Jerome D’Ambrosio allowed to start in Canada

2011 Canadian Grand Prix

Jerome D'Ambrosio, Virgin, Montreal, 2011

Jerome D'Ambrosio, Virgin, Montreal, 2011

Jerome d’Ambrosio will start the Canadian Grand Prix despite failing to beat the 107% time in qualifying.

The stewards took into account Virgin’s explanation that he had to switch to the spare car today following his crash at the end of second practice yesterday.

D’Ambrosio was outside the 107% time by half a second in Q1.

He will start the race from last place.

2011 Canadian Grand Prix

Browse all 2011 Canadian Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Virgin Racing

Advert | Go Ad-free

36 comments on Jerome D’Ambrosio allowed to start in Canada

  1. Baldy said on 11th June 2011, 21:01

    I’m not happy with this! Rules exist for reason! F1 is always bending rules as they see fit!

  2. Eggry (@eggry) said on 11th June 2011, 21:05

    I don’t like 107% rule but if they allow over-107% drivers to drive so manu times…I don’t know why they introduced the rule. For sure, stewards don’t like the rule.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 12th June 2011, 6:46

      I dislike the rule just because it seems non sensical to have it and the reasions for having it are just a joke.

      These are just the kind of things showing it really does not make sense, how many exceptions are there.

      • Hairs (@hairs) said on 12th June 2011, 11:01

        The stewards can see that the virgin car beat the 107% rule this weekend. They can also see that D’Ambrosio has beaten the other driver on previous weekends. Therefore, without the attached circumstances, D’Ambrosio would probably have beaten the 107% rule this weekend and he does not pose a danger in the race.

        People seem to think that the 107% rule is there to get rid of the weaker teams. It isn’t, it’s there to give the sport a mechanism from preventing enthusiastic amateurs and incompetents from cluttering up the grid. (witness the problems with Le Mans this weekend.)

        Thus, it was used entirely properly in Australia to prevent the woefully inept Hispania team from potentially killing someone with their improperly prepared cars. In Monaco, it was used to balance out their failure to set a time in qualifying with their previous running over the weekend and they were allowed to race.

        There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s a useful tool, and it’s being properly used.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 12th June 2011, 14:43

          To me it seems your explanation rather shows how stupid it is to put in this rule.

          It was brought in for “safety” but to really help safety it should be used for training (107% still does not make sense with cars going all sorts of speeds tesing though). The race already has a limit of finishing at least 90% of running to be clasified.

          Certainly the cost involved do enough to ensure its not easy to get in. I do think that sufficient running with a working car and being halfway on the pace should be required just not this way.

          In Australia HRT certainly did not have a place in the race. Their cars were hardly finished and shedding bits on track during FP3 and Q1, that should be enough to be able to stop them from entering the race, I think.

  3. Kimster said on 11th June 2011, 21:15

    Lets go back to Monaco 2010. Alonso didn’t set time in qualification, under hte current rules he is not alloawed to start the race. Are u still saying that rules are rules?

    • marc connell said on 11th June 2011, 21:28

      no, he did good laps in practice to prove he was capable of racing therefore stewards allowed this.

      This situation is completely different.

  4. Leah said on 11th June 2011, 21:19

    What’s the point of the 107% rule, if the stewards keep finding reasons to the let drivers who set a time slower than it race? Most pointless rule of all time, surely?

    I’m not saying D’Ambrosio shouldn’t race, just that the rule should be scrapped if the stewards aren’t going to enforce it. Either use it or lose it.

  5. JamieFranklinF1 (@jamiefranklinf1) said on 11th June 2011, 21:21

    Regarding to the Alonso comment, he would have been allowed because of his times set in practice. Read the rules.

    The rules are there for a reason, that Virgin should not be allowed to race.

  6. Bleu said on 11th June 2011, 21:23

    d’Ambrosio’s qualifying time was the fastest he has achieved all weekend, so you can’t consider it was just bad luck that he failed to set a time within 107%. HRTs were allowed in Monaco since they set laps under qualifying 107% time in FP, but in this case it’s different reasons.

    I am well aware of his crash yesterday and by the fact he has changed car but there’s no clear explanation how much does that affect him.

  7. Todfod (@todfod) said on 11th June 2011, 21:32

    Why isn’t this rule enforced with a good amount of consistency? If he didn’t make the cut .. he doesn’t race.

  8. d’Ambrosio set times within the 107% before his crash

    he was slow because the new chassis he used in FP hadn’t been properly setup yet

    also d’Ambrosio has been within the 107% the whole season, regularly beating Glock (who was in the 107% rule today)

    so the stewards had enough evidence to let him in!

    • Follis86 (@follis86) said on 11th June 2011, 22:36

      His best time in practice was a 1.19.8 so that is slower than his 1.19.4 time in qualifying!

      • Tim said on 12th June 2011, 9:56

        Track conditions change as the weekend progresses – you can’t compare a time in FP1 with a time in Q1. The fastest time in FP1 was much slower than in qualifying and D’Ambrosio was well within 107%.

        • Viz said on 12th June 2011, 13:13

          If Follis86 is correct with those times then I agree, he probably should not be allowed to race. I know that would make it a shame but it would make the rule a lot more consistent and would send a clear message to all the teams that your team/car needs to meet a set standards at every venue to race….. otherwise scrap the rule!

  9. dyslexicbunny (@dyslexicbunny) said on 11th June 2011, 21:56

    This is becoming a joke.

  10. Klon (@klon) said on 11th June 2011, 21:58

    I just hope these events lead to the fast removal of the rule. It has been, is and always will be one thing and that is: stupid. Good job by the stewards. I hope it continues that way.

    • S.J.M (@sjm) said on 11th June 2011, 22:55

      Makes me wonder just how slow and past the 107% time you have to be, before they say no.

      Dont get me wrong, I like d’Ambrosio and think he’s shown enough that he should race tomorrow, but whats the point of having these rules if not enforced. Maybe from Valencia they’l start…

  11. George (@george) said on 11th June 2011, 22:38

    I think of the 107% more as a contingency plan, for example without it they might have had no choice but to allow the hispania’s to race in Australia, even though they’d only done like 5 laps.

    Just because it’s there doesn’t mean they have to enforce it, there’s even a clause saying it’s at the stewards’ discretion. In the end they know D’Ambrosio is a decent driver, they know he can go as fast as Glock, so why not allow him to race?

  12. Herman (@herman) said on 11th June 2011, 23:45

    To be honest I don’t like the 107% rule as I’ve never really believed that backmarkers are particularly dangerous, especially as GPs have blue flags.

    However, if we are going to have the 107% rule, I prefer it like this, where there is a lot of flexibility as to when to apply the rule. As the way the rule is now,it allows common sense to be applied when required. I would have rather have it the way it is now, than an 107% rule set in stone.

  13. Let It Rain (@let-it-rain) said on 12th June 2011, 1:30

    I thought we might be getting a chance to see this rule have a lil bite this season. Guess not.

  14. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 12th June 2011, 2:45

    What’s the point of having the rule.HRT get to race in Monaco now Virgin this doesn’t explain why is there a rule like this now?

  15. damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 12th June 2011, 7:57

    Fair enough. At least it’s an excuse. I don’t really like the 107% rule, but I feel if a rule exists, it should be enforced – and I think they made the right decision with Jerome today. And we know the stewards are willing to enforce the rule, because we saw it in Melbourne.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.