Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Stock\s+Class\s+Model\s+Year\s+Exclusion\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Stock\s+Class\s+Model\s+Year\s+Exclusion\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Rick Cone" <rickcone@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:18:40 -0400; First and foremost IF we went to a 7/10 year rule in stock, the SCAC/SEB would have a much easier time of classing cars. Probably 70% of the cars listed in the rule book would be gone from NATIONAL c; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00042.html (8,864 bytes)
2. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Alan Pozner" <apozner@ptd.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:48:51 -0400; This is inane. It totally violates the grass-roots nature of SOLO II. Many people cannot afford this. Let's take the guy who has a $1000/year budget for a car. He could buy a new $20,000 car once eve; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00044.html (11,279 bytes)
3. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: Ignasi Palou-Rivera <palou@highstream.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:03:09 -0400; Thats's just a lot of baloney. So what are you proposing to do with all the cars you leave out of the stock classes? Lumping them all in one (or two) ST classes won't work. You'd have tons of differe; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00046.html (10,072 bytes)
4. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Jim Mistick" <jimmistick@hotmail.com>; Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 16:10:21 +0000; First and foremost IF we went to a 7/10 year rule in stock, the SCAC/SEB would have a much easier time of classing cars. Probably 70% of the cars listed in the rule book would be gone from NATIONAL c; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00053.html (9,981 bytes)
5. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Alan Pozner" <apozner@ptd.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:10:29 -0400; I think what happened was : 1) Someone was beaten in a stock class by someone who has expensive shocks. 2) They perceive that the expensive shocks are the difference 3) They do not want to buy expens; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00054.html (8,993 bytes)
6. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: Alan Dahl <adahl@eskimo.com>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:17:58 -0700; This idea is not intended to raise the entry-level cost of racing at the local level but rather to solve the problem of National-level Stock class cars requiring thousands of dollars of parts to be c; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00061.html (11,066 bytes)
7. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Alan Pozner" <apozner@ptd.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:34:53 -0400; All this because National level competitors are afraid to spend $4K on try /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try /// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo /// Part; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00063.html (12,676 bytes)
8. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Dave Whitworth" <dave@wcsllc.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:47:30 -0500; stock class totally and allow all Stock class competitors to change springs which would greatly reduce the need for the expensive double-adjustable shocks. I hate to join this "thread from hell" :); /html/autox/2002-05/msg00065.html (12,980 bytes)
9. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: Mark Hirt <hirtmark@netscape.net>; Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 13:01:21 -0500; I'll stur the pot even more... Anyone out there willing to bet that the driver of the "insert class here" car with the high dollar trick dampers gets in your "insert same class here" car he or she st; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00067.html (9,180 bytes)
10. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Dave Whitworth" <dave@wcsllc.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:09:50 -0500; Even worse....the said driver above would probably still win the same national championship that they won in their car :) DaveW not are try /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00068.html (10,424 bytes)
11. re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: David Hillman <hillman@planet-torque.com>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:31:19 -0400 (EDT); Dave wrote... I appreciate that; I'm not attacking you, just the whole idea ;) You lost me here. You're saying that "half of 7-10 thousand dollars" is essentially a drop in the bucket, because that i; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00072.html (9,514 bytes)
12. re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: David Hillman <hillman@planet-torque.com>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:43:21 -0400 (EDT); Alan Dahl wrote... [snip] Do you really mean "no changes" above, for SS? If so, why do you think owners migrating from SS to ST are going to forgo all of the current allowances? People are just going; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00074.html (9,731 bytes)
13. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Rick Cone" <rickcone@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 17:07:43 -0400; Such a simple solution, it probably won't ever happen. None the less, I like it. try /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try /// http://www.team.net/mailman/listin; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00084.html (12,427 bytes)
14. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: "Rick Cone" <rickcone@bellsouth.net>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 17:09:45 -0400; No, all this because most Stock Class National competitors change cars every few years, and are forced in the $4,000 expense each time. Not to mention the finance terms are much better from the bank; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00087.html (13,589 bytes)
15. Re: Stock Class Model Year Exclusion (score: 1): Author: Mike Smith <msmith2@columbus.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:39:06 -0400; I gotta go with Alan... If you want to limit the age of the possible cars, do it where (A) it counts, and (B) where most can afford to keep up.... PRO Solo... I'm assuming it's called PRO for a reaso; /html/autox/2002-05/msg00097.html (8,165 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]