Jump to content


Photo

Do you think the reinstatement of the 107% rule would be good for the sport?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 10:51

I looked around the last posts, and have not found one discussing this issue ?

Ever thought that the 107% rule (or another) should be reintroduced to F1 next year ?

1.I am scared when I see in the time sheets the differences between the top teams and the “back markers” – 5 ? 7 seconds ?
2.The differences of average speeds are huge overall, remember Webber & Kovalainen. Webber arriving like a rocket, and Kova breaking probably 10 to 20 meters before ever expected (if not more ?).
10 years ago, there would have been someone hurt. Remember (sadly enough) Gilles Villeneuve in Zolder, and the misunderstanding with the v.slow March of Jochen Mass ? This could still be true today, whatever the security norms are.
3.The blocking of the first into turns, because those poor pilots also have to take them, and cannot be everywhere at the same time. Even slow, they are still driving a Formula 1
4.Do we need a major crash in FP3 or during a race to think about it ?
5.Wouldn’t the GP’s be quicker and more exciting with 20 cars instead of 20 fast ones and 6 slow ones sometimes creating interruptions and/or playing with one riding them and get hurt ?

I am "pro" for more cars, but not at all costs, not at costs of risks, not at costs of eventually spoiling one day a Grand Prix because one of our/your favorite pilot has been hurt because of lack of discernment ?

Should they, or shouldn’t they reintroduce the 107% rule or maybe yet another one ?
What do you guys think about it ? Are you concerned, bothered, sometimes screaming “Move away God Da** it” ? Angry about the poor, and wishing that they’d disappear from the scene ?

Let us know your opinion please.

Advertisement

#2 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 10:54

Too late.;)

http://www.f1fanatic...-rule-for-2011/

#3 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,067 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 10:55

It's definitely coming back, I thought.

For the record, I don't like it. I understand the reasoning, but I'd rather see 35 entrants every weekend and they all get in than 26 and only 21 or so take to the grid.

#4 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:06

It's definitely coming back, I thought.

For the record, I don't like it. I understand the reasoning, but I'd rather see 35 entrants every weekend and they all get in than 26 and only 21 or so take to the grid.

I have not read anything official about it ? It's still worth discussing...
OK Andrew, but what's your thoughts about the danger of it ?

#5 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:13

I have not read anything official about it ? It's still worth discussing...
OK Andrew, but what's your thoughts about the danger of it ?


The grid
From 2011, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest Q1 qualifying time will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards.



http://www.fia.com/e...msc_230610.aspx





Just for information, all drivers who would've failed the 107% this year:

Singapore: Senna and Massa (no time)
Spa: Di Grassi, Petrov (no time)
Hungary: Senna, Yamamoto
Hockenheim: Di Grassi (no time)
Montreal: Chandhok
Monaco: Alonso (no time)
Barcelona: Senna
Malaysia: Di Grassi
Bahrain: Senna, Chandhok

Half of that would probably fall under this "exceptional circumstances"-exception.

Edited by dau, 28 October 2010 - 11:53.


#6 SRi130Brett

SRi130Brett
  • Member

  • 341 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:19

I dont think its needed, and as we can see it wouldnt not have prevented Kova qualifying in Valencia so wouldnt have produced a different outcome. The new teams have been far of the pace but we've seen one problem and IM yet to see them cause significant problems for the leaders of a race.

We all want these new teams to be competative and we wont do that by making it harder for them under the impression it will improve saftey in the sport when all the evidence points to the fact it wont.

My overall impression has been that the Virgin and Lotus cars will probably come good though. HRT I am entirely less convinced by on all fronts.

#7 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:35

The grid
From 2011, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest Q1 qualifying time will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards.

http://www.fia.com/e...msc_230610.aspx
Just for information, all drivers who would've failed the 107% this year:

Singapore: Senna and Massa (no time)
Spa: Di Grassi, Petrov (no time)
Hungary: Senna, Yamamoto
Hockenheim: Di Grassi (no time)
Montreal: Chandhok
Monaco: Alonso (no time)
Barcelona: Senna
Malaysia: Di Grassi
Bahrain: Senna, Chandhok
Half of that would probably fall under those "exceptional circumstances"-exception.

I'll be damned, completely went over that one, shi* !

#8 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:39

Then, and after this v.good point from Dau  ;) , do you guys think it's a good rule, will it stop the fastest car to be bothered by very much slower ones still, and does it still represents a danger, as the one I evoked of Gilles Villeneuve ?
What about this scam about some people wanting to stop the use of the blue flagging that exists since almost always ?

#9 OwenC93

OwenC93
  • Member

  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:40

Could there be a situation where a top team decides to put softs on and go for a quick time in Q1 round places like Monaco just to thin out the field.

#10 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:42

Can one of the"Mod's" please change the title to "Is the 107% reintroduced rule in 2011 a good one ?"
In advance thank you, and excuse me, but I believe there is ways to debate this one in an interesting way.

#11 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,263 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:43

Well you must of been sleeping half this year because it's come up every month. The main purpose of this rule, I believe, is to tell Hispania to get their act together.

#12 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:50

IMHO, no way man...

F1 spend so much time and money expanding grid and now some man comes with the idea that the slow car should be put out.


#13 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:55

Yes it is a good rule.
7% over an 80 second lap is 5.6 seconds. In Q1 the fastest laps would most likely be done on the harder tyre.

If the new teams (mainly HRT I suspect) cannot do that in their second seasons, there is something wrong.

#14 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,172 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 12:01

Could there be a situation where a top team decides to put softs on and go for a quick time in Q1 round places like Monaco just to thin out the field.


No, they don't want to destroy a set of softs and lose to other teams just to thin out the field. It makes no sense to do that.

#15 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 12:02

Then, and after this v.good point from Dau ;) , do you guys think it's a good rule, will it stop the fastest car to be bothered by very much slower ones still, and does it still represents a danger, as the one I evoked of Gilles Villeneuve ?
What about this scam about some people wanting to stop the use of the blue flagging that exists since almost always ?


I don't think it's a good rule. First, it's not really necessary, there are rarely incidents involving backmarkers and frontrunners. Second, even if HRT were pretty much dead slow in the race, they were inside of the 107% most of the time this year and it's not likely they will be slower in 2011 (rather not be on the grid at all). And third, the whole "exceptional circumstances"-rule is a can of worms i wouldn't want to be involved with as a steward. I mean, what happens if for example Alonso bins it in a wet qualifying and is outside of the 107% in a title fight? Would that be exceptional circumstances? Then what if it wasn't Alonso but Petrov? Where will they draw the line?

#16 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,067 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 12:14

Backmarkers are always going to be an issue, and rules like this do nothing but pull the rug over the hole in the floor. Pointless. F1 should never, ever discourage teams from wanting to join. Teams like Andrea Moda were exceptional circumstances, and Hispania are nothing even near AM.

Besides, one of the greatest feelings in all of motorsports is watching someone drag a Minardi into the points or tip-toe a Ligier around Monaco to steal an unlikely win. Those instances are rare enough without telling half those teams they can't race because they're 'too slow' and making things like that even harder to come by.

#17 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 13:52

The grid
From 2011, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest Q1 qualifying time will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards.



http://www.fia.com/e...msc_230610.aspx





Just for information, all drivers who would've failed the 107% this year:

Singapore: Senna and Massa (no time)
Spa: Di Grassi, Petrov (no time)
Hungary: Senna, Yamamoto
Hockenheim: Di Grassi (no time)
Montreal: Chandhok
Monaco: Alonso (no time)
Barcelona: Senna
Malaysia: Di Grassi
Bahrain: Senna, Chandhok

Half of that would probably fall under this "exceptional circumstances"-exception.


It just shows that the new teams haven't actually been that slow this year, but our expectations have been raised since the ultra close seasons of 2008-2009.

#18 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 14:14

OK, the thread's name has been changed by Gilles4ever, thanks to him.

The backmarkers were not doing so bad this year, I hear ? What do you want ? Only the crash of Webber and Kova could have been devastating if one had been badly hurt, like Webber hitting the publicity he almost did when flying !
OK, for the 107%, but Q1 will still take place with all of the car, and when your favorite driver will be kicked out of it, or crash because of a slow guy not lookinng in his morrors, you will react, will you not ?
And, on top, what's the purpose to have teams there, but not being able to take part to the race ? Wasting out money on freight charges, airlines for the crew etc. ? I thought we were in an age of cost savings ?

#19 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 14:20

OK, the thread's name has been changed by Gilles4ever, thanks to him.

The backmarkers were not doing so bad this year, I hear ? What do you want ? Only the crash of Webber and Kova could have been devastating if one had been badly hurt, like Webber hitting the publicity he almost did when flying !
OK, for the 107%, but Q1 will still take place with all of the car, and when your favorite driver will be kicked out of it, or crash because of a slow guy not lookinng in his morrors, you will react, will you not ?
And, on top, what's the purpose to have teams there, but not being able to take part to the race ? Wasting out money on freight charges, airlines for the crew etc. ? I thought we were in an age of cost savings ?


Are you saying 107% isn't enough? Would you prefer 105%? Or not at all. I'm not sure what you're aurguing for now.

If we take the value of 107% as the accepted slowest time compared to the leaders, then the new teams have not done so bad. Webber misjudged his lapping of Kovaleinen. Oops to him, but that's one incident out in one entire season. The same could have happened if it had been one of the Ferraris/McLarens/Mercedes/Renaults returning to the pits stuck in 5th gear.

Advertisement

#20 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,800 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 28 October 2010 - 14:31

LMS only have 5-6 races a year, im sure they could come moonlight in f1 on there off weekends

tbh webber, or anyone could of done the same thing, at any track with any other car

#21 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 14:32

Are you saying 107% isn't enough? Would you prefer 105%? Or not at all. I'm not sure what you're aurguing for now.

If we take the value of 107% as the accepted slowest time compared to the leaders, then the new teams have not done so bad. Webber misjudged his lapping of Kovaleinen. Oops to him, but that's one incident out in one entire season. The same could have happened if it had been one of the Ferraris/McLarens/Mercedes/Renaults returning to the pits stuck in 5th gear.

No, no, that's not what I meant. Hum, it is so difficult, on one hand I am happy to see new teams, but on the other, I am so frustrated to see them struggling trying to do something with the material they have. I think the problem is more before they are allowed to compete, they (the new teams) should maybe be solely authorized to perform a certain number of out of season trial outs, and come to the beginning of the season fit or almost, but the issue is a tough one, isn't it ?

#22 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 14:38

No, no, that's not what I meant. Hum, it is so difficult, on one hand I am happy to see new teams, but on the other, I am so frustrated to see them struggling trying to do something with the material they have. I think the problem is more before they are allowed to compete, they (the new teams) should maybe be solely authorized to perform a certain number of out of season trial outs, and come to the beginning of the season fit or almost, but the issue is a tough one, isn't it ?


OK I see where you're coming from now.

It is a tough situation. I'd say Lotus and Virgin have done a great job considering what they've been handed. Hispania have also done a reasonable job.

The question is, is their pace acceptable? If it is, then no problems. If it isn't, then maybe they should have been allowed more testing. Going by the metric of 107%, I say they pace has been acceptable. Next year they should be closer still (Lotus and Virgin mainly).

I like the 107% rule because it basically says, if you want to play, you have to be good enough.

#23 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 28 October 2010 - 14:41

The 107% rule is a waist of time.

The rules of F1 today with all the cars having similar size and powered engines, same tyres, same weight, strict restrictions on aerodynamics, similar performing brakes and gearbox etc, a team would have to almost try to design the car to go slower than 107%. Almost everyone considers the RedBull a one lap rocket this year, but despite the HRT being a completely rushed mess it has rarely been out of 107%. Its not like 20 years ago where active suspension could be worth 3-4% in lap times, or a factory engine worth another 2-3%. The rules are way to tight for the big teams to get a massive advantages anymore. 7% is a big difference when speed is mostly about refinement.

I honestly don't care that they have brought it back, because in practice it may catch out 1 or 2 drivers throughout the season, if at all. Even then, unless it is way out of the 107% time I would half expect the drivers to get an exception. The rule will hardly even be noticed next year.

#24 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,791 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 15:24

1.I am scared when I see in the time sheets the differences between the top teams and the “back markers” – 5 ? 7 seconds ?


Just out of interest, when did you start watching F1? Five to seven seconds has been a normal field spread over most of the sport's history, with the exception of the last couple of very close years.

2.The differences of average speeds are huge overall, remember Webber & Kovalainen. Webber arriving like a rocket, and Kova breaking probably 10 to 20 meters before ever expected (if not more ?).


The drivers in the established teams need to learn how to overtake their fellow competitors in the slower teams, something that they haven't had to do for the last few years. It's an essential part of racing.

10 years ago, there would have been someone hurt. Remember (sadly enough) Gilles Villeneuve in Zolder, and the misunderstanding with the v.slow March of Jochen Mass ? This could still be true today, whatever the security norms are.


Mass's March was very slow because he was on an out-lap. Villeneuve could have come across Prost, Lauda, Rosberg etc. on a slow lap and the outcome would have been the same.

3.The blocking of the first into turns, because those poor pilots also have to take them, and cannot be everywhere at the same time. Even slow, they are still driving a Formula 1

Traffic management is an essential part of racecraft, and great drivers tend to be better at it than others (think Senna and Schumacher, for example).

4.Do we need a major crash in FP3 or during a race to think about it ?

We've already had one major crash (Webber and Kovalainen), and the consensus was far from clear. Most commentators agreed that Webber had misjudged the situation, rather than slower cars being unnecessarily dangerous.

5.Wouldn’t the GP’s be quicker and more exciting with 20 cars instead of 20 fast ones and 6 slow ones sometimes creating interruptions and/or playing with one riding them and get hurt ?

Actually, traffic usually makes a race more exciting (although I grant that this is not always the case). Just remember Singapore, where the championship-changing pass and collision between Webber and Hamilton was set up by a backmarker.



#25 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 15:47

Just out of interest, when did you start watching F1? Five to seven seconds has been a normal field spread over most of the sport's history, with the exception of the last couple of very close years.

The drivers in the established teams need to learn how to overtake their fellow competitors in the slower teams, something that they haven't had to do for the last few years. It's an essential part of racing.

Mass's March was very slow because he was on an out-lap. Villeneuve could have come across Prost, Lauda, Rosberg etc. on a slow lap and the outcome would have been the same.

Traffic management is an essential part of racecraft, and great drivers tend to be better at it than others (think Senna and Schumacher, for example).

We've already had one major crash (Webber and Kovalainen), and the consensus was far from clear. Most commentators agreed that Webber had misjudged the situation, rather than slower cars being unnecessarily dangerous.

Actually, traffic usually makes a race more exciting (although I grant that this is not always the case). Just remember Singapore, where the championship-changing pass and collision between Webber and Hamilton was set up by a backmarker.

You were still in your diapers when I did young Padawan !
Yes they need to, because they are facing slower dudes who are not looking in their mirrors to busy trying to keep their car on the track
Thank you, I was there when it happened, I am Belgian remember, and I did not accuse Mass of anything, everyone knows that Gilles was furious at Didier, and wanted the pole whatever the cost was...You were not even yet thought of.
Senna yes, Schumi...they were all so scared to get kicked out... :p
OK, but Kovalainen did break brutally very much before he was suppose to, I think he even admitted it, as he had hydraulic problems I think I remember reading on the French sites.
Yes again, normal traffic, not one that gets a lap after 3
That's exactly my point you are stating there buddy ! Accident caused by a backmarker, or not ? You wrote it, young Padawan.

No bad feelings though hey ?
Have you looked at the video Berger ><Patrese in Portugal ? What you say ?

Edited by nomeg1, 28 October 2010 - 15:48.


#26 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 16:10

Just out of interest, when did you start watching F1? Five to seven seconds has been a normal field spread over most of the sport's history, with the exception of the last couple of very close years.


Yup. I'm always astounded how people can't remember this. Time difference between fastest and slowest (qualified) car in Barcelona qualifying (Q1):

1994: 8,749s
1995: 8,088s
1996: 4,971s (107% rule introduced)
[...]
2003: 4,475s (107% rule abolished)
2004: 6,448s
2005: 5,511s
2006: 4,947s
2007: 2,615s
2008: 2,795s
2009: 1,720s
2010: 5,710s

Sure, different qualifying formats, but still, it's not that bad.

Edited by dau, 28 October 2010 - 16:12.


#27 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 16:28

Yup. I'm always astounded how people can't remember this. Time difference between fastest and slowest (qualified) car in Barcelona qualifying (Q1):

1994: 8,749s
1995: 8,088s
1996: 4,971s (107% rule introduced)
[...]
2003: 4,475s (107% rule abolished)
2004: 6,448s
2005: 5,511s
2006: 4,947s
2007: 2,615s
2008: 2,795s
2009: 1,720s
2010: 5,710s

Sure, different qualifying formats, but still, it's not that bad.

I don't know, I don't think it can really be compared, and most of the slower pilots were confirmed ones, not young rookies learning to deal with the big guys, but maybe I am wrong, I have no problems being wrong, I don't own the truth, and am pretty liberal to read other's opinion when proven of weight.
Again, I am not against either the 107% rule or for it, I do think that new teams should be given availability to tests prior to the big step into qualies and races, that's all.

#28 phil1993

phil1993
  • Member

  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 28 October 2010 - 16:31

I think if you fail to qualify then you should be given some sort of advantage, like a free test day. If you simply say 'sorry, not good enough, go home' then sending them home isn't going to help them improve. Granted, anyone outside the 107pc didn't do a good enough job in the first place but you'd want to see them get better rather than have say 11 teams fighting and then 1 at the back (you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out the one at the back)

#29 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,785 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 17:00

I guess it depends on why you want a 107% rule.

If the aim is to keep out the 'rubbish' teams then I think this year is probably an extreme situation - it's the first time for a long time that we have had 3 new start-up teams, so it looks as if there is much more of a problem than in the past when there was just one new team joining in every few years. Every team on the grid had to start somewhere - and most of them where 'rubbish' in their early years.

The problem has been made worse this year as the new teams were properly stitched up by the FIA/FOCA in that they entered the championship believing that all teams would be subjected to a budget cap - only then to find out much later that the existing teams wanted to spend zillions on development - but wanted a testing ban to 'save money' - which made it much harder for the smaller teams who don't have 24hr wind tunnels, tera-bytes of computing power etc.

If you want the 107% rule to prevent backmarkers 'hindering' the leaders by getting lapped, please remember that to prevent back markers being lapped in a 50 lap race you would need to implement something along the lines of a 102% rule - which at most races would limit grids to about a dozen cars.

If you implement a 107% rule, you need to allow any team that fails to get into a race as a result to have a days in-season testing for each race they are not allowed to start. I guess the bigger teams would probably object but if the FIA has any strength it ought to be able to overule them. Only trouble is - we would probably also need another rule to prevent the bigger teams using such an exception to their advantage - 'Filipe baby - we need you to be really slow in Q1 so Fernado can go testing next week'.

#30 ManiaMuse

ManiaMuse
  • Member

  • 246 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 17:23

I think it's a bit of a silly rule as it affects races at some tracks more than at others. The strict regulations and engine homologation means that even the new teams aren't that far off the pace of the top teams in a straight line. What the new teams lack is downforce through medium - high speed corners, and so the 107% rule will be felt more at tracks with more of those sorts of corners.

Also, the rule only applies to the fastest time in Q1 which means that the rule in reality is more like 108-110% of the fastest Q3 qualifying time. It really isn't the same rule as was before it was abolished which is why I feel it is a bit redundant and pointless, hastily rushed through because of the criticising the new teams bandwagon at the start of the season.

A team would have to be even worse than HRT to be affected by it regularly. The only other situation I could see it being applied in might be wet qualifying, but it is worded to allow exceptions in extenuating circumstances so I doubt it will be applied if qualifying is wet. And it certainly won't be applied if one of the front runners has a mechanical failure during qualifying so I doubt it won't make any difference to the championship.

I believe this year it would only have been applied on couple of occasions with the HRTs this year. Even at extended Bahrain this year, Chandok, who was driving the HRT for his very first time, was only a second off the 107% cutoff. Senna, who hadn't had much more practice, was only marginally outside it as well.

So basically it won't be good or bad for the sport because it's unlikely to ever be applied.

#31 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 18:00

If you implement a 107% rule, you need to allow any team that fails to get into a race as a result to have a days in-season testing for each race they are not allowed to start. I guess the bigger teams would probably object but if the FIA has any strength it ought to be able to overule them. Only trouble is - we would probably also need another rule to prevent the bigger teams using such an exception to their advantage - 'Filipe baby - we need you to be really slow in Q1 so Fernado can go testing next week'.


My solution: Only award the test day if both cars from the team DNQ. After all, if one car is fast enough to be within 107%, then both are. They just need a quicker driver in the other car. Then the only way for Ferrari to get Alonso his extra test day would be to have Alonso and Massa to DNQ.

#32 chrisblades85

chrisblades85
  • Member

  • 2,606 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 28 October 2010 - 18:36

Bizarrely, you are "scared"

I know halloween's coming up, but still.....

#33 verde

verde
  • Member

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 November 2010 - 12:05

If Formula One gives a way to these teams to improve, I don't see any problems on taking this rule back.

But if you firstly call these newcomers promising a budget cap and then give up of this decision and also have a very little number of tests, I simply cannot agree with it. I really find it pathetic when somebody feels surprised because a team with only few months to create a structure and only few days of testing is 5 or 6 seconds off the pace. By the way, 5 seconds off was absolutely acceptable until five or six years ago, with Minardi.

#34 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 778 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 November 2010 - 08:57

I think that testing day should be alowed but probably no extra engines. Therefore they can run the mileage they fail to get while being not in the race.