A number of us in JOCO (Oregon club) are interested in a
rule change which would allow a Jaguar metal T from a
series III car to be legitimized in the concours rules as a
substitute for the plastic fuel T on Series 2 E-types… Our
reasons are as follows:
Jaguar stopped supplying them in 1987 - NOS pieces are
now at least 24 years old and are fragile.
breaking means an instant very large fuel leak spraying all
over the engine compartment. This is a BIG safety issue.
There is precedent for this type of change - we are allowed
modern brakes and tires under current rules (wheelwells
unjudged)
JCNA , by requiring this piece, opens itself to considerable
exposure if a car burns.
There is suitable Jag piece available - both XKS and
Barrett refer the old number forward to a series III metal T.
This issue is well known in the E-type community. This
forum has seven posts in the past couple of years talking
about the hazards of using this part and advising against it.
The JCNA process for requesting a rule change recommends
that it be discussed on relevent forums first, which is why I
am posting it here. Please comment and relay any
experiences you have had with the plastic T. Thanks for
your thoughtful reply!–
robtbfor
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
If this is an official rules change request, why don’t you identify
yourself?
Len Wheeler
Tucson, AZ
Please delete all names and email addresses from this message if you plan to
forward it.
Please use Bcc; for any and ALL emails INSTEAD of Cc: or To:
If you keep our information private, we might be able to cut down on
computer identity theft.----- Original Message -----
From: “robtbfor” bobbridgeford@msn.com
To: concours@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: [concours] rule change -plastic fuel T on series 2 E-type
A number of us in JOCO (Oregon club) are interested in a
rule change which would allow a Jaguar metal T from a
series III car to be legitimized in the concours rules as a
substitute for the plastic fuel T on Series 2 E-types… Our
reasons are as follows:
Jaguar stopped supplying them in 1987 - NOS pieces are
now at least 24 years old and are fragile.
breaking means an instant very large fuel leak spraying all
over the engine compartment. This is a BIG safety issue.
There is precedent for this type of change - we are allowed
modern brakes and tires under current rules (wheelwells
unjudged)
JCNA , by requiring this piece, opens itself to considerable
exposure if a car burns.
There is suitable Jag piece available - both XKS and
Barrett refer the old number forward to a series III metal T.
This issue is well known in the E-type community. This
forum has seven posts in the past couple of years talking
about the hazards of using this part and advising against it.
The JCNA process for requesting a rule change recommends
that it be discussed on relevent forums first, which is why I
am posting it here. Please comment and relay any
experiences you have had with the plastic T. Thanks for
your thoughtful reply!
In reply to a message from Bob Hotaling sent Tue 4 Oct 2011:
Bob
My name is in the email. This is not the forum for an official
request. That is the JCNA site. There is a correct form and a
recommended procedure . The procedure includes, as it clearly
states in my email, ‘‘post the proposal on other sites for
discussion’’ which is what this is about. I assume that your
comment is that you switched your T out right after you
stopped showing the car’’ or in other words, you were concerned
about the T being a potential hazard…,–
robtbfor
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from robtbfor sent Tue 4 Oct 2011:
I note that the issue has been posted on the JCNA site at
this time.We had intended to post it on both sites hoping to
catch a larger audience, but I can ony type so fast!
In spite of the comment from Len, who doesn’t know my
name, the ‘‘formal rule change’’ is not posting the issue. It is
filing the appropriate form before an AGM meeting so the
appropriate group can address it with the benefit of
comments from the general membership. AFTER THESE
HAVE BEEN COLLECTED WE WILL FILL OUT THE
COMPETITION RULES CHANGE FORM.(OR NOT IF THERE
IS NO SUPPORT) I encourage you all to comment on the
issue . Fuel T - should we retain it as the only acceptable
part?
My only comment was I would have liked to know the name of the person
writing the E Mail. There was no malice intended as you suggest.
Len
Please delete all names and email addresses from this message if you plan to
forward it.
Please use Bcc; for any and ALL emails INSTEAD of Cc: or To:
If you keep our information private, we might be able to cut down on
computer identity theft.----- Original Message -----
From: “robtbfor” bobbridgeford@msn.com
To: concours@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [concours] rule change -plastic fuel T on series 2 E-type
In reply to a message from robtbfor sent Tue 4 Oct 2011:
I note that the issue has been posted on the JCNA site at
this time.We had intended to post it on both sites hoping to
catch a larger audience, but I can ony type so fast!
In spite of the comment from Len, who doesn’t know my
name, the ‘‘formal rule change’’ is not posting the issue. It is
filing the appropriate form before an AGM meeting so the
appropriate group can address it with the benefit of
comments from the general membership. AFTER THESE
HAVE BEEN COLLECTED WE WILL FILL OUT THE
COMPETITION RULES CHANGE FORM.(OR NOT IF THERE
IS NO SUPPORT) I encourage you all to comment on the
issue . Fuel T - should we retain it as the only acceptable
part?
In reply to a message from robtbfor sent Tue 4 Oct 2011:
Sorry but I do not see it there. As far as a larger audience you
should understand that it is the JCNA audience you want to capture.
I will say this here–the fuel ‘‘T’’ had no such issues when the cars
were in production. I have only seen the ‘‘T’’ fail when maintainence
was not preformed correctly. I do not know about the quality of the
reproductions but if it is substandard the vendors need to know.
The lack of a certain part will never cause the rules to be
changed. Series one E types for example are not given a pass when
the no longer have the correct radiator. The cars that still do
have them are not hit. If you do not want to use the correct parts
just take the penalty. Most if not ALL of the failures on that part
are due to sloppy or lazy assembly. If they are heated in warm
water and applied to BOTH carbs prior to being offered up to the
manifold there is no issue. While here I will tell you that the
metal ‘‘T’’ and two hoses also cause an issue when incorrect
application is involved. By trying to ‘‘slip’’ the ‘‘T’’ with rubber
hoses in often a bit of rubber is chipped off and WILL stick the
float. I look forward to your posting on the JCNA site.–
The original message included these comments:
I note that the issue has been posted on the JCNA site at
this time.We had intended to post it on both sites hoping to
catch a larger audience, but I can ony type so fast!
Bob – Yes, I changed mine as you suggested for the concerns you mention.
It may have been fine “while in production” as George suggests and of course
it should be mounted properly but there’s been quite a few years since “in
production” and if I had flecks of hose breaking loose during mounting, I’d
be as concerned about the condition of the hoses as well. I agree that this
is a perfect place to discuss the merits of using the replacement part and
potential “opps” topics while the application for change is another horse
as you describe.
In reply to a message from Bob Hotaling sent Wed 5 Oct 2011:
First, my apologies to Len if he was only curious about who I
am - he is correct in stating that I felt he was taking a rather
negative approach…and he never answered the question
I agree with Bob H. and not with George about the failure of
these parts. The part was probably fine when in production
41 years ago. However, it has been at least 25 years since
one was made. I am not aware of any aftermarket versions
of this part being manufactured.
When it became apparent that the failure rate of these was
very high, I approached the Paktech company in Eugene OR
about making a new version. I wrongly thought that with
modern manufacturing techniques, especially the cad-cam
printers, that it would be easy to replicate one. I learned 3
important things from their president, Dr James Borg
(Pakteck makes artificial body parts and military plastic
weapons).
Printer technology cannot be used for this part because it
will not align the molecules correctly and it will be too weak
2)Plastic does age and fail, although actual use test is the
only way to get accurate figures 3)the most important aging
factors are: vibration, heat, solvents, and uv rays. The ‘‘t’’ is
exposed to all of these, though UV probably isn’t significant.
3)Setting up the molds to make the first new ‘‘T’’ would be a
minimum charge of $15,000. After that, they are real cheap!
Given the expense, the likely size of the market and the real
liability of a part infamous for leaking gas on hot engine
parts it seems unlikely that we will see such a part. I
conclude that a newly made ‘‘safe’’ part of plastic is not going
to happen. That means we either accept the dangerous part
or agree that an alternative needs to be found.–
robtbfor
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –
In reply to a message from robtbfor sent Tue 4 Oct 2011:
Just for interest, and since I’m converting over to triple SUs
anyway, I gave the one on my car a good hard wiggle. It’s solid.
The car’s always been garaged so that might have something to do
with it. All of which to say an NOS item, if you can find it,
should be ok.–
The original message included these comments:
Jaguar stopped supplying them in 1987 - NOS pieces are
now at least 24 years old and are fragile.
In reply to a message from Nickolas S. sent Mon 10 Oct 2011:
Good news – SNG Barratt now offers a reproduction Series 2
Fuel Tee (C.28915) for $95.–
Budde
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php –