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