Cheney vs Jubilee hose clamps

I've always believed that if I'm going to compete on a national level, I will have to compete with those cars that are completely original, incl. Cheney clamps. It took some searching, but I found them.

In regards to Cheney clamps, a member of the Houston club traced who now owns the "rights" and tooling of the old Cheney clamps. Turns out it's owned by some company in China. He found out that they were making the clamps, complete with the Cheney designation on them (he thinks), and marketing them as "British-style hose clamps". He contacted them and asked for a sample, but never got one. Maybe I should ask him to dig up that information again....could solve a lot of problems....(or start new ones ;-)

Patrick McLoad
1966 E-Type, Right-hand Drive Roadster
#1E1445

To further complicate this issue, I would like to point out that V12 engined Series III cars came from the factory with both types of clamps on the engine hoses, and they were not used consistently in specific spots. In light of this, a blanket insistence on one type of clamp for the more recent cars, is not logical. The matter is "fuzzy" with respect to judging

Gregory Andrachuk
1992 Series III V12 Vanden Plas
1987 Series III V12 Vanden Plas
1966 Mark 2 3.

Dick,

Thanks, I get it. Having raised the issue I guarentee I'll be sending all my old Cheney clamps out to the palter prior to the next councours!

Jeff Klein
1970 OTS, BRG

Carl, Jeff, Bob, Chris, Stew à,

The JCNA Judge's Concours Rules Committee (JCRC) has not, as yet, formally reviewed or updated the Rule Book text regarding hose clamps; however, there have been related protest discussions and certain authenticity precedents for what exists and for what will likely come.

A. Here are some facts as I know them:
1. Early Jaguars, through XK120's, had Cheney and/or TEX brand hose clamps or a mixture of the two.
2. Later Jaguars, through at least the early 1970's, had Cheney brand hose clamps.
3. The tightening screw on the original Cheney clamps ALWAYS had a straight slot, round head.
4. The metal band on the Cheney clamps contained grooves which the screw engaged. Those grooves were not cut all the way through the band. (The band was not perforated.)
5. The TEX clamps were most always cad plated. The Cheney clamps were most commonly cad plated but early-on were seen and mixed with either cad or "blued" finishes.
6. There were also other brands of round-headed, straight-slot hose clamps in the period that looked very similar to Cheney's.
7. Working-order, used Cheney clamps are still available. Most every restorer has a "stash" of them and other clamps may still be waiting to be found in salvage yards. Several suppliers offer Cheney clamps.
8. Jubilee brand clamps look somewhat like Cheney's EXCEPT they have a combination hex and straight-slot screw head. That makes them WRONG! Many vendors erroneously sold them as "authentic".

B. Where is this probably going?
1. Proper Cheney and TEX clamps will always be accepted as authentic when used in their proper applications.
2. In most instances, when installed, the brand names on the clamps cannot be read. Clamps with straight slot round screw heads, that otherwise resemble Cheney's, may possibly be accepted.
3. Clamps with ANYTHING BUT straight-slot round headed screws and/or with perforated bands will be scored as non-authentic.

C. Personal
1. I have had dozens of Cheney clamps cad plated and haven't ever had to discard, even one, because it couldn't be made to work properly.
2. Hundreds of Jaguar and other British car owners have managed to find, and continue to effectively use, original Cheney and TEX clamps. (Yes, they are not always easy to tighten.)
3. Most hose clamps are rarely operated, are restorable, and not subject to a level of wear that would place them in an "expendable" category, as are batteries and tires.
4. As the various JCNA model Judging Guides are authored, new judging standards will evolve and expose some items and materials, currently being used, that subsequently may be considered non-authentic.

Sincerely,
Dick Cavicke
Chairman, JCNA, JCRC

I read in the judges manual about the tyres, batteries, etc. But lets take this one step further. In the case of the "XK", they never left the factory with stainless steel exhausts, but rather metal exhausts with chromed tips. Every one I've seen at a show has the stainless exhausts (including mine)with polished tips....but, it passes with no deductions,
even though the original exhausts are still available. A more extreme example, the rexine(sp) molding around the interior which is no longer available....I've only seen it once on a totally unrestored XK. Its not cited in the judge's manual, but there is not one restored XK with this molding and once again no deductions. Even though across the nation I see many XK's judged to be 100, how could this be possible if all the judges are following the same book.

Steve,

First, thank you for a reasonable answer. The fact that Cheney's "can be" restored does differentiate them from tyres and batteries. (Although I could argue that if you have a case and enough money you can have a battery restored). It still leaves the problem that many cosmetically restored clamps still do not work as a clamp. But that issue, 100 point cars that can't be driven around the block, is a whole other can of worms that I have no intereast in opening.

As for your suggested change, please leave it be! If we are going to stick to Cheneys are correct anything else is wrong then the current madatory deducation seems fine. I would like to see consistent judging in this area as I know from events I've attended that many judges are"ignoring a law they disagree with" and not deducting for the lack of Cheneys, particularly if Jubilees are present.

BTW, if beadbalsting a Jubilee to "simulate" cad plating is only half a sin then why did the revised guides go to great length to differentiate between wrong plating and painting of items that should be cad? Again, if only Cheneys are correct then so be it. Leave the point duduction simple and unambiguous.

Jeff Klein
1970 OTS, BRG

The difference between the Cheney hose clamps and tyres and batteries is the Cheney hose clamps can be restored - tyres and batteries cannot be restored. The problem is how do you recognize or give credit to the Entry whose restorer has gone to the trouble of finding, restoring, and installing the correct Cheney clamps? Since we canÆt give credit or bonus points (it gets way to complicated) we, in accordance with the rules, have to take the deductions when items are found other than, ôas it left the factoryö.

As the NW representative to the JCRC, I have advocated a three-tiered non-authentic deduction system that may help, especially in the case of items like hose clamps. The three-tiered system would take the listed deduction (maximum deduction) for and item that is missing, as there can be no greater wrong than missing. For an item that is slightly wrong, the deduction would be 25% of maximum. For an item that is more than slightly wrong, the deduction would be 50% of maximum. In the case of hose clamps, it may work like this:

Missing hose clamps - 1.00 points each
American style hose clamps - 50% of maximum = 0.50 points each
Stainless Jubilee with hex-headed screw - 50% of maximum = 0.50 points each
Bead blasted* stainless Jubilee with round-headed screw - 25% of maximum = 0.25 points each.

* To simulate cadmium plating

Note that the values of the maximum deductions set forth in Chapter VI may have to be changed to allow easy application of the 50% and 25% deduction. This three-tiered approach is complicated but it solves a complicated problem. Another approach would be to list a deduction for wrong, double it for missing, and reduce it by 50% for slightly wrong.

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

Bob,

Having spent hundreds of hours restoring my car I am well aware that it wasn't meant to be something done by going to the local parts store. I also stated and am well aware that there are lots of worn out Cheney's available (I've got a big bag of them myself). I was simply asking why we treat this item differently than the tire and battery issue. Your own post and suggested solution validates that the clamps (as no NEW ones are available) are mostly worn out and won't perform their intended function. If your rational is "correct is correct", then why aren't we all required to find 50 year old tires and Lucas batteries?

Jeff Klein
1970 OTS, BRG

Jeff,
Noboby ever said that preparing a totally authentic car would be as easy as popping into your local auto part store or calling your favorite Jag part dealer. If you hunt them out Cheney hose clamps are available, in fact a friend of mine on the west coast just sent 30-40 of them, that he just bought, to me to have plated as we still have a cad plater in the area. Try junk yards that specialize in Brit cars and you may be surprised at what you find.
As far as the clamps not sealing, go to your local NAPA store and get a small bottle of Indian Head Gasket Shellac and coat the inside of the hose before installing the hose and give the shellac a day or so to set up before filling the cooling system. I've used this method, with Cheney hose clamps, for at least 20 years with no problems of leaks or being forced to over tighten the clamps. To remove the hose just give it a sideways twist which will break the seal. Good luck!
Bob Stevenson Jag of Mi.

This whole Cheney issue nneds to be revisited. I just attended a concours where it was discussed at length and most people agreed on two items:
1) the rules require Cheneys if they were originally what the car had
2) the rule should be changed.

Cheney's are no longer available and while there are lots of them available sitting in boxes rusted and corroded, they are expensive to replate and then often don't clamp. My understanding on batteries and tires is that these are "consumables" and therefore the rules committee has decided that as long as the substitutes meet some standards (tire size, battery post configuration, etc.) then the substitute items are allowed. What I do not know is why this same rational does not apply to the Cheneys? If you don't believe they are a consumable then go cycle yours (as you have to do to replace a hose) and see how many times you can do it before the clamp no longer works. In addition, how is a correct but worn out (i.e. one that allows leakage because it won't tighten) and safer than old tires (part of the rational I've been led to believe created the tire rules as the exist).

I'd like to hear from some people on the judging committe on this one? Why so stubborn on what seems to be a "no-brainer" and, at least in my brief experience, a consensus opinion among the people spending the time and money to bring these cars to the events?

P.S. Before anyone puts forth the "slippery slope" argument, what other item wears out and cannot perform its function and is not available are we worried about?

Jeff Klein
1970 OTS, BRG

Carl, The JCNA rule book is very specific on exceptions to the authenticity requirements. In the Championship classes the only exceptions are the manufactures names on batteries, glass and tires. I would highly recommend that get a JCNA rule book rather then take the word of some individual.
Bob Stevenson Jag of Mi.