2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

[Sierra117]

To be honest, no the start is not black and white anymore (it has been for decades and should have remained so!), because now there is a tolerance introduced because the sensor does not pick up the amount of movement Vettel showed. That can have implications where drivers will attempt a rolling start to gain an advantage.

But doesn't that sound insane? The whole point of sensors is to eliminate the doubt introduced by the fact that humans cannot perceive the most minute changes in a certain value (position in this case). Tolerances exist, yes, but what kind of a tolerance is this that the human eye can clearly see that he moved as if he had an old manual car clutch slipping but the sensor did not pick it up? Either the calibration of said sensor is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off (and thus useless) or they just didn't bother using any sort of analytical skills or hindsight. If they punished Kimi then they should've punished Vettel as well. More importantly, sensors exist to support what one can perceive to begin with. It's like when sometime ago someone I know had a heart attack and this doctor read the reports that come from tests and concluded there was no heart attack, completely ignoring the other symptoms that clearly indicated a silent heart attack. The sensor is supposed to be used as a supplement, not cause us to abandon our own judgement entirely.

That's my view on this. And that comes from someone who has worked on and with sensors for robotics and programmed said sensors as well, so I find this gross negligence by FIA.

[turbof1]

To be honest, no the start is not black and white anymore (it has been for decades and should have remained so!), because now there is a tolerance introduced because the sensor does not pick up the amount of movement Vettel showed. That can have implications where drivers will attempt a rolling start to gain an advantage.

But doesn't that sound insane? The whole point of sensors is to eliminate the doubt introduced by the fact that humans cannot perceive the most minute changes in a certain value (position in this case). Tolerances exist, yes, but what kind of a tolerance is this that the human eye can clearly see that he moved as if he had an old manual car clutch slipping but the sensor did not pick it up? Either the calibration of said sensor is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off (and thus useless) or they just didn't bother using any sort of analytical skills or hindsight. If they punished Kimi then they should've punished Vettel as well. More importantly, sensors exist to support what one can perceive to begin with. It's like when sometime ago someone I know had a heart attack and this doctor read the reports that come from tests and concluded there was no heart attack, completely ignoring the other symptoms that clearly indicated a silent heart attack. The sensor is supposed to be used as a supplement, not cause us to abandon our own judgement entirely.

That's my view on this. And that comes from someone who has worked on and with sensors for robotics and programmed said sensors as well, so I find this gross negligence by FIA.

That does not sound insane, no.

It IS insane. They are now opening a can of worms, where teams will take advantage of a tolerance that should not be there. And what if a sensor goes faulty? Does that mean the car can just racing after it just slightly halted in its box? What if an accident happens? You don't want a car in the front rows shooting off into a standing car in front and that ending up in a massive pile up.

Starts should remain simple black and white. Lights go out? You are good to go. You make movement before that? You should be punished.

It is so surreal we are even having this conversation. This should never have happened. The stewards and FIA are not making a good impression lately with making exceptions and using tolerances on their own written rules. Thank god they came back to Leclerc's shenanigans of driving around with a car that is breaking up.

[Restomaniac]

The whole ‘sensor’ argument is quite frankly baloney. In modern F1 you only need them in in cases where it’s parts of a second and TV camera footage doesn’t cut it.
In the case of Vettel the footage clearly showed him move whilst the lights were still on. No if, no buts, no coconuts (Thanks Ralf ). It didn’t require the sensor. So to use the sensor seems to almost be a way to get him off a slam-dunk penalty.

Anyone want to take a bet that in the next few days we will magically have ‘clarification’ on this?

[Restomaniac]

To be honest, no the start is not black and white anymore (it has been for decades and should have remained so!), because now there is a tolerance introduced because the sensor does not pick up the amount of movement Vettel showed. That can have implications where drivers will attempt a rolling start to gain an advantage.

But doesn't that sound insane? The whole point of sensors is to eliminate the doubt introduced by the fact that humans cannot perceive the most minute changes in a certain value (position in this case). Tolerances exist, yes, but what kind of a tolerance is this that the human eye can clearly see that he moved as if he had an old manual car clutch slipping but the sensor did not pick it up? Either the calibration of said sensor is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off (and thus useless) or they just didn't bother using any sort of analytical skills or hindsight. If they punished Kimi then they should've punished Vettel as well. More importantly, sensors exist to support what one can perceive to begin with. It's like when sometime ago someone I know had a heart attack and this doctor read the reports that come from tests and concluded there was no heart attack, completely ignoring the other symptoms that clearly indicated a silent heart attack. The sensor is supposed to be used as a supplement, not cause us to abandon our own judgement entirely.

That's my view on this. And that comes from someone who has worked on and with sensors for robotics and programmed said sensors as well, so I find this gross negligence by FIA.

Can you answer me a question.

Did Car No 5 move before the lights went out as was clearly shown on the footage. Yes or No?

[Wass85]

I think they made a wise move not penalising Vettel, if a driver does not gain an advantage then why punish them. The trouble is where is the consistency, Kimi was given a penalty in Sochi when he messed his own start up a lot more than Vettel did.

[djos]

To be honest, no the start is not black and white anymore (it has been for decades and should have remained so!), because now there is a tolerance introduced because the sensor does not pick up the amount of movement Vettel showed. That can have implications where drivers will attempt a rolling start to gain an advantage.

But doesn't that sound insane? The whole point of sensors is to eliminate the doubt introduced by the fact that humans cannot perceive the most minute changes in a certain value (position in this case). Tolerances exist, yes, but what kind of a tolerance is this that the human eye can clearly see that he moved as if he had an old manual car clutch slipping but the sensor did not pick it up? Either the calibration of said sensor is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off (and thus useless) or they just didn't bother using any sort of analytical skills or hindsight. If they punished Kimi then they should've punished Vettel as well. More importantly, sensors exist to support what one can perceive to begin with. It's like when sometime ago someone I know had a heart attack and this doctor read the reports that come from tests and concluded there was no heart attack, completely ignoring the other symptoms that clearly indicated a silent heart attack. The sensor is supposed to be used as a supplement, not cause us to abandon our own judgement entirely.

That's my view on this. And that comes from someone who has worked on and with sensors for robotics and programmed said sensors as well, so I find this gross negligence by FIA.

Can you answer me a question.

Did Car No 5 move before the lights went out as was clearly shown on the footage. Yes or No?

Wrong question, the question is did the 5 car move out of the box?

[turbof1]

Wrong question, the question is did the 5 car move out of the box?

I think it is the right question. Suddenly the box is the reference point to some people. So if that is the case, what stops a driver from parking up half a meter behind the white line and then slowly move forward, which helps immensily controlling wheelspin?

And that's the thing. Movement in any shape or form has always been seen as a false start.If that is no longer true, where will this end? Next thing is that drivers who slightly cross the line of their box will argue it is hugely unfair they are getting punished because they had "literally zero advantage" from it. FIA bows, next thing will be drivers just doing a full on rolling start. And who knows what is next.

Introducing tolerances on rules is never a good idea. Either change the rules, or apply them strictly.

[Cold Fussion]

Maybe Liberty can introduce some "Powered by AWS™ insights" to determine the legality of starts. It's been clear for a long time now that the FIA have a problem with detecting false starts ;Bottas' 20ms reaction time start in Austria 2017 immediately springs to mind. If Bottas had done that in a 100m final he would have been thrown out of the stadium.

[zibby43]

I agree. Bottas deserved to win the race. I'm not saying Lewis didn't, but Bottas was the reason why Mercedes even had a chance for the win with his start and the way he drove his stints.

What Bottas had, what's the extreme luck of being behind the P1 driver with probably the worst start we have seen in almost a decade. if it had been a track with a longer run to turn one Vettel probably would have finished the first lap in 7th or 8th.

True. And he made that luck by out-qualifying Hamilton. If Hamilton is P3, he benefits from VET's start. Hamilton has admitted that this has been one of his weakest qualifying seasons. If you would've told me that Bottas was going to qualify ahead of Hamilton at Suzuka, I would've never believed you.

But, all that aside, Hamilton's racecraft has been a joy to watch. Mercedes have stuck him with so many dodgy strategies this year and he bailed them out several times.

[zibby43]

Agreed Lewis got shafted a bit but come on sometimes Bottas should be allowed a win. Keeps his morale high.

I agree. Bottas deserved to win the race. I'm not saying Lewis didn't, but Bottas was the reason why Mercedes even had a chance for the win with his start and the way he drove his stints.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGwjqv2WoAE ... name=large

Agreed. Well done Mercedes. Congratulations on a 6th WCC. It boggles my mind actually. I wish Ferrari had sorted out their car earlier in the year then it would have been a nail biter of a season.

Well said. Ferrari made Mercedes work for it after the summer break, that's for sure! They still have some operational issues to work out. With that beast of a qualifying car they've built, if they get on top of their tire management and race pace, Mercedes is going to have their hands full in 2020 if they can't make a step on the PU side.

[Restomaniac]

But doesn't that sound insane? The whole point of sensors is to eliminate the doubt introduced by the fact that humans cannot perceive the most minute changes in a certain value (position in this case). Tolerances exist, yes, but what kind of a tolerance is this that the human eye can clearly see that he moved as if he had an old manual car clutch slipping but the sensor did not pick it up? Either the calibration of said sensor is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off (and thus useless) or they just didn't bother using any sort of analytical skills or hindsight. If they punished Kimi then they should've punished Vettel as well. More importantly, sensors exist to support what one can perceive to begin with. It's like when sometime ago someone I know had a heart attack and this doctor read the reports that come from tests and concluded there was no heart attack, completely ignoring the other symptoms that clearly indicated a silent heart attack. The sensor is supposed to be used as a supplement, not cause us to abandon our own judgement entirely.

That's my view on this. And that comes from someone who has worked on and with sensors for robotics and programmed said sensors as well, so I find this gross negligence by FIA.

Can you answer me a question.

Did Car No 5 move before the lights went out as was clearly shown on the footage. Yes or No?

Wrong question, the question is did the 5 car move out of the box?

No it’s not. The fact you don’t want to answer the question though obviously shows that the answer is that YES he did move before the lights and it was obvious on the footage.

[djos]

Wrong question, the question is did the 5 car move out of the box?

I think it is the right question. Suddenly the box is the reference point to some people. So if that is the case, what stops a driver from parking up half a meter behind the white line and then slowly move forward, which helps immensily controlling wheelspin?

And that's the thing. Movement in any shape or form has always been seen as a false start.If that is no longer true, where will this end? Next thing is that drivers who slightly cross the line of their box will argue it is hugely unfair they are getting punished because they had "literally zero advantage" from it. FIA bows, next thing will be drivers just doing a full on rolling start. And who knows what is next.

Introducing tolerances on rules is never a good idea. Either change the rules, or apply them strictly.

All systems have margins for error built in, that’s just life.

I can recall back when it was done with Marshalls, them frequently “missing” genuine jump starts completely and drivers gaining an actual unfair advantage as a result.

Funny enough, many of these occurred at certain divers home Grand Prix.

[SiLo]

No idea why Mercedes brought Hamilton in when they did, I assume because they wanted to get Bottas the win as he did drive well, but it felt like they completely ignored how well Hamilton drove in his second stint on Mediums. He brought the gap down by a huge margin over the guys in front WITH a damaged car. I'd be pissed if I was him.

[MtthsMlw]

No idea why Mercedes brought Hamilton in when they did, I assume because they wanted to get Bottas the win as he did drive well, but it felt like they completely ignored how well Hamilton drove in his second stint on Mediums. He brought the gap down by a huge margin over the guys in front WITH a damaged car. I'd be pissed if I was him.

They feared the tyres would drop off suddenly. Making him vulnerable against Vettel.
Like that they eliminated that risk but it didn't work out because he couldn't pass Vettel.
At least that's Mercs version.

[Roman]

The rules in case of the "VET jump start" are quite clear and simple:

FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations (Google 2019 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations), Article 36.13 states:

[...]
Either of the penalties under Articles 38.3c) or d) 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,
[...]

Therefore, if the sensor didnt detect a movement it's not a jump start.

Honestly, I prefer such a measurement as opposed to human judgement as human judgement will always be flawed and this is an objective way to measure jumps starts.

If FIA now decides this rule needs a change or clarification then they can do so, but only for the remainder of the season, not for races that already happened. For the moment there is no room for any kind of conspiracy theories mentioned here by several users.