Force India says one of the main reasons a plan to rebrand the team as Aston Martin was put on hold over the winter was uncertainty over Formula One's regulations in 2017.
F1 is due a major overhaul of its regulations next year, but the definitive rule book is not expected until April 30. Aston Martin was in talks with Force India and drinks company Diageo about a deal to rebrand the team for this season, but team COO Otmar Szafnauer said the main sticking point was uncertainty over the future of the sport.
"It developed quite far down the road, but I think one of the reasons is that for big companies like that to make big decisions to come into Formula One they want to make sure that they understand all the risks and upside potential," he told ESPN. "The fact that the 2017 regulations weren't defined, I think Aston Martin just took a step back and said 'Let's see what the long-term regulations look like for Formula One and then we will decide'. It's not a 'No' forever, but 2016 was just a bit too soon."
Szafnauer said the Aston Martin deal would have extended beyond a simple branding exercise.
"Branding for sure with the car, but also a technical collaboration. More from Formula One to Aston Martin to have a collaboration a little bit like McLaren has with their road cars. Using some of the F1 technology to put in the road cars to better the road cars. That type of collaboration."
Questions remain over the current ownership of Force India going forwards. The Sahara Group is considering a sale of its 42.5% share in the F1 team to raise funds as part of its efforts to free founder Subrata Roy from jail. Meanwhile, team principal Vijay Mallya's 42.5% share forms part of a security package being held as collateral by Diageo to underpin the payment of a $135 million loan owed to Standard Chartered Bank by a company affiliated to Mallya.
Asked to shed light on the situation, Szafnauer said: "I can't, only because I don't focus on that. From the little bit I know, I think Sahara just asked the court to be able to sell the team among other assets, so I think it was a list of stuff. It doesn't mean they want to or they don't want to, it just means they asked the court 'Can we?'. I think the shareholders' shareholding is stable and if Sahara do sell, we will be fine either way."
Asked if it was impacting on the team's plans for this season, Szafnauer added: "Nothing changes."