Monoposto Racing Forum

As my last thread seems to have come happily to an amicable conclusion (albeit denying that pro teams are contrary to the true spirit of Mono and also hovering around the fact that everyone should have an allocated paddock space) how about this for a point of discussion? Special building was the foundation of British motorsport success. It is now under the most severe pressure. It is far easier and cheaper to buy a car than build one. Mono is the oldest single-seater formula in British motorsport founded on special building. In protection of this great heritage how about leading the way and giving specials a weight break, say -12.5% of the class limit?

As for allocated paddock space, we always seem to get mugged by the Mazda lot, just like at SIlverstone this year, we were forced to the far end of the extended paddock. It was not the first time either, I remember it happend last year at Donington also.

Maybe a clup rep should arrive in time and mark out the allocated area that is designated for Monoposto and stop other taking it over.

Nat Filmore wrote:As my last thread seems to have come happily to an amicable conclusion (albeit denying that pro teams are contrary to the true spirit of Mono and also hovering around the fact that everyone should have an allocated paddock space) how about this for a point of discussion? Special building was the foundation of British motorsport success. It is now under the most severe pressure. It is far easier and cheaper to buy a car than build one. Mono is the oldest single-seater formula in British motorsport founded on special building. In protection of this great heritage how about leading the way and giving specials a weight break, say -12.5% of the class limit?

..............agree with that so long as they all have to run E93A engines. Be generous though, any state of tune.

Just keep in mind weight limits were introduced for safety reasons not competitive ones. viz Chapman and building in lightness etc. 70 kgs reduction in the M2000 class type car is a lot of structure.

I thought Geoff fern tried it with a very lightwieght special built by Force but it did not work.

Ref Paddock, MSV should appiont a paddock hitler as the do in BSB.

Gareth runs the BSB paddock like a military operation, and it really works, no private cars allowed in paddock unles its a working vechile.

Alternatively all the MSV championship co-ordinates could talk to each other and organise it.

ArtyB wrote: ..............agree with that so long as they all have to run E93A engines. Be generous though, any state of tune.

Just keep in mind weight limits were introduced for safety reasons not competitive ones. viz Chapman and building in lightness etc. 70 kgs reduction in the M2000 class type car is a lot of structure.

Haha! What about 100E? Having had a quick look at Mono history I don't think side valves did much, though with a max of 70 bhp (?) and a Formula Junior engine 80+ it's hardly surprising.

On weights I hear what you say Oh Wise One. 50kg off a 1000 car would be "interesting".... What do you think would be a fair and safe weight break for specials?

Sadly on Paddocks I think Jim is right, an MSV Paddock Hitler is probably the only real answer.

We need to find a paddock hitler complete with the tache! Any volunteers?

Graham Read is the closest I can think of. Or one of the Whitmores.

I read the posts in this thread about paddock allocations with interest.

The Silverstone meeting to which Samier refers was a non-Championship race (and an unusual one at that - the BritCar 24 hrs, which has an enormous entry for the meeting as a whole as well as a capacity Mono entry) Also it was not organised by MSVR, with whom we regularly work very closely. Silverstone was organised by the BRSCC Midland Race Team on behalf of BritCar. They changed their paddock plan unilaterally the day before the meeting when they realised the existing plan didn't allow enough space for some parts of the entry - the paddock was very crowded that weekend. We were not "mugged by the Mazdas". This did mean that some Mono people who had arrived and set up the day before had to move their setup. Although the late change was less than ideal, Mono had a completely adequate amount of paddock space (there was in fact spare space), albeit a couple of hundred yards further from Race Control than in the original plan.

Ironically at the Silverstone Championship round that followed a fortnight later, which was MSVR organised, when paddock space was at a premium, Mono actually ended up taking space from the Mazdas.

There are no simple solutions to the management of paddock space. Monoposto is particularly difficult because we have a wide range of sizes and types of facility that our members wish to use in the paddock. This makes both allocation planning and on-the-day-management difficult; and brings complaints of unfairness of space usage from the smaller setups, and complaints of insufficient space from the more extensively endowed teams.

For each meeting MSVR discusses and allocates us a paddock space, and if necessary marks it out. We then are responsible for managing how we set up within this allocated space. The majority of Mono competitors are sensible and considerate in how they do this. However, when there is pre-event testing it is not uncommon for other competitors to arrive and set up in the "wrong" paddock area one or even two days before the event. At present UK circuits and race organisers do not routinely manage competitor setup location during testing, and it would be expensive and difficult for Monoposto to do so at each venue in the days preceding our events.

I believe that the majority of our Championship competitors would not welcome a more draconian or expensive approach to paddock space allocation and on-the-day paddock management, but I can certainly provide this if it's wanted. In my experience people who demand a more draconian approach often don’t wish it to apply to themselves. I suggest this issue could be an interesting topic for discussion at the post- AGM forum.

This year we are working with MSVR to improve the way we organise the paddock allocations, and we are asking competitors to give us some information about their paddock equipment to help us do this. I haven't yet received this from all of the people who are posting on this thread, but I'm sure that those who haven't yet done so will send it to me in due course.

Simon Davey
Monoposto Championship Co-ordinator

Thankyou Simon for you informed comments

My suggestion was a bit tongue in cheek.

I agree we do not need any draconion official, just thought msv might provide an official who would be able to tell competitors when they arrive, where to park.

Yes thank you Simon. I am glad this serious issue is under consideration.

tristancliffe wrote:Graham Read is the closest I can think of. Or one of the Whitmores.

Lol you could be right!!

Nat Filmore wrote:

ArtyB wrote: ..............agree with that so long as they all have to run E93A engines. Be generous though, any state of tune.

Just keep in mind weight limits were introduced for safety reasons not competitive ones. viz Chapman and building in lightness etc. 70 kgs reduction in the M2000 class type car is a lot of structure.

Haha! What about 100E? Having had a quick look at Mono history I don't think side valves did much, though with a max of 70 bhp (?) and a Formula Junior engine 80+ it's hardly surprising.

.

Ah 100E, an E93A with a water pump. Far too technically advanced for a Mono Special.

thanks for the reminder Simon

I wil be sending my paddock form next week with my membership.

Reason for delay was whether to purchase a 40ft artic with 4 car awning so i can become more professional.

But in reflection i will stick with motorhome and trailer plus wife as mechanic.

ArtyB wrote:
Ah 100E, an E93A with a water pump. Far too technically advanced for a Mono Special.

Looks like we're going to have to have a bit of a re-think about the Wergs 001 Tone....

New Omicron Speciale looks OK though....