Jump to content

2023 "Combined" VPI, Swap, and Lookup Table


Recommended Posts

  • Technical Advisory Committee

I have been working on this for a long time and i'm going cross eyed.  I'm sure theres something wrong so who better to find it than this crowd.  

 

Background:

There are currently 6 places where champcar "data" is stored and all 6 need to be manually changed anytime there is a VPI update or SPV change or whatever.  Its not an "often" thing, quarterly at most, but its a horrible workflow.  What I would call it is an "error trap" where we can end up with the .pdf lookup table giving teams one VPI and the online lookup tool giving teams a different VPI.  Same can go for the swap calculator, where the SPV used might not align with the SPV given in the downloadable .csv table.  It was just a mess.  These things already happened multiple times to multiple teams.

 

Additionally, this goes along with the petition to de-couple the "highest value vpi" with the swap starting value.  That paved the way for this to be a thing.

 

The intent is for this table, specifically columns A-F, will be the single point of reference going forward.  This one .xls file will be available for a "read only" download by members, as well as referenced by both the base VPI and swap VPI lookup tools integrated in the website.

 

As I got into the simple task of combining all of these data sources, the job grew more complex and some changes presented themselves.  There were matching cars - think DSM or firebird/camaro - with different SPV or VPI.   There were SPV that changed year-to-year even though the bodystyle remained constant, or even some with SPV of zero, probably breaking the calculator with a div/0 error.  There were cars that were never sold in the NA market, engines that were never sold here, mismatched years, etc. 

 

I tried to clean that up to the best of my ability, but I'm sure I messed something up.  The intent was to fix errors that were on cars not being raced or used. 

If any of the changes affect a team racing than please contact me so it can be discussed (and likely not implemented) as that was not the directive or scope of this project.

 

The TAC has been helping with this, but being such a massive data set it won't hurt to offer anyone interested the chance to take a look.

You can cross reference all of this data against the .csv file available on the rules page except for the SVPI (Column "E") if so inclined.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g1RL9ceGjhreVJtxkxsn4pPlUIArDHf_/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=104370114636866195071&rtpof=true&sd=true

 

 

Edited by Chris Huggins
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it actually effects anybody, because nobody is wacky enough to swap a car that starts over 500 points, but the G35 coupe, Sedan, and 350Z SVPI, and SPV is all messed up.

 

 

Screenshot_20221107-212307_Chrome.jpg.c50156a475e547478bb834761a33cb27.jpg

 

The Z SVPI is correct, matching the actual VPI.  But the SPV is high.  Even using the convertible weight, it's still #100 high, and using a realistic (hardtop) weight, it's over #300 high.  Again, nobody swapping these, so the point is a bit moot.

 

Screenshot_20221107-212345_Chrome.jpg.5d15c2375cececdee263df11d8a8ed12.jpg

 

Then when you look at the G the SVPI doesn't match the actual VPI.  And the SPV is all over the place.  The Coupe, which matches the weight of the convertible Z has a significantly lower SPV, while the Sedan, which is closer in weight to the mid level Z has a higher SPV than the lot.

 

Again, nobody is swapping a Z or a G because already over on points, but it's still an error IMO and should be fixed.  Maybe lower the VPI on the longer, heavier, G coupe while you're at it. ;)

 

Thanks for doing the leg work on this Chris, having a single reference table for everything just makes sense.

Edited by Ian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh, instead of raising various Mustang VPI's every few years or every year why not just put all Fox cars at 1000 points so everyone gives up forever?  It would just be easier that way... wait that might be too obvious maybe just remove them all and say you will think about adding them back in next year so everybody forgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez that's a lot of numbers............Why are ND Miata's included?   I thought there was a thing that cars had to be 15 years old or something.    I'm guessing it was because someone wanted to use the engine in a swap.     There are just so many exceptions and such and its hard for it not to look like manipulations.   I feel like the vehicle list needs to have a serious Colin Chapman treatment.   Simplify and add lightness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are (4) N52/N51 (3.0l NA) era motor configurations, they have different performance.

N52 w/ 3 stage intake - 330i 10.7:1  

N52 w/ single intake - 325i 10.7:1 (intake should reflect -25 point difference) 

N52 w/ single intake - 328i / 128i 10.7:1 (better tune and exhaust mani than 325i) 

N51 w/ 3 stage intake - 328i / 128i SULEV 10.0:1 (3 stage intake compensates lower compression) Yuck, fuel tank system is expensive from my understanding.

Are you allowing for all N52 to back date to 10.7:1 and 3 stage intake?  Or are you giving the single stage intake a 25 point advantage?

 

 

Datsun 240z/260z/280z weights should be the same S30/S31 chassis.

280zx S130 chassis should be new line item.

 

A 1991 Honda CRX weight (2318) MORE than a 1991 Nissan Sentra (2039)?  Sure about that?  Sentra, 200SX and NX2000 all overvalued compared to Acura/Honda and Neons.  I can go into further detail if need be.

 

1989/1990 240sx points should drop to reflect KA24E (no dual cam).  140hp vs. 155 hp.

 

Edited by jWashburn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, JDChristianson said:

Ahhhh.   Opps that seems short sighted for an entry level "low" budget easy access series.  But that's just my opinion

 

Well, this war hero was testing the car for Mazda. 
We were also looking for ways to be inclusive. It worked. Here is a picture I took of their driver swap during the 2018 VIR24.

 

Here is a good story about the weekend at VIR that was posted in Autoweek.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/sports-cars/a1703931/latest-surgery-behind-him-liam-dwyer-returning-mazda-race-car/
and more info here on the Mazda site. 
https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/the-mazda-way/motorsports/liam-dwyer-wont-let-major-surgery-slow-him-down/

 

20180812_071831.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bill Strong said:

 

Well, this war hero was testing the car for Mazda. 
We were also looking for ways to be inclusive. It worked. Here is a picture I took of their driver swap during the 2018 VIR24.

 

Here is a good story about the weekend at VIR that was posted in Autoweek.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/sports-cars/a1703931/latest-surgery-behind-him-liam-dwyer-returning-mazda-race-car/
and more info here on the Mazda site. 
https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/the-mazda-way/motorsports/liam-dwyer-wont-let-major-surgery-slow-him-down/

 

20180812_071831.jpg

 

 

 

That’s great.  It was a good thing all around.  Probably didn’t have to add the car to the list to do it.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One inaccuracy that's always bugged me was the 80's "Sentra/200sx". That describes two (or more) completely different cars, one FWD (B chassis), one RWD (S12 chassis). I emailed tech about this a few years ago while building my S12 and they said go ahead and use the 150 points listed for the Sentra/200sx... as it's such a rare car that they may not see another. Doesn't matter much to me since there hasn't been a race near me in a long time. Within just the S12 chassis there is a turbo, NA 4 and NA 6 cylinder option, which I would expect to all have different values. I also agree a lot of the B series (FWD, SR20) values are too high... in fairness I don't think there's a lot of them racing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
52 minutes ago, JDChristianson said:

That’s great.  It was a good thing all around.  Probably didn’t have to add the car to the list to do it.    

 

It was also part of the process of getting Mazda to back Mazda racers with contingency.  So, that has helped a few racers too. It also helped when we brought along Nissan top also help those racers. So it had long term pluses, without killing the series. Which as you know, wasn't overwhelmed with ND racers and winners.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, 

 

I have personally put a fair amount of effort into reconciling those different data sets myself, so I appreciate the challenge and thank you for your commitment to making it better. I will do my best to help sort this out. I'll try to get caught up on what you have done already and compare to my previous efforts. Keep me in the loop. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill Strong said:

 

It was also part of the process of getting Mazda to back Mazda racers with contingency.  So, that has helped a few racers too. It also helped when we brought along Nissan top also help those racers. So it had long term pluses, without killing the series. Which as you know, wasn't overwhelmed with ND racers and winners.

Fair enough.    We just wallow along thinking we understand and that the series is for old cheap cars and then new stuff is included and it hurts our heads.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the E39 is lists the 2000 528 as a M52B28, however technically it is the M52TUB28 (after 98 it was the M52TU until the M54 came out)

 

It can matter as with the TU motor having dual vanos instead of single vanos, and while peak HP is the same, the engine has a wider flatter powerband. Also the TU is aluminum block whereas the M52 is iron block in the North American cars (except in the Z3 it was aluminum block).

 

I mean, if the TU motor is the same points then I'll gladly claim my car as a 2000 (everything else is the same between the two) and run the lighter more powerful motor (and the TU is more common to find nowadays and cheaper).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
On 11/7/2022 at 11:05 PM, Ian said:

Not that it actually effects anybody, because nobody is wacky enough to swap a car that starts over 500 points, but the G35 coupe, Sedan, and 350Z SVPI, and SPV is all messed up.

 

(PHOTO REMOVED FROM QUOTE)

 

The Z SVPI is correct, matching the actual VPI.  But the SPV is high.  Even using the convertible weight, it's still #100 high, and using a realistic (hardtop) weight, it's over #300 high.  Again, nobody swapping these, so the point is a bit moot.

 

(PHOTO REMOVED FROM QUOTE)

 

Then when you look at the G the SVPI doesn't match the actual VPI.  And the SPV is all over the place.  The Coupe, which matches the weight of the convertible Z has a significantly lower SPV, while the Sedan, which is closer in weight to the mid level Z has a higher SPV than the lot.

 

Again, nobody is swapping a Z or a G because already over on points, but it's still an error IMO and should be fixed.  Maybe lower the VPI on the longer, heavier, G coupe while you're at it. ;)

 

Thanks for doing the leg work on this Chris, having a single reference table for everything just makes sense.

 

 

Thanks for the comments.  I urge you to work on redefining your view from "Weight" to "SPV" which I have been very careful to word and use lately.  Its not a weight, its a modifier aimed to tweak performance value of swapped vehicles.

 

As it stands, the SPV for the Z33/G35 is not super relevant because the formula goes exponential before the stock HP of the car.

 

  G35C G35S Z33
VPI 550 550 560
SPV 3161 3309 3242
New HP 287 287 287
Value Add 541.6956889 305.398614 396.6260586
Calculated Value 1091.695689 855.398614 956.6260586

 

 

I did notice the Z33 needed to be bumped to 560 for all years since that didnt get updated to match.

 

 

On 11/8/2022 at 9:50 AM, jWashburn said:

There are (4) N52/N51 (3.0l NA) era motor configurations, they have different performance.

N52 w/ 3 stage intake - 330i 10.7:1  

N52 w/ single intake - 325i 10.7:1 (intake should reflect -25 point difference) 

N52 w/ single intake - 328i / 128i 10.7:1 (better tune and exhaust mani than 325i) 

N51 w/ 3 stage intake - 328i / 128i SULEV 10.0:1 (3 stage intake compensates lower compression) Yuck, fuel tank system is expensive from my understanding.

Are you allowing for all N52 to back date to 10.7:1 and 3 stage intake?  Or are you giving the single stage intake a 25 point advantage?

 

 

Thanks for your comments.  I'm not a expert on the N52 cars so help me understand better.

The N51 isn't on the list that I can see.

 

The N52 is on the list in these cars:

528i E60 (which intake)

E82 (not specified trim, just N52B30) - was the E82 offered with both intakes?

E90/E92 (not specified trim, just N52B30) - Does this cover both intakes? 

Z4 (not specified trim, just N52B30) - was this offered with both intakes?

 

Based on what is there now, It appears that the "better" engine is what is specified/assumed and there is no discount given for the worse engine.  

 

 

On 11/8/2022 at 9:50 AM, jWashburn said:

Datsun 240z/260z/280z weights should be the same S30/S31 chassis.

280zx S130 chassis should be new line item.

 

A 1991 Honda CRX weight (2318) MORE than a 1991 Nissan Sentra (2039)?  Sure about that?  Sentra, 200SX and NX2000 all overvalued compared to Acura/Honda and Neons.  I can go into further detail if need be.

 

1989/1990 240sx points should drop to reflect KA24E (no dual cam).  140hp vs. 155 hp.

 

 

Thanks for the comments.

 

Can you elaborate on why the 240/260/280 need to have the same SPV?  To a non platform specific person they would appear to be fairly significantly different from the outside.

 

I don't feel that I can change the SPV on the 240/260/280 without going through TAC/BOD and getting feedback as they don't appear to be a typographical error or different from another line on the table, and I am hesitant to raise a car's SPV when the platform has been proven successful with a swap (there was a fast RHD Z with a BMW driveline).

 

I see the 280z and 280zx share a "line item" - are they different enough that they should be separated?  Sometimes we do share lines (IE Civic and CRX) but sometimes we dont (IE Civic and Del Sol).  If you can elaborate do feel I can separate them while maintaining current values, and the values can be changed in the future if needed.

 

Agree on the S13 piggy, I think it needs a bit of a point drop, but I think the KA24 (both versions) is junk anyway and god help anyone using it to race with.  

I can't change the VPI without going through TAC/BOD and getting approval

 

In both the 240/260/280 and S13 KA24E cases, I can help you format a tech desk request that will be added to the list for review.

 

 

On 11/8/2022 at 12:08 PM, Max said:

One inaccuracy that's always bugged me was the 80's "Sentra/200sx". That describes two (or more) completely different cars, one FWD (B chassis), one RWD (S12 chassis). I emailed tech about this a few years ago while building my S12 and they said go ahead and use the 150 points listed for the Sentra/200sx... as it's such a rare car that they may not see another. Doesn't matter much to me since there hasn't been a race near me in a long time. Within just the S12 chassis there is a turbo, NA 4 and NA 6 cylinder option, which I would expect to all have different values. I also agree a lot of the B series (FWD, SR20) values are too high... in fairness I don't think there's a lot of them racing. 

 

Thanks for the comments.  I did some googling and it definitely appears that the cars are wildly different.    Can you elaborate on what years and engines are included and I can create lines for them and separate the models in the list while maintaining the same VPI/SPV

 

On 11/8/2022 at 6:28 PM, Fetterhund said:

For the E39 is lists the 2000 528 as a M52B28, however technically it is the M52TUB28 (after 98 it was the M52TU until the M54 came out)

 

It can matter as with the TU motor having dual vanos instead of single vanos, and while peak HP is the same, the engine has a wider flatter powerband. Also the TU is aluminum block whereas the M52 is iron block in the North American cars (except in the Z3 it was aluminum block).

 

I mean, if the TU motor is the same points then I'll gladly claim my car as a 2000 (everything else is the same between the two) and run the lighter more powerful motor (and the TU is more common to find nowadays and cheaper).

 

Thanks for the comments.  I cant believe I missed this on the E39, I got it fixed on the E36/7.  Ill go back and fix it. 

I think the M52B28 may deserve a few points off, but for now it an the M52TUB28 are the same values.

I also noticed the M54B30 is missing from the list - I suppose no one has asked to race one yet.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chris Huggins said:

Thanks for your comments.  I'm not a expert on the N52 cars so help me understand better.

The N51 isn't on the list that I can see.

 

The N52 is on the list in these cars:

528i E60 (which intake)

E82 (not specified trim, just N52B30) - was the E82 offered with both intakes?

E90/E92 (not specified trim, just N52B30) - Does this cover both intakes? 

Z4 (not specified trim, just N52B30) - was this offered with both intakes?

 

Based on what is there now, It appears that the "better" engine is what is specified/assumed and there is no discount given for the worse engine.

 

I can take a stab at some of this. I think the VPI list should have the following E60 and E90 entries, not going to opine on what the values should be:

 

BMW E60 525i (N52B30) - 2006-2007 model years, "bad" (single stage) intake, 215 HP

BMW E60 530i (N52B30) - 2006-2007 model years, "good" (3 stage) intake, 255HP

BMW E60 528i (N52B30) - 2007-2010 model years, "bad" intake, good tune, 231HP (with the tune being zero points 525 and 528 should probably have the same VPI)

BMW E90 325i (N52B30) - 2006-2007 model years, "bad" intake, 215 HP

BMW E90 330i (N52B30) - 2006-2007 model years, "good" intake, 255 HP

BMW E90 328I (N52B30) - 2007-2011 model years "bad" intake, good tune, 231HP (see above re 525, 528, same here)

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Chris Huggins said:

Can you elaborate on why the 240/260/280 need to have the same SPV?  To a non platform specific person they would appear to be fairly significantly different from the outside.

 

The chassis on these vehicles are exactly the same and are known as the S30 in Datsun circles. I'm less familiar with this one but AFAIK all "chassis" components are interchangeable (suspension mounting locations, engine mounts, fuel tank etc). Only things like lights, bumpers, etc. changed as the regulations changed through the 70s.

 

The engines also changed over time, as did the differential and the things that connected directly to it. These along with the cosmetic changes account for about a 500lb increase in stated curb weight from the 240 to the 280, all of which might justify some VPI adjustments, but they're all at 150 anyway so probably not needed.

 

But given that the chassis are the same, if you're talking about a swap, I agree with prior poster that as far as the SPV goes, these should all have the same value.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chris Huggins said:

I see the 280z and 280zx share a "line item" - are they different enough that they should be separated?  Sometimes we do share lines (IE Civic and CRX) but sometimes we dont (IE Civic and Del Sol).  If you can elaborate do feel I can separate them while maintaining current values, and the values can be changed in the future if needed.

 

The 280Z and 280ZX are completely different cars and should not be on the same line. They share a powertrain, but that's about it - completely different suspension layout, chassis structure, body style, and fuel capacity. 280Z is the "S30" chassis and 280ZX is the "S130" chassis. It's like having an E36 and an E46 on the same line. 280Z was available until 1978 and the 280ZX replaced it in 1979 and continued production through 1983.

 

And just to throw another wrench into the Datsun stew, there was a turbo model of the 280ZX available from 1981 to 1983. Base model had 135HP, turbo had 180HP, but aside from the engine-related and cosmetic items, everything that Champcar cares about that came on the turbo model also came on at least some of the NA models.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chris Huggins said:

Thanks for the comments.  I urge you to work on redefining your view from "Weight" to "SPV" which I have been very careful to word and use lately.  Its not a weight, its a modifier aimed to tweak performance value of swapped vehicles.

 

As it stands, the SPV for the Z33/G35 is not super relevant because the formula goes exponential before the stock HP of the car.

 

 

Ideally, shouldn't the whole point of setting a SVPI be so we can stop fudging the SPV of certain cars?  It was stated that the wording was changed from weight to SPV to allow it to be used to balance platforms in the swap calculator.  If we're now assigning a dedicated SVPI, which is independent of some models VPIs, shouldn't that be the fudge point, allowing the SPV to return to realistic values for those car that have had it manipulated?  Isn't the whole point of the swap calculator to limit pwr/weight ratio of swapped cars?  Hard to do if the SPV is all over the place.

 

Again moot point for the Z/G as nobody is ever going to swap one.

 

That being said, all of the Z's and G coupes should have a SVPI of 525 and the Sedan should be 520.  The chassis, suspension, brakes, transmissions, and whatnot didn't really change through the whole range.  The reason the VPI goes up is to match the upgrade from VQ35DE, to the RevUp, and then to the HR.  But for swapping the starting HP doesn't matter, so all swapped Z33s should use the base value of the original DE cars.

Edited by Ian
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ian said:

That being said, all of the Z's and G coupes should have a SVPI of 525 and the Sedan should be 520.  The chassis, suspension, brakes, transmissions, and whatnot didn't really change through the whole range.  The reason the VPI goes up is to match the upgrade from VQ35DE, to the RevUp, and then to the HR.  But for swapping the starting HP doesn't matter, so all swapped Z33s should use the base value of the original DE cars.

Gotta say that's pretty much the opposite of the existing philosophy. If all else is the same then the starting point would be based on the highest valued model, not the lowest. We're this deep down a rabbit hole already to keep E30's from starting a swap with the 318 value, don't think we're going back now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Chris Huggins said:

Thanks for the comments.  I did some googling and it definitely appears that the cars are wildly different.    Can you elaborate on what years and engines are included and I can create lines for them and separate the models in the list while maintaining the same VPI/SPV

 

 

Sure, no prob. Many of these are hardly worth mentioning (B11, B12, S110), but others are actually racing in Champcar if I'm not mistaken (S12 variants, B13 or B14).

 

1982-86 Sentra - B11 Chassis -FWD- E15-E16 Engines - 67-69 hp

1987-88 Sentra B12 Chassis - FWD or AWD - E16 Engine - 70 hp

1989-1990 Sentra - B12 Chassis - FWD - GA16 Engine - 90 hp

1990-1994 Sentra - B13 Chassis - FWD - GA16 or SR20 Engine - 110 or 140 hp (SE-R had SR20 w/VLSD)

1995-1998 Sentra - B14 Chassis - FWD - GA16 or SR20 Engine - 115 or 140 hp (All Sedans, only SR20 powered car is the SE-L)

1995-1998 200sx - B14 Chassis - FWD - GA16 or SR20 Engine - 115 or 140 hp (SE-R had SR20 w/VLSD)

(I believe all of the B13 & B14's had 13.1 Gallon tanks, 2450 lbs give or  take)

 

1979-1983 200sx - S110 Chassis - RWD - L20 Engine - 103 hp

1984-1988 200sx - S12 Chassis - RWD - CA18ET, CA20E, and VG30E Engines - 120, 102, and 160 hp respectively -

(S12 weights are around 2400-2500 for 4 cylinder cars, and 2900 for V6 cars. All S12's have a 14 gallon tank, none of these S chassis had LSD's)

 

Let me know if that's the information you were looking for, and thanks for trying to address this!

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ABR-Glen said:

Gotta say that's pretty much the opposite of the existing philosophy. If all else is the same then the starting point would be based on the highest valued model, not the lowest. We're this deep down a rabbit hole already to keep E30's from starting a swap with the 318 value, don't think we're going back now. 

 

Shhh shh shhh.  Just let it happen.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2022 at 12:04 PM, JDChristianson said:

That’s great.  It was a good thing all around.  Probably didn’t have to add the car to the list to do it.    

I had it added to use the engine in my car a few years back- the 15 year old rule didn’t exist then. The 15 year rule came since then 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2022 at 6:17 PM, gavro said:

 

I can take a stab at some of this. I think the VPI list should have the following E60 and E90 entries, not going to opine on what the values should be:

 

BMW E60 525i (N52B30) - 2006-2007 model years, "bad" (single stage) intake, 215 HP

BMW E60 530i (N52B30) - 2006-2007 model years, "good" (3 stage) intake, 255HP

BMW E60 528i (N52B30) - 2007-2010 model years, "bad" intake, good tune, 231HP (with the tune being zero points 525 and 528 should probably have the same VPI)

BMW E90 325i (N52B30) - 2006-2007 model years, "bad" intake, 215 HP

BMW E90 330i (N52B30) - 2006-2007 model years, "good" intake, 255 HP

BMW E90 328I (N52B30) - 2007-2011 model years "bad" intake, good tune, 231HP (see above re 525, 528, same here)

The E82 128i N52 falls in to the bad intake, good tune category

 

The E82 also came with the N51 SULEV engine, more info on that - https://bimmers.com/blog/bmw-n51-engine-all-you-need-to-know-about-sulev/

Edited by mindspin311
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ABR-Glen said:

Gotta say that's pretty much the opposite of the existing philosophy. If all else is the same then the starting point would be based on the highest valued model, not the lowest. We're this deep down a rabbit hole already to keep E30's from starting a swap with the 318 value, don't think we're going back now. 

So let me get this straight... The swap using the higher pointed top model as a starting point is because of the E30, but the E30 swap weight is fudged to make certain swaps still work??

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...