Testing for teams that fail to meet the 107% time

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by kipper

It is also theoretically possible that weather conditions can change between Q1 and Q3 meaning that the cars get faster throughout the session, however, the backmarkers would not be able to respond to this as a result of being knocked out of qualifying.

Which is one of the reasons that the stewards make the call on the application of the 107% rule - they can take circumstances such as weather into account if needs be.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by GolddustMini

so if im a bit off of the pace then i may as well sandbag to ensure i get more testing time..........

completely unworkable, would maclaren get 14mins extra testing because they are slightly off the pace? or are they deamed to be close enough to the pace to be denied your 'testing tax relief'

Why would you sandbag in qualifying?

And why shouldn't Mclaren get 14 minutes more? Although, I'd keep it integer so 100-100.99% dont get relief, 101-101.99 get 2 hrs etc.

It's no more unworkable than success ballast in BTCC, or reverse grids etc. Why do you think its unworkable btw?

In fact, quite easy to implement - you just need a calculator and stopwatch. There, I've fixed all of F1's problems with £10 worth of bits.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

It'd be a bit harsh to base it on 107% of the pole time. Teams who need to worry about the 107% rule aren't going to make it out of Q3, which is a slower session for everyone than Q1. Plus, Q3 times aren't really representative of race pace, so I don't think it creates a safety issue.

Depends on why the 107 rule was introduced - was it for safety reasons, or just to get rid of HRT?

[Paradise City]

I'd like to see 24-26 cars on the grid. There's no point though having a non-team on the grid that can barely build a car and have nearly no facilities. I'd love to see Hispania prove me wrong and turn things around but I don't see it happening.

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

What about testing only at FIA organized tests only, at non-GP venues? For example two-day test at Lausitzring in May and one shortly after the August break at Vallelunga? You could limit the second day of each to reserve drivers only.

What I like about the Friday day-long testing at a GP venue and a gp weekend is that they save a kings ransom in money. They don't have to haul equipment to non-GP tracks on non-race weekends and they are all under each others noises. It saves costs, increases transparency and the kids actually get to learn their trade.

[AussieTimmeh]

I'll put it out there that I think this rule will be the end of HRT. They won't qualify for all of the races and the few sponsors they have will leave them. The lack of track and tire data from the races they miss this year on the new tires will mean they have less data to start with next year, if indeed they are still in existence.

Not saying that is a good or bad thing, but my gut feeling is that this rule will be the end of them due to the vicious cycle it creates.

[EastonNeston]

HRT have not helped themselves by failing to prepare properly for the season. I'm sure there would be a lot more goodwill and understanding within F1 if they actually appeared to be a serious racing team, something they don't at the moment.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by EastonNeston

HRT have not helped themselves by failing to prepare properly for the season. I'm sure there would be a lot more goodwill and understanding within F1 if they actually appeared to be a serious racing team, something they don't at the moment.

Money money money money money.

If HRT cannot make it them few if any other teams will make it. This 107 rule (and the ban on testing which prevents new teams from ever being competitive) effectively means no more new teams in F1. If HRT go, I don't think Virgin and Lotus will be far behind, sadly.

[MrTTraces]

So say for example Hamilton gets a puncture and crashes breaking the front suspension and he has to park it on the circuit and does not get a lap time in Q3, does this mean he does not get on the grid as he hasn't posted a time within 107% and because of that he and the team should get more testing time?

I don't think so.

Tough love i'm afraid HRT need to buck up their ideas, end of.

[Super Hans]

I've decided to enter the next Grand Prix in my Ford Focus estate. Yeah, I know I'm miles off the pace, but I've not got much money, so have mercy on me.

[AussieTimmeh]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

I've decided to enter the next Grand Prix in my Ford Focus estate. Yeah, I know I'm miles off the pace, but I've not got much money, so have mercy on me.

But if you still qualify in front of HRT, which is probable, they might let you in...

[Wims]

Originally Posted by AussieTimmeh

I'll put it out there that I think this rule will be the end of HRT. They won't qualify for all of the races and the few sponsors they have will leave them. The lack of track and tire data from the races they miss this year on the new tires will mean they have less data to start with next year, if indeed they are still in existence.

Not saying that is a good or bad thing, but my gut feeling is that this rule will be the end of them due to the vicious cycle it creates.

For sure. If they dont qualify for the next race then that will be the end of HRT. Who would want to sponsor a team that is never shown on the TV screen. It seems like this 107% rule will be bad for the health of the F1 series, as it will be impossible for new teams to join up. Virgin will follow HRT soon, perhaps by the end of this season. Of course, Virgin already has a few sponsors, but would their benefactor sponsor a team that isnt quick enough for tv? I dont think such a sponsor agreement would last for long.

[Adam43]

Last year the decent new teams were under the 107% time. This rule isn't bad for the health of F1 as it keeps poor quality of the grid; the teams that have no place in F1.

Virgin don't seem to be having a problem getting under 107% so no problem from this rule there. If they start to fail to achieve 107% then they don't deserve to be on the grid.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Last year the decent new teams were under the 107% time. This rule isn't bad for the health of F1 as it keeps poor quality of the grid; the teams that have no place in F1.

Virgin don't seem to be having a problem getting under 107% so no problem from this rule there. If they start to fail to achieve 107% then they don't deserve to be on the grid.

So basically, no new teams in F1 then? * Ever.

Is that a good thing?


* teams that last more than one season, anyway.

[Adam43]

er, I was saying no new teams like HRT. No new crap teams. This is a good thing.

Not no new teams. That would be a bad thing.

New teams like Lotus and Virgin will last more than one year. The 107% rule wouldn't have troubled them last year. So if they go it aint the rules fault.

[Teretonga]

There is no way a team struggling to get within the 107% will ever do it without being able to test or have a massive amount of money thrown at it to do it all on simulators.
The teams at the front will have resorces and an established design team that will only widen the gap.

The testing ban effectively prevents any team lagging behind from ever beoming effective within a given season. Thats why it needs to go in its present form or some dispensation made for teams that fail to qualify within the 107% limit.

Giving a team an additional two permitted test days for every time a car fails to get within the 107% rule wouldn't be a bad thing. If the team can't effectively use those test days then it has no one but itself to blame, but it then cannot blame the lack of test days or use that as an excuse. It would also allow drivers who are struggling to get mileage that would help them during the season.

It would cost the failing teams money in any event so they are still going to have to balance budgets and trade off for gains.
An additional two days isn't going threaten teams at the top end of the grid in anyway at all. Its all about making the sport accesssible for new operations.

Hispania would now have an extra four days (2 per car) but would it make a lot of difference. Probably not unless they made some realistic technical steps and sorted themselves out.
But it would give them a fighting chance and that is what sport is all about.

[Tourer]

Don't forget though Tere that they also have three prac sessions at each GP giving a combined total of three & a half hour's running time. With a properly planned, smart approach to this time, that is a good opportunity for them to sort the car out in situ, on the track on which they actually need to beat 107%.

The leading teams will use this time to get sorted for the race and teams like HRT will burn it up to get onto the grid but once they start to get onto the grid regularly, they can use it to develop race pace - all part of stepping forward from the bottom of the ladder.

A well organised team can achieve an awful lot in that time frame.

[Adam43]

As we saw last year it is perfectly possible for a new team to build a car to be within 107% of the pole the first time it gets to the track.

HRT are a bad example (of an F1 team). They shunned most of the practice session time at Melbourne. Why would giving them more chance at testing help?! They didn't take advantage of what they had.
Although Luzzi did think that achieving an installation lap was "amazing": http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90246

Its a nice idea, but it won't fix a problem F1 has. Firstly because it doesn't have a problem here, and secondly it isn't the root cause of HRTs problems. This is a team that turns up at circuits without any petrol!

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Adam43

They shunned most of the practice session time at Melbourne. Why would giving them more chance at testing help?! They didn't take advantage!

They didn't just shun a lot of Melbourne FP, they shunned all the pre-season tests!

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Don't forget though Tere that they also have three prac sessions at each GP giving a combined total of three & a half hour's running time. With a properly planned, smart approach to this time, that is a good opportunity for them to sort the car out in situ, on the track on which they actually need to beat 107%.

The leading teams will use this time to get sorted for the race and teams like HRT will burn it up to get onto the grid but once they start to get onto the grid regularly, they can use it to develop race pace - all part of stepping forward from the bottom of the ladder.

A well organised team can achieve an awful lot in that time frame.

I don't have any evidence one way or the other about how well HRT is organised. But you could be the best organised team in the world, but if you don't have the money to make the tub quickly etc, hire the circuit etc, then you won't get the chance to practice. It is ALL down to the money in the short medium and long run. Not organisation (although better organisation will make the money go a bit further). And, the only way to get more money is from sponsers, and the only way to attract sponsors is to get on track, and race, and the only way to get on track and race within the 107 rule is to have money in the first place.

[Super Hans]

I think any concerns that the gap between HRT and the leading teams will grow, leaving the former unable to qualify, will prove unfounded. With some proper running, and the correct wing bolted on, HRT will be looking to improve by several seconds in the next couple of weekends, whereas the big teams are chasing tenths. It's important to remember that HRT got nowhere near the optimum performance of their car in Melbourne.

[Knowlesy]

We mustn't forget that 'proper' wing. It is worth a championship. That and actually attempting a flying lap.

[Super Hans]

Sarcasm aside, using the wrong wing obviously affects a car's performance negatively. The correct one won't put them halfway up the grid but is likely to be a factor in improving their laptimes to the extent that they can at least qualify.

[Knowlesy]

Oh no I agree. I expect them to qualify with it, or at least valiantly fail.

But Liuzzi reckons they will be challenging the midfield. It remains to be seen of course, but I am less than optimistic.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I don't have any evidence one way or the other about how well HRT is organised. But you could be the best organised team in the world, but if you don't have the money to make the tub quickly etc, hire the circuit etc, then you won't get the chance to practice. It is ALL down to the money in the short medium and long run. Not organisation (although better organisation will make the money go a bit further). And, the only way to get more money is from sponsers, and the only way to attract sponsors is to get on track, and race, and the only way to get on track and race within the 107 rule is to have money in the first place.

In the case of HRT they don't need money to hire the circuit as I was talking about official prac sessions at a GP but you are correct - any team entering F1 needs to be well resourced - no way round that really.

I'm with other posters in the expectation that with the correct nose & front wing & cars ready to run from the start of the meeting, HRT SHOULD qualify all things being equal from now on.

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by Tourer

There is no way that F1 should become a shrine to mediocrity, if these guys can't make 107% in year 2 of their F1 programs with the existing (same as the other teams) testing and practice times, they don't deserve to be out there getting in the way of teams who actually know what they are doing.

And why were allowed Rial, Eurobrun, Life, Andrea Moda, Pacific, Forti... on their times??? Are times for slow teams and are times for excellence only?