107% Rule

Yoong Montoya · 14 Apr 2002, 19:36 (Ref:260303)

Should the 107% rule be in F1? We only have 11 teams and 22 drivers competing, and they are all capable of setting a fast enough lap time in qualifying. I don't know what problem Alex Yoong had in Imola, but it was not entirely his fault he had a DNQ.

Mekola · 14 Apr 2002, 19:42 (Ref:260309)

Bernie don't want improvisations. I think the 107% rule is putted as one rule to secure the "profesionalism" in the category.

LucaBadoer · 14 Apr 2002, 19:44 (Ref:260310)

I'd like to see the 107% rule kept, and if a driver's outside it thats it - you dont start the race, however good the reason is. No appeals, nothing.

But then again, I felt so sorry for Alex today...

argh! I dunno... :confused:

AndyF · 14 Apr 2002, 21:18 (Ref:260372)

I think the days of hopelessly of the pace private teams entering the sport and touring round at the back - it costs too much money now. However, if it keeps Marques out then i'm all for it

R · 14 Apr 2002, 21:35 (Ref:260382)

Well, Sato was accepted into the race on an earlier occasion, despite being outside 107 %. Either you have the rule or you don't, that is my opinion, and I don't think it's really necessary in today's field. Yoong is good enough to drive GPs, which he has proved already, and today's grid is small enough as it is.

**touringlegend** · 14 Apr 2002, 21:39 (Ref:260383)

It just seemed to be the kerbs Yoong couldn't get to grips with..but a rule is a rule. Tough luck I'm afraid.

R · 14 Apr 2002, 21:44 (Ref:260385)

That's just it - the rule "wasn't the rule" where Sato was concerned. If it's going to be down to personal estimation by the organizers anyway who's going to start - regardless of the rule - then I say scrap it.

**touringlegend** · 14 Apr 2002, 21:51 (Ref:260389)

what did sato do? sorry, i missed this part over the weekend.

kmchow · 14 Apr 2002, 21:54 (Ref:260391)

IMHO, I don't see a point in the 107% rule. It's not like F1 has 60 cars showing up to race with only 50 spots like what Nascar has at some races last year? The rule is there to make teams work hard and try their best. But like AndyF said, in this day, age and budgets, no team shows up to just cruise around the track for "fun", they have sponsors to answer to!

Kex · 14 Apr 2002, 22:05 (Ref:260401)

Sato was allowed to race cos he showed he could do competitive times in practice. Yoong couldn't, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to race.

It can't really be the car, Webber stuck it on the good side of row 10. I'm sure they have equal machinery.

Damon · 14 Apr 2002, 22:48 (Ref:260424)

The point of the 107% rule is to keep the teams fairly evenly matched. Sato was allowed to continue in Australia because of unforseen circumstances (i.e. he crashed while it was dry and was only able to set a time in the wet). Yoong was not allowed to continue because he had no problems and simply wasn't quick enough. When this happens I think it's totally fair enough. For me Yoong encompasses everything wrong with the way drivers of hired at the back end the grid. There are thousands of drivers more talented and quicker than Yoong in the world that won't get their chance because they don't have a multi million pound backer. Its so frustrating.

EERO · 14 Apr 2002, 22:53 (Ref:260428)

Quote:

Originally posted by Damon
The point of the 107% rule is to keep the teams fairly evenly matched. Sato was allowed to continue in Australia because of unforseen circumstances (i.e. he crashed while it was dry and was only able to set a time in the wet). Yoong was not allowed to continue because he had no problems and simply wasn't quick enough. When this happens I think it's totally fair enough. For me Yoong encompasses everything wrong with the way drivers of hired at the back end the grid. There are thousands of drivers more talented and quicker than Yoong in the world that won't get their chance because they don't have a multi million pound backer. Its so frustrating.

Ditto. Yoong may bring bucks and Rent-a-drivers bring neccessary funds to the sport, but Yoong makes Marques look like Fangio.

f1manoz · 15 Apr 2002, 00:07 (Ref:260483)

The 107% rule is there for a reason - to keep the slowcoaches from getting in everyone elses way.

If his qualifying times were a precident for how his race times would have been, how many times would have he been lapped? We're talking Deletraz figures!!!

Super Tourer · 15 Apr 2002, 07:41 (Ref:260700)

Problem is that today's circumstances make the 107% rule fairly uncomfortable.

The rule was designed to keep very slow/incapable drivers out of the race so they didn't cause a hazzard to other drivers. This rule was created when the cars performance was much more equal, so therefore it had to be a driver only problem.

Trouble is the F2002 Ferrari is going to smash all pole times this year. If you look at the Imola grid you can see how Ferrari crushed the opposition.

William's closest half a second off. McLaren couldn't get with 1 second of MS. Best of the rest - Sauber 1.6 secs off.

Into the mid grid cars are 2.5 to 3 secs off. At the back we have the Jags/Arrow's nearly 4 seconds off.

The 107% time was I think 1.26.5, which meant that De la Rosa only beat it by 1.7 secs. Bearing in mind that this was only the 2nd time out for the F2002 and that Ferrari will continually develop it, we could see a situation where some 'proper' cars with 'proper' drivers are very close to falling outside the 107%

The Ferrari's are going to get quicker and the teams still scratching their heads for pace (Jag) are going to get slower. This isn't really what the 107% rule was designed for IMO, as I don't think that anyone anticipated a car with this level of pace.

Super Tourer · 15 Apr 2002, 07:49 (Ref:260701)

As a solution it may well be that the FIA could change the rule, to make the cut-off 107% of the average time of the top 4 or 6 places on the grid.

This would still reflect the front running pace, without having the cut off time decided by one car's dominance.

Damon · 15 Apr 2002, 08:49 (Ref:260726)

If it was a major problem then many of the drivers would have failed to qualify. The fact was Yoong was the only one and his team mate managed to put the same car ahead of a Jaguar. The car is clearly within 107% but Yoong is not.

Super Tourer · 15 Apr 2002, 08:57 (Ref:260733)

I agree, that at Imola Yoong didn't master the circuit. But my point is looking ahead, as the Ferrari's get faster other teams/drivers at the back of the grid may find themselves under pressure.

Damon · 15 Apr 2002, 09:00 (Ref:260737)

It's a good incentive for them to pull their socks up then

Super Tourer · 15 Apr 2002, 09:15 (Ref:260751)

True. But some of them haven't even found their socks yet......

ljakse · 15 Apr 2002, 14:03 (Ref:261136)

I'm curious how is it gonna be on longer tracks (Japan, Belgium). That is, if one team (Ferrari) is much faster than others (Minardi, Jaguar) what will prevail on long laps - the fact that 107% will be much longer than pole time, or the fact that a pole setter will have more space to produce the difference?

Mark F1 · 15 Apr 2002, 16:17 (Ref:261240)

It makes me laugh now that drivers such as Kimi Raikkonen and Jenson Button were put on probation at the start of there F1 careers and a so called "driver" in Alex Yoong, who has no proven record in F3, F3000 etc, can come into F1 with his cash and just buy a seat at a team.

It is a shame that money is sometimes more important than talent.

When you think about it, Imola isn't exactly the longest circuit in terms of lap times but Yoong was SIX seconds off of pole. In the first sector, which is about 23-24 seconds long, he was losing almost TWO seconds. Now that really is very bad. Yoong apparently said that he lacked any real dry weather running, but I have just checked all the practice sessions and qualifying and if you discount Friday because of the rain, he still managed to complete 44 dry laps in Saturday morning practice and qualifying. If he had been allowed to race, he would have been lapped every 14 or 15 laps, which is why the stewards were totally right in not allowing him into the race.

One thing that made me laugh though. When Martin Brundle was doing his gird walk on ITV's F1 coverage, he said "Yoong will be on a three stop strategy today - Heathrow, Dubai and Kuala Lumpar !!!!!!!!!

jiggly_puff · 15 Apr 2002, 16:20 (Ref:261241)

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark F1
One thing that made me laugh though. When Martin Brundle was doing his gird walk on ITV's F1 coverage, he said "Yoong will be on a three stop strategy today - Heathrow, Dubai and Kuala Lumpar !!!!!!!!!

Now that is comedy!

They should have this 107% rule! and if you don't qualify in it - then you don't race simple as that - no matter what circumstances surround it or who you may be! rules are rules!

Mr V · 15 Apr 2002, 16:25 (Ref:261245)

i thought that it was quite interesting thayt all the teams had agreed to yoong being let into the race, but it was the fia that ousted him!

jiggly_puff · 15 Apr 2002, 16:31 (Ref:261251)

the man shouldn't even be testing f1 cars - let alone racing them!

R · 16 Apr 2002, 06:15 (Ref:261756)

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark F1
When Martin Brundle was doing his gird walk on ITV's F1 coverage, he said "Yoong will be on a three stop strategy today - Heathrow, Dubai and Kuala Lumpar !!!!!!!!!

Ouch!

Oh dear, oh dear...

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
7% rule	expert	Formula One	33	1 Nov 2002 08:54
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