Thursday's Press Conference - US GP

Participating: Rubens Barrichello, Ross Brawn

Q. Here are the first two, Rubens Barrichello and Ross Brawn. I think you probably can tell the difference between the two of them. Greetings, gentlemen. So it wasn't so long ago the Canadian Grand Prix. Ross, perhaps I can start with you. In Canada, we saw the two Ferraris very much racing against one another. I know they're not meant to not race one another, but is it a slight change of philosophy that they're allowed to race one another, given that the team is so far ahead of everybody else?

Ross Brawn:

I don't know if it's a particular change, recent change of philosophy; it's been an open situation, I guess, for a couple years now since the FIA made it clear that they wanted the teams to take a different approach. So since the FIA clarified the situation, we've had an open approach between the two drivers. I mean, the instructions are clear, they're not to knock each other off, but you're free to do what you can that's sensible. I went to the Ferrari day in Mugello last year, and there were four Ferraris circulating, and they all came back with all dings in them and bodywork damage, and I figured what they were doing on Sunday was nothing compared to what they did in Mugello last year, so I wasn't too worried.

Q. Yeah, that was an amazing day to see four Ferraris racing together, wasn't it?

RBr:

All touching each other and battle scars everywhere.

Q. Was it a sight that you relished on Sunday?

RBr:

It made me a little bit anxious because you could see all the scenarios and the drivers had tangled, then two lead Ferraris out of the race, that would have made a good headline. So you get a little bit anxious, but yeah, the drivers knew each other's strategies, and they were free to race each other. I have to find it amusing rather than frustrating, but I had a journalist come up to me after the race and said: "Why didn't you let Rubens pass? Because you spoiled his race by not letting him pass." I said, "Hang on, most of the time you're criticizing us for not letting the drivers race, now you're telling us we should let one driver pass the other." So we do our best. And I think it was, it was exciting. Rubens knew he had a little less fuel than Michael; he had to try and get past if he was going to beat Michael. Michael managed to keep him behind.

Q. Yeah, Rubens, was it a little frustrating not being able to get past?

Rubens Barrichello:

Yeah, in a way because you, as Ross said, I knew that Michael at least had one more lap than I did because I didn't want to ask too much because there are so many ways that you can go off after the first pit stop, but I knew he had a little bit more than I did. I had only one real chance. Michael was fair to get the -- keep his line and I came on the inside. I thought for one moment I had him because I was alongside. But I had that time with DC, with Coulthard a couple of years back that he went on the outside and he pushed me to the outside as well, so we both went straight. So at that time I said I do my best to brake as late as possible, try to overtake him, but I will manage to do the chicane, because then that's what matters because if Michael goes straight and I'll get the chicane, he will eventually have to let me by. Having that in mind, I had a little bit lower grip than him on the inside and he managed to, all sideways, to make the chicane. So that was the, you know -- but it was very much on the limit. I don't think I could have done anything different. I tried my best to get him at that time.

Q. Is it frustrating to be racing to be on the same team and to be trying to beat Michael Schumacher?

RB:

No, no, because have you ever seen somebody try to overtake Michael as a teammate? Never. So I probably -- I am the first one, so I must be proud of that. So you know, there's so many variables when you get out of the car with the journalists, there's so many things and so much controversy and so many things go through and I don't really care about it. I just, I'm there to race for myself, to race for Ferrari, to have fun, and I had a lot of fun. It was frustrating at the end because if I could have gone past Michael, I think at least three, four-tenths a lap I was quicker, so by that amount I would have won the race. But that's racing. I mean, I wasn't asking him to let me by anyway, so it was good racing.

Q. And yet to finish first and second from sixth and seventh on the grid, it makes people begin to wonder that you can do it from anywhere, really.

RB:

I don't think so, because we were actually thinking where the hell they came with those times, you know. We were more than a second behind, and there was sometime during the weekend we were a second ahead, all of a sudden we were a second behind. So make us wonder a little bit what was going on. But as we -- we have fantastic car for every circuit. There's no doubt about it. So it was just good to see that we were on the pace, but we had to keep them working very hard. I managed to pass Kimi and then I catch up with Michael quite rapidly, and then we start to see people going to the pits. I said, “Oh, it's going to be a good afternoon.”

Q. Ross, just on another subject, the new qualifying that's due to come up in supposedly at the British Grand Prix, what are your feelings about that?

RBr:

I think it's very difficult to find a format which is perfect for everybody. I think we all have our ideas. So this is a format which has been proposed by Bernie (Ecclestone), so really he's got to take responsibility for it if it doesn't work. And he is the promoter of Formula One, so we have to do our best to try and help the promoter put on as good a show as possible. In that respect, we support it. There was some details to sort out, I think some detail points that if it hadn't been resolved would have made it, I think, difficult. So, therefore, we stuck out a little bit for the detail. But once that detail was sorted, we were happy to support it. So it's going to be interesting to see. It will mean that we're back to running whatever race we want -- whatever fuel we want in the race and the cars will be qualifying with the minimum weight. So that's interesting. My only concern is to make sure that we present the accumulative or aggregate system properly to the people at the track. I think it's easy for a TV viewer to follow what's going on because the technology, or should be. But I'm concerned that the people in the grandstands know what's going on. So it's very important that we get the message across somewhere, wherever it is and what the situation is, because it will be a shame if the people at the track aren't following what's going on in qualifying. But certainly we'll be back to a spectacle of having all the cars out on the track. There will be all the arguments about yellow flags, and he slowed me up and he did that and he did the other, which is all part of the fun of qualifying. And it's what used to make it such a -- so entertaining a couple years ago. And certainly the car should be run more often with the need to run in the two sessions and the limitation and number of laps in each session. So I think it should be interesting. I'm a little concerned we don't keep making too many changes. I think it doesn't reflect well on Formula One. This is our third format of qualifying this year. I really hope we get it right this time because I don't think it's a good thing that we keep changing the format of the racing.

Q. Just going back to you mentioned the detail. Would the detail be related to size of fuel tanks by any chance in the Ferrari concerns?

RBr:

No, that wasn't really. We tried to put that to one side, because I think everybody has small fuel tanks now so I don't think it will be disadvantaged or given an advantage with the change of regulation. It was detail things like number of sets of tires, that sort of detail, which to us was important. If it wasn't sorted out, could make the qualifying a bit silly. Originally there were only two sets of tires, one for each session. And it was logical that we were going to have two runs in each session, we should have four sets of tires. So we just wanted that sort of detail sorted out so we'd put our signature to it. And when that was resolved, then I think it was another point that the cars were not going to be retrieved between the two sessions. If you fell off in the first session, your car had to stay out there, which didn't seem logical. You know, we're trying to put a show on. We want the cars to be running as much as possible. So if a driver makes a mistake, he can go out in the first session, do a safe lap and then go for a really strong lap. If he spins off, he knows his car will be brought back and have a go in the second session. That seemed more logical. I think when we had another debate about it, then the other teams agreed and we were able to find a solution.

Q. Rubens, what are your feelings about it, looking forward to it?

RB:

I look forward to it. I think it's, again, like Ross mentioned, I don't like to see things being changed too often because it looks like we're not in, you know, we don't know what's going on. I mean for the public it looks even worse. The only thing that I don't -- I'm not too sure about is the aggregate because it's something that, you know, it's the automated time that goes on even though you can go back to your bets saying I could have done a little bit better. The aggregate, the time will vary too much. So yeah, maybe the guy was going to be first, and he's going to be third but he's the faster one, he's going to overtake on the racing track. But that's too new for me. I don't know if I like that.

Questions from the Floor.

Q. Ross, you mentioned that you were slightly concerned when Rubens was behind Michael in the race, and we all know, of course, that Ferrari have had some criticism in the past for so-called team orders or whatever. How do you draw the fine line between telling the boys not to run into one another and equally abiding by the regulation not to apply team orders? How small is that gap and actually how do you -- what is your philosophy in terms of how hard they can race one another?

RBr:

Well, I mean in our case, and I can't speak for other teams, Michael and Rubens have a very good relationship. So we don't need to say very much to them. We know that they don't want to see each other out of the race, and they're going to push as hard as they can without overstepping their marks. It's really for their judgment what that limit is. They may make a mistake. I mean, you know, it's a difficult task out there and a driver may make a genuine mistake, but I wouldn't expect our drivers, for instance, to try and put the other driver off the track in an attempt to make an overtaking maneuver. I mean, if Rubens had done a Sato on Michael, I would have been pretty much upset. So that for me would have been too much. Whereas what Rubens did in Canada was fine and I expect Michael to do the same to him. And maybe even a little bit more aggressive, but as Rubens explained his approach, it was try to force Michael to take the chicane. That's fine, as well. But in this case, we didn't say anything to the drivers. We had a pre-race briefing as we always do and said our motto is go faster or crash, and that's all we ask them to do. But there will be occasions when they'll trip over each other. We've been fortunate it hasn't happened, and I think it's a huge respect from both of them for each other. I think if there was a problem, they'd understand it. So it's a pretty low-key thing with us I must say.

Q. For both Ross and -- Michael Vega, Boston Globe. Regarding Michael's success and domination in this series, simply put, is it man or machine or is it the man and machine?

RBr:

I think it's a combination of all elements. I would say that because I'm responsible for the car. But it's a combination of all the elements, including Rubens. I mean, Rubens is a tremendous input to the team. What Rubens does in testing and the work he does at the racing is also a contributive factor to the results Michael gets, which is why Michael is so enthusiastic about keeping Rubens in the team. So it's a huge number of elements, and we're fortunate all those elements have come together at one time. And it's a very good car, very good -- we built some very good partners with Bridgestone, Shell, lots of companies who are part of the Ferrari package. And it's just all clicking at the moment. On top of that, you've got the best driver, certainly the most successful driver in the history of Formula One and the best driver I've ever known in Formula One. So you put all those elements together, and Michael's got a huge enthusiasm this year, as enthusiastic as I've ever seen him, which is uncanny for the time he's been in Formula One and for the long period of success he's had. I was really pleased to see how frustrated he was after Monaco. It's well documented that he threw his helmet around the garage. I don't mind that. I think if a guy is that frustrated after what he's been able to achieve, it shows how hungry and how motivated he is, but it's in a nice way. It's that side of it which happens in a race like that that doesn't come out, isn't a negative thing any other time. But to see a driver frustrated after a race to me is always a good sign. So he's still incredibly hungry and incredibly motivated and like Rubens, a great team player and understands the value of that and understands it is a team effort. He's very, very good in that respect.

RB: After every, after all the years I've had with Michael, like Ross said, he's very enthusiastic and he's doing so well. It makes me proud to be racing against him because I'm racing against the best. And I'm only getting better, as well. I mean, you might ask why at the end of the season I was closer to him than I was to some extent two races ago when I was experimenting new things. And I think Michael had it all sorted. Left-foot braking, right-foot braking, all sorts of things that I've been doing, and Michael has been really on the boil since the beginning of the season with the car, has been doing so well. I feel that I'm closer now. I feel that I had a chance to be in front of him in qualifying in Canada, if it wasn't for a mistake, but because on my new way of taking things, there's no ifs, we still have to go out there and enjoying the fortune of taking the best.

Q. You referred to doing a Sato. By that do you mean that he was out of order for what he tried to do, and do you also mean Rubens can overtake Michael as long as he doesn't take any risks?

RBr:

I think it's very easy for us when we have the benefit of the helicopter shots and all the television coverage to make a judgment on an overtaking maneuver. I accept that if you take that sort of panoramic shot of Sato coming up the inside of Rubens, Rubens it looks like he turns into Sato. But what you have to realize is these guys have sat in a survival cell with that sort of vision and two mirrors. When you're braking, it's a pretty violent activity to brake and turn into a corner, and when you start that action you make a judgment on the guy behind you and whether he's likely to be there or not. And Rubens I'm sure looked in the mirror, saw where he was and started to brake and turn in the corner. And if you're going to make that sort of maneuver, you've got to make sure the guy in front knows you're there because he'll turn into you because he doesn't know you're there. It's impossible for the guys in Formula One cars to know that you're there. So the first or one of the criteria is when you're going to overtake somebody, you've got to make sure he knows you're there or else he'll turn into you because he simply doesn't know you're there. And I think Sato was never able to show to Rubens that he was there and he was going to try and overtake. So in my view, it was Sato's responsibility, Sato's fault. Therefore, Rubens and Michael know if you take, make an overtaking maneuver, you've got to make sure the guy knows you're there. To come from such a long way back really gave Rubens no indication that there was a car there. And as it happened, Sato is the one who came out of it worst, but I would be feeling particularly grieved if Rubens had suffered. So that was my take on the situation.

Q. Ross, on another subject, in Canada we had two teams declared outside the regulations after the race, very unusual to have two teams in one race fall foul of the same technical regulation, 11.1, I think it is. Can you tell us in your view whether there's anything ambiguous or strange about that regulation, and what are your thoughts on the Williams and Toyota problems in general?

RBr:

Someone is just about to tell me, I think. (Laughter)

RB: I'll say hello to Mom. (Answers mobile phone). Ross is in a meeting. (Laughter) Who is that? Hello, Rory (Byrne, Ferrari chief designer). It's Rory. Hi, I'm with Ross in a press conference. (Laughter) I'm doing fine, I'm doing fine, Rory. (Laughter) Everyone is just having a laugh because -- you want me to go outside with Ross for a meeting? (Laughter) Ross is going to call you back in five minutes, gentlemen, please, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Rory. Bye.

RBr: Thank you, Rubens.

RB: It's Rory. (Laughter)

RBr: I'll turn it off.

Q. Can you remember the question?

RBr:

Yes, I think so. No, the regulation is quite clear. There's a dimension, maximum dimension from the inside rim of the wheel to the inside face of any brake duct, and I think it's 120 millimeters. So there's no ambiguity about the regulation. And I honestly can't comment on how they arrived at their problem. Obviously, Canada is a track where everyone runs the maximum brake ducts they have. So it's a place where we have the biggest brake ducts probably for most of the year. So if you're going to fall foul of that particular regulation, it's the track where you're most likely to do it. Traditionally, it's a track, quite honestly, where the FIA measures the brake ducts because everyone is on the maximum limit. I don't know how it happened, and it was a little bit sad for Formula One really because I think Williams had their best race of the year, and to end like that was not a particularly good thing for Formula One. But I'm sure Williams will be examining their methods of checking. But terribly complex things, Formula One cars and, what may seem like a stupid mistake can happen. So, you know, they have my sympathy because, you know, we find there are problems here and there but luckily so far our systems have always caught them. But they are terribly complex things, and you can get caught out.

Q. Michael said categorically the mistake was not performance-enhancing. Would you agree with that, bearing in mind what you just said about Canada?

RBr:

I'm sure they didn't do it because they wanted to gain performance. Whether it was performance enhancing or not, I don't know. I'm sure they didn't do it willingly thinking they need to have more brake, and therefore they'll make the brake ducts bigger than they do so. I think it was a genuine mistake. I wouldn't imagine for a moment they would do that. But it's largely irrelevant whether it's performance enhancing or not. It's quite a lot too big from what I understand.

Q. Rubens, two years ago we talked a little bit about the controversial finish there, but did that take you by surprise, Michael's actions, and did it strengthen your bond as teammates?

RB:

The race?

Q. Two years ago, 2002.

RB:

In here? Well, we've talked about that so much already. But yes, as it looked, we were both in a way surprised. It was kind of a go, not go, wait, just do this and that and then finally, I think it was just a reversal what has happened in Austria. So you could say that.

Q. Did it strengthen the bond between you?

RB:

No, I just feel I won Austria and he won Indianapolis, that's all.

RBr: I think adversity does, one of the things I'm proud of in our team is periods of adversity to strengthen the group, they don't seem to split the group. I think that's the important thing. I know it exists in other teams, but the team becomes more insular with adversity. I'm proud to say I don't think you'll find anyone at Ferrari talking outside the group about responsibility or blame for problems we may have. It does happen within the group because we have to do that as part of the process to improve. But you don't get it outside the group and I think that's a very important asset for Ferrari and one of the principles we try and run our team on.

Q. What about the rumors that you might be the new team principal of Ferrari, and what does that mean to your team?

RBr:

I think with Jean's new role as the boss of Ferrari, then, of course, it was naturally speculation about what would happen below him. And Jean's taken responsibility for the road car side as well as the racing car side. For us, that's a very good thing. Because for us the president's extra commitments, both in the Fiat group and Confindustria. It was clear that Luca Di Montezemolo would not be able to devote as much time to Ferrari as he had been in the past. Therefore, there was a hole appearing particularly with the road car group. And the options were to fill that with someone new or try and make some adjustments internally. I think it's much better to try and make adjustments internally. I think Jean deserved the position, I think he's shown as a boss of Ferrari racing that he's a very capable guy, so I think he deserved the position. From my perspective, it means we have someone in charge of Ferrari who I know and respect and can work with. So it's a very good thing for us in racing. There is no change in the position of team principal, Jean will still hold that. Myself, Stefano Domenicali, Nigel Stepney, several people at the factory will be taking on extra responsibility to cover some of the areas which Jean is no longer responsible for. I must say I enjoy the engineering, I enjoy the racing side and I don't want things to interfere with that too much. I went to a team principals’ meeting, I think, in Nurburgring or one of the earlier races and talked about qualifying, and it occupied three or four hours on a Saturday afternoon. Well, I simply don't have that time at the moment, at least. So it's important that I don't get too distracted from what I'm here for and what I actually enjoy doing. But we're all going to merge, we're all going to move a little bit, we're all going to take on some extra responsibilities to cover the hole that Jean's left in some respects, but Jean will always be there on the racing side as a team principal. So I don't think it's going to change very much, and we're pleased about that because I don't want to have -- I don't want to see -- I don't want to have to work for someone else.

Participating: Juan Pablo Montoya, Ralf Schumacher, Sir Frank Williams.

Q. Next up we have Ralf Schumacher, Juan Pablo Montoya and team boss, Frank Williams. Ralf on our right, Juan Pablo will be in the middle and Frank on the left. So good morning, everyone. Frank, I hope you don't mind if we start with you, but you can imagine what we're going to ask. Let's look at the positive side of things first. The team really stepped up in terms of performance in Montreal. What was your reaction to that? Can you maintain it?

Frank Williams:

Well, the style of the track was more suitable to our car's taste, if you like, and the car was certainly easier to adapt to that circuit. The drivers obviously drove, whatever they do, 101 percent all the time, and it works out well except for the error which you're dying to talk about at the end of the race.

Q. I'm not dying to talk about it, but obviously it is a subject that has to come up. How does that sort of thing happen? We've sort of heard from Ross Brawn just now how complex it is, but whose responsibility is it?

FW:

Well, you can say the responsibility stops with me at the end of the day. But we're a large organization, there's a chain of events that has occurred, which I'm not going to dissect here. But we were very clumsy in that particular -- with that part. I hope you all believe there's no implication whatsoever of seeking an aerodynamic advantage with that by cheating. We made a mistake, we paid a heavy price, and we have no quarrel with that.

Q. What was your reaction to it, Ralf?

Ralf Schumacher:

Well, I think we all were disappointed, especially the mechanics, it was a result we desperately were looking for, but that's the way it is. I mean, in my time at Williams we have never had a problem, and it was just an unfortunate incident. As Frank just said, I mean, we have never and will never cheat, and it was not our intention.

Q. But particularly, it was your best result of the year, in fact the team's best result of the year. It must have been very frustrating.

RS:

It doesn't change the fact we had a great race, I think everybody saw that. The car fitted very well to Montreal. We can have another good one here, but it is certainly a bit more difficult. Obviously, yes, we didn't get any points, but hopefully we'll catch some here.

Q. Actually, that's a good point. You still get to pay the bonus money to the team for the...

FW:

That's an undecided internal matter.

Q. Because BMW, I believe, has said they're going to pay it.

FW:

That's their internal matter, Bob. You know more about this business than I do.

Q. Well, one of my colleagues tipped me off. But is the same sort of thing, you say the chain of command, has that had anything to do with the restructuring within the team?

FW:

I just want to say no more about it. It's behind us as far as I'm concerned. As far as the team is concerned, they would far rather talk about this weekend, look back and learn from our mistakes, and clearly we learned very heavily last weekend.

Q. You've got, I believe, an updated car coming. When can we see that?

FW:

Maybe France, maybe Britain, maybe the next race. Depends what performance it brings. It's a reasonable change, modest you might say. But we have to bring us an advantage; if it doesn't, you won't see it. And you won't see a change until we've got something really worthwhile for these boys that they can do justice to their careers.

Q. Is it principally aerodynamic?

FW:

I don't want to tell you what we're doing, Bob. Sorry.

Q. Thanks, Frank. Juan Pablo, can you, can the team repeat the Montreal performance here, do you feel?

Juan Pablo Montoya:

I think we should be pretty strong here. All the years we've been pretty good here. It seems the car runs down low to be quite competitive. We'll see. Have to wait and see. In Montreal, it suits the car even better because it's quite bumpy, and the car tends to run really well. We have to wait and see.

Q. What are your feelings about overall major changes to the car? Do you feel you need them?

JPM:

Yeah, we need them really. There hasn’t really been any major steps this year. We fell back a little bit, but that doesn’t mean the team is not trying to find anything new to go quicker. It’s just they just haven’t been able to find anything, but they are trying.

Q. But development is ongoing obviously.

JPM:

Yes, all the time.

Q. Is there something that the car is doing that you don't like it, lack of stability or anything?

JPM:

Every car has its issues, and some issues are easier to deal with than others. We worked a lot on this car to try and improve those issues. We did the test we did before coming to Montreal, I did a lot of work in Silverstone, and Ralf did a lot of work in Monza, and it seems to have paid off.

Q. Ralf, France, of course, is the next race, you won it last year. Is that a pointer for the next Grand Prix?

RS:

Well, I mean, you know, even in Montreal we had a chance of winning. If the car improves as we planned, I mean, I'm sure, you know, like Monaco, we have a good package; so it's all possible, yeah.

Q. Juan Pablo, you talked about issues, you mentioned it several times, you didn't actually say what the issues were. Can you give us more detail about these issues? And Frank, can you tell us what the issues are, as well?

JPM:

It's just balance, really getting comfortable driving the car that's there. The car has got, you know, no particular thing that makes it hard to drive, but that's it, really. I'm not going to go into detail and say what's the problem. Sometimes it's hard to drive; sometimes it's easy to drive. It's not a matter whether it's easy or hard to drive; it's whether it goes fast or not more than anything else.

Q. Is it one specific thing?

JPM:

No.

FW: Joe, if you want another answer, you mentioned my name then. Clearly, in very simple terms, it's compared to its peers, and we're trying to be sufficiently quick around the parts that matter. That is to say around the corners. We have adequate horsepower; we'd always like more, always grateful for more, but that's not our concern. We just must focus on the car. And it's obvious to all of you that we have failed to find improvement, as Juan has said. We are trying, and hopefully with another slight change of direction, we'll see improvement. But we are really not competitive by our standards or by real standards at this time.

Q. Frank, going back to the subject about which you don't want to speak, bearing in mind Toyota also had a problem with exactly the same regulation in Canada, a very unusual situation to have two teams in the same weekend, is there anything about the regulation that in hindsight explains what happened? Is there anything that's a gray area there?

FW:

I don't think at all I used the word clumsiness deliberately. It was an internal matter but we overlooked something or didn't check exactly what the sequence was because, but I haven't gone back and tracked it myself. It bit us badly, we deserved to get bitten, and that's what you pay for.

Q. To both drivers. In Canada you had a problem after the race, you had a good car. Do you know you can win this race in Indy this week?

JPM:

I think if we knew we'd win or not win, you wouldn't even bother to come. I think it's a race; and from my point, I don't know where we stand. And whether we stand good or bad, we've got to make sure we do the best job we can with the equipment we've got. If this car is quick enough, we're going to try to win and see what happens.

RS: Yeah, in Montreal, everything worked perfect and now if everything runs well, I think we'll have a good chance even here.

Q. This is a question for Juan Pablo. How would you describe your season so far? And from the 10 races that are still left, which ones do you think are going to be better for you?

JPM:

It's hard to say which one is going to be good or bad for us. At the moment, Indy theoretically should be good for us, Canada was a good race, Monza should be a good race for us. But I don't know, you have to wait and see. We have a new aerodynamic package, if something good comes out, let’s say from Magny-Cours or Silverstone, it might be Silverstone or might be Magny-Cours. So depending on how competitive the car is then, you know, the team cannot do it by themselves, and the driver cannot do it by himself. So it's a matter of working with the team on -- you've got to be with the team when they do well and when they do bad. Like what happened last week, and it was a mistake but at the same time -- you know, when you go off you make a mistake, as well. The team isn't going to slag you because you make a mistake, you've got to be with them. You didn't make a mistake on purpose, they didn't make a mistake on purpose. You know, it's racing.

Q. Frank, perhaps another subject you don't want to discuss, but your driver lineup for next year, when can we have some information relative for next year? And for a couple drivers who have influence in Indianapolis, Jacques Villeneuve and Scott Dixon, how do they factor into your plans?

FW:

There's a list, we know we need drivers. We have a list, we have tested Scott, we may or may not test Jacques. Our driver replacement isn't directly my focus. But after the end of July, things will become more clear at that time. It will get more attention. Biggest problem right now is making a winning racing car. Then the phone rings.

Q. This is for Ralf. Ralf, Ross Brawn described your brother's being as enthusiastic as he's ever seen him this year. Have you seen that yourself? What do you think has sparked that? Has he become bored? Does he look for another challenge, do you think?

RS:

One would wonder, his life is perfect, isn't it? I mean, he has basically his team and he’s winning races. As long as the success is there, as it is for Michael, it's just great being there. I think the question comes if they go through a rather difficult period whether he will be still happy enough to go through that. But that question has been asked since, I don't know, for six years now? I have no clue, or four years. So for him it is simply great.

Q. Frank, going back to the drivers again, I don't know if it's a slip of the tongue or not, you said, "I have a list, I know we need drivers." Any development on that? Because at the moment it's only one driver you need.

FW:

At the present time, Ralf hasn't decided what he has done or is going to do. Insofar as an announcement would be made or would have been made, at the present time we'd rather consider -- we need to take precautions for the long-term rather than suddenly get caught short at the wrong time when there are no relevant drivers available. We're in the market at all times, looking and listening.

Q. Frank, I understand that the team bosses have agreed on a qualifying format to start at Silverstone. Can you tell us what that's about?

FW:

It's not clear yet. It was agreed insofar as I know Williams have signed it, but I'm not aware and have had no notice from Bernie or the FIA that it’s a formality now, so I think there's some reservation that maybe what we're doing presently is maybe better than what we're going to do at Silverstone, if it happens.

Q. What are you supposed to do at Silverstone?

FW:

At Silverstone, essentially there's going to be only one official qualifying session, and that's split into two 25-minute sessions with a 10-minute gap in between. Each team is allowed to do a total of six laps, allowed to use four sets of tires for that first 25 and the second 25 session. You must start the race on the tires on which you qualified, best on that qualification time is based on the aggregate - for the first time ever in F1 - on the best lap of the first 25 minutes and the second 25 minutes.

Q. And what about fuel levels in the car after qualifying?

FW:

I thought they should be done I think before qualifying begins, but most people preferred to put fuel in after the qualifying, so that's how it's going to be if everyone has signed.