Super Aguri 1st look! Pace of the new car (merged)

[Marbot]

The "Go-Faster" stripes must be worth a second a lap at least.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Dutton

[] = my addition

So, this means that for each lap X-car completes in the final session, which is within 110% (I assume the site made an error, and meant 110%) of X-car's best time in the final session, X-car gets additional fuel added (unspecified by the article)?

This is on top of refueling to the amount they specify for refueling back to, prior to the final session?

This is separate from the 110% as appyling to the lead time set by the pole sitter?

Or is the website getting confused?

Or am I getting confused?

No the extra fuel credits for laps within 100% are instead of the team simply refueling by themselves. This way the FIA controls how much fuel the teams stick back in

[Dutton]

Ah, OK, the fuel replaces the previous system. That makes sense how.

However, the article talks about it being for laps within 10% of the driver's own time. I assume it means within 110% of his own time.

I presume what is actually the case is within 110% of the pole time?

[JZUSJASO]

I just got around to seeing the Aguri/Arrows in full 06 Regalia, and it kinda reminded me of the WSR Accords that ran BTCC back in 2000... Just slap some disc wheels on the back and we'd be in business. Im really luvin it...

[ohazamiizugahar]

There was a Super Aguri Annoncement in Japan yesterday.

Their partners are followings

Honda
Bridgestone
Life
ENEOS
Asahi Soft Drinks----I am not sure this English name
http://www.asahiinryo.co.jp/newsrele...e/0512-2_b.jpg
NGK
All Nippon Airways
Samantha Thavasa Japan Limited
http://www.samantha.co.jp/
Mobilecast
----Personal sponsor for Ide ?
AUTOBACS Seven
----Aguri's Sponsor for long time
Greenstar Hong Kong Limited
----I do not know this company
Seiko Watch
TAKATA
----Safety Seat Belt

http://f1express.cnc.ne.jp/f1express...g/131114_0.jpg

I hope they could get enough sponsors..

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Dutton

However, the article talks about it being for laps within 10% of the driver's own time. I assume it means within 110% of his own time.

No it means within 10% of their own time. i.e closer than 9s to a 90s fastest lap. Within 110% of a 90s lap is anything with 99s, or put another way, a lap time less than 189s!

Originally Posted by Dutton

I presume what is actually the case is within 110% of the pole time?

To determine a proper lap the lap time has to be less than 110% of their own quickest lap.

Not that his will apply to Super Aguri at first. See the link below for more discussion on qualifying.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...22#post1526422
I've gone in at the point where the first person had bothered to actually read the rule before commenting!
Or there are articles here: http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=35058
or if an autosport subscriber:
http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/444

[dazbaz_99]

Im falling in love with the car already....the red wheels!!!

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

No it means within 10% of their own time. i.e closer than 9s to a 90s fastest lap. Within 110% of a 90s lap is anything with 99s, or put another way, a lap time less than 189s!

To determine a proper lap the lap time has to be less than 110% of their own quickest lap.

Have you not just contradicted yourself?

No, it means within 10% of their own time.....followed by the laptime has to be less than 110% of their own time.

Within 10% of their own time would mean 9s of a 90s second lap. This would be that their fastest lap would have to be 9 seconds or less, if there next quickest was 90s.

Using 110% it means within 99s. Which surely makes more sense. They have to be quicker than 110% of the time, hence they are automatically within 9s of the reference time.

Now this makes sense if it were regarding the pole-sitter time. But how on Earth does it work with regards their own times (which apparently is how it is operating)?

A driver has to set a time within 110% of their own.

So, basically, they set one time and then do one a bit slower after it. Pretty pointless.

The fuel credit thing I am aware of, but all we are assuring is some laps that are slow within a limit.

Wow.

Anyway, my query abotu the 10% and 110% had nothing to do with that. It arose from the fact hat 10% made no bloody sense however it was applied.

Also, I thought it was applied to the pole-sitting time. Which I still think makes more sense than the driver's own time if such systems are going to be used.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Have you not just contradicted yourself?

No, it means within 10% of their own time.....followed by the laptime has to be less than 110% of their own time.

If your laptime is 1m20s (80s). Then:
10% is 8s
100% is 80s
110% is 88s.

Within 10% of your lap time means within 8s of your lap time. To be within 8s of your lap time you have to set a lap less than 88s. (To be within 10% of your lap time you have to set a lap less than 110%).

There are two sentences which mean the same thing.
A. You must set a lap time less than 110% of your fastest lap.
B. You must set a lap time within 10% of your fastest lap.

What they said was correct.

Now this makes sense if it were regarding the pole-sitter time. But how on Earth does it work with regards their own times (which apparently is how it is operating)?

The rule isn't to see if you have set a time that is of sufficient quality to get on the grid. The rule is to check which of your laps count for a fuel credit.

Which is also why it is pointless in this thread about Super Aguri. We expect Super Aguri to be at the back, at least at first. The 110% is not about DSQ a slow car. It also isn't applied in the first qualifying fifteen minute session.

See the link below for more discussion on qualifying.
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...22#post1526422
I've gone in at the point where the first person had bothered to actually read the rule before commenting!
Or there are articles here: http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=35058
or if an autosport subscriber:
http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/444

Originally Posted by dazbaz_99

Im falling in love with the car already....the red wheels!!!

There are worse reasons for liking a car! I was always a fan of gold Ferrari wheels.

[Dutton]

No,.

110% of the time is lower than 99s (based on a 90s lap).

10% is lower than 9s (based on a 90s lap).

They are different things.

That it only applies to the final session, and that it is about fuel credit and not times I am aware of. Although it is about times to the point is it meant to avoid "go slow", so it goes, whereas what it does is make the slow less slow.

Anyway, yes, this shouldn't really be in this thread.

So, I will stop now.

****

On account of Aguri, it looks like they are gradually getting things together.

Have we had any indication of what their replacement chassis will be like?

I haven't seen any comment, but that doesn't mena it hasn't occured, .

[Marbot]

So you have to make sure that all your tootling around laps are going to be within 110% of your prevously calculated fastest lap.

Each lap that isn't within 110% means less fuel to start the race.

If you're Super Aguri or whoever they can refuel to whatever level for the race,so 110% doesn't really apply.

Is this correct?

P.S. It's quite a nice looking car.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Dutton

No,.

110% of the time is lower than 99s (based on a 90s lap).

10% is slower than 9s (based on a 90s lap).

They are different things.

Yes, if you say a drivers time had to be "less than", but the quote was

Originally Posted by Dutton

However, the article talks about it being for laps within 10% of the driver's own time. I assume it means within 110% of his own time.

'Within 10%' means closer than 10% away.
Like when we say "the whole grid was within 4s of each other".

It is realtive to another value, not an absolute. "Within" does not mean "less than". The article expressed it very well.

[Dutton]

Martyn.

If Aguri were to make it to the final session then it would, .

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Is this correct?

Yep.

Originally Posted by martyn bott

P.S. It's quite a nice looking car.

Lets hope it goes well too.

Aguri is looking for results soon after:

Originally Posted by Aguri

It won't be easy to bring in the results from the start, but we will have to look at the long term future of our team in F1.

http://www.planet-f1.com/News/Story_...063282,00.html

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Have we had any indication of what their replacement chassis will be like?

Think... Benneton and Ligier.

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Yes, if you say a drivers time had to be "less than", but the quote was

'Within 10%' means closer than 10% away.
Like when we say "the whole grid was within 4s of each other".

It is realtive to another value, not an absolute. "Within" does not mean "less than". The article expressed it very well.

Well, we will have to disagree.

Within 10% of a time means that. WIthin 10% of whatever the value is. That means if a value of 100 is the base, then thing in question is within the limits of of 10% of that thing. That would be 10.

What is being talked about if 110 is the desired product is being within 100% + 10%, not 10%.

110% and 10% are not the same. We are obviously just have different interpretations.

When we talk about the grid being within 4s of each other, then that is absolute values. It is 4 seconds.

Percentage is of course relative to another value, but the value it is based is absolute and the product of the % is also absolute.

If they were purely relative then it would all be pointless, and for sure having a 110% rule in F1 would be utterly meaningless.

Indeed, within does not mean less than. It means not more, not less, but within the parameters.

*****

What I meant about Aguri was do we know if they have officially bought hte intellectual copyright to the 2005 BAR yet?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Indeed, within does not mean less than. It means not more, not less, but within the parameters.

You are indeed right:

Within 10% of your fastest lap. Not 10% more, not 10% less than your fastest lap (by definition you can't be faster than your fastest lap). The parameters are "10%" and "your fastest lap". Fastest lap=90s. 10%=9s. Therefore the first sentence of this paragraph equated to: Within 10% of your fastest lap. Within 9s of 90s. I guess we have ignored the importance of the word "of" here.

So
"within 10% of the driver's own time" is "within 9s of 90s".

Red and white was a good choice of colours.

[Dutton]

No, it is just that 10% of your lap is 9s. So you would have to be within the value of 9s. That is why it makes no sense at all as applied to the F1 scenario.

But, there is no point in going around in circles .

*****

Let us presume that the 1st round of the European season does indeed see the introduction of Aguri's new machine.

I have been trying to figure out where STR are going to be in relation to it.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

What I meant about Aguri was do we know if they have officially bought hte intellectual copyright to the 2005 BAR yet?

Even if they had i don't think that they could use it as it is still the design of a 'current' team unlike their current chassis which no longer is the design of a 'current' team (Arrows).

RedBull say that they can use the RB1 chassis for STR because it is the design of a non-current team (Jaguar).

[Dutton]

Hrrmm, so we get into this again.

My understanding was that as long the car is manufactured by the team using it, i.e. Aguri using the BAR, and that they own the intellectual copyright, then it is fine.

Even presuming this would not be so, and that a loophole like STR have used would be necessary, presumably Aguri would still be OK?

Afterall, the 2005 car is a BAR car but the 2006 one is Honda one.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Afterall, the 2005 car is a BAR car but the 2006 one is Honda one.

BAR to Honda is really just a name change.Super Aguri are a completely new team.

I suppose STR could have used the Minardi chassis,but obviously the Jaguar chassis would be better.They could have sold the Minardi chassis to Super Aguri,but why make things easy for them.

[Dutton]

My point was that Jaguar to RBR was just a name change too, if one considers BAR to Honda name change.

The legal framework is the same.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

My point was that Jaguar to RBR was just a name change too, if one considers BAR to Honda name change.

The legal framework is the same.

The Jaguar team was 'sold' to RedBull.Honda merely bought more shares in something they were already a part of.

[Dutton]

The point is that Redbull bought a controlling part of the team, which Honda did in the buy-out.

It was a change of controlling ownership in both cases. Would it really be viewed any differently?

[Marbot]

It seems that you may be right Dutton and STR may have more than just its V10 engine to worry about.http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=27254
But i still think that its parentage is more Jaguar than RedBull.