F1 2011 Season Rules.. WTF??

[Famine]

Why make a point of "Hispania could have tested in the race and therefore been able to improve the car" then?

I didn't. I pointed out that with a ban on in-season testing, there is only one way for teams to get track time and improve their cars. At race weekends. Ban them from doing that - for a wholly arbitrary percentage difference from a one-off lap by a single car - and they can't improve.

Now, I'll grant you that FP1-3 is some track time, but the actual race session gives far more - and more useful - data.

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.

And McLaren ran with a whole host of completely untested parts. Sauber ran with completely illegal parts. McLaren had a bit fall off the underside of one car.

An irrelevant point, the 107% rule hasn't robbed them of testing, they robbed themselves of testing.

By failing a rule based on a wholly arbitrary percentage difference from a one-off lap by a single car.

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.

We've established that there's no viable safety reason for the 107% rule - there are speed differentials much higher and of a much higher proportion of vehicle performance in every other formula in the world and within formula one in normal situations and that the FIA have artificially introduced specifically for F1 this season! We've established that there's no reason for it to be 107%, rather than 106%, or 104%. We've established that there's no reason for it to be applied only to the leader's time and only from the Q1 session. We haven't established any actual reason for "the 107% rule" (though I can think of one, which has nothing to do with driving).

The rule is arbitrary. Failing an arbitrary rule is the fault of the rulemakers.

While I would watch Hispania, I don't see them adding anything at the Australian race.

2 cars. And probably 20 more occasions of a car going past another one.

They wouldn't have been anywhere near the Virgins and they probably would suffered reliability issues straight off.

Uhhh... what?

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.

I agree entirely. Though you're now arguing for a two-class system within F1...

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.

I know. Imagine if seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher were a backmarker. He certainly wouldn't hold up the car lapping him (Kobayashi), allowing the car behind (Barrichello) to overtake for position.

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.

Either. Action is action - and if (driver 1) cannot deal with a backmarker as effectively as (driver 2) then, in that race, (driver 2) is the better driver.

They are so slow that they would be a back marker in GP2 with the current pace if I’m not mistaken.

You are - they're still faster than anything in GP2.

You can’t excuse that really, whatever the budget they are working to. They might improve soon with the upgrades however.

How will they know what needs upgrading and what effect the upgrades have if they are not allowed to run them on a Sunday?

 

[Imari]

How will they know what needs upgrading and what effect the upgrades have if they are not allowed to run them on a Sunday?

And that's going to be the biggest problem. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy now. They're not fast enough so they can't test to get faster so they still can't test so they still can't get faster ad infinitum.

I have no idea how they get themselves out of this hole that they're in as a team. If your car is fundamentally not fast enough, and you're locked out of testing, and you can't throw money at the problem through budget caps, what do you do? Sit on the side of the racetrack and cry? Will we see them take part in ANY races this year?

 

[Matti_Dude]

Maybe the 107% rule wasn't brought back for safety reasons. During winter testing I remember some rumours that Bernie Ecclestone wanted to go back to a 20 car grid. Who knows why they brought it back, but I think it was to put the three newest teams under pressure to improve.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

You are - they're still faster than anything in GP2.

Are you sure, can you prove it?

How will they know what needs upgrading and what effect the upgrades have if they are not allowed to run them on a Sunday?

Well for starters they could use the practice sessions. Rumours have it that their car had the old adapted wing due to their new one failing a crash test so they should be in for a big performance improvement next race if they can get their new one ready in time. The problem for them is Red Bull will also be improving with the addition of Kers but HRT should be improving in probably in the region of a second if it is just various parts issue.

Also you don't need to run an F1 car in a race to know the effect the upgrades have had. They already know before hand what they should expect from an upgrade part and check sensors on car if they are delivering in practice sessions. Also qualifying should prove how much they have improved in pace.

If they can't turn up in time to use the pre-season testing sessions and practice sessions, then why should they be allowed to test in a race which they are too slow to qualify for? Why should other teams feel sorry for them and let them in? I know they’ve got financial problems but that can’t really be used as an excuse. It is up to them as a team to raise the money required to pay suppliers on time and they failed resulting in possibly larger financial problems due to the possibility of missing many races. Also due to it they have missed testing and practice sessions if the supplier financial issues are true.

 

[Famine]

Are you sure, can you prove it?

Yes. Are you sure of your version? Can you prove it?


Let's take tracks on which both Formula One and GP2 run, and fastest qualifying results from 2010:

Catalunya
F1 - 1'19.995 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 1'27.272 (Jules Bianchi) +9.1%

Monaco
F1 - 1'13.826 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 1'37.572 (Dani Clos) +32.2%

Istanbul
F1 - 1'26.295 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 1'34.860 (Davide Valsecchi) +9.9%

Valencia
F1 - 1'37.587 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'45.337 (Sergio Perez) +7.9%

Silverstone
F1 - 1'29.615 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'39.189 (Jules Bianchi) +10.7%

Hockenheimring
F1 - 1'13.791 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'41.638 (Charles Pic) +37.7%

Hungaroring
F1 - 1'18.773 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'36.991 (Nico Muller) +23.1%

Spa
F1 - 1'45.778 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 2'15.661 (Michael Herck) +28.3%

Monza
F1 - 1'21.962 (Fernando Alonso)
GP2 - 1'43.425 (Esteban Gutierrez) +26.2%

Yas Marina
F1 - 1'39.394 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'48.559 (Oliver Turvey) +9.2%

Average gap +19.4%

And for comparison the 2011 Australian Grand Prix qualifying performance:
1. 1'25.296 (Sebastian Vettel)
23. 1'32.978 (Vitantonio Liuzzi) +9.0%
24. 1'34.293 (Narain Karthikeyan) +10.5%


The HRTs' gap at Albert Park is larger than, on occasion (once for Liuzzu, four times for Karthikeyan), the GP2 pole sitter's gap to the F1 pole sitter during the 2010 season, but lower than (in fact half of) the average and considerably lower than it for most of the season.

Hardly "GP2 back marker" quality.

Well for starters they could use the practice sessions.

So can the other teams. If everyone's getting data from FP sessions, but HRT are not allowed to get data from race sessions, HRT are at a disadvantage.

Rumours have it that their car had the old adapted wing due to their new one failing a crash test so they should be in for a big performance improvement next race if they can get their new one ready in time.

That's more of a fact than a rumour.

The problem for them is Red Bull will also be improving with the addition of Kers

Which is exactly the point - the arbitrary 107% gap is applied only to the leader. If you get better, but the leader does too - what with his extra data-gathering sessions - you're still boned.

Also you don't need to run an F1 car in a race to know the effect the upgrades have had. They already know before hand what they should expect from an upgrade part and check sensors on car if they are delivering in practice sessions. Also qualifying should prove how much they have improved in pace.

See above. Incidentally, there's only so much that simulations and wind tunnels can tell you. To replicate race conditions, you need a race.

If they can't turn up in time to use the pre-season testing sessions and practice sessions, then why should they be allowed to test in a race which they are too slow to qualify for.

Because the "too slow" metric is arbitrary (as extensively covered already) and nonsensical and because the team has paid to enter the race with a car that meets all technical regulations.

 

[The Outlaw]

And for comparison the 2011 Australian Grand Prix qualifying performance:
1. 1'25.296 (Sebastian Vettel)
23. 1'32.978 (Vitantonio Liuzzi) +9.0%
24. 1'34.293 (Narain Karthikeyan) +10.5%.

Since you're basing all of your statistics on outright fastest qualifying times (pole time), no need to use Vettel's meaningless Q1 time as your basis. 1'23.529 is the time you should be looking for.

Because the "too slow" metric is arbitrary (as extensively covered already) and nonsensical and because the team has paid to enter the race with a car that meets all technical regulations.

EXCEPT for the all important 107% rule, which IMO prevents Formula 1 from becoming a circus show of backyard teams. Can't blame the organizors from preventing half aszed teams from competing for a number of reasons.

 

[daan]

Since you're basing all of your statistics on outright fastest qualifying times (pole time), no need to use Vettel's meaningless Q1 time as your basis. 1'23.529 is the time you should be looking for.

Because the 107% rule only covers Q1

EXCEPT for the 107% rule

Which is not a technical regulation

 

[The Outlaw]

Because the 107% rule only covers Q1

Tell that to Famine. He's the one comparing GP2 pole times (the fastest the cars are capable of going) to Q3 pole times from F1 last year. To make his statistics hold any merit he would need to compare GP2 times to the Q1 times in F1.

Which is not a technical regulation

That's beyond the point. They signed up well knowing the rules beforehand, just as they knew the "technical" regulations beforehand.

 

[Famine]

Since you're basing all of your statistics on outright fastest qualifying times (pole time), no need to use Vettel's meaningless Q1 time as your basis. 1'23.529 is the time you should be looking for.

Tell that to Famine. He's the one comparing GP2 pole times to Q3 pole times from F1 last year. To make his statistics hold any merit he would need to compare GP2 times to the Q1 times in F1.

Actually, I was comparing pole times directly - remember, the original point was that HRT are so slow they would be GP2 backmarkers, not that GP2 cars could qualify in F1 races.


The differences between F1 and GP2 are huge at most F1 tracks - so much so that I had to double-check the sub 10% ones actually occurred on the same circuit layouts. Any suggestion that HRT are so much slower than the pole-sitter that they're slow enough to be GP2 backmarkers is ill-informed hyperbole at best.

EXCEPT for the all important 107% rule, which IMO prevents Formula 1 from becoming a circus show of backyard teams. Can't blame the organizors from preventing half aszed teams from competing for a number of reasons.

Since we've already established that there's no particular safety reason for the 107% rule, the notion that it's just for show is quite apt. Though the fact they gave any consideration at all to US F1 and Stefan GP would call into question the organisers' wish not to involve half-arsed teams...

But a second question stands. Why 107%? What is it about 7% slower that makes everything better (except for the spectators and drivers and team excluded) when 6% wouldn't? Or 4% - 4% being so slow that even Luca Badoer could qualify. Even. Luca. Badoer.

That's beyond the point. They signed up well knowing the rules beforehand, just as they knew the "technical" regulations beforehand.

HRT aren't the ones pointing out the stupidly arbitrary nature of the rule.



Luca. Badoer.

 

[lmanion]

This crud with the 107% rule being brought back in is mostly the FIAs fault in the first place. They would have a need for these things if they opened up the testing regulations to include designated days where teams are allowed to test, especially teams at the back end of the grid. At the least I think that teams as far behind as what Virgin and HRT are should be allowed to have extra running on a race weekend such as the thursday before a grand prix.

Then again all these restrictions on engines and gearboxes having to last a certain number of races to curb spending by the big teams is something I also dislike and I would rather see engine regulations and mechanical development opened up rather than teams spending all their money on finding an aerodynamic advantage. I would rather see money being spent on engine development than aero development.

This is of course just my opinion and I would like to see a return to grenade qualifying engines, sticky one lap qualifying tyres and pre race warm up sessions haha.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Yes. Are you sure of your version? Can you prove it?


Let's take tracks on which both Formula One and GP2 run, and fastest qualifying results from 2010:

Catalunya
F1 - 1'19.995 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 1'27.272 (Jules Bianchi) +9.1%

Monaco
F1 - 1'13.826 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 1'37.572 (Dani Clos) +32.2%

Istanbul
F1 - 1'26.295 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 1'34.860 (Davide Valsecchi) +9.9%

Valencia
F1 - 1'37.587 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'45.337 (Sergio Perez) +7.9%

Silverstone
F1 - 1'29.615 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'39.189 (Jules Bianchi) +10.7%

Hockenheimring
F1 - 1'13.791 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'41.638 (Charles Pic) +37.7%

Hungaroring
F1 - 1'18.773 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'36.991 (Nico Muller) +23.1%

Spa
F1 - 1'45.778 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 2'15.661 (Michael Herck) +28.3%

Monza
F1 - 1'21.962 (Fernando Alonso)
GP2 - 1'43.425 (Esteban Gutierrez) +26.2%

Yas Marina
F1 - 1'39.394 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1'48.559 (Oliver Turvey) +9.2%

Average gap +19.4%

And for comparison the 2011 Australian Grand Prix qualifying performance:
1. 1'25.296 (Sebastian Vettel)
23. 1'32.978 (Vitantonio Liuzzi) +9.0%
24. 1'34.293 (Narain Karthikeyan) +10.5%


The HRTs' gap at Albert Park is larger than, on occasion (once for Liuzzu, four times for Karthikeyan), the GP2 pole sitter's gap to the F1 pole sitter during the 2010 season, but lower than (in fact half of) the average and considerably lower than it for most of the season.

Hardly "GP2 back marker" quality.

It is all well and good comparing apples to oranges to prove you are right. For my investigation, I will use the slowest time in GP2 qualifying and the fastest time in Q1 in F1. Also I will only do the comparison for dry qualifying sessions only to be fairer and not compare F1 cars in the dry against GP2 cars in wet conditions like you have done.

Catalunya

F1 - 1:21.412 (Mark Webber)
GP2 - 1:30.209 (Rodolfo González) +10.806%

Istanbul
F1 - 1:27.067 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1:36.663 (Ho-Pin Tung) +11.021%

Valencia
F1 - 1:38.132 (Robert Kubica)
GP2 - 1:47.054 (Max Chilton) +9.092%

Silverstone
F1 - 1:30.841 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1:41.654 (Vladimir Arabadzhiev) +11.903 %

Hungaroring
F1 - 1:20.417 (Sebastian Vettel)
GP2 - 1:30.129 (Rodolfo Gonzalez) +12.077%

By the way you used a GP3 driver Nico Muller for comparison, hardly fair but I’ll let you off with that mistake .

Monza
F1 - 1:22.421 (Felipe Massa)
GP2 - 1:32.100 (Edoardo Piscopo) +11.743%

Now your 2nd mistake, again comparing a GP3 driver qualifying time (Esteban Gutierrez) to a F1 time, tut-tut…

Average gap +11.107%

2011 Australian Grand Prix qualifying performance:
1:25.296 (Sebastian Vettel)
1:34.293 (Narain Karthikeyan) +10.548%

The HRT performed in terms of percentage difference only 0.559% quicker over the slowest GP2 cars and drivers in 2010. Granted that is only from performance in one qualifying session with very little running but factoring in the engine difference, I think it is safe for me to still say they are GP2 back marker quality even with F1 regulations. Obviously the percentage difference is not 100% accurate comparison due to the difference between the GP2 and F1 track grip levels is not taken into account, as well as the different tyres Also do GP2 cars do low fuel qualifying runs too? The drivers at the bottom being compared is reasonably fair as in GP2, they could be new drivers to the sport too but obviously not 100% accurate in performance difference.

So can the other teams. If everyone's getting data from FP sessions, but HRT are not allowed to get data from race sessions, HRT are at a disadvantage.

I know they can but HRT have not even maximised their running pre-season due to late payments I believe and the practice sessions. I agree they are at a disadvantage but at the end of the day, rules are rules.

Which is exactly the point - the arbitrary 107% gap is applied only to the leader. If you get better, but the leader does too - what with his extra data-gathering sessions - you're still boned.

However the leader has less to gain usually in the regions of tenths, the slower team can gain seconds through updates. The big thing is that Red Bull have the power to disqualify other teams too including Lotus by going flat out in Q1 with maximum engine setting. However this will be very unlikely to happen as Red Bull will be looking out for their Renault engines.

See above. Incidentally, there's only so much that simulations and wind tunnels can tell you. To replicate race conditions, you need a race.

I believe a race simulation in a practice session will tell you a lot, more or less the same amount as a race. The only reason why people couldn’t tell how fast people are is due to not showing their hand in pre-season testing. HRT don’t really have to worry about how slow they will be in the race as they already they are too slow to get within the 107% cut off and they should be clever enough to work out, the race pace won’t magically find extra seconds on the guys in front. The only thing they can get from more running is reliability.

Because the "too slow" metric is arbitrary (as extensively covered already) and nonsensical and because the team has paid to enter the race with a car that meets all technical regulations.

The car may meet all the technical regulations but they don’t meet all the rules they agreed to. There was an overall agreement between the teams about the 107% rule. Rightly they weren’t allowed; otherwise they would be breaking rules that are just valid as any other.

 

[The Outlaw]

Actually, I was comparing pole times directly - remember, the original point was that HRT are so slow they would be GP2 backmarkers, not that GP2 cars could qualify in F1 races.

I really don't see the sense in comparing GP2 pole times to F1 poles time in Q3, and then on the other end comparing HRT's all out fastest attempts in Q1 to that of Vettel's Q1 time (ignoring the fact that you are comparing GP2 times to Q3 pole times in F1). There's no point in comparing the two considering the different standards you have set for your statistical analysis. Not only does this comparison lack cohesion, but you are comparing GP2 times to last years F1 regulation, which have changed rather substantially for 2011.

Edit: Your statistics have also excluded weather conditions, as saidur pointed out.

The differences between F1 and GP2 are huge at most F1 tracks - so much so that I had to double-check the sub 10% ones actually occurred on the same circuit layouts. Any suggestion that HRT are so much slower than the pole-sitter that they're slow enough to be GP2 backmarkers is ill-informed hyperbole at best.

Judging by the statistics, I wouldn't go as far as to calling it "ill-informed hyperbole at best".

I don't know how you feel, but I still think it's pretty sad when a Formula 1 car struggles to beat a junior formula/spec series racing car. If Formula 1 was filled with teams the caliber of HRT, I don't think the name for the series (Formula 1) would hold much merit anymore. So IMO, the 107% rule is quite nice to have for this very reason, regardless of what the supposed intentions of the rule are.

Since we've already established that there's no particular safety reason for the 107% rule, the notion that it's just for show is quite apt. Though the fact they gave any consideration at all to US F1 and Stefan GP would call into question the organisers' wish not to involve half-arsed teams...

But a second question stands. Why 107%? What is it about 7% slower that makes everything better (except for the spectators and drivers and team excluded) when 6% wouldn't? Or 4% - 4% being so slow that even Luca Badoer could qualify. Even. Luca. Badoer.

There is no definite mathematical formula to come up with this ruling, so I don't see the point in arguing over something so trivial. Personally I feel 107% is pretty realistic range for all the cars on the grid to be within.

HRT aren't the ones pointing out the stupidly arbitrary nature of the rule.

Your opinion on the rule is just that, your opinion.

This crud with the 107% rule being brought back in is mostly the FIAs fault in the first place. They would have a need for these things if they opened up the testing regulations to include designated days where teams are allowed to test, especially teams at the back end of the grid. At the least I think that teams as far behind as what Virgin and HRT are should be allowed to have extra running on a race weekend such as the thursday before a grand prix.

.

This is exactly my idea, and what I brought up earlier. For example, they could allow for extra testing time for certain teams the day after the GP (Bernie was talking about something like this). To me this is much better way of giving them time to improve their performance, without having to do so on race day, where they really aren't taking part in any type of "racing".

 

[Famine]

It is all well and good comparing apples to oranges to prove you are right. For my investigation, I will use the slowest time in GP2 qualifying and the fastest time in Q1 in F1. Also I will only do the comparison for dry qualifying sessions only to be fairer and not compare F1 cars in the dry against GP2 cars in wet conditions like you have done.

I don't pay attention to GP2, so I have no idea what race conditions were (or even that I seem to have accidentally glanced at GP3 twice). However...

What would be the merits of comparing the single slowest time in GP2 to the single fastest time in F1? You have two statistical extremes - one of which I'm actually arguing against (taking the fastest driver in the field as 100% and using that as a baseline for calculating how fast everybody else should be).


On the grounds that I can't be bothered looking the numbers up again, I'll take your stats at face value. They show that on one (one) occasion, the last qualified car in a GP2 race in 2010 was faster as a proportion of the time away from the fastest time set in Q1 in F1 in 2010 than one of the 2011 HRTs with a 2010 front wing was away from the fastest time set in Q1 in F1 in Australia on its sixteenth ever attempt to drive around a track. On one occasion also (Silverstone), one of the 2011 HRTs with a 2010 front wing was closer to the fastest time set Q1 in F1 in Australia on its thirteenth ever attempt to drive around a track than the fastest qualified car in GP2 was as a proportion of the fastest time set in Q1 in F1 in 2010.

What the numbers there show is that the gulf between F1 and GP2 isn't necessarily as massive as I thought, but also that it is unfair to say that HRT are (or were, in Australia) proportionally slower than a GP2 backmarker - one of them has been, once.

I guess we won't really know until GP2 kicks off fully this season and if HRT are present at the same time...

I know they can but HRT have not even maximised their running pre-season due to late payments I believe and the practice sessions. I agree they are at a disadvantage but at the end of the day, rules are rules.

But dumb rules are dumb rules.

"Let's take the single fastest car on the grid and add an arbitrary number to it to make a new time, and if you're slower than that time you're too slow to drive even though your car meets all technical regulations and you've paid your entry fee for the Grand Prix, for an unspecified reason" is an example of a dumb rule.

However the leader has less to gain usually in the regions of tenths, the slower team can gain seconds through updates. The big thing is that Red Bull have the power to disqualify other teams too including Lotus by going flat out in Q1 with maximum engine setting. However this will be very unlikely to happen as Red Bull will be looking out for their Renault engines.

Here's the thing... The Red Bull of Vettel (and remember, they only care about the leader for this rule) was itself nearly 0.8s ahead in Q3 of the next car. And he didn't have the 100hp boost known as KERS.

Take a car which has managed twenty nine laps in total in its history and which is running an imbalanced aero package caused by a 2011 car with a 2010 front wing and had no 132 lap (or less) data gathering session at the last race. Now take a car which has managed to run the 132 lap data gathering session at the last race and has an extra 100hp to come. Which will improve by the most? And remember - both HRTs have to improve in order to race, and they already have to improve 2-2.5% to manage that, whereas Vettel only has to improve a little bit (with his 100hp more) to cancel that right out again...

I don't know how you feel, but I still think it's pretty sad when a Formula 1 car struggles to beat a junior formula/spec series racing car. If Formula 1 was filled with teams the caliber of HRT, I don't think the name for the series (Formula 1) would hold much merit anymore. So IMO, the 107% rule is quite nice to have for this very reason, regardless of what the supposed intentions of the rule are.

There is no definite mathematical formula to come up with this ruling, so I don't see the point in arguing over something so trivial. Personally I feel 107% is pretty realistic range for all the cars on the grid to be within.

"Feel" doesn't have anything to do with it.

It's worth discussing what the reasons for the rule are when you're talking about essentially fining the already poorest teams. They've paid their entry fee for that race and cannot enter because of a wholly arbitrary cut off - within a made-up number time of a one-off time from the fastest car. So why is that number picked and not a different one - why not 108%, or 110%, or 107.5%, or 104%? There must be a reason behind, specifically, 107%, even if there's no actual reasoning behind the rule itself.

Making the sport look slower when that's what the FIA have been trying to do since 1994 isn't much of an argument in favour of the rule. Safety (discussed and dismissed above - when the FIA have artificially made cars more than that much faster compared to each other) and having to negotiate backmarkers (the job of a driver) is not an argument in favour of the rule. "Those are the rules" is not an argument in favour of the rule.

So why 107%, why to the fastest driver only, why to Q1 times and why does it make any sense to fine the poorest teams and drastically slash their opportunities to actually drive and improve the car - making the gap bigger and making them fail the next time too?

Your opinion on the rule is just that, your opinion.

What else was it going to be? A haddock?

This is exactly my idea, and what I brought up earlier. For example, they could allow for extra testing time for certain teams the day after the GP (Bernie was talking about something like this). To me this is much better way of giving them time to improve their performance, without having to do so on race day, where they really aren't taking part in any type of "racing".

So teams would have to keep all of their equipment behind (at their expense) if they were lucky enough to be barred from Sunday (at their expense) - presumably having to change their flight schedules (at their expense) if they were expecting to stay behind and didn't or weren't and did.

Sounds like an excellent way to treat the poorest teams rather than, you know, not implementing an arbitrary rule and just allowing them the track time they paid for and built a car for.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Here's an interesting read for all people without a definite opinion on the goods and bads of this rule.

Of course this is wikipedia, so believe what you want or go look for other sources if you need. I find it funny that Alonso was caught under this rule once. And that made me think that he wouldn't have started the Monaco GP last year if this rule was already in place (therefore depriving us of a show of Alonso's overtaking, of Schumacher's cunning approach to racing and of another race direction/stewardship blunder).

Anyway, and kidding aside, when you look at the history of this rule you will notice that it mostly worked as a "poor teams terminator" rule. Not sure if this was the intended plan.

I would be a small team's terminator advocate myself if we had in F1 something similar to the "Start & Park" NASCAR teams. Such a thing ridicules the sport. But we don't have prize money in F1 just for showing up so S&P isn't really rewarding. Racing is, you never know when luck will give you a point. And that's worth millions, but to get it you need to finish the race.

As it is, I don't see the necessity of a 107% rule. But I really have no strong objections to it also. Be it 107, 110, 120 or 150, some line must be drawn somewhere if all we get from back markers is a couple of crippled cars driving slowly for a GP duration. So far, I didn't see this from any of the new teams, not even from HRT.


EDIT - And if such thing happened I guess there's an article in the sporting regulations that solves it.

13.7 If in the opinion of the F1 Commission a competitor fails to operate his team in a manner compatible with
the standards of the Championship or in any way brings the Championship into disrepute, the FIA may
exclude such competitor from the Championship forthwith.

 

[GTveteran]

I believe the 107% rule isn't to make it easier for the drivers at the front. Sure it may in some cases, as in Australia, do this but the idea is to get the quality of the field up to a certain standard. This in turn actually presents the leading driver's with more of a challenge in the race. Thus creating a more entertaining race.

 

[Ardius]

I didn't. I pointed out that with a ban on in-season testing, there is only one way for teams to get track time and improve their cars. At race weekends. Ban them from doing that - for a wholly arbitrary percentage difference from a one-off lap by a single car - and they can't improve.

Now, I'll grant you that FP1-3 is some track time, but the actual race session gives far more - and more useful - data.

And McLaren ran with a whole host of completely untested parts. Sauber ran with completely illegal parts. McLaren had a bit fall off the underside of one car.

By failing a rule based on a wholly arbitrary percentage difference from a one-off lap by a single car.

We've established that there's no viable safety reason for the 107% rule - there are speed differentials much higher and of a much higher proportion of vehicle performance in every other formula in the world and within formula one in normal situations and that the FIA have artificially introduced specifically for F1 this season! We've established that there's no reason for it to be 107%, rather than 106%, or 104%. We've established that there's no reason for it to be applied only to the leader's time and only from the Q1 session. We haven't established any actual reason for "the 107% rule" (though I can think of one, which has nothing to do with driving).

The rule is arbitrary. Failing an arbitrary rule is the fault of the rulemakers.

2 cars. And probably 20 more occasions of a car going past another one.

Uhhh... what?

I agree entirely. Though you're now arguing for a two-class system within F1...

I know. Imagine if seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher were a backmarker. He certainly wouldn't hold up the car lapping him (Kobayashi), allowing the car behind (Barrichello) to overtake for position.

Hispania entered the season knowing there is no in-season testing and there is a 107% rule. This isn't some surprise to them.
The reason we don't have in-season testing is to keep costs down. The reason we have 107% is to keep some sense of professionalism in the sport and to keep the field within a certain speed range.

I'd say its very debatable whether the race gives good data, considering that Hispania would spend most of it under blue flags. They would also undoubtedly by very unreliable, they still hadn't really shaken the car down! Any number of parts could have and probably would have failed. Especially considering they are using an entirely new gearbox to them.

I'm not arguing for a two tier-class system in F1. There are actually 3 "tiers" - the backmarkers, the midfield and the front-runners. But this is a natural development from the different budgets and different designs. Why is stating you can have competition with your closest rivals considered arguing for a class system? Its a simple statement of fact, there is no implication here. Perhaps to you it implies the benefits of a class system, but I was not suggesting this.
The whole point of single-class open (sort of) formula is that you end up with a field that can usually end up with cars slower than others but all can be competitive on their day. E.g. Toro Rosso pulling off a win or Force India shining to pole. I enjoy the difference in cars and performance because it provides a greater sense of achievement for those drivers in the "lesser" cars when they do well. A tier system effectively takes the slower cars out of the "main" race.
This is where 107% comes in, there is no way cars this slow are going to be getting close to the leaders even on a dramatic day. 107% is kind of already a "tier" system, those who are fast enough and those who are not.