Attrition

[jackanderton]

Are the days of engine blow-ups, mechanical gremlins, hydraulic failures, gearbox failures, brake failures etc long gone?

And are the days of drivers taking each other out and having crashes also long gone? Watching some of the old races, the crashes people seemed to get into are amateurish by today's standards. These days only the Toro Rosso lads and old dogs Schuey and Rubens seem to have the capacity for completely rubbish avoidable crashes.

It would be more interesting if they still happened but the idea of 'reintroducing' them somehow seems almost ludicrously retrogressive.

Attrition also gives a potential lifeline to backmarkers, whereas these days they face a wall of well run well financed reliable mid-level teams with competent drivers. Lotus, Virgin and Hispania probably won't score any points this season, Virgin and Hispania probably won't score a single point ever. Williams might go the whole season without a point.

Basically what I'm asking is- how can we get cars to break down more without introducing pathetically arbitrary rules that make that likely? And how can we get drivers to take more risks? If that Spanish Grand Prix was in the 80s, would Mansell have tried to pull a move on Vettel rather than Hamilton's safety-first approach? Probably.

[dr-baker]

By allowing a spending war again; by getting rid of the 1 gearbox/engine to last x number of races; by forcing mechanics to work throughout the night, thereby sleep-depriving them and thus 'unforced' mistakes providing the unreliability; reintroducing the Sunday morning warm-up?

[FullMetalJack]

By allowing a spending war again; by getting rid of the 1 gearbox/engine to last x number of races; by forcing mechanics to work throughout the night, thereby sleep-depriving them and thus 'unforced' mistakes providing the unreliability; reintroducing the Sunday morning warm-up?

This. [/thread]

[Vepe]

For taking more risks, the answer is simple: they don´t do risky overtakes, because:
a) they would break their car
and b) they might even get penalized for hitting the other guy

So they should be assured that they won´t get penalized for every move they make or something like that...

And for the engines grenading themselfs, you should end the freeze on engine development.

F1 is about driving to the limit, pushing the tires, engine, cars, everything possible to the limit and over it, now it´s basically just 1½ hour endurance race

[jackanderton]

I guess freeing up the regulations in terms of development to have different solutions, many of which may be unreliable, and putting limits on components with finite lifespans would be ways of increasing attrition without making it too obvious that's what they were doing it for.

Something that carried a massive risk/reward option that provably sometimes worked to give a small team a big result but risked a DNF in the process would be something I'd be interested in.

[AndreaModa]

Attrition also gives a potential lifeline to backmarkers, whereas these days they face a wall of well run well financed reliable mid-level teams with competent drivers. Lotus, Virgin and Hispania probably won't score any points this season, Virgin and Hispania probably won't score a single point ever. Williams might go the whole season without a point.

If long-lasting engines and gearboxes which have brought with them this 'super-reliability' are here to stay (very much likely), then the only way to do it is increase the number of positions that are rewarded with points. Bike racing sees very few mechanical failures indeed, it's rare to see a single engine failure over the entire season if I'm honest, the only real problems sometimes come with worn out tyres. As a result the points positions reflect this, with all the main series offering points positions down to 15th place. F1 needs to do this if super-reliability is going to remain. Hell it's tricky even for teams like Sauber to break into the top 6 or 8, let alone the back of the grid teams to maybe sneak a point.

Today we had two mechanical failures and a crash, yet two of those were from teams at the back (Lotus and HRT) whilst Massa's retirement was the only thing to free-up a top 10 spot for another of the midfield teams. Today it was Sauber who went well, but in the top 10 you've got Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes, and often Renault challenging - well that's 10 places covered already!

I say loosen the restrictions on the engines and gearboxes in 2013. Remove restrictions on revs, etc so engines are stressed more. It doesn't need to turn into an arms race if it's done properly and whilst the FIA has grown a pair of balls under Jean Todt judging by his stance over the in-season testing and engine regs, I doubt he's even got the balls to push something like that through.

So come on FIA, lets extend the points-paying positions to 15th place please!

[Vepe]

So come on FIA, lets extend the points-paying positions to 15th place please!

With that, more teams. Allow customer chassis´ again, make it more affordable to enter F1. Allow one car teams (IIRC, the rules don´t ban single-car teams), and one-off entrants. Come on, FIA, it´s not that hard. Oh wait, it is. Thanks a lot, Ecclestone.

[noisebox]

I think a large part of the reliability improvements are down to the involvement of manufacturers - it aint good business to have your car grenading itself every other race, obviously the engine freeze has also helped, as as improvments in manufacturing technology which cut down duff parts. When there are failures now quite often you'll see both cars go out with similar problems based on one faulty part - it just shows how fine the tolerances are these days.

Here's a controversial view - there are less crashed because the drivers are getting better than they used to be. I've been following F1 for nearly 25 years and this in my view is the highest quality field (except for Schuey!) that I've ever seen.

[FullMetalJack]

I think a large part of the reliability improvements are down to the involvement of manufacturers - it aint good business to have your car grenading itself every other race, obviously the engine freeze has also helped, as as improvments in manufacturing technology which cut down duff parts. When there are failures now quite often you'll see both cars go out with similar problems based on one faulty part - it just shows how fine the tolerances are these days.

Here's a controversial view - there are less crashed because the drivers are getting better than they used to be. I've been following F1 for nearly 25 years and this in my view is the highest quality field (except for Schuey!) that I've ever seen.

The only drivers that aren't of a high quality are Karthikeyan and possibly D'Ambrosio and Maldonado. Even Liuzzi has his good days, (Shanghai 07, Monza 09 and Korea 10).

[mario]

I think a large part of the reliability improvements are down to the involvement of manufacturers - it aint good business to have your car grenading itself every other race, obviously the engine freeze has also helped, as as improvments in manufacturing technology which cut down duff parts. When there are failures now quite often you'll see both cars go out with similar problems based on one faulty part - it just shows how fine the tolerances are these days.

Here's a controversial view - there are less crashed because the drivers are getting better than they used to be. I've been following F1 for nearly 25 years and this in my view is the highest quality field (except for Schuey!) that I've ever seen.

You're right that improvements in manufacturing techniques mean that there has been a sharp upswing in reliability - if you compare the build quality of, say, a 1980's turbo engine by, say, Renault (I've picked them because they had a reasonably well developed design) compared to the current V8 Renault produces, they are worlds apart.
That sort of attention to detail, and precision engineering, runs throughout the car, and through the team structure too; overall, even the smallest outfits are probably more well drilled and hard working than even a fairly high ranking team from, say, 15 to 20 years back. Now, that aspect is something that is inherent to motorsport as a whole, so it is something that has to be accepted as part of the evolution of the sport.

As for driver error, it's true that the current crop of race drivers is probably the strongest for a long time - the semi-professional pay drivers have faded away, thanks to much stricter superlicence criteria, combined with much more intense competition in lower formulae and - perhaps - drivers becoming increasingly specialised in one form of motorsport.
In the 1980's, it was still pretty common for drivers to have a parallel career in sports car racing - take drivers like Palmer, Brundle or Bellof, all of whom drove sports cars/prototypes whilst still staying in Formula 1. Compare that to now - nobody would try that these days, not just because of the demands of the sport, but because I doubt that many F1 drivers would even countenance the idea. They hone their skills for F1, and F1 alone - and the lower formulae are increasingly geared towards that career path, instead of drawing in drivers from a wider range of motorsport backgrounds. Pretty much all of the new drivers have come into the sport via anything but an open wheeled championship, like GP2, Formula Renault 3.5 etc. (even Di Resta stated out as a Formula 3 champion) - whereas Schumacher and Webber could bring in skills, and driving styles, from sports car racing to add to their open wheeled experience.

I say loosen the restrictions on the engines and gearboxes in 2013. Remove restrictions on revs, etc so engines are stressed more. It doesn't need to turn into an arms race if it's done properly and whilst the FIA has grown a pair of balls under Jean Todt judging by his stance over the in-season testing and engine regs, I doubt he's even got the balls to push something like that through.

It doesn't have to necessarily end in a spending race, but the potential for that to happen is all too great - and at a time when the budgets that the manufacturer outfits have are either declining or static, and well below what they spent five years ago, probably only Ferrari could tolerate sustained engine development costs.
Besides, with the current engines pretty heavily regulated, it's hard to see how much further they could be developed beyond their 2006 configurations - and back in 2006, when there were fewer restrictions on engine and gearbox lifespans, if anything it was the reliability of the lower teams that suffered, as they could not afford the same level of refinement that the top teams like Ferrari and Renault.

For example, we saw that BAR-Honda brought in a seamless shift semi automatic gearbox in 2005 - in 2006, the biggest teams had their gearboxes ready and race proven for the start of the season, whilst smaller outfits took longer to iron out their defects - especially Red Bull Racing (who suffered from a lot of drivetrain problems that year).

[eytl]

I think a large part of the reliability improvements are down to the involvement of manufacturers - it aint good business to have your car grenading itself every other race, obviously the engine freeze has also helped, as as improvments in manufacturing technology which cut down duff parts. When there are failures now quite often you'll see both cars go out with similar problems based on one faulty part - it just shows how fine the tolerances are these days.

Here's a controversial view - there are less crashed because the drivers are getting better than they used to be. I've been following F1 for nearly 25 years and this in my view is the highest quality field (except for Schuey!) that I've ever seen.

You're right that improvements in manufacturing techniques mean that there has been a sharp upswing in reliability - if you compare the build quality of, say, a 1980's turbo engine by, say, Renault (I've picked them because they had a reasonably well developed design) compared to the current V8 Renault produces, they are worlds apart.
That sort of attention to detail, and precision engineering, runs throughout the car, and through the team structure too; overall, even the smallest outfits are probably more well drilled and hard working than even a fairly high ranking team from, say, 15 to 20 years back. Now, that aspect is something that is inherent to motorsport as a whole, so it is something that has to be accepted as part of the evolution of the sport.

As for driver error, it's true that the current crop of race drivers is probably the strongest for a long time - the semi-professional pay drivers have faded away, thanks to much stricter superlicence criteria, combined with much more intense competition in lower formulae and - perhaps - drivers becoming increasingly specialised in one form of motorsport.
In the 1980's, it was still pretty common for drivers to have a parallel career in sports car racing - take drivers like Palmer, Brundle or Bellof, all of whom drove sports cars/prototypes whilst still staying in Formula 1. Compare that to now - nobody would try that these days, not just because of the demands of the sport, but because I doubt that many F1 drivers would even countenance the idea. They hone their skills for F1, and F1 alone - and the lower formulae are increasingly geared towards that career path, instead of drawing in drivers from a wider range of motorsport backgrounds. Pretty much all of the new drivers have come into the sport via anything but an open wheeled championship, like GP2, Formula Renault 3.5 etc. (even Di Resta stated out as a Formula 3 champion) - whereas Schumacher and Webber could bring in skills, and driving styles, from sports car racing to add to their open wheeled experience.

This is really interesting topic. Mind you, I think it is also worthy of a PhD thesis.

I pretty much agree entirely with noisebox and mario. The only thing I'd add is that this is part of a bigger picture I mentioned in my editorial article on whether F1 in 2011 is too artificial - and that is the "P" word. Professionalism.

It has happened in every sport. Sport used to be the domain of amateurs for which the competition itself and the camaraderie of competition was the important thing.

But then money got introduced: both sponsorship and prizemoney. Competitors: (a) like money (let's be honest, who doesn't - which is not to say that it's right), and (b) can make good use of money. For example, you can employ better coaches, employ support staff etc. Sport became a fine example of the market economy at work.

Then media saturation has got introduced over the last 20 years or so. Even if you're not successful, you want to look professional and put on a good show in order to attract sponsorship and endorsements. Better still, be professional AND successful. The more professional you are, the more likely you will be successful as well.

Which is why everything in top-level motorsport, or in the top-level of any sport, is so finely tuned and well-honed. It's no longer just about giving it your best shot, letting the cards fall, and having fun in the process. Results have become so much more predictable because the best competitors (usually the best-resourced) rise to the top, the variables due to imperfection, human error etc. are much fewer.

It's the same, for example, with football. The same teams dominate every major league. It's the same with the Olympics, where the spirit of athletic endeavour has been replaced with the spirit of Just Another Major Event, with the same predictable winners and increasingly the same predictable nations bidding to host, because now only major first world nations or well-resourced-and-money-no-object developing nations can afford the professionalism required to host the Olympics. (I mean, seriously, can you ever imagine Antwerp, Amsterdam, Helsinki or Mexico City hosting the Olympics ever again?)

[GroupLotusRenault]

The problem is with the cars breaking down and all that, costs. The cost of repairing or replacing bits for a small team is very expensive.

[Peter]

I think a large part of the reliability improvements are down to the involvement of manufacturers - it aint good business to have your car grenading itself every other race, obviously the engine freeze has also helped, as as improvments in manufacturing technology which cut down duff parts. When there are failures now quite often you'll see both cars go out with similar problems based on one faulty part - it just shows how fine the tolerances are these days.

Here's a controversial view - there are less crashed because the drivers are getting better than they used to be. I've been following F1 for nearly 25 years and this in my view is the highest quality field (except for Schuey!) that I've ever seen.

The only drivers that aren't of a high quality are Karthikeyan and possibly D'Ambrosio and Maldonado. Even Liuzzi has his good days, (Shanghai 07, Monza 09 and Korea 10).

Karthikeyan is promising, close enough to Liuzzi. D'Ambirosio has been outperforming Glock, and Maldonado proved in qualifying that he had some worth more than his money.

I don't think the grid right now has any poor quality drivers, meaning drivers who are just complete rubbish and not deserving of their seats.

[ibsey]

As a suggestion, it may encourage teams & drivers to take more risks, if the points system reverted back to what F1 had in the 1980's, where only the best 11 scores counted. Therefore, in the remain 8 or so races the drivers & teams could afford to take more risks since they would have to drop points anyway. The downside to this of course, is you will need a maths degree to work out who will be champion at the end of the season.

It is also worth mentioning that in the past when reliability was more of a factor, there were also numerous occasions when it ruined the prospect of a good fight for the lead or drivers an unexpected win. So it can work both ways.

Although i would like to see more mixed up results occasionally, it is nice to see most of the field battling it out throughout a GP. Perhaps the Pirelli wet tyres might provide us with unexpected races in the short term.

[DanielPT]

About reliability, it is hard for engines to let go when they should last 2-3 races and it is already well known technology proven many times on the track (Don't forget that the only changes they've made were reliability related ones and that the engines do not have really changed a lot with a 4 years development freeze). With gearboxes also made to last (like most of the mechanical parts except brakes) otherwise grid penalties are involved, people stopped going for that barely tested do or die upgrade. That means professionalism improved. A lot.

While I also think that this is one of the best grids that we had for a long time with several drivers capable of wining and be champions given the right car. But they are humans and do stupid stuff often, like last year Red Bull drivers crash or Hamilton "overtaking" Massa in Monza or Vettel harpooning Button in Spa, or Button wanting to have a pit stop in Red Bull garage, or Petrov lift off, you name it. What doesn't help is that drivers know that are being watched at close range and don't risk as much as they did. Cars are also easier to drive.

[ibsey]

Cars are also easier to drive.

Very good point. I guess the solution to that is to preload the drivers on vodka before the start of a race. Now that would defiantly spice up the show.

[TomWazzleshaw]

Cars are also easier to drive.

Very good point. I guess the solution to that is to preload the drivers on vodka before the start of a race. Now that would defiantly spice up the show.

If that was the case then Raikkonen would win. Every. Single. Time. *

*Although our esteemed Russian friend might put up a fight.

[ibsey]

Cars are also easier to drive.

Very good point. I guess the solution to that is to preload the drivers on vodka before the start of a race. Now that would defiantly spice up the show.

If that was the case then Raikkonen would win. Every. Single. Time. *

*Although our esteemed Russian friend might put up a fight.

Assuming Sutil didn't glass them both before the start.

(this amount of fun on a monday morning almost feels wrong)

[DanielPT]

If that was the case then Raikkonen would win. Every. Single. Time. *

*Although our esteemed Russian friend might put up a fight.

Assuming Sutil didn't glass them both before the start.

(this amount of fun on a monday morning almost feels wrong)

Or in the middle of the race. Remember Road Rash!

[GroupLotusRenault]

If that was the case then Raikkonen would win. Every. Single. Time. *

*Although our esteemed Russian friend might put up a fight.

Assuming Sutil didn't glass them both before the start.

(this amount of fun on a monday morning almost feels wrong)

And then the return of James Hunt like drivers pulling over to have a rest at the side of the tracks hungover

[Phoenix]

Taking into account what people have posted before, I'd say you can't do anything about having worse reliability. It's completely natural that engineering gets more and more precise. However, there's always the chance that new technologies that appear in the future are unreliable at first until they get perfected (for instance, it's been a common occurence to see DRSs fail every race, not to mention those times when someone could use its DRS when theoretically it shouldn't have been allowed too, as well as some KERS failures too).

The best solutions would be to increment the points paying positions and make the gaps between positions bigger to force drivers to take more risks. Not to mention loosening the vigilance over aggresive driving.

Hell, if the global economic situation is good enough, you could even loose the restrictions on development a bit. And also leave some more liberty for innovation when designing the cars. You don't need a rackload of money to have brilliant ideas.

In short, there's nothing that can be done about making reliability worse, so it's better to focus on on-track action to see drivers make more mistakes and force the cars more to maybe have some mechanical failures.

[Aerospeed]

How about this? We throw tomatoes at the leading cars in hopes that they spin out and crash out of the race?

[dr-baker]

Allow DRS through the tunnel in Monaco!

Sprinklers on the track to simulate rain at random points in the race!

[Ferrim]

That sort of attention to detail, and precision engineering, runs throughout the car, and through the team structure too; overall, even the smallest outfits are probably more well drilled and hard working than even a fairly high ranking team from, say, 15 to 20 years back.

I watched the Senna film a couple of days ago. I had already seen most of the historical footage, but there was something related with professionalism that managed to catch my eye.

They were talking about the 1989 Japanese GP. Senna starting from pole, he needed to win but Prost took the lead at the start, and so on. After they collided in lap 47, Senna came back into the pits and the McLaren crew was waiting for him. It was a pretty intense moment, even though I know how it would end. The championship was at stake... Senna stopped at his box and the mechanics started to replace his damaged nose.

Now this is the point when it looked amateurish to see the McLaren mechanics. Their "overalls" were composed of red pants and white T-shirts, very far from the looks you would see today. They didn't even had to remove anything from below the car, but they still took over 15 seconds to complete the operations. Several mechanics took away what remained of the wing while the others brought the new one, as they would do today, but they looked slow at working and even at moving, not really coordinated... And this was the team that completely dominated F1 during that year and during most of the 80s.

[IntegratorTypeR]

Has anybody mentioned the "parc ferme" rule that has been in effect.. for.... well 8 years now .. came into being in 2003 right? I remembering hearing somewhere that if an F1 car was 99.9% complete there'd still be something like 100 things wrong it with it. With teh parc ferme rule and not allowing changes between quali and race, you get the situation of the people qualifying the cars in ultimate RACE setup form and predictably it's usually the fastest RACE cars at the front. Allow mechanics freehand to change settings and components between quali and race, introduce an element of human error into proceedings. But, so as not to hand too much of an advantage to the heavier financed teams, restrict the number of mechanics allowed into the paddock. Also, we need bumpier tracks to subject the cars to more punishment, there's too many super smooth circuits out there.

[GroupLotusRenault]

Its a new era of motorsport. Attrition helps the small teams, but in a sort of way not really. They still quaifiy off the pace and sponsors want top results all the time. And if F1 cars are ultra-reliable then we have to get use to it. The smaller teams have to try different stragries etc to score points.

[Bleu]

That sort of attention to detail, and precision engineering, runs throughout the car, and through the team structure too; overall, even the smallest outfits are probably more well drilled and hard working than even a fairly high ranking team from, say, 15 to 20 years back.

I watched the Senna film a couple of days ago. I had already seen most of the historical footage, but there was something related with professionalism that managed to catch my eye.

They were talking about the 1989 Japanese GP. Senna starting from pole, he needed to win but Prost took the lead at the start, and so on. After they collided in lap 47, Senna came back into the pits and the McLaren crew was waiting for him. It was a pretty intense moment, even though I know how it would end. The championship was at stake... Senna stopped at his box and the mechanics started to replace his damaged nose.

Now this is the point when it looked amateurish to see the McLaren mechanics. Their "overalls" were composed of red pants and white T-shirts, very far from the looks you would see today. They didn't even had to remove anything from below the car, but they still took over 15 seconds to complete the operations. Several mechanics took away what remained of the wing while the others brought the new one, as they would do today, but they looked slow at working and even at moving, not really coordinated... And this was the team that completely dominated F1 during that year and during most of the 80s.

1988 Monaco GP is another example. Lotus didn't have a current system where nose can be changed so Piquet had to retire following his clash with Warwick.

See Piquet's car around 0.58.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be6opMrLElA

[Ferrim]

That video is full of things that would look strange today. Some of the crashes are pretty stupid and today they would guarantee a drive-through penalty. Maybe that's part of the reason why they happen so much less, but I think there's more than that.

[David AGS]

Back to the 1989 Japanese Race, a pitstop took 15 seconds,

for that time that was pretty quick!

I remember Australia 1996 (one of my first races that I watched), Murray was going off that Benetton turned around Berger with a fuel and tyre stop in 9.1 secs, that was the quickest of the race!

I think attrition has also been reduced with the circuits. But this is a good thing. You look at Malaysia, Turkey and others, if you make a driving error, you just run slowly through the gravel or the grass and continue.

Other tracks, like Canada, Suzuka, and Monaco, (the older type tracks) one error and into the barrier you go. Obviously its not good in terms of a safety aspect though.

[noisebox]

Back to the 1989 Japanese Race, a pitstop took 15 seconds,

for that time that was pretty quick!

Also the pitlane was not subject to any speed limits - seriously scary stuff!

[mario]

Back to the 1989 Japanese Race, a pitstop took 15 seconds,

for that time that was pretty quick!

I remember Australia 1996 (one of my first races that I watched), Murray was going off that Benetton turned around Berger with a fuel and tyre stop in 9.1 secs, that was the quickest of the race!

I think attrition has also been reduced with the circuits. But this is a good thing. You look at Malaysia, Turkey and others, if you make a driving error, you just run slowly through the gravel or the grass and continue.

Other tracks, like Canada, Suzuka, and Monaco, (the older type tracks) one error and into the barrier you go. Obviously its not good in terms of a safety aspect though.

Well, that is not necessarily so remarkable - if you think about it, during the refuelling era we often saw stops lasting between 7-8 seconds, so 9.1s is actually not that bad by comparison. It's interesting to see, though, what extremes the teams are now going to try and shave just a few more fractions of a second off a stop these days.

For example, Mercedes have copied a trick from NASCAR and have the wheel nuts pre-threaded into the next set of tyres, with a glue to hold the nuts in place before they are fitted to the car, to prevent the wheel nut being cross threaded (which was a problem for Hamilton, Button and Massa in Turkey - hence their very slow stops). It's a little pricey, reportedly, but it's meant that Mercedes have been one of the quickest during their pit stops, and have had no problems with cross threaded wheel nuts.
Of course, there are the traffic light signals too, as used by Ferrari, whilst Red Bull sent their mechanics on a boot camp during the off season to improve their fitness and hand-eye co-ordination - that way, they can rush to their box more quickly, leaving their rivals unable to counteract their move. And recently, Red Bull seem to be using a laser targeting system, so both the mechanics and drivers are precisely on their marks when the car enters the pit box - all to save tiny fractions of a second.

[DanielPT]

Back to the 1989 Japanese Race, a pitstop took 15 seconds,

for that time that was pretty quick!

I remember Australia 1996 (one of my first races that I watched), Murray was going off that Benetton turned around Berger with a fuel and tyre stop in 9.1 secs, that was the quickest of the race!

I think attrition has also been reduced with the circuits. But this is a good thing. You look at Malaysia, Turkey and others, if you make a driving error, you just run slowly through the gravel or the grass and continue.

Other tracks, like Canada, Suzuka, and Monaco, (the older type tracks) one error and into the barrier you go. Obviously its not good in terms of a safety aspect though.

Well, that is not necessarily so remarkable - if you think about it, during the refuelling era we often saw stops lasting between 7-8 seconds, so 9.1s is actually not that bad by comparison. It's interesting to see, though, what extremes the teams are now going to try and shave just a few more fractions of a second off a stop these days.

For example, Mercedes have copied a trick from NASCAR and have the wheel nuts pre-threaded into the next set of tyres, with a glue to hold the nuts in place before they are fitted to the car, to prevent the wheel nut being cross threaded (which was a problem for Hamilton, Button and Massa in Turkey - hence their very slow stops). It's a little pricey, reportedly, but it's meant that Mercedes have been one of the quickest during their pit stops, and have had no problems with cross threaded wheel nuts.
Of course, there are the traffic light signals too, as used by Ferrari, whilst Red Bull sent their mechanics on a boot camp during the off season to improve their fitness and hand-eye co-ordination - that way, they can rush to their box more quickly, leaving their rivals unable to counteract their move. And recently, Red Bull seem to be using a laser targeting system, so both the mechanics and drivers are precisely on their marks when the car enters the pit box - all to save tiny fractions of a second.

They have to spend the mega bucks somewhere. If engine is restricted, parts are standard and aero is tightly regulated, some spending must be created!

[Bleu]

I went to look some collisions from past 25 years (so starting from 1986). I have not done the research completely, will do so by tomorrow.

Anyway, I try to list collisions which did not happen on the first lap and at least two drivers retired as a result. For some cases I have to rely on statistics, on others I have memories or videos. There are some incidents where I am not sure whether they should be listed or not.

1986 - 6
1987 - 2
1988 - 4
1989 - 8
1990 - 7
1991 - 5++
1992 - 5+
1993 - 7
1994 - 9+

+ includes incident where three or more drivers retired. 1991 Japan with Lehto, Pirro, de Cesaris and Wendlinger. 1991 Australia with Schumacher, Alesi and Larini. 1992 Hungary with Grouillard, Wendlinger and Modena. 1994 Brazil with Brundle, Irvine, Verstappen and Bernard.

I took quick look on last year, where I found 6:
Chandhok and Trulli/Monaco
Kovalainen and Webber/Europe
Kubica and Sutil/Hungary
Kobayashi and Senna/Singapore
Webber and Rosberg/Korea
Glock and Buemi/Korea

[Bleu]

1995 - 6
1996 - 5+ (Salo/Häkkinen/Irvine at Monaco)
1997 - 4
1998 - 4
1999 - 2
2000 - 6
2001 - 6
2002 - 4
2003 - 1
2004 - 3
2005 - 4
2006 - 2
2007 - 3
2008 - 2
2009 - 4
2010 - 6
2011 - 0 so far


So in recent years mostly down, last year had unusually high compared to few other years

In five-year-cycles:
1986-90 - 27
1991-95 - 32
1996-2000 - 21
2001-05 - 18
2006-10 - 17