this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Formula 1

9014 readers
70 users here now

Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series


Rules


  1. Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
  2. No gambling, crypto or NFTs
  3. Spoilers are allowed
  4. Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
  5. Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
  6. Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
  7. Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.

Up next


F1 Calendar

2024 Calendar

Location Date
🇺🇸 United States 18-20 Oct
🇲🇽 Mexico 25-27 Oct
🇧🇷 Brazil 01-03 Nov
🇺🇸 United States 21-23 Nov
🇶🇦 Qatar 29 Nov-01 Dec
🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi 06-08 Dec

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“The stewards reviewed positioning/marshalling system data, video and determined that the video appeared to show that Car 4 moved before the start signal was given,” their report began.

“However, the FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted on the car did not indicate a jump start.

“Article 48.1 a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations states clearly that the judgment of whether or not there was a jump start is to be made in accordance with the transponder, which did not show a jump start. In the circumstances, we took no further action

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] davetapley@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So conflicted. On the one hand good to see them actually sticking to the rules as written, but then: common sense 😵‍💫

[–] Species8472@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago

You are forgetting the Carlos Sainz las Vegas incident. Car damaged due to track issues (some cover sucked out), needed to replace several parts, went over limit in spare parts = grid penalty.

Stewards acknowlegd this was not his/Ferrari's fault and thus had common sense, but the rulebook did not foresee any exceptions for this scenario. So they felt obligated to apply the rulebook.

This is a case where they also literally apply the rules.

[–] gramathy@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If he wasn’t out of the box before it starts and the transponder didn’t fire, does it matter if he moved a little? It worked out against him too since he had to re-start

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, his bad start was punishment enough in this instance.

[–] Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That is not how the sport works though. Magnussen also had floor damage from his collision with Albon which fucked his race but he still got a penalty for his transgression.

[–] summerof69@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

These two incidents have no connection whatsoever, don't compare them. The rules say that the transponder is the source of truth, and this is how this sport works.

[–] Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But now people can try and abuse this to start rolling just before the lights go out while staying within the box. If timed well or controlled well, this could give a massive advantage at the start.

[–] summerof69@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If there's a problem, the FIA will change the rules. Why some people are so adamant on inventing problems that don't exist lol. Norris didn't get any advantage. On the contrary, he had to abandon the start and start again later than everyone around him.

[–] Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Norris didn't get any advantage. On the contrary, he had to abandon the start and start again later than everyone around him.

This is not an excuse to ignore a case where there is clear visual evidence of a car moving before lights out. His movement could have spooked other cars into moving which could have ruined their starts. You can see people making jump starts in response to other jump starts often in athletics especially in short races like 100m, etc.

Also it was not a case where he drifted just a few mm. He moved nearly half a wheel rotation in that false start and somehow the transponder either didn't pick it or found it to be within limits. Either the way the transponder sensitivity has to be improved.

[–] summerof69@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

This is not an excuse to ignore a case where there is clear visual evidence of a car moving before lights out.

What were stewards supposed to do with this "evidence", when the rules clearly state what is jump start and how it is measured?

[–] Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So if the transponder is faulty(hypothetically) or just not sensitive enough, does that mean people will get away with false starts¿?

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You don't know when it's faulty, so no.

[–] june@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t answer the question lol

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It does. He asked if people will "get away with it". They won't. 99.99999% it will work correctly. Nobody is going to test it / risk it.

[–] june@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The question was ‘if it’s faulty will people get away with it’.

You answered ‘you don’t know if it’s faulty’

That is not the answer to the question. The question that answers is ‘can you game the system with a faulty transponder’.

The answer to the question is actually yes. If the transponder is faulty the driver will get away with a jumpstart.

[–] Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No as in there won't be a penalty or no as in there will be a penalty¿?

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

If it's faulty, you don't know that it is. Which means you can't reliably use that.