Sauber & Marussia behind in payments
Discussion
It's being reported that Sauber and Marussia are behind in their payments to Ferrari for their engines
http://www.f1today.net/en/news/sauber-and-marussia...
The article also says there are doubts about Marussia even competing this weekend
http://www.f1today.net/en/news/sauber-and-marussia...
The article also says there are doubts about Marussia even competing this weekend
This was discussed on Peter Windsors "Racers Edge" youtube channel this week - a good channel if anyone cares to look.
Apparently neither team has made a single payment this year for it's engines, however should Ferrari take action to recover that debt and that action result in either team not attending a race, Bernie will be inbreach of contract with the circuits. So I'm sure there's a lot of discussion, favours and worried faces going on in the background.
When you consider as well that Caterham are being bankrolled by unknowns, but suspected to involve Red Bull and Bernie, it seems there's a lot of people helping to prop these teams up. I can see all three under new ownership come January '15.
Sorry state of affairs.
Apparently neither team has made a single payment this year for it's engines, however should Ferrari take action to recover that debt and that action result in either team not attending a race, Bernie will be inbreach of contract with the circuits. So I'm sure there's a lot of discussion, favours and worried faces going on in the background.
When you consider as well that Caterham are being bankrolled by unknowns, but suspected to involve Red Bull and Bernie, it seems there's a lot of people helping to prop these teams up. I can see all three under new ownership come January '15.
Sorry state of affairs.
team underdog said:
This was discussed on Peter Windsors "Racers Edge" youtube channel this week - a good channel if anyone cares to look.
Apparently neither team has made a single payment this year for it's engines, however should Ferrari take action to recover that debt and that action result in either team not attending a race, Bernie will be inbreach of contract with the circuits. So I'm sure there's a lot of discussion, favours and worried faces going on in the background.
When you consider as well that Caterham are being bankrolled by unknowns, but suspected to involve Red Bull and Bernie, it seems there's a lot of people helping to prop these teams up. I can see all three under new ownership come January '15.
Sorry state of affairs.
I think you could probably add Force India to that list with all the problems that Vijay is having at the moment.Apparently neither team has made a single payment this year for it's engines, however should Ferrari take action to recover that debt and that action result in either team not attending a race, Bernie will be inbreach of contract with the circuits. So I'm sure there's a lot of discussion, favours and worried faces going on in the background.
When you consider as well that Caterham are being bankrolled by unknowns, but suspected to involve Red Bull and Bernie, it seems there's a lot of people helping to prop these teams up. I can see all three under new ownership come January '15.
Sorry state of affairs.
team underdog said:
This was discussed on Peter Windsors "Racers Edge" youtube channel this week - a good channel if anyone cares to look.
Apparently neither team has made a single payment this year for it's engines, however should Ferrari take action to recover that debt and that action result in either team not attending a race, Bernie will be inbreach of contract with the circuits. So I'm sure there's a lot of discussion, favours and worried faces going on in the background.
When you consider as well that Caterham are being bankrolled by unknowns, but suspected to involve Red Bull and Bernie, it seems there's a lot of people helping to prop these teams up. I can see all three under new ownership come January '15.
Sorry state of affairs.
I think you could probably add Force India to that list with all the problems that Vijay is having at the moment.Apparently neither team has made a single payment this year for it's engines, however should Ferrari take action to recover that debt and that action result in either team not attending a race, Bernie will be inbreach of contract with the circuits. So I'm sure there's a lot of discussion, favours and worried faces going on in the background.
When you consider as well that Caterham are being bankrolled by unknowns, but suspected to involve Red Bull and Bernie, it seems there's a lot of people helping to prop these teams up. I can see all three under new ownership come January '15.
Sorry state of affairs.
small teams are more often than not behind in their payments. somehow they always tend to scrape it through.
i'd say sauber are looking more at risk of the two though. Marussia have a few safe points in the bank, even if it looks unlikely they'll get any more. Sauber look barely likely to score anything this year, but at the same time they desperately need to redevelop their car for next year. but they do have the skills and experience required and I still think they'll be here next year.
Caterham to me seem a bit more on the edge. I don't see what they have going for them.
i'd say sauber are looking more at risk of the two though. Marussia have a few safe points in the bank, even if it looks unlikely they'll get any more. Sauber look barely likely to score anything this year, but at the same time they desperately need to redevelop their car for next year. but they do have the skills and experience required and I still think they'll be here next year.
Caterham to me seem a bit more on the edge. I don't see what they have going for them.
Gaz. said:
There's a minimum number Bernie has to put on the grid, it's closer to 14 than 22 though.
I was under the impression that Marussia do not pay Ferrari for their engines in return for Jules driving for Marussia?
Sauber are in real trouble though, I think they'll be the first to fold, sadly.
The engines are a reputed $20M per season so I doubt that Bianchi carries that kind of weight, but no doubt there will be some subsidy deal there or something. I was under the impression that Marussia do not pay Ferrari for their engines in return for Jules driving for Marussia?
Sauber are in real trouble though, I think they'll be the first to fold, sadly.
Going back to the Belgian GP hokey cokey over Chilton's seat, some rumour that this revolved around Marussia needing cash extra over to what Chilton had been contributing. I don't know whether Chilton coughed up more money or had his solicitor wave a contract in their face, but obviously they reversed that call pretty quickly!
Sauber though... Earlier in the season I thought they should at least have changed livery to liven up the Sauber brand and possibly attract some sponsor interest. Maybe since the car is such a dog, there wasn't much point.
Marussia credit check at 29 so borderline high risk/acceptable. No CCJs and have a rep in the industry for paying.
Caterham credit check at 3, extremely high risk. Have 17 unsatisfied CCJs adding up to half a million quid and a load more court cases in progress.
Sauber I have no idea.
FWIW lots of the Marussia guys flew out this morning so they'll be there this weekend. They also (as said above) have points and a share of the pot. As small F1 teams go they're about as stable as they get.
Sauber on the other hand...... it'll be a real shame if they go but it's looking more likely
Caterham credit check at 3, extremely high risk. Have 17 unsatisfied CCJs adding up to half a million quid and a load more court cases in progress.
Sauber I have no idea.
FWIW lots of the Marussia guys flew out this morning so they'll be there this weekend. They also (as said above) have points and a share of the pot. As small F1 teams go they're about as stable as they get.
Sauber on the other hand...... it'll be a real shame if they go but it's looking more likely
Personally I think this is what happens when F1 dictates that engines should be so ridiculously small that the only way to extract the prerequisite level of power from them is to use extraordinarily complex techniques which cost a fortune to develop ... Then dictates a level of reliability which requires even more development!
If F1 really wants to cut costs it should stick to simple power plants ... impose a rev-limit of, say, 12000 rpm, to keep wear down and thus achieve the required reliability, while using large capacity to attain the prerequisite level of power within the scope of those rev restrictions. I'm thinking 3.5ltr V10s, maybe.
Building engines which are tiny, while powerful and reliable, is never going to be cheap and only contributes to the struggle some smaller teams are having.
If F1 really wants to cut costs it should stick to simple power plants ... impose a rev-limit of, say, 12000 rpm, to keep wear down and thus achieve the required reliability, while using large capacity to attain the prerequisite level of power within the scope of those rev restrictions. I'm thinking 3.5ltr V10s, maybe.
Building engines which are tiny, while powerful and reliable, is never going to be cheap and only contributes to the struggle some smaller teams are having.
MitchT said:
Personally I think this is what happens when F1 dictates that engines should be so ridiculously small that the only way to extract the prerequisite level of power from them is to use extraordinarily complex techniques which cost a fortune to develop ... Then dictates a level of reliability which requires even more development!
If F1 really wants to cut costs it should stick to simple power plants ... impose a rev-limit of, say, 12000 rpm, to keep wear down and thus achieve the required reliability, while using large capacity to attain the prerequisite level of power within the scope of those rev restrictions. I'm thinking 3.5ltr V10s, maybe.
Building engines which are tiny, while powerful and reliable, is never going to be cheap and only contributes to the struggle some smaller teams are having.
Problem with that is that none of the manufacturers are interested and if you have no manufacturers building engines, you have no F1. No-one wants to build build NA V10s as they have no relevance. Small capacity turbos is where road cars are going and hence where the manufacturers want to be.If F1 really wants to cut costs it should stick to simple power plants ... impose a rev-limit of, say, 12000 rpm, to keep wear down and thus achieve the required reliability, while using large capacity to attain the prerequisite level of power within the scope of those rev restrictions. I'm thinking 3.5ltr V10s, maybe.
Building engines which are tiny, while powerful and reliable, is never going to be cheap and only contributes to the struggle some smaller teams are having.
stemll said:
Problem with that is that none of the manufacturers are interested and if you have no manufacturers building engines, you have no F1. No-one wants to build build NA V10s as they have no relevance. Small capacity turbos is where road cars are going and hence where the manufacturers want to be.
Can't argue with that as it's true ... sadly.MitchT said:
stemll said:
Problem with that is that none of the manufacturers are interested and if you have no manufacturers building engines, you have no F1. No-one wants to build build NA V10s as they have no relevance. Small capacity turbos is where road cars are going and hence where the manufacturers want to be.
Can't argue with that as it's true ... sadly.IMHO that's total bulls
t, a 1.6 turbo engine is nothing to aspire to.given the choice in the showroom of a Ferrari with a 1.6 turbo engine or a V12, which do you think would sell?
in hindsight, I cannot see that Renault are gaining anything from their F1 engine programme, basically it's not internationally known as an absolute dog of an engine, that was money well spent.
all this crap about the manufacturers wanted it, well if that were the case, where are VAG? Oh yes, at Le-mans, and not with a 1.6L turbo engine.
what have Audi marketing down with their Le-Mans winning, first with pushing their diesels, then Quattro, then E-Tron/Ultra.
ie, they have made the transition from a race car to road car relevance other than just sticking a badge on it.
I would also bet it cost them a dam site less than Merc have spent on just the engine.
Scuffers said:
what have Audi marketing down with their Le-Mans winning, first with pushing their diesels, then Quattro, then E-Tron/Ultra.
ie, they have made the transition from a race car to road car relevance other than just sticking a badge on it.
ie, they have made the transition from a race car to road car relevance other than just sticking a badge on it.
But they have just stuck a badge on it? The race car tech isn't the same as the road car tech - however tieing the two together makes it the usual "race on Sunday, sell on Monday". Plus the fact their winning helps!
Scuffers said:
I would also bet it cost them a dam site less than Merc have spent on just the engine.
But I wonder how many Mercedes will be sold off the back of their dominance? Flappy paddles sir, just like our winning F1 cars... Hybrid power, just like our F1 cars sir. Etc... It is all marketing, and doesn't matter if the guts do not match - and Renault have stuffed themselves big time, all their radio ads about how their kangoo vans use the same "multi championship winning F1 technology" have strangely been pulled ;-) RemarkLima said:
But I wonder how many Mercedes will be sold off the back of their dominance? Flappy paddles sir, just like our winning F1 cars... Hybrid power, just like our F1 cars sir. Etc... It is all marketing, and doesn't matter if the guts do not match - and Renault have stuffed themselves big time, all their radio ads about how their kangoo vans use the same "multi championship winning F1 technology" have strangely been pulled ;-)
toshgo through the cars in the Merc range that people aspire to (and buy!)
C63/E63/G63/ML63/S63 - more in common with a GP2 car, ie a big V8
so, where's the tie-in?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff