#F1 Daily News and Comment: Thursday 5th March 2015



This page will be updated throughout the day.

Please if you are on Twitter press the tweet button below. If you re-write and tweet individual story headlines don’t forget to include #F1.

You may not realise how hugely important this is and has helped grow our community significantly

Manor is back

Ferrari restore order

A mystery of three seconds

First pictures of 2015 Manor Car

Sauber Sued

Will Ecclestone be forced to drop the German GP?

Manor driver line-up

U-Turn for Spice Boy

More Monza uncertainty

Manor passes FIA crash test

Manor is back

Manor-Marussia have confirmed that they will race in Melbourne. The team that became the first of the ‘new teams’ to score points last year does now also appear to be the only survivor. According to a press release of yesterday they will run a modified 2014 car that has been adapted to satisfy the 2015 rule book. A completely new challenger is expected to be introduced over the course of the season.

The team also confirmed that the investor, who was the key to their survival is indeed Northern Irishman Stephen Fitzpatrick. Former Sainsbury boss Justin King is part of the rescue team as well and was named interim president of the Manor-Marussia squad.

The only thing that stands between the team and their return to F1 is the crash test today. Only Will Stephen has been named as a driver so far, with a second name to be announced before Melbourne.


Ferrari restore order

When Jarno Trulli departed F1, the sport was left without an Italian on the grid for the first time in a very long while. Ferrari have now delivered a number of Friday outings for their young talent Raffaele Marciello – in the Sauber – the first of which will be at the Malaysian GP and so the lack of Mediterranean flair in F1 will be partially remedied.

Marciello heralded the good news via his Twitter account yesterday. As of now, Sauber have not disclosed which of the regular drivers, Felipe Nasr or Marcus Ericsson, will have to relinquish their seat for FP1. However, this will not be the last time we see Marciello on the Friday of a GP weekend this season.


A mystery of three seconds

Although several media outfits, including Sky Italia and Spain’s El Mundo are still not convinced that the electric shock theory is dead, first informations from F1’s second most credible source after Ron Dennis – the FIA – deny that Alonso could have been zapped by the car’s high capacity batteries.

Although El Mundo claims that the Honda PU has only three safety mechanisms to safeguard its electric systems, as opposed to five on the competing designs, it would still take failure of all three for Alonso to receive an electric shock. According to FIA this hasn’t happen as the indicator shows all electric systems in operation as long as the car moves and switches to green ten seconds after the car has become stationary.

Immediately after the accident Sebastian Vettel, who was driving behind Alonso, had reported that it had not looked like an accident. At a suspected speed of about 150kph Alonso seemed to veer right suddenly. The German called the scene “strange”. After he had been to the McLaren garage, he changed his tune, claiming he had not been close enough to see more than the end of the accident.

An analysis of the so far available FIA data done by Auto Motor und Sport, however, confirms Vettel’s initial version. The telemetry shows that Alonso enters the Renault corner at a speed of 215kph, which Sky Britain had falsely reported as the speed at which Alonso had lost control of the car.

At the corner entry Alonso applied full breaking power and shifted down three times, decelerating the car to a speed of 135kph, close to the speed that Vettel had estimated. The reasons for Alonso’s sudden deceleration are unclear, however such a strong breaking manoeuvre would not be needed in case of aerodynamic interference by wind.

At a speed at 135kph the car sharply changes direction towards the inside of the corner by direct steering input from the driver, who from that point on is no longer in control of the car. After veering right, the car travels towards the wall in a time of three seconds where it impacts at a speed of 105 kph.

During those 3 seconds between leaving the normal racing line and hitting the wall, the driver appears to take no measures to avert or lessen the severity of the impact, as manifested by the absence of any further steering input and the fact that the car loses a mere 30kph of speed in that time.

McLaren insist they cannot say what had happened in those three seconds and the man who could has no recollection of the event. Ron Dennis admitted that Alonso had lost consciousness for a short time, but did not specify whether that was before or after the impact.

It appears that the solution to the mystery lies within those three seconds between veering off and impacting the wall, but so far nobody is able to tell what happened. This could well explain Alonso’s prolonged hospital stay and his cancelling of the Australia start.

If the Spaniard suffered any medical condition that rendered him unconscious before the impact, as the data seem to suggest, it would be irresponsible to to return, before it has been found out what it was.


First pictures of 2015 Manor Car

Former Williams designer Nicolas Perrin had announced last year that he was working on a 2015 “F1 car for everybody”. The concept was and still is rather interesting for the fact that it would be the only rule compliant F1 car not built by any competitor. This would of course be mucho interesting for Pirelli or any engine manufacturer with an ambition to join the sport. It would allow them to test with a current car without running afoul of the FIA rules.

For the moment however, these plans will have to wait, as Mr. Perrin has joined the Manor-Marussia team and his work on the “Opensource F1 car” could well become the base for the 2015 Manor car that is expected later in the season.

The new Manor car? A CGI of Perrin's Opensource F1 challenger

The new Manor car? A CGI of Perrin’s Opensource F1 challenger


Sauber Sued

It appears the chickens are coming home to roost for Monisha Kaltenborn. In a moment of frustration following negotiations with Bernie Ecclestone over finance, Monisha retorted to a journalist’s question, “contracts in F1 are worth nothing”. Kaltenborn later recanted, however it became apparent that both Adrian Sutil and Giedo van der Garde were about to discover the truth spoken by Kaltenborn as their signed contracts were torn up and they were replaced by Felipe Nasr and Marcus Ericsson.

Giedo van der Garde took legal action in Switzerland and won his case as Sauber were ordered to “refrain from taking any action the effect of which would be to deprive Mr van der Garde of his entitlement to participate in the 2015 Formula One Season as one of Sauber’s two nominated race drivers.”

As yet Sauber have refused to acknowledge this judgement and so van der Garde has applied to the Supreme Court in Victoria, Australia for what is in effect an enforcement order.

Documents lodged with the court state that by failing t name Van der Garde as their race driver for the upcoming race, Sauber have demonstrated “an intention to breach, if not an actual breach, of the Award by the Respondent.”

There will be a hearing in Victoria on Monday where Giedo van der Garde will press to be given a drive in one of the Sauber cars 4 days later in Melbourne. In itself, this is an occasion of note, because the Supreme Court does not open on public holidays, such as Labour Day.


It’s interesting that Giedo van der Garde is not requesting damages, but asking for reinstatement. As a pay driver, van der Garde should easily be able to demonstrate substantive damages from a breach of contract, due to the highly exclusive nature of racing in Formula One.

Assessing those damages is more tricky, though if it is ruled that a breach of contract has occurred, the Respondent can be forced to fulfil the original contract and prohibited Sauber from replacing the Dutchman with another driver.

This would see Van der Garde driving for Sauber next weekend – against the wishes of the team’s hierarchy – which is bizarre – but this is F1.

Leagle Beagle Kaltenborn has got herself into a bit of a pickle, because the worse case scenario for van der Garde is that he is paid substantial damages – which may be worth more than the incremental cash either Nasr or Ericsson brought to Sauber when replacing GvD.


Will Ecclestone be forced to drop the German GP?

Bernie’s ‘devil may care’ attitude towards the German GP should fool no one. In January when asked whether the German GP would be cancelled, Ecclestone quipped, “But we’ve got one, it’s called Austria.”

This bluster is all part of the negotiating game, and since then Ecclestone has met representatives from both Hockenheim and the Nurburgring – who are scheduled to host this year’s German F1 GP.

In 2013 the management company for Nurburgring was insolvent and we faced similar brinksmanship over whether the race would in fact go ahead. A last minute deal was done, which in effect saw FOM retain the ticket receipts and pay for the circuit costs.

Since then the famous circuit has changed hands, although it appears the new owners are not prepared to pay the hosting fee Ecclestone demands.

In days of yore this would almost certainly mean that the race would just be canned, but with CVC still trying to ship Formula One, this would be damaging to their image and call other contractual revenue streams which run many years into the future into question.

During testing the matter was raised again with Ecclestone who indicated a deal must be done before the start of the season.  The clock is ticking, but it is almost inconceivable that for the first time since 1960, 2015 will see no German GP – particularly with Mercedes as World Champions.


Manor driver line-up

Manor Racing are preparing to have their cars shipped to Australia tomorrow and now all the talk turns to who will partner Will Stevens.

Clearly, this matter is not finalised as Graham Lowden reveals they are looking at “some very quick young guy.

It looks to be bad news for Giedo van der Garde as Lowden implies their recruit will be a rookie. “Manor has always had a history of bringing some great driving talent on to the grid and we really want to try and continue that. What we are looking for is a quick driver and with the right temperament to have the challenges that they are going to have in a small team facing this kind of comeback.

“It’s not a straightforward decision but hopefully one we can make very soon.”

There are a number of drivers who may fit this description, though TJ13 believes McLaren young driver, Stoffel van Doorme is in the frame. This move would of course generate speculation about Manor Racing taking a Honda engine at some point this season.

The car for Melbourne will be 2015 compliant, but is a revision of the 2014 Marussia and will run with a 2014 Ferrari engine. However, when Manor introduce their 2015 car following the flyaway races, it will be installed with a 2015 power unit


U-Turn for Spice Boy

“I think it’s important that we get costs under control, that all teams are viable operating concerns,” Christian Horner tells City A.M. “Obviously the power unit is a big cost-driver so that’s an element that needs looking at with quite a bit of urgency. I think they’re the fundamental things and that’s in everybody’s interests. I think there’s a lot going on discussion-wise but, as always, we talk a lot without concluding as much as we should have done.

“The most important thing that we do collectively is look to try and address the current issues with the power unit in terms of the cost and the burden that’s placing not just on the customer teams but also on the manufacturers themselves. So I think fundamentally that’s the most important thing we need to look at in the very near future.”

Red Bull were one of the reasons the Resource Restriction Agreement collapsed when they walked out of FOTA. The Austrian owned team have always railed against cost caps and measures to improve transparency – including the FIA’s proposal to be able to scrutinise F1 team’s supplier information.

Yet facing another season of not challenging for any titles and the realistic prospect of being beaten into third or fourth place in the constructor’s championship, Horner has apparently ‘seen the light’

The engine manufacturers have kicked into touch any significant changes until at least 2017, which makes Horner’s comments all the more risible.

“I think it’s important we have good racing and obviously the closer the field is, the better the racing will be. I think that’s the most fundamental thing that fans appreciate,” added the Red Bull team principal.

“The power unit at the moment is a big performance differentiator. I think the gap between the best and the worst needs to be reduced, and that will automatically create closer racing.”

Red Bull’s ambition is to get Toro Rosso up the constructors table and onto the F1 strategy group, which would mean they have more influence on matters such as this.


More Monza uncertainty

For many F1 fans, particularly those form the land of pizza and pasta, the Autodromo Nazionale in Monza is both an iconic cathedral of speed and the spiritual home of the Italian GP.

Yet this venue’s grip on hosting a Formula One event has been slipping since the circuit irector friend of Bernie Ecclestone was sacked 3 years ago.

Monza pays a pittance of a hosting fee to FOM and Bernie has more than intimated this is about to change in 2016.

Further storm clouds on the horizon gathered for Monza when new tax legislation was proposed in Italy that would see them lose around 20m euros in tax rebates.

Word of an exemption being negotiated was the last we heard, but yesterday this was squashed.

Local politician Paolo Grimaldi is furious. “We did not ask for a cent, only that they would ratify something bureaucratic. It is intolerable that the government is against the Italian grand prix.”

The circui8ts COO, Andrea dell’Orto has been left with no option.  “So now I will ask directly for a meeting with (Italian PM) Renzi.”

With the exception of 1980 – an F1 race has been held at the Autodromo Nazionale since the inception of the sport.

Manor passes FIA crash test

The cars will leave for Melbourne tomorrow and the race is on now to appoint a second driver (boom)

81 responses to “#F1 Daily News and Comment: Thursday 5th March 2015

  1. Perhaps Ron suddenly remembered how much money fernando cost him during the spygate scandal and he decided to press the “mclaren applied technologies driver encouragement mode TM” button a little too long!

        • He doesn’t. He gets it wrong again. If “this driver has seen” the GPS data, he obviously got it completely wrong. Because others who have seen them come up with other numbers and they all have one thing in common – they are the same among them and different from what Benson says

          • From Andrew Benson’s article today (hyperlink in prior comment above):

            “He loses control at a speed of about 215km/h (134mph), give or take a km/h or so.”

            Andrew Benson makes clear that is from the GPS information that is provided to all the teams.

            In addition, he cites the opinion of F1 engineers on this same data:

            “One highly-experienced engineer said: “Nothing I can see in the GPS data makes me think it was anything other than him going too fast and losing control… the engineer added it was “a bit odd” that Alonso would suddenly slam the brakes on in this manner if he had lost control.”

            Mr. Benson also wrote, “Engineers who have seen the GPS data say the deceleration trace is almost identical to that for braking into Turn Four, a hairpin.”

            Given the gaping discrepancy in how Michael Schmidt and Andrew Benson have interpreted data from the crash, it’s worth reviewing Michael Schmidt’s source(s).

            Does he quote any engineers?

            Why does Michael say, “Der FIA-Unfalldatenrecorder zeichnet in km/h und nicht in mph auf.”? Is that true? Or does the black box only capture data points, and software is then used to convert the data points into units of speed (such as meters per second, or km/h, or mph)?

            Are there are any other sources reporting on the crash data besides these two sources, BBC and AMuS?

      • It would be valuable for someone, or some site to analyze the similarities and differences between Andrew Benson’s two BBC reports, and Michael Schmidt’s two Auto Motor und Sport’s reports.

        In particular, it would be good to know Michael Schmidt’s source of data and analysis.

        In this write-up here, (assumption is this is all based upon Mr. Schmidt’s AMuS articles) Michael’s source is described as the FIA:
        * “According to FIA this hasn’t happen…” (sic)
        * “…the so far available FIA data…”
        * “…telemetry shows…”

        I’ve not seen that the FIA has released any data publicly about this.

        What (or who) are the sources for Michael Schmidt’s AMuS Alonso crash articles?

        On the same day that he released his first article, (Friday, 27 Feb), he had four readers ask him why the weird discrepancy on the speed at which Alonso lost control between BBC’s Andrew Benson articl of the same day and his article (215km/h vs 135km/h respectively).

        After five days passed, Michael responded in the comments section to those queries and cited the FIA accident data recorder (ADR or blackbox) as his source.

        Is the blackbox data his only source of information?

        • Who is helping Michael Schmidt interpret this data? Does he cite any F1 / race engineers?

          I do hope that the vast difference between Andrew Benson’s reports on this data, and Michael Schmidt’s reports is not due to Andrew Benson working with experienced F1 engineers to help interpret this data while Michael Schmidt is trying to do it all of his own interpretation and analysis by himself in his office.

          • Le sigh

            He crashed
            Banged his head
            Thought it was 1995
            May or may not have defecated himself
            Possibly saw tweety bird(s)
            Not racing in Australia
            Ron disagrees with Alonso
            Alonso disagrees with Ron
            McLaren are a slick, well run publicity machine – and a big happy family again 😉

      • In engineering when analysing it is traditional to do a ‘back of fag packet’ calculation to check that what you are speculating is in the right ‘ballpark’.

        At a speed at 135kph the car sharply changes direction towards the inside of the corner by direct steering input from the driver, who from that point on is no longer in control of the car. After veering right, the car travels towards the wall in a time of three seconds where it impacts at a speed of 105 kph.

        135kph = 37.5 m/sec

        From the famous photograph we know that the brakes on the car were applied to the point the one wheel was skidding. Under these conditions a typical F1 car decelerates in excess of 4G.

        G = 9.81 m/sec.

        Braking at 4G for 3 secs generates a reduction in speed of 9.81 × 3 = 29.43 m/sec.

        Velocity following 3 secs deceleration 37.5 − 29.43 = 8.07 m/sec.

        8.07 m/sec = 29kph.

        From these simple checks we know there is a problem with above quote.

        • Except that maximum braking is not done with a wheel locked; as in acceleration a slip rate of 5% -10% (or something like) is optimum; maximum braking requires rotating wheels. Also, at lower speeds downforce is greatly reduced (probably by a v² factor) and braking becomes mostly mechanical grip with a decreasing deceleration as speed approaches 0. You should probably redo the analysis.

          • So a wheel stopped turning – not necessarily from braking effect?

          • Now that you mention it, it is odd to see the streak of rubber from a single wheel. If you nail the brakes and a wheel is lightly loaded it will lock first, but for that distance without another locking also? Don’t know.

          • Except that maximum braking is not done with a wheel locked

            Only when the wheel is locked due to the surface being slippery eg: ice.

            Otherwise when a wheel locks a flat spot is created increasing the contact patch – also the tyre compound is heated increasing its’ ‘stickyness’. When the tyre carcase is reached the retardation decreases.

        • Another major problem with this calculation is the assumption that his wheel was locked for 3 secs. The skid mark would need to be ~100 metres long but it is clearly nowhere near that length.
          Also, the trajectory is strange, as the lockup begins the skidmark is on a trajectory that would have him going straight ahead and missing the wall. Seems to me that it is either a secondary overcorrection or that he simply slammed on the brakes and steered into the wall.

          • If you do the converse calculation ie: assume initial speed 135kph final speed 105kph it becomes –

            3 secs * 33.34 m/sec (120kph) = 100m distance travelled.

            Average velocity 33.34 m/sec / 3 = 11.11 m/sec retardation.

            11.11 / 9.81 = 1.1G.

            Most road cars can achieve that without skiddng! so why did the wheel lock?

          • Sorry I guess I meant to point out that you are assuming he was threshold braking for the whole 3 seconds, which you’ve proved is almost certainly incorrect. If hippo’s source is to be believed then one explanation that matches the skid marks is that he spent the first ~2.5 secs of that just coasting along at ~135kph then stomped on the brakes and steered into the wall.

        • “Braking at 4G for 3 secs generates a reduction in speed of 9.81 × 3 = 29.43 m/sec.”

          That looks like only 1G to me. Should it not be 4 x 9.81 x 3?

          • Whoops! My mistake – you are correct. So in fact he would have stopped before hitting the wall!

            braking time to stopping = 0.96 secs
            distance travelled = 17.92 metres

            In UK the highway code calculated stopping distance from 135kph (84mph) is 107metres, which equates to 5.7 seconds – so F1 cars have approx 6x better braking performance!

            Just shows how easy it is to screw up! Thanks!

  2. I know its a boring subject but my car and your writer’s doesn’t have breaks. Last time I looked they were called brakes

    • I’m with you, Rob, and have said it myself several times. A car racing blog should get ‘brakes’ right.

      • At 4am after only two hours of sleep and English as not my native language, I’m occasionally prone to make the one or other spelling mistake.

        • Well, Fat Hippo, your English is way better than a lot of native English posters here…..and WAY better than my German (which is non-existent) so sorry, didn’t mean to insult you. Your efforts are much appreciated by me.

          • No offense taken, Sir.
            Funnily enough I’ve often needled the heck out of my fellow writers about spelling, but I’m of course not immune myself.
            Normally we can pay more attention, but I had to write something up within an hour, so quality took a bit of a hit. Tomorrow’s news had a bit more time to produce.
            Carlo, our news editor will be back next week and I must say, I don’t envy his job. It’s harder work than it looks.

  3. Alonso bit: change “sharpy ” and “uncoscious” and I think we’re good to go.
    Not a huge fan of Alonso but respect his driving skills.
    The three second thing is downright chilling.

    • and I suggest to TJ team to read the article written by Franco from AS Spanish, a friend of Alonso and his family

      it’s in spanish, but it’s worth read and brings the idea that the thing is mych more serious, to begin with the title “when F1 doesn’t matters”

      and it hurts me to think that Alonso probably had serious consequences, which they’re denying

  4. Judge – any credibility to the rumour that Alonso said that he thought he had been driving a Ferrari just after the crash?

    That one scares me a little tbh.

    Apologies if this has already been discussed.

    Also – please remind your website that it is indeed Thursday :p.

    Time to give your proof reader the boot? They aren’t doing a very good job…

    • I suspect he thought he was driving for Ferrari after he was “woken up” in hospital…it doesn’t sound like he was capable of much communication directly after the crash…It does sound plausible to me…he’d been driving for Ferrari for years and only a few weeks for McLaren…one would be much more deeply ingrained in his long term memory than the other…often people have difficulty even remembering their date of birth when they’re concussed…and other equally ingrained memories…

  5. .. confused as to which team? He could be. Remember Lewis drove into the McLaren pit when he stared driving for Mercedes so, old habits etc .. 🙂

    • Probably not his best idea – forcing a team to give you a seat when they dont want to…. I can’t imagine the team willingly work with him in a way that they would with someone they want in the car

      • It’s about getting his money (partly) back. Apparantly Vd garde went to the contract recognition board and they concluded his contract was valid.
        So what to do then? I think it’s the only option left.

      • This will either have the result that Sauber’s season is over before it starts because having Giedo race in Australia for Sauber will only result in problems with other contracts and money that was provided by Ericsson and Nasr their sponsors and already spent. The other possible result will be that the contract will be terminated properly and Giedo’s sponsor gets part of his money back and Sauber will have financial problems later on in the season. Either this spells a lot of trouble for Sauber that could have been prevented if they have played it nice and correct in November but since that ship has already sailed I’m afraid Sauber will have even more financial problems this season than already reported

        • There is another option. If Kaltenborn can demonstrate that she had no other choice to keep the team alive, the court will rule that the needs of the many outweight the needs of two drivers and he’ll be out of luck. And Kaltenborn knew that when she did it. She’ll probably have all pertaining papers ready to present.

          • But this argument has already been tested before the Arbitration Institution – and found wanting – apparently van der Garde was not offered the opportunity to match or better the funding brought by his replacement driver.

            This renders the ‘survival defense’ null and void

          • What’s not how contract law works though. You cannot just honor part of a contract (taking the money) and not another part of the contract, just because the other side has problems.

            Imagine ordering some stuff at a web shop and the shop just taking your money without delivering the product, just because they have financial problems. It would be absurd.

          • If that happens Giedo will still be able to demand compensation since the contract has been recognized as valid and the income from the new sponsors can therefore be used to compensate Giedo. So maybe she can prevent him from driving the car but she will not be able to prevent him from getting compensation… all in all it’s a very dirty situation and Sauber’s reputation has been badly hurt by miss Kaltenborn’s actions… the way she has handled things might even rival Force India’s dirty actions against Manor in how low they are

    • I don’t really understand van der Garde’s motivation for all this. Fair enough he feels they broke the contract but surely he has to have more pride than force his way into a seat the team don’t want him to have.

      He can’t be after any compensation for the breach of contract, as he was going to be a pay driver, so he hasn’t lost any money. Unless some was paid upfront to Sauber, but I can’t imagine that being the case as not even an F1 team would be stupid enough to take his money and then deny him the seat.

      Maybe he’s just really deluded that he’s good enough to be in F1, after pretty much having to take a GP2 seat at the age of 30, as his only other option. This just smacks of desperation on his part, and frankly I find it embarrassing. I sympathise with Sauber on this front, having to be in the position to do whatever it takes to stay afloat is a dreadful position to be in. Before people start claiming they are as bad as Force India, look at it this way. Screwing a millionaire driver out of a race seat is nowhere near as bad as potentially sinking another company, full of regular people trying to keep a roof over their families heads. Ethically it’s all kinds of wrong, but morally I back Sauber with their actions to keep the team afloat. If only there was a governing body that could sort this horrible mess out……

      • Giedo had a valid contract that Sauber chose to ignore. The Swiss contract recognition board said Giedo has a valid contract and as with any valid contract if you want to get rid of it it has to be by mutual agreement. Ms. Kaltenborn refused to even talk to Giedo to come to a mutual agreement, she didn’t even give Giedo his sponsors the chance to match the offer by Nasr or Ericsson. After all this Sauber didn’t even want to talk about a proper compensation so this is the only action left for Giedo to at least force Sauber to come to an agreement. And if Sauber has to take Giedo as their driver the team (engineers and mechanics) won’t have a problem with Giedo, they have a problem with Monisha for making a mistake that make Sauber look like the clowns of the grid.

        P.S. Giedo agreed to test a GP2 car but he never agreed to drive in GP2 again for a whole season 😉

      • McGregor (van der Gardes sponsor) did sponsor Sauber for 2014 and I don’t think they are that naive just to pay for a test driver seat. Had to look into the archives because it wasn’t on the car very prominent.
        McGregor still believes in the contract because Sauber is still mentioned on their website (http://www.mcgregor-fashion.com/worldofmcgregor/racing/sauberformulaone)
        The damages of Giedo not driving means McGregor gets stuck with their Sauber cothingline 🙂

      • Maybe Giedo’s (almost family) sponsor is taking the action?
        It seems sponsorship last season was leveraged on being full time this season, which hasn’t and won’t happen?

    • Interesting. Why are there two blue (compressor) parts on the Honda? Also, anyone know why Honda prefix their chassis or engines with “RA”?

    • Apparently being the operative word; consensus seems a little lacking.
      I’m not saying that depiction is wrong, heck there’re many sites even now that show the Mercedes unit as per the misdirection they issued way back when………

  6. “For the moment however, these plans will have to wait, as Mr. Perrin has joined the Manor-Marussia team and his work on the “Opensource F1 car” could well become the base for the 2015 Manor car ”

    If the car is open-source, then it’s open-source. Even if at one point the car design is relicensed under a proprietary license, the latest open-source revision is still accessible to all, and can be used for any purpose and modified under the terms allowed by the license.

    Usual disclaimer: Never trust legal advice on the internet, and call your damn lawyer.

    • I take it then that Haas bought the CAD data as well as the model? If not, surely Manor could continue to use it once they exit administration? Why would they need to bring in a new design? Unless it’s better/had more work done with no restrictions..

  7. RE: Manor driver line-up

    I thought Vandoorne was already dismissed as a candidate along with Magnussen? Anyway, alot of chatter is pointing in (Robin) Frijns his way. Which would be a good thing as he beat guys like Jules Bianchi and Carlos Sainz. All things considered the amount of pure paydrivers on the grid will be at a minumum. Just Stevens and Ericsson in my view. Maldonado has the pace and not the brains but atleast he brings a spectacle. And Nasr has plenty of talent in my view.

  8. Per Alonso shunt: Has the subject of rubber gloves not being worn by marshals and especially McLaren mechanics been broached here? I could continue thinking there is a chance a shock was involved even if marshall approached the car without thinking it was driver or car error the caused the accident. But surely McLaren people would have been warned before entering the fray if there was a chance of one or more of them incurring an electric shock.

  9. Re Manor running 2014 Ferrari engine – I thought this has been discussed a while back and only one engine can be homologated per manufacturer at a time, so if Ferrari and Sauber are running the 2015 engine then Manor would have to run it as well?

    Or did we get another take on that rule at some point that I missed?

    • But only the 2014 engine is homologated, due to the FIA’s oversight. When Ferrari use up all their 32 development tokens – the 2015 engine will be homologated and then the 2014 engine cannot be used

      • Mr ArriveWell seemed quite unequivocal about Manor’s using the 2014 p/u when he announced it. Case of another not too well advised Man-at-the-Top?

        • Manor are supposed to be releasing a full 2015 spec later this year, and I suspect that they will be doing it with switching to the 2015 pu. For now changing the engine mountings and any other details that are not demanded by the 2015 regs is probably not worth it, after all their main priority now must surely just be getting their backsides to Melbourne with a legal car, and taking part, to qualify for their 2014 cash. If that falls into place, then I imagine the new 2015 car and PU look more realistic later in the season, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Marciello, if not early in the season, maybe when they switch PU, do a Bianchi and get the second seat by way of softening that Ferrari engine bill. I imagine for Ferrari, having data from two more cars is worth something.

          • P.S this fits well with the judges point about homologation, because if Manors new car can take the 2015 power unit by later season, then they can homologate and all 6 cars can run it.

  10. Re spice-boy u-turn….

    So Christian is worried about the price of the PU’s and think that they should be capped, but unless i’m mistaken, doesn’t Redbull get there engines for free?

    • I must confess I’m also searching my memory for Christian’s expressing fondness for “closer racing” when Red Bull were winning umpteen consecutive races and/or championships!

      • We had more different winners in every of the RB championship years. The only period they were anywhere near as dominant was the second half of 2013 and that was just a case that everyone else had given up by July and were already working on the 2014 cars. RB never was as dominant that nobody was even in contention for second place. It was just Seb ahead, because he had perfectly adapted to the EBD. Mark was most of the time racing the other cars.

        • If we ignore the dominace of the Mercedes, the fact still remains, when Redbull was ahead of the pack, they cared nothing about anyone but themselves. There was no talk of capping cost, better racing for the good of the sport or any of the malarkey that he’s complaining about.

    • @Fortis96, he also mentions the cost to the manufacturers (Renault) and the cost of development etc, but I think Renault are squirming a bit as they need to spend hard to catch up, but only sell 8 units this year compared to 16 last year. That’s a loss of half their income, when they know they must spend double to make an impact. My personal opinion is that they just had a half assed attempt at this PU and made a playground level mistake by thinking Mercedes wouldn’t throw everything including the kitchen sink at their PU and chassis. I mean come on, did they really think that knowingly putting half the number of engineers on the project as was reported in the media way back, then only chucking in the money they found down the boardroom sore as budget was going to anything else but make them look down right stupid! Not to mention the stupid employment laws in France, limiting working hours their tiny team could actually work…….how on earth did they expect a different outcome?
      I think it’s more about the fact if they only come say 4th they lose a fair bit of Bernie money, as we know teams spend what they have. So Horner I believe is either, allowing himself to be used as a bit of a mouth piece by Renault, OR wants to nail the issue of PU costs to teams and development as a precursor to RedBull producing their own PU, maybe not badged as RedBull, but definitely funded by them.

    • Christian is vitally concerned for the welfare of the less well-off teams on the grid. He’s also keen on everyone having a chance to win.

      His comments were made with the best interests of the sport in mind.

      He’s a truly selfless individual.


        • things are noot appearing to be good, now the austrian media reports he has a psychological condition, that quite fits with the “sombre” tone of yesterday article written by Manuel Franco of the AS sports newspaper

          I think we might be prepared for some shocking news, no pun intended

          • Well given all his Samurai carry on, that’s extremely believable.
            In fact I believe it stems from his being dropped on his head as a baby.

          • quite sad, if those news are true, another blow at the already beaten F1

            even not liking Alonso, I do feel for somebody having to jump out in such manner

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.