Entrevista moooolto interessante a Charlie Whiting ...

[nunoHGT]

StS: What about the permanent rumour in the paddock which hints that Ferrari are being ? shall we say ? overly creative in their interpretation of the regulations?

Charlie Whiting: I?m afraid I try to deal with facts and specific information. Ron [Dennis] came to me in Malaysia in 1999 and said: ?Schumacher has got traction control ? he must have. It?s impossible for a driver to be a second quicker than the rest of them.? Well, it?s not impossible. We?ve always been convinced that we were 100 per cent on top of the traction-control thing with our checking methods. And I think, rather than listening to Ron, you should sit down with someone like Paddy Lowe, one of Ron?s senior engineers, and say, ?Paddy, explain to me how you think Ferrari are getting around this checking method.? He couldn?t do it. I?m not trying to single Ron out here, by any means, but Ron?s often said, ?Well, our engineers know how to get around it ? in theory.? Ron, please explain it to us. We really need to know. He?s offered to do this, but has never done so.

StS:Do you receive a lot of phone calls and faxes, saying, ?You should look at this car ? it?s illegal??

CW: All the time. Usually unfounded. For example we had that big business with the [allegedly movable] Ferrari bargeboards at Imola [in 2002]. Again, that?s probably an example of what people would say about us favouring Ferrari. Patrick Head came to me and said, ?Look at this picture [of a Ferrari bouncing over the Imola kerbs, allegedly showing illegal movement of aerodynamic devices].? I said, those parts are only getting some sort of oscillation. And then I showed him some on-board camera footage from one of his cars. The big fairings around the rear wheels were moving much more than the Ferrari bargeboards. You know, you have to be rational and sensible about these things. But you?ve got to let guys like Patrick calm down a bit and then you can talk them through it. Patrick, if he?s in that sort of state, goes off and talks to a journalist ? it?s hopeless. So I think those are the sorts of things that make some people believe there?s some sort of special relationship.

StS: ?Michelin-gate? was harder to understand ?

CW: Try to draw a parallel with someone using a 4.0-litre engine: ?Oh well, we?ve been using it since the beginning of last year, so why can?t we carry on?? Well, of course you can?t: we?ve found it now. What Michelin did was send us some pictures, at 1:1 scale, of their tyres, and they said, ?Will this be okay?? We said at the time, ?Yes, it would be?, not knowing what the effects of a worn tyre would be. If they had explained to us that as the tyre becomes worn down it could become wider, we would probably have said ?No?. They really did withhold a bit of information, which is not a particularly sensible thing to do, in my opinion. Imagine you?re Ferrari and the FIA say, ?Yes, Michelin can continue to use these tyres at Monza, and they?ll get it fixed for next year.? They would immediately protest and my guess is they?d win. Common sense dictates that if it?s been used and then measured across and it?s more than 270mm, then it must be illegal. That was the view I took.

StS: Nowadays the paddock is full of talk about the Sauber situation. Is the C23 last year?s Ferrari ? honestly?

CW: No. The Concorde Agreement says that each team must own the intellectual property rights of the car concerned. Sauber do. They have their own drawings. They?ve manufactured all the parts. It?s as simple as that. I don?t think anyone doubts that there?s an exchange of technology between the two teams. It?s inevitable if they?re using the same engines and gearboxes. But I think they fulfil the requirements of the Concorde Agreement in their entirety. That?s pretty much all I can say. I?ve certainly not been made aware of any large-scale team dissatisfaction on this.