Username
Password
What is the big deal?
By nGO February 7 2007
Williams and Spyker have made it clear they are against STR and Super Aguri using some one else's chassis, on the face of it they have a point.

It seems rational, to think that Williams and Spyker should be outraged by teams competing with machines they have not independantly designed and built, especially another competitors.

Many would say the heart of an F1 car is her engine, then a point could be made that it is also rational Ferrari should be outraged at Williams. This is because they too are using another competitors machinary (toyota), so if they score any points it would be done using another competitors machinary. This would not be a problem, and Williams argument against would still stand, except Williams and Spyker (both using other competitor built parts in their own cars) are against Super Aguri and for pretty much the same thing they are doing, using other competitors parts and designs in their 2007 challanger.

"I am not against running these cars, even though this is already damaging F1, but they are not constructors," The man talks like Super Aguri will be racing exactly a Honda. This is not the case as much of the design would be modified, changed and all of it built by Super Aguri therefore they are a constructor.

The only point that stands is 98 concorde agreement, which would make the use of a competitors chassis illegal. But if Super Aguri and STR have methods that make their 2007 cars comply with the agreement, and have taken actions that are within the existing rules and regulations then that should be the end of. So why are some persuing this issue so doggedly? Because those that are stand to lose the most and this is the big deal.

Bookmark or share this story with: