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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Rules\s+Question\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. rules question (score: 1): Author: "eric salem" <ebsalem@radiks.net>; Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:18:39 -0600; On page 96, section 14.1.e "This rule should not be interpreted to allow modification of the heater system." On page 107, section 14.10.H -- in italics -- "this permits the removal of 'heater boxes'; /html/autox/2000-12/msg00513.html (7,030 bytes)
2. Re: rules question (score: 1): Author: "Phil Ethier" <pethier@isd.net>; Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:38:24 -0600; render No, but specific rules overrule general rules. It would have been nice if they would have added to 14.10.H the phrase "regardless of 14.1.e", which would have removed all doubt. The Met Counci; /html/autox/2000-12/msg00516.html (7,582 bytes)
3. Re: rules question (score: 1): Author: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>; Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:54:52 -0600; First of all (IMHO) you are looking at apples and oranges. Second, you're only concerned about the orange and it's legal to peel that. Have at it. (IMHO again) 14.1.E has to do with the heater system; /html/autox/2000-12/msg00540.html (8,511 bytes)
4. Re: Rules Question (score: 1): Author: Patrick Maddy <pmaddy@issiinc.com>; Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:41:51 -0500; Thanks to everyone for your replies. It seems that I forgot about limited slips not being allowed in ST, so I will see some of you in GS next year, or SP if I decide to go with all the cool Comptech; /html/autox/1999-11/msg00395.html (6,576 bytes)
5. Rules question (score: 1): Author: "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com>; Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 16:11:11 -0400 (EDT); Couple rules questions: For purposes of sections 15.2 G & R, is the hatch on a hatchback Fox3 mustang considered to be a door? I'm asking to find out if I can replace it with fiberglass and bolt it; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00592.html (7,629 bytes)
6. Re: Rules question (score: 1): Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:47:10 -0400; I had a similar question in Formula Fords, and got a written response. I don't have the rulebooks here to quote them, but the gist of it is that the Solo II rules say the same thing -- SHOULD conform; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00621.html (7,694 bytes)
7. Re: Rules question (score: 1): Author: bruce haden <bhaden@ucsd.edu>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:18:06 -0700; This is not being anal at all; it's called "reading the rules" . I am constantly amazed at how many people don't do it. Congratulations not only reading them but asking good questions. My only input; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00626.html (7,263 bytes)
8. Re: rules question (score: 1): Author: Paul and Meredith Brown <racers@rt66.com>; Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 21:34:58 -0600; It's not entirely clear that the current rules outlaw the use of nitrous. I think they are intended to do that, but I don't think that they accomplish it. The use of nitrogen bearing additives is di; /html/autox/1999-08/msg00019.html (7,141 bytes)
9. rules question (score: 1): Author: Christopher Roger Cammack <cmack@WPI.EDU>; Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:32:52 -0400 (EDT); if i put nitrous on my csp rx7, am i still legal if i disarm the system and don't have the bottle in the car when i run, it wouldnt affect the performance if i didnt use it. what's the rules say?; /html/autox/1999-07/msg01148.html (6,397 bytes)
10. Re: rules question (score: 1): Author: bruce haden <bhaden@ucsd.edu>; Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:43:59 -0700; It says you can't use nitrous. I suppose that technically you're still illegal with the hardware still in place but most local tech guys wouldn't say anything. If I had such a problem where anything; /html/autox/1999-07/msg01151.html (6,743 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]