Club F3

[Larry J-Croft]

I've used both, in hillclimbs, rallies and latterly on my FVL where I moved from the original crossply Bridgestone to cheapy second hand radials. The radials were 1.5 seconds faster at Donington but I hate to say it - I have never really noticed a significant handling difference which is far more a comment on my competence than the tyre performance!!!!

Back on topic - any one else got any comments on the new series in general? I still like the looks of it.

[Redracer77]

Originally Posted by JohnMiller

Avon assure me that I am right in thinking that a crossply will reduce it's contact patch gradually as cornering forces increase resulting in an equally gradual reduction in grip whereas, with a radial, the tyre will deform so as to maintain maximum grip but will then eventually let go very suddenly when the maximum acceptable forces are reached resulting in accidents.

I must also say that it also caused great mirth when suggested that you could run a Van Diemen spaceframe car on F3 radials and generate any heat in them at all!

Why should the chassis make any difference???? Surely it will depend on downforce?

[JohnMiller]

They suggested the chassis is not stiff enough by a long way for the tyre.

[THR]

i know where there is a lovely lovely F3 car for sale!!! would go well in this new championship... pm me if you want to know more.

must say tho, arp was ****!! and i agree with everything that was said above.
least now it might be fairer towards the poorer people!!

[Andy Woolley]

I had a look at the Club F3 regs today. I couldn't find any mention of a minimum ride height or waiver from the general MSA technical regs so have to assume that the cars in this series will have to run with a 40mm ground clearance. Is that correct?

[Larry J-Croft]

What a good question ??!! Agree I can't see it either. the ARP series ran at F3 heights and of course it is a point of routine debate in Mono. If 40mm does apply I can hear the sound of toys flying out of cots as we speak.

[JohnMiller]

The drawing in the regs does not show the 40mm bit that is included in FF / Mono etc.

There's quite a few errors in the regs mind at this stage, like the cut-off between Classes A and B is wrong.

[Andy Woolley]

All race cars in races run under MSA rules are required to run with a minimum clearance of 40mm UNLESS the MSA has issued a specific rule waiver. To my knowledge the only waivers granted to date have been for National F3, Formula Renault and ARP.

[schomosport]

Could be the kiss of death unless they get one!

[Neil1982]

I do not understand all the hysteria about ride height. We have now run four carbon tubbed F3 cars in Mono and if set up correctly they are quite driveable. For sure running at 40mm at the front will not produce a car that is as quick as one running at 15mm but they are not 'dangerous', 'undriveable' or 'impossible' as I have seen them desribed and they are a lot easier to move around the paddock!


Neil.

[kickstart]

Well I certainly agree with you Neil1982 about making cars work at 40mm, as I have a Formula Renault that handles very well at 40mm, although I fully accept that it is not as quick as it was at 10mm.
But surely if they ran Club F3 at 40mm, the cars probably wouldn't be as quick as a decent Mono 2000 car, because I imagine that a good mono engine should produce a bit more power than a restricted F3 engine. Hence I am virtually certain that Club F3 will get an exemption, after all why shouldn't they.

[JohnMiller]

Originally Posted by kickstart

Hence I am virtually certain that Club F3 will get an exemption, after all why shouldn't they.

I am sure they will. After all, how could they call it an F3 Championship if it didn't run to F3 regs...

[Andy Woolley]

I'm intending to run a carbon monocoque Reynard 903 in Mono this year. This is the ex-Steve Wilkinson, ex-European Aviation car that was previously used in Mono some years back by Paul StoddartIt currently rides at 25mm at the front and 30mm at the rear.

Whilst I don't expect anyone to give away any set up secrets it would be excellent if someone would give some pointers as to the way to go to make this car handle as best as possible at 40mm. As less downforce will be generated from the floor I assume that we need to try and get more downforce (at the expenses of drag) from the wings? Assuming that we can't match the designed levels of downforce I also assume that softer (than F3) springs should be used.

Ideally the suspension mounting points should be moved down on the monocoque and gearbox to keep the suspension geometry correct but on a carbon car I can't see that this would be easy/safe to achieved.

The 903 wasn't considered to be a good car in its day as there were handling problems, which were variously attributed to aerodynamic pitch instability (by Adrian Reynard), gearbox casing flex and/or engine mounting flex. I'm kind of hoping that these issues will be reduced when running at a higher ride height with less grip.

[schomosport]

Originally Posted by Neil1982

I do not understand all the hysteria about ride height. Neil.

I don't think anyone was trying to resurrect ride height hysteria which has possibly been done to death in other threads. The point to be made is that it is hardly a proper F3 series if the cars aren't allowed to run at the design ride height. Don't think they will get many takers if that proves to be the case.

[Raltracer]

So you .. Andy Woolley bought the 903 Reynard .. A nice car, I agreed to buy it from Steve but had to call off the trip from South of London to Llverpool. Perfect for Mono. Stiff chassis .. good engine .. just need a good set up.

et it right and it will be a dark horse in Mono for 2006.

Nice one Andy

Rgds Raltracer

[Jon Gray]

If anybody is interested in racing in club F3 and wants to know any details about the series or regulations then please feel free to contact me.
I raced in the ARP Championship and will be competing in Club F3 with a Dallara304.

jon@graysmotorsport.co.uk

[Raltracer]

Originally Posted by JohnMiller

Avon assure me that I am right in thinking that a crossply will reduce it's contact patch gradually as cornering forces increase resulting in an equally gradual reduction in grip whereas, with a radial, the tyre will deform so as to maintain maximum grip but will then eventually let go very suddenly when the maximum acceptable forces are reached resulting in accidents.

I must also say that it also caused great mirth when suggested that you could run a Van Diemen spaceframe car on F3 radials and generate any heat in them at all!

John, I think you are wrong! .. radial tyres in every f3 chassis I have raced/driven are faster back to back ... between .40 and .75 of a second .. than crossplys. Even me old ralt rt3 was faster on radials until Avon produced a set of carbon crossplys ... the same as the new 2005 crossply for ARPf3.
then the crossplys were the same pace.

The VD chassis I now have (a formula Ireland) is very stiff as a space frame chassis and ran radials as F.Ireland (Dunlops). I will try 2nd hand f3 radials but likely that the Dunlop radical tyre would be a cost effective choice if I cannot go to carbon radials. Whether the VD chassis is as stiff as a carbon f3 chassis is another matter; but many ex national f3 cars get a bit floppy at the back end .. I have looked at a few.

The problem is with Club f3, as I see it, you need 20 to 30k to buy a good non floppy original car .. not a bitsa ,then 20k plus to compete .. not run in the series. A self sponsored business driver can run to about 20k but over that it can cause all sorts of issues for them ... tyres are just not an issue as I see it.

If you cant afford it don't do it ... I would do it. that is club f3 ... but I am committed elsewhere after a lot of hard work over the winter.

Rgds Raltracer

[Bob Pearson]

i must say raltracer that in today's climate of more formulas than needed, no formula, if it intends staying the course can afford to take the attitude of "if you can't afford it don't do it" I have always worked on the theory that any club grid contains about 50%
of drivers who only just afforded to be there. That being true, that bunch of racers need to be catered for as much as practical without damaging the fabric of the formula

[SpawnyWhippet]

Originally Posted by Larry J-Croft

Can't have been that dangerous as us poor saps in the mono race then went out and had a really good time.

ARP F3 run much lower, so in wet conditions it is much easier for them to aquaplane and lose control.

[JohnMiller]

Originally Posted by Raltracer

John, I think you are wrong! .. radial tyres in every f3 chassis I have raced/driven are faster back to back ... between .40 and .75 of a second .. than crossplys. Even me old ralt rt3 was faster on radials until Avon produced a set of carbon crossplys ... the same as the new 2005 crossply for ARPf3.
then the crossplys were the same pace.

I never said the radials weren't quicker, just that I had been advised that the crossplys are more suited to the, er, "lesser-skilled club-drivers."

To compare the F Ireland radials to current Avon BF3s is like comparing cheddar with camembert - they might be the same contruction principal but hardness is a different parameter althogether.

[Larry J-Croft]

Originally Posted by Andydickens

ARP F3 run much lower, so in wet conditions it is much easier for them to aquaplane and lose control.

yeah but running lower had nothing to do with why they had red flags this time!!

[Raltracer]

Originally Posted by JohnMiller

I never said the radials weren't quicker, just that I had been advised that the crossplys are more suited to the, er, "lesser-skilled club-drivers."

To compare the F Ireland radials to current Avon BF3s is like comparing cheddar with camembert - they might be the same contruction principal but hardness is a different parameter althogether.

Not sure that I understand the need to compare the dunlop and the good carbon walled Avons; it was the reference to the tubular construction of the Fireland and it stiffness to run radials ... sorry

[Raltracer]

Originally Posted by Bob Pearson

i must say raltracer that in today's climate of more formulas than needed, no formula, if it intends staying the course can afford to take the attitude of "if you can't afford it don't do it" I have always worked on the theory that any club grid contains about 50%
of drivers who only just afforded to be there. That being true, that bunch of racers need to be catered for as much as practical without damaging the fabric of the formula

Hmmm .. I was thinking about .. don't to clubf3 .. more cost effective single seater racing is catered for in mono and f4 that will give almost the same perfomance as club f3 cars .. well most of the club f3 grid in any event. Times in mono are just a few seconds off pole compared to pole at most circuits .. although the 220bhp engines will move them another 1 or 2 sec on in 2006... I guess.

ie 47's Brand for mono and 55/56's for bulk of the arpf3 grid.

raltracer

[kickstart]

Hi Alan,
Your are quite right that Club F3 cars are only a bit quicker than a front running mono car, but as in all motor racing that extra bit of performance costs. I imagine that a very quick Club F3 is only a bit slower than say an average Masters Euroboss car (old F3000) and yet the cost differential will be fairly hefty.

As the old saying goes you spends your money and makes takes your choices.

I was surprised to hear that you sold your Ralt RT3, as it was going very well with the new Zetec engine. What made you swap to a Formula Ireland car ?

[Raltracer]

Originally Posted by kickstart

Hi Alan,
Your are quite right that Club F3 cars are only a bit quicker than a front running mono car, but as in all motor racing that extra bit of performance costs. I imagine that a very quick Club F3 is only a bit slower than say an average Masters Euroboss car (old F3000) and yet the cost differential will be fairly hefty.

As the old saying goes you spends your money and makes takes your choices.

I was surprised to hear that you sold your Ralt RT3, as it was going very well with the new Zetec engine. What made you swap to a Formula Ireland car ?

It was, for me a bit of a wrench to sell the Ralt, but it sold really quickly with more than one potential buyer. In truth I found that to get it to perform it needed much effort to prep and keep on top of because it was an old chassis.
I was always looking to fiddle between races which meant I went backwards down the grid rather than forward some times .. like ... trying to run on bupstops at Oulton Park .. the car shagged to death tyres ... so while we ran some great lap times .. we did some sub 47 secs at Brands .. I decided to go for a more modern stiffer chassis that could be easy to work on, with parts off the shelf, and easy to run at the track on my own, and run the zetec engine I like so much. Thank you for taking an interest !