Discussion:
Vettel
(too old to reply)
.
2017-07-09 14:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.

Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
.
2017-07-09 15:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
The arrogant little prick!
https://mobile.twitter.com/Gianludale27/status/883974090046005249/photo/1
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Bigbird
2017-07-09 16:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
The arrogant little prick!
https://mobile.twitter.com/Gianludale27/status/883974090046005249/photo/1

Haters gotta hate.

I don't imagine they are happier people for it.
bra
2017-07-09 15:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume standard) sequence of lights. Or does each race starter "do their own thing" to niggle the drivers?

In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer, drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.

Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time (car actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is quite an to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy tyres] moving.

In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan Gray faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the race computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The READY ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam EXACTLY as the green came on.

They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you out of the event.

Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
Darryl Johnson
2017-07-09 16:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume standard) sequence of lights. Or does each race starter "do their own thing" to niggle the drivers?
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer, drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time (car actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is quite an to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy tyres] moving.
In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan Gray faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the race computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The READY ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam EXACTLY as the green came on.
They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you out of the event.
Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
My understanding is that the lights go out after a random time. The
race "starter" merely sets the sequence in motion, but does not
actually control *exactly* when the lights go out. The idea is to make
it more difficult for any driver to time their start to match the
lights. Bottas was either very fast with his reactions, or he guessed
(and was very lucky).
bra
2017-07-09 16:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darryl Johnson
My understanding is that the lights go out after a random time. The
race "starter" merely sets the sequence in motion, but does not
actually control *exactly* when the lights go out. The idea is to make
it more difficult for any driver to time their start to match the
lights. Bottas was either very fast with his reactions, or he guessed
(and was very lucky).
Thank you; that is significant. It raises an interesting question -- whether the mass starts would be safer or quicker (or whatever), with a very clear and consistent timing ands lights.

Or to turn it the other way --- would dragsters (or their racing spectacle) be worse off with irregular delays on the lights!

Anyone have more info?
Bigbird
2017-07-09 16:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by Darryl Johnson
My understanding is that the lights go out after a random time. The
race "starter" merely sets the sequence in motion, but does not
actually control exactly when the lights go out. The idea is to
make it more difficult for any driver to time their start to match
the lights. Bottas was either very fast with his reactions, or he
guessed (and was very lucky).
Thank you; that is significant. It raises an interesting question --
whether the mass starts would be safer or quicker (or whatever), with
a very clear and consistent timing ands lights.
Or to turn it the other way --- would dragsters (or their racing
spectacle) be worse off with irregular delays on the lights!
Anyone have more info?
I expect the hypothesis is that you get less false starts if the driver
is unable to anticpate the lights. I expect it's been proven over the
years. False starts are generally unsafe so I expect it safer to reduce
them.

The 'random' delay varies but upto 4 seconds IIRC. So starts could be
up to 4 seconds quicker. I'm not sure what that would achieve.
Mark Jackson
2017-07-09 16:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The 'random' delay varies but up to 4 seconds IIRC.
There may be a communication to that effect, but the sporting regs place
no limit:

"At any time after the one second light appears, the race will be
started by extinguishing all red lights." (from 36.9)
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
I believe I am right. And, if not right, plausible.
- Ignatius Donnelly
Bigbird
2017-07-09 17:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Jackson
The 'random' delay varies but up to 4 seconds IIRC.
There may be a communication to that effect, but the sporting regs
While it may not be specified in the regs there is a maximum limit for
practical reasons. I'm pretty sure the delay I've heard mentioned is 4
to 7 seconds and that is what is mentioned in a Wikipedia entry, no
source is given. However that must be wrong or out of date as it is
clearly often less than 4 seconds.
geoff
2017-07-09 21:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
I expect the hypothesis is that you get less false starts if the driver
"Fewer" . Sorry, my current rant with the kids ...

geoff
Bigbird
2017-07-09 21:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Bigbird
I expect the hypothesis is that you get less false starts if the driver
"Fewer" . Sorry, my current rant with the kids ...
"for Christ's sake Julie, it's fewer, you give fewer blow jobs than
your brother"
geoff
2017-07-09 22:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by geoff
Post by Bigbird
I expect the hypothesis is that you get less false starts if the driver
"Fewer" . Sorry, my current rant with the kids ...
"for Christ's sake Julie, it's fewer, you give fewer blow jobs than
your brother"
;-( ) o===8

anon artist
Bobster
2017-07-09 16:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by Darryl Johnson
My understanding is that the lights go out after a random time. The
race "starter" merely sets the sequence in motion, but does not
actually control *exactly* when the lights go out. The idea is to make
it more difficult for any driver to time their start to match the
lights. Bottas was either very fast with his reactions, or he guessed
(and was very lucky).
Thank you; that is significant. It raises an interesting question -- whether the mass starts would be safer or quicker (or whatever), with a very clear and consistent timing ands lights.
AIUI there is a minimum and maximum. The lights will go out no sooner than ... and no later than... so there's a window.

The timing of the lights is something they have long worked against. I would suppose that at one time there was a possibility of a system on a car that would detect the start of the sequence and then launch the car.

I suppose that would be a lot harder now. I guess it's one of these things that's in the rules and nobody challenges because so what? And if you WERE to challenge it, everybody would want to know exactly why you wanted a change.

Reflexes come into play in many sports. In athletics, sprinters are required to wait until the gun goes off. Why should motor sport be any different?

Now I've typed that, it occurs to me that a sharp reaction to the start is a good way to make up places. So why deprive the drivers - and us! - of that opportunity/
Post by bra
Or to turn it the other way --- would dragsters (or their racing spectacle) be worse off with irregular delays on the lights!
Anyone have more info?
ISTR that at one time there was a rule that expressly forbade any system that scanned the starting lights.
Bobster
2017-07-10 03:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darryl Johnson
Post by bra
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume standard) sequence of lights. Or does each race starter "do their own thing" to niggle the drivers?
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer, drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time (car actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is quite an to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy tyres] moving.
In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan Gray faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the race computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The READY ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam EXACTLY as the green came on.
They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you out of the event.
Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
My understanding is that the lights go out after a random time.
36.9 When the cars come back to the grid at the end of the formation lap (or laps, see Article 39.16), they will stop within their respective grid positions, keeping their engines running.

There will be a standing start, the signal being given by means of lights activated by the permanent starter.

Once all the cars have come to a halt the five second light will appear followed by the four, three, two and one second lights. At any time after the one second light appears, the race will be started by extinguishing all red lights.


The
Post by Darryl Johnson
race "starter" merely sets the sequence in motion, but does not
actually control *exactly* when the lights go out. The idea is to make
it more difficult for any driver to time their start to match the
lights. Bottas was either very fast with his reactions, or he guessed
(and was very lucky).
Bottas: "[With] the start lights, there are different variations since the lights are on and go off, but the variation for a long time has not been massive."

"So you know more or less the zone when it is going off, so gambling with your reaction and guessing sometimes you get a mega one, sometimes you are a bit late.

"Today was my best reaction for the lights. As long as it is positive [in terms of time after the lights go off], it is fine."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/130635/vettel-certain-unhuman-bottas-jumped-start

Which also has Ricciardo saying that the lights were held on for longer than usual.
Angel Gutierrez Rodriguez
2017-07-09 16:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pedro de la Rosa said Charlie's delay used to be between 2.4-2.8 secs.
--
Ángel Gutiérrez Rodríguez
Edmund
2017-07-09 17:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying that someone
either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume
standard) sequence of lights.
Wrong! According to some TV commentators.


Or does each race starter "do their own
Post by bra
thing" to niggle the drivers?
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer,
drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three
ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time (car
actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is quite an
to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy tyres]
moving.
In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan Gray
faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the race
computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The READY
ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam EXACTLY
as the green came on.
They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you out of the event.
Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
Do you know they regulations?
I don't but AFAIK in dragracing you have a few cm to move before the the
green light.
It is suggested now that in F1 that is not the case, it is suggested that
a car cannot move at all before the lights go out.

Bottas did move about 2 cm before the lights where out but obviously
didn't pass the point where " the stewards" :-) start timing.
It is ruled a legitimate start.

Edmund
.
2017-07-09 18:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by bra
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying that someone
either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume
standard) sequence of lights.
Wrong! According to some TV commentators.
Or does each race starter "do their own
Post by bra
thing" to niggle the drivers?
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer,
drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three
ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time (car
actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is quite an
to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy tyres]
moving.
In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan Gray
faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the race
computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The READY
ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam EXACTLY
as the green came on.
They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you out of the event.
Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
Do you know they regulations?
I don't but AFAIK in dragracing you have a few cm to move before the the
green light.
No, not if a car is staged deeply enough.
Post by Edmund
It is suggested now that in F1 that is not the case, it is suggested that
a car cannot move at all before the lights go out.
Bottas did move about 2 cm before the lights where out
No evidence whatsoever has been officially offered to suggest
or support that wholly erroneous claim.

but obviously
Post by Edmund
didn't pass the point where " the stewards" :-) start timing.
It is ruled a legitimate start.
Edmund
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Edmund
2017-07-09 18:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Edmund
Post by bra
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying that
someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume
standard) sequence of lights.
Wrong! According to some TV commentators.
Or does each race starter "do their own
Post by bra
thing" to niggle the drivers?
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer,
drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three
ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time
(car actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is
quite an to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy
tyres] moving.
In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan
Gray faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the
race computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The
READY ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam
EXACTLY as the green came on.
They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you
out of the event.
Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
Do you know they regulations?
I don't but AFAIK in dragracing you have a few cm to move before the
the green light.
No, not if a car is staged deeply enough.
Post by Edmund
It is suggested now that in F1 that is not the case, it is suggested
that a car cannot move at all before the lights go out.
Bottas did move about 2 cm before the lights where out
No evidence whatsoever has been officially offered
So I am telling it here and now, your welcome.

Edmund
Bobster
2017-07-09 19:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Edmund
Post by bra
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying that someone
either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume
standard) sequence of lights.
Wrong! According to some TV commentators.
Or does each race starter "do their own
Post by bra
thing" to niggle the drivers?
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer,
drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three
ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time (car
actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is quite an
to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy tyres]
moving.
In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan Gray
faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the race
computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The READY
ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam EXACTLY
as the green came on.
They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you
out of the event.
Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
Do you know they regulations?
I don't but AFAIK in dragracing you have a few cm to move before the the
green light.
No, not if a car is staged deeply enough.
Post by Edmund
It is suggested now that in F1 that is not the case, it is suggested that
a car cannot move at all before the lights go out.
Bottas did move about 2 cm before the lights where out
No evidence whatsoever has been officially offered to suggest
or support that wholly erroneous claim.
But now you've posted exactly such evidence, maybe you'd like to restate you position.
Post by .
but obviously
Post by Edmund
didn't pass the point where " the stewards" :-) start timing.
It is ruled a legitimate start.
Edmund
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
.
2017-07-09 20:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Post by Edmund
Post by bra
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying that someone
either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume
standard) sequence of lights.
Wrong! According to some TV commentators.
Or does each race starter "do their own
Post by bra
thing" to niggle the drivers?
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer,
drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three
ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time (car
actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is quite an
to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy tyres]
moving.
In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan Gray
faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the race
computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The READY
ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam EXACTLY
as the green came on.
They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you
out of the event.
Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
Do you know they regulations?
I don't but AFAIK in dragracing you have a few cm to move before the the
green light.
No, not if a car is staged deeply enough.
Post by Edmund
It is suggested now that in F1 that is not the case, it is suggested that
a car cannot move at all before the lights go out.
Bottas did move about 2 cm before the lights where out
No evidence whatsoever has been officially offered to suggest
or support that wholly erroneous claim.
But now you've posted exactly such evidence, maybe you'd like to restate you position.
Read that which I've already posted and you'll have your answer.
Post by Bobster
Post by .
but obviously
Post by Edmund
didn't pass the point where " the stewards" :-) start timing.
It is ruled a legitimate start.
Edmund
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
geoff
2017-07-09 21:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Edmund
O
Bottas did move about 2 cm before the lights where out
No evidence whatsoever has been officially offered to suggest
or support that wholly erroneous claim.
Post by Edmund
Edmund
But we do know a certain gent's eye/brain coordination is somewhat
impaired. At least it wasn't HAM otherwise is would have been *metres* !

geoff
geoff
2017-07-09 21:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer, drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Well you could hardly give them a ten second penalty !

geoff
bra
2017-07-10 05:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by bra
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer, drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Well you could hardly give them a ten second penalty !
geoff
Thanks for that suggestion, Geoff!

There's an amusing 9-minute video clip of Jay Leno in a borrowed C6 Corvette, challenging a jet dragster to a 1/4 mile drag race.

The woman who drives the jet for a living gives him a SEVEN SECOND head start before she plants her foot: that's a long long time on a 440-yard strip.
The first 4 mins are interesting background at the workshop, then they're at the strip.

The race and the finish are amazing:

Alan Baker
2017-07-10 07:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Surely all the drivers have trained themselves to the (I assume standard) sequence of lights. Or does each race starter "do their own thing" to niggle the drivers?
After the fifth red light comes on, there is a random delay until they
all go out... ...and I don't believe that is controlled by the starter.
Post by bra
In drag racing, where a jumped start totally disqualifies a racer, drivers nonetheless judge the timing to a tee. Once the READY three ambers come on together for 0.5 secs, the the green lights.
Leah Pritchett in the Top Fuel class has recorded an reaction time (car actually moving after the green came on) of 0.045 secs. It is quite an to get a 33-foot long dragster weighing 2330lbs, [with floppy tyres] moving.
In 2014 in the Pro Stock ("sedan") class, Erica Enders and Jonathan Gray faced off, and BOTH registered a 0.000sec reaction time --- the race computers do not register smaller intervals than 1/000 sec. The READY ambers lasted 0.5 secs, yet their cars both broke the light beam EXACTLY as the green came on.
They were not being foolhardy gamblers, because a red light throws you out of the event.
Vettel should believe Bottas's reaction time.
Bobster
2017-07-09 16:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily implying that somebody is telling porkies.
Post by .
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Sir Tim
2017-07-09 17:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of
speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily implying
that somebody is telling porkies.
In idiomatic English there is, of course, a big difference between saying,
"I can't believe it!" and, "I don't believe it". I think we need
clarification as to what he actually said (and in what tone of voice).
--
Sir Tim
Bigbird
2017-07-09 17:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
In idiomatic English there is, of course, a big difference between
saying, "I can't believe it!" and, "I don't believe it". I think we
need clarification as to what he actually said (and in what tone of
voice).
His tone was one of assertion not surprise. I found it *ungracious; on
the other hand I also think he is right.

*Mainly because by then he had mentioned it many times despite knowing
it was officially not a false start.
Bobster
2017-07-09 19:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of
speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily implying
that somebody is telling porkies.
In idiomatic English there is, of course, a big difference between saying,
"I can't believe it!" and, "I don't believe it". I think we need
clarification as to what he actually said (and in what tone of voice).
I've only just watched the recording I made. He had a smile on his face when he said it.

I must say I'm surprised that it took so long to adjudicate the matter. The cars and the grid boxes have long had sensors in them. Prost got done for a jumped start on the basis of these sensors in 1993.

But I suppose there's nothing wrong with being as thorough as you can be.

Vettel gets a "not guilty" from me.
Post by Sir Tim
--
Sir Tim
Bobster
2017-07-09 19:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of
speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily implying
that somebody is telling porkies.
In idiomatic English there is, of course, a big difference between saying,
"I can't believe it!" and, "I don't believe it". I think we need
clarification as to what he actually said (and in what tone of voice).
I've only just watched the recording I made. He had a smile on his face when he said it.
To clarify: It seemed to me to be mischievous rather than malicious.
.
2017-07-09 20:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of
speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily implying
that somebody is telling porkies.
In idiomatic English there is, of course, a big difference between saying,
"I can't believe it!" and, "I don't believe it". I think we need
clarification as to what he actually said (and in what tone of voice).
I've only just watched the recording I made. He had a smile on his face when he said it.
To clarify: It seemed to me to be mischievous rather than malicious.
Because you're a well known and accepted imbecilic prevaricator.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Bigbird
2017-07-09 19:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure
of speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not
necessarily implying that somebody is telling porkies.
In idiomatic English there is, of course, a big difference between
saying, "I can't believe it!" and, "I don't believe it". I think we
need clarification as to what he actually said (and in what tone of
voice).
"I don't believe that"
Post by Bobster
I've only just watched the recording I made. He had a smile on his face when he said it.
That's not true, but I have a smile on my face when I say "I am not
surprised".
.
2017-07-09 20:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of
speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily implying
that somebody is telling porkies.
In idiomatic English there is, of course, a big difference between saying,
"I can't believe it!" and, "I don't believe it". I think we need
clarification as to what he actually said (and in what tone of voice).
I've only just watched the recording I made. He had a smile on his face when he said it.
He said it in earnest, and continues to maintain that position.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-jumped-start-austrian-gp-vettel-928631/
Post by Bobster
I must say I'm surprised that it took so long to adjudicate the matter. The cars and the grid boxes have long had sensors in them. Prost got done for a jumped start on the basis of these sensors in 1993.
But I suppose there's nothing wrong with being as thorough as you can be.
Vettel gets a "not guilty" from me.
As if anyone would accept or believe a word you said.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Alan Baker
2017-07-10 07:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of
speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily implying
that somebody is telling porkies.
In idiomatic English there is, of course, a big difference between saying,
"I can't believe it!" and, "I don't believe it". I think we need
clarification as to what he actually said (and in what tone of voice).
I've only just watched the recording I made. He had a smile on his face when he said it.
He said it in earnest, and continues to maintain that position.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-jumped-start-austrian-gp-vettel-928631/
So, what?

What Vettel wants to believe is utterly immaterial.
geoff
2017-07-09 21:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily implying that somebody is telling porkies.
" I've won the lottery ? ..... I don't believe it ! "

geoff
Bigbird
2017-07-10 05:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Bobster
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Or he literally couldn't believe it. It's a common enough figure of
speech. When you say "I can't believe it" you're not necessarily
implying that somebody is telling porkies.
" I've won the lottery ? ..... I don't believe it ! "
"I don't believe that!" :|
geoff
2017-07-09 21:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
Could have been amazement at the skill of the incredible start. To be
generous ...

geoff
Alan Baker
2017-07-10 07:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
How'd Hamilton do?

:-)
Willsy
2017-07-10 13:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying
to divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped
the start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering
his ass.
Alan Baker
2017-07-10 15:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Willsy
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying
to divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped
the start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering
his ass.
Bottas didn't jump the start, but it was down to a couple of hundredths
from having been deemed to have done so, so I can see why Vettel might
have seen it the other way.

And Ricciardo saw it that way as well.
Bruce Hoult
2017-07-10 15:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Willsy
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying
to divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped
the start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering
his ass.
Bottas didn't jump the start, but it was down to a couple of hundredths
from having been deemed to have done so, so I can see why Vettel might
have seen it the other way.
And Ricciardo saw it that way as well.
I don't know why you should only be able to start moving more than 0.1s after the lights go out, rather than 0.001s.

The timing is random, so if you're going to guess the timing and start the clutch release before the lights actually go out then you're going to get it wrong 99 times out of 100.
Alan Baker
2017-07-10 16:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Willsy
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying
to divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped
the start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering
his ass.
Bottas didn't jump the start, but it was down to a couple of hundredths
from having been deemed to have done so, so I can see why Vettel might
have seen it the other way.
And Ricciardo saw it that way as well.
I don't know why you should only be able to start moving more than 0.1s after the lights go out, rather than 0.001s.
The reason is that in order to start moving that soon, you have to be
guessing about when the light will turn green. No human can react to a
visual stimuli and move his feet and hands that quickly.
Post by Bruce Hoult
The timing is random, so if you're going to guess the timing and start the clutch release before the lights actually go out then you're going to get it wrong 99 times out of 100.
True. But more importantly, if you allow guess, then some will guess
wrong by quite a lot and then you've got a race car moving before
everyone else--potentially causing a collision, followed by that same
car stopping just as everyone else is setting off--potentially causing a
collision.
Heiner Hass
2017-07-10 17:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
The reason is that in order to start moving that soon, you have to be
guessing about when the light will turn green. No human can react to a
visual stimuli and move his feet and hands that quickly.
JFTR: the light(s) will never turn green at the race-start.

HH
Alan Baker
2017-07-10 17:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Heiner Hass
Post by Alan Baker
The reason is that in order to start moving that soon, you have to be
guessing about when the light will turn green. No human can react to a
visual stimuli and move his feet and hands that quickly.
JFTR: the light(s) will never turn green at the race-start.
Yes. I used the wrong terminology for F1.
.
2017-07-10 16:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Willsy
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying
to divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped
the start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering
his ass.
Bottas didn't jump the start, but it was down to a couple of hundredths
from having been deemed to have done so, so I can see why Vettel might
have seen it the other way.
And Ricciardo saw it that way as well.
I don't know why you should only be able to start moving more than 0.1s after the lights go out, rather than 0.001s.
The timing is random, so if you're going to guess the timing and start the clutch release before the lights actually go out then you're going to get it wrong 99 times out of 100.
For a competitive event, it does seem a dubious rule. I
wouldn't be surprised to see it dropped; leave early, pay
whatever known consequences that sport delineates.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Alan Baker
2017-07-10 16:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Willsy
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying
to divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped
the start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering
his ass.
Bottas didn't jump the start, but it was down to a couple of hundredths
from having been deemed to have done so, so I can see why Vettel might
have seen it the other way.
And Ricciardo saw it that way as well.
I don't know why you should only be able to start moving more than
0.1s after the lights go out, rather than 0.001s.
The timing is random, so if you're going to guess the timing and start
the clutch release before the lights actually go out then you're going
to get it wrong 99 times out of 100.
For a competitive event, it does seem a dubious rule. I
wouldn't be surprised to see it dropped; leave early, pay
whatever known consequences that sport delineates.
And if you allow that, you encourage a behaviour which is inherently
dangerous...

...but you don't consider such things, do you?
Bruce Hoult
2017-07-10 17:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Willsy
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying
to divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped
the start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering
his ass.
Bottas didn't jump the start, but it was down to a couple of hundredths
from having been deemed to have done so, so I can see why Vettel might
have seen it the other way.
And Ricciardo saw it that way as well.
I don't know why you should only be able to start moving more than
0.1s after the lights go out, rather than 0.001s.
The timing is random, so if you're going to guess the timing and start
the clutch release before the lights actually go out then you're going
to get it wrong 99 times out of 100.
For a competitive event, it does seem a dubious rule. I
wouldn't be surprised to see it dropped; leave early, pay
whatever known consequences that sport delineates.
And if you allow that, you encourage a behaviour which is inherently
dangerous...
...but you don't consider such things, do you?
No, it's not encouraging it at all. If someone jumps the start they pay a fairly severe penalty. The payoff for risking it simply isn't there.
Alan Baker
2017-07-10 17:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Willsy
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying
that someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable
to complete the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying
to divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped
the start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering
his ass.
Bottas didn't jump the start, but it was down to a couple of hundredths
from having been deemed to have done so, so I can see why Vettel might
have seen it the other way.
And Ricciardo saw it that way as well.
I don't know why you should only be able to start moving more than
0.1s after the lights go out, rather than 0.001s.
The timing is random, so if you're going to guess the timing and start
the clutch release before the lights actually go out then you're going
to get it wrong 99 times out of 100.
For a competitive event, it does seem a dubious rule. I
wouldn't be surprised to see it dropped; leave early, pay
whatever known consequences that sport delineates.
And if you allow that, you encourage a behaviour which is inherently
dangerous...
...but you don't consider such things, do you?
No, it's not encouraging it at all. If someone jumps the start they pay a fairly severe penalty. The payoff for risking it simply isn't there.
Sorry, but I disagree.
Alan LeHun
2017-07-10 23:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by .
For a competitive event, it does seem a dubious rule. I
wouldn't be surprised to see it dropped; leave early, pay
whatever known consequences that sport delineates.
Not just F1

I know Athletics use that system too. Tolerances are so tight that at
major events, each starting position has to have a loadspeaker behind
them, so that all the runners hear the gun at the same time.

I believe that for running the limit is 1/10s (or about half that for
F1) which seems about right.
--
Alan LeHun
Bobster
2017-07-11 03:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by .
For a competitive event, it does seem a dubious rule. I
wouldn't be surprised to see it dropped; leave early, pay
whatever known consequences that sport delineates.
Not just F1
I know Athletics use that system too. Tolerances are so tight that at
major events, each starting position has to have a loadspeaker behind
them, so that all the runners hear the gun at the same time.
I believe that for running the limit is 1/10s (or about half that for
F1) which seems about right.
Well, they still have false starts in athletics - and procedures that allow for them.

As Alan Baker has pointed out, there is a difference between a sprinter or two launching out of the blocks and 20 F1 cars hurtling towards a corner.

In F1 they still provide for false starts (and can detect them). It's amazing, when you think about it, that there are so few of them. Presumably the penalty is severe enough to wipe out any advantage gained.

So the drivers know they can be busted, and they know it's not worth it.

I remarked earlier that I didn't see why it took so long to sort the matter out. Based on subsequent announcements it is clear that there was some small movement of Bottas's car BEFORE the lights went out. This is within what is allowed. Couple that with a lightning start from Bottas (who said he tries to anticipate the lights, mostly it doesn't work, but when it does...) and you can see how Vettel and Ricciardo could both see that movement, see the lightning start that followed and think that Bottas had jumped the start.

And that's why it took a while to adjudicate. They start looking at it and there IS movement, so they have to determine HOW MUCH movement.
Geoff
2017-07-11 03:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
And that's why it took a while to adjudicate. They start looking at
it and there IS movement, so they have to determine HOW MUCH
movement.
That's a point - it it 'any movement', or crossing/touching the start
line that is the criteria ?

geoff
bra
2017-07-11 04:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:49:05 PM UTC-7, Geoff wrote:


We have to go to motorcycle racing to see chicanery with the grid. Years ago (in Qatar and in Malaysia, I think) Valentino Rossi's and Max Biaggi's mechanics were spotted the night before the races, "preparing" their riders' grid places.

Rossi insisted they were just "brushing off some windblown sand", but Biaggi's helpers were seen gunning a scooter to put down extra rubber on his spot.

Gotta love those guys :-)
~misfit~
2017-07-12 01:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
We have to go to motorcycle racing to see chicanery with the grid.
Years ago (in Qatar and in Malaysia, I think) Valentino Rossi's and
Max Biaggi's mechanics were spotted the night before the races,
"preparing" their riders' grid places.
Rossi insisted they were just "brushing off some windblown sand", but
Biaggi's helpers were seen gunning a scooter to put down extra rubber
on his spot.
Gotta love those guys :-)
In F1 sometime in the last 12 months or so marshalls were censured and
prevented from continuing when they were seen to be sweeping a certain
drivers starting box just before the pit lane opened. The whole thing was
the result of a frantic complaint by Ferrari. (suprise suprise...)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
larkim
2017-07-11 10:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by .
For a competitive event, it does seem a dubious rule. I
wouldn't be surprised to see it dropped; leave early, pay
whatever known consequences that sport delineates.
Not just F1
I know Athletics use that system too. Tolerances are so tight that at
major events, each starting position has to have a loadspeaker behind
them, so that all the runners hear the gun at the same time.
I believe that for running the limit is 1/10s (or about half that for
F1) which seems about right.
--
Alan LeHun
In athletics it is (as you state) 0.1s. The logic being that it is not
"possible" for a human to hear the start and react faster than that to it.

I believe this is based on fairly reliable science but is also intended to
be a little cautious - i.e. whilst science tends to suggest that response
to an auditory signal is about 0.14s, a tolerance down to 0.1s makes
allowance for "exceptional" abilities.

F1 is different in that the stimulus to release the clutch is visual - you
see the lights go out.

AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are "scientifically" slower than to
sound. One study I've seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to
0.2s

So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to have a false start
recorded with any start faster than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this
or not. Can't see anything explicit in the regs.

One final point - is it prohibited for drivers to get a "beep" in their
ear when the final light goes out? If so, with a small bit of tech they
might be able to detect the lights, rig up an audible signal from it and
play it into their ears and potentially gain a small reaction time benefit.
Alan LeHun
2017-07-11 10:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are "scientifically" slower than to
sound. One study I've seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to
0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to have a false start
recorded with any start faster than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this
or not. Can't see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was the time between
a strong muscle being contracted and this being detected by a board
beneath the foot would be discernably shorter than a weak muscle being
contracted leading to a brake being released allowing for 3/4 ton of car
to start moving and that being detected. But icbw.

However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the monitoring point
of the brake being released as the reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
larkim
2017-07-11 10:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are "scientifically" slower than to
sound. One study I've seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to
0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to have a false start
recorded with any start faster than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this
or not. Can't see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was the time between
a strong muscle being contracted and this being detected by a board
beneath the foot would be discernably shorter than a weak muscle being
contracted leading to a brake being released allowing for 3/4 ton of car
to start moving and that being detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the monitoring point
of the brake being released as the reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as reported by the
transponder. Which of course begs the question about what inherent
delay in the motion of the car is there between the physical acts of the
driver and the physical motion of the car.

Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by Bottas' car actually
being caused by a premature (or "inhuman") reaction by Bottas' brain /
muscles which would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in a false start being
detected.
Bigbird
2017-07-11 12:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are "scientifically"
slower than to sound. One study I've seen suggests visual
reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to have a
false start recorded with any start faster than about 0.15s.
Don't know if they do this or not. Can't see anything explicit
in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was the time
between a strong muscle being contracted and this being detected by
a board beneath the foot would be discernably shorter than a weak
muscle being contracted leading to a brake being released allowing
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and that being detected. But
icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the monitoring
point of the brake being released as the reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as reported by the
transponder. Which of course begs the question about what inherent
delay in the motion of the car is there between the physical acts of
the driver and the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by Bottas' car
actually being caused by a premature (or "inhuman") reaction by
Bottas' brain / muscles which would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in
a false start being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.



There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
larkim
2017-07-11 12:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are "scientifically"
slower than to sound. One study I've seen suggests visual
reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to have a
false start recorded with any start faster than about 0.15s.
Don't know if they do this or not. Can't see anything explicit
in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was the time
between a strong muscle being contracted and this being detected by
a board beneath the foot would be discernably shorter than a weak
muscle being contracted leading to a brake being released allowing
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and that being detected. But
icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the monitoring
point of the brake being released as the reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as reported by the
transponder. Which of course begs the question about what inherent
delay in the motion of the car is there between the physical acts of
the driver and the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by Bottas' car
actually being caused by a premature (or "inhuman") reaction by
Bottas' brain / muscles which would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in
a false start being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face it, there's
significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel rotation before the lights go
out.

As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small movements
does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow for? We don't seem to
know either of those things.

But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a technical matter like
that.
Bigbird
2017-07-11 13:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are "scientifically"
slower than to sound. One study I've seen suggests visual
reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to have a
false start recorded with any start faster than about 0.15s.
Don't know if they do this or not. Can't see anything
explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was the time
between a strong muscle being contracted and this being
detected by a board beneath the foot would be discernably
shorter than a weak muscle being contracted leading to a brake
being released allowing for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and
that being detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the reaction
point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as reported
by the transponder. Which of course begs the question about what
inherent delay in the motion of the car is there between the
physical acts of the driver and the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by Bottas' car
actually being caused by a premature (or "inhuman") reaction by
Bottas' brain / muscles which would (if he were Usain Bolt)
result in a false start being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face it,
there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel rotation before the
lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small movements
does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow for? We don't seem
to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a technical
matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded to the
lights alone which is what I think you were discussing. Clearly
whatever the measure used it is not adequate to actually prevent or
identify a false start and the 0.2s does not truly represent a reaction
time.
larkim
2017-07-11 13:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are "scientifically"
slower than to sound. One study I've seen suggests visual
reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to have a
false start recorded with any start faster than about 0.15s.
Don't know if they do this or not. Can't see anything
explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was the time
between a strong muscle being contracted and this being
detected by a board beneath the foot would be discernably
shorter than a weak muscle being contracted leading to a brake
being released allowing for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and
that being detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the reaction
point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as reported
by the transponder. Which of course begs the question about what
inherent delay in the motion of the car is there between the
physical acts of the driver and the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by Bottas' car
actually being caused by a premature (or "inhuman") reaction by
Bottas' brain / muscles which would (if he were Usain Bolt)
result in a false start being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face it,
there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel rotation before the
lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small movements
does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow for? We don't seem
to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a technical
matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded to the
lights alone which is what I think you were discussing. Clearly
whatever the measure used it is not adequate to actually prevent or
identify a false start and the 0.2s does not truly represent a reaction
time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his car moved
could be equally explained by a very small change in pressure in the
application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit of "creep", as opposed to the
reaction of the driver to the "go" signal perhaps created by finessing the
clutch position.

Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the small
rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an actual anticipatory
start or just feathering of the clutch / brake (whatever the correct
mechanism is in a current F1 car).
Bigbird
2017-07-11 15:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are
"scientifically" slower than to sound. One study I've
seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to
have a false start recorded with any start faster than
about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this or not. Can't
see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was the
time between a strong muscle being contracted and this being
detected by a board beneath the foot would be discernably
shorter than a weak muscle being contracted leading to a
brake being released allowing for 3/4 ton of car to start
moving and that being detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the reaction
point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as
reported by the transponder. Which of course begs the
question about what inherent delay in the motion of the car
is there between the physical acts of the driver and the
physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by Bottas' car
actually being caused by a premature (or "inhuman") reaction
by Bottas' brain / muscles which would (if he were Usain Bolt)
result in a false start being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face it,
there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel rotation before
the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow for?
We don't seem to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a technical
matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded to the
lights alone which is what I think you were discussing. Clearly
whatever the measure used it is not adequate to actually prevent or
identify a false start and the 0.2s does not truly represent a
reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his car
moved could be equally explained by a very small change in pressure
in the application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit of "creep", as
opposed to the reaction of the driver to the "go" signal perhaps
created by finessing the clutch position.
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the small
rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an actual
anticipatory start or just feathering of the clutch / brake (whatever
the correct mechanism is in a current F1 car).
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling forward before the
lights go out.

I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the "go" signal as the
lights were still on. I do not think it was a coinicidence that he was
rolling early and got the start of his life. You were theorising on the
reaction time but without the full information. The 0.2s did not
represent the time between the lights going out and the car moving.
This why I provided the link.

The way I see it is that he was definitely on the move before the
lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured by the FIA
represents it is not a true reaction time but the difference between
one event and another that seeks but clearly fails to accurately
measure the time between the lights gong out and the car moving. IOW it
purports to be the driver's reaction time but is something a little
different.

Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are concerned. That is not
in dispute.

Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
larkim
2017-07-11 15:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are
"scientifically" slower than to sound. One study I've
seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1 to
have a false start recorded with any start faster than
about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this or not. Can't
see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was the
time between a strong muscle being contracted and this being
detected by a board beneath the foot would be discernably
shorter than a weak muscle being contracted leading to a
brake being released allowing for 3/4 ton of car to start
moving and that being detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the reaction
point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as
reported by the transponder. Which of course begs the
question about what inherent delay in the motion of the car
is there between the physical acts of the driver and the
physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by Bottas' car
actually being caused by a premature (or "inhuman") reaction
by Bottas' brain / muscles which would (if he were Usain Bolt)
result in a false start being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face it,
there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel rotation before
the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow for?
We don't seem to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a technical
matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded to the
lights alone which is what I think you were discussing. Clearly
whatever the measure used it is not adequate to actually prevent or
identify a false start and the 0.2s does not truly represent a
reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his car
moved could be equally explained by a very small change in pressure
in the application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit of "creep", as
opposed to the reaction of the driver to the "go" signal perhaps
created by finessing the clutch position.
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the small
rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an actual
anticipatory start or just feathering of the clutch / brake (whatever
the correct mechanism is in a current F1 car).
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling forward before the
lights go out.
I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the "go" signal as the
lights were still on. I do not think it was a coinicidence that he was
rolling early and got the start of his life. You were theorising on the
reaction time but without the full information. The 0.2s did not
represent the time between the lights going out and the car moving.
This why I provided the link.
The way I see it is that he was definitely on the move before the
lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured by the FIA
represents it is not a true reaction time but the difference between
one event and another that seeks but clearly fails to accurately
measure the time between the lights gong out and the car moving. IOW it
purports to be the driver's reaction time but is something a little
different.
Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are concerned. That is not
in dispute.
Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
Don't disagree with much of that. The more I watch it the more I see
that it does seem to be that Bottas did "something" before the lights,
and got lucky that the net effect of that wasn't enough to cause a
technical false start according to the FIAs way of measuring it.

My points about reaction times etc still stand, but in this case I think
you rightly point out that whilst the FIA say no rule was broken, this
does look and feel like a false start to the ordinary man in the street.
Bigbird
2017-07-11 15:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 11:32:14 UTC+1, Alan LeHun
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are
"scientifically" slower than to sound. One study I've
seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1
to have a false start recorded with any start faster
than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this or not.
Can't see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was
the time between a strong muscle being contracted and
this being detected by a board beneath the foot would
be discernably shorter than a weak muscle being
contracted leading to a brake being released allowing
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and that being
detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the
reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as
reported by the transponder. Which of course begs the
question about what inherent delay in the motion of the
car is there between the physical acts of the driver and
the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by
Bottas' car actually being caused by a premature (or
"inhuman") reaction by Bottas' brain / muscles which
would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in a false start
being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face
it, there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel
rotation before the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow
for? We don't seem to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a
technical matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded
to the lights alone which is what I think you were discussing.
Clearly whatever the measure used it is not adequate to
actually prevent or identify a false start and the 0.2s does
not truly represent a reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his car
moved could be equally explained by a very small change in
pressure in the application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit of
"creep", as opposed to the reaction of the driver to the "go"
signal perhaps created by finessing the clutch position.
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the
small rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an
actual anticipatory start or just feathering of the clutch /
brake (whatever the correct mechanism is in a current F1 car).
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling forward before
the lights go out.
I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the "go" signal as the
lights were still on. I do not think it was a coinicidence that he
was rolling early and got the start of his life. You were
theorising on the reaction time but without the full information.
The 0.2s did not represent the time between the lights going out
and the car moving. This why I provided the link.
The way I see it is that he was definitely on the move before the
lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured by the FIA
represents it is not a true reaction time but the difference between
one event and another that seeks but clearly fails to accurately
measure the time between the lights gong out and the car moving.
IOW it purports to be the driver's reaction time but is something a
little different.
Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are concerned. That is
not in dispute.
Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
Don't disagree with much of that. The more I watch it the more I see
that it does seem to be that Bottas did "something" before the
lights, and got lucky that the net effect of that wasn't enough to
cause a technical false start according to the FIAs way of measuring
it.
My points about reaction times etc still stand, but in this case I
think you rightly point out that whilst the FIA say no rule was
broken, this does look and feel like a false start to the ordinary
man in the street.
I just read this article which explains the position.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/

So some movement is effectively unmeasured.
Heron McKeister
2017-07-11 16:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 16:31:07 UTC+1, Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 14:21:39 UTC+1, Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 13:18:11 UTC+1,
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 11:32:14 UTC+1,
Alan LeHun
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
In article
<b2000856-15f6-4f72-b25c-
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus
are
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
"scientifically" slower than to sound.
One study I've
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
seen suggests visual reaction times
are 0.18s to 0.2s
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
So it would make sense (if that were
correct) for F1
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
to have a false start recorded with
any start faster
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
than about 0.15s. Don't know if they
do this or not.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Can't see anything explicit in the
regs.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My
reasoning was
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
the time between a strong muscle being
contracted and
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
this being detected by a board beneath
the foot would
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
be discernably shorter than a weak
muscle being
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
contracted leading to a brake being
released allowing
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and
that being
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is,
maybe they use the
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
monitoring point of the brake being
released as the
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of
the vehicle as
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
reported by the transponder. Which of
course begs the
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
question about what inherent delay in the
motion of the
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
car is there between the physical acts of
the driver and
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s
reaction by
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Bottas' car actually being caused by a
premature (or
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
"inhuman") reaction by Bottas' brain /
muscles which
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in a
false start
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually
represents.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while
the lights were
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
still on.
I'm not going to argue with their
transponders. Let's face
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
it, there's significantly less than 1/10th of
a wheel
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
rotation before the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What
tolerance for small
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time
do they allow
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
for? We don't seem to know either of those
things.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the
stewards on a
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
technical matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that
he responded
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
to the lights alone which is what I think you
were discussing.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Clearly whatever the measure used it is not
adequate to
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
actually prevent or identify a false start and
the 0.2s does
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
not truly represent a reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of
motion that his car
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
moved could be equally explained by a very small
change in
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
pressure in the application of the clutch couldn't
it - a bit of
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
"creep", as opposed to the reaction of the driver
to the "go"
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
signal perhaps created by finessing the clutch
position.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely
sure that the
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
small rotation of the wheel before the lights went
out was an
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
actual anticipatory start or just feathering of
the clutch /
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
brake (whatever the correct mechanism is in a
current F1 car).
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling
forward before
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
the lights go out.
I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the
"go" signal as the
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
lights were still on. I do not think it was a
coinicidence that he
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
was rolling early and got the start of his life. You
were
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
theorising on the reaction time but without the full
information.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
The 0.2s did not represent the time between the
lights going out
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
and the car moving. This why I provided the link.
The way I see it is that he was definitely on the
move before the
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured
by the FIA
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
represents it is not a true reaction time but the
difference between
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
one event and another that seeks but clearly fails
to accurately
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
measure the time between the lights gong out and the
car moving.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
IOW it purports to be the driver's reaction time but
is something a
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
little different.
Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are
concerned. That is
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
not in dispute.
Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
Don't disagree with much of that. The more I watch it
the more I see
Post by Bigbird
that it does seem to be that Bottas did "something"
before the
Post by Bigbird
lights, and got lucky that the net effect of that
wasn't enough to
Post by Bigbird
cause a technical false start according to the FIAs
way of measuring
Post by Bigbird
it.
My points about reaction times etc still stand, but in
this case I
Post by Bigbird
think you rightly point out that whilst the FIA say no
rule was
Post by Bigbird
broken, this does look and feel like a false start to
the ordinary
Post by Bigbird
man in the street.
I just read this article which explains the position.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-
penalty-austria-fia-928763/
Post by Bigbird
So some movement is effectively unmeasured.
that very one and even more informative articles have
alread been posted which better explained the situation.
--
Lurking on Usenet since '88.
~misfit~
2017-07-12 01:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 11:32:14 UTC+1, Alan LeHun
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are
"scientifically" slower than to sound. One study I've
seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1
to have a false start recorded with any start faster
than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this or not.
Can't see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was
the time between a strong muscle being contracted and
this being detected by a board beneath the foot would
be discernably shorter than a weak muscle being
contracted leading to a brake being released allowing
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and that being
detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the
reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as
reported by the transponder. Which of course begs the
question about what inherent delay in the motion of the
car is there between the physical acts of the driver and
the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by
Bottas' car actually being caused by a premature (or
"inhuman") reaction by Bottas' brain / muscles which
would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in a false start
being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face
it, there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel
rotation before the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow
for? We don't seem to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a
technical matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded
to the lights alone which is what I think you were discussing.
Clearly whatever the measure used it is not adequate to
actually prevent or identify a false start and the 0.2s does
not truly represent a reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his car
moved could be equally explained by a very small change in
pressure in the application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit of
"creep", as opposed to the reaction of the driver to the "go"
signal perhaps created by finessing the clutch position.
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the
small rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an
actual anticipatory start or just feathering of the clutch /
brake (whatever the correct mechanism is in a current F1 car).
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling forward before
the lights go out.
I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the "go" signal as the
lights were still on. I do not think it was a coinicidence that he
was rolling early and got the start of his life. You were
theorising on the reaction time but without the full information.
The 0.2s did not represent the time between the lights going out
and the car moving. This why I provided the link.
The way I see it is that he was definitely on the move before the
lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured by the FIA
represents it is not a true reaction time but the difference between
one event and another that seeks but clearly fails to accurately
measure the time between the lights gong out and the car moving.
IOW it purports to be the driver's reaction time but is something a
little different.
Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are concerned. That is
not in dispute.
Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
Don't disagree with much of that. The more I watch it the more I see
that it does seem to be that Bottas did "something" before the
lights, and got lucky that the net effect of that wasn't enough to
cause a technical false start according to the FIAs way of measuring
it.
My points about reaction times etc still stand, but in this case I
think you rightly point out that whilst the FIA say no rule was
broken, this does look and feel like a false start to the ordinary
man in the street.
I just read this article which explains the position.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/
So some movement is effectively unmeasured.
Since the change to a single clutch paddle (with *no* haptic feedback) and
no pre-set bite point the only way for a driver to judge the bite-point at
the start is to ease the paddle out until the car starts to move (or 'tugs'
on the brakes). Because of this there can't be a rule that says the cars
must be perfectly still in the start box before the start...

(Actually there could be such a rule but drivers not knowing their
bite-points would result in some good starts and a bunch of terrible ones up
and down the grid that would, more often than not cause mayhem at each and
every start. Especially with anti-stall.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
keithr0
2017-07-12 05:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 11:32:14 UTC+1, Alan LeHun
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are
"scientifically" slower than to sound. One study I've
seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1
to have a false start recorded with any start faster
than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this or not.
Can't see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was
the time between a strong muscle being contracted and
this being detected by a board beneath the foot would
be discernably shorter than a weak muscle being
contracted leading to a brake being released allowing
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and that being
detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the
reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as
reported by the transponder. Which of course begs the
question about what inherent delay in the motion of the
car is there between the physical acts of the driver and
the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by
Bottas' car actually being caused by a premature (or
"inhuman") reaction by Bottas' brain / muscles which
would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in a false start
being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face
it, there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel
rotation before the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow
for? We don't seem to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a
technical matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded
to the lights alone which is what I think you were discussing.
Clearly whatever the measure used it is not adequate to
actually prevent or identify a false start and the 0.2s does
not truly represent a reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his car
moved could be equally explained by a very small change in
pressure in the application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit of
"creep", as opposed to the reaction of the driver to the "go"
signal perhaps created by finessing the clutch position.
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the
small rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an
actual anticipatory start or just feathering of the clutch /
brake (whatever the correct mechanism is in a current F1 car).
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling forward before
the lights go out.
I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the "go" signal as the
lights were still on. I do not think it was a coinicidence that he
was rolling early and got the start of his life. You were
theorising on the reaction time but without the full information.
The 0.2s did not represent the time between the lights going out
and the car moving. This why I provided the link.
The way I see it is that he was definitely on the move before the
lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured by the FIA
represents it is not a true reaction time but the difference between
one event and another that seeks but clearly fails to accurately
measure the time between the lights gong out and the car moving.
IOW it purports to be the driver's reaction time but is something a
little different.
Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are concerned. That is
not in dispute.
Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
Don't disagree with much of that. The more I watch it the more I see
that it does seem to be that Bottas did "something" before the
lights, and got lucky that the net effect of that wasn't enough to
cause a technical false start according to the FIAs way of measuring
it.
My points about reaction times etc still stand, but in this case I
think you rightly point out that whilst the FIA say no rule was
broken, this does look and feel like a false start to the ordinary
man in the street.
I just read this article which explains the position.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/
So some movement is effectively unmeasured.
AFIAK the race starts when the lights go out, so, if a driver can
anticipate that point and get the car moving 1 nanosecond later that has
to be a fair start. If the FIAs equipment cannot detect the movement
within some tolerance then that tolerance has to be allowed to the
driver. The drivers reaction time is immaterial only the movement of the
car is relevant.
Post by ~misfit~
Since the change to a single clutch paddle (with *no* haptic feedback) and
no pre-set bite point the only way for a driver to judge the bite-point at
the start is to ease the paddle out until the car starts to move (or 'tugs'
on the brakes). Because of this there can't be a rule that says the cars
must be perfectly still in the start box before the start...
If a driver creeps a little while setting the clutch, the that should be
fair as long as he comes to a complete halt again before starting and
remains in his start box.
Post by ~misfit~
(Actually there could be such a rule but drivers not knowing their
bite-points would result in some good starts and a bunch of terrible ones up
and down the grid that would, more often than not cause mayhem at each and
every start. Especially with anti-stall.)
~misfit~
2017-07-13 06:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 11:32:14 UTC+1, Alan LeHun
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are
"scientifically" slower than to sound. One study I've
seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1
to have a false start recorded with any start faster
than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this or not.
Can't see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was
the time between a strong muscle being contracted and
this being detected by a board beneath the foot would
be discernably shorter than a weak muscle being
contracted leading to a brake being released allowing
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and that being
detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the
reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as
reported by the transponder. Which of course begs the
question about what inherent delay in the motion of the
car is there between the physical acts of the driver and
the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by
Bottas' car actually being caused by a premature (or
"inhuman") reaction by Bottas' brain / muscles which
would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in a false start
being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face
it, there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel
rotation before the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow
for? We don't seem to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a
technical matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded
to the lights alone which is what I think you were discussing.
Clearly whatever the measure used it is not adequate to
actually prevent or identify a false start and the 0.2s does
not truly represent a reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his car
moved could be equally explained by a very small change in
pressure in the application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit of
"creep", as opposed to the reaction of the driver to the "go"
signal perhaps created by finessing the clutch position.
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the
small rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an
actual anticipatory start or just feathering of the clutch /
brake (whatever the correct mechanism is in a current F1 car).
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling forward
before the lights go out.
I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the "go" signal as
the lights were still on. I do not think it was a coinicidence
that he was rolling early and got the start of his life. You were
theorising on the reaction time but without the full information.
The 0.2s did not represent the time between the lights going out
and the car moving. This why I provided the link.
The way I see it is that he was definitely on the move before the
lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured by the FIA
represents it is not a true reaction time but the difference
between one event and another that seeks but clearly fails to
accurately measure the time between the lights gong out and the
car moving. IOW it purports to be the driver's reaction time but
is something a little different.
Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are concerned. That is
not in dispute.
Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
Don't disagree with much of that. The more I watch it the more I
see that it does seem to be that Bottas did "something" before the
lights, and got lucky that the net effect of that wasn't enough to
cause a technical false start according to the FIAs way of
measuring it.
My points about reaction times etc still stand, but in this case I
think you rightly point out that whilst the FIA say no rule was
broken, this does look and feel like a false start to the ordinary
man in the street.
I just read this article which explains the position.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/
So some movement is effectively unmeasured.
AFIAK the race starts when the lights go out, so, if a driver can
anticipate that point and get the car moving 1 nanosecond later that
has to be a fair start. If the FIAs equipment cannot detect the
movement within some tolerance then that tolerance has to be allowed
to the driver. The drivers reaction time is immaterial only the
movement of the car is relevant.
Post by ~misfit~
Since the change to a single clutch paddle (with *no* haptic
feedback) and no pre-set bite point the only way for a driver to
judge the bite-point at the start is to ease the paddle out until
the car starts to move (or 'tugs' on the brakes). Because of this
there can't be a rule that says the cars must be perfectly still in
the start box before the start...
If a driver creeps a little while setting the clutch, the that should
be fair as long as he comes to a complete halt again before starting
and remains in his start box.
"Setting the clutch"?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
(Actually there could be such a rule but drivers not knowing their
bite-points would result in some good starts and a bunch of terrible
ones up and down the grid that would, more often than not cause
mayhem at each and every start. Especially with anti-stall.)
keithr0
2017-07-13 12:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 11:32:14 UTC+1, Alan LeHun
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are
"scientifically" slower than to sound. One study I've
seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1
to have a false start recorded with any start faster
than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this or not.
Can't see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was
the time between a strong muscle being contracted and
this being detected by a board beneath the foot would
be discernably shorter than a weak muscle being
contracted leading to a brake being released allowing
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and that being
detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the
reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as
reported by the transponder. Which of course begs the
question about what inherent delay in the motion of the
car is there between the physical acts of the driver and
the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by
Bottas' car actually being caused by a premature (or
"inhuman") reaction by Bottas' brain / muscles which
would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in a false start
being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face
it, there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel
rotation before the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow
for? We don't seem to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a
technical matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded
to the lights alone which is what I think you were discussing.
Clearly whatever the measure used it is not adequate to
actually prevent or identify a false start and the 0.2s does
not truly represent a reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his car
moved could be equally explained by a very small change in
pressure in the application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit of
"creep", as opposed to the reaction of the driver to the "go"
signal perhaps created by finessing the clutch position.
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the
small rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an
actual anticipatory start or just feathering of the clutch /
brake (whatever the correct mechanism is in a current F1 car).
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling forward
before the lights go out.
I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the "go" signal as
the lights were still on. I do not think it was a coinicidence
that he was rolling early and got the start of his life. You were
theorising on the reaction time but without the full information.
The 0.2s did not represent the time between the lights going out
and the car moving. This why I provided the link.
The way I see it is that he was definitely on the move before the
lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured by the FIA
represents it is not a true reaction time but the difference
between one event and another that seeks but clearly fails to
accurately measure the time between the lights gong out and the
car moving. IOW it purports to be the driver's reaction time but
is something a little different.
Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are concerned. That is
not in dispute.
Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
Don't disagree with much of that. The more I watch it the more I
see that it does seem to be that Bottas did "something" before the
lights, and got lucky that the net effect of that wasn't enough to
cause a technical false start according to the FIAs way of
measuring it.
My points about reaction times etc still stand, but in this case I
think you rightly point out that whilst the FIA say no rule was
broken, this does look and feel like a false start to the ordinary
man in the street.
I just read this article which explains the position.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/
So some movement is effectively unmeasured.
AFIAK the race starts when the lights go out, so, if a driver can
anticipate that point and get the car moving 1 nanosecond later that
has to be a fair start. If the FIAs equipment cannot detect the
movement within some tolerance then that tolerance has to be allowed
to the driver. The drivers reaction time is immaterial only the
movement of the car is relevant.
Post by ~misfit~
Since the change to a single clutch paddle (with *no* haptic
feedback) and no pre-set bite point the only way for a driver to
judge the bite-point at the start is to ease the paddle out until
the car starts to move (or 'tugs' on the brakes). Because of this
there can't be a rule that says the cars must be perfectly still in
the start box before the start...
If a driver creeps a little while setting the clutch, the that should
be fair as long as he comes to a complete halt again before starting
and remains in his start box.
"Setting the clutch"?
Judging the bite-point if you want to be pedantic.
~misfit~
2017-07-13 13:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
Post by larkim
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 11:32:14 UTC+1, Alan LeHun
In article
Post by larkim
AIUI reaction times to visual stimulus are
"scientifically" slower than to sound. One study I've
seen suggests visual reaction times are 0.18s to 0.2s
So it would make sense (if that were correct) for F1
to have a false start recorded with any start faster
than about 0.15s. Don't know if they do this or not.
Can't see anything explicit in the regs.
Mmmm. I don't know about any of this. My reasoning was
the time between a strong muscle being contracted and
this being detected by a board beneath the foot would
be discernably shorter than a weak muscle being
contracted leading to a brake being released allowing
for 3/4 ton of car to start moving and that being
detected. But icbw.
However, with tech being what it is, maybe they use the
monitoring point of the brake being released as the
reaction point.
--
Alan LeHun
I suspect they simply use the motion of the vehicle as
reported by the transponder. Which of course begs the
question about what inherent delay in the motion of the
car is there between the physical acts of the driver and
the physical motion of the car.
Which of course could result in a 0.2s reaction by
Bottas' car actually being caused by a premature (or
"inhuman") reaction by Bottas' brain / muscles which
would (if he were Usain Bolt) result in a false start
being detected.
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
http://youtu.be/UvxqjrQr7LE
There certainly appears to be movement while the lights were still on.
I'm not going to argue with their transponders. Let's face
it, there's significantly less than 1/10th of a wheel
rotation before the lights go out.
As usual its a transparency thing. What tolerance for small
movements does F1 allow? What reaction time do they allow
for? We don't seem to know either of those things.
But, as usual, I'm happy to go with the stewards on a
technical matter like that.
I provided the link in case there was doubt that he responded
to the lights alone which is what I think you were discussing.
Clearly whatever the measure used it is not adequate to
actually prevent or identify a false start and the 0.2s does
not truly represent a reaction time.
Yes, but what is a "reaction"? The few cm of motion that his
car moved could be equally explained by a very small change in
pressure in the application of the clutch couldn't it - a bit
of "creep", as opposed to the reaction of the driver to the
"go" signal perhaps created by finessing the clutch position.
Given the speed of that replay I wasn't entirely sure that the
small rotation of the wheel before the lights went out was an
actual anticipatory start or just feathering of the clutch /
brake (whatever the correct mechanism is in a current F1 car).
I don't think it is normal for cars to start rolling forward
before the lights go out.
I don't dispute that it was not a reaction to the "go" signal as
the lights were still on. I do not think it was a coinicidence
that he was rolling early and got the start of his life. You
were theorising on the reaction time but without the full
information. The 0.2s did not represent the time between the
lights going out and the car moving. This why I provided the
link. The way I see it is that he was definitely on the move before
the lights went out. Whatever the reaction time measured by the
FIA represents it is not a true reaction time but the difference
between one event and another that seeks but clearly fails to
accurately measure the time between the lights gong out and the
car moving. IOW it purports to be the driver's reaction time but
is something a little different.
Clearly it was also legal as far as the FIA are concerned. That
is not in dispute.
Vettel was ungracious but not incorrect.
Don't disagree with much of that. The more I watch it the more I
see that it does seem to be that Bottas did "something" before
the lights, and got lucky that the net effect of that wasn't
enough to cause a technical false start according to the FIAs
way of measuring it.
My points about reaction times etc still stand, but in this case
I think you rightly point out that whilst the FIA say no rule was
broken, this does look and feel like a false start to the
ordinary man in the street.
I just read this article which explains the position.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/
So some movement is effectively unmeasured.
AFIAK the race starts when the lights go out, so, if a driver can
anticipate that point and get the car moving 1 nanosecond later that
has to be a fair start. If the FIAs equipment cannot detect the
movement within some tolerance then that tolerance has to be allowed
to the driver. The drivers reaction time is immaterial only the
movement of the car is relevant.
Post by ~misfit~
Since the change to a single clutch paddle (with *no* haptic
feedback) and no pre-set bite point the only way for a driver to
judge the bite-point at the start is to ease the paddle out until
the car starts to move (or 'tugs' on the brakes). Because of this
there can't be a rule that says the cars must be perfectly still in
the start box before the start...
If a driver creeps a little while setting the clutch, the that
should be fair as long as he comes to a complete halt again before
starting and remains in his start box.
"Setting the clutch"?
Judging the bite-point if you want to be pedantic.
It's not pedantry to want to understand what you're trying to say so why so
defensive?

They're essentially sitting there riding the clutch after the lights come on
but it's not as easy as in a normal manual car as there's no haptic
feedback - no 'feel' through a pedal - they're using a fingertip paddle so
the only 'feel' they get is when the car lurches a little or the revs drop.
However it takes a lot to drop the revs of one of those monsters. I imagine
it's a tricky thing controlling the clutch on a ~1,000 bhp PU with what is
essentially a spring-loaded potentiometer.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Edmund
2017-07-11 13:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
Post by .
Vettel was told Bottas' start reaction time was 0.201 sec.
and gave the earnest reply: "I don't believe it" implying that
someone either had it wrong or was lying.
Vettel's the ultimate punk, I hope to see Vettel unable to complete
the full season.
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
VET is terrified of the Ferrari management. He was simply trying to
divert a bollocking at the debrief by claiming that BOT jumped the
start. His (VET) start was shocking and he was simply covering his
ass.
Bottas didn't jump the start, but it was down to a couple of hundredths
from having been deemed to have done so, so I can see why Vettel might
have seen it the other way.
And Ricciardo saw it that way as well.
I don't know why you should only be able to start moving more than 0.1s
after the lights go out, rather than 0.001s.
I see your point but the rules are different.
It is allowed to move BEFORE the lights go out and that is exactly what
Bottas did.
The FIA made some strange regulation that one cannot -pass the starting
line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds.
Post by Bruce Hoult
The timing is random, so if you're going to guess the timing and start
the clutch release before the lights actually go out then you're going
to get it wrong 99 times out of 100.
I guess that your guess is wrong and mainly because that random timing is
limited.

Edmund
Bigbird
2017-07-11 15:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
I see your point but the rules are different.
It is allowed to move BEFORE the lights go out and that is exactly
what Bottas did.
The FIA made some strange regulation that one cannot -pass the
starting line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds.
No, there is no such regulation. A false start is predicated on the
movement of the car not it's position.

Apparently there is a tolerance that allows a car to be moving without
be adjudged to have "started".
Edmund
2017-07-11 15:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
I see your point but the rules are different.
It is allowed to move BEFORE the lights go out and that is exactly what
Bottas did.
The FIA made some strange regulation that one cannot -pass the starting
line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds.
No, there is no such regulation. A false start is predicated on the
movement of the car not it's position.
Apparently there is a tolerance that allows a car to be moving without
be adjudged to have "started".
So with this you just nullified your first remark which leaves us with
what I said. :-)

Edmund
Bigbird
2017-07-11 16:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
I see your point but the rules are different.
It is allowed to move BEFORE the lights go out and that is exactly
what >> Bottas did.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
The FIA made some strange regulation that one cannot -pass the
starting >> line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds.
Post by Bigbird
No, there is no such regulation. A false start is predicated on the
movement of the car not it's position.
Apparently there is a tolerance that allows a car to be moving
without be adjudged to have "started".
So with this you just nullified your first remark which leaves us
with what I said. :-)
If you think that then you misunderstand. Your assertion regarding the
"strange regulation" was and is simply incorrect, fabricated.
Edmund
2017-07-11 17:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
I see your point but the rules are different.
It is allowed to move BEFORE the lights go out and that is exactly
what >> Bottas did.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
The FIA made some strange regulation that one cannot -pass the
starting >> line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds.
Post by Bigbird
No, there is no such regulation. A false start is predicated on the
movement of the car not it's position.
Apparently there is a tolerance that allows a car to be moving
without be adjudged to have "started".
So with this you just nullified your first remark which leaves us with
what I said. :-)
If you think that then you misunderstand. Your assertion regarding the
"strange regulation" was and is simply incorrect, fabricated.
OK, tell us how it is and provide your source.
As the previous posters pointed out there is a -strange- rule concerning
reaction time.

Edmund
Bigbird
2017-07-11 17:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
I see your point but the rules are different.
It is allowed to move BEFORE the lights go out and that is
exactly >> what >> Bottas did.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
The FIA made some strange regulation that one cannot -pass the
starting >> line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds.
Post by Bigbird
No, there is no such regulation. A false start is predicated on
the >> > movement of the car not it's position.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Apparently there is a tolerance that allows a car to be moving
without be adjudged to have "started".
So with this you just nullified your first remark which leaves us
with >> what I said. :-)
Post by Bigbird
If you think that then you misunderstand. Your assertion regarding
the "strange regulation" was and is simply incorrect, fabricated.
OK, tell us how it is and provide your source.
As the previous posters pointed out there is a -strange- rule
concerning reaction time.
Okay. Well my first source is the FIA regulations which do not as you
claim have any regulation bearing any resemblance to "one cannot -pass
the starting line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds".

You know where to find them even if you have never read them.

www.fia.com

As for "how it is"

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/
Edmund
2017-07-11 21:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
I see your point but the rules are different.
It is allowed to move BEFORE the lights go out and that is
exactly >> what >> Bottas did.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
The FIA made some strange regulation that one cannot -pass the
starting >> line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds.
Post by Bigbird
No, there is no such regulation. A false start is predicated on
the >> > movement of the car not it's position.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Apparently there is a tolerance that allows a car to be moving
without be adjudged to have "started".
So with this you just nullified your first remark which leaves us
with >> what I said. :-)
Post by Bigbird
If you think that then you misunderstand. Your assertion regarding
the "strange regulation" was and is simply incorrect, fabricated.
OK, tell us how it is and provide your source.
As the previous posters pointed out there is a -strange- rule
concerning reaction time.
Okay. Well my first source is the FIA regulations which do not as you
claim have any regulation bearing any resemblance to "one cannot -pass
the starting line I guess- quicker then .xx seconds".
You know where to find them even if you have never read them.
www.fia.com
As for "how it is"
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-
fia-928763/

Yes you are right about my -presumed- starting line, but what I meant
with strange regulation is about some minimum allowed reaction time.

BTW the FIA reported reaction time of more then .2 seconds is weird by
itself given that Bottas started while the lights where still ON.
That secret un-quantified -very small- distance therefore cannot be that
small.
Bigbird
2017-07-11 21:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
BTW the FIA reported reaction time of more then .2 seconds is weird
by itself given that Bottas started while the lights where still ON.
That secret un-quantified -very small- distance therefore cannot be
that small.
Edmund, it feels like a long time since we last agreed on something. :)
Edmund
2017-07-12 08:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Edmund
BTW the FIA reported reaction time of more then .2 seconds is weird by
itself given that Bottas started while the lights where still ON.
That secret un-quantified -very small- distance therefore cannot be
that small.
Edmund, it feels like a long time since we last agreed on something. :)
Did we ever? :-)

Edmund
Bobster
2017-07-15 11:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
BTW the FIA reported reaction time of more then .2 seconds is weird by
itself given that Bottas started while the lights where still ON.
That secret un-quantified -very small- distance therefore cannot be that
small.
I didn't catch the entire insert, but Pat Symonds on Sky said that they allow 30cm. That's not that little.

He showed a trace supplied by Williams of a start that Maldonado made, in which moved 60cm before the lights went out. Start disallowed.

Two more things he said
1) Only Merc and FIA know exactly how much Bottas moved - and unless Merc put that data in the public domain, the exact distance remains unknown.
2) The stewards will know if anybody jumped the start before the first lap is finished.
.
2017-07-15 12:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
BTW the FIA reported reaction time of more then .2 seconds is weird by
itself given that Bottas started while the lights where still ON.
That secret un-quantified -very small- distance therefore cannot be that
small.
I didn't catch the entire insert, but Pat Symonds on Sky said that they allow 30cm. That's not that little.
That's almost a foot. Surely he meant 30 mm?
--
My mirror continues its finite yet unbounded journey.
Alan LeHun
2017-07-11 17:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Bigbird
No, there is no such regulation. A false start is predicated on the
movement of the car not it's position.
Apparently there is a tolerance that allows a car to be moving without
be adjudged to have "started".
So with this you just nullified your first remark which leaves us with
what I said. :-)
The first remark states that the judgement is made on a cars movement.

The second remark says that 'some finite' movement is allowed before the
judgement is initiated.

What you said was that the judgement was relative to the starting line
which apparently, it is not.



There is no surprise that there is confusion with FIA saying that the
exact mechanism of the judgement is 'secret'.
--
Alan LeHun
Edmund
2017-07-11 21:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan LeHun
Post by Edmund
Post by Bigbird
No, there is no such regulation. A false start is predicated on the
movement of the car not it's position.
Apparently there is a tolerance that allows a car to be moving
without be adjudged to have "started".
So with this you just nullified your first remark which leaves us with
what I said. :-)
The first remark states that the judgement is made on a cars movement.
The second remark says that 'some finite' movement is allowed before the
judgement is initiated.
What you said was that the judgement was relative to the starting line
which apparently, it is not.
OK I presumed it was the starting line that registers the reaction time
but if they found a more complicated way :-) fine.
To be honest, it make sense to measure the actual movement instead of the
starting line because it gives more freedom in positioning the cars for
the start.
What I meant with a strange regulation is about the reaction time that
may not be too short. ( from what I read here and there )
Post by Alan LeHun
There is no surprise that there is confusion with FIA saying that the
exact mechanism of the judgement is 'secret'.
Do they say that? Funny guys.
Anyway what is clear ( to me ) is that Bottas started before the lights
went off, which seems to be OK according the regulations as long as one
don't move more then a secret distance.

What is remarkable is that both Vettel and Ricciardo noticed that from
their positions in their cars.

Edmund
Alan LeHun
2017-07-11 22:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
OK I presumed it was the starting line that registers the reaction time
but if they found a more complicated way :-) fine.
Well from what I've heard, it's simply the transponders in the road
under the starting positions which to be fair, can accurately record
very small movements with a high degree of accuracy.
Post by Edmund
To be honest, it make sense to measure the actual movement instead of the
starting line because it gives more freedom in positioning the cars for
the start.
What I meant with a strange regulation is about the reaction time that
may not be too short. ( from what I read here and there )
Post by Alan LeHun
There is no surprise that there is confusion with FIA saying that the
exact mechanism of the judgement is 'secret'.
Do they say that? Funny guys.
They did that. :)
Post by Edmund
Anyway what is clear ( to me ) is that Bottas started before the lights
went off, which seems to be OK according the regulations as long as one
don't move more then a secret distance.
What is remarkable is that both Vettel and Ricciardo noticed that from
their positions in their cars.
You'd think so, but our eyes, like the eyes of most other vertebrates,
are at their most sensitive when detecting movement.

But yes, I imagine that an F1 pilot would have acquired an extra-sensory
perception in that aptitude, just to make it to F1.
--
Alan LeHun
Loading...