Do you think the reliability of modern F1 cars is good for the racing?

To finish first, you first have to finish

For as long as competitive motor racing has existed, manufacturers have pushed the limits of automotive technology in the search for more speed. One of the biggest challenges that Formula One teams have always faced is improving a car’s performance without compromising its strength. The crucial balance of speed to reliability means that F1 is sometimes described as a contest to see who can stretch the elastic furthest without breaking it.

Due to the evolution of Formula One regulations over the past seven years, the mechanical endurance of modern Grand Prix cars has reached unprecedented levels.

The introduction of limited engines and long life components, along with parc-ferme rules after qualifying and the removal of spare cars, has forced F1 engineers to build stronger designs. It’s no longer good enough to construct a car that falls apart once it crosses the finish line because much of it will have to complete the next race as well. The current regulations have created Formula One cars with incredible levels of reliability.

In 2002, the last year when engines were unlimited and qualifying was completely separate from the races, there were 117 mechanical retirements. In 2009 there were just 31. Both seasons are reasonably fair to compare as they featured 17 races with grids of 20 cars (22 in 2002 before Arrows departed mid season). We’ve gone from an average of 7 mechanical retirements in each race to just 2.

This huge reduction in break-downs is having an impact on way F1 races are run.

In theory, better durability should result in better racing. There are more cars on the track, especially at the end of a race, and the drivers can push harder without fear of their machinery breaking.

There is also less chance of a deserving driver suffering from a seemingly unfair mechanical retirement.

However, improved finishing rates can make Grand Prix results a little more predictable. The fastest teams are more likely to dominate with more reliable cars, and the chances of a surprise winner emerging have reduced.

It raises an interesting question. Do mechanical retirements add exciting plot twists and extra variables into a Grand Prix, or are they an indiscriminate evil that spoil the racing?

This question is particularly relevant with an increased number of mechanical retirements so far in 2010.

What do you think?

Posted by Martin Porter. - Follow him on twitter @mpondaweb.

Like us on Facebook! »

More F1 Posts »

• 2012 Spanish GP: Hamilton and that 31 lap stint!
• Williams F1 Fire: Photos and video from dramatic post race inferno
• Lewis Hamilton blasts the rest away with pole in Spain
• An absolutely mega F1 prize you can win with the Lotus F1 Team
• Remembering Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna
• 2012 Bahrain GP: Vettel returns to the top, and Rosberg escapes penalties
• Sebastian Vettel takes his first pole since 2011
• 2012 Chinese Grand Prix: Thrilling late overtaking and tyres falling off the cliff
• Nico Rosberg takes his first pole position ahead of Lewis Hamilton
• 2012 Malaysia GP: Sergio Perez 2nd in Malaysia – but does the race need to start earlier?

Last Comment Posted »