|
TEAM PRINCIPALS - John BOOTH
(Virgin Racing), Ross BRAWN (Mercedes GP), Paul HEMBERY (Pirelli), Christian
HORNER (Red Bull), Martin WHITMARSH (McLaren)
Q: Paul, can you tell us what is the thinking about the tyre choice here and
in India as well?
Paul HEMBERY: Here we have come with the soft and super soft. From the
information that we saw it is a track that needs compound grip. It is an
aggressive choice, we don’t deny that, but from what we saw with the inters
running today, the surface is not very aggressive. The wear rates were quite
low. That’s the reasoning for that. India, being a new track, we have gone
with the soft compound and the hard compound. The soft that we have used
throughout the season, in every race in fact, and the hard because it is an
unknown and it gives us a back-up. It also helps us to prepare for next
year. We do need some more data to ensure that we make our choices correctly
for next year. These guys are a moving target. They do improve the cars a
lot during the season and what maybe was true at the start is certainly not
true now. We are seeing they are lighter on their tyres from some points of
view and more aggressive in others so it is a pretty good challenge.
Q: If tomorrow is going to be dry and Sunday is going to be dry, first of
all we haven’t had any running on dry tyres, and there were predictions of
multiple pit-stops in the race on Sunday. So what do we know?
PH: I think some people were mentioning five or six stops, I doubt that is
going to be the case. I am willing to do a private bet on that one with
Martin. I think three, four stops yes. It’s unfortunate, but we cannot
control the weather. It would have been ideal for everybody to have run
today in some dry conditions. We didn’t manage that. We ran another wet
race, a wet morning and more or less afternoon. Martin reminded me quite
rightly that we did make a change to the rules this year that the teams do
get an extra set of intermediate tyres for use over the Saturday and Sunday
and that has proven this year to be a correct move as we have had a lot of
wet running. We have made a change for the better from that point of view.
Going forward, what can you do, as you can’t control the weather? I know
last year as well it was a lot of wet weather here so it has been a tough
one for the teams for sure.
Q: Finally, the burning question. The Q3 tyres. What’s your idea. How can
you make sure that everyone runs in Q3.
PH: Well I don’t know about idea. We understand why people have maybe not
wanted to run, from a sporting point of view, trying to obtain a better
result by holding onto a set of tyres. From a fans’ perspective it is
clearly not ideal. From our point of view, if we can do something we are
happy to sit down with the teams and try and find a solution that works for
everybody.
Q: Have you got any ideas of your own?
PH: Have we?
Q: Yes.
PH: Well, we have some ideas but those are obviously imperfect when you
haven’t had a two-way discussion. We need to have a two-way discussion and
if we can do something then we will try and do the best we can to find a
solution going forward for next season.
Q: When’s that discussion likely to happen?
PH: We have had a couple. We are having a chat tonight as well with Oliver
(Weingarten) and representatives of the Sporting Working Group so that’s a
starting point for going forward.
Q: John, I don’t know how much is happening in the garages themselves but
there is quite a big push going on back in the UK for next year isn’t there?
John BOOTH: Yes, absolutely. Pat (Symonds) is back at base building his
design team, well finalising his design team, for development of the 2012
car and, of course, the partnership with McLaren is getting stronger and
stronger as we go forward and learn more about each other.
Q: How is that developing? How does that move forward?
JB: Well it is a very, very positive thing for both sides. Both sides are
very keen to make it work as well as possible and it will get stronger and
stronger. It covers most aspects of race car, not the design obviously, but
the theory behind design and the testing facilities and, of course, the wind
tunnel eventually.
Q: Do you have a programme of what you ask them or is it ad-hoc? What
happens?
JB: I am sure Pat is on the telephone every five minutes asking something.
There is a programme in place and structures are starting to form and it’s
becoming a very good relationship.
Q: Is it purely chassis? Is is suspension, aerodynamics?
JB: It covers the full spectrum of the car. Not engine, of course.
Q: I was going to ask about driver line-up, but I’ve been told there is an
answer but it will be fairly short, even shorter than the previous ones?
JB: Same as. We will make that decision towards the end of the year. Jerome
(D’Ambrosio) is doing a fantastic job and the more races he has like the
last two, the better for him.
Q: Is that the end of the year or the end of the season?
JB: End of the season.
Q: Right, so we can expect something before Brazil?
JB: Ask me in Brazil.
Q: Martin, 700 grands prix for the team. It must be something you are very
proud of.
Martin WHITMARSH: Obviously we are very proud. I think our friends at
Ferrari have been around longer than us, but 700 is still an important
milestone. I think it is something we are recognising within the business.
It is nice to look back on the 100th, 200th, 300th, 400th cars. It is just a
moment of reflection. Apart from that clearly we have got to look forward.
It would be nice to think we’ll be here, still alive and competitive in
another 700 grands prix time, but it is a great achievement for the team and
for the brand.
Q: After last Sunday at Suzuka, is there sort of renewed confidence within
the team?
MW: Well I don’t think our confidence was lacking, our pace was on a few
occasions, be we always thought we could win. We set out, rather belatedly,
to try and catch our friends at Red Bull. We felt we could go into the last
five races with an opportunity to potentially win some of those. Delighted,
of course, to do so particularly on a great circuit like Suzuka. It was a
fantastic win from Jenson (Button). He is driving better than ever so that
was great. We’ve only had a few days to celebrate it, that’s the trouble
with winning the first of a back-to-back but hopefully we will move on from
there and be successful here.
Q: This is a question for both you and Christian, looking back at Suzuka. In
the press conference on Saturday afternoon, Jenson said ‘looking at Red Bull
Racing’s long runs on the Friday, I think we are in major trouble’ and yet
it didn’t seem to turn out that way.
MW: Well, again, you never know fuel loads so we try to be realistic or we
always assume they are lugging about 150 kilos of fuel on their long runs. I
don’t know if they were or they weren’t. I think also as you improve the
balance of the car, as a driver learns how to drive that circuit, I think
Jenson in particular did a good job of looking after the tyres. It was a
circuit where the tyre degradation wasn’t linear, they fell off when they
were worn. That is an interesting thing. That is not a criticism of our
friends from Pirelli. I think it is fact, just as we have here. The
challenge for the engineers and drivers now is ‘it’s the same for all of us,
now we have got to try and exploit that the faster cars will tend to put
more load, more potential to wear the tyres, but, between us, when we have
to try and get the right balance, look after the tyres, and see how we can
exploit that strategy in the race’.
Q: Christian, what’s your reply to that?
Christian HORNER: Certainly on the Friday in Japan, McLaren’s single lap
performance looked mightily impressive and the opposite on the long run. Our
long run pace looked as impressive as McLaren’s short run pace. Of course,
you are trying to find a trade off between qualifying and the race and the
tyres have been a challenge this year. A good challenge for the engineers
and certainly the behaviour of the tyre on Sunday wasn’t quite perhaps what
we expected certainly from the lessons learned on what we had seen on
Friday. It is always finding that trade off and at the end of the race it
was fascinating to see three cars split by nothing really once the rate had
settled down into that final stint. There was plenty of data, feedback and
information to go through following the weekend but it has been a trait of
this season that you can sometimes think of a Friday that we are looking in
really good shape, or vice versa, and things on Sunday can be quite a bit
different.
Q: Going back to the result on Sunday which gave you your second Drivers’
Championship, which is fantastic, but what has been the reaction within the
team and even from Red Bull themselves?
CH: Well it’s phenomenal. Sebastian (Vettel) thoroughly deserves the
championship and to have done it so early, with four races to go, is a
fantastic achievement. The level at which he has performed this year has
been absolutely huge in terms of the performance, the consistency that he
has managed to achieve. Nine grands prix victories, he has had I think four
or five second places, one third, one fourth place, it has been a massive
performance rate that he has been scoring at week in and week out. Not all
of those victories have been runaway victories. If you think back to Monaco,
if you think back to Barcelona, there have been a lot of tough victories
that he’s had to earn there. But he has been the stand-out driver. The team
are hugely proud to have defended his drivers’ championship. Of course we
celebrated and enjoyed that result in Suzuka with a few fairly poor
renditions of various karaoke, but your focus immediately changes to the
next target and that target is winning the Constructors’. Both championships
carry equal weight to us. I think to the public the prestige sits with the
drivers‘ championship, but I think amongst the teams the Constructors’ in
many ways is ranked with equal weight. Immediately focus turned following
the Japanese race to Korea after a few bleary eyes appeared on Monday
morning.
Q: Does the approach change?
CH: No, not at all. I think our approach this year has been very strong.
Operationally we have been very strong. I think tactically we have been
strong. Our rate of development has been strong. We have won races where we
haven’t expected to be competitive at, such as Monza and indeed Spa, and
going into Japan we had won three on the trot so our approach this weekend
will be the same as it has been at the previous 14 or 15 races. That will
continue all the way through to the chequered flag in Brazil.
Q: Ross, I don’t often spend races in the press room but I was amused to see
journalists actually taking pictures of the screens during the Japanese
Grand Prix of Michael Schumacher leading a grand prix. The performance oddly
enough seems to have improved, in spite of the fact that you have said there
wasn’t a huge amount of development coming. But have you been heartened by
the performance over the last few races, not necessarily from him but from
the team?
Ross BRAWN: We are not where we want to be and that’s a fact but the guys at
Brackley and the team put in a huge effort to maintain where they are. I
think from our analysis we are still about the same gap behind Red Bull that
we were at the beginning of the season. Now, Christian just talked then
about the development rate and the fact that we have managed to maintain
that gap I think is a credit to all of our staff as it is not easy and you
have seen that some of the teams haven’t done that and have fallen further
behind. There is a tremendous rate of progress in Formula One and we have
managed roughly to keep up that rate of progress but we have got to make a
step change in performance to get where we want to get to. It was heartening
to see, slightly artificially of course because of the pit-stops, Michael
leading a race, but it was nice to see and certainly from Michael, the last
four or five races he has had quite a good run, the incident with (Sergio)
Perez in Singapore excepted. But he has done a very, very solid job. It just
confirms my view that with the right car both of our drivers can win races
and mount challenges so it is for us to produce the car they deserve and we
need to produce.
Q: The next grand prix is India. A brand new circuit and no-one knows
anything about it. How does a team go about preparing for that?
RB: You do gather a lot of information beforehand. We have got circuit maps,
we have got as much information as we can. We are doing simulations, we are
doing models. We have got some rough work going on, on the driver simulator.
Of course, there is not a huge amount of information available yet about the
circuit so we are doing all the prep and all the simulations and modelling
that we can do so we can go as well prepared as possible. What you can’t
anticipate is the surface roughness, the bumpiness of the circuit. There are
various things that you just can’t know about until you get there and you
experience it. So just all the normal prep and very similar to what we do at
all the other races, except we are lacking a bit of information so we have
to make some assumptions.
Q: Because it is an unknown does that give you a better chance of taking on
the teams ahead of you?
RB: No. No. I think, if anything, the strengths of the teams come to the
fore when they are faced with those sorst of circumstances and I think we
are pretty strong in that respect. But I think the top teams can all deal
with those new challenges more effectively than the less strong teams.
QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Q: Fulvio Solms – Corriere dello Sport) Christian, Red Bull won one title -
or is it better to say one-and-three-quarter - and your drivers used at the
moment six engines of the available eight. Are they going to close the year
with seven?
CH: Well Renault don’t give us a refund so we are planning to use all of the
engines between now and the end of the year. It is testimony to the
reliability, touching wood, that we have had throughout the season that we
are in that situation so I think there will be a plan to utilise, probably,
one of those engines here and the remaining engine at possibly Abu Dhabi.
That’s for the engineers to decide. It’s at their disposal and we will see.
Renault have done a great job this year and it is very different to the
situation we were in 12 months ago.
Q: (Dieter Renken – The Citizen) Martin, as chairman of FOTA you have been
fairly upbeat about the RRA. That it is working, that it’s not broken, and
the teams are adhering to it. Yet there continue to be allegations that
certain teams, more particularly Red Bull and Mercedes have been pushing the
bounds of the RRA. I wonder whether each of the four team principals could
give us your views of the RRA, whether it is working and how to go forward
on this thorny subject.
MW: I think, firstly, we have achieved quite a lot with RRA. We are pretty
good at focussing on issues and concerns but I think RRA has in the way
we’ve restricted testing, the way we have restricted the number of
operational personnel we have at the circuit, wind tunnel time, CFD time… I
know that within our business the spirit and nature of conversations between
engineers now, talking about efficiency, the need to do things with a finite
level of discourse, I think that is a very healthy level of discussion, very
healthy debate, and undeniably RRA has saved money and had been to the
benefit of Formula One. Is it perfect? Will it ever be without contention,
challenge, suspicion and paranoia? Almost certainly no. Just as technical
regulations, sporting regulations, particularly if a team is doing very well
or doing a good job it is always a more comfortable assumption to assume
they have got a dodgy wing or they have got something else. I think that is
the nature and spirit of Formula One. I think we have got to continue to
work hard together as teams to see that we can make, improve and refine the
RRA. I think it would be a shame for the teams to say this is so difficult,
we’ll walk away from it and we’ll turn to a spend-what-you-like culture or
spend-what-you-can-lay-your-hands-on culture within Formula One. It is not
perfect, there are concerns. What I can say is that I have been reasonably
involved with the process, there has been no evidence other than, if you
like, the normal paddock gossip or accusation, but there has been no
evidence of a breach of the RRA. Each of the teams and team principals
continue to assure FOTA that they are abiding by the limitations that are
contained within the Resource Restriction Agreement. Bear in mind that
although, clearly, there is a lot of media interest we are doing this for
one reason. We are doing it for ourselves. We are doing it for the
sustainability of Formula One. It is not intended to be part of the show or
the spectacle of Formula One. It is an internal process, but I understand
people are interested in it and like to speculate if there is some
controversy behind it, but certainly my view is it isn’t perfect, there will
always be challenge. I think we have got to improve it, I think we have got
to work together to enhance trust and mutual respect in the process. Will we
ever reach a stage where everyone is very comfortable, has no concern, no
accusation? I doubt [that], just as there isn’t with technical regulations
in my experience. But I think it has been the right thing for the sport and
I think we have got to continue to persevere with it.
CH: I think Martin sums it up very well, in reality. I think that RRA has
been a positive thing for Formula One, or a positive thing for our business.
It’s saved genuine cost, taking out testing cost, reducing engine costs to
affordable levels, to all of the independent teams. Restrictions on
personnel coming to the circuit, the ratio between CFD and wind tunnel time
have all been hugely beneficial to driving costs down within the sport.
Certainly for Red Bull to compete with teams such as Ferrari, McLaren,
Mercedes, RRA is important with that. Now, inevitably there has probably
been more speculation about our team than others, inevitably with
performance does come paranoia. Red Bull does favour the RRA being around,
but in a way that’s clear, tangible, policeable and encompasses all of what
Formula One is rather than cherry-picking elements of it. I think that all
of the teams would agree that the RRA, which came out of the back of the
financial crisis at the end of 2008, beginning of 2009, has been the
responsible thing to do for the sport and I think that the stage now is
that, as the first agreement draws to a close next year, we focus on a new
more workable, more transparent agreement for a longer duration potentially,
that is clear for all to understand and that doesn’t involve commenting or
politicking. That’s the most fundamental thing for us and hopefully in the
latter months of this year, the teams will be able to achieve that.
RB: I think for us, we’re respecting the RRA but I think it’s at a
crossroads, I think it’s at a crossroads because it’s now starting to bite
to those three or four teams who have to control their resource to comply. I
think there’s seven or eight teams for whom RRA means nothing because
they’re always going to be below the limit. Now we’re at a stage where the
targets that were set are starting to bite into the three or four teams and
this is where it starts to get contentious and we haven’t structured it well
enough yet to have the controls and checks and reassurances in place that
gives everybody comfort and [that] leads to the innuendo and accusations
that get thrown around. We’re total supporters of the idea of RRA, but for
us, it has to be much more robust in how it’s controlled, how it’s
monitored, how it’s policed, because it is a performance differentiator. You
can’t deny that a team spending five million more each year will have an
advantage over a team that doesn’t do that, and therefore it has to be very
well controlled, very strongly audited and it has to be done by a reference
which is the same for all teams, otherwise we have no guarantee of parity,
and I think for us, RRA is at a crossroads. We support it totally, but the
teams have to come together to find a solution to make sure that we’re all
comfortable with the way we go forward or else we will have a continuation
of the problems that we’re having at the moment, all the comments, the
rumour, the innuendo, the distrust that we have. Christian commented, quite
rightly, that the agreement’s coming to an end. Well, we’re working on an
agreement that we thought we already had, which doesn’t end for several
years, and that’s the problem that we have at the moment. We don’t have
complete unity on RRA and we have to have it, because Mercedes are total
supporters of the concept of RRA but it has to be a fair and proper,
correctly policed, correctly monitored, correctly audited system which is
the same for everybody.
JB: The RRA is very, very important to us. Remember we gave up a lot,
together with the other new teams, we gave up a lot in the entry to the
sport. We gave up the option B and we gave up the price cap and bought into
the RRA wholeheartedly and it’s very, very important to us that it continues
and we work towards the agreement. I think a spending formula where three or
maybe four teams could thrive is not what people want and we must work very
hard to avoid that.
Q: (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) I just wondered if Christian, Ross and Martin
could talk about the pit lane exit; we saw Nico going into Alguersuari this
afternoon. Obviously it’s not a problem that can be resolved in the space of
a weekend but does something need to be fixed on the track, is it safe at
the moment?
RB: Well, we’re obviously the ones that got involved in that – I don’t know
what’s happened, but our driver and our team manager are up with the
stewards at the moment, presumably having to explain the circumstances
behind it. I have to say that it’s a little frustrating that we have that
problem on a brand new circuit like this, because if you look at the number
of cars that went off at turn one during practice and of course, when we
have wet conditions, difficult conditions, I think 20 or 30 cars went off.
It was neither driver’s fault, neither Alguersuari nor Rosberg’s fault, but
that is the consequence of that pit lane exit. That’s what we will live
with. Obviously, we will try and help the drivers, particularly during the
race. It’s a little more difficult during practice because cars stop and do
practice starts from the end of the pit lane. You can’t always anticipate
where they are going to be, but we will try and help the drivers during the
race but it’s not ideal.
CH: I guess, as we saw today, as Ross has said, it’s an unfortunate incident
and a lot of cars will run wide into turn one and unfortunately when you
exit the pit lane and it filters back in at that point, it was a law of
averages that an accident was going to happen. It’s a shame that that one
hasn’t been addressed. It’s good to see that the visibility at the pit lane
entry – the wall has been moved back so there’s better visibility coming in
to the pit lane or pit lane entry. It’s probably impossible to do anything,
certainly for this weekend.
MW: Well it can be improved upon and hopefully it will be by the time we
come here next time.
Q: (Joe Saward – Grand Prix Special) Ross, you were talking about there
being two levels of team; that’s also true in name changing. You have a bit
of a problem going on at the moment with some teams wanting to change the
names and others not wanting it to happen. How many brands do you think are
essential to Formula One and how many teams should be allowed to change
their names just to survive?
RB: We’ve been fairly ambivalent about the name change. Obviously, we’re a
team that has changed its name a number of times over the last 10 to 15
years. In fact – I know it’s a slightly debatable point – but we are also
one of the oldest teams in Formula One, because we started as Tyrrell and
that is the same company all the way through to now, with some variations of
our name. So we don’t have any strong views. I think it would obviously be
very very disappointing if a brand of the strength of Ferrari changed its
name, but we know that’s never going to happen and if it suits the
commercial purposes of teams to change their name and it helps them survive,
helps them prosper, then we should consider it. So we don’t have any strong
views and we wouldn’t stand in the way of a sensible proposal. We don’t want
anything that’s perhaps derogatory to Formula One. We wouldn’t want someone
naming their team… I shan’t make any suggestions as to what you could call
it but we don’t want that sort of thing going on but otherwise we have no
strong views.
CH: I think the situation is a tricky one in many respects because there are
two sides to it. On one side, it doesn’t make any sense for a team to be
called Renault when it isn’t Renault, therefore a name change in a situation
like that makes sense. I think that where Formula One needs to be a little
bit careful is that the teams are brands and when the promoter is selling
Formula One around the world, can sell Ferrari, can sell McLaren and now
sell Red Bull Racing and Mercedes – they are all strong brand names. I think
it’s something to perhaps consider for the future, that there needs to be
more careful consideration given to the names of teams and the mechanism by
which they can be changed. As Ross says, if there’s a logical, sensible
reason then why not, but I think we also have to be careful that it just
doesn’t end up in a merry-go-round and companies that have the same company
number just change effectively [the] entrant name on a yearly or biannual
basis.
RB: One thing I’d add that is unfortunate about Formula One is that if this
becomes a judgement call, people start to make judgements on the merit then
that’s fine, you’re entitled to a judgement. Unfortunately, if it becomes a
trading position and I guarantee those teams that are trying to change their
name will have had approaches from other teams who want different favours
paid in order to agree to the name change, and that’s not correct. I know
that happened to us when we wanted to change our name. People sought to get
favours from that decision. That’s what we mustn’t have. If there’s a
genuine reason why a team shouldn’t change its name, because it’s not in the
interests of Formula One, that’s correct, there should be a proper debate.
It needs to be done in an adult way and not used in a divisive way.
MW: I agree with what Ross has just said. Philosophically, I can understand
the desire to retain names and Ferrari, McLaren hopefully, proud brands, are
not going to plan to change, so I understand that but I think also that
we’ve got to recognise that we’re in a commercial environment, I think it
makes a lot of sense that for there to be two Lotus teams in the sport
doesn’t seem very sensible. The issue that Ross that just raised… I recall,
within the last couple of years, when there was a desire to change the team
name to Mercedes Benz, how a number of people conspired against that, which
was a ridiculous position to take and very damaging to the sport. Hopefully,
the established brands are just that, and they would have no motivation to
change. I think if it was a small team and it’s going to help them
commercially… there are a lot of teams there whom we talked about there
being two tiers, obviously it’s not quite that simple but there are a number
of teams for whom it’s a reasonable struggle, to stay in Formula One, it’s a
reasonable struggle to generate the budgets to go racing. I think we should
encourage them to remain in the sport. As we mentioned earlier, this is the
700th Grand Prix of McLaren, but in that time 107 teams have failed. Now
that’s a sobering thought. I think we should be doing, as a Formula One
community, everything we can to help and facilitate teams and as Ross said,
if they come up with a clearly silly, divisive name or a name that’s
damaging to Formula One, then we should be able to use good judgement to
prevent it, but if it’s clear that the name change facilitates the funding
and the retention of that team within Formula One, then we shouldn’t use the
polemics and politics of Formula One to prevent it.
JB: Yeah, we are a team that has changed our name this year for commercial
reasons, and it was very important for us to have that flexibility, so in
general, we are in support of it.
Q: (Gary Meenaghan – The National) Christian, Red Bull have obviously come a
long way since 2005; I was just hoping that maybe you could just speak a
little bit about that journey and some of the struggles and highlights, also
the importance of Abu Dhabi in that journey. In 2009, you won there, to set
yourself up for a successful 2010 season and then you obviously won there
again last year, to get Seb’s title.
CH: It’s been an incredible journey in a relatively short space of time. I
think McLaren have done 700 Grands Prix, we’ve done about 120 odd. This is
only our seventh car. When Red Bull bought what was the Jaguar team at the
end of 2004, Dietrich Mateschitz had a vision of what he wanted to achieve
and he set that out and spelled that out at a very early stage, internally,
and it was a question of getting the right people in place, the right
structures, empowering the right people and taking what was there already
and developing that, and I think the first few years were building years for
the team as we put the right infrastructure, the right facilities into
place. Obviously Adrian was a key recruitment, together with other key
placements within the team. When the 2009 regulations came along, which were
probably the biggest regulation changes in the past 20 years, it was a
perfect opportunity for the design team with a clean sheet of paper to
demonstrate what they were capable of. Obviously 2009 was a strong year for
the team, certainly the second half of the year was a tremendously strong
period for the team and we managed to carry that momentum through into 2010
and at the same time saw the emergence of Sebastian, who had joined the team
from Toro Rosso in 2009 into ’10 and last year was a classic year in the
sport, I think. For it to go down the wire on that evening in Abu Dhabi with
potentially four drivers that could have won the World Championship that
evening was phenomenal and our expectation, to win it with Sebastian, was
quite low going into that race. It was quite a long shot, it was Fernando’s
championship to lose but it all panned out and Sebastian won the race, the
results went his way and he became the youngest World Champion. And then
obviously again, with more regulation changes, with the introduction of a
new tyre supplier, with double diffusers being banned, with F-ducts going,
with DRS being introduced, you’ve got some challenges to incorporate into a
new car and what I’m especially proud of what the team has achieved is the
continuity that it managed from the end of 2010 into 2011 and then
throughout this season, to deliver at a consistent level. It’s been a
phenomenal journey so far, and a very exciting one and one that is testimony
really to the people behind the scenes, the level of commitment, the level
of effort. The super-human efforts that have gone in from each member of the
team, men and women alike, has just been phenomenal to achieve the kind of
results that we have. Obviously we’re keen to build on that, not only in the
remaining races of this year but obviously into 2012 and beyond.
Q: (Ian Parkes – Press Association) We’re all aware of the culinary dangers
of going to India – Delhi belly doesn’t get its name for nothing. I was just
wondering what you were all doing, health and safety-wise, above and beyond
what you would normally do for a Grand Prix, what you are doing food and
drink preparation-wise for that particular race. We hear that you’re all
taking your own produce rather than using local stuff, which you would
normally do.
PH: I don’t know what the Italian chefs have done but they seem to conjure
up some sort of Italian food wherever we’ve been around the world so far. I
think it’s a bit of a mix: sometimes we do take some things with us and then
the rest of it is sourced locally. It’s a bit of a mix.
JB: I took (cricketer) Freddy Flintoff’s advice at Silverstone. He’s done 15
tours of the sub-continent: eat street curry and drink lots of beer was his
advice so maybe we will follow that.
MW: We shouldn’t overstate the issues there. I think there’s a logistics
challenge for the team to go anywhere in the world. I’m sure we’re enjoying
local supplies and there will be some taken, but that’s very normal. I don’t
think we should single out India as a particular challenge in that regard.
CH: We’ve had a running show car team out in India for the past couple of
weeks now. They’ve done show runs in Delhi and then they’ve gone off to the
Himalayas where they drove up the highest road in the world, up to 18,000
feet. We’ve only had one incident of an upset tummy, but I don’t think that
had anything to do with the food, probably more to do with the beverage. No,
we’re not taking any additional precautions. We’ll be buying local produce
and obviously as a British team, curry is a relatively popular dish.
RB: I think the same as Christian’s just described. We’ll be using local
supplies, really the same as every other race. We’ll be relying on local
produce. |
