Manor Racing go into administration

[davepoth]

One of the big problems Liberty Media has is attracting more teams to F1. If I've understood what's available online properly they're looking at making the "event" last longer - and I think that they'll need more teams so that there are enough cars to be on track at any time.

I would guess they'll want a change to the Concorde Agreement to structure it more like the NFL in the USA, where all the TV revenue is shared evenly between the teams. That way the little guys will get a really good financial base to work from. Ferrari and the rest of the big teams won't like it though, so it'll be a big fight.

[ajprice]

An offer has been made http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127754...

[ukaskew]

F1GTRUeno said:

I think really the only possible way of stopping this stuff from happening is having a few years whereby everybody collects the same money.

For more, the rule change should've coincided with everyone who finished last season getting the same money and a cap on spending that all teams get. Everyone starts from the same amount and uses the same amount and the cream rises to the crop from there.

Unfortunately that's not how reality works and greed takes over.

Admittedly also the teams that finish highest should get more prize money although that perpetuates the gap in budgets...

A slightly more even spread of the cash would make sense, if you're at the front end you're probably attracting more sponsorship anyway, so a much tighter sliding scale (and the binning of the ridiculous heritage and Ferrari payments etc) would at least give the smaller teams a bit more to work with.

Not sure on the rigid spending cap though, almost impossible to make it work without a monster auditing team. The massive variations in current staffing levels would also probably see mass lay-offs (most in the UK too), which wouldn't go down too well. The biggest teams can easily find ways around it anyhow, particularly if they have other race teams, car manufacturing facilities etc that they can squirrel F1 work (and costs) away to.

[Munter]

ukaskew said:

A slightly more even spread of the cash would make sense, if you're at the front end you're probably attracting more sponsorship anyway, so a much tighter sliding scale (and the binning of the ridiculous heritage and Ferrari payments etc) would at least give the smaller teams a bit more to work with.

Not sure on the rigid spending cap though, almost impossible to make it work without a monster auditing team. The massive variations in current staffing levels would also probably see mass lay-offs (most in the UK too), which wouldn't go down too well. The biggest teams can easily find ways around it anyhow, particularly if they have other race teams, car manufacturing facilities etc that they can squirrel F1 work (and costs) away to.

I don't think a cap is the way either. I think more looking at it the other way. Send a bunch of accountants to audit the teams in the bottom 3rd of the grid, and come up with a number that's required for a team to exist in F1. Every team get's that amount. Then the rest is dished out based on position/points etc. I don't really care how the "excess" is spent. So long as you can finish last, and with the small level of sponsorship you can expect, plus the payout, you know you can keep your minimal staff and build the car for next year. Unless you squander all the cash on whale foreskin seats for the team minibus. Then you deserve to fail, because there should not be room in the budget for such things.

[Vaud]

Apparently they are now asking to run the 2016 car for the first 3 races, which requires permission of the FIA and all other teams.

Sad, I think this is the end for them.

[Hub]

Vaud said:

Apparently they are now asking to run the 2016 car for the first 3 races, which requires permission of the FIA and all other teams.

Sad, I think this is the end for them.

Even if they somehow manage to get agreement, if the differences in lap times with the 2017 car are anywhere close to those suggested it will be an embarrassment and they might struggle to qualify.

[anonymous-user]

Do they mean bolt on the 2017 aero/tyres onto the 2016 cars, rather than run the 2016 car as was?

[Munter]

janesmith1950 said:

Do they mean bolt on the 2017 aero/tyres onto the 2016 cars, rather than run the 2016 car as was?

I would think so. 2016 tub with new sticky out bits that meet the majority of 2017 rules.

[paolow]

Well the deadline was yesterday - but no news....

[MissChief]

Even if the FIA/Liberty paid all the teams the same, it wouldn't really even the teams up as the bigger teams will always get more sponsorship deals and cash. It would certainly help though, I agree.

[Vaud]

The fia have given them permission to use the 2016 car with mods.

[RobGT81]

I'm not convinced the new wheels and tyres will fit without some fairly major rework.

[Munter]

RobGT81 said:

I'm not convinced the new wheels and tyres will fit without some fairly major rework.

I don't see why they can't bolt new suspension and hubs onto the old tub. Then fashion up some bodywork that meets the regs.

I'm not convinced they can do it and be competitive with Sauber mind you.

[rubystone]

It ought to be possible. This suggests they've convinced the FIA that they are at advanced discussions with someone. Which has to be good news

[PhillipM]

But it also means all the work they've put into the 2017 which they started working on very early on is going to be wasted and they're going to spend another season way off the pace and haemorrhaging sponsors.

[Vaud]

PhillipM said:

But it also means all the work they've put into the 2017 which they started working on very early on is going to be wasted and they're going to spend another season way off the pace and haemorrhaging sponsors.

It's an exemption for the first few races, not the season?

[TRPK]

PhillipM said:

But it also means all the work they've put into the 2017 which they started working on very early on is going to be wasted and they're going to spend another season way off the pace and haemorrhaging sponsors.

Why is it wasted? It just means they'll run an updated '16 car so they can start the season and give them time to build the new car.

[PhillipM]

Because you've just had to divert resources + money, and you may not be able to carry over geometery/packaging from one to the other. So you can't optimise those until you're running the new car.

[rubystone]

PhillipM said:

Because you've just had to divert resources + money, and you may not be able to carry over geometery/packaging from one to the other. So you can't optimise those until you're running the new car.

The tub is always the most labour-intensive operation. I'm pretty sure they outsource production too. If so, the lead times for production from an external source are likely to be several months. If the team was unable to pay for these, then that would explain the decision too. In summary, I think that they invented evrything in 2016 and very little in 2017 in the hope they'd secure that 10th position.

[TRPK]

But it's about surviving at the moment.
I do think that if the team ( and others ) can survive this year, then Things can only get better under Liberty, who have to realise the current way is unsustainable. If I'm right, then it makes hanging in there worthwhile, and the team and entry a viable asset.