Last summer Ferrari rejected a proposal at the F1 Commission to delay the start lights coming on to alleviate concerns about potential risks of cars stopping on the grid.

This was because team principal Fred Vasseur had warned about the need to make such a change many months before, but his concerns had been dismissed by others.

As a result, Ferrari set about creating its engine concept around one that would be more suitable for a short start sequence, so it would not need the turbo spun up for so long.

So when those that had not made the same compromises with their engine design suddenly came back with demands to extend the start sequence, Vasseur felt he was well within his rights to not support something that could potentially benefit others who had not heeded his earlier worries.

I'm puzzled as to the technical source of the problem, I understand they don't have MGU-H to keep the engine power consistent, but surely it doesn't take more than 2 seconds to spin up a turbo? Assuming the light sequence takes longer than this to run (regardless of when it starts), shouldn't this be a reasonable minimum time? Were the teams expecting to sit on the grid at pre-start revs even before the first lights come on?

And what about the maximum? The article talks about the issue of being too late to start, but if the drivers hold a fixed engine RPM shouldn't the turbo RPM flatten quickly? Does the throttle response (being a torque demand) change as the turbo spins up?

Just start without revving up the turbocharger. They go off the line so slowly that they also wouldn't need to worry about the lack of downforce.