F1 Madness

Tag: cyril abiteboul

  • 2017 Singapore GP: Friday Press Conference – Part 2

    2017 Singapore GP: Friday Press Conference – Part 2

    PART TWO: TEAM REPRESENTATIVES: Zak BROWN (McLaren), Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault), Christian HORNER (Red Bull Racing)

    Q: Zak, let’s start with you. After much deliberation, you’ve separated from Honda. What was the tipping point, and what sacrifices do you have to make now?

    Zak BROWN: Well, let me start James, and then I’ll come back and answer that question. I want to thank a lot of people because this has been quite a public process and involved a lot of people and required a lot of cooperation to get the outcome that I think was best for the sport. So, starting with the McLaren fans, they’ve been unbelievably supportive as we’ve been through a difficult three years and looking forward to next year. We’re very excited to be partnering with Renault and all the work that Cyril and his team have put in and then it took the collaboration of Christian, to my right, Toro Rosso and Red Bull, and then last but not least Honda’s been a great partner. Obviously, we haven’t had the on-track results that we’d hoped for but they certainly gave it everything they’ve got. We felt it was time to move on, and then the FIA and Ross and Chase. So, there was a lot of people that had to come together to make this happen. Ultimately we knew… I don’t think there was a specific tipping point other than we knew we were in trouble in pre-season testing and we needed to improve upon our 2016 results. So, we knew we were in trouble then. We’ve spent quite a bit of time, most of it has been in the public domain, trying to find ways to get Honda competitive with us, and we ultimately couldn’t get there in the end – but great that they’re staying in the sport. Just want to thank everyone for their assistance. I think everyone’s going to be excited for Australia next year.

    Q: So, does this mean Fernando Alonso will be staying with the team next year?

    ZB: Well, we’re going to turn our attention to Fernando now. We’ve been speaking a lot, he’s been waiting to see what technical solution we came up with. He won his two championships with Renault. He’s very happy with the racing team, we’re very happy with him, so I think in the not too distant future we should be able to get something done and that’ll be the last big piece of the puzzle. Then I’ve got to find us some sponsorship with our commercial team and get ready for next year.

    Q: Cyril, coming to you, we’ve heard from Honda and Toro Rosso in part one of this press conference, their side of the story, we’ve now just heard from McLaren. Tell us about the Renault side. The engine swap and Carlos Sainz coming to you.

    Cyril ABITEBOUL: Well, as mentioned by Zak, it’s been a fairly long and complex process for the number of parties that this was involving but I think that the solution reached is one that is good for all parties. It’s in particular one that manages to keep Honda in the sport, and I think it’s very important to keep diversity of manufacturers involved. As far as we’re concerned, it was not an easy decision. We know that we are making a competitor stronger. We know that very well. Having said that, the activity of Renault in Formula One, since 40 years that we are in Formula One is in particular articulated around what we are doing on the engine side: we are a car maker; the engine is at the core of the automotive. That’s what we have always been doing. We have been a works team on and off, we are currently ‘on’ – but it doesn’t remove anything to our engine activity that must be sustainable. In relation to that, what we want to do is to supply aspiration teams, great teams, great drivers. We’ve done 13 years with Williams with five championships, 12 years with Red Bull Racing, four championships as constructors, so we really look forward to the start of this new association with McLaren.

    Q: Can you confirm exactly which teams you’ll be supplying with engines from 2019 onwards?

    CA: Before 2019 there is 2018. And 2018 it is very clear those two gentlemen on my right, and one thing I must stress is they will get equity, and perfect parity of treatment between the Renault works team, McLaren and Red Bull…

    ZB: You said we were going to get better stuff!

    CA: Oh yeah! Sorry! This is a public one! So, this is something that matters. And in relation to 2019, obviously with McLaren today we are announcing a three-year partnership until 2020 and the rest, obviously, is a bit of speculation at this point in time with Red Bull Racing.

    Q: OK, Christian, coming to you, what is Red Bull’s plan for engines form 2019 onwards? I understand that you alluded to this on TV earlier today.

    Christian HORNER: No, I think what you are referring to, I was asked a question about Porsche coming in Formula One and I answered that very clearly that we have an existing relationship with an OEM that don’t make Formula One engines and obviously, that will continue. We are absolutely delighted for Toro Rosso with their Honda announcement. I think it’s great news for Toro Rosso, it’s great news for Honda, it’s great that they’re continuing with Formula One. Obviously, it’s facilitated that Zak has managed to get the Renault engine that he was craving and Carlos Sainz gets to further his career obviously in Cyril’s team while also remaining part of the Red Bull family. So, I think you have a rare occasion in Formula One where everybody’s happy.

    Q: Does any of this make your job more difficult in securing the long-term commitment to Red Bull Racing of Max Verstappen and Daniel Ricciardo?

    CH: Well, both of our drivers are currently under contract at least for next year and it’s down to us to produce a good car, be competitive and then, of course, why would the drivers want to be anywhere else? We’re obviously not short of options on drivers but obviously, our preference is absolutely to retain the two that we have in the car at the moment.

    Q: And just a final quick through from you, very strong performance today, particularly in FP2. Daniel was in here yesterday and he said he thought he might have a chance of winning this race. Does everything you’ve seen today – short runs, long runs – give you a bit of encouragement on that front.

    CH: I think both guys have had a strong day today, particularly Daniel this evening had a strong session – but we didn’t really see Ferrari’s true hand, particularly on the short runs, and Mercedes always hold a bit up their sleeves – but it’s been certainly a positive day. I think Daniel’s invigorated by his new haircut that he turned up with the other day and obviously been using that air conditioning to good effect.

     

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Andrew Benson – BBC Sport) Cyril, you described 2019 as ‘speculation’ just then but have you told Red Bull already that you don’t want to supply them in 2019 – and if you have, how do you intend to… are you confident you’ll be able to stick with that given the undertakings you have to Formula One Management?

    CA: Well, obviously Red Bull is well aware of the situation and right now we really want to focus on what’s certain – and what is certain is 2018. Any other year or situation will be looked at vis-à-vis different undertakings that we have with FIA. All manufacturers have got some obligation to supply, so the situation is fairly straight forward. I think that it’s more on the Red Bull camp to define what’s best for them medium- to long-term.

    Q: (Chris Medland – Racer) Zak, if I could just ask you, in the Renault press releases they talk about their mid-term goals and challenging for championships in 2020. This is a three year deal – do you see this as a short-term fix for McLaren – and is there any fear of Red Bull picking up a Honda power unit that has turned things around in the future?

    ZB: No, this is not a short-term fix. At the end of the day no-one knows yet what the engine rules are in 2021, so I think it’s hard for anybody to look beyond 2020 because we don’t know what ’21 looks like. We think we’ve got a long-term partnership, the foundation for it. Renault’s got a great history in the sport, won a lot of championships with Red Bull, won a lot of championships themselves, so we’re very happy where we are: we think we’ll be very competitive together.

     

    Any fear or Red Bull-Honda?

    ZB: We’ve got great competition on both sides of me right now and Ferrari and Mercedes. I think probably what we’re most concerned about is not a Red Bull-Honda combination or any combination out there. We need to get budgets under control. I think the reason you see the gaps in the field now is the gaps in budgets between the top two teams and everyone else is way too big. The gaps seem to be getting bigger I think that’s something that Formula One is going to address. That’s probably where our biggest concern is: making sure we get a more level playing field. So, many teams can win races, ’21 onwards.

    Q: (Dan Knutson – Auto Action / Speed Sport) Cyril, Red Bull and McLaren build very good chassis. You’ll all have equal engines next year – what are you going to do to match them?

    CA: Build a very good chassis! How? Well, frankly, if we are in Formula One it is not just to make up figures. It’s not just to participate. We are here with ambition at some point in order to challenge top team. Those two teams are top teams but there are two others in Mercedes and Ferrari. So, the problem is not just McLaren, it’s all teams that we must be able to fight against by 2020. In relation to that we are recruiting, we are investing, we are hiring obviously young drivers, we are finding new sponsors, we improve the commercial side of the business. We now have a sustainable association with McLaren, so all of these elements are playing a role in that target to be at the top by 2020.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Zak, you spoke about the inequitable budgets and pay outs and whatever else in Formula One. Your team and Christian’s team are two of the four teams that actually receive preferential payments and bonuses from Formula One management. You say you need to get budgets under control – that would tend to indicate that you’re talking about a budget cap of some type or other, as well as an equitable payment structure. All three of you, do you believe that budget caps should be introduced – and how do you feel about the figure of $150million that’s been discussed at the moment – excluding drivers, management and engines?

    ZB: Speaking for McLaren, we’re a fan of budget caps. We think it’s important. Most other sports have it and it will equal the playing field. And we recognise that means, as you mentioned, we’re one of the four teams that get special payments, that might mean some compromise – but we feel if the sport is healthier ultimately that will benefit all of us. We’re a great racing team. There’s lots of great racing teams and we want to race and have the same chance as everyone else. The $150million number that we here, that sounds in the right ballpark. You get into a lot of detail: how do you handle CapEx, executive salaries, overhead etcetera, etcetera, so it’s quite complex – but the concept of the budget cap, yes, and the number of $150million seems to be in the right ballpark.

    Q: Christian, do you and Red Bull’s owner Mr Mateschitz see things in the same way?

    CH: I think we see things slightly differently. We’re fully in favour of reducing costs. I think the problem if you just introduce a budget cap with current regulations is that we’ll end up employing teams of accountants to find smart ways of circumventing the current set of rules. So, I think the biggest cost driver are the technical regulations – and I think FIA, FOM need to get those under control: to get the chassis-side under control, to clean up the cars – they’re starting to look far too messy in terms of all the appendages that are growing on them. And, of course, a key part of that also is the engine. We’re sitting here today with enormous engine bills because of the technology that are involved in these power units. The manufacturer obviously is bearing the brunt of the research and development costs of those engines that one has to question, what is the actual road relevance of? So I think there needs to be an absolute root and branch review of the regulations. I think once that is done, then you can potentially look at a budget cap – because it becomes a far softer mechanism than if you introduce the budget cap tomorrow, then with race teams incorporated as part of larger OEMs it would be almost impossible to effectively police the allocation of resource and spend and facilities, etcetera.

    Cyril?

    CA: Pretty much the view of both McLaren and Red Bull. I would tend to agree that if there is any form of cap or cost control mechanism through the regulation it should also encompass the engine – but not just the cost of supply but also the cost to develop the engine. That’s something we fell short so far. It’s complex – but I understand something that Ross Brawn and Liberty are taking very, very seriously and will come up with some proposal in the near future.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) Cyril and possibly a comment from Christian, as part of the package deal that’s been done amongst the teams, you’ve now got Carlos Sainz for 2018. There’s been much speculation that he could be in a Renault seat before the end of this year. Is that something that is potential to happen and if so, Christian, would you be behind it?

    CA: Yeah, you know I want to talk about realities. The reality is that Carlos will be in the car in Melbourne in 2018. Obviously your question makes reference to the situation of Jo, Jolyon Palmer. It’s a speculation that we – him and the team – have had to live with for… I don’t know how many races and frankly it’s really difficult on Jo and a bit unfair on Jo and the team and to a certain degree, it maybe has had a negative impact on his ongoing performance. Right now, what I see is that we have a car that is capable of scoring points in Singapore. That’s the focus and we have an ongoing contract with Jo until the end of the season.

    CH: We’ve lent Carlos out to Renault from 2018. We’ve retained him within the Red Bull family because obviously we rate him as a driver very highly. We will be very interested to see how he performs against Nico Hulkenberg. I think any speculation prior to that is very much Renault’s business.

    Q: (Abhishek Takle – Mid-Day) Zak, Honda brought a significant amount of investment to McLaren which won’t be there now. You spoke about going out and having to raise sponsorship; how do you plan to plug that shortfall and how confident are you that that shortfall can be plugged relatively quickly?

    ZB: Well, I’m very confident. We have control of our finances. We’re a big team, we’re fortunate in that we have very committed shareholders, that the remit is ‘go win races, make the right sporting decisions and then the business will follow.’ It’s certainly going to be a lot easier to find sponsorship partners running towards the front of the field. It’s something that we’ve invested a lot in, the commercial team. It’s a big area of my background, I’m certainly not responsible for the speed of the racecar. And so I’m confident. It will take some time but our shareholders are very committed, very aware and we wouldn’t have made this decision if we weren’t prepared to work through short term economic loss from the lack of Honda income.

    Q: (Jerome Bourret – L’Equipe) Mr Abiteboul, could you please sum up the strengths of the two drivers you will have in your team next year, and could you please also precise the expectations you will have in terms of results?

    CA: In terms of expectations, maybe it’s a bit too early to talk about expectation for 2018, apart from the fact that it has to be a year that we will continue the construction of the team and the progress toward… from the midfield to the top team. This season is not completely dead. We already have a big job ahead to try and finish better than where we are currently and where I think…  the car is capable of doing much better than eighth in the championship where we are today. As far as the drivers are concerned, I think we will have a perfect combination and balance between experience with Nico – lots of seasons – but also something to prove. He’s still yet to score a podium and we hope to be able to provide him with a car that’s capable of that, starting next year. And Carlos, still young, but already lots of experience in a good team, good organisation, good academy, three years with Toro Rosso. We can also remember the years that he was against Max Verstappen and actually the gap was not huge. I think everyone sort of wondered… the decision of Red Bull which obviously I’m not challenging… of going for Max rather than Carlos, which says something about Carlos’s pace and abilities and also the fact that Red Bull wanted to retain him as a driver and only be prepared to let him go as a loan does say something about the pace of Carlos. And he’s also not well (un)known to the family. He was racing with Renault in junior categories. He won Formula Renault 3.5 and Formula Renault 2.0 so it’s also to a certain degree some form of a return on somethings that we have invested in because sometimes people question why Renault is investing so much in these younger categories and this example is a good example as to why we are doing that.

    Q: (David Croft – Sky Sports F1) Cyril, Christian, I’m confused. The story is out there, you’ve not denied it but you’re not confirming it either, so on behalf of everyone who wants a straight answer to a straight question: are Renault supplying engines to Red Bull in 2019 or not?

    CH: Well, look David, anything that is beyond ’18 is speculation, so it’s neither confirming nor denying. So the situation for ’18 is absolutely clear. Anything beyond that will be dealt with behind closed doors, not through the media in terms of what will be the future, so I think the situation post ’18 is very clear. Our focus at the moment is on designing the best car we can for ’18. We will have a TAG Heuer Renault-provided engine and that will be the case for next year. Anything beyond that is speculation, conjecture, and there will be all kinds of rumours, I’m sure, between now and then.

    CA: Nothing to add.

    Q: (David Croft – Sky Sports F1) Do you want to supply engines?

    CA: Do we want to supply an engine? We are an engine supplier. Frankly I think Christian has provided the best possible answer. I think that you must appreciate that there are a number of things that need to be considered and discussed. I think, frankly, you can infer from the answer of Christian what is the contractual situation which we have no obligation to disclose at this point in time. We’ve got a number of obligations towards the FIA. There was a reference to the obligations towards FOM; as an engine manufacturer our business Is obviously to supply engines, not under any terms, not under any sort of circumstances and it has to serve a strategic interest which I guess is what will be discussed in the future.

    Q: (Chris Medland – Racer) Christian, when McLaren-Honda partnered, I think it was Ron who said that the only way to win championships was to have a works partnership. Do you think that’s going to be the case, going through to the end of 2020 and how difficult is it going to be to change beyond the end of 2020?

    CH: As I said earlier, I think everybody’s genuinely happy and excited about Honda remaining in Formula One. I think it’s great news for Toro Rosso, I think it’s great news for Honda and we’ll certainly be paying very close interest to that. I think that the engine is too much of a performance differentiator in Formula One as it currently stands and it’s wrong that manufacturers and teams find themselves in this situation. I just hope that moving forward… Ross seems to have a really good group of people around him. He seems to be working very well with the FIA to come up with a sensible set of regulations that control costs, of development that controls effectively the spread of performance, controls the supply price to customers and creates a more level playing field than we’ve seen since the introduction of these regulations that have been – really since they’ve been introduced in 2014 – have been extremely divisive and haven’t really added to Formula One that I can see in any way.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) With reference to the answers that I got earlier on regarding the budget cap and also what you’ve just said, Christian would you be prepared to accept a cost cap or budget cap linked to regulations from 2021 onward when the current regulations expire, so that the two get introduced simultaneously?  And then to Cyril, Cyril, does it make sense ramping up your team, knowing that budget caps could actually be in place by then?

    CH: Answering the first part of your question: we’re all in favour of reducing costs. Now the reason that we were previously against budget cap was because, as a team that was just a Formula One team, we were concerned, compared to our rivals that were part of OEMs, that costs could be hidden, could be contained. I think if you deal with the root source of the problem which is the regulations that create the expenditure, then bringing in a cap on top of that, if the two are done hand-in-hand, that’s acceptable to us but they have to go hand-in-hand. If you put all the pressure just on a budget cap, as I say, we’ll end up in a World Championship of accountants and who can hide the most money.

    CA: No, it’s a good question. Anything we are doing, right now, obviously is with the current set of regulations, so it’s very difficult to assume a different set of regulations when you make strategic decisions like investment, like recruitment. Having said that, we really put at the top of our priorities the cost efficiency of the organisation. We accept that the cost efficiency actually… if you want to be a very competitive team in Formula One, you need to accept right now to be very low in terms of cost efficiency. And that’s something we try to see from a different angle. Right now, our commercial structure is slightly different from the top teams. There was reference made previously to the CCB status and others coming from FOM; we do not enjoy that status, so actually, to a certain degree, a cost cap would not hurt us to the same degree as the other teams and we believe that it’s good for the sport. So we are still at that position where we can adjust what is our lending platform in terms of recruitment, so we don’t feel that there is any risk related to that.

    Q: (Michael Lamonato – Class Act Media) Question to all three and to Cyril in your capacity as an engine manufacturer rather than a works team: there’s been a lot of talk about grid penalties all year and particularly after the Italian Grand Prix Ross Brawn said he would perhaps like to see a future without grid penalties. Have you had those discussions with Ross about what those alternatives might be and amongst the three of you, do you have any solutions you believe would be fairer than what we currently have?

    CA: There is a solution which is to have an engine that is reliable or a car that is reliable and that’s our priority, frankly, and we come short of that objective right now. Clearly it’s going in the right direction in the sense that there will be even fewer components alone next season. Having said that, most of the penalties that we have this year are related to the fact that we were very late in the development of our engine this year and we have all the confidence to be much more reliable next year, despite the fact that the life of the engine will be increased. Having said that, I think that grid penalties do not make sense. When you already have a problem on track, there is already a pain. To a certain degree it’s a double hit, a double impact which I think we could easily lose but we will still need, given the cost of the engine, to have some form of limitation in the number of engines that are used. Right now, we are making plans for the regulation and we need to have some form of stability we’ve invested in order to make the move from four power units (to three) per driver per season, I would hate having to go back and having this situation to be changed for next year. Having said that, I guess the penalty could be changed.

    ZB: Well, I consider us to be grid penalty experts and we need to get rid of them. I think it’s confusing for the fans, 65 grid penalties here, we start here, we start there. There’s got to be a better way. Haven’t yet really thought through what the best solution is but I think when fans show up to races they want to see the best drivers set the fastest times sitting at the front, where they belong. So certainly, there needs to be some sort of penalty but I think it’s gotten to the point now where it’s not easy for people to understand what those penalties are so there’s got to be a clearer way to do that.

    CH: As Zak said, I think most importantly for the fans… I mean who on earth could understand what was going on on the grid at Monza? I mean that was just nuts. I think the penalties are inelegant. Why should the driver be penalised? Maybe it should be a team thing as opposed to the driver or maybe the manufacturers should just be fined a disgustingly large amount of money for every failure that there is so that could be another way of… Dieter’s point of wealth distribution.

  • 2017 Belgian Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference – Part 1

    2017 Belgian Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference – Part 1

    PART ONE: TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Christian HORNER (Red Bull Racing), Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault), Guenther STEINER (Haas)

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Cyril, it seems that in terms of patterns of performance, Nico generally qualifies well but finishes behind his qualifying position – couple of exceptions to that but in general that has been the picture – whereas for Jolyon the opposite is the case. Can you shed any light on that?

    Cyril ABITEBOUL: Well, I think indeed we started the season with generally a good pace on Saturday that we were not managing to convert on Sunday. So at this point in time and as we were waiting for some big developments that came further into the season we sort of trade some quali performance for some race performance by playing mainly with set-ups – by playing mainly with set-ups, stiffness and so on and so forth – which we did, which we achieved, which delivered some points. Then at some point, in Silverstone, we managed to bring that big development I was referring to. So that pattern that you are referring that you sort of underperform on Sunday compared to Saturday is not so true anymore. We will have to see here if that pattern, if that step that we made in performance both on Saturday and on Sunday in Silverstone and as confirmed in Budapest, which are two very different tracks, is confirmed here or not. When it comes to driver difference, no I can’t… I think that indeed, Jo doesn’t necessarily have the sort of pace as Nico on Saturday. Clearly, Nico is an amazing qualifier. Maybe he is one of the best of the grid. It doesn’t always… it’s not always visible because he didn’t maybe have the car to demonstrate that but it is really amazing what he’s capable of doing and Jo maybe doesn’t have that pace on Saturday but was managing to extract more from the car on Sunday. We’ll see. The short answer to your question is that the car is improving. The car is now fourth in terms of pace after the top three teams, which is clearly where we wanted to be at this point of the season. Obviously the championship position is slightly different so that’s what we need to focus on.

    Comprehensive answer; thanks very much for that. On Robert Kubica, everything was built up to the Hungary test. Things gained their own momentum; he did well. So what happens next?

    CA: What happens next: good question. That was a test. Frankly, we said that we wanted to be extremely methodical and analytic about the way we were approaching things with Robert. It’s not a PR exercise; it’s not a coup. It’s something we are taking very seriously and we are trying to leave the emotion on the side. We don’t have all the answers that we potentially wanted to get from that test, after his test. In relation to that, Formula One is very restrictive in terms of tests you can do, so in a perfect world we would want to do more of this type of test to see if he can race again at the level that he and we could have wanted. It may or may not be possible. We will see.

    Thank you. Christian, coming to you: performance today, it looked like you were in touch. Last year you were front-row qualifiers and got a podium. Do you think that’s possible again this year, and also could you explain why you went for such a radically different selection of tyres for your two drivers compared to Ferrari and Mercedes? It’s not usually such a radical difference among the frontrunners?

    Christian HORNER: Firstly, today: it’s been a relatively sensible day. We’ve been looking at different set-ups and configurations and fourth and sixth in the second session is reasonably encouraging, particularly at this type of circuit. I’m sure the others have still got a little bit up their sleeves for tomorrow, if it’s dry. But hopefully we can consolidate where we are and be competitive on Sunday afternoon. Regarding the tyre choice: you obviously don’t see what others are doing before you submit your choice so our engineering team felt that this is the best way to attack the weekend. As we often see, you start off with a different hand of tyres but by the time you’ve gone through the practice sessions it always seems to converge by the time you get to qualifying anyway. What on paper looks quite racy at the beginning of the weekend, by the time you’ve gone through the practice sessions tends to even itself out. I think by the time we end up in qualifying we won’t be too far out of kilter and obviously we quite like the ultrasoft tyre.

    Clearly. Can we explore what Red Bull’s attitude now is to the young driver programme. You’ve produced some great drivers over the last decade – world champions, race winners – but it’s not so easy to see where the next candidates for Formula One apprenticeship are coming from. In the meantime, your rivals such as Mercedes, McLaren and Ferrari have stepped up on that side and all have exciting candidates on the doorstep ready to go. Is it still a priority for you and Red Bull?

    CH: Very much so. We still have Pierre Gasly, who won his first last weekend in Japan. We have Nico Kari in GP3, we have Dan Ticktum in Formula Renault and Verschoor and Verhagen. I think there are periods of stellar drivers that seem to come through the sport. For me if I look outside of Formula One at the moment, there seems to be a bit of a gap. There are a couple strong drivers in F2, there are a couple of strong drivers in GP3, but there seems to be a bit of a void. We’re going to grass roots, we’re looking at karting, we’re supporting some youngsters even in karting at the moment. But talents like Max Verstappen or Sebastian Vettel or Daniel Ricciardo don’t come along every season.

    OK. Guenther, a question to you on drivers as well: you have confirmed both of your current drivers for next year, not taking either of Ferrari’s development drivers, Giovinazzi or Leclerc. Can you give us the thinking on that?

    Guenther STEINER: Our drivers have got a contract when we signed them. Romain two years ago now, he had a three-year contract and Kevin last year has a two-year contract, so it’s quite clear what we are doing. There is no reasoning or nothing behind it. We, at the time, wanted the best drivers available on the market to get as much points as possible and that’s why we did it and there is no other reason behind it.

    OK, that’s the drivers sorted out. When you look ahead to season three, where else do you think you need to strengthen the team personnel in order to move forward?

    GS: I think everywhere a little bit. It’s not like there’s one void [to fill] to grow the team. We are still very small, I think the smallest one, we have got not more than 200 people at the moment. We need to strengthen it everywhere. That’s what we are doing. We are now already looking for people for next year because it takes quite a long time to get good people, but we will increase again by 10 or 15 per cent – nothing compared with the big teams, how they grow – but that is what we are doing and that is what we want to continue to do. But we keep on getting… I wouldn’t say bigger, we try to get better without getting bigger, which is very difficult, but at least we try to stay efficient because that is where we want to be.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Pierre Van Vliet – F1i.com) A question for Cyril about the Robert Kubica situation. You are telling is that you have some questions with no answers yet. What are they? And after the Budapest test – 142 laps in the heat and the lap times he did – he seems to be ready, no?

    CA: Well, obviously we have access to some information that the public, the media don’t have access to and I feel that is privy information to the team and Robert and I would not want to speak without his control. But no, you know, there are various things to do to come back into a racing car at this level, a car that is extremely different from the car that he’s been driving six or seven years ago, as well the car that he drove in the test that he has done in Le Castellet, which was a car from 2012, much lighter, less downforce. So without going into too much detail, you could see what it could involve to go one step further. The problem, as I said, is we are restricted in our ability to test and to reproduce this test. And addition to that, testing in isolation, private test, one car, in control on the amount, without rain, without the first-lap action you can always encounter. All of that needs to be factored into the decision of pursuing or not pursuing, so as I said I don’t want to go further than this, I don’t want to create speculation and I don’t want to put in the team that the team would have some obligation to go further because there is an interest, a willingness from the public to see Robert back. We would all like Robert to be back, but it has to make sense.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Guenther, I see from the internet that your sporting director, either former, ex-, present or whatever, Dave O’Neill, has started his own company, together with one of Christian’s former employers Kenny Handkammer. Could you confirm that? Is he still with you? Is he leaving? And what are you going to do about replacing him if that is the case?

    GS: He’s leaving. He’s not here but he is coming to a few more races. I don’t know about Kenny Handkammer, and Christian I think doesn’t know any more. But Dave is leaving because for family reasons he relocated to the United States. I don’t know any details about his company but he’s free to do that. We have got a good relationship. He helped a lot in bringing us to where we are. But for family reasons he had to relocate to the US and that doesn’t work for us. So he will be around for a few more races and then he will be gone.

    And a replacement?

    GS: Replacement: we have got plans in place and we will announce them when there are ready to be announced.

    Q: (Jerome Pugmire – Associated Press) A question for Cyril. Do you have a date in mind when you will take a decision with regard to Robert and can you say when that is?

    CA: Deciding on Robert is deciding our line-up the second part of our line-up for next year. It’s well reported that Nico has a multi-year contract when Jo has a one-year contract. So obviously we have one driver to decide for next year. So we have also the restrictions I was referring to on Robert and we’ll also need to consistent with the timing of deciding for a second driver and as the market is starting to sort of go, with the different announcements this week of Ferrari and McLaren, and I expect there will be some other announcements at some points, because usually these things do not go in isolation, so we cannot just be sitting on our work and making up our plans and our timing ourselves. It has to follow the timing of all the drivers.

    Q: (Louis Dekker – NOS) A question for Christian. The orange army will invade the country again like last year, especially on Sunday. Is it realistic to dream of a Max victory?

    CH: Everybody is free to dream, but realism and dreams are sometimes a little bit different. It’s fantastic to see the support for a driver that there is here in Spa. It’s a sellout crowd, everything is absolutely rammed and to see so much orange around the place for Max is quite phenomenal and obviously last year was quite disappointing for all those fans that turned up when his race was effectively over within 50 or 60 metres and we’re hoping that it will last a little bit longer this year. He’s had a lot of bad luck so far this season and where better place for it change but than here at what is effectively his home grand prix.

    Q: (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) A question for Cyril about engines. There has been a lot of talk about McLaren talking to Renault about an engine supply, about Toro Rosso talking to Honda. Can you give an update, because it seems that neither of those two avenues have gone very far? And also, how many teams could Renault actually supply engine with next season, because I think Christian said three is the maximum?

    CA: Well, the situation is that we have multi-year contracts with Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso, so frankly we are open to discussions. I can confirm that there has been discussion with McLaren. But as you mentioned at the end, right now there is a restriction in the regulation, if we wanted to supply more than three teams first. And in addition to that, I don’t think it would be reasonable to believe that we could supply more than three without degrading the level of service, the quality of the service for the other teams, so we’ve had discussions. Frankly, again, we have contracts in place. We value the relationship with Red Bull. It’s a longstanding relationship and we would like to carry this relationship until it’s term in 2020 but if there is something to be done, why not, but right now understand that things are very quiet and certainly we are not necessarily proactively pushing for anything.

    Q: (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) It’s a rather historical question for Guenther. Amongst all the anniversaries this weekend, it’s also the 50th anniversary of the only win in Formula One by an all-American team. I was wondering how much that historic win influenced your team and whether that is something Haas is aware of and pushing to become the next?

    CH: Were you aware of it?

    GS: No! Thank you for making me aware of it. I didn’t know that it was an anniversary but it’s good to know. I think it will be a few more years until we get down to that level. It’s a lot more difficult than it was 50 years ago. It’s different; it’s not more difficult. It was difficult at the time; I’m not trying to say it was not difficult. What we will try to do is get an American team on the podium as soon as possible but for a victory I think we are a few years out. But it’s always good to know these things and thanks for letting me know.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Question for Christian, the Toro Rosso-Honda negotiations that apparently happened during the shutdown. I know that you’re not directly responsible for Toro Rosso but how would such a deal fit into the overall Red Bull Racing scheme of things?

    CH: Well it doesn’t really affect Red Bull Racing so whatever engine Toro Rosso takes, the only affect it has is the synergies between the teams in terms of gearboxes and so on. We need to know pretty quickly, within the next couple of weeks, what the scenario is. I think the gentlemen in the next press conference, Zak and Hasegawa, they should be able answer all of your questions in extreme detail.

    Q: (Louis Dekker – NOS) Have you got a predictable weather forecast for me for Sunday and, if not, what would you hope?

    CA: Forecast, I think the forecast for today was that it would be dry, so it says a lot about the quality and accuracy of forecast in Spa. So otherwise it will be about being capable of reacting and being on the right tyre at the right time.

    Christian, presumably you feel you could win in the wet?

    CH: Well, we’d love it to absolutely piss down with rain for the whole day but I don’t think that’s likely to happen. It’s going to be usual Spa weather: bring your suncream and an umbrella.

    GS: I was told two hours ago it will rain for about two minutes but it will dry out quite quickly. So, I’m a little bit with Cyril on that, y’know? Let’s see what is happening. Normally I don’t hope: we just deal with what is happening. Whatever comes we will deal with it as best we can.

    Q: (Ysef Harding – Xiro Xone News) We asked drivers what their preparations were during the holiday, and getting ready for the second half of the season. So what did you all do to prepare yourself for the second half of the season during the holiday?

    CH: Well, obviously training hard, like my drivers, dieting, all the usual stuff… no, in all seriousness, it was an important time to have a bit of time out with family, for them to remember who you are. I think it’s a good thing within the Formula One calendar to have that time out. Not so much for us but for the mechanics and all the people in the backroom that work such incredibly long and hard hours. So to have that period of time as a bit of downtime, to spend time with family and friends, is very important. The only exciting thing that happened to me was getting stung by a jellyfish.

    Cyril, any jellyfish in your summer?

    CA: No, no-no. Sleeping a lot. All that Christian said is absolutely accurate. Time with friends aand family. Sleeping, because I personally do not get enough of that and in addition to that I think it’s important to come back with this willingness of being back racing again. We’ve got a long calendar and sometimes you motivation is sort of fading away with what the sport is demanding in terms of energy. So it’s good to be back and being willing to go for it for that second half.

    Guenther?

    GS: Same for me. I stayed with my family and I can just say what Christian said. It’s good for all the mechanics which work far harder that we do, to be honest. So for them to have some time off, to spend some time with family, and just did some things that I don’t get to do during the season because I am sitting a lot in an aeroplanes. I stayed in Europe. Happy to be back.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Cyril, could you confirm that your team coordinator has resigned recently and is it coincidental that that position is resigned at the same time Haas has a new position in a similar capacity?

    CA: You’re talking about Geoff? Our racing coordinator. Yes, I can confirm that – and we may or may not be making some announcements in relation to him. Geoff was, and is, an important person at Enstone. Because not just Renault, Lotus, Enstone Benetton before if I go in reverse order. Geoff has been part of the Enstone family, so we have to prepare a big farewell party, even though he’s not going… he may or may not be going very far. But I can confirm the first part of the move at least.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) To all three of you, Chase Carey has recently said that he’s looking at increasing the number of races each year. Possibly up to as many as 25. Now, the number of weekends available between March and November is limited: would you be prepared a)to agree to that type of number and b)we’d be seeing a lot more back-to-backs and even triples – would it not be a better idea to perhaps lengthen the season, start earlier and perhaps end first week in December.

    CH: Look at next year’s calendar, we’ve got a triple header this time next year followed by a double-header with a weekend gap in between, so already the calendar is… my feeling, at saturation point. 21 races is, I think, the absolute limit. To go beyond that, I think we’re pushing teams, we are pushing engineers, we’re pushing travelling staff too far. So then you’re going to end up in rotational shifts. As soon as you do that then the costs will become exponential with it because you’ll end up with a much bigger workforce to accommodate that. And it will be expensive. Of course ultimately anything is possible but it comes at a price – and to increase to that amount would be significant. I’d far rather look at the venues we’ve got and pick… y’know if there are ones that aren’t coming up to scratch at the moment, replace them with better ones and have the competition to be in a tighter championship than going to 25 races. That’s pretty much every other weekend during the year. At some point you reach saturation.

    Guenther?

    GS: I think it’s a fine line here. If it makes economical sense for Chase how to do this, I think it can be done. To answer the question, should the season be longer or should there be more back-to-backs, I think it will be both of them because you cannot get it in otherwise. Otherwise you have just back-to-backs and that is almost not possible, and also there are other ways to accommodate 25 races. Maybe shorten the weekends, shorten the time we setup our garages and stuff like this. Control that a little bit more. Again, in the moment, Chase is saying it but there is not the fact that it is 25 races and he never came back to the Strategy Group proposing this in a way, as you just say it. He said he likes to do it – but I think Chase, before doing it, will come back to the Strategy Group and get real answers of actually what teams can do and cannot do. He’s not going to go ahead and organise something which we then cannot do – because then he hasn’t got a show. I think it’s a plan but I think there are more than one way to do it, and one way would be to not do it, one way would be to make a longer season, shorter race weekends, shorter events. But first of all he must come back. What happens if it costs money for us and there is no revenue coming back in. Why should we be willing to do it.

    Cyril?

    CA: It think all has been said by Christian and Guenther. I think it’s all about quality over quantity and I would focus on quality rather than quantity. I think we need races that are absolutely iconic, huge races, something that is really, really big and create the expectation of seeing those races. If you look back in the history of Formula One, you didn’t need to have that many races in order to have Formula One popular, and in not even more popular than it is today. So that will be my answer, in addition to the economic factor which should not be underestimated with the cost to Formula One and all the teams travelling.

    Q: (Joe Saward – Auto Week) On the subject of saturation, do you think that more races is something that the public actually want – or do you think they’re happy with what they’ve got now?

    GS: I think you will get different views on that but in general I think it’s a 50-50. Some people want more races, some are happy with it, some want less. I think it’s quite equally split, and the good thing with a lot of races is that you can decide not to watch them – if you don’t have them, you cannot decide to watch them because they are not there. So, in the end it’s a little bit like ‘what is saturation’? That’s my opinion about it.

    Christian, is there a risk that if people watching sometimes they might stop watching all together, do you think?

    CH: I can’t even remember what happened earlier in the season, let alone if we go up to 25 races. It’s like any good book. There’s so many chapters that make up a good book and not all the chapters are going to be exciting and riveting – but you do reach a point where you can overfill it and I think that, as Cyril was saying earlier. Pick the premium events, pick big events, promote them, make them fantastic and go for quality over quantity would certainly be our preference.

    CA: I would only add that we need to be careful. We will never reach the number of events like American sport, NASCAR, or even NBA. It’s hundreds of games, so we may move from 21 to 25 but it’s not going to hugely impact on the profile of Formula One. It’s still on a limited number of weekends. I don’t think we should work on quantity. We should focus on quality.

    Q: (Luigi Perna – La Gazzetta dello Sport) Question for Guenther Steiner. We recently read in an interview to F1.com from Gene Haas that he will confirm your actual driver line-up for 2018. That means the Danish Magnussen and the French Romain Grosjean – but you recently also tested the Italian Antonio Giovinazzi of Ferrari and last year Charles Leclerc that is another young driver of Ferrari. Do you see a chance for them in the next future? In the short term, I mean.

    GS: Next year it was made pretty clear also from me that in ’18 we are set with our drivers. In ’19 we don’t know and we haven’t talked about it. Yes, we they tested for us both. Charles and Antonio. Charles last year and Antonio this year, and he will do more FP1’s this year, Antonio – but there is no decision taken for ’19. There is no plan. What we know is Antonio will do another six FP1s this year and that’s about it and then we need to see again what we do next year.

    Q: (Jerome Pugmire – AP) Just to follow up on the 25 races for all three of you. You spoke about costs and putting the quality before the quantity but what about the drivers? Do you think they could handle 25 races or would they not want to? It seems a lot.

    CA: I can’t see why not but like any sportsman there is a time for recover but it doesn’t look to me that they are particularly struggling when there is a back-to-back. 21 or 25 isn’t going to make a huge difference – but, as always, I think that every single individual working in Formula One needs to have some form of huge motivation in order to be racing and providing the best in terms of sporting performance or show and so on and so forth. I don’t think that if we wereto go too far in terms of figures, that motivation may be impacted. Physically, I don’t see any limitation, as far as I can see.

    CH: I think as far as the drivers are concerned, most of these guys are in their 20s, early 30s, most of them are paid several million pounds to drive the best cars in the world 21 weekends of the year. It doesn’t sound that bad a deal to me. They don’t have to go testing any more. So, if you look at the demands on a driver now, compared to where it was ten or 15 years ago, they’d have been leaving here on Sunday to go straight to Jerez to run around there for three days and then on to the next grand prix. So, life as a grand prix driver, compared to what it used to be, is far more focussed on racing, and they get a lot more free time than they would have done, as I say, ten or fifteen years ago.

    Anything to add Guenther?

    GS: No, I have nothing to add. I think physically it’s no problem for the drivers and, as Christian and Cyril said, life is pretty good for them. So, to do four Sundays more, it wouldn’t bother them.

  • 2017 British Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference – Part 2

    2017 British Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference – Part 2

    PART TWO: Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault), Andy COWELL (Mercedes), Jonathan NEALE (McLaren)

    Q: Cyril, 40th anniversary for Renault in Formula One. The retro look that we saw in London, I hear it might roll out again with the team again later this weekend, retro cars on parade. Tell us about this moment and what F1 has meant to Renault?

    Cyril ABITEBOUL: How long have you got! Forty years, that’s a lot. Lots of success. I think the best way I would summarise it, every time we’ve been in Formula One and attacking Formula One we’ve been successful, whether in the late 80s-90s with Williams, 2005-6 obviously with Fernando in the blue car and then later with Red Bull Racing. That’s why obviously the pressure is very big, that we’ve been successful and the expectations are high, that we get back at that level. For Renault it meant also that Renault has moved from being a French carmaker to a European and then a global carmaker. A global brand. Part of a very large alliance and about to become the largest carmaker in the world with Nissan and Mitsubishi. So obviously everything has changed. Formula One has changed. We have changed and that’s what we want to celebrate with this anniversary.

    Q: Now, Robert Kubica. The comeback seems to be gathering pace. He had a second test this week at Ricard. What can you tell us about that. What are the plans for the Hungary post-grand prix test in the 2017 car, and how close is he to being ready to race in Formula One again?

    CA: Well, that’s a second test after obviously a first test. The first test was nothing more than an opportunity for him to get back behind the steering wheel into a Formula One car – but there is a big caveat, is that it’s a Formula One car from 2012 with demo tyres, with V8 engine, normally-aspirated, fantastic noise but doesn’t exactly match the current F1 car. So, whatever we do is not quite representative. That second test, however, we sort-of walked more towards what could look like a plan in order to assess, to give both him and us the opportunity to assess a little bit more his limitation and his abilities. What I can tell you is that he is still quick, he is still very consistent and, more importantly, he still has this energy, this drive, this sort of enthusiasm that he has always had, he always carried to him and to the team. Really too early to talk about next steps. I don’t want to add to the speculation. Right now the focus is on, y’know, getting the most out of the overall line-up and package that we have and then we’ll be thinking about 2018 in due course – which is not just now.

    Q: Has the evaluation shown that he is capable of racing a Formula One car?

    CA: I would not say that – and I don’t want to say yes or no. It’s not like a test that you’re passing at an exam. We’ve not seen any obvious road blocks. Having said that, you know, again testing in this circumstance and testing in a more modern car is something completely different. So, you know, again, this situation is complex. We are not doing that for PR purposes, even though we see that it is creating a lot of media expectation and focus. It’s not what we’re doing. We care so much more for Robert than this.

    Q: Andy, coming to you. New engine for both the works drivers. How far ahead is it from the previous one.

    Andy COWELL: Yes. Phase 2.1 engine, installed for both Lewis and Valtteri today. In terms of improvement compared to the previous one, it’s actually very similar. It’s exactly the same spec as we installed with the customers in Canada and today’s been an exercise in checking the health of it and dialling it in from a calibration perspective.

    Q: We had an interesting discussion in the previous session about the next generation engines – obviously it’s a big decision. Christian Horner was saying that it could be around for ten years. The car industry in 2030 could be unrecognisable compared to where it is today, but it does seem that there is a bit of consensus from the high-ups about what Formula One should do next on the engine rules in terms of parts. From your point of view, as an engine builder, what do you feel about the direction going forward? What would you like to see?

    AC: I think there have been two very constructive meetings held in Paris, chaired by the FIA but with Ross Brawn and his team present, with the existing manufacturers and other OEMs that might be interested in coming in and also independent engine manufacturers and suppliers as well, component suppliers. And everybody’s expressed their opinion on what 2021 should bring and I think you touch on a very good point that we need to make sure that the technology that’s introduced in Formula One in 2021 is ahead of the road car world in 2021 and perhaps mimicking  what will be in the showrooms in 2026, so that it’s a lead in to it but there’s a whole load of other topics that need to be discussed and the conclusion of the second meeting is that we need to do some more work. We need to break out into expert groups and that’s not necessarily us, that’s people from outside of Formula One that understand about engine noise and how that brings pleasure to people that are hearing it and that’s not necessarily (indistinct), the musicality of it, and then more scientific studies that we will be involved in like removing the MGU-H –  we have single turbo or twin turbos. And so the FIA are going to chair several meetings, several working groups that conclude over the summer on their particular subject matter and then in September, bring that back together and try and condense that into one overall package. As ever, there will be compromise but I think if we come up with the best package for Formula One, for the manufacturers, for the fans, for the drivers, for the chassis teams etc then it will be a good step.

    Q: Jonathan, coming to you: obviously now, six, seven months into the new management structure, working with Zak Brown, can we expect restructuring of the McLaren team as you look to the future? What do you… so good evaluation period, six, seven months, what can we expect going forward now?

    Jonathan NEALE:  I think it’s great for the whole business that we have the kind of footprint that we do, where we have the premium sports car business, a Formula One and the applied technology business, the opportunity to bring that back together under one shareholding is something that I think all of us internally are pleased about. Certainly in terms of our customers, then they don’t really differentiate between which group of shareholders own which bit of the product range, so that simplifies things. The executive committee with Mohamed and Mansour are steadfast in terms of the direction of travel of the business and I think what we will see is progressive evolution. I don’t think we are going to see another step change or complete restructuring, just a bringing back together, some re-clarification of what the brand is and what the brand isn’t and we’ve got an exciting growth agenda, both in the sports car business and in the applied technologies group and obviously we’ve got a job of work to do to make our Formula One programme competitive again.

    Q: Obviously there’s an awful lot of talk about the relationship with Honda; can you clarify the decision-making process and timescale from here; does it depend on the step they make later this year to define where the relationship goes and indeed, whether it even continues?

    JN: The simple answer to both questions is no. I can’t clarify the process or the timescale because there is no track or no set path. We have a contract with Honda and we’re working through some of the challenges that we have and I can’t duck the issue that for both Honda and McLaren we’re not where we need to be and that this season is not only challenging but frustrating. I think when Hasegawa-san was here last week he recognised some of that frustration and whilst making progress he also acknowledged – and I thought that was very honest of him – that there is still a long way to go between where Honda are currently and the benchmark with the gentlemen either side of me. So, Formula One is all about where the best come to compete and competition is tough and unforgiving. I don’t think it’s something that we can just sit on lightly – either Honda or McLaren – so that we’re having those kind of conversations. They’re uncomfortable conversations as you would expect and they’re things that we best do behind closed doors. I recognise the speculation, it’s Formula One. I’ve only been in it for 17 years now so one thing I recognise is that when anybody says they’re not talking to anybody, the answer is everybody’s talking to everybody. Drivers talk to everybody, teams talk to everybody so I don’t want to duck that. But we’re working through our issues with Honda. We need to get it fixed. It is not sustainable in its current form.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Marc Surer – Sky Germany) Cyril, you have a new floor on your car. Does it work?

    CA: When you say that, everyone wants to keep from everyone, everyone knows everything about everyone too. I’m sorry about that… it’s a decent step, you know, but more importantly it’s a completely different function philosophy. So it’s not just one part in isolation, it’s also the start of something: a development programme that we’re going to carry through the break and through the later part of the season. And it’s going in the direction that we’re hoping as far as we are talking on Friday afternoon.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Jonathan, you said everybody talks to everybody, so that obviously leads to the assumption that you’ve been talking to Cyril, you’ve been talking to Andy, you’ve probably been talking to Honda again and again, and whatever else. But where do you go from here? I mean have you set a deadline for any form of performance improvement whereby you say ‘right, that’s the notice period’ and can you then just simply tear up the contract and go and strike a deal with Andy? What do you do?

    JN: It’s like speed dating, isn’t it? You can’t tear up contracts… let’s start there. As Cyril and Andy will attest, there are no performance guarantees, looking forward, so of course we all set our plans. We set plans for chassis, plans for drivers, plans for engines, in terms of making that level of progression where nothing is guaranteed. As I said earlier about there being a set process or some set timescale, then I think that’s unrealistic. I think naturally we reach a point of inflection with Honda where we ask ourselves, internally, where do we go from here? What do we have to do differently to restore that level of competitiveness? There are clear constraints and  rules, within the sporting regulations… as you pitched at me this morning, you’re right, in order for an engine manufacturer to supply more than three teams does require FIA approval. The precedent for that –  both the gentlemen either side of me have supplied four teams, I think Andy in ’15, ’16 and I think Cyril 2014. Ferrari have also supplied four teams in the past but there is a… what we want to do is to try and make sure that what we’re doing is professional and good for the sport. It is good having Honda in Formula One and there isn’t anybody who doesn’t want to see a successful Honda in Formula One. And I say that regardless of anything that’s currently going on. Honda are investing a lot and putting a lot of resource into the programme and we’re working very hard with them but the fact is, given where we are in the Constructors’  championship at the moment, we’re not getting the job done. So there are constraints, as I say, in the sporting regulations. Everybody’s talking to everybody, we are making sure that we maintain our good relationships with FOM and the FIA during this process, while we work through a difficult situation.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) Cyril and Andy, possibly some comments. You are both manufacturers and you both would like to keep Honda in Formula One because more competition is good but clearly they are lagging far behind. Would either of you be prepared to assist them in perhaps improving their performance and have they come to you yet or is that something you are not prepared to say or if they do, would you be prepared to help them?

    CA: I think there has been some speculation in the past about that and the speculation was not in relation to Renault. But you know from here, in Formula One – in today’s Formula One – the engine has become a performance differentiator and even though at the end of this season, as part of the  Constructors’ definition, I think that as soon as it becomes a performance differentiator, it should be in keeping in the spirit of the regulations that there should not be any IP transfer or support for something that is making a primary impact on the overall performance of the package. So frankly I don’t remember anyone volunteering for helping us when we had our problems in the past. I don’t think it’s something that we would love and I don’t think it’s something that Honda would really entertain, in all honesty. I think it’s really a time issue. I don’t think it’s a matter of resource, it’s not a matter of skill set, it’s a matter of… basically when they stepped out of Formula One and when you get out, it takes an awful lot of time to rebuild and that’s the sort of time for the manufacturers on the one hand and the customer on the other hand, that is the main limit. It’s not about an interim measure and plus, it’s extremely difficult to implement such support because their engine architecture will be very different from mine so apart from supplying an engine to Honda, I’m not going to be about to help them. No, I don’t think this is really credible.

    AC: I think collectively we’ve helped with convergence in Formula One in the opening season, performance development through the year, but then the opportunity to do a big change with Honda coming in, we all agreed that Honda could have that same opportunity to change everything in the first year and then the request came from manufacturers in addition to Honda saying ‘please can we take this crazy token table away because it’s bad for the sport?’ It’s bad if somebody can’t train to get better and so we agreed, yeah, take the table away because it’s better for the sport because it means that you can innovate, you can introduce whatever you like and I think none of us should underestimate the technical prowess of Honda and of McLaren and I think my money is on that combination coming good and coming good pretty quickly. No pressure!

    Q: (Matthieu Piccon – Motorsinside) Cyril, you’re lying eighth in the championship. For you is it more linked to the performance of your car or the fact that you’re only scoring points with one driver and not two?

    CA: You know, it’s a combination. I can’t break down the elements like that. It’s true that if we had two times 18 points that it would be 36, we may have a different position in the championship but equally Jo has had several reliability issues that has hurt him, starting in winter, then in the opening races of the season where in particular we were a bit more competitive than we have been in recent races which has sort of eroded the confidence that he had in himself, in the package which we are trying to rebuild. So it’s a combination, but what I can say is that standing eighth in the championship is absolutely not in line with what both the plan and expectation and history that we were mentioning before, of the 40 years of Renault in Formula One. So action must be taken to make a quick change. These things take a bit of time, there are still a number of things happening in the background, we’ve just had our new head of aero who started last week. Obviously that person is not going to make an impact in the next few races, it’s going to take a bit of time but we have to… more importantly, we have to build confidence in ourselves and in the team that what we have, what we are doing will help us be where we want to be which is fighting for the podium in the next few years.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Andy, last year in September, I think, Tobias Moers announced the AMG Project One Hypercar project. Further details have come to light. I wonder if you could confirm some of them please. I believe 275 engines will be built by your factory and also something like a 30,000 service interval or something like that. Will you be building them, do you have that durability in those engines and is it based on your Formula One power unit?

    AC: It’s a fascinating project, the AMG Project One Hypercar. It is taking the Formula One power unit and putting it into the back of a two seater sports car and then two MGU-Ks on the front axle, so independent drive to the two wheels, so 160hp per wheel. So the combined power is over 1000hp. It is a pretty incredible power train, to be honest, both in terms of creating a car that can go round the Nurburgring in impressive lap times but also in terms of driving across town and on a dual carriageway. The fuel economy is impressive; this is something that… Tobias came up with the idea, rang me up, said is it possible? I rang him back after two weeks of doing a little bit of work during lunchtimes, to see what we could. We’ve now got a group of about 150 people. At Brixworth, that group will grow over the coming year and the target is to build 275 power trains so the power train will be built at Brixworth, having done the development work. Fascinating actually doing that development work and doing the transition from Formula One to road car. The vast majority of it carries across. Clearly things like fuel and emissions need to be managed but that works fairly seamlessly. We’re targeting 50,000 kilometers so about that and in terms of the duty cycle it is quite considerably different. If you look at a high performance road car – Jonathan will know this from his McLaren  road cars – if you’ve got somebody that drives at five percent of the time at full throttle, that’s quite remarkable. Today we’ve got people driving Formula One cars round this track with 70 per cent full throttle and so that’s where you gain an awful lot of the benefit, swapped from the bespoke fuels that all the fuel companies develop for Formula One into a pump fuel, the cylinder pressure drops, the loading drops and everything comes to you, so in terms of that, that durability, that’s the easy bit.

  • 2017 Azerbaijan GP: Friday Press Conference – Part 1

    2017 Azerbaijan GP: Friday Press Conference – Part 1

    PART ONE: TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault), Eric BOULLIER (McLaren), Robert FERNLEY (Force India)

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Q: Eric, if I could start with you, we saw another engine failure for Fernando Alonso this afternoon… you’re shaking your head.

    Eric BOULLIER: Yes, it wasn’t an engine failure. It was a gearbox failure.

    Q: A gearbox failure, but regarding that thorny subject of Honda. The regularity of the criticism from McLaren senior management suggests that the situation is now irretrievable. Is there anything that can be done to repair the relationship?

    EB: Well, first of all, your question is a suggestion, as you said, which is not exactly the truth or the case. Both organisations are working very, very hard to get to where we want to be. The level of friction, let’s say, if there is any, is a little bit exacerbated by the media. It is true that we have to deliver what we need to do, we have to be where we want to be but both organisations are working hard to deliver and I don’t think there is such a drama like in your questions.

    Q: But Eric, both you and Zak Brown have said it’s not good enough what Honda are doing. So what have Honda got to do to satisfy you, McLaren?

    EB: Well, we have to compete these guys, not to be in the back of the grid. As a partner we expect obviously a certain level of performance, not commitment, because they have that in terms of resources, it’s just a level of performance and today we need another step, a big step.

    Q: And have Honda given any indication as to when the next big step will come?

    EB: Yes, they have some plan and obviously they will be able to respect them.

    Q: OK, let’s talk drivers then. How does the state of flux, if I can call it that, leave you regarding driver for 2018?

    EB: Well, we don’t have any contract with Fernando. Fernando has been very clear. He likes the team, he would like to stay with us, but we need to be competitive. So there is also… say, after summer he will take his decision, so we know the agenda, the calendar for us, what we have to do and Alonso knows what he has to do as well.

    And Stoffel? 

    EB: Stoffel is a long-term contract with McLaren, so there is not any concern for the future.

    Q: Final question for now. How do you assess the performance of the car this weekend in Baku?

    EB: Well, the global performance is very easy, you just see the lap time. We are very slow this weekend; we were expecting to be slow. Then, if you want to be more in detail, we all have GPS traces of each, this is shared data between all the teams so then you can work more about where you need to improve your car in terms of performance.

    Q: Bob, that accident involving Sergio Perez in that first practice session: what are the ramifications of that crash, is there much damage to the car? 

    Robert FERNLEY: The damage wasn’t quite as bad as we thought. The credit goes to the team really for that. They were very well prepared and we were able to effect what were considerable repairs in a very short period of time, so a more than credible effort by the team.

    Q: Let’s cast our minds two weeks, to the Canadian Grand Prix. Quite a lot of controversy after the race regarding team orders, so can you give us your version of events about those closing laps in Montreal? 

    RF: Well, we don’t run team orders to race, which we did. If you look at the difference in tyre performance it’s very, very small. If you at Checo’s history of being able to pass other drivers, it’s incredibly high, and he felt he had the3 opportunity to do so. From our side, there was a suggestion to let us have a turnaround, but he felt quite confident and we were happy to back that and support that, and we will continue to do so.

    Q: Was there a feeling in the team afterwards that somehow Sergio was wrong?

    RF: No, I don’t think so. You can speculate many, many things in terms of what ifs, and hindsight is wonderful, but in reality we were dealing with a Red Bull and we mustn’t underestimate it. A Force India trying to pass a Red Bull isn’t the easiest of things. And we had Ferraris coming back and whether we had pitted or not pitted there is a second a lap difference on optimum, optimum. I think we did the best we could and I have had no recriminations from the team whatsoever and we will continue to follow that path and evaluate things on a race-by-race basis.

    Q: Vijay Mallya said after the race that there would be some new rules of engagement from Baku onwards. What are those rules? 

    RF: No I don’t think he said that. He said he would look at the rules of engagement and we discussed it at the management meetings, which we normally do, and what I am telling you now I think are Vijay’s sentiments entirely.

    Q: Cyril, let’s also start with the on-track action as well. We saw an accident involving Jolyon Palmer today. What is the situation with Jolyon regarding his future? What does he have to do to keep his seat at Renault? 

    Cyril ABITEBOUL: I think it’s a bit unfair to link today and the future. Today we saw a lot of drivers going a bit outside of the track – a lot, and I mean a lot. Clearly, indeed, Jo has been one of those at a Turn that unfortunately doesn’t forgive, unlike other turns. Which means there is a bit of damage on the car but it’s not huge. Not really different to what Checo did this morning. If you want to link that to the bigger picture for Jo, our situation is very clear: he has a contract with us; we are completely committed to helping him get through the period, which is a tough period, that’s obvious. He has no ultimatum, but having said that he has to deliver, like every single member of the team. But I think what will help him is that frankly we take him out of the spotlight under which he is constantly, in particular in starting the first day, Friday, and all the media focus, all the media attention, is not necessarily helping. Obviously you have to do what you have to do, and ask the questions, which you feel are the right ones. But that doesn’t help. That’s part of the job, part of the pressure that every Formula One driver has to go through. He has to live with that. We are trying our best to protect him but at the same time to do the best as a team to explain to him what we are expecting and we had that type of conversation with him yesterday – go through the metrics and try to define the targets short to medium terms so that he can improve. So that’s the situation really.

    Q: And can you just clarify the situation with Robert Kubica. He tested with the team just prior to the Canadian Grand Prix. Why did the test come about and is he going to be testing in FP1 ahead of the Italian Grand Prix? 

    CA: Easy answer on the last one – no, absolutely not. I don’t know where this is coming from and I can completely wipe that one out. Also I would to make it clear that I guess the questions are unconnected – the question regarding Jo and the question regarding Robert. Robert has been a family member of the Enstone team, and Eric on my right knows what I mean. He has been very close and very loyal. The team in Enstone, which is a very small group of people, actually have been very loyal to a number of drivers. In particular Robert made a huge impression on people who’ve been around, Alan Permane, Bob Bell, Ricardo on the Viry side. People feel very loyal and feel they owe something to Robert for making something big in their life and there was this opportunity that we give to him, that we could afford to him to drive again, because it was actually a marketing event that got cancelled, so we had a car available at the track and we offered that opportunity to him. Robert is going through some form of programme to try to understand what he can do. He has been driving a number of cars, Formula E, GP3, F2, LMP2, you name it, so I think he wants to understand what he can do as part of his sort of rehabilitation programme. We’ll see. There is nothing else that is planned for the time being, apart from a marketing event at Goodwood, where he will be driving the same car, E20, in front of Lord March’s house.

    Q: Just looking at performance, you said recently there are no magic bullets in Formula One. How should we translate that comment?

    CA: Yeah, I think I was trying to make reference and clarify as situation regarding engine upgrades and actually it’s not so easy to be clear in that respect. Just to make it clear, I think there was some speculation, some expectation that we do on the engine side this year the same thing that we did last year, with a major upgrade that was very visible to everyone, particular our customers and I think there was this sort of expectation that we were about to do the same. No, unfortunately it’s not happening. But I’m not saying that because it’s not happening that there won’t be any improvement. There is improvement. For instance, this weekend, we have two tenths of an upgrade in the engine. We were not expecting to make huge publicity on that but I feel that I have to make that clarification. And that upgrade is coming despite the fact that we are not changing the engine. That’s why it’s important to disconnect the different aspects. It would be the same thing on the chassis side. We are having a sort of arms race. All teams are bringing big upgrades, we are doing the same but same thing as on the engine, there won’t be a golden bullet.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Ben Edwards – Channel 4) Bob, can I just ask quick question about the accident this morning for Sergio. We saw the week come off but it certainly didn’t look like the tether failed because it didn’t look like that was involved in that – so can you just explain what happened with the wheel coming off?

    RF: It’s not something we’ve seen before. As you rightly say, the entire wheel came off the hub. We need to look into it to see. The tethers were fine. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. In fact Eric and I were talking about it coming up – he hadn’t seen anything like it either. We’ll just have to have a look at what that is and make sure if there needs to be any changes across the board for Formula One.

    Q: (Ben Edwards – Channel 4) Eric, quick question about Stoffel’s season so far. Obviously, it’s not been an ideal season for him – it’s always tough being up against Fernando – but can you talk us through his season and what has been his struggles and what he’s going through?

    EB: First of all, he’s had a lot of issues with his cars since the beginning of the season. Not only the engine but also the car. A lot of little glitches y’know that stop him, let’s say, doing complete runs during free practices and various qualifyings. I think his confidence level then went a little bit lower – that’s why a couple of times in qualifying he was not ready to deliver on the first lap and that cost him actually a Q2 because there was a yellow flag or something else. I think it’s just for him to find his place in the team to make sure he can voice his needs to setup the car the way he likes to drive it. Formula One is also a bit different when you talk about driving style so you need to maybe both need to move toward each other. We are now since a couple of races addressing this seriously with a working group around him – his engineers first but some others, trying to address this and get his confidence back.

    Q: (Gunel Safarova – BBC Azerbaijan) So you say today three accidents happened. It’s interesting, why do you think these accidents happened so much. At the moment there is speculation this road in Baku is very dangerous and it has very dangerous turns. Do you think it’s because of this?

    CA: We’ve seen a lot of accidents and also our drivers escaping from accidents. Frankly I think we should put a bit more walls to create a bit more penalty and incentivise the drives to stay on track. I think there is a combination. I understand that it is not easy on some corners actually to see with the sun in the drivers’ eyes, struggling to see the apex. That’s one, another thing to take into consideration, without wanting to start a debate, it’s maybe the grip from tyres which is maybe not where it should be for a track like that and the sort of braking energy that you need to dissipate. So that might be an explanation – maybe more than last year in particular with the shift in compounds that we’ve seen this season. That might be one explanation also.

    Eric or Bob, do you have anything to add?

    EB: Cyril answered mostly. The only reason why you have got these cars going into the escape road is just because of the grip and the braking energy. Track is also very green today, obviously a lot of dust everywhere, so this is even more difficult to generate some energy in the tyres.

    Q: Bob, Pérez, why did he crash, what did he say when he got back to the garage?

    RF: I don’t think it was anything to do with them. He was trying to find the limit and found it! I agree with Eric and Cyril. It’s about tyres – and obviously the track was green. Tyres are probably a little bit hard compound. And maybe next year we’ll start going softer.

  • 2017 Spanish GP: Friday Press Conference – Part 1

    2017 Spanish GP: Friday Press Conference – Part 1

    PART ONE: TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault), Robert FERNLEY (Force India), Toto WOLFF (Mercedes)

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Q: Today is the FIA Volunteers’ Day and there will be a ceremony later this afternoon on the pit straight to honour their contribution to motor sport. Perhaps a word from you all on the work of the volunteers?

    Toto WOLFF: Well, we wouldn’t be able to go racing without the volunteers and it’s something that isn’t so visible to the public that with the many devoted and engaged people, all around the world on the racetracks, they enable us to put on a show, so it’s definitely a good little exercise to do and honour them.

    Cyril ABITEBOUL: Nothing much to add. Motor sport is a bit strange in that it’s just a few that get elected to race or even be in the garage but it’s a sport that involves a lot of people, whether in the garage, mechanics, at the factory, but also around the track and taking part with the federations around the world. Yeah, it’s a great opportunity to honour their ongoing commitment.

    Robert FERNLEY: Yeah, without doubt they are the unsung heroes of motor racing across the board, not just for Formula One. We must remember that they do great work outside Formula One, which we’re very focused on. I think people forget that weekend-in, weekend-out they’re there, so great honour.

    Q: Thank you. Moving back to you Cyril. Good qualifying pace so far this season, but perhaps not unlocking all the race results you might have hoped for. Why is that?

    CA: Well, part of that is it’s still a year where we are still in a construction phase. So in talking about construction it’s easier to qualify and extract maximum performance off a given package on one lap, on a short run, which is what we are doing consistently since the start of the season. We know also that we have fragile reliability and that’s really our area of focus. It is hitting us regularly, during races and also during Fridays, in the preparation of the race typically. Usually we have a good group of people who is managing or setting up the car properly for qualifying but when it comes to really managing the car and fixing the issues for a longer run, that’s really down to how reliable we have been over the weekend. So that’s really something that is hitting, which is biting on regular occasions, so that is the area of focus for the time being. We also have a great qualifier in Nico. He’s also clearly leading the way on race pace. Jo has not been very favourite in the conditions… he’s had on many occasions adverse conditions in his weekend. The only weekend he had a clean weekend, which was in Bahrain, he managed to be in Q3. So that is what we are trying to repeat because we think that the car also has a better pace on Sundays, so that’s the target for this weekend.

    Q: From which race onwards are you hoping to unlock the full potential of this 2017 Renault engine?

    CA: The full potential of the engine is something that will take a number of races with the existing hardware. You know that constant development, that constant improvement… based on the existing hardware there is more to come in performance and that’s really down to how quickly we can fix the reliability issues. I guess that will be down to the introduction of power unit number three. We may or may not change the hardware to extract more power but irrespective of the hardware there will be more power coming that’s for sure. So it’s all down to the engine introduction plan.

    Q: You mentioned Jolyon Palmer there, obviously he has had a few difficulties. What are you saying to him behind the scenes and what do you foresee for him for the rest of the season?

    CA: Well, the main thing we have done is that we’ve been through what has happened since the start of the season, including the winter test, when we were in Barcelona and he already had difficult conditions to deal with. So, limited mileage over the winter, a number of reliability issues in preparation for the first four races, which has not been helpful, and clearly he has a very talented team-mate, which is clearly showing what the car is capable of. But having said, Nico is not a magician, and that’s what I’m telling him. He has shown that on occasion he has definitely the pace to match his team-mate, so it is on that we are focusing. And we are making sure that he now has a clean weekend so that he can build his confidence, that we can rebuild his confidence in himself.

    Q: Robert, double points in every race so far, you’ve got to be happy with the way your 2017 season has started and with both of your drivers appearing to be well and truly on it?

    RF: Yeah, from our point of view, after the testing in Barcelona we knew we had a slight performance deficit and it was always going to be down to making sure that we extracted the optimum from the races and the team, the drivers, fantastic job, absolutely superb.

    Q: So the big question is can you keep it going? You’re up against some fairly tough opposition in this midfield, not least Cyril. Of course you’ve got Williams to think about, Toro Rosso as well. How important is the update pack you’ve brought here this weekend and what has it given you so far?

    RF: I think like all teams we’re looking for direction more than physically upgrading at the moment. It’s the direction that we need to be able to develop for the rest of the season. I think what we have seen so far is very promising and we’ll take it through going forward for the next races. Hopefully Renault’s problems will remain large ones and we can keep going!

    Q: Toto, first of all a word on this dramatic looking, updated car that you’ve brought here this weekend. Did it perform according to expectations during the practice sessions?

    TW: Yes, so far we are happy with the correlation and the results of the two Friday sessions and the car certainly looks very sophisticated. But it’s the interaction of all those bits that overall should make us achieve a performance gain. But Friday is pretty early days in the weekend. Tomorrow afternoon you’re going to see whether there is a real effect.

    Q: Valtteri Bottas won his first race last time out. You’ve had an interest in him for many years, what did you feel personally to see him winning a Formula One grand prix?

    TW: I’ve known Valtteri for 10 years so it’s clear that achieving his target to win a race is something special but in my position it’s about the team’s interests and having a Mercedes winner is great. Having a Mercedes challenger for the world championship or even winning a world championship and I’m behind both of them and we’ll be cheering whoever wins.

    Q: It was important that he won, with an all-Ferrari front row for that race in Russia. It could have been costly for you in the world championship, when Lewis was clearly having an off day. What did the debrief reveal?

    TW: Valtteri had a very good day because he was able to exploit P3, which is probably the best starting position in Sochi and used the slipstream down to Turn One and from thereon controlled the race. Considering that a four-time world champion was close behind him in those last laps, he did a very good job. As for Lewis, he was in traffic. We were a bit marginal with the cooling and that’s why he had a car that was not able to deliver maximum performance at all times. We could see that there were glimpses of performance but if you run into hot air and the car is heating up too much there’s not a lot you can do. From there it’s a difficult situation for the driver and the team and there wasn’t a lot we could do.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Peter Windsor– Motorsport Network) Toto, what about Lewis’ problems in sector three? We heard talk of diff, traction that wasn’t that happy with. What were you able to look at after Russia? I presume there was nothing broken on the car or anything like that, but can you give us more insight into what the problem was for him?

    TW: The interaction between the chassis, the suspension and the tyres is new ground for every team. And you need to understand how you make each of those various tyre compounds function. We tried to fix out, we tried to cure a problem that was created in the interaction of those two components by giving different diff settings or by trying to switch the brake balance back and forth. Just to give it a go or give it a try. It is a more fundamental issue. You need to have a car that is stable in the window, that has the basic performance and then translate that into qualifying performance and race performance and if you add to the equation a new compound or various new compounds it becomes a difficult exercise and that is one of the key topics we are looking at the moment.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) The FIA has mandated that all driver numbers and driver names are clearly displayed on cars from this race onwards. Looking at it this morning it seems that some teams have embraced it wholly and included it in their new colour schemes and that others have perhaps paid lip service to it. Could all three of you give your opinion on it and whatever you think it’s a good move?

    RF: I think it’s a good move from the FIA, probably overdue in all fairness. I think that perhaps some time out, when all the commercial agreements that we currently have, that’s across all the teams, come to an end they should standardize where the numbers go and make sure everything is clear for everybody going forward. At this point I think you have to do the best you can with whatever you have from a commercial agreement and I think all of the teams have tried their very best to embrace it.

    TW: Bob just summarized it pretty well. It’s trial and error. We played around with various designs. Some of us like the look of it, some of us don’t. We took a little bit off after P1 and just have the number now. But with all aesthetics, it’s mixed feelings.

    CA: Exactly the same. It’s a good move from the FIA. It’s something that maybe should have happened earlier and hopefully they will make sure to standardize. Just like in any other sport, where you know where to find the name and number of any player on the soccer field or anything. That’s the sort of thing where you want to have a standard position, so as mentioned as soon as the sponsorship contracts are falling out you want to make sure to seize the opportunity, that window, to impose what it is should be. Formula One. Formula One should be at the top of the sport in terms of presentation, the standard of presentation, so that’s what should happen sooner rather than later.

    RF: Just to add to that, I think it’s the number that is more important element, because now that the drivers have got numbers throughout their career I think the promoters would ideally like to see the number prominent rather than worrying too much about the same, so I think that would be the right move going forward.

    Q: (Sven Haidinger – motorsport-total.com) Toto, the Mercedes car is a little bit difficult in terms of the set-up to get it into the right window. Are you missing Nico Rosberg a little bit in terms of that, because Lewis has taken the set-up a couple of time from him and he’s one of the most experienced guys in the team or has been?

    TW: Certainly if you have the experience of Nico who has been in the team for a long time it is always helpful, but Valtteri has filled those shoes pretty well. He’s similar to Nico, an engineering-minded driver, and it’s more in those early stages of the season to understand the basic product, the car, the architecture of the car, suspension, kinematics, so I wouldn’t see it as a deficit.

    Q: (Sam Collins – Racecar Engineering) It looks like the UK is heading towards a so-called hard Brexit and that could have serious implications for the Formula One teams based in the UK, especially for the ones with engine suppliers who are based outside the UK, such as Cyril and his customers. With no single and no freedom of movement of EU citizens into and out of the UK, what implications do you forecast it having for you, what contingency plans have you put in place – that in respect of customs reflecting the lead times and recruitment going forward for the 2019 season?

    CA: Thank you for the question! We will have to see, because there were already a number of forecasts when Brexit happened that a number of things would happen which have not happened so I don’t think it’s for me to comment on what’s going to happen or not. The main elements will be currency and it has had frankly a positive impact on all of the UK-based teams so in that respect that’s good news for us strangely. We have to see long-term how that evolves because that is not a situation that is sustainable. Then we will have to look at the movement of staff, because clearly we need to attract talent from everywhere around the world and we need to make that the UK remains a place that is welcoming talents from wherever they are. We have lots of movement of staff between France and the UK. That’s something we will look at carefully. When it comes to transfer or goods that is something that is not bothering us, in the sense that the engine, if that’s what you are referring to, are actually leased, the ownership is not passed on to the UK entity and that’s the same with all our customers, so VAT should be neutral in that respect. Obviously we have to be careful but when it comes to be contingency plans, no, we don’t really have a plan as we are building new buildings in Enstone in the UK, we don’t really have a plan to move that we are currently building somewhere else. We are still assuming that people will be reasonable and we trust the UK to protect their industry and motorsport is an important industry for the UK.

    TW: Cyril has given us a 360˚ view. There’s nothing to add to that. We are monitoring it. Hopefully it will turn out well. I like to work in the UK and I’d like to continue to work there.

    RF: Unfortunately I’m probably a little bit older than these two and I remember when we used to do it before we had the EU, so it’s not an issues and we still do an awful lot of races today where we still go through an awful lot of compliance issues so I don’t really see it as an issue at all.

    Q: (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) A question for Bob really. Some projected figures came out during the week about FOM payouts to teams for 2017. There are no great surprises but yet again your team, despite finishing fourth, seems to be getting less than half than the top three and less than McLaren even. Just some comments on how you see things panning out with the new owners and whether you see any progress being made on redistribution in the future?

    RF: I think my position on this is pretty clear. I have been very much a strong voice against these type of things for the last couple of years. But I think what we have to do now is support Liberty and the new owners as they are making noises and definitely looking into trying to address both costs and income distribution. Let’s give them an opportunity, the key thing is to support them going forward. The disparities are not acceptable as far as we are concerned, but as I say I think time will tell.

    Q: (Sergio Alvarez – One Magazine) Question for Toto: do you believe the changes in your technical direction may have hindered your understanding of the car? How are you managing the transition in the technical department from Paddy to James Allison?

    TW: There are figureheads that are present in the media: some more, some less, that represent the team – but it’s an organisation of 1,000 people – almost 1,000 people – that run a team and especially in the area of tyres, race delivery, race track engineering, the situation is unchanged. We have a great team that is there, that has been in place for many years, that is looking after these components – and I’m extremely happy with how they’ve tackled the situation until now.

    Q: (Sef Harding – Xiro Xone News) This is for all three of you, since Fernando Alonso’s announcement to go to the Indy 500 there’s now a debate created between IndyCar and the comparison to F1 and the differences in terms of show, presentation, and as you Mr Fernley said earlier, the presentation, would you be willing to work in depth with the new owners to make a better show for the viewing audience as well as the fans in attendance that come from all over the world to watch the sport in terms of opening up the paddocks more, making it more accessible for the drivers, making it more accessible for the pits. We saw that they bought down a two-seater car and are giving tours now. Would you be willing to do the same for viewing fans that are coming to the race?

    RF: Having done both IndyCars and Formula One I can speak from a reasonable amount of experience on that. IndyCars is a fantastic show, especially the Indy 500, there’s no question of that. Can we get more access? I think we can. I think we can learn a little bit from IndyCars but overall we are Formula One and we’ve got to keep that identity as well. I think that Liberty understand that. I think they’re working to getting it more inclusive but, on the other hand, keeping it where it needs to be – which is slightly exclusive as well. So it’s a balancing act and I’m sure they’ll do a great job. They have all the expertise to be able to look at that.

    Toto?

    TW: Yes, the Indy 500 is one of the great races and the concept is completely different to what we have. The oval, per se, gives different access and it’s a one-a-year event. If you look at the IndyCar series overall, they’re far away from where we are. Having said that, I think Fernando going to Indy is a great opportunity for him, it’s an opportunity to create some good news around the team again, and they need that, and it has given Formula One more exposure in the US, so overall I think it is a good exercise.

    Cyril?

    CA: Yeah, I would agree that there is definitely lots to learn from other sports. To a certain degree we tend to, y’know, we’re not necessarily all very old but we still spend quite a lot of time in Formula One, so having some people showing us what can done outside – whether it’s new owners, new management but also F1 drivers getting experience outside F1 and returning to Formula One, I think it’s great. We need to constantly benchmark. We are in a competition – not just in Formula One but Formula One is in a competition against other sports properties – whether motorsports or other forms of sports – because that’s where all sponsors, all carmakers, all fans will look. They are benchmarking us, even if they don’t realise they benchmark: they always have multiple choices when it comes to looking at a programme, buying tickets… they cannot follow all the sports so we have to make sure to remain at the top of the offer. And that’s great, to finally have the opportunity of a fresh breathe of new air coming and influencing us – but as mentioned by Bob, we need to keep our identity. I think this exercise will kick off under the influence of all these new sorts of people: what is the core identity of Formula One? That will be an exciting exercise to do, starting with, for instance, engine topics.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Primary question to Toto and then a follow-up question to the other two. Toto, there’s a very strong rumour, or suggestions, that Mercedes-Benz is going to offer some form of technical assistance to Honda. Would you care to comment on that please. And then to the other two, should such a concept of one winning engine manufacturer helping another one, should that be allowed in Formula One.

    TW: At that stage I wouldn’t want to comment.

    You’re not excluding it then?

    TW: I’m not commenting.

    Cyril?

    CA: I cannot comment on a no comment.

    Bob?

    RF: I’ll comment! As a team that’s not only paid for its engines but contributed to the development of them I would certainly be very negative towards sharing that technology with another team that it a competitor of ours.

    Q: (Ralf Bach – Autobild Motorsport) A question to Toto. Is there a possibility or, let me say, how big is the possibility that next year drivers, by example Fernando Alonso or Stoffel Vandoorne, driving a Mercedes engine without moving to your team?

    TW: What are the options? They are driving a Honda engine like it is today and it looks like this is the current situation or different engines. I think it’s important for Formula One… Honda is important for Formula One. It’s a massive and very successful company and I have no doubt they will eventually be where they expect themselves to be. So, I don’t think they are going to drive a Mercedes engine.

    Q: (Mike Doodson – Auto Action) This is for Toto. Bit more lighthearted. You and your fellow Austrian Niki Lauda seem to be the TV face of Mercedes AMG. You’ve known each other a long time. I wonder if ever you’ve ever had any disagreements with him on strategy or whatever – if you could let us in on any of the little disagreements you might have had in the course of your association.

    TW: Well, we’ve been doing that for quite a while. We had a certain period at the beginning of our relationship where we were both thrown into the team, where we needed to find a way of making decisions in a committee and not alone like we’ve both done our whole lives. But since then our relationship has contributed in a good way, I believe. He’s a completely different personality. For me, he’s the personification of pressure – and pressure’s good sometimes. He certainly has a lot of experience and has been around for many years and I enjoy working with him. Niki says he has no friends – but when we won one of the last races, we were on a flight together and in the plane he had an emotional moment and said he hasn’t got any friends – but he has a half-friend now. So I consider myself our-performing some others. He’s somebody that I value and enjoy being around. Disagreements? Permanent disagreements for the benefits of the company. We are able to come into discussions with two different standpoints and walk out with one – and that’s good.

    Q: (Jon McEvoy – The Daily Mail) Toto, just building on what Dieter said, in this new open world of disclosing things to the media, which Liberty Media say that they’re in favour of. Can you really not elaborate, in the name of openness, about what you’re doing with Honda? The work that I’m sure many thousands or millions of fans in Formula One would wish to know, which in a sense, strikes me as quite straightforward, to be upfront about the work that you guys might be doing with them in developing their engines.

    TW: I understand your standpoint. We are not doing anything for Honda. That is the current status quo. So, unless that situation changes, I don’t want to contribute to rumours out there, that are false and I think are damaging for Honda and create hardened standpoints from teams or from other stakeholders. We’ll see what happens

  • 2017 Chinese Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2017 Chinese Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault), Monisha KALTENBORN (Sauber), Robert FERNLEY (Force India), Franz TOST (Toro Rosso), Guenther STEINER (Haas)

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Cyril, clearly you’ve made a lot of progress with your power unit over the winter,but it hasn’t all been plain sailing. Can you give us an insight into where it still needs a little bit of work and when you expect to have some solutions in place?

    Cyril ABITEBOUL: Well, I think it’s fair to say we had a pretty good 2016 season from a power unit perspective, but we’ve made a bit of a brave decision to actually re-start from scratch again, because frankly in Formula One if you don’t move forward you just die. So we had no choice but to accept to take some risks by, again, starting with a whole new architecture, which we had to do from a performance perspective and we saw that a bit of short-term pain for a longer-term gain. So we are in that period of a bit of pain because we have some weakness related to the, I would say, the health of that power unit, but which on the positive sign is really delivering good promise and good results from a performance perspective. So there is much more to come but that will only come when the reliability is here and that will come in the very soon future.

    Can you be a bit more specific about when that’s going to come. When can we expect you to be firing on all cylinders effectively?

    CA: We don’t want to go too much into the specifics, because when you start to give planning, everyone is now expecting and in particular we have very demanding customers and they are right to be demanding customers, but we want to continue to control our destiny and our programme. What I can say is that we are making sure reliability is under control and is as transparent as possible for the customer teams. We will have some fixes in the next few races and there will be some performance upgrades with the introduction. But the problem is that with the new regulations, with fewer power units used during the season, obviously you need to sync up the performance, reliability upgrades and the introduction of new power units.

    There was a recent meeting in Paris to discuss the future engine regulations in Formula One. What can you tell us about that meeting? How productive was it?

    CA: It was a good meeting. It was a productive meeting, very functional, chaired by the FIA in Place de la Concorde, but with the attendance of current engine manufacturers, plus a number of people interested in becoming engine manufacturers in the future, plus also to get an answer of Ross – Ross Brawn. So it was good, a good meeting which has allowed us to share the diagnosis of the current engine regulation, what we think it was good, what we think is less good and what could be done in order to improve, and the associated process and timing. So I don’t think it’s my duty to communicate upon the result of that meeting. But in general, I believe, and that’s good, that it is a positive sign for where Formula One is going which is in my opinion is a bit more constructive and forward looking than it has been recently.

    Monisha, that was some debut by Antonio Giovinazzi in Melbourne. How impressed were you?

    Monisha KALTENBORN: Well, we were all very impressed, considering how quickly it happened. When we came to Melbourne with Pascal, there was no indication at all that we’d end up in this situation, because Pascal, being a very ambitious driver, really wanted to driver but when he realized he does have a responsibility to the team and if he is not 100 per cent fit he really needs to say that. We more or less overnight had to make this call and then to see Antonio, who drove the first test for us in Barcelona for, but that’s of course not in any way comparable with the car, what it is now, he still came in there, did a great session, did a good race, no major issues or dramas, so we’re very impressed by him.

    What can you tell us about Pascal’s condition and when will he be back?

    MK: Well, from a medical perspective he was declared fine to race, already at the tests. The rest is a question of his fitness to the extent that he wants to be able to deliver 100 per cent during the entire race. We’ve heard also now in between from doctors and all that, it is very challenging for the drivers. We heard that from the drivers themselves. He’s working flat out on his fitness. It is very difficult to say, because the body is not that logical or analytical in its development, on what day it’s going to be there but his target and our target is to have him as soon as possible in the car, ideally at the next race, but if not, it will the next one. But clear is that he is our second driver and that’s not going to change.

    We’ve just heard from Cyril about the engine meeting that took place in Paris last week. As a privateer team, in what direction would you like to see the engine regulations go?

    MK: Well, for a private team it’s extremely important for the costs to come down again. We had reached with the earlier engines a point where we were talking about $8m engines and it was meant to be coming down further and now we just went the totally opposite way. So we want them to come down to an affordable level. But more importantly there should be a certain parity amongst the powertrains. We wouldn’t want that the engine should be the main denominator or differentiator in performance. So what’s very important is the parity and the costs.

    Q: Bob, coming on to you, the team was fourth last year, first of the privateers teams, if you like. Can you give us some insight into how difficult it has been to prepare for these new rules in 2017.

    Robert FERNLEY: Well it’s not actually been hugely different than normal. We obviously look at the following year’s car very early on anyway. We had a very clear development programme for the ’16 car which the technical team delivered perfectly and, obviously, resulted with the fourth place – but we were also well ahead for the ’17 car. So I think, obviously there is a significant cost involved, simply because there is no carryover in the new regulations but like everything it’s an interesting challenge. We’re starting with a clean sheet of paper and you’d like to think that your technical team can build a car that can do exactly the same again.

    Q: You’ve already raced this year’s car once. There’s quite a large gap from you to the front, how to you assess the pecking order at the minute?

    RF: I don’t think there’s any question or doubt about that. You’ve got the three top teams that are spending significantly more than the rest of the field and I think that’s the difference.

    Q: Is fourth in the Constructors’ Championship a realistic goal for you guys this year?

    RF: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think we’ll be fighting, it will be very tough because there’s some very good competition around but that’s probably going to be one of the most exciting positions that’s going to be fought over for the whole season.

    Q: Guenther. Melbourne. Positives and negatives for the team. How do you reflect on that race.

    Guenther STEINER: The positives, for sure you try to think on the positives but then the negatives always come up. I think qualifying with Romain qualifying sixth on good speed, no luck or nothing, that was good. Kevin wasn’t so good because he struggled in all the practice sessions with one problem or another and he just wasn’t delivered but after qualifying we were pretty happy and pretty positive and then in the race we had the failure, the water leak and the turbo failure consequentially, and you go home empty-handed. You go away knowing that the car is there. We just need now always to get always the potential fulfilled and the potential out of the car in each race track. So, I think in the end it’s positive, even with a little bit of a sour taste.

    Q: It’s a very tight midfield this year. Do you think the team has the development capacity to keep at the front of it?

    GS: I don’t know. I don’t know what the other people are planning to do. It’s always trying to shoot a moving target here. So, I think I know what we are going to do. We are going to introduce developments. We have a good plan in place but I don’t know if the others have a better plan or if their updates are better. That I don’t know. Looking back in the past, I think our quantity and what we want to do is equal to the other midfield teams. For sure it’s nothing compared with the big three but let’s hope the quality we bring to the race track in development and updates is to be in the race with them.

    Q: Franz, great start for the team in Melbourne. How much of a surprise was it to get both cars in the points given your lack of reliability during winter testing.

    Franz TOST: Winter testing we were suffering a little bit in the first test with reliability issues but fortunately we could sort out most of the topics for the second test already. Therefore I was not so surprised by our performance – but of course it was good to have two cars in Q3 and then at the finish with both cars in the points. This is always a good start.

    Q: You’ve got the most experienced driver line-up in the team’s history, you’ve got a stable technical team. What do you think you can achieve this year?

    FT: The target is the fifth place in the Constructors’ Championship – but as my friends here around, they have nearly the same target and we will see. I think that we have a very competitive package, we have a very good car, we have to experienced drivers and the team is also making progress, we have also some development steps during the year and it will became a hard fight between Renault, Force India, Haas and ourselves.

    Q: Do you think you can challenge Red Bull Racing?

    FT: No. Red Bull Racing is not our target. Red Bull Racing is in another league. I am happy if we challenge successfully the teams which I just before mentioned.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Jia Hui Huang – Guangdong Television & Radio sports channel) To all of you. Someone says listening to F1 drivers is wrong, it’s bad for F1 racing. As we’ve seen in the first race the drivers are happy because they can push harder – but the fans are not. They are not satisfied. It’s boring. No overtaking. Standard one stop. What do you think. F1 should listen to who?

    GS: I don’t fully agree with the comments, that the new cars are boring and everything negative. I’d rather see the glass half-full than half-empty. I think the race in Melbourne was by no means boring, in my opinion. We had a different winner than last year. I think that the fight between Ferrari and Mercedes and Red Bull will be very close. We have got an interesting midfield, there will be fights, the overtaking was not very good but I would not jump to a conclusion yet that this will be the whole year. Like this, it looks like it’s difficult but other elements will come in to overtake, so I wouldn’t say that all the fans are negative about it. There’s a lot of enthusiastic people out there that think the new cars are good – so I’m pretty… I don’t see it like this.

    Franz, do you have anything to add?

    FT: I agree with Guenther. For me, the race in Melbourne was quite an interesting race because it was a close race. There were many cars within a few tenths of a second and the overtaking manoeuvres in Melboure are always difficult, it was always in the past the case. We must wait now the first three races to get a clearer picture – but the cars are looking much better, much more aggressive and I think the direction was OK. The rest we will see during the season.

    Cyril, anything to add?

    CA: No, nothing much to add. I believe it’s a little bit too early to judge. We need to give a chance to the product. It’s an interesting formula in many aspects. I think strategy will play a different role, qualifying will play a different role. You will have in this new formula to execute everything perfectly well, so I think it puts the onus on the teams here at track to make sure you get also to the right setup, so everything is perfectly executed. It’s a different challenge, an interested challenge, certainly it is to live from inside. Obviously we also need to care about the fan out there, so answering your question about who we should listen to. We should also listen to the fans – but that’s one of the things I believe Liberty and FOM in its new format, which is also to look at surveys, trying to understand what the fan really wants. Not think for the fan but listen to the fan for themselves.

    Bob?

    RF: From our side, sitting on the pitwall, we had two drivers that did two incredible overtaking manoeuvres. Certainly it got my attention on both occasions. I think they were exceptional manoeuvres and, from a strategy point of view it’s actually quite interesting because it’s bought a new dynamic into it. We now have both the undercut and the overcut process and I think it’s going to be one of those things that’s going to prove very interesting as we move into the year.

    Monisha, anything to add?

    MK: Well, it’s all been said. You have to wait and see. It’s just the first race, it’s a very unique race and that’s always been the case. When these rules were bought in, we all knew what the negative sides would be and that the positives side was mainly to have more attractive cars, and I do think most of the fans actually like that. So we’ve achieved one target. And the other issues are to do overall with the competition. We should just take it from here and try to find other things, other rules that we can also target more at the other issues you raise. It’s an ongoing process but I think it’s kicked off very positively.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) To the four independents or privateer teams and then a separate follow-up to Cyril. Could you see yourselves, given that there’s no clear guarantee of engine parity going forward regardless of regulation changes, could you see yourselves clear to retaining the current engine formula provided the price is dropped? And then to Cyril, given that the manufacturers have spent most of the money already on this particular engine formula, does it really make sense to consider dumping it just when it’s on the cusp of being reliable and highly competitive?

    MK: Well, as a private team, we understand that from the engine manufacturer’s perspective you have to represent certain technologies and that doesn’t go against our businesses or our business models as such. Where it’s gone terribly wrong is on the costs. We certainly want a movement that is irrespective of the technology which is being used. The other aspect we  – like all other teams, irrespective of if you’re private or not – have to consider is what it’s done to the show and that’s where a lot of criticism is coming from –  all the discussions around the sound – and so  as a private team, these are more important issues to us and we have to find a balance overall that what is necessary for manufacturers to stay in there, what do they want to showcase in here… but it has to be making the competition a good one, so that we all actually have certain chances in there; it has to be affordable and the fans should like it, because at the end of the day we’re doing this for the fans.

    GS: I think, on the cost, sometimes what we were thinking is that the engine which is developed now it’s never finished being developed but it’s at a good level, so I think the cost should come down or you freeze the engine. Sometimes, keeping something you know – and like it was done with the V8s, to freeze the engine spec –  that would make it cheaper, if we go for the cheap and a very high technology. So now, jumping to a potentially cheap version of some kind of engine, but starting development from new, could be more expensive than keeping this engine with the high technology just to freeze  or to reduce investment, so that’s another idea which needs to be discussed, between the engine manufacturers, but I’m sure they will come up with some ideas and that will be one of the things I guess somebody will come up with, if we keep this. The technology in this engine is amazing for everybody involved in engines, this is an amazing technology, so now we go backwards and maybe invest more money to develop something which is actually not as sophisticated as this. So I think it needs to be evaluated as well, if maybe from a certain point on. All their engines are the same, we freeze the engine like we did with the V8s, that would be a possibility. But again, in the engine group, we as independents have not got a lot of influence so we can just voice our opinion outside of the group and say maybe that’s an option. So I hope they weigh up that option as well because I don’t know, just to go to a potentially cheaper engine, if that’s the right way, and reduce the technology. As Monisha said, there may be an issue with the noise but it will never be perfect whatever we do so there is some give and take and maybe we could live with that.

    RF: I think there is a little bit of work which could perhaps be done to address some of the issues, particularly the noise and simplify the base technology, but I think I agree with everybody else. I think that the principle of the current engine shouldn’t just be abandoned, a lot of work has gone into it but I think it could be simplified a little bit. I think a lot of the things that we’re doing perhaps go beyond what even the most sophisticated of fans is understanding, so we could come back a little bit, get the cost right, obviously get the power and the noise right and move forward but you don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    FT: I nearly agree with what’s been said so far. For me the pillar for the new engine is the parity – there must be a chance that there is parity between the different manufacturers because without it they can’t contribute anything to the show and they do something. It cannot be that some cars are far ahead. We will see now what’s going on during the rest of the season. The second pillar is the costs. The current engine is simply far too expensive. From the technology side, it’s a fantastic engine, it’s extraordinary technology but it’s therefore also very very expensive. And the third point is the noise;  we need to bring in some music and these are the criterias and I think, regarding the parity and the costs, this is now in the hands of the people who make the regulations and if the development is restricted from the beginning onwards with very strong regulations then I think we will achieve the goals with the parity and the costs and the sound, it should be able to find a solution that the fans are happy with, the music of this new engine.

    Q: So let’s get the view of a manufacturer now? Cyril?

    CA: I feel a bit under the spotlight. I think one thing is that we cannot be stubborn, or we cannot be deaf to what obviously we’ve been constantly hearing since we introduced those new engine regulations. I think fundamentally there were very good things introduced with that new engine formula. With the previous V8s, we believe that clearly Formula One had lost contact with the direction that automotive was taking so something had to be done. Maybe we’ve been a step too far, we’ve been a bit moving from something that was a bit too old-fashioned to something that is maybe too modern, too complex, too sophisticated, too expensive. We need to be a bit careful about solutions that seem to be easy like freezing current engines because if we freeze the current engine we will freeze something that is extremely expensive and costs will not go down. Development costs for manufacturers may go down but supply costs to the teams will not go down simply because the bill for material of the engine is extremely expensive because of its sophistication. So I think that again that it seems there is a common view about the diagnosis of the current regulations and what we would need in order to build from there, without starting again from scratch, over and over again, but I think the devil will be in the detail and it’s not going to be that easy to find a solution that satisfies everyone and achieves everything, so I think it will be about prioritising and that’s where I hope that the new process in partnership between the FIA and FOM with Ross Brawn – who has a fantastic understanding of all the complexity involved – will provide a good leadership for the discussion. I think everyone agrees that there should be some element of electrification. We don’t necessarily see some road relevance or contribution to the show to an element like MGU-H, so that this orientation for the future, I think the whole debate would be on the architecture of the internal combustion engine which will be an interesting debate and some things that I guess will keep us busy for the next few months.

    Q: What would you like to see, how many cylinders?

    CA: There is what I like and there is what we need. I don’t think that Formula One can afford to turn its back on some things that are relevant to the manufacturer, given the current business model of Formula One. Formula One could completely change to a different business model and go for something that is really different  and not road-relevant but that would be a brave manoeuvre. As far as I’m concerned, I started with the sound of the V10 and that’s something that I will never forget obviously, but that’s just me. The new generation, the generation that we need to attract – because it’s not just about the current fans of Formula One, we also need to think about the fans that we do not have – those fans have never heard the sound of a V10 and maybe for those fans, getting back to a V10 or V8, is not so relevant. So it’s a complex debate and an interesting debate and I hope it’s going to be done in a constructive and also documented manner and again that’s where I believe all the surveys that are going on, all that will also go on in the course of this year will be instructive for the direction that we need to take.

  • 2016 Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2016 Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES:

    Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault Sport)

    Toto WOLFF (Mercedes)

    Eric BOULLIER (McLaren)

    Maurizio ARRIVABENE (Ferrari)

    Christian HORNER (Red Bull Racing)

    Gene HAAS (Haas F1)

     

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Cyril, let’s begin with you – welcome back as a Renault works team. Great history, 35 wins, two world championships and 100 podiums. How tough will it be to repeat those records against today’s competition?
    Cyril ABITEBOUL: I think it will be very tough and I know that there were a lot of comments regarding the time that it took us to make our decision last year. It’s not so much the appetite to be in Formula One but to be in a capacity to be successful in Formula One, that was the question mark. So we come in that competition with lots of humility. As you mentioned we have been there fro quite a long period of time, almost 40 years but we equally we know that the level has raised considerably. So we know it’s going to take time; it’s a long journey, a long-term plan but we think we have all the ingredients – financial, technical, the support of a large group – to make that a successful one. We’re going to take it step by step but it’s absolutely possible.

    What’s the plan for the engine this year? You’ve not used so many tokens so far. Do you expect to be close to Ferrari and Mercedes by the end of the season?
    CA: Well, actually, I think that this is a demonstration that we have used little tokens but I hope in connection to the fact that we have made a substantial step in terms of performance will be actual evidence that there is no connection between token use and performance. You can use a lot of tokens and bring absolutely nothing in terms of lap time, which actually is maybe something we did last year. I think the whole debate of tokens should go away and we should focus on performance. There is a plan to use more tokens during the course of the season, that’s the plan and we have made lots of comments about that. Hopefully it will happen, both for the benefit of the Renault works team and also Red Bull.

    Maurizio, coming to you – Sebastian told us here yesterday in the press conference he feels Ferrari has enough to challenge Mercedes this year. Tell us about the effort that has gone on behind the scenes to raise the level?
    Maurizio ARRIVABENE: We are doing our job. We are working very hard during the winter and we know where we are, but where you really are depends on what the other competitors are going to be. During this weekend we will know.

    We’ve got some new rules this year, qualifying rules, team radio rules, tyre rules etc coming into force, what differences do expect these to make, especially in the qualifying we’ll see tomorrow.
    MA: I don’t want to be against any changes, Ferrari don’t want to be against the change, I simply think that maybe giving a bit more time to the team to work on ideas was better. But I can’t say so with a certainty. The only certainty is that more probably tomorrow at the beginning of the qualifying we are going to see a line like on Saturday at the cashier of the supermarket – everybody wants to go out. Then we will see. It’s not fair to criticize before that has happened.

    Eric, your thoughts on that, the new regulations?
    Eric BOULLIER: Well, we’ll see this weekend. There is some upside and downside. The qualifying format we had before, I think we all agree, was a successful format. We were used to it. I think it is true that there will be more traffic at the beginning of each qualifying segment and there should be more unpredictability for the final result, but we will see.

    It was a tough year for McLaren last year to say the least. What’s the winter been like at Woking and what do you expect for 2016?
    EB: Well, I think every year we keep working harder and harder. It was a very, very busy winter for us. We’ll see. Obviously there is a lot of progress. We have been able to work through this Friday this weekend, which is good for both Honda and McLaren. We will see where we are. Obviously we don’t want to overpromise everything. We will go step by step and there is still some more to come.

    Coming to you Gene, a very warm welcome to Formula One. Your start-up has been a few years in the development. How does the reality match up to the expectation?
    Gene HAAS: Well, I’m nervous. I think there are a lot of things going on here that I’m new to and the team is new too. So, putting all of the pieces of the puzzle together along with all the personnel and having it all come together for the first time has been a learning experience. That’s really what we’re here for is to learn how Formula One really operates from the ground floor. Your can watch this racing your whole life but there’s nothing like being a participant to really understand it and I have a lot of respect for the teams that are here and the level of technical competence you have to have to even start one of these races. I’m pretty much in awe. It’s a challenge and I hope it’s a lot of fun.

    You’ve done it before, of course. You built a NASCAR team from scratch, won races, won championships. Formula One is obviously a different ball game from NASCAR but what would success in Formula One on a global scale mean to you?
    GH: I think you have to look at it in terms of years. I have the feeling that if you over-anticipate what you can do in the sport it will humble you very quickly. I think the first year or two just to be able to come to the races, be competitive, not make any major mistakes would be a tremendous achievement. I know a few of our drivers are hoping to score some points and that would certainly be an accomplishment.

    Christian, coming to you – a new season, several new partnerships for the team. It feels, maybe from the outside, a little bit like a team in transition. What’s the plan for the next stage?
    Christian HORNER: I think that it’s exactly that. I think we are in transition and I think we are hopefully getting on an upward curve now. We’ve had a positive winter, a busy winter. All the teams work hard. You know if you come into Formula One everybody works hard and arguably the smaller teams work the hardest as they have the least resource. But it’s about working smartly and I think this winter the team has worked not only hard but creatively and cleverly. We have a good basis of a car to develop throughout the year and with the different partnerships we have introduced, some exciting partnerships, welcoming Tag Heuer to the team not only as a sponsor but as branding on our power unit and also the announcement yesterday with Aston Martin, it’s very exciting for Red Bull Advanced Technologies.

    Coming back to the discussion about the rules, specifically on the team radio I’m interested. What are your thoughts on those restrictions and the repositioning of the driver as very much the man in control, the decision-maker?
    CH: Well I guess like modern technology these days and how people communicate, we’re working by text – maybe to SMS the driver would be an easier way, because we’re not allowed to say much these days. I think it’s going to be a voyage of discovery and I hope we haven’t gone too far on the radio stuff, because that’s taking away an element of dialogue between the engineer and the driver and some of that from behind the scenes can be quite entertaining, some it X-rated, but quite enthralling for the fans. We’ve got quite a few changes to take on board this year, let’s see how it goes.

    Coming to you Toto, obviously the last couple of years some records that pushed the boundaries a bit beyond where they have been before. But nothing lasts forever, as I’m sure Christian will tell you. How nervous do you feel and do you think you have enough this year to hold everyone at bay?
    Toto WOLFF: Before I answer the question, first of all I’d like to welcome the group and if you listen to what he says, that is certainly the right approach to enter Formula One. He’s been successful in NASCAR and obviously with his own company and I have no doubt that you will be successful in what you do here. You have to stay on your toes, that’s clear. You can be caught out quickly, either by regulations or just by not taking the right decisions and we’ve seen that over the last couple of years. There is a constant skepticism whether we have done a good enough job over the winter and we’re going to know more tomorrow.

    Mercedes has some young drivers coming through the system – Pascal Wehrlein racing here with Manor, Esteban Ocon coming through and seconded to Renault as a reserve. Will we see more of this sort of development of drivers coming through from Mercedes in the next couple of years?
    TW: I think it’s a good development. In the past it was only Red Bull holding up young drivers and transitioning them into Formula One on merit and now with Renault coming in and having Esteban Ocon, Kevin Magnussen being back in a car, Pascal Wehrlein in a Manor and an additional team which has financial resource, I think it’s good news and hopefully we will see more good young people come into Formula One based on merit. For us certainly it’s about finding the right places. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to start an inflationary system and just enter many young kids if you don’t have a place in Formula One. With Esteban and Renault I think we found a good solution for our mutual benefit. Equally with Pascal, a completely different challenge for him this year than last and we’ll see how that pans out.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Martin Moravec – DPA) Maurizio, last year you said that if Ferrari would win four races then you would go into the hills of Maranello barefoot. What would you do this year if Ferrari becomes World Champion?
    MA: I’ll let you know when it’s happened.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Last month the Commercial Rights Holder was quoted as saying “this sort of thing is what is commonly known as a cartel and cartels are illegal. We are running something that is illegal. On top of all that it is anti-competitive.” Given the EU laws etcetera and also the complaint that’s also recently been filed, is Formula One really being run as a cartel? How do you feel about this comment? Any comeback on that?

    TW: Hi Dieter! It’s nice to start all over again. First of all, when you’re looking at today’s press conference, there’s a lot of positivity around what’s happening. Red Bull has bought Aston Martin back into the sport, a mega-brand. Renault is back as an official works team, Haas has entered the sport, an American team. But having said that, I don’t think there is any cartel around here, nor is the sport run as a cartel. Bernie is always good for controversy and throwing one in. If that were to run like a cartel we wouldn’t be sitting here. Some of us are part of multi-national global companies and we’re taking compliance very seriously. So… it just causes headlines but nothing else.

    Maurizio?
    MA: I think this talk of a cartel is simply ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. Everybody, they are doing their job, they try to do their best. We are talking here about brands who have a long story. They are not going to throw out of the window their story, their reputation for this comment that they don’t deserve even one word. I have to say, it’s strange because in this world you have to be careful sometimes because, if you are talking a bit more with somebody, if I’m going to go to the dinner with Toto or Cyril, I do a cartel? It’s simply a dinner! We have to learn something from rugby, that when you are in the field, you play very hard, you punch, whatever you have to do. And then afterwards, they go to the dinner and no-one is talking about having a cartel or creating some mismatch during the match. It’s simply ridiculous.

    Cyril?
    CA: No, I would not agree with that definition of cartel for the simply reason that we are all in a competitive environment, so at the end of the day Ferrari wants to win against Mercedes and hopefully one day Renault will want to win, I don’t know, against Ferrari. So, for that simple reason, any sort of unity will not last. So I will not agree with you. I will not concur with that. Plus, you have to accept that only a limited number of manufacturers have the financial capacity to subsidise the cost of the technology in accordance with the current regulation that we have all accepted. So no, I would not concur with that view.

    Christian, you’re on the outside of the manufacturer equation, what’s your perspective?
    CH: Look, I think you can understand that Bernie’s frustrated and his comments are borne out of frustration of being unable to influence change. You’ve got a dynamic in Formula One at the moment where the manufacturers collectively have a lot of strength. That primarily is through the technical regulations and the current situation regarding the power unit. I think Bernie’s frustration as a promoter is that he can’t influence that at this point in time. His comments obviously I think have come off the back of that. Our situation is different to that of a manufacturer team. As an independent team we rely on the manufacturers for the supply of an engine and, of course, there’s been great debate as to what price that engine should be, what format it should be and, of course, you have a divergence of performance as well. So, there’s some key issues that do need to be addressed. Hopefully consensus and agreement can be found on that in the near future.

    Eric, do you have a view on that?
    EB: I think it’s been debated.

    Gene?
    GH: Well, I think the complexity of the engine- turbo-electrical package was maybe underestimated by everybody, including Bernie and the teams of how hard it would be to build. It would seem to me that maybe in hindsight that maybe if there had been a price that had been set initially that said ‘this is what is has to be built for and what you have to sell to the teams for’ maybe the manufacturers would have had to make a compromise, saying “well, we can’t build the current package for that money, we’ll have to compromise.” I think it’s something that just wasn’t anticipated and unfortunately… I can certainly tell you what I know about the Ferraris is that the money they put into their [power unit] is probably well worth what they charge us for those packages but unfortunately that kind of technology doesn’t really make it back to the fan base, which is the people that we rely on. So, going forwards, those sort of things, cost, has certainly to be part of the equation before they make any kind of rulings.

    Q: (Peter Habicht – The Auto Channel) I have to two-part question, Gene, the first is to you and the next is to the team principals. So Gene, all credit to you, Gunther and the team and bringing America back to the sport after nearly 30 years. While there’s been little time for nostalgia, now that you’re here has there been anything more you’d like to share about your experience so far this weekend with American fans back home. And, to the rest of the team principals, do you have any words of advice for Gene?
    GH: Well, I tell you all of a sudden I’m sitting here in awe that I’m sitting among all these team principals from Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault and Honda and Red Bull, that’s pretty awesome for someone who… you look at these things in magazines. To be sitting among this group of elite is humbling, I can say that. It’s been a long journey, I’m not sure how I really got here but here I am. I think, if you probably ask everybody here, how you wind up here is somewhat unique. Things in life, I guess  you have to grab them. This is just part of the process of being able to compete at this level. It’s just awe inspiring. I know there’s some hard times ahead but I’m looking forward to it. Looking forward to the challenge.

    As for words of advice from the other team principals, maybe start with Christian.
    CH: I think it’s fantastic to have Haas join Formula One as an independent team, as a really credible independent team. Formual One’s a big challenge, it’s great to have an American, and a true American presence in Formula One. Words of advice… get a good lawyer!

    Eric?
    EB: Very similar. I think it’s very exciting for Formula One to have, as Christian said, a true American team and an American character like Gene joining us who had a deep understanding of racing, who has also useful experience in America with NASCAR, which he could share and I would be very happy to hear sometime. I don’t have any advice to give. He knows about racing enough and he is serious about what he had built already and I think it is going to be a nice surprise and maybe a difficult but a nice journey in Formula One.

    Cyril, you’re in a Renault shirt now but you were a team principal of a start-up. Any advice for Gene?
    CA: I was expecting that one. No. I think it’s interesting. I understand that you’re following and it’s interesting to see a new model, in particularly a collaboration with Ferrari because I think that there is a whole field of collaboration between teams which is not explored at this point in time by most teams, so I think I’ll be really curious and, to be honest, a bit frightened to see what it gives on Saturday. In terms of pieces of advice, I’ve heard a lot of people come in with big plans, willing to do things completely differently. So, don’t try to do things too differently because the good old recipes, they also work.

    Toto?
    TW: I think Gene doesn’t need any advice. He has done it very successfully in NASCAR and much more successful than all of us with his own company. If there is advice in Formula One it’s to manage expectations – because pressure is going to increase the better the results are and, the way you’ve been doing it, keeping both feet on the ground and staying humble, I think is the right approach.

    And Maurizio, presumably you speak all the time?
    MA: I think that what I have to say, we are talking most of the time about teams that left or want to leave Formula One and not enough about people like Gene. He’s a serious person, financially reliable, committed and with a lot of experience. I don’t have to give him any advice – but I have to congratulate people like Gene Haas, that they want to invest in Formula One and they want to take this sport seriously and not as a kind of speculation. In terms of a lawyer, he got a good lawyer – but he’s using his lawyer properly.

    Q: (Flavio Vanetti – Corriere della Serra) Maurizio, yesterday we read some quotes from president Marchionne. Is he putting too much pressure on the team or is he right to say that Ferrari is ready to win all the time?
    MA: If your editor is asking you to sell more copies, it is putting pressure on you. It’s normal that the president, when you do something, is not asking you, the following year, to do less than what you have done. The role of the president is to push his people to do better, better and better. If he’s going to create pressure this is normal, this is part of our job, this is part of any kind of job. He’s doing his role. He was giving to us what we were asking for and he’s pushing us to strive for the best.

    Q: (Peter Windsor – F1 Racing) Christian, you expressed some misgivings about the radio communication rules, which I’m sure some of us agree with. I personally agree with you but is there not a disconnect here, because we tend to think that nothing happens unless you guys have agreed to make it happen? Or am I wrong there? Can we not blame you for having it in the first place?
    CH: Not me personally, hopefully not. Look, I think out of well intention, sometimes we don’t think through the consequences. The intention of restricting the radio is that the drivers need to drive the car and I don’t think anybody enjoys hearing a driver being told how to operate his car. I think the problem that we have is that the complexity of these cars is so great now and the assistance that is required from the pit wall and behind the scenes is very different to Formula One of even three, four years ago. And it’s finding that line: is it right to help a driver find a bit of clear space in traffic or to pit now and so on? I think it’s going to be a bit of a voyage of discovery with this rule and I think applying it to the operation of the car is one thing; applying it to other sporting measures… we need to find that right balance and I’m not sure we’re going to achieve that immediately in one weekend.
    Q: (Peter Windsor – F1 Racing) Just to come back on that point, if you’re going to take away the radio, surely the logical thing is to replace that with other radio, because the fans do love to hear the radio, it’s part of the show now? And hearing the technology on the radio was actually a good thing, I think.
    CH: Absolutely, I think there’s entertainment through the radio and I think that what’s fascinating is to hear these guys communicating at the speeds that they’re achieving and in the heat of the battle – that radio content can produce good entertainment behind the scenes for the fans and it’s finding that balance. The bit that you should really hear is the intercom because there’s a far more interesting discussion going on on the pit wall on the intercom than there is on the radio and we, for sure, would love to hear the Mercedes intercom.

    Q: (Leon Alepidis – F1Fan.gr) Question to Mr Boullier: we presume that this season McLaren will be fighting with the midfield teams instead of at the front for the title, no title sponsor yet and two expensive drivers. Would you say that for now or with hindsight for the past that there has been a mistake, plans for investment for the development of the car instead of putting all this money into the drivers without having an actual good car to drive from the start of the project?
    EB: Well, definitely we at McLaren had a difficult year last year and we are not where we want to be and definitely we have the ambition to be. If you want to be the winning team you need to have all the best elements and if you have the best drivers before the best chassis or the best engine it’s a risk but it’s also a challenge than for the chassis and the engine to be the best. I think that as far as we are concerned, in terms of money, we have signed three new sponsors this year: Chandon, Richard Mille, Volvo Trucks. We have renewed another three sponsors. We are part of the McLaren Group which is profitable this year so I don’t think we have any issues on this part of the business. After that, it is just to be the best combination to catch Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull and others.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Cyril, amongst all the announcements and personnel movements and promotions, one name wasn’t mentioned at all and that’s Rob White. Is he still with the company, what is he doing, is he involved?
    CA: Yes, he’s involved, he’s part of the company. There will be more announcements regarding the exact management structure in Enstone and in Viry but in particular in Viry after the appointment of Remy Taffin as our new technical director, so there will be more coming, so I will invite you to the staff meeting that we will do in that respect.

    Q: (Dan Knutson – Auto Action and Speedsport Magazines) Christian, in this room yesterday, Dan Ricciardo was asked about these rumours of Ferrari and among the things he said was that he’s completely focused on Red Bull and this season and then “not exactly out of contract either.” I realise these things are confidential but can you enlighten us a bit?
    CH: Yeah, he’s under contract, so I think he was pretty accurate with his comment. Red Bull invests in these guys at a young age, they develop them, they give them the opportunity through the Junior team and Toro Rosso. Sebastian Vettel was a prime example of that, Daniel Ricciardo is doing an excellent job, Dany Kvyat and the two exciting talents we obviously have in Toro Rosso. The contractual situation we have with Daniel Ricciardo is extremely clear. How long? That’s confidential.

  • F1 engine token system to be scrapped

    F1 engine token system to be scrapped

    Renault Sport F1’s managing director Cyril Abiteboul says that the controversial Formula One engine token system is set to be scrapped in 2017.

    In return for reducing the cost of power units for customer teams by 2017 the engine manufacturers will be allowed more freedom to develop. Drivers would still be limited as far as the number of engines they may use per season and penalties would be enforced for those who exceed that limit which should keep the amount of updates a team introduces during the course of a season down to a reasonable number.

    Abiteboul hopes that the change will make engine regulations easier for fans to understand also also allow other teams to catch up with Mercedes, ending their absolute dominance on the grid.

    “The token system is being removed,” Abiteboul was quoted as saying.

    “One of the reasons we have all agreed to do this is that we all need the performance of the engine to converge. An F1 that is dictated by the performance of the engine is not good for anyone.

    “You see it is not good for Mercedes, it is not good for Renault, Ferrari – we all have interest to change that. We have decided, also for the public, to stop the public being confused between the penalty system, the token system – we have decided to simply remove the token system.”

    The 2016 F1 season however will still engine see manufacturers restricted to 32 development tokens over the course of this season – the same as for the 2015 season.

  • 2015 Formula 1 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2015 Formula 1 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES:

    Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault)

    Maurizio ARRIVABENE (Ferrari)

    Federico GASTALDI (Lotus)

    Christian HORNER (Red Bull Racing)

    Claire WILLIAMS (Williams)

    Toto WOLFF (Mercedes)

     

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Cyril, it’s been a little while since you’ve been here joining us in the press conference. You’ve been talking a little bit recently about next year – larger budgets etc – but can you tell us what exactly Renault will be doing next year in Formula One?

    Cyril ABITEBOUL: Well I’m afraid I can’t answer to that question. I would like to be in a position to be able to answer to that questions, but I am not today. What I can say is that there will be no announcement regarding Renault’s future – short-term or middle-term future – over the weekend, but there will be an announcement, very likely, in the course of next week. We have always said that we would like to do that after the season. Thee season is ending on Sunday, around the start of December and that is what we will do stick to that plan, which is to make an announcement then.

    OK, Federico, if I could come to you, where does that leave you and your thoughts on this?

    Federico GASTALDI: Well, we are on the same page. As I keep saying we have been working, all the time, actually since the Singapore race. We have Renault people already at the factory and it doesn’t change anything. They are the ones who have to announce. We cannot push Renault to make the decision because it’s their call.

    Christian, coming to you, you were quoted this morning as saying that you know now for sure what engine you are going to use next year, but clearly no announcement yet, so what’s holding that up?

    Christian HORNER: Well, we have and agreement in place for next year, so it’s great news that we will be on the grid next year, but unfortunately due to circumstance beyond our control we can’t announce exactly what that is. Perhaps Toto can tell you?

    Toto?

    Toto WOLFF: Can I?

    Coming back to you then Cyril, can you give us a sense of what it’s been like in the past weeks and months, the work that’s gone on behind the scenes and also your own personal ambitions for the brand?

    CA: It’s typical Formula One. I think it has been a proper rollercoaster for us, for me, but also for the whole team, for a lot of people involved, I should say technical people involved in the engine programme. Clearly, Federico made reference to the work being done between Lotus and Renault and it’s fair to say that there is a process going on since the signing of the letter of interest on the 28th of September, there is a process involving a lot of people. I think 50 people have been working night and day on the realisation of a possible acquisition of a majority stake in Lotus. It’s just a project, It’s been a proper rollercoaster, very exciting. I have to say there has been a little bit of frustration on the track. We would have liked to do a better job for Red Bull and Toro Rosso engine-wise, but we always knew it was a long-term game to fix the issues we had. We have not managed to deliver a product that was in accordance to what we would have liked to do with those new regulations, so hopefully we will have the strategy, the time and the resouces to do that in the next few years.

    Thank you for that. Coming back to you Federico, clearly this weekend again a race against time for the mechanics to get the garage and the cars prepared for today’s sessions. Not the first time this has happened. Can you explain the background?

    FG: We have been open in explaining what happened with the team. As everyone knows we have some financial issues. We have been trying to work out a new procedure where the team spends less money. So fortunately between Renault and the shareholders and Mr Ecclestone we kept going but again it’s just the situation we are in in Formula One at the moment. Genii have done a fantastic since they got involved in the team in 2010. We have had podiums, won races, so for a small private team it’s not a bad job.

    Tank you. Coming back to you Christian, can you give us your reaction to the outcome of this week’s F1 Commission meeting and the direction taken, the direction from here in terms of the minimum number of teams that a manufacturer should supply and things like the simplification and cost of the engines. Maybe you could give us your thoughts on those items?

    CH: Earlier in the week there was a positive discussion in the Strategy Group where the independent engine was discussed as an alternative product to being into Formula One and I think the reasons that the FIA and the promoter are keen on that is because costs are obviously critically high and as we have seen availability is also a key issue. So that was discussed in the Strategy meeting and it passed through the Strategy meeting. It then went to he Formula One Commission where despite a lot of the teams voicing concerns about costs the vote for the independent engine at that point wasn’t carried through. However, as a compromise position the manufacturers agreed and were requested to report back to the Commission by the 15th of January a solution to the current issues – a cheaper product, a more affordable product, a more available product and something that could potentially entice other manufacturers to come into Formula One. I think that the situation as we see it is that subject to what the manufacturers come back with by the 15th will depend whether or not the FIA feel the need to proceed with an independent engine to meet that criteria. So, it’s going on at the moment obviously, the time between now and the 15th of January is going to be a critical and busy period to define what this new power unit should be and what the cost and availability criteria are going to be.

    Can I throw that across to you then Toto, your thoughts on what Christian’s just said and the likelihood of a resolution?

    TW: The outcome is public and the independent engine concept with a balance of performance has not been approved. Nevertheless we are all pretty aware that you need to work on your product and develop your product and there are certainly aspects of that engine which can be looked at – costs of supplies is a very legitimate cause. The situation where a team might end up having no engine needs to be addressed and this is the task we have taken away. Is there an alternative concept from 2018 onwards which can address some of these topics, including the noise factor, question mark. We are looking at this and mid-January we are going to come back with hopefully a concept that is workable, financeable and that ticks all those boxes.

    Maurizio, can you give us Ferrari’s position on this?

    Maurizio ARRIVABENE: Already at the Strategy Group level the power units manufacturers they were more than keen to discuss about the 2018 engine with all the characteristics described before by Toto. So it was not a new news. Afterwards, at the F1 Commission the alternative engine was stopped and tomorrow the power manufacture companies are going to meet and we are going to seriously work on the new solution.

    Claire, coming to you, in a season where many independent teams have had a rocky road, you have managed to sail on fairly serenely. What’s been the secret?

    Claire WILLIAMS: I don’t know what the secret is. I think we just tend to keep our heads down and get on doing what we love doing and that’s going racing. We’ve worked hard over the past two years in order to turn this team around. We’ve made a lot of changes within the team and fortunately a lot of those changes are paying off. We’ve managed to secure third in the Constructors’, which is fantastic and testament to all the hard work that has gone in behind the scenes to try to turn this team around over the past 18 months. I’m really proud of the team and the job they have done this year. I think everyone knows though that there is almost a sense of disappointment that we’re third at Williams. We want to be winning races and fighting for that world championship. We’ve made some mistakes this year that have been fairly visible for people to see and we need to improve upon our operations to make sure we don’t make those mistakes next year and we can continue to improve in 2016.

    Tell us about the signing of Lance Stroll, former Ferrari Young Driver Academy prospect. You’ve signed him up, what’s the plan for him?

    CW: Lance is joining our young driver programme, starting next year. We will doing some simulator work with him to try to improve him as a driver. As everyone knows Williams enjoys nurturing young talent and we’ve identified Lance to take on that role next year. He’ll be doing simulator work with our guys at the factory and he will be undertaking a team immersion programme, so similar to the programme we did with Valtteri many years ago now. So he’ll be doing that and we’ll be supporting his season in Formula 3 next year and hopefully he will have a great season and we’;ll see where he ends up at the end of ’16.

    Thank you for that. Coming back to you Toto, a record-breaking season comes to an end this weekend. You’ve been beaten only by Ferrari and Maurizio this season. How do you assess that challenge and do you expect a title challenge from them next year? 

    TW: From the numbers it was indeed a very successful season and I am very happy and satisfied with how it went and there is a great buzz in the team and spirits are high but in Formula One as in many other sports and business only tomorrow’s result counts and this is why we are looking very much forward to next season. Ferrari is about best ‘frenemy’ and they have stepped up a lot over the winter. Clearly in Malaysia it came with a bit of a shock win and it was good for us to see that and I think generally they have done a good job and for F1 it is important that you have more teams competitive in the front fighting with each other, as much as you would like tot see it as a comfortable situation it is not sustainable and the better the platform is the better it is for us all.

    Maurizio, your points of view? Is there belief in Maranello that you can come back here 12 months from now and be fighting for the championship?

    MA: I hope so, because last time I said we would like to stay in front of them, this is an objective. Then last weekend somebody said in Italy, they make a statement in the newspaper ‘yeah, but where they want to go, they are going to be second, Mercedes is going to win’, and I was asking ‘So, what you want me to do in terms of objective? To tell to everybody that I would like to be second next year?’ Of course [to beat them] is our objective but it doesn’t mean we are going to achieve it. But we will try very hard.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special) Can I ask the three manufacturer teams: if there was an equivalency formula, would you still be here?

    TW: Formula One is not a place, in my point of view, that should have an equivalency formula. It is very much the World Championship and the pinnacle of the best drivers, the best cars, the best engineering and I think it is important to understand what our DNA is and it has functioned very well over a long period of time. Doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be things we’re looking at and changing for the future but an equivalency formula, balance of performance wouldn’t be Formula One any more.

    Cyril?

    CA: It depends on the formula, y’know? Seriously, I think in addition to what Toto has mentioned about the DNA of the sport, the biggest hurdle I can see is that when there is distribution of something like a couple of hundreds of millions that are distributed on a yearly basis, I would not want to be the guy who has to sign off the formula that will decide the distribution. I think that will be opening the doors to an awful lot of discussions. There is already a lot of politics and talks in our sport, which I think is part of the game frankly, and of the show, but I think it will be simply way too much. So, clearly I believe, as a Renault representative, I recommend to Renault to stay away from that.

    Maurizio?

    MA: I think we already have an equivalent formula that is so-called Formula Indy. I mean, Formula One, it’s the pinnacle of motorsport so I agree that we need to think about the future in future to reduce the cost but to reduce the cost you need new regulation first. Due to new regulation you can reduce the cost but the competition is distinguished in Formula One and the research from any other motorsport.

    Q: (Ian Parkes – Autosport) Question for Toto. Toto, Esteban Ocon has just announced on Twitter that he’s now a Mercedes AMG F1 driver. Does that mean that he’s taken up the reserve role from Pascal? And can we assume that Pascal is therefore moving on to Manor?

    TW: So, yes, we’ve taken up the option on him because he has been with us now, or has been following the DTM team for a while, has been the test driver in DTM and integrated well and he’s doing a very good job in GP3 as well and he’s somebody we’d very much like to have in the family. This is why we’ve exercised the option. It doesn’t mean that we’ve found a solution for Pascal. The current driver market is a bit difficult because most of the teams have already announced their drivers and it need to be the right deal – but having taken up Esteban we are conscious that we need to find a suitable programme for both of them. It could well mean that it could eventually end up for both of them in a testing role, in a reserve driver role and in a DTM role – so it’s not done yet.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) A question to all of you please. We’re currently talking about 2017 regulations, completely different underbodies etcetera, different aero packages, tyres. At the same time we’re talking about the possibility of a completely different engine concept. Isn’t this indicative of the sort of disjointed approach to Formula One that, on the one side we’re talking about a completely different chassis concept in, sort of, 15 months time, and on the other side, in 18 months or two years, we’re looking at a completely different engine. Should we not co-ordinate these packages together?

    CH: I absolutely agree with you Dieter. We should bring it all in, in 2017.

    Claire?

    CW: I think the conversations are still on-going, I don’t think anything’s been decided yet and I think they’re very early days in those conversations and we’re trying to map out what the best course of action is – but I think you have to remember the reasons behind the fact we’re having these conversations is in order to try and improve our sport and make it the best that it possibly can be – and we’ve still got a bit of a way to go before we do that but I think if you look at the regs that the working groups are working on at the moment around the new car and the chassis etcetera what that’s going to look like and then you look at what we’re trying to do with the engines and bring down the costs of those. If we can get both areas right, then I think in ’17 – and if not, if we have to wait to ’18 so be it – but I think it could make Formula One a much more stable platform that we can all enjoy in the future.

    Federico?

    FG: Well we certainly need the stability but I think there’s still a lot of things to be discussed in order to find a solution that will suit everyone.

    Cyril?

    CA: I believe the processes are exactly the same. On chassis side I think we are trying to improve the product which is already a good product, while on the engine side we are trying to recover from a number of issues that are associated to the current regulations. I think we recognise that, that’s why I guess the process is different and the timing of those two exercises is slightly different.

    Maurizio?

    MA: I think this discussion, it looks less confused than what it is in reality. The chassis is still under discussion and it will be an evolution and not a revolution concerning the engine. The good news is for 2016 and 2017 everything, it’s very clear now, opening also the door to us, because we are still second, to Renault and also to Honda. We will continue to do our job especially. Tomorrow with the first meeting about the new power unit that is supposed to be in 2017. We try to do all of our best but I think even the Wizard of Oz couldn’t be able to do it for 2017. For sure for 2018. So, it’s much more positive than what it looks like.

    Do you agree with that Toto?

    TW: Yeah. There’s some good stuff coming. I think in terms of chassis regulation there’s interesting bits and synchronisation probably makes sense but you need, of course, to look at the costs.

    Q: (Christian Menath – Motorsport-Magazin.com) Question for all of you. In the past it has always been almost impossible to find one way for all the teams, for all the parties in F1 Commission and Strategy Group and so on. Some people say that now things changed a bit in the last meetings. Why now? Is it the alternative engine that was there or…? Why is it possible now and not in the past?

    CH: I suppose when you look at it, the teams have collectively been spectacularly incapable of coming up with solutions and sensible remedies to the problems – and I think the problem we face in Formula One is you’ve got vested interest. Within your own team you try to protect the elements that are your strengths, that offer you that competitiveness over your opponents. And I think this is where Formula One has tripped over itself over previous years and indeed, the engine formula that we’ve ended up with today arguably is a mistake. It’s expensive. The technology is fantastic but we’re not doing a great job of communicating that and I think it’s put a situation where probably half the grid is currently insolvent. I think there’s a fundamental question that needs to be answered and that is: what should Formula One be? I certainly believe that Formula One should be entertainment. It should have a technological interest to it but that needs the promoters and the owners of the sport, together with the regulators to decide what that product is, come up with a set of rules, not let engineers write those rules, they come up with those rules and put them in front of the teams and say “that’s what Formula One is going to be and that’s what it should be for the future,” and they need to bring in some people with the right skillset to be able to define what those regulations are. And there’s good people that aren’t currently in employment within teams at the moment that are impartial, that come up with a set of regulations that are in the best interests of Formula One, that’s going to provide the best show for the fans, for the public, for the paying spectators who are the backbone of what we do because without them there is no show, there is no Formula One and we need to get Formula One back to being a sport that is enthralling to the public.

    Maurizio, do you share that view?

    MA: I think if you are winning races, of course the show is perfect for you. If you are not winning races the show needs improvement. It’s normal. But I think at this stage, I’ve said so many, many times, we need to work all together, really to improve the show, to attract more spectator, especially on the segment, on the younger segment – and I think this is something, it’s an objective because the population of the world TV viewer, reader and so on is getting older and older and older and this is what we have to do. Of course, during the way you find it’s not an easy way to go because of course the people who have an advantage, they want to keep it. The people that doesn’t have any advantage, they are using sometimes this problem to criticize the overall system. I think with great cooperation between all of us, we can solve it.

    Toto, back to the question about the level of consensus, what are your thoughts on that?

    TW: I would just follow Maurizio on that one. Summed it up pretty well.

    Q (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special) This is for the three manufacturers again. You guys represent very, very large companies that have lots and lots and lots of money. Why in the world are you fighting over a few millions when you’re getting the technology that Formula One gives and you’re getting the exposure as well? Why don’t you just settle down, give people a decent price and let’s get on with it?

    Cyril?

    CA: Thank you! Frankly, it’s a good question. At the end of the day, at the end of the road that might be what’s at stake but I think maybe there is some road to cover before we get there. You’re talking about the amount of money that we all have, yes, absolutely, but you know times are difficult. Automotive car makers have their own challenge, they need to invest for their core business which is road car technology that you find on the road, not on the track. We’ve got a number of risks associated to what we do. I’m not talking about motorsport. You are aware of the ‘Dieselgate’ and a lot of us are exposed  – maybe not Ferrari – but a lot of us are exposed to this difficulty, this challenge that the world of carmakers are facing but that’s not the only issue, we’ve got a number of issues, like the currency, like the markets, the lack of confidence of certain customers, so we need to be extremely careful. At the end of the sale, it’s a sales and marketing decision. Basically, we need to demonstrate that investing in Formula One, or spending – because it’s not an investment – spending in Formula One is more cost-efficient than spending, for instance, in the regular advertising or spending in badminton in China. So there is a number of KPIs that we need to follow, that we need to monitor and demonstrate that this is competitive as a marketing spend perspective. At least for a manufacturer, which is a mainstream manufacturer, like Renault, and for which Formula One has always been in the DNA but for which is not a must – there are many carmakers that are very successful and are not in Formula One. So, we need to be extremely careful about whatever can, I would say, threaten or destabilize our business case in Formula One and obviously subsidizing the cost of engines to independent teams – even though we appreciate it might be a necessity to be in the sport and to have a healthy sport but it is something that is endangering the business case. That is the situation.

    TW: It is a situation where all those big OEMs – like everyone else out there – is trimmed on efficiency and particularly the car industry with the problems Cyril has described, are in a constant loop of margins, recalibrating margins, of trimming down costs and Formula One, although it is part of the DNA what we do at Mercedes, because it’s around the car, it needs to have the right price for what you do and this is why you can’t just apply easy-going mentality and say it doesn’t matter if you spend a little bit more or a little bit less. It does because somebody will look at the numbers and somebody will make a decision whether it makes sense or not. And this is why we are aware (that) although we have this big mothership behind us, that it needs to be the right price, it needs to have the right value and we are monitoring that and if we are a having a bad race with a bad audience or not the right viewing numbers in terms of what you deliver to your partners, that’s being considered and that is how we operate.

    MA: You don’t have to mix up the big name of Ferrari. Ferrari has a name that is in a worldwide business, it’s at the top. That doesn’t mean that the budget is in a wordwide business at the top. We need to be careful. Mr Marchionne is not joking about that, to respect the budget that is assigned to us. We are not the kind of company that is throwing money out of the window. That’s the point. So don’t mix up the big name with budget. That’s another story.

    Q: (Chris Lines – AP) Christian, does this new engine supply deal suggest that Red Bull has a fresh commitment to staying in the sport as a constructor, as an owner? And you describe the deal as a transition. I was wondering, a transition towards what?

    CH: Well, to answer the first part of your question, I think it’s no secret that during the summer that Dietrich Mateschitz became fairly disillusioned with Formula One, with the direction that things were heading. He said in conversations that he’d personally had the undertakings that he had that didn’t come to fruition. He is probably the most committed supporter of Formula One over the last ten years, if you look at two Grand Prix teams, a Grand Prix on the calendar, the amount of promotion that Red Bull worldwide puts into Formula One, the young driver programmes, investing in youth and young talent, more than probably 1500 employees across the different teams and markets, regarding the two Formula One projects. So for Red Bull it’s a major major part of their promotional budget spend, that is committed to Formula One, and I think that during the summer months or the latter part of the summer, he was seriously concerned with the direction the sport was heading and what the return of Formula One could ultimately provide. I think that having sat and thought about it, he’s decided that there’s too much at stake, that Red Bull have invested so much into the sport that he wants to see the team get back to its former glory. We’ve got some challenges ahead to achieve that. I think the current constitution of performance obviously in a power unit dominated formula it’s a difficult situation if you’re not aligned to a competitive power unit at this point in time, so 2016 will be a transitional year for us and I think as hopefully regulations come to fruit or come to bear with the changes that Jean Todt is pushing for, that the promoter is pushing for, to achieve a more affordable, more available power unit, can only be a positive thing for any independent team, not just Red Bull but all the other independent teams that are currently on the grid.

    Q: (Ian Parkes – Autosport) Christian, with regard to your remarks about a sole regulatory body, that would suggest that perhaps you’re calling for the abolition of the strategy group and the F1 commission. Is that the case, is that feasible and to the other five, do any of you agree with Christian’s remarks that you would again like to see a sole regulatory body, that the teams would no longer have an input?

    CH: I believe that an input is fine and the teams obviously have an investment in the business, so there’s no reason why things shouldn’t be discussed among the key stakeholders and certain teams obviously are stakeholders. And the strategy group is supposed to be looking at the longevity of Formula One but what the strategy group continually gets embroiled in is fire-fighting issues of the current day. Instead of looking at what should a Formula One car be like in 2020 and beyond, we’re constantly dealing with issues of today and tomorrow, rather than further down the road. So I think that of course there has to be consultation with the teams but at the end of the day, somebody has to run the business, and somebody has to say this is the route that we’re going and a democratic approach to that will not work in our opinion.

    CW: I think it’s a bit of a case of be careful of what you wish for. I think that we’re very lucky that we have – as Williams, as a team – that we have a seat at that table and can be part of the democratic process that we do have in F1 at the moment. I like that, I like being able to be involved but I do think that at the moment, as Christian said, we have a number of agendas on the table and it’s very difficult to get everybody to agree around that table when we’re having discussions and we all run our businesses in very different ways and we all have very different capability within our teams. But I’m not sure if I would subscribe to our sport having a single regulatory body. I think it would be very difficult for everybody around the table.

    FG: Well, I agree with them and I’m sorry to keep repeating the same things but the problem for me is that we are not in the same boat, we are not on the same page and we are not on the same agenda. As Cyril has pointed out before, we are all looking for our own stability as a team individually. It’s hard to have a common approach that will benefit the sport at the end of the day.

    CA: As a Frenchman I am for the dictature (dictatorship) as long as you can chose the dictator. I think it’s fair to say that if we want to be progressive, what Formula One is, maybe there needs to be some form of re-grouping of different groups and functions and something a bit more effective and again progressive. Having said that, there is always some dangers, that again the power can be in the hands of someone who has a particular agenda which can be the individual or collective, I’m not thinking of anyone in particular. But I think on balance, if you look at Formula One I would prefer it to be more progressive than it is, so if that involves a little bit of dictatorship maybe that would be better.

    TW: Can I follow Claire on her opinion? That’s what I would say.

    MA: I think a couple of years ago we had an aero dominating formula, today we have a power unit dominating formula. I think that the right balance should be defining to be sure to make everybody happy. Then the question if we go for a democratic decision or a kind of dictatorial decision is not for me to decide. I mean we have a commercial rights holder, we have a federation but of course we also have the interests of the teams so my aim is to find the right balance for the future and to make everybody happy and working to enhance the show and to go back to a spectacular Formula One.

    Q: (Nahed Sayooh – Autosport Middle East) Maurizio, you have set a target of three wins this season and the team achieved it. What is the target for 2016?

    MA: The target for 2016 is to cancel the smile from the face of my friend Toto.

    Q: (Christopher Joseph – Chicane) Christian, you spoke earlier about the need to communicate the technology aspect of Formula One. Do you think that with the endless discussions about strategy direction, power units etc etc, are we losing the plot in terms of communicating this technology message?

    CH: I think to a degree we are. What these cars achieve with 100 kilos of fuel and the fuel economy they are achieving is impressive but I’m not sure how many fans actually give a damn about that. I think that what they want to see is the drivers who need to be the heroes, racing wheel to wheel and competitive racing. Machines that are Formula One cars are truly spectacular to drive and I think Formula One is the pinnacle of motor sport and it’s competing against an awful lot of other sports that are now demanding television air time. And it’s got to be entertaining from start to finish. I think that that’s what we need to be striving for, that’s what we need to be looking to achieve. Now of course technology plays a role but I don’t believe it needs to be the primary role, that should be about the drivers and out-and-out racing.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Toto, from the pit lane in Brazil, you seemed to indicate that the difference in price to the teams of the new engine to the old engine is about plus twenty percent which works out at ten percent per annum, or if that price gets held for next year, about six percent per anum, which is roundabout six percent of a smaller team’s budget. What’s the big outcry about, why do you want to throw this engine out with the bathwater when in fact there’s only about a six percent difference from one to the other?

    TW: I couldn’t follow you on that calculation. But the main point is that there are lots of numbers out there and lots of wrong numbers out there and as a matter of fact I can only speak for Mercedes because these are the calculations I know, it’s from a previous engine spec: the old eight cylinder engine plus KERS. About the difference to what we have today, it is what you have mentioned, 20 or 25 percent. Is that too much? Maybe. I remember times when I joined Formula One a couple of years ago, the price was around £30m, three-zero plus a driver. Nevertheless, I think it’s legitimate to question the price and obviously the lower the price, the better it is for Formula One, the more sustainable it becomes, the better it is for most of the teams and that is OK and we need to look at it. But the difference is not what’s been said.

  • Renault urges Red Bull to stop public bashing

    Renault urges Red Bull to stop public bashing

    F1 engine manufacturer Renault has urged the Red Bull Racing team to stop “publicly bashing” its efforts to improve on the performance of its power unit as it’s doing more harm than good, according to Cyril Abiteboul, Renault Sport’s F1 managing director.

    Renault has spent its 2015 season struggling to adapt to the new F1 engine regulations. The manufacturer still has quite a power deficit compared to its Ferrari and Mercedes rivals and has only now begun to manage its reliability issues.

    Christian Horner, Red Bull RacingBoth the Red Bull and its customer racing team Toro Rosso have voiced their complaints and concerns with Red Bull Racing being very local about its disapproval of the manufacturer’s efforts. Renault is of the opinion that this has hurt its confidence and Abiteboul believes that this is a key factor in their ability to improve.

    “What I think was needed more than anything was to again build confidence in ourselves,” Abiteboul told Autosport.

    “I compare the situation to 2005 when we designed and built one engine which allowed us to win the championship. I look at the confidence we had back then to do that sort of thing, to shortcut all the processes in terms of validation.”

    “Now, each time we try and speed things up we immediately get sacked on track because of various issues. There’s a vicious circle we need to invert.”

    Abiteboul says that Red Bull needs to stop publicly bashing Renault and says that he is working on changing this factor within their relationship.

    “That is one of the difficulties we have with our relationship with Red Bull. When you are not one single team it is more difficult to again build up the confidence in a group than when you are completely integrated,” he added.

    “That’s one of the things we are working on. We are trying to get Red Bull to support us rather than bash us publicly.”