Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81042)

MrForbes 03-02-2010 10:57

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 912399)
Can you say "Squish!" Both of these materials would negate the whole intent of the reason for exempting protrusions in the first place, which was to ensure that bumpers were firmly attached to a solid frame member.

You can easily poke your finger into balsa wood or corrugated cardboard. But if you lay a piece of either on the floor, then place a piece of 3/4" plywood on it, and stand on it, what happens?

If there is sufficient surface area behind it for support, these soft materials will probably work very well as bumper shims, to bring the FRAME PERIMETER out past the fastener heads in the lower part of your robot.

Rick TYler 03-02-2010 11:13

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Betts (Post 912419)
I can not answer for other inspectors, but I always bring a 6 foot level with me... I have only had to use it a few times...

Whacking team captains with a 6-foot level might be satisfying, but it probably violates some rule or another. Sorry.

IndySam 03-02-2010 11:23

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson (Post 912264)
Paul,
What part of rule <R16> did the GDC screw up?
<R16> During normal operation no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, except as permitted by Rule <G30>.
They gave us some freedom to have screw heads under the bumper but we had no right to expect that this would extend outside this space. There was a question, it was answered relatively fast and while there is time to work around it if you have to.

I don't see how we can blame the GDC.

Joe J.

I'm with you Joe. I thought the rule was clear from the start.

I think it just shows how people can look at the same rules and have different conclusions. That's why the GDC's job is so hard.

IndySam 03-02-2010 11:35

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jgannon (Post 912490)
C'mon, man... you can't possibly tell me that "common sense" would have dictated that a bolt head protruding from your frame 15" off the ground is legal, but a bolt head protruding by the same amount 4" off the ground is not.

Look around this thread for a minute. When you see a WFA winner saying his interpretation of the rule is correct with "absolute certainty", and he turns out to be wrong, something has gone terribly, terribly awry.

I can tell you that because that's exactly what common sense told me. The bolt protruding rule was to allow to help with bumper attachment and support. How does a bolt protruding 4" of the ground hamper mounting bumpers? So why would it be allowed?

I have nothing but respect for PC and have learned much from him over the years. Just because he is a WFA doesn't make him always correct.

Vikesrock 03-02-2010 11:43

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 912532)
I can tell you that because that's exactly what common sense told me. The bolt protruding rule was to allow to help with bumper attachment and support. How does a bolt protruding 4" of the ground hamper mounting bumpers? So why would it be allowed?

I have nothing but respect for PC and have learned much from him over the years. Just because he is a WFA doesn't make him always correct.

But he was. The rules were clear, whatever stuck out the farthest in the Bumper Zone defined the Frame Perimeter, whether that was an axle or a bolt or a a hot glued army man.

Update 6 changed that, which may have shrunk the Frame Perimeter for some teams. If these teams were designing to fit inside the projection of their old larger Frame Perimeter and now do not fit inside the new smaller Frame Perimeter then this rule has taken a legal design and made it illegal. In week 4 that just does not seem to be a fair thing to do.

IndySam 03-02-2010 12:08

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikesrock (Post 912537)
But he was. The rules were clear, whatever stuck out the farthest in the Bumper Zone defined the Frame Perimeter, whether that was an axle or a bolt or a a hot glued army man.

See that's where we will have to agree to disagree.

Too me the rules were clear. Yes that axle bolt defined the perimeter so the bumper would have to be outside that perimeter. The only exception was that small clearance holes or pockets were allowed in the bumper backing material to allow that axle bolt. How does that exception become translated to allow that axle bolt or rivet or whatever not covered by that backing material?

Vikesrock 03-02-2010 12:16

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 912550)
See that's where we will have to agree to disagree.

Too me the rules were clear. Yes that axle bolt defined the perimeter so the bumper would have to be outside that perimeter. The only exception was that small clearance holes or pockets were allowed in the bumper backing material to allow that axle bolt. How does that exception become translated to allow that axle bolt or rivet or whatever not covered by that backing material?

Note: Caps denote references to official definitions, not anger or frustration.


That bolt defined the FRAME PERIMETER. If you had a 26"x36" frame with fasteners sticking out in the BUMPER ZONE 1/4" on each side right in the corners, your FRAME PERIMETER was a 26.5"x36.5" rectangle.

This meant the rest of your robot had to fit within a vertical projection of this 26.5"x36.5" rectangle per <R16>.

After Update 6 this robot now has a FRAME PERIMETER of 26"x36". Any parts that fall within the 26.5"x36.5" projection but outside the 26"x36" projection went from perfectly legal to a violation of <R16>.

I'm not sure what part of this you disagree with so feel free to grab any of the steps out of the above and show me where I may be wrong (and I most certainly may be)

MrForbes 03-02-2010 12:22

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
After reading the discussion, and talking about it, and rereading the rules, I came to the conclusion that the rule was ambiguous before Update 7.

So you're both right.

Apparently Paul might have made a wrong assumption....which is easy to do when the rules are ambiguous. Or he made a literal interpretation of what the rules said before update 6.

I learned a while back to err on the conservative side when the rules are ambiguous. Unfortunately it's usually hard to see that the rules ARE ambiguous unless you can see both interpretations. Usually we can't!

IndySam 03-02-2010 13:02

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikesrock (Post 912556)
Note: Caps denote references to official definitions, not anger or frustration.


That bolt defined the FRAME PERIMETER. If you had a 26"x36" frame with fasteners sticking out in the BUMPER ZONE 1/4" on each side right in the corners, your FRAME PERIMETER was a 26.5"x36.5" rectangle.

This meant the rest of your robot had to fit within a vertical projection of this 26.5"x36.5" rectangle per <R16>.

After Update 6 this robot now has a FRAME PERIMETER of 26"x36". Any parts that fall within the 26.5"x36.5" projection but outside the 26"x36" projection went from perfectly legal to a violation of <R16>.

I'm not sure what part of this you disagree with so feel free to grab any of the steps out of the above and show me where I may be wrong (and I most certainly may be)


From the update:
Note: to permit a simplified definition of the FRAME PERIMETER and encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER, minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc are excluded from the determination of the FRAME PERIMETER.

The key words are encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER show that the change was for the bumper area and not the rest of the frame. I think if you assumed that changed the frame perimeter then I think your made a huge leap of logic (just my opinion.)

But say I do agree with your scenario and they did change the perimeter definitions. They changed it on day 20 where frame designs should have been already finished and then after seeing the ambiguity they created quickly released clarification 4 days later. A fast and reasonable response.

Tristan Lall 03-02-2010 13:32

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikesrock (Post 912556)
That bolt defined the FRAME PERIMETER. If you had a 26"x36" frame with fasteners sticking out in the BUMPER ZONE 1/4" on each side right in the corners, your FRAME PERIMETER was a 26.5"x36.5" rectangle.

This meant the rest of your robot had to fit within a vertical projection of this 26.5"x36.5" rectangle per <R16>.

There's a little problem with that reasoning: although they don't go right ahead and say it, by giving the string example in the definition, it's clear that the definition of frame perimeter refers to the minimal convex polygon within the bumper zone. For many designs, that's different from the minimal bounding quadrilateral (which you're describing). (There are even a couple of possible—but unlikely—cases where this isn't the minimum quadrilateral either.)

Unfortunately, it's not exactly clear whether this is intended to be an imaginary string wrapped around the projection of all such points in a plane, or wrapped around the outermost subset of points that are coplanar within the bumper zone. (Imagine that on a rectangular robot, two opposite sides have bolts at 10.5 in from the ground, and the other two sides have bolts at 15.5 in from the ground; how do you wrap that string and still meet the definition? If we're talking string, then concavity in 3-D is the same as in 2-D—i.e. not allowed. How do you define "outermost"—is this with respect to a centroid? Which one, and how do you find it?)

In any case, if your outermost bolts within the bumper zone are near the corners of your rectangular robot, we can use your example as a rough approximation for the purposes of discussion.

Rob 03-02-2010 13:32

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
So having thought about this a while and re-read the details several times I can see where this definition is coming from.

Last year the "pockets in the bumper backing" ruling came out mid-season to allow teams to legally use the Kitbot as provided. The heads of the kitbot axle bolts would have been in violation for the majority of teams that used this setup otherwise. (The fact that the instructions said to assemble it with open corners was a separate issue that cause other inspection problems, but I digress...)

This year the kitbot changed a bit with the "legs" to lift the chassis portion up above the drive wheels. If used as provided , the kitbot would provide the start of a legal frame unlike last year. Many teams (mine included) used a kitbot setup similar to last year and now have an issue with bolt heads protruding out below the bumper zone. The shift in bumper zone to a higher position than it was in the past is what is causing problems here.

The fact that a the kitbot as provided is legal for the update 7 version of the frame perimeter is a good thing. Unfortunately for those of us who used modified or alternate frames the previous version of the frame perimeter was either different or ambiguous. Now it is clear, and it is also different from many people's previous interpretations.

We are lucky in that we have enough space to play with to build in an extension to our frame perimeter in the bumper zone. I hope that all teams have enough wiggle room to play with here. I fear that this will be an issue for quite a few teams. This is a detail that can be tough to pick up on. I hope that folks in the CD community can help out local teams who may not be up to speed on this definition.

Thanks, and good luck!

Rob

Vikesrock 03-02-2010 13:40

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall (Post 912594)
There's a little problem with that reasoning: although they don't go right ahead and say it, by giving the string example in the definition, it's clear that the definition of frame perimeter refers to the minimal convex polygon within the bumper zone. For many designs, that's different from the minimal bounding quadrilateral (which you're describing). (There are even a couple of possible—but unlikely—cases where this isn't the minimum quadrilateral either.)

I was careful (but not particularly clear) to include "right at the corners" in my wording.

What I intended to portray was each corner of the robot having a bolt coming out of each face directly adjacent to the corner, so 2 bolts per corner, 8 total. This should result in the rough approximation you suggested.

dlavery 03-02-2010 13:43

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikesrock (Post 912556)
Note: Caps denote references to official definitions, not anger or frustration.

That bolt defined the FRAME PERIMETER. If you had a 26"x36" frame with fasteners sticking out in the BUMPER ZONE 1/4" on each side right in the corners, your FRAME PERIMETER was a 26.5"x36.5" rectangle.

This meant the rest of your robot had to fit within a vertical projection of this 26.5"x36.5" rectangle per <R16>.

This is exactly the sort of situation that many people are not fully considering. It appears that many wanted to implement this configuration, or some close variation of it, and are alarmed that the revised wording of the rule appears to complicate their ability to do so. But you have to understand that under the original wording of the rules, this configuration led directly to an illegal ROBOT that would have been rejected at inspection.

In this example, the extended bolt heads defined the vertices of the FRAME PERIMETER. But you have to then consider that the in the area in between the bolt heads, the FRAME PERIMETER is now in free space 1/4 inch away from the actual frame structure of the robot. Under Rule <R07-I>, the BUMPERS must attach to the FRAME PERIMETER. Not 1/4 inch inside the FRAME PERIMETER (where the actual frame structure is located), but directly to the FRAME PERIMETER. Which means that for the portion of the BUMPERS between the bolt heads, the BUMPERS would not be supported. But under Rule <R07-M>, the entire length of the BUMPER backing must be supported and not in free space. Thus, this configuration would have been in violation of at least one, and potentially more, rules.

The revised wording corrected this entire situation and gave you a clean way to bolt your frame together and securely attach the bumpers without a violation.

-dave



.

Vikesrock 03-02-2010 13:50

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery (Post 912603)
...

The revised wording corrected this entire situation and gave you a clean way to bolt your frame together and securely attach the bumpers without a violation.

-dave

.

Touchè! Dave, thank you very much for chiming in here. This makes the purpose of Updates 6 and 7 much more clear.

IndySam 03-02-2010 13:52

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jgannon (Post 912602)
Right, that's the problem. Protrusions below the BUMPER ZONE used to be allowed so long as they were within the FRAME PERIMETER, which could be defined by corresponding protrusions in the BUMPER ZONE. Then a change was made that only impacted the BUMPER ZONE, thus pushing protrusions below it out of spec.

If protrusions are within the frame perimeter then they are not protrusions. They are legal parts within the perimeter. I don't see how you make the leap from that in any way.


Quote:

Originally Posted by jgannon (Post 912602)
That's not what happened. A clarification was made that introduced ambiguity, and then a further clarification changed the rule entirely, weeks after kickoff, when frame designs should have been already finished.

Update 6 introduce the ambiguity. Update 7 clarified the rule and did not change the original rule at all.

See DL's post.

Jonathan Norris 03-02-2010 14:25

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
I'm sorry this is getting out of hand, I am having a hard enough time understanding what is illegal and legal and I've been around FIRST for 6 years. The lawyering of these frame perimeter rules is going way to far, the GDC tells us to not lawyer the definition of the rules and try and understand the intent of the rule, however these frame perimeter rules are getting so lawyered and technical that I can't even explain it to the students I mentor.

This is a high school robotics competition, can we please make these frame perimeter rules easier to understand so the high school students I work with can sit down with the manual and understand them??

I understand the intent of the rule, to have the outside frame of the robot support the Bumpers in the Bumper Zone. But if this means I can't have my bumper frame protrude perpendicularly up from my the outside of my lower drive frame because of the #10 screw head that is holding our drive shafts in makes it illegal, this is getting way to technical. Yea there are ways that we can 'hack' our frame to fit the technicalities of these rules even though it is already all welded together, but I don't see why we would waste our time changing it when our frame meets the intent of the rules.

Paul Copioli 03-02-2010 17:58

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Dave, all;

I will be clear about this. There was no ambiguity in my mind in the rule prior to update 6 that is why I couldn't be conservative with regards to the ambiguity. The original rule never stated that bolts don't count so it is my "common sense" that bolts sticking out within the bumper zone had to define the frame perimeter. How could I logically make an exception?

So I want to get this straight: The original rules actually intended to make every sheet metal + rivet construction robot illegal this year? GDC members are not blind so they see how many robots are constructed. Everyone keeps talking about bolt heads, but even rivets are illegal. That, to me, is just plain stupid.

Every year there is something: G22, G14 ... well this year I know what it is....

Well, at least I'll have some fun with it at IRI.

This is simply irritating. We'll get by, but I'm not really concerned about my teams.

Paul

P.S. - JVN says 148 will be bringing lots of extra shim strips with us to Dallas and Houston. 217 will be bringing the same to Finger Lakes, Cass Tech, and Troy. There will be many teams that are totally blind sided by this because they do not have as much "common sense" as some people on CD and they don't check CD.

gren737 03-02-2010 18:12

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
What if we all just went back to a time that I'll refer to as "B.B." or Before Bumpers and all you had to do with build a robot that fit inside the sizing box?

Can I throw this one up to the GDC to consider?? I know bumpers are most likely here to stay, but honestly the headaches they create is not worth the little bit of cushioning provided to the robot during a match. If you can't stand the heat.....


I dunno, just my $.02

artdutra04 03-02-2010 18:46

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gren737 (Post 912784)
What if we all just went back to a time that I'll refer to as "B.B." or Before Bumpers and all you had to do with build a robot that fit inside the sizing box?

Can I throw this one up to the GDC to consider?? I know bumpers are most likely here to stay, but honestly the headaches they create is not worth the little bit of cushioning provided to the robot during a match. If you can't stand the heat.....


I dunno, just my $.02

I liked those days. You had a starting size limit, a total weight limit, and that was pretty much it for size and weight restrictions.

It was clear, understandable, and a degree in constitutional law wasn't necessary to understand the dozens of clauses, exemptions, and the exact DEFINITIONS of various aspects of the robot and the game.

sanddrag 03-02-2010 19:23

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Paul, I think what Dave was trying to say, is that even by the original rule, if your frame perimeter consisted of a piece of metal, with a row of rivets heads on it, this would not meet the requirement to fully support the bumper along its length, since it is supported at only at the rivet heads. So, in this type of a design, a shim/spacer would have been needed all along anyhow, before any updates. Although, I suppose if small indentations were made in the bumper backing to clear the rivets, the bumper would have been supported by the metal which is inside the (as previously defined) frame perimeter, not at the frame perimeter itself.

And let's think about the following too. In theory, any member defining the frame perimeter that is not perfectly planar does not fully support the bumper. There exists no such surface.

So the question becomes, what is the maximum allowable space between the bumper backing, and the frame perimeter, for which the bumpers shall still be considered "fully supported." I would argue up to a 1/4 inch should be deemed acceptable. Materials and manufacturing methods have a tolerance...

Silly, I know...

Something needs to be done to make this all simpler for everyone. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but I have been in FIRST for 9 years now, and I still can't figure out how I would explain this rule to anyone. Let's also remember that many inspectors have never even seen a FIRST robot before. This will never work.

Don Wright 03-02-2010 19:46

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
I can't help but wonder how this will really be checked and enforced at the competitions (especially for really small protrusions like rivets...)

Vikesrock 03-02-2010 21:11

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 912776)
P.S. - JVN says 148 will be bringing lots of extra shim strips with us to Dallas and Houston. 217 will be bringing the same to Finger Lakes, Cass Tech, and Troy. There will be many teams that are totally blind sided by this because they do not have as much "common sense" as some people on CD and they don't check CD.

Thanks for the idea Paul. I will try to make sure our team does the same for teams up here in MN.

Steve W 03-02-2010 22:21

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Wright (Post 912839)
I can't help but wonder how this will really be checked and enforced at the competitions (especially for really small protrusions like rivets...)

As it says in the explanation, if they push the robot against a wall, only the frame perimeter would touch the wall. If you run your hand down the side of the robot and feel a bump then you violate the rule.

A mentor and RWFA winner says that the rule is "stupid". If the robot has bolt heads (or whatever) that protrude from the frame perimeter hold the bumper off of the frame, small holes can be drilled to "encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER".This makes so much sense and last year they finally got it right. NOW......

From the update:
Note: to permit a simplified definition of the FRAME PERIMETER and encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER, minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc are excluded from the determination of the FRAME PERIMETER.

So bolt heads are not part of the perimeter except that the robot perimeter has to fit flush against the wall. I don't understand now for sure.

Joe Johnson 04-02-2010 00:09

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve W (Post 912963)
As it says in the explanation, if they push the robot against a wall, only the frame perimeter would touch the wall. If you run your hand down the side of the robot and feel a bump then you violate the rule.
<snip>

I am getting old, but I just now really read that bit about the wall. I know I read it 10 times but I didn't READ it.

Suppose I have a cube bot, perfectly flat sides of whatever dimension, is this robot legal (assuming I put bumpers on it at the right height and it is within the size limits, etc...)?

I had assumed yes, but now I think no because the entire robot side will hit the wall.

Wait, no, this doesn't say anything about the bumper zone only hitting the the wall, just the FRAME PERIMETER. But wait didn't the definition of the FRAME PERIMETER include the BUMPER ZONE...
FRAME PERIMETER – the polygon defined by the outer-most set of exterior vertices on the ROBOT (without the BUMPERS attached) that are within the BUMPER ZONE
Yes, it does.... But then, that push against the wall bit was in a blue box so perhaps it doesn't really apply... ...except there is another blue box that says something about No Mushroom bots -- which is crazy because, to me, a short robot with the FRAME PERIMETER extending out beyond the edges of the lower robot is almost exactly what I would think of when you say "Mushroom bot" but it is in a rule saying that this is NOT what you want...

....I am totally confused.

It is late, I will see things clearly in the morning.

Joe J.

sanddrag 04-02-2010 02:50

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson (Post 913039)
except there is another blue box tha says something about No Mushroom bots -- which is crazy because to me a short robot with the FRAME PERIMETER extending out beyond the edges of the lower robot is almost exactly what I would think of when you say "Mushroom bot" but it is in a rule saying that this is NOT what you want...

Glad I'm not the only one confused. All along, I had no idea what they meant by "no mushroom bots", and yes, to me it seems this is exactly what you would want in order to satisfy the rule. Does FIRST know about some rare inverted mushroom that I do not?

martin417 04-02-2010 07:17

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson (Post 913039)
I am getting old, but I just now really read that bit about the wall. I know I read it 10 times but I didn't READ it.

Suppose I have a cube bot, perfectly flat sides of whatever dimension, is this robot legal (assuming I put bumpers on it at the right height and it is within the size limits, etc...)?

I had assumed yes, but now I think no because the entire robot side will hit the wall.

Wait, no, this doesn't say anything about the bumper zone only hitting the the wall, just the FRAME PERIMETER. But wait didn't the definition of the FRAME PERIMETER include the BUMPER ZONE...
FRAME PERIMETER – the polygon defined by the outer-most set of exterior vertices on the ROBOT (without the BUMPERS attached) that are within the BUMPER ZONE
Yes, it does.... But then, that push against the wall bit was in a blue box so perhaps it doesn't really apply... ...except there is another blue box tha says something about No Mushroom bots -- which is crazy because to me a short robot with the FRAME PERIMETER extending out beyond the edges of the lower robot is almost exactly what I would think of when you say "Mushroom bot" but it is in a rule saying that this is NOT what you want...

....I am totally confused.

It is late, I will see things clearly in the morning.

Joe J.

Perhaps the GDC is taking a lesson from the ancient Chinese. Inscrutability lends the impression of wisdom, and disguises folly.

Manoel 04-02-2010 07:53

Re: Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag (Post 913088)
Glad I'm not the only one confused. All along, I had no idea what they meant by "no mushroom bots", and yes, to me it seems this is exactly what you would want in order to satisfy the rule. Does FIRST know about some rare inverted mushroom that I do not?

They want a mushroom bot, except they don't... The thing is, the mushroom pileus (cap) HAS to be the frame perimeter, not something above. Either way, you have a mushroom bot, only one of them being legal. Anyway, that fungal reference is in a blue warning box and, as stated at the top of the manual, they don't have the weight of a rule and, whenever contradicting a rule, are void.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:46.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi