Notices
ScoobyNet General General Subaru Discussion

Sideways article in True Grip.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 12:44 AM
  #1  
Sith's Avatar
Sith
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 0
Thumbs up


Article about Sideways De Banke's record success.

Nice article and well written, some great pictures.

P.
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 10:34 AM
  #2  
chrisp's Avatar
chrisp
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
From: In wrxshire
Thumbs up

Yep, I read it and there is stuff in there that was new . I was expecting roughly the same story that has been written before but obvioulsy written from someone else perspective. Very well written and congrats to the author and SDB again.

Also read the whole of true grip yesterday, and yet again top stuff guys.

cheers

chrisp
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 10:46 AM
  #3  
davyboy's Avatar
davyboy
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
From: Some country and western
Unhappy

I only have the one dated March 2001 !!
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 11:40 AM
  #4  
chrisp's Avatar
chrisp
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
From: In wrxshire
Post

Only had mine yesterday and with the christmas post I guess yours is on its way davy.

Cheers

Chris
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 11:42 AM
  #5  
Steve Perriam's Avatar
Steve Perriam
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,983
Likes: 0
Question

not had mine yet either then...xmas post.

just bought the last 2 though...june/sept and they are a good read.

roll on the new one..............
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 12:22 PM
  #6  
Robertio's Avatar
Robertio
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
From: Glasgow
Wink

Got mine yesterday as well

about 150ft across) (sorry I don't work in metric)'
I hate to think how old the author of that article must be

Coincidentally, given the circumference was quoted at the end of the article as being 408m, the radius was therefore 130m (to nearest m)
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 04:33 PM
  #7  
ian_sadler's Avatar
ian_sadler
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,170
Likes: 0
From: there or there abouts
Thumbs up

Yep, read mine yesterday (sat).

Well done all involved.

Ian
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 05:08 PM
  #8  
MichelleWRX1994's Avatar
MichelleWRX1994
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,645
Likes: 0
Wink

Woohoo great article

Nice to see you finally get the fame and fortune you deserve Si

Now get on with that video and tell the Guinness lot to stop drinking it and get you in the book

Michelle
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 09:01 PM
  #9  
DocJock's Avatar
DocJock
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
From: a more anarchic place
Wink

Got mine yesterday as well


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about 150ft across) (sorry I don't work in metric)'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I hate to think how old the author of that article must be

Coincidentally, given the circumference was quoted at the end of the article as being 408m, the radius was therefore 130m (to nearest m)
Well if you're gonna be fecking pedantic...........

The DIAMETER would be 130M.
The RADIUS would be 65M (162.5 ft)

so ( )
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 09:27 PM
  #10  
Robertio's Avatar
Robertio
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
From: Glasgow
Talking

Doh! must remember to read what I type

(why ruin the habit of a life time though )

At least it was you and not Neil that picked that up
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 09:33 PM
  #11  
Robertio's Avatar
Robertio
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
From: Glasgow
Lightbulb

Hang on a second, 65m is more than that in feet, I'd say closer to 213 feet in fact

(Robertio now re-reads post to check for the obvious mistake he is bound to have made, yet will undoubtable miss it anyway )
Reply
Old Dec 16, 2001 | 10:18 PM
  #12  
simes's Avatar
simes
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Angry

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about 150ft across) (sorry I don't work in metric)'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I hate to think how old the author of that article must be
Oi, wot you trying to say

Actually I can do metres as 1 metre is about a yard, completely flummoxed by litres, kph, kilograms etc (unless I bother to convert them to imperial)

Have had no concept of how much I am paying for petrol or how much I am putting in the car since they made you pay by the litre .

Cheers

Simon

PS Just remembered I am an old git
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2001 | 05:40 AM
  #13  
Hos's Avatar
Hos
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
From: Dundee
Cool

65m is actually 213.2ft according to JAA/CAA syllabus of using 1m = 3.28ft
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2001 | 08:11 AM
  #14  
DocJock's Avatar
DocJock
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
From: a more anarchic place
Post

[quote[
Hang on a second, 65m is more than that in feet, I'd say closer to 213 feet in fact

(Robertio now re-reads post to check for the obvious mistake he is bound to have made, yet will undoubtable miss it anyway )
[/quote]

ROFLMAO

That'll teach me to be a smartarse
Reply
Old Dec 17, 2001 | 10:36 AM
  #15  
Brendan Hughes's Avatar
Brendan Hughes
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,314
Likes: 4
From: same time, different place
Post

Robertio - didn't you mean "undoubtedly"?
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BlueBlobZA
Member's Gallery
30
Jul 25, 2016 09:14 AM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
Dec 28, 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
Nov 18, 2015 07:03 AM
stipete75
Non Scooby Related
37
Sep 25, 2015 02:27 PM




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 PM.