Jaguar review with Niki Lauda

3rd (Irvine at Monaco) 6th (Irvine at Monaco)
Eddie's superb run to the podium at Monaco - and the few glorious hours immediately after the Adrian Newey coup...
Losing Newey and the ongoing internal disputes.
No major changes to the overall package, but 2002 will see the first car designed from scratch by the design team that came together last winter. Wind tunnel will finally be working from March and will assist with ongoing development.

By the end of the 2001 season Jaguar Racing had scored just nine points. That wasn't very much to show for a works team that clearly has ambitions to challenge for victories, and having taken full control after Bobby Rahal's departure in the autumn, Niki Lauda is the man charged with turning the situation around.

The R2 had a difficult birth, thanks to changes in the design office. Technical director Gary Anderson left the team at the end of the 2000 season, and Steve Nichols joined from the McLaren R&D department. He thus inherited a car that Anderson had conceived, in partnership with chief designer John Russell. Russell only joined himself in January 2000, but at least he provided continuity. Nichols and new aero boss Mark Handford arrived too late to influence the R2 and had to take over what they were given, and the lack of a dedicated wind tunnel did not help.

Where the team visibly made improvements during 2001 was in its race engineering, or how the Grand Prix weekends were run. The car might not have been quick, but thanks in large part to Eddie Irvine's input, the team frequently operated good strategies in the races, often involving late pit stops. Unreliability cost a lot of points, although several times Irvine and Pedro de la Rosa set the sixth or seventh fastest laps. Good support from Michelin helped, and sometimes the team seemed to do a better job with the French tyres than Williams. Adam Cooper asked Lauda for his thoughts on the season.



"It's alright. We couldn't expect more than what happened, because everything was given right from day one when I joined. But my hope was to blow the Benettons off and move forward on the constructors' grid."



"Not really, because the fact of life was that the speed of our car was not as quick as it was supposed to be. During the season you cannot make many changes. The improvements we made were OK, but the others improved too, so basically we were always qualifying around 10th or 12th or 14th, depending on the circuit. From my point of view the team worked well. We had reliable results, we had good strategies most of the time. So on this point I'm satisfied. The only real problem for us was the speed of the car itself, and this I knew right from day one we couldn't change."



"As for the team itself, I was satisfied. Reliability was there, everybody worked properly, so from this point of view everything was fine. But the speed of the car we couldn't change, because we needed a new car to do that, and in the middle of the season you can't do it."



"This did not put us out of balance, in a way. The basics of the team was very little affected. I think everybody is motivated and everyone is doing a fine job. From this point of view there was no handicap because of these two items."



"They've done everything right. On the drivers I've got no complaints whatsoever, because the real problem is the car itself. We have to fix the car first, and then let them drive quick. They did the best they could do with the existing car. They both did a very good job."



"Sure, Michelin was a help for us. The tyre was developed very quickly, and at some circuits it went very well. So for us the Michelin decision was a good decision."



"This we will see in Melbourne next year. Certainly the basics for next year are better, because the team has been working together to design next year's car. This car was not done that way, it was done half and half with people joining later and so on. So from this point of view it should be better. But the real question is, what do the others do?"



"What is a conservative car? I don't even understand all these issues. Conservative means what? We have to build the quickest car we can, with our technical knowledge, and that's it. This is really the target in F1. So if somebody builds a car which is called conservative and it goes slow, I don't think he knew what he was doing. I don't think really think the answer was that easy."



"From my point of view we need to build the best car we can build, with all the risk involved. This is the only way to go forward."



"No, I think it's bad, because you have to build other machines for testing which costs you more money. The testing has to be changed, and hopefully it will be changed."



"At the moment the team stays as is. We might add some people into the team, which we're consistently doing, to have enough. We have to get the wind tunnel going, which will happen at the beginning of next year, so all these things have to get sorted out quickly. So let's wait and see."



"This is the biggest frustration, because it takes a while to get a wind tunnel going. So this is a handicap that was created in the past, and you can't fix it overnight. We've taken the right decisions now, so we just have to wait. One starts on February, so ongoing development for next year's car and the 2003 car should be much easier."



"It's fine. That's what I'm here for. The tougher it gets, the more I start working, so from this point of view I'm happy. I'm basically happy with the way the team is running, the team is performing, there's no complaint there. The real question is to develop in order to have a quicker car going next year."