107%

Marbot · 7 Feb 2005, 16:47 (Ref:1219547)

The 107% rule, is it still in force,if not,can't the likes of Minardi etc trundle around on their qually laps thereby saving their tyres?

Pingguest · 7 Feb 2005, 16:51 (Ref:1219559)

The 107% rule doesn't exist any more. In theory, even a Ferrari could be slower than 107% of the pole, if the driver would have taken much fuel on board.

Marbot · 7 Feb 2005, 16:59 (Ref:1219572)

So Minardi could trundle around on their qually laps(or not bother at all). Change engines like they were going out of fashion and start from the back of the grid(which is where they would be anyway)with a car thats as likely to finish the race as any other on tyres that have barely been used,interesting.

Why would Minardi bother to use an engine that has to last 2 races?!

BootsOntheSide · 7 Feb 2005, 17:07 (Ref:1219581)

That's pretty much what they did in 2004 - they took engine-change penalties in almost every race, although their reliability wasn't actually that great anyway, and with this alleged 'radical' car it might be even worse.

Marbot · 7 Feb 2005, 17:12 (Ref:1219591)

If Minardi could at least get their car reliable they could take advantage of other teams misfortunes particularly with cars that are into their second race on the same engine.

Vicki · 7 Feb 2005, 17:14 (Ref:1219596)

OK, time for Vicki to sound stupid (again) but what is the 107% rule? I thought it stopped at 100%

Kicking-back · 7 Feb 2005, 17:16 (Ref:1219600)

Amazing! On one thread we have people saying "Jordan will be so bad Minardi could beat them" and on this thread we have people encouraging Minardi to not even try

Marbot · 7 Feb 2005, 17:21 (Ref:1219610)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Amazing! On one thread we have people saying "Jordan will be so bad Minardi could beat them" and on this thread we have people encouraging Minardi to not even try

Quallifying isn't the race though is it,would you rather beat Jordan in quallifying or in the race?

**Peter Mallett** · 7 Feb 2005, 17:25 (Ref:1219619)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FerrariFanatic

OK, time for Vicki to sound stupid (again) but what is the 107% rule? I thought it stopped at 100%

When we had real qualifying and enough cars, any driver that failed to qualify within 107% of the pole time was excluded, unless the teams allowed him in on a vote. In reality the rule was rarely enforced because unless the driver was so bad the teams would allow him to start.

I stand corrected but I think the last driver to suffer this was Yoong(?).

Rob29 · 7 Feb 2005, 18:31 (Ref:1219677)

107% rule was only introduced when the entry fell to 26 cars.previously the fastest 26 started.

Snrub · 7 Feb 2005, 21:32 (Ref:1219790)

From everything I've read regarding the engines, they won't be that short of the 2004 engine power level. (there was a good link in a recent post) Even if Minardi replaced their engines more often, I imagine they'd still be at a considerable HP disadvantage.

Marbot · 7 Feb 2005, 21:43 (Ref:1219798)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snrub

From everything I've read regarding the engines, they won't be that short of the 2004 engine power level. (there was a good link in a recent post) Even if Minardi replaced their engines more often, I imagine they'd still be at a considerable HP disadvantage.

But maybe advantaged in terms of reliability. When other cars are into their second races on the same engine,which would be more reliable,a Ferrari into its 100th lap or a Minardi into its 40th?

Snrub · 7 Feb 2005, 21:50 (Ref:1219804)

Good point. Last year, Minardi had a huge power deficit and yet were still quiet unreliable.

Recall that they even made the decision to use the older spec Cosworth for more reliability.

Paarma · 7 Feb 2005, 23:15 (Ref:1219852)

With 20 cars I'm a bit worried about the possible 16-18 starting grids, but obviously they should all try to qualify. At the moment, it seems that qualifying will be a big mess.

RWC · 8 Feb 2005, 11:50 (Ref:1220260)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FerrariFanatic

OK, time for Vicki to sound stupid (again) but what is the 107% rule? I thought it stopped at 100%

No your not sounding stupid

Mad max introduced the 107% rule some years back because they were embarassed about some of the teams on the grid.They said it was about safety at the time but it was obvious that was just an excuse.

When the teams were going through the very difficult financial cutbacks recently,the 107% rule was sheepishly dropped

**Adam43** · 8 Feb 2005, 12:21 (Ref:1220281)

I think they'd still have the 107% rule, but with the new qualifying the rule became unworkable (what if it rained half way through, etc...).

Skam85 · 10 Feb 2005, 23:36 (Ref:1222544)

Yoong was the last to fail to qualify. Rosset before him. You didn't have to be too quick to qualify, but Yoong and Rosset-quick they weren't.

Dutton · 11 Feb 2005, 04:39 (Ref:1222656)

107% was dropped because it didn't make much sense with te 1-lap-qualy...

Why didn't tehy just go for a system of old qualy with all drivers having to complete at least one flying lap in the first 15 mins, and 2 in the first 40? or something to that effect.

Sorry, I have moved on....... I promise.............

Skam85 · 11 Feb 2005, 05:04 (Ref:1222676)

I reckon a good system would be a 1hr session, but drivers only get two flying laps. (e.g 6 laps total). And they have to go out once in the first half hour and once in the last half hour. That would make sure the spectators see the cars throughout the session trying to get a clear lap. Of course still have the flying laps on race fuel and tyres if that's what they want. It's the old system with a fresh new spin on it.