Why would anyone want budget engine?

In light of the latest bombshell dropped on Formula 1 by the FIA, it would come as no surprise if European Union competitions commissioner Margrethe Vestager took a more considerable interest in events in the championship over the next few weeks.

Following a complaint made by Force India and Sauber with regard to what they see as "unfair and unlawful" rules governing F1, Vestager is mulling over whether there is a case to answer.

Force India and Sauber are drawing upon articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that prohibit anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of dominant market positions.

When the FIA announced the possibility of the introduction of a budget engine from 2017, it also highlighted one of F1's flaws to Vestager, one that in many respects goes against the aforementioned articles.

As 'reward' for its status and longevity in F1, Ferrari has a right of veto over the introduction of future regulations, providing it with the kind of power no team or competitor in any other sport possesses.

It exercised its right after FIA president Jean Todt and Bernie Ecclestone, as chief executive of the commercial rights holder, joined forces at a Strategy Group meeting to push through the principle of a maximum powertrain price for customer teams of €12million per season.

Both Todt and Ecclestone believed this to be a fair solution in an attempt to lower costs and make F1 more sustainable for the smaller teams.

Todt and Ecclestone are trying to find an engine solution © LAT

While the introduction of the 1.6-litre V6 turbocharged power unit was a noble idea many years ago, aligning F1 more with road car production, the costs of producing such systems spiralled out of control.

After previously being stymied by F1's staid engine regulations, the engineers were suddenly given a freedom of expression long craved, but at a price.

The manufacturers, in turn, have had to claw back their costs from their clients, who are paying in the region of €20million per season for the power unit, compared to around €8million for the old V8s.

That has placed the likes of Force India and Sauber under considerable financial pressure over the past two years, forcing their hand in calling on the EU to help them fight their cause for a more equitable distribution of revenues.

While the disparity between the haves and have-nots is considerable under bilateral agreements signed in 2012, what will now surely catch Vestager's eye is the fact one team can effectively overrule a governing body.

Add in the fact that particular team is placing in jeopardy the financial wellbeing of a number of its rivals, there is surely a case to answer with regard to articles 101 and 102.

One can only assume it was a deliberate ploy by the FIA to 'out' Ferrari on this occasion, and draw attention to the power it wields, regardless of the legality of the situation given the contracts it has with Ecclestone.

Ferrari fought against engine cost caps © LAT

Frustration has been growing within Todt at F1's constant failure to curb its excesses, with attempts to impose a cost cap, to seek cuts via the technical and sporting regulations and to introduce standardised parts all coming to nothing.

With Ferrari blocking the latest move by capping the price on engines, Todt and the FIA's next plan is to introduce a more affordable engine into F1.

The Frenchman again has Ecclestone as an ally as the 85-year-old has long been a critic of the current power unit specification, albeit doffing his cap to the brilliance of the engineering.

For now, there will be a period of consultation with all stakeholders, and beyond that a potential tender process with the hope a new system could be introduced in 2017.

Naturally, Todt and the FIA have no intention of abandoning the current engine, not when you consider it was motorsport's world governing body that initially pushed for its introduction, albeit without imposing cost restraints on its development.

But it remains eager to aid the smaller, financially struggling teams by providing a cheaper engine, and to introduce greater competition into F1.

At present, Ferrari and Mercedes are controlling the engine market, highlighted by the reluctance of both to supply a major rival in Red Bull.

Of course, neither Ferrari nor Mercedes are obliged to supply, despite the fact there is a customer out there willing to pay the going rate.

Red Bull keeps hitting dead ends in its engine hunt © LAT

Again, the EU may look unfavourably on such a situation that suggests abuse of what is clearly a dominant market position.

The benefit for the FIA, however, is it paves the way for it to show to the EU it is attempting to encourage competition with its intent to introduce a cut-price engine.

Heaven help Ferrari, in this instance, if it exercised a second right of veto as that would surely only cement in Vestager's mind that F1's governance is completely askew.

At present, the FIA has only suggested "the possible introduction of a client engine", with little flesh on the bones of its intent.

Different capacity engines have been mentioned such as 3.5 and 2.2 litres, the latter replicating the IndyCar model with its V6s.

Over the course of the United States GP weekend, Ecclestone dropped hints as to what could be expected, with the systems carrying more horsepower and fuel.

That, in turn, has led to suggestions of a two-tier championship, akin to the period in the 1980s when turbo power went up against normally-aspirated engines, and there was only one winner in that battle.

Manor's Mercedes deal could transform its prospects in 2016 © LAT

But two of the key questions in all of this is whether there will be any appetite for any new engine from a) a manufacturer to develop it, and b) a customer to want to purchase?

There will likely be interest should a tender process go ahead, but when you are up against the might of Mercedes and Ferrari, and you will have basically only a year to develop and test before a '17 entry, the pitfalls are glaringly obvious.

And then will any team really want to give up its competitive, on-track advantage for the sake of saving, let's say, €10-12million per year, if that is the cost benefit?

For argument's sake, Manor/Marussia is to run with Mercedes power units from 2016, offering it a chance of becoming a midfield runner, with the possibility of points finishes here and there when circumstances will allow.

The team has already estimated its cars will be quicker next year by 2.5-3s per lap, meaning if further time can be found via aero, it will have a genuinely quick car for the first time since it entered F1 as Virgin in 2010.

Would Manor give up that chance of competitiveness and revert to a fresh-out-of-the-box system that is likely to go through all the teething difficulties that are ordinarily associated with it? I very much doubt it.

What we are witnessing here are the latest shots being fired in F1's political power play between Todt, the FIA, Ecclestone, Ferrari and Mercedes, with the possibility the EU may yet take a role.

As usual, the only casualty is likely to be F1's reputation.