<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"      It&amp;#039;s hard enough to know what F1 is going to look like by the end of this year, let alone decades hence. Recalibrating our crystal ball to a nearer term, here are some things under contention for change.   Passing, or want of it; that&amp;#039;s the big controversy after the opening Grands Prix this season. Last year, in accord with a committee of thinkers called the Overtaking Working Group, F1 cars were massively redesigned to accommodate bigger front wings and smaller rear ones. But some teams invented &amp;quot;double diffusers,&amp;quot; which generated more rear downforce, thus diluting the intent of the new rules.   These trick diffusers were protested by other teams but upheld, so this year everybody has them. Worse, new 2010 rules regarding tires and refueling seem to have made it even harder to pass. F1&amp;#039;s fan base is outraged and the officials will have to do something. We watch to see what.   Then there&amp;#039;s green. F1 feels pressure to present itself as more responsible to the environment (and also to business), so proposals are being heard to make the cars more efficient (and also less expensive). A 2007 FIA document called for a 20-percent reduction in F1 engine power, to about 600 bhp, by abandoning today&amp;#039;s 2.4-liter V-8s in favor of 2.2-liter V-6s running on &amp;quot;just `gas station available&amp;#039; fuel with a sizeable `bio&amp;#039; constituent.&amp;quot;   More recently, an even more extreme suggestion is a &amp;quot;universal engine&amp;quot; offering economy of scale, thus encouraging manufacturers to participate. This U-motor would be a 2.0-liter 4-cylinder for use in all forms of racing, from F1 down to F3, as well as in sports, touring and rally cars, even IndyCars. In F1 and similar applications it would be turbocharged to the 600-bhp level. Obviously, various versions would burn fuels from gasoline to diesel to methanol.   And what about KERS? Though this year&amp;#039;s F1 teams agreed among themselves not to install a Kinetic Energy Recovery System, aka electric power-to-pass, it&amp;#039;s still in the rules and some such green measure is sure to be mandatory one day. Perhaps F1 will follow the lead of Le Mans and employ KERS only to boost fuel economy, not power.   Do these proposals make your F1 fan&amp;#039;s heart race? FIA is aware of the danger. The 2007 document noted above contains this remark: &amp;quot;The main constraint will be to avoid damage to the emotional attraction of Formula 1 for its fan base. In particular the technical awe of Formula 1 and its sheer speed must be retained.&amp;quot; Those pesky fans.   Seriously, F1 regulations are so restrictive now that playing with new technologies has to be done in ever smaller crevices between the rules. Rules beget rules, so that won&amp;#039;t improve, and rules are trending ever more toward stasis. Aero is in flux, but only because nobody understands it; once they hit on the most workable package, it will never change again. Engines and powertrains are the areas most ripe for dramatic alteration, but recent history predicts that once a new configuration is chosen, it will be frozen for years.   At least F1 racing cars will retain purity of purpose. They have always had the appeal of an instrument of single intent. That will not be lost. In years to come F1s will remain single-seaters with exposed wheels. They&amp;#039;ll still push designers to their mental limits (within the rules), they&amp;#039;ll still embody magnificent craftsmanship, they&amp;#039;ll still challenge the skills of the world&amp;#039;s most talented and determined competitors. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a22913/future-thinking-formula-1/?src=global_footer>