It was boring because there weren't any restrictions, and so the best teams were so far ahead the races just became a procession. That and the high downforce setups being badly affected by running behind other cars, coupled with tires that didn't wear out much, made overtaking almost non existent.
In the last 6 seasons, we've had 4 championships decided on the last race, one of those on the very last corner, one with three drivers separated by a single point, one with 4 drivers a chance to win it going into the last race, and another twice having the championship decided by the equivalent of coming 5th instead of 3rd in a single race out of twenty. Not to mention more overtaking and wheel to wheel racing than the past 15 years combined, more world champions competing against each other than at any other point in history and a great mixture of old teams and new teams winning races (5 separate teams won races last season).
And yet, in spite of all that, if you think there isn't technological competition winning the races, you're dead wrong. What about the F-Duct, rear blown diffuser, or the double diffuser which almost single handedly won Brawn F1 both titles in its first and only year in existence? If all the cars are the same, how is the Red Bull six seconds per lap faster than the Caterham at Spa when they run exactly the same Renault engine? It has just changed focus to aerodynamics and car setup, rather than making a better engine.
F1 today is just street race with oddly shaped cars.
Did Caterham forget to turn their engine into fast mode? Or is there maybe some technology somewhere in that Red Bull car to justify their roughly $300 million budget.
Because the FIA limited the placement and size of aerodynamic fins (i.e. spoilers and front lips), the engineers started using other aerodynamic innovations to increase downforce. One of the most interesting things to come out of F1 cars, from an aerospace engineering perspective, is the use of eddies and other circular air motions underneath the vehicle to drop the pressure (and create a corresponding downforce).
Just because the rules stop innovation on something like engine tech doesn't mean innovation stops; it just means it moves to optimizing other pieces of tech.
Not true at all. If the cars were practically identical Red Bull wouldn't be running away with the championship every year. As important as the drivers are in F1 the car is much more important.
>> "Formula 1 was ruined by restrictions on maximal engine performance, acceleration... even tyres are dictated"
Without some of those restrictions most of the smaller teams couldn't afford to go racing. We would lose probably half the teams. And tyres are what has made F1 so exciting these last few years. Tyres could easily be made to last an entire race taking away the strategy aspect from F1 that makes it so interesting.
Prefer that to some of the uneven racing of the Schumacher era.
By reading article Formula E is going to have similar limitations. It is very sad, we just lost technological race where victory would be won by innovation.
> During the race, the cars are forced into a power-saving mode of 133 kW (180 hp)
> The motor is good for a maximum output of 200 kW (270 horsepower), but that power is only allowed to be used continuously during practice and qualifying.
> Formula E racer can go from 0-60 MPH in three seconds, while the top speed is limited to a rather anemic 140 MPH