FIA president Max Mosley met in Monza the senior staff of BAR and Honda, lead by Honda Racing president Shoichi Tanaka. The Japanese and his colleagues talked with Mosley about the FIA's proposed changes for the engine regulations. After the meeting, Tanaka explained to Atlas F1's Biranit Goren why they object to some of these proposals, and how it may affect their decision to continue investing in Formula One

With Ford Motor Company taking many by surprise last week with their decision to withdraw from Formula One and sell off not just Jaguar Racing but also engine makers Cosworth, the public threat of automakers such as BMW or Honda - who said they may withdraw from Formula One if the technical regulations no longer suits them - has now become more realistic. If Ford, the third largest automaker in the world no longer wants to spend money on Formula One, what's to say others won't reach a similar conclusion in the future?

Given that Honda has always made it clear that it is involved in Formula One purely for the technological challenge - preferring not to enter the sport with their own team and refraining from joining the GPWC - it was no surprise to see FIA president Max Mosley spend Friday morning at the Honda motorhome in Monza, during the Italian Grand Prix. Mosley sat with the senior staff of Honda Racing and BAR, lead by Honda Racing president Shoichi Tanaka.

Shortly after Mosley left, Atlas F1 asked Tanaka-San what are Honda's objections, and what they told the FIA president.

"Basically, we are against two issues - one-engine-for-two-races, and too much development restrictions on the engine design," Tanaka responded. "So these are the two main issues that we are appealing to the FIA to reconsider, and after meeting [FIA president] Max Mosley, I have the feeling that nothing is non-negotiable. He's talking with other engine manufacturers as well, and I think we have about a month to find the compromising points."

BG: Why does Honda oppose to running one engine for two races?

Shoichi Tanaka: "In order to run one engine over two race weekends, there will be a lot of administrative issues that would first have to be solved. Let's say, cheating and so on. After all, how can you control that? It will also be very confusing to the spectators. Let's say we have a very dramatic race, where only 10 cars have finished, and engines blew or there were crashes that damaged the engine. Then, at the next race, there will be 10 cars with a new engine and 10 cars with old engines. Is this a fair competition? Even with a 10 grid places down penalty and all that - new and old engines mixed together, it's very confusing. And what kind of a Grand Prix would it become?

"But above all, we question what is the reason for this proposal. And the reason is very confusing, which Mr. Mosley admits himself. One reason is stated to be safety - slow down the cars. And the second reason stated is that the number of engines in 18 races will become less, which will help the independent teams in having to buy practically 18 engines less. So I told Max that this second reason is purely an economic issue which has to be addressed separately.

"But the objective is not very clear. In order to slow the cars down, we have the aero package regulations, we have the tyres... an engine that lasts two race weekends will create various problems. Even if the engine lasts for two races, by the second Sunday, we will be competing at the end of the life of an engine - this isn't exciting to the spectators who come to see F1, not GT, not Indy. So this is the reason why we are against it; there are many other reasons, too."

BG: What about your objections to development restrictions?

Tanaka: "I don't think that we don't need to elaborate on that - you understand why we are against too much restrictions, because we consider Formula One the pinnacle of the sport. That's why it's part of Honda's corporate activity, to train the young engineers in this challenging environment. For example, Max Mosley would say it's the same thing like IRL. But I told Mr. Mosley that IRL is not our corporate activity - it's a promotional activity for American Honda rather."

BG: The independent teams, as you said, are very much in favour of the one engine for two weekends, because it means they will have to pay less for engines. There is another problem, though, that there are not many options for the independent teams - never mind the price, Honda and Toyota and BMW and Mercedes are working exclusively with their own team. So this is a real problem, how do you solve it?

Tanaka: "That's why we are saying to Mr. Mosley that if there is a sensible regulation to make it possible for the independent teams to acquire engines at reasonable conditions, we will follow. We are saying that we are ready to co-operate."

BG: So you would be willing to provide engines to a second team if the FIA came up with a fair way?

Tanaka: "Yes, yes. We will comply with such a rule."

BG: Honda has a clause in the agreement with BAR that states you will withdraw from the sport if you feel it no longer provides you a technical challenge

Tanaka: "Yes, there is a break-out clause, yes."

BG: So if the FIA decides to go for an engine for 2 race weekends and restrict the engine specs, you would withdraw?

Tanaka: "The contract has that kind of clause, but the degree of technical challenge is dependent on what kind of rules are fixed. So I cannot say now whether the the current situation applies to this clause or not. I don't know that yet."

BG: OK, I'll rephrase that: you have always stated that Honda is in F1 for the technological challenge. Would something like an engine for two race weekends diminish that challenge?

Tanaka: "No. We are not against a two race engine in the context of high technical challenge. It could be a high technical challenge to have an engine durable for two races. The reason for us to be against it is because it's confusing for the spectators and is it going to be a fair race?"

BG: So you're not against it from a technical point of view, but from a sporting point of view

Tanaka: "Yes, exactly."

BG: Whereas the engine development restrictions - these you are against from a technical point of view?

Tanaka: "Yes, yes."

BG: Are you optimistic that this issue is going to be resolved in a way that will satisfy you?

Tanaka: "Yes. We'll compromise, too. There are ten teams, so we do not stick strictly to our position only. For example, 2.4 litre V8 - we are not strongly against that. It can be exciting to develop a new 2.4l V8, but knowing that some other engine manufacturers are very strongly againt it, we are saying that V10 3.0l - or 2.7l - we can accept that too. So we are in negotiations not sticking to Honda's position only, but looking at other manufacturers as well."

BG: What did you think about one of the options that Charlie Whiting sent, which included free competitive engines?

Tanaka: "Well, the scenario 3 allows more freedom in engine development but is on the condition that we supply free engines to a second team, and so on. Well, in summary, what we are trying to compromise is not to consider this scenario 1, 2, 3 package as a fixed. We can mix, take elements, to achieve the common goal.

"But we are ready to compromise, everyone else should compromise in order to find a good solution."

BG: So when will we know? In about a month you think?

Tanaka: "It's already late so we're working very hard to reach a solution as soon as possible. Unfortunately we are working on various possibilities for 2005. Fortunately, we have the resources to do contingency plans. This must hurt the smaller teams, however, and we must be careful not to draw out this process for too long."

Contact the Author Contact the Editor