[Race] Austrian Grand Prix 2017 – Round 9 of 20 – Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[wnut]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

And he kept on accusing Bottas for a jump start during every post race interview. Even mentioned it during the podium interviews and tried to pass it onto Ricciardo to explain, hoping Ricciardo would then get the bad rep. RIC didn't bite and made VET look like the whinger he is.

This is not an accurate account of what happened, Brundle brought up the jumped start during the podium interviews; 11:20 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A59aD_yoCJE ; and before that with Bottas himself.

The start footage seemed to suggest that Bottas moved his fingers before the lights changed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewFiTO_R1KE

Analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZDpfBhA2lc

[wnut]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

So Grosjean deliberately parked it with an "electrical issue" with just a couple of minutes left in Q3 so he could hold position. This sort of tactic needs to be stamped out of the sport. Rosberg did it Monaco 2014 too.

One way is to amend the qualifying rules where if you were the cause for the yellow or red flag during qualifying, then your fastest time is deleted and the next best time is used instead. This should stop this sort of dirty tactics.

Good rule!

[bauble]

Originally Posted by wnut

This is not an accurate account of what happened, Brundle brought up the jumped start during the podium interviews; 11:20 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A59aD_yoCJE ; and before that with Bottas himself.

The start footage seemed to suggest that Bottas moved his fingers before the lights changed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewFiTO_R1KE

For goodness sake, don't give a balanced view

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bauble

For goodness sake, don't give a balanced view

Sorry, I forgot!

Here is Davidson's analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXdAPDKFR4I

Pretty bloomin good start!

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Even mentioned it during the podium interviews and tried to pass it onto Ricciardo to explain, hoping Ricciardo would then get the bad rep. RIC didn't bite and made VET look like the whinger he is.

Originally Posted by wnut

This is not an accurate account of what happened

Sorry.. I thought Vettel said "I was pretty sure he jumped it, ask Daniel about it." And then Daniel didn't reciprocate Vettel's views and didn't comment on it.

So what was it that was "not an accurate account of what happened"??

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

So Grosjean deliberately parked it with an "electrical issue" with just a couple of minutes left in Q3 so he could hold position. This sort of tactic needs to be stamped out of the sport. Rosberg did it Monaco 2014 too.

is this confirmed?

i would imagine it is a difficult thing to prove but if it can be then why still allow them to keep their 2nd best time? eliminate all their times, take away their extra set of tires, and send them to the back of the grid for race day.

BTW, dont necessarily remember Monaco 2014 quali that way but i am now curious to what i thought about it at the time though.../goes to look up an old thread lol.

[S griffin]

I doubt that Grosjean would do that on purpose, just one of those things. But of course it starts this whole hoo ha about whether it was or not

[Richard C]

Note... the following is more of a technical discussion and not about Bottas and Vettel per se.

Originally Posted by F1Guy

The average human visual reaction time is about 0.250sec. So Bottas' reaction time, was said to be 0.201sec, is above average - and if his reaction time had been 0.180sec or below, it would have been deemed a jump start.

I am interested in the source of the 0.180 reaction time threshold you mention and the regulation that says that would have triggered a jump/false start. The sporting regulations talk about the start procedures in simple term (36.9) and mention that transponder data will be used to determine if a false start occurred (36.13). But there is no mention of tolerances within the entire system and how that impacts decisions. I know there are any number of non-published documents that convert the technical and sporting regulations into "practical procedures and rules". Maybe it is covered in one of those.

There is plenty of mentions online in various news articles of the 0.201 reaction time but nothing about the 0.180 threshold. Also, on the FIA site, there is no stewards decision regarding the review of Botta's start (there are others such as Kvyat's drive through penalty). If that document existed, it should provide some info. That it doesn't exist is odd to me, but maybe I am just looking in the wrong place and that document actually exists. Please prove me wrong, I would love to read it.

Reaction time has to be based upon a reaction, or in this case, actual car movement. So to measure movement you have to measure position. This also links up to time. What is the precision and accuracy of the measurement of both? Also how in sync is the telemetry from the car with the start light system. I suspect there is the potential for quite a bit of "movement" that can happen within the overall tolerance of the system. How can you prove the car moved early vs. tolerance stacking in the data capture and analysis? Even video evidence has it's issues. The replay shown earlier in this thread shows the car still and lights on within one frame and then the car slightly moving and the lights out the next. I don't know what the frame rate is, but you can't say much about what happened between the two images. Let's say 60 frames a second. That is 0.017s that we know nothing about what happened or didn't happen.

The closest I can find to the topic of tolerances and the decision making process by the stewards/race director is this article...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...tart-was-legal

Note, they don't talk about "reaction time", but rather amount of allowable movement before the lights go out. It sounds like the car could potentially be ever so slowly creeping forward and still be OK when the lights go out. But... The FIA does not want to divulge this threshold so as to not allow teams to try to game the system. Frankly given all of this, I suspect Bottas could have had a negative reaction time and it would have been deemed legal due to potential measurement tolerances. If he had in fact had a less than 0.180 reaction time how can they justify that as being illegal even if it would have been superhuman (to be clear, I fully believe Botta launched early and was just nothing more than lucky to measure OK).

This all reminds me of why they don't measure olympic swimming down to a thousandth of a second. Given the speeds they travel in a pool, one thousandth of a second is about 2.39mm of travel. The allowed tolerance of an olympic pool is 3000mm per lane. So no need to increase time accuracy when allowed variability in distance makes your measurement moot.

Richard

[midnight_lurker]

On Danish television they showed a super slow from on-board of bottas car.

https://www.tv3sport.dk/sport/motors...tas-bedom-selv

(I hope it works outside Denmark)

It shows clearly that Bottas jumped the start ever so slightly.
He is clearly rolling before the lights are out.

[bauble]

It is possible that Bottas did actually 'jump' the start by a fraction too small to measure, thus making a 'perfect' launch purely by mistake.

[chillibowl]

i would say 'mistake' is too strong of a word as i think there is always an element of anticipation involved (so not strictly just reaction speed) but yeah i would agree he was fortunate/lucky with the timing.

too much is being made of reaction times imo. important yes but sports doesnt always easily boil down to measurable numbers.

[Aysedasi]

For me, if the data shows his car didn't move until after the red light went out - even if it was the minutest of margins, that ought to be OK. There is something vaguely bizarre in the possibility of a driver being penalised for brilliant anticipation......

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am interested in the source of the 0.180 reaction time threshold you mention and the regulation that says that would have triggered a jump/false start.

...
There is plenty of mentions online in various news articles of the 0.201 reaction time but nothing about the 0.180 threshold.

...
The closest I can find to the topic of tolerances and the decision making process by the stewards/race director is this article...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...tart-was-legal

Note, they don't talk about "reaction time", but rather amount of allowable movement before the lights go out. It sounds like the car could potentially be ever so slowly creeping forward and still be OK when the lights go out. But... The FIA does not want to divulge this threshold so as to not allow teams to try to game the system. Frankly given all of this, I suspect Bottas could have had a negative reaction time and it would have been deemed legal due to potential measurement tolerances. If he had in fact had a less than 0.180 reaction time how can they justify that as being illegal even if it would have been superhuman (to be clear, I fully believe Botta launched early and was just nothing more than lucky to measure OK).

This all reminds me of why they don't measure olympic swimming down to a thousandth of a second. Given the speeds they travel in a pool, one thousandth of a second is about 2.39mm of travel. The allowed tolerance of an olympic pool is 3000mm per lane. So no need to increase time accuracy when allowed variability in distance makes your measurement moot.

Richard

The threashold in the Autosport article you take about is secret. Perhaps it is 0.180s and some insider has let that slip?

On the swimming pool. Did you mean 3000mm (3m), or is it less that that? I get the point and it still stands, I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

For me, if the data shows his car didn't move until after the red light went out - even if it was the minutest of margins, that ought to be OK. There is something vaguely bizarre in the possibility of a driver being penalised for brilliant anticipation......

I had read about the slight delay thing they had before this race. However I'm not so close to Charlie Whiting so didn't know it was 0.180s.

I agree with you, if you get lucky, hey so be it. You run the risk if you anticipate it and get it wrong. They will notice, so that is deterrent enough.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I agree with you, if you get lucky, hey so be it. You run the risk if you anticipate it and get it wrong. They will notice, so that is deterrent enough.

Exactly so.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The threashold in the Autosport article you take about is secret. Perhaps it is 0.180s and some insider has let that slip?

I thought that might be the answer. However, if so, it would seem to be odd that it was given in that post as a reaction time and not some other value (such as rate of movement or length of movement). And also odd that you could still move AFTER the lights go out and expect to be penalized even if it would require superhuman reaction times.

I suspect if that reaction time based answer is correct, it may be down to the capabilities of the telemetry they are getting back at race control? I have no direct knowledge of how they are doing this, but I can imagine it is captured via different methods. And I can also imagine that very small positional changes may be difficult to detect (how much as the car moved?), but at the same time, detecting that some type of positional change has occurred potentially can be done with great accuracy (when did the car move?). If that theory is correct, it could result in a reaction time vs rate of change or amount of change based threshold. I would love for F1Guy to comment regarding the source of that info.

Originally Posted by Adam43

On the swimming pool. Did you mean 3000mm (3m), or is it less that that? I get the point and it still stands, I'm just curious.

Darn metric system and it's easy to use base ten units! It was 3cm in lane variation, so I should have said 30mm instead of 3000mm! I was trying to use the same units in the comparison and got it wrong..

Richard

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would love for F1Guy to comment regarding the source of that info.

Probably get him in trouble

Darn metric system and it's easy to use base ten units! It was 3cm in lane variation, so I should have said 30mm instead of 3000mm! I was trying to use the same units in the comparison and got it wrong..

Cheers. Interesting, I didn't know about the pool measurement. Measuring to a hundredth pretty much matches this tolerance.

I guess most sports must have some tolerance like this. I wonder how many go to the trouble of specifying it? Track and field? Cricket wickets? Drag strips? Ball sport pitches, goals, etc...

[Akrapovic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tken_aR8bD8

If the wheels are moving when the red lights are on...is it not a jump start?

Second time in two races that the FIA is saying the data is fine, but it doesn't match the pictures.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tken_aR8bD8

If the wheels are moving when the red lights are on...is it not a jump start?

Second time in two races that the FIA is saying the data is fine, but it doesn't match the pictures.

Did you read the article I linked above? Right or wrong some amount of small movement is allowed. So I see no contradiction here.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Did you read the article I linked above? Right or wrong some amount of small movement is allowed. So I see no contradiction here.

Richard

I missed that, sorry. Good article, but does leave the question about what actually is a jump start then.

The FIA does not disclose what tolerance is allowed before it takes action, for fear that if teams knew what was allowed they would start exploiting this to boost their getaways.

That's...convenient. So far all I've gathered from this is that you can move the car before the lights go out, and you can fully release the car in anticipation rather than reaction, and if the stars align it's fine. But nobody knows how much. So strictly speaking, Bottas did jump the start in that he didn't react to the lights. That's why Vettel is being so insistent on it - because it did happen. But it was within the tolerance, so it's not an illegal jump.

Like I said, that's 2 races in a row where on screen doesn't match data. Legal or not, it's not particularly great when you've got to get the rule makers to explain why things don't line up afterwards.

[Adam43]

In both cases there isn't really an issue with the screen and the data not matching. The television picture or data in both is not definitive. There is a reason why you have separate seonsors of data measurements and don't rely on the pictures.

The rule makers are relying on information other than the pictures for precisely the reason you say. So they have accurate information that isn't ambiguous. Good choice by them.

Unfortunately that isn't going to satisfy some, but then you ain't going to achieve that. Ever. For instance Vettel is never going to accept it. Sport and the world is full of this stuff. Things happen, it can be shown it happened (or didn't) and people still don't get it.

Edit. Man who gets it:
http://www.autosport.com/premium/fea...tas-jump-start

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tken_aR8bD8

If the wheels are moving when the red lights are on...is it not a jump start?

Second time in two races that the FIA is saying the data is fine, but it doesn't match the pictures.

I agree with you.

So just to straighten out the reasoning of this decision:
A secret FIA document reveals that if you move before 0.180 of a second has elapsed before the red lights go out you are deemed to have jumped the start, but it is OK because Bottas only moved 0.210 seconds after the red lights went out. Now it is proven by the video feed that Bottas was in fact moving when the lights went out the FIA says some movement is alright before the start. What happened to looking at the video evidence?
Sorry boys you got this WRONG!
Guess it is good for the championship in somebody's head.
Ducking and diving to try and justify a clearly wrong decision is typical of F1!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

In both cases there isn't really an issue with the screen and the data not matching. The television picture or data in both is not definitive. There is a reason why you have separate seonsors of data measurements and don't rely on the pictures.

From a sporting perspective no, but from a viewer perspective it's huge. F1 is a sport that requires a large amount of viewers to maintain its current level. If those viewers are watching something, and something happens on the screen, and you're later told that either didn't happen, or it's irrelevant, that's actually a massive issue.

The moving goal posts concerns me too. With Lewis it was "he didn't brake" and then "he didn't brake significantly". With Bottas it was "he didn't move within the time" and then "he moved, but it was within tolerance".

I'm not crying conspiracy and I guess it's just unlucky, but I don't like to see something on screen and then be told that what I seen didn't actually happen, or was wrong. It's the same reason we don't like results of races being changed - you want what you watched to be representative of what is happening. Twice in two races (both involving Vettel too! How's that for moon landing hoaxers!) F1 hasn't done that. To me, that's an issue for a sport which requires a large viewer base.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

From a sporting perspective no, but from a viewer perspective it's huge. F1 is a sport that requires a large amount of viewers to maintain its current level. If those viewers are watching something, and something happens on the screen, and you're later told that either didn't happen, or it's irrelevant, that's actually a massive issue.

thats a fair point. this is a timed event so timing/starts must matter and if the optics dont match the data or steward rulings there is a potential for a loss of confidence which could have serious knock on effects (although controversy doesnt seem to be a reason for people to stop watching F1).

the trouble with absolute rules though is that it leaves no room for common sense interpretations and that also turns people off...as do penalties. particularly, those for micro transgressions.

to flip it around, if Bottas got a penalty then i imagine this conversation would be about Whiting and how F1 sucks because it has way too many rules.

i cant say definitively where the line should be drawn (its subjective and flowing), but for me i think i would have been more irritated at F1 if Bottas took a penalty for this.

its all hindsight of course, but a Bottas penalty probably would have ruined this race with SV running off into the distance but i guess you never know...it could have made what was a boring race a great one!

[Adam43]

I too think you have a good point. It isn't straight away obvious; sometimes the camera can be inaccurate, or maybe that should be not accurate enough. Other sports have similar situations where they have reviews of key moments. TMO in rugby, tennis line calls and perhaps most similar cricket referrals where information other than the television view is used. The difference is you don't stop the race to look at it in F1, or you might even review afterwards!

Then you have the aspect that some people can't or don't want to understanding something. I'm afraid I'm of the view that these fans be ignored. Except they are he majority of fans.

The solution of a sensor measurement, or using the real data trace is the best one here. The fans and Vettel need to put a little effort into considering the whys and wherefores. And as chillibowl says if it was the other way round there would probably an equal level of annoyance.

Inherently this sport isn't simple. It requires a bit of effort from the viewer. That means it might not ever grab the biggest audience, but as you say it relies on viewer numbers to attract the manufacturers and sponsors.

I'm surprised it ever got this popular. In someways I lament that. The problem is that they have pushed for it to be popular (for obvious and maybe worthwhile reasons) and to get that you have to sacrifice something. You also introduce these kind of conundrums.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the sport to be inclusive, but not to pander to the lowest common denominator. That wouldn't be fair to those who put the effort in.

Crikey, that got a bit OTT