2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

[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...)

They have simulators to train that, plus they know the minimum treshold they can get away with now. The FIA is saying their tolerances are a guarded secret, but they can easily deduct from Vettel's footage now what the tolerances at minimum are, and replicate it.

The correct thing for the FIA to do now, is to tighten up the tolerances to below what Vettel moved and leave everyone again guessing to what the threshold is. There's certainly a case to be reasonable regarding tolerances for sensors, tolerances for clutch prep, etc. As long as there is no window that the teams can be certain they can abuse, I think that is perfectly fine.

Agree with that! Although I'd prefer it even more if they just said the car must remain completely still from the red lights coming on to the red lights going out. Just as long as they do something to clarify or tighten it up.

[digitalrurouni]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKU0K8Y36pI

Look at how Hamilton reacts to the part flying off of Leclerc's car at 1:10. Amazing reflex.

At 2:36: "James, it's Valtteri."

That is a huge piece of bodywork. Amazing reactions from Hamilton but he's so lucky. Seeing that just makes it so much worse that the stewards and Ferrari didn't do their job properly. No halo and/or a little to the right, and he might be dead or very badly hurt.

Pretty much this.

[search]

Agree with that! Although I'd prefer it even more if they just said the car must remain completely still from the red lights coming on to the red lights going out.

that's what they do in MotoGP for example, and it can result in extremely harsh penalties, like for Crutchlow in the beginning of the year, who moved something like a handful of millimeters:

https://twitter.com/MotoGP/status/1112501706582118402

I understand your point as well, but I also don't mind the "penalty should fit the crime" approach. Vettel for example didn't even have an advantage from it

[NathanOlder]

Agree with that! Although I'd prefer it even more if they just said the car must remain completely still from the red lights coming on to the red lights going out.

that's what they do in MotoGP for example, and it can result in extremely harsh penalties, like for Crutchlow in the beginning of the year, who moved something like a handful of millimeters:

https://twitter.com/MotoGP/status/1112501706582118402

I understand your point as well, but I also don't mind the "penalty should fit the crime" approach. Vettel for example didn't even have an advantage from it

Yeah in Argentina I think it was. Harsh but a fact, He moved before he should have so its a penalty. Quite simple really and not open to interpretation.

Like the MotoGP they should put cameras in the pit wall looking across each row (10 cameras) and with that synced up to the lights its impossible to get a decision wrong.

[TimW]

What I don't understand is why Leclerc gets two penalty point for clumsiness(driving into Verstappen), but no penalty points for deliberate dangerous behaviour(driving with a damaged car, ignoring instructions to pit)

[rogazilla]

out of all the issue, I think ignoring the team order and driving a car with parts flying off is the worst of all the calls. That penalty is so light compare to the danger that he put 2 other drivers in is mind boggling. I get the argument of incident against Max and I'd go with the racing incident if people wants to call it hard racing. However, the part that took LH's mirror off and caused Norris' brakes to catch on fire is not hard racing and it is unnecessary danger.

[Sieper]

What I don't understand is why Leclerc gets two penalty point for clumsiness(driving into Verstappen), but no penalty points for deliberate dangerous behaviour(driving with a damaged car, ignoring instructions to pit)

1 point for ramming Max, 2 points for strewing parts all over the place, wasn’t it? In Monaco he got away with the same.

[izzy]

watching Charles' onboard, while he's supposedly helplessly battling understeer behind Seb's car, he actually takes lock off, for a moment. So... It was part of his feud with Max, deliberate

Here it is, brief flick, but in an F1 car that's all it takes:
[media]https://dai.ly/x7mo1w8[/media]

Add it to veering into Valtteri in Hungary and avoiding returning Seb's tow in Monza, it could get a bit disillusioning

[Restomaniac]

And this is yet another reason to impose stricter false start rules. Everyone is on a hair trigger so any movement like that can disrupt the others.

The logic behind sensor tolerance is total bs. There are a multitude of ways they can monitor start movement that could reduce the tolerance to below human visual perception. This is just another case of hilarious lack of technology in the most technologically advanced sport.

The top paragraph is so true. All you have to do is watch any track event in athletics.
1 competitor jump starts and the entire field goes early. It’s why they only penalise the first to go early.

In Paragraph 2 I’d actually argue they had a better way to make the judgement (HD camera) but they chose to ignore it!

[holeindalip]

Leclerc didn’t ignore team orders, while he was getting close to the last corners his team ordered him to stay out after they told him to box....

[cooken]

And this is yet another reason to impose stricter false start rules. Everyone is on a hair trigger so any movement like that can disrupt the others.

The logic behind sensor tolerance is total bs. There are a multitude of ways they can monitor start movement that could reduce the tolerance to below human visual perception. This is just another case of hilarious lack of technology in the most technologically advanced sport.

The top paragraph is so true. All you have to do is watch any track event in athletics.
1 competitor jump starts and the entire field goes early. It’s why they only penalise the first to go early.

In Paragraph 2 I’d actually argue they had a better way to make the judgement (HD camera) but they chose to ignore it!

Agreed on using the HD camera. Image/video processing algorithms can easily identify a reference point on each car and track relative position between frames. Can be done in real time no problem.

[djos]

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.

Thanks turbo, this is exactly what I’ve been saying.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Anyone able to clarify when the rules changed regarding false starts? My understanding was a false start was any start where the car moves before an acceptable human reaction time to the lights going out i.e. always after the lights go out by about half a second or so. This meant that anticipated starts (predicting when the lights would go out) were illegal. The FIA are stating that the new sensor has a secret tolerance built-in and that Vettel's start was within that tolerance. We all saw the car move before the lights, so that seems to suggest that anticipated starts are now legal?

If that's the case, did Vettel even need to stop? He was within the tolerance, so his mistake was stopping, he should have just gone!

Appreciate some people are saying he stayed within the box, if that's the case then is the following legal: Car stops a car length short of the box and then proceeds to roll forwards slowly, gunning the throttle as early as possible. The car can't jump the start until it's exited the box, so could in theory "start" before any other stationary car and gain an advantage in terms of grip and momentum.

[TimW]

What I don't understand is why Leclerc gets two penalty point for clumsiness(driving into Verstappen), but no penalty points for deliberate dangerous behaviour(driving with a damaged car, ignoring instructions to pit)

1 point for ramming Max, 2 points for strewing parts all over the place, wasn’t it? In Monaco he got away with the same.

Just 2 points for ramming max. Team fine for staying out. Guess they blame the team for the latter, although initially he clearly stayed out on his own decision, against the team's order. Only after the endplate ripped off hamiltons mirror the team told him to stay out.
Later in the race he also lost the mirror which could have been dangerous, so if you are strict it was an unsafe release as well

[sosic2121]

Later in the race he also lost the mirror which could have been dangerous, so if you are strict it was an unsafe release as well

Are you talking about Leclerc's mirror or Hamilton's mirror?