You just confirmed my point. You tell them what's more efficient and leave them spending exactly the same available cubic ton of $ fine-tuning what they're stuck with. Simple example - today's F1 wings are a whole lot more complicated than 10 years ago. However they are all more similar than ever. So what's the point of all that micro-development as becomes worthless if FIA changes the regs?WhiteBlue wrote:It makes more sense to develop more efficient combustion, electric storage, light weight electric motor generators, dual torque drive control, avoid ICE throttle losses and minimize drag/wake turbulence to improve the sport. All this can be done with largely specified engines but with emphasis on engineering efficiency. People who deny this do not mention the positive side of the work done by the FiA.
And they do look at it quite often to ban more and more things, changing the regs all the time for no understandable reason. (see recent F-duct story - by the end of the year most of the teams will have it but the thing will be banned next year to avoid excessive spending).WhiteBlue wrote:Strong disagree. You have to look at the field of tech that you open to competition.
Also, what are the fans going to look for in that new formula? Cheer for the best battery and alternator supplier? For a favourite driver and sponsoring brand? Well look where that brought Indy.