Quantcast
It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2014 4:00 am

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: ?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:54 am 
why do I need to tell you my name? It is irrelvant. I've never climbed with any of you anyway. I want to hear Andy's defence. why are you guys sticking up for him? it is ridiculous to say that not every route you bolt is going to be perfect. Atomic WAS perfect. Sure, some of the hangers were home made, and the bolts were a little rusty, but there is NO excuse for messing up a fine line. The climb was not rebolted [ie.the bolts merely replaced in their original location] The climb now has bolts between the first crux which makes clipping a whole event now, the old bolts were just left sticking out so you can gash your legs on when you fall off. The flow of the climb has been ruined and it's gone from a great, safe, heady route to a totally overprotected sham that has zero character. So tell me, if Andy was bolting routes when I was in nappies, then how come he f*cks up a perfect line for the sake of his drill lust? So dudes, dont come and tell me I dont have balls, cos I dont, and I'm glad I dont. All I'm saying is that it's always Andy in the forums who is saying how it should be...and everybody just bows and listens, when in actual fact my respect for his ethics is zero. And lastly, Derek, you are wrong about the anchors having to be staggered. I will NEVER bolt a route with this method. You can say what you like, but almost every route I have been on abroad and at home has the normal way of putting anchors side by side and there is a reason for this, there is less force on either anchor and as you must know, being such a brilliant dude, toproping can also generate massive forces on the anchor, especially if the climber is running laps and using a static and falls, thus, why not lets all have a little physics exam at the CSIR and do some REAL testing before we just listen to someone. What we should be doing is enforcing an Anchor respect program where climbers are taught to use quickdraws on the anchors and to abseil back down rather than get lowered.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:48 am 
Dingo... your name only becomes relavant when you attack & disrespect other climbers.

\"Derek, you are wrong about the anchors having to be staggered.\" I said that they could be staggered & both methods have advantages. Does the CSIR also do reading exams?

Andy's initial point was that, rings turn and thus distribute wear from the rope. As aposed to chain links, malions and other non-circular items that are in contact with the rope. This is a good point.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: u
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:12 pm 
I like rings too. Great because you dont have to untie at the top, and they turn, yes,I know, I use them myself. I was talking about the staggering part. Look you guys do what you like,ok.I'll still climb your routes. I'll just know that a cape climber bolted it. like I said earlier,climbers should be informed of the ethics through magazines and at the crags. I agree that it is our responsibilty to look after the protection. This is why changeable anchors like your [sky] and the fixe rings systems are good. we shouldnt be so worried about the anchors wearing through, as much as an anchor which is seldom weighted, as how do you even know if this so called back up isnt just sitting there rusted and useless [as seen with the bolt failure on sterling silver]. I'm still going to place my anchors side by side, like I always have. There is no law about it. You are calling me an idiot by trying to force another idea on me without giving actual decent test results. It's just another \"in my opinion\" \"I've bolted more routes than you\" ballache. every route you bolt is different and so dont come trying to make like this is your \"artform\" that u'v mastered now.it's just bolts! the art is in finding a cool line, and protecting it in a way that it flows, without being unsafe yet allowing the climber a feeling of freedom. Just like Atomic!nudge nudge:)
thats it. do what you want. I'm a side by side kinda guy.
peace


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:18 pm 
\"You are calling me an idiot by trying to force another idea on me\"
Dingo...who is forcing anything. Both ways have some advantages. Nobody has called you an idiot. We don't have too.

How exactly do you think the two anchor systems could be tested? In SA. Proper tests? What are proper tests? Do some investigations.

I've used lots of diffrent TA on routes. Some times it's convenient too off set, some times parallel ...some times single top anchors are fine. My own best is a shackle that fixes a military cargo pallet to a parachute, fitted to the face on 2 chains. Awesome TA. Seriously. I have seen what looks like a bit of Volkswagen & a shackle bolted to the top of a route...

peace... ja lets go trad climbing. much less bitching about


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 5:39 pm
Posts: 304
Location: JHB
I try to get the best of both worlds. I stagger the bolts but ultimately keep both anchors weighted equally. I do this by using 4 links of 10mm galvanised chain (I find it better to use the thicker chain since you can actually get a biner/rope through the bottom link) and one of the Sky anchors (with 2 links).

Personally I think that weighting both anchors equally is safest, however the bottom link being a ring to \"spread\" the wear and tear definitely makes a lot of sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 9:06 am
Posts: 196
Location: Cape Town
Is the re-bolting of Atomic Aardvark really that bad?
Haven't been up there for ages but I always was keen to do that route.
Its a real classic, surely it can be fixed if neccessary?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: atomik
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:49 pm 
Look, I'd like to hear everyones opinion on Atomics new setup. Personally, amongst myslef and those I climb with, we think it sucks. I first climbed the route when I was at school [A long time ago..!] and we had to work the route to get it, so I knew it well, every move, every clip, you know the story. It was a classic the way it was protected and was never ever an issue to me, every fall was safe and clipping well worked out. Then after a years I find myself back at the bottom of the route, but now the gaps have been filled in, the crux bolts moved, so now it's actually quite cuc and awkward, and below the crux footholds, this bent sharp stump was just left behind to cause some injury.
I dont want to disregard the good that Andy did, some of the hangers were home made and it's one of the oldest, most climbed routes at the Restuarant, so I'll thank him for the bolts he merely replaced. But you cant then decide to put one here or ther cos you think so. It ruins the character of how the climb works.

Like I said, replacing bolts is cool, but to just comercialize a classic well-know benchmark 24 like atomic is just as bad as going up TM and chipping your own holds cos you feel like it. Anyway, you should climb the route, cos it's about the line, and it's an excellent one at that.

enuff said.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: My Way
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:33 pm 
I prefer the 2 bolts evenly weighted option. I also try to use a replacable anchor, that way it can be replaced before wearing out. We should definatly try to educate climbers to always toprope off removable gear, not U bolts.

Atomic does have extra bolts now, which is bad, but I guess we all make bad judgment calls sometimes, I know I have.

Has anybody sussessfully replaced a bolt using the same hole?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Posts: 293
Dingo - one fault in your argument, if you are toproping a route the rope should be running through quickdraws clipped to the anchors, not the rings themselves. The quickdraws can be of different lengths (for staggered anchors) thus equalising the load, the situation of unequally loaded toprope anchors never happens.

In fact you should'nt even lower off with your rope threaded through the rings, only abseil, that way, the rings last much, much longer. Sadly no-one seems to follow this simple rule. I like the side by side anchors best personally but it really doesnt make the slightest difference in reality how they are set up. I have seen both used everywhere Ive climbed including overseas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Posts: 293
Dave D, bolts have been replaced re-using the same hole. This involves drilling the old stud out of the rock (a heck of a job!) and then refitting probably using a twelve mm bolt as the hole often gets damaged. Apart from the graft involved, twelve mm hangers are not readily available in the country (could be ordered) and so this has not been done in the majority of cases. Metolius used to make a replaceble bolt (from very exotic corrosion resistant materials) which was the Cat's whiskers, but they eventually stopped making them as us cheapskate climbers never bought any! (They were about $8-9 each!)

Old studs should defintely be removed!!! Snap them off, cut them with a hacksaw (or angle grinder - trained personell only!- dangerous!!). Just be sure to use a sheet of steel or heavy duty plastic to protect the rock whilst doing this. Dingo - feel free to remove the old studs on Atomic (get some instruction if you havent done it before), Im sick of people whining about stuff and not being prepared to go and do something about it themselves, its lame!

Ditto to Marshall's comment that the rock situation determines the best choice of TA's (staggered/paralell), whatever fits and works best, goes.

Lastly, and by no means least, - everybody!!! - Stop using home made TA setups!!!!!! No matter how bomber you think they look. They have not been properly tested, and in the case of chain no guarantees are given as regards the strength. Please use only equipment manufactured for the purpose by a recognised climbing equipment manufacturer. Putting other's lives at risk just to save yourself R50-100 is pathetically selfish, and, should the anchors fail injuring or killing someone, you will be held responsible by the law. So - cover your ass (and everyone elses) and use proper equipment!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2006 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:09 am
Posts: 434
I don't know Grigri... I used all sorts of stuff as TA. Various chain, 'D' shackles,'I' nuts, pig tails, bent bits of flat bar & even huge shackles that they use to attach cargo to parachutes. All are good if viewed from a trad view point. Or compared to TA in Thailand.

Overkill is the best policy & always place anchors in pairs, thus there is always a second chance. Although two is not the world wide standard.
The real danger is the threading at the top....yet how many of our(SA) TA systems are non-thread systems?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2006 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Posts: 293
Agreed clip in systems would be nice but they are expensive.
My point is that people should only use equipment manufactured for the specific purpose by a recognised manufacturer of climbing equipment. This way there are no accidents due to improper equipment being installed, and, there is some system of quality control and assurance in place (This being done by the manufacturer). If people use whatever they like, there is no quality control or system standard.

I too have used various concotions in the past, Derek, but please do not encourage the general public to use whatever. National parks and Cape Nature certainly want a standard to be adhered to, as, I believe, do the MCSA. Over and above the need for a standard of safety, bolters should cover themselves against possible liability by using only proper climbing equipment for any anchor. If proper standards are applied and adhered to we can all look forward to a safer climbing environment and fewer access issues with regards to safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 7:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 5:39 pm
Posts: 304
Location: JHB
Hey GriGri, who are you referring to as as the \"general public\" in the following statement?

Quote:
I too have used various concotions in the past, Derek, but please do not encourage the general public to use whatever.


When does one change from a General Public bolter to a Real bolter?

_________________
Open hand, open mind...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Posts: 293
Ha Ha, funny man Mark! The General public refers to all who read this, bolters (myself, Derek, whoever), would be bolters, average joe climbers, and even non climbers (Possibly abseil site installers, landowners, Park management officials?).

You wouldnt want someone belaying you with a home-made carabiner would you? Would you tie into a home-made rope? Homemade hangers have been frowned on for some time. Why do people think this logic does not apply to top anchors?? Using proper equipment is the only way we have of offering a reasonable standard of safety to the climbers who repeat our routes and the landowners whose land the crags are on.
So quit bitching and fork out the dosh for decent equipment.

Maybe you 'graduate' to being a 'real bolter' when you worry about the safety of the anchors you are setting and take responsibility for doing a proper job?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:09 am
Posts: 434
When I met some of my current climbing partners they were both using home made figure 8s, harnesses...which still had those orange button seat belt clips & a large asortment of home made nuts & hexes. Scary shit.

Using home made stuff can be part of the adventure. Home made quick draws would make even Legoland exiting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 5:39 pm
Posts: 304
Location: JHB
I have been grumbelling about top anchors for a while. It always seemed strange to me that the MCSA provided stainless steel bolts and hangers but not top anchors (at least that is how it is up here in JHB). I made mention of this a couple years ago on one of these forums after someone was grumbelling about the size of chain used on a lot of the anchors at Hallucinagenic wall (Boven). The chain used was quite small which made threading the rope and clipping certain gates quite tricky. Fortunately things up here have changed and we are now provided with 2 or 4 links of 10mm galvaised steel chain attached to a hanger (the chain is not stainless steel but at least there is some uniformity and the chain looks quite beefy) by the MCSA. These as I understand are sourced from Mr Marshall (I stand to be corrected on that). Currently I'm unsure as to whether or not that set-up is rated or not? That info you would have to get from the supplier.

_________________
Open hand, open mind...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Posts: 293
Sounds exciting Derek! I'll be sure to equip my next route with drilled threads of faded tat (all pilfered from in situ rap stations-have to clean the mountain hey?) and no lower offs or top belay station! :lol: Kidding!

I guess all Im saying is we need to promote and push for the use of good equipment, considering some of the junk installed in past years, I think this is a reasonable request. This is not a personal attack on anyone (at least I hope it dont come across that way, even if I am in a bit of a cynical mood today). Just an observation and proposal.

Mark, proper stainless steel chain is very hard to come by and very expensive (its hand made). Im sure upcountry mild steel will do the job provided the anchors are inspected and replaced regularly. Both Raumer and Fixxe make Stainless steel rings that are awesome for TA's. Faders make a mild steel version. Chainlink is fine so long as its welded properly and not mass-produced machine-welded hardware store junk. Good to hear the MCSA up there is paying some attention to the issue, things are improving slowly in our country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:09 am
Posts: 434
Tests on the SKY TA showed that the chains were stronger than the hangers. In fact the chains-alone could not be broken as they could only test to 30KN.

Stainless chain is dam expensive. Welding SS is an issue, as is bending it, if it is thick. I have wondered if the Raumer TA with welds have been anealed or just pickled & tumbled.

I would still go with a 10mm chain fixed directly to the rock with a 90mm bolt. Its cheap & efective. Staunch galvanized hardware store chain fixed to a line at Morgan Bay (40m from sea) shows less rust than SS hangers fixed on the same day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Posts: 293
interesting about the strength and corrosion resistasnce of the chain. I have used chain in temporary placements (when stock of rings was not available). I would still advise would be bolters to stick to climbing equipment because of the whole standardisation liability thing. It would be cool if someone could do a bunch of tests on various chain etc available locally so that we could know what possible trustworthy alternatives there are to admittedly expensive imported equipment. We have used sky hangers inland as well as the faders galvanised chain ring lower offs and neither is showing any sign of corrosion two years on. The same hangers and hardware chain at the coast had notable surface rust after only six months, the gear was still totally safe just a bit unsightly. Could different coastal areas have different effects on the steel? Does proximity to a city and all the emmissions present in the air make a difference?

Too much to know....so little research....any interesting findings you have turned up Derek would be enlightening!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:09 am
Posts: 434
10mm chains, even if rusted, are not just going to snap at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: .
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:28 pm
Posts: 236
Everyone has the right to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Last edited by guest on Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:01 pm
Posts: 264
Location: JHB
I agree that we shouldnt compromise on quality, but there are a lot of top anchors out there already which are made of sub standard material - how much of a concern is this? Logic tells me that the top anchor takes a minimal amount of strain when you abseil off it (no impact - just your weight) compared to a bolt on the route, unless you are belaying off the anchors and when you belay off the anchors it is usually in a top rope type setup so the person you are bealying does not fall with high impact because there is little or no slack?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 5:39 pm
Posts: 304
Location: JHB
Normally I set my anchors with 2 x 90mm hilti stainless steel mechanical bolts onto which I fix one SKY TA (if they are available) and 4 links of 10mm galvanised chain. The four links provide ample space for a biner (for top-roping or cleaning) I'm also a fan of equal loads on either anchor. I haven't tested the chain myself but Dereks results on the strength of the chain don't surprise me at all. I do however visually check the welds on all the links before I place it. The nice thing about the SKY TA's and the chain is that both can be easily replaced if necessary.

Mark, the only time the anchor should/would take a serious load would be on a multi-pitch route where the lead climber factor 2's the belay. Loads on those anchors would be extremely high, depending on the nature of the fall.

If anchors look really-really dodgey (and your brain has convinced you that they are going to fail on the way down) why not run a prussik from your rope (which would be running upwards through your draws) back to your harness. That way, in the extremely unlikely event that both anchors fail, you should in theory only fall to the bolt below you.

_________________
Open hand, open mind...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Posts: 293
I think mark is refering to when you clean a route on toprope (preferable on many steep routes) and there are no bolts clipped below you, certainly an exposed feeling! Avoid this by leaving the last draw in on the way up and transferring it to the rope going down to the belayer, that gives you a back up while you do the whole untie and thread thing, attach the rope to your harness belay loop before you untie and you will always be on belay.

Toproping can produce high loads up to about 600kg at the anchors if the belayer leaves some slack in the line and higher if you are using static rope. Even swinging around to clean on the way down can produce loads up to 400kg. Dont be fooled, while these loads are not as high as the factor two scenario on multipitch routes (avoidable by placing the first clip of the next pitch near to the belay anchors), the anchors still need to be as strong and robust as possible, they will take a hammering. So dont skimp guys, lets use good solid equipment, nothing spoils an enjoyable route more than arriving at a kamikaze death anchor!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:09 am
Posts: 434
I can only imagine 10mm chain snapping on a logging ship or pulling a sherman tank. Truely take a grinder and cut through one side of a link...then try and bend it open. It's not that easy using tools.

I also mostly used 90mm bolts at the TA. Why the 90mm bolt? There is no good reason. 90mm bolts are not stronger than 68mm bolts. They are rated the same. 90mm bolts on TA is most likely a tradition carried over from when chains were fixed directly to the rock. Chain being thicker requires more thread to be exposed. 68mm bolts into solid rock are just as good as 90mm bolts into solid rock.

Sorry about the avalibility of SKY at the moment. Its a ethical dilemma too supply bolting hardware, while being currently very anti-bolting. I wish someone could convince me of the merits of bolting for climbing in SA. I just cannot see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:01 pm
Posts: 264
Location: JHB
Derrick, I agree that the standard variety of chain is extremely strong, you'd dislocate your hips before you pulled the chain apart, but I remember a discussion about stress fracturing on bolts etc. I would guess that if a weld had to come loose that eventually the link may stress fracture? That said galvanise chain is used to anchor boats, in sea water and it lasts \"forever\" I have never heard of a link opening, but then again that doesnt take the same impact force, but I do have faith in machine welding, if you take into account that a \"tack\" weld (which is less than the weld on that chain link) can hold 1000kgs. It would be interesting to see some sort of chart which shows climber weight, length of fall, kilonewton / kg impact and then to know the comparable strenght of the various bolts chains and TA's because I think we are all taking our best guess at this point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:09 am
Posts: 434
Welds should not come loose. The type of activity that would stress a TA; such as a lead fall on a muilti pich, top roping with a static & slack or climbing past the TA; should not hapen continuly. There should be limited repeditive stress.

Welds on normal steel should be healthy-er than in stainless.

Some real studies regarding fixed anchors would be most intresting. There are so many factors & considerations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:01 pm
Posts: 264
Location: JHB
Hi, I found an interesting site, dont know if or how it works yet

http://www.climbgeorgia.com/train/fall.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
Posts: 293
We should also note that there is a vast difference between the galvanising done to ships anchor chain (the real deal) and the zinc plating masquerading as galvanising on most hardware store chains.

Properly galvanised chain is indeed extremely resistant to corrosion, the surface is a darkish grey in colour and very rough, I looked at this, but the surface is far too rough to consider threading our precious ropes through let alone lowering off. Hardware store 'galvanised' chain has a silver grey finish often with a flecked appearance, it is smooth and rope friendly but offers far less corrosion resistance.

I still stand by my recommendation for people to use climbing equipment such as that produced by; Sky, Fixxe, Raumer, Faders, Petzl etc. It takes the guess work out of the picture which can only save lives in the long run.
Let the experts decide what works and what not and support them by buying their products. Please dont gamble with other people's safety!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2006 8:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 5:39 pm
Posts: 304
Location: JHB
The only problem I have with the Faders/Fixe (traditional) setup is that you only require a single point (the main ring) on the anchor to fail for the entire anchor to fail. The idea of the ring is better than a chain link though (if the ring is actually a ring and not oval) since the rope should not be wearing the same piece of the anchor continually since the ring would turn from time to time, thus extending the life of the anchor.

Personally I prefer two independent, equalllty loaded anchors. I feel that it's safer since if one point on one anchor fails the other one would still hold you since it's completely independent.

Is the chain on the SKY TA's not 10mm galvanised chain? I was under the impression that it was glavanised chain that is cut at the weld after which the hanger is inserted and the chain re-welded and (re)galvanised. Where is this 10mm galvanised chain sourced from as opposed to the 10mm chain that can be bought at harware stores and is there a significant difference? This isn't a rant about SKY TA's at all, but Gri-Gri lists SKY as recommended anchor as opposed to 'regular' 10mm galvanised chain which by all accounts seems the same? In an earlier post Derek said that the chain took over 30kN, so surely just the chain on its own would be a stronger anchor, but then the question is how strong is strong enough since the mean ultimate shear resistance of a M10 Hilti HSA-R stud is around 24kN?

_________________
Open hand, open mind...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group