Monoposto Racing Forum

ride hight at 40 mm is a joke many cars not designed to run this high hence many problems with dampers wishbine angles spring rocker rates wing heights tyre compounds
about time it was banned and cars where free to run at any ride height/ what the car was designed to run at!!
it was only brought in cos cry baby circuit owners moaned at Mansell Piquet in F1 cars with titanium skids gouged the track and bear in mind they only ran on GP tracks NOT club racers tracks

But 40mm makes the cars easier to drive for many, reduces chance of chassis damage and isn't as bad to suspension geometry as you might think. No, it isn't as pure, but that's not a very good argument to get the MSA to change it.

But if you need to run at low ride heights to beat cars at 40mm then you know you're doing something wrong...

The people at MSA are not racer people or car owners ex drivers engineers team principles
They are white collar workers doing admin job just as comfortable at asda sun alliance local school office
Ass n elbow spring to mind

If you raise cars ride height you inflict many issue
1 wishbone bracket to rose joint angle of wangle dangle
2 steering arm angle
3 drive shaft angle pressure on CV joints
4 bellcrank rocker ratios
5 pushrod lengths
6 spring rates
7 wing heights
8 roll centre
9 tyre compounds
10 visually they look silly jacked up with large area of daylight underneath
11 all costs more money to make new parts develop the car to be safe to drive and perform effectively with test schedules induce extra wear n tear possible failures incurred

the 40 mm ride height came about from whingy whiney track owners NOT from anyone with a brain cell or degree in mechanical engineering

As for cars being easier to drive?? what tosh !!
I guess you must struggle in the 05 car at its correct ride height then !??

Cars are designed by clever designers who know what they want from a cars suspension dynamics and have aero package cooling systems
worked out then developed in testing race day development so why should we the amateur club racer who spend small fortunes on our hobby then be told by a bunch of white collar workers what to do with the technical side of a race car
Its just as dumb as the French who want Ground effect F3 cars to run with flat floor underneath !!!


The lunatics are running the asylum !!!

I suspect that the people who actually determine the rules are racers or ex-racers (or rallyists etc) in combination with managerial types.

1. Wishbone bracket to spherical bearing angle - the change in angle from ~18mm to 40mm is pretty small. I doubt any car will have an issue, and nor will load paths be disrupted.
2. There is a chance that the increase in ride height may magnify bump steer effects front and rear, but that is relatively easy to solve without spending a penny (if you have a long straight edge) or for very little (if you don't).
3. Driveshaft angle - If your car has a 2011/2 Williams F1-esque driveshaft then yes, you might have problems. Nobody else will.
4. Bellcrank ratios remain the same, but you may be acting on a slightly different area of the rising-rate curve (if your car is rising rate - for most, including contemporary F3, it's pretty negligable).
5. The pushrods get longer. Their slenderness ratio will barely change, and I've not heard of a buckling failure in an undamaged on because of jacking a car up 25mm.
6. Spring rates - you don't need to change them. You might want to change them because you're not as talented as a future F1 star, but negligibly because of the change of ride height. The change of downforce will require a few percent softer on the springs, but the average driver will want more than that anyway.
7. Yes, you will need to lower your rear wing. Typically the professionals (ha) run them at the limit, so jacking the car up will put them over the limit. On most cars it's a case of drilling another set of holes, or cutting out a different mounting plate with a hacksaw or bandsaw and a selection of hand files.
8. You will probably (but not necessarily) increase the roll centre heights. You may disrupt the roll centre axis. But you'll also raise the centre of gravity, so any moments will stay roughly the same. It isn't as designed, but I doubt any Monoposto/Club F3/F3 Cup driver past-present-or-future would be able to tell.
9. You don't have to change compounds at all. You will change the compound because softer is better for shorter races, softer is better for amateurs, and softer is better for cooler climates. A53/A11 is about as soft as you want to go in Mono. Softer for hillclimbs. F3 Cup (for example) specifies a compound between F3 and Mono. Nothing at all to do with ride height.
10. Visible light underneath - hardly a big issue.
11. No/few new parts needed. Cars just as safe, if not safer (less chance of chassis damage at 40mm). Testing is a choice the individual makes to balance learning/development with component life. Applies at 1mm ride height at 200mm ride height.

Yes, the cars are harder to drive at original ride height. The steering is heavier, the invisible downforce is a greater proportion of the available grip, lateral forces are greater, and the cars are less forgiving of yaw or driver error. My old Mono car was so easy to drive it was like a comfy sofa in comparison. You could also ask Mr Blockley, but I think he's got your phone number barred

Cars are designed by clever designers who know what they want from a cars suspension, but have to compromise as it's impossible to get everything to do what you want at the same time - the holy grail doesn't exist. The aero is a further compromise to that, but at our level I suspect it isn't applicable. Cooling is a factor in F3 cars - massively over-cooled in Mono trim, so you have to blank of everything, which probably recovers quite a lot of -L/D anyway.

I suspect that the people who actually determine the rules are racers or ex-racers (or rallyists etc) in combination with managerial types.You suspect?? are you serious!! Show me ex racer on the MSA pay roll who would make such dumb decisons and i will buy you lunch

1. Wishbone bracket to spherical bearing angle - the change in angle from ~18mm to 40mm is pretty small. no matter how small its the point its been altered and on certain cars can cause problem I doubt any car will have an issue,doubt? pretty dangerous assumption ! The designer did not expect car to be altered so he never allowed "flexibility" in his bracketry and angles of wangle dangle and nor will load paths be disrupted.
2. There is a chance that the increase in ride height may magnify bump steer effects front and rear, what do you mean there may be a chance? it either does or doesnt and any alteration has an effect but that is relatively easy to solve without spending a penny (if you have a long straight edge) or for very little (if you don't).
3. Driveshaft angle - If your car has a 2011/2 Williams F1-esque driveshaft then yes, you might have problems. Nobody else wil
If the ride height is lifted up it will start to affect the CV joint older cars not so badly affected as later cars ie dallara[ its only a matter of time before the induced angle starts to create wear [e height is lifted up it will start to affect the CV joint older cars not so badly affected as later cars ie dallara[ its only a matter of time before the induced angle starts to create wear

4. Bellcrank ratios remain the same, but you may be acting on a slightly different area of the rising-rate curve (if your car is rising rate - for most, including contemporary F3, it's pretty negligable)

5. The pushrods get longer. Their slenderness ratio will barely change, and I've not heard of a buckling failure in an undamaged on because of jacking a car up 25mm. you need to either make longer pushrods ( more expense) or make longer turn buckle and extra loads can be put onto the rose joint or buckle but who is going to pay for teh new turn buckle MSA?
6. Spring rates - you don't need to change them. of course you need to change them its all relative to softer tyres & ride height You might want to change them because you're not as talented as a future F1 star, but negligibly because of the change of ride height. The change of downforce will require a few percent softer on the springs, but the average driver will want more than that anyway.the change in down force is the main reason why people change tyre compound
7. Yes, you will need to lower your rear wing. Typically the professionals (ha) run them at the limit, so jacking the car up will put them over the limit. you need to lower the height of the top of upper wing element as the max height of X mm is exceeded just by lifting u ride height then the lower beam is lifted up outside teh window designer and wind tunnel technician built car around On most cars it's a case of drilling another set of holes, or cutting out a different mounting plate with a hacksaw or bandsaw and a selection of hand files.
8. You will probably (but not necessarily) increase the roll centre heights. If you have jacked the front of the car up from 20 mm to 40 mm you WILL alter roll centre & centre of gravity and it will affect other factors of the cars dynamics- If it didnt matter why do F1 GP2 F3 pro teams make small adjustments on the day a tweak here or there?[ If it didnt have an affect why do they fiddle?/color] You may disrupt the roll centre axis. But you'll also raise the centre of gravity, so any moments will stay roughly the same. It isn't as designed, but I doubt any Monoposto/Club F3/F3 Cup driver past-present-or-future would be able to tell.
9. You don't have to change compounds at all
Oh really? If the car being lifted up had no affect why run softer compound if the suspension isnt altered or aero package unaltered! You will change the compound because softer is better for shorter races, softer is better for amateurs, what a load of poppycock!! harder tyre compound at F2 ride height? is working with the aero down force and if Mono ran at the designed height the F3 tyre would work on mono car as well/color] and softer is better for cooler climates. that goes without saying why run A53 in brazilian heat or F3 compound at knockhill in february A53/A11 is about as soft as you want to go in Mono. Softer for hillclimbs. F3 Cup (for example) specifies a compound between F3 and Mono. Nothing at all to do with ride height.
10. Visible light underneath - hardly a big issue. of course it is cars look ridiculas !!
11. No/few new parts needed. i count 4 pushrods or turn buckles wing mounts front rear to be made or altered new wing end plates made or holes re drilled butchering the car Cars just as safe, if not safer (less chance of chassis damage at 40mm). how does the car get damaged at 20 mm ride height// designer has worked out the cars rise n fall so it doesnt touch the ground on rebound IF DRIVER RUNS OFF THE CIRCUIT OVER KERB HE WILL INFLICT DAMAGE not the ride height creating the damage Testing is a choice the individual makes to balance learning/development with component life. Applies at 1mm ride height at 200mm ride height.are you seriously saying people build race car make adjustments and not test to check it works? of course there is a cost incurred in this silly ride height rule- you maybe able to do teh maths and calculate what may occur but race day is NOT the place to be testing out the theory- bottom line is manufacturer has designed a car and done the maths carried out aero wind tunnel testing then went to the track carried out development and then some white collar worker who has never driven a race car for fun let alone in race enviroment makes a rule change that dictates the great racing amateur has to redeisgn the car make parts alter parts drill holes then go test it and race it and you thinks its OK ??

Yes, the cars are harder to drive at original ride height. never thought it a problem The steering is heavier, never thought it heavier the invisible downforce is a greater proportion of the available grip, its everything hence teh designer and wind tunnel testing prooved they got it right lateral forces are greater, and the cars are less forgiving of yaw or driver error. if i wanted a forgiving car I would drive saloon car My old Mono car was so easy to drive it was like a comfy sofa in comparison. You could also ask Mr Blockley, but I think he's got your phone number barred I will not spend 10 pence ringing him I will wait for him to call me/color]
Cars are designed by clever designers who know what they want from a cars suspension, but have to compromise
Newey offers no compromise neither did Adrian Ron or the others when they created a car to race as it's impossible to get everything to do what you want at the same time - the holy grail doesn't exist. tell that to Monty Python and Indiana Jones The aero is a further compromise to that, but at our level I suspect it isn't applicable. Cooling is a factor in F3 cars - massively over-cooled in Mono trim For UK climate not mono trim ! , so you have to blank of everything, which probably recovers quite a lot of -L/D anyway.

lol.

This is going to get out of hand...

driftwood wrote:You suspect?? are you serious!! Show me ex racer on the MSA pay roll who would make such dumb decisons and i will buy you lunch

Yes, quite serious. I'm not aware of exactly who the MSA employs or has employed to advise on rules, but it is beyond doubt they used someone with more experience than you or I.

driftwood wrote:no matter how small its the point its been altered and on certain cars can cause problem. doubt? pretty dangerous assumption ! The designer did not expect car to be altered so he never allowed "flexibility" in his bracketry and angles of wangle dangle.

When flexures reach club racing there might be a problem. But all F3, FVL, FF, FR cars have enough adjustability for this to be a non issue. Doubt isn't a dangerous assumption when talking generally. The Reynard and Dallara were safe as modified.

driftwood wrote: what do you mean there may be a chance? it either does or doesnt and any alteration has an effect

There may be a chance - not all cars will be influenced by the same degree. Jacking up a Dallara doesn't cause bump steer. Jacking up a Reynard needs one or two washers moving (washers that were originally used to provide adjustability).

driftwood wrote:If the ride height is lifted up it will start to affect the CV joint older cars not so badly affected as later cars ie dallara[ its only a matter of time before the induced angle starts to create wear

If you knew how CV joints worked you'd see that the angle increase would likely reduce wear, not increase it. The efficiency delta will be near zero.

driftwood wrote:you need to either make longer pushrods ( more expense) or make longer turn buckle and extra loads can be put onto the rose joint or buckle but who is going to pay for teh new turn buckle MSA?

The Reynard and Dallara can be jacked up with standard wishbones/turnbuckles. From an engineers point of view here is sufficient thread engagement to maintain a good safety factor. I have used longer turnbuckles, but only at the front, and only as over-engineering insurance.

driftwood wrote: of course you need to change them its all relative to softer tyres & ride height. the change in down force is the main reason why people change tyre compound

not entirely true. You might want to read up on springs again Kevan. The reduction of spring rate required for an amateur is greater than the change required due to less downforce. So spring choice is influenced by driver, not aero. And the compound choice has nothing to do with he downforce, and everything to do with race length and ambient temp. British F3 would use A53 if their races were 10-15 minutes long.

driftwood wrote:you need to lower the height of the top of upper wing element as the max height of X mm is exceeded just by lifting u ride height then the lower beam is lifted up outside teh window designer and wind tunnel technician built car around

I already mentioned the upper element. The lower element is built around the diffuser and engine cover, both of which move with the chassis. The relative position doesn't change.

driftwood wrote:If you have jacked the front of the car up from 20 mm to 40 mm you WILL alter roll centre & centre of gravity and it will affect other factors of the cars dynamics- If it didnt matter why do F1 GP2 F3 pro teams make small adjustments on the day a tweak here or there?

if only unequal length double wishbone suspension was as simple as you think... Small changes still apply at 40mm, but have proportionally less aero influence. The roll couple will remain mostly unchanged. Dallara even give you the option to lower the roll centre!

driftwood wrote:Oh really? If the car being lifted up had no affect why run softer compound if the suspension isnt altered or aero package unaltered! what a load of poppycock!! harder tyre compound at F2 ride height? is working with the aero down force and if Mono ran at the designed height the F3 compound would work just as well. that goes without saying why run A53 in brazilian heat or F3 compound at knockhill in february

Ah, Kevan. It's so sweet reading your prose. F3 compounds are too hard for amateurs at any ride height. We don't have the ability to load them enough. So F3 Cup mandate a softer control tyre that copes with 25 minutes on track, but allows people like us to use them (ish). Mono has even shorter races, do you can use a softer compound. It really is as simple as that within the narrow field of view of club racing. More downforce might even allow SOFTER compounds, as the cars will grip rather than slide, but I'm not talented enough to demonstrate that.

driftwood wrote: i count 4 pushrods or turn buckles wing mounts front rear to be made or altered new wing end plates made or holes re drilled butchering the car

I count no new parts NEEDED. You only have to alter the wing mount. You can alter more (we developed our cars to claw back some of the downforce).

driftwood wrote:how does the car get damaged at 20 mm ride height// designer has worked out the cars rise n fall so it doesnt touch the ground on rebound IF DRIVER RUNS OFF THE CIRCUIT OVER KERB HE WILL INFLICT DAMAGE not the ride height creating the damage

Kerbs. You know that riding big kerbs at 15mm can cause damage, before the car leaves the track. And once it has left the track the extra 20mm can only help reduce the chance of damage. And you mean bump, not rebound. The chassis can't usually hit the ground on rebound.

driftwood wrote:are you seriously saying people build race car make adjustments and not test to check it works?

Yes. Most people don't.

driftwood wrote:of course there is a cost incurred in this silly ride height rule- you maybe able to do teh maths and calculate what may occur but race day is NOT the place to be testing out the theory

The theories have been testing over msny hundreds of years. No testing of them is needed.

driftwood wrote:bottom line is manufacturer has designed a car and done the maths carried out aero wind tunnel testing then went to the track carried out development and then some white collar worker who has never driven a race car for fun let alone in race enviroment makes a rule change that dictates the great racing amateur has to redeisgn the car make parts alter parts drill holes then go test it and race it and you thinks its OK ??

Yup. The development still applies. The cars remain as safe. The cars were built to a set of rules that doesn't apply. You can get downforce from an F3 diffuser in 4 minutes if you are t constrained by the same regulations.

driftwood wrote: never thought it a problem

Drive quicker.

driftwood wrote:never thought it heavier

Drive quicker.

driftwood wrote:its everything hence teh designer and wind tunnel testing prooved they got it right

Within their regulations, yes.

driftwood wrote: if i wanted a forgiving car I would drive saloon car

I've seen you drive. Might I suggest a saloon car?

driftwood wrote:Newey offers no compromise neither did Adrian Ron or the others when they created a car to race

so they have managed to get zero camber change in roll, with low roll centres, stationary dynamic roll centres, with zero scrub or track change and no bump steer... EVERYTHING is a compromise. Newey is good at overcoming some of them. Reynard and Dallaras are easy to improve on if you aren't forced to compromise by rules/physics/money/materials/size/weight etc.

driftwood wrote:tell that to Monty Python and Indiana Jones

So witty!

driftwood wrote: For UK climate not mono trim !

Partially. However, running an F3 engine at 60 degrees needs about twice the cooling of a Mono engine at 90 degrees. One day a clever person will remove one of the radiators in a Dallara and go half a second a lap quicker. Time and money meant I haven't. And that's something that would need track testing, unlike pure stress/strain calcs.

Mr Edwards
Did you draw that yourself? very good and to a degree my sentiments as i had half that thought in my head whilst typing BUT
i was up watching the Limpics sadly no female beach volley ball on last night !

tristancliffe wrote:This is going to get out of hand...

No it isn't!

Play nice, or I will set Simon on to you, and you don't want that!

Russ wrote:

tristancliffe wrote:This is going to get out of hand...

No it isn't!

Play nice, or I will set Simon on to you, and you don't want that!

I am playing nicely! I daren't do otherwise.... Simon knows where I live.

just to add to this, we've had ride height issues with our '96 FF as we came in way too low after our first outing at Brands, I think we we're around 25mm so now the car is at 40mm with all push rods to max extension and to be fair to the scrutineers, if we dont give the car a wee lift before going into the bay we can still get it to foul on the height block under the tub, on the plus side it's the same for everyone but i'm sure our car was never designed to run this high?

exactly my point !!
the cars where NEVER designed to run at this level
its irrelevent what some smart ass in Colnbrook thinks or how mr clever clogs will tell you "its OK" to run the car that way "we" never made any parts or had failures
I am only interested in what the designer had on his drawing board and then the maker or race team developed the car to run effectively

would you buy Alonso 2012 Ferrari and alter the ride height cos some white collar worker has had a circuit owner on the phone moaning his tarmac has a scratch on it therefore all cars must run at 40 mm ride height?

I never said the cars were designed to run at this level. But it doesn't mean they don't work well, nor are unsafe. If you need to extend turnbuckles or pushrods then [the former] isn't THAT expensive. Plus, it's the same for everyone.

And it means that you can't be directly compared to the professionals in your car - they might be 8 seconds per lap quicker, but you can convince yourself that 7 of them are ride height induced. When you're 8 seconds a lap slower at the same ride height with softer tyres (as I am), then it has to be because the driver is a bit crap. Nowhere to hide. Hardly good for the spirit, let alone the ego...

What's the difference between a "white collar worker" specifying 40mm, and a spare parts collector saying it's wrong. Using your initial argument, it's the blind arguing with the blind about what looks better?

1/. Engineer the car to suit the rules not the rules to suit your car.

2/. Learn to drive the car at the 40mm ride height

3/. Buy a car that was designed to run at 40mm and doesn't look daft.


The rules are set to challenge the Drivers / Teams / Enterants as well as the designers in an environment that provides a fair and level playing field for every one (40mm in this case to be precise). And that is sensible for the circuit owners / event organisers as well.

In any case you'd never compete at Cadwell Park with a ride height lower that 40mm. Not because of the circuit, you'd more than likely get it stuck in the paddock. Lol.

J Chapman wrote:1/. Engineer the car to suit the rules not the rules to suit your car.

2/. Learn to drive the car at the 40mm ride height

3/. Buy a car that was designed to run at 40mm and doesn't look daft.


The rules are set to challenge the Drivers / Teams / Enterants as well as the designers in an environment that provides a fair and level playing field for every one (40mm in this case to be precise). And that is sensible for the circuit owners / event organisers as well.

In any case you'd never compete at Cadwell Park with a ride height lower that 40mm. Not because of the circuit, you'd more than likely get it stuck in the paddock. Lol.

My production class Afla Romeo used to ground in the paddock at Cadwell!