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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SWAY\s+BARS\?\?\?\?\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

1. SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: "Isley, Jason C." <JIsley@cell1.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:19:24 -0700; It is getting to quite, so I thought it was time for a new subject...How does everyone feel about this outdated stock sway bar rule? You can only change the front bar. I don't want to offend anyone,; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00636.html (7,867 bytes)
2. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: "Justin Hughes" <ka1ult@channel1.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:56:02 -0400; I completely understand what you're saying. Sure, you can change the front sway bar in a front driver. That means you can either go for something bigger, which will make the car plow like a pig even; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00637.html (8,719 bytes)
3. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:05:44 EDT; Are you ready to throw all the stock vehicle classifications away for 3-4 years while we all develop our swaybars and change the relative competitiveness of the cars? Some cars will be helped immense; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00638.html (8,824 bytes)
4. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Scott Meyers <solo2@uswest.net>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:28:01 -0700; I thought he meant to allow one end of the car or the other, but not both. I would favor that. **This to go along with the existing $1000 to $1700 (as reported in this list) necessary for special sho; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00640.html (9,333 bytes)
5. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Robert Glover <rob@f-body.org>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:40:38 -0700 (PDT); I was thinking of this also, and thought, okay, what if the rule read so that the swaybar that can be changed can only be changed on the opposite end of the drive wheels. That means rear-drivers chan; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00642.html (8,726 bytes)
6. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: ConeChasr@aol.com; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:44:08 EDT; << **This to go along with the existing $1000 to $1700 (as reported in this list) necessary for special shocks to be competitive in stock class? Let's eliminate the shady-at-best 'reservoir shocks' t; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00643.html (8,665 bytes)
7. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: ConeChasr@aol.com; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:46:11 EDT; << I was thinking of this also, and thought, okay, what if the rule read so that the swaybar that can be changed can only be changed on the opposite end of the drive wheels. >> What about us unfortun; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00644.html (7,956 bytes)
8. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Craig Blome <cblome@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:53:18 -0700 (PDT); which still leaves AWD cars as a problem. Is anyone around who was present at the creation of this rule? I'm not taking sides, I just want to know who, if anyone, is arguing based on the original pre; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00645.html (8,369 bytes)
9. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Robert Glover <rob@f-body.org>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT); Ummmm... good point. Gee, we could: A. Let 'em change both (not a good idea) B. Let 'em change one or the other, but not both (not a good idea probably) C. Make them abide by the existing front-bar r; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00646.html (8,701 bytes)
10. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Loren Williams <Loren@kscable.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:04:26 -0500; This subject has indeed been discussed here before. Rumor is that the rule was devised back in the earliest days of Solo when most of the stock class cars were rear wheel drive and benefitted from a; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00647.html (9,122 bytes)
11. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Ajstratton@aol.com; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:24:16 EDT; This may have already been suggested but it's another thought, How about ALL stock class cars run STOCK swaybars. Pretty simple, no cost, no fairness issue either? But does it really matter, all aspe; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00649.html (8,381 bytes)
12. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Loren Williams <Loren@kscable.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:31:15 -0500; Run in STR. Same as ST but without that "sucky" street tire rule. -- Loren Williams | Homepage - http://home.kscable.com/shad '94 Saturn SC2 | Wichita Region SCCA - http://www2.southwind.net/~scca; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00651.html (8,894 bytes)
13. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: TeamZ3@aol.com; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:54:59 EDT; A slightly larger front anti-sway bar reduces understeer in a number of Any way you slice it, you're just in the wrong car :-O M Sipe; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00652.html (8,181 bytes)
14. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: "MICHAEL WHITEHOUSE" <whthse@c2i2.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:15:56 -0600; We could go really radical and allow them to run only the stock sway bars. Michael Whitehouse -- time bar bar.; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00654.html (9,403 bytes)
15. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: "Phil Ethier" <pethier@isd.net>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:57:17 -0500; I don't see why this is not a good idea. If any change is made at all in the rule, I think the "change one or the other, but not both" is the best idea for sway-bars in Stock. Phil "no dog in this f; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00661.html (8,605 bytes)
16. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Craig Blome <cblome@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:45:21 -0700 (PDT); Slightly exaggerated, methinks. There just aren't that many ways to make a silk purse from a sow's ear using roll stiffness alone. 'Sides, Stock class makeup changes over 3-4 years anyway (unless you; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00668.html (10,326 bytes)
17. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: washburn <washburn@dwave.net>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:08:42 -0500; Change the rule to read: "One sway bar may be altered. The other bar, if any, must remain as delivered from the factory." Or something like that...don't pick me apart, you get the idea. PLW; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00681.html (8,572 bytes)
18. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: "Jan Schmidt" <jschmidt@kumc.edu>; Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:30:46 -0500; I said about 6 months ago, "The rule should say ,change front or rear, your choice, but not both." And yes, you are correct this rule must have been form the early 70s, before the rise of the front; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00687.html (9,281 bytes)
19. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:13:27 EDT; I think it would increase the development cost of Stock. You'd have to try several different combinations before you got it right. AND, this was an actual proposal several years ago and it died at th; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00688.html (8,318 bytes)
20. Re: SWAY BARS???? (score: 1): Author: Smokerbros@aol.com; Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:13:26 EDT; Geez, I can't believe I'm responding to Linnhoff! :-) I have a problem with those shocks, too, just don't know how to write a rule to allow KYB Gas-A-Just, or Tokico Blues, and prohibit the super exp; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00689.html (9,015 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]