[Rules] The 107% rule - analysis

[bjohnsonsmith]

I don't know about the reintroduction of the 107% rule. There are more important things that need to be addressed rather than messing around with qualifying.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by neiltb

Redshoes, don't be ridiculous, we would then have 14 cars, starting at grid slot 10.

Not necessarily, the remaining 9 cars in Q3 could have set a fast enough time in Q1.

I'm not suggesting for one second that we will actually see such a thing happen. I'm just trying to explain that's Pingguest's theory is indeed possible, if somewhat unlikely.

As with any rule change you need to think about not just what is likely but also what is possible. It's likely that this rule will only effect the new teams who aren't up to speed yet, but it is possible it could effect a front-running team (i.e. Alonso in Monaco).

[mattt]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Maybe the FIA just got fed up of Luca moaning about the 'new' teams?

I have to agree with that theory, maybe there just trying to prove to him that there not "too slow"

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by manwell

I have absolutely no idea how you came up with that theory.

If they are the pole sitter, its because they set the fastest time.
So how on earth could they be outside the 107%?

Only the best 15 Q3-participants will be allowed to take part of Q2, and only the best 10 Q2-participants are allowed to take part of Q3. Assuming that the pole sitter had troubles in Q1 and just made it to the 15th position but was outside the 107%-rule, then he's not allowed to start! The FIA obviously need to fix that, but I'm not sure whether the FIA will actually foresee this possibility.

[jab]

Whilst it has come about because LdM has been whinging, I don't see any reason for this rule to not be brought in...

It won't matter either because if the rumours are to be believed, it'll be ART getting the 13th slot, and Toyota will be building their car, so I can't see them being at risk of being outside the limit. The only worry I'd have is for HRT who are switching suppliers, but we don't know who the new supplier is yet so it would be wrong to judge

Basically, I don't know what people are whinging about. It's necessary to keep slow cars off the grid. LdM might be a...prat, but his point is fair. And there's no reason for the FIA to not add it to the rules. No big deal

[Adam43]

And no big deal if it isn't implemented.

It doesn't really (word highlighted just for you) matter if it isn't implemented either.

[Chatters]

Updated for Valencia.

GP	Q1 TIME	107% TIME	DRIVERS ELIMINATED (TIME)
Bahrain	1:54.612	2:02.635	SEN (2:03:204) CHA (2:04.904)
Australia	1:24.774	1:30.708	N/A
Malaysia	1:46.283	1:53.723	CHA (1:56.299) SEN (1:57.269) DIG (1:59.997)
China	1:35.641	1:42.336	N/A
Spain	1:21.412	1:27.111	SEN (1:27.122)
Monaco	1:14.757	1:19.990	N/A
Turkey	1:27.067	1:33.162	N/A
Canada	1:15.889	1:21.201	CHA (1:27.757)
Valencia	1:38.132	1:45.001	N/A

Not much to report, however even Bruno Senna this time was 2.2 seconds quicker then required.

[tux]

So when the 13th team is announced later on this season they will come in next season in exactly the same position as Hispania, Virgin, Lotus. They will fail to be within 107% for the first couple of Gps due to a lack of testing, the sponsor gets annoyed because its not getting race coverage pulls out of the team and the team will end up folding within a year.

Instead of implementing this rule why not sort out some form of in season testing so the teams lower down the grid can get more track time to test upgrades.

I know your all thinking shut up if the car cant make the 107% rule then it shouldnt be on the grid anyway but what ive mentioned above really could happen although prehaps i am just thinking of worst case scenario.

[jab]

I would argue that if that was the case then the team, not just the car, isn't up to the standard. If they build a car that isn't quick enough to race at a safe speed and also run out of money after a few races because they can't attract the sponsorship because their car is so slow, then them going out of business sooner rather than later is probably for the best, as in that situation, the team's demise is inevitable. There is no potential in a team like that. Name one team that has started off like that and gone on to become race winners in the last 30 years

Also slow cars and drivers are dangerous. Before the 107% rule was brought in to start with, you had guys like Deletraz and Lavaggi out there who were 10 seconds off the pace, just rolling roadblocks that were only going to lead to trouble

Having a Hispania out there in the first race, when they were way off the pace and had hardly done any testing, might have been fun to watch but it defied common sense, to be fair. I love minnows but there do need to be rules like this to make sure it doesn't get silly. Just because there are no cars over 107% now isn't a valid argument for the FIA not putting the rule in. There is no argument for the rule to not be added. It's a common sense decision

[browney]

I disagree iwth the rule when there is next to no testing allowed.

GPs shouldn't be a place to test, of coarse, but the current rules mean that new teams barely get any other oportunity. Why not add this rule but also add a rule that a new team can have quite a few additional tests in their first couple of years (also choose the new teams a year before they are going to start racing to give them time)? That way there is a chance that the new teams will quickly get into the mid-pack.

[jab]

Originally Posted by browney

I disagree iwth the rule when there is next to no testing allowed.

GPs shouldn't be a place to test, of coarse, but the current rules mean that new teams barely get any other oportunity.

So what? Lotus and Virgin had no trouble getting over the 107% from the first race starting from scratch

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jab

So what? Lotus and Virgin had no trouble getting over the 107% from the first race starting from scratch

Just because some can, doesn't mean everyone can.

Especially since HRT hadn't even finished building their car until FP2 of Bahrain.

[Adam43]

Instead of the 107% rule make it that anyone who gets within 10s of being lapped is DSQ and banned from the next race or two. Lets rid ourselves of this scourge.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Matt

Just because some can, doesn't mean everyone can.

Especially since HRT hadn't even finished building their car until FP2 of Bahrain.

And?

Why should we make excuses for them? If Virgin and Lotus could build cars that could get within 107% by Bahrain, why not HRT? There weren't exactly any exonerating circumstances, other than they ran out of money, which is their problem

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jab

And?

Why should we make excuses for them? If Virgin and Lotus could build cars that could get within 107% by Bahrain, why not HRT? There weren't exactly any exonerating circumstances, other than they ran out of money, which is their problem

It's clear that most Americans and Most Europeans share differing views on most racing crap. I'll respectfully disagree with you and end this here so it doesn't get out of hand.

[Speed-freak]

Originally Posted by Chatters

So, the FIA has re-introduced the 107% rule for 2011, meaning any cars outside the 107% bracket of the fastest Q1 time will not be allowed to compete.

I thought I'd do a little calculating, and see who would be eliminated from the GPs so far if this rule were in place now. Don't know why...


Interesting. Excluding Malaysia, which featured variable weather, there were only 4 occasions where a driver/s were slower then 107% of the fastest Q1 time. Excluding Chandhok's problem in Canada, that leaves only 3.

Obviously (if HRT continue next year), the only logical prediction is that HRT, like Virgin and Lotus, will close the gap slightly more.

So I ask the question: Will this rule make any real difference? And if not, why is it being brought back?

Perhaps the rule returns, not just for this years new teams but new teams over the next couple of years. It makes sure they know the benchmark. The rule worked before, why not again.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jab

And?

Why should we make excuses for them? If Virgin and Lotus could build cars that could get within 107% by Bahrain, why not HRT? There weren't exactly any exonerating circumstances, other than they ran out of money, which is their problem

I would have thought running out of money would have been quite a big problem.

[Chatters]

Updated for Silverstone.

GP	Q1 TIME	107% TIME	DRIVERS ELIMINATED (TIME)
Bahrain	1:54.612	2:02.635	SEN (2:03:204) CHA (2:04.904)
Australia	1:24.774	1:30.708	N/A
Malaysia	1:46.283	1:53.723	CHA (1:56.299) SEN (1:57.269) DIG (1:59.997)
China	1:35.641	1:42.336	N/A
Spain	1:21.412	1:27.111	SEN (1:27.122)
Monaco	1:14.757	1:19.990	N/A
Turkey	1:27.067	1:33.162	N/A
Canada	1:15.889	1:21.201	CHA (1:27.757)
Valencia	1:38.132	1:45.001	N/A
Silverstone	1:30.841	1:37.200	N/A

Yamamoto only .3 of a second away from being unable to start the BGP.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Chatters

Yamamoto only .3 of a second away from being unable to start the BGP.

Which actually puts Hispania's pace in a favourable light.

I echo the comments about not introducing this whilst there is an in-season testing ban. I wouldn't like to see testing just brought back for smaller teams necessarily, because I like the same rules for all.

[Teretonga]

I have suggested set tests for everyone at particular times during the season before, say four 3 day tests across a racing year at venues outside GP's or where a GP has already been run that year.

Thaat would allow a fixed amount of testing to take place. Updates could be tested outside of a GP and issues resolved before taking them to a race and the little teams can get some solid testing in. It can be budgeted for and organised in good time for all the teams.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I have suggested set tests for everyone at particular times during the season before, say four 3 day tests across a racing year at venues outside GP's or where a GP has already been run that year.

Isn't that what they used to do years ago, or at least something very similar?

[mini1400]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Isn't that what they used to do years ago, or at least something very similar?

Could have it at circuits where they haven't yet had their GP and run on a differenct configuration circuit - ie at Silverstone do the test on the 'Bridge' circuit and race on the 'Arena' circuit - the setup would be slightly different...

[Teretonga]

Not quite.

If they had a test when they returned from the first flyaway races, say before Barcelona, at somewhere like Ricard or Portimaio, Then another four or five weeks later at the other of the two above circuits, followed by another perhaps after the German GP, say at Silverstone (full GP circuit) and then perhaps one at Barcelona after the Italian GP which is the last European race before Singapore and the other fly away races at the end of the year.

This would give the teams the opportunity to test new development parts, sort out issues after the initial fly away races and have a few regular opportunities before the final fly away races at the end of the year.
In actual fact little development occurrs after Monza because they are focussing on next year, unless they are very much in championship contention, so perhaps a week before Monza may be the best time for the final test. Then nothing happens until the January-February sessions in Southern Europe.

I'd be quite happy to allow unrestricted testing for four weeks after the final GP for the year (before Christmas) and then a series of sessions January - February.

Another way of handling it would be to allow each team a limited number of days testing each year but they all had to be at one nominated circuit (outside of the group tests). So Ferrari could nominate Fioriano or Mugello, and each other team Silverstone, Ricard, Jerez Barcelona or wherever they preferred but it would be the only place they could test outside the races or formal F1 tests whenever they were organised.
They would have to nominate the dates at least 4 weeks in advance and stick to those dates in the allowed time frame (say 10 days a year between March 31st and October 31st).

This at least limits it to a set number of times, and is the same for everyone but at least provides opportunity to develop the cars within a formal schedule.

It would be more economical though for the teams to do the group tests in terms of tyre support and organisation, and it would create considerable media and spectator interest.

[Chatters]

Updated for Hockenheim.

GP	Q1 TIME	107% TIME	DRIVERS ELIMINATED (TIME)
Bahrain	1:54.612	2:02.635	SEN (2:03:204) CHA (2:04.904)
Australia	1:24.774	1:30.708	N/A
Malaysia	1:46.283	1:53.723	CHA (1:56.299) SEN (1:57.269) DIG (1:59.997)
China	1:35.641	1:42.336	N/A
Spain	1:21.412	1:27.111	SEN (1:27.122)
Monaco	1:14.757	1:19.990	N/A
Turkey	1:27.067	1:33.162	N/A
Canada	1:15.889	1:21.201	CHA (1:27.757)
Valencia	1:38.132	1:45.001	N/A
Silverstone	1:30.841	1:37.200	N/A
Hockenheim	1:14.808	1:20.045	N/A

Again Yamamoto comes very close (0.2s) from being unable to start.

[Chatters]

Updated for Hungary.

GP	Q1 TIME	107% TIME	DRIVERS ELIMINATED (TIME)
Bahrain	1:54.612	2:02.635	SEN (2:03:204) CHA (2:04.904)
Australia	1:24.774	1:30.708	N/A
Malaysia	1:46.283	1:53.723	CHA (1:56.299) SEN (1:57.269) DIG (1:59.997)
China	1:35.641	1:42.336	N/A
Spain	1:21.412	1:27.111	SEN (1:27.122)
Monaco	1:14.757	1:19.990	N/A
Turkey	1:27.067	1:33.162	N/A
Canada	1:15.889	1:21.201	CHA (1:27.757)
Valencia	1:38.132	1:45.001	N/A
Silverstone	1:30.841	1:37.200	N/A
Hockenheim	1:14.808	1:20.045	N/A
Hungary	1:20.417	1:26.046	SEN (1:26.391) YAM (1:26.453)

So, for the first time since Canada, we have cars slower then the fastest Q1. time. Is it a case of two steps forward for RBR, Ferrari, McLaren, and one step back for HRT?