Tag: paul monaghan

  • 2019 Austrian Grand Prix: Thursday Press Conference

    2019 Austrian Grand Prix: Thursday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Mario ISOLA (Pirelli), Andrew GREEN (Racing Point), Paul MONAGHAN (Red Bull Racing), Toyoharu TANABE (Honda), Andreas SEIDL (McLaren)

    Q: Mario, if we could start with you please, you had a meeting this morning with the 10 team principals. Please can you explain what that meeting was about and what conclusions were drawn?
    Mario ISOLA: It was mainly to understand if there is anything we can do to improve the show. We know the dominance for Mercedes is not helping the show at the moment and we had a discussion of the opportunity to reintroduce the 2018 tyres but after analysing the positive side and the negative side the conclusion was that we want to stay on the current… well, there was a vote from the teams and the decision is to stay on the current tyres. The meeting was quite productive; there were new ideas, new proposals for maybe the end of the season. Obviously we have to analyse that. At the moment they are just ideas. Let’s see. We will continue the discussion in the next days and maybe we come with a proposal for Silverstone or something like that. I don’t know yet because it was discussed two hours ago.

    Q: Thank you. Can you also tell us what the plan is for next week’s tyre test here at the Red Bull Ring?
    MI: We continue our development for 2020. As I already said, the main target is to have a wider working window for next year’s compounds. So, both in Austria and after Silverstone we will test new compounds, new philosophy, new types of compounds in order to achieve this target, in order to finalise the new construction for next year – because the current cars are really faster and faster, so that means they are putting more energy into the tyres and we have to cope with this energy and all the modification of the construction is to make them work better, and the compounds to have a wider working range and no issues with the aero map, and no blisters and overheating. Obviously the target is always to reduce overheating because it’s something the tyres don’t like, so I would say the two main targets are keeping that… safety is a target that is always there, we cannot consider a tyre that is not safe for Formula One. The targets are to have a wider working range and less overheating for next year.

    Q: Andreas, if we could come onto you. Welcome, your first FIA press conference. You’ve been team principal of McLaren for a couple of months. Can you just tell us how it’s going and what you found when you arrived at the MTC?
    Andreas SEIDL: Well, what did I find? Still early days, to be honest. It’s a big organisation. I got a very warm welcome from the team from the beginning. It also helped to get started that, compared to last year, the team has made a huge step forwards with the car. So all the changes that have been initiated last year already are paying off. I’m still in the period of really analysing in detail what’s going on inside the team, to find the strong and the weak points inside the team in order to then work out a clear plan how I want to, let’s say, approach the future with the team. Obviously Zak and the shareholders gave me the clear task to work out, as quickly as possible any deficits I see, also on the infrastructure side. So, I was very happy to announce last week that we got this positive decision on the wind tunnel, which was a quite obvious deficit compared to the top teams. So, very happy, it’s good to see that we are making steps, race by race now at the moment. It’s important for me to keep this positive journey going.

    Q: As you say, McLaren is a team on the up at the minute. What is the mood in the camp?
    AS: It’s obviously very, very positive. As I said before, results help; it’s good to see that the car is reacting to developments, different to last year. We are still bringing bits also for the next races, so we better and better understand the car. Also, we have a great working environment also together with the drivers. They perform very well on track. They have a great interation in terms of car development, also with the team at the track and the guys at home. All pretty positive. At the same time, the battle in the midfield is very, very tight – so it’s also no reason to get over-excited. It’s just important now to keep our heads down and keep pushing day and night.

    Q: You have a great result in France last weekend, sixth and ninth – but how concerned are you about a repeat of the hydraulics issue on one of your cars this weekend?
    AS: We obviously disassembled the car afterwards and found an issue on a single part.  We think we have identified the root cause of the issue and hopefully it was a one-off.

    Q: Paul, can we start by talking about this year’s RB15. What were your expectations coming into the 2019 season and has the car met them?
    Paul MONAGHAN: I suppose form a team point of view, no we’re not walking off into the distance and winning every race, so there’s an element of frustration rather than disappointment. Don’t forget, we were the ones that changed power unit and then picked up the bodywork changes, so we probably took more on in the winter than some of the others. These cars don’t stand still. They’re prototypes, aren’t they? So every race it’s changing, sometimes by larger amounts, other times by smaller amounts. Our friends at Honda are upgrading as and when they can. So, as a package we’re trying to move forward. The target is clear and yeah, it’s improving all the time and the rate of improvement relative to our opposition that will see whether we can catch them?

    Q: Well, how do you rate your chances of catching the two teams ahead of you? Do you think it’s possible within the current season to do that?
    PM: Yes, I think you have to, otherwise you sort-of say ‘we’re going to look at next year’s’. We’ll try and learn and move on at every stage we can and if the closer we get to them, the better off we are for next year, if we catch them, great. It’s really a case of making our own progress. The only thing that’s within our control is the performance of our car. We can’t influence the others, they’ll do what they’re going to do and it’s heads down and get on with it really, isn’t it?

    Q: And can we talk about drivers. We’ve seen tremendous consistency from Max Verstappen this year – but it’s been a bit up and down for Pierre Gasly, although he appeared to have a good morning this morning. What have been Pierre’s issues with the car?
    PM: Pierre finds it a little bit more difficult to drive in certain sections of the corners – I think – than Max from his comments but he’s a quick, young driver. Let’s not forget that. And he’s up against a very strong team-mate. He’s much happier this weekend, straight away. He’s on the pace, so his confidence is on the up again. He’s part of our team. We’ll support him as best we can with every bit of energy we’ve got and I think he’ll come good.

    Q: Tanabe-san, Paul says that you’re bringing upgrades as fast as you can and three of your cars run the new spec-3 power unit in France. All four cars are running it here. Did it perform at Paul Ricard as you expected?
    Toyoharu TANABE: Basically yes. We could see some improvement in the data when we ran the lastest spec at the track. And then, we compared to the dyno data and we see improvement trackside as well. But, on the other hand, the improvement is not significant, so as I mentioned before, when we introduced spec-3, there was a reliability and then a performance improvement – but the performance is not huge, which means we still keep pushing to perform well.

    Q: You talk about pushing to perform well. It’s quite early in the season to have introduced your third upgrade. Will there be another new spec this season and, if that’s the case, can you tell us when that might be?
    TT: Yes, so as you are thinking, just before halfway in the season, we already apply third PU and we are planning to introduce another spec sometime this season – but I don’t tell you exactly when and how much improvement we will have. We will announce later.

    Q: You’ve said development of this spec-3 involved working closely with Honda’s jet division. Can you just tell us how that worked?
    TT: So, we have a Honda R&D, so the one division is Honda Sakura R&D which takes care of the Formula One racing project. Then we have a big technical centre including many types of technology. The we use that resource and collaborate very closely. Not only jet engines but also other parts. As a result, we introduce at the last race the new turbocharger using… from the collaboration between Honda Racing technology and jet engine technology. So, we tried to make performance better, not only from the small Racing group but also the all the resources of Honda R&D.

    Q: Andy, very tight midfield this year. Checo was 12th for the third consecutive race last weekend. Can you tell us about the performance of your car, the RP19, its idiosyncrasies and where do you see your main opportunities in the next couple of months.
    Andrew GREEN: Yeah, you’re absolutely right, the midfield is incredibly tight. It only takes very small margins to move you from one end of the field to the other. The car has got some balance issues that we started the season with and really I think that’s a bit of a legacy of where we finished off last year and where we were as a company, position-wise. We’ve got a lot of changes coming ahead in the next few races and beyond, after the break as well. So, I think we’re making progress and, as Paul alluded to, it’s all a relative game really: we’ve got to make more progress than our competition – which is hard to do. It’s very hard to do. We’ve got a lot of work to do but the atmosphere in the team is incredibly buoyant. The team’s future is incredibly bright. We’re looking a long way forward with the team now, that we’ve never been able to do before, and so the fact that we’re in a bit of a tight scrap at the moment is not distracting now from things that we’re looking at much further down the road – so it is an exciting time for the team, it really is, like I’ve never seen before. So, we’re really looking forward to not just fighting this season but, from what we can do and what we can achieve going forward as well into the season beyond. It’s an exciting time.

    Q: And what about Lance Stroll? He’s raced well this year – three points finishes – but he’s been struggling in qualifying. What have been his issues and how can his engineers help him find a solution?
    AG: Yeah, there’s no denying his Saturday afternoon performance, he’d say the same, he struggles on a Saturday afternoon but we have to put it in perspective. He’s in a very early part of his career and he’s up against a very mature, experienced driver on the other side of the garage and he’s learning a lot. In each race and in each session we give him targets and what to look for and how to improve and it’s small margins every time – but he understands it. He’s an incredibly talented driver. We’ve seen that numerous times – and it’s a case of just getting the experience. And once he gets the experience and gets the confidence, we’ll see him close the gap to Checo and potentially take a leap ahead of him. So, we’ve got every confidence he can do it – it just takes a bit of time.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Scott Mitchell – Autosport) To the three team representatives please. We started the press conference talking about changing the tyres mid-season. Can you just give us your thoughts on the decision not to change tyres and the prospect of a change later in the season? Obviously there wasn’t a change now, so why would it change later on?
    AG: Really, we listened to the arguments and we especially listened to this man on my left; Pirelli are the experts in this area. And from what we could tell, it wasn’t clear cut at all that a change, reverting to last year’s compound gauge thickness was going to be a positive change. It sounded like a significant risk to us. From our perspective it’s too late for this season and I think the decision to focus on trying to do something and trying to improve the tyres and the show for next season is the right thing to do. And I think to try and not distract from the testing that’s going on post this event and post-Silverstone as well is the right decision and focus on next year, and try to do something for next year, rather than a kneejerk reaction in the middle of this year.

    Thank you. Paul, your thoughts?
    PM: It’s difficult isn’t it. It puts Pirelli in a slightly difficult position. They’re doing a decent job, they’re going to win every race, the tyres are surviving on the cars, and as Mario points out, they’ve got to maintain their safety record. At the risk of being slightly controversial with regard to Andy’s comments, we would quite happily accept the 2018 tyres to come back. I don’t think the risk is as great as some perceive. But it is about creating a show and I think we almost have to take a step back and take a slightly less team-centric position and turn around and say ‘well, if it would be better for the show, could the teams cope with it’ and our opinion is yes, we could. We accept there has been a majority vote not to do so but we hold a slightly different view to the majority then.

    And Andreas?
    AS: Well, I think first of all it’s important in all fairness to Pirelli to mention that we don’t have a tyre issue in general here. I think Pirelli, the product we have this year is matching all the requirements we set out last year, as Formula One, for what we want to have. I think in the end the reason why we have this discussion at the moment is that we have three top teams with the same resources and one team is doing a significantly better job than the other two. So that’s that situation we are facing. There is nothing we can really influence as McLaren. I think it’s down to the three top teams, with the FIA and Formula One to see if there is anything that can be done short-term to fix that issue. I think in general we have a far bigger issues which is this big gap we have between the top teams and the midfield. That is also where our focus is on. This is something also that cannot be solved in the short term, so we have big hopes for all the changes that are on the table on the financial side, technical side, sporting side, regarding the regulations in ’21 and hopefully F1 and the FIA with all the experts which they now have onboard, which is a unique situation, pull through. We full support the changes that have been sent out some weeks ago and that is our focus to be honest.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines / Racefans.net) Mario, the vote, 5-5, do you take that as a vote of confidence in your product or a vote of no-confidence in your product? And if your product was in line with the target letter then should the target letter just be scrapped? 
    MI: No, I don’t think so. The target letter is fixing some parameters in terms of delta lap time and degradation and characteristics of the tyre. That means we can change the target letter for the future and we can put numbers that are better for the show. As Andreas said, we made a product in line with the requests coming from F1. Don’t forget what happened last year: the drivers were complaining about overheating, and if we go back to 2018 tyres we go back to overheating, to blistering, and all the different stuff, where basically we were working on to make a better tyre for this year. So what is clear to us for next year is to develop a wider working range in order to have more teams that are able to use the tyres better. I am very confident that for the second half of the season most of the teams will learn how to use the current tyres, because it’s always a learning curve. Every year it was the same. Going back to last year’s tyres on the technical side was not the right decision and I’m happy that five teams recognised that and voted against the change. On top of that we are very happy to work together with the teams, the driver and FIA and FOM to find a better solution for the sport as we did in the past and as we have always done. Provided that safety and the image of the company are protected we are here to do something good for Formula 1. If this is not the right direction then let’s change the direction, but we need to agree what is the direction, because at the end of the day we make one tyre for everybody, not get customised tyre for any car.

    Q: (Ian Parkes – New York Times) A question for Andreas. Andreas, you talked about the positivity within McLaren, but you’ve come into the sport at what appears to be quite a negative time, primarily due to the dominance of one team, as you mentioned, Mercedes. Can I just get your thoughts as to what your perceptions were of F1 before you joined McLaren, what your perceptions are now that you have been with the team for a couple of months, and what you would like to see going forward, primarily from 2021 onwards?
    AS: Well, I’ve been following Formula One the last 10 years as a fan and I think it hasn’t lost anything. It is still the platform, which works. It does not change compared to 2009 when I left Formula One. Of course there is an issue, as I mentioned before, with this big gap between the top teams and the midfield teams. Simply the resources these teams are having, let’s say, went out of control compared to what we, for example, can do. It’s not possible for us to be competitive and sustainable at the same time. Again, this should not hide that we have, in general, some work to do inside the team, independent of, let’s say, the boundary conditions we are in at the moment. So I think it’s very, very important to get this right for 2021. I think the objectives are clear for everyone involved and there is also huge agreement regarding the objectives. First of all I think the biggest, or most important topic, is to introduce the budget cap, because that is the only guarantee really to have somehow a level playing field between the teams. We would prefer that is even lower than the numbers that are under discussion at the moment. But we also understand that it needs to be a compromise in the end. Then I think it’s simply important to get the technical and sporting regulations right. It’s important to be a bit more restrictive in terms of the freedom on the development side, which then allows to have the field closer together. At the same time we are up for still having some freedom as the better team should still be able to make a difference. I think everything is on the table and it’s just important now that Formula One and the FAI is pulling through and the whole regulations that are in discussion at the moment don’t get softened again by, let’s say, the agendas of the teams, their own agendas.

    Q: (Julien Billotte – Auto Hebdo) A question to Tanabe-san and Paul. Max Verstappen said yesterday in this press conference that he is keen to evaluate the updates that are coming on your package over the next few races. How confident are you that you can give him the equipment he needs to continue to trust the Red Bull-Honda project and stay with the team longer term?
    PM: To answer your question directly: we are confident that we can give Max a car that enables him to challenger for race wins and beyond. The time scale is not within our control, because you have to catch the others and pass them to achieve this. There are a number of update on both, as Tanabe-san said, with the engine and on the chassis side to improve our performance. We will deploy those as and when they are ready and we know that, or believe that they are right and will make a reasonable difference to the car and if we can make some progress towards that it’s really all on the cars for the start of next season and who rolls out the door fastest then.
    TT: Yes, so we both work very hard to achieve our objectives or our target. I understand the feeling from the cockpit, so we try to deliver performance, not only PU but also chassis. So as Paul said we keep working very hard to keep our driver, so Max, in the confident car. That’s our goal anyway. So we are working very hard. We understand there is a space or a gap to achieve that top level also the period to improve our performance.

    Q: (Péter Vámosi  – Racinglines.hu) Andreas, Bernie Ecclestone confirmed yesterday that four years ago he was in talks with Volkswagen Group and Porsche and Audi that they can come to Formula 1. Can you confirm this and could you imagine that in 2021 we can again have a marriage between McLaren and Porsche? 
    AS: Well, obviously I have a new shirt on, so I can’t comment on what happened at my previous employment. I think in general it’s very difficult for a new engine manufacturer to come in. This is why I think also that from ’21 onwards it makes sense at the moment to really keep the regulations as they are, because we see at the moment already that with keeping the regulations stable all the power trains are coming closer together. And then, I think as far I can see at the moment, we simply have to wait for the next cycle of the regulations and we have to see then also how the automotive industry is going, in which direction, to see if then there is any chance to create any interest for another manufacturer to come into this sport.

    Q: (Maria Reyer – Motorsport-Total.com) Mario, Toto Wolff said after the meeting today that we could see at the end of this season already 2020 tyres being used, maybe in practice, to be tested. Do you see this is possible from a protection side and do you think this maybe could be the case at the end of the season? 
    MI: Yes, it is possible because the current regulations allow us to do that. So we can supply two additional sets of prototype tyres for evaluation during Friday. And there was also the discussion to slightly change the regulations to understand if different tyres can be used during the race weekend, not just in free practice. This is, as I said, a completely new idea and it has to be evaluated and discussed and the FIA should come with a wording to propose but we are open to evaluate that and we will continue our development test for the next weeks, but if we also have the opportunity it is a good opportunity to test the product for next year during the season.

    Q: (Sam Collins – RaceCar Engineering) To Andreas and Paul: just following on from one question back, Andreas you’ve worked with a number of technical working groups in different championships and you mentioned that you wanted to see the new engine regulations in future that will attract new manufacturers to the series. What rule changes would it require, what would the new power unit need to be to attract a new manufacturer to the series in your opinion? And Paul, as a team that has relationships with two automotive manufacturers, from Red Bull’s point of view as a team, what do you think is needed from the engine regulations in ’25 to bring new manufacturers into the sport? 
    AS: First of all, obviously there are a lot of changes ongoing at the moment in the automotive industry with the powertrains, electrification and so on, so I think for the next cycle of regulations you simply have to make the next step of hybridisation, definitely. This is the technical aspect but in order to be attractive as a sport for a manufacturer to enter again, I think it’s also very very important to make sure you can enter this sport with an investment which is a lot smaller compared to what you have to do now with budgets that are a lot smaller, because again, if you want to enter this category at the moment, then the investment you have to do for the infrastructure  and the budget you have to use in order to get to the point where the established manufactures are, you have to be realistic. Pretty difficult to imagine that anyone would invest that money at the moment.
    PM: It’s an interesting question for 2025. I suppose I will answer it by saying that – if you asked me what would I presently do, I would try not to upset the four that are there at the moment, to find ourselves down to two, one of them being new, just as an example. So if you take that point of view, the four that are currently investing and developing engines are supplying them to all ten teams, you could argue on a complete clean sheet of paper but then it rather negates all the work that they’ve currently done. And taking Andreas’s point that you don’t want the new rules to be intimidating to anybody else wanting to come in, you clearly have to strike a compromise somewhere and where that lies I wouldn’t want to comment at the moment. That’s my thought for 2025.

    Q: (Daniel Majet – GPHirek.hu) When there is talk about the spectacle of Formula One, it is often compared to IndyCar. Do you see in it from a technical aspect, chassis, engine, whatever, that can be considered, which is now in IndyCar, for the future of Formula One? 
    MI: I believe that we should look at any other series that’s providing the show, not just IndyCar. If we look at the other series with an open mind, we can find solutions also for Formula One, keeping in mind the DNA of Formula One because it is clear that we cannot have a Formula One that is a standard series like Formula Two or something like that. There are a lot of dedicated aspects to consider but observing the rest of motorsport with a critical view can only be positive.
    AG: I think the regulations moving forward in 2021 do take some of other formulas technology, I think with moving towards more of a ground effect car going forward. I think that definitely comes from the north American series, which, if we’re looking at, trying to have the cars race closer together then I think that’s the right thing to do, that makes complete sense. But I think the same, I think we need to keep Formula One at the pinnacle, it needs to be a technological amazement really. That’s where I think the sport needs to be, it’s not just about having cars that are close, it’s about a bit more of a Wow factor and we need to make sure we don’t lose any of that.
    PM: To answer your question directly, yes, I think you can learn from other series. Your specific question of IndyCars Andy has partly answered I think in that the way they generate their downforce is of interest to us. The question becomes can they run closer, can we still maintain differentiation between the cars as opposed to stock bodywork as they would call it over there? So I think you keep an open mind and you look and you learn and you don’t assume that you have perfect knowledge. I think that open-mindedness will serve us well.
    AS: Yeah, same from my side. I think we all do –  Formula One, FIA and the teams should also currently look at what’s going on in other categories, on the technical side and also on the sporting side which has a big impact as well, the sporting regulations of how the show is actually happening on track. I think some aspects of the ’21 regulations like standardisation and so on, limitation of the freedom regarding the aero development and so on, they’re going in the direction we see already in other categories. There’s a lot of work going in to also to allow this closer racing so I think we are not far off with the proposals that are on the table. As I said before, we just need to pull through now.
    TT: Yes, IndyCar and Formula One are sports and also entertainment. I think there is a big differences between the two series and also the spectator characteristics are different. But it’s good to learn from each other or share the idea which enforces the Formula One, which enforces IndyCar and then supplies much more until the spectator is good, I think.

    Q: (Carlo Platella – F1ingenerale.com) A double question for Mr Seidl: McLaren introduced a new front suspension in France. Is the introduction of such an important component in the middle of the season a result of the new organisation of the team? And have you noticed a significant improvement in performance thanks to it? 
    AS: Well, I think with the limited testing which is available in Formula One nowadays, which we all support also, you simply have to use the Fridays also to try let’s say adventurous stuff, which we did in Paul Ricard. It’s nothing we follow up at the moment. It was – let’s say – an engineering exercise, a learning exercise for the engineers and we have to see now what we do now with the conclusions of that test, regarding future developments we want to bring to the car this year or next year.

    Q: (Ian Parkes – New York Times) Andreas, can I just get your thoughts on the season Lando is having so far, his plus points, what he’s done? Well, he’s obviously had a bit of bad luck but his plus points, what he’s done well, where you feel he needs to improve?  He needs to learn in his first year, at the end of the day, and also get your thoughts on his obsession with his home simulator and how much that is helping improving him as a driver? 
    AS: Well, first of all, I was obviously very very impressed, straight from the beginning, even during the first races when I was still watching the races from home, with what Lando was doing on track. If you come into Formula One and you go into your first qualifying in Melbourne with a car that was maybe somewhere between – in terms of performance – ten to 14 and you score P8, it’s an impressive achievement and it was not just a one-off, he did that now several times which is great to see, also how he handles the races, I think it’s great. He had some bad luck in terms of results but I think that’s nothing which is too worrying at the moment, so we are very very happy inside the team, also how he interacts with the engineers regarding the development of the car, with the guys here at the track and also back home so very encouraging to see and I think he will have a great future in Formula One and obviously with the McLaren team as well, long term.

    Q: And his home simulator? 
    AS: Yeah, I think that even here in the motorhome there’s a big competition going on between Carlos and him each day, battling each other on the simulator so he’s obsessed with that, he’s convinced and we can see that also that it helps him to prepare the races, to be sharp when he’s arriving here, in addition to the simulator work he’s also doing with the guys back home in Woking. It’s great to see, this new generation also how they prepare themselves for this challenge in Formula One, and again, very excited to work together with him and the same for Carlos, I think we have a great driver line-up and they will be the future for this team.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines / Racefans.net) To Mario and the three team representatives: if one has a single tyre supplier, surely it’s inevitable that some teams are going to be marginalised by this. If we are looking at tyres to improve the show, should we not be looking at multiple tyre suppliers in Formula One in future when the current contract expires? 
    MI: You know everybody is talking about the budget cap and multiple tyre supplier means a lot of cost more. Don’t forget when we had the multiple tyre supplier, the top teams had a specific test team just for tyres and introduction of new tyres, new prototypes every race so it’s a bit against the philosophy of having a cap on the budget. But if this is the decision of the sport, we will evaluate that as we told you in the past and obviously with a different approach, it’s a lot more about the performance and other stuff rather than the same product to everybody and with the characteristics which are decided by the famous target letter. Or we can try to find different values in that document to enhance the show. Maybe it is possible. We are working with the FIA and FOM in order to have different numbers for the future.
    AG: Yeah, I think multiple tyre suppliers goes against the whole ethos of trying to compress the grid and improve the show. You are going to end up with the haves and have-nots with respect to tyres. Currently we all have the same tyre and we can all do the same job, up and down the grid. I think the team that does the best job with the tyres should be rewarded for that so I don’t think that’s the right way to go for the show, to be honest.
    PM: In the current generation of Formula One then multiple tyre suppliers don’t really fit with the model. We don’t go tyre testing every week and tyres per se are not a prime performance differentiator so at the moment our current working philosophy, if you like, is to have a single supplier. It would change everything that is on the table now and I believe plans for the future if we were to bring in multiple suppliers and I don’t if you would close the field up or spread it out in that circumstance. At the moment, we’re not really equipped to go down that route.
    AS: Well, I think we should also not forget that even in the years of the biggest tyre war, sometimes we had a total dominance of one team throughout the entire season so I’m not convinced that this is the solution. I think it’s simply important now that between the teams, together with the FIA and FOM that we have, let’s say that we take our time to really define clearly what is the target letter for the tyres for next year and for ’21 and I think that’s the way to go, to be honest.

  • 2017 Hungarian GP: Friday Press Conference Part 2

    2017 Hungarian GP: Friday Press Conference Part 2

    PART TWO: TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Paddy LOWE (Williams), Nick CHESTER (Renault), Paul MONAGHAN (Red Bull)

    Q: Nick, if we can start with you, it’s been a difficult day for Jolyon in particular. Incidents in both of those sessions. What state is his car in now? He had the new floor this morning: how much damage this afternoon?

    Nick CHESTER: Well, we’ve got a little bit of work to do as you can probably guess from seeing the TV, so we’ll be changing his gearbox anyway because we normally change it on a Friday night, so the rear suspension will get refreshed with that. The floor that was damaged this morning will be repaired and that will go on tomorrow, so he’ll have the news-spec floor. To be honest there’s nothing that we’re not used to repairing. We’ll get it all sorted for tomorrow.

    Q: Silverstone a couple of weekends ago was a tremendous weekend for Nico Hülkenberg. The new floor seemed to give a lot of advantages there. Does that translate to even more performance around here? How is the performance of the car?

    NC: From what we’ve seen so far today it looks pretty similar. So, we’re seeing a pretty good performance here. I think Nico was seventh in P2. It’s performing like Silverstone really and we’re seeing that performance gain that we did see at Silverstone.

    Q: Given the different characteristics of the two circuits, is that very encouraging for you?

    NC: It is, yeah, because they’re two circuits that are very far apart, so if you can perform on Silverstone and Hungary, you should be in a reasonable place for the rest of the year.

    Q: And final question from me is about the Halo. Obviously it’s been confirmed that it’s going to be introduced in 2018. Do you see it an aero opportunity, as well as obviously the safety benefits. Are there any performance benefits that could come from it?

    NC: No, not really. I think Halo, for starters, it’s good to have something there that’s going to give the driver more protection and everyone’s behind that and wants to put it on the car for that reason. But in terms of aero, if anything it’s a detriment and, if anything, you have to work around it being fitted to the car. So, I don’t think they’ll be any huge tricks with it.  I think everyone will just want to put it on the car and make it the best they can for the drivers.

    Q: Paddy, you’ve been in this game a long time. Your thoughts on the Halo?

    Paddy LOWE: Yeah, there’s obviously a lot being written about it. It seems to be quite controversial, let’s say. I think it’s worth bearing in mind the context. Probably five or six years ago the TRM themselves had identified that the big risk they could see still in the sport was to the driver’s head and there were a number of near-misses, typically one per year that we all saw go by and thought one day that could end in tragedy. So that was the background to developing a solution, and we ended up here with the best option being the Halo. I know it’s not the most attractive device but I do think it’s the right decision to get it on the car. At least then we’re started, we can always make it better in the future. I’m sure we can improve it year on year but at least we’ve put in place that protection that we intended from the start.

    Q: Looking at today’s performance, difficult day for the team but in fact it’s been a difficult few races for the team and, if you look at the points this year versus last year, you’re on 41 now, at the same stage in 2016 you had 92 points. Obviously it’s a tougher season but where is the performance lacking this year with the FW40?

    PL: Yeah, definitely at the half-term report stage we’re not looking as good as we’d like. We’re very disappointed, the car is quicker than that points table would reflect. I think one of our biggest problems has been that we haven’t been scoring the points we should have done at the track with our speed of car. That’s for a number of different reasons. On top of that, we’ve seen a lot of variation from circuit to circuit. There are places that we significantly under-perform and we really need to have a car that will perform more equally at different destinations, so that’s a big focus for next year.

    Q: Have you ascertained why the car underperformed at those tracks?

    PL: Some of those things we understand, some of them we don’t. So there’s a lot of work to do. But we’re very much hoping we can have a better second half of the season and put some of that right.

    Q: Paul, well a very promising start to the weekend for you guys, particularly with Daniel. Your thoughts on how today’s gone – and what is Daniel saying about the car?

    Paul MONAGHAN: Today offers a lot of encouragement, doesn’t it? Both our drivers seem competitive and sadly we haven’t got 43 points from Friday afternoon. The bit that remains in our control is our car, so we’ll try to work on it overnight, improve it, get the drivers more settled with their setup choices and so on and so forth, and we’ll deploy ourselves tomorrow, keep it in good order and see what our competitiveness is like in qualifying and then obviously on Sunday in the race. That’s about all we can actually do. The pace of our competitors is down to them, isn’t it?

    Q: Is this performance track-specific or are you confident you can go forward and be competitive everywhere now?

    PM: Up until Silverstone I think Daniel had five podiums in a row, didn’t he, so we’ve been competitive at tracks where we thought we might be a bit weaker, we might have thought we might have been a bit better. In general our car is adept at dealing with most of the tracks. Some will suit us a bit more than others. That’s inevitable and that’s something true of all the cars in the pitlane. Coming to this one, OK, some of our weaknesses are masked, others are highlighted, but the bit that remains in our control is our car, and let’s see what we can do with it tomorrow.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Kate Walker – Motorsport . com) For all three of you please, on the halo: in the briefing yesterday, Charlie was saying that while there are aesthetic objections, you guys have got opportunities with fairings and whatnot to make the device slightly more palatable. I was wondering to what extent you’ve already begun looking at improving the aesthetics and the performance of the halo or is 2018 just going to be spec and move on from there?

    PM: The fairings were, I believe, agreed around about July 2016 or the extent of them. We will make use of the fairings, as Nick alluded to, to reduce the aerodynamic detriment of the halo and I think, beyond that, the aesthetics of it. Yes, if we can have a fairing which reduces some of the aerodynamic detriment and makes it –  to the eye of the beholder, shall we say, slightly more aesthetic, we’ll take that solution but I think the aesthetics of it, it’s not put on there for that reason, is it? It’s put on there as a safety device. We’ll put the fairings on it, we’ll do the work that Nick’s talking about, to reduce the detriment and that will be on for 2018.

    PL: Well, firstly the definition isn’t finally issued yet so we don’t exactly know what opportunities we’ll have but I believe we’ll have the space to minimise the aerodynamic detriment as Nick was saying, and hope within that, generally, we try and find a good aesthetic and these things often go together.

    NC: Not much to add. The fairings are allowed; it’s a fairly small fairing and as Paddy has said, not all of the regulations for fairings are finalised yet. We’ll be doing a little bit to reduce the aerodynamic deficit.

    Q: (Andrew Benson – BBC Sport) Nick, you’re testing Robert Kubica again on Wednesday. Can I ask you a few questions in one about that? How it initially came about? How long the team had stayed in touch with him? Who contacted who? Why now, after six and a half years? The mental fortitude and struggle it’s taken him to get to this point and what you’ve seen so far about his readiness to return to Formula One? 

    NC: OK. Yeah, quite a few questions there. Yeah, to start off, the background… I must admit I don’t fully know the background or how the contact was made but obviously we know Robert, we know him from when he drove in Renault before. He was a super driver. It’s nice to give him the opportunity to get back in a V8, get some mileage, see how he can handle it and then he’ll get another opportunity in current machinery in the test after Hungary and it’s a good opportunity to see what he can do and whether he can come back to Formula One someday.

    Q: (Andrew Benson – BBC Sport) From what you’ve seen so far, what would you say about his readiness and his physical limitations and whether they affect him in the car and what changes you’ve had to make to the car to adapt to those?

    NC: Yeah, well from what we’ve seen so far his mental fortitude is great, he’s pushed very hard to come back. Physically I think he’s passed all of his fitness tests and we’ve had to do very little to the car so he’s actually managed pretty well in a modern F1 car.

    Q: Nick, can you give us any more details about the steering wheel, have you had to make changes to how he changes gear or anything like that? 

    NC: We’ve made some little adaptations but nothing too serious.

    Q: (Roksana Cwik – SwiatWyscigow) Mr Lowe, we saw in the second practice that Felipe had a lot of problems in turns four and five. He also asked for the car to be checked. Can you say something more about those problems?

    PL: Yeah, Felipe did have a couple of spins in P2 which took him by surprise so we are still trying to understand and analyse those. At this point, we haven’t understood it. It was interesting that in that session, a lot of cars were going off at corner entry with very unstable balance so we don’t know whether it might be something to do with the tyres, some general characteristic or not or something to do with our car.

    Q: (Istvan Simon – Auto Magazin) Mr Chester, we have seen a pretty bad accident by Jolyon in free practice when he basically crashed the undertray of the car or the diffuser of the car. Do you know the reason? Was it a driver failure or a failure of the kerbs or anything else? 

    NC: Yeah, I think you’re probably referring to the free practice one accident. Yeah, he ran wide over the kerbs and just… there is a little drop on the outside of the kerbs and that’s enough to bounce the chassis and the floor and the front wing so yeah, it was just enough to rip the front wing off.

    Q: (Istvan Simon – Auto Magazin) Is it the same as we had last year?

    NC: The kerbs are slightly different so there was a single row last year, there’s now a double row so they are different and really the intention is the drivers shouldn’t be going right over the second set of kerbs.

    Q: (Istvan Simon – Auto Magazin) Do you have a spare part for this? 

    NC: Yeah, we do, fortunately. We’ve got a reasonably good stock of front wings and we’re repairing floors for him so we will be in good shape from tomorrow.

    Q: (Peter Farkas – Auto Motor) This is primarily for Paul but all three of you please… Even in P1 we saw a spectacular time from Daniel. He was only a couple of hundredths from the lap record, set in 2004 so was it a surprise that the track was so quick, even in P1? But in P2, there didn’t seem to be such a huge track evolution. I mean he only went a little bit better so do you have an explanation for that, did it surprise you that it was already so quick in P1 and why it wasn’t so much quicker in P2? 

    PM: OK. Hungary, as we used to come here years ago, you would see the plumes of dust behind the cars in P1 and there was a huge track evolution. I think to all of our benefits, the track is now superbly cleaned before we start running and as such on the slightly cooler track, if that suits your car and tyres a little bit better, then P1 is an opportunity to operate the car near its limits without being grip limited by dust and so on and exploiting track evolution. Therefore, as the track warms up, it’s not always possible to then have the evolution you typically see from some of the other tracks in P2 and I’m not surprised we didn’t see big steps for the second practice, to be perfectly honest. As for the actual lap time, when you do a simulation, you can obviously factor in an amount of grip on the track; we put in what we think is the aero model, what we think is the engine model, verification actually happens at the track so… Everybody can have a go at their simulation and then we’ll all say yes, we’re on it, or no we’re not or we’re quicker, we’re slower. It doesn’t actually matter. We don’t race the simulation tool. That helps the preparation, it helps everybody and now it’s down to Saturday and Sunday for the competition.

    Q: Paul, can you give us a guesstimate of what you think pole position might be tomorrow? What time?

    PM: I’m not going to do that, no. I’m going to duck that issue on the basis I can’t tell you how fast our competitors’ cars could be and nor am I going to tell you how fast our one can be.

    Q: From Paddy and Nick: any thoughts on the grip level available in FP1 and the track evolution or not?

    PL: Only to say, as Paul was saying, one of the tricky things in modern Formula One is tracking the evolution of the track but what was the track temperatures, these tyres are very sensitive to track temperature. It’s one of the challenges we face and you know that today was no better example.

    NC: Yeah, very similar. I think the cars are very sensitive to tyre temperature. The track temperature came up for the second session and it was a little bit windier as well so I think that made it a bit tougher for some of the drivers.

  • 2017 Monaco GP: Thursday Press Conference – Part 1

    2017 Monaco GP: Thursday Press Conference – Part 1

    PART ONE: TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Andrew GREEN (Force India), Paul Monaghan (Red Bull Racing), Jörg Zander (Sauber).

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Q: Andy, let’s start with you. Stunning start to the season: 53 points; clear fourth place and even breathing down Red Bull’s neck in the championship. With the resources that you have, how have you managed to do it?

    Andy GREEN: It’s been, yeah, it’s been a good start to the season but as we proved last season, you can’t take anything for granted and our lead over fifth place is a lot smaller than where we were behind the Williams last year. So, reminding the guys that it’s a long season and we’re only a quarter of the way through it with a long way to go where a lot can happen. So, we need to keep pushing, keep developing, do what we’re doing – we’re on a good trajectory at the moment – and not to slack and see where we end up in the end. So far it’s gone better than expected and I think we’ve capitalised as much as we could of in those first five races. I don’t think you look back at those first five and think ‘what if?’ I think we’ve basically got the best out of it.

    Q: In Spain only three cars finished on the lead lap, which is the fewest since 2008 so obviously, does that speak to the problem that the field in Formula One, with these new regulations, has become very spread out? Do you think that’s going to remain the case for the rest of the season?

    AG: I hope not. It was another point I did make to the factory last week. I hate being lapped. It just shows the potential that there is in these regulations and how much there is to find. We look at it as an opportunity to make the car even faster, knowing that there’s that much performance left in it.

    Q: Paul, coming to you, 75 seconds behind at the finish in Spain last time out but a clear and very promising looking P2 in practice today with last year’s pole-sitter. What’s your overview of today’s running and how competitive do you think you’re going to be this weekend?

    Paul MONAGHAN: It’s nice to see us nearer the sharp end than we’ve arguably been at points this year. Our overall competitiveness… it’s still hard to tell. I’m not sure Mercedes showed their full hand today. I think it’s going to be pretty tight on Saturday and you need to have a reasonable qualifying around here to then capitalise for Sunday. So, I’m not going to count any chickens yet. We just knuckle down, do what’s within our control, get the most out of our car, and get the most out of it on Saturday and see where we end up.

    Q: So where’s the shortfall been then in the first five races of this season – some way behind, as we said, in Spain. Is there still belief that you can catch them over the span of the season?

    PM: There’s belief, yes, and a strong desire as well. I think if we lost belief it would be a fairly early end to our season. So, there’s a strong belief, a strong desire and a real determination to get more out of this car and close on the others – because they’re not standing still and as such our development rate has to exceed those guys. I think it can. It’s fair to say that we’ve not extracted as much as we can in terms of points-scoring from the first four and there’s a little bit of performance coming each race. We set out on a pathway to catch them, let’s see if we can.

    Q: But where’s the shortfall? It’s fair to say you haven’t extracted the most from the regulations. You’d have expected, looking at the way they were framed, that this was going to play to Red Bull’s strengths, particularly on the aerodynamic side.

    PM: Well it’s strange thing, isn’t it? In that, within our own control is our own destiny and what others do will always be judged against that. And yes, it’s fair to say we don’t have the leading car at the present time. I wouldn’t want to say that it’s one area. It’s going to be several areas and it’s up to us to identify the ones that have the greatest returns that we can alter, capitalise upon those and get the most out of our car. It’s only what lies within our control. Can’t do anything about what the others do. We will identify the shortfalls – I don’t think it’s going to be a singular – it will be a plural, and we will chip away at them as we have been for some time now.

    Q: Jörg, welcome to you. Very valuable points, obviously, for your team in Spain that puts you ahead of McLaren in the Constructors’. How optimistic are you that you can stay there?

    Jörg ZANDER: First of all there was obviously a massive boost for the morale and motivation of the team. We actually didn’t expect us to be there in Barcelona. The upgrade package which we planned for Barcelona, we moved to this event. So somehow things seem to have been turned upside down. We didn’t expect us to be on P19-20 today. It was a bit more of a difficult start for us, into the season and it was affected by various parameters. As you know, we didn’t have Pascal for the first two races, so we had to go with Giovinazzi and, of course, that introduced quite a bit of a change to the operational side. So we had a very young, new driver into the car, which we needed to get adapted – but obviously, let me say, from a development point of view, we do understand that the car is behind, compared to our, let me say, defined competition, which is the midfield, primarily because we started pretty early in the season to develop that car, so we have to try and catch-up. But the parameter we fight here, of course, is time and it’s difficult to gain time over the competition. They have a certain time available as we have, so there’s not any difference. The thing is, of course, about resources, and these resources, we’re just about to configure and to adapt. We have made plenty of recruitments but these are all new people so there is a human factor involved, with regards to getting more out of this operation – and these are the kind of difficulties that we are fighting at the moment, let me say.

    Q: You mentioned today P19-20. It looked a bit of a struggle, lap time-wise. I was out on circuit. The car didn’t look too bad but the times were a long way off the next-slowest car. What’s going on?

    JZ: There’s definitely something wrong. It’s a little bit more work ahead of us. At the moment we don’t seem to get the tyres to work, at all. So, as I said, it was a bit of a surprise. We came here with a new aero upgrade which works according to the data, actually quite fine. So, as expected. We thought we could draw some more potential from it. Of course, now while the tyre temperature management worked very well in Barcelona and panned out very well for us on both compounds, supersoft and the medium, yeah, we do seem to struggle at the moment. The same is true of both compounds: ultrasoft, supersoft. We don’t’ really seem to be able to put the energy into the tyres that it needs to develop the grip which is required.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Ralf Bach – Autobild Motorsport) A question to Paul. I read last week that Adrian Newey said that he was more or less not involved in the new cars. Not his car. Can you tell us how much involved he really was?

    PM: In terms of hours, I can’t tell you how he’s split his time. He’s part of our team, has been for a long time and continues to be so. He was involved in the process of developing the car and continues to be so.

    Q: (Jerome Pugmire – AP) Question for Andy. Esteban was saying yesterday that he’s confident that he can get a podium this season. How confident are you that he can do that and how impressed have you been with his start?

    AG: Well, I can tell you how impressed I am: very, very impressed with the way that he’s come into the team, adapted, the speed at which he acclimatised himself to this track especially this morning, for me shows what a talent he is. Undoubtedly. I watched him for quite a long time in the simulator last week, pounding around the lap here, and his car control was incredible. He could put the front wheel through the barrier by an inch every time. He just needed to bring it back an inch! He’s an amazing talent. Can he get a podium? Well, we need to give him the car to do that – because ultimately on our current car pace and ranking, if everybody finished we would never get a podium so it would need a big slice of luck. But he has an uncanny ability to finish races. He races really well on a Sunday. He has a lot of mental capacity remaining, when he’s driving the car, which is a really, really good sign. If he’s given the opportunity, I’m sure he’ll take it.

    Q: (Peter Farkas – Auto Motor) A question to Paul. I think if you look at qualifying in Barcelona, corner speeds of the new Red Bulls were quite encouraging. If that is so, how encouraging is that regarding the new upgrades. And also, has there been a change of philosophy towards more downforce versus less drag with the new update introduced in Barcelona.

    PM: OK, the first part of your question then. The changes made to the car for Barcelona yielded improvements to it, undoubtedly. There’s always a simulation target and then what the real car delivers – and the testing of the real car is usually imperfect. So, as far as we can tell, they’ve done what we expected to do – I’m encouraged by that – we did pick up a bit of speed. I think it gave the drivers more confidence and that’s another little bonus that you can take. In terms of change of philosophy, no, not really. We have efficiency targets that determine do pieces go on the car or not. It’s perhaps easier to judge that than it is your expected lap time gain of an update package. We’re not changing our philosophy: you can see how the car is set up; we’ve been pursuing that for some time and that remains. I think a change of philosophy at this stage would be, for us, unwise. What we do longer term is entirely our choice and our business.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Jörg, if we look at your career, you’ve always worked with very, very well-funded teams: Toyota, Honda, in sportscars Audi, with BMW-Sauber when it was manufacturer-backed. How difficult is it to reset the engineering mind set to operate and work in a team with a more modest budget the way that Sauber is right now?

    JZ: First of all, I think we have actually quite a good budget, so we have all opportunity that you can find in other midfield teams to do a decent development and dover those development processes.  So, from that perspective I think we are not too badly adjusted at all. The other point is that, the way I see Sauber is actually, from the point of talent level, actually quite good. We have very experienced people, very, very… people have a good talent, they are very competent. They have been in the sport for a long time, so I think you may want to look into the economic side of things, which are really decent but you have to look from a human resource point of view as well: what kind of quality level of human resource do you have available for your developments. I think Sauber is actually placed very well in that regard.

    Q: (Sam Collins – Racecar Engineering) There’s been a lot of talk about the frontal cockpit protection system being introduced for the 2018 season. What have you heard from the FIA and their research institute about what form it will take, in terms of technical regulations. Also, what’s the latest in terms of monocoque design and lead times in manufacturer to start working and introduce it into the car?

    AG: Well, there has been a meeting a couple of weeks ago, the first meeting for the installation of the Shield. We weren’t part of that meeting but there is another meeting tomorrow that we are having with the FIA to discuss it further. We’ve seen some preliminary models. We’ve been looking at how we integrate those into the chassis next year. There are a lot, a lot of question marks over it. There’s a lot of work to do in the timeframe that we have been given. So we need to make some smart decisions going forward. Hopefully we’ll be discussing that tomorrow, with a view to how we answer all those questions in the time period we’ve got.

    PM: To answer your question, ‘what’s the deadline?’ I think it depends which colour shirt you have on. We, as a team, can be amongst the later, but we are going to very, very tight to get this on to a car for ’18. I think the research into its functionality and protection, it’s got to happen almost in parallel with the installation, which makes it quite a tricky job, because whatever they change in terms of screen then has an implication to a chassis and if you have cut your patterns then you are in a fairly awkward situations. I think if it all happens in parallel then the cut-offs are going to be somewhat team dependent. As Andy said, there is a hell of a lot to get through to ensure that this is a thoroughly developed and sorted package to put on next year’s car.

    JZ: With regard to the deadline, so usually we would by the end of July, beginning of August, define the monocoque. Of course the fundamental question here is about the integration of the shield and the attachment, so there is a question about structural integrity, but again, as my colleagues said, we are going to discuss this tomorrow, so we need those detailed informations of course. At the moment, as far as I know, we want to test this system at some point in September, which I think is good. I think the enhancement of safety, improving safety is a fundamental let me say job of ours and I think we should support that, we do support this. But of course we have to makes sure that these things are worked out sensibly and that they fit within the time schedule. But we are working together with the FIA in order to achieve this, don’t we Paul?

    PM: Absolutely.

    Q: (Jerome Pugmire – Associated Press) I just wanted to follow up on what I was asking about Esteban before. Could you just talk about his capacity and desire to learn, because he has said that he does hours and hours of simulator work and, quote, “intense debriefs with engineers”, so that shows his application. Could you talk about his desire to learn and willingness to improve?

    AG: He’s like a school child. He’s like a sponge and he just absorbs information as fast as you can give it to him. His want and his desire are unquestionable. He absolutely wants this and he has the talent to do great things but he is going about it the right way. He’s doing it a step at a time. He’s doing the learning at the pace he wants to and that we allow him to do and I have no doubts that he is going to get to where he wants to be in a few years’ time.

    Q: (Silvia Arias – Parabrisas) A question for everybody. Did you need to change the jack support at the back of the car after Laurent Mekies’ document, and what do you think about it, will it really help in the case of accidents?

    PM: To answer your first question: yes, we were requested to change, so we have changed. We’ve taken a bigger step than some of our competitors by the looks of it and we have done a new jack, we’ve modified the associated receptacle on the back of the rear impact structure. As for the note, well, it’s given to us, and it’s up to us to interpret it, deal with it, liaise with the FIA, achieve a design that design that satisfies them and equally that we could get here, and with a lot of hard work and dedication we’ve got a solution here.

    JZ: It’s the same for us. It added a little bit of complexity to our operations as well, but that’s what we have done. Of course, we have a Ferrari gearbox, so there’s a rear impact structure that is homologated by Ferrari. So we had to work this out in co-operation with our colleagues in Italy. So there was immediate action required which we did and yes, of course, we have had extra support here to make sure that it all works nicely. But then again, as I said before, it’s a safety critical subject, so we do understand and if there is urgency because of that then we would support that. That’s what we did.

    AG: We didn’t need to change our rear impact structure, we just changed our livery.

    PART ONE: TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Andrew GREEN (Force India), Paul Monaghan (Red Bull Racing), Jörg Zander (Sauber).

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Q: Andy, let’s start with you. Stunning start to the season: 53 points; clear fourth place and even breathing down Red Bull’s neck in the championship. With the resources that you have, how have you managed to do it?

    Andy GREEN: It’s been, yeah, it’s been a good start to the season but as we proved last season, you can’t take anything for granted and our lead over fifth place is a lot smaller than where we were behind the Williams last year. So, reminding the guys that it’s a long season and we’re only a quarter of the way through it with a long way to go where a lot can happen. So, we need to keep pushing, keep developing, do what we’re doing – we’re on a good trajectory at the moment – and not to slack and see where we end up in the end. So far it’s gone better than expected and I think we’ve capitalised as much as we could of in those first five races. I don’t think you look back at those first five and think ‘what if?’ I think we’ve basically got the best out of it.

    Q: In Spain only three cars finished on the lead lap, which is the fewest since 2008 so obviously, does that speak to the problem that the field in Formula One, with these new regulations, has become very spread out? Do you think that’s going to remain the case for the rest of the season?

    AG: I hope not. It was another point I did make to the factory last week. I hate being lapped. It just shows the potential that there is in these regulations and how much there is to find. We look at it as an opportunity to make the car even faster, knowing that there’s that much performance left in it.

    Q: Paul, coming to you, 75 seconds behind at the finish in Spain last time out but a clear and very promising looking P2 in practice today with last year’s pole-sitter. What’s your overview of today’s running and how competitive do you think you’re going to be this weekend?

    Paul MONAGHAN: It’s nice to see us nearer the sharp end than we’ve arguably been at points this year. Our overall competitiveness… it’s still hard to tell. I’m not sure Mercedes showed their full hand today. I think it’s going to be pretty tight on Saturday and you need to have a reasonable qualifying around here to then capitalise for Sunday. So, I’m not going to count any chickens yet. We just knuckle down, do what’s within our control, get the most out of our car, and get the most out of it on Saturday and see where we end up.

    Q: So where’s the shortfall been then in the first five races of this season – some way behind, as we said, in Spain. Is there still belief that you can catch them over the span of the season?

    PM: There’s belief, yes, and a strong desire as well. I think if we lost belief it would be a fairly early end to our season. So, there’s a strong belief, a strong desire and a real determination to get more out of this car and close on the others – because they’re not standing still and as such our development rate has to exceed those guys. I think it can. It’s fair to say that we’ve not extracted as much as we can in terms of points-scoring from the first four and there’s a little bit of performance coming each race. We set out on a pathway to catch them, let’s see if we can.

    Q: But where’s the shortfall? It’s fair to say you haven’t extracted the most from the regulations. You’d have expected, looking at the way they were framed, that this was going to play to Red Bull’s strengths, particularly on the aerodynamic side.

    PM: Well it’s strange thing, isn’t it? In that, within our own control is our own destiny and what others do will always be judged against that. And yes, it’s fair to say we don’t have the leading car at the present time. I wouldn’t want to say that it’s one area. It’s going to be several areas and it’s up to us to identify the ones that have the greatest returns that we can alter, capitalise upon those and get the most out of our car. It’s only what lies within our control. Can’t do anything about what the others do. We will identify the shortfalls – I don’t think it’s going to be a singular – it will be a plural, and we will chip away at them as we have been for some time now.

    Q: Jörg, welcome to you. Very valuable points, obviously, for your team in Spain that puts you ahead of McLaren in the Constructors’. How optimistic are you that you can stay there?

    Jörg ZANDER: First of all there was obviously a massive boost for the morale and motivation of the team. We actually didn’t expect us to be there in Barcelona. The upgrade package which we planned for Barcelona, we moved to this event. So somehow things seem to have been turned upside down. We didn’t expect us to be on P19-20 today. It was a bit more of a difficult start for us, into the season and it was affected by various parameters. As you know, we didn’t have Pascal for the first two races, so we had to go with Giovinazzi and, of course, that introduced quite a bit of a change to the operational side. So we had a very young, new driver into the car, which we needed to get adapted – but obviously, let me say, from a development point of view, we do understand that the car is behind, compared to our, let me say, defined competition, which is the midfield, primarily because we started pretty early in the season to develop that car, so we have to try and catch-up. But the parameter we fight here, of course, is time and it’s difficult to gain time over the competition. They have a certain time available as we have, so there’s not any difference. The thing is, of course, about resources, and these resources, we’re just about to configure and to adapt. We have made plenty of recruitments but these are all new people so there is a human factor involved, with regards to getting more out of this operation – and these are the kind of difficulties that we are fighting at the moment, let me say.

    Q: You mentioned today P19-20. It looked a bit of a struggle, lap time-wise. I was out on circuit. The car didn’t look too bad but the times were a long way off the next-slowest car. What’s going on?

    JZ: There’s definitely something wrong. It’s a little bit more work ahead of us. At the moment we don’t seem to get the tyres to work, at all. So, as I said, it was a bit of a surprise. We came here with a new aero upgrade which works according to the data, actually quite fine. So, as expected. We thought we could draw some more potential from it. Of course, now while the tyre temperature management worked very well in Barcelona and panned out very well for us on both compounds, supersoft and the medium, yeah, we do seem to struggle at the moment. The same is true of both compounds: ultrasoft, supersoft. We don’t’ really seem to be able to put the energy into the tyres that it needs to develop the grip which is required.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Ralf Bach – Autobild Motorsport) A question to Paul. I read last week that Adrian Newey said that he was more or less not involved in the new cars. Not his car. Can you tell us how much involved he really was?

    PM: In terms of hours, I can’t tell you how he’s split his time. He’s part of our team, has been for a long time and continues to be so. He was involved in the process of developing the car and continues to be so.

    Q: (Jerome Pugmire – AP) Question for Andy. Esteban was saying yesterday that he’s confident that he can get a podium this season. How confident are you that he can do that and how impressed have you been with his start?

    AG: Well, I can tell you how impressed I am: very, very impressed with the way that he’s come into the team, adapted, the speed at which he acclimatised himself to this track especially this morning, for me shows what a talent he is. Undoubtedly. I watched him for quite a long time in the simulator last week, pounding around the lap here, and his car control was incredible. He could put the front wheel through the barrier by an inch every time. He just needed to bring it back an inch! He’s an amazing talent. Can he get a podium? Well, we need to give him the car to do that – because ultimately on our current car pace and ranking, if everybody finished we would never get a podium so it would need a big slice of luck. But he has an uncanny ability to finish races. He races really well on a Sunday. He has a lot of mental capacity remaining, when he’s driving the car, which is a really, really good sign. If he’s given the opportunity, I’m sure he’ll take it.

    Q: (Peter Farkas – Auto Motor) A question to Paul. I think if you look at qualifying in Barcelona, corner speeds of the new Red Bulls were quite encouraging. If that is so, how encouraging is that regarding the new upgrades. And also, has there been a change of philosophy towards more downforce versus less drag with the new update introduced in Barcelona.

    PM: OK, the first part of your question then. The changes made to the car for Barcelona yielded improvements to it, undoubtedly. There’s always a simulation target and then what the real car delivers – and the testing of the real car is usually imperfect. So, as far as we can tell, they’ve done what we expected to do – I’m encouraged by that – we did pick up a bit of speed. I think it gave the drivers more confidence and that’s another little bonus that you can take. In terms of change of philosophy, no, not really. We have efficiency targets that determine do pieces go on the car or not. It’s perhaps easier to judge that than it is your expected lap time gain of an update package. We’re not changing our philosophy: you can see how the car is set up; we’ve been pursuing that for some time and that remains. I think a change of philosophy at this stage would be, for us, unwise. What we do longer term is entirely our choice and our business.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Jörg, if we look at your career, you’ve always worked with very, very well-funded teams: Toyota, Honda, in sportscars Audi, with BMW-Sauber when it was manufacturer-backed. How difficult is it to reset the engineering mind set to operate and work in a team with a more modest budget the way that Sauber is right now?

    JZ: First of all, I think we have actually quite a good budget, so we have all opportunity that you can find in other midfield teams to do a decent development and dover those development processes.  So, from that perspective I think we are not too badly adjusted at all. The other point is that, the way I see Sauber is actually, from the point of talent level, actually quite good. We have very experienced people, very, very… people have a good talent, they are very competent. They have been in the sport for a long time, so I think you may want to look into the economic side of things, which are really decent but you have to look from a human resource point of view as well: what kind of quality level of human resource do you have available for your developments. I think Sauber is actually placed very well in that regard.

    Q: (Sam Collins – Racecar Engineering) There’s been a lot of talk about the frontal cockpit protection system being introduced for the 2018 season. What have you heard from the FIA and their research institute about what form it will take, in terms of technical regulations. Also, what’s the latest in terms of monocoque design and lead times in manufacturer to start working and introduce it into the car?

    AG: Well, there has been a meeting a couple of weeks ago, the first meeting for the installation of the Shield. We weren’t part of that meeting but there is another meeting tomorrow that we are having with the FIA to discuss it further. We’ve seen some preliminary models. We’ve been looking at how we integrate those into the chassis next year. There are a lot, a lot of question marks over it. There’s a lot of work to do in the timeframe that we have been given. So we need to make some smart decisions going forward. Hopefully we’ll be discussing that tomorrow, with a view to how we answer all those questions in the time period we’ve got.

    PM: To answer your question, ‘what’s the deadline?’ I think it depends which colour shirt you have on. We, as a team, can be amongst the later, but we are going to very, very tight to get this on to a car for ’18. I think the research into its functionality and protection, it’s got to happen almost in parallel with the installation, which makes it quite a tricky job, because whatever they change in terms of screen then has an implication to a chassis and if you have cut your patterns then you are in a fairly awkward situations. I think if it all happens in parallel then the cut-offs are going to be somewhat team dependent. As Andy said, there is a hell of a lot to get through to ensure that this is a thoroughly developed and sorted package to put on next year’s car.

    JZ: With regard to the deadline, so usually we would by the end of July, beginning of August, define the monocoque. Of course the fundamental question here is about the integration of the shield and the attachment, so there is a question about structural integrity, but again, as my colleagues said, we are going to discuss this tomorrow, so we need those detailed informations of course. At the moment, as far as I know, we want to test this system at some point in September, which I think is good. I think the enhancement of safety, improving safety is a fundamental let me say job of ours and I think we should support that, we do support this. But of course we have to makes sure that these things are worked out sensibly and that they fit within the time schedule. But we are working together with the FIA in order to achieve this, don’t we Paul?

    PM: Absolutely.

    Q: (Jerome Pugmire – Associated Press) I just wanted to follow up on what I was asking about Esteban before. Could you just talk about his capacity and desire to learn, because he has said that he does hours and hours of simulator work and, quote, “intense debriefs with engineers”, so that shows his application. Could you talk about his desire to learn and willingness to improve?

    AG: He’s like a school child. He’s like a sponge and he just absorbs information as fast as you can give it to him. His want and his desire are unquestionable. He absolutely wants this and he has the talent to do great things but he is going about it the right way. He’s doing it a step at a time. He’s doing the learning at the pace he wants to and that we allow him to do and I have no doubts that he is going to get to where he wants to be in a few years’ time.

    Q: (Silvia Arias – Parabrisas) A question for everybody. Did you need to change the jack support at the back of the car after Laurent Mekies’ document, and what do you think about it, will it really help in the case of accidents?

    PM: To answer your first question: yes, we were requested to change, so we have changed. We’ve taken a bigger step than some of our competitors by the looks of it and we have done a new jack, we’ve modified the associated receptacle on the back of the rear impact structure. As for the note, well, it’s given to us, and it’s up to us to interpret it, deal with it, liaise with the FIA, achieve a design that design that satisfies them and equally that we could get here, and with a lot of hard work and dedication we’ve got a solution here.

    JZ: It’s the same for us. It added a little bit of complexity to our operations as well, but that’s what we have done. Of course, we have a Ferrari gearbox, so there’s a rear impact structure that is homologated by Ferrari. So we had to work this out in co-operation with our colleagues in Italy. So there was immediate action required which we did and yes, of course, we have had extra support here to make sure that it all works nicely. But then again, as I said before, it’s a safety critical subject, so we do understand and if there is urgency because of that then we would support that. That’s what we did.

    AG: We didn’t need to change our rear impact structure, we just changed our livery.

  • 2015 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2015 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES:

    Nick CHESTER (Lotus)

    Andrew GREEN (Force India)

    Giampaolo DALL’ARA (Sauber)

    James ALLISON (Ferrari)

    Paddy LOWE (Mercedes)

    Paul MONAGHAN (Red Bull Racing)

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    If I could start with a question for all of you: coming in next year are further restrictions on driver aids and team radio assistance. Can you give us your thoughts on the difference it will make that fans will be able to appreciate? James, why don’t you start?

    James ALLISON: Well, if it has its intended effect it will make it so that the drivers who are most on top of their game can do a better job than the ones who needed to be led a little bit more by the hand. I think on the whole the drivers are all pretty good in Formula One so I imagine that within six months or so, or maybe sooner, it will feel very much like it did before but maybe in the transition to that there will be a few mistakes made and maybe some interesting events as a result.

    Giampaolo?

    Giampaolo DALL’ARA: Yeah, well, I can tell you about the engineering side of it: it changes quite a bit the way we work, approaching the issues involving the driver more and the engineering side of the car. Eventually I think the result is what James has just mentioned. The driver will be more in charge of what he is doing, also on aspects that today maybe are driven from the back. Judging then the perception on the spectators, this is very difficult from where I sit, honestly.

    Thank you. Paddy, there is obviously a big list of things you can and can’t say on the radio. How do you remember all those things?

    Paddy LOWE: I know. It’s actually quite tricky. We police ourselves on the intercom. People often ask: “Can I say that? Can I say that?” But yeah, we will work our way through it and get used to it in time. As the other two have said, I think we will see a little bit more variability. But the big thing for me is that to a larger extent if a driver has a good or a bad start that will be down to his skill and less dependent on the team’s performance on configuring the start.

    Nick, a step in the right direction?

    Nick CHESTER: I think everybody wants to see the drivers being in charge of their own starts, so I can see why it has come in, but I’d echo the comments earlier, I think people will get used to it very quickly. There might be a few little mixes early on but it will settle down fairly quickly.

    And Paul, looking ahead to next year, obviously more sweeping changes as well, what difference will that make?

    Paul MONAGHAN: I think you’ll see a little bit more variability. We’ll see the odd fluffed start; we’ll see a bit of a shuffle up of the grid order approaching turn one. Mid-race I think when the drivers get used to it and depending on how the teams treat the level of automation there will be subtle differences maybe in ultimate performance you can extract from the car, after that I think it will settle out. What the fans will see? A little bit at the starts maybe but once you’re in the race I’m not sure there’ll be much other than less radio traffic.

    A final thought from you Andrew?

    Andrew GREEN: Yeah, I’m the same. I think within a few months the differences will be quite subtle. Like people have said, maybe a few fluffed starts. But the main thing is that the radio is going to be quite quiet.

    OK. Coming back to you then James. Back on top with a victory in Hungary for Sebastian, but another technical problem on Kimi’s side. What was the reason for that and what expectations do you have both in terms of performance but also reliability for the remainder of the season?

    JA: I don’t think we tend to go into the nuts and bolts of why our bits and pieces fail on our car but enough to say that we had a problem with the ERS system that meant that we were unable to continue in the race. Initially we lost a decent amount of power and then thereafter unable to continue. I hope we have put that behind us with the modifications that we’ve made during the last few weeks and for the remainder of the season, I think it’s going to be a bit like the first half. We’re not a bad car, but we’re not as good as these guys [Mercedes] and if they have a bad weekend while we’re having a good weekend then we can upset the apple cart a bit and if things pan out more normally then we tend to come in behind them. So let’s keep our fingers crossed that they have a bad weekend and we do the opposite.

    Q: Paul, if James is saying the Ferrari’s not a bad car compared to the Mercedes, it looks as though the Red Bull has become a substantially better car in the last month. Obviously a double podium in Hungary. Big progress on the chassis side. Was that a question of new parts or was it just, as much as anything, unlocking the potential of what was already there?

    PM: It’s a combination. We have some new parts there. We’ve improved the car a little bit in many areas, not just, shall we say, focussed on one of them. It’s starting to show benefits. We’ve seen the benefits in increments and in Hungary it was more complete, shall we say. It was nice to be challenging at the sharp end of it again and I think at the moment we have to accept Mercedes have a bit of a performance advantage. Maybe they have a bad weekend, maybe we have a good weekend and then I think it’s all up for the fight, isn’t it? We’ll put ourselves in there such that, if we can benefit from circumstances then we’re there to do so.

    Q: Andrew Green, coming to you from Force India, talking about upward performance curves, you’re certainly a good example of that with Force India. New car, of course, introduced a few rounds ago certainly contributed to that. What do you think is possible for the rest of the season for your team?

    AG: Well, I mean we’ve bought new parts here, we’ve got new parts coming for the next couple of races. I think once we get to Singapore, we’ll start to begin to understand where this car actually sits – that’s where we plan to bring the last of this current suite of updates to the track. We’re looking to start moving ahead of the guys behind us, obviously for sure, and looking to see if we can stay on the coat tails of Red Bull to a certain degree. If we hadn’t had the issues in Hungary, we were racing well in Hungary. Hungary was a shock to us, gave us a bit of a shot in the arm. We’ve learned from that, we’re moving forwards. We’ve got some exciting races coming up for Force India.

    Q: Paddy, first of all, any update on the cause of Rosberg’s tyre failure from your side. What did you see on the screens?

    PL: I think we’ve really only seen the same the same thing that everyone else has seen on the video. So very unusual situation where there seemed to be some bits of tyre structure coming out up to a minute before the actual terminal failure of the tyre. Not something I’ve seen before. So Pirelli have obviously taken the tyre away to analyse. I think we’ll have to wait to see what emerges from that. We’re double-checking everything to do with the car as well, obviously. But yeah, that’ll be something we’ll work through the evening.

    Q: Obviously the reversed qualifying battle between Rosberg and Hamilton this season. Last year 11 poles for Rosberg, this year just one for him in the first ten races. Hamilton seven last year but nine from 10 this year. As the technical boss, the guy who oversees all of this, what do you see is going on there?

    PL: I think it’s just the two drivers’ form as it varies. I know Nico was finding it quite difficult at the beginning of this year but actually he picked himself up from Spain onwards and he’s shown himself a great competitor to Lewis, so the battle’s far from over. As we can see, it isn’t always won on the Saturday grid position so the championship is wide open to the end.

    Q: Coming to you Giampaolo, obviously you have bought some updates to the car this weekend. How happy are you. It certainly looked reasonably encouraging from the practice runs this afternoon. Obviously you can’t draw too many conclusions from Friday but how satisfied are you with what you bought to the track this weekend.

    GD: At the moment we are finding what we are expecting to find. Difficult to say, as you mention, what this will mean for the race. What leaves us with quite some optimism more in general is that we got to the point where, after some frustration after losing some momentum, we expect some updates to come. Some are already here, as I mentioned. This is mostly on Ferrari’s side: we have an upgraded power unit fitted which is seemingly giving up some laptime. On top of this, let me add, it’s one of those tracks where our car feels more comfortable. It was lately some track-by-track troubles that here we don’t expect to have. Plus, in the next couple of races and ultimately Singapore we expect some major aerodynamic update which for us means the main target of getting back into the fight to get the guys here in the midfield in order to be able to score points more regularly than we are now.

    Q: Finally Nick, a couple of talking points for you. On the one hand obviously encouragement with Romain Grosjean I think seventh fastest in that practice session, on the other an accident for Pastor this morning. How much does that kind of thing set you back in a race weekend?

    NC: Well obviously it does set up back a little bit. Pastor was having quite a good P1 session until he had his off, and then that disrupts his P2 because it took us a while to get the car back together. So he’s missed a bit of running in P2 but he’s got back out there, proved the car out again and I’m sure he’ll be back on it for P3.

    And encouragement from the performance of the other car?

    NC: Yeah, quite pleased with Romain in P7. I think there’s only nine-hundredths to P4 and the car’s going quite well.

     

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Mike Doodson – Grand Prix Week) I’ve been very puzzled by the clutch stories we’ve been told. We haven’t been given a lot of information about what the procedure was and I wondered, now that it’s no longer what it was, whether one of you could explain to an ignorant journalist exactly how these clutch procedures worked. I understand there are two clutches, you give advice to the driver over the radio, you’re not allowed to do that any more. Could I ask for a volunteer from the front row to go through the procedure just for me?

    JA: The overall procedure is fairly long and tedious so I will try and shortcut it a bit. When you go with the car from stop to going, there’s a certain amount of grip available on the track. The tyre has a certain amount of grip, the track has a certain amount of grip, you want to go as close to that available grip as possible but not over it and you don’t want to go under it otherwise you’re not making as much performance as there is available. Now if you were super duper skilful you might have fingers that could judge exactly where that grip is but it all happens very very fast so a perfect start is one where you can just let go of the clutch, let go of it and it closes to the perfect point where it delivers exactly the right amount of torque, such that the tyre doesn’t light up and spin, but neither does it give less torque to the road than the road is capable of taking. So our job, during the weekend, is to try to judge exactly how much grip is available and to adjust our clutches so that when the driver says go, the clutch closes the perfect amount to deliver the perfect amount of torque to the road and then off it goes. And that’s something that happens without the driver adjusting stuff, he doesn’t fiddle around with his fingers. The way that we used to do that in the past was there’s two clutch paddles, one which he holds all the way in, keeping the clutch fully open and the other which he holds in a partially closed and open position. We then, as engineers, adjust the clutch so that this partially closed and open position is at exactly the right point to get this magic start. And then when the light goes green, he lets go of the first clutch and the clutch closes to the point that is being held by the second paddle. Off the car goes.

    All that’s changed is that now we‘re not allowed to advise or make any adjustments to that biting point between when the car’s on the grid preparing for the start of the race and when the driver actually does it so the parade lap start and the real start is done all by the driver and if he thinks it’s not closed enough or too open, he has to make his own judgement about that and make the calls. We can be sitting in the garage going ‘no, don’t do that’  but we don’t have any power to stop him.

    Q: (Mike Doodson – Grand Prix Week) I understand what you say but you could, from the pits, via telemetry, actually adjust the clutch? You could, or you couldn’t?

    JA: No, we can’t. All we can do is instruct the driver to change a map that he himself has to do with his fingers but we can judge what he should do. Now we can’t say anything. We can still judge but all we can do is go ‘no!’ or ‘hooray!’

    Q: (Joe van Burik – NU.NL) Paul, Renault Sport have indicated that they worked through the summer break to keep developing the power units. They say that they conducted some notable performance work and also concepts for next year, pleased with the results. How were you involved in the development as a client and do you expect a notable increase in the overall performance when the upgrades arrive for Russia, as Christian Horner stated before?

    PM: As a client, our involvement is in several stages. Clearly we will make a judgement on the relative performance of the car and power unit package. Then we try to separate the power unit from the chassis side of things if you like, to try and offer to – in this instance Renault – to say OK, that’s where we think you sit in relative terms. That sort of sets your targets, if you like, relative to how we perceive the best power unit. They will always push to get as much out of their power unit as they possibly can and it sets a target for that year, the following year and try to give them a relative positioning. If the changes are internal, it’s very much the business of Renault. If the changes again become more external, which can affect our packaging, then clearly we have to be involved. What they may want to do may not fit the car or may require changes to the car and that’s up to us to agree with them on an introduction and how we’re going to do it. So, if that’s making sense, it becomes a multi-phase project. We can get involved, we’re not necessarily involved, we look forward to whatever power increase is coming in the future and hope to exploit it as best we can with Renault.

    Q: (Heikki Kulta – Turun Sanomat) James, how close are the driving styles of Sebastian and Kimi compared to how it was last year with Fernando and Kimi, and if they are closer, is it a big advantage for the designer of the car?

    JA: They are certainly closer. I think what Sebastian wants from a car is pretty similar to what Kimi wants and that’s mildly helpful but it really doesn’t make much difference in the way that you set about designing the car. You’re looking for downforce, they both like that. You’re looking for power, they both like that. If one likes a front ride height or a spring stiffness a bit different to another, well there’s very… you’ve got a whole range of springs and dampers that you can fit to either car. It’s only flavours of set-up that change, not fundamental design parameters of the car and that would be true whether it was Kimi, Fernando or Sebastian.

    Q: (Pierre van Vliet – F1i) Nick, you told us a couple of times that the Lotus team is not for sale. Is that still the case and if not, how does it influence your planning for 2016 and maybe even 2017?

    NC: OK, but I’m not sure that I actually told you that but there’s a lot of press about discussions that are on-going. They’re not really at my level so I can’t really give you a lot of information about it.

  • Red Bull appeal verdict to be announced on Tuesday

    Red Bull appeal verdict to be announced on Tuesday

    The General Secretary of the FIA’s International Court of Appeal has said that a verdict on Red Bull’s appeal against the disqualification of Daniel Riccardo at the Australian Grand Prix, will only be given on Tuesday.

    “We will announce the decision tomorrow morning at the latest,” said Jean-Christophe Breillat following a six-hour long hearing at the FIA’s headquarters in Paris today.

    He has also confirmed that only the verdict will be given and then a full explanation around the reasoning behind the decision will be made available “by the end of the week”.

    Red Bull argued that the technical directive (16:14) relating to fuel flow sensors is not regulatory. As such, they believe that the team cannot be punished for ignoring the FIA’s request to reduce its fuel flow, since the directives are generally regarded as advice. The team also tried to prove that the team had not exceeded the maximum fuel flow at any point during the Australian Grand Prix.

    Both Chief Engineer of Car Engineering, Paul Monaghan and Chief Technical Officer Adrian Newey were called as Red Bull witnesses and subjected to questioning. For the FIA, Head of Powertrain Fabrice Lom was called.

    Observers from McLaren, Lotus, Williams and Force India were also present at the hearing.

    Daniel RicciardoMercedes team representative Paul Harris – who previously represented the team at the Pirelli Tyregate hearing – was most vocal at today’s hearing, accusing the Red Bull team of “knowingly and repeatedly” ignoring the FIA’s instructions to turn down the fuel flow on Ricciardo’s engine.

    He desribed Red Bull’s approach as a “flagrant breach” of the FIA’s direction and called for the court to impose a suspended further sanction on top of the original exclusion due to fears that the Austrian team will repeat the alleged offence in future.

    “We are, frankly, and with great respect, concerned that Red Bull have shown such a flagrant and deliberate disregard for these rules that there is a real risk that they will do it again,” he said. “We are here to seek to ensure that does not happen. We must have a level playing field going forward for the remainder of the season.”

    “We respectively submit that the most effective way of ensuring that Red Bull do not flout further written and oral instructions from the FIA – at least for the remainder of this season – is for this court to recognise the severity of their infringement and to impose a further sanction upon them, which is to be suspended for the remainder of the season so that they are acutely alert for the remainder of the season that there is no possibility of them transgressing the boundaries again.”

    He dismissed Red Bull’s claims that the FIA’s approved sensors were unreliable and argued that their alternative system used to measured the flow was also not “100 per cent” accurate. He also backed the FIA’s official sensors saying that they are “rigorously tested and rigorously calibrated.”