2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

For ease of use, there is one thread per grand prix where you can discuss everything during that specific GP weekend. You can find these threads here.
Post Reply
User avatar
RZS10
359
Joined: 07 Dec 2013, 01:23

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

deltaecho5 wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 17:18
[...] I am merely attempting to shed some light as to what officials have at their disposal. [...]
Thank you for your insight and taking your time to reply

To me it kinda seems like the terminology used in the regulations doesn't really reflect what is actually being done (on purpose?).

In the scuderia thread i suggested the following: "when the lights finally turned off [Vettel] was still slowing down, however the speed he was travelling at was low enough to not trigger the automated false start detection."

Could it be that they mainly monitor the very brief timeframe around the actual start and then it doesn't matter whether a car is accelerating (Bottas Austria) or slowing down (Vettel here)?

To me that is the only thing that would explain the start being within their 'tolerance' because i can't believe the system would have margins as big as what everyone saw on their TV with the naked eye.

Restomaniac
0
Joined: 16 May 2016, 01:09
Location: Hull

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

Edax wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 21:42
strad wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 20:50
Standing starts is a signature of F1. Back in the day they sometimes creeped a bit because of clutch drag but those clutches and days are long gone.
How about we let them use linelock? Oh yeah cause they would find a way to use it to cheat. Let's see.. Maybe they could prove the oft quoted thing about them being the best drivers in the world.
Their clutch is on the wheel so they only have two pedals they ought to be able to manage two pedals. :wink:
I think the motorcross gate is still the most elegant solution. Move too early and you end up with the handlebars in your nuts.

Building gates on the grid is probably not practical but I am sure we can replicate the effect with a suitable motion sensor coupled to a spring-loaded hammer between their legs :twisted:
Cool. Maybe the Teams/Stewards can use it them too if a Driver starts being a tw@.

Edax
47
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 22:47

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

Restomaniac wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 22:08
Edax wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 21:42
strad wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 20:50
Standing starts is a signature of F1. Back in the day they sometimes creeped a bit because of clutch drag but those clutches and days are long gone.
How about we let them use linelock? Oh yeah cause they would find a way to use it to cheat. Let's see.. Maybe they could prove the oft quoted thing about them being the best drivers in the world.
Their clutch is on the wheel so they only have two pedals they ought to be able to manage two pedals. :wink:
I think the motorcross gate is still the most elegant solution. Move too early and you end up with the handlebars in your nuts.

Building gates on the grid is probably not practical but I am sure we can replicate the effect with a suitable motion sensor coupled to a spring-loaded hammer between their legs :twisted:
Cool. Maybe the Teams/Stewards can use it them too if a Driver starts being a tw@.
Knowing Liberty Media they will probably make it a viewer voting option. :D

User avatar
deltaecho5
33
Joined: 26 Jun 2017, 03:54
Location: Usually at the Track
Contact:

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

RZS10 wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 22:06
deltaecho5 wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 17:18
[...] I am merely attempting to shed some light as to what officials have at their disposal. [...]
To me it kinda seems like the terminology used in the regulations doesn't really reflect what is actually being done (on purpose?).

In the scuderia thread i suggested the following: "when the lights finally turned off [Vettel] was still slowing down, however the speed he was travelling at was low enough to not trigger the automated false start detection."

Could it be that they mainly monitor the very brief timeframe around the actual start and then it doesn't matter whether a car is accelerating (Bottas Austria) or slowing down (Vettel here)?

To me that is the only thing that would explain the start being within their 'tolerance' because i can't believe the system would have margins as big as what everyone saw on their TV with the naked eye.
I would say that your consideration of what is going on in race control is the most probable conclusion.

There are inconsistencies in officiating specific aspects of racing, and these are not intentional. They are often due to time constraints, and often this is readily accepted by the teams. I would suggest that one body trying to regulate and hold accountable 20 vehicles versus one team trying to hold accountable one body is a seesaw process, and invariably creates personality hurdles from race to race.

"Automated false start detection" is a broad term. In my experience, terms describing specific processes usually are more likely designed to give a finality to the outcome of a decision, not necessarily the objectivity or precision of the device/equipment/procedure it refers to. It gives the officiating body the flexibility to apply a protocol or process using their best judgement...this is usually written into the hierarchy of the rules/protocol as it allows for the failure of any device/equipment/procedure to be overridden by a human.

I know from experience that transponder anomalies are real, equipment doesn't always function as designed, and on such occasions, for example, we are left with a human comparing high speed pictures of cars to try to achieve a conclusion. Fortunately those pictures also come with data, but often the data can be also corrupted for the very reason the equipment didn't function as designed. For example, under race conditions, under actual scoring of position, a tx passing (the vehicles transponder emitting it's proper frequency and digital signature at the S/F or S/F pit loop) is obscured or not recorded, and the passing time stamp via highspeed is manually entered into the timing system as an official passing time if a redundant tx passing time cannot be obtained.

The tolerances we are speaking of (and forgive me that this answer seems long) vary from track to track, the equipment location, the change in equipment, etc. So if there is a slant to the track, there is a variance in the "tolerance", since cars can roll, and the sensitivity of brake pedal pressure of a driver ready to accelerate may vary with his desire for the car to remain stationary without his adding any resistance to it moving forward rapidly. This happens in the box, on level ground.

Any sense of motion measured in millimeters by the driver under such a stressful moment in the race is probably limited (that's an opinion of course).

It would be interesting to do a study of all car movement opposite of the S/F line (backwards movement) that has not been protested or seen by the TV audience. My experience is that this is a real thing, but it's never brought to light.

In my experience, regardless of any specific equipment available, I would agree with your conclusion about movement being a naked eye call.

What I am most assuredly trying to convey in these posts, is that stewarding of the race is still a human endeavor. Regardless of the device/equipment/procedure in place, the officials have at their disposal the highest quality equipment they have deemed necessary to reach a fair and equitable conclusion. That said, having more equipment, of even more importantly in this debate, more accurate equipment, won't necessarily change the stewards decision. Understand, this is not the same "process" followed by the technical stewards regarding the construction of or application of any FIA sanctioned racing equipment or vehicle - race operations is a very different and political body and does not necessarily follow any of the same protocols for infraction or protest as the technical competition stewards.

Personally, what drives me crazy, is when we have officiated races where all we expect of the equipment fails us, and we have to rely on human eye balls and common sense to see us through, the audience has no clue any catastrophe has befallen us. Yet when all of the equipment performs perfectly and we rely on those same human initiatives, sometimes the outcome infuriates the audience.

>To address the concept posted of adding more cameras at the S/F or other sensors - The hDef Cameras are roughly $10k each, and typically redundant, so 20 isn't enough, you'd need 40...and since they are in a high impact area, you really need 80. Well, it rains, so make it 120. Because transport. Make it 140. Then there is the logistics in play to get the signal from 40 cameras back to race control on a data pipe that can handle high def for basically 1 second of a race start. We are talking about a program that would have a budget that would exceed the cost of the start lights and current monitor system by a factor of 10. Where does it stop? When the one camera you needed fails to render a decision, the old eye ball comes in to play and then there are countless threads about equipment efficiency and accuracy.

>I would like to see a response counting up all the false starts in the past 10 years...I think it's been like 4 this year and 2 in the last 7? I am not sure honestly, but it would be interesting for a stats person to post (please excuse my ignorance if it's already been posted).
⏱ Timekeeper by day, F1 Driver by night (whilst sleeping of course...)

Bsowles
0
Joined: 28 May 2018, 06:21
Location: Lake Tahoe, NV. USA

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

KeiKo403 wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 15:04
Jester Maroc wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 14:44
KeiKo403 wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 14:09
As for the Vettel false start, I guess technically it wasn't a false start, the rules say a false start is determined by the on board sensor triggering, as the on-board sensor didn't trigger it technically wasn't a false start. If the stewards would've handed a penalty out for that Ferrari would've took that to court somewhere, and most likely won, what they'd gain from doing that who knows but the stewards can only:
a. Give a penalty for breaking a rule
b. Give NO penalty for breaking a rule

What they can't do is give a penalty for not technically breaking a rule (unfortunately common sense can't prevail).
To be clear though, I didn't know the exact wording of the rules so I called that a false start because I saw a car move while the lights were still on.

I can't really understand the outcome they gave though where they said because he stopped he didn't gain an advantage. Look back to Russia, different crime, admittedly, but did Magnussen gain an advantage for running wide at T2, I don't believe he was directly battling with anyone?
You mean these, "Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved
and supplied transponder fitted to each car" As others have pointed out according to the regulations Vettel could not be penalized, my issue is that this is a terrible precedent.

I don't understand why the results should be considered when reprimanding drivers for (visually) obvious penalties. Vettel not gaining an advantage does not change the fact that he intentionally moved prior to lights out.
well I was just venting my frustrations at this not being penalised because it couldn't be based on how the rules were written. Wasn't responding directly to anything you (or anyone else really) had already said.

I totally agree with you though about how the result of any incident seems to come into play. It shouldn't.

I'm gonna off on a wild tangent here but for the stewards to say no advantage was gained is as nonsensical as me saying if Vettel hadn't have jumped the start then he for sure would've crashed at T1 and left Japan with 0 points. As it is, what he did had a different affect and meant he ended up finishing second, ergo advantage gained.

It's through utterly stupid arguments like this that the 'result' of an incident shouldn't be taken into account as it's impossible to say what would've happened given a correct start.

For anyone wanting to respond to this argument, please note I'm not great at analogies or anything like that, it's more the meaning behind what I've tried to say instead of what I have actually said.

Also, it just so happens that this is about Vettel. I actually really quite like him so this isn't a personal attack on him. It's more the FIA/Stewards silly rules/decisions.
It sounds like we’re talking about the “spirit” or “intent” of the rule as written, as opposed to the actual execution/implementation of said rule. That sometimes needs to be taken into consideration.

Bsowles
0
Joined: 28 May 2018, 06:21
Location: Lake Tahoe, NV. USA

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

deltaecho5 wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 17:18
RZS10 wrote:
14 Oct 2019, 14:33
Throwback to the old race start monitoring system thread

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=26569

Back then deltaecho5 claimed the following:
deltaecho5 wrote:
15 Jul 2017, 02:08
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
Hello again - (thanks RZS10 for inviting me back), I saw the quoted info, read briefly and hope my intercession here won't offend or ignite, but I will try to put forth some personal knowledge and allow the members here to determine if it's relevant. I am only speaking to the equipment, data and facilities available, not the decision, outcome or result of any official.

As I've said in the past, the information available to race control is varied, and not necessarily specific for the purpose, but often used to be a conglomerate of data in order to arrive at a decision.

In the past, electronic track sensors, other than for the purpose of associating a transponder on a vehicle passing over a specific loop in the track, were not available for start box movement determination.

As I've briefly read here, and have stated in the past, the detection of certain movement of vehicles from a static position to a moving position is not determined by a specific track sensor.

It was indicated in past posts that there were specific sensors in each box of each vehicle, and my response was and still is that having professional experience with timing loops and their equipment at tracks specific to Formula One, there are no such devices or hardwired facilities at these tracks for each independent start line box.

The determination can and has been made via optical observation, and in addition, could be made via wheel sensor data if the team supplies it, possibly as a result of a protest via the FIA officiates, team representatives or their assigns.

Regarding optical observation: Without flogging the deceased equine, yes, high speed Hdef cameras are available (think 30-40 screens in Race Control) for a visual inspection of movement. Without having personal knowledge of the current rule of operation, it would occur to many that regardless of the intricate mathematical equations used in previous posts to determine centimeter perfect movement, it should be known that the camera systems used are not mounted in a way that would ensure that movement on a miniscule seismic level could not be avoided...thus making hog wash of any computational or photogrammetric study of the image. This would explain why there is a specific mention of an allowance of movement to occur that could be disallowed as camera observation movement without triggering the exclusion of a competitor.

Let's also consider FIA required on-board cameras that are also at the officials disposal. This use of this information is strictly at the behest of the Chief Steward. Whether it is displayed or utilized is not up to any board or team. Period.

Regarding sensor observation: Necessary to the team's control of the vehicle in a competitive manner, I am not aware of (but would be open to the information) any requirement for a rotational sensor on any of the vehicles to determine movement on the grid. If these sensors do exist (and I would be restricted from disclosing that), then the existence of their data at the time of the infraction would be available. However, as those data would in all likelihood be deemed proprietary to the team, I would find it unlikely they would a) turn it over, and b) be required to turn it over, both reasoned that not all teams would necessarily have those sensors readily recording as to the movement of the car at the start.

In any event, if I was a team manager, and I did have such sensors, and they were not mandatory equipment, I would in all likely hood require my engineers to shut them off and have them go dark at any point during competition they could be used against my team.

Before the GPS theory starts: Relying on my personal experience at SAC and USSC, as well as my professional timing experience, no GPS signal available to any personal or commercial enterprise via the US Military, is able to provide centimeter precision, let alone millimeter precision, to any device transmitter or receiver that would allow a conclusion regarding relative movement. GPS signal used at racing tracks by timing and scoring is used specifically for its highly accurate time stamps, (.0001) to synchronize simultaneous decoder use of transponder data for timing purposes. Since vehicle track location does not require measure perfect accuracy, a combination of loop passing prediction and GPS sensors can be used to determine vehicle track location for the television audience.

I often look at the amazing world of Formula One, and I am struck dumb by the amount of technology and money that is spent on things. Then I am reminded that regardless of the technology, regardless of the money, we still do things the same old simple way because they are either more efficient or because they rely on the humans that are involved.

Knowing what past cost versus benefit analysis programs yield, I do not think that expenditures will be made to accommodate "cheating" at the start line, unless and until it becomes so widely prevalent as to occur every race, and by more than one driver. It's just too simple for the others to rat you out, and too simple to check the video.

Considering the teams are spending millions on devices and sensors that are necessary to be competitive, and fight tooth and nail to reduce the cost/weight of things that are required via FIA sanctioning (proprietary transponders, their required redundant counterpart, their wiring looms and their backup electrical systems cost a team six figures alone), it is unlikely that teams care to add yet another piece of equipment that will cost them money/weight and rarely be used, when the current one off infraction is something they can deal with, may not specifically affect their race outcome, and costs them nothing.

If this was a drag race, there would be myriads of required rules and sensors for timing to observe. But since the race consists of more than one lap, personally, the analyst in me would more likely attribute hand made tire anomalies, stomach ingestion, bird strikes, momentary lapses of reason (cheers David), and other human contributions (girlfriend broke up with you), as much more influential factors that would result in .20 second variations of initial lap times than any other factor. When we get around to mandatory enemas to equalize the odd gastric affliction causing a random toot that makes a driver's foot twitch at the start line, count me out of that group required to roll out and maintain those sensors...

That all said, please keep in mind my offering here is not in the defense of, nor in the approval of any act by any driver. I am merely attempting to shed some light as to what officials have at their disposal. What decisions are made by them is not for me ponder. :). Cheers.
Was that a David Gilmour reference you worked in there in your post? If so, well played. 👍

User avatar
deltaecho5
33
Joined: 26 Jun 2017, 03:54
Location: Usually at the Track
Contact:

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

Bsowles wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 23:55
Was that a David Gilmour reference you worked in there in your post? If so, well played. 👍
As no man is On an Island, and his voice Echoes across the Endless River, I must have been Comfortably Numb in the company of Animals on the Dark Side of the Moon to have made such a reference...
⏱ Timekeeper by day, F1 Driver by night (whilst sleeping of course...)

User avatar
Shrieker
13
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 23:41

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

Any1 got Hamilton's onboard of Leclerc's front wing debris strike ?
Education is that which allows a nation free, independent, reputable life, and function as a high society; or it condemns it to captivity and poverty.
-Atatürk

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

Most of us didn't need a transponder to see that Vettel moved before the lights went out. :wink:
Last edited by strad on 16 Oct 2019, 04:49, edited 1 time in total.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
deltaecho5
33
Joined: 26 Jun 2017, 03:54
Location: Usually at the Track
Contact:

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

strad wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 02:55
(sic) Most of us didn't a transponder to see that Vettel moved before the lights went out. :wink:
Just for clarification -

A transponder does not detect vehicle movement. It only emits a digital signal.

e.g., "As he rocketed to the moon, the transponder he had in his shirt pocket continued to emit it's digital signal, completely unaware it was traveling through space at thousands of kph (mph), completely unable to have it's signal be received by any loop, device or equipment, just as it had when it was in his race car, at the Formula One race, when he was gridded in the second row, pole side, since the only loop near capable of receiving it was the S/F loop installed in the pavement to detect only cars passing over it, many meters away."

But I agree...all the stewards that looked at any "automated" system of detection could see it as well... :wink:

{/sleep on}
⏱ Timekeeper by day, F1 Driver by night (whilst sleeping of course...)

Bsowles
0
Joined: 28 May 2018, 06:21
Location: Lake Tahoe, NV. USA

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

deltaecho5 wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 00:15
Bsowles wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 23:55
Was that a David Gilmour reference you worked in there in your post? If so, well played. 👍
As no man is On an Island, and his voice Echoes across the Endless River, I must have been Comfortably Numb in the company of Animals on the Dark Side of the Moon to have made such a reference...
Well done, sir! (and without another brick in the wall). Onto Mexico we go!

Wass85
3
Joined: 01 Mar 2017, 22:11

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

Bsowles wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 05:56
deltaecho5 wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 00:15
Bsowles wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 23:55
Was that a David Gilmour reference you worked in there in your post? If so, well played. 👍

As no man is On an Island, and his voice Echoes across the Endless River, I must have been Comfortably Numb in the company of Animals on the Dark Side of the Moon to have made such a reference...
Well done, sir! (and without another brick in the wall). Onto Mexico we go!
Wish you were here.

Mandrake
14
Joined: 31 May 2010, 01:31

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

El Scorchio wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 12:56
They are a British broadcaster. Is it really surprising they might favour/focus on a British driver? British broadcasters did it with Mansell, Hill, Button and all of them over the years.

Don't tell me Dutch TV doesn't massively favour Verstappen, or GermanTV Vettel, Aussie TV Ricciardo, or Italian TV Ferrari?
They sure do - no one denies it. The UK broadcasters however have much higher reach and the fact that they are supporting UK drivers is very often denied here.

Mandrake
14
Joined: 31 May 2010, 01:31

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

Restomaniac wrote:
14 Oct 2019, 08:26
Sierra117 wrote:
14 Oct 2019, 07:51
turbof1 wrote:
14 Oct 2019, 07:18
To be honest, no the start is not black and white anymore (it has been for decades and should have remained so!), because now there is a tolerance introduced because the sensor does not pick up the amount of movement Vettel showed. That can have implications where drivers will attempt a rolling start to gain an advantage.
But doesn't that sound insane? The whole point of sensors is to eliminate the doubt introduced by the fact that humans cannot perceive the most minute changes in a certain value (position in this case). 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? Either the calibration of said sensor is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off (and thus useless) or they just didn't bother using any sort of analytical skills or hindsight. If they punished Kimi then they should've punished Vettel as well. More importantly, sensors exist to support what one can perceive to begin with. It's like when sometime ago someone I know had a heart attack and this doctor read the reports that come from tests and concluded there was no heart attack, completely ignoring the other symptoms that clearly indicated a silent heart attack. The sensor is supposed to be used as a supplement, not cause us to abandon our own judgement entirely.

That's my view on this. And that comes from someone who has worked on and with sensors for robotics and programmed said sensors as well, so I find this gross negligence by FIA.
Can you answer me a question.

Did Car No 5 move before the lights went out as was clearly shown on the footage. Yes or No?
Why does no one talk about how Vettel made a recovery from the "jump start" and only lost a single place? That was some mighty reaction and skill to launch the car after the initial procedure and only lose one place to Bottas! All other recent jumpstarts lead to multiple places lost....

foxmulder_ms
1
Joined: 10 Feb 2011, 20:36

Re: 2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

Post

Mandrake wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 13:05
Restomaniac wrote:
14 Oct 2019, 08:26
Sierra117 wrote:
14 Oct 2019, 07:51


But doesn't that sound insane? The whole point of sensors is to eliminate the doubt introduced by the fact that humans cannot perceive the most minute changes in a certain value (position in this case). 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? Either the calibration of said sensor is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off (and thus useless) or they just didn't bother using any sort of analytical skills or hindsight. If they punished Kimi then they should've punished Vettel as well. More importantly, sensors exist to support what one can perceive to begin with. It's like when sometime ago someone I know had a heart attack and this doctor read the reports that come from tests and concluded there was no heart attack, completely ignoring the other symptoms that clearly indicated a silent heart attack. The sensor is supposed to be used as a supplement, not cause us to abandon our own judgement entirely.

That's my view on this. And that comes from someone who has worked on and with sensors for robotics and programmed said sensors as well, so I find this gross negligence by FIA.
Can you answer me a question.

Did Car No 5 move before the lights went out as was clearly shown on the footage. Yes or No?
Why does no one talk about how Vettel made a recovery from the "jump start" and only lost a single place? That was some mighty reaction and skill to launch the car after the initial procedure and only lose one place to Bottas! All other recent jumpstarts lead to multiple places lost....
Yeah Vettel is soooo good. His rolling start has nothing to do with it.

Post Reply