[Tech Issue] Are the 2014 engine regulations too restrictive?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Ironically, engine technologies that could be useful for today's and future road cars are to be banned right from the very beginning of 2014.

Indeed they are. But we mustn't believe that all engine technology originates from F1. Very little actually has.

CVT was banned on the grounds that it would basically be a fully automatic transmission. Therefore it would take away from the 'sporting' aspect of things.

Many technologies are just not 'sporting' enough.

Some technologies are banned simply because they become the performance differentiator, and regardless of how open the regulations are, everyone will most likely concentrate on the one thing that brings the most gains.

It's true that most of the current engine manufacturers were against even changing from the V8 2.4 litre format because of the cost of developing new V6 1.6 litre turbo power plant. Heaven knows what the cost of heading off on several different programmes would have been!?

Indeed, it would seem that most have no appetite to spend any more money at all!

Norbert Haug:

"It would have been better to extend the V8 era," agreed Norbert Haug, with the German engine marque currently leading the field with F1's current engines. "That [V8] is a low-cost engine."

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I can't remember Ferrari proposing a V12-configuration for 2014 and onwards, can you?

No, they did not. But you know that they would have wanted to.

Indeed it was Mr Montezemolo himself that suggested that F1 should find more ways of making V12 engines more efficient, rather than going down the route of 'downsizing'. However, when it was also suggested that he could have his V12 engine whilst everyone else had a turbo V6 or in-line four, he soon changed the subject.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I'm not familiar with the current situation in the BTCC, but assume there are effectively two classes with each having their own, unequal geometric limitations. That's exactly the opposite to what I propose. In fact, I think regulations full with geometric limitations are the very reason for cars to become increasingly the same and expensive to develop, as the regulations provide the absolute point of perfection I mentioned earlier.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94550

Not having an absolute point of perfection doesn't work in the real world, where it would seem that such things as the noise that engines make is more important than what makes it. At least as far as F1 goes. Many still aren't happy with V6 F1 engines! And the chances are that open regs would downsize still further on that format.

You also have the problem of teams such as Ferrari being able to go off down different technical avenues and other teams not having the funds to do that.

What you seem to be proposing is a system where the regulations are always in a state of flux. Where a team thinks that it has hit upon the holy grail only to have the rules turned around on them. It then has to develop another way of getting to the front of the grid, and all of that costs money. Money that many don't have.

More time and effort will also be spent on trying to govern these regulations and more protests will need to be dealt with than we have ever seen before. 'So-and-so are complaining because so-and-so's turbo/KERS/Electric/Nuclear/Hydrogen/Jet Fuel engine is too powerful and should be limited to make it fair'.

In an ideal world, divergent governance might work. But F1 is far from an ideal world.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Marbot

In an ideal world, divergent governance might work. But F1 is far from an ideal world.

And that is why F1 is technicaly speaking flying in ever decreasing circles and will eventually disapear in the same way as the lgendary Gooney Bird!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

And that is why F1 is technicaly speaking flying in ever decreasing circles and will eventually disapear in the same way as the lgendary Gooney Bird!

Probably so. But if you're going to start a series which uses the divergent governance principle, you're going to have to start it from scratch. Then you're going to have to hope that what you have created is actually worth watching. It's no good turning up at circuits with technical marvels that have no 'soul' or that give the impression that your grandma could drive one.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Probably so. But if you're going to start a series which uses the divergent governance principle, you're going to have to start it from scratch. Then you're going to have to hope that what you have created is actually worth watching. It's no good turning up at circuits with technical marvels that have no 'soul' or that give the impression that your grandma could drive one.

Divergent governance is just a dream that would just ensure that the winner was the best politician in instigating the set of rules that suited his car. Then one form of technology would be the cheapest/most competitive and everyone would chase that solution down the same hole at ever increasing cost.
eg. currently aerodynamics.

[höller]

Having the exhausts exit in the centre of the 'V' would seem more logical for a single turbo and with the new exhaust exit high up at the back of the car?

Thats what Audi does with its mono-V6 for the 24hs of LM and so did Ferrari with their first V6-Turbo with the exhaust outlets in the centre and the turbos on the top. If this explicitly is not allowed in Pt 5.1.9. I wonder how the guidance of the exhaust pipes will look like? The question is why did the teams push for the monoturbo configuration while under such circumstances a biturbo config would be the much more easier way to do? Whats so bad about a biturbo?

Concerning the number of cylinders, wouldn´t it be better to fix a limit of six cylinders for 2014 instead of imposing the V6 for everybody? So if someone like Ferrari pleads for a V6 at any costs can feel free to do so; if another supplier favours an inline 4 for any reason like PURE or maybe BMW they should be given a chance too! It should be kept more liberal in that point, so it would become even more interesting.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

Thats what Audi does with its mono-V6 for the 24hs of LM and so did Ferrari with their first V6-Turbo with the exhaust outlets in the centre and the turbos on the top. If this explicitly is not allowed in Pt 5.1.9. I wonder how the guidance of the exhaust pipes will look like? The question is why did the teams push for the monoturbo configuration while under such circumstances a biturbo config would be the much more easier way to do? Whats so bad about a biturbo?

Surely the challenge is to do with one turbo what can normally be done with two?

The exhausts are not allowed to exit from the centre of the V. Nor does it say anywhere in the rules that the turbo must pressurise intake air.

See: "Formula for Change" in this document.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Documents/i...ugust-2011.pdf

Originally Posted by höller

Concerning the number of cylinders, wouldn´t it be better to fix a limit of six cylinders for 2014 instead of imposing the V6 for everybody? So if someone like Ferrari pleads for a V6 at any costs can feel free to do so; if another supplier favours an inline 4 for any reason like PURE or maybe BMW they should be given a chance too!

A 4 cylinder engine would eat a V6 alive in a fuel limited format. Ferrari knows this as well as anyone. Which is why Montezemolo got 'all' of the teams to agree to an engine that was a compromise between being efficient and being fan friendly (the 'noise' is probably more important than how it's created).

Originally Posted by höller

It should be kept more liberal in that point, so it would become even more interesting.

Not many can warrant spending lots of cash on making things more "interesting" for a relative few. And, as we've seen before, after a short while all of the teams will settle on similar configurations anyway.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Surely the challenge is to do with one turbo what can normally be done with two?

The exhausts are not allowed to exit from the centre of the V. Nor does it say anywhere in the rules that the turbo must pressurise intake air.

See: "Formula for Change" in this document.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Documents/i...ugust-2011.pdf



A 4 cylinder engine would eat a V6 alive in a fuel limited format. Ferrari knows this as well as anyone. Which is why Montezemolo got 'all' of the teams to agree to an engine that was a compromise between being efficient and being fan friendly (the 'noise' is probably more important than how it's created).



Not many can warrant spending lots of cash on making things more "interesting" for a relative few. And, as we've seen before, after a short while all of the teams will settle on similar configurations anyway.

If you only have 1 turbo, the only logical use is to pressurise intakeair to the max allowable pressure. If you havespare capacity, then you may consider driving a KERS dynamo.

A 4 would only beat a V6 in a single turbo arrangement, and a 3 would beat both in a single turbo configuration, all to do with separate exhaust pulses.

Interesting to a few at a high cost, sounds like KERS, inefficient junk!

[knighty]

there is plenty of technology allowance in the 2014 regs to keep the manufacturers happy........principally electrically assisted turbochargers, that can be used to both eliminate turbo-lag and generate electricity, this has never been achieved on a road car that is sold to the public, yes garret and holset had a few successful research projects, but they never became commercially available to the public as they were not technically complete.

The new 2014 regs will greatly assist manufacturers to develop road going extreme-downsized IC engines.......also the reason for going single turbo is well justified, simply less back pressure equals better exhaust flow, equals a more efficient turbo, so it will save approx 4-5% fuel........I'm a chartered engineer and I work in the road car engine and hybrid design business for a living and I think the 2014 regs are a real step in the right direction and have great parallels with projects that I'm working on at the moment.......the fia have sensibly banned a load of nonsense technologies such as VGT turbos and variable cam timing, as these really are old hat nowdays.

the only thing that Id agree was they should have been allowed to run the exhausts from inside the V, then put the intake manifolds outside the V, but its no big deal, basically I think the engine bays will look like the old CART turbo layouts with the turbo located in the bellhousing

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

If you only have 1 turbo, the only logical use is to pressurise intakeair to the max allowable pressure. If you havespare capacity, then you may consider driving a KERS dynamo.

One turbo could do both things. I don't think that there is currently a maximum allowable pressure for intake air. That's probably going to be regulated more by fuel consumption and other considerations.

Originally Posted by wnut

A 4 would only beat a V6 in a single turbo arrangement, and a 3 would beat both in a single turbo configuration, all to do with separate exhaust pulses.

Indeed. So it's no wonder that they all settled for a '6' in the interests of stopping people moaning about them not making enough noise or the wrong noise. Although, three cylinder engines do make a great noise, you can't 'sell' three cylinder engines to 'petrol heads'.

Originally Posted by wnut

Interesting to a few at a high cost, sounds like KERS, inefficient junk!

KERS works perfectly well on lots of things that aren't F1 cars. It's only the current F1 regulations that don't allow it to be used to its full potential. The 2014 regulations will allow things like KERS to be used to greater potential. But it will mean that those that don't have particularly good systems are going to be much slower than a current F1 car whose KERS isn't working.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by knighty

the only thing that Id agree was they should have been allowed to run the exhausts from inside the V, then put the intake manifolds outside the V, but its no big deal, basically I think the engine bays will look like the old CART turbo layouts with the turbo located in the bellhousing

Ferrari did this with its V6 turbo from the eighties. So, again, it's 'old hat'.

[knighty]

your correct with the old ferrari turbo image, what an engine!, audi have also done it on their v6 diesel lmp1 and bmw on their road car v8 diesel.....also GM on their dead diesed v8......... I was actually implying I think the FIA should have allowed it on a convenience and simplicity basis, it wil make the turbos spool up quicker too......anyway, no big deal, I think the FIA are working well with the teams so they must have had a say in it before it was roled out, and therefore are happy with it.

[höller]

also the reason for going single turbo is well justified, simply less back pressure equals better exhaust flow, equals a more efficient turbo, so it will save approx 4-5% fuel........

Thanx Knighty for your explanation!
But, an additional question, the single turbo means longer exhaust pipes and this will affect the responding behaviour more than a biturbo with shorter pipes situated just beneath the V6, which will have to be corrected with electricity or ALS? So its a vicious circle! And isn´t a big turbocharger more inert than a small one? I remember in the 80´s they were using different chargers on tracks like Mexico or Kyalami.

For the regs lets have a look on the upcoming Indycar rules:

[QUOTE]

In racing, those regulations are anything but stringent. IndyCar’s idea was to inspire companies to develop various engine designs to aim for the perfect balance of fuel economy and power. Fuel economy will be a critical factory, as IndyCar plans on ultimately regulating power output. Although no firm rules have been set, it’s believed output will be restricted between 550 and 700 horsepower, depending on the track.
“We will continue to evaluate rules that will keep a level playing field across the board with the various engines that could enter our sport,” said Brian Barnhart, president of competition and racing operations for IndyCar.
“For example, we could see a V-6 competing against an inline-four at all Izod IndyCar series events in the future. We will require reference engines as a benchmark in performance while looking at sonic air restrictors, fuel flow restrictions, and more as key criteria for competition.”
QUOTE]

Looks much more promising to me than the proposed F1 regs.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

Looks much more promising to me than the proposed F1 regs.

Different, but nothing new. Some will complain about the noise or lack thereof. Americans love their V8s.

Apparently, a 4 cylinder engine is yet to be built.

http://www.indycar.com/news/show/55-...e-regulations/

[höller]

Different, but nothing new. Some will complain about the noise or lack thereof. Americans love their V8s.

They also liked their Offies!

But the argument to "keep a level playing field across the board with the various engines that could enter our sport" makes much sense to me. It´s done at Le Mans, in Indycars, so why F1 cannot at least allow the use 4-cylinder engines?? All about Ferrari?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

They also liked their Offies!

Indeed they do (Posted a pic of one earlier in thread ).

Originally Posted by höller

But the argument to "keep a level playing field across the board with the various engines that could enter our sport" makes much sense to me.

Indeed it does. Or we just get one engine manufacturer running away with things. But it seems that the current three Indy car engine manufacturers (Lotus, Chevrolet and Honda) have all decided on a V6 configuration, when they could have chosen any configuration within a limit of six cylinders. Coincidence?

Originally Posted by höller

It´s done at Le Mans, in Indycars, so why F1 cannot at least allow the use 4-cylinder engines?? All about Ferrari?

Yes, it's all about Ferrari. Not only do they not want to build their own 4 cylinder engine, they also don't want to be involved in a series that has any 4 cylinder engines.

[Pingguest]

Sorry for my delayed posting. Due to a lack of time caused by family circumstances and study I was unable to write an decent post.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Indeed they are. But we mustn't believe that all engine technology originates from F1. Very little actually has.

No-one, including me, asserts that Formula 1 is very road relevant at this very moment. However, if parties agreed on technical restrictions for the sake of road relevancy, as you pointed out, they've missed their targets already. That's not despite, but due to the technical restrictions being put in place.

CVT was banned on the grounds that it would basically be a fully automatic transmission. Therefore it would take away from the 'sporting' aspect of things.

It's doubtful whether CVT was banned on the ground that it would a driver aid. CVT has been banned since 1993, despite fully-automatic gearboxes being legal in the early-1990s and re-legalized in the early-2000s.

At the same time, the banning of a number of technologies can be justified by the fact that Formula 1 should be the ultimate drivers' championship. However, a number of technologies of which a 'non-sportive' nature is at least defensible - such as the semi-automatic gearboxes and drive-by-wire - are still allowed.

Some technologies are banned simply because they become the performance differentiator, and regardless of how open the regulations are, everyone will most likely concentrate on the one thing that brings the most gains.

It's true that most of the current engine manufacturers were against even changing from the V8 2.4 litre format because of the cost of developing new V6 1.6 litre turbo power plant. Heaven knows what the cost of heading off on several different programmes would have been!?

History and presence prove free regulations provide better circumstances for cost-savings, at least in the long run. If regulations will lack an absolute point of perfection, teams will have to exploit their self-chosen and self-developed niche, as was accidentally the case in the early-1980s. Teams won't be able and won't have to optimize every specific component. While knowing this, teams could even decided not to do specific development work and use all the saved resources to further exploit their self-chosen and self-developed niche.
It wasn't a coincidence that with freer regulations teams could win with an twenty-year old engine block or production-based engine.

Norbert Haug:

"It would have been better to extend the V8 era," agreed Norbert Haug, with the German engine marque currently leading the field with F1's current engines. "That [V8] is a low-cost engine."

It didn't stop them from, as Ross Brawn pointed out, spending an awful lot of money on the development of very advanced engine maps, allowing them to stabilize the car while lifting the throttle and later on to blow extra gases through the diffuser. A better example of tight regulations causing teams to develop expensive, irrelevant and in this particular case fuel wasting technologies is unthinkable. So far for Formula 1's search for cost reduction, road relevancy and green image. Although the 2012 technical regulations will foresee in the banning of the exhaust blown diffusers, the foregoing engine maps will continue to be in use. This raises the question why engine braking or ABS in general were ever banned.

With my proposal the aerodynamics would be freed-up, just like the engines, suspensions, tyres - although to some extent - and chassis. As said before, not geometric limits but limitations to performances parameters and of consumables should be set instead. An example is an absolute limit of downforce. Then teams should be allowed to create the allowed amount of downforce any way they think fit, albeit bound by the rest of the package. With regulations lacking an absolute point of perfection it may well be that the best solution engine-wise is far from the best solution chassis- or aero-wise. Thus creativity, design strategy and exploitation of the self-chosen and self-developed niche are to be the performance differentiators.

Regarding the BTCC case, I'm still looking for a document containing the full regulations. I can't judge the situation without.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

With my proposal the aerodynamics would be freed-up, just like the engines, suspensions, tyres - although to some extent - and chassis. As said before, not geometric limits but limitations to performances parameters and of consumables should be set instead. An example is an absolute limit of downforce. Then teams should be allowed to create the allowed amount of downforce any way they think fit, albeit bound by the rest of the package. With regulations lacking an absolute point of perfection it may well be that the best solution engine-wise is far from the best solution chassis- or aero-wise. Thus creativity, design strategy and exploitation of the self-chosen and self-developed niche are to be the performance differentiators.

At the moment the FIA have a hard enough job trying to ensure that all of the teams are complying to the regulations in their current restrictive form. I have no doubt that when the 2014 regulations come into force there will be accusations of cheating and rule bending, the likes of which we have never seen before, simply because there's a lot of new stuff in there. So while your proposals may open up the boundaries of technology (at least as far as F1 cars are concerned), they will also, most surely, open up many more much larger cans of worms, when all that most people want to see is a motor race that isn't marred by accusations of cheating and rule bending.

[höller]

It wasn't a coincidence that with freer regulations teams could win with an twenty-year old engine block or production-based engine.

The "well-hung" BMW engine blocks...an all time masterpiece of motorsport marketing.

If one of the main motivations for the new engine regs was to lure more of the manufacturers into the sport also from that point of view it would have been wise to - at least -allow a wider variety of engine types. Maybe the V6 seems to be advantageous. But no one could imagine in 1976 - with the exception of Renault - that a small supercharged engine could be a match for the aspirated ones. If the 1,5 l supercharged engines would not have been allowed at least in 1966 we never would have seen the turbo era, with a fascinating arms race of the big manufacturers. The use of an inline 4 was not without controversy inside BMW and it was difficult for them to be competitive - but it paid out.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

If one of the main motivations for the new engine regs was to lure more of the manufacturers into the sport also from that point of view it would have been wise to - at least -allow a wider variety of engine types.

Ironically, the one thing that all the major engine manufacturers wanted was an engine configuration that was fixed. After all, internal combustion engine configuration in itself, isn't a technical area that hasn't already been done to death over the last hundred years or so.

Martin Whitmarsh on the 2014 engines:

“I’ve certainly argued for diversity myself in the past but I think the danger is that automotive manufacturers become inhibited of entering the sport if there’s just too great a variety."

“Typically, the regulations, although they’re fixed, they in truth evolve. And what would happen if you had a range of engines, after a year probably it would be clear that either a V6 or a straight four or one solution was right. At which point, the manufacturer that’s developed the alternate configuration has to reinvest all that money."

Makes sense.

[höller]

Certainly makes sense, but what Whitmarsh did not say is the fact that the financial damage was already done because of zig-zagging instead of allowing engine configurations with max 6 cylinders and max 2 turbochargers. Especially Renault has invested large sums of money into their inline 4, which now they can charge off as "sunk costs". Otherwise they could now use it for themselves or at least sell their results to some interested new manufacturer. Ferrari and Bernie pressure (who was host of BMW engine long enough to know about the truth) aside, that point should have been considered by Renault CEO.
Additionally, there are some voices who express their concern about the technical feasibility: 15.000 rpm instead of 12.000, with a (large) bore of 80mm together with the unchanged fuel restrictions and the even longer durability for the engine and just one single turbocharger will be real hard stuff for the technicians. Situation could have been much more easier for them, e.g. with two chargers; consider what happens if they don´t get to terms up to 2014? So the evolvement of the regulations could be a writing on the wall.

There are still some open questions: OK, I understood that there will be no vintage wastegate any more; but no one talks about the charge air cooling (will there be any intercooler?? where should it be placed best with only one charger?) the maximum boost pressure (limited or not?). Do you have any information?

Finally, considering the various official statements about the upcoming regulations I get the suspicion that it is all about noise and not about the best technical solution. Show comes first?

[Marbot]

I don't think that there is much technological difference between an in-line 4 or a V6, other than the cylinder configuration. So whatever Renault learned from its inline 4 will apply to its V6.

12,000 rpm would have been a much more relevant rpm to aim at. No one is seriously thinking that engine rpm limits in road vehicles are going to get anywhere near that figure.

A single turbocharger works just fine on a V6. Lots of V6 road vehicles have a single turbo. Sometimes there just isn't the room/money/need for two. Make one do what two can. That's the challenge. No intercoolers, I think. But what is it that you're trying to do with the turbo?

Boost pressure would be limited by the need to conserve fuel. So basically as much as you want, but you have to get to the end of the race on the allotted amount of fuel. In fact a lot of things will be limited simply because of the need to use the fuel in an efficient a way as possible. So it's no use having a fire breathing V6 engine if it's going to run dry half way through the race. You need to make that engine as efficient as possible using as little input from the turbo as possible, because the turbo may have other things to do.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by höller

Finally, considering the various official statements about the upcoming regulations I get the suspicion that it is all about noise and not about the best technical solution. Show comes first?

There has got to be some 'show' in there somewhere, so the engines are probably compromised a little bit in that respect. But the emphasis is no longer on what can be done with petrol engines (which have already been done to death), and is more on what can be done with regenerative systems.

With regard to the use of the turbo: How much bhp do you think that a naturally aspirated 15,000 rpm 1.6 litre V6 engine would produce? Is it possible that the engine wouldn't need to have forced induction? Would the turbo be used more efficiently doing something else?

Interesting comments (2 mins >) from Cosworth man about, what were then, the 2013 regulations. But the same thoughts probably still apply to the 2014 regulations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39wc...eature=related

[höller]

12,000 rpm would have been a much more relevant rpm to aim at. No one is seriously thinking that engine rpm limits in road vehicles are going to get anywhere near that figure.

In Art. 5.1.3. its only imposed that the limit is rpm 15.000. So no one is obliged to rev up completely, isn´t it? Maybe someone lowers the revs (e.g. to 13.000 which is fairly enough for a turbocharged engine) and in return boosts up the charge pressure (thats what Ferrari did during the 1988 fuel crisis)?

No intercoolers, I think. But what is it that you're trying to do with the turbo?...Is it possible that the engine wouldn't need to have forced induction? Would the turbo be used more efficiently doing something else?

You cannot be serious! I don´t understand how should this racing engine work without intercooling? The charged air should have between 40 and 50 degrees C°, otherwise it would be a loss of power and energy. The Renault then was not seeing a chequered flag until they introduced charge cooling. Regardless of the boost pressure you use, "mild" or 3.5 bar, you have to cool it down. In Art. 7.1 the "charged air cooling" is explicitly mentioned, but without going into detail. Also a "waste-gate exit" is mentioned, but nothing about the whereabouts. The V6 aspirated could produce between 300-450 hp, but with supercharging almost twice as much (wait and see ). What to do with the turbo? If I get it right, you give the leading part to the MGUK and MGUH, reducing the turbocharger to a sole moving component? Browsing through the regulations, I got the impression that this is not intended; the turbocharger which is an energy recovery system itself as it recycles the thermodynamic energy of the exhaust gases which are lost if the engine works normally aspirated will be complemented by further accessoires in future which additionally transform the kinetic energy of the turbo into electricity. This is one step further in energy recovering program, but the main part of course will remain the boost pressure of the turbocharger! There is no sense in disclaiming of the possibility of supercharging, having just a "pseudo-turbo" as an electrical generator. Why should someone disclaim on charging? The complicated thing about this regs is - as always - finding the compromise between technical restrictions and utmost power, but the manufacturer who sets the accessoires in first place will be the looser imo.

[Marbot]

It's going to be a fine balance of every component that is allowed in the regulations to come up with the best solution for getting to the race finish in the fastest way possible.

5.1.6 "Pressure charging may only be effected by the use of a sole single stage compressor linked to a sole single stage exhaust turbine by a common shaft parallel to the engine crankshaft and within 25mm of the car centre line. An electrical motor generator (MGUH) may be directly coupled to the same shaft."

So, no supercharging.

I don't know if you (holler) have read this ('Formula For Change' article)?

Take note of illustration showing possible layout.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Documents/i...ugust-2011.pdf

[luke g28]

Generally, correct me if I am wrong but from many comments in this thread it looks like people have little experience of high powered turbo engines?

The turbos will use less fuel than an NA and will have more torque throughout the rev range.

I just hope they dont bring in different boost limits for different cars ala BTCC

I disagree with the sentiment that opening up the rules will increase the calls of cheating and rule bending simply because the teams will be spending less time trying to create the perfect solution to the rules. If the FIA bring in rules to stop Aero bending and then it is found that somebodies Aero appears to be moving then its an obvious rule bending. If however there is a max sustained G or similar then nobody will be able to pick up individual components on the car that are breaking the rules.

I wonder if the FIA could limit Gs in the same way as the red bull air race?