Manor’s never-to-be-raced 2017 F1 car revealed

2017 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Manor 2017 wind tunnel model
A photograph showing a wind tunnel model of Manor’s 2017 Formula One car design has been posted on social media.

This image appeared after news broke that no buyer had been found for the team.

The model cannot be seen in full but appears to reflect the wider dimensions permitted by the 2017 regulations. Its front and rear wings, the latter with twisted supports similar to Ferrari’s 2017 test mule, are visibly different from those the team used last year. The rear wing is lower, in line with the new maximum height dimensions.

The total width of this year’s cars has increased from 1,800mm – the upper limit since 1998 – to 2,000mm. The maximum bodywork width has increased by the same amount, from 1,400mm to 1,600mm.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

This has been accompanied by an increase in front wheel widths from 245mm to 305mm and rear wheel widths from 325mm to 405mm.

Interactive: 2017 F1 car changes
Other changes to this year’s cars includes a smaller design ‘exclusion zone’ behind the front wheels which will allow for larger bargeboards. Little can be seen of this on the Manor.

The sloped leading edge of the sidepods and rear wing endplates also defined by the new regulations are also difficult to discern from this photograph.

F1 wind tunnel models are typically 60% scale. Manor had been using Mercedes’ wind tunnel as part of their deal to run the team’s engines during last season. They had not announced any drivers for 2017 at the time the team went under.

2017 F1 season

Browse all 2017 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.

61 comments on “Manor’s never-to-be-raced 2017 F1 car revealed”

  1. Is there a bigger size?

    1. I think the smaller car set for 2017 was one way they were going to save a lot of money. There had been no announcements on the drivers yet because they were trying to get hold of 2 drivers small enough to fit into the cars….

      1. 10/10 : )

        1. This is a 2016 chasis with 2017 elements on it.
          They had asked the FIA to be allowed to compete with this as a low cost option while they were finding investment to survive and build a new car for next year.
          Notice the rear wing attachment points are the same as last year’s… Therefore the curved pillars as seen in Ferrari’s test car…
          F1 is currently too expensive for true racers. Period

      2. Is that why Williams was so keen to get Massa back?

    2. It’s the model for testing it in the wind tunnel. It’s 50% or 60% at best of the original car. So… why should it be bigger? It’s not the final model anyway.

      1. Pssst, NeoGalaxy, … Unicron was kidding.

      2. Unicron is right. By using a tiny car they hoped to get better fuel mileage too… ;)

        1. lol indeed :P Good joke there :P Sorry :P

          1. To be honest @Unicron’s answer was not showed when I’ve typed my message :P I was answering to @Roman Zhelud :P

      3. 60% size wind tunnel model.

  2. Goodbye Manor😩😩😩.Such a nice team,but extremely unlucky not to be on the grid in 2017😢😢

  3. Hopefully somebody buys the facility and makes a new team for 2018

    1. In terms of that car design, it gives a good, genuine idea of what we previously had renders of, but it definitely looks as though they still had a lot of development work to do on it. I imagine the real cars will have more to them

      1. Very unlikely, starting an F1 team is a terrible business idea and makes no financial sense at the moment.

        All of the teams that entered in 2010 have gone bust. They just can’t make any money.

        How well Haas get on remains to be seen.

        1. Very unlikely indeed. Perhaps I’d have been wiser to not say 2018, but simply some point in the future. Liberty’s plans are for a growing grid, and eventually a full grid, with 26 cars. Hopefully that means at some point this factory will be used again.

        2. Haas didn’t enter the championship under the impression that there would be a budget cap, and he’d be able to compete for < $50 million.

          Totally different perspective for Haas.

          Of course, if he's not getting the advertising exposure he wants, he'll probably sell the team.

    2. It is still not the end of the road yet.

  4. ☹ was hoping they would be on the grid

  5. Isn’t there a secrecy clause they might be breaking right now?? Well if the company does not exist then there might be no problem?

    Also this might probably be our best look at what this years cars might look like so far.

    1. Fudge Kobayashi (@)
      27th January 2017, 14:32

      I secrecy clause to whom, Manor? I doubt they care now that the team is finished.

      And yes this is in all essence, the first genuine 2017 design seen so far, I think the head on view is purposefully coy as they know the entire F1 community is waiting to see these machine from all angles!

    2. A deal offer was put on the table by CGF, CGF has advised the clients to do an extensive due diligence, lawyers involved are same names as Fitzpatrick used when he acquired the team, a big “red” in the due diligence for the sale was the involvement of Manor/Marussia in the fatal accident of Bianchi and others, possible liability.

  6. What is that, F1 for ants? It needs to be at least 3 times bigger!

    1. You do know that wind tunnel models are at 60% scale, don’t you?

      1. Don’t question Brad, he’s so hot right now.

        1. Shame that it wouldn’t be able to turn left.

    2. We’ll call it the F1 car for kids who can’t drive good, but have lots of money and stuff.

    3. Best comment I read in a long time.

    4. Manor and Zoolander 2 both bombed..a shame

  7. People giving praise to Ecclestone as he departs well this is his legacy. Too many teams have been snuffed out of F1 because of the terrible money distribution, I really hope Brawn can help make the sport more viable for smaller teams.

    1. No. That is not why. Research this teams history, no intent on performing well, but rather a business platform for investors. F1 is the epitome of capitalism sadly.

      1. Right so you think if the team was given say 10+ million extra per year for participating in the sport it would have made no difference in the cost of running a small team like Manor? Give me a break…
        Why do you think investors would give up on such a venture? Maybe because it’s just not worth while when the financial incentive for smaller teams to stay in the sport is pretty pathetic compared to others.

        If you have the top finishing teams forever getting a huge amount more than everyone else then you just end up with a snowball effect. Those teams will always be the top finishing teams over and over again maybe the order will change around but it will always be those teams, that is why the current way of distributing money is the dumbest thing ever in a “competitive” sport.

        1. JammyB, it is debatable whether that would have helped considering that the deficit in Manor’s finances seem to have been considerably larger than that – moreover, there appear to have been other legal difficulties that extended beyond just payments from FOM.

          Under Fitzpatrick, the team is thought to have racked up around $80 million in losses at a time when the team was receiving more than $50 million in prize money from FOM. It is being suggested that the team had a $40 million shortfall for 2017 long before the results of the Brazilian GP (it is being suggested that the loss in revenue from FOM was actually fairly small in comparison to that) – you’d probably have to have increased FOM’s payments to around $100 million a year to have had a chance of keeping the team afloat, or potentially even more than that.

          it also appears that Fitzpatrick was not prepared to relinquish control of the team and was therefore not prepared to offer equity in the team. It’s not particularly clear why he refused to yield on that point, but it looks like his refusal to give ground on that point may have alienated potential investors in the team.

          There is also the suggestion that there was a far bigger issue for Manor, which were potential legal liabilities relating to Bianchi’s death. In May last year, whilst most people focussed on the legal case that Bianchi’s family launched against the FIA, what is forgotten is that they also started legal proceedings against Manor.

          Any potential new owners of Manor would have to then deal with a potentially quite protracted legal battle with Bianchi’s family and potential legal liabilities if it was judged that the team was legally at fault for the fatal injuries that Bianchi sustained in that crash – that, it seems, might have actually been more of a stumbling block than the reduction in payment by FOM.

          1. You’re only looking at it over a one year cycle though, Manor under one name or another has been in F1 since 2010 if F1 was distributing finances evenly across the grid teams like manor could easily receive around 70 million a year from the FIA.
            That is 20 million a year more than what they have currently been given, which would rack up to 120 million extra over the last 6 years over what they have received. I find it seriously hard to believe that they would be in anywhere near the same amount of debt if that was the case.

            I just cannot believe that the insane way money is distributed in the sport has nothing to do with HRT Manor and Caterham all dropping out of the sport since 2010.

            It seems absolutely ridiculous why Ferrari are still receiving more money than any other team, it literally makes no sense. Teams should not be allowed to bully the FIA into bigger hand outs by threatening to leave, money should be split evenly.
            Big names like Ferrari would still be able to bring in big sponsors due to their brand and still be a top team, they just shouldn’t be given huge sums of money out of feelings of self entitlement. I think honestly it would help keep more teams on the grid and it would also have the side effect of bringing teams a decent amount closer together performance wise. Certain teams wouldn’t then have the ridiculous 100+ million lead on development that they currently have purely from cash handouts from the FIA.

          2. JammyB, I am afraid that you will need to reconsider your opinion then, because the team would still be crippled by debt even if you want to stretch those payments over the period from 2010 until now.

            The publicly available accounts that Virgin Racing/Marussia F1 lodged in the UK show that, between 2010 and 2013, the team racked up approximately $200 million in debt as the team had almost zero sponsorship income. The only reason the team didn’t fold in that period was because most of those debts were owed to Marussia Motors, and Nikolai Fomenko, the founder of Marussia Motors, agreed to write off those debts prior to the 2014 season.

            In 2014, Nikolai decided to shut down Marussia Motors and stopped funding the team because it was ruining him – that resulted in the team losing approximately $100 million, or about £58.5 million, in 2014, which resulted in the team going into administration at the end of that year.

            When the team went into administration in 2015, Autosport gave this summary of the financial situation at Marussia:
            “The total estimated monies owed to creditors, taking into account floating charges, is £62.3 million.

            However, when issued and called up capital is taken into account, the estimated final figure of liabilities is £194.7 million.”

            All told, if you added the debts that Marussia racked up to those that Manor have built up, over the past six years the cumulative net loss of the team would be at least $380 million. Even if the team had earned an extra $120 million over that period, the accumulated debts of the team would still be in the order of $260 million.

            Note, that is not to say that there aren’t criticisms of the way in which that the revenues within the sport are distributed, because there are fair complaints which can be raised: it might have also helped Caterham and HRT to some extent, though to be honest Caterham and HRT did suffer from poor management compared to Marussia/Manor. Nor do I want this to sound like a criticism of the smaller teams at the back of the grid, since I would like to see them gain a foothold and to gradually grow into more competitive outfits.

            However, what I am saying is that would not have been enough in and of itself given that, over the six years they have been in F1, it is estimated that Marussia/Manor racked up approximately the same amount of debt over that period as the rest of the grid combined.

    2. If Brawn’s plan for a budget cap is real, then one can expect to find a team payout in line with the budget cap as well.

  8. I’m surprised how complex the front wing is, compared to for instance 2009 when there was a clear step backwards in complexity. For the rest there isn’t really much to say about the design from this angle. Beyond that it’s always nice to see a wind tunnel model. I’m wondering why the tyres are pink though – my guess is that it’s some material that replicates the wobble on the tyres best or something?

    1. @andae23 It could be some sort of dust or flowviz to better see the airflow on the tyre, namely how the wake develops, where separation occurs, etc.

      1. @toiago Well the tyre rotates so flowvis would be pointless and the dust they use for PIV is usually close to invisible, so I sorta doubt it’s that… also why is it not on the sidewalls of the tyre?

    2. @andae23 Compared to 2008 I don’t think 2009 saw too much of a step backwards in the complexity of the front wings, if at all.

      1. @davidnotcoulthard Just compare, say, Ferrari F2008 to F60, or take a look at Brawn GP 001’s front wing. The difference is massive compared to 2008-reg cars.

    3. I’ve wondered for a while, is there a rule that says that tyres have to be black? I’m sure I’ve seen pictures of a Benetton years ago with multi coloured tyres….

    4. Lewisham Milton
      28th January 2017, 10:52

      Maybe it’s the same reason footballs are pink (in the Premier League) – to show up better in bad visibility!

  9. Horrible nose.

    and sharp knees, too.

    1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
      27th January 2017, 15:09

      Any nose without a further proboscis protruding out the end of it looks good these days in my book

      1. Right on.

        Front wing is definitely disappointingly complex, but the nose looks way better!

        What a shame we’ll never see it hit the track.

  10. New front wing inboard winglets (Is that allowed?) and votex generators in the middle (between new inboard winglets and usual outside winglets)

    Also the front suspension seems to have more connecting rods than last year?

    1. I see double wishbone suspension with steering rods and damper arm. Possibly the bigger and heavier wheels require a return to double wishbones?

  11. Sad to see Manor go and I feel for those who lost their jobs. But on a lighter note, Manor have managed to beat all the established F1 teams and were the 1st to “launch” their car for all to see

    1. thanks

  12. Anybody thinking about the 2009 Toyota turned Brawn fairy tale story? ;)

    1. Honda. And that car was ready. Only thing they had to do was fit in a Mercedes engine, find out it went sixth tenths faster than anyone else on their first test day (where they arrived late), and win the championship from there. Easy.

      Not gonna happen with Manor.

      1. LovelyLovelyLuffield
        28th January 2017, 3:19

        Not with that attitude.

      2. San, actually, the team initially seemed to have an even larger advantage than that – in pre-season testing, Barrichello was at one point lapping over a second a lap faster than the rest of the field.

        Furthermore, Ross Brawn has indicated that the team only tapped into a fraction of the full potential of the car that became the BGP001. Because the Honda engine had its ancillary components in a different place to the Mercedes unit, the team had to insert a metal spacer between the back of the chassis and the front of the Mercedes engine to fit it into the car. That caused a major issue with the weight distribution of the car, which IIRC Brawn reckoned cost the team close to around 0.7s a lap – the team could have had a huge performance advantage if it had been able to tap into it with a fully optimised car, not to mention being able to bring in the upgrades that mostly had to be scrapped because of a lack of funding.

      3. Only thing they had to do was fit in a Mercedes engine

        Yup, can’t imagine that was difficult and wouldn’t require any changes to the chasis at all.

  13. Wind tunnel cars would probably be more exciting, look at Karts.

  14. The most interesting thing in the photo is the front splitter and bargeboard area.

  15. I wouldn’t be surprised if the potential buyer(s) simply waited for the team to go bankrupt, to buy only the ‘healthy’ assets of the team. The car has already been build, and to get in F1 is now cheaper than it was a week ago, when you had to buy the full team.

  16. Why does it have an arm on the barge board?

Comments are closed.