Before I give my comments on this matter, I believe that my credentials need to be viewed, which I believe show my creditability in this area I wish to address. I have been active in JCNA since 1984. I became president of the Jaguar Association of Greater St. Louis in 1986, when we had 9 paid members. Our club grew quickly through the efforts of many dedicated Jaguar enthusiasts, to a point where we have been the largest or one of the largest clubs of JCNA for the last decade. Since 1984, I have been Concours Chairman 16 times and was co-chair of the highly successful St. Louis Biennial. I was the driving force that introduced the DRIVEN CLASS to JCNA, which was approved at the Tampa AGM meeting, and wrote all the rules governing this class. I have competed in Classes 1B, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17, and Driven 2,3, and 4. This year my 1939 Salloon was class 1B champion. With this history being what it is, I offer my views on Concours Changes:

Class 1A and 1B must not be changed. These cars are dramatically different and the 1B cars are much larger, creating a vast unfair competitive edge to competing 1A cars.

Classes 10-11-12 should be combined. These are very similar cars and no longer need to be treated as 3 classes. The last Series 3 car is now 18 years old and no longer can use the excuse that it has an advantage over the other cars because it isn't as old.

Classes 8-9 should be combined. Mark 1 thru 420G, including Daimler Limo. These cars are very similar and the technology isn't that much different. True, the MK 7-8-9-10-420G are substantially bigger, but not that much bigger. The truth is that you just don't get very many of these cars at the shows and they are close enough to be considered one group.

In general, I see the XJs broken down into two groups.
Pre XJ40 and Post XJ40.

Thank you

Philip Taxman

Phil Taxman
St. Louis, Missouri

Submitted by SW03-09811 on Wed, 02/04/2004 - 12:51

Greg,
JCRC has not set out to exclude or ignore specific models. We have been working mostly to correct and reword those patchworked rules
documented to have been frequently misunderstood. Every effort has been made to retain the apparent "intent" of the existing rules.
Precise production data has been difficult to acquire and validate.

Acknowledging your expertise in both U.S. and Canadian XJ6/12, JCRC would value your critique of the proposed revisions to the
relevant Champion and Driven Division classes as well as the updated Appendix B Tire and Wheel listings.

Please contact me directly at dcavickeatjcna.com> and I will forward information for your comment.

Thanks,
Dick Cavicke
Chairman, JCRC

Submitted by v12-vdp@shaw.ca on Wed, 02/04/2004 - 01:49

Can we please clarify something once, and for all time? It is *not* correct to make a blanket reference to the Series I, II, and III XJ saloons as "xj6" cars. The statement that "the last Series III xj6 was made in 1992" is patently false. The last Series III xj6 was made in 1987. The last Series III car made in 1992 was a V12 car.
The Series I, II and III cars were made in both 6 cylinder and V12 versions, although the latter was not sold in the US in Series III form. It was, however, sold in Canada until 1993(my own 1992 V12 Vanden Plas was sold new in May, 1993 and carried the 1993 warranty). This sort of error would not occur if JCNA recognised that cars sold in the US do not represent the totality of Jaguar production, and, more importantly, that this is a three-nation organisation. There are errors caused by the current (myopic) view, one of which I am addressing here. There are also errors in the wheel/tire listing caused by a failure to take Series III V12 cars into account. The fact that they were not sold in the US does not make them non-existent.

Gregory Andrachuk
1992 Series III V12 Vanden Plas
1987 Series III V12 Vanden Plas
1966 Mark 2 3.8 auto

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Thu, 01/29/2004 - 16:53

Well personally, I'm not too concerned about the trophies being meaningful or not and I think if we have many classes or few classes it will have little or no effect on participation in concours.

I think it is wrong to combine classes just because there is low participation or keep many classes (i.e. the E-types) just because there are a few more cars in that class in a particular concours season. If you advoate that, you'll be chasing your tail forever. Right now, there is a great deal of interest in E-types. Well that may not be the case ten years from now. Okay, my theory is that 20 years from now, you'll see far less few E-types and four times as many XJ6/XJ40/X300/X308/X350. So then what, combine classes C5, C6 & C7 and then make separate classes for:
XJ6 Ser I
XJ6 Ser II
XJ6 Ser III
XJ40
X300
X308
X350
X???
X???

Again, I think this is the wrong path to follow, I'd like to see us stick with ONE list of classes for quite a long period of time and not change the class numbers every few years just because there weren't too many Series I XJ6's for a short stretch there.

I think Pascal hit on the perfect solution, merge ALL classes on the local level and split them for Regional and National purposes, that is a FANTASTIC idea!! I wish it had come up earlier as I would have been pushing for this long ago. I'm just not creative enough to come up with anidea like that on my own.

Submitted by pascal@jcna.com on Thu, 01/29/2004 - 15:37

a compromise would be to have class merged at the local level but split at the national and regional levels...

ex
C10A XJ series 1
C10B XJ series 2
C10C XJ series 3

D02A Series 1 E
D02B Series 2 E
D02C Series 3 E

but local trophies given only to top 3 C10, D02 entrants...
same with C01 and possibly others.
only in the regional and NA standings, and JCC, would the classes be split and trophies awarded to the top 3 in each sub class.

the question is will it discourage participation? Learning about the cars, having fun, is certainly a better reason to participate in cocnours than a trophy but you never know...

Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club

Submitted by NC19-03320J on Thu, 01/29/2004 - 15:06

Hi William, I'm afraid that I agree with Pascal that to win a trophy just by 'showing up' is next to meaningless. That said, you are 100% correct about learning about your car and sharing the day with people that share your passion for Jags. In fact the last two points are the ONLY reason that we enter Concours as we , like I'm sure other people, have given back to the local or our own club the great majority of the trophies that we have won. The suggestions to combine classes only concerns those classes with few to no entries at the great majority of shows. If, for instance, E-Types or XK's fell into this catagory there would be consideration on combining these classes also.

Bob Jag of Mich.

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Thu, 01/29/2004 - 13:58

I disagree with the point that winning a trophy is "meaningless" or "cheapens" things if you're in a class with only one or two cars as "the point of entering a concours is learning about your car, how to improve it and just enjoy a good day with fellow Jaguar enthusiasts" which I concur with 100%.

My problem is those who advocate combining classes and give elloquent arguments for doing just that contradict themselves when they DO NOT want to consolidate the XK120's, XK140's & XK150's in Championship or consolidate the E-types in Championship AND DRIVEN!! I say BE CONSISTENT, either have lots of classes for a certain line of Jaguars or few classes FOR ALL models including the E-Types.

Then on the other hand, we've got people on the other end of the spectrum who advocate lumping all the XJ6's in one class BUT want to keep pre-war touring and OTS's SEPARATE from the pre-war drop heads and coupes. How much sense does that make? I'll argue that a Series I XJ6 is a heck of a lot different from an X300, X308 or X350 than a pre-war OTS is from a pre-war drop head.

Again, what is needed here is consistency NOT lots of classes for E-types and few for everyone else.

Submitted by pascal@jcna.com on Mon, 01/26/2004 - 08:57

Daniel

the downside to more classes or keeping classes that only attract a few entries is that everybody ends up with a meaningless trophy.

although I've entered in display only recently (but will go back to driven this year now that tires and radio rules have been relaxed), whenever I've entered a concours and won 1st out 2 or 3... I really felt it was meaningless. jsut one more dust collector to drag home.

i seriously doubt that more classes will increase participation.

the point of entering a concours is learning about your car, how to improve it and just enjoy a good day with fellow Jaguar enthusiasts.

at least, that's what it means to me.

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

Submitted by NC19-03320J on Mon, 01/26/2004 - 00:23

Daniel,
Like Phil, we have also been very active in the JCNA Concours program, as entrants in at least 70 or more shows, Concours chairman twice and head judge in Michigan for the past 15 years. Believe me when I say that we have done just about everything except charging no entry fee and going and picking up the people's cars to attract more entries. If you have any ideas please share them! As things stand, at most shows EVERYONE gets a trophy which, to my mind at least, cheapens the whole thing!
Bob Jag of Mich.

Submitted by arsenaultd@ear… on Sun, 01/25/2004 - 23:50

Seems to me some people spend a lot of time thinking up ways to consolidate classes, for whatever reason , when they should be thinking up ways to increase participation in the shows. There are enough cars out there to justify an XJ40 class combined with X300 from 95 to 97 and then break X308 and X350 into a separate class. This is being done. Participation drives this issue, in my opinion.

If you really think classes should be consolidated, what have you done to urge members to attend the shows and bring in new members so consolidation does not need to take place?

Daniel Arsenault
Lakewood, CA
1994 XJ12 Morocco Red

Submitted by allgau@att.net on Tue, 01/20/2004 - 23:06

Mike,

I'm sorry, not being fully versed in all of the finer points of all of the different models of Jaguar, I over looked the fact that (Pre-XK engine) ment the Mark IV and Mark V.

I will try to do better in the future.

As always, good motoring,

Daimler Don

Submitted by Mfulton412@aol.com on Tue, 01/20/2004 - 20:53

Daimler Don,
If you check out the rule book, you will find that the pre-war Saloons Are in the same class as the so-called MK IV and the Mark V. Phil and I finished 1st and 2nd in class C01B this year. There are certainly a hell of alot more Mk IV's and 5's out there than pre-war saloons. Why are they not competing?
Mike

1938 SS Jaguar 1.5 Litre Saloon
More affectionately known as PEACHES

Submitted by Mfulton412@aol.com on Tue, 01/20/2004 - 19:10

If we are combining classes, we are failing. Are we doing the best we can to grow the membership? Why are we not attracting all the beautiful old Jaguars, that we know are out there, to our events? We should be adding more classes to attract more participation. Excuse me, but downsizing is not in my vocabulary.
Mike

1938 SS Jaguar 1.5 Litre Saloon
More affectionately known as PEACHES

Submitted by allgau@att.net on Tue, 01/20/2004 - 16:10

Reply to Mr. Phil Taxman,

It appears that the ONLY differance betweem class 1A and class 1B is that some are open and some are closed is not a valid reason that these two classes could not be combine, however, the fact that class 1B contains saloons could present a bit of a problem that would require these early saloons to either placed in their own class, or, possibly put in the same class as the early Mark IV and Mark V. As to the combining of classes 10, 11 and 12, this might be a good idea. As to the combining of classes 8 and 9, perhaps it might be more appropriate to maintain the two classes, but keeping the smaller cars in one class and puting the larger cars in the other class (Grand Saloons), it really is a bit difficult to judge a smaller saloon against one of the much larger saloons or a limousine.

If you have read the rule changes proposed by the current head of Concours Rules, you will know that the Daimler DS420 is to be regulated to the very obscure class S3. Try to understand that logic. It would appear that there is some very strong prejudice against any car "badged" Daimler compeating in the open classes with those badged "Jaguar"

As always, good motoring,

Daimler Don

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Tue, 01/20/2004 - 13:33

Then why not combine XK120's, XK140's & XK150's into one class along with another single class for XKE Ser. I, XKE Ser. II & XKE Ser. III?

According to your logic, the two groups of cars I just mentioned have much more in common with one another than a Mark I does with a Mark 10/420G.

If your primary reason for combining classes is ôyou just don't get very many of these cars at the showsö then I donÆt think IÆve heard a stronger argument yet for combining Classes 1A & 1B. I tend to agree with you that 1A & 1B cars are very different but if you are in favor of combining classes because of low participation then again, the two smallest classes are 1A & 1B.

How many cars in all of North America showed in Class 1A last year? I could only find a total of two.

XJ40Æs are very different from X300Æs, X308Æs and the new X350Æs and should not be in the same class with them. IÆd even go so far as to argue that JCNA may want to consider separate classes for:
X300 (1994 û 1997)
X308 (1997 û 2003)
X350 (2004 - ????)

After all, we do still have separate championship classes for:
XK120
XK140
Xk150
XKE Ser. I
XKE Ser. II
XKE Ser. III

Therefore, I think there is a strong argument for separate classes for:
XJ6 Ser I
XJ6 Ser II
XJ6 Ser III
XJ40
X300
X308
X350

By the way, the last Series III XJ6 (1992) is only 12 years old, not 18.

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Tue, 01/20/2004 - 13:03

Then why not combine XK120's, XK140's & XK150's into one class along with another single class for XKE Ser. I, XKE Ser. II & XKE Ser. III?

According to your logic, the two groups of cars I just mentioned have much more in common with one another than a Mark I does with a Mark 10/420G.

If your primary reason for combining classes is ôyou just don't get very many of these cars at the showsö then I donÆt think IÆve heard a stronger argument yet for combining Classes 1A & 1B. I tend to agree with you that 1A & 1B cars are very different but if you are in favor of combining classes because of low participation then again, the two smallest classes are 1A & 1B.

By the way, the last Series III XJ6 (1992) is only 12 years old, not 18.

Submitted by wljenkins@usa.net on Tue, 01/20/2004 - 12:56

Then why not combine XK120's, XK140's & XK150's into one class along with another single class for XKE Ser. I, XKE Ser. II & XKE Ser. III?

According to your logic, the two groups of cars I just mentioned have much more in common with one another than a Mark I does with a Mark 10/420G.