Red Bull team boss Christian Horner has attempted to make clear why the Milton Keynes team is refusing to sign up to the latest range of cost-cutting suggestions to preserve the future of F1.
Having revealed during the Malaysian Grand Prix that he had not even seen the letter supposedly being passed around to garner support for FIA involvement in policing the cost of competing in the top flight, Horner went on to admit that he would not be rushing to add his signature to a list that apparently comprises ten of the twelve F1 teams. Red Bull sister team Toro Rosso is the other name missing from the letter, suggesting that it is waiting to follow RBR's lead.
When Red Bull quit the F1 teams' association FOTA last December, it put the decision down to doubts over the integrity of the Resource Restriction Agreement and how it could be policed - contrary to Ferrari's reasoning, which claimed that certain unnamed teams, thought to include RBR, were flouting the policies laid out within the agreement.
Although the Scuderia has already signed up to the new proposal, Horner remains adamant that Red Bull won't be following suit unless some basic changes are made - and the FIA is forgotten as a possible arbitor.
"What I would like to make clear is Red Bull is fully behind cost control in F1," Horner told journalists at Sepang, "Whether the RRA is the right route to achieve that is what we question. I believe that letter, from what I read, requested for the FIA to police the RRA, which in our opinion would be the wrong route.
"We believe whole-heartedly in controlling costs in F1 and not frivolous spending, but there are better ways of doing that and containing that through the sporting and technical regulations as opposed to a resource restriction that relies on equivalence and apportionment of time and personnel."
It has been suggested that a team could spend more and have fewer personnel, or vice versa, with other financial and personnel restrictions remaining in place, but Horner admits that the water remain muddied when teams are offshoots of bigger companies in which extra-curricular spending can be conveniently hidden.
"That is always tricky in subsidiary companies, particularly of automotive manufacturers," he noted, "When FOTA was first created, there were clear and tangible restrictions in personnel, amount of engines, gearboxes, in testing, all things you can see policed and genuinely save costs.
"They're the type of things that should be focused on rather than apportionment of people's time and equivalence which is, in any formula or mechanism, fraught with problems and difficulties.