107% rule

It will happen the first 6-9 races until HRT drops out, and there will be no regret, they are a farce and are nothing but movable chicanes. If you can't afford to run with the big boys don't try, if you aren't fast enough... well

I feel bad for them, I really do. I'm sure their engineers work just as hard if not harder than other teams to get their car running, but this is the pinnacle, we don't allow people to compete in the olympics who can't perform the required tasks, why should we here?

 

I think teams that don't make the cut at the beginning of the season should be allowed additional testing. There is only so much development you can do without getting wheels on the track. HRT will be back at Malaysia, still slow and probably won't make the cut again. Maybe they'll have their act together by the third race?

>8^)
ER

 

I think all cars should be allowed to run all Q sessions, the fast continue to get faster, and the slower guys don't get the track time they desperately need, and they stay slower. With the testing sessions severely limited, where are they supposed to get track time? Yes, I realize all teams get the same allotment of test time, but you cannot compare a testing session from the top teams to the same sessions to the lower budget bottom teams.
Maybe you would be happy if only the top 6-7 TEAMS competed, it almost sounds like it with your elitist statement. Nobody wants that.

I'd also like to remind you almost all teams were 'farces' when they very first set foot on the grid.

 

Liuzzi was pretty close to the cut off time. He might actually make it in one of these days. Karthikeyan was hopeless as expected. I'd be surprised if he even starts a race this year.

 

Might I remind you they were the ONLY team not to qualify, and the only team to turn their first wheel in qualifying, Virgin is just as old as they are too. Spyker was never as far off the pace as HRT, Super Aguri were never even that bad. Sure they improved for a while but then they dropped out in the middle of the season. Are you saying we should fill the grid with 30 cars that are all gone by the 5th race? If this was anything below F1 I might agree with you, but this is the big leagues, let's get real here.

 

New teams should get a break, since its hard enough to get the funds to do F1, maybe a weight advantage, help them get up to speed, at the end its just a show show, F1 isnt the best racing, but with times the way they are, more teams the better the show, 2 less cars on the grid, one less team. makes no sense. Imagine the cost just to get there and run for 2 days and not even race!!

 

Please don't compare F1 to the olympics.

 

Would you care to offer why such a comparison should not be made? Are they not supposed to represent the top level of their respected fields on a global scale?

 

That seems fair to give the teams that can't make the cut a chance to catch up.
One GP missed because of the 107% rule should give one extra test day, etc...

Also, cars that are eliminated during the Q1 and Q2 should be allowed some more testing time.

As it is, only the top teams get all the track time, but they are already ahead of the rest anyway.

I have never approved of the restriction in testing anyway; I think it's just a completely daft idea. There are many ways to reduce costs without limiting testing.

 

They should have known about this in any case. They got into F1 last year with no budget. They sucked. Now it seems their budget has shrunk even more, and can't even qualify. Perhaps they should take note, cut their loses and go to a less expensive series.

 

+1

BS.

+1

BS x2 [I do agree that the testing ban is daft though ]

I'm sorry guys, and I love a good underdog, but one of the beauties of F1 to me is the level playing field. "Giving 'em a break" is *exactly* analogous to saying "he's not as fast/strong (in the Olympics) therefore he should be allowed to take steroids". It's not fair to the other competitors and is tantamount to cheating.

Also remember they didn't turn a wheel until quali - They completely missed 4 hours of free practice in what was supposed to be round 2! Maybe we should cancel a few more rounds to give them a chance!

They're an embarrassment to the sport I love and until they can get within 107% should not be allowed in.

Let 'em run light? You gotta be kidding! Why not let 'em run a turbo to "help 'em out"?

Cheers,
Ian

 

F1 is nothing but "elitist".
If by "elitist" you mean the ultimate meritocracy in racing.
Let them make their bones in the lesser formulae. No hand holding in the big leagues.

 

I think the 107% rule is fair, IF it is uniformly applied.

The fact that the stewards can make an exception if it's Hamilton or Alonso having a very bad day makes the rule a farce, because you know that the backmarkers will never get a break.

 

I beg to differ (although I understand where you're coming from).

Last season, wasn't it Phil who crashed in Q1 (Monaco IIRC?) and never set a time? - Are you saying he shouldn't have been allowed to start from the back?

I think you've got to give the stewards "discretion" for "exceptional circumstances".

If you just suck it's different.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Words to live by

Of course there's a difference. You put down a horse for a broken leg not a muscle ache.

The 107 rule is largely a safety measure keeping the dangerously slow cars off the track. If Hamilton or (even) Massa has a bad Q we know they'll be faster in the race.

 

I've always wondered how they arrived at 107%? It's one # that's never changed - It was eliminated for a while (when Bernie needed all the runners he could get) but I'm pretty sure it's been 107 forever..... Why not 106, or 110? (For dummies )

Cheers,
Ian

 

Ok. So is the way "in" to crash slightly on the out lap before setting a time? Does your answer change depending on who it is? If so, the rule is not truly a rule, but a guideline and thus doesn't belong in a sport where every wing curvature is precisely controlled by rules.

 

Not sure about the crash out to get in but as for the rest, its cold man, but you make a good case.

 

I like the idea of additional testing but remember HRT did no testing at all.
They should have their mechanical act togeather in two weeks.
If they treat Malaysia as their dynamic test they can see what works and what doesnt performancewise so the 107% rule may not be needed.
By the third race for sure.

If Bernie is willing to drop Toyota BMW etc he had better have a plan in place to support Ma and Pa's racin.

 

Not at all.

To a degree, yes it does - Particularly if you've already demonstrated (in free practice) that you're within the 107% and it was purely "bad luck" (a blown motor or a crash for example) that you couldn't duplicate that in quali.

Despite all the rules, the stewards must have discretion for unforeseen circumstances. [IMO]

Cheers,
Ian
PS - We used to call it the "OSINTOT".......

"Oh s**t, I never thought of that!"......

 

Not only did they do no testing, they didn't even run in the 4 hours of FP of round 2!

Hopefully (really!) they'll now have cars that run on Friday and be able to get in - They'll still be moving chicanes, but at least they're now entitled to be in......

Until then, "bad luck chaps!" - Don't like it, go do F3 or GP2.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

Not for testing bans but am for making the sport open to new teams to come in, get up to speed, and compete.

The problem is a team like this, that after the good fortune of round 1 being cancelled, shows up without having ever driven their car. It's a disgrace.

 

OK, hypothetically, if we go that route, where is the cut off point? Outside of 107?

Outside the top 10? 15?

I can see Virgin (for example) deliberately going slow to get more testing..... How much more?

How about if only one car is outside the cut off point? [I can see Ferrari ordering Phil to suck in order to get more testing...... ]

It just can't be done, and IMO shouldn't be done - I'll say again, "don't like the heat...."

This is F1, not taxi cabs (where they can, and do, change the rules during the meeting!) - I'm done with F1 (and I've been a fan for nearly 50 years) if they ever start making "exceptions" for some teams and not others......

Cheers,
Ian