 | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —Steve Bliss
| | | | (...) Hmmm, interesting thought. I'll have to think it through some more. This would give us figures like: Angle Rise:Run 10 1:6 18 1:3 33/27 1:2 45 1:1 45 2:2 53 3&1/3:3 55 6:4 (not yet released) 65 2:1 75 3:1 Hmmm. Off the cuff, there are two (...) (23 years ago, 17-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —Ross Crawford
| | | | | | (...) And it's a problem no matter which notation you use - the step is usually around 1/2 a plate high, so do you take that off the rise value? I also noticed for the first time recently that this step is a different height for different slope (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —Kyle D. Jackson
| | | | | Nice response time here on my behalf :] Oops (...) Yeah, I didn't like these two either, mostly the first one. It could be confusing. (...) ARRrrgh!! Hehe, got it :] To me, either of the angle method or the rise-run methods could work, and I can (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | |
