Jump to content


Photo

What is 107 rule for?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 BalazsF1

BalazsF1
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 June 2011 - 19:51

It is confirmed now that Jarome is allowed to take part at tomorrow's race. He run in 1:19.4 around the track and due to the rule 1:18.9 would have been the limit. I have to admit I was happy about the fact that he got the permisson to race, but honestly this rule doesn't make too much sense.

Advertisement

#2 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,281 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 June 2011 - 19:59

The 107% rule applies in Q1 where, to qualify to race you must do a time within 107% of the fastest time in Q1 (normally easier for backmarkers because the top guys aren't flat out)
If you can't you won't get in
However, if the stewards see exceptional circumstances like car failure or rain etc they will allow you in
Or if its clear during practise you have proved capable of lapping within 107%, like d'ambrosio has this time, they'll let you in.

Its not 107% of pole as its unfair on the tailenders who won't have run on the 'grippier' track at the end of Q3

But i think the 107% of Vettels Pole time was a 1:18.1, which would've put a few in trouble.
I'm a bit surprised the FIA haven't thought about this and made it a 106 or 105% rule (given that the top guys aren't flat out)

Basically the 107% is only there to clear out those who are hopelessly off the pace and dangerous, like HRT were in Oz (and i thought they were lucky to be let in at Monaco)

Edited by joshb, 11 June 2011 - 20:05.


#3 BalazsF1

BalazsF1
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 June 2011 - 20:03

The 107% rule applies in Q1 where, to qualify to race you must do a time within 107% of the fastest time in Q1 (normally easier for backmarkers because the top guys aren't flat out)
If you can't you won't get in
However, if the stewards see exceptional circumstances like car failure or rain etc they will allow you in
Or if its clear during practise you have proved capable of lapping within 107%, like d'ambrosio has this time, they'll let you in.

Its not 107% of pole as its unfair on the tailenders who won't have run on the 'grippier' track at the end of Q3

But i think the 107% of Vettels Pole time was a 1:17.0, which would've put a few in trouble.
I'm a bit surprised the FIA haven't thought about this and made it a 106 or 105% rule (given that the top guys aren't flat out)

Basically the 107% is only there to clear out those who are hopelessly off the pace and dangerous, like HRT were in Oz (and i thought they were lucky to be let in at Monaco)


I know what you said. :) My question was a bit ironical. So there is a rule which never works because the stewards always give the permisson.

#4 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,281 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 June 2011 - 20:06

I know what you said. :) My question was a bit ironical. So there is a rule which never works because the stewards always give the permisson.


not always but yeah, i see what you mean. makes a mockery of the rule though.

#5 Ashe

Ashe
  • Member

  • 132 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 June 2011 - 20:12

I think they let them in to avoid any possible protest/complaints if an exhaust-blown diffuser car knocks a car without one out of the race.

#6 santori

santori
  • Member

  • 3,916 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 11 June 2011 - 21:52

I'm pleased he was allowed to race as I'm quite a fan but apart from that it would have been hard to deny him the opportunity after the HRTs were allowed to race in Monaco. But on the other hand I was a little surprised by that.

He was fast in practice before his crash and he had to qualify in a bit of a Frankencar, though, so I can see why, in spite of his crash, the stewards thought he wasn't a risk.

#7 William Hunt

William Hunt
  • Member

  • 3,282 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:13

I just hope that the car he's driving now is completely safe because it seems they build up that car rapidly.

#8 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,723 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:33

It is confirmed now that Jarome is allowed to take part at tomorrow's race. He run in 1:19.4 around the track and due to the rule 1:18.9 would have been the limit. I have to admit I was happy about the fact that he got the permisson to race, but honestly this rule doesn't make too much sense.


I got the impression it is meant to stop constant underperformers to participate. D'Ambrosio proved in FP he could do the time. If for example Button had a carfailure in Q1 and was not able to do the 107% time I'd expect him to be let in.

#9 Lorenzo99

Lorenzo99
  • Member

  • 77 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:37

Tweeted one of the F1 commentators about this, he agrees that D'Ambrosio shouldn't be starting, not fast enough, end of story basically. I agree, what's the point of having a rule and then just over rule it, seems strange.

#10 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,876 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:37

Cars that are hopelessly slow.

#11 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:42

I got the impression it is meant to stop constant underperformers to participate. D'Ambrosio proved in FP he could do the time. If for example Button had a carfailure in Q1 and was not able to do the 107% time I'd expect him to be let in.


No he didn't. His Q1 time was his best of the weekend.
I have no problem with the stewards' decision on this but would like the rule to be nailed down more clearly and less subject to 'discretion'.


#12 Cenotaph

Cenotaph
  • Member

  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:44

I'm not happy with the decision. I was expecting D'Ambrosio to sit out on this race. If the stewards think he is close enough then make a 110% rule or whatever... It's like they only created the rule to keep HRT out of Australia...

#13 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:54

it was probably 107% of the free practise times?. but theyve been within 107% most of the time in most of the other races etc, so meh ^^

#14 Cenotaph

Cenotaph
  • Member

  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 12 June 2011 - 01:07

He was outside the 107% in FP2, FP3 and Q1, when it really matters. What more do they need?

#15 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,341 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 12 June 2011 - 01:08

I'm pleased he was allowed to race as I'm quite a fan but apart from that it would have been hard to deny him the opportunity after the HRTs were allowed to race in Monaco. But on the other hand I was a little surprised by that.

He was fast in practice before his crash and he had to qualify in a bit of a Frankencar, though, so I can see why, in spite of his crash, the stewards thought he wasn't a risk.

Even if it is the spare car that is causing him to be slow I don't think he should really be allowed to race because no matter the reason, he shouldn't be out there if he is that much slower. Obviously its a good thing for the stewards to have some discretion but I think this is a step too far personally. There conditions weren't changeable, he didn't miss qualifying and his practice times weren't any faster than the one he set in Q1. It sucks for D'Ambrosio that he's having issues but I don't really see any reasonable excuse why he should be allowed to start the race.

#16 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 June 2011 - 01:26

I'm not happy with the decision. I was expecting D'Ambrosio to sit out on this race. If the stewards think he is close enough then make a 110% rule or whatever... It's like they only created the rule to keep HRT out of Australia...

lol maybe. After all, Australia already has an HRT. And it's a damn sight more successful.
We need a Super Steward to hand these Stewards a 3-race ban...

#17 4L3X

4L3X
  • Member

  • 2,013 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 June 2011 - 02:47

107% is the public number. Secretly the real number is 117%

#18 santori

santori
  • Member

  • 3,916 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 12 June 2011 - 10:25

First practice times were slower than qualifying times, but D'Ambosio was fast relative to the rest of the back end of the field:

P1


I can see the argument that it should be applied strictly, in the same way that points are awarded , but you can also argue that it's meant to field out the loonies and no-hopers, and I don't think D'Ambrosio is either of those.

Edited by santori, 12 June 2011 - 10:31.


#19 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,326 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 12 June 2011 - 10:57

Mixed feelings on this, I'm glad he will start but what's the point of this rule then? Just make it 110%.

Advertisement

#20 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 2,744 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 12 June 2011 - 15:52

The rules doesn't state that the only reason the stewards may let a drive race. And if Virgin is running a full-wet that might just be the reason!