181 replies to this topic

[TheThirdTenor1]

There seems to be some debate about the reliability of the RB6 in the "Vettel really is the next Schumacher thread". It's also come up in previous threads. Some seem to be claiming that the RB6 was fast but unreliable compared to its competitors. However, Vettel only had 2 DNFs in 2010 due to reliability issues. Hamilton also had 2, Alonso had 1.

Some posts made on the subject:

http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=6316416

[SpaMaster]

It does not have to be just DNFs . But I remember he lost lot of points due to mechanical problems.

You would also have to consider how many points one lost with a DNF. A DNF while running P1 is not the same as a DNF while running P9.

[TheThirdTenor1]

You would also have to consider how many points one lost with a DNF. A DNF while running P1 is not the same as a DNF while running P9.

For the sake of comparing the reliability of the cars (which is what we are doing here), it is.

[SpaMaster]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. If I am right, I think the point came about because RB6 was a dominant car. So others might have said - the end points may have been close, but if he hadn't lost so many points due to mechanical issues, then the dominance of RB would have been illustrated. As such those problems took out the dominant edge of his car. If it is not this, I am a bit lost on what the discussion is about.

[1Devil1]

Bahrain "All of the race had been led by polesitter and Red Bull driver Sebastian Vettel, until lap 33 when a gearbox problem forced him to concede the lead to Alonso. This same problem forced meant that he eventually was overtaken by Massa and Hamilton too, meaning that he finished in fourth place"

Aus - brake failure

Canada "behind team-mate Vettel in fifth place as Vettel struggled with an unspecified but serious problem that he had to nurse to the finish; the team later clarified this as being related to the gearbox"

ITA: Webber sailed past and Vettel was just dropping back into the clutches of compatriot Schumacher when he suddenly regained power, and began to close in on Hülkenberg and Webber

Korea: engine blow up


So don't be ridiculous. Vettel had the most problems with his car. DNF isn't always the same. If a drop back from one to four i am losing a lot of points. As mentioned a DNF from 10th is hurting that much...

You say two DNF from the lead have the same impact as two DNF from the 10th places because we can used these facts to compare reliability of the cars. in this case the number of DNF say nothing because you just take a number out of context to prove a fact or your own agenda, i guess

Edited by 1Devil1, 16 June 2013 - 18:29.

[Skinnyguy]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Point is same as always: Vettel sucks.

He´s trying to say he almost lost 2010 title in the fastest car, a car that according to his peculiar analysis wasn´t that unreliable.

[TheThirdTenor1]

That's why I formatted the reliability problems in italics (OK, you can argue about a puncture).

You can't argue about the puncture.

Whenver someone mentions that the RB6 was fastest, but unreliable, you post your DNF statistic. However, you do not realise that it is not very meaningful.

It is meaningful.

You can lose points without DNFs (spark plug and brake problems in case of Vettel 2010 or KERS issues)

These things happen more often than you think. For example, Alonso had a gearbox problem in Imola 2005 and they were even considering changing the gearbox and taking a penalty for that.

and, of course, it matters when you DNF. Mathematically speaking, the DNF rate may be equal, but the impact is different. (You probably want to make a point posting this statistic, do you? So the impact matters.) Hence, other posters try to explain that to you - no reason to impute someone to have problems understanding basic concepts.

For the purpose of looking at the reliability of 1 car compared to another, the number of points lost due to DNFs is irrelevant.

Take an example, where a Red Bull retires 4 times due to reliability but is in the lead when all the retirements occurs. It loses what looks like 100 points in this situation. Now let's say a Williams retires 4 times due to reliability but it is running in 14th place when the retirement occurs. It loses what looks like 0 points. Do we say the Red Bull is the more unreliable car? I think not.

[TheThirdTenor1]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Read the OP i made.

If I am right, I think the point came about because RB6 was a dominant car. So others might have said - the end points may have been close, but if he hadn't lost so many points due to mechanical issues, then the dominance of RB would have been illustrated. As such those problems took out the dominant edge of his car. If it is not this, I am a bit lost on what the discussion is about.

Nope. People made the claim that the RB6 was fast but unreliable compared to it's competitors. All in the OP. Please read.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Point is same as always: Vettel sucks.

Where did i say or imply that?

Pleae no flame baiting or i will report you to a moderator. We're trying to have a civilised debate about the reliability of a car.

He´s trying to say he almost lost 2010 title in the fastest car, a car that according to his peculiar analysis wasn´t that unreliable.

Incorrect. Perhaps you'd like to explain why my analysis is peculiar?

[Zava]

Bahrain "All of the race had been led by polesitter and Red Bull driver Sebastian Vettel, until lap 33 when a gearbox problem forced him to concede the lead to Alonso. This same problem forced meant that he eventually was overtaken by Massa and Hamilton too, meaning that he finished in fourth place"

Aus - brake failure

Canada "behind team-mate Vettel in fifth place as Vettel struggled with an unspecified but serious problem that he had to nurse to the finish; the team later clarified this as being related to the gearbox"

ITA: Webber sailed past and Vettel was just dropping back into the clutches of compatriot Schumacher when he suddenly regained power, and began to close in on Hülkenberg and Webber

Korea: engine blow up


So don't be ridiculous. Vettel had the most problems with his car. DNF isn't always the same. If a drop back from one to four i am losing a lot of points. As mentioned a DNF from 10th is hurting that much...

You say two DNF from the lead have the same impact as two DNF from the 10th places because we can used these facts to compare reliability of the cars. in this case the number of DNF say nothing because you just take a number out of context to prove a fact or your own agenda, i guess

may I add:
-barcelona, brake failure cost him a place against Alonso,
-turkey qualifying, where he was ~4 tenths up after S2, but had a suspension (anti roll bar?) failure, which made him take the last 3 turns on 3 wheels, cost him the pole, and indirectly caused the famous turkey crash (by putting him behind Webber, and creaing the scenario of Vettel being stuck behind him, not by making Vettel crash into him or anything else, before someone would like to twist my words)

Edited by Zava, 16 June 2013 - 18:42.

[1Devil1]

For the purpose of looking at the reliability of 1 car compared to another, the number of points lost due to DNFs is irrelevant.

Take an example, where a Red Bull retires 4 times due to reliability but is in the lead when all the retirements occurs. It loses what looks like 100 points in this situation. Now let's say a Williams retires 4 times due to reliability but it is running in 14th place when the retirement occurs. It loses what looks like 0 points. Do we say the Red Bull is the more unreliable car? I think not.

Nobody would say the Red Bull was less reliable than the Williams but why do you need to be fixed on statistic numbers? What do you want to play here - a semantic game? what does mean reliable car and what not? For the most people reliability means more than DNF numbers.

- how much points lost due technical problems including DNF. It wouldn't matter in a comparison to Williams because they got no points. But if you compare WDC contenders it matters, it matters in the points standing.
- how much DNF in general

So first explain you reason to take out of the definition of reliability technical problems that didn't end in DNF? If I take your example if Williams is driving on a third places in four races in a row and drops back four times out of the points because of technical problems. That would mean the car was reliable in your mind?

Edited by 1Devil1, 16 June 2013 - 18:48.

[Skinnyguy]

Where did i say or imply that?

Pleae no flame baiting or i will report you to a moderator. We're trying to have a civilised debate about the reliability of a car.

Incorrect. Perhaps you'd like to explain why my analysis is peculiar?

You´re trying to defend that a slip on the grass in a park is the same than a slip on the edge of the roof of a tall building. I´m just being generous because if there´s not an agenda behind that, then you have a serious problem.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Bahrain "All of the race had been led by polesitter and Red Bull driver Sebastian Vettel, until lap 33 when a gearbox problem forced him to concede the lead to Alonso. This same problem forced meant that he eventually was overtaken by Massa and Hamilton too, meaning that he finished in fourth place"

Aus - brake failure

Canada "behind team-mate Vettel in fifth place as Vettel struggled with an unspecified but serious problem that he had to nurse to the finish; the team later clarified this as being related to the gearbox"

ITA: Webber sailed past and Vettel was just dropping back into the clutches of compatriot Schumacher when he suddenly regained power, and began to close in on Hülkenberg and Webber

Korea: engine blow up

Monza problem was not due to reliability. Horner and Newey said it was probably due a tear off being sucked into the air intake. Plain unlucky, but he did well to recover from it.

Canada and Bahrain are are fair enough, but you're not including things like Hamilton's gearbox problem in Suzuka, Alonso's clutch problem in Malaysia and the engine failure in China FP.

So don't be ridiculous. Vettel had the most problems with his car. DNF isn't always the same. If a drop back from one to four i am losing a lot of points. As mentioned a DNF from 10th is hurting that much...

You say two DNF from the lead have the same impact as two DNF from the 10th places because we can used these facts to compare reliability of the cars. in this case the number of DNF say nothing because you just take a number out of context to prove a fact or your own agenda, i guess

I don't have an agenda, so please don't accuse me of having one.

I've already explained how the position of the car when the retirement occurs is irrelevant in comparing the reliability of cars.

[TheThirdTenor1]

You´re trying to defend that a slip on the grass in a park is the same than a slip on the edge of the roof of a tall building. I´m just being generous because if there´s not an agenda behind that, then you have a serious problem.

The example you brought is not relevant to this situation. Strawman,

Don't get personal either.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Nobody would say the Red Bull was less reliable than the Williams but why do you need to be fixed on statistic numbers? What do you want to play here - a semantic game? what does mean reliable car and what not? For the most people reliability means more than DNF numbers.

Sure, but you can not simply dismiss DNFs. They are a good quantifiable measure of reliablity, but of course not perfect.

- how much points lost due technical problems including DNF. It wouldn't matter in a comparison to Williams because they got no points. But if you compare WDC contenders it matters, it matters in the points standing.
- how much DNF in general

I'm not interested in the WDC or points standings. Potential points lost is no way to compare reliability of cars. I've already explained the reasons for that.

So first explain you reason to take out of the definition of reliability technical problems that didn't end in DNF? If I take your example if Williams is driving on a third places in four races in a row and drops back four times out of the points because of technical problems. That would mean the car was reliable in your mind?

I don't believe i ever provided definition of reliability. I didn't include things that didn't lead to a DNF because they are harder to quantify.

[Skinnyguy]

The example you brought is not relevant to this situation. Strawman,

So you really think I´m replying to your claim about mechanical failures talking about shoes and slippery surfaces now? I´m not the first one telling you, you really need to fully grasp what a strawman is before spamming the word.

We´re still talking about the same stuff. I thought you´d get it, but don´t worry, I´ll go slower and refrain any literary stunt so you can keep up:

Slip on the grass = retiring from last / old engine dying in FP under current ruleset.
Slip on a roof = retiring from first / new engine dying in FP under 2005 regs.

You´ll have a hard time just trying to look sane claiming these are the same situations, let alone actually changing anyone´s mind.

[TheThirdTenor1]

So you really think I´m replying to your claim about mechanical failures talking about shoes and slippery surfaces now? :lol:I´m not the first one telling you, you really need to fully grasp what a strawman is before spamming the word.

I understand what it is. Not my fault if you keep using it.

We´re still talking about the same stuff. I thought you´d get it, but don´t worry, I´ll go slower and refrain any literary stunt so you can keep up:

Slip on the grass = retiring from last / old engine dying in FP under current ruleset.
Slip on a roof = retiring from first / new engine dying in FP under 2005 regs.

You´ll have a hard time just trying to look sane claiming these are the same situations, let alone actually changing anyone´s mind.

Yes i understood that. Like i said earlier, it's not comparable.

Do you honestly think a car having an engine failure from 1st place is a more unreliable car than a different car that has an engine failure from 14th place?

[mnmracer]

Points lost or not, reliability is not just DNF.
Alonso had reliability issues in Bahrain, but still finished the race to pick up 4 points.

This blog post calculates the number of points lost due to misfortune by each of the competitors. I will include both the number of reliability issues (per TTT1's wish) and the points lost due to reliability (per other's wish).

Vettel - 6 reliability issues - 63 points lost (Turkey points not counted, although he did have reliability issues in Q)
...Bahrain - spark plug
...Australia - brakes
...Spain - brakes
...Turkey - broken anti rollbar
...Canada - gearbox
...Korea - engine

Webber - 2 reliability issues - 0 points lost
...Canada - gearbox change
...Germany - fuel pick up

Alonso - 1 reliability issues - 8 points lost
...Malaysia - gearbox/engine

Hamilton - 3 reliability issues - 32 points lost
...Spain - flat tire
...Hungary - gearbox
...Japan - gearbox

Edited by mnmracer, 16 June 2013 - 19:23.

[Skinnyguy]

I understand what it is. Not my fault if you keep using it.

It can´t be both. If you actually understand what it is, you can´t think I keep using it. Look, a standard strawman:

- Your 15 year old son shouldn´t go alone to the Spring break.
- Jailing your sons home forever is not good.

The second guy isn´t actually replying the first one point, he´s adressing a slightly different topic, implying that´s the topic the first guy was adressing, when it´s not. He gives an answer to a different question trying to make it look as if that was the question the first one was making.

As you´ll have realized, at no point I was actually trying to discuss about shoe´s grip, nor was I trying to imply you were talking about shoes grip.

Hope it helps for the future.

About the discussion itself, you just have to realize you´re spending more time trying to built a custom playfield that allows you to prove your point than actually listing reliability problems. Once you start doing so, and stop trying to tell others why this or that failure counts, doesn´t count, or counts double, then you´ll realize RB6 was indeed less reliable than its title rivals.

[Zoetrope]

Slip on the grass = retiring from last / old engine dying in FP under current ruleset.
Slip on a roof = retiring from first / new engine dying in FP under 2005 regs.

Slip on the grass = you are clumsy, but lucky to not get injured
Slip on a roof = you are clumsy, but unlucky to get injured

I don't see what does it matter in what position a car is during a race when it retires? We are not discussing 'how many points did he lose to no fault of his own', but we are discussing reliability of a car.

I understand fears of some of users that this thread might suggest that Vettel won WDC in the fastest car with same reliability as Ferrari and McLaren, but it's not the point. He was also the most unlucky driver to lose the biggest amount of points, so he surely deserves that title. But it doesn't mean that he wasn't driving the best car overall.

[TheThirdTenor1]

It can´t be both. If you actually understand what it is, you can´t think I keep using it. Look, a standard strawman:

- Your 15 year old son shouldn´t go alone to the Spring break.
- Jailing your sons home forever is not good.

The second guy isn´t actually replying the first one point, he´s adressing a slightly different topic, implying that´s the topic the first guy was adressing, when it´s not. He gives an answer to a different question trying to make it look as if that was the question the first one was making.

As you´ll have realized, at no point I was actually trying to discuss about shoe´s grip, nor was I trying to imply you were talking about shoes grip.

Hope it helps for the future.

Like i said, i understand what a strawman. But if you're happy to waste your time, then feel free.

About the discussion itself, you just have to realize you´re spending more time trying to built a custom playfield that allows you to prove your point than actually listing reliability problems. Once you start doing so, and stop trying to tell others why this or that failure counts, doesn´t count, or counts double, then you´ll realize RB6 was indeed less reliable than its title rivals.

You're confused. I'm not the one trying to place different value on reliability DNFs. It is some other people in this thread who are trying to do that.

[MikeV1987]

I don't know what point you are trying to make with this thread, assuming he didn't DNF or have problems he would have leading the championship by a decent margin.

It's not like the car was REALLY unreliable, it was arguably fastest for most of the tracks but it **** the bed on numerous occasions.

Edited by MikeV1987, 16 June 2013 - 19:43.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Points lost or not, reliability is not just DNF.
Alonso had reliability issues in Bahrain, but still finished the race to pick up 4 points.

The problem is that issues like this are often hard to quantify. These issues can happen more often than we think but are often kept not released to the public, especially immediately after the race. Furthermore, cars need to be managed all the time, so the we end up with a grey area between reliability issue and car management.

[TheThirdTenor1]

I don't know what point you are trying to make with this thread, assuming he didn't DNF or have problems he would have leading the championship by a decent margin.

It's not like the car was REALLY unreliable, it was fast but it **** the bed on numerous occasions.

Please read the OP to see the point of the thread.

[MikeV1987]

Please read the OP to see the point of the thread.

All I get from the OP is an implication of how Vettel *somehow* isn't that good. I mean, why even start a thread to beat a dead horse in the first place.

Edited by MikeV1987, 16 June 2013 - 19:48.

[Skinnyguy]

Like i said, i understand what a strawman. But if you're happy to waste your time, then feel free.

Really hope you do now. You were just spamming it automatically, sort of like the football players raise automatically their hands when their team receives a goal in hope for an offside.

You're confused. I'm not the one trying to place different value on reliability DNFs. It is some other people in this thread who are trying to do that.

No. Read again. Patient people are comming up with detailed lists of actual events, you´re too busy setting a favourable playfield. The best contribution to the actual debate you´ve done is the Vettel 2-Lewis 2-Fernando 1 DNFs argument, which is really lazy effort, and from then on you´re just trying to argue how the incidents you mention are the only ones that matter.

[1Devil1]

The problem is that issues like this are often hard to quantify. These issues can happen more often than we think but are often kept not released to the public, especially immediately after the race. Furthermore, cars need to be managed all the time, so the we end up with a grey area between reliability issue and car management.

Nope, do you think drivers or teams will hide information that can be used as excuses for their bad results? In a world of mass media, and annoying fans teams take every opportunity they got to justify their performance. If a drivers was in fuel mode - we hear it. If a driver had to manage his tires to the end - we hear it. Of course there is a grey area left, but this area isn't that a big as you think. Vettel had obviously these problems he dropped back - and lost points because of it. You still didn't answer my question. Why only DNF as measure stick, you did hear a lot of reasons this approach is a little bit too short sighted - this statistic say nothing about the context - only that a car didn't finish without a crash. Don't know what you like to read into it? One number tells nothing about the story. It like you want to measure the economy of country only because you read the GNP datas.

[TheThirdTenor1]

All I get from the OP is an implication of how Vettel *somehow* isn't that good.

That's your problem if you feel that way. It was not the intention of the thread (which was clearly explained). This forum does not revolve around Vettel or any other driver.

I mean, why even start a thread to beat a dead horse in the first place.

The debate started in another thread, but was off topic. Hence i started a new thread. I hope that is ok with you.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Really hope you do now. You were just spamming it automatically, sort of like the football players raise automatically their hands when their team receives a goal in hope for an offside.

Another wonderful strawman.

No. Read again. Patient people are comming up with detailed lists of actual events, you´re too busy setting a favourable playfield. The best contribution to the actual debate you´ve done is the Vettel 2-Lewis 2-Fernando 1 DNFs argument, which is really lazy effort, and from then on you´re just trying to argue how the incidents you mention are the only ones that matter.

I've addressed these people.

I've said the DNFs are the easiest ones to quantify, not the only ones that matter. Please don't accuse me of things i havn't done.

[1Devil1]

Another wonderful strawman.



I've addressed these people.

I've said the DNFs are the easiest ones to quantify, not the only ones that matter. Please don't accuse me of things i havn't done.

Then you should say there is no way to quantity reliability instead of using only DNFs - because that makes less sense. I use only one variable because the rest is not possible to quantity is not a valid answer. I like you way to build your own logic

Edited by 1Devil1, 16 June 2013 - 20:00.

[MikeV1987]

This thread is going nowhere.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Nope, do you think drivers or teams will hide information that can be used as excuses for their bad results?

Teams are very secretive and i doubt they will release information just to satisfy some fanboys on an internet forum.

In a world of mass media, and annoying fans teams take every opportunity they got to justify their performance. If a drivers was in fuel mode - we hear it. If a driver had to manage his tires to the end - we hear it. Of course there is a grey area left, but this area isn't that a big as you think.

That's what you think. There's lots of things we don't hear.

Vettel had obviously these problems he dropped back - and lost points because of it. You still didn't answer my question. Why only DNF as measure stick, you did hear a lot of reasons this approach is a little bit too short sighted - this statistic say nothing about the context - only that a car didn't finish without a crash. Don't know what you like to read into it? One number tells nothing about the story. It like you want to measure the economy of country only because you read the GNP datas.

I already explained why i used DNFs as a measuring stick. They are the most quantifiable.

[g1n]

What is the point of this all, there is not much to debate and everything has already been said.

[mnmracer]

What is the point of this all, there is not much to debate and everything has already been said.

I have no idea...
He claims it's not about Vettel, yet starts this thread based on a discussion about Vettel and mentions Vettel in the OP.
Hell, he doesn't even make a statement in the OP...

I say /thread.

[Barabas]

Point is same as always: Vettel sucks.

He´s trying to say he almost lost 2010 title in the fastest car, a car that according to his peculiar analysis wasn´t that unreliable.

It's a bit of a peculiar thread if you ask me

[TheThirdTenor1]

I have no idea...
He claims it's not about Vettel, yet starts this thread based on a discussion about Vettel and mentions Vettel in the OP.
Hell, he doesn't even make a statement in the OP...

I say /thread.

It was a continuation of a discussion from a previous thread....

[TheThirdTenor1]

What is the point of this all, there is not much to debate and everything has already been said.

The point is to discuss the reliability of the RB6. That is what has happened.

[Kingshark]

Alonso could very well have beaten Vettel in Bahrain even if it wasn't for his engine problem. Remember, both Ferrari's were catching the Red Bull long before lap 33 when the problem occurred, the F10 was simply better than the RB6 on the hard tyres.

Alonso would likely also have beaten Vettel in Korea even without the engine failure. As we've seen many times in the past 3-4 years, Alonso always keeps his tyres saved until unleashing the potential at the end of his stint. He pulled out 15 seconds on Hamilton in 5 laps.

Was Vettel also saving his tyres, or would they have gone off like everyone else's bar Alonso's at the end of the race? My bet is on the latter, Red Bull were generally a bit harder on their tyres than Ferrari that year.

So Vettel didn't lose 50 points in those two races, more like only 36 points or so.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Alonso could very well have beaten Vettel in Bahrain even if it wasn't for his engine problem. Remember, both Ferrari's were catching the Red Bull long before lap 33 when the problem occurred, the F10 was simply better than the RB6 on the hard tyres.

Alonso would likely also have beaten Vettel in Korea even without the engine failure. As we've seen many times in the past 3-4 years, Alonso always keeps his tyres saved until unleashing the potential at the end of his stint. He pulled out 15 seconds on Hamilton in 5 laps.

Was Vettel also saving his tyres, or would they have gone off like everyone else's bar Alonso's at the end of the race? My bet is on the latter, Red Bull were generally a bit harder on their tyres than Ferrari that year.

So Vettel didn't lose 50 points in those two races, more like only 36 points or so.

Yep on both occasions Alonso was catching him. Neither win was certain.

[turssi]

So OP, what do you think? Beyond that 2/2/1 statistic you mentioned?

[Atreiu]

The RB6 was realiable enough. Vettel simply took too long to stop making mistakes and capitalize on his and the cars speed. Once he did, there was no looking back.

Edited by Atreiu, 17 June 2013 - 00:08.

[apoka]

The problem is that issues like this are often hard to quantify. These issues can happen more often than we think but are often kept not released to the public, especially immediately after the race. Furthermore, cars need to be managed all the time, so the we end up with a grey area between reliability issue and car management.

It's true that DNFs are easy to quantify and your statistics are also correct.

That said, the problems I have is that it's not really clear which point you are trying to make by posting those numbers (in quite a few threads). You should be aware that posting them in a thread which is (more or less) about Vettels legacy, people will assume that you want to make a point regarding the driver, in particular since you said that the RB6 is dominant in the post before. Adding the pieces together, readers will just assume that the RB6 was fastest + the reliability of Vettels RB6 was equal to Hamilton and slightly better than Alonsos = the 2010 WDC was not such a great accomplishment. It may not be your intention to say that, but then I don't really know what the discussion was about.

The other problem is that DNFs really are not the best measure in my opinion. At least in driver related threads, reliability discussions are usually about how many more points a driver could have got in bullet proof machinery. For the top drivers, a lot of details are known and recorded. In that regard, it makes much more sense to have a detailed analysis (see the blog post and the list of problems posted by other users). Especially for Alonso, saying that his reliability problems were anywhere near as problematic for him in 2010 is not true (again, this may not be what you want to say, but people will just assume it, if you do not state your point explicitly).

[apoka]

Alonso could very well have beaten Vettel in Bahrain even if it wasn't for his engine problem. Remember, both Ferrari's were catching the Red Bull long before lap 33 when the problem occurred, the F10 was simply better than the RB6 on the hard tyres.

The question is whether the pace difference would have been big enough to overtake, especially since Vettel set a fastest lap before his engine failure:
http://en.mclarenf-1...so#.Ub6dDxVnI7s
Without DRS, I think it is more likely that Vettel wins that race.

Alonso would likely also have beaten Vettel in Korea even without the engine failure.

Korea lap times: http://en.mclarenf-1...so#.Ub6ZdBVnI7s
Of course, no one knows that would have happened, but I think the more likely outcome would be for Vettel to win the race. They didn't have Pirellis yet in 2010 with huge dropoffs.

As we've seen many times in the past 3-4 years, Alonso always keeps his tyres saved until unleashing the potential at the end of his stint. He pulled out 15 seconds on Hamilton in 5 laps.

http://en.mclarenf-1...so#.Ub6biRVnI7s
He was faster than Hamilton, but the 15s gap is due to lap times at the end are not really representative of their pace (neither Alonso nor Hamiltons).

Of course, those 50 points were not guaranteed, but the DNFs happened at a late stage of a race and in a season, in which overtakes were neither easy nor common.

[Kelateboy]

Hamilton - 3 reliability issues - 32 points lost
...Spain - flat tire
...Hungary - gearbox
...Japan - gearbox

Can we classify Hamilton's DNF in Spain from a tyre deflation as a retirement due to mechanical issues? Personally, I would not classify any punctures or tyre deflations as mechanical eventhough they are caused by debris.

[Zava]

Can we classify Hamilton's DNF in Spain from a tyre deflation as a retirement due to mechanical issues? Personally, I would not classify any punctures or tyre deflations as mechanical eventhough they are caused by debris.

IIRC that was a wheel rim failure, not a puncture, listing it as a technical problem is totally legit.

btw talking mnmracer's listing: funny how TheThirdTenor1 totally missed that post, and instead of addressing it, (s)he's only writing "no, because of this" and "no, because of that" to everyone who dares to mention more RB6 failures than (s)he did. totally agree with the ones who said the thread is not going anywhere.

[Kelateboy]

IIRC that was a wheel rim failure, not a puncture, listing it as a technical problem is totally legit.

Fair enough, it was a wheel rim failure and cost Hamilton 18pts.

Whitmarsh - "As I said at the time, we did not believe that the deflation was caused by a puncture or a tyre failure; all the evidence told us that the rim had failed, which caused the deflation, and that rim failure is now being investigated."

[TheThirdTenor1]

It's true that DNFs are easy to quantify and your statistics are also correct.

That said, the problems I have is that it's not really clear which point you are trying to make by posting those numbers (in quite a few threads). You should be aware that posting them in a thread which is (more or less) about Vettels legacy, people will assume that you want to make a point regarding the driver, in particular since you said that the RB6 is dominant in the post before. Adding the pieces together, readers will just assume that the RB6 was fastest + the reliability of Vettels RB6 was equal to Hamilton and slightly better than Alonsos = the 2010 WDC was not such a great accomplishment. It may not be your intention to say that, but then I don't really know what the discussion was about.

I'm correcting people who want to claim the RB6 was fast but unreliable compared to it's competitors. This, in my mind, makes it seem like people want us to believe we had a situation similar to the FW14 vs the MP4-6 or the MP4-20 vs the R25. I don't believe this was the case.

The other problem is that DNFs really are not the best measure in my opinion. At least in driver related threads, reliability discussions are usually about how many more points a driver could have got in bullet proof machinery. For the top drivers, a lot of details are known and recorded. In that regard, it makes much more sense to have a detailed analysis (see the blog post and the list of problems posted by other users). Especially for Alonso, saying that his reliability problems were anywhere near as problematic for him in 2010 is not true (again, this may not be what you want to say, but people will just assume it, if you do not state your point explicitly).

I agree that DNFs are not a perfect measure, but i've explained why other measures are not entirely reliable either.

[TheThirdTenor1]

IIRC that was a wheel rim failure, not a puncture, listing it as a technical problem is totally legit.

btw talking mnmracer's listing: funny how TheThirdTenor1 totally missed that post, and instead of addressing it, (s)he's only writing "no, because of this" and "no, because of that" to everyone who dares to mention more RB6 failures than (s)he did. totally agree with the ones who said the thread is not going anywhere.

I didn't miss it. I've explained why those types of things are harder to quantify. For reliability purposes, it does not include everything either.

According to so many, the thread is going no where, yet here we are on the 2nd page....

[mnmracer]

I didn't miss it. I've explained why those types of things are harder to quantify. For reliability purposes, it does not include everything either.

Ok, then what is the purpose of discussing reliability for you?

The purpose of discussing reliability to most is to see whether or not the points table is an accurate representation of how much a driver was able to get out of the car. Looking only at pace, it would be easy to say "Alonso would have won 2010 in the RB6 with races to spare", as if Sebastian Vettel did not get as much out of his car that year as Alonso did, and you would expect Alonso to score more points. By taking reliability into consideration, you can better answer that question.

You can say that with the perceived speed difference, a better driver would have won with more than 4 points to spare.
If you consider that, without misfortune, Vettel would have won the WDC with 86 points to Alonso, it becomes a whole different discussion.
Sure, the RB6 had more outright speed, but isn't that why he (would have) won with a 62 point lead to Hamilton and a 86 point lead to Alonso?

Edited by mnmracer, 17 June 2013 - 08:32.

[mnmracer]

Alonso could very well have beaten Vettel in Bahrain even if it wasn't for his engine problem. Remember, both Ferrari's were catching the Red Bull long before lap 33 when the problem occurred, the F10 was simply better than the RB6 on the hard tyres.

Alonso would likely also have beaten Vettel in Korea even without the engine failure. As we've seen many times in the past 3-4 years, Alonso always keeps his tyres saved until unleashing the potential at the end of his stint. He pulled out 15 seconds on Hamilton in 5 laps.

Was Vettel also saving his tyres, or would they have gone off like everyone else's bar Alonso's at the end of the race? My bet is on the latter, Red Bull were generally a bit harder on their tyres than Ferrari that year.

So Vettel didn't lose 50 points in those two races, more like only 36 points or so.

In both instance, the only thing that cut the gap was a faster pit stop and outlap. If this scenario had happened more often when Vettel was not having trouble, it would be an interesting hypothesis, but the only times this happened was when Vettel had an engine issue. The more likely explanation is that the drop in lap times is related to the issues, than it just so happens that Alonso was faster in the races Vettel had an engine problem. One assumption versus two: from an obejctive POV, an easy choice.