Moderatori/ce: F1NAC,Zweki,Scuderia,Cuky,47,gringo73
Grand Prix Times @GrandPrixTimes
Jerez rumour even suggests McLaren-Honda could be behind the Manor revival as a B-team and platform to test its new power unit #f1
Ako se sva nagađanja pokažu točnima jedan od vozača bi navodno trebao biti MagnussenTobias Grüner AMuS @tgruener
Will Marussia return to the grid? According to AMuS information, several members of the #F1 team were called to the factory yesterday.
Pa morali bi izaci u susret jer bi to bilo u Ferrari-jevom interesu. Sto vise kilometraze sa PU, jako je bitno za razvoj tijekom sezone i pravilno koristenje preostalih tokena.F2004_the_best_ever je napisao/la:Ako je tačno da iza njih stoji McLaren Honda i da će koristiti njihove motore, pošto Marussia najviše duguje Ferrariju preko 16 mil eura, nadam se da Ferrari neće oprostiti dio duga ili prolongirati otplatu duga koji prema njemu ima Marussia, trebaju zahtjevati da im u tom slučaju odmah plate dugovanje.
Ako iza tog projekta ne stoji McLaren Honda i ako će i u ovoj godini koristiti Ferrarijeve motore onda u tom slučaju Ferrari treba izaću u susret Marussiji.
MANOR F1 TEAM OUTLINES PROCESS INVOLVED IN GETTING TO THE 2015 GRID
6 February 2015
Following the initiation of the CVA process by Marussia F1 Team administrators FRP Advisory earlier this week, and the confidence this step brings to the process of saving Marussia, the team is now pleased to be able to confirm some of the detail of this process.
- On 17 December 2014, the team made a request to the Strategy Group to consider allowing it to use a 2014 race car, modified to meet certain 2015 regulations, for part of the 2015 season. Following analysis, the team highlighted that this would need some form of dispensation on only a small number of clauses in the Regulations.
- Subsequent to this application, the team was informed on 5 January 2015, that the Strategy Group felt that two teams - Marussia and Caterham - should be permitted to race a 2014 car in the 2015 championship. The letter stated that the Strategy Group agreed that the car should comply with all of the 2015 technical regulations, with the exception of four articles, those articles being Articles 3.7.9, 15.4.3, 15.4.4 and 16.2. The team can confirm that the modifications to its 2014 car would meet this stipulation.
- A change to the Regulations at this stage does require unanimous consent from all teams and following the initiation of the CVA process, the team is now actively engaged in achieving this. This process involves providing all relevant information to the teams to allow them to fully consider its request.
- As the press release from FRP Advisory of 4 February states, given the confidential nature of the negotiations underway, neither they nor the team are able to provide further details regarding the team’s new investors, however those investors have either met with or spoken to the key F1 bodies.
- The team has been busy preparing its 2014 cars such that they comply with the stipulations of the Strategy Group and at the same time it is pressing on with the development of its 2015 car to ensure it can supersede the 2014 car as soon as possible.
- The team has a significant number of staff already working on both its 2014 and 2015 cars. It also has the benefit of being able to recruit further staff very quickly from the rich pool of experienced and talented F1 personnel who were left unemployed following the closure of Marussia and Caterham and due to job cuts made by other teams in the sport.
Commenting on the team’s progress, and also comments emerging from yesterday’s F1 Strategy Group meeting in Paris, Graeme Lowdon, a representative of the team, said:
“It has been a very good step to finally get the CVA process underway this week. This is the first external sign that we have been able to make of all the hard work that has taken place privately over the past four months to get us to our current position.
“I was surprised to hear some of the comments made today, particularly regarding an application we were said to have made to yesterday’s meeting, which I can confirm was not the case. We did make a request on 17 December last year and we have been working since to satisfy the requirements subsequently communicated to us, specifically complying with all the Regulations, aside from the exempted articles.
“The comments also mentioned that issues of compliance were raised, that it was felt that our application lacked substance and contained no supporting documentation to reinforce the case for offering special dispensation. Again, we did not make any application to yesterday’s Strategy Group meeting and nor were we asked to.
“Instead, we are proceeding with our clear process regarding compliance and building our operation. We are doing everything possible to adhere to the process set out for us to return to the 2015 grid. This is a fantastic good news story for the whole sport and we just want to go racing.”
3.7.9 No bodywork situated forward of the line A-A referred to Drawing 5 may extend above a diagonal line from a point on A-A and 625mm above the reference plane to a point 50mm rearward of the forward-most point of the impact absorbing structure defined in Article 15.4.3 and 300mm above the reference plane. No bodywork situated forward of the forward-most point of this diagonal line may be more than 300mm above the reference plane.
With the exception of a transparent windscreen, antenna or pitot tubes, no bodywork situated between the line A-A referred to in Drawing 5 and the secondary roll structure may lie more than 625mm above the reference plane.
Any bodywork situated above the impact absorbing structure defined by Article 15.4.3 or above the survival cell, and forward of the line B-B, must be of prescribed laminate, details of this laminate may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.
15.4.3 An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell. This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it.
No part of this structure may lie more than 525mm above the reference plane.
It must have a single external cross section, in horizontal projection, of more than 9000mm©÷ at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point. Furthermore :
a) No part of this cross-section may lie more than 250mm or less than 135mm above the reference plane.
b) The centre of area of this section must be no more than 185mm above the reference plane and no less than 750mm forward of the front wheel centre line.
15.4.4 Referring to Drawing 5 :
The external width of the survival cell between the lines B-B and C-C must be no less than 450mm and must be at least 60mm per side wider than the cockpit opening when measured normal to the inside of the cockpit aperture. These minimum dimensions must be maintained over a height of at least 350mm.
The width of the survival cell may taper forward of the line B-B but, if this is the case, the outer surface must not lie closer to the car centre line than a plane which has a linear taper to a minimum width of 300mm at the line A-A.
The minimum width must be arranged symmetrically about the car centre line, must be maintained over a height of at least 400mm at the line B-B and 275mm at the line A-A. The height at any point between A-A and B-B must not be less than the height defined by a linear taper between these two sections. When assessing the minimum external cross-sections of the survival cell, radii of 50mm at the line B-B, and reducing at a linear rate to 25mm at the line A-A, will be permitted.
Following the application of the permitted radii, the external cross-sections of the survival cell between the lines A-A and B-B must, over their respective minimum widths, have a minimum height of 300mm at the line B-B reducing at a linear rate to a minimum height of 225mm at the line A-A. Furthermore, no part of any external cross section of the survival cell in this area which lies more than 250mm above the reference plane may contain any concave radius of curvature.
The minimum height of the survival cell between the lines A-A and B-B need not be arranged symmetrically about the horizontal centre line of the relevant section but must be maintained over its entire width.
The maximum height of the survival cell between the lines A-A and B-B is 625mm above the reference plane.
No part of sections taken at the lines A-A and B-B may lie more than 525mm and 625mm respectively above the reference plane.
The minimum height of the survival cell between the lines B-B and C-C is 550mm.
16.2 Frontal test 1:
All parts which could materially affect the outcome of the test must be fitted to the test structure which must be solidly fixed to the trolley through its engine mounting points but not in such a way as to increase its impact resistance.
The fuel tank must be fitted and may contain water.
A dummy weighing at least 75kg must be fitted with safety belts described in Article 14.4 fastened. However, with the safety belts unfastened, the dummy must be able to move forwards freely in the cockpit.
The extinguishers, as described in Article 14.1 must also be fitted.
For the purposes of this test, the total weight of the trolley and test structure shall be 780kg (+1%/-0) and the velocity of impact not less than 15 metres/second.
The resistance of the test structure must be such that during the impact either :
a) The peak deceleration over the first 150mm of deformation does not exceed 10g.
b) The peak deceleration over the first 60kJ energy absorption does not exceed 20g.
c) The average deceleration of the trolley does not exceed 40g.
d) The peak deceleration in the chest of the dummy does not exceed 60g for more than a cumulative 3ms, this being the resultant of data from three axes.
Or :
a) The peak force over the first 150mm of deformation does not exceed 75kN.
b) The peak force over the first 60kJ energy absorption does not exceed 150kN.
c) The average deceleration of the trolley does not exceed 40g.
d) The peak deceleration in the chest of the dummy does not exceed 60g for more than a cumulative 3ms, this being the resultant of data from three axes.
Furthermore, there must be no damage to the survival cell or to the mountings of the safety belts or fire extinguishers.
This test may be carried out on any survival cell provided it has been successfully subjected to the tests described in Articles 17.2, 17.3 and 18.2-5. The test must however be carried out on the survival cell and frontal impact absorbing structure which was subjected to the test described in Article 18.6.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/11502208919 ... anors-door" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Ferrari looks to have beaten McLaren-Honda to the reborn Manor team's door.
with the former Marussia team exiting administration, McLaren could play a role in the resurrection of the backmarker.
Ron Dennis was keen to emulate Ferrari's new alliance with the 2016 entrant Haas in terms of having a de-facto 'B-team'.
Bach said Manor might nominate Woking as the venue for its wind tunnel programme, while the McLaren supremo is reportedly "trying to convince Honda" to supply the team with engines.
But Ferrari, despite being owed millions by Marussia, appears to have beaten McLaren-Honda to Manor's door.
The fabled Maranello team's new boss Maurizio Arrivabene told reporters on Friday that, just like last year, Marussia will in 2015 be supplied customer models of the 2014 'power unit'.
"There is nothing in writing at the moment," said the Ferrari chief in Barcelona, "but our answer at the moment is yes - (the) 2014 (engine)," said Arrivabene.
hmmmm...mogu, mislim da nigdje ne piše da NE MOGU...ne da mi se sad kopati po svemu tome ali mislim da ide nekako da nitko ne smije sa više od dva bolida nastupati..nije ovo sto posto ali dok me netko ne razuvjeri ja stojim kod ovog...wolfman je napisao/la:jel mogu nastupati samo s jednim bolidom,kakav je pravilnik u vezi toga trenutno?
- dmarijon