Mario THEISSEN: A slightly different position again. We are excited about the KERS system and the new regulations. Different from what John says I am pretty sure this will really speed up the development of future road car hybrid power trains. KERS only makes sense to us in Formula One if we are able to increase power density and the power to weight ratio of the KERS components by a factor of four to five compared to current road car solutions. This will immediately spur the development of future road car components as well. It perfectly fits with our approach at BMW to use the Formula One project not just as a marketing tool but as a technology pioneer. We have been able to raise synergies over the years on the power train and this will be taken to an entirely new level with the KERS system and what might follow. We really support the green campaign, although as an engineer I am more interested in the substance than the colour and if it was just about painting something green the true pioneers on the ecological side would have been the old English racing cars which used to be all green. But I think it is an exciting opportunity for motorsport and for Formula One and you know we have been supporting, or have been one of the strongest supporters of KERS from the very first moment.

Q: Hiroshi, tell us how the tyres are behaving this weekend, the initial performance that you have seen so far.
HY: We have the medium and soft compound and I think this circuit, for the first time in dry conditions, is very challenging and interesting but anyhow we are going to support all teams and it should be no problem.

Q: It looks as if the front left tyre is coming in for a lot of hard work.
HY: Yes, this is true. After this session out engineers and the teams’ engineers are going to discuss how to maintain the tyres.

Q: To the three team principals: you have been invited to a meeting with the President of the FIA. What specific areas are there where you can see that savings can be made in Formula One?
NF: I think the first thing to say from our side and I think with all the other teams we do feel there is a need to reduce costs. The important thing from our point of view is to reduce costs which frankly are wasted expenditure and I think there are several of those areas. Whether they are enough to meet the targets that we need is another matter. In terms of specifics I think the one that is frequently cited is the area around the brakes and the brake ducts, the so-called keg tins, which surround the discs and duct the air. It is an area where probably the number of physical moulds that are required to make those parts have doubled or even tripled over the past couple of years because the parts are so intricate. We now all have very similar systems and it is very expensive. A lot of the aerodynamic testing goes into that area. It is probably not an area of performance differentiation and that is probably an area where we could do something which reduces costs. I think there is general agreement that the gearbox is an area where we have all now migrated to so-called quick shift gearboxes. I suspect we have all got slightly different mechanisms inside but again it is not a performance differentiator. Another idea that is being worked on is the centre of gravity of the car. Weight reduction or specifying a weight target is one thing but when we spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to move weight from slightly higher up to slightly lower down and then add tungsten on the bottom of the car, again is somewhat wasteful and again the general opinion among the technical directors and from Ross (Brawn) who is running that group is that a lot can be done in that area. The power train, the engine, is an area where I know there is more controversy. I think we all do feel that we could migrate to a lower cost power train. The V8 19,000rpm engine we have at the moment is hugely expensive, up to about 300,000 € per unit. They are immensely expensive and going to a different type of engine, maybe a four cylinder engine, would be cheaper with all the environmental technologies hung onto that. I think certainly from the Honda side and I suspect from some of the other manufacturers’ sides we would like to preserve the ability to design and make that engine as it is part of our brand identity but making the specification a lot more prescriptive, making it a lot cheaper, is something I think that many of us would support.