The Valencia race was also the race with the most number of finishers ever, with 24 drivers on the grid this year as opposed the twenty of the previous seasons. We therefore take a look at this statistic and analyse whether improved reliability really is a good thing for the sport.

An upward trend
The following graph shows the average number of finishers for the first eight races of a season from 1993 to 2011. Traditionally these are the races with the worst reliability records as teams work on improving and developing their new designs:

As can be seen, reliability over the past ten seasons has been on an upward trend, with the past three seasons areas of particular improvement.

One possible explanation for this is that the current generation of V8 engines have been in use since 2006. Since the beginning of the 2007 season these engines have been homologated with developments frozen in an attempt to reduce the costs which are incurred by car manufacturers participating in the sport.

Trulli awful
Team Lotus driver Jarno Trulli has claimed that the improved levels of reliability which have been seen in the sport in recent years are taking away from the spectacle. The former Monaco Grand Prix winner claims that the driver is becoming ever less important and that the sport is losing its air of unpredictability: “That winner is technology. After having won hands-down, in the last few years, the battle against the human element – ever-less important in F1 – it (technology) has ended up winning the philosophical battle against the unexpected and more generally against the unpredictable, something that in our world is called ‘mechanical failure’.”

“I can’t remember the last time an engine broke down in an F1 race. Constructors have become excellent at quality control, and no detail is left to chance. This implies two things; the first is that the chances for a small team to get into the points have sensibly reduced, the second is a further loss of appeal for F1.”

The counter argument
Although many support Trulli’s comments, there is also a very solid counter argument. Trulli claimed that the input of the driver was less important now that reliability was so bulletproof, with the Italian seeming to suggest that as a former grand prix winner he should not be finishing behind drivers who “pay” for their place in F1 like Pastor Maldonado.

While it is right to say that Maldonado has a big car advantage over Trulli this year, it could be seen as being unfair to suggest that he should retire from more of the races in order to equal things out. Formula One is a team sport and always has been, with both the team and driver having to operate to the best of their abilities in order to get results. Sebastian Vettel may well have the same car as Mark Webber this year, but there is a 77 point difference between them in the point’s standings. This surely serves as evidence that the driver still makes a difference.

It could also be argued that superior reliability is just as much a part of this team-driver equation as ultimate speed. Ever since the first world championship in 1950, the team and driver with the best speed and reliability combination have gone on to win the championship. If this had not been the case, then there would be no point in allocating points for the positions that drivers finish.

A balanced view
When Williams driver Nigel Mansell’s tyre blew up in the last race of the 1986 season as he was on course to win the championship, viewers were on the edge of their seats. No one could believe that the “deserving” world champion had been forced out through no fault of his own. However, Formula One is a team sport and the McLaren team had delivered a car/driver combination which was far kinder on its tyres. This ultimately allowed Alain Prost through to take his second championship triumph.

While Trulli is correct to say that unpredictable moments such as this add to the excitement of the sport, it is unlikely that these comments were going through the mind of Nigel Mansell as he sat in his cockpit with his head in his hands in 1986. This really is a contentious issue, and it is perhaps unfair to look upon improved reliability levels as being a bad thing in the context that it does help to ensure that the fastest driver is now more likely to go on to win the championship. Surely that is what we all want in the end, with drivers such as Alain Prost having been far less exciting to watch than the likes of Mansell.

However, those worried about improved reliability levels may not have to worry for much longer. The FIA has recently announced the introduction of a 1.6 litre V6 engine for the 2014 season. This will force all the engine manufacturers to abandon their current units, with it likely that teams will also have to alter their chassis designs in order to accommodate the new motors. Surely this will result in high levels of unreliability as teams develop their new designs.

Hans Geist, linked in the past with F1 forays in Russia, Austria and Bahrain, has proposed a $150 million project to Vietnam’s ministry of planning and investment.

The proposal is for a Formula One circuit to be located near Nha Trang Bay in central Khanh Hoa province, according to vietnamvet.vn.

“The dynamic economy of Vietnam and tourism potential are good reasons for building a circuit here,” said Geist.

He did not say when the proposal would move forwards but construction would take three years.

“Formula one … will guarantee a professional business communication for Vietnam and its international recognition. It will certainly stimulate Vietnam’s economy, tourism and infrastructure,” added Geist.

By Motorsport.com/GMM

These changes will include:

• Reduction in engine size from the 2.4 litre turbos to 1.6 litre turbo charged motors
• Introduction of fuel flow restrictions
• KERS device power doubled from 60kw to 120kw

The question is why these changes are necessary and what affect will each of these changes have?

Realisation

The FIA and the teams realised that changes were needed following the loss of Honda, BMW and Toyota from the sport. Although financial reasons on the back of the credit crunch were ultimately the main contributor towards each car manufacturers decision to leave, it is likely that if the sport had been more relevant to road car technologies that this decision would have proven to be far more difficult for them to justify. The sport had simply become too preoccupied with aerodynamic revisions which were not only expensive and detrimental to the quality of the racing, but also not at all relevant for use on road cars.

The FIA therefore banned in-race refuelling for 2010 in an attempt to place greater emphasis on fuel efficiency. This would work by giving a weight advantage to the most fuel efficient car at the start of races as it would not have to carry as much fuel as its competitors to get to the end of the race. It was hoped that lessons learned in fuel economy from F1 would be transferable to road car developments. The FIA also announced that KERS would be reintroduced for 2011, with this system storing heat energy from the brakes in lithium batteries until the driver utilised the energy as a power boost for the engine. It was hoped that this device would help manufacturers involved in the sport gain a better understanding of how to increase the efficiency of renewable energy devices. However, there are little else the FIA could do within the framework of the current regulations, which is why the dramatic 2013 overhaul was announced which it is believed will increase the fuel efficiency of F1 cars by up to 50%.

Turbo engines

Turbo engines were outlawed from the sport at the end of the 1980s. This marked the end of a remarkable decade of racing where drivers such as Senna, Prost and Mansell battled for positions in some of the most spectacular racing ever seen (this was of course before Mansell’s career change to become a comedian in Money Supermarket advertisements). However, the power of the engines had got too much with rumours of BMW’s turbo qualifying unit (which only lasted about four laps before blowing up) being capable of over 1,500 bhp.

However, the 2013 turbo units will be much smaller capacity motors which it is expected will be close to the power output of the current V8 engines. It is believed that this smaller capacity unit will be far more relevant to road car engine designs, with Renault stating that it expects 75% of its road car engines to be small capacity turbo’s by 2015 as a result of them being capable of being far more fuel efficient. However, Renault has still joined the other manufacturers in complaining that in the current economic climate it is simply impossible to design a brand new engine unit. Renault and Cosworth have therefore advocated that the FIA introduce a budget cap on the new engine project so that it does not become a money spending ‘arms race’. This also opens the door for other car manufacturers to enter the sport as existing knowledge of the current generation of F1 engine will no longer be an advantage.

Fuel flow and KERs

The fuel flow regulator is obviously another attempt to force the teams to come up with ways to make their cars more fuel efficient so as not be handicapped by this new regulation. This will be road relevant as fuel saving techniques developed will surely be applicable in the road car world.

However, the KERS system is going to be a far more expensive project. The doubling of its capacity will ensure that it has a far greater bearing on car performance which should ensure that teams have little option other than to adopt the system which at present is only worth about three tenths of a second per lap (on top of the big advantage at the start of races). Teams will therefore be attempting to make the systems both lighter and more efficient, with these technological advances being of huge significance in the development of hybrid road cars. Ferrari has already utilised its F1 experience with the system to develop the 599 hybrid Ferrari sports car.

Possible new entrants

Another car manufacturer to show an interest in the KERs device is Porsche, who have collaborated with the Williams team to produce a KERs device for use on their GT3 sports car. Porsche are now owned by Volkswagen who have been very vocal in stating that they will only consider F1 participation if the new rules are adopted, as now appears to be the case. It is believed that VW are considering entering the sport in time for the start of the new era in 2013 with either their Porsche or Audi brands which are current competing against each other in the Le Mans series. Williams are keen to capitalise on their existing relationship with the German manufacturer, with rumours suggesting that Williams CEO Adam Parr missed the final race of the 2010 season to meet VW shareholders in Qatar in an attempt to persuade them to advocate to the VW board that an alliance with Williams would prove beneficial. Williams has struggled in the past couple of years as a result of a lack of financial support; however it is likely that VW would be more than capable of rectifying this issue and helping the team realise its championship winning potential.

Honda and BMW may both have quit F1 in the recent past, but both are believed to be interested in the new technical regulations. It should also be noted that both companies have withdrawn from the sport in the past only to re-enter a short time later. An obvious candidate for Honda would be the Sauber team who currently employ the very impressive Japanese driver Kamui Kobayashi. Team boss Peter Sauber is looking at selling the team before his 70^th birthday in 2013, and the team’s facilities are second to none thanks to prior investment from BMW. BMW themselves are less likely to return having committed to entering the German Touring Car series (DTM) in 2012.

The future

The sport therefore looks set to embrace a new car manufacturer era, but the only question remaining is whether or not this is a good thing. The new teams which have come in the place of the exiting car manufacturers (Red Bull, Lotus, Virgin etc) have proven to be far more charismatic and entertaining. Therefore, is the very corporate image required by car manufacturer a good thing for F1? Time will tell.

By Money Supermarket