A lot of talk about the engine freeze rule, personally it is very wrong when theoretically you can have only 5 upgrades to the engine a year.
"We never worked from the cynical angles and tactical angles to say let's do this softening of the rules so we can catch up with Mercedes, That's totally untrue and probably misleading for my people. The starting point was that in Formula One I cannot wait one year to work on the engine and the power unit. At least at Ferrari we don't believe this is a magic bullet. If someone believes it, they are not at Ferrari. It's a way to talk about innovating and keep working on the car."
"It's a difficult one, because I strongly believe we need stability in the regulations, Personally, I'm not keen on it because more costs will incur. Equally, how can you make sure everybody is on the same spec? It triggers so many consequences and you open up a can of worms by doing that. We are trying to be productive. I think it is [about] not forgetting your own agenda but doing it for the benefit of Formula One."
"The further development of engines is absolute nonsense,"
"If you are not sorted out by the homologation of 28 February for the year, why should it be any different three months later?"
Claire Williams said
"No! You have to enter the season with your race car and, if you haven't done a good enough job, then why change the regulations?" .
Cyril Abiteboul said
"We do not want to over-invest in engine technology,From my perspective we should have a set of regulations that as quickly as possible narrows the bandwidth of performance between the manufacturers, so that we do not overspend on those technologies.
"There is the law of diminishing returns, which means that after some time Mercedes will be limited, and at that point in time we will be in a position to catch up. However, I'm not sure how far we are from the physical limit of the system.
"According to how far we are, we may even be in a worse position with that additional unfreeze than with the current freeze."