Reliability too good?

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
orion_f1
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by orion_f1 »

flyboy10 wrote:I used to like how the fastest cars (Renault turbo) would run away in the early laps and you never knew if they were going to win or break down. Now if a car gets an early break and runs away (Vettel) you may as well turn the TV off and go home.


Is that what you did during Silverstone?
:)

Siao7
Posts: 9088
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Siao7 »

Covalent wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:You forgot the mega-lol he offered me yesterday! Funny chap

As I said, that was only a part of the posts :)


I know, I just felt lucky to get a MEGA lol, I had to mention it!!!

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10220
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Covalent »

SchumieRules wrote:
Covalent wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:You forgot the mega-lol he offered me yesterday! Funny chap

As I said, that was only a part of the posts :)


I know, I just felt lucky to get a MEGA lol, I had to mention it!!!

True that, I don't even know what a MEGA lol is but I sure would like to see one live!

User avatar
Neutrality
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:26 am
Location: UK

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Neutrality »

Covalent wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Covalent wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:You forgot the mega-lol he offered me yesterday! Funny chap

As I said, that was only a part of the posts :)


I know, I just felt lucky to get a MEGA lol, I had to mention it!!!

True that, I don't even know what a MEGA lol is but I sure would like to see one live!


Do you think you have to wet yourself in a mega lol :blush:

But seriously, the racing is what the racing is yes there are things that are not perfect, but the raft of changes (threads) proposed makes me think the OP would be better of watching a different sport given the disdain he has for the current set up ;)
Night is a very dark time for me

Siao7
Posts: 9088
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Siao7 »

Neutrality wrote:
Do you think you have to wet yourself in a mega lol :blush:

But seriously, the racing is what the racing is yes there are things that are not perfect, but the raft of changes (threads) proposed makes me think the OP would be better of watching a different sport given the disdain he has for the current set up ;)


I was thinking about that. How often to we get a DNF due to mechanical faults in other motorsports, DTM, MotoGP etc.? I'm not following them as closely as F1 so I wouldn't know

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Toby. wrote:Is there any complaint? Better reliability is better for the sport. Suggesting frequent mechanical failures makes the racing more interesting is odd - who wants to see a driver be forced to retire from a race after having driven well?

Strong reliability is good for everybody. You can say the backmarkers aren't getting points because the people in front of them aren't retiring, but there was a time when the minnows of the grid would retire a lot more than anybody else, thus removing any possible chance of scoring points.

It's good how it is.


You're assuming that I think a car mechanical failure is a lottery and an illegitimate way for a driver/car combo to exit the race. I don't know why you think a DNF is a cr*pshoot, it's not.

I think it is legitimate, hence why Ferrari cleaned up in 2002, they got every facet spot on, they had the fastest car, with the best tyres and they had by far the best reliability.

In 2002, over 17 races the retirements were:

Ferrari (3)
Williams (6)
McLaren (14)
Renault (14)

In total this was 37 retirements from a possible 136 races.

In 2012, over 20 races the retirements were:

Ferrari (3)
Williams (7)
McLaren (7)
Lotus (7)

In total this was 24 retirements from a possible 160 races.

It seems that the facet of reliability is too easy to get right these days and nowadays barely counts as a differential that one team can have over another, so there are less ways to demonstrate superiority.

No?

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Covalent wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:LOL

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:. Lol

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:, lol.

And that's only a small portion of yesterday's posts alone.

You really must have aching stomach muscles and annoyed neighbours!


Lol

benmc
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:17 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by benmc »

I would rather the world championship be decided by drivers racing on the track, rather than by some lottery of who has the least mechanical DNFs.

I watch Formula 1 because I want to see great racing between 22 of the best drivers in the world. I'd like to see that for the whole race thank you very much. Even if that means Vettel coasts to victory several occasions in a season, that doesn't bother me because I know he deserves it.
I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

benmc wrote:I would rather the world championship be decided by drivers racing on the track, rather than by some lottery of who has the least mechanical DNFs.

I watch Formula 1 because I want to see great racing between 22 of the best drivers in the world. I'd like to see that for the whole race thank you very much. Even if that means Vettel coasts to victory several occasions in a season, that doesn't bother me because I know he deserves it.


It's not a lottery, as the teams and drivers are responsible for their own reliability, (drivers need to decrease spins and crashes, the team need to stop the car blowing up). It is now too easy to stop the car blowing up, which decreases one of the avenues to carve out an edge over the opposition.

F1 is about the driver/car combo, it's a whole package here. Otherwise if you want to see great racing, why do you stand for the lottery of car performance? Button has been stitched this season, his car is poo and it's not his fault, and as a result he is out of the Championship fight? You now aren't seeing great racing between 22 of the best drivers, you are seeing great racing between the top 4 or 5 guys, with the rest playing second fiddle in their slower machinery.

If you view it more correctly as a car/driver combo then a driver winning in a fast car is easy to accept, and then by the same token a driver winning in a more reliable car is also easy to accept.

No?

User avatar
Toby.
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Toby. »

Are you criticising the teams for doing their jobs properly? Is it a bad thing we've now got virtual compete professionalism down the paddock and not teams with tiny budgets who might last half the season.

I'm sure most people enjoy when a surprise result comes around for a driver, I won't dispute that, but you shouldn't expect them or hope for them. It's just what happens to some people at certain times. Since the era you're comparing now with, enormous technological improvements have been made, Formula One has reached a record high of professionalism with perhaps five teams able to fight for victory on any given weekend. Is allowing those 10 drivers the opportunity to fight for victory not enough - do we need to throw in the possibility of the lead car retiring to spice it up?

I've never thought to myself after a race, "That was a corker. Good thing all those cars dropped out with mechanical failures, otherwise I'd have fallen asleep."

If you want to discuss what has taken away the unpredictability of the sport 20 years passed, you might be better off laying blame on the vastly improved driver quality down the field. There are no longer a number of drivers that take unreasonably risky moves. Drivers are better trained and better comprehend the risks associated with flying up the inside at the start of the race.
Image

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Toby. wrote:Are you criticising the teams for doing their jobs properly? Is it a bad thing we've now got virtual compete professionalism down the paddock and not teams with tiny budgets who might last half the season.

I'm sure most people enjoy when a surprise result comes around for a driver, I won't dispute that, but you shouldn't expect them or hope for them. It's just what happens to some people at certain times. Since the era you're comparing now with, enormous technological improvements have been made, Formula One has reached a record high of professionalism with perhaps five teams able to fight for victory on any given weekend. Is allowing those 10 drivers the opportunity to fight for victory not enough - do we need to throw in the possibility of the lead car retiring to spice it up?

I've never thought to myself after a race, "That was a corker. Good thing all those cars dropped out with mechanical failures, otherwise I'd have fallen asleep."

If you want to discuss what has taken away the unpredictability of the sport 20 years passed, you might be better off laying blame on the vastly improved driver quality down the field. There are no longer a number of drivers that take unreasonably risky moves. Drivers are better trained and better comprehend the risks associated with flying up the inside at the start of the race.


I think it's partly technological advancements, but mainly due to the cost saving regulations forcing teams to make their engines and gearbox's last, and so as a result some teams aren't tempted to go all out on performance.

Remember that the 90's is still part of modern F1. Teams were highly professional with big teams and budgets back then as well and F1 operates fairly similar to how it did then.

Ascari
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Ascari »

I don't mind cars being reliable as long as they are being pushed to the limit race after race. As mentioned Ferrari were super reliable in the early 2000's, but the car was always racing as hard as possible. These days teams a too concerned with preserving engines, gearboxes, tyres, etc. and it seems to be a major reason for the high reliability.

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Ascari wrote:I don't mind cars being reliable as long as they are being pushed to the limit race after race. As mentioned Ferrari were super reliable in the early 2000's, but the car was always racing as hard as possible. These days teams a too concerned with preserving engines, gearboxes, tyres, etc. and it seems to be a major reason for the high reliability.


Yeah, this too.

Races used to be a flat out sprint, not nursing the car home.

Pedrosa_4_Ever
Posts: 2949
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:15 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Pedrosa_4_Ever »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Ascari wrote:I don't mind cars being reliable as long as they are being pushed to the limit race after race. As mentioned Ferrari were super reliable in the early 2000's, but the car was always racing as hard as possible. These days teams a too concerned with preserving engines, gearboxes, tyres, etc. and it seems to be a major reason for the high reliability.


Yeah, this too.

Races used to be a flat out sprint, not nursing the car home.

Two quotes from one of the greats of the 80s/90s:

"Without going to what I think is my limit. I always say that my ideal is to get pole with the minimum effort, and to win the race at the slowest speed possible."

"I hate to risk the car."
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

"It's hammer time!"

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Greg Moore - Dan Wheldon

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Ascari wrote:I don't mind cars being reliable as long as they are being pushed to the limit race after race. As mentioned Ferrari were super reliable in the early 2000's, but the car was always racing as hard as possible. These days teams a too concerned with preserving engines, gearboxes, tyres, etc. and it seems to be a major reason for the high reliability.


Yeah, this too.

Races used to be a flat out sprint, not nursing the car home.

Two quotes from one of the greats of the 80s/90s:

"Without going to what I think is my limit. I always say that my ideal is to get pole with the minimum effort, and to win the race at the slowest speed possible."

"I hate to risk the car."


Ok, my last point is wrong, they did used to nurse the cars in the 80's and 90's as well.

User avatar
Toby.
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Toby. »

Ferrari was so reliable at the start of the century because of the amount of spending that was going into their race team. They had new gearboxes, engines - practically everything - for each session. They werent blowing up every race because the engine in the back of the car as the lights went out had hardly been used before. The same with gearboxes. But it had to end because spending was out of control. They were at Mugello or Fiorano every single day between races perfecting the cars. Once tobacco spatial was gone, hundreds of millions of dollars were lost. Throw in a global financial meltdown and fewer people willing to put what money they had to spend on sponsorship into a sport completely unique to anything else in the world and it starts to go wrong.

Teams need to nurse parts because the FIA have introduced regulations regarding the longevity of core components as a necessary move. Teams need to nurse cars now as turbo-backed cars had to nurse fuel at the end of Grands Prix decades ago. This change to component conservitism has been a vital step in assuring the future of Formula One.
Image

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Toby. wrote:Ferrari was so reliable at the start of the century because of the amount of spending that was going into their race team. They had new gearboxes, engines - practically everything - for each session. They werent blowing up every race because the engine in the back of the car as the lights went out had hardly been used before. The same with gearboxes. But it had to end because spending was out of control. They were at Mugello or Fiorano every single day between races perfecting the cars. Once tobacco spatial was gone, hundreds of millions of dollars were lost. Throw in a global financial meltdown and fewer people willing to put what money they had to spend on sponsorship into a sport completely unique to anything else in the world and it starts to go wrong.

Teams need to nurse parts because the FIA have introduced regulations regarding the longevity of core components as a necessary move. Teams need to nurse cars now as turbo-backed cars had to nurse fuel at the end of Grands Prix decades ago. This change to component conservitism has been a vital step in assuring the future of Formula One.


Yes, this was necessary with the recession etc, but hopefully over the next few years spending will increase again. They are already talking about bringing mid-season testing back slightly, which helps slow cars at the start of the season to catch up instead of that car staying slow throughout the championship.

painless
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by painless »

OK, Dinosaur time! Reliability used to be in small part under the control of the driver; You miss a shift, over rev, or otherwise cock up and you have a problem. Drivers with mechanical sympathy therefore had a slight added advantage which seems fair. With the control of many of the functions which carry the risk of lunching the car's internals given over to electronic systems this aspect of a driver's skill is no longer as important. The 50c widget got analysed, developed, tested, and ended up as the $45 widget that does the same job but is indestructible.
To make the cars less reliable you have to limit the budget, remove some driver aids, remove the engine freeze and tweek the rules in a variety of ways to encourage driving to the limit of the car's strength. Those abusing their cars beyond that limit ain't gonna finish.
You know what? that's not going to happen, get over it.

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

painless wrote:OK, Dinosaur time! Reliability used to be in small part under the control of the driver; You miss a shift, over rev, or otherwise cock up and you have a problem. Drivers with mechanical sympathy therefore had a slight added advantage which seems fair. With the control of many of the functions which carry the risk of lunching the car's internals given over to electronic systems this aspect of a driver's skill is no longer as important. The 50c widget got analysed, developed, tested, and ended up as the $45 widget that does the same job but is indestructible.
To make the cars less reliable you have to limit the budget, remove some driver aids, remove the engine freeze and tweek the rules in a variety of ways to encourage driving to the limit of the car's strength. Those abusing their cars beyond that limit ain't gonna finish.
You know what? that's not going to happen, get over it.


If I'd suggested DRS as a good solution to the lack of overtaking in 2004, you'd have said the same thing...

You can't read the future any better than we can Mr Dinosaur.

User avatar
runningman67
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:36 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by runningman67 »

Hello.
You call yourself Gran_Prix_Fan but you are just a grand_prix_basher.

I am loving F1 right now. Not contrived love. Real deep meaningful love. My tummy flutters at it's mere mention.

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

runningman67 wrote:Hello.
You call yourself Gran_Prix_Fan but you are just a grand_prix_basher.

I am loving F1 right now. Not contrived love. Real deep meaningful love. My tummy flutters at it's mere mention.


I am a Grand Prix fan, that is why I care so much.

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by flyboy10 »

benmc wrote:I would rather the world championship be decided by drivers racing on the track, rather than by some lottery of who has the least mechanical DNFs.

I watch Formula 1 because I want to see great racing between 22 of the best drivers in the world. I'd like to see that for the whole race thank you very much. Even if that means Vettel coasts to victory several occasions in a season, that doesn't bother me because I know he deserves it.


Maybe you think Renault should have won the world championships in 1980/81/82? Easily the fastest cars but they were on the limit of just about blowing up every time they went out.

This is what I want to see. Who gets it right and pushes the engine to the absolute max without overstepping the mark.

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 4113
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

I'm not entirely sure what you want. Technical innovation and regulation changes aside- the theory of motorsport has evolved dramatically since your perceived golden age of mass retirements. If we reverted back to the regulations of any year you wanted to pick the reliability would not get worse. The lessons learned over the last 60 years of Formula 1 have taught all the teams that good reliability is essential. Unless they unlearn the knowledge they have accumulated and manufacturing processes they have evolved nothing will change that.

But I still do not understand the benefit of having cars randomly retire from races. Whether it's a driver I would prefer to win or a driver I would prefer not to win I do not like it when a win is inherited from the mechanical retirement of another driver. A win cannot be truly considered to be as special when a driver who otherwise would have won retires through no fault of their own.

If Andy Murray had won Wimbledon because Djokovic has retired due to an injury do you think that would have been as great an accomplishment as beating him on the court? The fact that this Wimbledon saw many great names pull out with injury meant that people felt the occasion was somewhat dampened, even if it was nice to see some new faces as a result.

There also seems to be this myth that drivers don't drive flat out like they used to. Drivers have never driven flat out for 100% of a race, they have always had to nurse their cars. In the past we didn't have Twitter, interactive TV with a million journalists and onscreen graphics and transmitted radio messages, so we were not aware of the issues drivers we having to drive around. The problems we are acutely aware of in detail, from saving tyres, saving fuel and saving engines have always been an issue in Formula 1. The fact an engine has to do 4 races rather than 1 doesn't meanthe driver could drive flat out for longer in the days of the older engines - if they did that it probably would only have lasted half a race distance. The increased manufacturing capabilities of modern F1 teams mean that drivers probably drive flat out for a greater percentage of an engine's life than they used to be able to do.

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8081
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

Lets suppose for a second we all agreed with you, Grand_Prix_Fan

How do the FIA implement this and go backwards on reliability?

benmc
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:17 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by benmc »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
benmc wrote:I would rather the world championship be decided by drivers racing on the track, rather than by some lottery of who has the least mechanical DNFs.

I watch Formula 1 because I want to see great racing between 22 of the best drivers in the world. I'd like to see that for the whole race thank you very much. Even if that means Vettel coasts to victory several occasions in a season, that doesn't bother me because I know he deserves it.


It's not a lottery, as the teams and drivers are responsible for their own reliability, (drivers need to decrease spins and crashes, the team need to stop the car blowing up). It is now too easy to stop the car blowing up, which decreases one of the avenues to carve out an edge over the opposition.

F1 is about the driver/car combo, it's a whole package here. Otherwise if you want to see great racing, why do you stand for the lottery of car performance? Button has been stitched this season, his car is poo and it's not his fault, and as a result he is out of the Championship fight? You now aren't seeing great racing between 22 of the best drivers, you are seeing great racing between the top 4 or 5 guys, with the rest playing second fiddle in their slower machinery.

If you view it more correctly as a car/driver combo then a driver winning in a fast car is easy to accept, and then by the same token a driver winning in a more reliable car is also easy to accept.

No?


It's nothing like that at all.

At least when Jenson Button is fighting the McLaren this year, or Fernando Alonso was fighting the Ferrari last year, there is/was still some enjoyment in watching them make the best of what they've got.

Even as a Button fan, I've enjoyed watching him drive brilliantly in events such as Malaysia, China and Germany, somewhat disproving the idea that he struggles in poor equipment.

Sure, it's less enjoyable than watching him compete at the front, where he should be. But it's much better than watching him park his car for a 1/4 (or more) of a season. At least in a poor car we can still see what the drivers are capable of to some extent.

When I'm watching a driver park his car, I'm feeling much more robbed of 'what should be' than I am when watching a driver struggle with poor equipment.

I'll put it this way - You mentioned Jean Alesi and the several moments his car broke down when in contention for victory. You also mentioned Damon Hill in Hungary. Go ask F1 fans how they felt during those moments. Tell me how they cheered in delight... Go on.

Co-incidentally, I feel even more robbed when stewards influence the results of a race. But surely, if they were to throw the book at top drivers in order to create some unpredictability, that would give the Blundells of today their glory moment, wouldn't it? After all, that is exactly what you said you wanted to see in the OP - A leading driver not being guaranteed of a win. Well that'd be one way to ensure that!
I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by flyboy10 »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Lets suppose for a second we all agreed with you, Grand_Prix_Fan

How do the FIA implement this and go backwards on reliability?


Wouldn't it be a matter of not having an upper rev limit so the engines can be hand-grenades and lunch themselves? Bring down the maximum engine capacity to limit the power but let the teams develop the engines during the season so that they are truly on the limit.

There shouldn't be any artificial promotion of mechanical unreliability (by which I mean other than the engine) so nothing to make suspensions fail or wheels fall off.

chaz986
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by chaz986 »

I kind of liked it the idear that an engine was that highly strung that it may not last ,and the emotion that came with seeing your chosen one or there arch rival cut throught the field or have to push to stay out front knowing that under these conditions the engine may not hold, it allso ment that a team could use a granader with its know risks or cut power and gain reliability .

elcarajo
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:09 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by elcarajo »

Does anyone know if the rev limit is the reason for this reliability?

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by flyboy10 »

I don't know it with reference to evidence I could cite but I thought I knew it as unwritten fact.

Teams would have engines that could rev to at least 19k if they were left to their own devices, possibly more by now.

They still have this capability but because they're capped, they're basically always running at a much reduced stress level compared to what they could handle. Therefore, they're not blowing up like they would if they were at the max. The cars are still using the full revs allowed to them for as long as they would around the circuits. it's jus that the engines themselves are never truly at maximum revs.

A2jdl
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by A2jdl »

elcarajo wrote:Does anyone know if the rev limit is the reason for this reliability?

it is the reason for the engine reliability, as they were designed to run at 20k revs, but are now capped at 18k, so their not stressed.

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Lets suppose for a second we all agreed with you, Grand_Prix_Fan

How do the FIA implement this and go backwards on reliability?


Remove the engine and gearbox long-life rules.

Allow the teams to spend more and to run engines and other car parts at full capacity.

Keep speeds in check via other regulations involving the aerodynamics etc.

User avatar
Neutrality
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:26 am
Location: UK

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Neutrality »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:Lets suppose for a second we all agreed with you, Grand_Prix_Fan

How do the FIA implement this and go backwards on reliability?


Remove the engine and gearbox long-life rules.

Allow the teams to spend more and to run engines and other car parts at full capacity.

Keep speeds in check via other regulations involving the aerodynamics etc.


So what you are suggesting is to spend more money in order to achieve the same speeds but with less reliability.........genius ;) You dont work for the british defence industry do you ? :)
Night is a very dark time for me

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Neutrality wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:Lets suppose for a second we all agreed with you, Grand_Prix_Fan

How do the FIA implement this and go backwards on reliability?


Remove the engine and gearbox long-life rules.

Allow the teams to spend more and to run engines and other car parts at full capacity.

Keep speeds in check via other regulations involving the aerodynamics etc.


So what you are suggesting is to spend more money in order to achieve the same speeds but with less reliability.........genius ;) You dont work for the british defence industry do you ? :)


This is a sport, an entertainment business.

User avatar
Neutrality
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:26 am
Location: UK

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Neutrality »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Neutrality wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:Lets suppose for a second we all agreed with you, Grand_Prix_Fan

How do the FIA implement this and go backwards on reliability?


Remove the engine and gearbox long-life rules.

Allow the teams to spend more and to run engines and other car parts at full capacity.

Keep speeds in check via other regulations involving the aerodynamics etc.


So what you are suggesting is to spend more money in order to achieve the same speeds but with less reliability.........genius ;) You dont work for the british defence industry do you ? :)


This is a sport, an entertainment business.


It wont be a business very long with that Economic Strategy! Besides I dont see many people walking away from the sport because the Cars dont breakdown enough! Nor would I see any Engine manufacturer wanting to damage their reputation for the "fans" enjoyment ;)
Night is a very dark time for me

User avatar
stevefromstoke
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:09 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by stevefromstoke »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Ascari wrote:I don't mind cars being reliable as long as they are being pushed to the limit race after race. As mentioned Ferrari were super reliable in the early 2000's, but the car was always racing as hard as possible. These days teams a too concerned with preserving engines, gearboxes, tyres, etc. and it seems to be a major reason for the high reliability.


Yeah, this too.

Races used to be a flat out sprint, not nursing the car home.


I don't think has ever been true. Infact ,tyres aside , cars are so reliable now they can be driven much closer to their limits for much longer than they ever have.
Sosh says ...

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Neutrality wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Neutrality wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:Lets suppose for a second we all agreed with you, Grand_Prix_Fan

How do the FIA implement this and go backwards on reliability?


Remove the engine and gearbox long-life rules.

Allow the teams to spend more and to run engines and other car parts at full capacity.

Keep speeds in check via other regulations involving the aerodynamics etc.


So what you are suggesting is to spend more money in order to achieve the same speeds but with less reliability.........genius ;) You dont work for the british defence industry do you ? :)


This is a sport, an entertainment business.


It wont be a business very long with that Economic Strategy! Besides I dont see many people walking away from the sport because the Cars dont breakdown enough! Nor would I see any Engine manufacturer wanting to damage their reputation for the "fans" enjoyment ;)


Then in that case, how come it used to happen?

You're saying it's a crazy business with a bad economic strategy, but these conditions can and did exist from 198X to 2003ish...

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

stevefromstoke wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Ascari wrote:I don't mind cars being reliable as long as they are being pushed to the limit race after race. As mentioned Ferrari were super reliable in the early 2000's, but the car was always racing as hard as possible. These days teams a too concerned with preserving engines, gearboxes, tyres, etc. and it seems to be a major reason for the high reliability.


Yeah, this too.

Races used to be a flat out sprint, not nursing the car home.


I don't think has ever been true. Infact ,tyres aside , cars are so reliable now they can be driven much closer to their limits for much longer than they ever have.


Hasn't this already been addressed in this thread...

Whoops.

User avatar
Neutrality
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:26 am
Location: UK

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Neutrality »

Then in that case, how come it used to happen?

You're saying it's a crazy business with a bad economic strategy, but these conditions can and did exist from 198X to 2003ish...


The same reason they no longer burn people to death for being witches; people learnt it was a stupid concept!

The sport has moved on from the wastefulness of the past, this has saved the teams money and no fans are walking away because they dont see enough failures, only an idiot would contemplate going back.

There is nothing wrong with the racing in F1 today, it is merely an iteration of all that has gone before and it will undoubtedly continue to evolve, thats the way F1 as always been and I for one prefer it that way.
Night is a very dark time for me

DaveStebbins
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by DaveStebbins »

Reliability became a bigger factor when the sport when from scoring six cars per race to eight and eventually ten. With only the top six scoring, relaibility on the ragged edge made more sense. With the top ten scoring, and championships being decided by very fine margins, reliability becomes much more important because being able to nurse a car home in ninth place may make a difference at the end of the season. It can be argued that going from 10-6 to 10-8 as the difference between first and second also made relaibility more important than winning. The sport is the way it is because of the rules it has. I support the state of the rules because I think the sport is in a wonderful state now (some of the best racing in the 30+ years I have been watching), but I'm sure others will disagree.

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by flyboy10 »

DaveStebbins wrote:Reliability became a bigger factor when the sport when from scoring six cars per race to eight and eventually ten. With only the top six scoring, relaibility on the ragged edge made more sense. With the top ten scoring, and championships being decided by very fine margins, reliability becomes much more important because being able to nurse a car home in ninth place may make a difference at the end of the season. It can be argued that going from 10-6 to 10-8 as the difference between first and second also made relaibility more important than winning. The sport is the way it is because of the rules it has. I support the state of the rules because I think the sport is in a wonderful state now (some of the best racing in the 30+ years I have been watching), but I'm sure others will disagree.


Out of curiosity, what was the first race you watched?

Post Reply