7% rule

expert · 30 Oct 2002, 19:17 (Ref:417756)

will the 7% rule disappear together with the current system of qualifying? logically -due to changing weather conditions- at times half of the grid could be over the 7% limit.

Sato san · 30 Oct 2002, 19:20 (Ref:417758)

i agree......i find it hard to see how they will set a equal standard of who they let in and who they dont.

Yoong Montoya · 30 Oct 2002, 19:46 (Ref:417780)

I'm sure they'll abolish that rule. It's bad enough that we only have 20 cars

Sato san · 30 Oct 2002, 20:01 (Ref:417788)

yes...but then we dont want drivers who cant drive to a certain level either .

JonesF1 · 30 Oct 2002, 20:04 (Ref:417792)

The rumor at pitpass is that the 107% rule stays.

Lee Roy · 30 Oct 2002, 20:26 (Ref:417808)

If it rains during part of qualifying, they can always waive the 107% rule for that event. They sometimes waive the rule now for what is felt to be extraordinary events.

Wrex · 30 Oct 2002, 22:59 (Ref:417994)

From another thread

Quote:

Originally posted by Wrex
I suspect the 107% rule will be applied the same way it is now. If you fail to qualify, your out. Then you can appeal to the teams, who will agree for a start as long as you've consistantly been within 107% the rest of the weekend.

Sato and Yoong were both permitted to race despite qual over 107%, because they were generally with it the rest of the weekend. Yoong in San Marino however, struggled in every session.

Dutton · 30 Oct 2002, 23:19 (Ref:418025)

I agree Wrex, I don't see any need for abolishing it. It was initially brought in back in 1996 because of the likes of Forti and Pacific etc being really rather slow, in order to weed out cars that were nothing more than a "mobile chicane" as Martin Brundle often refered to them as. Over time the back end teams, through a mix of those lacking the, um, competitive edge meeting their fate and the recent shift to major investment by the bigger teams (esp Ferrari, Toyota - and more recently Mclaren) has lead to not qualifying being a pretty rare issue. There are some races these days where the teams are split by 2.5 to 3 seconds; in others there is still usually a very safe gap to the 107%, meanign that a failure to qualify is very much a driver issue rather than a team one - ala Alex. I have no doubt if weather affected things then allowances would be granted, for otherwise it would just be utterly unfair on those adversely affected.

I have just remember about Ricardo Rosset. He was great. Forti too, they were absolute class. Another edit, but my last thought it worth it: Lola's effort to compete in Formula One in 1997. Unable to continue after Friday practice, having been running at least 7 seconds off the pace; it got to a bit over 10 at one point if I recall. The Mastercard press gang (or Media Managment Enhancment Divisional Control Leadership Members as Ronspeak would probably have it) must've had a few days of hardwork following that weekend.

Valve Bounce · 30 Oct 2002, 23:25 (Ref:418032)

Wouldn't it be funny if either SchM or JPM ran off the track during quals, or their motor blew up. I cannot see all the other teams agreeing to either driver being allowed to race if they didn't meet the 107% rule.

Dutton · 30 Oct 2002, 23:27 (Ref:418037)

Valve, I think you have got it all arse-about-face mate (no offence intended). There would be no justification for leaving them out, so it wouldn't happen.

Valve Bounce · 30 Oct 2002, 23:33 (Ref:418042)

Just supposing both JPM and SchM's engines blew up, had punctures or simply ran off the track, and DC desperately needs a win, why on earth would Ron Dennis agree to either SchM or JPM be included in the race? not to mention the mid order teams as there are now points down to tenth place? The justification in leaving them out is called selfishness, and all the F1 teams are afflicted with this malaise.
It is not the Stewards who agree to them racing, it's the other teams.

Dutton · 30 Oct 2002, 23:45 (Ref:418050)

I certainly agree that there is plenty of selfishness in F1, and in most events it would be used for ruthless effect, but somehow I think that this is the kind of thing they wouldn't do that with. I may well be utterly wrong, but I think it would violate the inner principles of them to win by that method.

Valve Bounce · 30 Oct 2002, 23:56 (Ref:418057)

Quote:

Originally posted by Dutton
I certainly agree that there is plenty of selfishness in F1, and in most events it would be used for ruthless effect, but somehow I think that this is the kind of thing they wouldn't do that with. I may well be utterly wrong, but I think it would violate the inner principles of them to win by that method.

I don't suppose ramming another car, or forcing it off the track to win the WDC would violate any inner principles, would it?

Wrex · 31 Oct 2002, 00:19 (Ref:418073)

Quote:

Originally posted by Valve Bounce
why on earth would Ron Dennis agree to either SchM or JPM be included in the race?

For the same reason they have always allowed Valve. Although it's only gentlemans agreement that if they are consistantly within 107% they can race, No team has ever gone against it because what goes around, comes around. It would be easy for Ferrai to have vitto'd Sato and Yoong at Melbourne last year, but they would have been 'paid' back at a later date.

Total-F1 · 31 Oct 2002, 00:20 (Ref:418074)

Inner principles my arse! There are no principles in F1.

Dutton · 31 Oct 2002, 00:30 (Ref:418080)

In pretty much everything absolutely I agree, but something like that I don't see the likes of Ron or Frank doing. We'll see if it occurs.

Don't get me wrong, if I was running a team I would veto the situation: but then I ran an F1 team I imagine a lot of people would dislike it.

Valve Bounce · 31 Oct 2002, 01:20 (Ref:418099)

Suppose the WDC depended on one of the drivers, like SchM or JPM, to race and score a couple of points? I wonder then how these inner principles would apply.

We are talking about a driver that tried to ram Jacques off the circuit, whose team told Rubens to move over, not to mention Adelaide.

Yeah!! What comes round comes round pulled by reindeers on Christmas Eve.

Wrex · 31 Oct 2002, 01:24 (Ref:418100)

Drama Queen

Wrex · 31 Oct 2002, 01:27 (Ref:418102)

And one more thing. If Michael or Juan (or whichever team did this) could'nt win the last race with the other guy starting at the rear of the grid, they don't deserve the championship.

Dutton · 31 Oct 2002, 01:31 (Ref:418104)

A critical situation would be utterly different for sure, but I mean if it happened in rces prior to such a point.

Also, bringing Michael into this debate is absolutely irrelevant. Something like that would be a team decision, so to start whittering about things in the past like that is just not relevant in my view.

Valve Bounce · 31 Oct 2002, 01:32 (Ref:418105)

I suppose the obvious retort to that is "if someone couldn't win the last race and championship unless he rammed his competitor off the circuit, then he doesn't deserve to be champion"

Valve Bounce · 31 Oct 2002, 01:34 (Ref:418106)

Damn!! I vowed never to revisit Jerez or Adelaide again - I promise that this is the last time that I refer to these two races, ever.

Champ69 · 31 Oct 2002, 04:22 (Ref:418150)

Quote:

Originally posted by Valve Bounce
Just supposing both JPM and SchM's engines blew up, had punctures or simply ran off the track, and DC desperately needs a win, why on earth would Ron Dennis agree to either SchM or JPM be included in the race? not to mention the mid order teams as there are now points down to tenth place? The justification in leaving them out is called selfishness, and all the F1 teams are afflicted with this malaise.
It is not the Stewards who agree to them racing, it's the other teams.

True at the moment if you where outside the 107% mark you had to seek permission from the stewards and get approval from all teams. I could see some teams not agreeing if their main compeditor was outside the cut.

Hope the change the rule so this never happens

shiny side up! · 31 Oct 2002, 10:14 (Ref:418267)

I suppose that in the event of a JPM engine eating itself or a TGF 'off' (wouldn't that be nice) during Saturday quals, they could always look at the Friday qualifying times? I guess if you are within 107% in one quals session, but have bad luck the next, then you have a very good case to make the race, no?

Super Tourer · 31 Oct 2002, 10:35 (Ref:418277)

I think there could be a lot of confusion. I bet the teams will think of every possible qualifying scenario, whereas the FIA won't until each one arises - only to find the rulebook doesn't cover it.

As shiny says, say MS doesn't complete his qyalifying lap on Sat for whatever reason, would officials look to his Friday time, in which case if Sat was wet and Fri was dry - he could in theory have the pole time. Or would any driver who fails to complete his lap, merely start from the back - if so if there were more than one - which order would they start in?

Also, how will the FIA rule on cars that miss their slot for whatever reason - how many times have we seen cars not get out until late into qualifying because of a technical problem. What happens then, do they miss their slot and start from the back or run later? In which case during wet sessions they could gain an advantage, then we could possibly see teams claiming techinical problems in order to get their driver a later slot on a drying track.

All of these situations could happen, and if they can be exploited to a teams advantage they will be. The question is does the FIA have a clear ruling on these and will they apply them?

Don't forget that the TV money row and the Arrow's siutation have rumbled on this year because the FIA'a concorde agreement is so vauge to render it nearly meaningless.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is that all about? (SC rule)	Knowlesy	Formula One	51	15 Jun 2005 10:04
107% rule	roys1	Formula One	5	20 Mar 2005 12:59
107% Rule	Yoong Montoya	Formula One	33	20 Apr 2002 04:50
GP rule changes	OVERSTEER	Bike Racing	2	12 Nov 2001 10:54
Why the 107% Rule?	touringlegend	Formula One	17	15 Sep 2001 21:54