For those that enjoy bicycle racing, check out motorcycle racing. For those that like gocart racing, check out NASCAR (seriously, check it out if you haven't).
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.
NASCAR and F1 take opposite approaches to regulating technology. F1 defines an envelope and you can do anything within that envelope. NASCAR defines specs and anything on either side of that spec is treated as a violation.
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."
NASCAR is trying to eliminate technical advantage so that the competition is entirely about which driver and crew is best. I don't see anything wrong with that.
And if that were really the case then you wouldn't see the big teams like Hendrick and Penske dominating. Heck, even Chip Ganassi has problems competing in NASCAR and he's hardly a small player.
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.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's just a different philosophy. Personally I like the ability for engineers to innovate in F1 more, but of course that varies from person to person.
NASCAR is a terrible example in this case. I'm not what you would call a huge fan of the sport, but I did work for the organization for a while and the racing itself is very much not "top technology". In fact, many would say the appeal is in the restrictions placed on the technology allowed for the teams.
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.
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.
The gaps I'm talking about would mean the winner lapped up to the top 5 or top 3. A truly unlimited ruleset would be financially ruinous as well. Only a few years ago top teams were spending $500 million or more a season and that was with a ruleset that had quite a few restrictions.
The America's Cup has very strict design restrictions. For example, in the latest edition, they weren't expecting catamarans to be able to foil because they had disallowed moving parts on the control surfaces. The Kiwis realised that you could actually move the entire control surface to get the desired control. It was awkward, which is why they had so much trouble actually controlling the foiling.
Anyway, yes, there are a lot of design restrictions in America's Cup yacht design.
That surprises me - I would have thought they would have disallowed the catamaran entirely. It's a radically different design. Are the restrictions for safety, or to cap some kind of performance?
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.