107 Percent Rule Useless?

[Robin]

As you know both from Kobayashi in Turkey and from Heidfeld today they start at the back of the grid for the race, because even though they are technically outside the 107 percent time any laps done in free practice can be used as a gauge if necessary.

So isn't having the 107 percent rule totally irrelevant if they can use free practice lap times as a measure of whether a car is competitive enough to compete?

The only time the rule would ever be used is at the start of a season when a team is completely unprepared (like with HRT). It is implausible that a team mid way through the season would suddenly come 107 percent uncompetitive.

I think it should be that if a car does not complete one lap in qualifying then its not in the race. It would make things extra interesting and also stop this current feeling that qualifying is getting less important as the BBC touched on today.

Robin.

 

[Northstar]

Well d'Ambrosio only made it by about .2 seconds so it's not impossible to fall outside of 107% later in the season. Keep in mind that the front runners continue to develop their cars so the 107% rule makes sure they have to as well.

I also think you have to allow some wiggle room since as we've seen the last two weeks that mechanical failures do happen. It's not like either didn't even try to make a lap, their cars failed before they could.

 

[Robin]

Yeah I suppose the 107 level moves up and up but you've also touched something that makes things even more sketchy than I originally thought!

Lets say d'Ambrosio didn't make 107 percent in qualifying today, then he would be out of the race right? But what if he did a better than 107% time in free practice, why can't they use that as a gauge of competitiveness?

Its almost like d'Ambrosio would have been better off not bothering even doing a lap in qualifying because if you look at Heidfeld it seems the better option to 'play dead'. If Renault knew the car would be out they would have done a lap for sure in qualifying even if it was in pieces! Its encouraging qualifying to be a lazy affair for anyone other than the front runners because they know the tires can claw it all back. Proper enforcement of the 107 percent rule would up the stakes.

Robin.

 

[Northstar]

Yeah I suppose but I've just realised something that makes things even more sketchy than I originally thought! Lets say d'Ambrosio didn't make 107 percent in qualifying today, then he would be out of the race right? But what if he did a better than 107% time in free practice, why can't they use that as a gauge of competitiveness?

Chances are they would have let him race.

Fairly certain the whole purpose of the 107% rule is to prevent teams that are way off pace from racing like HRT in Australia where at best they missed the 107% mark by over a second(they were even further off in the little practice they did do).

Its almost like d'Ambrosio would have been better off not bothering even doing a lap in qualifying

Don't you have to prove you made an actual effort to put a lap in though?

because if you look at Heidfeld it seems the better option to 'play dead'. If Renault knew the car would be out they would have done a lap for sure in qualifying even if it was in pieces! Its encouraging qualifying to be a lazy affair for anyone other than the front runners because they know the tires can claw it all back.

Robin.

I doubt they could have gotten Heidfeld's car running again by the end of Q1 and I really doubt they would have let them go out in a half finished car. It's not like Renault just sat in the garage the whole time, they were trying to get it going but ran out of time.

I understand where you are getting at, but you have to allow for incidents to happen.

 

[Robin]

Don't you have to prove you made an actual effort to put a lap in though?

I don't know what they would define as an 'actual effort', Heidfeld technically didn't make any effort to put in a lap in qualifying.

So are they going to make the decision based on enthusiasm!? I have this image of drivers going to the stewards office and having to state in 30 seconds why they should be in the race "I really really love F1 etc etc... "

As for Virgin they could have said the car is having issues and state "we were competitive in free practice, let us race"... meanwhile they have saved a shed load of tires!

Of course I don't want things to be unsafe, but it would mix stuff up if they had the 107 percent fear! Renault however hard they were working already knew in the back of their mind that it really didn't matter if they didn't make it out.

Robin.

 

[Rossticles]

When no one falls victim to the 107% rule it seems useless.

 

[Robin]

When no one falls victim to the 107% rule it seems useless.

When people fall victim to the 107% rule and are still allowed to race it seems useless.

 

[Roo]

The 107% rule is in place to stop cars that are too slow from getting in the way and potentially causing incidents during the race, not to encourage people to qualify. Heidfeld's practice pace has clearly demonstrated that he is not a danger to other drivers. Why should he be penalised on Sunday afternoon for a mechanical problem on Saturday morning?

I'm looking forward to see how far Heidfeld can get up the field tomorrow. It should put some excitment into what it traditionally a boring race.

If it throws it down with rain 10 minutes into Q1 and there's still 15 cars to set a time, should we only have a 9 car race the following day?

 

[GTPorsche]

Pretty sure the car being on fire kept him from "putting in an effort to run a lap".

 

[Northstar]

When people fall victim to the 107% rule and are still allowed to race it seems useless.

Which has never happened.

All drivers that were allowed after falling below the 107% mark either had a good enough practice lap or weather came into play.

 

[Robin]

Which has never happened.

All drivers that were allowed after falling below the 107% mark either had a good enough practice lap or weather came into play.

I don't quite follow what you mean by 'has never happened' the link you posted even shows that Kobayashi has fallen victim to the rule and was allowed to race, therefore it has happened and will happen again tomorrow!

The rule is clear "during the first phase of qualifying, any driver who fails to set a lap within 107 percent of the fastest Q1 (first qualifying session) time will not be allowed to start the race". As Kobayashi did not fulfill that then he broke the rule but why did he start?.... because it seems seems this 107 percent 'rule' is more of a guideline.

This is the reason why the BBC keeps getting questions from viewers asking why is Heidfeld allowed to race because people assume (quite correctly) that a rule is a rule.

If it throws it down with rain 10 minutes into Q1 and there's still 15 cars to set a time, should we only have a 9 car race the following day?

If the session is red flagged then that's a totally different issue but if its drivable there is no reason why the teams cannot go out and set a time regardless of the conditions. If they choose not to because 'its a bit wet' then yes they should be excluded from the race.

I'm just trying to understand why this rule is there if the stewards can overrule it anyway.

Robin.

 

[Northstar]

I don't quite follow what you mean by 'has never happened' the link you posted even shows that Kobayashi has fallen victim to the rule and was allowed to race, therefore it has happened!

The rule is clear "during the first phase of qualifying, any driver who fails to set a lap within 107 percent of the fastest Q1 (first qualifying session) time will not be allowed to start the race". As Kobayashi did not fulfill that then he broke the rule but why did he start?.... because it seems seems this 107 percent 'rule' is more of a guideline.

He was well within the 107% mark for the practice sessions though.

I really don't get why you are so worked up about this.

 

[Northstar]

I don't quite follow what you mean by 'has never happened' the link you posted even shows that Kobayashi has fallen victim to the rule and was allowed to race, therefore it has happened!

The rule is clear "during the first phase of qualifying, any driver who fails to set a lap within 107 percent of the fastest Q1 (first qualifying session) time will not be allowed to start the race". As Kobayashi did not fulfill that then he broke the rule but why did he start?.... because it seems seems this 107 percent 'rule' is more of a guideline.

He was well within the 107% mark for the practice sessions though.

If the session is red flagged then that's a totally different issue but if its drivable there is no reason why the teams cannot go out and set a time regardless of the conditions. If they choose not to because 'its a bit wet' then yes they should be excluded from the race.

What if it's dry for the first few minutes than starts raining hard in Q1? This is what happened to Sato in Australia in 2001.

I'm just trying to understand why this rule is there if the stewards can overrule it anyway.

If they have shown they are fast enough in the practice sessions, why shouldn't they be allowed to race because of a mechanical failure?

I really don't get why you are so worked up about this.

 

[Robin]

I'm not worked up, I was hoping to just have a discussion on why the rule is not been implemented as its written and whether enforcing it fully would have any effect on the excitement of qualifying etc (yes, even though that's not the main aim of the rule).

Could you imagine is Vettel drives out in Q1 and dumps it into a wall before completing the lap... it would be OMG Vettel won't be allowed to complete tomorrow = epic drama.

What if it's dry for the first few minutes than starts raining hard in Q1? This is what happened to Sato in Australia in 2001.

Any half decent F1 car will still be able to set a 107% time even on a wet track against a dry time especially with wet tires.

If they have shown they are fast enough in the practice sessions, why shouldn't they be allowed to race because of a mechanical failure?

I'm not saying they shouldn't but then don't have a 107% rule, just let the stewards decide on the fly whether a car is unfit to race or not seeing as that's what they are doing at the moment anyway (overruling the 107%).

Robin.

 

[Roo]

It is implemented as it's written:

36.3 During Q1, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest time set during that session 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. In either case, a competitor will not be able to appeal against the stewards decision.

2011 sporting regulations in full.

I can't see how that could be any clearer.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Could you imagine is Vettel drives out in Q1 and dumps it into a wall before completing the lap... it would be OMG Vettel won't be allowed to complete tomorrow = epic drama.

You're making it sound like you just started watching F1 this season. There is already enough drama without that and that's not the purpose of the 107% rule.

 

[Matti_Dude]

As has been said before the point of the 107% rule is to stop cars which are too slow from being able to race. Don't you think Heidfeld has suffered enough by having to start at the back of the grid (or the pitlane i'm not sure which)? If a Hispania or Virgin did fail to meet the 107% time in qualifying then no they shouldn't be allowed to race unless it was exceptional circumstances. Sure the FIA can look at times from the practice sessions, but if they had only just got within 107% during those sessions I still don't think they'd be allowed to race.

 

[Robin]

I can't see how that could be any clearer.

It's not 'exceptional circumstances', its everytime (two so far). If they removed the exceptional bit then it would be more clear.

You're making it sound like you just started watching F1 this season. There is already enough drama without that and that's not the purpose of the 107% rule.

I never felt there was a lack of drama just feel that a rule which carries no weight is useless and I'm well aware that the rule is not there to create excitement but it could do as a side effect.

I have watched F1 since the early 90's.

 

[Ardius]

107% rule is merely a safety rule, not a sporting regulation - its not designed to penalise people, its simply there to make sure we don't have cars that clearly too slow.

Whether F1 drivers should be able to dodge cars going 10 seconds per lap faster and whether its really a safety concern is another matter, but the spirit of the rule is not to remove cars that don't qualify properly.

Its just basic common sense that quite obviously Heidfeld (and Kobayashi last race) have fast enough cars that they don't need to prove 107%. Unless you really think Heidfeld wouldn't have managed 107%?

 

[Akmuq]

Ok, if D'ambrosio didn't qualify within 107%, he wouldnt have been allowed race because he was on the bubble all weekend. Heidfeld couldn't set a lap but he showed that he was fast enough in practice.
The rule isn't in place to entertain us, it's a safety precaution, I don't know why you care that it isn't used. Surely a bigger grid is better, right? As long as they're close enough, of course.

 

[sems4arsenal]

It's not all rules the reason Hiedfield and kamui are allowed is simple had they had a working car they would no doubt about it make the 107% rule.Your point about Teams skipping quali well try explaining that to the FIA their fans the drivers the sponsors etc......
Fact is a team like HRT would happily not spend as much money as they are now the 107 % rule insures they keep developing .

Just my take on it but I think it is not a very significant rule to the followers.

 

[Roo]

It's not 'exceptional circumstances', its everytime (two so far). If they removed the exceptional bit then it would be more clear.

Not being able to set a time in Q1 is exceptional. It's happened twice this season, out of a possible 120 laptimes set (24 cars taking part in 5 Q1 sessions). It happened on 4 occasions in 2010, out of a possible 456 (24 cars taking part in 19 Q1 sessions). In 2009, out of a possible 340 occasions, a car failed to complete a Q1 laptime once. In 2008, out of a possible 368 occasions, a car failed to complete a Q1 laptime twice. How is 9 failures to set a time out of 1,284 theoretical laptimes in 3.5 years not exceptional?

 

[TenEightyOne]

The 107% rule isn't a hard and fast rule, there are all sorts of reasons (as mentioned already) why a car might fall outside the boundary.

I don't think we've yet seen the rule being enforced in a way that wasn't common-sense.

 

[Robin]

Not being able to set a time in Q1 is exceptional. It's happened twice this season, out of a possible 120 laptimes set (24 cars taking part in 5 Q1 sessions). It happened on 4 occasions in 2010, out of a possible 456 (24 cars taking part in 19 Q1 sessions). In 2009, out of a possible 340 occasions, a car failed to complete a Q1 laptime once. In 2008, out of a possible 368 occasions, a car failed to complete a Q1 laptime twice. How is 9 failures to set a time out of 1,284 theoretical laptimes in 3.5 years not exceptional?

I wasn't talking exceptional in terms of the rarity of the event, I was talking about exceptional in the decision they make on the matter. Basically its not "on very rare occasions we are going to let them compete" like the rule seems to suggest, its "every time this happens we are going let them compete".

So there's nothing exceptional about it, its going to be a yes nearly all of the time. I can bet that every time a car fails to do a lap in Q1 from now on it will be allowed in the race. They should just call it a guideline and leave it at that.

Robin.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The 107% rule was only introduced to appease Ferrari. They got upset when a Hispania accidentally blocked Alonso in Canada (the Hispania moved over to let Alonso through, but Alonso also moved over to go around the outside) and it was enough for Jenson Button to pass him. The Horse Whisperer - Ferrari's channel for saying the things they cannot afford to say in public - lit up that night demanding that the new teams be put through the wringer. The 107% rule was re-introduced, but nobody in the paddock (except maybe Ferrari) expected teams to regularly fail to qualify. It was a way to soothe Ferrari after they made a series of inane arguments and demands, like three-car teams.

 

[Seismica]

Starting at the back of the grid is the penalty for not putting in a qualifying time. The 107% rule is simply there to prevent teams entering in a car that is dangerously slow. As a sport which has one set of regulations, i.e. a single tier championship, it is expected that every car must be within a certain time of the lead car (Determined by percentage).

The only reason the rule is applied in Q1 is because all 24 cars are expected to do a low fuel run, which will more or less even the field out (supposedly). The rule that cars cannot race is only exercised if the reason for the car not being within 107% is down to the car's pace, and not some unusual circumstance (Mechanical failure, Traffic, Accident, Weather etc.).

I'd actually argue that cars finishing outside of the 107% rule should still be allowed to race, because:
a) The championship incurs a significant entry fee, which is supposed to prevent bogus entries
b) Due to the lack of testing, excluding a car from a race due to being too slow to qualify only means they will only fall back even further relative to the teams that do race and collect extra data etc.
c) A team which invests all that time, money and effort into entering the championship, building a car and attempting qualifying would have all that go to waste, at the risk of the team's survival, which actually puts people's jobs/livelihoods at stake. (Due to loss of sponsors and such)

 

[IceMan PJN]

Formula 1 107 Percent Rule Useless?

No.

A rule isn't useless if it serves its intended purpose, even if not always serving it. It has already, just since the start of this season, kept slow cars from participating in the race, which is what the rule was intended to do. Since it has managed to fulfill its purpose, it isn't useless. Whether or not one wants to argue about circumventing the rule, the rule has still done what it was meant to do, and is therefor not entirely useless.

 

[Ardius]

The only reason the rule is applied in Q1 is because all 24 cars are expected to do a low fuel run, which will more or less even the field out (supposedly).

Its also because obviously the slowest cars get knocked out in Q1, and Q2 or Q3 could produce quicker times due to drying conditions or a delayed session - so it would be complex and relatively unfair to base the 107% on the ultimate pole position in Q3 when the slower cars set their times in effectively a different session. Or at least it minimises the potential unfairness anyway.

 

[Roo]

I wasn't talking exceptional in terms of the rarity of the event, I was talking about exceptional in the decision they make on the matter. Basically its not "on very rare occasions we are going to let them compete" like the rule seems to suggest, its "every time this happens we are going let them compete".

So there's nothing exceptional about it, its going to be a yes nearly all of the time. I can bet that every time a car fails to do a lap in Q1 from now on it will be allowed in the race. They should just call it a guideline and leave it at that.

Robin.

It's not the decision that has to be exceptional, it's the circumstances that require the decision to be made that have to be exceptional. If a car fails to take part in qualifying, the team would have to demonstrate to the stewards a good reason why they were unable to do so - the teams can't just decide to not run at all to save tyres.

The chances are that, yes, if a car fails to set a time in Q1, they will be allowed to race, as the majority of the grid - all the cars except the Virgins and Hispanias - spend all weekend running at a pace that's well within 107% of the fastest. No team would deliberately not run without a good reason not to because they know they wouldn't be allowed to start the race. Thus, anyone who doesn't run in Q1 is more than likely to have a) already shown good enough pace to not be a danger in the race - the point of the 107% rule - and b) a good reason ("exceptional circumstance") to not take part in Q1.