Primacy of machines

Simple, obvious, yet powerful insight from Brian Viner in today's Independent: "Formula One could learn a lot from the Tour de France, the rules in cycling insisting on 'primacy of man over machine'. In Formula One the primacy of machine over man is absolute." Is this true? Are the principles of cycling being upheld? With carbon technology and advanced aerodynamics (plus continued suspicions about drug use in the sport), is it really the case in cycling that humans have primacy over their machinery? With Greg Lemond's speech at the Play the Game conference held in Coventry this June still fresh in the mind, would he agree? If Viner is accurate in his proposition that F1 can learn from cycling, how should it learn and what would this mean for the sport? Perhaps all teams would run the same cars, with the same engines, on the same tyres, all prepared by the same team? Would this be possible, especially in Europe where EU legislators might well be concerned by the anti-competitive nature of such measures? Or, rather than standardising the nature of sport and the format of competition, is what Viner is suggesting more a case of narrowing the parameters within which teams operate? Would this mean restricting teams to certain levels of expenditure and cost? Might there be an opportunity for F1 to introduce a franchise system, through which the FIA enforce a set of rules and regulations? Would this be a step too far? In any case, if one were to create a new version of F1 in which all the teams were more of a homogenised mass rather than a differentiated field, would the sport retain its appeal and preeminent position across the world as a major sporting property?