new Slalom classes

I can see the BOD tweaking things, but if delegates at the AGM make pass a stupid rule, it's our stupid rule. I wouldn't want the BOD being able to go in and reverse decisions made by the AGM, but it seems that you are opening the door to that exact thing.

For example, on the tire issue, we apparently blew it (the issue, not the tire). I'm not a slalom guy, so I don't know anything about tire ratings, however, setting a precedent that the BOD can step in and fix our messes, opens up a huge can of worms. How do you define "messes" and "mistakes." Likewise, if someone lobbied hard for something to be a certain way and it passed, and someone, a few weeks later, the BOD determined it was a mistake and changed it, that person would have a right to be very perturbed.

If the BOD can change anything passed at the AGM (other than by-laws), why discuss anything other than by-laws at the AGM?

I won't put words in Gary's mouth, but I seem to recall that he noted that there were only a handful of people who raced in modified -- a half dozen at most. IIRC, he didn't speak against the proposal, and in fact, after counting the entrants, felt it was a good idea since there were so few competitors.

Mark Stephenson
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona

Pascal,
That answer is beyond me, although I do know if it was not for the persistence of certain people you and a lot of others in possibly would be still in mod against Gary, as you said earleir in this arena. I do know however that barely one car has been present in classs A for years.
By apples and pineapples I am refering to the mass of the machinery, small versus large, light versus heavy. That is how the SP Class was devised, NOT DESTROYED.

Modified is an Open class.... anything goes... it will always be apples to pineapples...

but I ask again, how many of the 2002 entrants will be in modified this year????

Pascal

Gary has in fact sent me direction to change items through the slalom committee, when this change can occur he seems to indicate we can change the tyre # issue right away which would solve your problem, although is unclear regarding the classes issues.
Personally I am very dissapointed that no one seems to have cared less or studied less re the slalom Committee proposals thet were deliberated for many months before the AGM .I have worked continously for seven years developing my car, and it has been a struggle to say the least. Just because I managed to post a quicker time than any E Type ever, I feel very let down that all the big cars were put together with the small cars, and I believe Gary agrees, this is like comparing apples to pineapples.

Art,

1)- Who is affected by this? Let's look at the numbers so that we can form an opinion. In the past, decision were made at least in part by looking at times to ensure there isn't a major problem. Can you look at the 2002 results and tell us who else is in Modified besides Gary, Scott Young and you. and David Hinton but he just ran the JCOF slalom once.

2)- the problem goes deeper than just this issue... there was a lot of talk about JCNA bylaw changes and making sure only delegates can change them. I didn't hear anyone saying other things can't be decided by the BOD. Is there sometign in the by laws that would prohibit rule changes to be decided by the BOD upon recommendation by a committee ? both the regional directors and regional competition committes reps do represent an accurate sampling of JCNA membership and should be trusted with some day to day decisions without having to wait a full year...

If the decision could have been made quickly without waiting a year, I am sure that teh motion to combine these classes could have been referred to the slalom committee to make a recommendation to the BOD for decision in a short time frame... not 6 months later at the fall meeting. Problem would have been solved, the "experts" could have spoken.

on one hand we're saying that members can send proposal to the secretary to be presented at the AGM but in practice we are saying they must submit them to committees first? otherwise... we'll see about it next year!!

that's not serious...

Pascal Gademer

My apologies Art, for not checking the names on the slalom committee before writing. I find all of this very confusing, as did the vast majority of the delegates at the AGM. The major problem at the AGM was that you were absent. And nobody else seemed to be willing or able to pick up the ball and present the slalom committees recommendations in a coherent and digestable manner. So most people were left scratching their heads trying to figure out the wording and just what was trying to be accomplished. Not surprisingly, the outcome was less than desirable. I am as guilty as anyone else, not having adequately studied the proposals in advance and not having familiarized myself with the slalom rule book, the recent experiences of participants, and the issues facing this activity. Mea culpa.

Having said all this, what is done is done. Now more than ever the slalom committee needs leadership and direction. So I have two questions for you:

- first, are you willing to continue as chairman of the slalom committee? You are giving mixed signals here. Are you throwing in the towel or are you just expressing frustration (understandable)? We need a yes or no here, the season is fast approaching (no pun intended). If you do decide to step aside, we will need to find a replacement. If that is a problem, I will volunteer myself. I know very little about JCNA slaloms (I've never done one myself but I will this year), but I know how to listen and bring people together (or apart, as the case may be!).
- second, assuming you stay on or someone else takes the job. The slalom committee needs to QUICKLY access the effect of the AGM rule changes and outline a plan of action that can be followed by slalom chairs all across the country as they prepare to host their local events. The outcome of the AGM may not be perfect, but we've got to live with it for the next year. Let's take stock of where we are and make the best of it.

Respectfully, because I know how hard you've worked on this.

Daniel
P.S. I don't decide who is going to chair the various committees, that's the job of the JCNA president. You need to indicate to the president what your intentions are as far as slalom committee chair is concerned.

Myself and the slalom Committee, ( which by the way Daniel, and anyone else who does not know who the rest of us are, are listed on the JCNA Slalom Page)have worked long and hard trying to achieve parity for many people who have been lumped in the 2 modified classes for many years. I proposed this idea many years ago in the interests of fair competition to the previous Chairperson, to no avail. I have now achieved I believe a fair class for people who have modded their cars and yet drive them possibly thousands of miles possibly on the street, and have no desire to invest in full race set ups. 3 classes were asked for by one of our comm. members, although it was decided that 2 were good enough, as that was how the modified classes had been divided for the last 7 years, and no one was asking for three classes there. This was a majority democratic decision, made by a group of knowledgeable slalom people. The proposals were properly displayed on the JCNA Slalom Page for quite awhile before the AGM.
However on the other hand, somehow an ammendment was attached to the new classes at the AGM, this was done without prior application to the Slalom Committee, and reverses all our attempts directed at equality in slalom competition. It was pointed out at a prior AGM to Bill Stritenberger that we now had a slalom committee, a team of "experts" as Dich Howe described us. Mr Stritenberger immidiately withdrew his proposal, and stated in the future he would direct his proposals to the appropriate committee. I feel this ammendment apparently proposed by Steve Averill, is out of order to say the least. There is over 1,200 lbs in weight difference between the lightweight class, and the heavyweight cars. Regardless of how many cars compete in any class, who with any expertise in the slalom discipline would vote to combine these two classes, especially if in fact you had a heavyweight car. We had just proposed, and I believe this was passed , that we split the newer cars , because the smaller cars seemed to be beating the bigger cars all the time. Where is the justice here, or logic. If this is the reward you receive for trying to create a better, more fair JCNA Slalom Classes I guess I should not have wasted my time and effort and concentrated more on my own situation. Unfortunately I am a person who cares about other competitors, and how I can help them, not how to irradicate them.

Rod

I've already requested updated rules from all 3 competition chairs. I've been in touch with Dick Cavicke and Stew Cleave (new concours rule book editor) and the new rule book is almost ready. should be up shortly, by next week.

I guess that Art and Doug will send me the updated Slalom and Rally rules shortly as well. For the time being, people will need to use the link to the AGM section. not much more that I can do unfortunately

Pascal Gademer

I understand the revised rules and classes were passed at AGM. When will they be posted to the Slalom Rules website? If they are to be put into use for 2003 slalom events, they need to be made available ASAP

Rod Winegarner

Steve,

amendements will be added when I have the minutes.

the point system is a good idea if implemented correctly. in other words, it still needs to take certain things into accounts like the fact that when someone does shocks and torsion bars, they will also do poly buhings...

Brakes is another issue... 6 pots calipers like Gary's improve braking... Wilwood lites don't... they simply reduce heat problems but don't make the car brake better. SO it has to be done carefully. There are other reliability upgrades that don't enhance performance like ignition...

my concern right now is the thread wear of teh Street Prep. class, see other post...

Pascal Gademer
72 E-type 2+2
00 XKRCoupe
99 XJR

Pascal,

First, with regard to the "street prepared" class, it WAS passed by the AGM and is in effect, as written, for the 2003 season. The proposal was amended, on my motion as you will recall, to have the slalom committee develop a "points system" for determining whether a car should be in Street Prepared or modified. Like other groups that run auto-cross, modifications will be given a point value (e.g., uprated brakes = 2 pts., adjustable shocks = 2 pts., high flow air filters = 1 pt., etc.). Points would then be totalled, and if they exceed a threshhold level, say 7 pts. total, the car would have to run in modified rather than street prepared class. This point system will not take effect until the 2004 season. But for 2003, street prepared is available for cars with some modifications. Highly modified cars or cars running racing tires must run in modified. The slalom committee will be looking at the issue of developing a point system throughout this year. Anyone with an opinion on this should voice it to the committee sooner rather than later.

One correction needs to be made, however. Your chart shows that the AGM approved the running of the slalom in either direction. This was NOT approved. Rather, the vote of the AGM rejected this proposal. The slalom can only be run in the standard, existing direction, NOT in reverse. Please update the chart color coding accordingly.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
'72 E-type 2+2
'89 XJS Coupe

it's not on the slalom page because it is only a proposal. check the agm section below

Pascal Gademer
SFJC

Where is the info on this new slalom class? I didn't see it in the slalom page.

B. Shriver
XK 140 OTS MC-E
http://www.shriverperformance.com