Rantings & Ravings Regarding Rules

"That is an excellent idea that I'd carry one step further. In our state, our ballot propositions contain not only a justification of why a change should be made, but opposing points of view are also encouraged. ..... I don't think JCNA should send something out separately, but a cheap, plain paper or newsprint insert in the JJ might not be a bad idea."

There is one major problem there... JJ production schedule. In most cases, proposals don't make it to the secretary until just 3 or 4 weeks before the AGM. I hope Steve Averil can correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt this is feasible.

this why if you look at the 2003 AGM section, direct links to the forums were provided to encourage discussions on the various issues, to give members and delegates a chance to express their views. I think this is something that needs to be encouraged next year. Maybe something in the JJ on the importance of the AGM and reviewing proposals ahead of time.

Pascal

This word "fair" seems to be cropping up frequently. Let's examine fairness, from what what people would consider the most fair to the most unfair.

1. Is it fair that someone has naturally better driving skills than another? Well, that what the competition is about, so we'd have to conclude that that's not unfair.

2. Is it fair that someone has huge amounts of spare time to build his car into a top performer, to the point that it trumps driving skill? That requires a bit more contemplation. Is the purpose of the slalom to reward the person with the greatest skill around the course, the greatest skill preparing the car, or both?

3. Is it fair that someone could buy an advantage dumping tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars into a car that would make even a mediocre driver a winner, or does that contradict the spirit of the event? That certainly gives one pause.

4. Is it fair that someone or something has an intrinsic advantage? It doesn't seem so, but then how do you rectify that?

You can see that there is a spectrum here. Arguing fairness is chasing a chimera. It seems that for most people who are adamant about such things, their definition stops when they can win. If they can't then somehow it's not fair.

Ultimate fairness would restrict the competition to #1. As soon as you move toward #2, you begin to taint the fairness of pure driving skill with impure factors. Moving toward #4 throws fairness out the window completely. There are only two ways to achieve ultimate fairness as near as I can figure. (I'd be interested in hearing any others.)

One is to require all competitors' cars in a class to be identical. That is the approach NASCAR has taken in it's competition. The only latitude they have is tweaking. It's a far cry from the original stock cars. If you follow NASCAR, you have to conclude that they've done a pretty good job, something like 11 different winners in 14 races. We could do that and things would be much more fair in each class. Unfortunately, with the existing class structure, that would require some people to undo modifications already installed, and others to install modifications they've not yet undertaken.

Another option would be to further subdivide classes. People with wider, but within spec, tires have a clear advantage over people who don't have the time, money, or inclination to buy the best allowable. If we took street modified heavyweights, for example, and broke the class down into the various tire sizes, then people would only be competing with others of the same tire size. What about the tire compound? We have a minimum treadwear rating, but what of people with a higher rating? It's not fair that they should compete with people who have softer tires. Let's further subdivide the group so that each size and treadwear rating is in it's own group. I think we are to the point that there would not be two people in the same class at any event, but if there were, I'm sure we could find some other distinguishing factors, like a hardtop being stiffer than a ragtop, or one driver being heaving than another. Those upset that illusive goal of total fairness.

But after all that, there remains one of the greatest factors affecting fairness. Is it fair that one competition has an extremely grippy venue while others have not been able to find such a place? We are talking about a continental competition that uses raw scores. The venue surface affects times more than any other single external factor. Those of us who took the Bondurant slalom training couldn't get within half a second of those times when we competed at CC. Shouldn't we, in the interest of fairness, define the exact surface to be used?

So, to approach total fairness, either we require that all the cars in a class be identical, running on an identical surface, or we define so many classes that no one is competing against anyone else. Hey, it may be meaningless to win a first place, but by God, it's fair!

Both are patently ridiculous, so where do we end up? With a balancing act, even if some of the compromises violate our sense of ultimate fairness. Having two classes for a handful of cars (and I mean literally "can count them on the fingers") spread out across North America, where the chance of both being empty is far greater than the chance of head-to-head competition in either, approaches the absurdity of my one car per class example. That's why I voted for the proposal at the AGM. It wasn't some vast "Get Art" conspiracy.

Do any of you duffers with an old set of steel-shaft golf clubs refuse to play with a friend who has a new set of graphite-shaft Pings because the guy has an unfair advantage? Do you refuse to play a match because you have nylon strings and your opponent has gut? Does anyone refuse to compete because there's not a trophy waiting at the end? If so, then priorities need to be re-examined because there's always going to be someone better -- perhaps not in our narrowly defined discipline, but in the larger arena (unless you are one of a select few). I mean, really, our little slalom competition is so trivial that any competent Saturday-night dirt-track racer would scoff at its insignificance.

So why do we do it? Hopefully, to have an absolute blast and push the envelope just a bit. Given that, can't the friendly competition and the mastery of the skill -- a faster time, a lower score -- be an end in itself?

Mark Stephenson
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona

Steve,

That is an excellent idea that I'd carry one step further. In our state, our ballot propositions contain not only a justification of why a change should be made, but opposing points of view are also encouraged.

So, a prop might have two or three (or more) explanations of why it should be adopted and some number of explanations (not necessarily an equal number -- especially if it has little or no opposition) of why it should not. A very inexpensive publication of all the propositions and the pro and con arguments is sent out to all voters.

I don't think JCNA should send something out separately, but a cheap, plain paper or newsprint insert in the JJ might not be a bad idea. If you are going to go to all that trouble, you might as well include a sample ballot with instructions that members bring it to the next club meeting. That tally would give the delegates some direction when they attend the AGM.

Mark Stephenson
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona

12 years experience in JCNA Slalom Competition, my quest, fairness in competition for all members,
Participation is a good thing, although the average guy who enters these competitions usually feels better at the end of it if he gets some kind of recognition, competing in an event is a different matter, perhaps we need a class for participants who care not whether the competition is fair or not. That is why we have several classes for Jaguar cars, including now TWO Classes for partially modified cars, lightweight, and Heavyweight, the same should apply to full open modified cars, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that getting a large 4,000 lb car round a slalom course takes more preparation than it does to get a much smaller 2,500 lb car. I rest my case for the heavyweights of today and possibly of tommorow, that is if anyone else dare with such a SKEWED class, Art

12 years experience in JCNA Slalom Competition, my quest, fairness in competition for all members.
Pascal, I merely think all items for slalom or Rally, or Concours be considered primarily by the respective Committees, after their consideration and majority approval they should then be submitted to the delegates for approval, or not. As I have noted earlier anyone with a great line can have things approved by delegates who really are not fluent on the topic. The committees are made up of people who actually do and or know what the specifics are in their specified committee.
After all what is the point of having a specific committee, and having people bypass that part, when this happens it makes the whole committee a joke , and a waste of many committee persons valuable life time. When Mr. Bill Stritenberger stated at a past AGM that he would in future direct any Slalom Proposals to the Slalom Committee, I think that was a sign from someone who recognizes that there is a right way to do things , and also a wrong way to do things, I prefer things being done as they were intended, in a logical manner. Numbers are also irrelevant, developing classes, there are for sure 3 or more competitors for the heavyweight class for sure. Art

I suppose times are a factor but I consider participation a larger factor. I'll have two modified lightweights and a modified heavyweight at the RMJC Slalom on the 20th. The 120 will run on vintage Dunlop 600-16 tires, the Mk2 will run 550-15 Hoosiers and the E-Type will probably run 225-15 Hoosiers or Yokos. If I put the D replica in modified lightweight it will probably run on 600-16's. I still haven't decided to
BG

Art,

I was at the AGM and the combining of classes was proposed at that time.
It was approved, it's something we need to live with. If you don't like proposals to come from the floor, then you need to consider a bylaw change banning delegates from doing so. I doubt this will be very popular though...

Let's see what happens this year and how many cars actually run in Modified to see if it is worth splitting it again... so far, besides you, Dick and Gary nobody else is in Modified. There is an e-type from JANE, but with a 51" time it's no factor... the only other car is mine, thanks to that stupid tread wear rule, no factor either.

Pascal

12 years experience in JCNA Slalom Competition, my quest, fairness in competition for all members.
Gentlemen, I personally spent literally dozens of hours with the JCNA Slalom Committee organizing the updates for 2003. I felt strongly that the combining of class H and I was done without prior notification to the committee, that puts it politely. Pascal states that reasons for changes were on the net with the proposals, I believe that is correct, that is I believe that information was sent out. Regarding any items such as a roll bar, persons not aware of what a roll bar was could probably search the internet for a description, or any other item, or the could have E Mailed me, or called me on the phone.
As I have stated before the slalom committee consisted of knowledgeable people on the slalom subject, these people should be respected for the work they did and tried to achieve. Everyone on the committee as far as I am aware knows the a roll bar, and more so a full roll cage stiffens the structure if built and fitted expertly, and actually is a tuning aid as well as a safety feature, anything you can do to reduce body flexing , and allow the suspension to operate more correctly will help the vehicle handle. Reversing the course as was proposed would have also helped the tyre wear problem, this was voted down because no one saw the possibilities.
Making a bunch of extra paperwork was also not the intent of any rule changes, anyone unsure of what any rul,e means can certainly contact their Regional Rep, Slalom Chair or even me.
My goal for this season was to create a class for Lightweight Street Prepared, and a class for Heavyweight Street Prepared, this I have achieved, combining classes H and I was a low blow to say the least.

you certainly have a point.

in the past, where proposals and rule changes were not published ahead of time, it was all on the shoulder of one volunteer, or at best a handful, to make sure it all make sense and that there was not other interperetation.

this year, all the proposals were posted here on the website in the AGM section and that even included links to the forums to try to encourage discussion. the sooner rule changes are made and posted, the more opportunities to discover these problems. I'm sure the committee will address these issues ahead of time and request suggestions, etc...

As to "why" sections, we already have that in the original AGM proposals. If you look at the AGM proposals, you will usually find a few paragraph before each. I don't see how they can be included in the official rules without the rule document become way to big but maybe they can be listed in an appendix, by date. Although with better wording, very few may really be needed.

Pascal Gademer

"Rules" such as these would be greatly 'helped' if they had a supporting 'Why?' section. Also useful is an 'example' section.

For each paragraph or 'rule', an explanation should be listed which describes the purpose or thinking behind the rule so that people can better appreciate its intent. Also, this is useful when an attempt is made to change the rule since a better understanding of the rule will lead to more meaningful changes. Also, an example of interpretation of the rule should be listed. These must be well thought out, so that poor choice of words or example does not confuse people further.

A good illustration of this is the "roll bar" example regarding classification I posted above. Nine out of ten people you ask would interpret this to mean a bar meant to protect the occupant in case of car rollover, whereas only one person in ten would think it meant "anti-roll bar" as in "anti sway bar". If whoever wrote this example meant "anti-roll bar", they failed entirely in communicating this through the example. And if they did mean it to be a "roll bar", then the example was not pertinent to the car classification rule since it is not a performance aid. In either case, the written example is an abject failure in illuminating the rule's intent.

In some cases the rules may not require a justification paragraph because it is too obvious (and an example for that matter), but generally there should be a justification for each rule as a matter of course.

A good way to lay this out would be in the form of a 3-column table document.

Stevo

I just got back from a few days away up in Montreal, doing a three-day racing course at Autosport Basi, with Daniel Thompson. Great experience. I see the Forum has been very active while I was away.

Steve, your idea of modifying the running of the course is an intriguing one. I like the idea of varying the course and certainly equalizing the number of turns, both left and right.

In response to your earlier posts with suggestions on changes to the rules, I invited you to help redraft them to make them more evenhanded and to reflect what many of us all agree they should be. Once again, I'll ask, can you help us redraft the rules into a comprehensive proposal, especially in terms of dealing with the "classification" system? Any help in the form of specific written proposals for language changes, from you or anyone else, would be of great assistance and help to move things forward to resolution.

Thanks for your anticipated help on this.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman
JTC Slalom Chair
'72 E-type 2+2
'70 XKE FHC

I like your idea about the revised pattern and concur that it would be both more interesting and would even out the tire wear. Any concern about the course being too confusing can be overcome by holding a school prior to the actual timed event. This is something that our club has done ever since I have participated and it is greatly appreciated by the newcomers.

Rod Winegarner

This is my first post on this fourn. I did my first slalom at the Jaguar Touring Clubs fall 2002 Jag-O-Lantern Slalom on a wet course. I am a new Jaguar owner (X-Type 2.5, auto).
I did my first attempt on the course with Gary Hagopian as my instructor. After an initial run with Gary (52.45 secs), Gary then pointed out the finer points and made a few suggestions on what I could do different. I had a ball that day and ended up with a repectable 47.41 sec final run which on that day was best in class. I hope to do this slalom again at the JTC summer slalom on June 28.
My comment here is that when I took my car in for service shortly after the slalom, one of the techs asked me about the excessive wear on the outside edge of the left front tire. My only response was, could you check the front end alignment. They checked and found nothing wrong. The wear was such that I opted to purchase a new tire and put the original left front on the spare.
I personnel don't think modifing the course to possibly reduce tire wear would hurt. But as I said on top, I'm new and have only slalomed once, so my opinion doesn't carry that much weight. This is just my 2 cents on a personnel observation regarding my Jag X-Type.
Bill B
PS: Is there any place on the JCNA website to view 2002 slalom results?

12 years experience in JCNA Slalom Competition, my quest, fairness in competition for all members,
Two years ago I proposed that slalom schools be allowed before a sanctioned event, this was passed.
It appears very few people care about newcomers to the sport and do not use this facility.
I have developed a tecnique to help new people, start by putting them in their own passenger seat,put an experienced person in the driver seat, and take the new people round the course 3 or 4 times , starting in a very slow pace, and gathering momentum in the next runs. This method has never failed me, and the people are happy, happy people.
Lsat year before the AGM the Slalom Committee agreed to favour the idea of reversing the course at the stewards discretion, ever club could run one event one way and the next event the other way if they so wished. This was voted down.
To me when we have committees in JCNA, all proposals should be either approved or dissaproved by them, they are supposed to consist of experts in their field. Right now whoever spouts off some idea with gust usually gets it approved, the vast majority of AGM Delegates have no depth regarding the more technical aspects of competing in either Rally or Slalom, although this is not their fault the way the system works right now makes it all too easy for someone with an axe to gring to grind it.
Proposals from the floor should be submitted to the respective committees, who would deliberate fairly any proposals, and make their reccomendations the following AGM.

Stevo --

Brilliant! This is what I call really creative thinking. Using the same course layout, hence not requiring the difficult to find large spaces demanded by the Giant Slalom; and adding a new dimension to the concentration required to successfully complete the course. Given the national scope of the Slalom Program, I suppose there would have to be a directive that in such-and-such a year the new pattern would be used. Maybe for two years. Then change it again to keep it fresh. Maybe flip the start/stop gates for two more variations that would keep the mental juices flowing!

Warren

Isn't there a confusion here between roll bar, as in protective framework installed in a track car to protect the driver in the event of a -- da,da! -- roll; and a roll bar (otherwise known as a sway bar: proper terminology "anti-roll bar")?

One more example of why I felt that the Slalom Rules should include definitions of terms. In this case, not only the Brit/Yank thing, but also careless use of words.

Warren

>>"WHO CARES! Are you suggesting that JCNA will use the same course ad infinitum because comparing your times from one yesr to the next is in some way important? "

no, I didn't say it was a big issue, I just mentioned it...

>>"If you can't get at least ONCE through the course, then maybe you shouldn't be even driving. Have you ever participated in a REAL autocross/slalom? The courses are usually almost impossible to remember. Ours is a PIECE OF CAKE"

yes I have done "real" autocrosses. yes it can be confusing... but cones laid on their sides pointing in the right direction are a big help... I just noticed that at Phoenix, there were a lot of DNFs amoung first timers and some got discouraged... if we want to build slalom participation, we need to be aware of that.

>>"You're wrong again my friend. If you are driving a heavy car like an XJS with unidirectional/asymetrical tires, you can get VERY significant wear on the outside edge of the left front tire"

the V12 e-type is a bit lighter than an XJS but not that much. I've seen some wear on the edge but very little during slaloms although I do push hard and the P Zeros have a pretty soft compound. tire wear at slalom is minimal compare to what I've seen at certain tracks. I've also autocrossed the XKR, paoobably as heavy as an XJS, on much longer courses and haven't noticed a huge difference. Of course, my tires rarely last more than a year anyway :-)

Pascal Gademer

"the main problem with this is that we will loose comparison in time improvement from year to year..."

Pascal, WHO CARES! Are you suggesting that JCNA will use the same course ad infinitum because comparing your times from one yesr to the next is in some way important? Can't we start a NEW set of benchmark times? C'mon!

"I do think it will drastically increase the numbers of DNF andmight discourage casual participants who WILL have a harder time remembeing the course. Already many first timers get lost..."

Again, so what? You get FIVE runs. If you can't get at least ONCE through the course, then maybe you shouldn't be even driving. Have you ever participated in a REAL autocross/slalom? The courses are usually almost impossible to remember. Ours is a PIECE OF CAKE. I got lost my FIRST time also...so what? I haven't gotten lost since that one time. So I get lost a FEW times on this NEW course...big deal.

"I don't think tire wear is an issue... 5 runs, 2 or 3 time a year at most isn't going to do much on tires..."

You're wrong again my friend. If you are driving a heavy car like an XJS with unidirectional/asymetrical tires, you can get VERY significant wear on the outside edge of the left front tire. And you can't rotate the tires to accommodate this. You want to see mine?

Stevo

My guns are still holstered; it makes perfect sense to me. I LIKE it which means it probably won't go anywhere. ;-)

I had that same idea and wondered why they didn't do it that way, thereby giving people a chance to fully exercise their turning skills in both directions.

Mark Stephenson
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona

the main problem with this is that we will loose comparison in time improvement from year to year...

I do think it will drastically increase the numbers of DNF andmight discourage casual participants who WILL have a harder time remembeing the course. Already many first timers get lost...

I don't think tire wear is an issue... 5 runs, 2 or 3 time a year at most isn't going to do much on tires...

Pascal Gademer
PS ... and yes, no one need to remind me that I blew my first 2 runs in Phoenix, which had never happened to me before :-)

It's probably just a wording issue... I thought the itent was to put all 3 supercharged models in the same class.

Steve (weinstein), can you clarify this?

interstingly, so far in the standings a 4.0 S-type is faster that the supercharged XKR and XJR. unless it was an S-type R and not reported as such.

Pascal Gademer

you certainly have a point there... I guess the intent was that a car with a roll bar will often be modified in other ways... but true, if someone puts in a roll bar because he wants to use his OTS on track, he shouldn't be bumped into Modifed.

This needs to be looked into...

Pascal Gademer
SFJC

Alright, if you don't want to respond to my ideas on classification because they are too controversial, we can move on to ANOTHER idea that makes GOOD sense.

TWO problems: 1) I'm tired of the same old course and 2) I'm tired of ruining my left front tire because of the FIVE right turns and ONE left turn.

Here's a SIMPLE solution to BOTH problems. Alter the run pattern to make the number of lefts and rights the same (3 each), while still using the exact same course set up. Also, make sure all the same elements are executed (kink/hour glass, crossover/figure 8, gates/oval).

I'll describe how this is done using a north/south layout for the course long axis.

1) Start as usual making a 1/2 right turn (southern end)
2) Perform right-left kink going north (west side)
3) Full right hand turn (northern end)
4) Figure 8 crossover going south
5) Full left hand turn (southern end)
6) Perform left-right kink going north (east side)
7) Full left hand turn (northern end)
8) Through the gate (oval) going south (west side)
9) Full left hand turn (southern end)
10) Figure 8 crossover going north
11) Full right hand turn (northern end)
12) Through the gate (oval) going south (east side)
13) 1/2 right hand turn to finish line (southern end)

With this pattern:

1) ALL elements are completed as in the standard run
2) There are 3 right turns and 3 left turns - equalizing tire wear
3) The same course set up is used (starting and finishing are the same)
4) The kinks (R/L & L/R) and gates are run on BOTH sides of the car as oppposed to just one side now
5) It is NEW, not the same old, same old

Does ANYONE NOT think this is a good idea?! And saying that it is more difficult to execute/memorize is NOT a valid argument. This would breathe new life into an old dog of a course.

Stevo

Steve,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but calm down! You'll turn people against these very sensible ideas ; -)

Go watch SCCA rulemaking for a while, you'll see that it's impossible to get really logical rules in place for this stuff. I think the proven approach is try something, if it don't work change again next year and try that.

I guess I did not see your proof regarding tire width. Tire compound is a major factor, as you pointed out, but width is a less important factor, IMHO. I do fine on my 185-15s! I have much first hand experience that 225/50-15s on 5" rims are much less effective on an E Type than 205/50-15s.

Aspect ratio is probably more important, as "best appropriate" gear ratio is the most important thing in JCNA slalom. And my experience at (one) JCNA slalom is that for me, a lower profile tire would slow my times significantly; I need a BIGGER tire. How? First gear is the only way, really, for an E Type. I redline before the end of most straights, and have to hold it there till the end. Shifting to second would add seconds to the time, absolutely. With lower profile tires I'll have a lower terminal speed, and slow down.

So what? Just that detailed tire limits are not the way to go, either. Go with the SCCA rules saying that any tire that does not rub on the stock bodywork is OK. Add to that your fine rule that TireRack "Competition" tires push you up into Modified class. Keeps it simpler, allows for more of a "let's have fun" attitude.

Jerry Mouton '64 E Type FHC
"Laissez les bons temps rouler!"

'Splain this to me Lucy...

Why isn't the S-Type R in the same class with the other supercharged cars? What's the LOGIC behind that? You can't tell me that was an oversight...the S-Type R isn't THAT new! ANOTHER wonderful decision!

Stevo

BTW, here's a portion of new rule 27:

27. STREET PREPARED CLASS (added 2003).

e. Modifications other than listed in rules 1 to 4 will result in the car being placed in its appropriate Modified Class. i.e. an XJS with a roll bar would be placed in the Modified Sedan/ GT Class. A 140 with a roll bar would be placed in the Modified Sports Class.

What a LUDICROUS example for moving a car into the modified class! ADDING weight via a roll bar is an example of a modification that HELPS performance? An otherwise SP classed car ADDS a roll bar and now the poor bastard ends up in modified. ANOTHER very poorly thought out example of rule interpretation. What if the guy tracks his open top car and a roll bar is needed for track safety? You are going to put him in the modified class?...no way! A roll bar BY ITSELF does NOT a modified class car make. It's a performance PENALTY! Sheesh!

Stevo

I apologize for failing to respond on this subject after having ‘stirred the pot’ several days ago. So here goes nothing.

1) In my example of specifying a maximum allowed tire tread width for a class, I deliberately chose to ignore tire profile for several reasons which I will explain below.

a) I realize that a tire’s profile affects overall gearing, but this effect is of minor importance when you consider the basic performance differential between cars within a class. Continuing to use the XJS as an example, cars in this class range from 244hp to 318hp, have rear end ratios from 2.88 to 3.54, have 3 or 4-speed automatic transmissions, have 5-speed manual transmissions, vary in weight by 500 lbs, etc., etc. Worrying about one performance parameter (tire profile) when you are faced with so many other performance discrepancies within a class seems penny-wise-and-pound-foolish to me. You’ll never make the class ‘equal’ in performance, but tire footprint and ‘stickiness’ are the greatest variables in terms of slalom times (for the course that we run). See my original data if you’re unconvinced.

b) I wanted to make the rule simple and easy to understand. The moment you insert profile as a requirement, you increase complexity. To wit, you now have to specify each and every possible combination of tire width and profile that is allowable for a class. Whereas my rule said that 245mm was the maximum width allowed and that’s all, if you now specify profile, you are forced into listing each allowable combo. For the XJ-S class, here they are (IIRC): 205/70-15, 215/70-15, 235/60-15, 225/50-16 (front only), 225/55-16, 225/60-16, 245/55-16 (rear only). What a mess to keep track of and enforce.

c) What happens when a tire is no longer available in the specified profile? Do you want to police tire availability on a continuing basis? Here’s a real example. Rear tires on the XJR-S are 245/55-16. For several years, the ONLY 245/55 you could buy was a Pirelli P6000, which is so far from a ‘slalom’ tire that it isn’t funny. For the last 2 years or so, that tire was NLA; there were NO 245/55’s available from any source. However, only within the last month has the Pirelli P6000 become available once again! But there are plenty of 245/50 tires out there. So a rule specifying that you must use the OEM width/profile may or may not be able to be complied with at any given moment. While this may be an extreme case where a size is NLA, there are many cases where the size is available, but only in a very limited number of tires that are wholly uncompetitive. By specifying the OEM width/profile, you are giving me no choice in tires…hardly keeping in the spirit of promoting competitiveness. Let people buy the tires they wish, as long as they don’t exceed the width maximum for the class.

d) Here’s some interesting data (from Tire Rack) regarding tire availability to get you thinking:
High Perf. or Better Tires Max Perf. Tires
205/70-15 0 0
215/70-15 0 0
235/60-15 2 0
225/50-16 62 13
225/55-16 45 6
225/60-16 33 1
245/55-16 1 0

FYI, I use 225/55-16 rears and 225/50-16 fronts because of tire choice availability, even though I COULD use 245’s in the rear. But if profile was not an issue, I would go to 245/45’s in the rear because my tire of choice is available in that size.

2) For wheel widths and diameter, I chose to ignore the offset parameter, specifying only that the maximum width was 8” and the diameter was limited to 16”.

a) Do you want to start enforcing things like wheel offset? If you do, then you are essentially limiting a competitor to either OEM wheels or ungodly expensive custom made wheels, since there are NO aftermarket wheels of the exact same width/diameter/offset as OEM. If a guy shows up at a slalom with non-OEM wheels of the proper width and diameter, is the tech inspector going to remove the wheel to verify the offset stamped in the back of the wheel…come on! If anyone thinks that changing the car’s front or rear track by an inch or so will result in a measurable/repeatable performance change they are kidding themselves. There are too many other variables having far more effect.

b) What happens when wheels are NLA (similar to the tire situation)? The current rule regarding wheels effectively states that for the rear of an XJ-S, you can use an 8”x16”x33mm wheel (OEM or aftermarket is acceptable). Guess what? The OEM wheel is NLA!!!! So someone who’d LIKE to upgrade to the class limit is SOL. The only option is to go with a custom wheel at $1000 a pop. For me, I’ve got the wheels, so I’m at a permanent advantage.

3) The suggestion that the different cars within a class should be forced to run with the wheel/tire combos for their sub class (E-types were given as an example) is anti competitive. No one distinguishes between different XJ-S types, but as noted above, the performance disparities between early and late models is very wide….probably wider than the different E-type series. Let ALL cars within a class run the same tires if they so choose. While it doesn’t overcome ALL the performance disparities, it does have the single greatest effect and is reasonably cheap to implement. It is a big bang for the buck.

4) A street tire is a street tire. If I tech’d an SP car running on STREET tires of the proper width and profile according to the current rules, I would NOT bump it into the modified class regardless of the AGM vote on wear ratings. Stupid is as stupid does. If you can’t use common sense, then you don’t belong making decisions.

5) Look at last year’s times for the different classes. You will quickly see that classes could be combined without hurting competition (other than reducing the number of awards given out). For example, last year’s XKR fastest time would have resulted in that competitor placing 3rd against the fastest XK8’s. However, the driver’s ability has a lot to do with it, so classes SHOULD be based on performance POTENTIAL in the slalom. This might be done via a mathematical formula or program, taking into account a car’s stock characteristics. Cars within some small range would be grouped together in a class. These ranges would be a function of how many classes JCNA would like to have for the stock classification AND how many participants there are for each class on average. You wouldn’t want a class that contains half the participants, even if the performance potential was almost the same (for example, performance wise you could put the XJS and XJ6 group together, but the class would be so large that competitors might very well be discouraged).

6) Cars with modifications (beyond some MINIMAL allowed list as mentioned by other posters) OR street tires/wheels greater than the max allowed would go into a single street prepared class.

7) Cars with competition tires OR very heavily modified would go into a single modified class. There is judgement (heaven forbid!) to be applied here. It’s kind of like pornography…I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it! If someone thinks he/she belongs in the SP class, then he/she could protest to the slalom committee. If it is hard to decide which class they belong in, let’em run and THEN place them in the appropriate class. Hey, if they are running 41.5 seconds or less, put them in the modified class. From 41.5 to 43.5 seconds, they belong in the SP class. This is just like handicapping…use ACTUAL performance to help you decide in what class they belong if the car modifications fall between a few and a lot.

Stevo

George Camp

Steve I think it was well said at the AGM- it was built backwards. Now you ask here goes. The slalom was intended as a driving event to further use cars that were at a show or gathering. To put it in words used before you drove what you brung. The speed bug(or clock) bit and folks got competitive. If your boat is slower than the other boats shooting a hole in the hull often fixes that. That is where we are. Folks are either working to get there formula in or get the other guys formula out-- that's racing. I think you need to consider going back to basics with one exception of a all out no holds barred modified class. If some guy needs to justify himself and build a tube frame go cart with a Jaguar engine and bodywork that looks like some or several Jaguar models let him go. Other classes should be given a set of guidelines that cover models that allow for few if any mods. The pundits that scream tires tires tires are correct if EVERYTHING else is equal. We have run our slalom and had professional drivers running dead stock sedan models (from our dealer-thank you) and turn 45s. XK-R nope - 4L "S". My point is that it is easier in some peoples mind to search for speed goodies rather than learing to drive their car to 100%. If you get into trying to administer this you will be just like a real sanctioning body with endless work. Make all classes except modified be 1. Completely street legal 2. Run tire sizes and rim sizes for that specific model ie. no S3 "E" wheels on a S1 or S2 "E". 3. Allow for optional equipment for that model-an Xk 120 on Dunlop Racing covers is expensive but they were options- not modifications. 4. Run a legal exhaust 5. Run standard suspension-allow bushings to be free as they are of little help over fresh proper bushes 6. Keep carburation and ignition of stock type (electronic via dist. is ok but no crank triggering for older cars and no chip jockeying for newer. So there is a start. We need to remember the slalom was devised not to see who could absolutely be the fastest in any modified version but see who could drive a Jaguar the best and have a safe venue to do it in. Hope this helps.

George Camp

George,

Well said. I agree with the points you are making. Stuck we are with what we've got, at least for this year. I've spent some time reviewing and thinking about the rules and see the need for a major overhaul -- not to substantially change them, but to organize them and have them make sense. But I also see the need to fix a few things that are broken, like the tire rules for one, and the Street Prepared definitions or lack thereof, in the current version.

To do this, the Committee and I need help. So far, Stevo hasn't seemed to jump at my suggestion that he take a crack at rewriting what he doesn't like. If you or anyone else has specific suggestions on how to rewrite particular rules that you perceive as a problem, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. In your case, George, with your in-depth knowledge of these cars, some technical assistance in getting the "formula" right on what should define stock, street prepared or modified would be invaluable. General discussion on these subjects is good, but what we really need is proposed language for rule changes -- how would you like the rule to be worded?

Please, anyone with an idea, take a few minutes and draft up a proposal for a new rule. I promise you it will get careful and serious consideration.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman
JTC Slalom Chair

Well Steve do not boil your blood too much or you will blow a gasket. I am taking issue with your over symplistic and somewhat child like description of following the results of a representative bodys' decision. I am one of those who attended the AGM- voted against the rule in question and suggested it might be an error. As you can see from old posts I changed my mind (I was told at the AGM it WAS NOT AN ERROR) and surmised it must have been done for darker reasons. What ever the reason it was VOTED on by the body as a whole. For that reason and that reason only we are stuck with it for a year. If not then why vote-why have any organization at all? Here is a thought- why don't you represent your club next year and make sure this is corrected? Why did you not make sure your rep. this year did not allow this to pass- I do not remember any impassioned speeches against it. Everyone in the room was a damned tire expert wntill the lunch recess. No one has said "if the AGM voted it in it must be right". What I am saying is that is what was voted in and you or anyone else can either follow JCNA rules or start your ome club. I do not like the rule and many others but believe me there are larger fish to fry than this one year screw up-- ps here is a tip- never start racing for real- if this gets you hot try rules that are passed to make you less competitive-happens every day. Good luck start volunteering not venting.

George Camp

Stevo,

You make several good points. I, for one, don't mind if people rant and rave on issues. Lord knows, I've done my share (which is probably why I got this job to begin with). But we need to turn issues into action to get things done. In this case, we're probably looking at redrafting a portion of the rules and working in a method for determining which cars really belong in Street Prepared, and which ones belong in Modified. No reason to reinvent the wheel if groups like SCCA and NASA have systems that work. Let's use what we can of their methods and apply them to our slalom rules.

I also agree with you that tires are by far the biggest issue in terms of effect on times (other than driver skill). But suspension and brake modifications do also contribute to times and must be considered, at least to some extent. And I also agree with Warren, the diameter of the tire plays a factor, not just tread width and compound.

That said, since you seem to have many ideas how this should be fixed, I will make a suggestion -- How about re-writing the rules the way you think they should be? That would give us a concrete proposal to work from, with specific language to review and discuss. Someone has to do it. How about you? Obviously, that would go a long way toward moving the issues forward in a productive and reasoned manner, and would allow all of those interested in the issues to have input. It would also give the Committee a starting point in working out the problems.

Please email me and let me know if you'd like to do that. When they are done, you can email them to me for Committee review, and we can then post them to the website as a proposal for public comment.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman
JTC Slalom Chair

I welcome Steve's comments on the tire issue not only because he articulates the very problems the offesnsive new rule was menat to alleviate, but also because it is a new voice from a slalom competitor underscoring the effect this rule has on the program. Last year, when the slalom discussions began on this Forum, there was consensus that the slalom rules should not follow the concours classifications. So if competitiveness in a given slalom class means that a car might run tires that would be a points deduction if that car were to be shown in concours, well then that's an issue to be resolved in the mind of the competitor, not by applying concours standards to slalom.

It's not such a big deal for someone to have two sets of wheels and tires for a car; many people have winter wheels and tires and another set for summer -- why it's one of the Tire Rack's big sales segments! Go to and SCCA or NASA event and you'll see just about every other rabid competitor changing wheels and tires in the paddock before the runs begin. (Why is so much concern given to this cost when in order to compete in concours untold tens of thousands of dollars have to be spent to reach the top ranks?)

I also agree with Steve that competitiveness in slalom is nore about tires than any other factor (other than driver ability). I would rate suspension and ride height second, and after that there ain't a heck of lot that makes much difference, again other than driver skill.

So it will be a real shame if this year's slalom season is marred because some drivers will be assigned to classes inconsistent with the intent, but not the letter, of the tire rule.

But, to take issue with one of Steve's points: It isn't only the largest tire size that needs to be addressed. Running an accepted wheel size (15x5 on a 6 cylinder E-Type, for example) should not be acceptable in stock class if the tire profile is under a certain dimension, effecting a lower ride height and in extreme cases even giving the effect of a gearing advantage. But the original rules provided for this case, so it is another example of a "fix" having been applied to something that was never broken.

I'm done now! ;-)
Warren

You are missing the point here. So you think it is MORE fair to force a guy with a 95 XJS to use 225mm tires on 7" wheels (stock set up from the factory) against my 93 XJRS with 245mm tires on 8" wheels (stock from the factory)? That is certainly not fair. If you want to be competitive in slalom, then you MUST allow a competitor to use the same wheel/tire combination that is the LARGEST allowable in that class, which is by definition allowed in the concours class for SOME of the cars within that class.

Stevo