Mercedes boss Toto Wolff says some teams only see the proposed 2021 changes as a competitive opportunity rather than an effort to improve Formula 1.
The teams, FIA and F1 bosses will soon be entering the final month of talks before a deadline on the final 2021 regulations must be agreed and ratified.
Already, a new budget cap of $175m has been announced while work on a new car is in an advanced stage, but there are fears the technical regulations could be too restrictive.
“We had a nice meeting in Singapore with all the representatives of the teams, plus Jean Todt and Chase Carey,” Wolff commented.
Also Read:
- Mercedes: 2021 budget cap will make owning an F1 team more attractive
- F1 reveals new alterations to 2021 car in latest development stage
- Ecclestone questions need for big 2021 changes in F1
“It’s clear that nobody wants a Formula GP1. The aerodynamics should always be a key element in the race and make the difference between cars.
“We still have to make our valuation on the new proposal and see if we can find some compromise between the new rules they want to introduce that are limiting the aerodynamic side and the actual rules."
The Mercedes chief then offered his view that F1 could be making a mistake in introducing such a big rules overhaul in less than two years time.
“Our opinion is to leave the rules as they are because with the stability of regulations there has always been a convergence of values in the field, but I’m pretty much the only one to see it this way," he said.
“There are those who prefer to change things, with the hope that then everything will work. Throwing the dice, hoping to seize an opportunity costs less effort than lowering the head and trying to improve."
The issue of standardising some parts has also been controversial for the manufacturers and now an alternative idea has been mentioned which would come components shared among teams.
“Open source can be an interesting philosophy,” Wolff admitted, "But perhaps it is still premature to discuss it in public because we must first decide if we need a majority of teams in favour to continue.
“Because in this case, if there was no such majority, it is useless to go on. I still consider it an interesting proposal to be carefully evaluated, rather than thinking of reverse grids that no one seems to like.”
