The 107% qualifying rule returns in 2011

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
Well this is an interesting turn of events.

From next year, the 107% qualifying rule is being reintroduced.

I'll have to check the times this year to see if any of the new teams would have breached this rule.

Presumably though, it means anyone not participating in Qualifying would be automatically excluded; i.e Alonso at Monaco?

From 2011, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest Q1 qualifying 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.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_230610.aspx
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
I've just checked all the Q1 times.

If the 107% rule had been in force this season, then the following drivers would have fallen foul of it:

Bahrain - Chandhok, Senna
Malaysia - Chanhok, Senna, di Grassi
Spain - Senna
Monaco - Alonso (not sure what happens with regards to drivers who don't participate in qualifying at all)
Canada - Chandhok

There is a caveat though: "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."

So in reality we may see that this rule is never implemented.

The 13th team could have problems though as they will be behind all the other teams, including the 3 new ones this season.
 

Bullfrog

Rookie
The second part of that quote opens it up for anyone who's had an accident in FP2/3, I honestly can't see many stewards going against Ferrari (or many other teams for that matter) in that situation.
 

siffert_fan

Too old to watch the Asian races live.
Contributor
If it results in the routine exclusion of the new teams taking part in races, I would think that it would make it far more difficult to entice new teams to join (which would probably please Ferrari no end).

I really don't think that there is a sufficiently large disparity in speed, barring mechanical problems, to justify re-introducing this rule. The clause allowing teams or drivers to take part, based on official discretion, makes a mokery of the whole thing anyway, and would introduce politics to an even larger degree than exists today.
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
It's interesting that Ferrari have been extremely vocal and critical of the new teams, also making no secret of the fact that they want to run a 3rd car.

Surprise, surprise, the 107% rule is reintroduced.

In a similar vein, Ferrari weren't able to get the F-duct to work, that gets banned from the following season.

It appears to me the FIA and now FOTA appear to be just as biased towards Ferrari as they have been in the past.
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff Member
Premium Contributor
This rule is pretty pointless and should really only effect "team 13" next season which is pretty harsh on them given the fact that the FIA are as usual, dragging their heels over which team they will pick. I wonder if they are waiting for a "Friend of Todt" in the same way that Manor appeared out of the blue because Nick Wirth was a "Friend of Max"?

Aside from penalising the newest teams this rule will achieve very little else so what's the point?

As Siffert_Fan posted in another thread. Ditch the franchise system and let anybody who can build a car within the regs have a go. Bring back pre-qually I say. If teams can afford to run a car let them have a go.
 

KraXik

Rookie
On one hand it would be great to have any team who can afford to compete try to qualify, however what happens if there are 6 or 7 teams? Where would they fit?

Would we see renegade groups advertising for the sake of advertising on a practice and qualiy day. Imagine a BNP or Neo-Nazi group building a brick on wheels with no hope to compete on race day but to just advertise Worldwide on those two days?

I know it worked in the good old days but they have since been long gone. How many computers did teams bring with them 20-30 years ago?

I'm not sure if the 107% rule affects me much as a fan, it may give the back runners a kick up the backside but apart from that... What happens if after 10 races a team (due to lack of testing) is unable to make it into a single race. Do the FIA expell the team and invite another?

Too many questions!!
 

Bullfrog

Rookie
If we had open qualifying they couldn't be expelled, they would be free to turn up and have a go just as long as they can afford to. I think the FIA are unlikely to allow it because it would probably double their scrutineering workload and there is also of course the question of space, just how many cars and teams could actually fit into the facilities provided at places like Monaco. Actually, on that subject, how are the teams taking part in support races catered for? The F1 teams use their garages and pits all weekend, do they have separate facilities or something?
 

slickskid

Points Scorer
Supporter
Hummm... Can i spell Farce.. apparently i can.

At a time when F1 is trying to maintain and improve it's popularity with fans, sponsors et al in a difficult global financial market, having a full grid of 26 cars was the obvious aim. The 107% rule will do nothing for smaller teams / sponsors of and perhaps put off future entrants. It's almost like all the current parties involved are intent on doing something great then shooting the other foot with a double barrelled shotgun.

Bigger teams entering 3 cars is not the answer either that just promotes less competition and a greater lack of interest in my eyes. Having said that if they want to enter a 3rd car why not, but they can't use thier own chassis but a customer one built by Dallara (ala HRT) can only use a cosworth engine not their own and also the same for the gearbox, supplied by someone independant. And on top of that they have to qualify it inside 105% to make the grid.

I really do think FIA FOTA FOM and anyone i missed have lost the plot of late. :givemestrength:
 

Matthew Little

Points Scorer
KraXik said:
On one hand it would be great to have any team who can afford to compete try to qualify, however what happens if there are 6 or 7 teams? Where would they fit?

Would we see renegade groups advertising for the sake of advertising on a practice and qualiy day. Imagine a BNP or Neo-Nazi group building a brick on wheels with no hope to compete on race day but to just advertise Worldwide on those two days?

I know it worked in the good old days but they have since been long gone. How many computers did teams bring with them 20-30 years ago?

I'm not sure if the 107% rule affects me much as a fan, it may give the back runners a kick up the backside but apart from that... What happens if after 10 races a team (due to lack of testing) is unable to make it into a single race. Do the FIA expell the team and invite another?

Too many questions!!

The FIA may be run by a bunch of incompetents, but they're not stupid. Any Neo-Nazi, BNP or such group that tries that will get drummed out(and likely in a very public manner........). They'll make sure any company or group that wants to run their livery on a Formula 1 will be vetted extensively before that ever happens.

As to the 107% rule, I say bring it back with no exceptions BUT require all teams to bring a spare car for each driver, so that if something like what occurred to Alonso in Monaco happens, he won't have to worry about making the grid. I've always wondered why F1 got rid of the spare car; I mean, if IndyCar teams here in the 'States can bring a spare car w/them on their spartan budgets($7-$10 million per team) surely F1 teams with their vast budgets can afford a spare car or two. :o :o :o
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
Let teams field 3 cars if they want, let as many teams as they like enter as long as they pass the safety tests required and let's have prequalifying if more than 30 cars turn up for practice on the Friday.

What about 1 car teams? I used to love Ensign, ATS, Osella, Theodore etc. back in the 80's and how many good drivers came through these teams?

I don't see why it is the FIA's job to decide who can and can't build an F1 car. If that person wants to waste several million pounds of their (or someone elses money) isn't that up to them? Nick Wirth seems to be doing quite a good job of wasting Branson's millions at the moment...

BTW, even when the 107% rule was in force previoulsy wasn't there the option for teams to apply to take a grid slot if they had made the top 26, even if they fell outside of this?
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
FB said:
BTW, even when the 107% rule was in force previoulsy wasn't there the option for teams to apply to take a grid slot if they had made the top 26, even if they fell outside of this?
There were instances where drivers were outside the time but were allowed to race:

1999 Australia - Marc Gené qualified with a time outside 107% of the pole position time but was allowed to race
1999 France - Damon Hill, Marc Gené, Luca Badoer, Pedro de la Rosa and Toranosuke Takagi qualified with a time outside 107% of the pole position time due to adverse weather but were allowed to race
2001 Belgium - Jos Verstappen, Enrique Bernoldi, Tarso Marques and Fernando Alonso qualified with a time outside 107% of the pole position time due to adverse weather but were allowed to race
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
If we all want to see a full grid, whether franchised or not, there are going to have to be new teams coming in every so often. The 107% will dissaude sponsors and investors getting involved with any or all new teams in comparison to established setups, regardless of the professionalism or otherwise of said team.

Take this season as an example: if 107% had been announced last year, all three of the new teams would have faced this as an additional problem for fundraising, irrespective of the fact that only one of them (HRT) ended up being troubled by the rule. Virgin and Lotus would have been actively disadvantaged, unfairly so.

I'm all for F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport and an elite series, but the quality of teams can only be discerned once they have a car on the track, surely? As for the lack of pace of new cars, the real fault lies with the timing of the FIA's announcement and consequent delays in preparation time, doesn't it?
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
Galahad said:
the real fault lies with the timing of the FIA's announcement and consequent delays in preparation time, doesn't it?
Precisely.
And exactly the same problem is going to befall the 13th team next year as I have posted about elsewhere.
The FIA still haven't made a decision and aren't expected to until August.

BTW, I agree with all your points G. I fail to see how this rule benefits F1 as a whole and all it does is make it harder for new teams to first of all enter F1 and secondly to remain in F1.

The FIA should have reviewed the testing rules for new teams even before the 107% rule was reintroduced.
 
I'm for this, but let's allow the teams that don't hit the 107% to have unlimited testing until they do surpass the 107%. That way the slow teams have the opportunity to catch up!

ok, there would have to be some clauses in there to stop it being abused, but it could work...
 
How will the 107% rule work with the tyre selection? I only ask as when the fast guys in Q3 slap on the super softs they usually take back 3 tenths or so compared to on the hards and with the way the sessions work, I would say it is only truly workable if the 107% rule is to the fastest times in Q1 only, the changing conditions in Q2 and 3 make the application of such a rule destined to be farcical.

Also, how does it help the small teams suffering from little investment and a lack of track time and testing time to reduce their track time and call into question their sponsorship. The idea aint a bad one but these guys aint so slow because they want to be, with more money and testing they can improve, reducing either of these and they will shut for business
 
Brogan said:
All times are from Q1 so everyone is on a level playing field, so to speak.

Ahh my bad, blonde moment, when everyone was talking about 107% of pole I just assumed they meant proper pole. My other points however remain, reducing track time for these teams will make them slower not faster.
 
Top Bottom