Forum Index |  Albums |  Classified Ads |  Catamarans For Sale |  Calendar |  Submit Events
Announcements
New Discussions
Round the world record in trimaran
by Mike Fahle. 12/17/17 06:41 PM
Adding a Jib to a Mossie
by Gary Fleming. 12/07/17 11:29 PM
F101 finally in production
by Jake. 12/05/17 06:49 PM
Tradewinds Regatta?
by samc99us. 12/05/17 04:30 PM
Easy way to really learn the Racing Rules
by Mike Fahle. 11/28/17 07:30 AM
Dynema trap lines diameter?
by mmadge. 11/25/17 08:10 AM
foiling chasing UFO
by northsea junkie. 11/23/17 03:12 AM
New Mystere 4.3 in Central Florida
by Mike Fahle. 11/22/17 04:46 PM
36th America's Cup
by waterbug_wpb. 11/21/17 12:10 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#40945 - 01/26/05 08:35 PM Re: In that case .. [Re: taipanfc]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

Insurance problems ?

Then sail with the aluminium mast.

It is not that I'm asking you to do something that I'm not doing myself. I have the superwing mast myself and I'm racing at least 3 carbon masted Stealths this season.

I really don't see this insurance problem.

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
--Advertisement--
#40946 - 01/26/05 11:49 PM Re: In that case .. [Re: taipanfc]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Thought that YA was supposed to be finding insurance for racing boats.

If your having challenges.. I could ask my insurance brokers to look into the issue.

#40947 - 01/27/05 12:55 AM Re: In that case .. [Re: Stewart]  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
taipanfc Offline
addict
taipanfc  Offline
addict

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 539
YA not doing too much on that front, or if they are not passing the information to affiliated classes. Taipan class and a few others has been supported by one insurance broker in VIC, but after 4 years has not made any money out of us. Too many big claims which is costing him big.

#40948 - 01/27/05 05:25 AM Re: In that case .. [Re: taipanfc]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Well. suggest your (tiapan association) VYA rep asks at the committee meeting what is happening re insurance.
The Vic rep to YA should know.. If not why not?

Also your club rep to VYA should also be on the case. Again if not why not? But this means people will have to attend the association meetings and or their club meetings.
S..

#40949 - 01/30/05 03:49 AM Re: In that case .. [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,632
stillbitten Offline
Pooh-Bah
stillbitten  Offline
Pooh-Bah

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,632
Gippsland Lakes Victoria Aust...
[quote]
"Altered doesn't comply with the 6.5 kg tip weight rule either. That was undoable.

he had to put 2 kg in the very top of his mast and as such his moment of enertia would come out at more than the AHPC superwing mast."

It is correct that Altered's mast is under 6.5kg. tip weight. After gluing cedar in crossways of aprox. 1kg per 1.5 metres from the spinnaker point down to the base, I ended up with a 6kg tip weight but was perfectly willing to add a .5kg corrector to the tip.

It would be possible to bring the Stealth masts up to 6.5kg by adding a corrector. But what would it achieve certainly not a increase in strength. As for the Aussie Taipan percieved problem I believe they are already above 6.5kg tip weight is that correct, I am sure you have weighed your masts wanting to be competitive in F16 and all.

I still am unsure on this change it is a big reduction either going to 5.5kg. or losing it completly. Maybe 6kg. would be a better minimum.

Regards Gary.


Regards Gary.
Mosquito 1830
All opions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone, no assumptions should be made regarding any Associations or Clubs I may be a member of.
#40950 - 01/30/05 04:01 AM Re: In that case .. [Re: taipanfc]  
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,632
stillbitten Offline
Pooh-Bah
stillbitten  Offline
Pooh-Bah

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,632
Gippsland Lakes Victoria Aust...
Hi Taipanfc,

I think you should try another Insurance company. I have always found general insurers best, they have no knowledge of sailing craft. As you can see I am based in Vic. my current insurance premium was 2/3 of what Club Marine wanted and they don't know carbon from aluminium.

Regards Gary.


Regards Gary.
Mosquito 1830
All opions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone, no assumptions should be made regarding any Associations or Clubs I may be a member of.
#40951 - 01/30/05 12:20 PM Re: In that case .. [Re: stillbitten]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
big question is...
Any issues with your lighter mast holding up the kite?

#40952 - 01/30/05 08:43 PM Re: Why 'Yearly' rules review? [Re: Stewart]  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 58
ABC Offline
journeyman
ABC  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 58
Canberra, Australia
Hi all,

Slightly off topic, but still a rules discussion...

I was just wondering if it is necessary, or even prudent, to have a rules review every single year? I understand that from time to time the class rules should be reviewed to see if there are any improvements that can be made or problems corrected, but in the classes infancy and development, might it be wiser to review the rules on a more spread out basis such as every two or three years?

I know I'm not the most verbose member of the class by any means, but I do check the forums almost every working day (sometimes more than once) and I do read (almost) everything. But from outside the class it must look as though every year we rewriting the rules.

Regular readers of the forum will know that this is not the case and that the rules change only in very small degrees if at all, however I can see outsiders looking into the class and saying "oh, they still haven't figured out the rules yet so I don't want to get into that class yet."

Perhaps we should change the 'rules' so that there is only a difinitive review every 3 years or so or if there is a major change in some way (like the world supply of aluminium drying up or something)?

It also might make less typing for you Wouter?

Andy Collins.


Taipan 4.9 AUS129 AlphabetSoup
#40953 - 01/31/05 11:47 AM Good point Andrew ! [Re: ABC]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe


Quote

I was just wondering if it is necessary, or even prudent, to have a rules review every single year?



No it will not be necessary anymore. Pretty much this rules discussion was caused by a pressing issue in the class. Otherwise we wouldn't have it. The 2002 F16 class ruleset has proven to be very stable and dependable. With each passing year there is less and less that can possibly be reviewed.


Quote

I understand that from time to time the class rules should be reviewed to see if there are any improvements that can be made or problems corrected, but in the classes infancy and development, might it be wiser to review the rules on a more spread out basis such as every two or three years?



I will not have any problems with that as long as it doesn't limits the ability to quickly react to unexpected developments. The trick we have in the F16 class is that we rule on things before they have well penetrated into the class as a whole. If we limit such reaction to 2 or 3 years we'll create alot of problems.

I am however, very willing to run with your proposal to schedule the general REVIEWS over say 2 to 3 years. The current rules certainly allow that.

Do you want to press this proposal further ?


Quote

I know I'm not the most verbose member of the class by any means, but I do check the forums almost every working day (sometimes more than once) and I do read (almost) everything. But from outside the class it must look as though every year we rewriting the rules.



You are correct but we decided that the F16 class will do everything out in the open and that may have drawbacks we just have to accept. If people are scared away so easily and on a misconception even, than I don't think much of them as class members as well. It is a hard decision but the valuable members of the class do educated themselfs properly on what is going on and see the smaller issues for what they are, small issues.

My argument here is that at a certain point the class must demand of its members to make an effort and learn what is going on. We are not a Single Manufactorer One Design class (SMOD) where "daddy" takes care of all things.


Quote

Regular readers of the forum will know that this is not the case and that the rules change only in very small degrees if at all, however I can see outsiders looking into the class and saying "oh, they still haven't figured out the rules yet so I don't want to get into that class yet."



Personally I know that all serious competition are currently in this phase ; From carbon masts in the Tornado class to non furling fully battened jibs in the F18 class. The A-cat class is currently breaking their heads over how to become the fastest baot on the water again and even the Hobie 16 class is debating the spinnaker issue. I-17's have the issue of standardizing the boats over the world and the different size spinnakers in the F17 class. And so on.

If people get scared here with us where everything is out in the open and they can participate and influence the voting. Then the sure are scared away from any of these other classes where the decisions are made behind closed doors by the whigs.

The new sailors should rather see the special character of this F16 class. I promise everybody that we'll listen to all arguments and will take into account all of them. We are a sailors driven class. Not builder driven or ISAF whig driven.


Quote

Perhaps we should change the 'rules' so that there is only a difinitive review every 3 years or so or if there is a major change in some way (like the world supply of aluminium drying up or something)?



I am fearful of the including a rule like that because these things always come back to hunt you at a later time. However an agreement outside the class rules will have the about the same value for us F16 officials. IF we all all agree that the next review will be in teh winter of 2007/2008 then there must be some important and pressureing matter if the body of class heads is to break this agreement.

Would that suffice Andrew ?


Quote

It also might make less typing for you Wouter?



And I'm very interested in that, believe me !


Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#40954 - 01/31/05 07:27 PM Re: Why 'Yearly' rules review? [Re: ABC]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,443
phill Online content
phill  Online Content


veteran

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,443
Central Coast NSW Australia
Andrew,
I must say that I agree that a yearly review of class rules in the longer term is just too frequent.
You have suggested 3 year review while I would be happier in the longer term to see a 5 year review with a safety trigger that can bring about a review at any time.
Criteria for this trigger would have to be decided upon.
The case you mentioned ie- aluminium shortage or the loss of the supply of a viable aluminium mast would be a valid trigger.
I suppose when getting a Class like this off the ground you need to make fairly frequesnt periodic checks at the beginning to make sure you are on track.
The last review prevented people from glueing in their carbon beams. This was put forward by one of the builders and in my opinion was an excellent initiative.
Had we waited longer and other builders started glueing in carbon beams we may have found ourselves compelled, either by performance but more likely precieved performance differences, to use carbon beams.
We just don't need to add more costs to what is already an expensive sport.
This brings up another important point. Something that people should consider when looking at these questions.

Like it or not - Perception is Reality.

If someone thinks it is real then it is.

Something does not have to be faster for people to feel compelled to use it.

If you feel compelled to use something that is more expensive than you can afford in order to be competative, and if you can't enjoy the sport unless you feel as though you are competative, then you may just fall by the way side.

When looking at the mast tip question we should consider this very carefully. Do we want to be a small elete group of people that think we are fast or would we like to be a larger group of people that are in reality, in our minds and on the water, equally as fast.

When talking about carbon masts we must acknowledge that the major cost of the mast is not the material but the labour. while the material prices may go down what is the chance of that happenning to the labour component.

With an ever increasing labour component, I can not in all concience vote to drop the mast tip weight.
Just as I could not vote to ban carbon masts.
They must be there as an option. Howexer, while we have a viable and cheaper source of aluminium mast we don't want people to percieve they need a carbon mast to be competative.

Now I know all the arguements about the equality in the performance of these sections and don't care about
any of them.
I only care about peoples perception. That is reality.

The reason this question is being put forward is because of an unforeseen problem that has come up when all parties were acting in good faith.

While I can not vote to drop the mast tip weight.
At the same time I do not see how we can as a group ask people to put weights on their mast when they believed from the beginning that the boat they were buying was fully compliant without the weights.

We as a class have a dilema.

We need a sollution to this problem that will satisfy all parties.

I would suggest that all boats purchased with the belief they comply to the class rules be dispensated to race in all but National and International events. In those events they must carry weights.
That all other boats comply to the rule in all events.
That the manufacturer of the carbon mast be asked to increase the tip weight to the class minimum for all future boats and let it be known to people that want to use carbon that it is OK but they must comply.

We have rules and we must stick to them and be seen to abide by them to give the class the level of credability it deserves.

This is just the way I see it.




I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

#40955 - 02/02/05 05:08 AM Re: In that case .. [Re: Stewart]  
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,632
stillbitten Offline
Pooh-Bah
stillbitten  Offline
Pooh-Bah

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,632
Gippsland Lakes Victoria Aust...
Quote
big question is...
Any issues with your lighter mast holding up the kite?


Hi Stewart,
it's early days yet, but it has stood up to the pressures better than some parts of the boat did. But seriously carbon A mast with timber inside has put up with minor nose dives with spin up, flogged spin. in 20kts., tight wind trapezing with spin, etc. By no means proved to be bullet proof but certainly doing OK so far. Only time will tell.

Regards Gary.


Regards Gary.
Mosquito 1830
All opions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone, no assumptions should be made regarding any Associations or Clubs I may be a member of.
#40956 - 02/02/05 07:51 AM Re: Emergency F16 ruling [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Steve_Kwiksilver Offline
addict
Steve_Kwiksilver  Offline
addict

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Cape Town, South Africa
Wouter,
Wouldn`t a compromise between the two groups of F16 sailors be in the best interest of the class here ? I think that exploring both extremes and setting one as the final decision is not as good an outcome as finding the middle ground.

"We are going to continue with the proposal and vote of on the tip weight rule in slightly modified form. However, using my authority as the Formula 16 chairman and giving as cause the unacceptable situation that maintaining the current rule would immediately outlaw 15 Stealth F16's and some 24 Stealth R's from the class, I immediately lower the minimum required mast tip weight from 6.5 kg to 5.5 kg."

Surely this is enough of a change in the rules, it allows all Stealth owners inclusion in the class, and only lowers the tip weight by 1kg, a compromise all sensible F16 owners should accept. I think you`ll find most Taipan sailors THAT ARE INVOLVED IN F16 will be more than happy to accept this over a complete scrapping of the mast tip weight rule. It should keep things closer between the two different camps, (even if the difference is only a percieved one), thereby not alienating either party.
The situation might then not be an ideal one for carbon mast producers, or those who wish to use them, but at least those who wish to compete on equal footing and still use alu. masts won`t PERCIEVE they are at a disadvantage.

Steve

#40957 - 02/02/05 11:33 AM Re: Emergency F16 ruling [Re: Steve_Kwiksilver]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe


This emergency rule is ONLY a temporary one and the final decision is still pending. For new masts build the 6.5 kg tipweight rule still applies.

There is movement on this front and I hope to settle this issue permanently soon.

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#40958 - 02/02/05 10:28 PM Re: Emergency F16 ruling [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 58
ABC Offline
journeyman
ABC  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 58
Canberra, Australia
I agree Steve, this seems like a sensible compromise that allows inclusion, development yet doesn't adversely affect existing boats.

Wouter: what's wrong with this suggestion?? You mentioned in one of your first posts that Saarberg could produce a dependable carbon mast that would result in a tip weight of 5.5kg, so what's the big deal?

On the one hand, you've immediately scrapped the 6.5kg tip weight rule and changed it to 5.5kg. Fair enough, I think we can all see why this was done and seems to be fair and reasonable to include all the Stealth's that already exist and to promote harmony between all the F16 sub-classes. Then you say that all new masts must comply with the 6.5kg tipweight rule that is still in force. I don't understand - didn't you just change that rule as part of your 'chairman' abilities???

Also, you champion the fact that we are a class that discusses rules, changes, developments, thoughts etc openly yet you say that there is 'movement' regarding this rule and you're going to settle it shortly. again.... I don't understand! what is this movement, why haven't we been told about it, who is the movement being done by/to, will this be another rule that becomes 'chairman-ised' and when do 'we' get to know about it????


On the up-side, thanks for the short post - even though it did prompt even more questions.

Andy.


Taipan 4.9 AUS129 AlphabetSoup
#40959 - 02/03/05 07:24 AM Please wait .... [Re: ABC]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe


Please wait.

Quote

Wouter: what's wrong with this suggestion??



Nothing wrong. I'm just waiting for a public Catsailor posting by a party and for a reply by the Aus Taipan sailors. I totally expect to see the first and may have to abandon waiting for the second if they do not reply. But I'm giving both parties time in which to formulate and enter a response.

Quote

You mentioned in one of your first posts that Saarberg could produce a dependable carbon mast that would result in a tip weight of 5.5kg, so what's the big deal?


What are you really asking here, can you explain please ?


Quote

On the one hand, you've immediately scrapped the 6.5kg tip weight rule and changed it to 5.5kg. Fair enough, I think we can all see why this was done and seems to be fair and reasonable to include all the Stealth's that already exist and to promote harmony between all the F16 sub-classes. Then you say that all new masts must comply with the 6.5kg tipweight rule that is still in force.



My mistake I used my powers as a chairman to TEMPORARY lower the masttipweight so that we didn't have to turn away any Stealth F16 sailors at racing while we were still debating what to do. This bought us time. The warning to new masts is that I don't know yet what will happen with the tipweight rule but what ever happens will applie to all masts. Even if it is decided to keep the old rule.


Quote

I don't understand - didn't you just change that rule as part of your 'chairman' abilities???



Well, I think I suspended it temporarily more than changed it permanently. At least for now.


Quote

Also, you champion the fact that we are a class that discusses rules, changes, developments, thoughts etc openly yet you say that there is 'movement' regarding this rule and you're going to settle it shortly. again.... I don't understand! what is this movement, why haven't we been told about it, who is the movement being done by/to,



We are measuring masts at this time and debating between a few important parties about what to do. Also WE're going to settle this issue soon. Not I. If I settle the issue than it means that we couldn't find concensus with the various parties and that I have to force the decision, I'm trying to avoid that. You will know more when more news comes in. Please be patient.


Quote

will this be another rule that becomes 'chairman-ised' and when do 'we' get to know about it????



Relax man, I'm not doing this for pay and these things cost time. You will all know about it and get a chance to give a piece of your mind on it as well. As always !

Wouter



On the up-side, thanks for the short post - even though it did prompt even more questions.

Andy.




Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#40960 - 02/03/05 10:32 AM I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO!!! [Re: ABC]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 390
samevans Offline
enthusiast
samevans  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 390
I have been pointing out that weezy runs your "Class" like it is his own little toy.
I have been warning you people that weezy will do what ever HE wants to please his friends in europe.
He tinkers with the class rules whenever he has a brain fart or a mfg calls up.
That is not a "Class", it is a childs plaything.

Are you ever going to have a real class and VOTE on something?
How many years before someone else has an opportunity to run things?
You "vote" on class issues and weezy collects the votes and tells you the outcome.
Of course the outcome is always what he wants.
What a coincidence.
Or he will override the vote on "technical" reasons.

HOW LONG WILL YOU PEOPLE PUT UP WITH IT?

#40961 - 02/03/05 11:05 AM Humm [Re: samevans]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

I've you just wait a little while you can save yourself another embarasment.

Wouter



Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#40962 - 02/03/05 11:19 AM Re: I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO!!! [Re: samevans]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
Sam, if you had another neuron, you could have a synapse and be almost dangerous.


#40963 - 02/03/05 05:43 PM Re: Formula class rules yearly review ! READ ! [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
john p Offline
member
john p  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 183
Seeing as our masts are the primary reason for this discussion I thought itt time that I add my opinion to the melting pot.

First as you may guess I am in favour of abolishing the tip weight as a measurement.

Carbon mast have not been seen in mainstream catamaran classes until now, it is not realistic to say how light a durable mast can be made at this point, I can tell you that they can be considerably lighter than aluminium and still stronger.

We are a developement class and part and parcel of this type of rule is that boats are allowed to get better and better. However it is controlled improvement in as much as the main performance enhancing parameters are defined.

Hull drag by limiting length and minimum weight
Sail power by limiting dimension of sails
Access to sail power by limiting width.

With these dimensions fixed, any improvments made will be in small increments, I don't believe that any-one will come up with anything that will overnight make all other boats obsolete, but the strength of the concept is that over a long period the boat will get faster and easier to use, the old boats may become outdated but the class will not become obsolete, we can expect evolution not revolution.

So how will the mast tip issue impact on the class, in the short term not a great deal, the majority of catamarans have aluminium masts with greater tip weights than ours, we are ahead of them.

However carbon masts are coming to mass catamaran sailing, all the major spar manufacturers are investing heavily in carbon technology, the price is coming down and will continue to come down, alumium masts on seriuos racing boats will eventually go the same way that wooden ones went.

Already there is little difference in the price of carbon and aluminium masts.

Lighter mast tips will offer these improvements

Easier to raise the mast

Easier to right a capsized boat.

Slightly faster upwind in chop.

No-one will have a problem with the first 2 points the only issue is the third.

The increase in speed we are talikng about is very difiicult to measure and is certainly a fraction of a %.

To be honest if we are worried about this we should worry about other things effecting rig weight Cuben fibre sails would save as much, aramid rigging some more should we limit sail cloth weight and rigging weight, or should we do what we are aklready doing and say, when the price of this technology becomes affordable I'll have it.

Well carbon masts are affordable, you can have them now.

Mast makers need to be given the freedom to find out how light a DURABLE mast can be made after all we only want to give you our potential customers a better easier to use product can that be bad.

Aluminium masts could be made lighter than they currently are, but spar manufacturers have found the safe limit to go to, and we have reliable masts, they will adopt the same approach with using carbon as a material.

if we leave the tip weight in then any light masts will have to have lead on them just like the old Tornado masts did, and just like any light boat must add lead.

But remember this is about the distribution of the weight on the boat, all boats will still weigh the same.



John Pierce

[email]stealthmarine@btinternet.com
/email]
#40964 - 02/03/05 06:27 PM Re: Formula class rules yearly review ! READ ! [Re: john p]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
Darryl_Barrett Offline
old hand
Darryl_Barrett  Offline
old hand

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,012
South Australia
To hell with any "class" discussions, I just want to see what kind of a fool SAM EVENS is goimg to make of himself next (he reminds me of a "visious" version of MIGLETO on sailing anarchy - for any one who is familiar with that "saga")?
Darryl J Barrett

Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Damon Linkous, phill, Rolf_Nilsen 

Search

Who's Online Now
3 registered members (Isotope235, NilsonPardal, Mike Fahle), 26 guests, and 298 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
NilsonPardal, corrinezhan, pussycatcatman, Shotsailor, PointDume
7727 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Jake 4
Timbo 3
P.M. 2
Forum Statistics
Forums27
Topics22,269
Posts266,193
Members7,727
Most Online554
May 12th, 2017
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.014s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9395 MB (Peak: 1.2045 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-18 01:28:11 UTC