[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[chillibowl]

this is an old sport and the rules have been built upon rules built upon rules and still after numerous years the rule book still doesnt come close to covering any and every eventuality. age of the sport aside though, most sports have complicated rule books. adhering to rules is an integral part of sport.

so going back to year zero and a simplified rule book would only result in chaos imo.

anyways is simple really what we (us dedicated fans) want? the inherent complexity and fluid nature of this sport keeps me at least coming back.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

this is an old sport and the rules have been built upon rules built upon rules and still after numerous years the rule book still doesnt come close to covering any and every eventuality. age of the sport aside though, most sports have complicated rule books. adhering to rules is an integral part of sport.

so going back to year zero and a simplified rule book would only result in chaos imo.

anyways is simple really what we (us dedicated fans) want? the inherent complexity and fluid nature of this sport keeps me at least coming back.

I have to disagree.

There is no reason the rules have to specify # of cylinders, "V" angle, engine overall length, crank height, minimum engine weight, and even engine C of G height!

You could argue those rules are supposed to have some sort of cost controlling aspect but at this point there is abundant evidence that the more the rules restrict areas of development, the more the rules reward big budgets pursuing the limited avenues left, and as a result, encouraging spending by the wealthy teams.

A lot of the rules exist to protect the status quo. Doing away with them would significantly improve the racing.

[S griffin]

The annoying thing is when a rule doesn't work, they over complicate it with a new rule added to it, instead of just ditching it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

this is an old sport and the rules have been built upon rules built upon rules and still after numerous years the rule book still doesnt come close to covering any and every eventuality. age of the sport aside though, most sports have complicated rule books. adhering to rules is an integral part of sport.

so going back to year zero and a simplified rule book would only result in chaos imo.

anyways is simple really what we (us dedicated fans) want? the inherent complexity and fluid nature of this sport keeps me at least coming back.

Some rules have been built upon each other and others have been amended or been discarded, in order to accomodate the various changes that have been made to the formula over the years and some rules have just over complicated things. The rule book can never cover every eventuality, it can't predict the next technical innovations in F1 but it can either embrace or ban them.

There's no need go back to year zero with the rule book and of course tchnological innovation can't be unlearned but I think some aspects of the rules, as well as the technology, can be simplified and written into the rule book. For example the option tyre. There's no need to have so many different types, one hard and one soft compound will do. Another example is the construction of the front wing, does it need to be so complex? A simpler front wing and fewer option tyres will help bring down costs, the main reason for the rule changes.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by miatanut

A lot of the rules exist to protect the status quo. Doing away with them would significantly improve the racing.

wont and cant disagree with the notion that opening up the regs by not mandating a specific path is full of possibilities.

although seeing 10 teams each with a different engine configuration just doesn't much appeal to me 9and cant imagine it would be any easier for casual viewers to understand it either).

for me i require a little more formula in the sports i watch. i want and need a common denominator in order to better appreciate the athletic nature of the competition. good or bad to get that common element requires rules and regulations (and as i will get to later also requires a knowledge of history).

that said though even if they do open up the regs/simplify things wont the big teams, either out of self preservation or logic ultimately settle upon similar solutions and adopt a new status quo? isnt that how we got to where we are today?

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Another example is the construction the front wing, does it need to be so complex? A simpler front wing and fewer option tyres will help bring down costs, the main reason for the rule changes.

thats my kryptonite in these discussions as i am a huge supporter of cost cuts so on the surface yes i must support any change, clarification, and/or simplification that has at its heart the goal of reducing costs!

i suppose i could say that if you simplify one area, the money saved there will flow to another area which will eventually need a new set of complex rules to govern it but thats a boring argument that doesnt advance the discussion.

so you got me sir! on an example by example basis there are of course many examples where more clearly written, even more simple rules, should be put in place.

but as an overall philosophy how far can it or should it go? how simplified should the cars and rules be allowed to become? at what point is it all just too simple?

Originally Posted by S griffin

The annoying thing is when a rule doesn't work, they over complicate it with a new rule added to it, instead of just ditching it.

and thats the crux of the issue for me. i dont want to ditch anything. i want/need there to be layers upon layers, clarifications after adjustments.

sounds crazy i know but in order to understand a complicated rule book means you have to understand the history of the sport. you need to know last years rules, heck you need to know the rules from 20-30 years ago, to understand why rules exist today.

i responded to this new branch as an opponent of making things easier for the casual viewer because i really dont want to be a casual viewer having discussions like this on forums like this with other casual viewers.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

although seeing 10 teams each with a different engine configuration just doesn't much appeal to me and cant imagine it would be any easier for casual viewers to understand it either).

These days I'm not really following F1 but I am still following sportscar racing, because it still has some diversity.

In sportscar racing, because of differences in the performance envelopes of the cars, you get this sort of thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0C62QmXiOw

But specific to differences in engines, it is very enjoyable to be able to tell the cars apart with your eyes closed.

I think having cars that look different and sound different DOES appeal to casual viewers.

[chillibowl]

of course to each their own

i was in monty this past june and you actually can tell the engines apart based on sound and thats despite the fairly overcomplicated rules.

in fairness though is explaining Le Mans including the differences in categories to a neophyte an easy thing to do?

perhaps whats at issue here is that we all have a different definition of a casual viewer. im looking at a casual viewer as a first time viewer where as you are, imo, far too knowledgeable to be considered a casual viewer even though you only casually follow it now.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

this is an old sport and the rules have been built upon rules built upon rules and still after numerous years the rule book still doesnt come close to covering any and every eventuality. age of the sport aside though, most sports have complicated rule books. adhering to rules is an integral part of sport.

so going back to year zero and a simplified rule book would only result in chaos imo.

anyways is simple really what we (us dedicated fans) want? the inherent complexity and fluid nature of this sport keeps me at least coming back.

The FIA have been introducing new regulations for the sake of cost reduction and 'improving the show' for a decade. Honestly, that has been with very little success. I fail to see how the post-qualifying parc fermé, the standardization of essential components, banning of (mid-season) development and enforced longevity have contributed to better racing. These regulations are only in contrast with the fundamental principles upon Formula One was found once and their introduction made the sport lose much of its purity.

[bjohnsonsmith]

This is one rule change I'm all in favour of.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114985

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I have to disagree.

There is no reason the rules have to specify # of cylinders, "V" angle, engine overall length, crank height, minimum engine weight, and even engine C of G height!

Agreed, but they stop spending in areas that the self interested don't want people showing them up in.

Originally Posted by miatanut

You could argue those rules are supposed to have some sort of cost controlling aspect but at this point there is abundant evidence that the more the rules restrict areas of development, the more the rules reward big budgets pursuing the limited avenues left, and as a result, encouraging spending by the wealthy teams..

This is just plain incorrect, if all areas of development are open the wealthiest teams will simply explore all the areas of development.
i.e. Pretty much everything that has been banned and restricted in the past, everyone is then obligated to copy the successful innovations and try to get ahead on all fronts - very very expensive.

Originally Posted by miatanut

A lot of the rules exist to protect the status quo. Doing away with them would significantly improve the racing.

This is what most of the rules are about, ensuring that success in F1 is determined by spending in the area where the successful teams own the expertise and effectively control the costs - low speed aerodynamics / or open wheel racing car aerodynamics. To duplicate this experience and infrastructure is difficult and very expensive c.f. Toyota, Honda.
Everything else is basically spec, except the positioning of the turbo charger! Hole exploited, thank you Mercedes!

Cash cow for the strategy advice group, expenditure hole for anyone else!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

for me i require a little more formula in the sports i watch. i want and need a common denominator in order to better appreciate the athletic nature of the competition. good or bad to get that common element requires rules and regulations (and as i will get to later also requires a knowledge of history).

I think you have nailed it here, at the end of the day this is what F1 should be all about, it is supposed to be the World Driver's Championship after all!

People are generally interested in people, and this is what at the end of the day they pay to see! Full stop!


The technical aspects of the sport do interest some, but they are kept secret from everyone, and are often so subtle that they would only be possible for a specialist engineer to assess in a wind tunnel.
So at best technical innovations are interesting but completely surrounded by smoke and mirrors, so not at all relevant to anything other than the final result. Hardly the biggest draw card in modern sport!

People go to watch exciting racing, and Grand Prix racing should be the pinnacle of sprint racing! It is currently an economy run, not exciting to watch at all!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This is one rule change I'm all in favour of.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114985

I loath grid penalties, but I think loose wheels are worse. The Gutierrez penalty was a bit harsh though, considering the wheel did not come off and the release was aborted pretty well as it happened!

As far as team actions affecting driver results go, look how gearbox assembly affected Rosberg's British GP! Or Kimi affected Massa!

Ten place grid penalty is relatively minor don't you think?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

I loath grid penalties, but I think loose wheels are worse. The Gutierrez penalty was a bit harsh though, considering the wheel did not come off and the release was aborted pretty well as it happened!

As far as team actions affecting driver results go, look how gearbox assembly affected Rosberg's British GP! Or Kimi affected Massa!

Ten place grid penalty is relatively minor don't you think?

I wouldn't have thought it was exactly something a driver would shrug off.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I wouldn't have thought it was exactly something a driver would shrug off.

If you're driving a Merc and your team mate breaks down, it dhouldn't be to bad.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

This is just plain incorrect, if all areas of development are open the wealthiest teams will simply explore all the areas of development.
i.e. Pretty much everything that has been banned and restricted in the past, everyone is then obligated to copy the successful innovations and try to get ahead on all fronts - very very expensive.

It is not incorrect. History has shown that the more you clamp down on areas for development, the more you create a predictable ROI for spending, and as a result, the more the teams that can, spend.

If you have safety rules but minimal technical rules, using only fuel consumption to keep them from turning into 300 MPH missiles, then you have Ferrari deciding engines are the way to go, and developing engines to the Nth degree, while you have some Colin Chapman type pursuing light weight to the Nth degree, and some Jim Hall type showing up with who knows what that nobody else thought to do.

There is no team that can emphasize it all, and more importantly, you've got the Colin Chapman and Jim Hall types doing out-of-the-box thinking and getting it on the grid for relative peanuts, cleaning Ferrari's clock, requiring the Ferrari team to do what they do more cost effectively, due to pressure from the Board of Directors.

I know this is hard for most people to see, but coming at this from a designer's perspective, I realize how unlimited the possibilities really are, and that there is nobody, absolutely nobody, who has a monopoly on all the good ideas. Sure, the richest teams can poach design talent from the smaller teams, but that doesn't guarantee a designer is going to come up with another home run design, and large corporate organizations tend to stifle innovation anyway, while the smaller teams have more of a 'nothing to lose' attitude that encourages it, and a lean organization, allowing an advantage in getting good ideas out there.

The rapid development of the sport during the Garagiste era in the 1960's and 1970's, which was entirely a RESULT of the Garagistes, demonstrated this quite clearly.

QED, as far as I'm concerned.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by miatanut

QED, as far as I'm concerned.

I like it as a theory, but IMHO it is far from being proved as workable. I think one large factor that you miss is that it is likely to be an extremely chaotic system. Your garagista may win, but the result may not be innovation by the other players but rather series abandonment. Someone like a Ferrari (and others) may just take thier money elsewhere (ie. prototype racing). New players will fill the vacuum but it may also be a race to the bottom regard both funding and series prestige (sadly not enough will care at a global level about a bunch of nobodies racing cars built in thier garage). Frankly, without some type of "will to survive" self correction built in that can create a stable system, I predict that the series would drop below the surface of being interesting and/or viable as a commercial enterprise within a handful of seasons.

I can't remember what thread I posted similar comments, but regardless of my comments above, I think something like this needs to be tried as I think the core idea has merit, but it needs the kinks worked out in a smaller setting first. I think the current solution (F1 as we know it today) has been tweaked and tweaked so as to create an overly stable system. So stable in fact, that they (FIA, etc) periodically need to manually shake things up. The examples being new regulations (ie. new hybrid power units) and mid season adjustments (ie. ban of FRIC suspension). If you believe in conspericy theories then these manual shake ups also are designed to break any team dominance that is not self correcting on its own!

Richard

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I like it as a theory, but IMHO it is far from being proved as workable. I think one large factor that you miss is that it is likely to be an extremely chaotic system. Your garagista may win, but the result may not be innovation by the other players but rather series abandonment. Someone like a Ferrari (and others) may just take thier money elsewhere (ie. prototype racing). New players will fill the vacuum but it may also be a race to the bottom regard both funding and series prestige (sadly not enough will care at a global level about a bunch of nobodies racing cars built in thier garage). Frankly, without some type of "will to survive" self correction built in that can create a stable system, I predict that the series would drop below the surface of being interesting and/or viable as a commercial enterprise within a handful of seasons.

I can't remember what thread I posted similar comments, but regardless of my comments above, I think something like this needs to be tried as I think the core idea has merit, but it needs the kinks worked out in a smaller setting first. I think the current solution (F1 as we know it today) has been tweaked and tweaked so as to create an overly stable system. So stable in fact, that they (FIA, etc) periodically need to manually shake things up. The examples being new regulations (ie. new hybrid power units) and mid season adjustments (ie. ban of FRIC suspension). If you believe in conspericy theories then these manual shake ups also are designed to break any team dominance that is not self correcting on its own!

Richard

We had that, and F1 flourished. There was intense innovation and lots of different winners. Teams came and went and the sport continued on.

We've had tight regulations and it has enshrined about four teams, with the others having to luck into a podium, innovation is considered an evil which must be stamped-out and budgets have exploded. TV viewership is dropping and they wonder why.

The most ironic thing is the racing itself would improve if the direction were reversed. Sure, the Colin Chapman type may win, lapping most or even all of the field, but in the field there would be lots of great dices between cars that had different performance envelopes because they weren't clones.

As I noted in another post, if one team really does consistently mop the floor with the other teams, and the series was truly in danger of being abandoned, then it could introduce a success ballast system. Maybe that would be a part of it from Day One. Certainly that would be no worse than DRS, mandatory option tires, mandatory KERS, etc, all of which would be done away with.

[Pingguest]

More liberal rules will allow less budgeted teams to be competitive, as teams are no longer forced to be committed to the same path. The current rules provide an absolute point of perfection. The team closest to that point - as a result of using most resources - will be have the best chance to win. However, with more liberal regulations without an absolute point of perfection not the use of increasingly more resources but creativity and intelligence will prevail.

History tend to prove this theory right. In 1983 BMW won the championship with engines that were not only production-based but even used in road cars. Before rebuilding they had done 100,000 kilometres already. They defeated all the manufactures using a purposely-built engine.
In the 1970s teams using a Cosworth engine used to have an advantage to Ferrari regerding their chassis. But as Ferrari continued to develop their engines at a more rapid pace and started to have a better chassis, the privateers were losing ground: they were losing their chassis advantage and their Cosworth engine started to become obsolete. Until Colin Chapman introduced the ground effect concept. Ferrari could not make it work properly and due to its design the Cosworth engine become the one to have once again.
Were those historic examples a coincidence? I do not think so.

This is entirely different nowadays. All teams and their suppliers are forced to design more or less the same car. Only development bans prevent teams from manufacturing clones.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by miatanut

We had that, and F1 flourished. There was intense innovation and lots of different winners. Teams came and went and the sport continued on.

We've had tight regulations and it has enshrined about four teams, with the others having to luck into a podium, innovation is considered an evil which must be stamped-out and budgets have exploded. TV viewership is dropping and they wonder why.

The most ironic thing is the racing itself would improve if the direction were reversed. Sure, the Colin Chapman type may win, lapping most or even all of the field, but in the field there would be lots of great dices between cars that had different performance envelopes because they weren't clones.

As I noted in another post, if one team really does consistently mop the floor with the other teams, and the series was truly in danger of being abandoned, then it could introduce a success ballast system. Maybe that would be a part of it from Day One. Certainly that would be no worse than DRS, mandatory option tires, mandatory KERS, etc, all of which would be done away with.

I don’t think we are very far apart. I think some type of “guiding hand” will always be needed. Pure open rules will likely not work. I am not a F1 historian, so I might get some details wrong, but I would say that in general what existed previously (including what many think of as a golden era) was more much more in line with the concept of a guiding hand (chaos prevention) than people think. However, over time, the sport has become addicted to this concept. It has become too prevalent. Good in moderation, but bad if too much. The pendulum has swung too far. The system today strives to keep the status quo.

I think people tend to look back at older eras in F1 with a bit of selective memory. Setting aside the lack of safety, the series always had some level of restriction (i.e. “Formula”). That usually was in the case of at a minimum a displacement limit (or equivalency based upon displacement) among other things. And while things may have started with relatively free rules, when the truly disruptive innovations that we crave today came about, many were either quickly banned, or banned after some use if the disruption proved to be an issue that other teams couldn’t adapt to within a season or two. Moveable aero, active (fan) and passive (tunnels) ground effects, multiple wheels, active suspension, launch control, rotary engines, turbine engines… this list goes on. The ones that were easy to quickly replicate by other teams (costly or not) such as mid-engine, stationary wings, paddle shift, etc. stayed. You could argue that those innovations were less disruptive and just pure progress. This goes all the way back to the 50s. Also, early on, the science of race car design was still very much in its infancy. I think it is very well developed today and it is likely impossible for someone new to show up on the scene and clean everyone’s clocks. I think the days of a classic “Garagista” from nowhere is long gone “at this level” in motorsports regardless of the rules.

In addition to not being a F1 historian, I am also not an economist. But my gut tells me that from a financial perspective that the entire sport also can’t operate like it did 50 years ago unless the sport was to look massively different than it does today (I suspect it would need to shrink in “size of the spectacle” and by extension importance). I suspect many want it to be as huge as it is today, but with the free spirit of the 1950s. I just don’t think that is possible.

Regarding teams coming and going, I don’t know the answer, but I suspect it was just purely cheaper during that time period and that made it easier to jump in and out. We can continue to debate if the rules was the reason for that or not. I actually would love to see an unbiased economic analysis of the money required to run an F1 in the 50’s, 60’s and 70s and what the driving factors were.

Regarding a lot of teams winning, there is always exceptions, but in general I think if you look at the larger history it has always been dominated by a handful such as Alfa, Maserati, Ferrari, Mercedes early on and then more were added to the mix with the addition of the Garagista like Cooper, Lotus, BRM, Brabham, Matra, McLaren, Tyrrell and Williams. Any of these teams at one point or another had enough success to be part of the establishment either then or now. I think within the confines of a given season or two, it appears that a small number of teams dominated the results (quality of racing might have been different). My point is that I wonder if things are truly that different today from a "dominance" perspective.

However, as I mentioned earlier, in general I agree with the basic theory that you talk about. I think F1 is badly broken and a reboot is needed. But I do think any reboot needs to include something to preserve some key expectations (commercial viability, ROI for the established players, size of the spectacle, and level of prestige of the series) along with a set of rules that foster innovation. I personally think it ultimately will boil down to some type of cost controls, but in my opinion, not via spec or control parts (such as spec front wing) as that is an anathema to the freedom we are talking about.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

If you're driving a Merc and your team mate breaks down, it dhouldn't be to bad.

That is different.

[chillibowl]

wonderful post Richard

as always the way forward is a path found somewhere in the middle.

my point of view, particularity when it comes to cost caps (either a hard cap or a collection of resource restriction agreements) will require a more complicated set of rules and regulations. its a building process with additions and subtractions over time. necessary imo.

where i would disagree would be in the area of spec and control parts. in the same why i dont think that limiting free speech is anathema to freedom but rather restricting certain types of speech creates greater level of freedom for all.
in F1's case restricting the amount of innovation in certain areas will free up funds, resources, and brain power to be applied to innovation in other areas...of course with the hope that this leads to an overall greater level of innovation. time will of course tell and the rules modified accordingly.

the common ECU is an examples of this for me. each team (and teams across multiple series) didnt need to come up with their own ECU. that would have been a huge waste of money and fundamentally made monitoring each team's electronics etc both more difficult and more expensive.

the other problem i still have is that innovation is being used as a synonym for improvement.

i think with all new techs, their implications are not immediately understood (this might be a great idea for a rear wing but in the fullness of time we now see how it jsut led to too much wake and lack of overtaking).

ultimately if the driving aspect of this challenge is removed then the sport fades into obscurity and then there is no money for innovation.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think people tend to look back at older eras in F1 with a bit of selective memory. Setting aside the lack of safety, the series always had some level of restriction (i.e. “Formula”). That usually was in the case of at a minimum a displacement limit (or equivalency based upon displacement) among other things. And while things may have started with relatively free rules, when the truly disruptive innovations that we crave today came about, many were either quickly banned, or banned after some use if the disruption proved to be an issue that other teams couldn’t adapt to within a season or two. Moveable aero, active (fan) and passive (tunnels) ground effects, multiple wheels, active suspension, launch control, rotary engines, turbine engines… this list goes on. The ones that were easy to quickly replicate by other teams (costly or not) such as mid-engine, stationary wings, paddle shift, etc. stayed. You could argue that those innovations were less disruptive and just pure progress. This goes all the way back to the 50s. Also, early on, the science of race car design was still very much in its infancy. I think it is very well developed today and it is likely impossible for someone new to show up on the scene and clean everyone’s clocks. I think the days of a classic “Garagista” from nowhere is long gone “at this level” in motorsports regardless of the rules.

But you could show up with a V16, or an I4, or any gasoline piston engine between. You could show up with 4 wheels, but you could also show up with six. You could have shown up with eight, but I don't think anybody ever did. You could show up with an NA engine, or a turbo. You weren't forced to go one way or the other. The cars had drum brakes, then they had discs. The cars didn't have wings, then they did. There was a multitude of things you could try. The rules were really quite open. I would say when the sport started banning stuff for other than safety reasons is when it all went south (Bernie, I'm looking at you).

The funniest thing is that during the most innovative period, most of the cars were being carried around on open trailers or trucks. The mechanics were also the truck drivers. There were less than a half dozen mechanics on a team. That tells you a lot about the economics of the sport of the time, and yet the constant innovation didn't kill the sport by burying everybody in debt. Now, it's massively expensive and technical innovations are stamped out because supposedly the sport can't afford them.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

In addition to not being a F1 historian, I am also not an economist. But my gut tells me that from a financial perspective that the entire sport also can’t operate like it did 50 years ago unless the sport was to look massively different than it does today (I suspect it would need to shrink in “size of the spectacle” and by extension importance). I suspect many want it to be as huge as it is today, but with the free spirit of the 1950s. I just don’t think that is possible.

I agree it would require an entirely different version of the sport. I think it was a much better sport when it was smaller. I do think it needs to shrink. It went the entertainment direction to the exclusion of the gearhead angle, and it used to have a nice balance of both.

I think that was a great post, I agree with all of it except these two areas.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

wonderful post Richard

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the common ECU is an examples of this for me. each team (and teams across multiple series) didnt need to come up with their own ECU. that would have been a huge waste of money and fundamentally made monitoring each team's electronics etc both more difficult and more expensive.

Not to contradict myself... But I do think there are places in which spec parts can be used. I think there are either areas in which there is little to be had from a "creativity" perspective (wheel nuts anyone?) and as you say off the shelf is cheaper than design your own. I think some of the electronics is a great place. I proposed awhile back when the topic of reintroduction of active suspension popped up (particularly a cost controlled version), I had suggested that one way of doing this in a cost controlled way was to create a spec ECU for active suspension, but it would have a limited number of inputs as well as a fixed level of compute power. Most everything else would be free. The point being that it could only be as complex as the ECU could support. Not sure if it would work, but I thought it was a great idea!

My concern is the use of spec parts in areas that do involve both creativity and also can drive performance. For example the idea of a spec front wing just drives me crazy.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by miatanut

But you could show up with a V16, or an I4, or any gasoline piston engine between. You could show up with 4 wheels, but you could also show up with six. You could have shown up with eight, but I don't think anybody ever did. You could show up with an NA engine, or a turbo. You weren't forced to go one way or the other.

i love the passion with which you write with but in all honesty i think my problem here is , and just speaking for myself, is that after a hundred plus years (200 even?) i find it hard to get excited about the different varieties of the internal combustion engine.

70 years ago i could see how this would fire a young mans imagination but today i dont see the modern relevance for these technologies outside of a purely sporting stage.

i guess when it comes down to it im just not a gear head. i have an appreciation for it but cars dont captivate me as much as they used to sadly.

the drivers battles still hold my interest though hence why i usually come at these discussions from that perspective.

[chillibowl]

Richard,

not contradicting your self at all. our posts would be pages long if we had to rehash every point we ever made in each response.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

For example the idea of a spec front wing just drives me crazy.

out of curiosity do you see the front wing as an area of innovation or of refinement?

for me there is a difference. take the FRIC for example. its apparently been around for 20 plus years (Jordan 191 was mentioned i believe). i would hardly categorize banning it 20 years later as the 'FIA banning innovation' as others are suggesting it is.

for me i take that as stopping the process of refinement for fear that it is a. too costly, and b. could possibly run into an area of illegality making it a serious waste of time and money. actually applaud the FIA for getting ahead of this and saving us from months of posturing, poorly defined tests, and accusations of cheating etc etc.

anyways, as i have said several times now, i prefer the challenge to be among the drivers and mechanics (not the engineers) and if i had my way (and if aesthetics didnt matter to me) i would spec the front and back wing with something that didnt serve as a hindrance to overtaking.

lesser of two evils i guess as i would rather have spec parts then continue to live with the band aid that is DRS (which i consider to be the equivalent to placing a trampoline underneath a basketball hoop).