Give ARP F3 a break... - Page 2

maddogf3 · 9 Feb 2005, 14:54 (Ref:1221018)

[QUOTE=kickstart]Cleggie, whilst I think you are charging fair market rate for the F3 VW engine, given the relative lack of performance of such an engine it does make ARP sound very expensive. By comparison the last F Renault 2000 engine I bought cost £700 and was/is a very strong engine.
Fourth on the grid ( In the dry ) and 2nd( in the wet) overall at the last meeting at Donington to Richard March. Not bad for ( in Your words) lack of performance Engine . This Engine has not been looked at for I think two or three years now . Budget Engine or what? That,s What Ian was trying to tell you at the top of the page . You spend what you want .A bit of time ,a lot of effort and the rewards are there. Dont be put off by what you have heard about massive costs .I am sure Mr Cleggie will haggle

SpawnyWhippet · 17 Feb 2005, 06:37 (Ref:1227895)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andydickens

It would be great if ARP could allow a 3rd class of car to run in the field; ie proper F3 chassis (Dallara, Reynard, TOMS etc) with non-F3 engines, as long as they were not tuned to produce more power than the restricted F3 engines. The spectators wouldn't care if the racing was close and would even prefer it if the grids were larger.

Nobody in ARP seems interested in this, wonder why the grid sizes are depreciating faster than a new Kia Sonata

DSM · 17 Feb 2005, 11:33 (Ref:1228119)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ActiveMS

The only way of sorting it out will come from the likes of the MSA and major clubs simply putting their foot down on the smaller series and forcing the likes of mono, F4 etc to change their regulations to accomondate wider range of cars etc etc etc

May of the larger grids are fed up with effectively subbing the smaller grids.... but this is another whole can of worms.

The larger grids are not 'subbing' the smaller ones. They are subbing the poorly organised clubs and circuits, not to say much higher levels of Motorsport via the MSA.

Even a grid of 10 cars is paying about £2000 for 30 minutes or so of track time.

ss_collins · 17 Feb 2005, 16:28 (Ref:1228394)

How about a new slicks n wings formula - a catch all for all of these cars. Free up the rules on each class a bit and have some cracking racing... The old championships/series should all be culled.

Neil1982 · 17 Feb 2005, 20:03 (Ref:1228658)

What cars would you put together in what classes?

andoiwebb · 17 Feb 2005, 21:20 (Ref:1228750)

put arp as they are, then, add our mono cars, lower to minimal ground clearance and give us throttle bodies: hey presto, the mono cars we always wanted to drive!

ActiveMS · 17 Feb 2005, 22:49 (Ref:1228834)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSM

The larger grids are not 'subbing' the smaller ones. They are subbing the poorly organised clubs and circuits, not to say much higher levels of Motorsport via the MSA.

Even a grid of 10 cars is paying about £2000 for 30 minutes or so of track time.

Its another way of looking at it, and yes I and many others probably agree.

schomosport · 18 Feb 2005, 19:54 (Ref:1229640)

hey presto, the mono cars we always wanted to drive![/QUOTE]

Who are the we???? Sorry, I like mono the way it is and quite frankly I don't want to have to run throttle bodies, re-jig the car to a lower ride height for which the car was never designed or try to compete agains 5 year old carbon F3 cars. Go that route with mono and many of the participants will simply drop out 'cos they can't afford to play. Average number of starters for the 2000 Mono class in 2004 was 21. Seems to me that indicates most mono participants are pretty much happy with the technical regs. as is else otherwise they would be doing something else. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

And long live ARP F3. Proper F3 cars running at the proper height. Not for me but loss of a place for these cars to run would be a loss to UK motorsport as a whole. Bet all these guys would really love to have to compete against a bunch of stock engines making as much power on throttle bodies as their F3 engines.

Sorry, I'm ranting but these by and large successful two race series are important to lots of people. So why do we keep getting this minority who want the rules changed just so they can run their pet idea?

Comtec Renault · 18 Feb 2005, 21:50 (Ref:1229749)

who gives a fk about arp? I do not want to race in a Championship where the champ is desqualified by numptys who do not like to be second to a better driver? then the chap who gets the win by default brags about his talent and tells everybody how good he is ,sorry chap you were second!!! NOT THE CHAMPION. and no we do not want to race our Mono cars with you it will never happen, so sort out your mess and get used to small grids , because when you fix the result nobody will play with you.

SpawnyWhippet · 19 Feb 2005, 04:56 (Ref:1229918)

Quote:

Originally Posted by schomosport

hey presto, the mono cars we always wanted to drive!

Who are the we???? Sorry, I like mono the way it is and quite frankly I don't want to have to run throttle bodies, re-jig the car to a lower ride height for which the car was never designed or try to compete agains 5 year old carbon F3 cars. Go that route with mono and many of the participants will simply drop out 'cos they can't afford to play. Average number of starters for the 2000 Mono class in 2004 was 21. Seems to me that indicates most mono participants are pretty much happy with the technical regs. as is else otherwise they would be doing something else. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

And long live ARP F3. Proper F3 cars running at the proper height. Not for me but loss of a place for these cars to run would be a loss to UK motorsport as a whole. Bet all these guys would really love to have to compete against a bunch of stock engines making as much power on throttle bodies as their F3 engines.

Sorry, I'm ranting but these by and large successful two race series are important to lots of people. So why do we keep getting this minority who want the rules changed just so they can run their pet idea?

Just a few points to address here:
1. If it aint broke don't fix it - motorsport should be a leading edge sport, driven by innovation. If this attitude prevailed, we would still be racing 1908 Daimlers with metal tyres. Motorsport will die unless it keeps up with technology. Whats going to happen when ferrous block engines start getting scarce, all the FVLs have been written off etc?
2. Carbon tubbed cars are becoming the norm rather than the exception, they are in any case not much more than a nice FVL and provide far superior safety protection.
3. ARP seems to be declining quite rapidly.
4. Why should the ARP boys object to competing against other F3 cars with stock engines if the power output is the same? Smacks of protectionism to me, and with a grid of 10 cars you can't really afford that.
5. Many of the cars running in Mono were not designed to run at 40mm. Mono is a free formula, so you are supposed to be able to run many chassis, not just FVL which ran at 40mm. Why not allow all the chassis to run at the height they were designed for so no-one is disadvantaged? (Apart from MSA regs obviously)

schomosport · 19 Feb 2005, 09:27 (Ref:1230016)

Hello Andy, think we've been round this buoy before.....

1) Of course motorsport is all about innovation and leading edge tecnology - but in it's place (F1, F3, whatever the car equivalents are). Mono has never been about that. First two objectives a) foster enthusiasm for single seater racer in amateur competitions b) promote, monitor and control stable & low cost formulae. Sorry, I don't think those objectives are compatible with innovation and leading edge technology.
I accept you point on the eventual demise of the FVL and the ferrous engine. Mono are looking at alloy blocks and throttle bodies for the future so I believe.
2) Agreed on safety. But how much to fix a carbon tub when you stuff it? FVL planks are £200 a pair (assuming you are still around to care about it).
3) Yes ARP is declining at the moment. The politics within that series appear nauseous. Is that the true reason for its demise or is it just that no one wants to race those cars any more? Don't know.
4) Isn't ethos of ARP to run pukka F3 cars? OK, if it isn't commercially viable then they are going to go to the sword..... But if we are going to start comparing grid sizes we are probably starting in the wrong place. Take a look at some of the other classes that were running alongside Mono in 2000 such as T Cars and Global Lights. These two could barely put out a decent field between them late in the season.
5) Because the only thing that stops the F3 based cars running away with it is that they are nobbled by running at 40mm. Comtec may tell me different but most of the rest of the field isn't going to stand an earthly against a 4 year old Dallara chassis running at the correct height. And that means £30-50k cars. And they've already got a place to play (albeit with F3 engines). Its called ARP.

Current Mono 2000 gives the man with the £5k car a sporting chance against opponents in other cars which are much more expensive to buy and run. Me, I think that's a good thing. Yes, I am biased, I have to be 'cos it's the only way I can afford to play at all. But remember, for club motorsport to survive at all it needs as many people taking part as possible and that is only going to happen if it is kept affordable. A guess its a bit mirrored by the Chronit transponder debate where participants fell into one of two camps: "so what, its only another couple of hundred quid" versus "thats one fewer meeting I'm doing this year". Better if there continues to be room for us all???
Cheers
Mark.

JohnMiller · 19 Feb 2005, 09:59 (Ref:1230028)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andydickens

4. Why should the ARP boys object to competing against other F3 cars with stock engines if the power output is the same?

I think there may be a slight issue with the on-track dynamics of a low power/high torque F3 motor and a (stock) higher BHP/lower torque engine.

I am not sure of the ARP restricted motors but current 26mm (?) F3 engines have enormous torque.

Also is there not some greater skill involved with driving an F3 chassis/engine combination than with a 'floor it no matter what' FVL. Don't forget it's not so long ago that, if you let the revs drop too far in an F3 at a corner and you then did floor it , it would blow up. Although the newer, electronically-injected engines manage some of that for you I am sure that it is more technique based?

andoiwebb · 19 Feb 2005, 12:53 (Ref:1230113)

Who are the we???? Sorry, I like mono the way it is and quite frankly I don't want to have to run throttle bodies.................

i was speaking as an f3 car owner not vauxhall lotus etc as i realise other types are designed to run at 40mm and would be a pain to adjust - they also belong in mono. anyway, throttle bodies will always be a long running debate with for and against, i for 1 want them!

ss_collins · 19 Feb 2005, 18:10 (Ref:1230262)

easy comtec.. keep it nice

really though is there a need for ARP? I am not convinced there is - I know some of the F3 lot want to race just in ARP but to honest is that the best thing for racing as a whole? I'm not sure it is.

Lola · 20 Feb 2005, 19:24 (Ref:1230894)

Is it the fault of the mono regs that you may have bought a car which didnt suit?
Looks like Robin and the Harrisons dont have a problem running at 40mm..... the rules work as they are. Build a car to the regs not alter the regs for the car.

Lola · 20 Feb 2005, 19:34 (Ref:1230898)

As for throttle bodies it has already been covered

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...457#post960457

andoiwebb · 20 Feb 2005, 22:26 (Ref:1230959)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lola

Is it the fault of the mono regs that you may have bought a car which didnt suit?
Looks like Robin and the Harrisons dont have a problem running at 40mm..... the rules work as they are. Build a car to the regs not alter the regs for the car.

erm, is that to me? i have no issue running at 40mm, you do, we all do. would love to try an f3 car as they were designed though.. yes yes join arp etc

maddogf3 · 21 Feb 2005, 08:53 (Ref:1231218)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMiller

I think there may be a slight issue with the on-track dynamics of a low power/high torque F3 motor and a (stock) higher BHP/lower torque engine.

I am not sure of the ARP restricted motors but current 26mm (?) F3 engines have enormous torque.

Also is there not some greater skill involved with driving an F3 chassis/engine combination than with a 'floor it no matter what' FVL. Don't forget it's not so long ago that, if you let the revs drop too far in an F3 at a corner and you then did floor it , it would blow up. Although the newer, electronically-injected engines manage some of that for you I am sure that it is more technique based?

I am sorry if i have the wrong end of the stick. I have only read last few links . Current ARP is 24mm for class A and 25 for mechanicaly injected engines i.e.VW 8 valves they all give around 150 BHP and the same ammount of torque.The Lucas injection system being "A bit Chuck a bucket of petrol in and we'll see what happens ".It is proposed to increase class A too 26mm and restrict masters class ( old one's) to 25.4 .In effect Making masters uncompetitive .which was what all this original post was all about -- see the top of the pages

kickstart · 21 Feb 2005, 09:06 (Ref:1231228)

Given what went on last season in ARP I wonder how many drivers they will have out this year. Given that they already had problems with grid numbers and also that BARC F Renault struggled it would seem obvious to combine these two series as the performance from a post 2000 F Renault is quite similar to an ARP car. Given that this suggestion would produce full grids, hopefully exciting racing and a very good spectacle I assume that there is no prospect of anything sensible like this happening.

JohnMiller · 21 Feb 2005, 09:08 (Ref:1231230)

based on maddog's post it seems they want to get shot of the Class B cars anyway - not bring in others...

maddogf3 · 21 Feb 2005, 09:30 (Ref:1231243)

As far as old F3 engines blowing up if you floor them .This is a load of rubbish they can be a bit troublesome if they are not set right. People tend to flood them on starting and carry on with a misfiring engine thus loading everything up with unburnt fuel . Anyway I had to do a hill start at SPA with no problems apart from a very high first gear and i didn't slip the clutch that much ( I have replaced one clutch in three years ) and those who have been there will no how steep it is up to the F1 paddocks .We had to turn left by the way just so you are not thinking "we were in where the elite go"!
Ground clearance is best at about 18mm .I think renault boys use about 15mm not sure what British F3 use and what size restrictors they use either .If any one can tell me please do !

Ian Sowman · 21 Feb 2005, 09:37 (Ref:1231249)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kickstart

Given what went on last season in ARP I wonder how many drivers they will have out this year. Given that they already had problems with grid numbers and also that BARC F Renault struggled it would seem obvious to combine these two series as the performance from a post 2000 F Renault is quite similar to an ARP car.

Unlikely to happen since Formula Renault BARC now has Renaultsport backing.

ianpearson · 21 Feb 2005, 10:33 (Ref:1231298)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kickstart

Given what went on last season in ARP I wonder how many drivers they will have out this year. Given that they already had problems with grid numbers and also that BARC F Renault struggled it would seem obvious to combine these two series as the performance from a post 2000 F Renault is quite similar to an ARP car. Given that this suggestion would produce full grids, hopefully exciting racing and a very good spectacle I assume that there is no prospect of anything sensible like this happening.

BARC Formula renault has been re vamped a bit for this season, so give till mid season before you judge if its still sruggling. I for one was a sceptic of the new cars joining in but have chosen to commit to the championship for another season, I seriously considered Mono 2000 but could'nt get very motivated about it. I for one, like the people in ARP enjoy driving a car as it was designed & against people with similar machinery, not a 2 litre ferous block run what yer brung, not knocking it, just my preferance. I may eat humble pie & turn up at a mono round later in the year to have a go, not forgeting my 20 kilo's of personal ballast.

kickstart · 21 Feb 2005, 13:17 (Ref:1231402)

My point was that the post 2000 F Renault cars and ARP would combine nicely - proper quick cars and full grids.
I imagine the revamped BARC F Renault series will do well this season as there is some proper backing and it is relatively high profile. But I don't think we will see 30/32 post 2000 F Renaults - maybe 15 or so. If these were added to class A ARP then it should be up to full capacity.

THR · 26 Feb 2005, 23:18 (Ref:1236939)

seems to me everyone likes wot they like.

you cant knock arp too much, esp if u arent a part of it, it just damages arp!

there will always be a place for new ex f3 cars.
i cant see mono being the next place for f3 cars once they come off the national grid. they just cost too much

ride height seems to be an issue. most cars i seen can change by about 20mm tops, so a comprimise to 20mm would be ok i think, IF YOU HAD to.

f3, should always be best national sport..... but grid sizes are important and the series should encourgae it rather than hinder it by big fees.

i mean, senna, and many others did f3, it cant seem that bad to people really can it? a bit of good marketing could make arp great once again.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Give me a break!!!	falcontastic	Australasian Touring Cars.	25	9 Jan 2004 04:56
Give Us A Break Burnsie.	Bob Irvine	Rallying & Rallycross	5	2 May 2003 12:25
fag break	kdr	Formula One	2	30 Oct 2002 10:28
We Need A Break !!!	Speed	Formula One	16	11 Apr 2001 16:52
Give it a break Murph	Ray Singcar	Australasian Touring Cars.	2	21 Jan 2001 02:19