![]() |
Inspection Stories
There was a 2012 thread for this, but I didn't want to necro-post it.
As inspectors, our goal is to get all teams on the field with a legal robot that meets the rules. Sometimes, this requires herculean efforts by the inspection team and the valued and experienced mentors and students that will work with another team's robot with no notice, to make sure everyone gets a chance to compete. Inspectors, what are the crazy things you've dealt with at events? Please share your "war stories" below. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
Team member: Oh, one of those black ones. Me: Oh, a CIM? can I see it? TM: Uh, well, it's all sealed up in the device and kind of hard to get to. It looks just like that motor from the kit, though. Me: Does it look like the motor or is it the motor? Does it have any of these part numbers on it? TM: It's the one that came in the thing. Its from the same motor manufacture and looks like its the right size, so it's close enough, right? Me: ... What ensued was a long meeting with the LRI, me and the team. I don't know what the final call was. we were behind on inspections so I went to look at other teams. They did eventually passed inspection, but I never figured out if they swapped in a legal motor, if the one in the device turned out to be genuinely legal or if the LRI just let it go. It did look legal... Besides that, I think 98% of inspection issues have been about bumpers. No one likes hearing about bumpers not passing, so I'll save those stories. |
Re: Inspection Stories
2013 our team used copper tube from the compressor to reduce the chance of heat affecting the vinyl tubing. After the first 6 inches or 1st fitting we used the vinyl. We passed inspection initially then our inspection was revoked. The head person of the event (not inspector) said it was illegal. Could not cite a section in the rule book as to why since it was the proper size and was not unsafe. They made us change it. We changed it and then saw two more robots with the same setup who also passe inspection. They made them change it after we mentioned the other teams. We felt bad pointing out the others but felt it was wrong that we had to change something that was perfectly safe and not illegal in the rules book.
|
Re: Inspection Stories
My inspection war stories are coming from a team mentor's perspective, wondering why the inspection takes over an hour when the robot is 100% legal, beautifully wired, and passed at its prior event. Some inspectors just want to chit chat, and others are not familiar with common FRC parts. And then there was the one that had an issue with our bumper pins not being robust enough. After my students refused to change it, and called over the head inspector, lifted the robot by its bumpers, then swiftly kicked it in the side, we were finally passed on it.
They really need to stop hassling 15+ year veteran teams who know what they are doing, and focus on the rookies who need the help. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Last year I had to inform a 2nd year team that they had to rewire all of their 40 amp circuits because they were all done with 14 AWG wire. It killed me to do it. Much of their wiring was inaccessible, but the kids took it in stride and had it done 5 minutes before pits closed that night.
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
However, veteran team status does not equal "always complies with all rules". Team leadership changes, both on the student and mentor side. I've called teams with three digit numbers on (admittedly small, yet important nonetheless) items. I've had teams recently in the high 1000s with illegal motors or fans, and teams with low 4000s numbers with massive frame issues. Lastly, passing at a prior event is not evidence of passing at this event. Lots of things can happen in the 6 hour rush of unbag time (for district events), and sometimes inspectors just miss things. EDIT to say that all LRIs would be happy to welcome experienced mentors to help, even if it's only for a few hours during unbag/initial inspection. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
From a team's perspective: My sophomore year of high school our robot was made out of steel. At CVR that year (the first year the event took place, 2012), we got 95% of the way through inspection until one of the inspectors noticed that our frame had current going through it. We looked through the entire robot's electronics, and nothing was contacting the frame. Every piece was isolated. We took apart and rerouted all of our electronics, several inspectors had come by and tried their hand at it, even some of the control systems people from other teams tried their hand at it. It all looked perfectly okay, but the frame still had a charge. They eventually passed us telling us to keep an eye out and the robot worked normally the rest of the event.
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
15 year old teams aren't immune to making mistakes, sorry to tell you. They also aren't immune to turnover - losing one or two key people can send you from being division finalists at champs one year to ranking in the bottom half at both of your regionals the next, with a robot that barely works. I've seen it happen. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
It's all part of, as a volunteer, putting the team experience at events as the top priority, and treating teams fairly while assuming good faith. Just something we all have to keep in mind when inspecting (and I'm sure the vast majority of inspectors do!). |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
Chris makes a good point though - one that I've seen happen often out in California. Some inspectors out here seem to like giving certain teams a hard time for no better reason other than the fact that they're different from other teams. I was always confused as a student why my barely functioning team flew through inspection at most* events, and while the very well put together team in the pit right next to us (back when pits were in numerical order) was being harassed by an inspector. *see above post of mine for exception |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
Also, to jump the gun a bit here, I would say that diligence on the part of the inspector is a service to both the team and the event. For the event, it is making things safer and more consistent. For the team, it's judging the robot's compliance with the rules at a higher level of scrutiny. So long as the inspector isn't inventing rules, I think we should all appreciate attention to detail. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
As an inspector the weirdest thing was probably this
https://scontent.fybz1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...d1&oe=59099038 They tried to use it too adjust the height of a pneumatic cylinder. We couldn't find anything illegal about it so they ended up being allowed to use it. They also wanted to mount a old school wireless security camera to the robot and carry a small CRT monitor on their driver station. Obviously we didn't allow that. Also I'd bet 95% of teams have a incorrectly filled out BOM (or whatever they changed the acronym to). No matter how old the team is or how many times they've been on Einstein I still see teams putting KOP items on the BOM and forgetting expensive items like sensors. I usually don't make a fuss about it as it's almost impossible to go over budget and more times than not the budget is lower than what was listed on the BOM. Same goes for the pressure relief valve, you don't even know how many teams I inspected didn't set it at all or didn't even know how to set it. As a student the worst experience I've had (and one of the reasons I like to inspect nowadays) was when a inspector spent literally an hour trying to figure out if the wire on our CIM motors from the KOP were too small because they did not list the gauge on the wire. We tried to explain that even if they were too small it would be illegal to modify them to no avail. I understand simple mistakes but this was just silly. |
Re: Inspection Stories
As a mentor:
As an inspector:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
My favorite inspection story:
-Load into building as early as physically possible -Get pit prepped and robot with no modifications necessary ready to be inspected -Wait for event LRI to eventually communicate how to commence with inspections, with challenges that range from "stand in a long line" to "guess the neon hat with the proper form" to "just wait, we'll be right there". -Keep waiting for an hour -Inspector comes, gets through inspection except for something like the pressure release valve or a sharp corner -Inspector disappears into the ether, never to be seen again until <15 minutes before the day is over -I get really hungry and sad at some point Repeat like, 4 or 5 times. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
The team was very straightforward - they knew their robot capabilities and knew they wouldn't get picked. They had a long drive home ahead of them and wanted to get started. I could understand their reasoning, but still didn't really want to let them to leave and miss out on a potential opportunity to be playing that afternoon. I finally asked what their ranking was, figuring if it was dead last I would give up and let them leave. Nope, they were ranked 11. My mouth dropped open, and I probably looked like a fish gasping for water after it was caught. I told them they would probably be alliance captains, to get back to their pit and put together a pick list. They were captains of the 7th seed and had a great time that afternoon. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Back when my daughter was on a team, she was scared to death of one particular inspector. She was the nicest lady, but did have an imposing presence and was known to be thorough. They always passed, and the inspector complemented them on knowing so much about the wiring rules.
If the team was doing something I considered slightly sketchy, I'd ask them, "Do you want to try to get that past Mr. Patton?" And later as a head ref, I had several conversations with the LRI to see if I agreed with his interpretations of the rules. I always backed him up. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
It was a veteran team that got a good talking to. Quote:
I RI at Wisconsin, which tends to be late in the season. Most teams have already competed at another regional. It seems like every year I find a violation that was missed at the prior regional. They complain, so I get the LRI involved to confirm the problem. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
We were at a Regional event several years back in the first year that there was a "size limit" on the operator interface. I believe that the dimensions included a width of 12" for the interface. Our inspector measured ours at 1/8 of an inch over and would not pass us. (Students had designed the interface and had forgotten that when you have a 12 inch plate size and you attach 1/16" pieces on the outside of it, you don't get 12")
The only issue I had (having inspected for a number of years myself...) was that the inspector just stood and looked at us as if we could somehow shrink our fabricated, riveted interface while he watched. I know what I would have done as an inspector and that was talk to the LRI and ask the team to fix it for the next regional. I talked about it with the team and I decided that we did not have the ability to remake the interface at the event. I went back to the inspector and told him that we would not be able to compete at the event. in a short time, the inspector came over and told us that we just needed to fix it before the next event. It consistently amazes me that some teams are treated differently than others. Younger teams get on the field with lots of violations.... and as long as they don't give a competitive advantage, that's fine with me. Last year we were dinged for using a "Medieval Style numbering on our bumpers... the maker of the numbers had "cleared" the style... or so we were told.... they were ironed on.... This time we were allowed to compete...(it seems that all of the strokes in the numbers were not 1/2" thick.... in the eyes of the inspector) We had to completely remake two sets of bumpers... at a cost of about $150 in materials and 2 hours of time. When we attended the district championship, there were 2 robots with the same medieval numbers....at St. Louis, I counted at least 6 teams using them. Sometimes it doesn't help to be a higher profile team. I respect the inspectors and know they get tired and they are really trying. I inspect myself.... both at district events and at CMP... |
Re: Inspection Stories
Not an inspector; this from the perspective of a student. Unpopular opinion: I love long inspections. I love explaining how the robot works and showing why this thing that looks illegal is actually perfectly fine.
My favorite inspection was at 2016 MAR Montgomery. We made a slight, perfectly legal change but accidentally forgot to get reinspected before we went out for our next match. An RI sitting on the side of the field noticed and brought it to our attention. The head ref, FTA, and LRI were very nice and let us play the match anyway because the change was obviously legal, provided that we get a complete reinspection after the match. The RI came back with us to our pit and made us show that we satisfied every single robot rule in the manual (more than just the standard inspection checklist). We had to show that our bumpers could be taken off and put back on again by 2 people in under 5 minutes (we got in just under 4 iirc). We had to give data sheets for every non-vex or andymark part we used. I think this was the inspector's way of having fun now that the majority of his job was done, but it was fun for me anyway. I consistently see teams (both rookie and veteran) whose robots break a number of rules and inspectors don't notice because it's not something specifically on the checklist. I would love to see more thorough inspections if FIRST allotted more time for it. EDIT: I just want to be clear in saying that I was friends with this inspector and continue to be friends with him. If we had a match that we needed to get to, I am (90%) sure he would have quickly redone the inspection and been on his way. We didn't have any upcoming matches so he thought it would be fun to torture us. In the end, it was good because he made some suggestions for how to improve our robot and what rules we should make sure we don't violate. This was a good learning experience and prepared us for inspection at Champs. I am still a supporter of longer inspections, but I do like the idea proposed in the following post that inspectors should do as much of the inspection as they can by themselves before asking students to help for time-saving reasons. I regularly walk around the pits looking at how other teams' robots work and I rarely need to ask questions. An keen-eyed observer can make out most of the details on a FIRST robot even from outside the pit surrounded by a full-team pit crew. |
Re: Inspection Stories
The above post exemplifies the issues I have with the inspection process: Inspectors amusing themselves at the expense of the team's frustration and time lost.
I've inspected on and off since 2005. 50% of the inspection I could do from outside the pit area. Another 30% I could answer myself by visual observation and I never had to speak to anyone. The last 20% I could complete with the students in 10 mins. Leave the questioning for the judges. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
My task as inspector is to get robots and teams onto the floor and let them have a good time. I want to make sure that they are playing by the rules as they are evidenced in my task to inspect but a team has so many things to do besides talk to an inspector, I would be very leery of wasting their time on this kind of stuff. If an inspector asked me to prove that we could take off our bumpers in the time alloted.... I would first wonder why I am being subjected to this.... The reason that the rule is there is for quick turnaround on the field..... or for the inspection process.... Sometimes inspectors do NOT take the rules in the context of why they were written. We should make sure the rules are followed but not at the expense of taking away valuable time from a team.... As inspectors, it is necessary for us to understand WHY we are there.... To get teams safely and fairly onto the field.... My best times as inspector are always helping teams that don't understand the rules and often have few resources, get compliant and make it to the field to play. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Most of our inspections have gone ok, but these two were the worst:
- having to move hour high pressure gauge to the compressor output of the 120 psi side because there supposedly was a decrease in pressure between that spot and where we had it installed elsewhere on the 120 psi side (there isn't). - having to explain that including more than one Talon SRX on the robot and not accounting for any of them on the BOM was perfectly legal because they are KOP items It can also be incredibly aggravating as a team when an inspector tries to make the inspection a teaching moment, but the team needs to get the inspection done so the can get to practice matches. I know one example where one poor team had to endure 1.5 hours of this. Since I'm not coaching this year, I volunteered as an inspector for the competitions I'm attending to try and minimize these aggravations. |
Re: Inspection Stories
I've had my fair share... But one of the best was the rookie team with a Victor 883 on their robot a couple years back. I told 'em it wasn't legal, but they should be asking around certain places for a Victor 884 which was legal. Came back an hour later and there was an 884 in that location.
And... bumpers should be a 4-letter word. There was a time not long ago when I was coming off of dinner break on practice day and another inspector asked for help on where numbers should go on a 6-sided robot (open front side). To which I responded with something like "The numbers are the least of your concerns, that's not a legal configuration!" (Something like below.) Confused team when we checked on it: "But an inspector told us this was how to fix our illegal bumpers and still use our intake!" Cue LRI call, and discussion on how to fix it (raise and take the angles off). __ | \ | |__/ This is going to be an interesting inspection year coming up... |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
LRIs will have their hands full at the inspection stations this year, between weighing robots with bumpers off, and checking their inspection envelopes with bumpers on. |
Re: Inspection Stories
In 2012 we used some 5/32 pneumatic tubing to snake through the arm of our pickup. The inspectors at MSC told us it wasn't legal because it counted as a flow restrictor and gave us an advantage other teams wouldn't have. They had us rebuild the whole thing with 1/4 inch tube which took about three hours to do. Once we finished the inspector stopped by to let us know that the 5/32 tube was okayed by the LRI and that we didn't need to change anything. At least we got some good practice in taking things apart and forcing tube through openings they were never meant for...
|
Re: Inspection Stories
This coming from a student:
I only have memories of inspections from 2016 (2015 was just a blur for me as a new freshman), and they all went well. We made sure everyone knew the rules going into build, and kept checking them throughout build season, and one final time during bag. The inspections at both regionals were relatively quick and easy. However I keep getting told stories about our rookie year though (back in 2012). Bit of back story: Apparently when the head mentor got the team involved in FRC in 2012, he really didn't know what he was getting himself into. He was told that everything you would need would come in the KOP and you would be good to go. Imagine his surprise when the team opened up the KOP and realized they had next to nothing to build an actual bot. Anyway, so obviously they were very inexperienced going into that season. The team only went to one regional that year, and apparently the inspection experience there was a nightmare. There were obviously several issues with the robot (due to the inexperience) and the apparently the inspector the team got wasn't the "most helpful". He would only check one thing at a time and tell the team to fix it before checking the rest. For example, there was a problem with the frame, and he told the team to fix it. The team had to spend all of thursday ripping down the frame and fixing the issue. They attempted to get reinspected that friday morning, and the inspector found an issue with a motor. Due to the team's design, they had to rip apart the frame again and fix that issue and rebuild. Had the inspector realized this during the initial inspection, it would have been a breeze to fix that issue thursday itself when the frame was already ripped apart. So apparently that took all of friday, and the team attempted to get reinspected again saturday morning. This time the inspector found a problem with the team's wiring. Again, due to the team's design the frame had to be compltley taken apart to access some of the wiring. Had this issue also been noticed at initial inspection, the problem could have been fixed on thursday itself. But instead it took all of saturday. By the time the frame was put back together, and the team received an allclear, the qualification matches were over. And obviously the team wasn't picked because they never even set foot on the field once. The team's rookie year was spent not touching the field even once. (Again due to inexperience) our head mentor and team knew nothing about LRIs etc. At the end of the event apparently the head mentor just compltley "exploded" and started ranting about the entire process to a neighboring veteran team. They were apparently immediately sympathetic and called over the LRI to talk. When the head mentor explained what happened and that they never touched the field because of it, apparently the inspector that inspected us was given a major talking to, and has also never been seen as an inspector at that regional again. The LRI apparently gave a huge apology to the team. (Side note: The LRI and our head mentor are still friends to this day). |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
The entire fabrication schedule. Which you need to address if someone mentions "This is last year's frame" etc. R17 - Lubrication is for robots, not fields. R37(!!) - Circuits must be wired to the PDP wagos, NOT the M6 terminals. R42 - RoboRIO only must be wired to the dedicated roboRIO supply terminals. R50 - connectors must have appropriate current ratings R83 - pneumatic components allowed on the high pressure side. R96 - operator consoles should not be unsafe. And boy was that a popular one last year. I would fail teams for violating several of those items, personally. No maybe talk to the LRI about it. So yeah. The inspection checklist is guideline of the most common items, but it's not comprehensive, or we'd just hand inspectors a mildly condensed version of the robot rules as a checklist instead. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
I do worry about the lack of best practices communication throughout the RI community. I find that inspections with my team in MAR can be better even than our inspections at Worlds (which is my only team-side inspection experience outside of MAR in the last half-decade). |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
One of my jaw dropping "oh no" experiences as an inspector was with a rookie team who had started with the kit base (good) but every mechanism used Tetrix motors and gears (presumably they had previously done FTC?). :eek: To top it off, they proudly showed me a Home Depot winch (also with an illegal motor) they were planning on adding to the robot at the competition. The winch never made it on, but other teams helped get at least a couple of their mechanisms working by putting in BAG motors and VersaPlanetaries and they made their first match.
|
Re: Inspection Stories
This has already been said in a few places in this thread but just to reiterate. We need more experience mentors and volunteers to come be inspectors. Experience can dramatically speed up inspections. There isn't a lot I haven't seen so I can go through a robot and find any trouble areas a lot quicker than someone I had to train Thursday morning who is at their 1st FRC event. We'd love to never have to use completely new people but if we don't get enough volunteers that's what happens.
Another note, a lot of these stories could have had a happier ending if teams went and talked to the LRI earlier. If an inspector is taking 45 mins to an hour and hasn't told you anything is wrong, send someone to find the LRI and at least let them know it's going slowly. None of the events I have ever worked could afford to have inspectors taking that long on a single robot. Inspection Stories - Illegal motors every years - FTC, Globe, linear actuators, different window motors than what used to be allowed. - All green wire on the robot, like not green and black just all green wire, almost everywhere on the robot. - Modified pneumatics parts, including paint and stickers on air tanks and cylinders. - modified electronics - a team modified the PDP to use larger ATC fuses where the small 10A and 20A fuses go by cutting away parts of the plastic housing. Have also seen a couple cRIOs that had holes drilled in them. - Crazy bumper builds - weirdly heavy bumpers that ended up having steel plates between the plywood and noodles. Also have seen really light bumpers that were made with 1/4" wood before. Last year I saw 8" tall bumpers that used closed cell foam instead of pool noodles. - Team using previous year's welded frame as part of their robot. - Team trying to swap entire robots on their alliance with a practice chassis they built previously - 150+lb robot without bumpers or battery. They had just a massive amount of solid aluminum on their robot like 2in x 2in cubes of it. - A robot that was 20+ inches outside of the sizing constraint. It looked more like a go cart than an FRC robot. |
Re: Inspection Stories
I've had more than my share of helpful inspectors, who understand that FRC is a learning and inspiring experience for the students, and have done their best to help out our team, whilst ensuring we met the high bar to pass inspection.
That being said, last year, while working with a rookie team, we passed everything for inspection, except our inspector wouldn't pass us because our "Zip-ties were too sharp." Apparently, some of the zip-ties we used to mount our electronics to our boards were "cut improperly" and needed to be filed down. We said, "sure thing, boss!", never filed them down, and we passed again with the same inspector. Sometimes, I feel like inspectors want to bully the newer teams, like inspection is some "hazing ritual" to go through if you REALLY want to be an FRC team. |
Re: Inspection Stories
An inspector once told us this was illegal and we had to rewire our whole robot using new wires that weren't bonded.
I had to walk away because I would have started laughing... |
In 2013 our robot had guards in front of the wheels about a 1/2" off the ground to prevent us from driving over frisbees. An inspector tried to tell us no part of the robot could be that low to the ground. My response was to ask if that included the wheels or if we were gonna have to figure out how to fly. The LRI came over and just laughed.
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
I'll leave the event name and team number out but .......
I was having a number of typical issues with a team at an event (they were new to FIRST) and was working with them to get through those issues. One of the issues was bumpers. They worked all day on practice day with some help from other teams to make a set of legal bumpers but had not yet put their team number on them. I told them to take them "home" overnight and paint their team number on on each bumper. Unfortunately they painted the wrong team number on them. :( |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Last year, we spent all of Friday night going through inspection, missing the practice matched at both events. Both times were for bumpers.
The first time, two of the bumpers arrived late, and we couldn't finish weighing without the complete bumper set. I was told that they were having sponsor logos put on them, to which I replied "Isn't that illegal?". They were, thus requiring us to use a heat gun to unstick the 4 or 5 stickers on each bumper to get them off before finally finishing inspection. The second time we had all our bumpers. When the inspector came over we had them off, and were asked to put them on. Someone asked which ones were which, since the front and back were similar. The reply was "the back bumper is the one with the hole cut in it". The inspector obviously heard and turned the bumper segment over. We had cut a rectangular hole in the plywood backing, which was not legal, but had gone unnoticed at the first event. On top of that, the reason for the hole was to allow for movement of a part that stuck partially out of the back of the robot that did not qualify as a minor protrusion from the frame perimeter. We had to redo the whole bumper piece, but the only plywood at the event was the floor of our battery carrier. Since it would be stationary at the event, we took it off, used half to extend our frame perimeter past the part, and the other half to make a new bumper. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Last year at one of our inspections the inspector was adamant that because our robot's arm laid above some electronics, the electronics below were unsafe to get to, and therefore "not easily visible" (and the starting configuration of the arm was up out of the way, even). My kids argued the point with him for a few minutes to no avail, until one of the mentors suggested he ask the LRI.
The LRI came back with the inspector, lifted the arm up to it's resting position, and walked away without saying a word. Most of our inspection experiences are great, and I even enjoy some of the lighthearted ribbing, or the ol' foot-on-the-scale scare, but sometimes it does feel like inspectors are out to find things to fix no matter what. |
Re: Inspection Stories
2011 Minibot story:
My LRI suspected there were some teams that had mini-bots but had not yet brought them to inspection, either because they were not complete or they didn't know they had to have them inspected. I was assigned the task to visit all teams that had not presented a mini-bot to inspection to ask what their intentions were. One team told me they were working on it, but having problems because the fuse kept blowing each time they fired it up. I was directed to a student working on it on a concession table near their pit. He was busy adding a Jaguar motor controller to the mini-bot to try to resolve the problem because someone had told him it might be needed. Motor controllers of any type were not allowed-- the only electrical components allowed (IIRC) were light switches (don't get me started on the definition of 'light switch'!) tetrix motors, a fuse, wires, connectors, one type of battery and a LEGO Mindstorm controller (rarely used by anyone) Turns out that the solder joints to the motor terminals were big blobs, both of which extended past the terminals, past the non conductive base around the terminal and on to the metal motor housing, providing an obvious short every time power was applied. I don't think the Jaguar was going to solve their problem, even if it was allowed. At the same regional, a minibot made entirely out of LEGO was presented for inspection. |
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi