Are the ARW rules fair?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.

Is front driver handicap fair?

Yes
11
31%
No
24
69%
 
Total votes: 35

User avatar
machin
162
Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 14:45

Re: Are the ARW rules fair?

Post

If there are two drivers in the same car, and one out qualifies and out starts his teammate, how is it fair that he gets to cruise by on a straight?
That's exactly what its like in low downforce/high drag formulas like caterhams, and the racing is really good to watch. The key is to try and brake the tow from your chasers by out driving them in the corners so you're far enough ahead on the straights that the "slipstream" doesn't allow them back past. I don't think the FIA intend on making it really easy to get past -just easier.

If the solution gives caterham-style racing and F1 cornering speeds then this is going to be a great season!
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Re: Are the ARW rules fair?

Post

I agree. However, for the follower the key is to open the gap a bit and use your (hopefully) extra impulse to overtake. The conundrum here is to "arrive" to the back of the leader right at the exit of the curve, hopefully with a few kph more than him.

It's the same thing you can do in a two lane road: you open a gap, instead of being right behind the truck.

Now, a few tens of meter before the curve you start to accelerate, to catch up the truck, and (if you make things well) you will "arrive" to the back of the truck right when the curve ends, so you can see the next straight ahead.

At that moment you are 10 or 15 kph faster than the truck, so you can use a shorter straight to overtake.

If there is someone on the opposite lane, you brake and wait for the next curve, when you again, open a gap before the curve, etc.

Indispensable in the Andes, if you ask me.

In racing, you have to keep yourself in the "wind shadow" of the car in front up to the last moment, so the slipstream also helps.

I've overtaken hundreds of karts (and thousands of trucks) this way, compensating a bit the fact that you can have less power on exit because you don't have a rich daddy (or a rich team).

The difference in speed you get is proportional to the gap you open. It's kind of tricky, because if you open a gap too wide then you'll lose what I called "wind shadow". It is also very important to callibrate the gap in terms of the extra speed you can actually carry through the curve.

I hope this is clear.

I have a way to actually calculate the gap, if someone is interested and gets my drift, I can show you how to do it (it's a very simple calculation).

I use a song to keep the timing, something that in my experience is VERY accurate (you wouldn't believe how a song helps to keep time to the second, with very little practice). :oops:

The opposite is also true: if the guy behind you is 5 centimeters behind you in the braking zone, you can be sure that with a judicious braking change, midbraking zone, he won't be able to overtake you in the straight.

All this is much more easier to understand when you actually see the maneuver. I find hard to explain it in words.
Ciro

komninosm
komninosm
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 18:41
Location: Macedonia

Re: Is this fair?

Post

Ciro Pabón wrote:
komninosm wrote:
Ciro Pabón wrote:...
How do the videos you post prove anything? Did they use the mechanism we are discussing in this thread? Weird logic you got there buddy...
Well, maybe I should have explained better.

I was trying to prove that what some people call unfair that is (I quote):

- "to be in the lead and loose it on the last lap due to a driver having a capability you dont have" and

- "having two drivers fighting for the win on the last lap will make the trailing driver win it with a passing manouver on the last lap, last straight"

was not only relatively common in times of yore, but a fact of life when full downforce wasn't yet the norm and everybody and his dog slipstreamed.

Take in account that I've been watching F1 races for a looong time. In fact, so long that when downforce appeared I'd been following F1 for over 10 years. Since then, overtaking and last lap wins took a dive, but I was already well out of school and into college, so I still miss those days.

I'm also used to kart racing, and I am a follower of Nascar since Richard Petty so... for me that's the norm: the guy behind has a slight advantage. The only exceptions to that norm are modern (relatively!) European open wheelers.

However, if you feel I'm wrong about that, please, tell me why, by all means.

This is also the reason (I think) for blocking maneuvers being authorized (within reason) in most motorsport categories with less downforce.

I was also trying to prove that this condition is not only fair but fun for drivers and fans.

However, if you think that fairness is to give a strong advantage to the guy in front, as happened until 2008, be my guest. I'm here to learn, not to become illogic defending a particular position.

So, why is it fair to make hard to overtake? I'm all ears (sincerely, without a hint of sarcasm).
Your argument still uses faulty logic. To be in the lead and lose it on the last lap in a fair situation (with all the difficulty involved in overtaking) is not because the following driver had a capability you don't have electronically. Physically there is drag/tow and dirty air so both cars have something to take advantage of that is natural. Adding electronics to give bonuses and handicaps is too video game like (I remember spending quarters in Daytona Racing in my youth until I figured out the catch up mechanism and stopped playing that silly game) and bound to lead to unfairness and complains about who got how much boost. We cry murder every time FIA makes a decision as it is, no need to complicate things more with this silly rule.

What you showed was not videos of this device being used. It was some different conditions, but not this device/mechanism. It will be one more thing people will whine about, trust me:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9674
The way you end your post, with a straw-man and then say no sarcasm is a bit offending. You (should) know that I didn't say it was fair to make it hard to overtake. I said that this particular mechanism was unfair and bound to cause troubles and complaints. I'm all for finding a proper way to balance overtaking with regards to how much an advantage the guy behind has versus how hard it is to overtake in F1 cars.

..............
Last edited by Giblet on 26 Mar 2011, 19:24, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Removed personal comments.

andrew
andrew
0
Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 15:08
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Re: Are the ARW rules fair?

Post

Put simply, the ARW is a gimmick which potentially incorrectly rewards a following driver for getting within 1 second of the guy ahead. Passing is meant to be difficult and it always has been and should remain difficuly. Any moves to make passing easier will devalue the skillful art of passing, asdemonstrated by Nelson Piquet Snr in the following video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQAr73wfsJU[/youtube]

The thread question cannot be answered as all cars are equiped with the ARW so it is not a quetion of fairness. It is a question of is the ARW appropriate for F1. Put it this way, Car A is behind Car B within 1 second and activates its ARW. Meanwhle, Car B is within 1 second ahead of Car A and activates its ARW. Assuming both cars have the same power etc then there is no advantage. The top running cars are as closely matched then I can't see the ARW being of much use during the race. It is, however, very useful in qualifying where its use is unlimited.

I'll wait and see how the use of the ARW pans out over the next few races but at the moment I am against it.

internetf1fan
internetf1fan
0
Joined: 19 May 2010, 14:50

Re: Are the ARW rules fair?

Post

Anyone know how teams gear for ARW? On one hand you can use it all the time in qualifying which means team would prefer to have long gears for the top end, but that would really hurt in the race.

Formula None
Formula None
1
Joined: 17 Nov 2010, 05:23

Re: Are the ARW rules fair?

Post

andrew wrote:Put simply, the ARW is a gimmick which potentially incorrectly rewards a following driver for getting within 1 second of the guy ahead. Passing is meant to be difficult and it always has been and should remain difficuly. Any moves to make passing easier will devalue the skillful art of passing, asdemonstrated by Nelson Piquet Snr in the following video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQAr73wfsJU[/youtube]

The thread question cannot be answered as all cars are equiped with the ARW so it is not a quetion of fairness. It is a question of is the ARW appropriate for F1. Put it this way, Car A is behind Car B within 1 second and activates its ARW. Meanwhle, Car B is within 1 second ahead of Car A and activates its ARW. Assuming both cars have the same power etc then there is no advantage. The top running cars are as closely matched then I can't see the ARW being of much use during the race. It is, however, very useful in qualifying where its use is unlimited.

I'll wait and see how the use of the ARW pans out over the next few races but at the moment I am against it.
I agree for the most part. F1 is not Mario Kart. Like KERS, its how the technology is implemented. As is, KERS and ARW are gimmicks because they are artificially simplified. But there's no reason F1 should not have real regenerative braking or active aero (just another aspect of car control that an evolving grid of F1 drivers could become adept at. We see hints of this already using the ARW/DRS during quali. Some use it well like Vettel & RB, catches other drivers out as in Sutil's deftly recovered spin).