Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Club Level Single Seaters


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19 Nov 2005, 11:29 (Ref:1464875)   #1
schomosport
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location:
Bedford
Posts: 121
schomosport should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Ride height of F3 etc cars

Several threads in recent months have discussed the running of cars at ride heights they were not designed for in order to comply with Monoposto/MSA regulations which stipulate a minimum ride height of 40mm. Can anyone tell me what the regulation minimum ride height is for a F3 car, if any? And has this changed over the years e.g. when they banned the aero cars in the early 80s and F3 manufacturers had to switch over to flat-bottomed cars, was a minimum ride height defined? Has this changed in the last 20 years?
schomosport is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Nov 2005, 17:42 (Ref:1465047)   #2
Neil1982
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
England
Kidderminster
Posts: 107
Neil1982 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
F3 ride height.

The two manuals we have which are 88 Reynard and 98 Dallara both say for front ride height 'as low as possible'.
Neil1982 is offline  
Quote
Old 20 Nov 2005, 09:16 (Ref:1465479)   #3
THR
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
United Kingdom
Wolverhampton, England
Posts: 727
THR has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
yeaaa the legal limit is on the deck!
in practice its higher than that tho lol... about 20mm ish at the front and the back higher
THR is offline  
Quote
Old 20 Nov 2005, 17:15 (Ref:1465767)   #4
MikeBz
Racer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location:
Brightlingsea, Essex
Posts: 162
MikeBz should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
A friend-of-a-friend runs a Reynard 913 in ARP, basically the lower the better he says. ~15mm he reckons, FWIW.
MikeBz is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 07:47 (Ref:1466218)   #5
JohnMiller
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Rutland
Posts: 3,053
JohnMiller should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridJohnMiller should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Shouldn't the front just ground under heavy braking?
JohnMiller is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 07:48 (Ref:1466219)   #6
Bob Pearson
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,448
Bob Pearson should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
We reckon the lower the better with Formula Renaults, typically about 11mm at the front.Eventually formulas such as Mono will have to recognise that most cars available for them to use were designed to run, as you put it, "on the deck" and change their regs accordingly. Their alternative will be to become a"Classic Monoposto formula"
Bob Pearson is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 08:48 (Ref:1466274)   #7
MikeBz
Racer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location:
Brightlingsea, Essex
Posts: 162
MikeBz should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Playing Devil's Advocate slightly here Bob, but if the rule is the same for everyone in the formula then why not have a minimum ride height which allows cars to be moved around the paddock easily and means you don't have to replace your floor at frequent intervals? OK, maybe 50mm is excessive but having a sensible minimum seems, well, sensible (apart from the fact that it's another rule to police and have contentions over I guess).
MikeBz is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 08:57 (Ref:1466284)   #8
Bob Pearson
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,448
Bob Pearson should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Mike, you are right about the problems of being moved around the paddock, and the same applies to going off the track, we rarely make it back. I guess we are spoilt with the garages and I was speaking from that position. Most paddocks have improved enormously in the last 5 years, I would think only Mallory provides a problem although I haven't been to Combe for a long time. It still seems a shame that F3's FR's and no doubt in the future, the FR2000 have to be used in a way that detracts from their handling abilities and so must detract from the pleasure of driving them.
Bob Pearson is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 10:06 (Ref:1466348)   #9
schomosport
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location:
Bedford
Posts: 121
schomosport should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pearson
a shame that F3's FR's and no doubt in the future, the FR2000 have to be used in a way that detracts from their handling abilities and so must detract from the pleasure of driving them.
Didn't think it would take long to get there! Prompt for my question is acquisition of an RT30 which I will be running in Monoposto. The general consensus appears that for the Renaults and F3 there is no minimum ride height and hasn't been for many years (Neil's 883 reference). Just wondered if it had always been so and if the 'low as possible' ethos applied for my 1985 car. just curious to know how far away I will be running from its optimum configuration. Since I made reference to the ground effect cars whose flexible skirts were designed to touch the track (albeit under aerodyanamic loading) I guess I have probably answered my own question!

More than one person has advised that the car must also be run with about 25mm rake. Is this applicable to F3 ride height, Mono ride height or both I wonder?

It has been suggested to me that it is the MSA that stipulates a 40mm minimum ride height and that Monoposto have simply had to fall in with this requirement - the F3's are only allowed to run lower only run lower because they are running to FIA regulations. This may just be a smokescreen since I suspect FR run to MSA regs. not FIA.

Single seaters still being parked on the grass last time I was there...Cadwell is not that flat either. Personally I find running at 40mm gives me more than enough problems in getting the thing jacked up, in and out of the trailer, etc. without going any lower. But if I could I would!
schomosport is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 10:40 (Ref:1466383)   #10
SpawnyWhippet
Veteran
 
SpawnyWhippet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
United Kingdom
Singapore
Posts: 730
SpawnyWhippet has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeBz
Playing Devil's Advocate slightly here Bob, but if the rule is the same for everyone in the formula then why not have a minimum ride height which allows cars to be moved around the paddock easily and means you don't have to replace your floor at frequent intervals? OK, maybe 50mm is excessive but having a sensible minimum seems, well, sensible (apart from the fact that it's another rule to police and have contentions over I guess).
The problem is due to the cars design (F3/FRen). They were designed to run at around 15 - 18mm front, usually with a rake of 15 - 25mm depending on what handling characteristics you are looking for. When you have to jack them up to 40mm front, with a 60mm rear, they look ridiculous and handle like a hippo with bad knees. (Personally, I'd rather struggle with the car in the paddock than on the track.) I had several years worth of discussions with Mono about this and got nowhere. Its not going to change in the near future either, although I heard rumblings they may allow alloy engine blocks at some point.
SpawnyWhippet is offline  
__________________
"Centipede: An ant built to government specifications"
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 14:26 (Ref:1466567)   #11
Bob Pearson
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,448
Bob Pearson should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Which engines would the alloy block change allow in?
Bob Pearson is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 15:33 (Ref:1466621)   #12
JohnMiller
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Rutland
Posts: 3,053
JohnMiller should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridJohnMiller should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Duratec.
JohnMiller is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Nov 2005, 20:40 (Ref:1466880)   #13
Neil1982
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
England
Kidderminster
Posts: 107
Neil1982 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
"It has been suggested to me that it is the MSA that stipulates a 40mm minimum ride height and that Monoposto have simply had to fall in with this requirement - the F3's are only allowed to run lower only run lower because they are running to FIA regulations. This may just be a smokescreen since I suspect FR run to MSA regs. not FIA."


Mark has it in one. It is not Mono rules it is Blue Book rules that stipulate 40mm. Somehow ARP and BARC FR have managed a dispensation from the MSA. In 2002 when we were competing in the British Sprint Championship the BMSA asked the MSA for a similar dispensation for the mainly F3000 over 2 litre cars. This was declined on the basis that there was 'no safety critical' reason for doing so. I have to assume therefore that someone has convinced the MSA that for ARP and BARC FR there is a safety critical issue. Interesting that for a Dallara in ARP ride could be safety critical but not in Monoposto.

Something in the back of my mind tells me that the ride height restriction came in in the late 70s early 80s to protect the circuit surfaces from the then common titanium skids.
Neil1982 is offline  
Quote
Old 22 Nov 2005, 07:36 (Ref:1467152)   #14
Bob Pearson
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,448
Bob Pearson should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Neil, I guess the logic is that for ARP and FR you have no choice but to use a car which is designed to run at minimal ground clearance, but for Mono there are others which can be used. Don't think for a moment I am supporting that view, if it was left up to me the rule would be to run them "as designed".
Bob Pearson is offline  
Quote
Old 22 Nov 2005, 09:10 (Ref:1467217)   #15
schomosport
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location:
Bedford
Posts: 121
schomosport should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pearson
Which engines would the alloy block change allow in?
Alfas; whatever the Mugen Hondas were derived from. These cars exists in F3 form but with few places to play: ARP F3 Masters looks close to collapse as many of the remaining runners have decided to sell their cars....
Does the Rover K Series exist in 2l form?
schomosport is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TEGA vs Ride cars Razor Australasian Touring Cars. 19 19 Sep 2005 13:27
Ride height and spring rates ELANFAN Racing Technology 4 20 May 2002 12:55
effects of changing ride height sporty.dave Racing Technology 9 17 Mar 2002 22:37
Please explain how active ride cars work racer10 Racing Technology 1 8 Nov 2000 00:52
please explain how active ride cars work racer10 Racing Technology 1 18 Oct 2000 20:21


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 17:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.