There we go, The FIA has approved Andretti and they are, technically, going to be a part of the FIA's Formula One Sport. However, FOM (Formula 1 Management), the entity that manages everything...
There we go, The FIA has approved Andretti and they are, technically, going to be a part of the FIA's Formula One Sport. However, FOM (Formula 1 Management), the entity that manages everything commercial that has to do with F1, including the Concorde agreement and the prize money rewarded at the end of each season, could still deny them from being part of the agreement. Andretti could race beginning from 2025, but they wouldn't earn anything from it + they may not be broadcasted, depending on how petty FOM could be.
I do hope Andretti gets in because more teams will lead to a better sport overall. Let's see what happens now with the Andretti-FOM dealings...
Agreed. Wasn't there something either this year or last year where a driver -- Stroll or maybe Albon? -- was just waved through on quali even though they didn't run in quali? The Stewards just...
Agreed. Wasn't there something either this year or last year where a driver -- Stroll or maybe Albon? -- was just waved through on quali even though they didn't run in quali? The Stewards just used a time in one of the FPs as the driver's official time, which was still in the 107% of the top.
Seems silly to call it qualification if it's really just for grid position.
When was the last time a driver actually didn't qualify for the grand prix.
I don't remember the instance you're referring to (although I'm not questioning that it happened), but I don't have a problem with it, to be honest. I think the 107% rule should be applied when...
I don't remember the instance you're referring to (although I'm not questioning that it happened), but I don't have a problem with it, to be honest. I think the 107% rule should be applied when teams are routinely outside the 107% time, if a team has demonstrated that it is fundamentally incapable (or unwilling) to compete with its peers. If it's just dumb bad luck (unfortunate weigh bridge call, unfortunate track flagging etc.), I think a team should be waved through. Now if they start to need a helping hand every race weekend, fine, bring the hammer down on them.
Interestingly, as I was trying to find out when was the answer to your ending question, I came across this in the wikipedia article on the 107% rule:
"Since its re-introduction and till the end of the 2015 season, the 107% rule has been broken a further 17 times at 12 different races, all but one by HRT, Caterham, and Virgin/Marussia drivers. Unlike the rule's first period of application, where infringing drivers were very rarely allowed to compete, only four of these occurrences of rule violation resulted in the drivers being barred from the race. These were Vitantonio Liuzzi and Narain Karthikeyan at the 2011 Australian Grand Prix, and Pedro de la Rosa and Karthikeyan at the 2012 Australian Grand Prix – all of whom drove for HRT."
That's relatively recent history and it's no surprise to see HRT's name pop up in this context.
There we go, The FIA has approved Andretti and they are, technically, going to be a part of the FIA's Formula One Sport. However, FOM (Formula 1 Management), the entity that manages everything commercial that has to do with F1, including the Concorde agreement and the prize money rewarded at the end of each season, could still deny them from being part of the agreement. Andretti could race beginning from 2025, but they wouldn't earn anything from it + they may not be broadcasted, depending on how petty FOM could be.
I do hope Andretti gets in because more teams will lead to a better sport overall. Let's see what happens now with the Andretti-FOM dealings...
Agreed. Wasn't there something either this year or last year where a driver -- Stroll or maybe Albon? -- was just waved through on quali even though they didn't run in quali? The Stewards just used a time in one of the FPs as the driver's official time, which was still in the 107% of the top.
Seems silly to call it qualification if it's really just for grid position.
When was the last time a driver actually didn't qualify for the grand prix.
I don't remember the instance you're referring to (although I'm not questioning that it happened), but I don't have a problem with it, to be honest. I think the 107% rule should be applied when teams are routinely outside the 107% time, if a team has demonstrated that it is fundamentally incapable (or unwilling) to compete with its peers. If it's just dumb bad luck (unfortunate weigh bridge call, unfortunate track flagging etc.), I think a team should be waved through. Now if they start to need a helping hand every race weekend, fine, bring the hammer down on them.
Interestingly, as I was trying to find out when was the answer to your ending question, I came across this in the wikipedia article on the 107% rule:
"Since its re-introduction and till the end of the 2015 season, the 107% rule has been broken a further 17 times at 12 different races, all but one by HRT, Caterham, and Virgin/Marussia drivers. Unlike the rule's first period of application, where infringing drivers were very rarely allowed to compete, only four of these occurrences of rule violation resulted in the drivers being barred from the race. These were Vitantonio Liuzzi and Narain Karthikeyan at the 2011 Australian Grand Prix, and Pedro de la Rosa and Karthikeyan at the 2012 Australian Grand Prix – all of whom drove for HRT."
That's relatively recent history and it's no surprise to see HRT's name pop up in this context.