Oh, another axe-grinding v6 engine bashing thread.. *yawn*.. OK, I'll bite.
Although I don't know the original context of Steven's quote, it sounds like he is referring to rules that had good intention but suffered a small oversight that caused it to be completely mis-interpreted and end up a blunder. In this case I think the most recent example of this is probably the double diffuser. The re-writing of the aerodynamic regs for 2009 was well intentioned but one tiny blunder there caused the grid to be turned upside down with the big teams playing catch up.
I will follow this logic for my point about the current engine rules. I think the current engine rules are mostly correct. Of course the hardware is fascinating, the have ample power and torque and they are very efficient too. They are cutting edge where the V8s were cutting logs. In that regard the engine rules have been successful. There's been no one part of the mechanical power unit where someone has gained an unfair advantage by anything other than just plain hard work. (I'm ignoring the aural part because it is subjective).
The blunder, in my opinion, was that they assumed the reliability and equality of the V8 engines onto the V6 engine. This in turn caused them to restricted development too heavily and this in turn bit back as Renault, Ferrari and later Honda could not catch up.
Ironically the regulators did this part correctly when we went from open V8-era to the tightly homologated V8 era - allowing a year of development leading into the restricted era.
I think this small oversight in the rules would have had the most effect on how the v6 turbo engines were introduced into F1.
And for anyone feeling nostalgic about the V8 era, It's fun to go back and read these threads from 2005 which are full of doom-mongering about how the new V8s will sound terrible, be too expensive, will ruin the sport, etc
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... f=4&t=1170
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... f=4&t=1527
