TBK-Light.com
https://tbk-light.com/phpBB3/

107% Rule - good or not?
https://tbk-light.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5755		 Page 3 of 4
Author:  testarossa [ Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
it is good idea. 107% should be based on fastest lap in Q3. If you're over 107& you're out, simple. No ammission
Author:  Williams-Fan [ Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
In the basics it is a good rule, but re-introducing it seems pointless.

Already now, the new teams almost always stayed within the margin. Next year they will be prepared for the season and be much closer anyway.
So why making this rule valid again when it will hardly be used in practice?

In 2002 it was only used because Yoong couldn't drive an F1 car properly. The Minardi was by far good enough to stay within the 107% margin. This rule is something of the past. Today's sport is way too competitive for 107% rule. It's useless.
Author:  James B [ Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
You never know what's around the corner, though. There have already been rumours that Yamamoto might join HRT, for a start, let alone future years. Besides, if it keeps di Montezemolo quiet for 5 minutes, it's worth it
Author:  Bleu [ Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
James B wrote:
That's always been the case with the rule. Pedro Diniz was outside the 107% for Australia 97 but the stewards let him in because the car wasn't miles off the pace


I think the fact that Villeneuve was miles ahead the rest played also part. He would have been 1,5 seconds inside 107% of Frentzen's time.

You could apply same in British GP 1992 if the rule was in effect back then. Only 12 drivers within limit when comparing to polesitter Mansell.
Author:  MinorArt [ Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
Bleu wrote:
James B wrote:
That's always been the case with the rule. Pedro Diniz was outside the 107% for Australia 97 but the stewards let him in because the car wasn't miles off the pace

I think the fact that Villeneuve was miles ahead the rest played also part. He would have been 1,5 seconds inside 107% of Frentzen's time.
You could apply same in British GP 1992 if the rule was in effect back then. Only 12 drivers within limit when comparing to polesitter Mansell.


So if it's the polesitter's fault, hopefully no one has the idea to introduce a 93% rule where those who are too quick DNQ.
Well that 107% rule is probably useless in the current performance levels.
Author:  BeckMax [ Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
With this rule Milka Duno would not be allowed to race in one single event of the season. :D

For me it's quite good the implementation of this rule.
Author:  Speedworx [ Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
I don't see a need for it. Why bother to fill the 13th slot as clearly the FIA don't want them to be racing next season. They should be worrying about the lack of passing and high downforce levels.
Author:  cradle [ Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
I think it is a good option for the classification category as this currently bn for that rule 107 would have to change things
Author:  Eddington mains [ Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
It's probably pointless introducing it now as the front teams have developed their cars almost to be as fast as they will possibly go and the slower teams are catching them up so they are now nearly always within the margin...
And If the race stewards are to start letting drivers race as 'their car is obviously fast enough' then there is no point having it,
I mean if a car/team/driver was so obviously off the pace I think that by this point in the season something would have been done about them and you have to remember the costs involved in getting the newer teams to the track.. They don't get transportation assistance like the front running teams so it would be doubly difficult financially for them... Imagine all the way to Aussie only to be told that they can't race, I would be livid..
Nope, the F1 grid isn't over crowded and in the current financial crisis the FIA should be gtreatful that they have anyteams wishing to throw money at F1 let alone penalising them for doing so!
Author:  DinoMarko93 [ Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
The main problem for the 2011 13th team will be that they will be confirmed in august or even later.
They have less then a half year to work on the car...
Author:  Speedworx [ Sat Jul 03, 2010 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
If I was one of the new teams that had applied for 2011, I would now say to the FIA;

"Sorry, the 107% rule has turned us off joined the grid now. Bye!"
Author:  Lita [ Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
I think the rule is good for safety, as proven by the Webber-Kovalainen crash at Valencia. I know Lotus are still within the rule, but that crash still showed the potential of what could be worse if there were much slower cars on the grid. I don't think the rule is a big deal as such since all the current lower end teams are within the rule. The new teams will simply have to work hard to earn their place.
Author:  noikeee [ Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
Lita wrote:
I think the rule is good for safety, as proven by the Webber-Kovalainen crash at Valencia. I know Lotus are still within the rule, but that crash still showed the potential of what could be worse if there were much slower cars on the grid. I don't think the rule is a big deal as such since all the current lower end teams are within the rule. The new teams will simply have to work hard to earn their place.


Agreed.

I think it makes perfect sense for there to be a limit for how slow can a car be to be allowed, and 107% is fair enough for me. I know HRT was out of it at the beginning of the year, but frankly it's a very very large margin considering the whole grid was easily within 103% last year...
Author:  James B [ Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
You also have to consider that with the regulations being so tight now, it's almost difficult to be way out. As long as you've got competent designers (of which there are plenty about) and decent drivers, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to get under 107%. The biggest challenge is getting from the sort of range Lotus and Virgin are at now to getting within a second of the pace - Force India have shown they can do it, but then they had prior experience of being competitive anyway from the Jordan days. I'd put my money on Lotus getting there before Virgin - in fact, I'm not sure Virgin will last too much longer with the media (and especially the BBC) being so far up Fernandes and Gascoyne's anal cavities that they've barely acknowledged Virgin's existence lately
Author:  Coldtyre [ Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
Lita wrote:
I think the rule is good for safety, as proven by the Webber-Kovalainen crash at Valencia. I know Lotus are still within the rule, but that crash still showed the potential of what could be worse if there were much slower cars on the grid. I don't think the rule is a big deal as such since all the current lower end teams are within the rule. The new teams will simply have to work hard to earn their place.

This is not a safety issue at all. Webber himself once drove prototypes, sharing the track with categories 50kph slower. Don't tell me that 10kph is going to be so much of a deal.

I think the 107% rule was justified in times there were more than enough teams to fill the grid, and it added some selection. Now we're just happy not to have a thin field of 18-20 cars anymore, so let's not spoil the fun, let them all race.
The more the merrier, especially on tight street courses.
Author:  James B [ Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
coldtyre wrote:
Lita wrote:
I think the rule is good for safety, as proven by the Webber-Kovalainen crash at Valencia. I know Lotus are still within the rule, but that crash still showed the potential of what could be worse if there were much slower cars on the grid. I don't think the rule is a big deal as such since all the current lower end teams are within the rule. The new teams will simply have to work hard to earn their place.

This is not a safety issue at all. Webber himself once drove prototypes, sharing the track with categories 50kph slower. Don't tell me that 10kph is going to be so much of a deal.

Yeah but unfortunately in F1 drivers in the lower "categories" choose to pointlessly fight their positions by weaving across the track
Author:  PLAYLIFE [ Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
I don't see how the 107% rule improves racing or the show.

If it's prime objective is to get slower teams asses into a higher gear (excuse the pun) then they shouldn't be in F1 anyway. I doubt any F1 team wants to be in the sport to cruise around 10 seconds off the pace.
Author:  MaTT [ Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
I'd be happier in accepting the 107% rule if the FIA weren't giving the new teams such short notice that they had the green light to start preparing their cars. Lotus only got the nod in September last year, and whoever is in for 2011 still doesn't know yet. No potential new team is going to plough money into developing a car that might never get used.
Author:  amq55 [ Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
Allowing the new teams to test would remove the need for a 107% rule.
Author:  Jax_KiBez [ Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 107% Rule - good or not?
107% Rule is good, teams that rule is for are bad. They need to test and develop their cars.
Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC+01:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/