107% Rule

[Mystery Steve]

Sounds sensible, though would better teams who get caught out due to rain or mechanical problems receive a similar reward?

And could the smaller teams even afford the testing?

Perhaps you can include a clause that says the car must be showing a competitive pace and be in operating condition.

Maybe the teams can't afford it, but if they can't afford to test to catch up then can they afford to compete in the first place?

[feynman]

It's costing them plenty in terms of track time and reputation (therefore potential sponsors) to waste time chasing down hydraulic leaks at the race track, with whatver limited resources they have in the truck.

Despite it costing a few extra bucks, I reckon they'd all bite your hand off for a solid three day test around about now to try and break the back of the reliability issues, as it is they can't even consider performance tweaks or go faster bits.

Split the bill with Pirelli, and make it a 2011 prototype tyre test.

[conni]

lets not forget that the new teams were told that if they ran at the budget capped costs then they would be allowed extra testing and extra aero specs and also remember that the hydraulics are supplied by a third party they come as a package with the gearbox

conni

[WhiteBlue]

In comparison with the historical situation the 107% rule seems to be fair. New teams can be off the pace and always have been. It is no reason for a prima donna like Montezemolo to complain.

The underlying problem is different if you look at the time schedule for specifying designing and building an F1 car. You start specifying in February and all the concept work is done in April. Design starts in May and long time components are going into manufacturing in summer.

The schedule cannot sensibly met by newcomers if the decision process takes until August to produce a result. It means that new teams have to start manufacturing without knowing if they will be on the grid. So neither the 2009 for 2010 not the 2020 for 2011 selection was a fair one for the new teams. If an opening will occur in the future the decision ought to be made very early at the start of the season who will get a slot. First applications must be made in February and final decisions on entry should be made in April or latest before the Monaco GP.

[marcush.]

i´m aware its the 107% rule we are discussing ,but if we are already there in the middle of selection process ,I think it is fair to say the tender has lead to :
Nothing.
Ifthere was no tender in 2009 ,we would still have :
Virgin
Lotus
HRT

who would bet on Stefan being able to pay for anything let alone get the toyota started up..

so in effect the tender produced one team less then we could have seen

so my view is in this field with recources capped it is possible to open the door for all and if the total number of cars is excessive you have to find some ways of prequaly to distribute the slots available.

This tender process does nothing good ,it produced one total disaster, one half ,only a guy like colles could turn that one around..and only with help of bernie ,I guess..
but in all honesty I want the new teams to climb up the ranks quickly .So give them more freedom to sort out their issues .
wavers for a limited time .. be it weight..(haha ..they are too heavy anyways I hear) or more freedom with setup changes after qualy.

But I would tie them down to 105 % So they really have to stretch themselves from the word go or they have to match at least pole time of GP2 ..

[conni]

its so hard for a new team as we have no data so nothing to aim at and no time for developmement its like fighting 2 blokes at once if you try to batter 1 of them the other 1 will smack u in the back of the head if u spend too much time on 1 the other will bite u on yer arse we have 12 laminators macs have 55 you can take the difference throught the company and more so we have 3 machnists they have 2 machine departments about 50 people its a tuff fight

conni

[marcush.]

F1 is not meant to be easy ..
I think 107 % is too easy ..look even HRT ..who have a crap car and really had no preparation time ,still are able to work within 107% ..so even when considering they have a lot of fine people working there it should simply not be possible to be on the grid constantly without any testing and development apart from what they do at the weekends..
but of course it is debatable.My view is those fruits should hang higher than they do currently.

[xpensive]

If you look at it statisticaly, the 107% rule means that you will be lapped in 14-15 laps or so, is that resasonable?

[WhiteBlue]

I have never heard Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Mansell or Schumacher complain about this. Throughout their career they had slower cars on track and they got on with the business. 107% is appropriate.

[xpensive]

That was obviously the case, once upon a time when it was possible to get close without losing grip.

[Miguel]

I have never heard Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Mansell or Schumacher complain about this. Throughout their career they had slower cars on track and they got on with the business. 107% is appropriate.

I'm pretty sure that neither Clark nor Stewart drove with the 107% rule in effect. I'd be willing to bet a beer that Lauda didn't have that rule, although I might lose it due to 1984 and 1985.

Anyway, that's irrelevant. IMHO, forbidding testing and then imposing the 107% rule seems a bit harsh. Kinda like "you'll have to grow your own food, but we're giving you no land to work on". On the other hand, maybe some safety thing should be promoted, like three laps in a row during the race at over 120% of the leaders pace (under normal circumstances, i.e., no damage nor changing weather) is a black flag. After all, it's been many years since Al Pease was disqualified for being slow.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, the 107% rule was introduced for the 1996 championship, and their reference is GrandPrix. So only Schumacher has endured this.

[WhiteBlue]

I have never heard Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Mansell or Schumacher complain about this. Throughout their career they had slower cars on track and they got on with the business. 107% is appropriate.

I'm pretty sure that neither Clark nor Stewart drove with the 107% rule in effect.

You do not need a 107% rule to complain about slow cars on track. I was saying that at all times lap time differences were greater than they have been in 2008 and 2009. Please read the race reports and find out how many laps the trailing cars were down on the leaders. The 107% rule was the first attempt to get rid of slower cars and it is the only precedent of such a rule. It coincided with an over emphasis of aerodynamics and a hyperinflation of budgets in F1.

Compared with Webber's Valencia problem with early braking the masters of the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties had the race craft to deal with such issues. I doubt that an experienced man like Barichello would have made such a basic mistake as forgetting that slow cars have longer braking zones.

[marcush.]

we should not forget .
blue flags had a different consequence a few years back..it was more like:
hey a quicker driver is behind you ,wake up...we had seen Coulthard and the likes incredibly bad at dealing with backmarkers ,being stuck behind a Minardi for ages..
in montecarlo...trying to lap him..but instead of using car potential he stuck in the gearbox and raged about,having hands...
I think short time later the rule was started backmarkers have to give way ...and this was more and more intensified till today you basically have to go offline instantly or earn yourself a penalty..Senna and co really had to work the traffic.

[WhiteBlue]

..Senna and co really had to work the traffic.

but they learned the skill...

[marcush.]

I´d think a Formula 1 car should be quicker than a GP2 .107 % is tantalisingly close to GP2.
We can see lotus around 3 seconds slower than the pole and Virgin and HRT...who really struggle in their first year ...with all these hydraulic woes ,late finishing of cars and what have you even they have managed to get into a 4 to 5 second gap wich is on a 100 second lap not more than 105% ...I really think the new teams should have a target time to work towards ...and race participation would be a reward for the hard work.

so maybe it would be:
107% for the first half season a new team is participating
105% for the second half
104% for the 2nd season
103% for the established teams

this would be valid only for dry sessions.

this may lead to teams in their second year not qualifying ,but new ones do ....