Jules Bianchi's car, Marussia, Sochi Autodrom, 2014

Marussia will also miss United States GP – Ecclestone

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Jules Bianchi's car, Marussia, Sochi Autodrom, 2014In the round-up: Formula One will have a grid of just 18 cars in next week’s United States Grand Prix – the smallest since 2005 – as Marussia will join Caterham in missing the next race, says Bernie Ecclestone.

Links

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

Caterham and Marussia to miss next races – Ecclestone (Reuters)

“Neither of those two teams [Marussia and Caterham] are going to go to America.”

Marussia join Caterham in missing F1 US GP, confirms Bernie Ecclestone (The Guardian)

Caterham administrator Finbarr O’Connell: “The racing kit was heading towards Austin but it’s still in the UK. It will stay in the UK and hopefully if Caterham races in one of the last races we will ship the racing kit from here.”

Drivers taking liberties – Stewart (BBC)

“Sadly – and it is a terrible thing to say – it will probably need a fatality to actually bring back to everybody’s understanding what you cannot and should not be doing.”

Spectre of double points hangs over F1 in Abu Dhabi (The Telegraph)

“Say, for example, Hamilton comes into the race leading Rosberg by 40 points but is run off the track by a driver from the back of the grid. Rosberg could then breeze through to take the win, and the title, leaving Hamilton empty-handed. The sport would be rendered a laughing stock.”

Tyler Alexander (F1 Speedwriter)

“What about all the prestige, glamour and mystique that you hear about in Formula 1? ‘Bullshit! Racing is just a plain old bunch of very difficult, complicated hard work that’s a pain in the ass.'”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Michael sums up the bleak situation F1 is facing:

Caterham is in dire trouble. Marussia is struggling and will miss Austin. Sauber’s suffering and Lotus must not be doing that great as evidenced by the fact that they couldn’t pay Raikkonen last year and they will be getting much less money this year for their abysmal performance. Toro Rosso would have been out of F1 except for the fact that it’s Red Bull’s second team. Force India isn’t exactly swimming in money.

That leaves ten cars (five constructors) that are able to ‘comfortably’ compete in F1 – namely Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, McLaren and Williams.

Things have to change. Anyone looking into F1 right now must realize how tough it is to survive in this sport, much less thrive.
Michael (@Freelittlebirds)

The winner of the latest Caption Competition will feature in tomorrow’s round-up so you still have time to enter here:

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Luigismen, Xivizmath and Jayfreeseknight!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Damon Hill and Mika Hakkinen suffered crashes during testing 20 years ago today. Both were unharmed.

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 97 comments on “Marussia will also miss United States GP – Ecclestone”

    1. Keep up the good work Bernie!

      1. Bernie – Man of the Year!

        @hohum Your comment made me laugh more than I should have.

      2. In fairness to Bernie though, at least he is giving the teams permission rather than slamming them with fines.

        1. Not even Bernie could collect fines from these 2 teams.

          1. And of course the rules allow them to miss 3 races so his permission is moot.

            1. Is it three full points or 3 half points races they can miss?…
              Marussia are sensible to save themselves for Abu Dhabi if they can only go to one more race. Or if they want to focus on 2015 already.

          2. @hohum – So true.

      3. ColdFly F1 (@)
        26th October 2014, 3:11

        Bernie starving the smaller teams from any revenue, and FIA starving them from any chance of a stable and manageable cost structure.

        The two of them do really well killing of the smaller teams. And the worst part is that those guys seemed be be trying really hard, work their backsides off, and achieved a lot.
        I agree with many that F1 management seems to be moving away from what the fans want faster than it ever did in the past. IMHO, it is still true that F1 needs a team like Ferrari. But it is also true that F1 needs small independent teams who work hard and achieve a lot to survive in the sport and fight for their part of the points tally.

        1. @coldfly, 100%, and like one of the tweets above state, Marussia and Caterham aren’t like the teams in the 80’s and early 90’s that never qualified for a race.

          1. Only because there aren’t enough teams to require pre-qualifying, at Spa 1990 the cars that qualified 18-22 were between 4.7-4.9 seconds off the pole position time, in 2014 the gap was between 4.1-7.3 seconds off the fastest Q1 time (which was almost 2 seconds off the eventual pole lap from Q3).
            The current backmarkers are no better, and at some times much worse than the backmarkers of the past and it’s only the limited number of teams and the 107% rule being done away with that has allowed them to get onto the grid at many races in the last few years.

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              26th October 2014, 11:51

              @beneboy, you forgot to mention that a Marrussia made it into Q2 in Spa’14.

              And I believe that the 107% rule is still in place; its just hardly ever used in 2014.

            2. Yeah the 107 % rule is still there. It’s just never needed nowadays as all teams are able to post a quick enough time at some point during the weekend.

            3. @coldfly
              You’re right, I thought the 107% rule had been dropped but it’s actually still there but in a more relaxed form this year.
              Marussia may have got into Q2 but they’re nowhere near Minardi’s best with a 2nd place start and a 4th place finish.

      4. Right on @hohum! Big congrats to @keithcollantine and the team for the great article, and acknowledgment from Mercedes F1 team! Big step guys!

        1. Just to add: I love the site in general, but when you go against the grain and speak on behalf of the fans, or even just exploring another perspective on reg changes, or team orders etc is so refreshing in a world whereby F1 stories seem to follow the same formula or theme. Honestly, I love this site, and God knows what I’d do without it! Keep it up :)

    2. As they say, if you wanna see how good the country actually is, don’t look how well are the richest people, look how well are the poorest people. Obviously, Bernie is doing some stellar work with F1.

    3. To piggyback on the COTD, out of the five healthy teams he mentioned it wasn’t too long ago that Williams looked to be slipping into trouble. Last year they had an abysmal car, little sponsorship and had lost 20 million pounds on a failed project with Jaguar. I wonder where they’d be without a competitive car and Martini sponsorship – we’d probably have to worry about Williams’ long term health too! Crazy.

      I guess in a way the turn around for Williams can give hope to the other teams in that fortunes can change quickly in this sport, but I doubt that’s much comfort to the employees of Marussia and Caterham right now.

      1. christopheraser
        26th October 2014, 1:19

        Do we know this? I got the feeling that Williams have a pretty tight rein on spending and were one of the few teams that lived within their means.

        1. Well the part about losing money on a Jaguar project is true, the rest is just speculation, but you don’t see teams as big as Williams go through too many seasons like 2013 without running into trouble. You can’t lose on the track and off of it and expect to survive.

      2. Good point. I wouldn’t say Williams is perfectly fine either @colossal-squid. On an upwards trend? So far yes, and next year they will receive a bit of money for their good season now. But if Ferrari and McLaren step up, it’s all too easy to see them slip again. They really have no big sponsor deals to speak of (I read in several places that the Martini deal is an “optimistic” on with big PR but little money involved).

        And McLaren are a huge team, with great resources. But the owners have had to pay most of this season out of their own pocket because they failed to agree to terms they and sponsors were satisfied with. If their Honda deal does not give them a big upswing, I can easily see them lingering in the mid field long term and in risk of running into financial troubles as well.

      3. I think Williams also reassuringly shows that a quick car is still the most important thing and it doesn’t necessarily have to cost huge amounts of money. Yes they have Mercedes power but they’ve convincingly beaten Mclaren this season and incidentally the Mercedes engine also happens to be the cheapest!

      4. @colossal-squid As others have said, Williams have had their struggles and have a number of unnamed investors behind them which always seems like a slightly precarious situation. They’ve survived for the most part thanks to the PDVSA/Maldonado money, which has kept them afloat through rough times. But look also at McLaren, who have been without a major title sponsor for the better part of two years now since Vodafone pulled out. Yes they have a tie up with Honda going forward but when a championship winning team like McLaren is rolling a car out of the garage with a different sponsor on the side each week, you have to wonder how comfortable the comfortable teams really are.

      5. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorsport/10967440/Williams-F1-team-turns-car-tuner-extraordinaire.html

        Good article about what Williams are doing with the greater automotive industry. How many other F1 teams can claim to have provided this much support to the car industry other than their own products (i.e. Mclaren, Ferrari). This is why I have alway been a fan of Williams, their innovative capability is unparalleled in my opinion. This is also a good example of how an F1 team can diversify its revenue streams.

    4. Dat tweet from Mercedes :-) Nice to see your hard work being read by teams,
      Keith.

      1. Keeping it independent! yah

      2. @spoutnik, yeah I think it’s pretty cool. Cooler still would be if they block the engine unfreeze and cite Keith’s article as the explanation. Let’s wait and see.

        1. Would be really nice :D

    5. I feel bad for the US fans, this is obviously going to bring back memories of the 2005 GP which was certainly the most embarrassing moment I’ve seen for F1.

      It’s not unusual for this to happen in the history of F1 of course, but with the sport becoming more and more tightly regulated it’s not so easy to replace these teams that are fighting for survival. Bernie is desperately harping on about the benefits of three car teams but the reality is there is no choice, since the last three teams joined five years ago there has only been one serious attempt to join the sport (Haas) and little interest other than shady investment companies.

      I say there’s no choice, but it’s no coincidence that those teams were attracted by the promise of a budget cap. Perhaps if there was a concerted effort to reduce costs and/or a more inclusive distribution of income, more serious ventures would come out of the woodwork. Not that this is ever likely to happen while Bernie is in charge.

      1. I was at that race, almost 10 years gone and I’m still a little bitter. Part of me felt that they wouldn’t have done something like that at any of the other races, but because it was “just the USGP”, they did so. Whether or not that is rational, I’m sure I wasn’t the only American who feels/felt that way

        1. By the way, you were right. The 2005 race was the first thing that I thought of when I read the headline

      2. @george “but it’s no coincidence that those teams were attracted by the promise of a budget cap. Perhaps if there was a concerted effort to reduce costs and/or a more inclusive distribution of income, more serious ventures would come out of the woodwork. Not that this is ever likely to happen while Bernie is in charge.”

        Spot. On.

      3. Still 3 times more cars than 2005, though ;)

        Let´s just hope Sauber is safe for 2015. Maybe Marussia will also manage to run, when they get their money from scoring points… No real hope for Caterham, though… And Lotus doesn´t seem 100% sure, too. So worst case is 7 teams in 2015, best (realistic) case would be 10 teams. Only the best case means no 3-car-teams, worst-case would mean a car less than this year even with 3 cars per team.

    6. Great job on that cost control; strategy group, Todt and of obviously, the billionaire of the moment, Bernie.

    7. I was really looking forward to seeing Rossi race in Austin, the man can’t catch a break! Here’s hoping he’s still a viable candidate for Haas in 2016…

      1. So, are these teams (read: Marussia, seeing what happened at Caterham) basically using Bernie’s 3 race waiver to stack all their eggs in the Abu Dhabi basket, saving money and part lift for the double points decider? If so, we could still see Chilton, Rossi, Stevens in Abu Dhabi for Marussia, and possibly Kobayashi, Ericsson, Merhi if Caterham race under administration. If there’s an almighty pile up, they could literally win up to $100m and save the race team (at the same time condemning Marussia).

    8. I can see it being 4 cars out, 4 cars out, top 10 shootout… but what would that give?

      Q1 – Sauber and Lotus out
      Q2 – Force India, Toro Rosso out
      Q3 – Mercedes, Red Bull, Williams, Ferrari, McLaren.

      Just shows how close we are to disaster. But of course, Toro Rosso drivers are likely to snap up a Q3 place if say Raikkonen, Button, Massa or Red Bull don’t have the pace. What about 5 out, 5 out, 8 shoot-out?

      1. Don’t forget that Vettel won’t be running in quali due to the engine rules which enforce a pit start for the race.

        1. In retrospect a smart choice as he now needs to overtake four cars less.

    9. Having gotten over the Tragi-Comical aspects of todays banner headline like @andrewf1, and thought about the potential ramifications I have come to 2 conclusions;
      1. 18 cars will still provide an excellent spectacle for viewers at both COTA and BRA.
      2. Bernie will no doubt have “force majeure” or other provisions in his contracts to escape any financial penalties for failing to provide a 20+ car grid, but the obvious likelyhood of this situation continuing into next year might force a rethink and a re-negotiation of income distribution with the teams in order not to lose his grip (and the investors capital) on the Golden Goose that is F1. Only a total collapse of the current situation that would allow the major teams the opportunity to regain control over their destiny could be better news for F1.

      1. That works on the assumption that the teams could actually co-operate together – and to be blunt, I expect that the teams would probably only help run things into the ground faster than before.

        Efforts to collectively run things have always failed to work together, with the more powerful teams tending to be more interested in trying to give each other an advantage rather than working for the health of the sport. It’s really only in matters of safety that the teams have actually co-operated that much, and even then that was mainly because the FIA had to push them into working together.

        It is the established teams that have vetoed the idea of budget caps, with Frank Williams having said he would rather shut down his team than allow a budget cap to be imposed and outfits like Red Bull vetoing proposals for chassis development restraints.

        Why would the same top teams that agreed and helped shape the financial structure that FOM has put together then suddenly become more altruistic? Only a few months ago, Whitmarsh – one of the few major team bosses who was pushing for measures to restrain costs – was ousted by Ron Dennis, a man who has publicly stated that he will refuse all efforts to constrain costs and doesn’t care if rivals teams are driven to bankruptcy so long as McLaren wins in the process.

        CVC might be damaging the sport, but at the same time the teams have shown that they would be more interested in fighting to control the sport, even if they destroy themselves in the process, than actually caring about the collateral damage done to the sport by their infighting.

        1. Anon. I take your point but believe, if having to start from scratch haveing seen what Bernie has wrought, the teams are capable of instituting a framework for competition that could provide a safety net for lesser teams by going back to the principle of “starting money” and still amply reward the success of more successful teams, naturally they would have to stem the amount of money being bled out of the sport by management.

    10. I’m fairly sure that the cut-off for the commercial agreements is if the car count drops below 18 cars & not 20.

      I say that because I remember when BAR-Honda were banned from those 2 races in 2005 (Spain & Monaco) & the field was down to 18 cars for those 2 races there was some chatter about the commercial agreements & what came out was that it was fine as long as 18 cars entered.

      If there was 17 or less then there was some clauses which as I recall meant you either had some teams running a 3rd car to get the car count back to 18+ or you could stay below 18 but the circuit owners/promoters could refuse to pay the hosting fee & TV broadcasters could refuse to carry the race broadcast or possible demand a renegotiation with lower costs.

      Of course that was when we had a Concorde agreement where everything was clearly laid out for all concerned. Right now there is no Concorde agreement which is a part of the problem as now each team has there own commercial deals so who knows what will happen.

      1. @gt-racer, yes I am sure Bernie would have ensured he had some “get out of jail free” clauses to cover just such possibilities for a race or 2 but he would be unlikely to be able to sell it for most or all of a season which seems likely next year.

    11. Luciano Burti has spoken about Jules Bianchi’s condition in the Brazil media & sadly it doesn’t look good :(

      http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns29221.html

      1. @gt-racer He hasn’t said anything new.

    12. The next two races will obviously set the stage, but the specter of a double points driven upset for the WDC is looming pretty large. Bernie is no doubt delighted, but I’d bet that most of us fans are a bit worried. It’s gut-wrenching enough for a driver to be overtaken for the championship (for “normal” reasons) in the last race of the season, but to lose out because of double points? Crazy. I can only hope that it doesn’t pan out that way, and the rule is scrapped for good.

    13. I don’t think things look so bad. Even if we lose caterham and marussia we still have lots of good cars on the grid. Backmarkers always come and go. And even if we lose sauber we are getting haas in 2016. And with slots open there are always people wanting to come into F1 no matter how expensive it is. Everytime in the past years when there has been a slot open there has always been interest. All I can hope it is some car manufacturer or real racing team and not some wannabe f1 team owner with fantasies of championship wins on shoestring strategy. Imho losing caterham and marussia is just amazing when we are getting haas and probably one or two other teams for 2016. The new teams really can’t do any worse job.

      I’m not saying there are not problems in f1 when it comes to spending. But it is not a doomsday when hopeless backmarker team like marussia or caterham finally does the thing everybody have been expecting for some years now. Losing sauber would feel bad though.

      1. Remember though, the last backmarkers came in because they were led to believe that F1 was going to become a virtual 1-design series like GP2 with “equalised” engines and other development costs severely limited.

      2. You obviously don’t understand what it takes to run a team and why it is not in the interest of a few to ensure some teams don’t become successful.
        For you info, these teams came into F1 with engines costing maybe $5million plus a season.
        Now they are paying perhaps $30million plus a season.
        And they came in with a budget for running the team of about $45million a season.
        When you engines already takes up your budget and you still get to pay staff added to designing and building the cars and the usual unforeseen expenses, things get tight very quickly.
        Sponsors pay a good proportion of the cost of entertaining us and no one will sponsor teams that are too new or not performing.
        You cannot trust the manufacturers to always be there. Honda, BMW, Toyota, pulled out only recently.
        Ford some time earlier. Renault have pulled out in the past.
        Without the smaller teams there may be no F1 at some point.

      3. @socksolid In 2009 4 new teams were accepted. Only 3 even made it to the grid in 2010. By 2013 only 2 were left. By 2015 we’re looking at a likely situation where only 1 returns and possibly 0. When they opened up applications after HRT left, how many new teams applied? I’m not sure, but I do know that only 1 was accepted. And even then, they won’t show up until 2016. You say we’ll always have new teams applying, but I’m not so sure. Even if they apply, the standards and costs are so insanely high, few will reach the starting grid. This “people want in, who cares?” attitude is part of the reason F1 is dying. F1 is so full of itself that people just assume it can sustain itself due to it’s popularity. You can only squeeze the orange so long before it’s out of juice. People run out of money. Teams run out of money. When that happens, the sport’s attractiveness to fans and teams wane. When fans and teams leave, there is no sport anymore. This is why drastic changes are being called for. It’s not doomsday right now because we don’t know what the future holds. But we can still see disturbing trends and likely scenarios based on them. Just because doomsday isn’t guaranteed doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the effort to ensure it’s less likely to happen.

    14. Telegram to The Telegraph – Such a timely article STOP This is what many fans, columnists, journalists and websites have been saying nearly since the very moment double points was announced STOP Please update your method of communication so as to not embarrass your “media establishment” by reporting yesterday’s news in the future STOP

      1. Heh, those old farts probably still use telegrams…somebody get them a fax machine for Christmas.

        But they needn’t worry about Lewis being “run off the track by a driver from the back of the grid.” There is no back of the grid any more!

        1. @bullfrog

          they needn’t worry about Lewis being “run off the track by a driver from the back of the grid.” There is no back of the grid any more!

          It’s funny ’cause it’s true…

        2. Sauber and Lotus are the new back of the grid.

          1. With Crashtor leading the charge… uh oh

    15. May this be the first time in history that more than half the cars entering the week-end will score points?

      1. Ha ha! That’s nothing: both cars in Q3 will be on the first row of the grid.

      2. Entering the weekend — good call, that excludes USGP 2005 where the cars only pulled out after qualifying

    16. ColdFly F1 (@)
      26th October 2014, 2:59

      @keithcollantine, thanks for sharing the rules on qualifying.
      I don’t think it will be a problem this weekend. The rules refer to ‘Championship entry’ which remains 22 for now. It does not talk about how many cars show up at COTA.
      Thus the first 6 cars to miss Q2 will be Catherham, Marrussia, and 2 more. Rest, business as usual.

      There might be a little ‘but’ based on yesterday’s round-up. When a team is insolvent (cannot pay its bills) then its F1 contract is terminated, which probably means that they no longer participate in the Championship. This would be (most likely) the case for Catherham having called in the administrators.
      But the fact that Bernie allowed them to miss races might mean that he has waved or delayed this automatic clause.

      1. I frankly can’t see how this is not a problem. Do you want to see 18 minutes of Q1 where 4 of the 6 most likely candidates for elimination won’t even be running?
        And it doesn’t even stop there. Red Bull have made it absolutely clear that Vettel’s engine will be changed. he will skip quali and start from the pits. So now we have 17 cars competing for 16 tickets to Q2 and everybody knows that the unlucky 17th is either going to be one of the Saubers or Lotuses or whoever suffers a mechanical failure (see Massa in Sochi). Everyone else’s job will be to set a decent lap time on hard tyres.
        And we don’t even have need a mechanical failure in one of the 17 participating cars to completely ruin Q1. Roughly half of the grid are suffering from the same problem that Vettel has. As absolutely nobody wants to go to Abu Dhabi with a marginal power unit, there will very likely be quite a few teams who decide to change some parts in Austin or Sao Paulo. Starting from the pits in an 18-car-field is hardly a penalty for a mid-fielder. So what’s holding them back from doing it right now?

        So, you see, there IS a problem. The FIA needs to adapt to this new situation, because we are already facing a ridiculous (or insulting, if you’re in the audience) Q1. And we’re only one technical problem or engine change away from making Q1 obsolete and leaving the spectators to stare at an empty track for almost 20 minutes.

        We either need a qualifying that’s reduced to two parts (effectively canceling Q1) or a reduction of Q2 to 14 runners.

        1. Ummm … do you mean that only one car will actually be in Q3?

          1. Err… no. How did you come to this conclusion?
            I was saying that Q1 is at risk of becoming farcical if the cut-off for Q2 isn’t raised to P14, because we know that we will have a maximum (!) of 17 cars taking part in the quali. But raising the bar to P14 could even prove to be insufficient, as there are roughly 8 runners whose PU is going to be marginal at best when they reach Abu Dhabi. You definitely don’t want an engine blow-up in a race where you can score double points. So it would be smart to change the old parts either in Austin or in Sao Paulo, taking the penalty where it doesn’t hurt that much (as you can’t start further down than on P18, which wouldn’t even be a penalty for the Saubers and Lotuses, hardly so for Toro Rosso and Force India, and maybe still acceptable e.g. for Räikkönen.
            The question is not IF that happens, but WHEN.

    17. It is a gimmick too far for me. Having a situation where every race is valued less than the final one is ridiculous. It is a horribly contrived attempt to get casual viewers to watch the final race of the season at the expense of proper fans who watch every race. If double points is still in force in 2015 then i’m stopping watching F1.

    18. Come on, Bernie, do something to Sauber as well, and you have those 8 teams remaining you are wishing for, force them to run 3 cars, so another few of them can go bankrupt, and you don’t have to split the money into that many pieces…
      The four teams that would have joined in 2010 had the budget cap in mind which seems to be long forgotten, one of them couldn’t even make it to the first grand prix, another one of them vanished in 3 years, and the last two of them are on the verge of the same, however, Marussia looks to be in a stronger position. These teams were simply cheated. Why would anyone want to join F1 under these circumstances?

      1. What makes people think Marussia aren’t going broke ?

        1. i’m not sure how big is trouble at Marussia, but they seem to be receiving 17 or 21 million extra euros for finishing 10th or 9th (respectively) in the constructors, which i believe is quite something.

          1. dollars, not euros, sorry about that

    19. 16 cars for the next two races is not good.
      There will more bad news before 2015 sets in.
      Is this the beginning of the end of Formula One?
      Fans dropping, teams dropping and what more we do not know.

      1. 16? We still have 18 cars!

    20. It’s pretty weird Marussia isn’t going to make it onto the USGP. They have an American reserve driver, no?

    21. Does a team have to leave the Strategy Group now, to ensure it still represents less than half the grid?

    22. That tweet from Mercedes AMG just shows how desperate they are, they’re just trying to certify their decision by the article written by @keithcollantine which only speaks for his mind and doesn’t represent the whole F1 Fanatic community !!!
      In this case i personally consider the a Ferrari-esque poll will be more credible and representative.

      1. What exactly is Mercedes doing wrong?
        All the engine manufacturers helped to make the rules. I am even willing to bet Renault had more of an influence in stipulating the restricted upgrade policy of the engines.
        The manufacturers could have started complaining about the engine freeze before the season started, but I’m sure they felt they had some advantage over the other and didn’t make any sound.
        For your information, it is not the engine freeze that is the problem of Ferrari and Renault. It is pure incompetence.
        There can still be a massive amount of modifications made to the engines so the cry for an unfreeze is just putting the blame where it doesn’t belong.

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        26th October 2014, 11:09

        @tifoso1989, not sure if you read @keithcollantine‘s article. Its his blog and per definition representing his opinion. That opinion though was well argumented, included eye openers (like the 8% frozen part), and generally received strong support from the (100+) F1 Fanatic commenters.

        Further, I doubt that Mercedes AMG is anywhere close to ‘desperate’ (you can read in the article why they do not have to be).

      3. It’s Ferrari and Renault that are desperate, Mercedes are quite happy with the status quo and as the other teams need Mercedes cooperation to get the rules changed Mercedes have nothing to worry about.

      4. @tifoso1989

        @keithcollantine which only speaks for his mind and doesn’t represent the whole F1 Fanatic community

        I did not claim to speak for anyone but myself in the article you’re referring to.

        1. @coldfly,@keithcollantine
          You completely missed the point, i made a comment about Mercedes tweet and not about Keith’s article which BTW i disagree with, i said that Mercedes were just looking for support to justify their decision (PR crap) and they found one in the article in question. I was not referring to you @keithcollantine when i said the article speaks only for your mind because Mercedes AMG didn’t mention @keithcollantine in their tweet but they mentioned @f1fanatic_co_uk which bothers me a lot, it looked for me as they were just saying “Hey the F1Fanatics are supporting our decision !!!! “.
          Finally i never doubted the ownership of the blog as @coldfly was saying neither i said that @keithcollantine was speaking for the F1Fanatics mind, and if my comment was offensive to anyone then i apologize.

          1. @tifoso1989 I don’t see how anyone could reasonably misinterpret Mercedes’ tweet in that way. I think you’ve got to want to see it.

          2. It must be tough being an @tifoso1989 but c’mon fair’s fair, anybody linking to Keiths article will also be able to read the comments from us F1 fanatics and decide for themselves which argument they find more persuasive.

    23. Four points:
      1. When do we get to find out which teams will be on the Strategy Group for next season? Will Lotus and Williams remain alongside the established 4?
      2. Was the ‘most obvious’ option Alonso spoke about actually to be Mercedes’ 3rd driver? Would be hilarious to see him win all the races yet not be counted for the world championship points! :)
      3. Why are the Three Car Team rules secret? Shouldn’t they form part of the sporting regulations? They’re not going to attract new teams to the sport if such a massively fundamental part of the rules behind closed doors.
      4. How can we arrange for Keith and Joe Saward to front a coup of the sport once Bernie is in breach of contract, thereby dethroning Jean Todt and Bernie? :)

      1. Alonso moving to a team without a Merc engine may just be the clue to add weight to the VAG to F1 rumors, If he shows up at Torro Rosso or Sauber expect to hear that VAG have purchased said team.

    24. If Marussia and Caterham won’t be around next year, that could be (F1) career ending for Ericsson, Kobayashi and Chilton. Let’s be positive and say Bianchi will recover, he is the only one out of those 4 with enough talent to make it back in F1, atleast thats how i see it. Ferrari will surely help him. For the others, it’s probably tough luck. I can’t say im bothered by that tho. I don’t think either of them 3 deserve a seat in F1 on merit. Much more worried about the possibility of Verge and Magnussen being pushed out of the sport..

    25. more than costs, people should focus on profits. why cant F1 be run as a non-profit? or a cooperative enterprise with the teams as members? the teams would all get a bigger share of the revenues, and tickets would cost fans less. the only people losing out in this scenario would be about 20 members of the board of CVC. why is everyone tolerating this? this would be a much better and more efficient solution than trying to restrict costs. there is plenty of money to keep teams healthy, but the problem is it is not being distributed in a fair way. (much like in all corporations – but thats for a different discussion).

      i think its just a matter of time when teams start thinking of setting up their own series again (like in 2008). Without pushback, a corporation will always try to squeeze as much as possible from its people, while giving them as little as possible. its a shame the FOTA disintegrated and the teams failed to come together against those who profit from F1 like leeches.

      1. Bernie + Mosley, is the reason why F1 is being blead dry. They should have listened to Ken Tyrrell.

    26. It makes financial sense for Marussia to miss some races, they were racing for 10th and with Caterham’s (likely) demise there is no reason to spend money to protect a position Caterham have handed them on a silver platter.

      1. They’re actually sitting 9th at the moment, and if Sauber scores two points they’ll drop to 10th.

    27. Daniel (@collettdumbletonhall)
      26th October 2014, 11:23

      I think this will be end of me watching F1. Might tune into Brazil and keep an eye out for what happens in Abu Dhabi but this really is a load of rubbish now with such a small grid and all of these dreadful rules that have been implemented since 2011.
      The way it is run just symbolises everything that is wrong with the world at the moment and I certainly won’t be giving any money to it.
      Bye F1, it was fun while it lasted!

      1. +1

        When Bernie’s gone I’ll come back.

    28. I think it’s worth considering how little thew ‘new’ teams managed to really achieve in their time in F1. If we were to assume now that all three of the new teams which joined in 2010 are now dead and won’t be on the grid (in their current forms) next year, then their accomplishments, though hard-fought, really amount to very little indeed. I’m not trying to be unfair on them, but they’ve filled up the rear of the grid pretty much consistently and not one has managed to take a significant step forwards. Now while we could argue all day long about why that might be, I think it’s fairly inevitable that the teams which perpetually fill the rear of the grid and show absolutely no hope of progressing forward, are going to have a really hard time attracting sponsors. That’s not down to the bad environment of F1 or the unequal distribution of TV rights, it’s just a pure fact of motorsports. Nobody will ever back the horse that comes last in every race.

      The fact is, they should have done better. Last year they all hard three years’ experience of the current rule set and the ways and means of exploiting the rules were well understood, so there is no excuse for languishing at the back, nearly a second slower than the rest of the field. Their problems weren’t just down to a lack of money, but also to a lack of creativity and design ability. F1 is the highest level of motorsport, with the smallest margins between the front and the back of the grid. These teams were simply not capable of competing with the rest, and they had ample opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.

      While it is sad to see them go, hopefully they can be replaced with teams who might do a bit more to spice up the competition. I did love seeing the Caterhams and the Marussias on the grid, and the likes of Graeme Lowdon I think make a really positive contribution to the sport. But ultimate these teams have not delivered anything new or interesting to the sport, and it’s time to make way for others who can.

      1. Your observation is based on stating the obvious.
        I think the teams have been pretty successful in going up against those who can massively outspend them.
        These were teams starting from scratch with absolutely no experience to fall back on and facing all the challenges thrown at them. Even from the rights owner who doesn’t hesitate to run down the teams further undermining any negotiations they may ever have had with potential sponsors.
        Bernie has got too cocky, he thinks F1 will live for ever if they continue with this attitude?
        The sport doesn’t have sustainable rules and will collapse like a deck of cards when someone doesn’t get his was after over spending.

        1. Well, they haven’t been successful at all. This is the first year in four where it looks like any of them have a realistic chance of finishing ahead of any of the older teams. And the older team in question is one which has been crippled itself through an utter lack of resources thanks to a major sponsorship deal falling through. They’ve had to wait for an established team to fall back to them, rather than genuinely hauling themselves up the grid.

          Only the very best teams in the world should be in F1, and the three teams which started in 2010 have all pretty much demonstrated that they aren’t able to break into the midfield. In the case of Caterham at least, there was plenty of money behind them, but they’ve suffered from chronic mismanagement. How much money was wasted on Leafield, and on chasing the rights to the Lotus name? Money which should have been invested into developing the car first. They wanted to look and behave like a top team, with a car in the garage that was barely able to qualify.

          I don’t want to undermine what a big achievement it is just to be able to field two F1 cars capable of qualifying for a race, but the fact is they are still miserably slow and have shown no ability whatsoever when it comes to hauling themselves further forward.

          I totally agree that the current structure of F1 can’t last much longer. But the teams themselves should have been able to put in place structures by now to be able to break into the midfield at least. The fact they’re dropping out now is a consequence of them having no money. Them having no money is a consequence of their poor performance and lack of progress.

          F1 is a sport in which the weak cannot survive.

          1. Must I remind you that only recently was a 3 tiered payment scheme revealed by Bernie. Even at that, he refused to negotiate with Marussia for many months. If I was to sponsor such a team, how would I have the confidence to do so when I can’t guarantee my sponsorship money will be augmented by any prize money the team wins.
            Who do you expect to throw money into the pit that is F1?
            Only manufacturers can afford to make heavy losses and hope to market any glory that comes out of it. Yet only a few participate.
            If the giant that is Toyota and then BMW pulled out from F1, that should make you realise that there is no guarantee any of the manufacturers apart from Ferrari, will always participate.
            If F1 doesn’t take steps to ensure that teams can survive and encourage more teams to participate and fight for grid positions, then it will die eventually.
            Companies will eventually tire of throwing millions into a sport that only gives them hollow victories.

    29. Yeah, great site Keith. I’m glad someone speaks for the fans.
      Hey, could you run a poll for whether or not three car teams are wanted by fans? Thanks!

    30. Great to see f1f grow!

      About the double points though,i can think of a few scenarios where this stupid rule can decide the championship. In that case both lewis and nico would be dissapointed.one for losing, the other one for not winnig square and fare.it would be a shame to have such an ending after a nice year like we had.

    31. While I wish desperately for Jules Bianchi’s recovery, the idea that an American racing at home thrilled me enough where the only thing keeping me from attending was a work situation where I will need to work 12hr night shifts on either side of the race. Double points kept me from reserving the day off, and the lack of Marussia participation will mean that I’m not even staying up for this. I’m a six-hour drive away from COTA, and the combination of Bernie, idiotic safety practices, and teams more concerned with winning a couple championships now rather than more over the coming decades, (even if the sport implodes in the near term), and this is the third time this season I put sleep over F1, despite the shift I work.

      At least I won’t have to sit through the commercials.

    32. Bernie loves it when teams go bust. The drama, column inches, clicks. The last thing he wants is stability with nothing happening. He can always find a last-minute mystery buyer or another hopeful like Haas with a fresh story. He deliberately runs F1 like this.

      I feel sorry for all the staff, and sorry that John Booth hasn’t been able to make a go of it (barring a pleasant surprise) but I must admit I won’t miss the cars in the races. Good drivers looked ordinary in them, and pay drivers looked like pay drivers. Their main role was to get in the way a bit. And to show how difficult F1 is, I guess.

    Comments are closed.