Ecclestone finally agrees Marussia commercial deal

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Having been left out in the cold for almost a year, Marussia have finally been given a commercial deal by Bernie Ecclestone.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Marussia sign agreement with Ecclestone (Reuters)

Sporting director Graeme Lowdon: “We can’t talk about the terms of the contract itself but we can certainly confirm that we have reached agreement with the commercial rights holder for a bilateral agreement and that’s now signed.”

F1: Indian Grand Prix to go ahead after Supreme Court delay hearing in alleged tax irregularities (The Independent)

“The legal threat to this weekend’s Indian Grand Prix is at an end after a Supreme Court hearing into alleged tax irregularities was delayed until next week.”

Pirelli threatens to quit F1 over testing (Autosport)

“Pirelli chairman Marco Tronchetti Provera recently indicated that he would be prepared to pull his company out of F1 if testing did not happen before Jerez, and its motorsport director Paul Hembery made it clear in India on Friday that the situation was now critical.”

Vettel not afraid of a top team mate (BBC)

“One day maybe I will race alongside Kimi [Raikkonen] or Fernando [Alonso]. It depends how long we stick around.”

Red Bull’s Adrian Newey to open record books and a new chapter (The Guardian)

“The formula of man and machine is an exciting one to work in, which is why thoughts about the America’s Cup have come about. Where else is there a big budget sporting blend of man and machine and competition? The America’s Cup is the only big alternative.”

Boullier on Hulkenberg, finances and Lotus’s future (F1)

“For us [the new financial deal] would mean a long-term financial commitment. It would mean one level up and for the next five years it would allow us to build a different strategy for the team. You are free in your choice. You can pick up any driver by merit and work on the attractiveness of the team. We have good people, a very good car and a great ambiance in Enstone, and with more means and resources you can refine all these things even more.”

Magnussen: ‘I’m ready for F1’ (Sky)

“If I get the chance with a big team then it would because they expect me to deliver and only because they think I am the right solution. I feel I’m ready. I have won in everything I have driven in so why would that change in Formula One?”


Comment of the day

@Baron weighs in on the divisive issue of customer cars:

How is it different from customer engines? Even engines supplied by a competitive team? Ferrari, Mercedes etc. It’s exactly the same principle.

I am definitely for the idea if it keeps the competition going. Last years winning car in the hands of a lesser order team is not a given winner now is it, but it would be great if a lesser team with a customer car was able to embarrass the supplier! (McLaren versus Mercedes and all the Renault-supplied teams versus Renault for example?).

As long as the number of customer cars was limited I am definitely for the idea and while you’re at it, allow teams to enter a single car and those with two cars to be able to have different title sponsors for each.

Just do it. The current set-up is too rigid.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Luigismen and Xivizmath!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

British racer Ian Ashley was born in Germany today in 1947. He made a handful of starts in the mid-seventies but suffered a woeful lack of luck. His first appearance for Frank Williams’ team at the Nurburgring saw him suffer a major crash in practice, injuring his leg and keeping him out of the race.

The following year he joined Louis Stanley’s BRM team but they dropped out of the championship after the first race. Then with Hesketh in 1977 he was again injured in a crash during practice.

That marked the end of his F1 adventure, though he went on to compete in IndyCar racing and even did a season in the British Touring Car Championship in 1993.

Image © Marussia

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

39 comments on “Ecclestone finally agrees Marussia commercial deal”

  1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
    26th October 2013, 0:25

    If Pirelli leaves, we will see races managed as the Flinstones did…

    1. I know it’s not Pirellis fault and I don’t wish them ill but I hope they do bail out so that another manufacturer can negotiate to supply F1 with tyres from a position of strength and insist that they supply the best tyre they can make, one that is both fast and durable.

    2. @omarr-pepper haha, are you specifically remembering that episode when Fred races a F1-like car and the stone wheels desintegrate at the end and he loses? xD that couldn’t be more Pirelli !

  2. I would not blame them….I think it is a joke how they have treated Pirelli…..
    Trying to develop competative tyres with hands tied behind your back….and then Pirelli get the bad press when everything starts to go wrong.

  3. I couldn’t disagree with the COTD more. That sounds like about one step away from being Indycar, which for me has zero appeal. I can’t stand all the different sponsors & liveries within the same team. Unless you’re a big fan it’s often difficult to know who’s a team mate to whom. Likewise the idea of single car teams has no appeal. If the sport’s costs have gotten so out of control that a team can’t afford to field both cars then the costs need to be brought down for all teams. Teams having different numbers of cars would also disadvantage the single car teams further, which is not something the sport needs. Everything about the whole idea of customer cars as well as the so called strategy group stinks. The one chance of stopping that from happening was FOTA. It’s disappointing that the teams are so short sighted that they can’t work together long enough to make the sport more sustainable for each other.

    1. If we talk about totally unregulated supply of customer cars then your indycar analogy may be valid but some simple regulations would solve most of the things you worry about; I suggest,
      1. Manufacturer team can only supply 2 cars as customer cars.
      2. No duplication of sponsors between manufacturer team and customer team.
      3. No in-season technical assistance.
      4. customer cars points not included in constructors championship.
      5. Revenue distribution weighted to reward manufacturers.
      These simple rules should ensure that the big budget teams don’t become the dominant influence by de facto monopolie team ownership.

      1. Hm, but the strategy working group as it is is mostly constituted of the big teams. I seriously doubt that they would ever be able to agree on something like proposed in 2, 3 and 5 @hohum. That is exactly the problem with that new structure, the smaller teams now are really unequally represented (before that they just had less negotiating power but had a say or even a good chance to block things).

        Apart from that, unless you found a way to guard that no (inter)team orders, technical cooperation and money transfers took place (which would be even harder to do than either policing a budget cap or the current RRA), there is just no way the teams supplying their customers won’t want customers to vote with them (we already had that with STR supporting RBR and Sauber and Marussia having to side with Ferrari this year) and be “helpfull” where they can. It would make a situation of having several competitors being dependent on other competitors for their cars.

        The problem is, you can buy an engine from a different team and install it, but when you do not have the facilities to develop your own car (because there was no need to), it will take at least 2 years and a big amount of money to be able to start on your own chassis.

        1. @bascb, I can see the problem with 2 (particularly RBR/Torro Rosso) for the teams but I believe it is the key to avoiding de-facto satellite teams.
          With 3, if RBR are giving Torro Rosso technical assistance now it’s not showing much return so I don’t think there is much to worry about there.
          With 5 I must not have expressed myself clearly, what I meant was that at years end when FOM divide up the spoils, points scored by a manufacturer team would be worth more than points scored by a customer team to better reflect the investment and encourage successful customer teams to make the jump and become manufacturers, I don’t see any of the larger (manufacturer) teams not being in favour of getting a bigger share of the pie.

    2. Me too but not everyone sees F1 in the same way, some have other opinions about the concept of F1, which honestly mustn’t have anything to do with F1’s history as plenty of things have changed. In my opinion if there were costumer cars F1 would lose it’s main appeal, F1 is pretty much the only motorsport that has constructors and all the benefits from it

  4. I dare you! I double dare you, mo.. current F1 tire supplier XD

    1. oops didn’t close the link!

    2. Thx for that bro :-)

    3. Maybe Kimi is an exception, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that most of the teams and drivers work their ***** off. If they don’t have the genius that’s quite another question.

      Had Seb said”we are simply better than the rest and that’s it”, arrogant as it might have sounded, he would at least have been honest. But he has no right to accuse the rest of laziness, specially after that “hanging by the pool” comment at Singapore Nico Rosberg was so happy about.

      It’s unbelievable how some people can say Seb is so awfully nice, or wonder at all the flak he gets.

    4. I think he is right though. Have you seen or read anything about Vettel doing anything else than F1 and the sponsorship obligations that come with it? He also lives in a quiet village in Switzerland rather than Monaco. I am sure all other drivers work very hard but they are not all 100% focused on F1. Alonso for example wants to buy this bicycle team – time he spends thinking or worrying about this distract from F1. Hamilton seems very keen to project the image of a rapper with a soft touch – and to me it seems he spends not insignificant time on this PR [I actually think Hamilton is a really nice guy but this PR stuff seems a bit forced]. Button has his triathlon team, etc etc.

      This does not make Vettel nicer but helps him being more successful.


      1. Or it could be that it is because Red Bull Racing pressure the press not to report on certain things, even if things occasionally leak out (Kravitz, in his video blog for the Canadian GP, mentioned that Vettel was spending quite a bit of time enjoying the local nightlife, in part because Vettel realised that most Canadians probably would not recognise him outside of the track).

        For example, it turns out that Red Bull recently tried to ban journalists from revealing the fact that Vettel owns a dog – why they would want to do that is unknown, but if they are prepared to flex their muscles over something as trivial as what pet Vettel owns, what else are they prepared to try to cover up?

  5. With customer cars, I could get behind it if the number was limited and only the chassis was supplied. To me, a modern Formula 1 team should be somewhat involved in the design. Of course the problem here is that teams would have to kept well in the loop during development, or risk only having a couple of months to put together the rest between the chassis completion and the first race.

    Alternatively, I wouldn’t mind perhaps seeing more complete customer cars if the number of cars on the grid were increased and teams using them didn’t take any existing places. My worry then is that any backmarker manufacturers being beaten by customer cars would have to seriously consider their position in the sport if they’re doing a worse job but spending far more money- that’s only going to lead to teams leaving.

    1. “thats only going to lead to teams leaving” or alternatively becoming customer-car teams until they attract enough sponsorship or partners to return to manufacturing.

      1. Enough to rehire all the previously fired staff, when they know they could find themselves being beaten by customer teams again?

        1. @matt90, even running a customer car they would require some design and engineering staff for in season development in order to be “champion customer car team”, not ideal but better than going the way of HRT.

  6. I hate the idea of customer cars. I want to see teams trying different solutions for a specific set of rules, not the same car across all (or almost all) the grid.

    I don’t like how Indycars work. I don’t get how a team is constantly better than the others (Penske or whatever), but I just don’t see the appeal on it. F1 is a mesh of technical evolution and constant creation, even with the limitations in today’s rules. Doesn’t Lotus work with a much smaller budget than Mercedes or Ferrari? and they challenge the big guys.

    The costs should go down for all teams. Customer cars isn’t, IMO, the solution. How should it be? no idea… but not customer cars, nor 3 car teams…

    1. @fer-no65, Customer cars is not the same as an outside supplier and it is easy to limit the number of cars any one manufacturer can supply, I suggest only 2 customer cars per season.

    2. I agree 100%

    3. I agree – customer cars is a bad thing. That it’s Bernie’s prerogative and that of CVC and Red Bull is even more reason for the right-thinking fan of F1 to oppose it.

  7. About Magnussen:

    If I get the chance with a big team I feel I’m ready. I’ve won in everything I have driven in so why would that change in Formula 1?

    Ahem, because in F1 you have THE best drivers in the world with years of experience maybe? The level of competition in the feeder series doesn’t even compare to what exists in the top teams in F1.

    On the rules changes

    If anything, it could be an advantage for us rookies because if anything it means that experience counts for less

    Comments like this show how disconnected he is from reality, suggesting that having no experience with systems like KERS is actually better for driving next year’s car is ridiculous.

    1. I’ve won in everything I have driven in so why would that change in Formula 1?

      Neither does that not make sense, it’s also untrue. This year’s Formula Renault 3.5 title is Magnussen’s second title, having won the first in 2008, the Formula Ford Denmark championship. He’s made small jumps after that, but hasn’t really been successful, though he’s always been competitive. This year’s WSR triumph was almost expected, with AFdC having a year like he did. So this boasting is not only ill-placed, it’s also inaccurate. Of course, the fact remains that junior formula successes do not guarantee success in F1.

      1. Just realise he said “I’ve won ‘in’ everything i’ve driven in”. So scratch the part about it being untrue..

        1. Anyway, he still needs to prove himself in GP3 and/or GP2…

          1. Having won World Series, I hardly think GP3 is going to be relevant…

          2. McLaren does not feel GP2 is a good place for their drivers, hence why both are in Reanualt 3.5.

  8. I know that a lot of people dislike Sebastien Vettel, but you have to respect Newey for what he has accomplished as a designer. I for one want to see Red Bull win for as long as possible because I want to say that I saw something historical in my lifetime. I want to say to my grandchildren, “I watched Red Bull win everyone of their races during their dynasty.” One day someone will dethrone Red Bull and hopefully it will be a no name underdog to make it a very momentous event. I personally think that Dynasties are good for sports.

    1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      26th October 2013, 5:00

      Dynasties are great for sports, because they polarize the fan base.
      You either love them or loath them.

      In this case I ‘loath’ Red Bull because they’re winning just about everything, but I have a very deep respect for them because of the incredible feats they’re achieving.

    2. I personally think that Dynasties are good for sports.

      I think its great to build up a dynasty. Iit brings a certain pedigree for which team you support, and it sets the stage for fan loyalty far after their favourite drivers have retired.

      Although, I’m not happy with the fact that Ferrari, Mclaren and Mercedes (all dynasties in their own right) have not even been close to challenging Red Bull over the past 4 years. Unless there are a few teams constantly threatening the favourites, the sport just loses its charm.

      Full respect to Adrian Newey though.. definitely a person who took an average team and turned it into an unstoppable force

  9. Is the future of Formula 1 destined to be perpetual cost-cutting? Most regulations changes nowadays are made to cut costs.

  10. Wish Pirelli would stop whining.

    If the 2014 engine’s are so different with the torque, What good will running a 2011/2013 car be as they still won’t be getting the correct data.
    Besides they are scheduled to do some testing with 2011 cars soon, I know there’s a McLaren test scheduled shortly running a 2011 car.

    Lets not also forget that they were testing 2014 tyres in that Mercedes Barcelona test running a 2013 car.

    1. Yes, but both of those tests you cite came under great fire, with the latter going to an international tribunal. The McLaren test at COTA was protested as other teams didn’t want McLaren going to COTA and getting some ‘running’ before the race weekend, the Ferrari test after Bahrain was also problematic.

      Pirelli are in the sport to supply tyres, but it seems whatever tyres they supply they are ridiculed (Either for boring races where there’s no overtaking, or boring races where there’s too much overtaking), and they are bullied by the fanbase and the teams when they try and go testing.

      I do wonder whether F1 could take a leaf out of IndyCar’s book and create a car that is reasonably representative of the 2014 cars, and let Pirelli use that as testing. That way the teams don’t get in a huff with each other, and Pirelli get a car that is representative of the new specs (Yes, I know it won’t be exact, but it would easily be enough for Pirelli to make tyres to suit similar cars, plus fans would get a good idea of what the new F1 cars would look like, it’s a win-win-win, surely?)

  11. What if the “customer car” was limited to the monocoque? This would maybe curb the cost of chassis homologation for the fia while giving the teams flexibility for novel solutions with the front nose cone, floor, bodywork, rear wing, suspension (to a certain extent), etc.

  12. I would be very very happy to see Nico Hulkenberg go to Lotus. He is fast becoming my favorite driver and it must be the same for many fans. It just shows that if you have the talent and the skill to make it in F1, then no amount of hardship can stop you. It must be a sharp lesson to drivers like Di Resta that claiming to be good enough for a top team and actually performing at that level are two completely unrelated things. Also, it helps not to show the team in a poor light at every press conference and interview.

    1. t must be a sharp lesson to drivers like Di Resta that claiming to be good enough for a top team and actually performing at that level are two completely unrelated things.

      Lol. Paul really needs to read that statement

Comments are closed.