A little rant about ultra reliability

[Aerond]

I was just thinking recently about how boring F1 has become in recent years in terms of the reliability variable; yes, that one which turned races upside down when your favourite driver just got the lead and retired or the one that made the track look empty at the end of some races due to the lack of cars still running.

So I started to seek for the answer to why we have ultra reliability nowadays and I found it pretty quickly. Is not a matter of ultra-profesionalism, which is also a factor, but F1 was already highly professional in Australia 1999 and we got very few finishers that day. The main problem here I think is engines and gearboxes which have to last for several races; it's also a save-cutting measure, but teams and manufacturers in F1 will always go and try to find the limits of durability of the materials vs. speed (only take a quick look at the problems Red Bull are having with KERS), and if teams had to find the limits of the duirability of a gearbox to last just one race we'd see way more failures in that aspect, the same with engines. Now, would this be good for the sport? I don't really know.

Let's take for example 2011 and 2012, and suppose a scenario where Vettel was hit by low reliability a few times. In 2011, this would have supposed a closer battle for the title with the Mclaren's and maybe Webber, we may also have had a few extra wins by Ferrari mid-season. Now, if we take the scenario to 2012, maybe we'd have got a few extra race winners, but on the other hand Alonso would have walked away with the title a few races ago.

So, it's really hard to say. I personally miss the times where a race result could be heavily influenced by reliability and finishing all races wasn't as important as it's today to win the championship (a shorter calendar would maybe help on that as well). But, there's a little bit more, ultra reliability is also helped heavily by tarmac run-offs; before, not only because of accidents, but if a car went off the track could heavily damage the suspension, tyres, the bottom of the car, front wing or radiators most commonly. With the tarmac run-offs all the penalty the car gets is a bit of damage in the tyres and that's it. I'm all for safety, but, on the other hand, I think F1 cars and tracks are safe enough to start taking risks again in run-off areas design. I would say a gravel trap right next to the track (to give the proper penalty to a car going off the track or spinning) coupled with a tarmac run-off closer to the barriers (to effectively stop the car in case of a car out of control) would be more than enough to keep satisfactory levels of safety while increasing the "penalty" factor for cars leaving the track.

I'm maybe being a bit nostalgic here, but low reliability levels kept the surprise factor alive.

[pi314159]

I was just thinking recently about how boring F1 has become in recent years in terms of the reliability variable; yes, that one which turned races upside down when your favourite driver just got the lead and retired or the one that made the track look empty at the end of some races due to the lack of cars still running.

So I started to seek for the answer to why we have ultra reliability nowadays and I found it pretty quickly. Is not a matter of ultra-profesionalism, which is also a factor, but F1 was already highly professional in Australia 1999 and we got very few finishers that day. The main problem here I think is engines and gearboxes which have to last for several races; it's also a save-cutting measure, but teams and manufacturers in F1 will always go and try to find the limits of durability of the materials vs. speed (only take a quick look at the problems Red Bull are having with KERS), and if teams had to find the limits of the duirability of a gearbox to last just one race we'd see way more failures in that aspect, the same with engines. Now, would this be good for the sport? I don't really know.

Let's take for example 2011 and 2012, and suppose a scenario where Vettel was hit by low reliability a few times. In 2011, this would have supposed a closer battle for the title with the Mclaren's and maybe Webber, we may also have had a few extra wins by Ferrari mid-season. Now, if we take the scenario to 2012, maybe we'd have got a few extra race winners, but on the other hand Alonso would have walked away with the title a few races ago.

So, it's really hard to say. I personally miss the times where a race result could be heavily influenced by reliability and finishing all races wasn't as important as it's today to win the championship (a shorter calendar would maybe help on that as well). But, there's a little bit more, ultra reliability is also helped heavily by tarmac run-offs; before, not only because of accidents, but if a car went off the track could heavily damage the suspension, tyres, the bottom of the car, front wing or radiators most commonly. With the tarmac run-offs all the penalty the car gets is a bit of damage in the tyres and that's it. I'm all for safety, but, on the other hand, I think F1 cars and tracks are safe enough to start taking risks again in run-off areas design. I would say a gravel trap right next to the track (to give the proper penalty to a car going off the track or spinning) coupled with a tarmac run-off closer to the barriers (to effectively stop the car in case of a car out of control) would be more than enough to keep satisfactory levels of safety while increasing the "penalty" factor for cars leaving the track.

I'm maybe being a bit nostalgic here, but low reliability levels kept the surprise factor alive.

I can't agree more. It was somehow more interesting with all those mechanical failures. And I really dislike tarmac runoffs because 1) they don't punish drivers leaving the track, 2) encourage dangerous returns to the track (for example Perez in Abu Dhabi) 3) they look ugly.

[WeirdKerr]

How about making everyone use 1 make of alternator ..... lets say renault.....

[CoopsII]

What about getting Tusken Raiders to take pot shots at the cars as they go past. That could introduce an element of risk and unpredictability. Problem solved.

[pasta_maldonado]

I was just thinking recently about how boring F1 has become in recent years in terms of the reliability variable; yes, that one which turned races upside down when your favourite driver just got the lead and retired or the one that made the track look empty at the end of some races due to the lack of cars still running.

So I started to seek for the answer to why we have ultra reliability nowadays and I found it pretty quickly. Is not a matter of ultra-profesionalism, which is also a factor, but F1 was already highly professional in Australia 1999 and we got very few finishers that day. The main problem here I think is engines and gearboxes which have to last for several races; it's also a save-cutting measure, but teams and manufacturers in F1 will always go and try to find the limits of durability of the materials vs. speed (only take a quick look at the problems Red Bull are having with KERS), and if teams had to find the limits of the duirability of a gearbox to last just one race we'd see way more failures in that aspect, the same with engines. Now, would this be good for the sport? I don't really know.

Let's take for example 2011 and 2012, and suppose a scenario where Vettel was hit by low reliability a few times. In 2011, this would have supposed a closer battle for the title with the Mclaren's and maybe Webber, we may also have had a few extra wins by Ferrari mid-season. Now, if we take the scenario to 2012, maybe we'd have got a few extra race winners, but on the other hand Alonso would have walked away with the title a few races ago.

So, it's really hard to say. I personally miss the times where a race result could be heavily influenced by reliability and finishing all races wasn't as important as it's today to win the championship (a shorter calendar would maybe help on that as well). But, there's a little bit more, ultra reliability is also helped heavily by tarmac run-offs; before, not only because of accidents, but if a car went off the track could heavily damage the suspension, tyres, the bottom of the car, front wing or radiators most commonly. With the tarmac run-offs all the penalty the car gets is a bit of damage in the tyres and that's it. I'm all for safety, but, on the other hand, I think F1 cars and tracks are safe enough to start taking risks again in run-off areas design. I would say a gravel trap right next to the track (to give the proper penalty to a car going off the track or spinning) coupled with a tarmac run-off closer to the barriers (to effectively stop the car in case of a car out of control) would be more than enough to keep satisfactory levels of safety while increasing the "penalty" factor for cars leaving the track.

I'm maybe being a bit nostalgic here, but low reliability levels kept the surprise factor alive.

I can't agree more. It was somehow more interesting with all those mechanical failures. And I really dislike tarmac runoffs because 1) they don't punish drivers leaving the track, 2) encourage dangerous returns to the track (for example Perez in Abu Dhabi) 3) they look ugly.

Never fear. I have the ultimate solution: Make everyone use the same engine and gearbox until they fail, whilst banning anything that makes them more reliable.

[Aerospeed]

I'm fine with engines lasting the whole season. I'm not fine with people like Grosjean at Austin going fifty (?) feet off the track and still being able to race. Though the tarmac might be safer. I have a solution - Put gravel (or grass) about 10 feet around the track, so the cars still slide off if they mess up, but you still have the safety factor of tarmac.

[FullMetalJack]

How about making everyone use 1 make of alternator ..... lets say renault.....

I like, I like that a lot.

I'm slightly bored by ultra reliability, partially because I want to see Marussia or HRT score a point. We haven't had a really high attrition race since Australia '08, long ago.

[Salamander]

I'm fine with engines lasting the whole season. I'm not fine with people like Grosjean at Austin going fifty (?) feet off the track and still being able to race. Though the tarmac might be safer. I have a solution - Put gravel (or grass) about 10 feet around the track, so the cars still slide off if they mess up, but you still have the safety factor of tarmac.

For the umpteenth time: Paul Ricard-style abrasive tarmac. It's the best comprimise.

[DanielPT]

What about getting Tusken Raiders to take pot shots at the cars as they go past. That could introduce an element of risk and unpredictability. Problem solved.

Curiously, I've seen for the 8760th time that movie yesterday and I agree completely. But I might also suggest to have a Dug to randomly sabbotage a couple of cars before the start.

[Porrima]

While you can, and perhaps should, add all these different sorts of tricks to the tracks or rules to reduce reliability, it is a bit like the DRS - it leaves a sour taste to one's mouth. It's not natural.
In a way, it can't be helped - it is a weakness inherent in all motor racing; tech marches on. After all, we can't ask the teams to build worse cars than they can.
It's, slightly, analogous to the situation in all team sports - the number of goals has gone down greatly in both football and ice hockey for example. While this is in part due to larger professionalism, "tech" has also marched on - the teams have a lot more know-how of how to play the game and the goalies have better equipment and more knowledge on how to do their work - and it's always easier to defend than to attack. As another analogue, while warfare as such is a horrible thing no one should ever do, in a sense air combat has become a lot less "interesting" as it was in low-tech dogfighting age - now the planes are full of technology and, often, one side wins due to their technology advantage without the other knowing they are dead. It won't take long until there will be no pilots actually flying the planes any more.

While F1 is sports, not war (most of the time) you can't do the same thing, but I wonder many years still it would take to, in theory, add an AI driver to cars that would be superior to a human driver in every way.

[DanielPT]

For those who pray for a bit of unreliability, I think 2014 might just deliver that as new engines plus new tech equals teething problems. Unfrozen engine development might help too although all that will be in a smaller scale than previous engine rules changes because they must last some races. Nevertheless, every new tech brings problems. You can see that on Kers but, as it is, that doesn't necessarily mean an instant DNF.

[Ferrim]

This season hasn't been that bad in the reliability stakes, actually. We have seen cars retiring from the lead because of a mechanical problem not less than four times: Vettel and Grosjean at Valencia, Hamilton at Singapore and Abu Dhabi. Other leading cars have retired because of similar problems whilst running in strong positions: Webber last Sunday, Button at Monza...

Another thing is the improved quality of the racing. Yes, you have your Grosjeans and your Maldonados, but I feel that first-corner massive crashes have become less and less frequent nowadays.

[Earnard Beccelstone]

I'll disagree on the first point, but agree on the second.

I dont think that ultra-reliability has made anything less interesting, rather its made things more interesting. Engineering out some of the mechanical failures has meant that the car/driver combination determines the outcome, rather than a loose washer or a cracked exhaust pipe.

Being a Williams/Webber fan was intensly frustrating in 2008-2008, because of the sheer amount of mechanicals both of them had. Now its just intensly frustrating for other reasons.

Sure, some of the random chance/capriciousness of motor sport has been ironed out, but that's not why I watch F1 in the first place.

I do think that drivers should be punished for putting wheels outside the black stuff though. Even to the point where I feel curbs should be much more aggressive to discourage a driver from straightlining a corner.

I'd rather see the return of the gravel trap, or some other form or deterent, than the expanses of tarmac runnoffs. Unfortunately, I'm also in favour of the tarmac runoffs for safety reasons (Webber's 2010 shunt in valencia could have been awful if he'd ploughed wheeless into a gravel trap and proceeded to roll/tumble into the safety fence). Stuck in two minds about the whole thing at the moment.