Jules Bianchi, Marussia, Yas Marina, 2013

Manor confirms Australian Grand Prix entry

2015 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Jules Bianchi, Marussia, Yas Marina, 2013Manor has confirmed it will participate in the Australian Grand Prix next week after coming out of administration.

The team, formerly known as Marussia, has secured new investment from Stephen Fitzpatrick, owner of energy company Ovo. Justin King, the former CEO of Sainsbury’s will serve as interim chairman.

Former Marussia CEO Graeme Lowdon will continue as Manor’s president and sporting director and John Booth remains as team principal.

“I want to thank all of the teams, the FIA, Formula One Management, our suppliers and staff and of course all of the fans for the support we’ve received over the past six months,” said Lowdon.

“It has been a challenging period for all of us but we’ve come through it and now we just want to go racing again.”

“With formidable new business leadership in Stephen Fitzpatrick and the board presence of Justin King we are now in a great place ahead of the new season. This is a fantastic and very rewarding moment for all those involved with the team.”

Fitzpatrick described himself as having “a lifelong passion for Formula One” and said the team want to “restore Manor to the very best of racing in the future”.

The team plans to introduce a new design for the 2015 season later in the season, and will begin the year using an older chassis updated to meet the current technical regulations.

The team has already announced Will Stevens is to drive one of its cars. The occupant of the other seat is yet to be confirmed.

2015 F1 season

Browse all 2015 F1 season articles

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.

100 comments on “Manor confirms Australian Grand Prix entry”

  1. Even if they pull it off, it’ll make Hispania look quick and reliable in comparison…

    1. I don’t think reliability will be the issue. Last year they had decent reliability too and the car they start the year with is basically the same car with some bodywork parts and chassis parts adjusted to meet the 2015 regulations.

      In contrast, HRT brought their first car to the race still figuring out how to put it together and has seen a lack of spare parts through more or less their complete stint in F1 @jb001.

      1. el presidente
        5th March 2015, 8:02

        ^ solid comment.

        Reliability i also don’t see as a real factor, personally i am more worried about the 107% rule (if this is still in place -i think it is-) Since they will be using last years Fezza-turd, and this years engines seem so much faster, -up to 3sec a lap faster already- and with 107% being around 10seconds (depending on laptime) they might be very far behind. last year they were about 6-7sec slower if i recall correctly, so add another 2-3sec for an outdated turd in the back, and another 1-2sec for loss of aero-development, and no training, testing what so ever, i think 107% is going to be a very steep hill for them.

        1. Does the use of the 2014 chassis means they will still be using the 2014 Ferrari engine? I didn’t read the article as saying that…

          1. It has previously been reported as verbally agreed:

            http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117752

        2. You are completely mistaken. Their Q1 times were about 2-3 seconds slower and difference between their Q1 and pole times were 4-5 seconds faster than their Q1 time.

  2. Does this mean they have successfully passed the FIA crash tests? If so that is impressively quick design and manufacture.

    1. I understand that they had their crash tests this morning, so I would assume that they announced they will be there after passing @jethro

    2. @jethro Or, considering they had a car last year as well, an awful lack thereof.

    3. el presidente
      5th March 2015, 8:05

      As i understand passing the crash-test is not that hard… the hard part is ‘passing the crash-test with a nose-design you are content with’.

      We already saw in testing some nose-designs changed (shorter or slimmer) just because they could not make it strong enough before testing. So Marussia probably will have a long lumpy nose, just make sure they pass the test, and then after during the season the can try to reshape it, and make it slimmer, and shorter.

  3. Genuinely pleased for them. Even if their aim in Melbourne is simply to fulfil the requirements to claim their 2014 prize money, that’s a worthy reward for their achievements last season.

    #ForzaJules

    1. True. But missing Jules.

    2. @sharoncom – Totally agree. Hope they keep it rolling.

  4. It doesn’t matter if they’re miles off the pace in my opinion, that’s inevitable, at least until they get their 2015 car ready. What truly matters is the feat this little team has pulled off by coming back from the abyss.
    Amid seemingly nearly all bad news surrounding F1 at the moment this is truly a good news story, good luck Manor!

    1. Lets all become Manor fans. I am going to buy team merchandising if available. We need pro Manor bias reporting and verbally beat up on all other teams. The site can be changed to Manor Fanatic. UP THE MANOR……

      1. Morningview66
        5th March 2015, 9:52

        MON THE STEVENS

    2. Amen to that. As it has been said over and over before, backmarkers benefit F1 as much as big wealthy names. Manor Marussia has fought for its survival in a way few teams could before, and having a soft spot for the team since the Virgin days, I think I am now an official Manor fan. Doesn’t matter if they are slow, maybe a future world champion will be sitting in either of those cars in two weeks’ time.

      1. el presidente
        5th March 2015, 8:08

        Yes, im also very pleased with this, and also ever since the Virgin days i have a weak spot for them. Also, like was the case with Force-India, the seem to get better every season (until disaster struck last season) but always on the race, and pure racers.

        so yes! Big up the Manor!

        1. el presidente
          5th March 2015, 8:09

          on the rise…. although ‘always on the race’ might not be a bad type-o in specific instance :D

  5. Very pleased to see this. It’s been a while since we had a proper good news story…

    Qualifying may be a tall order though. They were 4.3% off the pace in Melbourne last year, and they’re still going to be using the old-spec Ferrari engines this year. The (unnecessary) 107% rule may catch them out.

    1. If they are close to the 107% time, like 108% or so, I think the FIA will make an exception.

      1. ‘Think’ or ‘hope’? There isn’t any precedent for the FIA granting exceptions on compassionate grounds.

        1. Yes there is. They have let plenty of teams/drivers in who haven’t met the 107% for whatever reason.

          ok if they are running at 110 or can’t string 3 laps together then no they won’t race but if they are close to it they will race.

          More chance of mclaren missing out!

          1. Michael Brown
            5th March 2015, 0:33

            Because either practice times or the teammates times are within 107%.

          2. That was what I was thinking of. If they manage to finish in the 107% time in just one of the practice sessions, I think (yes I really think, not just hoping) the FIA will allow them to participate.

      2. The FIA can usually be relied upon to do the opposite of would be good for the sport.

    2. I think they will just make it inside the 107%. As you say they were 4.3% off the pace in Melbourne last year. But it rained in qualy so that’s not really comparable. But if we take Bahrain qualy last year last year, they were 4 seconds inside the 107%. The cars this year will be about 2-3 seconds faster, but most of that is down to the new tyres which Manor will also have. So let’s say they’ll lose 1 to 1.5 seconds per lap on the others due to their old engine, and add 0.5 to 1 second because they haven’t tested yet. Then they’ll still have a margin of about 1.5 seconds inside the 107%

      1. @jlracing

        As you say they were 4.3% off the pace in Melbourne last year. But it rained in qualy so that’s not really comparable.

        That data is from practice, which was dry.

        1. el presidente
          5th March 2015, 8:16

          I also think 107% will be a though nut to crack for them.

          -old engine (and not the best for that matter either.. i.e. not a Benz)
          -no testing (and no training of -new- recruits)
          -an make-shift nose design
          -an old chassis that hasn’t been developed for half a year now. (since they went into admin)
          -inexperienced drivers.

          and another little thingy is , they have to be within of 107% of Mercedes.. and they will be flying by the looks of it.

          but all in all, i really hope they make it through the season, and that they get their finances up to speed, and that they can come back stronger than ever before for 2016! :D

    3. The safety reasons for the existence of the 107% rule are important and it is not unnecesary rule at all. Now with the cars running different tires in the race the real speed differences can already be a lot more than 107%.This can mean vastly different braking points which does have real chance to create totally unnecessary risks when even conservative braking from any top10 teams can still result in a crash just because the marussia needs to brake so much earlier…

      The 107% is already so lenient that if some team can’t even manage that then clearly they have no reason to expect to start an f1 race. It is already calculated from the q1 time instead of q3 which already means the top cars are doing faster times than 107%. Add in tire wear and different tire compounds and we may just as well see marussia being rear ended because they are starting to be dangerously slow.

      The 107% is not just for the teams. It is for the drivers. F1 should be pinnacle racing series with fast drivers. The 107% rule prevents teams from choosing super slow (and wealthy) pay drivers and as such improves the quality of the grid.

      I don’t see any excitement about the marussia efforts. Two pay drivers, last year’s car and engine and only reason they want to race is money. To collect the money from bernie. That money would have been better spent if it was divided and given to force india, sauber and lotus.

      1. The 107% is already so lenient that if some team can’t even manage that then clearly they have no reason to expect to start an f1 race. It is already calculated from the q1 time instead of q3 which already means the top cars are doing faster times than 107%. Add in tire wear and different tire compounds and we may just as well see marussia being rear ended because they are starting to be dangerously slow.

        The 107% is not really lenient as such, just that it has proven rather pointless as in almost every case of a driver falling short of the 107% time they had set a time within it in practice.

        The 107% is not just for the teams. It is for the drivers. F1 should be pinnacle racing series with fast drivers. The 107% rule prevents teams from choosing super slow (and wealthy) pay drivers and as such improves the quality of the grid.

        No, that it is not and has never been the purpose of the 107% rule. If it was, then how do you explain drivers like Chilton and Ericsson getting drives and actually qualifying for races? And let’s face it, pay drivers are always going to be a part of F1, no matter what happens.

        I don’t see any excitement about the marussia efforts. Two pay drivers, last year’s car and engine and only reason they want to race is money. To collect the money from bernie. That money would have been better spent if it was divided and given to force india, sauber and lotus.

        What evidence do you have to suggest that Manor are racing for the sole purpose of collecting prize money?

        1. |What evidence do you have to suggest
          |that Manor are racing for the sole purpose
          |of collecting prize money?

          No testing, no new car, using last year’s engine, two pay drivers. I think that is quite many reasons to assume it already. Only thing they need to achieve to collect that money is to either show up or qualify. I think it could be enough if they just show up and make honest effort to drive around the track.

          What evidence do you have that they are not just coming in solely because of money?

          |The 107% is not really lenient as such,
          |just that it has proven rather pointless
          |as in almost every case of a driver falling
          |short of the 107% time they had set a
          |time within it in practice.

          Practise times are only used if there are some good reasons to assume that the driver would have made a time inside 107% but for some reason didn’t or couldn’t do it in the q1. Such reason could be accident, mechanical issue, car spins off the track and is stuck. Doesn’t even mean that the car could not run. Just show that there was an issue with the car making it slow. If the team can then demonstrate that they would have made the 107% they are in. But practise times are only used if there is some reason the quali time is compromised in some way. Just being super slow in q1 is not a reason to use practise times…

          |No, that it is not and has never been the purpose
          |of the 107% rule. If it was, then how do you explain
          |drivers like Chilton and Ericsson getting drives and
          |actually qualifying for races? And let’s face it, pay drivers
          |are always going to be a part of F1, no matter what happens.

          I never said that was (one of) the purpose of the rule. But having that rule prevents teams choosing really slow drivers. Chilton and ericsson are not so bad when you could possibly have drivers like Carmen Jordá buying their way into F1. Now chilton was already slow but he is nowhere as slow as someone like carmen.

          I think the safety reason is the strongest argument for the 107% rule. As long as marussia is in we definitely need that rule. I don’t want to see good scrap for the lead ending in driver getting hurt just because a pay driver in slow car is a safety risk and causes an accident just by being on the track. But amazingly this is exactly the reason why some people seem to want marussia in! Just so the marussia can add excitement to the race by making the lead cars getting into unpredictable accidents with the slow cars and somehow this schadenfreunde makes the race more exciting?!

          1. No testing, no new car, using last year’s engine, two pay drivers.

            Well they haven’t exactly had much of an opportunity to complete any testing or build a new car seeing as their very participation has been up in the air for much of the off-season. And that doesn’t actually prove that they are racing solely for the prize money. I’m not saying they aren’t, but in your comment you are stating that is the only reason they are participating, as if that is the only possibility. But really, they could be participating for the same reason they’ve participated before: To compete in the top level of motorsport and maybe (even if it is a very unlikely possibility) win, just like most other teams that have competed in F1 in the past. No, I cannot say conclusively whether or not they are participating just for a sack of cash, but neither can you.

            Just being super slow in q1 is not a reason to use practise times…

            But the practice times could show that the car is capable of running within the 107% time, even if for some unidentifiable reason it was not able to do so in Q1.

            Chilton and ericsson are not so bad when you could possibly have drivers like Carmen Jordá buying their way into F1.

            Maybe twenty years ago Jordá would have taken her place with the Lavaggis and Inoues, but she does not fulfil the criteria for a superlicence in modern F1, even before the introduction of the new points system she would need a pretty decent record in a junior series, which she of course does not. Chilton and Ericsson are about the slowest we can expect nowadays, and they are least average.

            But amazingly this is exactly the reason why some people seem to want marussia in! Just so the marussia can add excitement to the race by making the lead cars getting into unpredictable accidents with the slow cars and somehow this schadenfreunde makes the race more exciting?!

            When did anyone say they wanted Manor in just so they can cause accidents? Once again you are jumping to conclusions. They want them in because a) they are a hard-fighting team, even if they haven’t been successful (unless you are willing to stick with the prize money theory) and b) because F1 is already suffering from a shrinking grid, to the point where any participation is welcome, really.

          2. The problem with the, it’s to stop slow drivers idea, is that you could stick a slow driver in a Merc and he’d qualify anyway…. It seems the superlicense is what is meant to filter out poor drivers.

          3. @Simtek

            |But the practice times could show that
            |the car is capable of running within the
            |107% time, even if for some unidentifiable
            |reason it was not able to do so in Q1.

            True, I think we are both saying the same thing.

            |When did anyone say they wanted Manor in just
            |so they can cause accidents? Once again you are
            |jumping to conclusions. They want them in because
            |a) they are a hard-fighting team, even if they
            |haven’t been successful (unless you are willing
            |to stick with the prize money theory) and
            |b) because F1 is already suffering from a
            |shrinking grid, to the point where any
            |participation is welcome, really.

            The schadenfreunde argument is the one that the owner of this site has cited few times as the reason why we should have b-class f1 teams. Look at this article for example:

            http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/12/04/2012-f1-season-review-hrt/
            “For proof of that, consider that had Sebastian Vettel not come across Karthikeyan’s HRT in Malaysia and America, the drivers’ championship would not have had the nail-biting down-to-the-wire climax we all enjoyed.”

            How much more clear can one say it? Backmarkers cause accidents = we get more exciting race. I don’t agree with that at all.

            As for F1’s shrinking grid so far we have only lost 2 teams (depending how you want to count). Those 2 teams were always on the ragged edge of survival anyways and nothing has even suggested they had the stamina to stay in f1 for long. 18 cars is not the end of the world at all. As far as the show goes we could add two gp2 teams and the end result would be indentical.

            F1 money sharing is of course broken and the fact that we could have 11 teams but only 10 get bernie participation money is of course insanely broken system. At the moment we have 9 teams. 10 if marussia gets to melbourne. Next season we get haas and in one scenario we have 10 teams and in other schenario we have 11 teams.

            The Corcorde deal hasn’t changed and as result only the top 10 teams get paid (plus the points moneys). Haas should beat marussia super easily which means marussia will drop back on to nothing (11th position). It is not only unsustainable to have more teams than 10 but it is also borderline criminal imho to have more teams than 10 when the system is so heavily biased against the 11th team.

            At the moment we are only missing 1 team (or not even that). This will only help things to improve. It would bring stability to the back of the grid if the situation stayed like this. But it won’t with haas coming. For a full healthy grid we need to get rid of marussia for the 2016 season so things can stabilize for teams like force india and sauber which suffer from the marussia/caterham antics. For example the contractors that were left unpaid by caterham and marussia now need to ask money up front from teams like sauber and force india which hurts them in this current hard economic hardship.

            Unless the concorde deal is changed having any more than 10 teams is imho not just irresponsible but detrimental to all teams at the back end of the grid.

          4. @socksolid

            The schadenfreunde argument is the one that the owner of this site has cited few times as the reason why we should have b-class f1 teams. Look at this article for example:http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/12/04/2012-f1-season-review-hrt/“For proof of that, consider that had Sebastian Vettel not come across Karthikeyan’s HRT in Malaysia and America, the drivers’ championship would not have had the nail-biting down-to-the-wire climax we all enjoyed.

            OK, point taken, and it is admittedly not the best reason for having a backmarker team, or indeed any team in the sport. But Keith did give better reasons to justify HRT’s existence in the same article, such as giving more drivers a place on the grid (they did give Ricciardo his debut, and yes, I will agree they didn’t hire many great drivers besides) and Manor gave Jules Bianchi his debut. Returning to the original point I don’t think that is the main reason anyone wants Manor in the sport, which you seem to be implying, unless I’m mistaken. The only reasons I’ve seen are the ones I mentioned above.

            Haas should beat marussia super easily which means marussia will drop back on to nothing (11th position).

            I’d wait until the 2016 season has actually started before passing judgment there. Sure, Haas have a big development advantage that Manor didn’t have back in 2009, but I’m sceptical (though not dismissive) of the idea that Haas will definitely beat Manor.

            For a full healthy grid we need to get rid of marussia for the 2016 season so things can stabilize for teams like force india and sauber which suffer from the marussia/caterham antics.

            Why get rid of Manor? Why can’t Force India or Sauber disappear to achieve the same result? Fundamentally, what makes them more deserving of a place in F1 than Manor?

        2. It will cost them more than the prize money to get the prize money. You aren’t making any sense. They want to race, they’ve made it this far and deserve their dues for that.

          1. You don’t know how much it costs for them. They have lots of debt and their only income is bernie’s money and some sponsorship money, pay driver money and most importantly any money from investors. Not along ago they were bankcrupt.

            The marussia do have something that is worth a lot of money though. That is their f1 entry. If they didn’t race they’d lose that entry and that entry is expensive. Even if they lose money overall by racing at least they keep their entry slot which can be worth a lot of money if someone buys it.

        3. The reason the 107% rule appears lenient is because a driver that falls short of it in qualifying may be allowed to race due to setting a sufficient time in practice, or their teammate was able to set a 107% time.

  6. Good news in F1? Love it. Hopefully all goes well and good luck to them!

  7. Great news! I’m so happy for them. I’ll be cheering for them this season.

  8. Sounds like these new investors certainly know what they are doing. I am curious to see who fills the second seat. This is finally some good news about F1, the first in a very, very long time, but there’s still a lot of serious problems with F1, and that will overshadow the start of the season for me personally.

    I’m just glad that we will see 20 cars in the field, watching 18 F1 cars was somewhat embarrassing and disappointing, even if it was ‘only’ Caterham and Marussia that were missing. It’s still six off the 26 which we should be having in F1 though.

  9. 10 days before the GP, and we still do not know their line-up yet …

    Anyway, I’m glad they’re back :)

  10. Stephen Fitzpatrick’s an interesting chap. Here’s how he set up his own energy business and how he recently took money out of it to buy a house. I wonder what those who complained about the latter will make of him putting money into an F1 team?

    1. thanks for those @keithcollantine, interesting guy, I hope he is more going to be involved more for the long run than Fernandez (and Branson and the Russian guy of Marussia etc), although stepping in together with King is also an interesting step.

    2. Quote from the BBC report on this story…

      Fitzpatrick’s investment is a personal one and the money he has put into the team does not come from Ovo.

      I don’t know the size of the investment, but whatever it is, seems like a lot of money to have sitting around in your back pocket!

      1. Well, it has certainly been put to good use. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed it’ll pay off.

    3. Sort of an inspiring story. Investment bankers really make a lot of money, Fast! Makes me wonder how hard it is for an engineer to pull such a stunt.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        4th March 2015, 22:20

        @david-beau, I’d say Bill Gates is an ‘engineer’ (software).

        1. @coldflyActually, he did not put together the software that made him into a big name. He bought DOS. Bill Gates is an outstanding businessman who had the foresight to realise that in order to sell lots of software, one can ignore individual users (for instance there is no need to invest into making a softare actually work well for them) but focus on courting big business and education sector (and break some rules along the way). He’s been playing his advantages extremely well, given that Misrosoft software has rarely (if ever) been the best in its field.

    4. At a guess we can expect the ‘Ovo’ logo to be prominent on the car. It would be funny if Sainsbury’s came on board with ‘Live Well For Less’ being on the car somewhere. That would sum things up really.

    5. @keithcollantine Thank you for the links. Especially the second one is rather worrying. It would seem that Marussia’s resurrection is due to funding provided by a guy who in July 2014 had to sell shares in order to buy a house. According to the article he was left with 15.5% of shares, which translates to roughly L7m. Given that an F1 team is a money sink (Fernandes or Brason could tell us), this does not bode well for long-term survival. I hope there are more sources of funding for Manor than the news indicate.

      1. I would take all of those figures with a whole bucket of salt. Anyone who can’t mask their money well isn’t doing business ‘properly’.

    6. Documents at Companies House show that Fitzpatrick was paid £2m for 564 shares in Ovo Energy Ltd, where he is the sole director, on 17 July 2013. That stake is believed to represent 4.5% of Ovo Energy, leaving him with 15.5% of the shares. The shares were bought by the holding group Ovo Group, which also appears to be 100% owned by Fitzpatrick and his family.

      I doesn’t seem like withdrawing money if you read this.

      Stephen Fitzpatrick seems like a good guy to me but he isn’t really super rich apparently. Manor will have to find new investors if they want to secure their future in F1 in the long-term.

  11. Well, 10 days until Australia. We now have one team we weren’t expecting, and one driver we also weren’t expecting…

    F1 Wildcard entries might start looking like a better idea

    1. I saw some comments that they might be running Magnussen in the other car, but off course Kevin is now occupied that weekend at McLaren, so who knows …

      Maybe they could give Timo Glock the call or please their engine suppliers by putting in Guttierez :-)

      1. Glock was still owed money by Marussia as of last November, they may have burnt their bridges with him.

        I’ve heard rumours of Jordan King (don’t see how he can get a Superlicense in time), Kevin Magnussen (driving for McLaren in Australia so they’d need someone else for one race), Robin Frijns (don’t know if he’s found some funding from somewhere) and Johnny Cecotto Jnr (God help the rest of the grid).

        1. Cecotto’s actually matured quite a bit in the last year.

          Now Sergio Canamasas on the other hand…

        2. How about Vernge for the 2nd seat…..its a Ferrari engine…..and doesn’t he have a contract with Ferrari……good fast driver…surely a logical choice….

        3. GB (@bgp001ruled)
          4th March 2015, 22:13

          cecotto jnr????? NOOOooooooooo….

        4. Giedo VdGarde probably also has some solid funds (he lost out on the already done deal of driving for Sauber by being outbidded by both Nasr and Ericsson) @sharoncom

        5. Spanish press talks abour Mehri in the second Manor… Could this be happening ?

    2. Rubens Barichello could give it a try..

  12. Curious that FOM refer to them only as ‘Marussia’. What’s that about?

    1. @keithcollantine Isn’t it a requirement that they maintain the Marussia name in the official entry list in order to claim their 2014 prize money?

      Or something along those lines anyway… it may have only been that their chassis that needs to maintain the Marussia name in order for them to claim the prize money. Anyone have any idea?

      1. Remember BMW sauber with Ferrari engines? I think its a bit like that.

      2. @polo Yes the thing about the prize money is right, but I thought FOM referred to ‘BMW Sauber’ as ‘Sauber’ in 2010, which was when we last had a similar situation? Must be something along those lines though.

    2. Alternatively, it may be another sign that Bernie still hasn’t joined the 21st century and thinks the only useful part of the internet is email…

  13. Ben (@bendemancos)
    4th March 2015, 18:17

    YES! This is the best news out of F1 in a long time! It’s refreshing to see that they were able get through the political hurdles. Such a passionate team — it’ll be wonderful to have them back on the grid. Australia will be a huge challenge, not to mention the rest of the season, but I’m just super happy that they have another chance at F1. The Russian GP was not a good note to end on.

    Bernie might think that the Marussia and Caterham did nothing to spice up the racing, but watching Jules finish 9th in Monaco was one of the highlights of the 2014 season for me. And the last laps in Abu Dhabi were much more thrilling thanks to Will Steven’s Caterham, even if he was only traffic. Think about how boring the WEC would be without GT cars!

    Hamilton should forfeit his motto, “Still I Rise,” to Manor’s livery :)

  14. Ill be suprised if they last the season but good luck to them.

  15. I am happy for this because F1 really needs any positive news and any additional teams right now. Let us also not forget that this would most probably not be possible without Jules Bianchi, who took his chance and scored two points in the Monaco GP last year. I think that the prize money that Marussia got thanks to the 9th place in the constructors’ championship has ultimately kept the team alive. Forza Jules!

  16. What absolute heroes. Forza Jules.

  17. I’ll be that guy and ask: what for?

    The only point of Marussia was to compete with Catherman for the penultimate place. Not particularly exciting. Now with Catherham gone, plus a clear delay in their development, what exactly are they aiming for? Not being lapped 4 times in a race?

    I’m all for more teams on the grid, and I admire their dedication (assuming it’s actual dedication and there not other interests in play), but I fail to see the point in this particular case.

    1. Fitzpatrick described himself as having “a lifelong passion for Formula One” and said the team want to “restore Manor to the very best of racing in the future”.

      1. PR talk is a wonderful thing. It’s a shame that more often than not it’s not true.

    2. I’ll be that guy and answer: why not?

      I would understand the whole cutthroat, ‘they will be completely hopeless all season’ attitude if there were a line of well established racing teams ready to join F1, but that doesn’t appear the case. so why not letting a small but tenacious outfit race, collect a prize money that they won fair and square last season and save a bunch of jobs in the process???

      besides, increasing grid size increases the chance of a so-called miracle happening: if Caterham and Marussia had folded prior to 2014, we would never have had the fairy tale story of Bianchi’s points in Monaco, which, I don’t know about you, but for me was one of the highlights of last season…

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        4th March 2015, 22:42

        +1

      2. Couldn’t have said it better!

    3. They’ve a CVA to pay off, and they can’t very well do it if they drop out of F1 and pay whatever extortionate exit fee was put in to try and stop manufacturers from walking out at the drop of a hat.

      1. @alianora-la-canta I haven’t heard of an “exit fee” (for example, publications like Autosport mentioned nothing like that in the many articles about Marussia’s exit). Exiting teams don’t get their prize money corresponding to the previous years, that’s well known, so it would be nice for you to post a link about those exit fees.

        Regardless, I seriously doubt a team under administration would have to pay such a fee, if it actually exists.

    4. Right DaX, so if they only compete with Catherman for the penultimate place then how did they manage to finish the season beating not just Caterham but also Sauber?

      They did a solid job with the resources they had available and show exactly the spirit of what sport should be to be there and participate this year again. I am sure that they work as hard as they can to try and beat Sauber, or FI or McLaren, or STR or whoever will end up in the lower part of the grid.
      And already they were instrumental in bringing the cost saving and improved safety of the standard crash structure now used in F1 if you would want another point proving that being the winner is not all that counts (they have also resurrected Pat Symonds career for example).

  18. It’s excellent news to be seeing this team again and that we will have a 20-car grid (107% rule depending) instead of an 18-car one. Although 20 still isn’t enough in my eyes, look at the 2014 US and Brazilian GPs. The grid looked absolutely pitiful. Two more cars will at least bring the grid size to a kind of respectable level (last seen in 2009).

    All the best to them.

  19. The last few years with Marussia felt like we were watching a team inch closer to being a real prospect, seeing them get points last year was a highlight of the season.

    Can’t help but feel though that with the Bianchi accident and the team going into administration it was 2 steps forward, 10 steps back. I’d really like to believe they’ve got a true fan with aspirations investing in them, I mean who were the last privateer team to make it and last? Williams?

    1. That would’ve been Sauber, wouldn’t it?

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        4th March 2015, 22:49

        Stewart Grand Prix I guess! (now RBR)
        @philipgb, @reiter

        1. Would argue Stewart were essentially the Ford Works team. Hence why they turned to Jaguar, but Sauber are probably the correct answer. Still would hope the FIA open up some entries this year to help fill the missing slots left behind from Caterham and HRT for 2017. Fingers crossed that Manor and Haas can last till then and we don’t lose Lotus, Sauber or Force India as 26 cars would be nice.

          1. @coldfly @gnrpoison

            No need to argue, Stewart are no longer on the grid and would you really call Red Bull a privateer outfit given they are financially backed by their name sake?

            @reiter

            Forgot about Sauber, though they were a works team briefly. But they’re also teetering on the edge of survival.

  20. Really feels good reading all the recent good news about Manor. Hopefully they will make some decent progress with their 2015 car when it comes, and manage to stay inside the 107% rule beforehand.

    While I’m not too sure about the new investor, it’s great to see Lowdon and Booth have stayed on, which means consistency and passion for the team. I’m very excited, this team has swept my heart over the past 2 seasons, especially with the way HRT and Caterham were ‘managed’ in their final seasons.

    Even if it’s just for the young drivers, engineers and mechanics, I hope Manor can stick around for a few years more.

    1. glad to see them back, hope Mclaren a young padwan in there,just peeved the green guys have been nudged out, my 2016 rule would be skill over pay, turn up with equally machnery gp3 or r 3.5 and have a shoot out, f1 is the cream of the crop not whos daddy/backers has the bigger wallet,Save that for the afterpartys!

      1. and give Rubens a seat lol

  21. Wonderful news. I’ve followed 12 seasons of F1 so far and one of my favourite moments was seeing Jules Bianchi get those two points in Monaco last year. I found the news of their downfall last year to be absolutely heartbreaking, but the news today was almost enough to bring a tear to my eye. Even though it looks impossible that they will match that 9th place anytime in the near future, they are hardworking bunch of people with a passion for motorsport, which is really what Formula 1 should be about. Best of luck to everyone involved.

  22. i,ll be supporting them, f1 aint all about hamilton, alonso and vettel

    1. Well said. +1

  23. I might receive a lot of flake for saying this but I am amazed to see how people here are excited about the new entrant and being big time supporters of them. I wonder if these are the same people who were cursing teams like Marussia, Catheram and HRT for being moving chicanes – including the drivers if I may add. What good will be a new last minute entry team if they cant compete shoulder to shoulder with the big boys in F1. Force India, Sauber and Lotus are already struggling to keep up and we have a new one now. And for what? To go into administration after a couple of years?

    1. I am firmly of the belief that a full grid is better than an empty one. It’d be better if they all had money to compete, but even if they trail I’d rather have them than not. Plus with Hass entering next year it’ll give both teams a benchmark they can fight against.

  24. Ah, this is very, very good news!

  25. I was never really a Marussia fan… (of the new 3 teams I used to prefer Caterham/lotus) but as from today Manor (prefer this name) is my second favourite team :)

  26. If they are there to compete, very well, great news. But call me a sceptic. I don’t see them finishing the season. I see them taking last year’s prize money and then bail, stating “insufficient funds”, or whatever. If they are “serious”, here’s a juvenile comment: “faith in humanity restored”. Big Kudos to the courage of the drivers driving that car this year. They will be perceived as “slow”, irrespective of their talent, and will be constantly looking at the rear view mirrors trying to avoid every other car as, without a better word for it, they are “moving chicanes”.

  27. It reminds me of how Minardi were saved from the brink of extinction back in 2001.

Comments are closed.