Re: Slalom Rule -- Modified or Stock???

First of all, the fact that this debate is occurring is proof

: positive that the JCNA slalom is becoming a serious event.

MIKE,

YOU'RE ABSOLUTLEY CORRECT ABOUT THE INCREASED IMPORTANCE OF THE SLALOM PROGRAM.

: I think we owe a lot to Gary's avid support of the program. At least

: here in the Northeast, his presence and participation in just about

: every local club's slalom event has been key to drawing in more

: participation.

RIGHT AGAIN, AND THANK GOODNESS FOR IT1

: All that said, the rules may need some changes, but I think if it's time

: for revision, it's time to think out of the box. Specifically, the

: concept of "stock" vs. "modified" is borrowed

: directly from concours competition. I would submit that it's

: senseless to apply these designations to comptetition cars. If you

: are serious about competition, you are inexorably led to modify your

: car.

RETAINING THE STOCK CONCEPT IS CONSISTENT WITH JCNA MISSION AND GIVES US A PRETTY CLEAR SET OF GUIDELINES FOR ASSIGNING CAR CLASSES.

Rather, we need a more

: sensible way to divvy up the classes. I think we need a

: "junior" vs. "senior" division, call them what

: you will. In senior division, almost any modification would be

: allowed. In junior division, there should be a handicapping system

: which adds time based on modifications to the car. For example,

: certain swaybar or tire mods could be penalized one second, poly

: bushes could be penalized 1/2 second, etc. That will put the cars on

: a more even footing. There should be one "supersenior"

: class, open to any model, which is reserved for the very best

: drivers/most prepared cars.It's not clear what would push a car from

: the senior classes to the supersenior class, but perhaps run times

: would be the determinant rather than equipment level.

LET'S REMEMBER, THIS IS A FUN EVENT RUN BY VOLUNTEER AMATEURS FOR AMATEURS. I, FOR ONE, WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED IN TRYING TO APPLY A SYSTEM OF HANDICAPS TO CARS AND DRIVERS. CLARITY AND SIMPLICITY ARE THE WATCHWORDS. ANYTHING ELSE WILL BE A MINEFIELD.

: I also think that the driver makes as much difference as the car:

: experience will prove out. It's probably a good idea to have a rating

: system for drivers, and apply additional handicaps to strong drivers

: in the junior classes.

IF THE DRIVER DIDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE THERE WOULD BE NO POINT TO EVEN HAVING A RACE, SOLO OR OTHERWISE! A NOVICE CLASS FOR NEOPHYTES, STOCK AND MODIFIED CLASSES FOR MOST OTHERS, AND PERHAPS A CHAMPION (SENIOR? CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT) CLASS FOR THOSE WHO TAKE FIRST IN CLASS FOR A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF YEARS (3?), WHICH WOULD RECOGNIZE SUPERIOR COMPETITORS AND MAKE ROOM AT THE TOP FOR THOSE IMPROVING EACH YEAR.

: As for unambiguous rules, if we get there, we will be the first

: competition sponsors ever to do so. I recall Nascar rules limiting

: the size of gas tanks, to ensure that everyone made the same number

: of pit stops. At least one competitor turned his roll cage into a

: gigantic "fuel line", which happened to store several

: additional gallons. Racing committees make rules: racers find ways

: around them. It's just the way it is.

YOU'RE RIGHT AGAIN, WHICH IS WHY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE RULES ARE CALLED FOR HERE.

Thanks for joining in!

Warren

I'm a bit late to this thread, but I feel compelled to throw in my two cents. First of all, the fact that this debate is occurring is proof positive that the JCNA slalom is becoming a serious event. In the not to distant past, simply getting a dozen cars to show for a slalom was challenge enough, without worrying about rules. You'd spread those cars into many different classes, to maximize the awards in the hope of incenting future participation. Things have certainly changed quickly.

I think we owe a lot to Gary's avid support of the program. At least here in the Northeast, his presence and participation in just about every local club's slalom event has been key to drawing in more participation.

All that said, the rules may need some changes, but I think if it's time for revision, it's time to think out of the box. Specifically, the concept of "stock" vs. "modified" is borrowed directly from concours competition. I would submit that it's senseless to apply these designations to comptetition cars. If you are serious about competition, you are inexorably led to modify your car.

I don't think we need more classes or designations, there are still more trophys than competitors at most events. Rather, we need a more sensible way to divvy up the classes. I think we need a "junior" vs. "senior" division, call them what you will. In senior division, almost any modification would be allowed. In junior division, there should be a handicapping system which adds time based on modifications to the car. For example, certain swaybar or tire mods could be penalized one second, poly bushes could be penalized 1/2 second, etc. That will put the cars on a more even footing. There should be one "supersenior" class, open to any model, which is reserved for the very best drivers/most prepared cars.It's not clear what would push a car from the senior classes to the supersenior class, but perhaps run times would be the determinant rather than equipment level.

I also think that the driver makes as much difference as the car: experience will prove out. It's probably a good idea to have a rating system for drivers, and apply additional handicaps to strong drivers in the junior classes.

As for unambiguous rules, if we get there, we will be the first competition sponsors ever to do so. I recall Nascar rules limiting the size of gas tanks, to ensure that everyone made the same number of pit stops. At least one competitor turned his roll cage into a gigantic "fuel line", which happened to store several additional gallons. Racing committees make rules: racers find ways around them. It's just the way it is.

: I personally agree with this philosophy but there are no doubt others

: who take the competetion much more seriously.

: Perhaps another alternative, which I think was alluded to before, is to

: create another class altogether......a "run-what-you-brung

: class". Such a class would not be eligible for national

: standings but would allow those of us who are in competetion only

: with oursleves to modify our cars to whatever degree we desire, sans

: restrictions, and just strive for personal improvement. I'd guess

: we'd have a wide variety of cars and modifications----but many having

: reltively minor mods which would, however, put them outside of

: "stock" classes. This might be ideal for the casual

: enthusiast.....someone who likes a bit "more" but is not

: into serious competetion or extensive modifications.

: Logically, then, if such a class was created, the rules for the national

: standings classes (perhaps re-titled "competetive

: classes"?) would have to be clearly defined and rigidly

: enforced, thus ensuring that success in such classes is a meaningful

: thing.

: Just my 2-cents, again.

: Cheers

: Doug Dwyer

Doug,

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject. The slalom pretty much runs as a "run-what-you-brung" event. Since it is a solo racing event, the need to be ultra competitive is up to each individual. We don't even run in classes, so the wheel-to-wheel situation never occurs.

I think a Novice Class would provide a safe haven for the neophyte, and encourage more advanced racers to provide even more help. The stock cars would continue to have a broad range of abilities, but any advantages would not be a matter of equipment. The modified classes would provide opportunities for increased levels of hardware advantages in combination with whatever level driving ability a competitor might have.

One further thought that I have with respect to national standings is that before becoming eligible for national recognition a competitor should be required to run a minimum number of events in a season. (This might be as low as two, since that is the number of sanctioned events that a club can run each year, and some regions probably do not have the number of opportunities that we have in the North3east, for example.) It somehow doesn't seem quite right to me that a one shot effort should qualify for a national championship.

Regards,

Warren

: As for your point of fun vs. national standings: I don't see why they

: need to be mutually exclusive. As far as I'm concerned they can and

: should co-exist. There has always been an atmosphere of support and

: camaraderie in our slaloms, and I would hate to see that lost. I am

: always out there to see how much better I can do than last time. If

: that eventually puts me into the placing, great! If not, I still have

: the satisfaction of taking little bits of time off my score each

: year.

I personally agree with this philosophy but there are no doubt others who take the competetion much more seriously.

Perhaps another alternative, which I think was alluded to before, is to create another class altogether......a "run-what-you-brung class". Such a class would not be eligible for national standings but would allow those of us who are in competetion only with oursleves to modify our cars to whatever degree we desire, sans restrictions, and just strive for personal improvement. I'd guess we'd have a wide variety of cars and modifications----but many having reltively minor mods which would, however, put them outside of "stock" classes. This might be ideal for the casual enthusiast.....someone who likes a bit "more" but is not into serious competetion or extensive modifications.

Logically, then, if such a class was created, the rules for the national standings classes (perhaps re-titled "competetive classes"?) would have to be clearly defined and rigidly enforced, thus ensuring that success in such classes is a meaningful thing.

Just my 2-cents, again.

Cheers

Doug Dwyer

: Steve,

: To take your final question first: I volunteer to do that. All input

: from interested parties gratefully received, and I will comb the past

: threads on this subject for any past contributions.

: As for your point of fun vs. national standings: I don't see why they

: need to be mutually exclusive. As far as I'm concerned they can and

: should co-exist. There has always been an atmosphere of support and

: camaraderie in our slaloms, and I would hate to see that lost. I am

: always out there to see how much better I can do than last time. If

: that eventually puts me into the placing, great! If not, I still have

: the satisfaction of taking little bits of time off my score each

: year.

: Keep the shiny side up,

: Warren

I would be willing to help also.

Rick Lees

71 SIII 2+2

: Paul,

: Very nice to see you here! The point you make is a good one, but the

: reality is that some of us are bigger boys and girls than others, and

: since this is a national program, the value of the trophies is not so

: much the issue as is the stature of winning the national crown. Given

: that set of circumstances, it is imperative that we clarify what is

: now a very loose, poorly written and poorly organized set of rules

: and regulations. This must be done in a concise manner that

: eliminates ambiguity, and that doesn't create layers of hard to

: administer nuances. It shouldn't be all that difficult, and it will

: make it possible for the really gung-ho to go after the prize on a

: level track, so to speak. We don't want to bring it to the acrimonius

: level of the Concours d'Elegance, where fisticuffs have resulted!

: Regards,

: Warren

I agree that the rules are much in need of review and revision (that's why I started this dialogue to begin with). I think Steve Averill has made several very good suggestions and raised some issues worth considering. Some classes, especially the ones that spanned many years and many changes in models, may warrant different treatment than others.

I understand and agree with Paul's sentiments to a point. But as Warren points out, there is a national program here with national recognition for winners. If that is to mean anything, the cars should be as comparable as the course, which we measure to the inch, to assure that times across the country are truly comparable, and that winning really means something. If it's only for the fun of it, then cut out the national standings and let's just go have fun. But if we are interested in running a program comparing times on a national basis, the rules should assure fairness as much as draftsmanship can make possible.

So, who's taking the first cut at a re-write on the rules?

Regards,

Steve

: While various points in this debate have merit and, in the real world

: should be pinned down, let's not lose track of what the objectives

: are for most of the participants. We are out there to race against

: ourselves, to better our times, and mainly, to have fun. No one

: expects to be picked up by Newman - Hass, and certainly, the cars

: will NOT be worth more money after an event, trophy or not.

: From an organizer's point of view, more classes mean more trophies, mean

: more expenditures, and if policing becomes a major factor, more

: grief. If we make "work" out of this event, there will be

: fewer events sponsored.

: We are all "big boys and girls". Let's save the seriousness

: for those things that really matter. The Slaloms are for fun. ( And

: trophies are under $10.00).

Paul,

Very nice to see you here! The point you make is a good one, but the reality is that some of us are bigger boys and girls than others, and since this is a national program, the value of the trophies is not so much the issue as is the stature of winning the national crown. Given that set of circumstances, it is imperative that we clarify what is now a very loose, poorly written and poorly organized set of rules and regulations. This must be done in a concise manner that eliminates ambiguity, and that doesn't create layers of hard to administer nuances. It shouldn't be all that difficult, and it will make it possible for the really gung-ho to go after the prize on a level track, so to speak. We don't want to bring it to the acrimonius level of the Concours d'Elegance, where fisticuffs have resulted!

Regards,

Warren

While various points in this debate have merit and, in the real world should be pinned down, let's not lose track of what the objectives are for most of the participants. We are out there to race against ourselves, to better our times, and mainly, to have fun. No one expects to be picked up by Newman - Hass, and certainly, the cars will NOT be worth more money after an event, trophy or not.

From an organizer's point of view, more classes mean more trophies, mean more expenditures, and if policing becomes a major factor, more grief. If we make "work" out of this event, there will be fewer events sponsored.

We are all "big boys and girls". Let's save the seriousness for those things that really matter. The Slaloms are for fun. ( And trophies are under $10.00).

Rule change approach recommendation: Send suggestions to your Regional Director for forwarding to the Slalom Rules Committee. From the items below, it's safe to assume that I will be submitting a couple.

Wheels and tires: The INTENT was to achieve better competitive balance within classes. In class F, cars came with OE 15X6 wheels, later with 15X7 wheels, and still later with 16X7 wheels. A car with 205/70-15 tires is at a pretty clear disadvantage against one with 225/60-16 tires. Both were OE. I support the balance intent. HOWEVER, we should consider a modification of the rule to something like "wheels and tires that are stock to cars in the class. OE combinations are given in the concours rules book." That'd certainly tighten things up without forcing someone (like myself) to run my 1991 XJ40 with 205/70-15 tires while those in the 1994 XJ40 run 225/60-16 tires.

Suspension mods: It's a delusion to consider polyurethane bushings as performance enhancers. A racer convinced me to stick to rubber. The rules should be clarified to allow poly in stock classes. Roll bar and spring changes are,however, a different matter and changes are NOT allowed in stock classes, though a "stock to the class" principle might make sense. Shocks that are adjustable without removal from the car (like Spax) should be explicitly banned for stock IN the rules.

Engine/air induction mods: None should be allowed in stock classes, though the principle of "stock to the class" does have some merit in this area.

Stock vs Modified: The gap is very large if you look at times. There are a lot of lightly modified cars that have no chance against the "trailer kings" and they ought to have some sort of middle ground home. Did any of those JANE "modified" cars REALLY have a chance against Hagopian's E-type?

As for the JANE cars, I notice that despite the complaints about the E-type, the same entrants actually ran faster in a Class F XJ6. I thought I was doing well last weekend when I broke 46 seconds in the daily driver XJ40 only to find that the bar has lowered by 3 seconds from last year's quickest class time...

: Hopefully, the Rules Committee will deal with this issue and rule on it.

: Do we allow the modification of cars to non-US specs to continue to

: be considered stock? If so, I know a bunch of mods I'm going to make.

: Hopefully, that is not the way we are going.

: How about it, Rules Committee? Is anyone out there listening?

: Steve Weinstein

----------------------------------------

Steve,

Listening hard, and considering the best way to go about this. It is clear that JCNA Slalom has gathered critical mass, and now must be subject to development of rules and regulations that clearly codify the "seat-of-the-pants" rules that have developed along with the sport, and also put the administration of those rules into a point of view consistent with the overall goals of JCNA.

This means treating the sport as seriously as has been done with Concours d'Elegance, without making it so restrictive that it will discourage people from participating. A few ideas that I will throw out include setting up a Novice Class, so that newbies can have fun without having to be up against guys who have been doing this for years; making it clear what is expected if a car is to compete as "stock" vs. the kind of modifications that will require a move to "modified," and establishing a sort of "Masters" class for the really hot drivers, so that the top can be opened up to other serious competitors.

It will be a big job, but the time has come, and if we don't do it now our favorite activity will suffer.

Regards,

Warren Hansen

: AFAIC, if an entrant must go thru great lengths defending his

: understanding of the rules, and quote obscure parts catalog listings,

: to prove his car is "stock", it probably is not within

: "the spirit of the law".

: Just my two cents

: Cheers

: Doug Dwyer

Doug,

Thanks for chiming in. Part of the problem is that the "parts catalog" includes not only the US spec cars, it also includes the Canadian and European spec. cars, which did not, especially after 1971 or 72, include all of the emissions add-ons that the US spec cars have. That, apparently, is the basis for the argument that many of the modifications made to this car and others are really "stock." The reasoning goes, if it it is in the book, then it's legal; the book includes US and non-US spec versions of the same car; if we make the car to non-US specs, it's in the book, so therefore, it is legal and the car stays stock. Thus, as long as you can find some support for it in the parts books, you can do it to your car, no matter how your car was built. Or so the reasoning goes.

Hopefully, the Rules Committee will deal with this issue and rule on it. Do we allow the modification of cars to non-US specs to continue to be considered stock? If so, I know a bunch of mods I'm going to make. Hopefully, that is not the way we are going.

How about it, Rules Committee? Is anyone out there listening?

Steve Weinstein