Cool support for qualifying engine ban

"Generating extra horsepower from engines is a vastly expensive business," he said, "and if you can't have qualifying tyres, which are cheaper, you should logically ask why you should have qualifying engines.

"I haven't really followed closely the proposals, but if a driver is penalised for a blown engine it is perhaps not fair and we have to be careful in an era when passing on the circuit is so difficult."

Stewart agreed, however, that cost-cutting measures among the teams were also necessary, having already argued that F1's total wealth is in need of redistribution (see separate story).

"Only the teams up front for television time can generate budgets that can afford the current costs of engines, wind tunnels and everything," he opined. "But, whether you are at the front or the back, you still have to pay the same amount of money for mechanics, engineers and staff. There's not what I would call a normal business cash flow and that's the biggest problem.

"Of course you should be earning more money if you are winning but the balance has to be capable of providing a complete field of cars with economic benefits," added the Scot. "Nobody is going to involve themselves in large capital cost for no return. You will occasionally get rich people coming in for honeymoon periods but it's poor planning for the long-term stability of the business.

"It has to be carefully looked at where it goes from here so that there is a living to be made for all concerned. That is not being done at there moment and there is nothing being reinvested."