Dennis, prodrive y demás rumores Opciones

[KIT]

Veo que hay consenso en el tema... y a mí me da igual que existan o NO equipos clientes.

Lo que verdaderamente me jode es que tanto unos como otros estén jodidos o se jodan mutuamente, sencillamente porque la maFIA y Berni Corleone hacen lo que les sale de los inombrables, complican el reglamento a más no poder y luego ante un pitote llegan o se inventan unas resoluciones que ni ellos mismos entienden, que carecen de sentido y que son injustas PARA TODOS!!!

Luego vienen vendiendome la moto, que si congelan motores que si control de tracción que si motores para 2 carreras... y bla bla bla!!! ninguna de las normas que se han inventado sirven para abaratar costes NINGUNA... todo lo contrario, pero ellos siguen reuniendose en plan G8 con juicios al puro estilo HOLLYWOOD y así parece que son más importantes.

Romanticismo?... está claro que se ha perdido... pero siento decir que hay más romanticismo en Aguri que en muchos de los equipos que hay en la parrilla.

Romanticismo el de Giancarlo Minardi, el de Jackie Stewart (fué el único monoplaza FORD) que realmente dió guerra y fué competitivo... después la todopoderosa marca oficial JAGUAR (FORD) no fué capaz de igualar los monoplazas que pilotaron Herbert y Barrichello.

Desarrollo e inovación el que hacía Jordan con un corto presupuesto.

Sacrificio!!! el minardi del 2000 con un motor FORD del 98... Arrows evolucionando su propio motor Arrows!!! vamos que ni pa tras!!!

Pero la F1 de ahora ni de coña està montada de esa manera... así que nadie le puede exigir a Prodrive que empiece en la categoría pregonando por el desierto... cuando aquí se traspasan equipos y acciones con la facilidad que un niño cambia los cromos en el recreo.

Es mi opinión... pero o clarifican las normas (en todos los sentidos) y todos se hacen conscientes que los nuevos tiempos exigen nuevas normas... o vamos a estar así siempre!!!

Eso en cuanto las normas deportivas o de reglamento... si miramos lo que ha hecho la maFIA y CIA para mejorar el espectáculo... vamos nos dá un ataque de risa que se nos desencaja la mandíbula hasta la altura de las rodillas!!!

Él único espctáculo que hemos tenido en estas últimas temporadas son los leñazos de Juancho en 2006 i las inclemencias metereológicas que han convertido un GP en una verdadera carrera porque si no... ivamos listos... yo miro otros aspectos de una carrera y me lo paso bomba aunque me taparan los ojos y me sentaran frente al televisor... pero entiendo que mucha gente diga ... "la F1 es aburrida"

En fín... difícil solución!!!



Salu2 a todos y...
FORÃ?A PEDRO!!!

[`]

Q & A with David Richards

By Steve Cooper Thursday, November 29th 2007, 11:34 GMT


David Richards and his Prodrive team should currently be finalising their plans to become a fully-fledged Formula One team for 2008.

But despite having secured their entry and agreed a deal with McLaren for a supply of cars, Richards has been forced to abandon his efforts on the back of uncertainty about the legality of customer machines in Formula One.

It has been a frustrating time for Richards, but not enough to deter him completely from trying to make it into F1 at some point. With this week's Autosport analyzing Prodrive's situation, Richards spoke at length about what has happened and how he sees the future for his team.

David Richards: The most disappointing aspect of the whole scenario we're in today is that the facts haven't changed at all since the FIA proposed a solution by allowing customer cars into the championship almost two years ago.

The reality is, there is a problem in F1 and let's not get away from the basic issues at stake. There's an enormous disparity between the haves and the have-nots in F1. At the back of the grid, we have teams who are way below the performance of the leading teams, scratching around to make a living and changing hands regularly as they run out of funds.

That is not healthy for the sport as a whole. It doesn't help the spectacle on the track and it actually undermines the value of the other teams. If there are teams constantly on the verge of insolvency and scraping around to make a living, then that doesn't help the top teams either.

I've always believed it is far stronger if you have a more balanced approach and allow the smaller teams to have access to competitive equipment and a more sensible distribution of the funds that allows them to perform to a certain level. The solution whereby you allow the leading teams to sell their cars in their entirety to the smaller teams is an obvious way of going about it.

Sure, there are other solutions - and I've heard the arguments for all sides – but the system we have today clearly doesn't work. We don't have a full grid of competitive cars, and we have teams that are not financially viable at the back of the grid. It is a problem, and how do you go about solving that?

The FIA's solution was very sensible and logical. There are the purists who say they don't believe that's the right solution, and I acknowledge and respect their views on that. But I don't hear from them any alternative solution – we can try and drive costs down in other ways, but that's a long-term process and, to date, it hasn't been successful either.

For me, the only logical way for us to enter F1 is on this basis. And it's no great surprise that, prior to these change of rules, Prodrive showed no interest.

It was not feasible – I had two very clear criteria. Firstly, I only wanted to come into F1 if we could be competitive, not meaning we should expect to be on the podium from day one, but I would expect to be fighting in the middle of the grid – not lapped within the first 10 laps. And I would expect to be able to put competent drivers into our cars and have them perform respectably.

Secondly, it had to be financially viable – you cannot embark on this with the hope and the dream that you will land a massive sponsor or do something that makes you solvent and keeps you from going to the wall.

You can't employ a lot of people and make commitments unless you have a clear vision of how you will perform financially over the next five years – it's an irresponsible way of going about it.

The rules laid out by the FIA for 2008, to my mind, provide an opportunity for a new team to come in and solve a number of the problems for the existing teams. If you're prepared to sacrifice a little bit of your independence and accept you have to partner with other teams. This is not something very common in Formula One.

Q. Do you believe this could happen for 2009?

DR: Let's clear up some confusion: there are two completely separate issues here. There are the FIA technical regulations and there is the commercial agreement managed by Bernie Ecclestone.

Sitting here today, you can enter what's known as a customer car in the 2008 world championship – there is nothing stopping you today. The rules allow you to run, there's no question. Ask the FIA, can you run a car under those terms – and there is nothing to stop you from doing that.

But the next question is, it's only for one year. For us, it was only for 2008 and to make it viable, you have to be a party to the Concorde Agreement. But commercially, Bernie and the teams are now coming to the conclusion that this is not what they want: they do want each team to be a manufacturer and, as such, to be a signatory to the Concorde Agreement, you would have to agree to that.

From Prodrive's perspective, we could enter next year. We could buy a car, there's no great secret that was all arranged and we had the contracts in place to do that, and we could turn up and race. We would not receive any income from the commercial rights holder for that and we would only have an entry for one year. And until we agreed to meet the terms of the Concorde Agreement, nor would we ever expect to see any income from that.

So clearly it's not financially viable – you need a long-term five-year plan and an agreement that works. The current proposal that Super Aguri and Toro Rosso are given a dispensation for two years and would then have to comply with full constructor status.

If you're a team which employs 500 people and have enormous capital investment and infrastructure around you and wants to remain independent, a team like Prodrive coming in, acquiring a car from a competitive car from a team like McLaren would be an enormous threat. The facts that the economics would be shared between us and McLaren is neither here nor there – it's just a competitive threat.

Q. But the Concorde Agreement will never support 12 teams...

DR: That's a separate issue, but it is a flaw. I believe every team should have a certain sum of money for turning up and racing. There should of course be a bias towards performance and the bigger rewards should go to the teams who are successful. In my view, it's not healthy to always have people falling off the bottom of the page – it doesn't create a healthy environment for the sport.

Q. It's a closed shop, isn't it?

DR: But it's always better to address these problems when a sport is relatively healthy rather than when it's facing problems. And it will only take one or two manufacturers to pull out and then it will have to address those problems.

So to pre-empt that was the right thing to do, and the solution the FIA came up was a very sensible and straightforward one. And it takes a few people to address it – Toro Rosso and Aguri and a couple of others who would have benefited significantly from that opportunity if they had accepted this was the new way of running in Formula One.

Q. Is Prodrive a victim of this sea change? Do you feel squeezed out?

DR: Of course, and that will always be the case. But you have to consider who your best partner is in motorsport. Is it a company who is committed in participating in motorsport because it's their business? Or is it a car manufacturer who might choose to switch its whole emphasis to environmental matters next week and forget motorsport forever?

Q. But superficially, manufacturers are attractive...

DR: We need a balance between the two, but you cannot have an over-reliance on car manufacturers in any category of motorsport. They are there for their own short-term but valid marketing reasons.

Q. Why do you feel there is a barrier to your entry?

DR: Because people have suddenly woken up to the threat it represents. If you do not adopt our business model, which would be dramatically reduced operating costs and partnership with an existing team, you will inevitably be uncompetitive on the track and financially. So we are a threat to them. It just rather surprises me it took people so long to realise what will happen.

Q. What are your next steps?

DR: We need to see what a new Concorde Agreement is going to say. I still believe F1 is the right place for Prodrive to be, clearly the premise on which we put our entry in, those circumstances have changed dramatically now and everybody acknowledges that situation. If we cannot enter on that basis then so be it, but we need to know what a new CA will say.

If, for instance, it determines you need to be a constructor then we need to understand what the definition of a constructor is: how many common components are going to be allowed in the future because what resource will we need to achieve that? I don't rule that out as being viable – it's a possibility and we will look at that. But we need to get to that position first, look at the new set of circumstances before making that decision.

Q. What dialogue are you getting from the FIA?

DR: Things change on a weekly basis. The FIA is very fixed in its position – its rules are rules. The commercial viability of it is the critical thing – and it would be irresponsible to say we're going to do this, employ a lot of people and then find the circumstances have changed.

I could have announced it six months ago, employed all the people and then be sitting here now going: 'it's not financially viable and we'd be putting people out on the streets by the middle of next season.' That's not what we or Formula One needs to be doing.

We've been pragmatic and said, if the rules and circumstances have changed, we'll sit on the sidelines until everyone sits down again and we'll see what the new circumstances are.

It doesn't change our ambition at all. It doesn't change our goal – but just tell us what the new set of circumstances are and we'll make a decision.

Q. So what happens for 2009?

DR: I don't know. But anyone looking at this on a fair basis would say the criteria on which the entry was accepted 18 months is now not valid because circumstances have changed.

I was told at the time that if circumstances changed, this is how it would be viewed. They would say, we understand your position, let's see what settles out of the new agreement – and it's tripartite, FIA, FOA and the teams – let's see how that falls into place, and you have to assume that will be in place by the start of next season, give us due time to look at that and tell us whether on those new terms, Prodrive is prepared to put an entry in.

Q. So is 2008 definitely no longer viable for you?

DR: It's no longer a viability in a stand-alone state. There's no way you can enter – 18 months ago, any rational person would have assumed a Concorde Agreement would have been sorted out well before now and we would have been in a position to know where we are. That's not the case.

Q. Will the deal with McLaren ever happen?

DR: If the rules allow it, our preferred and realistic choice is to work with McLaren.

And the purists in the sport question the whole notion of customer cars – and it's interesting to note that Ron Dennis is one of those. And I respect his opinion for that. But he also says if the rules allow it, we will take advantage of the rules. And that's a view I think is correct.

Q. Are you still talking to other teams, to Max or Bernie?

DR: Obviously, I'm in regular communication with the key people – but the key factor is, until there's a new Concorde Agreement for us to consider and determined by all the participants, there's nothing there to base a future plan on.

Q. What is the latest situation regarding Williams and the threat of legal action?

DR: The critical time for us came on September 13, when we along with various other people – including McLaren – received a letter from Williams – a letter before action, telling us they were intending to take legal action against all parties if we were allowed to take part in the 2008 world championship as a non-constructor.

At that point, we sought a more definitive ruling, hence the referral to the ICA – that was the highest judicial body of the FIA. However, when Williams decided the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction over them and would pursue the matter through other means – whether it be civil courts or arbitration – then it became clear it wasn't going to give us the definitive answer we needed and we were still going to be left in limbo. The letter still stands presumably – if we turn up next year they will seek to stop us. All the Court of Appeal would do is ratify the FIA position on that.

Q. Are you optimistic that you can get a new Concorde Agreement under your belt?

DR: It's certainly going against the idea of a non-constructor teams in the manner originally intended. That was the only rationale for us to enter. The last discussions were taken to give special dispensation to those two teams and not to any new team joining.

Q. But everyone has known you've been joining since 2006?

DR: Our hands are completely tied by it. We've behaved in good faith and have been very open and transparent about what we're doing. We've done everything we said we would do and got an agreement with McLaren and the sponsors, but clearly under these circumstances, it's not viable.

The FIA has behaved correctly –their rules haven't changed, albeit the overall circumstances have changed. I'm sure everyone can see that.

Unless Frank changes the business model for his team, there's no logic to him changing his mind. I've got my own views as to how I, in those circumstances, maximise that.

The agreement we reached with McLaren was as open, transparent and fair as you would ever get in terms of independence. Total autonomy. The view they took was, if we can't beat you with all our resources, then we shouldn't be here doing it anyway – and that was the best way of doing it. Absolute freedom on driver choice.

When was the heyday of Formula 1? To my mind, one of the greatest eras of F1 was when everyone used the (Ford Cosworth) DFV (engine) – and they stayed constant for nearly 20 years and it was a fantastic time. It didn't stop innovation and development of the cars, it didn't stop great drivers coming to the fore and it didn't in any way suppress the image of Formula One as being a technologically advanced form of motor racing.

We have an entry for next year and I am in discussions with the FIA about the status for that but it really comes down to the nature of the new Concorde Agreement and whether we can commit to that.

[`]

Prodrive not giving up on F1 ambitions

By Steve Cooper and Jonathan Noble Thursday, November 29th 2007, 11:37 GMT


Prodrive boss David Richards insists that he is still committed to getting his Formula One team on the grid in the future, despite having to abandon his plans to enter grand prix racing next year.

Richards had agreed a deal for a supply of customer McLaren-Mercedes cars for 2008, as well as sponsorship backing, but he could not press ahead with his entry because of the threat of legal action from rival team Williams.

But despite the disappointment of having to ditch his plans, Richards is still keeping a close eye on F1 developments to see whether or not Prodrive can resurrect their efforts in the future.

In particular, he is waiting to see if a new Concorde Agreement will clear up the legal situation surrounding customer cars to allow him to press ahead with another entry.

"We need to see what a new Concorde Agreement is going to say," Richards told this week's Autosport.

"I still believe F1 is the right place for Prodrive to be. Clearly the premise on which we put our entry in, those circumstances have changed dramatically now and everybody acknowledges that situation.

"If we cannot enter on that basis then so be it, but we need to know what a new Concorde Agreement will say.

"If, for instance, it determines you need to be a constructor then we need to understand what the definition of a constructor is: how many common components are going to be allowed in the future because what resource will we need to achieve that?

"I don't rule that out as being viable - it's a possibility and we will look at that. But we need to get to that position first, look at the new set of circumstances before making that decision."

Richards is obviously looking at possibilities to enter F1 in 2009, but there is uncertainty about whether the entry he was granted for next year will automatically be carried over to give him priority for the following years.

He added: "We have an entry for next year and I am in discussions with the FIA about the status for that. But it really comes down to the nature of the new Concorde Agreement and whether we can commit to that."

[cies]

vamos a ver tios,
los equipos cliente siempre han existido.

El problema de fondo es que:
-antes lo hacía gente que amaba las carreras como una forma de empezar a montar un equipo de carreras (Mclaren, Williams y Ferrari fueron creadas así)
-y ahora lo pretende hacer gente que lo unico que aman es al dolar: especular, dar el pelotazo, ganar dinero rapido.
Como quien apuesta a las carreras de caballos.
(se referiría a eso el entrevistador de Ron Dennis con aquello de "el establo de woking"? )









Edited by - cies on 29/11/2007 16:51:07

[`]

Mosley can't guarantee Prodrive F1 ticket in 2009
04 December 2007

Prodrive announced last month the team will not enter Formula 1 in 2008. The team though did pay to enter the sport. FIA President Max Mosley reveals the team will most likely lose its entry-fee of 300,000 euros but also it won't have a guaranteed entry for 2009.

When Mosley was asked if Prodrive would receive a penalty for not entering the sport while it did sign for an entry in Formula One he told The Paddock Magazine: "They've paid the €300,000, and they'll probably lose that. But that's probably it. I don't think anybody is going to go after them. If Prodrive could be there, they would be there, but they haven't got the backing (of all the other teams).

"There's nothing to stop them entering for 2009. At the request of his financial backers, David Richards asked me what guarantee could we give that his entry would be accepted in 2009. I had to tell him that he didn't have any guarantee. In the normal course of events, Prodrive's entry would be accepted [again], but the situation without the Concorde Agreement is as it was before the Concorde Agreement - people submit entries, and the FIA accepts or rejects them."

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2007/12/04/...ticket-in-2009/

[tenista]

Vamos, que se lo cepillan y aqui paz y despues gloria. ¡De pena!.

[KIT]

MANDA HUEVOS... lo que le garantizaba yo a Max Capone era una colleja de tamaño industrial!!!

Y se queda tan ancho el colega... Y este tio es el que sanciona, el que dice que es y que no es justo en F1 el que investiga, monoplazas, equipos, pilotos, ingenieros...

pa mear y no echar gota!!!





Salu2 a todos y...
FORÃ?A PEDRO!!!

[tenista]

Kit, una colleja no, una buena mano............................de hosti**. Cuando se seque se le aplica la segunda.

[`]

Ya me empieza a dar pena richards, parece que los que iban a invertir en prodrive se van a williams http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/sport/formel_1/hxcms_article_508831_14055.hbs[URL-NOMBRE]Webpage

[tenista]

¿Que habra pasado "realmente" con Prodrive?. No me creo ni una sola palabra de lo que se ha publicado.

[`]

Menuda mafia estoi por detras, no me estrañaria que a Prodrive no le dejen mas que nada por el contrato con Mclaren veriamos si fuese ferrari.


Super Aguri, STR 'a compromise' in customer row.

Thu 13 Dec, 11:00 AM

Mosley admits that current privateer entries different to Prodrive.

Max Mosley says he feels that the way Super Aguri and Toro Rosso has designed its race cars is a 'compromise' in the ongoing row into customer cars in Formula 1.

Prodrive was forced to shelve its plans to join the grid in 2008 after Williams launched a legal challenge into its proposal to run a customer McLaren-Mercedes chassis. While that would have been allowed under new regulations, the refusal of some teams to commit to a new Concorde Agreement containing the provision for customer cars meant Prodrive was forced to give up on the F1 dream for at least one season.

The Banbury-based squad hasn't been the only team to become embroiled in the customer car row, with Williams and Spyker both being vocal in their opinions on the cars run by Super Aguri and Toro Rosso during the past season.

Super Aguri campaigned a car based on the 2006 Honda RA106 - which proved to be almost as successful as the RA107 used by the actual Honda squad - while Toro Rosso ran a revised version of the Red Bull RB2 during 2007, although Mosley said it was a different situation to a team simply buying a car 'off the shelf' with which to race.

"I do," he told The Paddock when asked if building cars to designs handed over was a reasonable compromise to the customer car row. "The cars look different, and they are different.

"I rather see it from the point of view of the man in the grandstand. A Toro Rosso is different from a Red Bull. There's also an argument that, if you've got a Ferrari and a Minardi and the Minardi is four seconds slower, is that better for the spectator than having a Ferrari and a Maserati, and the only difference is that one is painted red and the other blue?

"I can see the argument that there should be differences, that a Maserati shouldn't be the same as a Ferrari. But at the same time I can buy a SEAT or a Skoda or a VW, and they have a common platform, and all sorts of parts in common. Yet for all practical purposes, they're completely different cars."

However, Mosley added that he felt sympathy for the likes of Williams chief Sir Frank Williams and Force India - nee Spyker - team boss Colin Kolles who have led the fight against customer machinery as they continue to battle against the might of the manufacturer-backed teams.

"Frank has hundreds of employees and lots of facilities, so it's annoying for him if somebody who doesn't have any of that makes use of McLaren's facilities by buying cars from them," he said. "On the other hand, it's not really that simple.

"If you look at the overall interests of F1, what we would like is 24 drivers in 24 competitive cars, and that does argue for at least a degree of technology transfer. What degree is debatable. But the idea that everyone should do every single thing themselves is crazy. Ninety-five percent of the R&D effort of the top teams results in things that nobody can see, and it's all duplicated.

"It's like a business with twelve departments all doing the same research. It just doesn't make sense. The classic case is wheel-nuts. One team has its wheel-nuts specially made in the USA. They're only used once because they're so marginal, and so carefully made. They use 1200 a year and they cost $1000 each. If they were about 8g heavier, and made of a slightly different material, they could probably be used all through the season. If every car had the same wheel-nuts, would anybody notice? If you came from Mars and looked at the way the F1 teams operate, or indeed from McKinsey or one of those consultants, you'd say they were all barking mad. It's a hugely profitable business, but all the money is being spent on engineering exercises.

"In the end, it isn't the manufacturers' money, it's their shareholders'. Sooner or later, somebody is going to complain. It's certainly mad to employ between 700 and 1000 people just to race two cars for a couple of hours 17 times a year. One of the financial people involved in F1 told me the problem was that, if the teams are prevented from spending money in one area, they just spend it somewhere else. He said it was like that Japanese game, where you hit the thing on the head and it pops up somewhere else. I told him he was absolutely right.

"But we can make sure that it's producing something useful where it pops up."

[KIT]

PARA PARA PARA PARA PARA PARA!!!! QUE ME DESMAYO!!!

PERDON?...

LO CUALO?...

EING?...

MANDE?...

Que alguien me lo explique bien porque TOY FLIPANDO!!!

Vamos que si a prodrive le ponian un bigote distinto un capó motor sin branqueas SÍ PODIA CORRER!!!

A ver porque de Mas Capone... he leido muchas pero esta ROZA al más no poder lo absurdo por lo absurdo!!!

Un chasis es un chasis!!! y si para que sea legal "le tuneo" ciertas partes HOY PRODRIVE ESTARÍA COMPITIENDO!!!

me exaltado o es que no he entendido nada?...



Salu2 a todos y...
FORÃ?A PEDRO!!!

[tenista]

DE P*** PENA!, ASI ESTA EL PATIO, YO LO FLIPO.

[Pepo1968]

Despues de un fin de semana caliente (para no salir a la calle a congelarme), que me "obligó" a estar todo el dia colgado del foro, ya más en frio (literalmente) coemnto lo siguiente:
Enero 2007: pensamientos de Tio Ron
1º- Ficho a Alonso, joven,campeon y gano.
2º- Ficho a Hamilton, joven, mediatico, ingles y bueno, y aprende sin prisas.
3º- Para que no se vaya el mejor probador del mundial, le prometo lo de Prodrive para 2008 y lo tengo tranquilito y motivado.
4º- Preparo la operacion Prodrive con lo que amortizo I+D, instalaciones, tecnica, etc. Y sobre todo lo uso de banco de ensayos.
5º Consigo patrocinadores nuevos de España con el tiron de Alonso.
6º- Gano todo y me creo que soy como el del Show de Truman, controlo y manejo todo por encima,y ni me mancho.
Enero 2008: Pensamientos de Tio Ron
1º- Se me ha ido un dos veces campeon del mundo y encima montando ruido. No he ganado nada de nada este año pasado.
2º- Un inmberbe mimado y un poco malcriado se me ha subido a las barbas.
3º- Le prometí al mejor probador del mundial, que contaba con él para que no se fuera, y ahora lo tengo jodido y desmotivado. ¿Que hago con dos pilotos que no saben reglar un coche de F1?
4º- Me falla Prodrive, y encima congelación tecnologica por la vigilancia de la FIA por el espionaje Ferrari.
5º- Perdida enorme de imagen global y especialmente en España. No deben estar muy contentos mis "socios" de Mercedes Benz, que tiene una fabricva en España y vende bastante alli.
6º- Mi imagen de todopoderoso, esta por lo suelos, me han visto bajar las orejas con mis dos pilotos gritandome en publico y torciendome la cara. He estado en los juzgados más que en mi casa. He mentido publicamente a un caballero reconocido como mi fiel Pedro .....

RESUMEN: ¿Me piden que me retire? ¿Porque? ¿Que hago?

RESPUESTA MIA:
Vete (sin más)

Nunca llovió que no escampara. El que resiste gana.

[tenista]

Yo añadiria:

2008

7º Como encima este año se nos de mal ............................................

[pca]

Dudo que piense eso de Hamilton, y no creo que le preocupe en absoluto nada ni Pedro, ni España, ni Mercedes que es solidaria en todo lo que hace y deshace Dennis.

Sobre el tema de la FIA el caso está cerrado (supongo previo arreglo).

Sobre su imagen, sus seguidores, pues que siga Dennis por mucho tiempo (ellos lo ven con otros ojos).

[cies]

¿Un alma caritativa que traduzca las dos ultimos post en Ingles?

[pca]

El primero dice que no pueda garantizar de nuevo el permiso para poder participar a Prodrive en el 2009. Que lo normal es que volvieran a aceptar su petición, pero que si no cambia el resto de circunstancias (el Concorde Agreement) pues la situación seguiría siendo igual.

En el segundo viene a decir que Super Aguri y Toro Rosso no son lo mismo que lo que plantea Prodrive. Los primeros son Honda o Red Bull tuneados, proyectos abandonados o desarrollados en paralelo, y los segundos unos McLaren fetén. La posición de Max Mosley es ambigua porque es partidario de proyectos como el de Super Aguri y Toro Rosso, esto es diferentes equipos o equipos clientes de otros con mucho en común entre sus monoplazas, pero a la vez entiende la posición de Williams y Spyker, con muchos empleados y equipamientos detrás, respecto a alguien que simplemente les haría la competencia o les superaría comprando el coche a otro equipo (sin toda eso que ellos sí han creado durante años).

Estoy bastante de acuerdo con lo que dice. ¿Podría haber corrido este año Prodrive con un McLaren de hace un tiempo o bien basado en un proyecto o variación de un McLaren? Yo creo que sí..., pero claro no habrían dado el pelotazo (ni David Richards, ni Dennis) con la comodidad que querían.

Soy de la posición que el "jeta" ha sido David Richards, e insisto que si Super Aguri corre, ellos con más medios deberían haberlo hecho... Salvo que como pienso lo que se pretendía era hacer el "negociazo" invirtiendo 100 millones y superando a equipos que invierten más de 300... En fin.

[`]

GO TO EARLIER STORY GO TO THE NEWS INDEX
Analysis: Aguri must wait on 2008 plans

By Jonathan Noble Wednesday, December 19th 2007, 12:34 GMT

Daniel AudettoSuper Aguri have overcome plenty of challenges to become world championship points scorers in Formula One, so it is no surprise to find them bullish about clearing the latest pitfalls standing in their way.

Having created a Formula One team from scratch in just a handful of months before the 2006 season, the Leafield-based team surprised many by scoring several points last year en route to ninth place in the constructors' championship.

But despite that promise, and securing the continued backing of Honda at a recent board meeting of the Japanese manufacturer, the team are aware that financial difficulties and continued uncertainty over the future of customer cars has left them with plenty of work to do before the start of 2008.

However, managing director Daniel Audetto remains confident about the future and thinks that once arbitration over customer cars is resolved early next year, the team will be able to put the sponsors in place and finalise their driver line-up of Anthony Davidson and Takuma Sato.

Speaking to autosport.com, he said the support from Honda and Japanese fans was a big lift to the spirits amid all the difficulties the team face.

"We have always to remember why Super Aguri exists," said Audetto. "We exist because we always had the support, commitment and direction from Honda. We have a close collaboration with them and two weeks ago, when I was in Japan for a Honda festival, I really noticed a big support that Aguri and Takuma have in Japan.

"That comes from Bridgestone, the media, the sponsors and most importantly the fans. It is incredible.

"But saying that, I think we have still two problems. The first one is from this year and that is the loss of US$40 million of money - $30 million sponsorship from SS United and $10 million from Giedo van der Garde's sponsors. That created a big problem and it meant that after Indianapolis, we had to reduce the costs and the development.

"Secondly, looking to next year, the future is not defined because F1 is a bit uncertain, and arbitration action brings a negative impact."

Super Aguri and Scuderia Toro Rosso are at the centre of an arbitration action lodged by Spyker (now Force India) over the use of customer cars in Formula One.

A decision on that matter is expected early next year, and Audetto admits that until the case is resolved there is little chance of his team putting further plans for 2008 in place.

"Aguri is in negotiation with different sponsors, but the problem with the ongoing situation in F1 is not helping very much.

"I hope we can finalise the arbitration in our favour very soon. This is all just politics going on, and if I was a sponsor I would want to have the arbitration action resolved before I committed.

"However, Aguri Suzuki is working hard and he is confident we will have sponsors and new partners, and they will join Super Aguri.

"In the meantime we have to prepare for the new season in the best possible way. We did Barcelona and Jerez with new tyres and the new MES (standard ECU), and we are looking forward to having more good tests in January.

"After that, we hope to confirm soon we have sponsors, partners and also our drivers Anthony and Takuma."

Super Aguri will start next season with an interim car before hopefully getting their hands on a 2008 Honda 'customer car' from the start of the European season.

And although the off-track problems remain, Audetto is in no doubt that they are totally committed to the sport.

"Our team, in spite of being small and not being super funded, we have a real fighting spirit," he said. "We have good professional people.

"Sometimes it can be an advantage to not be a big team. There is no complication with bureaucracy, and we can move fast, so sometimes the benefit of being small can compensate for not having the big budget.

"I think next year we can be more positive and be stronger with more experience."


Lo de negrita es de traca señores, Aguri piensa correr con el Honda 2008 apartir del primer gp en Europa. [/b]

[tenista]

Que esperabas, Yossi, si el unico equipo que no interesa que corra es Prodrive. Manda H*****.