STR finally protested

viges

By Aguri and Midland.

They want STR excluded from the championship table to 'protect their investments'.

Good quote from Daniel Audetto:

'Not only do Red Bull have the money to buy a V8, they could buy Cosworth'.

But rules is rules; the FIA agreed you could run a restricted V10.

MCSF

I think they should be protested because of that GODAWFUL paint scheme. Damn that is one FUGLY car.

viges

Agreed.

BTW Aussies - what do you think of the V8 engine note compared to:

i) a V10 screamer of yesteryear

ii) a 'restricted' V10?

Reports so far suggest the V8 is more 'real'/mechanical.

Lease

Well tough luck, is what the response ought to be. It is very unfortunate that a sensible dispensation that was made available to teams that needed more time to get a V8 engine into their cars is being exploited in the way that it is. Too late to whinge now, though. But hey, do we expect anything less from the new management at Faenza? Can anyone really expect a man who exploits so very many - starting with the people who make his product - would hesitate for a nano-second and consider the effect of his exploitation on the other teams?

Viges, Roo pointed out the difference in the engine note to me, and yes, it is different. Not only that, but some of them, like the Renault and Cosworth, have a rich, even note; whilst others like the Honda and Merc, seem to be much harsher. It might be crap owing to these ears being destroyed by too many years around jet engines in my youth, but the difference does seem to be there.

SuperRoo

Viges, for the first time in a long time I actually wore ear plugs on race day. (Then again you are quite close to the cars at Albert Park) The V8's produce a higher pitch than the V10 restricted. As Lease stated each engine has it own unique note. The Reggie and TOIT have a smoother note, whereas the Merc and Honda have a harsher note. But they still sound wonderful.

Neil_s

STR should either be treated equally or else be expelled from the championship.

SuperRoo

What a surprise! Seriously, they have done nothing wrong by the rules. You can argue about "the spirit" of the rules till the Red Bulls come home. Legally they are OK. Until Max says V10's are out, they should be allowed.

Personally, I'd like the teams to have the options of V8, V10 or V12.

Jello_Biafra

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the V10 was even a selling point for the team. Red Bull knew what they were getting, there was nothing stopping them from getting Cosworth V8's.

I think you underestimate how far the 'spirit of the rules' argument will go Roo. It has been the basis for a good number of FIA decisions recently..

Minardus

Grandpricx.xom gives a nice view on the "Equivalency":

There has been some chuntering in the last few days about the performance of the Toro Rossos in Australia with some of the teams at the back making noises about life not being fair because the team is using V10 engines, albeit in rev-limited form. The potential for good results from Toro Rosso was seen in Bahrain but since then has been well hidden by the team's inability to use the machinery in a sensible fashion. In Australia the cars were running on a hard compound Michelin which meant that even if they looked rather good in the race they were probably not as impressive as they might be when the tyre choice is better. They would also have done much better in Australia if the team's pit stop skills were honed a little more. Thus one can expect the cars to go even quicker on occasion this year as the team gets its act together.

Complaining about the situation is not much good because the option to use normally-aspirated V10s was open to teams at the back of the grid. There does not seem to be anything outrageously wrong with the equivalency formula as there are no real signs that the V10s are quicker than the V8s. And let us face it, equivalency implies equality. If the engines are the same and the chassis is the thing making the difference then complaints about the engines are not really valid. Equivalency does not mean that Scuderia Toro Rosso has to be as slow as Minardi used to be.

Super Aguri F1 and Midland may not like being beaten by STR but that situation is unlikely to change unless they improve. It is possible (although unlikely) that the FIA might lower the rev limit if there are any outrageous results but then one gets into the question of what constitutes an outrageous result because teams should not be penalised for making progress.

DoubleD

The whole STR v10 issue is an example of how the "spirit of the rules" is a joke which leads me again to think what a joke it is to think that Teams will adhere to $100million budget in 2008. There is no possible way to place values on everything that it takes to operate an F1 Team that would allow the FIA to monitor how $100 Million is spent. Is the FIA going to hope that manufactures will by the "spirit of the rules" comply to the 2008 rules. Please!!!

bouc

They have done nothing wrong by the rules about the engines, but the chassis is illegal. They can't take them from another team.

viges

How is this for chutzpah? Tonio is going to test for RBR to evaluate the new RB2 chassis compared to the old RB1/STR-01.

Autosport says he could well replace Klien next year.

SuperRoo

It's a precedent that was set with TOIT & Sauber. Massa driving for Sauber and testing for TOIT. Not to forget the uncanny resembalance of the Sauber and Ferrari steeds.

Klien had a difficult time in OZ, but I think he's better than Liuzzi.


chutzpah?, What manner of language is this viges?





[Edited on 6-4-0606 by SuperRoo]

viges

I resign.

Petroltorque

The whole rule illustrates the weakness of legislating rules to accomodate the weakest team. Which was what Minardi were last year. In short you either have the money to compete with a V8 or you don't.
The blame lays at moseley's door and he is unlikely to rule against STR anytime soon.