Is reliability in F1 a bad thing?

[DougK]

Given that engines now have to last two complete race meetings the reliability has to be there.

Over the past few years it appears that F1 cars have become more relaible and fail from mechanical and electronic issues less often.

Is this a bad thing? Does it lead the results to be more predictable? Has the relaibility issue increased the cost of running an F1 team?

[Super Tourer]

It takes another variable out of the equation. Back in the mid 80's you could nearly always rely on some of the front running cars going pop, or even running out a fuel. That was back in the early days of the turbo's and much more basic electronics.

I guess one standpoint is that cars should win on merit and not rely on a rival breaking down to secure results. Certainly Ferrari's are pretty much bullet proof nowadays and have the devastating combo of speed and reliability.

From a racing point of view we need the other front runners to raise their game. on both counts.

In terms of costs, again back in the mid 80's when BMW were racking up the power, they were throwing plenty of engines in the bin per weekend.

I'm sure the R&D to make the engines more reliable has cost plenty of investment, but this must be outweighed by the durability, the results and avoiding the bad publicity of 'your' engine trailing blue smoke on a Sunday afternoon.

[GTRMagic]

I always liked the 1 engine per session habits of the turbo era To see a BMW Motorsport mob crank the boost up so much that they screw 1200-1500bhp out of a motor, for it to last almost no time at all, and to see the driver at 110% in a seriously twitchy and seemingly undriveable motorcar was always brilliant to watch.

Now sanitised in this current formula...

[BootsOntheSide]

High reliability does have some bad effects on Formula 1. It reduces the amount of drama during the races, and reduces the amount of variety in the finishing orders. It also means that less drivers and teams score wins, podiums and point, and crucially gives the smaller teams less TV time and publicity, making it much harder for them to attract sponsorship.

[Glen]

It's not so much high reliability as high consistency that makes races predictable.

[Red]

The idea that a race is good because of mechanical failures, crashes, or whatever lottery ort point systems made it impredictible, will never cease to fascinate me.

[DougK]

As a marshal, I have on many occassions asked spectators why they are at a race meeting. Nearly always the reply is something a along the lines of either to see cars battling and overtaking or to see cars crash and blow up (this one more commonly!)...come to think of it thats why I am there as a marshal? - to assist when something goes wrong - if nothing went wrong there is no point me being there either!

To see a driver go from start to finish faultlessly is not exciting perhaps?

[Schummy]

Bike racing is entertaining and, though, they have not reliability problems. I think "boringness" index is more a thing about consistency in perfomances, as Glen said.

[N I Tram]

Within reason, lower reliability does make things more exciting. 2004 was percieved as boring, yet the order behidn Ferrari was actually quite varied, and each of those cars did overtake the others on track at least once. One way or another, races with lots of driver and mechanical problems (including fading performance, which allows more overtaking) are more itneresting than watching a race order stay the same for nearly 2 hours.

[Red]

Doug, my friend, you are absolutely wrong but don't realise it. And the spectators too. Actually they're not only stupid, but also sick if they go at the track for crashes. Following that logic, a race that ends after 5 minutes after the start because all cars crash in same corner, will be absolute extasy for them, right?

Marshalls will be there even though cars will have 100% reliability and all of the drivers keep the car on the asphalt all the time. You see, those cars ARE dangerous, and if accidents happen that usually turns nasty. You are there to help, and pray that your help will not be needed.

[DougK]

I don't believe I am "sick" , but errors and accidents do liven up a race. I have marshalled for 3 British GP's in the past but as currently stands I have no intention of marshalling for another as the racing to me is dull (not enough overtaking).
Club Racing is much different and accidents,breakdowns and error make this to me more enjoyable. I don't particularly like a stream of cars following each other round without some "action". Thats my personal preference - each to their own. Motorsport is DANGEROUS and thats the way it should be to add the extra edge needed.
To me Racing should be a balance of skill, performance and the unknown. Ultra reliable, consistant and predictable cars IMO take a big chunk of unknown away.

[Red]

How the heck can accidents "liven" up a race!? Am I missing something? I want to see 20 cars racing for the entire race distance, if an accident "spice" up the things, that's 1 less car to watch. Is my math THAT bad?

And yes, enjoying to watch an accident is sick. Kinda strange to learn that marshalls, if you're one of them, can think otherwise.

[BootsOntheSide]

Accidents are exciting and dramatic, and a lot of people like seeing them as part of a race. In addition, they add surprise and unexpected drama to a race - the same effect is achieved by cars spinning and rejoining. I don't want to see 20 cars finish a race without having done anything interesting.

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Red
The idea that a race is good because of mechanical failures, crashes, or whatever lottery ort point systems made it impredictible, will never cease to fascinate me.

I think it is more the anticipation that it could happen Red. Lately, that aspect has been missing from F1 and it has made things more predictable. A blown engine can be quite spectacular (and things spectacular tend to fill seats) and some fans love to witness that, unless of course it happens to the team or driver they happen to be cheering for. Good or bad, that's a good question, and I guess it depends on your perspective.

[Red]

Whatever. I for one want 20 cars performing at their best, not accidents or engines going booom boo,, and something interesting inbetween. Call me old fashioned.

PS: Doug, Boots, just curious. Ralf's crash at Indianapolis was exciting or not?

[Kirk]

I think your mixing apples to oranges when you you refer to Ralf's crash. This post is about reliability.

[Red]

Originally posted by DougK
[...] or to see cars crash and blow up (this one more commonly!)
[...]
but errors and accidents do liven up a race
[...]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
Accidents are exciting and dramatic, and a lot of people like seeing them as part of a race.[...]

No, I don't.

[BootsOntheSide]

Hey, I only said that in response to what had been said previously. The second I originally saw the thread title, I instantly realised what a good point it is that races with high reliability are often less interesting. And for the record, I immediately knew Ralf's crash was serious, and I was horrified and worried.

[Super Tourer]

Back to the topic folks...

I'm sure someone will know this..?

There always used to be 'car breaker' circuits that led to a greater rate of retirements, in the current era is that still the case, or has unreliability been engineered out of even the 'tough on car' tracks?

:confused:

[Marbot]

I think some engineers were pleased to know that Hockenheim was going to be sanitised,perhaps only Monza has the ability to really take the car to it's limits.You always had the feeling that any engine could break if the straight was long enough.