Anyone hate the reliabilty of F1 cars these days?

Question

I remember watching f1 races and thinking such and such was going to win and then seeing a huge ploom of smoke and then seeing the leader pull off and either being distraught if it was a jordan or delighted if it was someone i didnt like.

It really added to the excitement and unpredictability of the races. I know i was incredibly frustrated when Fisichella retired from Hockenheim in 97 while in second and Frentxen while leading in the nurburgring 99 but that was part of the sport and it made it oh so entertaining and unpredictable. Similarly i was ecstatic when a car would drop out and allow one of my guys through. Espiecially when an engine would go BOOM! its just a cool sight.

Why do the FIA want the cars to be more reliable? The building of engines/gearboxes is only a tiny fraction of the developmental costs. I say let them push the engines to the extreme and if they explode so be it let that be their punishment. None of this 10 place grid demotion nonsense.

What good can come of punishing a team for having an unreliable engine? If they have an underpowered engine and they have to take risks to beat other teams it might explode. Why punish them further by making them go back on the grid?

Hypothetically, If BMW were able to beat Ferrari by turning the wick up on the engine but are afraid to do so in case it explodes and they have to go way back on the grid for the next race thats bad for competition and who wouldnt want to see another team take risks to try to beat others?

Answer 1

You do have a pretty good point actually.
Do you remember a few years ago when Williams didn't have a great chassis but they had that truly awesome engine from BMW. It made the sport great to watch because we had a chance to see unpredictable results.
The Williams back then wasn't the greatest around corners but would blitz virtually everything on the straights.....until the dreaded rule changes.
I do feel that constructors should be allowed more freedom to make their car as fast as possible, if that means racing the car to a smoky and untimely finish then so be it.
Those teams willing to risk everything for a win are the ones worth watching, you know they're in it for the passion of competing at all costs.
As it stands now, it just comes across as being quite stale and like pretend F1.
Sure, the reliability does have its merits. Don't get me wrong, seeing 18 or so cars finish is great, but at what cost have they finished?
I suppose if you consider the bizarre final positions which were regular a few years ago, the teams at the back would have had a great time picking up a 6th place and 1 point. It would have helped them to bring in sponsorship and money. As it stands now, they languish at the rear without hope of points and are now probably in a worse financial position because of it.
The only back markers not worrying are Honda, Toyota and the Red Bull teams, simply because they're owned by huge corporations. They literally have all the money in the world.
Simply put, Spyker seem to be the only back marker playing by the old F1 rule book of being a small constructor and surviving and even then there have been rumours suggesting that the F1 team might be sold off as the parent company can't afford to run it.
The guy above had a great point. Those teams who are behind now will be in the same position for the next 3 years as engine development has been frozen. It seems completely contrary to the spirit of the sport to do that.
The FIA have a lot to answer for with regards to what they did to F1. Their new rules and money saving ideas have been nothing short of baffling at times and you have to wonder what is in store for the future.

Answer 2

Well, it isn't just F1 where the engines are not letting go as much as they used to. It is worse in series where they have a spec engine (no need to push development).

It is a good point you make, that failures made for an added element of uncertainty, surprise and suspense in F1 in the past. Because even with failures, the best drivers (and cars) ultimately won titles. Mind you some drivers perhaps lost them too because of poor reliability (I think maybe Michele Alboreto might have been a champion save for the terrible reliability of Ferrari in his time there).

RP

Answer 3

i agree, i sometimes wonder if f1, and all sports for that mater, are running under the fix it till its broken policy, the biggest legacy senna left to f1 is all the screwed up rule changes the fia made in the name of "safety"

rather than lessen costs by restricting engines, how about they tell the TV crews that then need to focus more on back field battles, which will increase their broadcast time and raise the value of their sponsorship platform and bring in more money

no that wouldn't work instead we need to freeze engine development which insures that if the slower teams that cant keep up now then they wont keep up for the next 3 years,
or they can buy engines from the bigger teams which gives the bigger teams more money and widens that gap even farther

Answer 4

F1 cars these days are not reliable. The cars keep exploding and having reliability issues. A few years back when Kimi Raikkonen was driving for McLaren, their car was very poor. Due to the car, they lost out on points and possible wins. It was also very disappointing for Raikkonen, of course.

The 10 place demotion is definitely pointless and shouldn't even exist.

Answer 5

The reliability is amazing,a tribute to the engine builders.

Answer 6

Yes, it seems as if there is less and less sport in motorsport these days.