F1 Madness

Tag: vijay mallya

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

    2017 British Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference – Part 1

    PART ONE: TEAM REPRESENTATIVES – Christian HORNER (Red Bull), Claire WILLIAMS (Williams), Vijay MALLYA (Force India)

    PRESS CONFERENCE

    Q: Vijay, the target for this year was to match, or even improve, on last year’s Constructors’ standings. So far you’re pretty clearly in fourth. Tell us about that and the upgrade you have on the car this weekend.

    Vijay MALLYA: Well, there is a specific upgrade for Silverstone. We take this particular race very seriously because it’s our home race and there’s no question that development must continue through the season, given that this is a brand-new car, and we are in fourth with a fairly comfortable lead over Williams but nothing can be taken for granted and we wouldn’t like to be complacent. When I launched the car I said we must retain fourth or even aim higher. That still remains the objective – because I believe in setting the bar high – but whether we can actually catch Red Bull or not remains to be seen, particularly towards the tail-end of the season but we are pretty focussed on getting the job done.

    Q: What’s the strategy, could you share it with us, with regards to the name and the brand of your team going forward?

    VM: When I bought this team ten years ago – and we’re all very proud of the fact that, as an independent team we have survived amidst a great amount of speculation for ten years and are still going strong. It was Force India because it was the first time an Indian team showed up on a Formula One grid. It met the aspirations of millions of young Indians who never thought that would be possible but then we were running around in P23 and P24 and the then management seemed very happy about it. Since we have consistently now improved and are a serious contender on the grid, it’s time to broaden our horizons, attract more international sponsors and sadly there is no Indian Grand Prix any more. Indian sponsors seem to be passionate about putting all of their money into cricket and so we must appeal to a more international audience and so the idea of changing the name of the team was mooted. We’ve had several discussions, no decision has been taken but we have listed a few options and we’ll take it forward at the appropriate time.

    Q: Christian, Daniel was here in the press conference yesterday, talking about the upgrades situation, saying a decent step is expected for Budapest. From what you’re seeing from your relative development rates to the top two teams, are you likely to converge, do you think, in the second half of the season?

    Christian HORNER: I think certainly since the first European Grand Prix in Barcelona we’ve consistently managed to chip away and get closer to the front of the field. Daniel’s had a great run: five consecutive podiums including a victory in Azerbaijan, and I think our most competitive race of the season to date was actually last weekend in Austria, finishing within six seconds of the leader without any safety cars and obviously beating a Mercedes. So, incrementally, we’re getting the performance on the cars and hopefully that can continue over forthcoming grands prix.

    Q: You were with your peers in London at the live event this week. As the boss of a leading team and particularly one that has a strong marketing background, give us your opinion of that and what it all meant.

    CH: Well, of course, as Red Bull we’ve done an awful lot of those kind of events around the world with a team that we have dedicated to running show car activities but I think the London event was fantastic: it was taking Formula One to the public, it was free of charge, it was combining a music festival with running the Formula One cars, under the background of Big Ben, up to Trafalgar Square, around, y’know, from Whitehall. It was fantastic to see it so well supported and so many people coming out and the enthusiasm and passion and excitement. I think also to see the drivers having fun and enjoying it as well was a great advert. So hats off to FOM and the Liberty guys for putting the event on… As their first big statement of promoting Formula One.

    Q: The same question to you Claire, really. Your thoughts on what it did for Formula One in the UK – and is there open support from the teams for this kind of thing?

    Claire WILLIAMS: As Christian said, it was a fantastic event for all of us to be involved in. It’s great to see the new owners are thinking and having that kind of vision and involving all of the teams in doing something like that. And to come to London, it’s an iconic venue for us. To have all the teams there, the cars, the drivers, was just great to be able to take Formula One to a new audience and I’m sure a lot of those people probably haven’t been to a race before or watched us on TV, so hopefully it will extend our audience but the activities going on ahead of the actual running itself were fantastic as well – the education pieces that are so important as well. We had Dare to be Different, Formula One in Schools was there, we had a presence there, it was just really good to see all the children there as well.

    Q: Big weekend for Williams at the moment, for the team and for the family with the anniversary, with the film. Tell us what the feeling is about where the team – and the family – is at this major milestone.

    CW: It’s been quite a busy week! We launched the Williams film on Tuesday, which was very nice. It’s been a long time coming. It’s been about three years in the making. We had 300 people in London watching that on Tuesday night. We had a bit of rain which kind of dampened things a little bit but it was reviewed really positively, which is nice to see, and obviously it doesn’t tell the traditional story that that you might expect: a chronological tale of Williams and our track performance over our four decades in Formula One but rather the human story and the kind of story of my parents’ involvement in the team over those 40 years. So it’s a very personal account of Williams and one that we just hope Formula One fans, and fans maybe that aren’t fans of the sport, will enjoy seeing as well. Then, obviously, we’re celebrating 40 years here, so we seem to be celebrating 40 years a lot this year! The marketing team at Williams have been really busy but it’s been really good fun and it’s just great to be able to do all of that, and this weekend we’re showcasing a couple of our heritage cars: Nigel’s 1992 Red Five and the six-wheeler as well. Great to be able to show those to the fans here.

    Q: Just a quick one, Felipe Massa seems to be going along well, are you both thinking of going again next season?

    CW: Yeah, there’s a lot of talk already isn’t there, about drivers across the paddock. For us, we’ve decided we’re going to hold off a bit on our driver decision. We’ve got a fight on our hands on the race track at the moment and to be distracted by those kinds of conversations isn’t something that we want to be happening at the moment. As Vijay said earlier, they’ve got a nice points haul on us at the moment we need to focus on, rather than anything else.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Given that the mission of a Formula One team is effectively to market performance and Wednesday in London was actually a major marketing exercise, both for the teams and for the sport, would you ever consider making attendance at an event optional for your drivers?

    Christian?

    CH: Good old Dieter, he gets stuck in. Look, all the drivers were there, bar one. I thought it was a great turnout from the drivers. We didn’t insist our drivers had to be there, we asked them to attend and they were very happy to turn up and take part and I think they actually really enjoyed it as well. So, it was a shame there wasn’t a full complement but I don’t think it detracted from the show. The reaction from all the fans to pretty much all the drivers was fantastic.

    Vijay, your thoughts on that?

    VM: I thought it was an excellent event. I’m glad to see, at least in my ten years of time in Formula One, some very serious marketing that Liberty has commenced. Whether it’s social media, whether it’s the F1 event in London, I think Chase Carey summarised it when he said he wants every Formula One weekend to be like a Superbowl final. That can be only good for the sport. It will only promote the sport, get more revenue and hopefully we’ll get a share of it too.

    And on the subject of drivers turning up being optional Claire?

    CW: Yeah, I don’t want to get sit in judgement on anyone who didn’t turn up on that day when I don’t know the real facts behind it. I’d rather focus on the drivers that were there and the great job that they did. Ricciardo did a fantastic job – I think breaking a lot of the rules that all the drivers were told in the briefing!

    CH: They were controlled turns!

    CW: They were great turns. I thought they were fantastic turns! He did a great job, they all did a great job and to see our drivers… when Lance came in and was able to do the controlled turns, etc., the grin on their faces was great. I think they did a great job to promote Formula One, the drivers out there. To see them all in one place and to see them walk down Whitehall was a fantastic event. Talking about that, and the positives rather than anything else is what I would rather do.

    Q: (Dan Knutson – Auto Action / Speed Sport) Vijay, now that you’re spending all of your time in the UK, have you changed how much time you spend on the day-to-day running of the team?

    VM: In the past I used to be at the race track but, as I’ve always said, in any enterprise, there’s the front office and the back office. Both the front office and the back office are equally important. The team has enjoyed considerable success, particularly over the last two years. I’ve been more a part of the back office than the front office over the last year or so – but I’m delighted at the way things are going for us.

    Q: (Marc Surer – Sky Germany) Question for Christian. What is your opinion about the start of Bottas in Austria?

    CH: It was the perfect start. He had an unbelievable reaction and didn’t get caught – so in that case it was the perfect start. Daniel came on the radio and said that he thought Valtteri had jumped the start because he saw a little bit of movement. But I think a little bit of movement has been permitted because sometimes when the cars select a gear there’s a bit of movement, etcetera, etcetera. I think perhaps it’s something for the FIA to look at, the tolerances that are allowed because of course because sometimes a precedent gets set and then engineers try to grab that little bit of an advantage. Of course if you are moving slightly then it helps to pick up traction, you can see exploitation happening – so hopefully the relevant guys in the FIA will look to tighten it down so there’s very little tolerance.

    Q: (Pierre Durocher – Montréal Journal) Question for Claire. We made the trip to follow naturally Lance, I would like to get your comments on the progress Lance has made since the Canadian Grand Prix and, the second part of the question, it’s a weekend of celebration for Williams but at the same time I would like to know how you feel about the recent comments that Jacques Villeneuve made about Lance. He’s been quite hard on him. I wonder how you feel about it?

    CW: Hopefully I’ll have forgotten the second part of your question by the time I come to it. Lance has done a fantastic job in the last few races but he has actually all year. You may have only just seen the results on the race track but if you could see the hard work he’s put in behind the scenes over the course of the year, it’s been really impressive. We came out at the start of the year and said he, as a rookie, is going to take some time in order in order to familiarise himself with Formula One. This is a big step-up from the junior formulae. I think people can underestimate that step at times. So he’s taken the first few races to get used to Formula One, acclimatise himself, acclimatise himself with the engineering side of things, with the new circuits that he hasn’t been on before. And that’s taken some time but as you saw in Canada he broke that duck and scored his first points and then went to Azerbaijan and had a fantastic race and similarly in Austria after a really difficult weekend for the team, both our drivers managed to score points. So he’s delivered against everything we expected of him and I’m looking forward to seeing how he’ll move forward for the rest of the year. It’s great to now have two cars that are scoring points for us in the Constructors’ Championship. With regard to Jacques’ comments, he’s obviously been pretty vocal in the media. I don’t want to go into a huge amount of detail about it. I don’t think there’s any need. The way that Lance describes it, he just wants to get on and let his track performance do the talking. I think that’s what we should do – because that’s when the critics will stop: when Lance proves he deserves to be in Formula One, which we all at Williams believe anyway.

    Q: (Rob Harris – AP) Question to Vijay. Is removing India from the name of the team some sort of retaliation? Because obviously you have been charged with money laundering and they are fighting your extradition.

    VM: I’ve been charged with a whole variety of things – but let that be kept to one side and let the legal process take its own course. The potential removal of the word ‘India’ from the team name is nothing to do with the events surrounding me. As I’ve said before, we need to appeal to a more international audience. We need to cater to the needs of sponsors who have global businesses – and sponsoring Formula One isn’t exactly cheap. It was ten years ago that the team was named Force India in the hope that there would be an Indian Grand Prix, which took place but sadly stopped after that, in the hope that we would have a whole bunch of Indian sponsors – but they preferred to put their money into cricket. So I have to look elsewhere. And in doing so I also need to give a more international platform for the team for the next ten years. You can’t keep thinking of name changes every year or every other year. So, this is in a work-in-progress stage right now but certainly it’s something we are seriously thinking about.

    Q: (Ysef Harding – Xiro Xone News) To shift gears a little bit, this is for Vijay Mallya. As well as the success of the team you’ve also brought in a new sponsor and with that you’ve brought a unique colour to the grid but along with that it has allowed you to bring in a great organisation like breast cancer care. What is it like working with that group and what about your new sponsors this year?

    VM: Well, the car is pink because the sponsor, BWT, wanted a pink car. They sponsor other forms of motorsport and if you notice they also insist on pink cars. Now, at the end of the day I think that pink looks pretty attractive. As far as association with the breast cancer initiative is concerned, I have always supported charities. I have supported more than 20 different charities in my life. It came naturally to us, with a pink car, so we are very happy to be able to assist in this initiative.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) A question to all three of you: you’re sitting third, fourth and fifth in the race for the world championship and none of you are works teams. A question in two parts: one, what would you name as the single thing you most want to take you to that next step to fight Ferrari and Mercedes constantly, and second, with the new engine formula for 2020 are you looking further afield to bring in, possibly, new automotive suppliers to make you into works teams. Is it something you are discussing?

    CH: I think the first part of your answer is, we would love the engine to be a non-performance differentiator. Obviously there is still a pecking order and these engines are also extremely expensive, so as a customer it’s disproportionate the amount of money we are spending on these engines. I think what’s really interesting is that Formula One is effectively at a crossroads with the new regulations, because those regulations theoretically come in 2021 and there will be probably and eight to ten-year life on those engines, so what we are looking at is actually is Formula One’s relevance pretty much up to 2030. Now, by 2030 how many people are actually going to be driving cars? Are they going to be autonomous? Are they going to be electric? The world is changing so fast in that sector. So Formula One has some serious questions that it needs to answer today in the choice it makes for the engine for the future. What is Formula One’s primary purpose? Is it technology or is it a sport and entertainment, and man and machine at the absolute limit? I sense that with the new ownership that has come into Formula One that creating great entertainment, creating great content, the noise, the sound, the exhilaration of seeing the drivers as the star is of absolute primary concern to them. So I hope that with the opportunity there is with the regulation change that is being discussed at the moment that the fundamental aspects of cost, performance and attractiveness to the fans, therefore the noise, the acoustics of these engines, are a key factor in the set of regulations they come up with and I think that in turn will produce good racing, reduce costs and bring back some to the appeal that engines of a bygone era used to produce.

    CW: In answer to your first question, which was how would Williams improve on our position, lying currently in fifth. Probably the answer is twofold. We have to make sure that we have the resource in place back at Grove so that we could achieve that, whether that be personnel, equipment or budget. A lot of it is down to budget, as obviously the former doesn’t come without the latter. Budget for us comes through greater sponsor acquisition, a partnership with a manufacturer for example, or the redistribution of income in Formula One. So any of those would be great, they would considerably help us. As much as I always say it’s not about the money, it’s what you do with it, when you are competing with teams with three times the size of your budget it’s always going to be really difficult to make that jump into the top three in the championship. When it comes to engines, I think Christian answered it more eloquently than I probably could. We are looking at a road map for the next decade in Formula One where the engines are going to be and we must make sure that they probably aren’t as dominant as they have been, as much as we have benefited from our wonderful partnership with Mercedes, I think for engines not to play such a role in the performance differentiation would be a good thing and then, equally, as an independent team, for engines not to cost as much money would be really useful for us. But then the wider aspects of fan engagement, having engines that are lovely and noisy is something that we would like to see back in Formula One.

    VM: Well, we have always had a limited budget compared to the big teams in Formula One. We have a culture within our team to spend our money wisely and to get the maximum bang for buck and at the end of the day everybody is passionate about pushing that last pound as hard as you can. Having said that, if we get more sponsors we might spend a little bit more money, but I wouldn’t spent all of it, I would give some back to shareholders because I don’t believe that money can necessarily ensure that I’m going to be at the front of the grid. There may be people who spend a lot of money and who are able to therefore develop a car that is more easily at the front of the grid than we can, but if somebody turned up and gave me a hundred million more and asked me “well, can you beat Mercedes?” I don’t think I’m going to say “yes, I will”. It’s how you spend your money that is more important. The income distribution pattern: I think everybody knows my views, it’s completely lopsided and needs to be addressed. With a little bit more in our pocket we can make that incremental step and certainly fight in the top three consistently. As far as engines are concerned, as Claire has mentioned, we have also benefited from a fantastic power unit with Mercedes. I have been with Mercedes for nine years already and they are a fantastic partner but they are expensive. Going forward, as Christian said, looking ahead to let’s say 2030, we definitely need an independent engine our there at a reasonable cost, which is available to anybody.

    Q: (Luis Aguirre – Reforma Group) A question for Mr Mallya. I would like to ask you about the situation between Checo and Esteban in Baku and Montreal. How was it for you to see that fight and to watch your team having the big team’s troubles, no, I mean the fight between them and how is going to be the approach of the team to avoid those kind of things in the future?

    VM: You know, what happened in Montreal is not something that really concerns me. Esteban wanted to overtake Checo because he felt he could attack Ricciardo. Checo felt he was better placed to do the same job. Ultimately none of them succeeded in doing that but nevertheless the team scored points. What happened in Baku clearly was a great loss to the team, otherwise there was almost a podium for us. That’s unacceptable with our two cars hitting each other. I don’t think it’s road rage. I don’t think it was deliberate in any way. It was just the excitement of the moment and an error of judgement. Both drivers have been spoken to. We don’t believe in making team rules or giving team orders but at the end of the day I think both of them fully appreciate that is their responsibility to bring the cars home and score as many points for the team, because that’s precisely what Claire is going to be doing with her drivers and we need to stay ahead.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Taking everything that has been said earlier on about the Mercedes advantage, the engine differentiation, going to the next step etc there is a team/engine partnership that appears to have got its calculations wrong and they are looking at possibly taking a Mercedes engine next year. Given that this would require certain regulatory concessions, or so it appears, how do you feel about the fact that Mercedes could actually be supplying a team with substantially better resources than both the Mercedes engines and Christian how do you feel about a team that could suddenly possibly beat you?

    CH: First of all, it’s got to happen first. We’ve been there before, from our side of the fence, and it didn’t happen. Speaking to Zak the other day he said he thought he was watching the same movie that we lived through a couple of years ago, so it didn’t sound particularly hopeful that there was going to be a Mercedes in the back of a McLaren next year. But whatever issues there are it’s McLaren’s business and if they had that engine… they have had it before… if they had that engine they would be more competitive than they are today.

    CW: I’m not privy to the conversations that may or may not be going on between McLaren and Mercedes. Clearly, it would not be ideal for us but I don’t think Williams have a place to interfere with that. Those are conversations that need to going on without us.

    VM: We all want McLaren to be competitive. It’s a team with great history, a great presence in Formula One and I’m personally sorry to see them struggling the way they are. So it would be good for the sport in general if McLaren returned to being as competitive as they have been always. But having said that, if they want a Mercedes engine it’s really between Mercedes and them. As far as regulatory aspects are concerned well those have to be ironed out, because I don’t believe that the FIA are going to silent spectators to a situation where McLaren has no engine. But that’s a second step. Clearly, Mercedes has to agree to supply McLaren, if McLaren indeed disengages with Honda. But, if I remember correctly, at the last press conference that happened, I believe in Austria, both McLaren and Honda confirmed that they were still together.

  • F1 2017: Sahara Force India Wears Pink Ribbon For Breast Cancer Care

    F1 2017: Sahara Force India Wears Pink Ribbon For Breast Cancer Care

    The Sahara Force India team has announced that it is partnering with Breast Cancer Care.

    In a multi-year deal both of Force India’s Formula 1 cars will carry the famous pink ribbon, which has become the symbol in the fight against breast cancer. This year the famous pink ribbon is celebrating twenty-five years and the focus races will be this weekend’s Monaco grand prix, Montreal, Silverstone, Austin, and Mexico City during which the pink ribbon will be positioned on top of the VJM10’s chassis.

    It is the aim of the partnership between Force India and Breast Cancer Care to ensure that all who are affected by breast cancer receive the care, support, and information that is needed. Statistics show that every ten minutes someone is diagnosed with breast cancer.

    “Our cars turning pink created a lot of positive buzz and it’s a pleasure to be able to harness this feeling to raise awareness for such an important cause and charity,” says Force India Team Principal Vijay Mallya. “We are proud to be working with Breast Cancer Care to bring their work into the spotlight and take advantage of Formula One’s global reach to improve the lives of everyone affected, directly and indirectly, by breast cancer.”

    (Images Supplied)

  • Force India race preview quotes for the Abu Dhabi GP weekend

    Force India race preview quotes for the Abu Dhabi GP weekend

    The Force India F1 team preview the Abu Dhabi GP race weekend

    Sergio Perez

    “The 2015 season has gone by so quickly, but I have lots of great memories and I’m very proud of what we have achieved. I think it’s probably been my best season in Formula One in terms of results and also the most enjoyable. We have grown a lot during the course of the year and we have had some special days, with a highlight being my podium in Russia and my home race in Mexico.

    “I think Abu Dhabi is the perfect place to end the season, especially with a race under the lights. The whole venue is impressive and the track is quite a challenge from a set-up point of view. You need a car that works through the fast corners in the first sector, as well as through the slow final sector, which feels more like a twisty street circuit.

    “I think we have the potential for a big result in Abu Dhabi. Things didn’t work out for me in Brazil so I’m determined to get back in the points this weekend and finish this great season on a positive note.”

    Nico Hulkenberg

    Nico Hulkenberg Abu Dhabi GP race weekend Preview Quotes“The final race of the season is always important because you want to finish the season well and carry the momentum into the winter months. We have already secured fifth in the championship but I want to make sure I end the season in the top ten of the drivers’ championship so there is still a lot to play for.

    “Abu Dhabi is a fun place for the season finale: the venue is great and the twilight racing helps create a special atmosphere. As a track, it’s not easy to get a good lap as the layout is very technical, especially in the final sector. It’s quite easy to come into a corner too hot and make a mistake, and finding a good flow is a big challenge.

    “Brazil was a very enjoyable weekend for me: the car felt great and we maximised every session to come away with a well-deserved result. I think we can realistically aim for a similar performance this weekend. It’s been a great year for everyone in the team and we deserve to finish on a high.”

    Vijay Mallya, team principal

    “Heading to Abu Dhabi with fifth place in the championship already secured feels pretty good. It means we can approach the last weekend of the season free from pressure and with nothing to lose. Our focus is simply on enjoying the race and ending the season in style. Abu Dhabi will be a special race for us as it marks the 150th of our history as Force India, and we will aim to celebrate it with a strong performance on the track.

    “All season I’ve been saying how proud I am of my team – particularly our development curve in the second half of the season. With 81 points from the last eight races we’ve enjoyed our best ever strike rate and we have been competitive at every race. With stable regulations for 2016, there is every reason to believe we can carry this form through the winter and into the new season. There is plenty to be excited about and a lot of positive energy in the team.

    “This weekend’s race is simply another chance to demonstrate how far we have come. Our aim will be to qualify in the top ten and add a final helping of points to our tally.”

  • 2015 Formula 1 Mexican Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2015 Formula 1 Mexican Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    TEAM REPRESENTATIVES:

    Vijay MALLYA (Force India)

    Claire WILLIAMS (Williams)

    Maurizio ARRIVABENE (Ferrari)

    Toto WOLFF (Mercedes)

    Yasuhisa ARAI (Honda)

    PRESS CONFERENCE
    Q: Claire, if I can start with you. Williams won this race the last time it was here back in 1992. Did you watch that race and what are your thoughts on coming back to this circuit today?
    Claire WILLIAMS: I was 14 when that race was one and I don’t remember watching it. I probably did; I’m sure I did. But it’s great to come back here. We won the race prior to that with Riccardo Patrese as well, so Williams has a good history here. I’d love if we were able to repeat that this weekend. Obviously we haven’t had some great races in the past few, so the team really needs a strong result here. But it’s a great venue. I think everyone in Formula One for our return to Mexico has really enjoyed the experience so far. The promoters have done a great job with the facilities we have, so it will be a good weekend.

    Q: This time last year you were battling for position in the Constructors’ Championship but you’re looking pretty solid now in third for this season. It’s obviously progress but are you satisfied with the season you’ve had?
    CW: This year for us was all about consolidation. If we are able to secure third this year again, that’s fantastic for a team operating on the budgets we are operating on. We are operating on a budget that is half or a third of some of the bigger teams out there and I’m really proud of the job that everybody in our team has done. It’s been hard work this year. We haven’t had some of the podiums we would have liked to have had but we’ve done a job. But it’s not over yet, we still go work to do but getting thirds again would be fantastic.

    Q: Thank you. Vijay, if I can move on to you. It’s a huge weekend for your team, in particular Sergio of course. Are you enjoying it, are the team feeling added pressure this weekend at all?
    Vijay MALLYA: No, we are absolutely enjoying being here in Mexico. As you may know we launched the car in Mexico in January this year. Checo has a huge following, we have many large Mexican sponsors and I personally love Mexico because there are many similarities with India, so this is like a home race for us as well.

    Q: We are hearing talk of a name change for the team for next season. What can you tell us about it? What does it mean for the team and how is it going to be structured?
    VM: We are in discussion, nothing has been finalised, we have many options and I’ll be able to confirm or otherwise once I have something to say. As I’ve said, and as was faithfully reported by Autosport, I don’t like to count my chickens before they hatch.

    Q: Thank you very much. Arai-san, can I ask you first what happened this morning in terms of Jenson’s engine and what effect did that have on running this afternoon?
    Yasuhisa ARAI: Jenson’s engine we had planned to change between FP1 and FP2 but we detected, by sensor, a high-voltage failure. Actually we don’t know but we need time to learn. We have to change many items to go out the garage.

    Q: There is talk of Honda supplying a second team, or maybe not. What is the current situation and if you were given the choice would Honda rather supply more than one team?
    YA: Obviously we cannot discuss details at this moment. We have been approached by the team but discussions are ongoing and nothing has been decided. I always say this season: we are always open, so we are on discussions that are ongoing – that’s it.

    Q: Toto, you were invited onto the panel in Austin to celebrate as Constructors’ Champions and we’re delighted to see you now as double champions this season. Tell us your thoughts on Lewis as a three-time world champion and also how he’s changed over his three years with the team?
    Toto WOLFF: It’s clear that when you win a third drivers’ title you move into the ‘Olymp’ of drivers. There are not many who have scored three title or more and he’s part of that. He’s had an extraordinary season, almost without any mistakes. The car didn’t let him down and this is then where he ended up. The journey he had in the team… he started the same time I joined the team. I think it’s normal that as a person you develop, you grow into the team, you get to know the people, the car suits you more and this is the result of three years with Mercedes.

    Q: On the flip side, it’s obviously difficult for Nico. Where does he go from here? How does he rebuild for 2016?
    TW: For the team it’s always biitersweet and just to keep the right balance I think he had a season with so many ups but also many downs. Some very good performances, he was always there. He outqualified Lewis on some of the occasions but then he was also let down with the car in Monza, with the engine failure and this is simply where we need to improve – to provide a car that makes them capable of fighting each other, because it lifts the team. Today you could see he has a very strong pace and the combination of the two of them makes where we are. We won the Constructors’ title also because Nico is such a strong contender to Lewis and this is a very beneficial situation to the team.

    Q: Thank you. Maurizio, can I ask you how important is it that Sebastian now finishes second in the Drivers’ title race for Ferrari?
    Maurizio ARRIVABENE: The championship is not finished. At the moment he is second but I think Nico is hunting him but we will do our best to keep [Sebastian] in that position, even if Toto do not like.

    Q: Sebastian drove a great race in Austin. Can you tell us what he’s brought to the team and how motivating performances like that are to the team?
    MA: I don’t want to talk about Sebastian, because every time they are asking me questions – he’s a four-time world champion. He’s demonstrate that he is a great driver but he also have a good team around him. He has integrated himself very well into the team and also with Kimi, I have to say, and everybody is going in the right direction. He gave us an additional push and I recognise he is a great driver. By the way, congratulations to Mercedes and to Lewis for the title, the really deserve [it].

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Ian Parkes – Autosport) Toto, you recently signed an agreement with Manor to supply power units for next season. They describe themselves as a team of real racers but two of those real racers, John Booth and Graeme Lowdon, have seemingly resigned form their positions. I just wondered what you make of that and if that poses any threat to the deal going forward into next year?
    TW: Obviously when I spoke about racers, John and Graeme was very much meant by that plus of course the rest of the team, it’s a bunch of real fighters that have shown stamina in keeping the team in the sport. I’ve known John forever, since the Formula Renault days of Lewis and Formula 3 days. Manor means John Booth and John Booth means Manor and Graeme has made sure… was very instrumental in keeping the team alive last year, so seeing them go, from a personal standpoint and from the racing spirit, is obviously a blow. So going forward, we have signed the deal with Manor and I would say we need to give credit to everybody in the team who stays in the team but we are curious spectators from now on.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Question to Maurizio. Last week in Austin I asked you what your thoughts and comments were about the possibility of another kind of engine, that was being discussed. You said that you’d rather wait until it’s gone through Strategy Group etcetera before commenting – yet on Monday we heard that Ferrari had invoked a veto against such a plan. Could you please explain the difference and also whether in fact there was a veto that was invoked – and why? Thank you.
    MA: Concerning the veto it is quite easy. We exercised our veto in compliance with our legitimate commercial right to do business as a powertrain manufacturer. There’s nothing to add.

    Q: (Kate Walker – motorsport.com) I’ve got a follow-up for Maurizio. Given the rude financial health of the Ferrari F1 team’s finances, how do you morally justify exercising your veto?
    MA: I repeat it. I have to repeat again. The rules are done by the Federation and it’s fine but we just exercise our commercial right as a powertrain manufacturer. This is the reason why.

    It was a question about the moral justification, given your strong financial position.
    MA: Why do we have to justify it more? Here we are talking about commercial right. We are not talking about budget, we are not talking about anything else. If somebody, they are asking you, they give you a specification to produce apple, OK you produce apple in line with the specification. That somebody,  they’re asking you, OK, we want to impose you the price of the apple’, what are you going to do? This is the principle. It has nothing to do with the rest.

    Q: (Christopher Joseph ¬– Chicane) Question for the front row [MA, TW, YA] in terms of powertrain. How important is it for you, as powertrain manufacturers, that you have gained some traction in the Mexican market – and what is the relationship between excellence in powertrain on the track and how that relates to road car technology?
    TW: To answer the first question, Mexico is a huge market and very important market for us. We’re not only producing cars in Mexico but also it’s the sheer size is very important for us. From the relevance to road car technology, there is a huge relevance – and it goes in both directions. What you are seeing on the roads is hybrid technology and fuel efficiency and this is the fastest lab in the world. We have been part of a sport that set very stringent new rules two years ago in terms of efficiency of those power units – yet those power units deploy more power than the engines before and we are almost there in terms of laptimes with 100kg instead of 150-160kg – so it’s very, very road relevant.

    Arai-san – how important is it to be visible to the Mexican market?
    YA: Here is a very, very important market for us, of course. We made a new plant in Celaya and opened that plant. Our services are very strong in Mexico. This is the 50 years anniversary for the first win for Honda in Formula One this year. It is a very special place in Mexico.

    Maurizio – how important to be visible to the Mexican market and the relevance to road cars?
    MA: For us of course it’s important because Mexico somehow is the door of South America. It’s a growing market so for a car manufacturer company it’s a very, very important and this is the reason why we were very happy to have the grand prix here because it’s another opportunity to enlarge the Formula One sport and the Formula One race in South America. The show I think is more completed now with Austin, USA, Mexico now and Brazil.

    Q: (Ralf Bach – Auto Bild Motosport) A question to Toto. Toto, can you understand Ferrari’s opinion in this engine case? The veto right and the answer.
    TW: This is obviously a very controversial topic and, as with many things, black and white is not the answer. There is… we were… there is a set of rules which were implemented in Formula One two years ago and we started developing those engines three, four, five years ago, based on that set of rules. As large corporations we work on long-term planning. It is part of the budget process. It is part of the R&D process. From that standpoint, part of it is a business case and you need to calculate how much you can charge for those engines, how much you can recover for those engines. Ferrari is a public company now, so it is difficult as a commercial entity to just be confronted with the situation where price is being imposed. It somehow takes away the commercial ability of refinancing. Now, you can say, for a large organisation it doesn’t matter: a couple of millions don’t matter – but they do. It’s how we are being set up, the constant always trying to improve your result and optimise your organisation – which is why it’s a discussion I think we should have behind closed doors. I think it is very important to understand the financial constraints of some of the smaller teams and we remain committed to cost reductions. It’s not like the big teams are stubborn and say “well, we don’t want to hear anything of that.” This is a platform that functions with all of us. We are not just running fronting it and saying we don’t care what happens behind us or aside of us. You need to balance that. I think Ferrari’s first reaction – and excuse me [MA] that I’m talking for you in that case – is the imposing ways are very difficult to cope for a commercially-oriented entity. I can understand Ferrari’s standpoint and I can also understand it’s a very controversial and difficult situation for some of the smaller teams, and of course how it’s being brought forward, it doesn’t look very neat – but there is a much more to it than just a sheer veto and saying “no, we don’t want to have the discussion,” because that’s not how it was.

    MA: In fact, what I said, my answer was only concerned to the reason we applied the veto. For the rest I totally agree with veto. It is not a position against the other team. It is a decision that is defending a commercial principle. For the rest we are open to finding any other solution. At Toto explained, you have in a public company, as we are now, but also in a company as Mercedes is, you have research and development costs that somehow you have to recover. I don’t find any commercial entity all around the world that is giving their product out to the market for free – or at cost. So this is the principle.

    Q: (Ian Parkes- Autosport) The FIA recently announced plans to potentially introduce a budget engine from 2017. To Vijay and Claire, could you give us your thoughts on that, whether it’s a unit which would likely appeal to you? And to the front three engine manufacturers, again your thoughts on that, bearing in mind the multi-millions of pounds that you’ve spent in developing the current system?
    CW: Everybody is aware that Williams is always in support of any cost control measures in Formula One, and we respect the work that the FIA are doing in that regard. But we also have always come out in support of the current power unit that we have, it’s hugely relevant to the auto industry of today and in Formula One, this needs to be a technically innovative championship. So I think there are arguments on both sides and as Toto said, it’s quite an evocative subject and one that we want to have conversations around with the FIA and directly rather than talking about it in the press at this stage.
    VM: I received a communication from the FIA proposing the new engine concept with outline specifications. I appreciate the cost cutting initiative. I think Force India has constantly been asking for cost control measures in Formula One for good reason, I might add. But it’s very early stages for us to comment on whether we would be supportive of this particularly new engine or not. Having said that, we have an excellent relationship with Mercedes. We have a fantastic power train. Sure, if the FIA feels that an engine should cost six or seven million euros, this gives me a little foot in the door to request my friend Toto for a discount. But having said, we are contractually obliged to Mercedes ‘til 2020 and we respect our contract, but having said, any cost saving initiative is welcome from our point of view and should be discussed by all teams in the strategy group and those who are not in the strategy group, because they are equally relevant and hopefully we can all come to a conclusion.
    I just take another minute: I heard what Maurizio said about the recent veto by Ferrari. He further states that he would be very prepared to sit down and discuss cost reduction measures which is something that we appreciate. Unfortunately, in the past, the strategy group has been discussing cost control for the last two years and there has been no significant result. Hopefully now, going forward, we will all sit down with the seriousness that it deserves and find a solution that is satisfactory to all teams that are competing in this world championship.
    TW: Vijay’s a very shrewd businessman so nothing else was expected, same as Claire. As I said before, we cannot close our eyes to what’s happening in Formula One and we need to show respect for every team – the ones that are part of the strategy group and the ones not part of the strategy group, and you need to consider that. And you have to balance that against your own commercial pressures. I think Formula One was successful with the current engines in attracting engine manufacturers. It is a period where we are having four suppliers in the sport, which I would consider as a success and I think that from our standpoint, what we need is a long term visibility of regulations and what’s happening so we need to try to make our customers and partners in the smaller teams save costs as good as we can and have a serious discussion about it and maybe Jean Todt and Bernie’s initiative now is going to trigger more emphasis on those discussions so I take it as a positive. We remain open to the regulations, we are not the ones who make the regulations but we have a voice and we sit there and we hope I can make that argument heard, that we need long term stability in coming up with solutions. If, going forward, we need different regulations in terms of power units we would very much discuss that, if it makes sense or not, but we shouldn’t shake the system too much because that doesn’t fit to the long term perspectives of large organisations like the three of us represent.
    YA: I think that for Formula One there are three major important things. One is sustainability, as you discussed, the cost to a price. And how more attractive and keep the good fun. And also the challenge of new technology; the current regulation is a very good direction, and also the competition. Those are the three major areas which are always important and we always discuss about that.
    MA: I think I tend to full agree with Todt because here you have two companies, they do chassis, they do engine, gearbox, everything on the car so we need to find a bit of a balance versus others because everybody looks smaller but if you compare us and what we are doing to maybe our teams, we have all the respect for them. They maybe do only the chassis. We need to find the balance in between all of us. As Vijay said, we are ready to sit down to discuss, to find a good solution which is making everybody happy and most importantly, it’s helping Formula One to grow in terms of spectacularisation and so on. So, this is our point of view. We want to continue our discussion but as Toto said, you can’t shake the box too much because otherwise you create further confusion. I mean if you apply the rules, the rules need to be discussed, agreed by everybody and equal for everybody, because I don’t think a solution to have three, four, five different power units that they are running in Formula One is going to satisfy us and to simplify also, because most of the time, now that what we discuss in the strategy group is becoming public. I can say something in the strategy group where also we are discussing how to simplify the rules so we also need to do that and to do it we need to unify the rules, to simplify and to look further to enhance the show.

    Q: (Will Buxton – NBC SN) Toto said a few moments ago that we can’t be blind to the situation in this sport any longer and yet the use of the veto by Ferrari shows that if not blind, it could possibly be argued that there’s a slight blurring of vision. I would like to ask the members of the panel that don’t have the right of veto for a simple yes or no answer; should anybody in this sport, should any team in this sport have the right of veto over regulation?
    CW: I think it is what it is. I think it’s like a lot of things in Formula One, that it is in the regulations that if Ferrari have that veto, it’s a historical veto they’ve had for many years. I don’t believe that they’ve exercised it on a regular basis but they obviously exercise it when they feel opposed to something and opposed to something that they believe that they should be opposed to because it’s important to them and Maurizio has laid out the reasons why he used… Ferrari used their veto. Where I sit, Williams, we’ve always just abided by the rules, they are what they are, like a lot of things in Formula One and we just go along with them.
    VM: I sit on the world motorsport council of the FIA so I’m not going to express my personal opinion. The FIA president Jean Todt has already issued a press statement surrounding this entire issue of the recommendations that were made for cost control measures, that Ferrari vetoed it, and he very clearly stated that he does not intend to contest the exercising of that veto so that’s it as far as I’m concerned.
    TW: Well, there is not a yes and no answer to this, it’s much more complex than this and I think it is an historic right which is a right that was earned in participating in the sport for fifty or sixty years, God knows how many years, and having amassed this tremendous amount, the question is is the veto the right way in terms of honouring that. It’s up to others to make that judgement so considering that, I think that somebody like Ferrari needs to have different right of opinion and expressing themselves than somebody who has been here ten minutes.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Arai-san, major corporations move employees, they give them projects, they give them assignments etc. I’m hearing from Japan that your assignment is a three year assignment, that there were two years to set up the Honda F1 programme and one year to introduce it in the field, i.e. this year. Can you assure us categorically that you’ll still head the programme next year or will somebody else take over?
    YA: I don’t know. I can’t say here.

    Q: (Christopher Joseph – Chicane) Just further to your response, Toto, you talked about the veto and in general you’ve all spoken about the veto being part of the historic nature, the DNA, if you will, of Formula One. Is it perhaps time that, seeing as teams like the Williams team, all the independent garagistas as they were called, should they not have a veto, are they just not equally part of this great circus?
    TW: If we all had a veto, it doesn’t make any sense any more. No, I think this is really such a complex discussion which we shouldn’t have in public. My personal opinion is that you need to respect Ferrari’s position. It is the strongest brand in Formula One and it has done a lot around Formula One and has been honoured in various contracts be it the veto or be it with commercial rights. And whatever the ways of that being honoured is another question. Is veto the right thing to exercise your position or not, I don’t know, but it’s not a discussion we should be having here.
    MA: I would like to add also that we are not applying the veto to every single meeting. If we do it, we think a lot about it and we do it if, in our opinion, it’s necessary to do it and the last one, I remember, was applied by Jean Todt actually a couple of years ago, many years ago.

  • Mexico Grand Prix Preview Quotes – Force India F1 Team

    Mexico Grand Prix Preview Quotes – Force India F1 Team

    The Force India F1 team Preview Quotes ahead of the upcoming Formula One Grand Prix in Mexico.

    Sergio Perez – Preview Quotes

    “The races in Russia and the United States have been an ideal way to prepare me for the return of my home race. A podium finish and a strong fifth place have given me a lot of confidence ahead of the final part of the season. I think there is more to come from us and I’m really looking forward to the final few races.

    “Having the opportunity of driving in my home Grand Prix is something I never thought would happen. It will be one of the highlights of my career and I have no doubt that this race will become a modern classic of Formula One. Mexico has a lot of history in motorsport: the fans know the sport; they have a lot of enthusiasm and have been waiting a long time for Formula One to come back. I think everyone will have a great time.

    Sergio Perez Mexico GP Preview Quotes“Racing in Mexico is, of course, very special for me, but at the same time I should not let this distract me from the fact that it is another race in which I will need to give 100% to bring home a good result. I am incredibly motivated to work hard with my team to have another race to celebrate.

    “I had the chance to drive a lap of the new track layout recently and it’s a fantastic circuit. There are quite a few changes compared to the old layout when Formula One last raced there, but I don’t think the circuit has lost any of its character. The new section in the stadium is spectacular and it will be such an incredible emotion to drive through there for the first time when it’s full of fans. There are a lot of fast sections, but at the same time you have a combination of fast, slow and medium-speed corners that make for a very varied lap.

    “I am also happy to see the final corner has been named after Nigel Mansell. He is a hero to motorsport fans in Mexico and I admire all he has achieved. Nigel won the last race in Mexico in 1992 and produced one of the greatest overtakes of all times there, so it is right that he has been honoured in this way.”

    Nico Hulkenberg – Preview Quotes

    “When you have a bad result, the best way to bounce back is to get back in the saddle immediately. The race in Austin was frustrating as I felt it was a missed opportunity to score a lot of points, but that’s racing. I have to get it out of the system and at least I get to be back in the car after just a few days.

    Nico Hulkenberg Mexico GP Preview Quotes“This week should be one of the most exciting in the season for us with lots happening on and off the track. We have a lot of Mexican partners and I think there will be a lot of attention on us so the expectations will be high. When we visited Mexico in January for our team launch, the whole country was incredibly supportive and enthusiastic, and it was the same last week when I was there for a charity event. They have been waiting for a Grand Prix for a long time and I am sure the circuit will put on a great event. I have even been trying to learn a bit of Spanish ahead of the race – even though by Sunday night all I want to say to the local press is “una gran carrera!”

    “I am really looking forward to exploring the new track. I have never really driven on it properly – I just did a handful of laps in a road car on what was the old layout back in January. I have seen the map and a few videos, and the circuit seems to have a nice flow. There are a lot of medium-speed corners which is something drivers enjoy and some big straights that should generate some overtaking opportunities.”

    Dr Vijay Mallya, Team Principal – Preview Quotes

    “The race in Austin demonstrated the good level of form we are in at the moment. We have been competitive on every kind of circuit following the summer break and it was only some misfortune for Nico that prevented us from scoring well with both cars in Texas. Racing is often a game of maximising opportunities and we have been doing that only partially recently, but the next race is a good chance to realise our full potential.

    “Mexico is, needless to say, a very important race for us. Checo enjoys a huge following in his home country and we have a large number of Mexican team partners, so we are determined to do well in front of them. When we visited the country for our team launch in January, I was delighted, but not surprised, by the support we received from the fans: we are proud to be welcomed as friends and will work hard to put on a fantastic show for everybody involved.

    “We are now nearing the finishing straight of this season with our eyes firmly set on the objective of securing fifth in the constructors’ championship. Being a new circuit, Mexico will provide additional challenges as we find our way to set up the cars, but we expect to be in our usual competitive position with the minimum objective being a good helping of points for both cars.”

    Photo Credits: All Force India Preview Quotes Photos Credited to Force India F1 Team.

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

    2015 Formula 1 United States Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Matthew, anything to add?
    MC: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Force India unveils VJM08 livery in Mexico

    Force India unveils VJM08 livery in Mexico

    Force India unveiled its new 2015 livery and front nose design at launch event in Mexico.

    Team drivers Nico Hulkenberg and Sergio Perez pulled the wraps off the new car livery in Mexico City, ahead of F1’s return to Mexico later this year.

    The revised colour scheme was presented on Force India’s 2014 car following the team’s decision to delay the introduction of the new VJM08 until the second pre-season test of the year.The team confirmed on Tuesday that the VJM08 will not be present at next weekend’s Jerez test and will only make its debut in Barcelona in mid-February.

    Although the VJM08 was not present at the livery launch, Force India say that it is an evolution of the VJM07 which will be used at the opening test of the year in Jerez and carried the team to sixth in the 2014 constructors’ standings.

    “It’s another evolution of the contemporary look we introduced last year, which reflects the growth of the team and the global brands with which we are working,” said team principal Vijay Mallya.

    “I love the addition of silver, which makes the car appear more sleek and aggressive and I’m sure it’s something that will appeal to the fans as well. Our traditional team colours remain integrated in the livery, but we’ve given it a very modern twist.”

    “I’m very excited about 2015,” Sergio Perez added. “It’s my second season with this team so that always makes things easier. I feel very relaxed about the new season in a good way. The regulations are not changing and I believe that will benefit us as a team.

    “It means the development from last year can continue and we don’t have to start everything from zero again. I like these regulations and the V6 engines helped produce close and competitive racing. At the end of 2014 I was feeling very confident in the car and I want to carry this momentum into the new season. I want more podiums in 2015.”

    “I hope for spectacular things,” Nico Hulkenberg said discussing his 2015 aspirations. “That means scoring many points, great racing and lots of fun. I’m part of a team that is growing and hungry for more. 2014 was our best season yet so we need to aim to go a step further this year and give the teams ahead of us a harder time.”

    Technical director Andrew Green said that changes will be most noticeable at the front end of the Mercedes-powered car, “The front of the car looks very different from what we had developed previously,” he said. “It is a redesign that involved a lot of work over the winter, as the new regulations caused a loss in terms of downforce and we’ve been working to claw back all that performance.”

    Force India also said that the VJM08 will also feature other more subtle changes which include modified sculpting of the sidepods and new cooling intakes. There’ll also be a completely new rear suspension layout with a new hydro-mechanical system replacing the original torsion springs.

    Here’s a gallery of the new Force India VJM08 livery.

     

  • Perez Stays on at Force India With Multi-Year Deal

    Perez Stays on at Force India With Multi-Year Deal

    The Sahara Force India team announced on Saturday 22 November that Mexican driver Sergio Perez has extended his stay at the team on a multi-year deal.

    The 24-year-old Mexican joined the team at the start of 2014 and enjoyed immediate success with a podium finish in only his third race for the team. Since then, he has continued to demonstrate his speed by scoring points in eleven races so far this season.

    “It’s good to announce my plans,” said Perez

    “As soon as I joined Sahara Force India, I noticed the hunger and determination of everyone in the team, and I’m very proud to be part of that.

    “I feel at home here and I’m fully committed. I’m enjoying my racing and we’ve already celebrated some special results together.

    “It’s important for me to establish myself in a team and have some continuity. The team have given me a competitive car this year and I believe we can continue to achieve great things together in the future”

    Team Principal and Managing Director at Force India, Vijay Mallya had this to say about extending Perez’s stay at the team:

    “I am delighted that Checo will continue with us.”

    “He’s a true racer who has done a fantastic job for us this season. The whole team has been impressed with his speed and racecraft, as well as his role away from the track.”

    “He has a very bright future in Formula One and we will do our utmost to give him the equipment to match his talent. I look forward to celebrating more strong results with Checo this year and in years to come, and I cannot wait for Checo’s first home Grand Prix in Mexico in front of his huge following of passionate fans.”

  • Vijay Mallya Excercises Perez’s Option to stay for 2015

    Vijay Mallya Excercises Perez’s Option to stay for 2015

    Force India Team Team Principal and Managing Director, Vijay Mallay has confirmed that Sergio Perez will be retained for the 2015 Formula 1 Season.

    Although the Mexican says he is in talks with the team regarding his contract, Mallya said that it was probably due to his contract extension for 2016.

    “The possibility came of extending Checo’s contract in to 2016 as well, and that is what is under negotiation,” said Mallya.

    “I have a two-year contract with Sergio Perez,” he added.

    “He[Perez] can say what he wants: but I exercised my option and it is done.”

    “As far as 2015 is concerned, we had a two-year contract with him. We exercised the option, period.

    “We are talking about one additional year and that is the whole point of the negotiation.”

  • 2014 Formula 1 United States Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    2014 Formula 1 United States Grand Prix: Friday Press Conference

    Team representatives:

    Eric Boullier (McLaren)

    Monisha Kaltenborn (Sauber)

    Toto Wolff (Mercedes)

    Vijay Mallya (Force India)

    Gerard Lopez (Lotus)

    Q: Let me start with a general question to all of you if I may, about Formula One and the United States. Many of your teams have been involved in activities in the build up to this event. How do you assess the growth of Formula One here and what’s the potential for Formula One in the USA? Eric, maybe you would start?
    Eric Boullier:     Well, good question. We have seen, obviously, after the first year, which was very well attended and crowded, you could see the interest in Austin went through the roof. We obviously have some American partners on our shirts but it is true that all the fans here… I mean, it’s been fully crowded. You can see the activation and the activities as well in the city. It’s just unbelievable how the weekend is built around F1 and it became one of the major events in the F1 season. It’s very promising to see the interest massively growing around this race in Austin and obviously we all know that F1 is maybe looking at having another race in the US. It’s very promising for F1, for the fans and I think F1 needs the US market.

    Q: Thank you for that. Toto, your thoughts on that and the possibility of other races here in the US?
    Toto Wolff:     It’s a great place and it feels almost like it has been on the calendar, at least for me, since a long time. It’s part of Formula One. They’ve done a really awesome job over here. We’ve had some events before coming to Austin. We’ve had Lewis and the Formula One car in New York. We’ve been with NBC and you can see there is a momentum in the US behind Formula One and that’s great. Next year… 2016, we have an American team joining us and the interest in the US has grown. We have a new shareholder in Williams, who is an American entrepreneur and it’s nice to see that Formula One is starting to make an impact in the US.

    Q: Vijay, your thoughts?
    Vijay Mallya:     Well, you know the United States is a large continent and could have more than one Formula One race. The motor racing culture and passion exists in this country, in terms of NASCAR, in terms of Daytona, in terms of the Indy 500, I mean motor sport is basically a very, very popular sport here in the United States and there is no reason why Formula One should not be equally entertaining and gather a lot of fans in this continent. I mean, if we can have as many races [as we do] in the geographical region of Europe then one or maybe even two races in the United States would hardly be enough. But more significantly given the overall financial situation of Formula One, I mean a market as huge as the United States can help revenues on one side and help those teams that need more and more sponsorships on the other hand.

    Q: What about you Monisha? Do you think that more races in this region would be the secret to growth?
    Monisha Kaltenborn:     Well, definitely that’s something we are going to have to have a look at. If you look at the race here, the first race we had here was an excellent event and then we were concerned if next year is going to stay like this or maybe it will decline but the opposite happened and you still see it’s a fantastic atmosphere, so many fans coming over. You look at the synergies which you can create with the race coming up in Mexico as well, so you see it’s starting to grow on the continent itself. It’s interesting to see when we came here earlier on, you landed usually at some other airport when you came in and then when they asked you why you were here and you said Formula One, people didn’t really know much about it. This time when I landed the person said “well, that’s taking place in Austin isn’t it?” That tells you how it is expanding and the interest is growing in this country.

    Q: Gerard, a final word on this?
    Gerard Lopez:     I think everything has been said, but I would just say the US is the largest professional sports market in general and any sport that succeeds here tends to be economically viable, so I think it’s a key market and indeed having one or two more races wouldn’t be bad.

    Q: Okay, secondly, again to all of you, with the events of the last two weeks, with two teams going into administration, where should the initiative come from for controlling costs and is there a sense now amongst your peer group that this time effective measures must be achieved? Toto maybe you’d like to start with that?
    TW:     Why don’t you start with Gerard – the other way round this time?

    Vijay Mallya_Press Conference 2014Q: Okay, we’ll start with Vijay in fact!
    VM:     I have been very vocal about this. I have said that you can’t have Formula One with only manufacturer teams. You need smaller teams, it’s part of the DNA of Formula One for several decades and the FIA on one hand, and the commercial rights holder on the other hand must both work closely to ensure that it is viable and sustainable going forwards. We’ve talked about cost caps a number of times and finally I think the large teams or the manufacturer teams were opposed to it. But I think that was a good initiative that didn’t quite see the light of day to make any meaningful difference. On the other hand, as far as the revenue share is concerned, I think it’s probably a unique sport, where the participating teams get the least amount of revenue as compared to the income. When you compare it to any other sporting activity globally, we unfortunately are at the rough end. I am very sad that two teams are no longer with us on the grid here in Austin and I think such a thing should not be allowed to happen and that’s my firm view.

    Q: Gerard?
    GL:     Toto mentioned, because I tend to have a pretty brutal view on things, but I think the disappearance of two teams is pretty unfortunate but it actually… probably now is the time to say things as they are. Number one: the distribution model of revenues is completely wrong. Whether the size of what is distributed or not is right or wrong is debatable and Vijay has mentioned one side of the thing. But then, you know, when you’ve got teams showing up to the championship that get more money just for showing up than teams spending a whole season then something is entirely wrong with the whole system and so that cannot be allowed to happen, number one. And now is the time to not be talking about it but the time to be acting about it, so we will see what’s going to happen in the next couple of weeks. The second thing is the cost cap. We always find excuses not to have a cost cap. There are reasons why certain areas should not be capped but there are also reasons why certain areas should be. And, again, now is the time to be acting rather than talking about it. And finally, this is an odd sport. We say things and then we tend to do the opposite. I’ll just give one example. The birth of the new engines happened when we started talking about cutting costs and so forth. The fact is that the new engine, which from a technology perspective is a great thing, the costs were passed on to all the teams. In our case this year, between the engine and development we probably spent something like US$50-60 million. That’s not cost cutting in our books, that’s essentially throwing money out the window. So we tend to also do completely the wrong things in terms of… if we unfreeze the engines now, which is the next topic that is coming up. All we are going to do is again essentially force everybody to keep developing and so on and so forth. At the end of the day, the revenue split, the capping of costs, have an immediate impact on the sport and not taking decisions has had an immediate impact on the sport in the last couple of weeks with two teams disappearing. So, as far as I am concerned… it’s really interesting to have the press conference but it’s going to be really interesting to find out what’s going to happen in the next couple of weeks around this topic.

    Q: Okay, thanks. Monisha?
    MK:     Well, I mean, if we don’t act now together then you have to ask yourself what else needs to still happen? You look at simply the facts: we are sport here, in my view still one of the best global sporting platforms, we have turnovers of billions of dollars and the sport as such, together with the stakeholders, are not in a position to actually maintain 11 teams. And we’ve often enough discussed what it means to have a third car, where that can go to, and we could probably sit very long, arguing the pros and cons about it but that’s not what we should do in this sport. It’s time that we focus on reducing the costs. We’ve discussed that enough times, what we can do. Like Gerard has said, if you don’t want to do something, you’ll never get to a point where you agree. But you really have to ask yourself what is being done to the sport here? We are sending out messages where fans are being involved in topics they really don’t want to talk about. They should be talking about the excellent races we have, what a great experience it is to come here but yet they are discussing financials, costs, teams going into administration. That is a very bad image we are creating to the outside where new partners are going out and saying “do we really want to enter this kind of a sport with all these troubles, which are normally not meant to be in sport but into other economic areas”. So we really need to react, look at that, we need to look at the equitable sharing of the income we have, so that you can really maintain more teams than just the big ones. We also need to see on the technical side that there is a certain stability and continuity there, because you often hear from bigger teams that whatever we have agreed has always led to more cost but you should first of all see who has agreed to it – it’s usually the high end. So everything is lying there but it is high time we take some action now.

    Q: Well, there you go Toto, you’ve heard the views. Is it time to act or is it just two of 135 teams that have come and gone in the history of the sport?
    TW:     It’s probably a longer answer now! You know I read an article in the Financial Times two months where they had exactly the same topic in the English Premier League. How can you – and they have the Financial Fair Play – how can you bridge the gap between the very top and the very bottom and if you look at the budgets of Marussia and then you compare the highest spender, whoever it is, Ferrari or Red Bull, you are talking about a gap from US$70 million to US$250 million, so if you want to start with a cost cap, how do that? Where do you cap it? And if you cap it on the lower end, well, do you make two thirds of the people redundant in the big teams. How does it function? That’s one point. The other point is: how do you control it? The competition is so fierce at the very top that the cost cap… the cost cap was never implemented because there was no way of policing it and controlling it. Some of the teams have various set-ups, various companies all around the world, multi-nationals behind them in Japan, in Germany, in Italy. If you look at Ferrari, they have a severe issue of being transparent enough to cope with a cost cap. If you have everything in one entity and you are building road car and you are building engines and you are building race cars, various race cars from GT to Formula One, well, how does it function? Because it is so competitive, we need to have clarity, how do you control that. So this is the problem I see on the cost cutting side. Obviously two teams disappearing, I have an emotional and a pragmatic view. The emotional view is that there is personal drama behind it. There are families who need to pay mortgages, there are kids going to school and these people don’t have any jobs today anymore and that is a drama and it is painful and I am sorry for that. The rational side of things is that we have seen in the past that teams come and go. We have seen great teams who have folded, went into liquidation or administration. Great names: Brabham, Arrows, Ligier, Prost, Larousse, Leyton House… I mean there are 20 others. That was part of Formula One. Now, is that something that should happen? No, of course it shouldn’t. But when Formula One was opened up for new teams to join, you can’t compare the agenda of the teams. You know in our case we are representing a multi-national car company. This is a branding exercise, we are showcasing our technology. And on the other side if you look at Marussia and Caterham when they joined the sport it was an entrepreneur deciding to join Formula One and maybe underestimating what itTotoWolff_Mercedes2014 meant joining that field. You have other examples, such as Vijay, who is extremely successful in his business and who had stamina and size enough to cope with the challenges until today. I have great respect for what Tony Fernandes and Andrey Cheglakov have done in their businesses but maybe Formula One is just a different ball game, because you have these various agendas. So I think it is time to sit down and reflect and think what can we do? Because the remaining nine teams are part of the DNA of Formula One, they are heart and soul, names like Sauber, Force India and Lotus need to stay in the business. I think we all need to sit down, not with our own little narrow agenda of wanting to win the championship – and this is why I am paid, and why Eric is paid – but by looking at the whole of Formula One. But I think there are… like in any other sport, like in any other industry, this is the pinnacle. This is the pinnacle of motor racing and if you want to complete at the pinnacle of motor racing then you need to have the resources of competing there. This is a high entry barrier sport. I’m getting overboard now, but if you want to set up an airline tomorrow, it’s going to be difficult, because Lufthansa is going to eat you up. If you want to go motor racing and you want to do Formula One like the new teams decided four or five years ago, you need to understand that this is the very top. So it’s a very difficult topic, I could go on for another two hours.

    Q: Well, I’m sure we’ll be here for a little while longer. Eric, you’ve gone from a team that very much supports the idea of a cost cap to one of the grandee teams – McLaren. Do you feel you have a responsibility to ensure the sustainability and the depth of the grid or do you have a different perspective now that you are in the situation you are in?
    EB:     Definitely maybe a different perspective, yes! But back to the comments that have been said before. Obviously we are all sad to not see our colleagues in the paddock this weekend. I think there is a common sense to say, yes, we need maybe to definitely get to actions now to make sure the sustainability of the existing teams in the pit lane is assured or guaranteed in the future. At the same time, talking about the cost cap, yes my perspective has changed a little bit, for the same reason Toto said. Marussia and Caterham were joining as part of an entrepreneur scenario and was told in these days that there would be a US$40m or something like this budget cap in these days. So their business model was built around, I guess, these kind of figures. But when you see teams, especially teams like McLaren, that have been in Formula One more than 50 years, invested heavily in terms of image and whatever technology there is and participating to make Formula One is today, you can’t accept to run such a budget cap. As you said we lost two teams today and this is very sad for the families and the people working there because they were all friends but if you start to cut by two thirds in the top teams it’s going to hurt Formula One much more. We need to be emotionless but we need to be rational in what we need to do. Is it a question of how the money is shared? Is it a question of how the business is growing, fast or not? There are many questions that still need to be answered. What is sure today is I think we all have a common sense to regroup and to make sure we want a sustainable business, even for the teams.

    QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

    Q: (Ian Parkes – PA) I think I’d politely like to suggest that we’ve just witnessed over the past few minutes the perfect example of where Formula One stands at the moment. We have three teams on the back row pleading for cost cuts, pleading for any kind of restrictions. We have two teams on the front row ready to argue against it. How on Earth do you ever propose to ever come together when over the past few minutes we can see that you don’t agree at the moment?
    EB:     It’s a very good question but, once again, I guess this is the wrong forum. Each of us wants to beat everybody. We are competitors. If we compete with a bottle of water, if we compete with a Formula One team, we want to beat the others – and we will do it by any means. So, this is normal. Even, actually, as you say in the back row, they want to still compete and actually beat everybody. So, this is not… we can… I’m pretty sure we can sit down and agree drastic decisions altogether – but this has to be led by the governance body and by the people who are running the show. Not the competitors. Do you ask football players about the Fair Play problems in Premier League? No. Ask the clubs or ask the people who own or who run Premier League.

    Q: Vijay – you were smiling…
    VM:     Well, if you work for a team, you have a different view, if you own a team you have a radically different view. That’s also pretty obvious. If you own a team, you’re writing the cheque. If you run a team, you’re receiving a cheque so… there’s got to be a divergence of opinion. I respectfully disagree with what Toto said about a cost-cap leading to redundancies of workman of the big teams. The same thing applies if small teams shut down. The same redundancies occur then as well. I don’t think there’s rocket science involved in people sitting down together to find a mechanism. It doesn’t necessarily have to be policing. It can be self-certification of what they spend. I agree that when one team spends $60million or less and another team spends $250million or more, then it’s perhaps difficult to bridge the gap. We have to find some viable medium here – but what is actually compounding the problem is that the revenue-share model is skewed completely towards the teams who can afford to race at the pinnacle of sport at the direct expense of those who perhaps are marginal. And that’s why two of the smaller teams have disappeared. I would also like to take this opportunity of saying that sustainability in F1 is necessary for the sport but when large corporations like Toyota and Honda decide, for corporate reasons, that they want to walk out, they go. At the end of the day there has to be a fine balance. The DNA of F1 – I repeat myself – is to include big and small teams and to provide as level a playing field as is practically possible. I think that if all the stakeholder sit together we can find a solution. It doesn’t have to be a radical solution that would dent the hopes, aspirations and passion of the big teams – but equally it could make sure that everybody survives and the sport continues to be enjoyed with the same level and a growing fan following globally as well.

    Q: Gerard?
    GL:     I’d like to comment on the numbers a little bit because they tend to give some fun reading, y’know? Because people in F1 actually do care about racing, some of them forget some economic realities – and there’s something called the Law of Diminishing Returns. I take a GP2 team, or a GP2 car, and I make it race around this track. It’s not going to be ridiculous. It’s going to be down by a couple of seconds, four, five, six, maybe seven seconds. The whole GP2 team for the whole season is going to cost €4million. Are we really that much better? I mean are we really better to the point that a team needs to spend €300 million to be six seconds faster? We’re not. I wouldn’t accept that argument from anybody. We’re not €300 million better if you take the top teams compared to a GP2 team. So it’s a bit ridiculous to say that you need to spend that kind of money to have that kind of performance – because that makes us the worst managers in the world. If I took a financial view of this sport, comparing GP2 to F1, and the so-called Law of Diminishing Returns, we are most probably the worst managers there are. And we pride ourselves of not being. So, if we’re not, we really need to think about… and I’m not saying that suddenly Mercedes needs to cut down because I understand that for Mercedes it’s a small portion of their overall budget but a very important budget in terms of image. So, nobody’s saying Mercedes suddenly need to spend 20 per cent more than the cheapest team in F1, if I may say so, but what we’re saying is, where the money goes – which is essentially developing the cars and so on and so forth, if we need to spend €300 million more than a GP2 team to make the car go six or seven seconds faster, that’s not a very efficient use of capital – and so that’s where the issue is. So nobody – certainly I am not saying – that we should take the budgets down to a fixed amount. What I’m saying is we should take the budgets down to an amount where everybody can spend whatever they want on whatever they want – as long as the technological development, the development of the car [unintelligible] is done within a framework that makes financial sense – and that can be measured. Because it doesn’t have to be measured in dollars, euros or pounds, but it can be measured in wind tunnel, number of packages, updates, so on and so forth. That’s the difference. I’m not going to argue with… and I love Eric to bits, so I’m not going to argue with his joining the dark forces but the fact is that there is a certain issue with the way we see money in F1, compared to the performance we’re getting out of that capital – and it’s not very efficient.

    Q: Monisha, do you have a comment on this? And perhaps where the initiative is going to come from, getting back to that point.
    MK:     Well, first maybe saying a few things about what’s been said earlier. We’ve been around in times when nobody really spoke about costs. You had at that time private teams, you had manufacturers in there but this was never really a topic because the whole setting was so different. And that’s what we need to realise, that today we don’t live in those times. Through manufacturers coming in, bigger companies coming in, costs have Monisha Kaltenborn_Press Conference 2014just gone sky-high. We experienced that ourselves not too long ago when we were a manufacturer team ourselves. This is where, like Gerard says, we have to start right there and bring it down to decent levels. We can endlessly argue about if you can control it or not – and I could probably give you five reasons you could – but it’s not really going to get us anywhere. We have to realise that the sport has gone into a direction that can no longer be kept up like this for the entire group of participants, not just for single ones out there. The other thing which was asked earlier was how you think we can agree. I don’t think there’s any basis at all. And that’s again a big difference to not too long ago. We had more manufacturers in the sport not too long ago and yet I do remember and incident from that time where there was a team which was in a difficult situation and the manufacturers got together to support that team. They were willing to even support that team financially. I’m not saying now that we expect this – not at all – but this is just to tell you what the thinking was at that time, even from five or six teams which could easily have afforded to spend double the amount they were at that time – which didn’t even need money probably from the commercial rights holder because it took long ‘til we got it when we signed our deals. Even there, we realised that you do have to have all teams in there. And this kind of common basis is not there at the moment because, if as a small team you go and say something out there you immediately get the response that we’re just scrabbling around because we’re not getting enough. And that thinking is so wrong. We have a right to be in the sport. We are not expecting that we get that much that we can be a world champion, we know we have to do that on our merits like Mercedes has done. But at least we should be getting enough share that we should be to live decently and not to always think ‘are we going to make it to the next season or not’. In our case, we’ve been now more than 22 years in the sport and there’s nothing you can just wipe out because things have gone in the wrong direction. And about the initiative, I think it doesn’t really get us very far if we start pinpointing at each other and saying ‘it’s this side or that side’. We really have to all sit together. We teams sent a letter to the FIA as our federation, which should be in charge of the sport, the reputation of the sport and the FIA had actually agreed that they will take measures to reduce the costs – so I don’t know what more it takes for them to react that two teams are now not also on the grid.

    Q: Final word on this question Toto. Would you accept the idea of Gerard, of a framework of a reduced number of packages, things that can be audited, things that can be controlled?
    TW:     I think many of the arguments we have heard are valid arguments. For us, again, you could probably reduce it to a very brutal reality. Gerard mentioned the words ‘economic reality.’ If today you run a team, it’s like running a company. And this shouldn’t be sounding arrogant in any way – but you’re not obliged to spend more than you have. There are different agendas. If you run a company today and you own it, you should probably run it in a sensible way. And that means spending what you have. And if you decide to invest or to go into debt because you believe that there is a sound business case behind it, this is what you should do. Now, I find it disturbing as well that you need to spend one hundred million, or you want to spend one hundred million if your income is only 60 or 70 million. In my time back at Williams that was the philosophy. You spent what you have. And if you decide to follow a more aggressive strategy, you need to know what happens tomorrow. I have a lot of respect for everybody sitting on the stage, from an entrepreneurial view, but that is the economic reality and the economic reality is valid for any company out there and for any sports team.

    Q: (Kate Walker – Crash.net) I have a general question for everybody. The one thing that you do seem to agree upon is the fact that you can’t agree. You all have competing interests. Given that it’s impossible for your competing interests to see you all on the same page, would any of you, particularly you two in the front row, support the disbanding of the F1 Strategy Group? Because you shouldn’t really have a say in the regulations. And also, would either of you be interested in refusing any constructors’ bonus payments that you receive before you even start racing – just to level-up the playing field and give everyone else a chance?
    EB:     No.

    Q: Toto?
    TW:     We laugh about Eric’s answer but this is why he’s paid. He’s paid to bring performance to the team, sporting performance and financial performance. And, again, this is like it is out there in any other businesses. Now, I think we are all… and here we are having good relationships and we understand that we need to look at Formula One in total and overall… but would you… I wouldn’t know any entrepreneur out there – and I’m getting a cheque and I’m writing one actually so I’m in a different role – any entrepreneur giving up on an upside… would you let a client go, would you not accept the income. The answer is no. None of us, none of the five of us would.

    Q: Gerard would like to make a point…
    GL:     I would like to make a point, which is very simple. If you take… I take the example of Marussia, of Caterham. I kinda guess what they must have paid for the engine this year and what they have paid for developing around that engine and I guarantee that in the budgets that they have, there was not a whole lot left – so it’s not like they had a choice. And the choice of the engine was not made by these guys – and this is one of the examples I gave before. It’s all good and fun and so on to say that you shouldn’t spend more than what you what you have or not. But at the end of the day, certain decisions on budget are forced up on you. Just by the fact that that’s what the market is giving you. If I went to Pastor or Romain, I told them that next year they’re pedalling their car, they’re not going to be particularly excited. It would be way cheaper for us, and financially for me, as an entrepreneur it makes a lot of sense for me ‘cos I might actually make money – but it’s not going to be very competitive. So if you want to stay competitive at a minimum level, you are forced to spend at a certain level. And again, nobody is sat here – and Monisha made a point that we should get the same amount of money, that, y’know whatever other teams get – and I’ve said it before, there are teams that get 160-170 million just for showing up – but what I have said is that the amounts need to be given should allow a team to perform at a basic level, given the costs that are forced onto that team which have nothing to do with any luxury. I mean, taking an engine today, I guarantee you that of the teams, let’s say the back row teams, if there was an engine manufacturer out there that could offer an engine for five million, or six or seven, that would have decent performance, I guarantee you that everybody would take that engine. Now, we’ve in the lucky position, we took a Mercedes engine for next year. Seems to be the better engine – it clearly is – but the fact is we still have to pay. And I’m not finger-pointing because they’re the same price, all of them, but the fact is there’s a minimum budget that is required today to even exist in Formula One. And that minimum budget has actually killed two teams. And they did not decide to spend their money on the kind of things that they had to spend it on.

    Q: Monisha?
    MK:     Well, most of it has already been said, before we start repeating ourselves there. But, it’s been mentioned often that entrepreneurship and thinking like that and ideas coming from there… and entrepreneur should also think a bit long term at least. If you do that, it would be interesting where that strategy leads to. We just go on the way we are and too bad for some teams that can’t make it because they’re not investing enough and it’s such a high motorsport level that you really have to have maybe three-digit million figures of budget that then in F1 are normal, for the outside world, not really. Let’s see where that will lead us to. Eventually you’ll have four – probably – participants with endless amount of cars. Let’s see where that show will gets you. How much of income you have there. And amongst the four participants, you probably all have big names, so you’ll have three losers every year. So, it’ll result into that. As a big name – and we’ve experienced that again – if you lose, you have to invest more. But a big corporation does that maybe for one year, for two years but the third year, it definitely gets too much for them. Because, surprisingly, those corporations do have budgets they control, they can control, and they have ways to measure what they are doing – and that system will just collapse at some point in time. So, I think, we probably could, most of us, agree on that kind of development happening. I don’t think anybody can say this could change Formula One in such a way that it would be far more exciting than it is with the nine or the 11 teams today. And that’s where I think we really should realise that we have to change something in the system now. Which is about all what’s been said before.

    Q: Vijay, anything to add?
    VM:     No, I think it’s all been said.

    Q: (Daniel Ortelli – Agence France Presse) Since the cost cap is impossible to put in place – obviously, since there is a very big gap between the small teams and the big teams – do you think the sport is now ready to face a change in its organisation with two leagues instead of one: one for the manufacturers who wish to spend as much money as possible and one for the smaller teams who are likely to agree on the cost cap or all of them? And these two leagues would participate in the same races, on the same tracks as opposed to other major sports where you have a Pro A and Pro B or league one, league two. Do you think the time is right to now make that decision all together? And the second question is: do you think it’s about time, since the Concorde Agreement has not been validated in its new version, to decide on a radical change about the revenue share, which is at the core of the problem, because you have been discussing it for ages? So that’s two questions: two leagues instead of one, and revenue share modified radically to allow the smaller teams to survive?
    TW:     I think it (two leagues) could be a concept which needs to be explored. It’s the first time I’ve heard about it. You see that in sports car racing and other series. Is that the way forward for Formula One? I think Formula One should stick to its roots somehow. That’s my gut feeling. Obviously if that doesn’t get us any further and you see more teams leaving the sport, then maybe it’s one of the paths to explore. I don’t know.
    MK: I would like to say that if you compare to another championship, for example you have three big car manufacturers like in DTM. We see where that’s led to. They have similar problems in competitiveness. They don’t have the problem of money which some teams have here in Formula One and we’re seeing where that concept is going to. DTM also had to react, because there was suddenly a big gap and if one of those big names, like I told you before, is not doing so well, then you have to find other ways so maybe look at the technical side there because again, money is no issue. So I don’t think that that’s the way Formula One should go. It would totally distort the sport.

    Q: About the Concorde Agreement revenues? Is it contractually bound for the future? Is that it?
    GL:     Yeah, it is. A lot of people like to criticise CVC for instance and unfortunately sometimes I have to take their side because in my real life that’s where I work, that’s the type of business I do, and the fact is that close after taking over the business, I think the sport was distributing about around $300m to the teams, something like that – three, three-forty. Today it’s almost $900m but it’s not distributed equally otherwise we would all be smiling here and saying there is no issue. So the amount might be an issue but certainly the distribution is a huge issue because – I’m not going to say it’s pareto rule, it’s not like 80% goes to 20% but close enough. A lot of the money goes to the top teams and it’s almost like – how can I say this? – it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, essentially, that the ones that have more, get more and as a result want more and want to spend more and so on, and the ones that have less, get less. There is something entirely wrong with the distribution model right now.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) A question primarily aimed at Eric and Toto: were there to be a more equitable distribution of wealth, of income, then one of your major concerns is the fact that your employees would actually have to be reduced but is it not logical that if the teams in the back row, they could afford to pay more people and therefore whatever people you would lose would actually still be employed and therefore the sport wouldn’t lose anyone whatsoever, if there was an equal distribution of wealth?
    TW:     I think that is a nice idea but it doesn’t work in reality. As I said before, I think the gaps and the agenda are completely different. The gaps are huge, the agenda is different. I think it is very difficult to close that gap and you see us arguing, discussing, there is lots of frustration in the room. I don’t know how to solve it.
    EB: Well it’s a discussion we’ve had since the beginning. The real problem, in fact, is nothing as… to be competitive, you need to spend a Eric Boullier_Press Conferenceminimum amount of money and today this level of money spent is too high with the economic. You can blame the distribution model, you can blame the revenue, you can blame anything, but the reality is that to be competitive, you have to spend a minimum. Because we are all competitors, we all want to spend this money to be competitive. We all want to be competitive and we have to spend this money. At the end, there is so much emotion this weekend because of the absence of these two teams. It’s true that maybe by making the revenue higher for the poorer teams, yes, the first thing they will do is to hire people, they will be going to big numbers because they want to be competitive. You don’t fix the problem by doing this. So yes, you save jobs but nothing else.

    Q: (Michael Schmidt – Auto, Moto und Sport) Question mainly to Toto and Eric Boullier: we now have only nine teams, so P8 and P9 are last and last but one. Three weeks ago it was P10 and P11. Next year it might be P6 and P7, last and last but one. If only big teams are left, are you not afraid that one day you might be among them and then your whole business model doesn’t pay off any more because you’ve spent much more money to lose than the current teams are spending to lose, which are at the bottom of the field?
    TW:     We are nine teams today, 18 cars and we have lost two teams which is not nice and I’ve said that before. I think the teams who are in Formula One today should stay in Formula One and we should all look at the situation and come up with a short term plan: how to have a healthy grid, and a long term plan. We are talking about money distribution that is an issue for the commercial rights holder, and I don’t have a solution. I can come up with many ideas which can be short term solutions but it comes back to the principle and what’s been said before: whatever you give to the teams, they are going to spend it.
    EB: Not much to add, to be honest. It’s always the same story: either you get more revenue or you spend less, so at the end it’s a question of… as you said, distribution should be discussed with the commercial rights holder and then, as we also said before, I think there is a wake-up call maybe, for everybody, to make sure we can act all together. We will try in the best effort for Formula One.

    Q: ( Agustino Fontevecchia – Forbes Magazine) The sport generated an estimated $1.7bn in revenue in 2013. We said distribution was something like $900m. Maybe isn’t the problem that not enough is being distributed and then there should be the issue of – speaking of distribution – shouldn’t maybe that increase?
    VM:     I’ve always said that the model has to be more equitable. The commercial rights holder is entitled to make its profit by owning the commercial rights for the sport, and as far as the distribution is concerned, I think Gerard very clearly explained that it was skewed mainly towards the big teams which is basically what is causing the problem with the smaller teams. I think what I’ve heard in the last few minutes is that if the smaller teams got more by way of income, that they would necessarily spend a lot more. I disagree with that completely because I think that the three of us sat here in the back row are smart enough to know how much to spend without going the Marussia and Caterham way. And as Toto said, if I can use his expressions as an indicator of how the big teams think, well if you can afford to be in Formula One, you’re welcome. If you can’t, get out. Fine. I think the FIA must decide this, not the participants because after all it is the FIA Formula One World Championship and if it is to be designed to be affordable to those big boys in the business, who of course benefit hugely in terms of their regular core businesses. That’s one way of looking at it and if it is meant to be racing in sportsmanlike terms, with big teams, small teams that compete with each other… Look at Williams: I’m sure Williams doesn’t spend a fraction of what the big teams are spending and look at their performance this year. Until the last race, Force India and McLaren were competing head-to-head. So money doesn’t necessarily buy performance. Equally, spending is discretionary and if the big teams want to spend $300m, it’s discretionary. That cannot be used against the smaller teams. The smaller teams must get a revenue share that makes it financially viable or sustainable. That’s the point.

    Q: (Pablo Juanarena – Marca) I want to ask about sport but I don’t know if it’s the day. In this building we are talking about money and Eric, Toto, don’t you think it’s a mistake for all the sport to talk about money for one hour in this room? Money, the drivers have to pay, the tracks are losing money, small teams disappear, big teams lose money too. Do you think it’s a big mistake for this sport to talk so much time about money?
    EB:     If you ask me… obviously we are sitting here and we have to answer your questions so we are not leading the show, if I may say this. So if you ask questions about money it’s because there is obviously some concern and we know why, this weekend. As we always say, I guess, there was too much negative said about the sport and I think this is another wake-up call we should all have, to stop being negative about our sport because there are also some positives. We don’t want to hide, obviously, we have to raise and to act and to fix all the issues but we also need to be positive about our sport and we have spent one hour, as you’ve said, talking about money where we should have talked about the big show which has been set up outside and what happened on the track today.
    TW: Yes, I agree, it’s an absolutely valid question. We haven’t heard the names of Hamilton, Ricciardo, Vettel, Rosberg – none of the drivers today. We haven’t talked about McLaren’s performance today. What we are talking… we are using this as a panel to express our frustration and how everything is bad and we are talking the whole thing down. It’s like a vicious circle, so I tend to agree with your question.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) On the question of drivers, Eric, have you made a decision yet for next year? What’s going to happen? You’re the only leading team yet to announce some definitive plans for either driver.
    EB:     No. Sorry, no, I’m just joking. Your first question: no, we have not made our decision yet so obviously we have nothing to announce or to decide.

    Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) When do you plan to?
    EB:     Before the end of the season, as we said.

    Q: (Daniel Ortelli – Agence France Presse) Toto, there’s a big debate about third cars. You said recently that a third car would cost twenty or thirty million dollars or euros per year. Don’t you think it could be exciting for the fans if the third car in the big teams, allowed by the budget, was given to a younger driver and whether it scores points or not, do you think it would be more exciting to see a guy – it could have Jules Bianchi in a Ferrari or anybody else – and we in this room are also moved because of what happened to Jules, so that’s why everybody is so emotional – but don’t you think it would be more exciting for the fans to see a promising talent in a third Ferrari or a third Mercedes instead of in a Caterham or Marussia that goes as fast as a GP2 car?
    TW:     I think, first of all, I’m not a big fan of third cars. I think if there is money left over, it should be distributed to the smaller teams to secure the grid. That’s my personal opinion. If a third car is needed, because the level of cars on the grid drops to a critical number, now we could discuss what the critical number is, and the big teams are being asked to fill in a third car then we should make it exciting and the ideas which have been discussed is giving it to a young driver like you say, to somebody who hasn’t had an awful lot of experience in Formula One. It would be exciting to see how he performs against the superstars. Definitely some interesting ideas around that, making it a rookie championship.

    Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) A question to the three at the back: much has been made now and I fully understand your concerns about the distribution of income etc, but why did you people then sign contracts that allowed this situation to happen?
    GL:     As I’ve said before: there’s a number of things that have changed, even in a very short period of time. I’m one of those who complains about the distribution of amount. I wish the pot was bigger but I’m not necessarily complaining about that but we haven’t seen in the last 24 months, we haven’t seen any major sponsors trying this sport. We’ve said that 135 teams have come and gone. Well, I can tell with the current cost hurdle to enter Formula One, you’ve got to have a lot of courage to come and try to compete at whatever level, even to be dead last. That’s why, when there was an opening for teams to actually participate there wasn’t a whole lot of teams that appeared. It was not that there was a waiting line of teams to actually enter the sport, so what might have been true, what seemed OK on an individual basis a couple of years ago is not OK today. The other thing is the leverage that we would have, for instance, compared to other teams that received much more, is very limited, so that at the end of the day, that if your leverage is no big amount, smaller amount of nothing, guess which one you’re going to take, right? So there are a number of components there, it’s not just black and white, there’s a lot of greys in there. As I said, one of them is… the world has probably not developed in the way we all expected but secondly, I’ll be very frank, there wasn’t a whole lot of leverage to get a whole lot more. At the end of the day, if I had gone to Bernie, for instance, and said you know what, I just don’t want to do this any more, he might have been sad – maybe – to see me go, but he might have thought OK, that’s the way it is. If somebody wearing red had done the same thing, that’s a whole different leverage effect.
    MK: I think that’s exactly the point. You have to make sure that your team is going to be there, that you can have stability from that perspective and then you simply have so much that you can do and you just have to accept things. Of course, all of us expected other things to happen. When you look at the last Concorde, it even said teams have to actually sign up to cost control. That’s no longer there today. So much changed but at the end of the day, you have the responsibility towards your team and your employees.
    VM: I think I agree with what Monisha and Gerard said. There’s been many game changes that have happened in the last two years but nevertheless, as every sensible organisation or any group of stakeholders must necessarily do every so often, is review and update the situation and to make it workable and pragmatic for all stakeholders involved. Just because we signed something, based on a certain set of assumptions and things have changed, doesn’t mean that we’re stuck in the sands of time. We need to move on, we need to review, we need to correct things so that the show can become bigger and bette