Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[evolution\-disc\.\]\s+UD\/BD\s+Explained\s+$was\s+Fastrack$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[evolution\-disc\.\]\s+UD\/BD\s+Explained\s+$was\s+Fastrack$\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [evolution-disc.] UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack) (score: 1): Author: Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>; Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:31:29 -0400; This IS what should have happened four years ago. Get Spock to "mind meld" SP, ST, and SM. Extremely painful, but you would reduce the "I" class structures. Our sport would benefit from this. Matt Mu; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00209.html (8,203 bytes)
2. RE: [evolution-disc.] UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack) (score: 1): Author: ktm@Unify.Com; Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:51:14 -0700; While I will whole heartedly agree that Heyward is _much_ better at marketing that I am :-), there are a few points to be made here: 1) Any newby to autocross is likely: a) not to have one of the car; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00211.html (11,584 bytes)
3. Re: [evolution-disc.] UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack) (score: 1): Author: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchell@compuserve.com>; Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:29:15 -0500; Hold on a minute here. Lemme get this straight: you're saying that it's highly unlikely that a complete newcomer to our sport can win his(her) class within an event or two? What kind of cruel racket; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00215.html (10,049 bytes)
4. Re: [evolution-disc.] UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack) (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <mark@sirota.org>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:22:30 -0400; My favorite statement along these lines comes from the Champ Car Stars of Tomorrow rules primer at http://www.cartstars.com/docs/rulesprimer030120.pdf: "It is not the intent for Stars to have regulat; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00218.html (8,682 bytes)
5. Re: [evolution-disc.] UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack) (score: 1): Author: "Eric Linnhoff" <knuckledragger@kcweb.net>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:23:26 -0500; == Here's a question for you Franken-Civic guys; Had the SP listing not changed last year to include '88 Civics on the same line as '89-'91's, would you have gone to the trouble of a total makeover/; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00219.html (8,235 bytes)
6. RE: [evolution-disc.] UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack) (score: 1): Author: "Dave Hardy" <dave2020@mindspring.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 02:12:07 -0700; An 88 is pretty much identical to an 89 of the same trim level. The catch is that there wasn't an 88 Si. An 89 STD is just as good a starting point as an 88. There was a significant set of changes in; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00221.html (9,740 bytes)
7. Re: [evolution-disc.] UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack) (score: 1): Author: "Mike Smith" <msmith2@columbus.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:53:34 -0400; It wasn't necessary.... The generic 88-91 Civic line would have been Had the listing not changed last year, an '88 Civic STD owner would have used the engine/tranny from any 88-91 Civic EX. EX's have; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00224.html (8,773 bytes)
8. RE: [evolution-disc.] UD/BD Explained (was Fastrack) (score: 1): Author: ktm@Unify.Com; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:32:30 -0700; I don't have my handy-dandy list of Civic weights at my finger tips, but yes we would have. We would have found an '89 base and done the Si swap. The combo price would have been cheaper than a good c; /html/autox/2003-06/msg00231.html (10,041 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]