How slow is dangerously slow for an f1 car
Discussion
5 seconds isn't a colossal amount, not enough to make them a danger to others. However, I do think a line needs to be drawn. I've been saying since the introduction of the new teams that the 107% rule (or a similar one) needs to be brought back to ensure safe competitive racing for everyone.
So on a typical circuit with a 1:20:000 pole time anyone outside 1:25:600 would not make the grid.
So on a typical circuit with a 1:20:000 pole time anyone outside 1:25:600 would not make the grid.
Edited by patmahe on Monday 1st March 10:34
No. They are proffesional drivers. There used to be far greater differences between cars and I can't think of any significant occurences between the leaders and lapped cars. If anything it provides something for the experienced drivers to use to their advantage when fighting for position coming up to a lapped/to be lapped car. (Hakkinen/schumacher/Zonta comes to mind)
It may not be as much as the 5 seconds that it seems to be: with their problems it is unlikely that Virgin will have done a true 'quali' run and perhaps the same is true for Lotus?
If something like the 107% rule were to be reintroduced the thing that will complicate things is the multistage qualification; what do you compare the times too? 107% of Q1 time? Q3 time? or just the fasted, regardless? - tricky especially if weather is changing through quali.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see, thankfully most of the drivers in Lotus and Virgin are experienced so should be aware enough for getting lapped. The bigger problem I see could be if Campos do actually make it and have a rookie or two AND a much slower car. So, the original question; how slow is too slow? worryingly slow would be in excess of 110% I would suggest, if they can do 107%ish then carry on.
If something like the 107% rule were to be reintroduced the thing that will complicate things is the multistage qualification; what do you compare the times too? 107% of Q1 time? Q3 time? or just the fasted, regardless? - tricky especially if weather is changing through quali.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see, thankfully most of the drivers in Lotus and Virgin are experienced so should be aware enough for getting lapped. The bigger problem I see could be if Campos do actually make it and have a rookie or two AND a much slower car. So, the original question; how slow is too slow? worryingly slow would be in excess of 110% I would suggest, if they can do 107%ish then carry on.
llewop said:
If something like the 107% rule were to be reintroduced the thing that will complicate things is the multistage qualification; what do you compare the times too? 107% of Q1 time? Q3 time? or just the fasted, regardless? - tricky especially if weather is changing through quali.
I did think of that, I think if once a pole time is set, we see if anyone is outside 107% and if they are they are given a 10 minute session to try to improve their time enough to get on the grid. In the case of changeable conditions teams could appeal to the FIA for a special dispensation.I know its not a perfect solution.
Ideally we could go back to everyone qualifying in light cars with 12 laps each to get the business done, it worked for years and would make a 107% rule much fairer.
Edited by patmahe on Monday 1st March 10:56
Mazda Baiter said:
No. They are proffesional drivers. There used to be far greater differences between cars and I can't think of any significant occurences between the leaders and lapped cars. If anything it provides something for the experienced drivers to use to their advantage when fighting for position coming up to a lapped/to be lapped car. (Hakkinen/schumacher/Zonta comes to mind)
The FIA do, however, have a duty to keep the standard of driving up. It's hardly the highest standard of racing in the world if drivers who cannot maintain the pack pace are given a superlicence.If you stop a car from racing cos it's too slow and also seriously limit how much testing they can do then they will never get quicker, will rack up expenses travelling from track to track just to get sidelined, meaning the sponsor logo wont be seen, meaning sponsor will pull out meaning a bankrupt team meaning an emptier grid.
Conian said:
If you stop a car from racing cos it's too slow and also seriously limit how much testing they can do then they will never get quicker, will rack up expenses travelling from track to track just to get sidelined, meaning the sponsor logo wont be seen, meaning sponsor will pull out meaning a bankrupt team meaning an emptier grid.
Exactly.Even if they are 10 seconds off the pace they should still be allowed to race, otherwise they will never improve.
Its in everybody's interest to see the new teams on the grid and running at a respectable pace.
As long as the blue flags are used sensibly the faster guys should be able to lap them without too many problems, if anything it will add an extra level of strategy into the races.
The real problem will come if they are still very slow in 2011, then the FIA will have to do something to help them up to speed, but I dont think this will happen unless they have financial problems and cant afford to develop the car. In that case the FIA will have to rethink the idea of the new teams altogether before the sponsors pull the plug.
Animal said:
Mazda Baiter said:
No. They are proffesional drivers. There used to be far greater differences between cars and I can't think of any significant occurences between the leaders and lapped cars. If anything it provides something for the experienced drivers to use to their advantage when fighting for position coming up to a lapped/to be lapped car. (Hakkinen/schumacher/Zonta comes to mind)
The FIA do, however, have a duty to keep the standard of driving up. It's hardly the highest standard of racing in the world if drivers who cannot maintain the pack pace are given a superlicence.
I did a quick calculation when seeing the end of testing times for all cars from the 4 days and figured they just fell within the 7% which used to be the rule. In addition to that there is the uncertainty about the fuel loads etc which might have been used by the various cars on their quickest laps so don't see any problem with the comparative speeds between the cars.
One benefit of the tail end cars being slower is that they will cause slight bunching when leaders come to pass them which could actually create some overtaking opportunities.
Also, reminds me of one of Martin Brundle's great comments when the Forte team were competing, he said he felt they were appropriately named as it seemed like there were about 40 of them, he lapped them so often.
One benefit of the tail end cars being slower is that they will cause slight bunching when leaders come to pass them which could actually create some overtaking opportunities.
Also, reminds me of one of Martin Brundle's great comments when the Forte team were competing, he said he felt they were appropriately named as it seemed like there were about 40 of them, he lapped them so often.
PabloTeK said:
I think the Life team sets the ultimate unsafe standard, they managed to set a pre-quallifying time in 1990 for one race (can't remember which) of somewhere in the 7-8 minute region and even when they set a half-close time they were nearly 10-20s off the pace!
7-8 minutes?! 
f
k me what track was that? Did they get lost?patmahe said:
5 seconds isn't a colossal amount, not enough to make them a danger to others. However, I do think a line needs to be drawn. I've been saying since the introduction of the new teams that the 107% rule (or a similar one) needs to be brought back to ensure safe competitive racing for everyone.
So on a typical circuit with a 1:20:000 pole time anyone outside 1:25:600 would not make the grid.
Agree, this means that the leaders, have to lap this car every 16 laps, or so. The top 8 cars yersterday were within 1/2 a second. You might as well allow a GP2 car to enter if you just want a chicane, or billboard. So on a typical circuit with a 1:20:000 pole time anyone outside 1:25:600 would not make the grid.
Edited by patmahe on Monday 1st March 10:34
Racing should mean competetive racing
StevieBee said:
Am I right in thinking that LeMans has the greatest difference in speed of competing cars - by quite some margin?
I'm not sure if it's THE greatest margin, cant be bothered to check, but it is certainly a superb example of fast and very fast cars sharing the same tarmac, albeit a much longer track.John D. said:
PabloTeK said:
I think the Life team sets the ultimate unsafe standard, they managed to set a pre-quallifying time in 1990 for one race (can't remember which) of somewhere in the 7-8 minute region and even when they set a half-close time they were nearly 10-20s off the pace!
7-8 minutes?! fk me what track was that? Did they get lost?Didn't they bring in the 107% rule to stop the back end of the grid being taken up by 'wannabe' F1 teams setting up on the cheap?
hmmmm
Personaly I'd rather not see a 107% rule brought in, but I'm not a fan of the blue flag rule either, I used to love watching Senna monster lesser mortals
hmmmm
Personaly I'd rather not see a 107% rule brought in, but I'm not a fan of the blue flag rule either, I used to love watching Senna monster lesser mortals
Edited by ADEuk on Monday 1st March 14:03
I don't see that this should be a big problem. Managing the space around you is just part of being a driver - road or racing. If you approach a slower car, use best judgement to overtake where safe; these are supposed to be the best guys in the world. In endurance racing, the ability to safely lap slower cars is an essential skill. Ask Nic Minassian after his contre-temps bewteen Peugeot 908 and Porsche 911 GT3 RS at Silverstone a couple of years ago. The only time I can recall recently thinking a difference in lap time was obviously unacceptable was at the Monaco Historique during pre-78 qualifying. The likes of Folch, Stretton and Edwards were putting in fantastic sectors, but forever tripping over no-hopers. On a circuit like that with such a varied mix of drivers, it's a problem. Professional motorsport with circa 5 secs covering the field is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff