Comments on: Honda Pressure Aguri To Retain Davidson

By: Oliver White

Oliver White — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:26:57 +0000

Ah, I getcha’. No worries, we were on the same lines, just looking out of different windows.

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:09:05 +0000

Sorry, Ollie, for wording my thoughts badly. I’ll try to clear up what I meant. A driver can leave a team once his name is entered with the FIA only if a contract clause is invoked or a mutual settlement is agreed (I think this is what I was trying to get at with the “breaches” thing…) This is relatively new; the CRB only came about in the second half of 2001.

The Trulli and Villnueve affairs could be classed contract clause triggers. Renault got away with dismissing Trulli (nominally on performance grounds) thanks to some complicated negotiating with Toyota to let him drive for them early. Since Trulli was happy to be out of Renault by then (as long as he was racing somewhere), and da Matta’s contract was terminated on performance grounds to make way, the FIA couldn’t intervene.

Something similar happened with Villenueve, in that his boss had been looking for ways to replace him for a while and took the smallest opportunity with both hands. Absenteeism from one specific test led to his dismissal (at least on paper). He’d probably have got away with missing just the race, but would he have wanted to with the way BMW-Sauber didn’t really want him there?

By: Oliver White

Oliver White — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:42:55 +0000

Maybe I’m not fully getting what you’re saying Ali, so apologies in advance if I am getting the wrong end of the stick. But…
…Villeneuve replaced Trulli at Renault for the final race of ‘04 or ‘05, Kubica replaced Villeneuve in the BMW mid-2006 (and I don’t think injury stands up anymore; the replacement became permanent-to-date). Albers got the bump last year due to sponsorship issues as well, although arguably this constitutes a contract breach possibly.

There have been loads of driver switches mid-season, mostly centered around money and performance. Recently it hasn’t happened as much, but it used to be quite regular in the nineties, particularly in the mid-lower teams.

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:34:37 +0000

If a team puts a driver’s name down on the FIA entry list, the FIA assumes that there is either a contract already or that a contract will come. I’ve never heard of it permitting a driver to be changed once the entry list is in, apart from contract breaches and filling-in of TBA slots. That said, I’m struggling to think of any examples when anyone tested this rule…

By: Clive

Clive — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:11:52 +0000

Just to confound my original argument, there was a team that employed a pay driver and went on to win races and the championship. Brabham did it when Bernie was in charge - he employed Hector Rebaque as No. 2 to Nelson Piquet to top up the coffers.

It’s not a good example, however, as Bernie didn’t really need the money - he’s just tight.

By: Oliver White

Oliver White — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:32:21 +0000

@Milos: Good comment. I say Aguri’s 2007 season was incredible based on the fact they were hurriedly put together the year previous and managed four points in ‘07. Of course, Jordan did pretty well in their first season with a totally new car, so maybe I was a little hasty in my description of their achievements last year. Still, a pretty good effort considering they’re based in a bungalow in the middle of nowhere (still can’t get my head around that one).

@Alianora: I wouldn’t be surprised if Renault quit at the end of the season. Or when Alonso and Briatore leave. They’ve never given off a in it for the long haul vibe.

As far as I understand it, neither SA driver (at the time the FIA released the entry list) had a contract signed. Of course Sato will eventually be announced, but Davidson is questionable. I believe the team said at the time that both drivers would more than likely be retained, and so the FIA slapped the two names down. However, the team can change their line-up at any point up until the start of qualifying I think. I believe they may now be limited as to how many changes they can make in a season, and of course changes require consent and/or money for the dis-serviced party.

By: milos

milos — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:25:44 +0000

the fact that Davidson is on the entry list does not mean anything. at the time the entry list was published by FIA Super Aguri came out saying that none of their 2 drivers has been signed yet. and all the teams can still change the drivers. I think the deadline is the start of the season but I am not 100% sure

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:19:38 +0000

I’ve just had a slightly scary thought - according to milos’ definition, Renault has just taken on a pay driver. Nelson Piquet Jr is there because the sponsorship consortium helping to pay for Alonso demanded his presence on the race team (otherwise Renault would not have been in a position to get Alonso, and Flavio wouldn’t have been a happy bunny). As a result, Piquet Jr. is paying for Alonso to be there. Since Renault, unlike Super Aguri, are not in the start-up phase (where pay drivers are pretty common), does that mean Renault are going to withdraw?

As for Super Aguri, since they’ve put Anthony Davidson on the FIA entry form, I think they’re stuck with him unless they can find a way of breaking his contract. One court case is bad enough without the CRB hauling Super Aguri in for another…

By: milos

milos — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:59:25 +0000

the achievments of Aguri in 2006 were incredible. When judging their 2007 season one has to remember they started with a pretty good 2006 Honda car. As the season went on, they were slipping down the grid. They simply picked up what Honda left behind and did not improve it much …

I would not be so sure Honda will get their way and keep Davidson on the grid. They might, but at the end it will all come down to money. If they will be willing to pay all SA bills, then SA will run whomever Honda tells them, But if SA has to look for resources outside of Honda family, they may have to listen to demands of new investors.

Also, we may not be talking here about pay driver as we know them from Minardi days. Minardi simply gave seats to drivers who brought the money. Now there is a talk about investor coming to buy part of the team, and that investor sure will want to have some say over drivers line up. The talk is about an Indian company … One Indian company runs F1 team already and selected drivers based on the skills (or whatever it was in case of Fisi ). The other may want to enter simply to bring Indian driver back on the grid for PR reasons … This happened before, remember why Super Aguri was conceived …

By: Oliver White

Oliver White — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:14:55 +0000

Sato isn’t a spring chicken either, celebrating his 31st birthday yesterday. I’m guessing Super Aguri realise this (among other things) and are looking for a way to fund the team after he retires and Honda eventually pull out, or at least put a cap on their ’support’.

Regarding pay drivers, I would have to agree that going down the route doesn’t always work. For teams like Minardi it was a good way to get extra funds, and with a slew of minor sponsors they were able to continue, albeit at the back. And I’m sure some pay-drivers have turned out okay, I believe Barrichello started out paying for his ride.

What Aguri managed in 2006 and 2007 was incredible, but I’m getting a whiff of Honda not wholly enjoying the outlay the team needs. This whole issue screams of Honda wanting to limit their involvement, particularly if the customer-chassis rules are not changed in the near future. Being taken to court is one helluva pill to swallow.