107% rule returns

[MrMetro]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84690

[Koz]

Absurd.

What is the point of it? All the new teams are under 107% no? So it doesn't matter anyway.

What happens if they don't qualify as Alonso this year? They can't start from the pit lane? This is the only thing the 107% effects, standing where we are now.

[christophulus]

Probably to stop di Montezemelo's incessant complaining. Now there'll be a definitive fast enough/not fast enough time.

[Sonic]

Absurd.


Fact. :up:

[woody2goody]

Well Luca (who is surely behind this) will not be laughing if a Ferrari ends up going off in qualifying and being unable to race.

[MrMetro]

Well Luca (who is surely behind this) will not be laughing if a Ferrari ends up going off in qualifying and being unable to race.

That would make my day

[Sleeper]

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=48675

For those making absurd suppositions that a car unable to take part in qualy for technical or other reasons, like Alonso at Monaco this year, the rule makes provision for it based on pace shown in the practice sessions.

Its a good idea to bring it in now that single lap qualy is long gone and that we also have a few cars that are distinctly slower than the leaders. Remember that for the first few races this year the HRT's were outside of 107%.

[edv]

Well Luca (who is surely behind this) will not be laughing if a Ferrari ends up going off in qualifying and being unable to race.

Ahh yes. But they've thought of that, haven't they?
If such a situation arises, then the Stewards can still allow the car into the race based on whether or not the Free Practice times are competitive with the rest of the field.

So 107% is not necessarily 107%, is it?

[VkmSpouge]

Absurd.

What is the point of it? All the new teams are under 107% no? So it doesn't matter anyway.


Generally the Lotus and Virgins are well within the 107% and Hispania hanging around the fringes but slowly getting within that more comfortably.

I've taken a quick look at it comparing the new teams' qualifying efforts against the pole (though it might be fairer to do it as compared to the fastest Q1 time as some tracks do pick up grip over qualifying). Hispania would have both cars DNQing in Bahrain, Australia (both understandable considering their problems) and Spain.
Lucas di Grassi would also have failed to qualify in Australia and Karun Chandhok would also have DNQ'd in Monaco.

In Malaysia neither Bruno Senna or Lucas di Grassi reached the 107% in qualifying but could have pointed the variable wet conditions and to their practice times as demonstrating the necessary speed.
Chandhok in Canada and Fernando Alonso in Monaco had car problems that effectively stopped them from qualifying so both would have to go through on being fast enough in practice.

[e2mtt]

This year, I'm pretty sure the HRTs are the only cars that would have been disqualified due to the %107 rule, and only in the first couple of races. Everyone is within 5% now.

I don't think its a bad idea - 7% off the pace is very uncompetitive. I'm glad they specify it to be in Q1 - it would be very poor if teams that were in the 107% in Q1, were able to be knocked out of the race due to a fantastic pole lap in Q3

[Alfa Fan]

Do we really think HRT would have got nearer the pace quicker by not racing?

[DazzlaF1]

And with the testing ban, it just makes this ruling even more absurd, hope your'e happy LdM you slimey little weasel :mad:

<waits for ldm to come out and say that it doesnt go far enough and demands to run 3 cars again>

[truefan72]

Absurd.


indeed

I guess if you have a problem in Q1 and can,t post a good time you are out of the race. If 2 cars collide in q1 then no race on sunday. How stupid. FIA once again showing how just out of touch and daft they are.

What if it rains a bit in q2 and the times are bit slower than in Q1, before it dries up in Q3?

I could go on, bu the point is obvious. just absurd

[CNR]

Probably to stop di Montezemelo's incessant complaining. Now there'll be a definitive fast enough/not fast enough time.

what if alonso crashes and does not make qualifying again ?

they should give way more testing before the start of the season

[CNR]

the way i see it
2010 FORMULA 1 GULF AIR BAHRAIN GRAND PRIX


Sebastian Vettel (http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2010/822.html)RBR-Renault (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2954.html)1:55.029
107% is just over 2 seconds
1:57

Virgin-Cosworth (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2947.html)
Lotus-Cosworth (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2949.html)
HRT-Cosworth (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2948.html)

FORMULA 1 GRAND PRIX DU CANADA 2010

Lewis Hamilton (http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2010/828.html)McLaren-Mercedes (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2951.html)1:15.889
just over 1 second
any thing over 1:17 is out
all the ones knocked out in Q1 would be out of the race

http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2010/831/6746/

[Alfa Fan]

the way i see it
2010 FORMULA 1 GULF AIR BAHRAIN GRAND PRIX


Sebastian Vettel (http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2010/822.html)RBR-Renault (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2954.html)1:55.029
107% is just over 2 seconds
1:57

Virgin-Cosworth (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2947.html)
Lotus-Cosworth (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2949.html)
HRT-Cosworth (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2948.html)

FORMULA 1 GRAND PRIX DU CANADA 2010

Lewis Hamilton (http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2010/828.html)McLaren-Mercedes (http://www.formula1.com/results/team/2010/2951.html)1:15.889
just over 1 second
any thing over 1:17 is out
all the ones knocked out in Q1 would be out of the race

http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2010/831/6746/

107% is actually 2:03.081 at Bahrain and 1:21.201 at Montreal

[Koz]

107% is actually 2:03.081 at Bahrain and 1:21.201 at Montreal

Afley them aussie... their teehas only teeches em about em skippies, kooahlas, and dem crocodies not thet crikey mathy jibba. Aye macca (or was that thundaa?)?

[SGWilko]

what if alonso crashes and does not make qualifying again ?

they should give way more testing before the start of the season

Then the FIA will look at representative times from Friday/Saturday practice. If it can be demonstrated he is fast enough, and the reason for his poor time in Qually was exceptional circumstances, he will be allowed to race.

Common sense does prevail.

The 107% rule is there to chivvy up the slower teams - HRT would not have been that slow if they could not afford to have been - they would have either;

Pulled out of F1 altogether, or

Gotten faster quicker!

[SGWilko]

Afley them aussie... their teehas only teeches em about em skippies, kooahlas, and dem crocodies not thet crikey mathy jibba. Aye macca (or was that thundaa?)?

One minute 55 seconds (60 secs plus 55 secs = 115 secs)

Add on 7% 0f 115 = 8.05 secs.

107% of 1.55 is, therefore 1.55 plus 8.05 secs = 2mins, 3 secs.

Simples.

[ShiftingGears]

Afley them aussie... their teehas only teeches em about em skippies, kooahlas, and dem crocodies not thet crikey mathy jibba. Aye macca (or was that thundaa?)?

Remember, one of the first steps to speaking fluent Australian is dropping the C-bomb when referring to people, regardless of whether or not you actually dislike them.

[CNR]

107% is actually 2:03.081 at Bahrain and 1:21.201 at Montreal

i put the wrong number in
but to get the 107

it is divided by 100
then times by 107

[Retro Formula 1]

We have had 3 new teams this season and by and large there weren't too many problems with slower cars in the race. There have been a couple of instances but overall I don't think they have disgraced themselves.

Now these teams are within the 107% they decide to bring in this rule where it's not really needed. The only reason I can think of is for a new team coming in but what would be the point. If the field can handle 3 new teams coming in, what's the problem with one new one? You will just be prolonging their ramp-up time.

It baffles me????

[Koz]

Then the FIA will look at representative times from Friday/Saturday practice. If it can be demonstrated he is fast enough, and the reason for his poor time in Qually was exceptional circumstances, he will be allowed to race.

Common sense does prevail.

The 107% rule is there to chivvy up the slower teams - HRT would not have been that slow if they could not afford to have been - they would have either;

Pulled out of F1 altogether, or

Gotten faster quicker!

We are talking about the FIA here...

If they use common sense and let drivers/teams who don't qualify properly, there will be an outcry from someone and this and that.
Really, how about making something that's easy to follow, otherwise with the 107s and the awesomely adjustable wings that the leading driver(s) can't use will result in everything being as confusing to the masses as the Super Rally crap they have going for them.
I don't want to watch something I don't understand, something that will be interpreted differently at every race.
If drivers are slow, they get lapped - do we need such things to ruin our viewing?
I think not.

Surely Luca, his hatred for the new teams and Alonso's incapability to pass the backrunners at Monaco had a lot to do with this. But hey if they were any quicker, Alonso would have finished well down the grid that day.


Remember, one of the first steps to speaking fluent Australian is dropping the C-bomb when referring to people, regardless of whether or not you actually dislike them.

Crikey crocodile! :D

[Koz]

i put the wrong number in
but to get the 107

it is divided by 100
then times by 107

Or you could multiply the number by 1.07...

[maximilian]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: a franchise system AND 107% rule are ABSURD. If you're gonna have the 107% rule, then abolish the franchise berths, and open it to all once more.

Complete waste of a rule that'll just create stupid situations - yet another artificial crap to dilute the racing, just like the mandatory tire stops and adjustable wings, KERS... all crap! :rolleyes:

[Rusty Spanner]

The number of teams who's entries are accepted into F1 basically matches up with the number of grid slots available. So it's impossible to get bumped out and 'fail' to qualify. This is good for the teams because it guarantees they'll get to start the race for their sponsors and it also helps guarantee the prize money and income from TV by limiting the number of ways it will get split. So I suppose potentially you could have a great party messing about at the back of the grid, not taking things too seriously and just about break even. The 107% rule is just the FIA's way of keeping standards up, makes sure everyone takes things seriously and is in it to compete.

[wedge]

Then the FIA will look at representative times from Friday/Saturday practice. If it can be demonstrated he is fast enough, and the reason for his poor time in Qually was exceptional circumstances, he will be allowed to race.

Common sense does prevail.

The 107% rule is there to chivvy up the slower teams - HRT would not have been that slow if they could not afford to have been - they would have either;

Pulled out of F1 altogether, or

Gotten faster quicker!

It's not as if the new teams have 6 Yuji Ides driving for them.

[AndyL]

Do we really think HRT would have got nearer the pace quicker by not racing?

Clearly not, which is fine as far as Luca di Montezemolo is concerned, because he wants to pull the ladder up, not help the new teams on it.

I'm guessing everyone else just patted Luca on the head and said, "there, there, Luca, yes you can have your 107% rule, now let me just pick up your teddy bear and rattle for you," because they know it's not actually going to make a difference. As Vkm commented, even when people have missed 107% in Q1 they would probably still have been allowed to race on the extenuating circumstances rule.

[e2mtt]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: a franchise system AND 107% rule are ABSURD. If you're gonna have the 107% rule, then abolish the franchise berths, and open it to all once more.

Complete waste of a rule that'll just create stupid situations - yet another artificial crap to dilute the racing, just like the mandatory tire stops and adjustable wings, KERS... all crap! :rolleyes:

There's a guy who knows what he's talking about!

[e2mtt]

The number of teams who's entries are accepted into F1 basically matches up with the number of grid slots available. So it's impossible to get bumped out and 'fail' to qualify. This is good for the teams because it guarantees they'll get to start the race for their sponsors and it also helps guarantee the prize money and income from TV by limiting the number of ways it will get split. So I suppose potentially you could have a great party messing about at the back of the grid, not taking things too seriously and just about break even. The 107% rule is just the FIA's way of keeping standards up, makes sure everyone takes things seriously and is in it to compete.

Another good point... you would not want a "start & park" team in F1. (a problem in Nascar, where large purses for even last place finishers create an incentive for teams to build fast cars that qualify but have no intention of running more than a few laps.) This effectively creates a minimum performance rule- if you can't keep your entrant within 107% of pole speed, you are going to be DNQ from races & eventually lose your franshise.

Not a bad rule once you think about it.

[ShiftingGears]

Crikey crocodile! :D

:laugh:

[UltimateDanGTR]

107% back. absolute rubbish.

It took HRT a couple of races to get within 107% I believe, a bit demoralising for next years new team when they inevitably are out of the 107% at the first 1-2 races (If we have one)

[Wasted Talent]

Do we really think HRT would have got nearer the pace quicker by not racing?

Exactly

WT

[DazzlaF1]

One minute 55 seconds (60 secs plus 55 secs = 115 secs)

Add on 7% 0f 115 = 8.05 secs.

107% of 1.55 is, therefore 1.55 plus 8.05 secs = 2mins, 3 secs.

Simples.

Exactimondo :beer:

[DazzlaF1]

Another good point... you would not want a "start & park" team in F1. (a problem in Nascar, where large purses for even last place finishers create an incentive for teams to build fast cars that qualify but have no intention of running more than a few laps.) This effectively creates a minimum performance rule- if you can't keep your entrant within 107% of pole speed, you are going to be DNQ from races & eventually lose your franshise.

Not a bad rule once you think about it.

Thing is though in F1, we've not been accustomed to these so called "start & park" teams (although Forti in 1995 is probably one such example of it) And i've seen nothing from Lotus, Virgin or HRT that makes me suggest they are nothing more than "start & park" Their improvement in pace over the year suggests that they have the ambition to better themselves and be more competitive in the future ande that is what the FIA wanted during the newbies selection process although how the heck USF1 managed to impress the FIA is beyond me.

That is why I like the idea of travel perks and prize money based on championship position at the end of the season, only last week Richard Branson mentioned the fact that whoever finishes 10th (i.e. best of the newcomers) gets £17million (around $25million) in prize and TV money. It gives everyone something to fight for and desnt reward anyone prepard to just sit at the back waiting for the cameras to focus on them

[inimitablestoo]

Worth pointing out that, in today's free practice at least, even the slowest cars were well within the 107% limit.

I haven't actually worked out the exact figures, but Valencia made it nice and easy by having a lap time that's roughly 100 seconds... :D

[Instant Mash]

Could have been a better idea, if it were to be left for at LEAST another year.

[Tazio]

Worth pointing out that, in today's free practice at least, even the slowest cars were well within the 107% limit.

I haven't actually worked out the exact figures, but Valencia made it nice and easy by having a lap time that's roughly 100 seconds... :D
Plus the bar is set higer. In the day when serious accidents were comon place the 107% rule still kept hopefulls off the grid.

[Roamy]

Plus the bar is set higer. In the day when serious accidents were comon place the 107% rule still kept hopefulls off the grid.

yea that is real brilliant - what do you want 14 cars on the grid??
you won't get many sponsors for just qualifying. The Toad is an idiot.

[Tazio]

yea that is real brilliant - what do you want 14 cars on the grid??
you won't get many sponsors for just qualifying. The Toad is an idiot.
I think you missed my point :confused:
The 107% rule back when it eliminated cars needed to. Today some people (luca di is a good example) view the new teams as not belonging. and they are to us really slow. That's what I meant about the bar being set higher. It’s the instant gratification mentality, a sign of the times to automatically dismiss teams that aren’t up to speed directly!

[markabilly]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: a franchise system AND 107% rule are ABSURD. If you're gonna have the 107% rule, then abolish the franchise berths, and open it to all once more.

Complete waste of a rule that'll just create stupid situations - yet another artificial crap to dilute the racing, just like the mandatory tire stops and adjustable wings, KERS... all crap! :rolleyes:
after some of you managed to look up on wikie to help the fai figure out how to do math....the smartest comment here

BTW, were it not for the weight restrictions, this would mean that at some tracks, the top Motogp bikes might make the field...but carrying around an extra 1200 lbs and 30 or 40 gallons of gas, might cost them a couple of tenths of seconds according to my math....

[jens]

The current new teams are already easily within 107%, so next year they will have even less to worry about this percentage. Could be a problem for the next new selected 13th team though, especially as it will be announced in August and will once again have little time to prepare for next season. So overall this rule will make little difference. Only FIA has something to think about if someone hits trouble and fails to set a meaningful time (Alonso at Monaco or Chandhok in Canada).

[steveaki13]

Yeah now a new 13th team, will struggle to get to the opening race. turn up after little pre season testing battle on, only to be eliminated and told to improve for the next race.

Guess what no testing, so turn up for round 2 and no improvment.

I think if the 107% rule is back then mid season testing must return to give cars outside the time, a chance to get into these races. Otherwise I see the new team next year struggling to stay afloat.

[christophulus]

Hispania's Geoff Willis thinks even 107% is generous, and would be happy with a 5% margin instead:


Q: So the return of the 107% qualifying presumably won’t worry you?

I think at one race it would have been an issue. But from an F1 engineering point of view the limit should actually be closer than that, more like a 5% rather than a 7% rule. I think you have to expect the teams to operate at a certain level, that’s what we want from Formula 1. Obviously we would be a little bit uncomfortable with 105% in our current position but it wouldn’t surprise me in the future. It’s just the nature of Formula 1. Go back 20 years and it was much more scattered.

http://www.cosworthformula1.com/news/item/?id=141

[DazzlaF1]

Well if it were 105%...

Drivers amongst new teams that would have qualified

BAHRAIN*: Glock
AUSTRALIA: -
MALAYSIA**: Kovalainen, Glock, Trulli
CHINA: Glock
SPAIN: -
MONACO: Kovalainen, Trulli, Glock
TURKEY: Trulli, Kovalainen
CANADA: Kovalainen, Trulli
VALENCIA: Trulli, Kovalainen, di Grassi, Glock

* Trulli in Bahrain would have only failed by an agonising 0.046
** In changeable conditions

[AndyL]

Well if it were 105%...

Drivers amongst new teams that would have qualified

BAHRAIN*: Glock
AUSTRALIA: -
MALAYSIA**: Kovalainen, Glock, Trulli
CHINA: Glock
SPAIN: -
MONACO: Kovalainen, Trulli, Glock
TURKEY: Trulli, Kovalainen
CANADA: Kovalainen, Trulli
VALENCIA: Trulli, Kovalainen, di Grassi, Glock

* Trulli in Bahrain would have only failed by an agonising 0.046
** In changeable conditions

I think that clearly shows 105% is too tight while there's an in-season testing ban. Hispania might never make it without the opportunity to race. 105% would be OK if the non-qualifiers got compensated by being allowed to take a day's testing (for the teams who are in their first year - no free test for all the others who were outside 105% in China!). We might even see new teams choosing to test instead of race which would be no bad thing IMO.

[Mark]

Yep, when the 107% was in place the teams at the back would usually scrape under it at the start of the year. But the pace of development during the year means that the top teams go faster but the ones at the back don't progress as quickly. Meaning that teams that were within 107% at the start of the season where falling outside of that come season end.

Having said that I personally think it's a good rule, if you aren't fast enough, you shouldn't be in F1.

[e2mtt]

Personally I don't like testing bans, although I do understand why they do them. I'd like to see more practice/testing at the tracks. Instead of 1 hour free practices on Friday, give them 4 or 5 hours of open track time. Another thing that seems like a good idea... Monday testing like MotoGP does. More running time to use as a test is always good... its not very expensive for the team, considering they are already there, and it is nice for the spectators.

[SGWilko]

Would it not be a good idea to try the following.

Teams, in their debut year must be within 107%

Second year within 105%

Third year and on 103%

Any thoughts?

[AndyL]

Would it not be a good idea to try the following.

Teams, in their debut year must be within 107%

Second year within 105%

Third year and on 103%

Any thoughts?

I don't think that flies if the justification for the rule is on safety grounds. If it's safe to have cars going round at 106.9% of the leading pace then it doesn't matter whether they're Hispanias or Ferraris. And I can't think of any other justification for the rule... I don't buy Luca diM's view that having small teams who are not as fast as Ferrari is somehow embarrassing for F1.

Edited to add:
Also pretty unfair on team A who get DQed, while team B who qualified behind them can race by virtue of having a year's less experience.

103% could make Q1 pretty entertaining though. You can imagine if someone has a decent car advantage, they might go all out in Q1 to see if they can knock out any established rivals, rather than putting in a steady banker then retiring to the pits as at present.

[AndyL]

Well if it were 105%...

Drivers amongst new teams that would have qualified

BAHRAIN*: Glock
AUSTRALIA: -
MALAYSIA**: Kovalainen, Glock, Trulli
CHINA: Glock
SPAIN: -
MONACO: Kovalainen, Trulli, Glock
TURKEY: Trulli, Kovalainen
CANADA: Kovalainen, Trulli
VALENCIA: Trulli, Kovalainen, di Grassi, Glock

* Trulli in Bahrain would have only failed by an agonising 0.046
** In changeable conditions

Were those based on the ultimate pole times? I was just looking at the times for Bahrain and I think both Virgins and both Lotuses would have been within 105% in Q1.

[Mia 01]

How many teams should be competing, 10 or 13?

[Mark]

As many as possible! And IMO the 107% should be based on Q1 times alone.

[wmcot]

Not that it really matters since we are in the "new" era of F1 where rules aren't really enforced anyway. They'd probably give any team over 107% a 5 place grid penalty - that will teach them.

[Mia 01]

A new F1 team with even a 1000 million budget will not be as fast as the excisting teams in F1.

[Mark]

Not that it really matters since we are in the "new" era of F1 where rules aren't really enforced anyway. They'd probably give any team over 107% a 5 place grid penalty - that will teach them.

I'd like to see it strictly enforced. Back in the day a car would often not fall within the 107% but still be allowed to race because they'd shown that they fell within that time during practice and they had a problem during qualifying.

I think it should be that you have to be within 107% in Q1 and if you aren't, you are out of the race! Doesn't matter if you are driving a Lotus or a McLaren!

[Mia 01]

I'd like to see it strictly enforced. Back in the day a car would often not fall within the 107% but still be allowed to race because they'd shown that they fell within that time during practice and they had a problem during qualifying.

I think it should be that you have to be within 107% in Q1 and if you aren't, you are out of the race! Doesn't matter if you are driving a Lotus or a McLaren!

Yes.

Then it is the top ten. How can a new team afford to enter whitout sponsor money (my mom and dad can ofcourse give them some).

[AndyL]

I'd like to see it strictly enforced. Back in the day a car would often not fall within the 107% but still be allowed to race because they'd shown that they fell within that time during practice and they had a problem during qualifying.

I think it should be that you have to be within 107% in Q1 and if you aren't, you are out of the race! Doesn't matter if you are driving a Lotus or a McLaren!

I've said it before but I think a rigid enforcement of the rule can only be to the detriment of us fans. If the purpose of the rule is to exclude dangerously slow cars, then DQing a perfectly decent team who simply made an error in qualifying doesn't help. And we could be denied the spectacle of a fast car charging through from the back of the grid.

Would this year's Monaco GP have been improved if Fernando had not been allowed to start?

[VkmSpouge]

The current new teams are already easily within 107%, so next year they will have even less to worry about this percentage. Could be a problem for the next new selected 13th team though, especially as it will be announced in August and will once again have little time to prepare for next season.

The new team for next season should be fine if this season's crop of new teams are anything to judge by. Both Virgin and Lotus were comfortably inside and Hispania only been outside three times, two of those due to the cars having only just been built.

I do think 107% is a decent rule, anyone slower than that (without mitigating circumstances) really has no business in the race. I don't think the limit should be any lower than that.

[airshifter]

I don't see anything wrong with the rule, but there should be some provision for the new teams if they fall outside the 107%. Without the years of experience and the lack of testing time, it might be hard for new teams to develop the cars enough to get within that 107%.

[jens]

If 107% is too "easy" and 105% too "tough", what about 106% then? :D