- 1. New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: "Linnhoff, Eric" <elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:17:22 -0600
- ..regarding the removal, or not, of spare tire covers in Stock, Street Touring and SP cars. In a Neon the spare tire cover is held in place with the same "through" bolt that holds the spare tire in p
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00154.html (9,296 bytes)
- 2. Re: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: "Ron Nottingham" <nottingham@alltel.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:52:38 -0500
- The way I see it, your spare tire is not "permanent". It is designed to be removed. The cover, though bolted, is not "permanent" either, unless it is hinged in place. You "remove" it from the car wh
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00155.html (10,764 bytes)
- 3. RE: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: "Linnhoff, Eric" <elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:03:34 -0600
- --Original Message-- Now, I don't know about the Neon, but the SHO I have uses a "J" hook that is threaded on the end for the cover, and the hook end just slips in a catch. If the Neon is anything li
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00156.html (8,697 bytes)
- 4. Re: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: Stacey DeSpelder <37csp@pathwaynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:50:58 -0500
- This might fall under the rule that says you can't make an illegal modification to accommodate a legal one. Then again, it's a safety issue if you drive a hatchback where this loose item could reach
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00159.html (9,906 bytes)
- 5. Re: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: "Patrick Washburn" <washburn@dwave.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:16:44 -0600
- Eric, the only reason there is an apparent conflict is because someone took it to a rediculous level. I personally feel there is nothing wrong with the rules...it is "us" that is the problem. Patrick
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00160.html (8,145 bytes)
- 6. Re: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: Eric Linnhoff <knuckledragger@kcweb.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:44:35 -0800
- Waddaya mean "someone took it to a rediculous level"? Who? Remember, "we" are "they". My only question is that once again it would seem (to me) that the rules contradict themselves. Which one takes p
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00161.html (8,945 bytes)
- 7. Re: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: RTBLUE007@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:28:39 EST
- << 13.2.F states: "Spare tires, tools and jacks may be removed." Would not one be permitted, under this allowance, to also remove the loose hardware that held these items in place? That sure seems re
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00163.html (9,302 bytes)
- 8. Re: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:44:46 -0600
- Just IMHO from a P guy who, happily, does not need to worry about such "Spare tires, tools and jacks may be removed." This, it seems to me, permits the removal of some things that have some fairly si
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00164.html (12,949 bytes)
- 9. Re: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: "Phillip Osborne" <psosborn@gte.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:45:48 -0500
- I think I mentioned this a few years ago, but Bob Monday was forced to drive home on Saturday night, following a Tour event in Evansville (He lives in Indianapolis) to retrieve his spare tire cover a
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00165.html (15,046 bytes)
- 10. Re: New thoughts on an old rule... (score: 1)
- Author: "Patrick Washburn" <washburn@dwave.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 07:46:58 -0600
- I am told (I wasn't there so it's all heresay and legend to me) that the reason you and I had to run DS with our covers in place is because someone filed a protest on that very same thing. Is this no
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00166.html (9,040 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu