|
TEAM PRINCIPALS: Norbert HAUG
(MCLAREN MERCEDES), Christian HORNER (RED BULL), John HOWETT (TOYOTA), Mario
THEISSEN (BMW SAUBER)
Q: A question to all of you: the
deadline passed on the engine discussions at the French Grand Prix. Can you
tell us what the position is at the moment, what you’re still looking for
and what still has to happen?
Christian HORNER: Obviously there’s been a reasonable amount of debate and
I’m sure these gentlemen are probably better placed to answer than I. The
honest answer at the moment is that there was a position that was discussed
at Magny-Cours, an agreement wasn’t found, so therefore I’m working on the
assumption that the rules as previously suggested will apply, unless these
gentlemen perhaps can offer something slightly different.
John HOWETT: I think that among the engine manufacturers the agreement on
the content of the so-called Indianapolis Agreement is basically understood
and accepted. I think now it’s just whether or not further agreement can be
reached with some of the smaller teams and the FIA, but I don’t think I can
give you any more update than that.
Q: So are discussions still taking place then Mario?
Mario THEISSEN: Yes, to my understanding we had the agreement on the
technical side, even before Magny-Cours, and so the next question has been
the commercial side. There has been an offer on the table in Magny-Cours and
during the week after the race discussions circulated about how that could
be done, how that could be framed, and this is still ongoing.
Q: Is that your understanding as well, Norbert?
Norbert HAUG: Yes, it is. There’s not much to add. I think maybe to explain,
we all think it is absolutely essential in Formula One to be in a position
to compete. If you have homologated engines - the status of May/June or
whatever it was - and you have that frozen for a four-year period, we just
don’t think that’s the right way to go. Currently, if you wanted to, you
could do a new engine at each and every second race, starting from scratch,
and now, being in a position of not doing anything for a long period like
three or four years, I think that is a little bit too strict. I think we
should all think carefully about that one. I think we’ve got it wrong here
and there in the past and I think it is the nature of the sport that you can
compete. If you have the first, third, second, fourth-best engine, than you
will have the fifth, fourth, third, second best engine for a period of three
or four years, and you know that even if I knew that we would have the best
engine I wouldn’t like to have that status for four years. If we had a
complete chassis freeze we probably wouldn’t have the competition that we
see right now. If you thought about a tyre freeze between Michelin and
Bridgestone, for example, we wouldn’t have the level of competition that we
have between Ferrari and Renault. You cannot catch up. And I think the
engine is quite an important factor. The engine is the heart of the whole
machine and we agreed to changes for 15 to 20 percent once a year and I
think that is a reasonable approach. We should try to put that through; it
is positive for the independent teams. The agreement that was in place saves
a lot of money for the independent teams and that’s why I just hope that it
goes through, because it makes a lot of sense.
Q: Can I throw that back to the others? Are you in agreement as well, that
it’s too long a period to have a total freeze?
MT: Well, the idea of the Indianapolis Agreement has been exactly that: to
have a certain amount of development which allows everybody to push the
limits further, but within a frame which makes sure that costs don’t
sky-rocket but are taken down. I think it would be very much worth following
this through.
JH: I think we are a competitor and we have a view which I think is in the
general interest of Formula One, to maintain a degree of technical challenge
and at the same time have a reasonable cost base which doesn’t make engines
prohibitively expensive for smaller teams. But overall, in the end, somebody
will decide what the future direction is, and I think the position has been
clarified, and we’re just waiting for a final decision to be reached.
Q: I guess we can classify you as an independent team, Christian.
CH: Absolutely. From an independent team’s point of view, the most important
thing for us is an affordable, competitive engine. If a freeze or a partial
freeze offers that and the FIA endorses that, then fine, we’ll obviously
fall into line with that, but I think the most critical factor from an
independent’s point of view is hopefully stability and therefore affordable
customer engines.
Q: Another question for all of you: we’re coming up to the test ban now from
this race onwards. What has been your push before the start of this test
ban?
CH: We completed our test in Jerez last week where I think most of the teams
were. We’ve been working on various developments, both short term and longer
term. We have been focusing on the gearbox area. We’ve introduced a seamless
gearbox this weekend which was part of our programme. And we had a
reasonably encouraging test last week.
JH: I think mainly aero, tyre selection, mechanical parts for the suspension
and engine.
MT: In our case it’s been mainly about aero development. Engine development
is mainly done on the dynos, so that will go on throughout the summer. It
was especially aero.
NH: Yes, of course you try to get everything in place before the test ban
because that’s quite a period of time, quite a break and I think we have had
an intensive test and a very good one, with good mileage. We learned a lot
of things, it was very very hot down there and I would say we were
successful and we achieved what we wanted to achieve.
Q: A question for the two German motor manufacturers: what would be your
feelings about having a single German Grand Prix, alternating to the two
circuits in the future?
MT: Well, we certainly love having two German Grands Prix, as a German
manufacturer, from our perspective as well as from the fans’ perspective.
But we’ve always been aware that this is sort of a luxury and certainly, if
you have the chance to open up to a new field like China with 1.3 billion
people, that is certainly a different dimension from having just another
race - two or three or even more races - with an environment of 250
kilometres. And so we have to be realistic and accept that and if even the
organisers think an alternating event would be the right solution, we
certainly support that as a reasonable and commercially viable solution.
NH: It’s the organisers’ decision at the end of the day and they seem to
have problems, but having said that, I think it needs to be carefully
thought through. Whilst the organisers probably prefer not to have a Grand
Prix here in the future, I think the whole region very much would like to
have one, and if you see the bigger picture, it is an issue for the whole
district, it is an issue for the government and my view is that other
solutions could have been found. Of course I see it the same as Mario. It is
fine and nice and good to have two Grands Prix, but once you’ve got them,
maybe you need to fight for them, but it starts with the organisers. I
learned they have had some problems, otherwise I think it was really
impressive that within five or six weeks in the past, between Nürburgring
and Hockenheim, 150,000, 160,000, 170,000 tickets were sold and you know
what the average price is, so there is a lot of money involved and a lot of
enthusiasm. I think about the fans here and this circuit has tradition and I
just struggle to believe that in two years’ time or three years’ time there
might not be a Grand Prix here. Of course, I’m quite close to here, I’m from
Stuttgart, I know the history of Hockenheim, but I think about all the guys
coming here. I think that the first time there isn’t a Grand Prix lots of
people will realise what they’ve had in the past. So for me, I’m a little
bit sad about it, because I think there could have been other solutions, but
on the other hand I understand the organiser decides and maybe another
decision could have been found.
Q: Christian, what’s the situation regarding your engine supply for next
year?
CH: Really at the moment there’s nothing much to say. Obviously Red Bull
Racing has an existing relationship with Ferrari. When we entered into that
agreement, Toro Rosso didn’t even exist or wasn’t even thought of. At the
moment, obviously we have a contract and we will honour that contract unless
a solution could be found that satisfies all parties.
Q: John, regarding your second engine supply, we heard that you’re going to
supply Williams next year. Is there a possibility or a capability of
supplying two teams next year as well as yourselves?
JH: No. I think our decision was to supply one team two years ago. Williams
obviously will probably be a more demanding team, in terms of the volume of
engines and the amount of support services that they expect. For us, that
will be enough of a burden because we also intend to improve our own
performance as a team. So, we will support one team and that’s all.
Questions from the floor
Q: (Mike Doodson – Honorary Pass Holder) John, assuming you are allowed to
do engine developments over the next few years, you will supply four cars.
If you have a development which gives you a bit more power, would it be
possible to develop just two of them for your team and keep Williams one
step behind, or are you committed to supplying identical engines?
JH: The spirit of the agreement is that we will supply and make our absolute
best endeavours to give them the same equipment that we have, so that’s the
spirit and the intent of the agreement that we have.
Q: (Martin Derler – Oberösterreichische Nachrichten) Christian, can you give
a short comment about the self-made rumour in the Red Bulletin about
Christian Klien’s future?
CH: First of all, the Red Bulletin comes up with lots of rumours and one
must remember that it’s not a publication on behalf of the team and
therefore as an independent paper, they come up with some of their own
articles, some of their own theories. Our situation as regards drivers is
that, and with Christian in particular, that no decision has been made yet
and once it is, it will be announced through the team and not via the Red
Bulletin.
Q: (Dan Knutson – National Speedsport News) Christian, speaking on drivers,
can you give us an approximate figure on how many approaches you have had
from drivers and or their managers for next year?
CH: That would be incorrect of me to say, to disclose who and when and why.
You know, Red Bull is a team that is hopefully going places and that people
recognise has a positive future and the future looks bright. Therefore it is
an attractive team for drivers. We also have our junior programme and some
very good juniors on that programme, so we’re certainly not short of choice.
Q: (Dan Knutson – National Speedsport News) John, next year there’s a good
possibility of your customer team beating the works team. What is your
feeling about that? Also, were Toyota Cologne and Toyota Japan in agreement
here or was there a difference of opinion on the Williams issue?
JH: The decision was made in complete unison. Some people have very creative
minds, I believe, because Toyota, as a company, thrives on what we call
co-opertition, and we’ve had joint ventures like the Munich plant or the PSA
development, and from our perspective, it will, competition is healthy and
therefore we welcome it. As a team, it’s our job to build a better car and
we’ve got our own engine, so we’ve just got to do a better job or we’ll have
nobody else to blame but ourselves. I’m very confident we have a team that
can push them to the limit. We’ve just looked forward to the competition
with Williams and I have to say, we are in complete unison with Toyota Japan
on this and I don’t know where these rumours have come from.
Q: Do you think that mass dampers are aerodynamic devices?
CH: Are they aerodynamic devices? Obviously they affect aerodynamic
behaviour of the car, however it’s, by description, a mass damper, it’s
obviously a moving part. Located wherever teams have chosen to put it.
Obviously, there has been some activity with mass dampers this weekend and
we’ll wait to see where it finishes up.
JH: We don’t use one. I think in the end, the teams have to push the
regulations to the limit and the regulator, in the end, needs to define the
limits to what we can operate. Whether we have a view or not is immaterial,
somebody has to define whether or not mass dampers are in fact against the
regulations or not and then it’s up to the teams to decide whether that will
enhance the performance of their car or not.
MT: Same here. And that applies not only to mass dampers but also all other,
for instance, aerodynamic devices. I would like to add that it’s certainly
not helpful that the interpretations or the definition of the rules are
changing on a daily basis, because certainly you prepare for something and,
having got the interpretation once, you should be able to rely on this.
Q: (MC) Quickly, did that apply to you, what were nicknamed, the ‘twin
towers?’
MT: Yes.
NH: I think everything is said. I’m in line with what the gentlemen said and
we have had our own experiences of this, as you know. It would be nice to
have a clear definition. I understand that it is not always possible at the
beginning, but I think we should clarify this particular situation, and then
we know where we are, because, at the moment, nobody really knows where they
are.
Q: (Dan Knutson – National Speedsport News) I want to ask you about the
rumoured approach for Michael Schumacher next year.
MT: I read about 80 million Euros or something. I can tell you that we don’t
have 80 million and we don’t have Michael Schumacher.
Q: (MC) Was an approach made?
MT: No.
Q: (Mike Doodson – Honorary Pass Holder) To what extent will you go to
defend your right to develop your engines? Would you consider taking legal
action to defend that right?
JH: I think it’s unlikely. When you say ‘defend our right’ I think we have
to look at what’s in the general interest of Formula One, so we have to see
that each of the competitor’s point of view should be considered. We also
have to look at the fans and, to some extend journalists, what’s right for
the sport. Personally, I think Toyota’s view is to try to find a balance. We
need to have evolution and it’s not always costly, and we need to ensure a
supply of affordable customer engines to, let’s say, independent teams.
That’s one reason why we supplied Jordan, continued with Midland, and now
will supply Midland from 2007 and onwards. Supply Williams, I mean. Sorry.
MT: We certainly want to avoid any kind of confrontation, which is not in
the interest of the sport, and that is why we are so intensively discussing
things like the Indianapolis proposal, which served a purpose of cutting
costs and at the same time allowed the manufacturers to keep their profile
in the sport. I hope that there will not be any new direction.
NH: Well, what has been said makes a lot of sense, and as has been pointed
out, I’m confident of finding a solution. It might take some time, that
takes a thinking process and still some time available, at least concerning
the Indianapolis proposal. We should be able to sort it out sooner rather
than later but I think we are on a good path and I am confident of finding a
solution. |
