Can teams no longer appeal if they fail to beat the 107% time?


This topic contains 12 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of raymondu999 raymondu999 5 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
  • #130770
    Profile photo of GeorgeDaviesF1

    rumour is teams can no longer appeal after they dont make 107%

    Profile photo of Oli Peacock
    Oli Peacock


    Profile photo of Keith Collantine
    Keith Collantine

    @georgedaviesf1 Yes, this is the case. Article 17.2 of the 2012 sporting regulations says:

    Appeals may not be made against decision concerning the following:
    d) Any decision taken by the stewards in relation to Article 36.1.

    Article 36.1 says:

    During Q1, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest time set during that session, or who fails to set a time, will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race.

    Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be
    determined by the stewards.

    Note that stewards still have the power to grant dispensations so this does not mean any driver who fails to beat the 107% time or fails to set a time in Q1 will automatically be unable to start the race.

    Profile photo of matt90

    Had any teams actually made an appeal, successful or not, anyway?

    Profile photo of Klon

    @matt90 : I know HRT did at Melbourne, obviously unsuccessful. I believe Virgin did once successfully, because D’Ambrosio failed to manage the proper time – I can’t remember where though, although if pressed I’d guess Canada.

    Still, not being able to appeal against such a decision will be just as pointless as the entire 107 % Rule itself.

    Profile photo of Joey-Poey

    I’m with you on that, @klon . I think they should either get rid of it or bump the number higher so it’s more realistically dangerous if a car doesn’t meet it.

    Profile photo of matt90

    Was D’ambrosia (possibly in Canada) being allowed to race actually the result of an appeal, or did the stewards just recognise immediately that he was capable and allow him to race?

    Profile photo of

    The rule is only ignored if the car has set a faster than 107% time in practice, or the session was wet enough to mess about with the quali times.

    Profile photo of

    well, I say only, I mean the rule tends to get ignored for the reasons I posted above.

    Profile photo of raymondu999

    Can’t we just stick to the rules where if the driver sets a time; within FP1 thru to Q1; that is within 107% of the P1 time in Q1; will not start the race? I’m not a big fan of special dispensations otherwise – the rules are rules.

    Profile photo of Prisoner Monkeys
    Prisoner Monkeys

    The rule was not introduced to weed out slow drivers. It was introduced to get rid of slow cars.

    Profile photo of Icthyes

    A rule clarifying a rule about a rule that rules when a rule may not apply.


    Profile photo of raymondu999

    @prisoner-monkeys no it wasn’t. It was to weed out slow car-driver packages.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.