a lot of comments in the press about needing to reduce the costs of F1, and now even Bernie is saying so -

he says that costs can be reduced by changing some of the technology and knocking 1sec per lap off the speed and no one would notice.

I would be very interested to know what can reduce the costs associated with an economic model that is based around the arms race concept - i.e. only one winner! Whatever the rules - in F1, people will spend as much money as their budget - generally the ones with the biggest budget wins - and then the ones overspending and underachieving go out of business.
What changes on the car can stop this process?

If they stop track testing that apparently is the biggest budget drain - the bigger teams will invent indoor testing using special wind tunnels to simulate real circuits...so again it will be technological gap between the haves and have nots.

and what is different now than previous years when teams have folded up, nobody cried or helped when Lotus collapsed?

 

Cost reduction in any form of racing seems to me to be nothing but PR. Like water the budgets find and keep their own level. Teams keep raising the limits until they find the returns do not justify the spending and then they leave. The remaining teams have to spend less to win and the budgets go down. Then someone jumps back and sees a benefit from a big pocketbook and the cycle continues.

Single engine rules, testing limits etc. are marketing window-dressing to placate the public ("racing is too expensive. We should feed the hungry instead") and the Board of Directors of any given concerned company. But when it comes down to it Ferrari, Ford, BMW, R. J. Reynolds. Michelin, Whoever will write as many checks as it takes until the returns fail to justify the output.