107 Percent rule

[connollyg]

So the new rules include a 107% qualifying rule and because of that both HRT cars didnt qualify today, but if Vettel did a 1:23.529 or 83.529 seconds, then 107% of that is 89.376 seconds or 1:29.376, now that would mean that Glock and d'Ambrosio didnt qualify either, am i getting this wrong?

[l4mbch0ps]

If i'm not mistaken, the 107% is measured from the fastest Q1 time, not the fastest qualifying time.

[CyleB]

If i'm not mistaken, the 107% is measured from the fastest Q1 time, not the fastest qualifying time.

this is correct

[ESPImperium]

Looking at my data so far, id like to see the 107% rule from P1 from Q3 as this is the only sure fire way to make the slower cars faster and thus not have 4 moving chichanes on the track.

[piast9]

I am sorry, this is not going to work. What in case of dry Q1 and wet Q3?

Or, what's worse, wet Q3 and Q2 and drying track for Q1? You would exclude half of the grid from the race.

[ESPImperium]

Answer, no. Not for climactic conditions. Allow a full grid in those eventualities.

[piast9]

How do you define change in climatic conditions? You should measure rain, track humidity, air and track temperature, wind, and who knows what else. And how big change of these parameters?

No, in my opinion current rule is ok. This 107% is based on the comparison of laptimes achieved in the same conditions or at least everyone has a chance to set the time in the same conditions. Of course, the top teams don't push very hard in Q1 but the problem you pointed may be solved by changing the 107% into 106 or 105%.

[Dmitry]

Or, what's worse, wet Q3 and Q2 and drying track for Q1? You would exclude half of the grid from the race.

107% rule applies only for Q1 times. And in mixed weather conditions or car problems stewards can cancel this rule.

[beelsebob]

The unfortunate thing about the rule is that it means that the teams most in need of testing time don't get it. Last year hispania got to collect vast amounts of data in the race... This year they basically have nothing more for sepang than a couple of shakedown laps.

[piast9]

I think that the race isn't the right time and place for testing.

If HRT did their work properly then they would have cars put together 2 days earlier and enjoyed whole 3 practice sessions.

[fenix4life]

The unfortunate thing about the rule is that it means that the teams most in need of testing time don't get it.

Even though your remark is true we need to admit that the 107% is rather flexible. As it's only linked to Q1 it's not really 107% in comparison of the raw pace.
If we would take 107% from Q3 then we would only have 18 cars on the grid.
In reality it's more a 110% rule.

They need tracktime well then they should be driving on friday and saterday morning sessions.

[JGomezH]

could someone remember if the old 107 percent rule did not apply in the first race ?

[connollyg]

So its on Q1 that would explain the discrepancy!

I agree its a shame that the teams with the most need of testing don't get to do it as part of the race, but on the other hand what we don't need is a mobile chicane going round, maybe there should be a concession for teams that don't meet the 107% rule that they are allowed 2 days of testing?

[Ciro Pabón]

How do you define change in climatic conditions?

Simple: because when there is a change in climate conditions, in all timing screens appear a sign that, believe it or not, says "CHANGE IN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS".

34.1

... blah, blah, blah...

- if the FIA technical delegate is satisfied that changes in climatic conditions necessitate alterations to the specification of a car, changes may be made to the air ducts around the front and rear brakes and radiator ducts. These changes may be made at any time after the message “CHANGE IN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS” is shown on the timing monitors, from this point the choice of brake cooling and radiator ducts is free and pitot tubes may be covered or uncovered, subject always to compliance with the relevant Technical Regulations.

... blah, blah, blah...

Of course, Marshalls are NEVER wrong.

(I'm a kart Marshall and I can attest that: as I am never wrong, then the previous phrase is true).

could someone remember if the old 107 percent rule did not apply in the first race ?

I can. It did. In the first race with that rule I remember clearly that Badoer and the other guy (I cannot remember his name) at Forti went kaput. Pijotera regla (fv&c41%ng rule)... as they must be saying at HRT.

[marcush.]

this rule is existing to make sure only teams with a certain calibre are participating.
I don´t think a 107% rule in Qualy is the right thing as you could possibly run into trouble not being able to show the true pace.
What I would do is set the rule for the free practise sessions.every driver must drive at least say 10 laps -ensuring the car is raceworthy- and 3 of those laps must be within 107% -maybe even only in one session of the three.This would ensure something like HRT did in melbourne could not happen.To have a rollout =qualy attempt...
I would even think of a 107% rule only for your first year and with a lot of goodwill for the first half of year two .Then you need to be 106%..In your third year you need to be 105%.That ways you really need to push and develop with success.