Q: Is not the problem with an evolution how much development is left within the engine?
PM: Well, I’ve just said, having a proper base there is room to improve. That’s the reason why we thought that with the change of regulation what was more important was the continuity of the evolution of the engine instead of starting with a completely white sheet of paper.

Q: So you’re confident there is more to come…
PM: I think so, I hope so.

Q: Now, can I ask you all your comments on the FIA proposals regarding engines, particularly their viability, if you feel that they are applicable?
PM: We think the aim of the proposals is very positive. We have to consider what we can do for the future of the sport. We have to give priority to safety, to maintain or improve the spectacle and to design a formula that still allows for the peak of technology but at reasonable cost. I think we are pleased at the approach. In my opinion, it’s difficult to go into detail on any of the proposals but in general, we favour these proposals and I think that in the medium term, a displacement reduction is the best way to limit the power performance without artificial tools like speed limiters etc. It’s the best idea, so we are in favour of considering a formula with a 2.4 V8 in the future, and also to consider how to extend engine life.

QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Q. (Mike Doodson – Mike Doodson Associates): Can I come back to the control of the engines? One of the proposals that Mr Mosley has put forward is the introduction of the standard ECU for everybody. He is clearly determined to get rid of electronic controls and I guess the introduction of the ECU is tied in with that. Can I ask each of you if they imposition of an ECU will reduce the interest of your manufacturer in Formula One? Would it be a danger to your participation?
PM: I think it is an interesting proposal to examine in detail. I think if one of the targets is cost reduction we have to consider standard hardware for electronics. It is something that is a primary goal of cost reduction. Of course the software must allow a level of freedom to develop according to the need of each engine manufacturer. On production cars, there are a lot of standard issue adapted to a lot of engines so I think it is possible that it can be used in a Formula One engine. But we have got to maintain a discussion.

Q. (Joe Saward – F1 Grand Prix Special): The current Concorde Agreement runs out at the end of 2007, which, as far as I understand it anyway, means that you guys don’t get a say because Max is saying this is what we are going to have for Formula One and it is not a case of negotiation, do you want to be here or not? Is that how you understand it?
PM: I must say it is a proposal and at Ferrari we are in Formula One. We have to analyse together as an engine manufacturer and a team if we support this idea and define what is the future of Formula One after 2007.

Q. (Jonathan Noble – Autosport): Mario has already commented on them, but can the other manufacturers comment on whether they would accept proposals before the current Concorde Agreement for a major engine overhaul such as reduction to 2.4-litres?
PM: I think we have to change only once. We cannot think to design something in 2007 and then modify something in 2008. There is also the stability so for sure reviewed for 2008 and in the current agreement we can consider something, but I think it makes no sense to think about two different types of engine or to think about major modification of the engine structure. We have to think of only one modification.