Phoenix wrote:I don't understand why Kobayashi is listed as "DNQ" even though he failed to set a time in Q1. He was allowed to race because his free practice times were well within 107% of pole time. If he was allowed to start that's not a DNQ (even at those cases where a driver failed to set a time within 107% but was allowed to start the race).
Seconded.
Also, I think Glock should be considered as a DNS since he actually never took part in the race to be able to retire.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
DanielPT wrote:Also, I think Glock should be considered as a DNS since he actually never took part in the race to be able to retire.
I've used the same principal at several races last season (most notably at last year's Malaysian Grand Prix when I give DLR first retirement)
Phoenix wrote:I don't understand why Kobayashi is listed as "DNQ" even though he failed to set a time in Q1. He was allowed to race because his free practice times were well within 107% of pole time. If he was allowed to start that's not a DNQ (even at those cases where a driver failed to set a time within 107% but was allowed to start the race).
I'll make a decision on that after school.
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
Myrvold wrote:He did not qualify. He was allowed to race, but he didn't actually qualify. Well, at least that's my opinion.
Yes, but to record a result of 'DNQ' for the FIA you have to fail to start the race after either qualifying outside 107% or outside the top 26*. Kamui did neither. If we had a Q1 sesssion where it started raining halfway through and as a consequence and 3 drivers missed the 107% time, but were given special dispensation to start (as Kobayashi got), we wouldn't count them as DNQs.
*Actually does anyone know if the top 26 rule still applies.
