Actually there have always or almost always been tight regulations in every GP era.
Hardly true, the regulations in the 1950s, '60s and 70s weren't remotely as tight as they are today and the racing was very real then. The main rule then was on engine capacity. That's why we had the big engine and car variations from BRM, Tyrell and others that I've already mentioned, proving the rules were not very tight.
In recent decades the bodywork features are often prescribed to millimetre accuracy, the number of engine cylinders are dictated, as are the number of wheels. Every tiny detail is ruled upon with little room for variance. And it's precisely these rules that brought about the one make inequalities, as you've already commented on with the Brawn cars, since they leave hardly any loopholes and the team which spots a remaining one leaps far ahead.
I'd like to see F1 rules go back to little more than the engine size, overall car dimensions and road car practicality. Since one of the points of having F1 is to develop cars for road use, aerodynamic features would have to be deemed practical for road cars, so no fears of ground effects etc. Get rid of the silly safety cars, an unwelcome US import, the processions they bring and the disadvantaging of prior good driving. No pit stops except for a wet/dry weather tyre change, cars fuelled for the whole race and tyres to last for the race. After all, not much to ask of a tyre or car is it, 200 miles? That then would be racing, what we have today isn't, it's a sham engineered by design rules, pit crews, DRS etc.
The i.c. engine size can apply to hybrid racing as well, since the fossil fuel is still the only primary power source.
That's my preference, but I know it won't happen in the daft world they've created and that you'll probably be secure with the present system for quite some while. Not good for F1 though is it, with the following largely confined to the over forties and even many of them unhappy with the new hybrids?
.
