Pierre Dupasquier Q&A

"We're very happy because it was a very clear cut performance of our tyres."



"It's easier to answer now than before the race! It was perfect. It was constant, fast enough. Ralf was always faster than Michael, that was obvious. I can only say that Ralf in a BMW Williams is faster than Michael in a Ferrari... It's up to you to try to put the percentages on it. It's very difficult to separate within the global performance what comes from where. We know the drivers are fast, but between engines, aerodynamics and tyres, that's very tricky, to find out what's doing what."



"It's the kind of situation where definitely we feel we have a good package, yes. It has worked very well."



"We've been fast in Australia, we've been fast in Brazil, we've been fast in Monte Carlo, so just wait and see."



"Yes, the first one you say it could be a little bit lucky, because definitely Michael and Bridgestone screwed up in Imola. But in Canada they were at 100 per cent of their potential, and we offered a higher potential."



"If he does help, he can come to every GP. He'll be happy for that!"



"Not really, we're never happy. We want to progress, we want to understand more. Every race we go to we have to be very patient and careful, because there are a lot of new things, and we discover some data. Monte Carlo was brand new for us, and Montreal was absolutely new. At the start we didn't know where we were, and the track was changing."



"No, it's normal. It depends in the capability that you have to put things together. That's what makes a strong team in F1, or any collective sport, like soccer. It's the same thing in racing. That's the trick. We have a tyre that it what it is, and we have partners who work on the chassis, aerodynamics, engine and everything, and we have drivers studying the tyres. Imola and Montreal were very nice examples of having things together. We had a fast car and a determined and talented driver, and it worked, that's it."



"Every two races we come up with brand new compounds and construction tricks, and stuff like that. The problem is that if we don't try at each Grand Prix with the A and B, the hard and the soft, we don't gain a lot of experience. But we use them the week after when we are testing, sometimes in five different locations at the same time. It's crazy. But then we discover a lot of things."



"We don't care. We are not in competition with them now, because they have McLaren and Ferrari, so they have a definite advantage. So there's no possible comparison. I don't know how much Ferrari and Michael Schumacher cost for them, but it's a lot, compared to what Michelin is spending this year."



"Not only on our cars. It was more obvious on our cars maybe, but we found out that probably traction control is the reason why. When you have no control on the traction, as soon as you press on the pedal too hard, you lose the car, so you are very careful. With the traction control you adjust it to a percentage of spinning, and the car is driveable. It's a pain in the neck for us because the poor tyres are spinning all the time. Then you get a lot of wear. So I think it's because of the way the traction control works."



"That was the point of the FIA. I guess they were pretty right, because as long as the tyre wear doesn't translate into performance, they don't care. I think it's wise to say that, and actually the wear did not translate into performance. But the thing which is not of the same spirit is to start qualifying for example with the worn out tyres at the front. Which means to get the performance that you're looking for, you need to have worn out tyres. That's not the same as wearing the tyre out because of spinning or something."