F1 »

Friday press conference - Australian GP - Pt.2

Friday's FIA press conference from Melbourne in Australia with Luis Perez-Sala, Paul Hembery, Eric Boullier, Ross Brawn and Adam Parr
Team representatives: Luis Perez-Sala (HRT), Paul Hembery (Pirelli), Eric Boullier (Lotus), Ross Brawn (Mercedes), Adam Parr (Williams).


Questions from the floor.


Q: (Alberto Antonini – Autosprint).
May I ask all of you your feelings about racing in Bahrain in four weeks' time?

Ross Brawn:
We want to go there. It's been a great place to race in the past. It has its troubles, we hope those troubles are largely behind them and if racing can help bring things together then we should try and do it. We need to monitor the situation, try and make a judgement. People who've been there are telling us the situation's much, much better than it was 12 months ago. So, as I say, if Formula One can help to improve the situation then that would be a great thing for us to do. But it's certainly clearly a lot calmer situation than it was 12 months ago.

Q: (Dieter Rencken - The Citizen).
I believe that a letter was addressed and sent to the Federation regarding the Resource Restriction Agreement (RRA) being enshrined in the regulations. If so, which teams signed, which teams didn't sign and also, what do you hope to achieve and how, please?

Ross Brawn:
I answered the last one.

Adam Parr:
I think you should do this one as well.

Eric Boullier:
We have many correspondences with the FIA on many, many subjects and yes, one of the subjects was the RRA and trying to find a way to maybe make the FIA involved in the process of reinforcing the RRA through an idea like sporting regs. So we just contacted the FIA and Jean Todt to try to set up a group together to discuss the matter.

Q: (Dieter Rencken - The Citizen).
My question was also who signed and who didn't sign the letter. Was it unanimous?

Eric Boullier:
Yes, it was unanimous. Most of the teams have signed it.

Q: (Dieter Rencken - The Citizen).
Most. Who not?

Eric Boullier:
Doesn't matter.

Adam Parr:
I thoroughly agree with what Eric just said, with everything he said.

Q: (Kate Walker - GirlRacer).
Eric, we saw that Kimi didn't get very many laps in either session today. Was that just comfort or were there problems with his steering column and you changed it?

Eric Boullier:
Second session was just planned. Because of the rain, we didn't want to run in the wet conditions so we just waited for a dry situation.

Q: (Mike Doodson - Honorary).
I was interested by Ross's comments about the excitement of the technical challenge of Formula One, which is obviously an ongoing thing. But it still costs all of you millions. Some of you have more than a hundred people in your aero department. I wonder if there are any savings that could be made which would be acceptable to the technician in you, for example, a standard under-car aerodynamic profile?

Ross Brawn:
I'm a little bit reluctant to have standard parts on the car. I'm a great supporter of the concept of the Resource Restriction Agreement, that we have a certain amount of money, a certain number of people we can use and we try and get the cleverest people to do the best job and we win because those people are doing a better job than other people in other teams, not because we've spent twice as much as somebody else. Certainly Mercedes' principle is not to steamroller Formula One with unlimited resource and win on the power of what we've spent. We're very prudent, we want Formula One to be a good example and we believe that the Resource Restriction and some sensible technical regulations and sporting regulations is the best way. There is an argument that perhaps we need to make sure that as we tighten the resource restriction that we don't end up moving all the activity into the aerodynamic field because that's perhaps the area of greatest return for investment, and we do need regulations to make sure that we keep a spread. So I think there can be quite strong constraints to make sure that we don't have cars which are just purely focused on aerodynamics but I'm not a great fan of standardising parts but perhaps in keeping parts within a closer constraint.

Adam Parr:
I agree with Ross. The prime area of means of controlling costs should be controlling expenditure and that's what the Resource Restriction Agreement… in part the Singapore agreement which was signed by all teams 18 months or so ago. That's the primary way of controlling costs because in the past, attempts to cure them purely by technical rules just squeezed the balloon into another shape. However, I think there is also a desire to look at areas of the car that have become ludicrously over-complicated. An example is used of the corners of the car. I think we have over 130 moulds for one brake duct now. And I'm not sure that that does genuinely add to the show. What does add to the show is when people come up with clever ideas, and you can only really have that if you control overall spending, because otherwise it is the more money you've got, the more clever ideas you should be able to come up with. So I think it's a combination of both, as Ross said, and I also feel… I read just a few days ago that Mr Ecclestone was commenting that we should introduce budget cuts into Formula One, so I think you could say that there's quite a consensus now about doing something further.

Eric Boullier:




Related Pictures

Click on relevant pic to enlarge
01.03.2012  Eric Boullier (FRA), Team Principal, Lotus Renault GP
Paul Hembery, Pirelli Motorsport Director
Adam Parr, Chief Executive Officer, Williams F1 Team
23.02.2012 Barcelona, Spain, Ross Brawn (GBR) Team Principal, Mercedes GP Petronas - Formula 1 Testing, day 3 - Formula 1 World Championship
14.10.2011- Press conference, Ross Brawn (GBR), Team Principal, Mercedes GP

Start the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.




© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.