|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
22 Feb 2014, 14:01 (Ref:3371002) | #1 | |
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 366
|
107% ruling?
Does it still exist?
Just wondering, as judging by current testing progress there may be some cars that struggle to make the cut. I know its only testing and its hard to call, but Rosberg's lap today would have set the 107% marker at 1m39.813s. Thats quicker than both Red Bulls, Caterhams, Marussias, Vergne, Sutil and Grosjean have all managed so far. Obviously thats not a true comparison (its only testing, different days and different programs etc), but is there a genuine worry that some cars might not get up to speed to make the grid? At what point do they invoke force majeure? I would imagine that ultimately, providing the next test runs a bit more smoothly this won't become an issue. But I can see the field becoming incredibly strung out pretty early in Oz. |
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 14:04 (Ref:3371004) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,067
|
Yep, still being used, but barely ever enforced these days. I remember them turning blind eyes to it with the HRT's and whatnot.
Selby |
||
__________________
Run-offs, chicanes, hairpins... Think you can do better? Let's see it! Check out the "My Tracks" forum here on Ten-Tenths. |
22 Feb 2014, 15:41 (Ref:3371022) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,052
|
Don't all the teams have to agree to allow a driver to race if he's outside the 107%?
They let the HRTs race as they were never going to be a threat, but if a Red Bull happened to stray outside the line, would Mercedes, McLaren etc allow them back in? Though if they were down there on genuine pace then they'd be no threat either I suppose. Last edited by Hawkwood; 22 Feb 2014 at 15:59. Reason: forgot punctuation |
||
|
22 Feb 2014, 15:55 (Ref:3371026) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,752
|
if they cant get within 107% during Q or their practice sessions i really do hope one of the other team blocks them from entering the race (if that is indeed the procedure).
i would be curious to see how that scenario plays out! |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
22 Feb 2014, 16:13 (Ref:3371031) | #5 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,630
|
Quote:
The answer is simple; everybody scratches everybody else's back just in case they end up in the same situation. This is why there are so few protests made by teams; they don't want the competitors doing it to them. |
|||
|
22 Feb 2014, 16:19 (Ref:3371032) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,752
|
imo they would have to press their advantage and with double points looming at seasons end i dont know if they find a compromise.
Ferrari at Indy 2005 comes to mind. Ferrari had no chance at a title but placed a farcical win and the face saving propaganda that came with it of greater importance then compromise. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
22 Feb 2014, 18:09 (Ref:3371064) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,435
|
The decision rests with the stewards. In essence, if a driver has been reasonable quick outside of qualifying they have a chance of being let into the race. If they have been consistently slow throughout the meeting (e.g. HRT at the 2011 and 2012 Australian races), then they're out.
|
||
|
22 Feb 2014, 20:55 (Ref:3371113) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,552
|
It might be a case of who you look after on your way up as you might meet them on the way down.
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 21:44 (Ref:3371124) | #9 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,812
|
Yes it is still there. However it has always been applied sensibly and appropriately. Much to the confusion of some.
So if reliability intervenes then they'll start. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
22 Feb 2014, 22:30 (Ref:3371130) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,892
|
It will all be much closer, come Melbourne. Much less close than in recent years though.
Fred Drift: I am really looking forward to how the new technology works out and how the drivers cope with the very different cars. However I am a bit worried that the spread of performance will be much greater than we are used to and reliability will be like going back to the good old days. |
||
|
22 Feb 2014, 22:36 (Ref:3371132) | #11 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,024
|
As far as I'm aware, it's there to force out teams and drivers which are too slow in themselves, thus explaining the blind eye turning. And if the teams are too slow to get within 107%, you have to say that's pretty slow for Formula 1. Remember the hapless Vincenzo Sospiri in the 1997 Lola?
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 08:13 (Ref:3371175) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,366
|
If you went back to earlier decades you would find that in decades past the differences in lap times were much greater than 107%. The 107% rule was introduced relatively recently because there were plenty of entries, and one way of weeding tail enders out was too disqualify those who didn't demonstrate a particular level of competitiveness.
In the 1967 Race of Champions (pick a race from nearly 50 years ago) Dan Gurney won heat two but was more than 49 seconds in front of fifteenth place...In a ten lap race.... but that average time is well within 107% of the pole position (1min32.2) and the fastest lap (1min 32.6). 107% is actually quite generous in cars with similar power/ engine outputs |
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 09:41 (Ref:3371201) | #13 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 288
|
Is there any scope for black flagging a driver during a race for simply being too slow (a la Indycar)?
|
|
__________________
Learning the orange ropes... |
23 Feb 2014, 12:20 (Ref:3371229) | #14 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,455
|
Only time that happened was when Al Pease was blackflagged during the 1969 Canadian GP, as he was hopelessly off the pace
I think one of the discressions in the 107% rule is if you had shown to have been within the 107% in any other session. |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
23 Feb 2014, 16:02 (Ref:3371280) | #15 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
We're currently looking at about half of the teams not being within the 107% rule in Melbourne, and that's assuming that they actually manage to put a decent lap together!
Caterham and Marussia had no problems getting within the 107% rule in 2013, but they did have ancient V8 engines that were very very reliable. |
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 16:10 (Ref:3371285) | #16 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 366
|
Quote:
My understanding is that "discretion" can be applied when a car has an issue in qualifying but its clear to all that the car can lap at 107%. I'm not sure that will be the case come Melbourne. The final test will be interesting to see how much more pace the Renaults can extract |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rule 58b Changed Third driver ruling | Mr A Pie | Formula One | 32 | 17 Apr 2005 10:41 |
107% | Marbot | Formula One | 18 | 11 Feb 2005 05:04 |
There is a black & white ruling on the 'once to swerve/chop' | Jukebox | Formula One | 3 | 22 Mar 2002 12:02 |
Does the FIA have a ruling on wheels? | Sharky | Racing Technology | 7 | 31 Oct 2000 10:39 |