So conflicted. On the one hand good to see them actually sticking to the rules as written, but then: common sense 😵💫
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
44 points (94.0% liked)
Formula 1
9080 readers
74 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.
Up next
2024 Calendar
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 United States | 21-23 Nov |
| 🇶🇦 Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
| 🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
Yeah, his bad start was punishment enough in this instance.
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.
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.
Yeah, his bad start was punishment enough in this instance.
I was responding to this
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.
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.
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.
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?
Review and possibly change the rule for the future. Admit that the way the rule was written is not good enough.
Most people are not upset that Norris didn't get punished. Forethought is a good thing if there is a way to gain an advantage teams will do it, I wouldn't be surprised if a few teams figure out how to game the sensor by the end of the week.
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.
So if the transponder is faulty(hypothetically) or just not sensitive enough, does that mean people will get away with false starts¿?
That appears to be the case.
He jumped, clear as day, but the transponder didn’t reflect that so he got no penalty.
You don't know when it's faulty, so no.
No as in there won't be a penalty or no as in there will be a penalty¿?
If it's faulty, you don't know that it is. Which means you can't reliably use that.
And that is what i am trying to highlight through my question. The rule is enforced completely based on the transponder but if its malfunctioning then drivers will not be penalized as the the transponder has not picked up their jump start.
Yes, what's your point?
That the rule having no flexibility is stupid. It is obvious from the videos that Norris jumped the start but because the rules are based purely on the signals from the transponder, he has escaped punishment.
So instead they should make up a rule on the spot that wasn't in the rules previously to punish them
I am not saying lando should be punished. I am saying that the rule should be reviewed and updated for the future to handle cases technology cannot/ fails to handle.
Then you end up with unfeasible rulebooks that cover every minute detail. And then something unexpected pops in, because of course it always does.
The reality of it is - false starts are rare. A broken transponder is rare. Getting both are very unlikely, and ultimately on the ones making them instead of the team.
Doesn’t answer the question lol
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.
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.