Issue #2 -- "Appropriate" Tires in Stock Classes

Warren,

I think you make an excellent point here. I have gone back and looked at the original working of the rules from 1996. From my point of view, the original form of the rules, even including the tire list, makes far more sense then the use of vague and inherently ambiguous langauge like "appropriate," or using a rating standard with a cutoff number that my well exclude original equipment tires.

Unfortunately, this is going to take some straightening out and some careful consideration of the language to be used. My hope is to address these issues in a way that will set a standard that will remain in place for years to come so that competitors can make a choice of tires and rims and not have to worry from year to year whether they will continue to be "legal" under the slalom rules.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman
JTC Slalom Chair
'72 E-type 2+2
'89 XJS C

Steve,

The language about tires in the original 1996 Slalom Rules was pretty straightforward and clear; I never understood why there was such a muddy change when the 2000 edition came out (and the current mish-mash with UTQG codes included in the text is just plain perverse, in addition to failing to convey the intent of the rule). Here's how it was said in 1996:

20. Cars must be completely stock including wheels, tires*, suspension, and ride height, or will be classed as modified. Final determination of eligibility will be made by local steward.

*Tire Rules:
20a. Any car in a class is allowed to use any tire/wheel combination legal for that class (See attached approved tire/wheel combination list.), i.e., a 1985 XJ6 normally equipped with 215/70x15, which must compete with a 1994 XJ6 equipped with 225/60x16, be allowed to use the same tire wheel combination, if he/she wishes.
20b. XK's class is allowed the use of 185-16 radial tires. This exception is allowed because 185-16, commonly used for driven cars, is not a legal tire size in the approved tire/wheel class.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the following rule from the 2000 edition does clarify the intent without making the rules too complicated:

19. Use of any 'R' compound tires, autocross tires, or slicks will result in the car being assessed as Modified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tire/Wheel List may not be an appropriate document to bring back into play, as it appears to be lifted from the Concours Rules, and doesn't quite work for cars that are driven as much as it does for show cars. However, there is an introductory comment that "Every consideration should be paid to selecting a replacement tire with the same side aspect ratio as the OEM tire. This ensures that the car will maintain the proper stance and appearance as designed. All information given here is directed toward that end."

Instead of trying to fix a new rule that is "broke" before it even goes into use, why not revert to the old one, which wasn't "broke" even before it was "fixed!"

Regards,
Warren

Sorry for the typos.

George Camp

Once again you are cought by words-let me remind you that xk120,140,150, and early E Types could have race tires or tyres on them from the factory-hence stock. Series two Es would have to have a hub change to run S3 wheels but a lot of xk cars run 15 as they fit even on a drum car. I think what you need to do is get very aware of what was on the cars or what was available at the time. Why do you not consider age or era for class as all racing bodies do. Would be a lot easier ie 50s 60s 70s 80s etc.
George Camp

Pascal,

You point with the Ser. 2 vs. Ser. 3 E-types is not appropriate (hate that word). If you recall, they are in two different classes, Ser. 1 & 2 in Class D, and Ser. 3 in Class E. However, I do seem to recall that some of the later Ser. 2 cars did come or were available with the steel rims (may be wrong on that point, don't hold me to it).

The larger problem are the "changing" series, like the XJS. I do not agree that wheel/tire sizes should be limited to those of the year of the car. Later XJS's came with larger and wider rims. I personally feel that any car in any particular class should be allowed to use rims/tires that were offered by Jaguar on any other year of the same car in the same class. Thus, older XJS's that came with 15" rims should be allowed to run the 16" rims of the later models. But they should be the actual rims offered by Jaguar. We don't want to open this up to any type of rim, at least not in stock classes.

My $.02.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman
JTC Slalom Chair
'72 E-type 2+2
'89 XJS Coupe

The fun and satisfaction of running stock class is running stock. No race tires, no funny DOTs and no low profiles. Wheel widths are not as important to performance as tire size is, so I favor a specification on tire width and diameter as opposed to specifying a strict wheel dimension (within reason of course; i.e., up to +1" of the standard wheel width).
Bob Grossman