Team representatives - Robert
Fernley (Force India), Matthew Carter (Lotus), Paul Hembery (Pirelli), Franz
Tost (Toro Rosso), Cyril Abiteboul (Renault Sport F1), Christian Horner (Red
Bull Racing).
MQ: Paul, can I start with you, what did we see today in practice with these
extreme temperatures - up to 60 degrees this afternoon - what’s it going to
mean for the racing this weekend?
Paul Hembery: Well, of course here it depends on what the weather brings
along, that’s one of the big variables for everybody. But the hottest
conditions we’ve seen for some time, hotter than anything we saw last year.
The medium tyre in particular was overheating. About second, eight tenths to
a second different maybe between the two compounds. If it was like this on
Sunday that would lead us to certainly a three-stop race we think, which
would be good after maybe a few too many one-stops in recent times. So it’s
tough conditions but we didn’t see any levels of blistering that would have
caused any concern. We had a little bit of graining this morning but the
track evolves here quite quickly, so relatively straightforward for us.
Q: Well you mentioned one-stops, we saw that in Melbourne last time out. The
tyres, apparently, are more consistent but also a little bit, perhaps, more
conservative. So without these higher temperatures, like this weekend, is
one stop going to be more or less the default for the season or are you
hoping to see more stops as we go on.
PH: Well the input has always been two to three in reality and that’s what
we’ll be aiming to do. We’re understanding now the evolutions of the cars
this year and as we gain more confidence as to where they all are then of
course we can make choices that will make sure that we’re closer to the two
and three stops rather than the one.
Q: Franz, coming to you, obviously two exciting rookies in your cars this
season, both had solid weekends at the opening round in Australia. What are
you seeing that these two have got when you look at the data?
Franz Tost: I’ve seen that they are matured to do Formula One. They are very
highly skilled and we prepared them quite well during the winter months and
in Melbourne and so far they have really done a fantastic job. Also today I
must say that both drivers competed quite well and I expect that if we get
everything together both of them tomorrow will be within the first ten.
Q: There were some quotes since the last grand prix from Dr Marko of Red
Bull about a possible sale of Toro Rosso to Renault. As the team principal
of the team what’s your view on that or do you have any comment on that?
FT: I think this would be a fantastic opportunity for Toro Rosso to make the
next step forward, because the team wants to be established in the future
within the first five in the constructors’ championship and to be part of a
manufacturer, to work together with a manufacturer, to be owned by a
manufacturer would be exactly this step forward which the team needs to be
established in the first five.
Q: Cyril, coming to you then, from a Renault points of view how far along
are you in that consideration of acquiring a team like Toro Rosso and how
would that fit in with a plan of working with Red Bull?
Cyril Abiteboul: I think the first priority is to get the engine right.
We’ve seen in Melbourne that it was not really the start of season that we
were expecting, both on track and off track, so before starting really to
think about doing a car I think we need to get the engine under control, so
that’s the priority for the time being. Then if we can do that we’ll have to
review the situation from a marketing and strategic perspective and see if
there is anything better to do than we are doing currently, from more of
Formula One to less of Formula One, but for the time being we are focused on
what we are doing.
Q: Now it’s no secret that there have been quite a few quotes from you since
the Australian Grand Prix about the problems with Red Bull’s competitiveness
not being just about the power unit. Can you elaborate on that?
CA: What I can elaborate is that Melbourne was a big disappointment for the
whole team and when I say the whole team it’s Red Bull, Renault and it’s
Toro Rosso, so those two guys and myself were all extremely disappointed.
I’m sure also extremely frustrated because of the amount of work and the
level of expectation for this season when we are all very keen to reduce the
gap to Mercedes. Everyone has his own challenge and agenda and we were not
where we wanted to be. So I think this has created a lot of frustration and
maybe led to some comments that were unjustified on both sides. But I think
we need to move on and focus on making progress.
Q: Christian, what’s your view on the points that Cyril has just raised?
Christian Horner: Well, first of all I think he’s very brave to be sitting
there between Toro Rosso and Red Bull. Look, I think that what happened in
Melbourne happened. It was a frustrating weekend. We’re all racers at the
end of the day; we all want to do the best that we can. Melbourne from start
to finish didn’t go in any way to plan. I think that’s what’s encouraging is
the way that the two teams have reacted between Melbourne and here and the
positive steps that have been made, and we’re experiencing some of those
steps on track today. It’s always a difficult situation particularly when
you’re race team with an engine supplier and I think that the way the two
teams have worked in the time available has been very commendable.
Q: So what’s the best way forward for Red Bull Racing? And what are your
thoughts also on what Franz has been saying about Renault’s possible
takeover of Toro Rosso?
CH: Well, it sounds like Franz wants to sell his team to Cyril and we then
need an engine. We’ve enjoyed a great deal of success with the
Renault/Nissan alliance over the last five or six years - 50 grands prix
have been won, eight world championships, four drivers’ and four
constructors’ - all with Renault power. There are some very capable people
within Viry but I think that we’ve seen this year, well not this year,
really from last year that Mercedes have set the benchmark at an extremely
high level. That’s not their fault, they’ve an incredibly good job and it’s
down to the rest of us to work hard to try to catch up and I think the
frustration more than anything coming into the first race was that
expectations were higher than what we saw in Melbourne and we appear to have
taken a retrograde step. But I think having researched properly into those
issues, Renault have really started to understand them now and already we’ve
seen here a positive step forward.
Q: Robert, a delayed start to testing for you and Force India and the new
car, so in light of that how satisfied were you with the points scored in
Melbourne in the opening round?
Robert Fernley: I think Melbourne for us was an unexpected but very
pleasurable finish because the team has worked exceptionally hard over the
winter and it’s very nice to be able to go back with points in the first
race and a very credible finish. So I think that was excellent but we’ve
still got a lot of work to do.
Q: What lies ahead for the rest of the season for Force India, especially as
it seems that Toro Rosso, Lotus and Sauber are all stronger this year than
last year?
RF: I think what we’ve got to look at is where Force India was at the end of
last year and we had a choice to make between staying with our own wind
tunnel in Brackley, which is a relatively old tunnel with a 50 per cent
model, or restructuring the whole aero department and moving forward.
Fortunately for us we’ve got Vijay there to support the team and he made the
decision that we would move forward and we've restructured the aero. We’re
now working exclusively in Cologne with the Toyota wind tunnel, we’ve
upgraded the CFD. Unfortunately in that process there’s a slight step
backwards and I don’t think we will see really Force India coming to the
front again until probably mid-season.
Q: Coming to you Matthew, it certainly looks like Lotus has put 2014 behind
it and is getting back to the right level. What has it taken in financial
and personnel terms to get here?
Matthew Carter: I think it’s safe to say that the team had a very difficult
2013 off the track whereas on the track it was very successful. There was
some natural loss of personnel and we needed to restructure the team and put
it on a more secure footing, which is what we spent most of last year doing.
The problems that we had on the track last year certainly didn’t reflect
anything that was going on off the track. And then moving into this year,
obviously with the change of power unit, with the restructure we have done,
a more stable future, as it seems to be for Lotus, then we can hopefully
turn that into some points.
Q: And how far can you go? Are you targeting getting on the tail of that
Ferrari/Williams battle or…?
MC: Absolutely, yes. We’re looking forward, not looking back. The
performance in Melbourne was very strong. Obviously it was unfortunate what
happened to both cars in the first lap, but the performance was very strong
and yeah, we're definitely looking forward.
QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Q: (Pierre van Vliet - F1i.com) A question for Cyril. Is it true you're your
hierarchy at Renault asked you to reply to Red Bull criticism? Otherwise,
why be so aggressive publicly?
CA: Well, clearly I don’t think there was a lot of enthusiasm from the
corporate offices on the Monday after the race but I don’t think that there
is any surprise but obviously the first disappointment will come from engine
performance over the weekend. No actually the answer to your question is no,
because actually the sequence of events… the quote that you refer to, which
again I would like to leave behind, is something that happened over the
course of the weekend, so not in reaction to any sort of instruction.
Q: (Luc Domenjoz - Le Matin) It’s also a question for Mr Abiteboul. Since
the engine regulation change, your engine seems to be far from being the
best and this season seems to be even worse. In any other normal business in
the world such a disaster would lead the person in charge to either resign
or to be fired. So at Renault did you get your technical director’s
resignation or do you consider changing your technical department?
CA: Well, there have been quite a few changes happening actually in the
engine structure. First, I would like to comment that I don’t think we are
that miles away or doing that bad, let’s see how the season is panning out.
Clearly last year was not at the level that we wanted but obviously we were
the only one to be capable of winning races [apart from Mercedes]. But
answering to your question there have been a lot of changes in Renault Sport
F1, which is the unit that is responsible for engine. In particular we have
completely restructured back in December, so I was back in that unit in
September. December we announced the new organisation, which entered into
play in January. We are [in] March and I think it would be a bit of an
overreaction trying to change again the structure that we have just
operated. Having said that we need to progress, on track but also at the
factory, I’m not denying that fact.
Q: (Olav Mol - Sport1 SBS) I have a question for Matthew and for Robert and
maybe also for Cyril. After Melbourne we heard Felipe Massa talk about, and
answering whether he thought they had the same engine as the Mercedes team,
and the answer came “yes of course we have the same engine,” and “yes,
everything is the same.” But shouldn’t the question be: ‘do we have the same
software?’ So my question to Matthew and Robert is, do you feel you have the
same software version as the Mercedes team. And my question to Cyril is: do
you deliver to the guys left and right of you, the same software version for
the engine you’re using here?
RF: Coming from a Force India point of view, I’ve no complaints at all from
Mercedes. They’ve delivered everything we’ve ever wanted. We’ve been with
them now for six or seven years and we have absolutely no issues that they
are supplying us the same as they are. However, one also has to accept that
they are a works team and there are going to be development programmes that
come in that will automatically go there first and then trickle down to all
the customer teams. So it would be unrealistic to expect it to be the same
all the time. But I think primarily where they can, they’re supplying us the
same equipment and same software.
Matthew?
MC: Being in the unique situation that we’ve had a contract with both
Renault and a contract with Mercedes, I can confirm that we, in the Mercedes
contract, it is stipulated that we have complete parity. In the Mercedes
contract.
Cyril?
CA: I don’t want to reveal any details of the contract but yes, obviously it
is common practice that we chose at Renault. And with the complexity of the
new power unit, already managing one is enough, so if you have to manage
diversity, honestly it is not something that you want to do.
Q: (Kate Walker - Motorsport.com) Question for everyone except Cyril and
Paul really. Christian, when we were talking about cost-cutting over the
winter, you did mention the potential of a wind tunnel ban. Now, with
limited investment in computing teraflops you can actually get an awful lot
more bang for your CFD buck than you can out of wind tunnels. Have you
changed your position on banning wind tunnels? And I would like to know how
the other three of you feel about that. Thank You.
CH: I think that if we really are serious about addressing costs in Formula
One then you’ve got to be able to look at turning it upside down in many
respects. One of the holy grails that the teams are reluctant to go near is
the wind tunnel. Red Bull has a very strong aerodynamics department. It has
a good wind tunnel that we’ve invested a lot of money in over the years -
but if you look at the amount of consumption of cash it takes to feed that
tunnel, to feed those ideas. If the sport is serious about reducing costs,
then we have to look, maybe to say, OK, let’s get rid of wind tunnels, let’s
commercially rent them out, as some of the teams already do with their
second tunnels, and put in a standard teraflop, or a standard amount of
capacity for CFD, and loosen the regulations in certain areas so that you
come up with more ingenuity. I think that way you will also come up with
different shapes to the cars. Because currently, through the iterative
programmes that we all run. If all the cars were painted the same colour, it
would be very, very difficult to differentiate between one and the other. I
think more technical freedom from a regulatory point of view but
constricting the tools that you can do that with, I think would certainly be
quite a positive thing for cost-saving in Formula One.
Franz, your thoughts?
FT: Yeah, if you look at the cost aspects. First of all it is the number of
people which are working at the teams. If there are 800 people for the
chassis and 400 people for the engine, I think it’s far too much. We must
come down with the number of employees. Then, of course, we are using very
expensive tools. Whether that’s the wind tunnel or CFD, whatever. If we
continue working with these tools, then we must reduce the working hours
much more than is currently the case. Then the use of standard materials,
the use of standard parts, the use of homologated parts and if we really
want to come down with the costs then there are always possibilities to do
it but the problem currently is that the top teams do not want to come down
with the costs because they get anyway the money and they want to spend it.
And, I think there we have to first discuss how to go on and how to come
down at the end with the costs. The possibilities are more than enough.
Robert?
RF: I completely endorse what Franz and Christian have said. Force India has
been an advocate of doing this for at least 18 months, so there’s no
question of that. But I think there’s another very important part to it.
Apart from what both Franz and Christian said for the existing teams, one of
the biggest barriers I think for entry for new teams coming in is the huge
cost of wind tunnel programmes. I think it would remove one of those big
obstacles to attract new entrants into Formula One. So, I would definitely
be for it.
Matthew, your thoughts?
MC: Yeah, it’s no surprise that we at Lotus agree exactly. Exactly with what
the other three have said. There is a huge cost to the wind tunnel programme
and it makes absolute sense to take it away.
RF: If I could just add one more thing to that. One of the arguments for not
getting rid of wind tunnels is that Formula One is the pinnacle of
motorsport and should use all of the tools that are available to motor
manufacturers and everybody else who use wind tunnels. But if it is the
pinnacle of motorsport it should be pushing the boundaries. And the
boundaries for us, technically, are in CFD, the same way as we’re pushing
the boundaries in hybrid. So, for me, we always have to move the goalposts
for Formula One and, taking what is a bit of a dinosaur technology is not
one of the options. And I think environmentally it’s sending the wrong
message as well. These things are huge consumers of electricity.
Q: (Dieter Rencken - Racing Lines) The two team representatives in the back,
Bob Fernley and Matthew Carter, it’s well-known and well-documented that
you’ve been approaching the commercial rights holder and pushing him for
additional revenues. Do you honestly believe… first of all, could you give
us a progress report on your quest please, but also, do you honestly believe
that two or three teams could actually be effective against a commercial
rights holder like that, in terms of getting more money out of somebody who
is notorious for not wanting to pay any more money.
RF: I think the key element is that Bernie, at the end of the day, when
things are tough, he understands when they’re tough. He’s shepherded this
sport for many, many years, he’s done a great job, and whilst we may have
arguments with him along the way, at the end of the day, he’s kept it all
together, and I think when he genuinely sees there’s something that’s not
quite right, he will address that. We’ve got to go back a little while to
where I think the problems have started, and I think, a few years ago we had
FOTA operating in a very good way, it was a consolidated approach, it was
well-stewarded by Martin Whitmarsh, we were in joint negotiations with CVC
at the time to obviously renegotiate those contracts and everything else.
Unfortunately - and I say that because obviously Christian is here - Red
Bull felt the need to take the 40 pieces of silver and that was the downside
I think for Formula One and I don’t think we’ve recovered from that
particular action.
Matthew?
MC: I obviously agree with everything Bob said - but I would add that whilst
it’s easy for us to sit here and ask for more money, there is only a certain
size of cake - and any more that we ask for has to be taken away from the
bigger teams. Now, whilst I understand that they can probably afford to lose
some of that money, it’s no question that they’ve built their businesses and
structured their businesses on that income which was guaranteed and secured.
So it’s not quite as easy as just saying: “you should give more to the
smaller teams.” I think it needs to be looked at and that’s why it’s taken
such a long time to get to this stage. However, I think that things are
starting to move. There seems to be a shift in the tide of opinion within
the sport and hopefully it will continue down that route.
Christian, your right of reply to Bob’s comment…
CH: Yeah, I think it’s a little harsh of Bob to suggest that the plight of
the smaller teams is all Red Bull’s fault. What you have to remember at the
time, FOTA was pretty dysfunctional. It was focussing on the wrong aspects.
Ferrari went and cut their own deal, Red Bull weren’t the first team to sign
an agreement with Bernie. At the same time, McLaren were also in dual
discussions and cut their own deal. That’s the way of the world. We all
represent our own entities and y’know, guarantees had to be given by the
companies in order to be eligible for that funding. And, y’know, that’s the
situation. I can understand the other teams’ frustration but it’s not down
to Red Bull to decide what the revenue distribution is - or Ferrari or
McLaren. That’s down to Bernie and the board members at CVC. They distribute
the money how they see fit.
Q: (Wei An Mao - Titan Media) A question to Matthew. Now we have a Chinese
Hong Kong driver in Lotus, Adderly Fong, would you please reveal more the
detail about his appointment and is it possible we will see him take part in
FP1 in China in two weeks?
MC: I’ll answer the second part first. He won’t be driving in FP1 in China
in two weeks. Jolyon Palmer will be driving in FP1 in China. Adderly has
been tracked by Gravity Motorsports, who are one of our parent companies and
they also run the Lotus junior team, for a number of years. And he’s been
highlighted as a potential talent and a potential talent in F1. As a team we
are trying to look for young talent, again in terms of trying to make this
business work on a business footing, we need to look for young talent, we
need to spot young talent at every place that we can. And Adderly’s been
highlighted as being a potential F1 star of the future.
Q: (David Croft - Sky Sports) Christian, Red Bull as a brand run many
extreme sports around the world, very successfully, and attract a lot of
attention. Were Red Bull as a brand in charge of Formula One, and running
Formula One, how would you distribute the revenue to ensure that the sport
had a healthy future and survived for many years to come and was exciting
and loved by all?
CH: Fortunately I run the team but I can see where you’re getting at. I
mean, Red Bull don’t run Formula One. Formula One’s run by Bernie and by CVC
and, as I say, the distribution of funds, they’ve applied accordingly. Red
Bull promotes events, it promotes championships and has done so
successfully. Formula One is an expensive business and I think that what we
should also be looking at is, what are the cost drivers? What is driving the
cost for it to be unsustainable for teams? Even though the distribution
isn’t equal, teams like Force India and like Lotus and others actually are
receiving more money compared to where they were five years ago by a
significant amount - but their problems are still considerable. And I think
the problems are there because the regulations, technical and sporting, are
driving the costs far too high in the sport. And until we get those under
control, we’re all going to have these issues. Big teams are struggling with
budgets - not to the same extent - but y’know, there are budget pressures,
and I think to get those under control needs a fundamental look at what is
Formula One and what does Formula One need to be in the future?
Q: (David Croft - Sky Sports F1) Sorry, can I ask one follow-up question to
that please? Is it then the percentage gap between what the big teams earn
and what the smaller teams earn that is the root of the problem, not the
actual amount but the fact that you’re perceived to be getting way more in a
percentage term and are able to spend more and are then forcing other teams
to try and keep up with that?
CH: Well no, it’s all relative. What causes or drives your spend are the
rules. You look at the rules and you look at the best way to exploit those
rules. Ferrari obviously get more money than any of the teams on the grid,
irrelevant of where they finish and it doesn’t mean that they’ve been
competitive over the last five, six, seven years. Toyota spent more money in
the history of Formula One than perhaps any other entrant, didn’t win a
Grand Prix, so money doesn’t guarantee success. It enables you to obviously
recruit and get the right resource but unless you’ve got the right personnel
involved... Formula One is still a people business, it’s still a people
sport and you’ve got to have those ingredients in place in order to be
successful.
Q: (Haoran Zhou - LETV) Christian, last year at this stage, you were posting
some interesting numbers; with two 800 meters straights here, 1.2 kilometer
back straight and 800 meter start/finish straight in Shanghai and four long
straights in Bahrain, what kind of straightline performance deficit can you
project at the moment?
CH: You’ve just depressed me! It’s getting better, so Cyril keeps telling
us. It’s been a tough start and - as we’ve said - things happened in
Melbourne that... frustration boils over because we’re racers at the end of
the day. We want to compete, we’re used to competing and we want to run up
at the front and that applies to Red Bull as much as it does to Renault.
We’ve got some challenging circuits coming up but Renault have also got some
aggressive plans in their pipeline as well, in order to try and reduce that
deficit. It’s clear that Ferrari have done a good job over the winter, you
can see the step that they’ve made and the target should be exactly the
same, to try and replicate that in the tokens and time that we have
available.
CA: Indeed, if you look at those numbers it’s not good for the morale but we
think that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that the tunnel may
not be as long as some people think so let’s keep our heads down, focus. I
think that actually with those new technologies there is more than just the
absolute power of the engine. We actually see that the crisis which we are
going through related to driveability is telling us more than there is just
power in those engines and that’s maybe where we need to focus. And the good
thing about driveability is that you can change that without using tokens,
towards which we are also in a good position because we are the manufacturer
who has the most tokens to spend over the season. So let’s see. It’s a
people game so if we have the right people, the right structure, I’m sure
that we can catch up.
Q: (Kate Walker - Motorsport.com) Paul, we heard this week that you’re
undergoing a change of ownership with a new Chinese board. You’ve also said
recently that you need to know the changes that are coming in Formula One if
you are going to continue as a supplier and as a sponsor because you are
uniquely both. Has the change of ownership altered that at all? Is there any
indication that the Chinese are interested in continuing in F1 or that
they’ve been scared away by the financial messes we find ourselves in at the
moment?
PH: The change in ownership... we’ve had many different shareholders,
international shareholders over the years so we have a new major shareholder
that’s come in. The biggest change will actually be in our industrial truck
business where we will be combining both activities to make the most of the
synergies in those businesses. Mr Tronchetti will remain for another five
years as our CEO. They’ve bought into the management team that we have in
Pirelli and an integral part of our vision and our work is also Formula One
so from that point of view, no change. Having said that, we have many
discussion, we read many discussions where the sport is looking, what it
wants to do going forward and of course, if you’re going to go through a
tendering process, you would like to understand what those changes are and
what the sport’s going to look like, so it’s just a practical thing really.
Assuming we get some of that visibility and it looks good and we do hear
some good suggestions coming through, if the sport allows the change to
happen and that tends to be the biggest issue, people tend to agree to
disagree rather than get a commonality of view and that tends to hinder the
introduction of a lot of very sensible and a lot of very good ideas. So if
that can change and we can actually get the visibility going forward, then
we’re very happy with the sport.
Q: (Dieter Rencken - Racing Lines) Christian, you’ve referred on numerous
occasions about the guarantees that your parent company had to issue in
return for the premiums that are paid. By that, I assume you mean your
commitments through to 2020. In which case, how does that square with the
comments or possible threats that were made in Melbourne about Red Bull
possibly withdrawing from Formula One?
CH: I think you have to - like with all these things - look at the context
that that comment was made in. I didn’t make that comment. It was a comment
by Helmut and I think that what he was trying to refer to is that should we
find ourselves in a situation where we could ultimately find ourselves
without an engine supplier should Renault chose to withdraw from Formula
One, Mercedes would refuse to supply Red Bull with an engine, it’s unlikely
that we would be in a position to take a Ferrari engine so you could find
yourself actually forced out of the sport and I think that as with any
company, Red Bull again reviews its return on investment: is Formula One
delivering for Red Bull as a brand? There are some worrying signs when we
see races like we saw in Melbourne but hopefully that’s one chapter in a
long story; there’s a long season ahead of us. Red Bull want to compete, Red
Bull want to be in Formula One and we want to try and address some of the
issues that are currently plaguing the sport that we don’t seem to be able
to find any traction with.
Q: (Craig Scarborough - ScarbsF1) Following on from that, we’ve seen Red
Bull get deeply involved in the Renault engine programme with engine staff
at Milton Keynes, with the talk about the virtual test track at Milton
Keynes, obviously bringing in Ilmor involved. How much ownership and pushing
have you been involved in the relationship and would that potentially lead
to a Red Bull Technology engine, for example?
CH: Well, first of all we have no intention of being an engine manufacturer.
We have an amount of resource that we try to supplement and assist Renault
where we can. We have a strong simulation group. We have strong facilities
and cfd capacity within Red Bull Technology. Basically, what we’re trying to
do is work in co-ordination with Renault, to assist the areas where they’re
perhaps not so strong and it’s more of a long term view than a short term
view but hopefully the strengths that we have in Milton Keynes can be
applied to helping Renault engineer themselves out of their current
predicament.
CA: I’m not sure that Christian will actually confirm that there is a lot of
Red Bull in the engine that was in Melbourne! No, no, seriously, it’s true
that we are trying to improve the way that we are working together. I think
Christian is absolutely right that we can complement each other very well.
There are areas where we have been a little bit complacent in developing
where we were extremely successful like in particular simulation and
software development and so on and so forth. We have the opportunity to have
a better collaboration. The culture is different, the mindset is different,
working practice is different, so I think this is basically the change
management that we have to drive in order to... and make sure that we align
the interest of both parties long term and from a strategy perspective. If
we do that, I’m pretty sure that we can be a very successful formula.
Q: (David Croft - Sky Sports F1) Cyril, you’re working together with Red
Bull to have a better partnership in the future but how difficult is it to
do that when you claim it’s hard to work with a partner who lies and in what
areas do you think Adrian Newey has lied to you during your partnership?
CA: I think there has been a bit of a similar question, so I don’t want to
say too much of that. Again, that’s one of those things that has a bit also
been taken out of context, I guess, just like Helmut’s comments regarding
Formula One so let’s leave Melbourne behind us, what goes on tour stays on
tour... It’s not what I said. Let’s leave that behind. Let’s look at the
progress we have made over these two weeks. Again, Melbourne was extremely
frustrating for everyone. I think everyone now has to focus on what’s not
performing in the package overall, is not performing in accordance to the
expectation. Already this weekend it’s better so let’s be positive, let’s
keep morale high and let’s make sure that we continue on that path.
Q: (Dieter Rencken - Racing Lines) To Cyril, Robert and Matthew: Franz has
already admitted that there have been some possible talks about a possible
purchase of Toro Rosso by Renault but a prudent buyer looks at other options
and I believe that Force India and Lotus could also be on the market. Have
you looked at them, and also from the back row, your comments... have you
had discussions with Renault please?
CA: I can confirm that we are looking at a lot of options, including getting
out of Formula One. Honestly, if Formula One is that bad for Renault’s
reputation, if we see that we struggle with the current formula, if Formula
One is not delivering value what it costs Renault, bearing in mind that when
you are an engine supplier you have no financial incentive to develop and to
fund engine development, so this is what we are looking at, and obviously we
think that we are a credible player in the sport but we want to compete
amongst the best brands and that Formula One is good for meet and plan as a
brand, then we need to think about what else can we do to what we are doing
and if you do that, this is an open market, we have the capacity to have
discussions with lots of parties. But as I’ve said, for the time being the
focus is on engines.
MC: The first comment is that Lotus isn’t for sale so we’re not looking for
a buyer and we’re not for sale. And the second comment is that we’ve just
signed a long term deal with Mercedes Benz which takes us through to 2020 so
any talk of any change of engine or change of ownership or anything is
completely off the cards for Lotus.
RF: Similar really to Matthew. We have a contract with Mercedes until 2020
and I’ve had absolutely no discussions whatsoever with Renault. |