Well, the budget cap doesn’t really let them. Although I was thinking more about general F1 sponsors and not the team’s sponsors. It would be a bad look for the sport if some cars were excluded from running due to the 107% rule, so I assume they would just handwave it were it ever to come up.
The last time a car was excluded due to failing to comply with the 107% rule was in 2012. They’ve already waived it tons of times since then, most recently for Sargent and De Vries (2023) and Stroll (2021).
Well, yes, but the original purpose came from a very different era in the 90s, where you had really poor pay drivers and also teams that pretty much were only interested in showing up to the race to be seen for sponsorship purposes and were never even intending to actually race. It was intended to keep unserious cars out, and I would be highly surprised if they barred Aston from racing in Australia even were they 5 seconds off the pace.
Well, the budget cap doesn’t really let them. Although I was thinking more about general F1 sponsors and not the team’s sponsors. It would be a bad look for the sport if some cars were excluded from running due to the 107% rule, so I assume they would just handwave it were it ever to come up.
deleted by creator
The last time a car was excluded due to failing to comply with the 107% rule was in 2012. They’ve already waived it tons of times since then, most recently for Sargent and De Vries (2023) and Stroll (2021).
deleted by creator
Well, yes, but the original purpose came from a very different era in the 90s, where you had really poor pay drivers and also teams that pretty much were only interested in showing up to the race to be seen for sponsorship purposes and were never even intending to actually race. It was intended to keep unserious cars out, and I would be highly surprised if they barred Aston from racing in Australia even were they 5 seconds off the pace.
deleted by creator
If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s to never underestimate the incompetence of this Aston team.