Indonesia launches crowdfund to keep Haryanto in F1

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: The Indonesian government has turned to crowdfunding to pay for Rio Haryanto’s seat at Manor.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Would F1 work at Laguna Seca?
The reality of F1 racing six times per year in America would not be very appealing, @Jackysteeg reckons:

Well, considering that the US has the best selection of race tracks on the planet, it is criminal that they are largely overlooked by America’s top domestic championships and completely ignored on the international scene.

But as far as I’m aware, only two tracks come up to F1 standards, being the Indianapolis road course and, obviously, COTA. So realistically, Ecclestone would need at least four more new Grade 1 tracks to be built in the States (or bring some current ones up to standard, which of course will involve butchering them). That’s not going to happen, nor do I particularly want it to happen.

I would love F1 to visit America more often, but on tracks like Road America, Road Atlanta, Laguna Seca, Watkins Glen, etc… If it’s just going to be another Tilke-drome, a soulless street track in a disinterested city, or, worst of all, a butchered classic, then I see no reason to get excited.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jacob and Apoorvb Bajpai!

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

Phil Hill, the 1961 world champion, was born on this day in 1927. He died in 2008.

Former F1 drivers Hans Stuck and Derek Bell shared victory for Porsche in the opening round of the 1986 Sports-Prototype World Championship held on this day 30 years ago.

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.

55 comments on “Indonesia launches crowdfund to keep Haryanto in F1”

  1. I don’t understand why Marussia are so upset by the use of their name. What exactly was it a trademark of? And it’s not as if Manor have exactly become a well known brand under that name.

    This is perhaps the most pathetic legal dispute I’ve ever read about

    1. @strontium It’s not as if anyone’s in danger of confusing the F1 cars with all those road cars Marussia sold…

      1. Or didn’t sell…

          1. The sad thing is, they might win. Despite the obviousness of reality.

          2. And the other thing is, they basically got a free year of advertisement, just like BMW did in 2010. How is that a bad thing! If anything seeing the team rise from the ashes that they became would have been a good thing no?

      2. Ford was bitching about “F150” a couple of years ago, so…

        1. And that’s my point – to the best of my knowledge Marussia never sold a single road car, whereas the Ford F-150 pickup is part of America’s biggest-selling vehicle range for the past few decades. Hard to find a much starker contrast!

          1. Marussia sold 500 Marussia B2s (its one production run was in 2012, and it sold out), all of which went to Russians. It is unclear how many B1s got made (it is almost certainly fewer than tthe B2s because it was the B2 that got Marussia Motors what reputation it has), and the F2 that was meant to succeed the B2 never got past concept car status. Wikipedia is the only source I could find on the Marussia’s sales figures.

            Even when typing “How many road cars did Marussia sell?” into, I got more items about Timo Glock than I did about the road car company…

            I think Marussia are looking for money to pay off creditors, as it has been in administration since April 2014. The administrator may have ordered this attempt to try to claw back a little bit more value from those who are owed money by the project.

          2. Um… …having now found another equally-unsourced item (from the Need for Speed wiki of all places), it appears the 500 B2s never got finished. Presumably any money made from the sales would have needed to be refunded. I seem to remember somewhere saying four B1s got sold, but I can’t remember where or when.

      3. @keithcollantine don’t forgot the massive confusion people had between the Ferrari F150 and the Ford F150 pickup truck. Thank God Ford said they would sue Ferrari if they didn’t change the name…imagine the confusion if they didn’t

    2. @strontium They’re upset because they dumped the team in administration, gave the assets away for a token sum expecting the new owners to fail as they did and shoulder all the debt that was passed on.

      Of course, it all got turned around so now they’re sniffing for a pay out.

    3. Well then you havnt read about many legal disputes. If there was any common sence in legal disputes there wouldnt be any legal disputes.

    4. What bothers me about the case is not that Marussia Motors are bringing it, but that the judge didn’t take into account that Marussia F1 was obliged to continue to use the team name the moment it was entered for the championship until the moment a fresh Concorde Agreement/substitute was agreed, unless given exceptional permission to change name. That was something Marussia Motors agreed to the moment it decided to put its name on the cars back in 2012 (when the current bilateral agreements were created). Neither has it taken into account that Marussia Motors had no method of complying with standard intellectual property rights law (the basis on which this case will have been brought) thanks to F1’s rules concerning team names.

      If Marussia F1 had done anything other than what it did, it would have been in breach of contract with the FIA and most likely had it terminated through frustration (since the FIA cannot allow an illegally-named team to enter the championship, and using any name other than the already-entered one would have breached contract law). Getting a name change through wasn’t an option as the deadline for this had passed before the need for it became apparent – the team raced as Manor for practical purposes. At that point, the FIA would have been entitled to sue Marussia for defrauding the championship by preventing an entrant from entering.

      The chassis one was even less likely to be possible as the chassis prefix has to remain the same for 3 years before a change can be considered – which for Marussia would be 2013, 2014… …2015.

      “Manor Marussia” was called this in 2015 because of a naming loophole that allows a primary sponsor to be changed each year (note: *a* primary sponsor because the FIA really didn’t like BAR having a sponsor string in its name that forced its official name onto a second line in official documentation in 1999). So Marussia was the obligatory name the FIA forced the team to carry while Manor, its true name, could only take the “primary sponsor” position. As soon as Manor was allowed to call itself that officially, and change the chassis names, it did so. The logical solution would have been for Manor to have been called Manor from the moment of its resurgence. But F1 rules do not allow that without the team being treated as separate. A quick glance at the identical leadership and almost-identical (if shrunken) staffing confirms they are the same team, once the F1 convention that changes of ownership do not a different team make is noted. (Not all judges agree with that convention, which is presumably why the judge hasn’t roped Manor LMP2 and its leaders into this – yet).

      The logical solution given the F1 regulations would have been for Marussia Motors to continue to license the name – the expiry was pretty well-timed, as it would have been able to be treated as a fresh creditor for 2015 and not have its agreement subsumed into the CVA that Marussia F1 obtained. However, as Marussia Motors was itself in administration, it’s not clear if it possessed that option either!

      This is a stupid case, that has occurred because no sensible method of resolving such incidents exists in F1. Perhaps it is time that this changes?

  2. I’m a bit ignorant to the whole pay-driver issue but since I haven’t noticed any Indonesian sponsors on the car so is Rio literally just paying to drive but he doesn’t have enough cash to see out the season?

    He seems like a nice guy and all but he’s a little out of his depth from what I’ve seen so far.

    1. @davef1 Pertamina, the Indonesian state oil and gas company, is on the rear wing and Haryanto’s visor.

      1. Apex Assassin
        20th April 2016, 1:32

        Meanwhile the spend NOTHING to educate, regulate, or help the MILLIONS OF CHILDREN SMOKING 5 PACKS A DAY!

        Seriously, look it up people and prepare to be disgusted.

        1. Wow, if you’re shocked by that then don’t start reading up about India. And they had a Grand Prix!

          1. What about China, Russia, Mexico, Azerbajdzjan, Brazil, the Arab nations, Hungary etc. etc.?

          2. Apex Assassin
            20th April 2016, 15:39

            Do they sponsor a driver on the grid currently?

            There you go.

          3. Apex Assassin, well, since you ask, technically some of those nations are sponsoring drivers on the grid – Felipe Nasr, for example, is sponsored by Banco do Brasil, which is owned by the Brasilian government.

      2. @keithcollantine @davef1 Also Kiky, a stationary maker, in the side nose above the barge board.

        1. @sonicslv It’s his dad’s company IIRC.

          1. @davidnotcoulthard I’m not sure if it’s his parent company, but even if it isn’t, it still some close relatives company. Maybe his uncle or aunt.

        2. yes Kiky owned by Rio haryanto’s family

    2. @davef1 Manor’s price tag for the seat was ~$15 million. Ryo rocked up with $12 million in state support and a promise of the remainder at a later date.

      Seems the backers in Indonesia didn’t actually have the extra money and were expecting some private sponsorship to take up the remaining amount, but it looks like nobody bought it…

      1. The government have the money, it just that they can’t use it to fund a private or commercial sporting event. I believe they tried to loosen up the regulation, but the problem is that it will set a bad precedent. So it is now up to private sponsorship and this crowdfunding effort.
        A similar situation happens when Indonesia agreeing to host the 2017 MotoGP event where initially government was supposed to provide the cash to pay for the event and bring the Sentul track to the standard required for hosting a MotoGP event. They ran into the same problem, but fortunately, the track owner (private entity) already managed to gather the money.

        It seems that the current Indonesian Minister of Youth and Sports doesn’t understand his own rules.

        Anyway, the Ministry itself had a total budget of around $250mil. Last year they’ve got a left over/unused money as much as $80mil.

      2. well its Euro, not USD

  3. Whenever I see one of these “roots of F1” articles, it makes me wanna scream. What are the roots? Should we go back to horse racing? It’s such a stupid argument. F1 has been everything over the past 60-70 years, and many more things before that.

    I have a feeling, whenever someone comes up with this nonsense claim, they are thinking about their own favorite era, as if that gives it some legitimacy. Only constant that has been an integral part of F1 through all these decades is change. What we need is less incompetence and less self-interests (which lead to results that are same as incompetence), and better long-term planning.

    If I had to name one, just one problem in F1, which I find to be the biggest one, it would be the commercial rights. And money distribution being the direct consequence of it.
    The governing structure is the second biggest.

    But the first problem is a prime example of politicians selling off something which isn’t theirs, for the personal gain. Mosley sold F1 to Bernie, and there was no hope he would do anything else except milk it for all it had, completely disregarding the well being of F1. It would be like deregulating oil industry, and counting on oil companies’ good will to not harm the environment while chasing profits. That just doesn’t work.

    1. @Biggsy:

      Whenever I see one of these “roots of F1” articles, it makes me wanna scream. What are the roots? Should we go back to horse racing? It’s such a stupid argument. F1 has been everything over the past 60-70 years, and many more things before that.

      I have a feeling, whenever someone comes up with this nonsense claim, they are thinking about their own favorite era, as if that gives it some legitimacy. Only constant that has been an integral part of F1 through all these decades is change. What we need is less incompetence and less self-interests (which lead to results that are same as incompetence), and better long-term planning.


  4. Michael Brown (@)
    20th April 2016, 0:44

    I wouldn’t call the 70’s the roots, but the point is F1 needs to go back to things that work. But at the same time the “roots” argument is also used to resist change that might be good for that sport. Closed cockpits, closed wheels, and low profile tires might be F1’s future. But saying that they don’t adhere to F1’s tradition is a terribly weak argument. Technology is not held back by tradition. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have things like hybrids.

  5. Regarding the Joe Saward article talking about the drone cameras that FOM will be using later in the year, This is something that was looked at a few years back & was something that was tested during the safety/medical car race/systems check on a Thursday at Barcelona one year (I think 2011 or 2012).

    At the time it was decided not to go any further with the trials as it was felt the drones were not fast enough to get any decent shots of F1 cars but also there was & still is concerns about safety & I am fairly sure that in some country’s there are regulations about using drones over or close to large crowds. I know that 2-3 years back the BTCC crew ran a drone during one of the race meetings but were prevented from flying it over the circuit or within a certain distance of the grandstands & that these restrictions saw them decide not to use drones again beyond that weekend.

    The WRC TV crew have entered into a partnership with a company that suppliers drones for broadcasting & they have been using them through this season so far but again have been given some restrictions in where & how they can use them from rge WRC promoters, the FIA & the rally organizers.

    Beyond the drones I know that FOM have several things in the planning stages & some more that are already been trialed at race weekends & some of these will make there way onto the broadcast’s later on in the year, Very excited to see how some of these work out because they sound very cool & some are pretty innovative.

    Its actually starting to sound a bit like the FOM of old, Back when we had the digital+ service & were bringing in new & innovative things as well as testing different ideas & different ways to broadcast a race regularly. We took some risks back then which allowed for the sort of innovations we were doing & that fell away as that service fell away, budgets were reduced & the pressures of producing a world feed & thus having to cater to commercial considerations took effect.

    The partnership with Tata communication has brought in a lot of new technology & some cost savings that along with a budget increase is once again allowing room to try new things & bring in some innovation again & as someone thats been in that environment with many of those people I sense that exciting times are ahead in terms of the broadcasting side of F1.

    1. @gt-racer interesting stuff, i like the idea of drones at WRC events.

      they’ve had drones filming alpine skiing events. one of them crashed just inches from one of the skiers (multiple champion marcel hirscher). it’s on youtube somewhere and is quite shocking. i think the risk is too high, in terms of colliding with cars, blocking the track, hitting people in the crowd, interfering with the medical helicopter…there are many reasons why it seems too risky, and not that many good reasons to do it.

      i liked the camera-on-a-high-speed-wire (or whatever it’s called) that they had at the hairpin at the new hockenheim. you got a really cool extended shot which showed just how ridiculously fast the cars are accelerating.

      1. @frood19 They had the same sort of camera at Silverstone when it was renovated in 2011, but for some reason it was removed. It was, however, my favourite type. They now have them in most pit-lanes, which is quite a nice touch.

        My favourite sort are those mounted on really high cranes, notably seen at Spa. They provided some great angles and perspective shots.

      2. @frood19 @strontium The use of the wire/rail type cameras has been restricted the past few years as a result of an accident at a nascar race where a wire failed & dropped the camera into the crowd with debris also landing on the track (And i believe causing damage to several cars).

        FOM do use a wire rig above the pit wall at most circuits now & they had the spider cam system in the stadium at Mexico last year but tend to not like putting them above tracks or spectators if they don’t have a solid structure to fix the rigging to. The system used in the pit lanes are fixed to the pit wall’s with a very heavy duty setup & the one in the mexico stadium was attached to the stadium I believe using existing mounting points. Out around the circuit its hard to find a solid structure thats really suitable to mount the rigs in a way that satisfies them that its not moving.

        @keithcollantine I don’t believe they will be flying them anywhere near the cars & knowing how sensitive the TV team is to safety I don’t believe they would be moving ahead with this if they felt there was any chance of safety problems.

    2. @gt-racer It’s always good to see this kind of innovation. However I can’t help but think the obvious risk of using drones around open-wheel racing cars should make them at least wait until they’ve got the Halo, or whichever device they end up using, in place.

    3. Thanks for chipping in about this subject. I certiainly hope that it is a signal of FOM stepping up again and investing into the actual making of the program.

  6. People should read Allan McNish’s article before commenting on the “roots”.

    He’s talking about paddock accesibility. In other series, fans at the track can enter the paddock and interact with the teams and drivers and whatnot. F1 used to be like that, I guess.

    Those are the roots he’s talking about. Not about the cars or the racing or anything, but about the interaction between fans and drivers. Drivers used to be humans who went beyond the limits. Now they appear as gods we’re lucky to watch from afar.

    I’ll leave this sentence from him that resumes the article’s point: “I do think one thing that Formula 1 has done is make itself extremely exclusive for the VIPs, in fact the V-VIPs.”

    1. F1 has always been an elitist sport, there is no question about this. In the 21st century, we have more elites than ever and the pit lanes arent growing proportionally. These teams spend 100’s of millions of dollars a year, having some control over how they market the pit experience is their right.

    2. “I do think one thing that Formula 1 has done is make itself extremely exclusive for the VIPs, in fact the V-VIPs.”

      …thats because Bernie’s into selling Rolex’s now..

  7. “I want drones” “But, Mr E, there’s no way to safely fly them over large crowds” “That’s not an issue for us”

  8. Neil (@neilosjames)
    20th April 2016, 8:27

    I’m not convinced drone technology is sufficiently advanced to let them be used over a live race track and over huge crowds… whenever I hear about drones and sport, I’m reminded of this incident with the skier…

    Hopefully they’ll only fly it over the forest and ‘uninhabited’ areas of the track.

  9. Totally agree with the COTD and the use of the term “a butchered classic”. That is exactly how I felt about the return to Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, I was glad they were there but I wish the circuit hadn’t been ruined.

    1. @geemac – totally agree.
      Its such a shame though – the US has some of the best tracks in the world and they go hardly used at a top level.

  10. Anyone else notice Max had his girlfriend on Sainz’s car?

    1. @RL what makes you think that? Sure there’s C. Sainz on the side there, but right above that there is also M. Verstappen.

      1. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!

  11. the federation does not want drones crashing down on to the racing circuit.”

    THE FEDERATION doesn’t.

    Bernie, on the other hand……..

    1. Artificial rain not enough for him now. He now wants artificial debris instead!

  12. regarding comment of the day, I don’t think Americans want to watch F1 as much as Bernie thinks. Nascar is their big sport, you sit in a stadium where you can see the whole lap and see cars running side by side for 2-3 hours at 180mph and making better sounds then f1 cars. Also indycar – the Indy 500 will always be more appealing to Americans then an F1 race in America.

  13. The COTD is bang on.

    F1 wouldn’t work at Laguna Seca, not in its current length and layout anyway. Current F1 cars would go too fast around such a short circuit- lap times would easily be lower than a minute there. Maybe they might work at Infineon- also a great circuit- which, like Laguna Seca is also an hour away from San Francisco. IMO F1 would work at Road America- with some facility updates- but what I would really like to see is F1 at Daytona with an extension of the infield section of the course that is used for the 24 Hours. Seeing F1 cars tackle those high bankings would be spectacular…

    1. Also, Virginia International Raceway would be a good option.

      1. VIR is a nice track, but it’s nowhere near F1 standard. Mid-Ohio might work for F1 with some upgrades, but I guess it’s a bit out in the sticks.

        I would certainly prefer Daytona to Indy if we’re talking rovals.

  14. Poor Haryanto. Being reduced to crowdsourcing.

    Kind of like Kobayashi. Both in resonably poor cars with limited hope for raise from the bottom. Maybe he can gain a lot of padock cred by outpacing Pascal?

Comments are closed.