DNQ'ers

[DazzlaF1]

Well today saw history, the 2 Hispania drivers saw the first time a driver has failed to qualify for an Grand prix in 9 years. So I looked back to since the 107% rule was first introduced in 1996 to deal with the slow Forti cars, and since the inception of the rule, the shock of it is that a Forti driver is not even top of the failure list, that honour belongs to Mr Ricardo Rosset

DRIVERS THAT HAVE FAILED TO QUALIFY SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 107% RULE IN 1996

SIX: Ricardo Rosset
FIVE: Luca Badoer, Andrea Montermini
THREE: Alex Yoong, Giovanni Lavaggi
ONE: Vitantonio Liuzzi, Narain Karthikeyan, Heinz-Harald Frentzen, Enrique Bernoldi, Tarso Marques, Damon Hill, Pedro de la Rosa, Tora Takagi, Marc Gene, Pedro Diniz, Vincenzo Sospiri

This list also includes the re-admission of the 5 drivers that initially failed to qualify for the French GP in 1999 and also Diniz's re-instatement in Australia 1997

[DazzlaF1]

And as for in history, here's the top 10 DNQ'ers of all time (includes failures to pre-qualify)

1. Gabriele Tarquini ................ 40
2. Bertrand Gachot ................ 35
3. Roberto Moreno ................ 33
4. Piercarlo Ghinzani ................ 32
5. Arturo Merzario ................ 27
=6. Nicola Larini ................ 25
=6. Bernd Schneider ................ 25
=8. Yannick Dalmas ................ 24
=8. Stefan Johansson ............... 24
=8. Eric van de Poele ................ 24

Look further down the list and you'll see some darn good drivers that have the shame of a DNQ on their record, the likes of Derek Warwick, Michele Alboreto (he had a massive 21), Rene Arnoux, and also world champs Keke Rosberg and even the great Ayrton Senna

[BDunnell]

And as for in history, here's the top 10 DNQ'ers of all time (includes failures to pre-qualify)

1. Gabriele Tarquini ................ 40
2. Bertrand Gachot ................ 35
3. Roberto Moreno ................ 33
4. Piercarlo Ghinzani ................ 32
5. Arturo Merzario ................ 27
=6. Nicola Larini ................ 25
=6. Bernd Schneider ................ 25
=8. Yannick Dalmas ................ 24
=8. Stefan Johansson ............... 24
=8. Eric van de Poele ................ 24

Look further down the list and you'll see some darn good drivers that have the shame of a DNQ on their record, the likes of Derek Warwick, Michele Alboreto (he had a massive 21), Rene Arnoux, and also world champs Keke Rosberg and even the great Ayrton Senna

Am I right in thinking, without looking it up, that John Watson and Niki Lauda both failed to qualify for a GP when they were at McLaren together — possibly in the same season as one of Watson's stunning 'from the back' drives in the USA?

[DazzlaF1]

Am I right in thinking, without looking it up, that John Watson and Niki Lauda both failed to qualify for a GP when they were at McLaren together — possibly in the same season as one of Watson's stunning 'from the back' drives in the USA?

You think right, both Watson and Lauda failed to qualify for Monaco 83. they were the days of 2 day qualifying and the maximum 20 car grids at Monaco. Both McLaren drivers had problems on the Friday that left them out of the top 20 and then the saturday session was rained off, so they DNQ'd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CBP9CCyV8

[N4D13]

It's a bit hard to include the guys from the 1999 French GP in that list. For that same reason, you could also include all the drivers who couldn't make it in the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix or any race like that.

[D-Type]

It's a bit hard to include the guys from the 1999 French GP in that list. For that same reason, you could also include all the drivers who couldn't make it in the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix or any race like that.
For once the rule book was sensible - it included a getout clause. The five drivers were over the 107%. But under a different rule, the organisers could decide there were exceptional circumstances and over-rule the 107% limit and allow them to start so they were not officially DNQ's. But sensible things like that confuse the database compilers.

[Don Capps]

But sensible things like that confuse the database compilers.

Ah, "the database compilers" and those who sail with them, the "data-based" fans, both of whom seem to possess no end of information, but whose knowledge seems to be, more often than not, not all that deep.

[Rollo]

Pedro Chaves deserves a special mention. Forget Did Not Quality he did even worse with Did Not Pre-Quality an amazing 13 times.

Coloni generally was one big disaster and went the entire of the 1990 and 1991 seasons failing to start a single race in either of them. Coloni went onto brighter things when Andrea Moda bought the team... sort of.

[Bezza]

Am I right in thinking, without looking it up, that John Watson and Niki Lauda both failed to qualify for a GP when they were at McLaren together — possibly in the same season as one of Watson's stunning 'from the back' drives in the USA?

I believe three-time world champion Nelson Piquet also failed to qualify, in a Lotus in 1989. I can't recall the race for certain but I think it was the Belgian GP that year.

It happens to the best of them!

[DazzlaF1]

I believe three-time world champion Nelson Piquet also failed to qualify, in a Lotus in 1989. I can't recall the race for certain but I think it was the Belgian GP that year.

It happens to the best of them!

Yep, he was even slower than his teammate

1989 BELGIAN GRAND PRIX PRE QUALIFYING - BOTTOM 10

Pole Time: Ayrton Senna (McLaren) ........ 1m 50.687

21. Jonathan Palmer (Tyrrell) ........ + 5.733
22. Michele Alboreto (Larrousse/Lola) ........ + 5.749
23. Bertrand Gachot (Onyx) ........ + 5.849
24. Eddie Cheever (Arrows) ........ + 5.881
25. Luis Sala (Minardi) ........ + 6.090
26. Olivier Grouillard (Ligier) ........ + 6.160
----------- DID NOT QUALIFY --------------------
27. Satoru Nakajima (Lotus) ........ + 6.384
28. Nelson Piquet (Lotus) ........ + 6.904
29. Christian Danner (RIAL) ........ + 9.380
30. Pierre-Henri Raphanel (RIAL) ........ + 12.070

[DazzlaF1]

I meant Qualifying, not pre-qualifying :arrows:

[D-Type]

What point are you trying to make? Surely "Did not pre-qualify" is a subset of "Did not qualify" which in turn is a subset of "Did not start"

[Mark]

Indeed, if you strip it back and take away that there is a session called "Qualifying", or is it still called "Qualifying Practice"? And look at the word itself, in that a driver did not qualify for the race as they weren't fast enough. It matters not if this was in the session which just happens to bear a similar name.

[Don Capps]

Indeed, if you strip it back and take away that there is a session called "Qualifying", or is it still called "Qualifying Practice"? And look at the word itself, in that a driver did not qualify for the race as they weren't fast enough. It matters not if this was in the session which just happens to bear a similar name.

A short history lesson, most of which I am sure is general knowledge....

Once upon a time, particularly in Europe, a "practice" session prior to an event was exactly that, an opportunity for drivers to literally practice their skills and find find a quick way around the course. Any lap times that were recorded were for information only. Starting positions were decided by the drawing of ballots or some other means determined by the organizing club to set the grid. However, beginning during the Thirties, the American system of using lap times set during practice sessions began to be used to set the starting grids. There were practice session during which lap times were not used to set the grid, "free" practice, and the other practice sessions during which lap times were recorded to set the starting grid. In some cases, such as when the number of starting positions was restricted and the entries exceeeded the number allowed to start, not only were the practice sessions used to set where someone was placed on the grid, but whether or not they earned a place on the grid, the obvious example being the AC de Monaco's restricting the number of grid positions to a number that was usually far exceeded by the entries competing for a place on the grid. In other cases, drivers were obliged to complete a certain number of laps during the practice sessions in order to earn a place on the startiing regardless of lap times set, the German club being the primary one for this requirement -- hence the odd grid for the 1958 GP von Deutschland for instance.

During the Seventies, the already existing trend towards "qualifying" rather than "practice" sessions crystalized as the Formula 1 Constructors Association began to become more and more involved in the promotion of events in the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs as well as stipulations that the F1CA (renamed FOCA) demanded from the clubs for the privilege of hosting an event with its entrants. This led to varius spats and handbags at dawn such as Spain 1970 and Monaco 1972 and so on.

When the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs was terminated at the end of the 1980 season, the FIA and its FISA henchmen negotiated a deal with the FOCA the resulted in the Concorde Agreement by which an organizing club got a package deal, which also included a set number of starters as well as a set number of those who would compete for those grid positions if the entries exceeded the number of starters; which, of course, meant that if the number of entries exceeded the number allowed to compete for the positions on the grid that prior to the actual qualifying sessions that the number had to be reduced, leading, of course, to the concept best known as "pre-quailfying." In reality, "pre-qualifying" was simply a subset of "qualifying," although such a notion did not seem to resonate with the motoring press and the others.

Of course, given the entire idea of "qualifying" is an American idea, the blame for all this landed, of course, on the necks of the Americans. This means that I will spare you the rest of the well-known trials and tribulations of the Formula 1 deities screwing up something as simple as qualifying for the starting grid.

[D-Type]

Interesting. So the Americans introduced qualifying for grid places before Monaco 1933

But Indianapolis was a world unto itself with practice, qualifying, "Carburettor Day", rookie tests, "Bump Day"etc taking up the whole of May and which day you qualified also came into it. How did that work? Was it a 107% type rule on each day, within 5mph of the fastest man, a certain number from each day, or what?

[Don Capps]

Interesting. So the Americans introduced qualifying for grid places before Monaco 1933

But Indianapolis was a world unto itself with practice, qualifying, "Carburettor Day", rookie tests, "Bump Day"etc taking up the whole of May and which day you qualified also came into it. How did that work? Was it a 107% type rule on each day, within 5mph of the fastest man, a certain number from each day, or what?

The Americans introduced the whole business of using times set during qualifying sessions literally decades prior to the Europeans slowly and reluctantly adopting the technique. Ditto with massed starts for races, which was already a long-established practice in the United States -- with road races being the last to use that format, largely in deference to their European brethren.

The legendary "Month of May" did not make its appearance until 1952. While teams and drivers prior to that would use the track, it was not quite the same orchestrated effort that went into effect that year. Most of the rest of what you describe are the recent additions. The "rookie" test was simply something that already existed within the AAA Contest Rules, new drivers having to pass a track test under the supervision of designated experienced drivers before being allowed to compete. The IMS simply jazzed it up a tad.

In the beginning, the starter of an event would set a minimum lap time or speed that had to be met before a driver could participate in an event, something that was very much a factor for oval tracks, and even more so when the planked board tracks were introduced.

There is (much) more, of course, but this is the basic information regarding this topic.