Force India's Bob Fernley has criticised Manor for failing to run both cars in the Malaysian Grand Prix, suggesting the FIA should look into its no-show.

Only Roberto Merhi started the Malaysian Grand Prix after Will Stevens' car developed a problem that eliminated him from both qualifying and the race, raising speculation that Manor did not have the capacity to run two cars at the same time.

Though Manor has rejected this assertion, Fernley believes the team had a 'clear strategy' to run just the one car in Malaysia, having failed to get out on track at all in Australia, adding that the FIA should 'deal with it accordingly

"It doesn't surprise me," he said. "I don't think I need to say anything. I think the powers-that-be will deal with that accordingly. There was a clear programme in Australia, of going to Australia and not running at all and to my knowledge there wasn't even enough fuel to run. That was a clear strategy.

Related Articles

"I think it was a very clear strategy here to run one car and you have got to look at it from the point of view, is that the spirit of what you are trying to achieve. That is up to the FIA and the Commercial Rights Holder. It is not up to us. Manor are doing what they can do as best they can. It is up to them to decide their tactics."

Force India raised objections when Manor announced its plans to come out of administration and return to F1, exercising a veto against it during January's Strategy Group. Though the team didn't compete in Australia, the FIA cleared it of any wrongdoing.

Comments

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register to add your comment

mytyresaregoingoff:
nortman:
It doesn't surprise me,” he said. “I don't think I need to say anything. I think the powers-that-be will deal with that accordingly. There was a clear programme in Australia, of going to Australia and not running at all and to my knowledge there wasn't even enough fuel to run. That was a clear strategy. [\blockquote]

The lack of fuel was widely reported on this site. So whilst I support M-M if a journalist asks "Do you think M-M broke FIA rules by not intending to race?" Then takes your answer and adds the words "critical and suggests" you get this.[\blockquote]
What is reported on this site.is very often speculation rather than fact.
I would still mmaintain that Fearnley is being critical but. no doubt if the FIA consider that Manor had defaulted they can take the appropriate action without needing Fearnley's advice.

mytyresaregoingoff: Have I red this differently? I think the word "criticism" has been added to an answer Bob has given to a question about M-M at the end he says
" Manor are doing what they can do as best they can. It is up to them to decide their tactics" not very critical in my view.[\blockquote]
I believe that you have read this differently, if the statement below isn't critical please correct me:
It doesn't surprise me,” he said. “I don't think I need to say anything. I think the powers-that-be will deal with that accordingly. There was a clear programme in Australia, of going to Australia and not running at all and to my knowledge there wasn't even enough fuel to run. That was a clear strategy.

Karma has a habit of biting deep in the Ar5e - Let's hope Fernley has a big enough nappy (daiper)!