This might take me a while to get used to, but I agree, it really is a radical idea.

The only 4 manufacturers officially involved were Ferrari, Mercedes (McLaren), Ford (Stewart) and Peugoet (Prost). Of these only two still is stilll in F1.

Meanwhile Williams, Benneton and BAR use Supertecs, Sauber used an old spec Ferrari engine, Arrows used their own engiens after buying Hart, while Minardi used old spec Cosworths.

Should Formula 1 be a no-cost-spared technological free-for-all closer to the ALMS philosophy, or must it impose ever tighter restrictions on innovation to keep costs down?

I’m not sure tightening restrictions will keep the costs down. F1 has been doing that for years, banning everything innovative. It didnt keep the costs down, did it?

Why can’t the FIA and FOTA just agree to a spending cap

The same point just came up on another article. I don’t believe a budget cap could be enforced.

My question is why must cost cutting be undertaken by complicated technical regulations? Why can’t the FIA and FOTA just agree to a spending cap and beyond safety regulations just let them innovate on a budget? Maybe I haven’t thought this through or have ignored important political angles but it seems better than having regulations that increasingly make F1 like Indycar.

But it will have to savagely slash costs and take the risk of the likes of Ferrari and Toyota quitting on principle. It will have to hope that more manufacturers are attracted to competing by the vastly reduced budgets.

F1 without Ferrari is not F1, no matter who is brought in to replace them.

I agree that there needs to be a reduction in costs and that various parts of the car could be standardised without taking anything away from the sport but there are limits.

Making it more relevant to production technology would make R&D far more attractive to manufacturers & would also mean that being in F1 would have some direct benefit to the core business.

We can all benefit from improving vehicular technology in many different ways, the manufacturers shouldn’t simply be burdened for the sake of racing, give them rules that they can improve their situation with

Spot on Fred.

Since the manufacturers show up so much (shouldering most of the burden) why not let them participate in the discussion for rules (Bernie and Max I’m looking at you).

Places they can willingly spend are areas that benefit their bottom line. By spending on technology (focused in products that they can actually bring to market and sell) manufacturers in many formulas would/should be more than willing to develop vehicles and systems to improve the racing experience at all levels of racing.

1 spec motor isn’t helping any of those sharing the load to earn more and subsidize more racing. Let them compete in specs that help them develop engineering talent, new technologies, and spend wisely (both in natural resources and dollars)

There are ways to make F1/Lemans, and all the way down to karting fun (note the word fun please) that still benefit manufacturers.

You want to maintain a 2.0 liter multicylinder formula,, fine,, then you get a tank that’s 10 gallons, but you can do whatever you want to develop additional technologies to conserve fuel, because there will be no refueling, you want to eliminate tire changes, fine, you get only 1 tire per race, but then tire development is unlimited, you want to see some innovation, break out some innovative rules. We can all benefit from improving vehicular technology in many different ways, the manufacturers shouldn’t simply be burdened for the sake of racing, give them rules that they can improve their situation with,,, rather than bailing out a system that fails to give itself a way to get out of it’s own way.