Engine Regulations

General Paddock Chatter
omsracer
Recovery
Recovery
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:35 pm
Location: Twyford, Nr Reading

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby omsracer » Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:29 pm

Peter,
I was referring to us mere 'mortals' that turn up race meeting after race meeting, not you extremely experienced 'superstars'. :D
It has been noticeable and from a personal point of view a much more pleasurable experience to be racing in the Classic class with like spec cars and we have all enjoyed the experience brought about by close class racing. The FVL's and my brother in laws 923 and my 913 have enjoyed some very close and enjoyable battles this year.

That is not say i wouldn't welcome both you and Jim back to racing with us again. Its always good to race against the 'best' in class. Robin is with us again this week at Brands so that will give us all something to aim at.

Regards
Peter
Peter Whitmore
Car # 4
2000 Classic

scorchio
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby scorchio » Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:59 pm

This banning of certain cars seems to be rather a drastic measure for the "friendly" Mono club. They've alway accomodated different types of formula. Ive never heard of the mono club ever banning anything.. Glad they didnt ban the Dallara busa because they went a bit fast!
Jeremy Timms (mono racer)

stevenconnor
Recovery
Recovery
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby stevenconnor » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:25 pm

Without commenting on the underlying thoughts being expressed & discussed here.
There have been alleged past issues reported in this thread. I will just supply some links for people to review the established facts.

The Formula Renaults in question were discussed in detail in 2011 http://startline.org.uk/slol55/fr/fr.htm

There was an incident involving 3 cars (one in Mono 2000, one in Mono 1800 and one in Mono 1600) disqualified at a Mono meeting in 2011
This is the StartLine report http://startline.org.uk/slol%2060/oulton/oulton.htm The Mono 2000 (Formula Renault ) driver was also 'fined' championship points. See 2011 Championship points table http://www.monoposto.co.uk/results/2011-results-summary/2011-championship-tables/

From 2015, here is an analysis of the laptimes at Spa.

Image

One team raised concerns with the Sporting Services Manager about the 111 car of Shane Kelly, possibly running without a restrictor on the Saturday. The team were approached and categorically denied the claim, offering to allow unofficial inspections of the restrictor at any time.

Various eligibility checks were carried out during 2015 and these were reported to members by email 14 September 2015 07:15 (extract below) The number 111 Formula Renault was checked for the restrictor by our MSA eligibility scrutineer in parc ferme at Snetterton - the check is easy and straightforward.

Eligibility checks in 2015:
To date:
1 x Formula Renault 16v checked for air restrictor. OK
10 x Mono 2000 engines checked via camera to ensure ‘standard’ cylinder head ports. All OK
Top 3 runners in Mono 2000 race fuel sampled and sent to the MSA for testing. All OK
All 1800 Zetec (in original FFZetec injection spec) engines checked for air restrictor at Castle Combe. One car found to have no restrictor fitted. Car excluded from race one but allowed to race in race 2 by transferring to ‘Invitation class’ (not currently an option in the main Mono championship) after it was recognised the driver had bought the car this year in good faith and was unaware of the absence of the restrictor (and didn’t have one to fit in on the day)… but this is not an excuse that prevents exclusion by the Clerk of Course from the first race.

Further checks will be carried out at the discretion of our MSA eligibility scrutineer.


Subsequently, two front running engines ( Vauxhall and Toyota) in the then Mono 2000 class were sealed at the final round of the year, later stripped & confirmed to have been Monoposto legal in the configuration as they raced in that final round on that day.

Hope this helps

Steven Connor
Sporting Services Manager
Monoposto Racing Club

07956591513

http://www.monoposto.co.uk
http://www.facebook.com/Monopostoracing

jmtechnical
Mechanic
Mechanic
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby jmtechnical » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:51 pm

I have sent this to the monoposto board, i will forward their response.

Board,

Further to online discussions with club members and members of the board I would like to attend the next board meeting on the 2nd of august 2016. I would like to use this opportunity to raise and discuss with the board three topics:

Formula Renaults - Members have publicly raised an opposition to the exclusion of Formula Renault cars. Members have requested a formal and informal rational to why the Formula Renaults have been banned, this has not been forthcoming. The banning of Formula Renaults has damaged the current entry numbers and will continue to do so, reduced entry numbers exposes the club to additional unnecessary risk and increased cost for competitors. I would like to discuss why they have been banned. I would like all meeting minutes and communication regarding Formula Renaults to be published. If members still oppose the exclusion of Formula Renaults we should reverse the decision.

Board members actions potentially bringing the clubs reputation into disrepute - A number of members have had deposits retained by the club despite conforming with club policy giving notice of cancellation in a timely manner. Members of the board asked the members to assist with club cash flow and requested an advanced deposit for spa entry. Members where not made aware that the deposit did not benefit from the rules regarding entry cancellation. The decision to retain deposits damaged the reputation of the club and will discourage members from investing in race entries in advance, this will place the club in a tentative position regarding cash flow and weaken its commercial position when negotiating with providers(MSVR). I would like the decision reversed.

Club Road Map - Please can the board consider a proposal for publishing a road map for the club. I would like to see security for members investing in the club ensuring regulations do not change unexpectedly or without consultation.

Please can you provide me with the club's memorandum and articles of association.

Please can you provide a response within 48 hours so a can prepare the documentation and formal proposals that can be circulated with the board members as per Russ' instruction.

Kind Regards

James Williams

CC Forum

AndyY
Recovery
Recovery
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:08 pm

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby AndyY » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:50 am

As an aside, anyone care to give some ball park figures for the different Mono F3, Mono 2000, Mono 2000 Classic and BARC F Renault engines?
Andy Yeomans - former Mono 1800 and 2000 racer (!?). Now CSCC and aspiring Clubmans racer.

jmtechnical
Mechanic
Mechanic
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:30 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby jmtechnical » Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:34 pm

A small update, i will be attending the board meeting on the 2nd to raise the points above, hopefully we will get a little more information regarding the formula renaults. Then we will have to see where we go from there, I will report back.

Thanks

James

classic44
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby classic44 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:08 pm

Lets hope that James can get some positive responses to the questions he is going to bring up with the board.

I have been very supportive of the club over the past 6 years and in my opinion the board has lost sight of the fact that the club is run for its members, who are amateurs, who race for enjoyment, with no financial reward.

We are club racers and all should be welcome.

User avatar
Russ
Flag waver
Flag waver
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:15 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby Russ » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:13 pm

classic44 wrote:Lets hope that James can get some positive responses to the questions he is going to bring up with the board.

I have been very supportive of the club over the past 6 years and in my opinion the board has lost sight of the fact that the club is run for its members, who are amateurs, who race for enjoyment, with no financial reward.

We are club racers and all should be welcome.


I am assuming from your 'classic44' title that this is Kevin Ottway.
Can you please follow forum rules and put your full name in your posts.

I am a board member, I am an amateur, I try to race for enjoyment, I get no financial reward.
It costs me money to be a board member, I do it to try to put something back in to the sport that gives me enjoyment, I try to help.
I try to do my best for the club and its members long term interests, if my best is not good enough for you, let me know and I will happily hand over to someone who can do it better.
As far as I am aware, the above statements cover most, if not all, of the board.

Russ Giles

jergar
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby jergar » Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:48 am

Well said Russ, I happen to think that the board do a good job,not perfect but what is? Unfortunately criticism, albeit from a small number, rather than praise comes with the job. The club would not run very well without you lot.

It will be interesting to see if anyone takes you up on your offer.

Jeremy Goodman

User avatar
Anson
Flag waver
Flag waver
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:12 pm

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby Anson » Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:47 am

On the original subject here, the subject of engines, I think the engine regs for 2000 are fine for now.
Yes, we all know that the world moved on to variable valve timing a long time ago, mainly to meet emissions requirements.
However, there is still plentiful supply of cheap engines which suit the rules, produce good power and are reliable so why change it now?
I understand people want to know what is happening in the future but if we knew what the future held that we would be rich!
The point being that there is no need to flag now a future engine policy when we don't yet know what it will be. The club gives rule stability in that they always give a minimum of a full season's notice of a significant change. We actually decided 2 years early on the introduction of the F305/307 cars for 2017 and have left rules otherwise as they are.
Since there are Pedrafita engined F308/11 cars it follows that it must be possible to fit mono spec engines even to the newer generation F3 cars so when those cars (eventually) come, we could theoretically still run the current regs.
Of course it would be great to run a modern engine - the one to have is not the Honda F20 (the one out of the S2000) but the Honda K20 (of the type R and many kit cars, Lotus Exige, Atom etc etc) - lightwieght aluminium and 240ps in Group N trim (ie stock components) but which of you is going to invest in designing and making the fitting kit? And then we have not only a single chassis formula but a single engine one - look at our own bike engined classes...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Peter Venn
#6

scorchio
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby scorchio » Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:03 am

Was there a meeting Tuesday?... We're all ears!

Can you please include your full name in your post

Redracer77
Flag waver
Flag waver
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby Redracer77 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:03 pm

You have more chance of getting a reply from The prime minister than the board. They have had plenty of time to explain the reasons
Chris Hodgen
Dallara 304
No 70

stevenconnor
Recovery
Recovery
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby stevenconnor » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:55 pm

I note a statement regarding the Formula Renaults has now been posted on the website.. http://www.monoposto.co.uk/2016/08/formula-renault-eligibility/

stevenconnor
Recovery
Recovery
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby stevenconnor » Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:27 am

Comments from a member below in italics

Formula Renault Eligibility
Posted on August 10, 2016
Formula Renault Eligibility
________________________________________
A Statement from the Board
Due to some recent forum comments on the decision making Formula Renaults (Tatuus 2006 & 2008 BARC cars) ineligible for the MonoF3 class, the board offers the following information.

Formula Renault were allowed in to Monoposto as it was felt that there may be a number of cars available to race with us. Since 2011 we have had very few cars and in reality there have only ever been a couple of cars each season at most. There have been technical issues and requests for changes to allow greater performance from the cars, also suggested on the forum. These are a “spec” car that are a newer specification than other allowable 2L cars and if allowed to run unfettered could well beat our existing F3 Cars. Requests to change the regulator requirements were made right back to 2011. These were, quite correctly, rejected by the MRC. The regulations under which these cars compete in Monoposto have been established and policed since their initial introduction, as demonstrated by the 2011 incident of a car being excluded for non compliance and the restrictor on such a car being checked by the MSA scrutineer in 2015. The only regulator change to “allow greater performance” has come from the rolling road ‘back to back’ test of a Piedrafita and ‘Mono spec’ engine resulting in an increased Regulator size for these engines (of which only one has competed in 2015 and 2016) [/color] http://startline.org.uk/slol92/aldon.html

If we consider a similar scenario regarding another type of car then this could have been written as:
Formula Ford Duratecs were allowed in to Monoposto as it was felt that there may be a number of cars available to race with us. Since 2014 we have had very few cars and in reality there have only ever been a couple of cars each season at most. But we haven’t banned them even though these are a “spec” car that are a newer specification than other allowable Mono 1800 cars and as demonstrated at Spa, if driven to their full potential could well beat our existing Mono 1800 cars.

As detailed on the website...

[i]Mono DTEC Duratec

Mono DTEC was run for the 2014 and 2015 seasons and was intended to home the recently superseded Formula Ford Duratec cars (of which there were quite a lot).

Cars were to be run as per published Formula Ford Duratec regulations with the exception of tyres which are free.
This class never received many entries, so the class is being stopped for 2016, although Duratec cars are still eligible within the scope of other classes.


http://www.monoposto.co.uk/technical/classes/mono-duratec/

On the 14th July 2015 the board made a decision, on balance, to remove the FR eligibility for MonoF3 class and duly published this. There were no prospective FR cars for 2016 season. This decision was fully supported by the Sporting Services Manager at that time. Other class change decisions were also made last year, not everyone likes them when they happen but we just move on and accept that they were made. No other owner/drivers were disenfranchised by having their cars eligibility removed.

As with any motorsport regulation decision giving notice of a change, reversal is difficult as this can upset the stability of the regulations. It was decided to allow a further year of FR eligibility till the end of the 2016 season. No contact was made to board members from any FR drivers and the matter was not questioned at the 2016 AGM. We have not been presented with any proposals for future Formula Renault car eligibility to consider. Current eligibility has been acceptable since the introduction of these cars and therefore no new eligibility should be required.

Recently there have been some forum posts about “banning FR cars” which is not what has occurred. The earlier cars will become eligible in 2017 to run in MonoF3 when fitted with a mono compliant engine. To clarify, this is due to the MonoF3 date moving forward to allow up to and including 2007 commercially available chassis and bodywork in this class, as already published. The special case allowed for FR cars, which are fitted with the F4R FRS engine, did not warrant further extension as the numbers were not entering and with the chassis package being in date it should be encouraged that these cars fall in to the normal Monoposto requirements next year. The published 2016 regulations state “This Chassis will not be eligible for Mono F3 after 31/12/2016” This appears to be completely incompatible with both the above paragraph and from further above “.. reversal is difficult as this can upset the stability of the regulations. “

3. Chassis as supplied for Formula Renault 2.0 complying with Formula Renault
2.0 Nomenclature & Technical Regulations (2008 & 2006 versions). This
chassis can only be used with an engine conforming to 5(7).3. Renault Sport
homologation and seals are not required. Replacement parts must be to the
original specification. Repairs to the Survival Cell of the chassis must be
carried out in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. This Chassis
will not be eligible for Mono F3 after 31/12/2016.


http://www.monoposto.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/JMT-Mono-Championship-2016-Regulations-PUBLISHED-V2a.pdf

Every year the board review and update the regulations, we don’t just make it up as we go along. To the majority of the board the presence of FR cars on the grid makes little difference to them on race days as they are not in the same class. Significant number of Board members regularly race on the same grid with these cars.

As previously advised, any proposals for Formula Renault cars should be directed to Terry Clark and Kevin Couling.

Whilst making this statement we would like to highlight that the forum is not the correct place to contact the board. Every race meeting, there are board members in the paddock and there are specific class reps as well. If you want something considered, we are always willing to listen. We then discuss and look at in more detail to come to a decision in time for inclusion in the next year’s regulations. Please remember that the board is a collective and individual decision making is not democratic in this respect. We can’t just make a statement on the forum, it has to be agreed between us (and we don’t always agree, and this often takes time) and we have to consider any confidentiality before anything significant can be published. This is precisely why we only publish official statements on Startline.

The Board
August 2016.

Published here: http://www.monoposto.co.uk/2016/08/form ... igibility/

The original statement from the Board does not, in the opinion of this writer, contain either a real ‘why’ or a compelling case for removing the current eligibility (after 31/12/2016) of a car being raced by at least 3 members, possibly more to come?, in 2016. This does appear in my simple terms to be “banning FR cars”
Solution.
1. Remove the ‘ban’.
2. Retain the current regulations which only allow these chassis and engines to be used in this exact combination.
3. Continue to Police the regulations.
4. Publish a statement (each year in the regs?) that these cars will only be accepted on the ‘terms’ published in the regulations and no request for ‘performance improving equalisation’ (restrictor changes) will be permitted during that season (never say never, the members might one day want to allow such changes)

Steven Connor
14th August 2016

RobManser
Flag waver
Flag waver
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:06 am

Re: Engine Regulations

Postby RobManser » Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:45 pm

I’d just like to comment on the following quote from the above statement if I may:

“…On the 14th July 2015 the board made a decision, on balance, to remove the FR eligibility for MonoF3 class and duly published this [RM: 8th Aug 2015 on this forum]. There were no prospective FR cars for 2016 season…”

I wasn’t a driver at this point, but I e-mailed the Monoposto contact address on 29th July saying I’d like to buy an FR to race and with a query on the regs. Steve answered my query on the same day, gave the all clear and I went ahead and bought the car on August 3rd. I find it rather unfair that I wasn’t warned at this stage that a decision had been made to remove FRs from the regs. The cost of my car was years of savings.

Secondly,

“…it was decided to allow a further year of FR eligibility till the end of the 2016 season. No contact was made to board members from any FR drivers…”

That’s not true. I e-mailed immediately following the decision being published.

Finally, I’d just like to say that the argument put forward to ban FRs due to low numbers is illogical, and I’ll explain why: July 2015 was only 5 months after BARC was officially cancelled, so almost all the FRs in the UK were owned by pro teams at this point, not private club racers. After August 2015 obviously very few private individuals were willing to buy an FR, because they’d already been banned by Mono at that point, the only place in the UK to race them. Even those with FRs had little motivation to set them up anew at the required 40mm ride height for just a handful of races.

I shan’t moan any longer, as clearly the decision has been stated as final, no matter how unfair and illogical. Maybe those of us with FRs should consider creating an ‘F3 Cup’ style championship for both the later FR2000 cars and also the earlier cars? I would be happy to volunteer for this.


Return to “Paddock Chatter”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests