Strad, both Ferrari and Mercedes wanted the hybrids. Mercedes a 4, Ferrari a V6. Ferrari won that battle, and we got hybrid V6's.. To say the engine format is the FIA's fault when the most powerful players said give us hybrids is being naïve to what has been in the press about how F1 arrived at where it is today. Remove the FIA, and Ferrari and Mercedes will keep F1 on its current path. If you really want change go to a series without European auto manufacturers as a major part. If you really want change you have to re-shape the marketing and political forces that shape F1. Otherwise the big players, such as Ferrari and Mercedes, will carry the day.
Reading your posts. You wanted such tight limited aerodynamic development that you get cars that look like older generations of race cars? Maybe watch historic racing? That or a low form of formula racing, such as Formula Ford, Formula V, Formula Renault, etc... The team bosses ego's want the complicated shapes, they want to be the boss of something sophisticated. What has happened is that as more revenue has come into F1, so has the spending risen to match. This is combined with new technology that allows thin strong shapes. The only way to get the cars you want is to watch a less watched formula with lower budget and a greater amount of spec parts.
Hummmm, At the end of the day, F1 will have to strike a balance between what the team bosses wish and what the public wants to see, for the business to thrive. It technology is not restrained, one can imagine in decades to come the cars becoming autonomous, controlled from the pits, with just a passenger acting as jockey imposed by the rules. Will people still pay lots of money to see that? There is a difference between limiting aerodynamics in F1 or roll it back to FF or FV level, but I suppose you couldn't resist mocking some of the posts. There is also a world of difference between what F1 could be ideally, and historic racing. What about limiting downforce, for example? Quite possible; it would be simple to enforce, easy to understand and not antediluvian. Cars could still keep some of their appendages, but their efficiency would be limited. Once a limit would be set per axle, the officials would only have to check the sensors on the suspension after the race to verify that the limits haven't been overstepped. The rule makers could also impose a limit on the amount of turbulences created by cars. Again, easy to understand, simple to determine and monitor. (most if all cars go through wind tunnel during their gestation). I find it strange that the rule makers are obsessed in limiting mechanical development, but aerodynamic development is given free reins. I mean teams are limited to 3 power unit per season (on the altar of cost saving !!!), but aero development is hardly capped. In fact aero work, and the production of new aero parts goes on all through the season. Who are they kidding ? When cars are becoming too aero efficient, they are less spectacular to watch, they prevent close racing, and they turn GPs into processions, with the order dictated by grid position. Races are mostly decided during qualifications. If the FIA and its boffins (Brawn and Whitmarsh, I heard) don't address that, F1 will lose its attraction as a spectacle. Even the team bosses you are talking about will see the light in the end, but maybe too late. When an aerodynamicist develop a car, all he is interested is the efficiency of his car, and nothing else. He is not interested in the aerodynamic efficiency of the cars that follow. In fact, if he does his job well, his work will make close racing, and consequently overtaking, more difficult. I am sure the engineers and the decision makers know all that, but prefer to turn their eyes in an other direction.
You could break down the notable pressures on F1. Race Team Bosses Track Executives Venue Politicians Sponsorship Executives & Marketing Automobile Manufacturers Executives & Marketing (Notable as the engine supply) These lobby the FIA, the FIA reviews, and comes out with a plan to try to best represent the interests of having a major sport. A lot of what is being asked for would have Ferrari, Honda, Renault, and Mercedes all leave the series. Now since this is a Ferrari forum, that presents a problem with one of those. However, if you want to see F1 change, you need to change the five groups above, or remove those groups. Otherwise those groups will exert the same pressure on whatever new series is made, and you will have no real change. Race Team Bosses, there is some variety here, but there are big teams with big pull and the rest just have to go along. Mercedes and Ferrari seem to be the big two in where F1 goes. Mercedes and Ferrari want to be in charge of huge programs, they want to justify their own personal idea of ego, self worth, etc. They will find a way to spend money if that money is in the sport. Track executives do not want driver deaths, so track design, car safety, these are very important to them. To stop a race early to remove a dead driver has fare more dire consequences for a venue in our modern world. The tracks will change to limit the speeds even if the teams/cars do not. Venue Politicians, well, you could change F1 a lot just by removing the locations that influence the sport in ways you don't like. Countries that try to ban gasoline cars? Don't go there, etc... Most major dollar sponsors want brand recognition with a side of bland. I'm not sure what can be done here because of the raw numbers of who pays attention to F1 world wide. Sponsors want something that isn't going to offend anyone anywhere they go. Originally a lot of F1's sponsors were centered on tiny parts of the world. Automobile Manufacturers, ugh, they have to play to the regulations they are given. To some extent the best thing to be done is to get automobile manufacturers out of F1 entirely. The only other alternative is a change in global political bent that is driving auto-makers. The FIA creates the rules from extensive meetings with different parties and players involved, and then works to create a rule set until the next period of meetings that they consider optimal to reach the goals of those concerned. While there may be things I do not like about the direction F1 has taken, this isn't the FIA's fault; rather it is those involved and where they want to go. if the FIA took an athorititarian stance like the new organization requested would do; Ferrari would not participate if they didn't get their way. Ferrari's way is with some compromise the rule set we have today. The next set of changes is on the horizon and talks are already occurring. Ferrari on its F1 side wants sophisticated complex solutions to stoke ego. Ferrari on its automobile side is pushed to take the European directive of phasing out the gasoline powered automobile. Your best bet is to raise lots of kids to love cars, and influence those around you to love and share your passion of cars. From this passion there will be a future wave that wants Formula Great, rather than Formula Bland. When those that live in the venues, work for the auto manufacturers, those that vote for politicians, those working in marketing, etc, want F1 to be great again, that is when it will happen. Anything else will not see any serious affect.
Prize money is distributed to Blancpain GT teams. In a way it has an independent spirit that F1 used to have more of. For F1 the re-introduction of independent engine supply to energize the independent teams would only be a good thing. Cosworth Vs Ferrari were good battles - and helped level the playing field.
The bottom line is that if the power to be don't limit the technology in F1 and make racing more interesting to watch, they will, turn the public away and harm their business. It's not their egos that matter, or corporate wishes, nor political choices, but the taste of the paying public. There are many way to get your thrills outside F1, and spectators can vote with their feet. They already do. Remember "Who pays the piper, calls the tune! " Even F1 technology isn't seen as very interesting to a young generation that is very IT literate, and up to speed in robot science, artificial intelligence, etc... F1 don't create emotions for the younger audience. Team Bosses, track owner, politicians, sponsors and marketing executives can have as many meetings they want with the FIA . If they only look after their interest, push down our throats more unpalpable technology and not what the paying public want, they are wasting their time. If they wanted to kill F1 they couldn't do it differently than come up with another set of silly rules that suit them, but makes the sport boring and frankly unappetising to watch. What transpired of the 2021 rules is like hogwash; they haven't learnt anything. They are not there to serve their interests, but to provide a show that the public want. Instead, they are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic !!! If the diminishing audience doesn't worry them, why should we care then!! Also, the FIA should remember that it is a SPORTING authority and refuse tot be held hostage to commercial interests, but see the big picture and serve the sport at large. Teams, circuits, drivers are only passing by in a sport that is more than 100 years old, and shouldn't be held to ransom because So and So threatens to stop playing if we don't bow to his request. Poppycock !!! I am afraid influencing the youngsters won't do. First because it's against my principles, but also because everyone should by himself find his interests. It maybe that F1 had its time as an interesting enterprise, and the future will provide us with something to replace it. I notice that motorcycle GP racing doesn't suffer from the same ills as F1 and has a growing audience. That maybe because the FIM and the promoter (Dorna) have resisted the invasion of technology in their sport. They haven't been shy to reverse any dangerous trend in that sector, like wings, excessive electronics, etc... No manufacturer has left for it, instead several have joined !!!
