Continued from Part 1
Q: What about the teams that don't have a big car manufacturer as a
partner, how do they fit into the picture?
Burkhard Göschel: They are mostly a group with engines coming from a big car
manufacturer, or drivetrains, and in future they might take other
technologies such as the engine recovery items. We are selling engines
for example to other teams. This will continue, especially if technology
is going in different areas. As a manufacturer we want to have a field
where not only manufacturers are racing against each other. We want to
have the smaller teams on the grid. That is our target also.
Max Mosley: It's also true to say that there is a complete understanding from
the manufacturers that we need to keep the independent teams going. For
example, in 2009 anyone who wants can fit the device which recovers
the energy from braking and uses it again for acceleration. But an
independent team, or indeed a manufacturer, does not have to develop
that technology. There will be a set price for which those who have
developed the technology are obliged to sell it to another team. So
manufacturer 'A' might decide not to spend the money on developing the
device. But they will have to buy it from Manufacturer 'B'. That happens
in the real world between manufacturers anyway. But if I've got an
independent team, I can go along to whichever manufacturer has developed
the most successful system and buy it ready made. The manufacturer is
actually pleased to sell it because it shows his technology is the best.
So it is a win-win situation in contrast to where we were previously
where there was this great race to get more and more power out of the
engines, which was so hideously expensive, hundreds of millions of
Euros, that manufacturers couldn't afford to sell engines very cheaply
to the teams.
Q: Could that principle extend to other areas of the car?
Max Mosley: I'd like it to but it has to be business-like. For example, if
the 2009 device is very small, very light, very efficient, it will
revolutionise the way hybrid cars are made. That's very interesting for
the manufacturer who develops it. But also it has to be a device that
the manufacturer can put on a road car. So it can't be a multi-million
dollar device, it's got to be cost efficient.
Burkhard Göschel: This business of selling components is usual within the car industry
and you will see this in F1. There will be different solutions for
different manufacturers.
Q: Mr Mosley, you have always said you can't trust the manufacturers in
F1, they come and go as they like...
Max Mosley: That was certainly not meant in the sense that they are not honest
but rather recognising that when it suits a manufacturer to come into
F1 they will come in and when it suits them to leave they will leave.
This is absolutely true but the whole purpose of this agreement is not
to put them in a position where it suits them to leave. That means that
the value they get from F1 is not just marketing but marketing and
technology. That will make it much less likely for a manufacturer to
want to leave. In fact, if we do a good enough job, if there is enough
technology, if it is relevant enough, and the rate of research is quick
enough, and the training of the young engineers is good enough it will
be extremely difficult for a manufacturer to leave.
Q: The more F1 copes with future technologies in the car industry, the
more F1 is the perfect marketing tool for the manufacturers. So this new
philosophy, this new deal, is a good gift for the manufacturers...
Burkhard Göschel: Yes. But we should not forget that we have a common interest to keep
F1 alive. Going down this route is where the manufacturers want to be in
the future and we are spending money to stabilise F1 in the future. The
manufacturers are a major part of F1 and we want to make it much more
stable in the future.
Max Mosley: There's an element here where the tide of world opinion has just
turned, and you'll see this particularly with regard to global warming.
There is a distinct movement of public opinion everywhere. I think
with the changes we're making we've just caught that tide. But if we
hadn't done it now we'd have missed the tide, F1 would have been left
behind and eventually it would die because it would become less and less
relevant.
By embracing these technologies and making these changes with the
manufacturers I think we catch the tide and we can swim with it. It is
absolutely fundamental because there is a huge change of opinion now.
That's why when Burkhard says the key issue for the industry is CO2 you
see this in every area. Now suddenly F1 can help make a contribution.
Q: Bearing that in mind, is the 'fuel-burning' stage of F1 qualifying
something we are likely to look at in future?
Max Mosley: Absolutely. I think together with the teams -- if we want to change
that for 2007 we need unanimity -- one of the suggestions is that we
take 5 minutes off and allow an extra set of tyres. Then you are going
to see non-stop action. Then whether you run with fuel or without fuel
is a discussion again. But I think everyone is conscious of that.
Q: What do you both feel will be a competitive budget for a team in F1
under the new regulations?
Max Mosley: What we feel would be reasonable would be an F1 team with not more
than 200 employees and able to run at the front for a budget in the
order of Euros 100m. That is the objective. Now I'm not saying we have
yet done the things that allow that objective to be achieved but that is
the objective.
Burkhard Göschel: I agree. Our numbers are a little bit higher but we have to reduce
costs to avoid a 2005 situation and in my opinion it is possible to
do that. We have to find regulations which restrict areas that are
not so interesting for the future of the car industry. For every car
manufacturer reducing costs in F1 is an issue. Even with the biggest car
manufacturer in F1 they are discussing reducing costs. Because you can
make a lot of cars with that money. It has to be of equivalent value
with your marketing experience and spending you have.
Q: Tomorrow morning we will read about CO2 emissions, energy reduction,
and maybe some headlines will be that F1 is going to be part of a new
'eco-system', is this the message you want to give us?
Burkhard Göschel: It should be but you don't want to forget the emotions. You have
to have a very exciting show and you also have to follow the idea of
reducing fuel consumption. But the excitement should stay with F1. This
excitement level in my opinion could be improved.
Q: Is it an important sign for society that you as a car manufacturer
feel a certain responsibility for the environment?
Burkhard Göschel: We as a manufacturer are very conscious about the subject and I can
tell you so is the FIA. The biggest spending we have in the car industry
at the moment is on reducing CO2. Combining it in F1 is new. But we both
feel that is the right way to step forward. It's the modern way of F1.
There might be some traditionalists that are a little bit surprised, but
changes are positive.
Max Mosley: If you think about it in a very simple way, whether you have a three
litre engine, for example, that just burns the fuel and does the best
it can and gives you, say, 800 horsepower or whether you have a 2 litre
engine that gives you 650hp but the other 150 horsepower comes because
you've found a clever way of re-using the heat from the engines and
turning it into propulsive energy and if that technology is also CO2
saving and of direct relevance to the car industry then you have really
achieved something. You have the best of both worlds. You've got exactly
the same excitement, sound and feel of F1 but a proportion of the energy
is generated with some very clever cutting edge technology.
Burkhard Göschel: To give you an idea, if you are braking in an F1 car from 320kph to
80kph this creates around 2500 kilowatts. 3000 horsepower, in just a few
seconds.
Q: OK, I'm convinced this type of car you are talking about is the type
I might want to buy for my family, but is it the car I want to see
racing?
Max Mosley: If you sit in the grandstand watching a 2010 F1 car, you will not
be able to tell the difference between that car and today's car. But
you will know if you are someone who follows the technology that it has
technology which makes that car extremely efficient. When you go into
the showroom to buy your BMW, you'll be amazed to hear that this car has
the same or similar technology and has the same or better performance
than the car of 5 years ago but only uses 60 per cent of the fuel.
Q. Isn't it a contradiction on the one hand to speak about developing
cutting edge technology and on the other to talk about cost-cutting?
Max Mosley: The first cost-cutting is to eliminate the hunt for more
expenditure, which was the hunt for more revs from the engine, costing
millions of Euros. Collectively the car manufacturers were spending more
than a billion Euros a year on that. Research on the energy recovery and
regenerative braking is already happening in the car industry. So there
will only be a marginal difference between that and what will be needed
in F1. Plus those components are inherently less expensive than engines,
which have around 2000 components. All in all you don't have to make
enormous changes, there will be less expenditure and it will be industry
relevant.
Burkhard Göschel: The main point is that this kind of development is not a waste. It
is in our main research budget anyway. It translates into the normal car
business much easier than the technology we are using in F1 today.
Q: One of the sticky areas has been the FIA's manner of regulating the
sport, the way the rules are created and applied. You've always given
the impression that you don't think the teams are the right people to
come up with the rules and to have any major say. Has the attitude now
shifted?
Max Mosley: In a sense yes because the big change is we now have a mechanism
for sitting down with the manufacturers at board level to agree on
objectives. Once you have agreed on the objectives then doing the
rules becomes a relatively straightforward task. Not straightforward
technically because there are a lot of aspects but politically it
becomes easier.
Burkhard Göschel: That is the most important point, that discussion takes place at
board level and not at team level.
Q: So just to be clear on that, the Ron Dennis's of this world would
be completely bypassed and it would be people at the board level of
Mercedes that would be talking about rules, is that right?
Max Mosley: I do not think this means we bypass Ron Dennis. It would be a
three-stage process. One, you would get a decision at board level on
what we are trying to do, for example, are we going to have a completely
new engine in 2011 and if so what will that engine be? Then you have
the technical experts from the major manufacturers who will flesh that
policy out. Then you would have input from the technical experts at the
teams on the details of the rules. They would work out how to achieve
the predefined objectives.
That's a completely different process from what we've had. The row used
to be between the teams about what the objective was and it would be
complicated by the fact that everyone in the room would have a vested
interest in some particular technology or device. On top of which they
are all enormously conservative.
Q: Are the likes of Ron Dennis and Jean Todt going to accept that?
Burkhard Göschel: I think so. The main technology has to be defined at board level.
Then it is fixed and realised at team level. If this means we bypass Ron
Dennis then so be it.
Q: How will this be structured? Will you have regular meetings?
Burkhard Göschel: We will have regular meetings because we need to be thinking about
the next steps. So we decided this morning that we would have a meeting
to define the next areas we should look to introduce into F1 which are
relevant to the car industry. Some new areas will have something to do
with software technology and also chassis development. But it has to be
driven from manufacturer level alongside the FIA, not from the teams. It
will be a common working group made up of GPMA and FIA members.
Max Mosley: We are completely dependent on the manufacturers because they know
what will come in four, five or ten years time. So it is a case of
sitting down with them and discussing which of these developments can we
use in F1. Obviously there are whole areas of technology which you can't
use in F1 for one reason or another. But there are areas you can. So we
have to decide which technologies to bring in, when to bring them in and
how. You may find, for instance, we free up a lot of areas to do with
the chassis and chassis dynamics, allow more electronics. On the other
hand, in the short term we will be putting a stop to massive research
into F1 aerodynamics because that is something that is manifestly
irrelevant to road cars. It is a complete waste. At the moment every
team has at least one windtunnel, some have two, they are running 24
hour shifts and this is research into something which outside F1 is
completely irrelevant. Yet hundreds of very clever people are employed
doing it.
That's an area that in a rational world you would slowly reduce and then
shut down. Whereas things to do with chassis dynamics, a lot of that is
the future, the interactions between the different systems on the car
and the most efficient way of running the drivetrain, all of these are
relevant to the car industry.
Continued in Part 3
-credit: fia
