Whichever of the above models is adopted, it should be hand-in-hand with a budget cap that equates to the income share (so $100 million using the above example). This should glide downwards by a set amount each year, creating greater profits for the teams in the long term, making them more recession-proof in the future and less reliant upon big money deals and big business.
So what are those F1 teams going to do with that money that cannot be spent? Larger salaries for their employees? Doubt it. Which in turn means that all this extra money that cannot be spent flows to the pockets of the teams owners. I'm sure they wont see it as a problem though.
Also, There is a point where you cannot lower the budget anymore, plus there is this thing called "inflation", making things more expensive over time.
Our economy works on spending money, it goes round and round, you earn the money you spend. And this idea is a $1.1 billion money pit(taking the numbers said), or it turns into a $1.1 billion retirement fund.
We’d recommend further study before regulating on this – looking first at the feasibility of generating all downforce from the underbody of the car and what sort of racing that might produce.
Two words; Wing cars.
Don't get me wrong, I do like the idea of using the community to propose something new, but none of this actually seems to be thought out, and the "generating all downforce from the underbody" takes the grand prize on it. I did not sign it.
EDIT: I said that the "generating all downforce from the underbody" takes the grand prize on it. Well, I find the "No PR" idea just as badly thought out. Or the "no driver-pits communication", also not very well thought out. And the "4 car rookie team" is just as bad, I cannot think of a single reason why that would be a good idea or should be done.
