“I don’t believe that”: Vettel is still convinced Bottas jumped the start

2017 Austrian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Sebastian Vettel continued to question whether Valtteri Bottas jumped the start in the Austrian Grand Prix despite the stewards ruling he hadn’t.

2017 Austrian Grand Prix in pictures
The Ferrari driver disputed the official verdict on the Mercedes driver’s getaway which claimed he took 0.201 seconds to react to the lights going out. “I don’t believe that,” said Vettel during the official press conference.

Vettel said his rival’s quick getaway had been “a bit distracting” and affected his own start. “In my point of view he jumped the start,” said Vettel. “I was sure he did.”

“It looked like it from the inside of the car but it’s not for me to judge it in the end of the day. Probably I was a bit late because it’s quite tricky then to keep standing still. But I think it was OK, a bit of wheel slip later on. But overall it was a good start.”

Vettel asked his team during the race whether Bottas was being investigated for the start. Daniel Ricciardo also queried it, telling his team: “I’m sure it’s alright but it looked like Valtteri jumped the start.”

2017 Austrian Grand Prix

    Browse all Austrian Grand Prix articles

    Author information

    Keith Collantine
    Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

    Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

    192 comments on ““I don’t believe that”: Vettel is still convinced Bottas jumped the start”

    1. GtisBetter (@)
      9th July 2017, 15:31

      Vettel should know by now that his view of reality isn’t reliable

      1. He is right. Look at the video here.


        1. @evered7 it’s impossible to properly judge it from the telly. It’s not a reliable way to measure it. You need the telemetry, and that’s what the stewards have. And they decided he didn’t jump the start.

          Case closed.

          1. @fer-no65: So the TV cameras observed something that the telemetry can not? Wizardry!

            1. @xenomorph91 you alien species always have a different view of reality… tv cameras captures snaps of moment… in eu, 1s of footage shows 25 frames of pics, which means it is about 0.04 secs in each frame! even in video, you still cant make up if he did it or not… which means his reaction time is 0.04 or better! bcoz until lights went off, he didnt move… also your comment is either misunderstood or you are agreeing with telemetry is ok, you replied to wrong comment?

            2. At least in reddit people are agreeing that VB jumped the start yet the margin of error of the sensor allowed movement in the start box. https://media.giphy.com/media/mrFmmvlvtfv1e/giphy.gif

            3. Standard TV signal is either 24 or 30 frames per second. Since it’s HD, it’s probably (but not necessarily) 30 fps. In order to produce that split screen image in the F1 video, video editing was required, and precise timing may, or may not, have been maintained, because I don’t know how good the editor (or the editing bay) is.

              Regardless, the FIA transponder is quite capable of telling how far a car has moved, and according to them, Bottas’s car moved less than the amount necessary to judge it a jump start.

              In essence, Bottas got lucky, because the delay between all lights and lights out is, to my knowledge, randomized– had the delay been a tenth of a second more, he might have gotten penalized.

              Vettel, however, needs to pick up a new career as a consultant– He appears to know more about strategy than the team, more about the regulations than Charlie Whiting, more about telemetry than the FIA, and now, more about jump starts than the FIA’s transponders.

              He is truly a legend in his own mind.

              I was starting to like Vettel, but his constant whinging in the face of reality is reminding me more and more of a 5 year old. I fully expect at a press conference soon, Vettel will threaten to hold his breath until they give him pole position.

          2. Er, that youtube clip shows his wheels turning while the red lights are still on. Either he jumpstarted, or that clip is a fake.

          3. @evered7 @fer-no65 Exactly. They showed it during the race as well. Bottas had a 0.210 sec start reaction time, Vettel 0.389 I believe (at least somewhere along these numbers). They also stated when Bottas was cleared that it has been scientifically proven the human is capable of responding to light changes in as less as 0.19 sec.

            Being within the limits of what is humanly possible, there’s no need for a discussion. It might have been an anticipated start, it might have not. But it WAS humanly possibly for him to start this quick and therefore they allow it. But they wouldn’t allow a 0.18 sec start reaction.

            1. As far as I am aware there is no rule in F1 with regard to anticipating the start (unlike in athletics). So as long as the delta is positive then that is all that matters.

        2. That quoted reaction time must have come from the sensors in the ground, which is a much more crude way of measuring a start. The first half of a meter of the launch is super slow, and if the sensor in the ground is a just a smudge further, ~0.3 s delay in the data is to be expected. I think the stewards made a mistake on this one. Video shows a clear cut case of a jump start in my opinion.

          Look into how the 0-60 mph times are measured for cars, you can write a book about the details of measuring the launch and the first meter, it’s super complex to gather data there, so they kinda don’t. Video evidence is more reliable in this case. But the stewards must have looked at the ground sensor, a mistake IMO.

          1. Michael Brown (@)
            9th July 2017, 22:49

            However, in the regulations it is stated that jump starts are measured using the transponder. So this is an example of the regulations working as intended. Perhaps there may be a discussion on changing this?

          2. The transponder is located in the car itself. Each grid space has a sensor that monitors the distance between the sensor and the transmitter. When the cars form up on the grid after the formation lap, those transmitter/sensor pairs measure the exact distance.

            Assuming a known frequency and pulse width, it should be trivial to measure the distance between the two components on each pulse down to a few micrometers. It requires pretty high resolution timing software, but that’s pretty simple these days.

            I doubt there’s any “smudge” or uncertainty, especially at the start when the cars are moving slowly.

          3. @mateuss

            I think the stewards made a mistake on this one.

            Based on the (letter of the) rules I don’t think they did. Whether the rules should be changed is another matter though.

      2. Agreed. First he claims Lewis brake checked him, then found out later that didn’t happen, now he claims Bottas jumped the start, even when the telemetry show otherwise. Seb is becoming a cry baby.

      3. actually he was right but there is’t an rule that you van not start right in the startlight drop. Charlie should rotate starter to prevent this Or same rule as motobikes and athletics….

        1. GtisBetter (@)
          9th July 2017, 16:27

          That still makes him wrong, cause this is not motorbikes or athletics.

      4. Watching the race on live TV, I immediately thought Bottas left too early. But thank heavens for replays.

      5. Herr Vettel clearly believes that no other human being can possibly
        match his own reflexes…..ergo, Bottas must have jumped the start………..

        Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm !

        At least you do have a very highly developed juvenile ego, Herr Vettel.
        Should take you far.

      6. You do realize Ricciardo said the same thing, right….

        1. Yeah, but Ricciardo didn’t argue with the stewards while effectively being on probation for his unsportsmanlike conduct.

          1. So it’s more about whose argument it is than the argument itself (though to be fair, that the facts actually transpired such that BOT’s start was perfectly legal, but still….)?let’s just say

      7. Ricciardo also reported that VB jump-started and IMO the Aussie is the most “realistic” driver on the grid.

      8. RP (@slotopen)
        10th July 2017, 2:13

        Just like in Baku, Vettel perceived correctly but drew the wrong conclusions. Hamilton did slow down, and Bottas did start before the lights went out. But in both cases they were legal moves, amazing brilliant moves.

        Hamilton was slowing to bunch up the field, and probably trying to surprise Vettel. Which was exactly what he was supposed to do. He got lucky and it was brilliant, a perfect restart with a penalty for his rival. (Assuming you believe Merc’ s claim the contact did not cause transmission damage).

        Bottas lucked into a visually flawed but technically brilliant start. You just can’t do any better than moving the car before the lights go out but not triggering a false start via the timing gear. Unless he does it again let’s assume it was luck.

        Yet Vettel is the luckiest of all. He really did break the rules, and badly. Rather than catch a black flag he got a slap on the wrist, while his rival got a new tranny and a grid drop. I’d be inclined to try and keep my mouth shut and have a good laugh privately.

        1. The Dolphins
          10th July 2017, 11:23

          @slotopen perfectly said

    2. Before the podium ceremony Vettel still insisted Bottas jumped the start 100%.
      He is just as committed to his own views as he was in Baku that Ham brake tested him, just doesn’t learn to keep his mouth shut.

      1. @ivan-vinitskyy “I really don’t like all this PR answers”

        *Answers what he thinks.*

        just doesn’t learn to keep his mouth shut.

        1. Precisely.

        2. @xtwl one thing is speaking your mind. Another thing is learning from mistakes. This is not about expressing a view, I still stand by that drivers need to do it more often. What Vettel didn’t do is learn from 2 weeks ago when he spoke and ‘wielded a weapon’ because he was convinced of something even when officials with data told him otherwise. Here is exactly the same thing, he knew the stewards looked at the data and they concluded Bottas did not jump the start. Yet he sticks to his view because he thinks he knows best. I know F1 drivers need to be egoistic and belief in themselves is above all but still, after events of Baku I expected Vettel to be more humble and see the data / speak to engineers before making another accusation.

          1. Don’t think ‘humble’ ….or the German equivalent, exists in Herr Vettels
            vocabulary or mentality.

      2. And he was right… As usually.

    3. There was a slight movement of the tires prior to the lights out but he didn’t leave the box.
      Still, it is Mercedes so they are always given the benefit of the doubt.

      1. Would be interesting to know exactly the role in this one (@keithcollantine), is jumping the start considered as movement of the car or when they cross their starting line… With those strange rules in F1, we never know and it makes quite some difference in this case.

    4. Was a mega start from Bottas, once in a Lifetime. Sorry Seb, you’re just wrong.

      1. @jpvalverde85 Clearly a jump start:

      2. Agree. He had the reflexes of a cat on that start. Just phenomenal.

        Sebastian’s attitude make him really unlikeable. If the FIA cleared Bottas of not jumping the start, any other driver on the grid would have acknowledged his great start and given him due credit. Instead Vettel continues to call it a jump start and belittle his achievement.

        1. It’s not reflex if you’re under drive BEFORE the lights go out. It’s either clairvoyance or pre-emption. As I don’t believe in the former I shall go with the latter.

        2. Even a cat wouldn’t react that fast. VB is 4 frames (30fps) faster than the light. IT WAS A LUCKY GETAWAY, and a lucky 20-year-old sensor that allows that kind of movement (clutch engagement). I am pretty sure there won’t be a second one.
          It was a jumpstart. I trust my eyes not a sensor. He can’t react in 0.201s because he released the clutch before the light. Not a reaction.A lucky guess.
          Mark that down, jump start penalty is coming. Maybe on next pole.

          1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9hUuOV-CyA
            Even his hand moves before the lights go out. Maybe he shoud buy a lottery ticket

    5. Bottas car was moving before the lights went out, but apperantly he didn’t pass the sensor that measures it. IMO he was very very lucky

      1. GtisBetter (@)
        9th July 2017, 15:39

        He didn’t move forward before the lights were out, so that’s why nothing was measured. Also the data showed that he was in the green when accelerating

        1. Bottas definitely moved forwards when the lights were still on. The stewards should have seen that irrespective of what the sensors told them. That YT video is quite clear. See for yourself.

          1. GtisBetter (@)
            9th July 2017, 18:29

            But that is allowed.

            1. @passingisoverrated

              He didn’t move forward before the lights were out

              err..you then admitted that that’s wrong

              But that is allowed.

              Which to be fair, yes it indeed is.

          2. How can your meagre human eye tell that he moved before the light went out? Please bear in mind that TV only shows a frame every 0.04 seconds. Added to that the TV has its own refresh rate which can further throw the accuracy out. So standard TV pictures are not used to measure time differences. The ones you see on the Olympics for photo finishes are recorded by very high speed video cameras or digital still cameras that take images of around 10,000 frames per second!

            The sensors they use will be far more accurate than a tv signal, mark one eyeballs and armchair stewards!

          3. Sorry I forgot to add that the F1 timing systems can measure down to 10,000ths of a second! If bottas jumped the lights then they would know.

            1. On the timing beams, not out the box.

            2. No they do not use timing beams (well they might for certain things). They use transponders fitted to each car and it is highly accurate (watch the time gaps between cars constantly updating around the track in close to real time).

              They use the same system for measuring jump starts as they do to time the pit stops. They also have 3 timing systems so they can cross reference them to make sure they are accurate. We are not talking about a school project timing gate here!

    6. Sorry but the footage was pretty clear on Dutch TV

      You saw the weel moving with the light still red.

    7. And his impression was RIGHT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tken_aR8bD8

      F1 is apparently a high-tech sport, but can not measure a jump start properly? Even worse: The Stewards sitting there would only have to judge the frame-by-frame analysis of Bottas’ onboard of the start and come to the conclusion that it was a jump start.

      1. GtisBetter (@)
        9th July 2017, 15:48

        They can and they did measure it and found it to be correct. I don’t think f1 uses the same definition of a jump start as you do. Though i am sure we will be reading what a jump start is for F1 in the next couple of hours.

      2. @xenomorph91 as I’ve said, that video isn’t a reliable source to measure. You need the telemetry. Frame by frame analysis is a complely wrong tool to use in this case.

        1. How so? Two things on the same screen, see which one happened first. It’s the perfect tool. You see it with your own eyes and without a doubt. If I see that and the sensor tells me otherwise, I check the sensor for the fault.

          1. @ironcito because the error imposed that way is huge compared to the electronic devices they use to measure it.

            1. @fer-no65 Backwards logic and no argument. A good quality video is a much more precise electronic device in this case. The positioning of the car relative to the ground sensor introduces a large error that can only be estimated roughly and is in the region of tenths of seconds. In the video, the error is 1 frame (which is a couple of hundreds at most, not sure what the fps is) , but it is easy to conclude a jump start within that error margin from the video.

          2. You should view the footage in the original frame rate of the TV camera because it may be something is lost in the digital translation from one frame rate to another. I don’t know whether the introduced errors would be enough to give a false impression of the start or not.

        2. @fer-no65: TV cameras these days have a image acquisation frequency of 50 Hz – which means every 0.02 s is a picture taken. Pretty good resolution if you ask me!

          Furthermore in soccer and the bike sport (such as Tour de France), video cameras are used to judge the results by the quality of mm! Maybe you should tell them it’s not a realible way to measure. :)

          1. @xenomorph91 0.02 secs is a huge error margin if we’re counting miliseconds of reaction time. Bottas reaction was calculated at 201 miliseconds, so 0.02 secs is 10% margin error. Huge as hell, so incredibly inaccurate.

            It certainly isn’t the best way to measure it, I’m sure people from soccer and Tour de France know it, so I don’t need to tell them, but they probably use it because of the specific case they are trying to judge. We’re taking about reaction to the start lights in a motor race, so a transponder is way better, and its analysis concluded that Bottas didn’t jump the start.

            1. @fer-no65 201 milliseconds = 0.2 seconds, not 0.02

            2. @fer-no65 P.S. sorry forget my comment, I didn’t read carefully what you have written, my bad. :)

            3. It really isn’t a problem. His car moves in several frames before the lights go out. We don’t need to be more accurate than that.

            4. So if the reAction time is 0.2 sec and the frames are 0.02 seconds, we should see 10 frames before the wheels move. We dont, therfore a jumped start.

            5. @Fer no.65
              Next time, don’t watch the race on TV. It’s too unreliable. Maybe Perez won in Austria not Bottas. Analyze the data from FIA to be sure.
              They throw a “0.201” and you don’t believe your own eyes.

          2. I am sorry. But tour de France does not use standard video cameras to measure photo finishes. They either use stills cameras taking photos at 10,000 frames per second or special high speed video cameras. Football uses special high speed video cameras running at 500 frames per second (ie 20 times the speed of a standard TV camera)

        3. @Fer no.65 we are not living in VHS video tape mode anymore. digital video shows the truth in this, watch the onboardon Bottas start, its available in “modern day” youtube.

          1. Makes no difference. VHS and HD uses the same frame rate.

        4. @fer-no65
          Why is a frame by frame analysis completely wrong in this case? I really can’t think of a reason why. I’m not sure about the time resolution they use, but it is definitely lower than half a tenth of a second, so it is definitely good enough to analyse this episode.

          To me it seems much more reliable that the figures that were shown on the on-screen graphics. They showed two tenths of reaction time for Bottas, which doesn’t seem true. They showed something like four tenths for Vettel, which would be considered a slow reaction time for a normal human being, let alone a trained F1 driver.
          So I would argue that the way the FIA measures the reaction time is not correct.

          Bottas did move before lights out, I think that the video evidence is indisputable. Now, does that mean that he should have received a penalty? Probably not. Apparently the stewards rely 100% on the transponders, so for them everything was regular.

          Still, Vettel is right in not believing the two tenth figure. And I’m seriously impressed with him and Ricciardo, they noticed it even if they were concentrated on their own start.

          1. @yobo01

            Why is a frame by frame analysis completely wrong in this case?

            Because the definition of a false start in Formula One is not whether the car moved at all.

            1. But the TV pictures seem to show that his wheels moved between -0.02 and +0.02 seconds “before” the red lights turned off. Everything below 0.2 seconds reaction time means that Bottas did not react to the lights, and the margin of error was not large enough to allow for a start where Bottas reacted to the lights.

              Now it seems that this actually does not determine legality – that’s solely determined by the sensors in the ground detecting a movement across a specific point, and Bottas was just legal.

              By the way: In athletics (e.g. 100 m), a false start is called if the pressure sensors in the starting block detect an increase in pressure within 0.1 seconds after the gun has fired.

          2. @yobo01 “less than a tenth of a second” is a huge margin error for measuring something in the 200 miliseconds range. And they use transponders, so…

      3. @xenomorph91
        The Sporting Regulations clearly state that:

        Either of the penalties under Articles 38.3c) or d) will be imposed for a false start judged using
        an FIA supplied transponder
        which must be fitted to the car as specified.

        Frame-by-frame analysis isn’t allowed, the transponder decides whether the start is a false start.

        1. @hotbottoms: An Article that needs to be fixed in my view then, but it isn’t the first time the regulation contains some odd passages. The error of margin seen here pretty much showed that measurement by transponder isn’t a reliable way.

          But this is another topic altogether.

          1. @xenomorph91
            Why would a frame-by-frame analysis be a better solution than a transponder? The amount of movement the transponder allows is the same for everyone and the drivers are aware of that (if they care to find out). I’m pretty sure that other drivers have also had similar starts over the years (movement before the lights are out but not enough to alarm the transponder). The only reason why Bottas’ start is such a big deal is because Vettel keeps whining about it.

            1. vettel should have reported himself as well, as he started from well out of his box some races ago and not penalized… had it been ham, he would have been bitching non stop for sure… he thinks his perception of reality is superior to that of everyone else!

            2. @ms-7
              The definition of a false start in Formula One is not whether the car moved at all. That GIF you are spamming everywhere is completely irrelevant.

      4. Oh come on. I’m by no means a Mercedes fan but when the race-officials have had their say iit’s over.
        That means Bottas didn’t have a jump-start and is the rightful winner in my view.

        Somebody’s have to put an end to this ever increasing judge and jury stuff on the net. When the checkered flag has been waived it’s end of storh. If not it’s not sport anymore and sport like life is not always fair, but you accept that and get on with it!

      5. It’s quite clear from many of these comments that…

        (a) Many don’t know the precise F1 rules about jump starts.
        (b) Others don’t want to believe anyone could be as sharp as Bottas.
        (c) Still others can be persuded that black is actually white.

        Hey-ho !

        1. Duncan Snowden
          9th July 2017, 21:09

          d) They don’t know how cars work and have never heard of clutch creep.
          e) They’ve never seen onboard slow-mo of an F1 start before.

          It was a perfectly fair start. There was never any question about it.

    8. Well Theo thousands of a second less and he would be right (as it would fall under the admissible 0.2 sec). Whether Bottas just perfectly guessed the start or he had a lightning reaction is impossible to prove. So certainly no penalty for Bottas was warranted.

    9. The analysis on Dutch was that you can move within the box your tyre is in. It’s only a jump start when you go through the sensor they said

    10. Martin Brundle alluded to how the telemetary is measured… could it be only measured when the car passes the start marker on his grid slot? or is it measured when the driver hits the throttle? or when the clutch is dropped? the fia says .2 second reaction, but the car appears to be rolling as light goes out.

    11. This case could call for another FIA investigation like at last race, as it seems to have affected the race result, and I think the stewards might have got it wrong.

      1. Oh great idea! While they are at it they should open an investigation on Vettel for overtaking behind the safety car in Baku!

    12. I dont like Vettels behaviour, but this time he is undeniably right. Vatleri did jump the start.

    13. Amazing how many legal experts F1 has…

    14. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
      9th July 2017, 16:25

      I can not believe the big deal people are making about this. Now matter what videos show, they are not the most reliable source. Sky freezed it frame by frame and to the eye, it looked like Bottas went litrally as soon as they went out. And from the evidence they had, Bottas infact had over a 0.2 second delay from lights out. so even the footage that looked like he went as soon as doesn’t show that he actually had a slight delay. No need to investigate it further. Just compare it to jump starts in the past. It just isn’t comparable. Ericsson in one race in 2015 clearly jumped well before the others. Realised this instantly and slowed down. This actually resulted in a terrible start, but he was rightly punished. Maldonado got one in Spa 2012 for a very clear jump start. I have a feeling they only investigated it because 2 drivers mentioned they thought he may have. But they had evedence that he didn’t. He just had incredible reaction and made it work out really well.

    15. Wheels moved before the light .Clear jumpstart.a big jump too.
      I actally want bottas to outscore lewis because Lewis is arrogant.I’m starting to think the stewards wouldn’t find their behinds with two hands and a map.

      1. vettel is that you? still think ham brake tested you?

    16. Not a jump start, not because of this Sky Video, but because stewards said so. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cXdAPDKFR4I

      1. Marian Gri (@)
        9th July 2017, 19:30

        Taking for granted what SKY says and/or shows is hardly credible. It wasn’t even decided if he did jump the start or not, but they started to play down VET, that he might win the race undeserved etc etc. So, I woudn’t really trust their videos, editing is not a hard thing to do anymore.

      2. Pretty sloppy analysis by Sky. Nowhere do they show that he was actually stationary in the first frame. It would look exactly the same if he was already rolling in the first frame of the video.

    17. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      9th July 2017, 16:46

      Vettel is the official race director/steward – he begins investigations, asks for updates, and calls into question the results. If I didn’t know any better, Bottas will have to report to Maranello for an official investigation on Monday.

      Can anyone blame him? He’s emasculated Charlie Whiting publicly and most recently Jean Todt and gotten away with it.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          9th July 2017, 17:51

          @ms-7 yeah, that’s wrong – check out Boudi’s video…

          1. how can a video be…. wrong??? Boudi’s video is from low fps sky uk coverage, while the gif is from an high fps broadcast from germany.

            1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
              10th July 2017, 2:25

              @alfa145 so if he jumped it by 1/10th of a millisecond, what do you suggest they do?

              Personally don’t wouldn’t care about it. He gambled, it was so close that no one really knows so who cares? It was a blatant jumpstart.

              What makes me laugh is that Vettel would probably care about that after what he did last week…

            2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
              10th July 2017, 2:26

              Okay, that has a lot of errors:-)

              Personally I wouldn’t care about it.

              It was NOT a blatant jumpstart.

    18. It’s a disappointing ” clickbait” headline again. Vettel said “It looked like it from the inside of the car but it’s not for me to judge it”. Much of the cool down room discussion was jump start banter with smiles on all of their faces.

      1. +100000000000

      2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        9th July 2017, 17:59

        @blik the bigger issue that Vettel is not the race direction – they will obviously check that and they don’t need Vettel to tell them that or to provide updates during the race. In fact, the stewards should have waited to investigate it like they did Vettel’s incident at Baku.

        Even if Bottas had jump started the race, the stewards needed to decide the path affected the championship the least as they did in Baku. I’m thinking 2 penalty points or a 5 second penalty (assuming Bottas was 5 seconds ahead) along with an apology from Bottas only after meeting Jean Todt.

        So it’s really not such a big deal – he would have gained only 2 meters and that’s actually safer which I’m sure Jean Todt would have pointed out in his follow up:-)

        1. @freelittlebirds My comment was more about the clickbait headline. Of course Vettel has to question the perceived jump start. If Bottas was heading for a penalty it changes the way the team approach the entire race with both of their drivers. Giving the team a heads up gives them time to prepare in advance. Nothing wrong at all when your employee reports an important observation. Of course race control hears it, there is no private line. Vettel wasn’t in the least upset by that start but it was worth mentioning. VB and SV looked each other in the eye, smiled and had a chat.

          1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            10th July 2017, 2:31

            @blik You mean like the brake-testing observation along with the sanction he imposed on Lewis mid-race?

            Vettel should be the last person on earth to care about a jumpstart after what he’s done the past week. There’s an entire race direction looking at that – it’s very unlikely the pole sitter can jump the start and no one would notice.

        2. @freelittlebirds Hence

          it’s not for me to judge it

          1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            10th July 2017, 13:56

            @davidnotcoulthard lol, is that another blanket statement he can add at the end of every sentence? I apologize or it’s not for me to judge as in.

            Screw you Charlie – Screw you! I’m sorry Charlie, I really am! No screw you! I’m sorry again Charlie!

            He brake-tested me, can’t you see? It’s not for me to judge but I’ll hit his car to let him know!

            He jumped the start – can’t you see? It’s not for me to judge but can I now have an update on race direction’s progress on the jump start! I still believe he jumped the start!!! Not for me to judge but do your jobs, will you?:-)

            1. He brake-tested me, can’t you see? It’s not for me to judge

              this would actually be OK (rules-wise anyway). What everyone RIGHTLY really complain about is (and I guess there was at least a penalty for – albeit one that can’t be claimed to be the opposite of lenient)

              I’ll hit his car to let him know!

              Besides, you don’t seem to be complaining about RIC concurring VET (which IMHO you shouldn’t anyway, even if it turned out both were wrong) @freelittlebirds

      3. He literally said it during the post race interview. As a standalone sentence.

      4. well…in the post-race pre-podium Vettel stated “I’m 100% sure that was a jump start”
        I don’t like his attitude towards racing, but sadly I have to admit he is right, after watching all the footage around

        1. @alfa145 I heard SV say “I’m 100% sure that was a jump start” but I saw it as an incredulous remark while smiling and having a friendly dig at VB. Eye of the beholder, I suppose. Something everyone is ignoring is that VB indeed jumped the lights and that was observed and reported by both SV and DR. At no point during the GP was the clarification issued which later cleared up the discrepancy between visual (which we and the drivers see) and the applied electronic sensor tolerance used by the stewards who don’t use the lights as a measure.

          As an aside I suspect that tolerance was specifically introduced to allow for the jump the car makes when the start gear is selected and was never intended as a limit tolerance for driver reaction.

    19. Neil (@neilosjames)
      9th July 2017, 16:55

      I don’t think it made any difference at all to the race result, but he definitely didn’t react to the lights. He ‘anticipated’ it or his hand slipped, but fortunately for him it happened within the permitted reaction time… and the sensors are set in a certain way.

      So it wasn’t a jump start in the F1 rulebook, and he shouldn’t have had a penalty, and that’s that.

      But visually, he obviously did move too quickly for it to be a response to the lights, so in a different sense it was a jump start. Just not an illegal one.

      1. RP (@slotopen)
        9th July 2017, 22:48

        Yes, he did jump the light, and it was legal. That makes it a brilliant start!

        I’m guessing he got lucky, but if he can do this every race Vettel and Hamilton will have a tough time beating him to turn one.

    20. Come on lads. Vetel fans, are you and Mr. Arrogance himself suggesting that the nano second “gained” by a “possible” jumpstart is what cost him the race win. Or, is the non vetel fans suggesting that you wanted a penalty so Vettel could win???

      1. the nano second

        Nobody here claims that

        what cost him the race win

        Yeah…at least you’re right in that the jump-start-of-sorts wouldn’t have changed much anyway @highoctane

    21. Show Vettel the curvature of the Earth from space and he’ll insist the world is flat.

      1. no he will “kindly” say, that, in his view from the cockpit, everyone around him are full of ill/foul intentions and trying to hinder his ego, cough, wdc chances…

        would you blame him after, he swore at race director, and got away with it, brought before the comity for his actions, and got away with it, so he only would think is that he is right as no further action taken for his shambles…

        and we will continue as armchair commandos…

    22. VB jumped the start yet the error margin within the start box allowed it I won’t say anymore https://media.giphy.com/media/mrFmmvlvtfv1e/giphy.gif

      1. GtisBetter (@)
        9th July 2017, 17:34

        So by your logic he didn’t jump, cause he was in the margin of error, backup by the telemetry. You can’t jump a start and do it correctly. It has to be one of them. If moving is allowed before it is considered jumping, the jumping must be done after a certain point. It has concluded that everything was within rules and as such not a jump start. Gifs don’t prove anything.

      2. https://i.redd.it/x7xkbt2pxgqy.jpg

        so if this is within the rules, then bottas is well clear of wrong doing!

        1. It was when Vettel did it. Now it isn’t anymore. F1 drivers and F1 in itself as a sport always test the limits of everything and sometimes new rules are born out of it.
          Maybe a new rule for jump starts will be made after this, maybe not. But today this was legal and should be the end of it.

        2. Vettel was just positioned a meter to the side. Completely different situation. It was legal then, because only “a majority” of the car had to be within the box laterally.

        3. @mysticus That’s like saying that if Suzuka 1990 was within the rules, so was Baku 2017 (no, Baku 2017 was actually not, but suzuka 1990 actually was)

      3. @ms-7 you can keep reposting the same thing as many times as you want, doesn’t change that the start was deemed legit by the stewards based on the rulebook.

    23. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
      9th July 2017, 17:26

      There has now been an explanation from the FIA for their reasoning. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/

      I said that they have their reasons for their decisions so that is why Bottas won’t have been punished. It was just the perfect get awys right on the limit.

    24. Bottas’ car moved ahead before the green lights but not enough to be considered a jump start.

      Since several years that FIA rules put a quantitative margin for grid moves.

      I remember that at the first year the rules indicated a maximum of 20 cm allowance for car moves at the grid before the green lights.

      1. https://i.redd.it/x7xkbt2pxgqy.jpg

        i guess vettel’s start box margins are in the 200cm range… of course FIA rules…

        1. @mysticus by your logic based on the existance of the battle of Salamis we can conclude that the Qing dynasty lost the Opium wars

          1. @mysticus actually no, the conclusion would be that the VOC managed to successfully defend Formosa from Koxinga

            1. @davidnotcoulthard we cant go by logic because Ferrari Int Assistance dont work that way… they cant play by the rules all the time, because it would require consistent decision that is fair for everyone regardless of their WDC chance!

              now you can go back to your apple and chomp on your books of history…

            2. we cant go by logic

              well you didn’t, so at least you haven’t really been contradicting that one.

    25. jack (@jackobite)
      9th July 2017, 17:39

      I think he was lucky, definitely jumped it imho, he must have started the process of accelerating and clutch off when the lights were still red, theres a random gap of a few secs after all reds come on so he got lucky and got a perfect start instead of 5 secs penalty.
      The transponder has no friend or enemies it just records so Vet is free to have a go next race at his perfect start.
      also if 5 secs was the penalty Bottas would still have won :)

      1. https://i.redd.it/x7xkbt2pxgqy.jpg

        yup, like vettel always start within the rules…

        1. That start was within at the rules. Now it isn’t anymore. But still, he has more than half a car in his box. Also, this is like 4-5 time you replied with that pic. Do I need to follow you around and remind you every time that was legal?

          1. sorry your honor wont happen again, adios! :)

      2. Slavisa (@sylversurferr)
        9th July 2017, 18:33

        No he wouldn’t won ,because at the end of the race gap betwen him and Vettel was something like 0.6 sec

        1. jack (@jackobite)
          9th July 2017, 19:57

          Yes he would have won, when Vet pits Bott was 8 secs in front, pit wait 5 secs and out he would have stayed in front, would his tyres have survived the race is another question. catching and getting in front in F1 are two very different things.

      3. The penalty is actually either a drive through or a 10 second stop-and-go, as per the sporting code. It would have dropped him from the podium, most likely.

      4. It was proven he didn’t jump it. Move on

    26. Just like how we all could see how the Red Bull front wing flexed under load while he won the world championships, but still all passed load tests.

      1. until it was accidentally exposed, they run it…

    27. I seriously cannot believe that this is now the 2nd race in a row where Vettel (and a lot of fans) is dealing in ‘alternative facts’. First the telemetry from Lewis’ car shows no violation in Baku yet VET shows no contrition (until basically forced), and now again telemetry from Valtteri’s car shows no violation and he’s sticking to his ‘jump start’ story. You are not entitled to your opinion when it is in direct contradiction to reality/objective truth(s). This is getting ridiculous.

      1. The FIA stated that Bottas did actually move before the light were out, but it was within tolerances

        So what we could all see with our own eyes is the same as what the FIA saw

        1. @anunaki moving before the lights are out within tolerances ≠ jump start

          1. Sure , but nobody think it is

            It’s just the logical answer on the earlier confusion

      2. no violation and he’s sticking to his ‘jump start’ story.

        @darth-ecclestone 2 things which, weirdly enough, actually aren’t contradictory, neither of which false

    28. Don’t forget that it was not just Vettel. Ricciardo also radioed his team that Bottas jumped the start.

      1. “I don’t believe that,” said Vettel during the official press conference.

        The discussion with the drivers in the 2nd part of the post-race press conference (which strangely doesn’t get televised properly these days) was insightful and might’ve helped preempt some of these comments.

    29. Vettel is right, but FIA never will punish a Mercedes driver.

      1. @jorge-lardone after HAM got a 5-grid penalty? errr….ok

    30. Matteo (@m-bagattini)
      9th July 2017, 18:39

      Watching the images it’s clear that Bottas moves before the red lights shut down; this is the only thing Vettel could view from his position. If this is different from FIA’s point of view I understand that, sensors and such. But you all have eyes, and that gif shows the wheels moving while red is still on.

      Now, we can agree that there is a difference between rules, sensors, judges and what one can see. And this is exactly the same of what happened in Baku.

    31. So what is a ‘jump start’?

      Firstly, does the car have to be moving? If a car starts in front of it’s grid box (For simplicity, we’ll say if the first tip of the front nose is in front, then it is ‘ahead’ of the line), then is that a jump start?

      Can a car start a bit behind the line, and therefore give itself some room for error? A driver might start moving before the lights go out, but if they don’t break the beam because they started a little bit back, does that count as a jump start?

      Does even telemetry give an accurate reflection? Telemetry will tell you when a car is moving, but can it be married up to an equally reliable record of when the lights have gone out?

      And finally, what reaction time, if any, are we saying the drivers MUST have to react to the lights? Do we give them the industry standard 0.1s, or allow for drivers to ‘second-guess’ the start and get it exactly right?

      I personally think Bottas was lucky. He got a perfect reaction time, backed it up with a great start, and was within the rules that F1 has governing starts. If he does it again, I’ll be shocked.

    32. Coming from the same guy that denied for days that he drove the car into Hamilton after the first contact on the last race…

      Vettel is becoming kind of a joke himself out ot the car lately.

    33. Slavisa (@sylversurferr)
      9th July 2017, 19:01

      @keithcollantine I think it would be nice if you post one article with clear clarifications of what does “jump start” means by FIA rules.

    34. The sporting code literally states that a false start will be determined by the transponder.

      “36.13 Either of the penalties under Articles 38.3c) or d) will be imposed for a false start judged using an FIA supplied transponder which must be fitted to the car as specified.”

      The mentioned penalties are either a drive-through (c) or a 10s stop-and-go (d).

      It’s also been stated that a margin is allowed for clutch adjustments.

      Bottas did “jump the start” in the most literal way, since he starts moving before the lights go off (this can be seen clearly with a slow-mo video, where his wheels start moving before the red lights turn off). He moves roughly 8cm before the start. This probably falls within that margin.

      Then we have this:

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        9th July 2017, 19:44

        I’ve read that the tolerance for the distance moved is 20cm

        1. @mbr-9 Wow, that is such a crude way of measuring a start. The first 20 cm of the launch is super slow. It will only catch drivers that jump the start by half a second and more. Something for FIA to reconsider.

          1. Michael Brown (@)
            10th July 2017, 13:57

            @mateuss I read the 20cm from another post on this site, but I don’t have an official citation. I suspect the tolerances exist to cover small movements from the cars when the clutch is engaged or when the start is on a hill like in Brazil.
            But due to how the FIA measures jump starts, they are actually allowed. You just have to remain within tolerances while you do it.

    35. Marian Gri (@)
      9th July 2017, 19:20

      FIA = Mercedes International Assistance

      1. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
        9th July 2017, 21:07

        I never knew Mercedes begins with the letter F. Fercedes :D

      2. @corrado-dub TIL Ferrari is spelt M-E-R-C-E-D-E-S

    36. SKY TV stated that the the number of frames in the TV video doesn’t have the proper time resolution to be 100% accurate and that the telemetry has much higher resolution. End of story.

    37. No point in moaning about Vettel… Some people here just cannot let go of their opinions about this or that to look at the situation clearly. They’ve apparently got some deep-seated weird grudge lol. I mean Ricciardo also said the same thing, but apparently we don’t hear that cuz “he’s such a likable guy, but Vettel is the satan”.
      Bottas did a false start in the traditional sense. He started BEFORE the lights went out. You can clearly see the lights, his tyres and his hands from his camera at the start as well. But apparently there’s a 0.010 second tolerance for some reason that lets you get away with a jumpstart. It’s not about a quick reaction time either as he’s not reacting, he’s preempting, as lights go off AFTER he starts. He is incredibly lucky that the lights indeed went off right after he started moving.

      1. Dont worry, vettel is the bad guy just in the british media… And of couse hamilton is a saint. Haha of course. Vettel is much more upstanding, than hamilton.

        1. Vettel is much more upstanding, than hamilton.

          Eeeehhh…I’d say not really. Neither are saints but there are worse.

      2. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
        9th July 2017, 21:11

        If you read the link that @casjo posted, you will see what describes that they can do. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/drivers-allowed-to-gamble-at-race-start-whiting/

        For example, from this, Hamilton got away with a 0.05 second reaction. Far quicker than Bottas’s 0.2 second one. As it stated, you are taking a risk of getting a penalty, but both avoided one. I believe the only reason it got investigated could well be because 2 drivers reported it. Otherwise, I think they may have left it.

        1. Bottas’ reaction time was NEGATIVE 0.003. He clearly preempted the start. You know, start before the lights even went out. It wasn’t reaction as you cannot react to something that has not happened yet. I don’t know where motorsport.com came up with those numbers, other press posted even more different numbers, but race steward Mika Salo himself said that it was -0.003 and that the limit is -0.010 sec. So you are indeed allowed to jumpstart by that much. He also said that yes, Bottas did release the clutch before the lights went out and even the car started moving (0.003 sec early). All that also fits with video footage of the start that people are talking about.
          Very interesting that Vettel and Ricciardo managed to catch that with naked eye without replaying a million times unlike us as well though.

          1. you can clearly see vettel can measure distances super precise
            (sorry to couch cops, i couldnt resist again…)

            1. Your obsession with Vettel is cute. Clearly you are not the only one reading some of the comments here, so you have some competition for his attention. I’m sure Ricciardo feels jealous and ignored.

    38. Ugh. Some comments here are pitiful. Ricciardo said the same thing, some of you hate on Vettel with a blinding passion apparently. You don’t even care about the subject at hand as long as you can keep on bashing drivers mindlessly. Get a grip.

      1. Obviously, I mean Vettel saw Bottas moving while the lights were still on. He must be out of his goddamn mind to even suggest this could have been a jump start. Ofc he should have known the tolerances the FIA applies to movement while the red lights are on, even if the FIA themselfes say that those are secret so teams don’t abuse them.

        Also he did do so over the radio in a calm, polite manner, and he did it once. Unacceptable.

        And then after the race in the cooldown-room, he makes the same allegation again, this time even persuading Ricciardo to agree with him. It’s truly disgusting behaviour from Vettel.

        But to top it off, when journalists ask about it, he tells them how he perceived it in the car, and that there is no point in talking about it since the stewards made their desicon. How can he be so stubborn as to not instantly disregard everything he saw with his own eyes on the basis of a ruling he didn’t know about at the time.

        1. vettel dont have opinions, he always has facts, hence he always use a language of “he did this” he did that” and sticks with it! he leaves no assumption in his judgements in case he is wrong… his view on his confidence is unmatched with his laughable attitude towards rules and people around him… he hardly questions about probability of being wrong or doubt in his view…

          what i think will happen to him is he will crack open and release the kraken after a few more races (more likely in the next 2-3 races) that wont go his way and racking up penalties for intentional driving (rage) or for technical (mechanical) reasons…

          1. What’s hilarious is people’s inability to read interviews reported by press in a calm manner. You are one to speak about assumptions, judgment, laughable attitude reading driver’s interviews the way you do. Go to the article about Hamilton’s interview, it’s the same over there as well. The guy said it right with “pitiful”. F1 fans come across like a bunch of 12 year olds. Your trollish comment is no different.

    39. He did jump. He’s just extremely lucky the lights went off when they did.

    40. All you Hamser fangirls can do is HATE
      It’s clearly a jump start.
      He escaped the penalty coz stewards went easy on him
      LOOK at the gif


      FIA report:

      1. fangirls can do is HATE

        wouldn’t that be a contradiction though? @prelvu

    41. Wow, Vettel ladyboys hate Hamilton fangirls… cats unleashed… and Fight!

    42. He may well have jumped but decision fudged for the sake of the title fight. Much like Vettel penalty last race, soon as Hamilton had an issue the penalty was given putting them neck and neck for a close fight and keep the points tight. Same here and for at least a few races a potential 3 drivers in the title fight.

    43. The rules allowes what you see on the TV feed, but bare in mind that the compression used to transmit TV can hide when the lights goes out. Even the frequency of the lights when filmed by a TV camera can make the lights “out of sync” in relations to other movement on screen. Remember how “brake” lights can seem to flicker, and some of the electronic signs used.

    44. There is a photosensitive patch of nano tubes on the collar of his suit so small it looks like a thread. It is tuned to the color spectrum of the start lights. It triggers a muscle stimulation in the clutch fingers of his glove when the lights turn out. Saw it on FormuHacks. lol Just kidding. He actually has electronics that senses the induction field of the lights and then using the coils in his ER brakes sends a pulse spike that causes a few microsecond delay on the lights because it’s cpu gets a few milliseconds of ‘noise’ that it must reject before it can continue while Bottas’s glove stimulation triggers his fingers before the lights can catch up. Naaa just kidding.

    45. Vettel’s only saying it because he’s annoyed it was such a great start.

    46. Otoyo Sibuor
      10th July 2017, 5:12

      Vettel is one to tell people about what happened or did not happen on the track? Huh.

    47. In my point of view he jumped the start, said Vettel. I was sure he did.

      It looked like it from the inside of the car but its not for me to judge it in the end of the day. Probably I was a bit late because its quite tricky then to keep standing still. But I think it was OK, a bit of wheel slip later on. But overall it was a good start.

      Misleading title, another bit of clickbait to fan the flames. Mind you, not that Vettel does not have a distorted view of reality sometimes.

      “It looked like it from the inside of the car but its not for me to judge it in the end of the day.”


    48. I like Bottas and I don’t believe he did anything illegal (just), but that 0.201 reaction time is optimistic. His wheels start moving 1 frame before the lights go out.

      The reason I say it’s legal, is because he hasn’t left the box before the lights go out, which means he wasn’t “over the line” as such.

      But I can totally see why Vettel doesn’t agree – obviously he’s focused on checking for the lights to go out, and in the corner of his eye he sees a car moving 0.002(or whatever, very small margin anyway) before the lights go out. To him it definitely must’ve looked illegal.

    49. Actually you are all missing the point. Vettle correctly caught a movement out of the corner of his eye while intently staring at the start lights. The movement was so small, the sensors in the pavement didn’t catch it but he did.

      Riccardo saw it as well right at the beginning. Check the radio transcripts.

    50. So, should we now expect Todt to invite Vettel to be shown detailed telemetry of Bottas start so that he can have a lawyer cooked statement posted saying he no longer believes Bottas to have deliberately done anything wrong when he started early than anyone (or at least Vettel) can expect a human to react and that he no longer wants to uphold that Bottas should be punished for upsetting his race?
      Maybe Todt should then add an extra for Vettel, like not being asked to do the next few driver press conferences either or something like that.

    51. Well, if some folks are too ignorant of how various technologies work, they should educate themselves rather than berating those whose opinions differ from their own. Opinions are one thing, but when computer timing comes into play, your “opinion” isn’t worth squat.
      The telemetry shows that Bottas did not jump the start.
      What has been revealed is what a cry-baby that Vettel has turned into since he left Red Bull.
      I can’t wait to hear what sort of whine-fest he, and his fans, come up with for the third race in a row.

    52. Even if Bottas did jump the start, it was a fraction of a sec difference. For him to have a penalty, eg 5 sec stop go, when compared with the rap on the knuckles that Vettel got away with for dangerous driving, it would have been grossly unfair on Bottas.

      Vettel should learn a bit of diplomacy. However, Trump didn’t get to the WH by being quiet. One needs to be a strong minded person with complete confidence in oneself to get to the top.

    53. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
      11th July 2017, 22:45

      There is something I don’t think people have thought could be another possibility why Bottas didn’t actually jump start. Although it certainly looks like he did move before the lights went out, all lights have at leased a tiny fraction of a second delay to fully turn off. Incandescents sometimes can take a few milliseconds, Fluorescents can be longer, and LEDs can have a tiny delay too. They could have measured it from when they literally switched the lights off. And Bottas could have gone a tiny fraction after this when they appeared to still be on. But in actual fact, they had been turned off. This is why slow motion video footage that everybody says is clear evidence isn’t always the case and it is where technical data is much better to use. The FIA have access to more evidence than we ever will. If what I described was related, then it could have possibly been another reason that meant he got away with it. It was clearly a gamble what he did. But he didn’t break any rules and any driver could have done exactly the same over the past few years and got away with it. So I don’t understand why so many are against him. He too a risk that turned out to be one of the best starts in recent years. It will be very hard to repeat. But there is nothing wrong with trying so long as you are aware it is a very big risk. Alonso took a big risk here in Russia one time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZqe_bJuyxA&t=33s
      Then in Spa one time, Hamilton had a reaction time of 0.005. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/drivers-allowed-to-gamble-at-race-start-whiting/

      It can be done, you just have to take a big risk. And the fact that Bottas rolled a little in his box is also allowed too: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bottas-start-penalty-austria-fia-928763/

      There has been more than enough evidence that what Bottas did was acceptable. So I don’t get why so many don’t want to let it go.

    54. After the Azerbaijan GP and the further FIA hearing I thought Vettel would be on his best behaviour regarding the stewards, but straight away at the next race he is saying he doesn’t believe the stewards and that he is right whatever they say despite all the information they have.

      The same sort of thing he was doing after the last race when he was insisting that Hamilton had brake tested him no matter what the stewards had decided and only changed his public opinion when the FIA forced him to apologise.

      His action reminds me a bit of Donald Trump and alternate facts, try and discredit anything you don’t agree with or which is negative towards you, knowing that your fans will believe anything you say no matter what the evidence says.

    Comments are closed.