I think main goal is to avoid big deadly accidents. Drivers dying is not good out look for a sport from marketing standpoint. As such lot of thought is put in making the races slower and removing failure points that can lead uncontrollable 300km/h rockets. Like fan failing at end of straight and car becoming uncontrollable then crashing to concrete barrier. Very nasty for driver and possibly the audience and people next to track.

F1 racing bans a lot of tech. For example, anti-lock brakes and AWD are banned in F1.

Just because all cars can get it easily doesn't mean F1 want it. Most often the quoted reason is to have a better spectator sport and to make it safer. I really doubt those reasons because you can still have a difficult and tight race while having all the modern safety features. For example why don't F1 cars have entire car air bags (ie air bags that envelop the entire car that deploy when the car goes airborne in a crash/rollover)? if it's too "heavy" just make a rule that all F1 cars need to have air bags so the playing field is even.

F1 cars should have self driving collision avoidance that can activate faster than human response times as well. that would be way safer for everyone involved.

Why not go all the way and just have RC F1 cars that are remotely driven like FPV drones? Then the cars can do truly insane stuff without any danger to the driver. But I feel it wouldn't be F1 anymore if this happens.

FPV1 would be a different sport. The element of danger is part of why so many are drawn to it.

I wonder whether an airbag enveloping the whole car would have been advantageous in the case of Romain Grosjean’s crash in Bahrain in 2020.

He might have bounced off the guard rail or be stuck in it just the same with extra material surrounding him and catching fire.

There have been also at least two cases I remember of race cars becoming airborne after touching wheels and being able to continue the race. This usually happens when the field is packed after (re)starts. Deploying airbags in such cases would probably entail a chain reaction that might resemble corn being popped.

I would watch F1 popcorn edition!

I thought F1 was used by manufacturers as a way to justify tremendous R&D, is that the case still? was it ever?

The problem is a lot of the R&D is focused on a very esoteric end itself. Sure, some of that technology ends up back at the parent companies and makes its way to consumer tech, but most of it just solves the problems of the moment to win races. They do push the envelope for material sciences more than anything else, but a lot of the engine design and other such things are wildly inapplicable to consumer tech and never will be. They can build million dollar engines out of rare and exotic materials that will never be consumer facing because they need 12 of them or whatever.

So, fun racing/physics lessons learned here: the reason fan cars and (in general) primarily ground effect cars are banned are because of unpredictability leading to unsafe situations. In a car that uses underbody suction to create downforce, any loss of a seal suddenly reduces grip that could leave cars unable to steer, brake, etc and cause much more severe accidents than a car with over-body downforce that still has that benefit of downforce even in an accident to slow down as much as possible before impact.

This is mostly a bad argument. F1 rules cause all kinds of similar problems due to their arbitrary rules. It's very easy for the aerodynamic rules to result in unpredictability.

The last 10 years many of the F1 cars due to the rules had catastrophic loss of downforce if they got too near other cars. The drivers had to work around this by not following too closely. F1 rules changes recently have tried to reduce these kinds of issues.

But even this last season was somewhat ruined by one team figuring out to work within the current rules and not have the porpoising problems that wrecked the other teams cars because they'd lose their downforce. That made the racing less exciting. And the whole problem never had to exist if it wasn't for the rules.

> The last 10 years many of the F1 cars due to the rules had catastrophic loss of downforce if they got too near other cars.

But I don’t remember catastrophic loss of downforce as bad as this: https://youtu.be/e21ZjwZGjiQ

> catastrophic loss of downforce if they got too near other cars. The drivers had to work around this by not following too closely

While the downforce loss was significant, it was predictable and could be easily avoided. The equivalent for ground effect, e.g. hitting a bump or curb mid-corner and lifting the skirt just far enough for the pressure seal to fail and your downforce to go from 100% to near 0% in an instant, is far more likely to lead to a catastrophic accident.

Anthony that causes the car to behave in a way the driver isn't expecting (collision avoidance) would probably lead to less safety rather than more. Besides, even Tesla autopilot can be fooled and certainly isn't designed for cars driving inches apart.

The air bags have been covered in other comments but similarly would probably reduce safety, not increase it. The cars are very much designed for safety, and to absorb impacts, which is why they are so much heavier than previous generations.

As far as anti-lock brakes and collision avoidance goes, most racing leagues tend to avoid tech that automates driver actions. The argument is that it makes it less sporting if the computers are doing the driving. Of course, those policies can be at odds with driver safety at times.

We could build a car which no human being could survive a 100 mile race in today. The human is the limiting factor so we have to limit the technology to what humans (even elite sportsmen) can deal with.

There are all kinds of restrictions added to race cars of almost any series, some for commercial reasons (promoting the original vehicle in rallying and touring cars for example), some for financial (generally to keep the price of entry reasonable) and sometimes for safety.

Relevant XKCD: https://what-if.xkcd.com/116/

Not at all related, but I watched the various motorcycle jumps of the Caesars Palace fountains the other day.

Watching Travis Pastrana jump the fountains on a fairly heavy Indian flat track bike, with modern ramps designed with computer input, and planning rather than seat-of-the-pants go-for-it-ness made it okay, but hardly death-defying. I see guys jump motorcycles furthers on the dunes in Southern California. When EK did it, it was terrifying.

Just like F1 was, once upon a time. Now F1 is scary because speeds are up against human reaction. It's inevitable the cars either have to slow down, or the driver needs to be on controls not in the car, making this ground-based drones.

It would suck up rocks, dust, and debris from the track and spit it out to the driver behind. There are interviews with drivers complaining about it from the very start.

Costs cap most likely.

They need to slow the cars down to be safe. Recently, there’s a push to make the cars cheaper.

Tradition vs too much complexity balance. Adding too much smarts will make it the driver uses less and less skill. Adding fans would just make the car more likely to break down and screw up dynamics.

F1 stopped chasing the frontier of what's possible engineering wise back in the 80s. Cars were already potent enough then to exceed human capacity, even the very best drivers. F1 rule makers shifted to stuff they saw as the intersection of good racing and useful R&D for automakers.

In fact there's almost no racing events that have a true open class engineering wise anymore. It's just too dangerous. Look up what happened during the Group B Rally era for examples of how it can go wrong and blow back.