Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*ST\s+Classification\.\.any\s+solid\s+rules\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*ST\s+Classification\.\.any\s+solid\s+rules\?\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:39:11 -0600; What do you all think ST will turn into? Im debating that the STU class will only allow the "types" of cars allowed in ST. But..what defines the "type" of car allowed in ST?? A friend in a GSX would; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00016.html (7,743 bytes)
2. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: whitney <whitneys@mindspring.com>; Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:51:19 -0800; I believe the GSX/talon AWD fits, because the 2WD version is ST legal, and the unlimited drivetrain allowance would cover the AWD system. Check with Howard Duncan to be sure, but I have brought it up; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00019.html (8,615 bytes)
3. RE: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Hiram Cuebas <HCUEBAS@techforce.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:57:02 -0500; If I`m not mistaken the cars allowed for this class would be NORMALLY ASPIRATED four passanger vehicle with a engine size of 3.1 or less. Having four doors doesn`t matter providing that the car is ma; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00020.html (8,826 bytes)
4. RE: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Dave <davek@urjet.net>; Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:00:41 -0700; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00022.html (8,312 bytes)
5. RE: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:20:20 -0700; So..a 350Hp stock VR4 is legal too..right? Now, lemme crank up another 150 -easy- hp for STU, of if im really mean, 200. Im just of the opinion, that ST is built for the ricers, cars that were -never; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00025.html (8,825 bytes)
6. RE: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:21:02 -0700; That's my point exactly...I dont see purpose built "sports cars" to fit under ST*; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00027.html (9,693 bytes)
7. RE: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Hiram Cuebas <HCUEBAS@techforce.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:10:54 -0500; My understanding was that the class was designed for Sedans. I know that a few months back we had a long discussing about what the defenition of sedan was. The way that it was explained to me was tha; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00032.html (10,927 bytes)
8. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Joshua Hadler <jhadler@rmi.net>; Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 11:06:02 -0700; Regardless of weather it can be considered a 'sedan' or 'coupe' or not, it's a forced aspirated car, and is explicitly disallowed for ST. " IV. VEHICLE ELIGIBILITY All sedans/coupes (four seats, four; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00036.html (9,471 bytes)
9. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:55:16 -0800; Joshua Hadler is right again, as usual. :) To "tee" off his comments on the street tire thread, I've been advocating a class (in addition to S, SP, P, M, ST, etc) that would have the mission to encou; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00045.html (11,663 bytes)
10. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: "Greg Lee" <greg@ThumbsUpRacing.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 15:55:15 -0600; -- Original Message -- How someone gets their car to an event has no place in the rules and is, quite frankly, no ones business but my own. I want to keep my mileage down so I trailer my autocross ca; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00047.html (9,069 bytes)
11. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:23:12 -0800; Not if they had to drive their cars to the meets! :) But seriously, there are residency requirements for registering automobiles -- even in Alabama, yes? But point well taken -- it's a loophole that; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00050.html (8,895 bytes)
12. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:30:10 -0800; Not if you are in the military, you can register your auto in any state you AB "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com> on 04/01/99 02:23:12 PM Please respond to "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00051.html (9,242 bytes)
13. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>; Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:43:28 -0500; So is he looking for a co-drive? <VBG> -- Matt Murray My home e-mail now is mailto:mattm@optonline.net It was mattm@nassau.cv.net Please note the change in your address books As always, work is: mail; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00052.html (8,629 bytes)
14. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: "Larry Spector" <larry_spector@flashmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 21:47:48 -0400; But what if it has a normally aspirated sibling that IS allowed? If the NA version of the Eclipse is allowed in ST, is its big brother (either AWD or FWD) allowed in STU if the only differences betwe; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00066.html (8,849 bytes)
15. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 04:53:18 -0800; If the car isn't allowed in ST, it isn't allowed in STR or STU. Under your scenario, ANY car would be legal for STU. I understand how you are starting with a derivative of a legal car, but the fact r; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00083.html (8,819 bytes)
16. RE: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Phil Vanner <pvanner@pclink.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:33:33 -0600; Andrew Bettencourt Notes: Not if you are in the military, you can register your auto in any state you want... Speaking for myself, If you put your ass on the line for me - I'll give you the loophole.; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00087.html (8,031 bytes)
17. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: "Larry Spector" <larry_spector@flashmail.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:45:24 -0500; That was my assumption. I thought that forced induction was allowed in STU. If that's not true then forget what I said... If it is true however- if you started with a non-turbo car and added the fact; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00095.html (8,765 bytes)
18. Re: ST Classification..any solid rules? (score: 1): Author: Gary McDaniel <mcnjohn@sierratel.com>; Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 08:30:25 -0800; -NEVER-??? Don't tell that to the "ricers". I'm having a good time in this ST class beating them with my domestic Z24. I look forward to having more of them show up. ;-) Gary McDaniel 97 Cavalier Z24; /html/autox/1999-04/msg00096.html (8,782 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]