Manor Racing go into administration
Discussion
rallycross said:
Take it a bit further and make the 2nd car available for guest drivers to have a go at their home race, so you get the Indy car or NASCAR champ racing in the U.S. The Aussie V8 champ guest driving in Melbourne.
Whilst I like your ideas the current driver licencing rules would also need to be changed. Those series do not qualify for the F1 superlicence.PhillipM said:
There's a picture of the 2017 car model on Autosport:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127910...
And also this snippet for those telling me I was talking b
ks:
"It is understood that the version on display was not the 2016 car adapted to the new 2017 rules, as the team could have entered had it found a last-minute buyer, but was instead the project it was planning to compete with before it hit financial trouble."
You can also see the amount of resources that's already gone into it from the refinements to front wing, sidepod flow conditions, sidepod packaging, etc, especially given that's an old model.
Your original point was that they lost 10th place because they diverted resources to the 17 car. That still comes over as bhttp://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127910...
And also this snippet for those telling me I was talking b
ks:"It is understood that the version on display was not the 2016 car adapted to the new 2017 rules, as the team could have entered had it found a last-minute buyer, but was instead the project it was planning to compete with before it hit financial trouble."
You can also see the amount of resources that's already gone into it from the refinements to front wing, sidepod flow conditions, sidepod packaging, etc, especially given that's an old model.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 27th January 19:30
ks, to be fair. If you look at last year's results you'll see that most of the time they were beaten by Sauber. All year; nothing really changed to suggest that they couldn't be beaten if Sauber had the sort of luck that Manor had in Spain.
It's also hard to imagine what they could develop to get into a points winning position. '....2016 upgrades which might have bagged them the odd extra place here or there' (your words) wouldn't have been much use; they were normally much more than an odd extra place from points.
It does seem very clear that they lost 10th because Sauber got lucky. Manor either didn't expect that or they were prepared to take the risk. If they did consciously switch development to the new car it seems most likely they did it because they knew that further developments to the 16 car would be pointless.
Vaud said:
True but it was unsustainable from the start. The 3 new teams were fundamentally misled on budget controls.
They were, but Manor in this incarnation was formed after the budget caps had been scrapped.I'd love to spend more on my racing but I have to cap it at what I can afford or can attract.
I do think, as someone pointed out that FW has said, thrift encourages creative innovation.
REALIST123 said:
It does seem very clear that they lost 10th because Sauber got lucky. Manor either didn't expect that or they were prepared to take the risk. If they did consciously switch development to the new car it seems most likely they did it because they knew that further developments to the 16 car would be pointless.
They took the risk, but they took the risk before the 2016 car even turned a wheel, so it wasn't because further upgrades to the 2016 were pointless, they had no idea at that time how that was going to pan out - they were utterly focused on the 2017 car and hoping that the 2016 car was good enough to keep that tenth place. It backfired, but then Boothy and his garage crew saw what was coming with new owner long before that with regard to finances, no, 10th place still wouldn't have floated them enough cash, but it might have brought more finance into the parent company instead of just cutting and running.Edited by PhillipM on Saturday 28th January 17:11
PhillipM said:
REALIST123 said:
It does seem very clear that they lost 10th because Sauber got lucky. Manor either didn't expect that or they were prepared to take the risk. If they did consciously switch development to the new car it seems most likely they did it because they knew that further developments to the 16 car would be pointless.
They took the risk, but they took the risk before the 2016 car even turned a wheel, so it wasn't because further upgrades to the 2016 were pointless, they had no idea at that time how that was going to pan out - they were utterly focused on the 2017 car and hoping that the 2016 car was good enough to keep that tenth place. It backfired, but then Boothy and his garage crew saw what was coming with new owner long before that with regard to finances, no, 10th place still wouldn't have floated them enough cash, but it might have brought more finance into the parent company instead of just cutting and running.Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th January 17:11
Hmmm. Still looks unlikely to me. However, if what you say is true, they really don't deserve any more than they got. Putting all their effort into a new car before the regulations for that car were finalised, which is what you imply, seems very odd.
I'll stick with what Fitzpatrick says:
'the decisive moment was the team's slip to 11th place in the constructors' championship as a result of Sauber's Felipe Nasr finishing ninth in the penultimate race of last season in Brazil'.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th January 19:55
REALIST123 said:
Hmmm. Still looks unlikely to me. However, if what you say is true, they really don't deserve any more than they got. Putting all their effort into a new car before the regulations for that car were finalised, which is what you imply, seems very odd.
I'll stick with what Fitzpatrick says:
'the decisive moment was the team's slip to 11th place in the constructors' championship as a result of Sauber's Felipe Nasr finishing ninth in the penultimate race of last season in Brazil'.
Edited by REALIST123 on Saturday 28th January 19:55
"It has been assumed (by me and others) that the key was money, but the truth seems to be that the stumbling blocks more complicated than that. Firstly, the owners wanted to hold on to part of the team, secondly there were questions over indemnities relating to potential liabilities, notably the possibility of legal action from the Bianchi Family and thirdly, there was a massive hole in the 2017 budget, even before Manor was knocked back to 11th in the Constructors’ Championship by Sauber in Brazil."
"The Mexicans were the last to give up, after the Brazilian GP, when the team’s financial situation took a big dive. At that point the team’s value fell to nothing as there was a hole in the 2017 budget of an estimated $40 million. Thus, even without the Brazilian result, the team did not have a budget to race in 2017, as the prize money lost was nowhere near $40 million in value"
His sources are (normally) on the accurate side.
REALIST123 said:
Hmmm. Still looks unlikely to me. However, if what you say is true, they really don't deserve any more than they got. Putting all their effort into a new car before the regulations for that car were finalised, which is what you imply, seems very odd.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff