He's at it again! - Page 2

golem · 7 Nov 2002, 04:30 (Ref:423494)

Heh, But stoddy has reason to moan. He damn well knows if he sits and bides his time, he is just going to get crapped on ala walky, and be out of the sport he loves.

And as for rich kid drivers, it was either that or NO RACE period. Hmm, gee. What would you do? Spit the dummy, go home, miss out and not even try. And that is why he is there, and you are here.

And on this one he's damn right. 107% can't apply to the shootout, that's just dumb. And I think any race where someone does get pulled by being 107% for on the shootout, or even just one of the testing sessions, will be regarded as a farsical manouver.

But here's the catch for Stoddy again, the uproar will only ever be great if a big teams guy gets pinged. If it happens to Joprdan, BAR, Sauber and Minardi, well... who gives a stuff eh? So, seeing this potential situation he's gonna try and get it sorted out before it happens. Wow, novel idea that. (If the FIA wil listen. Urgh.)

No, I still believe that they should introduce one of the best equalizers that helped other team sports. Salary caps. Everyone's arguing about costs, sponsors and the rest, I think a Salary cap would be a good weigh of ending the *****ing with transparant accounting and confidential auditing being undertaken by the FIA of teams. They could then reign in costs by simply saying: Oi, you're spending over your budget on the racing package of your team. (Not the catering and other side of it. That could be as lavish as they damn like, and gives the big teams something to spend their surplus on for doing a good job.) And you know what? It'd really put a stop to US trying to compare the teams by saying, "Oh, but johnny has no budget."
This could then be retorted by a nice, concise: "Johnny had the budget, Johnny just hired morons."

I might go make a seperate topic on that...

twig · 8 Nov 2002, 05:28 (Ref:424362)

We should have a session, probably practice or even a 30 minute qualifying for shootout session, where the cars go around like 2002 qualifying, and any car slower than the 107 rule wont be allowed to take part in the shootouts, and thus, is disqualified.

Or even to that, if they go slower than 107, they can still take part in the shootout provided they are quicker than the 107% time. So you can race if you are faster than 107% in either of the qualifying or shootouts.

With Arrows and Prost gone, the grid will start to look a little too empty if we were to lose Minardi. Plus, its a too expensive sport to just say, oh well, bad luck to the people involved.

Tom.

R · 8 Nov 2002, 07:30 (Ref:424400)

20 cars on the grid is already too few. I think a driver who is within 107% of the best time in any of the sessions over the weekend should be allowed to participate in the race under these conditions.

*Sighs and remembers the days when we had 26 cars on the grid*

f1manoz · 8 Nov 2002, 07:46 (Ref:424412)

*Remembers the days of a 39 car field*

R · 8 Nov 2002, 08:18 (Ref:424419)

*But only 26 started the race*

Wrex · 15 Nov 2002, 11:54 (Ref:429117)

Quote:

From an interview with Max at ITV-F1.com

Is the 107 per cent qualifying still going to be adhered to?

Oh yes, but the stewards always have discretion over this rule. If qualifying did not work out for somebody for some reason, provided that driver was quick enough over the rest of the weekend they would let him race. The only reason we have the 107 per cent rule is to stop the leaders of the race lapping the same car many times. Now if somebody’s demonstrated in one of the practice sessions that he’s quick then he can start, though obviously at the back of the grid.

I'm pretty sure that was the clarification Paul was after.