F1-Qualifying: return of 107%?

While the difference is glaring between the level of the cars of the top teams and that of the single-seaters of the new teams, the "107% rule" during qualifying for a Grand Prix of Formula 1 could make a comeback. In the not-so-distant past, a driver failing to achieve a time within 107% of that of the pole-sitter could not participate in the next day's race, in order to maintain consistency in the overall level of the field. If the pole was achieved in 1'40", any driver wishing to compete in the race had to drive in less than 1'47".

The arrival of new teams (Lotus Racing, Virgin Racing, Hispania Racing Team) brought back this idea, which could well be brought up to date. Indeed, several drivers and team directors have expressed their fears regarding the potential threat posed on the track by a car much slower than another.

Jean Todt, president of the FIA, does not see the return of this rule as a bad thing. “ We discussed the possible reintroduction of this rule at the World Council », Confided the former director of the Team Ferrari at AUTOhebdo.fr this Friday, the day after the World Motor Sport Council was held. “ We are in favor of it ", he added.

The new teams could therefore see the arrival of a new obstacle to overcome, they who had been attracted by the tempting project of Max Mosley, former president of the FIA. Ultimately, there is no budget cap in place in F1, new teams have no engine speed advantages, or any other advantages, and may have to demonstrate their skills with the reintroduction of “107% rule”.

However, this possibility could stimulate the new teams, who will not necessarily be blocked in qualifying. Indeed, for comparison, the four Lotus Racing and Virgin Racing drivers fell below 107% of the best time established by Nico Rosberg (Mercedes) this Friday, during the second free practice session. Fastest driver in 1:55:409, the German took the 107% limit to a time of 2:03:488. Only Bruno Senna (HRT), who took part in his first tests, exceeded this limit (2:06??968).