29 replies to this topic

[sopa]

The last time Alonso retired with a car failure, was Malaysia 2010 with an engine problem.

 

The longest reliability streak I can remember was M. Schumacher from 2001 Germany to Bahrain 2005. I counted - that's 58 races.

 

In Alonso's case he hasn't DNF-d with a car failure for 67 consecutive races by now already, since China 2010.

[Boxerevo]

Not every reliability problem ends in DNF.

 

Not even Vettel or Raikkonen on Lotus will got close to that bullet-proof car of Schumacher.

 

Irvine and Barrichello's cars doesn't count.

Edited by Boxerevo, 01 October 2013 - 15:13.

[Tron]

Not every reliability problem ends in DNF.

 

Not even Vettel or Raikkonen on Lotus will got close to that bullet-proof car of Schumacher.

 

Irvine and Barrichello's cars doesn't count.

 

The Red Barren's car was made of adamantium and magic.

[sopa]

Not every reliability problem ends in DNF.

 

Not even Vettel or Raikkonen on Lotus will got close to that bullet-proof car of Schumacher.

 

Irvine and Barrichello's cars doesn't count.

 

Not every reliability problem ends in DNF indeed. Like Schumacher's puncture in Germany in 2003. Or Alonso's DRS in Bahrain 2013. However, even those odd occasions aside their cars have been bullet-proof and Alonso-Ferrari combo rightfully has got this record. I think his Ferrari's reliability has been even more impressive than Schumacher's reliability back in the day, which was lauded very highly at the time.

 

And as much as Vettel likes to catch records, it looks as though as this record is one which is out of sight for him. It is one rare area of disadvantage in driving a Newey car.

Edited by sopa, 01 October 2013 - 15:20.

[johnmhinds]

Not every reliability problem ends in DNF.

 

Not even Vettel or Raikkonen on Lotus will got close to that bullet-proof car of Schumacher.

 

Irvine and Barrichello's cars doesn't count.

 

This i've never understood, why do people tie car/team reliability to a single driver?

 

If it isn't the same car design each year and the chassis/engine change from race to race then why should the driver matter in any way?

Edited by johnmhinds, 01 October 2013 - 15:22.

[sopa]

This i've never understood, why do people tie car/team reliability to a single driver?

 

If it isn't the same car design each year then why should the driver matter in any way?

 

We have seen on many occasions that one driver has a more reliable car than the other in the same team.

 

Button v Hamilton 2012

Coulthard v Raikkonen 2002

Alonso v Fisichella 2005

 

And so on.

 

What is the reason for each case, is anyone's to guess.

Maybe team struggles to allocate resources evenly. Or the race team of one driver is superior to the other and has greater attention to detail.

[johnmhinds]

We have seen on many occasions that one driver has a more reliable car than the other in the same team.

 

Button v Hamilton 2012

Coulthard v Raikkonen 2002

Alonso v Fisichella 2005

 

And so on.

 

What is the reason for each case, is anyone's to guess.

Maybe team struggles to allocate resources evenly. Or the race team of one driver is superior to the other and has greater attention to detail.

 

I'm not sure about the worth in things like that, if we're judging drivers in hindsight based on statistical anomalies they have no control over (component failures and accidents out of the drivers control) that doesn't seem like a very meaningful figure to be measuring.

 

Is Driver A a worse driver than Driver B if his engine fails more times? No of course not.

 

If all people really mean by "reliability" is "race finishes in a row" then fine. But don't call it reliability and tie it all to a single team/driver combo for no reason, because it means nothing extra to do it in that way.

[sennafan24]

Not every reliability problem ends in DNF.

 

 

People who post blanket stats take note about this please.

[Boxerevo]

I'm not sure about the worth in things like that, if we're judging drivers in hindsight based on statistical anomalies they have no control over (component failures and accidents out of the drivers control) that doesn't seem like a very meaningful figure to be measuring.

 

Is Driver A a worse driver than Driver B if his engine fails more times? No of course not.

 

If all people really mean by "reliability" is "race finishes in a row" then fine. But don't call it reliability and tie it all to a single team/driver combo for no reason, because it means nothing extra to do it in that way.

I am sorry that i don't understand your point,i am not a native english speaker and i think i have a hard time understanding the point you are making here.

 

But drivers aren't driving the same car even in the same team,they have different engineers and workers for each car... resources are always limited and i am sure for political reasons aiming some specif result,those resources aren't shared close to even many times.

 

So we have really a combo result,not that the driver has much influence to this in his driving but he gains this superior reliability for reasons we can't see only watching the races,reasons that are not only political but i believe the bigger reason is incompetence from some part of the team.

Edited by Boxerevo, 01 October 2013 - 16:02.

[johnmhinds]

I am sorry that i don't understand your point,i am not a native english speaker and i think i have a hard time understanding the point you are making here.

 

But drivers aren't driving the same car even in the same team,they have different engineers and workers for each car... resources are always limited and i am sure for political reasons aiming some specif result,those resources aren't shared close to even many times.

 

So we have really a combo result,not that the driver has much influence to this in his driving but he gains this superior reliability for reasons we can't see only watching the races.

 

My point was originally in reference to the Irvine - Barrichello example that was given. If you counted the cars reliability it would be a higher figure, but because the driver changed to Barrichello in the middle for some reason the statistic reset to 0?

 

The car design changes each year (and it isn't the same car chassis/design/parts every weekend anyway), and the mechanics aren't always the same, so why should it be the driver changing that resets a "reliability" statistic that we're counting?

 

It should be linked to a teams grid entry, not the person driving that car.

[fabr68]

The last time Alonso retired with a car failure, was Malaysia 2010 with an engine problem.

The longest reliability streak I can remember was M. Schumacher from 2001 Germany to Bahrain 2005. I counted - that's 58 races.

In Alonso's case he hasn't DNF-d with a car failure for 67 consecutive races by now already, since China 2010.

DRS failure earlier this year arguably cost him a race win

[fabr68]

And as much as Vettel likes to catch records, it looks as though as this record is one which is out of sight for him. It is one rare area of disadvantage in driving a Newey car.

No worries for Vettel. Because Webber is taking all Red Bull reliability troubles.

[canaus]

If I remember, aside from 2004 he always had few reliability problems. I wonder if there is any driver with a better record than him...

Edited by canaus, 01 October 2013 - 18:22.

[mnmracer]

Of the drivers from that day, that are still driving (Schumacher included for good measure), the score for mechanical retirements since:

Michael Schumacher - 7

Sebastian Vettel - 5

Jenson Button - 5

Lewis Hamilton - 4

Nico Rosberg - 4

Felipe Massa - 2

Mark Webber - 2

Nico Hülkenberg - 2

[sennafan24]

 

Of the drivers from that day, that are still driving (Schumacher included for good measure), the score for mechanical retirements since:

Michael Schumacher - 7

Sebastian Vettel - 5

Jenson Button - 5

Lewis Hamilton - 4

Nico Rosberg - 4

Felipe Massa - 2

Mark Webber - 2

Nico Hülkenberg - 2

 

 Is there anyway of determining how many errors were induced from mechanical errors?

 

For example, Lewis had suspension problems that hampered his Japan 2012 weekend and anti roll-bar problems that hampered his Korea 2012 race, whilst they did not result in a DNF, they did hamper his performance somewhat.

 

Its really hard to quantify how much mechanical errors cause if you just include the blanket stats of DNF;s. Even if we are to add up all mechanical problems, there is still pit stop errors, grid pens and other variables that can prevent a drivers performance. 

 

So I would argue those stats only tell a very small amount of the story in terms of reliability.

Edited by sennafan24, 01 October 2013 - 19:55.

[mnmracer]

 Is there anyway of determining how many errors were induced from mechanical errors?

 

For example, Lewis had suspension problems that hampered his Japan 2012 weekend and anti roll-bar problems that hampered his Korea 2012 race, whilst they did not result in a DNF, they did hamper his performance somewhat.

 

Its really hard to quantify how much mechanical errors cause if you just include the blanket stats of DNF;s. Even if we are to add up all mechanical problems, there is still pit stop errors, grid pens and other variables that can prevent a drivers performance. 

 

So I would argue those stats only tell a very small amount of the story in terms of reliability.

Yeah, as you remember my post about Vettel-Webber reliabilty (right?) there's much more than simply DNFs.

But I also remember how much time it took me for just those two, so, just keeping it to DNFs for now  

[sennafan24]

Yeah, as you remember my post about Vettel-Webber reliabilty (right?) there's much more than simply DNFs.

But I also remember how much time it took me for just those two, so, just keeping it to DNFs for now

I do not remember your post, but yeah I do know the Vettel/Webber DNF stat is really misleading. 

 

I appreciate your effort with the work you have done 

[Winter98]

Yeah, as you remember my post about Vettel-Webber reliabilty (right?) there's much more than simply DNFs.

But I also remember how much time it took me for just those two, so, just keeping it to DNFs for now

That was a good thread.

 

Thanks for taking the time to put the info together. 

[Winter98]

No worries for Vettel. Because Webber is taking all Red Bull reliability troubles.

That's Webber's job. 

[LewDaMan]

 

Of the drivers from that day, that are still driving (Schumacher included for good measure), the score for mechanical retirements since:

Michael Schumacher - 7

Sebastian Vettel - 5

Jenson Button - 5

Lewis Hamilton - 4

Nico Rosberg - 4

Felipe Massa - 2

Mark Webber - 2

Nico Hülkenberg - 2

 

 

Your statistics are wrong in Vettel's and/or Hamilton's cases, because you initially cite the measure as "mechanical retirements" but in post #16 state you are, "keeping it to DNFs."

 

If the measure is "mechanical retirements" then Hamilton's count is six, since Malaysia 2010.

 

If you're counting it by "DNFs" then Vettel's count is four, since Malaysia 2010.

 

Mechanical retirements and DNFs are two separate measures, which you're blurring. Which in turn has led to statistics which cannot be accepted as accurate. And that's just in Vettel's and Hamilton's examples. I presume there are errors for some of the other drivers, too.

[LoudHoward]

Webber got the record for a little while just before USA 2012 didn't he?

[SenorSjon]

In the Schumacher era, cars were much more unreliable (and a lot faster). It helps now that they are driving less than 100% on the Pirelli's, so the car gets saved. Nowadays parts need to run more than one race, etc. 

 

I do miss those Honda engines exploding.

[mnmracer]

Your statistics are wrong in Vettel's and/or Hamilton's cases, because you initially cite the measure as "mechanical retirements" but in post #16 state you are, "keeping it to DNFs."

 

If the measure is "mechanical retirements" then Hamilton's count is six, since Malaysia 2010.

 

If you're counting it by "DNFs" then Vettel's count is four, since Malaysia 2010.

 

Mechanical retirements and DNFs are two separate measures, which you're blurring. Which in turn has led to statistics which cannot be accepted as accurate. And that's just in Vettel's and Hamilton's examples. I presume there are errors for some of the other drivers, too.

Mechanical retirement = mechanical DNF, there's no blurring there.

 

Michael Schumacher: 7 - MON11 - HUN11 - AUS12 - CHN12 - MON12 - CAN12 - HUN12

Sebastian Vettel: 5 - KOR10 - ABU11 - EUR12 - ITA12 - GBR13

Jenson Button: 5 - MON10 - GBR11 - GER10 - ITA12 - MAL13

Lewis Hamilton: 5 - ESP10 - HUN10 - BRA11 - SIN12 - ABU12

Nico Rosberg: 4 - HUN10 - AUS13 - CHN13 - HUN13

Felipe Massa: 2 - ESP11 - MON13

Mark Webber: 2 - USA12 - CHN13

Nico Hülkenberg: 2 - EUR10 - AUS13

Edited by mnmracer, 02 October 2013 - 08:26.

[mnmracer]

Webber got the record for a little while just before USA 2012 didn't he?

Almost.

Singapore 2009 to USA 2012 had 57 races, 1 short of Schumi,

[LewDaMan]

 

Mechanical retirement = mechanical DNF, there's no blurring there.

 

Michael Schumacher: 7 - MON11 - HUN11 - AUS12 - CHN12 - MON12 - CAN12 - HUN12

Sebastian Vettel: 5 - KOR10 - ABU11 - EUR12 - ITA12 - GBR13

Jenson Button: 5 - MON10 - GBR11 - GER10 - ITA12 - MAL13

Lewis Hamilton: 5 - ESP10 - HUN10 - BRA11 - SIN12 - ABU12

Nico Rosberg: 4 - HUN10 - AUS13 - CHN13 - HUN13

Felipe Massa: 2 - ESP11 - MON13

Mark Webber: 2 - USA12 - CHN13

Nico Hülkenberg: 2 - EUR10 - AUS13

 

Mechanical retirement = potential for official race classificiation depending on how many laps completed. Either you count those or you don't - you can't have it both ways i.e Vettel ITA 12 AND...

 

Mechanical DNF = exactly that i.e classified as a DNF or retirement.

 

In which case, Hamilton was retirement/DNF in Germany 2012 as a result of puncture damange. Hence 6 x mechanical retirements, post-Malaysia 2010.

Edited by LewDaMan, 03 October 2013 - 02:05.

[Jimisgod]

In other news, Webber had 67 kers problems in a row.

[caccamolle]

That was the implemtation of the #1 driver policy at RB. It is so obvious, gee. They always made absolutely sure finger boy would have no troubles from Webber ( the only other car who could threaten the little German).

[LoudHoward]

Almost.

Singapore 2009 to USA 2012 had 57 races, 1 short of Schumi,

 

There were 59 races between the two you listed, I'm pretty sure he got the record, then his car exploded.

[V3TT3L]

That's what Webber had to do to achieve success:

Mimic Vettel

[mnmracer]

There were 59 races between the two you listed, I'm pretty sure he got the record, then his car exploded.

ah true, you're correct