Sean

In the latest newsletter of the Snell Memorial Foundation, dated 2008 December 21 and located under "Articles & News", I found the following statement relationg to the SA2010 effective date: Website here: http://www.smf.org Seems like it might be a long wait, Skip. I believe the most beneficial difference between the SMF's "SA" and "M" ratings to be the test for multiple impacts the SA helmets are subjected to, whereas the M helmets are tested for one. Makes sense if you're strapped into a rolling car versus falling off a bike. Other differences are fireproofing, size of front opening, etc., but I see those differences as being of secondary importance, comparatively. But that's just me.

I have never read or heard any negative comments about the quality or the functionality of Freestyle products, and there are lots of opinions on the subject to be found on Blatchat and elsewhere.

That's for sure. I once encountered a 1954 Kaiser Darrin... http://jalopnik.com/223113/

grub screw = set screw Halfords = Pep Boys straight away = in a month or so, if you're lucky

You flip it up and turn the flip-up part about 10°, and the whole thing just pulls straight out. There is a key hole under the flip-up part to lock it if you wish. The real appeal of this unit over the standard item, IMO, is that with the standard one you can only open it with the key, whereas with this one you can use it without the key (provided you didn't lock it in the first place). edit -- This is not a thread that I would categorize as "off topic".

I kinda hope he lives a long, long, long time in prison.

There are many different Snell standards for rating protective headgear applicable to different activities. The current standards most applicable to automotive outings would be SA 2000 and SA/K2005. I am no expert on this subject, but I have been doing some preliminary research on it for my own needs. Here is a link to the Snell Memorial Foundation web page listing their current lineup of standards: http://www.smf.org/stds.html A fine organization, IMHO.

The Top Gear episode with the new R500 is scheduled to air on BBC America at 8:00 p.m. PDT on Monday, March 16th. Not sure about other time zones, but wherever you are, it should be on at the usual time.

I did a quick search and immediately found a complete 2.0 for under a grand: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/08-Ford-Focus-2.0L-DOHC-Engine-2.0-Duratec-Motor-4K_W0QQitemZ350152855881QQcmdZViewItem

I'm in. Thanks!

Colin Chapman is widely reported to have been 5'-7" or 5'-8" (never met the man myself, so can't say for sure) and his cars tend to reflect that.

I went to New Zealand once in 1998... Loved it! The most memorable event was just after arrival at the international terminal in Auckland, I went over to the separate domestic terminal for a flight to Christchurch. There was no I.D. check, no metal detector, no uniformed person giving me the evil eye, no nothin'. Then it occurred to me that airports only have strict security measures if there is a need for them. The planes departing from Auckland's domestic terminal can most likely only land in one of two places: New Zealand or the Pacific Ocean! So in the end, the complete lack of security made me feel very secure. Never saw any Seven-esque cars there, but I wasn't really looking for them, either. Saw some nice rides in the Dux de Lux parking lot (or at least I think I did - their stout is STRONG!).

I have heard the same about the Honda engine. However, my 2.3 Duratec fits in the S3 chassis just fine with the OEM valve cover in place... I just had to modify the oil filler cap.

That is not a Mitsuoka Zero-1. The Zero-1 looks like this: http://www.mitsuoka-motor.com/lineup/zero1_1800/index.html. My brother-in-law had one back in the 1990s. Whatever they are, they look like fun.

John - While scrolling down, even before seeing your post, I saw the puddle and instantly thought, "That puddle is unrealistically small"!

Step one: Remove top...

Amen to that!

2003 - time flies, eh? http://www.pistonheads.com/motorsport/default.asp?storyId=7762

Please pardon both the minor hijack and my ignorance on this subject, but why put epoxy or tile over the concrete?

As I read it, MoPho's post advised to double-check what was actually purchased, and then stated a relevant fact. Your reply reads as an unnecessarily forceful response to me. Also, I recall reading somewhere that unless otherwise specified, the rights to a photographic image generally belong to the creator of the image, not the owner of the object being photographed. But hey, you were right about the Paris fashion shoot part!

I read or heard somewhere that the Top Gear Power Laps are all run on the standard tires as provided with any given car when purchased new.

Any and all vehicles imported to the U.S.A. must conform to all sorts of rules and regulations (the numerous applicable rules can easily be found elsewhere), unless the vehicle is older than 25 years old, and then it has considerably fewer rules and regulations with which to comply. However, car parts can be imported with no such restrictions, other than taxes (of course). So, the sixty-four dollar question is: at what point do car parts become a car? According to the NHTSA division of the DOT, the moment a gearbox OR engine is installed into the chassis, that collection of assembled parts immediately and irrevocably becomes a car, forever more, and must from that point onwards comply with all applicable import laws that pertain to cars, and not car parts - even if the engine or gearbox is subsequently removed. It is similar to the definition of a virgin - once it's in, there's no going back. Importing a kit to the U.S., up to and including one assembled as far as a rolling chassis, is legally no different than importing any single car part or multiple car parts, and is not at all difficult. However, it should be noted that the penalties for misrepresentation of a "car" being imported to the U.S.A. are unforgiving. I learned all this while researching my purchase and subsequent importation of new Caterham Seven "car parts" from England. For more information (I think this is current): Department of Transportation (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/ Telephone: (202) 366-5313 Fax: (202) 366-1024 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (NEF-32) 400 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20590 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/index.htm Telephone: 202-564-9240 Fax: (202) 565-2057 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Manufacturers Operations Division 6405-J Investigation/Imports Section 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 NOTE: I'm not a lawyer, and the above is not legal advice, but I did call the numbers above and spoke to the agencies listed to get the information applicable to my situation at the time it was required, as related here. YMMV

Note to self: Admit it, you're getting old - put on reading glasses before reading!

I wonder if this was caused by galvanic corrosion due to carbon fiber being in contact with metal in that part of the airframe? Curiously, I was just discussing this type of corrosion with some Seveners in the last day or so, but as it relates to car parts, not airframes. Spectacular photos! Hope the pilot was okay!

Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Al.