Also, saying that the lack of retirements means "more racing" because there are more cars on the track is simplistic. Racing is a sport of variables, and reliability is one of those variables. When you remove that from the equation, you make things less interesting. I don't advocate returning to the heights of the early turbo era where 10-or-so finishers was common, but the current state is bad, because it doesn't make finishing a Grand Prix feel like any sort of achievement anymore. I mean, you go back a few decades, and basically any given team that actually got a car to the line was in with a decent shot of points. These days, we bring the final points spot down to tenth, and Marussia and Caterham still don't have a prayer, because those cars ahead of them aren't going anywhere.
Take 1996: I remember Berger's engine blowout at Hockenheim as clearly as Villeneuve's overtake of Schumacher a few races later in Portugal. Racing is man vs. man vs. physics.
Edited by Risil, 28 November 2013 - 00:26.
). I (and others) argued that retirements could mean increased drama in a race, moreso than if those cars simply ran to the finish. You then falsely extrapolated that to mean that we want to see a dozen retirements and various other random events each race. I've spent the last few posts trying to explain that that's not what we meant at all.
