The bright F1 future inspired by Renault's 'track cleaners'

As Fernando Alonso celebrated his maiden Formula 1 victory at the 2003 Hungarian Grand Prix, then Renault boss Flavio Briatore waved from the steps of the team's motorhome and beckoned me over.

"I wanna say something," he said, a cheeky grin spreading across his face. "This win, I want to dedicate it to all the housewives of the world."

His comment was in reference to a barb that had been thrown Renault's way for it signing up that season for an extra two hours of practice on a Friday morning in exchange for reduced in-season testing.

McLaren chief Ron Dennis had dismissed outfits like Renault going down that path as nothing more than 'track cleaners' - and it was a comment that had lodged in Briatore's memory bank as his team made good use of the extra running to emerge that season as winners for the first time since 1997.

In the end, as Renault's success that season showed, the idea of trying to help out the less successful teams with a clever rule had worked in mixing things up and keeping the racing entertaining for fans.

The testing rule got tweaked for 2004 - with the bottom six teams allowed to run a third car in regular Friday sessions - but the advantage was never as big. Eventually, such concessions to try to help the less competitive outfits (a tactic that had been originally fuelled by Ferrari's 2002 dominance) faded away.

Since then, rather than the smaller teams being given a helping hand to try to close the grid and improve the show, almost every major decision made by F1 has served to extend the advantage of the top teams.

Be it the pay out of Constructors' Championship Bonus (CCB) payments to the most successful teams; that the bigger outfits have more of a say in the rules through the Strategy Group; and the ever escalating costs that mean non-wealthy teams no longer really have a chance. It's no wonder we have effectively ended up with the top three teams so clear of everyone else.

But as F1, like the rest of the world, heads to a 'new normal' in the post-coronavirus world, it has been heartening in recent weeks to hear of ideas being embraced - similar to that 2003 testing offer - that are being slanted in such a way to try to give the less successful outfits a leg up.

While the debate over the budget cap level being set at $145 million, $130 million or $100 million is not going to be the difference between the non-manufacturer teams winning or not winning, other ideas could well be key to at least giving them a chance of causing an upset.

As the recent revelation of Renault staff working inside Red Bull's factory (for Project Pitlane) has shown, what was unthinkable a few months ago is now accepted as normality

Perhaps the most exciting concept being evaluated by teams, the FIA and FOM right now is of a sliding scale for aerodynamic development time.

In simple terms, the team that wins the constructors' championship will, for the following year, be allowed the least time for windtunnel and CFD work, while the team that finishes last will be allowed the most.

The idea is that, while not a game changer for suddenly turning a backmarker in to a world champion, it should at least allow some closing up of the grid as those further down the order will have a bigger chance to find gains.

As Red Bull boss Christian Horner said last week about its potential impact - especially with car regulations staying the same from now through to the end of 2021: "It gives you the opportunity for more development, to enable your car to improve and go faster for the teams that are in descending order in the championship."

It would have been hard before the coronavirus pandemic to have imagined that any big teams, or even the championship's bosses, would support such a radical rules concept.

But, as the recent revelation of Renault staff working inside Red Bull's factory (for Project Pitlane) has shown, what was unthinkable a few months ago is now accepted as normality.

There seems to be a growing acceptance from all parties that things need to change. And one aspect that F1 needs to address is reducing the huge gulf - both in financial and performance terms - between the big three teams and the rest.

That is one of the reasons why FIA president Jean Todt has been so reluctant to accept a further delay to the introduction of the original 2021 rules. It's not about the aero changes as such: it's about a wider shake-up of the competitive picture in F1.

"There had been a few [teams] pushing, to say OK why don't we delay it even beyond 2022," he said last month.

"But we must not forget that the intention to change the rules in 2021 was to have less discrepancy between the small and big teams, to have a better show, to have better overtaking. So it was a clear and strong reason why we wanted to change things. It is clear now there is some rationale to delay it, but still the initial intention was a good one."

This is not to say that the aero development sliding scale idea does not come without dangers - especially in an era where team alliances are becoming a big headache for the series.

There have already been alarm bells ringing about big teams making use of resources of customer teams to help boost their own competitive fortunes as a clever way of getting around budget cap restrictions. Such a scenario could be made much worse if suddenly a tie-up between the top team and the bottom team allows the reigning champion access to more development time than its nearest rival.

The timing of such a sliding scale rule introduction will also be important because, were it to be introduced at the very time when teams switch over to a new rules set - as is coming for 2022 - then the advantage of extra development at such a time when understanding of rules is in its infancy could tilt things too much the other way.

But these issues must not act as an excuse for F1 to abandon what could be a great idea. When F1 comes back, and hopefully with all the current 10 teams still around, it is important that everyone has the belief that there is a chance to be successful in the future.

"I think some of the teams have even referred to other teams as backmarkers, and quite frankly I think that's insulting to some of the teams that are further down the grid" Zak Brown

Amid accusations that much of the budget cap debate isn't about saving all teams but is about pegging back the top outfits, McLaren CEO Zak Brown conceded that competitive interests were still there, but it was all about having a more level playing field.

"I think everyone that's in the sport has a right to be able to compete competitively," he said. "So absolutely with a reduced budget cap, I think the entire field will get closer.

"I think you'll go from having three teams that can win to ideally, five, six, seven or eight. So absolutely we're not hiding from the fact that part of this process is, you know, people want to be in F1, to be able to compete and have a chance to win.

"But we're not trying to get a competitive advantage, we are just trying to play with the same size bat as everyone else: and may the best race team win on any given weekend.

"The alternative is people that are supporting Formula 1 feel that they're just making up the numbers.

"I think some of the teams have even referred to other teams as backmarkers, and quite frankly I think that's insulting to some of the teams that are further down the grid. They have a right to compete, and compete on an equal playing field. It still won't be equal, but it'll be a lot better."

But to counter Brown a little bit. Inequality is good sometimes: especially if that inequality is to help those teams that are behind by giving them an unequal advantage.

Renault's success as 'track cleaners' back in 2003 is proof of that.