What is the Indianapolis Proposal?
An engine format, created by teams and manufacturers that are due to participate in Formula One in 2008. It combines the strategic objectives of reducing costs and maintaining Formula One as the pinnacle of global motor sport.

Why is the Indianapolis Proposal more appropriate for Formula One that the full freeze on engine development, as suggested by the FIA?
The Indianapolis Proposal would significantly reduce costs but retain the spirit of competition i.e.:

no team/manufacturer would be locked into current performance;

fans and other stakeholders could witness continuous change;

F1 would remain more technically challenging for current and future engine manufacturers;

and it could be introduced from 2007 - one year earlier than the FIA's full freeze.

Which manufacturers and teams support the Indianapolis Proposal?
All six car manufacturers and ten of the twelve teams

Why did not all teams support the Indianapolis Proposal?
For individual reasons, of commercial nature

Why didn't the manufacturers and team manage to agree on a new engine format prior to the 30 June deadline?
They did. A clear majority of the twelve teams that are due to participate in 2008 voted against the engine freeze, as suggested by the FIA, and were in a position to vote in support of a engine compromise which would be more appropriate for Formula One. However, as the FIA did not want to implement any other engine format but their own, they refused the teams their right to formally vote on their compromise prior to the 30 June deadline.

The FIA-President is quoted as saying that the teams could merely make proposals to change the regulations – but never make changes to the regulations themselves.
This represents (yet another) U-turn by the FIA President. In a personal letter from 22 March 2006 and
published on the FIA's website, he wrote:

"… although the Sporting Regulations are now fixed, any element could be changed on proposal of a
simple majority of the entered teams sitting in the Sporting Working Group (Appendix 5) and … the
Formula 1 Commission or World Motor Sport Council would only reject such proposal in the overall
interests of the Formula One World Championship or of motor sport in general."

Expecting/Perceiving to enter into a democratic process, the teams then submitted their entries and looked forward to a fair process of majority voting in the Sporting Working Group and ratification and acceptance by the Formula One Commission and World Motor Sport Council prior to 30 June. To this date, however, all majority votes which went against the FIA's interests have either been rejected to ignored, and neither the F1 Commission nor the WMSC has even met to discuss the SWG votes yet.

Why doesn't the GPMA just pay €15m each year to financially support an independent engine builder?
As ever, the GPMA is willing to make investments that are in the best interests of the sport. Such investments always need to be made on the condition that the balance between supporting individual participants and maintaining a fair competition are met. The €40m offer is the most significant effort to help individual participants ever seen in motor sport and represents the absolute maximum the GPMA can commit.

If the full freeze format gets accepted, will the teams and manufacturers support its implementation in 2007 or 2008?
Due to the various inconsistencies, irregularities, breaches of agreements shown by the FIA over the engine issue, the GPMA manufacturers wish to reserve their position and refrain from any speculation.

But would it not be a waste of money to develop new engines for and during 2007, only to return to a homologated 2006 engine for 2008, 2009 and 2010?
The question should be why the Indianapolis Proposal was rejected by the FIA, as its implementation from 2007 for four years would hardly cost more than full development for 2007 followed by a 3-year engine freeze. And needless to say regular engine development would greatly improve the sporting spectacle.