Aust (Toyota) - We've had a good first half of the season for Toyota, obviously, with Juan's win in Milwaukee. We've also had some races that we thought we should have won, but we got caught up with some mechanical problems. Motegi was one big disappointment for us early on, because Juan was leading the most laps only to have the wire came off the pop-off value. Nevertheless, it's been a good season thus far. Once you get that first win, there are all kinds of possibilities. With the podium finishes and where we stand in the standings, we're right in the hunt for the championship. Overall, we're very pleased with how the engine has performed thus far and we're looking forward to the second half of the season.

Ray (Mercedes) - To be fair, it's not the best start we've had to a season, but we knew coming into this year that we had a hell of a lot of work to do to make up some lost ground. So we set out to come out with a new engine that was powerful to begin with, and work very heavily on reliability, which is basically where we are today. We're on top of the reliability issues, even if it doesn't always look that way. From where we sit, we're fairly confident in the engine itself, and now we're starting now to introduce various components that allow us to increase the performance of the engine. That's what everyone saw in Cleveland. It's anew specification that is much more powerful than the existing race spec, so slowly but surely we're working on getting that to the point where we can begin racing it. This year is a rebuilding year, we feel we're on our way. Ton Kanaan getting injured was a setback, but it gave us a chance to test two different drivers in the car and give us feedback on where we were with the driveability of the engine, and we've made some big gains just losing those two guys. Hopefully, we can start showing on the race track what we know we've got on the dyno.

Clarke (Honda) - It's a little frustrating in that we haven't won as many races as we'd have liked to have won. The engine development part of the program has been going well. We've hit all of our targets. The durability of the product is very good; we've lost only two race engines this year in races, which is a very good record. Our focus is to get back on top. Typically, we've done our best on road course circuit, so we're looking forward to the second half of the season.

Ray (Mercedes) - Robert has put it precisely as I would have put it. At the beginning of this year, when Mercedes created a new engine, we set out a 24-month plan as to how that engine was going to be developed. We're part way through a very expensive and very time-consuming carefully planned out development program, and to suddenly change direction, for us, is a huge headache, particularly when you're trying to catch up. Suddenly changing direction is very damaging. We fought very hard with CART to get the stability rule in place, and once it lapsed the last time and we were very uncomfortable without a stability rule. Now we seem to have a stability rule that CART seems to be willing to totally ignore. You have to question that very carefully when you're thinking about what the future looks like. Philosophically, reducing power could potentially make the racing better, but will making the racing better watching on TV? I don't know the answer, but I doubt that on its own it will get the job done.

Aust (Toyota) - The easiest thing is to leave the formula the way it is. Obviously, it costs money to change. In support of the series, from Toyota's perspective, getting fans in the seats and a TV audience is of the utmost importance. Whether reducing to 700 horsepower is the answer, I don't think any of us know, but if that is seen as important, then Toyota is in support of that.

Wood (Ford) - I agree with what Jim says. We need to see the racing get better. No one at this table really knows that reducing power alone will get us back to where we need to be. Reducing power as part of a package of other things might get us back there. That will require a commitment from all of us to do it. If we could feel comfortable that it really will get the viewership up, then we'll be supportive of that. We need a little more information from CART to feel really comfortable enough to make that decision.

Clarke (Honda) - It should have been stopped, in our opinion, and we voiced our opinion to CART to the technical committee. It's a consensus that the manufacturers (except Toyota) that there's very little value in that system. But there's a feeling from the owners and drivers -- users of the engine -- that we should be pursuing every possible ounce of performance that we can possibly find. Even if we're talking about something in the range of two or three or four or five horsepower. Basically, to protect ourselves from ourselves, we recommended to CART that we ban this device so we don't send ourselves down this road of development. It was not banned, so we looked at the device and basically confirmed to ourselves that it has very little performance. But we're running it on one car this weekend to get feedback from the driver on how it feels and how it performs.

Ray (Mercedes) - In the past when we were asked to put together an engine formula, the 1.8 liter formula was actually a 10-year formula. The reason we went to that size engine, was that we could lift the boost and gradually reduce the boost level without obsoleting it every time the boost was changed. When you make draconian changes like the one that's being proposed, you technically obsolete the equipment. While you could continue to run it with the lower boost, nobody here within 12 months will be running the same engine as before the rule was made. Whereas, in our previous plan, you had a one-inch reduction, that would leave you with an engine that was quite useable he following year. We've tried to push in that direction, but that advice obviously is not being taken on board.

Aust (Toyota) - There are long term plans but they get adjusted based on circumstances that come up. The loss of the fan base, etc., is necessitating someone to take a look at where we are. Things have been done with aerodynamic changes haven't seemed to work, so they're looking at the engine formula. Ultimately, things have got to be done to improve the series, or sitting here talking about technology just won't be a concern.

Wood (Ford) - It's been three years, and nobody's come back to us to say why that's unacceptable. Maybe the attempts to get back to Indy could have been a fly in the ointment. But it does seem that nobody wanted to hear that answer. From Ford's point of view, we're involved in NASCAR as a low technology series, so we want to see CART retain that high technology, it's very important to us.

Wood (Ford) - None of us would be here alone. The competition between us is very important. The technology transfer is important to us, marketing is important. So the key thing for us is the opportunity to compete.

Clarke (Mercedes) - As Bruce said, the competition between us is what ultimately drives us. Very little of the technology ends up on a production car and in some ways the technology on a production car is already superior to what we use here. Competing against each other and Honda beating Ford, Mercedes or Toyota is what sells product. Obviously we can race in other series and achieve those same images for our customers. The key reason for us to be in CART is training. Not so much the technology itself, but the process that leads to that technology. Not fooling around with getting friction out of an engine as you would do with a low-performance IRL engine. Dealing with technology at a higher level is what's a bigger challenge for our engineers, and that's what's important to us.