107 percent on GPLRANK?

I've been looking at this page on the GPLrank site and can't seem to figure out the signifigance of 107 percent. Can someone help me understand? It seems as if it's something to aspire to, instead of trying to tackle beating the world record?? But why is it 107%? Or am I completely missing something?

Current F1 regulations require qual at 107% or better of pole to take the start. Jeff elh4jj <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a566f29$[email hidden]... > I've been looking at this page on the GPLrank site and can't seem tofigure > out the signifigance of 107 percent. Can someone help me understand? It > seems as if it's something to aspire to, instead of trying to tacklebeating > the world record?? But why is it 107%? Or am I completely missingsomething? > >

>I've been looking at this page on the GPLrank site and can't seem to figure >out the signifigance of 107 percent. Can someone help me understand? It >seems as if it's something to aspire to, instead of trying to tackle beating >the world record?? But why is it 107%? Or am I completely missing something? > In today's formula one racing the slowest car(s) to qualify must be within 107% of the leaders time or they cannot race. There's more to the idea of a percentage ranking, but that's why it's specifically 107.

Interesting trivia question: when was the last time a car failed to make the grid solely because of the 107% rule? --David <bob> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > In today's formula one racing the slowest car(s) to qualify > must be within 107% of the leaders time or they cannot race. There's > more to the idea of a percentage ranking, but that's why it's > specifically 107. >

"David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9363lq$87u$[email hidden]... > Interesting trivia question: when was the last time a car failed to makethe > grid solely because of the 107% rule? > > --David Ricardo Rosset, 1998 Japanese GP? Jason Pants "Don't go throwin' no coupons on my grave"

Ah, thanks for that explanation Bob. Guess, I've got a lot to learn... <bob> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >I've been looking at this page on the GPLrank site and can't seem tofigure > >out the signifigance of 107 percent. Can someone help me understand? It > >seems as if it's something to aspire to, instead of trying to tacklebeating > >the world record?? But why is it 107%? Or am I completely missingsomething? > > > In today's formula one racing the slowest car(s) to qualify > must be within 107% of the leaders time or they cannot race. There's > more to the idea of a percentage ranking, but that's why it's > specifically 107. >

elh4jj <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3a566f29$[email hidden]... > I've been looking at this page on the GPLrank site and can't seem tofigure > out the signifigance of 107 percent. Can someone help me understand? It > seems as if it's something to aspire to, instead of trying to tacklebeating > the world record?? But why is it 107%? Or am I completely missingsomething? > In modern F1 you must qualify within 107% of the pole sitter to qualify forthe grid... That's basically the significance, instead of trying to beat the leaders, just stay within reach of them.

> In modern F1 you must qualify within 107% of the pole sitter to qualify > forthe grid... > That's basically the significance, instead of trying to beat the leaders, > just stay within reach of them. > It's my considered opinion...(ha!) that the 107% rule is bad for F1 and that it ruins races. why? Teams 'have' to make the big race so the rest of the teams besides Ferrari and McClaren have to devote considerable time and money to qualifying. I beleive many of the teams sacrifice their car's racing ability in order to get within the 107%. For proof I offer former world Champion Jacques Villeneuve and the BAR team. How many times did we see the BAR car gridded in the top six within about a second of the pole car? Then what kind of lap times did it run? 5 to 6 seconds slower PER LAP in race trim. Ergo...to Witt(Katatarina?) and therefore....107% is bad for racing Mr Dave Henrie

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> It's my considered opinion...(ha!) that the 107% rule is bad for F1 and > that it ruins races. why? Teams 'have' to make the big race so the rest > of the teams besides Ferrari and McClaren have to devote considerable time > and money to qualifying. I beleive many of the teams sacrifice their car's > racing ability in order to get within the 107%. > For proof I offer former world Champion Jacques Villeneuve and the BAR > team. How many times did we see the BAR car gridded in the top six within > about a second of the pole car? Then what kind of lap times did it run? 5 > to 6 seconds slower PER LAP in race trim. > Ergo...to Witt(Katatarina?) and therefore....107% is bad for racing

We could just forbid Ferrari and McLaren from participating in the whole series. It would improve the quality of the races considerably and we could forget the 107% rule. +Cinquo

Quoted text (10 lines)

> It's my considered opinion...(ha!) that the 107% rule is bad for F1 and >that it ruins races. why? Teams 'have' to make the big race so the rest >of the teams besides Ferrari and McClaren have to devote considerable time >and money to qualifying. I beleive many of the teams sacrifice their car's >racing ability in order to get within the 107%. > For proof I offer former world Champion Jacques Villeneuve and the BAR >team. How many times did we see the BAR car gridded in the top six within >about a second of the pole car? Then what kind of lap times did it run? 5 >to 6 seconds slower PER LAP in race trim. > Ergo...to Witt(Katatarina?) and therefore....107% is bad for racing

This is proof that 107% is bad??????? Utter nonsense. Jacque and BAR were and would be never anywhere near 107%. If they sacrificed race performance for grid position it was a decision that had _absolutely nothing_ to do with 107% and probably everything to do with the fact that it is ridiculously hard to pass in F1. I will grant you that this was an argument an ice skater might use :-). The fact is that Formula 1 racing for a long time has been a "race" between 2 or 3 top teams, and the others don't stand much of a chance. Any team that has to even worry about qualifying because of 107% is simply irrelevant to the "racing". The rule just doesn't matter, except that it keeps the big boys from having to lap a backmarker 5 times or more. Might make them work for a living :-).

There's ups and downs to every rule... Even allowing traction control has a positive side. The 107% rule just gives the Minardi's and Prosts a kick in the arse if they are struggling.They don't want cars that are 20+% slower on the track without eh fast cars. Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N7G56.236344$[email hidden]... > > In modern F1 you must qualify within 107% of the pole sitter to qualify > > forthe grid... > > That's basically the significance, instead of trying to beat theleaders, > > just stay within reach of them. > > > It's my considered opinion...(ha!) that the 107% rule is bad for F1 and > that it ruins races. why? Teams 'have' to make the big race so the rest > of the teams besides Ferrari and McClaren have to devote considerable time > and money to qualifying. I beleive many of the teams sacrifice theircar's > racing ability in order to get within the 107%. > For proof I offer former world Champion Jacques Villeneuve and the BAR > team. How many times did we see the BAR car gridded in the top sixwithin > about a second of the pole car? Then what kind of lap times did it run?5 > to 6 seconds slower PER LAP in race trim. > Ergo...to Witt(Katatarina?) and therefore....107% is bad for racing > Mr Dave Henrie >

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N7G56.236344$[email hidden]... > It's my considered opinion...(ha!) that the 107% rule is bad for F1 and > that it ruins races. why? Teams 'have' to make the big race so the rest > of the teams besides Ferrari and McClaren have to devote considerable time > and money to qualifying. I beleive many of the teams sacrifice theircar's > racing ability in order to get within the 107%. > For proof I offer former world Champion Jacques Villeneuve and the BAR > team. How many times did we see the BAR car gridded in the top sixwithin > about a second of the pole car? Then what kind of lap times did it run?5 > to 6 seconds slower PER LAP in race trim. > Ergo...to Witt(Katatarina?) and therefore....107% is bad for racing > Mr Dave Henrie > Not only that, but since the slower cars are weeded out, a lot of the fun is gone. There's no using the rolling-roadblock of traffic to your advantage. Instead we get boring-to-watch races where nothing really happens.