Talk:107% rule

Off the clock

Is there a real need for a table of the F1 "violations"? I'm not sure how much this actually adds, in particular since it's including "violators" who didn't actually get kicked from the grid for not meeting the standard. Moreover, it's only mentioning F1, not any of the other formulae using the rule, so there's some undue weight at issue. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.gp2series.com/en//website/2009gp2series/news/newsgp2/newsdetail.php?articleid=2457
  • In Franck Perera on 2011-03-19 12:04:08, 404 Not Found
  • In 107% rule on 2011-05-23 02:02:16, 404 Not Found
  • In 107% rule on 2011-05-31 22:08:47, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

An archive link has already been added. DH85868993 (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Math

Alright, if people feel that a Math section is too much - I have no problem with that. But having the simple calculation in the article is hardly impeding on its readability or over-explaining it. Just having the name of a rule, that states someone has to qualify within a 107 per cent of something, is too abstract on its own. --TheHande (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The page says it's 107% of fastest time. What else is needed? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Table of the violations

I don't think that this table should be part of the article. At the moment it is solely about Formula One and is already too long. If we attempt to add other series or monitor breaches until the end of time how long will the article be in, say, five years time? I think we should remove it from the article and provide a lik to a reliable site that documents this. Britmax (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To the extent the table lists "violators" who were, in fact, allowed to race anyhow, I'd agree. As for other fomulae, IDK of one using the 107% rule... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that the table itself is good, but it is out of place. It makes this article too 'messy'. I think the table itself should be moved to its own article. SAS1998―Talk 14:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do when qualifying times are disallowed

Lewis Hamilton is in the table for when his times were disallowed at the Spanish Grand Prix this year, but Eddie Irvine is not despite the same situation applying at the same race in 2002. Should Hamilton be removed or Irvine added (there may be others as well, but Irvine's case is the one that immediately springs to mind)?—Midgrid(talk) 21:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that we should not include exclusions. Firstly, as you have said, they are not all in there, but mainly because they are not 107% rule violations. The driver has qualified in 107%, but has been excluded from the session. SAS1998―Talk 14:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No time

What happens when a driver does not set a qualifying time at all? The introduction to this article implies that he would not be allowed to race, having failed to set a time within 107%, whereas the quoted rule (1997 version) implies that he would be allowed to (presumably from the back of the grid or the pit lane), not having set a time exceeding 107%. Typically it seems that drivers with Saturday mechanical problems do race, but is this solely at the discretion of the stewards? If the quoted interpretation is (still) correct, it seems that slow cars could avoid disqualification simply by not running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.197.206 (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

See 2015 Australian Grand Prix. They have apply to the stewards for permission to start. Sometimes they get it, other times they don't.Tvx1 18:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So do we include them in the list of violations? SSSB (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, such occurences should be added to the list. 79.31.201.144 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wet races 2011-17

@SSSB: I think you have misunderstood the paragraph regarding wet tracks. The ruling was changed for 2018 so as not to apply to wet races from then onwards, so it did apply 2011-17. With this in mind, Hungary 2016 needs to be restored. Incidentally, you did not remove USA 2015 either, so you created a glaring inconsistency either way. I will try to restore this soon whilst somehow not overriding the newer edits. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)