Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Totally\s+topless\s+\=\s+rollover\s+safety\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Totally\s+topless\s+\=\s+rollover\s+safety\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Totally topless = rollover safety? (score: 1): Author: Chip Mautz <clmautz@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:07:05 -0800 (PST); bar. More with-so, not I think I've asked this one before, but this email brought it back up - how safe is the Spit in a rollover? I've heard various comments, and know of one guy who rolled over bot; /html/spitfires/1998-11/msg00030.html (7,805 bytes)
2. Re: Totally topless = rollover safety? (score: 1): Author: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>; Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 12:49:27 -0800; My Chrome rollbar fits nicely under the top and (IMHO) adds a bit of Tim Allen aarrgh to the looks of the car. But "to each, his own" Joe -- "If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort." --; /html/spitfires/1998-11/msg00042.html (8,365 bytes)
3. Re: Totally topless = rollover safety? (score: 1): Author: Andrew Mace <amace@unix2.nysed.gov>; Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:02:14 -0500 (); I don't "know" if there was any real difference between the "strength" of the Mk.IV and later frame v. the earlier bolt-on frame. Frankly, I've seen both body styles in all severities of rollover. I'; /html/spitfires/1998-11/msg00043.html (8,073 bytes)
4. Re: Totally topless = rollover safety? (score: 1): Author: "Dave Terrick" <dterrick@pangea.ca>; Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:48:11 -0600; ...just remember folks, these are trained professionals..... DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME ! seriously, Andy is right. An SCCA approved rollbar is designed to accept - simultaneously - 1.5G lateral, 5.5G f; /html/spitfires/1998-11/msg00046.html (11,600 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]