107% rule

I think this system was introduced to bring more spectacle to the whole hour of qualifications.

Under the old system, the first 30 minutes were pretty boring, with hardly any car on the track, and most of them in their garages, with drivers saving their tyres.

But then, the last 15 minutes were frantic, with everyone (the top drivers at least) trying to outdo each other during a few banzai laps whilst their tyres lasted.

Apparently, Ecclestone said that the sponsors didn't like it because people switched off their TV set, or just watched the last 15 minutes. The spectators at the track, really saw 15 minutes of action, and ticket sales suffered.

So, the FIA introduced the present system to bring some spice to the proceedings.

But the flaws are already showing after just a few years.

Like you say, some teams (cars) are robbed of 45 minutes of track time at every GP, that is about 15 hours per season!! What chance do they have to improve under these circumstances?

 

Maybe they should just have several different sessions per day, add up your best times from each day?
Maybe specify some sessions have to be run on hards, and some on softs?
Maybe say during any one session (not just the first or second) you must be within 107%, with multiple laps?

You just have to also keep in mind in the old days, you didn't have the limits on testing that you do now. Some teams have VOLUMES of data and information on record before they even set foot on a track, the new teams don't have that.

I realize everyone has X number of testing sessions prior and during the season - this is not about that at all, it's about track time on an actual race circuit that is used to have a GP on. It's invaluable for NEXT season.

If you were the owner of a lesser team, all you would want is just a little more equality on the track, laps-wise. Imagine being thrown on the track with NO prior testing and being told you have 15 minutes to be within 6 seconds of the leader - in that ONE session.
You're telling me they cannot give a team 30-45 minutes more track time?
Heck, they have the track for the whole weekend, give the 'slow' guys their OWN session so they don't take out a 'top car'.

 

I don't really wish to belabor the point, but commercial enterprise does not mean that throwing more money at the problem yields success. As with all business, you have to be able to execute.

I don't dispute that we do see the best of the best in F1. But it's not a fair and open playing field. Even worse, participation is NOT welcome, and there is no pretense of such.

 

Who knew there were so many HRT fans on F-Chat?

 

You're right, having money does not make a successful enterprise. Though I think that further proves that HRT hasn't executed, unless they get a government bailout wouldn't they be subject to closure? Would Apple give money to Microsoft if they were failing just so they could compete? I doubt it

 

You guys have to be kidding. Some group should be able to show up at the first/actually second race and try to piece a car together with no testing and you think they should be let in an F1 competition?

 

Exactly, I think it is forgotten that this was the second gp weekend. USF1 couldn't make it and they were crucified, still are, sure HRT has a car built but it adds NOTHING to the enterprise, spectacle, or competition. They did not improve all through last year either

 

I still don't understand how they are slower than a GP2 car...that's pretty sad.

 

Thing is, the FIA should do a thorough investigation on the background on new teams. They should not let teams with minimal sponsorships and those battling to survive into F1. This is not some play thing, but this is Formula One, of the most expensive if not the expensive sport in the world. This should not be the place for newbies without proper backing, proper car, proper technology, and proper testing can be allowed to compete. It's embarrassing.

 

Maybe they should BE executed.

 

After a burst of guarded initial enthusiasm, the consensus over here is that HRT is an absolute disgrace to the sport and to the country. It has clearly turned out to be an underfunded and mismanaged ego stroking exercise. They are so inferior and below standards that they should hide far away, but only after apologizing for the name they gave to their team.

There are no "national" teams in F1, thank God. To call a team "Hispania" feels rather arrogant, especially when the means and competence to make a dignified showing do not exist. The strong backlash by Spanish F1 fans (there are now many of them; The fact that the best F1 driver on the grid is Spanish helps ) is fully earned and was to be expected.

I applaud the strict application of the 107% rule; these guys are going nowhere and they will do nothing but embarass themselves and endanger others.

 

Maybe there are not so many HRT fans, but rather people who want more fairness in F1.

With 3 manufacturers having withdrawn from F1 and maybe more to come, there should be a mechanism allowing new small teams to get a start.

HRT may be a disastrous example, but it's clear that the existing F1 structures make it very difficult for newcomers to get a foot up the ladder.

One one hand Ecclestone is committed to present a field of 18 cars (I believe), and on the other hand the established teams don't want their income reduced by sharing with new teams. This perpetuates the 'have' and the 'have not'.

 

I couldn't understand why Epsilon (also Spanish) wasn't chosen, but Campos instead.

But then, Prodrive in UK wasn't selected either.

Epsilon is staffed by ex-Ferrari F1 engineers and has designed several sports cars, whilst fielding GP2 for some time.

Prodrive handled the Subaru WRC team, engineered the Ferrari 575 GT1, managed Ligier and Honda F1 teams, etc...

 

The irony is that the very rules that made entry for teams like HRT and USF1 (too?) easy were part of Max's effort to get the manufacturers OUT of F1.
A show of hands please. Who thinks that trading BMW for HRT was a plus for the sport?

 

Again, we beg to differ. Quali is *not* a test session - They've got 4 hours of free practice to get ready for quali - These clowns couldn't even manage that!

As to the format of quali, I think it's great - Don't know if you remember "the old days" where we all sat around gazing at an empty track - *That* sucked. This adds some drama all the way - Sometimes the big boys screw up and it's a disaster that they didn't get out of Q1 (or Q2).... One of the best changes in the format of F1 for many years IMO.

Plus, the guys in Q3 are on pretty thin ice complaining about getting baulked.

All cars can run all FP sessions and Q1. If you're not quick enough, you're done. Lotus & Virgin (and Quick Nick! ) all understand that - The playing field is perfectly level.

Fair enough

IIRC, that was when they had more cars than grid spots - In that case, I agree - There are enough other cars to fill the grid, and if you don't set a time, bad luck, you go home.

But are you saying Felipe shouldn't have started Monaco (IIRC) last year because he crashed in Q1 before setting a time? [Particularly as he ran in FP and had already set competitive times....]

F1 is, and should always remain *hard* - It's the (elitist ) pinnacle of the sport - You know that going in, you should know what you've got to do (this season get below 107) and try and execute - The other newbies are managing it, but these guys are damn close to bringing the sport into disrepute IMO. [Witness the comments of our Spanish friend above]

As I said earlier, hopefully they'll actually do some running in FP next week and manage it - Tony wasn't that far off, and I don't think Narain is *that* bad - Had he actually got to drive the damn thing in FP.

Why should you get "special dispensation" to do additional testing just because you suck? The playing field is no longer level, and that's not what F1 is all about. Don't like it? Don't enter.

Cheers,
Ian

 

^^This whole post x1000

 

Well of course you didn't understand, you apparently are not an FOM insider. Even the application is secret, and of course us ordinary masses wouldn't understand the relationships between the teams and Bernie.

Your comment implies that selection is merit-based, which seems unlikely.

 

Slight correction - The entry process was run by Mad Max and the FIA, not FOM and Bernie.

Cheers,
Ian

 

How much consideration does a team that shows up with two unassembled cars warrant?
I like a plucky underdog but HRT needs to meet a certain minimum standard before they run with the big boys.

 

Ian, Qualifying IS a test session - to see who can go the fastest.
I still don't see how full qualifying the way it had been done for 50 years all of a sudden is 'bad'.

Detroit 82, Massa at Monaco - now you are wishy-washy, it makes no difference if you have a full field, or are on a 'star' team, you either qualify or you don't, it makes no difference who you are or who you drive for. What you are saying is if HRT made a fast lap in practice then they should have made the race?
That goes back to just timing all sessions, and exempt nobody from any of them.

Guys, I'm not saying HRT is a good team, nor am I saying they or anyone else deserves special attention, all I am saying is all teams deserve the same amount of track time as any other team, you can label the 'session' anything you like. I'd even make a concession and say have several one hour qualifying sessions but limit the last 15 minutes to the teams that make the 107% rule, but allow all teams to at least run parts of all sessions.

 

You need to understand the internal politics of F1, EVERYTHING is merit-based, and mainly MONEY based.

 

IDK if this has been address already, but I'm curious if any of the new teams would have not met the 107% rule last season for any races.

 

You may have more insight in this than I do, but I really don't think that Mosley 'evicted' the big manufacturers.
I tend to think that the interest of major manufacturers in motorsport is sporadic, dictated by the marketing demands, and constrained by economic situations. They just come and go.

When everything is OK, it's easy to convince the board of directors of a large company to splash money and get involved in extra-curriculum activities like F1. The offshoot that is created to carry on that task isn't the decision maker.

But when the results take time to come, the costs keep creeping up and the business hits an economic downturn, the board of directors has to face the shareholders year after year, trying to explain why money is still 'diverted' (wasted for some) in non-core activities.

That's why neither BMW, nor Ford, Peugeot, Renault, Toyota, Honda or else could ever be relied to stay for the long term. After a while, their management called it a day. I don't think Mosley was the cause of their departure; economic circumstances were. We will see how long Mercedes stays.

 

I don't believe so - I could be wrong, and HRT were very, very close on occasion, but IIRC they'd have squeaked in - There may be one or two exceptions when one or the other of their cars never made it out in Q1, but other than that I think they were good to go.

[No doubt someone will do the research and prove me wrong ]

Cheers,
Ian

 

We're splitting hairs here (which is fine!), but I still disagree - FP is for testing, quali is for qualifying.

As to the format of quali - It's not that it was "bad" in the "old" days [I've watched some *epic* runs for pole late in the last hour] but it's "better" now in that there's always cars on track and anyone can screw up in Q1.

Being eliminated in Q1 means you lose a total of 15 or maybe 25 minutes - I really don't think that an additional 25 minutes would buy HRT (or the other guys eliminated) anything - The learning process is during the 4 hours of FP, not in those last two sessions when the big boys are going for it.

I'll ask again - if 107 was in place last year, should Massa have not started? Excess cars does make a difference (IMO) - The tailenders (and I worked for one long ago) used to love one of the front runners blowing up (or whatever) as it opened another slot for us! We legitimately went faster and therefore had the right to the grid spot, they didn't.

It comes back to stewards discretion - I think that had HRT got under 107 in FP there's a legitimate case that they should be allowed to start - They'd have shown they could run "just fast enough" and, for whatever reason couldn't duplicate that in quali.

That's exactly the reason the 3 FP sessions are not counted - They're for testing/development, not balls out quali - There *is* a difference IMO.

Cheers,
Ian