Super Aguri dramas

[ss_collins]

Not seen this on here yet but Super Aguri will launch thier SA106 in the melbourne pits before practice. Crash tests have not been passed yet and I suspect thats the issue - the original launch was meant to take place in Tokyo.

I suspect the other thread about Honda problems was infact a confused reference to Super Aguri.

[Marbot]

Launch date is now March 14th in Melbourne,but there is also a press launch in Tokyo on the 12th.

[Suze]

2007 SAF1 TEAM LAUNCH – NEW DETAILS



Aguri Suzuki and SUPER AGURI F1 TEAM race drivers Takuma Sato and Anthony Davidson will be revealing the team’s SA07 car on

Wednesday 14th March

at

16:30

In the pitlane in front of the SAF1 Team garage, Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne, Australia.




Please accept our apologies for the change of Launch Date. We are working relentlessly to prepare our 2007 challenger which will unfortunately not be available for presentation on the 12th March in Tokyo as originally planned.

So I suggest that if there is still going to be an event in Tokyo it'll just be a branding event

[Smokey 6 litre]

I dont really think it will be a major issue, we all know what the car will look like anyway.
And being launched just before the race gives the other teams less time to complain about its legality.

[ss_collins]

Wonder if thats the real reasoning

[kipper]

Originally Posted by ss_collins

Wonder if thats the real reasoning

I wouldn't be at all surprised.

[JohnSSC]

I don't believe that to be the case, necessarily. i think they really did have issues to reslove with their chassis and not being funded like a top 3 team it is going to take them longer to get them resolved.

The focus should be on having the appropriate # of cars and spares available for the season rather than the photo ops these "launches" have become. How often have we seen Team X launch their "new" car only to have them show up at the first race with a vehicle that was markedly different?

Since no team would ever lift the skirts so to speak to let anyone take a peek at the guts of the car (where the really important naughty bits are). I mean, it is not like they are going to let anyone see the changes to the chassis or measure the wheelbase and such or weigh the car or examine the exhaust porting. I do not even know why they bother with launches. Well, I do. It is for the sponsors more than anything else. If I owned a team I would keep a car around the shop just for that purpose. Roll it out every year and then put a dust cover on it till next season.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

If I owned a team I would keep a car around the shop just for that purpose. Roll it out every year and then put a dust cover on it till next season.

We would all probably "catch on" after ten years or so.

[ss_collins]

I thought thats what Toyota did?

If you look in Launch media kits from 1995 - 2000ish they would all contain a fairly exhaustive tech spec, proper interviews with the tech guys. Now F1 technology is really restricted. The only places you can find meaningful content on anything like a regular basis are Racecar Engineering, Race Tech (on occasion), and Race Engine Technology.

If you are seriously interested in F1 technology I'd suggest subscribing to one of them - Autosport is ok too on occassion but is quite lightweight when it comes to tech stuff.

But its also annoying when team launch and deliberatley avoid showing off the car (Ferrari - note its super trick rear end)

[f1manoz]

I can't believe it hasn't passed the crash test despite the fact the car is nothing but last year's Honda RA106 (or whatever the number was.)

Apparently.

[Knowlesy]

Well if it is purely last years Honda, therein lies the problem. The crash tests have been raised substantially for this season.

[Dudley]

The cynic in me also says that a failed crash test or two proves they done enough work to qualify as a constructor

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dudley

The cynic in me also says that a failed crash test or two proves they done enough work to qualify as a constructor

I would agree with you there.

More and more it seems that STR are the ones who are more likely to cause controversy over this.The cars are blatant copies and only some astute lawyering is going to tell them apart or not.

[bosch!]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I would agree with you there.

More and more it seems that STR are the ones who are more likely to cause controversy over this.The cars are blatant copies and only some astute lawyering is going to tell them apart or not.

Absolutly, to move the Arrows up the grid in 2006 qualifies them as bloody miracle workers. They have guys who can push a design which they admittidly may not have originated, and then go out and race; they can rebuild it better! its not the same chasis as they were "handed". I suspect that Frank sees a difference between STR and Super Aguri

[Dudley]

Well that's the thing, I can't see how you can invalidate Aguri's 07 plan because STR were allowed to run in 06.

STR's 07 plan is different, although it's difficult to disqualify them based on the rules they don't have precedent on their side the way Aguri clearly do.

[Barberouge]

Rumour is that as many as 6 teams are not yet homologated! It will be a busy week for Gordon & Jo!

I know for certain that Renault and Farrari are homologated - so there will be at least 4 cars on the grid in Australia!

[ss_collins]

That or theres a queue of cars at Cranfield.

I suggest that the big bun fight will be over Red Bull/STR - thats the car with the dodgy IPR - listen to Midweek motorsport on Globecast for more

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Well if it is purely last years Honda, therein lies the problem. The crash tests have been raised substantially for this season.

There was a rumor the car failed a side crash test, which is odd as that wasn't changed for this year.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

There was a rumor the car failed a side crash test, which is odd as that wasn't changed for this year.

Side and rear crash tests have been made more stringent for this season.

[Dudley]

And that's assuming you feel it genuinely failed or failed after a few holes were "accidentally" drilled.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Side and rear crash tests have been made more stringent for this season.

No, frontal and rear tests.

[Tathrim]

http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlin...26093800.shtml

This is evidence that Super Aguri, and not Honda, have failed crash tests.

Originally Posted by Bononi

Thanks for your link. I believe it's better to let it closed, but feel free to open a new one to discuss the info provided by the link.

Regards,

Bononi

THis is for anyone interested in why I have started this.

So, what do people think about this, then? More customer chassis business.

[Barberouge]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Side and rear crash tests have been made more stringent for this season.

The side test is unchanged this year - the anti-intrusion panel is added after the homologation.

Rear has changed - lower speed, therefore energy, but a minimum size of crash structure and maximum acceleration reduced from 50g to 20g.

Front has also changed with the peak acceleration increased to 10g for the first 150mm (was 5g) and the requirement that the acceleration does not exceed 20g for the first 60 kJ.

I suspect that teams may be failing on deceleration values rather than catastrophic failures. Very frustrating; adding or removing a ply from the crash structures.

[Marbot]

oops!

[Glen]

There is going to be trouble, no doubt.

Super Aguri are claiming that they aren't launching their car until Melbourne - but we've all seen it and it is without doubt last year's Honda.

The STR is obviously the same as the RB3 too, albeit with a different engine.

Williams are looking fairly promising on performance, so that's less of a problem - but Spyker will doubtless be behind both of these pseudo F1 cars, and surely they will hae to try and do something?