Can F1's new rules save the series as we know it?

Even without racing, Formula 1 manages to throw up engaging storylines.

Of course, it would be far better for everyone if the 2020 season had been able to play out as expected what seems like a lifetime ago in winter testing, but as any test batsman determined not to give their wicket away knows, you can only think about playing the ball in front of you.

The week just about to end has been a packed one when it comes to heavy F1 news.

Some was good - such as the ratifying of the championship's new sporting, technical and financial rules, the Austrian government apparently allowing starting the season at the Red Bull Ring next month, and Renault outlining its commitment to remaining in the series. And some was bad: McLaren announcing that it has been forced to cut 1200 jobs, and the financial plight of the Williams squad being laid bare.

But, as hard as it might seem to see right now within that splurge of developments and ever-present uncertainty, there is hope that the championship's current pain can be transformed into sustainable long-term health.

The headline question to this column concerns the 10 teams that make up the current grid.

All but one can trace their roots back to the previous century - and the newcomer, Haas, has comfortably succeeded where the last crop of new squads (HRT, Lotus/Caterham and Manor) could not. It would be awful if any one of them was forced to close or leave the championship in the near future - either as a manufacturer pulling out in the face of post-pandemic cost-saving measures, or an independent collapsing because of the same economic pressure combining unfortunately with the punishing results-reward structure F1 has had for years.

Ultimately, some change is very much needed to improve the F1 we know now. Only today, it is understood that a proposal to trial reverse grid qualifying races at the double-header events set to open the delayed campaign could yet be blocked because this idea requires unanimous support.

Teams voting in self-interest - which is in many ways completely understandable if the rules allow it - is one of the problems that led to F1's on-going existential crisis, which the pandemic has accelerated and exacerbated. Changes to the rules simply shouldn't need team approval. A dialogue is of course necessary, but it has long been the case that necessary decisions have been frustrated by the self-interest issue.

That is why the rule changes confirmed by the FIA's World Motor Sport Council are so interesting and potentially game-changing.

The worry is that these measures might have come about too late for some teams

It is hoped that cutting the cost-cap from $175 million to $145m for 2021, then to $140m for the following season and $135m for 2023-25 will level the playing field when it comes to F1's competitive spread and closing up the harmful Class A/B divide. Further new tweaks - such as limiting the number of engine upgrades each season - are also aimed at helping this by reducing overall costs further.

But it is the new aerodynamic development handicap that really catches the eye. As explained here, this is the first restriction system aimed at balancing performance levels to be introduced to the championship.

On paper at least, it makes so much sense. Given the greater financial rewards helped the bigger teams increase the gap to the smaller squads, it seems a sensible move to allow those teams that need to put in more hours on their designs to close that gap up again greater time to do so compared to those already enjoying success.

It remains to be seen if this will work in practice, but the fact it has made it into the rulebook at all is cause for celebration for anyone hoping for increased levels of competition in the years to come.

Terms such as 'balance of performance' and 'spec formula' are often bandied about, but that is not what F1 is about, and that surely is not what the aero handicap is. This is a modest restriction that appears to be fair. At the very least, it's a lot fairer than what was previously in place.

The worry is that these measures might have come about too late for some teams.

Taking Williams as a key example, the previous rules meant its performance collapse since the highs of the first two seasons of the turbo-hybrid era was punished by lower financial rewards. The vicious circle meant it was ever more difficult for any team finishing down the order to climb back up.

It was surely so pleasing for many to read that Renault is committed to racing in F1 - despite the extremely tough economic climate - because of the new financial rules coming into effect. McLaren described its decision to cut jobs as a "massive and painful task", but explained this was rooted in a desire to be "the best-sized and most efficient team in the future" when F1 is ideally in a healthier state overall as a result of the changes being implemented right now.

In Williams, Renault and McLaren, F1 has three legendary marques. In the case of the first of the trio, its plan to sell part or even all of the operation of course does not mean it will disappear - and surely nobody wants that situation to come to pass. But all three are far from the heights they used to hit so regularly, even if McLaren made positive progress back towards them in 2019.

The F1 field is currently taking steps to try and ensure all the squads can be around in the future. We must hope that the major changes the championship announced this week can help the teams and names we are so familiar with to survive, turn their fortunes around if needed and in that case then go on to join battle with those squads that have revelled in recent success.

The big unknown right now is whether the series can evolve as a whole, as is very much hoped, or whether a shrunken field will have to make up for some painful losses.