Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999 Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
posted
I did some RP and fuel testing this week.
My intentions were to post multiple dyno graphs etc. I decided it was probably not a good idea. Many will do the same testing, so the data will soon be all over the place. I think maybe a quick summary is in order. If others findings are different, I know what I tested and feel pretty confident in my abilities to get accurate and consistent data. I think sharing on line is the only option.
Basically the average HP loss at peak was 7 hp, peak torque loss was about 4. The TQ loss at 5000 rpm was 5, the TQ loss from 5500-7000 was a solid 6 ft lbs. The HP loss stayed pretty consistent through the curve, little less at 5,000 and from 5500 up, it was pretty solid 6.5 to 7 HP. These were in ideal conditions with 50 degree cold air charges, the RP effect will increase with 80-100 degree days. My personal car went from 128/118 to 121/114.
My concerns are real world numbers under the NASA rules...
Trying not to be biased or accused of a bias. So just posting facts. You can interpret them whichever way you like. This is how I interpret them.
. Both NA cars have better power to weight ratios, both have more actual HP and weigh less than the 99/05. So I am unsure where any NB will contend. The NB will be slower down the straights, heavier in the corners on same tires and basically the same suspension.
My 99 has qualified inside the top 5 at the Runoffs the last two years running. So I think it is fair example top prepped 99 SM. It went from 128/118 to 121/114 with the plate change.
My 97 car dynoed with new engine and 123.5 /115 with 45 mm plate. It will easily be 124/115 with synthetic and break in. 125 is probable in that car,but will use 124 as best possible for this discussion.
A good 1.6 car will be 123+/108 , but again, will use 122 as peak for this discussion.
Here are the best numbers of top cars on my dyno in NASA trim: You take your pick :
122/108 1.6 @ 2285 lbs power/weight 19.86 124/115 1.8 car @2340 lbs p/w 19.58 121/114 99/00 @ 2400 lbs p/w 20.51 123/117 01/05 @ 2400 lbs p/w 20.00 The lower the p/w, the better.
If a particular car weighs the most, has the highest p/w number and does not have more actual HP, it will likely no compete very well.
In adjusting lots of cars over the last few years, I have never seen this formula work and it won't work in it's current configuration.
As many have said, let's see what happens. I don't think it is correct, but that is just one persons opinion. I don't claim to right all the time, just most! Time will tell. On the brigher side, we can let NASA do all of the on track testing this year and we can certainly use their data in SCCA. SCCA will benefit from the NASA data and rules without upsetting the parity we enjoy in the SCCA. Jim
Region: CFR
Car #: 97
Year : 1990/99 Posts: 788
Status: Offline
posted
Nasa got it wrong anyway you look at it! Sorry but all they did is kill the 99; although there are not many top flight 99s in NASA. If that was tried in SCCA all you would see is the same people in the front with different cars. My belief is that NASA will do anything they can to get the car count up even if it means not having a level playing field.
-------------------- 2010 ARRC Champion 2010 CFR Champion 2010 instigator of the year 2010/2011 Andrew Von C Wingman
I just wish NASA would be a bit more transparent on how they arrived at this rules change. I understand they're a for profit business though. It will be interesting to see what happens as the season gets going.
I'm still waiting on them to make a 37mm plate available for purchase. They're saying late January. Their first event in my region is late February so I'll only have maybe 1 or 2 available weekends to do the dyno testing. Not happy about that.
Region: AZ/SoPac
Car #: 92
Year : 99 Posts: 131
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Drago: On the brigher side, we can let NASA do all of the on track testing this year and we can certainly use their data in SCCA. SCCA will benefit from the NASA data and rules without upsetting the parity we enjoy in the SCCA. Jim
I had planned on doing at least 3 NASA events in california this year in my 99 car. That said; I do NOT feel that it is my job to spend my hard earned $, and my precious time to be the "real world test mule" to find out if NASA got it right.
therefore, I will NOT be attending those races in my 99 car until others are willing to do the real world testing for NASA and shows that they do in fact want parity( those #'s drago posts dont show that).
from what i have seen on the tracks in my area is that the parity was as close as one could ask for on the flat tracks we race on out here.
Furthermore, some transparancy on NASAs' part would have been the right thing to do from the start, not have Jim drago, or the NASA entrants spend their time and $ to do the testing for the public to see the results. this was why i was asking to see the dyno sheets when this was first announced.
if i read the #s correctly from above, NASA is basically saying that everything is now even hp/wt ratio in all cars, "just ignore the fact that the 99 will be ~100 lbs heavier than the 1.6" weight in a car is a key component to how a car will perform on the track under braking, cornering, and acceleration.
my question: is someone( the 99 driver) expected to just ignore the fact that they are carrying this extra mass(nearly what my wife weighs). its almost like the 99s have a passenger along with them, while the 1.6 does not; all other things being equal this does not add up to parity.
lowering the total mass in a racecar is critical. search colin chapman/lotus f1 on the internet if you dont know this stuff.
i see this as either NASA doesnt get it as far as how mass effects a race car, or that they see a business opportunity to try to basically exclude the newer cars and attract customers on that basis. I dont think NASA( a business, not a club) is stupid, so i suspect the latter.
really what this does is draw a line in the sand for some racers, and make them choose a club, and a year of car. this will not help car counts for either NASA or SCCA by promoting crossover, and all SM drivers end up short changed by lower car counts at races.
Region: So Cal
Year : 90 Posts: 74
Status: Offline
posted
I don't see why this is such a big deal to people that weren't running in the series anyway. Seems to me that this was done for the current customer base, not those that weren't running. Particularly comical to me is the rant from another thread that denigrated the sanction yet complained loudly about the rule change. If we're such hacks and backmarkers, why does it matter? I spent the time to see who has run NASA in the last season and none of the most vocal complainers could be found. And in some of those regions the NASA SM turnout is pretty slim.
Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999 Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
posted
Dave I wont speak for others, nor do I think I am complaining. I am trying to just post "my personal" findings and opinions. I planned on running some NASA this year as did many others as the champs are coming back to Mid Ohio. If the "complainers" didnt race with NASA before Champs moved out west or no plans to this year, I agree with you. Jim
Region: SFR / NorCal
Car #: 72
Year : 93 Posts: 1276
Status: Offline
posted
Honest question: do torque numbers have no bearing on race performance? They are reported above then ignored on all comparisons. I thought the major complaint against the newer cars was their torque advantage, which I think they retain. Also, the hp number looks right for my 1.6, but I've never been remotely close to 108 in torque.
Cheers,
Dean
-------------------- NASA Nor Cal SM series Director www.molaps.com
Winner - Ford Racing Mustang Challenge Driver Shootout
Evil Genius Racing / Race Engineering / Stewart Development
quote:Originally posted by dtfastbear: Honest question: do torque numbers have no bearing on race performance? They are reported above then ignored on all comparisons. I thought the major complaint against the newer cars was their torque advantage, which I think they retain. Also, the hp number looks right for my 1.6, but I've never been remotely close to 108 in torque.
Cheers,
Dean
I think most would say that torque matters. The numbers above were calculated by using hp + tq / 2 to get an average then dividing by the weight. So, torque was used for this comparison. Not sure if that is what you meant. I'm not sure why 2400 is used instead of 2390 though. If you use 2390 for 99/00 you get 20.34 and for the 01/05 19.92 for comparison.
Region: SW Division
Car #: 32
Year : 1999 Posts: 194
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by TillerTech: Dean,
Horse power is a calculated number from measured torque.
IMHO, the area under the torque curve is most important.
Flame away, J
Mmm, the relationship between horsepower and torque is a little more complicated than a simple conversion. This link does a decent job of explaining it (not my publication). Jump to the bottom of the link if you want the summary.
Region: SoPac
Car #: na
Year : 89 Posts: 441
Status: Offline
posted
HP = (measured tq * rpm) / 5252 pretty simple calculation. Where it gets really ugly is when you try to standardize the readings based upon testing conditions (correction factors).
One other factor is the type of dyno used and the even the operator influences the readings.
Chassis dyno's are a good way to tune and gives fairly repeatable comparisons. Driveline inconsistancy and even tire cof will influence results.
J
-------------------- Miata Race glass and CF from Legacy Molds. 4 1/2# CF Hood http://www.jnent.net
Region: SW Division
Car #: 32
Year : 1999 Posts: 194
Status: Offline
posted
John,
No argument with the simplicity of the torque/power formula. My point (perhaps poorly made) was that this only describes the mathematical relationship and does nothing to describe the behavior - which is far more complex and nuanced.
Region: WDCR
Car #: 56 "Earl"
Year : 1990, 1999 soon to be SM Posts: 2947
Status: Offline
posted
Jim,
Thanks for spending the time to do the testing. I am taking a "wait and see" approach. I just made the decision to move to a 99 and keep/rent/whatever my 90, I guess I will now become one of those "car for the track" guys. We still need to see what happens on the track. NASA can always (and has in the past) make weight adjustments throughout the year.
Region: Southwest
Car #: 22
Year : 92' Posts: 296
Status: Offline
posted
Mr. Drago,
Thanks for spending the time and money to do some testing.
I was going to run quite a few NASA races this year in my new 99 but now I am not sure I will waste the money to finish mid pack.
I will most likely run the first NASA race at MSRH which has proven to be a track with good parity for all models, based on last years SCCA rules. It will be a good test of what handicap the 99 has been handed. I have also been running quite a few laps out there every other weekend so I will have good cross reference data between the two restrictor plates. Unfortuneately I will not be able to make weight under NASA's new rules so their attempt to make cars closer in weight has already failed.
Ironic, that we build another car so I can make weight and immediately get handed a new rule set that puts me in the same situation.
I know you can appreciate this JD, If "the Tard" kicks my ass at MSRH we will know that NASA has gone too far.
Region: Lonestar
Car #: 75
Year : 3rd in the nation Posts: 522
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by dunk: I'm still waiting on them to make a 37mm plate available for purchase. They're saying late January. Their first event in my region is late February so I'll only have maybe 1 or 2 available weekends to do the dyno testing. Not happy about that.
Duncan
So if we have an event in January and the plates are not available are we going to be able to use the old plate??
-------------------- THAT JUST HAPPENED!!! -RickyBobby-
Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999 Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by MPR22: Mr. Drago,
Thanks for spending the time and money to do some testing.
I was going to run quite a few NASA races this year in my new 99 but now I am not sure I will waste the money to finish mid pack.
I will most likely run the first NASA race at MSRH which has proven to be a track with good parity for all models, based on last years SCCA rules. It will be a good test of what handicap the 99 has been handed. I have also been running quite a few laps out there every other weekend so I will have good cross reference data between the two restrictor plates. Unfortuneately I will not be able to make weight under NASA's new rules so their attempt to make cars closer in weight has already failed.
Ironic, that we build another car so I can make weight and immediately get handed a new rule set that puts me in the same situation.
I know you can appreciate this JD, If "the Tard" kicks my ass at MSRH we will know that NASA has gone too far.
I think MSR will be one of the better tracks for the new NASA rules. Tard is also pretty fast here, I saw it with my own eyes. I was already going to the dyno, so test was no big deal , about $20 and an hour to fab a 37 mm plate.
I think at first it may be a bit bumpy, but NASA has ability to make quick changes if they feel they are needed.
Region: southwest
Car #: 14
Year : 90 Posts: 739
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by MPR22: ... If "the Tard" kicks my ass at MSRH we will know that NASA has gone too far.
Actually, William can be peaty quick at both TWS and MSR-H. And I just did a spot check of SoWDiv results for the last year, of all the events I check where you and William both entered, he finished ahead of you. After all, he is the smartest DBA “tard” I know of.
Man, I wish I could make that event but other obligations beckon.
-------------------- "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." ~Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~Thomas Jefferson
Region: Southwest
Car #: 22
Year : 92' Posts: 296
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by cam: [QUOTE]Originally posted by MPR22: [qb] ... If "the Tard" kicks my ass at MSRH we will know that NASA has gone too far.
Actually, William can be peaty quick at both TWS and MSR-H. And I just did a spot check of SoWDiv results for the last year, of all the events I check where you and William both entered, he finished ahead of you. After all, he is the smartest DBA “tard” I know of.
Yeah, not every race, but most of them. But that was before I got me one of those Phillips Race Prep overdog 99's.
That alone should make me the favorite in a race with Tard according to Tard.
Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92 Posts: 697
Status: Offline
posted
My guess is more adjustments will be needed, but that is what is right about this approach, changes can be made cheaply and quickly. The other thing I like this that NASA believes that a change was needed. I have not run with NASA since ’08: I have sent in my license application and will order tires today. I will be voting with my entries fees and only running enough SCCA events to keep my license current. Taylor and Jim thanks for believing in me but you both know I am a solid mid pack driver on most days and now with my current 113hp crate I would watch others to see how the NASA rules are working. Yes, if I beat the NA 1.8s something is very wrong.
My planned schedule:
January 29-30 – NASA Motorsports Ranch, Houston, TX March 4-6 – SCCA Lone Star Texas World Speedway-2.9 Texas Two Step March 12-13 – NASA Motorsport Ranch, Fort Worth, TX April 30- 1 – NASA Texas World Speedway May 28-29 – SCCA Lone Star Texas World Speedway-2.9 Lone Star Grand Prix June 11-12 – NASA Hallett Motor Racing Circuit, Tulsa, OK October 22-23 – NASA Eagles Canyon Raceway
-------------------- William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard
Region: texas
Car #: 71,72
Year : 1990,1999 Posts: 166
Status: Offline
posted
Well I guess I need to get my NASA license and find a 37mm plate cause I am not missing the ross v tard race no how no way!! Also I would like to know how I can get in on the betting pool
Region: Southwest
Car #: 22
Year : 92' Posts: 296
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Chris Haldeman: Well I guess I need to get my NASA license and find a 37mm plate cause I am not missing the ross v tard race no how no way!! Also I would like to know how I can get in on the betting pool
Ross V Tard Betting Pool
1.All bets must be made with reputable offshore oddsmaker (BFC Singapore Ltd.) 2.All bets must be made with spec miata currency (AKA 205/50/15 RA-1 3/32 shave) 3.All bets must be in by 1/28/2010
Region: SFR
Car #: 12
Year : 99 Posts: 267
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: with my current 113hp crate I would watch others to see how the NASA rules are working.
Correct me if I'm generalizing your viewpoint incorrectly, but from reading your posts you are a 1.6 owner who believes the 99 is the gross overdog.
Yet, unless I'm missing some sarcasm, you have a 113hp crate? I don't know about in SowDiv, but I would imagine that in most parts of the country you wouldn't be competitive against any front-running car from ANY year. Why does the 99 then earn so much scorn? How does NASA's rule change benefit you if your prep level isn't competitive with top 1.6 or 1.8 cars?
Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99 Posts: 680
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: with my current 113hp crate I would watch others to see how the NASA rules are working.
Correct me if I'm generalizing your viewpoint incorrectly, but from reading your posts you are a 1.6 owner who believes the 99 is the gross overdog.
Yet, unless I'm missing some sarcasm, you have a 113hp crate? I don't know about in SowDiv, but I would imagine that in most parts of the country you wouldn't be competitive against any front-running car from ANY year. Why does the 99 then earn so much scorn? How does NASA's rule change benefit you if your prep level isn't competitive with top 1.6 or 1.8 cars?
I'd like to hear this one.........
-------------------- James York
sponsored by: Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA powered by: East Street Racing, Memphis TN set up guru: Gilfus Racing, Austin TX
Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92 Posts: 697
Status: Offline
posted
I had a Sunbelt (that i bought used for $2500 from Cajun Miata Man when he switch to ART for 2 more HP just before he switch to the NB) until it blew last year -- and i will have HP again someday I just don't have unlimited money. I do not judge the NB as a overdog by my performance (I am not that good). If I remember (I might be wrong) the 1.6 only won one weekend in the SOWDIV and that was the last national before the runoffs and all but one runoff bound NB stayed home and the one that showed hit the wall -- so yes in the SOWDIV if all the top NB stay home and/or crash the 1.6 can win.
p.s. overdog yes -- gross overdog no
quote:Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: with my current 113hp crate I would watch others to see how the NASA rules are working.
Correct me if I'm generalizing your viewpoint incorrectly, but from reading your posts you are a 1.6 owner who believes the 99 is the gross overdog.
Yet, unless I'm missing some sarcasm, you have a 113hp crate? I don't know about in SowDiv, but I would imagine that in most parts of the country you wouldn't be competitive against any front-running car from ANY year. Why does the 99 then earn so much scorn? How does NASA's rule change benefit you if your prep level isn't competitive with top 1.6 or 1.8 cars?
-------------------- William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard
Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92 Posts: 697
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: Yes, if I beat the NA 1.8s something is very wrong.
Someone much smarter than I (who isn't) pointed out to me that the NASA NA 1.8s didn't get the softer front bar so it might not be the overdog had that RP and weight be applied to a SCCA NA 1.8 -- my bad
-------------------- William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard
Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99 Posts: 680
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: I had a Sunbelt (that i bought used for $2500 from Cajun Miata Man when he switch to ART for 2 more HP just before he switch to the NB) until it blew last year -- and i will have HP again someday I just don't have unlimited money. I do not judge the NB as a overdog by my performance (I am not that good). If I remember (I might be wrong) the 1.6 only won one weekend in the SOWDIV and that was the last national before the runoffs and all but one runoff bound NB stayed home and the one that showed hit the wall -- so yes in the SOWDIV if all the top NB stay home and/or crash the 1.6 can win.
p.s. overdog yes -- gross overdog no
quote:Originally posted by Brian Ghidinelli:
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: with my current 113hp crate I would watch others to see how the NASA rules are working.
Correct me if I'm generalizing your viewpoint incorrectly, but from reading your posts you are a 1.6 owner who believes the 99 is the gross overdog.
Yet, unless I'm missing some sarcasm, you have a 113hp crate? I don't know about in SowDiv, but I would imagine that in most parts of the country you wouldn't be competitive against any front-running car from ANY year. Why does the 99 then earn so much scorn? How does NASA's rule change benefit you if your prep level isn't competitive with top 1.6 or 1.8 cars?
Ok, let me help; your wrong.
Luke, Matt and myself (and Bill C if want to count him) all had our runoffs 99s there.
To offer another theory on why you may view the 99s as overdogs. Go back to 07, 08; All the still active drivers in the top 10 in points those years have swapped to 99s. Maybe the top drivers are at the front regardless? John and Andy are the holdouts staying in 1.6s from those years, but they don't run regular. When they do race, they do well though. However, odds are stacked against them being 1 against 9. So, if was a betting man (ok I am), I would put my money on a 99 too with those odds.
Food for thought. Verges has done worse since swapping to a 99 from when he campaigned his 1.6L in 2009. Why? Went from podiums to around 5th or so.
-------------------- James York
sponsored by: Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA powered by: East Street Racing, Memphis TN set up guru: Gilfus Racing, Austin TX
Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92 Posts: 697
Status: Offline
posted
Matt hit the wall, I remember Luke having issues of some kind and nobody counts Bill C -- James, how did you let a 1.6 beat you -- do you show your face in public?
NA is the Mazda code for generation one Miatas 90-97
-------------------- William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard
Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99 Posts: 680
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: Matt hit the wall, I remember Luke having issues of some kind and nobody count Bill C -- James, how did you let a 1.6 beat you -- do you show your face in public?
NA is the Mazda code for generation one Miatas 90-97
No issues for Luke. Just slightly off on setup like me. We were back in 4th and 5th, if I recall for Sunday.
I did hide my face after that defeat. Not for getting beat by a 1.6L, but being bested by a punk kid and old man.
-------------------- James York
sponsored by: Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA powered by: East Street Racing, Memphis TN set up guru: Gilfus Racing, Austin TX
Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92 Posts: 697
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: Matt hit the wall, I remember Luke having issues of some kind and nobody count Bill C -- James, how did you let a 1.6 beat you -- do you show your face in public?
NA is the Mazda code for generation one Miatas 90-97
No issues for Luke. Just slightly off on setup like me. We were back in 4th and 5th, if I recall for Sunday.
I did hide my face after that defeat. Not for getting beat by a 1.6L, but being bested by a punk kid and old man.
yes, and in my book that old man should win almost everytime
-------------------- William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard
Region: SFR
Car #: 12
Year : 99 Posts: 267
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: I do not judge the NB as a overdog by my performance (I am not that good).
But still you're spending your money with NASA this year as a sign of support for slowing down a car whose parity relative to your own has nothing to do with the year of the car but your own prep level and budget?
-------------------- MotorsportReg.com / Haag Performance / Team SafeRacer 2010 San Francisco Region SMT Champion
Region: Houston
Car #: 51
Year : 1994 Posts: 411
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: Matt hit the wall, I remember Luke having issues of some kind and nobody count Bill C -- James, how did you let a 1.6 beat you -- do you show your face in public?
NA is the Mazda code for generation one Miatas 90-97
No issues for Luke. Just slightly off on setup like me. We were back in 4th and 5th, if I recall for Sunday.
I did hide my face after that defeat. Not for getting beat by a 1.6L, but being bested by a punk kid and old man.
Punk kid?
2 NA's go faster than 1. The old man and I just played smart and drafted the ENTIRE race. There was not a 99 in the field on their game that weekend...thank you for that.
Region: Houston; SWDIV
Car #: 15
Year : 99 Posts: 680
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by taylorf:
quote:Originally posted by Cajun Miata Man:
quote:Originally posted by Willie the Tard: Matt hit the wall, I remember Luke having issues of some kind and nobody count Bill C -- James, how did you let a 1.6 beat you -- do you show your face in public?
NA is the Mazda code for generation one Miatas 90-97
No issues for Luke. Just slightly off on setup like me. We were back in 4th and 5th, if I recall for Sunday.
I did hide my face after that defeat. Not for getting beat by a 1.6L, but being bested by a punk kid and old man.
Punk kid?
2 NA's go faster than 1. The old man and I just played smart and drafted the ENTIRE race. There was not a 99 in the field on their game that weekend...thank you for that.
Nah, it is just that the 1.6 is clearly an overdog at that track.
-------------------- James York
sponsored by: Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA powered by: East Street Racing, Memphis TN set up guru: Gilfus Racing, Austin TX
Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Time will tell. On the brigher side, we can let NASA do all of the on track testing this year and we can certainly use their data in SCCA. SCCA will benefit from the NASA data and rules without upsetting the parity we enjoy in the SCCA.
![[help]](graemlins/help.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[duck]](graemlins/duck.gif)
After all, he is the smartest DBA “tard” I know of. 
![[rockband]](graemlins/rockband.gif)
![[tipsy]](graemlins/tipsy.gif)
![[yep]](graemlins/yep.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic