Rules stifle innovation

[acotrel]

People in car and motorcycle racing are obsessed with rules. Rules are used to create a level playing field and allow non-creative people to flourish. If there were no rules, there would be no loop-holes. I suspect that many rules are disingenuous. They are sometimes devised to give the rule-makers an advantage. Nobody ever seems to take a step back to gain perspective and decide what is 'for the common good'. Motor racing venue owners are in the entertainment business. The sport is funded by gate takings and competitors' entry fees.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by acotrel

The sport is funded by gate takings and competitors' entry fees.

Not disagreeing as such with the general theme, but I don't think this bit is entirely accurate?

[275 GTB-4]

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

Note: (also quoted as "...for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.")

In Reach for the Sky, this quote is attributed to Harry Day, the Royal Flying Corps First World War fighter ace.

[tristancliffe]

I think rules ENCOURAGE innovation. If there are no rules, you just do what's simple, cheap and works. Any idiot can make a car that can go fast with no constraints.
Rules give a set of constraints that need to be worked around by cleverer, ingenious people

[pimmy]

[TuteZaek]

During the 60s Argentina had an amazing racing scene that had its apex in the 1969 Sport Prototipo Argentino, which basically evolved from the Turismo Carretera.
The series cars (and its TC predecesors, that inspired the new championship, like the Liebres and Trueno Naranja) had almost every trick available, even some primitive active aero, Pronello, a prol?*fic racing engineer/car builder and one of the promoters was really proud of the "Almost no rules" approach of the series.
It folded in 1973, the costs prevented anyone other than the oficial teams to participate, and finally not even them could afford the rythm. The series ate itself.
"No rules" tends to end in that.

And thats only on the costs side.
If we go on the technical side, lets say that, no rules present, ill get that 80kg squishy ballast and its asociated protections of my racecar, since we're reaching the point where the human factor Is the l?*mit.

[NaBUru38]

With no rules, the best cars win.


Hamilton or Verstappen wouldn't win races if they drove a Haas.

[AndrewCherry]

With no rules, the deepest pockets win. It just becomes an arms race - more and more aero, more and more power, more everything. Even in tightly regulated series, you sometimes see it creep through where there are loose areas of the rules (engine rebuild frequency, etc.)

While it would be fascinating to see what a truly open competition looked like, it wouldn't last long.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by AndrewCherry

While it would be fascinating to see what a truly open competition looked like, it wouldn't last long.

This was basically Can-Am, dominated in turn by Lola, McLaren and Porsche, the latter essentially killing the series by bringing overwhelming factory budgets to the show. Looked and sounded great (and still does!) but was never seriously competitive.