The Manor F1 Team is on the brink of collapse, as the team has now appointed an administrator in an attempt to secure the team by finding a buyer. The team confirmed it had failed to find a worthy partner itself, meaning its 212 staff are currently in an unsecure position.
Hopefully as I would hate for us to loose this team as well, which I think has a very good potential if run properlyMrCelroy wrote:Good news?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... r-for-2017
An offer was made to buy manor
I was wondering if it was Manor and not Sauber in Brazil, if the tables would be reversed?PlatinumZealot wrote:I really don't understand the kaltenborn hate. And if it was was any other season sauber would have easily secured 10th spit. And no sauber were smart enough not to rely on causaulty to secure themselves for 2017. It was mr fitzpatrick for being tricked by Toto into running those mercedes drivers for little or nothing. Should have ran honda engines for free and stock up on those pay drivers.
The 2017 completely redesigned PUs reliability will be a question mark. The 2016 Ferrari PU was no slouch. So the real question is does the focus on the chassis make Sauber faster than if it had less focus on the chassis and have more power but less reliability?Jolle wrote:Manor's contracts and licence could still be worth a bit of money. In 2017 you'll have to do a very very bad job to get beaten by Sauber, which is running on a small budget and a '16 ferrari engine while every other team have completely renewed PU's with the lift of the token system. The downside of the development of Honda and Renault is that points are going to get more and more difficult the coming years with 10 "works" cars on track. Even Williams, FI, STR and Haas will struggle.
I interpret the large difference in the "prize money" between 10th and 11th positions in constructors as someone thinks they only need 10 teams.Gridlock wrote:F1 needs 13 teams, full stop. And this boom/bust cycle has to end.
Actualy, no boom. Just bust. Even worse.
A brand new design that has no limit in development against a patched up design from three/four years ago? I think with the disappearance of Manor, the last two cars on the grid are set alreadydiffuser wrote:The 2017 completely redesigned PUs reliability will be a question mark. The 2016 Ferrari PU was no slouch. So the real question is does the focus on the chassis make Sauber faster than if it had less focus on the chassis and have more power but less reliability?Jolle wrote:Manor's contracts and licence could still be worth a bit of money. In 2017 you'll have to do a very very bad job to get beaten by Sauber, which is running on a small budget and a '16 ferrari engine while every other team have completely renewed PU's with the lift of the token system. The downside of the development of Honda and Renault is that points are going to get more and more difficult the coming years with 10 "works" cars on track. Even Williams, FI, STR and Haas will struggle.
If I was Sauber and looking for ways to save money.... I would have done the same.
We believe that CGF a private equity firm in the U.K are in the final stages of purchasing Manor Race Team from Mr Stephen Fitzpatrick.
We have zero inside track on this deal and it like the other deals may fall through at the last minute.
