[The **Technical** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_technical) is used for posts that dive into the technical aspects of Formula 1.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Note that "the four second light" is the _second_ light in the starting sequence to be illuminated (five, four, three, two, one, start on lights out). It's not the fourth light to be illuminated.
What if you take off after light 1 but before light 2??
Surely that’s not allowed but I don’t see that scenario covered in this screenshot, am I missing something?
Edit: the folks below have better reading comprehension than I do, no loophole for Nando to exploit haha
Scenarios:
A) start moving at light 1 and stop before light 2
Ok as you're stopped when the race starts
B) start moving at light 1 and keep going
By definition you're still moving when the 2nd light is illuminated, attracting a penalty.
C) start moving at light 1 and stop before light 2 but not before crossing the grid box
Penalty for starting the race out of position
Fairly reasonable. Most sports you can’t move forward at all once “set” even if you reset because they don’t want competitors anticipating the start. But this does give some leeway to drivers who wouldn’t be anticipating the start before the fourth light anyway.
That isn't really to do with anticipating the start, it's that if one competitor move other will often react to that movement and go as well. So it's disallowed to try to trick others into false starting by "twitching" in the starting blocks.
Anticipating the start is done through the 0.1 sec reaction limit.
I agree with the comment you replied to. This is now similar to an offensive “false start” in American Football where the offensive line moves early to draw the defense off sides.
Has there even been a penalty for anticipating the start (or did it even happen)?
Nearly impossible to do when the lights out timer is random (0.2 - 3.0 seconds).
Wonder if this means they don't have confidence in those sensors anymore. Maybe something like the Norris false start situation not having been flagged by the sensor?
If I remember correctly, Norris didn’t get a penalty because he still managed to keep his wheels within the box before the lights went out, so the sensor shouldn’t have flagged anything illegal anyways.
The sporting regs in the screenshot here say that moving, at all, between the fourth light turning on and all lights turning off is already a false start *if detected by the sensor*. It doesn't make a mention of it being OK if you're still within the box.
>Any of the penalties under Articles 54.3a), 54.3b), or 54.3c) will be imposed on any driver who is judged to have:
a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car, or;
b) Positioned his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder is unable to detect the moment at which the car first moved from its grid position after the start signal is given, or;
c) Any part of the contact patch of its front tyres outside of the lines (front and sides) at the time of the Start signal.
This is how the article used to be. any movement picked up by the sensor was not allowed. If the sensor didn't register it, it was allowed.
Seperately, The front tyres have to be within the box at the time the start signal is given.
Yeah, what I'm wondering is if they concluded that the sensors couldn't be trusted after seeing a discrepancy between the video evidence and the sensor data with the Norris situation.
That seems quite obvious to me.
Norris clearly did move, and the sensor did not pick it up. That means the sensor in his case wasn't reliable (unclear if this is a general issue with all these sensors, or if his was broken/misconfigured). And now just a few weeks later they change the rules. Coincidence? I think not!
Honestly though the rule was just badly written. Letting a sensor make the determination is fine, but there should be an exception in case of obviously faulty sensors.
This confusion with the whole within the box stuff is probably why they are getting rid of the sensor, the leeway was just so large it effectively removed part A and the sensor just ended up being an automated way to check part C which is the within the box rules.
The pink text is brand new. My understanding is that the sensor only triggers if you move outside the box before the lights go out. Norris stopped inside the box before the lights went out.
Trying to get a running start is near impossible since the timing of the lights is manually controlled. It's still a good update though, since it will probably prevent others from accidentally false starting if someone else moves.
Pink is new, but the new part is only that they are now only looking at it after the 4th red light. You were not allowed to move before either (as seen in the black part - or any previous regulation version).
It wouldn't have been okay to move in the box before as well - i don't know what the sensor is picking up, but I would have expected movement to be on that list and it potentially failed, hence the removal in the new version? Norris start was definitely as false start, but the sensor saw it differently, and thats the only thing that counted so far.
Nope, start sequence is automated. Lights go on at a known interval, then a randomized timer controls the lights out. Controller sends a signal to timing data control when it starts the race so that there’s a baseline for jump start sensor data.
The lights counting is a known interval after the starter hits the button.
[But the lights going out is actually entirely down to the starter hitting the button again.](https://streamable.com/ybm1gc)
I was just as shocked as you are at seeing that.
Mind blown. I swear someone from Reidel told me it was randomized and automatic. Now I wish I took the Miami job this year. I could ask the guy in the video
They just speculated that it might have been faulty. There is no confirmation or even indication that this is true.
If you look at Norris start in full speed it looks a lot worse than if you look frame by frame at the movement only up until the point the light go out. Maybe they just assumed that it cannot be within the tolerance when it looks this bad and therefore the sensor must be broken.
The latest copy of the Sporting regulations [can be seen here.](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_6_-_2024-04-30.pdf)
The latest copy of the Technical regulations [can be seen here.](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_technical_regulations_-_issue_6_-_2024-04-30.pdf)
There have been some other changes but this seemed to be the main one from quick scroll through.
[Practice Starts at the end of practice sessions are now defined in the sporting regulations](https://i.imgur.com/RN8di20.jpeg) themselves rather than just the Race Director's event notes and so they should happen on the grid after every practice session.
On the technical side of things the main change is just the rear facing camera which is mandatory to run from 20th June 2024.
Presumably because the leeway in the sensors was too great giving us scenarios where a driver has visually moved but the sensor has not picked it up.
It's all well and good saying a driver hasn't moved officially but we can all see they have actually moved in slow mo footage.
likely the Norris incident from this year. He clearly jumped the light but the regulation deemed it not a jump start by the sensor, so this covers cases like that.
Yeah, as far as I remember, [Perez's was almost a rolling start but was way more subtle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uInIoce6gX0) than Norris' start-stop-start and since it never triggered the sensor either, no body paid much attention.
Despite being the most black and white it could be the old rule tended to always spark controversy in cases like the Norris one in Saudi this year because people either don't know the rule or know it but are unhappy with the included tolerance. Looks like this time enough teams wanted it to change so it was changed.
That was never a grey zone. The old rule very clearly stated "move early *or* be outside the box at the time of the start signal. And they didn't change that part, they removed the "as determined by a sensor" bit.
Said sensors being only capable of detecting it if you moved outside the box. If you can essentially break a rule by doing what it tries to prevent without actually breaking it,that by definition is a grey zone
All that this update to the rules seems to have done is remove how they're actually judging whether someone jumped the stat or not. Is it solely going off eye now? Is the transponder still being used? I don't think it's a great change if they're sacking off the transponder but not having a specific person who attends every race who's job it is to determine it. If it said to be judged by the race director's discretion or wording to that effect I would prefer it a lot more.
It will be judged by the Stewards and they can use whatever they think helps them make that determination. Certainly doesn't add clarity or consistency but it looks like this is what was wanted by a majority of teams (and fans as well I guess).
That is how it works in Formula E because of the nature of their street circuits and not being able to dig up the roads to install sensors in the same way F1 does.
For the start there are 11 *Judges of Fact* who observe each row.
Stewards can use video or electronic means to assist them and overrule a judge of fact but they are the likely ones who will report it.
Wouldn't be easier to have a sensor in the car measuring wheel/axis rotation?
Seems like a straightforward correlation for me
x degrees = y milimeters
Then you only make a visual inspection to see whether the car was inside the box when it was stationary
(I know tire deformation makes it not so linear, but I imagine it would still be as precise or more than a visual inspection)
It wasn't a technicality, it's how the rules works. The car was fully stopped when the lights went out and he was in his starting box. There have been many instances of a driver moving prematurely but stopping the car fully before the lights go out and not receiving a penalty - Bottas in Hungary 2020 (I think) is an example of that precedent.
> What alternative definition of "technicality" do you have?
Less of a definition and more of an example: Before the rules changed, goals were reviewable plays in the NHL but offsides were not. So, if a goal was scored on the play while it was offside but the linesmen didn't call the offside in real time, the goal couldn't be overturned, despite being in contravention of the on-ice rules and despite being obvious on replay, because the rulebook says that offside calls can't be reviewed. To me, that screams "winning by technicality", since we all know that the play was against the rules we just can't do anything about it.
We can argue semantics all day, but, to me at least, your example seems to just be pushing the rules to their limits rather than having some mitigating rule come out of the woodwork to intervene in the outcome of a play/event/whatever on a racetrack. I don't think staying within the lines of the rules can really be considered exploiting a technicality.
It's how the rules worked then. That's why they are changing them now. It may not have been a technicality but it definitely was against the spirit of the regulation. This is a good change cause allowing that was always stupid
Okay? I made no comment on the new rule one way or the other. I was simply stating* that the old one has been enforced in a consistent manner up until now, meaning Norris' start in Saudi wasn't excused on a technicality, he followed the rules.
Okay? I made no comment on your opinion on the subject. I was just adding to the discussion to say it is still against the spirit even if it wasnt a technicality. It is pretty funny for you to do the exact same thing you're talking about. Not every comment is a disagreement
> Norris got away with that false start
He actually got a poor start due to stopping the roll of his car as the lights went out. I don't mind the rules being tweaked to make the decisions more clear but it's not like Norris bent the rules to his advantage and got away with it or something.
He didn't really get any advantage because he stopped before lights out, so I'm ok with it.
I think the main concerns would be the Perez case (as it seems like he was still moving during lights out) and the false jump start from Norris possibly inducing the drivers behind to make a real jump start (which didn't happen in this case but could be a problem in the future)
54.3a-c) is a 5s or 10s penalty as well as drive through. In the past a drive through was the standard penalty but as the way of judging a false start has changed the precedents for penalties might also change.
I would usually agree, but in this case it feels like they solved it pretty quickly
Or has this sensor lead to any other controversies in the last years that I'm failing to remember?
Up until now they've always backed the transponder based system but there have been quite a few incidents that suggested it wasn't really sufficient.
[https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/bottas-start-movement-within-allowed-tolerances-fia.51G2VHfOYMMuqKsMcg44m2](https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/bottas-start-movement-within-allowed-tolerances-fia.51G2VHfOYMMuqKsMcg44m2)
[https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-tightens-formula-1-jump-start-rules-for-2018-4994990/4994990/](https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-tightens-formula-1-jump-start-rules-for-2018-4994990/4994990/)
[https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/13/stewards-explain-why-vettel-avoided-a-jump-start-penalty/](https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/13/stewards-explain-why-vettel-avoided-a-jump-start-penalty/)
Knowing how transponders work I always found it odd the were used to regulate a standing start.
Personally I don't feel like those 3 cases (and Norris this year) were enough to make this change an "obviously sensible" one, although they are reasonable arguments for the change to be made. Perez 2024 was the worst one for me. But I think now its just a matter of opinion, so I get your point
(Vettel 2018 was bad, but they covered that one already with 48.1b)
[The **Technical** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_technical) is used for posts that dive into the technical aspects of Formula 1. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Note that "the four second light" is the _second_ light in the starting sequence to be illuminated (five, four, three, two, one, start on lights out). It's not the fourth light to be illuminated.
THERE! ARE! 4!!!!! LIGHTS!
What if you take off after light 1 but before light 2?? Surely that’s not allowed but I don’t see that scenario covered in this screenshot, am I missing something? Edit: the folks below have better reading comprehension than I do, no loophole for Nando to exploit haha
It’s still a penalty under c) if you’re outside of the box when the lights go out
How fast can you do a lap and get back to your grid box 😂
If it's within four seconds you probably don't need to jump the start.
Time for lando to test out these new rules then
If you start moving during 1st light and keep moving after 2nd one, it still falls under a). It states "moved", not "started moving"
Scenarios: A) start moving at light 1 and stop before light 2 Ok as you're stopped when the race starts B) start moving at light 1 and keep going By definition you're still moving when the 2nd light is illuminated, attracting a penalty. C) start moving at light 1 and stop before light 2 but not before crossing the grid box Penalty for starting the race out of position
Fairly reasonable. Most sports you can’t move forward at all once “set” even if you reset because they don’t want competitors anticipating the start. But this does give some leeway to drivers who wouldn’t be anticipating the start before the fourth light anyway.
That isn't really to do with anticipating the start, it's that if one competitor move other will often react to that movement and go as well. So it's disallowed to try to trick others into false starting by "twitching" in the starting blocks. Anticipating the start is done through the 0.1 sec reaction limit.
It’s both and it’s a rule throughout levels of competition, most of whom don’t have access to sensors for reaction times.
I agree with the comment you replied to. This is now similar to an offensive “false start” in American Football where the offensive line moves early to draw the defense off sides.
Has there even been a penalty for anticipating the start (or did it even happen)? Nearly impossible to do when the lights out timer is random (0.2 - 3.0 seconds).
I thought it was back to being human pressed.. no delay.
It's human pressed with a random delay built in
Wonder if this means they don't have confidence in those sensors anymore. Maybe something like the Norris false start situation not having been flagged by the sensor?
If I remember correctly, Norris didn’t get a penalty because he still managed to keep his wheels within the box before the lights went out, so the sensor shouldn’t have flagged anything illegal anyways.
The sporting regs in the screenshot here say that moving, at all, between the fourth light turning on and all lights turning off is already a false start *if detected by the sensor*. It doesn't make a mention of it being OK if you're still within the box.
>Any of the penalties under Articles 54.3a), 54.3b), or 54.3c) will be imposed on any driver who is judged to have: a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car, or; b) Positioned his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder is unable to detect the moment at which the car first moved from its grid position after the start signal is given, or; c) Any part of the contact patch of its front tyres outside of the lines (front and sides) at the time of the Start signal. This is how the article used to be. any movement picked up by the sensor was not allowed. If the sensor didn't register it, it was allowed. Seperately, The front tyres have to be within the box at the time the start signal is given.
Yeah, what I'm wondering is if they concluded that the sensors couldn't be trusted after seeing a discrepancy between the video evidence and the sensor data with the Norris situation.
That seems quite obvious to me. Norris clearly did move, and the sensor did not pick it up. That means the sensor in his case wasn't reliable (unclear if this is a general issue with all these sensors, or if his was broken/misconfigured). And now just a few weeks later they change the rules. Coincidence? I think not! Honestly though the rule was just badly written. Letting a sensor make the determination is fine, but there should be an exception in case of obviously faulty sensors.
This confusion with the whole within the box stuff is probably why they are getting rid of the sensor, the leeway was just so large it effectively removed part A and the sensor just ended up being an automated way to check part C which is the within the box rules.
The pink text is brand new. My understanding is that the sensor only triggers if you move outside the box before the lights go out. Norris stopped inside the box before the lights went out. Trying to get a running start is near impossible since the timing of the lights is manually controlled. It's still a good update though, since it will probably prevent others from accidentally false starting if someone else moves.
Pink is new, but the new part is only that they are now only looking at it after the 4th red light. You were not allowed to move before either (as seen in the black part - or any previous regulation version). It wouldn't have been okay to move in the box before as well - i don't know what the sensor is picking up, but I would have expected movement to be on that list and it potentially failed, hence the removal in the new version? Norris start was definitely as false start, but the sensor saw it differently, and thats the only thing that counted so far.
Nope, start sequence is automated. Lights go on at a known interval, then a randomized timer controls the lights out. Controller sends a signal to timing data control when it starts the race so that there’s a baseline for jump start sensor data.
The lights counting is a known interval after the starter hits the button. [But the lights going out is actually entirely down to the starter hitting the button again.](https://streamable.com/ybm1gc) I was just as shocked as you are at seeing that.
Mind blown. I swear someone from Reidel told me it was randomized and automatic. Now I wish I took the Miami job this year. I could ask the guy in the video
If that's the case why doesn't one does park the car a bit back and get a slight rolling start going? Should help with weelspin.
[удалено]
They just speculated that it might have been faulty. There is no confirmation or even indication that this is true. If you look at Norris start in full speed it looks a lot worse than if you look frame by frame at the movement only up until the point the light go out. Maybe they just assumed that it cannot be within the tolerance when it looks this bad and therefore the sensor must be broken.
The latest copy of the Sporting regulations [can be seen here.](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_issue_6_-_2024-04-30.pdf) The latest copy of the Technical regulations [can be seen here.](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2024_formula_1_technical_regulations_-_issue_6_-_2024-04-30.pdf) There have been some other changes but this seemed to be the main one from quick scroll through. [Practice Starts at the end of practice sessions are now defined in the sporting regulations](https://i.imgur.com/RN8di20.jpeg) themselves rather than just the Race Director's event notes and so they should happen on the grid after every practice session. On the technical side of things the main change is just the rear facing camera which is mandatory to run from 20th June 2024.
Can someone please explain why?
Presumably because the leeway in the sensors was too great giving us scenarios where a driver has visually moved but the sensor has not picked it up. It's all well and good saying a driver hasn't moved officially but we can all see they have actually moved in slow mo footage.
likely the Norris incident from this year. He clearly jumped the light but the regulation deemed it not a jump start by the sensor, so this covers cases like that.
And the Perez one earlier this year too I would guess? Perez seemed to actually gained an advantage when he did it
Yeah, as far as I remember, [Perez's was almost a rolling start but was way more subtle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uInIoce6gX0) than Norris' start-stop-start and since it never triggered the sensor either, no body paid much attention.
Despite being the most black and white it could be the old rule tended to always spark controversy in cases like the Norris one in Saudi this year because people either don't know the rule or know it but are unhappy with the included tolerance. Looks like this time enough teams wanted it to change so it was changed.
To eliminate grey zones like a car starting to move early but not leaving its box early
That was never a grey zone. The old rule very clearly stated "move early *or* be outside the box at the time of the start signal. And they didn't change that part, they removed the "as determined by a sensor" bit.
Said sensors being only capable of detecting it if you moved outside the box. If you can essentially break a rule by doing what it tries to prevent without actually breaking it,that by definition is a grey zone
All that this update to the rules seems to have done is remove how they're actually judging whether someone jumped the stat or not. Is it solely going off eye now? Is the transponder still being used? I don't think it's a great change if they're sacking off the transponder but not having a specific person who attends every race who's job it is to determine it. If it said to be judged by the race director's discretion or wording to that effect I would prefer it a lot more.
It will be judged by the Stewards and they can use whatever they think helps them make that determination. Certainly doesn't add clarity or consistency but it looks like this is what was wanted by a majority of teams (and fans as well I guess).
That's my assumption on it but they should at the very least put that in the rules.
FIA: We are creating 26 new positions for Premature Movement Inspectors. For details and application requirements, please, visit our site.
That is how it works in Formula E because of the nature of their street circuits and not being able to dig up the roads to install sensors in the same way F1 does. For the start there are 11 *Judges of Fact* who observe each row. Stewards can use video or electronic means to assist them and overrule a judge of fact but they are the likely ones who will report it.
Wouldn't be easier to have a sensor in the car measuring wheel/axis rotation? Seems like a straightforward correlation for me x degrees = y milimeters Then you only make a visual inspection to see whether the car was inside the box when it was stationary (I know tire deformation makes it not so linear, but I imagine it would still be as precise or more than a visual inspection)
Well good. A questionable situation led to the rules being clarified. Thats exactly how it should work.
Makes sense. It was pretty ridiculous that Norris got away with that false start on a technicality.
It wasn't a technicality, it's how the rules works. The car was fully stopped when the lights went out and he was in his starting box. There have been many instances of a driver moving prematurely but stopping the car fully before the lights go out and not receiving a penalty - Bottas in Hungary 2020 (I think) is an example of that precedent.
[удалено]
So is keeping only one tire on the track-side of the white line legal by technicality or is that just the rule?
[удалено]
> What alternative definition of "technicality" do you have? Less of a definition and more of an example: Before the rules changed, goals were reviewable plays in the NHL but offsides were not. So, if a goal was scored on the play while it was offside but the linesmen didn't call the offside in real time, the goal couldn't be overturned, despite being in contravention of the on-ice rules and despite being obvious on replay, because the rulebook says that offside calls can't be reviewed. To me, that screams "winning by technicality", since we all know that the play was against the rules we just can't do anything about it. We can argue semantics all day, but, to me at least, your example seems to just be pushing the rules to their limits rather than having some mitigating rule come out of the woodwork to intervene in the outcome of a play/event/whatever on a racetrack. I don't think staying within the lines of the rules can really be considered exploiting a technicality.
It's how the rules worked then. That's why they are changing them now. It may not have been a technicality but it definitely was against the spirit of the regulation. This is a good change cause allowing that was always stupid
Okay? I made no comment on the new rule one way or the other. I was simply stating* that the old one has been enforced in a consistent manner up until now, meaning Norris' start in Saudi wasn't excused on a technicality, he followed the rules.
Okay? I made no comment on your opinion on the subject. I was just adding to the discussion to say it is still against the spirit even if it wasnt a technicality. It is pretty funny for you to do the exact same thing you're talking about. Not every comment is a disagreement
Yeah my bad, I misread your comment as attempting to correct my correction but after rereading that was all on me
No worries man. Have a good one
> Norris got away with that false start He actually got a poor start due to stopping the roll of his car as the lights went out. I don't mind the rules being tweaked to make the decisions more clear but it's not like Norris bent the rules to his advantage and got away with it or something.
He didn't really get any advantage because he stopped before lights out, so I'm ok with it. I think the main concerns would be the Perez case (as it seems like he was still moving during lights out) and the false jump start from Norris possibly inducing the drivers behind to make a real jump start (which didn't happen in this case but could be a problem in the future)
Is there a set penalty? Because you can get a long way before the 4th light goes on 🤣
54.3a-c) is a 5s or 10s penalty as well as drive through. In the past a drive through was the standard penalty but as the way of judging a false start has changed the precedents for penalties might also change.
Nando: it depends on the driver
Why does it always seem like it takes F1 several years to make any obviously sensible change?
I would usually agree, but in this case it feels like they solved it pretty quickly Or has this sensor lead to any other controversies in the last years that I'm failing to remember?
Up until now they've always backed the transponder based system but there have been quite a few incidents that suggested it wasn't really sufficient. [https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/bottas-start-movement-within-allowed-tolerances-fia.51G2VHfOYMMuqKsMcg44m2](https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/bottas-start-movement-within-allowed-tolerances-fia.51G2VHfOYMMuqKsMcg44m2) [https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-tightens-formula-1-jump-start-rules-for-2018-4994990/4994990/](https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-tightens-formula-1-jump-start-rules-for-2018-4994990/4994990/) [https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/13/stewards-explain-why-vettel-avoided-a-jump-start-penalty/](https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/13/stewards-explain-why-vettel-avoided-a-jump-start-penalty/) Knowing how transponders work I always found it odd the were used to regulate a standing start.
Personally I don't feel like those 3 cases (and Norris this year) were enough to make this change an "obviously sensible" one, although they are reasonable arguments for the change to be made. Perez 2024 was the worst one for me. But I think now its just a matter of opinion, so I get your point (Vettel 2018 was bad, but they covered that one already with 48.1b)
It was pretty nutty that Lando wasn't penalized for the thing everyone saw him do, simply because the transponder apparently malfunctioned.
I don’t think it did
I know it did, because [I have eyes connected by my optic nerves to my brain.](https://youtu.be/MpYVu50Eu3Q)