Wouldn’t it be nice for F1 to go through at least 1 season without rule changes.
My reason being that it would give a some of the smaller teams a chance to be able to catch up development wise to the likes of Ferrari and McClaren.
We have 3 new teams this season and lets face it,they have struggled which shouldn’t have come as too much of a surprise and next year they will probably do a better job. But for more rule changes like KERS,movable rear wings and whatever else that the FIA has in mind.
Teams that don’t have the resources that the likes of Ferrari or McClaren have will always battle if the rules continue to change from one year to the next.
And if the rules don’t change, those same teams will battle to compete because Ferrari and McLaren and Red Bull will have a head start. The rules changes are not major overhauls of the car specifications; 2008-2009 was the exception to the rule. For example, the 2010 cars are essentially 2009 cars with larger fuel tanks.
There is a pecking order in Formula 1, and it is dictated by more than just whoever spends the most.
From 1988 to 1990, I think, there was a three-year freeze on the regulations for the sake of consistency.
McLaren dominated all three years and the rest of the field were barely any closer to them at the end of the last season than at the beginning of the first. So the evidence suggests that a regulation freeze would not allow smaller teams to catch up, it would just retain the status quo.
Conversely, the regulation shake-ups (e.g. 1998, 2005, 2009) have allowed different teams to move to the front, by testing who can make the best interpretation of the new rules.
Rule changes are also there to limit potentially dangerous technical innovations. Ground effect was banned because drivers were suffering too big g-forces in corners and there were even cases of them falling unconscious because of too high g-forces. Teams always find new ways to get competitive advantage – just look at double deck diffusers and f-duct in last 2 seasons.