Sideways article in True Grip.
16 December 2001, 10:34 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
. 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
16 December 2001, 12:22 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got mine yesterday as well 
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)
about 150ft across) (sorry I don't work in metric)'
Coincidentally, given the circumference was quoted at the end of the article as being 408m, the radius was therefore 130m (to nearest m)
Trending Topics
16 December 2001, 05:08 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
16 December 2001, 09:01 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
The DIAMETER would be 130M.
The RADIUS would be 65M (162.5 ft)
so
( )
16 December 2001, 09:33 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 )
(Robertio now re-reads post to check for the obvious mistake he is bound to have made, yet will undoubtable miss it anyway
)
16 December 2001, 10:18 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about 150ft across) (sorry I don't work in metric)'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to think how old the author of that article must be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about 150ft across) (sorry I don't work in metric)'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to think how old the author of that article must be
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
17 December 2001, 08:11 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BlueBlobZA
Member's Gallery
30
25 July 2016 09:14 AM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM