2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

[El Scorchio]

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.

I think a more objective way is ‘did everyone see the car move?’ To which the answer is ‘yes’. Ergo jump start.

As mentioned above- the sensor should be there to be used to compliment the plain video evidence (when there might have been movement but you can’t be sure from the footage) rather than over rule or contradict it. Which makes it look completely like they were just finding an excuse not to penalise him.

It’s ridiculous where on two consecutive races there has been a jump start and one driver got punished but the other did not. So you’re right in that there needs to be consistency.

[Restomaniac]

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.

I think a more objective way is ‘did everyone see the car move?’ To which the answer is ‘yes’. Ergo jump start.

As mentioned above- the sensor should be there to be used to compliment the plain video evidence (when there might have been movement but you can’t be sure from the footage) rather than over rule or contradict it. Which makes it look completely like they were just finding an excuse not to penalise him.

It’s ridiculous where on two consecutive races there has been a jump start and one driver got punished but the other did not. So you’re right in that there needs to be consistency.

Exactly so by that logic a driver who’s sensor isn’t working could set off and be at turn 3 by the time the lights go off and get no penalty!

[djos]

EDIT: Just read the FIA report. So they deem this within tolerable movement. Again, I feel this should be adjusted to no movement at all.

I work in the IT Software industry and my hobby is designing and building vintage computer adapters so I think my POV is relevant to this - All systems require a margin for error, end of story. The main issue here will be jitter from the sensors and this is the main reason why there is a margin for error in systems like this - Zero error margin is just a fantasy.

Sure F1 could invest money reducing it but in this type of system, with so many operating factors, combined with an incredibly hostile environment (F1 cars are hell on earth for electronics, that's why ECU's die on a regular basis) it would be hard to justify the millions required for an extra couple of centimeters of accuracy.

[Restomaniac]

EDIT: Just read the FIA report. So they deem this within tolerable movement. Again, I feel this should be adjusted to no movement at all.

I work in the IT Software industry and my hobby is designing and building vintage computer adapters so I think my POV is relevant to this - All systems require a margin for error, end of story. The main issue here will be jitter from the sensors and this is the main reason why there is a margin for error in systems like this - Zero error margin is just a fantasy.

Sure F1 could invest money reducing it but in this type of system, with so many operating factors, combined with an incredibly hostile environment (F1 cars are hell on earth for electronics, that's why ECU's die on a regular basis) it would be hard to justify the millions required for an extra couple of centimeters of accuracy.

Or when there is clear video evidence of movement you don’t just put your fingers in you ears, shut your eyes and just start singing ‘la,la,la’.

[marvin78]

EDIT: Just read the FIA report. So they deem this within tolerable movement. Again, I feel this should be adjusted to no movement at all.

I work in the IT Software industry and my hobby is designing and building vintage computer adapters so I think my POV is relevant to this - All systems require a margin for error, end of story. The main issue here will be jitter from the sensors and this is the main reason why there is a margin for error in systems like this - Zero error margin is just a fantasy.

Sure F1 could invest money reducing it but in this type of system, with so many operating factors, combined with an incredibly hostile environment (F1 cars are hell on earth for electronics, that's why ECU's die on a regular basis) it would be hard to justify the millions required for an extra couple of centimeters of accuracy.

Or when there is clear video evidence of movement you don’t just put your fingers in you ears, shut your eyes and just start singing ‘la,la,la’.

Since when is a video (especially a bad one in terms of angle and co) in a very time crucial environment seen as "evidence"?

[Restomaniac]

I work in the IT Software industry and my hobby is designing and building vintage computer adapters so I think my POV is relevant to this - All systems require a margin for error, end of story. The main issue here will be jitter from the sensors and this is the main reason why there is a margin for error in systems like this - Zero error margin is just a fantasy.

Sure F1 could invest money reducing it but in this type of system, with so many operating factors, combined with an incredibly hostile environment (F1 cars are hell on earth for electronics, that's why ECU's die on a regular basis) it would be hard to justify the millions required for an extra couple of centimeters of accuracy.

Or when there is clear video evidence of movement you don’t just put your fingers in you ears, shut your eyes and just start singing ‘la,la,la’.

Since when is a video (especially a bad one in terms of angle and co) in a very time crucial environment seen as "evidence"?

It was bad in terms of angle..........What?
It showed the movement and the lights still on!

I’m also pretty sure F1 uses video ‘evidence’ all the time to decide on punishments.

[turbof1]

EDIT: Just read the FIA report. So they deem this within tolerable movement. Again, I feel this should be adjusted to no movement at all.

I work in the IT Software industry and my hobby is designing and building vintage computer adapters so I think my POV is relevant to this - All systems require a margin for error, end of story. The main issue here will be jitter from the sensors and this is the main reason why there is a margin for error in systems like this - Zero error margin is just a fantasy.

Sure F1 could invest money reducing it but in this type of system, with so many operating factors, combined with an incredibly hostile environment (F1 cars are hell on earth for electronics, that's why ECU's die on a regular basis) it would be hard to justify the millions required for an extra couple of centimeters of accuracy.

Yes, but should a system designed to catch things a human not necessarily being able to, have a bigger margin than the treshold of a human eye able to catch clear movement? That would in my book defeat the purpose of the sensor.

I agree with you that all systems need some sort of technical feasible margin, and I do appreciate that comment. However, I do feel we are speaking of a too wide margin here. Speaking from normal circumstances. If there was some sort of interference increasing sensor jitter (a typhoon recently passing through might have done some damage around), than that would immediately explain a lot and again would be reasonable.

For the record, I am no advocate to use video footage in all circumstances, especially when there's a level of subjectivity involved, like wing flex. This is a very specific and black 'n white case where movement is caught before the red lights were out.

[search]

It showed the movement and the lights still on!

I’m also pretty sure F1 uses video ‘evidence’ all the time to decide on punishments.

yes, I think there is no question that there was movement, but for this kind of infringement the rules clearly say "judgement [is] being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car", which allows a little tolerance, as the FIA stated after Bottas' start in Spielberg 2017. Although the FIA did "not disclose what tolerance is allowed before it takes action, for fear that if teams knew what was allowed they would start exploiting this to boost their getaways."

[devra]

EDIT: Just read the FIA report. So they deem this within tolerable movement. Again, I feel this should be adjusted to no movement at all.

I work in the IT Software industry and my hobby is designing and building vintage computer adapters so I think my POV is relevant to this - All systems require a margin for error, end of story. The main issue here will be jitter from the sensors and this is the main reason why there is a margin for error in systems like this - Zero error margin is just a fantasy.

Sure F1 could invest money reducing it but in this type of system, with so many operating factors, combined with an incredibly hostile environment (F1 cars are hell on earth for electronics, that's why ECU's die on a regular basis) it would be hard to justify the millions required for an extra couple of centimeters of accuracy.

I know quite good all those questions of sensors, especially on racing cars, and I wonder how high has to be the margin to say that it's not a jump start. I think even the accelerometer of the cheapest smartphone of the market would have been able to catch a movement like that. If a sensor on a F1 car is not able to see what even a human eye can see on a video, there is for sure a serious problem.

[turbof1]

EDIT: Just read the FIA report. So they deem this within tolerable movement. Again, I feel this should be adjusted to no movement at all.

I work in the IT Software industry and my hobby is designing and building vintage computer adapters so I think my POV is relevant to this - All systems require a margin for error, end of story. The main issue here will be jitter from the sensors and this is the main reason why there is a margin for error in systems like this - Zero error margin is just a fantasy.

Sure F1 could invest money reducing it but in this type of system, with so many operating factors, combined with an incredibly hostile environment (F1 cars are hell on earth for electronics, that's why ECU's die on a regular basis) it would be hard to justify the millions required for an extra couple of centimeters of accuracy.

I know quite good all those questions of sensors, especially on racing cars, and I wonder how high has to be the margin to say that it's not a jump start. I think even the accelerometer of the cheapest smartphone of the market would have been able to catch a movement like that. If a sensor on a F1 car is not able to see what even a human eye can see on a video, there is for sure a serious problem.

I would say there probably some complications involved, like vibrations (we do have an engine running, after all) while standing still. I can understand margins needed for the sensors to not give a false positive, although I do agree the sensor should be better than a human eye.

[sosic2121]

What shows that they are skewing there set up towards qualifying, is the large amount of tire deg they still have. Even post race vettel himself mentioned it.

So you and Vettel both agree that this race(and not only this race) was decided by (thin gauge) tires.

I agree too.

[Restomaniac]

It showed the movement and the lights still on!

I’m also pretty sure F1 uses video ‘evidence’ all the time to decide on punishments.

yes, I think there is no question that there was movement, but for this kind of infringement the rules clearly say "judgement [is] being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car", which allows a little tolerance, as the FIA stated after Bottas' start in Spielberg 2017. Although the FIA did "not disclose what tolerance is allowed before it takes action, for fear that if teams knew what was allowed they would start exploiting this to boost their getaways."

And that’s the problem. Once again the rules are too open for wriggle room.
The sensors were brought in to remove the human element. In the current tech age they are a throw back.
We have a HD video showing.
A: Movement from Car No 5.
B: The lights still on.

No need to sensors on that at all. If the video shows the car movement and the lights go out in the same frame then fine. In this case the movement was before the lights go out, why then are we relying on a sensor that may or may not have been working properly and that needs tolerances?

[Juzh]

Because there isn’t a braking zone before 130R, therefore the DRS wouldn’t close and it could be very dangerous for the cars to take that turn with DRS open.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You don need brakes to close the drs, it can be controlled manually also....

Right, or you can stay on the gas and tap the brakes to drop the DRS. So I think that reasoniong that sky put forth is wrong. Also, I think if there was a DRS in that S3 you'd have to brake for turn 15. We can take turn 15 flat out at 305 KPH but at 325 with DRS deployed?

In quali it would be possible to take 130r flat with drs. Speed would be around ~325 for most cars as you said, which i think is doable. 2011-2012 had free drs and top cars could do it drs open at ~315 kmh. Cars now have probably double amount of DF so we can be pretty sure it would be some challenge to go flat with wing open, but not too much.

In the race it would be a good tool to get up close to someone even if you would have to shut it just before the corner. I don't see a problem with that, it was the same in silverstone last year trough T1. They really should just go ahead and put a drs zone there next year imo. If someone is too eager and crashes as a result that's entirely up to them. Usually it will be grosjean or giovinazzi or someone like that, but thats to be expected.

[Jackles-UK]

What shows that they are skewing there set up towards qualifying, is the large amount of tire deg they still have. Even post race vettel himself mentioned it.

So you and Vettel both agree that this race(and not only this race) was decided by (thin gauge) tires.

I agree too.

The race yesterday had a mixture of one, two and three-stop strategies with all three tyre compounds being on track at the same time at various points in the race. Arguably this is exactly what the thinner tyres were brought in for, to reduce blisters and allow for more varied racing.

Unfortunately, in a formula where you currently need over a second of pace advantage over the car in front to be able to overtake (Suzuka yesterday was actually more like two seconds, see the Vettel vs Hamilton battle at the end of the race as proof) teams would be mad not to focus their efforts on qualifying and then rely on strategy to affect any changes on track.

[Phil]

The whole jump start thing is just comical. The whole world, even Vettel himself, knew he jumped the start, yet he wasnt punished because it takes a sensor to tell them that it was a jump start?

The sensor is there to automatically monitor the starts - think of it as a failsafe. It’s not there as the sole mechanic and it sure as hell shouldnt overrule a steward having a very clear slow motion footage showing very distinct movement before the lights gone out.

In my personal opinion, i think the stewards simply didnt want to throw the punishment plain and simple. I dont believe the sensor didnt do its job and if it did and it somehow was in some kind of tolerance (which i doubt), it sure as hell shouldnt overrule what pretty much everyone saw and knew was a jump start.

Having said that, i sort if agree (or dont mind) that he didnt get punishment, because he corrected it himself and also lost the position for it. By the same token then, neither should Kimi have been penalized.

On the other hand, rules are rules and it’s not only about gaining an advantage, it’s also about throwing off your competitors around you with your movement. I’m fairly confident Leclerc start was also ruined because of Vettels jump.