Category: Formula 1

DRIVERS

1 – Nico ROSBERG (Mercedes)

2 – Lewis HAMILTON (Mercedes)

3 – Daniel RICCIARDO (Red Bull Racing)

TV UNILATERAL

Nico, under pressure there: only one run in the end in Q3 after, we understand, an electronics glitch on your first run. How satisfying is this pole under those circumstances?

Nico ROSBERG: Yeah, it was a great feeling. Just a great lap. Not only was it just one lap that I had but I also had extra fuel to make sure that I would have an extra shot if a mistake or something happens. So I had fuel for three laps. So that was some more time in the bag there, so I was really satisfied with that one. That was really cool.

Very well done. Lewis, a little lock-up there, I think into the hairpin, on your final run, only a tenth off Nico. It looks like it’s been a little bit of a tricky weekend, but did you feel it was all coming together for you in qualifying?

Lewis HAMILTON: It’s been a good weekend, I had no problems. I had the pace today I just didn’t finish it off in the last lap, so…

Was it the lock-up ?

LH: I didn’t really have much of a lock-up. It was subtle; I didn’t lose any time.

Thank you for that. Coming to you Daniel, obviously a very close battle between Red Bull and Ferrari there. Do you feel though that you could have been a little bit closer to the Mercedes in the end than the two and a half tenths that it was?

Daniel RICCIARDO: I think we got pretty close to be honest. My first lap in Q3 was really good and I knew there probably wasn’t that much more on the table in the second run and in the end a couple of mistakes in that run. There was maybe a tenth or so in it with the perfect lap, but not enough to challenge the pole. We’re close enough. I said yesterday that if we could be within half a second that’s not a bad day in qualifying, so hopefully it means something tomorrow. From what I understand we might have different tyres available for us for the race, so hopefully that makes it interesting.

Just coming back to you Lewis: your thoughts ahead of tomorrow’s grand prix? It’s going to be another tough battle in prospect?

LH: It’s should be a good day for Mercedes. That’s the goal and yeah, we’ll race it out.

And the final word from our pole sitter: your thoughts Nico then, the race in prospect? Another tough battle in prospect, not only with Lewis but with Daniel as well, and any worries for you on the electronics glitch going forward into the grand prix?

NR: No, I don’t know what it was. It just suddenly… how do you say… it just suddenly lost the throttle. So just cut completely the engine, just at the end of the lap. That was disappointing but I’m sure we’ll fix it for tomorrow. It’s never happened before, so I’m sure it will be OK. Definitely it will be an exciting race against Lewis and the Red Bulls and maybe also the Ferraris but they’re a bit further back it seems.

PRESS CONFERENCE

Q: Nico, maybe you could just tell us a little bit more about what you experienced with that electronics glitch – and also, I’m interested in the mental reset after that. You obviously get yourself psyched-up, you know you’ll have another run but to know it’s all on that one lap after you’ve had a setback, just tell us about that mental reset you have to do.

NR: Yeah, it was frustrating at the time because it was a good lap and then to lose it two corners from the end in a way that I’ve never experienced before was definitely tough in that moment. And then also to know that I had to put extra fuel for the last run, to be able to do three laps because just to have a little bit of a contingency plan in case lap one doesn’t work out. And then, yeah, just very happy with that first lap. That was awesome, it really came together well. Yeah, so as a result it was quite challenging to do that last run.

Q: Lewis, obviously it’s been a very strong couple of months for you. You’ve come right back to the point where you’re now leading the championship going into tomorrow’s grand prix. Just tell us a little bit about the importance for you of going into that summer break with a win under your belt. Is that something you particularly target? And how do you look back on this last few weeks?

LH: I think the importance is not particularly relevant. We’ve had, what, five out of six races wins, so it’s been a good mid-stint of the season, and hopefully tomorrow we get the first or second and that’ll still be great. We’ll still be in good position. Of course, every race you approach to win.

Q: Daniel, going into tomorrow’s grand prix, just looking back on your comments yesterday after the long runs, it seemed that you felt reasonably optimistic in terms of your pace relative to these guys. So tell us a bit more about that.

DR: Yeah. I felt that, on low fuel yesterday, Mercedes had a pretty good buffer over everyone and the long run pace we looked to be closer than that, so that was giving us a bit of optimism coming into Sunday. Obviously today we’ve got a bit closer on one-lap pace than we were yesterday so let’s see. Hopefully it translates into something tomorrow. Even to put a little bit of pressure on them at some point in the race would be nice. But yeah, we’ll see. Obviously tomorrow, you never know what can happen, and racetracks change day to day with the temperature and whatever but yeah, obviously we’re looking pretty good. Obviously a lock-out with the second row and hopefully we can do something with it.

You hinted there that you have something different on the tyres there, so you think obviously strategies going to play a big part in the race tomorrow.

DR: Yeah, from what I understand, we’ve got different tyres available for the race, so there could be some different strategies amongst the first few cars. Hopefully it works out. If it does, the fans might have a race on their hands.

QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Q: (Dan Knutson – Speedsport and Auto Action) Nico and Lewis, last weekend the start  and the first couple corners set the race. How much different is it this weekend and how much easier is it to get past on this track?

NR: It’s a different world here because you can overtake on this track if you get a significant speed difference. Nevertheless it’s still going to be a good battle off the start and in the first couple of corners, for sure.

LH: It’s a much easier track (on which) to overtake. But that doesn’t mean you can but it is much easier, it’s one of the easier ones.

Q: And your thoughts just on that first corner and then the run down to turn two?

LH: Only one car can go through turn one so it’s whoever gets there first.

Q: (Graeme Keilloh – Grand Prix Times) Lewis, you said earlier that you just didn’t get it done in the final qualifying lap. Did you feel that pole was on today, was there a particular mistake or something else that denied you?

LH: Well, I’d been first in every qualifying session so yeah, it was definitely on. I was two tenths up on the lap and I just didn’t finish it. That’s it.

eom/FIA press release of the transcript

Charlie, the Halo decision, what is the objection from the FIA to just bringing it in on safety grounds?

CW: The FIA has decided that we would go through the governance procedure as has been well stated in the past. The first step was yesterday in the Strategy Group, so that is exactly what we did. The decision was taken, as I believe you know, that simply because only three drivers have ever tried it, and they have only done a total of four laps, this was something that everyone felt was quite a relevant thing and it wouldn’t really be feasible to expect, in the short term, to get the relevant number of laps with the Halo. That was the reason for introducing if for 2018 instead of 2017.

Was it yesterday an argument that in a worse-case scenario that if we have an accident that people will not say, ‘well, the FIA had the Halo but did not introduce it’? Are you not afraid of this?

CW: It was mentioned, of course. But I think, equally, it would be very difficult to roll these things out at the beginning of the year and then find you’ve got a fundamental visibility problem. They felt that that was a real possibility and until it has been tested properly in the right environment, everyone felt it was best to defer it.

As far as the decision or clarifications that were taken yesterday, we were talking about the Halo, we were talking about the radio, we were talking about track limits and talking, possibly I believe, starts in the rain under safety cars and I believe there was one other you can’t work under a red flag or something. Which of these has to go through the due process and which can be sorted out in a clarification?

CW: Let’s start with radios: that’s always been done under the heading of an interpretation of Article 27.1 and that is driver aids. What we decided was that we would be happy to take a more relaxed position on that provided that the full content of all the conversations was provided to the broadcaster with the sole intention of making sure spectators and fans get better content. Then, track limits; it was proposed by some that we should take a completely relaxed view on track limits but I felt that was inappropriate and I think we should carry on doing what we do. My principal aim has always been to get the track to enforce the track limits, if you see what I mean. I think by and large we have done that, but there are certain corners on certain tracks that do present us with little problems but we are getting rid of them one by one. Here we have a similar position to Hungary – Turns 4 and 11 in Hungary – Turn 1 here appears to be a similar sort of thing, with 93 cars going across there today. So we have to think carefully about what to do for tomorrow. The difficulty of allowing complete freedom and letting them go very wide there and no longer taking any notice of it, is that simply there would be a different track fundamentally and it would be faster and there would be less run-off area – so we couldn’t possibly contemplate it. Safety Car starts, yes it was agreed that that should be done in the future, but that needs to be a proper rule change that goes through the process. But everyone seems to agree with that and we had a Sporting Working Group meeting on Wednesday afternoon in which the team managers also agreed with that. Red flags: a similar situation, the rules just need to be changed, but they agreed yesterday and that will have to go through the due process

Regarding the Halo, you mentioned that it has not been tested properly in the right environment, but from the moment we first saw it in pre-season to the Strategy Group meeting we’ve just had, there have been 11 grands prix. Why was the Halo not run more during practice sessions than the four laps we saw it over the course of that period of time?

CW: This is something that we had to leave to the teams because we couldn’t at that point feel as though we could actually insist upon trying to put it on one of the current cars. But there are also problems. If you talk to anybody from Red Bull, for example, they say they can’t run Halo for more than two laps before the air intakes for the cooling of the engine and cooling of the gearbox start to be affected. What we are looking to do is make it clear that every driver has to try it for a whole free practice session during the course of this year. That would give us a proper way of going forward, to make sure that we don’t get caught out by something that is very hard to change back. That’s really the idea.

A Halo that springs out when a danger is present, how technically feasible is that in your point of view and what type of time frame would we face there?

CW: Are you talking about a sort of airbag-style deployment of a Halo? I’ve seen someone has sent me one of these designs, but I think it would be wholly impractical personally. I can’t see how you would deploy it in the right period of time and the inventor, if we may call him that, misunderstands because the drivers are not going to see something coming and think ‘oh, my goodness! I know, I’ll push that button’. Honestly, I don’t think that’s feasible, but as you know we have tested extensively with the Halo and to a slightly lesser extent the Aeroscreen, but we think we are submitting those things to possibly the worst-case scenario and I think it is better to continue down that path and not try to do something completely new that might need another three years of development.

It’s likely that Halo is a structural element of the car, so how would it be possible to consider to use it on next year’s car if the monocoques of next year’s car need to be ready by this stage at the end of July?

CW: The Halo is going to be a structural part of the car, yes. It’s going to be the secondary roll structure which was formally, basically, the front roll hoop of the car, but I think now the teams have been designing the cars with Halo in mind but not with complete certainty. Now they have certainty about next year’s design and they can adapt accordingly. I think there are some fundamental decisions that need to be made: weight distribution, for example, would be dependent and wheel base would be dependent on whether or not the Halo is nine kilos up high and all those sorts of things. They would all need to be taken into account, so the designers needed some clarity as well. They know now that they don’t have to design for Halo for next year. 

Are there any plans to have at least one or two cars run it in Spa because of the visibility in Eau Rouge, in Singapore at night time, in day and night in Abu Dhabi and whenever it is raining hard?

CW: We asked the teams yesterday all to look at the possibilities of running a car in Spa and Monza but that was before the decision was taken to defer it until 2018. But now I think we should look towards a structured plan where all teams can run it at some point during the season at all tracks. But my aim would be to get every driver to try it.

If the plan is for all teams and drivers to run the Halo at some time, are they going to use a standard version of the Halo or will they all have to produce it themselves?

CW: It will be a standard version of the Halo. A standard shape, of course, but dummy versions. They wouldn’t be actual production Halos. They’ve all got the drawings, they all know exactly how big they have to be and where they have to mount, but they could make what is effectively a dummy one.

You keep talking about the Halo coming in in 2018; is the intention to introduce the Halo or is the intention to introduce frontal protection?

CW: At the moment it’s Halo, but there will be some form of additional frontal protection. If, for example, the Aeroscreen can be redesigned to fit the free head volume – which is one of the stumbling blocks at the moment – that might be the way to go. But I think we need to look at visibility first, because that is the thing that is a little bit of an unknown. So we really do need to make sure that is not a sort of showstopper. But it really would be similar between the Halo and the Aeroscreen, I would imagine.

The clarification of radio that we’ve got at the moment, does this mean driver coaching is back on the agenda?

CW: Yes. 

Is that a good thing?

CW: Yes.

Do you have a long-term view on it?

CW: My view doesn’t actually matter, but being serious we have to look back to when the Strategy Group decided that there was too much radio traffic and it was detrimental to the sport. We were getting quite a few complaints, if I remember, from fans saying ‘Why are they being told all these things? They should be driving them for themselves’. In the August of 2014 the Strategy Group decided that we should cut out nearly all radio conversations. We issued a note reflecting those views and everyone said ‘Oh, it’s too much, it’s too much’. So we scaled it right back and we introduced bits and pieces and then we went to single clutch paddles and those sorts of things. Now the feedback is that we’ve gone too far and this actually has not been the best thing and the Commercial Rights Holder feels he can improve the content for the fans with the radio conversations. This is contingent upon the teams providing all the content from their discussions with the drivers, because before they had privacy buttons and they were chopping out great big chunks of it. So now they’ve got to provide everything to the broadcasters and this is seen as a way to improve the experience for the fans and spectators.

Charlie, is there no compromise with regards to the radio? As you said, initially it was cut out to get rid of things like driver coaching, lift and coast. Surely there must be some compromise solution that can be reached all round?

CW: There didn’t seem to be much stomach for that yesterday. The feeling was let’s keep it absolutely simple and as long as Bernie gets what he wants – the Commercial Rights Holder gets what he wants – for the show then I think we’ve done the right thing.

Looking purely at the safety research that has been done into the Halo, is it 100% proven it has a net safety gain or is there still the need to analyse for other unintended consequences in maybe other type of accidents where it can pose a safety risk?

CW: No, I think we’ve done a good enough risk assessment. The thing that is missing is the driver experience.

I think Niki [Lauda] expressed yesterday the concern for what happens if the car is lying upside down on fire, for obvious reasons. I know it’s a very unlikely scenario nowadays but the Halo protects against very unlikely scenarios, especially next year when the tyres will be tethered much stronger than now. So why do you neglect one concern over the other?

CW: We’re not neglecting it, it has been thought of. Now, for example, if a car turned over and was on fire I think it’s quite unlikely … if it has been in an accident big enough to cause a fire then the driver probably can’t get out by himself anyway. Then the first course of action will be for marshals to get there and turn the car over and this is the sort of thing you see quite regularly. So I have always felt that a car being upside down is always a worry, but the marshals are normally there very quickly and they would turn it back over. That’s the way we’ve always felt about that particular scenario.

Coming back to the radio if we can Charlie, Christian Horner was just saying he wants the messages allowed to be broadcast from team managers to you. Would you be happy for that to go out?

CW: No, I don’t think I would. I told him that yesterday, I think we need to sort this lot out first. We need to sort out all the team radio to the drivers before even contemplating something like that. We have private conversations with the teams and I don’t think it’s right… because the teams wouldn’t feel comfortable about asking us the sort of questions that we get asked in the race if they knew the rest of the teams could all actually listen, or anyone could listen in to that. So I think that’s a step too far.

I don’t understand how you can differentiate – obviously at the start of a race and the end of a race parc ferme is over and you can do whatever you want to the cars – you are going to suspend that when there is a red flag?

CW: I’m sorry I’m not quite with you…

What you said about the red flags is that you might be able to change whatever you want on the car…

CW: That’s right. Basically the principle is that when we suspend a race it is normally done after the safety car has been deployed – pick the cars up, then we bring them into the pit lane and we suspend the race, say after a couple of laps. If the safety car continued the teams would not be able to work on the car, they wouldn’t be able to change the tyres and they wouldn’t be able to do anything unless they came into the pits and suffered this time penalty concerned. So this is just the same thing. The timing doesn’t stop either, it is a stationary safety car if you like and that is what we want to try and achieve, to make sure it is exactly the same as leaving the safety car out, only it’s stopped. If you remember in Monaco in 2011, when we were building up to a great climax in that race with Vettel on very worn tyres and Jenson and Fernando had pulled right up and it was looking like a really good end. It was stopped, [they] changed tyres and the race fizzled out. That is what happened. I have been trying to talk them into it for 5 years.

Like in Australia this season?

CW: Yeah, but it is the same thing of course. They are allowed to change tyres and work on the car but now if the rule goes through next year we will not be allowed to work on the car or change tyres.

I believe there was a discussion about double yellows and potentially using a red flag to neutralise things and stop people improving. Is that correct?

CW: That is correct.

From this weekend?

CW: Yes. Ever since we had the Virtual Safety Car in 2015 and then this year we use it in free practice – well, we can use it in qualifying really but we tend now to stop if there is going to be a yellow flag for any length of time. The reason we didn’t show a red flag in Hungary was simply that session had ended but some cars were behind Alonso’s car and some in front, so I think the procedure would be to red flag it any time there is a double waved yellow flag. Then there will be no discussion.

Coming back to the Halo, are you happy as the FIA with the result of yesterday because there were some very good explanations to back it up but are you happy with that? And if so why did it go to the Strategy Group in the first place if you accept it wasn’t ready for implementation?

CW: I think you misunderstood things slightly. My opinion doesn’t matter when it comes to introducing something like that, it is a complete change of rules, a lot of rules had to be changed. We prepare the rules. We have done all of the testing and the only bit the Strategy Group felt was missing before they could finally confirm it was the drivers don’t have any experience of it. That is the point that they needed before it could be properly introduced that is it really.

If you are going to red flag a situation like the Alonso one in the last race, do you leave yourself open to any driver who mucks up sector one on his final run is going to spin his car and it is going to lead to a lot of Monaco 2006s?

CW: Quite possibly, but I think we would be able to see that happening and I don’t think that is any different to now because it could happen at any time, couldn’t it? If you see what I mean: just a yellow is normally enough to prevent a driver improving but what we saw in Hungary it wasn’t quite enough.

We saw Pierre Gasly trying a Halo during the test with special glasses and camera mounting. Did you get any pictures from that that would help you with the assessment?

CW: We got one image from it and if you compare it with an LMP1 car it is extremely good visibility, but Pierre’s comments were that it felt claustrophobic and the view wasn’t very nice. But that is only after two laps and I think with a lot of these things I would expect drivers to get completely used to it. But you don’t know that for certain, there may be some hidden problems there. It is the right thing to do to research that properly. The more drivers can get to do it the better, of course

When it comes to driver feedback, a lot of them said: ‘Oh, we’re not involved in the vote, we’re not involved in having our say’. Because they are going to be giving you specific feedback are they going to be more involved in the process before the Halo is implemented?

CW: We have involved them and tried to involve them anyway, but yes of course. Their feedback is key to this next stage.

Just stepping back a bit and leaving the Halo to one side, we’ve had the radio thing, which has got increasingly more and more complicated and difficult for us to follow let alone the public over the last 12 months. Australia, we had a complicated new qualifying format that was u-turned on and just looking back at to the last time we were here this race was the first one since FRIC was banned mid-season. It seems the last few years there have been quite a lot of this rule u-turn stuff, you having to explain things, things being complex for fans to follow. Do you regret this, not in terms of your part in it, but do you regret that we seem to be in the this situation where we are changing the rules half-way through the year?

CW: I think you can leave FRIC out of it, because that was a technical regulation and it was something that we felt had to be done at that time. But if you look at the qualifying procedure, I think everyone realise – I say everyone; I’m talking about the Strategy Group and the members of the F1 Commission, and they felt that this was a good idea. It didn’t work, I think we can all accept that, and we felt that the most grown-up thing to do would be to go back. I think that was that, really, with qualifying. It dragged on a little longer than it could have – sorry, than it need have – but there you go. I think someone asked me yesterday: ‘Do you remember that qualifying?’ I couldn’t actually remember what we did in Australia straight away. These things disappear. I don’t feel that the radio thing is a U-turn as such. It was done… The original things were requested of us for a good reason, and it kind of worked at the beginning but it’s beginning to mean that the spectators and the fans are not getting quite what they could. I think that that is why they thought it was a good idea to try and go back to something that gave them more. I think we have to respond to those sorts of things; I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all.

The FIA is presenting the Halo decision as a purely practical issue, but it’s quite clear that some of the people on the Strategy Group had wider concerns – and more fundamental philosophical concerns – and already there’s talk about some kind of hybrid solution between Halo and Aeroscreen or what have you. Bearing that in mind, are you not concerned that you’ll get to a similar sort of position next year and they’ll vote against it again, presenting it as practical but actually what they’re doing is they just don’t like it, Bernie as well for example?

CW: I’m not concerned about that because it was clearly adopted for 2018. There is no question of it being deferred further unless there is a completely unknown at this point show-stopping thing about it that we don’t know about.

Clarity on a couple of bits: The red flag under double-yellows – is that only after we’ve seen the chequered flag end the session?

CW: No, no. As you know, we’ve been stopping qualifying more than we have done in the past, if there’s a tractor out and those sorts of things, especially in qualifying where obviously time is vital, and you don’t want to lose any time, so that’s the reason we do that. It will be done, routinely, if there’s a double-waved yellow flag.

And on the radios. Are teams still able to hear each other on team radio?

CW: Do you know, I’m not actually sure. That’s not our deal; that’s what Bernie’s people do. But my feeling is – and I expressed this to Bernie yesterday – I think it would be far better if teams can’t hear each other. I think they’ll say more, provide more. But that’s only my humble view.

Charlie, clarification on something you said just now. You said that when the red flags thing… in other words, no work under red flags comes in next year – and I would assume you’re looking at next year for the wet starts as well – how would you manage to achieve that unless you get unanimity, because we’ve passed the cut-off date? And if you can get it ahead of time, why can’t we do it for the five races this year that are going to happen in rainy territories?

CW: That’s a good point. It will need the unanimous support of all the teams; I’m expecting that to happen, I think they’re quite sensible things to do. But you’re right – I suppose that if we did try to rush things along a little bit, because there’s not that much to do – there are a few things to consider when we talk about having a standing restart. Because you need to think about race length, for example, and how many laps shorter it is; what happens if you suspend a race after the start; there are a few things that need to be thought through carefully so we don’t have any own goals.

We’ve got the Halo and we’ve got the Aeroscreen. They both seem to be trying to solve different scenarios and incidents. What scenarios are we trying to protect the driver from with this process and is there the possibility of some sort of hybrid Halo-Aeroscreen?

CW: I don’t think there’s any possibility at this stage of any hybrid, but we know that the Halo is being tested with a wheel being thrown at it – a wheel and upright assembly, which is 20kgs – at 225 kph, which is a pretty awesome thing to watch. So the Halo is there principally to look into the way drivers have been hit by wheels, but also where we’ve seen cars in contact with the environment, so to speak: walls, for example. Campos in Magny-Cours, Greg Moore in Fontana, was it? Those sorts of things as well. It can withstand a load 15 times the weight of the car, so that’s twice as strong as the current roll structure. It’s a very, very strong thing, but of course when you look at the small objects coming towards it, we’ve done a paper study to theoretically throw over a million angles and different scenarios, and we conclude that 17 per cent of the time, it will deflect something from the driver – as opposed to none without the Halo. So it stops 17 per cent of these things from hitting the driver, whereas before they would all hit the driver, if you see what I mean. But the Aeroscreen obviously offers the screen, which is in addition to the Halo, because it is like the Halo but with two bits here instead of a bit in the middle, and it’s got the… it’s called Perspex but it’s 10mm thick and that provides more or less complete protection from the front. But the downsides are that it gets dirty and needs to be cleaned; rain – we’re not sure what would happen in the rain, but there are coatings and treatments that can be done; and those are the sorts of things that have to be developed.

A vertical impact like [Henry] Surtees’ or…

CW: I think that’s a bit of a myth, because if a car’s travelling at great speed nothing’s going to actually drop vertically onto a driver. That’s the theory.

We’ve had situations in the past where decisions of the stewards of the meeting Formula One-wise came relatively late because I was told they were dealing with matters GP2, GP3. Was it never discussed to maybe put Formula One in front because more fans basically care whether Nico Rosberg is punished or not, loses his pole or not, than some matter in GP3? Was that ever discussed?

CW: That was going back a long time, when the Formula One stewards also did GP2. It doesn’t any more. GP2 and GP3 are separate from the Formula One stewards. If you’re referring to the length of time it took to get a decision on Nico’s flag in Hungary, then that was simply… We looked at it first off; the stewards said ‘we think that’s fine’. Then there was lots of discussion about the 107 per cent. And then we decided to have another look at it and the stewards felt, after looking at it from a different camera, that ‘maybe we do need to have a chat with Nico’, so we did. They accepted his explanation, and that was that. I don’t see a big issue there, personally – I’d rather they be thorough and get it right than not. Than rush it and get it wrong, that’s really what I’m saying.

The need for the change of the yellow-flag regulations would surely suggest that the decision reached in Hungary was not the appropriate one if then the next week it’s felt that you need to be clearer on what happens under double-waved yellows.

CW: It just removes the discussion about how much you’re slowing down. The stewards accepted Nico’s explanation, and looked at the data and felt that he had slowed down. But then the question is: ‘Did he slow down enough? What is enough?’. If you can’t set a time, then that’s that. It removes all that subjective discussion.

Charlie, to permit again a conversation between teams and drivers through the radio, is a clear simplification of the rule. Is it an isolated case or are the Strategy Group and the FIA planning to simplify some other areas of the regulations, which a necessity for the fans?

CW: That’s another reason exactly. Wherever we can we will try to simplify regulations, but you must remember that the reason the regulations appear complex to some is because the cars are complex and the sport is complex and whenever we try to write a simple rule, the teams say ‘ah, but what about this, what about that’ and we reply ‘OK, we’ll write that in’. The downside of having it completely simple is that then you don’t have complete clarity and hence the stewards would have to decide on a case by case basis and the teams would much rather it written down absolutely clearly, but that needs more words, the rule book gets fatter and that’s what people think leads to more complexity.

That 17% figure you gave for the Halo seems a bit too low to justify it at the moment, does it not? Given the Aeroscreen has the potential, if the other problems are solved, to have 100% protection, doesn’t that mean the Halo is very much an interim small step?

CW: You have to put it into context. It will stop a wheel. It will stop large objects and it will protect the driver against incursion from another car, walls, interaction with tyre barriers, all those things. We are only talking about small objects. One hundred per cent would hit him and this would reduce the likelihood of that happening. It’s a positive. OK, Aeroscreen might stop them all, but you have to look at the downsides of Aeroscreen as well.

Charlie, on the Verstappen-Raikkonen incident in Hungary, particularly the one down to Turn Two, while he was obviously within the rules to do with crowding off the track, some of the drivers feel that those moves were too late and too sudden in the braking zone. I know they’re going to raise it with you later, as I’m sure you do too. What’s your view on that situation?

CW: A lot of people, including the teams concerned, felt that Max had moved more than once to defend his position, which we don’t believe he did. There’s no actual rule about moving in the braking zone, although it’s a fairly undesirable thing according to most drivers. Obviously we will discuss this later. I think it was on the edge of being fair. But I asked the stewards to look at both incidents during the race and I asked them to review it again after the race and they felt it was firm but fair. ‘Robust defence’ I think was the expression they used.

Going back to the yellow flag. Can I ask you about the degree of lobbying you’ve had from the drivers in one direction or another since Sunday night on the waved double yellows and the severity of the reaction?

CW: None. I’m sure we’ll get a little bit of discussion this evening but I’ve had no lobbying from drivers. I’ve read a few bits and pieces from them but no, nothing.

And it’s coming in from the start of next year?

CW: No it will be with immediate effect. It’s just another way of applying those same rules.

Just coming back to the Hungary incident with Fernando: with the new regulations you would have put out red flags, correct?

CW: That’s what I intend to do in the future, yes. Just to remove any discussion about whether a driver slowed down or not. I think you would have noticed that most drivers decided to call it a day; they stopped their attempt at qualifying. But in Nico’s defence, he had only one yellow sector to go through and that was a short one, whereas the other drivers had two yellow sectors to go through, so there is a difference. But I just don’t want to get into these discussions where you need to try and decide whether a driver has slowed down enough and if you applied the double-waved yellow flag rule absolutely to the letter, it says you must be prepared to stop and I think that is a difficulty one to call really and if we just say ‘red flag’… it’s a little unfair to those who are in front of Fernando and were trying to complete a lap, but that’s what happens when a red flag goes out anytime. I don’t know if any of you saw but Pascal Wehrlein was caught out by the third red flag in Q1. He was about to set a time but the red flag came out less than a second before he crossed the line, but his time didn’t count and that’s what happens unfortunately when a red flag is shown.

If it’s enough just to spin, not to crash, just a spin, don’t you fear that drivers will do this on purpose just to avoid others setting a fast time?

CW: If we had any suspicions that a driver had done it on purpose that would be quite a serious offence. But Fernando spun, as you know, he was across the kerb, half on the track, half on the kerb, so it was without any doubt a double waved yellow flag scenario. So I think it was all done correctly. At the time you don’t know when he’s going to get going again. You listen on the radio but they’re not saying anything. The team says ‘Fernando?’ but he doesn’t say anything, so you don’t know what’s going to happen, so you have to wait a little bit. But then all of a sudden he’s going. If we knew that he had stopped, that the engine had stopped, then it would have been a red flag immediately, but you have to wait a few seconds to find out what’s going to happen next.

Has there been any discussion about any potential alternative in that situation. Say the incident is in Sector Two and the guys following, say they all had a power cutting solution when you came through that sector, so they are affected the same and they were say credited with their previous sector best in sector two, they could then go on and finish the lap, or do people say they’ve lost too much tyre temperature or brake temperature, that kind of thing.

CW: I should think it’s too complicated. This is racing. I think when there’s a dangerous situation on the track, you need to attend to it. There could have been marshals there for example, and that would have been a double waved yellow flag in that second sector. I think if we just saw that under those circumstances we’re going to in future stop the session and make sure that the driver and the car can be recovered in complete safety then that’s what we will do.

You’re talking about red flags in qualifying, but what about practice and the race,. Or will there always be a VSC covering that?

CW: That’s what VSC is for. In free practice that doesn’t matter because it’s only free practice for a start and the time isn’t so important. Whereas in qualifying… although they are fixed duration sessions, not fixed end sessions – that’s why we differentiate between the two.

There have been complaints that Halo will affect the purity of formula racing. Do you think it’s acceptable to hold back certain technical developments, most notably for safety, for the sake of purity?

CW: Purity is a matter of opinion. My opinion doesn’t matter. It’s what the decision-makers think. The reason they deferred the Halo is purely because the drivers haven’t had a good chance to assess what they can see out of the car with it on – that’s fundamentally it. I know that some people have said they don’t like the look of it, but it’s never come across as being the reason for not having Halo, which is I think what you were asking.

I have been reading since a long time complaints from the fans concerning the start procedures behind the Safety car under the rain. Is there any plan to rethink this rule?

CW: Well, as far as starting the race because the track is in a bad condition is concerned, then no. The only thing that we’re thinking of changing is having a standing re-start when it’s safe to have a re-start. It will always be a matter of opinion. We listen to the drivers. We know that in Silverstone, for example, all the cars were set up for dry conditions. We know that the drivers don’t like driving on the wet weather tyres, they don’t have such a tread depth and then they start aquaplaning – these are all the things we had to take into account. We know that driving in the wet is not easy, but it never has been and there is no suggestion that we’re doing it for any other reason than to try and make sure that the drivers don’t aquaplane. In Silverstone for instance, even the Safety Car was aquaplaning, that’s not safe, it’s as simple as that. If the cars can drive on full throttle on a straight then that normally is an indication that it’s safe to continue.

Is it your feeling that as the Race Director that some kind of cockpit defence is inevitable in the long run?

CW: It’s been agreed. It’s going to be adopted in 2018, that was a decision made yesterday so…

I got the impression it’s about to get kicked into the long grass, because they could have just said yesterday.

CW: Absolutely not, not. It’s been adopted for 2018.

eom/FIA press release

DRIVERS – Sebastian VETTEL (Ferrari), Nico HULKENBERG (Force India), Pascal WEHRLEIN (Manor), Daniel RICCIARDO (Red Bull Racing), Rio HARYANTO (Manor), Felipe NASR (Sauber)

PRESS CONFERENCE

Sebastian, let’s start with you, if we may. News yesterday that Ferrari is replacing technical chief James Allison with Mattia Binotto. Can you give us your thoughts on that?

Sebastian VETTEL: Well, not much to add. I think we have stated in the press release what happened. I think Mattia has been in the team for a very long time so he is very experienced and knows the team inside out. Obviously there will be a difference but in the short term it doesn’t change that much.

The timing of the switch means that he’ll be in charge with plenty of time to influence the direction of next year’s car. Would you like the emphasis of the team now to shift to the 2017 car?

SV: We are already obviously working flat out on the ’17 car, I think everybody is, the rules are very different. Still there’s stuff I think we can learn from this year, so that’s why I think it would be wrong to forget about this year’s car. So I think still directions are very important heading into next year with the different approach but of course there is a very large group in the factory focusing on next year’s car.

Thank you. Coming to you Rio, you’ve out-qualified Pascal five times in 11 races; that’s quite a statement isn’t it?

Rio HARYANTO: Yeah, it’s a good result. It’s good to be able to be quote competitive in qualifying but I still want to improve also a lot in the races and we are clearly working hard on that and there are some occasions in the race where I’ve been having a split strategy to him and I just try to keep learning and to move forward.

The fact that you’re here in Germany this weekend, does that bode well for the rest of the season in terms of your involvement with the Manor team?

RH: I have a contract for one year. Of course there are certain obligations that we need to fulfill. My management is working very hard and I would like to say thanks to the team and also to the people in Indonesia who have been very supportive and hopefully I can keep my seat for the rest of the season.

Thank you for that. Nico, coming to you, you’ve scored points in five of the last six races but after Budapest you seemed to be a little bit downbeat in your assessment of the team’s chances at this race, sating it could possibly be a bit like Hungary. Don’t you think this track should suit Force India a little better than that?

Nico HULKENBERG: Difficult to judge. I think in Hungary we had a bit more potential in the car, but it was kind of a tough weekend with the mixed qualifying and then in the race also the race, how it happened, it just evolved against us. I think there was more potential than what we got at the end, only a tenth place. Hopefully here this weekend we’re a bit more competitive again and obviously we’d like to beat the McLarens, the Toro Rossos and put on a fight with the Williams and not be behind them.

Now, Vijay Mallya told us in Silverstone that both you and Checo are confirmed for next season. Checo was a little more non-committal than that last weekend. What’s your situation?

NH: Everything is easy and relaxed, there’s not much more to add. I think Vijay said what the situation is and we’re just focused on this year now, trying to get as many points as we possibly can and that’s the main focus really.

So you’re staying for next year

NH: Yes.

OK, thank you. Felipe, we had the news last week about the takeover of Sauber. What difference can you notice inside the team and where is the focus of attention now?

Felipe NASR: Well, first of all, it’s good news. I was happy for the team to have these new investors taking over. It brings a lot more stability to the team, especially to all the employees at the team. I could see in their faces already that people are happy again, back in their work, they can just focus on the job they do pretty much. We were very limited on the things we could do this year, talking about development and car performance. We couldn’t unlock anything, just because we didn’t have the resources to do so. I think now looking to the short and the long term there’s a lot that can happen. I believe there are serious people behind it. We expect to see some decent, let’s say, updates to be on the car after the summer break, which I’m really looking forward to. I want to put the car back competitive, I want the team to score points, I want to score points as well, which is the only thing missing until now.

Well, you mention that, the team is still looking for it’s first point as we reach the half way stage in the championship. So are you taking some encouragement that you’ll get there soon?

FN: Well, I believe so. I’m doing all I can. Sometimes in the last few races we have been close to it, we just need that little bit extra from the car to be more competitive, especially in qualifying, being able to qualify a bit higher, Unlocking performance is all we look for and hopefully it will come soon and I can celebrate that first point as well.

Thank you. Coming to you Pascal, your first Formula One grand prix at Hockenheim, first home grand prix in a Mercedes-powered car as a Mercedes protégé, sum up the emotions?

Pascal WEHRLEIN: Yeah, it’s a very special race to me. I’ve already said in a few interviews that when I was five years old, in 2000, I was here in the grandstands watching my first Formula One race live and it’s amazing to be in the car now in 2016.

You’ve had podiums here, I believe, in DTM and in Formula 3, so it’s a track you clearly know well and like. Is there a belief that you could repeat the result from Austria?

PW: I hope so. The track shouldn’t be that good, as Austria was for us, but as soon as I am in the car I will push as hard as I can and hopefully I can do the same again.

Thank you. Daniel, coming to you, your 100^th grand prix start this weekend, congratulations. Obviously a very strong weekend in Hungary last time out but do you feel that after that double setback of not winning in Spain and Monaco it took a few races to get your mojo back?

Daniel RICCIARDO: No, not at all, if anything it increased it. The way things turned out after Spain and Monaco, yeah, the race results weren’t as high as I was hoping for sure. It wasn’t a lack of mojo or anything like that. It was probably too much of the other! Obviously it was nice to be back on the podium last weekend; that was cool. Obviously I had a podium in Monaco, but unfortunately I didn’t really enjoy it, so it was nice to actually enjoy the one in Budapest and appreciate it, because you don’t get a podium every race. To see the fans and everything and to spray the champagne on Sunday afternoon, it’s a nice reward. It’s a beautiful feeling, so it was nice to soak that in. A hundred grands prix – I would say it’s gone quick, but at the same time it hasn’t. It’s taken a lot of steps to get here and yeah, I look back on HRT and it does feel like a long time ago. Yeah, 100 feels about right.

There was optimism before Budapest that Red Bull would be able to challenger Mercedes there. Obviously it was a slightly complicated weekend, particularly with the rain in qualifying, but in the end they did manage to keep you at arm’s length. You personally now are third in the Drivers’ Championship, it that the limit of what’s possible this season?

DR: There should be another chance or a slight chance you’d think in Singapore. It’s a strong circuit for us and for whatever reason last year it was a weakness for Mercedes, so if it’s a similar trend then we can genuinely have a crack there. But otherwise probably a wet race is our only real opportunity on an even playing field. Now we’re close with Ferrari in the Constructors’, I’m third in the Drivers’ Championship, it’s really close from third to sixth. But that’s fun, so hopefully we’’ just try and keep that. Some more consistent podiums would be good and yeah leave Sundays feeling happy, that’s always important.

QUESTIONS FROM THE FOOR

Q: (Daniel Johnson – The Daily Telegraph) A questions for Seb or two actually. When you first came here when you were a kid the grandstands were full, there were 100,000 people, and if you look at Michael’s heyday the sport was massive here. It’s not secret that now it’s struggling for popularity compared to that. Do you have an explanation for why that is? And the second question is, from a driver’s point of view what was Michael’s impact on Formula One, what’s his legacy would you say?

SV: Starting with the second one, I think he was obviously the first German world champion and the first one that made Formula One really popular in Germany. Obviously Formula One has been around for a long time and also there were a lot of races in Germany, but I think the real difference is that we didn’t really have a local hero for a very, very long time. There were Germans participating, but obviously if there is one really, really successful one, winning a lot of races, that’s what attracts a lot of the attention. That’s what also caused the hype initially and caused the grandstands to be full. I think entering the motodrom in the old days was a bit different than nowadays, because the track was different, all the other parts of the track there was only trees, so I think that’s different now, you have big grandstands around the track, a bit more spread. Plus the fact that it’s clear nowadays, let’s say the last couple of years haven’t been that popular, there’s been a lot of negative in the press and obviously people, fans, follow that as well and that doesn’t help. I think Formula One has lost a little bit of its excitement in terms of just if you listen, the cars are a lot more quiet, which also then looks a little bit less spectacular, even though it’s not true, corners speeds are as high as they’ve ever been. Just when we go on power it doesn’t sound as nice as it probably did in the past. So there’s a couple of reasons and I think it general grandstand tickets are too expensive. In my point of view they should be a lot cheaper, a lot more affordable, so a lot more people would be tempted to spontaneously say ‘yes, let’s go, we want to be part of it and let’s not miss it’. So I think there are a couple of reasons.

Q: (Livio Oricchio – GloboEsporte.com) To Sebastian. Sebastian, until September of 2014 Mr Marchionne didn’t have great approach to Formula One and then came Arrivabene also. All of them for sure hard workers, competent and they were doing their time – and now we have also Binotto, also another guy without experience to concept a car globally. He comes from engine side. Are you worried that you have very good people behind you but all of them, the mainstream leadership of the team with no experience in Formula One?

SV: No, I think we have the right people on board. I think obviously, yeah, it’s been a lot in the press, especially about our president and what he expects from us and so on…  I think first of all it’s good to see, as I’ve always said, that he’s involved. Obviously he’s pushing the team very hard, and also in Maranello, he spends a lot of time there. I think he knows what he’s talking about and generally has been trying to understand what’s going on, in the last year in particular. So, I think things are heading in the right direction. Obviously it’s a big change now, which doesn’t impact on tomorrow’s work but obviously for the future. No doubt about it but I think things are heading in the right direction. When you say that they didn’t have access, I think it’s not entirely true. Obviously I haven’t followed that close but in Maurizio’s case as well I think he’s been in Formula One and involved for a long time, so I think he knows the business very well and I think he’s doing a very, very good job. That’s how we all feel in the team. He’s our leader, he’s the team principal and we’re happy he’s with us.

Q: (Sandor Van Es – Formula 1 Magazine, Netherlands)  Daniel, I have a question for you. Congratulations with your third in Hungary, your team-mate hinted that in the first part of the race he was a little bit held-up by you because he was driving like his grandma.

DR: His grandma’s fast!

How satisfying was it to finish clearly ahead of him and, related to that, how are you going to approach your little battle in the second part of the season?

DR: Yeah, it’s part of… especially the early stages of the race, there’s always, a lot of the time, when there’s some tyre-saving, you always go through a phase where you try and make it to lap number X and sometimes the approach is to build up to it and make sure you get to that point, that you don’t throw yourself in a three-stop strategy, say, when you’re planning a two. So, from my side, at the start, I was just trying to do what I had to do. Try to hang with Nico and Lewis. It was sort of there – and then to the end of that stint they seemed to pull away but it seemed like my tyres had a bit more life at the end of the stint than perhaps Max’s did. Yeah, I don’t know if it was necessarily a shot at me, it was more, I think, as well, the way sometimes we have to manage the tyres. Especially at the start of the race with high fuel. You do have to be quite conservative and yeah, it doesn’t always feel that fast. I am impressed with the speed of his grandma. That’s pretty good.

Q: (Louis Dekker – NOS.NL) For Sebastian and Daniel. What do you need to beat Mercedes on Sunday. Help from above or something else?

SV: I think we both have the cars that we have and both of us are very happy. Obviously we’re missing a bit to really take it on to Mercedes in lap time. It’s been, on this type of track, probably around three-four tenths to seven-eight tenths per lap, which is a lot and obviously allows them to take it fairly easy but we will try to extract everything we can, try to do the best job possible and I think that way we enhance our chances to put them under most pressure. Then, I think, there’s always a lot of things that can happen. We’ve seen it in the past. That’s why we go racing. Otherwise, y’know, there’s no point for us being here.

Daniel?

DR: Yep, you always hope for some variables. I think all things even they’re clearly the quickest at the moment. Rain definitely helps us. We seem to be able to close the gap there, and also the rain, whether it suits our car more or not, it also opens up more opportunity for the driver to make a bit more of a difference. It’s easier to make mistakes with things like this. Even if they were quicker in a wet races there’s still more chances they might make a mistake, or whatever. So, yeah, otherwise, as Seb touched on, we’ve just got to try and do what we can do with what we’ve got. It if does open an opportunity, obviously Barcelona, on lap one, that opened an opportunity for everyone, these sort of things can still happen. It would be nice if we could beat them with them still on track. That would be, I think, more satisfying.

Q: (Joe Van Burik – De Telegraaf) Another question for Seb and Daniel. Do you have faith F1 will change much with the new 2017 technical regulations.

DR: Yeah. I’m confident the cars will be quicker, the cornering speeds will be quicker. I think that’s one thing which obviously we’re all going to be open to. If it does become a bit more physical – not that it’s not, I was sweating quite a lot after the race last weekend – I think more to just feel the car a bit more in the high-speed corners. I know our car is very strong in high-speed corners and I still feel like I want to do more, so I can imagine midfield teams, they’re not really experiencing a massive amount of gees and grip. So, looking at that, the wider tyres and more downforce, it should make that part a lot more fun. How much it’s going to change, I don’t know. I am having fun, as Formula One is now, but of course you can always improve things. Even if this improves one part of it, then that’s a positive.

Q: (Graeme Keilloh – Grand Prix Times) Question for all of the drivers. We understand a decision about whether the Halo is to be introduced for next year is fairly imminent. Jolyon Palmer said earlier today that most drivers he talks to are against the halo but reluctant to say so. Do you all agree this is the case? That perhaps drivers aren’t expressing all of their concerns or drawbacks about it?

Nico, why don’t you start with that one.

NH: Yeah, I think there is some mixed opinions amongst the drivers. Some favour it, some don’t favour it. Obviously the aesthetics are not so good – it doesn’t look very attractive – and yes, in some cases it would probably have been better and saved lives. But as it is I think F1 is already pretty safe and we also need to keep an element there, of danger, to keep it exciting, to keep it spectacular – but it’s not in our hands, our decision, what’s going to happen with it. So, I think today there is a meeting about Halo. We’ll wait and here about that.

Rio, what are your thoughts?

RH: Same comments

Pascal?

PW: I’m for the halo, especially after the presentation we had last week in Budapest. I think it’s a very good solution and maybe it doesn’t look so nice but it can save our lives, I think – until 17 per cent – so I’m clearly for it.

Felipe?

FN: I’m in favour as well. I think it doesn’t look great, as everybody pretty much says a similar thing. On the other hand, safety being the priority, I would be in favour. I believe it’s, for now, with what we have, it’s something better. There can clearly be, as I said, in the priority list of safety, it can be improved, but there’s also to consider that people will have to get used to it, if it does happen. Because it looks very different.

Daniel, your thoughts.

DR: I think what people from the outside need to understand is that, when we say it’s going to make it safer, it will – but it doesn’t mean the risks we take are any less. So it will not change our approach to a corner, for me, as much as I understand it, it’s to help the freak accident, or to support the freak accident, or if something comes flying in the air to stop it hitting us on the head, as some incidents happen, and y’know, with last year as well with Indy. It’s purely just to, I’d say, get rid of that risk, which I think it will do a good job. For us getting behind the wheel and going flat out in Eau Rouge or something, it does not change if we’ve got the halo on or not. So, I think that’s what people from the outside who are against it, need to understand, that we’re not all just turning into… y’know… we’re still race car drivers, it’s just trying to eliminate that freak accident side of it.

Sebastian?

SV: I’m a bit surprised because it doesn’t sound as if we were clear about what we want in the future, so I’m a bit surprised about these comments and I think 90-95 per cent voted for it – so I don’t know why all of a sudden it comes up the way it does. I think it’s the wrong impression. As I think the majority in here said as well, we don’t like the looks of it but I don’t think there’s anything really that justifies death. So, I think we’ve always learned from what happened, incidences that happened on track, and we’ve always tried to improve. Now, that would be the first time I would think in human history that we’ve learned a lesson and we don’t change. I think it’s up to us to make sure it does happen, otherwise I think we’d be quite stupid.

Q: (Daniele Sparisci – Corriere della Sera) Question to Seb. What do you expect from this race? A podium would be a good result for you here?

SV: Yeah, I think the nature of the track should suit us probably a little bit more than last week. But having said so, our main rival for victory will still remain Mercedes so we try to line all of our ducks up so we can deliver the strongest Ferrari that we can. Of course it would be very nice for me to be on the podium. Racing at home I think is something very special and, in that way, to give a little bit back would be great. It depends on how the race unfolds: if there’s a chance to win and you don’t, you cannot be happy. But yeah, I think, if everything goes, let’s say, normal, we should be fairly competitive and should be aiming at a podium.

Q: (Daniel Johnson – The Telegraph) Seb, on the halo, you said that you had a vote among the drivers. How do you feel about the fact that it’s something the teams are deciding on rather you. It would be in the FIA’s hands to just impose it but they’ve put it to a vote of the strategy group. Do you think that’s really fair on you guys?

SV: I think ultimately the FIA can do what they want, because based on safety grounds, they can do what they want so I think the message is clear, I think the feedback from the drivers so far – apart from the odd one or two here and there – has been clear. I think it’s fairly clear.

Q: (Walter Koster – Saarbrucker Zeitung) Nico, after your inter-mezzo with the Sauber team, you turned back to Force India in 2014. What is for you the main difference between your first time in Force India formerly and today? What has changed?

NH: Well, I think obviously the team has grown and really become a more solid, stronger competitor since. When I initially joined the team in 2011 as a reserve driver and then 2012 I was there as a racing driver, and then when I came back in 2014, I think we’ve really made a good step. The team has employed a lot of good people, changed structures back at base at Silverstone and I think just taken a lot of good directions, made some good decisions and hired some right people and that usually then sets you up, puts you in the right direction and makes you competitive on the track. So I think all in all the team has matured and grown a lot in a very positive sense.

Q: (Rzeczpospolita – Mikolaj Sokol ) To all gentlemen, after last weekend when you now see a double yellow flag, what will you do?

SV: I don’t know, whatever comes up, spontaneously.  I was the car in front of Nico (Rosberg) and I lifted as well but maybe I lifted too much, I don’t know. What to say? I think double yellow is still… should be double caution and I think in the rulebook it says ‘prepare to stop’. I think after what happened last week, we shouldn’t change our mindset. I think it should still remain the same in terms of that you are aware that someone’s in trouble, marshals might be on the track to help him, whatever, so you should be aware of that and be prepared to lift. That’s it.

Q: Daniel, do you still have some question marks about this after last week?

DR: I voiced my comments in the post-race briefing. I couldn’t have done anything different. Fernando was still on the track so I was prepared to slow down a lot and that I had to because he was there. So yeah, for me, I even get thing when people go quicker on a single yellow. The double yellow, I think, has to be clearly… there has to be a difference between a single and a double. When I see a single, sure, I slow but I’m aware that there probably isn’t anyone on the track but when you see a double it’s a lot more of a stronger sign, at least for me, and yeah, you know there’s a bit more going on. I think it’s something we’re still going to talk about, discuss and make a bit more clear. There needs to be a big difference.

PW: I think there will be a big meeting tomorrow and let’s see what’s the discussion and solution after that.

NH: I will take some food and drink into that one, I think. It’s going to be long. Every double yellow, of course, means there is some danger and obviously we know (we have to) prepare to stop. Every case is different, though. It’s difficult also for Charlie (Whiting) and for those on the outside to judge. Obviously in that incident, if you come around turn eight in Hungary you look into turn nine so some cars saw Fernando sitting on the kerb there, so you know you have to lift, you’re forced (to) because he was right there on the ideal line and I think when Nico came he was clear and it was different so it’s difficult but yeah, we all definitely have to have great respect for yellow flags.

FN: I agree on what the others are saying too. There has to be a clear message. Tomorrow, when we all sit down together, there has to be something that is really being followed by everyone, I guess. We don’t want to get in those doubts of the position there, well the car wasn’t there… It has to be something clear that we have to do and then everybody respects that.

RH: I think a double yellow says you have to prepare to stop. I think tomorrow we will discuss things together and clarify the position to take from what happened two weeks ago.

Q: Just for clarity, Sebastian, from a leadership point of view amongst the drivers, will that meeting tomorrow bring forward something that you will take to the FIA? What will happen?

SV: Well, first of all we will see how the discussion goes but I assume it will be a bit longer, it won’t be dealt with in two minutes so I think we will have to wait and see.

Q: But it would be some sort of protocol that you would all agree between you from then on. Is that the idea?

SV: Well, to be honest, I think the difficulty is that with that, since we have the… again you could argue that modern technology didn’t do us a favour. Since we introduced the loops, the timing loops so that not just the sectors one, two and three but also in the individual sectors we have different loops and then there was a sort of guideline that if there was a single yellow waved flag you have to lift off by two tenths. If there’s a double yellow waved you have to lift off by five tenths but that was verbal, there’s no way (you will) find that in the rulebook and basically apply common sense. But then again the problem is that you leave it up to us and then where’s the limit, so you had a guy last weekend that arguably if a lot of other guys were in his shoes, we would maybe have done the same. He comes around the corner, sees the double yellow… first of all, comes around the corner, sees the track is clear, obviously then still has a shot at the rest of his lap, where do you draw the line? In the past it was probably more simple just because we didn’t have the ability with the loops, it was clear: sector two, in that case, if you go green or purple you abused the rule and yeah, in that sense it made it a lot easier for us in the car. Now you have to think about how much time you have to lose and so on and that, I think is what we need to discuss tomorrow and hopefully we will find a common agreement to move forwards.

Q: (Barna Zsoldos – Nemzeti Sport) Nico, Sebastian and Daniel, a follow-up on the 2017 changes, Stoffel Vandoorne recently made some interesting remarks comparing SuperFormula and Formula One. He said that in SuperFormula the tyres are rock solid so he can push, it’s quite enjoyable but that’s why the racing is not exciting. Now, next year we will have more aerodynamics, grippier and bigger tyres. Don’t you agree that the same will happen with Formula One and what is more important for you: having fun in the car or providing a good show? Because it seems to be a controversy.

DR: For me, the perfect or the ideal scenario would be to have something in qualifying with a lot of grip, that you can get the maximum out of the F1 car and push it to its limit and feel a real step but then yeah, the race, you don’t want it to go where it’s follow the leader and everyone’s going so quick and the braking points are too late and then you can’t overtake or anything so… I think the balance in racing hasn’t been too bad. I think the tyre deg and all that is not too bad. I think if we could just have that but with more grip like with quicker lap times but still the same rate of deg or whatever then I think that would still be a decent solution or outcome. So I think that’s what – looking at it – we probably will get, I think we will get just generally faster lap times but still the same amount of pit stops or whatever and hopefully in qualifying, we just get a bit more of a rush. Let’s see. I do believe it will go in the right direction, how much we achieve I’m not sure yet.

NH: Yeah, not much more to add really. Obviously we’re going to go faster for sure but we will also still see deg in the race which then allows a good show and overtaking and wheel-to-wheel racing so I think for now we will go in a good direction.

Q: Seb, to the gentleman’s point about it not just being about you guys having fun but also the wider show and spectacle.

SV: Well, I think on that it needs to be real so I think now you can argue that obviously we all know how much faster our car could go if there was a fresher set of tyres on the car, less fuel in the car, that’s what is not so satisfying in the race. I think that’s the point that Stoffel made and also amongst us that he can push all the way through the race and that’s how, to be fair, Formula One has been some years ago and to what people refer when they say this was the best time, in the year 2000 through 2005. You didn’t see a lot of overtaking but if someone made it stick it was real and that generally got appreciated. Nowadays, we also have arguments whether there have been too many overtakings, whether some of the overtakings have been too easy and that’s where, I think, it sums it up, where we say it has to be real. If we enjoy it, I think the people enjoy it, our passion transfers also to the people in the grandstands and following it on the television. I think that has to be the target. Whether we will achieve it or not we have to wait and see.

Q: (Ralf Bach – Autobild Motorsport) Question  also about flag-gate in Hungary: Lewis went to Charlie’s office to get a clarification and he called him later in the evening as well; why didn’t you do this?

SV: Well, I think in that regard the rule is clear, in that if you read what it says under double waved yellow or yellow flag I think it’s clear. Obviously there was still the option to continue the lap which Nico did, fair enough to him and he made it stick and put the car on pole and then I think it means exactly that. What we are now all talking about is how much do you have to lift and every situation is different. I think we’re not too happy with that because there are certain inconsistencies there because then somebody has a different feeling or approach to somebody else. But to answer your question: I don’t know, I think to me it was clear what double waved yellow means so I didn’t feel that I had to go and ask.

DR: Yeah, I guess the team… I made my thoughts clear to the team and left that with them to deal with so I know… I think they were on to Charlie as well and seeing what the outcome was going to be.

PW: I don’t have Charlie’s number!

NH: Not much to say.

Q: (Silvia Arias – Parabrisas) Sebastian, talking about flags. You have been complaining during the race on radio about the blue flags. How much does it need to make you complain about other drivers? Does it affect your driving? What can you say about that, about these things happening?

SV: I think it’s emotions. I think in the race you want to… I was catching Daniel at the time, I believe, and yeah, it always feels that you’re losing more time than the guy in front which I don’t think is true and I have been in the other situation as well. It’s not easy, you know. The mirrors are small, you see the car coming and two or three corners later the car is a lot closer and maybe closer than you expect. Equally you’re racing someone, you’re doing your own race. Yeah, I think in that moment I was a bit emotional and complaining. After the race I was a lot more relaxed about it, maybe I got a bit tempted by Max in the last couple of races so I started to complain a lot about blue flags during the race. But yeah, i think we’re all trying to do our best and I think most of the guys most of the time do a very good job, especially because it’s not easy and it’s not a nice position to be in. I think we all come from a racing background where we were not used to seeing blue flags and especially not used to moving over so it is a pain but people are doing what they can.

eom/FIA press release