2017 Austrian Grand Prix, Spielberg 7-9 Jul

[Treble]

I'm going to say something rather controversial, but it's my opinion:

The Championship is managed by management of F1. Despite what Seb did in Baku and how/when they penalized him is food for controversy. When Lewis had his headrest issue and needed to pit, Seb got his penalty at the exact moment when Lewis was pitting. I mean timing really?

Now, if Bottas didn't jumpstart, they show stats of Bottas vs Seb's reaction time that say Bottas didn't jump and the images have shown otherwise, then I'm starting to question the sport generally. The reason I think is that because Lewis is playing catch up all race and Bottas is leading Seb, F1 management wants to 'manage' the gap between Seb and Lewis, their stars, the faces of F1 this season. This made me think. Is it actually being fixed?

Some have reported that even though Lewis has had a grid penalty, Seb and Kimi will have theirs sooner or later, as they are on their last turbocharger. Something tells me their turbochargers will miraculously stay intact throughout the season.

We don't want to hand the Championship on a plate to Merc and Lewis or Bottas right?

F1 is now partly managed by Americans and Americans like to make a great show out of anything I believe. Surely the title must go down to the wire and be decided at the end of the season, favorably the final race.

They don't have only one turbochargers for the rest of the season. They can use all the turbochargers they used until now. They can't bring a new one without penalty.
I agree with you, concerning penalty. They don't want to penalize the HAM-VET show. But concerning Turbocharger or Gear change and subsequent penalty is quite impossible. You are talking about cheating there....

[Juzh]

I watched it on the German Sky TV and it has way more frames. He did jumpstart. It was like 3 frames between the car starting and the lights going out.

The footage is provided by FOM. It can't have more frames on German TV and less on Sky.

Exactly, and being 50 FPS HD video means there is 2/10ths of a second delay in between each frame - we'd need the video captured at 200 FPS to provide 100ths of a second "resolution" and prove with finality if he jumped or didnt jump the start.

PS. Timing Computer says "No".

1s (1000ms) / 50 frames/s = 0.02s (20ms) /frame

[bdr529]

No human can do below 0.1 seconds. The top fuel guys predict the lights. If the light were random you would see much slower reaction times.

I don't think "predict" is the best word to use, the timing of the lights on the christmas tree are the same all the time.
Between the last amber light going out and the green light coming on, is four-tenths of second for the Pro Tree and five tenths on a Full Tree, so a perfect reaction time is .400 and .500 respectfully,
so a reaction time of .390s on a Pro Tree or a .490s for a Full Tree will result in a red light

FYI: the reaction time given in drag racing is the time it takes the driver to react to the last amber light going out,
not the green light coming on.

But this is Formula 1 and not drag racing, so as long as his car is not moving when the red lights are still on its fine.
personally I say he jump the start and just got lucky the lights went out at the same time.

[Mandrake]

I watched it on the German Sky TV and it has way more frames. He did jumpstart. It was like 3 frames between the car starting and the lights going out.

The footage is provided by FOM. It can't have more frames on German TV and less on Sky.

Exactly, and being 50 FPS HD video means there is 2/10ths of a second delay in between each frame - we'd need the video captured at 200 FPS to provide 100ths of a second "resolution" and prove with finality if he jumped or didnt jump the start.

PS. Timing Computer says "No".

Can we put put the 2/10ths aside please? According to AMuS (and the video footage available everywhere) Bottas moved 0.06s BEFORE the lights went out.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 05494.html

"Die Reaktionszeiten von Bottas und Vettel wurden im Live-Bild auf den TV-Schirmen eingeblendet. Bei Bottas sollen es 0,201 Sekunden gewesen sein, bei Vettel 0,369 Sekunden. Wer sie gemessen hat, war zunächst nicht klar. Die FIA war es nicht. Sie ist nicht an Reaktionszeiten interessiert. Später gab ein Sprecher der FOM zu, dass man anhand der Sensormeldungen die Reaktionszeiten berechnet und sie als Zusatzinformation für die TV-Zuschauer eingeblendet hat."

"The reaction times of both Bottas and Vettel were displayed in the live feed. With Bottas it was supposed to be 0.201 seconds, with Vettel 0.369 seconds. Whoever measured these remained unclear at first. It was not the FIA. They are not interested in reaction times. Later a spokesman of FOM confessed that they had measured the reaction times according to sensor values und broadcasted them on the live feed as additional information for the public."

Then follows the description of the way the start system sensors that detect a jump start work. Later about Bottas:

"Und was war bei Valtteri Bottas? Der Finne ist tatsächlich 0,06 Sekunden vor dem Erlöschen der Ampel angerollt. Der Graph, der den zurückgelegten Weg dokumentiert, trifft die grüne Zeitlinie klar unterhalb der horizontalen Toleranzlinie. Und warum hat die FIA 29 Minuten gebraucht, bis sie Entwarnung gab? Weil zwischendurch das Computernetz zusammenbrach. Beim Überspielen der Startdaten von der FOM an die FIA fielen plötzlich alle Zeitmonitore aus."

"How was it with Bottas? The Finn actually started rolling 0.06 seconds before the lights went out. The graph documenting the travelled distance meets the green timing line clearly below the horizontal tolerance line (there is a visual explanation from a clever user in this thread, a couple of pages back). And why did it take the FIA 29 minutes to to issue the result? Because in the mean time there was a computer breakdown. While transferring the start data from FOM to the FIA suddenly all timing monitors stopped working."

==> Not a jump start by the rules, but a jump start in the way that no human can react in -0.06s

[Phil]

I think this whole fiasco can be summed up pretty easily:

1.) A 25 fps feed is absolutely sufficient to gauge the reaction time of a driver (25FPS = 40ms per frame).
2.) if a 25fps refresh rate is sufficient, 50fps or higher is overkill (but of course nice to have)
3.) There is a tolerance level to how much a car is allowed to move before the lights go out. Bottas was apparently within this tolerance. CHECK
4.) The FIA allows you to gamble on the lights, meaning you can gamble on hitting the throttle at lights out and you'd be good to go. CHECK

Bottas did both 3 & 4 within the tight margins that are allowed and apparently acceptable. There's really not more to say.

Yes, he moved before the lights, but it was within the defined tolerances. Yes, he went extremely early, but again, this is also allowed.

[Treble]

I think this whole fiasco can be summed up pretty easily:

1.) A 25 fps feed is absolutely sufficient to gauge the reaction time of a driver (25FPS = 40ms per frame).
2.) if a 25fps refresh rate is sufficient, 50fps or higher is overkill (but of course nice to have)
3.) There is a tolerance level to how much a car is allowed to move before the lights go out. Bottas was apparently within this tolerance. CHECK
4.) The FIA allows you to gamble on the lights, meaning you can gamble on hitting the throttle at lights out and you'd be good to go. CHECK

Bottas did both 3 & 4 within the tight margins that are allowed and apparently acceptable. There's really not more to say.

Yes, he moved before the lights, but it was within the defined tolerances. Yes, he went extremely early, but again, this is also allowed.

+1

I don't understand why SkyUk in the analysis didn't show this 0.06s gap at the start. They are always so accurate.

[Juzh]

I think this whole fiasco can be summed up pretty easily:

1.) A 25 fps feed is absolutely sufficient to gauge the reaction time of a driver (25FPS = 40ms per frame).
2.) if a 25fps refresh rate is sufficient, 50fps or higher is overkill (but of course nice to have)
3.) There is a tolerance level to how much a car is allowed to move before the lights go out. Bottas was apparently within this tolerance. CHECK
4.) The FIA allows you to gamble on the lights, meaning you can gamble on hitting the throttle at lights out and you'd be good to go. CHECK

Bottas did both 3 & 4 within the tight margins that are allowed and apparently acceptable. There's really not more to say.

Yes, he moved before the lights, but it was within the defined tolerances. Yes, he went extremely early, but again, this is also allowed.

+1

I don't understand why SkyUk in the analysis didn't show this 0.06s gap at the start. They are always so accurate.

Because for whatever stupid reason their analysing equipment is 25 fps instead of 50. Usually that's enough of an accuracy give or take, bot not in this case.

[alexx_88]

Does anyone know for sure whether FOM's onboard feed is 50FPS or 25FPS? If it's 25FPS then the German feed is even worse, as it basically "emulates" the missing frames.

[Phil]

They don't need a feed because they have a sensor that is linked to the lights.

The feed (most feeds) have a very high framerate evident by the "slow motion" feeds we get when they show the tires of the cars or how they are cornering etc.

And yes, 25fps is entirely accurate enough for this kind of purpose.

[Big Mangalhit]

Yes so the final verdict is that Bottas jump the lights but within the tolerances so it is legal. What I still don't get completely is where are those tolerances written in the rules, and also it seems kinda of too much power to FIA to be able to choose who is penalised and who doesn't whiteout no further proof, I which they showed this data na telemetry they had, even if they can't disclose the secret tolerance value.

Also the tolerance limit rule is clearly with the intention of adjustment but was used in this case to jump the lights, is it not against the spirit of the rule? Much like the flexing wing of the RB which still passed the deflection rule tests but was overruled when they found composite layering with the intention of flexing under vertical load

IMO the wording of the rule should be the only thing that counts and thus the jump start even if lucky should be legal, was a won gamble. I just wanted to see where this allegedly tolerance is written in the rules and a better showing of data that proofs this, instead of this nonsense 0.201s reaction time that just seems that was made up on the fly.

BTW here is a fun game someone already created that you can try to predict the lights as did Bottas, at least for me I found it very very hard to have such a start. Just for fun obviously:
www.f1-start.glitch.me

[Phil]

Yes so the final verdict is that Bottas jump the lights but within the tolerances so it is legal. What I still don't get completely is where are those tolerances written in the rules, and also it seems kinda of too much power to FIA to be able to choose who is penalised and who doesn't whiteout no further proof, I which they showed this data na telemetry they had, even if they can't disclose the secret tolerance value.

I think they are referring to the tolerances of the system. It's all electronically linked to the sensors and the lights. Obviously, the system has some level of tolerances. I'd assume the sensor triggers once the car roles beyond a certain point (the point being the lines of the box). Either way, the stewards wouldn't have much to say or do as they don't determine the tolerance but just accept the tolerance and limitation of the system.

If a driver jumps the start, it will trigger an event to the stewards/Whiting who then will issue a penalty. I'd say it similar to the system that monitors the speed through the pitlane. If a car is too quick, it triggers an event and it is always a penalty, as the system only knows two states: On/Off, too fast/ok etc.

It would be interesting to know, if a driver can get a higher tolerance level by leaving a larger gap to the white line at the start and thus start moving before the lights go out to get a better, quicker start of the line.

Obviously, if he gauges it wrong and moves beyond the line before the lights go off, it will be a penalty, no matter how small or tight the margins are.

[Shrieker]

Forgot spain already? Classic.

Isn't that the race vettel was handed his ar$e with 22 laps to go ? That was going to be Hamilton's either way. And Ferrari fuked their own man up by not pitting under the VSC. Vettel had made short work of Bottas within 1 or 2 laps iirc. And how many extra laps did Ferrari run Raikkonen on Sunday just to block Hamilton and Bottas ?

[TAG]

F1 is now partly managed by Americans and Americans like to make a great show out of anything I believe. Surely the title must go down to the wire and be decided at the end of the season, favorably the final race.

The old geezer that used to run the show changed the qualifying format last year and spent a long time suggesting sprinklers and you're blaming the Americans?

Once again we're left discussing something long after the race because Vettel's perception didn't agree with real world.

[AnotherAlex]

Once again we're left discussing something long after the race because Vettel's perception didn't agree with real world.

It's more a case of Hamilton fan boys trolling/being trolled.

RZS10 explained it so well back on page 30; Bottas moved fractionally before (0.06 seconds) the lights changed but it was within allowances made by the FIA so technically not counted as a jumped start and, correctly, no penalty was applied. Bottas got lucky but that's fair enough. I bet he can't do it again at Silverstone

[Juzh]

Forgot spain already? Classic.

Isn't that the race vettel was handed his ar$e with 22 laps to go ? That was going to be Hamilton's either way. And Ferrari fuked their own man up by not pitting under the VSC. Vettel had made short work of Bottas within 1 or 2 laps iirc. And how many extra laps did Ferrari run Raikkonen on Sunday just to block Hamilton and Bottas ?

I suggest you rewatch spanish gp with live timings to see just how much time vettel lost behind bottas. Anyway, this is not the right thread for this conversation and frankly it's pointless to have any when it's clear you're just spitting nonsense and fanboy ching chang.