Poll: Japanese Grand Prix 2019, Suzuka - Race 17/21

[Malt_Vinegar]

For @deuse

Small debris leaving LECs car post turn 1. Alway and to the left of the centre line:

Debris, still away from the centre line:

Debris, closer now, still away from the centre line to the left, notice Hamilton's hand turning towards the debris, as expected for the turn 2 turn in:

Impact, still left of the centre line, and below the level of the cockpit at the point of imact at the base of the noselet. Notice Hamilton is still increasing turning angle, as expected:

Some of these smaller parts post impact hit the top left of halo after breakup leaving marks.

Nothing here shows anything of Hamilton's reactions saving himself, and the halo centre line clearly deflects smaller parts away from the helmet area (even though that's not it's primary design purpose).

Halo has performed as designed.

 

[pacegod]

I can see why he didn't get a penalty more clearly now. He got the car stopped again before the drop, and didn't actually leave the box!

Where in the rules does it say a jump start is only when the car leaves the box?

36.13 - Either of the penalties under Articles 38.3c) or d) will be imposed on any driver who is judged to have :

a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car, or ;

b) Positioned his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder is unable to detect the moment at which the car first moved from its grid position after the start signal is given.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

Where in the rules does it say a jump start is only when the car leaves the box?

36.13 - Either of the penalties under Articles 38.3c) or d) will be imposed on any driver who is judged to have :

a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car, or ;

b) Positioned his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder is unable to detect the moment at which the car first moved from its grid position after the start signal is given.

Point a, says if the car moved before the start as judged by the sensor.
His movement was within the tolerance measured by the sensor used by f1 when judging a jump start.

I was merely saying that he didnt move enough to leave the box, which suggests the movement was minimal, as the sensor measured. So I can see why it was in tolerance.

It's a point that has been made many times. The wording is quite clear.

 

[GravyMonster]

It's still a stupid way to write the rule. Did the car visibly move before the lights changed? -> Penalty. None of this 'sensor says no' ********.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

It's still a stupid way to write the rule. Did the car visibly move before the lights changed? -> Penalty. None of this 'sensor says no' ********.

With no tolerance, movement of the car when it goes into gears, the clutch is set, movement of the driver, torque from the engine could cause a jump start.
Vettel gained no advantage from this, broke no rules, so why is it such a big deal?
Had he gained an advantage I might accept there is a fault in the rule, and reason to complain but there just isn't.

I am not a Vettel fan, and have no problem with him being penalised if he broke the rules, but as he didnt, I can't condone it!

Sport has rules and they have to be applied by the letter. There are plenty of situations like this in many different sports, it's all part of the appeal!

 

[BlizzardX]

Point a, says if the car moved before the start as judged by the sensor.
His movement was within the tolerance measured by the sensor used by f1 when judging a jump start.

I was merely saying that he didnt move enough to leave the box, which suggests the movement was minimal, as the sensor measured. So I can see why it was in tolerance.

It's a point that has been made many times. The wording is quite clear.

Is the tolerance given anywhere in the rules? I haven't found it but then they are quite convoluted... If the stewards have a tolerance they can apply then this surely must be in the rules so that everyone knows what the tolerance is?

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

Is the tolerance given anywhere in the rules? I haven't found it but then they are quite convoluted... If the stewards have a tolerance they can apply then this surely must be in the rules so that everyone knows what the tolerance is?

The FIA have stated it is known within the rules, but not publicised for very good reasons which are obvious when you think about it. Rather than me type it out, I shall be lazy and link the autosport article I just googled that does it for me.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/146575/fia-defends-jumpstart-secret-tolerances

 

[Ryan-3]

I think perhaps you seem to be claiming that the reactions of Hamilton saved him from debris 1 (smaller part, post turn 1), which makes no sense whatsoever. The halo took the impact, as designed.

Hamilton didn't and wouldn't have time to react. The Halo took the impact as designed, but it isn't like the aeroscreen. If a small object like this, or the Massa spring missed the Halo, Merc certainly wouldn't be constructors champions right now. He should have been told to come in at the first pass of the pits and not when he felt like it.

 

[Mr Jack]

The FIA have stated it is known within the rules, but not publicised for very good reasons which are obvious when you think about it. Rather than me type it out, I shall be lazy and link the autosport article I just googled that does it for me.

Okay, fair enough.

It just felt inconsistent with prior rulings, but I these things come down to tight margins I guess. At the end of the day, Seb lost out by stuffing up his start so I there's a feeling of natural justice about his not being penalised, and it therefore doesn't bother me much. What bothered me was the inconsistency but if there's a consistent rule; I'm okay with that.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

Hamilton didn't and wouldn't have time to react. The Halo took the impact as designed, but it isn't like the aeroscreen. If a small object like this, or the Massa spring missed the Halo, Merc certainly wouldn't be constructors champions right now. He should have been told to come in at the first pass of the pits and not when he felt like it.

I don't disagree at all, he should have been issued the black and orange asap, and I suspect the FIA will be very hot on that now. But with that said, that's what the halo is there for. To protect drivers from injury in unusual and unpredictable situations. The sporting outcome its secondary to driver protection.
The helmet is now capable of protecting against a massa type incident. It should now allow the driver to remain conscious and in control of the car after such an incident.
Some of the worst motorsport accidents have come from heavy large objects intruding to the cockpit area, Tom Pryce in the 70s possibly the worst example, Henry surtees more recently, Justin Wilson, and perhaps also Dan Wheldon just to name a few would likely have survived or had a much better chance to survive with a HALO device.
Most of the arguments against it have fallen away, but there are a few people banging the drum about it whenever they can for some unknown reason!

Okay, fair enough.

It just felt inconsistent with prior rulings, but I these things come down to tight margins I guess. At the end of the day, Seb lost out by stuffing up his start so I there's a feeling of natural justice about his not being penalised, and it therefore doesn't bother me much. What bothered me was the inconsistency but if there's a consistent rule; I'm okay with that.

Indeed, it's just the way it is! I think (iirc) there is also a minimum response time tolerance to stop people guessing and trying to gain an advantage at the start.

So you could start after the lights go off and it can be deemed as an illegal start if your "reaction" time is judged to be too fast

 

[Ryan-3]

Most of the arguments against it have fallen away, but there are a few people banging the drum about it whenever they can for some unknown reason!

Many examples as you say. It is UGLY af and I'm sure they can make an aeroscreen similar to what they normally do in the 'F1 car of 2030' style concepts, which would totally eliminate the small object possibility I mentioned above. Hitting the helmet will probably occur 99/100, but its just the once that needs eliminating.

And the cars would look cooler too.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

Many examples as you say. It is UGLY af and I'm sure they can make an aeroscreen similar to what they normally do in the 'F1 car of 2030' style concepts, which would totally eliminate the small object possibility I mentioned above. Hitting the helmet will probably occur 99/100, but its just the once that needs eliminating.

And the cars would look cooler too.

The aeroscreen just does not have the same protection from larger heavier objects.
The helmet mops up the small stuff and halo the big stuff. A perfect combination, and designed specially to work that way for the best possible protection.

The cool looking thing happens at every change. The 2009 rear wings were the same. People moaned, then just got used to it and liked the cars again

 

[Lopéz]

Crash structures are also UGLY af, as is the HANS device, as are harnesses.

Your arguments sound like those a child would make.

 

[The_Abyss]

Interesting to see the whole radio exchange. Leclerc acts selfishly throughout. It reminds me of the kind of attitude we saw from him in Monaco. At least he eventually received a punishment. He's actually worse than Max at the moment and that's saying something.

That said, the stewards are mostly at fault here. That Ferrari should have been flagged immediately. This hands off approach from the stewards will end in tears.

The penalty is peanuts though. It cost him a place and cost the team €25,000.

Meanwhile, Leclerc’s actions ruined the race of Verstappen and led to him being retired, contributed to ruining Norris’s race and sprayed Hamilton with carbon fibre shrapnel at over 150 mph. Ego writing cheques that he can’t cash at the moment. Ferrari really need the season to end now for what feels like the 10th straight year so that they can regroup.

Again.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Many examples as you say. It is UGLY af and I'm sure they can make an aeroscreen similar to what they normally do in the 'F1 car of 2030' style concepts, which would totally eliminate the small object possibility I mentioned above. Hitting the helmet will probably occur 99/100, but its just the once that needs eliminating.

And the cars would look cooler too.

Then they might as well drive in a blooming buggati then

 

[deuse]

The aeroscreen just does not have the same protection from larger heavier objects.

"The aeroscreen IndyCar will adopt in 2020 is stronger than the halo device used in Formula 1"

https://www.autosport.com/indycar/news/146393/aeroscreen-can-withstand-more-than-halo--red-bull

Wrong.

The helmet mops up the small stuff and halo the big stuff. A perfect combination, and designed specially to work that way for the best possible protection.

Tell that to Massa

The failow was just a knee jerk reaction to bianchi's death and nothing more.

 

[deuse]

The stewards should have flagged the car to come in as soon as it was damaged. When it didn't, they should have black-flagged it. Why aren't the stewards doing their job instead of having to hear from Ferrari what they are going to do, then having to give them orders when Ferrari don't do it?

This what a lot of people are taking about.
ferrari international assistance

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

"The aeroscreen IndyCar will adopt in 2020 is stronger than the halo device used in Formula 1"

https://www.autosport.com/indycar/news/146393/aeroscreen-can-withstand-more-than-halo--red-bull

Wrong.

Good, that's some nice new info. I am still not sold on the possible problems it brings with rain, and not that aesthetics are important (to me) but is not exactly much of an improvement if that's your thing

Tell that to Massa

The failow was just a knee jerk reaction to bianchi's death and nothing more.

Jeeze, how many times, they helmet design has been SIGNIFICANTLY updated since the Massa incident OVER A DECADE AGO, and designed to handle smaller debris MUCH more efficiently than a decade ago with the many changes, but just for you, specifically the lower visor height to increase rigidity, and the added composite plate above the eyeline...

 

[this_is_gav]

Jeeze, how many times, they helmet design has been SIGNIFICANTLY updated since the Massa incident OVER A DECADE AGO, and designed to handle smaller debris MUCH more efficiently than a decade ago with the many changes, but just for you, specifically the lower visor height to increase rigidity, and the added composite plate above the eyeline...

There's no point arguing with him and never has been. Common sense goes out of the window the moment deuse enters a room.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Good, that's some nice new info. I am still not sold on the possible problems it brings with rain, and not that aesthetics are important (to me) but is not exactly much of an improvement if that's your thing

Jeeze, how many times, they helmet design has been SIGNIFICANTLY updated since the Massa incident OVER A DECADE AGO, and designed to handle smaller debris MUCH more efficiently than a decade ago with the many changes, but just for you, specifically the lower visor height to increase rigidity, and the added composite plate above the eyeline...

It's no different to a visor really, taking off visor strips doesn't help with the rain, just the grime. There are impressive hydrophobic coatings now that will not be affected by the rain. I'd worry more about tracks with lots of flies actually (if you've seen the cars after some races, you'd know why). It basically looks like the halo we have, but more aerodynamic and with the screen between the halo structure. Looks much better.

The helmets might have been updated, I'm still not convinced they'd stop an equivalent spring at over 100mph through the visor or a similar object. I hope we never have to.