Nothing to do with me but saw this advert,

https://www.racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/78866/bowlby-mk2-sports-prototype

Of course the engine in the main car is beyond the limit for Proto, but I assume could be replaced by a 200bhp version and be eligible? And there's a supposedly Clubmans spec car available, too.

I know this is very pricey and there are a fair fewer far cheaper cars available but I just post this for interest sake.

I still remember the TV documentary on Ben Bowlby developing this, and I do think it's an interesting car.

Sorry Andy it has a — Aluminium monocoque

and...?

Andy, As part of the team selling the two Bowlby Mk2 cars, I thought I should clarify some points.

Both cars were built and have been developed by Marshall & Fraser, they were base on the original prototype built by Ben as part of his Engineering Degree but are quite significantly different from his original Clubmans.

The blue car detailed in the advertisment has been through ongoing improvement over the years and has been racing in the BRSCC OSS Championship for the past seven years with reasonable success, the last time out finishing in third place in a field of 35 cars and just beaten by a car setting the overall lap record on the Silverstone International Circuit.

The second car (in black) is currently owned by David Enderby but he is happy to consider sensible offers as the car has not been developed much beyond its original Clubmans specification and would require some tittyvation before being ready to race.

Should anyone be interested in either car, I wouuld suggest a call to David Marshall on 01296 622504 or 07925 690190 as he has the most up-to-date information on both cars.

.........and only space frame chassis are legal in Clubman's

You reckon Andy?

I'd challenge you to find that in the regs :-)

The regs do say that 'Chassis only to be constructed from steel or aluminium alloy', so that would rule out carbon!!

As far as I can recall the Bowlby is the only monocoque Clubmans car (but there may have been others)

Pete, you know better than me I was always told that we needed a chassis and that we could strengthen it with sheets but the basic car had to be supported by a chassis, by that I understood that monocoque was not allowed,I must have been so wrong for so many years?

If monocoque can be used it is the obvious choice for any future cars!

Regarding monocoque chassis, there were the Myerscars produced by David Darby and Ken Myers in the early 70's. One was raced for several years by the Bason family. It does not appear to have been raced by them recently however.

John Bailey

All three of the Bowlby cars raced in Clubmans when they were first built. Ben's prototype was specifically designed to fit the then Clubmans regulations and both Ginger's blue car and David's black version competed in Clubmans races in around 2000. David's car has remained pretty much as first built but Ginger's has been much modified to be competitive in the Open Sports Series Championship 2 litre class.

I appreciate that Ben's car was probably built to comply with what was then the Supersport regs, but were the chassis regs then any different to the chassis regs now?[/quote]

The core chassis regulations were then as now. Very open or free as you may appreciate subject to a couple of dimension requirements. Steel or alloy space frame capable of acting as a rolling chassis.

However, in the period since 2001 we have added (using the 2016 published regs):

5.5.4.2 relating to the use of permitted composites that may be attached to the steel or alloy chassis. This regulation prevents the use of a carbon/composite monocoque chassis.

5.5.7 regarding (side-pod) floors

5.5.8 and 5.5.9 which are essentially consequential regulations.

Go forth and construct ...!

If the regs had specified spaceframe why would Bowlby have built a monocoque, or been allowed to race it???

I don't know why I inserted 'space frame' in my text above, apologies for any confusion. As I primarily wrote, .. 'then as now' .. etc and the changes made since 2001 specifically to prevent a carbon mono'.