2019 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka, Oct 11 - 13

[Jolle]

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!

I guess the thing that prevented a penalty is that, although he was moving when the lights went out, after the lights gone out he was stationary inside his box. So after his false start, he made a good one. Bit like giving your place back after cutting a chicane.

[turbof1]

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.

[Sierra117]

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.

It would be better if, and I think you'd agree as I believe you've been saying the same thing, they just do away with it all. If you move, it's a jumpstart. Tolerances only come into play if it's a false-positive (cases like 'I didn't accelerate, something in the car made it jerk forward').

But then perhaps they're being confusing to make everyone talk about it. All publicity is good publicity.

[RZS10]

It's really interesting how much Bottas benefitted from Vettel's totally not false start, he clearly just went when he saw Vettel move, just compare his start to that of Leclerc and Hamilton - he starts moving one frame after the lights go out

[LM10]

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."

[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.

[ubuysa]

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.

I think the solution is simple, if the car is seen to move between the first red light and lights out then it's a jump start. Why is that so hard? And how was Vettel's move different from Kimi's the other week?

Sent using Tapatalk

[rscsr]

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.

I think the solution is simple, if the car is seen to move between the first red light and lights out then it's a jump start. Why is that so hard? And how was Vettel's move different from Kimi's the other week?

Sent using Tapatalk

didn't Kimi stop way ahead of his starting box?

[TAG]

I think the solution is simple, if the car is seen to move between the first red light and lights out then it's a jump start. Why is that so hard? And how was Vettel's move different from Kimi's the other week?

It was Vettle, from pole, not Kimi from the back. That's the route stewarding (under the guidance of the powers that be) has taken. It won't be the last we see of it, sadly.

[santos]

Is it really hard to see the difference between this case from the Kimi one?

[214270]

Is it really hard to see the difference between this case from the Kimi one?

I believe pretty much everyone understands the difference between small movements as a result of clutch positioning, small movements on an incline due to gravity or maybe creeping forward by releasing the brakes. That’s totally different to what VET did (or RAI in a previous race). There really isn’t a need to complicate things further. The drive for precision in this case hasn’t advanced anything

[turbof1]

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.

It would be better if, and I think you'd agree as I believe you've been saying the same thing, they just do away with it all. If you move, it's a jumpstart. Tolerances only come into play if it's a false-positive (cases like 'I didn't accelerate, something in the car made it jerk forward').

But then perhaps they're being confusing to make everyone talk about it. All publicity is good publicity.

Yes, in my personal opinion they should get rid of the tolerances (except the ones needed for hardware to operate reliability, of course). After all, clutch prep is the sole responsibility of the teams, and they have the formation lap to do that.

However, in the light of good spirit, being reasonable and finding a compromise, a fully unknown (to the teams) tolerance can also be acceptable. Just so that we end back in the previous situation where teams know there is a tolerance, but don't know by how much and can't risk breaching the rules. That compromise is complicated, prone to falling back into the same trap as it did in Japan and puts a confusing picture up to the public, but also creates goodwill among the teams and FIA.

Of course, this:

I think the solution is simple, if the car is seen to move between the first red light and lights out then it's a jump start. Why is that so hard? And how was Vettel's move different from Kimi's the other week?

is plain put much simpler. Actually clear cut and how the vast majority understands how it works, how I understood it to work before yesterday.

[dtro]

Engaging the clutch, stopping, re-engaging it to get going is definitely not advantageous- Vettel had a durp moment. He probably should've been penalized for it since a false start in my books is moving at all before the lights are out, buuuuuuuut that would break his ass.

[diffuser]

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).

I agree, the rules are complete BS.

They should be straight forward and to the point.

Something like:
-contact            , penalty X for the initiator.
-contact plus damage, Penalty X+1 for the intiator (no penalty if only the initiator gets damage).

yet they leave every instance up to interpretation.

[El Scorchio]

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.