107% rule- be more aggressive in Q1?

[Ben_Chracer]

Why wouldn't the leading teams be very aggressive in Q1 in order to reduce the number of cars on grid? In Malaysia, the eventual pole time was about 2 seconds faster than the fastest Q1 time. I'm thinking RBR, McLaren and Ferrari were all laying back instead of really pushing to get the best times in Q1. Consequently, all the times were within 107% of the fastest Q1 time and the grid was full.

I realize the slower teams may not survive if they do not make the grid at every race, but their business case is not my concern. I would want to win and my odds would be better with fewer cars on the track. No "moving chicanes," no avoiding uncompetitive cars in the way, less risk of collision, less clag offline, there are many positives in this scenario.

What do you say?

[Mark]

They probably gain more by not 'wasting' a set of tyres.

[Sonic]

They probably gain more by not 'wasting' a set of tyres.

Plus one. Kinda obvious really, what with the "you must throw yourself off the track as soon as the blue flags wave" rule.

[F1boat]

They probably gain more by not 'wasting' a set of tyres.

This.

[airshifter]

No sense in wasting tires, and no sense in possibly trashing a car throwing it off track trying to set a really fast time. The longer the session goes, the more rubber there is on the track, and faster times are almost always at the end of a session regardless.

Combine those factors with the primary factor that all you have to do in Q1 is make it through to Q2 and you have solid reasons. Since the times mean nothing once Q2 starts, the fastest car is once again equal in standing to the slowest car that makes it through.

[Big Ben]

stupid rule. they limit the number of teams and than don't allow them to compete at every gp. It was not enough that potential new teams have to spend huge amounts of money without any guarantee they would be admitted, now they don't know if admitted when will they will be able to race.

[steveaki13]

If you allowed more entries in and then let the best 26 race we would not have really slow cars racing and still have a full grid.

And rather than just crusie around 6 seconds off the pace, every team would have to improve.

[ykiki]

Let's see what's more plausible if you're managing a top team like RB, Ferrari or McLaren...

"Do what you can to make it into Q2, but by all means preserve your car. We don't need you putting any more stress on the equipment then you have to. It's a long race tomorrow."

OR.....

"Get out there and set the fastest time possible by all means necessary. You and your equipment need to perform at the absolute limit at all times. This is Q1 - you need to throw caution to the wind. No price is too high and if we're lucky HRT will be sent home."

:eek:

[steveaki13]

Let's see what's more plausible if you're managing a top team like RB, Ferrari or McLaren...

"Do what you can to make it into Q2, but by all means preserve your car. We don't need you putting any more stress on the equipment then you have to. It's a long race tomorrow."

OR.....

"Get out there and set the fastest time possible by all means necessary. You and your equipment need to perform at the absolute limit at all times. This is Q1 - you need to throw caution to the wind. No price is too high and if we're lucky HRT will be sent home."

:eek:

:up: :laugh:

[DazzlaF1]

If you allowed more entries in and then let the best 26 race we would not have really slow cars racing and still have a full grid.

And rather than just crusie around 6 seconds off the pace, every team would have to improve.

That would also bring about the possibility of anyone failing to qualify if they ran into trouble, I mean you could have Vettel spinning off on his 1st qually run, leaving him unable to take part in the rest of the session and therefore eliminate him from the race on the spot, would that be a good thing?

Also today, it just showed the 107% rule was pointless again, both HRT's were comfortably inside it again so at the moment it's not like were having cars on the grid that are too slow, by the letter of the law, they have earned their spots on the grid.

[Rollo]

That would also bring about the possibility of anyone failing to qualify if they ran into trouble, I mean you could have Vettel spinning off on his 1st qually run, leaving him unable to take part in the rest of the session and therefore eliminate him from the race on the spot, would that be a good thing?

Absolutely.

If someone was a nuff-nuff and stuffed the car into the scenery meaning that they did not qualify, then they should jolly well suffer the consequences.

This thread has a few interesting tales, incl Watson and Lauda both failing to qualify for Monaco in 1983.
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?141724-DNQ-ers

[Rollo]

They probably gain more by not 'wasting' a set of tyres.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/mark-webber-i-cant-wait-to-put-lewis-hamilton-back-in-his-place/story-e6frf9if-1226041132263
But we're still learning and we found out in China that qualifying position might now be less important than it was in the past.
We only have six sets of dry tyres for qualifying and the race (three sets of prime, three sets of option) and while you don't want to be qualifying 18th every weekend, you're better off saving a fresh set of tyres for the race rather than doing another run in Q3 to gain just one grid position.
My fastest lap in the race was 1.4s faster than anyone else's and that was because of my having more new sets of option tyres in the race.
- Mark Webber, Herald Sun, 19th April, 2011.

Mark agrees with Mark. I sense a conspiracy here.