Questions from the floor:

Q: (Thomas Richtr - TV Nova)
Stefano, it seems that Felipe and Kimi are fighting each other. Is this no longer good for Ferrari's prospects to challenge Lewis Hamilton at the front. Would you agree?

Stefano Domenicali:
No, of course not. I think it is better to have two strong cars rather than one. For sure we will have maybe to take a decision as we did for example last year at a certain moment of the season in order to make sure that what you said is not happening. But at the moment I don't think so. If you look at all the races that we have done there was no situation where one of our drivers took points off the other, not at all.

Q: (Dan Knutson - National Speed Sport News)
Stefano, there have been stories that the Kimi R?ikk?nen we have seen in the last few months is not the Kimi that we know. He is maybe a little bit asleep and lacks a little bit of motivation. I am sure that is not true but could you comment on Kimi's motivation and speed?

SD:
I think that Kimi's motivation is very high because for sure he is the one that doesn't like it at this moment. In terms of motivation I am pretty sure he has a lot inside and what we are doing as a team is to support him and trying to work very hard with him. I am looking forward to seeing once again what all of us are expecting.

Q: (Spyros Pettas - Auto Motor und Sport Greece)
Stefano, now we have entered the crucial phase of the championship and expect wet races. Do you plan testing with the track artificially wet like you used to do in the past?

SD:
No, we haven't. As you know with the new situation of testing, we go in the same place for testing, so at the moment, it is not a plan to do that.

Q: (Mike Doodson)
To all four. We have had a number of incidents with pit-stops. Given that pit-stops tend to distort the results somewhat, do you think the time has come to discontinue pit-stops so we can concentrate on the racing?

SD:
For sure it is a sensitive point but as I said before on the technical matter we don't have to overreact after a certain number of situations. At the moment I think the pit stop situation, with fuel and tyres, is really part of racing and it is difficult to think in this condition that we have to take it out. In a way it is more team work because strategy, the work of the mechanics and engineers is part of our job in that respect. If you take that away, maybe you are going back to a situation where really in a way that effect is not part of the race anymore. I understand that you can have different opinions on that as this is part of the normal discussion but I would say at this stage it would for sure be a point of discussion for the future but I don't think it is right to take it out. Up to the moment we are definitely sure there will be better racing on the track. It is better to keep a moment where really you see from the audience that it is a key moment of the race.

Martin Whitmarsh:
I agree with Stefano there. I think we should wait until we see what happens next year. Obviously we have refuelling and stopping next year because cars are already being designed around the regulations. We should see how successful the OWG regulations are. I guess there is a point that if it was very easy to overtake during the race you would quickly put the cars in order, with the quickest at the front, and then they would just spread out over the track. If it was very easy to overtake there is actually an argument to have a pit stop and the strategy and how that would influence perhaps slightly more exciting races. I think in reality we should see what happens next year. We are going into quite a new world of regulations and if at some point we can see there will be a better show, clearly or arguably a safer show, because if you go out with a full car you have got a very heavy car. On the other hand I accept that pit stops themselves can be inherently dangerous for the points we have just been discussing. We will have them as part of the show next year and we should then decide during the course of the year whether we can change the regulations in the future.

Ross Brawn:
I think it's a pretty exciting part of the event for the spectators, for viewers and for the team. It's a part of the race that all the team get involved in, most of the team. None of our team... they're all volunteers effectively, what they do, it's exciting for them, they enjoy it. There is a small risk involved but I don't think that the injuries that have occurred so far are terribly serious. I just think a race could easily be very boring without the pit stops. The scenarios that evolve around safety cars, because of the pit stops; the scenarios that evolve around qualifying - what weight do you qualify with? All those sort of things, if they disappeared, I think there is a strong chance that we would find the racing even more tedious than some of the races we have now. Valencia was a pretty boring race, but some of the events that happened which we have spoken about today wouldn't have occurred without pit stops. I think it's quite an entertaining part of the sport and before we take it away we shouldn't be looking back with rose-tinted spectacles, thinking it was all so wonderful a few years ago because it wasn't.

John Howett:
I think it's all been said. My own personal preference would be to keep them. I think it's a team sport, it's good to involve and motivate our people. It's good for Bridgestone because we have to change the tyres, it gives a spectacle for them to discuss the different compounds and a platform for them to re-imburse them for their revenue and we can't change for next year because the tank size is fixed and probably the tyres won't do the distance, they haven't been designed for it. So it's something if we have a challenge to improve the spectacle next year to seriously consider but my own personal preference would be let's keep it, it's great.

Q: (James Allen - ITV)
Obviously, when you look at the share prices of the big car companies that are involved in Formula One at the moment and the state of the market, it would be easy to draw the conclusion that the main boards must be very keen to reduce costs as much as you within the sport and the political figures within the sport want to reduce them as well. But what's the reality? Have the main boards of the car companies that you're involved in, have they made any requests to you to put some real pressure on you to get costs down?

MW:
Well, I'm sure it's different for every team but it is clearly a reality that in this current economic climate everyone's got to be mindful of costs. I think there are clear requests and pressures to see how we can reduce the costs but at the same time I think that most of the automotive manufacturers in Formula One today are very committed to winning, so there are those natural tensions that exist. Fortunately - and I think it's good for the sport at the moment - there is a group of very committed automotive companies that have a range of global issues but I think all of them, from what I can see, have absolute commitment to being successful in Formula One and to some extent it is that that of course has created the evolutionary spiral within our sport. Now we've got to try and manage it. As we said earlier, I think we've covered it... Ross is particularly involved in the process with the technical regulation working group and I think the teams are capable of working together and finding some solutions which frankly help the small teams and will be beneficial for the health and well-being of our sport.

RB:
I think all the automotive manufacturers are in it to win and so that's the main reason for being involved. I think all of them would like to win for the minimum cost, so they are keen on any initiatives which can reduce the cost base but they are here to try and win, so that's the priority. But we're all subject to the commercial pressures of the world. It's a tough time out there at the moment. I think all the companies involved in Formula One are being asked to be particularly prudent at this stage. I think if we can introduce initiatives, where we can remove some of the technology which is not differentiating the teams, then Honda would be supportive of that.

JH:
Toyota is a very lean company, so I would say every year we get pressure because it's the culture of our organisation that fundamentally we have to take cost out and I wouldn't say that we have unnecessarily more pressure now. But clearly I think that if you look at industry generally, the product that you hold in your hands, you have twice the power at the same price or less price. So we shouldn't be frightened about it, we can use it as an opportunity to really improve our organisations and I think improve our competitiveness. Yes, we've got pressure, I don't think unduly more than normal and we're making good progress.

SD:
It's the same also in our situation. For sure, if you're expecting that in 2009 you are saving fifty percent of the budget, no way that you can achieve it. There are two points of consideration, I think. First of all you need to be sensible in the target that you want to achieve because for sure, considering manufacturing-dependent teams, a small team, that is really the most difficult thing to do. And the second point is really to be sensible in the time frame that you want to achieve this cost-saving because you really cannot do it, pragmatically, in a very, very short term because this is not possible. In terms of our organisation, for sure, if you want to go in that direction, we need to consider the fact that we have a big group of people that are working, so this is a cost, it's not only a cost, it's really the know-how of our company, so before we throw that away, we need to make sure that the future of Formula One is taking care of all these elements together, otherwise we will miss the major point, at least for Ferrari, to stay in Formula One.

Q: (Francesc Roses - TV Cataluna)
Stefano, Ferrari has said several times that you have a contract with Kimi R?ikk?nen and Felipe Massa for next season but in the case that one of these drivers decides at the last moment that he will leave Formula One, will you be interested in taking a driver like Fernando Alonso?

SD:
For sure, but this is something that with an if you cannot build the world, the other thing that I can say is that Ferrari has always respected contracts and we are very happy with the couple of drivers that we have, so that's the real situation as I have always said.

Q: (Thomas Richtr - TV Nova)
Martin, we already have two drivers who have publically admitted that they don't enjoy Formula One except for pure driving. One wonders if it wouldn't be better for them to go and race somewhere out of public sight?

MW:
I don't know why I've got this question but the reality is that most drivers are in Formula One because they love driving racing cars and I think if you ask any of the drivers in Formula One what they would rather do - go out on a race track in a racing car or attend a sponsors event - I would hope they would say they would rather go out on a race track. So I think that's true for all of our drivers. Inevitably they are a whole range of different personalities: some are more gregarious than others, some perhaps enjoy some of the more social and promotional side of the business than others but I think all of the drivers would prefer being on a race track than attending sponsor events.

Q: (Dan Knutson - National Speed Sport News)
This is for all four of you: are you completely confident that one or more of your competitors is not in any way gaining engine horsepower by bending the engine freeze rules?

SD:
The only thing I can say is that we trust the fact that the FIA, as you know, has a sample of the engine that they can check every time they want, so in that respect there is this kind of comparison that you can do every time. That's the situation. Even if the nature of this sport is to try to work on the area that you can work on and implement, that's part of the things that everyone is doing, but that's part of what we can do. More than that, honestly, I don't think so because it would be very detrimental for the team if they are doing something or cheating in this area because it would be a disaster for anyone who did that. So I'm positive on that.

MW:
The engines are homologated as you know. There is some scope where there are reliability and costs factors but that's in a very public way. I don't sense within the sport at the moment a lot of concern about this issue. Inevitably, when you have some stability in this area, there is speculation as to who has got the best engine and who's got the worst engine and therefore some people can grow concerned about that. I think there was a period in which the engine manufacturers were allowed to tune their engines legitimately and I think some of the manufacturers applied more effort in that final very legitimate development phase than others, but that's just speculation. I'm sure there is a spread across the engines. I don't think that it's huge and significant but as to the process, then I believe at the moment, by comparison to the various suspicions and concerns that we've had in the sport in the past, I think we're in a fairly healthy situation, and those areas where the engine manufacturer has, legitimately, within the homologated engine phase, asked for a cost-down or reliability reasons, then the FIA has circulated that to the other manufacturers. If they were not comfortable, they were at liberty to challenge it at that time.

Q:
And there haven't been challenges?

MW:
I don't think there has. I think everyone appreciates that increasingly there is pressure and it's in the interests of our sport potentially to consider more than two race engines, and therefore if the engine manufacturers can look at where they have cracks and failures now and perhaps engineer those out, making the engines more robust, then it will potentially ease the way. If the sport chooses to go to more than two races with each engine, then that would be a healthy thing.

RB:
I think the process which is in place is pretty robust. I don't suspect there has been too much going on. There is still an open point on 'do you want to fix a reliability problem because you've changed something else?' Let's say you run a different fuel and you start to have piston problems, do you apply for a piston modification? What's the situation? That's a little bit grey but I think the FIA are aware of that and the teams are aware of that and they try to seek further clarification if they feel a modification might be linked to a performance gain from another area. Whilst we froze the engines, we didn't freeze the oil, we didn't freeze the fuel, we didn't freeze a lot of the other peripherals around the engine. But I think the process is pretty robust, I don't think there's any bending going on. I think it's a competitive environment and we're in it because we're competitive individuals. The only thing that's a little bit difficult - as Martin touched on, a lot of it may be speculation - is that we freeze a design or we homologate a design or we standardise a design, it's because we see perhaps there's very little performance differential between the teams and we can afford to freeze it. It would be unfair to freeze something where you then build in a performance advantage for the teams that may have an advantage for the period that it's frozen and I think that's where this speculation has started from because some teams perceive that other teams have more power and there's nothing that we can do about it. And of course it's all speculation, but that's the nature of what we're involved in. It could be good for there to be considered a way of confirming the situation, so that we can put that all to one side and get on with the rest of the things but I think that when the engines were frozen, at that stage there was a perception that everyone was at a pretty similar level. I didn't hear any disquiet when that process was suggested. There is some disquiet now, as you know, so either things changed between when it was decided to freeze them and they were actually frozen, or people are just uncomfortable now because they are not competitive enough. I think it's always delicate if you freeze something where there's a potential to be performance differences between the teams. And we've really moved the engine out of the equation now, there's no development going on with the engine. It's a bracket between the chassis and the gearbox now. We can't do anything with it. But of course if one team does have an advantage there's nothing you can do about it. It's possibly just a concern for further technical restrictions in the future because the more we restrict the chassis, those teams that feel that they may be disadvantaged in the engine department will be more reluctant to make changes to other areas of the car, which would then give them less scope to redress the balance. If we had completely standard cars, different engines, then the engine would be the only variable. So we've got to make sure we leave enough left in the car that we don't just form up a grid based on the engine performance.

JH:
I will try to be quick: in fairness I would say we have raised some concerns, I wouldn't say we've challenged it and we feel they have been handled very professionally by the FIA, so we don't have concern. And two other aspects is most of the engine power evolution that's been coming over the last five or six years is by extending engine rpm, so from a mechanical perspective, now with frozen rpm, it's extremely hard to believe the figures that one hears quoted for the evolution, purely from mechanical changes with a frozen engine rpm. And secondly, I think one has to respect the fact that an engine is a total package, so yes, if you get more power, you have more heat rejection, you probably need more fuel to drag around, so the engine now is somewhere an integral part of many other factors. So I believe within the frozen environment, even if people are changing in a minor way, I don't honestly believe the figures and the impact that's been quoted are in fact correct.

Comments

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register to add your comment