Perfect Reliability - Good or Bad for F1?

[ESPImperium]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92703

I tend to aggree with Jarno, perfect relyability is taking another element of F1 away. We need more car failures and more do or die overtaking moves in F1.

Id like to hear the engines scream to 19,000rpm plus again. The engines are now so relyable there is not many failures in the early season. However with the 8 engine rule i think this needs a look at as well. Id like this;

* Take RPM lmimiter off
* Engines either have to be used consecutivly one after another or the option of a 9th engine is taken away and if driver goes into the last 2 or 3 GP with three blocks blown he may have to use a engine with only "practice milage" left on it in a race and quali.

As for trying to get more overtaking, what about a point for most overtakes on the track, for the guys that go out in Q1 and Q2???

Or another rule, 10 laps out blue flags are suspended and the guys that went out in Q1 and Q2 and arnt in the normal points paying places, can go for fastest lap??

Would create carnage in the final laps with the faster cars trying to get thrugh traffic and cars trying to get the Fastest Lap.

Years ago we wanted more cars to finish, now we want less cars to finish as theres not enough blow-ups or crashes.

[Holm86]

"I tend to aggree with Jarno, perfect relyability is taking another element of F1 away. We need more car failures and more do or die overtaking moves in F1."

The problem is when a driver does those do-or-die overtaking moves that people allegedly wants then they start crying and yelling.

But you are right when it comes to the rev-limiter. When they decide on the new engine rules for 2014 then please let us have the V8 for full revs the last years.

[gridwalker]

Perfect reliability takes away from the sense that the machine is being stressed to the limit, which reduces the sense of drama significantly.

If a point is awarded for most overtakes, it should be available to all. The opportunity for overtaking at the front is limited by the number of cars in front of you, so the opportunities get progressively larger as you head down the grid. The midfield pack is more likely to be shuffled through the race, so the leaders would rarely get that point.

If someone at the front still gets the points for most overtakes, they've probably earned it

[Jersey Tom]

This is a good example of why you shouldn't listen to drivers.

[n_anirudh]

Well, one honest question is :

will Trulli enjoy having DNF's for the rest of the season if 23 other cars finish every race?

Its humans who have engineered these machines and there is always gonna be a human element in these machines.

[flynfrog]

I kinda miss Honda decorating the front stretch with there latest attempt at an engine. Also miss the one race motors revving to 21000

[Traction]

such a contradiction...each and every team is striving for perfection...anything less is simply just not good enough. The only people who would raise anything remotely like this topic are the guys who are showing a below par performance. The second they achieve what the winners are achieving the tune will change. Snyway...what is the alternative to increased reliability...??...whats the point of racing if the car can`t handle the race conditions....look at Mansells career with Ferrari...he could have clinched more than just on WDC but reliability killed it for him on more than one occasion.....

[i70q7m7ghw]

The perfect race car would crosses the finish line and falls to pieces shortly after. They are designed for a purpose, and that purpose is to cross the finish line first.

Really when we should be asking, are the cars over-engineered?

[Mandrake]

I don't really like reliability failures. If they happen in the midfield when points are out of reach anyways ok, but remembering for example Michael Schumacher in seasons where he had to fight to the end, every car failure just took away all the good work he did at the wheel. And many of those failures were not related to his driving, meaning it wasn't his fault.

Same goes for Vettel last season.....it was frustrating to see him leading the races and not putting a foot wrong, but being let down by his fragile car, again not caused by his driving. And there are so many more examples in the past which I cannot exactly remember at the moment

[Gerhard Berger]

Vettel broke his car. He always used to push it too hard.

[marcush.]

why is reliability so good?
First of all..the teams work along apqp guidelines and the parts are tightly controlled but still there is room for improvement....
So from that side the quality thinking in F1 is a good thing and I don´t think Trulli likes DNFs caused by technical issues (as you don´t like to have technical issues on your side generally.)
but it is very obvious that Formula one has left the area of being borderline or the edge of what is technically possible to produce.It´s now a proper case of risk assessment and inevitably with all the variables involved you don´t take too many chances technically.End of story.
Or as Dennis put it.to finish first you first have to finish .Simple.

[SiLo]

I wouldn't say that reliability has made F1 less exciting, it's the aerodynamics of the cars themselves that have stopped the excitement. If they could follow easily, we would see so much more overtaking than we do now, and we wouldn't need KERS or DRS to do it.

[andrew]

Perfect reliability has taken an element of unpredictability away from F1. It is a side effect of the number of engines being limited.

Personally, I would like to see F1 go back to the days of qualifying engines and a new engine at each race, however this will not happen thanks to the previous FIA administration being obsessed with reducing costs.

[SiLo]

Reduce aero grip, and increase engine power/revs/turbo whatever that will make them howl like demons again.

You could be smart and finish the race, or you could be lucky and go for it with a higher engine setting.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I think the main thing that has made the engines so reliable is the engine freeze + the rev limit. The engine designs were frozen at a higher rev limit IIRC, so obviously now they are almost over-engineered.

I don't understand all the restrictions personally, especially when there are rules in place to penalise those that chomp through engines. Let them rev the engines as high as they like. The teams that want their engines to last will compromise, those that don't can risk everything for a moment of glory.

I can get my head around how forcing teams to make engines last multiple races can save money, since I guess on a whole they will build less engines. But the rpm limit? How does that save any money? It probably makes the engines more reliable, but isn't it the manufacturers job to do that?

I do dispair at the decisions the FIA make sometimes. Banning the t-car was a complete farce the name of cost saving. All teams still spend money shipping the bloody thing around the world, they just don't put it together anymore. That car should be out on track on fridays, available to all but the top 4/5 teams based on the previous years contructors. Heck it might even make money, if they can get a third driver in the car who brings some decent sponsorship with him!