What a stupid rule. He jump started, we all saw it with our own eyes. But because some piece of equipment is the only thing that's allowed to judge a jump start and it clearly doesn't work, it's not therefore a false start? More F1 nonsense.
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
68 points (98.6% liked)
Formula 1
9064 readers
58 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.
Up next
2024 Calendar
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 United States | 21-23 Nov |
| 🇶🇦 Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
| 🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Maybe they should not rely on a rule that has a single point of failure to govern this. There are more camera's at races these days than ever before. So use that as your backup in your ruling.
Whilst there's loads of camera's about, they don't have one set up exactly in line with each of the twenty start positions. Doing so would require a lot of effort and reviewing the footage is arguably more subjective that simply just having a sensor at an arbitrary point. Nothing is perfect but the sensor is a least in theory consistent.
Whilst there’s loads of camera’s about, they don’t have one set up exactly in line with each of the twenty start positions.
The camera that showed that his wheel was outside the box was his on-board camera and of those there is one for every car. But teams cannot protest this because the ruling said that video evidence was used, therefore there is no new evidence even if the stewards just didn't look properly.
Maybe they should not rely on a rule that has a single point of failure to govern this.
They don't:
§48.1.c does not say anything about the transponder.
There are two parts of this rule: Did he move enough to trigger the transponder? No. Was the tire in front of the grid position regardless of transponder movement? Yes.
I'm not so sure about your second point. He might have set up further back (probably unvoluntarily) so even when he jumped he didn't cross the limit of the grid box. This would also mean that they didn't have any infringement on the rules you posted so they couldn't just give him a penalty.
I remember some years ago it was possible to measure drivers reaction time at the start. I remember Bottas even had an almost impossible reaction of a couple thousands of a second, he probably got lucky but it still was after the reds went out. So how about using clutch release telemetry or wheel speed sensors data and compare that to exactly when they shut the lights? If that difference is anywhere under 0.000, you jumped. It would still be incredibly hard to judge while not allowing any form of movement before the lights are actually out.
He might have set up further back (probably unvoluntarily) so even when he jumped he didn’t cross the limit of the grid box.
Video evidence from on-board camera showed otherwise.
Well he was far enough not to trip the transponder no matter what the camera suggests.
Well he was far enough not to trip the transponder
Tripping the transponder is for the amount of movement, not the absolute position. Drivers would park further back and jump start in a way they'd be still behind the white grid marker is it were any other way.
no matter what the camera suggests.
The camera suggested nothing. It showed clearly that the wheel was too far ahead before the red lights were off and section C does not mention the transponder. The stewards made an error by not properly reviewing the evidence, just as they originally noted the wrong incident and later during the race filed a correction. That's it. Mistakes happen, it's too late to apply a penalty. Doesn't mean that we cannot recognize that.
I would honestly be interested about where you got that the transponder is based on movement vs position. And I don't say that to catch you in a lie at all I am thoroughly honestly interested in this and would like to learn more about this tech.
edit: and yes from the in-board cam it does look like at least the contact patch was in-front you are right.
I would honestly be interested about where you got that the transponder is based on movement vs position.
Literally the very first word in section A.
...Just says there's a transponder that's supposed to judge if there was movement. It says nothing about how said transponder achieves that judgement. It doesn't simply senses movement as you astutely pointed out the car very obviously moved. That means it needs a reference point.
So Is it gps? Is it an accelerometer? Is there another sensor on the grid it has to cross? Is it telemetry? Why is there this much wiggle room?
Didn't Alonso get 5 secs penalty last year for being a couple of cm to the left of his gridbox? Total BS!
He did get a penalty.After that the gridbox was widened and yellow marker line was added to the gridbox.Hoping there is some improvement to this rule too.
From Russel's car-cam, you can see that Norris first moves while all lights are on. Probably before he actually leaves his start-box, the lights go out. He stops outside the box, everybody starts and he goes last. I can imagine that the sensors did not catch that as a violation. It is (on F1TV) about 1 movie frame that you can see movement under lights on. Would love to see someone slowly playing it with broad-cast quality. It could have been the fastest start ever if he had continued to drive.