Performance vs Reliability

[astsmtl]

Once i read here a quote from Ron Dennis: "To finish first, first you must finish". It means that reliability is more important than performance. But on the teamcast which i downloaded here he said that it's better to build fast car and then make it reliable. So what do you think about it?

[RH1300S]

You need to do both.....

Ron Dennis is right of course; finishing is really quite important.

If a car is fundamentally too slow (too heavy, not pushing the boundaries as far as the competition) - probably the act of making is fast will take away reliability.

So, I would suggest chase performance first and foremost; but never take your eye off reliability.

In truth the best package will be the fastest and one with solid reliability from the first race. All the bugs ironed out in pre-season testing. Think Ferrari & Renault in recent years.

P.S. - Performance is a bit more intangible; harder the achieve and if you don't have it - hard to find. With reliability (simplistic argument ) - if something breaks you can look at it and figure out what went wrong and do something about it.

[Rob W]

Once i read here a quote from Ron Dennis: "To finish first, first you must finish". It means that reliability is more important than performance.

I'd think it was better to build a fast car and then work on reliability.

Having said that, McLaren have had a couple of years practice trying to make their super-fast cars reliable and it largely hasn't worked for them.

*This year.. fingers crossed*

Rob W

[manchild]

Second option.

Why?

If you make fast unreliable car in your quest for reliability you might end up with eventually reliable car that has much worse performance than reliable car originally had before the improvement of performance even began.

I think no one ever opted for first option. Unreliable cars are not intended to be unreliable - they came up that way. Unreliability comes from errors in design, bad quality of parts, misscalibration, inconsistency of quality of parts supplied by contractor company etc.

If anyone ever says that he wanted to make unreliable but fast car be sure that he is lying in order to hide the truth for the sake of reputation of brand/team/technical partner.

[Ciro Pabón]

I think is the package. Last year, the most reliable driver, in terms of engines used and kilometers extracted from it was... Scott Speed. You can look, I gave the numbers here, somewhere.

[joseff]

Isn't it easier to make a fast car reliable than make a reliable car fast?

[manchild]

Isn't it easier to make a fast car reliable than make a reliable car fast?

It isn't because the more reliable you make it the less it becomes fast with big chance to loose whole fastness and become slower than slow but reliable cars.

You can't tune down unreliable engine bit by bit as you can tune up reliable engine. Once you figure out that your engine is unreliable you got to take drastic measures to make it reliable by redesigning and over dimensioning parts etc. I mean, you can tune it down bit by bit but that takes too much blows before you reach the point of reliability and by than it is too late.

Mclaren from 2005 was fast unreliable car and for next season they've made it reliable but slow. That's an excellent example (extreme one).

[ketanpaul]

Well I think first a car should be reliable and then fast. Renault won 2 consecutive titles because of this. Both years there were cars at a higher level than the Renaults (McLaren and Ferrari) but still Renault won, and it is all down to the reliability of that (formerly blue) machine.

[vyselegend]

I remember a few weeks ago I wanted to create the same topic after reading both of those:

Heidfeld's point:http://www.f1technical.net/news/4950

"We have the pace but we still need to work on the reliability. However, I know it is easier to work on the reliability of a fast car than improving the pace of a reliable one."

Silk's point: http://www.f1technical.net/news/4870

"Yes, we have a pretty good idea. But we haven’t yet looked at this part of our programme. It’s always better to look for performance with a reliable car rather than trying to make a quick car reliable."

Instinctively, I feel more confident about a test chief's opinion on this matter than a driver's. (so I voted second choice)

But if both are sincere, it means the two opposite philosophies are currently defended in formula 1. And, BMW and Renault being very close in terms of perfs, it will be interresting to see which one beat the other!

[RH1300S]

The trouble with quotes (espec' a driver) is that they have an agenda. If Heidfeld's car was reliable he wouldn't be saying that.

Even an engineer like Silk may not be calling the tune he wants - he has a "slow" car right now, so naturally he will talk it up.

Of course, they could both be telling the truth

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, look at the problem this way:

What's easier, to turn a reliable, hard working spouse into a good lover that "performs", or turn a lazy spouse that is a good lover into a hard working person?

Both seem impossible. Either you get it right from the beginning, or you're doomed. "Perfection lacks explanation", as I repeat at my office.

Ha, ha.

[joseff]

Your analogy is irrelevant, Ciro. You, of all of us here, know best that no amount of mathematics, supercomputer cycles, or even track testing can help us understand a woman.

[ds.raikkonen]

very difficult combination

[D]

Well, look at the problem this way:

What's easier, to turn a reliable, hard working spouse into a good lover that "performs", or turn a lazy spouse that is a good lover into a hard working person?

Well, I'd say it is easier to turn a hard working spouse into a good lover because of 2 good reasons. 1) It would be more rewarding for the spouse (as well as oneself) to be a good lover and 2) If the spouse is already a hard working person, then logically he/she wouldn't mind the 'work' to become a good lover.

very difficult combination

No ---. That was really worth posting then.

Obviously it's important to have both (and it is a 'very difficult combination') but for the sake of argument I would say performance should be the objective first and foremost simply because this is racing after all so there is no point in finishing all the time but never winning anything. After all, 'second place is the first of the losers', isn't it?

[Ciro Pabón]

After all, 'second place is the first of the losers', isn't it?

Well, seriously this time, if I may point out this, Alonso has proved that he is able of reaching 2nd or 3rd position if he cannot win. I believe that helped him to win 2 WDC.

Audacity and determination are virtues, you're right and I agree with that, but patience and constance are others.

On the other hand, Kimi has shown that either he has really bad luck or he is a little heavy on that premise that "I must win over all circumstances".

There is that little fable about the turtle and the hare... (sorry, I try hard to keep a straight face now... but somehow I am unable )

Anyway, I think this is what the, so many times quoted, phrase about of "To finish first, first you have to finish" implies. Of course, I've just thought that you could rephrase it like this:

"To finish first, first you have to, Finnish"... (pRo is gonna kill me!)