22 October: The Friday press
conference for the 2004 Brazilian Grand Prix - Part 2 (click
here for Part 1)
Present: Technical directors from Ferrari (Ross
Brawn), Toyota (Mike Gascoyne), BMW Williams (Sam Michael)
and Renault (Pat Symonds)
QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Q: (Heinz Pruller - ORF) Gentlemen, I’m sure there’s a lot more
behind the new tyre rule. What about the pit stops, obviously you don’t have
pit stops for tyre changes now? Will you have bigger tanks, will you have less
pit stops because you don’t have to change tyres? And, what happens if you
have a puncture or a slow puncture? Who will decide if you can allow to change
this tyre? I think there are a lot of loopholes in this regulation, can I have
your comments? RB: I think the fuel situation won’t change dramatically because of
the need to qualify with race fuel. I think if we fill the cars up too much
qualifying is going to be difficult. We’ve seen lots of times when if you
get some free space at the beginning of the race you can use it. I don’t
think the fuel tanks are particularly going to get much bigger. I don’t
think the strategies are going to dramatically change. There may be times when
we would have done a three stop because of the tyre situation and it will now
evolve to a two-stop. I would be surprised if we see many one stops, even with
these regulations but it depends how the situation develops. If you run high
fuel load you just stress the tyres more, so we’ve got to look after the
tyres for the whole race. In terms of puncture, I believe there is some detail
to sort out, it’s true, because we want this set of regulations where we all
clearly understand how we can operate. One suggestion, with the puncture
scenario is that you can change the tyre but you have to use a tyre which is
at least used, one of the tyres that you have already used in practice rather
than put on a new set. But I believe that now the rules are clear there is a
need to sit down with the FIA and debate the best way forward to apply these
detailed points. PS: I agree with what Ross has said. Tyre degradation will obviously be
lower, there will be less stops but it is not going to be one stop racing. It
is, perhaps, a slight over-generalisation to say there will be one less stop
than there’s been this year, although that will be the case in a lot of
places. I think the replacement of tyres is a tricky thing but what the FIA
have essentially done at the moment is laid out the principal and it’s up to
us to sort out the detail. But I think the FIA are rather good at looking at
systematic abuses of the rules. I think that if you saw a team who were
continually stopping with punctures or flat spots or whatever, I think it
would be looked at quite closely. MG: Obviously there is an issue with punctures and damaged tyres which
we’ve seen this year and if it happens twice, what are you going to do if
you’ve only got two sets of tyres. We need to address it.
Q: (Dan Knutson – National Speedsport News) Sam, Ralf is leaving
the team after six years. What’s it been like to work with Ralf in the team?
I know you also work with him at Jordan? SM: Obviously he has brought a lot of years to Williams. He is
obviously a very talented driver. He’s very good analytically, working with
engineers and going through data. He’s extremely good at understanding tyres
and set-up, so he has obviously contributed quite strongly. During the last
half of this season, he hasn’t done… or a third of the season, you could
say, because of his accident, but he also came back strongly after that and I
wish him all the best at Toyota. I’m sure he will do a good job there and be
a really big benefit to them on their climb to the top.
Q. (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) Sam, Juan is also leaving. Is there
one area in which Ralf and Juan stand out in the team, and one area in which
you would like them to be remembered in their time with you? SM: Juan is obviously as positive as Ralf. Juan’s a very talented
driver and everyone can see he has got a fantastic racing and overtaking
ability. They compliment each other very well. Although you see from the
outside a lot of things in the press about them fighting and not liking each
other, internally they actually work very well together and when they turn up
for an engineering debrief there is no funny business going on. They’ve both
got a common goal, they’re both smart enough to realise that if they work
together on the car, the car will go faster. It has been a reasonably good
partnership and so I wish them both the best.
Q: (Dominic Fugere – Journal de Montreal) Pat, bringing in Jacques
Villeneuve for three races was a big gamble for him and a big gamble for the
team. Could you tell me a little bit about your assessment of the results that
this has brought on?
PS: Yeah, you’re right. Gamble is perhaps not the word I would use. I
think risk is a similar but slightly different word. The reason I say that is
because you can assess risks much more than you can assess gambling. We had
got to a point, as has been pointed out earlier, where were not scoring points
with one car and things were really going from bad to worse. I’m not blaming
anyone for that. I wish I could understand and analyse it, but I think for an
engineer it is sometimes quite difficult to understand the human side of
things. Jarno is a great guy, he really is one of the most pleasant people in
racing today. He’s done some fantastic things for us, but for one reason or
another it wasn’t working. And therefore, if you do a risk analysis on a
situation like that, and you say ‘actually is it going to get any better?’
and if you believe it isn’t, then you’re on a ‘we might win, we’ve got
nothing to lose’ situation. Looking around at who we could put in the car,
it was a really quite a close call between Franck (Montagny) our test driver,
and Jacques. Franck has really done a great job for us testing and
particularly recently he’s really got to grips with the car. I’m sure he
would have done a great job as well. Jacques, I think we probably
underestimated just how difficult it was to put someone in at such short
notice, but, as I said earlier, I have an awful lot of respect for him, just
for his sheer work ethic. He really has worked at it. Circumstances have
conspired against him a little bit. Certainly I think you have to say that in
Japan, a circuit where he has been very good, but we didn’t get his set-up
right, very largely because we don’t know him that well. It takes a while to
build up a rapport between the engineers and the driver, but I think we’ve
already seen this morning that he’s doing a good job here this weekend and I
think he will have a strong race and I think he’s… I was going to say he
has a bright future in front of him, but of course he’s proved an awful lot
already, but I think he’s still there.
Q: (Niki Takeda) Question for all of you. Is there a situation this
year you would have done differently? SM: For me that one is easy - Montreal. MG: I think from our point of view Ricardo blowing up at Spa with two
laps to go. If we hadn’t done that it would have helped us.
PS: I think in our case funnily enough also Montreal. I think a race where
we did have a great opportunity. I mentioned them earlier Indianapolis and
Spa. But you don’t get second chances in this game.
RB: Fortunately very few. But Spa was a little bit disappointing because
the safety car sequence made it quite difficult, but I guess Monaco was the
biggest disappointment. I think from a situation where we were not as
competitive as we wanted to be, we suddenly had an opportunity to maybe at
least challenge for the race and it was taken away from us by a silly
incident. That is probably the most frustration race for us.
Q: (Alan Baldwin - Reuters) Ross, I know the new car is the best
ever and each season you try and make it the best season you have ever had.
But can you realistically do better than this season?
RB: Yeah, each season is different. I must say after 2002, it was dream
season and I didn’t imagine we could repeat that but this year has been just
as good. Each season is shaped by your own efforts and the efforts of the
other teams and all we can do is work hard and try to produce the best car we
can and see what the opposition is like. It is hard to imagine any season to
be better than the one we have had. But I think we just put them in different
categories: 2003 was rewarding in the end because we won the championship
under very difficult circumstances and we showed we can fight very hard when
we have to. This season has been rewarding because of the performance of the
team and car in different circumstance. Any year you win the championship is a
fantastic season and we don’t forget that.
Q: (Peter Windsor – F1 Racing) Ross, the new tyre proposals might
mean that a three-stopper might come down to a two-stopper. How does that sit
with the FIA’s decision earlier this year to increase the speed limit to try
to encourage more to do three-stop races rather than two-stop races? Where are
we at, in fact, in terms of what Formula One thinks of pit-stops? It is a bit
confusing. Is there an argument to not have pit-stops at all and have non-stop
racing? RB: I think as always there is lots of good arguments and lots of good
counter arguments. I think one of reasons that perhaps we moved away from one
stop was the fuel loads. I know we have not had any fires for a very long
time, but the cars are extremely heavy with that fuel load and if we do have
any accident it could be worse. There are very fine points for debate. Whether
Formula One is better with pit-stops and what shape those pit-stops should
take is really a difficult question. What I think has got to be interesting
with the one tyre race is the driver’s need for sure to look after the tyres
through the whole race. I’ve said it before but Prost was a master of
conserving the tyres and using when they were most effective and I think we
will have that sort of scenario next year. You will have to look after the
tyres at the correct stages of the race and use them at key parts of the race
and it will bring another dimension to the drivers’ ability. At the moment
there is a lot of races where the driver can drive 100 percent the whole
session, which is good in itself, but I think we get overtaken when there is a
disparity in performance between cars and I think the one tyre per race rule
will create situations where there is disparity in performance between cars.
Q: (Heinz Pruller) Gentlemen I have asked about the low points of
the season. I would not like to ask about the high points of the season and
the most strange and extraordinary thing, the secret or funny story. RB: I think the high point for us was obviously Melbourne when we saw
how competitive we were because over the winter…the winter Grand Prix means
very little. I think Bridgestone had diligently putting their programme
together with compounds, constructions and tyre shapes, but we hadn’t really
run the definitive 2004 tyre until quite late in the programme. There were
times testing at some of the tracks where we looked to be behind in
performance. But with the new car and the final version of the car we went to
Melbourne and that is where everything becomes clear. That was the high point
of the season for me. We had some great races as well. The craziest thing for
me was to crash behind the safety car in Monaco. It is unheard of. SM: Probably Suzuka, the last race funnily enough because we put a lot
of effort in to improve this car and work on next year’s car as well. There
were points before Suzuka where we thought we should be competitive, Spa, for
example, we had a good race and end up with a gearbox on one car and gearbox
failure on the other. But Suzuka obviously we managed to get some good points
and the car was strong. PS: Well, obviously the high point was Monaco, winning that one. Low
points, some of our retirements when in competitive position and strangely
enough, and I hadn’t thought of this one before, I guess one of the low
points was realising how much quicker Ferrari were than the opposition. MG: I think compared to Ross it is a pretty unfair question. I think we
haven’t had many high points unfortunately. There is always things you enjoy
throughout a season, but not many high points. We just have to look forward to
next year.
Q: (Alberto Antonini) We hear that your team is being involved in
arbitration about the ’06 engine rule. Does that mean it will hold up any
real development on the V8 as the arbitration goes on. And is there any
deadline? SM: I think it is something that is between the teams that are
represented by BMW, Mercedes and Honda. At the moment it is something that is
going on, but I don’t know the full details, I’m not directly involved.
Until I know the full details it is not much I can comment on to be honest. It’s
not a matter of being secretive, I’m not involved in the coalface of that
decision.
Q: (Byron Young – Daily Mirror) What are the cost implications of
the new regulations?
RB: I think for us there is potential for cost saving on the engine. I
understand to some degree the reluctance to follow the compliance to change
the 2.4 V8. Our view is that there will be a few less engines produced, fewer
components, which may not sound a lot but it is fewer components. In my
experience over the last few years engine manufacturers have built new engines
every year. We certainly build new engines every year and the architecture of
those engines have often been quite different. I think going to a new 2.4 V8
is not a big change, there is nothing dramatic to it and I think the
constraints to that engine in terms of geometry and material – it will
fundamentally be a cheaper engine. You may say that a team like Ferrari spend
what they get, which is true – we make good of the funding that is released
into other projects, but it is very important for teams like Sauber and other
teams that have to buy their engines to provide a reasonable cost base. Those
teams will see the significant difference in their engine bill in the future.
That is partly the reason why we supported it. Ferrari will spend the budget
it can generate from its partners and its sponsors. The car point of view it
is no different, and from the tyre point of view there is a small saving from
the consumption of time. SM: I think particularly on the aerodynamic side there is no real
difference if you make your new parts any way. You are still going to spend
the same amount of wind tunnel time and analysis time even if you are doing a
completely new car with a similar design. The only thing would be potentially
the smaller teams, if they wanted to carry parts over which they now can’t
such as front wings, diffusers or the whole car for that matter. For Williams
it doesn’t affect our cost at all the aero change. The tyre change is the
same as what Ross just said. The only thing really is that there are a lot of
quantities on the race weekend. I think the quantities on testing will remain
pretty similar, maybe a small reduction but nothing more than five percent, 10
percent, something like that. PS: It won’t alter our spend one iota. There will be redistribution
of course because the actual manufacturing costs of the V8 engine will be
slightly lower. I think that a team’s job is to generate income and then
spend that income wisely. And we will redistribute it a little bit. The rules
won’t save money for the teams represented here - it is much more for some
of the other teams. It will have an affect on them. But maybe in the long-term
it will help us. For example if we end up supplying an engine to a second team
and they carry out some of the track development it might have some affect on
us then. MG: Really mirroring the other guys’ comments. All the teams here are
well funded and it won’t change what we spend. I think from Toyota’s point
of view we have always said we support a two-race engine and it will help the
smaller teams and it will allow them to have a reduced budget. We as a team
said we would look to supply or could supply in the future and that is
something we could now consider. I think from a personal point of view if we
want to reduce costs and help smaller teams, I’m disappointed we have not
been able to agree to reduce testing because to my mind one of the easiest
ways to reduce the cost of a Formula One car is to not run it. So if you
reduce testing you don’t have to build engines and you don’t have to
physically run it and that is something we have to look at to agree in the
future.
Q: (Dominic Fugere – Journal de Montreal) With the two-race
engines, by my calculations, it will cut in half the race costs. Would there
be the possibility of generating income by furnishing smaller teams with
Renault engines or Toyota engines as Ferrari are doing right now? PS: I think one of the things that you have to appreciate, your maths
is certainly not wrong but a little simplistic. The number of engines we
produce over the year, a relatively small percentage of them go into the race.
A lot are used in testing and on the dyno as well. Yes it helps but we are not
cutting our engine bill in half or anywhere near that.
Q: Would you consider supplying another team? PS: Yeah, I think there is merit in running your engines in a second
team. There is certain constraints as well. You want to be associated with a
front running team, I think there is certain standard a team would have to
meet if they want Renault or Ferrari or Toyota or whatever engines. It does
make it easier. It doesn’t turn the switch and suddenly make it the thing to
do but it is a step in the right direction.
Q: (Byron Young) We’ve seen a lot of teams come and go over the
years, but is there any extra sadness to see a name like Jaguar go, especially
when they connected to a giant car company like Ford? RB: I worked for Jaguar in the late 80’s early 90’s on their
sportscar programme and I think there is a strong heritage Jaguar has with
sportscars. They had a lot of tradition at Le Mans and perhaps that is where
they were at their strongest. I don’t think Jaguar and Formula One really
worked. It is a shame to see them go. If I put my other hat on as a Brit…what
could have been a very strong national team doing well. I’ve seen the spirit
Ferrari creates in Italy and it is fantastic and if that had been created by
Jaguar in Britain it would have been quite an achievement. So it is bad to see
them go. But I don’t think they have been able to make a success of their
Formula One programme for whatever reason. MG: It is obviously sad for any team and it is obviously sad for all
the guys that have put a great effort in. You look at great names that have
disappeared from Formula One like Lotus, Tyrrell and Brabham and you’d have
said how will Formula One survive and it has. It is just a fact of life. It is
always a great shame especially for the workforce who have put a lot of work
in.
Q: (Heinz Pruller) Can you tell me how many engines you build a
year? Is it around 100? RB: It is a little bit more but of course we are also supplying Peter
with his engines. Before the one race engine rule we were producing about 150
but it is reduced now. We obviously predict to build less next year. Those
numbers a lot of the top teams are looking at. A lot of those engines aren’t
full cost engines, they are made up of bits that have been used. They are not
necessarily 100 or 150 brand new engines. There are a lot of engines we put
together from bits and pieces for testing or development. SM: We use a similar number, around the 100 mark. There are quite a lot
of engines that don’t see the test track. They spend their life on the dyno. PS: I think we are at a similar number. I don’t know the exact number
that we have produced this year but it would be around that sort of level. As
I alluded to earlier a lot of them just go on the dyno, they are just
development engines.
Q: (Byron Young) If we have three car teams next year does it make
any difference to the way the races are run if that third car does or doesn’t
score points? SM: First of all on the cost of third car, we put it at any where
between five and six million sterling to actually run a third car. Mike said
before they bring mechanics for the third car on Friday, we don’t at the
moment. To keep all those people working over the weekend and run the car on
Sunday – even during the race with two cars now and judge your pit-stops and
make sure the cars are not overlapping in the pits and making sure you have
the most competitive stop lap for each car and concentrate on those, it is a
really difficult job on a Sunday afternoon. If you add a third car to that you’ve
got to consider a third fuel rig and then when you get into the situation of
whether it scores points or not. If you look at it from a purist’s point of
view I think it has to. Then if it does score points you have the question are
you running the third car for the whole year or if there is only nine teams
does each team run a third car for four races or something like that. The
problem is if you are not scoring points you are consuming mileage on that car
and it is costing quite a bit to run that car. If you have a fast car that
runs at the front and you can’t score points does that mean he’ll block
cars that can score points. It gets quite complicated. The simplest way would
be to allow all the teams to run three cars all year. If you have nine teams
on the grid that’s potentially 27 cars in the race. I think it has been up
at those numbers quite a bit of time ago. But there is a few issues to be
resolved before we jump into it. Another thing that adds to the cost is race
drivers because it is not like you will be thinking we’ll just stick a young
kid in there and he’ll be okay because its not that important. If you’ve
got three cars scoring points that third drivers is as important as your first
race driver so that basically means you have three prime drivers in your team.
It is doable but it is not a five-minute decision. RB: I understand what Sam is saying. It is difficult if it scores
points for lots of reasons. It makes it compulsory to run a third car and we
go from a scenario where probably none of us wants to run a third car to all
of us wanting to run a third car in a full-blown format. But I agree it makes
it difficult in the race if you have cars that can score points and cars that
can’t score points. Whether there is a system that could be evolved to allow
each team an equal share of a third car, because there are teams that can’t
fund a third car. If you look at the scenario for someone like Peter Sauber to
run a third car, next engine bill, all the consumables that go with it. He
doesn’t have the resources to run a third car. It would be unfair on him if
teams who were able to run a third car were away scoring points and he can’t
do that. There is a lot things to sort out if we get into the third car
scenario. PS: Our analysis shows the costs to be slightly higher than Sam has
mentioned. So it is not something we are taking lightly. In terms of scoring
points I believe that some while ago when this was discussed was that the
third car wouldn’t score points but equally no-one else would take those
points. If a car finished third then no points would be awarded for third
place. I think from the manufacturers’ championship that is probably the
right way to do it, but from the drivers’ championship I actually think they
should score points because the public follow the drivers’ championship a
lot more than the constructors’ and if they watch a couple of race where
driver X has had some good results and he is still not showing in the
championship table it won’t look right. I think the best thing is for the
car to not score and the driver to score points. MG: The guys have raised all the points. It is a complex situation but
it needs someone to sit down and figure out a solution to it, but it is not
straightforward.
Q; (James Allen) Surely another problem is that the small teams
would never score any points? SM: You’d have to change that wouldn’t you.
