That's fascinating. You don't see old-school imaginative solutions like that in F1 anymore. Now, it's all about tiny bits of aerodynamics at great cost.
There are some things that are ruled out of the essence of the formula and some things that get used to define it. For instance, the BT46 Turbofan that chucked stones out the back is not on. Meanwhile, the monocoque chassis with stressed member engine is part of the formula.
The rule changes to this year have resulted in two approaches to front wing aero, right now we don't know whether the Alfa Romeo approach is actually better than the Mercedes approach. That might be mere aero, nothing important, but think how it would work if anything was allowed so long as it was safe.
So there are some things that have to be ruled out such as the high nose that is better design but bad for potentially beheading drivers. If we let anything in then you could go back to the Williams FW14 and allow active suspension and a whole host of driver aids. You could even go further back and allow 6 wheelers, ground effect skirts and V12 engines. If the rules - the formula - was thus cast in stone - open to everything - then within 3-4 seasons the grid would distil into what was the de-facto winning formula. If six wheels really were better than four then every car would have six wheels.
Although the rulebook appears to stifle innovation it does promote it by these small and well thought out changes that happen every few years.
Having said that, I wish there was an 'anything goes' formula with a budget cap. So cars would have active aero, auto-pilot, super-capacitors, tuned-mass-dampers, low-profile tyres that weren't designed for needing pit-stops, performance enhancing drugs for the drivers, grid-girls advertising cigarettes - well maybe not some of these things that were once considered a vital part of the spectacle, but you get the idea.
Tyre strategy could be about running the same set of tyres all weekend. Normal cars don't change the tyres every hour. I know that the pit stop upsets the order a bit, however, if there were two sets of tyres for the weekend and you had to use both sets in the race then that could work out fine.
There is an environmental cost to lugging those tyres all around the globe, it is a bit out of touch with the times plus it doesn't say much about the product if it only lasts less than two hours. In Formula E they get this right and I am sure Michelin are getting the right message to their customers about what a great tyre they make.
The pit stop could even be a mandatory toilet break if the real point of it is to just upset the racing order. Or the drivers forced to pull into the pits to drink 500ml of water. Nobody wants to be dehydrated, do they? (Or to use the olden days phrase, 'thirsty').
They have put in all these restrictive rules and it’s still horribly expensive.
Faster and more powerful cars can and are produced, but are barred for reasons of safety and, as the article demonstrates, mere choice of the governing body.
If you look at the different approaches taken with regards to aerodynamics (particularly this season) and engines then there's still plenty of room for engineering challenges (at least in F1, I don't know about other series).
The second problem is indeed that regulation in the sport leaves less and less room for creativity in an attempt to level the playing field and prevent "abuse". I have a feeling that the regulation now looks more like a whitelist rather than a blacklist. Everybody is allowed to "innovate" the exact same thing.
Although there is a silver lining: with identical cars it's down to pilot skill. I still don't see F1 or FE too exciting right now.
Barring some surprise changes or race-by-race accidents/failures, we're looking a season of 1-2 Mercedes, 3-4 Ferrari, 5-6 Red Bull. That doesn't feel like racing.