What does this even mean?
You talk about technical freedom, and then two seconds later say the budget cap should be $150 million total.
Where do you think technical freedom comes from?
I'll give you a hint, budget caps will hinder it as there is less money overall to devote towards exploring potentially new technical solutions.
As far as manufacturers go, if they want to piss away untold amounts of money on losing efforts, I say have at it.
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
1. I think you have got it all ass to face. There is a well known difference in the cost control strategy that we have seen for the last years and the proposed system of budget caps. If you control the budget you have no more need to control cost along a path of diminishing returns. It is one of the strategies which are currently employed by F1 rule makers that have completely and utterly failed. As a consequence the rules should be much more relaxed if you try the alternative way of restricting budgets. Already in 2009 the debate was about more technical freedom in return for budget caps. I could imagine to allow all kind of variable geometries to valves, turbo vanes and whatever else you may want to experiment with. Engineers could devise different strategies to improve efficiency and power.
2. You won't attract manufacturers with open ended bills. They want to know what they are in for and they do not want to face unlimited bills.
Who is going to pay for all of these audits WB?
I didn't know the FIA was now changing their mission statement to become an accounting firm.
Have you ever looked at the overall number of sponsors in F1? I'd love to see how the FIA is equipped to audit dozens of sponsors from top to bottom.
Again, the FIA would have no legal standing to audit a company like say Royal Dutch Shell.
Come on, not that dumb old excuse again. Sponsors would not be much of a concern. Suppliers are much more important. But all non licensed entities would eventually be controlled by private supply and sponsorship contracts that would be required for every business affiliation. The control would not be continuous as for licensees but only when something fishy is investigated. In such cases suppliers would be required to submit all the paperwork for the respective transactions. They would not be required to total and ongoing control as licensees.
The cost for auditing would be paid from the licensees who would save a lot more cost that would result from a cost race. The difference between a cost race at full tilt and a controlled formula could be between $0.5-1bn. There is enough head room to pay for some accountants. At least that is what the FiA seems to think and the majority of teams as well.
You know, there are only two brands who are currently owning teams in F1 that can contemplate to go to 2006 levels of cost. Ferrari's Gestione Sportiva has been there and have increased their budgeting power over the last six years considerably. So they could even pay for it without exceeding their revenues. The other brand is Red Bull. They are generating so much advertising value equivalence (AVE) that they are quickly catching up with Ferrari in terms of F1 team valuation. If they go on at the current rate they will generate twice the AVE for every $ they sink into the F1 budgets of their teams. They can easily afford to own their own engine company even. And who knows who owns Renault F1 these days. Mateschitz could already have a 49% minority position there without us knowing it. Goshn is well known for his creative ways of outsourcing his capital expenditure needs. If convenient and suitable Renault F1 operations could be controlled from Salzburg by 2014 or 2015. Heck the guy could be buying any engine company for less than a full years AVE.