Mono regs

Richard Purcell · Post by **Richard Purcell** » Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:36 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen, I do not go on the Forum very often and I may have missed the announcement has there been a decision made as to the Mono 2000 regs as I feel time is passing very quickly

tristancliffe · Post by **tristancliffe** » Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:30 pm

Email sent Richard. Clarifies things as I understand it to be.

Richard Purcell · Post by **Richard Purcell** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:01 pm

So today is Thursday, the meeting was last night, Please can someone confirm where we stand.

Many thanks

Hasbeen · Post by **Hasbeen** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:47 pm

Following the announcement that the MRC Board had approved the proposed changes to the Mono 2000 technical regulations from 2010 as set out in the paper publicised by the working group, the Board sought views on whether to bring forward certain changes to 2009.

This involved seeking opinion from stakeholders as to whether it would be acceptable to members to allow the Formula Renault FR2000 cars (carbon tub, 16 valve, sequential box) restricted as per BARC Championship and also allow F3 engines with 24mm restrictor, as set out in the technical proposal, to race in 2009.

Following overwhelming support from stakeholders for this proposal, it has been approved. However, the Board decided that as parity could not be confirmed at this early stage, the cars would run in a separate class on the same grid as Mono 2000. This would be for one year with the intention of full integration in 2010 when other changes to Mono 2000 are implemented.

Thus Formula Renault FR2000 cars and cars with F3 engines (in post 1992 chassis) will run in this new class, probably to be badged as Mono Formula, and will qualify for points. Regulations will otherwise conform to Mono 2000. Chassis date for Mono 2000 will advance by one year as usual thus cars will have to be of a model designated for the 2005 season or earlier. Please note that 2002 and later Dallara cars with sequential boxes will still not be eligible until 2010 when sequential boxes are permitted.

tristancliffe · Post by **tristancliffe** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:13 pm

Hurrah for having it finalised!

Can I presume that for Mono2000 the road map sent to us by Mary a couple of weeks ago has also been accepted (at least in principle, with details to figure out perhaps)?

Hasbeen · Post by **Hasbeen** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:51 pm

Yes. The 'roadmap' as published previously was approved at the October Board meeting.

Richard Purcell · Post by **Richard Purcell** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:51 am

That means the weight of the fly wheel is free?
Will the 2009 regs be published in Regulations soon to give 100% clarity as still not 100% clear.
There were three cars discussed that were a ? in which class they would be best suited to, where will they sit going forward..
Finally I suppose that 2010 regs will not be agreed till end of 2009 season?

Thanks

tristancliffe · Post by **tristancliffe** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:26 am

Richard. Sadly not. The silly heavy flywheel rule is being kept for 2009 as someone, somewhere think it makes a difference to the performance. In fact it just costs money as everyone has to have their cranks rebalanced, yet it makes (approx) 1% difference to the moment of inertia of the crank, 1/2 rod, flywheel and clutch assembly, and (a guess) around 5% increase in bearing load (and consequently wear).

2009 regulations are 100% as per 2008.
2010 regulations will (must) be published before the end of the year to comply with the unwritten 'Years Notice' rule. Otherwise people like you will not be able to build a car ready for 2010 until December 2009, which is a bit late, and we might as well have brought it all forward. I wonder if throttle bodies will still be restricted on the size of something they don't have?

Sad you won't be helping the Mono2000 grids next year, but understandable with the regulations being as they are. No point spending several grand on a car, and then 10 months later spending even more money to convert it.

That's why I asked if we could run our car in 2010 regs to try and save some money, but that appears to have been forgotten about. I wonder why? Was it too difficult to allow me to start on -160 points? Was it too difficult to invent a class for people not wanting to spend money on conversions twice called Mono2010 or something? Probably doesn't matter as they will only be about 4 cars on the grid anyway.

At least ClubF3 are going to allow F3 cars in Mono spec. Just need to find out if they'll accept a car in 2010 Mono spec.

Yes, I am quite cross about it.

Hasbeen · Post by **Hasbeen** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:43 pm

What we have done is give everyone a years notice of changes in the regs and introduced a new class.

Nick Harrison · Post by **Nick Harrison** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:37 pm

tristancliffe wrote:
At least ClubF3 are going to allow F3 cars in Mono spec. Just need to find out if they'll accept a car in 2010 Mono spec.

Interesting prospect, however I would check your source of infomation before further pronouncements.

AndyY · Post by **AndyY** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:06 pm

And where (or with whom) will Mono be racing in 2009?

captiv8ted · Post by **captiv8ted** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:38 pm

Any chance of Brands on the calendar? That box needs ticking for me! Combe would be nice too - I wouldn't have to travel so far!

Shakeyfinch · Post by **Shakeyfinch** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:38 pm

[quote="tristancliffe"]

At least ClubF3 are going to allow F3 cars in Mono spec. Just need to find out if they'll accept a car in 2010 Mono spec. quote]

I was at the CF3 '09 planning meeting at Brands - regulations remain unchanged for 2009. Pure F3 cars only (and rightly so). Not sure where you got this from.

[quote="tristancliffe"] Richard. Sadly not. The silly heavy flywheel rule is being kept for 2009 as someone, somewhere think it makes a difference to the performance. In fact it just costs money as everyone has to have their cranks rebalanced quote]

Surely people need to have their cranks rebalanced regardless of whether this rule is introduced in '09 or '10? You're just annoyed because you've got to make a flywheel that is only any use for a year! Unless of course you are creative about how you make your flywheel.

[quote="tristancliffe"] That's why I asked if we could run our car in 2010 regs to try and save some money, but that appears to have been forgotten about. I wonder why? quote]

Why should you be afforded that luxury? The rules are the rules, either put up with them and race or don't (as you may decide). You knew what the rules were before you purchased a new car. What you are actually annoyed about is the opportunity saving that has passed you by because the rules have not changed for '09. Now everyone is faced with the same dilema for '10, assuming a rule change notification is issued.

MH

Richard Purcell · Post by **Richard Purcell** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:50 am

Dear Shakey Finch, I think the problem with Mono is not rule changes, its the time it takes to make a decision to change or not.
What you say to Tristan is not 100% correct, we didn't have the rules for 2009 as they were still being debated.
Also as far as club F3, when they struggle to meat minimum grids, the regs will change to get bums in seats as they did at the end 08.
Anyone want to buy a 2001 dallara without engine I for one will not do this twice.

tristancliffe · Post by **tristancliffe** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:00 am

The CF3 stuff is just grapevine stuff - not actually sure about who told me!

But the rest of the annoyance is purely down to self interest I admit. I'm not going to be winning races next year as we acclimatise to the car, but we do face the prospect of extra cash outlay when the regs change. Maybe it's short-sighted of me, I don't know, but it did make my blood boil momentarily