2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

[djos]

The stewards hands were tied by the regs, I don’t think they could have penalised him even if they wanted to.

[f1316]

It’s crazy to think that - despite a car not working to expectations for much of the season - Ferrari has now had a reasonable shot at victory at 10 out of the 17 races (for those keeping score that’s: Bahrain, Baku, Canada, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Singapore, Russia and Japan).

Obviously a team is never going to win 100% of races where they’re most competitive - and still very clear that, where deg is high (Russia having very low deg), Mercedes still has a decent race pace advantage - but it goes to show how much of the story (I.e. Mercedes running away with it) of this season is about poor execution, at least in comparison to the excellent execution of your competitor, rather than sheer ‘pace’.

With perfect execution - from drivers and team - it would still be close.

[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:



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!

Completely agree! Especially if the stewards are going to take only sensor readings as the be all and end all, rather than actual video proof. Second time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

[El Scorchio]

Not sure what points you’re trying to make here?

Just agreeing with you sorry.

Ah! Sorry! I wasn't really sure what you were saying- it's sad isn't it, that my default reaction (and the usual default reaction of people on forums) was to be defensive!

[Wass85]

I think winter testing showed Ferrari had the pace in the car somewhere. Could it be a case of not getting on top of the tyres during most of the season. I think the poor Pirelli tyres have more of an impact on performance than most realise.

[djos]

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!

Completely agree! Especially if the stewards are going to take only sensor readings as the be all and end all, rather than actual video proof. Second time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

He literally only moved 2cm at the most, watch the tire, it was maybe 5 degrees of rotation.

And again, he didn’t exit the start box, the tire barely touched the inside of the white line and in most sports that’s considered in bounds.

He also stuffed his own start prospects so no penalty was reasonable as no advantage was gained.

[Manoah2u]

He Needs to cross the line to trigger the sensor which he didn't do.

I understand your point, as which Masi tries to defend their lousy actions with,
but yes, there is the sensor there to sensor if somebody made a false start.

But come on, nobody needs a sensor to see that that was a false start.
You know, there was a time these sensors didn't exist and he would have had a clear penalty.
It's absolute nonsense and it was fully deserving of a penalty.

See after Germany This is what I understood the rule. Basically if Car F is trying to pass car R, he can drive him off the road if he wants. If Car R is defending he cannot drive car F off the road. That is what Max did in Germany.

Actually after lookingat the onboard, I don't think it was LeClerc fault. You can see him loose downforce when Vettel comes across. How does he know Vettel is gonna come across?

I get what you're saying, and offcourse it has an effect, but did you notice what Max said during the race?
Physics, its no excuse, he knew very well he was behind Vettel and a loss of downforce is to be calculated in.
Leclerc just needed to steer more to the right, which he made no effort of and simply behaved like Max didn't exist in his universe where the world only revolves around Charles.

And to be frank, that is really the thing.
Masi mentioned they were irritated with Ferrari. Well, read that as LeClerc.

Leclerc completely ignored Ferrari's team orders to box. more than once. Not that Vettel at moments doesn't 'more or less ignore' them as it fits him, but he got bashed to death on the internet for ignoring Ferrari, and here Charles does it in a extremely blunt and disrespectful manner. Hell, Vettel said it 'nobody is bigger than Ferrari'. Yet Charles ego seems to bloat up more and more and become bigger than direct orders from the team.

I still do lay most blame with FIA though, let that be clear. If FIA immediately gave them the meatball, then things might have been much clearer for LeClerc.
Also, it must be said, Ferrari could very much have said to LeClerc; your front wing is hanging on dangerously on a thread, you might cause damage to other cars behind, the track, or worse, or yourself and crash as there is a risk of losing the front wing. LeClerc knew very well the contact was hard as even his left mirror was pointed upward immediately after (and after a long race finally gave way).

[maxxer]

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!

Completely agree! Especially if the stewards are going to take only sensor readings as the be all and end all, rather than actual video proof. Second time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

I guess the biggest problem now is why give a penalty to raikonnen they must have data to shiw when someone drops the clutch and onboard video and all so the sensor alone is nonsense Masi is on motorsport.com that there are tolerances now that they dont disclose ..

Actually what sky said in the race where kimi jumped that he would be better off to just floor it and not even attempt to stop

[Just_a_fan]

It’s crazy to think that - despite a car not working to expectations for much of the season - Ferrari has now had a reasonable shot at victory at 10 out of the 17 races (for those keeping score that’s: Bahrain, Baku, Canada, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Singapore, Russia and Japan).

Indeed so. Still, some will say that the Mercedes is the best car by a mile and them winning is easy/foregone conclusion etc.

The reality is that Ferrari/Ferrari's drivers have, one way or another, failed to capitalise on the car's performance when they should have.

[Restomaniac]

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!

Completely agree! Especially if the stewards are going to take only sensor readings as the be all and end all, rather than actual video proof. Second time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

He literally only moved 2cm at the most, watch the tire, it was maybe 5 degrees of rotation.

And again, he didn’t exit the start box, the tire barely touched the inside of the white line and in most sports that’s considered in bounds.

He also stuffed his own start prospects so no penalty was reasonable as no advantage was gained.

So you’re now admitting that he moved. However by the rules only sensors count and not clear video evidence. It’s one or the other. You can’t have it both ways.
Either he moved early by video and it’s a penalty or he could get to turn 3 with a failed sensor not triggering and it’s not. Which is it?

[turbof1]

Completely agree! Especially if the stewards are going to take only sensor readings as the be all and end all, rather than actual video proof. Second time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

He literally only moved 2cm at the most, watch the tire, it was maybe 5 degrees of rotation.

And again, he didn’t exit the start box, the tire barely touched the inside of the white line and in most sports that’s considered in bounds.

He also stuffed his own start prospects so no penalty was reasonable as no advantage was gained.

So you’re now admitting that he moved. However by the rules only sensors count and not clear video evidence. It’s one or the other. You can’t have it both ways.
Either he moved early by video and it’s a penalty or he could get to turn 3 with a failed sensor not triggering and it’s not. Which is it?

That's too harsh against djos. He never said Vettel did not move, only that it was within tolerable limits. I think logically the discussion should away from why he wasn't punished -the stewards weren't able to due the exact ruling in the sporting regulations-, and move to a discussion if and/or what should be changed.

[aral]

Vettel wasnt punished as he car was not far enough forward to trigger the sensor and his wheels did not cross over the white grid box line. This line is the point at where the sensor kicks in. Bottas also did the same, but oddly, many people are not calling for action against him. A little bit of bias, methinks?

[Restomaniac]

He literally only moved 2cm at the most, watch the tire, it was maybe 5 degrees of rotation.

And again, he didn’t exit the start box, the tire barely touched the inside of the white line and in most sports that’s considered in bounds.

He also stuffed his own start prospects so no penalty was reasonable as no advantage was gained.

So you’re now admitting that he moved. However by the rules only sensors count and not clear video evidence. It’s one or the other. You can’t have it both ways.
Either he moved early by video and it’s a penalty or he could get to turn 3 with a failed sensor not triggering and it’s not. Which is it?

That's too harsh against djos. He never said Vettel did not move, only that it was within tolerable limits. I think logically the discussion should away from why he wasn't punished -the stewards weren't able to due the exact ruling in the sporting regulations-, and move to a discussion if and/or what should be changed.

Actually he said it didn’t matter if he moved and refused to answer the question. Then quoting the rules about only sensor data being used and that the stewards hands being tied (as you say). So by that logic as I said a driver with a failed sensor could floor it at the 3rd light and get to turn 2 by the time everyone else starts and the stewards couldn’t do a damn thing about it.

[Restomaniac]

Vettel wasnt punished as he car was not far enough forward to trigger the sensor and his wheels did not cross over the white grid box line. This line is the point at where the sensor kicks in. Bottas also did the same, but oddly, many people are not calling for action against him. A little bit of bias, methinks?

IIRC there was no video evidence showing a move before the lights. If you think I’m biased towards Mercedes you have me mixed up with somebody else. In this case there clearly was. Also the stewards hid behind the sensor argument alone.

[RZS10]

I'll just link to my post in the Ferrari thread

viewtopic.php?p=867571#p867571

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? (I have) worked on and with sensors for robotics and programmed said sensors as well

So what do you think, what kind of absolute garbage sensor or incompetent programming would be needed to not pick up that movement clearly visible in the gif i made (and have already posted in this thread as well)

Here's the distance travelled from the onboard:



Total on the left - between the false start and the light turning off on the right

The distance he travelled between coming to a halt and the lights turning off can be seen between both pictures

Another approach:


I don't think i have to explain what i did there it's very straightforward ... using the tyre markings to determine the distance via angles ...

Using that and allowing for some errors he moved ~30cm until 'green' and another ~10cm until he came to a stop - "tolerance" my ass