technologically we are not evoloving!!!

[f1ea]

I think there should be some strong regulations rather than limitations...

Basically, total team budget and testing times (and NO costumer teams!). There shouldn't be limitations on wind tunnel use (specially when you have to adhere to a certain budget). Cause teams should be allowed to decide if they wish to spend their budget in wind-tunnel/aero simulations or in engine and material development or whatever else they decide important.

Strict regulations regarding CO2 emissions (as the whole world could benefit from R&D carried out by F1). Of course, the basic "open wheel" layout should be regulated... but not limited to the almost standard F1 cars nowadays

No engine freeze. As long as all teams keep the main config in common as well as a budget cap... there's no point in limiting Revs, Materials, or whatever else...

Oh.. and keep out the driver aids. F1 racing should stay mechanical, not electronic. At least for the coming decades...

[madbrad]

They used to apply things learned in racing to the road cars, but then all the useful ideas were banned. If anything, it's the other way around now. Our road cars' ABS would not be a reality if it weren't for racing, but that was a long time ago. Enzo only made road cars to fund his racing. That's to me is the purest form of racing. Of course then he was able to put all that racing experience to use in his road cars. What we have today is a sham.

[Rivelution]

i do not agree, i think one would over power the other.

I HIGHLY doubt that. Just like Texasmr2 said, it will be like Champ Car and the IRL. Both will fail since the fan base has been split up.

[al4x]

major rule, set amount of money/year

car dimensions set, a limit on apendage size/number
four wheels
few electronic aids

but free reign of aero, engine, tyre choice,

[8-ball]

F1 is going green instead of faster so from that viewpoint we are not evolving technologically. but as bud said if that trickles down to road cars then "global warming" and "climate change" will be less of a threat as F1 pioneered the technology making cars "green"

[f1ea]

Going greener IS applying and developping technology. It takes more effort and technology to make cars run greener than it does to just make them run faster. Plus, its trendier

[8-ball]

trendy doesn't mean entertaining. I'm all for lowering costs and saving planet and singing cumbaya as F1 helps to cut global warming but that should not come at the price of losing its status as the pinnacle of motorsport. I fear that is what might happen if this green technology obsession goes to far

[McLaren Fan]

When I first came across this thread I thought it meant rules in car design in general, not just green-related stuff. Given I don't entirely agree with the Greenhouse Effect, and am cynical about the motivations of governments and TNCs, I really don't want to see green policies in Formula One. I want to see top-quality racing using real cars. I highly doubt all of the racing cars in the world contribute all that much to Global Warming.

[darwin dali]

When I first came across this thread I thought it meant rules in car design in general, not just green-related stuff. Given I don't entirely agree with the Greenhouse Effect, and am cynical about the motivations of governments and TNCs, I really don't want to see green policies in Formula One. I want to see top-quality racing using real cars. I highly doubt all of the racing cars in the world contribute all that much to Global Warming.

It's not just the race cars, it's the whole enterprise incl. semis that truck their stuff around. It's the thousands of spectators traveling to the race track. And it's the role model effect, especially now in Asia, the fastest growing automobile markets. Do you really want 600 million more stinking cars that pollute the air in India, China, Indonesia, Thailand, etc.? Remember, air doesn't know borders...

[McLaren Fan]

It's not just the race cars, it's the whole enterprise incl. semis that truck their stuff around. It's the thousands of spectators traveling to the race track. And it's the role model effect, especially now in Asia, the fastest growing automobile markets. Do you really want 600 million more stinking cars that pollute the air in India, China, Indonesia, Thailand, etc.? Remember, air doesn't know borders...

I think the Western powers can set an example in various ways without affecting racing, which would be a symbolic action. People should appreciate that the number of racing cars in the world is a drop in the ocean compared to how many cars are used on a day-to-day basis, for instance, getting to work. Moreover, just because racing fans enjoy seeing petrol-powered V10s roaring round a track does not mean to say that they will be traveling to the races in similar cars. What people should be focusing on is substance of change, not its trappings. That argument, of course, only runs true if you believe the Greenhouse Affect is genuine which, despite the media's scare stories, many don't, such as the science graduate and scientists I've spoken to in recent times. I'm not convinced about the reasons for climate change and believe the situation has been shaped at some stage - either from the very beginning or somewhere down the line - by politicians, TNCs, et al. for their gain. For instance, in Britain at the minute, we are now starting to feel the brunt of this with new green taxes being placed upon us (even though we are already the highest tax country in pretty much any remotely serious country) and absolutely none of this money is going towards green projects.

[darwin dali]

I happen to be a scientist who's been ringing the alarm bells for about 25 years now. Sadly and disturbingly, the predictions from back then have almost all materialized or are still coming to/a possibility.
It's your prerogative to not subscribe to the Greenhouse Effect/Climate Change or whatever you want to call it. In that case I just hope you don't plan on having any children because it could be quite painful to have to explain to them that it took you longer than average to see the light and that you are partially responsible for their sorry health...

[bud]

I happen to be a scientist who's been ringing the alarm bells for about 25 years now. Sadly and disturbingly, the predictions from back then have almost all materialized or are still coming to/a possibility.
It's your prerogative to not subscribe to the Greenhouse Effect/Climate Change or whatever you want to call it. In that case I just hope you don't plan on having any children because it could be quite painful to have to explain to them that it took you longer than average to see the light and that you are partially responsible for their sorry health...

agreed. I think some scientists just disgree with whats in front of them just to get a name for themselves. But in the end a dumb name

its almost impossible to think that all the changes we have made to the face of the earth in modern history has had no affect on the planet in any form. Im just annoyed governments have only concentrated on climate change and not habitat loss and extinction. they all tie in together but all equally important.

[McLaren Fan]

I happen to be a scientist who's been ringing the alarm bells for about 25 years now. Sadly and disturbingly, the predictions from back then have almost all materialized or are still coming to/a possibility.
It's your prerogative to not subscribe to the Greenhouse Effect/Climate Change or whatever you want to call it. In that case I just hope you don't plan on having any children because it could be quite painful to have to explain to them that it took you longer than average to see the light and that you are partially responsible for their sorry health...

I'm not a scientist which is why I can't disagree with people whom I've spoken to who have degrees, Ph.D.s, and research and lecture on science at my old school and current university, and with some of the literature I've read online. To me, their disagreement signals that the case is not as clear cut as the media would like to make out, and when you take into account the behaviour of governments and certain companies I can't help be but slightly cynical to the whole process. What I really think needs to happen is for all the cards to be laid on the table and for a full and frank debate to take place. So far, all we the information available is what comes from the media, who want a good story, and from governments, who, for instance in Britain, want to find anyway possible to raise taxes. I'm open-minded and can be convinced either way, but at the minute I'm not prepared to listen only to the media and governments choosing pieces of jigsaw which fit their agenda. (And, for what it's worth, I do agree with climate change - I know it's changed in the past - but I'm just skeptical is to precise causes of it.)

[darwin dali]

I happen to be a scientist who's been ringing the alarm bells for about 25 years now. Sadly and disturbingly, the predictions from back then have almost all materialized or are still coming to/a possibility.
It's your prerogative to not subscribe to the Greenhouse Effect/Climate Change or whatever you want to call it. In that case I just hope you don't plan on having any children because it could be quite painful to have to explain to them that it took you longer than average to see the light and that you are partially responsible for their sorry health...

I'm not a scientist which is why I can't disagree with people whom I've spoken to who have degrees, Ph.D.s, and research and lecture on science at my old school and current university, and with some of the literature I've read online. To me, their disagreement signals that the case is not as clear cut as the media would like to make out, and when you take into account the behaviour of governments and certain companies I can't help be but slightly cynical to the whole process. What I really think needs to happen is for all the cards to be laid on the table and for a full and frank debate to take place. So far, all we the information available is what comes from the media, who want a good story, and from governments, who, for instance in Britain, want to find anyway possible to raise taxes. I'm open-minded and can be convinced either way, but at the minute I'm not prepared to listen only to the media and governments choosing pieces of jigsaw which fit their agenda. (And, for what it's worth, I do agree with climate change - I know it's changed in the past - but I'm just skeptical is to precise causes of it.)

There's very little disagreement among experts - and where there is, the opposing side usually has some ties to big oil or reluctant government agencies via grant money, etc. That should be part of laying the cards on the table and you'd see the nay sayers become very quiet all of a sudden.

[darwin dali]

Im just annoyed governments have only concentrated on climate change and not habitat loss and extinction. they all tie in together but all equally important.

One of the biggest reasons I got into biology in the first place starting at middle school level...