gcdugas wrote:They already expend great sums to make the cars as light as possible. The cost is therefore the same. Then they use the ballast to artificially balance the cars. It is like a well written computer program vs. bloatware. So what you have 2 gig RAM, look how much of a turd IE is vs. Firefox, Opera etc. "Resource hog" is not a term I equate with engineering excellence. F1 is about cunning engineering, not mediocre engineering + some fudge factor thrown in.
Taking movable ballast away (and equalizing the driver mass and CG) would force the cars to be designed with a better natural balance. If cornering speeds get too high they can simply take away some aero. The extra fuel saved by pushing around a lighter car and the brake wear saved would make for better racing as the time spent on partial throttle (where the skill is) would increase. Also the tanks would need to hold less fuel for a comparable length stint.
Right now if you have 75Kg ballast on a 605 Kg car, that is 16% of fuel and brake wear (read: retardation energy) being wasted. How green is that?
Bear in mind that F1 is not soley about "green". Green technologies should be applicable to road cars, and should also bear in mind that F1 is a sporting event. It's not just watched by the sort of people that read this forum. Most people that watch F1 aren't too interested in the technical elements, they want to see wheel to wheel racing with large numbers of cars and a well managed event. That means cost control.
Cost isn't so much of an issue for manufacturers, who want green technology, road relevancy (justification to the board, as well as being able to relate F1 machinery to their road cars for customers) and a well organized event for maximum publicity. The first two don't really apply to customer teams.
A non-existant minimum weight would see corners being cut safety wise, as well as cost increases. However, the current materials are not road relevant. We don't have mass production road cars now with tonnes of carbon fibre. We won't see them in the short term at least. If F1 were to, like Formula 3, require metallic materials for suspension, you would arguably have more road relevant technology (after all, surely at least 80% of cars cost less than the cost of one F1 corner these days), and there wouldn't be so much CF. If the aerodynamic bodywork parts (obviously not the crash structures) were made of GRP, would there be genuine crash safety implications? It would be considerably cheaper to build.