the closed-cockpit McLaren portrayed seems to be in between a normal open-car racer and a sports car though. Sports cars tend to have fully-covered wheels even when they are close cockpit!
No its because of rules. F1 cars are much quicker than even LMP cars, despite 'aero inefficiencies'. What you lose in aerodynamics, you gain (lose) in weight (and thus acceleration, braking, and handling).
F1 cars race for 1.5 hours, LMP1 race for 24hours, at a pace that is 5seconds slower than an F1.
They could go much faster but the race is won by the driver which races longer, not by the fastest lap.
Moreover the WEC cars integrate different accessories (e.g. pistons to lift the cars during pits) that increase weight.
F1 will always be faster because the race has a different target.
The problem is that endurance races advance technology that gets ported to everyday cars, F1 doesn't (but this is matter for another discussion).
The front wing idea would be a good move, wonder what the point of the F1 overtaking group was, when they didn't pursue ideas like this and instead went for DRS.
FIA conducted tests on cockpit canopies several years ago. They fired a tire and wheel at it, which deflected off the canopy and into the air. It kept going, and going, and going. It was an alarming test. The last thing you want to do is launch car parts at the spectators.
Sometimes solving one problem causes another. This is why there isn't a solution yet, but the FIA are still working on it.
And F1 wheels are tethered. So this isn't a true test of what would happen during a race. A more likely scenario is a car flipping, or one car going over another.
Yea but a designer thinks they look cool and hasn't researched these things so we must push forward... thanks Wired...
Jokes aside, I do find articles like this quite vexing, they take a glance at an area that has a huge amount of depth, form an opinion with little research, and push it forward like it has authority from specialists in the field asking "why are not moving forward?"... even, when there are loads of interesting discussion points as to why we are where we are, that has actual consequence and real discussion that get even more ignored as sensationalised items take president.
Not to be a _total_ buzzkill about some fancy looking pictures of new F1 cars that could interest some people :`P
F1 is cool because the cars are open and you can see the driver. If you want closed cockpit racing, choose a different class, le mans is closed cockpit and really cool.
F1 has got pretty boring, and the drivers think it could be better. I hope they simplify the back wings so racing can get closer... at the moment most of the overtakes are done under DRS, so driver skill isn't so much of a factor in race position.
>> "F1 has got pretty boring, and the drivers think it could be better. I hope they simplify the back wings so racing can get closer... at the moment most of the overtakes are done under DRS, so driver skill isn't so much of a factor in race position."
Quite subjective - a lot of people find the current format very exciting. It seems to me a vocal minority who don't remember how boring it can really get (i.e. the Schumacher years). As for overtakes if you watch the last couple of races there has been some great race craft. DRS isn't perfect but when it works right the driver is given just enough help but still has to work really hard.
IMO the last few races have been really boring. Lewis hovered 2 - 3 seconds behind Nico and could do nothing. Sure, both of them are 'managing' the race... but as soon as they both left the start line and Lewis was behind, we had to wati 33 laps before the pit stops before any action. Then when nothing happened we had to wait for the last 5 laps to see if anything would change.
There was some mid-field fighting, but nothing too interesting.
And Monaco - OMG. Most tedious race ever. You actually start wishing someone would crash just to make it interesting. Sure, for the drivers it is 100% concentration for the whole race.... but for us spectators? Nothing freeking happens. Qualifying is 99.99% of the race.
Last year was really good. This year is a bit meh.
>> "Lewis hovered 2 - 3 seconds behind Nico and could do nothing."
I guess it depends on your perspective but THAT IS EXCITING. For me at least. It showed Nico still has what it takes to beat Hamilton + it brings the championship battle even closer. I agree with you that the last few races have been slow but only compared with the last few seasons. Particularly during Vettel's dominance we got lots of close races. But F1 is always talking about how to make the sport more interesting and exciting - the discussions never end.
>> I guess it depends on your perspective but THAT IS EXCITING. For me at least.
Who is best at lift and coast. Who can manage tire temps, who can manage tire deg, who can break the 1 sec DRS, then hover at about 2 sec infront...
On lap one, when Lewis was attacking we all knew he had one, maybe two laps to over take, otherwise his tires would be screwed. I want to see that attack last twice as long -- 4 laps! Hell, maybe 5 or even 6 laps! Out of 60.
I think we'd all like to see Lewis and Nico battle it out, balls to the wall.
I watch on the BBC and when DC says "DRS open - and now it's a drag race to the end of the straight" ... YAWN. Biggest engine wins. I'd rather 1 interesting overtake with skill than 10 through DRS.
“There once was a time when the racing world was ruled by savage beasts[...]"
Yup that was the time when a crash meant death or debilitating injuries. The whole point of F1 is that it is safe.
Yes, open cockpits mean that there is a risk of head injuries. However, closed cockpits increase the risk of:
Suffocation from engine leaks
Death from fire
Injury from cockpit collapse
More importantly, they'd still need to wear a helmet, because if something hits the windscreen, its going to shatter.
Plus they'd still have to design the screen, test it, and workout a quick release. All of which is expensive to do safely.
Things are easy ... until you realize that F1 is a pretty difficult balancing act.
It has to be exciting, but people demand safety. Cars have to be advanced, but differences between them small enough for there to be actual competition. We have lots of technology, but what we like to see is driver skill and not how fast a computer can hurl 600+ kilograms of mass around a track.
As these considerations play out you end up with Formula One. Which is compromise upon compromise. While maintaining some sort of illusion of F1 being the ultimate expression of technology and skill for the uneducated and the ignorant masses.
Don't get me wrong. The drivers and the teams are pretty much the ultimate performers in their respective disciplines. All of the drivers are top athletes that can take a lot more punishment while maintaining higher levels of concentration over longer periods of time than the vast majority of olympians. But they are still part of something that needs to work as a show.
And it just won't pull in any money if you have one or two teams dominating the field completely for year after year.
As any big sport, F1 is closer to pro wrestling than it is to the pure sport we would like to tell ourselves that it is.
A huge problem with F1 is how the money is divided. Ferrari gets 100 million for being Ferrari, championship winning teams get well over 150 million and the small teams get nothing to 10 million.
If the money would be divided more fairly the changes between the topteams and backmarkers would be a lot smaller, and teams like Manor might actually find themselves somewhere in the midfield of F1.
The concept this guy drew looks nice, but I don't think it is realistic. He says F1 should have more simple rules so designers have more freedom in designing beautiful cars. Problem is; they don't want to design a beautiful car. The teams are only interested in fast/efficient cars. Give them more freedom and they won't come up with the McLaren in this post but probably with some horrific looking car just because it gains them a few tenths of a second.
> what we like to see is driver skill and not how fast a computer can hurl 600+ kilograms of mass around a track.
Speak for yourself, I'd love to see that. In fact, I'd love if they made all the cars either remote controlled or self driving, and removed most of the safety rules and the restrictions to keep things "competitive". I mean, it could be another sport, with another name. But I'd love to watch that.
Yes, please. I'd love to watch that as well. And no tech difference limits for "competitiveness" - let the best engineering team win, however unfair their idea is; the next year, someone will figure out how to beat them anyway.
I second that! Perhaps it should be another sport indeed. It would also promote self driving cars, and make people feel a little safer about the concept.
Good, but without human drivers involved, emotions and then the fun is gone.
Sports are interesting to me because of demonstration of human qualities like hard work, brilliance, endurance and even the mistakes we make. Because they bring out the best in us.
If I have to see how well algorithms work, TopCoder or SPOJ generally does the job, I don't see much fun in two emotionless bots flying on the track without having the faintest clue what the whole thing is all about.
> Good, but without human drivers involved, emotions and
> then the fun is gone.
Precisely. Ask people who Ayrton Senna is and they'll probably know he was a F1 driver from Brazil, won championships, died in an accident and was buried as if head of state.
Ask them about the MP4/4 Honda RA168E and even many anoraks will have some trouble telling you what championship year it ran.
I think a lot of the compromises are due to being pulled in different directions by market analysis. Some people want looser rules/more innovation but this drives up costs and the advantages of the big teams. Other people want everyone in the same car. Some people want no refuelling or team tactics because it's confusing/not about the driver.
My feeling is that F1 has always been about the driver, the engineering and the tactics (including team tactics) and all three should be present. People who want it to be simpler/only about the driver will never be long-term fans anyway.
As a fan I want cars that are fast in corners, with high lateral accelerations, and can overtake easily. That has been difficult to achieve because the former usually hinders the latter (KERS and DRS were introduced for that and have been reasonably successful).
Finally, remember that (almost) by definition Formula 1 cars must be the quickest racing cars on the planet measured by lap time. The latest rules reduced the aero package and made Formula 1 closer to GP2 and Champ Car.
Montreal circuit, from the Wikipedia page:
Formula 1 2004 1:12.275
Formula 1 2014 1:14.393
Champ Car 2002 1:18.959
It's amazing how quickly that F1 catches up despite the rule changes though. Qualifying times at Austria (last weekend) were within 0.5 seconds of the qualifying lap record, and that's despite the two Mercedes going off-track in their final lap.
They have an advantage in Austria. The turbocharged engines perform better than the old v10 and v8 because of the altitude. We'll see what they do at Monza, an engine track at sea level (less than 200 m altitude). They've been 4 s slower than the 2004 record last year.
> F1's biggest problems right now are A) costs, and B) the number of people pissing on F1 without the slightest knowledge of or affinity with the sport.
A) Disagree, F1 was always expensive. F1 is about money. A bigger problem is the distribution of the money. The bigger teams have to realize, that there will be no show without the smaller teams.
B) Agree. The bigger problem is, that even the insiders are pissing on F1. (e.g. at the moment, Mateschitz crying because of the Renault engine and complaining about the rules. But he is not the only one.)
>> "A) Disagree, F1 was always expensive. F1 is about money. A bigger problem is the distribution of the money. The bigger teams have to realize, that there will be no show without the smaller teams."
It works the other way round too, hence why the big teams get a larger share. I think the better solution is only allowing in teams who can actually afford to race. If you're going to run around 5 seconds off the pace or run out of money before the end of the season you shouldn't be allowed to compete. It makes the sport look bad when it's actually just shitty business management.
>> B) Agree. The bigger problem is, that even the insiders are pissing on F1. (e.g. at the moment, Mateschitz crying because of the Renault engine and complaining about the rules. But he is not the only one.)
Red Bull are certainly the worst culprit here. Not winning anymore so complaining and threatening. They need to look at McLaren's attitude :)
> I think the better solution is only allowing in teams who can actually afford to race.
In the past, I had the same opinion. However, today as I see even the mid-pack (Sauber, Force India...) struggles with money. There are 3-5 teams, that can "actually afford" racing in F1. With a better distribution of the profit, even smaller teams could spend more money on development and probably catch some podium finishes. Like Williams, which is not a big team, but still receives a little from the shares because of its past successes.
It's pretty clear that F1 is trying to satisfy cross-purposes. On one hand, it's meant to subsidize experimental vehicle technologies. On the other, fans want exciting races with lots of passing. Then you have issues such as driver safety and team budgets. Add to that a few decades of regulation cruft, and you have a recipe for dissatisfaction.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I've always favored erring on the side of advancing vehicle technology. Just imagine what racing would look like if an eccentric billionaire created a league with only the following three rules:
1. If a human controls the vehicle, it must be by remote control. (This eliminates driver casualties while encouraging exciting maneuvers.)
2. There is a 10cm speed bump at both the entrance and exit of pit lane. (This discourages technologies that are unworkable on normal roads.)
3. At the end of every race, any team can purchase the winning vehicle for $500,000. (This rule keeps costs low.)
I think you'd quickly get some very interesting vehicle designs. For starters, F1-banned technologies such as 6 wheels[1] and suction devices[2] would get a fair shot. New drivetrains would be tried, including electric motors powered by gas turbine-cranked generators. The whole enterprise would be quite different, but it would definitely be safer and cheaper. And to me, such free-form innovation seems a lot more interesting.
So rather than remake a legacy business, you could start a new racing league. Give it a new name: "Z1" racing or something. I'm pretty sure the venue owners always appreciate new draws for crowds. You'd need to recruit a few teams (start with engineering departments at universities?), and then do marketing to bring the crowds in.
> Van Overbeeke makes other practical changes to his cars: They’re stripped down, free of many of the aerodynamic doodads that add cost and complication to car design.
Just because you have skills in one field, don't assume they transfer to another.
Those "doodads" have been through a metric fuck-tonne of windtunnel testing & modelling.
Yeah, a ridiculous observation by Wired. I note they removed the Gurney flaps on the McLaren rear wing. If there is one thing that reduces cost and complication in aero, it's a Gurney flap.
He keeps the narrower and simple front wing stating it make the cars less sensitive to airfow being spoiled by the car ahead but adds the low and wide rear wing which is what actually spoils all the air in the first place.
Designers design nice things but then ruin it by overstepping what they know. Here is some info from the FIA working group about how airflow and overtaking actually works http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/overtaking.html
A major point is being missed here, and it is fundamental to how F1 cars evolve - rules lawyering.
It's fairly easy to design a car that is safe, fast and looks good. It is fiendishly difficult to create a set of rules that enforce those outcomes on designers. Unless F1 becomes a one-design formula, it is always going to have to deal with the cat-and-mouse game between the governing body and creative designers.
The obvious recent example is that of the ugly noses of 2014[1]. The nose height of F1 cars had been gradually increasing over the years, as teams realised that there was an aerodynamic advantage in channelling air under the nose. The FIA became concerned about the safety of these noses, and the risk that in a side impact they might over-ride the cockpit and hit a driver in the helmet.
The rule introduced to address this issue stated that an area of the nose no less than 90cm² must be centred no higher than 185mm above the car floor. Designers immediately realised that this rule could be exploited by simply having a 90cm² protuberance hanging below the main nose, minimising the constriction of airflow. These droopy proboscises weren't anticipated or desired, but they were an inevitable consequence of a rule that wasn't absolutely watertight and the competitive pressures or racing.
The modern era of F1 is practically defined by these creative interpretations of the rules - F- and S-ducts, exhaust blown and double diffusers, blown starter holes, tuned mass dampers. No matter what rule the FIA draws up, some very smart people will figure out a way around it. Adrian Newey, the greatest designer in the history of the sport, is fond of saying that "there is no such thing as the spirit of the rules". To many, that buccaneering spirit is an integral part of Formula 1.
His point about f1 being overly restricted by rules is legitimate, but I am neither a fan of his design, nor do I believe it is representative of a race car truly optimized for speed.
Full disclosure: I have a Ph.d. in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), and I've also raced open-wheel cars at several tracks, such as Laguna Seca. While presently F1 cars are certainly arbitrarily restricted by rules, several of his design decisions strike me as just as bad.
For instance, the open-wheel design is going to create tons of pressure drag. If you were designing a car from the ground up for speed, I sincerely doubt they would not have the aero kit cover the wheels.
More than that, the open-wheel design is also dangerous, because if the tyres touch the results are often catastrophic, with the cars flying into the air and the flailing tyres creating a tremendous hazard. So that also discourages passing. In many motorsports, bumping into the cars nearby does not result in both being completely disabled.
63 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadIt's a sprint and a marathon.
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_SportsCar_Championship
Open cockpit racing has a history, don't blame it on F1 not having its "act together"
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/03/10/f1-fanatic-round-up-10...
Sometimes solving one problem causes another. This is why there isn't a solution yet, but the FIA are still working on it.
Jokes aside, I do find articles like this quite vexing, they take a glance at an area that has a huge amount of depth, form an opinion with little research, and push it forward like it has authority from specialists in the field asking "why are not moving forward?"... even, when there are loads of interesting discussion points as to why we are where we are, that has actual consequence and real discussion that get even more ignored as sensationalised items take president.
Not to be a _total_ buzzkill about some fancy looking pictures of new F1 cars that could interest some people :`P
F1 has got pretty boring, and the drivers think it could be better. I hope they simplify the back wings so racing can get closer... at the moment most of the overtakes are done under DRS, so driver skill isn't so much of a factor in race position.
Quite subjective - a lot of people find the current format very exciting. It seems to me a vocal minority who don't remember how boring it can really get (i.e. the Schumacher years). As for overtakes if you watch the last couple of races there has been some great race craft. DRS isn't perfect but when it works right the driver is given just enough help but still has to work really hard.
There was some mid-field fighting, but nothing too interesting.
And Monaco - OMG. Most tedious race ever. You actually start wishing someone would crash just to make it interesting. Sure, for the drivers it is 100% concentration for the whole race.... but for us spectators? Nothing freeking happens. Qualifying is 99.99% of the race.
Last year was really good. This year is a bit meh.
I guess it depends on your perspective but THAT IS EXCITING. For me at least. It showed Nico still has what it takes to beat Hamilton + it brings the championship battle even closer. I agree with you that the last few races have been slow but only compared with the last few seasons. Particularly during Vettel's dominance we got lots of close races. But F1 is always talking about how to make the sport more interesting and exciting - the discussions never end.
Who is best at lift and coast. Who can manage tire temps, who can manage tire deg, who can break the 1 sec DRS, then hover at about 2 sec infront...
On lap one, when Lewis was attacking we all knew he had one, maybe two laps to over take, otherwise his tires would be screwed. I want to see that attack last twice as long -- 4 laps! Hell, maybe 5 or even 6 laps! Out of 60.
I think we'd all like to see Lewis and Nico battle it out, balls to the wall.
And when will f1.com offer streaming? Huh?
and if we take away the overtakes under DRS, we will get still more overtakes per race than in the golden era:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/11467...
These cars are gorgeous though!
Yup that was the time when a crash meant death or debilitating injuries. The whole point of F1 is that it is safe.
Yes, open cockpits mean that there is a risk of head injuries. However, closed cockpits increase the risk of: Suffocation from engine leaks Death from fire Injury from cockpit collapse
More importantly, they'd still need to wear a helmet, because if something hits the windscreen, its going to shatter.
Plus they'd still have to design the screen, test it, and workout a quick release. All of which is expensive to do safely.
basically, you any can have two of the following:
fast
cheap
safe
Not according to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e87HIlOIYFA
If you like cool cars with cockpits, watch Le Mans. F1 is supposed to be a bit dangerous.
It has to be exciting, but people demand safety. Cars have to be advanced, but differences between them small enough for there to be actual competition. We have lots of technology, but what we like to see is driver skill and not how fast a computer can hurl 600+ kilograms of mass around a track.
As these considerations play out you end up with Formula One. Which is compromise upon compromise. While maintaining some sort of illusion of F1 being the ultimate expression of technology and skill for the uneducated and the ignorant masses.
Don't get me wrong. The drivers and the teams are pretty much the ultimate performers in their respective disciplines. All of the drivers are top athletes that can take a lot more punishment while maintaining higher levels of concentration over longer periods of time than the vast majority of olympians. But they are still part of something that needs to work as a show.
And it just won't pull in any money if you have one or two teams dominating the field completely for year after year.
As any big sport, F1 is closer to pro wrestling than it is to the pure sport we would like to tell ourselves that it is.
If the money would be divided more fairly the changes between the topteams and backmarkers would be a lot smaller, and teams like Manor might actually find themselves somewhere in the midfield of F1.
The concept this guy drew looks nice, but I don't think it is realistic. He says F1 should have more simple rules so designers have more freedom in designing beautiful cars. Problem is; they don't want to design a beautiful car. The teams are only interested in fast/efficient cars. Give them more freedom and they won't come up with the McLaren in this post but probably with some horrific looking car just because it gains them a few tenths of a second.
Speak for yourself, I'd love to see that. In fact, I'd love if they made all the cars either remote controlled or self driving, and removed most of the safety rules and the restrictions to keep things "competitive". I mean, it could be another sport, with another name. But I'd love to watch that.
Sports are interesting to me because of demonstration of human qualities like hard work, brilliance, endurance and even the mistakes we make. Because they bring out the best in us.
If I have to see how well algorithms work, TopCoder or SPOJ generally does the job, I don't see much fun in two emotionless bots flying on the track without having the faintest clue what the whole thing is all about.
Precisely. Ask people who Ayrton Senna is and they'll probably know he was a F1 driver from Brazil, won championships, died in an accident and was buried as if head of state.
Ask them about the MP4/4 Honda RA168E and even many anoraks will have some trouble telling you what championship year it ran.
My feeling is that F1 has always been about the driver, the engineering and the tactics (including team tactics) and all three should be present. People who want it to be simpler/only about the driver will never be long-term fans anyway.
Finally, remember that (almost) by definition Formula 1 cars must be the quickest racing cars on the planet measured by lap time. The latest rules reduced the aero package and made Formula 1 closer to GP2 and Champ Car.
Montreal circuit, from the Wikipedia page:
Formula 1 2004 1:12.275 Formula 1 2014 1:14.393 Champ Car 2002 1:18.959
Why not use remote-controlled drones, then?
F1's biggest problems right now are A) costs, and B) the number of people pissing on F1 without the slightest knowledge of or affinity with the sport.
Also, F1 cars look just fine right now. They just look too similar, but no one has been able to solve that problem without escalating costs.
A) Disagree, F1 was always expensive. F1 is about money. A bigger problem is the distribution of the money. The bigger teams have to realize, that there will be no show without the smaller teams.
B) Agree. The bigger problem is, that even the insiders are pissing on F1. (e.g. at the moment, Mateschitz crying because of the Renault engine and complaining about the rules. But he is not the only one.)
It works the other way round too, hence why the big teams get a larger share. I think the better solution is only allowing in teams who can actually afford to race. If you're going to run around 5 seconds off the pace or run out of money before the end of the season you shouldn't be allowed to compete. It makes the sport look bad when it's actually just shitty business management.
>> B) Agree. The bigger problem is, that even the insiders are pissing on F1. (e.g. at the moment, Mateschitz crying because of the Renault engine and complaining about the rules. But he is not the only one.)
Red Bull are certainly the worst culprit here. Not winning anymore so complaining and threatening. They need to look at McLaren's attitude :)
In the past, I had the same opinion. However, today as I see even the mid-pack (Sauber, Force India...) struggles with money. There are 3-5 teams, that can "actually afford" racing in F1. With a better distribution of the profit, even smaller teams could spend more money on development and probably catch some podium finishes. Like Williams, which is not a big team, but still receives a little from the shares because of its past successes.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I've always favored erring on the side of advancing vehicle technology. Just imagine what racing would look like if an eccentric billionaire created a league with only the following three rules:
1. If a human controls the vehicle, it must be by remote control. (This eliminates driver casualties while encouraging exciting maneuvers.)
2. There is a 10cm speed bump at both the entrance and exit of pit lane. (This discourages technologies that are unworkable on normal roads.)
3. At the end of every race, any team can purchase the winning vehicle for $500,000. (This rule keeps costs low.)
I think you'd quickly get some very interesting vehicle designs. For starters, F1-banned technologies such as 6 wheels[1] and suction devices[2] would get a fair shot. New drivetrains would be tried, including electric motors powered by gas turbine-cranked generators. The whole enterprise would be quite different, but it would definitely be safer and cheaper. And to me, such free-form innovation seems a lot more interesting.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46
It would keep people from storing value in cars. Eg the teams would make sure that the cars don't have more than $500k left in them _after_ the race.
I like your thinking, but it doesn't mean that you can create a pre-race car for $500k.
You could stipulate that cars be used for more than one race?
Does YCombinator take pitches like this?
Just because you have skills in one field, don't assume they transfer to another.
Those "doodads" have been through a metric fuck-tonne of windtunnel testing & modelling.
Designers design nice things but then ruin it by overstepping what they know. Here is some info from the FIA working group about how airflow and overtaking actually works http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/overtaking.html
It's fairly easy to design a car that is safe, fast and looks good. It is fiendishly difficult to create a set of rules that enforce those outcomes on designers. Unless F1 becomes a one-design formula, it is always going to have to deal with the cat-and-mouse game between the governing body and creative designers.
The obvious recent example is that of the ugly noses of 2014[1]. The nose height of F1 cars had been gradually increasing over the years, as teams realised that there was an aerodynamic advantage in channelling air under the nose. The FIA became concerned about the safety of these noses, and the risk that in a side impact they might over-ride the cockpit and hit a driver in the helmet.
The rule introduced to address this issue stated that an area of the nose no less than 90cm² must be centred no higher than 185mm above the car floor. Designers immediately realised that this rule could be exploited by simply having a 90cm² protuberance hanging below the main nose, minimising the constriction of airflow. These droopy proboscises weren't anticipated or desired, but they were an inevitable consequence of a rule that wasn't absolutely watertight and the competitive pressures or racing.
The modern era of F1 is practically defined by these creative interpretations of the rules - F- and S-ducts, exhaust blown and double diffusers, blown starter holes, tuned mass dampers. No matter what rule the FIA draws up, some very smart people will figure out a way around it. Adrian Newey, the greatest designer in the history of the sport, is fond of saying that "there is no such thing as the spirit of the rules". To many, that buccaneering spirit is an integral part of Formula 1.
[1]http://www.sanantoniof1club.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2...
Full disclosure: I have a Ph.d. in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), and I've also raced open-wheel cars at several tracks, such as Laguna Seca. While presently F1 cars are certainly arbitrarily restricted by rules, several of his design decisions strike me as just as bad.
For instance, the open-wheel design is going to create tons of pressure drag. If you were designing a car from the ground up for speed, I sincerely doubt they would not have the aero kit cover the wheels.
More than that, the open-wheel design is also dangerous, because if the tyres touch the results are often catastrophic, with the cars flying into the air and the flailing tyres creating a tremendous hazard. So that also discourages passing. In many motorsports, bumping into the cars nearby does not result in both being completely disabled.