[Deschodt]

Fair enough, but I was thinking more about letting the *engine* manufacturers test more (in a chassis, on track). Nobody cares how much they spend in order to not make a fool of themselves (like Renault and Honda at the moment). The goal of cost cutting was for F1 teams to survive, so it would be simple to set an engine supply cost in the rules ("you cannot charge more than 20 mil per year") and let the engine makers spend whatever the $#$ they want as long as they respect the contract price. Nobody gets hurt.

It just bothers me to see companies like Renault (best V10 for how many years, how many WC?) and Honda (despite a whole year of engineering) made to look stupid because of the impossibility of fixing things in a timely manner. (tokens and lack of testing). They used to have an old Toyota F1 used for engine tests, easy enough to buy a Caterham and do the same... Zero chassis testing, just motor/kers integration in an actual car - clearly bench testing and CFD don't work 100% ;-) All supplied teams win, even Mercedes which is not 100% bulletproof. Cost to teams: 0 (except for mercedes and ferrari but that's their choice).

Those rules were set to protect teams, the Sauber, Williams, etc..and avoid more caterham situations... Don't you guys think Renault and Honda (and Ferrari to a lesser extent) would be ecstatic at the thought of spending $$ to test their engines in more realistic scenarios, to stop looking like dolts on TV ? I'm not saying Mercedes cannot maintain an advantage - but at least give the other guys a shot. It's gonna be years before anyone matches Mercedes' engine. And we're gonna lose manufacturers - Lauda is shortsighted when he says they could supply the whole field ;-)