Todt could bring back the 107 Rule.

[Chris Borg]

http://www.planetf1.com/news/18227/6018073/Todt-could-bring-back-the-107-rule


Three new teams were in action for the first time in an official practice session with Lotus five seconds slower than the P1 time set by Mercedes GP's Nico Rosberg. And Lotus were the quickest of the newcomers.

Hispania Racing, the slowest of the trio, were 11 seconds down after managing just 20 laps in both practice sessions.

Their lack of pace has raised some concerns in the paddock that they could be a danger to the rest of the field and prompted Todt to consider reintroducing the 107 percent qualifying rule.

Any comments anyone.

[PG_Gabriel]

What's the 107% rule?

[PG_Gabriel]

never mind i found it... I will have to watch a few races befor i can decide if i like the idea or not

[SennaMan]

I am all for the 107% rule.

[In fact you could say I back it 110%!]

By eliminating  teams/drivers/cars that are not lapping fast enough, it helps maintain F1 as the world's premier motor racing series.

[judy]

FIA should not have approved the application by the former Campos GP to compete in F1 in the first place. From the start they do not have the sufficient financial backing.

I don't think it is a question of bringing back the 107% rule but rather insufficient screening by FIA to prevent uncompetent and weak teams from competing in F1. I think being 10 sec behind is a big joke in F1, even 4 to 5 sec behind is not unacceptable. Logically the backmarkers should be within less than 3 sec behind. Last season, it was about 1.5 to 2.0 sec behind and this should be the target or benchmark to have an exciting F1 race. 

 

[Scott]

If you gave that kind of power to scrutineering, politics would quickly become involved.  There is no way I would want the scrutineers banning teams on anything but a technical safety violation, not car speed.

[SennaMan]

......[snip]......I don't think it is a question of bringing back the 107% rule but rather insufficient screening by FIA to prevent uncompetent and weak teams from competing in F1. I think being 10 sec behind is a big joke in F1, even 4 to 5 sec behind is not unacceptable. Logically the backmarkers should be within less than 3 sec behind. Last season, it was about 1.5 to 2.0 sec behind and this should be the target or benchmark to have an exciting F1 race.  

yes Judy, you are out if you're lapping more than 3 secs behind is a much simpler way of keeping incompetent teams/drivers/cars from contesting a F1 GP.

[judy]

It is logic to keep out the cars with lap time more than 3 sec behind. At the same time, this situation can be prevented if FIA made a thorough check on teams applying to compete in F1, especially on the financial aspects. I think only team who have strong financial backing, with potential to develop their cars should be allowed to compete in F1. This is to ensure the teams taking part will be competitive and I think this should be the approach for exciting F1 races. I think F1 will become boring if there is only 2 or 3 strong teams and the rest consist of weak teams with financial constraint and limited potential for car development.

I am not surprise that the HRT cars were not ready for the qualy and I think the second car missed all the 3 practice session. We all know the actual root cause for all these problems is due to financial problems faced by HRT. It is definately not due to insufficient time since Lotus who was approved much later could get their cars ready for the test in February. I know team like Lotus and Virgin are currently among the backmarkers but I am sure they have the financial backing to improve their cars and narrow the gap with the front runners as the season progress. FI is a good example that small teams with good financial backing can improve over time. Therefore only team with strong financial backing should be allowed to compete in F1 (this is my only my view). With the criteria of having only teams with strong financial backing, then the 107% rule may become irrelevant.

[cosworth151]

F1 actually needs these slower cars. Having a few "moving chicanes" out there is the only way to make the races on the street circuits and Tilke T*rds that dominate F1 interesting!

[John S]

Yeah your right Cos, it's not like the turbo era when slower cars could could become a road block for lap after lap. This could also help some of the drivers with their concentration in the later parts of the race. When all alone on track a big gap in front and behind staying roughly on the pace some of them nearly fall asleep, having to dodge these real slow cars will wake them up.

In some motor racing series they have reverse grids and make the fast guys fight their way through from the back, mostly they top guys make it but it's good to watch.

   

[judy]

I don't think the front runners need the slower cars to prevent the drivers from falling asleep. With chicanes at various intervals of the race circuits, the drivers are forced to be alert at all times. The front runners only need the presence of the weak teams in order to have less competition and they can win races easily.

Having only a few fast cars, and the remaining slow cars with limited potential for improvement is the prerequisite for a boring and predictable race. I love to see the situation similar to last year, where the gap between the fastest car and the slowest car is narrowed down to less than 2 sec. Even FI could achieve the respectable second place in Spa (thanks to Fisi) in a normal race condition. I think when the cars are highly competitive, then the race will become very unpredictable and exciting. On the other hand, approving team with limited financial backing and resources to compete in F1 is surely a step backward and we can expect boring races. After a few races, you can even predict which drivers will be on the podium for the rest of the season. 

[cosworth151]

I wasn't talking about the drivers. We fans need something to keep us awake during these processional races on these boring, boring tracks that have been added over the past few years. 

[judy]

For me, I don't think the slow cars will keep me awake when the races gets boring and predictable. On the other hand, when the cars are very competitive and and overtaking one another, that's when the race become exciting and keeps me awake throughout the race.

Now the HRT cars are more than 8 sec off the pace, and I have expected Campos to produce crap cars from the start. They can't blame the lack of track time since Senna loose only some track time during practice 1. I don't think the Super Aguri car in 2006 is even that slow. I can predict that the 2 HRT cars will complete races more than 7 laps behind (that is if they are able to complete the race) most of the 2010 season.   

[John S]

F1 has never been just time trials, when the series first started there were often F2 cars in the field to make up the numbers so there has always been a gap between the front runners and the back markers.

The 107% rule was brought in at a time when there were plenty of teams willing to give F1 a go, it followed on from a time when cars were required to pre-qualify for the limited number of places on the grid. Now as they limit the numbers by other means it would be odd to then put further obstacles in the new teams way.

[lkjohnson1950]

I think this goes to the FIA picking teams willing to use the Cosworth engine. Not that it's a bad engine, but there were a couple of teams I would expect to be stronger than HRT who refused to sign on to Cosworth power and didn't get the entry.

Lonny