...http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=40357 there is a good article about the subject.
Loved this bit:
"Of course, Peter Windsor and Ken Anderson were not going to succeed with USF1. The bottom line is that neither is sufficiently bright."
Fanship of F1 in the states is too low for any of the US auto makers to bother producing F1 engines (even if Obama would let them). There's too little potential return on investment, especially compared to NASCAR. If their European branches were to take up the gauntlet, they likely would team up with an existing engine builder, as in the Ford-Cosworth of old, rather than strike out on their own.
Depending on exactly how the new TR are worded, there's no guarantee that a turbo I-4 would be any cheaper to build than the current NA V-8. And the more heavily regulated the engines are, the more alike they are. Mandated "sameness" of any aspect of the racing cars is bad for the competition aspect of the sport. Bad, bad, bad.
A great many of the cars' components already are restricted to a sort of beige material to prevent them using more exotic and hence more expensive materials. The crankcase and cylinder heads, for instance, must be aluminium. As must the brake calipers.
In fact, the ultimate weakness in the brakes of an F1 car is not the brakes themselves but their aluminium calipers. CF brakes produce temperatures that are so high, the aluminium becomes spongy and braking power fades because the pads are less true to the rotor face.
Too many cooks spoils the broth. To many rules spoils the racing.
!!
