Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Stock\s+shock\s+rules\s+rewrite\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Stock\s+shock\s+rules\s+rewrite\?\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. Re:Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: TeamZ06@aol.com; Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:02:26 EST; isn't it amazing how one little ember can smoulder and simmer away for days, then POOF, major forest fire ... :-) What happens when somebody claims your shocks and you don't have a spare set to drive; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00131.html (10,267 bytes)
2. Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>; Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:10:34 -0500; This was from Byron Short on the Evo list. Mark Sipe just cross posted to the Evo and Team.net, so I'm going to repost Byron's in three parts to be under Mark's 10k limit. Matt Murray mattm@optonline; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00132.html (12,147 bytes)
3. Stock Shock Rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>; Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:12:03 -0500; Matt Murray mattm@optonline.net For instance, let's be extreme and say "no aftermarket adjustable shocks at all". The new "must have" shock becomes one that has all of the same features that, say, P; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00133.html (13,702 bytes)
4. Re: Stock Shock Rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: Alan Dahl <adahl@eskimo.com>; Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:42:18 -0800; I think Byron may have stumbled on the solution here. Allow any shock that is sold by Sears! heck we could even sign them up as a series sponsor! :-) In all seriousness it's my opinion that Byron is; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00135.html (10,027 bytes)
5. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: Ghsharp@aol.com; Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:50:00 EST; [snip] A couple of recent examples come to mind. Andy McKee won A Stock at Topeka this past year on a set of Koni single-adjustables, while a large number of the folks behind him were on those high-d; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00136.html (8,808 bytes)
6. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: TeamZ06@aol.com; Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:18:04 EST; I just don't understand why everyone is so worried about shock costs and technology. Recurring costs of using soft, fragile DOT race tires easily outstrip the cost of a good set of shocks that you ma; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00137.html (8,581 bytes)
7. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: TeamZ06@aol.com; Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:29:54 EST; Hey, I only asked the SEB to clarify the wording and eliminate some conflicts. The moral of the story is: Be careful what you ask the SEB for, you just might get more than you wanted. Mark /// unsubs; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00144.html (8,409 bytes)
8. Re: Stock Shock Rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: "Dave Hardy" <dave2020@mindspring.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:35:20 +0200; Wow, now that is thinking outside the box! While it is getting even more "non-stock", I think it would help keep costs down. It would also allow newbies with only a spring change not to have to be e; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00145.html (9,429 bytes)
9. Re: Stock Shock Rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:32:30 EST; I'm not convinced that SP, Prep and Mod cars aren't lagging behind Stock because most of us have already spent a ton on our cars and that the benefits aren't as obvious. Ask Frank Stagnaro, Barry Spe; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00159.html (9,176 bytes)
10. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: "Dan Bettis" <dan@zrracing.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:39:16 -0500; Take away the grippy tires and the high dollar shocks will become less effective. Think how much cheaper that would be. Dan Bettis danbettis@zrracing.com http://www.predatormotorsport.com http://www.; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00172.html (8,434 bytes)
11. RE: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: "Bill Fuhrmann" <fuhrmann@cpinternet.com>; Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 05:33:48 -0600; Sounds like Dan just volunteered for the annual attempt to write a rule that bans sticky tires. People keep talking like it is simple but no one has posted one yet that had a reasonable chance of wo; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00178.html (8,631 bytes)
12. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: "Dan Bettis" <dan@zrracing.com>; Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:27:06 -0500; I have heard these arguments already with the STS tires. I probably do not have the solution. That was just how I see making them less of an advange. Spec tire would be the only way I see or you have; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00181.html (9,986 bytes)
13. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:26:16 EST; This has been bandied about for years, and usually dismissed as unworkable. I think it's "less unworkable" than stock shocks with sticky tires. Another thing that would help in regulating "stock shoc; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00185.html (8,748 bytes)
14. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: Gail/Sid deLeon <deleon@sstar.com>; Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:10:08 -0600; But then you would not need the after market sway bars ! Are you suggesting that stock cars run stock suspension ? Sid /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try /// h; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00197.html (8,818 bytes)
15. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 22:44:56 EST; If you were going to upset the applecart that far, get rid of the front swaybar allowance at the same time. Charlie /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try /// http; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00204.html (8,020 bytes)
16. Re: Stock shock rules rewrite? (score: 1): Author: "Phil Ethier" <pethier@isd.net>; Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:51:14 -0600; I don't agree. Forgetting for the moment that taking away the sticky tires has it's own rule-and-enforcement problems (if you want to discuss this, please start another thread): In the absence of fre; /html/autox/2002-01/msg00263.html (8,543 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]