Super Aguri quickest at Jerez !
Discussion
FourWheelDrift said:
So you are telling us all the motorsports media reporters and team managers are wrong?
Nope, you only quoted one source saying it was a development of the SA06, this article on Autosport would suggest otherwise:
"The debut in Barcelona last week of Aguri's interim car, which looks virtually identical to the RA106, has spurned Spyker team boss Colin Kolles into action. "
Autosport Article
If the interim car was only a further development of the SA06 then why was Kolles spurned into action by them running it back then?
FourWheelDrift said:
Again as I said, there has been no allowance for a team to run a customer chassis yet ( all the teams had to allow it and I think Midland/Spyker have not agreed as they would end up being the big losers).
That is incorrect though, As discussed in the very article above, Super Aguri and Torro Rosso are of the opinion that they can use the "customer" chassis within the current regulations because the intellectual property of the design will belong to them, not to the "parent" teams Honda and Red Bull respectively. There is no push by the teams to change the rules a year early, so Spyker cannot veto anything, only appeal after scrutineering on the first race, as they have suggested they will do.
Kolles himself also "acknowledges that teams can do whatever they want to in testing, he is concerned that Super Aguri are planning to race a development version of that interim car next season." which again suggests that Kolles believes the "interim" car currently used in testing IS the basis of the car they will race next year and is based on the RA06.
FourWheelDrift said:
And so we have the reason you're getting confused. It's not an Arrows.
Several F1 sites would suggest you are incorrect, and that it is a further development of the Arrows....
"The new SA06 is in fact an updated SA05 still based on the same Arrows A23 chassis. However, the aerodynamics in the rear have dramatically changed and built with similarity to that at the Honda works team. The widely known twin keel design that was introduced by Mike Coughlan at Arrows therefore remains unchanged."
F1 Technical.net
"The SA06 utilises a modifed Arrows A23 tub...." (the article goes on to discuss at length the similarities between the SA05 and SA06)
Racecar Engineering
"The new SA06 is still based on Arrows' 2002 model"
ITV-F1
FWD - Locoblade has got it spot on - the SA06 is still derived from the Arrows chassis, hence it features a few outdated concepts in suspension layout and crash structures which fundamentally affect its shape.
See the SA from Brazil here:
And the test car here:
Notice the change in position of the lower wishbone and the different airbox shape.
Then look at Buttons Brazil car:
See the SA from Brazil here:
And the test car here:
Notice the change in position of the lower wishbone and the different airbox shape.
Then look at Buttons Brazil car:
I can see it now. I'm just amazed firstly that there hasn't been a bigger blow up from Spyker or indeed other teams over it's use but also that they are running the car now so much before it has been officially launched. Unless they are testing the water over it's legality before making some cosmetic changes for the launch.
FourWheelDrift said:
I can see it now. I'm just amazed firstly that there hasn't been a bigger blow up from Spyker or indeed other teams over it's use but also that they are running the car now so much before it has been officially launched. Unless they are testing the water over it's legality before making some cosmetic changes for the launch.
Teams can test what they like over the winter - its what they bring to the first race that counts! All I can say is that I hope STR and Super Aguri have their legal position well covered by then...
I think the problem for Spyker etc is that they can't do anything until the first race, so although they've lobbied for support from other teams and have stated that they'll go to arbitration if STR / Aguri use the customer chassis, there's nothing they can do at the moment and just have to hope that STR / Aguri will take the threat of arbitration seriously and act accordingly.
Personally I cannot see what other outcome there will be other than to allow them to run the cars, they cannot design their own car in the timeframes available, and in STRs case cannot revert back to the old car (at least not without serious mods) because they've changed engine supplier and from a V10 to V8, and they aren't going to ban them from racing as it would deplete the field too much and cause all sorts of issues.
Maybe in the end they'll agree to race without scoring constructor points, thats about the only compromise I can see being viable.
Personally I cannot see what other outcome there will be other than to allow them to run the cars, they cannot design their own car in the timeframes available, and in STRs case cannot revert back to the old car (at least not without serious mods) because they've changed engine supplier and from a V10 to V8, and they aren't going to ban them from racing as it would deplete the field too much and cause all sorts of issues.
Maybe in the end they'll agree to race without scoring constructor points, thats about the only compromise I can see being viable.
rubystone said:
brynd4321 said:
Surely all Aguri have to do is change the shape of something like the air intake slightly, crash test it and they have a new chassis? Or does that cost to much?
Hasn't the launch of the new car been delayed by it failing a crash test?..Ironic, given its origins...
Goes to show that the 07 car might not be such a straight copy of the 06 Honda as first imagined..
Yep, just checked the regs and it seems there has been some changes.
A failed crash test is not necessary anything alarming though. The regs dictate not only the amount of energy that the chassis needs to be able to dissipate, but also the rate at which it needs to be dissipated, so the chassis could well have resisted the necessary load but just not met the rate criteria, requiring a minor change to construction rather than a wholesale redesign.
A failed crash test is not necessary anything alarming though. The regs dictate not only the amount of energy that the chassis needs to be able to dissipate, but also the rate at which it needs to be dissipated, so the chassis could well have resisted the necessary load but just not met the rate criteria, requiring a minor change to construction rather than a wholesale redesign.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff