Tag: F1

DRIVERS

1 – Nico ROSBERG (Mercedes)

2 – Lewis HAMILTON (Mercedes)

3 – Sebastian VETTEL (Ferrari)

TV UNILATERAL

Nico, first pole of the year. Is it fair to say you needed that?

Nico ROSBERG: Well, of course. Of course I needed it sooner rather than later that’s for sure, that’s for sure because it’s just one step in the right direction to winning the race here this weekend. Yeah, it was a good day in the office for sure.

Well done. Lewis, a little spin this morning and looked like you were slightly on the back foot in the later part of qualifying. Why was that?

Lewis HAMILTON: I don’t think I was on the back foot at any other stage. I generally didn’t have the pace today. Nico did a great job and generally I don’t know if I really had the balance where I like it. I did my best with it and I think tomorrow there’s still a lot to play for.

Thank you for that. Coming to you Sebastian, obviously third place again up amongst it here at the front of the grid. Race pace looks strong but would it be fair to say you’re a bit disappointed with the margin to the Mercedes today after all the development work?

Sebastian VETTEL: Well, I think disappointed is the wrong word. I think it’s great to keep confirming that we are right behind. Obviously we would have loved to be a little bit closer, especially for this race as in a way this is a home for us with one of our main sponsors, Santander, so yeah, I think we should still be in good shape for tomorrow. I hope for a good race. But you have to say that those two guys are doing a good job. They are quick. They have been very quick here in winter and I think they confirmed that so far. So I hope tomorrow, as I said, we can be a bit closer but we will see.

Thank you. Back to you Nico: the three of you were the only drivers that managed to save a new set of medium tyres for tomorrow’s grand prix. The races have been strategic and tactical so far this year. Are we to expect more of the same tomorrow?

NR: Yeah, definitely. Strategy is going to be important and it’s a big advantage to have an extra new set of tyres for tomorrow’s race so it’s good to have that. Of course overtaking is also more difficult at this track so starting in front is a particularly big advantage here.

PRESS CONFERENCE

In Bahrain you were saying you had made a mistake because you had not pushed in Q2 because you were thinking about the race. It was very obvious today that in Q2 you pushed much harder, clearly thinking about pole position. In fact you did two laps that were good enough for pole today.

NR: For sure, yeah, Bahrain was still in my mind and I wanted to make sure that I don’t do that mistake again. I just got myself in the rhythm in Q2 and it worked really well for me today.

Lewis, was it the opposite the case for you. You were sixth tenths behind in Q2, which looked as though you had been thinking perhaps more about the race tyre set you would be using from Q2 to Q3. Did that have any impact on finding the limit in that session that impacted your Q3.

LH: No, I just got some traffic on my lap, I was stuck behind one of the McLarens, so it didn’t really make any difference to my in-lap.

Thank you for that. We mentioned, Sebastian, your long run performance yesterday. What was striking about it was that it was long, on the medium tyre, and consistent, but not massively quick or not quick enough to be able to think you can challenge these guys tomorrow?

SV: Well, being realistic they are quick. They are not on pole and second, the first row, for tomorrow by chance. They showed I think in every single session this weekend that they are very competitive with either tyre. So I expect them to be very strong tomorrow. But, of course I hope that we can be a bit closer. The past races we were a bit closer on race pace but, as I said, being realistic it will be difficult to beat them

QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Q: (Peter Farkas – Auto Motor) Sebastian, you have a lot of new parts on the car this weekend, as most other teams have. Did you hope to get a bit closer to Mercedes or do you still hope that these are circuit characteristics that don’t really suit your car?

SV: Well, in general, I think our car was fine on any circuit this year so I don’t see a reason why it shouldn’t be the case this weekend. Yes, we would have hoped to be a bit closer but the weekend is not over yet for a start and also in the past… and usually this is quite a good indication of how quick your car is, we know we still have something to do. Obviously everybody has been pushing. I think we made a step forward so I’m looking forward to the race and looking forward to the next races. Maybe one race is not enough to confirm everything but, as I said, happy that we are still where we were for a start and hopefully we can be a bit closer tomorrow.

Q: (Luigi Perna – La Gazzetta dello Sport) Question for Seb. Seb, anyway the difference – the gap – compared to Mercedes seems to be bigger compared to the last races. Are you disappointed for that or you think it can be better in the race?

SV: I hope it’s going to be better in the race. I think we expected them to be very, very strong here because in winter testing they’ve been very, very strong. I’m sure they have improved their car since then – but I think the conditions are completely different so we will see. It’s true that the gap is there, the gap is probably a little bit bigger than it was the last couple of races. I don’t think that’s down to one thing only – I think there’s always a lot of things you throw in the bag and maybe we are struggling a little bit more this weekend. I’m looking forward to seeing where we are tomorrow and then you can ask me again – hopefully.

Q: (Livio Oricchio – GloboSport.com) Sebastian, do you think we can have a repetition of the Malaysian Grand Prix where you had a great advantage in the tyre wear and it also explained your victory there. Here the tyre wear is very high also…

SV: First of all, apologies, it comes with a red suit, those two guys, they haven’t asked me a single question in the last four years! I think it’s a different weekend. We have the same tyres, it’s correct, but it’s a completely different circuit as well. I think potentially the tyres are not working as well as they used to in Malaysia. It looks like Mercedes have a bit of an edge and are more comfortable on both compounds, compared to us. So, we’ll see what we can do in the race. Hopefully, as I said many times, we’ll be a bit closer.

Q: (Laurentzi Garmendia – Berria) To Lewis, Barcelona is a track known to be quite difficult to overtake. Does it make the start for tomorrow especially… to put an effort in at the start?

LH: Probably. Yeah, it’s always one of the opportunities. You have that and some of the pitstops. It’s very, very difficult to overtake I think, as it’s shown and proved over the years. I haven’t even started to think about that yet.

Q: (Luigi Perna – La Gazzetta dello Sport) Could you explain why you and Kimi choose two different configurations – aerodynamic configurations – on the car? You with the new one and Kimi the old one. The reasons and why the different choice.

SV: Very simple. We didn’t have the best day yesterday I believe. We both were not entirely happy with how the car felt. I think, as I mentioned before, it was probably tricky conditions this weekend, quite windy, I think the tyres are not working for us as they maybe used to. So, we were not sure about where we were and we decided to split the cars for today.

Q: (Peter Farkas – Auto Motor) Lewis, could you please explain why did you feel the need to go out again at the end of Q1? Did you try something new with the setup still? And what about your spin in P3. What was behind it?

LH: Touched the Astroturf in P3 and then in Q1, that was the team’s decision.

Q: (Flavio Vanetti – Corriere della Sera) To Nico. How important is the boost from the psychological point of view, having the pole position today?

NR: It’s just important for tomorrow’s race because it’s better to start first than second, that’s obviously. Psychologically, yeah, it’s good. Feels great. I’m happy – so it’s good for tomorrow.

Q: (Christopher Joseph – Chicane) A question for Nico. What mindset will you take into the race tomorrow that’s different from the season so far?

NR: No different. Same thing. Try to go for it. Try to go for the best possible result. Starting first in the car that I have, it’s going to be trying to go for the win, for sure. Take the advantage from the start from being first and that’s it.

Q: (Livio Oricchio – GloboSport.com) Question to Lewis. Consider the advantage that you have in the championship, do you consider to start the race already racing for the championship or do you…

LH: Every race. Every race you do you’re racing for the championship. Every race I do I’m racing for the championship…

The question is if you consider to take more risks or because of the advantage you have, you maybe drive more carefully?

LH: I don’t think so. I think I’ll drive the same as I did last year. Seemed to do me quite well.

TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Nick CHESTER (Lotus), Jonathan NEALE (McLaren), Giampaolo DALL’ARA (Sauber), Rob SMEDLEY (Williams), Paddy LOWE (Mercedes), Paul MONAGHAN (Red Bull Racing)

PRESS CONFERENCE

Nick, can we start with you? First of all, a little insight into what happened with Romain Grosjean’s engine cover and what the explanation was?

Nick CHESTER: OK, yeah, we’ve had a little bit of an eventful day so far. On Romain’s car we just lost some fixings on the bodywork. That just pulled the top of the engine cover and broke the rest of the fixings and blew it with it.

Thank you for that. Obviously you’ve got a much faster car this but that has not, so far, translated into the points you perhaps might have expected. What’s your feeling on that?

NC: I think we’ve had a couple of races that haven’t gone our way, when we’ve looked like we’d get both drivers in the points. The good thing is that the pace of the car is there and we’re expecting that we’ll get both cars up into Q3 and start scoring points with both drivers every race.

Thank you. Moving on to you Giampaolo: obviously, faced with all the problems that you had over the winter and at the start of the year, what was the key to your relatively strong start do you think?

Giampaolo DALL’ARA: I wouldn’t pinpoint a single key. Obviously we were coming from a season where we were nowhere near where we feel we belong. We’ve been working throughout last year, throughout the winter and coming with a new car, or a new power unit, everything was working OK. On the reliability side of things, since winter testing we were pretty much sorted so it was only a matter of our performance, so that was it – a bit from the power unit, a bit from the car… let me add a bit from the tyres as well. The whole package came together. The drivers did a good job and that was it.

Clearly, as you say, you have a much more powerful power unit. What does that allow you to do from a chassis and strategy point of view?

GD: Well, not much different from anyone else can. We felt like… I mean, again going back one year we felt back then we were pretty much limited, so I would turn your question the other way around: last year whatever we were wanting to do, it didn’t change the race result. This year, basically, in one word, it allows us to compete. Basically, we are belonging to the midfield and we have competition that race by race we can challenge – sometimes this turns into points, sometimes it doesn’t, but for us it’s important to actually be there.

Thank you for that. Coming to you Paddy, the speed with which Ferrari has closed up the gap, does that reflect also that you’ve been perhaps a little bit conservative from last year to this, focusing on reliability rather than chasing performance at the start of this year?

Paddy LOWE: No, not at all. We put in a very aggressive programme over the winter, both on the engine and on aerodynamics and other parts of the car. So, no, not a bit of it. We expected a very tough season as the second iteration of this new formula and we weren’t going to get through that without a lot of development on the performance of the car. No, I think credit to Ferrari, they’ve done a good job over the winter to make a big step to approach and even exceed our performance from time to time, so that’s set the place for a very tough competition through the year.

What about your two drivers then? Nico obviously is yet to match Lewis, is that just that he’s not done a good a job or is there a technical story behind that?

PL: No, I think Lewis is performing, really, at the top of his game. I’ve worked with Lewis actually throughout his Formula One career and I would say at the moment he’s really at his peak – the best he’s been driving so far. That’s a tough prospect for any driver to compete with. Nico’s doing a great job. I was particularly pleased with how he performed in Bahrain. We let him down at the last minute, which is why he lost the second place, but you saw he did some fantastic driving, some great overtaking, which showed that he had great race craft. I think Nico is doing a good job, it’s just tough to beat Lewis. The season is still young and there’s plenty in prospect for a good battle between them.

Paul, coming to you: obviously more power unit problems today. Can you tell us about what happened with Daniel’s car in particular and was this race supposed to be the turnaround away from all of that?

Paul MONAGHAN: I think you would have to ask Renault directly what their expectations for the weekend and the future are. We had a fluid leak on Daniel’s car. We took the choice that fixing it was going to be longer than putting the next power unit in, so we said “right let’s put the next power unit in, get him out in P2, let him have a run in the car and we’ll deal with the consequences this evening”.

What about the new short nose? I understand it’s good to go. When are you hoping to use it and can you tell us a bit about the thinking on that?

PM: Well, if you look up and down the pit lane there are a number of people pursuing that topic; we’re not alone. We’re going to put as much chassis performance on as we possible can. That’s one of the aspects we’ve looked at. Best you look long and hard at the footage and see if you can find it.

Right-oh. Thank you for that. Jonathan, what appears to be a very good step today, with Jenson up solidly in the top 10. Where is that step coming from and does it get harder to make the big steps the further you go on?

Jonathan NEALE: Well, it certainly never gets easier! I think we’ve had a reasonable day today. I wouldn’t read too much into a Friday. We all like to convince ourselves that if you’re quick on a Friday you’ll be quick through the weekend but Friday’s are notoriously fickle. We don’t know what everybody else is doing, so we’ll see tomorrow just where we’ve got to. But the reality is we’ve been pushing on all areas of the car. We have aerodynamic upgrades here this weekend, we have some engine, reliability upgrades, there’s a huge amount of work still to do on our systems package – much of our performance we’re getting from systems integration work. And importantly Exxon Mobil have delivered us a fuel upgrade here as well, so in all areas, pretty much, as Paddy suggested.

There’s been a lot of change in the McLaren technical department – new faces arriving, returning faces like Peter Prodromou. How much change has been effected in the engineering ideology, the ‘McLaren Way’ if you like? Is that changing fundamentally?

JN: Yeah, I think it is. I think there are some things about McLaren that have stood the test of time over 50 years and there are other things about it that need constantly reinventing. No business stands still, no market stands still. The sport’s constantly changing and what it takes to stay at the top requires constantly to reassess everything that’s going on. I think the changes that we made during the course of the last 18 months have had a very positive impact, I think it’s ventilated the organisation a bit. I think there’s a bit more work to do and Eric [Boullier] and I are hell-bent on making sure that’s the case.

Thank you for that. Coming to you Rob, obviously from last year to this, certainly so far, the hoped for improvement hasn’t come through yet relative it the pacesetters. Why is that?

Rob SMEDLEY: Well I think you’ve got to be fairly pragmatic about it first of all and understand where we’re at and what we’re trying to achieve as a team. I think it would be fairly remiss of me to sit here and say that we are going to start competing with Mercedes but I think that if you look at our gap to Mercedes, MGP, last year and this year then it hasn’t really shifted a great deal. It was about 1% in lap time and it’s about 1% this year. It’s not where we want to be. We all know that, we all buy into that. It’s not where we want to be. We’re working on that. But the team, the business as a whole really, is on a journey and we’ve got to keep improving. We’ve got to keep developing the car, we’ve got to keep developing the business, the company. Ensuring that we’re developing in all areas. We’re not as strong as the front-running teams in lots of areas; every single area of the business. We’ve got to keep on looking inwards and go quietly about it.

So you’re the third-fastest car, basically. Mercedes and Ferrari are well ahead and the others, at the moment, seem to a way behind, so essentially your two drivers are kind of racing each other each weekend. How does that affect, internally, the strategy planning knowing that your two guys are going up against each other?

RS: It doesn’t affect anything a great deal, to be honest. The number one objective for the team is that the maximum number of points available and the finishing order of the drivers is of much less consequence. The drivers know that; they buy into that. So it doesn’t really affect us a great deal. We’re looking forward all the time and seeing if we can get in there at some point with the Ferraris but we’re looking behind as well. You’ve got Red Bull, who’ve got a huge resource and a great team behind them, lots of world championships. They’re going to come back at some point. We shouldn’t just be looking forward, you’ve got to be looking backwards as well, but at the moment, while we can, we just have to keep getting the maximum number of points.

QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Q: (Dan Knutson – Auto Action and Speedsport) Gentlemen, the rules can change in 2017. Name a couple of things that would be at top of your wish list, even if it’s not practical, that you would like to see coming?

JN: It’s very tempting to be unguarded at the moment! I think that the sport needs to rethink a number of areas. Personally, I think it would be foolish to mess around with the immense amount of good work that has been done on the power units. Maybe some minor adjustments but it’s a much more efficient package, it’s got some great technology, it’s still maturing in the sport and the price can come down if it’s left to mature because just we’re not putting in the same R&D costs. So I would leave that alone. But I would look for… we’ve spoken about that a step-change in aerodynamics, to make sure that these cars are difficult to drive and maintain that perform gap to the other junior series and Formula One remains and out and out race. We can still have the efficiency, we can still have many other attributes of the sport but I think it should just be a flat-out race.

Nick, what would you do?

NC: I come from a slightly different viewpoint I think. There’s a lot talked at the moment about the rule changes for 2017 but I think people forget at the moment the racing’s actually quite good. There are some very good battles up and down the whole grid and as the cars’ performance is improving a lot – I think we’re seeing two seconds improvement from last year – do we really need a huge change of regulation? A huge of regulation is going to open up the grid again, there’ll be bigger differences between teams and obviously it’s going to add a lot of cost, so I think we shouldn’t forget that show’s actually not bad at the moment.

Giampaolo?

GD: I’m pretty much on the same line as Nick I think. I wouldn’t add much to what he has been saying.

Paul?

PM: As a personal view I’d seek to improve the performance of the cars. The mechanism by which we do it really will come down from Strategy Group to people such as ourselves and then we’ll sort it out from there. That’s what I would wish for at the moment.

Are you talking about a lot more power, that kind of thing? Over a thousand horsepower has been discussed.

PM: I’d leave the power unit aside for the moment. I’d like to do it more on the chassis side I think.

Paddy?

PL: I agree with Jonathan that above all we must maintain Formula One cars as the pinnacle of motorsport. That’s the presentation that Formula One is and that’s what maintains the show and the attractiveness to a global audience. Even amongst topics such as cost saving, which often comes up, above all we’ve got to maintain that show and that means the cars must be truly spectacular. But in terms of rule changes, I think it’s not absolutely clear that we need to change the cars radically, that’s something being discussed. As Nick correctly says, performance will increase anyway through normal development and we may arrive at the position we want to be through natural development. I think an interesting area is just in the sporting regulations. There are a lot of thing we can do that would improve the show without spending a huge amount of money changing the cars themselves. Changes to sporting regulations generally don’t attach a lot of cost and can change the sport in subtle ways that improve the spectacle, improve the interest, improve the uncertainty, which is what you really want from race to race – that it’s not absolutely clear who is going to win.

Can you give us an example of what you’re thinking?

PL: I think we’ve been discussing ideas like the use of tyres, how tyres are allocated – but I think we’re actually on the lookout for people to come up with interesting ideas. But I still say in that context, again agreeing with Nick, the sport, in my view, isn’t in a bad shape. And I don’t think we need to run around thinking we need to do drastic things.

Rob?

RS: I agree entirely. I think we should leave it alone. In the main we should perhaps think about stopping tampering with it rather than thinking we’re going to create a new set of rules and that’s going to fix everything. Every time you create a new set of rules, you’ll usually find the people with the biggest resource or with the cleverest thinking, or the people who stopped working on the current generation of Formula One cars, come out with quite a big gap. That’s what, when we talk about these boring races, that’s what we’re referring to isn’t it? A team dominating at the front – but a team dominates when we have radical rule changes. I think that we do have to seriously think about not changing anything. Nick was quite right in what he said: the racing is very good. Out front this year you’ve got Ferrari and Mercedes and that’s making for some good races. Behind us it’s everybody in, isn’t it? There’s some good racing going on there. I also agree with Paddy’s sentiment, that there’s lots of things we can do with the Sporting Regs, which aren’t going to cost a great deal of money. We have to be responsible in how we spend. I’ve said this before. The average man on the street, the people who we’re trying to drag into the circuits, or who we’re trying to drag into viewing us on a Sunday afternoon, they don’t care about spend: they just want to see racing. Even the technology, to a certain extent, is of less interest. So it’s got to be the racing spectacle that we put at the forefront. By having a radical rule change you’re not guaranteed to increase the racing spectacle – but what you are guaranteed to do is increase costs.

Q: (Haoran Zhou –  LETV) I’m glad Jonathan mentioned keeping Formula One away from other junior series because I’d like to draw your attention to a ten-lap run that Pierre Gasly did in this morning’s GP2 session. He started off with some 35.4s and gradually started doing 34.5s and finished with a 33.9s. Which is around 2.5s away from Mercedes but on a par with a lot of cars here, a lot of your cars. What’s the correct way of interpreting this? Is Formula One being too slow or is GP2 being too fast?

JN: I think the racing is good – but if it’s going to be the pinnacle of motorsport then it has to be. The engine technology has been fantastic but we flip-flop between whether we perceive aerodynamics as some evil that entered Formula One at some point. The fact is aerodynamics are around us all the time: the genie is out of the bottle, let’s embrace it and go with it. The cornering speeds, I think, you could do something about and I think that would stretch some of the drivers a bit better. Got to be careful about safety because the circuits aren’t changing very much – but we have gradually pared back various parts of the aerodynamic aspects of this, for a variety of reasons. I think there is room for a little bit of tweak on that without upsetting the show. It is true, performance will continue to develop but I just think I’d give it that nudge and I think it’s the cornering speeds, if you look at things like Super GT, which you’ll be familiar with, or GP2. It’s those areas that we just need to watch.

I wonder Paddy, if we need an explanation of this phenomenon, why it is that this has happened here?

PL: I’m not a great expert about GP2 but it may be that they’ve improved a bit. Formula One is in an early phase of a major regulation era. This is the second year of a set of regulations, so generally performance will increase until the next reset is required. Those resets are normally introduced to control safety through cornering speed. So I think we’ve got a period now where we will stretch out relative to some of those other formulae. For 2017 it may be that we need to give it a bit of a nudge and that’s what’s being talked about. Perhaps some more aerodynamic performance could be added – but historically we have always reduced aerodynamic performance step-by-step. I can’t recall us ever increasing it in all the years.

Giampaolo, do you have a view on this?

GD: Maybe in addition to what was correctly mentioned, this gap will open but also on the other side it would be wrong if the gap would open beyond a certain extent if we want to keep considering GP2 as the last step for a young driver to be formed into Formula One. In latest times the young drivers unfortunately get less and less chances to be actually forming themselves within a Formula One team – at least into the car. Having this final series before Formula One, let’s say the closest series to Formula One, not too far away I think is something that could be beneficial on this side of things.

Rob, what would be the ideal gap, do you think, from Formula One to a series like GP2 in a perfect world?

RS: I don’t know, you’re asking the wrong person. It’s got to be at least 6-8 per cent, hasn’t it? I think the question, what we’ve perhaps missed in the question that was asked was if you look at the starting times of the run that you referred to, compared to what we were doing this afternoon on a hot track, then you’re probably looking at around six per cent. The difference is that, at the end of the run – and I haven’t looked in any detail – but at the end of the run the times were a lot quicker. I don’t know who the driver was or the car was that you are referring to but the times were a lot quicker than what he started off with. That’s perhaps a trend that we’ve seen here in GP2 that we certainly haven’t seen in Formula One. We all agreed through various means that we wanted a greater spectacle in Formula One – and one of the means of achieving that was to have higher tyre degradation and that’s what we’ve got. We do have high tyre degradation now, compared to the past, in Formula One. So at the end of the runs, yeah, if you take the fuel-corrected times out of it, we can be upwards of two seconds slower than at the start of the run – certainly on new tyres. I think some of that is probably what you’ve inadvertently mentioned there.

Anything to add Nick?

NC: I think the other thing to bear in mind is that the GP2 car is probably fuelled for a shorter race – so it’s probably got a bit less fuel to carry. Also, when you look at the development of the cars, that two-three seconds gap we see at the moment will probably be six seconds by 2017.

Paul?

PM: I refer you to my earlier answer. I think we need to add some performance to the Formula One cars.

Q: (Andrew Benson – BBC Sport) We’re all taking about making the cars go faster, changing the aerodynamics, playing with the engines, whatever – but no-one seems to be talking about the tyres when we all know the drivers are driving within themselves for the entire race distance, pretty much. Why not?

Rob did address the whole question of degradation but has anyone got anything to add on the subject of the tyres? Paddy?

PL: That subject comes up repeatedly. I think it’s always been a factor in Formula One racing that you have to consider getting the most out of the tyre over a long distance. I don’t think there have been many tyres over the years that one could sprint with on every single lap. I think with the current tyres we have an interesting situation which I think has improved the spectacle a great deal, where the nature of the tyre degradation is such that cars are obliged to stop at certain points, and it produces a lot more variety. I think we’ve seen far more exciting races as a result since Pirelli came into Formula One. So, there is the aspect around drivers having to manage and not necessarily drive as fast as we would like – but I think that’s been an element in the past. It may be a slightly bigger element at the moment – but it also adds to the skill necessary from the driver. So, it’s still all part of an exciting package. And in qualifying, of course, they are going absolutely flat out.

Q: (Sebastian Scott – racedepartment.com) This is a question really for the three people from the works teams. If you look at the World Endurance Championship now Porsche, Audi and Toyota seem to be fairly reliable for an endurance race and they seem to have a great power output. Is there anything you could learn from what they are doing and apply it to the current set of regulations? As you were saying, not to make a massive change to make a quick fix or just a little fix.

PM: Yes, there is always things we could learn and yes we ought to be open-minded and yes we ought to look. There is a Power Unit Group that, if it wished to adopt something like that, can make its statement and put its foot forward. I wouldn’t suggest that we go down the route of a quick fix. I don’t believe with our sport there’s anything such as a ‘just’ job: you can’t ‘just’ do that. There’s no such thing as a quick fix, it’ll normally come back to bite. We’ve got adequate time now to make some sensible steps, enhance our sport and keep it as the pinnacle and we don’t necessarily have to have wholesale change but why not look, why not learn and then put our step forward and keep us where we are.

Paddy?

PL: I’m not a great expert, I’m afraid to comment. I would just say that the power units we have are extremely sophisticated. They incorporate hybrid systems which are very road car relevant and I think that’s been a great direction for Formula One. I don’t see a great need to change the engine formula now because we’ve only really just adopted it.

Jonathan?

JN: I agree with Paddy. If we look at what’s going on inside Honda at the moment, then the technology is exciting and relevant, we’re at the foothills of the climb that we have ahead – but as Mercedes have adequately demonstrated over the last few years, that power unit has matured. It’s a really good piece of technology and it’s reliable. There’s something we can all learn from that. I think we just need to keep pushing away at the series that we have and it will come to us.

PL: I think it’s worth mentioning, because I forgot to mention it, that talking about the World Endurance Championship… these engines now are doing a huge mileage compared to history, four, five, six thousand kilometres compared to barely three hundred kilometres in the old days so they are already endurance engines and I think that’s a point to note and a point which we should appreciate and celebrate actually.

Q: (Mike Doodson – GP Week) Next week there’s going to be a meeting with the strategy group when I think you’re going to decide on whether or not to have a fifth power unit. I realise that given the alarm and disparity and reliability between certain power units which we won’t mention there is a danger that the World Championship for Drivers is going to be compromised in some way. Bearing that in mind, what do you think the chances are of there being a fifth engine permitted or agreed by the strategy group?

NC: I’ve got to say that I can’t really answer for what the strategy group will decide. I think we’ve got a regulation at the moment which is four power units. I think it will need o be unanimous if it goes to five.

JN: I don’t know whether it will pass. There are some conflicting views. There was a certain degree of unanimous agreement amidst the teams in Malaysia. I think that position has changed a bit from what I can pick up in paddock rumour at the moment, but what matters most is what case is put to the strategy group next week. I think that if it isn’t simple, if it becomes… if it goes to five engines with a thousand strings attached and complex other paraphernalia around it, I don’t think it will go. I think it would be advantageous… we would obviously benefit from it because we’re in a situation where, as a new entrant to the sport with Honda, we would very much like that additional fifth engine – we would, wouldn’t we? – and we think that would be fair for us. I’m pretty sure Renault would feel the same way. They’re investing in the sport, they’re a big organisation, it’s important for their brand as well that they have some degree of glide-path on this but it’s a fair race for everybody and I accept that . If it’s four it’s four, if it’s five it’s five.

GD: For me the regulations are in place. There are deadlines to change them. Those deadlines  passed so I think for this year it should stay as it is.

PM: Personally, I would support the fifth engine. The strategy group is the first step of three to a rule change. If it proceeds, all well and good. If it doesn’t you play the hand you’re dealt.

PL: I think the original reason that people talked about a fifth engine was because in this year where we first reduced it to four per year, there was very little running on Fridays and it was seen that this was the explanation so the original reason it was agreed that we would look at introducing a fifth engine to improve the amount of running that was done on a Friday. We would agree with it in that context. We will see what happens in the strategy group.

RS: Yeah, we’ll go before the strategy group who will need unanimous agreement. It’s, at the moment, of less consequence to us. We’ve used one engine and another group of engineers were working towards four engines. We’ll see what’s decided at the strategy group. I think one point that I would pick up on that you made is that the Drivers’ World Championship, the Constructors’ World Championship could be compromised. Yeah, it could, that’s what the rule book is for.

Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Question to Jonathan please: Jonathan you alluded earlier on to the staff change, manning changes, restructured McLaren. When it was all announced 18 months ago, you were acting CEO if I remember. Are you still acting or are you doing it and have there been any other changes within other companies, for example McLaren Advanced Technologies, which have a bearing on Formula One?

JN: There’s a couple of question in there, Dieter. Let me just handle the first one which is yes, of the job titles that I had, it still includes one that’s called acting chief executive officer. I am still there, I am not hung up on a job title. Eric and I are running the team, we like the way it’s going at the moment. Ron doesn’t appear to be ready to make any imminent changes there which is OK at the moment, so I assume he’s comfortable with it. But let me just be clear about your supplementary question there which is about the changes elsewhere in the organisation. There are lots of things going on at McLaren Automotive and McLaren Applied Technologies but they are completely ring-fenced away from us so there’s zero distraction away from the work that Eric and I are doing, which is purely focused on the relationship with Honda and our on-track performance. That is our first and only priority.

Q: (Craig Scarborough – Scarbs F1) General question to everyone: we’ve been speaking about wanting to improve lap times. We always want to talk about cutting costs. I imagine that a lot of your R&D budgets actually spend on actually trying to circumvent previous cost-cutting attempts. We don’t want to play with engines, we don’t want to play about too much with downforce. Is there a potential that we could lose some innovative technology in 2017 or in the future? Maybe things like active aero or active suspension to improve corner speed, straightline efficiency in order to get the lap time but without having to spend too much money?

NC: Well, it’s a point. Obviously that would be quite a big change. There would be a lot of investment required to generate those active systems. For me that goes back a little bit to earlier subject which we were on: we don’t want to change it too much because I think we’ll spoil the show.

JN: Well, I’m quite attracted by the new technology and what else could we do, providing it’s relevant to the markets that we serve and the sponsors who back us in some way. Now that might be for the fans to make it more interesting or it might be because it’s more relevant to the people who bankroll the teams and the whole show here. Providing it’s relevant and not technology for technology’s sake, then I think there are opportunities to do things on the chassis, as we’ve done on the engine.

GD: Although it’s not my field in my team, I know that we are on the side of cutting the costs which is fundamental for the survival of the small teams. Having said that, for sure there are different ways of evolving Formula One or improving performance, but most of the time, for as much as you can think about going back, it results into further reserves and further development and ultimately additional costs. It’s a really complex topic to sort.

RS: I think that you have to bear in mind always that F1 has to be the pinnacle of motor sport. It has to be about innovation as well. It’s always been engineering-led, it’s always been technology-led and it has to be about engineering, excellence and innovative excellence, and I think that as long as… I would agree with Jonathan, as long as that’s relevant to the sport in general, to the business, to the markets we serve, then yes, why not look at things. There’s got to be a cost-effectiveness as well. It’s got to serve the business and the sport in general. It hasn’t just got to be ‘we’re producing something and we talk about it all winter and it’s going to change the world and then it changes nothing.’ We’ve had a few of them before. Yeah, we should always be looking at innovation, that’s what keeps us going, I think, especially the people that you’ve got here in front of you. That’s what we all do it for.

PL: Yeah, I agree with Rob and Jonathan. I think that where it relates to costs, often it’s not more expensive and a suspension is an interesting example that has been studied over the last few years. Sometimes we spend more money designing systems that get around the constraints of the regulations in an indirect manner, so some of the suspension systems we have at the moment are incredibly complex and therefore expensive and maybe cheaper if they were implemented using electronics.

PM: I think it’s prudent to keep an open mind and keep a review on all aspects of what we do and as you say, whilst people have said try and keep our sport as the pinnacle. Personally, I wouldn’t agree with going down the active suspension route as it will drive the cars and development direction which I don’t think is healthy for the sport. Active aero? If there’s an interest in it and we can come up with systems, kind of supplementing DRS if you like, which can be used to create a performance differentiation and performance equalisation. Whatever we aim to do with it, it’s interesting to do. As I said, it doesn’t come for free. I think we’ve got to decide what we want to do for 2017. If we’re to pursue such avenues, we can look and take it from there.

Q: (Christopher Joseph – Chicane) A question to both Rob and Jonathan: you talked about how vital it is that the technology is relevant, not only to the businesses, the suppliers and yourselves as engineers.  Do you think enough is done to promote the technology side of the sport and if not, do you think we could do more in terms of more media times with people like yourselves and your colleagues and relating that technology to the fans?

RS: Yes, I do. I think it’s imperative that we try to do more. I think it’s imperative that Formula One embraces all different types of media and tries to get the technology across to people. I think it’s a little bit lost. We’ve got incredibly complex  – almost quite beautiful in their complexity really – the power units and the cars that we have now in this current guise of Formula One and it’s lost. We’re not doing a good enough job of getting it out to the people. We’re not doing a good enough of getting it out so that… they’re difficult enough for the likes of the people sat here to understand. If you try and convey that in our language to the people who watch it at the moment, the general public who just want to see Formula One racing, then if you look at what’s happening now, then it’s not happening, it’s not good enough and we do have a responsibility. I think it’s part of the sport, it’s an incredibly important part of the sport and we need to probably do a better job of conveying it to the general public in simple terms what we do and how we go about it.

JN: Yes, it’s a good question. I think that we’ve spoken  a lot about the product, the car but the product is the end of a process and there is as much technology, innovation and excitement that sits behind every team represented here on this stage. We’re really lucky to work in Formula One, we should never lose sight of that. We do some amazing things in these businesses and maybe we don’t do a tidy enough job through an event weekend like this, but anybody… the guys will attest here, anybody who comes into our businesses and gets up close and looks at what it takes to put two cars on the grid twenty times a year, it is extraordinary, but from the manufacturing technology through rapid prototyping work, the simulation, computational fluid dynamics, it’s a really rich mix which is why it offers such interesting jobs for young engineers and scientists. Each of the teams is certainly working very hard, most of these guys are sitting with businesses that run effective web sites and media channels, the digital environment is constantly changing, for us it’s very hard to know how to get traction when they’re just spamming out content left, right and centre. And I think certainly if we’re going to address the demographics of the audience, then it’s how we access those people like my children and what will be their children who don’t do terrestrial television any more – that’s gone – and how we tap into some of that and I certainly we could be more effective in that. But that’s easy to say, but actually doing something practical and making it happen is quite difficult because it’s so fragmented.

PL: I wasn’t asked that directly but if I could add to that question, slightly correct Rob because I think Mercedes spent a great deal of effort actually publicising…  making the most of the hybrid power that we produce. That’s been used in a lot of advertising over the last 12 months, making a big story around that. Hybrid is a name that I think now, through Formula One, it’s being more associated with a cool car rather than an uncool car and I think there is a lot going on. Of course we could do more but it is beginning.

TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – John BOOTH (Manor), Rob WHITE (Renault Sport F1), Eric BOULLIER (McLaren), Maurizio ARRIVABENE (Ferrari), Monisha KALTENBORN (Sauber), Toto WOLFF (Mercedes)

PRESS CONFERENCE

Toto, we’ll start with you. Great race here obviously 12 months ago between your two drivers. This year, though, it seems you’ve got Ferrari breathing down your neck. How much of a restriction is that on your freedom to let your drivers do the race they want to do? 

Toto WOLFF: First of all, it’s true, we have great memories of the race last year. But this year the equation changed, because clearly looking at the first three races Ferrari’s back and they they looked very strong this afternoon in the long runs. We will still follow the principle of letting Lewis and Nico race but there could be a situation where you just need to be aware that there is a new competitor, it’s not as easy, we don’t have the gap anymore like last year and this needs to be considered.

Can you just drill down a little bit more into what we saw today? You mentioned, obviously you were quickest with the two cars in Free Practice 2, but looking at the long runs, at times it even looked, if anything, that the Ferrari was a shade faster.

TW: Yeah. The Ferrari looked the quickest car out there in Free Practice 2. Very stable quick tyres, lap times. That was a Freudian [slip], tyres. We just need to get our act together and analyse it. This is Friday, Sunday’s going to be the important time.

Thank you. Rob, if I can come to you: what’s the state of play this weekend with engines for your four drivers that are using your engine this weekend?

Rob WHITE: Clearly we had a bad day at the office in China and the consequences of that bear very heavily, individually and collectively, on everybody at Viry. It’s never good to cause trouble for the teams or the drivers. So the state of play is that we’ve put a huge amount of energy into understanding where we were after China. That was a big logistical battle. Just the mucky detail of it is that the only legal way to get the engines out of China was for them to travel with the freight to Bahrain as expected. To get them to France to be stripped down and inspected would have been Wednesday or Thursday. So we didn’t do that. We had a welcoming committee. We had some specialists from France who made the trip in the other direction. We dismantled the engines in the garage during the week so that we could put a finger on exactly what went wrong in China. The situation is that we understand what happened to the two engines that failed during the race. One of the incidents, the one that happened to Kvyat, was an incident that we know about, which we were aware of a vulnerability for, and for which we have what we believe is a good counter-measure. We don’t expect to be vulnerable to that going forward. Unfortunately the failure that ended Max’s race was not of that type. We were absolutely not expecting such a thing at such a low mileage, so a real shame to end the race for him in that way. The time is such that the best we have for this week is engines of a similar spec, that we must look after during the Friday, Saturday and of course Sunday running, but we are vulnerable to that failure still. Looking forward of course the task back at the factory is to create a solution to that for the races ahead. We’re not out of the woods yet on that one.

You’ve obviously pushed very hard on development, to try to close the gap. Have you pushed too hard and come unstuck or is it more complicated than that?

RW: It’s true to say that we are paying the price for a late change of tack, a late arrival of the spec for the start of the season, taking account of some of the things in the environment that moved on – we all know the story about tokens that moved on just before Christmas. That’s part of it, not the whole story. We must keep our head down and deliver the solutions to the issues that were encountered earlier on but honestly a lot of the direct consequence is to do with the lateness of the arrival of the spec. We’re still on track delivering the solutions to the earlier problems. We’ll continue those. Obviously in Australia the big word was driveability and I think we’ve eliminated that from our vocabulary and now we’re hoping to be in a proper situation for Monaco, where of course it’s very important. We’ve got performance improvements in the pipeline for delivery later in the season, again taking into account the token situation. And the game now is to fold into the plan the consequences of the failures, which clearly puts the whole supply chain under a lot of pressure. So that’s the way the land lies going forward.

Thank you very much. John, coming to you: double finish last time out in Shanghai. What are the steps along the pathway now and when do you get your 2015 car?

John BOOTH: That’s the big question Ted.

James

JB: You both look alike! Yes, a double finish last time out in China. That was a major step forward for us. That was a major step forward for us. We ran every session on plan. Operationally we’re working as we were last year. So that step has been achieved. As for the 2015 car, our aim has always been for the August break, as with arriving in Australia it is a very aggressive target and will take a lot of achieving. But when we get back from these first four flyaway races we just really need to sit down and see if we can bring all the areas together that need bringing together to achieve that in that time frame.

Well you’re here and you’re racing. What are the prospects for attracting fresh investment?

JB: I’m sure there are prospects but we have a commercial plan that we’re comfortable is sustainable for our model and we’re confident in the investors we have now or the owner we have now to take us forward over the next few years.

Thank you for that. Same question to you in a way Monisha, what does riding high in fourth place in the Constructors’ Championship, as you are at this stage, what does that mean for the prospect of attracting new income, new investors to the team?

Monisha KALTENBORN: Well, it’s definitely a better position than we were in last year! But we’ve seen that… let’s say like in 2012, that even if you have good performance it does not automatically mean that you have sponsors lining up after the race weekend. So it’s important that we keep this up as well as we can, that we make the most of the opportunities we get, try to develop according to what’s possible for us and just make sure that we have the stability in the team.

Well, as we said, you’re riding high at the moment in fourth. You finished behind Marussia last year and this year you’re ahead, at this stage, of Red Bull and McLaren. Have you had to revise your targets of where you want to finish at the end of this year?

MK: I think we’re very mindful of the situation. We’re at the start of the season, there are a lot more races to go. We know it’s going to be very tough. We don’t dream about positions at the moment. For us it’s important that we stick to the plan we have, the development plan, and make sure that we just make the most of it.

Eric, coming to you. Obviously from the outside it looks like a rather demoralizing start to the season but from the inside do you, as the leader, see the team channeling together, getting behind everybody and pushing in the same direction? Do you see all the positive signs you want to see?

Eric BOULLIER: Yeah, I think obviously for the outside world, it’s a bit frustrating to be where we are, definitely where we don’t want to be. But from the inside we know what we are doing, we know what we want to achieve and we also know what’s coming along. There is some process to go through and I think, as you can see from the outside, the team itself, the atmosphere is good, everybody is working, everybody is concentrating and focused on what they have to do and we will get there eventually.

And do you still maintain your view that you had before the season started that you will be competitive by the end of the season?

EB: Yeah, I think so. Still. Obviously before the summer or from the European [season] onwards you will see a lot of development coming, both chassis and engine, so we may expect to be more competitive definitely by the end of the season.

Q: Maurizio, coming to you, do you feel that you are breathing down Mercedes’ neck right now?

Maurizio ARRIVABENE: If I’m going to tell you that we are going to win the championship, you think that I am out of mind, like a terrace in the house. We are happy, of course, we are coming back, we are following our programme but I think that Mercedes is still a super-strong team.

Q: You’ve been around the Ferrari team in various different capacities for a very long time. What do you think that Sebastian Vettel is bringing to the culture of the team?

MA: It’s the enthusiasm and the passion, like all the other guys. A driver that is so committed to Ferrari is making our job easy, I have to say. And on top, he’s said many, many times that since he was a kid, he was dreaming about Ferrari and he always liked it. Of course, last year it was impossible for him to say so, but now he’s liberated and he’s telling the truth. And then, as a driver, it’s very, very strong, very precise. Many, many journalists, they were asking about him and Michael. I said the things they have in common is the culture but then they are two different drivers with two different characters. But somehow, when you recognize that, there is something in common. I think this is based… this is a cultural base. It has nothing to do with the personality of the two.

QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Q: (Oubay Zakkar – Autosport Middle East) My question is for Maurizio. One of the main issues for Ferrari in the last few years was the lack of correlation between data from the wind tunnel and the numbers from the track. Has this issue been solved? Is the car working as expected?

MA: Yeah, now the car is working as expected. I think we have… last year technical staff, they were in charge of developing the car in the wind tunnel, they were doing a lot of work to make sure everything was going well, and now the correspondence between the data we have on the track and the wind tunnel is fine. We are happy.

Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Question to the five team principals. Last week former FIA President Max Mosley came out and said that he thought, in order to prevent Formula One from imploding, the existing contracts should be torn up and the money should be distributed more equally.  How do you feel about the implications of his statement?

MK: Well obviously I can just speak for the contract we have at Sauber, and not being one of the teams that are considered to be, let’s say, privileged financially, I wouldn’t mind if that contract is torn.

JB: Obviously we support any steps in that direction. I don’t think it’ll ever be quite that radical – but we would definitely support any steps in that direction.

EB: The more you go through the grid, the more reluctance you will find, I guess, to tear apart the contract. But, I think it’s a comment from Max, it’s maybe out of context, so I think maybe F1 needs a bigger discussion, or a bigger picture to be discussed rather than just tearing apart the contract.

TW: It’s an unrealistic scenario. The contract’s in place, you can be happy or unhappy but the contract is there. If you want to do it better, next time around.

MA: I agree with Toto, the contract is there. But if Max has an idea to break the contract I want to tell him what he’s going to do without a team like Mercedes or Ferrari. Then he can organize a funny championship and then he can distribute the money.

Q: (Jerome Pugmire – AP) Question to Toto. You just said “we don’t have the gap as last year and this has to be considered,” is this because perhaps you’re slightly worried that in particularly Nico may be getting too sidetracked by the competition with Lewis, as was shown by his comments last week? And perhaps maybe he should be concentrating a bit more on the threat from Ferrari?

TW: No. That has no correlation. The point is that when you have a gap like we had last year, it is easy to compromise on race strategy sometimes because you want to assure you are keeping as neutral to the two of them, as neutral as possible. And sometimes that is not the quickest race. So there needs to be a situation… you have seen the situation in Malaysia where the two cars have been stuck up behind each other on the pitstop because we wanted to mirror the race strategy. It could be that we simply split the strategies, if needed, just to make sure that, if you are wrong with one of the strategies, at least the other car is able to achieve a good finish, or win the race.

Q: (Kate Walker – motorsport.com) I have a question for the five team principals. In Formula One talk of succession planning usually focused on a post-Bernie world. I was wondering, the extent to which you think continuity is important for success – and whether or not you each have succession plans in place for your own eventual departures for the team or the sport?

Maurizio, you’ve only just started, have you got a succession plan?

MA: Regarding me? I’ve just arrived. C’mon! First of all I have to apologise. Before I said a Championship without Ferrari, Mercedes – but of course I mean all the historical constructors, with all respect for everybody here. Answering your question, in all the company, that they are called Company with a capital C, it’s normal that you have a succession plan. This is not anything new, it’s something that is part of the commitment that anyone, or everyone, who has an important position, must respect. For me, succession plan is part of the job that you have to do. Not for me yet, I hope.

Monisha, do you have someone in mind?

MK: Maybe Peter Sauber? No, I have not… I’ve had enough other issues to handle than looking at this. Maybe it’s a question more for Peter indeed. But coming back to what you said about continuity. I think that’s a very important point for Formula One itself. I think it’s what many teams have been saying, particularly on the technical side. If you can have a certain continuity and stability, it allows you to foresee the future better, to maybe also stabilize situations in teams better.

Toto?

TW: The trouble is others do your succession plan. I hope there is no succession plan in place for me yet.

John?

JB: I’m very happy and very proud to hold this position but time marches on and I’m sure eventually whoever makes the decisions will have the plan in place.

Eric?

EB: Well, McLaren is a big organization so I’m sure there is somebody, somewhere in McLaren who could step up and take my job, yeah.

Q: (Luigi Perna – La Gazzetta dello Sport) Question for Arrivabene: yesterday Kimi Raikkonen was asked about his future in Formula One and the possibility to go on with Ferrari, and he answered that it was up to Ferrari to decide in the end. Can you say something about that?

MA: You see, it’s only Italians who are calling me Arrivabene.  Everybody they are calling me Maurizio. The Italians call me Arrivabene, very formal. It’s early to talk… you want to know what I said to Kimi? He was telling me about the contract and I said to him, it depends on your performance. And Kimi, he’s the kind of person that he appreciates when you’re talking with him in a very transparent way and straight to his face. Kimi knows, now it’s early to talk about this at the moment. I’m happy about the performance of Kimi but he needs to push and he knows that.

Q: (Ted Kravitz – Spy Sports) Maurizio – or Mr Arrivabene – we saw you being part of a football human wall in front of Sebastian’s car at the end of the session. Is this Ferrari’s idea of being more open and accessible to fans and TV viewers?

MA: When you have passion for something, you are screaming like a football supporter, it’s normal. If I understand the question well.

Q: You were shielding the front of the car after Sebastian broke his front wing so the TV audience couldn’t see what you were doing.

MA: Normally, when some parts of the car are quite sensitive, we try to do our best to make sure that you don’t have 10,000 cameras as we had. They try to find out what’s going on. The real surprise that sometimes it’s tactical this thing. We were put in the wall but there’s nothing to see. I was there because I was curious.

Q: (Ted Kravitz – Spy Sports) Can I just follow that up? That was my point. Obviously you’re not so naive to think that every other team doesn’t have very detailed photos of every part of your car anyway, so really, ultimately, aren’t you just blocking the cameras from seeing?

MA: Yeah, you’re right. The cameramen are there to do their job, of course, but sometimes there are too many and sometimes they are turning around the box and taking video but not with the intention to share something with another team. They do it like this. Occasionally we have a problem, a real problem on the brakes and the guys naturally, they start to cover. Maybe it’s a bad habit but I was there to be with them but to look at Seb’s brakes and to understand. I’m not naive, I’m new, I need to learn.

Q: (Luke Murphy – Formula Spy) Maurizio, we heard Sebastian say at the end of the session that he was struggling to decelerate the car and this was after the incident with Sergio Perez. Have you had a chance to look into that at all, or is there any issue identified?

MA: No, we were looking at the telemetry and we saw something wrong with the brakes. This was the reason why we were looking and the guys they took away the carbon fibre shape to understand it better. This is what we learned from the telemetry but they are still looking now.

Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) To Toto, Maurizio and Rob in particular, but Eric if you’d like to comment as well. I’m talking about the fifth engines that were discussed in Malaysia. Toto, you said last week that a proposal had been submitted to the FIA regarding this. What sort of progress has there been, and Rob, could it get to a stage where you’ve gone through four engines already, you’ve taken a penalty for the fifth before the regulation is introduced?

TW: We’ve submitted the proposal to the FIA, the proposal is with the FIA and I guess it’s going to be discussed the next time around in a strategy meeting.

RW: For the time being, we know what the sporting regulations say, that it’s four engines. It’s obvious that we’re over-using engines and to some extent then the way to deal with that is one step at a time, one race at a time and the penalty regime is what it is. If the regulations change along the way, then we will adapt our planning to take account of that. It will be the same for everybody the day that it happens if it happens. I understand from what Toto just said, that there is a proposal to be discussed. I can’t imagine it will be very complicated. I guess there’s one place in the rules where we would have to put five instead of four, and so how we would deal with that I think will  become clear as time goes by.

EB: I’ve not see the proposal so I don’t know. It has to be discussed in the strategy group, I guess we have to wait for the strategy group and see what comes out. I guess and I hope it’s sensible, even if Honda is new this year in F1, we are maybe struggling with reliability but maybe less than my colleague here, but I think it would be welcome and cheaper solution to run a fifth engine because I think all the engine manufacturers have realised that going into strong reliability performance actually costs a lot of money.

MA: As Toto said, the power unit engineers get together, they’re talking about that proposal and that proposal is going to be discussed in the strategy group on the 14^th of May.

MK: As a customer team on engines, we of course follow what our engine supplier says, but for us, the rules are given. We suffered that much last year, also with the engine we had. Some engine manufacturers do the job better, others don’t and it’s just different every season. So we say if there has to be an additional engine, as the smaller teams look primarily at the cost of it, and under what conditions it will be introduced, and what it’s meant to be doing.

JB: We’re perfectly happy with the four engine rule but sometimes rules have to be changed for the good of the sport and this may be one of those but I’m sure it will get discussed at the strategy group.

Q: (Nahed Sayouh –Autosport Middle East) Do you believe that refuelling should come back into F1 in order to make a new challenge for the designers and revive the spectacle, and make a difference in the race strategies?

RW: It’s been a while since we’ve had refuelling. I think the reasons that it went away were appropriate at the time. The current set of technical and sporting regulations has been constructed without refuelling, so I think it’s a difficult thing to consider in isolation but I personally feel that the current regulations are very easy to understand. It’s obvious that there would be an immediate improvement in the show as a result of refuelling, but all of the things we know about about refuelling would remain the case. There’s a lot of kit involved, there’s a lot more people involved at a pit stop and so on and so forth. So I’m pretty neutral from an engine provider perspective. From a fan perspective, I don’t personally particularly yearn for the idea.

MA: It depends, because it’s not a personal… it’s going to be easy to say refuelling or no refuelling. You have to think about what’s going on, about the issue whether you should do the refuelling. That means that you change a lot of the regulations that are related to the engine. Of course it involves the chassis of the car, so it’s something that is more complicated to discuss. It’s not just a question of in or out. Of course, if you ask somebody who would like to see the cars being refuelled they are going to say no, but I don’t think it’s a question of refuelling yes, or refuelling no. It’s a question of what we are going to do in the future and this is a matter that is going to be discussed at the strategy group.

eom/FIA transcript of the Press Conference