Team personnel: John Howett (Toyota), David Pitchforth (Jaguar)Tyre manufacturers:✅ Pierre Dupasquier (Michel♑in), Hirohide Hamashima (Bridgestone)

Q:
John, how have you felt about the season so far?

John Howett:
I think, basically, we expected to be better as we came into the season. We brought Mike Gascoyne in at the end of last year, and our performance since Aus🧸tralia is progre✤ssing race after race. We're still challenging to catch the top teams and we're fairly confident that before the end of this season we will deliver more performance.

Q:
Ricardo Zonta seems to be doing a fantastic job as a third driver, and sometimes we see him going quicker tha🅠n the two regu𒆙lar drivers. Is that a slightly false illusion?

JH:
I think you have to say we run the engine harder on Friday in the third car. Sometimes, he has more opti⛦on with a newer tyre. He's doing a great job for us as a test driver and we're very happy with him, but I think you have to look at facts to be able to really evaluate the relative performance. We're still very happy with both race drivers.

Q:
Now what about this revised car that you🎉're introducing? Is that the case, and how revised will it be?

JH:
Like every team, I suppose, we're constantly tryi🍒ng to improve. We want to improve the monocoﷺque weight during the middle of the season, so we're scheduling around Hockenheim. And, at every race, we're trying to improve the aerodynamics on the car.

Q:
New engine regulatꦐions were announced on Tuesday. How do you feel about those regulations, and how much action have you taken since then? Have they been discussed? Have any decisions been made?

JH:
Yes, I think in principal we can accept a change in engine regulations. The basic discussion was for 2008 and then a discussion whether that could be advanced. From our point of view, ifꩵ the regulation is clearly defined by June, we could in fact produce a modif൩ied engine for the 2006 season. I think the key point for Toyota is that we are also here for technical challenge, so I think it's the real detail of the engine regulation that is quite important to us.

Q:
Have you actually said you're happy wi𝔍th that 2.4 V8?

JH:
A 2.4 litre V8, I think, is no problem. It makes sense. It enables us to reduce costs, it enables us to transfer current technology towards the smaller engine and I think, together with other revisions, and possibly a reduction in testing, it's possible to achieve a 50 per cent cost reduction on engines as targeted by the FIA. But still, Toyota's position is that we want quite a lot of freedom on the technolog✨y - or not necessarily the technology, but freedom of engineering capability for the engine design itself.

Q:
And the standard ECU?🍎 You're not worried about that?

JH:
This is a discussion point. I think,𝓰 at the meeting, that was probably postponed from 2006, and this was something the FIA said clearly would come in from 2008. If it were to be advanced, there would be further discussion.

Q:
Dave, roughly speaking the same questions. What were your feelings about the engine regula♛tions?

Dave Pitchforth:
Yeah, we were reasonably relaxed about the engine regulations. I think a bit of perturbation is needed in the sport anyway, and we need to do a new engine, as long as we know when the regulation and what the regulation is, but there needs to be a lot of clarity. At the moment, 2.4 ballpark, t𝐆hat's not a problem, but the ECU thing needs a lot of discussion and a lot of clarity because it's software at the end of the day - and it's not clear whether the team would still provide the software. If they did, then we get back into the chestnut of softwar🌟e regulation and validation, which is very difficult to do.

Q:
But you're basically happy with that con🌠figuration, that architecture?

DP:
Yeah. I think everybody can do the mathematics, can't they? It's a V10 with tw🧔o cylinders removed, three litres going down to 2.4, so it's not really an issue for us.

Q:
What about the season so far, how do you feel about ♑that?

DP:
Yeah, obviously we've failed to capitalise on some good performances at the beginning of the season which was frustrating but we took what was, I suppose, quite a risk-prone approach to having an update of the car after the launch. We launched R5 and then uℱpdated it fully before the Australian race, so a lot of our development was done before the fly-aways. Now we're bringiౠng the development in as we go through the season, on an ongoing continuous improvement basis. And performance so far - we're reasonably happy.

Q:
It does seem to bꦦe a little up and down - for instance, you got on the front row of the grid in Malaysia but since then it hasn't really happened..ღ..

DP:
Yeah, we suffer somewhat from having the testing. We don't test as much as some of the other teams and that leads to surprises, but, as long as we𓄧're learning, it's alright. As we move forward, we put those experiences into our corporate historᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ𒀱ᩚᩚᩚy, if you like, and we don't make the same mistake again. And we're doing a good job of that. We're not having recurring faults, but we are on a learning curve because, inevitably, we're going to bear more of our mistakes at race weekends because we're not doing the testing between the events.

Q:
Is thꦜat why some🌌body has mentioned that you haven't done as much development as expected?

DP:
We front-loaded the development to be before Australia ☂- for Australia, if you like - after the launch. The development since then, well, we've broken the cycle of going for big update kits, simply because, to do that, you leave performance in the garage, if you like, or back at the factory, because you're waiting for the whole kit to assemble. We're not doing that, we're bringing the performance to the car - if it's tested and if we understand it - every weekend. So last weekend there was a small update, this weekend small updates and it will go on through the season.

Q:
A𒈔nd it will happen even with the six races coming in eight weeks?

DP:
Yeah, we have different parts for Mon꧃aco, and we have differ💧ent parts here this weekend.

Q:
Hamashima-san, new tyre rule🐟s have been suggested. ﷺTell us about the proposal for the narrow front and wider rear and perhaps losing the grooves as well - what is the thinking that you can see behind that?

Hirohide Hamashima:
I think current cars demand high weight distribution to the front because a lighter rear helps the rear tyres so much, so the rear tyres just work for the traction. Front tyres work for braking and🍸 cornering, so it makes the car quicker. So, if we use narrower fronts, in that case maybe the car will be slower, but we don't know what the cars' design will be after the r🧜egulations issued, so it is very important.

Q:
What advantages are there to a one-tyre fℱormula? Are there advantages for a tyre company?

HH:
Difficu✤lt question. Of course, I prefer competition but, even if we are sole suppliers, even though we can get the many high technical aspect from the teams - because Formula One teams have many high level techniques, for example simulation and other t🥃hings - we learn so many things and the tyre manufacturer will be better [equipped] to produce new tyres.

Q:
Pierre, we had a release from your company...

Pierre Dupasquier:
We made a commitmentℱ with Hamashima-san, to answer only que𝔍stions about red wine! Red wine, yes.

Q:
...yes, but in between the questions about red wine, your press release says 'we would like to put proposals to reduce costs while maintaining the spirit of competition.' Caܫn you imagine what those pr🦹oposals would be? How would you manage to do that?

PD:
We're working on it. The idea is that, without competition, you don't know what you are doing. You are a tyre supplier, that's fine, but it's not what we are in racing for - in motorcycling, in Le Mans or in Formula One. So we really will see competition in order to find out where we✤ are and to try if possible to show our customers, our partners, that we are capable of serving a good tyre and they are doing a good job.

The tyre companies should be welcome in sport, in Formula One. We ask 'what can we do to achieve the president's goal with which we🃏 agree 100 per cent?'. It's responsible and we understand that. Reducing the cost? Fine. Motor racin♔g is not cheap, but it's maybe going too far. It's his decision. Fine. And maintaining performance, that's obvious. We have to maintain a balance between the machines and the environment. Karting on a Formula One track is ridiculous and vice versa.

So, somewhere, there is that need for safety as well. He [Mosley] had the same sort of suggestion for rallying and the same objectives and we said 'look, if, for example, you ask us to have one tyre per day in rallying in any conditions - I'm talking about tarmac - I don't know if it'💧s possible. But let's try'. It will be absolutely ridiculous. The tyre doesn't exist. Not even a production tyre will do it, so we will have to create a tyre that will be titanium or wood or I don't know what - but not rubber any more. So the car will be very slow, it will b🐻e very cheap, so that's the kind of idea that can be offered.

Q:
Last week, you had seven trucks at Silverstone to provide three teams and,♚ when it rained, you di🍎dn't have the right tyres. It seemed such an extraordinary cost for a three-day test...

PD:
It is, but ꦯa company like our companies, we spend our lives testing anyway, for anything. We test for trucks, we have trucks 24 hours, all day long, just to test tyres. So we must go through tests even though we work very efficiently on simulation. But, at the end of the day, you have to see if, in real life, if your s༺imulation means something and if you don't screw up on that, and so far we haven't - fortunately or unfortunately, I don't know - but we don't have simulation that can answer every question and say 'that's the tyre'. We work on it, but it's not quite there.

Yes, it is very expensive, yes we agree 100 per cent on the fact that it is too expensive. Reducing the costs is a goal for everybody, every industry, every spectacle. Somebody yesterday told me that Formula One is like a movie - we borrow the money, we invest the money to make the movie, we make a great spectacle but, if spectators are not there, it doesn't make any sense. We die. That's fine. It's not only a movie, it's not only spectacle, it's also patience. The people expect some indication from the peak of racing that there is some technology going on, there is improvement, hi-tech, new things. That's why they are so passionate about it. But, if we cut that too much, it's a philosophical decision from the FIA. If we cut it too much, the competition between the elements of the machines... It exists already. We have Formula 3000, they are on the track right now. How many spectators are out there? [PD indicates 'zero']

Q:
Ferrar♒i say that this championship can be completely turned around by their rival tyre supplier, if🍎 he comes up with a different tyre. What chances?

PD:
Well, I would say that, if Ferrari come with a non-competitive tyre, the championship will be turned around immediately. I don't see what is behind the question. Do they expect that any of us can find five-tenths a lap like that? No way. We had seven trucks at Sꦉilverstone to try to find one tenth. So if we screw up, we give the championship to somebody else. But don't expect the tyre company to turn round anything. What I've found out since the beginning of the season, to get Ferrari, Ferrari, Ferrari, Ferrari and Ferrari, that's it. So where's the tyre company in that?

Q: Surely it's a partnership?

PD:
Yes, definitely. I💦t is. Absolutely. But, if you forget some of the contenders you were just referring to, then you get a different championship.