To mock or not to mock?

28/02/2012

20 Comments

 
That is the question.

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to make HRT suffer the slings and arrows of F1 media, or to take arms in support of Marussia...

It's early. I reserve the right to garble Shakespeare if I feel like it. And besides - there's some logic hidden in my terrible abuse of the Bard.

For some time now it's struck me as ironic that we - by which I mean the F1 media and about 99 percent of F1 fans - are constantly mocking HRT for failing to pass crash tests, for being backmarkers, or for not having enough money, yet don't criticise Marussia in quite the same way.

Despite the fact that HRT have actually beaten Virgin in two constructors' championships. The two teams have only competed in two constructors' championships.

Somehow, Virgin/Marussia have styled themselves as the plucky underdogs, while HRT have been tarred with the incompentent brush. Methinks the Marussia PR department should all get a payrise, because they're certainly doing their job well.

Last night's announcement that Marussia would not be taking part in the final week of winter testing thanks to failed crash tests did not meet with the same level of derision as the news that HRT had failed their final crash tests.

But HRT might be able to get some mileage under their belts in Barcelona next week, while Marussia will not turn a wheel in anger until FP1 in Melbourne.

It hardly seems fair to the Spanish outfit.

That being said, I can't shake the long-held opinion that Virgin/Marussia are unlucky but serious, while HRT are one invoice away from complete meltdown.

Any of you caught in a similar quandary?
 


Comments

Leigh O'Gorman @TheF1Archive link
28/02/2012 11:18

Meanwhile, let's congratulate Juan Pablo Montoya for passing a specially arranged crash test at Daytona last night.
Wow.

Reply
Kate link
28/02/2012 12:47

That was a river of fire, wasn't it? Very lucky escape.

Reply
Leigh O'Gorman @TheF1Archive link
28/02/2012 12:50

Absolutely. Been a while since I've seen anything like that (thankfully).

Reply
Kate link
28/02/2012 12:53

There was a similar accident in Oz last year, I think at one of the Bathurst events, burns that's the most recent I can recall.

Leigh O'Gorman @TheF1Archive link
28/02/2012 12:55

Yep - that Dave Besnard fire. Nearly forgot about that. That was another lucky escape.

Rubbergoat link
28/02/2012 11:32

I think you could argue that both teams are similarly unlucky and incompetent at the same time.

As for the opinion that "HRT are one invoice away from complete meltdown" - I reckon they aren't the only team in that predicament...

Reply
Kate link
28/02/2012 12:50

They're not, you're right there. But HRT seem to attract a lot of the negative press there too. Maybe time to reexamine the PR strategy?

Reply
Leigh O'Gorman @TheF1Archive link
28/02/2012 12:53

I'd say a lot of it has to do with the fact that HRT barely made it into their first GP in 2010 and then didn't even make it into Australia last year.

On the other hand, Virgin have made every race - even if they have had help in the stewards room when they've been (repeatedly) outside the 107% rule.

Kate link
28/02/2012 12:57

Very good point - tarred with the brush of a terrible first impression.

Rubbergoat link
28/02/2012 13:27

Yeah probably. HRT have never been too strong on PR and also they are less well known in the industry than John Booth and Nick Wirth are. That could also be a factor.

As Leigh mentions below, it is interesting that the FIA have been more willing to waive the 107% rule for MVR than HRT. Perhaps that's all down to perception as well?

Kate link
02/03/2012 17:35

Hmm, that's true - I'd not considered penalties under the 107 percent rule. Maybe that was more down to timing within the season? I dunno.

Leigh O'Gorman @TheF1Archive link
02/03/2012 17:42

Not sure if it's still teh case, but way back when, the 107% was realistically designed to get rid of teams that were 12 seconds off the pace on a 90-100 second lap.

The FIA always seemed a bit lean if you were in and around the limit or proved in practice that you could occasionally step up to the mark.

Alternatively, it is believed the 107% was also used to hammer poor drivers. The likes of Lavaggi were not allowed to start, even if they were a mere one-tenth out.

In fairness to the FIA, it worked and the quality of the driver field in F1 has never been better.

Alianora La Canta link
03/03/2012 02:37

It's the general feeling that the management haven't quite got their priorities right at Hispania (the fact they have an official team name* that is the same as a somewhat sensitive medical procedure and don't care is the least of their worries) and are usually slower than Marussia, owing their superior finishes in championships to better reliability (and, you know, not relying purely on a computer to do all their design work - an error Marussia has now corrected).

I can't help worrying about a team that reveals its new three-storey motorhome and superstar chef before it reveals a functioning car (most teams wait until the season starts to do that sort of thing...)

* - For the avoidance of doubt, the bracketed explanation is why I never call Hispania by its official name.

Kate link
04/03/2012 00:51

It reminds me of last year, when they announced their amazing new Hollywood livery* before actually having a car to put it on.

* Yes, the livery was free. But that's beside the point. PRIORITIES, people!

mayhemfunkster
28/02/2012 13:20

It's probably because for all their fun and games with Virgin and Nick Wirth, the team that the media see is run by John Booth and he is a respected one of the "club". It seems HRT have gone out of their way to not embrace the conventional way of doing things and it seems to get up the noses of some in the media who never shut up about them.

I'm not saying either approach is right or wrong, just that you are right in highlighting the double standard. I am from Manor's neck of the woods but I don't give them an eaiser ride than HRT and the media shouldn't either.

In fact, Colin Kolles has worked miracles given the situation trhe owners put him in. If he had had the backing Virgin have he would be doing quite well methinks!

Of course, as Pat Symonds will tell us (Motor Sport Podcast), they are a new team as per July 2011, but even so, this is an unfortuate occurance.

It will be interesting to see which of the non-testers develops through the year. It should be Marussia. Really Really ought to be Marussia. But we think that every year!

Reply
Kate link
02/03/2012 17:38

Hmm, I'd completely forgotten about the old boys' club element, which is shameful of me. It does help to have a history with the right people.

I agree with you about Kolles - with the lack of funding, to be able to deliver two P11 finishes in the WCC is impressive.

Reply
Tony Taylor
29/02/2012 20:35

Can I ask the awkward question, when do the FIA decide that a team is not serious about getting better and remove the franchise? Caterham I can see getting a point this year but the others will struggle. Will the increased complexity of the coming change in formula be the crisis point that weeds out the weaker teams?

Reply
Kate link
02/03/2012 17:37

I don't know if they do decide. I suppose that if the team was found to have brought the sport into serious disrepute they'd get rejected, but Renault survived Crashgate thanks to some key resignations.

I think the teams really have to pull out themselves, and that'll really only come down to a lack of money/ability to continue.

Reply
Alianora La Canta link
03/03/2012 02:47

The FIA decides a team is not serious about getting better when it goes bust (perhaps by not giving sponsors the desired results), sells to someone else (who maybe thinks they'll do a better job), puts the sport into disrepute (perhaps by missing a lot of 107% cut-offs), or commits some other extremely serious breach of the rules. Anything else is deemed forgiveable, if not necessarily forgettable. The reasons I've listed are in order of frequency of happening in the championship.

2014 might weed out the weaker teams but it will be financial weakness, not seriousness of purpose or performance, that will be pushed to breaking point.

Reply
Kate link
04/03/2012 00:48

I think that 2014 and the years immediately following should be fascinating. Teams and engine suppliers could join/leave; the potential for really interesting energy reclamation is there; and we've got lots of top driver contracts expiring then or around then.

But you're right - it will all come down to money in the end. Everything does in F1.




Leave a Reply