F1 2011 Season Rules.. WTF??

[jimy281090]

As I am watching the BBC highlights of the F1 2011 Qualifying I hear Martin Brundle comment on the fact that.. If in the first qualifying session you are less than 7% behind the fastest lap time then you will be disqualifed from racing on the Sunday Race event.. Is it just me or is this rule a total joke?

 

[ashes619]

I think it is totally reasonable. Don't want slow racers in the pack that are only going to crash, get a mechanical failure and if that doesn't happen then he will only be getting lapped and slowing the others down.

 

[Alex.]

It's actually one the best rules the sport has ever had. If you aren't within that you are dangerous due to differences in closing speeds. The cars will just be clogging and blocking the track, affecting the race.

 

[jimy281090]

Yeah fair points and i totally agree but I don't like the idea of only seeing X amount of cars instead of a full grid. No matter where on the track there is at times a battle for position it's not just 1 lone car doodling about etc... :/

 

[DreamersParady]

It's actually one the best rules the sport has ever had. If you aren't within that you are dangerous due to differences in closing speeds. The cars will just be clogging and blocking the track, affecting the race.

Correct, its to prevent incidents like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZTtKC2A0Oc&hd=1

 

[Famine]

If in the first qualifying session you are more than 7% behind the fastest lap time then you will be disqualifed from racing on the Sunday Race event..

The 107% rule. It has been absent for a couple of years, but HRT's performances last year (and Luca Badoer's the previous year) have seen it reintroduced so the drivers don't have to dodge rolling roadblocks.

Strikes me as odd that Le Mans Series drivers can cope with them, but F1 drivers can't.

 

[Grayfox]

Correct, its to prevent incidents like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZTtKC2A0Oc&hd=1

Some people say it was Webbers fault for being to close, but some say that Kovalainen hit the brakes early.

But that crash got Webber the championship last year.

As for what Famine said about the LeMans drivers, i would say that boils down to having a large shell as well as 4 classes racing at once(LMP1, LMP2, GT1 and GT2), in F1 their are no classes, or it may have to do with the acceleration, braking, lighwieghtedness and a good areo package.

But i have never seen a LeMan race at all, which i could though.

 

[jimy281090]

I see each point and totally agree but i think if teams are consistantly out of the running for sunday then they will just pull out and this may start setting and upset within the paddock!

Like you say Famine.. Le mans drivers can handle LMP cars doing say around 220/230 MPH and then they close in on alot slower cars which do say 180/190 MPH which is a huge difference and espicially with cornering speed!

Then you come to F1 cars... the speed isn't as such a big difference and the cars arent as big as LMP or GT cars so i dont see how can be such a huge problem.

Regarding the Mark Webber crash i stuck by my guns when this happened and blamed Webber!
You see Heikki Kovalainen move over a touch and there is atleast 2 seconds for Webber to react and he does not. People may say "WOW 2 Seconds" but for a Formula 1 driver that is more than enough time for there razor sharp reactions!

 

[porkchop87]

The 107 rule is a load anyway. Even if you qualify outside the 107%, you can give some reason on extenuating circumstances, and it's likely they'll put you in the race anyway.... (I'm not kidding, this is actually part of the rule, qualify inside 107% barring extenuating circumstances)

I like the rule, I just doubt many of the drivers will become a victim of it... I'm quite skeptical of it actually, I hope they enforce it but I doubt it....

 

[Northstar]

The 107 rule is a load anyway. Even if you qualify outside the 107%, you can give some reason on extenuating circumstances, and it's likely they'll put you in the race anyway.... (I'm not kidding, this is actually part of the rule, qualify inside 107% barring extenuating circumstances)

I like the rule, I just doubt many of the drivers will become a victim of it... I'm quite skeptical of it actually, I hope they enforce it but I doubt it....

You make it sound easy.

From what I heard they first have to convince the stewards that they should be in the race, than every team has to agree to let them race.

I have a hard time believing the front runners would want a rolling road block hindering their chances of winning.

As for the rule itself, if you've watched any Indycar racing over the past few years you should know that's it's for the better to not have rolling road blocks.

 

[adam46]

In some ways I agree with the rule and in others I don't, it must take the wind out of the sails for any member of Hispania to see there new car being labeled as too slow. Also Nahrain Karthakian must think he would do better in a Superleague Car. I'd be personally very annoyed if for instance I went to a race and then find all the new teams being ruled out of the race and therefore losing a quarter of the grid you paid to see, lets hope it dosen't come to that.

 

[Akmuq]

It's stupid. I think the GT cars in Le Mans can qualify up to 30% slower and be allowed race. Le Mans is narrower then most F1 tracks and it has to be run at night. Stupid rule but it might put a sense of urgency into Hispania.

 

[porkchop87]

You make it sound easy.

Only because I'm skeptical. By all means I hope I'm wrong, but I have a hard time seeing them enforce it, and I see other teams letting DQed drivers participate in the race as a "gentleman's rule" kind of thing.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

I can see why new teams do not like the 107 percent rule, but it is effective and required. Think, if two fast cars are battling for position and a slow car impedes the progress of one car, that could affect the outcome of a race, and the manufacturers and world championship.

 

[Northstar]

Only because I'm skeptical. By all means I hope I'm wrong, but I have a hard time seeing them enforce it, and I see other teams letting DQed drivers participate in the race as a "gentleman's rule" kind of thing.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them allowed tomorrow since it's the first race, that's the only time that it's been waved in the past that wasn't the result of weather(which happened at the '99 French GP and the '01 Belgian GP).

Link

 

[Famine]

I can see why new teams do not like the 107 percent rule, but it is effective and required. Think, if two fast cars are battling for position and a slow car impedes the progress of one car, that could affect the outcome of a race, and the manufacturers and world championship.

Oh no! The good drivers might have to exhibit some kind of... racecraft!

Think of the children.

 

[Ardius]

The 107% rule. It has been absent for a couple of years, but HRT's performances last year (and Luca Badoer's the previous year) have seen it reintroduced so the drivers don't have to dodge rolling roadblocks.

Strikes me as odd that Le Mans Series drivers can cope with them, but F1 drivers can't.

Its more critical for an F1 driver as they race in sprint races, they don't have the laps to waste being held up. Its also very rare for the entire F1 field to lap each other. In LMS, there is a little more time to use while navigating the slower racing classes and its quite common to have most of the field on different laps to each other - therefore traffic is less of an overall issue as it is everyone's problem, not just the leaders.
Besides, plenty of LMS drivers still complain about traffic, remember last year's incident with Davidson and the Corvette at Le Mans?

Perhaps LMS serves as a good example as why we have blue flags and 107% rules in F1, there are so many incidents in that series (and the old World Sportscar Championship) where cars have had accidents due to the closing speeds and the difficulty paying attention to your own race battle as well as getting out of the way of the leaders. While navigating backmarkers is somewhat of a skill that should always be present in F1, there should always be a limit to how slow the slowest cars can be.

I have no problem with the 107% rule. Its not a hard rule to pass.

 

[Famine]

Take GT racing then - SuperGT as a good example.

They run the same length races as F1 (300km give or take) on the same sort of tracks (Suzuka, Fuji) with the same approximate grid size (well... sorta - just over 30 in SuperGT, just under 30 in F1).

Now let's take last year's SuperGT qualifying times.
Suzuka 300
GT500 Pole - 1'53.182
107% - 2'01.105
GT500 last starter - 1'55.019
GT300 Pole - 2'05.391
GT300 last starter - 2'11.887

Now, let's be kind and change the 107% rule from time to speed - the point of it is, after all, to avoid dangerous speed differences. Vettel's Pole at Australia of 1'23.529 equates to an average speed of 142.01mph. 107% slower would be 132.72mph - a phenomenally dangerous average closing speed of 9.28mph (less in tight bends, more on fast ones).

Apply this to the above SuperGT example. The HSV010 pole lap of 1'53.182 equates to an average speed of 114.79mph. The slowest qualifier that actually took part in the same race managed an average speed of 98.51mph - for an apparently safe average closing speed of 16.28mph. Not only is this a higher closing speed than in F1 - on the same track over the same distance - it's also a much more significant proportion of the cars' performance. But safe for SuperGT, apparently.


It rather seems that the 107% rule has little to do with safety - any racing driver worth his salt should be able to drive around a car that's only 7% slower than him, especially if he's come through lower formulae first.

But then again, the blue flag rule is different in F1 compared to other motorsports. In F1 it means "get out of the way or else". In other motorsports it's just a warning of faster cars approaching from behind.


Other cars are part of racing. Having to find your way past a car that has a race pace slower than yours is part of racecraft. Otherwise we may as well just return to the qualifying format of a few years ago (each car gets an outlap and an unobstructed flying lap), call the results there and move on to the next event.

 

[adam46]

Hispania have had there request to race turned down by the FIA. They were running a 2010 Wing.
I just hope there 2011 spec wing will be enough to claw themselves up to the required Lap-time, otr better still just have the 107% outlawed.

I mean ALMS races are 2 hours, 35 minutes long which is only 45 minutes to an hour added to the average F1 race, yet LMP1 class cars have no issue with the GTC & GTE cars at tracks which aren't up to F1 standerd, so I don't see an issue with a car of the Hispania's pace running.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Strikes me as odd that Le Mans Series drivers can cope with them, but F1 drivers can't.

That depends on the meaning of cope. I recall seeing a couple of crashes caused by the speed differential between classes in the ALMS.

I would think that since F1 cars are moving faster, the drivers' senses have to be sharper when dealing with other cars. Plus being open-wheel cars, they are more fragile and the results could be a bit more violent. Since they're in the same class, big speed differentials aren't expected. The cars don't even have brake lights.

 

[Famine]

That depends on the meaning of cope. I recall seeing a couple of crashes caused by the speed differential between classes in the ALMS.

Caused by driver error, yes. But remember, F1 drivers have a Super Licence. They're the best drivers in the world.

 

[The Outlaw]

Its more critical for an F1 driver as they race in sprint races, they don't have the laps to waste being held up. Its also very rare for the entire F1 field to lap each other. In LMS, there is a little more time to use while navigating the slower racing classes and its quite common to have most of the field on different laps to each other - therefore traffic is less of an overall issue as it is everyone's problem, not just the leaders.
Besides, plenty of LMS drivers still complain about traffic, remember last year's incident with Davidson and the Corvette at Le Mans?

Perhaps LMS serves as a good example as why we have blue flags and 107% rules in F1, there are so many incidents in that series (and the old World Sportscar Championship) where cars have had accidents due to the closing speeds and the difficulty paying attention to your own race battle as well as getting out of the way of the leaders. While navigating backmarkers is somewhat of a skill that should always be present in F1, there should always be a limit to how slow the slowest cars can be.

I have no problem with the 107% rule. Its not a hard rule to pass.

I would have to agree 👍

Other cars are part of racing. Having to find your way past a car that has a race pace slower than yours is part of racecraft. Otherwise we may as well just return to the qualifying format of a few years ago (each car gets an outlap and an unobstructed flying lap), call the results there and move on to the next event.

Passing slower cars is part of racing, but it sure is a needless variable (for the lead cars/the main attraction) when this car (HRT) is out there in the same class (even though it is slower than a GP2 car), hypothetically racing no one but themselves because they are ~3 seconds off the next slowest cars pace

It is a pity that HRT is so far off pace, but imo they have no purpose being out on track on race day just to be the lame duck of the show, as well as being a hinderence to the real racing out front. With this said, it's unfortunate the FIA doesn't allow these new teams more testing time to get their act together and become a legitmate part of the show, because it's extremely tough to make progress with so little testing time. The FIA ought to introduce some type of new ruling which would allow extra testing time for the next race if a team failed to fall within say 105% of the previous races pole time.

 

[Famine]

Passing slower cars is part of racing, but it sure is a needless variable (for the lead cars/the main attraction) when this car (HRT) is out there in the same class (even though it is slower than a GP2 car), hypothetically racing no one but themselves because they are ~3 seconds off the next slowest cars pace

And heaven knows we don't want to allow them 2 hours on a Sunday of track time to improve, eh?

Why are the lead cars "the main attraction"? Isn't the grid 24 cars long?


If the lead drivers can't pass slower cars without having them banned off the track or blue-flagged out the way, they shouldn't be driving the lead cars.

 

[Ardius]

Take GT racing then - SuperGT as a good example.

They run the same length races as F1 (300km give or take) on the same sort of tracks (Suzuka, Fuji) with the same approximate grid size (well... sorta - just over 30 in SuperGT, just under 30 in F1).

Now let's take last year's SuperGT qualifying times.
Suzuka 300
GT500 Pole - 1'53.182
107% - 2'01.105
GT500 last starter - 1'55.019
GT300 Pole - 2'05.391
GT300 last starter - 2'11.887

Now, let's be kind and change the 107% rule from time to speed - the point of it is, after all, to avoid dangerous speed differences. Vettel's Pole at Australia of 1'23.529 equates to an average speed of 142.01mph. 107% slower would be 132.72mph - a phenomenally dangerous average closing speed of 9.28mph (less in tight bends, more on fast ones).

Apply this to the above SuperGT example. The HSV010 pole lap of 1'53.182 equates to an average speed of 114.79mph. The slowest qualifier that actually took part in the same race managed an average speed of 98.51mph - for an apparently safe average closing speed of 16.28mph. Not only is this a higher closing speed than in F1 - on the same track over the same distance - it's also a much more significant proportion of the cars' performance. But safe for SuperGT, apparently.


It rather seems that the 107% rule has little to do with safety - any racing driver worth his salt should be able to drive around a car that's only 7% slower than him, especially if he's come through lower formulae first.

But then again, the blue flag rule is different in F1 compared to other motorsports. In F1 it means "get out of the way or else". In other motorsports it's just a warning of faster cars approaching from behind.


Other cars are part of racing. Having to find your way past a car that has a race pace slower than yours is part of racecraft. Otherwise we may as well just return to the qualifying format of a few years ago (each car gets an outlap and an unobstructed flying lap), call the results there and move on to the next event.

What about the average closing speed around a corner? While SuperGT's do have downforce, its nothing like what F1 has and I wonder if the difference between the fastest GT and the slowest is anywhere similar to the equivelant F1 in the corners, this is where the risk is at its highest.

If Hispania had turned up to testing or had run in practice, I'm fairly sure they would have managed 107%. Virgin are not much better off budget wise and they managed it. No setup work was done on the F111 and it ran with F110 front wing. This was effectively a shakedown run in qualifying - for all we know bits could start falling off during the race as they did in qualifying! While I'd love to see HRT get the time to run in the race and finally test the chassis, I have to admit its not very professional to allow this team to race when they are so far off the pace and without any time left to improve their setups.

If you look back in the past, it was rare for the properly funded racing teams to fall foul of 107%. And we're talking Arrows, Minardi, etc. While I like the story, I don't think we should encourage teams of lesser quality than Minardi. I think HRT are equal to Minardi these days and if they had sorted themselves out a little earlier in the season they wouldn't be DNQ.

 

[Clark]

They're the best drivers in the world.

In the current state of F1, I'd argue that point. Maybe between half or two-thirds of the grid are the best, but they're not literally the 24 best drivers.

Besides, that would leave out me

EDIT: Famine your argument with Super GT is not as extreme as could be the case in some forms of motorsport. With ALMS running the GTC class (911 Cup cars) with the fastest car being P1's the speed difference is huge. However F1 should not be a mult-class team and much the same as how it should be with drivers, these should be the best cars too.

 

[gogatrs]

I actually find F1 boring.
The lead cars are never anywhere NEAR each other, well not never but rarely.
This rule is only going to spread them out even more.

What is wrong with passing slower cars?
Very rarely is there an accident involving a driver in the front and a driver in the back.
That is part of racing, it adds yet another element to deal with.
You need to have those lightning quick reactions to make it to F1, if you can make it to F1, you should be able to pass a car that's going slower than you that knows they should be getting out of the way anyways.
And someone mentioned that the LMS drivers have such a long time to pass lapped traffic even though 90% of the time, 1st and 2nd place in the LMP class finish on the same lap.
It's the being able to get around the traffic quickly and efficiently that will allow you to win these races.

And I an prepared to argue this point.

 

[Ardius]

Sure, of course its a necessary skill to navigate the traffic in endurance races. But its less critical to do it immediately, you can afford to lose a tenth or whatever to make sure you aren't taken out of the race. This isn't the case with F1, you have less time to waste.

I don't see the 107% rule as a huge issue because its rarely taken away genuine great competitors from the racing. Its no loss to anyone except those struggling teams, which wouldn't be much better off even if there wasn't a 107% rule.

 

[The Outlaw]

And heaven knows we don't want to allow them 2 hours on a Sunday of track time to improve, eh?

IMO there are much better ways to give them oppurtunities to get track time, instead of turning Sunday into a test session as they float around the track out in their own world, having to pull over for other cars multiple times a lap on average.

The pinnacle of motorsports doesn't need cars out on track with such low standards of performance IMO. It becomes a point of where do you draw the line?

Why are the lead cars "the main attraction"? Isn't the grid 24 cars long?

I said the main attraction - I'm sure a lot more folks watch Formula 1 to watch the giants (Ferrari, Mclaren, RBR, Renault, Mercedes) of the sport duke it out, rather than the HRT's who can't even match the pace of GP2 car and have a driver who looks completely lost out there.

If the lead drivers can't pass slower cars without having them banned off the track or blue-flagged out the way, they shouldn't be driving the lead cars.

That's beyond my point. When you have a group of lead cars very closely grouped together (like in Canada last year) a needless back marker (the level of a HRT) can very well effect the outcome of the race (and potentially a Championship), simply due to how and where the lead drivers run up on this car (and if the back marker is fully aware). Back markers will be even more of a critical, unpredictable element with the DRS system as well.

 

[Radracing]

It would be nice if the empty spot left by the team that got elimiated would be open to anyone else that shows up and qualify for the 107% rule.

 

[RTSolvalou]

Excellent rule, keeps HRT off of the track.