[Tech Issue] Are F1 cars too reliable?

[Marbot]

Jarno Trulli says that car reliability is harming the sport.

Trulli argued that the perfect reliability was taking another human element out of F1.

"In any case, this record is a bit paradoxical and has a precise significance: the Valencia race in my opinion has indicated another winner, besides [Sebastian] Vettel as usual. That winner is technology," the Lotus driver continued.

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

Any thoughts?

[johntt]

The reason they are so reliable is because they are so restricted.

Back when they were experimenting with all sorts of ideas there was more scope for things to break down.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by johntt

The reason they are so reliable is because they are so restricted.

Back when they were experimenting with all sorts of ideas there was more scope for things to break down.

The problem now seems to be that any opening of the regs will immediately lead to engines that will become too powerful, no matter what type of engine you choose to allow. Chances are that most will do enough computer simulations to make any choice given to them a bit of a no-brainer anyway. So going down different avenues probably wouldn't happen either.

It seems that F1 has come to a phase in its history where F1 engine development has become impossible to carry out because it already reached its limits a long time ago. The only thing left now is for one engine to last an entire season!

[phoenix]

All the time the teams are penalised heavily for unreliability - engine and gearbox failures in particular - we will have to live with the consequences.

Take away some of the drivers 'toys' like rev limiters, clutch protecting software, anti-stall, flappy-paddle automatic sequential gearchanges and let the drivers break the cars maybe? They surely would break more often....

However, I think it's good that we don't get many structural/suspension/wing failures (which aren't caused by accidents) as that obviously means improved safety.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Take away some of the drivers 'toys' like rev limiters, clutch protecting software, anti-stall, flappy-paddle automatic sequential gearchanges and let the drivers break the cars maybe? They surely would break more often....

This. They're idiot proof.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by ensign14

This. They're idiot proof.

I agree. The problem is not one of reliability - random failures - but that they're hard to break through poor/clumsy driving. Added that you don't even need to remain within the confines of the circuit most of the time and precision is no longer a desirable skill in driver. A Prost would be nowhere now with no requirement to look after the equipment or use the circuit to the maximum and no more and for me, that is what is spoiling F1 racing.

[csirl]

Originally Posted by Woolley

I agree. The problem is not one of reliability - random failures - but that they're hard to break through poor/clumsy driving. Added that you don't even need to remain within the confines of the circuit most of the time and precision is no longer a desirable skill in driver. A Prost would be nowhere now with no requirement to look after the equipment or use the circuit to the maximum and no more and for me, that is what is spoiling F1 racing.

+1

20 years ago, when you had grass and gravel traps, you'd have several cars in each race beached on grass verges or in gravel following driving errors. Todays circuits are too much like a video game where it doesnt really matter if you go outside the confines of the track.

Also, in the past, when there were no engine restrictions a weaker team could take the strategic decision to tune their engines to the limit so they'd either score points or blow up. Todays weak teams dont have this option and so are confined to the rear of the field.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by csirl

+1

20 years ago, when you had grass and gravel traps, you'd have several cars in each race beached on grass verges or in gravel following driving errors. Todays circuits are too much like a video game where it doesnt really matter if you go outside the confines of the track.
.

The game often rewards going outside the track boundaries with faster lap times!

All true and of course there were once dropped scores so that the odd DNF often didn't affect championship standings at the sharp end at all. Personally I liked it that way, everyone was allowed one or two foul ups without it wrecking their season, also of course it meant if a driver was dominant it left the championship open for a little longer. Fourwheeldrift.

Dropping scores also encourages racing rather than points scoring parades!

[GORDON STREETER]

I can't see that they can be "too reliable", all the drivers out there want to at least finish the race for the team and sponsors that cost millions in what is presumably the pinnacle of motorsport.
Agreed that they are made to almost be "idiot proof" but then if you was footing the bill I would think you would want them to be !

[Super Hans]

I wouldn't mind 100% reliability, if only the regs permitted close racing.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by johntt

The reason they are so reliable is because they are so restricted.

Back when they were experimenting with all sorts of ideas there was more scope for things to break down.

And they are just better at this nowadays. Quality testing is much improved in most industries and F1 actually does this now!

Originally Posted by Super Hans

I wouldn't mind 100% reliability, if only the regs permitted close racing.

Which it does! Top 18 in Q1 separated by 1.8s. More overtaking this year than ever before (possibly ).

[GolddustMini]

the fan in me says its a shame that the uncertainty of a murray walker 'AND LOOK AT THAT!" moments is all but gone, with the chance of a serious mechanical malfunction reduced to levels never seen before.


however the engineer and engine builder thinks its great.

[Bononi]

What's wrong with reliability anyway ?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

What's wrong with reliability anyway ?

It's too.....reliable.

Maybe the engines should be made to last a bit longer?

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

It's too.....reliable.

Maybe the engines should be made to last a bit longer?

I really don't miss the time when 10 cars out of 24 finished the race, and sometimes a good racer lost it.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

I really don't miss the time when 10 cars out of 24 finished the race, and sometimes a good racer lost it.

Well....I suppose so. Certainly Schumachers engine blow-up at Suzuka in 2006 was a very recent example of reliability probably costing a driver a championship.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well....I suppose so. Certainly Schumachers engine blow-up at Suzuka in 2006 was a very recent example of reliability probably costing a driver a championship.

I guess Massa, leading in Hungary, 3 laps to the end is the most recent, isn't it ? It certainly cost him critical points for the WDC in the end.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well....I suppose so. Certainly Schumachers engine blow-up at Suzuka in 2006 was a very recent example of reliability probably costing a driver a championship.

Montoya's 2 failures in 2003 proberbly cost him the title too. Going back to Schumacher, in his 5 championship winning seasons, 2000-2004 he had only 8 retirements in 85 races (4 of them - 50% in 2000 alone!) so that proberbly went some way to helping him win those titles. And while Michael had 2 retirements in 2006, it's worth pointing out that Fernando did too, so i'd say that it's status quo

[courageous]

Apart from Lotus/Virgin/HRT, any driver can score points on any given Sunday - compare that to the days of poor reliability & actually races have become MORE competitive as reliability has improved.

Back in that period, you still had teams with no chance of points (Simtek, Pacific, Forti) but then your next bottom 3-4 (Minardi, Footwork, Tyrrell) would only pick up points in a race of attrition

[chillibowl]

i miss the attrition, the glow of overheating brakes and giant plumes of blue smoke burst from the back of engines...but of course dont want to see more of it at the expense of safety.

in a way its a shame though, these cars are only required to run a certain distance every fortnight when they are capable of running a far longer distance.

so if this is about money and getting sponsors value then increase the length of the race. if its about entertainment and fitting a race into a nice TV window then allow for greater uncertainty and entertainment. radically cutting the amount they have to spend might help achieve this goal.

[DAVID PATERSON]

Racing is supposed to improve the breed and for decades F1 innovations have trickled down to ordinary road cars.

Now perhaps, the reverse is happening. Modern road cars are vastly more reliable and easier to drive than those of decades ago............

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by DAVID PATERSON

Racing is supposed to improve the breed and for decades F1 innovations have trickled down to ordinary road cars.

F1 is actually much better at taking what is already being used in road cars and making it fit the environment of F1. ABS, TC, active suspension etc, all found their way into F1 long after they had been used in road cars. F1 teams would then spend lots of money on refining these things to make them better, but they would then be either too expensive or too complicated to transfer back to road cars.

Originally Posted by DAVID PATERSON

Now perhaps, the reverse is happening. Modern road cars are vastly more reliable and easier to drive than those of decades ago............

Yes, modern cars are more reliable and easier to drive, but that was always going to happen, with or without F1. Ironically, the main problem with modern road cars is that of unnecessary electrical complication.

[JamesH]

Machining and design tech has improved considerably over the last 10-15 years - much more accuracy is available both in design and manufacture. This means better reliability, and this is why mechanical reliability is so good in road cars - electrical reliability isn't however, in either F1 (Kers) and road cars. Nowadays, road cars break down because (usually) of electrical problems, not mechnical (The road going Honda VTEC engine I believe has *never* suffered a provably mechanical failure which was down to bad manufacture/design).

Although the rules do force reliability, to finish first you first need to finish, so reliability still trumps ultimate power, whether you want reliability or not.

And F1 cars are not idiot proof. I doubt anyone here could drive one!

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Machining and design tech has improved considerably over the last 10-15 years - much more accuracy is available both in design and manufacture. This means better reliability, and this is why mechanical reliability is so good in road cars - electrical reliability isn't however, in either F1 (Kers) and road cars. Nowadays, road cars break down because (usually) of electrical problems, not mechnical (The road going Honda VTEC engine I believe has *never* suffered a provably mechanical failure which was down to bad manufacture/design).

Although the rules do force reliability, to finish first you first need to finish, so reliability still trumps ultimate power, whether you want reliability or not.

And F1 cars are not idiot proof. I doubt anyone here could drive one!

All true and of course there were once dropped scores so that the odd DNF often didn't affect championship standings at the sharp end at all. Personally I liked it that way, everyone was allowed one or two foul ups without it wrecking their season, also of course it meant if a driver was dominant it left the championship open for a little longer.

[ChrisPage]

Guy in very slow car wants faster cars to break more shock!

I do like to see things mixed up, but I don't like seeing driver's win races (or indeed championships) because of bits breaking, I prefer to see the best man win. Anything which breaks due to poor driving is fine as that's part of their skill, but not pure unreliability.

I disagree F1 cars are in any way easy or idiot proof however. Its an easy thing to throw at it from an armchair, but we've all seen programmes where professional drivers (not race drivers thought granted) struggle to keep an F1 car in a straight line let alone go fast.