Going to the tobacconist's I heard the title of the comment I made at the Japanese Grand Prix being thrown back in my face. The headline said that Ferrari's troubles began at the Nurburgring. The tobacconist said: It is not true that they started at the Nurburgring, you should have written that Ferrari's troubles started the day Ferrari decided to abstain from racing and did not participate in the Austrian Grand Prix. What was her response?
"I would have answered his tobacconist that I don't smoke. What do you want me to answer? We didn't go to Austria but we went to Holland and before going to Holland I called Regazzoni on the phone, and I never told my drivers either good or bad, I always left them free. I bothered to call him and I said: now that you are alone, I don't want you to take responsibility. Do your race regardless of the fact that there is no Lauda and that everything depends on you. You know the result, our car didn't work anymore, that's bullshit. Regazzoni did the fastest lap on the penultimate lap".
I would like to remind you that Lauda's accident happened two months after Ferrari's last victory. Therefore, two months that have been of interval, of emptiness. In these two months I read that you said: Lauda no longer brings the same contribution he did last year, he has thinned out his visits to Maranello.
"It is true, I have nothing to withdraw. I wrote this in an interview with Corriere della Sera, which generously published it for me. Now it doesn't publish any more, and that's why perhaps he blames me a lot. However, let me be clear about this. I will read a document. This document is dated July 23rd. It is the stenographed minutes of the meeting that we hold every fifteen or twenty days at Ferrari. Present at the meeting were Ferrari, the president, Piero Lardi, the head of the Dispositions department, the person who builds the cars, Franco Rocchi, who is unfortunately in the hospital in Reggio Emilia and to whom I send my warmest wishes to have him back as a member of the Ferrari technical troika, Mauro Forghieri, head of the Studies department, Giancarlo Bussi, head of the Experience department, Daniele Audetto, sports director, and Sante Ghedini, director of the Fiorano track. Lauda was wrong not to wait for the clarification on the high temperatures found, which were not engine temperatures as it turned out. Hence the double damage on Sunday morning. He has to find the time, if he wants to remain World Champion, for the tests at Fiorano. I said this on 23 July. As for the technical drama of the failure of the French Grand Prix, it is worth remembering that in ten laps we were already nine seconds ahead, then both crankshafts broke, which did not happen again because we ran - with endless stunts - to find the material that did not give us these serious problems anymore. Something that hadn't happened before, because we were given a material with characteristics that didn't turn out to be what they should be".
You reject the thesis that Ferrari has slept on its laurels and has not followed the progress that other cars have followed, progress that has been evident on race circuits, like McLaren, like others...
"Blatant for you or for whom?"
In light of the results.
"In the light of the results, you have a hundred reasons".
But the speech is not concluded. He rejects this thesis and, on the other hand, to this thesis he interposes another…
"No. I don't reject it. I'm saying that in life all achievements are the result of a close collaboration between human values, technical values, mechanical values and so on. So we lacked this continuity, while others were moving forward, we stopped. Why? This is where Lauda's merit comes back and all the respect we have shown him and will have to show him is justified. He brought a decisive contribution, because until we had other drivers, we had not been able to know if we were incapable or if the drivers were incapable of showing what our cars had. And you know that the designer is not a test driver. You are young and you don't know the days of Daimler Benz, when the design engineer Ulenhaut approved the cars at the Nurburgring. At that time the judgement was technical and sporting, instead our designers have to operate according to the enthusiasm or the depression of the drivers. Fortunately, today we have a plant in Fiorano that is equipped with such means that even the drivers tell fewer stories".
To conclude, you want to confirm that Ferrari's attitude has been conditioned by Lauda's accident.
"Uniquely".
Looking back at the season, you have only one regret: not having lined up the third car in the last races. She also said: If we had fielded it we probably would have won. On a penalty kick, though, we would have won. It seems to be clear that your intention since then was to field the third car and that you didn't field it because someone pointed out to you that it was not appropriate to field it.
"There is no need for metaphors, the someone - I said it clearly - was Niki Lauda. He said: at Monza it's okay: I don't want three cars anymore, it's useless to make compliments".
However, I wanted to know if, in support of this statement by Lauda, there had also been an expression of will, there was an expression of opportunity on the part of those close to you in the team and who oversee the technical things at Ferrari.
"Look. In fact, look is a mistake, you have to say listen. Those who are close to me express many opinions and I listen to them all. But one thing is clear. I have no direct responsibility in Ferrari. My presence at Ferrari is to support the decisions of others and, as far as possible, I try to ensure that these decisions have general consensus. I have no intention of taking on any part other than that which has been assigned to me since 1969. I have kept the possibility of studying new machines of a sporting nature, of keeping the torch of sporting activity alive. What concerns the industrial management, what concerns all the decisions of the company is not my business, I must be grateful to those who turn to me for daily advice. Here we have engineer Fusaro, who is thirty-seven years old, he is the general manager of Ferrari. Ferrari is in good hands. Since 1969 I have had a relationship with the lawyer Agnelli and with the current Senator Umberto which has always been cordial and full of trust. They have always been generous in interpreting my sporting anxieties, so I have nothing to add other than that as long as I am in the world I intend to stay in this place and say what I think".
Forgive me, in a few words I wanted to say this: Lauda's statement, according to which it was not opportune to line up the third car, was followed by a consensus of the Ferrari technical staff, and you confirm this directly. That is, you were the only one who thought...
"You cannot ask me if I was there or not because at this point I would have to invite you to Maranello to read the minutes of our meetings. At that moment you would see who said yes and who said no, but it seems to me that this is not an argument for this kind of meeting. The important thing is that I can assure you that even at that moment the wish of our pilot was respected, who we have considered and continue to consider until proven otherwise as the number one".
On Sunday afternoon, or rather Sunday at 9:15 a.m., there was a statement by the lawyer Montezemolo on the radio, network two. When asked by the journalist Crespi from Milan, who acted as moderator, the lawyer replied that after all, he is not sorry about the defeat because it serves to reorganize an environment. He also said that certain individuals within Ferrari need to be rebalanced. Don't you have any comments to make?
"Frankly, I have more than one comment to make. However, this morning in Tutto Sport I read Ottolenghi's article where it says that: There is something else at Ferrari you can guess from the diagnosis made by authoritative sources that with language not even too veiled has put his finger on the sore. So there would be a plague at Ferrari. No? All right. First excessive security and loss of humility, inappropriate stops in the search for continuous improvement, relaxation of the environment with the regrettable return to the confusion of tasks within the team. So I should respond to these three accusations that Tutto Sport formulates as coming from a well-informed source...".
Speaking of humility.
"I respond to documented accusations, when I am shown excessive confidence and loss of humility. For example, I have always declared that Ferrari had a one-tenth advantage over all its competitors; this one-tenth was the consequence of the mechanical efficiency and the human efficiency of the driver. The day one of these two elements failed, everything collapsed. This is the truth. There are other elements. We will talk about tires if some of you don't say it, I will do an interview with myself and I will explain it to you. Inappropriate stops in the quest for continuous improvement. But what stops. We have had a Salvarani in bed with angina pectoris for months now, a Rocchi in bed with a heart attack: the columns of Ferrari are left with only Forghieri, with only the exuberant and very intelligent Forghieri, so how can you put others in that place? It's like when someone wrote: But why didn't Ferrari think to get other tires, since Goodyear had that problem? As if it was easy, as if there was another factory in the world that makes Formula 1 tires. It doesn't exist, or rather it exists in France. Whoever has them keeps them and will give them to the French cars and that is Michelin, which we have been able to test because of the excellent relationship we have with this company and they have proven that these tires allow exceptional speeds. But, mind you, this helped Goodyear because we said: Gentlemen wake up, because the day Michelin comes with Renault to the races, that day you will not be in time to give new tires. That's why in Japan they started to bring out soft tires, that's why the much discussed T2 at Brands Hatch didn't go, because we had the single type tire, which was imposed by the manufacturers association, the tire that only goes on certain cars with weight balances that are not those of Ferrari. When it was hot we won, when it was cold we always lost and already the month of March showed that we could not win. But what should be done, the other car, my friend Cervetto tells me, what does it take to change the suspension? Nothing, you have to design the new car, are you kidding me? Then we want to talk about the tires? Let's talk about it, we have a contract with Goodyear that began in 1974, this contract runs out in 1978. In 1978 we will be free, at that time we will see who is there. However, at a certain moment I had to stand the ground and Goodyear's general vice-president for the whole world came to Maranello and had to insert a clause in my contract, which was no longer restrictive because I could not stand the unfair imposition of the Formula 1 Association, which demands only one type of tire for economic reasons, while Goodyear has experimenters in us. Even now we are testing, we are scheduling ten series of tests in the different circuits in order to finalize the new tires, and we have been mocked. If Goodyear wanted us to win the world championship they could, and if Niki went off at the Nurburgring it is good to know, Goodyear has its responsibilities: why? Because Regazzoni tells you, not me. Regazzoni tells you that he went out three times because of the behavior of the tires".
Still on the tires, I wanted to ask, at a glance, to what extent, in what proportion, did the inefficiency of the tires affect the performance of the car?
"I said that if Goodyear wants to, they can make tires for us to win races and I'll tell you why right now. Because our car that a lot of people say is technically expired, it's really not, and we take three speeds. In Japan where there were friends who saw the cars: Brambilla 276.84, Regazzoni 276.20 and the others where? Six kilometers less than them. So? But this happens in straight, but isn't it that in straight the tires can have a determining value? The tires are tested right in the corners to unload the power".
Still on the subject of tires. In Japan, Dunlop made an unexpected appearance on the track. What do you think, did it cause quite a stir, at least for those who were there? Especially not so much the tires, that we discovered later, we discovered this illustrious Japanese stranger suddenly fitting within the top fastest riders.
"This proves to you what I said a minute ago. Dunlop, but Dunlop when it retired was first in the world it wasn't second to anybody".
Do you think a future inclusion is likely?
"I can't make any predictions about tires, I can't make any. I know that today there is a tire that is on the cutting edge but it is not on the market, I know that".
In Japan I found myself asking Forghieri a question: in Canada, in the United States there was the problem of cold tires, the weight distribution in the details of the car, understeer, oversteer and so on. In Japan, suddenly too high temperature of the tires. From 170 °C-180 °C we passed to 250 °C. So the question, not as a technician but as a layman, is: it's too cold there, it's too hot here, so what?
"It's not too hot at all, because we modified the suspension to torment the tires and make them warm up. So if it wasn't too hot you had to put that suspension on".
Rather, how much can you estimate the correction, the advantage, the recovery of the British when they had to adapt to the new position of the spoiler? In other words, how much could the English have recovered from the change in the spoiler, which was very evident in the photos?
"If we take the question of the speeds here it is clear, the one who goes more is Brambilla because he is a daring and he runs without aileron practically, without incidence of aileron and therefore has the maximum speed. But what has undoubtedly had a considerable impact is the whole new arrangement of the new air intake and so on. Translate it into figures: if you come to Maranello one day, I will introduce you to the new engineer of the calculation office and he will be able to give you maybe an interesting chart".
We had forgotten the most important question of the past. His former World Champion, unfortunately, said as the Japanese Grand Prix was ending with Hunt's victory: He is a usurper. Do you think Hunt usurped the world title this year?
"I thank you, because it almost seems as if there is someone coming to read in my notes and then solicit questions. Since '74 I have been trying to make a deal with Lord Hesketh because I had my eye on this casually bold driver. This year Hunt offered himself to Ferrari on June 12 in Sweden and then asked for an answer at the French Grand Prix. He would come even without an engagement as long as he was assured of continuity with his sponsors. I did not answer because I had given my word that until September 1st I would not have contacted any driver. It is clear that he is a clever driver - see the overtaking he did in Holland with the yellow car, see at Watkins Glen, where with the fire in progress instead of keeping the position he reached Scheckter - he is very good, so much so that I wanted to sign him by agreeing with Lord Hesketh even shortly before I made contact with Lauda. This is what I say about Hunt".
At the British Grand Prix, which aroused all those damned controversies, Ferrari rightly made a protest, a complaint then accepted for Hunt's readmission to the race. But Ferrari did not think of leaving out Regazzoni who was in the same conditions as Hunt. I would like to ask, isn't there a contrast?
"I answer immediately. There is a report that answers you. We made the complaint at the British Grand Prix because we had been the victim a few days before of an unfair verdict that referred to the Spanish Grand Prix, where we did not make any complaint, but it was an unfair decision, because the McLaren was out of regulation before the race, because of the oil radiators and the pipes. It was afterwards for the same reasons and in addition for the wing being 18 millimeters out. We were for one millimeter at Monza: Regazzoni's car, which had also suffered an accident, was disqualified from the times assigned in practice. This is to say sports justice, but they did well at Monza, not there. In conclusion, that's why I told Audetto to make a complaint: just because I wanted to repay the sporting justice for the iniquity they had committed in Spain. The truth is this, that in England we were the cause of the incidents that occurred, because Regazzoni's enthusiasm, his nonchalance, was what created all the fuss about Hunt and Lauda. We were right. It is clear, sports justice is administered in this way".
We got the sentence wrong for England, but on the other hand....
"I don't confirm that it was wrong, I say that we had reasons. But morally we didn't have any because we were the ones who caused the accident, so now I'm going to the page that interests me, always in the meeting of July 23: Ferrari comments on what happened in England. We should not have started the mule with Regazzoni, which was a tacit alibi for Hunt, moreover, mounting the system of Lauda's car on this car would have repeated the inconvenience of the temperatures - with a serious damage to an efficient engine - that had already been found on the Fiorano track... So you see that this had already been deprecated by the undersigned who chaired the meeting of July 23".
Does this mean that you were questioning the sporting management?
"Me, I don't dispute the sports management. When I come back from the races, I make my report and I point out what has been good and bad in the management of an away race".
The matter of the radiators: there was talk of irregularities and so on. This story of the oil radiators was also a bit harmful to Ferrari because you had to change them.
"Nothing is true, nothing is true, it's a lie there too and I'm sorry that it was even a friend present who detected it as a witty invention. We were fine and we have the declaration of CSAI. We changed the position of the gearbox radiators and not the oil radiators. We changed them in order not to raise a case to be taken to the Court of Appeal in Paris, but we have the opinion of CSAI, which stated that we were okay and we asked Csai first, because in Italy the sport power is CSAI".
CSAI will obviously have...
"CSAI will have turned to CSI, but I believe that there is a sports code to be interpreted as much as it is very difficult to interpret it".
We had forgotten the most important question of the past. His former World Champion, unfortunately, said as the Japanese Grand Prix was ending with Hunt's victory: He is a usurper. Do you think Hunt usurped the world title this year?
"I thank you, because it almost seems as if there is someone coming to read in my notes and then solicit questions. Since '74 I have been trying to make a deal with Lord Hesketh because I had my eye on this casually bold driver. This year Hunt offered himself to Ferrari on June 12 in Sweden and then asked for an answer at the French Grand Prix. He would come even without an engagement as long as he was assured of continuity with his sponsors. I did not answer because I had given my word that until September 1st I would not have contacted any driver. It is clear that he is a clever driver - see the overtaking he did in Holland with the yellow car, see at Watkins Glen, where with the fire in progress instead of keeping the position he reached Scheckter - he is very good, so much so that I wanted to sign him by agreeing with Lord Hesketh even shortly before I made contact with Lauda. This is what I say about Hunt".
At the British Grand Prix, which aroused all those damned controversies, Ferrari rightly made a protest, a complaint then accepted for Hunt's readmission to the race. But Ferrari did not think of leaving out Regazzoni who was in the same conditions as Hunt. I would like to ask, isn't there a contrast?
"I answer immediately. There is a report that answers you. We made the complaint at the British Grand Prix because we had been the victim a few days before of an unfair verdict that referred to the Spanish Grand Prix, where we did not make any complaint, but it was an unfair decision, because the McLaren was out of regulation before the race, because of the oil radiators and the pipes. It was afterwards for the same reasons and in addition for the wing being 18 millimeters out. We were for one millimeter at Monza: Regazzoni's car, which had also suffered an accident, was disqualified from the times assigned in practice. This is to say sports justice, but they did well at Monza, not there. In conclusion, that's why I told Audetto to make a complaint: just because I wanted to repay the sporting justice for the iniquity they had committed in Spain. The truth is this, that in England we were the cause of the incidents that occurred, because Regazzoni's enthusiasm, his nonchalance, was what created all the fuss about Hunt and Lauda. We were right. It is clear, sports justice is administered in this way".
After the famous withdrawal, the Italian sport authorities started to protect him much more effectively than in the past. You said that from that moment onwards you had no reason to regret and we arrived at the Italian Grand Prix with the mystery of gasoline. That is, you told us something else: that you wanted to be very honest and that, reviewing the story of the English Grand Prix, you must admit that the compensation to Ferrari is sacrosanct if you take into account the precedent of the Spanish Grand Prix, but on that particular occasion, perhaps you were morally aware of the fact that you had caused the trouble, the mess.
"It was Regazzoni, who races only for the Regazzoni company, he does not race for Ferrari nor for Lauda, he races for his company and he is right because I used to do the same thing when I was racing, but we are more like team players".
You said you would not make any complaints. Instead, the day you started...
"The day I started, I did it as retaliation to the unfairness of Spain. But even the points that came as a result of the complaint, I, a real man of sports do not like them, they do not suit me. All you get by inviting others to respect the rules means that we are in the antechamber of the swindle of barter and blackmail. Then I am not okay with it. So I will not make any more complaints, but I will denounce everything that happens".
You told us that as a true sportsman, you are very allergic to complaints, and in fact, as long as you could, you abstained from them. But one fine moment you had to come down on this ground, because the bullying that was being done to you was just that big. She kicked out four shrieks and some things happened that for example Italian sports authorities.
"You call them four shrieks, someone refusing to participate in a Grand Prix? It's more than four shrieks, it's something more. Because it is the decision of the board of directors of Ferrari, and I repeat that to participate in the races or not to participate cannot be my autonomous decision, because you must not forget that there are 1200 employees at Ferrari, so there is an image to defend".
Do you think that, after your firm stance, you have been sufficiently protected by the sporting authorities that have been called to account?
"I believe I have reached a satisfactory agreement with the Italian sporting authorities because the lawyer Carpi de Resmini came to Maranello with Rogano, and I can say that since that day their behavior towards Ferrari leaves no room for any contrary assumption, on the contrary I must say that they have been interested. It is useless for me to tell you what is going on. Only in the future discussion I will probably show you how our relations with the AC of Italy and the sports commission in particular are going on".
I wanted to ask if you consider your dispute with the international sports authorities to be over, or if you plan to continue it for next year.
"As long as I'm in the world, I'll always be the protester, because this is my uniform, because I love motorsport and I defend it. I reached an agreement with the Italian authorities the day they showed they appreciated my collaboration and defended Ferrari's interests. And of this I will offer proof before the end of this meeting".
The CSI left itself an open way to possibly decide the awarding of the world title based on the Japan result, and that is a complaint was still more or less pending, it had to be examined.
"But by whom this complaint, but by whom?"
On October 27 in Rome, at the case before the National Appeals Tribunal, the hearing on the claim for the famous Monza super-fuel did not take place. The complaint was telegraphically withdrawn by McLaren. Italian Grand Prix and mysterious petrol. Very honestly you think that Hunt's demotion was right and if you think so, we know that some analysis have been done. Hunt has been found irregular for a minimum margin, after that it has been communicated that however the relegation was right because this margin existed. Although the tolerance of the instruments had been taken into account. Immediately afterwards there was a sudden declaration of the technicians of the laboratories where these analyses had been done, who declared a tolerance margin, it seems of ten percent, which meant that Hunt was perfectly regular. This has been talked about abroad because they say, well, the Italians may have been raped in the previous Grand Prix, but when they brought Formula 1 into their home they took their revenge. Final question: reviewing the movie of the season, do you find right this action against Hunt or not?
"It's not towards Hunt; it's towards McLaren because you forgot one detail, that before Spain in South Africa McLaren got the fastest lap in practice with Hunt with the bibs under the car. When they went to the verification they made him remove the bibs. So it happened, that Mr. Hunt was not relegated to the last row by canceling his time in practice, but he started in the pole position. What does this mean? It means that the treatment enjoyed by McLaren is a function of the sponsors McLaren enjoys".
Yes, but I wanted to know. Were these Hunt's previous and prior faults...?
"It's not about Hunt, we're talking about the car here. I tell you that the McLaren was irregular in South Africa as well. The times it set in practice were not repeated when they made the car comply with regulations".
I want to know something very precise. That is, no doubts about McLaren's previous irregularities. I am talking about Monza, that is the occasion in which the Italian sporting authorities tried to establish a principle of extreme rigour in front of the whole world. In this rigor of control, taking into account the figures and data on the tolerance of the instruments and on the octane percentage. I ask you, in all honesty, was Hunt's demotion fair and justified or not?
"If the analyses were regular as I believe they were, the demotion was not regular because he was not supposed to start. So his departure was an irregularity and here we come back to the case of the Spanish Grand Prix. When the car went to scrutineering it happened that the car was out of regulation, then the technical commissioners made a statement that although it was out of regulation, for environmental considerations the car had to start anyway. Mr. Ugeux, when Mr. Audetto said I don't line up the Ferraris at the start, he went and said, Audetto, you have to start the cars, because I give you my word of honor that that car not being regular will be disqualified. What happened? That Mr. Ugeux kept his word of honor in the moment but the one who did not keep it was Schild, who is commissioner of the Swiss AC. He declared the car irregular not because of the irregularity of the radiators and pipes but because of the irregularity of the 18mm wing. When the appeal process took place in Paris, what happened? That the same Mr. Schild who had declared the car irregular in Spain, went before the appeal court to say that the irregularity was irrelevant. Now the court of appeal was not called to decide the entity of an irregularity, it was called to decide whether the irregularity existed or not and this is where sports justice was administered. That is why I wrote to Mr. Ugeux that he had given me a word of honor that unfortunately was not followed up in the decision of the appeal court. You want a statement from me that I cannot make because I have not seen the analysis. But in any case, the international regulations do not speak of 101 octane, but of 100 octane".
In those very confused hours in Monza, it seemed that the definitive importance was given by a famous telex from the CSI that set the definitive limit that the English dispute on the other side, that is, you say it is 100 instead of 101.
"The regulation talks about commercial gasoline at 100 octane and then a telex of tolerance arrived at 101. In any case I don't have the analysis, how can I tell you. If you tell me that the regulation was fair or not fair, I tell you that it was unfair because McLaren as well as Penske should not have started. Then I'll tell you more that there were those who had to start and at the last moment it is said that money ran to not start the cars admitted and to admit McLaren and Penske. This is our sport".
But we rely on hard data, the octane count.
"Mine is not chatter, I answer you: bring me the analyses, if the analyses are false I will tell you that you are right, if the analyses are right I will tell you that McLaren should not have started".
It seemed that the disqualification was not exactly exact, there were or were not these tolerances, but the safety of the stewards in this case came from another factor. That is, they showed me the distillation curve of that gasoline.
It is a distillation curve of a gasoline that does not exist on the market: it is a deliberately prefabricated gasoline with very variable percentages along this curve, therefore it is a manufactured gasoline. They have taken advantage of this fact. Such gasoline does not exist in commerce, the regulation says that it must be commercial gasoline, so there is no doubt that...
"And then to the other previous interlocutor I will answer: the gasoline that these gentlemen bought from the trade where did they get it? When they were asked to say which was the supplier company, it turned out that the supplier company did not exist because they imported the gasoline they put in the cars. This is the truth. Why did they import it if it was gasoline from the trade? This is what was reported. I can't add anything else".
Do you understand that in Japan Ken Tyrrell urged the stewards to check the gasoline?
"Certainly, Ken Tyrrell was the one who telephoned engineer Forghieri informing him that the other competitors might have had nitromethane".
Maybe from experience.
"I can't say that, I can only report what is reported to me because, unfortunately, I am not at the races".
You spoke of agreements made by the English to beat Ferrari, I don't agree with this because, for example, the other day in Japan...
"With what concerns Ferrari you never agree because I read it diligently every day, and if Ferrari had Fittipaldi or had a sporting director like Frank Williams I would be sure to enjoy your sympathies. So I am not surprised by his...".
Anyway on Sunday in Japan at Fuji the McLaren sporting director, Alistair Caldwell, went to Colin Chapman to ask to stop Nilsson to favour James Hunt. The answer was no.
"The relationships between Lotus and me are a little bit different and then here we should go into details but you don't forget what Colin Chapman suffered in Italy and what I... Enough".
Are you aware of the fact that after the English Grand Prix your engine has been disassembled, the engine of Lauda's Ferrari and not the one of Hunt's McLaren? Why and how do you interpret this fact?
"It is these facts that happen when there is interest in curiosity. I know but what do you want. We are there, for the same reason that they accused the organizers of Monza of having done the analysis of gasoline, while when we went to America and asked for the analysis of gasoline, they were there to say: analysis of gasoline? But for God's sake, here we never analyze gasoline, we don't even know what it is. If then there were those who came to say that McLaren had also used nitromethane and other things, it was the competitors of the Formula 1 association, they were not strangers, it was them. So they're all friends when it comes to ripping off Ferrari. But when it comes to ripping each other off, they don't hide their blows".
However, there is no proportion between a complaint of a sporting nature, let's say, of the application of the sporting code for the conduct of the race, and such an important technical complaint, which would have shamed the constructors for who knows how many years.
"Excuse me a moment, excuse me a moment. Mica a shame on the British manufacturers? Why do you think that there are not also other people who are not English who try to see how our engines are not and resort, according to what I read in the Corriere della Sera, to special initiatives to know what we have been able to do until now? But they are everywhere. Don't forget how Alfa Romeo was born in Italy. Alfa Romeo in Italy was born how? In 1923 when I took away from Fiat and I wrote it in my book, Bazzi, Rocchi, Jano and companions, so what is there to be surprised about? When one has to achieve a result, one doesn't achieve it by talking or writing, one achieves it by securing one's skills, by securing one's brains, one doesn't achieve it by merely stating one's reasons, I am of that opinion. So everything in our environment is polluted".
If there are those who continue on this path with 400 cc more, you don't win anymore, they always win....
"You are right. We will have to wait for the Italian Grand Prix and for that excellent lawyer Causo, who went with our Csai representative to Japan as well, because he will point his feet and say no, now we are going to dismantle the engines as well, but as long as we had representatives at the races who did not have this authority, you teach me that it is not possible for us to replace the established authority".
Ecclestone said that he is being blackmailed by the new $100.000 Club, that of the organizers, and added that they have threatened in the meantime to start signing individual contracts with various manufacturers among which there is Ferrari. Ecclestone would have replied that, after all, you are better off outside the Association, for them the situation becomes a little quieter. She is uncomfortable and therefore they English are thinking about organizing Formula 1 races outside of the CSI.
"I don't know if I am an inconvenient element for the members of the Formula 1 Association. What is certain is that I defend my interests. Among my interests is that of the tires, which they have obviously harmed considerably this year. In any case, this $100.000 Club is the last abdication that the International Sporting Commission can make. Because between the $100.000 club and the Formula 1 Association they will make an agreement and everyone will have to race. Those who are outside the association or the club will no longer organize races. Now I can give you a news: Italy has joined the 100.000 dollars Club".
You can see that we are not so poor....
"I can say that engineer Bacciagaluppi was in Paris and on behalf of the Automobil Club Milano he signed the 100,000 dollar pledge. So I can't say anything else".
To save Monza this adhesion?
"I don't know, I don't know, I don't know the intentions. I only know that it is the total abdication of CIS. The day I would leave the Formula 1 association I would find myself like Ligier, Fittipaldi and so on, that at the end of a race I would have to extend my hand to Mr. Ecclestone and ask what he gives me for my ranking, because they have reached the immorality of publishing the regulations without including the list of prizes, that's what the International Sports Commission does".
Maybe they have misinformed you, but it turns out that it was the CSI that made sure that this organization was born, and they did it to make sure that they countered the overwhelming power of the Formula 1 Association. They have also made a communiqué in which they say that a precise proposal will be presented to what we always call Manufacturers to ensure that the famous Brussels agreement made by Ugeux, if I am not mistaken, will be respected. So you should not talk about abdication. of the CSI....
"Of course, it is. The CSI has sporting powers and must be extraneous to all economic relations because we have always raced by car for the last fifty-six years and we have never gone to the CSI to negotiate either engagements or reimbursement of expenses. We have always negotiated with the organizers. So it's immoral that those who hold sports power also have the enforcement of sports laws. It is immoral the sports commission. It's time to end it, it's made by organizers so they organize the races and then express their judgments on the progress of the races, isn't it? It must not be like that".
So engineer, sorry, what do you think the future solution might be?
"I don't think anything. I just think that it's not a sport anymore, that's all I think about. But I do think that there is still a big part of technique, no matter what you try to write now and then: that racing is a circus and it is no longer useful. Every fifteen days there is progress. Racing is for technical progress".
You rightly said that the CSI should not deal with economic problems. But in this case it doesn't want to deal with them, in order to cope with the rising tide of demands from the gentlemen builders who have brought this year a Japanese Grand Prix originally planned for one million dollars, to one million eight hundred thousand dollars. That has resulted in the creation of this organizers' club. And the CSI says: you should join forces, I will oversee everything from above. Apparently, Csi's position is.
"It's a witty invention, because what have the organizers done? They made the 100.000 club, but who are the organizers? They are the members of the Csi, so much so that the head honcho is Boeri of Monte Carlo and the headquarters of this $100,000 club is in Monte Carlo and Le Guezec who was the secretary of the Csi, is the secretary of the new club, and the manager is Duffeler who was at Marlboro. So it's also sponsor interests that have nothing to do with the sport. We did the races when there was no Marlboro, when there was no Martini when there was no one, we always did them. If we have to have humility and if we have to downsize, let's also start downsizing everyone's appetites".
Do you rule out lining up three cars next year, i.e. bringing a third driver to Ferrari, regardless of Lauda's answer?
"Here we go again. We are not in the future, we are talking about the past. Excuse me for a moment, if your colleagues have exhausted the arguments of the past, I am available for the future".
So: does the third car in 1977 run?
"No. Ferrari could not run three cars, they would have fielded three cars in these last two-three races solely to defend Lauda's position given the serious injury he had suffered. But this was not possible".
What exactly did Reutemann's tests at Fiorano in September and October consist of?