|
PART TWO: TEAM
REPRESENTATIVES - Maurizio ARRIVABENE (Ferrari), Cyril ABITEBOUL (Renault)
PRESS CONFERENCE
Q: Cyril, if we could start with you and a look back to last weekend in
Austin and specifically the performance of your new boy Carlos Sainz. Talk
us through his weekend and just how impressive was he?
Cyril ABITEBOUL: Clearly it was a strong weekend. It was a strong weekend
with very strong preparation from Carlos himself. Lots of motivation, hard
work put by him but also by the rest of the team to make sure it was smooth
integration and immediately up to speed. It was impressive but it’s just one
weekend, and it’s just extracting the performance that we expect from the
car, that we know the potential of the car has, which is to score points.
So, let’s stay calm, let’s build from that, it was important, I believe, for
Carlos to make a strong impression for his first weekend and to get, I
guess, the morale of the team up because clearly we are not exactly where we
would like to be in terms of championship position. We have both a
short-term and a medium-term challenge so it was important for everyone but
now we need to finish the season on the same atmosphere. So, more challenges
to come starting this weekend.
Q: Is there one thing about him that stood out?
CA: It’s his whole approach. He is at the same time extremely calm,
professional, mature but at the same time he is capable of being a bit racy
and not hesitating to take a couple of risks on occasions – but risks that
are calculated, very well executed and controlled. It’s great, and a great
atmosphere into the team – and with Nico also.
Q: In the coming days we’re going to learn more about Formula One’s future
path. What do you expect from the engine regulations at the meeting in Paris
at the FIA’s headquarters?
CA: First we expect to continue on the same type of constructive discussion
that there has been so far with the FIA and with FOM. We expect to have the
conclusion of a number of working groups that have been diving into some of
the details of what’s been in consideration and publically reported, like
removing all of MGU-H and simplification of the power unit. But we also
expect to have a better understanding of FOM’s vision for the future. It
will be interesting to find out and have the opportunity to discuss that in
a collective manner with both existing OEMs and maybe OEMs or other
manufacturers that could maybe be joining Formula One – because clearly we
need a diversity of supplier to make sure we are in a sustainable model.
Q: Maurizio, if we could start by going back to last weekend in Austin. Now
you’ve had a very long career in marketing and I just wanted to start by
asking you for your view on the pre-race show in Austin. What did you think
of it? Do you like what Liberty were doing?
Maurizio ARRIVABENE: It was quite OK. We were in the USA so a show like this
is expected. I spoke with the drivers afterwards and Sebastian and Kimi said
to me actually it was fine for them. They said maybe a bit long because they
said that the first one who went to the grid needed to wait for twenty
minutes for the last one and also the last one needed to wait twenty minutes
to go there. I think fine tuning the timing and adjusting a bit also the
driver parade, making sure that it’s not clashing with this show is fine. If
the public likes it, why not?
Q: And would you like to see more of that kind of thing going forward?
MA: It depends because if doing more are clashing with the commitment that
we have with our sponsors or with the commitment that we have to do a race -
because don’t forget we are here to do a show, we are here for racing,
because the real show is the race itself – we have no problem, but it
depends on what Liberty want to do in the future. We are always ready to
discuss about something that’s intelligent and working to enhance Formula
One.
Q: Now of course this World Championship is not over until it’s over but it
is getting harder and harder for Sebastian to win the Drivers’ championship
but when you consider where Ferrari were last year, there are plenty of
positives to take from this season. I wanted to just ask you about those:
what are the positives for you from this season?
MA: The positives… we have a lot of positives in all honesty because I saw
quite a young team working very very well on the car here and in Maranello;
the guys are very united, they are exchanging information, they are very
focussed, they are quite young so no one was expecting the performance that
we have this year. Mattia, our technical director, is leading the technical
properly. He knows, deeper and deeper, the Ferrari and I have to say and
together we are exchanging our opinion, information. He’s got his
engineering point of view, I’ve got a different point of view but we are
always very well aligned. So representing also him here, together with the
racing team, I have to say I saw many positives this year. Unfortunately we
lost a key opportunity due to a small detail related to a technical issue
that we have mainly from a supplier but sometimes it is in the detail, it’s
a learning for us, it’s a learning from them so it’s another lesson learned
and we are looking forward to the future, to do better and better and better
but we are focused.
Q: What do you believes has to happen back in Maranello for you to make the
next step, the last step, in 2018?
MA: I said it’s a question sometimes of adjustment. It’s not a question of
revolution, it’s a question of adjustment because this year we pay a heavy
fee for detail and I said we need to be a bit more focused on the processes,
we need to be more focused in other areas but the good positive is that this
is a team that is not giving up and it’s learning from mistakes and it’s a
team that is fully committed, not only for next year but even for the next
three races because as I’ve said many many times, we like to fight until the
last lap, the last race, the last lap and the last turn.
QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Q: (Dan Knutson – Auto Action and Speedsport) Cyril, at this press
conference in Singapore, after all the engine changes had been announced for
next year, Renault was not in a position to confirm if it could or might not
be able to supply Red Bull in 2019. Has there been any change on that?
CA: No, no change since what we announced altogether with Red Bull and also
ourselves with McLaren in Singapore, which means that there is a clear
contractual situation for 2018 and anything beyond 2018 is speculation at
this point and will be discussed with Red Bull in the course of 2018.
Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Week, Motorsport Monday) Maurizio, and Cyril
if you’d like to please comment afterwards: earlier in the first part of the
press conference, Christian Horner made a comment that he would like to see
the back of the current engines tomorrow, if he could. He was asked the
question in relation to the new engines only coming in in 2021 and would he
like them coming in earlier. He basically said it was Ferrari and Mercedes
who would block that move. Is that something you would like to comment on?
MA: In some way or the other, we are always blocking Red Bull or the other
way round, in the mind of Christian. First of all, we do engines so we can
talk about engines. It’s our job and it’s our business. It’s not a question
of Mercedes or Ferrari blocking here or blocking there. The question… it’s
very very simple. I’ve said many many times that our vision of the future on
the engines after 2021 is very simple. It’s reducing the costs, it’s keeping
the same engine architecture and keeping the performance, improving the
performance. Now, it’s very very simple. Normally you have the simple
equation: what and how? What we want to do? We want to cut the costs or to
reduce the costs. We want to enhance the show. How to do it is something
that we are going to discuss in the next few days because everybody, they
have their own ideas and for sure it’s not Ferrari or Mercedes who is
driving the show. But for sure, they are the people who are manufacturing
the engines.
CA: Not much to add frankly. I think we have all agreed, including with Red
Bull, about the what, the objective of the future engine regulations.
Hopefully we can also agree on the how and I don’t think that moving
backwards would be an acceptable and sustainable thing, no sense to all the
people investing in Formula One and not just the manufacturers. If you look
at all the sponsors who are current financing Formula One, moving backwards
would just be completely inappropriate and quite certainly turn them away
from Formula One; including manufacturers like Aston Martin who are big
believers in the fact that automotive needs to go in one direction and that
direction has to be the electrification route. So there is no doubt. Maybe
the ratio between the internal combustion engine and electrification can be
revised. We are open for the discussion and clearly Mercedes, Ferrari,
Renault, Honda, we are all open to the discussion and that’s what we are
looking forward to doing next week.
Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) Maurizio, based on your how and what that
you just mentioned and Cyril, you referred to it, the current regulations
for the post-2020 period still fall within the procedure that we have at the
moment, i.e. Ferrari’s veto is valid. If the how and what doesn’t suit
Ferrari would Ferrari consider triggering its veto as it did two years ago
with the V6 biturbo engine? And Cyril, are you are concerned that Ferrari
could in fact veto anything that may be decided?
MA: No, at a certain point we apply our right to do a veto for good reason
at that time. Within a severe people and people who have a clear idea,
people who understand what they are talking about, I think you don’t need
any veto. I said it’s quite simple, if we are able to find a good equation
in between what I said when I described the what, the how is going to be
easy but as Cyril stated quite well before, there is no reason to not
consider one part or no reason to not consider the other. For us, if I have
to talk for Ferrari, for us the performance is part of the DNA of our
company so the performance is important because we are representing this
brand. Then, if we able – as I’ve said, many times – to reduce the costs, to
keep the performance with the same base in terms of engine architecture,
fine. And then it’s important to understand how to do it and if it’s
acceptable the way that it’s going to be proposed but we don’t need to apply
any veto.
Q: (Yesme Cortes – El Economista) Will there be, in the future, more
economic and sporting equality in Formula One?
MA: You have to ask Liberty. We have at the moment – Dieter, I thought it
was you who asked these questions, I’m surprised, she’s taking your place,
be careful. At the moment, we have a contract with the commercial owner of
Formula One and it’s quite clear on how we have the distribution, the
financial distribution in the future. It’s something that we need to discuss
for sure. Distribution also means commitment to Formula One. The first thing
is to commit to do this sport and to do it well and not to come in for one
or two years and then disappear and close the factory. This is not what we
have done because since the beginning we have been here and we would like to
continue to be here. It depends… the discussion is going to be long and
complicated.
Q: Cyril, would you like to see greater equality?
CA: Well, clearly if we are in Formula One it’s because we believe in the
value of the sport and we want to be part of a great show and to have a
great show we need a certain insurance that there will be a better level
playing field and there are many different ways it can be achieved. It can
be achieved by revenues which could have their distribution revised in a way
that would maybe have more parity; we would be open to that as far as
Renault is concerned. But it’s pointless just to address the revenue side
without also addressing the cost side so for us it’s a whole framework that
needs to be looked at, how much we need to spend towards the technology,
towards the chassis, towards the engine in order to be competitive, versus
the prospect of revenue and the revenue is the prize fund but it’s also
sponsors. If Liberty can guarantee that the figures will be going up,
sponsor revenue may also be going up so that whole needs to be looked at,
not just one element of the equation but we believe that there are ways to
do that and again, if there is constructive discussion that there has been
so far with Liberty and the other OEMs there is no way that it cannot be
achieved.
Q: (Alan Baldwin – Reuters) Maurizio, you have some promising young drivers,
including the Formula Two champion. Can you just give us an update on where
you see Charles Leclerc being next year? Will he be in Formula One do you
think?
MA: First of all, Charles has demonstrated his talent by winning the
championship with two races in advance. We are looking forward to seeing how
not only Charles but also Antonio Giovinazzi can make the next step. At the
moment we are focused on this Formula One championship. At the right time,
we would also like to focus our attention on them. At the moment, what I can
say is that both of the guys are valuable, Charles and Antonio.
Q: (Mike Doodson – GP Plus) Cyril, Christian Horner was in here a few
moments ago and he confirmed that Carlos Sainz is on loan to Renault. Is
that for one year or could it be more?
CA: No, we have confirmed that Carlos is indeed on loan for the remainder of
this year plus next year so it’s already more than one year and there is an
option mechanism, the detail of which will remain confidential, that could
extend the partnership, the collaboration between Carlos and Renault but for
us it’s a completely acceptable compromise, given what he can bring to the
team including on a short term basis.
Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) One of the things that increasingly gets
said is Liberty depends on what regulations they come up with and Liberty
setting out their stall about the regulations etc. In the team opinion,
where does the FIA fit in as a regulator if they don’t make the regulations?
MA: Normally I’m not involved when Liberty is meeting with the FIA or the
other way around. I don’t know what they are talking about. Most probably
they find an agreement to co-operate together, writing the regulations. This
is what I suppose. Our job, as I said before, it’s to build cars and to
manufacture the engine. Their job is to run the business so we don’t have to
mix this up, otherwise it’s going to be a nightmare, in that case.
CA: My only comment is that the two, the revenue and the costs, go hand in
hand and in my opinion, one of the reasons why there’s been some… Formula
One has maybe lost some ground in the recent past is due to the fact that
there was too much separation, too much breakdown between the cost side that
was governed by the FIA and the regulations and FOM, really working on the
revenue. That is really something that needs to reconciled and that whole
aspect of the equation that needs to be looked at and for that to happen, it
can only happen if there is a good working relationship between the promotor
and the regulator which is again happening, so I don’t think we should be
creating some antagonism between the two bodies. |
