>>33349
>is also the reason why the current cars have become so aero sensitive.
aero sensitivity has been an issue since the early mosley era.
If multiple manufacturers could make tires they way they wanted to, they would design them such that they could get the most pace out of them for a given life span.
Some would have a a huge ability to push, but wouldnt last long, some would not actually be so great at single lap pace but be durable, some would be really great at some temperatures but not others.
that choice and dynamism would eliminate any concern over more or less aero sensitivity in tires.
More importantly, by dramatically reducing mechanical grip (because of narrow tires, narrow cars, and no tire war) they have made cars get a relatively higher amount of grip from aero versus mechanical grip.
This is a much larger reason that overtaking is difficult, and that following in a drivers wake is an issue.
It is likely that with a free tire market, manufacturers would adopt the bridgestone tire characteristics *anyway* without any legislated motivation to do so.
>>33347
constant development doesn't bloat costs anymore than limited development does. A free formula based around displacement would have many different varying engines at different price points and would eliminate the largest generator of parts cost in an f1 car.
customer cars should be legal, but a customer car is designed for teams that are too cheap to make their own chassis, thus customer cars are doomed to the midfield (which is not a bad thing in and of itself).
Customer cars allow more teams to compete cheaply.
Part time entries are a bernie issue. I think that they would make it neat and produce more dynamism and allow lower cost entries to explore full-time commitment, but it will inPost too long. Click here to view the full text.