Does Ferrari have technical veto in F1 again?

[Massimo]

FIA has agreed to this at the last World Council but never made it public.

Fulvio Solms of Corriere dello Sport wrote an article about Ferrari that contained this very interesting news, which is not confirmed yet.
It seems Ferrari has been granted the right of veto on technical and sporting rules, the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone have agreed to this, important news for Ferrari, the only team who are in F1 since the start of the World championship in 1950.
A political power that Ferrari has lost since the English (teams) formed a league to limit the disruptive force that Ferrari has always had in the rule definition.
President Luca Cordero di Montezemolo has been discussing the return of testing(on track) or the introduction of a third car made available for the backmarker teams to use, but this never led to anything, mainly because the English teams blocked these suggestions.
Ferrari's vote counts for 1, so they could be in the minority most of the time, but now they have at least the power to block the votes of the teams that deliberately vote against any suggestion Ferrari makes.

First agenda point is the ban to test the new 1.6 lit. V6 Turbo engines on track, the engine manufacturers Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault are pushing hard for the FIA to allow them to test not only the new engines for reliability on track, but also the other systems that they use for the first time in 2014 like ERS recovery system and the new direct injection with 500 bar. pressure.
It would be unthinkable that they could only test the new engine for the first time during pre-season 2014 in Jerez, leaving all the testing to be carried out on test benches or virtual simulation.
So Mercedes and Renault might rely on Ferrari to use it's political power to renegotiate the ban on testing, or at least make ontrack testing of the V6 Turbo possible.

Source:Franco Nugnes OmniCorse.it - Fulvio Solms Corriere dello sport.

[mark p]

Great if true. The main vote system should be more democratic though ferrari vote counts for 15 each of the other little teams count as 1. Bahrain democracy would suit well.

[wisepie]

Can't see how any team or engine manufacturer can expect to turn up at the start of 2014 not having been able to test their engines on track, and expect them to be reliable. Good that Ferrari have a bigger say, if it's true, but it's then going to be the same for all of them. Maybe another way of spicing it all up when the engines go bang, joining the tyres which will be this year's unknown!

[Rob]

I thought it was taken away from us few years ago. When this story first broke. And Mclaren&Co kicked up a fuss about how we can pick and choose the rules. I thought it was taken away, but perhaps not. Plus as we been here since day 1 of the Championship we should have more say in rules.

[Massimo]

I thought it was taken away from us few years ago. When this story first broke. And Mclaren&Co kicked up a fuss about how we can pick and choose the rules. I thought it was taken away, but perhaps not. Plus as we been here since day 1 of the Championship we should have more say in rules.

It was taken away, but apparently during the last FIA world council, FIA and Ecclestone have agreed Ferrari should have it back.

[sagi58]

... Mclaren&Co kicked up a fuss about how we can pick and choose the rules...
I think was a case of sour grapes, if they couldn't have a "bigger" say, they didn't want anyone else to have it!!
You have to feel sorry for them, after all, they want the same prestige and respect that Ferrari commands; but,
they'll never have it!!

p.s. OK, i'm done feeling sorry for them!! :-D

[sagi58]

It was taken away, but apparently during the last FIA world council, FIA and Ecclestone have agreed Ferrari should have it back.
Considering all the experience and expertise that only Ferrari can bring to the F1 table,
that's as it should be!! It's not like Ferrari want rules that would benefit them alone,
while other teams have to follow a different set! So... what's the harm, eh?

[Tobes]

Considering all the experience and expertise that only Ferrari can bring to the F1 table,
that's as it should be!! It's not like Ferrari want rules that would benefit them alone,
while other teams have to follow a different set! So... what's the harm, eh?

Actually it's very much like that, for example, we want testing back, and although (as you say) the rule would apply to all teams, the reality is that we have Fiorano that costs us nothing, for other teams the testing is very expensive, even to the point some small teams can't afford to do any testing, when the testing ban came into effect I endlessly argued along with others that the fact we have Fiorano and other teams don't have their own private circuits isn't our problem, why should we be penalised because Enzo had the foresight to build Fiorano...? But the reality is that it gives us such an advantage that it actually isn't a level playing field anymore, like it was in the Schumacher era, I guess with age i've just become a bit more understanding, so I understand the ban on unlimited testing, but still think we should be allowed to use Fiorano for a certain number of days when we feel we need to... :-)

I agree with you we should have a bigger say in the governing procedure, but not to the point of creating a clear (and some would say unfair) advantage, the reality is that in some countries the tv contracts have written into them that Ferrari must compete in F1 or the tv deals become void, so ultimately we do generally get what we want, as much as F1 wouldn't be F1 without Ferrari, rules that apply should always be as fair as is possible on every team...


Also, just a point from the original post, the English teams that formed a league is a tad dated thinking now, other than McLaren and Williams, (who don't even build their own engines)which influential teams are now still English...? Surely they are now foreign teams now merely based in England, Red Bull is Austrian, Renault is French, Lotus is not English anymore, (isn't it a Malaysian firm owning it now or is that Caterham, or both?) Merc is German, Toro Rosso is Austrian/Italian, Force India, well the clue is in the name, anyway, who are these 'English' teams..?

The romantic notion of Enzo against the English 'Garagistes' of Colin Chapman and John Cooper, and hence Ferrari against England is as dated as thinking the F1 World Championship is a European based racing series, and I actually kinda wish both were still true, but i'm just old and sentimental...

[FrankAlfa]

Ferrari never lost their Veto Power in the Sport. They still have it. It is part of the Concord Agreement. Ferrari has additional special "Pay Clause".

Ciao,

Forza Ferrari

[sagi58]

... I understand the ban on unlimited testing, but still think we should be allowed to use Fiorano for a certain number of days when we feel we need to... :-)... What if we prove how fair and just how nice we are and allow the more needier of the other teams to share track time??


... the reality is that in some countries the tv contracts have written into them that Ferrari must compete in F1 or the tv deals become void, so ultimately we do generally get what we want, as much as F1 wouldn't be F1 without Ferrari, rules that apply should always be as fair as is possible on every team... F1 is, essentially, a big business... So you can't blame those countries for expecting contracts that will be lucrative for them! I'm fairly certain Ferrari doesn't go around telling any of the tracks that they won't race our cars if they don't sign on the bottom line!!


...The romantic notion of Enzo against the English 'Garagistes' of Colin Chapman and John Cooper, and hence Ferrari against England is as dated as thinking the F1 World Championship is a European based racing series, and I actually kinda wish both were still true, but i'm just old and sentimental... It seems to me that the "little" salient fact is like a pebble in the shoe of many an F1 fan, today!!

Thanks for the detailed response... I'm "relatively" new to F1 and found it a fascinating read!!

:wave

[Tobes]

What if we prove how fair and just how nice we are and allow the more needier of the other teams to share track time??

Works for me... :thumb


F1 is, essentially, a big business... So you can't blame those countries for expecting contracts that will be lucrative for them! I'm fairly certain Ferrari doesn't go around telling any of the tracks that they won't race our cars if they don't sign on the bottom line!!

Of course not, I fear you have misunderstood me... A few years ago when there was a lot of talk of a break-away series I remember various discussions on here that stated that in Italy (and i'm sure a few other countries) the tv companies that bought the rights to air F1 from Bernie had it written into their contracts, that for the contract to remain valid Ferrari must be competing in the championship, if Ferrari pulled out the contract with Bernie would be null and void, this was due to the belief that if F1 was to lose the Ferrari fanbase the viewing figures would drop by an estimated third, and maybe up to half in Italy itself, if that happened the tv rights would be I guess a third or half as valuable, although Ferrari had no involvement in those contract negotiations, it does obviously put them in a very strong position...


It seems to me that the "little" salient fact is like a pebble in the shoe of many an F1 fan, today!!

Thanks for the detailed response...
:wave

Indeed, sadly (for me at least) the days of English F1 teams are long gone (actually English industry, but that's a whole other debate :-D ) but it still seems that the teams being based here makes them English, I wish that were true, but I just don't believe that to be the case anymore, as much as I wish it wasn't true, other than McLaren and Williams there is no real English heritage left in any other F1 teams, and in my opinion that includes the team that sticks the Lotus name on their cars...
There is no real DNA from the likes of Lotus, BRM, Tyrrell, Brabham, Cooper, Vanwall etc left in any of the current teams...:-s


I'm "relatively" new to F1 and found it a fascinating read!!


That's lucky, I'm "relatively" old and prone to rambling on a bit...! ;-)

[REDARMYSOJA]

Ferrari never lost their Veto Power in the Sport. They still have it. It is part of the Concord Agreement. Ferrari has additional special "Pay Clause".

Ciao,

Forza Ferrari

I believe you are right about Ferrari never having lost the veto power as they are the only team that has always resigned the original Concorde agreement. Several other teams had it as well at one time, Liger, another team I forget, and Renault. Renault lost it way back when they left F1.

And the "special pay clause", Williams and McLaren also have it. They along with Ferrari get it for their time in the series, Ferrari just gets more because they have been there longer.

[REDARMYSOJA]

That's lucky, I'm "relatively" old and prone to rambling on a bit...! ;-)

I'm old too, so I didn't even notice you were rambling.

[sagi58]

Of course not, I fear you have misunderstood me... the tv companies that bought the rights to air F1 from Bernie had it written into their contracts, that for the contract to remain valid Ferrari must be competing in the championship, if Ferrari pulled out the contract with Bernie would be null and void... I remembered that when I wrote my post... What I meant was that Ferrari wasn't "at fault" that so many didn't want an F1 contract without them on the grid!


That's lucky, I'm "relatively" old and prone to rambling on a bit...! ;-) Not so lucky, considering I got such a "late" start in life, where F1 is concerned!! :-D

p.s. I agreed with REDARMYSOJA... I didn't notice any rambling, either!!

[wisepie]

Tobes, you sound like a man after my own heart (if you'll pardon the expression!) as I'm an older codger with apparently the same somewhat sentimental values relating to how F1 used to be! Miss the old days, for sure, but with the TV coverage we now receive, we're really rather fortunate even if some of it is just waffle! My first F1 experience was at Monza in 1967, won by Surtees in a Honda, I wasn't amused and vowed then to support Le Rosse for ever more, even if my Dad was mortified that I didn't support the Brits. For me, F1 is Ferrari and that ignites the passion.

[mirafiori]

Just read an article in Motorsport.com, Ferrari For the first time in recent history has blocked the FIA from a cost cap on Engines, Ferrari uses its unique power to veto this regulation even though the majority of the teams wanted it. Ferrari is the only team which has this exclusive rule to veto any technical regulation changes.

[Tifoso]

Just read an article in Motorsport.com, Ferrari For the first time in recent history has blocked the FIA from a cost cap on Engines, Ferrari uses its unique power to veto this regulation even though the majority of the teams wanted it. Ferrari is the only team which has this exclusive rule to veto any technical regulation changes.
Sounds good to me. :-)

No "insert name of team here" does not equal no F1.

No Ferrari = no F1

Simple as that, really.

[Stormy]

Sounds good to me. :-)

No "insert name of team here" does not equal no F1.

No Ferrari = no F1

Simple as that, really.
True that. But i think it goes mutually. Not mutually to the full extent but still. Ferrari is very closely associated with F1. But yeah, all though Ferrari may loose a bit of marketing if F1 cease to exist, but it can still sell pretty efficiently. While F1 without Ferrari will die.

[rossopervincere]

Here's a question :
What's the difference between the FIA and the FIFA :
Answer : one letter..............!:lol

[Fireblade]

Just read an article in Motorsport.com, Ferrari For the first time in recent history has blocked the FIA from a cost cap on Engines, Ferrari uses its unique power to veto this regulation even though the majority of the teams wanted it. Ferrari is the only team which has this exclusive rule to veto any technical regulation changes.

Just recently there was a lot of speculation that Red Bull would veto the proposal to allow engine development next season unless it got the engine it wanted. Changes to the regs in F1 generally require unanimous agreement, which is to say everyone gets a veto.

[abbottcostello]

Just recently there was a lot of speculation that Red Bull would veto the proposal to allow engine development next season unless it got the engine it wanted. Changes to the regs in F1 generally require unanimous agreement, which is to say everyone gets a veto.
Copied directly from Official FIA Website (bold type & coloured font by me:wave):

FIA FORMULA 1 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP - COST REDUCTION


The FIA has studied cost reduction measures for teams participating in the FIA Formula 1 World Championship which were not conclusive, including:
- a global cost ceiling,
- a reduction in costs via technical and sporting regulations,
- an increased standardisation for parts.
The FIA, in agreement with FOM, suggested the principle of setting a maximum price for engine and gear box for client teams at the last Strategy Group meeting.
These measures were put to the vote and adopted with a large majority.
However, Ferrari SpA decided to go against this and exercise the right of veto long recognised under agreements governing F1.
In the interest of the Championship, the FIA has decided not to legally challenge Ferrari SpA’s use of its right of veto.
Therefore the FIA will initiate a consultation with all stakeholders regarding the possible introduction of a client engine, which will be available as of 2017. Following this consultation a call for tenders for this client engine, the cost of which would be much lower than the current power unit, could be undertaken.
Supported by FOM, the FIA will continue in its efforts to ensure the sustained long-term development of the Championship and look for solutions enabling it to achieve this. It asks all of the teams to make a positive contribution to the success of this approach through proposals and initiatives in the interest of the Championship and its continuation over the long term.

Not too sure many of the other teams could have pulled that off in the face of FIA & FOM banding together to push their agenda!?

[TigerKing]

I've read this:
http://sport.bt.com/more-sport-hub/more-sport/ferrari-veto-formula-one-engine-and-gearboxes-cost-cap-proposals-S11364013222204

and it says we vetoed cost cap.
I don't believe or hope we did this. We don't need the money that badly and shouldn't throw some of our fellow competitors under the bus if they have a little hope. Especially Sauber who should be considered historic anyways.

[abbottcostello]

Bernie wants to introduce an alternative engine, the 2.2L V6 biturbo that indycar has, with modifications by Cosworth or Ilmor. I think he also is again talking of refuelling to make these higher consumption engines possible. They would be allowed to use 130 or 140 kg of fuel for a race!
In these desperate times they are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks:roll

[TigerKing]

Bernie wants to introduce an alternative engine, the 2.2L V6 biturbo that indycar has, with modifications by Cosworth or Ilmor. I think he also is again talking of refuelling to make these higher consumption engines possible. They would be allowed to use 130 or 140 kg of fuel for a race!
In these desperate times they are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks:roll

Sounds good to me (but Indycar engines sound annoying IMO)

[Nomore]

Just recently there was a lot of speculation that Red Bull would veto the proposal to allow engine development next season unless it got the engine it wanted. Changes to the regs in F1 generally require unanimous agreement, which is to say everyone gets a veto.

Red Bull doesn't have a damn thing...let apart a veto. The only team that has a veto is Ferrari...long story short : mainly reasons are economically.
Red Bull can quit next year and no one will give a sh**...Coca Cola/Sprite will enter the sport :rotfl :rotfl :rotfl

[FerrariF60]

Bernie wants to introduce an alternative engine, the 2.2L V6 biturbo that indycar has, with modifications by Cosworth or Ilmor. I think he also is again talking of refuelling to make these higher consumption engines possible. They would be allowed to use 130 or 140 kg of fuel for a race!
In these desperate times they are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks:roll

you think FERRARI would agree on running an alternative engine in THEIR car, OTHER then a Ferrari engine??? i don't think so....

that's what makes Ferrari a FERRARI...having it's OWN engine built in the home of Italy....

i personally think that if Ferrari would be pushed to run that piece of CRAP engine in their car they would utterly just EXIT the sport, PERIOD!!!

[AfterLife]

It is not an only engine. That budget engines will be along current hybrid power units. All in all i doubt it and all the power unit manufacturers won't agree about budget engines. I think it is a political push to convince power unit manufacturers to reduce power unit costs for their customers.

[Hornet]

you think FERRARI would agree on running an alternative engine in THEIR car, OTHER then a Ferrari engine??? i don't think so....

that's what makes Ferrari a FERRARI...having it's OWN engine built in the home of Italy....

i personally think that if Ferrari would be pushed to run that piece of CRAP engine in their car they would utterly just EXIT the sport, PERIOD!!!

From what I understand, it's not to force the PU manufacturers to use that alternative PU. As the term alternative implies, it's to provide an option for the other teams so they do not have to rely on the PU manufacturers.

It is most likely to pressure the manufacturers into agreeing with the cost cap. If they do not, then other teams will have the option of what could potentially be a more powerful alternative.

[abbottcostello]

Trouble with two engine specs running alongside each other is coming up with an equalisation that is accurate enough to give same performance.
The way I understand it, there would be no energy recovery systems at all, the increased fuel allotment would only be for the "simplified" 2.2l biturbo & Bernie has suggested refuelling be allowed for them as well, while the current rules would still apply for the existing PU's!

I don't like this whole idea AT ALL. Can you imagine the field day Indycar will have in the press, if they go thru with this idiotic plan.

I'll bet Ferrari has already gotten their hands on a few of these engines to dissect & explore possibilities!

[TigerKing]

Trouble with two engine specs running alongside each other is coming up with an equalisation that is accurate enough to give same performance.
The way I understand it, there would be no energy recovery systems at all, the increased fuel allotment would only be for the "simplified" 2.2l biturbo & Bernie has suggested refuelling be allowed for them as well, while the current rules would still apply for the existing PU's!

I don't like this whole idea AT ALL. Can you imagine the field day Indycar will have in the press, if they go thru with this idiotic plan.

I'll bet Ferrari has already gotten their hands on a few of these engines to dissect & explore possibilities!

You have a great point. Fuel flow rate issues will cause problems. They did have two engine specs before and they have worked out fine. Perhaps if they had another engine without the ERS and made that a twin turbo. It would be slower but cheaper.

[abbottcostello]

You have a great point. Fuel flow rate issues will cause problems. They did have two engine specs before and they have worked out fine. Perhaps if they had another engine without the ERS and made that a twin turbo. It would be slower but cheaper.
They could easily get the current V6 to be MORE powerful than the complex PU'S in the cars now & they would scream as all that energy being saved into the battery would be coming out as heat & NOISE that everyone craves, they would be revving to the max. 15,000 RPM allowed by rules, all that's needed is higher rate of fuel consumption.

Biggest problem for FIA is all teams would probably opt for the 'simple' twin turbo spec w/o ERS purely for the reliability factor. Only way around that would be to artificially ensure a slight performance edge to the current expensive PU's. How bad for the sport would it be then to have a B-spec car finish ahead of ANY Merc, Ferrari, Renault or Honda powered car!!!!

Then the problem you've created is a two-tier formula, there will be the F1-A champ & F1-B champ talked about in all the news.

Then, if they manage to solve that issue, there will be a knock on effect from that solution, so I don't think this is a good path to follow, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a dumb fan that watches whatever they put out there & call GP racing!

[Hornet]

Trouble with two engine specs running alongside each other is coming up with an equalisation that is accurate enough to give same performance.
The way I understand it, there would be no energy recovery systems at all, the increased fuel allotment would only be for the "simplified" 2.2l biturbo & Bernie has suggested refuelling be allowed for them as well, while the current rules would still apply for the existing PU's!

I don't like this whole idea AT ALL. Can you imagine the field day Indycar will have in the press, if they go thru with this idiotic plan.

I'll bet Ferrari has already gotten their hands on a few of these engines to dissect & explore possibilities!

I think that's the intention. To proposed a scenario that could potentially be problematic for the PU manufacturers, so that all of them would rather agree to the cost cap instead of risk having this 2 spec scenario.

[abbottcostello]

I think that's the intention. To proposed a scenario that could potentially be problematic for the PU manufacturers, so that all of them would rather agree to the cost cap instead of risk having this 2 spec scenario.
I really do think Bernie doesn't like the new PU's though. That has been a constant theme from him, first calling for return to V8 even before the new PU's hit the test track I think! He was never for the whole ERS concept & hated it even more once everybody moaned about the sound. Funny that he paraded out Donald Mackenzie from CVC to add some weight to his idea.
From motorsport.com (http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-still-fantastic-says-cvc-s-mckenzie/?v=2&s=1):

Mackenzie is a keen supporter of Bernie Ecclestone's push for a budget twin-turbo V6, which will be formally announced this week.
"I know Bernie would like an alternative to the big two. The current situation isn't that healthy. If we can go to a good alternative engine at the right price, we'll be very pleased."

Plus him & Max M did that interview together talking about throwing out the rules & starting fresh. If it is just to get a concession on pricing, he wants it to be a real quick fight!

[vcs316]

FIA president Jean Todt disappointed by Ferrari veto

FIA president Jean Todt says his proposal for an engine cost cap was not unreasonable and he is disappointed Ferrari opted to veto his plans.

The FIA hoped to introduce a cost cap to reduce the engine bills for non-manufacturer teams, which have proved financially crippling for some outfits since the introduction of new engine regulations in 2014. An engine and gearbox deal currently costs customers somewhere in the region of €20 million a year and Todt was hoping to enforce a new regulation that reduced the bill to €12 million.

"I consider €12 million, which is still quite a lot of money, an acceptable amount," said Todt. "I am not responsible for following the budgets of the manufacturers and their expenses, but I think it is not a provocative figure, I think it is a fair figure."

The proposal was rejected by Ferrari -- the only team in F1 that holds a veto over future regulations -- with the Italian team arguing that it should not have the cost of its product dictated by the sport's governing body. The FIA reacted by adopting Bernie Ecclestone's proposal to introduce a budget engine costing €6-7 million by 2017 and has warned Ferrari not to exercise its veto again.

"It was a disappointment that Ferrari decided to use its veto right on the price of limitation, so we have been trying to see what could be an option," Todt said. "A veto is like having a gun in the pocket, so you must be careful how you use it. Power is something very interesting, because you have different levels of powers. Here we are talking about sporting powers that are given at a higher level. So when you have power you must be very careful how you use it"

Todt's concern is for F1's smaller teams, which earn less money from Formula One's central pot of prize money. Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, Williams and McLaren all receive bonus payments from the sport's commercial rights holders that are justified either by the team's recent success or historical standing in F1. The other five teams are only eligible for prize money based on their finishing position in the constructors' championship and earn significantly less as a result.

Todt says the FIA cannot change the commercial deals the teams have agreed with Bernie Ecclestone, but he is determined to focus on reducing costs for smaller teams.

"If we are not able to get this [cost cap] solution, we need to find another solution because otherwise the risk is that teams go bankrupt," he added. "That is the information I get. It starts with a completely unbalanced distribution of the revenues and here we cannot do anything. I would hope that the teams will get access to the best revenues and will be able to pay an affordable price for the engines as customers."

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/14024135/fia-president-jean-todt-disappointed-ferrari-veto

[vcs316]

Mercedes boss says Ferrari has earned it veto rights

Ferrari is defending its decision to veto the FIA's efforts to impose a cap on the price of customer engines in Formula One.

In the form of an official statement announcing alternative plans for a parallel client engine formula for 2017, FIA president Jean Todt referred to the veto that is uniquely wielded by Ferrari.

"We exercised our veto in compliance with our legitimate commercial right to do business as a powertrain manufacturer," Ferrari team boss Maurizio Arrivabene said in Mexico on Friday.

Asked how he can justify that stance morally in the face of smaller teams struggling to stay afloat, he added: "Why do we have to justify it more (than that)? If somebody asks you to produce an apple to a specification, you produce that apple but then they want to impose the price of that apple, what are you going to do?"

Toto Wolff, boss of the dominant Mercedes team, commented that by participating in F1 since the start and as the sport's "strongest brand," Ferrari has earned its unique veto power.

"I think it is an historic right which is a right that was earned in participating in the sport for fifty or sixty years, God knows how many years, and having amassed this tremendous amount, the question is is the veto the right way in terms of honouring that," Wolff said. "I think that somebody like Ferrari needs to have different right of opinion and expressing themselves than somebody who has been here 10 minutes."

[vcs316]

Ferrari boss Maurizio Arrivabene defends veto over capping engine costs

Ferrari have defended their use of a veto to block plans for a price ceiling for Formula One engines and gearboxes, according to team boss Maurizio Arrivabene.

"We just exercised our commercial right as a powertrain manufacturer," said Arrivabene, when asked about the veto during a news conference at the Mexican Grand Prix.

"If someone is asking you to produce a specification, you produce that specification. If then someone says 'OK, we want you to reduce the price', what are we going to do?

"It's not a position against the other teams, it's a position defending commercial principle. We're open to find any other solution."

Ferrari's use of their unique historic veto was exercised at an F1 Strategy Group meeting against a proposal from the sport's ruling body, the International Automobile Federation (FIA), to introduce a budget engine as an alternative to the 1.6-litre V6 turbo engines currently in use.

It was suggested at that meeting that Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault should cut the prices of their engine for the 'privateer' independent customer teams in F1.

Arrivabene said that it was unreasonable to ask manufacturers to lower their prices after they had committed to development costs.

"If you are a public company, as we are, or a company as Mercedes is, you have research and development costs which is something you have to recover.

"I don't know any commercial entity giving produce out for free, or at cost. This is a principle.

"We are not applying the veto at every single meeting. If we do it, we think a lot about it.

"We do it if, in our opinion, it is necessary to do it. The last one was applied by Jean Todt -- many years ago."

Mercedes team chief Toto Wolff said: "This is a controversial topic and as many things, black and white is not the answer.

"There is a set of rules which were implemented in F1 two years ago. We started developing those engines three, four, five years ago based on that set of rules.

“You have to calculate how much you can charge for those engines, how much [money] you can recover for those engines.

"I understand Ferrari's standpoint and also understand that it's a difficult situation for some of the smaller teams."

http://sport360.com/article/formula-one/44533/ferrari-boss-maurizio-arrivabene-defends-veto-over-capping-engine-costs?

[vcs316]

Toto Wolff has rejected the FIA’s plans to cap the price of engines to customers to approximately €12million, insisting Mercedes already make a substantial loss supplying engines already.

Ferrari have already vetoed the plans to reduce the cost of customer engines from its current approximate of €20million, with Mercedes-Benz’s Wolff saying it would be unsustainable for manufacturers to supply an engine for so little money.

Mercedes currently supply Williams Martini Racing, Sahara Force India and the Lotus F1 Team with engines in 2015, with the latter being replaced by the Manor F1 Team next season.

“We already lose money on the engine side, substantial,” said Wolff. “The question is how much more do we lose if we continue to subsidise those engines to some of our partners, but it’s already a deficit.

“The partners expect the most competitive engine. In order to have that, because it is a competitive environment, we spent substantial amounts in developing those engines.

“Nobody has ever asked us how we plan to recover those or if someone can contribute to help us to recover.

“You can argue whether the marketing benefit of the development spend is right of wrong, but as a matter of fact, we live in a world where we are all facing a commercial reality.

“That commercial reality is that we need to be as efficient as possible and try to recover the best possible amount. You cannot expect of anybody, any stakeholder in the sport, to have a charitable approach.”

[vcs316]

Red Bull boss Christian Horner believes that the decision to give Ferrari a veto over Formula 1 rule changes was right when it came in, even though it is now the subject of huge controversy.

FIA president Jean Todt has expressed his disappointment at Ferrari's decision to block a move to guarantee cheap customer engines to teams.

The idea was to put a cap of $12 million on current specification power units.

Ferrari's stance has left the FIA determined to pursue an alternative solution of finding an independent engine supplier for F1, even though the idea has faced criticism from a number of teams.

And ultimately, even if a majority of teams get behind the plan, Ferrari could still block it before it goes to the FIA World Motorsport Council if it successfully argues that it hurts it commercial interests.

Horner, whose team allowed Ferrari to keep its veto when the last round of bilateral agreements were put together, said there was no question of taking the privilege away from Ferrari at the time because it seemed to be better for all teams.

"At the time of the veto [being reconfirmed], it was felt that maybe it was safer for Ferrari to have the veto than not have, as it would actually protect the teams," said Horner.

"Ferrari is actually quite a bit different in make-up now than it was then, so the veto can work in both directions."