In the WEC they did not converge to a solution.Jolle wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 14:21But as history has shown us, every formula with some freedom, after a while, all the teams find the (same) sweetspot. During the turbos this was a 1.5 V6 twin turbo, in the 3.5/3.0 years a V10, etc etc. The only thing you do is that you let some teams make big costly mistakes.Xwang wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 14:04Ok, but someone (maybe wrongly) could decide to use a V4, someone a V8.wuzak wrote: ↑30 Jul 2019, 04:37
With a power limit the advantage of turbos would be amplified.
This is because the aim would be to have the maximum power across the widest possible rpm band. Which the turbos can achieve.
Without the fuel flow limit and with a maximum power limit, the current PUs could give the maximum power basically across the whole useable rpm range.
Someone else could think to use a NA coupled with a very powerful electric motor so that to have high power in wide rpm band but without the use, weight and volume of turbo and related ancillaries.
Someone in the future could try (when battery will permit that) to run full electric or series hybrid.
Someone could also use a 2T engine if they wish.
Maybe in F1 they went all to the same configuration because there were in any case limits like displacement and displacement ratio between NA and turbo that gave an advantage to a specific solution.
For example in 1950 Alfa used a 1.5 with compressor and the same was the Ferrari 125, but then they went for the NA 375 because at that time the displacement ratio between NA and compressed engine was 3:1. But both engines were competitive.
If the ratio were 2:1, probably Ferrari would have continued using the 125, because a 3000cc NA for sure at that time was not competitive with supercharged engines.