[David Not Coulthard]

Why do they bother making the 107% mark? Surely just showing up at FP and qualy means they’re already participating, right?

Or have I missed something (because otherwise I wonder why the theory is being talked by not only by Fernley, like here and here)?

[David Not Coulthard]

One note: I actually don’t believe that’s the (sole) reason for Manor to (still) exist, I’m just wondering why the fact Manor hasn’t yet run more than a car at a given time seems to be stronger an evidence than I think it should be.

[VMaxMuffin]

The thing is, I don’t think they just want to cash in. They need to race if they want any chance of racing in years to come. The reason they’ve only had one car running at once, whether purposefully or not, is simply that they’re in an extremely difficult position – lots/all data lost, no help from Ferrari with the engine, using old engine designs, using an old chassis shoehorned into the new regulations and so on.

Hopefully as the year progresses we’ll see them come back properly and maybe start hanging with the tail end of the field – especially if they can get their B-spec car out.

[Anonymous]

I wholeheartedly agree with your point of view. This team shows to me a proper “racing” mentality, that a number of teams seem to be lacking. They may now be owned by a businessman whose devotion to the sport is questionable, but at the end of the day he’s not the one responsible for the day-to-day running of the team (as far as I’m aware). That stills falls to John Booth and Graeme Lowdon. It worries me how after only two weekends (and even before) people are calling this reinvigorated team a farce who just want the prize money, and calling them a waste of space. So far I haven’t seen any deliberate DNQ attempts like what Arrows did at Magny-Cours in 2002 (and yes, the engine software argument from Australia does seem perfectly legitimate to me, as it does to the FIA stewards, who are in a much more qualified position than just about anyone on this website), and I am confident that they will attempt once again to have both cars running in qualifying in China. I don’t see how they will be unable.

[David Not Coulthard]

@vmaxmuffin That’s also my position (if one can call it that) but those that disagree seem to site Manor’s fewer-than-to-car show as evidence that they want to just cash in, ignoring that if that were the case they didn’t need to put a qualy time sufficient to start the race, or participate in FP, or indeed the race, etc.

@anto

This team shows to me a proper “racing” mentality, that a number of teams seem to be lacking.

I hope you’re not talking about RBR! :)

Anyway, agree with you about France 2002. What a way to bow out :(

[Anonymous]

because otherwise I wonder why the theory is being talked by not only by Fernley, like here and here

Force India a) want to distract how shit their car is and b) remove potential threats for WCC money. This is F1 politics doing their usual thing. Manor doubters are best off ignored.

[Anonymous]

Great to see both Manors qualify with the 107% and bring both cars home. Pity it’s taken them 3 races to achieve a credible 2 car entry, but I am very heartened at what they’ve achieved this weekend. I hope this silences the doubters.

[Author]

Posts