Where did RBR go wrong with reliability?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Where did RBR go wrong with reliability?

Post

What confuses me (forgive me if I'm wrong, I could be) is that last year, seemingly Mark had more reliability issues in terms of the car (not the engine), while Seb had less car reliability issues? Then suddenly this year is the other way around? Sure Seb had more engine issues, but I'm talking more on chassis/brakes/suspension/etc
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Where did RBR go wrong?

Post

Keeping score:

They had:
  • spark plug failure in Bahrain race
  • loose front wheel in Australian race
  • broken left front brake disk locator in Spain
  • undiscovered tub damage at front suspension pivot point in Spain and Monaco (two counts)
  • broken lower whisbone assembly and loose shock linkage in Turkey qually
  • bad gear box Webber in Canada after qually, starts 5 places back
  • bad gear box Vettel in the race, he is told to short shift and go slow after mid race
7:1 Vettel/Webber
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

bidong
bidong
0
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 11:37

Re: Where did RBR go wrong with reliability?

Post

reliability goes hand in hand with performance.

the more performance you put in the car the less reliable it will get
the more reliable it is, the less performance.

so, where did RBR go wrong with reliability? or where did RBR go right?

ADRIAN NEWEY!

bidong
bidong
0
Joined: 21 Feb 2009, 11:37

Re: Where did RBR go wrong with reliability?

Post

kudos to the guy though for pushing the limits and packaging of a formula one car.

but like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_MP4-20

let's just hope this RBR is a step forward from the MP4-20.
it had bazzilions of fastest laps and a respectable amount of wins. but because it was unreliable, therefore not being able to rack up points when it needed to. then there goes renault clinching both championships. daym. that should have been kimis.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Where did RBR go wrong with reliability?

Post

bidong wrote:reliability goes hand in hand with performance.

the more performance you put in the car the less reliable it will get
the more reliable it is, the less performance.

so, where did RBR go wrong with reliability? or where did RBR go right?

ADRIAN NEWEY!

Check out some Ferrari/Schumacher figures 2000-2006. They had Nigel Stepney flogging everybody for reliability. The dream team managed not only winning incredible numbers of races but also huge strings of no reliability faults, sometimes nothing for years. It can be done!
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Where did RBR go wrong with reliability?

Post

Yes, pushing speed and a hard driving style does do more damage to the car. However this is an endurance sport where reliability is a key performance factor.

It seems the RB equation is is a little unbalanced in that regard. However, if they put more design effort into reliability and set up the cars for a more conservative style, then they would go a bit slower.

That's the joy of F1 - they are all constantly trying to get balance in the strengths and weaknesses of the designers, factory, mechanics, cars, and drivers.