Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

as in paid members?

you cant have it only for "club" members as not every state has a club, and then there is all the international people blah blah.

Also to note... what would traders be advertising too, they pay good money for the volumes of people.

Cutting to paid members in total (maybe) about 400 people?

not good from 20+ tho

it's not a bad idea....quite a few forums have it so guests can't read them.

stops people being able to read about cruises, or other things without being logged in..

the trouble is you get a lot of people who browse first, and then sign up, and if you take that away you'd probably get less members joining.

but if u really wanted to read the info you would join?

meh.. just an idea :)

and maybe to stop scammers make it so that you need to be a member for 3months or certain number of posts in order to view the For Sale threads?

A few forums have this too such as OCAU :P

it has been covered many-a-time before mate

use the search button is your so inclined to find out more info

The whole 3-months/min post count etc etc.

Much debated with the same emphasis in the end that...

it wont stop dodgy traders regardless

I agree, i have only been a member for a handful of months with very minimal posts. I would still want to have the privilege of being able to buy and sell an item when i want/need too, hence putting the 3months/number of posts out the window effectively.

And if people don't want others knowing about a cruise "Police" then why post in a public forum? Call a few of your mates that you have met on one of the public cruises and i'm sure they will be more than willing to go for a nice drive with you.

Alternatively there could be a section for paying members which is exclusive and can't be seen by any other pubilc or non paying members. Who knows this could already be in place as i have not got a paid membership yet (still waiting for my car)

my 2c :D

Who knows this could already be in place as i have not got a paid membership yet (still waiting for my car)

Yup each state that has an official chapter (NSW, VIC, QLD, WA) has a members only section for their paid members. I think the NSW and VIC ones have been around for a couple of years now.

SAU dosen't condone illegal activities (too-gay runs in the hills, street drags, stealing etc) so there's nothing to hide from authorities either. If it can't be discussed in public, then it shouldn't be discussed on SAU.

If you forced people to sign up all it would result in is less people using the forum as a resource, and more idle users who don't actually post, all they do is sign up and lurk.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...