|
TEAM
REPRESENTATIVES – Dave GREENWOOD (Marussia), Andrew GREEN (Force India),
Giampaolo DALL’ARA (Sauber), Pat FRY (Ferrari), Paddy LOWE (Mercedes)
Dave can we start with you? Obviously points for the team in Monaco. That
must be a huge boost, a huge encouragement to the team. Can you tell us
about the reaction within the team and also how you got there, the work that
was involved in that?
Dave GREENWOOD: Yeah, obviously for the whole team they were very pleased on
Sunday evening with the result. From the point of view of how we got there,
really we’d actually brought some updates to the Barcelona race and we
almost struggled a bit to get them working as we’d expected during the race
weekend but the real positive for us was the fact that we had the two-day
test after the Barcelona race. So, plenty of new tyres you to do some good
testing and we had quite a good result on the first day. We got the car much
better balanced with the parts that we had brought to the race. Certainly
Max, on day one, was very happy with the car. Competitiveness-wise on day
one? OK, it’s only a test and yes we did put the supersoft tyres on, but
that vaulted us right up to the front of the timesheets, which was not
normal for us. We were quite happy with that and Max did a good job to get
the parts working on the first day. Confirmed with Jules, the situation had
improved on the second day and really went into Monaco [where] we kind of
thought
‘well, that’s great, they worked well at Barcelona, but Monaco is a
completely different track’. So we were quite, not nervous, but you know we
needed to make sure that the homework we did to translate the set-up from
Barcelona to Monaco was the right direction. Monaco free practice went
really well, really happy with
the balance of the car again and the times we were posting. What we’re
saying is that we were at the back of the midfield pack. I’m not saying we
were further forward than that. But that’s the place you need to be on a
Sunday when you have a race of attrition, which is obviously what we had. It
enabled us to be in the right place to take hold of the places when they
became available.
Where do you go from here then? Can you repeat that result and how do you
build from here and develop?
DG: Obviously on pure pace alone we’re not going to repeat that result this
weekend. It’s clear we needed some luck. But the bottom line is if you’re
fighting with the cars that are trying to take the eighth, ninth and
tenth-place spots, they’re good cars, they’re good competitors, so you need
to have a reasonable amount of pace to be able to stay with them. Obviously
in Monaco, you’ve got the advantage of the fact that there is a huge lap
time difference needed to overtake, there’s much less here, so that helped
us. But we just need to keep progressing, keep bringing developments to the
car, we’ve got some more developments this week, just keep chipping away at
it and see how we get on.
Well done, thank you? Giampaolo, coming to you, can you tell us from an
engineering point of view why have the first six races of the season gone
the way they have for Sauber?
Giampaolo DALL’ARA: OK. It has been quite a tough beginning, especially
entering the season. Even before racing we had quite a tough winter
preparing the car and the team with the big changes this year and obviously
the big hit we got was that the performance side of things was nowhere near
where we were expecting. We have been identifying some of the reasons why.
For some of them there was a kind of immediate follow-up but for others it
took and is taking longer, that’s why we still lag quite a bit behind where
we would like to be in terms of pure performance. In the early races we had
some reliability issues, some accidents as well, but in all honesty, if you
talk about scoring points we were never really in position on
performance grounds. In the last of couple of events starting in Barcelona
we could introduce a new aero package, we could finalise quite an extensive
weight reduction campaign. The car came out for a number of reasons I’m not
going to explain here, came out way heavier then we were expecting and
targeting so we had to take on that problem as well. On top of this we
worked together with our powertrain supplier Ferrari to get on top of some
of the issues on that side of things and we believe we made quite a
remarkable step and performance… unfortunately the kind of race we are able
to perform is quite at the back and we would like to step up further, at
least to fight in the midfield, regularly scoring points. We are not quite
there yet.
But since Barcelona we feel that we are closer. In Barcelona we had to face
some setup issues related to the difference we had in the new package which,
let’s say, were heading to some instability the drivers couldn’t cope with
and not all of them were solvable and the race was… although we had both
cars on the finish line we were quite far from the points. In Monaco, quite
a few of those issues were addressed to our satisfaction. Also we had this
test in between the two races, which helped a lot and we were reasonably
happy about the performance there. We didn’t qualify well, not only due to
performance, we had a couple of unfortunate rounds so we had to start from
the back – but we felt in the race that we could fight which
some of the guys we are normally not used to fight with. Unfortunately we
didn’t have the cars on the finish line due to accidents in this case which,
yeah, had a high price for us because right now we are on the sporting side,
not in an ideal situation. Definitely we are not happy about this but for
sure we don’t take it too badly. We feel like we are on a growing pattern
and we keep being optimistic about the future.
We try to improve race-by-race and we are quite sure that at some point we
will be back in the right fight.
Q: Pat, quite a bit of discussion this weekend about the new package on the
Ferrari this weekend. Fernando said yesterday that there were updates that
needed validating here today. Can you tell us what you tried on the car,
whether it worked and how you feel about it?
Pat FRY: There were quite a few bits: aero; a lot of the control system
tuning; obviously reliability updates in the engine and that in itself
allows us to push the engine a little bit harder as well. It’s far too early
to be able to say whether it’s all working or not. Some things are looking
promising, some we need to look into in more detail as normal really. So,
yeah, reasonable and a broad spread set of
developments. But we need to keep developing the car as quickly as we can
really.
Q: I guess the big question is: is Paddy’s Mercedes team catchable before
the end of the season?
PF: I think that’s going to be a very tough challenge really – but we just
need to keep on. There’s quite a gap to close, let’s face it, but we just
need to do our best and keep developing.
Q: Andy, following on from that, for you, for Force India, are Ferrari
catchable? You’re 11 points behind them with a third of the season gone.
Andrew GREEN: I don’t think we’re really in that sort of position to be
targeting Ferrari. I think we’re in our own fight with McLaren and Williams
for fourth. The sort of teams ahead of us are the big budget teams. We can’t
really look to compete with those. We’ll try to give them a fight wherever
we can. If they slip up, we will be right behind them. I don’t think, to be
realistic, I don’t think we’re really in the same
league.
Q: Tell us about today’s running. What did you learn about the performance
of the tyres in particular on this track and obviously the temperatures
today are projected to be lower than what we’re expecting for the rest of
the weekend.
AG: It’s a tricky one for us. It’s quite a unique tarmac here in Montreal.
It throws up a bit of a conundrum on car setup. We’ve always looked to
target the best car we can on Sunday afternoon, maybe at the cost of a
Saturday afternoon performance. So, we’ll be looking at all that data again
this evening and making some decisions on which way we go. We’ve also had
our eye on the weather, knowing that it’s going to
warm-up a bit over the next couple of days. So, yeah, we’ve got some
difficult decisions to make over the next few hours.
Q: Paddy, it’s a clean sweep so far for you in pole positions and race wins
so far this season. Looked like very strong race pace for both cars this
afternoon – do you see any areas where the opposition are catching up on
you?
Paddy LOWE: We take each race at a time. They’re all different circuits with
different challenges. This one in particular, very hard on the brakes and
difficult to manage the fuel. I think we’ll all find that on Sunday. So,
yeah, it’s not easy. I know we’ve had a fantastic record so far this year
but we have to work very hard, we’ve got some great competitors out there
who will grab everything we leave behind. We’ve just got to make sure we
don’t.
Q: You mentioned the braking there. Obviously braking stability is a huge
thing around this Montreal circuit and brake-by-wire obviously is a new
thing in Formula One this year. Could you share any insights with us about
setting it up for a place like this and what the key to it all is and how
yours is working?
PL: In many ways it makes life easier because the brake-by-wire gives you
some authority over brake balance, which we didn’t have in the past. So, in
that sense, it’s taken some difficulties away. I don’t think there are any
new challenges from that with these new cars.
QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Q: (Kate Walker – crash.net) We’ve heard that there is talk about dropping
the Friday morning practice session in light of cost-saving. What kind of
impact is that going to have on a technical point of view, other than the
time saved on the track?
DG: I think that with all things, initially, you meet these things with some
alarm and you think ‘oh my God, how are we going to deal with that?’ But the
reality is that you start to think about it, you come up with new ways that
you’re going to structure your programme and I’m sure that ultimately a few
races in we will have kind of forgotten about the old way we used to do it
and we’ll all be used to it and it will just
mean a slight re-structuring of the programme and changing the way we do
things. But we’re all adaptable, that’s why we’re all in F1 so I’m sure
we’ll cope.
AG: Well, first of all, from Force India’s perspective, we don’t see this as
cost-saving at all. For us, we’ve always looked to use the FP1 session to
blood in some new drivers and that was an income stream for us and if we
lose that, that’s going to be a relatively severe blow, which, in turn, will
have an impact on our technical ability so in that respect, I don’t think
it’s cost-saving. I agree, I think we’ll get used to it. With just one
session, I don’t think we’ll just move straight into the... we’ll move up,
we’ll
condense our programme which was an FP1/FP2 and do it all in one session, so
not a big issue.
GD: Yeah, pretty much in line. Obviously from where I sit, I can’t judge on
the cost-saving side which is out of my area but technically, for a team
like ours, the time at the track is very precious. Obviously we are more
limited than other teams in simulation as a broad concept so time on track
is extremely important for us. Obviously, if this happens, we would have to
adapt our plans, try to – as mentioned – try to squeeze what we’re doing now
in two sessions into one and move off other points, for sure.
PL: I think the rationale is to reduce the workload on the cars
significantly through the weekend and also to reduce the consumption of
parts, particularly power units, which is one of the major costs for all the
teams, but that’s a particular burden for the smaller teams. That was the
concept. It’s still to be finalised, by the way, so there’s a whole month in
order to determine the small print and to finally approve it but the concept
was to save money. If teams are feeling it isn’t going to save money, then
of
course it could be reviewed.
PF: From a technical point of view, you just have to work out how to deal
with it, so you need to do a little bit better home work, you’ve got one
less session. Obviously we normally test car bits in one session and test
tyres in the other. Now we’ve got to work out a way of combining the two.
Years ago, when we got rid of warm-up and brought in parc ferme, initially
hands were up in the air going ‘my God, we’ll
never cope’ and now it’s great, you can actually sleep on a Saturday night
rather than be working forever. So I think you just adapt to it really, so
you need to do a little bit better preparation, maybe it leads more into
trusting the results from the tunnel, from the simulation and things like
that. You just have to
adapt.
Q: (Dieter Rencken – Racing Lines) I guess Paddy’s the target for this one
but if anybody else would like to comment afterwards feel free. Paddy, if we
have a look at why there are restrictive regulations limiting the number of
power units, transmissions, tyres, running, tests, whatever, head counts are
restricted at
races, if one looks at it, one comes to the conclusion that ultimately the
cost of going racing is roughly or broadly the same, whether you’re a
Marussia or a Ferrari or a Force India or a Mercedes. Yet if I have a look
at Companies House records, a budget for a team like yours and the
expenditure over a year is about three times that of Andrew’s. That leads me
to believe that you’re actually spending twice as much on developing your
cars, because that’s where their shortcomings are, than you are to actually
build two cars and go racing for an entire season. Is that really a
sustainable business model for the 21st century?
PL: I don’t see why it’s any less sustainable than it ever has been. Formula
One has always existed with some differentials between the teams, some teams
being better funded than others, and it’s always been that way and teams
will sustain themselves, they have to manage themselves as businesses to
break even at least.
They have to be going concerns. If you can generate income then you chose
how to spend it and that’s the nature of a team. So I don’t see any
particular difficulty with that, it’s always been that way.
AG: I think you’ve pointed a very valid fact. I think it’s something we’re
aware of but we go racing on a minimal budget and what we have left over, we
try and develop the car with. We can see that other teams have got an
incredible amount more money to spend on car development, it’s not something
we’re particularly concerned about. We do what we can with what we’ve got,
that’s what we focus on; what everyone else has got is nothing really to do
with us.
Q: (Matthew Walthert – Bleacher Report) Pat, yesterday Fernando said of
Marco Mattiacci that he has good vision and a very clever approach so now
that you’ve worked with him for almost two months, I’m wondering if you
could maybe tell us a little bit about that approach and some changes he’s
brought in - maybe from
your perspective - that are working well?
PF: I think it’s good to come with a clean sheet and look at something and
see where it works well, where it doesn’t work well and sometimes, with some
of the engineering things, you do you end up getting so close to it that you
miss the obvious things, so I think it’s good to come in with a clean set of
eyes and
see where we need to improve. There are a huge amount of opportunities for
us to actually improve the place and we’re going through those and then
working on how to fix them and improve them.
Q: (Ian Parkes – Press Association) Paddy, when you are in a position like
Mercedes with both drivers going head-to-head the way they are for the World
title, from a technical point of view, what difficulties have you
encountered so far in particular, perhaps reassuring both men that they are
getting exactly the same
equipment, that the procedures over the weekend are followed to plan, that
nothing is unfair effectively?
PL: You’re absolutely right, it puts a great pressure on us to more than
ever make sure that both drivers are given an absolutely equal opportunity
at every level to compete finally in the race, but we manage that. The cars
are built identically, each driver has access to the same tools, the same
time to develop the car and we just manage it that way. It is a challenge
because you find very small, subtle things that
you hadn’t thought of that can be seen as a difference but we work through
those and I think we get a good result. |