Who will roll the dice for F1 2017?

The Formula 1 calendar is getting busy, with four races in the next five weeks. It's a daunting prospect and one that will have huge consequences not only for the remainder of the season, but for 2017 as well.

Formula 1 will have its third major regulation change in eight years next term, with an overhaul of the aerodynamic rules. The hope is we'll have more dramatic-looking cars, better racing and drivers who enjoy themselves more.

It was a long, tedious process to get there but a solution was found. There will be wider cars with wider front and rear wings and wider tyres. There'll be more downforce, too.

The rule change offers the chance for the pecking order to change. But with a little over eight months until the first 2017 car hits the track, which team will roll the dice and switch its focus to next year?

When the aero rules were changed for 2009, the team known as Brawn GP had a huge swing in performance, winning both drivers' and constructors' titles after finishing ninth in the constructors' championship as the Honda works team the previous year.

The outfit benefited from writing off 2008 and dedicating the majority of its resources to designing the following year's car to the new regulations. Its double diffuser was also decisive in the team's transformation.

Williams and Toyota had been testing with it, but Brawn had gone further with maximising the effectiveness of its design through the way the whole rear of the car was conceived.

It stole a march and, although others caught up - including Red Bull, which went on to set the aerodynamic benchmark until the rules were changed again for 2014 - its lightning start was enough to do the damage early on.

Red Bull gained five places in the constructors' championship, improving on its seventh place with second in 2008. But, in the other direction, Renault and Toro Rosso dropped four places to eighth and 10th respectively.

Williams made little progress in rising one place to seventh, while smaller outfits like Force India also struggled to benefit, ending up one place higher in ninth.

Ferrari and McLaren paid the price for pushing all the way to the final race in 2008 and finishing first and second in the constructors' championship - they could only manage fourth and third respectively, with three wins between them, the following year.

When the engine regulations were overhauled for 2014, it was Mercedes that was rewarded for its well-directed resources. It established itself as F1's dominant force, while its customer Williams leapt from ninth to third.

Aside from Toro Rosso, those with a Renault or Ferrari engine all dropped places in the constructors' championship.

But Mercedes' other customers McLaren and Force India failed to improve year-to-year. What this proves is that, while major rule changes have, in recent history, been able to shuffle the pack, it is not always a guarantee that those in the midfield can suddenly leap forward.

There are different circumstances ahead of this rule change. First of all, there was a delay in coming to an agreement over the rules, so that they were not signed off until the end of April. That has put the smaller teams at a disadvantage compared to the better-funded teams, who have more resources in terms of manpower and money, to cope better with the smaller timeframe.

The smaller outfits will have to spread their resources more thinly and therefore F1 runs the risk of widening the field.

The irony is that the rule changes come at a time that, as Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff pointed out, the field is actually contracting as a result of the stability in the regulations. In 2014, the average gap in qualifying from pole to the slowest car was 5.227 seconds. That rose to 6.367s in 2015, with Marussia and Caterham's struggles skewing the figures slightly across both '14 and '15, but this year the gap is down to 4.414s after eight races.

Williams technical chief Pat Symonds has previously said he does not expect a Brawn-style situation next term because of the heavily restricted windtunnel hours and staff numbers that currently exist compared to 2009.

Back then, teams could employ more aerodynamicists, produce more parts and spend more time in the windtunnel. That is no longer allowed. Teams are permitted up to 25 hours per week of windtunnel time or 25 teraflops of CFD data - or a combination of both. Teams can complete only 65 runs per week and a maximum of 60 hours of tunnel occupancy per week, both averaged over the aerodynamic testing period.

But what a team can do to change its fortunes is make an early call as to when to divert resources completely to next year.

The caveat is that, by doing so, you risk dropping places in the constructors' championship and therefore vital prize money for next year, which in turn could impact your team's ability to develop the car next year.

All of the teams are already working on next year's car - it's just a question of the percentage of development focus. At Force India, the decision has already been made: resources have been switched to 2017, a move made easier by its Spanish GP update package proving such a big step forward. There will be no more updates.

Sergio Perez has taken two podiums in three races, giving the team breathing space in fifth place in the constructors' championship, where it sits 27 points clear of Toro Rosso.

Force India recognises that next year gives a team such as itself a chance to make a real step up and challenge the frontrunners, but it also knows it cannot afford to lose championship position this year. So that decision has not been taken lightly.

"We have to develop what we have," said deputy team boss Bob Fernley. "The opportunity for next year is a completely new set of rules and a great chance for the incredibly good design team we have.

"You certainly don't want to give up the opportunity to start with a clean sheet next year."

It therefore plans to maximise its current package and hopefully build a lead to the chasing pack, but put all development resources into next year to put it in a position to gain early on. The team has already rolled the dice.

Haas has also stopped development. Team boss Gunther Steiner believes it is a simpler decision.

"The next platform of car is there for the next five years, and this car is here for another 13 races, so where do you put your focus? Obviously on the next five years," he says.

It's a particularly tricky move for the American outfit as the second year for a new team is notoriously more challenging - "knowing that is why we started very early to think on next year," he says.

For the likes of Mercedes, such are its resources and relative performance advantage over rivals that it remains the team best placed to react to next year's regulations. It has an 81-point lead over Ferrari in the constructors' championship and could be out of sight before the summer break. That'll make it an easy decision to switch fully to 2017 and rely on its already sizeable performance advantage to get it over the line this year.

Ferrari and Red Bull have a bigger decision to make. They have both shown that they are capable of winning races this year. So do they call it a day once the championship hits the summer, knowing the title will essentially be out of reach? Or do they keep splitting resources in a bid to generate that winning feeling again?

A case study worth remembering here is when BMW Sauber gave up the chance of more wins in 2008, having made its breakthrough in Canada with Robert Kubica and led the championship with the Pole, to focus on 2009. Its form tailed off in the remainder of the season and the gamble did not pay off as it fell from third to sixth in the constructors' championship and never won another race.

It's an extreme example, but noteworthy nonetheless.

The likelihood is that all teams will have stopped development on this year's car before the summer. Given the changes in the rules, there will not be any physical carryover, though the oft-talked about "ideas and philosophies" may remain.

At Williams, Symonds has said the team have updates planned through to Hungary - and maybe a bit beyond that - but already the greater focus is on next term. It showed it has an eye on 2017 when it ran a double-decker rear wing solution at the Barcelona test that helped simulate downforce levels.

Williams has done an impressive job of getting the most out of a budget dwarfed by the bigger teams, and performance chief Rob Smedley sees the change as a real chance for the outfit to close the gap to those at the front.

"The way we develop the cars in Formula 1 now, with the aerodynamic testing restrictions, is much more favourable for someone who is resource-restricted," says Smedley. "2017 offers Williams a great opportunity to close back to the frontrunners. We have to be able to do that, otherwise you join the second tier of Formula 1."

The new rules can't come soon enough for Renault. It has had a miserable return to F1 since it made Lotus its works team. The French manufacturer is stuck with a compromised car that had almost no development last year because there was no money. The chances of improving what it has got this term are remote. But it has been given a lifeline.

The 2017 regulations afford the opportunity to start from scratch. So it makes sense to write off this year and put everything it has got into next year. Not doing so would be ludicrous as it would be throwing away a golden opportunity to establish itself as one of the main players in F1. It is in the best position of any team on the grid to "do a Brawn".

Sauber could do the same, but it doesn't have the same financial clout. The team's future is precarious. And unless it finds some backing to guarantee stability soon, next year is going to be even more of a struggle and one that could threaten its future.

Some big decisions have to be made all the way down the grid. The nature of F1 means these calls will not only determine the competitive fortunes of each of the teams, but potentially the survival of some as well.