Luke Beaumont Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 It's even worse than that. On my VVC I measured diameter at the bottom of the poly V troughs - crank pulley=122mm alt pulley=40mm. I thought this would be due to the average Rover potentially needing to still kick out juice whilst sat in traffic at 1000rpm, with the heated screen, headlights, stereo, wipers on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 SLR Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 OK. I'm in. I've also heard that the K series crank is forged, so it should be OK to use one of these pulleys on all K engines. I'm basing this belief on: 1. Forged crank 2. Damping in the form of the 3 belts driven (including the cam belt in this assertion) In addition, we'll be able to better spec the drive to the alt. I've got 50 quid so far. Let me know when you've got a finished product and I'll start saving. I'll have one in blue please. Worcs L7 club joint AO.//Membership No. 4379//Azure Blue SLR No. 0077//Se7ens List Tours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Bees Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 The stock K-series alternator can be substantially geared down. I have the Caterham steel (undamped) front pulley with it's smaller alternator drive, and a larger-than-stock dural alternator pulley. It still charges the battery perfectly adequately at 1000rpm. Where does the idea that the stock K crank is forged come from? PTP quote their stronger-than-stock (but not advertised as 'forged' or 'billet') crank is "Based upon the standard 'K' Series design, a new casting material and machining process is specified by PTP to give 17% more strength." It's nearly 500 quid + VAT, but a lot cheaper than a forged or billet offering. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 SLR Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Mike, I've asked someone local to me who knows what the difference between a standard forged K crank and one that you purchase for race purposes is. Hopefully he'll chime in any time soon. Worcs L7 club joint AO.//Membership No. 4379//Azure Blue SLR No. 0077//Se7ens List Tours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMO Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Still haven't managed to talk to my contact at Ricardo. I have been in contact with another engineer friend who is currently working for Petronas in Malaysia. He also gives the thumbs up. Something else I remembered is that the Crossflow that was previously fitted to my Caterham only had a pressed steel pulley and no harmonic damper. AMMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 SLR Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Mike, you have email. Worcs L7 club joint AO.//Membership No. 4379//Azure Blue SLR No. 0077//Se7ens List Tours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Hi Ammo On high reving x-flows these should have a smaller dia steel pully ( again no damper though ) to avoid the pully disintegrating and also reduce load on alternator. Rob, do not worry yours has this on it already.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 SLR Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 OK. I've got the go-ahead from the Author to pop this onto BlatChat. Author's name is Chris Flavell and he's well regarded amongst our local crew as "The man that knows his stuff about materials" amongst other things. He has written a number of interesting articles at my request regarding surface hardening (cranks), aluminium chassis (and why they're not a good idea for a Se7en), and a number of other topics. I'd be pleased to share these with anyone who emails me direct. Forged cranks are indeed very expensive as the cost of making a tool can be tens of thousands of pounds. In the beginning..... cranks tended to machined out of solid billets of steel and fully machined. This was to avoid tooling costs and is only realistic for very low volume production. As production levels increased and competitive pressure increased the cost of machining from solid became too high and alternatives were sought. Cast Irons in the thirties/forties and probably fifties were quite poor and really unsuitable for the stresses developed in a crankshaft. (Remember the torsional model that I sent)Chris is referring to another article which illustrates with diagrams the exact principle we are talking about in this thread... namely the Mr Whippy principle. Anyway, I digress... The use of forging became quite commonplace as high volumes of production meant that tooling costs per unit were very small and by forging close to a finished size meant that tens of hours of machining were saved. A series (A30, A35, MinI etc) production cranks were always forged but from a medium carbon steel such as EN16. They were then hardened to a 'T' Condition and machined. At the end of the fifties Ford and some of the foundry research organisations around the world developed slightly improved cast irons and began to produce Cast iron cranks. These gave the same savings in machining time as forged cranks and were even cheaper to produce. The Ford Anglia 105E and Kent engines were amongst the first engines to use cast iron cranks. Clearly cast iron of this type doesn't have the same properties as many steels so care is needed in observing rev limits etc. These cranks weren't too bad, they were cheap. The Forging Industry did its best to fight back as the loss of revenue was huge and a series of technical articles were sponsored and produced to prove why forging was better than casting and these arguments have become folklore/urban myths. The main thrust of the arguement is that the "grainflow" of the metal in a forging bends along the forged "line" line of the crank and the impurities that tend to be present in steel billets or castings are trapped in the centre of the material. These impurities don't break the surface when the crank is machined and the fatigue life of a forged crank is said to be higher than either a billet machined or cast crank. You can find this argument about the fatigue behaviour of forgings in every basic metallurgy text book on the planet. I have to say that I used to agree with this arguement throughout the sixties and seventies and possibly even into the eighties. By the Ninties it was basically a load of old bollocks. Why? The grainflow of a forging is still good but most steels are now so clean when they are produced (because steel making practice has improved significantly in the last 20-30 years) that billet turned cranks are excellent (it is worth noting that all Ferrari cranks are billet turned). The arguement between billet cranks and forged cranks is a matter of cost. The forged crank will be cheaper if it is produced in high volume but as a die could cost 50-60 thousand pounds it needs a few cranks to justify. If you only make 20 cranks buy a good quality "Aircraft Release" EN40B billet and machine from solid and in my view it will be just as good. I wouldn't pay a permium for a forged steel crank over and above a billet turned steel crank. Back to casting. During the Eighties BCIRA in Avelchurch and Ford began a research programme to develop an improved casting material for crankshaft production. The idea was to improve performance ratings witout significantly increasing cost. The developed a very good quality "Spheroidal Graphite" Cast Iron which was also known as Duracast (in fact Ford USA produced some "special" cranks for Kent engine in this material and sold them to Formula Ford engine builders. They were never generally available and there are none left, I have tried hard to find one. I think they may be fitted to the AX engines but I am not 100% sure.) The SG Iron that was developed had an excellent balance of properties between strength and ductility and reasonably good fatigue properties. The Metro Turbo engine runs a crank that is made of SG Iron and the Mini Racers rate this as being stronger than the old EN40B Nitrided Steel Cooper S crank. The Metro Turbo crank was also "brinelled" in the fillets to harden this area locally and improve fatigue life. One of the largest producers of cranks is Darcast in Smethwick and they make SG Iron cranks for Ford, Volvo and many other manufacturers. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't use this material in K series cranks but I am not 100% sure. It has also become a common practice to "forge" this style of cast iron crank but this isn't really the correct expression. I think that the better expression is to say that they are "coined". The "as cast" crank produced in SG Iron is still made in a sand mould. It may be resin coated sand rather than green sand but the size variation from crank to crank is still quite high by modern standards. As cranks are machined buy automated machines the tighter the tolearnce the better the machine tool will operate and the tighter it can be set. I believe that the castings are given a light blow in a sizing die to reduce manufacturing tolerance and make machining times and efforts more consistent. I don't think it is fair to call this forging. Where does this get us? I would be fairly confident to say the following: The performance of a modern SG Iron crank is excellent in terms of mechanical strength and fatigue life particularly relevant to the cost. The problem is that because it is cast there must be some variation in the fatigue life because of the increased probability of defects being present at or close to the surface (the fatigue process is generally Stoicahstic and the fatigue life of most components can probably be best described by a Weibull Distribution). I would tend to say that although a "perfect" crank may be good enough for very high levels of performance it is unlikely that you could inspect well enough and even then you would need to get hold of some relevant fatigue data before you could make a decision. Folklore says that a FORGED, NITRIDED EN40B crankshaft is as good as it gets and historically this is not a bad bet. I am sure that some of the modern Maraging steels are likley to be better still but the cost could be horrific. ( I will ask my pal at BMW what they make F1 cranks from ). Finally if a Nitrided, Billet EN40B crank is much cheaper I wouldn't worry.My conclusion to Chris's article is: 1. Forged cranks can be produced cheaply in large quantities. I think the K qualifies as "large quantities". This supports the belief that K cranks could be forged, despipte Chris suggesting they may be cast. Until someone chimes in with a "I know..." we have to make up our own minds. However, both PC and I know a chap local to me who is "in the know". I am sure I have asked him in the past and he has indicated that they are indeed forged, but my memory is crap. I will ask him again. 2. Low volume production of billet cranks can be as cheap as a high volume forged crank, and of equal quality. Does anyone know what the "specialist" cranks are made of, and how they are made? I'm referring to DKE as an example. 3. Cast cranks are of pretty good quality these days. It is not uncommon for them to receive a "blow" in a die to aid their eventual machining which, while cannot be considered as forging, can't hurt its strength properties. If the K crank is manufactured this way, it may be considered to be of sufficient quality to not worry about it with an alloy pulley. Worcs L7 club joint AO.//Membership No. 4379//Azure Blue SLR No. 0077//Se7ens List Tours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 SLR Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 So, Julian/Ammo, are we still going to go ahead with these? Worcs L7 club joint AO.//Membership No. 4379//Azure Blue SLR No. 0077//Se7ens List Tours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 A Kiddie crank is EN40B nitrided, machined from billet. I think your point 2 is rubbish. Billet are always expensive because of the amount of machine time. Forged take lots to set up but in high volumes the tooling cost is recovered to become almost as cheap as cast. A DKE crank is IRO 1000 quid. Your point 3 is also duff. An SG cast crank is "coined" in a die to make it dimensionally closer to final dimensions before machining. This does not affect grain flow in the casting and does not significantly reduce inclusions and voids. An the SG cast iron material only has "reasonably good fatigue properties". An SG cast crank would probably be sensitive to harmonic damping changes. I got the assertion that the K-series crank was forged from Powertrain's website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 SLR Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 You are right about the coining process. From Chris's article I thought he was suggesting that this process could be or might be referred to as forging by some people, but is better known as coining. By this, I (possibly incorrectly) assumed some of the benefits of forging were inherent in the coining process, hence some people's confusion. I did understand the reason why coining was used. Billet is a cheaper way of producing a quality crank without tooling up for limited runs of forged cranks. I had tried to draw a comparison between your crank and a cheap-forged crank (such as the standard K) because other people had questioned whether a standard K crank could be forged... going on to suggest that if it were forged then why would you pay more for a billet-cut crank. This is all based on the terminology used. People think a forged crank... any forged crank is a "racing" item. If you go and buy a specialist crank you'll as likely ask for a forged steel crank. I've seen it written here many times. As the standard K crank is forged I was trying to distinguish between that and "race" item like yours. I think I got confused and choked at the last fence. I'm still not clear. Thanks for pointing out your source of the "forged K crank" info. Perhaps what's required is a chart of available cranks to compare their price, strength, material and manufacturing process. It would better inform people like me and enable them to cut through the bull and make their own minds up. Volunteers? Worcs L7 club joint AO.//Membership No. 4379//Azure Blue SLR No. 0077//Se7ens List Tours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R. Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Firts of all I am basing these comments on my knowledge and experience of cross flow crankshafts, this may not necessarily be true of moderm manufacture of the K series. The standard cast X/flow crank is easily distinguished by the bare cast surface on all unmachined surfaces (together with some ground off flash marks at the parting line). The billet machined cranks can be seen to be machined all over - i.e. no cast or forged surfaces present. The forged ones are similar to cast but have a "forged finish" (similar to con rods) on the unmachined surfaces. I have used all 3 types of X/flow cranks, goodness knows how much it must have cost to tool up for the forged one, but I think it was a Ford part made for the BDT engine. We once tried straightening a bent cast X/flow crank which not surprisingly snapped, the engine reconditioner expected this and said that we would have had more luck with a mini crank as it was forged. A shot peened finish will disguise a billet machined or forged crank but is unlikely to have been done to a cast crank. A harmonic damper pulley is simplistically a spring mass system designed to remove harmonics at a given frequency (and hence multiple thereof). The rubber drive belts will not contribute anything to this effect. A colleague has just built a 1925cc pre crossflow engine with a billet machined stroker crank, this regularly shook loose the crank pulley bolt until a harmonic pulley from a different engine was modified to fit. Edited by - J.R. on 16 Jan 2003 15:37:41 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMO Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Some of the stories of cranks vibrating when the harmonic dampers are removed could simply be put down to bad crank balance. The mass of a flywheel and damper can mask vibrations. As stated previously my crank was dynamically balanced as part of the re-build. Zetec cranks tend to be very good. I know of one Formula Ford engine builder that doesn't balance the cranks anymore as all the cranks checked were in tolerance. Some Yank V8 engines are in fact externally balanced with a great big lump on the flywheel. Removing the harmonic damper from these would be a disaster. Also Vees are not zero balanced like a four but are balanced to a balance factor. Straight sixes should also not be messed around with. I know of a couple of firms who prepeare the Nissan V6 for Sportscar and Endurance racing who have simply replaced the harmonic damper with an ali pulley. These do have billet cranks though. My crank balancer also pointed out that the Zetec crank is a bit more butch that the K-series one. Although similar in stroke the K-seies 1800 has quite a short connecting rod which might also be worth considering. I've found one engine tuner who only advocates the use of harmonic dampers on five, six and eight cylinder engines but not on fours. Remember that the balancer only works at mainly one rpm where the natural vibration occurs. On a four things should be OK as long as you don't run the engine continously in the vibration zone. In a light car that accelerate very fast through the rev range things aren't quite as bad as in a heavy saloon car fully loaded with occupants and luggage. In this case the engine will probably spend more time in the vibration zone. I have a contact who is trying to get information from Freudenberg (the people who probably manufacture the harmonic damper for the K) what the critical rpm is. Anyway as there has been a lack of response, these pulleys might never be made so we will not know the answer. This was never a money making excercise for me and I hope nobody thinks I have been trying to promote my business through this forum. Julian approached me about the viability of making some pulleys. The cost of having accurate drawings, the CNC programming, material, machining time and hard anodising make the whole thing quite expensive. Making only three would be prohibitive. However I've had some fun investigating the whole thing and exchanging views. I now know a little bit more than I knew before (but not that much). If it were my engine I would go ahead and fit an ali pulley. But then I'm a sort of person that doesn't buy insurance on track days. If I prang the car then I would say that I took a risk and it didn't work out. I'd have the same attitude if my engine fell in half. I suppose most people would say that experimenting with something that nobody else has done is an unacceptable risk. I understand this. Nobody wants to be a guinea pig. I will keep on investigating this subject as I'm quite curious. I'm still expecting some replies from a few sources. I see on Oily's K-Series website that there is a picture of a dry sumped engine without a harmonic balancer and what seems to be a small diameter steel pulley. Anyone know the weight of this? AMMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 SLR Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Ammo, I think the one on Oily's site is PC's. I'm still interested in case I'm not one of the 3 you quoted. I also don't do trackday insurance, but I've already fell foul of that and incurred a £2500 rebuild. I'm not suggesting these pulleys will result in something similar though. I'm satisfied-enough that the K crank can take it. I'm not convinced that drive belts will do nothing with respect to damping though. Perhaps that's wishful thinking. I'm interested in any info from your contact at Freudenberg. I've done a few special orders for the Se7ening community (clothing). It's never easy, but the end result is always worth it. Don't lose heart. People really appreciate it when you try to help out. The cam covers Julian did previously are fantastic. I'm so pleased I bought one. Worcs L7 club joint AO.//Membership No. 4379//Azure Blue SLR No. 0077//Se7ens List Tours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMO Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Yes you are one of the three. I will keep posting any information as I receive it. AMMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjp Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Balance factor?? Zero Balance?? Shouldn't all cranks dynamicaly balance and don't all cranks have a balance factor. Balance has little to do with the torsional case your damper takes care off. The torsional damper fitted to cranks is not a true dynamic abosorber and has a reasonable effect at a range of frequencies not just one frequency as in the traditional response of an 'undamped' tuned abosorber. K' series crank is a pretty marginal design, leave the damper on for the road. Definatley take it off a race engine though. Ken P KenP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMO Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Ken Maybe I didn't express myself properly. Torsional vibration and vibration due to bad balance are two different things. My point is that if a crank is not properly balanced the engine will vibrate. I've seen a few badly balanced engines over the years. Cranks that did not have enough counterweight and needing tungsten plugs to be screwed in to make them right. If you replace the flywheel with a lighter one or remove the pulley the situation becomes worse. So if you have an out of balance crank and you remove the damper you could incorrectly interpret this as the engine needing a damper. Zero balance in a four cylinder crank does not take into account the weight of the pistons and rods. The exact weight of all the components that you hang off the crank don't matter as long as all the pistons weigh the same and the rods are balanced end to end. The crank is simply put on the machine and balanced on its own. Good machines can detect if material has to be removed or added along the length of the crank. You then continue to add the flywheel, pressure plate and front pulley, balancing each individual item as you go along. I've had dozens of cranks balanced this way over the years. Money spent balancing cranks is money well spent in my opinion. A production crank doesn't have as much time spent being balanced as one that is sent to a specialist. On a vee you have use the weight of the rotating and reciprocating parts to calculate the balance factor. This is usually the whole of the weight of the rotating components and a proportion of the reciprocating parts. The percentage of the reciprocating can be experimented with to obtain the smoothness in the area of operation. My Zetec is ultra smooth and has had the 1.5 kilo damper replaced with a 400 grm. ali pulley. It was smooth before and it is smooth now. Your recommendation to leave the damper on for the road and to replace it for racing is obviously the safe option. However I beleive that K engines with standard cranks are capable of making 200 bhp. So maybe the crank is not so marginal after all. AMMO Edited by - ammo on 17 Jan 2003 20:36:11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted January 18, 2003 Author Share Posted January 18, 2003 Come on you bunch of poofs. Let's get some orders in. Then maybe later we could do a bulk buy of steel cranks 😬 hehe. Only kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted January 19, 2003 Author Share Posted January 19, 2003 OK Lets not. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edited by - Julian Thompson on 19 Jan 2003 22:30:36 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Ammo, All k's are smooth. Renowned for it. I run a race clutch and this means that torsional engine resonances get transferred to the chassis and are clearly audible. They happen at ~2500-3500rpm IIRC which is a difficult rev range to avoid in real world driving. The picture on Oily's website is my dry sumped super-K. On the Supersport that I am currently running I have kept the damped pulley. The standard K crank is reckoned by Oily and some others to be good for 8500rpm. Sounds like a forged crank to me. I cannot see J.R's point regarding the belt drive. As far as I can see the belt is an imperfect spring and the alternator pulley and armature is a mass (rotational intertia, I suppose). Spring/mass/damper system. How else can you view it? The mass, spring rate and damping factors are probably tuned for the wrong frequency (too high would be my guess) and achieve nothing, but certainly all the component parts are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMO Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Peter Yes it's unbeleivable to me that such strokey engines as the K and the Zetec are so smooth. Only because I was brought up to belive that a short stroke was better for smoothness. However having stretched engines from 70 to 78 and then to 82 mm stroke in the past, I've never found smoothness to be a problem if correctly balanced. On road cars, production techniques are better than in the old days. They have to be for manufacturers to sell their products. I'm still waiting for some info to come back from various sources. But from the lack of interest it seems nobody wants to take the risk in running a light pulley on the road. I do on my Zetec, but that's my decision. It seems that general opinion is that undampned pulleys are OK for the track but not pootling around at 3,500 rpm. I'm still waiting for some info to come back from a couple of sources but I doubt I will find out anymore than I already know. Not sure what the ancillary components such as alternators, belts, cams etc. do. I'm not qualified to comment. I have machined components on the lathe that were out of balance. By resting a hand gently on the rotating part (don't do this at home folks, not really clever at all. The proper way to do it is to add weight with lumps of metal or plasticene to get the thing in balance. I was in a hurry and like to live dangerously) I could reduce the vibration to get a finish. Does this have any relevance? Would the belt and alternator have the same effect on a crank? Dunno. AMMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjp Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Ammo I understand your point although I think that it would be difficult mistake a TV problem for a primary crank balance problem. At worst you will hear a TV problem propagate through the drivetrain (at a couple of speeds) but you will feel a crank primary balance problem if it’s bad enough. Where I misunderstand is your discussion of crank balance and balance ratio. You talk about having to use ‘heavy metal inserts’ in the counterweights to balance a crank and I think this precisely the point. A four cylinder crank does not need counterweights at all to achieve primary balance. We choose to use counterweights to reduce bearing loads and stress in the main journal/flange interface. We have a choice in the size of counterweight which for I guess for a production engine is probably equal to the weight of the crank pin + a two thirds of the connecting rod mass (considered to be rotating inertia) + some part of the oscillating mass (piston + the other third of the con rod). I believe the percentage of the oscillating mass which we balance we choose to balance is the ‘balance ratio’. In high speed engines (which is usually where heavy metal inserts are used) a higher balance ration can be used to reduce the peak inertial forces seen by the bearings (although this will increase the integral of the bearing forces) I ‘think’ all cranks for 2,3,4,5,6,8,12 etc. in line or ‘V’ formations achieve primary force balance in the crankshaft (single cylinder being the notable exception) although nor necessarily ‘free moments’ (end to end rotation) which means you may have problems balancing a V8 crank on a standard crank balancing machine (although I am only guessing how that works). The question of balance ratio is the same as the four cylinder case. Incidentally a ‘K’ series (production 1.8) has it’s torsional vibration peak at 509Hz without the damper and 317Hz, 340Hz and 512Hz with the damper (much smaller amplitude of course). This corresponds to 4750rpm (4th order) and 3400 & 5125rpm(6th order). My assertion that the K series crank is marginal is based on some FEA analysis of the crank which I have glanced at but never really thought about (maybe a project for this evening). Lastly, saying all that, I will have one of your ally pulleys. Ken P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMO Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Ken You're not the guy who works for Freudenberg we've been trying to get in touch with are you? I have to admit you seem to know more about it than I do. I went to art school and became a photographer before I got involved with engines by accident som twent two years ago. I have no engineering training and am self-taught. I have always relied on other people more knowledgable than me to point me in the right direction. If I need a crank balanced I give it to my guy, he does an excellent job, everybody is happy. I know how to weigh all the bits and pieces and calculate a balance factor on a V crank (the heavy metal inserts were on a V crank). Why it works is not that important as long as it works. I don't feel I need to know everything about everything. I know enough to get along. I do have a little bit of common sense and would not do anything I considered dangerous. In the twelve years that I ran a race team I never put anyone in the hospital or morgue. I suppose if anything I'm overly-cautious. The ali pulley doesn't scare me. That's my instinct. Could you explain in words I can understand why it doesn't particularly scare you? AMMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Bees Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 It's worth noting unbalance obeys a square law - if you double the speed of the crank than the unbalance forces increase fourfold. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Bees Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Double post... Edited by - Mike Bees on 20 Jan 2003 15:27:59 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now