First of all a question to you all: In the last four grands prix we have seen drivers who perhaps we wouldn't expect to see on the podium and perhaps one or two drivers who we would expect to see on the podium not on the podium. What do you think are the reasons for that?
Mike Gascoyne: Obviously in the last couple of races there have been quite a lot of incidents with pace cars. I think with the pace car regulations as they are now you can obviously luck in. It has always been the case under the safety car you can luck in and that happened to Piquet in the last race. People can get lucky, but having said that, he had good pace afterwards and drove a great race and made the most of it. But I think we do need to revise the safety car regulations as we have them. They are pretty confused and I don't think they achieve what they set out to, so I do think we need to look at it. But it is good for F1 when things like that happen.
Pascal, perhaps Jarno Trulli's might be considered to be one of those incidents?

Pascal Vasselon: I think it is quite different because as Mike says one obvious reason to change the pecking order is the safety car and it has happened two times in the last few races – Canada and Hockenheim. In our case, at Magny-Cours, I would say we are always fighting close to the podium and this time we were on the high of our performance and our close competitors were probably on a low and we got this podium on merit. But I cannot see only luck here. It is just a combination of a high on our side and a low for our immediate competitors.

Aldo Costa: I tend to agree with my colleague. We had very unusual circumstances, very difficult races, with weather, different events in terms of weather, different track temperatures' conditions, accidents and as Mike mentioned, the safety car. The safety car is a real gamble at this moment, so it can change very much the result of the race.

Do you agree that the regulations should be looked at?
AC: Yeah, with the FIA we are looking at it in order to have a better system. I think it can be improved.

Willy Rampf: I think overall the cars are closer together. At the last race at Hockenheim it was definitely the safety car which changed the order. And Silverstone was the heavy rain. Basically who stayed on the track at a reasonable pace was able to score good points or a good position. It also looks like some cars are very strong in qualifying, not too strong in the race or vice-versa, so not such a good qualifying position but then very good pace in the race. I think this is also mixing up the grid and also basically the finishing result.

Are you having to modify your strategy to take that into account?
WR: Yes, definitely. Depending on where we see us after Friday and Saturday morning we judge where we could end up in qualifying because normally we have a fairly good race pace.

Mike, what are your feelings about expanding the team for next year? Do you need expansion, further investment and more resources?
MG: Obviously, we are the smallest team in F1, a team in the last couple of years in its Jordan guise suffered from no real investment. Then under Midland and Spyker it didn't go anywhere, there weren't proper budgets and the team could not really develop. But over the last six months as Force India we have put in place proper budgets. They are still very small budgets compared to all our competitors but that has allowed us to expand, improve and bring some new people on board and we will continue with that for next year. And obviously looking forward to next year you have got all the rule changes. We have inherited a performance deficit really from Spyker and Midland and although we are catching that up, F1, I think, is perhaps its most competitive it's ever been, certainly in the 20 years I have been in it. Although we have improved hugely compared to our competitors and we are regularly within a couple of seconds of the quickest car that still means we are the team rooted at the back. That is very good for F1 but that makes our life pretty difficult. But obviously for next year it is a level playing field. We do have good resources, especially in key areas like aerodynamic, where we can match the opposition, and we see it as a real opportunity for us.

So you feel it is going to level things out rather than allow the bigger teams to pull ahead again?
MG: Well, I mean there are two schools of thought. In F1 over the last three years we have had rule stability and it has become very close. There is an argument that everyone starts from a level playing field, so it is an opportunity but it could mean also some people will get it more right than others. Therefore it could move the field apart. We just have to make sure that we are one of the ones that get it right.

Pascal, a quick update on what happened in Timo Glock's accident two weeks ago? Was it a worry?
PV: Yes, it took us some time to find out what happened, simply because just after the race we were not finding anything exceptional with that car immediately at the moment of the failure. We were just finding a load case which was not explaining at all the failure. It took us a long time to find the life of this part and what went wrong. We found the cause was in the Silverstone race where this rear right suspension corner has seen some outstanding loads.

Have you modified your procedures to make sure that such a thing will not happen again?
PV: Yes, we have obviously a screening procedure to handle parts which may have been damaged by an incident. Actually we had detected a problem with the push rod. But in a race we run a reduced number of sensors and we had not been able to re-estimate the loading of the suspension parts. Clearly we have not been good enough for checking and screening these parts and we have improved our internal procedure now.