» BACK TO CRASH.NET

Crash.Net F1 News

Chinese GP – Friday press conference - Pt.2

16 April 2010

Questions from the floor.


Q: (Jie Wu – Autonews China).
I have a question for Mr Sauber. The Sauber team became a private team again when you took it over. What's the difference in atmosphere and Formula One environment between when BMW took over the team and now? What has changed?

Peter Sauber:
I think the atmosphere was good as a works team as well as a private team. I think the atmosphere was also very good with BMW, there is no difference. For sure, the team is now much smaller, it's about a third smaller than before with 260 employees. For sure it's more a family than a big company.

Q: (Jie Wu – Autonews China).
There have been lots of manufacturer teams in F1; what's the difficulty for private teams to survive and fight for their dreams in F1?

PS:
Some of those factory teams have left Formula One. I think about three of the big ones and I think that today we have a good combination between big teams and private teams. It's the same question (of survival) for Williams and Hispania. It was a big question for Williams over the last forty years. It's very difficult. When we look back to the last 20 years, more than 25 teams have left Formula One. It's difficult, yes.

Colin Kolles:
I think Adam knows that it's an even bigger amount.

Adam Parr:
Well, the number is over 50 teams since 1970, I think, have failed to survive in Formula One. There are two things: one is yes, it's difficult, and it's always difficult because you're raising… the discretionary part of your income is from sponsorship, and sponsorship is something that people can chose to do or chose not to do, and I think that even though Formula One offers incredible value for sponsors, it's always a big decision for a company to come into Formula One. Having said that, I think that things are better and I think they are going to get better because having only two manufacturers left in Formula One means that the majority of the teams are very realistic about having to raise a budget and they don't want to burn money, and even the manufacturer teams who are left don't want to burn money either. So I think that within this so-called resource restriction agreement, we have a structure to continue to reduce costs for everybody and I think there's a real will to do that. Although it's tough, I think it's promising and it's certainly better… when I started, you could argue that ten out of eleven teams were effectively factory-funded teams or shareholder-funded teams. So it's a lot better now.

Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special).
Regarding the tyre supply next year, it seems like there's a choice between having a big brand or cheap tyres. Which would you like to have?

CK:
Tyres for free.

PS:
Yeah, for sure, tyres for free, it's possible but I think more importantly is that we have only one tyre supplier.

Eric Boullier:
First we need to have tyres, if possible for free and it doesn't matter if it's a big brand or not, there's obviously a safety issue as well, to have proper tyres. Then, as part of the show, we need to decide if it's only one tyre spec or not. But we need tyres.

AP:
I think there are at least half a dozen companies in the world who could provide us with good quality tyres, that would give a good show and be perfectly safe. I think they are all good companies with good brand names and I think it's absolutely essential that we do a good deal, which means free tyre supply for the teams. Secondly, it must be the same for everybody in all aspects because if it's a standard tyre, it's simply not on to have a two tier or a different approach for one team rather than another. So I think we've got a bit of work to do there. Fortunately, we have Bernie (Ecclestone) who has been asked by the F1 Commission to negotiate and find that supply and nobody's better equipped to do it than him, so I'm sure we will get what we need.

Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special).
Can I follow up with a question about engines? We're talking about having two manufacturers. In fact we have two manufacturers who have just gone into a very large industrial alliance together, which, logically speaking, when it comes to creating new engines for 2013, are not going to both spend the same kind of money to compete against one another. Do you see a situation whereby we only have Ferrari and small, specialist manufacturers, the Cosworths of this world, in the future?

PS:
Yes, we will drive with Ferrari engines. It's not a problem for us.

CK:
And we drive Cosworth.

PS:
But I think the manufacturers that we have now will stay in Formula One. Maybe we will have some new manufacturers like Volkswagen.

CK:
Maybe we will have some new manufacturers, yes, that's possible, but at the moment we are an independent with Cosworth, so we hope that Cosworth will still be on the market and for the moment we are happy with Cosworth and we look forward to having a good relationship. What will happen after 2013? I think it's very important to maybe have the world engine, this is very important for certain manufacturers, to get them the entry, so from my point of view we will support the world engine, if we were asked, and I think that Mr Sauber would support this and I think that a few others would support the same. For sure, on the other hand, there are certain people who are against the world engine and they have their own ideas, but as it looks at the moment, the world engine might be a solution, to attract new manufacturers.

AP:
I agree with both those comments. We've got four engines in Formula One at the moment and I don't think that's going to change before 2013 and I think it's very likely that from 2013 there are going to be more suppliers rather than fewer and that's because we're going to have an engine in 2013 that's going to have better energy consumption, a greener engine and I'm sure it will also be cheaper to manufacture and I think that will attract other companies into the sport. I think that's another positive thing on the horizon, because we need to change the structure a little bit. We have too few suppliers and the engines cost too much, just too much to make. The technology is getting a bit out of date now as well.

EB:
I agree with all the comments, obviously. I would add that engine technology needs to be back for an engine manufacturer like Renault as we are definitely interested in using Formula One as well as a technology platform to be used for road cars. I think cost needs to be controlled as there is a new technical package to be brought in after 2013. I don't think we will see just one new engine maker. I think there will be, as Colin said, more engine manufacturers interested in maybe coming into Formula One, and that's good.

Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special).
And just to follow up on the point that Adam made, do you think that KERS and/or any other energy recovery system is essential for the future?

EB:
Formula One needs to be a little bit greener, and as Adam said, with a greener engine, KERS or any hybrid system needs to be back in, because it's the future on our roads. So Formula One needs to stick to this philosophy as well. We have already developed something in the past which I think we're all discussing to maybe put it back next year under certain conditions, but it definitely needs to be part of the package.

AP:
Absolutely, we think a big KERS is going to be a very important part of the 2013 engine.

CK:
Well, I don't fully agree with this point. I was always against KERS and I am still against KERS. I agree that we have to be a greener Formula One, that's fine but if you look at KERS - if it's really green - and you look into the details, then KERS is not really green. So I think that we should look into reality and be realistic and not dreamers. This is my simple point of view. There are certain interests here, obviously from car manufacturers. I agree with this, I have no problem with this, but we, as a small team, are not going to afford to invest such amounts of money into technology, so we are definitely happy to find solutions and I fully agree that Formula One has to become greener to attract sponsorship, to make it more viable for everybody, basically, to make the business more viable, but I don't think that KERS in the common sense is the best solution. I would agree with the Williams solution which is obviously a different solution than the battery solution. This is a more reasonable solution, but as we are discussing at the moment, to use a KERS based on batteries, people would be surprised which is more environmentally friendly or not if you look at the detail.

PS:
Green or not green, I think Formula One has to follow this direction, especially the manufacturers. Maybe we can wait until the engine changes in 2013, together with maybe a world engine, I think it will be easier for everybody.


» BACK TO CRASH.NET