What is 107 rule for?
#1
Posted 11 June 2011 - 19:51
Advertisement
#2
Posted 11 June 2011 - 19:59
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
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
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
Posted 11 June 2011 - 20:12
#6
Posted 11 June 2011 - 21:52
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
Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:13
#8
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
Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:37
#10
Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:37
#11
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
Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:44
#13
Posted 12 June 2011 - 00:54
#14
Posted 12 June 2011 - 01:07
#15
Posted 12 June 2011 - 01:08
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.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.
#16
Posted 12 June 2011 - 01:26
lol maybe. After all, Australia already has an HRT. And it's a damn sight more successful.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...
We need a Super Steward to hand these Stewards a 3-race ban...
#17 Guest_4L3X_*
Posted 12 June 2011 - 02:47
#18
Posted 12 June 2011 - 10:25
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
Posted 12 June 2011 - 10:57
Advertisement
#20
Posted 12 June 2011 - 15:52