[Maelochs]

Indeed, the real cost of P1 is the constant development looking for the constant upgrades and adjustments.

However ... as a constructor, if you could build a single chassis which could be easily adapted to both P1 and P2 use, have a single set of major molds and have two markets open to you, how would that be a bad thing?

If you were in business, would you want to develop two very expensive products for two exceedingly limited markets, or one product for a market twice as big?

We have to remember that while we, as fans, love seeing the kind of P2 variety we saw at Silverstone, those cars are on the grid because they were the products of long development before a cost cap was imposed.

If Zytek for instance had to develop a from-scratch P2 chassis, then build it and try to sell it, likely they wouldn't ... pretty dang likely considering they haven't.

The cost of developing a chassis is way more than any reasonable sale price---constructors are pretty much going to lose money on the chassis, and try to make it up with spares and updates over time.

The wider the market, the better chance that more constructors will take the risk.

The rules could allow many different chassis, but if only one manufacturer could afford the initial outlay, we'd have essentially a spec series.

That is precisely the benefit of chassis commonality. It won't save the teams much money (except for factory teams, where the factory is essentially the team and will benefit from selling customer cars.) It will save constructors money.

It could give teams (and fans) the chance to buy (and see) a few different cars on the grid.

Do we really hope for ten identical Oreca-Nissans on the grid? No one liked that when it was identical Oreca-Chevrolets.

I'd like to see Oak (Morgan, Ligier) Oreca, Lotus (Adess,) Zytec, Multimatic-Lola, Rebellion, Porsche, Audi, Toyota and Honda on the P2 grid---and maybe some privateer teams running P1 versions.