FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[l Schumacher l]

Trulli argued that the perfect reliability was taking another human element out of F1.

"In any case, this record is a bit paradoxical and has a precise significance: the Valencia race in my opinion has indicated another winner, besides [Sebastian] Vettel as usual. That winner is technology," the Lotus driver continued.

"After having won hands down, in the last few years, the battle against the human element, ever less important in F1, it has ended up winning the philosophical battle against the unexpected and more generally against the unpredictable. Something that in our world is called 'mechanical failure'.

"Between 10 and 15 years ago, when I started racing (in F1), a driver knew how he'd start a race, but wouldn't know how he would finish it. In fact, he didn't even know whether he would finish it. Nowadays, instead, reliability has become ordinary: cars have four wheels and are reliable. I can't remember the last time an engine broke down in an F1 race. Constructors have become excellent at quality control and no detail is left to chance."

He believes this is having a negative effect on F1.

"This implies two things: the first is that the chances for a small team to get in the points have sensibly reduced; the second is a further loss of appeal for F1," he said. "It's no coincidence that the Valencia race has been the most boring of the year."

to what extent do you agree?

[darwin dali]

In some respect this great reliability of F1 technology puts the onus back on the drivers: you can't speculate anymore to gain positions due to mechanical failure of your rivals, no, you actually have to outdrive them.

[Big Azza]

In answer to Trulli's speculation, the last time I remember a car breaking down was only in Korea last year!

Was not the 2010 season full of Red Bull unreliability and made it very exciting?

Far out, he makes it seem like we haven't seen an engine failure in over a decade. Lets see what happens towards the end of the season....

[What's Burning?]

Perhaps Trulli has found a lot of time to think back there at the tail end of the grid.

[Big Azza]

Perhaps Trulli has found a lot of time to think back there at the tail end of the grid.

[acosmichippo]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this just sounds near-sighted and dumb to me. the whole point of F1 is to be the pinnacle of motorsport technology. It's a feat of engineering that cars can be so reliable, and it should be celebrated.

and what's so exciting about a car breaking down from mechanical failure?

"Hm, car 18 is smoking and is out of the race. Moving on..."

If anything, more cars on the track allows for GREATER possibility of excitement. Valencia was boring in spite of the reliability, not because of it. Heck, in Canada (arguably the most exciting race this year) only ONE car retired due to a mechanical failure, and that was interestingly Heikki's Lotus. Lotus has three retirements due to mechanical failure this year. Sounds like backmarker sour grapes to me.

[myownalias]

I can see where Trulli is coming from; the reliability has taken away the unpredictability of racing in F1; F1 is certainly not the pinnacle of motorsport anymore; there is such tight regulation on everything in F1 these days; it's moving closer and closer to a spec series; everytime something ingenious (usually through a loophole in the rules) is thought of and implemented; it's banned; mass damper, F-duct, double diffuser and now the blown diffuser and with engines being frozen since what was it, 2007? how can F1 claim to be the pinnacle? Engines blew up because engineers were constantly pushing the envelope of what can be achieved given an engine format V10 3.0 N/A engines as it was before the V8 2.4 N/A, now engine development is frozen solid!

[acosmichippo]

I thought the reason for all of those bannings was to keep the sport safe. When you're at the pinnacle of motorsport, the question is not really how fast you can MAKE a car, but how fast you can DRIVE a car. In other words, we're now at the limit of human tolerances - not mechanical tolerances. There's a point where cars are too dangerous to drive (even for the world's best 24 drivers), and F1 (being the pinnacle of motorsport) is really the only series that has to worry about where that point is. Sure, each of those items in themselves are probably not inherently dangerous, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, right?

[bigpat]

I don't give that comment much oxygen....

I'm not sure he'd welcome un-reliability if it was HIS car that kept breaking down. Sounds like he is banking on the demise of others to gain points. Not the best attitude to go racing with in my opinion.

Imagine if he was in a front running car, vying for a championship, and had 2-3 retirements. I could see the soap opera he would cause already.....

[LewEngBridewell]

I though Trulli was still having issues with his car's power steering? Some problem that is mysteriously non-existent for Heikki Kovalainen?

Maybe he should try to keep focus on that, rather than trying to create issues for everyone else's cars.

[PartsaS]

I can see where Trulli is coming from; the reliability has taken away the unpredictability of racing in F1; F1 is certainly not the pinnacle of motorsport anymore; there is such tight regulation on everything in F1 these days; it's moving closer and closer to a spec series; everytime something ingenious (usually through a loophole in the rules) is thought of and implemented; it's banned; mass damper, F-duct, double diffuser and now the blown diffuser and with engines being frozen since what was it, 2007? how can F1 claim to be the pinnacle? Engines blew up because engineers were constantly pushing the envelope of what can be achieved given an engine format V10 3.0 N/A engines as it was before the V8 2.4 N/A, now engine development is frozen solid!