Jump to content

CR throttle body balancing


Recommended Posts

Before I started fitting a vac advance, I'd want to know why the factory omitted it. Can't believe it was cost, after all the dizzy already has the capsule.

 

Ivor

 

 

Ivor,

Its an interesting question. Flame propagation at cruise is much slower than at wot, for the same rpm. So most ancient and modern si engines have 'vac advance' of some sort, its fundamental to correct operation. The PI TRs must be amongst the very few si engines that do not it have it fitted. I think the reason is that the PI MU has no provision for transient enrichment upon opening the throttle from cruise. So the mixture leans briefly upon opening the butterflies and the engine will tend to stumble. As the spark timing would need also to move rapidly in the retard direction upon opening the throttle connecting up the av capsule may have made the stumble worse. The carb engines did have the av capsule connected and they of course have transient enrichment built in.

I also suspect the PI MU is set on the rich side at cruise to deter that stumble. So for the tinkerer there is potential to gain much better mpg by first setting up the vac advance and then - for the more adventurous - devising transient enrichment so the mixture can be leaned.

There is another aspect to this interplay between MU mixture and spark timing. If the MU mixture were set weaker without adding vac advance the flame will burn way too slow, increasing the risk of exhaust valve over-heating, preignition etc. Setting the MU rich speeds the burn and avoids that. So the lack of transient enrichment left the engineers with few ways out: possibly quite late in the day - an oversight?. That's not to say we cant correct it ourselves. I can see several ways to get transient enrichment - eg brief excess-fuel lever actuation, or setting up the MU very rich and using closed loop feedback from an exhaust AFR sensor to lean the mixture at cruise by raising the air pressure slightly under the MU diaphragm until AFR is bang on.

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

See my reply to Quentin above, no drilling.

Yes it should advance the timing at cruise without upsetting performance. There is a possibility that there might be (more?) tendency to pink on opening the throttle from cruise to full load, depends on engine and MU etc. But I agree for very little cash and little effort its worth trying. Let us know how it goes.

Peter

 

 

 

Thanks, Peter. I don't think I have the diaphragm at the other end now. I have attached a picture. Shouldn’t there be a sort of flying saucer shaped thing on the left hand side opposite the knurled A-R adjuster, where the VA tube goes?

On the body of the adjuster it says 22D. So where would I connect a VA tube on the Distributor? Or do I buy a diaphragm and unscrew something else?

 

(with apologies for pinching this thread) :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I also suspect the PI MU is set on the rich side at cruise to deter that stumble. So for the tinkerer there is potential to gain much better mpg by first setting up the vac advance and then - for the more adventurous - devising transient enrichment so the mixture can be leaned...

 

 

Peter,

 

That is not the way I read these tables: .

 

I observed on a steady throttle a manifold vacuum of around 8Hg. Then when I opened the throttle abruptly it briefly dropped to 0Hg and that will cause the MU to deliver more fuel to mix with more air to maintain the mixture, no?

The vacuum then steadily went back to 8Hg and when I abruptly shut the throttle it briefy peaked at around 20Hg, i.e. less fuel with less air, before going back to 8Hg.

 

Stan

Edited by smizgals
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Peter. I don't think I have the diaphragm at the other end now. I have attached a picture. Shouldn’t there be a sort of flying saucer shaped thing on the left hand side opposite the knurled A-R adjuster, where the VA tube goes?

On the body of the adjuster it says 22D. So where would I connect a VA tube on the Distributor? Or do I buy a diaphragm and unscrew something else?

 

(with apologies for pinching this thread) :unsure:

 

David,

Yes the diaphragm capsule has been removed. I dont know if they are available, but it slides into the disy casing at other end to the knurled knob. A rod from the diaphragm locates on a vertical pin on the moving plate near the points. Try disy reconditioners?

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

That is not the way I read these tables: .

 

I observed on a steady throttle a manifold vacuum of around 8Hg. Then when I opened the throttle abruptly it briefly dropped to 0Hg and that will cause the MU to deliver more fuel to mix with more air to maintain the mixture, no?

The vacuum then steadily went back to 8Hg and when I abruptly shut the throttle it briefy peaked at around 20Hg, i.e. less fuel with less air, before going back to 8Hg.

 

Stan

 

Stan

Yes the table shows thats the MU responds to steady load. What it lacks is any way of transiently enriching the mixture as it goes from low load ( lower pressure,more inches of mercury) to wot (0in Hgg). To get round that I suspect that the mixtures given by the low load settings are richer than is ideal for fuel economy. The explanation is thus:

Transient enrichment ( aka 'acceleration charge' ) ensures that upon suddenly opening the throttle the instantaneoulsy increased air flow is supplemented equally rapidly with extra fuel (hence the accerator pump of carbs). The PI lacks that ability so the mixture will briefly tend to go lean. And it goes lean no matter how fast the MU responds to the rise in pressure towards atmospheric. This is because not all the fuel from injectors or jets evaporates into the air stream, a lot attaches to the manifold walls to form a liquid film. As a result that fuel evaporates more slowly, introducing a time lag into the control of mixture. When running off-load the lower pressure favours evaporation of the fuel so there is raltively little fuel forming a liquid film on the walls. But on opening the throttle that pressure rises we get less evaporation (it halves) and the walls get wettened with some of the much greater flow of fuel( as we see from the table). But that fuel wetting the walls weakens the mixture, in most engines not just the TRs. So more fuel has to be added to ensure the evaporated fraction is enough to meet the bigger load. That is wht we need 'acceleration charge' and why carbs have throttle pumps or piston dampers.

The PI manifolds show all the right characteristics for tuned air flow, but when it comes to transient enrichment the large surface area of 6 long inlet tracts means that even more fuel is needed to wet the surfaces before a new equilibrium is reached. The PI lacks that ability to provide fuel both to wet those walls and ensure more fuel gets instantly to the inlet valve. So to try to counter the stumble caused by transient leaning the MU would be run rich even off-load so that when the thottle is opened the leaning-out does not cause pronounced stumbles.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

...And it goes lean no matter how fast the MU responds to the rise in pressure towards atmospheric...

 

Peter,

 

Bear with me, this is all new to me and I think I am getting there. Except the above seems to contradict your 'several ways to get transient enrichment - eg brief excess-fuel lever actuation, or setting up the MU very rich and using closed loop feedback from an exhaust AFR sensor to lean the mixture at cruise by raising the air pressure slightly under the MU diaphragm until AFR is bang on', from your previous post?

 

Stan

Edited by smizgals
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

Bear with me, this is all new to me and I think I am getting there. Except the above seems to contradict your 'several ways to get transient enrichment - eg brief excess-fuel lever actuation, or setting up the MU very rich and using closed loop feedback from an exhaust AFR sensor to lean the mixture at cruise by raising the air pressure slightly under the MU diaphragm until AFR is bang on', from your previous post?

 

Stan

 

 

Stan,

Its new to me too- I had to get into the basics of the combustion processes for duel fuelling and so read up textbooks on ic engines that otherwise I would not have come across- they're not part of the classic car repertoire of essential reading.

 

To solve the problem of lack of transient enrichment we need to get more fuel flowing at an above-normal mixture strength 'instantaneously' with the throttle opening, but only for about a second. We need a PI version of a Weber throttle pump or the SU piston-damper. Its important to note that the transient fuel flow will need to be faster than that privided in the your table. The max fuel flow in the table will I guess be set around AFR12.5 - optimum for max power. But we need more than that trnasiently- we need AFR 12.5 evaporated in the air flow, and yet more fuel to cover that lost to the manifold walls during the transition.

 

One way would be to have a pressure-switch on the throttle linkage that was off at cruise but 'made' when the throttle was opened. That would then immediately actuate the excess fuel lever - or a similar change in the MU - so that the fuel flow went really high - higher than maximum in your table - fast , but only for around a second. And then reverted to normal, re-cocking itself during the next period at cruise. Speed is essential - the air flow rises in tens of millisecs upon opening the butterflies - and that lever may be too sluggish.

 

Another way, more complicated but the one I favour, is to set the MU fuel cam up so it runs really rich when the manifold is at 0mm Hgg. Much richer than normal but rich enough to cover the transient acceleration charge. At cruise a pressure switch on the manifold senses cruise-depression and applies air pressure to the underside of the MU diaphragm to push it up and lean the mixture to around 17:1 AFR, as sensed by an AFR probe in the exhaust. When that manifold switch senses the throttle opening it temporarily inhibits the feedback from the AFR probe/air pressure and allows the mixture to go to the really rich setting to provide accleration charge. Flow would need to be really rich perhaps (guessing here) 60-70ml per 1000squirts. After a second the feedback is then re-applied but this time the air pressure is set by the AFR probe to give best power AFR around 12.5:1. It needs more electronic input that I can offer but would give precise (dash adjustable) control over mixture at cruise- useful for optimising consumption. Of course you'd need a tame MU-tuner to set up the very rich cam, unless you set up a bench rig with fuel pump, MU drive etc.

 

Another ways would be to fit a solenoid valve into the high pressure fuel line and connect its outlet ( flow suitably adjusted to taste) into the injector pipes, bypassing the metering unit. The throttle switch would open the valve for maybe a second giving a burst of rich fuelling. This would giev the fastest response of all. Need to take care in handling the high pressure fuel but the correctly spec'd solenoid valve will cope and high pressure fuel line connectors are widely available for eFI.

 

Once transient enrichment is cracked the way opens up to running much more fuel efficient cruise mixtures and spark timings.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

The early 5/6 CP dizzys did not have the vaccum advance attached. Yours does look like it has been removed. I suggest you check the advance curves with the springs and bob weights before you carry on or send it to Martin. i.e. Dizzy Doctor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....the PI MU has no provision for transient enrichment upon opening the throttle from cruise. So the mixture leans briefly upon opening the butterflies and the engine will tend to stumble

That had never occurred to me, but yes. A few times I've noticed that if I very briefly flip the throttle at low revs, eg changing down into 2nd approaching a slow corner, the engine goes Flubdub! and nothing much happens, very occasionally it even spits back for a moment.

 

I think you're right, trying to provide transient enrichment from the MU end is not going to work, it's too far from the action. Some sort of accelerator pump right by the manifolds ... beyond my ambitions/abilities... and I would question the wisdom of enabling the engine to run a leaner cruise mixture given the heating effects of ethanol fuel. Be content with the PI as it is I think, or fit a set of Webers as no doubt Neil has been dying to comment... :rolleyes:

 

Ivor

 

PS There were manifold modifers that attempted to scrape the liquid fuel off the walls and chuck it back into the airstream, remember? I have something of that ilk, a sort of circular nit comb with an angled flange, but I only have one of them, would need six, and where to site them... have to slice the throttle bodies downstream of the injector point, not practicable I suspect.

Another such...

http://pub25.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2099944454&frmid=5&msgid=889271&cmd=show

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS There were manifold modifers that attempted to scrape the liquid fuel off the walls and chuck it back into the airstream, remember? I have something of that ilk, a sort of circular nit comb with an angled flange, but I only have one of them, would need six, and where to site them... have to slice the throttle bodies downstream of the injector point, not practicable I suspect.

Another such...

http://pub25.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2099944454&frmid=5&msgid=889271&cmd=show

 

Ivor

Your manifold modifier with the comb reminds me of the use of fine stainless steel screens fitted under the blower on top of the engine inlet manifold of big V8s. Its purpose was to catch drops of fuel and break then up so that a greater percentage evaporated into the air increasing air density ratio and hence power. I have been contemplating fitting such to the 6. Apparently as little as 30% of fuel actually evaporates into the air stream. The rest evaporates with heat from the manifold walls, the inlet valve , or in the cylinder - none of which do anything to raise air density, effectively wasting a route to extra power.

Peter

Edited by Peter Cobbold
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan,

Its new to me too- I had to get into the basics of the combustion processes for duel fuelling and so read up textbooks on ic engines that otherwise I would not have come across- they're not part of the classic car repertoire of essential reading...

 

 

 

Peter,

 

And I am very pleased that you are sharing this knowledge.

 

OK, I got it. However, the modifications required, which may anyway have to include the MU as that might not be able to deliver that amount of fuel, would make me lean towards an EFI solution. And then I am not sure EFI would be worth the extra fuel saving over an above that gained by vacuum advance at cruise. I think I can live with the odd stumble/pop, which after all caracterises classic cars as an American friend once reminded me.

 

I received my 123/TUNE yesterday and look forward to using it.

 

Stan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please forgive for hijacking this thread, but where can I obtain this vacuum advance (for a CP car) and to what do I connect it? I assume that one end goes to the Dizzy diaphragm thingy but what about the other? Can I just add a junction to one of the pipes from the inlet manifold (& if so which one?) or am I going to have to bore holes in something and if so what and what size and what do I tap into it?

 

I ask because this seems from what you are all saying to be a cheap way of saving a lot of petrol for no fall off in performance.

 

 

It has just occured to me that a CP dizzy has a maximum centrifugal advance of 14deg. at crank, marked as 7deg. inside the dizzy. And that gives a maximum advance of 25deg. at crank with 11deg. static timing. In that case you will need the dizzy modified to give say 35deg. at crank with the vacuum advance.

Maybe then worth considering a 123/TUNE.

 

Stan

Edited by smizgals
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has just occured to me that a CP dizzy has a maximum centrifugal advance of 14deg. at crank, marked as 7deg. inside the dizzy. And that gives a maximum advance of 25deg. at crank with 11deg. static timing. In that case you will need the dizzy modified to give say 35deg. at crank with the vacuum advance.

Maybe then worth considering a 123/TUNE.

 

Stan

 

 

Stan

Yes, 10deg vac advance is worth having, and the 123 could be a solution to disys lacking a vac advance capsule. Also need electronic tacho as123 had no drive.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

umm... Just to come back to throttle body balancing a moment :rolleyes: I thought I would just do a quick update. I borrowed Badshead's Synchro meter and had a play this morning. What a great tool and what a can or worms :( It's great for balancing one pair against another, however of course and probably unsurprisingly, I have some significant differences between the butterflies on the same TB. Take the front TB for instance - the no.2 buttefly is open significantly more than the no.1. No.4 is open more than no.3. Numbers 5 and 6, however, are pretty good. Is there anything I can do about this? I saw a topic a while ago where one party suggested using a wooden dowell to knock them into balance. Whilst some parties viewed this with horror, I can't help being a bit tempted! I have little doubt my hesitation is linked to this as I only get it from idle (ie don't get it from cruise to wot). Alternatively, I was wondering if I would do better to try setting up the air flows by average. Is this daft? ie take the reading of 1 and 2 and get the average. Then set up 3 and 4 to the same average and so on. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan

Yes, 10deg vac advance is worth having, and the 123 could be a solution to disys lacking a vac advance capsule. Also need electronic tacho as123 had no drive.

Peter

 

Peter,

 

I just got one. See my previous response to yours if you have not looked at it yet. I changed my tacho to electronic last year in anticipation.

 

Stan

Edited by smizgals
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has just occured to me that a CP dizzy has a maximum centrifugal advance of 14deg. at crank, marked as 7deg. inside the dizzy. And that gives a maximum advance of 25deg. at crank with 11deg. static timing. In that case you will need the dizzy modified to give say 35deg. at crank with the vacuum advance.

Maybe then worth considering a 123/TUNE.

 

Stan

 

 

 

Have fun with the 123 Tune - I think Triumph were very conservative with the total advance especially with the longer duration "150" cam. That said they knew that Lucas dizzys were not precision instruments and gave a range of I think +/- 2 or 3 deg of advance at any given rpm. They would rather new TR's ran a bit less advance than holing pistons after all they also specified 5 star fuel!

 

A new electronic dizzy will give far more accurate timing and I think about 27-29btdc at 4500 is fine with a TR5/6 as long as compression is relatively standard.

 

Obviously always best to check on the road and run a few degrees off pinking under load on a hot day with a tank of cheap fuel although with the dual curve facility it is possible to run a "safe mode" advance curve with 123tune for those occasion when you put 95 octane in by necessity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

umm... Just to come back to throttle body balancing a moment :rolleyes: I thought I would just do a quick update. I borrowed Badshead's Synchro meter and had a play this morning. What a great tool and what a can or worms :( It's great for balancing one pair against another, however of course and probably unsurprisingly, I have some significant differences between the butterflies on the same TB. Take the front TB for instance - the no.2 buttefly is open significantly more than the no.1. No.4 is open more than no.3. Numbers 5 and 6, however, are pretty good. Is there anything I can do about this? I saw a topic a while ago where one party suggested using a wooden dowell to knock them into balance. Whilst some parties viewed this with horror, I can't help being a bit tempted! I have little doubt my hesitation is linked to this as I only get it from idle (ie don't get it from cruise to wot). Alternatively, I was wondering if I would do better to try setting up the air flows by average. Is this daft? ie take the reading of 1 and 2 and get the average. Then set up 3 and 4 to the same average and so on. :unsure:

 

Quentin,

 

Sorry, that we have strayed a little, this is a follow on/related to posts http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=24116&pid=218585&st=20entry218585 and http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=29742&st=0&p=217933&fromsearch=1entry217933.

 

In the latter I describe the results of balancing newly reconditioned inlet manifolds.

However, I did not mention that the airflow was different on the two intakes of the same manifold body. At the end I could get inlets 1,3 and 5 to show around mark 3 on my airflow meter and 2,4 and 6 around mark 4 on tickover. At 1500RPM the differences where similar. And it runs pretty smoothly and I no longer get an engine vibration as I pass through the 2000RPM mark. Indeed the Lucas PI manual says one should balance them using only one intake per manifold.

 

Sounds like your inlet manifolds need re-conditioning. I'm not in favour of brut force with relatively precise machinery.

 

Stan

Link to post
Share on other sites

That had never occurred to me, but yes. A few times I've noticed that if I very briefly flip the throttle at low revs, eg changing down into 2nd approaching a slow corner, the engine goes Flubdub! and nothing much happens, very occasionally it even spits back for a moment...

 

 

Ivor,

Sounds very similar to 'An occasional dull misfire occurs when I abruptly take my foot off the accelerator and straight away lightly tap it. I suspect the latter may be caused by ignition timing as I don't have a steady timing mark with the strobe.' I posted elsewhere.

I should should know more when I first install the 123/TUNE.

 

Stan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivor,

Sounds very similar to 'An occasional dull misfire occurs when I abruptly take my foot off the accelerator and straight away lightly tap it. I suspect the latter may be caused by ignition timing as I don't have a steady timing mark with the strobe.' I posted elsewhere.

I should should know more when I first install the 123/TUNE.

 

Stan

 

 

Spark timing and mixture are inter-related. This 'on-off-on' misfire behaviour is probably the result intaking a lean mixture on the second opening of the throttle. Advancing the spark might well reduce the misfires, but that's because a lean mixture burns slower so needs more advance. But I reckon the root cause is the PI not being able to keep up with fast load changes. Its measurements we lack : an AFR probe in the exhaust would resolve the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

umm... Just to come back to throttle body balancing a moment :rolleyes: I thought I would just do a quick update. I borrowed Badshead's Synchro meter and had a play this morning. What a great tool and what a can or worms :( It's great for balancing one pair against another, however of course and probably unsurprisingly, I have some significant differences between the butterflies on the same TB. Take the front TB for instance - the no.2 buttefly is open significantly more than the no.1. No.4 is open more than no.3. Numbers 5 and 6, however, are pretty good. Is there anything I can do about this? I saw a topic a while ago where one party suggested using a wooden dowell to knock them into balance. Whilst some parties viewed this with horror, I can't help being a bit tempted! I have little doubt my hesitation is linked to this as I only get it from idle (ie don't get it from cruise to wot). Alternatively, I was wondering if I would do better to try setting up the air flows by average. Is this daft? ie take the reading of 1 and 2 and get the average. Then set up 3 and 4 to the same average and so on. :unsure:

 

 

Quentin,

Its running must be much improved since fitting the manifolds squarely?

It does sound like the dowel gremlins got there before you (Dave Dee Dosey etal- "Bend it...") If they also cleaned the carbon deposits from around the butterfly lands then you might well find the balance improves with use as the seats seal with new coke.

Yes I'd set the air flow so that each pair are same as the others. The MU determines how much fuel to squirt as an average so- assuming the injectors are balanced - the mixture will be on average right for reach pair. Obviously one pair will have the worst seating and the biggest averaged flow even when closed maximally, so set the others' flow to that and slow down the tickover on the air bleed.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quentin,

Its running must be much improved since fitting the manifolds squarely?

It does sound like the dowel gremlins got there before you (Dave Dee Dosey etal- "Bend it...") If they also cleaned the carbon deposits from around the butterfly lands then you might well find the balance improves with use as the seats seal with new coke.

Yes I'd set the air flow so that each pair are same as the others. The MU determines how much fuel to squirt as an average so- assuming the injectors are balanced - the mixture will be on average right for reach pair. Obviously one pair will have the worst seating and the biggest averaged flow even when closed maximally, so set the others' flow to that and slow down the tickover on the air bleed.

Peter

 

 

 

Quentin,

 

 

Having unceremoniously hi-jacked your thread I feel that perhaps I should add that Malcolm of Prestige Engineering told me a few weeks back when I was having similar problems, that even on newly reconditioned units it is very common to find that airflow between the two individual throttles in a pair will vary. This is for innumerable reasons but including the fact that neither the discs nor the throttle bodies are consistent in shape and size and sometimes the spindles themselves aren't true. Also, air can creep in via the spindle holes themselves.

 

Apparently these problems all then even out once the throttles are opened up. As I understand the situation, getting them reasonably close will help with tickover, but what really matters is how they behave when accelerating. Somebody has made the remark that as long as it ticks over don't worry. I seem to recall that even when new (i.e back when I still had brown hair and appalling trousers) these cars were renowned for a lumpy idle.

 

Indeed my previous CR TR6 (which admittedly had a much meatier cam & stage 2 head) used to idle like a bag of spanners -so much so that I had it ticking over at 12-1300 RPM - otherwsie it would stall on takeoff.

 

Hope this helps a bit.

 

Kind regards

 

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair it now idles better than ever. It also hares off under throttle better than ever and happily the spindles all work in unison now for the first time. I am just trying to tease out the pronounced hesitation which occurs only from idle. It always affects a standing start and can also be noticed when accelerating from very low speed (the queue of traffic scenario). I had suspected that even newly refurbed units might have this problem which is why a little bit of fettling (the judicious use of a wedge and dowell combined with a feeler gauge to find the exact area needing attention) is pretty tempting. I'm not talking about a sledge hammer. The amount of difference in butterfly position is truly tiny and yet of course the difference in air flow is marked. Of course it's possible the hesitation is due to something else.

Edited by Quentin
Link to post
Share on other sites

...I am just trying to tease out the pronounced hesitation which occurs only from idle. It always affects a standing start and can also be noticed when accelerating from very low speed (the queue of traffic scenario)....

...Of course it's possible the hesitation is due to something else....

 

 

 

'... due to lack of transient enrichment inherent in the PI design.', Peter talked about earlier in this thread? And as Peter says, maybe the MUs run richer to compensate and yours does not?

 

Mine does not do that, however I did have mine recalibrated/checked last year by Malcolm of Prestige.

 

Stan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my MU is newly returned only a few weeks ago from K_raven_smith (neil) That said, it was set up for the 132 BHP MK 1 saloon engine not the 125BHP MK 2 I have ( my mistake). chris witor suggested this would lead to it running a bit weak and Neil has set it ican be richened up a 1/4 turn. I hadn't actually connected the dots on that. Sounds like a quick chat with Neil is in order. Another thought... The Lucas manual offers a possible cause of cold start difficulty (which I have....though not terrible) being poor seals around the injector adaptors. I have thought that they seem a bit loose. Could a poor seal here contribute to the hesitation? I might try fitting a second set of o rings around the adaptors. I know they are supposed to only have one but there is a slot for another. In fact the car came that way. Maybe the PO already figured that one!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.