Liberty's $150m cost cap backed to level F1's playing field

Force India believe that Formula 1's proposed budget cap could end the "two-tiered" hierarchy that currently exists in the sport. Liberty Media has announced tat a cap - widely reported to be $150million a year - will be implemented among sweeping rule changes in 2021.

Changes to engine regulations and the distribution of wealth are also key to liberty's vision of the sport.

Major teams like Ferrari and Mercedes have spoken out against the plans, while high-profile drivers Lewis Hamilton and Daniel Ricciardo have both suggested they will not commit to a contract beyond 2020 until the full plans are revealed.

Force India have finished fourth in the constructors' standings in each of the past two seasons, despite one of the smallest budgets, and their COO Otmar Szafnauer believes F1's playing field could be significantly levelled by a cost cap.

"The two tiers are defined by your budget," Szafnauer told Motorsport. "What restricts us is the budget that we have to enable us to do many experiments to produce what's optimal.

"If you don't have the budget to produce it instantly it lags coming to the track from the time you found the improvement.

"If you've got the money, you'll have the parts tomorrow. You'll either get a bigger supplier base or buy the machinery yourself to make it.

"Once the cost cap comes in and we're all spending the same amount, all that stuff goes away. That should bring the field together."

Mercedes chief Toto Wolff said that the $150m limit would not be possible for the Silver Arrows to stick to owing to their status as an engine supplier for teams, of which Force India is one.

Szafnauer believes the figure is fair, though, and pointed to Force India's success - despite spending below that amount - as proof that it can be achieved.

"I think the number they've come up with is sensible," he said. "Over the last two years we were the fourth-place team and we spent significantly lower than what that target is.

"You've got to compromise. Maybe the right compromise is everyone is equally happy or equally unhappy.

"For us, ideally the target should be lower but that would be unfair to somebody else."