Why consistency can't be relied upon for Formula E title success

Formula E would stand to earn a pretty penny if it had a swear jar for every time one of its 24 drivers dropped the ‘C word’. But should the paddock slogan really be ‘consistency’?

That’s what Sam Bird, Nyck de Vries, Edoardo Mortara and Robin Frijns all invariably told Autosport is needed to get it over the line when they have occupied the points lead at various stages in 2021.

This approach seems entirely fair for a season that has created nine different winners from the 11 races so far. To cut through that extreme level of competitive flux, perhaps a string of solid results, rather than spectacular ones, would return the greater reward.

If a driver had scored a sixth place at each time of asking, they would currently top the standings with a seven-point cushion over actual leader Bird - who has a brace of wins, a podium but four retirements to his name this term. By the standards of the series, that would be a comparatively decent margin given that 11 points cover the top five just now.

However, Formula E doesn’t allow many kinds of uniformity. It has a qualifying format that sends the top six of the championship onto a track that hasn’t been rubbered in and so is miserly with its grip and lap time. That habitually puts the big names towards the back of the grid and allows the next group a shot at pole and victory to put them in title contention. Next time out, the new points leaders are trying to run on a slippery surface. The cycle repeats itself.

PLUS: The 'unsexy' way to win a title

At this point of the campaign, only four races remain - this weekend’s London E-Prix double-header precedes a two-race season finale in Berlin in mid-August. Perhaps, then, now is the time for that consistent approach to be shelved for those willing to gamble to win the title.

That is to say, does a driver stand a better chance of winning the crown if they can alternate between downright bad days and two very good days? Is that more effective than simply trying to occupy the middle ground?

Edoardo Mortara, Venturi Racing, Silver Arrow 02, first position, takes the chequered flag

Photo by: Andrew Ferraro / Motorsport Images

The statistics would suggest so. Mortara’s victory in the second Puebla race arrived after his third place in the Mexico opener (scored after on-the-road winner Pascal Wehrlein was disqualified for his illegal Porsche). But that is the anomaly of a pattern in 2021, a season in which all bar Monaco have been double-headers, that shows how it’s critically difficult for a driver to come away from a weekend with a pair of top-tier results.

Bird’s win in Diriyah had followed a retirement the previous day. Jean-Eric Vergne’s triumph in Rome came after a point-less 12th. Stoffel Vandoorne’s success in Italy was preceded by a retirement. And so the trend continues throughout.

After Mortara, it was Maximilian Guenther who came closest to that fabled consistency when his New York City E-Prix win carried on from a seventh in the preceding Puebla race.

Group three participants (12th to 18th in the standings) can count 26 superpole appearances. Group four (the bottom six), have 17 superpole progressions

The way the qualifying format conspires against those gunning for consistency is clear. Only on five occasions has a group one runner made it into the superpole shootout to then tee up a properly strong race. But on 38 occasions this season, one or more of the top six has then gone on to qualify in the bottom 10. And that excludes incidences where penalties have sent them even further towards the back.

By contrast, group three participants (13th to 18th in the standings) can count 26 superpole appearances. Group four (the bottom six), have 17 superpole progressions.

To some degree, this is the proof that the qualifying format has fulfilled its original purpose by creating unpredictable grids to ensure that 10 of the 12 teams can fight for a victory.

Autosport has already explained why teams and drivers have grown tired of that flux. This is leading Formula E organisers to plot ways to shed some of the randomness to instead create repeat winners who can be posterchildren for this series to help grow the audience.

PLUS: Why Formula E is plotting a major change of philosophy 

But until that philosophy change arrives, Formula E drivers must play the jumbled-up hand that they are dealt.

Stoffel Vandoorne, Mercedes Benz EQ, EQ Silver Arrow 02, at the rear of the first qualifying group

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images

If you consider a fair barometer of consistency to be the number of points finishes a driver has earned this season, then it’s not been the path to pursue to win the title.

Audi pair Rene Rast and Lucas di Grassi lead the way under this measure, having both taken seven points-scoring results - and yet they're only seventh and 14th in the standings, respectively. Frijns (second) and Vergne (sixth) are the success stories from their six top-10 results, while Mitch Evans (eighth), Pascal Wehrlein (ninth) and Oliver Rowland (11th) also clocked six points finishes.

Bird, third-ranking Antonio Felix da Costa, Mortara in fourth and Nick Cassidy in fifth all count only five scores. Or to put it another way, fewer than half their races have actually contributed to their lofty positions in the championship dogfight.

With 100 race points still up for grabs, the entire field is still in mathematical contention for the title, but to supersede those in the top half-dozen places, consistency won’t get a driver there. The outsiders will also rely on massive peaks at the expense of a couple of troughs.

Of course, some form of regular success is vital to underpin a title charge. But, with so few races to go, arguably that’s no longer the order of the day for one driver to come out as king as the last throw of the dice approaches. That’s in part down to Formula E using the normal FIA points system that rewards 25 points for a win. A triumph that is then preceded or followed immediately by a retirement or a result outside of the top 10 would have to be matched by a podium (third place earns 15 points) and a fifth place (10 points).

Mortara’s Mexico success aside, only two other drivers have come close to that kind of tally from a double-header round. Cassidy earned fourth and second in New York City (30 points), while Evans earned a strong third and sixth from Rome (23 points).

That means in 2021 there are three times as many race victors as there are uber-consistent point-scorers, which is why switching fully and acknowledging a win-or-bust mentality has its absolute merits rather than defaulting to the uncontroversial ‘C word’.

Nick Cassidy, Envision Virgin Racing, Audi e-tron FE07, Sergio Sette Camara, Dragon Penske Autosport, Penske EV-5, Pascal Wehrlein, Tag Heuer Porsche, Porsche 99X Electric

Photo by: Simon Galloway / Motorsport Images

While this case considers the highest-paying positions towards the front of the top 10, perhaps even a last-lap push for a point or two is to be avoided as it can create its own perils. Evans proved that emphatically last season.

The Jaguar Racing driver ran second in the standings only behind eventual and runaway champion da Costa as the paddock reconvened after its pandemic-enforced hiatus at the Tempelhof Airport site in the German capital. But he would wind up way down in seventh in the final points tally.

The drop off was caused to a large degree by wayward car balance that neither the Kiwi nor the team could fully resolve. But in the six races he still climbed an average of five places. That meant he kept doing just enough to bag points and retain his unfavoured group one qualifying order, only to then have to do the heavy lifting in the following race once again.

For any strategist who signed off on the plan to sacrifice a degree of consistency - gambling on a bad day to be hopefully followed by a good day - should it backfire, that would make for an uncomfortable debrief while the champagne was sprayed elsewhere in the pitlane

In some ways, we’re beginning to see teams recognise this as the 2021 season wears on. For the final lap of the first New York City E-Prix, Nissan e.dams orchestrated a swap to allow Rowland to fall behind team-mate Sebastien Buemi (20th in the points) for sixth place. That prevented Rowland from tying in the table with da Costa and Evans and so dropped the one-lap ace into group two for the Sunday qualifying.

But for teams looking to emulate similar strategy hijinks, there is a warning to be heeded from the Nissan e.dams switcheroo. In theory, Rowland was set to leapfrog his title rivals on the grid but, when rain briefly arrived over the Brooklyn Street Circuit, it massively stymied the group two runners only, and he would line up for the race just 16th as an unlucky result.

For the likes of Bird, da Costa and Frijns, it’s a massive risk move to follow suit when it can backfire. And, with more drizzle forecast for London, they could quite easily fall victim to the circumstances that conspired against Rowland.

Oliver Rowland, Nissan e.Dams, Nissan IMO2

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

For any strategist who signed off on the plan to sacrifice a degree of consistency - gambling on a bad day to be hopefully followed by a good day - should it backfire, that would make for an uncomfortable debrief while the champagne was sprayed elsewhere in the pitlane.

But, when there’s more individual race winners in 2021 than drivers who can back a fourth place up with a fifth on any given weekend, when there’s a qualifying format that deliberately exists to blur the pecking order and when the drivers who are scoring most regularly aren’t higher up the championship order, maybe the default party line that ‘consistency is king’ doesn’t hold up to scrutiny in Formula E.

Perhaps hero or zero is the way to come out on top as the season builds to its climax.

Sam Bird, Jaguar Racing, first position, celebrates on the podium

Photo by: Alastair Staley / Motorsport Images