|
>>>>>>A very simple set of rules might have very little in the way of technical regulations (aka "Run what ya brung!"). This would result in largest budget wins and little or no close racing.
I beg to differ. The current rules leave little room for innovation without spending money but think over the years how brilliant design within a loose framework has allowed smaller teams to shine.
The tiny Cooper Car Company standing motor racing on its head by putting the engine behind the driver.
Colin Chapman in his early days had pretty meagre funding compared to the might of the Ferrari etc.
Adrian Newey getting the March/Leyton House to the sharp end of the grid with his fantastic aerodynamics.
The Cosworth DFV.
Ross Brawn in 2009.
There are many examples of garagistes sticking one over the grandes constructeurs thanks to innovation and thinking outside a pretty loose box. Make the rules so prescriptive that we basically have a spec car and we end up where we are today - it costs billions for a tiny incremental increase in performance, and the smaller teams can't engineer their way to the front.
As for close racing - has F1 ever been about that? From the pre-war Auto Unions and Mercedes through JYS's greatest race - he won by FOUR MINUTES - to the Mercedes steamroller of today, F1 has been a celebration of engineering excellence. If you want close racing go watch Formula Ford Kent at your local track. Great overtakes like the Schumacher/Hakkinen Spa epic are remembered because of their rarity not their frequency.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
|