Marussia finished 10th in the Constructors’ World Championship last year and hoped that this year a new Ferrari engine would help to lift its performance into the midfield. There have been flashes of potential but thus far it has not proved to be the case and after the first three races of the year, Marussia and Caterham remain locked in a fight over 10th place. This has gone backwards and forwards with Marussia ahead after the first race, but then Caterham grabbing the advantage in Malaysia, only to lose it again in Bahrain.
Away from the circuits, however, things are happening with the news from Russia that the Marussia Motors company is shutting down by its owner Andrej Cheglakov as the management of the firm, led by Nikolai Fomenko, has failed to find the money needed push ahead with its plans to build supercars. It seems that Cheglakov has got bored of waiting and spending. This creates a problem for the Formula 1 team because its reason to exist has just disappeared. It could exist simply as a racing operation, but that would require a lot of money. The team has some cash from the Formula One group and from Max Chilton and there seems to be a deal with Ferrari that pays for Jules Bianchi, but beyond that sponsorship is thin. And it is hard to find when you are at the back of the grid.
The logical step forward from here would be for Cheglakov to find a suitable new owner. The racing team is a legal entity called Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd. This belongs to a holding company called Manor Holdco Ltd, which in turn was owned by a Luxembourg firm called Marussia Lux SA, a subsidiary of Marussia Motors. It seems that this structure has now been changed with Manor Holdco having been passed to a new company, registered in Ireland, called Marussia Communications Ltd. Thus it is no longer directly linked to Marussia Motors but is still under the ownership of Cheglakov. It seems that there are some people out there who are willing to buy the team but for the moment there are only rumours about who the new owner might be.
According to Bernie Ecclestone, the FIA is about to announce that there will be two new teams in 2015 (or 2016 more likely) and it is bizarre for either one to go on, given the scale of investment required to get even to the level of Marussia or Caterham. It would be wiser for the new owners to buy up smaller teams with infrastructure and people, rather than trying to do it all themselves. This depends largely on the price, but at the moment there is little real value in back of the grid teams so unless the owners want to write off their investments, it makes no sense to quit unless there really is no way to fund things, in which case any sale would simply be to avoid debts.
Gene Haas has plans to have Ferrari engines and to have Dallara build his chassis but he would be wiser perhaps to simply buy Marussia and let the people running the show get on with it.
joeblogsf1 
Hi Joe,
With the issues surfacing of The Ferrari engine, do you think Haas could switch engines?
Its probably more to do with marketing in the US. Ferrari has more cache to rich American sponsors and clients than either Mercedes or Renault.
Joe,
A question if I may about sponsorship models. Where a team towards the rear of the grid struggle to attract sponsors willing to spend large sums from their marketing budget, what stops those teams taking on board a very high volume of lesser revenue sponsors?
I am thinking of the kind of mass sponsorship that some American formulae have where every spare cm of the car seems to be covered with a different logo.
As aesthetically challenging as that may be, I assume it is profitable? But I don’t recall ever seeing anything like that in formula one, is this due to regulation restrictions, a desire to remain elite/exclusive or is there just low sponsor interest for such a paradigm?
Last night I watched the “1973 F1 season review”, Brunswick Films. Fantastic stuff. A field of 32 cars took the green flag. Today, global GDP (GWP) is four-fold larger than in 1973 (constant-currency), and yet F1 struggles to put 22 cars on the grid, with eight of those 22 cars at risk (Sauber, Marussia, Caterham, Lotus).
There is not other evidence needed to demonstrate that F1’s business model is broken.
REDACT: a field of 32 cars at Silverstone
Sure, but look at how many competitive cars went to races further away such as South Africa or Australia? You will always get more cars close to a motorsport manufacturing hub such as the UK. The other question is whether it is safe to have 32 cars on the track given the higher speeds, etc.
Joe, is the FIA allowing two new teams to enter F1 because they knew last year that Marussia and Caterham are about to fold?
It’s not an inspiring concept, to spend £70 or so a year, and revel in 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd on the Grid. Worse still to do that for 3 years or so and regard say a 12th place finish as a stunning result. The field in F1 is these days, absurdly unequal. The concept as it has developed, has muted competition, imho, as there are only ever between 1 and 3 teams with any hope of winning. The rules need a thorough review to enable more teams to have a chance of regular top 6 and top 3 placings and wins!
Sorry….should have been £70 million not £70!
“Gene Haas has plans to have Ferrari engines”
Might not be a good idea, in light of recent developments…………
Don’t the old Marussia people (wirth etc) have NASCAR links?
Joe
Marussia Caterham and now Sauber are only in a mess because the people running the show are inept commercially. They come with varying levels of debt and a whole lot of political baggage. Agreeing a price with the likes of Andrej and Tony is near enough impossible as they try and get all their invest back and not right it off. That would mean admitting they screwed it up I guess. Getting past the gatekeepers like Andy Webb is impossible as new owners would inevitably fire them.
Haas is best to go it alone and just not listen to the wrong people like Tony did. He just needs to remember that F1 people only look after their own interest and not his ! Simple hahaha
We will see
They aren’t particularly inept commercially – no flies on Tony F when it comes to making money. The problem is they are operating in a business model where the odds are stacked against them. This isn’t the real world, it’s a construct rigged to favour CVC.
I’m not sure you can say Sauber are commercially inept, either. They’ve been going for 21 years now, despite some pretty ropey results along the way, sustained by a number of quite innovative commercial relationships. The less said about “Harvard” in 1994 the better, but they were effectively bankrolled by Mercedes, then became the first team to get into bed with Red Bull, had their Ferrari engines paid for with Petronas money, allied with Credit Suisse, sold out to BMW, Peter got the team and a budget back for nothing, and since then developed the Mexican link. Things seem to be tight now, but all in all they’ve put on a pretty good show. They’re the only team to have entered F1 since the 1990s and retained their fundamental identity – even during the BMW years, they were still BMW-Saubers.
Not to mention their history in sportscars. Those Sauber Mercedes C191 (I think..) were fantastic looking and left a good impression on me as they roared around Brands Hatch and Silverstone probably around 89 – 92.
If small teams try to copy big teams (who themselves don’t always get the right solution) they will never break out of the shadows.
Teams need to be innovative in every way – better to drop the losing teams, the baggage & wrong way of doing it and start afresh…Back to the future
Because creating a Formula One car from scratch is so much easier…
What’s with Americans, and their love for the Dallara company?
Just another dog with fleas.
Dallara are the last company in the ring. March, Chevron, Reynard, Ralt, Lola were all capable of making a customer F1 car, but they no exist or have moved to other things — my apologies if I omitted your favourite manufacturer.
Swift Engineering, also has lots of experience – they used to make the chassis for formula nippon, and other series.
But Dallara have made themselves prolific, and have strong ties to the indy people who often cross paths with the nascar guys.
Swift is an actual american company that is still in business, but Dallara has the “in” with the right circles – so the Italian company it will be…
farrari engines for gene haas ?
how long is exclusive Honda/McLaren deal joe , is that known?
A year I think
Joe
Shame that the team have been let down like this, but I can understand M Cheglakov wanting ‘out’ if there is no money to be found for the supercar venture.
Marussia appear to have done a respectable job in very difficult circumstances, just like Caterham have done. It’s so easy to criticise these back of grid teams but it’s glaringly obvious that someone has to finish last, just like Minardi did for so many years. The question is, “Are they a respectable last?” Isn’t that why the 107% rule was introduced? At the time of Forti and Pacific?
Martin
At least Minardi was able to score points in some seasons! Despite the fact that only the first 6 cars on the grid were rewarded points.
The same can’t be said nowadays with Marussia and Caterham, even if the top 10 finishers actually get points.
Considering how reliability has improved vastly since the mid-2000s and the introduction of multi-race parts, I’d say a 13th place finish is akin to the old odd 6th place finish.
Who remembers Luca Badoer retiring from 4th at Nurburgring! He was ahead of a recovering Hakkinen and Irvine at the time.. while Gene managed to hold off the sleep-deprived Irvine for 6th place at the end. Which then became critical for settling the title. You could say the same for Webber colliding with Kovalainen at Valencia in a similar situation.
I remember poor Badoer at the Nurburgring. Not the first driver to shed tears at the trackside that year. 😐
The cars are massively more reliable than they used to be, so almost no chance now of trundling into sixth place as last man standing once or twice a season as in the old days…
I used to be against the concept of customer cars in Formula 1, but I feel that in the current economic model the only way “small” teams would have a remote chance at competing is with equipment from the big teams.
Admittedly, I do not know what it is like to spend millions on anything, but I cannot help but empathize for the Marussia and Caterham groups. Dumping all of that money down the drain to cruise around in last place… If they were permitted to have McLaren Chassis and a Ferrari engine, surely they would have a better fighting chance.
Now, if private equity no longer owns the sport, then I do not think F1 would benefit from customer teams.
It is a terrible idea as it destroys the infrastructure of the industry.
I think that the problem with teams buying chassis etc from larger teams should technically mean that they are no longer constructors and therefore should not be awarded any points for the constructors championship – the other issue you could have is that as seen with Sauber in the past the teams would vote / choose sides with the large team they are dependent of.
Altough I have a lot of sympathy for small teams I would not want a F1 filled with Ferrari’s Mclarens and Redbulls.. It takes out a lot of the sport – its hard on constructors even if you have money (see toyota) you need talent in engineering and thats what makes F1 – F1…
what about constructing engines?
Were it not for Privateer entries, some good drivers in the past, would not have got seen in F1. Nelson Piquet’s first race was in a Mac M23 run by B&S Fabrications if memory serves me correctly. John Watson had a Brabham BT42 entered by Hexagon Motors, and there were other examples. Selling cars for use by private teams worked fine and still would. Probably the best example was the Mac M19 of Penske Racing, with Mark Donohue as driver. I read at the time that it was better turned out than the Works entries! Also, it resulted in Penske entering F1 and building their own car. In 1970 I think there were 6 March 701’s at the first race,, 2 being Works STP cars, the others private, including of course, the Tyrell entries.
Care to elaborate?
Are you saying it is a better idea for Marussia, Caterham, whoever, to build their own car which has zero chance of competing versus using equipment build my McLaren or Ferrari? Then the smaller teams have a better chance at competing, attracting sponsors and ultimately being sustained in the Private Equity F1.
What is your view about Mercedes then? They already have customer teams. If it works for the engine, whats the big deal about chassis?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that starting at ground level when you can buy something three rungs up the ladder for the same cost is more intelligent.
so customer engines are ok but customer chassis is not?
Have you any knowledge of Formula 1 history?
Formula 1 is built on the simple premise that teams build their own cars. This is what makes it different. Since the start of the modern era, in the 1950s, teams have used the engines available be they 2-litre Bristols, Coventry Climaxes of various displacements or Cosworth V8s. The difference between engines and chassis is that if teams are buying complete cars from a rival it is simply going to force those in the midfield down to the back, thus forcing them to buy chassis. In the end the sport will become unhealthily dependent on three or four teams, which is not a good situation.
I have not been a fan of F1 as long as you have. I started watching when I was 11 in 1994.
Regarding your point about F1 being unhealthy dependent on 4 teams.
Currently there are two teams who are entirely unhealthy (Marussia and Caterham) but that is ok because they are building their own cars.
But if two midfield teams (Sauber and Torro Rosso) were to purchase chassis from Red Bull and Ferrari then F1 is unhealthy in a bad way?
I do not want F1 to become CART of the mid nineties, but F1 would have more drivers with a chance to win if they drove McLaren-Ferrari’s or Red Bull-Ferrari’s. A greater emphasis would be placed on a driver instead of car parts.
Surely the best example of getting more drivers a chance to win can be seen in this year’s results. Take away the Mercedes advantage (and probably the biggest combined development spend for 2014), and you have all the teams duking it out for the win – in this case Ricciardo would have chased Perez down right to the flag.
But, I think people don’t tend to notice what’s going on a few rows back – in the past there’s been plenty of action there, but everyone focusses on the front, where one team is likely spending more and running away with a car advantage. At certain times it can be roughly equal at the front, which then piques everybody’s interest as the title race becomes more open.
The current parallels with 1988 are interesting – everyone remembers the McLarens, not how close all the battles were behind. Same for Mercedes.
The issue is that, once those teams become dependent on a larger team for a competitive car, the parent team can then abuse that relationship for its own personal gain at the expense of other parties.
Red Bull, for example, have been accused of using the voting rights of Toro Rosso to block regulations that they objected to in the past – similarly, Sauber have indicated that Ferrari has sometimes forced them to vote against measures that privately Sauber actually supported.
You are also assuming that the parent company would sell an identical spec car to the customer when that is not guaranteed. When Toro Rosso used customer Red Bull cars, Red Bull would sometimes intentionally delay upgrading Toro Rosso’s car (partially to focus resources on themselves at the expense of the junior teams and sometimes to prevent the junior team from becoming too competitive).
Similarly, there were allegations that, once Super Aguri began beating the Honda works team in 2007, Honda started intentionally sabotaging the junior team (Super Aguri did notice that they were receiving an increasing number of incorrect specification parts from Honda after they beat them in the Canadian GP that year).
Cobblers. Formula One had the customer car concept built in right at the start. Throughout the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s there was a strong and healthy practice of privateer entrants buying whole cars from constructors. Many great drivers got their starts in privateer cars or were strong performers in privateer cars at some points in their careers. Jo Siffert and Graham Hill both put Rob Walker’s Lotus at the front of the field, and Siffert won the British GP driving the blue Lotus 49, not the works one. Earlier, Moss and Trint both won for Walker driving non-works Coopers and Loti. In the 1970s Ronny Peterson made his first starts in F1 at the wheel of Colin Crabbe’s March 701, and Jackie Stewart won the 1970 Spanish GP in his Tyrrell-run example. Mike Hawthorne was driving a Cooper Bristol belonging to and run by his father when he burst on to the World Championship scene, scoring three points finishes (one of them for third place) in his first three Grande Epreuve competitions. John Watson’s drives in the Goldie Hexagon Brabhams helped on his way to a spot with the works team, and Jack Brabham’s first drive for his own Brabham Racing Organisation team was actually at the wheel of a borrowed Lotus 24 as the Brabham BT3 wasn’t ready.
Don’t get me wrong; broadly I agree with you that customer cars in this day and age would be a bad thing for the sport. The main reason that customer cars used to work is that most “engineering” was actually suck-it-and-see guesstimation, the cars were imperfect, and it was possible for a well-prepared and well-driven lesser car to beat notionally faster cars. Modern analytical engineering and set-up mean that if you don’t have the right car under you, you aren’t going to be on the podium. The main concern is that way lies a one-make series (which from the GP1 rumours lately abounding might be what Bernie has in mind anyway) as we saw with the competition between (and consequent death of…) March, Raynard, Lola and Dallara in the North American single seater competitions. However, I do take exception to you berating a commenter and querying their historical knowledge when it is actually you that are talking out of your anal orifice. Since 1980 customer teams have been outlawed, but your statement that “Formula 1 is built on the simple premise that teams build their own cars” is just flat wrong.
And where did they go?
Private teams buying cars from Constructors worked in the 60’s and 70’s. The idea that one must build the car oneself, to enter the WCC is a relatively new one and not necessarily the best way to run thing imho.
Tosh. It is the only route that will guarantee a solid future for F1. If the sport moves towards fewer chassis suppliers it will undermine its value.
John C actually put it correctly. For example, Marussia may go under, it is distinctly possible. For over a year Max Chilton has peddled one and neither you nor I nor any of the fans has the slightest idea whether or not he deserves to be in an F1 car. Our only guide is Bianchi, and again, apart from Ferrari backing, the jury is out on him too. If Marussia were using a pair of last year’s Saubers, we would have a much better idea ( assuming that there had been no rule changes ) since we would have Hulkenberg’s form to relate the Marussia drivers too. I would venture to say that few fans are connected to the teams, other than say Ferrari, Mac, Williams & Lotus. The thing people go to spectate for, is the driver vs driver action.. I’ve never gone to a race to see Mac beat Williams, but to see Montoya fight Raikkonen for example. So if Chilton was in a Mac or a Williams that was a year out of date, it wouldn’t bother me at all…..neither would it if Marussia goes down, apart from concern at the job losses. F1 should reduce costs, car sales to private teams would help that a huge amount, and the fans would not be upset. Indeed there would be larger grids as access to the sport, for new teams would be hugely cheaper.Simples! You should look at the bigger picture.
Absolutely agree with Joe Saward here. When you allow customer chassis, you allow the teams to essentially go to the “best” manufacturer and purchase a chassis. Just imagine if this season 5 teams had shown up with Mercedes chassis and engine; the only way for Ferrari and red Bull to have been competitive would have been to purchase a Mercedes chassis as well! Where does this lead? One make series! Look at indycar in the 1990s; there were a number of manufacturers, but by 1995 teams all began to move to a single supplier! Do we really want F1 to become another spec series?
Joe, there were some executives at Apple who were concerned that the introduction of the iPad would hurt sales of Mac Books. Steve Jobs said if you are not willing to cannibalize yourself, your competitors will do it for you. Given the state of the middle of the pack and smaller trams on the grid, now may be the appropriate time for the F1 industry to give further consideration to customer cars.
Politcally unpalatable, but I support customer cars, only if they don’t share the same engine. At least that would dilute the power of an engine manufacturer to manipulate the scene. Without that proviso, customer cars would be a disaster. If Williams sell a car to force India (for example) then it can’t have the same engine as the other team running Williams chassis. Simple. No chance!
Trouble is, that infrastructure’s almost gone anyway. I haven’t checked but I suspect there are as many or more formula car manufacturers in F1 as there are outside it. There is no longer a pyramid of manufacturers throughout Motorsport.
The big problem with customer cars in this age that I think everyone has seemed have missed is that a chassis from one construstor will never match to an engine that it was never designed for.
So if someone was to buy a McLaren chassis and a Ferrari engine the two would never be compatible, mountings, aero, gearboxes and the whole rear end really is fundamentally designed to suit a particular engine.
So you would have a chassis with a completely usless rear end for the engine you brought.
Might just be better to make your own car?
Notable exxeption to disprove this – the Brawn car was designed for a Honda engine, the Merc was retro-fitted and it won the championship
Joe,
Out of interest, do you see all of the current eleven teams making it to the end of the season?
Not sure about that. But teams survive a lot, so probably
Hi Joe, do you have any thoughts on which team might get McLaren’s supply of Mercedes engines in 2015 due to them switching to Honda?
Will there be one?
I heard RBR are looking into it. If that happens, we would have 4 Merc powered cars fighting for the podiums on a regular basis. And Merc would get Vettel.
Joe, what do you make of the murmurings that Stefan GP will be buying up and running the Stefan GP entry for 2015 and beyond? I understand that the reason he pulled out of the bidding process was for his lack of securing an engine deal, and presumably the Marussia entry would come with a supply of Ferrari engines which would presumably solve that issue?
If Haas does not buy Marussia, is it possible that Stefanovic does?
He has long talked a lot…
Hi Joe,
This is a worrying situation for the staff at the current back markers, and also their investors. However I can’t help but think that if Haas has money to invest, he might be better purchasing a mid-field team. Buying a back marker at a cut-down price and inheriting the debts sounds like a quick way to become poorer with a significant risk of not scoring any points. If DM is still not happy with new-style F1, maybe Haas could purchase Toro Rosso? That would provide Haas with a points-scoring team with considerable F1 technical know-how, a base in Italy (which Haas has stated he wants alongside his US operation) and a better chance of challenging at the front in a short period of time. Of course, the engine contract would need to be changed as he wants Ferrari, but I think the US market it too important for F1 to have its first US team in a long time trundling around at the back.
if haas buys marussia he will never get out of the two bottom slots of the grid.
And you think a deal with Dallara is better? Dream on.
not at all. that would probably be even worse. ha
That’s just an interim deal. Haas says he’s going to put his own people in at Dallara, so he can learn from them how to bring chassis design in-house after an initial learning period.
I can’t imagine that Dallara could possibly have any objections to that (or that such an inspired plan could possibly fail…)
I actually took part in the conversation with Haas in which this was mentioned. I still think he is seriously underestimating the task, but then all F1 newcomers do that. They always know better than those who have gone before them. It is a regular pattern.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I’m on exactly the same page as you with this, Joe).
Jaguar were in no better position – Red bull bought them, I think you’ll agree they’ve done alright.
Minardi were in no better position – Torro Rosso run in the midfield.
Honda were in no better position – Brawn purchased and won the championship.
With new ownership and an injection of money and/or commitment the past isn’t the best predictor of the future.
Jaguar were occasional qualifiers on the front two rows. Their predecessor (Stewart GP) even won a race (with a degree of luck). No comparison to Marussia in terms of competitiveness.
Haas, with his facilities and being able to inject an extra 100 million into Marussia would likely make quite a difference in their placement.
The concepts behind Marussia have always puzzled me.
Marussia Motors started off as a supercar company with a nationalist flavour. I’ve never seen a Marussia car (I see the odd Lambo where I live) or read a review of one. From what I gather, Marussias were built on a platform designed by somebody else for sale to Russians. I don’t know whether that branding model might work; I assumed that bling loving Russians would buy supercars that weren’t labelled Made in Moscow.
The Marussia F1 team was established to promote the supercar brand. I don’t understand the economics of using F1 to promote a brand that sells in one country.
Contrary to popular belief, the founders of Marussia are sensible engineers and entrepreneurs rather than oligarchs with money to blow on a vanity project. I hope that they haven’t lost all their money and that suppliers get paid.
I always wondered where this operation (Marussia F1) got its funding so last year I did a little online hunting around and found images of their car operation. Young people – no more then 16-20 of them constructing cars that are basically sq tubing covered in fiberglass with a skin of carbon glued on top to make it appear as if it is a carbon body/chassis. Bizarre body shapes that were designed in some kids mind instead of a CFD or a tunnel. I wondered where their market was for this car considering the wealthy class in Russia buy up all the Italian and German cars they can get their hands on. The pricing was upper middle class – a class that is small and a class that would much prefer a C series or a 5 series with a warranty and room for luggage. And this business supports an F1 team? Really?
When you see the engineering behind the F1 team compared to the car manufacturing business you’ll have suspicions that there cannot be ANY connection between the two companies. You would wonder why there wouldn’t be any technical exchange between these groups – that maybe someone on the F1 end of the companies would advise the group in Russia on why plunking in a low end low powered V6 into what is supposed to be a ‘super car’ isn’t going to inspire sales for this target market…
In my view money was paid to the F1 group (Manor) as a way to promote the sales of these road cars as opposed to the commonly held view that the F1 team was an ‘offshoot’ of a car manufacturer. In other words, the F1 team is a bought and paid for ‘promotion’ exercise by Marussia and that at any given moment in the near future this financial relationship could revert to another group wishing to enter F1 under the ‘appearance’ as an ownership group with naming rights to the team.
I have no proof but I get the feeling that John Booth or Tony Shaw wouldn’t have given up all of their control over this team in the event of a financial meltdown by the Russians. Everyone remembers the TVR fiasco where a good low volume car constructor went out of business after a Russian kid of a billionaire decided he could build these vehicles in his home market thereby killing off jobs in the UK – and it all went t*t’s up afterward. I think the owners of Manor are smarter then this and will have an exit plan in the works after the events of the past week. I think we’ll see them back at the FIA offices in the off season asking for a new name change with another new team ‘owner’ name applied to team shirts and body work…
Who is Tony Shaw?
According to Wikipedia, “In 2007, Manor Motorsport saw a change of ownership when Formula Renault UK team manager Tony Shaw bought out John Booth, who will retain the Manor Motorsport name and continue to race in the Formula Three Euroseries.”
I think you are getting your Manors mixed up.
Tony Shaw was one of John Booth’s engineers in Formula Renault UK. He bought the Renault team from John and he later teamed up a European Renault Team, when Renault UK ran out of drivers.
Jimbo
“Gene Haas has plans to have Ferrari engines and to have Dallara build his chassis but he would be wiser perhaps to simply buy Marussia and let the people running the show get on with it.”
I don’t understand why it would be wise for anybody to buy the Marussia team when they could buy Lotus/Enstone instead?
I can’t see any wisdom in using a Dallara chassis for his team, there is also at present, no wisdom in using Ferrari engines. There wouldn’t be any wisdom in buying Marussia out either as it has little/no hope of being a regular points scorer let alone a podium finisher or winner. For a guy with £100m to blow, Mr Haas could have way more fun and still have change in his pocket by doing any amount of other activities.Of course, if he has tax reasons to lose £ millions, then F1 from the mid field back, is the best place to be in the world!
The plight of Caterham and Marussia doesn’t bode well for the two new teams, without a budget cap I just don’t see how a new team can compete unless it is a major car manufacturer with huge resources, which of course has no guarantee (see Toyota).
I hope the team get bought or find some solution to this, the underdogs need a chance to compete and add to F1.
I wonder how the two ‘new’ teams would have done with a Merc engine? Perhaps Caterham will look at it now the Renault sports car collaboration seems to have gone south.
Regardless of Mr Haas’ wealth, and because of his business acumen (he not wiling to piss his personal wealth down a rabbit hole), I’ll believe it is real when a car appears on the starting grid, either in ’15 or ’16.
Yes, my USF1 experience has left me quite jaundiced.
Hi joe,what going to happen with caterham, what with Tonys comments about pulling out if things don’t improve and the Renault tie up now over do you think he will sell and to who.
I have no idea.
interesting footnote to this: marrusia motors was also involved in developing a platform for a new range of cars and sharing the development with NAMI, a state run automotive research institute. one of those cars is a new limo for Pres Putin (plus road cars, SUVs, vans, etc). apparently all the marussia motors staff have now departed en masse to join NAMI. just strikes me as odd that marussia would withdraw a matter of months before the sochi GP. wonder if there are more details/plans to emerge.
The way things are going you can kiss goodbye to a GP in Sochi
Mmmmn, have wondered. I heard the track laying company has folded, but I guess you’re not talking about that. Look forward to hearing all about it, cheers
“The racing team is a legal entity called Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd. This belongs to a holding company called Manor Holdco Ltd, which in turn was owned by a Luxembourg firm called Marussia Lux SA, a subsidiary of Marussia Motors. It seems that this structure has now been changed with Manor Holdco having been passed to a new company, registered in Ireland, called Marussia Communications Ltd. Thus it is no longer directly linked to Marussia Motors”
What a tangled web some people weave.