>>16518
>1.5 liter limit is how it has always been
That is a stupid reason to do anything and with that reasoning we should still be using a 1950's formula.
>If we didn't have a minimum weight, this would not be as much of a problem.
>Now, with teams unable to make the car lighter (and in most cases ballasting the car) there is a huge benefit in having a lighter driver as you can choose where you want the weight.
This is a logical error, actually the opposite is true. The more ballast a constructor is already forced to use the less the value of the each additional kilo of ballast becomes.
Let's say they were forced to make the cars weigh a ton, meaning they would be able to use several hundred kilos of ballast. They would then be able to make the cars so perfectly balanced that gaining a few % more ballast by choosing a lighter driver would be of absolutely no consequence. In other words the heavier the cars are forced to use be less reason they will have to sacrifice a skilled driver to gain ballast for balancing.
This is not saying a minimum car weight is good or bad, just that your logic is entirely broken.
>>16519
>A piston on a common crank with another piston is not another engine
But you see, that is entirely arbitrary. If I take two lawnmower engines and connect a chain from each to the rear wheels of my cart do they magically become a single engine? If I connect both chains to a single axle so they run in sync do they now magically become a single engine? If I connect their cranks do each other and run just a single chain do they now magically become a single engine?
>a heat engine that converts heat energy
There is not anything like that on any car I can think of. The cPost too long. Click here to view the full text.