FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.

Is the 107% qualifying rule needed?

Yes
6
46%
No
7
54%
By Hammer278
#284539
No you can't...believe us. Just stick to annoying the people in forums.
#284540
Well it doesn't worry me. My ruling with an iron fist would still leave me with a clear conscience. :D


A fist that condemns Silverstone but yet strokes Barcelona with undying affection? NO!!! :nono:

:wink:


A fist that gets rid of crap circuits and keeps the decent ones. No more Dubai, Singapore, Monaco and Silverstone and the return of Imola and the old (proper) Hockenheim and Spa every year until the end of time. :D


Your ideas would never win you presidency, darling. Dream on :thumbup:


If Max Mosely can be elected then so can I.


At least you would have an immense sense of humour, I'll give you that. 8-) And no that's not a sarcastic remark, it's just general appreciation. :)
User avatar
By darwin dali
#284542
Well it doesn't worry me. My ruling with an iron fist would still leave me with a clear conscience. :D


A fist that condemns Silverstone but yet strokes Barcelona with undying affection? NO!!! :nono:

:wink:


A fist that gets rid of crap circuits and keeps the decent ones. No more Dubai, Singapore, Monaco and Silverstone and the return of Imola and the old (proper) Hockenheim and Spa every year until the end of time. :D


Your ideas would never win you presidency, darling. Dream on :thumbup:


If Max Mosely can be elected then so can I.

Any NOTW pics of you in Nazi paraphernalia getting the living crap :whip: out by some ladies of the night? :director: Show us your credentials! :wink:
By andrew
#284543
Well it doesn't worry me. My ruling with an iron fist would still leave me with a clear conscience. :D


A fist that condemns Silverstone but yet strokes Barcelona with undying affection? NO!!! :nono:

:wink:


A fist that gets rid of crap circuits and keeps the decent ones. No more Dubai, Singapore, Monaco and Silverstone and the return of Imola and the old (proper) Hockenheim and Spa every year until the end of time. :D


Your ideas would never win you presidency, darling. Dream on :thumbup:


If Max Mosely can be elected then so can I.

Any NOTW pics of you in Nazi paraphernalia getting the living crap :whip: out by some ladies of the night? :director: Show us your credentials! :wink:


Thankfully I have no skeletons in my closet and I would be a reporters worst nightmare as there is no dirt to dig up (I think).

As for my credentials: :flasher: . Since I've done that, It's time for you to show yourself DD. :hehe:
By ffklv74
#285119
It wouldn’t be necessary to ban blue flags, but rather to return them to their original function of being informational only. back markers are a part of racing and there are many instances where a driver should have the right to race as hard as he can and not have give way to any car trying to pass him.
The ‘team orders’ ban has been scrapped, so there should be no reason why a slower car should not be able to keep racing, slow down the leader through his effort, and help his team mate.
By Hammer278
#285120
It wouldn’t be necessary to ban blue flags, but rather to return them to their original function of being informational only. back markers are a part of racing and there are many instances where a driver should have the right to race as hard as he can and not have give way to any car trying to pass him.

The ‘team orders’ ban has been scrapped, so there should be no reason why a slower car should not be able to keep racing, slow down the leader through his effort, and help his team mate.


Really...you want to do this when Redbull owns 4 cars on the grid (2 of which are backmarkers) and Mercedes is powering nearly half the field, and customer engines and partnerships or what not = instant farce.
By GRHinPorts
#285127
It wouldn’t be necessary to ban blue flags, but rather to return them to their original function of being informational only. back markers are a part of racing and there are many instances where a driver should have the right to race as hard as he can and not have give way to any car trying to pass him.

The ‘team orders’ ban has been scrapped, so there should be no reason why a slower car should not be able to keep racing, slow down the leader through his effort, and help his team mate.


Really...you want to do this when Redbull owns 4 cars on the grid (2 of which are backmarkers) and Mercedes is powering nearly half the field, and customer engines and partnerships or what not = instant farce.


Sounds like Ferrari would be well and truly screwed then :hehe:
User avatar
By australia99
#285130
It wouldn’t be necessary to ban blue flags, but rather to return them to their original function of being informational only. back markers are a part of racing and there are many instances where a driver should have the right to race as hard as he can and not have give way to any car trying to pass him.

The ‘team orders’ ban has been scrapped, so there should be no reason why a slower car should not be able to keep racing, slow down the leader through his effort, and help his team mate.


Really...you want to do this when Redbull owns 4 cars on the grid (2 of which are backmarkers) and Mercedes is powering nearly half the field, and customer engines and partnerships or what not = instant farce.


Sounds like Ferrari would be well and truly screwed then :hehe:


they would then threaten to leave the sport for the millionth time till they got their way.

Personally I like the 107% rule, keeps teams at the back of the grid on their toes.
User avatar
By darwin dali
#285141
It wouldn’t be necessary to ban blue flags, but rather to return them to their original function of being informational only. back markers are a part of racing and there are many instances where a driver should have the right to race as hard as he can and not have give way to any car trying to pass him.

The ‘team orders’ ban has been scrapped, so there should be no reason why a slower car should not be able to keep racing, slow down the leader through his effort, and help his team mate.


Really...you want to do this when Redbull owns 4 cars on the grid (2 of which are backmarkers) and Mercedes is powering nearly half the field, and customer engines and partnerships or what not = instant farce.


Sounds like Ferrari would be well and truly screwed then :hehe:

They have Sauber and Toro Rosso with Ferrari engines. And you don't want Kamui against you - after all Kamikaze is a Japanese word :yikes::hehe:
User avatar
By bud
#285146
It wouldn’t be necessary to ban blue flags, but rather to return them to their original function of being informational only. back markers are a part of racing and there are many instances where a driver should have the right to race as hard as he can and not have give way to any car trying to pass him.

The ‘team orders’ ban has been scrapped, so there should be no reason why a slower car should not be able to keep racing, slow down the leader through his effort, and help his team mate.


Really...you want to do this when Redbull owns 4 cars on the grid (2 of which are backmarkers) and Mercedes is powering nearly half the field, and customer engines and partnerships or what not = instant farce.


Sounds like Ferrari would be well and truly screwed then :hehe:

They have Sauber and Toro Rosso with Ferrari engines. And you don't want Kamui against you - after all Kamikaze is a Japanese word :yikes::hehe:


I think Torro Rosso's allegiance would lie with Redbull wouldn't you? And we know Saubers allegiance, just ask Jacques Villenueve...
User avatar
By f1ea
#285161
Personally I like the 107% rule, keeps teams at the back of the grid on their toes.


Yes, me too. After all... losing and having no pts is bad in itself, but not being allowed to race is more destructive... so its good to have something to really push them even a bit fwd.
User avatar
By myownalias
#285162
Personally I like the 107% rule, keeps teams at the back of the grid on their toes.

Yes, me too. After all... losing and having no pts is bad in itself, but not being allowed to race is more destructive... so its good to have something to really push them even a bit fwd.

Or on the flip side, they don't regularly qualify, e.g. no air time for the few sponsors they have, the sponsors end their sponsorship and the team folds...

The rule has largely been ineffective, if the rule is to be enforced then it needs to be enforced regardless of circumstances!
User avatar
By scotty
#285164
Personally I like the 107% rule, keeps teams at the back of the grid on their toes.

Yes, me too. After all... losing and having no pts is bad in itself, but not being allowed to race is more destructive... so its good to have something to really push them even a bit fwd.

Or on the flip side, they don't regularly qualify, e.g. no air time for the few sponsors they have, the sponsors end their sponsorship and the team folds...

The rule has largely been ineffective, if the rule is to be enforced then it needs to be enforced regardless of circumstances!


That's exactly the point though, it forces them to turn up with something that at least stands a chance of ever developing into a moderately successful outfit :P

See our F1 related articles too!