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
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
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
I'd question what the 0.2s reported actually represents.
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
man in the street.