Exclusive Interview with Williams and Dennis

Formula One bosses Ron Dennis and Frank Williams on Thursday issued news that they will take the sport's governing body to arbitration over the way in which radical regulation changes were introduced.

Their announcement marks one of the most significant moments in recent history and Atlas F1's Will Gray spoke to the pair about their decision.

In this exclusive interview the pair reveal the reasons behind their move, hit out at the FIA for "dumbing down" the sport, plead with its president Max Mosley to obey his own rulebook - but issue a heartfelt commitment to their future in the sport.

Q: Why are no other teams involved in the arbitration?

FW:

Williams and McLaren have made a habit of working together to stand up for what we believe in and this is what we believe in.

RD: Teams have very public individual faces but as this is a club in which we see each other on a regular basis we are in communication with each other a great deal. Most of our opinions are well supported privately but some are concerned about potential repercussions. We share the concerns on safety - both the preparation time and the removal of telemetry - and we believe it is a safety retrograde. We do not feel it is doing credit to our propositions.

Q: Are you worried about the repercussions during this season?

FW:

That question requires a very diplomatic answer so it would be best to make no comment. We will sail on as always.

RD: From McLaren's perspective we always try desperately to bring integrity to the sport. We feel any response other than a neuter response would be unacceptable. Theoretically there will be no repercussions but that is not always the way it works in practice. I am sure there will be a level of scrutiny over the year. We are not paranoid.

Q: Has the process begun?

RD:

The process has begun in parallel with this process, which is informing the FIA and the media of our intentions. We have also served notice legally.

Q: How long will the process take?

FW:

It will take at least a year but it will have no impact on the 2003 season. We know how long it will take but we want to stabilise the long-term future of Formula One.

Q: So will you quit the sport over this?

FW:

An emphatic no! We are serious players we are committed and competitive and we intend to be around as long as Formula One is around.

RD: We feel the same, except we at McLaren are a little bit more committed and a little bit more competitive! There is no way we will leave Formula One. We do not see this as an aggressive move more a regressive one.

Q: So what happens if you lost this arbitration?

FW:

We carry on living and we carry on racing.

RD: We are in a carefully considered position and we are absolutely convinced, guided by the professionals we have hired to investigate this, that we will win.

Q: Did you begin thinking about arbitration immediately after the January 15 meeting?

RD:

We both agreed to spend a week cooling down and that week extended to two weeks. Before we discussed it we had both developed considered positions and unlike Max we are a democratic organisation and we listen to our technical experts. If they give a considered view that the changes oppose safety we support that view.

Q: Are you using safety as an excuse to argue your case?

FW:

We have lost two of our drivers in Grand Prix cars - Piers Courage in 1970 and Ayrton Senna in 1994 - so we take safety very seriously. No-one can tell us we are using safety to stop change. Once you lose a driver...I don't think I need to explain any more.

Q: Considering your commitment to Formula One, how much is this driven by your manufacturer partners BMW and Mercedes?

FW:

Not at all driven. They were told what we were planning to do and all the communication we have made regarding this has not made note to them. We have done this independently to rectify a wrong. It is not necessarily to change the rules back, it is to tell Max we observe the rules, please do so yourself.

RD: DaimlerChrysler has 40 percent equity in our company. They are our partners. And I am sure that BMW, respective of their equity, are also partners with Williams. Clearly these actions must be taken after consultation with them and both BMW and Mercedes are supportive.

FW: We are the ones taking it forward because we are signed to the Concorde agreement.

Q: How significant is this move in the history of Formula One?

RD:

If you look at the history, arbitration has been rarely used and on the occasions it has been used it has been only in respect of sporting regulations rather than questioning a step change. I do not believe that there has been arbitration in vote against the process of change and we feel very confident that the professional guidance we have is absolute in its judgement. I am unfortunate in that I have had much experience of QCs and solicitors and I have never known any be so emphatic as they have on this matter.

FW: The last time Williams was in the dock was in the FIA court of appeal. We have challenged them in a legal arena in 1984 and before that, in 1983. We did think about this carefully for a long time.

Q. Many of these changes were introduced to help the smaller teams...

FW:

I don't agree. Max introduced the changes to pep up the show and in addition to help the smaller teams.

Q: Well, he is trying to help the smaller teams. And there was a fighting fund of $20 million (USD) set up to help them. What has happened to it?

FW:

It is not $20 million in television funds. It is a modest amount that was left by Arrows and the rest was to be made up of a contribution from the other teams. Several have said they wanted out. It is in suspense but looking negative.

RD: In the morning meeting on January 15, between the teams and Bernie, there was a unanimous agreement to generate a fighting fund and Bernie supported it in principal and fiscally. At that point it was on the basis of controlled change as defined by the teams, who had tabled a set of short-term and long-term changes. When we had the regulation changes we believe they did one thing and that was to increase costs for the 2003 season and that was not conducive to the fund.

Inadvertently the initial salvo made was actually fired by the FIA! It is inappropriate to think of the two teams as the same. Jordan are reasonably well funded and have had significant success during their time in Formula One. Minardi are different, and their situation is far more severe. It is not for us to judge who gets what. There was an agreement with Bernie that all the other teams - except for Ferrari, whose contribution was to reduce the cost of engines to Sauber - would provide equal funding. The support was not at all a 'Robin Hood' scenario it is just if all teams see the commercial benefit then all should equally contribute.

Q: So do you care about the small teams?

RD:

We most certainly do. We were a small team once and we know what it is like to climb. We are not uncomfortable supporting the small teams but there is one thing I wish they would stop doing and that is stop whining and moaning about a self-inflicted Financial situation. We know it is tough and we are happy to help.

FW: My views are the same as Ron's and I do not need to add to that.

Q: Do you think it is right to drag Formula One through this kind of off-track situation yet again?

FW:

I do not believe that the arbitration will be high profile. It will be fallow for the entire season and will not affect our racing.

RD: It will not influence the performance of our teams in 2003. If we had not defended the commercial terms by which we are bound and our interpretation of them we believe there would have been a systematic growth of problems. Enough is enough. We are not prepared to accept further change. They have been inconsistent with the Concorde agreement. Nobody is more passionate about the stable long-term interests of Formula One than Frank and myself.