[RWill2073]

I'm not an insider, and don't know the intracacies of the financials of f1, but I was thinking about something during the Monza qualifying delay. Gene Haas was interviewed and seemed to slightly allude to not continuing in the sport with no hope to win, and the commentators afterward mentioned the unequal payments to the top teams from the series as one of the sticking points. They stated pretty obviously that you can't expect a team on a 50 million budget to compete with a team on 500 million budget.

With that in mind, and without wanting to see bop become a part of f1, is there some way to monetize and put metrics to how much each additional 10 million in budget can be expected to produce? For example, if an average budget of 200 million outperforms a team with an average budget of 50 million by an average of 3/4 a second, (just to overly simplify this), could you find a way to define it as an additional 50 million in budget for the smaller team could be expected to be able to get them within 1/2 a second, another 50 million within 1/4 second, and then another 50 million makes them equal?

At that point, since the bigger teams don't want to give up their money, could some aero parameters be expanded slightly dependent on budget to allow the lower budget team to close the gap? And I dont mean equalize them, but allow parameters that could be expected to cut the gaps in half. Something like, if it can be defined as each additional 10 million in budget = 1/10 of a second, allow expanded parameters to regulations that could he expected to close the gap to 5/100's of a second, or close half the gap?

Then assign certain numbers to each aspect of development and have each team produce a yearly schedule of what they plan to do for testing or development flrnthe year. In this day and age, every secret test is eventually known, and could be added to the assigned yearly budget of the teams. So each team would have to report the amount they plan to spend, which in turn sets how much to open the parameters for the smaller teams to experiment or get creative to come up with different solutions. Could produce more variety and the occasional interesting result without taking anyone's money or giving up the total advantage the big budget teams have.

Don't beat me up too hard, just thinking out loud here.