Comments on: Super Aguri doubt may cut F1 to 20 cars (update: Honda will not help team)

By: Rabi

Rabi — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:15:35 +0000

I’m pretty sure Super Aguri bought Arrows, which would mean they also purchased everything along with it including all intellectual property, designs, development the entire lot.

So in a way they did have their own chassis, I think the objection is on the current season where they are using Honda’s old chassis. (correct me if I’m wrong).

By: Rohan

Rohan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:48:44 +0000

Keith, I think Sag themselves have cheated ever since they entered F1 by not using their own chassis (likewise STR). Both the rules governing the sport and the Concorde Agreement state that teams must be constructors (which is defined as owning the ipr to the design of their cars, I think), which neither Sag nor STR do. Hence both teams are flouting the rules openly at every race.

By: Bbbut

Bbbut — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:49:02 +0000

The real issue is not, that SA and STR running copyed chassis. All other teams sad, they are not objecting customer on prinziple.

The real issue is that they are running customer cars but still want to take part in the "constructor’s championship". It is not called the "manufacture championship" or "budget efficiency championship" for a reason…

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:35:06 +0000

Customer cars were (and still are, technically) banned under the Concorde Agreement, which specifies that only constructors may participate in F1 and that a constructor meant designing a unique chassis (it could be built by a third party and certain components, like brakes and engines, can be designed and built elsewhere). Since the 1998 Concorde Agreement was rolled over into 2008 until such time as a new Agreement is made, customer cars are still technically banned.

However, the FIA and Bernie did not want to enforce that particular part of the Agreement for some reason, which is why Super Aguri were able to change from an Arrows car to an old Honda in the first place. Note that IP transfer is not specifically banned if it’s from a company which isn’t itself an F1 entrant, so Super Aguri using an Arrows was within the regulations.

The problem is that the FIA and Bernie forgot to clear the change to the Agreement with all the teams before allowing Toro Rosso and Super Aguri to do a customer car arrangement. Force India (then called Midland) objected on the grounds that it unfairly penalised teams that spent lots of money building their own cars. Customer cars also threaten the long-term sustainability of F1 by pressurising teams to be with the "right" chassis manufacturer, killing off small constructors like Force India. That issue exists for engines as well (remember Cosworth?), even though engines have less influence on speed these days than good aero. The upshot was that the case was sent to the Court of Arbitration, where it is still awaiting a decision. Legally, nothing can be done about the customer car situation until either a decision is made or one side withdraws from the case – and there’s too much at stake on both sides for withdrawal to occur.

Last I heard, the agreement was that Super Aguri and Toro Rosso had to become constructors for 2010, not 2009. That said, since nobody seems to have issued official documentation either way, it would be entirely plausible for the deadline date to have changed – even though F1 is in shaky water by trying to insist on changes when there’s a court case suggesting that the foundation those changes build on is not very stable.

As far as I’m concerned, Super Aguri cheated with strong mitigating circumstances (i.e they had no construction facilities), Toro Rosso cheated on purpose (they had the Faenza base they could have upgraded and haven’t), but the real cheats are the powers-that-be that misled everyone on purpose purely for their own ends.

By: Chris Johnson

Chris Johnson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:21:40 +0000

If "constructors" such as Williams are allowed customer engines, then why not allow customer chassis as well? Why not allow one car teams? If the fear is that one manufacturer will dominate, then cap the number of cars by one constructor to four, and make rules that only allow constructor’s points to the factory team or something. I just think the whole thing as it stands isn’t sustainable. If Honda, Toyota and others don’t start winning, they may rethink their participation as well. It seems a bit rich that Williams was the team that blocked customer cars, when that’s how Frank got his foot in the door to begin with.

By: Rabi

Rabi — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:15:16 +0000

Teams should be allowed customer chassis, everything else is customer based. Also as Honda proved a different Aero package on the same chassis/engine combo can gain 1 second in speed so it won’t be the case of two chassis and engines producing the same timings. Also many teams would not wish to sell their chassis anyway due to fear of being outdriven by the customer team.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:44:56 +0000

Who do you think has cheated, Rohan?

By: Rohan

Rohan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:46:36 +0000

This just goes to show that cheats never prosper.

By: milos

milos — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:21:02 +0000

Well, STR and SA were allowed to race customer cars for quite some while. STR from 2006, SA from 2007.

The customer cars were only to be allowed from 2008, that was
the year of proposed Prodrive entry …

By: GeorgeK

GeorgeK — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:21:28 +0000

I think you’ve echoed most fans perspective Chalky, relative to returning F1 to a sport as opposed to an aerodynamically driven business.

My question relative to SA, if they miss Barcelona can they return for the rest of the schedule if funding is found, or are they out for the season?

"If we are to blame customer cars for what is happening, then we should blame the fact Super Aguri and Toro Rosso were allowed to race them at all …"

You can blame Max Mosley for that one Milos, not the teams. He specifically encouraged the concept to the point that Prodrive invested millions into prepping a customer car team. SA bought the old Arrows cars as an intermediate step before using customer cars; Minardi were never a fully funded team and were dismal performers before purchase and switch to Toro Rosso/Red Bull.

I’m not for or against customer cars, just pointing out more of Max’s legacy to the "sport", 2 teams on the verge of extinction and one denied entry after serious investments.