Group Admins

  • Profile picture of Keith Collantine

Group Mods

  • Profile picture of damonsmedley
  • Profile picture of Bradley Downton

F1

Public Group active 2 minutes ago

F1 discussion

Australia DNQ's?

This topic contains 33 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Spaulding Spaulding 3 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 34 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #128996
    Avatar of matty55
    matty55
    Participant

    With HRT looking to get a very limited amount of testing do you think that they could struggle to make the 107% mark in Australia? I mean there will be teething problems to iron out and we all now how much of a struggle round 1 was for them last year!

    #163076
    Avatar of sw6569
    sw6569
    Participant

    I think its possible – but unlikely. Mainly because I would imagine that the FiA allow all cars to race in the first race as its the first race of the championship. Further, I don’t think that HRT will be more than 107% off the pace. Assuming they are in Australia of course.

    #163077
    Avatar of Prisoner Monkeys
    Prisoner Monkeys
    Participant

    I think it’s very unlikely. The 107% rule is only there to appease Ferrari after Alonso got blocked in Canada (despite being way off-line at the time). Hispania only had to put a bow on the F110 to make more downforce, so the F111 will doubtless have much more and ake them safe from elimination.

    #163078
    Avatar of sw6569
    sw6569
    Participant

    I think that’s rather a sweeping statement about the rule PM. There were calls for the 107% rule during the first grand prix last year

    #163079
    Avatar of Prisoner Monkeys
    Prisoner Monkeys
    Participant

    Yeah, but slow lap times are to be expected at the first race. Nobody really knows where they are in relation to everyone else. The calls for the 107% rule largely died down until Ferrari started their campaign against Virgin, Hispania and Lotus. And they really got stuck into it when Alonso got blocked in Canada and Button slipped by him (Alonso was off-line at the time). I suspect – at least in part – that tt was re-introduced to shut Ferrari up because given the development pace of Virgin and Lotus, they’d never come under threat from the 107% rule, and Hispania pretty much had to produce a car and they’d be in. Nobody in the paddock expects anyone to regularly fail to meet the 107% margin, which is what Ferrari is hoping for.

    #163080
    Avatar of AndrewTanner
    AndrewTanner
    Participant

    Hasn’t some anaylsis taken place on this site already, either by Keith or one of the regulars which showed that they, HRT, would have taken part in all the races in 2010 had the same criteria been applied?

    That’s not to say it’s a guarantee they will this year, but surely they can’t start this year any worse than they did 2010? Might even get some testing in this week…in a new car!

    #163081
    Avatar of GethToTheChoppa
    GethToTheChoppa
    Participant

    Yeah HRT were slow last year but they weren’t Forti Ford slow.

    Anyone remember that yellow monstrosity?

    HRT should be fine, if they still exist and make it to Oz that is.

    #163082
    Avatar of Icthyes
    Icthyes
    Participant

    If that’s true, how about we implement a 93% rule for Ferrari, that they have to be within 93% of the slowest Q1 time, put their money where their mouth is ;-)

    #163083
    Avatar of Ned Flanders
    Ned Flanders
    Participant

    Haha, that would be great, seeing the Ferrari’s pack up and sneak out the paddock on Saturday evenings, LdM slinking out with his tail between his legs

    #163084
    Avatar of sw6569
    sw6569
    Participant

    And an Alonso clause, where he has to be at least 6 tenths faster than the 93% time

    #163085
    Avatar of MattHT
    MattHT
    Member

    Ridiculous rule anyway – the sport does not belong to the 3 teams at the front. Can remember feeling really sorry for (i think) team lola a few years back, sure they got ruled out a few times on this rule – it’s harsh on drivers more than anything.

    #163086
    Avatar of Todfod
    Todfod
    Participant

    I think the 107% rule is fair. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport to begin with, and if there are cars lapping around the circuit more than 5 secs a lap slower, they are nothing more than speed bumps for cars that are actually racing each other. Whats the point of an F1 car actually lapping the same circuit slower than GP2 car? The 107% rule is a good way to make the slower teams improve, or else, we would have tortoise teams just living off the glory of competing in F1 without actually being competitive. And its not like 7% is that unattainable, the top few teams are separated by mere tenths of a second, and nearly half the field is separated my just over a second and a half. So for a car to be over 5 secs off the pace is way too much.

    If HRT make it to Australia, I expect a DNQ from Karthikeyan.

    #163087
    Avatar of MattHT
    MattHT
    Member

    Surely the only way for a team to gain racing experience is to actually experience racing? Do the FA kick half the teams out of the premier league at halfway through the season even though only 2 or 3 teams can win it? let the slower teams race each other for points and prize money. No single leading driver or team is exclusively held up by slower cars, everyone is at the same disadvantage. When so many thousands of people so much money and man hours into it they shouldn’t be told they can’t race just because a ferrari driver deems it his right not to want to overtake them. silly rule.

    #163088
    Avatar of Todfod
    Todfod
    Participant

    In football, teams that are not good enough to play in a certain division, are relegated to a lower division. Unfortunately, there is no lower division in F1, so, they miss out on the race. Hypothetically, if the Premier League has amateurish teams that lose matches by a dozen goals or so consistently, then you can have a comparison with teams that fail to qualify under the 107% rule. I hope you realise that 7% is a LOT of time (ranging from 5 to 7 secs).

    #163089
    Avatar of MattHT
    MattHT
    Member

    I agree it’s a lot of time. I agree it must be frustrating for front-runners. But it punishes the wrong people and it puts a lid on that ability to gain experience. Thankfully as andrew pointed out no-one really finishes outside the 107% time anyway so it shouldn’t matter much!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 34 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.