The 2024 season is proving to be one of the most unpredictable and competitive world championships the sport has ever seen.
But as well as its impressive variety of race-winning teams and drivers, this year is remarkable for another reason – it will likely be Formula 1’s most reliable season in history.F1 has changed substantially over the decades. For the majority of seasons, at least a third of drivers who have started a grand prix have retired from it. There have even been more than ten championships where those who retired from races actually outnumbered those who took the chequered flag over the year.
However, a driver does not actually need to still be running at the end of the race to be counted as a finisher. As long as a driver has covered more than 90% of the race distance – or 90% of the number of laps covered by the winner in the event of a shortened race – they are classified as an official finisher by the FIA. So even though Lando Norris pulled into the pits and out of the Austrian Grand Prix after clashing with Max Verstappen while battling for the lead, the McLaren driver still counts as a classified finisher in the record books as he completed 64 of the 71 laps – 90.1% of the race.
Ever since the FIA, back in 2003, first started to gradually introduce measures to reduce costs in the sport and encourage teams to build longer-lasting and more reliable cars, the rate of reliability in F1 has risen dramatically. And now, in 2024, we are seeing the lowest rate of retirements there has ever been.
Grands prix only, excludes sprint races – *Season in progress
Through the first 16 rounds of 2024, drivers have started a grand prix a total of 319 times, with 292 classified finishes from those attempts. That is a finishing rate of 91.54% – making this likely to be the season with the fewest retirements ever.
It’s not just that cars are seemingly as reliable as ever – this year’s technical-related retirement rate of 3.45% is almost as low as 2021’s 3.43% – but drivers are as well-behaved as ever on track. There is a historically low rate of drivers crashing into each other or spinning out too. That has contributed to the run of seven consecutive races without a Safety Car intervention, while there has only been a single lap of Virtual Safety Car in the last 440 laps of racing.
But is this record reliability harming or enhancing the racing in Formula 1 this season?
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
For
The high rate of reliability makes racing better simply because it provides more of it. With fewer drivers dropping out of races, there is more on-track action for fans to enjoy through the race, more for trackside fans to watch and more side-by-side racing as a result.
It’s also making the world championship a more merit-based competition. With rarer retirements, the best drivers get more opportunities to score points, making the final championship table a farer representation of who deserves to be in each position.
It’s also better that the random element of mechanical failures is not robbing drivers of hard-earned results. Imagine how frustrated so many fans would have been if Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari had suddenly broken down on him in the later laps of Monaco or Monza? Better reliability means less heartbreak out of drivers’ control.
Against
Currently, the level of reliability in Formula 1 is arguably too high. For a sport that is supposed to be the peak of motorsport and engineering, the fact that cars breaking down is such an extreme rarity suggests that modern F1 cars are not being pushed close to their limits.
When cars are this reliable, the top teams benefit and the lower teams miss out. How many more points would Haas, Williams or even Sauber have scored this year if just a couple of cars ahead of them dropped out of a handful of races? Instead, the top teams can almost monopolise the top ten to themselves.
And without the element of reliability problems striking at any time, fans do miss out on that wildcard factor of the world feed suddenly cutting to the leader with smoke billowing from the back of their car, turning the entire dynamic of the race – and possibly even the championship – on its head.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
I say
Whether or not you feel that Formula 1 in its current guise is an insult to the spirit of the world championship’s origins, the reality is that the sport was always going to have to evolve to be more sustainable in order to survive.
As a result of the FIA’s push to curb sky-high costs, the static power unit regulations and the sheer skill and professionalism of modern F1 teams and their drivers, we’re seeing fewer retirements than ever. And that is no bad thing.
After all, this isn’t endurance racing. We should grateful that teams can all reliably make their cars last just 300km of a grand prix distance every race weekend.
It’s better for fans, as we arguably enjoy a more ‘pure’ championship where the hard work of drivers do not regularly come to nothing. It’s better for mechanics who don’t have to spend as much time fixing their cars during the longest season in history. It’s also better for the teams’ finance departments, as they’re having to spend less on repairs and re-fabricating parts while under the budget cap.
But it goes beyond just break downs and failures. Drivers are hitting each other less often too and that’s a genuine testament to the abilities of the current grid. Seven consecutive races without a Safety Car or major accident even with some wet races among them shows how high the level of racecraft is among the 20 drivers on the grid. Something further demonstrated by the volume of race winners there are in the field.
This current rate of reliability will not last. Although teams will have learned lessons from the major power unit revolution of 2014, we can expect the retirement rate to increase in 2026. But until then, 2024 is Formula 1 at the most competitive it has been for a long while – and the reliability rate has a part to play in that.
You say
Is a record-high reliability rate making Formula 1 better? Have your say in this weekend’s poll.
Do you agree that the current record-high reliability rate in F1 is making the sport better?
- No opinion (1%)
- Strongly disagree (29%)
- Slightly disagree (18%)
- Neither agree nor disagree (11%)
- Slightly agree (22%)
- Strongly agree (19%)
Total Voters: 114
Loading ...A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Debates and polls
- Poll: Are Briatore or Symonds welcome in F1 so long after Crashgate?
- Doohan out, Colapinto in: Have Alpine made the right call?
- Which penalty calls did the stewards get right – or wrong – over the first five rounds?
- Should Mercedes re-sign Russell for 2026 – even if it leaves no room for Verstappen?
- Vote for your 2025 Bahrain Grand Prix Driver of the Weekend
Jmlabareda
8th September 2024, 10:51
It’s fine but underlines the need to differentiate performance in the middle and back of the field by reshaping the points system.
SteveP
8th September 2024, 11:27
Possibly, but everyone so far seems to be missing the percentage of finishes that were non-technical DNF’s in 1992 vs 2023.
That points to different driving standards as an equal cause.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
8th September 2024, 12:23
Yes, but this also suggests that the cars are easier to drive so it is less likely for the drivers to make a mistake.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
8th September 2024, 10:58
I’m not a fan of technical DNFs but it is a shame that those at the back can’t really grab a surprise result any more.
If car’s are competitive then strong reliability means results are decided on the track, it when you get large differentials in car performance that you “need” some reliability mishaps.
JackL
9th September 2024, 17:49
The only reason reliability could be bad is if its coming at the cost of performance. If teams are more reliable because theyre not pushing as hard, then thats an issue. But judging by how close things are at the front, thats unlikely to be the case.
So if the lower teams want to steal a result, its going to be based on smart strategy or performance. As it should be.
JustSomeone
8th September 2024, 10:59
Arguably it’s not only general reliability, but also a result of the extensive telemetry and configurability of the power units.
Listening to the adjustments drivers are instructed to make during a race, without this telemetry the reliability (or alternatively, the performance) would drop significantly.
Without telemetry more randomness would return, where drivers would have to go more on ingenuity and feeling. This ofcouse also holds for tire performance.
For examples, just read the latest Verstappen transcript for the Monza on this site.
Nick T.
9th September 2024, 0:32
Great point.
BasCB (@bascb)
9th September 2024, 8:55
Good point, yeah. It means they can react to issues they see developing before they become terminal. And it is an extra argument of why this is GOOD – afterall, a team that is good at communicating and helping their driver to change the driving, or change how they use the car to preserve it is a team that is doing their job.
And we can follow along on the radio too!
Staffan
8th September 2024, 11:06
One also has to take into account that replacing engine parts before a race, even with a grid penalty, is much cheaper than experiencing a DNF. Therefore, teams often replace parts nearing the end of their lifespan, which can make the reliability statistics appear better than they actually are. There have been discussions about Max Verstappen needing a new engine halfway through the season, though he eventually replaced it at Spa. I would prefer if teams were only allowed to replace engine parts after a DNF occurs on the track.
Cranberry
9th September 2024, 13:55
Fantastic plan!
Tear through all your PU’s capacities in a few races, then in the final race before the summer break, release the smoke from all allocated PU’s during the FP, Qualy etc of a single weekend, and start the post-summer-break with fresh PUs across the board.
I for one think increased reliability is by far the better option of the two. True, you do not get the randomness that used to come with 3 cars in the top 5 blowing their engines, but the gap between the 3rd fastest and the slowest team is also ALOT narrower than ever before, is it not?
0,300s used to be a small gap between drivers, these days you can almost fit the entire top 10 of some GP’s Qualifying sessions in that gap.
I bet you Kimi Räikkönen also wishes he had reliability instead of fragility for the sake of 0,200s per lap in ’03 and ’05.
PErhaps there should be a discussion that would make it possible to bring back the randomness via strategy decisions.
SteveP
8th September 2024, 11:21
The figures in the graph show non-technical failure reasons for a DNF as 27.14% in 1992 and down to 7.08% in 2023, 5.02% in 2024 (unfinished stats)
That says there has been a matching reduction in non-technical DNFs and that the drivers now are less prone to sticking the car into the wall, or each other, in a race ending way.
The debate there would have to be about whether the drivers are better or the cars are easier to drive.
Essentially, approximately 44% of the starts now result in a finish, but approximately half of that improvement is from fewer non-technical DNFs
Brett
8th September 2024, 15:13
Probably due to the green painted tarmac replacing grass and gravel on edge of the track and out side of curbs, and wider flatter curbs and tarmac runoffs.
Doh
9th September 2024, 9:15
Yes this, and also the fact that they don’t push as much in races since pirellis were introduced. Could potentially include the increase in weight over the years and no refueling to that too.
By especially the pirellis/tyre issue. When you’re not pushing to the max or near the maximum you have a margin or error. You’re just less likely to make mistakes. We’ve seen plenty times over the last few seasons, when drivers are having to push harder they make more mistakes. Combined with the track changes it’s almost no surprise.
Give these drivers a track with much less room for error and tyres, strategy or meta that requires more pushing, and you’ll see more mistakes and retirements.
Let’s not forget the reduction in pit lane speeds too, which deters from making pitstops, thus increasing tyre saving.
I could be wrong but I think the current cars (and wheel/suspension configuration) require a different style because of the extra weight. Also making them a little less error prone.
Of course the 2022 regs were the most significant in this regard but the cars have been gaining weight for over a decade. A lighter, but most certainly a shorter wheel base car, will be harder to drive.
Maybe someone can find some info on wheelbase changes over time as I can’t find enough info but older cars clearly had a shorter wheel ase which makes them more difficult to drive and much more difficult to catch a slide especially in high down force loaded corners.
AlexS
9th September 2024, 14:07
Also DRS, lots of DRS passes, so not so many track fights.
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
9th September 2024, 14:30
I agree. I think the cars must be easier to drive than they used to be. And there is a lot of tyre saving going on. That’s required but it’s madness really in sporting terms.
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
8th September 2024, 11:25
I disagree.
Not only were races more unpredictable (and thereby more interesting) it showed just how hard the designers and teams were genuinely pushing the limits of the engineering technology of the day.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
8th September 2024, 11:42
Were they pushing the limits of technology any more then than now? I am unsure the failure rate is definitive proof.
For example, if they had the same sensor technology back in the day, there would surely have been less failures as they would have been in a better position to nurse the engines. Similarly, without that same equipment nowadays, there would surely be more failures.
Nikos (@exeviolthor)
8th September 2024, 12:30
They were definitely pushing more to the limits. I remember back in the 80s and 90s, the teams would use different engines for qualifying and the race so as to get maximum performance out of them. The engines did not have to last for a specific amount of races so they were really pushing them to the limit.
Since the rules that force the teams to use the engines for more than one races (or get a penalty) they cannot do this anymore. As far as the engines is concerned, the championship has become like a series of long endurance races.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
8th September 2024, 12:40
@exevioltho Fair enough. In the sense that they could use quali engines and did not have to re-use engine elements like they do now I would agree. In fact, this is kind of self evident in the article itself, as the very failures being discussed are evidence of pushing and surpassing those limits.
But that is more about pushing the engine closer to it’s limits on a given race (or use) than the point I was responding to, which was about pushing the technology to it’s limits.
Nick T.
9th September 2024, 0:35
They were pushing more, often at the expense of common sense. Every gram matters, but when your suspension is having failures or breaking due to light contact in a third of the races, adding a pound of metal or carbon is worth the added reliability vs speed.
SteveP
9th September 2024, 20:16
There have been some very big advances in materials science in the last few decades, guesswork on size and structure is a thing of the past. Computer modelling of internal stress patterns and the best shaping for load transfer can mean something with less material is actually stronger.
notagrumpyfan
8th September 2024, 13:12
I answer as a reply to you as I largely agree with the above statement.
I disagree with the ‘top teams benefit’ argument, as this is merely a result of the weird points system.
But in general the arguments (For, Against, I say) are too much focussed on F1 being a drivers championship first and foremost. It is probably a reality how most fans see it, but not how I see this sport. If I want to see a drivers championship I will watch a spec series.
Thus as a team sport I want teams to have more freedom and try more innovative and maybe extreme things. This will undoubtedly result in more hit and misses. Part of those misses (after a possible hit) is a technical DNF (or maybe even a DSQ).
Frank
8th September 2024, 13:46
Just curious. Do you consider the points system weird in itself or just outdated?
I do not consider it weird in itself. Relatively large reward for a win and no erratic hikes when you degress into the lower positions. (F.e. 25-22-16-14-10…etc would be an erratic points system)
Given the reliabilty, I think you can make an argument for awarding lower positions as well. But maybe not all positions. There is a certain charm in the eternal chase for an elusive point by the teams at the bottom. It was quite a feel-good story whenever Minardi stumbled into the points. Not sure that they would even still be remembered if they had consistently collected the points for finishing last
notagrumpyfan
8th September 2024, 13:55
‘weird’ as it does not go beyond the first 10 positions.
A driver ending up dead last every race, including a race where 10 other drivers did not finish, can end up higher than up to nine drivers who constantly outrace him and finish higher.
It might be a feel-good moment, but at the same time disrespectful to the (up to) five teams struggling to get a top 10 position.
If you want a feel-good moment, then give them a podium moment the first time they achieve a top 10 position ;)
AlanD
8th September 2024, 14:46
I think one of the problems with F1 is that the WDC and WCC are based on the same points scales, and whilst they’ve changed the points awarded and number of scoring places over the years, they’ve never looked at the fundamental ideas.
For instance, maybe only one car per team should score points in the WCC, the car finishing highest in the race. Then, instead of teams opting for a safe strategy for both cars, they might choose to put them on different strategies, take a risk with one and a conservative path with the other. Or you could go the opposite route and say that at the mid-point of the seson, a team has to designate one of their two drivers as the WDC contender, and only that one scores WDC points for the rest of the season, but both drivers count towards the WCC. Or maybe you could have only the top eight finishers scoring WDC points, but all finishing cars scoring WCC points on a much longer scale.
Now I’m sure there are pitfalls with all these suggestions, I’m not claiming to have worked out all the details, but the point is that there are other ways of scoring these things, and it is foolish to assume that a system invented 70 years ago must be best option and nothing else should be considered. The argument “we’ve always done it this way in F1, it is part of the DNA of F1” never convinces me.
notagrumpyfan
8th September 2024, 15:42
Good comment; WCC points for only one driver per team makes a lot of sense, and could be interesting given the possible strategy choices.
And then I jokingly wanted to add a point for fastest pit stop, but caught myself being more serious than I intended to be.
Zach Bigalke (@bigalke)
8th September 2024, 18:21
It wasn’t even invented 70 years ago. F1 has had more than a dozen different scoring systems over its history, and another new idea wouldn’t ruin the integrity of a scoring system that shifts almost as often as the technical regulations. I like your idea of shifting to separate systems for WDC and WCC.
Doh
9th September 2024, 9:23
In an era where we have 27 gp’s worth of points available over a season I do believe it’s worth changing the points system to one like indycars where pints are given all through the field, or maybe in F1s case almost all the way through the field.
With that many points on offer and that long a season it’s in the best interest of the championship (especially the drivers) to changes the points system to meet the changes to the quantity of races.
We’ve seen F1 seasons with only 18 races not have the title go down to the last race, so to expect season long title battles with 27 gp’s worth of points is clutching.
Again, the least that can be done is to change the points system to meet the changes in season length
AlanD
8th September 2024, 14:30
I am glad you raise the topic of the points system. If there was more parity between teams, where drivers in lower teams could reasonably expect to get into the points several times a year, it wouldn’t be so bad, but when someone can finish 11th or 12th all season and still appear no better than someone who mostly runs 15th or 20th, that must be disheartening.
At the sharp end, I think the points system is wrong in the opposite direction. If you forget about points awarded for the moment and consider this hypothetical situation. After two races, two drivers both have a win and a 10th place, whilst a third driver finished third and fourth in those two races. Which one do you think should be leading the WDC? Under the current points system, the driver with third and fourth would be ahead in the WDC, so it rewards reliability, not race wins. Of course we want a combination of both, but the points system is biased too much towards reliability, not enough towards wins.
Zach Bigalke (@bigalke)
8th September 2024, 19:12
You make an interesting point in your last paragraph. Currently, the runner-up receives 72% of the winner’s total. Historically that mark has been as high as 80% (2003-2008) and as low as 60% (1991-2002).
What would be your ideal scale?
AlanD
9th September 2024, 2:10
Zack, I’m not sure what an ideal scale would be, but I suppose for the WDC I ‘d look for something with quite large gaps between the podium places. For instance, if it was 25 for a win and 12 for a second and none of this stuff wth fastest laps, then 1 win plus 1 DNF would be marginally better than two second places which I think is about right. At the other end of the scale, say, 8th down, I’d separate them by one point per position all the way down the grid, (provided they have completed the race) but obviously, a 25 point scale wouldn’t accommodate any of that.
Doh
9th September 2024, 9:39
The current points system rewards a win relative the to the competition, more than to previous system did. Consistently is not a bad thing it’s literally what success is built on in life as a whole. I think it’s good to have a balance where consistency can compete. Charles although he hasn’t been in the top or top 2 positions this year much, is in the position he isn’t because of consistency. In all but one of the races he’s scored points, he has finished 4th or higher, the one outlier is a single 5th pace. Max and lando have both finished lower in the points multiple times. In fact had he not had those awful three races, he might have been in landos position now.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
9th September 2024, 1:58
I guess I must have been misinterpreting the OP’s original intent. The consensus seems to be that it refers to how teams and drivers pushed the limits of the car, engine (and probably even the driver), more than they are today. Which, incidentally, I never disagreed with.
I read “it showed just how hard the designers and teams were genuinely pushing the limits of the engineering technology” as the extent to which teams were on the cutting edge of the technology available at the time. And for the reasons previously stated I still believe the continued technological strides are the reason for increased reliability. Just because those limits mean accounting for fuel saving, tyre management, heat management, safety car probability, component allocation etc etc, does not mean that those limits are not being technologically pushed.
So yes, cars were previous pushed to breaking point, But now tech is pushed to help avoid pushing cars to breaking point.
AlanD
9th September 2024, 2:24
I agree with your assessment. I remember times in the past when I wondered why they found it so difficult to make a reliable F1 car, and for many years I think there was just one GP in F1 history, (Netherlands 1960s I think) where all the starters had finished. So yes, fantastic improvements in engineering have got us to the modern F1 cars, and that’s true of road cars too. They are so reliable nowadays and perform so much better.
However, I always feel that all today’s F1 cars break the rule that “the driver must drive the car alone and unaided”. With modern radio systems, the driver is continually coached during the race on what settings to use and how to operate the car. If they took the radios away then either the drivers would have to learn how to make those decisions themselves, (and some would get it wrong and run out of brakes and fuel) or they’d have to design better cockpit systems so that the driver can understand what is happening and change settings without having to pull over at the side of the track and get out a user manual.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
8th September 2024, 11:35
I’m on the fence.
I can certainly recall the excitement of both urging your preferred driver on and hoping that they got to the end, dreading Murray declaring “and he’s blown a turbo”. But technology is where it is, and I guess I have to move with it.
On the other hand, I have periodically wondered whether they all play it just a bit too conservatively, and that the gains made by pushing things a little might outweigh the occasional DNF.
Of course the latter is just wishful thinking, as the teams are much more aware of the limits and tolerances nowadays, and the least reliable PU’s in more recent history have not exactly been the consistent leaders in the power stakes.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
8th September 2024, 12:15
I’ve always been in favour of more unreliability. I like when cars are on the limit in all sense but this was always the inevitable outcome when there is very little to gain and a lot to lose.
I’d go back to drop scores which were initially to limit the impact of unreliability. I think if you have 20 race that you can elect as point scoring then a driver having 2 less finishes than his rival is much less pronounced. Effectively, I’m looking to remove the brownie points for consistently finishing as that’s now been achieved by all teams. Hopefully that would lead to teams turning engines up at circuits that favour their cars too.
Jonathan Parkin
8th September 2024, 12:48
I watched F1 in the era where there were retirements on a regular basis. Indeed my favourite ever race the Monaco GP only had three drivers take the chequered flag.
I will never forget Murray’s excitement when he said on Lap 5; ‘These are the people who are out already!!’
I do disagree with the cost thing. In 1996 Williams only spent something like $35m to win the championship. Furthermore they had only two mechanical failures all season
notagrumpyfan
8th September 2024, 13:19
That included Adrian Newey, who, according to today’s round-up, will all by himself have a salary of up to GBP30M ($39M) at Aston Martin from next year.
Jere (@jerejj)
8th September 2024, 12:56
Strongly agree. I can see the upside arguments for more or more regular DNFs as well as lower average reliability rate, but I don’t mind races with all 20 drivers reaching the chequered being more of a rule than exception these days versus even the late-2010s or early-2020s.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
8th September 2024, 13:07
I don’t mind cars being reliable. That’s just technological improvement. I remember in 05 one of the races had no retirements and it was the second time ever that had happened, 55 year after the championship started. Now it’s a lot more common.
That being said, in the case of driver errors and clashes, there’s something to be said about the racing aspect. Drivers are not pushed hard enough during a grand Prix (because of strategy or saving tyres or the way these cars are driven) and are not pressured into fighting for position in corners or braking zones, as overtaking with DRS in the middle of a straight is a safer and quicker option.
That sucks. Really, really badly. I was watching yesterday the St Mary theory at Goodwood Revival and you see those cars dancing, and the drivers had to risk moves into a braking zone or go side by side round the outside. It was fantastic and I urge anyone to go and watch, it’s on youtube. That risk Vs reward ratio is what forces people into mistakes and result in retirements, stirring up a race.
I miss that.
MichaelN
8th September 2024, 14:59
Good recommendation, just watched the first few minutes.
The retirements aren’t a big issue. It’s more racing, after all. A right mess like Australia 1999 is novel once every few years, I suppose, but most people pay a lot of money to see high-level F1 racing, not an event with half the cars standing in the grass somewhere.
The problem I see with this current situation are two-fold: everything from 11th to 20th is the same, which is obviously not true, and second, drivers being nowhere near their limit “thanks” to Pirelli’s poor tyres needing to be babysat throughout their stints. The artificial slowness of the races not only prevents drivers making mistakes, it also makes the cars going around look pretty dull, which F1 shouldn’t be as these are still hugely impressive and fast machines.
StefMeister (@stefmeister)
8th September 2024, 15:02
I’ve said a few times over the years that I felt that the improved reliability we have now was one element that I feel is making the sport a bit more predictable & giving the teams a further back less opportunities to get those surprise results.
It’s actually something I remember raising as a concern I had 20 years ago when they first introduced the parc-ferme rules and then the push for long life components as well as an FIA mandated rev-limit as those elements were always going to result in teams & manufacturer’s been more conservative & not pushing things as close to the limit as they used to.
For me it’s that & the larger margin for error drivers have now as a results of wider circuits, more forgiving runoff & as @fer-no65 touches on above the fact that drivers are arguably not pushing as close to the limit as they have been in the past as well as DRS removing the need for drivers to try & pull off risky moves on occasions when it is making overtaking easier.
Coventry Climax
8th September 2024, 15:23
Brilliant question, Mr. Wood.
Comparable to: Is red better than black?
Define ‘better’, please.
I didn’t read your ‘I say’, but your first sentence of the ‘Against’ part already makes clear where you stand.
My position is that there should only be one, single force driving reliablity, and it not the rules.
Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
8th September 2024, 16:19
Yes, I guess it’s better with good reliability, but the real issue is that the sport is being strangled by both regulations AND the cost cap. Under the cost cap the teams should be allowed more freedom to innovate, after all they can now only spend so much. Instead there are oppressive regulations stopping that. With the cap in place the rule book should be slimming down so teams can develop and differentiate. Reliability is ok, but F1 used to be innovative rather than paint by numbers.
Sorry, that one got away from me a little 😀
Cranberry
9th September 2024, 14:12
Fully agreed, teams should have the ability to pursue even obscure development paths, as long as they adhere to the cost cap.
Kerry Maxwell (@kerrymaxwell)
8th September 2024, 17:52
The F1 YouTube channel regularly posts highlights from The Age of Attrition, and I find them to be almost Keystone Cops comical. I don’t watch F1 for attrition, I watch it for racing. Seeing cars running around the track with massive plumes of smoke and oil trailing behind them can be quite the spectacle, but I don’t feel it improves the sport.
Leksa (@leksa)
8th September 2024, 18:01
Disagree.
I don’t like predictability. The combination of high reliability, parc-ferme rules, tarmac run-off areas, engine/component saving, and DRS have rendered F1 very predictable insofar as you can predict the top-10 in GP by qualifying results only.
Obviously 2024 season has been an anomaly as it has seen surprising results, but that has nothing to do with reliability. 25 years ago it was common for small teams (like Prost or Arrows in 9th or 10th spot in WCC) to finish in points, that is, in top 6(!) Podiums for mid-fielders were common, and they didn’t require red-flags or SCs. Can you imagine a race like Hockenheim 2001 where on lap 13 Häkkinen retired, on lap 23 Schumi retired, on lap 24 Montoya retired from the lead and on lap 26 Coulthard retired from the lead. BAR on the podium, two Benettons and one Prost in top-6. Alonso at Minardi would’ve gotten point by today’s system.
Even wet races aren’t lottery what they used to be. There’s absolutely no chance for Monaco ’96, Nürburgring ’99 or Brazil ’03 kind of surprises anymore. The race is red flagged way before any of the top drivers could even spin off.
So yeah, I miss surprising results by smaller teams. And I miss the times when one of the main aspect of excitement was whether or not *insert driver* saw the chequered flag. You could never be sure your favorite driver would finish the race. Nowadays you can be 99,9% they will finish. It’s like watching NPC race of F1 video game with damage and technical retirements turned off.
It’s sad how status quo prevails and F1 group wants to do everything to keep status quo, for example by not allowing new entries. Andretti would certainly add more unpredictability, which F1 evidently hates.
Arthur Egges
9th September 2024, 5:35
Fully agree with every word you wrote. I am watching F1 since 1980 and I always loved those races where due to a variety of reasons, the underdogs were all of a sudden racing for points or even for podiums. That was excitement. Indeed not knowing whether or not your favorite driver would finish the GP.
Please bring back the nimble cars, 150kg lighter than they are now, shorter, smaller. Even the drivers say that the cars nowadays feel like they are driving them on railroads. Only in qualifying are they on the absolute limit.
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
9th September 2024, 16:03
I agree with most of this. I think improved reliability is a good thing to an extent but the cars are not driven to the limit anymore. I am sure it is tough in some races and circumstances, but most of the time the drivers look like they have been on a drive in the country at the end of a race.
I think the drivers should find it a little tougher. So this means the cars should be less glued to the road, there should be less tyre saving or driving off of the pace and it should not be so easy to pass i.e. DRS passes.
Velocityboy (@velocityboy)
8th September 2024, 19:55
Disagree. For me, reliability means that the drivers are not pushing for the entire race and the engineers are not pushing the design envelop to it’s limits. The result is drivers piddling around to a delta time provided by the engineers and design teams more concerned with making parts last for several races, rather than making them as light and fast as possible. It’s like the series was taken over by accountants and actuaries with the predictable result of bland.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
9th September 2024, 2:15
Interesting to come back to this thread and note the spread of votes and opinions.
I wonder if there is any notable variation by age group? Or any correlation to those more inclined to view F1 as entertainment more than a sport and vice versa?
If racing were consistently closer with more overtakes and reduced team dominance, would as many people still hope for more DNF’s?
X1Znet (@x1znet)
9th September 2024, 2:23
The lack of reliability in the past was something unpredictable (for the most part) that definitely added to the suspense of a race.
MotoGP also has extreme reliability these days, but the difference is even in ideal racing conditions, the best riders in the world can make the tiniest mistake (if it’s a mistake at all) and crash out of a race all on their own.
Maisch (@maisch)
9th September 2024, 9:59
I wish the manufacturers had more freedom of pushing the engines more when they felt they needed to, and had more engines to use to not create this overly conservative endurance racing that it is today. To create a bit more variability in the racing, and less predicable racing.
Mark Tucker
9th September 2024, 11:11
I feel like the sport needs that element of “randomness” to it though to keep you invested/interested when the races get boring. Its the same with mistakes/accidents in races, you dont really get them all that much any more and its because the cars and drivers are not pushing to the limits. Because of the huge amount of fuel that they carry they are so far off their ultimate lap times that everything is under stressed.
José Lopes da Silva
9th September 2024, 16:19
In the 1950s the sport did not have accidents because they were totally unaffordable (for the drivers’ skins). Now, accidents are not tolerated again, although for different reasons.
Just compare the rate of crashes of Fangio vs Senna or Schumacher.
Every decade the sport changes a bit due to all kind of pressures and direction changes. That’s in its nature.
José Lopes da Silva
9th September 2024, 16:16
Andrea de Cesaris would never have lasted almost 15 years on the sport in current F1.
Gary Simmons (@gsimmonsonca)
9th September 2024, 17:39
While engines are definitely more reliable, I think that the ever increasing minimum weight is part of it too. As the cars get heavier, things like suspension arms, etc are made heavier to cope with the higher forces, and these are more resistant to breaking when their is light contact. When cars of the 90s bumped wheels, they broke… now they tend to keep going…
GmP (@gmp)
10th September 2024, 4:44
The question mixes mechanical unreliability with other reasons for a DNF. I would prefer rules that would allow to push more “car” limits, not only on engine but also other mechanical parts, if the end result would be trade-offs in speed versus finishing. But it would mean that beter funded teams can take more risks, and thus will win more. I do not know how to “rule” for that.
I do not want increased DNF due to driver clumsiness, or unwarranted racing risks, that take other drivers out, like dive bombing. I want the best drivers racing for a win, not risking others. Taking a corner to fast and getting damage yourself is OK, taking someone with you is not. But again, not sure how to “rule” that. Maybe take the outcome on the action into account for the punishment? If you bomb someone out of the race, you yourself get a one race ban? Something harsh so you better be very careful? Too hard to judge what is an acceptable risk and what is not.
With the current requirements about cost containment and safety, I think what we see is as good as it gets. So neither agree or disagree.
SteveP
10th September 2024, 19:37
Indeed it does.
As I pointed out earlier, half of the reduction in DNFs arises from non-technical issues – basically, did the driver put it in the wall or into someone else (potentially a double DNF)
An improvement in those figures suggests, on average, the drivers are better than they were, or the cars are easier to drive.