The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum

The Number One Club for owners of Triumph's range of small saloons from the 1960s and 1970s.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:56 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 224 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 515 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:01 pm 
Offline
TDC Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:35 pm
Posts: 1735
Location: St Annes on Sea, Lancs.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I believe the ST vented discs still used the type 14 callipers suitably spaced to accommodate the width, so same sized pads, swept area etc.
Also, haven't we been through the proof that relative pad area don't matter to brake effect, just wear rate - Amontons' Law (and one of Gauss' Laws?) as I remember. It's relative piston area and distance from the hub centre that matter in an upgrade (pad material aside).
The point I was making is the 'upgrade' was the introduction of vented discs in isolation in response to the earlier post.
The special thing about upgrades to Group-1 cars within the FIA rules of Appendix J is that said of such modifications:

"The discs and drums may be replaced by others provided the area of the friction surface is not modified. Linings are free. The backing plates may be modified and fitted with air openings. Protection shields may be modified or suppressed. Cooling air-ducts may be added provided they do not entail a modification of the coachwork."

So, in that very special situation, it wouldn't be easy to change calipers except to widen them and fit vented discs. I assume that they also took advantage of the other leaves on fitting ducks and changed the pad materials to avoid the effects of the lower temperatures of the vented disc in some way. So it probably isn't quite just replacing solid with vented discs even then.

There may also be some other leaves in the Group 1B rules Jeroen identified, but I can't find a copy of (hint, hint).

The question is, whether, outside the strictures of a formula like that, anyone would limit themselves in such a way. But then, as they say round here, "there's nowt so queer as folk".

Graham

_________________
The 16v Slant 4 engine is more fun than the 3.5 V8, because you mostly drive it on the upslope of the torque curve.

Factory 1977 TR7 Sprint FHC VVC 697S (Now all of, but still needs putting together)
B&Y 73 Dolomite Sprint UVB 274M (kids!)
1970 Maroon 13/60 Herald Convertable (wife's fun car).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Hmm.....
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:31 pm 
Offline
TDC Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:35 pm
Posts: 1735
Location: St Annes on Sea, Lancs.
Quote:
Quote:
the calculation of which isn't really in my wheelhouse. I just know it makes a difference if the car is lighter or heavier for the same stopping power.

Steve
Force = mass x velocity!
Force = mass times acceleration.

Graham

_________________
The 16v Slant 4 engine is more fun than the 3.5 V8, because you mostly drive it on the upslope of the torque curve.

Factory 1977 TR7 Sprint FHC VVC 697S (Now all of, but still needs putting together)
B&Y 73 Dolomite Sprint UVB 274M (kids!)
1970 Maroon 13/60 Herald Convertable (wife's fun car).


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:23 am 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:26 am
Posts: 2473
Quote:

Also, haven't we been through the proof that relative pad area don't matter to brake effect, just wear rate - Amontons' Law (and one of Gauss' Laws?) as I remember. It's relative piston area and distance from the hub centre that matter in an upgrade (pad material aside).
That is a bogus argument here. Unless you designed narrower/longer pads that effectively kept the distance from the hub the same. In the real world, which cars are, larger pads means the braking forces are applied further from the hub.
On another point, my physics knowledge is ancient and I have forgotten a great deal. But I have a suspicion some of this stuff is to do with static rather than dynamic systems.
One thing that is certain, bigger brakes are more effective than small brakes (all other things equal)

Next you will use the argument that same tyre width makes no difference to grip. Which is also nonsense.

_________________
Clive Senior
Brighton


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:39 am 
Offline
TDC Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:35 pm
Posts: 1735
Location: St Annes on Sea, Lancs.
Quote:
Quote:

Also, haven't we been through the proof that relative pad area don't matter to brake effect, just wear rate - Amontons' Law (and one of Gauss' Laws?) as I remember. It's relative piston area and distance from the hub centre that matter in an upgrade (pad material aside).
That is a bogus argument here. Unless you designed narrower/longer pads that effectively kept the distance from the hub the same. In the real world, which cars are, larger pads means the braking forces are applied further from the hub.
On another point, my physics knowledge is ancient and I have forgotten a great deal. But I have a suspicion some of this stuff is to do with static rather than dynamic systems.
One thing that is certain, bigger brakes are more effective than small brakes (all other things equal)

Next you will use the argument that same tyre width makes no difference to grip. Which is also nonsense.
I think calling it bogus is a bit strong. I did mention distance from the hub centre changed things, but didn't specify it's between the centre of the piston and the centre of rotation. So if the pad is larger all round, the centre of the piston isn't moved. It's true that if you make the pad bigger at one edge, you must move the centre of the piston, or the pad will wear unevenly, and so change the effort from the brake for a given pedal pressure. But I thought that was obvious.

But that wasn't the point, and sprint95m made it clear that it isn't a significant point anyway. The issue is about the changing only from solid to vented discs, and ST doing that, albeit in the special limits of Group 1 and Appendix J, where the pad area is the one enforced constant, and presumably changing other things than the pad area.

It would be interesting to know if ST also changed the piston diameter in the calipers, or if that's possible with the Sprint calipers (what's the type 14 got to do with all this other than it's used on the small chassis cars?).

On the physics:

Amontons' Law is to do with sliding friction. It says, in effect, that its the force between two surfaces (normal to their contact) that determines the resistance to their relative motion, not the area of contact. The transition from static to sliding friction is, as I remember, covered by one or more of Gauss' laws, but it's not relevant here anyway.

However, the issue about tire width is interesting. Amontons' law only applies to solid materials. Tire's, as semi-solids, are a different kettle of fish entirely. In that case, it's much, much more complicated, and the width of the contact plays a significant part, even if the contact area stays the same, e.g. because the tires are at the same pressure. So wider tires do give better grip - I mentioned that in this thread early on. Wider tires may, also, be slightly softer compound for the same mileage life. And that would increase grip as well.

Graham

_________________
The 16v Slant 4 engine is more fun than the 3.5 V8, because you mostly drive it on the upslope of the torque curve.

Factory 1977 TR7 Sprint FHC VVC 697S (Now all of, but still needs putting together)
B&Y 73 Dolomite Sprint UVB 274M (kids!)
1970 Maroon 13/60 Herald Convertable (wife's fun car).


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:08 am 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:26 am
Posts: 2473
I think bogus is fair. You have essentially agreed, as you say that larger pads will move the effective position on=f the pads further from the centre. So making the brakes more effective.
My other issue is that all this is a big over-simplification. There is so much going on with brakes (and tyres) that pointing to one "law" and making an assumption everything else is kept the same is pure theory and doesn't happen in real life.

We all know bigger brakes stop you faster and vented discs help prevent brake fade. No arguments or textbooks needed. And empirical evidence is ALWAYS king. So when a reasonable number of trusted people present (even subjective) evidence that something is an improvement, then it should be acceptable.

Even I had the brakes start to fade early on at Spa when doing a 20min session in my Toledo. Solution was to take a brave pill and use the brakes as little as possible which was entertaining but limited things a bit. And the reason is obvious, the discs are smaller than a 1200 herald. Goodness knows why. Anyway, I will be fitting 240mm vented discs to my car sometime soon. Along with some Ford calipers. (anybody tried Girling m16? just an idea...)

_________________
Clive Senior
Brighton


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:00 pm 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:53 pm
Posts: 1699
Location: Harrow Middlesex
The original Question was about the bias vavle,we all know they seize but do they seize in the open or closed persition ?

i wonder why Triumph did fit the Pirncess four pot caliper to the Sprint,i know it a common mod now days

Dave


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Hmm.....
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:21 pm 
Offline
TDC West Mids Area Organiser
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:13 pm
Posts: 13316
Location: Over here...can't you see me?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
the calculation of which isn't really in my wheelhouse. I just know it makes a difference if the car is lighter or heavier for the same stopping power.

Steve
Force = mass x velocity!
Force = mass times acceleration.

Graham
I knew what I meant ;-) (It's been 40 years since I used that!!)


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:45 pm 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:26 am
Posts: 2473
Quote:
The original Question was about the bias vavle,we all know they seize but do they seize in the open or closed persition ?

i wonder why Triumph did fit the Pirncess four pot caliper to the Sprint,i know it a common mod now days

Dave
I expect they seize in th emid position, where they will normally be for most of their lives. But Steve may be able to shed light n the matter.

The princess calipers would need larger discs fitting too. I had a spitfire that had princess calipers fitted, along with larger GT6 discs. That was it, no other changes and worked well.
Saying that, the princess 4 pots offer very little gain over GT6 type 16 calipers, and are heavier. So my fast spit has vented GT6 brakes. Incidentally, Ford M16 calipers will bolt to a dolomite upright, but need a bigger disc. Worth investigating I reckon.

_________________
Clive Senior
Brighton


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:21 pm 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:53 pm
Posts: 1699
Location: Harrow Middlesex
Quote:
Quote:
The original Question was about the bias vavle,we all know they seize but do they seize in the open or closed persition ?

i wonder why Triumph did fit the Pirncess four pot caliper to the Sprint,i know it a common mod now days

Dave
I expect they seize in th emid position, where they will normally be for most of their lives. But Steve may be able to shed light n the matter.

The princess calipers would need larger discs fitting too. I had a spitfire that had princess calipers fitted, along with larger GT6 discs. That was it, no other changes and worked well.
Saying that, the princess 4 pots offer very little gain over GT6 type 16 calipers, and are heavier. So my fast spit has vented GT6 brakes. Incidentally, Ford M16 calipers will bolt to a dolomite upright, but need a bigger disc. Worth investigating I reckon.
when you say pincess would need bigger disc are you meaning diameter ? the ford m16 caliper what car was that fitted to ?

Dave


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:22 pm 
Offline
TDC Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:35 pm
Posts: 1735
Location: St Annes on Sea, Lancs.
Quote:
I think bogus is fair. You have essentially agreed, as you say that larger pads will move the effective position on=f the pads further from the centre. So making the brakes more effective.
My other issue is that all this is a big over-simplification. There is so much going on with brakes (and tyres) that pointing to one "law" and making an assumption everything else is kept the same is pure theory and doesn't happen in real life.

We all know bigger brakes stop you faster and vented discs help prevent brake fade. No arguments or textbooks needed. And empirical evidence is ALWAYS king. So when a reasonable number of trusted people present (even subjective) evidence that something is an improvement, then it should be acceptable.

Even I had the brakes start to fade early on at Spa when doing a 20min session in my Toledo. Solution was to take a brave pill and use the brakes as little as possible which was entertaining but limited things a bit. And the reason is obvious, the discs are smaller than a 1200 herald. Goodness knows why. Anyway, I will be fitting 240mm vented discs to my car sometime soon. Along with some Ford calipers. (anybody tried Girling m16? just an idea...)
And I understand "bogus" as a pejorative implying an intent to deceive. I don't mind being accused being wrong (except, of course, when I am), but implications that I'm lying constitute a personal attack.

My point was simply that pad area, on its own, as an isolated parameter, does not even affect the relationship between the pressure on the pedal and the force of the brake. So if you were to put bigger pads in the same calliper, that will not change the effort from the brake; though it may affect fade, etc. I know there's no reason for putting bigger pads in the same calliper. But that, after all, is the point. Moreover, that the contact area does not affect the force of friction between two surfaces is an empirically derived law of physics; not a theory. I remembered that Gauss' (empirically determined) input was to add to Amontons' (empirically determined) law that speed of sliding makes no difference to the force of friction as long as its not zero speed. And, as Ian said , none of that actually matters.

And you are quite wrong in saying "we all know that bigger brakes stop you faster". I argue that both the statements explicit in that are both assumptions and wrong: I know that all that bigger brakes (especially with bigger pistons) do to stopping is give more brake force for a given pedal pressure. What determines how fast you can stop is, and always will be, the tires, just before they transition from rolling friction to sliding friction.

Bigger brakes make it feel easier to stop, as in take less pedal pressure for any given deceleration you can achieve. They don't, on there own, change what the limit of stopping is, either maximum deceleration or minimum stopping distance; they just make it less like hard work to get to those limits. But they also make it easier to exceed the limit of force on the tires that makes them lock. And, as we all (at least should) know, sliding friction is less than static friction, and, if you are trying desperately to stop, not what you want.

I accept that, in the context of track use, bigger brakes may be necessary to access the extra stopping power of greater grip from wider and or softer tires. But if you can't get the Sprint brakes to lock the front wheels with normal road tires on as clean and dry a road as you are liable to find, either there's something wrong with the brakes or there's another problem any identification of which would potentially be discriminatory; certainly offensive.

And, as even Steve seems to agree, there are risks and disadvantages in being able to lock the wheels, even just the front ones, too easily. I would also argue that if you want to be able to easily lock the front wheels on a clean dry road (i.e. not race track), there's yet another personal problem that needs professional attention - at least one of the parties in that relationship should be certified.

So, if the brakes you have can get you to the limit set by the tires you have for less than the maximum force you can apply to the pedal, then how easy or hard it should be to get to the limit is an opinion. So whether it is more or less easy is better is an opinion that should not be confused with fact.

Graham

_________________
The 16v Slant 4 engine is more fun than the 3.5 V8, because you mostly drive it on the upslope of the torque curve.

Factory 1977 TR7 Sprint FHC VVC 697S (Now all of, but still needs putting together)
B&Y 73 Dolomite Sprint UVB 274M (kids!)
1970 Maroon 13/60 Herald Convertable (wife's fun car).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Hmm.....
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:38 pm 
Offline
TDC Shropshire Area Organiser

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:12 pm
Posts: 7013
Location: Highley, Shropshire
Quote:
Quote:
the calculation of which isn't really in my wheelhouse. I just know it makes a difference if the car is lighter or heavier for the same stopping power.

Steve
Force = mass x velocity!
Yeah, I know that one! But what brakes do, basically, is translate kinetic energy from a mass AT velocity into heat energy wasted into atmosphere. So what I need is a slightly more complex formula that tells me how much heat is generated (and how quickly) by a mass (x lbs) being stopped at a nominal 1g decelleration and how that heat and it's delivery is affected if the mass is increased to y lbs with all other factors being the same. Or with other variables (ie grip from tyres, weather conditions etc) introduced.

Or I could just give up, admit (as I did) that it's not in my wheelhouse to calculate and solve the question empirically by experimentation, which IS in my wheelhouse! It's called the "suck it and see" method!

Steve

_________________
'73 2 door Toledo with Vauxhall Carlton 2.0 8v engine (The Carledo)
'78 Sprint Auto with Vauxhall Omega 2.2 16v engine (The Dolomega)
'72 Triumph 1500FWD in Slate Grey, Now with RWD and Carledo powertrain!

Maverick Triumph, Servicing, Repairs, Electrical, Recomissioning, MOT prep, Trackerjack brake fitting service.
Apprentice served Triumph Specialist for 50 years. PM for more info or quotes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:33 pm 
Offline
TDC Shropshire Area Organiser

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:12 pm
Posts: 7013
Location: Highley, Shropshire
Quote:

And, as even Steve seems to agree, there are risks and disadvantages in being able to lock the wheels, even just the front ones, too easily. I would also argue that if you want to be able to easily lock the front wheels on a clean dry road (i.e. not race track), there's yet another personal problem that needs professional attention - at least one of the parties in that relationship should be certified.

Graham
Too right I do!

In more than 50 years in the motor trade, i've driven everything from a 1919 Crossley, which only had (rod operated) brakes on the front wheels and didn't really stop at all, to a 70s Citroen SM which locked all 4 wheels if you looked at the pedal the wrong way! And all points in between!

SOMEWHERE in the middle is a subjective point that I subjectively consider ideal, where, under perfect conditions and trying REALLY hard, I PERSONALLY can manage to lock the front wheels up. The Carledo is, I think, just about in that sweet spot. Or as close as I can reasonably get it. But only for me! Other people may be capable of applying more or less effort to the pedal and spoil the equation and I accept this, though the few others who have driven it seem to agree with me! I LIKE a car that is easy to drive, a car that doesn't fight me and above all, a car that doesn't bite me the second I stop thinking about it. I've driven such homicidal cars and I didn't like it. It's tiring and takes the fun out. Maybe i'm getting old!

In building the Dolomega, i've had to consider that the car is around 40% heavier, has automatic transmission (so no engine braking to speak of) has somewhat narrower, higher profile tyres, softer suspension and may also be driven at times by my disabled wife who is definitely NOT capable of achieving my pedal pressures in extremis. I've gone for bigger discs (256mm against the standard TJ 239mm) Puma Calipers with bigger pads and a Sprint servo with more assistance. Time will tell whether it works as predicted, but I expect it will lock slightly more easily in my hands than the Carledo does. But since I don't expect to be using it for track work (it's designed as a long distance mile muncher rather than a racer) I'm happy to live with that if it's safer for SWMBO to use.

Steve

_________________
'73 2 door Toledo with Vauxhall Carlton 2.0 8v engine (The Carledo)
'78 Sprint Auto with Vauxhall Omega 2.2 16v engine (The Dolomega)
'72 Triumph 1500FWD in Slate Grey, Now with RWD and Carledo powertrain!

Maverick Triumph, Servicing, Repairs, Electrical, Recomissioning, MOT prep, Trackerjack brake fitting service.
Apprentice served Triumph Specialist for 50 years. PM for more info or quotes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:28 pm 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:26 am
Posts: 2473
I'm with Steve, who is obviously a practical scientist/engineer with good instincts. I have a good friend who we have adopted/bubbled with who is similar, a life in the industry and just "knows" what works. He was recently telling me about his mates ford Pop, with a big block engine, mustang heads etc. Couldn't keep it cool, rads never seemed big enough. Until they tried one that appeared small (wish I could remember what, probably escort or something) and that worked. The theory went out the window, because there was more ain play than just rad size.
And that is why it is impossible to change just (eg) pad size, as that will alter other things as well. This is not a paper exercise, but a practical one where the results need to be tested by drivers who have a good "feel" for a cars behaviour.

(And to be clear, I don't do personal attacks of any type. Just no point. Apologies if my comments caused offence)

_________________
Clive Senior
Brighton


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:38 pm 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:26 am
Posts: 2473
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The original Question was about the bias vavle,we all know they seize but do they seize in the open or closed persition ?

i wonder why Triumph did fit the Pirncess four pot caliper to the Sprint,i know it a common mod now days



Dave
I expect they seize in th emid position, where they will normally be for most of their lives. But Steve may be able to shed light n the matter.

The princess calipers would need larger discs fitting too. I had a spitfire that had princess calipers fitted, along with larger GT6 discs. That was it, no other changes and worked well.
Saying that, the princess 4 pots offer very little gain over GT6 type 16 calipers, and are heavier. So my fast spit has vented GT6 brakes. Incidentally, Ford M16 calipers will bolt to a dolomite upright, but need a bigger disc. Worth investigating I reckon.
when you say pincess would need bigger disc are you meaning diameter ? the ford m16 caliper what car was that fitted to ?

Dave
Yes, spit disc is 232mm, GT6 245 so it seems a 13mm bigger disc if going from type14 to type 16 or M16 calipers?
M16 fitted to many fords, vented to the 2.8i Capri, but lots of escorts/cortinas/Capri etc etc

_________________
Clive Senior
Brighton


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:08 pm 
Offline
TDC Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:35 pm
Posts: 1735
Location: St Annes on Sea, Lancs.
Quote:
(And to be clear, I don't do personal attacks of any type. Just no point. Apologies if my comments caused offence)
The use of "bogus" was very certainly offensive. If it was used mistakenly for "wrong", and not to mean "a falsification" (as it really does), then I suppose I accept the apology.
Quote:
Quote:

And, as even Steve seems to agree, there are risks and disadvantages in being able to lock the wheels, even just the front ones, too easily. I would also argue that if you want to be able to easily lock the front wheels on a clean dry road (i.e. not race track), there's yet another personal problem that needs professional attention - at least one of the parties in that relationship should be certified.

Graham
Too right I do!
Steve,
I was, at first, unsure whether it was "too right" you think there are problems in it being too easy to lock-up, or "too right" about wanting "to be able to easily lock the front wheels on a clean dry road" and so needing professional attention. But that was soon resolved.

Clive,
And I also agree with the rest of what Steve wrote. But I don't see him as suggesting that bigger brakes necessarily stop you more quickly.

I have been down the route of thinking bigger brakes will be better, with the TR7s years ago - I've had TR8 and SD1 calipers, Big Princess 4-pots, spaced-out M16s on vented disks, and even a set of AP Racing Alloy calipers; with and without 4 speed rear cylinders. So I do know from experience that all they do is make it feel like it's easier to stop by changing the ratio between pedal pressure and brake force. And that, if you go far enough, it gets too easy to lock them, and that's no fun. But they don't, of themselves, shorten stopping distance or increase maximum deceleration. And anyone who suggests they do is simply wrong.

I also know that, in combination with enough increase in grip (on propper minilites), bigger front brakes can increase the risk of the rear wheels locking first and that that's no fun at all.

And on the issue of whether the Sprint brakes are good enough for a standard car on the road: Yesterday, I found a reasonably dry road (for round here) and locked the front wheels as a test, and it was no hardship at all - and that's with the small servo. It took deliberate intent, that's true. But that's what it should take, especially on a dry road, etc. Because, given any wet or newness of tire, as we all know (or should), it gets even easier to lock the front wheels (but commensurately harder to lock the rear ones first).

And I'm not especially strong - quite the opposite. So I don't understand why the statements that the standard brakes on the Sprint are inadequate other than by way of what Jon Tilson wrote about poor maintenance, etc. I can't comment on Jon's implications about the suitability of the Sprint for women drivers (she won't let me).

However, I do accept I'm not used to driving modern cars - especially with ABS - that would be safe, brakewize, even when stolen by 12 year old girls. But while I write "used to" I am thinking "spoiled by", even if ABS would be an interesting addition to the Sprint.

As to this issue of changing pad size you keep harping back to: the point still remains that it wouldn't, on its own, make any difference to brake effort. And I proved that for myself, experimentally, before I even did O levels. We also had a test bench setup when I worked in the motor vehicle dept. of York College of Arts and Tech that let you experiment with aspects of brake setup in isolation, and was so safe we let apprentices play with it. So, whether it's possible or not to change pad size alone, without affecting any of the relevant parameters of brake specification, it does not matter. And if it is or if it's not, that isn't proof of anything important, not even a flaw of logic.

And Steve, you surely didn't already know that one: that Force = Mass x Velocity - Newton should accelerate a 1 Kg mass by 1 meter per second squared in his grave.

Graham

_________________
The 16v Slant 4 engine is more fun than the 3.5 V8, because you mostly drive it on the upslope of the torque curve.

Factory 1977 TR7 Sprint FHC VVC 697S (Now all of, but still needs putting together)
B&Y 73 Dolomite Sprint UVB 274M (kids!)
1970 Maroon 13/60 Herald Convertable (wife's fun car).


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 224 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 515 Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited