08:50:52pm, Monday, April 29, 2024
|
Divisional Rules
|
Divisional committee meet on Friday of Enderle weekend
Lots of interesting rule changes and some age "old" issues MANY over lapping concerns regarding points. Not a new problem it's competition and limitations on how many events or sessions a licensed competitor must run to get points goes against the base of the association. Do competitor who gets a check and messes with the points is all part of it. 15 hook points and place points makes event attendance important. Make NTPC a non points event, run for ring? That would make it an exhibition class? Blue shirts like competition so probably not gonna happen. Back to bingo ball machine? What about poker chips in old coffee can. NTPA ENTRY has streamlined a great entry system. Which person plays with draw numbers? Mini rods have some good items: Emergency contact info at events. Not medical cards. 2 years experience before moving up? Might have to be done for all division newbies. Tough to enforce and if competitor is too old they should be kicked out? Head restraints and Hans type devices are in the rulebook. Pullers responsible for safety equipment.highly recommended for hans type device and roll bar padding. SFI 45.1 MINIS NOT PULLING IN AFTERNOON? Really? Committee for mid season rule changes? No. NTPA has good rule making structure all ready in place. Could see 3 year policy for rule/equipment changes. Puller arrives after class started: is that puller allowed to compete AND receive points? Ahhh....no. Bellhousing required re-cert is a part of motorsports. Because there are no dents etc. Doesn't mean it is enough protection. Have seen cans and helmets that look perfect, but have been damaged severely. Or course a long list of parts recommendations to consider at another time. ALL AGENDA ITEMS on that not so hard to navigate NTPAPULL.COM. s Sadly not arranged by date. Enderle weekend should be fun. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Posts: 1,161 |
For those looking for the proposed rule changes, here they are.
https://ntpapull.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-NTPA-Annual-Meeting-Agenda-Topics-for-Social-Media.pdf Brent Yaron Hooked Up Pulling Productions hookeduppullingproductions@gmail.com |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Suggesterator guy
|
GN Prostock.
MINIMUM turbo size 5.1" Or 4.9" |
|
Super farm inner coolers
|
Puller22
|
Super farm should just add the inner cooler then the rules will be the same as ppl. Don't need the weight and draw bar rules. Just add the cooler and the problem is solved. This is what would be best for the class. |
|
Re: Super farm inner coolers
|
Tomah winner
|
How about the PPL DROP the cooler and be the same as the NTPA!? Do you have any idea how much work it is to use an intercooler? There is WAY more plumbing needed to be done, and it is a lot more of a hassle. Also, more money going into ice and other stuff. |
|
Re: Super farm inner coolers
|
.02
|
Keep NTPA and PPL rules as they are.
It helps limit class size, and gives pullers a choice. |
|
Re: Super farm inner coolers
|
Ice Cold
|
How the heck does it get them a choice where to pull. If you have a cooler you can pull PPL only.
If you do not have a cooler you can pull both NTPA and PPL. It does not give them a choice it make a person have to make a choice between the two. What someone proposed to the NTPA is Absolute stupidity. Down 300 pounds no? Drawbar at 18" stupid. That person has never ran against a PPL tractor. A good running NTPA tractor will run with a good running PPL tractor. It has been proven time and time again. For a trial year let the cooler tractors run with no weight or drawbar changes. Just have to run per hook no points. Getting rule uniformity helps to grow the sport of pulling. If one has a pull one day and the other not there is a choice on where to go. |
|
No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
Registered: 01/07/2022 Posts: 102 |
If the clutch cam is SFI certified then it is strong enough to hold the explosion. |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
HP
|
History proves you WRONG!!!!! |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
Concerned
|
I would sure like to know what history your talking about. |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
HP
|
Aluminum clutch cans are breaking. Usually not from clutch/flywheel failures, but the few clutch failures that have occurred have proven the Aluminum cans may not contain the damaged parts.
Also, from what I understand, (and I hope I understand wrong) the SFI testing is for a failed FLYWHEEL only. So the can and liner have to contain the flywheel parts. The steel and Titanium cans are able to contain everything in the event of a failure. Aluminum cans sometimes don't. However, the breaking issue is very much a prominent issue, and in my opinion is enough reason to eliminate their use. |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
Ex Official
|
And the Titanium cans have failed as well--- just this summer on a low Cubic in truck - 410 running CI with Natural Aspiration turning 10,000 RMPs had a can fail that allowed clutch parts to fly out over the grandstand. The Can was just factory certified in the early part of the 2023 pulling season. Stuff can and will break... |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 494 |
To Ex official.....did the bellhousing itself fail, ie come apart so it was in fragmented pieces, or did the 17 bolts that hold it to the motor fail? Just asking, because most times it is the fasteners that fail, not the actual bellhousing. |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
Concerned
|
I am more interested in the circumstances surrounding these so called failures. I have been pulling for 25+ years and have never even seen a can get used for anything more than a way to support a transmission. People here are talking like this happens often???? Were they failures of the can or failures of the installer / inspector? Or a modification that occured after purchase? I would like to see pictures of specific part failures and not just hypotheticals/rumors. Im also curious as to the breaking cans. I know of some aluminum cans that have been in service for over 10 years and they aren't breaking. Were they asking it to support a three speed tranny without and support saddles? Over torquing bolts? I mean it shouldn't have to do anything normally besides hang there and how does that break things??? |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
Registered: 04/04/2016 Posts: 110 |
If I understand correctly the damaged Can / accident being referrenced, the flywheel clutch and complete assembly came off. This is another issue, the bolts failed, or crank failed? Not sure which, but point being sometimes we seem to make rule changes to a specific part, when the root cause was the actual issue.
BB |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
Registered: 04/04/2016 Posts: 110 |
And, it takes time to get Cans....if these are outlawed, will there be enough steel cans in time? Plus your adding about 50+ pounds to Mods which could cause another issue. Think it through....
BB |
|
Bob are you saying…..?
|
Registered: 01/07/2022 Posts: 102 |
That failure analysis should be done before we make knee jerk reactions? That makes way to much sense and goes against the grain of how pulling has always done things. Looking those rule proposals over I just shake my head. All this garbage knee jerk reactions. I think it’s sad the lady in Pennsylvania died, but; was a failure analysis done on that turbo? Did the competitor have the cross bolts in of proper size and grade? How old was the turbo? When was the last time it was rebuilt and freshened up? All kinds of questions and a knee jerk reaction of everybody buy a billet cage. Why is there never any serious talk of backing the fans away? We still treat this sport as if we are running on 1975 technology and allow fans to sit on their tailgates 10’ from the track with no safety netting, nothing. If we put rules on promoters though we might lose a promoter and God forbid that happen. To the anti component crowd and NTPA seriously, let them in. Let them in ALL classes. These cast rear ends are 60+ years old. Where is the spec on how much cast can be removed, where is the spec on how much you can turn down an axle housing, where is the spec on how short you can cut a stock axle and how much material you can drill out to hollow them out, where is the spec on how 9 bolt hubs need to be attached to the housing? If the picture is any indication of what is going on in the tractor classes the previous questions need addressed. For a company that touts safety, what on God’s green earth is safe about that? All for the sake of saying it’s a tractor rear end? How much liability does the organization have knowing a more durable option for chassis exist but not allowing it? Then you wonder why transmission housings and axle housings and 9 bolt hubs are breaking. Had a LLSS send a 30.5 down the track at Canton. This is motorsports, it stopped being “tractor” 30+ years ago. Use some common sense, the organization is doing nothing to curb turbo technology, fuel pump technology, tire technology etc., but by god you better have a cast rear end. That line of thinking is asinine at best. Components aren’t going to kill any class, we have history that shows it won’t, the same whining and b!tching occurrd every time they were given to a new class and not a one of those classes has died. If rules are going to be made do some real research, do some failure analysis, dig deeper and stop with all the knee jerk horse puckey and let’s be forward thinking for the future of our sport and stop building tractors based off of 1960’s early 70’s platforms. |
|
Re: Bob are you saying…..?
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 631 |
OH1979er,
One thing that I would disagree on is what you call knee jerk reactions. Let's just look at the turbo explosion, was the response knee jerk, maybe but for organizations to take the time to analyze the parts involved (if they could even get access to them,not likely) they are then allowing events to take place with onlookes thinking that they aren't responding at all to a tragic accident. Another example is the driveshaft coming out of a Mod tractor at the farm show. The next night they had tethers on everyone's driveshafts...knee jerk...not really they showed the initiative to make a quick change that made everyone safer. That issue then was further looked at and rule changes made in a more permanent way. Should components be in all classes maybe after all the paint is really the only stock part on most any tractor. You might say the block but how many of those are now recast. I have no horse in that race so no its not my place to push one way or another but as an organization maybe a little push and shove is in order. You ranted (your words not mine) on Facebook about the committee's, board members and so on need replaced and a new direction established. One thing you need to remember is that most of these members volunteer to sit on these boards and committee's only to be belittled and ranted at for their opinions and or votes. It's often times very difficult to sit in a meeting having to make choices that are going to cost pullers thousands of dollars either to change their competition vehicle or do way with things they already have spent money on. The term "Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. We belong to an HOA in Florida, I would not be able to sit on that board! People rant at what you do as well as what you don't do. The ranting people don't want anything to do with being a board member but only to tell them what they do wrong. Not very many NTPA members make an effort to participate in the committee meetings, even committee members often are no shows...it's a thankless job for the most part. S'no Farmer |
|
Re: Bob are you saying…..?
|
Registered: 01/07/2022 Posts: 102 |
No they don’t volunteer Todd, yes on the divisional committees but the NTPA board is voted on. I’ve sat in on enough meetings over the last 20 years to know they don’t allow new blood on. I’ve seen very good friends try to get on only to be black balled. To allow components is not to outlaw cast although I think some very serious questions need answered on what specs are going to be on removing cast.. I would gladly sit on that board any day of the week but I’m not a good ol boy card carrying member. |
|
Re: Bob are you saying…..?
|
Registered: 04/04/2016 Posts: 110 |
Todd,
The Tethers were a complete Knee Jerk reaction, after analysis of the situation it was found that the wrong material was used on those two particular shafts by accident. The Tethers would not hold that shaft coming out. I'm 100% sure that the Manufacturer now has a system in place to safe guard this never happens again, as Do I at my shop. The Tethers may be a move to show safety being addressed to cover the Associations and their insurance policies remaining in place and I understand that, we must have insurance to Pull. My point is, the Root Causes may be known, but not addressed in Pulling most times. Which leaves the door more open to repeat situations. If Pulling Outlaws Aluminum Bellhousings, they are saying we do not trust SFI certifications...In this instance....You can not have your cake and eat it too! SFI testing is No Joke, and we should honor their findings, as do all Racing Organizations. I feel like too many decisions are made in the Pulling World based off of a few negative posts on Social Media, the facts and the science are what needs to be the driving force of the decisions made. BB |
|
Reply
|
Registered: 03/26/2008 Posts: 494 |
Can I give Bob a dozen thumbs up for his post
he Tethers were a complete Knee Jerk reaction, after analysis of the situation it was found that the wrong material was used on those two particular shafts by accident. The Tethers would not hold that shaft coming out. I'm 100% sure that the Manufacturer now has a system in place to safe guard this never happens again, as Do I at my shop. The Tethers may be a move to show safety being addressed to cover the Associations and their insurance policies remaining in place and I understand that, we must have insurance to Pull. My point is, the Root Causes may be known, but not addressed in Pulling most times. Which leaves the door more open to repeat situations. If Pulling Outlaws Aluminum Bellhousings, they are saying we do not trust SFI certifications...In this instance....You can not have your cake and eat it too! SFI testing is No Joke, and we should honor their findings, as do all Racing Organizations. I feel like too many decisions are made in the Pulling World based off of a few negative posts on Social Media, the facts and the science are what needs to be the driving force of the decisions made. |
|
Re: Bob are you saying…..?
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 631 |
Bob,
You can say that about most any rule we have, if they didn't do anything about the driveline issue because they found a metal treatment issue and said...OK we found the root cause so we don't need tethers. Next year another driveline comes out of a tractor for a different reason and someone is hurt or killed the lawyers would have a huge payday because it happened last year and the organization did nothing to prevent it the next time. Once apon a time I broke the crank on my middle engine being that the front two were crank to crank the front engine free revved and parts of both engines hit the track. After the event a spectator came to me with a side throw from my crank that probably weighed 5 lbs, it had landed right next to his chair. We watched the video and could see the part came from between the frame rails hit the track and fly. The next time I ran my tractor it had a panel fastened to the frame rails to catch or at least slow down these parts. To this day I make my side shields go under the oil pan not just along side. Is that a knee jerk reaction on my part, I knew the root cause but there was no way to know it wouldn't happen again so to this day I have modified side shields on my tractors because that is easier than living with knowing I had hurt a spectator! Our gearbox ballistic blankets are a pain in the butt to deal with, we had a proposal a few years ago to do away with them on anything but Turbines because the only vehicles that had gearbox explosions were Turbines. We were told absolutely no way was that going to happen. They had found the root cause but we are stuck with the blankets anyway. Knee jerk maybe but don't you think they are worried about the ramifications of not acting? S'no Farmer |
|
Re: Bob are you saying…..?
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,446 |
A knee jerk reaction is easy to say with the benefit of 20, 20 hindsight. If there is a solution to a problem then it must take place as soon feasibly possible. If a second incident happens an no corrective action has been taken then its a lawyers dream. The NTPA has always been the leader in safety and I trust their knowledge and judgment. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Re: Bob are you saying…..?
|
Registered: 04/04/2016 Posts: 110 |
Respectfully, you Guys are missing my point. Is anything being done to address Root Cause issues? I know all these folks involved on a personal level, I'm in the know on this stuff, cause I do it too. Could drive shaft manufacturers be required to send material certs and Heat treat certs with drive shafts, or...assign them serial numbers and keep paperwork on hand. Could Competitors be required to change drive shafts and any type of input shafts every 3 seasons? I could name several folks this would have saved an engine if nothing else. My point is, we slap a band aid on issues to cover ourselves Legally, but do we use our Brains to help solve the actual issue and make things safer. What if that Drive shaft had went in the Rollcage, He was the closest person to the incident. I bet competitors would be fine with occasionally buying new drive shafts etc. Bellhousings don't need to have an infinite life span either in my opinion. What we are doing is extreme, it puts stress on parts we sometimes cant even imagine.
BB |
|
Re: Bob are you saying…..?
|
Moderator Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 1,446 |
Bob. I agree totally, however you and the rest of pulling world know that the pulling organization are NEVER proactive, they are reactivate to issues. The real question is how do you get the undermanned (women) to even have the time or resources to do it. And unfortunately we only find a problem when something catastrophic happens. There are so many classes with so many different issues it will take a total group effort. Dick Morgan www.PULLOFF.com Independent Pulling News |
|
Re: Bob are you saying…..?
|
Registered: 04/04/2008 Posts: 631 |
Bob,
Not to belabor the subject but I think labeling of some kinds of response to serious breakage as knee jerk is kind of insulting to the people trying to minimize our exposure. I also think these discussions are important, so no offense to anyone involved, just another opinion. I can think of at least 4 reasons a driveline could come out of a tractor so root cause or not I think the tethers are an inexpensive and easy way to limit any damages or injuries. In my case it is well worth the time,effort and cost for my piece of mind. If we get to the point of having to completely disassemble every part of our tractors to magnaflux every part each off-season I'm out, don't have the time or money for that. I have areas that concern me that I feel like I need to be more proactive to try to address, haven't gotten a solution yet but I feel the need to make my tractors as safe as possible with reasonable cost. Are blower restraints knee jerk, are the cables around SS engines knee jerk? We know the root cause but the easiest course for retaining parts was some version of tethers. S'no Farmer |
|
Re: No aluminum clutch cans.. stupid
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
It should be noted that even aluminum cans have steel liners in them and they are required to be the full length of the can and circumferential. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
TWD Puller
|
Everyone wonders why the TWD has a big following? Just looknat these rule requests. Only one that pertains to the TWDs. Not having rules change everyyear and the fact the rules go across the the country is why its popular. Not have a Tractor that can pull in this state two states over and sometimes on Tuesday is dumb. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
This is why
|
So I sold a light Pro to build another. Figured get ahead of the game on component chassis. Hopefully NTPA allows maybe they won't. Got enough pulls with PPL. But that was my decision based on the rule changes. But now let's put in 5.0 or 4.8 or 4.6. Whatever... So now it's going to turn Into a high priced supermarket game. Map rings, clover style, big money 10 hp gains. No thanks. Limiting exhaust side capped it. You can have a big inefficient air wheel or a smaller more efficient air wheel. Cause the same exhaust size there. 10,11,9 blades who cares. Different ways of doing things. That's what it's all about. Heck I remember spinning an Ole 13 blade in past. I put hold on things, till see where things go. I don't think I'm interested in building another if we start the turbo game and keep changing rules. Just my choice maybe right maybe wrong. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Curious
|
Hope Ntpa allows components. Be nice to get rules the same across the board with PPL & NTPA - It’s been a long time coming… Too many broken ag chassis’s hurting class numbers. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Tomah winner
|
How many people are really breaking ag chassis? I don't seem to hear or see a lot of people breaking them. So why would the light pro class need them? I keep hearing everybody say on here, "why won't the NTPA just put in the rule to make everybody uniform on the rules!" WHY DO THE OTHER ASSOCIATIONS KEEP ADDING THESE NEW RULES? WHY DON"T THEY WAIT UNTIL THE NTPA MAKES A NEW RULE, AND THEY FOLLOW IT?! |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
the real problem
|
The real problem with the rules not being cohesive across all the organizations is that the rule making process has to much influence from the puller. What i mean by that is that each organization has committees or pullers that make up a board to set rules. Too many pullers can't leave their vehicle and personal agendas at the door when they walk into the meeting and look at it as a whole. We will use the new 5.0 Pro Stock class as an example. So a bunch of guys can't compete or do't want to compete at the grand National or Champions tour circuit so they come in and decide hey lets make a new class. Instead of looking at it as there is 4.1 Limited Pro or Lt Pro that we could pull in lets make a whole new class to start. All it does is divide people. The same kind thing happens across organizations. There are to many diesel tractor classes now and people just keep adding instead of joining what's already out there. When the powers to be in each organization can sit down at a table together and create a set of rules that are the same across the board then we will go places |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Not tomah winner
|
I know of 5 or 6 this year and more last year. Majority of the guys who have broke are sitting until something is done. Tomah winner you must have a red back half - those are the only ones holding up and I’ve even watched a couple of those fail this year. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Registered: 01/04/2022 Posts: 91 |
It isn't like a lot of guys are sitting. if you look across SS and ntpa regional and even outlaws, the numbers are great. 22 light pros in hillsboro. even with engine breakage ntpa regionals average 8-10 depending on location. I'm not sure the guys you state are sitting because of no component, otherwise sitting because of no parts still. some still haven't been out this year because of blocks, rods, etc etc |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Yawn
|
All those are a problem I agree & i also agree that a few events have had decent numbers. But I can also remember a time region two had 15-35 tractors all summer long at 30+ events. You also can’t say there is not a reason for concern on ag rearends and transmissions. 3000 horse through a chunk of cast built 30+ years ago designed for 100-150 HP farm tractors is not a recipe for success. I get it’s cool to have farm tractor rear half’s but it’s time to move on, we are spending entirely too much on motors to not be allowed to put something reliable behind them. I know of several tractors sitting right now because of parts that they wouldn’t need had their drivelines been more reliable. Has NTPA seen what is being done to red rearends to make them lighter in an 8500 lb class? How is that safe? And for that matter why is it legal? Hacking cast iron away to put a transmission in is one thing but this has gotten entirely out of hand. They are components now anyway. |
|
NTPA modified proposals- radial and turbines
|
Moderator Registered: 07/06/2008 Posts: 1,347 |
One thing that makes zero sense to me over the years is the lack of consistency in the mod rules. The Radial Reactor tractor should be legal, period. I'd like to know the thought process behind not allowing radials at all class levels. In Europe they've successfully ran for years. To quote the late Dennis Johnson, "it's either legal or it isn't." Variances are crap rules.
I saw the Walsh proposal (I assume Walsh because no one else owns 3 turbine tractors I'm aware of). It would be great to the Walsh turbines run at NTPA events. Refresh my memory: The two turbine tractors with 3 t-64's would currently be legal in the unlimited class only? Or is there an issue with NTPA limiting new turbine vehicles. What about the yellow twin Walsh turbine formerly owned by LD Nation. Currently, would that one be legal in NTPA GN 7500 mod, or unlmited only, or is the type of turbine the tractor runs not legal for any NTPA class? This isn't NTPA, but did PPL change their mod rules to mirror the NTPA mod rules? If so, 3 t-64s are certainly not dominating over the NTPA setup. I say let them run in the 7500 mod class (if PPL is running the same rules this year). Oh, and there is no reason to disallow turbines in the light mod class. It's hurting for numbers and I suspect a twin turbine would not dominate that class, especially at the lighter weight. Who thought that one up? Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2023 02:25PM by The Original Michael. |
|
Re: NTPA modified proposals- radial and turbines
|
Posts: 1,161 |
Yes, PPL has mirrored rules to the NTPA Mod class besides they were running them at 7800 pounds this year. Brent Yaron Hooked Up Pulling Productions hookeduppullingproductions@gmail.com |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Tomah winner
|
That isn't a lot. It sucks for those that it did happen to, but just because they broke theirs doesn't mean everybody else has to replace theirs and go component. Components can break, too. It has happened before and will happen again. So now what do we do? Both components and ag rear ends can break. Are we trying to make them indestructible? |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Noticer
|
Interesting the one supporting NOT allowing components, broke a rear weld on wheel hub at Bowling Green. Luckily the gussets and brake caliper kept the hub on to get the tractor off the track. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Tomah Loser
|
It's simply embarrassing that the NTPA won't allow components in lt pro. The cats already out of the bag with ppl allowing them, for good reason too. By not allowing components you are practically saying that as an organization you are okay with the fact that cast rear ends are more likely to fail and increases the chances of someone getting hurt but it's worth the risk because the cast rear end keeps idea that pullers are still using original parts off of tractors.
I do appreciate the idea of letting intercooled super farms pull in NTPA. All super farm pullers should be allowed to pull anywhere that has a super farm class. We do not need different versions of this class. I would really like NTPA to allow intercoolers so that the super farm class can be the same across the country. Yes, dragging around ice is extra work but it's worth doing it if it means that it unifies the class and helps super farms put on a better show by spinning out at the end of a pull instead of falling on their faces. Fellow pullers, you have to stop thinking about what's better for you and start thinking about what's better for the pulling world. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Tomah winner
|
I would like PPL to get rid of intercoolers. After that, the Super Farm class would be unified in that sense as well. Super Farms don't NEED intercoolers. Just give that a thought before busting my ass that I don't like components or intercoolers. It's just an opinion guys, calm down. |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Tomah winner
|
Let's remember that those hubs held for 31 years. That's a damn long time! These breaks don't happen often. And I'm not just talking about our class or ourselves, but to anybody out there. If you have a good welder who knows what they are doing, I'm sure you'll be fine. For anybody who doesn't know, I am Morgan Schulte. Noticer, who are you? |
|
Re: Divisional Rules
|
Registered: 01/04/2022 Posts: 91 |
Hey, it surprised us, but 31 years they just got tired lol. I'd like to see someone else try that with as much success as we had. Not saying we will do that for the future, but its still kinda impressive. |
Website Statistics
Global: Topics: 38,651, Posts: 229,723, Members: 3,325.
This forum: Topics: 37,068, Posts: 225,910.
Global: Topics: 38,651, Posts: 229,723, Members: 3,325.
This forum: Topics: 37,068, Posts: 225,910.
Our newest member JD_8520
