Charles Pic, Marussia, Suzuka, 2012

Marussia comeback bid dashed by Strategy Group

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Charles Pic, Marussia, Suzuka, 2012In the round-up: The Formula One Strategy Group’s refusal to allow Marussia to compete in this year’s championship under the Manor name using its 2014 chassis may have ended their hopes of returning to F1.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Marussia blocked from using 2014 car (F1i)

The decision not to allow Manor to use last year’s car can only officially be acknowledged by the F1 Commission, but the result of the Strategy Group meeting is likely to make this a formality.

Caterham hopes fade as team's remaining assets go up for sale (BBC)

Teams can miss two races and I'm keeping the 'for sale' signs up for as long as there are interested parties out there.

Offered for sale: The assets of Caterham F1 race team (Wyles Hardy & Co.)

"Offered for Sale: Race & Pit Lane Equipment, 2014 Chassis and Show Cars, F1 Memorabilla, Engineering Plant and Machinery, Works Equipment, IT, Office Furniture & Equipment."

F1 meets for rules revolution talks (Autosport)

If we are going to change F1, we should change it dramatically. Therefore we should change it dramatically for 2017 and then it will be affordable.

Valtteri Bottas Q&A: We will do everything to challenge Mercedes (F1)

I don’t know anything about Kimi’s contract. All I know is that I want to be in the quickest car available. That’s all I can say.

Alonso: McLaren 'more open' than 2007 (ESPN)

"The mentality is very open and the design of the car is quite different from the last couple of years with the arrival of Peter (Prodromou, ex-Red Bull designer) as well."



Daniel Ricciardo, Suzuki Liana, Top Gear, 2015

From the forum

Daniel Ricciardo has been driving Top Gear’s Suzuki Liana (above) for their latest F1 Star in a Reasonably-priced car. More pictures here:

Comment of the day

Sometimes I don’t agree with the Comment of the day and sometimes I agree one hundred percent. This time it’s the latter:

I’ve never understood people that make comments about there being no point in a given team, because they will be fighting at the back or struggling to survive. It just shows a complete lack of understanding of what sport actually is.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris Gordon-Smith, Charlieshan, Motor_Mad and Alec!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Four years ago today a serious rally accident left Robert Kubica with severe injuries which has brought an end to his F1 career, for now at least.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 135 comments on “Marussia comeback bid dashed by Strategy Group”

    1. Where is the sportsmanship Force India???

      1. I would be really disappointed if it’s true about Force India.

        Pull the ladder up jack comes to mind.

      2. In reality it was just that this required anonimity (it was deemed a last minute change of the regulations to allow for a 2014 car to be used) and as FI was the first to say no (because the plans were so lacking in detail about development of the car, where the money was coming from etc) and then there was no reason others had to even vote.

        So yeah, FI called the shot, but they probably were not the only ones who had their doubts, and maybe not even all because of money jr, @woodyd91

        From what emerges in details, I even doubt Marussia itself had real hopes of getting this permitted, but wanted to try nevertheless.

        1. In reality it was just that this required anonimity

          I don’t think anonimity is the word you’re looking for @bascb ;)

          Maybe more teams were going to oppose, but that’s really speculation. The point is that VM has been vocal about giving the smaller teams a chance and overcome political and individual team interests, but at the first possibility he denies a smaller team a chance to be on the grid. Officially because the application “lacked substance”, but are we sure he didn’t do it so he could get more money for FI from redistributing Marussia’s prize money?

          1. yeah, typed that in a hurry. I saw it but as we can’t edit … @mattds. Would be even worse if they did that, I guess!

            I saw some mentions that apart from Mercedes and Ferrari who didn’t have much of an issue with it most others also had several concerns of this – allowing a different rule spec car to be raced.
            But on the other hand, I am sure it would have had a bigger chance of succeeding if it weren’t the teams who are the ones to “profit” from Marussia/manor not having a right to FOM money that were able to decide on the matter.

      3. The explination FI is giving is very logic.

        There was no plan to support the comeback from Marussia, if the people behind this is seripus they will put all together to keep racing.

        Beside, what good will come to race with a car that was already the slowest in the championship? Cars are lapping almost 2 seconds fasters than last year, Marussia will be a moving chicane, not the least unsafe.

        1. Exactly, @celeste.
          I just read the Autosport article at:, and I agree with FI’s position.

          Call me cynical, but to me it feels like the administrators are trying to get their hands on the prize fund, while there is no serious ambition to compete. What were they going to do with their 2014 car, send it along with a driver and a couple of mechanics around the world to do a few laps and collect their fee?

          The Autosport article concludes with:

          However, with F1’s commercial agreements giving teams the right to miss three races without consequence, Marussia could in theory keep its commercial income if it can somehow build a 2015-compliant car by the Bahrain Grand Prix.

          Such a move would require a large amount of investment.

          If that is not possible, then what is the point of competing at all?

      4. Suddenly I don’t feel so bad about Force India’s own financial plight (Besides the implications for the sport as a whole).

        Very short-sighted.

        He (Bob Fernley) said: “Given the lack of information, uncertain guarantees, and the speculative nature of the application, the decision was taken that it is better to focus on ensuring the continued participation of the remaining independent teams.” – BBC.

        Since when should this have become his concern? More evidence that democracy in sport is unworkable.

        1. Well, it is the concern.

          To be competitive Manor needs a plan and a structure. If they don´t even want to said who is the owner, why the Strategic Group should feel the need to allow them to run?

          As people has pointed out down in the comments allow Manor to run with last year car is unsafe.

          Is funny how people ask for teams to stick with the rules, and when they inforce them they get backlash.

    2. Let them race for gods sake, they earn the prize money last year so don’t steal it if them by being unscrupulous dwads. Scum, subhuman scum!

      1. Quite right Mr Partridge..

      2. Race with what the 2014 car? I’m quite sure it would not be able to qualify for any races, it was the slowest car last year and the 2015 cars are already ~1.5-3s faster.

    3. Appalling rationale. Cutting their noses off to spite their faces. That money will never see their hands either.

    4. Disgusted with the strategy grop. I need a break from this.

      1. The “Strategy Group” is clearly not very strategic. They just signed their own death warrant with the EU.
        You think this won’t influence the decision to investigate them as a cabal!?! Very stupid and they only hurt themselves as they’ll never be allowed to keep Marussia’s prize money once the investigation and the fines role in.
        A monopoly group not only forcing out another team, but trying to steal the prize money the earned….from Jules’ efforts!


    5. Hugely disappointing but not the least bit surprising. It’s just one stupid decision after another from this infernal Strategy Group. When will the FIA learn? Formula 1 teams are obviously going to act in their own best interest, they couldn’t give a toss about the well being of the sport.

    6. And with that decision, they have just killed a hard fighting team, destroyed team spirit, and F1 may have just lost yet another viewer.

    7. Great COTD.

      Very sad that Marussia aren’t being given permission to race, I read else where it was only Force India who objected as they want a share of the prize money when it’s not collected by Marussia. We knew they were struggling financially with their absence from Jerez and the news they may not make Barcelona test1 either just shows how tight they are on cash flow (hardly surprising when you look how VJ has allowed his other business interests to be grossly mismanaged)

      1. @thebullwhipper There are a few twitter quotes saying it was Ferrari and Redbull who didn’t want Marussia to race next year in the 2014 car.

        1. Ferrari voting against this would be a bit bizarre as they must have been part of the agreement for getting Marussia out of administration as they are one of the biggest creditors…

          1. It could actually be the opposite, given the the administration terms would mean over 90% of creditors wouldn’t see any other their money, Ferrari could well be one of those, who knows. If that is the case who would supply them with an engine?

    8. I really hope Marussia will be able to build a car in time (even by missing the first 2-3 rounds) to show them what’s what.
      And anyway, why wouldn’t Marussia be allowed to use last year’s car and changing the parts needed to be a 2015-legal version? There weren’t too many technical changes, they should put on a current nose and just go to races.

      1. I thought that as well, the regulations require teams to build their own cars to comply with current regulations. Who cares when the car was built? If it fits the rules it should be able to race, period.
        Extremely angry (again) with what my dear F1 has become. Like the strategy group teams need Marussia’s money that badly.

      2. @hunocsi They can’t just bolt on a 2015 nose to last year’s chassis to comply with this year’s rules.

        The regulation changes for this year lower the front bulkhead by 50mm. That requires a fundamental redesign.

        Hence the request for the exemption to run last year’s car.

        1. Thanks @Tyler for that well informed reply. I was wondering about this too :)

        2. @tdog I forgot about that…
          But to follow up what I said in my original comment

          I really hope Marussia will be able to build a car in time (even by missing the first 2-3 rounds)

          AMuS now reports that the team will now try to build a car in time for China. Don’t know if it’s possible, but I wish they somehow manage it.

    9. This is a pathetic decision by the F1 Strategy Group. The next time a representative from a team that is a member of the Strategy Group talks about fairness in F1, about cutting costs or encouraging new teams to join, remember this decision.

      There can be little doubt that the Strategy Group has become that which was feared by many from its inception: a gated cabal of the elite teams and financial interests that run the sport. They have shown that they care only about their own interests and not the interests of the smaller teams, the fans, or the sport itself.

      The Strategy Group has refused a plan to cut costs in a time when even midfield teams are struggling for survival

      a team principle whose team is a member of the group has admitted that it is near useless in improving the sport
      <a href=";
      and the excluded smaller teams have called the Strategy Group a ‘cartel’.

      On the cartel point, while the definition is in reality quite a technical one, I think it’s worth reading Article 101 of the Treaty on the Foundation of the European Union which defines a cartel. It states:
      all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which …have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.”
      Now taking this small section of Article 101 and applying it to the facts of the Strategy Group, how could refusing a team entry, refusing to cut costs and refusing to assist teams that are struggling to stay afloat in any way not be seen as be seen as preventing or restricting competition in F1?

      It’s clear. The Strategy Group is a poisonous and destructive element inside of the sport, and it has to go. If we’re ever going to have a full grid, fair and equitable rule changes and sensible cost cutting measures in the sport it’ll be done without a self-interested club of the sport’s wealthiest teams and profiteering members of FOM dictating to those trying to compete in a rigged game.

      1. Ah I ruined the links I meant to include. My bad. I’m not good at this stuff at all. If anyone’s interested read about the articles I meant to link they’re here:

      2. Have to agree in every single word. I reckon that if F1 was properly managed by FIA and not by FOM and the strat group, it’d be in better shape. Hell, look at WEC, 35 cars, most of them privateers. WRC is slowly coming back from its ashes. Rallycross now an official FIA sanctioned series is more popular than never. It’s true that not only FIA manages them (ACO, IMSA for example), but these are clear examples of how to do things right.
        Top comment mate.

        1. @carlitox Thanks. Those are some great examples you’ve provided. I think WEC, which is going from strength to strength is a great example of how a top class motorsport should be run. I’ve started watching it and I’m loving what I’ve seen. It’s got a healthy grid and it’s not threatening to collapse in on itself every few months which is a breath of fresh air!

          1. @colossal-squid I’m glad you are enjoying the WEC. I go to Le Mans every year, and am going to go to the Silverstone round this year as well. There is always great racing, and you don’t constantly hear about the politics of the sport. I’m not saying there aren’t any, as the LMP1 class has it’s fair share of teams pushing the rules and huge budgets being spent, but at least the focus is on the racing. I’ll keep watching F1, as I love the technology, engineering and the wheel to wheel racing, but it’s hard to stay positive about it when it is so political.

      3. The funny thing is, Force India were the most vocal users of the word ‘cartel’, yet since they finished 6th last year, I think they stopped using it.


      4. “They wanted to come in with last year’s car and it didn’t get accepted,” F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone told the Independent. “It needed all the teams to agree and there were three or four of them that didn’t agree.
        have a look

        1. Thanks for the link. My reading of Bernie’s comments is that it needed unanimity from all the teams that are part of the Strategy Group, not all the teams on the grid. If 3 or 4 of those teams blocked it that’s the overwhelming majority of teams in the strategy group.
          Also note that Bernie was silent on his own say in the matter as part of the group. Knowing his previous comments on how he views minnow teams like Marussia I think it’s a fair bet he didn’t agree to having them use last years car either.

          1. @colossal-squid

            No, in order to ratify any changes for the current seasons, ALL teams must agree, not just those in the strategy group. Hence why Force India were able to object, despite not being in the SG.

            I also, frankly, think it’s absolutely the right decision not to allow them entry.

            There are less than two months before the start of the season. This team, called Manor, aren’t even a team. Remember – Marussia laid off basically all their staff. There are no mechanics, no engineers, no drivers. Just administrators, a factory (with most of its contents already sold) and a couple of old cars. Who is the team principle? Who will drive? Who are the sponsors?

            What practical reason could there possibly be for allowing these administrators to take Marussia’s slot on the grid, just to put a couple of extra cars on the track? If there is genuinely the full backing required to create a solvent F1 team, then they should do exactly that BEFORE they ever get an entry into F1. Otherwise you’re just allowing a bunch of fly-by-nights to come and put a couple of useless cars on the grid which don’t even meet the current regulations, just so that they can take the prize money that Marussia earned last year. And in doing so probably blow a whole chunk of it, while not paying suppliers. And this is assuming thye would even make it onto the grid. Marussia’s cars last year were the slowest on the grid. Testing so far has shown that this year’s cars are going to be at least a couple of seconds a lap faster. Will they even be able to qualify for any events?

            I agree that the strategy group and the whole structure of governance in F1 is unfair, unlawful, and not fit for purpose. But let’s not let that blind us to the facts here. There is no team to allow to race. Just administrators trying to make a bit of money. If there genuinely is a team there, then they would be much better served by developing their own car for an entry in 2016. If they don’t have the ability to do that, then they have no place on the F1 grid. Better to go and buy some GP2 cars and have a go at that instead.

            1. @mazdachris Force India, I believe, are part of the Strategy Group. They took-over the place formerly held by Lotus. Here’s one such article naming the members:

              Considering everything I’ve read about the situation states that the Strategy Group has to decide and not all teams I think you might be wrong, but then again I’m not 100% sure on it.

              While I think you have a point I think in such dire financial times it’s better to act in good faith and allow the rule change on special grounds to at least let those in charge of Manor to attempt to get there and put on a show. You haven’t convinced me with your worst-case scenario of the ‘fly by night’ teams either.

              I thought having pre-qualifying in the early 90’s was great fun. Having more teams on the grid is always a good thing no matter how slow they are. F1’s character throughout its history has always been enriched by such teams. Minardi, Super Aguri, Leyton House, Arrows, Ligier…they never set the world alight but I’m happy they were there.

              Read the COTD above. It boils down the essence of why even the most optimistic of entries should be given the benefit of the doubt. Your rebuttal seems to be “what about Marussia’s creditors?” which I find to be a less than convincing argument against entry. You’re assuming a lot about the intentions of the administrators. If it gets more cars on the grid, I personally don’t care if they’re in it to make money. At the end of the day isn’t that the same reason Mercedes et al. are there?

        2. “Three or four”. Was it 3? Was it 4? Who were they? Did our heroic reporter question his beloved leader in any way before curling out another soundbite for him? Pathetic.

    10. Man greed is just… i have no words.

      I might actually boycott f1 this season just because of them blocking Marussia. It’s not like I don’t have anything else to watch. There are plenty other sports that don’t make me feel this disappointed every other day.

      1. Could not agree more , i love the small teams trying to compete with the big teams on a shoestring and think to out score Sauber they deserve their prize money as it was prize money for last years efforts and think they are a team that could keep competing and improving , i will be watch gp2 & 3 this year more exciting great characters and no politics with a fraction of the budget plus still sounds like a racing car . Ps i hope force india’s sponsors like all the negative press 😉

      2. @chebeto
        I don’t see what the fuss is about. An F1 entry can’t consist of an outdated and illegal car with no clear ownership or plan of operation. This isn’t an amateur sport.

        1. Guess we all have our own interpretation of what we enjoy about f1 , I just like a full grid with a wide variety of teams with different ideas , just worries me that the grid could easily slip to 16 at some point throughout the season and one large first corner crash and then anyone left in is point scoring straight away, could end up with a very empty pit lane, just my opinion but I like an underdog 😃

    11. And this is why i’ve always disagreed with those who constantly go on about how the teams should break away & start there own series.

      Give the teams a say & they will always do whats best for them & not whats best for the series as a whole. It happened with CART, It happened with FOTA & its happened with the strategy group. The teams should never have a say in the regulations, The way the sport is run, Cost cutting or who enter’s the sport.

      The teams should enter under the regulations as decided by the rule makers & if they don’t like those rules then there free to go race elsewhere.

      1. The teams should never have a say in the regulations, The way the sport is run, Cost cutting or who enter’s the sport.

        While I agree with the sentiment, I do think the teams should have a say.

        However, I think;
        – all teams should have a say, not just a select few,
        – they should be no more than advisory, unless it involves changing the rules mid-season (which I do agree should require a unanimous vote), and
        – the actual rules and decisions should be made by a single body, taking into account the opinions or the teams and other interested parties, for the good of the sport.

      2. I agree the teams are hopeless at anything but engineering and racing, but you’re assuming that breaking away means doing their own governance. That need not be the case at all though.

        Teams could start a series with a separate governing body, perhaps that they elect periodically, somewhat as @drmouse is saying. Then they need a commercial structure so that teams can come and go.

        I so wish they would, but they’re hopeless at that too :(

    12. The most ruthless side of F1 is far from the cars being driven in anger on track. It resides in boardrooms of the teams, FOM and FIA.

      FOM pits the teams against each other and it is obviously working. FOM causes problems with inequitable prize money distribution and rules, the teams desperately devour each other, and with the exception of the chosen few, realizing they may be next to be gone.

      As if that was not bleak enough, at the same time there is a lot of talk about “dramatically” changing F1 again by 2017 with new rules which will undoubtedly drive costs spiraling crazily upward. Meanwhile the current dramatic formula change has exactly only one season completed. How can any but the richest and chosen few teams survive such a ridiculously short cycle of dramatic and costly changes?

      I certainly do not know all the answers, but the problems in F1 and their causes should be glaringly apparent. One suggestion would be to let a new formula run at least 5 seasons before making major changes. Another suggestion may sound familiar, distribute F1 prize money more fairly and equitably.

      1. That’s beautifully and very eloquently said. Couldn’t agree more, especially about this part:

        FOM pits the teams against each other and it is obviously working. FOM causes problems with inequitable prize money distribution and rules, the teams desperately devour each other, and with the exception of the chosen few, realizing they may be next to be gone.

      2. One suggestion would be to let a new formula run at least 5 seasons before making major changes.

        This. Stable (sensible) rules are what drive costs down, naturally. Constantly changing them increases costs by requiring expensive redesigns every season.

        Personally, I would say that the rules should be run for a defined period (like 5 years). During that time, modifications can only be made;
        – on safety grounds,
        – to clarify ambiguous rules, or to bring them back in line with intent (e.g. closing loopholes), with majority support from the teams, or
        – with either a unanimous vote from all teams, as mid-season, or by more than a majority (75%?).

        1. @drmouse I completely agree, though on the suggestion of requiring less than unanimous support (75%) this is a bad idea. What this means is that if one or two teams come up with a great new idea which is legal but can’t easily be copied in the short term the other teams (>75%) can simply have the rules changed during the season. The requirement for a unanimous decision might be a pain from time to time (such as in the ridiculous case of Manor not being allowed to run their 2014 car) but it is absolutely necessary to avoid the goalposts being moved unfairly.

          1. I meant for a rule change for the next season within the defined period.

            Let’s say someone comes up with, for example, a new diffuser design. It is legal and can be run for that season. However, the FIA decides that it goes against what they wanted from the regs, and wishes to change them for next season (within the defined multi-year regulation freeze). The change should not be able to be blocked by one team, but it also should not be able to be forced through by only half the teams.

            Mid season changes should always require unanimous support, unless done on pure safety grounds.

            1. @drmouse In which case I completely agree!

    13. This decision on the Manor racing team is 100% a product of the FOM/CVC stranglehold on F1 as concocted by BE and MM. In the pre Bernie days a track promoter like Silverstone or Nurburgring negotiated a cash inducement (starting money) for individual to come and race for a substantial amount of prize money, no team was obliged to race at a financial loss. Today the financial terms of competing in F1 are so skewed to the benefit of the commercial rights holder that teams are forced to spend 10’s of millions to compete but cannot expect any return unless they spend 100’s of millions, to survive they have to adopt the law of the jungle, eat or be eaten. The greed of the commercial rights holders is killing our sport, downgrading our sport may enable it to last a little longer but the choice is a tradeoff between a short healthy future or a lengthy debilitating death. Something has to be done!

      1. Errata; *individual teams to

      2. @hohum True, but it was exactly the same situation 50 years ago, when BRP were denied access to the new F1 Constructor’s Association (FOCA), when collective bargaining power replaced individual starting money! Brabham and Cooper were in favour of them joining, but Ferrari, Lotus and eventually BRM were against.

        So, a viable 1964 constructor could not continue in 1965, despite meeting all the criteria! Now, where does Bernie get his ideas on how to run F1? Probably from the history of F1, all of which he has seen first-hand. Plus, out of those original teams, only Ferrari survives. Law of the jungle indeed..

        1. @fastiesty, I’m gobsmacked, not because I didn’t remember how early FOCA was established, but because someone I assumed was much younger remembers not only that but the details of them denying a team I don’t remember existing being excluded, thanks for the info.

          1. @hohum Just the benefits of being interested in the history of the sport! GPL really drew me into it..

      3. “Today the financial terms of competing in F1 are so skewed to the benefit of the commercial rights holder that teams are forced to spend 10’s of millions to compete but cannot expect any return unless they spend 100’s of millions, to survive they have to adopt the law of the jungle, eat or be eaten. ”

        Sadly true. Another way to look at this development is, allowing Marussia to come back would have been a romantic or sympathetic gesture frm the teams since ManorF1 do not fulfil the 2015 regs.
        But the team is in such a mess, financially, that it is not even certain how long they would last, ironically, same can be said of Force India, in light of their absentee vote.
        Let us not forget that ManorF1 are coming in at a time teams are meeting for yet another serious formula overhaul (which frankly is too early) which usually results in skyrocket costs. If the formula is gonna be changed so soon, when then do teams re-coup their investments in the current formula?
        This brings us to the elephant in the room – costs. Every one knows the current situation is not healthy for the sport but If the costs required to compete in F1 is not seriously dealt with, not with lip service, then situations like this will occur. And who will be next, Force India, Sauber, Torro Rosso, Lotus?

        Manor F1 may have been prevented from coming back to race in F1 but with the current skyrocketing costs involved in F1, they may have been saved from yet a larger financial distress and future debts. F1 is looking more and more like a non-profitable enterprise for many, which makes me wonder why the interest by those who especially can’t find the resources to get in. Left to me, they should take the money they have and look for other enterprise to invest in. This decision might be a blessing in disguise.

    14. This, all on a day when the WEC is making rules to expand their grid to 35 cars.

      Even if they were not the only ones to vote no, the fact that Vijay Mallya and Force India did vote no, is so hypocritical it is beyond comprehension. Especially after all the tweets he aimed at Red Bull at the end of last year. In my opinion he has lost all credibility.

      It is another sickening development in F1. Meanwhile, with Nissan, Porsche, Toyota, and Audi all running LMP1’s this year, the WEC is looking more and more enticing.

      The problem is, I will still watch F1, I’m hooked……and they (Bernie and his boys) know that.

      1. Exactly. I’m hooked on the racing in F1, it’s better than ever!

        My respect of McLaren will always draw me to this sport. McLaren will never leave- unless hell freezes over (or a breakaway series happens).

        The WEC is very enticing. I started watching in 2014 (the Webber effect). The LMP & GT racing is sensational! Probably one of the most pure professional racing series, in my opinion. The fact is only diehard fans will watch, 6 hours is a heck of a lot of time for the average casual viewer.

        Let’s just hope common sense prevails and a) Manor get to run and b) The WEC isn’t wrecked by disgusting politics and BS.

        1. I guess we’re all the same….can’t not watch F1! I guess I will watch it as long as it keeps going.

          WEC has really grown on me over the past few years, but I cant find the time to watch a 6 hour race…however, Im really looking forward to seeing how the GT-R NISOM LM goes this year!

    15. Would they not have time to modify their 2014 car to fit the 2015 regs? New nose (already seen the prototype), raise the cockpit sides a touch…

      1. Bleh, woken up a bit. No, would need to do other stuff too, not really possible.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          6th February 2015, 2:42

          @neilosjames, do you have a list of what needs to be changed:
          – nose;
          – raise sidewalls cockpit;
          – ??

          1. Fritz Oosthuizen (@)
            6th February 2015, 5:38

            BBC Sport F1 gave a nice explanation on the new rules.

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              6th February 2015, 8:18

              @fritzoos – do you have a link.

              The only ones that I could find on
              Minimum weight – the minimum weight has been increased slightly for 2015 – without fuel, each car must weigh at least 702kg.

              Nose designs – new regulations, brought in to improve safety and also restrict strange and ugly solutions, mean nose designs become more uniform. 2014 layouts like the anteater and twin tusk will no longer be legal.

              Cockpit safety – the Zylon anti-intrusion panels on both sides of the survival cell have been extended upwards to the rim of the cockpit and alongside the driver’s head.

      2. @neilosjames New bulkhead height makes the 2014 chassis not eligible for 2015. I have to say that the FIA shouldn’t have allowed a vote. Marussia should not race with 2014 rules, not because it isn’t fair to anyone else but because the 2015 rules were also made for safety.

        1. @peartree I can’t help but think that the 2015 cars are actually less safe if there were any more tractor crashes.. and what is it that everyone always says about cost-cutting? :P

          1. @fastiesty I would love to have Manor back, this way is not fair for anyone let alone safe. I’m ditching them off on safety grounds, I can’t say if these noses are even more dangerous on tractor crashes but having a car with a higher bulk and nose section could spell disaster on the event of a 90º degree crash, that’s one reason I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why racing cars oblige to the same safety standards.

            1. @peartree I see your point, but as Coldfly has shown above ^, the 2015 cars are mainly safer through the zylon panel increase, not the nose change. 2015 cars are safer than 2014, 2014 safer than 2013 etc., so it’s not like the Marussia is ‘unsafe’, just fractionally less safe than this year’s improvement on say two years ago. Who would say the 2013 cars were unsafe?

              As I understand it, they’ll probably run the 2014 tub, as it would cost a bomb to change it, just to make the front 5cms lower. Maybe they could stick on a conforming nose, as they are only looking for exceptions on 4 articles of the 2015 technical regulations.

              If they have pockets deep enough, then perhaps they could get the new car ready by Bahrain in April, not needing to run the 2014 car with adjustments at all, but that is probably a tall order.

        2. A bit of a clinical approach and probably not the reasoning behind Manor being denied a return, but the same thought crossed my mind. The 2014 cars don’t meet the 2015 formula and shouldn’t be allowed to race as such.

          Even if they had made it in, any finish ahead of another team would likely be challenged for non-compliance anyways.

          Still, it would be good for “the show” and could even be leveraged for great PR if they were allowed.

          1. Were Caterham not given permission (if they could get to race) to use a 2014 spec car? I’m sure I’ve seen mention of that late last year or early this year?

            1. No, they were tentatively allowed to run 2014-spec engines, which is feasible since the FIA require standardised mount points on engine designs.

            2. @fastiesty I understand why people love more cars. I don’t think you get my point. If a Marussia was to clash another car at 90º on the side right at the driver’s position, new nose rule or not the Marussia could catapult severing another drivers head.

            3. @peartree But surely there is less chance of that happening in 2015 (with increased Zylon side-panels and lower noses on 2014/15 cars) than in 2013 with the old higher noses and lower Zylon panels?

    16. So disappointed with this..
      Teams crying black and blue for equality and fairness have no right deciding the fate of another. It’s hypocrisy at it’s highest.

    17. Force India campaign last season comes to conclusion that they only care about themselves. Their words on ‘DNA of the sport’ stuff is mocked by their actions. Maybe ‘DNA of the sport’ has mutated wickedly these days.

    18. I’ve been following F1 since the 60’s and this is the first time that I’m concerned enough about the sport to think it’s a possibility that F1 [as we know it] may not survive more than a year or two from now. F1 may evolve into
      3 or 4 teams running 4 or 5 cars each or a bunch of satellite teams being used as an illusion to keep public interest up. The day may come when indycar teams are invited to join the field again. Greed, pure greed is killing the sport and it may be irreversible.

      1. At this stage, I hope F1 dies a quick death. The sooner it does the sooner we can rebuild.

        PURE FANTASY: F1 collapses, and someone like the World Series by Renault builds a new class above their F3.5. This organisation that currently takes their whole show, multi class open wheelers and GTs to classic European venues AND gives people free entry! Let them take over as the premier category, let CVC and the like and the F1 trademarks be devalued to nothing.

        I love the science and technical side of F1. But by this stage I’m so disgusted by the behind the scenes bullshit associated with F1 I’d gladly give that all up for a spec series where the world’s best open wheel racers can complete. Look to WEC for interesting technical developments, 2000hp, 4wd, flywheels and super capacitors.

    19. ColdFly F1 (@)
      6th February 2015, 2:52

      from the Autosport article, quote by Pat Symonds:

      But I also like the idea of having a lot more cars on the grid and that’s what I think should be our prime concern at the moment: to have a good business and something that the spectators also want to watch.

      How disappointing that on the same day the Strategy Group kills off Marussia/Manor.

      Even if it was just one vote against, I think it is disappointing that those guys could not get there act together.
      It is not just the extra 2 cars but also the staff/suppliers who would be given a lifeline.

    20. I’ll play devil’s advocate here and say that, sad as it may be, putting Marussia out of its misery was the right thing to do. Yes, we want more cars on the grid, plenty more actually, but there’s a limit to championing the sporting spirit. If a team can’t get enough funding together to build a new car, there’s simply no place for them on the grid (F1’s sick financial politics are another conversation). I love an overachieving underdog – who doesn’t? But face it people, Marussia would have been no more than two mobile obstacles in 2015.

      1. People are so upset that a rich guy can’t dig up a corpse and resusitate it for it’s prizemoney…. maurissia has been dead for awhile now.

    21. Has the Strategy Group ever acheived anything other than shoot f1 in the foot?

    22. The way I’ve seen Marussia’s demise is heartbreaking. I’ll always remember this team as a ‘proper’ racing team who had ‘spirit’ unlike some of the other teams. This was no way to die.

      I feel sad but equally angry at the double standards of these teams. On one side, they were “sad” about the situation and when the time came to correct it, they showed their true colours.

      Hypocrisy at its best. If my mates enquire me about this sport, I’d show them the sorry state of affairs of this once great sport which is on its death bed.

      1. Ironically, when they started, they were nothing more than a clown outfit in association with Nick Wirth, funded by Richard Branson after he had his feel-good moment sponsoring Brawn GP.

    23. To be honest if the car doesn’t comply with the rules I’m in agreement.

      One of two scenarios can happen. They sit at the back going nowhere in which case what purpose do they serve being on the grid?

      The other scenario is they have some success, maybe even beat one or two teams again but with a car that isn’t rule compliant and that is completely unfair.

      It’s the same as when Red Bull aren’t compliant with the rules, and a lot of fans call for their head on a spike when this happens.

      It’s a shame as they have some good people in the team but for whatever reason finances were just never forthcoming.

      In most other sports being bottom means relegation but with formula racing their are no divisions to fall into or move up from so they just languish. Maybe that’s where F1 is going wrong, a lack or divisions. As a long term strategy for the sport maybe Formula 2 and 3 need to have closer ties with the prospect of promotion and relegation.

    24. That is seriously disappointing. Same on you Force India. So much for smaller teams helping each other. I’ve never liked Force India (don’t agree with the self promoting country stuff eg China Racing in Formula E), but now I really dislike the team.

      1. totally agree !!

        evil evil Force India.. won’t miss them when they re gone !

    25. Max you were born in Belgium… I think no ones wrong here. You have dutch licence but you were born in Belgium to a dutch superstar, so from this point you have 2 nationalities. I guess if we were only caring about the drivers licence, is André Lotterer international, Belgian, German, Japanese… The LeMans guys seem to care more about the licences.

      1. Tommy Scragend
        6th February 2015, 9:05

        @peartree I would guess that Verstappen knows where he was born!

        In a racing context, a driver’s nationality is the one that issues his superlicence. In Verstappen’s case this is the Netherlands. Therefore he should be given a Dutch flag next to his name; as he points out, this is the flag that he carries on his overalls and car.

        Same with Nico Rosberg, born in Monaco to a Finnish father and German mother. He has a German superlicence so, for racing purposes, he is German.

        1. Common fallacy – Nico Rosberg was actually born in Wiesbaden, Germany. He grew up in Monaco because his family lived there for tax purpose.

    26. Why does everyone think it was Force India who blocked Marussia’s entry? Just becoz the article hinted that? I mean if the prize money is 40 million and divided between Bernie and the teams, the maximum they can expect is 1 million. And just because they are late doesn’t mean they are struggling so bad that they need money by any means. The team that stands most to gain is Sauber who would get something as opposed to nothing. But we don’t know who opposed it, so let’s hold our horses till we get an update.

      1. Andrew Benson (BBC) has reported on it –

        I also tweeted him for a few clarifications and it’s because they sold Manor entering as a rule change (basically ‘shall we make the 2014 chassis legal’, FI & ‘others’ rejected it) –

    27. i want to show ever one here complaining some thing and be honest with your self. If all hardcore F1 fans only donates 2 Ponds to a trust we should have enough money too keep all teams financially healthy, the sad thing is that we will not even have enough money to save one team on the grid. But we do believe that we can say what we want about teams that makes choices to survive.

      1. Sorry after reading my comment i reclied it does not quite make sens. What i meant is that people will not even donate enough money to save one team.

    28. It would appear the Gingerbread boy has just met the fox !

    29. I would like to know which teams voted against it, because then I know which teams I would not really mind falling over from now on. For shame!

      1. Allowing Marussia to run the 2014 chassis would constitute a change in the chassis regulations, which requires all teams to agree – Force India and ‘2 or 3 others’ rejected it.

    30. It’s a pity, but the time to turn up and buy Manor F1 was a year ago really.

      And afaik Lotus is for sale, if Justin King has some proper funding.

    31. Am I missing something? How on earth is it outrageous not to allow a team to race with an illegal car?
      Sorry Keith, but I think your assessment of the situation is more than a bit off.

      I’m all for saving as many teams as possible (my CotD in Brazil backs me up on that), but let’s not get carried away. There’s a million ways to try and ease the pain for a struggling backmarker (none of which seem to have been put forward), but letting a car on the grid that doesn’t abide to the same rules as everybody else is nonsense, plain and simply.

      1. @nase Keith has just selected quotes from the associated articles…

        1. @optimaximal:
          His own tweet reads: “Given how similar this year’s technical regulations are to last year’s, it’s madness a team needs ‘permission’ to run a 2014 chassis.” So these selected quotes are completely in line with his own opinion.

          1. @nase sorry, I missed that you were referring to the tweet. I thought this was another post where people slate Keith for the opinion of the article writers he’s posted.

            1. @optimaximal: No problem. I try not to be that guy.

    32. They should have allowed Manor to race with the 2014 car.

      But to be honest i will not miss this team. 2015 will be amazing with or without them.

      I hope Haas is able to put a solid team together unlike the 4 new teams that started in 2010.

    33. maarten.f1 (@)
      6th February 2015, 8:35

      Having the F1 ‘strategy’ group involved in the decision is a mistake in my opinion. Not allowing Marussia to race isn’t. I’m disappointed they won’t make it to the grid this year, but by allowing an exemption to the rules and letting them race with an old spec car just opens a whole can of worms. Now if they had a 2015 spec car, and wouldn’t be allowed to go racing, then I’d be upset.

    34. I understand that people are disappointed and emotional about Marussia not being able to take part. But I feel its ok in a way. There needs to be a lot of commitment, ready cash and reasonable will to compete for long time without incurring a huge debts. By using last years car they were anyway going to be off pace by a reasonable margin.
      The employees would be in a false hope, unless the promoter is reasonably serious with short and long term goals (example Haas, made all the right noises as of now) . Creditors will be or maybe in further debt unless the promoter is willing to use their own cash.
      On top of all, last time I heard they have already auctioned or sold many items. So the new owners were simply going to drag an old car with hardly any hope to improve around the globe coming last in a competitive sport. Plus as an engineer or worker who is willing to work for them, unless the person is unemployed.

    35. To go against the grain a little; I actually partly agree with the decision by the Strategy Group. While Marussia came ninth in the championship, they were, in all honesty, 10th or even 11th best at 80% of the races. This demonstrates that last year, they were one of the slowest cars. Leaving the sporting aspect aside for a moment, what on earth is there to gain from re-entering a dog of a car against a field that have all improved. All while their only real competition, Caterham, won’t be competing.

      Commercially, they’ll get no TV time unless they battle themselves. Financially, they’ll get no prize money. They’ll need pay drivers to even get to the races which drops them back even further.

      I want a full grid as much as the next guy, but let’s be serious, it’d be more realistic to add a few GP2 cars to the mix on the weekends that they share. They’d be closer to the pace, they’re there anyway and introduces the best GP2 drivers to the next level.

    36. Just read an article. It seems we cannot blame FI. Other teams were behind Marussia decision as per Bernie.

      1. That article doesn’t appear to make any reference to how the teams’ representatives voted – or for that matter FOM and FIA, who are also represented on the Strategy Group.

        It may seem a fine distinction, but other sources claim that while more than one team disagreed with Marussia being allowed to use their 2014 car, only one actually voted against it.

    37. I’m all for more competitors. But clearly Manor would not be “competing”, but merely “joining in”, or being “part of a show”. For me this is not the pinnacle of motorsport. Ok, me regular joe Sergio joining a Marathon to complete it and not looking at the results? Thats Sport from an amateur, something I’m doing for myself or for some charity or whatever. But a team competing on the pinnacle of motorsport to drive a car that would be 3 to 4 seconds (seeing by current testing times) slower than last year, with possibly 2 paid drivers or young hopefuls that would be the laughing stock of mainstream media? Not so much. That would be phoning it in, traveling around with the F1 circus as the clowns with no perspective whatsoever of “competing”. Just getting a comercial paycheck . Are there good people at Manor/Marussia? I certainly believe so. Passionate about motorsport? I don’t doubt it. But are they suited for F1 ? 5 years without much improvement (except after buying parts from Mclaren or Ferrari) in the back of the grid without a glimpse of hope of improving unfortunately says it all. In all other professional sports, there is some sort of “punishment” to those that under perform- in the form of relegation, for example. Maybe that’s what Manor needs, like the likes of Coloni, etc. did by going to lower formula and prove their worth.

      This is Formula 1, this is the pinnacle of professional motorsport, not Karting. Sorry but that is my personal opinion. And those saying that the current midfield will become back markers, so be it! Because it raises the game. No one wants to be last. It would also mean everyone would be competing for points and not being moving chicanes. This, in my view, is good, and its what F1 should be about!

    38. For FI it makes perfect sense blocking Manor.They get the money that russian kid promised and then some.
      On the long run if FI needs to resort to this they probably are less likely to survive than Manor if Honda decides to make them a B team.
      I still believe Manor will be on Melbourne.

    39. On paper, it will only be Sauber to get Marussia’s prize money. So I guess Sauber has promised FI something.

    40. Allowing Marussia to race with the car that caused a serious crash in 2014 would be absolute madness. If any car needs work on to be safe enough to race, it’s the 2014 Marussia/2015 Manor. I would rather have them miss a few races to get a car set up and pass the crash tests. A new nose, what more is there to design?

    41. Expecting the evil dwarf to hand over £30 to £40 million pounds when there is no contractual enforcement is a pipe-dream.

    42. People are getting bent out of shape at this ‘final death blow’ to a team of true racers.

      That team already died and this is a Weekend at Bernie’s style attempt to collect the prize money.

      The chassis wasn’t competitive last year. This year it won’t even have another back marker to race against. The bid to enter this year is with no motive of competing, it’s for a pay day and honestly I’d rather see that money left to the teams with a chance of sticking in the sport and competing not collected by the vultures picking at the carcass of a dead team.

      The good people will find places in other teams as talent doesn’t go unnoticed and the actual racing won’t suffer without them.

    43. Comments from Force India on the mather:

      What Bob Fernley is saying makes sense. If no presentation of new owners, new financial backers is presented, then what reason is there to believe Marrusia will make it to the grid, even if you are allowed to run their car in 2014 spec (which they shouldn’t be allowed to). Beside, their building is sold to HAAS and their mechanics and engineers have moved on..

    44. Given Bianchi incident it’s only correct that 2014 chassis is not fit for 2015. they can modify the design for 2015 regs and then approach… 2015 regs were made for safety… why should one be allowed to race with a unsafe chassis which almost took a life?

    45. Could Manor buy the 2014 Caterham cars? Weren’t Caterham given permission to race those this year, before they went bust? Or was that also subject to Strategy Cartel approval?

      1. no they weren’t. They were tentatively promised that if needed they might be allowed to run the old Renault engine, so they wouldn’t have to do a completenly new car front to back @bullfrog. However its not clear what worth that promise really held, its possible it would have ended exactly the same.

        1. Ah, thanks for clearing that up a bit.

    46. Do feel sorry for them as they won’t be collecting their money, if I’m not wrong.

    47. DO NLET MARUSSIA RACE. it seems a few investors want the prize monfor last year, place last ars car in a few races thi year as a token gesture, with no development for 2015, and then no doubt take their quick earned mon and run. the sport doesnt need this crap, bring on HAAS, and get rid of this, marussia are dead, and are not making a serious attempt to rejoin the sport. i never thought this team was serious when it becase Marussia, i bet it made 2 or 3 Russians some quick cash, and left everyone else in the team to the sharks.

    48. The change of the noses forced the teams to make a lot of difficult changes to the cars this year (see the comments of RBR, Williams, FI, among others). It would be silly to allow a 2014 to race. Even with a changed nose, the car would be a disaster areodynamically (not that the original Marussia was too good on that).

      Also, to the CotD, sure, the point of the Sport is to compete, but for that you well, to be in a position to actually compete. What Marussia was attempting to do in 2015 was to be there for the sake of being there. No development time, a year-old car, potentially even more terrible if added a new nose… There was no point to it, let’s not kid ourselves.

    49. Here’s an interesting read (In German from AmuS) on FI claiming that they will indeed be on the grid, and that they do not have issues paying their bills).

      Now, I don’t want to polemize or argue their facts, but on the other hand the article gives a great insight in why its extra tough to do the job on a tight budget / cashflow.
      You have to pay your engines up front, your windtunnel time, your fuel tanks, it seems a lot of the composite work or at least materials as well. And Bernie starts sending money when testing is over and all the cars are already underway to Melbourne and often sponsor money comes even later!
      So even if you manage to get the budget together, you still need the cash up front. Honestly, i can easily see how cashflow then means a team like FI and Lotus have trouble making it to the test in time.

      1. Just to add to what the article you are posting is saying, here is Fernley giving a more detailed explanation on why they voted againts Manor:

        “It was a no-brainer. There wasn’t the slightest bit of information other than a paragraph asking for Marussia to run a ’14 car in ’15.

        “You can’t possibly make a decision on that, so it was a really poor show from Marussia.

        “If I thought it was my last throw of the dice I would have done a presentation with all the bells and whistles, and everything else I could possibly think of, to convince everybody.

        Do I feel bad? Yes, I do, really bad, because Force India has fought like hell for all the smaller teams.”

        Fernley concedes the financial aspect was a factor, but far from the over-riding one at the end of the day.

        “You have to say there is an element of truth in that, but is that the reason why the decision was made? No,” Fernley said.

        “Would I appreciate another four of five million (US dollars)? Yes, I would, but that didn’t have any bearing on the decision.

        “With all due respect, four to five million is not going to make that much difference between Force India surviving or not.

        “Of course, it absolutely helps, and we will be pleased to have it, but that’s not the process.

        “The key element is you have to put in a credible presentation and tell people who your owners are, how you’re going to go about things, when you’re going to bring a 2015 car.”

    50. regarding the cotd:
      it is like having a championship where there is juventus, chelsea, manu, manchester city, barcelona, real madrid, bayern munich and with them one team from malta. having that team from malta would be more annoying than anything else!!!! and with marussia participating in the condition they are, would make even toro rosso look like a top team! that is why it would be good that they dont participate, even though i want them to participate for the good of the sport.

    51. What’s the point of jumping through all kinds to get Marussia on the grid with a useless 2014 car? Everybody knows they will fold anyway. It’s just a ploy to get at the prize money.

      If they simply had done their work properly they would still have a team and none of this would have been an issue. They only have themselves to blame for the situation they are in now.

      1. @bgp001ruled

        It’s just a ploy to get at the prize money.

        I’ve been thinking that, too, but without any proof I didn’t want to throw in accusations. But yeah, they have absolutely no business in 2015, they wanted to run a 2014 car, which was already terrible, with zero chance of improvement and a miserable budget. It points to that.

    52. Force India, especially Fernley was publicly against Strategy Group last year. Now, he is being criticized heavily as a main player of a decision from Strategy Group

    53. So maybe Force India is really in financial trouble who knows.
      So maybe that’s the reason Nico Hülkenberg also races for Porsche in Le Mans, to have an alternative if Force India really hits the bottom in the near future….

    54. Why is there such animosity towards the teams for not wanting Marussia on the grid, with a 2014 chassis none the less? they were seconds off the pace in ’14, what do you think that pace difference will be in ’15 with all the other teams already showing massive improvements. The only reason Marussia are even trying to get back on the grid, this year and the next is so they can meet the requirements to receive their winnings. Then they’re going to cash out. It’s certainly not for the ‘spirit of the sport’. if anything it’s just as greedy a move as everyone is saying the move to block their return is. I’m all for a larger grid, but not one where the back is full of rolling road blocks.

    55. This is a very sad day for F1.

      It hurts me to know that the teams turned down the chance to race not just to a dedicated team that has proven their perseverance, but to deny a team bearing the stress of not knowing whether Bianchi was alive after that day in Suzuka, and to take advantage of his heroic efforts in Monaco has got to be one of the largest travesties in sport I have ever seen.

      While it could be understandable that a more competitive team would leave a valid reason not to give permission to race, it is appalling to prohibit a team like this, fundamental to the development of young engineers and drivers, at a time where F1 itself says it need more teams.

      I know with all absolute certainty that if Marussia was in their shoes, they would not vote to force another competitor out of the sport. I hope that they can design a 2015 car in time so they can receive the money they so rightfully deserve and worked so hard for…5 years to get your first points, leading some to believe to a better and more fruitful future for Marussia, only to be denied at the final hurdle by the disgraceful decision of the “fellow” teams.

      I have always denied that F1 is in a state of crisis, but at this point its really hard to think otherwise…

    Comments are closed.