107 % rule
- This topic has 14 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by VettelS.
- AuthorPosts
- 3rd November 2010, 18:26 at 6:26 pm #128241matty55Participant
With regards next years 107 % rule reintroduction. Does anyone think that teams should get more than 20 minutes to try and get inside the 107 % time? I mean particularly at the start of the season when unreliability is going to be at its worst.
3rd November 2010, 20:13 at 8:13 pm #147756SoerenKaaeParticipantI have wondered, will this 107% rule mean that people who did not set a time in Q1 are not allowed to race? If so I think that the teams will be more careful in P3 so the car doesnt get destroyed.
3rd November 2010, 20:58 at 8:58 pm #147757IcthyesParticipantApparently there’s a loophole which says if you have a failure (like Massa in Singapore) you can still line up.
Cue any team who knows they won’t make it sending out drivers in sabotaged cars.
3rd November 2010, 21:01 at 9:01 pm #147758ScribeParticipantI don’t think so, there where loads of exceptions to the 107% rule in the old days, mostly when a front runner missed quali for some reason or another, don’t know how strict it’ll be this time.
It’s a rule that seems squarley aimed at HRT, Lotus and Virgin won’t have any problems with it, especially not next year.
3rd November 2010, 21:06 at 9:06 pm #147759HareParticipantGreat so HRT will be sending out partially broken cars?
I dont think they will do, they got pride. I back them for a much better show next year. I think people are putting the nails in the coffins far too soon.
3rd November 2010, 22:42 at 10:42 pm #147760AnonymousInactiveGood luck to HRT for next year.
I’m really not at all for this 107% rule. We did fine without it this year.
Sure, the new teams cars were slower but it’s not like they caused huge trains behind them.
They knew their cars were slower and let the faster cars past, Di Grassi on Alonso & Kovalainen on Webber being two exceptions I can think of.
Even on Monaco, the tightest track of all, there was no trouble really.
It’s a totally unnecessary rule, at the moment anyway.
3rd November 2010, 23:34 at 11:34 pm #147761Prisoner MonkeysParticipantI’m really not at all for this 107% rule. We did fine without it this year.
It was really only done to appease Ferrari. There have only been one or two cases where a car has been outside 107% this year, but Alonso got held up by a Virgin (that was well off the racing line) in Montreal. Luca was livid and Ferrari went on their rants about how the new teams didn’t deserve to be on the grid, so the placate them, the FIA re-introduced the 107% rule. I seriously doubt any of the new teams – even Hispania – will be under it next year. Certainly not on a regular basis.
4th November 2010, 0:02 at 12:02 am #147762AnonymousInactiveIt was really only done to appease Ferrari.
If that is the reason, it’s a fairly pathetic one. Ferrari are, arguably the biggest team with plenty of money, with two of the best drivers on the grid etc. etc… If they can’t pass a Virgin or any other car for that matter, tough. They really need to get over themselves. Also Luca D.M. and “The Horse Whisperer” can quit throwing their toys out of the pram everytime something doesn’t go there way.
The “F” in F1 stands for Formula not Ferrari.
I seriously doubt any of the new teams – even Hispania – will be under it next year. Certainly not on a regular basis.
Exactly, so there is no point to it really. Actually I’m getting more annoyed just thinkin about this. If Ferrari win the title this year, they could bottle all the smugness and run their cars off it next year, presuming there is a loophole in the rules to allow for that. :P
4th November 2010, 2:54 at 2:54 am #147763Prisoner MonkeysParticipantIf that is the reason, it’s a fairly pathetic one. Ferrari are, arguably the biggest team with plenty of money, with two of the best drivers on the grid etc. etc… If they can’t pass a Virgin or any other car for that matter, tough. They really need to get over themselves. Also Luca D.M. and “The Horse Whisperer” can quit throwing their toys out of the pram everytime something doesn’t go there way.
The “F” in F1 stands for Formula not Ferrari.
That was my reaction. Alonso got held up by the Virgin on the back straight between turns seven and eight. The racing line out of turn seven puts the cars on the left hand side of the circuit. The Virgin in question – di Grassi, I think – was on the right. He’d clearly spotted Alonso in his rear view mirrors and moved over to let him through. Button got by the Ferrari by holding the racing line, so we really have to ask ourselves: what the hell was Alonso doing off the racing line in the first place!?
Even if di Grassi held Alonso up coming out of the corner, Ferrari have to realise that while drivers racing for position have right of way, drivers yielding position have the right to take the best racing line. It’s impractical and inappropriate to expect a driver to take a bad racing line just because a leader has appeared in his mirrors. All that we can ask is that the lapped driver get out of the way at the earliest possible practical opportunity, usually on a straight. Look at the way Hamilton, Vettel and Glock (or maybe di Grassi) all entered the first corner in Barcelona at the same time as the Virgin came out of the pits. What were we expecting him to do, pull over to one side whilst the bigger kids drove through?
4th November 2010, 3:54 at 3:54 am #147764matty55ParticipantWe all know that Ferrari consider themselves in a different league than every other team, it’s ridiculous!! How can F1 encourage new smaller independant teams into the championship if they are going to be bullied!!!!
4th November 2010, 15:23 at 3:23 pm #147765AnonymousInactiveIf a top team can’t set a time in qualifying I think they can still race as then the’ll look at practice times and see if they’re on the pace so I don’t think it’s like HRT could skip quali and then race if they were worried they wouldn’t make it.
I don’t think just because Fernando got held up once that’s the reason the rule is back. That’s more to do with the blue flag rule not being obeyed but it will have probably had a big impact on Ferrari’s attitude towards the new teams. However, Ferrari ahted the new teams as soon as they saw how slow they were plus the fact that if they fail they could (in theory in a paranoid world) betray FOTA and go running to Bernie. Do they really want three weak teams in FOTA?
4th November 2010, 15:56 at 3:56 pm #147766IcthyesParticipantExcept the three new teams have never shown any inclination to do so, which is why Bernie ranted about them earlier this week.
4th November 2010, 20:09 at 8:09 pm #147767zomtecParticipantWe had 26 cars on one track on the same day in the early 90´s and traffic was part of the deal.
If the small teams fly their whole equipment to Australia and aren´t allowed to race they can´t learn anything about their cars and will not improve in Malaysia as well.
So they won´t get better and richer to suit Bernie´s expectations.
5th November 2010, 19:02 at 7:02 pm #147768matty55ParticipantAnd it will increase the chances of them dropping out of the sport and nowadays with the costs the way they are trying to get teams into the sport is tough.
6th November 2010, 1:18 at 1:18 am #147769VettelSMemberActually, it won’t make much difference. With the exception of only a couple of drivers at a couple of races, all the new teams would actually have lined up on the grid this season, even with the 107% rule.
And you have to assume that they’re going to improve for 2011. In short, I bet it will never actually be put into practice.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.