While will it not having a spec engine cause it to fail?

 

I thought Williams was the chassis manufacture they make the gear box for the car a long with other parts. And I wasnt aware BMW bought Sauber instead of making a partnership out of it because before that they made their own chassis and used other companys engines.

 

I would hate to see rules limiting technological advancement in F1, I wanted to send anthrax to the FIA when they implemented the 10 year engine development ban.

F1 is all about new technology, new aerodynamics, if you're engineers are good enough to design a car with better characteristics, then you get an advantage. Thats the way it should be. I do, however, agree with the removal of traction control.

 

It was truly a great race and I wish more F1 races were like that.

 

I think a lot of folks would be claiming F1 has been limiting "tech advancement" since turbos were outlawed nearly 20 years ago, but the engineers have still managed to get more power, rpm and longevity out of the N/A motors.

In the mid 90s ABS was eliminated. And the cars still got faster.

Now they've gotten rid of TC and launch and the result is much better racing.

F1 doesn't really limit tech advancement. When F1 changes the rules the engineers have to adapt and find ways to exploit the rules change and that takes "tech."

The folks who are hung up on tech most likely also believe turbos and fuel injection are something new (not you, just sayin'). Both have been around for more than 50 years, turbos since the 1930s. Even ABS was experimented with by Rolls Royce in the 1930s and even came on some Chryslers in the 1970s.

The only major new tech in the automotive world since the assembly line is the computer chip and maybe those stupid airbags we all have to pay for because dipshits won't wear their seatbelts.

Sorry for the ramble.

 

I was mostly focusing on aerodynamics. I rely on ALMS for all the really spiffy gadgets, like suspensions that learn tracks and ferromagnetic shock absorbers.