2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

[sosic2121]

[lSecond time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

That's not correct, there was no concrete evidence.
What about Bottas' start in Austria 2017?

[Sierra117]

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?

A huge number were calling out for action against Bottas. You can still see the top comments on YouTube on the vid where Anthony is on the Skypad analysing it. So this issue has been going on since there. Turbo nailed it - the "not crossed their box yet" argument falls apart because you are essentially allowed to be further back intentionally and get a rolling start. A few milliseconds results in metres of advantage.

Which is why the FIA should stop relying on one-dimensional angles and see things from multiple aspects and use the rule for guidance so that they are not abused. Limiting themselves to just one sensor readout means they ignore all the ways around it.

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

The FIA have mentioned (since the Bottas incident) that they have an allowance for cars moving due to the clutch. Ok, but again, we're back to what Turbo said about how this can be easily abused by not getting to the box and getting a small rolling start.

Also, the fact that you can take pen and paper and do that shows what a useless sensor implementation it is. FIA, just clarify both forward and backward bounds. Go do a test of the minimum distance a car moves due to various clutch settings and whatnot and set that as the limits for the sensor. There, problem solved.

[Artur Craft]

Oh, and can somebody give Sainz a quicker car? That dude is impressively consistent.

Unfortunately, very few people give him credit and most just keep on hyping Lando Norris

[El Scorchio]

[lSecond time they've disregarded video proof this season to fudge a penalty. (Vettel again, in Monza)

That's not correct, there was no concrete evidence.
What about Bottas' start in Austria 2017?

Assuming you're talking about Monza, there was a picture of his car completely off the edge of the white line which marked the limit of the circuit. It was posted on this forum somewhere. The stewards then fudged some explanation about how maybe from another hypothetical angle the edge of the tyre MIGHT still be overhanging where the edge of the white line was, so therefore they didn't see fit to penalise him. That, just like this, was a ridiculous decision which defied visual evidence.

You can't possibly be talking about no evidence for the jump start- just watch the beginning of the race again...

[El Scorchio]

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.

Raikkonen didn't gain an advantage either. He still got penalised.

[RZS10]

Throwback to the old race start monitoring system thread

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=26569

Back then deltaecho5 claimed the following:

How it really works for anyone interested:

The FIA delegate within Race Control analyzing the start of the race utilizes broad view high speed camera images to determine any car leaving the start box before the electronically registered time stamp of the last red light being extinguished.

This information is reviewed at the time of the start both utilizing the S/F passing system and also the DVR of the race start. The time stamp is compared to the camera feed capture time, and the movement is determined via calculation: thus Bottas' .2 sec reaction time.

He hasn't posted since early 2018 but i wonder what his input would be about this not being a false start this time

[Zarathustra]

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:

https://i.imgur.com/RVeKW10.png

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:
https://i.imgur.com/FYn9swZ.png

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

I like the way you have ‘built’ your case, unfortunately you’ve only proven that on this particular circuit (Suzuka) the tolerance is at least 40cm (if you’re calculations are correct).

[miguelalvesreis]

Frankly, I'm pleased the nanny state rules have been revoked as the racing this year has been the best it has been in many decades!

Racing Point filed a complaint towards Renault for using some sorts of programmed brake balance. I wonder how far it goes, whether it's just a pre-programmed brake balance per corner like ECU's are programmed or if it also calculates in wind directions, tyre wear, fuel loads etc ..

Yes, seems to be an interesting system! How do they keep it in sync with the position on track. Different racing line, some run offs, pitting, all this change the running distance

Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

I assume they have a reset button they hit at the same point each lap and a manual override they can hit if they have to take an exceptional route for some reason.[/quote]That would be interesting! But they would have to trigger it precisely or do they have same error margin when to set the brake bias? I'm thinking in a approach to some esses, coming from a long fast zone, they would need some forward bias for the 1st braking and then, immediately after, reared bias for the esses, and after the esses, front bias again. That could be treaky

Enviado do meu SM-T820 através do Tapatalk

[dans79]

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.

I see you are just one of those people who's never going to get over the fact that Ferrari failed with the tires last year!

[iotar__]

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.

...and engines, and chassis, and drivers. Especially Ferrari drivers.

[RZS10]

I like the way you have ‘built’ your case, unfortunately you’ve only proven that on this particular circuit (Suzuka) the tolerance is at least 40cm (if you’re calculations are correct).

Yes, i'm just pointing out that the FIA is claiming that the so called (and secret) 'tolerance' is higher than 0.3s and/or 30cm (the distance he moves before 'green') for a Ferrari car at Suzuka ... of course with some margin of error (which is a lot lower than theirs, apparently)

I guess it's fair to say that IF this is the case the tolerance is way too high.

Raikkonen didn't gain an advantage either. He still got penalised.

He did leave his grid position though, thus breaking 36.13 b)

[El Scorchio]

So should we interpret that as 'it's ok to be moving a bit before the lights go out as long as you don't leave your grid box'? If that's actually how the rules are written instead of 'Your car cannot move until the lights are out', then that is crazy.

If I'm a team principal or engineer, then I'm now looking into instructing my drivers to line up a little under 30cm short of the front line and start slowly rolling forward before the lights go out, if that's acceptable within the rules and gives an edge. (Assuming that's something which is possible for the drivers to action, which I wouldn't know the complexities of...)

[DChemTech]

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.

Raikkonen didn't gain an advantage either. He still got penalised.

Indeed. I don't see an issue with not penalising if the driver corrects the error themselves (to the effect of losing places), but be consistent at least. There was no need to penalize Kimi either.

[NathanOlder]

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.

It was 100% definitely more than 2cm, what a joke. Also he was still moving when the light actually went out!

[foxmulder_ms]

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.

It was 100% definitely more than 2cm, what a joke. Also he was still moving when the light actually went out!

If you are ferrari, no problem mate. Get over it