YVES MATTON Q&A

Why was this clarification needed?

“When you make a homologation process, there are different interpretations between manufacturers and this was the case here. That’s why the clarification has been asked [for].”

If you’re given dimensions to work with, how can that be interpreted differently?

“It’s not so easy like that, it’s not you give a dimension… it’s an aero regulation which is really quite complicated, based on different figures and different measurements and conditions. It’s not just [for example] ‘this dimension from there to there.’ You have to take in all of these conditions and there could be some different interpretations. That’s the reason we had to check this and this is why this clarification has been asked [for].”

But the regulations don’t allow the 30mm of overhang the Toyota has?

“If you check the regulation, it’s more difficult than this.”

But no other car has an issue with the rear wing?

“It’s not the reality. We ask all the manufacturers to adapt their homologation.”

So does that mean none of the four manufacturers comply with the rules?

“No. All four manufacturers are complying with their homologation papers.”

So they are in contravention of regulations, but homologated by the FIA?

“No.”

Then whose fault is it that we need this clarification?

“I would say if there is a fault, it’s the FIA, then. This is not Toyota, I told you all the cars are part of this action plan.”

What’s in the action plan?

“That’s between us and the manufacturers.”

But there’s no room here for different interpretation in the clarification?

“We clarified, clearly, how the text needs to be read.”

Why was that regulation not written tightly enough in the first place?

“The regulation will not change.”

OK, so why was there a need for the clarification on the regulations then…

“Before [now] nobody asked about this regulation. Maybe it’s our fault that we have not seen this regulation could be interpreted differently. But now it’s clear.”