how exactly would that be interesting?

My theory is that so much of driving (especially at the F1 level) is about feeling what's going on. That just doesn't translate to a remote control.

I still haven't seen that, though...

The number of fans that want to see the top technology vastly outnumber the number of fans that want to see the more limited tech.

At this point, most of the limitations are for safety. It seems like a good idea to allow innovation if it is available to all athletes. I don't for example want one F-1 team to have a patent on traction control and restrict all others from using it.

I much prefer F1's approach because it challenges engineers to innovate within parameters, just like the real world. NASCAR is trying to make everything even on the technology side and the result is that innovation is often called "cheating."

Not that I'm necessarily anti the NASCAR approach (though I do think the organisation itself can be somewhat capricious), but it's certainly not a form of motor sport without team-based technical advantage.

All things being equal, fans would like to see more advanced technology on the ractrack. But the reality is that the more degrees of technical freedom in the rules, the more expensive it will be to compete, and the less close the racing will be.

NASCAR for instance is very restricted technically but is very, very successful because the racing is close. Formula 1 and Moto GP are two series with pretty open rules and they're always trying to rein them in to control costs and increase parity.

The number 1 thing fans want to see is a show. If you made Formula 1 totally unlimited you'd have gaps so big that there'd never be a question of who would win barring a crash. And it would be so expensive you'd end up with a single-digit grid of cars before long.

Which is largely true today during the Vettel era and was largely true during the Schumacher era. People still watch it.

Anyway, yes, there are a lot of design restrictions in America's Cup yacht design.