Jaguar Clubs of North AmericaJCNA Home
- JCNA Slalom Forum -

Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Steve Weinstein
Jaguar Touring Club *

forum user since 2002-11-13

 

The Slalom Committee has posted a major re-write of the Slalom Rules for review and comment. All members who are interested in slaloming should review the proposal and post any comments to this Forum.

Thanks to all those who helped on this project and to all of you who take the time to read them and post your comments and suggestions.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Jerry Mouton
Jaguar Associate Group *

forum user since 2002-11-07

 


I already emailed Steve with these, but it may roust some controversy if I post my comments to this list. They are below:


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

Hi, Steve, Happy New Year!

Thanks for leading the Slalom group! Good work
getting the revised rules out there for 2004.

That said, I'll accept the invitation to comment, though
it is probably too late to make changes.

I autocross in Stock class in SCCA, and I think it would
be very nice to be able to compete in JCNA stock, too.
As the rules are written, this is not possible.

I accept that the audience for JCNA slalom is different from
SCCA, and the fact that SCCA allows R-tires in Stock really
makes adopting SCCA general rules impossible. I agree
that the Modified classes seem to be the right place for those
cars. But I think rules closer to SCCA are needed to make this
a serious competitive venue, rather than a diverting interlude
between Concourses.

SCCA rules are online on my site http://moutons.org/sccasolo

But SCCA allows many things that I believe would make good sense
in JCNA. too. The truth is that very few changes make any difference
on track, certainly none that compensate for differences in driver
talent and experience.

Here's my comments on the rules, top down, FWIW.

(II 1 b) seems too restrictive. SCCA allows any wheel that has
rim width and offset the same as a factory wheel. It's not
clear that the JCNA rule is more restrictive, but I belive it
can be interpreted that way by some Stewards, and not by others.
This should be spelled out exactly as SCCA does. In fact, I would
prefer the rules to allow rim widths up to 6" on any car, or larger if
supplied from the factory with a larger size. Most E Types I know
have Dayton 6" rims and more modern tires. Tubeless rims are
a significant safety feature, especially under slalom conditions,
in that they keep underinflated tires from coming off the rim better
than tube type tires, as I understand it.

(II 1 c) should just allow any tire that would fit with wear rating of 140
or greater. The restriction profile would seem to me to disqualify
almost every E Type owner I know from Stock class, as the original
profile tires are either very expensive or really shabby tires. Except
me, as I have the expensive 185-15 Michelin XVS, Doesn't really
make sense, does it?

(II 1 g) should be rationalized with rule (II 2 STREET PREPARED i),
which states that only lowering in excess of that allowed by existing
factory adjustment limits. The sense in
rule (II 2 STREET PREPARED i) should be clearly expressed here, IMO.

(II 1 Example 2) shows a very reasonable upgrade allowance, though
it does put those S II drivers not monetarily able to afford the upgrade
at a disadvantage, and kind of disrupts the meaning of "Stock" class.
Reasonable based on the classes defined, which are OK.

(II 1 Example 3) is unreasonable, as Crane and MSD ignitions have
no measurable performance advantage over fresh, well-adjusted
points and condenser. And it's a common reliability upgrade. The
SCCA rules allow any ignition system using the original distributor
for cars built before 1968. No reason I can see not to allow the same
modifications for all non-electronic ignition systems.

(II 2) I like the approach of allowing up to 4 enhancements -- a good,
flexible solution.

(II 2 MODIFIED CLASS a & b) Combine these rules by replacing
"R-compound tires" with "Tires with tread wear rating lower than 80",
as that catches all those tires.

(II 2 STREET PREPARED a) Seems like a bad idea to penalize
people for safety enhancements. SCCA encourages roll bar or
roll cage installation in Stock cars, and JCNA is risking liability
should a stock OTS ever roll and someone inside be badly injured
or killed. Again, little performance improvement here, despite
chassis stiffening.

(II 2 STREET PREPARED d) SCCA allows any front anti-roll bar
in Stock.

(II 2 STREET PREPARED e) SCCA allows any shock absorbers
in Stock. Certainly Spax shocks are historically accurate replacement
parts that are not downrated in Concours.

(II 2 STREET PREPARED g) is too restrictive, see (II 1 b)


(II 2 STREET PREPARED h) is too restrictive, see (II 1 c)

(II 2 STREET PREPARED k) should be reinforced by a Stock
class rule saying that none of the factory fittings, interior,
bumpers, etc., may be removed in Stock Class, that the
car should be as delivered from the factory except for the variances
listed below: (and so on). See the SCCA rules for wording.

(V h) No need to punish backing up -- it's fatal from a time
point of view.

(I Administration 13) (Shouldn't this section be VII?)
It's not clear to me how you can run a school without
having runs of the actual course in advance of the
event -- this would conflict with the "no practice runs"
rule. I can't figure out what it means. Certainly the
school held before the JCC Slalom included many
runs of the actual course, and they were important,
given the difficulty of getting the sequence of routes
right -- very experienced drivers also missed that
sequence. This rule needs clarification.

All that said, I think these are a great improvement
over the 2003 rules, which were an improvement
over previous rules. I feel that my experience level makes
it OK to put me in SP rather than Stock. However, I can't
see a good way to make novice vs skilled classes...
More classes is not generally better.

Thanks again,

Jerry

Jerry Mouton '64 E Type FHC "Laissez les bons temps rouler!"
Jaguar Owner's North American Tour - http://jonat.org
April 15, 2004 - July 4, 2004

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Jerry Mouton
Jaguar Associate Group *

forum user since 2002-11-07

 


I already emailed Steve with these, but it may roust some controversy if I post my comments to this list. They are below:


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

Hi, Steve, Happy New Year!

Thanks for leading the Slalom group! Good work
getting the revised rules out there for 2004.

That said, I'll accept the invitation to comment, though
it is probably too late to make changes.

I autocross in Stock class in SCCA, and I think it would
be very nice to be able to compete in JCNA stock, too.
As the rules are written, this is not possible.

I accept that the audience for JCNA slalom is different from
SCCA, and the fact that SCCA allows R-tires in Stock really
makes adopting SCCA general rules impossible. I agree
that the Modified classes seem to be the right place for those
cars. But I think rules closer to SCCA are needed to make this
a serious competitive venue, rather than a diverting interlude
between Concourses.

SCCA rules are online on my site http://moutons.org/sccasolo

But SCCA allows many things that I believe would make good sense
in JCNA. too. The truth is that very few changes make any difference
on track, certainly none that compensate for differences in driver
talent and experience.

Here's my comments on the rules, top down, FWIW.

(II 1 b) seems too restrictive. SCCA allows any wheel that has
rim width and offset the same as a factory wheel. It's not
clear that the JCNA rule is more restrictive, but I belive it
can be interpreted that way by some Stewards, and not by others.
This should be spelled out exactly as SCCA does. In fact, I would
prefer the rules to allow rim widths up to 6" on any car, or larger if
supplied from the factory with a larger size. Most E Types I know
have Dayton 6" rims and more modern tires. Tubeless rims are
a significant safety feature, especially under slalom conditions,
in that they keep underinflated tires from coming off the rim better
than tube type tires, as I understand it.

(II 1 c) should just allow any tire that would fit with wear rating of 140
or greater. The restriction profile would seem to me to disqualify
almost every E Type owner I know from Stock class, as the original
profile tires are either very expensive or really shabby tires. Except
me, as I have the expensive 185-15 Michelin XVS, Doesn't really
make sense, does it?

(II 1 g) should be rationalized with rule (II 2 STREET PREPARED i),
which states that only lowering in excess of that allowed by existing
factory adjustment limits. The sense in
rule (II 2 STREET PREPARED i) should be clearly expressed here, IMO.

(II 1 Example 2) shows a very reasonable upgrade allowance, though
it does put those S II drivers not monetarily able to afford the upgrade
at a disadvantage, and kind of disrupts the meaning of "Stock" class.
Reasonable based on the classes defined, which are OK.

(II 1 Example 3) is unreasonable, as Crane and MSD ignitions have
no measurable performance advantage over fresh, well-adjusted
points and condenser. And it's a common reliability upgrade. The
SCCA rules allow any ignition system using the original distributor
for cars built before 1968. No reason I can see not to allow the same
modifications for all non-electronic ignition systems.

(II 2) I like the approach of allowing up to 4 enhancements -- a good,
flexible solution.

(II 2 MODIFIED CLASS a & b) Combine these rules by replacing
"R-compound tires" with "Tires with tread wear rating lower than 80",
as that catches all those tires.

(II 2 STREET PREPARED a) Seems like a bad idea to penalize
people for safety enhancements. SCCA encourages roll bar or
roll cage installation in Stock cars, and JCNA is risking liability
should a stock OTS ever roll and someone inside be badly injured
or killed. Again, little performance improvement here, despite
chassis stiffening.

(II 2 STREET PREPARED d) SCCA allows any front anti-roll bar
in Stock.

(II 2 STREET PREPARED e) SCCA allows any shock absorbers
in Stock. Certainly Spax shocks are historically accurate replacement
parts that are not downrated in Concours.

(II 2 STREET PREPARED g) is too restrictive, see (II 1 b)


(II 2 STREET PREPARED h) is too restrictive, see (II 1 c)

(II 2 STREET PREPARED k) should be reinforced by a Stock
class rule saying that none of the factory fittings, interior,
bumpers, etc., may be removed in Stock Class, that the
car should be as delivered from the factory except for the variances
listed below: (and so on). See the SCCA rules for wording.

(V h) No need to punish backing up -- it's fatal from a time
point of view.

(I Administration 13) (Shouldn't this section be VII?)
It's not clear to me how you can run a school without
having runs of the actual course in advance of the
event -- this would conflict with the "no practice runs"
rule. I can't figure out what it means. Certainly the
school held before the JCC Slalom included many
runs of the actual course, and they were important,
given the difficulty of getting the sequence of routes
right -- very experienced drivers also missed that
sequence. This rule needs clarification.

All that said, I think these are a great improvement
over the 2003 rules, which were an improvement
over previous rules. I feel that my experience level makes
it OK to put me in SP rather than Stock. However, I can't
see a good way to make novice vs skilled classes...
More classes is not generally better.

Thanks again,

Jerry

Jerry Mouton '64 E Type FHC "Laissez les bons temps rouler!"
Jaguar Owner's North American Tour - http://jonat.org
April 15, 2004 - July 4, 2004

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club *

forum user since 2002-10-27

 

Jerry

you raise some good points.

IIc tire size equivalence, I think equivalent means that a modern tire of an equivalent size... as in the closest available... will be ok in stock

II 1 ex 2: I'm not sure if monetary considerations should be an issue. racing is costly... if one can't stand the heat... get out of the kitchen... :-)

II 1 ex 3: I agree, there are no proven peformance improvement so if we allow pre HE to upgrade to HE, why not allow cranes and MSD

II 2: you are right also with the current course, I doubt any one could roll an OTS. If clubs also put together a faster course, as we did in Franklin, then there is a higher risk.

Street Prep: I also think there are too many restrictions. Torsion bars, shocks, bushings and springs are usually all done at the same time and should be counted as one. Althoug I disagree that some of these mods shoudl be allowed in stock like SCCA do.

Brakes offer no significant advantages on the JCNA slalom course. those that have upgraded brakes on their cars usually do it for improved cooling on track. irrelevant on a low speed 45sec course

Modified should be were only heavily modified cars end up: internal engine mods, forced induction, ligthweight panels, stripped interiors, race tires, etc... . cars with mild mods belong in Street Prep.

yes I'm saying this because I will be stuck in Modified with gary and art... but i'm sure there are many others that will be in the same situation. Timewise, my car is far closer to a stock V12 E than to one of these silver monsters :-)

for 2004, I think we should be less restrictive on SP, and if warranted tighten up the noose in 2005. instead of doing it the otherway around.


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

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Steve Weinstein
Jaguar Touring Club *

forum user since 2002-11-13

 

Pascal,

You hit the nail on the head -- the most difficult balance that we tried to achieve was trying to create a well defined set of rules to determine placement, yet at the same time try to get a better distribution of cars between classes. And when doing that, where do you draw the line on which mods are too many or too advanced to allow them to run in SP.

One of the overriding comments that seemed to come up was that stock should mean "stock." Several people were concerned that once you start allowing ANY modifications in stock, the door would be open and over time, more and more mods would be allowed in stock classes. So the initial decision was made that stock cars should not be allowed any modifications at all.

But that creates certain problems. First, particularly with tires on older cars, original parts simply aren't available. Some allowance had to be made to allow older cars to run tires and replacement parts that are essentially equivalent. The rules try to do that.

The other significant problem arises from the variations within particular models. Especially with models that span many years -- The E-types, XJ6's, XJS's -- Jaguar made many changes, some of which were cosmetic, but others of which were performance enhancing or performance restricting. A good example is the Ser. 1 1/2 and 2 E-types with US spec. carbs. Jaguar changed the carbs from triple SU's to dual Zenith Strombergs. Horsepower went down by about 80 to 90 bhp. It would be unfair to tell someone with a later car that they can't utilize the same carbs as an earlier car with the exact same engine, and give away that 80 or 90 hp advantage.

Similarly, with the XJS's, many modifications were made over the years. Later cars had improved ignition systems, changing from the OPUS system to HE. Larger wheels were available on later car, with lower profile, wider tires. XJ6, the same thing. If all cars in the same stock class are to compete on an equal footing, then they should all be allowed to utilize those stock items available to other cars within their class. This is not concours -- originality is not the critical issue. It's allowing for comparable performance.

Then we start trying to define street prepared. I tried defining the modifications rather broadly. I have to give credit to Gary Hagopian for taking my suggestion and more clearly defining the modifications into understandable classifications.

I do agree with you, Pascal, that we should try to make SP more inclusive rather than more restrictive, and only push those highly modified cars up into Modified class. If we increase the number of allowable modfication catagories from 4 to 5 (or 6), would that accomplish that goal? This past year, we had far more cars in modified than in SP. I'd like to see that reversed and have SP classes hold the bulk of the somewhat to moderately modified cars.

One additional thought. I am in agreement on the roll bars. I think we should encourage them in OTS's. It's a safety thing. Someone had suggested that four point roll bars do no significantly alter the flexing or handling characteristics of these cars. However, 5-point roll cages do. I would support a change that allows 4-point roll bars in any class without being considered a modification, but count 5-point roll cages as a modification counting as one point toward SP or Modified class.

All of you out there, let's hear what you have to say.

Thanks to everyone for helping reshape the rules,

Steve Weinstein
JCNA Slalom Chair


Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club *

forum user since 2002-10-27

 

Steve

I think your roll bar proposal is a fair compromise, for OTS/DHC only. in a coupe or saloon, any roll bar / roll cage should bump the car in modified.

SP: I would really group all suspension mods (except lowering beyond normal adjustement) in one. ex "c. one or more of the following suspension modifications: adjustable shocks, uprated TB/S, uprated swaybars, polybushings."

I also think that # m & p needs to be clarified. for instance...a 5 speed is a performance enhancing mod that is useless in a slalom... Ignition are reliability mods, do they fall into P ?

I think that would help include more cars in SP... yes starting with mine... :-) (assuming I can even find a slalom to enter this year :-) )

and if you still exclude MSD ignitions... then I'll just have to drag my original air filter boxes along and swap them before tech :-)



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

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Art Dickenson
Pacific Jaguar Enthusiasts Group *

forum user since 2003-06-01

 


Pascals ideas are in line with mine , well basically. Regarding the Street Prepared , possibly you could look at what was passed last year and refine the explanation of such. Much external work on the motor should be allowed, NO INTERNAL.Any ignition should be allowed, ant tyre and rim that fits under stock bodywork should be OK in Street Prepared
Any bushings should be allowed in original places.Any shocks should be allowed in SP.

We need more cars in SP, and just for a few mods that perhaps give you half a second this would push you into MODIFIED. We do not want cars that are incapable of REAL MODIFIED times being pushed into MODIFIED. People should have a chance of a trophy, even if it is only a local trophy

Tyres are the KILLER ITEM, after 4 years of competing and sliding my XJS around the course, I was afraid no tyre would beat my old P5 Pirelli's.
My 1st time out on race tyres knocked off over 2 seconds. After 12 years competing in JCNA my true belief is TYRES RULE ALL.EVERYTHING ELSE IS A TENTH OR TWO, you need lots of tenths to get to 40 or below. As far as I know only 3 people have become master of this course,and made it round in under 40 seconds, Race slicks, soft and sticky is the key.

Another item most people are overlookink is mandatory helmet upgrade, at a big event such as Franklin helmets are in short supply with a lot of cars running. Lets face it we drive our cars around town at a similar speed to the maximum on track, and we wear NO HELMETS. I feel any helmet in good condition is sufficient for our slalom series.
WITH RESPECT, Art


Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Steve Weinstein
Jaguar Touring Club *

forum user since 2002-11-13

 

Art and Pascal,

I'm leaning in your direction on many of these issues. Ignition, I'm coming to agree that Crane and MSD should be allowed, not pushing a car up into modified. However, those "tunable" ignition systems should not be allowed in stock. I also think we need to perhaps group a bunch of the suspension modifications into a single point, as Pascal suggests. Art's thoughts on external vs. internal mods makes some sense.

I also agree with what Art says about tire -- Tire are King in slalom. That's why we focused on racing tires or equivalent automatically pushing a car into modified, and sticky or oversized tires putting a car into SP rather than stock. I tend to agree with Art that any street legal tire that will fit on the car without body modification should be allowed in SP. I thought that was basically what we were getting to.

Hopefully, we can get a general consensus on these issues, make a few final adjustments, and have a good, comprehensive proposal to submit to the AGM for the 2004 season. As I said, my objective is to increase participation in SP classes and keep modified class to those cars that are really heavily modified.

Thanks guys!!

Steve Weinstein
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club *

forum user since 2002-10-27

 

it's true that using a lower profile tire on a stock rim or even, as you suggest, on a rim that fits with no body mod should be allowed in SP.

ex... my 15" daytons with low profiles are closer to stock than to Gary's 18" monsters....

We would need to clarify that removing the bump stops in the rear of E-types doens't not count as body modification. most guys who fit wider tires do it anyway.

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

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Michael Frank
The Jaguar Club of Ohio *

forum user since 2002-11-02

 

I don't think that there's any point in regulating ignition systems. You would be hard pressed to demonstrate better performance on a dyno, on a short slalom course it would be impossible to measure. Not sure what you mean by "tunable" ignition, but anything should be ok, stock, SP or modified. It won't make any difference in timing.

I dont' agree that any tire that fits in the wheel well is ok... there needs to be some rule about tread depth, tread life, etc to properly handicap a car with sticky tires. As for 6" wheel width always being ok, that works for E-Types, but what is the stock width on an XK, XJS or XJ?

How about reverse handicaps: the 2+2 E-Types have a 300-400lb weight disadvantage over the S1&2 coupes and OTS cars.

Mike Frank



Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Art Dickenson
Pacific Jaguar Enthusiasts Group *

forum user since 2003-06-01

 


OK sounds good, I think we already established the tyre specs for the stock, sp, and mod, re 140 min SP, any acceptable in class for stock,
To simplify MOD I think it should state , any jaguar engined vehicle,with 4 wheels that fits into a JCNA Concours Class, There should be no holds barred in MOD...............anything goes re mods to body or drivetrain.Ni tyre restrictions.....................Mod always has been this way to now,Art


Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Art Dickenson
Pacific Jaguar Enthusiasts Group *

forum user since 2003-06-01

 

It is good to see that a few more people are posting their views on the forum. The more it is hashed out here should make it simpler at the AGM. If you have any ideas that are logical, I am sure that they will be considered by the Slalom Committee.The more people we can get involved in this process (THAT ACTUALLY COMPETE IN THE SLALOM SERIES) THE BETTER THE REPRESENTATION WILL BE.
With Respect, Art


Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Steve Weinstein
Jaguar Touring Club *

forum user since 2002-11-13

 

Art,

Thanks for the cheerleading! Much appreciated.

As for modified class, it is the intention of the rules that anything goes in modified, as long as its a Jaguar car with Jaguar engine. As I see it, the point of modified is to see just how far someone can take one of these cars, like you and Gary have done. Definitely, keep it going! I don't think anything we've done with the rules changes that philosphy.

This was also the problem last year, and the year before -- what do we do about TIRES???? That was one of the big problems we wrestled with in the re-write. Please, everyone, look at the revised rules again vis-a-vis tires and let me know what you think. If you think something needs changing, please make a specific language proposal of how you would re-write the language.

Thanks,
Steve Weinstein
JCNA Slalom Committee Chairman

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club *

forum user since 2002-10-27

 

Hey Art... you look better behind the wheel in that picture than when I saw you last time... :-)

tires ? stock should mean stock in stock classes with the exception of allowing later rims for that model with the tires size supplied on them by Jaguar

SP should allow any tires/wheel that would fit with no bodywork mods (except bump stop removals on E-types), except of course race/autoX tires. most tires are 140 TWR or higher, but a few like the Corsa are around 80 so we may want to specify 80 or higher. to be sure, take a look at tirerack.com and search TWRs

Modified should allow anything

Just my opinion... :-)


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

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Art Dickenson
Pacific Jaguar Enthusiasts Group *

forum user since 2003-06-01

 


Pascal,I always look better with my helmet on.

I think we should stick to 140, unless supplied from Jaguar on production models,
PS, most people prefer me without my helmet on, Ho HO Ho, Art

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club *

forum user since 2002-10-27

 

do you have a long blond wig as a helmet? oh wait... you're standing behind the car! :-)

there could be some street tires in the low 100s in the future and all race tires are well below 80... anyway, as long as 140 is ok... anything will make me happy! :-)

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

Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Art Dickenson
Pacific Jaguar Enthusiasts Group *

forum user since 2003-06-01

 


Pascal, as you know I have no hair, used to be long and thick, but not it's just me.
Dick, your observations on tech on the cars is appreciated, keep it simple, if anyone feels a car has been run in an inappropriate class , they may say so at the event, the slalom steward at the event must re tech the car and make a decision on the spot.
We must not overcomplicate tech otherwise people will not know what to do.
KISS, keep it simple smarty is the way I like it.
We must also have trust in our fellow competitors, they in turn should familiarise themselves with the slalom rules so they are aware of what class they should be grouped into.
Here are my views on tyres, ( and yes I know that SCCA allow people with DOT Race tyres such as Hoosier Autocross, with a treadwear rating of 40 in stock classes, to beat a normally supplied STOCK CARS, there is no way that should be, those tyres are merely slicks with a thin line around barely one sixteenth of an inch deep. ). These tyres on John's E Type are superb, Gary has Hoosiers on his front wheels also...............

Stock class....
Any stock size street tyre and rim appropriate to the class, no body or chassis modifications allowed to fit the tyre and rim.Treadwear rating no less than 140, unless supplied as stock from the JAGUAR FACTORY, DEALERS IN THE U.S. HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED TO HAVE MANY WHEELS CHROMED AND SOLD AS SUPPOSED STOCK. NO PROBLEM FOR SLALOM, BUT IN CONCOURS MAJOR PENALTIES ARE INCURRED, IF IN FACT THE CONCOUR JUDGES HAVE BEEN UP TO DOING THEIR JOB, AND NOT JUST TURNING A BLIND EYE ...............................

Street Prepared, Lightweight and or Heavyweight.
Any size tyre and rim that fit without fender modifications, treadwear rating 140 or higher unless supplied from JAGUAR FACTORY with lower treadwear rating .

Modified........
Anthing goes rims, tyres, treatments,.........



Re.: Proposed New Slalom Rules Posted

Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club *

forum user since 2002-10-27

 

to speed tech, we need to have a itemized list of mods on entry forms.

ex:
a - suspension (incl shocks, torsion, springs, bushings)
b - brakes
c - ignition
d - rims
e - tires
f - exhaust
g - air filter
h - 4 pt roll cage
i - 5 pt roll cage
j - turbo, supercharger
k - internal engine mods
l - wieght reduction



entrants will be responsible to list the mods that apply to their car.
just have them list what they have.... ex i would enter a b c e f g

that info should be reported, it's really just one field to type, this way when viewing scores, we could see what mods are on each car entered in SP and M

simple requirement that would be very helpful


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


  LEGAL NOTICES

 

copyright 2002-2008 JAGUAR CLUBS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.