In two years' time, if all goes according to plan, F1 cars will be louder and faster and more challenging to drive. Reports that they will also make a decent cup of tea and pick up your dry-cleaning on the way back to the pits are yet to be confirmed.
As a sport, Formula One goes through cycles of evolution and revolution dependent on the technical regulations. A total overhaul - say, 2014's move from V8 engines to the current V6 hybrids - comes about every few years, followed by a period of evolution as the regulations mature.
But each and every off-season we arrive at winter testing to hear teams speak of the next season's car - "following the success of last year, Team Champion has elected to design a car that is an evolution of the previous model", while "here at Team Mobile Chicane we have chosen a revolutionary concept that will keep us from completely humiliating ourselves on track for the eighth year running".
It's all pre-season BS, of course - truly revolutionary cars (the Brabham fan car, or the Tyrell six-wheeler, for example) are few and far between. Coke-bottles with four wheels and front and rear wings with slightly different twiddly bits from year to year are the very definition of evolution.
Dr Paolo Aversa, Lecturer in Strategy at City University London's Cass Business School, and co-authors, Alessandro Marino, Luiz Mesquita and Jaideep Anand have written a paper on evolution vs revolution when it comes to improving F1 performance, and have found - broadly speaking - that evolution is the superior approach.
"Evidence shows that in the majority of cases radical innovation pays off in years of regulation stability, but it backfires in years of radical regulation change," Dr Aversa said.
"In 2016 moderate F1 rule changes mean radical innovation will be critical for winning, but in the following year, if radical rule changes are confirmed, teams with conservative approaches toward innovation will outperform more teams with extreme innovation efforts. What our study does not show is 'the more innovation, the better', but there is an optimum level of innovation beyond which returns on performance decrease."
Aversa et al. "statistically examined all the strategic factors influencing Formula One competitions between the seasons 1981 and 2010," and found that a focus on radical tech often pushed teams beyond the limits of their technical expertise, creating the ideal conditions for dead ends, limited efficacy, and an increase in reliability problems, all of which cost time, money, and championship chances.
"Experimenting is not always the most profitable choice, particularly when the continuous turbulence in the competitive environment makes it hard to understand and foresee future scenarios," Aversa explained.
"In such cases organisations should focus on the knowledge they already possess, and exploit them the best they can, to make it fit to what the competitive environment requires, rather than trying to push the boundary of current technological standards."
Exploiting existing strengths and making gradual improvements is the motorsport equivalent of natural selection, in essence. And what could be more evolutionary than that?