planetf1.com

mikeyg123 wrote:I have looked at it frame by frame and what I will say is this. If Vettel was truly stationery as the lights went out then Bottas is a very lucky boy because it looks to me that there is a very brief period where they are both moving.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:In fairness he's not likely to say otherwise is he.

https://beyondtheflag.com/2019/10/15/fo ... ar-answer/

There's a video of the start, in the first clip if you go frame by frame you can see the lights go out before Bottas' car moves.

I don't know what additional ways there are to disprove Sky's "confimation".

It's still an impossible reaction time.

Still? Your argument was that he did a rolling start. He didn't.

Were are the frame by frame pictures?

In respect to Vettel he clearly moved during the start procedure, I don't care about the sensor, it's shown itself to be not fit for use.

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote: https://beyondtheflag.com/2019/10/15/fo ... ar-answer/

There's a video of the start, in the first clip if you go frame by frame you can see the lights go out before Bottas' car moves.

I don't know what additional ways there are to disprove Sky's "confimation".

It's still an impossible reaction time.

Still? Your argument was that he did a rolling start. He didn't.

Were are the frame by frame pictures?

In respect to Vettel he clearly moved during the start procedure, I don't care about the sensor, it's shown itself to be not fit for use.

If I must do your work for you.

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

pokerman wrote:A review of Bottas' start in Austria 2017, his wheels start to move before the lights go out, proof again that the system is not that accurate certainly not up to the standard used in athletics or the camera system used in MotoGP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF0XVxBq2lk

How is it proof that they are not as accurate? They investigated it. There seems to be a slim allowance for the slightest bit of movement. May be strange, but I think it is clear that unless it is a clear significant advantage, they get away with it. I don't think drivers have got penalties if they have only moved a tiny tiny fraction. Alonso in Russia one year looked to be right on the limits but was not investigate.

I don't see why it needs to compared to athletics. The race distance is a fair bit longer. And I think it will be as accurate as MotoGP, but they are just much more relaxed about it. vettel was investigated but not punished. Bottas didn't even move or release the clutch until lights were out according to Mercedes:

https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/17/rac ... p-17-10-2/

“When Sebastian ahead of him went, Valtteri had seen that. He did release the clutch after the lights had gone out, but it was a fast reaction time. And I think that helped him. I think it may have also hindered Lewis, it may have also hindered Charles Leclerc when they saw Sebastian move because their reaction times weren’t so fast.”

So I don't even see why this should warrant investigating. Vettel in the end made a poor start, Leclerc and Hamilton seemed to get distracted by this and also make a poor start. Bottas looked to take advantage of it, but did not do anything wrong. The other thing that shows that it was Leclerc and Hamilton getting distracted was that Verstappena and Sainz both pretty much got by Hamilton initially. Bottas's start looked better than it was because of the bad starts up front.


Back in Austria 2017, this was what the stewards had noted: https://www.racefans.net/2017/07/09/vet ... the-start/

They measured it as Bottas setting off 0.201 after the lights had gone out. Now this may be questionable as the video you posted certainly doesn't make it look like that. But there are some things some people don't always think about. They may measure it from when they turn the lights off. Depending on what the sort of light used is, they can have a delay. The old incandescent type always fade out, but sometimes more quickly and sometimes not so much. If they measure it from when they get turned off, it could in fact look like a driver has jumped when they have in fact not. Well in this case, it is pure luck from the driver, but that makes it understandable for the reasons why they may get that reading of 2 tenths. If they are newer LEDs and they get switched off by a switch and not the power source, then they will go out instantly. I can tell by looking at them that different tracks sometimes have the newer LEDs and some the old incandescent sort. I really doubt they would do this, but if they turned the LEDs off at the power, the transformer for them would likely hold some power, therefore they would remain on for a fraction of a second despite being given no power.

Sorry for going into so much detail, but I happen to know a lot about lights and i can think of a few reasons as they got a reading that seemed to confuse people no end that race. And that may be the case other races too.

Bottas clearly took advantage both times and clearly the sensor does not pick up the initial movement of the car only when the car passes over it, we see clearly how far Vettel was able to move without triggering the sensor.

The 0.2s is not measuring the reaction time of the driver only how long it takes the car to trigger the sensor after the lights go out, we see clearly cars are able to move before the lights go out without triggering a false start from the sensor, the rules as written state that cars should be stationary during the start procedure.

Another opinion on the matter, 6:43.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNyqFLi64V8

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote: It's still an impossible reaction time.

Still? Your argument was that he did a rolling start. He didn't.

Were are the frame by frame pictures?

In respect to Vettel he clearly moved during the start procedure, I don't care about the sensor, it's shown itself to be not fit for use.

If I must do your work for you.

Fair enough that looks like he didn't move, although I wasn't specific enough in that I meant moving frame stills like I saw from Austria 2017 when you can see Bottas' wheels just start to move before the lights go out.

I can live with that in isolation even though it still doesn't take into account human reaction time, Bottas was triggered by the movement of Vettel's car and not the lights and was lucky the lights didn't go out a second later but then again maybe he would have been able to bail out like Vettel did?

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Jezza13 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

What’s to stop a driver from sitting 3-4m back then starting to roll just after the 5 light comes on?

All the jump start rule needs is 2 simple instructions.

1) car must be stationary when the lights go out.
2) car must be behind its grid line when the lights go out.

Anything outside of that, jump start & penalty.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

What’s to stop a driver from sitting 3-4m back then starting to roll just after the 5 light comes on?

All the jump start rule needs is 2 simple instructions.

1) car must be stationary when the lights go out.
2) car must be behind its grid line when the lights go out.

Anything outside of that, jump start & penalty.

I seriously doubt they would allow them starting that far back. But i frequently see them start slightly behind and they are allowed to go here. As i mentioned, Verstappen used to and sometimes still does seem to park in some odd positions that must be right on the limit. A lot of drivers park slightly further back than this. And what i am thinking is if they move forward slightly and stop before the lights get turned off, they will get away with it. As it isn't really any advantage. Vettel did not look to be moving when the lights went out. if he kept moving when he initlally started, even if it was just rolling, i am certain he will have got a penalty as he will have covered enough didstance to trigger the sensors.

If they start further back than this like you suggested, i think it will just so obviously be wrong that you will be given a penalty anyway.

Jezza13 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

What’s to stop a driver from sitting 3-4m back then starting to roll just after the 5 light comes on?

All the jump start rule needs is 2 simple instructions.

1) car must be stationary when the lights go out.
2) car must be behind its grid line when the lights go out.

Anything outside of that, jump start & penalty.

I seriously doubt they would allow them starting that far back. But i frequently see them start slightly behind and they are allowed to go here. As i mentioned, Verstappen used to and sometimes still does seem to park in some odd positions that must be right on the limit. A lot of drivers park slightly further back than this. And what i am thinking is if they move forward slightly and stop before the lights get turned off, they will get away with it. As it isn't really any advantage. Vettel did not look to be moving when the lights went out. if he kept moving when he initlally started, even if it was just rolling, i am certain he will have got a penalty as he will have covered enough didstance to trigger the sensors.

If they start further back than this like you suggested, i think it will just so obviously be wrong that you will be given a penalty anyway.

Yeah I was taking it to an extreme.

Apparently the rule states (apologies if what follows already been mentioned). " a penalty will be given to any driver who: "moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car." Article 36.13a of the sporting regs.

Pretty straight forward rule &, going off this, one that should've seen a penalty given to Vettel, but in typical FIA style, they take stock standard black & white rule & add a large dollop of grey. Apparently there's a tolerance, which ONLY the FIA know the limits of, which is fully explained here

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14657 ... tolerances

I swear sometimes I can't tell if the FIA are either too smart or too dumb for their own good.

Greenman wrote:.

In other words, the FIA can fiddle the rules to help Ferrari.

What does "FIA" stand for again ?

.

Greenman wrote:.

In other words, the FIA can fiddle the rules to help Ferrari.

What does "FIA" stand for again ?

.

Jezza13 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

What’s to stop a driver from sitting 3-4m back then starting to roll just after the 5 light comes on?

All the jump start rule needs is 2 simple instructions.

1) car must be stationary when the lights go out.
2) car must be behind its grid line when the lights go out.

Anything outside of that, jump start & penalty.

Greenman wrote:.

In other words, the FIA can fiddle the rules to help Ferrari.

What does "FIA" stand for again ?

.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

pokerman wrote:A review of Bottas' start in Austria 2017, his wheels start to move before the lights go out, proof again that the system is not that accurate certainly not up to the standard used in athletics or the camera system used in MotoGP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF0XVxBq2lk

How is it proof that they are not as accurate? They investigated it. There seems to be a slim allowance for the slightest bit of movement. May be strange, but I think it is clear that unless it is a clear significant advantage, they get away with it. I don't think drivers have got penalties if they have only moved a tiny tiny fraction. Alonso in Russia one year looked to be right on the limits but was not investigate.

I don't see why it needs to compared to athletics. The race distance is a fair bit longer. And I think it will be as accurate as MotoGP, but they are just much more relaxed about it. vettel was investigated but not punished. Bottas didn't even move or release the clutch until lights were out according to Mercedes:

https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/17/rac ... p-17-10-2/

“When Sebastian ahead of him went, Valtteri had seen that. He did release the clutch after the lights had gone out, but it was a fast reaction time. And I think that helped him. I think it may have also hindered Lewis, it may have also hindered Charles Leclerc when they saw Sebastian move because their reaction times weren’t so fast.”

So I don't even see why this should warrant investigating. Vettel in the end made a poor start, Leclerc and Hamilton seemed to get distracted by this and also make a poor start. Bottas looked to take advantage of it, but did not do anything wrong. The other thing that shows that it was Leclerc and Hamilton getting distracted was that Verstappena and Sainz both pretty much got by Hamilton initially. Bottas's start looked better than it was because of the bad starts up front.


Back in Austria 2017, this was what the stewards had noted: https://www.racefans.net/2017/07/09/vet ... the-start/

They measured it as Bottas setting off 0.201 after the lights had gone out. Now this may be questionable as the video you posted certainly doesn't make it look like that. But there are some things some people don't always think about. They may measure it from when they turn the lights off. Depending on what the sort of light used is, they can have a delay. The old incandescent type always fade out, but sometimes more quickly and sometimes not so much. If they measure it from when they get turned off, it could in fact look like a driver has jumped when they have in fact not. Well in this case, it is pure luck from the driver, but that makes it understandable for the reasons why they may get that reading of 2 tenths. If they are newer LEDs and they get switched off by a switch and not the power source, then they will go out instantly. I can tell by looking at them that different tracks sometimes have the newer LEDs and some the old incandescent sort. I really doubt they would do this, but if they turned the LEDs off at the power, the transformer for them would likely hold some power, therefore they would remain on for a fraction of a second despite being given no power.

Sorry for going into so much detail, but I happen to know a lot about lights and i can think of a few reasons as they got a reading that seemed to confuse people no end that race. And that may be the case other races too.

Bottas clearly took advantage both times and clearly the sensor does not pick up the initial movement of the car only when the car passes over it, we see clearly how far Vettel was able to move without triggering the sensor.

The 0.2s is not measuring the reaction time of the driver only how long it takes the car to trigger the sensor after the lights go out, we see clearly cars are able to move before the lights go out without triggering a false start from the sensor, the rules as written state that cars should be stationary during the start procedure.

Another opinion on the matter, 6:43.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNyqFLi64V8

And you and this person in the video for that matter doesn't mention any of the technical stuff i mention about the lights and their delay. Not that i know if it is true at every track. But you can see than at some tracks in slow motion, the lights fade out slowly. Other tracks they go out instantly. This shows there could potentially be a delay. And if they happen to measure it from when they get switched off and not technically go out (which they could do) then technically, vettel did not jump start and Bottas certainly didn't. He probably just got reported as it looked like he did. Yes, in this case, the drivers would have to take a total lucky guess at the lights, but i think it could well be part of the reason for drivers not getting penalties.

From what they concluded though, I thought Vettel was stationary when he started after the lights and within his limits of the box. Magnussen in austria and Kimi in russia were either out of their box, or still moving. Bottas in Austria 2017 certainly did look to be moving when the lights were still on, but i think what I have described related to the light delay could be a factor of him not getting into trouble. If they are old incandescent lamps, they do not go out instantly even if turned off by a switch. They get so hot that the filaments inside in slow motion will actually make them look like they are still on. This may all seem like an excuse for Bottas but all drivers do have the same opportunity if they have a lucky guess. So yea, Bottas was extremely lucky, but i don't see any issues with any of the jump starts i can remember. Alonso's start in Russia one year i think looked as questionable as Bottas is Austria. It seems to happen quite a few times with drivers now, but when looking into detail about what happened, they all differ from eachother, explaining the penalties for the ones that get them and the ones that don't. I see consistency here but it seems some don't agree.

I also don't think this video on youtube is using a good comparison to canada 2006. that car started - looked to cross the start box and did not stopp fully before getting going again. The difference between that and what vettel did is more than obvious. Vettel barely moved in the slightest. he did move before the ligths went out but ever ever so slightly and wasn't even at the end of his grid slot. because of how little he moved, he could easily stop again. I don't think the person comparing this looks into enough detail personally.

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Jezza13 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

What’s to stop a driver from sitting 3-4m back then starting to roll just after the 5 light comes on?

All the jump start rule needs is 2 simple instructions.

1) car must be stationary when the lights go out.
2) car must be behind its grid line when the lights go out.

Anything outside of that, jump start & penalty.

Jezza13 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

What’s to stop a driver from sitting 3-4m back then starting to roll just after the 5 light comes on?

All the jump start rule needs is 2 simple instructions.

1) car must be stationary when the lights go out.
2) car must be behind its grid line when the lights go out.

Anything outside of that, jump start & penalty.

I seriously doubt they would allow them starting that far back. But i frequently see them start slightly behind and they are allowed to go here. As i mentioned, Verstappen used to and sometimes still does seem to park in some odd positions that must be right on the limit. A lot of drivers park slightly further back than this. And what i am thinking is if they move forward slightly and stop before the lights get turned off, they will get away with it. As it isn't really any advantage. Vettel did not look to be moving when the lights went out. if he kept moving when he initlally started, even if it was just rolling, i am certain he will have got a penalty as he will have covered enough didstance to trigger the sensors.

If they start further back than this like you suggested, i think it will just so obviously be wrong that you will be given a penalty anyway.

Yeah I was taking it to an extreme.

Apparently the rule states (apologies if what follows already been mentioned). " a penalty will be given to any driver who: "moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car." Article 36.13a of the sporting regs.

Pretty straight forward rule &, going off this, one that should've seen a penalty given to Vettel, but in typical FIA style, they take stock standard black & white rule & add a large dollop of grey. Apparently there's a tolerance, which ONLY the FIA know the limits of, which is fully explained here

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14657 ... tolerances

I swear sometimes I can't tell if the FIA are either too smart or too dumb for their own good.

pokerman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Just a question, is there anything to say how far back you can be permitted to be in your grid slot? If you were a bit further back in your grid you could move.quite a lot without triggering the system and easily get a rolling start

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

What’s to stop a driver from sitting 3-4m back then starting to roll just after the 5 light comes on?

All the jump start rule needs is 2 simple instructions.

1) car must be stationary when the lights go out.
2) car must be behind its grid line when the lights go out.

Anything outside of that, jump start & penalty.

I seriously doubt they would allow them starting that far back. But i frequently see them start slightly behind and they are allowed to go here. As i mentioned, Verstappen used to and sometimes still does seem to park in some odd positions that must be right on the limit. A lot of drivers park slightly further back than this. And what i am thinking is if they move forward slightly and stop before the lights get turned off, they will get away with it. As it isn't really any advantage. Vettel did not look to be moving when the lights went out. if he kept moving when he initlally started, even if it was just rolling, i am certain he will have got a penalty as he will have covered enough didstance to trigger the sensors.

If they start further back than this like you suggested, i think it will just so obviously be wrong that you will be given a penalty anyway.

Yeah I was taking it to an extreme.

Apparently the rule states (apologies if what follows already been mentioned). " a penalty will be given to any driver who: "moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car." Article 36.13a of the sporting regs.

Pretty straight forward rule &, going off this, one that should've seen a penalty given to Vettel, but in typical FIA style, they take stock standard black & white rule & add a large dollop of grey. Apparently there's a tolerance, which ONLY the FIA know the limits of, which is fully explained here

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14657 ... tolerances

I swear sometimes I can't tell if the FIA are either too smart or too dumb for their own good.

You're not allowed to move but the tolerance is you can move a little bit, only in F1 do we have this kind of nonsense, in MotoGP it would have been a slam dunk penalty for Vettel.

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Jezza13 wrote: Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

What’s to stop a driver from sitting 3-4m back then starting to roll just after the 5 light comes on?

All the jump start rule needs is 2 simple instructions.

1) car must be stationary when the lights go out.
2) car must be behind its grid line when the lights go out.

Anything outside of that, jump start & penalty.

I seriously doubt they would allow them starting that far back. But i frequently see them start slightly behind and they are allowed to go here. As i mentioned, Verstappen used to and sometimes still does seem to park in some odd positions that must be right on the limit. A lot of drivers park slightly further back than this. And what i am thinking is if they move forward slightly and stop before the lights get turned off, they will get away with it. As it isn't really any advantage. Vettel did not look to be moving when the lights went out. if he kept moving when he initlally started, even if it was just rolling, i am certain he will have got a penalty as he will have covered enough didstance to trigger the sensors.

If they start further back than this like you suggested, i think it will just so obviously be wrong that you will be given a penalty anyway.

Yeah I was taking it to an extreme.

Apparently the rule states (apologies if what follows already been mentioned). " a penalty will be given to any driver who: "moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car." Article 36.13a of the sporting regs.

Pretty straight forward rule &, going off this, one that should've seen a penalty given to Vettel, but in typical FIA style, they take stock standard black & white rule & add a large dollop of grey. Apparently there's a tolerance, which ONLY the FIA know the limits of, which is fully explained here

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14657 ... tolerances

I swear sometimes I can't tell if the FIA are either too smart or too dumb for their own good.

You're not allowed to move but the tolerance is you can move a little bit, only in F1 do we have this kind of nonsense, in MotoGP it would have been a slam dunk penalty for Vettel.

I think a possible jump start is peanuts compared to bringing an F1 car to a MotoGP race.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote: I seriously doubt they would allow them starting that far back. But i frequently see them start slightly behind and they are allowed to go here. As i mentioned, Verstappen used to and sometimes still does seem to park in some odd positions that must be right on the limit. A lot of drivers park slightly further back than this. And what i am thinking is if they move forward slightly and stop before the lights get turned off, they will get away with it. As it isn't really any advantage. Vettel did not look to be moving when the lights went out. if he kept moving when he initlally started, even if it was just rolling, i am certain he will have got a penalty as he will have covered enough didstance to trigger the sensors.

If they start further back than this like you suggested, i think it will just so obviously be wrong that you will be given a penalty anyway.

Yeah I was taking it to an extreme.

Apparently the rule states (apologies if what follows already been mentioned). " a penalty will be given to any driver who: "moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car." Article 36.13a of the sporting regs.

Pretty straight forward rule &, going off this, one that should've seen a penalty given to Vettel, but in typical FIA style, they take stock standard black & white rule & add a large dollop of grey. Apparently there's a tolerance, which ONLY the FIA know the limits of, which is fully explained here

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14657 ... tolerances

I swear sometimes I can't tell if the FIA are either too smart or too dumb for their own good.

You're not allowed to move but the tolerance is you can move a little bit, only in F1 do we have this kind of nonsense, in MotoGP it would have been a slam dunk penalty for Vettel.

I think a possible jump start is peanuts compared to bringing an F1 car to a MotoGP race.

It's just one example I'm sure there are more?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote: Yeah I was taking it to an extreme.

Apparently the rule states (apologies if what follows already been mentioned). " a penalty will be given to any driver who: "moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car." Article 36.13a of the sporting regs.

Pretty straight forward rule &, going off this, one that should've seen a penalty given to Vettel, but in typical FIA style, they take stock standard black & white rule & add a large dollop of grey. Apparently there's a tolerance, which ONLY the FIA know the limits of, which is fully explained here

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14657 ... tolerances

I swear sometimes I can't tell if the FIA are either too smart or too dumb for their own good.

You're not allowed to move but the tolerance is you can move a little bit, only in F1 do we have this kind of nonsense, in MotoGP it would have been a slam dunk penalty for Vettel.

I think a possible jump start is peanuts compared to bringing an F1 car to a MotoGP race.

It's just one example I'm sure there are more?

I think you may have missed Cova's joke

pokerman wrote:On F1 technical they have evidence showing that Vettel's car was still moving forward when the lights went out, the sensor system is not fit for use in policing how the rules are supposedly written.

pokerman wrote:On F1 technical they have evidence showing that Vettel's car was still moving forward when the lights went out, the sensor system is not fit for use in policing how the rules are supposedly written.

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:On F1 technical they have evidence showing that Vettel's car was still moving forward when the lights went out, the sensor system is not fit for use in policing how the rules are supposedly written.

Should we take your word for it?

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

pokerman wrote:On F1 technical they have evidence showing that Vettel's car was still moving forward when the lights went out, the sensor system is not fit for use in policing how the rules are supposedly written.

I still think it is moving beyond a certain point that it is measured from. Vettel may have been moving ever ever so slightly, but he was almost certainly slowing down rather than speeding up.
To me, his car simply looked like it was moving because he had moved a tiny bit then reacted by braking which may have visibly made his car shake during the slow motion videos. Pretty sure it wasn't moving forwards still. It looked like he was stationary. Yes, he shouldn't have done this, but he did not pass the line you must not go over. Other drivers often are parked right on this limit before the lights go out. If Vettel had initially started here, and moved a fraction like he did, it almost certainly will have triggered the sensors. It may be an odd rule, but it does seem consistent in my view. It is so rare that it looks like a driver has benefited from guessing when the lights go out within this tolerance of the box on the starting grid. At least without getting punished.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:On F1 technical they have evidence showing that Vettel's car was still moving forward when the lights went out, the sensor system is not fit for use in policing how the rules are supposedly written.

Should we take your word for it?

I'll try and find it on the site however I have seen the rolling images second hand.

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:On F1 technical they have evidence showing that Vettel's car was still moving forward when the lights went out, the sensor system is not fit for use in policing how the rules are supposedly written.

Should we take your word for it?

I'll try and find it on the site however I have seen the rolling images second hand.

Ok I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even after you provided "proof" that Bottas did a rolling start (which he didn't, it turned out).

FormulaFun wrote:Tbh you don't need stills to or slow Mo to see that vettel was moving when the lights went out, and he subsequently stopped and then started again. In other sports as poker says that's a blatant penalty and I believe rightly so - they need to amend the rules to say that you simply cannot be rolling when the lights go out... Remove the grey, it's simple and obvious change that it's quite shocking actually needs to be made. As it is it's open to potential exploitation.

Vettel’s hectic start – Despite securing his 57th pole position, the German was unable to convert his starting position into a leading position. Vettel has showed some blistering starts so far this season, but this time he reacted too quickly to the lights which went off unusually very late. Although the stewards commenced an investigation into the matter, they decided against a penalty based on the information from the FIA supplied transponder fitted to each car. “Whilst the video shows some movement that movement was within the acceptable tolerance of the F1 jump start system which formerly defines a jump start per Article 36.13(a) of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations,” stated the FIA.

pokerman wrote:It's kind of interesting the way it refers to Vettel's blistering starts but this time he was caught out by the unusually late delay on the lights going out as if Vettel has been anticipating the starts, then if you ally that to how far his car was able to roll without triggering the sensor it begs the question if he has been gaming the system?

pokerman wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Tbh you don't need stills to or slow Mo to see that vettel was moving when the lights went out, and he subsequently stopped and then started again. In other sports as poker says that's a blatant penalty and I believe rightly so - they need to amend the rules to say that you simply cannot be rolling when the lights go out... Remove the grey, it's simple and obvious change that it's quite shocking actually needs to be made. As it is it's open to potential exploitation.

Whilst trying to find the stills of Vettel's start I came across this.

Vettel’s hectic start – Despite securing his 57th pole position, the German was unable to convert his starting position into a leading position. Vettel has showed some blistering starts so far this season, but this time he reacted too quickly to the lights which went off unusually very late. Although the stewards commenced an investigation into the matter, they decided against a penalty based on the information from the FIA supplied transponder fitted to each car. “Whilst the video shows some movement that movement was within the acceptable tolerance of the F1 jump start system which formerly defines a jump start per Article 36.13(a) of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations,” stated the FIA.

It's kind of interesting the way it refers to Vettel's blistering starts but this time he was caught out by the unusually late delay on the lights going out as if Vettel has been anticipating the starts, then if you ally that to how far his car was able to roll without triggering the sensor it begs the question if he has been gaming the system?

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:On F1 technical they have evidence showing that Vettel's car was still moving forward when the lights went out, the sensor system is not fit for use in policing how the rules are supposedly written.

Should we take your word for it?

I'll try and find it on the site however I have seen the rolling images second hand.

Ok I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even after you provided "proof" that Bottas did a rolling start (which he didn't, it turned out).

Well Bottas was clearly moving before the cars around him, his reaction time to the lights was not humanely possible and I did show evidence that Bottas' car was moving before the lights went out in Austria 2017, this highlights the inadequacies of the system. Like I've said in other sports human reaction time is also taken into account so that competitors can't merely get lucky by gambling on the start.

I'm pretty sure that the rules as written state that cars can't roll forward or move when the starting procedure has commenced but this now seemingly has given way to the sensor that as far as I can see doesn't police the rules as originally written.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:On F1 technical they have evidence showing that Vettel's car was still moving forward when the lights went out, the sensor system is not fit for use in policing how the rules are supposedly written.

Should we take your word for it?

I'll try and find it on the site however I have seen the rolling images second hand.

Ok I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even after you provided "proof" that Bottas did a rolling start (which he didn't, it turned out).

Well Bottas was clearly moving before the cars around him, his reaction time to the lights was not humanely possible and I did show evidence that Bottas' car was moving before the lights went out in Austria 2017, this highlights the inadequacies of the system. Like I've said in other sports human reaction time is also taken into account so that competitors can't merely get lucky by gambling on the start.

I'm pretty sure that the rules as written state that cars can't roll forward or move when the starting procedure has commenced but this now seemingly has given way to the sensor that as far as I can see doesn't police the rules as originally written.

Lord Crc wrote:

pokerman wrote:It's kind of interesting the way it refers to Vettel's blistering starts but this time he was caught out by the unusually late delay on the lights going out as if Vettel has been anticipating the starts, then if you ally that to how far his car was able to roll without triggering the sensor it begs the question if he has been gaming the system?

Ever taken one of those online reaction test "games"? I invariably jump the gun on those every now and then, and I always know instantly that I have. So to me it would be a natural reaction to break in that case.

Asphalt_World wrote:

pokerman wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Tbh you don't need stills to or slow Mo to see that vettel was moving when the lights went out, and he subsequently stopped and then started again. In other sports as poker says that's a blatant penalty and I believe rightly so - they need to amend the rules to say that you simply cannot be rolling when the lights go out... Remove the grey, it's simple and obvious change that it's quite shocking actually needs to be made. As it is it's open to potential exploitation.

Whilst trying to find the stills of Vettel's start I came across this.

Vettel’s hectic start – Despite securing his 57th pole position, the German was unable to convert his starting position into a leading position. Vettel has showed some blistering starts so far this season, but this time he reacted too quickly to the lights which went off unusually very late. Although the stewards commenced an investigation into the matter, they decided against a penalty based on the information from the FIA supplied transponder fitted to each car. “Whilst the video shows some movement that movement was within the acceptable tolerance of the F1 jump start system which formerly defines a jump start per Article 36.13(a) of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations,” stated the FIA.

It's kind of interesting the way it refers to Vettel's blistering starts but this time he was caught out by the unusually late delay on the lights going out as if Vettel has been anticipating the starts, then if you ally that to how far his car was able to roll without triggering the sensor it begs the question if he has been gaming the system?

So, you think that the director at each previous race hasn't bothered to show any replays of past starts from Vettel?

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote: Should we take your word for it?

I'll try and find it on the site however I have seen the rolling images second hand.

Ok I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even after you provided "proof" that Bottas did a rolling start (which he didn't, it turned out).

Well Bottas was clearly moving before the cars around him, his reaction time to the lights was not humanely possible and I did show evidence that Bottas' car was moving before the lights went out in Austria 2017, this highlights the inadequacies of the system. Like I've said in other sports human reaction time is also taken into account so that competitors can't merely get lucky by gambling on the start.

I'm pretty sure that the rules as written state that cars can't roll forward or move when the starting procedure has commenced but this now seemingly has given way to the sensor that as far as I can see doesn't police the rules as originally written.

Yes but it wasn't a rolling start as you claimed. And I'm starting to suspect we'll never see the "evidence" you claim to exist about Vettel too doing a rolling start.

shoot999 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote: Should we take your word for it?

I'll try and find it on the site however I have seen the rolling images second hand.

Ok I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even after you provided "proof" that Bottas did a rolling start (which he didn't, it turned out).

Well Bottas was clearly moving before the cars around him, his reaction time to the lights was not humanely possible and I did show evidence that Bottas' car was moving before the lights went out in Austria 2017, this highlights the inadequacies of the system. Like I've said in other sports human reaction time is also taken into account so that competitors can't merely get lucky by gambling on the start.

I'm pretty sure that the rules as written state that cars can't roll forward or move when the starting procedure has commenced but this now seemingly has given way to the sensor that as far as I can see doesn't police the rules as originally written.

Reaction in Austria was 0.2 and investigated. Here it was 0.04.