F1 2011 Season Rules.. WTF??

[F1Addict]

The 107% rule was brought in as a message to HRT that they're out of F1 if they don't get their act together. Thats how I see it.

 

[Grayfox]

The crash between Webber and Kovi may be a little be on the extreme side to point out a the rule, but this one seems much better.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

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

Formula 1 drivers a little bit touchy about it. The rule was introduced after some heavy campaigning from Ferrari in the wake of the Canadian Grand Prix last year when Alonso got help up by a Hispania and it was enough for Button to pass him. It was an honest mistake; Alonso went right off the racing line to get around the car, but the Hispania also went right to leave the racing line open for Alonso, and he was forced to cut back across, giving Button all the invitation he needed to make a move and make it stick. Nevertheless, the Horse Whisperer - Ferrari's "satirical" blog (which is really just a way for them to say the things they can't say in public) - lit up with an assault on the enw teams for existing. The 107% rule was reintroduced to humour them, but it was expected that all of the newcomers would be comfortably within 107% by 2011. Hell, Hispania were the only ones who had trouble with it last year. On the few occasions when a car would not have qualified, it was only one car, and it was only by a few tenths of a second. Monaco was the only race when they would not have qualified at all.

It's try they just got a double-DNQ in Melbourne, but they were running the old spec front wing when the 2011 edition failed a crash test. Considering that Liuzzi was only a second and a half (give or take two tenths) from the 107% margin with a 2010 front wing and a compromised aerodynamics package, it's entirely conceivable that he, at least, would have made it to the grid with the 2011 wing.

 

[Bigbazz]

Hispania are so slow that they would fit better in a lower class of racing (GP2 can't be far off those times), they haven't tested the car and the drivers have had no chance to practice the track, it is dangerous in my opinion.

This is meant to be the top of motorsport, and they are the equilvant of a weekend racing team run out of the owners garage, living on pennies. Nobody can deny that it shows, they are so far off the pace.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But you can't say "you can't race because you don't have enough money". So long as Hispania can qualify a car within 107% of the provisional pole time in Q1, they have the right to race.

I actually think it'll be a fascinating little subplot throuhout the season to see if they can make it onto the grid.

 

[Seismica]

Don't forget how reliant F1 cars are on aerodynamics. An F1 car requires clean air to work at it's best. F1 cars also leave a lot of turbulent air behind, which makes following another car difficult. It has adverse effects on the tyres, it changes the balance of the car and slows the lead car down significantly, which can have an effect on race order depending on what part of the track (And of course which track) you are overlapping on.

It also has to be said that closing speed isn't necessarily the most significant factor. The fact F1 cars have a higher average speed is more relevant. F1 drivers are not superhuman, their reaction speed isn't necessarily better than the next guy (I remember watching a feature on autosport where one of the guys did various tests with an F1 driver, and found that his reactions were quicker, whilst his physical fitness and endurance was poor in comparison). More accidents are caused by drivers battling at the front, with minute closing speeds, as Sebastien Vettel demonstrated at Turkey and Spa last year.

Other formulas and racing classes are a lot less reliant on aerodynamics and generally have lower average speeds. If you don't think the average speed is significant, imagine a two tier NASCAR field, it would be complete havoc.

I'm kind of indifferent with this 107% rule. There is an argument that any team that slow doesn't deserve to be there, but honestly, if they have been allowed to enter the championship, they should be allowed to race. This setback will only damage HRT even further. I suppose it's their own fault for not getting any miles on the car in pre-season testing.

 

[Famine]

NASCAR is complete havoc

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.

Yeah, like all those in-season test ses... oh.


I'd like you to imagine that you have a low-budget team that has paid their entry fee, has paid to build a car to meet the technical specifications and has paid to get to 19 Grands Prix. How do you reckon they're going to pay to get all of their equipment across to "n" more test sessions, if you introduce these?

How are they supposed to get better if they are continually excluded from the sessions with the largest number of consecutive, race-speed laps by an arbitrary time limit - which depends solely on how fast the leader is and not any other car - which has nothing at all to do with safety?

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?

You don't. Any line is arbitrary. That's the point.


As we've seen in F1, it's not slowness that's regarded as dangerous, rather speed. The FIA are continually trying to slow the leaders down. Perhaps it's the leaders who should be reigned in as dangerously fast, rather than a paid-up team excluded for being safely slow?

It's worth a note that if the 107% rule was on Q3 times, both Virgins would have been excluded too - their laptimes in Q1 were more than 107% of the Pole time. Dangerously slow to be on the same track? It's worth a further note that the HRTs were within 107% of the cars they're supposed to be fighting with - Virgin and Lotus.

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).

Good.

If F1 was just meant to be decided on who was fastest on a single, traffic-free lap, we'd have 2003-style qualifying sessions. Lapping cars is part of an F1 driver's skillset.

Back markers will be even more of a critical, unpredictable element with the DRS system as well.

Good.

 

[Ardius]

But you can't say "you can't race because you don't have enough money".

Yes you can, there is an entry fee. And the whole point of the FIA selection process for new entires is that they check out the viability of the entry. Something that dear old Max clearly did not do with the half-done budget cap.

 

[jimy281090]

How are they supposed to get better if they are continually excluded from the sessions with the largest number of consecutive, race-speed laps by an arbitrary time limit - which depends solely on how fast the leader is and not any other car - which has nothing at all to do with safety?

If they don't get chances to race out on a sunday session how are they suppose to get any better etc..?

This quote is the perfect example explaining this and i totally agree.

If they can't get track time then they may be adding aero packages that may not be anywhere near the race pace and end up going a hell of a lot slower!

Back to the LMS argument.. You have Prototype cars racing around like for instance, Lucas Ordonez in his LMP2 car. He will be racing round the track at about 200mph etc yes? Then take the GT2 cars which will be lapping around 30/40mph slower! The aerodynamics is HUGELY different for cornering speeds but they seem to manage bloody well!
If Sebastien Vettel can't lap a car that is going around 9mph slower like Famine said then i'm afraid he's in the wrong sport!

 

[Ardius]

Its not like they didn't have the opportunity to test the car if they had sorted themselves out earlier....they are supposed to get better by making sure they have a budget in place and sorting their car out before the season starts.
Should we also postpone the races so we can let HRT test? No, so I don't see why concessions should be made due to the failure of one team to sort themselves out in time. They wouldn't have added anything to the race and they have already had one season to try and organise better for this season....are they really adding anything by constantly turning up with no testing, pay drivers and simply acting as moving chicanes?
107% is not a hard target, we are not talking about two different race classes in the same race. This is one class, the fastest cars. I think its perfectly acceptable to only allow those who show the ability to actually be competitive rather than simply drive around struggling to finish the season.

I've also remembered the other reason why 107% and pre-qualfiying rules originally came in - there were too many joke outfits like Andrea Moda who were trying to exploit the sport rather than actually compete. Like those NASCAR teams who simply do enough to qualify and then park and take the cash.

As I said earlier, I love reading and following the story. I hope HRT survive and I somewhat agree that its a shame they couldn't race at least just to finally test the car. But I also understand why the sport feels they are not worthy of qualification.

 

[IceMan PJN]

First off, I'm going to admit that I only skimmed through about half of the replies. Having got that out of the way....

I'm not going to argue for or against the rule. I have mixed feelings about it because I can see and agree with both sides' perspectives on the matter. The problem here is that there isn't a right and a wrong to the rule. Arguments for and against the rule are both right. This makes the rule a gray area.

It's like arguing for and against most things. People like to simplify everything in the world into basic black-and-white, good-and-evil, or right-and-wrong. In a perfect world that might be how things work, but it's not how things work in this world. Most issues are really just varying shades of gray, with arguments for both sides being valid. Unfortunately, people tend to only focus on the arguments that support their side and that refute the other side rather than seeing, understanding, and appreciating both sides. The other side makes an argument in favor of their stance, and you throw in an argument for your side, and then treat it as though it's somehow invalidated or negated the other side's argument. The problem with that is that your argument normally doesn't actually make the other guy's point vanish. If the other guy's point still stands, the he can't be entirely wrong and you can't be entirely right.

However, even though I said I won't really argue for or against the rule, I guess I'll throw in one note siding with the rule. At the end of the day, after we've argued for and against, there's still the issue of driver safety. Safety comes above all else. There's always going to be an element of danger involved in motor racing, and the only way you can really eliminate all possible danger from it is by not doing it at all, but we can try to eliminate as many risks as we can. Cars that are dramatically slower than the rest of the field are one of those risks that we can eliminate.

 

[Famine]

Its not like they didn't have the opportunity to test the car if they had sorted themselves out earlier....they are supposed to get better by making sure they have a budget in place and sorting their car out before the season starts.

There's nothing in the technical regs for this...

Should we also postpone the races so we can let HRT test?

Wait, who was arguing for this?

No, so I don't see why concessions should be made due to the failure of one team to sort themselves out in time.

I might be imagining these things, but I'm pretty sure I remember both the Hispania cars taking part in the first qualifying session of the season?

They wouldn't have added anything to the race

Except 2 cars and more interest - for people who want to watch them, or for people who want to see how the different "leading" drivers treat them.

(though with the blue flag the way it is in F1, we're denied that too).

are they really adding anything by constantly turning up with no testing, pay drivers and simply acting as moving chicanes?

Jenson Button turned up having done no more than 18 consecutive laps of testing, and that particular McLaren package hadn't had any testing at all before FP1.

Incidentally, HRT's denigrated "pay drivers" are Narain Karthekiyan (2 F1 seasons at Jordan, 19 Grands Prix, best non-farce finish of 11th) and Vitantonio Liuzzi (5 F1 seasons at Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Force India, 63 Grands Prix, best finish of 6th) - who I believe was slated to fill Kubica's seat at Lotus-Renault this season...

107% is not a hard target

But it is an arbitrary one. And it's not based on the speed of the field, but the speed of one driver. One driver whose speed in Q3 would have been sufficient to exclude Virgin Racing (if the arbitrary rule was set to Q3 rather than Q1) and who was 1% faster than even the next car on the grid and over 4% faster than the last contender in Q3! Oh, and 8.7% faster than the last contender in Q2. Lucky for Sutil he's allowed in, arbitrarily.

we are not talking about two different race classes in the same race. This is one class, the fastest cars. I think its perfectly acceptable to only allow those who show the ability to actually be competitive rather than simply drive around struggling to finish the season.

We should probably drop Virgin and Lotus too then - 20 Grands Prix without a single point between them can hardly be described as "the ability to actually be competitive" now can it?

I've also remembered the other reason why 107% and pre-qualfiying rules originally came in - there were too many joke outfits like Andrea Moda who were trying to exploit the sport rather than actually compete. Like those NASCAR teams who simply do enough to qualify and then park and take the cash.

Yeah, imagine that in present-day F1...


Out of curiousity, if the FIA are so keen to minimise the speed differential between cars, one has to wonder why they allow a DRS (an alleged 7.5mph benefit) and KERS-equipped (an alleged 100hp benefit) car to be on track with, and at any time behind, a car with neither. The difference in closing speed would be phenomenal - and way more than a wholly arbitrary 7%.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

there were too many joke outfits like Andrea Moda who were trying to exploit the sport rather than actually compete.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Andrea Moda were trying to exploit the sport. Rather, Bruno Sassetti saw it as an opportunity to market his fashion label, and underestimated the costs associated with running the team. He was completely out of his depth, but I don't think he was trying to get soemthing for nothing.

HRT's denigrated "pay drivers" are Narain Karthekiyan (2 F1 seasons at Jordan, 19 Grands Prix, best non-farce finish of 11th)

Karthikeyan is known to bring several million dollars to the team from Tata.

Vitantonio Liuzzi (5 F1 seasons at Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Force India, 63 Grands Prix, best finish of 6th) - who I believe was slated to fill Kubica's seat at Lotus-Renault this season...

He was allegedly Kubica's first choice for the seat, though exactly how close he came to driving for Renault is uncertain. Particularly once Joe Saward started championing Liuzzi's cause.

 

[Famine]

Indeed - but he's not only bringing several million dollars. He's got F1 experience.

Compare that to Bruno Senna or Karun Chandhok. Or even Pastor Maldonado - I've heard it remarked that, in answer to the question "How's your new driver?", a Williams source responded "Very, very rich, thanks."

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He's got F1 experience.

From so long ago - 2005 - that the benefits are negligible. And it shows. Tonio Liuzzi was just 1.7 seconds off the grid this weekend, and claims that he can make it in Malaysia when the team get their new front wing approved. Karthikeyan, on the other hand, was over three seconds outside the 107% margin. And he did the most running for the team. It's questionable as to whether he can make the grid at Sepang even with a 2011-spec front wing at his disposal.

 

[Famine]

From so long ago - 2005 - that the benefits are negligible.

Hey, if it's good enough for the prancing horses...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Who have Ferrari re-signed after an extended break recently?

 

[Famine]

It was a Luca Badoer joke...

 

[Imari]

I do think the 107% rule should be unnecessary. If you're F1 management and you have doubts that a team can maintain a suitable pace for however fast you think a F1 race should be, make them run during the winter testing and judge them then. Or just don't let them into the championship. Whatever, make the call before the season starts, and make it with some confidence. Don't hide behind this pansy 107% bollocks.

To let someone into the championship, and then have them do all that work to prepare for each race and then to lock them out based on an entirely arbitrary time just seems unfair. Although if I was HRT I'd be slipping Vettel a nice cake and asking him if he wouldn't mind going a bit slower in Q1 in the next race...

 

[Tired Tyres]

That, ^ and the fact that they can't test to improve their car means the race is the only chance they have to actually learn anything. This is the FIA doing it's usually excellent job of running a sport properly. 👎

 

[Hun200kmh]

@ Famine: You can either agree or disagree with the 107% rule. But please don't use Sports Cars racing to compare. It would be like saying F1 cars are crap because they would never last a 24 hour race. You're talking about totally different racing disciplines.

In sports cars racing different classes and speeds are a part of the game. Even if that is dangerous and leads to nasty accidents, like it happened so many times in the past *and probably will happen again in the future.

F1 is for sprinters, for quick racing, fast reflexes and young boys. Hundreths of seconds can make a win and a lose ... the absolute perfection, "quickie" style no place for hopeless backmarkers.

Sports Cars racing is a totally different game. Thankfully.

(*Note: Even in the movies, remember how Steve McQueen totalled his first 917 ? )

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It was a Luca Badoer joke...

Right, right. I totally forgot about that.

 

[TommyWizard]

Brilliant.

Yet another way to insure that whoever qualifies pole is completly unchallenged and will win Sundays race. And sponsors must be happy too of course, cars always look better being 7.1% off the pace on a Saturday afternoon with your multi million dollar franchise pasted up and down the cars.

I've soured more and more on F1 every season, this is just another log on the F1 hopes and dreams and memories fire that Im burning right about now.

 

[daan]

Just thought I'd point out at this Mini Marcos raced at Le Mans in '66...

...in the same race as the GT40 and 330P3. Down the Mulsanne, the closing speed would have been about a difference of 100mph!

 

[jimy281090]

The reference to Sports car racing is the closing speed!

It's part and parcel in ANY sport! Should we just bring all the top 24 Le Mans 24hr Drivers over to F1 to fill the grid so we can actually have a full grid? Then we wouldnt have drivers that are gonna be faster anyway complaining because he might only win the race by 5 seconds! Which is HUGE in F1 terms.

 

[Famine]

@ Famine: You can either agree or disagree with the 107% rule. But please don't use Sports Cars racing to compare. It would be like saying F1 cars are crap because they would never last a 24 hour race. You're talking about totally different racing disciplines.

I don't see how - and I've not at any point said anything but the 107% and blue flag rules, as applied to F1, is crap.

In sports cars racing different classes and speeds are a part of the game. Even if that is dangerous and leads to nasty accidents, like it happened so many times in the past *and probably will happen again in the future.

F1 is for sprinters, for quick racing, fast reflexes and young boys. Hundreths of seconds can make a win and a lose ... the absolute perfection, "quickie" style

Everything except classes applies to both. Did you not see the Virgin Racing car touring around the back of Melbourne at spare change speed?

Point is that the car conforms to tech specs - more than you can say for the Saubers - and the team are paid up for the races with a pair of qualified (and experienced - even Karthekiyan went into the event as the joint-19th most experienced driver on the grid, and Liuzzi has more races under his belt than Vettel, Petrov and Glock) drivers. The cars are approached at no greater speed differential than a DRS & KERS equipped car approaches a car with neither and the implementation of the blue flag rule in F1 means they'll leap out of the way when being lapped and take no part in any sharp-end battles.

There's no technical reason to exclude them from a race because they failed some arbitrary limit compared to a one-off lap from a single car on the grid. There's no safety reason either (they won't be in the way and the speed differential is nothing compared to other formulae or other situations in the same formula (driver recovering an ailing car, driver behind on DRS & KERS). Denying them the chance to get some miles on their car - which clearly needs it to improve - when there's a ban on in-season testing only means that their car doesn't get any better and the spectators get denied a 24-car field.


Why 107% - and in Q1 only - anyway? Why not 106%? That'd be safer, surely? Or 104% - even Luca Badoer managed that?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The drivers themselves are only part of it. Some drivers are naturally faster than others. But the bigger problem is the aerodynamics of the cars. Some, particularly the Hispanias, are running incredibly simple front wing configurations. You can't simply put another driver in the car and expect them to suddenly start getting better results. Sure, stick Alonso or Hamilton or Vettel in the F111, and maybe they would start making the grid regularly. But they're not suddenly going to be front-runners. After all, Tonio Liuzzi was racing last year and he was still 1.7 seconds off the required qualifying pace.

 

[Ardius]

There's nothing in the technical regs for this...

Wait, who was arguing for this?

I might be imagining these things, but I'm pretty sure I remember both the Hispania cars taking part in the first qualifying session of the season?

Except 2 cars and more interest - for people who want to watch them, or for people who want to see how the different "leading" drivers treat them.

(though with the blue flag the way it is in F1, we're denied that too).

Jenson Button turned up having done no more than 18 consecutive laps of testing, and that particular McLaren package hadn't had any testing at all before FP1.

Incidentally, HRT's denigrated "pay drivers" are Narain Karthekiyan (2 F1 seasons at Jordan, 19 Grands Prix, best non-farce finish of 11th) and Vitantonio Liuzzi (5 F1 seasons at Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Force India, 63 Grands Prix, best finish of 6th) - who I believe was slated to fill Kubica's seat at Lotus-Renault this season...

But it is an arbitrary one. And it's not based on the speed of the field, but the speed of one driver. One driver whose speed in Q3 would have been sufficient to exclude Virgin Racing (if the arbitrary rule was set to Q3 rather than Q1) and who was 1% faster than even the next car on the grid and over 4% faster than the last contender in Q3! Oh, and 8.7% faster than the last contender in Q2. Lucky for Sutil he's allowed in, arbitrarily.

We should probably drop Virgin and Lotus too then - 20 Grands Prix without a single point between them can hardly be described as "the ability to actually be competitive" now can it?

Yeah, imagine that in present-day F1...

Out of curiousity, if the FIA are so keen to minimise the speed differential between cars, one has to wonder why they allow a DRS (an alleged 7.5mph benefit) and KERS-equipped (an alleged 100hp benefit) car to be on track with, and at any time behind, a car with neither. The difference in closing speed would be phenomenal - and way more than a wholly arbitrary 7%.

Why make a point of "Hispania could have tested in the race and therefore been able to improve the car" then? If they had sorted themselves out in time for the start of the season (running in qualifying is not "sorting themselves out" - they ran with a 2010 part, no setup and with bits and pieces falling off.) they would have improved.
An irrelevant point, the 107% rule hasn't robbed them of testing, they robbed themselves of testing.

My point with that isn't "they shouldn't race because they didn't test" its "I don't feel sorry for them not being able to qualify and "test" because its only their own fault". McLaren didn't manage a large amount of decent testing but they were prepared financially and technically to redesign parts of the car and run in all practice sessions. Hispania were still building their cars through practice. Now I don't expect Hispania to be on a level with McLaren obviously, but at the very least they need to run in some testing and failing that, in the practice sessions. If they managed to make 107% without running in testing or practice, then great, but its just making it harder for themselves.

While I would watch Hispania, I don't see them adding anything at the Australian race. They wouldn't have been anywhere near the Virgins and they probably would suffered reliability issues straight off.
Lotus and Virgin are competitive with each other, thats the minimum amount of "competition" they need to be able to achieve. Making 107% would have put them on pace with Virgin and therefore in a race against them. Without 107% they are in a race on their own, only there to "test" and get in the way of the leaders. This isn't "racing" in my view.
If Lotus were the only newbies and they were where they are now (still a few seconds from the rest), I would say the same thing, they are not competing against anyone.

Having to navigate backmarkers is a debatable subject - its not necessarily just skill from the leaders to avoid them sometimes the backmarkers can be complete twits and end up taking out the championship leader. Would I rather see Vettel caught by Hamilton through Hamilton's speed or because Vettel was held up by a backmarker? Personally I prefer the former.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

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.

I like the rule personally. The teams agreed to the rule, HRT knew coming into the season that they must be fast enough for the 107% rule and failed to be for the first race.

You compare it to Super GT but you have to remember in F1, drivers don’t have brake lights to react to so a back marker can be more dangerous. Obviously at a higher speed, there is less time to react and Super GT is much slower in cornering speed. However the blue flag rule in F1 makes it easy to overtake the slower cars so it really isn’t much of a problem.

I think the main reason they got this rule back is because it is a bit of a joke to have teams so slow in F1, which is considered to be the pinnacle of motorsport. The slower cars in Super GT is due to also being in a different class, in F1 everyone is in the same class. The pace between the Red Bull and the HRT is around 10 seconds currently. They are so slow that they would be a back marker in GP2 with the current pace if I’m not mistaken. You can’t excuse that really, whatever the budget they are working to. They might improve soon with the upgrades however.

 

[Owen.C93]

That was the first time HRT had run and they had the 2010 wing which will have a strong effect on car performance.

I think last year there were only 2 occasions where a car wouldn't be allowed to race, and in the end it's down to the stewards.