Adrian Newey Q&A

"Raising the front wing by 5cms has a big knock-on through the car, so we've raised the nose by about 5cms to go with the raised wing. That affects the chassis shape, and the chassis is also slightly bigger due to the regulation change. So the front is quite a bit different to the old car. The sidepods are similar - we haven't found that the regulations changes have warranted a different sidepod, other than the fact that they've got a bit longer, again because of the side impact rules. Then we get to the rear wing changes, which again have affected things a little bit, so we've changed the rear suspension to try to suit the rear wing changes."



"Possibly, yes. It's difficult to say. Whilst there has been this three-year cycle, there's no point in changing things unless you can find a benefit. If there's a big regulation change, that naturally spurs you on to a change."



"Yes, there seems to be a huge variety of nose and wing solutions, but for a lot of people the rest of the car looks fairly similar."



"The crash structures haven't been too much of a problem. Obviously it's meant a slightly longer sidepod, but apart from that, no major problems. The higher roll hoop loads again have meant putting weight up high, but it's the same for everybody, and undoubtedly a good regulation change."



"I'll tell you later in the year!"



"It's always a question mark. We've been running a hybrid car as you know, and the gearbox is really the same as last year's. One of the things that unfortunately happened was that the gearbox that was intended for this year was effectively banned at Spa last year, by a regulation clarification let's say, and we haven't had time to do a new gearbox yet."



"I think it will be tough, undoubtedly. It means you've got to try to have a good understanding of the tyres and react to the tyres as they change. And invariably as they do change it will suit some people's cars better than others."



"I think we've got to. Michelin are obviously doing a very good job, they're doing a very good job already, despite not really having had very long at these tyres at all. So if Ferrari and ourselves are going to be best representing Bridgestone and maximising our own chances, then it makes sense that we have to work together on tyre development this year."



"Not really. It seems to have been fashionable to criticise our strategy, but I don't think it's been too bad. Each year we try to evolve, as every other team does, I'm sure. Like all areas of engineering and technology, in F1 you can't stand still, you've got to develop."



"I think some of it has been unjustified, but I can't say it's annoyed me particularly. It's just one of those things."



"I don't think the re-introduction of traction control affects the design of the car particularly. It affects the control systems obviously, but that's software. It will perhaps affect rear tyre usage for instance, but I don't see it affecting the fundamental design of the car."



"Yes, I think it is. It gives a fresh challenge, fresh stimulation. Unfortunately it tends to be short lived of course, because what happens is that although there's a temporary gain from the change in regulations, the regulations are in fact slightly more restrictive. That's a year-on-year process. Temporarily you get new areas to explore, but ultimately the boundaries are gradually pulled in."



"Theoretically yes, of course, because they've got more resources. Having said that, when it comes to aerodynamic changes most teams now have their own wind tunnel. There are probably a similar number of engineers working in that wind tunnel, so it's down to ideas as well as size."



"Disappointed, but I understand. Both of them have in effect seen promotion through their change, so it's understandable that they sought to move on. And I'm disappointed because they're both good guys."



"I can't pretend that there won't be a loss. But to quantify that in terms of lap time or reliability, I'm afraid I can't."