Vitantonio Liuzzi, HRT, Monaco, 2011

Both HRTs to start in Monaco

2011 Monaco Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Vitantonio Liuzzi, HRT, Monaco, 2011
Vitantonio Liuzzi, HRT, Monaco, 2011

Both HRT drivers will start the Monaco Grand Prix despite having not set a time in qualifying.

Vitantonio Liuzzi missed qualifying after incurring damage in practice and Narain Karthikeyan sat out the session with suspension damage.

Neither car was within 7% of the fastest time in any of the three practice sessions.

2011 Monaco Grand Prix

Browse all 2011 Monaco Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Motioncompany

52 comments on “Both HRTs to start in Monaco”

  1. I think this is a bit silly, they will, as Martin Whitmarsh said, just be mobile chicanes.

    1. Somehow I knew mclaren would be the first to complain!

    2. IIRC, he said that about all the new teams, not just HRT. Just thought I’d mention that.

      In FP3, they were in the 107% time of Q1, I don’t think the rules work that way, but obviously that’s where they’ve come to agree on to let them race. Maybe that and, the supposed withheld protest about the Exhaust Blown Diffusers.

      1. Sorry, he said ‘we’ve got at least 6 mobile chicanes out there’. Still, HRT didn’t even record a time in quali and really shouldn’t be allowed to race.

        1. But then again, that’s just my opinion

      2. The 107% time is calculated from the fastest time in Q1 not the actual pole time from Q3.

        I didnt think they set a time within that in any of the practice times, as keith seems to also state at the top of the article. In which case they shouldnt be allowed to race

        1. HRT didn’t get within 107% of the fastest time in any of the practice sessions, but their FP3 times were within 107% of the fastest Q1 time. They have demonstrated they are able to meet the 107% requirement.

    3. Glock was only 1s off Heidfeld in Q1!

      1. It sounds like Glock was having a blast out there, which was nice to see for a change.

    4. Whitmarsh was asked about Mobile chicanes, he didnt use the phrase himself iirc

        1. if i remember correctly

          1. ahhh… chat lingo… thanks

    5. And they make very good TV viewing.

      Wouldn’t mind betting Whitmarsh is happy about this now, with Ham starting 10th.

      His comment re “mobile chicanes” was before quali and suggested (to me, anyway) he thought they would be on pole……Yes, I am aware it is the same for everyone, but I think Hami is better in traffic than Seb.

  2. Sounds fair to me, being too slow all weekend and not setting a time in Qualifying is definitely a good reason to put two more chicanes into the race. Lets see if they find enough parts to rebuild Liuzzis car at all and probably it’ll be over after half the distance anyway, when the cars start failing.
    As I already said many times before, I kind of like HRT and I want them to succeed, but they just looked too bad all weekend.

    1. I wanted them to race, but reading this

      Neither car was within 7% of the fastest time in any of the three practice sessions.

      made me think that they don’t deserve it. Like you said,

      they just looked too bad all weekend.

      1. I still predict Liuzzi for the title though!

        1. Nah… don’t be silly.

          The title has Karthikeyan written all over it.

      2. Dont they get 5 allowances from the stewards. So this would be their 1st?

        1. I thought that was for breaking the curfew?

          1. It is.

  3. They only have to prove to the stewards their competitiveness against other cars that qualified in Q1 or indicate that times set in previous practice sessions are good enough. Which they seem to have done.

  4. They might as well let them race, there’s no point in HRT being allowed into the sport if they can’t race.

    1. Quite right.

    2. Spot on. It makes me very happy they gave them some leniency.

      1. Same here.

  5. The Last Pope
    28th May 2011, 16:20

    I really do not understand this “mobile chicane” talk. Surely every car that gets lapped is the same no matter how fast they are as even Alonso has to slow down and get out of Vettels way when being lapped. If a ferrari being lapped is the same speed as a HRT being lapped so the danger is the same is it not?

    I’m glad Hispania can race and hope they can mix it up with Virgin and maybe get close to Lotus too (though maybe not as close as they got at the end of the race last year lol)

  6. Yes I though the rule was just to demonstrate that you could do suitible times. Which they have done I suppose.

  7. This kind of makes a mockery of the 107% rule, why have it and then not enforce it?

    Also, I thought that the rules permitted them to race if they could prove that they’d set times within 107% at some point over the weekend, and I was under the impression that they had done, though the article above suggests otherwise. I’d be interested to know how the decicion to let them race was reached.

    1. Because their P3 times are within the 107% for Q1.

    2. Of course, the 107% rule itself is a mockery.

    3. This kind of makes a mockery of the 107% rule, why have it and then not enforce it?

      That is a very good question. A silly rule and the more exceptions we have from it, the better.

      1. I agree with the 107% rule in principle, but the way Q1 is this year with the top drivers not lapping to their full potential makes it harder to judge cases like this; it doesn’t really work as there’s too much grey area.

      2. The Last Pope
        28th May 2011, 17:22

        Yeah, lol next thing we will have them saying “Well they were inside the 107% last race so we will let them in this race even though they are outside it this time”

        107% needs to die. That or an increase to a ridiculously slow time like 117%, just so we don’t get someone driving round in a Austin Alegro F1.

        1. As long as the rule is applied sensibly there is no harm in having it. It can come in handy, as in Australia when HRT clearly weren’t ready to race. It would also be useful if a new rookie was woefully off the pace and a danger to other traffic.

  8. Why have 107% rule if it is ignored? On what grounds was HRT let to race tomorrow?

    1. Cars being over-taken make for good tv.

      This track is slower than Oz and HRT were and unknow quantity then.

  9. I look forward to watching HRT take on Virgin this weekend.

    The more HRT is disparaged, the more I support them. They show up every race and do the best they can with they have.

  10. I’m not surprised that he’s letting them in this race. It’s a slow track, relatively anyway, and this is the race where many sponsor deals are made for the following year. Not allowing them to race would hurt the sport for future years, and may even force some teams out of the sport potentially. I’m sure they’ve been told to get out of the way though…in a stern way.

  11. I think you have to look at the big picture here, guys. First of all, everybody saw and know HRT is not competitive enough to race at Monaco – simple. But there’s a small matter of talking them out of protesting exhaust blown diffusers earlier on. I think it was a political rather than sporting decision. They keep quiet, we let them race finding a quite ridiculous argument of being inside 107% margin of Q1 best time with their fastest FP3 time. If you look at it that way, it is a fair price for not having a scandal on our hands right now, isn’t it?..Just +2 mobile chicanes and no political drama.
    For the record, i’m not happy to see them on the grid, i think it is a shame really. But i felt it was going to happen.

    1. Exactly what I was going to say. HRT were under pressure during the week with rumours they wouldn’t make 107%. As soon as I heard they’d dropped the protest I knew everything was kosher.

      Had they proceeded, I think one single runner from McLaren or RB would have used a set of options in Q1 just to put them out and make the point: Rock the boat, and you’ll be dumped in the harbour every race from now on.

  12. They should be allowed to race. Why?

    Because their fastest times were within 107% of the fastest Q1 lap. If in qualy, they would have qualified.

  13. Pedro Andrade
    28th May 2011, 20:57

    What’s the point of having a rule if you’re not going to enforce it?

    1. Indeed. It ought to be scrapped.

      1. Like Kobayashi and Heidfeld previously, HRT have shown that, despite not setting a Q1 time, they have enough pace to be allowed into the race. The rule has a purpose – it can be used if any cars, or drivers, are genuinely not race-worthy (eg. the untested HRT cars in Australia). The stewards seem to be implementing the rule sensibly and with flexibility, so I don’t see a problem with it.

  14. If there’s any reason at all for this silly rule, it’s for races like these.

  15. It’s not unsafe for them to be out there DESPITE what some are saying. Otherwise the classification of finishing cars would not be slower than the 107% rule. Let them race, let them prove their worth. they already paid loads just to get into the exclusive club, why penalize someone who paid you to get to participate?

    Did Minardi, Footwork or Arrows run into this sort of reaction from people back in the day? I always got the impression the lower teams were seen as the loveable losers. Suddenly in the last two years I keep seeing so much vitriol towards Virgin and HRT and it saddens me.

    1. Williams4Ever
      29th May 2011, 2:55

      Did Minardi, Footwork or Arrows run into this sort of reaction from people back in the day? I always got the impression the lower teams were seen as the loveable losers. Suddenly in the last two years I keep seeing so much vitriol towards Virgin and HRT and it saddens me.

      Couldn’t have put it in better words…

  16. ” Neither car was within 7% of the fastest time in any of the three practice sessions.”

    Stupidity by the FIA do need to have a limit!

  17. Call me crazy but I think HRT deliberately decided not to run the car in Q and used hours of FPs trying to get that time without using up the Q tyres. So basically, HRT had 4 hours to get the time in 107% without risking going outside 107% in the real Q session.

  18. I like HRT but I can’t help but think this makes a mockery of the rule. They should not be given dispensation, simple as.

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.