I don't know if that would be as easy to regulate as you think. They can make aerodynamic shapes that will create downforce, even a standard road car has some downforce to counteract the fact that the cabin is basically a right way up wing pulling the car off the road.A more radical change could be to prohibit ANY artificial downforce from wings and underbody.
Very easy to control via mandatory windtunnel test of cars.
I don't know where or how yo'd draw the line on that one.
Aero is becoming more and more of a thing in road cars, and I could see it becoming even more important in the future as electric driven by AI allow for faster road speeds. So aero does filter down from F1 into the consumer market.
This generation of drivers never had to watch their friends die and then get into the same car and put their own lifes on the line. People can have great bravado talking about stuff they haven't done but it would be a completely different story if they had to deal with the reality of dying every time they got in a car.
There is absolutely zero chance the organizers of F1 will make the sport more dangerous. Although their is an argument that non aero cars would be much safer because they simply wouldn't be going as fast. But then F1 get's dragged down into competition with the lower classes. Would F1 still have a global appeal if the cars were slower than LMP 1, or on par with a GT3 car?
If F1 doesn't have the fastest cars around a track it has no selling point.
