Audi boss, Mattia Binotto insists that the 50/50 split between ICE and electric power was not the deciding factor in the German manufacturer entering F1.

"I think that Audi has not been part of the 50/50 decision," he told The Race. "That was before," he added. "Certainly, when Audi decided to join, it was for high-efficiency engines, sustainable fuel, a significant part of electrification and then the removal of the MGU-H, because Audi believed that the knowledge of this would have been a competitive advantage to the previous manufacturers. But Audi has not been part of the 50/50 discussion," he insisted.

If true, this casts a whole new light on the situation moving forward, and some now feel that the 50/50 slit is of more importance to Mercedes. Indeed, ahead of today's meeting of the teams and manufacturers with the FIA, Toto Wolff urged caution, not only insisting that - contrary to the opinion of many - the racing is good, but even appearing to play down the cause of Oliver Bearman's Suzuka crash.

"The discussions that have been taking place between the group of drivers, the FIA, Formula 1, and the teams have been constructive," he told reporters. "And we all share the same objectives of how we can we improve the product, make it out-and-out racing, and look at what can improve in terms of safety, but act with a scalpel and not with a baseball bat.

"I think we are coming to good solutions that we are going to ratify hopefully today, in order to evolve, because it's only three races in," he added. "I am carefully optimistic that we're going to improve the racing, while keeping the racing really good.

"If you have aligned objectives, and you define those objectives at the beginning, and that is, how can we work on making qualifying more spectacular, enjoyable for the drivers? How can we tackle safety objectives? And at the same time, protect what's really good within the racing, the overtaking. And that's why those steps look like they are in the right direction.

"Not overshooting, not undershooting, but if you come to the conclusion further down the line, that we need to maybe redefine the objectives, then so be it. But at the moment, I think that's carved out in a pretty clear way, and that's good."

Referring to the Suzuka crash that put safety top of the agenda, he said: "We need to see the Bearman accident for what it was. It was a misjudgement of a situation. It's like pushing the boost button and not braking on a kink where you're supposed to brake.

"While we need to protect the safety of the drivers and this needs to be of utmost priority and importance, there's plenty of brilliant racing happening in the world that we as racers love. Will it be always the safest sport? It won't. It is about understanding what those systems do to the car. How we can reduce the risks. In particular situations like in the rain or whatever.

"But always reminding ourselves we are guardians of this sport. We have responsibility for this sport. The opportunity it has given to all of us rather than looking at your personal advantage or disadvantage of certain regulations being changed or not."

The Austrian also expressed his concern over Additional Development and Upgrade Opportunities (ADUO).

"The principle of the ADUO was to allow teams that were on the back foot in terms of the power unit to catch up, but not to leapfrog," he said. "It needs to be very clear that whatever decisions are being made, whatever, whichever team is granted ADUO that any such decision may have a big impact on the performance picture and on the championship, if not done with absolute precision and clarity and transparency.

"It needs to be clear that gamesmanship hasn't got any place here, but it needs to be with the right spirit here that the FIA acts upon an ADUO. And of course, the teams will have their performance pictures.

"For me, there's one engine manufacturer that has a problem," he continued, clearly referring to Honda, "and we need to help, and then all the others are pretty much in the same ballpark. So I would be very surprised actually and disappointed if ADUO decisions that were done would come up with any interferences into the competitive pecking order as it stands at the moment."

Asked if he was worried that Ferrari might exploit the situation, he said: "I wouldn't call it worried. I think we are all monitoring how decisions are being made. And we have precise data from our own analytics of where we see engine performance of our competitors and ourselves.

"In that respect, I think the FIA is looking at the same data, and the FIA certainly, I would very much hope, continue to see themselves as protecting the integrity of the sport, because you don't want to allow an ADUO to a team that suddenly leapfrogs someone. The ADUO was always meant as a catch-up mechanism, and not as a leapfrog mechanism."