One week to save Manor

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: F1 will lose its 11th team from the grid unless a buyer for Manor steps forward by the end of next week.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

@Robbie reckons there have been “too many negative assumptions being made” about how the racing will be this year “because of the wider wings”:

Even if there is still some processional racing due to the simple fact that all these cars will always perform better in clean air, the increase in grip should help to negate that somewhat and at a minimum we will know these drivers are working harder and performing greater feats. We’ve seen cars with these dimensions before, but not with these torque-y power units.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Ace, Kei, Diego and Trayambak Chakravarty!

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

Jarno Trulli got his F1 break on this day 20 years ago as Minardi announced he would drive for them in the 1997 season.

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.

31 comments on “One week to save Manor”

  1. In some of the tyre tests they conducted, I noticed that to simulate downforce levels cars were fitted with wider rear wings, which were at the same height as the 2016 ones (and they looked incredibly aggressive). Why didn’t F1 use this for the 2017 regulations? As I’ve said on occasions before, I’m no aerodynamicist so if somebody could explain I would be most grateful.

    It was my understanding that the height of the rear wing was raised for 2009 in order to reduce the dirty air through a corner. I believe this is achieved effectively by moving the disturbance higher, away from the front of the car following. The actual downforce on the rear wing doesn’t change because the air acts on this part of the car in exactly the same way, no? The narrowing was done to reduce rear downforce, wasn’t it? If they want to get the benefit of both, why not have a high, wide wing?

    1. @strontium The raising/narrowing of the rear wings in 2009 was done in conjunction with the lowering/widening of the front wing.

      It was hoped that the narrower/taller rear wing would result in the worst of the turbulent airflow coming from the rear wing mainplane would be directed higher & have a narrower profile with the lower/wider front wing ensuring that the front wing elements were kept outside of that turbulent airflow.
      With the pre-09 setup the rear wing was sending most of its airflow directly into the path of the front wing of a car behind, This was a much bigger issue after the front wings were raised in 2001 & again in 2005.

      The reason there now going away from that philosophy is that it didn’t really work because the tyres, diffuser & exhaust exits throw just as much turbulent air onto the front wing flaps as the lower/wider rear wings used to. Additionally its been found that the central/flat part of the front wings as well as the raised nose section are creating a significant amount of front downforce & that the taller/narrower rear wings were throwing turbulent air onto that section which was not only hindering front downforce but also having a significant effect on the airflow going under/around the car.

      I believe that going back to essentially pre-09 rear wing dimentions is been done to try & maintain an optimum overall aero balance & a more stable aero platform to go along with the other changes been made. Keeping the taller/narrower rear wings with the wider cars/tyres as well as the changes been made to the floor/diffuser for this year would have created a significant aero imbalance which may well have introduced issues.
      They retained the taller/narrower rear wing dimensions for the test’s as they were still running the narrow track cars.

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        15th January 2017, 14:02

        @gt-racer Thanks for this explanation. I was going to ask on the forums why the rear wing is going to be lower, since I thought that a higher rear wing would send turbulence over the following car’s front wing.

  2. Sadly I think this is the end for Manor. Nobody is going to look at a team which has basically collapsed at the end of every season, and see a good business proposition. The only option could be if a car manufacturer exploits this opportunity and pours money into it, but for most it would take months to make this decision, not just one week, and they would surely want to run the cars unbranded (or under the Manor name / other) given how poor the performance would be.

    The Haas model has proven that, while possibly more expensive in the short-term, starting a new team from scratch has much better chances of success (if done properly). This would look better for any manufacturer. And nobody is interested in making such investments.

    Bottom line is, I don’t think anyone will buy this team again.

    1. Just a thought, but would it not be better now to buy up bits of the team when its broken up? Then rebrand, redesign and spend a year prepping properly for 2018?

      1. Kie, the problem is that if you only buy up bits of the team then you don’t have an F1 entry for 2018 so you’ve got nothing to prepare for.

        1. Yeah sorry, I was going to add that, I presume the Caterham and HRT assets ends up somewhere.

          Real shame, I like Manor last year, they were genuinely competitive at times.

          1. What happend to scorpion racing or what the name was that bought HRT and said it would be on the grid 2014. they like usf1 went silent and no ont speaks of it

          2. I think Scorpion’s bid to (re)join the grid was rejected by the FIA; it missed 2013, so had to be treated as a new entity, and it wasn’t considered financially secure enough to enter the grid. The FIA no longer needed to flood the grid with entries, as they did in 2010, because nobody was threatening to quit voluntarily at that point.

  3. If you have Autosport Plus..check this out, great article from Nigel Roebuck:

    1. Who is it then? Don’t want to subscribe for one article. I understand if you don’t want to say.

  4. This story on the wider wings is like the refuelling ban. People didn’t want refuelling because of overtakes, these increased because of the F-duct, people want wider wings for show, yet you’re probably going to end up with fewer overtakes.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      13th January 2017, 12:09

      People, in general, don’t really know what they are talking about when it comes to the intricacies of aerodynamics. We all want the sport to be more interesting and for overtaking to be possible without horrible, anti-racing, sport-killing devices like DRS on the car but can’t be expected to say exactly how this should be achieved.

      F1 is supposed to contain some of the top names in the world in this field so I’d hope they might be able to sort it out. Sadly, any ideas have to keep Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari happy and if it means losing out on any sort of advantage they have politically gained, they will reject it.

  5. Never thought I would agree on so many things with Alonso…
    Charlize Theron!

  6. Im sorry. But who in their right mind would dump money into an F1 team?
    There is no way you could see any return on an investment like this.

    ・not enough exposure to work as a marketing tool
    ・no way to estimate return on investment
    ・no guarantees that stcikers on cars will reach potential customers
    ・F1 has their own sponsors, so if you are a competitor of that brand forget about being shown on TV.
    ・at the moment, you either go all in F1 and become a major sponsor or forget it, nobody cares if the drivers use Gillet or Bic to shave their balls.
    ・With the internet and social media being so dominant, there are far better ways to promote your business.
    ・F1 is still in the 00s when it comes to online presence.

    ・There is no way in hell my board would allow us to spend money on a business model like this

    1. I’m so sorry that I have to agree with you :(

    2. I’m sorry I would have to Disagree. I now am the proud owner of not one but SIX RICHARD MILLE watches, a super high end luxury brand that I was completely unaware of until spotting a logo on Romain Grosjean’s wing mirror.

      1. I bought a Rolex and I’m not even in my thirties!

      2. Do you wear three on each arm

    3. petebaldwin (@)
      13th January 2017, 12:05

      I was going to say something similar but you’ve covered it. There is no point in investing in Manor unless you want to get your face on the TV for a year or two.

      The whole sport is designed in a way to keep the teams with less money right at the bottom and remain there. The fact is that 9th/10th place (depending on how many teams) in the constructors is almost purely decided by luck and despite that, it’s arguably the most important battle in the field because there is usually a team’s entire existence at stake.

    4. Joking aside, major sponsors really are dropping off aren’t. I don’t understand why Haas run pratically none at all.

  7. Re “Before being capable of innovating I think it’s important that we completely catch up to Mercedes, which we hope to be able to achieve at the start of 2018.”
    Renault won’t catch Mercedes unless they innovate. Overtaking Mercedes is the icing on the cake.

  8. John Rymie (@)
    13th January 2017, 10:32

    Didn’t Alonso recently (yesterday?) say that F1 peaked in the 2000s, why then did he choose the 90s then as the only decade he would race in if given the choice?

    Sadly it is likely because the majority of his answers were “corporate” and McLaren was more competitive throughout the 90s, as opposed to “flashes” during the 2000s.

    I think this interview gives more Insight into which decade McLaren is more proud of than FA’s true feelings.

    1. I’d assume it’s because the 2000s is ‘been there, done that’ for Alonso, and he’d rather try a new experience than repeat one he’s already had.

  9. @keithcollantine Thank you for the cotd mention.

  10. Sky are reporting that they’re in talks with an Asian consortium to take over the team, the same one who almost took over before –

  11. Such a shame to see Manor go after they showed some promise last year.

    If a new owner with decent aero connections has been given more notice, it wouldn’t actually be a bad purchase.

    It has the best PU package, their engineers have been working on the 2017 chassis for quite some time. If a group purchases it with the aim to introducing a major chassis upgrade mid-season, it could set them up for a half decent second half and 2018.

    If I had the $$, I’d certainly buy it.

  12. Manor now has two-and-a-half weeks to be saved. Looks like FRP believes it can be saved at least – those salaries and expenses come out of the administrator’s pocket (rather than the administrated company’s) if there isn’t enough money in the company to cover them, and it’s not a risk administrators take lightly.

  13. I don’t want to see god in austin, but thanks for the heads up

  14. If you could pick just one mode of transport to use…

    FA: Train. I like to use trains. Everywhere that I can, I take trains.

    Well, that explains a few of his career choices, doesn’t it!

Comments are closed.