

jetsetjim
Is it unreasonable to assume that the teams will run the max. track width they are allowed to run?
the wood plank is FIA's way of enforcing a minimum ground clearance. Measuring static ground clearance would be useless because of aerodynamic downforce. yes/no
re. tyres. I assume we both agree that both manufacturers would make the max. width allowed for their teams. Re. diameter. I don't know what the regulations are, but, I would be surprised if there is a big difference between the two. Do you have any info?
My thinking with the lower C.G. I've already explained. I would also add that the lower C.G. of the engine would minimize the amount of weight transfer to the rear wheels thus making a more accurate programming/modelling of the L.C. possible.
Suspension geometry design is a consideration, but, again, I would be very surprised if Benetton were much different from the others in this respect. Pro-squat is great for standing start acceleration but, it compromises other aspects of the vehicle's dynamics, probably unacceptably so for a grand prix car.

I thought I was in RC, not TF:D

[jetsetjim]

Berge,

It's not unreasonable to make assumptions.... but there is a rather well know saying regarding assumptions, so I don't tend to make them..

As I mentioned before, it is not unusual for a car to be designed with a slightly narrow rear track than maximum in the quest for traction.

I'll agree with you about the plank being an enforced ground clearance.

There is actually a considerable difference between a Michelin and Bridgestone tyre, in terms of diameter. I won't say how much by though, but let's just say I have worked with both tyres and know what effect they have on ride heights. Agreed though, that they will make the tyres to maximum width.. contact patch is critical, and the more they can have, the better.

As with suspension geometry, it is quite surprising to see how different some of the cars are.

And, yes, you are in RC, not TF....

[berge]

Originally posted by jetsetjim
There is actually a considerable difference between a Michelin and Bridgestone tyre, in terms of diameter. I won't say how much by though, but let's just say I have worked with both tyres and know what effect they have on ride heights.

I asked a question in TF re Bridgestone/Michelin & their relative performances. 0 replies. Indulge me and give me some of the answers I'm looking for.
Please:)
P.S. Address it to my question in the TF, so I don't look like an idiot with a question nobody wants to answer.

[hedges]

If it was worked off of the lights what would happen for an aborted start? The lights would go off briefly to change to orange and the whole grid would rocket down the straight into whatever was the cause for the abort. The jump start detector was a good method, but I don't think there is any doubt the system is illegal.

[mountain dude]

quote:

Originally posted by AD
Would it have anything to do with the very low centre of gravity of their engine.

actually i doubt this. grip is max when 100% of the cars weight are on the driven wheels, which is the point where the front wheels just start to leave the ground. however, i never see a F1 car do a wheelie, or see wheelie bars on such car, but a lot of smoking tires when traction controll is off. a lower CoG doesn't help to transfer weight towards the rear.

md

[Sean L]

Not only has the Renault engine got a very low C of G but I've heard that it's also got very good low down torque (but not brilliant top end power). In combination with a very good launch control system plus their unique idea of sensing the cancellation of the jump start signal gives you the best starting cars on the grid.

[King Sputum]

You don't have to worry so much about the rules if Bernie happens to be your friend or a fan of your team.

[PEW]

The FIA are going to make the system illegal for 2002. This should save all the other teams trying to make their own versions:p

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Smooth



Hmmm.... McLaren consistently whipping Ferrari off the line for two years until one magic EE defected from woking to Maranello. Could there be any link?



Why don't you attempt to prove your 'link'? A consistent practice would be a good start.

It wasn't really consistent. Well, it was in case of RB, but he sucks even now with LC in case you haven't noticed. Actually the myth of McL superiority in starts is just that, a myth. Consider the evidence: MH made an excellent start in 2000 at Nurburgring, Hungary, Hockenheim, and Suzuka. Well, that's only 4/17, hardly a good correlation with your hypothesis. MH and DC screwed up some starts as well, e.g. DC at Nurburgring (from pole to 3rd) and MH at Montreal. If it was down to LC, they would have made miracle starts every race and ****ed up none or almost none. That is not what happened. Therefore the hypothesis does NOT stand. This is exactly the problem with people's lack of an analytical mind. Nothing to be ashamed of really, most people are like that, but it does lead to some funny notions with selective memory etc. It is a natural thing: you either have it or don't. I know I have it, but unfortunately I'm low on EQ (emotional quotient) thus I again write this drivel that will only anger people!;)

[HSJ]

Originally posted by baddog


if a human can easily see the change, you can damn well make a machine that detects it.. all you have to do is point a slightly rejigged video camera pointed very directly at the lights.. got a laptop fed off the camera, some simple code, no problems with time as detecting it would take microseconds.. and booom you'r off.

Shaun

Well, I'm no expert on this particular thing, but actually machines are inferior to humans in some areas like this. For example, they cannot build a machine to recognize individual humans (e.g. MH from MS) very well, a human is far superior to date in this.

[chester316]

Didn't Bennetton hire Ferrari's computer whiz Ted Czapaski (spelling of last name is probably wrong) I'm pretty sure i read that Briatore coaxed him out of retirement, anybody else remember this??