Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Short\s+People\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

1. Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Foster" <pfoster@gdi.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:39:37 -0400
And Mark Sirota responded: <<<You've obviously never driven a BMW M Coupe. Or you've never been a tall driver in a Miata. The mirror definitely blocks a significant amount of the driver's vision in s
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00357.html (7,652 bytes)

2. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 11:41:17 -0400
Of course. I am short. :-) Autocrossing also does not depend on having back seats, but you can't remove those... Once you go down this path, you're into purpose-built race cars. We're talking Stock c
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00368.html (7,581 bytes)

3. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Foster" <pfoster@gdi.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:58:28 -0400
You could argue that removing a rear view mirror has a bit less weight savings than removing your back seats. We're talking comfort and convenience (and safety). I just don't see how removing the mi
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00371.html (7,882 bytes)

4. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: bfuhrman@isd.net
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:40:26 GMT
But the rear seatbelts aren't much heavier than the mirror and don't affect the driver. OK to remove. The rear carpet doesn't weigh much more than the seatbelts and don't affect the driver. OK to re
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00380.html (7,924 bytes)

5. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: Tom Maycock <tmaycock@interaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:51:58 -0500 (CDT)
Have to agree with this, and add my thoughts about sun visors. I'm 6', and drive a Miata. The sun visor blocks about 1" to 1.5" of the top of the windshield from my view. When I first got the car, I
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00381.html (9,337 bytes)

6. RE: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Moore, John" <jmoore@spyglass.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:06:29 -0500
Hey, I dont know what you Miata guys are complaining about. I am 6'4" tall and got to drive a students 99 miata at the regions drivers school. Visibility was great! Completely unobstructed even with
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00382.html (10,453 bytes)

7. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Arthur Emerson" <vreihen@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:23:46 PDT
You're giving short people an advantage in being able to see under the mirror on YOUR car. However, you keep forgetting that cars have been made with mirrors attached to the dashboard sticking upward
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00383.html (8,451 bytes)

8. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Stevens" <kevin_stevens@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:43:06 PDT
So then why wouldn't it be ok to lower the stock driver's seat to solve the visibility problem (and BTW decrease Cg)? Why wouldn't it be ok to bend pedals up for short people (and BTW get better heel
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00391.html (11,123 bytes)

9. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: Tom Maycock <tmaycock@interaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:34:05 -0500 (CDT)
I was actually going to mention the seat issue specifically, but skipped it for brevity. But, since you asked, I probably would be more comfortable (due to reduced wind buffeting) with a lower seat.
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00400.html (11,350 bytes)

10. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 14:41:49 -0400
Okay, consider this -- if your Miata was used only for autocrossing, would you remove the sun visors? If so, why? [I recognize that the danger of going down this path is that especially in Stock, mos
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00405.html (9,295 bytes)

11. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: Mari L Clements <mrndr2@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:01:42 -0400
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 10:23:46 PDT "Arthur Emerson" <vreihen@hotmail.com> Yeah, yeah--what he said. The MR2 is NOT the first car that I couldn't see the nose on. Doug Newhard worried about moving my se
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00407.html (9,107 bytes)

12. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: Mari L Clements <mrndr2@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:19:14 -0400
But 5'5" is tall, too! ( : mlc '91 MR2 NA --anything after this, I didn't write, and don't necessarily agree with-- ________________________________________________________________ http://dl.www.juno
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00409.html (8,607 bytes)

13. RE: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Ellingson, George A (MED)" <George.Ellingson@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:15:17 -0500
I'm sorry, but this is where I have trouble giving a rats a$$ about this stuff. Do you people actually BELIEVE that if someone removed their mirror or visors, you would have to do the same thing in o
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00413.html (9,226 bytes)

14. RE: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Linnhoff, Eric" <elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:28:43 -0500
This from among competitors who differ in personal weight from one another by up to 150 lbs or so? Maybe only fat guys (or gals) should be allowed to remove their mirror. George Ellingson Semi-fat gu
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00418.html (10,190 bytes)

15. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: Tom Maycock <tmaycock@interaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:36:56 -0500 (CDT)
Hmm, that is a good way to think about it. Frankly, I'm not sure it would have ever occured to me if I never drove it on the street, as I really don't think it gets in the way of where I look to dri
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00420.html (11,236 bytes)

16. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Brown" <free2000@quixnet.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:49:18 -0700
Bit of a stretch don't ya think.......... And talking about safety, besides reducing visability, there is the remote posibility of those of us with snap off/on mirrors accidently hitting it during a
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00421.html (9,739 bytes)

17. RE: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Arthur Emerson" <vreihen@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 12:57:46 PDT
OK, George, please define "fat guys" and "fat gals" in terms that could easily be published in next year's rule book with zero ambiguity. Certainly such a definition would involve weight, height, gir
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00422.html (9,575 bytes)

18. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:06:56 -0400
What, no apology to Karen Carpenter? Matt Murray mattm@optonline.net -- Original Message --
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00423.html (8,512 bytes)

19. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:08:27 -0400
I believe the term is "Nutritionally Advantaged." Matt Murray mattm@optonline.net -- Original Message --
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00424.html (8,773 bytes)

20. Re: Short People (score: 1)
Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:26:33 -0400
IT HAS (almost) NOTHING TO DO WITH WEIGHT! Argh. Man, I'm tired of trying to make this point. Mark
/html/autox/2000-06/msg00432.html (8,046 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]
This search system is powered by Namazu