59 replies to this topic

[shirtpocket]

The Spaniard reiterated his desire for F1 cars to become faster and also suggested regulations that limit engine development and testing (both on track and in wind tunnels) make it difficult for the established competitive order to be altered."[I'd like] faster cars, because now we are a little bit too close to GP2 times; probably more testing or little bit freer rules in terms of developing the car, because right now as you put the car into the first winter test more or less you keep that position until the end of the year," Alonso said.  Good man...

 

If only the FIA were more interested in a good F1 show, rather than a good meal in some exotic location.

[Paco]

Fans like me having been saying this for years! What, now cause Fernando says it, it is news.

[TomNokoe]

It's insanely better than it was just a couple of years ago...

[Paco]

While people who are more concerned about idiotic ideas of a cost cap which 100% unenforceable (cause teams can r&d in non f1 business)... Then racing. Or concerned how embarrassing it is for a team to toll all season looking stupid due to a design design the year before especially in the pu, and with such limited testing may not have been able to be seen until February but then with limited update options forced to go another entire year with a broken leg. I've been saying this for years..

F1 needs to allow teams to test, develop and not be restricted... We need 1 pu per race allotment all season. 15 races, means 15 engines to use from the 1st day of testing to the last day of racing.. Other long tide components needs to be scrape too..

Everything from the car, the tires and drivers should be pushed to the limit.

Strategy should be an option again, even if it makes the play by play announcers look stupid when they have no idea what a teams strategy was. I loved the day with unknown fuel loads, unknown outcomes left the announcers dumbfounded as the race played out..

By all this cost cutting and restrictions, all it's done for years is make it impossible after day 1 off the season for anything to happen during the year.. Absolutely ridiculous and why.. So that back markers who say they have the funds to compete all they do is still complain that they can't catch the front even when costs are way lower.. Which all they have said since the dawn of racing.. Except now they have ruined it for everyone but 1 team.. The fact of the matter, f1 hurting not cause of money but looking out for the poor.. So they make everyone else look just as silly as they do..

It's like the idea of school teaching,, advanced general and basic streams, and people who think it's unfair and everyone should be together. Well, nothing like making the general people feel stupid cause they can't get over 80.. Nothing like not challenging the advanced kids and boring them in class with trivial things to them and allowing them to always get 95 plus and nothing like making the basic kids constantly feel stupid cause they can't get over 60% due to tests having to challenge the advanced students. Everyone loses out without teaching streams. That's what we have in f1 now.. By focusing on the back markers and mid teams.. The good teams are left looking stupid, the back markers still look as stupid as ever and no one is being challenged.. Hence the frustration of f1 today,

I love seeing 2 world champs look like 12 yr old kids their 1st time at a go kart track.
I love seeing one of the best teams in f1 look worse the a caterhams or virginf1 team. Even minded looked better then mclaren today.. All because of they are not allowed to fix issues. Year ago, by the 4th race they'd be way better and by mid season they should have been mid pack easy and by season end reason to believe they be competitive again.. Now I feel it will be years before they can figure it out.
I love simply reading news releases after the 1st and 2nd gp, what the final results will be at the end of the season with 95% certainty.
I love how stupid it is for a team to spend 250million forced to attend each race knowing they have zero chance of improving themselves after the last test session because they are not allowed too!!!!! That's the best part.. They aren't allowed to fix their issues... And let alone test fixes properly.. Stupid at it's finest. Ask a team to put all that money but not allowed to fix an issue simply because someone else is poorly funded and can't fix their issue.

Edited by Paco, 10 July 2015 - 14:36.

[Fisico54]

Then budgets will skyrocket, whoever has the biggest budget (probably Mercedes) becomes even more dominant, after a couple of years the manufacturers getting beaten leave the arms race and the whole thing collapses as the independents have already been priced out. Good plan.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Fans like me having been saying this for years! What, now cause Fernando says it, it is news.

 

Yuppers, agreed.

 

Isn't it somehow more than stupid that a series of regulations have plunged Formula One into an era of insane and costs even the big teams never expected? And the really crazy part is that the political structure of the sport does not allow an easy solution.

 

Decades ago if someone came up with a good idea or a dominant car, it was only a matter of a few weeks before the competition was able to respond, and thus break the stranglehold on dominance. Now, even though teams and manufacturers have a good idea on how to solve their problems or at least a direction to go, the restrictions are so suffocating they just can't.

[Jon83]

It's insanely better than it was just a couple of years ago...

 

Can't agree with that at all.

[Paco]

Then budgets will skyrocket, whoever has the biggest budget (probably Mercedes) becomes even more dominant, after a couple of years the manufacturers getting beaten leave the arms race and the whole thing collapses as the independents have already been priced out. Good plan.

And that is different to how it is now?? Except we might actually see improvements if teams were allowed to do things. Right now, smart designers and engineers can't do anything.. No x-wings, no blown diffuser ideas, no fduct ideas etc. smaller teams introduced some of these things - not the big 2.. At least seeing teams try and do things was cool.. What novel ideas... Now it's all basically 1 design due to such a horrible tight rule book. F1 is more worried about penis noses, lotus uneven tusks.. More worried about appearances then competition.. More worried about 3 poorly funded teams then the teams who spend 75% employing staff and promoting f1 and make serious contribution to f1 who are made to look stupid cause they aren't allowed to develop because of back marker teams who can't raise capital.

Edited by Paco, 10 July 2015 - 14:46.

[SealTheDiffuser]

Fans like me having been saying this for years! What, now cause Fernando says it, it is news.

 

a lot of people want this because their teams are not winning

 

efficient FINDIA all the way, open rules mean spending war.

 

budget cap now! enforced by guys with handcuffs and tazers.

 

ALO now desperate.

 

2017 with ground effect cars   (hopefully they have the balls!) will cost enough!

[Ross Stonefeld]

How are you guys going to pay for all of this?

 

Oh right, with the tsunami of returning fans.

 

Innovation and technical freedom would be great if a Sauber suddenly went a second a lap quicker and became a pain in the ass. But the reality is it's more likely to be a Merc and thanks but no thanks.

[ANF]

I'm sick and tired of Alonso's moaning because he went to the wrong team. And I'm sick and tired of the comparison to GP2. If the GP2 cars a too fast, then slow them down for next year.   

[Mackey]

It's insanely better than it was just a couple of years ago...

 

If you´re a Lewis/Merc fan maybe....

 

Worst season ever for me (started following the sport in 2003)

[SealTheDiffuser]

If you´re a Lewis/Merc fan maybe....

 

Worst season ever for me (started following the sport in 2003)

 

I see you missed 2002!

[kosmos]

I'm sick and tired of Alonso's moaning because he went to the wrong team.

 

 

Looks like the opposite, he seem to be at peace with going to "the wrong team" again , the moaning is only in your head.

[ANF]

Looks like the opposite, he seem to be at peace with going to "the wrong team" again , the moaning is only in your head.

Yes, for sure it's an exciting challenge, this new project with McLaren and Honda working together again after so many years, with such great history together, and the right spirit so I DON'T WANT! WE'RE LOOKING LIKE AMATEURS! I'm very much looking forward to this exciting challenge.

[Fatgadget]

If you´re a Lewis/Merc fan maybe....

 

Worst season ever for me (started following the sport in 2003)

More like Alonso wouldn't have said this were he in a Merc! 

 

..BTW. The best season for me was 1988 when the McLaren MP4/4 nearly won every race..go figure 

Edited by Fatgadget, 10 July 2015 - 15:40.

[1Devil1]

If you´re a Lewis/Merc fan maybe....

 

Worst season ever for me (started following the sport in 2003)

 

Bull's eye... 

 

Really bad year it is beyond me somebody would think this is better than classics 2012 or 2010

[AustinF1]

It occurs to me that a budget cap would effectively only cap the budgets of the teams that don't have a way to do R&D off the books. In other words, it would hardly affect works teams and would only restrict the smaller teams.

[AustinF1]

If you´re a Lewis/Merc fan maybe....

 

Worst season ever for me (started following the sport in 2003)

Yeah I'm not sure what's so great about it. Worst for me, too. Following closely since about 2005.

 

Same 3 drivers been on the podium for 6 of 9 races, 2 of those on the podium in all 9 races. Ugh.

Edited by AustinF1, 10 July 2015 - 16:01.

[Talisman]

And that is different to how it is now?? Except we might actually see improvements if teams were allowed to do things. Right now, smart designers and engineers can't do anything.. No x-wings, no blown diffuser ideas, no fduct ideas etc. smaller teams introduced some of these things - not the big 2

 

Smaller teams like Red Bull (blown diffuser) and McLaren (f-duct)?  Weren't X-wings from a manufacturer works team like BMW or Honda?

 

You're right that smart designers and engineers will be unshacked with fewer restrictions, who has more of them?  Oh, the bigger teams.  The smaller teams that are struggling to survive as it is are not going to be investing in new technologies, they don't have the money to.  The big ones have the resources to follow potential ideas and discard them if they prove not to be useful.  The more of these ideas they explore, the more likely they are to come up with a gamechanger.

 

Freeing up development will widen the gap between the midfield and the top.  Sorry I'm not signing up, seeing a Merc pound around the track two seconds ahead of the rest instead of just the one doesn't float my boat I'm afraid.

[AustinF1]

Look, in the past when friends of mine have asked me about F1 and wonder what the allure is, I've always brought up two things first and foremost:

 

1) The "Arms Race" in F1 that has had everyone changing their cars and engines week-in and week-out. The cars were ever-changing, living, evolving, hard-to-tame beasts, and that was a big part of the addiction, what set F1 apart from other racing for me, and what got me utterly and completely hooked.

2) The sounds and vibrations of the cars that you didn't just hear, but that cut right through your chest and indeed to your soul, hitting you and pouring over you more than just alerting your eardrums. An F1 car used to announce its presence. You instantly knew where you were and what you were hearing. You could often even tell which engine you were hearing. It was unlike anything else anywhere. 

 

They've taken both of those things away. I don't know what to say so much now when friends ask me what the big deal is about F1. I could tell them about the engine/ERS technology & increased efficiency, I guess, if I want to watch their eyes glaze over. Very exciting stuff.

 

Maybe Alonso wouldn't say these things were he in a Mercedes this year. That doesn't make those words from him any less true. Would any of you say anything if you were in a Merc seat? Lewis would probably say something if he were in a McLaren or a Ferrari.

Edited by AustinF1, 10 July 2015 - 16:37.

[Atreiu]

Then budgets will skyrocket, whoever has the biggest budget (probably Mercedes) becomes even more dominant, after a couple of years the manufacturers getting beaten leave the arms race and the whole thing collapses as the independents have already been priced out. Good plan.

 

Are you talking about today?

[kosmos]

Yes, for sure it's an exciting challenge, this new project with McLaren and Honda working together again after so many years, with such great history together, and the right spirit so I DON'T WANT! WE'RE LOOKING LIKE AMATEURS! I'm very much looking forward to this exciting challenge.

What part of I want to race other cars when I'm surrounded by them and save fuel later when I'm not fighting with anyone you didn't get?. Even McLaren said he was right and it was never an act of moaning but hey whatever float your boat

[AustinF1]

What part of I want to race other cars when I'm surrounded by them and save fuel later when I'm not fighting with anyone you didn't get?. Even McLaren said he was right and it was never an act of moaning but hey whatever float your boat

Yep. I thought from the very moment I heard those comments from Alonso that some would take them out of context and say he was talking about McLaren. I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about the current state of the 'racing' in F1.

[johnmhinds]

I've not seen Alonso saying anywhere that he wants unrestricted development.

 

He just wants it to be more open than it currently is, and understandable opinion give the position his team is in right now.

[Pingguest]

I do not necessarily agree. For example, if teams were forced to homologate their bodywork, they would have to use the same for both Monte-Carlo and Monza. That would create unpredictability, because they cannot get it right every race.

[Fatgadget]

I think some people forget that F1 has never been a level playing field.The best drivers always end up at the best teams who invariably have the most money.And having the most money sits you in a better position to out-develop the less endowed teams should development restrictions be lifted.A catch 22/chicken egg/chasing-the -tail scenario the FIA have no hope ever getting on top of.Innovations like ground effect,J-dampers,F-ducts,beryllium,fexi-wings,active this that or the other have all been banned in the quest for equalisation.Has that ever worked to equalise the grid?

[beute]

How are you guys going to pay for all of this?

 

Oh right, with the tsunami of returning fans.

 

Innovation and technical freedom would be great if a Sauber suddenly went a second a lap quicker and became a pain in the ass. But the reality is it's more likely to be a Merc and thanks but no thanks.

 

Teams pay whatever they wish to pay.

They do that already and they always did.

And that's how it should be, it's their money.

 

The budget will be limited as always.

Teams will try and avoid spending more than they earn, just like in every other business that isnt the government...

[krea]

Well, you can't combine the competition of a pure spec series and the reputation and engineering elements of a formula series.

[Peter Perfect]

It's insanely better than it was just a couple of years ago...

 

It's really not. I'm not saying they were great days for F1 but it's significantly worse now.

[P123]

I don't agree with his point with regards aero. Wind tunnel time is restricted, but it's the same for all. What great mix up would there be in the competitive order were it unrestricted? We've seen Red Bull make huge leaps intra-season since that came on board, even McLaren, and most of the major teams introduce aero updates every race.

He may be correct on engines, but lead time to improve those have always been very long. He has to remember Mercedes and Ferrari would have open development too, if that is the desired rule to give us a supposed exciting F1. It took Ferrari 2 ad a bit years to catch up with the Beemer engine of the early noughties. And the Merc engines in the McLaren liked to grenade. All that with open development. I think anybody expecting big changes in the competitive order would probably end up bit perplexed to see little difference in that, in the event of open development.

And his point re the speed of the cars is nonsense. A faster car does not automatically equate with greater racing.

[Fastcake]

Yuppers, agreed.

 

Isn't it somehow more than stupid that a series of regulations have plunged Formula One into an era of insane and costs even the big teams never expected? And the really crazy part is that the political structure of the sport does not allow an easy solution.

 

Decades ago if someone came up with a good idea or a dominant car, it was only a matter of a few weeks before the competition was able to respond, and thus break the stranglehold on dominance. Now, even though teams and manufacturers have a good idea on how to solve their problems or at least a direction to go, the restrictions are so suffocating they just can't.

 

You've got a rather fuzzy memory. Generally someone who started a season with a dominant car ended it with one - and in the days when cars lasted for years would often keep it for longer. Development rates on the cars are higher nowadays than it ever has been, and despite the constant upgrades brought to every race, teams with the same engine are still in the same order.

 

Teams pay whatever they wish to pay.

They do that already and they always did.

And that's how it should be, it's their money.

 

The budget will be limited as always.

Teams will try and avoid spending more than they earn, just like in every other business that isnt the government...

 

By teams avoid spending more than they earn, you mean the teams always spend more than they earn right? Or have you missed the teams delaying payments to suppliers and employees, desperately chopping and changing drivers, constant sponsor and owner shenanigans, and running up huge debts, all because they are putting more money than they have on car development.

[charly0418]

That would greatly increase costs Fernando... so I'm saying no thanks

[Peter Perfect]

I don't agree with his point with regards aero. Wind tunnel time is restricted, but it's the same for all. What great mix up would there be in the competitive order were it unrestricted? We've seen Red Bull make huge leaps intra-season since that came on board, even McLaren, and most of the major teams introduce aero updates every race.

He may be correct on engines, but lead time to improve those have always been very long. He has to remember Mercedes and Ferrari would have open development too, if that is the desired rule to give us a supposed exciting F1. It took Ferrari 2 ad a bit years to catch up with the Beemer engine of the early noughties. And the Merc engines in the McLaren liked to grenade. All that with open development. I think anybody expecting big changes in the competitive order would probably end up bit perplexed to see little difference in that, in the event of open development.

And his point re the speed of the cars is nonsense. A faster car does not automatically equate with greater racing.

 

Aero updates may be introduced frequently but they're relying a lot on CFD to be right. Will the parts work? Maybe they will maybe they won't. If one team makes a breakthrough how quickly can other teams catch up? Unrestricted testing allowed teams to try their solutions and get a working set-up quickly, levelling the playing field. You're never going to stop a team taking a significant step ahead of the others but you can limit the ability of others to catch up.

 

The engine argument is less clear, as you say there have been examples before where it's taken a couple of years for a manufacturer to bridge the gap, but when teams are pretty openly treating the races as test sessions that can't be a good sign for the sport can it? Not only is track testing time limited but the changes they make is limited too. Honda may understand how to make the best engine in the field by country mile right now (although I'm not convinced   ), but they could quite conceivably be limited by the token system to not being able to put it on track for another 2 years.

 

Obviously the current limits on engine and aero developments is mainly budget driven, but there must be a better balance.

 

...but I agree with the faster car bit.

[AustinF1]

Aero updates may be introduced frequently but they're relying a lot on CFD to be right. Will the parts work? Maybe they will maybe they won't. If one team makes a breakthrough how quickly can other teams catch up? Unrestricted testing allowed teams to try their solutions and get a working set-up quickly, levelling the playing field. You're never going to stop a team taking a significant step ahead of the others but you can limit the ability of others to catch up.

 

The engine argument is less clear, as you say there have been examples before where it's taken a couple of years for a manufacturer to bridge the gap, but when teams are pretty openly treating the races as test sessions that can't be a good sign for the sport can it? Not only is track testing time limited but the changes they make is limited too. Honda may understand how to make the best engine in the field by country mile right now (although I'm not convinced   ), but they could quite conceivably be limited by the token system to not being able to put it on track for another 2 years.

 

Obviously the current limits on engine and aero developments is mainly budget driven, but there must be a better balance.

 

...but I agree with the faster car bit.

And when you limit wind tunnel usage, then the teams that can spend more on more/better CFD will win out again.

[Peter Perfect]

And when you limit wind tunnel usage, then the teams that can spend more on more/better CFD will win out again.

 

Money will always be a big driver of success in F1, the last two years is an indication of that, but such severe limits on development artificially bake in the competitive order. As I said, the balance at the moment seems wrong.

[P123]

Aero updates may be introduced frequently but they're relying a lot on CFD to be right. Will the parts work? Maybe they will maybe they won't. If one team makes a breakthrough how quickly can other teams catch up? Unrestricted testing allowed teams to try their solutions and get a working set-up quickly, levelling the playing field. You're never going to stop a team taking a significant step ahead of the others but you can limit the ability of others to catch up.
 
The engine argument is less clear, as you say there have been examples before where it's taken a couple of years for a manufacturer to bridge the gap, but when teams are pretty openly treating the races as test sessions that can't be a good sign for the sport can it? Not only is track testing time limited but the changes they make is limited too. Honda may understand how to make the best engine in the field by country mile right now (although I'm not convinced ;)  ), but they could quite conceivably be limited by the token system to not being able to put it on track for another 2 years.
 
Obviously the current limits on engine and aero developments is mainly budget driven, but there must be a better balance.
 
...but I agree with the faster car bit.

Different teams have always had different strengths. On track testing has just moved to simulation tools. I'm not sure bringing back more testing would make much difference on the aero side.

As for the engines, it does seem clear from the Honda example that new engine manufacturer entrants should be allowed more development freedom in their first year. Either that or Honda have truly made a pigs ear of it. F1 does like it's rules.... but maybe they just need to ditch the token system. I doubt it would change much, but it would remove a huge chunk of criticism thrown at the sport. There would need to be controls on the costs passed on to customer teams.

[AustinF1]

Money will always be a big driver of success in F1, the last two years is an indication of that, but such severe limits on development artificially bake in the competitive order. As I said, the balance at the moment seems wrong.

Oh yeah. Yep. I was agreeing with you. 

[Fatgadget]

Money will always be a big driver of success in F1, the last two years is an indication of that, but such severe limits on development artificially bake in the competitive order. As I said, the balance at the moment seems wrong.

And the correct balance is what exactly Mr Peter Perfect?

Edited by Fatgadget, 10 July 2015 - 18:14.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

You've got a rather fuzzy memory. Generally someone who started a season with a dominant car ended it with one - and in the days when cars lasted for years would often keep it for longer. Development rates on the cars are higher nowadays than it ever has been, and despite the constant upgrades brought to every race, teams with the same engine are still in the same order.

 

 

I was thinking of the 70's and 80's. Even then, a one year old car was obsolete. But I still hold to my opinion. In 2009 the double diffuser was used by Brawn to completely dominate the beginning of the season. By the end of the season, Red Bull had the better car.

[AustinF1]

Different teams have always had different strengths. On track testing has just moved to simulation tools. I'm not sure bringing back more testing would make much difference on the aero side.

As for the engines, it does seem clear from the Honda example that new engine manufacturer entrants should be allowed more development freedom in their first year. Either that or Honda have truly made a pigs ear of it. F1 does like it's rules.... but maybe they just need to ditch the token system. I doubt it would change much, but it would remove a huge chunk of criticism thrown at the sport. There would need to be controls on the costs passed on to customer teams.

So...If you want to attract new engine manufacturers, why not just let them develop freely until they're on a par with the top teams? Monitor them closely until said time, and then put them on the same development plan as everyone else.

 

Where's the harm in it? It's good for the sport, and it's not like it would make them a threat to win a championship, or much else, in that first season anyway. They'd still be behind the others for most of the season. Probably all of it and more.

[Ghostrider]

I think they should allow more testing during season. Not totally free like before but a lot more than currently is allowed. There has to be ways for teams to catch up. That was one of the great things before, that teams had the possibility to test to catch up.

[Fatgadget]

I think they should allow more testing during season. Not totally free like before but a lot more than currently is allowed. There has to be ways for teams to catch up. That was one of the great things before, that teams had the possibility to test to catch up.

Maybe Im quoting selectively,but eh!...Isn't that tantamount to penalising teams that have got it spot on in the first place? Rules is rules no? And if you get it right first time you reap the rewards and if you make a pigs ear of it...tough tities..Simples!

Edited by Fatgadget, 10 July 2015 - 20:25.

[Peter Perfect]

And the correct balance is what exactly Mr Peter Perfect?

 

Well Fats, IMHO a better balance would be to have more in season testing while at the race circuit, e.g. on the Monday after the race. They've already got all their kit there, why not make use of it? On the PU side I'd open up in season development while limiting the price for customer teams. But that's my opinion of course, others may have better ideas for reintroducing competition into the series.

 

Maybe Im quoting selectively,but eh!...Isn't that tantamount to penalising teams that have got it spot on in the first place? Rules is rules no? And if you get it right first time you reap the rewards and if you make a pigs ear of it...tough tities..Simples!

 

Imagine the viewing figures! How could it fail?! You've really got your finger on the pulse...

[Fatgadget]

Well Fats, IMHO a better balance would be to have more in season testing while at the race circuit, e.g. on the Monday after the race. They've already got all their kit there, why not make use of it? On the PU side I'd open up in season development while limiting the price for customer teams. But that's my opinion of course, others may have better ideas for reintroducing competition into the series.

 

 

Imagine the viewing figures! How could it fail?! You've really got your finger on the pulse...

Ah!..I see.Its all about the viewing figures.  There was me all along under the impression it was all about the pinnacle of motorsport! ..Live and learn eh! 

[Logiso]

Testing might not even help the teams improve relative to each other. For example Ferrari's gains this year came during the break, not during testing. If anything there should be a period in the middle of the year where there's no racing and the teams have a similar sort of opportunity to improve the cars like they do during the winter. But being realistic this isn't a new situation for F1 in terms of what happens on track, just how people perceive it has changed. The fact that most seasons are like this are what make the seasons like 2012, 2009, 2003 etc so special to me at least.

[scheivlak]

It's not the development restrictions that make F1 boring. It's the payment structure and the shortsighted economic model. FOM showers some teams with money for nothing else but their name or their past. So much money going to teams that -in all fairness- don't really need or deserve that amount. Money that could have been given to teams that could have been a lot more competitive with it - also because every team could have a healthy budget for testing in that case.

[Gyno]

That would greatly increase costs Fernando... so I'm saying no thanks

 

 

The teams have X amount of money to spend each year.

They will spend all of that money each year no matter if there is free testing all year long or testing limits like we have now.

Not all teams can pump more money in like Ferrari and Merc can.

 

If that is what they wanna do then Let them do it, with more open rules we will see true innovation again, a lot of the genius stuff didn't even cost that much.

[Kalmake]

And when you limit wind tunnel usage, then the teams that can spend more on more/better CFD will win out again.

CFD is restricted so that getting faster computers doesn't help. Smarter software and engineers is what they have to spend on.

[RealRacing]

Unlimited testing and developing will only make the differences larger. Remember Ferrari going round their test tracks until the pavement broke in the early 2000s? Of course that was one extreme. The other is now with the overcomplicated, over expensive, over sensitive engines and over regulated development. A middle ground is needed: before anything, scrap the idea of road relevant and start planning race dedicated everything: engines, brakes, tyres, gear boxes, etc. This should be a sport, not a glorified R&D department. Let them use as many engines a year as necessary with reasonable limitations (f.ex., qualifying engines or more than one engine per race). Let them have spare cars and use them after a big crash and race re-start. Just make everything so as to maximize the probability of there being a good race under as equal conditions among the drivers and cars as possible. Set reasonable rules, enforce them correctly and let teams, drivers and engineers take care of the rest. All of this if, of course, if the distribution of resources can be fair. Without that, it's doomed to fail anyway.