F1 Madness

Tag: franz tost

  • 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.

  • Red Bull, Haas, and Toro Rosso Launch 2017 Challengers

    Red Bull, Haas, and Toro Rosso Launch 2017 Challengers

    No less than three Formula 1 teams launched their 2017 challengers on the 26th of February.

    On the eve of the commencement of official testing in Barcelona, Spain Red Bull Racing, Haas F1, and Scuderia Toro Rosso took the opportunity to launch their new-for-2017 F1 cars.

    Red Bull Racing’s RB13

    Red Bull was first out of the gate with a short and sweet pre-recorded clip released on several social media sites. The premise of Red Bull’s launch video centered on superstition as 2017 car is the 13th built by the Austrian team. The RB13 retains, mostly, the same livery as in 2016 with subtle changes including a bit more red than is normally present. Nevertheless, the matte finish, introduced, in 2016 has been maintained for the new season. Along with the launch of the RB13 the team touted a new hashtag playing up the connotations of the number 13.

    “We are like a swan on the surface and paddling furiously underneath but that is the same as every preseason so generally we are on target,” said Team Principal Christian Horner.

    Chief Engineering Officer Rob Marshall said: “The car is expected to be between three and five seconds a lap faster and most of that gain will come through cornering speeds where the increased downforce on the car will mean the car will go around the corners quicker.”

     

    Haas F1 Launches the VF-17

    VF17_RIGHT_FRONT_TQA day after filming day pictures were leaked on Twitter, the Haas Formula One team launched their 2017 contender the VF-17.

    In their second year in Formula 1 and their first rule change, the Haas F1 team had a monumental task ahead of them in developing their 2017 car.

    After starting very well in 2016 their season tapered off and although picking up some points they did not finish the 2016 season as strongly as they started.

    The 2017 car with some major changes seems promising for the Kanapolis based team in their mid field fight.

    “I think the pedal box is the same, but all the rest is very different from last year’s car,” said Guenther Steiner, Team Principal of Haas F1.

    “You always try to make a faster car, which is normally a lighter car. Now we can put on more ballast and get better weight distribution.

    “The aero is completely new, as are the tires, so we needed to have some built-in adjustability.

    “Aesthetically, the car has a more aggressive look. It’s lighter and more aerodynamically efficient. Everything we learned from our first car has been applied to our new car.”

     


    Scuderia Toro Rosso’s STR12

    Toro Rosso was the last team to launch their car for the 2017 season. The launch took place at the Circuit de Catalunya a day before the first day of the pre-season test.

    Toro Rosso unveiled their new car the STR12 with a striking new blue and chrome livery. We at F1Madness think that this is the best livery from all the teams.

    Speaking about the new car, Technical Director James Key says that the 2017 rule changes are the biggest changes he’s seen on a car that he can remember.

    “In my 20 years in F1 it’s the biggest chassis change I can remember,” said James Key.

    “In ’98 the narrow track had just arrived and there were various tweaks up to 2009, when a larger change occurred, but other than the front wing it was still based around principles that we knew. These rules however, include a track change, significantly different tyres and a new aero regulation as well.

    “From a chassis point of view it’s all encompassing with a lot of new things to learn.”

    Key believes that teams now have more aerodynamic freedom with car development this season.

    “It’s nice to have a bit more freedom. We probably haven’t had as many aerodynamic tools to play with since 2008, But then the rules tightened up in 2009 and even further in 2014. Now, some freedom has returned and that’s a great challenge for the aero department.”

    Toro Rosso are expecting more this year after switching to Renault Power Units and feel that after last years turn around they can finish higher in the points this season.

     

  • 2016 Formula 1 Mexican Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2016 Formula 1 Mexican Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Dave RYAN (Manor), Franz TOST (Toro Rosso), Eric BOULLIER (McLaren), Robert FERNLEY (Force India), Mike O’DRISCOLL (Williams)

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Bob, if we could start with you, the news broke recently that Nico Hulkenberg is off to Renault. Does his departure weaken the team going forward?

    Robert FERNLEY: No, not necessarily. Nico will certainly be missed because he’s been a great part of Force India and the growing of Force India over the last few years, but we’ll just have to make sure that we replace him with as good as we possibly can.

    Well, a lot of drivers have been linked to your team for 2017, how close are you to making that final choice?

    RF: First of all, I’m not close at all. It’s Vijay’s decision and we’ll start those discussions probably when we get back next week.

    So have you got a deadline in mind as to when you want to have it nailed down?

    RF: No, I don’t think so. I think we’ll take our time, have a look at what offers are on the table, Vijay will make his decision and then we’ll announce it.

    Sergio said in the press conference yesterday that he’s staying at Force India because of the opportunity that the new cars next year will bring. Has the team got the resources and the capability to deliver on those expectations?

    RF: Yes, I think so. What is exciting for us for 2017 is that it’s the first time we are on a reasonably level playing field. We’re not quite the same as the big teams, the big manufacturing teams, but you’ve got restricted aero programmes, it’s the first new generation car that we will do using a 60% model and I think we’ve shown already this year what we can do once we moved up to 60%, so I’m very optimistic that the team will be very competitive in 2017.

    Thank you. Dave, you’ve been in your job for a year now, what were your goals then and have you realised them?

    Dave RYAN: Well, when I arrived it was obviously a team in a bit of a holding pattern but with big ambitions. It became fairly clear to me early on that we needed to attract some different skill sets and some good people, which I’m pleased to say we have. So yeah, we are definitely heading in the right direction. We do need to improve in all areas still, but I think we have come a long way in the past year.

    So looking at the longer term, what can the Manor team become?

    DR: Oh for sure we want to become a strong midfield team. If you look at where we were last year and where we now sit, we’ve made a huge improvement. We need to keep making improvements and our goal is to be a serious and strong midfield team.

    How integral are your current drivers to that ambition?

    DR: Well, the drivers we’ve got we’re very, very happy with, they’re a great couple of lads, but going forward who knows.

    Thanks, Dave. Coming to you Mike: this is the first time you’ve been in an FIA press conference as it’s usually a role filled by Claire Williams for the team. She hasn’t been at any races recently. Why is that and are we likely to see her before the end of the season?

    Mike O’DRISCOLL: I certainly hope so. Frank, as you know, was taken ill at the Monza race. He’s been a fixture in the paddock for so many decades now it’s strange not to have him with us. He’s had a tough time in hospital. He has contracted pneumonia. He is making a recovery, a slow steady recovery. We hope to see him back at Grove very soon. We all know how determined he is. We expect Claire to be back at a race… she has wanted to stay close to home, close to Frank, but in this modern world you are only ever a phone call away, so we stay connected and she’s part of everything that happens on a minute-by-minute, day-by-day basis. We hope to see her by the end of the year and hopefully that will be Abu Dhabi and this will be maybe my first [press conference] but it might be my last as well, so thanks for having me!

    Pleasure to have you! Williams have had a difficult season in which you’ve slipped backwards. From your perspective, as CEO, why is that?

    MO’D: Yeah, two very good seasons in ’14 and ’15 and this year has been more difficult. First of all I’d like to give a lot of credit to Force India. I think they have done a superb job this year in bringing the fight to us and making the battle for fourth place more interesting than we would have liked, maybe. I think it’s also fair to say that the development of this year’s car hasn’t gone as well as we would have like – all of the upgrades we brought haven’t been as effective as we would have wished. I also think it’s fair to say that we made an early decision in the season to focus on the 2017 development. We can play Monday morning quarterback and decide now to double guess – was it too early, too late – but we stand by the decision we made and we haven’t given up the fight for fourth place and we intend to get it back in the remaining three races.

    And just a final question from me: we haven’t had your thoughts on the takeover over Formula One by Liberty Media. I would be interesting to get your thoughts on that?

    MO’D: Yeah, first of all, I think Formula One is just a terrific global sport and it’s no surprise that it has attracted interest from bidders around the world, from some of the large companies and it’s a tribute to the work that Bernie and his team have done over the years in building Formula One to the sport it is. Liberty are a global heavyweight in entertainment, digital, media and telecoms and I’ve no doubt they can grow it and take it to new heights and that two working together are a very effective combination.

    Franz, you announced last weekend that Dany Kvyat has signed again for 2017. How does he make your team stronger?

    Franz TOST: First of all, Danill Kvyat is a very high-skilled driver. As we know from the past, he won the GP3 European championship; he was this year in China on the podium. Therefore, we are convinced of his talent. Secondly, his experience because next year will be his [fourth] season in Formula One and especially with the new regulations his experience will help us. And third, each party knows each other now very well. That means the co-operation also regarding next year’s new car will help us hopefully to operate quite successfully.

    While we’re on the subject of next year, you’ve got two relatively experienced drivers in Kvyat and Sainz, you’re going to have an up-to-date engine from Renault, you’ve managed to retain all the key technical staff in the team during the course of this year. Given all that stability how does that change your ambitions for 2017?

    FT: First of all we must know how good the car will be, how good the complete package will be, because it’s difficult to estimate nowadays where we will be, I think no team can do this. But I think we have all the ingredients together to come up with a very competitive package, because the technical staff, under the lead of James Key, have in the last years done a fantastic good job. As you mentioned, with Renault we have a new engine partner and their power unit is quite strong and I hope this will also be the case next year. We have two experienced drivers, which was never the case before at Toro Rosso, and also the team itself is improving. I expect a lot from the team and I hope that everything works into the direction what we think will be the case.

    Thank you Franz. Eric, thanks for waiting, I’d like to continue exploring the theme of next year with you as well, because it looks likely that McLaren will finish sixth this year and given the amount of work that’s going on in both Woking and in Japan at the moment, what is the minimum that acceptable for McLaren in 2017?

    Eric BOULLIER: Doing better than ’16. Obviously we don’t have any numbers in terms of ranking in the championship, or targets like this. There is, like you said, still a huge amount of work to be done in Woking and in Japan, so we’ll see next year what we have as a package. We’ll see how fast or quick we can develop the car next year and then we will draw a line about where we want to be. But we just want to be on the move now. We were ninth last year in the championship, sixth is very likely this year obviously. We just want to better next year.

    So ninth, sixth, third in 2017?

    EB: No comment!

    My words, not yours! Now, Jenson Button in Monza announced that he is going to take a sabbatical next year but he is going to retain very close links to the team. In your position as Race Director can you tell us how he will work with the race team next year?

    EB: Well, there are many ways for him to bring, let’s say, his experience and feedback and guidance as well. It’s good when they are in car, but outside the car as well, especially a driver with a lot of experience, can bring some good advice. He will obviously be a part of the simulator team, which is important to correlate with the car. He will be attending a few grands prix as well, so his vision or let’s say his understanding about the racing next year from outside the car will be interesting for the team. In many ways, his great experience will be a good contribution for us next year.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Joe Saward – Auto X) You’re all from different backgrounds as team principals, or racing directors, whatever your official title is. They don’t have a school for team principals: what is it you need to be a Formula One team principal?

    Bob, let’s start with you.

    RF: A reasonably thick skin, I think. I don’t know actually Joe, you’re very right in saying there’s no school for it. It’s something you have to build with experience. I don’t think anything comes easily. You have to have a knowledge of all elements of racing – so it’s commercial, technical, hospitality, every aspect of it. I think unless you have that overall awareness of what’s going on in Formula One at all times, it’s a job that will elude you.

    Franz?

    FT: First of all, you should know and be aware about the most important pillars in motorsport in general, and especially in Formula One because to run a Formula One team, you cannot compare with a normal company. Formula One has their own rules. Especially it takes time to build-up a team, to find the correct people, that they work together. As you know, you hardly have technical problems, you have only problems with people who are working together or not working together. You have to find a way that this is the case. Then, on the economic side, to find sponsors, to convince companies that Formula One is the best possible platform for marketing reasons. And to bring in, let me say, the satisfaction in the team: that the people are motivated; that they like this job and to convince them that this is a very special work – because there are not so many Formula One teams, that they are lucky to go to 21 races for example, to see different countries and so on.

    Mike, interesting to get your take on this as you have experience of the wider car industry

    MO’D: I wouldn’t disagree with the comments you’ve already heard but I’d say that, as with any organisation, it’s about people and it’s about leadership and it’s about motivation. It’s about the ability to organise. And great instincts. And if all of that’s founded on really good knowledge of Formula One and motorsport, I think you’ll succeed.

    Eric, do you have anything to add?

    EB: Most of what they say I would agree to – but I think first you need to like racing. If you don’t like racing I would never turn up in the paddock in my life, y’know? Obviously if you like racing then it depends on where your pass is going. I guess to be a racing director or a team principal you need then yes, you need to lead, you need to understand who you’re working with, you need some commercial skills, some political skills, some… I don’t know, most of it you try to get.

    Dave?

    DR: First of all, if you talk about team principals, if you go back to Frank Williams and Ken Tyrrell, people like that, Ron Dennis, those team principals, they owned the team, they did everything. It’s changed now. Not one of us here owns the team; we all work for other people and, for me, it’s all about understanding your role within the organisation. We had different people with different skillsets and we work to those skillsets. In terms of a team principal, I think it’s very different today to how it used to be and it’s really just putting the right people in the right places to do the best job they can.

    Q: (Silvia Arias – Parabrisas) Monsieur Boullier, with Jost Capito arriving next year, what will be your position in the team?

    EB: Well, if I may correct, first he already arrived because he started on the 1st of September. My position exactly the same, racing director, his position is to be CEO, which is to different roles within the company. One is obviously being in charge of the business and more factory-based and the other is in charge of the racing. So no change. There is a racing director and a CEO in Manor, the same in Williams, there was the same in Lotus where I was before, so…

    Q: (Seff Harding – Zero Zone News) This question is for Dave Ryan. You have a very talented pool of drivers at Manor. Does having such a talented pool of drivers make it difficult to choose from. And the second question, you have one that has won the Indy 500 this season, and has that caught the eye of the higher-ups at Manor?

    DR: Well, first of all, we do have a pool of very good drivers at Manor. Pascal and Esteban are fantastic talents, we’re very lucky to have them, they’ve been great for the team, they’ve pushed each other along and pushed us along as well. Together I think we’re doing a pretty good job. Alex, winning the Indy 500 was fantastic for him and he’s great to have on board as well.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) To all of you. Next year will be the third year in a row where a team has run last year’s spec engines. Originally it was to help Manor-Marussia in their situation and this year with Toro Rosso because they were engine-less. But next year Sauber will be running this year’s Ferrari engines. In view of the engine agreement that was struck in May, is it really necessary to have a regulation permitting this or should that regulation be closed, that we only have one tier of engines?

    Bob, why don’t you start?

    RF: I think I’d like to see one tier of engines mainly because it keeps everybody very competitive – but you have to probably look at the reasons individual teams have had to go down those routes. Only those teams can give you the answers on there. We have issues in Formula One in terms of obviously the distribution of payments and things like that. Some of it can be financial, some of it’s performance-based, some of it’s availability-based. I think you have to look at the whole thing – but if we could move forward on a better programme it would be much better if all the engines were current.

    Franz, what’s your take on this?

    FT: I don’t know all the reasons and background stories why Sauber decided to go with this year’s engine. I wouldn’t like to be in this situation because it’s a big disadvantage on the performance side to run with last year’s engine. From the regulation side, I think it should be kept open because a one year old engine is most-often cheaper than the newest specification. Therefore the regulation should allow it. From the performance side the team anyway is disadvantaged.

    Eric, how about you, Honda doesn’t yet supply another team, what’s your take on this?

    EB: There will be a time, I guess, when they will supply another team in the future but I guess, ideally we all want to have a new spec engine. Obviously performance very similar – but I think like everybody said before me, there is some various conditions like availability, finance or this kind of thing which will make a difference today. I guess in the future we are going to tend to have all the same spec.

    Dave?

    DR: I would imagine any team would like to have the latest-spec engine. So if you take that into account and the team chooses to use an older-spec engine then there’s obviously commercial aspects you’ve got to take into account. So, leaving it open at the moment I think is fine.

    Mike?

    MO’D: I’m not against a team using a prior-spec engine, they would have their good reasons, commercial reasons, for doing so – but it’s symptomatic of a much bigger problem which is revenue distribution in the sport. There needs to be much greater equality.

    Q: (Thomas Gorton – Dazed) This is for all of you. Who do you think will be running the sport next year – and who would you like to be running the sport next year?

    Eric, would you start us please?

    EB: Good question, because we are not in charge of the sport, we are obviously not behind the doors in the boardrooms and obviously we are all, from the comments I’ve read in the press, happy that Liberty is onboard. Bernie is still in charge and still running the show, so I guess it’s going to be a mix or all of them all.

    Mike, we’ve had your thoughts on Liberty, so Franz, how about you?

    FT: I think the taking-over process takes time. It’s not from one day to the next day. I assume the next year and also the year after it will be a combination of Bernie and Liberty together and afterwards then we will do.

    Dave?

    DR: We’re just happy to be here. So that’s the first thing. I think with Liberty coming on board it obviously opens the door for discussions on how to change things for the better or just to be different perhaps. We’re just happy to be here, whoever’s running it.

    And Bob.

    RF: I think obviously we’re excited to see Liberty come on board. They have a tremendous expertise in sports marketing which is quite unique to America, and having obviously lived and raced in America for a number of years, I recognise that as some of the best in the world. What we also must remember is Formula One is a unique product. It has been created as a unique product by Bernie. We need Bernie to help that transition into the new ownership and I think it’s very, very important for the new owners to look very carefully at this unique product that is F1 and maybe integrate the sports marketing into F1 and not try to integrate Formula One into an American sports marketing programme.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Franz, next year you’ll have the same engines as the main Red Bull team, obviously the same tyres, you’ve got two very very strong drivers and that leads us to believe that particularly with your strong technical team that you could actually be a challenge to the main team. Will there be anything such as Red Bull team orders internally? Will you have to give way to the Red Bull team if you should be running them close?

    FT: As you know, this is not the philosophy of Red Bull. Nevertheless, Red Bull Technology is one of the strongest technical teams in Formula One. It would be nice if we could be close to them but I don’t think that we will be in front of them or that we will fight against them. It would be nice  but Red Bull will not call us back, for sure not.

    Q: (Seff Harding – Xero Xone News) To follow up on the earlier question, in terms of marketing for Liberty Media, in the United States do you feel that a larger platform in terms of packaging to devices, to social media would be necessary to help expand the visibility of Formula One, because it doesn’t work in certain markets outside of the US?

    MO’D: I think for sure, if I understand the question correctly, that there’s a great opportunity to expand the sport in the Americas, in North America and the USA specifically. I think it would need a greater critical mass of races, either on the East and West Coast as well. The digital component is key for reaching a younger audience globally. I don’t think that’s North America specific.

    FT: Yeah, we all know that Liberty Media is the best company to bring in all these tools which Formula One needs in future, the digital media, the social media and I’m convinced that their marketing strategy will find a way to bring Formula One forward, because we have some deficiencies and how they will do it we will then see, which strategy they will come up with.

    DR: I think there’s general agreement that we need to appeal to a bigger audience, perhaps a different audience as well. However we do that, it will apply to America, everywhere.

    BF: I think the digital and the social media market is going to be very important but we’ve also got to make sure that we can monetise that, and that’s going to be one of the challenges that Liberty will face.

    EB: As far as Formula One is concerned, we agree that the US market is still very young, to be honest. We can do much more in America and North America. But Formula One is a global series and maybe the only global platform in the world as a sport, so we need to stay global. That means that we have plenty of room to develop the sport side, the business side and consequently, social media is key in any marketing tool box and before we can monetise, we maybe need to use this tool just to promote Formula One for the youngsters if we can do it in term of rights and then see the future. But again it’s global, it’s not only US.

    Q: (Victor Macin – ESPN.com) Bob, what kind of driver are you looking for to replace Nico Hulkenberg ? Is he German, is he Mexican maybe?

    BF: As I mentioned earlier, I think the decision for that will come next week or the week after or even the week after that. It will be Vijay’s decision and I think it would be wrong for us to pre-empt anything along the driver line at this time.

    Q: (Victor Macin – ESPN.com) And to Dave, are you worried about the rumours that Pascal Wehrlein will leave the team?

    DR: Well, as I said earlier, Pascal’s a great talent and we’d love to keep him, but it’s Mercedes’ decision as to where he ends up.

    Q: (Silva Arias – Parabrisas) Can you please tell me, from one to ten, how you score your team regarding their performance this year, concerning what you expected at the beginning of this season and what is going on now, at the end of the season?

    BF: Well, I think given the fact that we’re challenging for the highest position that the team has ever had, I think I have to give them a ten. I don’t think there’s anything less than that.

    EB: Well, I think, if I remember, Ron Dennis said five out of ten, so I have to stick to my boss.

    MO’D: Report card for the year? I think it would be a five or a six out of ten, quite honestly.

    FT: Six.

    DR: Difficult one. I’d say about four or five for us. We set ourselves some pretty big targets and by and large we’ve achieved them but we’ve got to make a big improvement again for next year to be where we need to be. We’ve done a good job but going forward we need to do more so to put a number on it for me is pretty difficult but maybe that’s about it.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Mr Ecclestone recently said he would like to see Formula One more exciting which some took to mean more dangerous. He was talking about walls around the circuits and whatever else. Your drivers were fairly dismissive about this yesterday. Being the people who pay the bills if they hit the walls, how do you feel about it?

    FT: There must not be walls around, because it’s expensive if the cars crash in there. No. But we should get rid of all these penalties and all this nonsense, if a driver touches another driver, that he gets done up or whatever. But we need interesting races and if they crash into each other, they crash into each other,  this is what people always want to see. Formula One is also entertainment. And currently, we take too much care about all the safety issues and so on. Formula One is dangerous, we know this, but currently at the race track, if you look, nothing happens any more. Some friends said to me ‘I don’t watch Formula One any more because there are the two Mercedes in front. If they don’t crash on the first lap, the race is gone. I can sleep somewhere else, not in front of the TV.’ This is absolutely wrong. First of all, we need to come up with a parity between the different teams. The ideal case would be two or three teams would fight for the championship until the last race, Constructors’ championship as well as Drivers’, not as the last years when everything is decided with a couple of races to go, before the end. Then if drivers fight against each other and if they crash against each other and something happens, then they should not go to the stewards and get a penalty for this. People want to see real racing, people want to see that something is happening. This is not the case any more, currently.

    EB: I agree with Franz on at least one point: we want to have close racing which is why the fans like… which is why we like racing as well, and I think it’s going to come after every change of regulations, especially the last one with the power units. Obviously there is a lot of disparity between the cars and the performance but if you’re back to 2012 and 2013, I think if I remember, in the first ten races there were nine different winners. And then everybody was complaining that it was not good enough. So I obviously don’t think a wall will bring a solution and it’s expensive to build as well. I think it’s just making sure we can bring the regulations to a point where we can give a chance to every team to be competitive and if you have all the cars, all the drivers competitive, then you can have very good and close racing.

    BF: In all the things that Bernie says there is a message there and I think that message is that we need to get a little bit more excitement into the racing itself. I think there are ways that we can deal with cars going off, track limits and things like that and give opportunities for drivers behind by de-rating or whatever. That technology is available. I think we could do a lot more to get it more exciting without endangering the drivers in any way, or without making the tracks so they are F1-specific because we’ve also got think that a lot of these tracks are also doing MotoGP as well, so whatever we do has to fit in with those as well. So I think yes, there are things we can do but I think Bernie’s message is let’s get it a little bit more exciting.

    MO’D: Yeah, the big point’s really excitement, isn’t it? We need good, close racing, compelling racing. As you’ve heard from everyone here, we all want to see that.

    DR: Well we do need close racing, for sure, but if we had a fairer distribution of funds, our cars would be closer together, that would be a start. But I think what Franz says is absolutely right. The drivers are over regulated on the track, some of the recent decisions and points and reprimands and so… personally, I think they are just too far. The drivers are discouraged from actively racing and some of the incidents that have been penalised I just don’t get, it’s just racing and you’re just not allowed to do it now. The blue flag situation is also frustrating and I’m not so sure that the blue flag adds much to the racing. For sure it aids the lead cars but it really disrupts the racing for the guys at the back and we’re all part of it. So I think, for me, we need to look carefully at how the sport is regulated when it comes to racing, would be a  great help, and if the drivers were allowed to be themselves. There’s not many drivers who aren’t more than the corporate figurehead of the company. They’re not allowed to express opinions, or they are discouraged from it. I can understand that side of it but it would be nice if we had a few more personalities. Lewis gets criticised for what he does. Well, why? He’s just out there doing his thing and if we had a few more drivers doing that sort of thing I think it would add to the sport

  • 2016 Formula 1 Malaysian Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2016 Formula 1 Malaysian Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES:

    Franz TOST (Toro Rosso)

    Robert FERNLEY (Force India)

    David RYAN (Manor)

    Eric BOULLIER (McLaren)

     

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    A question to all of you, we asked the other team principals the same question in Singapore, your thoughts on the arrival of Liberty Media in Formula One, what it means for the sport, and in particular what it means for the smaller and medium-sized teams?

    Robert FERNLEY: I met Chase Carey for the first time, I found him extremely approachable and willing to listen, but I think it’s far too early to make any predictions of where things are going to go or even opinions on that. I think they need time to be able to look at where they are going and what plans they have for Formula One and then once they make their announcements on the direction they want to go I think then maybe we can make some comments but it’s too early to judge at this point.

    David?

    David RYAN: Well, I’ve never met the guy, so I can’t really comment from that point of view. I know what I’ve read, which is the same as the rest of you. Really, it’s a case of waiting. I’m sure that he didn’t buy into it not to make any changes and I wait to see what happens and see how it all pans out, but I’m sure it’s all good news.

    And Franz, your thoughts, particularly with reference to the medium-sized and smaller teams?

    Franz TOST: First of all, congratulations to Liberty Media for this fantastic deal, because Formula One in the meantime is a very well known trademark all over the world, thanks to Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley – they have done a fantastic job over the last 40 years. I assume that Liberty Media, as they belong to a very financially strong group, have a quite clear programme and plan of what they want to do with Formula One. Personally, I hope that Formula One will become much more interesting in America, that we will hopefully have three races over there – one on the east coast, one in Austin and one on the west coast – and I expect that especially on the media side they will work on our weak platform, the digital media and social media, and then for the smaller teams, from 2021 onwards, the money is being distributed in a much fairer way and equal to the teams and last but not least, together with the FIA, they will find a way to reduce costs in Formula One.

    OK. Eric, obviously McLaren is not a smaller team, but your thoughts on the above?

    Eric BOULLIER: Well, at McLaren we are very positive about the arrival of Liberty. They are used managing big business, connecting fans to media, so we believe it’s good for Formula One. At the same time, I think they will take their time to understand the business, where they want to bring the business, the show, the entertainment, to which level. We will see what they suggest and plan.

    OK. Moving on Eric, tell us about the strategy around the updated Honda power unit this weekend and looking forward to next weekend in Suzuka. It seems to perform quite well today in the back of Fernando Alonso’s car, what’s decision on Jenson Button and where is this power unit improved?

    EB: It’s mainly reliability-driven, so it’s a reinforced block and a few things on the engine. There is a possibility to exploit the PU a little bit better, but it’s not definitely right… not just pure power on top. So it’s mainly reliability-driven. I think we are happy with today, we did a lot of miles with no issue at all, so it’s just a green light for the future, for the end of the season. And as far as Jenson is concerned, when the mileage of his PUs reach the limit we will swap the engine.

    That won’t be this weekend.

    EB: No, not this weekend.

    Thank you. Robert coming to you, Williams’ Rob Smedley recently said that his team should not get too hung up on its battle with Force India for fourth in the Constructors’ Championship, but what’s your team’s stance? Are you diverting resource to continue to develop this car to make sure you get that P4 finish?

    RF: No, not at all. Our focus in terms of the design side is on the ’17 car and has been for some while. But I think there is more to come out of the ’16 package from a track engineering point of view and we continue to get performance out of it every week and as long as that happens we can hopefully take the battle to Williams all the way.

    Thank you. Coming to you Dave, Esteban Ocon was here yesterday, saying in the Drivers’ Press Conference that it’s been quite tough to come into Formula One halfway through the season. So how do you, as the boss, assess his performance relative Wehrlein’s, given that Haryanto outqualified Wehrlein several times?  

    DR: I think Esteban is quite right. To arrive part way through the season into a team that has been developing along with Pascal is a big ask. We haven’t helped the situation because he hasn’t had the best of reliability up until now. But the kid’s fantastic. He’s got a fantastic attitude, he’s got huge potential and together with him and Pascal it’s a great driving line-up.

    Q: Franz, we heard again here yesterday in the drivers’ conference Dany Kvyat saying he’s rediscovered his love for Formula One after the performance, the drive in Singapore last time out. How good a performance do you feel it was and is there still time for him to retain his seat for next year?

    Franz TOST: He showed in Singapore a very good performance and it’s good to hear that he still loves Formula One, especially if he is driving for Toro Rosso. Daniil Kvyat is a high-skill driver, you know this because there’s a reason behind that he won the GP3 European Championship, and the way how he won it. He lost it a little bit in the last months but fortunately he is coming back. I hope that he will also do for the rest of the season good races that he shows his talent and his potential – and then we will see what happens in the future.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Kate Walker – motorsport.com) I’ve got a question for all of you please. One of the things that we have heard about the change in ownership is the potential introduction of a franchise system. I was wondering both what your individual opinions were and, if they differ from your owner or boards opinion, what the official stance was on the potential of a franchise operation?

    Robert?

    RF: I think… I mean the devil is always in the detail Kate, and I think we have to wait again and see what they’re proposing in terms of how the franchise is going to work up or whether it’s either going to be a full franchise program. But I think something that is giving Formula One stability, more importantly I think something that is anchoring the teams into Formula One, because it takes four or five years to build a team and whilst owners do come and go, the teams tend to be the same teams being transferred. I think it would be very, very good for the teams to have that stability and that security going forward. If the owner comes in and they perform well, then hopefully he or she can make a profit. If they don’t, then they take a small loss. It’s part of the trading. But I think it is a different view for Formula One and one that we should look at very positively.

    David?

    DR: Actually I think Bob put it very well and I support that view. I’ve heard lots of different approaches they’re going to take but until we get something firmly on the table, I can’t really comment. Bob’s view is correct.

    Franz?

    FT: I think it’s quite early days to discuss this and to think about this. We will see then, it’s a decision of Red Bull whether they buy shares on it or not and for the rest we will see.

    And Eric.

    EB: It’s difficult to have a strong opinion at this stage, y’know? Just based on the word ‘franchise’. We need to see the details of what they want to achieve. We don’t have yet the full picture, so I can’t have a strong opinion on this obviously. I think yes, what Bob said is true. If everything is happier in a better world everybody will be happy. Today I don’t know what’s going on, what’s going to happen yet.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Bob, it’s a year virtually to the day since you and Sauber registered a complaint with the EU Commission in Brussels. First of all I’d like to know some progress to date in the past year but before we do that, I’m now advised from Brussels that you and Sauber are possibly looking at filing some complaint in the US as well, an anti-trust complaint. If you could comment on that as well please and give us some idea of the progress. And then the other three, have you received requests for information from the commissioner in connection with this particular case.

    RF: Yes, let’s… probably start from the beginning I think Dieter is the easiest one. Yes, we have put the complaint, that’s common knowledge, I think about a year ago, it has gone through due process and I can confirm it has gone to next level in terms of a request for further information from the EU. Who those have been sent to, I don’t know. From our point of view, because we’re in legal process with them, we can’t say anything about what we’re doing – but I can confirm it is at that stage from an EU point of view. With regard to your question on the US legal matters, I think, you know, it’s not appropriate for us to discuss something where we’re getting legal advice. It’s probably a bit speculative – but for sure everything is still on the table from our side. We are very, very committed to challenging what we believe is a very anti-competitive system with these bi-lateral agreements. Whatever it takes to deliver that, we will certainly look at.

    And the second part of the question, to the other three, have you been requested any information from the EU? Eric?

    EB: No.

    Franz?

    FT: No

    David?

    DR: Not that I’m aware of.

    Q: (Dan Knutson – Auto Action and Speedsport) Gentlemen, the provisional calendar for next year is another 21 races. The new owners of Formula One are on record saying they want to add more races. At what point do you have to start rotating crew and would you have to add staff or is there enough back at home to do that?

    EB: I think we are at the limit already so if there would be more races, we would have to have a rotating system with staff people. And no, we don’t have reserve people back in the factory so that means we would have to hire some people.

    FT: That’s the same. I think that 20/21 races is quite a good number and if additional races come onto the calendar we also would have to think of a rotating system to bring in more people, because otherwise it’s difficult to handle everything but if we have more races, we also have more income and therefore it shouldn’t be a problem. In the end, there must be a profit for the teams otherwise it doesn’t make sense.

    DR: I go back to the days when we had 14 races and that was too many so… Twenty-one feels like it’s too many but if they’re talking 25 races…  Dan, I guess it depends what the package is. Maybe they are two-day events, maybe it’s a different format. Again, until we know what they really are asking for or what they’re thinking of, it may be that it works or not. We just have to wait and see.

    RF: Same as Eric. We would need to increase the personnel significantly to be able to bring in reserves.

    Q: (Chris Lyons – AP) Bob, in Singapore Sergio said that he felt sure that his contract would be organised by the time we got to Malaysia. Now he’s saying if it doesn’t happen by Japan, he’s going to look elsewhere. Can you give us some insight into what the hold-up is? Is it the commercial aspect, sponsorship aspect of the contract or is there something else?

    RF: No, there’s nothing else. The driver contracts have been completed for quite some time, as you know. Vijay announced that some time ago and it’s literally dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on the commercial side and if it takes a week, that’s wonderful, if it takes a couple of weeks, so be it. It’ll happen, we’re very confident that Checo will be with us next year. I don’t think we ever deviated from that.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Eric, there’s a report in Autosport this week that Honda are expanding their facilities in the UK in preparation or possible preparation for a second team. The way that I understand it McLaren needs to approve this. Is it something that McLaren’s in favour of? Would McLaren like to see a second team and what sort of level of development are we at given that you’re partners?

    EB: Well, we had a position in the past, obviously, where we both agree with Honda that it would be better to focus on us, on one team. As you know, the regulations have changed as well. In the future there will be some obligation for an engine manufacturer, and I think that at some stage it’s going to be interesting for maybe Honda and the McLaren-Honda package as well to have another team but we don’t know when, so we see this as them just making themselves ready with the possibility in the future that it can happen but so far we are still one team and focused on McLaren.

    Q: (Chris Lyons – AP) Just to follow up to that question to the other three: it’s clearly too late for 2017 but would you be interested in a Honda supply and how soon could that happen?

    FT: We have a Renault contract.

    DR: I think we’ve got the best engine on the grid in our car at the moment so we’re fairly OK with that.

    RF: We’re also committed through to 2020 with our engine supplier and have a very strong relationship with Mercedes.

  • 2016 Formula 1 Bahrain Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2016 Formula 1 Bahrain Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES:

    Franz TOST (Toro Rosso)

    Dave RYAN (Manor Racing)

    Robert FERNLEY (Force India)

    Claire WILLIAMS (Williams)

    Not in attendance: Monisha KALTENBORN (Sauber)

    Paul HEMBERY (Pirelli)
    PRESS CONFERENCE
    Bob, the car showed some flashes of real speed in pre-season in testing and in Melbourne you had a good result with seventh. How confident are you that you’ll be able to take a step on from the fifth place overall the team achieved last year? ?
    Robert FERNLEY: I wouldn’t say that I was overly confident but optimistic. I think that Toro Rosso have done a good job. Williams are always strong. Red Bull are coming back and the engine’s proving well there. So I think the competition for that third to sixth place in the Constructors’ Championship is going to be very, very challenging this year and very tough and we’ve just got to prove that we’re up for it.

    Talking about Toro Rosso and other teams, in the second half of the race in Melbourne, Romain Grosjean in particular was able to stay ahead of the Force India. Were you surprised at the pace of the Haas and do you think that everybody has closed up behind you, quite tightly?
    RF: I don’t think that necessarily the Melbourne pace was something worrying. Melbourne’s just a very difficult circuit to overtake on and I think the red flag played in the favour very much of Haas. In our case I think it went against us slightly. So I don’t think it was a pace issue particularly, just a circuit-related issue.

    Thanks for that. Franz, coming to you, you got off to a good start in Australia, with a double points finish, and the car clearly has some pace. That obviously puts the team in the spotlight, in many different ways. Does the improvement in the team’s pace make you attractive again for outside investors?
    Franz TOST: I hope so. At Toro Rosso the doors are always open for people who bring money, because we have many ideas how to invest it in a proper way. Of course it’s easier to negotiate with partners if you are successful at the race track. This year, so far, we have a very competitive package. The STR11 shows a good performance; also both drivers are very skilled and very fast. The engine is also good and the team has improved as well and therefore I expect to have a successful season and I hope that we can find additional money.

    That improvement in pace was evident in Melbourne but you might not have got the race result you wanted. Obviously, we all saw what happened with Carlos and with Max in the pit stops. Have you spoken to the drivers in between and how has that been resolved?
    FT: Yeah, we had a very good first part of the race until the red flag. After the red flag we lost the pace. The reason why we called in Carlos was that he had a lot of vibration on the front axle and for safety reasons we wanted to change the tyres. Max then came into the pits and the team didn’t know this and we were too late with the tyre change. Therefore, he came out behind the group of Grosjean, Hulkenberg, Palmer and behind Carlos and then of course there was a little bit of a fight between them. But that’s normal. That’s competition. We discussed everything after the race, we analysed everything and we explained to the drivers what happened. Everything is sorted out and I expect from them a good and competitive race here as well.

    The battle between the drivers looks like it might shape up to be one of the season’s most intense. How do you, in the team’s best interest, manage them, given that they a relatively young partnership?
    FT: You must not forget that both of them are very young. Both of them want to make a career in Formula One and therefore they are fighting for every millimetre. This is what we want to see and therefore why we also have them in the team. At Toro Rosso the philosophy is not to come out with a team order, to say ‘you have to let the other past’. Only if we change the strategy, of the drivers are on a different strategy and if we think it will be an advantage for the team, then of course, but otherwise there are no team orders. We expect discipline from the drivers. What do I mean by discipline? That they respect each other, that they let the other driver the space to survive, that they don’t crash on each other and that they compete on the race track like people want to see it and then we will see who will be the better.

    Dave, welcome back, a couple of questions for you. Your car seemed fairly comfortable running in the lower midfield in Melbourne. What kind of result of results do you expect from the rest of the season, what’s achievable? 
    Dave RYAN: I’d like to think we can run with the pack. We haven’t been able to do that in previous years. If we can do that then we can be in a good position to seize opportunities that come our way. I believe we can score points and we need to score points, and that’s the goal.

    You’re almost six months into your tenure at Manor. When you arrived what did you feel were the things that most urgently needed addressing and now where do you feel the team is at now in terms of personnel, resource and operational stability?
    DR: The team was clearly, or had been, in a very difficult place. They did a fantastic job last year. They were in a bit of a holding pattern really. Most of last year was spent looking forward to getting a package together for this year. Stephen Fitzpatrick, our team owner, did a great job on that front: he secured a terrific engine deal, a great transmission arrangement. After that, it was just a question of putting a good car together, which our guys have done. So, last was a bit of a holding pattern and it was all about getting ready for this year. We’ve got a pretty good package. There are no excuses on the engine front, the driveline, and it’s down to us to show we belong here – and we do. And we’ve managed to change the team considerably. We’ve got a lot of new people. There were a lot of good people anyway. Even from Melbourne to this race it’s developed, it’s changed a lot and we’re going forward and that’s what we need to see.

    And what about your drivers? They are both quite inexperienced. What do you see is the potential from both of them?
    DR: I see huge potential. First of all they’re both young guy, a bit like Franz was saying. I enjoy their enthusiasm. Having youngsters around is very invigorating. They’re both very, very switched on young guys. Quite different personalities but fierce determination in both of them to succeed and I’m sure we’ll see two very good drivers develop during the year.

    OK, thanks. Claire, coming to you, lonely at the front there…
    Claire WILLIAMS: I have no friends!

    Williams have finished third in the past two seasons. This year, do you see it as the same battle again, against Red Bull for that third position, or has there been that step over the winter that will allow you to take the fight to Ferrari and Mercedes?
    CW: I’d like to think so. As you say, we’ve come third in two consecutive seasons now, which is a fantastic achievement for Williams. But we did come into this year knowing and understanding that it was going to be much harder to try to maintain that position, let alone push forward and try to catch the Ferraris and Mercedes, but of course that was the target for the guys back at Grove over the winter period. I think in Melbourne it was far too early to tell really where anybody is on the grid this year, so we’re going to have to give it a few races to see where we are, but of course the target for us as a team is always to make improvements. We’d love to be able to close the gap to Ferrari and Mercedes, but I think we’ve seen in Melbourne that the competition has closed around us. The Force Indias, the Reds Bulls, the Toro Rossos, they are all there. We had a great fight in Melbourne and I expect the rest of the season will be like that, so we have our work cut out if we are to maintain third, let alone push forward.

    One of things you have been working on is the new short nose that is supposed to be arriving. Are we going to see that tested tomorrow? Has it arrived? Is it arriving?
    CW: It is winging its way here as we speak, so I very much hope it will be on the car, it’s going on Felipe’s car tomorrow in P3, and we’ll just have to understand where it is, what performance it’s giving us and then decide whether we run it in qualifying or not.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Kate Walker – motorsport.com) A question for everybody please. We’ve had an awful lot of doom and gloom – and I’ve very over that. Could everybody please tell me one thing that you’re looking forward to about the 2016 season. Something that excites you, that makes you passionate.

    RF: If you look at it from the point of view that probably the first… the manufacturing teams in terms of Mercedes and Ferrari are clearly ahead of the game, I think what’s exciting for me is what Claire’s just hit upon: I think we’ve got four or five teams that are really fighting hard for those third to sixth places. I think that’s going to be an incredible battle through the year. If that was the front of the Formula One field, think how wonderful it would be for the fans.

    Franz?
    FT: We have a very competitive midfield where all the competitors are very close together, we go to Azerbaijan and see a new race, and we have 21 races.

    Claire?
    CW: The same as what everyone else has said: I think the competition this year is going to be phenomenal. I think we’ve had a couple of good years of racing. As I said, Melbourne really demonstrated that it’s going to be a really close fight for everybody this year, up and down the order, which is really exciting. I’m really pleased with what you said about the doom and gloom, because I’m totally over it as well and I think it would be really nice if we recognised the positives of our sport, of which there are so many. I think actually now Formula One, from a strategic perspective, and looking at where we’re moving forwards to into the future to into the future, now coming close to signing off the new power unit regulations – hopefully – in addition to the new 2017 regulations, I think there’s a lot to hopefully look forwards to. I think the driver aids situation, as much as there’s been a lot of talk around that, positive and negative, I think that’s really exciting: the drivers have what they wanted, and that’s to be drivers in the car again and to take control of their cars. For me, to see drivers going out there, having a fight, I think it will be a really exciting season. That’s what I’m looking forward to.

    David, it’s a new role for you…
    DR: Yes, I endorse that. Melbourne showed, or gave every indication of the season to come. For me personally it’s going to be… I’m really looking forward to the season and I’m going to enjoy seeing Manor Racing progress. That’s what I’m looking forward to most.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) A question to Robert Fernley. Bob, there’s been a fair amount of negative coverage about your team owner, team principal Vijay Mallya recently. He’s not here so I need to ask you. Is the team endangered in any way? We hear some stories of $400million dollars being offered in repayment. How does that affect the team?
    RF: You know Dieter, I didn’t see you behind the camera – I thought I’d got away with it for this meeting! Vijay’s issues are well publicised but, like all things, I think there’s been a bit of media over-reaction, especially from India on all of that. It’s something, just to give you an idea of India itself, I’ve been in and out of India for well over 30 years and the only thing I’ve learnt in 30 years is how little I know about India, so I think you’ve just got to let that flow and for Vijay to deal with it. Force India is blessed with a very good technical team and that technical team has progressively moved Force India up the Constructors’ table and I think today we are realising some of the best returns the team has ever had from the payments side of things, even though we complain about the disparity – which is a separate issue. And we also have a very good commercial team. And I think the commercial team is allowing Force India pretty well now to stand on its own feet and, whilst the shareholders are always there to help us – and Vijay’s been the main person in doing that over the last nine years. It’s not a short term, nine years, to be keeping a Formula One team going. I don’t think there’s any concerns for Force India.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Claire, very brief one to you. You’ve just said you’re signing off the 2017 powertrain regulations and ‘hopefully’ the 2017 aero regulations. Can you elaborate on why you use the word ‘hopefully’? I doubt you normally use words willy-nilly.
    CW: I think I should have applied ‘hopefully’ to both. We have a Strategy Group meeting that’s just been scheduled coming up, and as we all know in Formula One, things are fluid. I said ‘hopefully’ just to temper it. I don’t think you should put too much emphasis on that word.

    …so there is a chance that they may not go through, based on that?
    CW: I doubt it. I think it’s becoming far too late in the day. I think we pushed the date anyway and we need to get these signed off if we’re all to be ready for 2017.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) My second question to all of you. There’s been a lot of noise coming from the GPDA recently and one of their points of concern is that they’re not being heard, particularly when it comes to the governance structure, regulations changing etc. given that two of you people are on the Strategy Group and the other two on the Formula One Commission, have the drivers aired their concerns to you at all as team principals on the various commissions and groups?

    BF: No, I’ve not spoken to any of the drivers on that Dieter. I think the drivers have got a role to play. They do have a meeting every race weekend with Charlie so they do represent their views at that meeting and those are transmitted to us through Charlie, which is the correct way of doing it. I think it’s very difficult to have a member of the GPDA on the F1 Commission. It’s very difficult to represent 22 people with one opinion. We have enough difficulty doing it with six on the Strategy Group, so I’m not sure where that would go. Clearly the voice of the drivers is very, very important and we should be listening to them.

    Claire?
    CW: Yeah, I echo what Bob has said. The drivers are one of the key stakeholders of our sport, as are the teams, the media and our fans and we have to listen to all those stakeholders if we’re to create a sport that’s going to sustain in the long term. I’m pleased that they’ve come out and talked about their concerns. I think now we have to go away and think about them and address them and to see how we can engage them. Personally, in the team we have a constant and open dialogue with both our drivers and they always feedback information. On the converse, I think drivers have been listened to, probably more than they have in recent times, talking about the driver aids and the cars we are producing for them for next year – but as Bob said, it’s difficult to represent such a wide group. And then, how does that potentially fit in to the current governance structure that we have at the moment.

    Dave, your thoughts on this.
    DR: I think the drivers are the great personalities of this sport. I think they should be listened to. I think their opinion is really valued and we should heed what they say. We should certainly take notice, that’s for sure.

    Finally, Franz.
    FT: Our drivers are fortunately young, they are not so involved in all of this political issues. Generally the drivers are here for driving and, regarding the Formula One rules, there are so many parties being involved, it’s unnecessary to bring in another party. Nevertheless, the drivers can come up with ideas – but not after regulations are being defined. Like now, the 2017 regulations. To come now and say ‘this is not good’, it’s too late: because this has been defined. They should do it before. Generally, they should be concentrated to drive. That’s their job.

    Q: (Sanjeev Palar – Fox Sports Asia) The fans are holding their breath to try and understand and then figure out what’s happening with qualifying, so perhaps someone can tell us how is it going to be resolved, are there going to be any more changes that we see this season, and what is the process and opportunity to implement such changes?
    DR: We’re holding our breath as well.
    FT: We’ve discussed this qualifying procedure many times and the reason why this new qualifying came into play is because the organisers wanted to increase the show. Now, we saw in Melbourne that qualifying three ended up in a mess, because during the last four or five minutes  no car was out there, but this was already mentioned before, because the calculation of all the teams showed that at the end, maybe one or two cars would have tyres to go out twice in qualifying three. The new qualifying model itself is not so bad but in qualifying three, the eight cars need to have two sets of tyres so that all the cars are out there. Why? Because qualifying three is the most important part of the qualifying, it’s when pole position is being decided and therefore the cars need to be out on the track and neither the old qualifying… all this would be good, in combination with the new one because then the drivers would be out only at the last one or two minutes and with the new qualifying we know that the last four or five minutes no one is out any more. Therefore, in my opinion, we should go back to the old qualifying when we know that the cars will be on the track and will race for pole position.
    CW: In qualifying, the revised form in Australia came out and we said we would give it a go and if it didn’t work we would revert and come back to the drawing board, and obviously that meeting happened on Sunday and everybody agreed that we would revert back to the 2015 format until we could all come together and decide and actually try and come up with a well considered revised process for qualifying. Unfortunately that obviously has happened in the interim, we’ve had a new vote among strategy group members which then went to the commission. Now we have this hybrid system which we’re running tomorrow. Personally, from a Williams perspective, we would have rather to have gone back to the 2015 format as a holding pattern, to give us time to meet again as a group and to actually have time to go through what a new system could look like rather than kind of go to a hybrid system which might not work again. I think we have to wait anyway and see whether that will work or not tomorrow and then take the time to actually think about it. I think otherwise our fans are just going to look at our sport and go ‘what are they doing?’ You can’t do this in the second race of a championship so it’s really important to us that we get this resolved as quickly as possible but to do it in a well-thought through manner.
    Q: Dave, your drivers were probably disadvantaged in Q1 last time out, it didn’t probably go according to plan. What’s your feeling about it?
    DR: No, it didn’t go according to plan for us in Melbourne. I think the important thing is that the regulations were changed for Melbourne, we did give it a try and it clearly didn’t work for many reasons. But the fans have overwhelming said ‘we didn’t like it’. We did have the meeting on the Sunday morning and we did agree to change it. However, since then circumstances have intervened and we’re now back to what we had in Melbourne, so I guess we’re going to go through it again and just see how it pans out. Maybe we’ll all be a bit better prepared for it this time round and maybe it will be a bit different. So let’s see what happens in qualifying tomorrow and we’ll review it again on Sunday morning.
    Q: Bob, do you think teams will be a bit more comfortable with the process tomorrow and it might go a bit more smoothly than it did in Australia?
    BF: For sure I think teams will be better prepared. There still could be issues with it. From a personal point of view, I would like to have seen the compromise programme come in because I think that actually Q1 and Q2 were quite exciting. Clearly we got it wrong for Q3. I would have liked to have seen a little bit of an adjustment before we stopped everything but we have to go, at the end of the day, with the way the governance system works and we are where we are and let’s see how it goes tomorrow.

    Q: (Sanjeev Palar – Fox Sports Asia) Everyone has expressed their opinion on what they prefer but I think what we’re trying to understand and what we’re trying to convey to the fans is what process happens to decide what the final qualifying system will be for 2016, because it doesn’t seem like we have one. We had one in Australia, then we thought it’s gone all over the place, so what is the actual process to finalise the qualifying system that we’re going to have for this season?
    BF: It has to go through the strategy group and then from the strategy group it has to go through the F1 commission. You need 100 percent of the votes from the teams, the F1 commission, and then if it gets the majority that’s necessary, it will go back to the world council to be put into sanction, so that’s the process. There is no other process.
    DR: I think it’s true to say that once it passes through the strategy group for the Formula One commission, it can’t be changed so it can only be approved or disapproved from that point on, both at the Formula One commission and beyond. We only get what comes through from the strategy group, so that’s the process and then we vote on it and it’s a yes or a no, not a maybe we can do this instead, so that’s the process, it is very clear cut in fact.

  • 2015 Formula 1 United States Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2015 Formula 1 United States Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES: Matthew CARTER (Lotus), Vijay MALLYA (Force India), Franz TOST (Toro Rosso), Christian HORNER (Red Bull Racing), Eric BOULLIER (McLaren)
    PRESS CONFERENCE
    Q: Christian, we’ll begin with you. First of all, what’s the… you’re smiling?
    Christian HORNER: I’m just very upset to hear Toto is ill and couldn’t make it, that his helicopter couldn’t fly unfortunately. Anyway, I wish him well and hope he’s OK. I’m sure there will be no fine, obviously. It should be about 100 million, apparently.

    Q: Daniel Ricciardo was here with us yesterday, talking about the update Renault engine. What’s your final decision then on when and if you are going to use this updated version?
    CH: I think the situation for the Renault engine, for the updated version, which they are referring to as the D-spec version, Renault have confirmed earlier today that the conditions for it to run in aren’t quite right yet, so that has been postponed to Brazil, which for us makes more sense. We wouldn’t want to be taken engines out of the car here or next weekend in Mexico.

    Q: I’m sure it’s been a very intense period for you, trying to find a way forward for next year and beyond on the engine front. Would it be accurate to say that some kind of deal with Renault or Honda looks likely now or would you rule out those two options?
    CH: I think as we sit here there has been a great deal of speculation and interest in what the engine supply we are going to have next year is. As we sit here now, nothing is fixed. There is a lot of discussion going on in the background and hopefully there will be a resolution fairly soon.

    Q: OK, coming to you then Eric on that, can you clarify the position from McLaren’s point of view with respect to Honda and a secondary supply of engines. Is there an advantage to having another strong team helping to develop the power unit from your point of view?
    Eric BOULLIER: It’s difficult to comment, other than we are happy with our partnership with Honda and this is what we wanted to achieve, to be a works team with an OEM. I can’t comment obviously on what Christian just said or whatever happens.

    Q: From the little running you’ve been able to do today how much of a step forward is the updated engine that Fernando is running this weekend going to be?
    EB: Well, I think we were one of the most active teams on track this morning. We did enough laps to confirm what said after Russia, which is clearly an improvement of the engine. I think all his engineers were happy with the numbers and the mapping they were running through this morning.

    Q: Franz, coming to you, another team boss on the lookout for an engine. What are you going to be using next season?
    Franz TOST: We will see. We are still negotiating. It is not decided yet. Hopefully it will be soon the case because otherwise the timeframe will become quite small but nevertheless we are still optimistic that we will do it.

    Q: As you say, it’s getting quite late in the design process. With your resources that you have in Faenza, how much of a challenge is it to build a car now without knowing what engine you’re going to be using?
    FT: It’s a challenge because every day we lose will decrease our performance for next year, but we have an emergency plan for the design office and pay for the production and I’m still convinced we can do it in time.

    Q: OK. Matthew, coming to you. Obviously we are aware that the process of being acquired by Renault is ongoing, but how much planning have you been able to do? For example, with the letter of intent were you also given a set of blueprints for a 2016 Renault engine that you can start designing around?
    Matthew CARTER: Absolutely, yes. Again, it’s difficult for us to talk in any great detail but we certainly have an idea of the route we are going to go down next year. We can’t confirm anything at this stage but we certainly are heading down that route and things back at Enstone are taking shape.

    Q: Now, Romain Grosjean has confirmed he is moving on, does the Renault takeover have to be completed before you make your selection on his replacement?
    MC: No it doesn’t. I think there will probably be an announcement at some point this weekend with regard to our second driver.

    Q: Can you give us a little foretaste?
    MC: I can’t. The announcement will probably happen in the next hour or so but certainly after this press conference you will be aware of which direction we are heading in.

    Q: Very good, thank you for that. Vijay, podium last time out in Sochi. In the last five races Sergio has scored 39 points to Nico Hulkenberg’s 14, what’s been going on there?
    Vijay MALLYA: Well, I guess Nico hasn’t had the best of luck. He hasn’t finished as consistently as Sergio has but I think overall from a team perspective, since we launched the B-spec car in Silverstone we have shown we are a lot more competitive and I’m quite pleased about that. But Nico is a top-class driver and I’m sure he will score points going forward.

    Q: Now you and Sauber have made a formal complaint to the EU competition commission. Monisha Kaltenborn was in this press conference a couple of weeks ago in Sochi and spoke about this. Can you share your thought on it and what you believe the outcome will be?
    VM: I can’t predict the outcome. We have lodged a complaint basically saying that the distribution of Formula One income is disproportionate and disadvantageous to small teams and it’s a process and we’ll just see where it goes.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Seff Harding – Xiro Zone News) The question is for everyone. There is talk about returning to the V8 engine, which has been a fan favourite, and I wanted to get you guys’ thoughts on it and would you be prepared to return to that powerplant for next season?

    Christian?
    CH: We might have to because we don’t have an engine! If you look at the plus points of the V8s were, the sound was the obvious one for the fans. It was quite simple technology compared to what we have now, so the costs were significantly lower, but the machinery that we have now through the regulations we have, they are incredible bits of equipment and I think what we need to do is rather than look backwards, look forwards as to what should the engine develop to be for the future. And I think there are elements of what we have that are strong at the moment but I think it can be improved and I would certainly love to see the volume go back up and certainly the cost of development come down.

    Eric?
    EB: I think Christian said everything but as far as we are concerned, as McLaren-Honda, Honda joined the sport because of the challenge of the technology and obviously, yes, some may regret the engine noise of the V8 and some regret the cost as well but it’s true that we have to look forward and as a piece of technology it’s brilliant, once it works, in our case hopefully soon. It’s a nice challenge to run these engines.

    Anything to add from the back row, gentlemen? Matthew?
    MC: I think I tend to agree with what Eric said and the relevance of the new engines to the road car and the benefit that the road cars can get from the technology means we are going down the right path at the moment?

    Q: (Daniel Johnson – Daily Telegraph) A question for Eric. It emerged over the last week or so that Kevin Magnussen was fired by an email… OK, ended his contract with McLaren via an email from Ron’s PA on his 23rd birthday. I just wondered what you thought of that as a piece of man management by Ron, you know, is that really fair to Kevin? Is he owed a bit of an apology from the team?
    EB: So, first of all, he has not been fired, as you said. I want to tell you that his contract was ending this year, so there was an option to renew it or not and we decided to not renew it for several reasons. We as McLaren that Kevin obviously has a great talent and he has to be praised for that and he should get a drive in Formula One next year and his career should get there. Anyway he will have a successful career I’m sure. As far as I am concerned by the process, I will not comment.

    Q: (Daniel Johnson – Daily Telegraph) What does it say about the culture of McLaren?
    EB: Next question.

    Q: (Ian Parkes – Autosport) Question for Christian. Obviously  hindsight’s a wonderful thing but do you not now consider it a catastrophic business mistake to cancel your contract with Renault without having a replacement in place first of all.
    CH: That’s an interesting question. I think that, if you look at our relationship with Renault, it’s been unconventional from the start. I remember asking Flavio Briatore for the supply of the engine back in 2006 and somehow we ended up sponsoring Queens Park Rangers and sponsoring the Billionaire club for a year before receiving the engine – and since then we really we’ve enjoyed huge success with Renault during the V8 era and the collaboration between the companies was very strong during that period of time. And during that time they obviously had their own team and then they sold their team. I think obviously what’s happened with the regulations that came in for last year, the V6, the hybrid regulations, expectations were set and promises were made and inevitably in any relationship like the competitive environment that we have in Formula One, when promises aren’t fulfilled then frustration sets in. It’s not something that’s bubbled up just over the last few months. It’s been a progressive thing – probably on both sides in fairness. Despite the very best efforts of all the people involved, for whatever reason it hasn’t worked, and so the decisions that have been made have been made for a reason – and in the interests of the team moving forward. Red Bull’s goals and objectives in Formula One are to compete and to win. Unfortunately we haven’t felt that those objectives have been mirrored over the last couple of years. So, therefore, decisions have been taken based on the philosophy of where the team wants to be. So the situation that we’re in for next year is that we’re looking to find a competitive solution to enable the team, first of all, to continue racing but racing competitively – and competitively for the foreseeable future.

    Q: (Dan Knutson – Honorary) Eric, yesterday Fernando Alonso was telling us he’s very confident the team can make up a big chunk of time for next year. What do your computers and analysis show? How much can you improve, engine and chassis-wise, next year?
    EB: It’s an easy question because defining targets are always easy on paper. We know where we want to be as McLaren-Honda and if we get there we can obviously get what Fernando said. I’m not saying we’ll be there but we know we want to be there. We are definitely working on how to be there.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken ¬– Racing Lines) To the back [MC, VM, FT] basically there are five teams that are disadvantaged under the Strategy Group and revenue structures, the way they stand at the moment, yet only two of those five have actually lodged the complaint with the EU. So the question to Matthew and to Franz, do your teams not feel disadvantaged by the structures – or why did you not join in the action? And Vijay, are you disappointed that only two teams of five have actually taken that step?

    Matthew, let’s start with you.
    MC: I think we’re in a unique situation in terms of where we are as a team. From my own personal opinion, would we have taken a different route if we weren’t under the potential new owners, as we are, then possibly we would have done. However, as things stand at the moment, we are trying to plot a course through the turbulent times that we’re in at the moment, the best way that we can. We’ve been advised and we have discussed at a fairly high level, the route that we’re going to take and we’ve decided that we would not join the action.

    Franz?
    FT: We signed a contract a couple of years ago, we knew the contents and therefore there is no reason for us to claim against the commercial rights holder.

    And Vijay, your feelings?
    VM: First of all, even if one team complains, it is still a complaint. What we have sought is the intervention of the European Commission to determine whether the current distribution of income pattern is fair and equitable or not. I hear what Franz has said about contracts being signed. Yes, I can confirm that contracts have been signed but the disparity between the contracts was something that was unknown at the time those contracts was sign. And it’s never too late to complain, is it?

    Q: (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) Eric, Adrian Newey said the other day in an interview that he understood that McLaren had a veto on Honda supplying another team with an engine. Is that the case?
    EB: I think it’s better to not comment any more on this discussion because obviously as we said already there is a lot of discussion behind the scenes. McLaren and Honda are official partners and obviously there is a due respect of understanding from each party.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) A follow-up for Christian. You say you’re looking for a competitive engine for next year. Does that include Renault?
    CH: Does that include Renault… obviously discussions have been going on with Renault to understand what their plans are for next year but I think until they commit to whether they’re going to be in Formula One or not, it’s difficult at this stage to take that any further.

    Do you not have a contract with them officially for next year?
    CH: We have an agreement with Renault that runs to the end of next year which there’s obviously been a lot of speculation about and I’m sure there will be confirmation about that agreement in the coming days.

    Q: (Luigi Perna – La Gazzetta dello Sport) Question for Christian, considering the position which you are in now, maybe it would be better to consider the possibility to have a Ferrari spec, not the latest spec but a 2015 spec for next season, don’t you agree?
    CH: It may well be the case. I might agree with you. At the moment everything is open.

    Q: (Christopher Joseph – Chicane) Question for Vijay and Matt. Vijay, you spoke about ‘it’s never to late to complain’, a) why did it take you so long and, that’s the business rationale behind the decision: what do you think is the sporting rationale and how will that play out for you in the future?
    VM: I don’t see what bearing the European Union complaint has on the sporting side of things. I remember last year here in Austin there was much speculation on whether three teams would be boycotting the races. We raced here in Austin, we raced in Brazil and Abu Dhabi, we completed the season. Here we are again a year later – but fundamentals remain fundamentals. You exhaust various options and avenues of dialogue and, if you still remain unsatisfied, then there is a Commission to go to, which is what has been done.

    Matthew, anything to add?
    MC: No.

    Q: (Christian Menath- Motorsport Magazin) Christian, you said that the chance of running a Honda engine next year is 25 per cent as is the chance of running every other engine. That means that quitting F1 is no more an option for you.
    CH: For me it’s not an option, we have to find a solution and I’m working very hard to ensure that the team’s on the grid and competitive for next year and beyond.

    Q: (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) Christian, you said ‘for me it’s not an option’. Is it still an option for Mr Mateschitz?
    CH: Well of course it is, it’s his team at the end of the day. He recognises the commitment and the skill and determination that’s within the team. Again, he wants to find a solution going forward. He’s committed to helping that and behind the scenes is obviously involved in numerous discussions to try and facilitate that.

    Q: (Ian Parkes – Autosport) Just following up again Christian, so what’s changed behind the scenes then, that these discussions have now taken place, that you’re not now going to quit F1, because that has been something that Dietrich has suggested could happen for quite some time now?
    CH: That could still be his prerogative, that could still be his decision to do that. Indeed, if we don’t have an engine then we can’t race but my position, as team principal of the team feeling the responsibility for the in excess of 800 employees that we have, is to ensure that we’re on the grid and we’re racing and we’re racing competitively next year so therefore I’m working hard to try and ensure that we have a solution.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) It appears as though Pirelli will get the contract from 2017 going forwards and I believe that one of the points that they insist upon was that there is some form of testing, both for the 2017 cars and beyond. How do you feel about a possible return to testing?
    FT: We will increase the costs dramatically. Personally I am totally against this testing. We have some testing sessions at the beginning of the season and this should be enough. We have 20 races and if you look at the calendar, if you want to do some tests in between, you need to build up a test team which means we have to bring in another ten, fifteen mechanics, another five to seven engineers and at the end of the year, we have spent around ten million more and I’m just asking whether this is necessary. Absolutely not. I can give you the answer, because we have seen now the last years that without testing we can also achieve our goals. It’s just wasting money.
    EB: Well it’s true that it’s going to bring the costs up. This is not something that we’re obviously in favour of. We also need to understand that Pirelli maybe needs some track experience so all in one I guess if they can cover the cost or most of the cost of it so we can maybe find some agreement in the middle or in between, not having to necessarily bring back testing like in the old days but maybe a few days.
    VM: I agree with what Franz said. I think it will be unnecessary and a huge increase in cost and we’re only talking about cost control which also has not been implemented in spirit but now to go back to the old testing days will only once again drive costs out of control.
    MC: There’s probably a fine line between the old testing days and what Pirelli are suggesting. I think it needs to be looked at in more detail. I also think that if they’re suggesting that they need to do this testing to prove the safety or to prove the reliability and ultimately that’s going to increase the safety within the sport, then it’s possibly a good thing.
    CH: Well, I think if you take all the valid points that have been made, I think the other difficulty is that the tyres for 2017, the diameter and the width is significantly different so it’s not as easy as just bolting those tyres onto a current car. The downforce levels are going to be significantly different in 2017 to ’16 so therefore it’s going to be very difficult to build a car that is going to simulate what Pirelli need for 2017 so they’re going to have to rely a little bit like the rest of us on accurate simulation in order to make sure the product fits what it’s required for or find another way, outside of Formula One, of testing those tyres.

    Q: Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Eric, you seem to be against any form of increased testing yet Mr Dennis was recently quoted as saying that he favoured testing, he wanted a return to testing. Is that correct or not?
    EB: I didn’t say this. I didn’t say we were against testing… I am against testing. Definitely this is not what I said, I think. I think we are in favour and as long as some of the costs can be covered. Talking about the Pirelli testing.

    Q: (Will Buxton – NBC SN) Christian, when BMW pulled out of Formula One, Peter Sauber came to the rescue of his team. When Honda pulled out of Formula One, Ross Brawn took over his team. Sauber’s now celebrating 400 races and the team over at Brackley has just taken a second championship. You’ve said that Mr Mateschitz’s future might be whatever it is, maybe to pull out of Formula One. You’ve said that your intention is not to quit Formula One, not to have the team quit Formula One, to save the team. Is there a potential then, if Mr Mateschitz does want to pull his team out of Formula One, that you will take that responsibility on your own back, to save the team, potentially as Arden International as it’s been so successful in junior formulae?
    CH: Well, this weekend is actually our 200th Grand Prix and when you look at what Red Bull’s achieved in that period of time, 25 per cent of those races have been won, more than 100 podiums, four drivers’, four constructors’ world championships. It’s been a tremendously successful period for Red Bull. My objective is very clear: it’s to keep the current status quo running for the foreseeable future. Ultimately the final decision lies with Dietrich but he is an utmost fan of the sport, otherwise he would never have committed the kind of funds that are required to be competitive in Formula One. He’s been involved in Formula One, not just as a team owner for the last ten years but ten years prior to that as an investor in the Sauber team and prior to that as a sponsor. He’s invested in a lot of young drivers that owe their careers to Red Bull and his vision, and I believe that discussions of other shareholding or change of shareholding… they’re not applicable at the moment. The focus is purely on finding a solution to our engine predicament, that we can move forward for next year and the future.

    Q: (Michael Schmidt – Auto, Motor und Sport) Eric and Christian, if the European Commission finally shares the view of Force India and Sauber, what would that mean for your operation, how would it affect it and do you think then that the field would come closer together?
    EB: No idea, no idea because you started your question with ‘if’.
    CH: Money is an important factor in Formula One. The promoter theoretically could take the view of if he chose to give all the prize money to the winning team. It’s then down to the teams to decide whether they wish to enter or not. So it will be interesting to see how the EU rule on something like that, because does that mean that we could say that teams unwilling to supply engines, is that anti-competitive? So everything could therefore end up in the commission.

    Q: (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) Christian, if I can come back to Ian’s earlier question about how you got yourself into this pickle, I’m not sure you entirely answered it earlier on. There’s been speculation that what’s happened to Volkswagen with the emission scandal may have derailed your plans to some extent. Can you just comment on that? Is that the case?
    CH: Well of course there was – as publicly known – there has been discussion with the VW Group which obviously… with their current issues probably Formula One is the last thing on their mind. There were other discussions that will become apparent no doubt in the future as well, other promises that were made. There’s an awful lot of speculation and conjecture about our situation at the moment. Once everything is finalised I’m sure it will all become extremely clear.
    I would just like to add Happy Birthday to Dieter. I know this isn’t answering your question but I gather he’s 87 today and he’s looking great on it.

  • Hamilton doubles up on the dominance in Monaco practice

    Hamilton doubles up on the dominance in Monaco practice

    Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton served up a double dose of dominance in today’s free practice sessions ahead of qualifying for the Monaco Grand Prix.

    Hamilton set the pace early on in the first practice session at Monaco with an impressive run, finishing the session 0.149 seconds quicker than – and outshone only by – Toro Rosso rookie Max Verstappen, the clear star of the FP1 show.

    Verstappen, who is not even old enough to rent a car – let alone drive one unsupervised on public roads, put in a magnificent performance. Young Max, son of former Formula One driver Jos Verstappen, had never raced around the tight, twisty and very unforgiving street circuit before and team principal Franz Tost was mightily impressed.

    “He went out in the morning and from run to run he improved his lap time without making any mistake. No locking, nothing. His car control and his feedback during the run was really extraordinary,” he said.

    Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner was just as impressed. “I thought it was super. For a guy that can’t rent a hire car yet, it’s enormously impressive, at 17 years of age.

    “I think the two Toro Rosso drivers actually have done a wonderful job this year,” he added. “I think it’s one of the positive stories in Formula One at the moment, those two young rookies that Red Bull have given a chance.

    “They’re here on merit and it shows that the junior programme is most definitely working.”

    Meanwhile, Daniel Ricciardo placed his Red Bull in third position ahead of Ferrari’s Sebastian Vettel and Spanish F1 driver Carlos Sainz Jr in the second Toro Rosso.

    Pastor Maldonado ended the session in sixth place for Lotus, ahead of Red Bull driver Daniil Kvyat and Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen.

    Nico Rosberg and Williams’s Felipe Massa rounded out the top 10, just ahead of the McLarens of Fernando Alonso and Jenson Button.

    The track was slippery, starting off a little wet from overnight rain and several drivers had incidents in which their cars sustained damage and everyone struggled with grip due to not being able to generate enough heat in their tyres.

    Lewis Hamilton, Monaco GP PracticeHamilton seemed dominant throughout though and continued FP2 right where he left off after FP1. The Mercedes driver seemed to be on his own planet as the rain stopped play for much of the second practice session. He finished 0.74 seconds faster than team mate Nico Rosberg.

    Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Raikkonen were third and fourth in their Ferraris, ahead of Red Bull’s Daniil Kvyat.

    After only about 20 minutes of dry running, Roberto Merhi lost control under braking while heading into the harbour chicane and crashing into the barriers bringing out the red flag. Before the session could be restarted, the rain flushed out any ideas of running and soaked the circuit.

    A few drivers did decide to head back out at the very end of the session, including a few drivers trying out Pirelli’s extreme wet tyres.

    Nico Rosberg finished the session down in ninth place but Verstappen continued to impress, despite only just missing out on the sixth place on the timesheets being beaten to the position by his team mate Carlos Sainz Jr this time around.

    McLaren seemed to be doing just a tad better, too – with Fernando Alonso, who is optimistic about being able to challenge for points this weekend, finishing in 7th place. Team mate Jenson Button finished 15th for the session.

    There will be no practice sessions tomorrow. Please join us on Twitter @F1_Madness on Saturday morning for live coverage and chat during the third practice session, as well as qualifying for the Monaco Grand Prix!

    Photo Credit: Mercedes AMG F1

     

  • Formula 1 Grand Prix de Monaco 2015: Thursday Press Conference

    Formula 1 Grand Prix de Monaco 2015: Thursday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES:

    Paul HEMBERY (Pirelli)

    Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault Sport F1)

    Franz TOST (Toro Rosso)

    Robert FERNLEY (Force India)

    Toto WOLFF (Mercedes)

    Christian HORNER (Red Bull Racing)

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Let’s start with a general question to all of you. What did you think of what came out of last week’s F1 Strategy Group, some of the proposals that have been put forward for 2017 and if we could start, perhaps, with Christian?

    Christian HORNER: Well, as you know, we’re not supposed to talk about the content of these meetings and referring to the press release it was a very positive meeting and lots of good things talked about for 2017. There was obviously a large amount of discussion about the future and about current issues. I think there is positive work going on regarding the 2017 chassis. There were debates about refueling, whether that should be reintroduced or not. Differing opinions on that. It was a constructive meeting. I wouldn’t say that we nailed down a whole load of decisions out of it, but certainly a lot of discussion about the relevant topics at this point in time.

    Toto?

    Toto WOLFF: There’s not a lot to add to what Christian said. It was a good meeting in relation to the 2017 regs. We all agree that we want to reintroduce quicker cars, get the lap times down by five to six seconds. Make it more of a driver formula, maybe get rid of the electronic start procedures, go back to more conventional clutches. Refuelling was discussed, with many various opinions. But we all agreed that this is what should be happening, so it was good.

    Robert?

    Robert FERNLEY: I must have been at a different meeting. I don’t think it was a good meeting at all. After 18 months I think we failed totally to agree on any form of cost control. There’s absolutely no way there is going to be any equitable distribution of income. Power units are going to remain the same. And whilst I agree that there were some good discussions on 2017, the fundamentals of Formula One weren’t addressed at all.

    Paul?

    Paul HEMBERY: Yeah, I guess there were a couple of points that came out that relate to tyres. One was regarding the choice of compounds made by the teams and we’re working in that regard with Charlie [Whiting] and the FIA to come up with a proposal that meets that requirements, that gives us a level of safety in the choices made and also to provide something interesting for the fans. That’s ongoing but it looks positive, what we’ve seen so far. Then 2017, obviously we don’t know whether we will be here or not but the idea of going to wider, 420 width tyres, was something we feel is a good idea.

    Franz?

    Franz TOST: I wasn’t involved in the meeting; therefore it’s difficult to evaluate the contents. What I miss is the discussion how we can come down with the costs and how we will find a way to create an interesting – apart from the technical side for the future – but we will see then the 2017 regulation is being discussed and then we will see what will come the result.

    And Cyril, what did you glean from it about 2017?

    Cyril ABITEBOUL: Well, 2017 seems a bit far away. But we’ll get back to that a bit later. I think it was an interesting meeting, as always. Formula One is a very sophisticated and complex environment, so it’s very difficult to agree on one single set of measures that can address the issues. I think to a certain degree everyone agrees on what has to be done, what has to be delivered by Formula One in the future. So I think it’s good that we share a vision. It’s very much how we get from where we are today to that vision that is now the topic for discussion.

    OK, I’m sure that others will come back this point later in the session, but let’s just move on to individual questions. Franz if we could start with you. Obviously today the running was a bit truncated by the weather but in the first session and the beginning of the second, it looked like your two drivers, Verstappen and Sainz, were up to speed very quickly, with Verstappen setting the second fastest time this morning. How impressed were you with what they did?

    FT: I think we have the ingredients together that both cars have to be in qualifying three and we have to finish in the points. We have a good car, a competitive car. Both drivers do a very good job. The team is also improving. Therefore I don’t see why we should not score a lot of points, so I’m quite optimistic.

    Well, the car obviously looked good in Spain as well. Is the car more consistent? Because that is certainly is something you needed coming from last year, right?

    FT: The car is more consistent. The car is more controllable, especially under braking and in acceleration. The car is easier to drive as was the case in the years before and as a result of this of course the drivers have a good chance to get the most out of the car without making any mistakes.

    Paul, coming to you, we didn’t get the chance to see the revised supersoft tyres today, they stayed in their blankets in the second half of FP2. Obviously they are going to be run at the next few races. A bit frustrated by that and how do you expect it go here over the next couple of days?

    PH: Well, it was probably more frustration for the teams. The only thing we gained was the resurfacing. It doesn’t seem to have changed very much. It’s a very low-impact circuit from our point of view, so we don’t envisage any issues.

    Going back to the meeting last week. One of the things that was proposed was that the teams should be able to tell you which two tyre compounds they want you to bring for them for grand prix weekends. How do you feel about that suggestion and also the whole notion of making the cars, as Toto said, five to six seconds a lap faster?

    PH: Well, it touches on what I’ve already mentioned that we’ve taken on board those comments and we’re working on a solution with the FIA that meets that requirement but also guarantees that we have a level of security over the choices made but also giving the sport itself some interesting elements. So, we’re confident and I think from initial discussions we’re on a good road to finding a solution for that. Going quicker? It depends on how you achieve that. Wider tyres would certainly help that. From a tyremakers point of view you’d want to know how you can contest that. We have limitations on testing today and if the cars are going to change dramatically you wouldn’t really want to end up in Jerez in February, in the winter trying to find out if it’s going to be workable solution or not. The principal is fine, there needs to be a little bit of work I’m sure done on the practicalities.

    Thank you. Robert, you were one of the ones proposing this free tyre choice idea, what do you like about the concept?

    RF: I like the fact that it brings the decision-making down to the teams and I think it will bring variability in terms of the racing tactics of what goes on and I’m really pleased that Pirelli have embraced the idea and are coming up with a solution that will give them the safety as well as the team a little bit more choice.

    On a Force India-specific note, what’s the latest on your revised 2015 package? What’s the forecast on when it’s going to be out and the latest forecast on the performance gain it’s going to give you?

    RF: Well, they’re encouraged by performance gain, I think that’s [what] I’m getting through from the engineers. Hopefully it’s still on target for us for Austria. I would like to think we could do it for the race but it’s most likely going to be the test.

    Cyril, coming to you and going back to the Strategy Group meeting, one of the things that was voted was not to have a fifth engine this season, what’s your reaction to that?

    CA: Obviously I regret it, because that’s something that would have facilitated a bit the situation of our two customer teams given the different reliability issues we’ve had so far this season. Having said that, we knew the rules, it’s four engines for everyone, so that’s what we have to comply with. The only comment I would make is that we don’t that as something that is a huge penalty. I know there is a lot of frustration but ten places penalty – maybe I should not say that because maybe the FIA will make it worse in the future – but ten places penalty in tracks when you can overtake, assuming you have the power, the right set-up and so on, basically a car that out of place at the start can quite easily make it during the race, which are long races. So, I’m sorry for my customer teams but I don’t think it’s a big game changer to the championship.

    Monaco is always an important race for Renault on a number of levels, what sort of shape are you in this weekend?

    CA: Honestly, we want an easy weekend. We want a trouble-free weekend. I’m not going to say that we have more power, more performance because it would be an unfair misrepresentation. Right now what we want to have under control is the particular reliability crisis that we suffered for the start of the season and then be back to resume the performance plan that we had on the shelf for the remainder of the season.

    Toto, obviously Nico got some momentum into his championship with the win in Spain last time out. Lewis Hamilton said he’s very keen to take pole and win here after two years of being on the wrong side of things from Nico. How does the rivalry look from inside the team? How’s this heading towards Saturday’s final runs in Q3 and the race on Sunday?

    TW: The rivalry has always been intense on track and we’ve seen it from the start of the day. They were both out there in anger, pretty competitive lap times straight from the beginning. And it’s good for the team because it pushes the team, it pushes the two to new levels, competing against each other, so for Thursday, we can be pretty satisfied.

    Obviously the news this weekend is the new contract with Lewis Hamilton. Why did you chose to declare… to announce that it is a three year term and are the values that are circulating around in the media vaguely accurate as to the value of the contract?

    TW: You know the discussions around the contract have been out there for quite a while. We had the terms already a couple of weeks ago and declaring that it was a three year term seemed reasonable to us, in order to show that it’s a long term relationship and stability is important for us. On the figures out there, I can’t really comment. The only thing I can say is that there have been lots of nonsense out there as well.

    Christian, congratulations first of all on your marriage. Here in Monaco, Daniel Ricciardo has said that this weekend should see Red Bull Racing’s best result of the season. Do you share his optimism?

    CH: Well, first of all thank you, I’m technically on honeymoon with all of you! Daniel Ricciardo, he’s always excelled at this circuit, always in the lower categories as well. Of course the power unit plays a smaller role at this circuit of all the circuits that we go to in the year, so hopefully, as Cyril’s pointed out, if we can have a reliable troublefree weekend… already in free practice, both drivers have fared pretty decently so far.

    There’s been some pressure from your director, Dr Marko, on Daniil Kvyat recently. What’s your view on what Kvyat’s done so far and what he needs to do?

    CH: I think… Helmut’s comments… I’ll come back to that in a minute. He’s always called things as they are and I think that Daniil Kvyat’s had a tough run so far. Things haven’t gone cleanly on his side of the garage, he’s had some good races and he’s had some times that he’s struggled with. But he’s young, he’s developing all the time. We can see a great deal of potential in him, you can see it even in that last wet run at the end of P2. He’s going to mature and develop. Helmut’s always had a habit of calling things as they are. I recall going back to Mark Webber’s time… After this race in 2010 we went to Turkey. As we know, Mark and Helmut didn’t always see eye to eye and they (Mark and Sebastian) had that crash in Turkey. We ended up back in my office and it was an opportunity, I said to Mark, to get everything out, address your issues with Helmut. And I said to Helmut before the meeting, whatever he says, take it on the chin and agree. And so Mark went through all the issues that he had, told him what had pissed him off about Helmut, blah, blah blah, and Helmut took it on board and said ‘yes, OK, I agree, OK’ and then he said ‘anyway, the next race in Valencia is very important to us and you’ve always been shit in Valencia!’ And Mark, thankfully, saw the funny side but it explains some of the straight talking that Helmut tends to have.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Louis Dekker – NOS) Question for Mr Tost, Mr Horner and Mr Wolff. How do you rate P2 this morning by a driver who never drove here before? How should we evaluate it?

    CH: I thought it was super. For a guy that can’t rent a hire car yet, I mean it’s enormously impressive. 17 years of age… I think the two Toro Rosso drivers actually have done a wonderful job this year and, you know, I think it’s one of the positive stories in Formula One at the moment is those two young rookies that Red Bull have given a chance. They’re here on merit and it shows that the junior programme is most definitely working.

    And Toto? You were in a bit of a tug-of-love with Red Bull over his services. Are you beginning to regret you missed out?

    TW: No, I think it was clear that what Vestappen was offered was a deal he had to go for. You can see that, in the right car, with the right team-mate, they push each other. It’s two of the best boys, young boys, out there. And clearly for Max, finishing P2 on a track he has never been to, in these conditions, is good – but as Christian said, I wouldn’t underestimate Carlos’ performances either. I think it shows, if you have two team-mates who compete on a similar level, they push each other and the rivalry is very good – but obviously Franz will know much more about it.

    Franz, do you want to add a bit more?

    FT: Yeah, we all know that Max is very, very high-skilled driver, therefore Red Bull took him into the programme and bought him into Toro Rosso, and what I was impressed, how he achieved this really, really good time in P1. He went out in the morning and from run to run he improved his lap time without making any mistake. No locking, nothing. His car control and his feedback during the run was really, really extraordinary. I’m really, really happy he is in the team and I’m convinced he will show some other great runs – hopefully in qualifying, because this counts – and also in the race. I think that we will have some success with him also this year – and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him – earlier or later – within the first five.

    Q: (Pierre Van Vliet – F1i Magazine) Question for Cyril. What is the deadline for Renault to decide about its future in Formula One, knowing that your current contract runs to the end of 2016, if I’m right?

    CA: Yeah, we have contracts that run with those two gentlemen until the end of 2016. I guess the deadline is 31st December 2016. No, joke apart. We have no deadline, no rush. I think right now the deadline and the big target is to get engine under control, both from reliability and performance perspectives. Once this is done we can secure some longer-term stuff. And I’m sure right now this is a concern for our customer – will we be capable of dealing with the regulation, with dealing with the trouble that we have right now? So, I think this is a concern for them, this is a concern also for us, so this is what we have to address in priority before thinking about anything else.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Christian, I’d like to come back to something you said, and also something you said Toto, namely that you can’t really discuss the Strategy Group and you can’t really talk about things. Autosport and F1 Racing have just started a fan survey, they’ve had 25,000 responses in 24 hours – which tells me that there’s an awful lot of fans out there that actually want to be heard. Yet, this 21st Century sport with 500million followers is actually living up to 15thCentury Masonic Society levels of secrecy. Is this really the way to go forward?

    Toto, do you want to start?

    CH: Are you in the Masons?

    TW: What are the Masons?

    CH: I couldn’t tell you that…

    TW:  You know, whatever we discuss in the Strategy Group, bizarrely ends up in the media ten minutes later – or even earlier – during the discussions. Sometimes we need to make up our mind in there and discuss. We don’t have always the same opinion but it’s a matter of pushing the sport forward. And for the sake of the sport. And whatever solutions we come up with, it’s all shit. We are discussing making the cars faster, five or six seconds, wider tyres, more spectacular cars, more g-forces, the things we have mentioned before and the topic of refuelling. The only thing I can read after the meeting is that refuelling doesn’t make any sense. Interestingly, you asked the drivers yesterday on the very same podium and they all love it. So I think we must stop talking the sport down. I’ve mentioned that a couple of times in here. And one of the rules we have established – and Bob is new to the group so maybe we have to reemphasise this is that we shouldn’t talk the sport down. We should push the sport up. We need all of you, plus us, to re-emphasise on the good points, on the attractive bits of the sport and try to make it better. It’s not always an easy exercise.

    Robert?

    RF: Well, to a certain degree I agree with Toto. I think that the problem I have is that I don’t think the Strategy Group is fit for purpose and we should be looking at something where we have a clear programme that delivers results. We’ve have 18 months or two years of Strategy Group work with nothing coming out of it. I think we need to look at the system in a better way. In days gone by, with Max and Bernie in charge, there would be none of that. We would know exactly where we’re going. I don’t think you should have the teams making decisions on where Formula One should go. The teams should be told where Formula One is going.

    OK. Maybe offer that one to you Christian – because you did say, didn’t you, at one point before the meeting that it should be taken out of the teams?

    CH: Well yeah. I mean it’s rather predictable. Bob’s going to ask for more money, Toto’s going to not want to change anything and we want to change engines. So every team has got its own agenda and it’s going to fight its own corner. I think that the sport is governed by the FIA and it’s promoted by FOM. It’s those guys that need to get together and say ‘what do we want Formula One to be?’ Yes, we want it to go quicker, we want cars to be more aggressive to drive – but you’re never going to keep everybody happy. I think that Bernie and Jean need to get together and say “this is what we want the product to be, this is how it needs to be governed,” and then give us the entry form and see if we want to enter or not. Because I think putting it in the team’s environment to try and agree a set of regulations – you’re never going to get everybody on the same piece of paper.

    Cyril, you were nodding…

    CA: I think it’s right – except the bit on the engine – I fully agree with what Christian just said, obviously. I think it needs a very strong leadership with a very small group of people. I have to say that I was invited to that Strategy Group and I obviously enjoyed that for Renault because Renault is spending a lot of money in the sport. I mean we were as an observer. But one thing that struck me is that there is actually lot of people in this Strategy Group. One comment about the transparency – I don’t think this type of meeting would be broadcasted or communicated on in other sports, so I don’t think that we are that old-fashioned in that respect. And again, also people underestimate the complexity of Formula One and the knock-on effect of every single thing that you change. The things that you are doing something for one positive and actually the knock-on effects are huge. And sometimes I think it’s good that you trust us and Formula One Management in general, that we are doing the right things in general. We are in the same boat, we should not criticise each other.

    Franz – do you have anything to add to this?

    FT: Well, first of all I think the contents of a strategy meeting discussion should not be immediately published because it’s just a discussion. It’s not that anything has been decided so far and once a decision has been made, of course this has to be announced and therefore it’s not necessary to write and talk about everything what is being taken into consideration. I think that the Strategy Group itself, as Christian mentioned before, with this constellation, never will come up with a proper solution. It should be Bernie and Jean together, they should decide what we have to do. They even should not ask the teams because the teams never will come up with an agreement.

    And final word on this from Paul.

    PH: I think Christian and Franz put that very well. That in any sport it shouldn’t be the competitors that are involved in deciding changes. As Christian said, defining between the FIA and FOM how the sport is going to be, and then the teams can decide whether they want to adhere to those guidelines. So, I’m fully with the two points made by Franz and Christian.

    Q: (Jerome Pugmire – AP) Question for Franz. You seem to be… obviously you know all about Max’s potential but he even seemed to surprise you today with his drive. You say he could finish top five before the end of the season. How long to you think is realistic before he’s challenging for a podium?

    FT: Depends how many cars not finishing in front of us. The smaller, the better the chance he will be on the podium. We must be realistic. There are teams and cars in front of us. They have double of the budget than us. They have fantastic, good competitive package and it’s not easy to compete against them – but nevertheless we have two drivers and, as I have explained before, we have also a car which is quite competitive and once – maybe special whether conditions, maybe it’s raining or whatever – will help us to bring one of the drivers to the podium.

    Q: (Ian Parkes – Autosport) Just getting back to the previous question regarding the Strategy Group. Bearing in mind some of the comments that we’ve just heard, is it time now to disband that group because it’s had its day, it’s had its time, it’s had its opportunity and quite clearly it just isn’t working?

    RF: Well, I don’t think it every had its day. End of story.

    Toto?

    TW: You need… this is a professional sport. It’s a global platform. It needs to have a proper governance. And I think if we wish for dictatorship, I can see us sitting here in two years and complaining that it’s going in the wrong direction. It is always tricky to find the right government. You vote for one government, you wish for the other one to rule, and the other way around.

    CH: I think it’s difficult. It’s a forum where strategic things are discussed about the future. It’s not a decision-making forum. That should go either up to the Formula One Commission or down to the working groups. I think, you know, it’s difficult. If you pick up on Bob’s comments, then yeah, the only thing the Strategy Group has unanimously agreed on and implemented this year is the fact that the drivers should wear the same crash helmet for the entire season. Is that a success of the group? Not really. Is it a worthwhile forum? I think it is – but I think the structure of how regulations are implemented, that’s what we need to look at. As I say, I think the promoter, he’s promoting the show, he’s got to sell a product and that product’s got to be appealing to the fans. And he needs to be listening  to the 25,000 people writing in. The people around the world: what do they want? What do they want Formula One to be? And then as teams, as competitors, we have to abide by a set of regulations that the FIA should write. Sporting and technical. And at that point you have a choice: whether you want to be in or be out. But every year, the entry form comes out and we all sign on the dotted line.

    Franz.

    FT: Formula One is entertainment. What the fans want to see: they want to see entertaining races; they want to see overtaking manoeuvres and so on. If, for example, one, two, three cars or whatever are one-and-a-half, two seconds ahead of the rest of the field, this cannot be in the interests neither of the other teams not – and this is more important – of the fans. The fans want to see fights. If this is not the case. If this we cannot deliver, then let me say, the responsible people should sit around the table and say, “look, we have to chance the regulation in this way, that we can improve the show,” or whatever. This doesn’t happen because we are discussing too much and we have too many useless meetings.

    Paul – presumably you have data on the number of overtakes now compared to the times when there was refuelling, for example, in the background, that kind of stuff?

    PH: Yeah, of course. I think if you talk enough to enough people, you’re just going in circles. That’s always the case in most forms of business. So, there’s a clear need for direction and strategy. Coming from a sponsors point of view, we obviously would like to see what the plans are going forward to grow in markets where our business is important – so in Asia, in the USA, Latin America is always very important, even Russia. We look forward always to understanding the results of these meeting groups to see what impact it could have on the sport and the interests of the sport worldwide. So, as long as the direction of the sport is clear, we’re happy. But clear there is a number of people not so happy clear, we’re happy. But clear there is a number of people not so happy at the moment and they maybe need a change.

    Q: (Daniel Johnson – The Telegraph) Christian and Toto, on the subject of surveys, the drivers are launching their own through the GPDA. How do you view that? Do you take it as a sign that the strategy group seems to have not been able to agree much more than helmets not changing? That the drivers feel the need to step in to this space where they haven’t really before, especially not from a GPDA point of view?

    CH: Well, I’m not sure that it’s the drivers’ specialist area. The GPDA was essential set up as a safety group, to look at circuit safety, drivers’ safety, drivers’ protection. It’s great that they feel that they want to engage with the fans. I’m sure they’ll be willing to put a lot more time in and get out there and meet them.

    TW: I think that Alex was very innovative always and pushing this, and having the idea of a survey is a great thing. It’s going to give us additional input, maybe some interesting findings, that it’s not that easy to actually draw the right conclusions. But the drivers are the essential part of the show so for them to be involved and get engaged is a good thing.

    Q: (Joe van Burik – NU. NL) Question for the front row: there was no driving for 60 minutes in the second practice session because of the rain, this while many concerns are voiced about declining viewership and spectator numbers. Isn’t this a strange situation then?

    RF: I think it’s very unfortunate from the point of view of all the fans that are here and obviously for the TV companies but it’s also very difficult from a team point of view. There’s a high risk of incident in Monaco and it’s unlikely that we’re going to have any rain on Saturday or Sunday. I think you tend to push the limits a little bit too far sometimes. There’s nothing to learn, particularly, if it’s a dry Saturday and Sunday, in going out in the wet and there’s everything to lose, so while my sympathies are hugely there with the fans and the TV companies to fill the time, there is a reason why that’s done, because the drivers want to be out on every lap that they possibly can be, and as a team we want to be out on every lap so it’s not done in any way to be negative to the show.

    TW: Bob said pretty much everything. There is a risk of putting the car in the wall and that makes things complicated for the weekend. The forecast at the moment is much better than what we saw today and it’s Thursday afternoon. Maybe the real impact for spectators and fans starts Saturday.

    CH: Well, we’ve only got four engines so if we’ve had a few more engines maybe we’d do a few more laps. No, I think Bob’s point… you have to make a decision. The first thing is ask the spares guy how many spares we’ve got: not many, OK, so we’re not going to do many laps then in conditions like this, particularly as the forecast is hopefully to get better for the rest of the weekend. It’s a tactic towards your Grand Prix weekend unfortunately.

    Q: (Sebastian Scott – racedepartment.com) Paul, you don’t know if you’re going to be here in 2017. Would you welcome a tyre war with rival tyre manufacturers or even multiple tyre manufacturers, or would you prefer to offer teams four compounds a race?

    PH: Well, we don’t write the rules for Formula One. We’re involved in over 250 championships of which about 90 are open competition, so it depends what the sport wants and then you’ve got to understand the rules, what the cost implications would be so you can’t really have an answer until you know the parameters. At the moment the tender will be for a single supplier so 2017, I might be here or I might be sat on a boat having some champagne and watching it. Probably better to be sat on the boat actually. Yeah, it’s a phase that you go through with various championships so there would be a phase of where the FIA will evaluate the technical competences of people who want to supply and then there’s an aspect that is the important bit which is the commercial aspect with the promoter. So there’s a timetable set out and we will obviously know before the end of the year.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Toto, based on the numbers that are going around about Lewis’s stipend for the next three years, by my estimation he will be earning about five times as much as Dieter Zetsche for working ten per cent of the time. Will he really sell fifty times as many cars as your CEO?

    TW: Dieter, I can’t even comment on that question. This is a market and in that market you have a value or you don’t. Lewis is one of the best racing drivers out there, maybe the best at the moment and he has a huge value for the brand and fundamentally this is what drives his value and this is a classical win-win situation for the team and for himself.

    Q: (Ian Parkes – Autosport) Just following on to the question to Paul earlier about a tyre war; to the four team principals, is that something that would appeal to you, to have a choice of tyre manufacturer? Fernando Alonso spoke very strongly in favour of it, bearing in mind he recalls the Michelin-Bridgestone days of the early 2000s.

    FT: I just hope that no tyre war will come, that means no other tyre manufacturer, because this means that two teams will get the good tyres and the rest will just get this crap, because like it was before, when Michelin was in, it was Renault therefore Alonso has good memories and Bridgestone with Ferrari, therefore Michael was so successful, one of the reasons, yeah? If this comes back, it’s the same story: the two tyre manufacturers, two teams which get good tyres; three tyre manufacturers  three teams and the rest just get what the others don’t like. That means the complete competition would drive in a completely different direction. Then we would have, after now the power unit Formula One, we would have the tyre Formula One. Once the power units are stabilised, we open the next problem.

    CH: I think Franz summed it up splendidly, that one make tyre is equality for all of the teams. I think that in the times of tyre wars then of course effort does have to go behind your leading charge and it will drive costs up immeasurably as you have to develop your car around a specific tyre so I think it’s been one of the successes in having a sole tyre and I think that that’s one of the reasons for example that Red Bull has been able to achieve the success that it’s been able to achieve as an independent team, which we perhaps would never have been able to enjoy in the event that there was open competition with tyre manufacturers aligned to automotive manufacturers, which is of course is where their core income comes from.

    TW: We (Franz and I) are both Austrians therefore we use the same words.

    RF: Yeah, I think putting on the positive side of what Formula One has done well and I think the single tyre choice is one of the things that it has done very well and we shouldn’t change.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) Question for Cyril, Christian and possibly Franz: it’s now pretty obvious you’re not going to get any more than four engines. You’ve openly said that you’re going to expect to take more than four engines; when do you expect to take the first grid penalties? Will it be done strategically? And how will you handle it through the year?

    CH: I think it’s inevitable that we’re not going to do the rest of the season on one power unit so hopefully it will do another couple of races and then of course you try and introduce your additional engines strategically – you may not have the choice to do that. But we’ll deal with it as and when it arrives and of course if you replace the whole engine, that’s a different scenario to replacing just the combustion part of the engine for example, so different penalties for different elements of the engine that you have to replace.

    CA: Nothing to add, that’s exactly what we unfortunately have to take into account when we elaborate one plan when we elaborate an engine allocation plan. We try to mitigate the damage to our customer teams from a sporting perspective. It will happen, maybe twice per car unfortunately. Now we have to deal with  that just like an extra parameter, just like an extra constraint.

    FT: Everything has been explained by Christian and by Cyril. We wait and see how long the different parts are reliable and then we have to go for it anyway. I just hope that it’s not here for Monaco and for Budapest. The rest, I’m quite open.

  • Toro Rosso Secures Sainz Jr For 2015

    Toro Rosso Secures Sainz Jr For 2015

    The Toro Rosso Formula 1 team announced on Friday evening that Carlos Sainz Jr will drive for the team in 2015.

    This comes two days after Jean-Eric Vergne announced on Twitter that he will not be driving for the team in 2015.

    It also means that Toro Rosso have finalised their line up for 2015 after announcing earlier this year that Dutch rookie Max Verstappen will drive for them next year, which will make it a fresh new line-up for the Faenza based team.

    Sainz made his single seat debut in 2010 in Formula BMW after starting out in karting. He moved up the ranks to Formula Renault 2.0, onto British Formula 3 and then to GP3 n 2013. This year Sainz became the youngest ever winner of the World Series by Renault 3.5 Championship. Sainz secured a test with the Red Bull Formula 1 team at Abu Dhabi which took place two days ago.

    “I am really happy to have landed the drive with Scuderia Toro Rosso,” said the 20 year-old Spaniard.

    “Ever since I have been part of Red Bull’s Young Driver Programme, this has been my aim and I want to thank Red Bull for putting their faith in me.

    “I have had a very successful season in World Series by Renault this year and now I am looking forward to taking the step up to Formula 1.

    “I tested for a day with Toro Rosso last year and I liked the atmosphere in the team. In the next few months I will be working hard on my preparation, ready to get in the cockpit in Jerez for the first test of next year. It will be nice to make my “official” debut as a Formula 1 driver in my home country!”

    Team Principal Franz Tost had this to say about the rookie: “With Carlos Sainz joining Max Verstappen in our driver line-up next year, we continue the Toro Rosso tradition of providing youngsters from the Red Bull Junior Driver Programme with their first steps in Formula 1.”

    “I have watched Carlos progress through the junior categories, always improving as he moved higher up the ladder, culminating in a well-deserved win in this year’s World Series.

    “However, I also remember the day’s testing he did with us at Silverstone in 2013 in the STR8. He really surprised me and his engineers that day, with his mature approach and his speed.”

     

    Photo Credit: Toro Rosso Formula 1 Team

  • Max Verstappen to Drive for Toro Rosso in 2015

    Max Verstappen to Drive for Toro Rosso in 2015

    Scuderia Toro Rosso announced on 18 August 2014 that young rookie Max Verstappen will drive for the team in 2015.

    Verstappen (16), will drive alongside fellow rookie Daniil Kvyat. Which means long standing Toro Rosso driver Jean-Eric Vergne will be without a racing seat in 2015.

    The young dutchman is currently competing in the Formula 3 European Championship where he has won 8 out of the 27 races to date, which has also put him in contention for the F3 title. Verstappen will become the youngest F1 driver on the grid next year at the Australian Grand Prix at 17 years of age. The previous record holder was Jaime Alguersuari who made his debut for Toro Rosso as well at 19 years of age.

    “First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Helmut Marko and Red Bull for all their trust and giving me the chance to make my Formula debut in 2015 with Scuderia Toro Rosso. Ever since I was seven years old, Formula 1 has been my career goal, so this opportunity is truly a dream come true,” said Verstappen

    “We are happy to welcome Max into the Toro Rosso family,” said Team Principal Franz Tost.

    “It’s great to see how the Red Bull Junior Programme continues to find talented young drivers and gives them the opportunity to come into Formula 1. We consider Max to be as one of the most skilled young drivers of the new generation and we believe he has the necessary maturity and mental strength to take on this challenge successfully,” he added.

    “I would also like to thank Jean-Eric Vergne for all his hard work. He has produced strong performances, but unfortunately he was also hindered by some reliability problems.”

    “We hope that we have resolved these problems and that he will be able to end the second half of this season on a high note and thereby show that he still deserves another opportunity in Formula 1.”