How to fix F1?

[Richard C]

I have felt that most threads here eventually gravitate to the topic of “what is wrong with F1” and “how it can be fixed”. Maybe it’s time to have a thread focusing just on that and nothing else. I initially thought maybe there should be some ground rules on how to respond, but I know that will not work.

But... I will try anyhow! Generally speaking, I am more interested in complete solutions. Act as if you are running the show. You own ALL the problems, not just some of them. So while saying “I just want better racing” is fine, tell us how you would do it. Be as specific as you can. Saying “Less downforce” or “budget caps” doesn’t tell us “how” that would be done. “How” is as important as “What”. Cover as much as you can. Quality of racing, the economics, long term health, marketing, etc.

I will share my personal thoughts before end of this week, but just wanted to kick this off. Discuss and enjoy!

Richard

[Skam85]

Excellent thread. I can see this going over many pages.
Okay, I'll give it a go.

Points system:
- This is fine in its current guise. Keep the top 10, it rewards the winners, and mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded. Getting points for finishing 14th in a dog of a car is the equivalent of the 21st Century, millennial "participation award" blight.
- Finishing in the points shouldn't be replaced by 'finishing, therefore points'.

Penalty/stewards:
- Two stewards, on a permanent basis. Subject matter experts on the rules and regulations of Formula One. This can be former drivers, sure, that's okay, it also doesn't have to necessarily be someone who has driven in Formula One previously. The most important thing, is this is a full-time role, for every race on the calendar.

- Four levels of offence and subsequent penalties - let's keep this nice and simple. Name them whatever you like, but something like Minor, Medium, Severe, Deliberate etc etc, or even simply Level 1-5. Reprimands for very minor things to stay in place. Reprimands to be on a three-strike basis. Third reprimand incurs a 5-place grid drop.

- Penalties would be as follows:
Level 1 (lowest to highest). Drive through penalty to be served within 5 laps. If in the final five laps, a 5-sec penalty is to be placed onto the driver's finishing time. If this occurs in quali (such as impeding) - 1sec is to be added to the driver's fastest qualifying time.
Level 2. 10 second time penalty, to be served in the pits or after the race.
Level 3. 10 place grid drop for the next race.
Level 4. Disqualification from the event, with post-race determination on whether past behaviour or severity of the incident justifies a race ban.

Aerodynamic and engine regulations
- a working group of current and former F1 figures are to convene and work out the best course of action with regards to aero on a rolling basis. Team bosses are not to be involved in any way, however engineers and technical directors are permitted - one per team on the grid, all with equal say. These meetings are to be strictly confidential, with the risk of being shut out completely should there be leaks. Hopefully this removes the 'agenda' factor.

- Engines are to be made available for customers at a markup rate of 50% of the cost of production. For instance, if the engines cost $5m to make - they are capped for customers at $7.5m. Engines are also to be provided to no more than three customer teams. Gearboxes are bound by the same regulations.

- Engine regulations are to be frozen for a minimum of 5 years. This isn't my area of expertise, but remove the turbos, the MGU-s, the ICE and have them normally aspirated V8s.

- There are to be 8 engines per season, with no limit on when these are used. A new engine after qualifying can be used but this is from the pool of engines and if it fails, then you are one engine down. Once the pool of 8 is exhausted, time penalties will apply pre or post-qualifying. The first engine is a 1sec penalty, the second 2secs, and so on.

Tyres
- there is to be a tender for tyres every five years. Two tyre manufacturers are required at least, and are required to source a minimum of five teams. These teams are locked into a contract with the tyre supplier for a minimum of two years.

- Three dry tyre compounds will be made available at each weekend, with a total pool of 12 sets. Two compounds still must be used in the race.

Qualifying and Parc Ferme
- Qualifying knockout sessions to stay in place in its current guise.

- Teams can change their cars post-qualifying, with no parc ferme rules in place. The only proviso to this is that the curfew rules will still apply, with three curfew 'jokers' per season in place.

Money and budget
- There is to be a 'soft' budget cap of $200m, not including driver salaries.

- Should a team exceed this cap, then a tax on their spending over this amount will be put toward a pool of money to be distributed to the other teams based on their finishing position in the championship. The moment a team goes over this soft cap, they are ineligible for money from this pool. For Instance, Mercedes spend $50m over their cap, they must pay a 10% tax into the pool of $5m. Ferrari and Red Bull also do the same, leaving a pool of $15m to be distributed to the remaining seven teams (hopefully more once my F1 comes into play!). This will also allow new teams committed to a budget cap to be eligible for return money from the end of their first season.

- 70% of the total prize money is to be distributed based on the top 10 of the constructor's championship positions. (1st - 23%, 2nd - 17%, 3rd - 13%, 4th - 12%, 5th - 10%, 6th - 8%, 7th - 6%, 8th - 5%, 9th - 4%, 10th - 2%). Any new teams are eligible for this prize money.

- 20% of the total prize money is to be distributed to the driver's based on the top 10 of the driver's championship, in the same structure as above.

- the remaining 10% is a historical reward fund, to be distributed to teams who have been in the championship for 20 years or more - currently eligible is Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Sauber. More weighting for these funds are on the oldest teams, such as Ferrari.

Testing
- There are no restrictions on in-season testing, but any financial outlay goes toward the soft budget cap. Teams are also limited to two 'test' engines which must have no more than three upgrades fitted to the current spec engine.

- Pre-season testing will be 2 x 3 day events, and are exempt from the soft budget cap.

I'm sure I'll think of more - however the main point of these above points is to simplify the rules and requirements, and encourage new entries.

[V8 Fireworks]

I am very interested in what a F1 that makes more of the downforce from the underbody, and is designed to generate less upwash behind it and be less sensitive to turbulent in-flow would look like. I think you would want to have a longer downforce generating floor (so the low pressure acts over a larger area and makes more downforce), with less rake on it (for less upwash to be sent to the car behind?).

Look at the "bargeboard" area on this Ligier/Spectrum S5000 car... It's a much more simple and cost-effective design than what F1 uses. It takes the clean air from under the nose and sends it under the floor, and neatly spits out the dirty air from the front tyres to the sides, without being made of 1,000 pieces like the F1 version.

https://www.motorsport.com/au/genera...00-car/374261/

The front wing, was almost certainly, developed in a much more economical way than a F1 front wing too...

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Generally speaking, I am more interested in complete solutions.

Powertrain rules
- An engine formula of a direct and port injected 3500cc naturally aspirated V10 with a rev limit of 16,000rpm and a season price cap of $4m USD for two vehicles supply with a common ECU and common hybrid KERS system (producing around 50hp of electric power). All power units to be supplied to FIA for sealing, and then randomly allocated between works and customer teams. The rebuild interval should be around 2000km - a unit must be used for two consecutive race meetings and can be used for testing thereafter, however if the unit fails (with evidence, e.g., bits of broken conrod can be demonstrated) there is no penalty to take a new unit.
- Gearboxes to have six ratios (prescribed ratios) with free choice of differential ratio, and be sold via a similar lease system as for power units. Any constructor can buy any available gearbox (with notice at July of the preceding season), for $2.5m USD for a two car lease per season.
- The price caps should discourage excessive spending on engine and gearbox R+D by constructors with vested interests -- as they will be forced to sell their products to their competitors at a uncommercial cost, if they spend too much on these items. Likewise, the price caps should allow independent firms like XTrac and Cosworth to not have an unreasonable barrier of excessive R+D cost when producing a competitive gearbox or power unit.

Technical regulations
- Three-element front wing, two-element rear wing, strictly flat endplates front and rear (no DRS!!!)
- Shaped underbody permitted with prescribed cross sectional area at each 50mm interval along the length of the car. Minimum radius rule (no fins or winglets allowed in the underbody).
- Minimum upper body radius rule (no fins or winglets allowed, except where prescribed - i.e., the front and rear wing).
- Each vehicle must use for each wheel, a conventional coil spring and oil shock absorber units with a conventional steel anti-roll bars. (Heave dampers, suspension interconnect, hydraulic antiroll bars etc not permitted).
- 3500mm wheelbase prescribed.
- 2150mm car width.
- 18" wheels with control tyre supplier (no performance drop-off criteria).
- No refueling during racing.
- Minimum cooling intake inlet area prescribed.
- Airbox intake area prescribed.


Commercial regulations
- Each team to receive an equivalent share of FOM prize and historical money.
- A power unit or gearbox supplier must supply any constructor who requests and pays deposit for a supply by July of the preceding season.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

All power units to be supplied to FIA for sealing, and then randomly allocated between works and customer teams.

I like this one.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

All power units to be supplied to FIA for sealing, and then randomly allocated between works and customer teams.

This would seem to be a good idea, but it would mean that all the teams using that supplier's PUs would also have to identical gearboxes and other parts of the running gear, plus would have to run even more standardised electronics.


This would surely stifle innovation when we should be encouraging it. And is possibly one of the reasons that Williams, for example, decided that they would rather create their own gearboxes, etc. rather than beholden to Mercedes.

[Armco Bender]

Scrap F1.
Make GP2 the new F1,all problems solved.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Scrap F1.
Make GP2 the new F1,all problems solved.

Then we get the next Alonso back muttering about GP2 engines.....

[S griffin]

First of all let's get rid of all the extra aero, and keep it to just front and rear wings. Let's also ditch the two type of tyre per race and let drivers choose if they want to pit or not. And let's not have multiple compounds too. Also get rid of the SC free pass rule which just adds extra laps to SC periods. Let's also show a bit more leniency towards blue flags, and make it so the faster car has to get past.

One thing that was good about Singapore was that there were no grid penalties, so let's try and keep those to a minimum too. Let's also have less asphalt runoff in places where drivers can gain an advantage, so we can have an end to those tiresome arguments too. Let's keep the calendar to 19 places, and go to places that are worth going

Anyway that's it from me, I hope I haven't left anything out

[steve_r]

Stock front and rear wings - which are very basic indeed. Designed to allow cars to follow each other more closely by causing less disruption. This would do away with the need for DRS.

I actually don't fully subscribed to the notion that F1 needs "Fixing", but instead "tweaking". The above change would in my view improve the racing no end.

The prize money needs to be more fairly distributed among teams, but that would require someone with a degree not only in accounting but also politics to pull off.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Stock front and rear wings - which are very basic indeed. Designed to allow cars to follow each other more closely by causing less disruption. This would do away with the need for DRS.

I actually don't fully subscribed to the notion that F1 needs "Fixing", but instead "tweaking". The above change would in my view improve the racing no end.

The prize money needs to be more fairly distributed among teams, but that would require someone with a degree not only in accounting but also politics to pull off.

Fixing also covers the financing of F1. Currently F1 is at the mercy of two of the world's car manufacturers, Ferrari and Mercedes and they dictate a lot of what goes in F1, to the detriment of the smaller teams.

I think one way this could be rectified is, if Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault don't have to supply the smaller teams. Instead, the door could be opened to independent engine manufacturers, that smaller teams can look to as an alternative.

[NaBUru38]

Races are boring. Overtaking by DRS is artificial. The top teams always take the podium.


To solve that, aerodynamic regulations must be fixed, customer cars must be allowed, and prize money must be shared more fairly.

[greentrumpet]

Keep the safety regs, cut the aero that could never be successfully added to road cars, give the teams a fuel allocation per car and leave it at that. Thereby getting different engine configurations and sounds and a degree of freedom to encourage the true stars of racing design to really shine. If I enjoyed "formulaic" racing I'd watch the Carrera Cup.YMMV,obvs.

[chillibowl]

like how you broke it down Skam85 so im going to use a similar format.

without numbers and what not, what follows is just a long but lose outline.

Points system:

this i would change as i have always found the points system a bit muddled. effectively every team/driver is still being ranked and those who dont score still hold a position used for when a count back is needed to settle the final classification.

handing out points for each finish would make the points table easier to follow. im a believer that tables and graphs should contain as much information as possible and non points finishes (represented by a dash on the table) does not clearly and easily reflect what transpired in a race.


Penalty/stewards:

largely agree on there being a permanent group of stewards who should be paid adequately and trained accordingly.

i am slightly hesitant to place a hard code/system down at the onset but would prefer a gradual transition from what exists now to allow the permanent group to establish their own code based on their past experience, training, and experience as the system evolves. incidents can often be very subjective so that will always be difficult so this one will take time imo.

but immediately i would like to see very strict guidelines placed on track limits. there should never be a situation where drivers get to feel out a track to see what they can get away with. this is an area that requires very little clarification for me.

Money and budget

Budget caps:

this is where my big change will be. like you i agree a soft cap with a luxury tax being placed on those who go over.

to borrow from the NBA, i would be more aggressive on it though. if the budget is $200mil (which i think is in the right neighbourhood for year 1) for every dollar over that there is a dollar in tax due.

if a teams goes above the budget to lets say $250mil (so 50mil over budget) then the tax increase to to 2 dollars in tax for every dollar in excess of 250mil. those who go over in multiple consecutive season will have to pay an additional escalator.

tax money of course to be redistributed among those teams that play below the budget.

*not entirely sure what i would include/exclude in that budget though. personally i dont think R&D budgets should be included. a. it would be too hard to monitor and b. i would not want to risk stagnation as teams dont develop for fear of going over the budget cap. smaller teams could them use their tax revenue to subsidize their own r&d projects and not have to rely on tech transfer from the big teams only (who knows where the next double diffuser idea will come from so lets encourage it coming from a small team).

also i think excluding R&D opens up the potential to justify a fixed price for engines...rather if R&D is included in the budget and the manu teams have to eat a luxury tax for it then they will have no choice but to pass that cost onto their customers - basically redistribute the luxury tax among themselves thus minimizing the effectiveness of the tax imo.

Financial redistribution:

hard pressed to place a percentage on this. on one hand i think FOM needs to invest more into the sport (fund their own R&D, develop safety, pay for better stewards, etc) so take that money off of the top. then they need their cut/reasonable return on their investment.

would like to see FOM take less from the tracks as well and done so in a way that allows the races to be financially viable for the hosts and in a way that keeps ticket prices down (ideally i would like to see a fixed pricing model for tickets outside of the VIP and hospitality areas.)

money should then be distributed to the teams via prize money based on finishing position.

would also like to see prize money paid directly to the drivers based on their finishing positions/points total. if pay drivers are going to be a thing then drivers who compete in an F1 race should receive a flow of income from the sport to help fund their future drives. (points for all drivers comes into play here).

no historical payments. historical teams already have a marketing and advertising advantage...let them monetize that.

new teams are eligible for distribution money.

(will take more thought to come up with the percentages though)

Aerodynamic and engine regulations

i would leave this largely as is as i do believe that teams should a. have the freedom to develop as they see fit (within their budgets of course) and i do believe that once money is equalized and budgets in place that the competition divide/gap will decrease and the cars will be closer on the grid.

the establishment of an ongoing working group made up of representatives from all the parties. permanent in nature with a goal of ensuring continuity across seasons and a goal of achieving a coordinated technological vision of future. whether that means replacing aero for mechanical, more or less safety, full cockpit vs no cockpit etc.

im under no illusions that there will ever be a consensus in direction, but the hope is that with an ongoing organization their will be more discussion and decisions will be made on an ongoing basis and not just when the next concorde agreement is about to be renegotiated.

that said, i would implement a hard cap for customer engine prices and the manus will need to rely on their road car divisions to recoup their r&d investments.

to be honest i dont have a preference for hybrid vs no hybrid...as long as it comes under the price cap the manus can decide among themselves.

a large relaxation on the allotment rules and teams can opt to use more engines provided they abide by the budget and luxury tax rules.

Tyres

for the time being i would leave this as a single supplier formula but under the condition that teams are free to chose their allotments as they see fit. every compound should be available at each race (FOM will course have to subsidize the transportation costs).

Qualifying and Parc Ferme

quali i would leave as is but i like the idea of opening up parc ferme and the reintroduction of quali trims (plus points for quali)

if a team can find a way under the budget cap to build a quali only car then so be it.

Testing

i would like to see more in season testing but not sure how such expenses would work under a budget cap scenario.

exempting it under the budget cap might prove difficult to analyze as teams will be using a variety of parts that may or may never be used during a race.

for the time being i would restrict testing as a means of controlling costs.

Data Acquisition

the only real time data acquisition will be between cars and their pits...no transmission to their data centres during the race. races need to be competed by those at the track. after the race spend all the time you want back at base going over the data.

Staff Size

seriously curtail the numbers but i would hope that a budget cap will take care of this by virtue of operating under a budget.

hate to advocate anything that will see people lose their jobs but all things being equal those that remain will be the best of the bunch.

Driver Challenge

a whole host of things that increase the mental and physical exertion a driver has to go through for a race.

cars that are more difficult/demanding to drive. manual transmissions and less help help from the data centre.

Broadcasting

a free online broadcast of the race at a lower resolution.

those who want to pay for 4K, HD, the associated apps, cable subscriptions etc still have a reason to do so but a free online broadcast will help increase the audience and sponsor value.

[chillibowl]

i should add that even if F1 changes anything (even if it is something that i have advocated for) i still retain the right to complain about how bad F1 is!

[Richard C]

Great posts so far. Particularly the breakdown style by Skam85. I am formulating my thoughts. I will post my manifesto soon!

Richard

[loon]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Scrap F1.
Make GP2 the new F1,all problems solved.

even simpler, you stop watching the F1 races and watch F2 instead

[Armco Bender]

even simpler, you stop watching the F1 races and watch F2 instead

Exactly what I do.
I only record F1 to see how Hartley goes,and as it looks like he will go at the end of the season that will save me 5mins of watching the race on high speed fast forward.

[loon]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Exactly what I do.
I only record F1 to see how Hartley goes,and as it looks like he will go at the end of the season that will save me 5mins of watching the race on high speed fast forward.

You would be better off watching Nick Cassidy in Super Formula !!

[S griffin]

I forget to mention get rid of DRS. Also let’s open up the tyre supplier, as competition makes them push to the edge without trying to fix it

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Stock front and rear wings - which are very basic indeed.

I actually don't fully subscribed to the notion that F1 needs "Fixing", but instead "tweaking".

Stock front and rear wings is a great idea. IMO the current F1 dimensional rules (like the below no bodywork zones) are an absolute mess, and that is why a wholesale overhaul would be great.



https://www.f1technical.net/forum/vi...hp?f=6&t=26955


I mean all these disjointed boxes (why are there jagged steps?) where you can and can't have bodywork, what a load of convoluted rubbish IMO!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

to borrow from the NBA, i would be more aggressive on it though. if the budget is $200mil (which i think is in the right neighbourhood for year 1) for every dollar over that there is a dollar in tax due.

if a teams goes above the budget to lets say $250mil (so 50mil over budget) then the tax increase to to 2 dollars in tax for every dollar in excess of 250mil. those who go over in multiple consecutive season will have to pay an additional escalator.

tax money of course to be redistributed among those teams that play below the budget.

Trophy to chilibowl --- Genius!!

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Fixing also covers the financing of F1. Currently F1 is at the mercy of two of the world's car manufacturers, Ferrari and Mercedes and they dictate a lot of what goes in F1, to the detriment of the smaller teams.

I think one way this could be rectified is, if Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault don't have to supply the smaller teams. Instead, the door could be opened to independent engine manufacturers, that smaller teams can look to as an alternative.

F1 has been successful if the past with only a small number of engines possibilities.

That would only work if you massively simplify the engine regulations, otherwise prospective manufacturers will look at what Honda have been up to, and run for the hills at the thought of spending hundreds of millions of dollars only to make themselves look very silly in front of a global audience.

The move to hybrid or fully electric cars on the road means that any 100% petrol engine is going to look outdated and irrelevant to most manufacturers. Does that matter? To the race fan, probably no. The the prospective engine manufacturers - probably yes.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by steve_r

F1 has been successful if the past with only a small number of engines possibilities.

That would only work if you massively simplify the engine regulations, otherwise prospective manufacturers will look at what Honda have been up to, and run for the hills at the thought of spending hundreds of millions of dollars only to make themselves look very silly in front of a global audience.

The move to hybrid or fully electric cars on the road means that any 100% petrol engine is going to look outdated and irrelevant to most manufacturers. Does that matter? To the race fan, probably no. The the prospective engine manufacturers - probably yes.

Why not simplify the engine regulations, it would bring the costs down?

[Richard C]

I wish I had been able to put more thought into this, but it has been a busy week for me. Also others have some great ideas that I agree with and maybe just didn't duplicate below...

Identity and Marketing
The cars should be the pinnacle of design and speed within the global racing community.

F1 should remain a competition of both constructors and drivers. So that means technology remains important. However, just as today, technical regulations should try to keep the teams within a box. I firmly believe that wide open “run what you brung” plus no cost controls is a recipe for disaster.

I believe Bernie wanted F1 to be a glamour event. Movie stars, powerful people, movers and shakers, etc. to be walking through the pit lane. I think to a degree that is fine, but that should be the result of real popularity vs. artificial scarcity. Focus on race fans first. Make it cheaper to attend races.

Don’t put the fans behind walls.

Placing the races behind pay walls is just trying to squeeze the last few drops of juice out of a dying sport. If they care about the long term viability, do what you can to get young fans involved. That means free content and modern distribution platforms. A freemium model might work well. Ability to view the basis race for free, but pay extra for things like access to multiple in-car views, etc.

Who is in Charge?
Currently the teams have too much power. They should have a strong voice, but as it stands now they are a dysfunctional group that requires a nearly impossible consensus to get much if anything done. Additionally, the large manufactures wield way too much strength. Neuter them, even at the risk of them leaving. An absolutely nothing such as the current Ferrari veto.

Stewards
Permanent stewards to ensure consistency.

Aerodynamic regulations
Create areas of exclusion to reduce downforce created by the upper body (including front and rear wings). But I think we should consider increasing (creating) the underbody wing if that can produce downforce that is less turbulent for following cars (not sure if this is doable). Stop using DRS.

Chassis regulations
Open up the regulations around suspension design by allowing for active suspension. But, to prevent excessive cost, use a spec ECU just for the active suspension as well as a fixed number of sensors and actuators. The sensors and actuators could even be spec parts. This should result in more parity as it will rely upon improved software design (which should be cheaper) vs. costly and “trick” mechanical designs. I think the current suspension setups are overly complex because they are expensive and intricate mechanical watches trying to live in the age of cheap and accurate quartz watches.

Power Unit regulations
Other series already focus on pure electric. So I don’t think that is where F1 should go, but I also think moving to a pure hydrocarbon based ICE is also the not answer. I think the current regulations are very technically interesting, but also maybe too complex. The cost is just not sustainable and given the tall mountain that is required to be climbed by a new entrant, I think the height of the mountain needs to be lowered. So a less complex energy recovery system is a start.

Customer cars
Allow customer cars in whatever way is required to make it work. I guess that means relaxing the amount of IP each team must own, but it has worked previously and I don’t see why it can’t work again. Thought will be required to prevent the creation of a firm two tier system. I hope that some of my chassis and aero suggestions may make it easier to create competitive cars.

Tires
A single vendor with a small set number of compounds. I don’t like the idea of tire wars to “spice things up”. Tire wars is just an element of unpredictability used to disrupt a system that is stagnant. This may seem contrary to my comments above, but I think a limited set of compounds should result in making it harder for teams to optimize for every track.

Testing
Find a way to allow for more testing. I am not sure how that can be done without creating exploding costs, but as it stands now, teams are jumping through hoops to test and validate in other way when maybe it might be cheaper to allow more track time. I know some large teams actually don’t want this. I think that is because they have gotten good as jumping through the hoops while they know the smaller teams don’t have the resources to do so. Basically keep the game expensive because we can afford to play it (see “Cost Caps” below).

Cost Caps
This is a touchy subject as many think it can’t be done. My opinion is that the larger and well-funded teams don’t want to try this because it might actually work. If the required level of funding to be competitive is pushed down and the ability to be funded remains roughly the same, then by definition more teams will be competitive and that the top teams will be less competitive in relation to the status quo. Are there difficulties in make this work? Yes, but I think with work it can be made successful. Generally speaking, this is going to result in a smaller workforce for teams. For those in the industry… sorry. As others have mentioned, I am fine with driver salaries being outside of the cap, or handled in a different way such as pooling a subset of senior management and engineering in with the drivers.

Most importantly… As others have mentioned, a number of other high profile, high budget sporting series have figured this out. Lots of working models to use as examples.

Profit Sharing, Prize Money, etc.
The current system is extremely broken. I would replace it with one that does away with bonuses for historic teams (I am sure this would not be popular) and focus on a base distribution for all team with some bonus for finishing position in the championship. Even teams that finish at the bottom should be money, but there should be a mechanism prevent the F1 version of NASCAR’s “start and park” abuse.

Richard