Manor Racing go into administration
Discussion
rubystone said:
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.
They lost the 10th position precisely because they started work on the 2017 car early and it took most of their resources.PhillipM said:
They lost the 10th position precisely because they started work on the 2017 car early and it took most of their resources.
Ridiculous. They lost 10th position because Sauber had a lucky result in a freak and unpredictable Brazilian gp. How on earth you think next seasons r and d influenced that is beyond me.If ever there was a time to be in F1, as a little team, this is it, in my opinion. You've just got to have the funding to get to the end of 2020 (when the current agreement runs out I think - at that point there might be a much greater chance for LM to redistribute how the prize money is dispersed etc etc). But I'd want to be in the championship now.
Surely there's hope for Manor now and all the staff. I really hope so.
Surely there's hope for Manor now and all the staff. I really hope so.
rubystone said:
PhillipM said:
They lost the 10th position precisely because they started work on the 2017 car early and it took most of their resources.
That's 180 degrees diametrically opposed to what I've been told. But maybe your source is better then mine. Where'd you get that info from? KevinCamaroSS said:
I also find that hard to believe. If it was true why have they asked the FIA for permission to run what is essentially a 2016 car in 2017?
They have asked permission to start the season with an updated '16 car, not to run it for the whole year. The new car is designed, they just don't have the funds to build it, and its not now possible in the timescale to build it for the start of the year, so if a buyer is found an updated '16 car is their only option to start the year with while the other car is built.TRPK said:
They have asked permission to start the season with an updated '16 car, not to run it for the whole year. The new car is designed, they just don't have the funds to build it, and its not now possible in the timescale to build it for the start of the year, so if a buyer is found an updated '16 car is their only option to start the year with while the other car is built.
I'm sure this is correct. But what is not correct at all from my sources is that any work was started on the 2017 car nor any resources devoted to it. I'm waiting to find out the source of the other poster's information on that, he may have more recent info...What is very encouraging is that the team has asked for permission to run the 2016 car. That should indicate that they are close to a deal to sell as a going concern. Although one must remember the embarrassment that was the Caterham F1 team running under the auspices of the administrator.According to Joe Saward:
"The key requirement for the business to have value is for there to be cars for 2017. These were well-advanced until the end of November when Fitzpatrick stopped funding the team. The major structural parts of the 2017 chassis are already manufactured, but they have not yet assembled the monocoques because the money stopped before all the parts were made. However, the necessary work could be done in three weeks if the team gets the go-ahead and money."
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/a-criti...
"The key requirement for the business to have value is for there to be cars for 2017. These were well-advanced until the end of November when Fitzpatrick stopped funding the team. The major structural parts of the 2017 chassis are already manufactured, but they have not yet assembled the monocoques because the money stopped before all the parts were made. However, the necessary work could be done in three weeks if the team gets the go-ahead and money."
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/a-criti...
thegreenhell said:
According to Joe Saward:
"The key requirement for the business to have value is for there to be cars for 2017. These were well-advanced until the end of November when Fitzpatrick stopped funding the team. The major structural parts of the 2017 chassis are already manufactured, but they have not yet assembled the monocoques because the money stopped before all the parts were made. However, the necessary work could be done in three weeks if the team gets the go-ahead and money."
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/a-criti...
That's the guy who claimed in November for certain that Haryanto, not Wehrlein was getting the Sauber drive. This despite quotes by respected hacks including Janes Allen that Wolff had told them he'd suspended advanced talks with Sauber over Wehrlein when Rosberg retired. Saward isn't always right, bears grudges and has an arrogance that sometimes cloud his judgement. In this case it is as I said; the tubs haven't been assembled yet - that's a lot of work and more than 3 weeks! Each takes a month; or at least that's the time it takes McLaren to finish one. I can't believe that Manor's sub contractors are any quicker! "The key requirement for the business to have value is for there to be cars for 2017. These were well-advanced until the end of November when Fitzpatrick stopped funding the team. The major structural parts of the 2017 chassis are already manufactured, but they have not yet assembled the monocoques because the money stopped before all the parts were made. However, the necessary work could be done in three weeks if the team gets the go-ahead and money."
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/a-criti...
rubystone said:
I'm sure this is correct. But what is not correct at all from my sources is that any work was started on the 2017 car nor any resources devoted to it. I'm waiting to find out the source of the other poster's information on that, he may have more recent info...What is very encouraging is that the team has asked for permission to run the 2016 car. That should indicate that they are close to a deal to sell as a going concern. Although one must remember the embarrassment that was the Caterham F1 team running under the auspices of the administrator.
That was the point I tried to make to Philip M earlier in the thread about development for '17 being wasted and his suggestion that this was a reason for them losing 10th place. It's pretty clear no work has been started on building a car for this year, hence the request for permission to run an updated car bearing in mind the build times for tubs etc.Unfortunately I don't see this as a sign that a deal is close, more that it's now the only option IF a deal is done. Personally I can't now see either way how they can have time to make Australia, hope I'm wrong.
TRPK said:
That was the point I tried to make to Philip M earlier in the thread about development for '17 being wasted and his suggestion that this was a reason for them losing 10th place. It's pretty clear no work has been started on building a car for this year, hence the request for permission to run an updated car bearing in mind the build times for tubs etc.
Unfortunately I don't see this as a sign that a deal is close, more that it's now the only option IF a deal is done. Personally I can't now see either way how they can have time to make Australia, hope I'm wrong.
I've just read Joe's piece. if you read the comments, you'll see several that several accurately reflect who's interested. I'd 'speculate' that Fitzpatrick not only overvalues the team, but he is also underselling it if plans for the 2017 car really ARE as advanced as he (and Joe) says. One 'might' deduce that he failed to get that point over to the potential purchasers. If he doesn't sUnfortunately I don't see this as a sign that a deal is close, more that it's now the only option IF a deal is done. Personally I can't now see either way how they can have time to make Australia, hope I'm wrong.
t and get off the pan he WILL lose the only player in town. And that will be a shame.Cunning plan no 14:
Bernie convinces all teams to not buy into F1 unless there's voting rights.
F1 willows and grants voting rights for buy in.
Bernie buys manor.
Manor buys a shed load of F1 voting rights.
Manor uses voting rights to take control of F1 again.
New rules for 2019 - only race in UN embargoed countries and / or countries under control of military Junta.
All funds given to "not in my control" Bmbino trust fund.
Daughters celebrate new found immense wealth with exclusive designer custom glitter covered prosecco.
TVR Tamora Ecclestone gets her rat out on the cover of Heat.
I've asked Ladborkes to give me odds, they don't seem keen.
Bernie convinces all teams to not buy into F1 unless there's voting rights.
F1 willows and grants voting rights for buy in.
Bernie buys manor.
Manor buys a shed load of F1 voting rights.
Manor uses voting rights to take control of F1 again.
New rules for 2019 - only race in UN embargoed countries and / or countries under control of military Junta.
All funds given to "not in my control" Bmbino trust fund.
Daughters celebrate new found immense wealth with exclusive designer custom glitter covered prosecco.
TVR Tamora Ecclestone gets her rat out on the cover of Heat.
I've asked Ladborkes to give me odds, they don't seem keen.
rubystone said:
That's 180 degrees diametrically opposed to what I've been told. But maybe your source is better then mine. Where'd you get that info from?
The pub, where I had a few beers with the old staff, and a certain local bloke that's moved teams with a rather large interest in the Manor name...he's a regular, when he's home 
As TRPK says, the issue is the lead time, since production work got stopped.
Some Gump said:
Cunning plan no 14:
Bernie convinces all teams to not buy into F1 unless there's voting rights.
F1 willows and grants voting rights for buy in.
Bernie buys manor.
Manor buys a shed load of F1 voting rights.
Manor uses voting rights to take control of F1 again.
New rules for 2019 - only race in UN embargoed countries and / or countries under control of military Junta.
All funds given to "not in my control" Bmbino trust fund.
Daughters celebrate new found immense wealth with exclusive designer custom glitter covered prosecco.
TVR Tamora Ecclestone gets her rat out on the cover of Heat.
I've asked Ladborkes to give me odds, they don't seem keen.
they should be Bernie convinces all teams to not buy into F1 unless there's voting rights.
F1 willows and grants voting rights for buy in.
Bernie buys manor.
Manor buys a shed load of F1 voting rights.
Manor uses voting rights to take control of F1 again.
New rules for 2019 - only race in UN embargoed countries and / or countries under control of military Junta.
All funds given to "not in my control" Bmbino trust fund.
Daughters celebrate new found immense wealth with exclusive designer custom glitter covered prosecco.
TVR Tamora Ecclestone gets her rat out on the cover of Heat.
I've asked Ladborkes to give me odds, they don't seem keen.
TRPK said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
I also find that hard to believe. If it was true why have they asked the FIA for permission to run what is essentially a 2016 car in 2017?
They have asked permission to start the season with an updated '16 car, not to run it for the whole year. The new car is designed, they just don't have the funds to build it, and its not now possible in the timescale to build it for the start of the year, so if a buyer is found an updated '16 car is their only option to start the year with while the other car is built.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff