The Saudi Arabian Grand Prix stewards have explained why Lando Norris escaped without a penalty for appearing to jump the start.
Other drivers were convinced Norris had jumped the start, but after announcing an investigation the stewards confirmed no action would be taken against him.Onboard footage from Norris’s start appeared to show the McLaren moving forward as the five starting lights were illuminated and then extinguished. Norris stopped his car for a moment once the lights went out before fully launching from his grid slot.
By moving while the lights went out, Norris appeared to have infringed article 48.1 1 of the sporting regulations, which states that any driver who is judged to have “moved before the start signal is given” will be penalised.
Behind Norris, George Russell immediately reported that the McLaren driver had “jumped the start” to his team. It took until lap 11 for the incident to be noted by the stewards. Three laps later Norris was cleared.
In their decision, the stewards clarified that Norris had not committed an infringement under the wording of the regulations as the FIA’s standardised data transponder did not indicate he had jumped the start.
They noted that the regulations “state 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.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“In the circumstances,” the stewards continued, “we took no further action.”
The decision is consistent with an incident which took place at the 2019 Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka, in which Ferrari driver Sebastian Vettel moved in a similar manner to Norris before the lights went out. The stewards at that event gave no penalty to Vettel as his transponder also did not indicate a jump start.
Norris was also involved in another incident prior to the start of the race when he was forced to stop in the pit lane while heading out on his reconnaissance lap due to Yuki Tsunoda’s RB being released in front of him.
The stewards determined that Tsunoda left the garage despite an RB team member signalling to him not to do so. Tsunoda accepted responsibility for the near-miss. Tsunoda was hit with a five second post-race time penalty, which dropped him from 14th to 15th in the final classification, behind Logan Sargeant.
The stewards noted that Tsunoda’s actions typically would have earned him a penalty point on his superlicence, as happed to Sergio Perez in the race, however they opted not to as the incident took place during the reconnaissance lap and not the grand prix.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix
- Vowles being patient with Sargeant but expects to see “progress”
- “So I’ve got nothing to worry about?” – The best unheard team radio from Jeddah
- “Shock” of poor start to season showed need for change at Alpine – Famin
- “My tyres are dying”: Stroll’s short-lived struggle until he hit the wall
- Bearman calls Ferrari debut a “dream” but admits “I made a lot of mistakes”
AlexS
9th March 2024, 23:16
Once again ridiculous FIA. So if transponder fails then no penalty?
And if transponder failed to track car laps the stewards will not count those laps by that car?
Tristan
9th March 2024, 23:42
Bottas got away with this a couple of times too. Not a surprise. If stewards have to investigate it, then it’s not a false start, they only punish a false staft if their sensor picks it up automatically which is absolutely ridiculous.
Article 48.1 of the Sporting regulations everybody:
C has been routinely ignored because they made a mistake once and rather than own up to it, said that A is the only time a penalty should be applied when they are clearly delimited by “or” meaning any rather than “and” meaning all.
FIA can not judge their own homework and never admit their mistakes.
Yellow Baron
17th March 2024, 15:58
Wasn’t the bottas Austria one different? That he didn’t actually jump the start, but guessed it. Which could have easily gone the other way
Lyndamarks
10th March 2024, 0:24
Where did they say the transponder failed?
grat
11th March 2024, 20:48
Not exactly. From memory, from one of Bottas’s overly quick reactions, the full explanation was that while the car had moved, it had not moved enough to trigger the “jump start” flag.
When you put these cars into gear, they tend to jerk a bit, and you don’t want half the grid DQ’d because they “jumped the start”, so there’s a certain amount the car is allowed to move before the lights go out.
Nick T.
9th March 2024, 23:33
lol, Alonso was given a penalty for merely being slightly further to the left in his box last year. F1TV’s commentators were going nuts over how ridiculous the stewards’ calls were.
Nick T.
10th March 2024, 0:31
BTW, the title should be “stewards produce absurd excuse for blowing the easiest call ever.” It was as if they had allowed someone who had never seen F1 before steward and also told them “while you don’t need to follow precedent, you can also use the precedent of past blown calls to justify your decisions.”
Nick T
10th March 2024, 0:32
to steward*
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
10th March 2024, 2:21
Ball clearly hits the back of the net – FIA is that a goal? Goal line technology says it’s not a goal.
Goalie is staring and wondering whether to go inside goal and pick up the ball or pretend the ball is invisible.
X1Znet (@x1znet)
10th March 2024, 1:05
Maybe they need new transponders with better sensitivity? If we can all see plainly with our eyes that he moved before all the lights went out, but the transponders didn’t detect anything, it seems a bit wrong.
Tristan
10th March 2024, 1:40
Camera technology has advanced significantly, allowing for real-time on-board footage without the need for transponders. However, there appears to be a lack of initiative or resources dedicated to revising and updating regulations. Given the breadth of responsibilities within the FIA, it’s understandable that certain updates may be overlooked. Nevertheless, there’s a clear need for streamlining and updating regulations to avoid further embarrassment.
Jeanrien (@jeanrien)
10th March 2024, 10:28
To be honest, in this case Norris moved then stopped again before starting and it looks like his start is rather poor.
However that transponder approach opens up the possibility for a car to stop behind the grid box, anticipate the lights and eventually getting a rolling start. Hard to time right but it could gain one driver a lot.
Yellow Baron
17th March 2024, 16:07
It doesn’t matter that he stopped, as he still jumped the start and was out if the box.
Someone should jump the start when the first light goes on betting on the transponder failing, then according to the rules they can’t be penalised.
If the stewara and FIA want to avoid embarrassment they’ll give a penalty which might not even be that bad.
AlanD
10th March 2024, 1:29
I can understand when someone is given a jump start penalty which the transponder detected even if it wasn’t apparent to the human eye, that the technology augments the human senses, but when everyone except the transponder can see the jump start, surely you don’t turn a blind eye to it. Once again, F1 demonstrates it is the pinnacle of legal machinations by the world’s best loophole lawyers.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
10th March 2024, 2:25
What a shame – the stewards could have just poked some fun just to entertain us.
The incident has been dismissed – no one has the right to appeal and the transponder has been suspended with full pay.
S
10th March 2024, 5:12
F1 has officially outdone itself with calls like this.
Everyone can see it was a breach of the regs, but they are too scared to penalise the obvious just because the technical device says something else (or nothing at all in this case) and McLaren would protest the penalty on that basis.
It’s really just embarrassing.
Dex
10th March 2024, 5:16
Then how about changing those ridiculous, amateurish rules? There are many camera angles showing obvious jump. And how can we even trust that you really got that data from the sensor? Plus, why should some data even matter… As for the ridiculous wording of the rules, just pay some layer a couple hundred bucks per hour and spend a few thousand bucks to get those things in check? But no, this way you can play God (I’m not saying that’s what happened now, but how can I know?).
And stop being the only major sport without professional referees (aka stewards). What was that with Magnussen? Did he sleep with someone’s wife or…?
Sham (@sham)
10th March 2024, 6:30
Judging based the electronic evidence even though their own eyes make it clear that a penalty is in order?
Superb. Top stewarding there. Excellent work.
Jere (@jerejj)
10th March 2024, 7:10
Precedent set for the future.
bernasaurus (@bernasaurus)
10th March 2024, 7:33
Before we start blaming transponders, race control, technology etc, jump starts are a rarity these days.
Whenever I watch starts from the 70s, 80s and early 90s half the field treat them l Iike a rolling start, barely stopping at all. And then randomly Nannini or someone gets a penalty and you think ‘why him?’ He was no worse than anyone else.
Perhaps the golden age was the 00’s with Charlie in charge. But even then Fisichella couldn’t figure out where he was meant to be, parking perpendicular across the track.
For what should be the simplest thing in the world, F1 has never been particularly good at it. In fact, this might be the best it’s ever been. Even if Lando does get to have a couple of go’s and getting going.
Tristan
10th March 2024, 8:27
Might not have been much this time around but for Bottas once it was 2 tenths worth on the start. It’ll cause a proper complaint when the result matters one day.
bernasaurus (@bernasaurus)
10th March 2024, 9:31
Yeah, the FIA’s reasoning that the transponder didn’t pick it up is fine here. But if he’d actually profited from it and ended up 2nd and the transponder hadn’t seen it, would they intervene then? You’d have to think so. It can’t be as simple as transponder decides. Like you say, one day the transponder won’t pick up a clear advantage and then it’ll be arguments, precidents, fairness and penalties and this case won’t be helpful for someone.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
10th March 2024, 8:02
Lando stopped before hitting the gas which effectively nullified any advantage through having tires which were rolling. If anything he had negative advantage, and the call was right, as should be most violations where the guy ends up not accruing any kind of advantage, if there was no advantage and it wasn’t seemingly intentional, it shouldn’t be called.
As for the transponder, its probably not accurate to within a 1-2 inches, so they probably won’t classify it’s movement. BTW, the courses should have enough cameras up so that they don’t need to use radio transponders, and just use image recognition/extrapolation to plot all the car’s coordinates on the track. Radio is okay for ranging, but its not like they have 3d radars trying to place the cars on track.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
10th March 2024, 11:58
Exactly. Was at a disadvantage from the jump. Correct call.
CarWars (@maxv)
10th March 2024, 14:52
Still due to this he started ahead of his allowed position. So still should be a penalty.
mog
10th March 2024, 9:14
Slam dunk jump start visually.
But, not a jump start, because the transponder failed/isn’t sensitive enough?!
OR
McLaren made them an offer they couldn’t refuse
If you don’t want to be accused of such things, then do the job with integrity in the first place.
Lee That's Me (@leethatsme)
10th March 2024, 11:07
I could have understood if the explanation was that after the initial movement he came to a complete stop and was still in the grid slot before the lights went out. But apparently “computer says no” is sufficient for the stewards!
melanos
10th March 2024, 16:54
George Russell may not be the fastest driver out there (though he is plenty faster than his teammate and has scored more than double points) but sure he is the fastest snitch