“The stewards reviewed positioning/marshalling system data, video and determined that the video appeared to show that Car 4 moved before the start signal was given,” their report began.
“However, the FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted on the car did not indicate a jump start.
“Article 48.1 a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations states clearly that the judgment of whether or not there was a jump start is to be made in accordance with the transponder, which did not show a jump start. In the circumstances, we took no further action
If there’s a problem, the FIA will change the rules. Why some people are so adamant on inventing problems that don’t exist lol. Norris didn’t get any advantage. On the contrary, he had to abandon the start and start again later than everyone around him.
Norris didn’t get any advantage. On the contrary, he had to abandon the start and start again later than everyone around him.
This is not an excuse to ignore a case where there is clear visual evidence of a car moving before lights out. His movement could have spooked other cars into moving which could have ruined their starts. You can see people making jump starts in response to other jump starts often in athletics especially in short races like 100m, etc.
Also it was not a case where he drifted just a few mm. He moved nearly half a wheel rotation in that false start and somehow the transponder either didn’t pick it or found it to be within limits. Either the way the transponder sensitivity has to be improved.
This is not an excuse to ignore a case where there is clear visual evidence of a car moving before lights out.
What were stewards supposed to do with this “evidence”, when the rules clearly state what is jump start and how it is measured?
