Broken engines - a new reliability record?

It has probably escaped the notice of 99% of TNF regulars, but Michael Schumacher's engine failed during today's Japanese Grand Prix.

It was his first engine failure in a race since the French Grand Prix 2000. Without actually counting, I am sure this is over 100 races.

Is this a record that will stand forever, I ask myself?

112 I make it.

Originally posted by Barry Boor
It has probably escaped the notice of 99% of TNF regulars, but Michael Schumacher's engine failed during today's Japanese Grand Prix.

It was his first engine failure in a race since the French Grand Prix 2000. Without actually counting, I am sure this is over 100 races.

Is this a record that will stand forever, I ask myself?

Anyone notice Brundle said it was a 3 litre V8!?

Originally posted by David Beard


Anyone notice Brundle said it was a 3 litre V8!?

I wouldn't bet against it.

Checking on Mr Schumacher's engine reliability, I find that he retired from the 2000 Monaco Grand Prix with a broken pushrod. I found that surprising as I assumed these engines used overhead camshafts.

...suspension pushrod, for sure...;)

Originally posted by Roger Clark

I wouldn't bet against it.

Checking on Mr Schumacher's engine reliability, I find that he retired from the 2000 Monaco Grand Prix with a broken pushrod. I found that surprising as I assumed these engines used overhead camshafts.

I think they meant a broken suspension, but I see your point

Meanwhile, I'm sure there are relatively-new followers of the sport who look at 1950s' results and wonder 'What the hell is a broken magneto???'

Originally posted by FLB

I think they meant a broken suspension, but I see your point

Meanwhile, I'm sure there are relatively-new followers of the sport who look at 1950s' results and wonder 'What the hell is a broken magneto???'

Funnily enough, I've been thinking of starting a thread on the magneto. Try spotting one on a Climax FPF at a historic race meeting...

Simply pushing the mileage envelop and therefore a "lean" environment.

The "round and round" guys recently experienced the same.

Henry

Originally posted by David Beard


Funnily enough, I've been thinking of starting a thread on the magneto. Try spotting one on a Climax FPF at a historic race meeting...

You will not find one, it is a bit like modern electronic ignition on historic cars that only ever had points ignition.......

Originally posted by Barry Boor


Is this a record that will stand forever, I ask myself?

I doubt that it will stand for ever. It's in the nature of records to be broken, eventually.

Originally posted by Barry Boor
It has probably escaped the notice of 99% of TNF regulars, but Michael Schumacher's engine failed during today's Japanese Grand Prix.

Now now Barry, you should handle TNF folk with more respect, we are not a bunch of blind old socks, are we?
By the way, Michael who?

I'm not one for stats particularily and I can't be bothered to look it up but the GP commentary suggested that Michael's last engine failure was at the 2001 US GP (or did I imagine that?)

By the way I did notice Brundle's gaffe about 3 litre V8s.

Originally posted by FLB

Meanwhile, I'm sure there are relatively-new followers of the sport who look at 1950s' results and wonder 'What the hell is a broken magneto???'

ISTR reading somewhere that the expression "the magneto* broke" is shorthand for "the con-rod came through the side of the engine and broke the magneto".

* = or any other piece of ancillary equipment

Originally posted by Paul Parker
I'm not one for stats particularily and I can't be bothered to look it up but the GP commentary suggested that Michael's last engine failure was at the 2001 US GP (or did I imagine that?)

By the way I did notice Brundle's gaffe about 3 litre V8s.

No Paul, you did not imagine it. He even repeated the error (to look a complete idiot?).
Rob
P.S. 2001 US GP Michael was 2nd

Barrichello blew up at Indy 2001. Quite amusingly too. He had the normal death puffs of smoke out the back that usually preview an engine failure a few corners later, but it was so close to the end he kept going and did a handful of laps before it could take no more.

How did they acheive this reliability? Materials, electronic motor management, or build tolerances? You would think, with all the extra complexities, that reliability would go down the drain, like the early turbo motors.

Scags,

You said it yourself: Materials, electronics and manufacturing. Add to that progress in computerized analysis, simulation, testing and data reduction - and improvements in lubricants. It's all accumulative, the increased complexity actually helping rather than hindering overall.

Compare, for instance, the simple early aero engines with today's complex turbofans - there are some that have never been off the wing after more than 20,000 flight hours (I can't remember OTTOMH which one (CF56, Trent or JT9D)). The engine folks are just so much better at the game now because they build on an ever increasing base of experience with both the product itself and the tools to design, build and validate it.

Originally posted by FLB

I think they meant a broken suspension, but I see your point

Meanwhile, I'm sure there are relatively-new followers of the sport who look at 1950s' results and wonder 'What the hell is a broken magneto???'

Haha...funny enough, for my 10th birthday or something like that I got a book detailing the results of every race from 1950 up to...well 1991/2/3 or whatever it was at the time. And thats exactly what I said