Formula 1's so-called 'top five' understand the concerns of the sport's smaller teams, that is the claim of Red Bull team boss Christian Horner.
In a week when the plight of those teams unable to seemingly get their voice heard when it comes to deciding rule changes has been put into focus, Horner denies that those worries are being ignored.
This comes after it was announced during the Bahrain Grand Prix that the budget cap idea had again been scrapped, however, there is a key meeting of F1's Strategy Group to discuss ways of cutting costs on May 1.
Horner denies that the power of the 'big five' and Williams for historical reasons have by having seats on that Strategy Group was used to squash the budget cap plan, instead the decision to drop it was because the group felt more meaningful cost cuttings could be made by greater regulations.
"Absolutely, because as the end of the day we have to have somebody to race against," Horner replied when asked by Autosport if the Strategy Group understood the worries of smaller teams.
"You've got Lotus, whose situation has been fairly dire for the last couple of years, and Williams, who are run on a tight budget, that have key representation in that Group.
"So gauging their opinion is fairly important."
Indeed the 40-year-old raised a very valid point as to why a simple budget cap would have had very little bearing on those teams on low budgets.
"How could a 200 million dollar cost cap help Sauber?" he asked. "It saves them not one dollar.
"The fundamental issues are: what are our cost drivers? If you address those cost drivers, and then create a more level playing field, with more creativity for the teams, then that is a far more healthy way of doing that than suppressing from the top down."
Indeed with recent rumours suggesting a return of active suspension is being considered as well as other ways at reducing costs while trying to increase the revenue teams make, there is hope that the current gulf in financial capabilities from the top to the bottom of the F1 grid can be narrowed.
But Horner was critical of those smaller teams who argue their voice is not being heard by not being on the Strategy Group because he says those teams agreed to the current structure by signing up to the new Concorde Agreement with F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone.
"It's a bit hypocritical to be complaining about something they've all signed up to," he said.
"The purpose and formation of the Strategy Group means there are teams in there who are in the same situation as Force India for example, or worse.
"So there is a balanced view in that discussion. The Strategy Group is exactly that: in that it looks at the strategy for the future of the sport," he added.
Certainly when considering the current power structure in F1 there is a lot that could be different. As much as Horner likes to portray a 'holier than thou' image when it comes to how considerate his and other top teams are to those on lower budgets there is no doubting any opportunity to keep a rival down is taken advantage of.
What was true, I believe, was his point on the budget cap, to say a team can spend no more than $200m is fine but then if a team barely spends a quarter of that what difference does that really make?
It would be preposterous to think F1 could ever go to a time when all the teams had the same budget because quite frankly some teams are always going to be more attractive to sponsors than others.
To say F1 can be fair for all is incomprehensible, at the end of the day there will always be a greater financially benefit by coming in first rather than 21st. However, surely a more equal share of the revenue funds handed out by Ecclestone can be considered as can trying to better regulate what the base figure is a team has to spend to be both financially viable and competitive on a racetrack.
Write for GiveMeSport! Sign-up to the GMS Writing Academy here: http://gms.to/1a2u3KU