Rio Haryanto, GP2, 2015

Haryanto’s F1 debut with Manor at risk over funds

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

In the round-up: Rio Haryanto’s family is hoping for positive news from Manor about his chances of landing an F1 seat for 2016, despite falling short of raising the required funding.

Social media

Interlagos karting circuit #Love @birel_art

A video posted by Felipe Massa (@massafelipe19) on

Comment of the day

Is the rising number of driver penalties something that needs to be addressed?

We have a big rise in driver penalties and there must be a reason (or reasons).

First, the drivers are falling foul of the rules more often, either by pushing too far or maybe just not being able to operate within the rules due to their complexity.

Second, there are tighter rules now because of safety issues, past manipulation of situations by teams and drivers and also because rules tend to accumulate and get more complex over time.

Can we do anything about it? Clearly the answer is yes, but it would require a lot of bravery – a root and branch pruning back of the red tape; a move away from the micro-management built into some of the modern rules.

So who’s brave enough and powerful enough? Who could shake up the rule book like that? Not anyone currently in F1, I think. In other businesses, external “management consultants” would be used, people who can safely and expend-ably carry the can if it all goes horribly wrong.

We need to call in someone like Max Mosley, Ross Brawn, Martin Whitmarsh or maybe a driver like Alex Zanardi. But just one or two people, not a committee.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Sridhar Gopalkrishnan!

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

Ferrari launched their 2015 F1 challenger on this day last year and set themselves a target of two grand prix victories. They went on to win three.

69 comments on “Haryanto’s F1 debut with Manor at risk over funds”

  1. If Rio didn’t get a F1 seat, so be it. I didn’t mind..

    1. because you are koplak ….. #shameOnUmenpora

  2. Neil (@neilosjames)
    30th January 2016, 2:12

    So Haryanto “only” (depressing to use that word with such sums) has… £8.7m, or $12.4m.

    Imagine that would be enough if he had a slightly better racing record.

    1. Would 8.7m allow the car to be half a second a lap faster? I would guess no way but Vandoorne with 8.7m less could give half a second a lap over Haryanto, funny world.

      1. It’s more than just lap time though, you need that money to pay for facilities and staff. I imagine money like that would form a considerable part of their budget.

      2. without 8.7m Vandoorne would not even do a qualifying

    2. I was surprised and happy to see Haryanto do well last year (considering his open wheel career arguably could/should have ended earlier), but that is an silly use of millions. You can do so much more with that sum on kids pursuing literally any other sport, rather than blow it on the possibility of one season running around at the back of the F1 field.

      If they are absolutely invested in him, he could take a fraction of that budget and go to the WEC or Blancpain GT and likely become one of the ace drivers, based on how open-wheel dropouts tend to perform relative to endurance racing’s Pro-Am mix; example: Sean Gelael won both poles and races he entered in the AsLMS, just a couple of weeks after crashing in the Abu Dhabi pitlane to end another pointless GP2 season.

      Rant over: I realize the men making these decisions probably only care about F1 being the second most popular sport and how Haryanto has a better chance of scoring points than the Indonesian football team being ranked in the top-10 (or 150) next year, so guess that’s enough justification for them.

      1. Indonesian football team being ranked in the top-10 (or 150) next year

        If at all.

      2. Haryanto in Blancpain GT surely will got better coverage too here in Indonesia and it will attract more other sponsor. In a country consist of hallucinated society where the gap between ‘the have’ and ‘the have not’ was like heaven and earth, any race of exotic cars is just perfect.
        Soon there will be soap opera of exotic cars driver having little accident with pretty girl who lived in a slump and ending up to live happily ever after.

    3. @neilosjames Interesting that they want £11.5m from Haryanto. Rossi apparently has £10.5m, Stevens probably does too and Chilton used to bring £10m; hence, they can ask for a bit more from Haryanto. Magnussen will bring £5m from Bestseller to Renault, while Wehrlein only has £4m from Mercedes.

      1. @fastiesty You’ve misread that. 11.5 mil is what he has already in his pocket. Yet, his future seat is in jeopardy because Manor wants more. I reckon they ask at least 5 mil over Rossi to justify taking a worse driver

        1. @montreal95 Did you get foxed by the conversion? £11.5m is 15m Euros or $16.35m, at current exchange rates. Pertamina pledged £4m, KONI £5m = £9m. He still needs £2.5m, which also happens to be the first down payment due next week at Manor (3m Euros = £2.3m. £200k for salary/expenses?).

          So, it looks like those two state pledges are merely guarantees for the rest of the money, after the initial down payment has secured the seat. KONI guaranteed the full amount in the earlier letter/link – so the down payment should be no problem. But if they can now only offer £5m (6.6m Euro), then it’ll remain for Stevens and Rossi to beat Haryanto’s £9m total amount to secure their seats.

          1. @fastiesty Yep, miscalculated that. My bad

            Anyway, it seems to be a very small amount extra money for taking such a bad driver as Haryanto

          2. @montreal95 To be honest, he is probably the next Max Chilton. Maybe they really need that extra £1.5m.

    4. Given that no one seems willing to commit a lot of cash at the moment, any chance of Vandoorne landing the Manor seat?

      I know he’s been linked to a Super Formula drive but still.

      1. Vandoorne will get mclaren seat next year. Button and Alonso already declining.
        This year in super formula will be good experience for him since honda will using that series for testing their engine.

  3. Newey saying the same thing every week or is that an old interview? Funny how he uses Lotus as an example of a team giving up an advantage for the greater good as I do not remember Red Bull doing the same when they had a huge advantage due to EBD and flexi wings. Hypocrites.

    1. You’re correct: Newey is a hypocite, plain and simple. He knows he’s a more accomplished areodynamicist than most teams have at their disposal, and has always ostensibly cried foul & requested “equality” whenever his aero brilliance wasn’t the deciding factor. Consider his statement:

      “… with aero and chassis it is out on view, people can see designs, understand and copy…”

      Now, contrast that statement with the extraordinary lengths Team RBR regularly went to in order to hide their chassis & designs at EVERY session. There’s no two ways about it: hypocrisy seems to me an integral part of the culture of Formula One, but it’s become blatantly obvious in recent years that Red Bull are the most prolific purveyors.

      1. Red bull is the biggest hypocrites of the sport they dominate for 4 years there aero work always hidden but as soon as things don’t go their way they cry and say we demand a competitive advantage. Well Red Bull F1 demands your aero package make it open to every team. No wonder Vettel left all you are is a Energy drink company looking to make money not race.

      2. What’s wrong with f1 fans??? its like I’m in a parallel universe..

        Do we not like F1 teams spending tons of money on their cars?

        Do we not like the James Bond secrecy?

        Do we not like teams rolling out visible developments at the last minute in order for ultimate secrecy?

        When did these become negative things about F1?

        The problem with F1: fans. End of.

        1. The problem with F1: fans. End of.

          The best comment ever!

        2. I’ll go with that too Mr X. Bang on….

    2. It’s good you guys keep agreeing with each other and continue to believe your own nonsense…

    3. markp, looking at the quotes from Newey, it looks like it is in fact an old interview that seems to have been dragged up again for some reason. I do have to agree that Newey is being a bit hypocritical though when it comes to engine sales, because Newey himself fought back against the agreement between Renault and Benetton in the 1990’s – he was happy to have an engine dominate the sport then when he thought he would have exclusive control of it.

      1. Welcome to racing. Show me one person at the top who isn’t a compete hipocrit.

    4. I do not remember Red Bull doing the same when they had a huge advantage due to EBD and flexi wings.

      EBD and flexi-wings were available to, and used by, every team in F1.

      1. Building your own engine is available to every team. It is the same thing. I know that is not practical for most teams but Red Bull could do it.

  4. Anyone with even a remote understanding of James hunt would judge those photos as quite boring a rated PG.

    Those same people would also know how much dubachery was kept off camera but still well known to general public.

    However, even those tame images of hunt show how cringe worthy it is when fans try to compare Lewis to hunt. It’s quite a reach to compare them and smells of desperation to be considered cool.

    We all know Kimi is the modern hunt, and keeping it out of the headlines is precisely why. We all know, but it’s not reported.

    That’s a true legend, not a manufactured false one.

    1. That’s a true legend, not a manufactured false one.

      Best thing I’ve read in a long time. That basically sums up the media when it comes to formula one drivers.

      For example, the Rosberg-Hamilton rivalry was false, just the media trying to stir at every chance, then sensationalising the rivalry and creating comparisons with those of previous years.

    2. You have to admit though that Lewis Hamilton does pop up everywhere. Even when the subject is James Hunt ;)

      1. If you have to admit that, then you have to admit “how cringe worthy it is when fans try to compare Lewis to hunt. It’s quite a reach to compare them and smells of desperation to be considered cool.”

        To quote myself.

        So yes it he does pop up, but only for the reasons described above.

        1. I think the reason he pops up is more to do with people with an axe to grind and a personal dislike of him for whatever reason won’t let a chance to talk negatively about him pass.

        2. I dunno Mr.X. To me Hunt is overrated. How lucky was he to land that single WDC against Lauda? Then he faded away. And did he count those 37 women himself? If so that’s not exactly cool is it? He got married and carried on. In the parlance of his day he was a cad.

          Can’t say I’ve noticed these ‘Lewis fans’ making the comparison either, except maybe in fun. They may each be the most interesting driver of their era perhaps, but they’re very different eras.

          1. You’ll find it was Lewis camp who made the comparison.

            Hence the cringe worthiness.

            Can’t blame emotionally connected fans, they don’t know better.

          2. I won’t because you made it up MrX :) For some reason.

  5. Great image from Ted Kravitz of the start/finish straight at Baku. I guess that means Sky will be showing us round the track in a feature soon, good stuff!

  6. It is sad that Haryanto 12 million is not enough and that is only 1/3 of what he is supposed to bring. I am not sad about him, I don’t know him at all, but it is sad for the state that F1 is right now, the sport I so much love and vividly protected against detractors. My main argument has always been that money spent in F1 makes sense because it serves to develop the top technology and pay the best daring drivers.
    But not this way, the money is not supposed to come this way to keep F1 as a sport where sporting matters. I still remember when I started watching F1 in late 90s when smaller teams with less budget would give a hard time to the best team+driver combo. We do still have good drivers and technological advances, some amazing like current generation of PUs, but the sad state of affairs of medium and low ranks, and the freezing of development through complex rules is not making any favor to F1.

    1. Isn’t the deal is 15 million euro? 12 million 4/5 of the deal. Or are you saying that he supposed to bring 36 million euro? Because from what I read, the number is always 15 million euro.

  7. Haryanto is probably struggling to bring the required money because all it will do is earn him a test driver seat, as he doesn’t have enough points to earn a super license under the new rules now active.

    1. @optimaximal he’s had a super licence in 2012, which means there’s a way for him to regain one without amassing the points.

      As documented in Appendix L to the International Sporting Code (notice the bold parts):

      5.1.7 The driver must also satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
      a) Have accumulated at least 40 points during the three-year period
      preceding his application (Championships and points listed in
      Supplement 2.
      b) Have been granted a Super Licence (excluding Free Practice Only
      Super Licence) in any of the previous 3 seasons.
      c) Have been granted a Super Licence prior to the previous 3 seasons
      (excluding Free Practice Only Super Licence). In this case, the
      driver must be judged by the FIA to have recently and consistently
      demonstrated outstanding ability in single-seater formula cars.

      d) Have finished first in the FIA Formula E Championship of the
      previous year.

      1. OK apparently the bolded parts don’t work in a quote block.

        What I bolded was “at least one” and the text under point “c”.

      2. @mattds did he ever hold more than a free practice license, as referred to in the very quote you posted?

  8. RaceProUK (@)
    30th January 2016, 11:54

    Top aerodynamicist doesn’t like the fact engines are more influential.

    In other equally unexpected news, water is found to be wet, and fire hot.

    1. Lol, but quite frankly more and more these days I think it is dirty air effect that is the real enemy here. Not pu’s and tires. RBR aside, several teams have Merc or Ferrari pu’s, and Newey would like either one of those too, particularly with the same treatment as a works team, which is only a dream on his part. That can’t and won’t happen simply because nothing can sub for the actual in house factory effort. RBR will always be a customer for pu’s unless they bring in a maker like Mac did.

      Newey wants more aero freedom too, which only increases costs, but he seems to forget the damage that can do to F1 financially and from the dirty air aspect, damage akin to what he claims the PU situation is doing to F1.

      I say they should reduce aero, and promote ground effects and/or a greater ratio of mechanical grip to aero to close up the racing, and THEN let’s see if a team with a little less hp but a better setup can’t actually reel in and pass a car with a bit more hp but not quite the setup. Dirty air is far and away to me the biggest problem, as engines and tires of all sorts throughout the last 2 1/2 decades, and even DRS now, have not prevented processions.

      1. Just to add…not saying AN et al should be put out of a job, but for the good of the sport he should have less room to maneuver aero wise via the regs wrt wings, and be made to focus on maximizing what he CAN do with smaller wings or ones with big neutral zones to them, while focusing more design energy on ground effects. They’ve GOT to get off aero largely and onto something that promotes closer racing which nothing has proved to do while dirty air is so detrimental, as proved year after year for years now.

        1. @robbie, a poster on the F1Technical forums quoted from a paper a little while ago that suggested that placing a heavier reliance on the underbody of the car might not necessarily be the fix that you believe it to be.

          The author, based on CFD analysis, showed that the relative performance of the front and rear wings tended to decrease by a relatively comparable amount when in the wake of another car – although the trailing car would lose some performance, the relative handling balance of the car would not change substantially.

          What was an issue, however, was that the front of the floor tended to stall when following another car – not only was the relative performance loss larger, it also lead to a marked rearward shift in the centre of pressure. That, in turn, did cause a more marked shift in the handling balance (towards inducing understeer), as well as having the negative effect of destabilising braking stability.

          It’s therefore not a simple and straightforward case of trying to shift more of the aero balance towards the underside of the car – you need to consider the relative impact of that on the way in which the car would react, otherwise you won’t solve the problem at all.

          1. @anon Yeah fair enough I didn’t think nor was trying to make it sound simple, and if ground effects aren’t part of a solution fair enough, but to me it doesn’t change the sentiment that addiction to aero will mean nothing will change in terms of processions until there is a ratio that favours mechanical grip more than it is now and aero less so. The only common denominator amongst the varying factors of engines, tires, chassis, etc throughout the last 25 years has been the addiction to aero grip so that is the biggest detriment to close racing…all other changes have just proved to be useless bandaids.

          2. @robbie, as an aside, I don’t mean to pick you up on this, but you are using the term “ground effect” in a very loose way.

            A modern F1 car still employs ground effects (and to quite a substantial effect – the floor of the car still generates the greatest amount of downforce on a modern F1 car), given that the term refers to the phenomenon where there is interaction between an aerodynamic component and the ground beneath it (such as, for example, the floor of a contemporary F1 car). Sculpted underbodies, for example, are just an extension of that principle, not the embodiment of it.

  9. “Lotus agreed to waive its exclusivity to allow others to use it for the good of the sport. Unfortunately, that sort of attitude doesn’t seem to exist any more.”

    Well this is the first time I’ve heard this version of the story. The contract with Lotus only guaranteed exclusivity for the first year, and Chapman fought hard to try and maintain exclusive use. That business plan would make no sense for Cosworth or Ford, so he was politely informed that from ’68 onwards it would be available to other teams.

    Newey has no place to be talking about sportsmanship with the amount of cheating Red Bull did over the years with ride height adjustment, flexi wings, engine mappings etc…

    He’s been part of a winning team that didn’t even stick to the rules they are supposed to but is going to criticise teams for not showing comradery and hurting their own self interests when the rules don’t even dictate they should?

    1. +1 @philipgb

      All part of the chorus that’s trying to sort things for 2017 – somehow or other.

      1. From different quotes from AN over the last few years I know that he would of course not only love a top works PU, but last year was decrying the lack of room to develope not just the pu’s but aero too…all things that would only drive up costs…but he’s on a team with bottomless pockets so it’s easy for him to claim concern over expensive and exclusive pu’s but push come to shove I don’t think he cares too much about costs and just wants free rein on aero to continue the most detrimental thing to F1 of all…the dirty air effect. I say the very thing AN is best at is the very thing that is F1’s biggest problem.

        1. And I fully support AN. He’s the most successful person in the sport outside of Bernie.

          Your blind hatred for AN prevents you from understanding he might be right.

          More or less equal PUs with aero that has higher degree of freedom will allow teams to change their relative position during a season.

          For instance if we had front wings opened up teams could have found better solution to follow closely.

          What do you have against following closely?

          1. You managed to include ad hominem and straw man in your counter argument there.

            All Robbie says about AN there is that he has clear bias towards aero development, no hatred implied.

            And we aren’t discussing following closely, we’re discussing Adrian Newey’s hypocrisy in arguing other teams not sharing an advantage isn’t sporting when he himself has been part of a team that has pursued many unsporting advantages and outright cheated to have an advantage.

            He’s also being less than truthful in his account of Lotus and the Cosworth engine history so he’s playing political games as well.

          2. @Mr. X @philipgb Interesting how Philip got the gist and you Mr. X took it the wrong way but that’s text for you, without the nuance of physical conversation.

            To clarify, I have the utmost respect for AN. And where you picked up that I have something against close racing is beyond me. It is all I care about right now. I just don’t think the endless search for the ‘right’ gadget tires, nor DRS, nor more emphasis on aero is the way to go. It’s about less aero and more mechanical grip and that unfortunately flies in the face of AN’s expertise.

            Giving teams more leeway to develop pu’s and aero will only drive up costs which is not something AN needs care about as his team has the money, and neither of those things will get us closer to closer racing while we have cars handcuffed in dirty air.

            So I think AN is great and he has done great things but I think we have seen enough now over the umpteen variations of engines and tires over 25 years to know now that aero or over-dependence on clean air for your car to work is not great for F1.

            Doesn’t matter if they were to forget about costs and they had more room to develop throughout the year and get closer to each other in performance. We saw last year that with two equal Mercs the one behind, no matter the driver, is toast once in dirty air.

          3. @philip – can you provide a link to those sanctions imposed by the FIA for RB cheating?

            Didn’t think so.

            You know who was convicted of cheating? Mercedes, when they ran 2014 tires during the 2013 season. You think Part of thier advantage wasn’t built into that secret session? niave, I also have a bridge to sell you.

          4. @Robbie

            Talking about getting it wrong when you have completely missed my point.

            My point is that your assumption that more mech grip and less aero is going to lead to a better F1 is WRONG. So every point you try to make tied to that assumption, including complementing AN is also false based.

            If you really respected him you would understand that regardless of his background (aero) he is still RIGHT.

            We need more aero and less power for better racing.

            show me a heavy mech grip focused season in the last 15 years that had more passing than the seasons RB and AN dominated. Even if you goto the 80s seasons which reduced aero you find less passing. Why do these stats not matter to you? Why do you and your camp continue to claim less aero provides more passing with ZERO evidence. Evidence in this case is NOT cherry picking single seasons but showing a trend and pattern stretching across years…

            if you at all follow F1technical you would know that this debate has long been silenced. For every mech strong passing year there are 2-3 mech focused seasons with less passing than ever. And almost all record passing seasons were aero focused. Like I said, ZERO evidence.

            It’s easier to gain aero advantage during the season and opening up PU development is more expensive than aero. You understand what that means right? It’s crystal clear.

          5. Mr. X if you watched F1 in 2014 then you would already know they were disqualified in Australia for exceeding the fuel flow and Abu Dhabi for the hidden spring they had in the front wing. I’m not bothering finding links for every infraction they’ve committed over the years.

            Yes Mercedes also received a single reprimand for performing a tyre test at the request of the incumbent supplier after they were assured that the rest would be legal both by Pirelli and Charlie Whiting only to then be sanctioned after the fact because it seemed like no one knew what they were doing. It’s not quite in the same league of cheating to openly perform a test you had been advised was within the rules only for a later clarification of those rules to decide it wasn’t compared with time after time designing a car in contravention to the written rules and only bring it in line with regulations once you’re caught.

      2. I lose a lot of respect for the man when I read articles like this. He complains that other teams won’t share their advantage in the spirit of competition with his team but for 4 years his team wouldn’t adhere to the written rules in the spirit of fair competition because they had a win by any means attitude. They were still cheating in 2014 just without winning effect with their fuel flow and spring loaded front wing.

        It then also comes as no surprise that in a mud slinging effort he’s willing to bend the historical truth as much as his own front wing designs.

        1. @Mr. X I reject your notions and your mannerism. I don’t think you have it right nor have supported your argument very well. I would suggest that there has not been a season in years that has had a ratio that favoured mechanical grip over aero. They’ve been dealing with cars handcuffed in dirty air due to their over dependence on clean air, for years. Even if some seasons had better tires than currently, aero was still dominant. I’ll assume that since you have taken several things I have said the wrong way, you have also misinterpreted that which you have read regarding this topic. The more aero, the more the car works best in clean air, and is harmed the most in dirty air, thus leaving the driver with no confidence in the car when behind another, especially on intentionally problematic tires. Perhaps you could explain how, from your reading, more aero would make for closer racing, technically I mean, not just vaguely, while thumbing your nose at ‘my camp’.

          1. You just completely ignore that with opened aero you could also solve the issue of dirty air. That’s my point.

            That’s what newey, a man smarter than you and I combined is saying.

            With the limited aero they have now, yes dirty air is an issue.

            You just have to trust that someone smarter than you can figure it out instead of bring people back to crude ideals.

          2. @Robbie I’m waiting for your historical trend analysis that shows mech dominate seasons have produced more over taking.

            Also, just to double stamp your myth as being false. If 2015 had front tires that could withstand a small loss in downforce we would have had drivers all over eachother. So even in a year with restricted aero such as last year, we can see aero was not the problem.

            Just keep repeating the more mech, less downforce lie, it seams to have caught on well with many.

            don’t get me wrong, I’d love bigger tires and more mechanical grip, but blind calls for reducing aero is just naive and shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the sport and physics itself.

            Adrian newey is more than capable of designing cars that can operate in dirty air. What’s your problem with that?

        2. As I said before, I reject your take on this topic, as well as your attitude. You repeating the same thing, and asking for trend analysis’ from me, while refusing to support your own argument with the technical proof that more aero is better, has me done with you. You somehow seem to think there have been seasons in the past couple decades where mechanical grip was the stronger aspect, while we know that time and money on more and more complex wind tunnels has only escalated year after year for years now. And we still have processions. Now either support your claims with something substantial rather than trying to put it on me to disprove your own verbiage, or drop it.

          1. So to be clear, you agree there is no evidence that mechanical grip focus produces more over taking or better racing?


  10. Wheel deflectors ? like in Indycar or … ?

    1. or Formula E – maybe that’s a reason they can follow each other so closely.
      (another reason is “they’re not going fast enough”!)

      1. Hehe they can follow, because they have only 200kW at their right foot.

        But yeah. Making cars more streamlined helps the car behind. Also this measure does 0 to ruin downforce… so it only makes cars faster. Then add a canopy and we dont have open wheel open, head formula anymore.

        To be really honest leaving wheels out in the open just seems aerodynamic negligence.

  11. Wow, such a nice budget. He can drive for me too. Anyone got a used f1 car, something that can run in 2016?

  12. 1st MotoGP…… could it be Rio the 2nd ? hope not

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.