I find it funny that you state cost twice as a reason for limiting the freedom of the rules. (not mocking you BTW)ACRO wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:24 pmi fully agree , like already written above .
you can say that the basic approach on anything always was and always will be to win the race .
engine rules by FIA always were made to keep the power outputs at an acceptable level for safety reasons while the engineers tried and will try to reach more power out of given rules.
in the V10 era the basic rule to 'limit' the output was a maximum permitted displacement on an atmo engine . since many other things were not regulated it resulted in heavy developing , enourmous costs and engines reaching power outputs which started to leave the comfort zone of FIA in relation to safety concerns as well to the costs .
trying to limit further increase in output and also costs things like rev limiting and minimum mileage out of an engine were introduced.
today , with if course the same goal to have the best engine and car - to win the race - we have sonce 2014 a new approach to control power output levels and costs : limit the amount of fuelflow .
since there are physical limits what an piston engine can extract in useful power out of the overall energy stored in a droplet of petrol fuel you could leave everything else free .
the only reason its a 1.6litre V6 is to spec it to a common basic design for every team and prevent very costly different approaches how to extract the most power out of the overall energy stored in the fuel.
In F1, teams and PU manufacturers will spend every penny they gan get their hands on. Regardless of the rules, they will spend it in the areas where they will get best lap time improvement for their buck. Tighten one area of the rules, they will divert R&D to the next best VFM area of R&D.
When the 3000cc V10s became too powerful the FIA screwed up royally by switching to 2400cc V8s. It opened a development race for more rpm and just reset the spend to learn all over again.
What they should have done then was ban pneumatic valve control (and still should). Pneumatic valve control has zero relevance outside of racing and banning it would have pegged V10 peak rpm to 13-14k rpm if steel valve springs were mandated, thus reducing power. Sure, they would have switched R&D to other areas (combustion efficiency, friction reduction etc), but the expense would have been less than a complete new architecture.