2024 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix - Jeddah, March 07 - 09

[basti313]

I am wondering why there is no media explosion on the Magtrain?

He stayed in front by leaving the track got the useless time penalty and then took a quarter of the field for a harbor cruise
I mean....people here loved it when Russel did it....but now they point is there where it clearly blew off. I never thought and even more now do not think they can keep this stupid rule for the 5sec pen like this.

There is a long history of these situations that go under penalized, even just looking at this very same track a couple of years ago when Checo didn't give up a place to Sainz upon SC restart allowing Max to attack Charles undisturbed, an absolute clownshow by the Stewards to not force the position back before restart.

I like how KMag drove after that, but he shouldn't have been in that position.

Yes, I totally agree that that returning the position needs to be enforced. I mean...Perez under SC is a bit of a difficult example as you can not let someone pass under SC...that is someting special.
But I see a clear abuse of the 5sec rule. This was a rule to judge minor infringements without killing the race, things that just happen without someone wanting something bad. Of course this can be used if a car can not let by because it retired or went into the pits. But if the race director wants them to switch positions back and it is possible...where is the relation to 5sec? Let them drive through...

[Matt2725]

Sergio Perez ''Unsafe release'' It was not an ''Unsafe release'' as the team did not 'Release their driver, the team would have released their driver only if the pit-stop box red light was switched off. In this case, the driver took-off with the pit-box red light still on. Nores jump-start. That little 'jump-forward and sudden brake/stop without triggering the start sensor, was more of a hinderance to the driver race start reaction because his actual off-the-line was his second try.

Sky mentioned post race that the sensor in Norris's grid box wasn't working properly. And that any penalty would have been successfully appealed due to the regulatory requirement of triggering the sensor.
That being said, reading the regulation in question (48.1), I don't see where this relies on a sensor in all instances...

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) the contact patch of the front tyres in front of its grid position before the start signal
is given.

I guess it depends on whether you could ascertain the contact patch of the front tyres were in front in front of the white line when the 5 red lights were extinguished. Although from what Sky said, it sounds like they were wholly relying on 48.1a, without taking into account where his car actually was when the start signal was given as per 48.1c.

A jump start can only be triggered by the transponder on the car crossing the sensor on ground, the starting grid box and not by car moving forward. Dispite Norris brief forward jolt before the lights went off, the FIA supplied transponder on his car did not trigger a jump-start because the detection system on the ground in front of his car (ground embeded srnsor) was not crossed, which means his front tyres patch whele the car jolted briefly forward, did not hit the white lines in front.

I'm not disputing that. The issue was the sensor was allegedly faulty and thus wouldn't have been triggered even if Norris kept going.

[saviour stivala]

Sky mentioned post race that the sensor in Norris's grid box wasn't working properly. And that any penalty would have been successfully appealed due to the regulatory requirement of triggering the sensor.
That being said, reading the regulation in question (48.1), I don't see where this relies on a sensor in all instances...



I guess it depends on whether you could ascertain the contact patch of the front tyres were in front in front of the white line when the 5 red lights were extinguished. Although from what Sky said, it sounds like they were wholly relying on 48.1a, without taking into account where his car actually was when the start signal was given as per 48.1c.

A jump start can only be triggered by the transponder on the car crossing the sensor on ground, the starting grid box and not by car moving forward. Dispite Norris brief forward jolt before the lights went off, the FIA supplied transponder on his car did not trigger a jump-start because the detection system on the ground in front of his car (ground embeded srnsor) was not crossed, which means his front tyres patch whele the car jolted briefly forward, did not hit the white lines in front.

I'm not disputing that. The issue was the sensor was allegedly faulty and thus wouldn't have been triggered even if Norris kept going.

But Norris didn't kept going so his front tyres didn't crossed the lines in front , If anything, that jolt forward had actually cost him as he had to go at it a second time after braking the car.

[Sieper]

It cost him, clearly. That is also why it is easy to accept the non penalty. OTOH it shouldn’t be allowed to start false even if you don’t benefit.

And with Kmag so clearly illegally overtaking to then hold up the bunch. Racing director should just come on the radio and tell to give the place back, now.

[TFSA]

But Norris didn't kept going so his front tyres didn't crossed the lines in front , If anything, that jolt forward had actually cost him as he had to go at it a second time after braking the car.

Whether someone benefitted or not should have zero influence on whether or not they get a penalty.

A jump start is a jump start. In many other sports, that's a direct disqualification. Not saying it should be in F1, but it needs to be punished, whether you benefitted or not. The rule in this case clearly needs an update.

Same with the Magnussen debacle. I've argued for a long time now that they need to tell drivers to give the position back, and this just underlines it even more.

But I'm also critical of how penalties are applied in regards to lapping. Any car getting lapped effectively gets a penalty equal to a laptime added. Magnussen had 20 seconds of penalties, but by just avoiding getting lapped by Verstappen, he still finished ahead of cars he should have finished behind - because they got lapped. This is clearly broken and needs to be fixed.

[KimiRai]

Checo jumped the start, he kept moving very slowly before the lights went out and that's why he had such great acceleration. If this is within "FIA tolerance" and continues to be unpunished then all 20 drivers should do it in Melbourne as this helps you lots with acceleration.

[saviour stivala]

Yes a jump-start is a jump-start ONLY if it is recorded as a jump-start by the official FIA policing means and by nothing else.

[SiLo]

Checo jumped the start, he kept moving very slowly before the lights went out and that's why he had such great acceleration. If this is within "FIA tolerance" and continues to be unpunished then all 20 drivers should do it in Melbourne as this helps you lots with acceleration.

If its not enough movement for the sensor to trigger, then it's absolutely fine.

[KimiRai]

Absolutely stupid rule then. All 20 drivers would be dumb not to do this in Melbourne

[AmateurDriver]

Checo jumped the start, he kept moving very slowly before the lights went out and that's why he had such great acceleration. If this is within "FIA tolerance" and continues to be unpunished then all 20 drivers should do it in Melbourne as this helps you lots with acceleration.

If its not enough movement for the sensor to trigger, then it's absolutely fine.

Beeing discernible by the naked eye, if this is not enough to trigger the sensor, then the sensor has to be re-calibrated.

[AmateurDriver]

Yes a jump-start is a jump-start ONLY if it is recorded as a jump-start by the official FIA policing means and by nothing else.

So if a sensor fails, a driver can get away with a jump start that everybody can spot?

[organic]

Yes a jump-start is a jump-start ONLY if it is recorded as a jump-start by the official FIA policing means and by nothing else.

So if a sensor fails, a driver can get away with a jump start that everybody can spot?

It seems the sensor hasn't just failed but is not fit for purpose. Clearly it is not sensitive enough

[SiLo]

The cars jerk quite a bit when engaging first gear for the start, so there has always been a small allowance for movement baked into the sensor.

[saviour stivala]

Yes a jump-start is a jump-start ONLY if it is recorded as a jump-start by the official FIA policing means and by nothing else.

So if a sensor fails, a driver can get away with a jump start that everybody can spot?

There was no jump-start detection system or any part of it failure/that failed. The FIA determining factor the governing body use to police/detect starts is the transponder on the car and the sensor imbedded on the starting grid ground. The FIA confirmed that Norris forward movement did not trigger the official jump-start detection system, the sole criterion for detecting a jump-start.

[Juzh]

Yes a jump-start is a jump-start ONLY if it is recorded as a jump-start by the official FIA policing means and by nothing else.

So if a sensor fails, a driver can get away with a jump start that everybody can spot?

There was no jump-start detection system or any part of it failure/that failed. The FIA determining factor the governing body use to police/detect starts is the transponder on the car and the sensor imbedded on the starting grid ground. The FIA confirmed that Norris forward movement did not trigger the official jump-start detection system, the sole criterion for detecting a jump-start.

he's asking a hypothetical question.