First you can leave the cars as is and still save the teams millions with one simple change. Eliminate drivers paid by the teams. Drivers are in a pool of F1 drivers and randomly assigned to a car. They get a base pay of 150,000 a year and are paid based on points earned from a pool of money.

tom, Dallas, USA

Steven Prussia is right on! I've been saying the same thing: eliminate re-fueling. The race will then have to be decided on the track, not in the pits; drivers will have to demonstrate that they can control cars whose handling shifts dramatically as the fuel load goes from full tank to near empty.

Harold Gotthelf, Fords, NJ, USA

dave potter
exactly, although i would go even further and just make the cars reach a certain crash test standard and leave the rest to the teams.

the great thing about F1 is the innovation, whats the point of turning f1 into champ car or gp2?

will, grimsby, uk

If they cut down on the amount of make-up that some of the ladies who surround F1 wear then I am sure that they could potentially save millions - as well as a small clay mine in Cornwall. Some of those male mullet haircuts, hairy chests and gold medallions must be environmentally unfriendly also!

Bob, Swansea, UK

I would suggest that the cars should have to be aerodynamically neutral (no down force) and have no traction control devices. A minimum weight limit instead of engine size/power limits and no pit stops should allow plenty of innovation, variety of design and exciting racing.

Clive Stringer, Devon, England

Does this mean the cost to stage a Grand Prix will also have to become economically viable and FOM will be expected to offer a realistically priced contract for all circuits including Silverstone?

Paul, B'ham, UK

Watch paint dry. Cheaper, shorter and much more exciting than F1.

Gerry, Edinburgh,

To David Pengilly.... the guys at the back of the grid are often working harder than the guys at the front of the grid and deserve a little more respect. If you think Lewis Hamilton is the best thing to ever happen to F1 go google Frank Williams and Ken Tyrell and learn the true spirit of F1.

Martin, Manchester, United Kingdom

Lets get back to F1, scrap 90% of theconstruction rules. Any design of engine or chassis,maybe up to a "cc" limit. The car to fit into a certain size box and crash test standard. Let the teams decide tyre, fuel stratagey, stops ect. All you have to do to win is finish,a grown ups motor race,

Dave Potter, Palma Mallorca, Spain

Bad idea.

Just have a budget limit instead.

Phil, Preston,

Please dont go broke just when I've got interested. The best thing ever to happen to F1 for me is Lewis Hamilton and I hadn't even noticed that we were 4 cars short. Surely no body is interested in the cars at the back anyway?

david pengilly, long ditton,

they should scrap pit stops, fuel the cars with sufficient for race distance and adopt tyres that can go the distance.
To many races are won in the pits, the focus should be on racing cars, not how fast a crew can can get their car back on the track. This will eliminate substantial crew costs

kenny dreghorn, largs, scotland

I would suggest that the way to go is leave things as they are, the teams have reached an equilibrium on engine power. Next years rule changes have yet to work through. To standardise too much will kill the sport it will become another one make series. Just F3 with bigger engines.

STEVEN PRUSSIA, EDGWARE, ENGLAND

What about that part of the public for whom the bleeding-edge engineering was the only ever spectacle? There are plenty of other Formulae for those who want to watch people driving identikit cars.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Doing away with engine development just to make it easier on privateers like Force India is such a bad idea, it could only have come from Mosely. Innovation in F1 is a major part of the show; if every team had the same equipment, it would be IROC. Less restriction, e.g., allowing slicks, is better.

Ben, Phoenix, USA

Sounds like it is turning into the A1 Grand Prix series to me.

This would take all the skill of the engineers out of it.

Seems that F1 is on the bring of circling the plug hole.

Mark, London, UK

F1 is dying a death because TV audiences are turning off and sponsors no longer wish to pay for advertising nobody sees. Change the rules not the cars. with different parts cars perform differently under different circumstances. Allow daring to dictate the result of a race, not back room politiking

Chris, London,

Perhaps the simplest way to rein-in costs would be to cap maximum power output, and leave the rest as it is now. When Coventry-Climax, and then Cosworth, were de-rigeur, there was no shortage of interest in F1 - quite the reverse.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

Surely the best way to improve F1 would be to get rid of Mosley and Ecclestone,

Alastair Johnson, Alicante, Spain

F1 has never been a cheap sport, it has always been driven by the money in which a sponsor was prepared to pay. Bar Toyota, this can generally be seen as the more money the greater the success on the track.

By allowing a standardised engine, the competition that is left in the sport will vanish.

Ross, Redditch, England

Too much commonality, as said already by others, is a very bad idea, as it will harm:-
- the R&D side - the radical developments that make F1 technologically supreme. Through this, jobs will be lost too.
- the spectacle - is there ANY single-make race-series which attracts serious audiences?

Martin W, Coventry, UK

I'm sure the hundreds of people who will lose their jobs because of Mosley's will be overjoyed.

Perhaps he can call them personally to explain how having a fair race is more important than their homes, families, future etc. etc.....

Gary, Manchester, UK

I cant believe that Mercedes ,Ferrari ,BMW .etc will race with a standardised design of engine .What is the engineering challenge in that ?

Time to switch to LeMans
where winning carries far greater kudos to the manufacturers and a win can be celebrated for years ,e.g. Jaguar .

John, Ipswich, UK

what would be the point of mercedes, bmw, toyota etc sponsoring?

Didn't the use Champcar series go down a similar route? Standardised chassis etc. Didn't do them any good

Cliff, Reading,

Well, it would be quite sound to cut spenditure in F1, although not at any cost. But ideas like having a standardised engine, supllied by a single contractor, sounds more like A1 Racing than F1 Racing. Let's hope it won't come to that.

ADam, Stockholm, Sweden

Surely the first way to improve F1 racing is to improve tracks so that cars can pass one another.

Phil, Christchurch, New Zealand

It makes sense. Let all the teams race on fair budgets. Seems like nowadays Honda are the biggest suckers out there - they have the biggest budget and deliver 0 results.

Nik, Philadelphia, uSA

If we wanted to watch cars and engines put through great endurance wouldn't we just watch lemans? There is a current spec series much like this in America, its called Indy. All the cars run the same chassis and engines too. It is probably the most boring open wheel racing around.

Colby Gregg, portland, usa

There must be a better way of doing it so that within parameters, engineers can build cars individual to the team. Otherwise why not just have the same production line for all F1 cars; each driver can just stand in line, take the next car off and slap his colors on it! Now that would cut costs!

Rod Garr, Miami, USA

Formula 1 like all motorsport is there for a) pleasure b) advertising c) very critically - development.

Audi 4x4 came out of Rally.

No work at weekends = lower cost, but standardise engines too much and you loose the invention. Fuel efficiency and sustainability with the principle idea is good.

Talese Amer, Londontown,

So, the car in front is a Toyota? And when is a Ferrari not a Ferrari? Is this the FIA version of NASCAR's 'Car of Tomorrow?

I really hope there is a future for the British racing industry after this as I can see a lot of jobs going to the wall.

I will be watching with interest...

A. Livesey, Happy Valley, Hong Kong