true or false

[rjsa]

I think it`s VERY VERY logic to ask how Ferrari`s reliability could suddenly get so poor..

Michael Schumacher's retirement from the Japanese GP 2006 held at Suzuka was the first blown engine related DNF for him in over 100 GP starts.
What do you mean by "suddenly" and "so poor"?
Mind you, ten or twenty years ago, the World Champion had about 3 or 4 retirements a year due to mechanical problems.

And drivers would discar their worst 4 (is this right?) results in the season for final point accounting.

[Rob W]

Michael lost the drivers title in 2006 due to a sudden high average of technical problems in the latter part of the season.

Michael Schumacher had a grand total of TWO retirements in EIGHTEEN races.
..

Exactly... Torso wont let unimportant info like the truth get in the way of a good argument.

Rob W

[mep]

NO,NO,NO...

Schumacher had an engine blow up in Japan.
A oil pump damage in Brasil Qualiy (a Rob engine again, like you say).
And the Ferrari was quit visible not on the best performance in the race
because it almost stopped a few times in the race.

So after 100GP starts with no problem, getting then 3 problems
in 2 weekends is really strange and suddenly.

Such a bad reliability can only be toped by McLaren.

By the way sorry Rob but I do not agree with your McLaren statistic.
You simply say if somethink in the car gets broken it is always the engine.
But this is simply wrong.
In some of the cases was the engine copletlly ok.
And it's also importand what was the first part who failed.

Like in Hockenheim, if a mechanic is not able to fit a the hydraulik
in a proper way it's no wonder that after a period of time the car stands.

But then you can't blame the engine guys because the engine was
not the problem.

Also if a Newey makes the cooling wrong is it no wonder the engine didn't
last long (2004).

Ah what about Newey, since he is gone is the McLaren very reliable
and the RedBulls are crap.
Maybe he constructs the cars in a way that the can't last long.

[Rob W]

By the way sorry Rob but I do not agree with your McLaren statistic. You simply say if somethink in the car gets broken it is always the engine. But this is simply wrong. In some of the cases was the engine copletlly ok.

I can see your point for sure, but those extra failures only make up a small percentage of the McLaren failures list. I didn't include any DNFs due to 'puncture' or 'crashes' etc in that list (there were about 15 more). When McLaren were having their particularly bad run with failures they almost made it a point not to blame it on Mercedes publicly. The 'pneumatics' failures are part of the engine without doubt and electrical is part of the engine without doubt in my books too - and this has always been confirmed in discussions I have had with people involved in F1 teams.

Ilmor, who made the engines, and Mercedes, were under extreme public scrutiny during the worst period so I totally think they tried to call engine failures 'other' things. I even recall Martin Brundle commenting on it once - he was calling it 'code talk' to not embarrass team sponsors/partners.

In the end, the point is made - McLaren had a long period of massive unreliability when Ferrari was almost faultless. This current Stepney-gate drama has nothing to do with the improved reliability of McLaren.

Rob W

[F1 Observer]

In the end, the point is made - McLaren had a long period of massive unreliability when Ferrari was almost faultless. This current Stepney-gate drama has nothing to do with the improved reliability of McLaren.

Rob W

My thoughts exactely.

[Rob W]

Sorry miss-post

Rob W

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Its a bit over judgemental to claim that Mclaren's reliability has come straight from Ferrari and the information that they SUPOSEDLY had or used. Lets not forget there has been no official ruling yet. I personally believe that Coughlan DID have access to the data, whether or not Mclaren used this data in the designs of its cars is not know and is unlikely. An F1 car is a complete package, just copying somebody elses designs wont work.

It seems that they don't take care when they build the car togeter.
They falled out because of hydraulic leagages many times and knowing that from the start on. So why do they start? Cant they test the car
before they start?.
And what about Monaco last year they started the race with a cooling
system that starts burning, and they know that from Friday on.
But why do they start so?
How would you call this?

Claiming that Mclaren don't put a car together properly is a bit rich, they are one of the most sucessful teams in history. I'd like to point out here something that I think mep has spotted, and I totally agree with him, and it might even be a bit of F1 blasphamy:

"Adrian Newey has lost his touch a bit." Shocking statement to make I know, and I mean no disrespect by it at all. I think that he has achieved so much that he's now looking for more, and he's pushing the envelope between aerodynamic performance & reliability a little too far insearch of aerodynamic perfection...after all he is an Aerodynamicist first and foremost.

This years Mclaren has had no input from Newey and suddenly reliability goes up thru the roof. Last years Mclaren was Newey's last car for them and reliability wise...not great. This years RB3 is a Newey car...and Red Bull are statistically the least reliable team on the grid this year. That, to me, is much more indicative of what's goin on that "Mclaren's reliability is up after they allegedly came into possesion of some Ferrari documents" How do we even know that these documents contained any information relating to reliability at all. How do we even know that these documents were even used for anything at all? We don't, and we'll have to wait for the court decision to find out.

Michael lost the drivers title in 2006 due to a sudden high average of technical problems in the latter part of the season.

AFTER NS learned he wasn`t getting his promotion the car suddenly started to break down...

I think it`s VERY VERY logic to ask how Ferrari`s reliability could suddenly get so poor..

Also the idea that it is supsioious that Ferrari's reliabilty was brilliant, and then suddenly comes Schumi's engine faliure at Suzuka last year is rediculous. They are racing car's; reliability will never, ever be 100%. After such a great run of reliability surely - statistically - they were overdue a faliure of some sort? Ferrari are not, nor will they ever be infalliable - that goes for any team in F1 aswell.

Nobody ever claimed any wrong doing after Suzuka 2006, but know some documents have come into the hands of Coughlan, and Stepney has been fired people are runing back as far as possible claiming "this is all down to the Stepney - Coughlan thing" putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6. Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

Besides lest we forget the Suzuka engine faliure did, nor would it ever, benifit Mclaren...they weren't the ones fighting for the championship.

ron prob said to ferrari we will give you kimi and you help us win race's. Thats sounds like a fair bet.

I seriously doubt it, how does that actually benifit anybody. If you were working with Ferrari and a Mclaren representative was naive enough to offer you "Our fastest driver [the fastest in F1?] for a little help" and you said yes, and ACTUALLY stuck to your word and GAVE MCLAREN HELP....you'd be fired lol. Mclaren are not naive enough to ask for that and actually except help in return, and Ferrari aren't stupid enough to offer a team their help. They'd take the driver and make a runner if they'd been given that option.

[mep]

I never said that the Stepney-drama has anything to do with the McLaren reliability.

Please don't put any worths in my mouth I never said.


The only thing why I posted on this topic is because Rob tried to blame
only the engine for the bad McLaren reliability.
Maybe we should move this discussion on a other topic.

@ Rob W

Yes the thing about code talking is propably right.

I think you didn't completely got what I mean.
Of course are all these parts in some way conected with the engine
but they aren't the engine.
Even FIA makes a difference if a engine breaks or if the gearbox does
(10 places rule).
Lets take Imola 2005 as example the rod between the diff and one wheel
broke. Kimi could drive back to pits so the engine was absolutelly OK
and was maybe even running in the next race.

So you can't call this an engine failure because it simply wasn't one.
The engine has nothing to do with this part, or will you argue that the
engine produces to much torque for this part

And there are more examples and this can't be explained by code talking.
You see the pictures in TV and don't need more infos.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

whoooa chill man, I never said you did say that the Mclaren reliability has anything to do with Stepney, I only quoted your post, and was reffering to the one sentence where you said:

[quote=mep]It seems that they don't take care when they build the car togeter[/quote]

The rest of my post was all about my own opinions on the topix in general. The point where I said that I agreed with you about Newey also was not reffering at all to Stepney, I was just saying that I agree with your observation that recent Newey designed cars have all had poor reliability, and I went a step further to suggest that I believe this may be the cause of Mclaren's unreliability in recent years, and why their reliability has improved since his departure.

I hope that clears things up, sorry for any offence I may have caused, I certainly didn't intend too mep.

[mep]

Spencifer_Murphy the beginning of my last post was not pointed to
you. You agreed with my Newey post and that made me very happy.
It feels very good when I realize that I don't have a lonely stand point with a opinion. And your privat post showed me what a nice, polite and respectfull man you are.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Thanks mep, and sorry for my misinterpretation, I thought you though that I was putting words into your mouth. Its just that unlike some people (the sort of ppl we used to get here who would post as "guests") I don't like the idea of offending ppl, its hard when communicating via the net as ppl cannot see your face or tone of voice when you make a comment and wires can get crossed.

Back to topic(ish): I'd love it if Willis (who's just gone to RB) starts to sort the reliability issue, not that Honda have specifically a reliability issue, but it could strengthen my view that Newey maybe pushing the envelope a little, and also strength my view that Honda made a big mistake in sacking him.