I think having a car 129% off the pace would be dangerous, we have seen accidents already that prove that. I really dont think using endurance racing is a good comparison to F1 corner speed manly, plus the cars are very different.

A snobbish attitude to new teams which aren’t on the pace yet does F1 no favours. An important part of racing is having to share a track with other cars and finding ways to get around them. It’s an area where F1 is hardly excelling at the moment.

Having to deal with slower cars and lapped traffic is the down-side of being the race leader. In series like IndyCar, where backmarkers aren’t given the blue flag ordering them to get out of the leaders’ way, it helps keep the front runners within sight of each other, encouraging closer racing.

This is probably a little out of date, the new teams have been more or less accepted, and I think the amount the back marks effect the races is just about right. Not having blue flags is a whole other argument. The rule has been around for a long time (apart from a gap) with good reason.

Above all though, whats your problem with the rule, considering HRT and Virgin are within rule? If they are within it now, going backwards isnt an option. If its on there radar, they should not be in F1. Thats my opinion. This is the pinnacle of Motorsport, the top top class. If a driver went only a fast as he needed to and not push 100% he would have no future, so why accept this attitude with teams?

Anything below what they are doing in terms of performance or ambition is too low, therefore wanting to drop the rule to 110% is a joke. HRT do fill a role, the driver over the hill who has already had too many chances, and the pay driver (which thankfully now deserves to be in F1). Having the rule forces teams to at least try and go faster.

As for the pre-season test idea, teams are slower/faster at different tracks so….it would not work.

Does the author understand Le Mans? The circuit is massive and there are 4 different classes also it isn’t about raw pace, but strategy and reliability. Think before you write, don’t compare endurance and F1…

I used the Le Mans example to debunk the ‘safety’ argument for the 107% rule, not to pretend endurance racing and Grand Prix racing are alike. The comparison is entirely valid for that purpose.

Oh yes just make them fly to testing at all the circuits for the season before it starts?

I didn’t say anything like that. The teams already congregate at the same circuits for pre-season testing (with the rare exception of HRT this year) so some kind of evaluation could easily be introduced there.

It just makes racing difficult.

Which is a good thing in a world championship where we’re trying to find out who the best drivers are. Drivers getting caught behind backmarkers gave us some of the most exciting and pivotal moments of the last race.

It was removed in the first place because Michael Schumacher was so blisteringly quick

No it wasn’t. It was removed because qualifying with race fuel loads was introduced in 2003.

Quote: ” They could hold a pre-season qualification test to make sure all the cars can lap within a certain time of each other – but with a cut-off closer to 29% than 7%.” Oh yes just make them fly to testing at all the circuits for the season before it starts??? That makes no sense. Certain cars can be substantially slower or faster at different circuits, just look at Ferrari at Istanbul. You would have to test at all tracks to make that workable and what if they don’t make it at pre-season? Then they can’t participate at events and develop their cars throughout the practice sessions? The entire concept is frivolous.They get TV coverage in practice and qualifying so let them have their time but don’t let them ruin a good race.

7% is a huge margin too. Let’s say the average track is 80 seconds at top qualifying pace for Q1. That means a slow team could be 5.6 seconds off the pace. Thats a huge margin by modern F1 standards. It’s not going to play out weaker teams all that much, only remove slow cars when they are going to be a nuisance.

To those of you who say the back-loggers are good, I beg to differ. Have any of you gone karting? You should know the frustration of being stuck behind a slow driver with little grip who blocks the racing line, makes contact or any one of a hundred things that slow you down and allow your competitors to catch up with you. It doesn’t add dynamic, it removes the principles of fighting from behind, opening up the gap etc etc. It just makes racing difficult. What about when two rivals are battling it out, go in for a pit-stop but are separated on the exit by a slow car. It widens the gap and removes the fun of an epic battle. Decently fast cars don’t allow to large a gap to form and the battle that takes between them is good to watch.

Come now, we need this rule! It was removed in the first place because Michael Schumacher was so blisteringly quick and there was such a huge discrepancy in times. That has come down and now we need the rule to stop this discrepancy in times occurring again. It drives development and speed!

Considering the problems of passing any car in F1 I think that the blue flag rule is fine as it is. If the aerodynamics of the cars were changed to allow passing then you could consider revising the blue flag law.