In the round-up: Williams technical director Pat Symonds sees world champion potential in Valtteri Bottas.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.
Pat Symonds Q&A: Williams can be champions again (F1)
"What I've seen in the great drivers I have worked with I also see in Valtteri. He regards it almost as a right to be champion. There are other traits in the so-called 'champion gene' - like attention to detail and work ethic."
Marussia Formula One Team Made 'Duress Payments' To Recover Seized Assets (Forbes)
"Energy drinks company Red Bull owns two F1 teams and its motorsports advisor Helmut Marko recently said that neither would give its support to Marussia’s plan."
Button expects Honda to make strong return to F1 (The Guardian)
"We didn’t get the results together in ’07 and ’08, so there’s a lot for us to achieve, and to put right if you like, of working together"
"The objective was to have a car that was easier to work with than last year’s and it is. It’s like night and day so far. "
Speed trap exposes Mercedes' edge (Autosport)
"With the top speeds of all the cars measured towards the end of the back straight at Jerez before braking for the Dry Sack hairpin, it is telling that the top three fastest cars were Mercedes-powered."
Mika on the testing revolution (McLaren)
"Sometimes, believe it or not, the McLaren-Mercedes team would be testing in two separate locations simultaneously – for example at Jerez and at Valencia."
Tweets
Ecclestone wanted 2013 cars (RB9 chassis + Mecachrome V8) to race in F1 in case more teams leave. Plan rejected. AMuS http://t.co/wxKioybPdq
— Tobias Grüner F1 (@tgruener) February 9, 2015
Found my E21 in the lobby of @saxobank . Reminds me a lot of good memories… #r8main #podium pic.twitter.com/DPRYryEUC6
— Romain Grosjean (@RGrosjean) February 9, 2015
#F1 question on @onlyconnectquiz just now. Am sure you all know what comes fourth… pic.twitter.com/ZOvhmiSZUQ
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) February 9, 2015
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
How much more would you pay for a ticket to a Formula One grand prix compared to a World Endurance Championship race?
I just bought a Sunday ticket for the WEC at Silverstone – £35. The cheapest Sunday ticket for the GP is a whopping £155 according to Silverstone’s website.
I also go to Le Mans every year, and my camping and general admission ticket is around £90, and that’s for five days.
F1 needs to take a look at itself and ask, “Are we really worth four times as much as the WEC?”. The answer in my opinion is no.
Thomas (@Tthwaite)
From the forum
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Aqeel!
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
Red Bull launched their first world championship-winning car five years ago today. The RB6 took the constructors’ championship and Sebastian Vettel used it to claim the drivers’ title.
Canderous (@yoshif8tures)
10th February 2015, 0:18
So does Felipe have this gene or has his already gone with the wind?
Carlos Furtado das Neves
10th February 2015, 0:46
I’m very sorry to say this but,
Felipe’s gene has gone with the “spring”…
(Hungaroring 2009)
Canderous (@yoshif8tures)
10th February 2015, 1:24
Oh what a shame. Hopefully he can challenge the young upstart this year and show that he’s not down and out yet!
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
10th February 2015, 3:54
That’s a good excuse 2009. Has a miraculous mutation changed Felipe or was it the case Felipe was never champion material?
Selbbin (@selbbin)
10th February 2015, 6:18
Almost beat Hamilton.
Mashiat2 (@mashiat2)
10th February 2015, 6:26
@selbbin In a superior car (An Alonso fan rooting for Massa in 2008).
montreal95 (@montreal95)
10th February 2015, 6:45
@mashiat2 The fact that you were rooting for him doesn’t make your statement any less incorrect. The cars were more or less equal if you take the whole season into consideration. on some tracks Ferrari was faster on others Mclaren was
For the record, I wasn’t rooting for Massa :) . but if he were to become 2008 WDC, he would’ve deserved it
Kingshark (@kingshark)
10th February 2015, 11:11
Massa from 2007-2008 and early 2009 was a very good driver. Not quite on par with Hamilton and Alonso, but a very strong driver nonetheless.
rafas
10th February 2015, 11:14
so , its more likely to wait tghe other Felipe then hope to see massas a winning Champ.
grat
10th February 2015, 14:39
Massa is an amazing driver when he gets it right– and a catastrophe when he gets it wrong. He won more races than Hamilton in 2008, but he spun out at Silverstone at least 5 times. When he’s on his game, he’s just about unbeatable (except by team orders), the problem is, staying on his game is a bit of a balancing act for him.
Mashiat2 (@mashiat2)
11th February 2015, 15:50
“Massa is an amazing driver when he gets it right”
Well, isn’t that true even for Ericsson?
Carlos Furtado das Neves
10th February 2015, 23:15
I believe it’s not an excuse.
Medical statements prove that some kind of head injuries cause, more or less, lost of sensorial capacities, for example in-depht or peripherical vision. And for a racing driver that means loosing some tenths of second in their lap times. Some can adapt and live with that (Piquet in 1987 after Tamburello crash), some don’t. The main difference, for me, is that Piquet is a true born champion and Massa is a “might have been”. But lets wait and see what he can achieve this year… specially if he can beat Bottas or not.
pxcmerc (@)
11th February 2015, 5:51
sigh. There is no such thing as noble blood. And Massa is doing just fine. The only people keeping Massa from beating Bottas is his own team. The reason why Bottas is lauded like he is, is because Sir Frank has a serious liking to him. Btw, cognitive ability is probably the word you were looking for (sensorial). Massa’s lack of speed at Ferrari has a lot to do with Alonso and the team’s ethic back when.
Park
10th February 2015, 12:19
It is at least the sixth interview I have read from Pat to confirm Felipe is not champion material.
And I think Felipe has definitely read this sort of stuff, which I hope will not hurt his confidence.
Carlitox (@carlitox)
10th February 2015, 14:55
His time has sadly passed. I’m a huge fan of him since the Sauber days, but Hungaroring, Alonso, and Ferrari’s treatment mean he’ll not be champion material anymore. He’ll win some more races, I’m counting on it. But it’s too late for him to become champion, even if he had a Merc.
It makes me sad, because no matter what, I’ll always think he lost the 08 title because of sheer bad luck. To me, he is one among many champions without crown.
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
10th February 2015, 20:23
He had it for a few seconds, then he lost it again.
rm
10th February 2015, 1:48
Let’s hop into our time machines and roll back to Jerez 2013.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/02/analysing-a-few-pointers-and-trends-from-first-f1-test-of-2013/
“As has been the trend in recent years, the Red Bull is the second slowest car on the straights: Vettel was clocked at 291km/h in the speed trap, compared to 305km/h for Force India and Lotus.”
You’ll remember that Red Bull did all right in 2013. In fact throughout their championship winning period the Bulls were consistently slower through the speed traps than other teams, usually among the slower teams at every GP. Even in the regular season top speed simply isn’t a terribly useful piece of data.
Aldoid
10th February 2015, 2:47
I agree with you, but I think the point being made here is one about engines & not overall performance. Most of the comments & speculation being made about Ferrari (& Sauber) topping the tests were in regards to wondering whether or not they’ve managed to claw back any of the power deficit to Mercedes. In that regard, the speed trap is a relevant measure, IMO. I’d be very surprised if many people still believed that Merc’s huge advantage last season was down to the engine alone. The W05 was a great car aerodynamically as well… much more so than it’s gotten credit for.
rm
10th February 2015, 5:27
Trap speed does not tell you anything about engine power. It would, if the cars were identical in all other respects. But assuming identical power levels a car with more downforce will have a lower top speed. It’s also possible that different gearing will result in a lower top speed in a trade-off for greater acceleration. Lastly, it’s possible that some engine makers will sacrifice a little ultimate power (and ultimate top speed) to get a broader power band and a more drivable car.
Which is why top speed can tell you nothing about which car has “the most power” or about which will get around a given circuit the quickest.
sato113 (@sato113)
10th February 2015, 2:55
I disagree. What you say is true for the v8 era, but with these new turbos it seems that higher top speed correlates well with better engine performance. (And engine performance is a massive factor in overall performance now)
W-K (@w-k)
10th February 2015, 4:24
The top speed measured in the speed traps, is probably more down to the speed and acceleration out of the previous corner. So with the new PUs that acceleration is down to applying ers power and not spinning up the rears.
pxcmerc (@)
11th February 2015, 21:20
it’s also down to how much drag each car is developing. Performance does not equal peak horse power or top speed.
rm
10th February 2015, 5:51
I don’t know what you base that one. Here’s the speed trap data for last years Australian GP.
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/external_archive/node6948/2014_01_AUS_F1_R0_Timing_RaceSpeedTrap_V01.pdf
Rosberg, the race winner, set the seventh fastest time through the speed trap. The highest speed was recorded by K-Mag, who finished fourth. Ricciardo, who finished third (before his DSQ) managed only the 13th fastest speed trap time in the RB, a colossal 24 km/h slower than K-Mag’s McLaren. There’s essentially no connection between speed trap times and race performance.
Selbbin (@selbbin)
10th February 2015, 6:22
Ricciardo finished 2nd before DSQ and KMag 3rd with Button 4th. He was on the podium. McLaren recorded 2nd and 3rd after Ricciardo was booted.
Alistair
10th February 2015, 10:04
You’re splitting hairs, the poster’s point remains valid.
nidzovski (@nidzovski)
10th February 2015, 8:45
Let’s not forget that in 2013 aerodynamics could well compensate for the lack of engine power and we all know how good was Red Bull (at least in the hands of Vettel) through the corners. So this year it’s a different story if you ask me.
pxcmerc (@)
11th February 2015, 21:23
no, it’s the same story, the same story as it has been since 2011 (and before even).
the car which can yield the more efficient power production, can carry more drag and down force. While it takes some solid engineering to tighten down the margins, Merc’s advantage is far far too great (>2 seconds last year at some circuits) to be taken away. And with the push to 1000hp motors, it is just a desperate political maneuver to try and throw Merc’s power unit off of it’s efficiency window.
pH
10th February 2015, 11:23
While it is true that generally top speed is influenced by many factors, it is worth noting that the three fastest cars were from different teams. So either all these teams also have the best aero (and the best drivers), or their shared engine is very good. I find the second alternative more likely.
Mackeine Loveine (@cocaine-mackeine)
10th February 2015, 2:22
@keithcollantine I found an interesting reading on Top Gear
http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/clarkson-on-motorsport-2014-01-06
McG
10th February 2015, 3:10
JC is a funny guy, but usually his logic is flawed. As in he talks a lot of rubbish. Which he just did there. Rally has been dead for a decade, formula 1 is alive and well.
Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
10th February 2015, 4:01
hahaha..Classic Clarkson!
“And, on a number of occasions this year, F1 has played to 80,000 people, all of whom had turned up dressed as seats.”
If rallying needs a fix, its a pretty simple one…BRING BACK GROUP B!
anon
10th February 2015, 19:18
@jaymenon10, it’s an interesting thing where a Group B rally car would probably be more popular, simply because it is more visually extravagant than a modern rally car, even though most modern rally cars would beat most Group B rally cars in terms of outright speed (Group B ended the best part of 30 years ago, and car development has been very active in the intervening period).
Tornado (@tornado)
10th February 2015, 2:48
”According to F1 company documents, teams which are insolvent lose their right to prize money.” Guess Marussia were not the ‘small team willing to fight on a shoestring budget’ if they owed 97million dollars.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
10th February 2015, 3:58
@tornado Go check Caterham funds. I think these rich folks are spending invisible money that is obviously not their own money just to have some fun. I think it is disgusting but I’m the minority.
Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
10th February 2015, 4:05
Tony has a lot of friends in Malaysia who have very deep pockets….probably including some of my tax money too…
BasCB (@bascb)
10th February 2015, 6:27
Hm, that article from Bernie’s press mouth pretty much proves that it would have been Bernie who put up the subject of “voting Marussia out” for me.
MazdaChris (@mazdachris)
10th February 2015, 12:11
@bascb
To be honest, I’ve still not seen any reason why anyone should have allowed Marussia to enter this year. It wasn’t a case f voting them out, it was a case of voting on whether they should be allowed special exceptions in order to enter. I’d have to say that the right decision was made – Manor have no place on the grid.
Robbie (@robbie)
10th February 2015, 13:10
@mazdachris Agreed. I have for the most part stayed out of the conversation about Marussia partly because I haven’t had the time and partly because I don’t care and don’t think they should be ‘bailed out’ (my own term for their predicament).
Reading the linked article on this round-up has summed up for me the topic which I have only passively paid attention to, but confirms my take on it. I have been surprised at the number of people that think they should be bailed out, as I have always thought of it as a slippery slope and don’t see why they deserve it, and many seem to think the answer is ‘to make for a bigger grid.’ Don’t get it personally. This is the pinnacle of racing…don’t enter it expecting hand outs to keep you going…if you can’t cut it financially you don’t belong…those are my general sentiments in spite of understanding that F1 could perhaps distribute moneys better. I just don’t think teams should need a helping hand that much. Where does that end? Why them? What abut everyone else’s handouts then?
One other thought that comes from my surprise at the reaction about this issue eg. ‘Team X and the way they voted is the reason Marussia won’t be on the grid so shame on that greedy Team X.’ The weighting of the voters on this was one third FIA, one third F1 Group, and one third to six top teams. Do we even know how FIA and F1 Group voted? Any one team is only one sixth of one third of the weighting, so it is wholely unfair to blame one team for disallowing Marussia this season, even if all teams had to agree. The parameter that all six had to agree amongst their one third weighting was not set by the teams. They were just asked to vote, not to make sure they all voted one way or the other so their collective third was consistent.
Bottom line for me, Marussia has not cut it financially so they don’t belong, and that is not the fault of any one team…it is their fault.
MazdaChris (@mazdachris)
10th February 2015, 13:29
@robbie
Yeah that’s pretty much how I feel. Marussia, despite the upturn in performance last year, never managed to secure the funding it needed to be financially solvent. They have laid off pretty much all of their staff, and sold off a lot of their assets already. Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree with the sentiment that small teams need more support, but I think each case needs to be considered carefully and there needs to be some underlying plan of how that team can continue to exist on its own. Under normal circumstances, no team would be allowed to run old cars if they don’t meet the technical regulations, especially when the application is made less than two months before the start of the season. In order for it to be considered, there surely needs to be a detailed plan which demonstrates that the team will grow and develop going forward, and by all account this simply isn’t the case with Manor. As Fernley says, there needs to be a detailed proposal which outlines who the investors are, how the investment will be used, and how the team will eventually become financially solvent and develop itself into the future. Without any of this, and based on the history of the Marussia team’s financial struggles, there doesn’t seem to be a case to even consider.
As you say, Formula 1 is the world’s apex motorsport; the domain of the elite. The very best engineers, teams, and drivers, competing at the highest possible technical level. It isn’t somewhere that people can simply turn up with a couple of old cars and have a go. Teams need to be fully fleshed out and ready to compete properly before their entry is considered viable. If Manor really do have the backing to accomplish that, then they would be far better served by approaching the FIA about entering next year instead, and see if the FIA will allow them a continuity agreement for them to retain the lineage of the old Marussia team entry. Then simply take a year out to employ the people they need to employ, secure the sponsors they need to secure, and develop a brand new F1 car from the ground up. This would be a far more cost effective way to get back into the sport, than effectively playing catchup for a whole year with a skeleton team and a pair of out of date cars that will realistically always finish last.
BasCB (@bascb)
10th February 2015, 13:22
Maybe @mazdachris, @robbie. But then, why does Marussia / Manor have at their disposal that decision / ruling or whatever we call it, by the same strategic group, that allows them (and Caterham) to use their adapted 2014 chassis, which has to fulfill all but the 4 mentioned paragraphs of the 2015 rules in order to be allowed in?
I do not want to start discussing whether they should be allowed in with their 2014 car unadjusted, I don’t even really feel a reason to discuss what issues they were allowed to left untouchted.
The issue I have is, why decide on something and state pretty explicit terms they have to comply with in December, but then, without apparently even asking the team for an update on their status and plans put it up for a “revote” and throw the issue up for debate completely anew less than 2 months afterwards?
Sorrry, but I will not be easily convinced that this makes sense at all, and even less that its good for the sport.
MazdaChris (@mazdachris)
10th February 2015, 13:41
@bascb
I think they’ve done things in compliance with the gorvernance structure of the sport to be honest. As far as I know (and if you can point me to info I’m absolutely prepared to accept that I’m wrong) there was never previously a vote taken, and so an exception was never formally agreed which would allow them to run. These things are put forward at pre-agreed meetings which only take place a few times a year, and are necessarily scheduled for times in the year when they would need to make key decisions (i.e. at certain points before the start of the season etc) so it could only have been ratified at that point.
Again I come back to the fact, which I’ve alluded to above, that the onus is on Manor to outline exactly why they should be allowed an exceptional entry, and so far as any of us know, that hasn’t happened. I would absolutely love to see them back on the grid, but as a team which is capable of developing and building its own car as every manufacturer has to do. And most importantly, as a team which is going to be able to develop and grow going forward, underpinned by clear, agreed investment from known parties, that can guarantee that they will be financially solvent.
The story behind the collapse of these teams which you don’t see mentioned very often, is that there are hundreds of companies who have sold them products and services in good faith, but never received payment. These companies operate under enormous overheads, and have a customer base who tend to work on a ‘buy now pay later’ financial model, meaning that there is very little protection against enormous financial loss when one of their major customers (i.e. a formula 1 team) suddenly goes under. If this happens often enough, these suppliers will be forced to ask for money up front, which will harm a lot of the teams which rely on them, who only get money periodically throughout the year. The whole motorsport industry, above a certain level, operates under a principle of good faith. Teams which want to play in the big league but lack the reasource and ability to do so cause a lot of damage to the industry. So while I would love to see Marussia bakc on the grid, if they can’t show that they can pay their way, then they have no business being there
BasCB (@bascb)
10th February 2015, 14:08
Right @mazdachris.
You must have missed Keiths article a few days ago then, which mentions:
That clearly states what Marussia has to do according to the Strategy group to be allowed in, and even that they were working on doing exactly that.
As for the strict time schedule you mention its non existant. The WMSC as well as the F1 commission have a rather static calendar for meetings.
But the strategy group has been meeting whenever enough of them felt a need to do so it seems (including being called together right after the first races last year to discuss boosting engine noise, for example). As far as I remember that was even one of the reasons to have it – to be more flexible to react to the needs of F1.
Let me state again, that I am not arguing here that Manor (or Caterham) deserve or not deserve to be on the grid. I do know that the grid (and Bernie to comply with all the contracts) needs to be as full as possible and we are far to close to minimum to feel good about losing a team.
As for suppliers and the small guys who are owed money. Yes, they are the ones losing the most from any insolvency. On the other hand, if the company does manage to make a restart there is a far better chance of ever seeing something of what they are owed than if its rounded up.
THe asking money up front is already happening, its one of the reasons for FI (and Lotus) having extra trouble making it to the testing (carbon workshop, Toyota, etc. all asking for up front payment).
In short – the strategic working group gave its “defenition” of what Marussia/Caterham should meet in requirements to use their reworked old car in Januari. The team was working on complying with that (apparently). Then the Strategy group came together again, discussed the situation again without even asking for more details on how the team was going to comply, and decided that there was not enough basis to think that the team will comply. Sorry, but that does not seem fine to me at all.
Robbie (@robbie)
10th February 2015, 16:18
Fair comments guys. @bascb I get your misgivings about Marussia/Manor perhaps being misled or at least not being given enough chance/time/direction to try to prove their worthiness of running last year’s car this year. That said, as someone who works in sales, I feel for those 200 entities that are owed money, and if reports are to be believed they owe nearly 100 mill as it is…so if they can find that money it should first and foremost go toward them. Then they have to find the money to field a couple of cars, even if they are last year’s, for the season. And if I’m one of the creditors they owe money to, and I actually miraculously somehow see some or all of that money owed me, I’m gonna run to the bank with the cheque (assuming I can trust a straight cheque) cross my fingers that it doesn’t bounce, and if it clears, their next order is going to be either ignored completely or be for cash, certified cheque, or if you want terms pay with your credit card and get your terms that way, Mr. Manor, because you’ve blown your trustworthiness in terms of credit. If you’ve got new backing, great, you should have no trouble paying us immediately, as you’ve implied bascb is happening.
In my experience it is just as possible that remaining solvent will still leave the creditors (especially the ones Manor may no longer have use for) hanging, as they (Manor) will try to consider themselves a different entity, that now being called Manor, and any issues creditors have with Marussia need be taken up with that entity which was called Marussia, not the rebranded Manor…ie. contracts were with Marussia, not Manor, unless of course Manor is prepared to assume that debt under their name and come clean with nearly 100 mill…just for starters.
Personally I don’t believe they now have solid enough backing, or we wouldn’t be talking about this, this close to the season starting. If backers were interested, they would know that things needed to be done way before now in order to be ready for the season.
I agree something is not adding up, and for me it starts with an entity that owes 97.5 mill, couldn’t finish the season, and now has it’s hand out…to what end? Even if they somehow got in, and somehow got the money owed them from F1 for their points at Monaco, it is still only a fraction of what they’ll need.
MazdaChris (@mazdachris)
10th February 2015, 16:27
@bascb
I can see where you’re coming from, but even considering that this is a statement from Manor themselves (and of course skewed in their favour) it seems fairly ambiguous as to whether it actually constitutes a decision to let them race. It’s simply a definition of the technical concessions which would be allowed for them if they were to enter with a 2014 car. It doesn’t necessarily mean that those are the only criteria to be allowed entry. We simply don’t know, and I guess our interpretation of the snippet is going to be influenced by our own interpretation, one way or another. We may just have to agree to disagree on that point I suppose. Ultimately though, there does need to be a decision point, where it goes to the Strategy Group for them to make a call one way or the other. And while I take your point that exceptional meetings can be called outside of scheduled meetings, for all sorts of things, I don’t think it would make any sense to delay that decision point any later than this. In fact, I would say it would have been best to have the decision prior to the start of testing, so that in the event of a positive outcome Manor would have been able to test if they were in a position to do so. Consider as well that there are other reasons why the decision needs to be made in a timely fashion – there are any number of supply agreements which need to be worked out if they take part, which would need to be in place well before the first GP in order for the cars to be built in the first place. Not least of which, of course, would be the engine supply agreement, especially if their supplier has to manufacture a number of 2014 units for them to use. The later the decision is made, the more money is wasted, and the harder it would be for Manor to get everything in place in time.
So probably, in the end, I agree with much of what you’re saying about how this has been handled. The decision should probably have been made one way or another last year, or at the very least a set of concrete conditions laid down which would guarantee Manor’s place on the grid if they achieve them by a defined date. This would have to include far more than just a technical definition of the car they can bring. I think they should be subject to the same sort of financial and business competency scrutiny that any new manufacturer would. In fact, I would extend this to say that current competing teams should also be regularly assessed as to their ongoing viability, rather than just waiting for them to get in a mess and eventually fail, but that’s probably a debate for a different day. In the end, everyone involved has handled this very badly, including Manor themselves who have clearly not been transparent enough for an informed decision to be made.
Where I disagree with you, is that you imply (and I apologise if this is a misreading) that because the decision has been reached in the wrong way, that the decision itself is wrong. I don’t think that is the case. For all the reasons I list above, I don’t believe that there is any real argument in favour of allowing Manor entry for 2015, and for that reason I think that the Strategy Group has made the right decision. For the wrong reasons, and in the wrong way, sure, but it doesn’t change the fact that Manor don’t, as it stands, represent a viable proposition as an F1 constructor. Perhaps there is still some small possibility that they can get their act together and demonstrate that they really do have proper backing, and not in the form of some shady anonymous investor. In that case, perhaps it would be right to allow them entry. But until that point, they add no value to the sport, and there is no reason to allow them to line up in Melbourne.
BasCB (@bascb)
10th February 2015, 16:38
I get your points, however the one thing they can’t do, if they want that FOM money and a licence to race in 2015 at least, is to change to a different entity @robbie!
The licence was granted to Manor GP for 2010, and is still with the same unit, even though the name unser which they raced changed several times now. Otherwise you can’t qualify for having been in the sport for more than 3 years and having finished in the top 10 as required to qualify for any FOM money.
As mentioned, I am quite sceptical about the money too.
On the other hand IF you want to run an F1 team, being able to count on receiving some 80-95 million over the next years (which they ARE elligible to in case they will be able to race for at least 16 of this years races and not miss more than 3 in 2016) and get a team with some knowhow and equipment (they WILL get the hydraulics and wiring loom ok for example) is not such a bad start compared to starting clean sheet.
I would think that the administrators, to be able to agree with taking it out of administration would need sufficient guarantees that the new owners/investors would pay off more of the debt this way than would be the case with a sale of assets.
BasCB (@bascb)
10th February 2015, 17:10
@mazdachris – yes, I guess we should agree to disagree on the decionsion making and it invalidating the descion or not.
I think it does F1 a huge disservice (more than letting Manor try and probably fail to appear) showing the fans how bad the desicionmaking process in F1 is.
And I also think that descions that are sort of ok, but for the wrong reasons etc, is something that happens but not anything to feel good about or support. But yeah, that second part is just my personal point of view of the world.
As stated in my comment a couple of minutes earlier, I am sure that the administrators are the first to need to be satisfied with the finiances (they have a legal obligation) and actually the competitors should be the least to ever get much details, especially when a deal is still being finalised (yeah, this late DOES make it harder and harder to see a real scope of working out).
Will Marussia make the grid? If they do, kudos for effort. But yeha.
The Blade Runner (@)
10th February 2015, 9:34
Re: the COTD and a number of other postings about WEC compared with F1:
I agree that F1 ticket prices are generally too high, especially at Silverstone and with the possible exception of the Circuit de Catalunya which is pretty good value.
I paid £400 for a 3 day F1 ticket at Silverstone in 2013. I sat in practically the same seat for the MotoGP in 2014 and paid £96, also for 3 days. Clearly this isn’t the fault of the venue. Derek Warwick has commented on a number of occasions that Silverstone struggles to break even over the F1 weekend due to the deal that Bernie & Co forced them to take. As we all know, Bernie doesn’t care much for Silverstone anyway.
Putting the cost to one side, and I appreciate that it is a significant factor, I’m not sure how WEC can be seen as a mass-appeal, genuine alternative to F1. I have enough of a struggle finding the time to watch qualifying on a Saturday and the actual Grand Prix on the Sunday (although I always manage it!) Committing to 6 hours+ of WEC is nigh on impossible for most people unless they really fancy divorce papers with their breakfast or want to miss witnessing their kids grow up. I know many people record WEC and watch it back at a convenient point. For me that kills the excitement that you can really only get from watching a race “live”.
It’s good that people can get their kicks from alternative motor sport. I enjoy MotoGP as much as (and sometimes more than) F1. That doesn’t make any of them a viable alternative to it.
F1 is certainly far from perfect at the moment, predominantly due to what happens off-track. In its current state though it is still consistently better and generally more accessible than almost any other 4 wheeled motorsport and infinitely better than (God forbid) no F1 at all…
Asanator (@asanator)
10th February 2015, 13:53
On top of the fact that it only has an 11(?) decent (yet no-where near as impressive as F1) car grid and a bunch of mobile chicanes!
anon
10th February 2015, 21:22
@asanator, if you are talking about the manufacturer LMP1 teams only (since everybody ignores the privateers like Rebellion), then the entry list for 2015 shows that there will be only eight manufacturer cars on track (i.e. two cars from Nissan, Porsche, Toyota and Audi).
Normally, the third car is ineligible for points for both the drivers and manufacturers championship, so it benefits neither the drivers nor the manufacturers to have a third car on track.
The one exception that the ACO makes is for Le Mans – because the third car is eligible for points, and because the race is also a double points race, the ACO has created a measure that creates an incentive for the manufacturers to run a third car and therefore artificially expand the grid for that race.
In reality, though, you can probably narrow the list of competitive cars down to just the Toyota, Porsche and Audi entrants – Nissan have already stated that their car is designed for Le Mans only, and therefore they expect to be uncompetitive at most other tracks.
George (@george)
10th February 2015, 17:43
@thebladerunner
I have the same trouble with following WEC, added to the fact I don’t know when races are actually happening due to a) being disorganised and b) lack of advertisement/obscure channels. I also agree about MotoGP (although I missed most of last year’s rounds due to the above reasons after the BBC dropped it’s coverage), as TV entertainment it’s often better than F1 even though I know next to nothing about bikes.
Having said that, I think as a live event it works just as well as F1. If you’re at a race then you’ve already decided to commit the day to it, so whether it lasts 2 hours or 6 doesn’t make a big difference.
CountryGent (@countrygent)
10th February 2015, 9:36
How about an F1 Only Connect-style quiz on this site, @keithcollantine? This type of thing…
Bourdais Alguersuari . . . . . . . . . . .
Hulkenberg Bianchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Toyota Cosworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The last one is a bit tricky…
Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
10th February 2015, 13:43
Is this a ‘guess the connection’ round or ‘predict the fourth clue’ round?
Also, are these individual questions, or 3 clues of a set?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
10th February 2015, 17:59
@countrygent @fullcoursecaution There was one in the forum a while ago:
https://www.racefans.net/groups/f1/forum/topic/only-connect-f1-edition/?topic_page=19&num=15
Polo (@polo)
10th February 2015, 18:04
@countrygent My guesses are…
Bourdais, Alguersuari, Ricciardo, Vergne (Toro Rosso drivers)
Hulkenberg, Bianchi, Calado, Juncadella (Force India test drivers)
Toyota, Cosworth, Renault, Mercedes (Williams engine suppliers)
Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
11th February 2015, 9:07
Buemi, Alguersuari, Buemi, Vergne (Dropped Toro Rosso Drivers)
TMF (@)
10th February 2015, 10:00
Regarding the COTD – imo, the high prices repel just as many young people as the sloppy social media presence. While F1 was always a bit of a rich-folk sport, with today’s prices for race weekends and for pay-TV, it excludes too many people from even following the sport.
c.p.
10th February 2015, 11:59
On another topic- Helmut Marko is obviously a very bitter man, who seems to be constantly trying to remind people that he have been great.
c.p.
10th February 2015, 12:00
sorry- ‘he could have been great’
Patrick (@paeschli)
10th February 2015, 12:22
Can we please stop hyping up Bottas? He never won a race last year, unlike a certain Ricciardo.
Alexander (@)
10th February 2015, 13:16
Ricciardo is a great driver, I like him a lot, but he just happened to be at the right place at the right time… Could have been anyone else…
Bottas beat Ricciardo in Formula Renault, they are both very very good, both can and hopefully will be champions.
Patrick (@paeschli)
10th February 2015, 14:04
If we are talking about lower formulas, don’t forget Di Resta beated Vettel in Formula three or something. ^^
I’m just not convinced that narrowly beating the post-2009 Massa is enough to be championship material. I hope I’ll be proven wrong though, he is exciting to watch.