Re-classification

To all JCRC and JCNA members.

Re: Item: ôQuestion of eligibility of Daimler DS 420Æs for JCNA Concours Champion or Driven Division Entryö that is on the 2004 AGM Agenda.

Background: The current JCNA Rule Book, Chapter II Section 1 A.2, contains the following long-standing ôEligibilityö specifications:
A.2: ôJaguarö Definitionö
ôJaguarö is any authorized private passenger or race prepared vehicle assembled, or modified, at either the Jaguar Car Works or a Works authorized assembly plant.

(Comment: The Daimler DS 420 technically satisfies this description.)

>>>>My comment, The Daimler DS 420 fully satisfies the definition in every respect, please see the ôJaguar Journalö, January-February 2004, page 31 the photo in the upper right hand corner.

A.3: Swallow bodied chassis. S.S., Daimler & Jaguar Cars
For simplicity, of the Rule Book, ôJaguarö is used to refer to all models built by the companies that evolved into Jaguar Cars (see Appendix A)

(Comment: The Daimler DS 420 technically satisfies this description.)

>>>>My comment, The Daimler DS 420 fully satisfies this requirement, as it was conceived, designed and built under JaguarÆs ownership of Daimler.

A.4: Daimler
Only Daimler motorcars that closely resemble Jaguar (manufactured by Jaguar and sharing Jaguar Components) will be recognized for memberships eligibility and Concours Entry in the appropriate classes. The Daimler SP 250Æs and Majestics are NOT considered eligible.

(Comment: The Daimler DS 420 does not satisfy this requirement.)

>>>>My response, the term ôresembleö is subjective to the person doing the observing, and is not an absolute and therefore, logically open to discussion, debate or review. Please take note that the Daimler DS 420 is built on a Jaguar 240 G floor-pan (extended by 20 inches), uses a Jaguar rear drive unit and suspension, uses a Jaguar XK 4.2 engine, uses only Jaguar front steering and suspension components, uses a fascia and all of the instruments used are standard and used in several other models of cars manufactured by Jaguar, both front wings, bonnet and grill opening are of the same style as used by Jaguar, please see the ôJaguar Journalö, January-February 2004 page 28, the upper photo. It is true that the body panels from the scuttle rear-ward are quiet different from other models manufactured by Jaguar from the late 1970Æs through 1992, however, when you take into consideration all of the components used to build the DS 420, there are considerably more similarities than there are differences. Does a Mark VII resemble a XKR, does a Mark X resemble a XK 120, does a Mark II resemble a SS 100, no, there are many models of Jaguar that do not resemble one another, so why should the DS 420 be singled out for re-classification from the ôCö and ôDö classes ?

If the visual difference of the rear body panels of this car is what the JCRC is presenting as the reason to re-classify this car to the newly created obscure class of S-3, affectivity eliminating it from mainstream concours competition, then perhaps, 1), thereÆs a Jaguar owner somewhere who scored lower than a DS 420 and does not wish to compete against them in the future, 2), it is simply that there is a bit of prejudice against this model of Daimler, or, 3), the JCRC is just indulging in a bit of ônit-pickingö. IsnÆt one of the main objectives of JCNA to bring, all owners of and all models of cars manufactured by Jaguar together in an atmosphere friendship, comradely and equality ?

I do wish to thank Mr. Dick Cavicke for his kind offer to address all future related questions relating to the ôapparent limited interestö in the re-classification of the Daimler DS 420 to him directly rather than in the forum. However, feel that any concern of any member should be open to discussion and debate by the full membership in the most open form available.

Perhaps it would also be desirable, that all future proposed rule changes, by-law changes or other actions to be taken by the JCRC and the JCNA should be submitted to each Jaguar Affiliated Club in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to its submission to the Board of Directors for each clubs review, comments and suggestions, after all JCNA (as with any governmental body) exists solely, at the pleasure of, and for the benefit of the membership.

As always, good motoring,

Don Wright

Mr. D. Cavicke,

In reply to your posting of 30-12-2003 ôRe: Clarification of Proposed Rule Changeö.

Your items #Æs 3 and 4) It seems that the objection now being used to keep the Daimler DS 420Æs from being shown in the Classes C-8 and D-5 and to justify their re-classification to Class S-3 is the fact that someone or some group has decided that this car ôdoes not closely resemble Jaguarsö. Now there are many different models of Jaguars that do not resemble each other, so would you please be so kind as to tell me which model of Jaguar is the ôbase line modelö that is the standard used to judge ôresemblanceö by ?

Your item # 5) Mr. HarveyÆs book is a good book and perhaps a good one to use for reference, however, I do take umbrage with the statement ôto replace British LeylandÆs Austin Princessö, this car had been out of production for some time, having been replaced by the Daimler Majestic Major which is the car that the DS 420Æs replaced. The DS 420 did not ôreplace the occasional Jaguar MK X or 420 Gö, nor compete with these cars, but was a continuing extension of JaguarÆs line of finer cars to provide a car befitting those who wished a truly ôfirst classö car that was luxurious, reserved and classic in appearance, provided the same size passenger compartment all at a lower purchase cost that the Rolls Royce Phantom.

Your item # 6) Here again I must disagree, your statement ôwas apparently neither designed by Jaguar nor intended as a Jaguarö is only half correct. The DS 420 ôwas designed and built totallyö under Jaguar control, however, you are correct in the statement that, the DS 420 was not intended to be ôbadgedö as a Jaguar, and again you say, ôSince it (meaning the DS 420) does not resemble any Jaguarö, and again I ask which model Jaguar is the base line model used to judge resemblance. The term ôresemblanceö is subjective to the person doing the observing, not an absolute and therefore open to logical debate.

As always, good motoring,

Don Wright

Objection to the proposed re-classification,

There has been some very good, informative and lively banter on the re-classification issue, however, it has gotten a bit off the point.

Has any one read the proposed change that I am objecting to ??? It seems as though my point is not being understood. I think a quick review and explanation as to why the re-classification proposal is objectionable and is warranted here. The proposal reads as follows,

ôS3: Modified Note 3ö,

ôNote 3: Class S3ö,

ôa. This class is for production Jaguar vehicles of any year model that have been substantially personalized, modified, or customizedö.

The key phrase here is, ôsubstantially personalized, modified, or customizedö. The Daimler DS 420Æs do not fit this definition as they are not ôsubstantially personalized, modified, or customizedö. They came from their final assembly facility in their finished configuration, just the way you see them.

ôb. To be eligible for Class S3, the Entry must clearly have a minimum of 35 points of deductions for non-authentic, judged items.
Those deductions may NOT include the tire, wheel or radio authenticity exceptions currently allowed in Driven Division (Section 3.A.1) The Entrant (using the appropriate form available in the ôConcoursö section of www.jcna.com) must provide a list of the non-authentic items to the Chief Judge well in advance of the scheduled start of judgingö.

The key phrase here is, ôhave a minimum of 35 points of deductions for non-authentic, judged itemsö. I cannot speak of all DS 420Æs that might have been showed, but, in all of the Official JCNA events that my DS 420 was entered in, and judged, the car never received a deduction as great as 10 points, hardly the 35 required as stated above.

ôc. Daimler Exception: Jaguar powered production Daimlers (such as the DS 420 Limousine), not eligible for any other JCNA class are eligible for entry in Class S 3 without listing non-authentic itemsö.

The key phrase here is, ôJaguar powered production Daimlers (such as the DS 420 Limousine), not eligible for any other classö. The definition of ôJaguarö as stated in the Official JCNA C. dÆE. Rule Book, clearly encompass the Daimler DS 420. This car has been in classes ôC8ö and ôD5ö (for Saloons: MK VII, MK VIII, MK IX, MK 10, 420G Daimler DS 420) a class for saloons apparently without any noticeable disruptions. What is not clear, is why the DS 420 is singled out to be re-classified ? It cannot be that ôit does not resemble the other cars in this classö, as the MK VII, MK VIII, and MK IXÆs certainly do not resemble the MK 10 or the 420 G, for these two cars much more closely resemble the DS 420. If the membership and rules committee feel there some form of advantage the DS 420 has over the smaller cars in these classes, logically, then simply put the three larger of these cars in their own championship and driven classes, that of ôGrand Saloonsö.

As always, good motoring,

Don Wright

Mr. G. Camp,

Again I shall align my reply in the order of statements.

1), If you are ôglad there are no word gamesö why do you keep changing the wording of my statements ? NEVER have I written ôthat someone on the JCRC was out to get meö.

2), Here you are partially correct, yes, there are separate brochures, and catalogs for the DS 420Æs, however, you have over looked that there are also a great many brochures and catalogs that contain the complete line of Daimler cars.

3), You say ôIf the system is working correctly the JDHT will not issue you (meaning me) a certificate if it is to a US postmarkö. Where you got the information that you base this statement on is unknown to me, both times I visited the Jaguar factory and museum in Coventry, I was told that they would gladly accommodate my request for a JDHT Certificate knowing that I was a resident of the US.

4), I will not dispute your statement as to how you remember the name on or signature on ôbuild sheetsö, however, on my photocopy of the JDHT Certificate for my 1976 car, the signature is not readable, but, the original letter I have from Jaguar Cars Limited, Browns Lane, Allesley, Coventry CV5 9DR, England, dated 25 January 1983, acknowledging the order and initial partial payment for my car is signed by A.M. Naylor (Miss), Controller û Personal Exports, the copy of the ôPersonal Export Orderö and the copy of the ôInvoiceö, are both unsigned, however the ôBill of Saleö is again signed by A.M.Naylor.

5), Re; your statement, ôMost JCNA National cars are Pebble Beach qualityö, I am not advised as which JCNA Concours that you attended in 2003, but, of the five that I attended in 2003 (The JCNA Challenge Championship, Phoenix, JCNA Chicago, JCNA New Orleans, JCNA Dallas and JCNA Tulsa) I saw considerably more cars that were not ôPebble Beach qualityö than were.

6), There was no omission on my part, I agree, not all DS 420 ôBODIESö were built at Browns Lane. Vanden Plas was a body builder, before 1979 the completed bodies were shipped to Browns Lane for final assembly, after this date Vanden Plas was merged with Daimler and the complete car was built and assembled at Browns Lane.

7), If you were running for office on this point, I would be your campaign chairman, ôthat Judges are hard pressed to do a good jobö. I have every admiration for those that do the judging. I have been involved with cars most of my adult life, and I feel that I am only qualified to do mechanical judging in the ôDö classes. I also agree that originality is of the utmost importance. As to ôun-natural cleanlinessö (if you mean ôover restoredö I agree) I do strive to keep my car clean and presentable at all times, however, the car is used quite frequently for pleasure and is certainly not maintained in a state of ôun-natural cleanlinessö.

8), Fair enough, under the C dÆE R definition, it states, ôany authorized private passenger or race prepared vehicleö. The Fox and Ferret are military vehicles and do not fit within this definition, but they are certainly qualify as ôSpecial Interestö.

9), Here you make a very valid point, there should be more and better historical information made available to the judges. As much as I admire the quality of the JCNA judging, a wide ranging and very detailed Historical Archival Library should be compiled, a series of comprehensive training seminars should be conducted, a video program of these seminars made and distributed to all JCNA Clubs. Every effort should be made to insure that judging is consistent at all concours.

10), I do not advocate another ôbranchö for the JCNA. It would just be so much more logical and a simpler solution to create a ôCö and ôDö class for ôGrand Saloonsö a great many of which are badged Jaguar. This would definitely encourage more cars of this type to participate since they would be competing against like type cars. If this idea is objectionable and the JCNA would like to draw up a set of guidelines for some of the rarer and lesser known Jaguars and Daimler cars, I would certainly be available for consultation on any points concerning Daimler cars.

11), I do not take these thoughts personally, nor do I feel they are an attempt to exclude me, at least not at this juncture. Here again you are correct, ôit is JAGUAR CNAö, and ôIt is a club for Jaguar cars and people who like themö. If it is JAGUAR CNA, then shouldnÆt any car not so badged be re-classified into the proposed new class S-3, and does it mean that Daimler owners do not or cannot like Jaguar cars? It is no surprise and rightly so, that the JCNAÆs focus is mainly toward those cars badged Jaguar, perhaps then, the JCNA might consider that any class where a Daimler car is now eligible for Concours competition be re-designated with the letter ôDö after the class designation, examples, for the championship class of ôC9ö it would become ôC9Dö and for the driven class ôD5ö it would be come ôD5Dö. Perhaps the entire classification of all of the divisions might do with a bit of revising.

However, I do believe that the simplest solution would be to create a Grand Saloon Class; there is certainly logical and adequate enough reason to do so.

As to your query concerting my cars highway fuel consumption, 12 to 14 miles per gallon is the norm, depending upon speed and road conditions. Not too bad considering a dry weight of 4703 lbs. (2133 kg).

As always, good motoring,

Don Wright

Don I think Dick has provided ample citings of the rules. I do not have them in front of me but re-read his direct post to you from the JCRC. I am glad there are no word games-- then please refrain from the position that someone on the JCRC is out to get you. This situation is the results of house cleaning in the rules book. It has nothing to do with DS420s or you. The rule book was in shambles and was the source of much anguish. I am sure if the AGM does not see the problems that the JCRC sees they will vote this down. As far as the BL cat. I checked them all. The DS420 in fact is so special it has it's own section apart from Daimler. The JDHT is the issuing authority but the US archives issue Build sheets for the US. If the system is working correctly the JDHT will not issue you a certificate if it is to a US postmark. Although I put in a lot of volunteer time at the Archives I do not remember if the film for Daimlers is there. As far as the name of the build sheet goes I have been doing this so long most are on Jaguar letterhead and simply titled vehicle data. Ian Lucket signed most of them. As far as the condition of your cars I took your "not Pebbel Beach" comment to be just that. Most JCNA National cars are. I am glad to see that by ommission you agree that all DS420s were not built at Browns Lane. As far as the not welcome comments I think if that were true they would not have been included in any proposed class. The simple fact is that Judges are hard pressed to do a good job on "pure" vehicles. When something that is unique shows up the tendancy for most is to check for presentation but ignore orginality as they have no clue. Origionality in Champion class is for me and some others more important than un-natural cleanliness. In that case you get a by which may be ok that day but is not fair across the country for that year.

I am curious about your suggestion to place the Fox and Ferret in display class. Why would they not fit as well as the DS420 in some other class. They are both cars (armored), both built by Jaguar or Daimler, both with special bodies, the Fox has the same engine as the DS420 but is called a J-60 and the JDHT can issue a certificate. I am just curious.

But perhaps to make the point clear what if you were showing a SS1 or your SS100 and some one showed up with his 1926 25/85. It could be checked for the clean and shine but little else. In closing the problem is logistics. Perhaps you might suggest and work toward forming a Daimler branch of JCNA and help write the judging guides and help conduct the training. It is done in the UK and could include all things made under the Daimler/Jaguar name. But Don I can not state this more strongly--it is not personal---it is not an attempt to exclude you--it is JAGUAR CNA. It is a club for Jaguar cars and people who like them. It should be no surprise that that will be the foccus.

Good motoring to you. One question on your car. What is the milage per gallon you get on the highway?

George Camp

Bob,

You are correct, the re-classification is still a prosopial.

Sorry,

Don

Hi Don,
Your first question was answered in my message on 1-26.
Bob

Mr. G. Camp.

Again, I shall attempt to address your points in the order you have stated them.

1), I do wish that some member on the rules committee would please inform me of the page number, section, sub-section and item number that excludes the Daimler DS 420.from the ôCö and ôDö classes

2), There is no ôbyplayö of words on my part, it is just that when a word or two is changed, it is very possible to corrupt the original meaning.

3), I do not know what BL products catalogue that you got your information from, but I would agree that it would most probably not have included the Daimler line in the ôJaguarö section. There can be no contention that from mid 1968 Daimler was manufactured by Jaguar, however, Daimler was a separate marquee, and consequently would not have been included in most purely ôJaguarö publications.

4), Here you are quiet correct about Sir WilliamÆs efforts behind the scenes, and about the DS 420 using a great many ôstock off of the self componentsö in the manufacturing of this car. All of which further strengthen the position that the DS 420 is in fact a ôJaguarö, (under Chapter II, Section 1, A. Eligibility, sub-section 2 ôJaguarö Definition), however, I do not understand exactly what you mean by ôDoes not fit in the JCNA class structure in Concoursö. As to the ôFox and Ferretö, they should have been permitted to be entered in the ôDisplay Classö, again refer to the above definition, ô authorized private passenger or race prepared vehicleö

5), I do not know if Jaguar (US) will issue a ôcertificateö or not, however, Jaguar UK has issued one for my 1976 year model, and it would stand to reason that they would do so for a 1983 year model. I wish to point out the proper title for these instruments is
ôProduction Record Trace Certificateö that are issued by the Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trustö. On the JDHT for my 1976 model car, it says, ôThe Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trust is a subsidiary company of Jaguar Cars Ltd. It was formed in 1981, to maintain for the nation a permanent collection of motor vehicles, manufactured and sold by Jaguar Cars and its predecessor companies, under the marque names of SS, Jaguar, Daimler and Lanchester. The Trust also maintains an archive of historical records of these famous marque names, which provides information to owners and enthusiastsö. ôThis certificate is issued by the Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trustö.

6), You have hit upon the most important fact of all, the driving and enjoyment of these ômagnificent machinesö. This should take precedence over all other objectives.

7), Where you got the idea that, I ôdo not think they (meaning DS 420Æs) would win the classö I cannot possibility imagine. In 2002 and 2003 my car won ôBest in Class and Best in Show: at the Daimler and Landchester Owners Club of North America, and in 2003 (the first year the car was shown) the car won ôBest in Classö at the 2003 JCNA Challenge Championship, ôBest of Showö and ôBest in Classö at several JCNA Club Concurs and finished the year as the number three car in the JCNA National Point Standings. Perhaps, just perhaps, it might be that someone thinks that they (meaning DS 420Æs) might do too well.

8), It is very apparent to me that someone, for some reason, does not want the DS 420Æs in the C and D classes, no matter what the facts. By slighting the DS 420Æs we are send a loud and clear message to all prospective members that ôif your car is not what some consider pure enoughö you are not really welcome, definitely not the best way to attract new members to JCNA. Some Jaguar owners of ôunusual or less common modelsô as well as Daimler owners just might be ôput offö and join a club that appears a bit more open and friendly, something to think about.

As always, good motoring,

Don Wright

Interesting thing Don is that I was probably one of the few on the JCRC who was considering your point the most. I think I was the one who informed Dick of the use of many 420G parts in the DS420. My problem was that I was not reading the rules as much as I was looking just at the car. In retrospect I think Dick and the others in the JCRC were correct.

As far as this byplay with words goes the posts by Stew and Bob (Robert) (two members of the JCRC) and Dick's own response suggests that they read your posts (all of them not just the ones on this forum) the same way as I.
In regards to my use of the word fight instead of protest or resist, or

some other word that in deference to you might be more acceptable please pick one and insert it.

Now to the DS 420 facts. I checked with Skilleter, Harvy, Mennem, and Viart. I stopped there as they all concur that the DS 420 was assembled at Vanden Plas in Kingsbury (near London) until 1979. When Vanden plas was asorbed the production was moved to Browns lane. A check with the BL all products catalogue of 1979 shows that these cars were considered a Daimler product and not listed in the Jaguar section.

There is some positive evidence that Sir William was the force behind the DS 420. IT makes sense as this would place him in a position to end the Austin Princess (big one not the later car) and it is consistant with his efforts during that period to jump upon the profits that were to be made with the sale of large special vehicles hince his offering of the BIG "J" and the GUY product range. Did Jaguar have a part in the DS420--yes. Does it use a lot of 420G components either straight off the shelf or modified-yes. Does it fit in the JCNA class structure in Concours with the challenges we already face- it seems not. In our club a guy used to bring his FOX and Ferret. They were absolutely restored lovengly and were an awesome entry piece to the display field. We awarded him a trophy in some class or another and did not report the score nationally. We did that to include him and we did not report the score as it would not be fair to others in that class somewhere else. Too many times people look at one show or two and forget that at any show you are not competing against the cars on the field but all cars in that class in the country for that year.

It will be interesting if Jaguar (US) will issue a certificate on your car of if the JDHT will have to do it.

The important thing is that if you like the cars then drive them and show them. Since from your post you do not think they would win the class this is perhaps a tempest in a tea cup. In the new class that is proposed it looks like you have a better chance to do well.

In any case good luck in your quest. I think that I can speak for the other over compensated members of the JCRC that what ever the outcome of the AGM we will support the ruling of the assembled pundits.

George Camp

Mr. G. Camp,

I shall attempt to organize my reply in the order of your forum posting.

1), Perhaps the first thing is give a brief history of Jaguar - Daimler.

In the very early part of the 1950Æs Jaguar acquired DaimlerÆs Browns Lane manufacturing facilities, where they remain to this day. The formal proceedings for the final acquisition of Daimler were concluded on the 18th of June 1960, for the sum of 3.4 million pounds Sterling. Depending upon how technical you wish to get, it could be argued (under Chapter II, Section 1, A. Eligibility, item No.2), that all Daimler vehicles manufactured after that date are ôJaguarsö. However as this discussion concerns only the Daimler DS 420, that is the only vehicle that I will address.

2), I have met Mr. Cavicke, and he appeared to be a gentleman and most personable, however, I just do not agree with this rule proposal. At no time did I ôslanderö Mr. Cavicke, nor did I say, ôHe personally does not like DS 420sö. I suggest that if you will re-read all of my postings, I think you will find that I said, öa marquee that does not curry favor with the leader of the Concours Rule Book Reviewö, and ôit was my feeling, and the image that I perceiveö.

3), All, Daimler DS 420Æs were built by Jaguar, with the first production car,
Vin. 1M1001 being produced in 1968, well after Daimlers acquisition by Jaguar.

4), Somewhat later in the 1960Æs came the addition of several names to the Jaguar/Daimler firm (now called ôBMCö) including Vanden Plas, MG, Austin and Triumph. The body builder ôVanden Plasö was assigned to and later became a Daimler division, since together, they were responsible for the creation of the
Daimler DS 420.

5), Sometime after 1968 and before 1983, Vanden Plas completely integrated into Daimler and the name Vander Plas was no longer applied to the DS 420.

6), I agree, this issue should be voted on, and if the delegates at the AGM vote not included the DS 420 in the ôCö and ôDö classes, I will accept there decision.

7), A ôchallengeö, - a ôfightö, (would that be bare knuckles) not really what I had in mind, however, baring any un-foreseen circumstances I will be at the AGM and would be delighted to have the opportunity to present my ôFACTUALö evidence to the assembled body of delegates.

8), ôPersonal attackö, perhaps you should re-read your posting.

Don Wright

George,
Well spoken, and I agree entirely.
Stew Cleave
JOCO Chief Judge
'69 E-Type 2+2 and other LBC's

Pascal I understand your point but your understanding of the Archives is off. If pressed Jaguar could issue certificates on all of their holdings. This might include Coventry Climax products, Guy bus and truck products, a host of military products (Fox, Symitar, Ferret,etc.) This is not a good test. As to Mr. Wright he has slandered Dick in his accusation that he personally does not like DS420s. As for as the JCRC we spent way too much time on this issue but in the new spirit of inclusiveness we explored the issue not to exclude nut to include and be fair. In the end it just was not possible. As far as Mr. Wright's assertion that DS420's were built at Jaguar he is only part correct. Most were built at Vanden Plas under the direction of BL. Later production was moved to coventry as BL collapsed. The DS took the place of the Austin Princess.

So to sum it up this is not law yet. It must be voted on with a major change in the rules at the AGM. I challence Mr. Wright to fight it at the AGM with FACTUAL evidence and not personal attack. He might be able to convince the members of the JCRC to reconsider prior to the AGM but not with the approach he has taken.

George Camp

Pascal,

Please understand, I DID NOT accuse anyone of "rule fixing". If you will re-read my comments, you will see that I said that I felt that only the parts of the rules that suited their aims and goals were being applyed and not any that showed that my car was eligable for and should be left in class D-5.

I have two of these cars, one is a 1976 model and I have a "Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trust" Certificate, Number 7635, as for the 1983 model (the car in question) I have the original letter from Jaguar acknowledging their receipt of the proper order forms for this car and an initial payment, a copy of the itemized original invoice, a copy of the "Personal Export Order" and a copy of the original "Bill of Sale", all on Jaguar letter heads from their Browns Lane Offices.

Because of this detailed documentation, I did not imagine that I would ever have need of a Heritage Certificate or any other forms of documentation to prove its heriagte. However, if that is what is needed, I will spend the funds necessary to aquire a Certificate.

Good motoring,

Don Wright

Don
first let me say that I don't think that accusations of rule fixing is going to be very useful in this discussion.

that said, I have a question... Will Jaguar Cars issue an Heritage Certificate for a Daimler DS420 ?

if yes, then I believe it shoudl be allowed in a Competition Class
if not, then it should be left in S3

just my opinion...

Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club
72 E-type 2+2
00 XKR Coupe
99 XJR

Mr. Cavicke,

I agree, in Chapter II, Section 1, A.Eligibility, item No.4, it does say, "that closely resemble Jaguar".

However, item No.2, says, "Jaguar" Definition, "Jaguar" is any
(key word "any")authorized private passenger or race prepared vehicle assembled, or modified, at either the Jaguar Cars Works or a Works authorized assembly plant.

The Daimler DS 420 was built and assenbled at the Jaguar Works in Coventry, England, therefor, by the "Official JCNA Concours d'Elegance Rule Book" the definition as written in item No.2, clearly states that the Daimler DS 420 is a Jaguar.

It appears that you are only looking at and applying the parts of the rules that suit your aims and goals and not applying any that do not suit these aims and goals. Now, I realize that if the rules committee is determined enough to exclude my car and all others like it, you can change the definifition. I do think you would find it very difficult to explain to the JCNA membership your reasion for re-defining "Jaguar".

If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, "IT'S A DUCK"!!!

Good motoring,

Don Wright

Mr. Wright,

In the 2003 Rule Book update, a lack of understanding of the differences between the Daimler 420 and the Daimler DS420, led to the DS420 being mistakenly listed as eligible for Champion Division, C08 and Driven Division, D05 classes. This error will be corrected in the 2004 edition to comply with the long-standing rule seen below.

The JCNA Concours Rules include the statement that: "Only Daimler motorcars that closely resemble Jaguars (manufactured by Jaguar and sharing Jaguar components) will be recognized for membership eligibility and Concours entry in the appropriate JCNA classes."

As you are well aware, your Daimler DS420 Limousine is not a Jaguar and does not resemble any Jaguar. Therefore, while the basic rule above does not allow the car's entry into JCNA Class D05, the mistake in the class listings temporarily permitted it. When the cited JCNA rules are applied as intended, the Daimler DS420 is only eligible for class C16, Special Interest, as a Jaguar powered customized car.

Under the proposed revision to Chapter II, Class C16 becomes Special Division Class S3. If the revision is approved, S3 will be the new class in which a DS420 may be entered for judging.

All production Jaguars badged as Daimlers (i.e. that "closely resemble Jaguars") will continue to be welcomed for JCNA Concours entry. A concerted effort has been made to include all of them in the latest Champion and Driven Division class listings and the associated notes.

The six members of the Judge's Concours Rules Committee (JCRC) get one vote each when issues are decided.

I sincerely hope you will continue to participate in JCNA Concours and, that Special Division, instead of being "obscure", will be an inviting venue in which to show rare Jaguar competition cars and unique Jaguar-powered cars such as your own.

Regards,
Dick Cavicke
Chairman, JCRC

Warren,

I am sorry, I made an error, you are correct there is no class S-2.

The class is S-3, a new class that has not been adapted as yet, but is proposed to be adapted in March at the AGM.

As always, good motoring,

Don Wright

Bob,
I think we (JRCR), in an attempt (last year) to clarify the rules pretaining to Daimlers, were given some bad information that resulted in our listing the DS420 as eligible. We were given information that led us to believe the DS420 was a Daimler that looked like a Jaguar.

Stew Cleave
JOCO Chief Judge
'69 E-Type 2+2 and other LBC's

Warren, The problem is that 1-A-4 states that "Only Daimler motocars that closely resemble Jaguars etc" Rather then say what was excluded it should had said what was included. Does anyone know when this was added to the rule book and the 420S included in the list of cars for C8 & D5?
Bob Jag of Mi.

What's going on here? According to Chapter II, Section 1.A.4, the Daimler models that are NOT eligible for JCNA concours awards are the SP250 sports car and the Majestic saloon (neither of which has a Jaguar engine).

According to the concours classification list, CLass D-5 DOES INCLUDE the Daimler DS420 -- which, after all, uses many parts sourced from the Jaguar 420G, including the engine and chassis, as well as many interior items including instrumentation, etc.

I don't find any class S-2 in the concours classification list.
????

Warren Hansen
70 E-Type FHC "Silver Bolide"
96 X300

Bob,

I'm sorry, I did not use the "reply" button, and my reply became another posting.

As always, good motoring

Don

Don, I highly resent your statement that the Rule Book Chairman has some bias against Daimlers! Dick is merely stating what Chapter 2, Section1, A4 has said for many years! The factthat these cars have been shown in the regular JCNA classes just means that many Chief Judges, myself included, have been overlooking this section of the rule book.
Bob Jag of Mi.