The Manor-Marussia Saga

  • Thread starter Thread starter TenEightyOne
  • 601 comments
  • 36,660 views
Agreed, it is pretty much an Intellectual Property, but it remains a property nonetheless. CVC and partners have a lease over the commercial exploitation of it. It has proven pretty lucrative, so you could imagine other funds could manifest some interests.

Maybe some top players in the field do have such interests. If what happens now results from a tentative to lower the value before an eventual trade of shares, you may wonder how deeply financial matters have further affected Formula One as a sportive discipline.

Past tentatives have proven the shortcomings of a dissidence. I doubt anyone would consider a parallel championship a viable alternative. And the fact that the FIA could possibly have to arbitrate over the status of 3 entrants in the 2015 Championship does give them, IMO, more than the subsidiary role you confine them.
 
I doubt anyone would consider a parallel championship a viable alternative. And the fact that the FIA could possibly have to arbitrate over the status of 3 entrants in the 2015 Championship does give them, IMO, more than the subsidiary role you confine them.

I don't say they're subsidiary but all they own is the name and specification of the formula (and the regulatory rights therein).

Let's split the two; the FIA and the physical F1 presence. If each stands alone which is more viable; the rule framework with no cars or the 9-12 teams with cars/funds/drivers ready to race? My money's on the second ;)
 
Christian Horner - of all people - has put together a sensible proposal: standardised ERS from 2016. He wants the FIA to allow manufacturers do develop their own ICE, provided that it is compatible with a spec ERS system.
 
He's a works driver in WEC and gets paid to drive. In F1 he'd have to bring money in to get the drive with a crap team. F1 is a complete joke these days. He's better off in WEC as would every good driver if they had any sense at all.
Think of it as an Apprenceship, everything else is considered lesser and you have to earn your stripes.

The Only teams that will consider you without money have younger more talented drivers to hire.
 
Quick question, does anyone know if the livery sponsors Caterham are running in Abu Dhabi are from the larger crowd funded donations or are they separate investors?
 
Vijay Mallya has exploded on Twitter, accusing the big teams of essentially holding the technical regulations hostage by demanding an unequal cut of the revenue.
 
I just read that. It's fantastic. Gloves off, gentlemen (but only over 50 for Bernie).
 
Ah thanks for the pointer, resolved until the next battle I guess.
 
Well, the big teams are now in a difficult position. FOM and CVC are on-side, and the FIA will be natural allies as they have been pursuing cost-cutting for some time. They don't have the balance of power in the Strategy Working Group, but of the five biggest teams, only three of them - Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes - have really weighed in. The smaller teams only need to get McLaren or Williams into their little coalition and they can get any regulations through the SWG. Of the two, Williams will probably be the easier of the two to sway, as they have recent experience of the back of the grid.

What's more, with an alliance between FOM, CVC, the FIA and the smaller teams, it will become increasingly difficult for the biggest teams to justify opposing cost-cutting. Or so I hope.
 
Finbarr O'Connell reckons there is genuine interest in Caterham from someone who knows the sport (Briatore? Jordan? ... Stoddard?), while Graeme Lowdon is still trying to salvage something of the team while they auction off bits and pieces from around the factory.
 
Someone with the Twitter handle Monsieur_F1 reckons Zoran Stefanovic is going to buy Marussia ...
 
Wow, fascinating and sad at the same time.

The car is unusable even if one added an engine, at least for the next three years (is it two now after 2014?) but nonetheless I expect it to be snapped up. That's a £50 million sportscar, I'd love that in my living room :D :D
 
What I would be surprised about is if they show up for at least most if not all of the sessions.
 
Ι believe this is the correct topic to post this. So, here's some info about Marussia's 2015 car from an ex member of their design team

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=547117#p547117

Hello everyone, let me introduce myself as an ex member of the Marussia design team.

I thought as I am no longer under contract with Marussia or Manor I would reply to some of the questions posed on this forum. Im not going to spill all the bean, just correct some of the rumours as many of the staff were quite proud of the windtunnel model and the design direction the car was heading in.

The incomplete Marussia 2015 Formula 1 car design has been revealed after the teams financial collapse. Shown here as an incomplete wind tunnel model the car which would have been called the Manor MNR1-Ferrari carries over much of the 2014 design.

This car is almost complete, the wheels and a small section under the nose are removed ready to place the car in its transport box to McLaren's wind tunnel.

New rules being introduced for the 2015 season mean that the nose structures of the cars have to be reworked and the Manor-Marussia solution is clear to see on this scale model. Compared to the 2014 MR03 the front of the chassis is lower and as a result the front suspension pushrod mountings have created blisters on the upper surface of the tub. A new front wing endplate design is also evident.

The blisters on the chassis are only for the model and is a compromise due to packaging constraints of a 50% model and stuffing it full of sensors and motors to drive the steering, the real car would not have had these.

Manor MNR1At the rear of the car the 2014 concept has largely carried over with the much copied Y-Lon rear wing support. The wing itself is updated compared to the last version seen on a Marussia MR03 (in Sochi), the endplate now features Ferrari style strakes on its outer edge and twin vents on the leading edge instead of the single vent seen at Sochi.

The Y-Lon and monkey wing is actually the same as MR03 as this stage of testing, new designs of rear wing supports and monkey wings were designed and due for testing including a "Yuan-Lon".

"It is conceivable that Marussia had intended to modify its MR03 chassis to meet the new for 2015 rules in an attempt to reduce costs, which highlights the amount of similarity seen with the new design, but also its likely that the Marussia engineers were utilising the same model used for the 2014 design for the 2015 work."

The chassis was going to be all new and was in early production, the surfaces on the upper and lower sections of the nose are very different to MR03. Also the new chassis (known internally as MR04) was several hundred mm shorter than MR03, this was accomplished using a shorter and taller "fuel tank" area of the monocoque. This area of the chassis was quite neatly packaged as above it sloping off on each side were 2 rhomboid shaped heat exchangers feeding from the roll hoop via a Y shaped duct.

"Is it a 50% wind tunnel model?
Or smaller?"

Correct the model is 50% scale.

The second section of the nose seems to have a 'T' shape, (not a simple rectangle because it looks too thin to me).
But it seems they kept the same dimension as the 2014 finger nose for the first section.

Correct there is a keel running under the nose.

Question that may raise then
is, was Marussia effectively over before Japan already or did the test results / windtunnel results for this 2015 prototype
made them decide they've invested and spent money to no luck and it's better to stop effective immidiately?
I like to see varying designs on the 2015 noses, this one is interesting though - but is it practical and effective?

Development of the MR04 started long long before Japan. The wind tunnel model was running in the tunnel back in the early summer, initial design work done back in the spring. MR04 was quite far ahead in terms Cl than MR03 you've seen on track and still a fair bit ahead of the best wind tunnel development of MR03. There was a large update package designed for MR03 that looks like a cross between the car you've seen on track and this wind tunnel model.

That said, am I wrong or the lower part of the chassis below the suspensions is completely missing?

Correct a piece of chassis is missing ahead of the mid barge boards. This section need to be removed for transport within its travel box so a structural piece of the spine of the chassis can be supported, also hence no wheels. The MR04 model was scheduled to be transported to McLarens wind tunnel the day the vast majority were made redundant by the administrator.

I see the little air intake on the airbox is gone.

Yup, that intake was for cooling on the MR03 and quite a late edition. Not for any funky aero like a F-ducts etc.

It seems to me, or the car is shorter?

Yes, see above.

Thats about as far as I want to explain things right now, still seems slightly odd talking about it on here but as i've mentioned myself and the rest of the people involved with the team were really proud of MR04 and the direction it was heading, we felt for sure we would continue our advance up the grid.

Also if anyone from McLaren is reading this i would get in contact with the administrators currently running Marussia/Manor about retrieving the leased equipment (if you've not already) such as the over head model strut and control systems that can be seen in these photos, i would really hate to see that get weighed in for scrap.

And finally i'd like to thank all the forum users here for scouring the internet for photos every GP and digging up all the little easy to over see aero details changes, we do read what you write! Keep up the good work!
 
According to Autosport, the teams will meet on the 18th to try and come up with a solution to the cost crisis. Again. Increasing the smaller teams' revenue is going to be the focus, but my concern is that the engine suppliers will just see an increase in the customer teams' revenue and charge them more for their engines.

Allowing teams to use 2014-spec engines and/or chassis have also been floated as possible solutions.
 
US nomenclature... 12/1 is December 1st...
 
Haven't the FOM said they'll pick up the engine tab for struggling teams next year?
 
Haven't the FOM said they'll pick up the engine tab for struggling teams next year?

Just did a quick search and couldn't see anything matching that story.... and I can't see the idea flying. It's easy to see who the worst-off teams are, it would be agreeing the "cut-off" point above them that would be difficult, I think.

Then, if you were a midfield team who didn't make the cut for FOM engine funding you'd feel at a disadvantage to the grid-row behind you who did.
 
Just did a quick search and couldn't see anything matching that story.... and I can't see the idea flying. It's easy to see who the worst-off teams are, it would be agreeing the "cut-off" point above them that would be difficult, I think.

Then, if you were a midfield team who didn't make the cut for FOM engine funding you'd feel at a disadvantage to the grid-row behind you who did.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cvc-could-pay-small-teams-engine-bills-report/
CVC but still...

And the idea is probably percentage of income related in some way. It will have to fly because soon the "disadvantaged" teams will become backmarkers without it, and nobody sponsors backmarkers. Just look at Williams stealing a couple of sponsors from Lotus.
 
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/cvc-could-pay-small-teams-engine-bills-report/
CVC but still...

And the idea is probably percentage of income related in some way. It will have to fly because soon the "disadvantaged" teams will become backmarkers without it, and nobody sponsors backmarkers. Just look at Williams stealing a couple of sponsors from Lotus.

But that article actually implies that the big teams are protecting themselves. Rather than CVC hand money to the teams who then pay the engine suppliers CVC will simply make the payment directly to the suppliers.

It doesn't say there'll be any more money in total for any teams.

And "stealing" sponsors is a narrow view, sponsor changes/poaches have been part-and-parcel of F1 since the 70s. Sponsors also include performance clauses in contracts in the way that drivers and teams do; very often we don't see the actual political/contractual machinations of sponsorship clauses (or sponsorship clashes).
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder ... are the demise of Marussia and Caterham necessarily a bad thing? The 2015 grid might be down on numbers, but look at the driver line-ups - we're building up to one of the strongest grids in years. Gutierrez, Sutil and Chilton are gone, and the only real pay drivers are Maldonado, Nasr and Ericsson. But even then, those three do have some merit to being there; they're not rich kids living out some kind of wish fulfilment like Chilton. But if Caterham and/or Marussia (as Manor) could be saved, they would almost certainly run pay drivers. Twenty-two cars might be nice, but not when it means entertaining the idea of drivers like Chilton and van der Garde.
 
Back