Perfect Reliability - Good or Bad for F1?

[agip]

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.

+1.

[Ciro Pabón]

I'd say it depends on what you call good or bad.

If good means to have a slim winning chance, those days when everybody is unlucky and you aren't, then Jarno is right.

If by good you understand to spend two eyes and two kidneys on pistons made of unobtanium to achieve the "correct balance of reliability", then it's very bad.

How this is related *again* to "you'll-allow-me-to-pass-or-I'll-crash-you" incidents (or "do-or-die overtakes", for Hamboys) beats me.

The race for RPM is over and the race for the bigger wind tunnel is over. Thank heaven: that wasn't engineering but rich men waving their dicks at each other.

The idea of paid drivers in a third car is surrealistic. What about a frequent flyer program? For every 10.000 miles you get a free lap around the track on Fridays and a complimentary mug. This could balance HRT budget.

[i70q7m7ghw]

The idea of paid drivers in a third car is surrealistic. What about a frequent flyer program? For every 10.000 miles you get a free lap around the track on Fridays and a complimentary mug. This could balance HRT budget.

We often see the smaller teams run a 'local driver' at some races, clearly the do this for some kind of financial gain, direct or indirect.

Regardless, the t-car is there at every race, ready to be put together, where exactly is the money saving?

[Jeffsvilleusa]

I guess there are 2 sides to this coin: on one side, nobody wants a mechancial failure, and to encourage them is somewhat like Bernie's idea to water tracks to spice things up (and much like DRS, KERS, Pirellis IMO), totally artificial. However, as astutely pointed out by Diesel and seconded by Agip, the engines are not really on the ragged edge of engineering, being homogenized and pasteurized, so we lose some traditional drama from racing- less parts which spontaneously combust.

However, Murphy's law remains in effect, and all have yet to attain perfect reliability.

[Jersey Tom]

To say the engines aren't on the "edge of engineering" or whatever is BS. Extra reliability is just a constraint. "Ok, engines MUST last X duration, now stretch every bit of performance you can without going over X." Just because it isn't pushing the redline higher doesn't in any way mean it's not a huge engineering challenge - in fact it may be more so. Higher RPM's are the obvious way to more power. With that constrained, what are the unique and creative ways of stretching more out of the current package?

The idea that mechanical failures would make for a better show is absolutely ridiculous, unless you want to watch demolition derby instead of motor racing. How would you like a close back-and-forth battle for 1st place to be ruined by someone dropping a cylinder? Or some catastrophic engine failure oiling down the track and sending debris everywhere, puncturing tires, breaking cars, and ruining the rhythm of a race?

[i70q7m7ghw]

Jersey Tom are you forgetting the engine designs were frozen several years ago?

[donskar]

"Perfect Reliability - Good or Bad for F1?"

Bad. Very bad. Adds to the boredom. Reduces uncertainty of who will win. Underlines the fact that F1 is fast becoming a glorified spec series.

[Ciro Pabón]

It's been some years since F1 became a "fair of parts", like any racing series in this world. I think the tendency started around 1950. Blink, blink.

Seriously, the "spec series" aspect is always discussed. I've seen karters investing 5.000 dollars a year (like me) while others can spend well over 200.000 at a local track. When this happens and the rich kid wins, everybody protest. Well, perhaps not everybody, but I do.

It's not funny for newbie drivers, but I have always seen the most affluent teams bragging about their new parts and winning with them (unless the unthinkable happens: a backmarker or a newcomer winning). Heck, even ricers do it.

All drivers brag about the "new parts" they are waiting for in the next to come GP, so they can regain the lost ground. I fail to see how this influences uncertainty, because backmarkers, usually, have more failures by evident motives.

So, I would say any advance that gives a little leeway to move away from the "Richie Rich always win" syndrome is welcome by a part of the bleachers. This happens in more "spec-ed" series. Actually, I know there are many "I like Minardi" people in this forum. They write to me almost weekly to say that not everybody agrees with glorifying the rich.

This tendency was caused by the HUGELY boring Ferrari dominance a few years ago. Frankly, I've never fallen asleep at a GP until then.

Of course, those that live and die for Ferrari, McLaren, etc. will find this change in engine durability very boring, as their preferred firms are not winning every race by throwing a zillion dollars at a new engine and ingenuity and bravery find a place (albeit small) under the sun.

But, hey, who am I to criticize fans of incorporated firms? At least in F1 you don't have to root for Pepsi or Wrigley's Chewing Gum... like in NASCAR.

If I had the time (which these days I have not) I would be looking for numbers, to prove if the reliability is there or not. I would say, even if reliability is proved, that it simply reflects the fact that reliability is managed these days, in a way different from times of yore, since the number of engines and gearboxes is limited. I guess there is a couple of guys in every team in charge of extracting every drop from the "reliability management". It has changed from a problem that only affected accountants ("we need three to eight more engines this year, I think") to a problem that affects championships ("we ran out of engines").

DRS, believe it or not, must be influencing also. Many failures in the past were caused by cars overheating when behind another car, not getting enough cooling.

[mep]

The idea that mechanical failures would make for a better show is absolutely ridiculous, unless you want to watch demolition derby instead of motor racing.

I have to disagree very much with this statement.

It brings a lot of drama to the sport when suddenly a part fails. This has nothing to do with demolition derby because there the cars break because of a crash with somebody else. So it’s caused by a action taken by the driver. A reliable caused DNF hits the driver and his fans out of a sudden without any fault of the driver. It adds a big amount of tragic sometimes it seems to be pure destiny when it hits somebody in the worst moment imaginable. Usually when everything is already decided and a driver is on his way to win. For me unexpected DNF’s caused the most emotional moments while watching F1 races, much more than any overtaking maneuver. Might I refresh your memory a bit?

Do you remember Barcelona race 2001? Mika Hakkinen was leading it and lapped almost every other car but in the last lap he went very slowly and finally had to stop.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5dmhGY ... re=related[/youtube]

Similar thing happened to his countryman Kimi Raikkonen at the end of Nürburgring 2005. After driving half of the race with a flat spoted tire and heavy vibrations the suspension broke on the last lap.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAgvS61J89U[/youtube]

Well actually Kimi and his Fans went trough a very though F1 career. There where uncountable car failures many of them while he was on his way to win. Think of Nürburgring 2003, Imola 2005, Hockenheim 2005, Monaco 2006. All DNF’s while being on the way to win. The 2003 and 2005 incidents cost him 2 World Championships. In both years a single DNF less would have secured him the title.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x_aFhhLjuA[/youtube]


How about this one?

Suzuka race 2006. Schumacher in the lead, all pit stops done, title nr 8 seems to be almost secured when suddenly smoke comes out of the Ferrari and it stops. This DNF has a very special character because the Ferrari didn’t had one since Hockenheim 2001!


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzlJaVm32nk[/youtube]

Don’t you all remember the latest act of tragedy?

Korea race 2010. Vettel on the way to win the race and increasing his chances to win the title but out of a sudden the engine blows up. Alonso takes a lucky win and once again seems to win a title by DNFs of his competitors.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uD7mpzPpmM[/youtube]

Moments like these are like a punch in the face but possible character building. It is what people call Motorsport. It is not meant to be fair. It is not always the best who craps the win. It makes it a sport which is very close to real life.

[Giblet]

Depends on the failure. This kind of failure, BAD BAD BAD

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBVuvIPe0tc[/youtube]

[i70q7m7ghw]

He was fine, there have been much worse accidents in F1 in recent years, and the drivers have walked away. If there was a concern about driver safety, the FIA would up the crash tests.

[Richard]

F1 is a combination of driver + strategy + car.

I want to see each of those components on the edge of their ability, stretching themselves to the limit. The incredibly low DNF rate is a sure sign that the driver + strategy + car is not being stretched enough.

I remember Mansell and Senna barely able to walk after a race after having to work very hard to stretch themselves and their cars to the limit. If F1 is not at the limit it gets processional, it gets dull.

Ciro - here are the DNF numbers ....

Analysis only counts cars that made it to the grid, and how many of those made it to the finish line. Expressed as %DNF per starting driver over whole season. For example, 2009 has seen 298 drivers start on the grid. In total 50 retired, 10 classified but did not finish, so total of 60 DNF. Hence 20% (ie 60/298).

1984: 54%
1989: 51%
1999: 45%
2003: 32%
2006: 30%
2008: 24%
2009: 20%

The above only considers cars that made it to the grid. It is worth noting:
1984 DNQ was in place - 4% of entrants did not even start.
1989 DNQ was in place - 23% of entrants did not even start.
1989 DNPQ was in place - 10% of entrants did not even start

When you compound DNF and DNQ in 1989, 67% of entrants didn't get to the finish. All those people turned up and didn't finish. There must have been a lot of passion those teams for them to keep trying again and again.

[Richard]

He was fine, there have been much worse accidents in F1 in recent years, and the drivers have walked away. If there was a concern about driver safety, the FIA would up the crash tests.

That's complacent. Did you not see those loose wheels? A loose wheel killed Henry Surtees in Formula 2 in 2009 and killed a marshall in the Australian GP in 2001.

Alguersuari's wheel came off in China this year, jumped the fencing and landed next to marshalls and photographers.

[strad]

"Perfect Reliability - Good or Bad for F1?"

Bad. Very bad. Adds to the boredom. Reduces uncertainty of who will win. Underlines the fact that F1 is fast becoming a glorified spec series.

.

[marcush.]

Are you serious?

The point is NOT perfect reliability it is the rules of x races this component ,xraces that component... so for example gearboxes were the no 1 failure cause for long years in Formula 1 ..now they have to last a lot of weekends and you can only use a specified no of boxes...clearly you will have to put a lot of margin in those .
Second-F1 has become a non contact sport ..every little nudge starts a big discussion and drivers getting reprimanded...another reason ...third an off in former days was a crash and no chance to finish the race ..in alot of places now we have huge runoffs with tarmac and it´s just a matter of a few seconds lost compared to two wheels and a wing knocked off. The races on old stile circuits do not show this no dnf trait.