Jump to content

Rule change: carbon masts


Recommended Posts

David

I was not even aware there was any discussion on this subject let alone a vote.

Which technical committee MYA, IRSA, IOMICA

Pray tell more !

Clearly it is something I believe should be permitted for a number of reasons

And clearly something which is apposed by others - mostly for no valid reason

David

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

How silly of me not to notice that this post is in R36.- but I did.- but thank you just the same.

The reference to IOMICA and IRSA was interned to be tongue in cheek.


However the question, whilst one concedes not clearly posed, is:-

Is there and OPEN discussion taking place some where regarding the use of Carbon Mast on the R36 Class.

I sail at one of the larger and oldest concentrations of R36 and I have heard nothing.

So pray tell ... or if you prefer - Spill da beans

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Dave,

I am glad that you have opened up the thread for the review of the 36" class rules. Although it is entitled 'Radio 36', the rules will apply to the free sailing 36"s also. Like the other rules that cover both versions of the class/sport, the rules are written as radio rules with a class rules supplement for free sailing.

I can understand your frustration because of the time that this review has taken, but as MYA Technical Officer I have been incredibly busy on more immediate demands on my time.

I'm delighted to say that the Tech Team have now completed their review document and this will be sent by email to all 36" owners by the Class Captain, Peter Moore, for a two-week discussion on this forum. After that the Tech Team will use the comments to guide the wording of the rule changes. The class captain will then send out a ballot for owners to vote on the rule changes.

The review document is comprehensive, giving information about spar material stiffness, related costs and a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each material so that owners can make up their mind about the future of the class. The competition from RTR boring classes with no design input, enhances the 36" class because of the great freedom to experiment and to develop rig ideas, which has always mademodel yachting such a fascinating sport. Removing restrictions can only help to give this class a really sustainable and exciting future, with designers and builders leading a resurgence of this great little fun boat.

Cheers, Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger,could you please include me in your circulation of the 36 rules doc. I have always admired the rules for these boats as they are simple and accurate so the boat is easier to measure than most and so less hassle for the owner. As regards the RTR classes they have their place,just as when the IOM started and look where that has got us!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger,could you please include me in your circulation of the 36 rules doc. I have always admired the rules for these boats as they are simple and accurate so the boat is easier to measure than most and so less hassle for the owner. As regards the RTR classes they have their place,just as when the IOM started and look where that has got us!

Rather than be put on a list wouldn't it be better to put the tech team findings on the forum or MYA website so that all skippers can see the results?

I am sure there are many of "fringe" skippers who may be enticed to the class who wont be on any email lists!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

36" Class - Proposed Rule Change

There has been a proposal by Dave Kent to amend the class rules and the MYA Technical Team under Roger Stollery have been asked to prepare a report on the subject.

The proposal is to remove the restriction on spar material in rule F.1

A copy of the Technical Teams Report is attached for your consideration.

Registered owners wishing to make comment are asked to do so on the MYA Forum, and there is a section set up ' Rule change Carbon Masts' within the R36 section.

We are allowing 2 weeks for discussion to say 1st February, and any useful comments will be taken on board by the Technical Team.

Following this we will be conducting a vote of the Owners as to whether they wish to make this rule change. This vote will be conducted by e mail.

Details of the Proposals are being put on the MYA website, and if you are aware of any owner who has not been e mailed please ask them to contact me.

Peter Moore Class Captain 16th January 2017

36" class rule review - remove spar material restriction? - Technical team review

The revision of this class rule in 1991 rule added the restriction on the materials for spars to aluminium or wood. In the objectives for the rule review in 2004, removing the restriction was considered, but it was rejected. At that time carbon spars were used on all the other classes apart from the IOM. It must have been considered then that the extra cost would not be in the best interests of the class. Since then the price of carbon has dropped considerably and carbon tubes no longer attract a cost penalty and are more readily available from many sources.

As there is almost total freedom in the class rules, apart from the requirement to fit in the measuring box, isn’t it now appropriate now to reconsider this question?

Dave Kent has put forward a proposal to remove the spar material restriction in the 36” class rule F.1 and this is what has prompted this review. There are many considerations to be taken into account and some of the advantages and disadvantages of carbon against aluminium are listed at the end of this document.

You need to decide what you want from your class. Currently, it is at a low ebb with a few more radio boats being registered than vane boats. It is a fun boat to sail, not very stable and needs a lot of rigs to compete in all conditions. The most important feature is the design freedom with the chance to experiment in rig design, with almost total freedom outside of the measuring box.

In a world of boring one design and more restricted open classes, opening up the freedom in the 36” class may attract more designers wishing to develop ideas for more performance and push the class forward. The use of carbon in the rig throws up more opportunities than just replacing aluminium tubes with carbon tubes, because wing masts and wingsail rigs could enhance performance in stronger winds and make the boat more exciting and even more fun than with the current restriction.

Comparing the advantages and disadvantages there are a lot more advantages to the use of carbon, so shouldn’t we consider very carefully restoring the original 1930s rule and remove the relatively recent, but now outdated restriction of 1991?

Before considering the comparative advantages of change etc in the table below, Graham Bantock provided some useful comparative information. For the record, SAILSetc carbon tubes have a material stiffness of 190-210 GPa, whilst the commonly available tubes are typically 80-100 GPa. To put the above figures into context; aluminium alloy has a material stiffness of 70 GPA and a density 70% greater than carbon. The inference is that cheap carbon tubes are twice as good as alloy, top quality carbon tubes four times as good as alloy.

Cost wise a 1 metre length of IOM spec aluminium 11 mm tube is in the order of £8, whereas a basic carbon 10 mm tube from Carbon Profiles is £7.56 and SAILSetc’s stiffer 10mm carbon tube is £39.50. However, with relatively short rigs in the 36" class, unlike tall rigs for Marbleheads, the extra stiffness is probably not needed.

This review document is for an owner discussion on the MYA forum. After a two week period, any useful comments will be taken on board and a voting paper sent out to all owners by the class captain, Peter Moore.

Roger Stollery on behalf of the Tech Team 2016-12-23

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

I have read the proposal, and have come up with the following: -

With this proposal, the question would be how would this effect the average club member, if some one did turn up with Carbon rigs and your club member turned up with his aluminum masts, would he be prepared to spend the money on Carbon, generally no. Does this mean that there would be a two tier class?? Those who want carbon, and those that don't!!!

The 36 is a simple box rule class that has been around for along time, the boats are not the easiest to sail and some designs have been around for along time and are very successful with there current rigs, speaking to an owner this evening and asking the question would he change his masts to carbon, he said most definitely no!!

The question is, would the current fleet be prepared to change to a new rule??? If you look at the vane fleet from last years nationals, there were ten competitors with boats dating from the 1970's to current designs, all competitive in there current format -- with all the skippers that were missing from the race, there is a potential for over 20 entries for this years national, but if this current proposal is accepted, I would think that well over half that number would not enter.

The proposal of wing masts -- to make them more powerful -- question is why, as these yachts are so unbalanced at times, a wing mast and sail similar to what they use on the Americas cup would make a simple design potentially awful to sail -- and the cost of this would make the class expensive.

I have looked at the costing, and have a few queries, how come you think that we only use 1 meter lengths of tube, I have currently two vane 36's to build, with top rig mast of 1815mm in length, if you then want to build a tapered carbon mast, using the Carbon Fibre Profile prices, just to buy the carbon would cost about £31.00 for one mast. If you want to go to another supplier and get the best carbon (which some people may choose to do), sorry would not even bother to price it up, as you looking in excess of £70.00 for a top rig. Or you can buy an Aluminum mast from a known supplier -- 2 meters in length for under £15.00. This then doesn't include the time to put together a Carbon Mast, gluing and carbon toeing. -- Having to build 12 rigs for two vane boats is going to cost in excess of £270 if this proposal is put through, or £120 if use Aluminum masts.

That's then doesn't include the Radio 36 I have with another 5 rigs I would have to rebuild.

You are also stating that this will be voted on by the owners, as there is no owners association for the class, wouldn't this rule change have to be approved by the MYA AGM.

Question would be, would this kill the 36 class in the UK for both vane and radio??

There has been a proposal by Dave Kent to amend the class rules and the MYA Technical Team under Roger Stollery have been asked to prepare a report on the subject.

The proposal is to remove the restriction on spar material in rule F.1

A copy of the Technical Teams Report is attached for your consideration.

Registered owners wishing to make comment are asked to do so on the MYA Forum, and there is a section set up ' Rule change Carbon Masts' within the R36 section.

We are allowing 2 weeks for discussion to say 1st February, and any useful comments will be taken on board by the Technical Team.

Following this we will be conducting a vote of the Owners as to whether they wish to make this rule change. This vote will be conducted by e mail.

Details of the Proposals are being put on the MYA website, and if you are aware of any owner who has not been e mailed please ask them to contact me.

Peter Moore Class Captain 16th January 2017

36" class rule review - remove spar material restriction? - Technical team review

The revision of this class rule in 1991 rule added the restriction on the materials for spars to aluminium or wood. In the objectives for the rule review in 2004, removing the restriction was considered, but it was rejected. At that time carbon spars were used on all the other classes apart from the IOM. It must have been considered then that the extra cost would not be in the best interests of the class. Since then the price of carbon has dropped considerably and carbon tubes no longer attract a cost penalty and are more readily available from many sources.

As there is almost total freedom in the class rules, apart from the requirement to fit in the measuring box, isn’t it now appropriate now to reconsider this question?

Dave Kent has put forward a proposal to remove the spar material restriction in the 36” class rule F.1 and this is what has prompted this review. There are many considerations to be taken into account and some of the advantages and disadvantages of carbon against aluminium are listed at the end of this document.

You need to decide what you want from your class. Currently, it is at a low ebb with a few more radio boats being registered than vane boats. It is a fun boat to sail, not very stable and needs a lot of rigs to compete in all conditions. The most important feature is the design freedom with the chance to experiment in rig design, with almost total freedom outside of the measuring box.

In a world of boring one design and more restricted open classes, opening up the freedom in the 36” class may attract more designers wishing to develop ideas for more performance and push the class forward. The use of carbon in the rig throws up more opportunities than just replacing aluminium tubes with carbon tubes, because wing masts and wingsail rigs could enhance performance in stronger winds and make the boat more exciting and even more fun than with the current restriction.

Comparing the advantages and disadvantages there are a lot more advantages to the use of carbon, so shouldn’t we consider very carefully restoring the original 1930s rule and remove the relatively recent, but now outdated restriction of 1991?

Before considering the comparative advantages of change etc in the table below, Graham Bantock provided some useful comparative information. For the record, SAILSetc carbon tubes have a material stiffness of 190-210 GPa, whilst the commonly available tubes are typically 80-100 GPa. To put the above figures into context; aluminium alloy has a material stiffness of 70 GPA and a density 70% greater than carbon. The inference is that cheap carbon tubes are twice as good as alloy, top quality carbon tubes four times as good as alloy.

Cost wise a 1 metre length of IOM spec aluminium 11 mm tube is in the order of £8, whereas a basic carbon 10 mm tube from Carbon Profiles is £7.56 and SAILSetc’s stiffer 10mm carbon tube is £39.50. However, with relatively short rigs in the 36" class, unlike tall rigs for Marbleheads, the extra stiffness is probably not needed.

This review document is for an owner discussion on the MYA forum. After a two week period, any useful comments will be taken on board and a voting paper sent out to all owners by the class captain, Peter Moore.

Roger Stollery on behalf of the Tech Team 2016-12-23

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an owner of both radio and vane 36's I have the following to add to the thoughts.

I have no problem with the use of carbon for masts and spars. The class is the only class which is unrestricted except for mast/spar material it is logical to remove this restriction and make the Class free in all respects. This would make it the only class where those with a will and a wish to experiment with different configurations using appropriate materials can do so. I for one would welcome that opportunity to try.

For those that sail in salt water there is the added bonus of not having to renew the alumninium stub mast because the base has corroded away.

This class is an endangered species it needs a shot in the arm, it needs something to differentiate it from the herd, make it appeal to those who want to play. There is now little opportunity for those that want to play in the current popular classes for original thinking to happen. The rule relaxation on materials can have that effect which would be good for the classes sustainability. It is a Class that has a limited appeal, it will never challenge the IOM's and the M's of this world in the popularity stakes but to those that do sail them, do appreciate their little quirks and idiosyncratic ways.

On the subject of who should approve this change and that's clearly with the owners, the days are long gone when these matters could only be changed at the AGM. Even when it was it was only the clubs that sailed the Class could vote on it so the current consultation and approval is entirely appropriate.


Me, I commend the concept to the house.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The text above only gives half the information, because the Tech Team's document contains a table giving the pros and cons of the possible change. The whole of the Tech Team's document is available on the website, starting at the 'News' section. It is best to read both parts of the document before posting on this forum.

Cheers, Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies.

Here's the document.

Just because you can have carbon rigs.. doesn't mean you have to? I'd personally only be having a carbon rig for my top suit, and would leave the other 4 rigs alone. For the racing that the 36 class does, for me, wouldn't be worth upgrading all the rigs. But I still would say i'd vote for the rule change.

 

Question would be, would this kill the 36 class in the UK for both vane and radio??
Why would it? Surely it's a step forwards rather than maintaining the status quo.

 

unnamed.thumb.png.aaf0694a9756988f7c83d923a92c279e.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I have just read our view on the proposed change of material and would agree that if you already had a set of five rigs for your 36" you wouldn't want to, nor would it be necessary to consider changing anything, but your tallest rig or maybe second tallest rig.

There is already a difference between the 1980s aluminium tube rigs on boats like TAXACHUN and the latest aluminium rigs using the lightweight IOM specification aluminium.

The later aluminium spars are much lighter than the thicker walled aluminium tube, but despite that there is not that much difference in performance, with TAXACHUN still able to finish second in the 2016 radio nationals beating lots of boats with much lighter rigs. As the IOM spec and a basic carbon are of similar weight there is unlikely to be any difference in rig weight that would affect performance materially. So they should not be a big concern about existing 36"s becoming outdated by the change. They don't get outdated very easily!.

I would take issue with Chris on the question of cost because he has not taken note of the fact that the IOM spec lightweight aluminium is of a similar cost to the basic carbon spars from Carbon Profiles as noted in the Tech Team's paper. Not only is the basic cost per metre similar but the cost of postage and packing for metre long lengths of carbon is much less than the cost for a 2 m length of IOM spec aluminium.

Cost should not be a factor in this decision. As a builder of rigs, I would prefer to use carbon because one can make a stepped tapered mast with a flexible top more easily than having to use just one size of aluminium. These days you cannot get aluminium in the sizes and weights that are suitable for making our model masts and so the IOM spec is about the only option.

Chris also mentioned wing masts or wing sails and from my own experience these are not good in light airs and I would not be thinking of designing anything that was taller than the length of the boat just to try out ideas that have been seen in the Americas and other fast machines in the full-size world. This class has huge potential for experimentation and so should we not look to the future with a class that already allows total freedom in area?

More views on this subject would be very welcome as we only have seven days up to the deadline of 1 February for comments on the future of this great little boat.

Cheers, Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents,

Apologies I haven't replied sooner, birthday etc got in the way.

Firstly, a very famous designer/builder once said to me and other -- "have thy not heard of preventative maintenance lad" -- (Thanks Uncle Bill) Surely it is very easy to remove a mast stub, wash it, spray it with a Lubricant. If you sailed a Radio class, or even your vane Boat in Salt water, I would imagine this is the first thing most people do.

If we want to promote the 36 Class at both vane and radio, surely it should be down to the Class Owners/Clubs/Class Captain to promote the events coming up. Think of the state of the RM Class a few years ago, then through hard work, finding out owners with boats, promoting events brought the class to been well very supported.

If you look at last years nationals at both Birkenhead and Guildford, the class went to venues that had not held events for a while, the numbers remand around the same as previous years, but with different individuals competing. If you want to convert that stat, then you need to build on these foundations with clubs who have a good fleet. But also encourage others to get there boats out there garages, sheds etc to come and compete and that they will be competitive and make events special, so that others will talk about the race for all the right reasons -- i.e -- Six juniors at Birkenhead competing and beating seasoned skippers.

Roger, I have sailed a Realistic owned by Mark Dicks with Aluminum tapered masts, this was built in the early 1990's. still very competitive against the new breed of 36. A boat designed in the 1970's, and has stood the test of time. Since the restriction on the length and weight was removed in I believe the early 2000, from memory, there has only been three designers completed new designs, each very different, but still successful in there own way in either format. As this is still a box rule, unclear what designers can do to expand on a hull that is 36 " long, max of 9 " wide, and 12 " deep, the only un-restriction now is the height of rig, I do believe that an owner did ask that rigs heights be restricted, but this was turned down.

David, you put this proposal in, may I ask why you only want to have a Top rig in Carbon?? You asked why I feel this would possibly kill or reduce the numbers in the class, as stated above, we need to get skippers to get there boats out, do you think this will encourage either club guys or others to come and sail, as they will feel there rigs or boat or package may not be competitive.

I do also have another question, if this ruling gets voted on, when will the rule change be adopted?? As this is to be voted on in February, the class has it's Radio National in March, will it be implemented for this event??

I have other questions, but need to have a discussion with other before asking more??

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Chris,

You asked a very good question about the procedure and timing.

In an earlier posting you asked another related question, "You are also stating that this will be voted on by the owners, as there is no owners association for the class, wouldn't this rule change have to be approved by the MYA AGM?"

There is a Class Association for the class, because the MYA acts as this class' association just as it does for the IOM and all the other classes. This is clearly stated in the MYA Constitution. The need for responding to IOMICA to allow individual registered owners voting, also set up the ability to do the same with the other classes. The club returns each year give the database information for collecting the names and addresses of owners of all our classes. This is what the IOM NCA class secretary has to do each year in response to IOMICA's AGM motions.

In the case of the other classes, it is the class captains which take on this role of communicating with all the owners. In the case of the 36" a great deal of time and effort was spent by the class captain, Peter Moore, the 36" registrar, the MYA treasurer and others to get a comprehensive list of email addresses for all 130 or so, owners. As each owner was emailed individually with the technical report for the proposal, every effort has been made to keep people informed just as if there was a 'formal class association'. It won't need to go to the MYA AGM.

This individual communication with owners will continue into the voting process and so at the end of that there is no reason why the rules shouldn't come into force straightaway. When that will be will depend on the class captain, who will no doubt bare in mind that the radio 36" National Championship is on 11 March at Bournville of which you are both a member.

You are right that the most important thing is to get people enthusiastic about racing this class and now that Peter is able to contact class members easily there is no reason why the enthusiasm generated by this discussion cannot be encouraged to grow.

Cheers, Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is quite late now to post comment on this, as the forum debate will end tomorrow. What it seems to me that we should discuss on the forum is whether to maintain the admirably open nature of the 36 rules by simply opting to remove the restriction to alloy/wood spars, or whether if we do introduce carbon to restrict carbon spars to a maximum diameter and thus ban wing rigs. If we are to allow carbon, I personally can't see why we shouldn't accept any configuration of carbon spar which future designers can dream up. Perhaps the more fundamental issue in question is whether to allow carbon at all, or to continue the current restriction to alloy/wood. Some think that keeping the rule as it is to would allow the class to continue as an inexpensive, fun to sail boat, which is also attractive as a youth boat, both in radio and free-sailing mode.

Mervyn and Jacque

Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at all the posts I came to the conclusion thbenefit ubs getting cheaper all the time and is widely available and the only tangible benefit .would be that you can have a tapered mast. Probably a bonus on the top rig, not so sure about the rest.So I would vote to scrap the rule and let the owners decide. In truth I have little I doubt that there is

any real benefit unless you are in the Brad Gibson/ Graham Bantock elite group. But what a boat. Just the job for a fiddler like me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly as a NON registered R36 owner.

It is funny how the conversation always ends up revolving around Cost.

Not to put a too finer point on it..

Much of this debate emanates from people who are competing in 2 or 3 three classes and trying to keep all these boats in a competitive condition is in itself is expensive .

Some have bought an old Junkers that they are getting by with are desperately trying to make competitive. I am involved with one such project.

This is however not germane to the discussion at hand and neither is the benefit or other wise to boat performance. What ever is holding the sail up you still need to sail in the right place and set the sails.

But enough of this...

To me the sensible thing would be to simply restrict the mast dimension and not the material

Something like:-

The mast SHALL be of constant diameter between the Head and Tack of the Main Sail.

A length of Pultruded Carbon tube is relatively inexpensive £25.00 in 2m length Woven £22.00 in 2 m length. This compares favourably with an Aluminium tube - and I resent buying a 11.X mm aluminium mast from essentially a single source supplier.

And why specifically allow Carbon - allow any material

What one should not encourage is Oval and / or tapered masts since this is very expensive path and not widely available.

Please let us not get bogged down in a modulus or cost discussions. Let the owner decide what to use on their boats without undue restriction. I have a 10mm diameter woven tube waiting to get fitted so I can get the boat measure in time for the Nationals.

My other move will be to squash a 1/2" round tube into an oval tube in a press break. Done this with an Arrow shaft it work well... but you don't have access to a press break ...

You want to cut cost:–

1/ Cut the number of rigs to 3

2/ Specify the size of 3 rigs as with IOM

This is where the cost is in reality and keeps people away from competition

Now you MIGHT have a viable class. But it will still be an old fashioned tub with a big lump of lead on the bottom that you can sail in Foot of water.

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Brad.

I will confess to expecting a far more adverse response to my post from the Puritans.

We tend to focus far too much upon what has passed and not enough on what lies ahead.

It was very early in the morning when I wrote that post and was on my way to Berlin at 30,000 feet. I have subsequently noticed a number of grammatical blunders in this post, missing words. I hope that you got through that enough to see the foolishness of the age old story of:-

a) It will make your boat un-completive over-night

b) It will cost you an arm an a leg to ...

c) I have just ...

d) It will not be of benefit to the Class

I will start a parallel thread so that this thread can focus upon the job in hand - the RULE CHANGE. For me this is a very exciting and long overdue Rule Change.

Chris Harris poses the following questions:-

To paraphrase and please forgive me if I have misinterpreted

a) How would this effect the average club member?

DA-> It provides a greater degree of freedom when considering your next upgrade/ re-fit

b) Does this mean that there would be a two tier class?

DA-> No and what on earth give you that idea?

c) An owner stated that he would continue using his existing mast?

DA-> An owner has that choice and is not compelled to use a different mast

d) Would the current fleet be prepared to change to a new rule?

DA-> This question will hopefully be answered at the end of this process

e) Question would be, would this kill the 36 class in the UK for both vane and radio?

DA-> The rule change does not compel any one to change anything. But given your observation regarding the National Entry Level is it not dead already


Clearly we seem, in this process, not to have sufficiently emphasised that the Boat Owner is not compelled to throw away his existing mast/s and re-rig his boat as some of the responses seem to imply. - A scare tactic employed since the beginning of time:-

Perhaps the Technical Committee will take this as A Learning Point when preparing further reports.

A Bridge Too Far

But let us not swing too far and too high as Icarus did some time ago and at least for the next few years:-

Restrict all mast to :-

Constant Outside Diameter between the Head and Tack of the main sail.

WHICH WAS ACTUALLY THE ESSENCE OF WHAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO CONVEY.

Chris Harris seems to suggest that:

To paraphrase and again please forgive me if I have misinterpreted

a) 10 competitors attended the 2016 - 36 Vane Nationals in out of potentially 20 registered boats and believes that the entry would drop to 5 should this amendment be adopted.

b) Building 12 fully Carbon rigs for two vane boats is going to cost in excess of £270 whilst £120 if use Aluminium masts.

Making the smaller rigs in Carbon seems a little foolish or even suggesting it don't you think?

Refer to my cost analysis – shop elsewhere – I have not paid £15 for an aluminium mast for years.. Perhaps I should shop elsewhere

c) Adopting a Swing / Wing Rig will make the boat unstable

Rig format is not restricted

I leave it to the reader to decide how this relates to the matter at hand; let me know when you do.

Let us focus upon the Rule Change and the benefits it could bring to you the owner.

I congratulate David Kemp for making this proposal and valiantly defending it in the face of Puritanical Adversity

Dave Alston

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...