New teams must be given time to develop

Alex Yoong: to date the final driver to fall foul of the 107 per cent rule, while driving for Minardi at the 2002 German Grand Prix.

The lack of pace shown by Formula One's new teams Lotus, Virgin and Hispania in the first two Grands Prix of the season has brought calls for the 107 per cent qualifying rule to be reintroduced - a stance supported by both Bernie Ecclestone and Jean Todt. Under this rule, which was first in force between 1996 and 2002, all drivers who failed to set a lap within 107 per cent of the polesitter's time were excluded from starting the race. 

To revive this regulation now, though - at a time when the sport's governing bodies are supposedly encouraging fresh blood to enter the sport - would not only demonstrate a lack of coherent policy, but may well discourage future applicants. The FIA has only just opened the selection process for 2011, as it seeks a replacement for the struggling USF1 outfit. The 107 per cent rule is probhibitive, not inclusive; to table it for 2011 would send out entirely the wrong message.


From humble acorns

In any case, aspiring new teams already face tremendous challenges just to make it onto the grid. What Lotus, Virgin and Hispania have achieved is impressive, and their work should be respected, not derided. Not only have they had to design and construct a car from scratch, but also find the personnel and build the infrastructure necessary to support the team.

All this on limited resources - Manor/Virgin and Campos/Hispania both signed up at a time when the £40m cap was expected to be in place for this year, and budgeted accordingly - and in a matter of months too - the 2010 entry list was only announced last June, while Lotus had to wait until September for confirmation of their place. The situation is likely to be much the same for USF1's replacement, too, whoever they turn out to be. Since a final decision is not expected from the FIA until July, the new constructor will have at most eight months to prepare for the first round of the season.

By contrast, the other ten constructors on the grid have all had over a decade of experience in the top echelon, albeit sometimes under different names and different ownership. Indeed the last of them to have entered F1 as a completely new operation - as opposed to buying out an existing team - was Stewart Grand Prix (now known as Red Bull Racing) as long ago, incredibly, as 1997. 

Thirteen years on, the team is a championship contender, but it should be remembered that it too struggled badly in its debut season: from 34 race starts Stewart recorded only eight classified finishes. Even Toyota - which withdrew from the sport at the end of 2009 - managed only two sixth-place finishes in 2002, its maiden year, despite a considerably larger budget than any of this year's new entrants have been able to call upon, and extensive pre-season running. And financially embattled Super Aguri secured only four points in its two-and-a-bit seasons, from 2006 until it folded in May 2008.

The very fact that only two new teams have entered the sport in the last decade demonstrates just how difficult it is to establish oneself in modern F1. The level of competition is so high; the costs are so great; the experience and expertise both take time to develop. Moreover, the current ban on in-season testing allows new constructors little opportunity to develop their cars between races, which already makes it extremely difficult for them close the gap to their more established rivals. 

To penalise them further - by eliminating the slowest cars after qualifying and thus denying them valuable track time - therefore makes no sense. Without track time, they cannot make progress; without progress, it will be hard to attract sponsors and secure lasting investment. And as the case of USF1 has already shown, without funds a constructor must quickly fold. Patience is required, then, if any of 2010's new teams are to succeed in the long run.

Looking to the future

And so it is vital that the sport's rulemakers resist the temptation to reintroduce the 107 per cent rule, both for this year and for next. Having drafted in three brand new teams so quickly, the FIA has a responsibility to nurture and support them for the future - not to seek to exclude them. Such, indeed, was the message that Jean Todt tried to put across after Friday practice in Bahrain:

"You must have respect for a new team who is arriving in this particular economic crisis period and to invest money to be in F1," he said. "I don't think it is a time to criticise but to support and help, and to help them, and it is in the interests of everybody."

Yet he cannot have it both ways. Certainly it is neither ideal nor spectacular to have cars running four or five seconds off the pace; perhaps in the eyes of the FIA it is even embarrassing for a series that, after all, claims to be the pinnacle of world motorsport. 

But a policy U-turn at this stage could be even more damaging, reinforcing impressions of Formula One as a private members' club that protects its own interests, rather than a true sport.

Photo reproduced from an image originally taken by Jeff Ooi, uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license to Wikimedia Commons.