Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Stock\s+reclassification\?\?\?\?\s+the\s+answer\s+\(VERY\s+LONG\)\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: Gary Thomason <gtsolo2@home.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:48:17 -0700
David and I have agreed to disagree in the past, but he couldn't be more right with this one. Results for the year so far show that with the exception of only one major event, if anything, the Boxste
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00137.html (12,748 bytes)

2. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: Topper Jones <gbrt@rocketmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Well said David! Gary, thank you for putting this into words. While the S2000 is a blast to drive on the street, twitchy, nervous and generally uncooperative seems to be the rule of thumb anywhere n
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00143.html (9,947 bytes)

3. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: TeamZ3@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:12:06 EDT
<< Mark Sipe has mentioned here and elsewhere the potential problems created by the over-abundance of past and present A-Stock drivers on both the SCAC and the SEB. I'm sorry to say it, but after loo
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00147.html (9,860 bytes)

4. RE: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: "Linnhoff, Eric" <elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:31:06 -0500
On the plus side, at least the Integra Type-R has been put where it belongs, and of course, this is only a proposal. Hopefully, it will undergo some evolution over time. == Why? There's only one pers
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00149.html (8,750 bytes)

5. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:43:24 -0700
WOW! That was long...phew! Keep those letters coming on the S2000. The membership seems to be split right down the middle right now, so the SEB has to be taking a final look. Picked my side of the fe
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00152.html (15,108 bytes)

6. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: "Kent Rafferty" <gs96@sgi.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:26:50 -0400
I agree with most of what Gary said, except I don't see the clear dominance of the C4 in S2. In National Tour and Pro Solo competition this year, comparing the fastest C4 vs the fastest *AS* Boxter,
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00173.html (8,851 bytes)

7. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: Gary Thomason <gtsolo2@home.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:41:44 -0700
I never said I believed that those particular cars have equal performance on an autox course, nor did I mention whether *I* thought they should be classed together, which is certainly debatable. I wa
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00197.html (11,427 bytes)

8. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: Gary Thomason <gtsolo2@home.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:45:51 -0700
Sounds like you think the Boxster S should be left where it is! You're right. Or maybe your saying that based on this year's results, the regular Boxster should be in SS? A small detail you are leav
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00203.html (9,890 bytes)

9. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:06:05 -0400
Gee, kinda like the RX-7TT? Another car that is devilishly difficult to drive at the limit, yet the rewards are there if you can do it. Though I haven't had the opportunity to drive an S2000 on cours
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00492.html (8,812 bytes)

10. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: "David Hawkins" <otgrouch@twosrus.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:44:34 -0500
I've driven one on course....it was still in the tuning stage and it liked to step out in the corners. I think it does have potential, but not that it has significantly more potential than an M3 or
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00498.html (9,297 bytes)

11. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Bauer" <ronbauer@aa.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:57:28 -0700
To which Mark Sirota commented.... Once you've had an opportunity to drive one, let us know..... While the S2000 does have potential that a couple of us are working on, so does the Boxster. I'm real
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00500.html (10,220 bytes)

12. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: "Richard Rees" <greyhawke@home.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:14:26 -0500
Aye, I agree as well. If there is no statistically significant data to show ANY CAR being an overdog in the class, don't change it. Examine the results from the National Tour and Nationals itself. Ta
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00507.html (11,245 bytes)

13. Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG) (score: 1)
Author: washburn <washburn@dwave.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:56:09 -0500
Hmmmm, funny how different people come to different conclusions. I found the RX7 to be a wonderfully easy car at the limits. Drivers don't just win, cars don't just win; driver/car combinations win I
/html/autox/2000-07/msg00541.html (8,236 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu