Jump to content

Rob Denney at tthe clubnight


Guest

Recommended Posts

 

Can you also let us know the hours, the build time and the cost so far? And when it will be sailing?

approx 1100 hours so far about and about 25k. it will be finished next year sometime depending on how much time I spend working on the boat vs how much time I spend dithering around

 

Re your boat now that we are on the same wavelength: You will get a stiffer, lighter laminate if you use 200 cloth either side of the ply rather than just 450 on the exterior. Won't be as bullet proof, but if you are hitting something that hard, it won't make much difference.

mnn good point, guess its twice the number of hours tho... I probably shouldve just used a boat cloth on the outside and nothing on the inside- there will never be any impact its got floats both sides, just a shitload of buckling load from the forestay and mainsheet loads...

 

Bunk laminate depends on unsupported area. Lightest will be some offcuts of nomex with 100 gsm carbon

 

rob

unsupported area is about 1m by 1m you think 100gsm carbon on nomex would be grunty enough? it is the "work bench" after all....

Link to post
Share on other sites

rob

unsupported area is about 1m by 1m you think 100gsm carbon on nomex would be grunty enough? it is the "work bench" after all....

 

guess it depends on how heavy you are and the point loads. Maybe an issue if there is enough headroom over the bunk for you to kneel on it, but otherwise should be fine. I have only ever used 100 gsm carbon for models as it is expensive. 200 glass works and a very rough rule of thumb is half the carbon for the equivalent strength stiffness. If you can find some nomex panels with 100 carbon, buy them and try them. If they crack or bend, add some stiffeners. Can also reduce panel size with a couple of stringers underneath included in the laminate.

 

What sort of mast are you intending to use? The article research threw up a couple of inexpensive (compared to the standard) options.

 

rob

Link to post
Share on other sites
No idea who you are, but if you don't like what I write, or think you have heard it all before, why do you read it? And do you really think your post was more interesting or relevant than those you are denigrating? Or that anyone really cares about the opinions of someone who doesn't have the balls to sign his name?

Who am I,

I was one of your potential customers but not any more. I have never met you and if your online personality is anything to go by, then I never want to.

I have followed many of your rants on various forums attacking everyone like a cornered rat. but yet to see any concrete proof of what you say.

 

6 prototypes between 5 and 12m built by me, 40+ proas to my design building or sailing, production 5m being built in China, 7 Hobarts, 50,000+ offshore miles, sailing multis for 45 years, 2xUDC. Anything more than this about me or proas is "all talk"; ignore it if you don't want to know about or discuss ideas and possibilities.

Well Done, A life's work. We read your articles, listen to your talks and wait for the results, but after 3 years we are still waiting to see this great 50ft proa. Not delivering on your promises is the quickest way to lose respect.

 

The reasons I build so light are on the harryproa yahoo chat group. Read that before you spout off about things you know nothing about. The unstayed mast is part of it, but would save little or no weight on a racing tri. Weight saving is about reversing the spiral that leads to more rm, more sa and more weight. You need to do more than just copy one feature off a light boat to reverse this spiral.

There has been many designs that have been down the saving weight spiral and very few if any have worked successfully on the race track. I think it would be fair to say most yacht designers try to design as light and strong as possible given their various restraints.

Why can't your weight saving ideas be used on other concepts such as a tri or a cat.

 

This is the second 15m shorthanded boat I have started in the last 3 years. When you have designed and built anything remotely as unique and launched it on time, weight and budget, your criticism will carry some weight.

So what happened to it?

For your information I have and it's a great commercial success. - and what it is is none of your business.

 

I don't "have to do" anything. Especially not for an unimaginative nonentity like you. I am building this boat for me. If you want to know about new and different things, you may be interested. If you have an ounce of imagination, you may be making suggestions to improve it. If you just like seeing your name in print, you will be criticising my launch date.

 

Maybe if you spent more time building and less time on these time wasting forums, we might see some results.

But as I know, bringing anything new and different to the market which all the "experts" tell you can't be done is hard. But until you do, the "experts" are still correct.

 

Regards

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got one question related to your construction. Is the intended alantic race an ISAF event, and if so, are you not bound to there ISO structural guidlines etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who am I,

I was one of your potential customers but not any more. I have never met you and if your online personality is anything to go by, then I never want to.

 

Maybe you should try meeting me. Were you at the meeting? Maybe join one of the forums where people are more interested in discussing boats and ideas rather than launch dates and personalities, you may get a different impression.

 

Why can't your weight saving ideas be used on other concepts such as a tri or a cat.

 

I said the unstayed rig would not reduce the weight on a racing tri by much. My ideas can and have been be used on cats and tris very successfully. Most extreme example is W (12m cat weighed 600 kgs when launched with freestanding, balanced rig, single rudder, no metal in or on the structure, and sundry other features). Generally speaking, if you want to reverse the spiral on a cat or a tri, you should first remove all excess boat. Then remove all excess structural loads and simplify what is left. Then learn to handle it, which will probably include shunting and putting up with a lot of flak.

 

So what happened to it?

 

It was built as a KSS design. The first (and so far only) design/er to try Derek's build ideas. The system worked well, but I had a falling out with the builder over who should be paying for his learning curve. I was in Perth, he was on the east coast and shipping a 15m long package to Perth would have cost more than the construction had, so I sold it to a local guy. He has since built the hulls and rudders and is waiting for me to build my mast so he can build his. I am waiting for a 15m infusion table to be finished before I can build mine. Not my table, so not much i can do about it.

 

Delivering on my promises: I have been talking about race proas for 12 years, not 3. Unfortunately, all my clients wanted cruisers and I never had the time or the money to do a race boat properly so it never happened. When I started, everyone in the know (and a lot who weren't), said harryproas were impossible. Then that they could not be built at hallf the weight of a similar cat. Then that I would never sell any. Then that they would never cross oceans. Each time an impossibility is achieved, the bar gets raised. It is currently at "they haven't entered any races". Some people won't get one until a proa holds the JV trophy, but for others, the potential, the numbers and my (pretty detailed) experience so far is enough.

 

Maybe if you spent more time building and less time on these time wasting forums, we might see some results.

 

I am in Chicago with my 8 y.o. daughter who is asleep in my hotel room where I am writing this. Not much else to do apart from watch tv with the sound off. Most of my time on forums is spent under similar circumstances. As I explained earlier, boat building is a distant third after my day job and looking after harryproa enquiries.

 

You may think this forum is a waste of time (although that doesn't seem to stop you reading it), but I think it is a great way to spread and acquire knowledge, once you learn to ignore the personal stuff.

 

Phil

Better, but we still have no idea who you are.

 

fng

Route de Rhum does not spec structural requirements apart from "All boats shall be seaworthy", afaik. I think the Classe 40's have ISO based rules, the Classe 50 multis, the Open 60' monos and G class multis, don't. The Classe 50 rules spec no carbon in the hulls which is how I built my boat (partly the rules, partly I am a tight arse and it is an experimental boat), but that is all.

 

The only mention of proas in ISAF rules is the very first one which says "These rules don't apply to proas" Whether that means proas are exempt or excluded is yet to be discussed in earnest. It dates back to the eighties when there were a few proas built and they had problems staying upright and in one piece. These problems have been resolved with harryproas.

 

rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that Tim and the other cheap shot artists are still sounding off on the Timberwolf thread. Rather than hijack that thread, I will post a reply here.

 

Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:17 pm

I don't know of any Rob denney input in this design, but we have to find out from Tim Clissold if he copied Rob (Tim, please say it isn't so, Please !)

 

Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:37 am

we wont be useing the denny weight calc sheets ( sorry rob just joking )

 

After making himself look foolish on mast pricing, I expect sour grapes from Tim, but gary? Do you really think it is good business to insult potential clients? Good to see TC is professional enough to stay out of it.

 

Actually, there might be an idea of mine in this hull. When I discussed my current proa build, I said the skin weight was 3.5 kgs per sq m. Tim willetts said it was "impossible", "cuckoo" and "nonsense" and others said it was unsafe for a coastal boat. Tim's skin's are (or should be) about 2.5 kgs/sq m (200 + 500 gsm cloth, 600 gsm resin to wet the cloth, 800 gsm foam, 400 gsm resin to wet the foam). This is 30% lighter than "nonsense" and "unsafe" on a boat which is heavier and has higher rig loads than mine.

 

This apart, it is pretty easy to tell if any of "my ideas" are in a particular project. Just ask the following questions:

 

1) Is it quick and easy to build?

"My ideas" don't involve any of the following: Strip planking and fairing half the hull and decks to make jigs; cutting and aligning 30 building frames; heating and shaping foam; fastening core to stringers and making it airtight; multiple hand laminating jobs; locating, aligning, coving and tabbing internals twice; secondary bonding of reinforcing; blind glue joins; unscrewing the core; filling all the screw holes; rebating the exterior laminate; filling and fairing all the exterior.

 

Instead of this, we vacuum bag the entire hull, deck, bulkheads, gunwhales, bulkhead landings, male/female joins, hatches and surrounds, window rebates, tramp track, reinforcements for beams/fittings and solids for bolts/other fastenings in one hit, resulting in 95% of the exterior being fair and ready for paint and almost no additional laminating.

 

It takes 2 guys a couple of days to prepare, 45 minutes to apply all the resin (~70 kgs for a 15m hull), and another day or so to install the bearings for the unstayed mast. Then another couple of hours and a kg of glue to join it all together. Instead of blind gluing with all the accuracy, work, risk and weight involved, we use self aligning male/female joins and a single join along the deck. Prototype build photos, some explanation (both a little out of date now) and costs, weight and times calc sheets are under Solitarry 2 at http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/

 

The result is not only quicker to build, with less waste and set up time, but lighter, stronger and stiffer, with far fewer secondary bonds. In terms of time, cost, weight and skill levels it is like comparing clinker with stitch and glue ply.

 

Proof? The builder using these ideas currently has one 15m harryproa built, one paid for and ready to start and 3 more (1 x 15m cruiser kit, 1 x 12m racer, 1 x 9m cruiser kit) waiting for a build slot along with a couple of 7m power cats, 2 x 14m cruising cats (one nearly finished) and sundry minor projects incl rudders and masts for other boats. How does this compare with the pro built (non AC) multihull scene in Auckland?

 

Vacuum bagging ensures the resin/foam weak link is as strong as possible (A peel should tear out chunks of foam, not just a thin layer), eliminates air and compacts the laminate. It was lack of laminate compaction in the bow unis that caused Team Phillips bow to fall off, not the lack of a sheer web.

 

Would this method work on Tim's hull? Much of it would, but without lines drawings or specifications, I can't be sure about the rest.

 

2) Is it low cost?

 

Looks like Tim is as defensive about his hull costs as he was about his mast costs. Then it was "not enough time", now the excuse is a mythical next client. How many owners are going to pay through the nose to use a wood/mdf building jig (not a mould, the hull would be finished by now if it was), expensive materials and methods to get a heavy hull, knowing they are paying more than Tim did?

 

Samin, you don't get costs from Tim by asking. You gotta write a magazine article, put up with a bunch of personal abuse, and wait for the private email. Btw, have you decided what you are doing for a mast, yet?

 

For the record, the completed 15m proa hull with Tim's "nonsense" laminate cost about 4 grand in materials (less than Tim spent on bulkhead materials), and took about 85 hours, which at $60 per hour is $10,000. Pro built, the hulls, cockpit, bunks and galley, beams and rudders/daggerboards, ready to paint, ex rig cost $31,000. All aussie dollars.

 

Tim, be "unconcionably rude and very loud", make all your usual uninformed comments (your budget one on Jun 20 was a classic, given your attitude now. And tell us again why I should paint the interior of my hull, but you don't need to), but please also answer the following:

 

Whether you think 3.5 kgs/sq m is still nonsense and impossible?

How many pro built multihulls are under way in Auckland?

Your hull surface area?

Hours to build your hull, as per your June 20 comment?

Cost of your hull materials, ditto?

Did you really need 25+ kgs of glue/laminate to join the hulls?

 

By the way, almost all hulls are fair off the jig. The difference between a fair but unlaminated hull and one that is fair and ready to paint is what you are about to discover, particularly around your added on fittings, joins and tight corners.

 

rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to summarise.

 

we don't know what we are doing.

 

i am not a professional boatbuilder that has been employed as a boatbuilder in Auckland since 1989

 

I have not worked for Cooksons, southern , matrix and hall spars.

 

You don't like the Timberwolf thread.

 

you are much better at everything.

 

At approx 75 kg our new amas are heavy.

 

That's great Rob, other people are taking a lot from the thread, Gary is doing a great job, I'm looking forward to sailing Timberwolf again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it that you guys are so quick at bagging and criticizing Rob Denney.

 

Tim, what about the comment of the strength of 3.5 kgs/sq m verses 2.5 kgs/sq m.

 

So, Rob has a few different ideas to you guys, but surely you guys can take it without getting all precious about it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob seems an intelligent, enthusiastic man, who is putting his ideas out there. The only 'crime' (for want of a better word) he seems to have committed is talking up his boats, specifically the time frames taken to build. But who hasn't done that?

 

In recent days I have read that Timberwolf and Frantic Drift will be readyfor the coastal...I believe that was the intention some months ago, thats wehre the 'stories' may have come from.

 

Keep it up rob, and let me come for a blat on your boat, whenever it is finished!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are sounding strident/desperate again, Tim.

You asked if any of my ideas were in your hull. I reluctantly responded, and quoted some of your previous posts. As usual, you ignore the boating aspects and try to make it personal.

 

we don't know what we are doing.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You obviously know what you are doing, but are doing it the same way you did in 1989, although apparently not the bits that add quality and save weight, like vac bagging the exterior.

 

you are much better at everything.

Don't be daft. I just don't have the patience, time or money to build boats your way any more (haven't since an 11m race cat in 1982), and enjoy trying new stuff. Sometimes my new stuff works, usually it doesn't. This time it does.

 

You don't like the Timberwolf thread.

As an expat kiwi who has spent a lot of time boosting kiwi boatbuilders, I don't "dislike" your thread, just find it embarrassing and suspect Mick Cookson would as well. I doubt he has ever bucket and brushed a 500 gsm carbon skin on a race boat.

 

I posted here so as not to hijack your thread. Happy to post there if you want me to? Be interesting to see whether your desire to have the most visited thread overcomes your dislike of answering questions.

 

Speaking of which:

Do you still think 3.5 kgs/sq m is nonsense and impossible?

How many pro built multihulls are under way in Auckland?

Your hull surface area?

Hours to build your hull, as per your June 20 comment?

Cost of your hull materials, ditto?

Did you really need 25+ kgs of glue/laminate to join the hulls?

 

Had another look at your pictures. There does not appear to be any laminate across the inside of the joins at the keel and deck. Is this correct? Going to need a heap of otherwise unnecessary external laminate if it is.

 

At approx 75 kg our new amas are heavy.

At last! Something about boats. Samin's hull and bulkheads, ex deck would have about the same surface area (Samin?) and is ply, glass and foam, hand laid by people who never worked for Cookson and co. Weighed 88 kgs apparently. So "approx" 75 (80?, 85?) seems heavy, considering the carbon, nomex, autoclaving, boatbuilding expertise and optimising that has gone into it. It is certainly heavier (25 kgs to join the hulls?), more expensive ($4,000 for bulkheads) and more time consuming than it could have been if more up to date methods were used.

In terms of the build technique, 75 kgs without knowing the laminate and surface area is as meaningless as saying it is "on budget" without saying what the budget is.

 

other people are taking a lot from the thread

Mostly how slow, difficult and expensive it is. This is a pity as there are much easier, lighter and cheaper ways to build hulls than yours.

 

Marshy,

My point is not who will be sailing first (I don't have Tim's budget or his singlemindedness) but how long and how much it is costing to build and how many others there will be. We built a couple of hulls and were inundated with orders (see previous post). Tim and gary are slowly building one and are managing to kill off all interest in trimaran building except as a spectator sport.

 

John,

Ta. I doubt we will get an answer from Tim. Maybe ask that question (and some of the others) on the Timberwolf thread.

 

Dave, Clipper,

Ta. Welcome any time.

rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident"

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rob, Hows progress on your big proa?

 

You looked to have hulls sorted when you came to talk to us, and were working on the rig (from memory anyway) ?

 

Are you any closer to launch date?

 

(this is a genuine enquiry, as I am interested in how it will go)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Rob, Hows progress on your big proa?

 

You looked to have hulls sorted when you came to talk to us, and were working on the rig (from memory anyway) ?

 

Are you any closer to launch date?

 

(this is a genuine enquiry, as I am interested in how it will go)

 

 

Hulls and beam are indeed sorted, although I am having second thoughts about the single beam idea. The rig was on hold until the 16m table was built as I wanted to build a mast from a flat panel. The infusers are raving perfectionists so the table has taken a while, but it is now complete. In the meantime, and based partly on my hulls, we have got a lot of work (see above) which has taken priority. Tough for my sailing aspirations, but I can live with it as the deal for the new proa is a good one.

 

The new build will be photographed and detailed as it happens. For the record, the cost of the boat, fitted out, ready to paint, ex rig is $AUS31,000/$NZ40,000. The 15m and 6m hulls are 34 sq m/185 kgs and 40 sq m/130 kgs respectively with a base laminate weight of 3.5 kgs/sq m. Timberwolf's hull base laminate is 2.5 kgs/sq m with area and weight 22 sqm/125 kgs, with more to come. The difference is entirely due to the build technique.

 

Thanks for your support. If you can get over here in Feb or March next year, I would love to take you for a sail.

 

rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to some questions from the closed Rob vs Tim thread. I have lost the originals, so anything that is not clear, please say so.

 

markm,

Pretty much correct. That was the state of play when the ISAF introduced the ban. There were Atlantic proas (80-90% of weight in the ww hull) and Pacific proas (80-90% of weight in the leeward hull). Both pretty dangerous for shorthanded offshore racing, but sailed quickly until they fell over or broke.

 

I combined the two and made a harryproa, which has the rig and rudders in the lee hull and the crew, accommodation and all the gear in the ww hull. It varies with each boat, but gives a weight split roughly two thirds in the ww hull and one third in the leeward hull. As the rig hull is always to leeward (proas go in both directions, they don't change sides when they tack or gybe) this means that a 5 m wide proa weighing 1 tonne (say 600 kgs in the ww hull, 400 in the leeward) has righting moment of 3,000 kg metres. An equivalent weight and width cat has the weight evenly distributed (500 kgs each hull) so has a lower righting moment of 2,500 kg m.

 

The proa benefits from much lower loads and less hull surface area so can be built much lighter. The cruiser in the video at

weighed 2 tonnes when launched, much lighter than an equivalent length cat or tri. My 15m weekender should weigh less than 500 kgs in sailing trim.

 

The capsize problem is addressed with an unstayed mast, balanced or una self vanging rigs and sheets which are lead directly to the windward hull. If the wind comes from the wrong side, the sail weathercocks and flaps until you get back on course. Much less stressful than an accidental gybe with a spinnaker or a tack with the headsail sheeted on. There is more info at http://www.harryproa.com/Newsletters/news4_hg4.htm Any questions, or anything not clear, please let me know.

 

Rge Committee - what's this?

Typing in the dark as my daughter was asleep on the bed. Should be The Committee. Sorry.

The document you refer to is the "ISAF Offshore Special Regulations 2010-2011". Clause 1.01.1 actually states "It is the purpose of these Special Regulations to establish uniform minimum equipment, accommodation and training standards for monohull and multihull yachts racing offshore. A Proa is excluded from these regulations. **".

Agreed. I argued that it did not ban proas, just meant they needed different regs, was ignored.

Not sure who you are referring to as 'they' but it actually doesn't matter.

The NZMYC committee that would not let a proa enter the RNI.

Under the ISAF OSR, Proas are not excluded from entering races requiring compliance with cat 5 safety regulations and hence no rules are "waived".

Where does it say this? Surely "Fundamentals and Definitions" apply to everything that followed? The cat 5 regs are an appendix, so presumably the F&D's are to be included? If anybody here knows Matthew Flynn, perhaps they could ask him the committee's view as he has not answered my email.

Which NZMYC 'decision' are you talking about here? Am I correct in interpreting the above comment as 'the main reason said potential builder wanted to build a proa 8.5m long was to race in the 8.5 class but because the NZMYC is unwilling to waive some parts of the class rule for this (presumably) non-member's particular boat they have decided not to build that boat'. That strikes me as being just a little pathetic. Just out of interest what were the other 'nails' - if my interpretion is not correct then presumably these other 'nails' actually carried far more weight in the decision not to build than you alude to.

Mostly correct, but do not presume! He did not finally pull the pin until he heard about proas not being allowed in cat 2 races and assumed, because of rule 1.01.1 in the cat 3 regs that they would not be allowed in cat 3 either (this is the 'decison I referred to'). The proposed design features that were different to current 8.5's had been approved by Bill Barry, so unless the other owners got together and changed the rules, it would have been class legal. I assured him they were a very reasonable bunch, open to innovation and would not do such a thing, he was not so sure. Maybe one of us was being pathetic, but which one? The other nails, and their patheticness, are between him and me, sorry.

Rob - it seems to me that you are going the wrong way about trying to have proas accepted in cat 0-4 classed races.

I sure am. I should be doing it the way the motor driven canting keelers did it. Find half a dozen big budget owners and get them and their lawyers to push it for me. Or like the Star class in the Olympics, get the US sailing hierarchy to intervene. Neither is really applicable for a one man band operating part time out of his bedroom. If these guys can get these rulings pushed through and I can't get a proposal for a light, cheap, fast, easily handled boat past square one, then I am certainly doing it wrong. Or, just maybe, the powers that be are more interested in the status quo than advancing sailing for the masses.

Have you approached ISAF directly as to why they are excluded from the OSR? Have you then looked at addressing those concerns directly. I would think that if you did that then the world of sailing would be very happy to see this form of vessel race.

Your faith in the world of sailing is touching. I have addressed all the reasons proas were banned back in the 80's, see answer to Markm above. I sent a detailed letter to ISAF describing the differences and requesting them to change the rules to include harryproas. They said they would discuss it, then left the rule unchanged.

 

Early last year I was invited (they approached me, very exciting day!) to enter a proa in this years Route de Rhum by the Open 50 multi class, who were then told by the organisers that it couldn't happen due to ISAF and the French govt. They appealed at various levels on my behalf, without success. I can't do much more against faceless committees, with agendas I know nothing about, on the other side of the world. If you, or anyone else in "the world of sailing" want to beat your head against a brick wall on harryproa's behalf, I will give you all the support I can.

They have raced offshore before and do race inshore now.

As far as I know, they have not raced offshore or inshore in an ISAF event (which is pretty near all of them) since they were included in 1.01.1. They compete in the speed trials, but so do kite boards, and kites have been categorically banned by ISAF, even when they fit the description of spinnakers. This was another battle with ISAF that I was involved in and comprehensively lost, a few years ago.

It does not seem fair to me to ask a club to arbitarily waive rules just for you because you might one day build a boat to go racing.

Chicken and egg about clubs waiving rules for possible boats. If everything had gone according to plan (Unlikely, but possible, sponsorship money makes a big difference to build speed), the boat would have been ready in time, including crossing the Tasman. Regardless, they did not have to waive anything, just confirm that they would if we paid the entry fee and turned up with a boat.

When I finally get a boat to race, I will race unofficially, which is my preference anyway and what I have done with my 7.5m test boat (successfully) and the 15m cruiser in the video (disastrously) and eventually the barriers will fall. As anyone who has followed my goings on knows, I am not in enough of a hurry to rearrange my priorities to make it happen any faster.

 

TimC,

The committee did not have any issues with the boat, crew or seaworthiness, were quite complimentary about them in fact. Just Rule 1.01.1. This rule is the first one in the Cat 3 regs, so presumably would apply for the Coastal Classic as well. Proas would be excluded before you got to see them.

 

Timberwolf's hull looks nice, well done. Thanks for not contributing to any of the "joke" posts about proas, even when you were asked to.

 

Samin, Glad you could make it. You did not answer the question about Jason banning W. Nor about the surface area of your 88 kgs of hull and bulkheads.

 

rob

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...