R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-10-2010, 05:34 PM   #91
Tech Legend
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 29,539
Trader Rating: 240 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrik View Post
...it sure can be frustrating when someone brings facts to rebut inaccurate information and/or emotional arguments.
if anything Scottrik, I don't think I would call your statements that I have seen without emotion

But then again, the internet has no tone / inflection associated with it like a normal conversation.
__________________
Member - Red River Radio/Control Car Club
< Tekno EB48SL / SCT410.3 | Tekno EB410 x 2 | Yokomo YZ-2 DTM x 2 | LC Racing EMB-1 Buggies and Truggies >
Cain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 06:18 PM   #92
Tech Regular
 
xevias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, PRC
Posts: 348
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkspeedo View Post
Why hasn't anyone thrown out there 1S Lipo. This would truly slow things down and the batteries are cheaper

Aside from having to add a ton of weight I think this could be a viable solution and than we don't have to worry about the ESC issue.
I think the 1S option was looked at and discarded because they couldn't find a motor combo they liked. One motor was too slow and the next motor up over-heated.

My favorite, untested idea, is to remove the front dogbones and run RWD only. Could be awesome. Could be crap. Would definately be inexpensive, tech friendly, and hassle-free.
xevias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 06:23 PM   #93
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 906
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default sarcasm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrik View Post
I know, I know...it sure can be frustrating when someone brings facts to rebut inaccurate information and/or emotional arguments. Then it's REALLY a pisser when those folks won't call people names and stuff, right?.
It really is funny watching you dance around issues and look like an ass. Picking out what you want to argue about to try and look 'Smarter than an 8th grader' lol


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrik View Post
Wait a minute...I'm trying to grock this. IN ONE POST you complain that "no-one is ever allowed a different view point" and then it's "If people don't agree with a thread, then stay off.". Correct me if I'm mistaken...

Best of luck.
You are too naive and evidently un capable of understanding the difference between a constructive discussion among different opinions and the derelicts that are unable to have a discussion without constantly bringing negative comments and sarcasm into a thread/discussion. Hence the 'Stay away' comments.

Maybe if you finished school you would understand the difference.


Dude, you seriously need a rude awakening.. You browse and shoot down people in both of these threads trying to be a keyboard cowboy.

You touch on the topics you choose. You failed to mention anything about the restrictor plate races that no-one really likes.
Nascar started going down hill when they tried to even things out, and even more so with the COT. Preach what you want and then get the facts.

You never touched on the subject that manufacture sales were better when they resembled real cars. The reason you didn't was because they were. Period!! lol
That made racing and sales better. You must agree because you didn't choose to argue the point.

Xevias pointed out that he doubted no lower main drivers used the new combo to test it. Only better drivers in the A-mains. That must be true since you didn't deny it. So we have no clue if there will actually be any closer racing. Where is your data? Could you post who drove it and when? Please post the results of the same time with the Amain drivers, otherwise this is only your opinion to do what you please, and bitch some more. You keep getting on your pulpit saying it will be closer door to door racing. I guess if you can't wrench and keep up, the next thing to do is preach on forums and try to convince everyone else to slow down ... LMAO Guess we have your abilities pegged now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrik View Post
The "comparison" was exactly your point...Indy Car/CART has been a disaster, largely because owners were making the rules, voting self-interest ahead of what was right for "the show", etc. Along with ONE track owner (Indy, go figure) making unreasonable demands.
I guess this was describing you at this point.

(Sigh) I really don't know how you can find so much time to be on here so often. I can make some pretty good assumptions but they would end up rather personal. Try getting a Hobby, maybe racing toy cars!

Good luck buddy
__________________
www.TheRcShack.com
www.TeamXray.com

Last edited by Spdjunky; 01-10-2010 at 09:01 PM.
Spdjunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 06:41 PM   #94
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 906
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

So....

Getting the thread back on track.

Tekin is still going to work on Software that will make the RS 'Techable' for no Boost software.

Otherwise there will still be 'Vintage' rules around for clubs that decide to stay that route until they decide to do otherwise.
__________________
www.TheRcShack.com
www.TeamXray.com
Spdjunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 07:08 PM   #95
Tech Legend
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Fargo, North Dakota
Posts: 29,539
Trader Rating: 240 (100%+)
Default

for timing limitations on the ESCs, what do you guys feel is a good setting? I know its recommended I believe 10 degrees max, I tried something close, 11.25 (thats what speed passion has for a setting, next lowest is like 8 ). Car seemed good still, especially on the tight track we run.
__________________
Member - Red River Radio/Control Car Club
< Tekno EB48SL / SCT410.3 | Tekno EB410 x 2 | Yokomo YZ-2 DTM x 2 | LC Racing EMB-1 Buggies and Truggies >
Cain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 07:35 PM   #96
Tech Regular
 
xevias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, PRC
Posts: 348
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
for timing limitations on the ESCs, what do you guys feel is a good setting? I know its recommended I believe 10 degrees max, I tried something close, 11.25 (thats what speed passion has for a setting, next lowest is like 8 ). Car seemed good still, especially on the tight track we run.
If you're talking about an even start-point for all the ESCs, they say this is the way to go:
Novak - 0* - bummer
Tekin - 10*, no Turbo
LRP - Profile #1 - they say that is about 10*
Looks like you got the SP settings...

They have also said the Novak SS and Ballistics are built and perform the same. Based on heat and recommendations to go down 3 teeth when using the Ballistics, I think that motor may run with a little more juice. Not saying it's faster, just suggesting that if you start comparing ESCs at your track, to keep the testing with one family of motors.

Let us know what you find out.
xevias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 07:44 PM   #97
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 906
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

Xevias, What has been your experience running different timing settings on the motor and esc on tight tracks like he described?

On a tight track I would think he would be better off with low amounts of timing for more torque.

I usually have run the Sphere on highest setting (older model) maybe 7 max?, with a little timing on the motor. Lately I have 0 on the motor.
__________________
www.TheRcShack.com
www.TeamXray.com
Spdjunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 08:39 PM   #98
Tech Regular
 
xevias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, PRC
Posts: 348
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

I forgot to mention that the new Tekin Vegas 2 (or 203) software puts a big wrinkle in the "equal timing" chart. 203 uses dynamic timing based on motor RPM, so 10* on the speedo will be faster than the Tekin 200 software.
xevias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 09:04 PM   #99
Tech Regular
 
xevias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, PRC
Posts: 348
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdjunky View Post
Xevias, What has been your experience running different timing settings on the motor and esc on tight tracks like he described?

On a tight track I would think he would be better off with low amounts of timing for more torque.

I usually have run the Sphere on highest setting (older model) maybe 7 max?, with a little timing on the motor. Lately I have 0 on the motor.
I've learned that brushless motor + ESC timing should equal 45*. This gets confusing if you don't know what your motor is set at from the factory.

I'm also confused by Novaks statements that the SS 21.5 and the Ballistic 21.5 are built the same. Here's why:

In the Tekin thread, people say the SS is factory set to 15*. I keep the timing ring set to 0* and then put my Teking boost at 30* with no Turbo. 15 + 0 + 30 = 45 degrees total timing. I use a large enough pinion to come off tracks under 170* F.

If the SS are factory set at 30*, like the Ballistics, then my 60* of total timing would fry my motor according to the Tekin guys. Not sure what to believe here. All i know is that a Ballistic was coming off the track 20* F hotter than my SS with the EXACT same timing settings.

Back to the question:
Motor timing is used to "start" the car. ESC timing is used when the car is in motion. My 0* motor/30* ESC with a heavier FDR (larger pinion) is a good ballance on a big track with some sharp corners. 0* motor allows me to have decent torque so I can use a big pinion to get me rip out of the corner. The big pinion also comes into play with the 30* ESC boost to maximize straight speed.

If I reversed and went max motor timing (I'm guessing 30*) + 15* ESC, I would have to run a smaller pinion (lighter FDR) as to not overheat my motor "starting" the car out of a corner. That lighter FDR would then be slower on the straight. This is sort of why Tekin introduced the Turbo function.

So on a tight track, I would start at 0* motor timing, 20* ESC with a light FDR. Then the tough part is that you need to experiment with ESC timing and FDRs to figure out what suits your driving style keeping the temps under 170*F and total motor/ESC timing under 45*.
xevias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010, 12:20 AM   #100
Tech Champion
 
Scottrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 6,212
Trader Rating: 245 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdjunky View Post
It really is funny watching you dance around issues and look like an ass. Picking out what you want to argue about to try and look 'Smarter than an 8th grader' lol
I guess you'll have to provide an example of me attempting to "dance around issues". It seems I'm a trifle dense...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdjunky View Post
You are too naive and evidently un capable of understanding the difference between a constructive discussion among different opinions and the derelicts that are unable to have a discussion without constantly bringing negative comments and sarcasm into a thread/discussion. Hence the 'Stay away' comments.

Maybe if you finished school you would understand the difference.
See, though...YOU, my friend, are the one who absolutely cannot respond without name-calling, etc. That is not "constructive discussion" no matter how you choose to slice it.

As far as "finishing school"...to select one of your quotes from later in this diatribe, perhaps you'd better check your facts and THEN speak. Not to brag, as it really doesn't matter to this or any other discussion on these boards other than the fact you brought it up, but I'd wager my own education likely exceeds your own and, likely, 99% of the folks on RC Tech. Unless the next step in your educational adventure is working toward a PhD in mathematics, in which case we'd be pretty much on-par.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdjunky View Post
Dude, you seriously need a rude awakening.. You browse and shoot down people in both of these threads trying to be a keyboard cowboy..
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, and that's what's cool about being an adult--adults get to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdjunky View Post
You touch on the topics you choose. You failed to mention anything about the restrictor plate races that no-one really likes.
Nascar started going down hill when they tried to even things out, and even more so with the COT. Preach what you want and then get the facts. .
The NASCAR comparison has traveled SO far off it's intended mark it's fruitless. However I DID make comment re: restrictor plate racing. It's nothing new, restrictor plates have been a reality in NASCAR since the '70's when they were introduced to keep speeds in check. They disappeared for a comparatively brief period when NASCAR went to small-block engines (mid-70's?) and re-emerged in the mid-80's when Bill Elliott did his 200+ lap. From there any "balancing" with the restrictor plates was done to appease teams (manufacturers) who felt they were at a disadvantage. Same with rear spoiler height, front spoiler height, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdjunky View Post
You never touched on the subject that manufacture sales were better when they resembled real cars. The reason you didn't was because they were. Period!! lol That made racing and sales better. You must agree because you didn't choose to argue the point.
As far as I'm concerned they haven't much resembled "real cars" in a very long time, a time span that exceeds the recent extreme popularity. I'll start with "when's the last 2-door Taurus you've seen" and pretty much leave it at that. There are a LOT of things that affect "sales", racing MAY be one of them. If YOU think that made racing "better" you have a 100% right to your opinion. Whether I or anyone else agree or disagree is moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdjunky View Post
Xevias pointed out that he doubted no lower main drivers used the new combo to test it. Only better drivers in the A-mains. That must be true since you didn't deny it. So we have no clue if there will actually be any closer racing. Where is your data? Could you post who drove it and when? Please post the results of the same time with the Amain drivers, otherwise this is only your opinion to do what you please, and bitch some more. You keep getting on your pulpit saying it will be closer door to door racing. I guess if you can't wrench and keep up, the next thing to do is preach on forums and try to convince everyone else to slow down ... LMAO Guess we have your abilities pegged now.
See...AGAIN with the personal attacks. I wasn't aware I'm supposed to address EVERY single "issue", but if that's the task you wish to assign me I'll attempt to answer this as pleasantly as possible and do so with any follow-on questions anyone may have.
I wasn't "at" the testing sessions where the new spec was finalized so I really don't know. I did a fair bit of testing here at our own club and reported what I saw to robk. One of the things you try to do in testing is drive as consistently as you can...and do that a LOT. It seems to take more concentration and patience to do that than it does to try and rip off A fast lap. Something that keeps people in lower mains, and particularly "novice" racers, is that they haven't developed the ability to drive consistent laps. Not that they never will, they just haven't generally done so yet. To use someone who can't run consistent laps really makes valid testing impossible.

NOW, something I CAN share is that we HAVE tested a theory that beginning drivers will turn more laps in a given period of time with lower horsepower. Bob Stormer (yes, THAT Bob Stormer) is actually who started experimenting with this idea here. He offered lower watt motors and 5-cell (and later 4-cell) batteries to new racers at our club. Keep in mind this was 4 years ago or so when 6-cell/27T Stock was not as fast as the current 2s/21.5 spec is even without advanced esc's. Without exception these drivers would ALWAYS turn more laps (often several) over a heat than they did with the "normal" spec package. I repeat--without exception. It was this experimenting that led directly to our adopting 4-cell power as the standard for VTA when we were first developing the class and I believe the same reasoning that led Marty and Scotty Ernst down the exact same path as they were developing the spec at Trackside.

We did a similar experiment with new 1/12 racers starting them out with standard Silver Can motors and found the same thing. One of the guys we brought up this way 2 years ago is now pounding MUCH more experienced racers and currently dominates our 1/12 Stock class.

Bob always played with a similar theory re: modified. His contention is that there are MAYBE a dozen RC drivers in the US who can REALLY drive a "Mod" car well. Something he would do that just annoyed the HELL out of at least one fellow here was he would race Mod and run a 19T motor. And usually win. Now understand that Bob is, by most measures, a damn good wheel (has a couple ROAR championships to back that up) and he was racing group that had a couple guys who are certainly better than average club-level racers. He just knows that at ANY level more control will almost always trump more power, right up to the point where the skill level gets to the REALLY pointy-end of the field.

So...was a novice (or field of lesser-capable) drivers included in the testing? I honestly don't know for fact, but I'd guess not. BUT, do I know from past experience that almost every single novice will improve significantly (thus that trend toward center/tightening up the field we've been talking about)? Absolutely. There isn't a doubt in my mind, nor anyone who has seen the types of experiments I refer to above. There will be less and less "improvement" the more relative skill a driver has until you cross over and get to the drivers who actually are slowed down.

I said before, for myself I really enjoy the 2s / 21.5 combo. For drivers that have decent skills (and I'd say my skills are decent) it allows for some good close racing. Unfortunately this is not as much the case for lesser skilled and new racers as it was under the original 4-cell / 27T spec. I guess I'm able to look past my own "but this is what I like" for the current spec because I know that I will still be racing side-by-side with the Shawns and JP's just like I am now, but now the guys who have fallen "off the back" will be up and closer to us, to say nothing of the newer racers who join us. To me THAT will be even more fun.

There, how was that?
__________________
Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors.

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED -Gil Scott-Heron (1949-2011)
Scottrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010, 06:12 AM   #101
Tech Initiate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 30
Default

So to sum up your very long post, the goal of the USVTA is to continue to regress our cars till we can allow any new racer to immediately place in the A main and race for the win. Sounds as though we will NEVER get to that point. There has to be a limit to how far we attempt to make the new driver "comfortable". They also need to see the difference in practice and skill. I think we can only "dumb down" this class so far.
7 celler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010, 06:15 AM   #102
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 7,211
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Sottrick, naive? Now I have read everything.

1s lipo would be worse in VTA, and make the advanced timing speed controls more of a problem, not less. Remember at the IIC where the black diamond speed control was introduced the class that benefitted the most was 1/12 scale, which runs single cell lipo. It wasn't as big an advantage in touring car because of the higher voltage (meaning more power).

Wow, good thing we're not talking about a ROAR class.
jiml is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010, 09:55 AM   #103
Tech Champion
 
Scottrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 6,212
Trader Rating: 245 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7 celler View Post
the goal of the USVTA is to continue to regress our cars till we can allow any new racer to immediately place in the A main and race for the win.
And people wonder why I tend to get sarcastic...look at what I deal with.

No, that is not the intent of USVTA. Obviously. There is no way anyone will ever create a spec that allows novices to "place in the A" and no one is or has tried to do that. What HAS been attempted is to get the class back to where MORE folks CAN drive successfully and get lapped fewer times doing so. The field WILL tighten up, the fast guys will still win and the novices will still make up the back of the pack. Just like always.

From the outset we said VTA (as it was intended) wouldn't suit everybody's needs. What we saw was a situation where there was a non-stop escalation of speeds and no place to just "chill". So we created a class to address that need, designed it specifically to be slower than TC. It is now VERY close to TC speeds, something that was never intended by the original founders of the class.

I have NO idea how long you have been involved in Vintage TransAm, but I'll take a guess (correct me if I'm mistaken) that your involvement is only since the CHANGE to 2s / 21.5 spec. If that's the case you'll have to take my word on a couple things.

FIRST, the change that has been announced does not even slow the cars down to the original speeds based on the comparison times robk provided from their testing. My own opinion was that the 1s / 17.5 would have been closer to that goal but the leadership line was that this would have necessitated purchasing a battery for a large number of participants. They were already planning to eliminate "juiced" esc's and knew that was going to be a tough sell in some quarters. To add a motor change PLUS a battery/voltage booster they felt was too much.

SECOND, there was GREAT racing to be had with the original spec. Our club has a mix of guys who've raced more than 20 years all the way back to folks that started with us after they saw the VTA cars at an outdoor demo at a local hot rod show. Several clubs reported that guys who'd gotten out of the hobby were showing up again specifically to race VTA.

THIRD, one of the original premises of the class was that it HAS to offer a different driving experience than other classes. If you don't have that distinct driving experience the class will become what I call a "novelty class" and it WILL die just like every other "novelty class" any of us who have been involved in the hobby more than 2-3 years have seen over that time.

Does any of this make anyone "wrong" to want to go fast? Heck no...but keep in mind there ARE other classes that cater to that. What there AREN'T are any classes that cater to close racing on (MAYBE) something of a budget that is palatable to the TC masses and some, like me, who don't race TC.

The key is to have a great time no matter what you do, and if situations change to where you don't think you'll have a great time, change what you're doing. In this case the rules have changed to get the class back closer (not all the way back, I emphasize) to it's original speed. After a fair bit of outcry (just like in ANY competitive endeavor when change is proposed) it appears that more and more tracks are preparing to line up behind the new spec. I'm glad to see that. That said, as many of us have been VERY clear about, folks are 100% welcome and able to tailor the rules to fit what they perceive to be the needs of their individual program. That hasn't changed, nor will it. Only your club/group/track has control over ANY of that, and this will never change.
__________________
Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors.

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED -Gil Scott-Heron (1949-2011)
Scottrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010, 10:35 AM   #104
Tech Regular
 
xevias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, PRC
Posts: 348
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

The 25.5 car was easier to drive. Like Scottrik, I suspect that it would be easier for less skilled drivers to handle. However, these are just feelings that haven't been backed up by imperial data.

I think the reason why complaints on the new rules are surfacing now is because we have no idea what is going to happen when they take affect. Some assume racing will be fine. Others assume it will suck. Logically, you have to assume it will suck because now is the only time to express concerns. Speaking up in September will be too late. What exacerbates this problem is that not enough practical testing was done.

Not sure if this was tried, but…
Let’s estimate that there are 50 VTA racers in each major area. IL, WI, IN, TN, MT, and east coast. That’s about 300 racers. Conservatively take half, so 150 racers that would need to purchase a Novak motor and ESC. 150 x $150 is over $20,000. Assume a Novak profit margin of about 20% - another conservative consumer electronics estimate. Novak makes $5,000 on VTA motors and speedos across the country. This profit is probably a lot more. So why not ask for 10 25.5 motors. This may have cost Novak $500 for those 10 motors. Invest $500 to make $5,000 for a 1000% profit? – I would do that.

Pass the motors out to a club for a month and have a small Beta test. Let them work on all the predicted problems that have arisen in the last 2 weeks and write a white paper on how to avoid these problems come September. FDR, closer racing, less speed disparity between the skill levels, being the biggest concerns. We would also have a working race model to see if slowing the cars down solves more problems than it causes.

After that month is up, send the motors to another club – we’ve got time.

This would have accomplished three things:
1) Demonstrated to racers the slower speeds are fun – good PR.
2) Exposed technical problems to be addressed before September
3) Developed a guide to help people conform to the new rules. Help new guys get started hassle-free.
xevias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010, 10:35 AM   #105
Company Representative
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,891
Default

We have commented, in a number of threads, that our motors are factory-set to 30 degrees: the Velocitis, SS Pros and Ballistics. There must be a lot of misinformation floating around.

Here is a Technical Update we prepared on Ballistic Timing (PDF):

BALLISTIC MOTOR TIMING INFORMATION

We are in the process of re-doing our Ballistic timing label to feature numbers 45--30--15 to make adjustments easier.

I started a separate thread "Official: TeamNovak (U.S Vintage Trans-Am)" for questions and suggestions about the electronics and programs customized for USVTA.
NovakTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Roadrunners RC Club V.2 Fran California Racing 8324 12-06-2017 05:07 AM
Oshkosh Racing HALFFAST Wisconsin & Illinois Racing 7667 07-15-2017 07:46 PM
U.S. Vintage Trans-Am Racing squarehead Electric On-Road 14187 03-21-2012 02:43 PM
FSEARA TRANS AM - "VINTAGE CLASS" TWEAKS AND SUGGESTIONS Tim Kowal Florida Racing 118 03-24-2008 11:01 AM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 12:46 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net