Manor/Marussia could still make 2015 grid

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Manor could still return to the F1 grid using Marussia hardware if they submit a further application.


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

Force India defend decision to block Marussia’s return to F1 in 2014 car (The Guardian)

"This process has been closed down, but like everything else in life, if you get turned down once you go back again and do it properly."

Marussia with mountain to climb after greed of Formula One blocks its plans (The Telegraph)

"Marussia’s investors – fronted by former Sainsbury’s chief executive Justin King – did not realise they were on the agenda for the Strategy Group meeting and were not given formal notice that their plan to revive Marussia, now known as Manor, had been rejected."

The Independent (The Independent)

"It needed all the teams to agree and there were three or four of them that didn’t agree."

Formula 1's 1000bhp rules revamp moves closer (Autosport)

"On the engine front, it was agreed that the 1000bhp move should be achieved through lifting the fuel flow rate limit and maximum fuel allowance, rather than ditching the current V6 hybrids totally."

Ferrari has rediscovered team spirit - Arrivabene (ESPN)

"(Daniil Kvyat's) really settled in well. Had an unfortunate little off on his first day in the car and a shortage of parts meant he wasn't able to get a proper run."


Comment of the day

There were many comments critical of the Strategy Group’s refusal to allow Manor (formerly Marussia) to compete using their 2014 chassis:

It’s clear. The Strategy Group is a poisonous and destructive element inside of the sport, and it has to go. If we’re ever going to have a full grid, fair and equitable rule changes and sensible cost cutting measures in the sport it’ll be done without a self-interested club of the sport’s wealthiest teams and profiteering members of FOM dictating to those trying to compete in a rigged game.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Victor and Rebecca!

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

The Argentinian Grand Prix held on this day 55 years ago was the country’s last round of the world championship for 12 years.

It was won by Bruce McLaren, driving a Cooper, while Cliff Allison scored the best result of his career with second place for Ferrari.

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.

102 comments on “Manor/Marussia could still make 2015 grid”

  1. I’d love to see Manor make this on their own now. Ok, it’s unlikely we’ll see them in Australia or possibly Malaysia, but I’d love nothing more than to see them on the grid somewhen, against the other teams and all expectations.

    1. @bradley13 I honestly don’t understand why people so desperately want to see Manor on the grid. Are they going to affect the racing? Yes, only if they don’t make way for the leaders when they’re lapped for the third time. All it will do is just add a further two cars, and what difference does that make? I’m pretty sure people are moaning and complaining just because they want something to moan about. Name one time during which people weren’t complaining about something in F1 because I can’t. Just one.

      1. That’s the reason you came up with for people supporting the underdog? How does HOPING a team, and all the people who work for it (many of whom have families to support), boil down to people complaining? It seems to me that it would be far more mean-spirited to disregard the efforts and passions of those people because they don’t have a massive corporation funding their results. It’s simply having respect for the sport as a whole, and realizing that it’s not just some silly exercise in capitalism.

        1. Mashiat Lam Gofran
          7th February 2015, 5:54

          But don’t people realize that Manor coming back may result in another underdog going bankrupt and leaving the sport. One that’s actually a bigger blow to F1.

          1. If any of the teams is in such bad shape that $4 million is the difference between staying and going– they should go now, because they’re not going to last anyway.

            Marussia has earned, through hard work, around $40 million in prize money– The strategy group voted to take that money away from Marussia, and distribute it to the other teams.

            In most legal systems, even *letting* the strategy group vote on it should be considered a conflict of interest.

      2. Why do people want Manor to make the grid? Because Monaco 2014.

        1. My last post on this issue. I know this is not a “popular” opinion, but that’s also the point of being free thinkers and discussing perspectives, isn’t it?

          I find it funny when people call Marussia “underdogs” in this situation, and completely trash one of the best underdogs in the sport of recent memory. Force India was and is always about racing. The owner was a former racer, someone who really breathes the sport. Always low key, he built a solid team that is competitive and respected on the whole field. Not the most popular, but, damn, has Force India gave us formula 1 fans good shows. It kicked the Giants @ss many times, and not by luck, a lot of retirements and the occasional safety car/red flag situation and an overtake of a fellow backmarker team like the often stated “Monaco 2014” performance. Force India is what I would call a true Formula 1 underdog. One that is there to compete, to challenge, to improve, to achieve more – to challenge. Manor might have started with the same spirit. I dont doubt it. But what they are attempting to do is not competing- its a travesty, its getting the prize money, drive a very under specced car and be the “clowns” of the field. All that, without a perspective to improve. And if For e India is struggling as much as it seems by the news, than you can be sure I would like much, much more this money to go to help the likes of them, Sauber, even Williams (because Toro Rosso is Red Bull “B”) to keep them going. We will have Haas coming in. That will be someone worth rooting for. And after Marussia, someone will come- and I hope with the right spirit. As for the “racers” that Make Marussia, I’m sure they will find placement- if they are indeed good at what they do-in the many categories of motorsport. Again, I say this : this is Formula 1, the pinnacle of professional, competitive motorsport- not Karting, or the charity ball.

          Go Force India, Sauber, Williams. The true underdogs, the ones that trhoughout the years survived and kept going on always looking on ways to improve, to fight on the track. Sometimes , as somone working in the creative field- I think Force India is terrible at marketing. They go so low key and forget to “pamper” the media that they end up trully prejudiced. I hope they don’t get villainified because they are not as “nice” to the media… (This is Sergio Perez, not the F1 Driver- i just cant seem to be able to sign in from my mobile so sorry Keith for posting with another name!)

          1. So Manor/Marussia shouldn’t come back, because Force India should get their hard earned prize money for ninth place in 2014 to survive? Take from the poor to give to the poor you mean? That’s just more evidence of how flawed the money distribution system is…

          2. Sorry, but you’ve quoted my “Monaco 2014” point to illustrate yours which is that people are “trashing” Force India. Perhaps if Force India had remembered the romantic vision you paint of them people wouldn’t be trashing them, but I haven’t done that – I don’t want them to fail either. Have we really got to the stage where it’s either or?

          3. Because Force India has been “underdogs” for so long, you’d think they’d have a bit more tolerance for Marussia… but to me, the real issue is this:

            The strategy group, comprised of the teams who benefit if Marussia fails, were allowed to vote on whether Marussia fails or not.

            Let the WSMC or the FIA determine if Marussia can run their car in 2014 mode for a few races– not the Strategy group who stands to benefit if Marussia goes bye-bye.

      3. @mashiat2 There are many reasons – for me the most obvious is that an 18-car grid is miserably small, but a 20-car grid is slightly less miserably small.

        1. @keithcollantine – Precisely. It’s the same here. 18 car grids look miserable and I think they degrade the sport to the public. A series with the capacity for 13 teams only having 9 doesn’t look good.

        2. That’s why 3 cars per teams always sounded good, for me. It would give chance for new blood to come into the sport on a competitive form. what would need to be thought better would be “who” would be in these cars ( obligatory new talent?), and how would constructors and driver championship points divided. Nothing that couldn’t be worked out.The argument of ” it has always been 2 cars in F1″ just doesn’t make sense to me. Of course, it would also mean a rethink on the money distribution aspect of F1. But this would be far more feasible than “changing the whole system”, which is what most want, but sounds unrealistic.

          1. Also, the possibility of teams entering only 2 cars could be presented. Yes this would benefit the richer teams. But, in the big picture of things, wouldn’t change much.

          2. Aside from there being no agreement and no regulations in place to allow three-car teams any time soon (regardless of the much-cited commercial arrangements) introducing three-car teams will only perpetuate the cycle of unsustainable costs which is forcing teams out and make F1 even more vulnerable to further withdrawals, as each team that leaves will be taking a big chunk of the grid with it.

        3. Mashiat Lam Gofran
          7th February 2015, 15:17

          @keithcollantine I understand your logic, but all I’m trying to say is that Marussia/Manor’s return to F1 being halted is causing more a uproar than it’s worth. The only difference between a 20 car-grid and an 18 car-grid is basically just something that F1 can show off about. But is that reason alone worth it? I mean, let’s be honest here, Marssia will more often than not occupy the last two places on the grid and the race by some margin. Racing will be affected 0%.

          1. Marussia outscored Sauber in 2014. I don’t hear you calling for Sauber to fail.

      4. I’m conflicted on one side I agree with you – teams like Marussia/Manor will fail eventually because short term investors will never bring enough money and ambition to a team to make them interesting competitors.
        But on the other hand the commercial side of F1 is so broken that teams like Marussia/Manor don’t even have a fair shot at trying to build something and reducing the grid size to 18 cars isn’t really a good thing for the sport either.

    2. If i’m honest they shouldn’t come back this season. What will it achieve? they won’t be competitive. I think they should come back in 2016 when Haas is new to the grid aswell so at least they have someone to compete against.
      Haas has a better chance of making it back this season than “Manor” terrible name for a race team aswell.

      1. Robert of London
        11th February 2015, 11:19

        Manor is a FAR better team name…because unlike a strange Russian auto company, Manor really is an English racing team that competes successfully in lower formulas, under the Manor Racing name. Think Hesketh, think Minardi…think of any of the great British sporting teams started in a garage or a lumber yard. With Marussia gone, that IS what Manor Racing is..a legitimate if small British racing team struggling to advance from the lower formulas into F1.

        I can’t see how anyone can NOT want to keep them on the grid, for the sake of what F1 used to be all about…and if you are worried about speed differentials, well back in the day, the diffs were far, far worse…

  2. I thought Force India were the good guys. I mean what would they lose from letting Manor race 2014 car?

    1. Millions of pounds since letting them race would guarantee them a slice of the prize money since they’d finish 10th.

      1. The irony would be that they wouldn’t receive anything as the Rights holder isn’t under any obligation to re-distribute that money.

      2. You do know that those millions are only $3-$4 millions?

        1. That $3-4 million would help at team that can’t pay its suppliers anything. No two ways about it Force India are in a bind. Their 2015 car isn’t ready and they are in too much debt to finish it. If they cannot race then they won’t get their prize money either. Either way they made a bad move.

          1. With a cost of $120millions, that money won´t do anything. Beside it was not only FI´s fault. If Marussia were serious they would have a better plan to get back in F1, than running last year car. That car that was already the slowest os gonna be ar even more disadvantage.

            With the price money Marussia van even cover it´s operation for half a year. And they certanly not gonna get any sponsors. So even if they get in the field they won´t have enough monet to compete the entire season.

          2. Is not Marussia’s fault that Vijay sucks at turning a profit and getting new sponsors…

            The guy managed to run his own airline into the ground, so he can go suck a big one…

          3. For some reason I can’t reply.

            @celeste I’m not sure the point your trying to make. At the moment Force India is out of money and they need anything they can get. Which is why they vetoed Manor’s exception.

            On the other hand Marussia’s budget was around $50 million. And the prize money they are due is 80% of that. I’m very confident they would just get back out there and race. It wouldn’t be pretty, but they would make progress. Again.

          4. Yet it is Marussia’s fault for not being able to field a 2015 spec car.

    2. I think FI and any other team against it were right to do it, despite having this idiotic arrangement in f1 in this case it’s justified. Manor is welcome if they stick to the rules, I guess it is that straight forward. I hope though the manor team can make it before the deadline.

    3. I don’t see Force India as the bad guy here; at least after reading this article it felt like Marussia/Manor was never going to get permission.

      1. Yes, well said @kaiie, and I have to wonder who set it up to have FI vote first (maybe always the case, non-permanent member have to be fall guys?); seems pretty clear it was presented in such a way that it shouldn’t go far. Question is by who, but for me it just illustrates the COTD’s point.

      2. Actually, the Strategy group voted on a proposal that wasn’t submitted by the “new” Manor. If one wanted to be part of the conspiracy brigade, you could argue that the Strategy group KNEW Manor was putting together a viable proposal, and voted before that proposal was delivered, just so they wouldn’t have to say Yes and lose $4 million per team.

        1. This whole thing is fishy because it seems Force India was slightly set up here. Who brought this to the Strategy Group when Manor made no application? Certainly not Force India. I bet that’s Bernie.
          Also why will an unanimous approval be needed when the strategy group was supposedly made to avoid the need for unanimous agreements(at least that was one of the excuses Todt gave) and right now there is no need for unanimous agreements since March 1 hasn’t passed?
          Who made this unanimous rule for this decision? Certainly not Force India.
          The one who made it like this made it because he knew he could then blame the teams for it while he could vote for approval and play the nice guy. Divide and conquer all over again.
          In the end we have Bernie gloating on how teams couldn’t agree and how they though only of the money and their benefit and tried to kill Manor etc. Doesn’t anyone find that suspicious?

  3. Nevermind any “magic” numbers, but just so slightly increasing the fuel flow and total fuel allowence to increase performance sits favourably with me.

    I like seeing fast cars on track and I like seeing drivers throwing around cars with higher power to grip ratio.

    Furthermore, other top racing categories and modern sportscars have made 700bhp, 900bhp sound “reasonable”, far from amazing or impressive. So it’s a smart move if F1 wants to mantain the status of “formula one” in the public eye.

    Although, from a technical stand point, I do find the current efficient and somwhat powerful, super tightly packaged engines impressive. I just think they could be let a little loose.

    1. I think removing the fuel flow/total fuel allowance is a mistake mainly because thats the whole point of the current formula.

      I’d also argue that getting 800-900Bhp (Which is where they are this year) out of the current power units with those restrictions in place is far more impressive & far more worthy of praise than getting 1000bhp out of them with those restrictions removed.

      I also don’t see the obsession with 1000bhp because your not going to be able to really tell the difference between 1000bhp or 850-900bhp. It makes no difference to the quality of the racing, It will make very little difference in how the cars behave on track & I’d argue that the engine performance & top speeds are already perfectly fine & there going to improve anyway without any changes been made (The 2015 power units are said to be 50bhp+ up on 2014).

      I like seeing fast cars on track and I like seeing drivers throwing around cars with higher power to grip ratio.

      And thats exactly what we got last year. The cars were still the fastest around in terms of pure lap time, Top speeds were higher than with the V8’s & the cars had less grip with more torque which resulted in them sliding around more than the previous decade.

      The racing last year was the best its been in a while as well. The tyres were the best Pirelli have come up with & DRS was the least effective its been so the majority of the racing/overtaking was as it should be, Down to the drivers.

      1. @stefmeister First, I don’t want to see the flow/fuel allowance removed. I said “just so slightly increasing”, meaning 5-15% increase, the cars would still be just about as efficient, and would still be using much less fuel than in the V8 era. Not a lot would have to change on the engines themselves for such a small change.

        Last year was good, because of decrease in downforce/grip and increase in power, much higher power to grip ratio than in the V8 era. But already, you could see teams getting to grips with the cars at the end of the year.

        That is one of the problems, teams do not stand still, and the chassis development is already soooooo restricted as is, If the the restriction does not continue, soon, the cars will outgrow the power, again. I personally don’t wan’t to see the chassis regs so restricted as they are, never mind more restricted regs and homogeneous car designs as a result.

        Given that physics are restricted, and so are human ability, I would posit that there is a power output region, where such grip levels can’t be achieved to make driving the cars “not difficult”. Realistically, this point is lower, because no chassis achieves 100% of it’s physical potential grip. I think, based on seeing how the cars drove last year, that this small increase in fuel allowance and the slight engine development by the manufacturers will swing the balance to power over what chassis development can achieve for the near future. So the same “difficult” power to grip ratio can be maintained for some time.

        1. Actually leaving the limits as they are NOW will already mean they will be higher than planned @mateuss, because the original plan was to gradually LOWER them to get the same/more power out of even less fuel.

          Just like what we see on the road – smaller engines that get more power out of less fuel.

          1. @bascb That’s true, and frankly, I was expecting that pre-2014, given the advance in technology and the output of other turbo engines of similar size.

            But I wanted to and want to see more power, simply because I like faster cars. And I am talking about looking at the spectacle, enjoying the actual sight of epic cars on track. I am not talking about some psychological “magic” numbers effect. I emphasize this, because a lot of people say they can’t tell the difference if a car is 2s a lap slower, to me it is not so.

            And also I want more power so that the chassis design (grip) can not outgrow the power too soon, again, for both the spectacle of drivers driving, and for the fact that this leads to good better racing.

            One of most vivid memories, that comes to mind in this context, is of an epic, but meaningless, practice session lap Hamilton did in Barcelona in 2010.

            I want to see good racing, best drivers etc. but a large part of me just wan’t to see mighty speed and car-handling by drivers on track.

      2. The actual tyres were absolutely perfect last year.

        A few wrong compounds for race weekends but apart from that, they were brilliant. Pirelli deserve just as much praise as they got criticism in previous years!

      3. The current formula specifies how many kg/hr fuel flow is allowed for any given RPM. That’s fine. The problem is that the equation has an artificial cap at 100 kg/hr, or 10,500 RPM, so there’s no benefit to be gained by spinning the engine faster than 10,500 RPM– you still can only pump 100 kg/hr.

        Raise, or eliminate the artificial fuel flow cap, and the engines will scream– although without changes to the fuel capacity, you’ll have even more trouble making it to the end of the race.

    2. I’ll not argue with you on that 10-20% more fuel/flow at a similar rpm increase should not be a huge technical or financial problem, bigger tyres to improve traction also sounds unproblematic, but more downforce, why, why,why would they do that ? Downforce is the problem not the solution, downforce (created turbulence) is why cars cannot follow closely through bends and corners, downforce is why we have DRS highway passing to compensate, downforce is the reason the racing line is the only line, downforce is the reason the cars look like they are on rails, downforce is the reason people think Seb V may not be good a driver, it all looks to easy when the back wheels just follow the front wheels around.
      If F1 want to make the racing more entertaining then the extra power they want should require the driver to be judicious applying the accellerator, the back wheels should be able to light up, the rear end should sqirm, power oversteer should be apparent and occasionally useful, and fans should not worry if ultimate lap times are no faster than historic qualifying laps.

      1. @mateuss, my post above, I also agree totally with @stefmeister

      2. @hohum If the increase is in the 10% region, I don’t think it’s a major problem at all. New 10% bigger fuel tank would cost nothing, because teams design new fuel tanks every year anyway, for their new chassis. As I understand, increasing the fuel flow with the current equipment by 10% is trivial.
        Only real concern is reliability, but that’s something the engine makers spent many, many millions even in the fully restricted era. And for a financially gradual introduction of the fuel increase, one or two more engines per year could be introduced, if manufacturing is cheaper than R&D.
        I don’t know this all for sure, but I base this on my understanding, and that many, many millions are spent on engine R&D each year, even under heavy engine-freeze. Also on that, that all the big parts are being gradually frozen, but teams plan on making more power in the future anyway, hence the design should be able to take more stresses by design. And this was also true under the latter of the V8 era, manufacturers from time to time introduced some “reliability” upgrade, changing only one or two parts,cumulatively increasing the power by several percent over the last years, without any of the other parts suffering, noticeably.

        Whats good for racing – big power to grip ratio, big mechanical grip over dirty downforce ratio, clean downforce.
        So I am somewhat skeptical about wider tyres as well, they would be good for the second ratio but bad for first, so power would be have to increased dramatically, this small change would not do.

        Do we need to regulate for more downforce, no I don’t think so. Could we regulate for clean downforce, maybe, like more ground effect for example. This will inevitably raise safety concerns, but I frankly don’t care. It is easy not to, sitting here, moving at dizzying 0 miles per hour, but I also observe, that the current safety technology and track designs are quite safe. Although I fully support more effective safety improvement – more stringent crash tests, better barriers, safer helmets, considerate car design etc., but I do not support the extensive safety measures like massive tarmac run-offs, slower cars by design and so on. I think all of the recent big, dangerous crashes over past 10 years or so (that’s how far my detailed knowledge goes) has been because of cars launching into the air (which FIA have now been trying to prevent by car design just now) or freak circumstance accidents, like spring in Massa’s helmet, or Bianchi’s somewhat slow accident in the rain into a misplaced and unfortunate design service vehicle. No recent serious accident has been caused because the cars are going too fast for the track designs.

      3. @hohum got it pretty much covered there.

      4. @hohum, on the other hand, I have also seen a number of fans who have been pushing for aero relaxations and for the cars to be faster overall, particularly through the corners (and some were rather vocal last year about the fact that the cars were now much slower due to the cuts in downforce levels).

        One of the selling points of F1 has been the cornering performance, but in that regard F1 has been starting to fall behind some series. Lotterer, for example, felt that the straight line performance of the current F1 cars was already impressive enough, but that the cornering speeds were lower than he had expected, partly down to the tyres, but also because an LMP1 car, due to the fact that it has a much larger diffuser, produces more peak downforce.

        To those who want to see that, increasing the downforce levels of the cars is a necessary step in order to improve upon the high speed cornering performance of the cars.

        1. The problem with that philosophy is that by making the cars corner faster your going to make racing harder.

          If you do it via more aerodynamics then your creating more dirty air which makes the cars harder to follow & that obviously hurts the racing.

          If you do it via mechanical grip then yes the cars will be able to follow each other closer but the higher cornering speeds will further reduce the braking distances & that will make overtaking harder as there will be even less room to try & out-brake somebody.

          With regards to Andre Lotterer, His comments were about tyre performance more than car performance as a modern F1 car still has more overall downforce than anything else out there which is why the lap times in F1 are still faster than anything else as a comparison done on this site last week showed.

          I think the problem is that everyone wants F1 to be something different. Some want crazy fast cars, others want great racing & don’t particularly care about overall performance while others want something inbetween & the past few years F1 has been trying to change itself to cater for everyone & by doing so has been alienating many fans who don’t like the direction it goes.

          Those who simply wanted a lot more passing are happy with DRS, While those who prefer competitive overtaking cannot stand the DRS the same way those who see it as a gimmick cannot stand DRS.
          Those who love strategy & unpredictability love the High degredation tyres but there are many who don’t like that philosophy.
          There are those who see F1 as a sport & would rather it be a pure sport, While there are those who see it as entertainment & who are happy to see it do anything in the name of entertainment regardless of how artificial or gimmicky it may seem to the purists.

          1. @gt-racer, and @anon, Thanks guys (or gals) good analysis, I probably don’t need to spell it out but what I want from F1 is a great competition between drivers and engineers regardless of whether it is the absolute fastest way round a track, in particular I like to see the drivers battling through the twisties, side by side, inside line, outside line until 1 emerges ahead but a driver cannot launch that kind of attack from 100meters back, they must be able to follow closely through kinks, bends and chicanes in order to pressure the driver ahead and move alongside, in engineering I like to see cars with different characteristics with the engineers having to choose between top-end power and bottom end torque and all the variations in between. I could go on forever about why 2014 was better than the 2.4L years but could be much,much better still.

    3. All i want from F1 cars are for them to be impressive and fast. Impressive in so much as that they look like someone would imagine the pinnacle of Motorsport to look (no silly appendages, but they look pretty good this year), and fast in that there is a continuous rate of improvement in speed as time goes on. I’d like the 2016 cars to be as fast as the 2010 generation and then gradually get faster from there. At a very basic level that’s all I really want from F1, obviously the racing should always be a top priority too.

  4. I just hope that manor/marussia make the grid during the year. Force India are being a bit unfair here but I guess that’s how f1 works these days. It shouldn’t be like that. But it is

  5. I was a bit surprised at Force India’s vote but I became angry at the reaction to the news, with people assuming and then parroting the idea thay it was solely about money. I had hoped people would make judgements based on actual evidence, rather than knee jerk reactions. The fact that the situation got deeper in that Manor didn’t even know that their entry was being discussed should remind people, fans and journalists alike, to make sure theu have all the facts before making an opinion.

  6. A lot of hate toward Force India at the moment, but it says that Manor were blocked by three or four teams. The hate should be distributed equally.

    1. @jarnooo Force India are getting much of the blame because they were the 1st (And only) team to vote. Once they said no nobody else needed to vote because unanimous agreement had not been met.

    2. If prize money isn’t going to be distributed equally, then what hope is there of the hate being distributed evenly, either?

      Bernie! *Shakes fist*

      1. Force India were quite vocal on the matter, immediately following the veto. PLUS we can all see WHY they’re so eager to block it,

        It was a publicity faux pas and they can see it already.

        1. If I had any interest in Force India’s sponsors I’d definitely boycott them!

    3. The hate should go towards Marussia.

      Even with their prize money and free transport they weren’t able to keep the team running. If they are unable to properly manage a team with all those bonusses, why should others be responsible for their failure just because they don’t want to make exceptions for them.

      1. What prize money and free transport ? @patricki

      2. Robert of London
        11th February 2015, 12:31

        The problem is that they didn’t GET the prize money. That’s more game playing by Bernie and probably the FIA – you don’t actually get your prize money the year you win it, you have to race ANOTHER YEAR to collect it. But of course, that means you have to fund that other year without the prize money…

        Don’t blame Manor because Bernie and the Boys have rigged the game!

    4. @jarnooo

      it says that Manor were blocked by three or four teams

      Not necessarily.

  7. If a car isn’t rule compliant how can they possibly allow it to race?

    I’m sure Red Bull would love to use their 2010 chassis, and Ferrari their 2004. This is a competitive sport not a charity.

    Worse still their 2014 chassis would have such a gulf on performance to this years teams they may as well just be doing track walks, at least that way they’d be less of an obstacle as they are repeatedly lapped.

    I’m all for the ‘little guy’ climbing up the field (little being a relative term as all these teams require eye watering amounts of money). But the team failed and the current F1 business model doesn’t allow for it.

    1. @philipgb It was exactly the same with letting Toro Rosso run V10s in its first year. That was owned by Red Bull – so given how much they spend on F1, everyone could have said just stump up more cash to make the first Toro Rosso rule-compliant.

      1. @fastiesty I’m in agreement that it’s hypocrisy previously allowing that, there are differences though.

        Firstly they had restrictions imposed to prevent a competitive advantage though it did probably still have a reliability advantage and it wasn’t a safety issue. Oh and of course a V10 is always ok.

        But a questionable decision in the past isn’t grounds for making a wrong decision in the present.

  8. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    7th February 2015, 1:15

    The comment of the day is absolutely spot on. The only problem is, how does Formula 1 rid itself of the strategy group, if all the people in charge of running F1 are a part of the strategy group?

    1. @tophercheese21 Hopefully at some point there will be a natural fissure (most likely Ferrari wanting special treatment) and we’ll finally see the end of the group!

      1. Yeah, and then we can go back to having Bernie arrange everything. That’s so much better.

        1. The strategy group gives Bernie power actually. It gives him 6 votes on rules when he had none. The FIA could do as it pleased before now it has to get Bernie’s vote approval. And all that because Todt sold the FIA rule authority for 40 million.

  9. Interesting driver cooling technique at the Argentine GP, technology moves on.

    1. @hohum I just about to point that out!
      But in fact technology hasn’t moved on because F1 cars still have no cooling for the driver, certainly with the fireproof race suits, full helmets and smaller cockpits it’s not cooler than back then.
      But of course what has really changed is the level of fitness of the drivers.

      1. Coolsuits ? maybe not in F1.

  10. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for Manor to choose a driver with a lot of cash and some sponsors to drive for the team this season to give some more financial security while getting ready for the new season?

    1. @mota18 Isn’t that what they’ve been doing for the past 5 years?

  11. It is absurd that Force India, who says the sport should look after smaller teams, would block a potential return for Manor.

    1. ColdFly F1 (@)
      7th February 2015, 2:50

      It certainly makes me feel less ‘angered’ if Fore India is the next team to fold.

  12. ColdFly F1 (@)
    7th February 2015, 2:46

    Some good news from F1 today

    lifting the fuel flow rate limit and maximum fuel allowance

    simple and effective.

    1. @coldfly, immediately followed by the bad news, ” more downforce” what is the point of more power if more downforce sticks the cars to the tarmac and the extra drag keeps top speeds the same, and all the time making it harder and harder for a challenging car to follow on anything but a straight.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        7th February 2015, 3:09

        @hohum 100% agree!

        I had to take the good news as it came and celebrate; it is so sparse these days in F1.

    2. Probably is…increase the minimum car weight and increase the size of the fuel cell…should produce a nice (louder) sounding engine and it keeps the v6 formula intact…works for me!!

  13. Extremely disappointed with Force India.

    Rather ironic the Strategy Group vetoing member was Force India: That is, the same Force India who claimed the Strategy Group was “unethical and undemocratic” and “could be illegal” back in 2013 when they were not a member.

  14. Dark days for F1. This is just not the F1 I fell in love with few years back.

  15. Is it me, or does the Ferrari team spirit headline not match with the excerpt below it?

    1. Well unless Ferrari have “re-discovered” team spirit by inserting a mole into RBR (not unheard of ) and studying team dynamics, there is a mis-match and the link fails also.

  16. I see a lot of anger towards Force India who are justifying their actions by saying that they were “just following the rules” in a sense. I don’t know what were their main reasons whether money or something else I do know that Force India had the least part to play in letting Marussia fail. Bernie and the old strategy group took every step to make sure that small teams don’t survive. Why is their fault being forgotten? Again, Force India are facing flak for being the first. Would it not likely be Lotus or Sauber if not Force India.

    Yes, shame on Force India for doing what they did. Maybe they should have let Marussia race in the spirit of the game. And Marussia would plod on and mid way maybe allowed to fail again.

  17. There is something wrong with the information coming out of F1.
    Force India is not in the strategy group and the strtaegy group votes by a majority.
    F1 is one big mess at the moment.

    1. OOliver, FI is now on the Strategy Group, after Lotus dropped down the order last year and they came sixth.

  18. (had wrote this on a forum thread but got deleted due to being a ‘double thread’… so I’ll put it on here even though most people wont see it as they only read the first page of comments…) :-( @keithcollantine

    It baffles me how everyone is giving FI such a hard time over this.

    The negativity is aimed at the wrong people. If the prize money was distributed fairly then the 2 failed teams may have survived in the first place.

    Although a shrinking grid is not something any F1 fan wants to see, I think it would actually be unsporting to let Manor race with last years car as the other teams were no allowed to do so. The rules and prizemoney should both be fair. In my opinion a team should race to compete… not to just hang around the back of the grid to collect some money at the end of the season.

    I would rather see the current grid survive than have Manor and Force India leave at the end of the season. But thats just my opinion.

    1. I agree with you, Force India are far from the only ones to blame here. However I disagree with you about refusing to let Manor race – you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Until we have fair distribution of prize money and other revenue, special exceptions should be made to any team who wishes to compete but cannot due to the financial burden. To exclude teams that want to race but can’t because it’s too expensive is unsporting, not the other way around.

      There are plenty of examples of teams that never won anything but were well worth having around. Your line of thinking would have refused Minardi, Ligier, Super Aguri and HRT to name a few from racing because they wouldn’t be competing or winning anything. Pretty unsporting of you.

      Also I think that your last sentence is a false dichotomy – why can’t Force India and Manor survive along with the current grid? In what way would Manor’s return cause the survival of the current grid to be in peril?

  19. Marussia and Caterham were never going to be allowed back. This was decided by the powers that be ( strategy group ) a long time ago. It was always their intention to have a ten team grid ( the “right” ten teams ).

    Having ten teams means everyone gets a substantial slice of their budget in prize money- no need for Bernie to put his hands further in those almost bottomless pockets of his, and the teams should have enough to survive.
    Ferrari and Redbull will be able to spend whatever they like to keep at the pointy end – no caps needed.
    Ferrari and Bernie will be happy to have a real presence in USA with an American team competing. Haas will effectively be team Ferrari USA.
    The make up of the grid will be balanced with 4 works teams, Honda. Merc, Ferrari and Renault, together with their junior teams, and a couple of independents. I expect Honda will take one of the smaller teams under their wing in the next couple of seasons to give them a junior team.
    Everyone will be happy, except that is ManorGP, and a hell of a lot of fans that are angry with the underhand tactics of the strategy group. The icing on the cake is that if another team should go bust Ferrari have the ForzaRossa entry waiting in the wings. That’ll give them the three teams they crave, three actual teams is much better than just one team with three cars.
    The strategy group is working perfectly.

    1. you are paranoid. the reasons for not letting marussia back, is they have no f1 team, and no prospect of running in 2015 as an f1 team. the team is dead, and a few money seekers are trying to make money from them, they rely on people like you to get a public backing, even though you know not what you are truly backing! the strategy isnt the evil “one government” conspiracy theory ridden element some people are making it out to be.

  20. If BrawnGP was a fairytale, Marussia is greek tragedy.

  21. Gotta love Twitter sometimes. FI thinking it was safe in the Pirhana Club…

  22. Quite a long comment, so bear with me here.

    This situation with Manor, Force India and the Strategy Group is a complete mess, made worse by some very incompetent journalism. From what I can make out from Bob Fernley’s statements, articles on for instance Autosport and Graeme Lowdon’s statements, Manor would need unanimous agreement from all eighteen members of the Strategy Group on Thursday to be able to run 2014 cars in 2015. There were at least four teams who would vote against it, but Force India happened to be the first to vote and of course this meant that there was no need to ask the other teams.

    On Thursday night, the Strategy Group’s decision made its way onto the internet. Autosport reported that the “Strategy Group rejects Marussia request to run 2014 F1 car”. The article simply states that Manor “did not receive the unanimous support from rival teams”, but there is a hint that the smaller teams blocked their return. In stark contrast, BBC’s (or alternatively, Andrew Benson’s) headline was “Marussia comeback blocked by Force India no vote”. The article states that “unanimous agreement from rival teams” was required, “but Force India voted against.” Both statements are true, but unfortunately most people (including myself) interpreted it as ‘The teams would have reached a unanimous agreement, but because of Force India’s vote against it, their request was dismissed’.

    This exploded on Friday morning. As can be seen in F1F’s tweet, “F1 fans fuming at Force India for ‘blocking’ a Marussia comeback”. The top post on Reddit’s F1 page (one of F1’s largest online fan communities) for the entirety of Friday was a post called “**** VIJAY MALLYA”. Eventually this post was removed by the moderators, probably due to its rather outspoken title.

    On Friday morning, Bob Fernley defended their decision to vote against Manor’s ‘proposal’ to run 2014 cars. He said that “Given the lack of information, uncertain guarantees, and the speculative nature of the application, the decision was taken that it is better to focus on ensuring the continued participation of the remaining independent teams.” This is a completely justified decision, in my opinion.

    But then Graeme Lowdon replied on Friday night that there was no application in the first place (this explains Fernley’s comments in the previous paragraph). Manor had asked the Strategy Group what it would take to modify a 2014 car for 2015, and one month ago they were informed that they could modify the car such that it complied with the Technical Regulations except four articles. According to Lowdon, they are currently working on the modifications.

    So what was the vote about? To be honest, I still don’t fully understand why they needed to vote if the Strategy Group had already communicated the situation to Manor. Effectively, the Strategy Group’s decision affected nothing, because Manor weren’t planning to run a pure 2014-spec car anyway. They are modifying a 2014 car such that it can participate in 2015 under the a set of regulations that were communicated to them last month.

    Miscommunication is the key word here. The Strategy Group had a vote on something that should not have been on the agenda, and as a result people are now shouting at Force India for executing Manor.

    Now, let’s look at the real culprits here. The Strategy Group consists of six FIA representatives (the governing body), six FOM representatives (responsible for promoting F1) and six representatives from the five ‘richest’ teams and the best of the ‘poor’ teams (as of 2015, Force India). This body is responsible for some of the worst decisions in recent history, for instance double points and standing restarts. The main reason for this is that most members put self interest ahead of the future of the sport. The Strategy Group does not function properly and needs to be abandoned.

    What should replace it? That’s a difficult question. Ideally, the FIA should run the sport in the way they think is best, while FOM should promote the sport in a way it makes the most revenue; both parties talk to each other on how they could help one another, but they do not overstep their boundaries and in the end the one responsible for matter A should take decisions regarding matter A. In reality, FOM has an enormous influence on rule making. If the sport wants to move forward and have a clear plan for the future, FIA needs to put their foot down and start reclaiming control. Is this likely to happen any time soon? The answer is no.

    Leaving that for what it is, what else went wrong the last couple of days? I think there are a number of journalists, including BBC’s Andrew Benson, who should be hanging their heads in shame. The news that emerged from the Strategy Group was very vague and indefinite, but some journalists interpreted this in completely the wrong way. The articles they produced were vague and ambiguous, and as a result a lot of people drew the wrong conclusions, resulting in the unjustified crusade to dishonour Force India. An apology won’t suffice, in my opinion.

    So yeah, like many, I feel very, very angry about what has happened the last couple of days. The final words in Manor’s press release are “we just want to go racing”, and that is EXACTLY what it’s all about. Manor (and Caterham for that matter) would be a fantastic addition to the 2015 grid, and no matter how unimportant some people think they are, if they make to the 2015 grid, they are there because they deserve to be there.

  23. I remember when Mosley (I don’t respect him but..) use to say that if you leave manufacturers to make the rules F1 will go in to a complete wrong route. Maybe Forced India proved his opinion. I think that F1 should be run by a group of people in following order:
    – ex F1 driver(s)
    – independent F1 engineer/mechanic
    – well proven businessman (that doesn’t need to steel money)
    – fans opinion.

  24. I do not understand why Force India is the villain here. It did not kill Marussia/Manor, since you cannot kill a corpse. Marussia died when they sold off the things that a team needs to participate in an F1 season. According to information available, Strategy group had no indications that any of this would be rectified or how. When a 2014 Marussia car appears in a race, does a few laps and the investor harvests some 30+Mega for it, is it called sport or business? I see no moral obligation for Force India to support this.
    If there is a way to resuscitate this dead team, then let us see it – sound financing at least on the level that Marussia had before, preferably more, realistic plans for setting up a _working_ team again. I think that even the evil Strategic group would find it hard to reject such an application. I for one would like to see a working Manor team return, if only because the admiration I had for how relatively well these people did on a shoestring budget before. But it has to be done properly, not as a money-making stunt.

  25. i woulod rather see f1 field “b” level cars to make up the numbers, then to let manor/marrussia back in for a few races with a 2014 car just to make up the numbers – their business proposition is not sound, they do not deserve to be let back into to f1, as they have zero skope of improving. bring on HAAS. also it seems very suspicious with the new “investors” – secret men who will make a quick buck from last years prize money. people should let this team rest in peace, instead of supporting their comeback that will lead to more doom and gloom.

  26. If the smaller teams will start to go bankrupt one by one, hopefully F1 will be cancelled and after some time reborn with hopefully more sensibility.

  27. While I commend Manor for their attitude of “We just want to go racing”, and as much as I love F1, I don’t understand their insistance of racing in F1.

    It’s just not possible for them to compete in F1 without major investment. Hanging around the back 3 or 4 seconds off the next car, isn’t racing.

    Would Manor be better off putting their efforts/cash into running a prototype in WEC, where the budgets aren’t yet as high as F1.

Comments are closed.