Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Fot\]\s+Track\s+width\s+of\s+Spitfire\s+1500\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Fot\]\s+Track\s+width\s+of\s+Spitfire\s+1500\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Fot] Track width of Spitfire 1500 (score: 1): Author: robert bownes <bownes@seiri.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:02:16 -0400; We have stock width + 2" as max track width. --Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-- Von: MadMarx [mailto:tr4racing@googlemail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. August 2010 22:10 An: 'Barr, Scott' Cc: 'fot@autox.te; /html/fot/2010-08/msg00318.html (9,797 bytes)
2. Re: [Fot] Track width of Spitfire 1500 (score: 1): Author: "MadMarx" <tr4racing@googlemail.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:05:31 +0200; A longer rear spring will produce a reduced negative camber at the rear. Or he might even consider getting rid of the rocker box and revert to an early spring. This will reduce the body roll and like; /html/fot/2010-08/msg00319.html (9,765 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]