25/10/2004
NEWS STORY
The longest season in the history of the Formula One World Championship is at an end, a season which Ferrari 'wrapped up' some time ago.
Sadly, despite the promise, victory at Interlagos proved elusive, the changeable conditions favouring the Michelin runners.
Team boss Jean Todt has a lot to celebrate, but a time when he and his men should be popping the Champagne corks in celebration of a job well done, the Frenchman and his team are in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
As the team prepared for the long trip home, and an eventful off-season, Todt sat down to answer a few questions.
First off, he was asked to give his view of the weekend.
"2004 for Ferrari is a great achievement," he replies. "For the sixth time in a row Ferrari has won the Manufacturers championship, while Michael has won the Drivers' championship for the fifth time in a row.
"15 wins, 262 points out of 324 points which means 82 percent of the points. Nine second positions, eight first and seconds.
"As for this race, Rubens started on pole position and finished third. Michael started in 18th position and finished seventh - quite simply the two in front of us have been better, so good luck to them, they have been better and it shows.
"For those who don't want to understand how tough it is to succeed in Formula One, and if I may say so, how good Ferrari has been with Bridgestone, to be 15 times out of 18. That's an achievement.
"But definitely, today, for various reasons, we did not do the perfect job, we did not deliver a perfect job and we paid for it. If you have better people, or if you do something not as good as the others you get penalised, that was the case today for us."
So was it simply the conditions?
"No," he replies, without hesitation. "Maybe we didn't get the best out of the conditions, but on the other hand, I feel it's a good experience, because it shows us how difficult it is to win, just in case we forget. It gives us more motivation because we don't like to lose and for those who want to understand, it shows that what Ferrari is doing is unique. And for those who don't want to understand, bad luck for them."
Surely, it will be very hard to improve on this season, won't it?
"As I said, we scored 82 percent out of the possible points to score, out of 324, so it's 18 per cent - you know if I am a bit cynical - which can be improved," he says. "We have a lot of respect for our competitors. We lost three races, every time against a different team. There were 15 wins for Ferrari, one by one team, one by another and one of another one. They all were with the same tyre company, we were always, of course, with Bridgestone so it's interesting."
Then came the subject which has thrust Ferrari into the headlines for all the wrong reasons, an issue that everyone seems to have misconstrued, when it comes to Ferrari.. the initiative to cut cost. Here is Todt's opportunity to explain his side of the story.
"I don't want to seem arrogant, like very many people are arrogant in our business," he says, his eyes narrowing. "But in a way when you are taking a situation, you must do it without reacting in an emotional way, but in a pragmatic and logical way. Friday 5pm, last Friday, that means two days ago, there was a vote from the F1 Commission, which determined what should be Formula One in 2005.
"Nevertheless, some meetings were held," he continued. "Some ignoring the FIA, and we know very well that nothing at the moment can be implemented, whether you like it or not, it's just a matter of fact.
"Then yesterday (Saturday) there was a meeting where it's not true to say that Ferrari was not represented, Ferrari was not invited. I'm sorry, it's not my own language, English, but there's a big difference between being represented and being invited. So Ferrari was not invited. Why? Maybe somebody forgot to… I don't know, but we're in a world where we all have mobile phones…
"So anyway. They had the meeting and they came out with a proposal - and I must add that I'm not going to play childish, we were not invited so we are going to be against.
"If the proposals would be good… you know we are in favour of reducing costs. If we don't want Formula One to die, we have to reduce costs, but drastically not only by identifying for the top teams some less costs on testing because, those proposals, depending on the way you interpret them, after having tried to understand amongst the people who signed, they are not able to answer to me whether it's the same engine on Friday or you change the engine on Friday, that I don't know. Maybe you know, but I don't know.
"So let's take both solutions. If it's the same engine on Friday, then Saturday, Sunday for two Grands Prix weekends, it means that by reducing testing you will reduce costs. But it will not help the small teams because the small teams don't use all the testing days available anyway. So for them it's no different.
"However on Saturday morning, you will have a session where nobody will come out of the garage, you will have Saturday morning where everybody will be waiting, because everybody will have worked on Friday, so you will only do, with the new rules, the qualifying lap. Therefore, you will have spectators coming on Saturday for one lap and then people will complain there is not enough 'show' in Formula One. Then on Sunday it will be one more lap and then the race.
"If you decide that Friday is with different engines, the strong teams will come, because they will come with their test teams, cars, engines - a whole lot of expense, then change the engine for Saturday and Sunday. But at this time, two comments:
"You are not any more with an engine for 1400 kms, you are using one engine for 700kms so therefore a different specification. At the moment, we at Ferrari are working on a 1400 kms engine and then, it will increase the costs and the small teams, it is not a question that it will not be any different for them, there will be a difference for them because they will have extra money to pay for the engine.
"Then, they want one tyre supplier," he adds. "Again I was surprised because I saw different versions of the letter. I first saw a version where there's only one tyre supplier. I talked this morning with Bridgestone and Michelin, they did not know about that. I think it's a bit weak to have partners of a dimension of Bridgestone and of Michelin, and ignore their opinion, because at the moment those people are committed to Formula One, they have contracts with some teams and some teams have contracts with them.
"Then, there was another communiqué which was not mentioning only one tyre supplier, probably because they realised that it was very difficult to decide that they would exclude one tyre company. Then, commenting on that, they were talking that they were prepared to do 19 Grands Prix. Ferrari is prepared to 19 Grands Prix. We simply want to know what are the rules of the game. We have an agreement with the Concorde Agreement for 17 Grands Prix. Each Grand Prix over 17 needs unanimous agreement so it was the case this year for the Canadian Grand Prix. It was a long discussion, as to which was the 18th Grand Prix, was it France, finally it was decided it was Canada. So each team got a percentage out of the money that was paid to the promoter of the FIA Championship, and four teams got a certain amount, another four teams got another amount, and I think - but I'm not sure about this - two teams got another amount.
"How would the money be distributed for those 18/19 Grands Prix?" he asks "Who are number 18 and number 19? Nobody knows. 18/19 in my opinion are Bahrain and China, or, to be more precise, it should be Turkey and China because they are the last two. This means a big difference because their financial commitment is completely different from France and UK. So how can I comment on something when nobody knows what they are talking about?
"Again, it's not being arrogant, it is just trying to show… I'm not paranoid. We live in a world where lots of people think that everything which is done is in favour of Ferrari. But honestly it doesn't make me annoyed, or make me lose sleep. It makes me smile, if it causes any reaction. I simply don't think it's very professional.
"As I said before, we badly need to reduce costs, so we need to identify solutions where we can really reduce costs but you know every time when we speak… you focus on the top teams, because again, the top teams employ, including the engine manufacturers between 800 and 2000 people. The small teams they employ, without building the engine, between 200 and 300 people, so you can see that we are already facing two different problems. However, I can understand, it's something we, at Ferrari understand. For example, when we launched the new 8-cylinder 430. A lot was done using Formula One electronics, but I don't feel that in Formula One the drivers, who have the best skill, don't need to have such great assistance, so we are in favour of talking about ECU, standard ECU, where it will really be a big drop. Do we need traction control - I'm not sure you need traction control to improve the show in Formula One. Do we need to have cars where you have to spend a huge amount of money to find ballast - why do you have to find ballast? Because then you make the lightest car possible ever, but then you put the car under the weight limit, centre of gravity and all that. It's crazy. You have the spectators out there, they don't have a clue about that and they don't care.
"I'm very happy, and I have been talking with Ross Brawn, with Paulo Martinelli, with Rory Byrne, with all our top engineers because we need to make a sensible proposal. But I'm sorry to say that what was presented is not sensible, it is not articulated, because, again, I would be very interested, if you could ask them (the sign teams that have signed the initiative) what they intend the level of the engine. They are happy that for the first time nine signed, and only Ferrari did not sign, nine in favour. I spoke with different groups, but they don't have the same opinion about the engine.
"So it means that this paper, you can just throw it away," he says.
"I am proud of our relationship with the FIA: we respect them. I feel that Max Mosley is doing a great job. It doesn't mean that I agree with what he does, but the guy is focused, he is dedicated and every time I hear something, the poor guy is almost… he has to walk hidden because they are just organising controversy.
"So together with the FIA, I'm happy to see what can be presented and all of which can be presented which is substantially good for Formula One and to achieve what we want to achieve we are very happy to move forwards."