Return of the 107% rule to F1 qualifying
Discussion
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84690
article said:
"From 2011, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107 per cent of the fastest Q1 qualifying time will not be allowed to take part in the race.
"Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable laptime in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards."
A little vague, but reasonable. I suppose that if the exception is applied, their best prior lap time might be used as the determinant."Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable laptime in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards."
Jungles said:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84690
It seems fair enough. Mind you, I think that means that none of the cars at, for instance, Canada would have been excluded yet that was when the complaint that generated this rule was made. The one car that didn't put in a Q1 time had gone comfortably under the limit. As it stands it's pretty pointless.article said:
"From 2011, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107 per cent of the fastest Q1 qualifying time will not be allowed to take part in the race.
"Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable laptime in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards."
A little vague, but reasonable. I suppose that if the exception is applied, their best prior lap time might be used as the determinant."Under exceptional circumstances, however, which may include setting a suitable laptime in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner, the grid order will be determined by the stewards."
ewenm said:
Anyone fancy doing the calcs for this season so far to see whether the "new" teams would have qualified consistently or not?
generally I'd say they did - by my calculations: Senna and Chandhok would have 'failed' 3 times each, including the first race when perhaps you'd have anticipated them struggling since the cars hadn't turned a wheel before then*. Di Grassi once.- I have a view that they shouldn't have been allowed to enter having not turned up for any tests: ready for the season is ready for pre-season testing...not still bolting it together as you start qualifying
ewenm said:
Anyone fancy doing the calcs for this season so far to see whether the "new" teams would have qualified consistently or not?
Bahrain - Last 2 (HRT)Australia - last 3 (HRT x 2 and Lucas di Grassi's Virgin)
Malaysia - Last 3 (HRT x 2 and Lucas di Grassi's Virgin)
China - All in 107%
Spain - Last 2 (HRT) - Lucas di Grassi's just in by 0.03865
Monaco - Last 1 - Karun Chandhok (HRT) - and Alonso DNQ
Turkey - All in 107%
Canada - Last 1 - Karun Chandhok (HRT)
Fire99 said:
Scuffers said:
Canada - Last 1 - Karun Chandhok (HRT)
Not that it matters but wasn't this one due to Chandhok having a gearbox change which would relegate him 5 places anyway, so didn't bother setting a time?? Or maybe I made that up. 
SamHH said:
Lambochick said:
SamHH said:
Isn't that to allow for more powerful, and therefore heavier, KERS?
You might want to re-think that response. 
Edited by Lambochick on Wednesday 23 June 23:11
Also, "Driver-adjustable bodywork"? Can alter the rear wing if you are within a second of the car in front, car in front cannot do it and no one can do it for the first two laps. What a load of pointless twaddle that will be completely invisible to the spectator. How can a driver tell that they are within a second at a given moment and hence allowed to do this and how do you enforce it FFS!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
stemll said:
SamHH said:
Lambochick said:
SamHH said:
Isn't that to allow for more powerful, and therefore heavier, KERS?
You might want to re-think that response. Edited by Lambochick on Wednesday 23 June 23:11
Also, "Driver-adjustable bodywork"? Can alter the rear wing if you are within a second of the car in front, car in front cannot do it and no one can do it for the first two laps. What a load of pointless twaddle that will be completely invisible to the spectator. How can a driver tell that they are within a second at a given moment and hence allowed to do this and how do you enforce it FFS!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
The sticking point is that the cars, with driver, weigh loads less than 605, let alone 620, don't even think about 640.
The less that car and driver weigh, the more ballast is of course required, but (subject to some restrictions) that ballast can be located wherever the team wants. The ability to locate the ballast in an optimal position is an advantage.
This limit was raised to 620 because teams with heavier drivers were complaining that, although they, too, needed ballast to reach the minimum weight, because it was a smaller % of the overall weight, they could achieve less wrt its location, and thus they were at a disadvantage.
My own position on this is that it's complete bull5hit. In some sports it's an advantage to be big, in fact huge, and in a lesser number it's an advantage to be small. It is not clear why the regulator should write a rule to benefit specifically the heavier drivers. Even at 605, the heavier drivers were being favoured by the inclusion of the driver's weight in the car weight calculation.
This says that the minimum weight went up in part to accommodate new chassis reinforcements.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns22356.html
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns22356.html
flemke said:
Until this year, the minimum weight with driver was 605 kg. For this year they raised it to, I thought, 620.
The sticking point is that the cars, with driver, weigh loads less than 605, let alone 620, don't even think about 640.
The less that car and driver weigh, the more ballast is of course required, but (subject to some restrictions) that ballast can be located wherever the team wants. The ability to locate the ballast in an optimal position is an advantage.
This limit was raised to 620 because teams with heavier drivers were complaining that, although they, too, needed ballast to reach the minimum weight, because it was a smaller % of the overall weight, they could achieve less wrt its location, and thus they were at a disadvantage.
My own position on this is that it's complete bull5hit. In some sports it's an advantage to be big, in fact huge, and in a lesser number it's an advantage to be small. It is not clear why the regulator should write a rule to benefit specifically the heavier drivers. Even at 605, the heavier drivers were being favoured by the inclusion of the driver's weight in the car weight calculation.
As you surely know, it's not about giving anyone an advantage, it's about minimising the disadvantage some would otherwise have. Obviously you would prefer competitors to be disadvantaged by something that is totally out of their control; the regulators would not.The sticking point is that the cars, with driver, weigh loads less than 605, let alone 620, don't even think about 640.
The less that car and driver weigh, the more ballast is of course required, but (subject to some restrictions) that ballast can be located wherever the team wants. The ability to locate the ballast in an optimal position is an advantage.
This limit was raised to 620 because teams with heavier drivers were complaining that, although they, too, needed ballast to reach the minimum weight, because it was a smaller % of the overall weight, they could achieve less wrt its location, and thus they were at a disadvantage.
My own position on this is that it's complete bull5hit. In some sports it's an advantage to be big, in fact huge, and in a lesser number it's an advantage to be small. It is not clear why the regulator should write a rule to benefit specifically the heavier drivers. Even at 605, the heavier drivers were being favoured by the inclusion of the driver's weight in the car weight calculation.
SamHH said:
flemke said:
Until this year, the minimum weight with driver was 605 kg. For this year they raised it to, I thought, 620.
The sticking point is that the cars, with driver, weigh loads less than 605, let alone 620, don't even think about 640.
The less that car and driver weigh, the more ballast is of course required, but (subject to some restrictions) that ballast can be located wherever the team wants. The ability to locate the ballast in an optimal position is an advantage.
This limit was raised to 620 because teams with heavier drivers were complaining that, although they, too, needed ballast to reach the minimum weight, because it was a smaller % of the overall weight, they could achieve less wrt its location, and thus they were at a disadvantage.
My own position on this is that it's complete bull5hit. In some sports it's an advantage to be big, in fact huge, and in a lesser number it's an advantage to be small. It is not clear why the regulator should write a rule to benefit specifically the heavier drivers. Even at 605, the heavier drivers were being favoured by the inclusion of the driver's weight in the car weight calculation.
As you surely know, it's not about giving anyone an advantage, it's about minimising the disadvantage some would otherwise have. Obviously you would prefer competitors to be disadvantaged by something that is totally out of their control; the regulators would not.The sticking point is that the cars, with driver, weigh loads less than 605, let alone 620, don't even think about 640.
The less that car and driver weigh, the more ballast is of course required, but (subject to some restrictions) that ballast can be located wherever the team wants. The ability to locate the ballast in an optimal position is an advantage.
This limit was raised to 620 because teams with heavier drivers were complaining that, although they, too, needed ballast to reach the minimum weight, because it was a smaller % of the overall weight, they could achieve less wrt its location, and thus they were at a disadvantage.
My own position on this is that it's complete bull5hit. In some sports it's an advantage to be big, in fact huge, and in a lesser number it's an advantage to be small. It is not clear why the regulator should write a rule to benefit specifically the heavier drivers. Even at 605, the heavier drivers were being favoured by the inclusion of the driver's weight in the car weight calculation.
It's totally out of an aspiring basketball player's control if he's 5'6", but that's the way it goes. There are a heck of a lot more guys in the NBA who are 6'6" than there are guys who are 5'6", but obviously in the general population the opposite ratio prevails.
Although there are professional rugby and football players who are shorter than the average male, they are rare.
In cycling, the lighter riders do not have to ride ballasted bikes.
Pedrosa's lightning starts and great accelerations derive from his small stature, but he will tire more easily over a race because he's not as strong as the bigger riders are. Should he have to carry ballast?
As it is, an extremely tall person could never race in F1 because the chassis would have to be too long, and his head would stick up so far as to spoil the aero. Should they make a rule that the cars must be at least "X" long, and "Y" tall, to accommodate the seven-footers? There will be some racing drivers who are so heavy that even 640 with no ballast would require them to be well over the minimum, and thus at a disadvantage. Should the minimum be raised to 680?
You are what size you are. That suits you better for some things and less well for others. That should be the end of it, without this farting about with the regs.
flemke said:
In the majority of sports there is a systematic advantage to being a larger person - no surprise, in that they have more leverage, mass, and reach, all of which are advantages in most athletic activities.
It's totally out of an aspiring basketball player's control if he's 5'6", but that's the way it goes. There are a heck of a lot more guys in the NBA who are 6'6" than there are guys who are 5'6", but obviously in the general population the opposite ratio prevails.
Although there are professional rugby and football players who are shorter than the average male, they are rare.
In cycling, the lighter riders do not have to ride ballasted bikes.
Pedrosa's lightning starts and great accelerations derive from his small stature, but he will tire more easily over a race because he's not as strong as the bigger riders are. Should he have to carry ballast?
As it is, an extremely tall person could never race in F1 because the chassis would have to be too long, and his head would stick up so far as to spoil the aero. Should they make a rule that the cars must be at least "X" long, and "Y" tall, to accommodate the seven-footers? There will be some racing drivers who are so heavy that even 640 with no ballast would require them to be well over the minimum, and thus at a disadvantage. Should the minimum be raised to 680?
You are what size you are. That suits you better for some things and less well for others. That should be the end of it, without this farting about with the regs.
I'm sure most people would prefer motor races to be decided by the skill and effort of the drivers and teams, and for the height and build of the drivers not to be a factor. It seems odd to be so opposed to that, but luckily the teams and regulator aren't.It's totally out of an aspiring basketball player's control if he's 5'6", but that's the way it goes. There are a heck of a lot more guys in the NBA who are 6'6" than there are guys who are 5'6", but obviously in the general population the opposite ratio prevails.
Although there are professional rugby and football players who are shorter than the average male, they are rare.
In cycling, the lighter riders do not have to ride ballasted bikes.
Pedrosa's lightning starts and great accelerations derive from his small stature, but he will tire more easily over a race because he's not as strong as the bigger riders are. Should he have to carry ballast?
As it is, an extremely tall person could never race in F1 because the chassis would have to be too long, and his head would stick up so far as to spoil the aero. Should they make a rule that the cars must be at least "X" long, and "Y" tall, to accommodate the seven-footers? There will be some racing drivers who are so heavy that even 640 with no ballast would require them to be well over the minimum, and thus at a disadvantage. Should the minimum be raised to 680?
You are what size you are. That suits you better for some things and less well for others. That should be the end of it, without this farting about with the regs.
Edited by SamHH on Thursday 24th June 10:15
SamHH said:
flemke said:
In the majority of sports there is a systematic advantage to being a larger person - no surprise, in that they have more leverage, mass, and reach, all of which are advantages in most athletic activities.
It's totally out of an aspiring basketball player's control if he's 5'6", but that's the way it goes. There are a heck of a lot more guys in the NBA who are 6'6" than there are guys who are 5'6", but obviously in the general population the opposite ratio prevails.
Although there are professional rugby and football players who are shorter than the average male, they are rare.
In cycling, the lighter riders do not have to ride ballasted bikes.
Pedrosa's lightning starts and great accelerations derive from his small stature, but he will tire more easily over a race because he's not as strong as the bigger riders are. Should he have to carry ballast?
As it is, an extremely tall person could never race in F1 because the chassis would have to be too long, and his head would stick up so far as to spoil the aero. Should they make a rule that the cars must be at least "X" long, and "Y" tall, to accommodate the seven-footers? There will be some racing drivers who are so heavy that even 640 with no ballast would require them to be well over the minimum, and thus at a disadvantage. Should the minimum be raised to 680?
You are what size you are. That suits you better for some things and less well for others. That should be the end of it, without this farting about with the regs.
I'm sure most people would prefer motor races to be decided by the skill and effort of the drivers and teams, and for the height and build of the drivers not to be a factor. It seems odd to be so opposed to that, but luckily the teams and regulator aren't.It's totally out of an aspiring basketball player's control if he's 5'6", but that's the way it goes. There are a heck of a lot more guys in the NBA who are 6'6" than there are guys who are 5'6", but obviously in the general population the opposite ratio prevails.
Although there are professional rugby and football players who are shorter than the average male, they are rare.
In cycling, the lighter riders do not have to ride ballasted bikes.
Pedrosa's lightning starts and great accelerations derive from his small stature, but he will tire more easily over a race because he's not as strong as the bigger riders are. Should he have to carry ballast?
As it is, an extremely tall person could never race in F1 because the chassis would have to be too long, and his head would stick up so far as to spoil the aero. Should they make a rule that the cars must be at least "X" long, and "Y" tall, to accommodate the seven-footers? There will be some racing drivers who are so heavy that even 640 with no ballast would require them to be well over the minimum, and thus at a disadvantage. Should the minimum be raised to 680?
You are what size you are. That suits you better for some things and less well for others. That should be the end of it, without this farting about with the regs.
As I indicated above, insofar as the great majority of (popular, professionally-rewarding) sports/athletic competitions favour larger skeletons over smaller ones, it is not obvious why any of the minority of those competitions should be artificially "balanced" by the regulator.
Anyhow, Sam, let me ask you this: do you think that Pedrosa should be required to carry ballast?
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff