Pedro de la Rosa, HRT, Interlagos, 2012

Haas won’t end 2016 point-less – Manor

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Manor president Graeme Lowden expects Haas to be points-scorers from the off in 2016.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Peter Sauber, Sauber, Albert Park, 2015
Team bosses’ decisions affect hundreds of employees
Are Force India and Sauber right to complain to the EU about F1 – or should they not have signed up in the first place if they thought what they were being offered was unlawful? @Beneboy puts that choice into perspective:

Imagine you’re Peter Sauber. Bernie comes to you and says “This is your new contract, either sign it, or lose your place in F1.”

Do you sign it knowing you’re being screwed over, or do you stick to your principles and watch the company you’ve spent decades building go bust, and all of your employees made redundant?
@Beneboy

What’s your view on the EU complaint? Vote and have your say here:

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Gaston_Pdu!

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

The European Grand Prix, held at Brands Hatch 30 years ago today, saw Alain Prost clinch his first world championship title and Nigel Mansell score his first F1 victory.

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

  • 53 comments on “Haas won’t end 2016 point-less – Manor”

    1. Cotd I get your over dramatic idea, just a note that Peter sold Sauber and more than once by the time of the last concorde agreement it was Monisha in charge of the team, as it stands to this day.
      In my opinion you can see that F1 is not heeding to Sauber’s and SFI’s prayers for a long time. Had both teams been able to guarantee their stay in the sport till 2020 as per concorde agreement, both wouldn’t have been on the wrong end of some strange decisions against both teams. I’m not saying that they should’ve left as soon as they knew they couldn’t feature on the lets call it “premium list of manufacturers” but have the guts to say or do something before you went absolutely broke which is the case now, this is their last resort.

      1. Your comment is so disappointing. It doesn’t bother me that I disagree with you. It bothers me that it makes me sad for the prospect of the human race that there are people who think like you. You are basically accusing people for not throwing their peers under the bus in order to get ahead. I’d think, having conquered the elements and sitting comfortably on the top of the food chain, with no threat from anyone else but ourselves, we’d start seeing further than our own selfish motives. There’s no justifiable reason from the outside for acting as if someone has to be left behind. It’s only us who are betraying ourselves.

        1. @brace Very powerful comments. While I understand your convictions, I disagree. Sport in general is the ultimate sink or swim ideology. Why should teams like Mercedes who have spent a lot of time and money on getting ahead, have to then also spend time and money on teams that cannot? Is it Mercedes fault that Mannor, FI and Sauber can’t get the backing they need to survive, let alone compete at a decent level? While I do not want F1 to lose more teams, I also don’t want F1 to become a charity to a host of teams that struggle to turn up, let alone compete.

          1. @dragoll

            Those are questions that go into economics. Unfortunately most people (And I think Brace does belong to those) don’t understand the implications of what they are saying. They think it is a straight forward question of morality. In a kind of way it actually is, but it is a different way than they (and I once too) think.

            @brace
            This is no offence in any way. I didn’t understand those things for a long time either because it is not easy to think them through. As a starter, if Bernie should help Sauber funding his team as a charity to save those jobs, then I want such a job as well. If Sauber has a right to them, then equal rights should mean I have a right to such a job as well. I am sure I could run an F1 Team just as well which wasn’t able to meet its financial obligations, nothing should be easier than that. I feel a little bit thrown under the bus as well. ;)

            1. @skylien You are my kind of guy…

          2. @dragoll – it’s those in charge of the sport who should ensure that the regs are in place to allow all teams to compete instead of just those who manufacturer their own engine. Mercedes shouldn’t have to look after Manor but the sport should be set up in a way that allows Manor/Force India/Sauber/Williams/Lotus to compete with Mercedes and Ferrari rather than creating a 3 tier series like F1 currently is.

            1. @petebaldwin

              That wasn’t the point @dragoll wanted to make. His point was that it shouldn’t be the business of Bernie to ensure the existence of jobs at Sauber just for the sake of those jobs. (BTW a job is not a job if it is financed by charity and not by people actually ready and able to pay for the service because they want the service). His job is to increase the value und revenue (over the long term) of F1.

              And to do that I agree with you, there are rule changes needed and based on this Bernie and FOM should act, since this would deliver in my view better and more honest racing. That in turn would increase the attractiveness of F1 for you and me (especially over the long term!), and therefore increase its value, and increases all kinds of revenue F1 generates and so indirectly helps Sauber to get a better deal because Bernies budget available for negotiation increases, and the value of Sauber for sponsors increases as well.

              So I am critical of Bernie as well. I think it is short sighted to abandon traditional tracks just because the revenue over the short term can be increased this way, because in my view it hurts the future revenue be decreasing the attractiveness of F1.. On the other hand he is (one of the) owner(s). And so it is his right to call the shots.

            2. @skylien – OK so firstly, my job is fully funded by charity. Personally I still consider it a job as I have to turn up at 9, work hard all day, leave at 5 and get paid for doing so. I don’t why the source of the money that pays your wages makes your job or life any less important…?

              But anyway, back on to F1. You say that Bernie is responsible for looking after the long term future of F1… Recently, he has said he doesn’t care if children watch F1 or not because they can’t afford Rolex watches. hmmmm…. We’ll move past that at the moment though and assume his desire really is to look after the long term interests of F1…

              Wouldn’t part of the remit involve ensuring the sport was competitive but also realistic? As things stand, it’s becoming apparent that private teams can no longer win in F1. Are you saying you would prefer it if F1 became Renault vs Mercedes vs Ferrari vs Honda vs BMW? A bunch of manufacturers trying to outspend each other whilst the likes of Williams, Sauber, Manor and Force India cease to exist or drop into GP2? I suppose that is “a” future but personally, it’s not one I want.

              Thirdly, you reference the classic tracks at the bottom however if you look at the stats provided by Keith this week relating to Rate the Race, the classic tracks didn’t do so well… This suggest that F1’s problems run deeper than which tracks it races cars around. Personally, I find the predictability of F1, the uncompetitiveness of all privateer teams and the power that Mercedes and Ferrari now hold over the sport much more of a turn-off.

            3. @petebaldwin

              Ok let me clarify. If I pay one guy on basis of pure charity to do a service for any third party this is of course legitimate. It depends on what your goal is. We agree that Bernie’s goal is (or rather should be) to create an attractive F1 for most people. This is in the interest of fans and his self as it increases the value and revenues of his product. It could very well be that giving less money to Ferrari and more to Sauber might increase the attractiveness of F1 and therefore its value. That would not be charity, it would just be the right business decision if that is the case.
              If on the other hand that would mean that e.g. Ferrari exits and with Ferrari millions of fans than that would not be charity either, it would be a bad business decision, causing F1 to lose Ferrari, fans and a lot of money (which might probably lead to even less money for Sauber than before..).
              It only would be charity if Bernie would basically pay it out of his own pocket (not from Ferraris share), however then it would be better to not mix that with normal business contracts and would be smarter if he “sponsors” them with a separate payment from his own money. If he wants to do that it would be his decision, but obviously there are much more desperate people on the world than employees of Sauber who would need charity much more urgently. But basically that would be of course legitimate if he personally wanted it that way. However it cannot and should not be because jobs at Sauber need to be protected, because then all jobs in F1 should be protected etc…

              I agree that F1 is currently dominated by the same teams per definition. I don’t want that engine customer teams currently are just pawns in the game of the engine suppliers. They are at the moment only there for cosmetic reasons. And I will lose interest if this doesn’t change, and so I hope Bernie and the rest will see this problem and change rules accordingly, so that at least theoretically all teams have a chance from the engine side, then it is “just” an issue of having the budget.
              However getting the budget to fight for top spot I think is in the responsibility of each team. RBR and McLaren, who are no manufacturer, obviously proved that it is possible. And if you take away that aspect of getting the budget needed then F1 will become something entirely different, it would definitely not be the technological pinnacle anymore it still is, because manufacturers would abandon F1. So I am against limiting budgets. That is not to say that it might not be better for F1 to change the payout scheme of its revenues. But I can’t tell what ratio is right. It should be clear that just sharing it equally cannot work, as well as it doesn’t work if the grid is not full. I can’t tell what is right..

              Well I have to take a closer look at the track issue. However so far I felt that Bernie was just going for short term revenue and sacrificing the fans wishes, which is to see races at classic tracks.

          3. @dragoll It’s definitely true that F1 is sink or swim. It’s also true that FOM gives some teams armbands while others get lead-weighted speedos. The issue is one of fairness – FOM doesn’t just allow Mercedes to succeed in a fair environment, they give them huge advantages to lock in their position. Then those teams with weights in their trunks, desperately trying to keep their heads above water, are told that if they couldn’t swim then they should never have got in the pool.

            1. @mazdachris My understanding of the token method, or ‘locking in’ as you say, was to keep costs down by restricting the temptation toward unlimited development and a money race which would only elevate costs of PU’s for the very smaller teams we are talking about. Also, all PU makers had the same chance to nail their package by a certain date, and it just happened to be Mercedes that did it. Renault/RBR chose to concentrate on a 4th Seb Championship assuming they’d still nail their new PU. Ferrari have made great gains in spite of the ‘lock’ which in reality is only on a small percentage of the PU.

              F1 is sink or swim for sure. F1 favours the biggest contributors for sure. F1 has always been intentionally hard for smaller teams to enter and succeed in, by design. As the ‘pinnacle’ of Motorsport globally if you want to play in that realm you better come prepared and you are expected to survive because you wanted in to begin with, and presented a case why you should be, and are gleaning massive marketing impact for your partners.

              But that said for sure maybe the equation has changed from what the smaller teams signed up for, and they need a little more help in this globally tough economy, which to me is more the ‘weighted trunks’ that you refer to. I don’t see that F1 has given the top teams armbands any more so lately than has always been the case, nor have given smaller teams weights beyond the burden they knew they were getting into of getting to a level of sustainability in F1. Their struggle is in getting external money through sponsors to keep going. Not saying something couldn’t be done within the dysfunction that is F1 too, but I think the principles remain the same…you want to catch the big fish, you better come with some pretty big bait, like Haas has…eyes wide open to what it takes…knowing too, they’re not guaranteed anything either.

        2. @brace

          Monisha didn’t seem to have any qualms about through VDG under the bus. “We’ll take your money, then renege on the deal.”

          They all operate out of their own self interest.

      2. You mean you want a team principal to deliberately cost his/her entire team their jobs?

        1. @raceprouk As cotd said, either way you are done. I say if you are going to make a stance do it when you have something in hand not as your last resort.
          @gt-racer ??? Dieter Rencken has been our inside on concorde agreements.

          1. That is not what the COTD says at all @peartree.

            By not signing the deal Sauber (either Peter himself or Monisha, it doesn’t really matter) would immediately put all investments in Hinwill and a couple of hundred people out of a job. By signing the deal they get a chance to go on but at terrible conditions.
            Its pretty clear that in such a situation one has to swallow the bitter pill and sing that unfavourable deal to preserve the team.

            1. ColdFly F1 - @coldfly (@)
              6th October 2015, 10:07

              Fully agree. @bascb
              And guys let’s get back to earth. Sauber and Force India only registered a complaint regarding the ‘governance of Formula One and () the system of dividing revenues and determining how Formula One’s rules are set (being) both unfair and unlawful’. It is in their full right to do so, either before, during or after they sign a contract with FOM.
              The EU will decide it if will act.

              AFAIK the latest Concorde Agreement (as per @peartree‘s link) is an agreement only between the FOM and FIA (even Bernie’s comment refers to that). The teams then signed separate contracts with FOM as @gt-racer states below.

            2. @bascb I think you misread what cotd is referring to, as well as my personal views. Sauber and SFI signed off the current deal, and they did so with the knowledge that the teams that made a 2020 pledge would earn more money, based on a pledge this money would affect teams sporting wise, that their claim. Both Sauber and SFI weren’t able to guarantee their stay in the sport till 2020 and so are not qualified for extra revenue. Cotd says that neither stance is ideal, as in his view both lead up to the collapse of the racing team, and I agree. My personal view is that this eu thing should have been brought up 3 years ago.
              To be exact you are right @coldfly anyway the deal between Bernie and the teams is that all teams that pledge their stay in f1 until 2020 would get higher % of the money. Sauber and SFI don’t make on that list, nor on the historical teams list.

            3. sigh @peartree. Please leave fiction out of it (or provide any substantial basis for your claim that “Both Sauber and SFI weren’t able to guarantee their stay in the sport till 2020 and so are not qualified for extra revenue.”)

              Both FI and Sauber very much signed up to a deal that keeps them in the sport until 2020. They never got the offer of signing up to more money like Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and after some discussions etc Williams, Mercedes got, they just got the basic deal, because Bernie knew that they had no real option but to sign up anyhow and are not important enough for him to offer them a better deal. That is exactly what the EU complaint is about.

            4. @bascb It’s common knowledge that only RBR, Ferrari and Mercedes were able to guarantee their stay in the sport till 2020. Everyone signed the bilateral deals with the cvc but only the teams that assured they wouldn’t drop out were eligible for extra income.

            5. Well @peartree, you call that “common knowledge”, but I have to still see the first person, apart from you, who thinks it is knowledge at all.

              In reality, Bernie offered a deal first to Ferrari and Red Bull that broke up FOTA, and then it went on to offer McLaren a good deal, and Mercedes and Williams both negotiated to get a deal as well but at somewhat less favourable terms. But all of them signed up until 2020, and all of them have penalties they have to pay for getting out earlier.

              The other teams (Lotus, Sauber, Force India and Caterham, while Manor/Marussia only got more or less the same deal quite a bit later) also got a contract offer signing them up until 2020, but without the nice bonus payments the “big” teams get. They are all signed up until 2020 (unless they go bust). And they never had any chance to get that extra income.
              That is exactly what the complaint is about: FOM (and the FIA facilitating that) offering unequal opportunities to different teams, and therewith going agains a fair competition by giving the big teams an unfair advantage (both in payments and in regulatory influence)

          2. @peartree – Glad to know you’d sooner throw 200 people under the bus rather than attempt to solve the problem

      3. There currently is no concorde agreement, In its place is individual commercial agreements with each team, Each with varying arrangements depending on the team.

        If there was a concorde agreement the terms would be a lot more equal for every team (Historic bonuses for some teams aside) because everyone would have signed the same document. As it is every team has signed upto a different document with completely different terms depending on the team.

      4. I agree with the teams taking action but I am struggling with the timing of it. Yeah they may have been forced into signing but then to wait years before doing anything about it seems to be a case of being ok with it to start with, see how it goes and if I do not like it we will then cause a huge issue. If they had signed the contract to survive then straight away go to the EU and say we were forced to do this I would be more comfortable with it. It’s a bit like buying trainers that have a fault, use them for a year then go back to the shop and demanding a refund.

        1. Who said that they simply “waited” all this time?
          Others here have called this action a “last resort”.
          I’m pretty sure that a lot has happened behind the screens that we don’t know about.
          Who knows what kind of negotiations took place the past months. I don’t. Do you?

          The best argument that I read here today is: “why didn’t FI and Sauber sign a deal that would commit them to F1 until 2020”?
          I would be very interested in reading the answer to that question.

          1. I think they will fail based on the length of time they waited. To me personally it looks like they signed waited to see if they liked it which meant everyone thought they knew where they stood then when they ran into difficulty they cry foul. I think their case will be thrown out straight away but only time will tell. Same if someone buys something uses it for ages then tries to take it back saying it was never right. I have no sympathy for that, had they done this straight after signing years ago I would fully support their actions.

    2. I like the picture of the HRT right below the title.

      Nevertheless it does remind you about how just about every one of the “new teams” from 2010 pretty much failed apart from perhaps Virgin/Marussia/Manor, who managed one points finish and are now going to become a Mercedes B team.

      I was really excited back in 2010 when the grid increased from 20 to 24 cars (could have been 26). In my optimism, I was sure that all of them, or at the very least two would be here to stay, and would eventually close the gap to the midfield, which would provide extra depth to the grid. How deluded was I.

      Nevertheless, anyone else remember Stefan GP, USF1, Prodrive and all those other teams for 2010 that “never were”? Stefan GP even had a car ready for 2010!

      1. I remember thinking at that time that the budget cap never seemed like it was set in stone, so it was odd so many teams were allowed in. Mostly because USF1 wanted to do things so differently, they had to be a new BAR/Toyota. They didn’t even manage that!

        To be honest I thought (what later became) Lotus and Virgin had a good shot, because they were formed out of established F3 teams. Then the ownership changes happened and my enthusiasm kind of faded. HRT seemed like a mess throughout their ownership change early on, too. StefanGP was an odd one, having bought the 2010 Toyota chassis, but not a whole lot else. I’d like to know what would have happened if they had been allowed to participate, but doubt they’d still be around.

        But if if anyone would have told me in late 2009 that HRT and Lotus/Caterham would fall and Virgin/Marussia/Manor would go through this much drama, for USF1 to never appear, I’d say they’d be pretty cynical. But F1 has a way of proving cynics right…

        I’ve been following F1 since 1998 and I’ve heard so many potential teams come and go.. From an ‘American team for the American Red Bull driver programme’ to a ‘German Grand Prix team’, to Hyundai and Audi, it sure is a lot of fun to speculate!

    3. In F1, you have these Strategy sessions when anybody can throw out any idea they want and then they vote on it. That is fundamentally different to NASCAR, where they listen to everybody and then say, ‘here is what we are going to do’.

      The more I listen to these direct quotes from Haas, the more he sounds like he doesn’t have a clue about F1 except the official line that he read in “government-approved literature”, otherwise known as F1’s PR facade.

      His comments on Grosjean a few days ago also sounded like he really didn’t know what to say, like didn’t have a clue why Grosjean was actually a good driver for them. I’m sure Gunther Steiner knows F1 much better, but as far as Haas goes, I’m not sure he ever really watched F1 at all.

      1. Haas’ comments sound a little naive. Or maybe he has only met Bernie on of his ‘be nice to everyone’ days.

      2. @brace

        I really kind of get the same feeling about Haas..

      3. @brace ‘He finished in the points on many occasions between 2012-2013’ – Uhu…

    4. Haas is no fool, but F1 makes a fool of them all

    5. It’s funny how both Red Bull drivers are saying that they have nothing to worry about, perhaps it’s orders from the team, because they have a ton of things to worry about.

      If Red Bull decides to pull out, then they won’t have a drive next season.

      If Red Bull can only secure a 2015-spec Ferrari, they’ll probably miss their situation this year. We all saw how big the gap of 1 year of development is. And Ferrari is being bold that they won’t provide engine parity to Red Bull.

      1. @ducpham2708 I wonder: Are we now at the point that Red Bull have threatened to quit so many times we can now take it for granted they won’t leave? They may have over-played that hand.

        1. Yes, I agree. Red Bull saying “We’ll quit ” doesn’t seem a big deal anymore. But this time, they don’t have an engine, which might force them to leave. Especially after their comments regarding their potential new supplier.

        2. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
          6th October 2015, 13:44

          I’m sure there’s a ‘the boy who cried Wolff’ pun to be had in there somewhere, but I can’t work it out…

          1. @fullcoursecaution The team that talked Bull..

          2. The Bull that cried Wolff

            1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
              6th October 2015, 15:12

              The Bull that decried Wolff

            2. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
              6th October 2015, 15:16

              *who

      2. Red Bull won’t use 2015 Ferrari engines. This will all end with Bernie paying off the appropriate people to ensure the show goes on.

    6. Do haas really have the potential to beat force india or lotus? Because that’s the midfielder.

      1. Ferrari’s aero improvement during the ’15 season hasn’t come from nowhere. Haas are subject to almost zero restrictions currently, so they can test and test and test any parts they fancy. If those parts come from this year’s Ferrari, well….

        So yeah Haas has a damn good chance.

    7. The mexican GP does seem to have some very nice spectator views!

      I really hope there will be some nice overtake places.

    8. Haas will score first F1 points early on in 2016 – ha, ha, ha

      1. Well maybe, just maybe. Let’s pretend that Mateschitz (sic) does have a tantrum and pulls four cars out of the contest, and possibly the Lotus deal doesn’t quite go ahead, and that MacHonda don’t get themselves together . . . Points for Haas could happen.

    9. I was pretty surprised to read Haas’ comments about NASCAR being more like a dictatorship vs. F1. He must be being diplomatic because surely he has heard about BE’s admiration for the likes of Hitler. Of course who would know better than Haas about how NASCAR operates, but it sounds like FI and Sauber would consider themselves in a dictatorship as we speak.

      I don’t mind a little dictatorship in this way…I think the person in charge should be someone who is democratically elected based on what they say they will do if elected. Once in charge, they should have some latitude to do as they said they would (ie. dictate) so that things can get done rather than everything being put to a referendum and nothing getting done. But there should also be accountability if they don’t do as they campaigned on and stray too far from what was their stated plan that got them elected.

      1. @Robbie, I imagine that those comments were made in relation to the fact that all of the financial and technical aspects of NASCAR are managed and owned by the France family, whilst the company that owns most of the circuits used by NASCAR (13 out of a total of 19) is owned and run by the France family.

        Bernie is, without question, an extremely influential figure within F1 but, by comparison, the authority of the France family within NASCAR is completely unchecked.

    10. Toro Rosso will have 2016 Merc PU, RedBull will have the Ferrari PU.

    11. Let’s wait for the first test a Haas car appears, and let’s talk about their chances for points after that. The latest addition of privateer teams didn’t have much luck, not in 2010, and not ever since, and now only one of them exists still. Obviously Haas has gained the experience of developing cars in other series which might help, and the Ferrari engine will surely help, but this wouldn’t be the first occasion that an otherwise experienced participant struggles as a rookie in F1. I hope the best for Haas, as F1 needs a fresh wind that might encourage more teams to enter, but talking about points right now is not better than hoping Honda podiums for the end of this season, as McLaren did…

      1. @andrewt Don’t forget Red Bull is a privateer and they did pretty well. Granted Haas does not have their budget but I think they have a good shot at finishing ahead of Sauber.

    12. @xtwl Right, but they weren’t a completley new team, they took over Jaguar that has existed for 8 seasons including the Stewart GP era.

    13. Take Ferrari of 2015; change livery to suit new team. Tada Haas F1 is born.

      If they do get the 2015 Ferrari engines and stick with most aero parts shared with Ferrari, then there is no excuse for them not to score points in their first year.

      The real test lies in the seasons after that as Sauber have so effectively shown after 2012.

    Comments are closed.