Page 3 of 3

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:13 pm
by Russ
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

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:48 am
by jergar
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

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:47 am
by Anson
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!

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:03 am
by scorchio
Was there a meeting Tuesday?... We're all ears!

Can you please include your full name in your post

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:03 pm
by Redracer77
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

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:55 pm
by stevenconnor
I note a statement regarding the Formula Renaults has now been posted on the website.. ... igibility/

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:27 am
by stevenconnor
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]

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...

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. ... o-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. ... ED-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: ... 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”
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

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:45 pm
by RobManser
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.


“…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.

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:37 am
by stevenconnor
As all the members are the 'shareholders' of the club and entitled to question their elected Board via an Extra Ordinary General Meeting, such a meeting has been requested in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation ... 2/31904207 to be held on the evening of Saturday 10th September at Silverstone circuit (Mono 2 day meeting).

Motion to retain the Formula Renaults as per the current technical and sporting regulations to be put before this meeting.

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:05 am
by RobManser
Thank you Steve. Sadly I'm on holiday then and can't attend, but I look forward to seeing the results of the meeting.

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:33 am
by Monoposto Admin
A request was made by Mr Steven Connor for an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Monoposto Racing Club Ltd. This request was NOT made in accordance with the requirements to hold such a meeting and legal advice to the club has confirmed this. The board have therefore denied his request.

Mr Connor has no right to publicly notify the membership of an EGM in an attempt to control the correct legal process.

We have a proper process to review the technical arrangements for the respective classes that run in Mono and this appears to be a frivolous and vexatious attempt to drive through some form of agenda on technical / class regulations with no regard for the overall consequences to the club.

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:51 am
by stevenconnor
From: Mono Admin []
Sent: 30 August 2016 12:31
Subject: Monoposto Discussion Forum

Dear Members,

The club is proposing that a member’s discussion forum be held at our Silverstone GP event (10/11th September) to give members the opportunity to provide input for 2017 planning. It is felt that a meeting this time of year is more timely for the preparation process.

To enable us to assess the level of interest in this and make suitable arrangements, can you please let me know if you plan to attend? It would also be helpful, though not essential, to receive questions beforehand.

We will confirm details once arrangements are finalised.

Kind regards,


Edited - Phone number removed - Admin

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:37 am
by Ian
Not sure that Terry will appreciate his phone number being published on an open website, it may be prudent to edit it out......unless you asked his permission beforehand of course?

Re: Engine Regulations

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:21 pm
by stevenconnor
Interesting point Ian,

On the open public website for Monoposto at it says:

"Processing of membership and race entries will be handled by Rachel Lovett at the Midland Automobile Club, whilst race day co-ordination and everything else is handled by a team of others. For the immediate future please contact us via email, or call Terry Clark on ##### ##### for any general matters, or contact your class representative."

I have added the ### in this case but Terry does appear to offer up his phone number as the Monoposto admin contact point in this very public way. Therefore I don't feel I made an error.

(anyone wanting to phone Admin @ Monoposto should follow the link at the top of this reply to view the deleted phone number.)