Rounds 14 and 15: Istanbul and Monza

Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:49 PM

Die-hard Toyota supporter, Filipino TF102, is back with his mouthful and dizzying interview series.

Nice to see you again, and I have to say that although you’re a little more prompt this time by doing the interview after just two events, you’re still a little late.
Yes, and I practically gave in to waiting for Spa so that I’ll just do three events in one. I fully know that doing that would tempt me to pour more than a lot in just one sitting, which would not be good. I’ve been busy posting various thoughts and issues lately at the boards and I still have some ideas I’m itching to write about.

I see. Looking forward to those again. Anyway, Monza and Turkey were pretty good races for Panasonic Toyota, especially Monza. What are your overall thoughts just to get us started?
Yes, I’m quite pleased with how things are shaping up. Istanbul and Monza were both very satisfying but for different reasons. Both were rather special, more than the usual tracks with lots of opportunities for livelier and entertaining racing – spectacular. But just as they contrast in that Monza is one of the oldest events and Turkey is the newest, I also find some contrast in that Turkey I enjoyed as an F1 fan and Monza I enjoyed as a Toyota fan.

What made the first ever Grand Prix of Turkey special?
To begin with the track itself was a challenge for the teams and drivers and as we’ve seen, in itself track, cars, and drivers made an entertaining formula. It was a welcome bonus though that F1 upped the entertainment potential even more with new graphics and team radio broadcasts. New additions were the Traction Control indicator, the lap series indicators for gaps between cars, and throttle and braking comparisons between two cars. These were very useful, especially for viewers with horrible commentators, although they could use some improvement in terms of aesthetic value. I’d also like to see average lap times of each car at the end of the race, to shed more light on race performance rather than just looking at the fastest lap.

Of course, it was fun to hear the McLaren and Renault radio broadcasts. Any particular memorable broadcasts?
I remember Webber’s reaction regarding Sato after his qualifying run and there was of course the controversy from Renault. I also recall that after taking pole, Kimi was advised that he was live on air. First of all, it’s very rare we hear from the McLaren radio so that was a delight. They were just so polite and formal – was that Ron or Martin? All Kimi had to say was ‘Thanks, guys.’ I wonder what he usually says, when no one else is listening.

So moving on, how would you assess Toyota’s own grand prix in Turkey?
It was okay, but we definitely could have achieved more, whereas in Monza we actualized our full potential. It was encouraging to see Ricardo Zonta steal some attention from the all conquering McLarens on Friday but it was just frustrating to see Ralf at the start. He was napping, like he had no confidence as to where he’d point his car. He failed to deliver in qualifying, he lost it at the start, and he was embarrassingly slow during the race, like he wasn’t trying. For his sake I just assumed he lowered his revs with a view to Monza.

But the pace just wasn’t there, and it was obvious that it was the BARs’ turn to carry the ‘best of the rest’ flag.
That is true, which makes things more saddening. They were more than best of the rest, as they were capable of stealing places from Renault. It’s one thing to mix it with the two front runners by virtue of strategy, it’s another level when you have the ability to overtake people. They’d lose it in the end after the pitstops, but at least they have the ability to charge forward. Awesome stuff, and I’m feeling envious.

Well, at least the tables were turned come Monza, and we were clearly best of the rest.
For sure, and after reading Takahashi-san’s report, I better realized how Monza 2005 will go down in history as one of Toyota’s sweetest success stories. It’s one inspiring story, something to be proud of, as it highlights how Toyota has matured this year.

Well, how do you say so? They’ve had better results, four podiums, etc…
Yes, but Monza showcased our ability to compete. You see, as Keizo himself wrote, Toyota wasn’t faring well during the pre-Monza test. They themselves knew it and even Jarno voiced concern that other teams seem more competitive. It didn’t help that they busied themselves with the TF105B and next year’s V8. And so they ordered emergency tests at the wind tunnel over at Cologne to find ways to further reduce drag, as they were not achieving the speeds they wanted.

A clever, swift maneuver! This means that Toyota’s improved competitiveness at Monza wasn’t just because other teams encountered problems. That explains the convincing enough margin they had over the others, and even against archrival BAR-Honda.
Exactly. We genuinely earned it. We got to hand it to the entire team, especially the engineers – Monza was a very good measure of their determination and overall capabilities. Sure some other teams may have actually experienced small problems that hampered their performance, but this cannot take away the fact that we improved by our own merits, good enough, in turn, to improve our competing ability. Toyota Motors can find satisfaction by the fact that their investments at the factory are now productive. Thanks to Mike Gascoyne’s influence in the wind tunnel program, look at what Toyota can achieve in one week! In fact, it is very Toyota – efficient and continuously improving.

Well, it pays to have deep pockets. Remember, while all this one week emergency wind tunnel test was happening, the same factory has been working on a revised chassis that could see race action at the last three races, and has also considerably progressed in the 2006 program, as Keizo himself wrote.
Just impressive, huh. They do work very hard and very smart that it makes me reconsider all those things I wrote complaining about not delivering to the triple-effort promise. Ah, but they need it too! They need the passion of their fans – criticism and praises included. Each success, big or small, is all the more sweeter if along the way you know you worked hard for it despite troubles, failure, and criticism.

Indeed the tables were turned at Monza. So what about the drivers? What are your thoughts?
Ricardo once again stole McLaren thunder on Friday; taking that on its own we’d say he once again delivered. Jarno once again produced his usual stellar qualifying run, but Ralf… He qualified a couple of spots behind Jarno, but aside from that I’ve come to realize he made the most of everything, and that means he delivered, too. To his credit, his lap was clean and was good enough for a top ten, and he had a clean start and didn’t lose any place. The downside then, is that he once again was Mr. Anonymous in the race when he could’ve been spectacular given his car. But bearing in mind that he hasn’t raced in Monza for two years and therefore had difficulty setting up his car, then his Monza show was impressive, too.

What about Jarno then?
Jarno was obviously fired up and it was noticeable that he was racing people, although losing to Rubens, Takuma, and Michael scared me a little. I thought it was one of those days again. I didn’t see him regain his spot from Michael though, as the TV coverage was bad, and a lot of the more important battles were missed. For a while I thought I just missed that oh so rare moment of Jarno overtaking another car, but it turns out Michael just let him re-pass since he himself knew that his pass on the Toyota was not so legitimate.

The other Italian, Giancarlo Fisichella, finished third, and so after a long while it’s a case of an Italian driver, rather than *the* Italian team lifting the race for the home crowd.
Yes, and he was the first Italian to be at the Monza GP podium since Michele Alboreto in 1988. Another special thing is the 100% reliability score, a feat last achieved at the Dutch GP in 1961. I always wanted the Ferrari dominance to stop, but where they find themselves right now is more than a stop to dominance, and I feel for them. They even went for ‘glory qualifying’ in an attempt to flatter. Going back to the Italian driver, though, I think the R25 in the hands of Jarno would have done better. I do not mean to antagonize the Fisi fans nor do I intend to suck up on the many Jarno fans on the boards. The two were pretty even in the race, but in qualifying Jarno was Jarno and Fisi made a costly mistake.

Is there anything else that made Monza special for Toyota?
We were genuinely fast and our race pace allowed us to benefit from our strategy, gaining and holding onto positions. We’ve adopted conservative, heavy-fuel strategies before and most of the time they didn’t work as well. Perhaps the Monza circuit also keeps the cars closer – I’m not sure – but this time our strategies allowed us to be as high up as P2, whereas before, the leaders would pit and rejoin without losing much if any position.

Of course, let’s not forget that two very notable rivals faded away during the race.
Yes, and wasn’t that embarrassing? Now BAR-Honda and Ferrari know for themselves how it feels to have done everything and yet fade away in the race. Fade away is an accurate description and we’ve been there a lot of times before! It would have been better, though, if the TF105s had some wheel to wheel action and overtaking moves.

Actually they did – remember Jarno, Takuma, and Rubens – only that the TF105 didn’t come out the winner. To be fair though, we were vulnerable in those instances given our heavier fuel loads.
Yes. And let’s be humble enough to acknowledge that though we moved up places we didn’t overtake anyone on track, whereas BAR did in their Turkey success. There’s a difference between moving up and charging, or as some say rocketing, from behind. I still await for that breakthrough day when Jarno and Ralf can slipstream and dive to gain places. I dream of seeing them dicing with other cars, overwhelming them before they finally execute a passing maneuver. It’s not impossible – remember Jenson passed Fernando in Turkey. That pass was symbolic that there in Turkey BAR blurred the gap between themselves and the top two teams. Jenson was just about to stop so he was already light but that’s beside the point.

At the risk of firing you up for one of your trademark technical blabber, I dare ask – What do you think is the problem?
Listen if you want as I am going to tell only from what little I know. So here. It must have something to do with the car’s aero, as a car’s aerodynamics is obviously affected whenever the said car is behind another car. Even leaving overtaking alone, we can also see that we find it difficult to follow another car closely. It is difficult to literally inch toward another car unless the nature of the track permits it. Maybe it’s the way air is fed head-on into the car. I guess in terms of aerodynamic efficiency, the TF105 still has a lot of room for improvement.

But overtaking has been a week point in F1 in recent years.
Again, I just have to point out that some cars are very able in doing it, notably the MP4-20. Drag maybe another concern, as shown in Monza. Keizo says that the TF105’s downforce has always been competitive this year, but there is still too much drag than they’d like. Hence overall aero efficiency – max downforce, min drag – is still compromised. I just have to mention that GP2005 has been proven right in reporting about the TF105’s drag problem – that didn’t sound right – during the Monza tests.

But Nicolo Petrucci has been pretty handy, and of course we have one of the best aerodynamicists in Mike Gascoyne.
Nicolo Petrucci was brought in from Jordan only at the beginning of this year, and since he’s working on aerodynamics it’s safe to say his and Mike Gascoyne’s work is integral to what Toyota has achieved this year. But, without meaning to take any of his contributions to our success, I still feel that we missed on other aerodynamicists. I think few have heard of Nicolo and he hasn’t proven much before his work at Toyota. Mike Gascoyne may provide the general concept or approach in aero, but imagine what else can done if he is partnered with Nicolas Tombasis or John Iley. These two defected from their original teams to join equally attractive teams, when Toyota wasn’t an attractive proposition as it is now. Tombasis transferred from Ferrari to McLaren where he joined Adrian Newey, and Iley transferred from Renault to Ferrari working under Rory Byrne and Ross Brawn. Renault, Ferrari, and McLaren historically have always been aerodynamically strong, and they simply shuffled talent among them.

I see. But what really is the importance of overtaking, when race pace plus good strategy is good enough to win?
I think racing in the purest sense of it involves overtaking. It’s just a lot more special to race or charge to the front as against merely driving to the front. I’m sure the best of drivers would take the opportunity to go wheel to wheel over mere ‘driving along until everyone stops’ any day. The ability to surpass others of course improves self esteem, and in racing, especially in the highest form, it can only do good to a driver and team’s reputation and credibility. There’s a degree of awe that just captures the battle, the competition in racing.

Fair enough, lack of overtaking aside you just can’t speak enough of how Monza was good for Toyota. Do you think, though, that it’s an indication to the remaining four races?
Monza fired up Toyota and its fans, but it’s more prudent to not get carried away in high expectations. For one Monza is a unique track where cars are fitted with one-off aero packages. Another thing, the very next race in Belgium is quite similar to Turkey, where BAR outperformed us, and in fact actually mingled well with Renault. And, this time they’re even having a new aero package and further improvements to their Hondas. As for us, I don’t know what we’re bringing. Another small problem is the fact that Ralf hasn’t raced there since 2002. Spa was dropped in 2003 but it was back in 2004 while Ralf was recuperating from his Indy accident. He took the last step of the podium in 2000, so that should give him some good confidence.

This has gotten long again, and we haven’t even touched on the many silly season rumors so abundant these days, and the B-spec car. We have to cut this now…
The B-spec car was a rumor in itself. We’ll talk more about rumors in our next outing, and we’ll have another unique way of talking about them. So thanks to our readers, and remember, you can always visit my blog at www.screamingv10.blogspot.com

Thank you, too for your time, and until our next interview!
Thank you! One Aim! Watch us! Watch out! Go Toyota!

screamingv10

Monday, September 05, 2005 8:57 AM

Taken from planet-f1.com. I really like Toyota to stay with Michelin. Not only do they have the better tyre now, they also simply have the better way of doing business with partner teams.

Michelin responds to Max's single supplier idea
Saturday September 03 2005

Michelin Competition's Director Pierre Dupasquier responded on Saturday to FIA President Max Mosley's proposal for Formula One to use a single tyre supplier in 2008...

Q: Why does the FIA want to introduce control tyres in Formula 1?
Pierre Dupasquier (PD): "There are three official reasons, and I say ‘official’ reasons: to bring down costs, to improve safety by curbing performance and to ensure that no team would lose out by being on the “wrong” tyres."

Q: In what way would a control tyre cut costs?
PD: "A given single type of tyre, with no development work on it, would reduce the distance covered by teams to assist with tyre development. If Formula 1 cars had a limited number of tyre types for the year – for example, a dry weather tyre and a wet weather tyre –, the tyre of each type would be exactly the same and produced in large quantities at the start of the season in a single batch. Also, the number of tyres allocated to each team would be established for each circuit."

Q: Are you saying there would be no development or testing?
PD: "That’s why I said ‘official’ reasons earlier, since this proposal to work with a single tyre manufacturer in reality conceals a fundamental issue: the reduction of the role of the tyre to that of a banal component with no other added value than permitting Formula 1 cars to be mobile. As the world’s leading tyre manufacturer, that is something we cannot accept. In day to day life, road car and truck manufacturers are forever coming to us with a view to developing new tyres that optimise the running, comfort, road holding and energy efficiency of their vehicles, while in Formula 1, a technological showcase if ever there was one, you’re talking about tyres becoming something banal. That would make no sense at all for our customers and for the image of the tyre. When you are the leading tyre manufacturer, you have a responsibility vis-à-vis your profession, or in any case a responsibility as we see it at Michelin."

Q: Are you saying that savings would not be possible in the case of competing tyre manufacturers?
PD: "We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of tyres per car with the current regulations: three sets of each type of dry weather tyre, two types per race weekend and one set of tyres to cover qualifying and the race. A reduction in the distances covered in testing is currently being looked at."

Q: Has Michelin made any proposals concerning the reduction of testing?
PD: "At the 2004 Brazilian Grand Prix, we made a written proposal to Mr. Ecclestone who had approached us concerning this matter: “Michelin declares that it is in a position to develop F1 tyres without necessitating any specific testing for their development. It is possible to fit our test tyres to the car each time our partners take to the track to run gearboxes or to validate aerodynamics.” However, I would like to stress that Michelin is in favour of testing in very specific circumstances. We believe that, for safety reasons, tyre companies should be allowed to test at new circuits or tracks where the surface or the layout has been changed."

Q: If Michelin’s proposals were applied in a situation where more than one tyre manufacturer was still involved, what sort of savings could be achieved?
PD: "We have two proposals for bringing down costs: fewer tyre types and restrictions concerning the distances covered in testing. At 800 dollars per kilometre covered in testing, that soon adds up to an appreciable saving. You could reasonably reduce the distance covered annually by each team by 20,000 km. Multiply that by ten teams, that comes to 200,000 km; a saving to F1 of 160 million dollars! This is something we have already put into application with another tyre manufacturer in world rallying (WRC)."

Q: The second objective is to improve race and driver safety...
PD: "If a driver brakes too late, if he enters a corner too quickly or if he touches the rear wheel of the preceding car, the car will go off whether it is running on a control tyre or not. Indeed, championships with control tyres already exist, notably in the United States. For example, Nascar, Indy Car and Champcar. But this is no guarantee of safety. This year, at Pocomo in Nascar, seven tyres exploded during practice and the race."

Q: The third argument concerns fairness between the teams. In the case of a single tyre manufacturer, what guarantee would there be that all teams are treated equally?
PD: "If the organiser wants, there are means that have already been used in the past, such as allocating tyres at random and managing tyres with a view to eliminating the temptation of treating them in such a way that their performance could effectively be improved. In the single make championships with which we are involved, we have often asked competitors to come to our trucks to choose their tyres themselves."

Q: Could tyre development be more suited to one car than another?
PD: "Yes, that could happen and I’ll explain why... Optimising the performance of a Formula 1 car is dependent on a complex balance between its tyres, its aerodynamics and its traction. It is independent of the driver, the engine’s power per se and race incidents and tactics. If I wanted to favour a given team, I would develop tyres for that team by optimising this balance. Then I would reproduce this tyre for everyone. Even if the tyres were allocated at random, the team being favoured would profit from this development whatever happened. A tyre developed to match the balance of that team’s car would have little chance of being the optimal solution for the other cars. I wasn’t involved at the time, but this is what I have been led to believe happened following explanations from the teams who came knocking at our door in 1999 and 2000 to run on Michelin tyres and who say they want to continue with Michelin today. To be honest, I think the presence of a single tyre manufacturer would do nothing at all to improve the interest of the racing.

Q: What are the disadvantages of having a single tyre manufacturer in F1.
PD: "As we see it, the major inconvenience is twofold:
• You reduce the technological showcase that is F1 to the level of a single-make formula.
• You would lose the interest of making new discoveries and innovating in a competitive environment."

Q: Is there a relationship between F1, and indeed motor sport in general, and day to day tyre technology?
PD: "Without a doubt, yes. This takes different forms according to the type of competition: Top-range motorbikes benefit directly from the technology developed in MotoGP. The Michelin Pilot Power, for example, is a direct descendant MotoGP race tyres we use. In rallying, the same tyres cover a broad variety of surface types and this provides a good basis for research relating to certain high performance tyres. In F1, the link is obviously not so direct, but the understanding of the role and functioning of tyres by engineers who supply F1 with the best tyre of the moment is a school that covers all areas and provides indispensable experience that helps them in their next job. There is frequent, fruitful exchange between the research teams."

Q: If the FIA imposed control tyres, what would Michelin do?
PD: "That's a Question you need to ask Michelin management. All I know is that the principle of control tyres in no way corresponds with the vision of Michelin’s Directors, and that goes for all the types of motor sport in which Michelin is involved. Naturally, if it was a Question of giving a helping hand to F1, we would certainly assume our responsibilities. I repeat therefore that, unless you produced a ‘wood-solid’ tyre once and for all for everyone – which is fundamentally contrary to our vision of the tyre but which is something control tyres lead to –the true spirit of racing means having two tyre manufacturers, or even more. It would be possible to achieve significant cost savings by modifying the regulations without compromising driver safety or the interest of the racing."

GP2005.com spies: Hungary

Friday, August 12, 2005 6:41 AM

Quote from gp2005.com:

"After a few races of stagnation, Toyota looked strong in Budapest. A new aero package improved the downforce. The drag handicap the TF105 has does not count too much in Hungary with just one longer straight. The heat was another factor, which was in favour of the Toyotas. They can run the (sidepod) almost closed even in the hottest conditions. The team benefited already from this in Bahrain and Malaysia. Ralf Schumacher got his first podium since he has driven for Toyota. He normally is stronger than Trulli in the race, but this time the Italian was handicapped. When Barrichello crashed into the back of his Toyota at the start, parts of one rear wing endplate and the diffusor broke. From then on the car was difficult to drive."

End quote.

A very telling insight on Toyota's aerodynamics and engine. As usual, kudos to Mr. Marmorini and his team. The engine is well suited even to high temperature environments, and more importantly, without much compromise on the aerodynamics of the car. On the other hand, this also tells us that there is still a long way to go in terms of the TF105's aero efficiency.

The way I understand it, aero efficiency is optimising drag versus downforce: maximum downforce with the minimum drag. This could perhaps explain why Toyota unlike such teams like Williams and Ferrari, would rather remove their extra winglets (like the mini rear wing) after specific maximum-downforce tracks like Monaco and Budapest. A wing adds downforce and drag, and in tracks like Monaco and Budapest the effect of drag is not so penalising but in other tracks where there are long straights, the effect of drag is elevated. In those cases, I suppose, drag is reduced as much as possible, and in the process downforce cannot be maximised.

It seems that even without the winglets, the basic TF105 aero package has enough downforce but however still suffers considerable drag. This could perhaps explain, why among the basic aero-ed MP4-20, R25, and TF105, the Toyota loses in the top-speed game. This is crucial for the upcoming races in Monza and Spa. Of course engine performance should also be factored in, but on aero alone it appears that the McLaren and Renault are more aero efficient. These two appear to have very good 'basic package' downforce and drag doesn't seem to hurt their top speeds.

Should a significant update improve the TF105's aero efficiency? I don't know. Perhaps a change to the basic shape of the car as opposed to aero add-ons would do the job to enhance the car's performance from track to track. But, the crucial thing is, there was no mention whatsoever about a revised Toyota in the spies report. Still hoping, though.

Other gp2005.com quotes:

"Although the deadline to answer BMW was running out last Sunday night, Frank Williams did not react. For him it is a difficult option to choose. Which engine shall he take for one year, before he marries with Toyota in 2007? Both BMW and Cosworth would cost him about 15 million dollars. Both are probably not far apart technically. In the first V8 year, Cosworth can potentially do as good a good job as the manufacturers, mainly because of their V8 experience. With Cosworth Frank risks sponsorship. With BMW he has the problem that Munich wants him to sign for two years. Otherwise it would be too expensive to build up a customer service in Munich with 25 extra people. But two years is not possible, as it would conflict with Frank’s Toyota plans."

"Williams made its tyre choice. The team will run with Bridgestone next year. Red Bull is another candidate. In Japan, the headquarters of Toyota is negotiating with Bridgestone as well. But Toyota would only change if Bridgestone would give them the same treatment as Ferrari."

End quote.

As I said in my latest conversation, the Toyota/Bridgestone rumours are similar to last year's Sauber/Michelin rumours. Generally quiet and tight-lipped, but a lot of things happening behind the scences. It could end up the same way. It is not for us fans to force a decision to the team, but whichever tyre we choose for next year, we all hope it is for the best!

:: Speech Time: Steve Jobs

Friday, August 12, 2005 6:33 AM

Another great man, Steve Jobs.

Stanford Report, June 14, 2005
'You've got to find what you love,' Jobs says

This is the text of the Commencement address by Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, delivered on June 12, 2005.

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.

And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.

It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, its likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.

Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something - your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

My second story is about love and loss.

I was lucky ? I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation - the Macintosh - a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.

I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.

I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.

During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I retuned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.

I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.

My third story is about death.

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything ? all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now.

This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope its the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Thank you all very much.

Source: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html

:: Speech Time: Conan O' Brien

Friday, August 12, 2005 6:28 AM

I'm a big fan of Conan O' Brien and his show. Here's the speech or talk he gave to Harvard's Class of 2000. Very funny and witty as usual. I didn't know he graduated from Harvard until I bumped into this one and now I admire this funny guy even more. I must admit I can very well relate to his "And you graduated from Harvard?" lines. Sigh... Very true.

I'd like to thank the Class Marshals for inviting me here today. The last time I was invited to Harvard it cost me $110,000, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit suspicious. I'd like to announce up front that I have one goal this afternoon: to be half as funny as tomorrow's Commencement Speaker, Moral Philosopher and Economist, Amartya Sen. Must get more laughs than seminal wage/price theoretician.

Students of the Harvard Class of 2000, fifteen years ago I sat where you sit now and I thought exactly what you are now thinking: What's going to happen to me? Will I find my place in the world? Am I really graduating a virgin? I still have 24 hours and my roommate's Mom is hot. I swear she was checking me out. Being here today is very special for me. I miss this place. I especially miss Harvard Square - it's so unique. No where else in the world will you find a man with a turban wearing a Red Sox jacket and working in a lesbian bookstore. Hey, I'm just glad my dad's working.

It's particularly sweet for me to be here today because when I graduated, I wanted very badly to be a Class Day Speaker. Unfortunately, my speech was rejected. So, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to read a portion of that speech from fifteen years ago: "Fellow students, as we sit here today listening to that classic Ah-ha tune which will definitely stand the test of time, I would like to make several predictions about what the future will hold: "I believe that one day a simple Governor from a small Southern state will rise to the highest office in the land. He will lack political skill, but will lead on the sheer strength of his moral authority." "I believe that Justice will prevail and, one day, the Berlin Wall will crumble, uniting East and West Berlin forever under Communist rule." "I believe that one day, a high speed network of interconnected computers will spring up world-wide, so enriching people that they will lose their interest in idle chit chat and pornography." "And finally, I believe that one day I will have a television show on a major network, seen by millions of people a night, which I will use to re-enact crimes and help catch at-large criminals." And then there's some stuff about the death of Wall Street which I don't think we need to get into....

The point is that, although you see me as a celebrity, a member of the cultural elite, a kind of demigod, I was actually a student here once much like you. I came here in the fall of 1981 and lived in Holworthy. I was, without exaggeration, the ugliest picture in the Freshman Face book. When Harvard asked me for a picture the previous summer, I thought it was just for their records, so I literally jogged in the August heat to a passport photo office and sat for a morgue photo. To make matters worse, when the Face Book came out they put my picture next to Catherine Oxenberg, a stunning blonde actress who was accepted to the class of '85 but decided to defer admission so she could join the cast of "Dynasty." My photo would have looked bad on any page, but next to Catherine Oxenberg, I looked like a mackerel that had been in a car accident. You see, in those days I was six feet four inches tall and I weighed 150 pounds. Recently, I had some structural engineers run those numbers into a computer model and, according to the computer, I collapsed in 1987, killing hundreds in Taiwan.

After freshman year I moved to Mather House. Mather House, incidentally, was designed by the same firm that built Hitler's bunker. In fact, if Hitler had conducted the war from Mather House, he'd have shot himself a year earlier. 1985 seems like a long time ago now. When I had my Class Day, you students would have been seven years old. Seven years old. Do you know what that means? Back then I could have beaten any of you in a fight. And I mean bad. It would be no contest. If any one here has a time machine, seriously, let's get it on, I will whip your seven year old butt. When I was here, they sold diapers at the Coop that said "Harvard Class of 2000." At the time, it was kind of a joke, but now I realize you wore those diapers. How embarrassing for you. A lot has happened in fifteen years. When you think about it, we come from completely different worlds. When I graduated, we watched movies starring Tom Cruise and listened to music by Madonna. I come from a time when we huddled around our TV sets and watched "The Cosby Show" on NBC, never imagining that there would one day be a show called "Cosby" on CBS. In 1985 we drove cars with driver's side airbags, but if you told us that one day there'd be passenger side airbags, we'd have burned you for witchcraft.

But of course, I think there is some common ground between us. I remember well the great uncertainty of this day. Many of you are justifiably nervous about leaving the safe, comfortable world of Harvard Yard and hurling yourself headlong into the cold, harsh world of Harvard Grad School, a plum job at your father's firm, or a year abroad with a gold Amex card and then a plum job in your father's firm. But let me assure you that the knowledge you've gained here at Harvard is a precious gift that will never leave you. Take it from me, your education is yours to keep forever. Why, many of you have read the Merchant of Florence, and that will inspire you when you travel to the island of Spain. Your knowledge of that problem they had with those people in Russia, or that guy in South America-you know, that guy-will enrich you for the rest of your life.

There is also sadness today, a feeling of loss that you're leaving Harvard forever. Well, let me assure you that you never really leave Harvard. The Harvard Fundraising Committee will be on your ass until the day you die. Right now, a member of the Alumni Association is at the Mt. Auburn Cemetery shaking down the corpse of Henry Adams. They heard he had a brass toe ring and they aims to get it. Imagine: These people just raised 2.5 billion dollars and they only got through the B's in the alumni directory. Here's how it works. Your phone rings, usually after a big meal when you're tired and most vulnerable. A voice asks you for money. Knowing they just raised 2.5 billion dollars you ask, "What do you need it for?" Then there's a long pause and the voice on the other end of the line says, "We don't need it, we just want it." It's chilling.

What else can you expect? Let me see, by your applause, who here wrote a thesis. (APPLAUSE) A lot of hard work, a lot of your blood went into that thesis... and no one is ever going to care. I wrote a thesis: Literary Progeria in the works of Flannery O'Connor and William Faulkner. Let's just say that, during my discussions with Pauly Shore, it doesn't come up much. For three years after graduation I kept my thesis in the glove compartment of my car so I could show it to a policeman in case I was pulled over. (ACT OUT) License, registration, cultural exploration of the Man Child in the Sound and the Fury...

So what can you expect out there in the real world? Let me tell you. As you leave these gates and re-enter society, one thing is certain: Everyone out there is going to hate you. Never tell anyone in a roadside diner that you went to Harvard. In most situations the correct response to where did you to school is, "School? Why, I never had much in the way of book larnin' and such." Then, get in your BMW and get the hell out of there.

You see, you're in for a lifetime of "And you went to Harvard?" Accidentally give the wrong amount of change in a transaction and it's, "And you went to Harvard?" Ask the guy at the hardware store how these jumper cables work and hear, "And you went to Harvard?" Forget just once that your underwear goes inside your pants and it's "and you went to Harvard." Get your head stuck in your niece's dollhouse because you wanted to see what it was like to be a giant and it's "Uncle Conan, you went to Harvard!?"

But to really know what's in store for you after Harvard, I have to tell you what happened to me after graduation. I'm going to tell you my story because, first of all, my perspective may give many of you hope, and, secondly, it's an amazing rush to stand in front of six thousand people and talk about yourself.

After graduating in May, I moved to Los Angeles and got a three week contract at a small cable show. I got a $380 a month apartment and bought a 1977 Isuzu Opel, a car Isuzu only manufactured for a year because they found out that, technically, it's not a car. Here's a quick tip, graduates: no four cylinder vehicle should have a racing stripe. I worked at that show for over a year, feeling pretty good about myself, when one day they told me they were letting me go. I was fired and, I hadn't saved a lot of money. I tried to get another job in television but I couldn't find one.

So, with nowhere else to turn, I went to a temp agency and filled out a questionnaire. I made damn sure they knew I had been to Harvard and that I expected the very best treatment. And so, the next day, I was sent to the Santa Monica branch of Wilson's House of Suede and Leather. When you have a Harvard degree and you're working at Wilson's House of Suede and Leather, you are haunted by the ghostly images of your classmates who chose Graduate School. You see their faces everywhere: in coffee cups, in fish tanks, and they're always laughing at you as you stack suede shirts no man, in good conscience, would ever wear. I tried a lot of things during this period: acting in corporate infomercials, serving drinks in a non-equity theatre, I even took a job entertaining at a seven year olds' birthday party. In desperate need of work, I put together some sketches and scored a job at the fledgling Fox Network as a writer and performer for a new show called "The Wilton North Report." I was finally on a network and really excited. The producer told me the show was going to revolutionize television. And, in a way, it did. The show was so hated and did so badly that when, four weeks later, news of its cancellation was announced to the Fox affiliates, they burst into applause.

Eventually, though, I got a huge break. I had submitted, along with my writing partner, a batch of sketches to Saturday Night Live and, after a year and a half, they read it and gave us a two week tryout. The two weeks turned into two seasons and I felt successful. Successful enough to write a TV pilot for an original sitcom and, when the network decided to make it, I left Saturday Night Live. This TV show was going to be groundbreaking. It was going to resurrect the career of TV's Batman, Adam West. It was going to be a comedy without a laugh track or a studio audience. It was going to change all the rules. And here's what happened: When the pilot aired it was the second lowest-rated television show of all time. It's tied with a test pattern they show in Nova Scotia.

So, I was 28 and, once again, I had no job. I had good writing credits in New York, but I was filled with disappointment and didn't know what to do next. I started smelling suede on my fingertips. And that's when The Simpsons saved me. I got a job there and started writing episodes about Springfield getting a Monorail and Homer going to College. I was finally putting my Harvard education to good use, writing dialogue for a man who's so stupid that in one episode he forgot to make his own heart beat. Life was good.

And then, an insane, inexplicable opportunity came my way . A chance to audition for host of the new Late Night Show. I took the opportunity seriously but, at the same time, I had the relaxed confidence of someone who knew he had no real shot. I couldn't fear losing a great job I had never had. And, I think that attitude made the difference. I'll never forget being in the Simpson's recording basement that morning when the phone rang. It was for me. My car was blocking a fire lane. But a week later I got another call: I got the job.

So, this was undeniably the it: the truly life-altering break I had always dreamed of. And, I went to work. I gathered all my funny friends and poured all my years of comedy experience into building that show over the summer, gathering the talent and figuring out the sensibility. We debuted on September 13, 1993 and I was happy with our effort. I felt like I had seized the moment and put my very best foot forward. And this is what the most respected and widely read television critic, Tom Shales, wrote in the Washington Post: "O'Brien is a living collage of annoying nervous habits. He giggles and titters, jiggles about and fiddles with his cuffs. He had dark, beady little eyes like a rabbit. He's one of the whitest white men ever. O'Brien is a switch on the guest who won't leave: he's the host who should never have come. Let the Late show with Conan O'Brien become the late, Late Show and may the host return to Conan O'Blivion whence he came." There's more but it gets kind of mean.

Needless to say, I took a lot of criticism, some of it deserved, some of it excessive. And it hurt like you wouldn't believe. But I'm telling you all this for a reason. I've had a lot of success and I've had a lot of failure. I've looked good and I've looked bad. I've been praised and I've been criticized. But my mistakes have been necessary. Except for Wilson's House of Suede and Leather. That was just stupid.

I've dwelled on my failures today because, as graduates of Harvard, your biggest liability is your need to succeed. Your need to always find yourself on the sweet side of the bell curve. Because success is a lot like a bright, white tuxedo. You feel terrific when you get it, but then you're desperately afraid of getting it dirty, of spoiling it in any way.

I left the cocoon of Harvard, I left the cocoon of Saturday Night Live, I left the cocoon of The Simpsons. And each time it was bruising and tumultuous. And yet, every failure was freeing, and today I'm as nostalgic for the bad as I am for the good.

So, that's what I wish for all of you: the bad as well as the good. Fall down, make a mess, break something occasionally. And remember that the story is never over. If it's all right, I'd like to read a little something from just this year: "Somehow, Conan O'Brien has transformed himself into the brightest star in the Late Night firmament. His comedy is the gold standard and Conan himself is not only the quickest and most inventive wit of his generation, but quite possible the greatest host ever."

Ladies and Gentlemen, Class of 2000, I wrote that this morning, as proof that, when all else fails, there's always delusion.

I'll go now, to make bigger mistakes and to embarrass this fine institution even more. But let me leave you with one last thought: If you can laugh at yourself loud and hard every time you fall, people will think you're drunk.

Thank you.

Rounds 8 to 13 Conversation: Part I

Friday, August 05, 2005 7:45 PM

Die-hard Toyota fan from the Philippines TF102 returns to the scene with thoughts on the recent grands prix he missed reporting on, and a lot more.

Well, congratulations on Toyota’s recent solid return to form, and of course Ralf Schumacher’s first podium finish as a Toyota driver.
Thanks, and indeed it is refreshing, reinvigorating to have this kind of results once again. As I said it’s a good send-off for the three week summer break.

Speaking of breaks, you yourself have been on a long break. What happened?
Well yes, I have been a lazy fan. No, let me take that back. I’ve been a lazy writer but my support for the team never disappeared. I guess it all started when Karl Kinger, who manages Totally Toyota F1, offered column space for my interviews. First of all I felt honored and it just feels great to know that people appreciate my work. And then I was overwhelmed, like it was too much for me.

Why would you consider a column space too much for you? You have been sharing your F1 thoughts even before that.
Yes, but a dedicated TF102 space would be a lot of responsibilities. I had some concerns, on top of these is the fact that I just write whenever I can, or sometimes want. And I think more importantly, I was afraid that a lot of people would disagree with my more subjective approach to writing or evaluating the team, drivers, etc.

But isn’t it supposed to be sort of an opinion column, hence you’re more or less free to be as subjective as you want.
For sure, but let me reiterate that though I have come to more greatly appreciate our drivers Jarno and Ralf, I am first and foremost a Toyota supporter. There is a clear distinction there – there are those who support a certain driver, there are those who support the team, and then there also those who support F1 altogether. I’m afraid I might not please everyone. I thought I wasn’t prepared as yet to be put on the spotlight, should I end up with opinions not entirely in line with the majority’s. But here I am, so…

Ok, fair enough. So why did it take so long?
Once I stopped for a while, for Canada and Indy, I just spiraled into a deeper level of laziness, so to speak. And of course, I must admit that the lack of good results made it difficult for me to come up with reports. After the Indy fiasco, I missed France, Silverstone, and Hockenheim.

So including Hungary, you owe us five grands prix. What do you have to say for yourself now?
I think I just told you a lot of things. I pretty much explained already.

How about an apology?
Do I have to? Ok then, my apologies for the long delay. But I have some juicy stories to share. I will no longer devote much space for evaluating the team’s performance in the previous races. We all pretty much know about those already.

But how would you assess the team’s overall performance in those five grands prix?
I think we stagnated a little, and that is pretty much equal to taking a step back, a little one. But small mistakes, small unluck or misfortunes projected a more significant drop in competitiveness. Race pace turned out to be more and more “questionable” to put it nicely. I think it goes as far back as Nurburgring when Jarno suffered a lot from his drive-through penalty, when in comparison David Coulthard recovered nicely to still finish fourth.

Those were frustrating, and embarrassing times. When else was race pace the culprit and when was it just pure unluck?
Actually I don’t believe in bad finishes as a consequence of unluck alone. As I’ve said before, you create your own luck. The team believed that they missed podiums from Nurburgring, Canada, and the US. The factor frequently blamed is the tyres, but all in all, to the public, it’s just about the Toyota cars, and especially Jarno fading during the races.

That was just unfair!
True, that was unfair, but we just had to face reality that the results were not coming. We were the stuff of jokes for some time. There were rumors that other teams decide on their qualifying strategies depending on Jarno’s, that the most important thing at the starts is to get past the mobile chicane. It was unfair because there were other so-called mobile chicanes at different grands prix, like the other red cars.

So what do you think of Jarno anyway?
Well I don’t think he’s a mobile chicane, but I’m leaning towards Peter Windsor’s theory that Jarno is the type of driver who still has to learn to drive over the imperfections of his car. Hungary was a welcome anti-thesis to this theory, but it still appears that he tends to be more sensitive to even the littlest of changes in his car or tyres. Windsor concedes that Jarno is the best qualifier, only that the Italian primarily wants the car to adapt to him. As he prepares to qualify he comes up with the best set-up: he is adapting the car to his liking. He cannot do major set-up changes to the car during the race: this is when he has to adapt to the car, but apparently he doesn’t do a good job.

It’s a good thing that, having browsed through various forums, more and more people now have a better understanding of Jarno’s case as good racer/supreme qualifier rather the usual bad racer/good qualifier/mobile chicane statements.
I think he’s gone a long way to improve his craft beginning in 2004. I just have yet to see him overtake someone this year. Ralf is usually closing in on the one ahead of him while Jarno is satisfied to pace himself. For Jarno, half of the job is done anyway because he’s already in front, while Ralf needs to carve his way up the field.

What do you think is the reason behind Toyota’s mid-season drop-off, if you can call it that?
First of all, yes I think we can pretty much call it a mid-season drop-off. Competitiveness is always a relative thing, and if we look at all the races, except for the latest one in Hungary, we can see that in each grand prix we have been beaten, fairly, by either Ferrari or BAR, our closest rivals. Jarno’s retired podium in Canada would have been our first gifted podium, since without the retirements of the Renaults, Juan Pablo, and Jenson, yes the Honda, we wouldn’t have been running third in the first place. Our race pace, not even our insistent heavy-fueled strategy couldn’t vault us into a top three there. Although we had two cars in the points in France, we were clearly beaten by Michael and Jenson. In Britain, where I had higher hopes than usual, we could only manage a disappointing eighth. Finally in Hockenheim, Ralf was able to be racy with his brother and Giancarlo, but at the end of the day a Ferrari was still ahead, and more importantly, Jenson and Honda got themselves onto the podium. It was a gifted podium, nevertheless we also got a gifted podium the following race in Hungary, so it just levels out.

How about the US Grand Prix? We got our first pole there.
I don’t have anything to say about the politics, just that I agree that they shouldn’t have embarrassed F1 in the States. They should have come up with any solution or compromise. What I know is that Toyota was the biggest winner there. We got pole and one of our engines on the podium. Major publicity on our part. I’m confident of the car’s ability to be on pole, especially in the hands of Jarno, even with more than three laps worth of fuel. I was expecting nothing lower than P5 in qualifying. We were talked about very much after all the fiasco with doubts on Jarno’s pole, and Jordan-Toyota’s top three finish. And who else was there? Just the Ferrari. That’s something big in the States: a Toyota sharing the podium with the Ferraris. I just hope I’m not underestimating the US crowd with this…

The next weekend, we had ourselves full with publicity again with Olivier Panis in his home grand prix. Now what did you think of that?
Typical Toyota. You know, Toyota did more seat-shuffling with Ricardo and Olivier in last year’s Japanese and Brazilian grands prix. With Olivier, I just thought he’d probably go all out for P1 on Friday. It’s either our tyre problems really hampered him, or just that he was a little rusty for the job because not only did we not finish P2 as usual, but we were actually down as low as P5 or P6.

Hmm, that’s interesting. Now what about reliability? Would you say it was also a factor as regards our results?
We only had two major reliability offs in the last five races, and of the two it’s the one in Canada that directly cost us points. But I’d say Toyota reliability has still been top-notch all in all, although both Ferrari and BAR-Honda have also been failure-free of late. Our strong reliability means that we’ve scored in every race this season apart from Australia. Even during our more difficult times in the last few races we managed to score points, which is very important to maintain momentum and motivate the entire team. It shows how much we’ve matured over last year, and compares well with an established team like Williams, who for one weekend threatens our place in the championship only to be pointless in the next race.

Reliability as motivation? Why do you say so?
You can also see it as the antidote to frustration. I’m sure Christian Albers is gutted whenever his race is cut short, and he’s driving a Minardi. I imagine it’s even more frustrating when unreliability attacks a very capable car. Just ask Kimi Raikkonen.

Having mentioned Kimi Raikkonen, would you like him to be champion?
Yes, I prefer him over Fernando Alonso. But to be honest, should Fernando win, I think it will also be a well-deserved one. Fernando and his team deserve to win, whereas in Kimi’s case, it’s the driver alone who is properly deserving. These mistakes from McLaren mean that the fans are robbed not only of close fights on track; we are also robbed of at least a good battle in terms of points.

Aside from Kimi Raikkonen, which other driver do you support or admire?
I’m going to limit my self to Kimi Raikkonen, and my ultimate wish is to have someone like him to be a part of Toyota. I have a lot of respect for all F1 driver’s capabilities, and I’m satisfied with Jarno and Ralf. What I find special about Kimi is his being young, his talent, and yes, even his character, or what others consider as lack of character. I also follow to some extent people like Heikki Kova-something, Ryan Briscoe, Valentino Rossi, and Sebastian Loeb.

I see… Oh, I think we’ve strayed too far from one question. Going back to it, what do you think is the reason behind Toyota’s mid-season drop-off?
Probably lack of development. If one would do a quick scan of all the cars, it can be seen that the TF105 has had the least developments. The current basic form of the TF105 has been the same since Barcelona, with extra winglets appearing for Monaco and Hungary. All the top teams, and I mean all including Renault, McLaren, Ferrari, Williams, and BAR, and midfielders like Red Bull and Sauber have had major aero modifications. Therefore, it’s no surprise that BAR and Ferrari have had significant improvements in terms of pace. It’s just amazing, meanwhile, how McLaren and Renault manage to have a consistent gap, sometimes even increasing gap over all the others.

Surely there are minor changes here and there, not visible to the untrained eye, and what about those engine upgrades?
As expected, the engine department continues to deliver. The engines are powerful and reliable, and Jarno even managed to have one same engine for three events. The only slip up so far has been in Hockenheim, of all places. The engine troubles over at Jordan, according to reports, are more of Jordan’s wrongdoing than ours. Still, Mercedes-Benz Ilmor, Renault, and Honda also have engine upgrades every now and then. We do have modifications, but when Keizo Takahashi wrote of having triple the efforts of our competitors, then we fans cannot be blamed for having higher expectations. Contrary to this promise, there are instances when we arrive at a venue with the exact same car we raced at the previous event!

I can feel your sadness and disappointment there. Aren’t you just tired of the boxy look of the car? But to look at it more positively, you can perhaps think that despite the lack of major modifications, the TF105s continue to deliver.
Can’t agree with you more about the car being a little boxy, at least by today’s standards. Another positive way to look at it, is that despite the simple, boxy look the car is actually capable to challenging and running with the better looking ones. Contrary to the previous copying accusations, our car now is actually unique. Any Toyota F1 fan should visit the Technical Analysis section of formula1.com and feel proud how it is narrated there that this or that team sports this modification *first introduced by Toyota*.

Is that so? Which parts have been copied?
Small details. The winglets just above the front tyres, which admittedly we copied from Williams last year, has been copied by Renault and ironically, Williams. The “brows” by the side pods which we got from Jordan and we later modified is now sported by BAR-Honda. The fins around the middle of side pod openings have been copied by BAR and Ferrari. And the gills in the rear-wing endplates have been copied by other teams.

Just the same, the TF105 mirrored the other teams’ three-element quasi-wings in the air box and the mini rear wing.
I think it’s just about time. Other teams permanently have mini rear wings and quasi-wings by the rear wheels, but Toyota detached theirs after Monaco. We have yet to adopt an even tighter packaging at the rear and a more curved side pod profile. We have the simplest set of wings at the rear end of the car compared to virtually every other team. Just look at the rear ends of Williams, Renault, and BAR!

Perhaps we already have enough down force? Ours is simple and it works, but aren’t we supposed to have the most down force we can have?
I’m not sure really. This is a more technical question, but right now I’m guessing that we’re trying to minimize drag, we’re going for aero efficiency. We could ask Keizo…

Despite the less than fulfilled promise, aren’t you just thankful for Keizo?
Yes I am! Keizo is the Toyota F1 fan’s best friend, bringing us as close as can be to the team through his DTC reports. Sometimes I think he’s giving out too much for other teams to read, but then again he knows what he’s doing. He’s obviously a smart guy.

And I think his passion for his job ultimately makes him a fan at heart too.
I agree, and sometimes we the readers can also see how much he’s disappointed or pleased with the results. Speaking of which, his most recent concerns were the tyres. He’s confident we’ve gotten over our tyre problems already, although I personally think we’re still underperforming given the fact that we now have Pascal Vasselon with us.

Those black, round things have always been a Toyota’s Achilles heel, huh?
Unfortunately, yes. Ever since the TF102; I don’t know with the TF101. That is why Mr. Vasselon is such a prime catch. I have this uneducated idea that perhaps the recent increases in horsepower without the corresponding aero or mechanical improvements might have caused our tyre troubles. We have already improved our basic chassis thanks to Mike Gascoyne’s supervision, and now I think we need a reputable electronics guy to come up with the best electronics for us. Aero development is pretty much continuous, and I feel the remaining area where we could find big gains would be in suspension design and software. Then we could most effectively use our tyres.

There are rumors that some major modifications are due for the TF105, so let’s see. And still on tyres, what can you say about the nagging rumors that Toyota and Bridgestone could team up next year?
I go with what Mike said only recently: “It’s clear on which tyre brand one should be.” But allow me to be cynical: he said something like “If you look at the situation now”. I personally don’t like Toyota to switch tyres, mainly because of Bridgestone’s history and philosophy of putting all their eggs in one basket. Michelin is a fair team player, and despite a chance to establish a more personal partnership with McLaren or Renault for instance, they choose not to. Still, Bridgestone is capable of wonderful things so they cannot be a bad choice in the long term. One of the rumored reasons for a possible Toyota-Bridgestone partnership is the hint that Bridgestone is the more favored company to stay should F1 shift to just having a single tyre supplier.

I guess we’ll never know for now then.
Exactly. I suspect that Toyota is also in a wait-and-see approach. If Bridgestone goes back to winning ways by the end of the season, I can see Toyota announcing a switch at the start of off-season. A bit similar to Sauber’s switch to Michelin this year. Toyota will surely lose momentum though should they switch to Bridgestone next year, but it might turn out to be a wise, ample preparation for an all-out push and settled tyre partnership for 2007.

Funny that you mention 2007 and Sauber.
What about 2007 and Sauber?

Well, Sauber has been purchased by BMW, who has left Williams without an engine supplier, who has been rumored to be courting Toyota, who has been rumored, in turn, to be ready to supply them in 2007. What do you have to say?
To begin with, wow, that was smart! And to think you and I are the same! I think I’ve already begun from my last interview when I said I’d rather have Lexus sponsor the Toyota works team than enter F1 as an engine-badger to Williams.

Ok, but how about now with BMW and Sauber in the picture? Toyota supplying Williams in 2007 is looking more realistic by the day.
I feel like Toyota missed out on a good ally and a cheap bargain in Sauber. Grandprix.com reports that BMW got Sauber for a very good deal. Anyway I think Sauber was just waiting for someone to buy his team, and Toyota obviously wasn’t into taking over another F1 operation. Sauber would have been the perfect partner for Toyota, and I wish they just stuck to being an independent team. Sauber is the quintessential independent team, Red Bull of a different breed. Sauber have a good approach to whatever they do, except for hiring Jacques this year I must say. They are German-speaking, which would have worked very well with our being based in Cologne.

Rounds 8 to 13 Conversation Part II

Friday, August 05, 2005 7:04 PM

They also have this super computer, and full scale, calibrated though under-utilized wind tunnel, which are probably one of the best if not the best in F1 today.
Yes I also thought of those, and those would have been handy to Cologne and even to Toyota’s road car or super car development. But above all these, it’s the team’s no-none-sense attitude, their efficiency, and consistency which have made them the capable midfielder that they are. I was imagining them, in their usual quiet ways, powered by Toyota engines, dominating the midfield fight, and just occasionally embarrassing some works teams, while Toyota is battling it at the front of the championship. The wind tunnel and super computer, Toyota could easily have their own if they wanted to.

Well in fact I’m little surprised Toyota continues to soldier on with their relatively old wind tunnel. And yes, Sauber-Toyota would have been perfect – it almost brought tears to my eyes. But isn’t Williams just as capable, if not even better?
Williams is considered by some still as an independent team. But to me, they no longer are. The attitude, the culture is no longer so independent. They have had works partnerships long enough to lose the independent spirit. And the chances of complicating the roles of the works team and the engine-supplied team are higher with them than with Sauber. They committed a lot of unforgivable mistakes this year and last year, and they don’t know how to handle their drivers, at least in my opinion.

Now how would you rate BMW’s chances next year?
I don’t know. It would be interesting to watch them take off next year. I’m more concerned with Midland-Toyota. They are technically the oldest of the three newer teams in F1, along with BMW and DubaiF1. But I won’t be surprised if they end up being the least competitive, given that DubaiF1 is supposed to have chassis input from McLaren.

And Williams-Cosworth?
All I know is that Cosworth will do a good job next year. Aside from the fact that they have a lot of experience with V8s, I think they will be extra motivated by this good chance they are given. I hope the Williams chassis is a match. I’m counting a lot on Marmorini’s genius and Toyota’s money to beat the experienced Cosworth guys and of course the rest of the engine makers. We should lead the pack next year.

Do you really see the Cosworth performing well next year?
Well I’m not the only one. And I’m basing my bet on the Cossie on their excellent record over at the IRL.

And in comparison, how are the Toyota’s doing there?
I heard the commentators say that Cosworth was nicknamed “stinky” last year, but with a comeback this year they are having top threes and are actually challenging Honda, and leaving the Toyota’s. Toyota says they want to leave IRL on a high, and they better do that. In the last race in Michigan, we could only manage fifth, while the Cosworth managed a second or third even after having been relegated to the back by a drive-through penalty. The Honda’s occupied the other good spots. You can really see the difference in engine performance because IRL racers have the same basic chassis. A Toyota fan would be frustrated and embarrassed to watch the leading Penske-Toyota harassed, hounded by Honda- and Cosworth-engined cars. We did have a win about a month ago, but it was in a handling circuit. In Toyota’s case only one or two cars clearly stand out, while in Honda’s case, excellent performance is pretty much level across four or more cars. This cannot be a good omen for next year’s V8.

Well in F1, clearly we’re doing very well against archrival Honda and the rest. Have you heard of Honda’s rumored 1000 horsepower beast for China?
Which Toyota fan haven’t? Now I’m not saying Toyota should mount a similar engine to the back of their TF105s or TF105Bs, but we should have something to match or overly exceed that team’s performance.

Ok. So any other concerns lately? Any significant behind-the-scenes stories?
Well we have some very interesting stories to share. The most straightforward one is our drivers’ salaries. According to F1 Racing Magazine’s estimates, Jarno earns a cool 10 million dollars basic yearly pay. Not as cool though, or rather exorbitant and wasteful as Ralf Schumacher’s pay.

So how much does Mr. Schumacher get?
He gets a basic pay of 25 million dollars! That is second only to his brother’s 35 million dollars, and higher than Kimi Raikkonen’s 22 million, Juan Pablo’s 15 million, and Rueben’s 10 million dollars. In case you haven’t noticed, Ferrari, McLaren, and Toyota drivers occupy the top six in salaries. Bear in mind that they still have other sources of income like sponsorships.

Wow, the Schumacher surname really does wonders to Ralf’s pay, huh?
Well, yes, but let’s not forget he’s not so bad a driver, too. Obviously there are other considerations in bargaining for driver salaries. Ralf *Schumacher* is very marketable, especially in light of his brother’s popularity, and especially to the novice F1 fan. Jarno, too, is very marketable, very popular as evidenced the number of Jarno fans who flock message boards all over the Internet. Jarno also has a lot of support from the Japanese and that must have been a bonus for Toyota. Together, our two drivers made Toyota more discussion-worthy, whether it be defending Jarno’s race pace, or poking fun at Ralf Schumacher’s fashion sense. We tried it before with Brazilians, and a Mika-Scot pairing (which incidentally, is also the set up at McLaren), but nothing else worked as good as this one. Not only did Toyota hire good drivers, they hired good names.

I see. But let me just point out how much of an excellent bargain Jarno Trulli is for the team. He has done a lot for Toyota!
I agree. He has brought the results, and has motivated the team. He’s good guy Jarno, and it was nice to see him pose with the team and Ralf as the latter finally brought himself to the podium this year. Ralf is visibly happier and more team-mate friendly at Toyota, although I did not see him join Jarno and the team celebrate the first three podiums.

There you go. So what other interesting snippet do you have for us?
Have you seen the latest Toyota F1 commercials? Notice anything different?

Well I have seen them, and by the way for those who haven’t, you can download them at Toyota-f1.com. I know they’re new, and a lot funnier than before. They have a wittier persona now. Is it about reaching out to younger consumers?
Well that would be in line with one of Toyota Motor’s primary aims, to be hip and cool and young. The significance here is the use of actual Toyota road cars. Since last year, the F1 ad’s tag says “Practice makes perfect” and then “One Aim.” Before, the commercials featured engineers ordinarily spending time with their sons. The son’s play time would be disrupted by a problem, and the engineer-father comes to the rescue with F1-inspired solutions. The message, more or less, is that Toyota’s F1 engineers are so passionate about their craft that they continue to be immersed in it at home. Then practice makes perfect.

What’s the significance of Toyota’s new ads then?
The new ads feature a team of mechanics doing a pit stop, instead of a solitary engineer to an actual road car. The ads start with Toyota cars being driven; these cars are slow, old and rusty, and looking tired. Then out of nowhere the Toyota F1 truck comes along. The Toyota mechanics flock to the car and work on it, repaint it, change its tyres, and even do re-fueling. After the pit stop, the Toyota vehicle is transformed into a shiny, rev-happy, and of course, fast, white machine. The mechanics leave and the car zooms to wherever it’s going. It’s worth noting that no, Toyota did not use a Supra or MR2 or Celica – the usual sporty cars – but instead used a very mainstream, very Toyota hatchback and van. Yes, a van. The tagline remains the same, “Practice makes perfect.” “One Aim.” But in our subconscious, we are being told, just to be blunt about it, that Formula 1 does wonders to Toyota, and that Formula 1 transcends to your ordinary Toyota hatchback or van, and that the Toyota Formula 1 magic is also for you, the ordinary but all important mainstream driver. Smart, eh?

Wow, impressive. But you blabbered a lot there.
Thank you for being appreciative. You’re such a polite person.

Now, now, go on, what else is to talk about here?
Here are very intriguing and very important developments. Mike Gascoyne has just renewed his contract with Toyota which sees him wearing red, grey, and white until 2006. This contract-renewal wasn’t picked up much by the media, but they missed an even bigger development. Mike was actually courted by BMW!

You don’t say! Well obviously he stuck with us, so that’s good news.
But that was potentially damaging, and I am grateful it didn’t disrupt the team. Things like that could shake up the team and that obviously is not good. Besides, I don’t see any other better place for Mike Gascoyne. All the teams based in England are already settled with their Technical Directors, well except for Williams. And Williams itself is very unsettled right now, and can never match the resources of Toyota. Now I’m just waiting for his contract to be renewed for even longer.

Just the thought of Mike Gascoyne leaving Toyota scares me already. I wonder, did he ever entertain thoughts of leaving Toyota?
Well I’ve read he has concerns about his kids. I no longer remember that well, but it was about the kids being away from him, or perhaps having to travel to Cologne to see him. I understand it’s not the best situation to be in, especially as I think his kids are in an important, hard-to-miss growing up stage. But that’s life- we can’t have everything. Just like we can’t have all the sponsors we want.

Sponsors? Are you trying to transition to another topic?
Well in fact I am. In the same way that we almost lost Mike, we are now in a crucial battle for Intel’s sponsorship. Recent reports say that Intel is dead-set in using Formula 1 to market its company, and of course, to go head to head with AMD who currently sponsors Ferrari. Among those interested in Intel are McLaren-Mercedes, and our friendly neighborhood rival, BAR-Honda. As you can see, these two are so in need of sponsorship money as they split with their tobacco sponsors.

So where does Toyota stand?
I think we’re in a good position given the fact that we’ve considerably raised our stock, and are actually, I think, a better deal than BAR-Honda. However, it was mentioned that the Intel logos that found their way to our TF104s and TF105s were actually natives of Japan. In other words, it was the Intel office in Japan that struck the deal with Toyota, not the Intel main office. Intel wants to expand their presence in F1, and they might go the route of being a team’s title- or main sponsor. Can you say Intel-Toyota, Intel-McLaren-Mercedes, or Intel-BAR-Honda? If so, then Toyota will be in a pleasant dilemma of choosing between two established brands, Panasonic and Intel, for their title sponsor.

But can’t we just have both?
I don’t know really, but here are possible solutions. Panasonic could concede, and then a reversal of roles between Intel and Panasonic could occur at Toyota. Panasonic remains as a secondary sponsor, with intel adorning the TF106 side pods. Option two: status quo for Toyota in that Panasonic remains as title sponsor, and Intel remains as minor sponsor – we could have Panasonic on the side pods and intel inside at the rear wings or engine covers. At the same time, Intel could title-sponsor another team. At one points, HP took over Compaq’s title sponsorship of Williams while continuing to sponsor Jaguar.

Wait a minute, why all the fuss about sponsorship? We do have a lot of money, and there other teams who could use the millions of Intel, like Minardi or Midland, etc…
True, if it was Minardi we are talking about here, then well and good. But unfortunately, the reality that is F1 means that the poor continue to be poor, much like the real world actually. They cannot attract good sponsors with the way they perform right now. Besides some spare cash wouldn’t hurt cash-smart Toyota.

Then what is the significance of losing Intel?
Well, losing Intel to another team like McLaren, and worse to archrival BAR-Honda, is much more than just losing money. We are losing morale here, and it’s as good as Intel losing confidence in Toyota. This is not the way a sponsor should deal with a team like Toyota who aside from its given reputation as a company has also improved by leaps and bounds in its standing in Formula 1. Should Intel decide to move to another team, however, it should be someone ahead of us right now. Note also the difference if Intel were to abandon Toyota as opposed to Intel just bypassing Toyota as they begin their F1 sponsorship. The latter would have been less controversial.

I guess so. Well all in all, these only serve to reinforce that Toyota is a reputable company, and continue to be an attractive team in F1. Ever heard of Microsoft being rumored to sponsor Toyota?
Yes, I have, and even Sony. And we will continue this sort of trend. This year alone, we are beating the recent achievement of BAR-Honda in 2003 when they jumped from eighth to fifth in the Constructors Championship. From eighth last year we are now fourth, and F1 Central has quoted a high-ranking Toyota F1 chief about targeting third in the Championship.

But finishing third in the championship, and even fourth would mean losing our Friday testing advantage. That cannot be good.
On the contrary, I fully agree with us targeting third in the WCC. Aside from feeling for Ricardo Zonta, I see no other long term penalties from losing our third car advantage. In fact it would help us, and I’d like us to lose this advantage so we can mature and improve our ways even more. That is why it is crucial to finally master the art of tyre selection before the end of the season. It will test our true capabilities, and in the end it will make us a better, more respectable team. We’ve had this advantage for two years already and are bound to lose such an advantage anyway. If we become really confident in our package and in our engineering capabilities, as in McLaren, then a third car serves no other purpose than doing extra marketing mileage.

That is a good point there. But if we are to lose the third driver advantage, then what is the difference of finishing fourth, third, or second?
Just to be plainly realistic, it is obviously difficult to challenge for the championship or for the runner up spot. Otherwise, it’s all about perception both outside of and within the team, perception that will set us up for the following season. Third is a good number. Fourth still has this nagging image of being best of the rest; it still is off of the podium. Finishing third means we are on the podium, and are actually part of the coveted “big three.” Finishing third gives us just enough room to move up to at least second next year, and should we be less than fortunate, we can pace ourselves to keeping ourselves in the top five.

What about finishing second?
Undue pressure: the pressure is too much and expectations are sky high, because many would expect the runner up to fully challenge and succeed in winning the championship the following season. It’s like, there’s no other way to go for the second placer but first. And the law of diminishing returns dictates that it is easier to make a jump from way low, but it will be really difficult to make those incremental improvements that will make one a champion. Pour money into Minardi and they could find two seconds; pour the same amount of money into Ferrari and they would be hard-pressed to find half a second. And, just look at the “Luckies” guys.

But at the moment, fourth seems most likely given that Ferrari continue to make improvements.
Should we finish fourth anyway, I’d like us to finish fighting for third, and therefore closer to third. I do no like us to be a defending fourth and we should have a clear gap over fifth place. Another thing I’m targeting, is that our second half points tally should still be greater than the second half tallies of other teams, notably Ferrari, Honda, and Williams. I continue to hope that we could be within five tenths or less of the leading team’s pace by year end.

If you target those sort of results, then you seem to be talking about wins, or a win already.
Again, that will be too much pressure, but if it comes, then thank you. Still ahead of us are Turkey, Monza, Spa, China, Japan, and Brazil. Our good power and efficient aerodynamics should place us well in Monza and Spa. The next race in Turkey, being a new circuit for everyone, somehow levels the playing field and wipes out the inexperience of newer teams such as ourselves. China and Brazil should suit us well, too, bearing in mind that Ralf, running his first race there after his injury break, was among the front runners.

And of course there is Suzuka. What are our chances?
Needless to say, Toyota will be aiming to impress and genuinely perform in their home event. Needless to say, we will be aiming to beat BAR-Honda fair and square, like I am sure Honda will be aiming to get ahead of us. It will be one of the most exciting races, I hope, and just bear in mind that Ralf and Jarno, both our drivers, are Suzuka experts.

Well, we will all be waiting for that day! This has been a very long interview.
It’s my fault, I had a lot to say but because of the many delays, I had to say them all in one interview. I hope you and our readers didn’t get tired and bored.

No problem. Any parting shots?
Well, again, huge congratulations and thank you to the team excellent form in Hungary. We’re hoping for more! Go, go, go, Toyota! One Aim! Watch us and Watch out!

Thanks! Do you have anything to promote?
Well I promote world peace and peace in all F1 forums. I would also like to promote my blog, please visit screamingv10.blogspot.com. Thanks!

Rounds 6 and 7: Monaco and Nurburgring

Friday, July 29, 2005 3:22 PM

A Drop off in Competitiveness and Luck

Rounds 6 and 7 saw our Panasonic Toyota Racing Team score a mere four points and its first ever DNF tally for the year. The last two weeks have been disappointing, frustrating, and one big wake up call to the reality of how fast things change in Formula 1 – all this considering the team’s excellent start to the season that saw points scored on merit in every race after Melbourne, and even more recently, that brilliant 3-4 finish in Spain just before Monte Carlo.

Let’s first talk about Toyota’s fortunes in general during the last few weeks.
Well Toyota as an organization has been very successful on the profits front yet again, and its cars continue to sell towards even bigger numbers all over the world. That makes any Toyota fan, supporter, admirer, etc. very proud and happy. On the motor sports side, things have been and continue to be disappointing in IRL, while in F1 the team is on a low point and is facing a lot of challenges as the other teams catch on.

How has Toyota been in the IRL? What are the concerns?
Toyota dominated its (and Honda’s) first year in the IRL in 2003 with Scott Dixon winning the championship, and Gil de Ferran winning for Toyota the Indy 500. But beginning last year, things have drastically turned around that Honda now dominates the series. I haven’t been religiously watching IRL races, but results so far show the Toyotas appear to struggle to just even ‘mix it’ with the Hondas, at times even beaten by the sole Chevrolet. It is not clear to me why this is so; Toyota obviously has a lot of catching up to do as it is embarrassing itself there in American racing.

Should this be a concern for a Toyota F1 follower?
It could be - it should be a huge concern because this could be a precedent to the Formula 1 V8 wars next year. It is alarming when in Indianapolis 500 just hours after the dismay in Germany Toyota could manage just two cars in the top 10 (that’s two cars bringing up P9 and P10) with all first eight finishers powered by Hondas. By the way that was Ryan Briscoe finishing tenth, behind two-time Indy 500 winner Helio Castroneves.

I see. Now talk us through about Panasonic Toyota’s low point in F1.
Well first of all I certainly hope this is the lowest it can get and that everything will be on the up from this point. I also thought of that after Monaco, thinking that having gotten over our two worst circuits (Imola and Monaco) the team will be consistently competitive thereafter. The last two races are not just disappointing, they are frustrating because it was evident that the TF105s have improved and deserving of better results. From my point of view I’d say that opportunities were wasted because of blunders from the team and even from the drivers – both drivers.

But for sure luck also played a part in all of this.
That is true, un-luck also contributed, but I think it’s no different from luck playing a part in our previous excellent performances and podium finishes. You can only have so much luck and un-luck and as they say, you create your own luck. In Monaco Ralf was unlucky to be handed the grid penalty and to get tangled with Juan Pablo, but he had the power to limit damage, or to just be plain practical about the situation. Fortunately he performed rather well in the race, managed to overtake some people and in the end score three valuable points for himself and the team. My apologies to Jarno’s fans, but I think Jarno had the worse approach. I just think he held back too much in Q1 and as consequence, he very early on sort of ruined his race. During the race he did a reasonable if not good opening stage that he and team were again within reach of a podium finish. But after the stops he slid down the order by too much – I don’t know if he didn’t push enough in his in/out laps, if the mechanics did a bad stop, or he was just plain unlucky to be down by so much.

That must have been frustrating considering that Renault’s positions were ripe for the picking because of their problems, but it was not Toyota to benefit from them.
Very frustrating – but still, congratulations to Williams, Nick and Mark. They were smart and lucky to have their strategy work well. Their three-stopping cars allowed them to qualify much higher and in the race they were not so bothered about being too heavy. However, I was hoping that by the European GP Toyota would have learned from Williams’ strategy, of their brilliant working around the weakness of their cars.

That overtaking move of Jarno on Giancarlo, wasn’t that exciting?
I agree that that was a brave, heroic move to pass Fisichella. But first of all, all things being the same, if that very same move was done by Ralf Schumacher, I bet he would have been cursed and called idiot or stupid. I felt that there was too much double-standards from fans between Ralf and Jarno in Monaco. It was a shame because Ralf was beginning to show more confidence in the car after Spain. To be honest I feel disappointed that Jarno didn’t score any point from that move – dare I say, he faded. He went to the pits but the team found nothing unusual, i.e. the car was okay. But the car for Jarno was a little imperfect for his liking that he seemed to have psyched himself into thinking that the car was no longer capable of anything better. He did not adapt. Of course, everything would have been a lot easier, and probably a lot better too in terms of points, in the first place had he just waited for the right time.

I’d have to agree with the last statement. But did you see the mechanics react to that breathtaking move?
Yes I did! Such energy and enthusiasm! Such character… and that clearly dispels the notion that the team are bunch of robots, a faceless group of people. Toyota knows how to party too. Again, what a shame that it didn’t work as we all wanted it to be.

The Toyota people were also expecting a lot for the Nurburgring event, but again we were unlucky. How did you find the race?

What a heartbreak for all those people! Anyway, the race itself for me was boring, apart from that last incident with Kimi. There was not much close racing, especially in the context of having just watched Monaco seven days before. Overtaking was difficult, but then again in Monaco, surprisingly there was a lot of action.

Ralf and Jarno had different types of engines there, and it seemed that there was not much difference.
The engineers made all things possible to make the older engine in Ralf’s car as close as possible in specification to Jarno’s new, upgraded one. Here’s some good ‘what if.’ If the team just decided to go for new engines for both cars, then Ralf would have had started from 18th or probably better. He would have had prevented that first lap incident, and both He and Jarno would have been able to maintain their level in terms of engine upgrades. He effectively started 18th anyway because of that incident.

That’s one ‘what if,’ but the more possible ‘what if,’ happened to Jarno. He definitely would have scored a lot better without the grid incident.
Ah, yes. Bitter unluck that added more score to sadly not our championship card but to our experience card. Probably the newer engine had some issues with that starter – what do I know? I wonder though how he ended up so behind the others after his drive through penalty, and more importantly, how difficult it seemed for him to get back to racing towards the top eight. He mentioned that he could have finished on the podium, even on the top step of the podium, but his race pace indicates otherwise. If not for Kimi and Felipe’s misfortunes, he would have scored none at all. And it would have been one royal embarrassment for us in light of BAR’s return and David Coulthard’s admirable run to fourth. Even Fisichella who started from the pits raced excellently towards the front.

Some mystery there, I see. But what about Ralf? He also had difficulty closing in on the leaders.
He had difficulty closing in on even just the midfield. It’s a concern really, and I believe it got into him. First of all it must have annoyed him big time that he was nose-less before the first lap finished. It seemed like he grew impatient and spun-out; when he stepped out of the car it was as if he couldn’t care less that his race is over. He looked too tired to continue. In any case he broke Toyota’s record run of finishing each and every race from the season’s opening in Australia. That’s reliability for you!

But recent reports in different F1 websites harp McLaren’s reliability record.
Yes I’ve seen those, where McLaren is supposed to be number one, then Toyota or Sauber, then Renault. I couldn’t understand: McLaren has had two DNF’s (Imola and Nurburgring) and we only have one so far. And note that our sole retirement was due to the driver’s spinning out (not that we should be too proud of that) while their retirements are both mechanical in nature. We’re still king of reliability.

Reliability continues to be a bright spot, the engine is still one of the best, and the drivers are doing a reasonable enough job for the team. What are Toyota’s concerns then?
Toyota should ensure to keep the good elements and even improve on them along with solving on the weak areas. On the engine side, I somehow am in awe that we just had our very first engine upgrade after six rounds. On the one hand it shows how good the engine is to be competitive against other more constantly improving engines; on the other it also says that we can do even more. Like Mr. Takahashi said, we need to do triple the efforts of our competitors.

For the next race Honda will have their latest engines, and come Indy Cosworth will boost their engines by a whopping 30 horsepower.
That is what I’m talking about. We cannot afford another embarrassment from Red Bull. Of course there’s Honda, and we don’t know the plans of Ferrari, BMW, Renault, and Mercedes as of yet.

Speaking of engines, it looks like a lot of changes will happen next year not only from a change of number of cylinders, but also on who will supply who. Any comments?
My foremost comment is: Toyota should exploit this opportunity to the fullest. Teams like Red Bull, Sauber, and Williams are on shaky grounds right now as regards their engines. There is an element of instability in terms of designing their 2006 cars that goes with that. Toyota is of course building both chassis and engine under one roof and that is an advantage they should build on in light of this transition phase on engines.

What about rumors linking Toyota to Williams, with the possibility of badging the engines as Lexus?
Williams is a direct competitor and we could be better off helping other poorer teams. There will not be a shortage of more willing engine donors to Williams like Honda and Cosworth. And if ever Lexus were to enter Formula 1, I’d rather see them as sponsors to Toyota’s own F1 operations.

It could be a complex situation, but possible. Anyway, another issue that has been going around lately is Toyota’s building a B-spec car. Do you think Toyota needs a B-spec car?
I just know that we need one big upgrade good for at least four tenths faster. We need to leapfrog others with one big push; we have incremental improvements race by race but so do others. They might not need to explicitly label it as a B-car. In 2003 we had a drastically improved car for Silverstone onwards that sported a new engine cover and wind deflectors but we didn’t call it the TF103B. What’s in a name anyway?

Hmm, well I guess last year it added to the feeling that along with the revised B car was the start of better next half of the season.
Yes, all because of the letter B. We all know how much the revised car was an improvement – not much. But I agree it helps in motivating, psyching up people. What we need to improve on right now is the race pace of the car. Ferrari and potentially Williams have better race pace than us right now. We are marginally better in qualifying, for out and out raw pace also partially because Jarno is just so good in qualifying. I think he’s too good for the car in qualifying but in the race it’s impossible to repeat that so it appears that he’s slacking off when he’s not.

The team believes that it has the third best car and is still ahead of Williams and Ferrari.
It could be true, but I have my doubts. The last two races have proved that Williams have improved a lot and I think they really deserve the points they scored, and even more. We cannot go on believing that we have the third best car right now if we can’t score ahead of those supposedly behind us. We can’t go on talking about how the others out qualified and outraced us because they were lighter, because they had different tyres, because they had a different strategy, etc. That would be like the old Toyota situation: we always believed in the potential of the car, but if we can’t show it, there’s nothing much to talk about. There will be a lot to come from Williams and Ferrari in the immediately following races, and even from BAR and Red Bull in the latter part of the season.

So it’s a matter of in the long run, long runs should be improved?
Haha, you’re trying to be funny again but you’re clearly ineffective. Seriously though, we must only realize the promise of extensive development of the car throughout the year, of giving more effort than any other competitor. It’s the perfect opportunity to respond with the realization of the promise: McLaren have jumped us in the championship table, Williams is biting at our rear, and there are at least two other teams itching to get past us. Nick and Ruebens are especially fired up (and potentially free next year.)

Fair enough. Any last comments?
Just the same: Let’s all take it race by race and keep the faith! Watch us, and watch out! And thank you for bearing with my blabber.