Vettel says VSC delta has a loophole

[bonjon1979]

Here is the relevant section from the sporting regs...

40.5 All competing cars must reduce speed and stay above the minimum time set by the FIA ECU at
least once in each marshalling sector (a marshalling sector is defined as the section of track
between each of the FIA light panels). In addition, any driver entering the pit lane whilst the VSC
procedure is in use must be above the minimum time set by the FIA ECU at the first safety car line
as he enters the pit lane.
All cars must also be above this minimum time when the FIA light panels change to green (see
40.7 below).
When initiated during a race, the stewards may impose either of the penalties under Article
38.3a), b), c) or d) on any driver who fails to stay above the minimum time as required by the
above.
40.6 With the exception of the cases listed under a) to d) below, no driver may overtake
another car on the track whilst the VSC procedure is in use.

The exceptions are :

a) When entering the pits a driver may pass another car remaining on the track after he has
reached the first safety car line.

b) When leaving the pits a driver may overtake, or be overtaken by, another car on the track
before he reaches the second safety car line.

c) Whilst in the pit entry, pit lane or pit exit a driver may overtake another car which is
also in one of these three areas.

d) If any car slows with an obvious problem.

So the time delta is set by the FIA and sent to the drivers dash, each marshalling sector is between the flashing panels. I do not see how driving "shorter distances" would help.

But it does mean my theory can be correct. As we saw in the vestappen video, he got a light on his dash before the green light went out. He got a slight jump on it because there's no way he'd reach the marshalling post before the VSC period ended


Her's a diagram of what I mean. This is with VSC about to end.

Marshall post
Car A - - - - - - - |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > |

Car B - - - - - - - |- ->

There's a half second to go on the VSC. Car A is about to reach a timing post, so has to keep going at the same 60% speed otherwise he'll be done for speeding when he breaks the timing beam

However, Car B can now start to accelerate, so long as he doesn't reach Marshall post 2 before the end of the VSC he can go as fast as he likes. So when the VSC actually ends the cars are more like this.

Marshall post
Car A - - - - - - - |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|->

Car B - - - - - - - |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->

Car B has been foot to the floor for half a second longer so is able to make up significant ground and have better momentum.

That's why I believe that Verstappen got that flash on his dash before the marshall flag went green. He had an opportunity to make up ground wihtout breaking the VSC rules. It wouldn't take much for the teams to create VSC programme that used the GPS of the cars to know exactly when the driver could start to accelerate and that split second advantage could have a significant impact in giving a chance to overtake.

If teams aren't doing this, then they should probably start!

[AJI]

...Charlie kinda side stepped or back peddled there first saying no then saying ok maybe a little...

^This is the problem with the grey area's in the tech and sporting regs.
Charlie doesn't exactly know what they mean and often contradicts himself or sometimes just plain gets it wrong. The look of confusion on his face during driver briefings when asked for a clarification says it all...

We've never had a clarification on several things, such as:
- the timing system operation
- the actual GPS sampling rate on the cars
- detailed VSC system operation

So...

Dear @FIA, (cc @Ross Brawn)

With respect, I formally submit a request for clarification on the above points for the sanity of this forum.

Best Regards,

AJI

[NL_Fer]

I agree, again there is not much detailed information of how the rules are followed up from a technical side. Like the story when the rear light blinks, only one clarification from a 2014 drivers debrief.

[AJI]

I agree, again there is not much detailed information of how the rules are followed up from a technical side. Like the story when the rear light blinks, only one clarification from a 2014 drivers debrief.

There are dozens of examples. And they wonder why the fans can't understand the rules...

Shall we put a petition together?

[Edax]

Pure rubbish

The drivers are given a TIME to the next marshaling post, they have have to stay below that TIME regardless if they choose to shortest distance or go max speed and then do a dozen donuts.(theoretically RIC could have made up the time he loss under vsc with his spin if it happened early in the vsc and if nobody passed him)

There is no way to get an advantage, Vettel is either lieing or mistaken.

There are only two work arounds in the system, 1) the pit stop rule which everyone has already known and 2) to go slower than required until right before the vsc ends and then gas it to have more speed then the car ahead of you as it goes green.

If everybody runs the same lap TIME then the gaps that existed b4 the vsc would be the same as after the vsc, this is why the FIA chose TIME rather than speed to regulate vsc.

Ok, we're all guessing, not saying my theory is correct, just speculating.

Charlie whting said this:

If it's measured every 50m then any advantage you can get for taking a different line on the track is going to be absolutely minimal.

So, he agrees it's possible to get an advantage, but disagrees about that size of it.

Earliest time of arrival at a fixed point can't be "gamed" by taking a different line, so it seems SV and CW are both saying that's not how the system works?

Exactly. That was my conclusion also.

Furthermore it is stated that the system runs from the ECU, which furthers my believe that the system is based on wheel rotation and travelled distance. So the system believes you will always run the same line over the circuit and hence it estimates the marshalling positions from travelled distance. Cut the track short and you gain an advantage, the “virtual” marshall posts will start to drift from their actual positions but there is no way to monitor that, as the system is completely self contained.

As I explained in my previous post such a system can be very simple, robust and does not need any additional infrastructure, whereas a system which is based on actual track position would need a more elaborate setup. The only drawback is accuracy.

Thinking about it it only took weeks from conception to the first track test and as far as I know no modifications were needed to the cars.I think that more or less suggests that they went for a fast and dirty route.

[NL_Fer]

I have seen lap timing on the steeringwheel during onboard footage. The car can perfectly identify when it is crossing the finishline of sector line.

It must know from the gps or transponder where it is on the track.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Exactly. That was my conclusion also.

Furthermore it is stated that the system runs from the ECU, which furthers my believe that the system is based on wheel rotation and travelled distance. So the system believes you will always run the same line over the circuit and hence it estimates the marshalling positions from travelled distance. Cut the track short and you gain an advantage, the “virtual” marshall posts will start to drift from their actual positions but there is no way to monitor that, as the system is completely self contained.

As I explained in my previous post such a system can be very simple, robust and does not need any additional infrastructure, whereas a system which is based on actual track position would need a more elaborate setup. The only drawback is accuracy.

Thinking about it it only took weeks from conception to the first track test and as far as I know no modifications were needed to the cars.I think that more or less suggests that they went for a fast and dirty route.

I'm sorry but I must disagree, the system is totally time based and does not care about track position(other than the mini sectors and marshaling posts). Wheel rotation is of no consequence because they are always spinning the wheels, or weaving for tire temp. The ecu is given a "target time" for vsc and that is what the drivers must drive to. VET is mistaken or lying, which wouldn't be the first time. Charlie has proven himself incompetent on many occasions. The cars do not count wheel rotations to determine position on track. Please read the relevant section of the regulations again posted above again.

[Roman]

I believe it all depends on how the VSC time and the VSC speed is measured.

If the ECU says "You gotta spend at least x seconds between points A and B" then there is not too much cheating I can see. Even if a driver chooses a shorter route between points A and B he will have to go slower in order not to arrive at B too early.

If, however, the ECU says "Your average speed between A and B may not be above x km/h" then drivers can find a loophole by taking a shorter route. In this case the shorter the way with speed x the faster you go.

(Yes I read the rules and they hint to version 1 but do we really know how it is measured?)

Interestingly in Australia Vettel already did exactly that and it was even mentioned and shown on Sky F1 after the race: As soon as the VSC was deployed he immediately changed his line around the circuit and took a shorter way.

I also remember that in the past Hamilton complained on several occasions that Rosberg gained time on him under VSC. Maybe Rosberg already found the loophole by then?

[Big Tea]

Something else. 40% of the time. What time? if a Merc is in clear air 'hammertime' style and Sirotkin is in fuel saving mode on the same straight at the same time?
Or worse, If the leading Ferrari is in fuel save mode and the following Merc is in 'hammertime' the time can differ by upto (say) 3 seconds a lap? Do they both get the same time or can the following Merc close up?

[Giblet]

Charlie has proven himself incompetent on many occasions.

Charlie is a human and like all humans is prone to mistakes, but I will argue until the cows come home that he is the opposite of incompetent.

[Phil]

Ok, here's my take:

I think I read some point ago, probably in here, that the VSC system works by giving the driver real-time-data on the dash if he is within the mandated time given. Think about it: 40% increased lap time is very accurate and would be pretty damn hard to hit perfectly. Any second below or over would increase or decrease the gap to your challengers significantly.

IMO - the system works in that it gives the driver feedback, based on the sectors the driver passes through. Lets say you have 5 mini-sectors:

MS1: 10s
MS2: 20s
MS3: 10s
MS4: 10s
MS5: 20s

Suddenly, a VSC hits and the lap time is increased by 40%. The correct time for all sectors would be:

MS1: 14s
MS2: 28s
MS3: 14s
MS4: 14s
MS5: 28s

How do you hit the times perfectly without feedback? Every sector is different, some with corners, some without etc. Probably impossible. So in my opinion, the system works like this: Driver passes through MS1 and slowed down significantly and did a time of 18s. That means he was 4 seconds too slow. The dash will actively reflect this by telling him he is "green" by 4 seconds. To make up that time, he can go faster in MS2 by at those 4 seconds to make up that time. The contrary holds through: if he is still too fast, the dash will indicate that and tell the driver to slow down within the next sector to balance out the time and hit the 40% increased lap time mandated by the VSC accurately.

Obviously, such a system would mean that drivers are constantly under and over the delta time given, but with enough 'mini sectors' and instant feedback communicated through the dash, it would allow the driver to get close to it so that across multiple sectors, the car is very close to the delta time given.

I think there must be definitely some real-time-feedback given/around that gives the driver a close approximation (go faster, go slower) to hit the sweet spot. This also would allow him to swerve and heat up tires and then make up that time by going faster to still hit the VSC mandated delta.

The big question is; how big is that margin for going and under? Is this by how much they could cheat the system?

[henry]

I believe it all depends on how the VSC time and the VSC speed is measured.

If the ECU says "You gotta spend at least x seconds between points A and B" then there is not too much cheating I can see. Even if a driver chooses a shorter route between points A and B he will have to go slower in order not to arrive at B too early.

If, however, the ECU says "Your average speed between A and B may not be above x km/h" then drivers can find a loophole by taking a shorter route. In this case the shorter the way with speed x the faster you go.

(Yes I read the rules and they hint to version 1 but do we really know how it is measured?)

Interestingly in Australia Vettel already did exactly that and it was even mentioned and shown on Sky F1 after the race: As soon as the VSC was deployed he immediately changed his line around the circuit and took a shorter way.

I also remember that in the past Hamilton complained on several occasions that Rosberg gained time on him under VSC. Maybe Rosberg already found the loophole by then?

I think your explanation is the best so far. However the part I’ve bonded needs to say something like the “shorter the way with speed x the lower the time to traverse the sector”. Faster implies more speed.

If what is measured is average speed, but what is shown to the driver is time delta, and that delta is recalculated every mini sector, then taking the shortest path would result in less time for the same average speed.

[Roman]

@ henry: Thanks, and of course, it should say something like "the faster you go trough the sector" or "the quicker your overall laptime".

But I think you got my point.

@Phil: I believe the Minisectors (or marshalling sector, as the rules call it) are again divided into several "Miniminisectors" (MMS) of approx. 50m each. After each MMS the drivers receives an information on his dashboard whether he is above or below the VSC time. Therefore he can adopt accordingly. Once one MS is cleard, however, the clock "resets". Therefore if a driver is 4 s too slow in MS1, he is still not allowed to go 4s faster in MS2.

[Big Tea]

@ henry: Thanks, and of course, it should say something like "the faster you go trough the sector" or "the quicker your overall laptime".

But I think you got my point.

@Phil: I believe the Minisectors (or marshalling sector, as the rules call it) are again divided into several "Miniminisectors" (MMS) of approx. 50m each. After each MMS the drivers receives an information on his dashboard whether he is above or below the VSC time. Therefore he can adopt accordingly. Once one MS is cleard, however, the clock "resets". Therefore if a driver is 4 s too slow in MS1, he is still not allowed to go 4s faster in MS2.

So if he is .3 over, is that also reset? (assuming .3 to be the high limit of accuracy)

[notsofast]

Something else. 40% of the time. What time? if a Merc is in clear air 'hammertime' style and Sirotkin is in fuel saving mode on the same straight at the same time?
Or worse, If the leading Ferrari is in fuel save mode and the following Merc is in 'hammertime' the time can differ by upto (say) 3 seconds a lap? Do they both get the same time or can the following Merc close up?

I hope that the objective of the VSC is to ensure that all gaps at the end of the VSC period are the same as before the VSC period. This would imply that all drivers should be driving at the same speed during the VSC period. Otherwise we end up with exactly the unfair situations that you're describing.