User Tag List

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 52 to 68 of 171
  1. #52
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am not in favour of an extra cross, especially across the bottom grommet #8. It increases air resistance at a vulnerable point of the racquet.
    On the contrary, reducing one cross string specifically on the bottom grommet #10 from the standard 22 or 21 cross strings will see an improved playability.
    Preventing or minimizing tension loss at the last cross string is subjective. Some will claim there is no tension loss. Some will say there will be. However, a tensioned tie-off will always lose more tension than a starting knot. With this in mind you are free to choose where you want to have your cross starting knot and your cross tie-off knot. That half of the stringbed with the starting knot will always have a stiffer stringbed bed than the other half of the stringbed with the tie-off knot.
    Obviously the top half is more important than the bottom part insofar as badminton racquets are concerned. You can even allow for one missing cross string at the bottom, say at grommet #10, for improved playability. Now, for those who champion for a stiffer bottom half stringbed which a bottom up cross stringing pattern will achieve, do you think you can omit one cross string at the top half the way you can do with the bottom half? Hence the importance of a stiffer top half stringbed relative to the bottom half.
    Also, contrary to what someone has said earlier stringing from the bottom will not give you a stiffer stringbed at the top half relative to the bottom half.
    Why is it that difficult to see the real forest for the trees?

  2. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hummm, I think you are so right on the air resistance. Let's do a quick calculation here.
    Assuming all the string are same length. 45/44-1=2.2%. Factor into the total cross section of the entire racquet frame which is about 3x (or close to 4x) of cross section of the total cross section of the string all together. That give you about 2.2%*0.25=0.55% increase in air resistance. WOW! that means if I can smash at 200 km/h max, it will slow down my smash to 199 km/h. Gee, what a difference.
    You know what, we proved you wrong time and time again. All you can say is I know a method, but I won't tell you how. Please provide the calculation or any real prove. Other wise, if you have nothing smart to say, just don't say anything.

  3. #54
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Newark, CA
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    I am not in favour of an extra cross, especially across the bottom grommet #8. It increases air resistance at a vulnerable point of the racquet.
    On the contrary, reducing one cross string specifically on the bottom grommet #10 from the standard 22 or 21 cross strings will see an improved playability.
    Preventing or minimizing tension loss at the last cross string is subjective. Some will claim there is no tension loss. Some will say there will be. However, a tensioned tie-off will always lose more tension than a starting knot. With this in mind you are free to choose where you want to have your cross starting knot and your cross tie-off knot. That half of the stringbed with the starting knot will always have a stiffer stringbed bed than the other half of the stringbed with the tie-off knot.
    Obviously the top half is more important than the bottom part insofar as badminton racquets are concerned. You can even allow for one missing cross string at the bottom, say at grommet #10, for improved playability. Now, for those who champion for a stiffer bottom half stringbed which a bottom up cross stringing pattern will achieve, do you think you can omit one cross string at the top half the way you can do with the bottom half? Hence the importance of a stiffer top half stringbed relative to the bottom half.
    Also, contrary to what someone has said earlier stringing from the bottom will not give you a stiffer stringbed at the top half relative to the bottom half.
    Why is it that difficult to see the real forest for the trees?
    How would 2 pieces of .7mm increase drag in such a significant way that it affects the racket?

  4. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kakinami View Post
    How would 2 pieces of .7mm increase drag in such a significant way that it affects the racket?
    You can conduct some tests on the courts either with different diameter strings or with the same string, one with one missing cross string at bottom grommet #10, bith using identical racquets.
    It is well known in badminton circles that thinner strings have more power from faster racquet speed due to reduced air resistance as well as better control. Do you need to come publish a scientific paper to support this?
    It is also well known among racquet manufacturers that the area around the T-joint is the biggest culprit affecting air resistance. For those who are friends of Yonex, ask Yonex for their patent papers on their T-joint patent filing in which mention was made about the need to reduce this T-joint area to reduce air resistance for incresed power/speed. BTW, Yonex of course did not come out with any scientific paper/calculations about this.
    You don't have to use rocket science to find this out. That would be work hours wasted.

  5. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    Hummm, I think you are so right on the air resistance. Let's do a quick calculation here.
    Assuming all the string are same length. 45/44-1=2.2%. Factor into the total cross section of the entire racquet frame which is about 3x (or close to 4x) of cross section of the total cross section of the string all together. That give you about 2.2%*0.25=0.55% increase in air resistance. WOW! that means if I can smash at 200 km/h max, it will slow down my smash to 199 km/h. Gee, what a difference.
    You know what, we proved you wrong time and time again. All you can say is I know a method, but I won't tell you how. Please provide the calculation or any real prove. Other wise, if you have nothing smart to say, just don't say anything.
    That is the trouble with calculations that are misguided. A racquet in play is not a stationary object placed inside a wind tunnel. Follow the movement of the racquet and arm and you will see the late acceleration of the hand/wrist before impact. Notice why the shaft is slim and round? This affects air resistance. But as you go up the racquet to midpoint, ie the T-joint, there is a sudden rather massive thing relative to the air-cutting slim design of the shaft. Air resistance factors get bad from the shaft to the T-joint or waist. They are weighted more than those parts of the racquet at the top. This is why the velocity at the tip of the racquet is higher than at the butt end. You move half an inch with your hand, it translates to a few feet at the racquet tip.
    Sometimes common sense makes better sense. At least it won't jump to a silly conclusion like what you are saying above that string thickness is irrelevant to power/playability.
    Also, I don't know what rocket science calculations you have used to support your earlier claim that stringing the crosses from the bottom up will result in a stiffer upper half stringbed than the bottom half. Without any detailed scientific calculations, I say this is a wrong conclusion.

  6. #57
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    You can conduct some tests on the courts either with different diameter strings or with the same string, one with one missing cross string at bottom grommet #10, bith using identical racquets.

    It is well known in badminton circles that thinner strings have more power from faster racquet speed due to reduced air resistance as well as better control. Do you need to come publish a scientific paper to support this? [1]

    It is also well known among racquet manufacturers that the area around the T-joint is the biggest culprit affecting air resistance. For those who are friends of Yonex, ask Yonex for their patent papers on their T-joint patent filing in which mention was made about the need to reduce this T-joint area to reduce air resistance for incresed power/speed. BTW, Yonex of course did not come out with . [2]

    You don't have to use rocket science to find this out. That would be work hours wasted.
    again, u r making exaggeration to make your points because your points are weak.

    [1] not incorrect on less air resistance from thinner string but i believe those pros who chosed thinner strings (bg66, ngy98, bg80, etc for examples) did it for the string qualities like repulsion, feel, not air resistance reduction. If air resistance is such a big factor to them, why NOT all pros use thin strings?

    [2] not incorrect but u r missing yonex's objective, which are 3 of them. (1) The T joint surface area is significant unlike 1 cross string. Reduction of 10-20% of area is a mark improvement where as SH had indicated, a reduction of 0.5% in air drag due to strings does not even warrant a minor footnote. (2) the old external T joint has sharp edges which increase air drag. Shape affect air resistance too, not just surface area. By hiding the T joint internally, the T joint external surface can be smooth out to reduce drag significantly on shape form factor alone. (3) with a 1 piece looking frame+shaft, the racket cosmetically look much sexier. Yonex doesn't need to do any scientific paper/calculations about this because it's a no brainer. Too bad u only manage to come up with just 1 of the 3 reasons why yonex did it.
    Last edited by cooler; 02-14-2010 at 03:06 AM.

  7. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    That is the trouble with calculations that are misguided. A racquet in play is not a stationary object placed inside a wind tunnel. Follow the movement of the racquet and arm and you will see the late acceleration of the hand/wrist before impact. Notice why the shaft is slim and round? This affects air resistance. But as you go up the racquet to midpoint, ie the T-joint, there is a sudden rather massive thing relative to the air-cutting slim design of the shaft. Air resistance factors get bad from the shaft to the T-joint or waist. They are weighted more than those parts of the racquet at the top. This is why the velocity at the tip of the racquet is higher than at the butt end. You move half an inch with your hand, it translates to a few feet at the racquet tip.
    Sometimes common sense makes better sense. At least it won't jump to a silly conclusion like what you are saying above that string thickness is irrelevant to power/playability.
    I'm not going to get involved in any of the rest of it but... will 1 string increase the velocity of a racket? I very much doubt it. Beyond the whole cross sectional area aspect, there is the fact that we're not talking about laminar flow, it's turbulent flow due to the number of strings involved.

    You can't even just isolate the strings in order to compare cross sections. If you consider the cross section of the entire racket, from handle to top of racket, the area that resists airflow is the addition of the frame and strings.

    Just to do some math: assuming the string is 9.2m long and 5% is actually in the grommets and outside the frame, and you have a 0.7mm diameter string, you end up with 9.2m x 0.95 x .0007 = 0.0067 square meters. If you look at the frame and assume an average thickness of 7.5mm and a length of 710mm (ignoring the shaft for the moment), you get 0.0075 x 0.7 = 0.00525 square meters.

    Add the two together and you get 0.01195 square meters. Now 1 string at the bottom is 0.016m long and 0.0007 m in diameter. This is 0.0000112 square meters.

    0.0000112 / 0.01195 = 0.1 percent decrease in cross sectional area and this is ignoring the shaft.

    I may not be a rocket scientist but I am an engineer. Can 0.1% in the right place affect airflow and air resistance? Definitely... can a human feel the difference? NO! There is almost no way that a person will be able to tell the difference of 0.1% decrease in cross sectional area that's offering air resistance.

    To look at the strings, let's compare 0.7mm to 0.66mm. We've already done the calculations on the head so for just the string you get 9.2m x 0.95 x 0.00066 = 0.00577, add that to the racket head and you get 0.0110.

    The difference is 7.8%... that is an appreciable difference and should be felt.

    Keep in mind that if you include the area of the shaft it will lower both those percentages but I wanted to keep it simple for now.

    So math has both disagreed with you in that 1 string will make a difference but has also agreed that thickness of the string will make a difference.

    Please don't put down math as it's pure science and logic, I've also found that "common sense" really is not that common... quite rare actually.
    Last edited by druss; 02-14-2010 at 03:28 AM.

  8. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    Hummm, I think you are so right on the air resistance. Let's do a quick calculation here.
    Assuming all the string are same length. 45/44-1=2.2%. Factor into the total cross section of the entire racquet frame which is about 3x (or close to 4x) of cross section of the total cross section of the string all together. That give you about 2.2%*0.25=0.55% increase in air resistance. WOW! that means if I can smash at 200 km/h max, it will slow down my smash to 199 km/h. Gee, what a difference.
    You know what, we proved you wrong time and time again. All you can say is I know a method, but I won't tell you how. Please provide the calculation or any real prove. Other wise, if you have nothing smart to say, just don't say anything.
    you are being conservative. The last cross is ~45cm from the handle base. Since your calculation was based on average string length and average radius to the sweet spot of ~54cm, correction to angular velocity must be adjusted because air drag is highly function of velocity. U assumed 200 km/hr as average, that would be at the sweetsport but the last cross is located lower. Simple math of 45/54*200= 166.7 km/hr. So that 166.7^2/200^2*0.55%=0.382% increase in air resistance. There are several more correction can be made but it's late now

  9. #60
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Air resistance factors get bad from the shaft to the T-joint or waist. They are weighted more than those parts of the racquet at the top. This is why the velocity at the tip of the racquet is higher than at the butt end. You move half an inch with your hand, it translates to a few feet at the racquet tip.
    Just to clarify here because I didn't want to clutter my other post with side comments...

    The velocity at the tip is higher because it has to travel a longer arc than any other part of the racket, since the rotation of the racket is the same for all parts of the racket (ignoring bending for now), that means that it has to travel a higher distance in the same amount of time as the rest of the racket.

    Since velocity = distance / time, it's pretty easy to see why the velocity is higher at the tip. This has absolutely nothing to do with weight.

  10. #61
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by druss View Post
    I'm not going to get involved in any of the rest of it but... will 1 string increase the velocity of a racket? I very much doubt it. Beyond the whole cross sectional area aspect, there is the fact that we're not talking about laminar flow, it's turbulent flow due to the number of strings involved.

    You can't even just isolate the strings in order to compare cross sections. If you consider the cross section of the entire racket, from handle to top of racket, the area that resists airflow is the addition of the frame and strings.

    Just to do some math: assuming the string is 9.2m long and 5% is actually in the grommets and outside the frame, and you have a 0.7mm diameter string, you end up with 9.2m x 0.95 x .0007 = 0.0067 square meters. If you look at the frame and assume an average thickness of 7.5mm and a length of 710mm (ignoring the shaft for the moment), you get 0.0075 x 0.7 = 0.00525 square meters.

    Add the two together and you get 0.01195 square meters. Now 1 string at the bottom is 0.016m long and 0.0007 m in diameter. This is 0.0000112 square meters.

    0.0000112 / 0.01195 = 0.1 percent decrease in cross sectional area and this is ignoring the shaft.

    I may not be a rocket scientist but I am an engineer. Can 0.1% in the right place affect airflow and air resistance? Definitely... can a human feel the difference? NO! There is almost no way that a person will be able to tell the difference of 0.1% decrease in cross sectional area that's offering air resistance.

    To look at the strings, let's compare 0.7mm to 0.66mm. We've already done the calculations on the head so for just the string you get 9.2m x 0.95 x 0.00066 = 0.00577, add that to the racket head and you get 0.0110.

    The difference is 7.8%... that is an appreciable difference and should be felt.

    Keep in mind that if you include the area of the shaft it will lower both those percentages but I wanted to keep it simple for now.

    So math has both disagreed with you in that 1 string will make a difference but has also agreed that thickness of the string will make a difference.

    Please don't put down math as it's pure science and logic, I've also found that "common sense" really is not that common... quite rare actually.
    two points

    1. your 7.8% is an appreciable difference between strings only but on a total surface area basis including racket frame, shaft, your fist, your arm, the overall net reduction in air resistance is much less than 7.8%. If i wax my racket arm, i can make up for the added air resistance of using regular string

    2. bless that panda, his leisure time in the zoo allow him to measure diameter for various badminton strings. In reality, bg66 isn't 0.66mm check it out here
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...6&postcount=67 So again, the real reduction of air resistance of using 'thinner' string isn't that much.


    So, taneepak's theories of damaging heat from using an awl, and reduction of racket speed due to 1 extra cross string only impresses the gullibles
    Last edited by cooler; 02-14-2010 at 03:52 AM.

  11. #62
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    58
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    The awl used to be a stringing tool for badminton. But the days of this ancient and redundant tool should have been consigned to history. Today, the presence and the use of an awl in a badminton stringing machine set-up is a tell-tale sign of lack of professionalism and irresponsibility.
    kklam's question is childish, frivolous, and irrelevant and answering it would place me in the same shade/colour. Look, at high tensions the use of the awl to poke into a grommet to hold that highly tensioned string is suicidal. In fact there is a better and safer way to achieve the same thing which does not use the awl. If you want to know pls pm me.
    The very highly tensioned string with the awl jamming into a hole-the tighter the jamming the less tension lost, hence a lose-lose situation-will creat heat and will damage the grommet and stress the frame athe the grommet site.
    What a silly question asking me about the degrees of heat, etc. It is like seeing the forest for the trees.
    Master Taneepak,

    I respect your experience and knowledge if they can convince me. Is that you who said the heat will affect the string when using the awl? I just ask you to back up your theory with substantiation. You said my question is childish, frivolous, and irrelevant. Why did you say that? We all know there is heat produced when using an awl. What's the amount? If you know how to answer my question, please do it. Don't just preach your theory with blah blah blah. Please respect other people's question.
    Last edited by kklam; 02-14-2010 at 04:43 AM.

  12. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kklam View Post
    Master Taneepak,

    I respect your experience and knowledge if they can convince me. Is that you who said the heat will affect the string when using the awl? I just ask you to back up your theory with substantiation. You said my question is childish, frivolous, and irrelevant. Why did you say that? We all know there is heat produced when using an awl. What's the amount? If you know how to answer my question, please do it. Don't just preach your theory with blah blah blah. Please respect other people's question.
    I have tried many ways, including the use of the awl and other tools, to hold tension before the last tie-off many years back. At low tensions the awl could get away with breakage but it still was unkind to the grommets' durability, subjecting them to sometimes severe compression. At very high tensions of 35lbs, the typical 10% higher tension than the standard cross string tension of say 32lbs, the string would snap frequently either upon inserting the awl tightly or following the insertion of the awl and upon releasing the 35lbs tensioned string. On the other hand, you can use a tie-off knot, pull the string outside the frame and tension it at 35lbs. Since there is no awl to cause such a traffic jam inside the grommet with the tie-off knot, there is hardly any heat to do mischief. With the modern stringing machine the tensioner or crank takes over the work of the awl in holding the tie-off tensioned string.

  13. #64
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Has anyone tried to test out the one cross string less (remember it must be the bottom grommet #10 to be omitted) for improved power and playability?
    Also thick strings become thinner strings when highly tensioned. Likewise thin strings become even thinner when highly tensioned. OTBE, thin strings are more powerful plus better control because of reduced air resistance.
    You will note that I am effectively advocating one cross string less at bottom grommet #10 for improved power and playability. Let us see-only time will tell-if I am right or a lot of hot air.

  14. #65
    Regular Member Blitzzards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    GMT-04:00
    Posts
    1,437
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Has anyone tried to test out the one cross string less (remember it must be the bottom grommet #10 to be omitted) for improved power and playability?
    Also thick strings become thinner strings when highly tensioned. Likewise thin strings become even thinner when highly tensioned. OTBE, thin strings are more powerful plus better control because of reduced air resistance.
    You will note that I am effectively advocating one cross string less at bottom grommet #10 for improved power and playability. Let us see-only time will tell-if I am right or a lot of hot air.
    Please excuse me but I have indeed tried this pattern before with the cross string at B10 omitted with two racquets namely, AT700LTD with NBG95 at 25lbs and Cab15 with BG85 at 21lbs, both racquets tied using the 2 piece method. As for my observation, they did NOT feel ANY different compared to my other racquets which are strung with the regular Yonex pattern, not any easier to swing nor easier to generate power with.

    Perhaps you would say that it's because of the low tension the test was conducted, or the stringers' quality? I certainly do not know and can't contribute more into the reduction of one cross string for gaining performance theory.

  15. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    58
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Master Taneepak,

    Thanks for further elaborating on what you said. I appreciate that. Regarding the "heat" and "air friction" issue we are discussing here, you are right theoretical. However, can you use a more a scientific approach to prove the "heat" and "air friction" you are talking are really significant. Other members can use simple scientific calculation to prove you are wrong, why can't you use the same approach to defend what you said?

    Happy New Year.

  16. #67
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    1,218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Taneepak,

    when you say skip a cross at B10, what do you advocate for the weaving pattern to achieve your result? Do you advocate keeping the weave the same for the B9/B11 crosses, meaning they look just like as if the B10 had been there, or should you still alternate, as if B10 had never actually existed?

  17. #68
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singnflip4life View Post
    Taneepak,

    when you say skip a cross at B10, what do you advocate for the weaving pattern to achieve your result? Do you advocate keeping the weave the same for the B9/B11 crosses, meaning they look just like as if the B10 had been there, or should you still alternate, as if B10 had never actually existed?
    The weaving pattern for any two adjacent strings must always be opposite from each other. In other words, when the grommet #9 cross is on top of main string A location, then the grommet #11 cross should be below the same Main A string location.
    Another two items or things you may want to get rid off for better playability are:
    1. The 4 pairs of grommets at the T-joint. I don't know why Yonex keeps using them. Do it like Li Ning with their N series racquets. Take off those paired grommets at the T-joint and either replace them with single ones or cut and trim the paired grommets to narrower single grommets.
    Also use a sharp diagonal plier to cut off the lengths of the grommets that are too long near the T-joint. Reducing the grommet lengths at this vulnerable T-joint area will also improve speed. Long grommets at the T-joint were initially put in to reduce string and frame vibrations.
    2. Get rid of any bulging grommets, especially those that come in pairs, on both sides of the frame at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. Replace them with single and small grommets that are flush with the frame. This will make the racquet more aerodynamic and faster.

    Try the above and let me know.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. adding 2 pounds to the cross, even on six point support machines?
    By asmd6230 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 3
    : 11-15-2011, 05:22 PM
  2. stretching or adding string tension that is already strung on a racquet
    By nutbad5981 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 6
    : 02-24-2010, 01:37 AM
  3. AT 700 LE extra cross
    By takumifujiwara in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 18
    : 03-15-2009, 02:02 AM
  4. Add a little extra tension if pulling more string?
    By lostatse in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 5
    : 05-12-2008, 08:45 AM
  5. Thinner or thicker string for extra power
    By boilermaker in forum General Forum
    Replies: 0
    : 01-14-2003, 04:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •