2004 SPANISH GRAND PRIX
FRIDAY PRESS CONFERENCE
07.05.2004
 
TEAM PERSONNEL: John HOWETT (TOYOTA) and David PITCHFORTH (JAGUAR)
TYRE MANUFACTURERS: Pierre DUPASQUIER (MICHELIN) and Hirohide HAMASHIMA
(BRIDGESTONE)

Q: John, how have you felt about the season so far?
John HOWETT: I think basically we expected to be better as we came into
the season. We brought Mike (Gascoyne) in at the end of last year and
our performance since Australia is progressing race after race, so we?re
still challenging to catch the top teams and we?re fairly confident that
before the end of this season we will deliver more performance.

Q: Ricardo Zonta seems to be doing a fantastic job as a third driver and
sometimes we see him going quicker than the two regular drivers. Is that
a slightly false illusion?
JH: I think you have to say we run the engine harder on Friday in the
third car. Sometimes he has more option with a newer tyre. He?s doing a
great job for us as a test driver and we?re very happy with him, but I
think you have to look at facts to be able to really evaluate the
relative performance and we?re still very happy with both race drivers.

Q: Now what about this revised car that you?re introducing? Is that the
case, and how revised will it be?
JH: Like every team, I suppose, we?re constantly trying to improve. We
want to improve the monocoque weight during the middle of the season, so
we?re scheduling around Hockenheim. And at every race we?re trying to
improve the aerodynamics on the car.

Q: New engine regulations were announced on Tuesday. How do you feel
about those regulations and how much action have you taken since then?
Have they been discussed? Have any decisions been made?
JH: Yes, I think in principal we can accept a change in engine
regulations. The basic discussion was for 2008 and then a discussion
whether that could be advanced. From our point of view, if the
regulation is clearly defined by June we could in fact produce a
modified engine for the 2006 season. I think the key point for Toyota is
we are also here for technical challenge, so I think it?s the real
detail of the engine regulation that is quite important to us.

Q: Have you actually said you?re happy with that 2.4 V8?
JH: A 2.4 litre V8, I think, is no problem. It makes sense. It enables
us to reduce costs, it enables us to transfer current technology towards
the smaller engine and I think together with other revisions, and
possibly a reduction in testing, it?s possible to achieve a 50 percent
cost reduction on engines as targeted by the FIA. But still, Toyota?s
position is that we want quite a lot of freedom on the technology ? or
not necessarily the technology but freedom of engineering capability for
the engine design itself.

Q: And the standard ECU? You?re not worried about that?
JH: This is a discussion point. I think at the meeting that was probably
postponed from 2006 and this was something the FIA said clearly would
come in from 2008. If it were to be advanced, there would be further
discussion.

Q: Dave, roughly speaking the same questions. What were your feelings
about the engine regulations?
Dave PITCHFORTH: Yeah, we were reasonably relaxed about the engine
regulations. I think a bit of perturbation is needed in the sport anyway
and we need to do a new engine, as long as we know when the regulation
and what the regulation is, but there needs to be a lot of clarity. At
the moment 2.4 ballpark, that?s not a problem, but the ECU thing needs a
lot of discussion and a lot of clarity because it?s software, at the end
of the day, and it?s not clear whether the team would still provide the
software. If they did, then we get back into the chestnut of software
regulation and validation, which is very difficult to do.

Q: But you?re basically happy with that configuration, that architecture?
DP: Yeah. I think everybody can do the mathematics, can?t they? It?s a
V10 with two cylinders removed, three litres going down to 2.4, so it?s
not really an issue for us.

Q: What about the season so far, how do you feel about that?
DP: Yeah, obviously we?ve failed to capitalise on some good performances
at the beginning of the season which was frustrating but we took what
was, I suppose, quite a risk-prone approach to having an update of the
car after the launch. We launched R5 and then updated it fully before
the Australian race, so a lot of our development was done before the
fly-aways. Now we?re bringing the development in as we go through the
season, on an ongoing continuous improvement basis. And performance so
far - we?re reasonably happy.

Q: It does seem to be a little up and down - for instance, you got on
the front row of the grid in Malaysia but since then it hasn?t really
happened.
DP: Yeah, we suffer somewhat from having the testing. We don?t test as
much as some of the other teams and that leads to surprises, but as long
as we?re learning, it?s alright. As we move forward we put those
experiences into our corporate history, if you like, and we don?t make
the same mistake again. And we?re doing a good job of that. We?re not
having recurring faults but we are on a learning curve because
inevitably we?re going to bear more of our mistakes at race weekends
because we?re not doing the testing between the events.

Q: Is that why somebody has mentioned that you haven?t done as much
development as expected?
DP: We front-loaded the development to be before Australia - for
Australia, if you like, after the launch. The development since then,
well, we?ve broken the cycle of going for big update kits, simply
because, to do that, you leave performance in the garage, if you like,
or back at the factory, because you?re waiting for the whole kit to
assemble. We?re not doing that, we?re bringing the performance to the
car - if it?s tested and if we understand it - every weekend. So last
weekend there was a small update, this weekend small updates and it will
go on through the season.

Q: And it will happen even with the six races coming in eight weeks?
DP: Yeah, we have different parts for Monaco, and we have different
parts here this weekend.

Q: Hamashima-san, new tyre rules have been suggested. Tell us about the
proposal for the narrow front and wider rear and perhaps losing the
grooves as well ? what is the thinking that you can see behind that?
Hirohide HAMASHIMA? I think current cars demand high weight distribution
to the front because a lighter rear helps the rear tyres so much, so the
rear tyres just work for the traction. Front tyres work for braking and
cornering, so it makes the car quicker. So, if we use narrower fronts,
in that case maybe the car will be slower but we don?t know what the
cars? design will be after the regulations issued, so it is very important.

Q: What advantages are there to a one-tyre formula? Are there advantages
for a tyre company?
HH: Difficult question. Of course, I prefer competition but even if we
are sole suppliers, even though we can get the many high technical
aspect from the teams, because Formula One teams have many high level
techniques, for example simulation and also other things so if we learn
so many things then the tyre manufacturer will be better to produce new
tyres.

Q: Pierre, we had a release from your company?
Pierre DUPASQUIER: We made a commitment with Hamashima-san, to answer
only questions about red wine! Red wine, yes.

Q: ?yes but in between the questions about red wine, your press release
says ?we would like to put proposals to reduce costs while maintaining
the spirit of competition.? Can you imagine what those proposals would
be? How would you manage to do that?
PD: We?re working on it. The idea is that without competition, you don?t
know what you are doing, you are a tyre supplier, that?s fine but it?s
not what we are in racing for, in motorcycling, in Le Mans or in Formula
One. So we really will see competition in order to find out where we are
and to try if possible to show our customers, our partners that we are
capable of serving a good tyre and they are doing a good job. The tyre
companies should be welcome in sport, in Formula One. Then we ask ?what
can we do to achieve the president?s goal with which we agree 100
percent?? It?s responsible and we understand that. Reducing the cost?
Fine. Motor racing is not cheap but it?s maybe going too far. It?s his
decision. Fine. And maintaining performance, that?s obvious. We have to
maintain a balance between the machines and the environment. Karting on
a Formula One track is ridiculous and vice versa. So somewhere there is
that need for safety as well. He (Mosley) had the same sort of
suggestion for rallying and the same objectives and we said ?look, if
for example, you ask us to have one tyre per day in rallying in any
conditions ? I?m talking about tarmac ? I don?t know if it?s possible.
But let?s try. It will be absolutely ridiculous. The tyre doesn?t exist.
Not even a production tyre will do it, so we will have to create a tyre
that will be titanium or wood or I don?t know what, but not rubber any
more. So the car will be very slow, it will be very cheap, so that?s the
kind of idea that can be offered.

Q: Last week, you had seven trucks at Silverstone to provide three teams
and when it rained, you didn?t have the right tyres. It seemed such an
extraordinary cost for a three-day test.
PD: It is, but a company like our companies, we spend our lives testing
anyway, for anything. We test for trucks, we have trucks 24 hours, all
day long, just to test tyres. So we must go through tests even though we
work very efficiently on simulation. But at the end of the day, you have
to see if in real life, if your simulation means something and if you
don?t screw up on that, and so far we haven?t, fortunately or
unfortunately I don?t know, but we don?t have simulation that can answer
every question and say ?that?s the tyre.? We work on it, but it?s not
quite there. Yes, it is very expensive, yes we agree 100 percent on the
fact that it is too expensive. Reducing the costs is a goal for
everybody, every industry, every spectacle. Somebody yesterday told me
that Formula One is like a movie ? we borrow the money, we invest the
money to make the movie, we make a great spectacle but if spectators are
not there, it doesn?t make any sense. We die. That?s fine. It?s not only
a movie, it?s not only spectacle, it?s also patience. The people expect
some indication from the peak of racing that there is some technology
going on, there is improvement, hi-tech, new things. That?s why they are
so passionate about it. But if we cut that too much, it?s a
philosophical decision from the FIA. If we cut it too much, the
competition between the elements of the machines? It exists already. We
have Formula 3000, they are on the track right now. How many spectators
are out there? (He indicates zero).

Q: Ferrari say that this championship can be completely turned around by
their rival tyre supplier, if he comes up with a different tyre. What
chances?
PD: Well, I would say that if Ferrari come with a non-competitive tyre,
the championship will be turned around immediately. I don?t see what is
behind the question. Do they expect that any of us can find five tenths
a lap like that? No way. We had seven trucks at Silverstone to try to
find one tenth. So if we screw up, we give the championship to somebody
else. But don?t expect the tyre company to turn round anything.  What
I?ve found out since the beginning of the season, to get Ferrari,
Ferrari, Ferrari, Ferrari and Ferrari, that?s it. So where?s the tyre
company in that?

Q: Surely it?s a partnership?
PD: Yes, definitely. It is. Absolutely. But if you forget some of the
contenders you were just referring to, then you get a different
championship.

QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Q: (Dan Knutson ? National Speedsport News) Dave, a few months ago
Richard Parry-Jones was quite vocal on costs in Formula One being
reduced. What has been the initial reaction from Ford, your team owner,
on all these new rules and proposals?
DP: Well, I think we are already doing some of the things that are being
suggested. We are already doing Formula One on a very controlled budget
with strict fiscal controls because we are trying to gain the respect of
Ford Motor Company, which we have done. We are also trying to gain the
respect of our sponsors to make sure they understand that we are careful
and respectful with the funds that they give us. The rules that have
been suggested, we are already doing some of that. As for reducing
testing, we already reduce testing because it is very expensive,
primarily expensive because of engine life. People talk about hotels and
flights and stuff like that but that is not the biggest factor, it is
really the engines. So reducing the engine mileage at tests will
sufficiently reduce the costs. Therefore, you need to do more of the
things we have just discussed, which is simulation. In the real world,
that is exactly what has happened, so Ford have completely bought into
the fact that you need to do less testing. That is what they and the
other car companies have been doing for the last 15 years, and if you
look back at any car that was developed 15 years ago there may have been
40 prototypes for that vehicle. Now there may be as little as 10
prototypes for the same vehicle and all the rest of it is done in
simulation and that is what will happen in Formula One. If there is less
testing there has to be more simulation and more rig testing. The
testing will still happen, it might be in a computer or it might be on
some kind of test rig.

Q: (Gerhard Kuntschik ? Salzburger Nachrichten) David, are you
disappointed about Christian Klien?s performances in Imola and today so far?
DP: Not here, so far. He has done a good job working through his
programme in the first session. In the second session he made a mistake
and went into the gravel, which he is very disappointed about, but in
the beginning of the season he has done a good job, he has built up his
speed, been very careful, finished all the Grands Prix and Imola was a
disappointment for him. He severely damaged his chassis and obviously
had very little track time before qualifying there and the race car
set-up was not good for him, he had very poor race pace as everyone saw
and he wasn?t very confident with the balance. So that was, again,
frustrating for him, but I think he has done a good job as a rookie
driver ? keep it on the track, building up, he has got the morale up on
his side of the garage and he has fitted into the team very well.

Q: (Thibault Larue ? Sport Auto) The war between Michelin and
Bridgestone is sometimes difficult to follow and understand for the
spectators ? I have two examples: In Imola we had to explain to our
readers that the rain overnight had radically changed the situation in
terms of your performance comparison and, when it is raining, we know
there will be a lot of different levels of wet conditions in which the
difference between your two tyres is radically changed. If a single tyre
supplier is not a good idea for the future, then how do you think we can
put a break to your war?
HH: Do you think a radical change in Imola? Hmm. I think the two tyre
manufacturers are using different materials so I believe performance
will be different, for example durability-wise, grip-wise, everything.
So then, it seems rain makes a change of the situation. Maybe sometimes
other companies will get the advantage during the rain, I believe.
PD: I don?t understand your point because if I see clearly what you
mean, you say that you have a hard time explaining about what is going
on? Before you had nothing to do! So we should do better, we should
probably get more information to you to explain, we can do better, but
thanks to the tyre manufacturers you finally have something to say about
Formula One.

Q: (James Allen ? ITV) Pierre, you are focussed very much on cost in
what you have said here today and in your statement. When you talk to
Max Mosley, he says there are three reasons to get rid of the two tyre
companies, the other two being safety ? you can control the lap times ?
and fairness ? to stop it turning into a tyre championship. I can see
how you can put an argument for cost, which you have done today, but how
are you going to argue against the other two points and, if you are
unsuccessful in that are you saying that Michelin will no longer compete
in Formula One as a single supplier?
PD: For the last one, our statement is made and we have plenty of time
to think about it. The example I gave for rallying shows that on tyre
regulations you may achieve the goal of performances. For example, if we
have one tyre for three races, which is obviously ridiculous, then you
have a tyre that can do 2000 or 3000km. I tell you, with 900 horsepower
it would be a really, really bad tyre and performance would be so bad
the car would be stopped everywhere, it would be slower than Formula
Three. So, in this aspect, working on the tyre definition by the rule
you may achieve also that goal of slowing down the machines, definitely,
that is very easy. For example, the president already mentioned one more
groove, you know, easily, with little change, you may really drastically
change the performance. The cost has been mentioned already, and the
third, competition, fairness, that we disagree with. When you compete
somehow, somewhere, there is a winner and a loser. The changes at the
start, we used to say in French ?donnez a chacun ses chances egales?.
Equality doesn?t exist. Having the same chance when you compete, when
you are a racer, at the start, with rules that you can understand, the
same for everyone, then you get competition. One is winning, the other
is losing, that is what it is. If you don?t want that kind of unfair
situation at the end of a race, don?t race.

Q: (Gerhard Kuntschik) John, the leading driver for Toyota in the IRL is
testing for a competitor of yours in Formula One. Is there no interest
from your team in Scott Dixon?
JH: Well, I think we also have our TDA programme so, as you may know, we
are trying to bring young talent into Formula One or into motor racing
as well. We have Ryan Briscoe sitting on the sidelines, we have two or
three other young drivers coming through the programme. We already
brought Cristiano from IRL, or from CART at that time, in the US to
Formula One, so I think at the moment, with the basket of opportunity we
have, really we have to draw the line somewhere and I think Scott Dixon
is respected by Toyota because of his talent but really at this stage we
have decided that we don?t have room, to be honest, and I don?t mean
that unkindly, with the portfolio that we are developing. So I don?t
think there is any chance of Scott coming to Toyota in Formula One.

Q: (Dan Knutson) John, what is the situation for your drivers next year?
JH: Well, as a management team we are obviously looking at the future,
the next two to three years, where we want to get. Clearly we are not
satisfied where we are, we want to become a top team and challenge for
the championship, and drivers is one of the elements of the equation.
We?ve made no decision on our driver line-up for next year, and when
we?re ready to, we will advise the press in due course, and I don?t
foresee that we would do that really before the middle or after the
middle of the season.

For further information on the FIA, please consult our Internet site:
www.fia.com


... TCOB1 - telnet://tcob1.no-ip.com 1800-2400 UTC
--- blueMail/Linux 1.2
--- SBBSecho 2.10-Linux