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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.