Comments on: Super Aguri barred from Istanbul track – are Honda killing their B-team?

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:56:32 +0000

Thanks for the tip Sush: Super Aguri leave Formula 1

By: Journeyer

Journeyer — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:42:02 +0000

Well, Rabi, I think Honda are beyond caring about their negative publicity now. They seem to be more concerned with the money…

What a sad day for F1. Back to 20 cars in a year we were hoping for 24.

By: Sush

Sush — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:23:18 +0000

this just in http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/5/7730.html

over to Keith with the sports.

sad day indeed.

By: Rabi

Rabi — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:18:11 +0000

Exactly what Honda should realise is the complete negative publicity against their team at the moment even if they aren’t responsible to the average fan they are responsible.

By: GeorgeK

GeorgeK — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:49:29 +0000

If your looking to blame someone in the Honda F1 camp for pulling the funding out from SA look no further than Ross Brawn, he’d want every available dollar to go to his team, there are large expectations on his back.

Reportedly it only cost Honda 200K to fund SA at Barcelona; chump change IMHO. Sure, Turkey will cost a bit more due to extended travel, but how much more?

Not enough to shut the team down. To extract the best deal they can from Weigl, and to have him expose his true financial backers Honda have to APPEAR willing to kill off the team.

Hardball negotiating at the last minute. SA will race this Sunday.

By: Toby

Toby — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:31:39 +0000

p.s. Sorry about the s and the t Keith.

By: Toby

Toby — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:30:47 +0000

Weren’t Sauber a Ferrari B-Team? Monza ‘03 springs to mind….

By: the limit

the limit — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:28:37 +0000

It is down to situations like this that I don’t like teams ‘cloning’ themselves out like this. It is a simular situation with Red Bull and Toro Rosso. I also don’t like the fact that teams can be allowed to sell other teams their engines, Toyota and Ferrari spring to mind, as I feel this lessens the competition factor.
If Toyota supply Williams with engines, then in essence, Williams is just a Toyota B team, ripe for blackmailing if Williams beat them on track as Super Aguri did Honda.
This is getting beyond a joke. To think of all the great teams we once had, teams with personalty and vision, teams like Ligier, Jordan, Brabham, Sauber.
Now all with have is faceless corporations, men in suits, who are only interested in selling people new Accords and Civics and know bugger all about motor racing. Time to take another Prozac I think!

By: Rabi

Rabi — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:13:59 +0000

if I’m not mistaken don’t teams have to pay an entry fee for every race? That fee I think also includes the hiring of the paddocks etc as well. I could be wrong but I think that’s the case.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:20:58 +0000

But what business has FOM got with a team’s finances? If a team can show up at a Granprix venue why should they not be allowed to compete?

By: Lady Snowcat

Lady Snowcat — Mon, 05 May 2008 09:05:06 +0000

I think you’ll find Honda haven’t told people not to let them in, rather they’ve told FOM and Bernie that they won’t underwrite or supply Super A anymore…

Without a Honda guarantee, which was given to let them in at Barcelona, Bernie won’t let them play…

Honda had to say no sometime….

Super A were meant to be self sufficient long before this…. instead they owe Honda multi millions… and have no funds to go forward…

And they don’t own their factory…they lease it….

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Mon, 05 May 2008 09:00:32 +0000

According to Pitpass a meeting on the team's future will take place either today or tomorrow.

By: Sumit

Sumit — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:34:31 +0000

It is really sad the way Honda is behaving. How can they stop one team from entering into the circuit. It is not very healthy sign for the sport and giving negative impression on the teams. Super Aguri is a small team and impressed a lot even in the 1st race.

Again due to the bans it is very less likely any potential buyer would actually come and invest. The reason is very simple customer cars. Super Aguri team would not be supported any more due to the bans and Honda does not want to be beaten by the B team again and again.

By: Journeyer

Journeyer — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:19:46 +0000

Oliver, Honda’s strategy is to get Aguri sold on their terms. Honda want most or all of the cash upfront. If Aguri can’t sell themselves, then Honda will do it for them. Aguri is concerned about time, but Honda is concerned about the cash.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Mon, 05 May 2008 06:27:13 +0000

Honda is killing this team. Why not transfer responsibility to another company since its already a loss making venture for them. Debt can always be paid back over time, but that can only happen when you are still afloat.

By: Toby

Toby — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:59:04 +0000

Very sad for Super Aguri, I agree. Especially when a rival CEO can ring FOM and get them banned. Maybe McLaren could try this to get rid of Ferrari for a race? I know that if I were Sir Frank, I’d be getting rid of Renault, Red Bull and Toyota quick-smart! Three phone calls and you get rid of the competition!

Is it even legal for Fry to do this?

Sush, I think Nick Fry’s “lovely smile” might be what’s called a ****-eating grin, lol.

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Sun, 04 May 2008 23:18:29 +0000

The rule is specifically designed for lengthy periods when not enough teams enter, otherwise Japan 2002 (which only had 19 starters) would have triggered the three-car rule. It’s not clear how the three-car provisioning would work if it ever came to that, but I think all the teams are given the option of providing a third car. If there are insufficient third cars on track, then all the teams are punished.

The trouble is that spare cars are banned and only two cars can be scrutineered at once. There are no exceptions provided – not even for the third car scenario. So a team would face needing three cars but only being allowed to have two working ones on track…

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sun, 04 May 2008 19:53:27 +0000

Allowing any team to run 3 cars will definitely require some new rules, and I’m sure they would still be allowed to have a spare chassis in the garage, as is the rule now. 3 cars just seems like such a can of worms though:

* qualifying. Do the extra cars take part? Is Williams going to make a huge stink when the “3rds” bump real cars out of Q3?

* points. Can 3rds score points? Probably not constructors points, as this would be unfair to teams not running 3rds. Driver points is possible.

* team strategy. If 3rds can’t score points, would they be used to help out the 2 real drivers? Like create favorable SC periods or maybe even crash with other cars? Even if this wasn’t the intention, every time a 3rd crashes with a real entrant, this suspicion will be raised.

This rule seems intended more for a 2005 Indy-style problem, where 2-3 teams have a problem only at one race. This could be plausible at Melbourne, if one car doesn’t pass crash tests in time, and others have severe trouble with air freight. 1-2 teams could run a 3rd car, with quick rules made up, and a championship race could still be held with happy sponsors. But, this is a one-race solution, and nothing more.

By: M Smith

M Smith — Sun, 04 May 2008 19:36:01 +0000

It looks like Super Aguri won’t survive much longer, and all the great staff at Super Aguri (drivers included) will suffer the price.

I really hope we don’t lose another team. It would be a shame to see Formula One falling to 9 running teams when it should have been 12 teams….

This talk about if teams had to provide a third car to compensate – and if that drivers crashed the car…aren’t teams not allowed to bring spare cars anymore anyway?

By: Pete Walker

Pete Walker — Sun, 04 May 2008 18:04:12 +0000

Yup, I meant they’ve replaced Minardi as everybody’s favourite struggling heroes.

Regarding the number of cars at an event, I seem to remember last time the three car idea was mooted there was some talk that only some of the teams (ie, the leading teams) would have to bring a third car, not all of them. But its hard to think of a fair way to make that work.

If we did drop to nine teams, I guess the increase in shared TV-rights money might go some way to make running the spare cars for a season feasible. But then there are no spares at all and whoever wrecks on a Friday misses out on the race. Can’t imagine that would be acceptable either.

Its all a moot point anyway. I’m sure we won’t drop below ten teams anyway.