Jump to content

2005 rules. Your constructive, clear, brief input requested.

Tim Comeau

Recommended Posts

Guys, no need to get upset about the rules. One of our goals was to get something on the website before the year was up.

I had discussed with Steve the desire to get "most" if not all of the drivers comfortable with the rules changes for 2005. They also still need to be sent to NASA National for final approval before they are official.

So no, they aren't etched in stone just yet.

I've been keeping track of all driver input since I joined this great class 2 years ago. I realized, like many others, that the rules were too loosely written, which caused a lot of strife. Idealy, there should be no room for interpretation. Many of your ideas have been incorporated into the new rules. Many of your rewording suggestions have been included also. Thanks for the input.

Steve and I knew that while these rules would serve the class better, there might be a few drivers who would disagree with some portions. Maybe some guys would have to swap some suspension pieces to get back to stock track width, etc. I did my best to ignore special interests and go for what's good for the masses and the brand new guys building cars for the class.

So let's relax, take a deep breath, enjoy our christmas holiday, and we'll get back to work on the rules asap. I'll do my best to explain the reasons for any changes in rules or wording.

See you then.

ps. When you provide your reasoned inputs for the 2005 rules here, try to be clear and as brief as possible. Please proofread your posts before posting them because sometimes some posts are difficult to understand.

Collectively, we'll keep making it better.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Spec-944#70


  • PeanutinCA


  • n wright


  • greg f


I second what Tim said. I volunteered for the directorship in AZ because 1) I have no axe to grind with anyone so I believe I can be fair and impartial and 2) I'm willing to do the work and 3) I believe that Tim and I share the same philosophy for the class and work well together. Please remember that none of us are professionals and this is the first time that we are doing this. We can all agree that the original rules had some vagueness and loopholes but were pretty damn good to start with, as illustrated by the great and pretty equal class that we now have. Both Tim and I sought input from some of you who we felt were the most experienced and could help with some issues. We couldn't ask everyone at the beginning. Now it is available for all to comment and both Tim and I want input to make the rules and class better. That said, however, we feel that someone has to be the final arbitrator and Tim and I will make the final decisions, explaining our reasons, since that is our job. As Tim said, we know we can't please everyone but I hope you will trust that our philosophy for the class is correct.


As for specific reasons:

1. The 50 lb penalty for lightened flywheel originally was a temporary allowance for a few AZ cars because of some confusion about which rules were the official ones at the beginning. Although having been there, I think it was pretty clear but in the interest of compromise it was put in place and worked. Noone who had one showed any advantage or disadvantage with the weight penalty. In this year's revision, Tim and I agreed that it was important to bring the different groups together and thus we decided to make this rule permanent. Until someone dynos a car with and without the lightened flywheel and proves otherwise, all other opinions are just that.

2. Tim and I agree the shock paragraph is confusing and will be rewritten as Tim suggested to allow only STOCK and the unmodified replacment Koni's and Biltsteins.

3. The short shift kit is not mentioned in the rules and thus should be considered illegal by the "if it ain't specifically allowed" rule. However, I personally believe that its cleaner pattern is more of a reliablility issue than a performance advantage, helping to prevent missed shifts, so I would be willing to include it if Tim and enough other people agree.


Please continue to give us your input soon as we need to finalize the rules for the new season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add the short shift. I had one in my Turbo and it made the shifting more precise. And they're not that expensive if you decide to put one in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the last post. I have found them to reduce missed shifts more than anything else. In fact, I normally install them at the least amount of shift reduction possible, and just adjust out some of the side to side travel. We had some bad experiences up here with people renting a car and stuffing it in the wrong gear on a downshift, instantly flattening all of the lifters and bending three valves. I realize it constitutes an extra expense for the class, but for some people it will make driving the car more fun. It most assuredly has ZERO bearing on ultimate lap time as I have driven the same car on the same weekend with and without. Greg F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the short shifter, but bottom line have no problem with the rules. As I told Tim today, if someone is really doing something underhanded to gain an advantage it's one thing, but if a mirror is put on with only $ savings in mind it shouldn't be a big issue.


If someone is truly bending the rules than do what we did when I raced BMX....bust thier balls so bad they are almost shamed into making the change. Example, someone switches to tiny little 3 nch square mirrors when the stock ones they had were pefectly fine...does it violate the new rules....NO, but if we give them a ton of good natured ribbing they will surely change back.


Bottom line is lets just be cool about things....it will get us a TON more drivers. More are coming!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple thoughts on short shifters:

What's their purpose?

I say it's to reduce throw, not the precision of the throw. It's for faster shifting. Period.

Eric, How much is the cheapest short kit you know of? I haven't shopped the magazines lately. Can you remember the brands and prices?

If you freshen the shifter with dead stock components, you'll get the precision back. We just did this on Chambers car.

I see the short shifter as an uneccessary cost that provides a performance advantage and so it gets a NO vote from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then vote it "no". They cost $100-$200 depending on make. Kokelns you know about and the throw can be adjusted back to stock lengths. It's just a sturdier peice and it does crispen up the shift pattern. I just think as long as we're spending monet on lightened flywheels and new clutch kits a shifter might make a nice addition!

Do whatever you think is right! Just make sure it makes sense. That's all I ask. I still need more seat time anyway and that's where I'm going to spend my money!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we'll be seeing a rule for lightened flywheels afterall, and you certainly don't need a new clutch. The stock clutch is more than adequate. We only have 130 rwhp. No standing starts. You don't even need a 951 clutch.

Sounds to me like it's much cheaper to keep the stock shifter fresh?

Other ideas about the rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I install a " Spec-944" legal replacement shift knob that is shorter than the original I can also shorten the throw. I still challenge anyone to shift the trans faster than it will allow itself to be operated.... Any takers? (Before you try it, buy a spare... ) It will simply not make you any faster. It is the same as allowing an aftermarket throttle cam (12.7), no change in vehicle acceleration, but it feels better.

I would hope that the lightened flywheels are simply phased out by the end of 2006. Same for non stock replacement clutches. You should only allow the rubber centered disc to be replaced with any direct fit clutch.

You should mandate O.E. Porsche mirrors, ( 3hp worth of drag at 100MPH, from wind tunnel testing, circa 1988 ). Interior mirror should be free.

The radiator deal has me baffled. I guess I will take a closer look at our cars this winter. Maybe my waterpump is finally dying.... Our cars run around 210 to 225 water temp. ( this was not measured using the factory gauge, as those are random) This is on an 75 to 85 deg day. I would much rather be in the 190 to 205 deg range, but we can't seem to get there. It is particularly bad in my car while drafting. After 2 laps I need to pull out of the draft to preserve the engine. My oil temp is closer to 250 deg F. This winter I had planned on adding an oil cooler, but I am discouraged by the cost of the 951 console.

I would like top add the two foot protection bars only, as it is safety only.

In 12.3, can you modify that to allow for the removal of the anti-siphon flap? This make the car much easier to fuel from a 5 gal jug, and certainly makes fueling easier in an enduro format.

Does 12.4 allow for the relocation of the flywheel sensor pins? I would not be in favor of that. The only ignition timing allowed should be performed by the ECU. One of the things done by Milledge is to move the pins on the flywheel to change the timing/ injection.


Greg F

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I too have issues with my cars cooling with a stock radiator, a new one at that. Flushed by the pros at Callas Rennsport (I do work for them in return for work). Still runs at 3/4's plus on the factory guage although you say they can be random? I have an '88 and it certainly seems to loose a little luster once the temp gets up that high?


Interesting factoid on the timing thing you mentioned. Can we check for this on peoples cars?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, my car drops off noticebly at or around the 3/4 mark on the factory gauge. I found out that the DME will pull timing out after a certain temperature is attained to protect the engine. I will be in the Z cars draft for a couple of laps and then suddenly they pull clear, game over. If you feel the car lose power then your gauge must be close. It happens at or around 220F. I have a 70C ( rabbit I think ) thermostat, Turbo radiator, etc. The thermostat improved it, the turbo radiator almost fixed it, so maybe I should just go ahead and do the pump.

If someone is sloppy, it is easy to see the extra, unused holes in the flywheel by rotating it slowly past the window. Someone more careful might weld up the holes and lightly machine the O.D. It would be easy to make a gauge that measures the distance from the O.T. mark to the pin.

Greg F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we'll be seeing a rule for lightened flywheels afterall...


Does this mean it wont be introduced? Just my opinion, not anymosity, no grumpy tones, just a thought. Something like a lightened flywheel, it's performance gain is not measurable, nor is a 50lb penalty against it. So by trying to allow it, you may in fact drive people away if they get beat by someone with one? Because maybe that person with a LWF is on par with yourself, but the LWF gives them the edge? We wont know and therefore will argue about it. Best for the series not to include it. It was never the intent, nor should it be now.


If you want to make allowance for for Spec-944, have 2 sets of rules, they run their own series and points but we all race on the same track? Ahh, but then we may get into the out of class battles messing with in class battles? This one needs more thought?


Kill switches are not required for NASA, why do we need to make them mandatory? If you don't have one, you just can't race with other series. If you want to run with other series, you will add a kill switch. Don't enforce it, leave it optional but advise it as a good idea? Or make it a rule now, to be enforced in 2006. Plenty of time to get it done for then or if building new cars now, you can just get it done.


Stock track width I think is the intent of the series. Enforce it.


CR is a tough one, measuring I understand is just too difficult. Who's going to enforce that one?


Hey, on a happier note, I'm getting slight relief from killing the nerves in my neck, so you guys watch out next year when I come back! Fingers crossed the relief continues to improve?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of keeping stock mirrors. They look good and are plenty big enough for safety purposes. And, since we are getting picky, they ensure even weight distribution. Every car has the same amount of exterior weight at the same height. Silly point but valid if you want to split hairs.


Short shifters. I think they should be allowed. It may be a slight performance advantage but so are polyeurethane bushings. They're allowed and cost more than a short shift kit when you add in labor and re-alignment costs. Both of these items make the cars more precise and fun to drive. They tighten up the slop. After all, these are mostly 20 + year old cars.


Welding cages to the body. I know this has been discussed. It should be allowed (and is in POC & PCA). Plain and simple, it's a safety issue. My current car under construction is built this way. If it turns out to be illegal in NASA then so be it. The cost to weld to the A&B pillars when you put in a custom cage is nothing. It's crazy not to do it when you have already gone to the expense of a weld in cage. If the club is concerend about cost of cages or stiffeness of the cars then it must be mandated that every car has a SPEC bolt in cage. Let's face it, any welded in cage, even without the A&B's attached, should be stiffer than any bolt in simply because of the location of the mounting points and the fact that is part of the rails rather than bolted through the floor.


Hope I didn't rant over something (welded cage) that has been resolved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that most are right on the nose here!


1- Short Shifters Should be allowed, I personaly would not want one but it serves no performance purpose other than personal preference.


2- Weld in Cages to body!! I do think this should be allowed for a saftey purpose only!! is there any way to determine what would add to saftey but minimalize the performce (Stiffening) gain?


3- Mirrors - Once again Personal Preferrence and its not helping the performance so no biggie, just need to have at least 2 mirrors in place


4- Flywheel! Read my post on the Fly Discussion.. NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! to put it short!


5- Accusumps - Adds to reliablity so if you want it! then get it!


6- Cut off, I do not have one and WILL NOT GET ONE, until I want to get one! They are not required, in 944- spec and I will chose to use the old rules under that!


I know there are other changes! but these are the hot topics! We as a group should allow personal prefferences items, but we should make no changes to performace related issues, ie Fly wheels. The idea is to keep the costs down to a minimum, everyone has already made the investments into the car and whe should not be asking for more, any additions to the rules should be for personal prefferences only.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short Shifters -> Prefer that we stay with stock, but not big deal.


A&B Piller welding -> STRONGLY NO based on the significant impact on chassis stiffness. The difference between bolt in and welding are minimal compare to the impact of A and B piller welding. I am a mechanical Engineer and understand the impact on chassis stiffness. Simply put a normal chassis and cage is like two boxes with common floor. In twisting the chassis is stiffer with second box in side, but marginally so. Attach the two boxes together and you have probably doubled or more the stifness of the chassis. Think of plywood vs two un bonded sheets. I would rather see us adopt a cage rule that is very similar to SCCA IT cage rules. Those have proven to be safe and effective.


Mirrors -> Prefer stock, but not big deal


Flywheel - Rather have it stock, but given our current situation allow with a 50lbs penalty that is subject to review and updated each year.


Accusump -> Fine with me


Kill Switch -> Feel that it is very smart to install one. Great safety item at track and great for storage. Pull kill swith to disconnet the battery. Plus make us conform to other classes better. I really so no reason NOT to install one. Heck $40 for the switch. Kill switchs are require per NASA CCR's UNLESS class rules override them. In our case they do.


Just my feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok guys, We're getting some better reasoned input now....thanks.

I think the format some guys are using by listing each subject and giving a yea or nay, with reasons, is great and makes ideas and opinions easy to sort through.

Please keep in mind that some mods that have been in place are not going to be easy to undo. But let's not use them for a cost comparison to validate a new mod, ok? The closer we stay to stock, the better for the future of the class in terms of cost and rules enforcement.

Keep the ideas and opinions coming. We'll hear from some other drivers too hopefully.

GREG, I WOULD PAY TO HAVE YOU FIND THAT WIND TUNNEL STUDY OF THE EXTERIOR MIRRORS. I've been told that it takes 7hp to push those 2 mirrors at 100 mph, but couldn't substantiate it and so I didn't quote it. A quick measurement of one mirror just yielded 7 x 5 for the body and an average of 2 x 6 for the stem. 35 + 12 = 47 square inches of frontal area per mirror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Excellent analysis with the boxes.


Does the welding the cage to the pillars and the resulting stiffening of the chasis translate into a performance advantage that would offset the safety advantages? I would imagine this would be very tough to quantify. Given the fact that we all use the same tires, very close hp, have a max torsion bar rate, and have roughly the same weight would it really matter?


In other words, is the stock chassis already strong enough to handle the forces the SPEC setup exerts without any flex? I would think it could. Who really knows? If the chassis is not maxed out now then any stiffening would be irrelevent to performance. Just a guess.


Also, it seems that any flex that occours on the chassis is up front between the shock towers. Most people run a bar between them to remedy this. In effect, stiffening the chassis. A welded cage does not go forward of the firewall and would have no effect. I assume?


Not challenging your response just pondering the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Mirrors - Don't care. Stock or Aero I don't think it makes a difference. 1 If it takes 3-4 HP at 100MPH big deal. We're not at or above that speed that much and most of us have stock mirrors anyway and if I get beat by someone there is no way I'm using the "non-stock" mirrors as an excuse.

2. Cages again I don't see a huge gain there. I just double checked my cage and I am not welded to the a/b pillars. How many people have done this? Make safty sense and I can also see Joe P's point but can it be quantified? Again I won't protest a car winning if it's welded to the body. Like Neal said our cars are NOT maxed out so I doubt you'd even notice the difference.

3. Light Flywheels - I don't again see a big enough gain here to worry about. If something NEEDS to be done then add the 50 lbs to 2650 and let it go.

4. Short Shifts - I'm fine with that and would get one if the rules allow. I liked the one in my Turbo and would like to have one in the Spec car but I won't do it till it's legal.

5. Accusumps, cross drilling cranks, Air/Oil seperators all should be allowed. If it helps rod bearings or reduces the risk of throwing a rod I'm all for it. If it does "improve" performance then let it happen. One way to keep this series cheap is to have our motors last longer. Jeff Grow took his out and now it's legal? I'm sure he's happy about that.

6. CR - We've beaten this one to death but why have a number (no matter what it is) when there is no way to check it easily. All the shops I've spoke too say 11:1 should be the max without going to high compression pistons.

7. Add the rules that are needed. "Just because it doesn't say you can't do it" Isn't good enough. The "spirit" of the class is not good enough either. Make the rules "Black and White". Add fuel regulators must be stock for the year of motor. Injectors must be stock for the year of motor. Fuel rails stock and unmodified. Shock use the ones specified "off the shelf" unmodified. Any after market chip? Does this include custom built chips or just readily avail chips to the drivers? Fuel filler it says must remain stock. (Greg F had mentioned modifying this for easier refueling. If we're all stock then leave it as is. Otherwise we need to modify our fillers so we don't use anymore time in the pits.

8. If you want to include other sanctioing bodies they must conform to our rules when they run with us. That means 15x7 ATS or Cookie Cutter with Toyo Proxes RA1 225/50/15 tires. Add 50 lbs if lightened flywheel and have the series director or delegate scutinize their car to possibly asses other weight penalties.

I like the idea of getting the different groups together but it would be easier if we just all followed the same rules. I would suggest we merge the to rules and come to a happy medium and then we may see our 20 car starting fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tim we are getting great input, please continue. Here are my comments and responses:

1. Shifter: Although most comments are for it (except for Tim) we will continue to watch input.

2. Flywheel: I agree it would be simpler not to allow a lightened flywheel, however, we decided to include the lightened flywheel with a weight penalty as a permanent rule for compatibility with the other classes that do allow it. This is not something that you can easily change (like tires) so we have to allow it. We will continue to monitor cars and decide if the 50 lb is adequate in future years.

3. Mirrors: Although the spec philosophy suggests we should keep to stock exterior mirrors, I agree it seems to have little impact on performance. I think the rule as stated now keeps things fair and allows some asthetic creativity. I feel we should keep it as is unless the research on wind resistance shows a significant performance advantage.

4. Radiators: There is some confusion about the radiators. There are two radiators made for the non-automatic 944, an early one ('83-'85) that is thinner (944 106 031 01) and a later one ('85-'88 ) which is thicker (944 106 031 03). Although not a perfect fit, the latter can be mounted on an earlier frame and provides more cooling capacity and is legal by the rules.

5. Foot bar on cage: I have no objection to the foot protection bar and, if Tim agrees, will include it. However, I believe the major advantage of welding to the A and B pillars is stiffness and do not think it should be allowed.

6. Fuel filler: I agree that removing the flap/small hole in the fuel filler would make for faster filling in enduros, however, some cars are still street legal and must retain this. Therefore for fairness we have decided it cannot be removed. This has been in the rules since the beginning.

7. Timing modification: As it is a tuning adjustment, the flywheel pins could probably be moved under the current rules, however, I believe this only improves performance with modified cams. The factory settings are pretty well optimized for the stock cam and I believe little would be gained by changing them. Stock cams have always been required.

8. Kill switch: The kill switch IS required by NASA general rules and in the past our class was exempted. We decided that since it is required by other groups and we believe is an important safety feature that is not expensive there was no reason to exempt the class so it is now required. A note on installation: I have seen some cars with the switch mounted on the passenger side of the dash. I strongly recommend against this as you want the switch accessible by safety crew and you do not want them to have to run around to the opposite side of the car from the driver just to pull it. It should be accessible by the driver AND safety people from the driver's side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how long do we have to comply! with the Saftey Switch! I think that this is totaly bogus but if needed, I will order one odds are I will not have one by the Jan Event! Due we atleast have a 6 months to comply? Also I guess we have effectively moved the base weight to 2650, fine the clutch will be out anyways so I need to start shopping for a fly wheel any suggestions?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

6.1 General Safety - Can you really supersede the sanctioning body's safety regulations?


6.3 Electrical Cut-off Switches - Why bother if the sanctioning body doesn't require it?


11.2 Balancing - I understand 'lightening' in the context of the crank and flywheel but is there a specific definition for what 'balancing' covers? Is there a specific out of balance tolerance that must be met? How are you going to police - do you measure rod/piston/pin combos or individually? What if my rods happened to be in balance from the factory?


11.3 Cooling system - Isn't this covered in NASA CCR's?


11.4 Radiator - In the spirit of paragraph 2.3 and if in 11.8 allowances are being made for oil cooling, then why not make allowances for water cooling? Granted, high-end aftermarket radiators could get expensive but not 951 or other generic radiators with greater cooling capacity. To me, this is sort of like the Accusump issue.


13.2.2 Differential - Isn't this already covered in 2.2 Updating/Backdating?


In general, it seems reasonable to favor modifications which address weaknesses or reliability issues that become apparent when a road car gets put to use as a race car. There needs to be a balance between "an engine builders" class and a "shade tree mechanic's" class because most of the participants can't afford the former and aren't the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I get a second answer?


1- Short Shifters : If people didn't go to extremes, then maybe, because it still costs money to replace the stock. But guys want get the basic setup, so for that reason I say no. Or, name a spec short shift replacement?


2- Welding Cages to A/B pillars. We all have cages, 99% without the welding because we asked first and followed the rules. I have painted my cage and inside of car, I don't want to have to pay to remove paint, weld cage and then re-paint. You keep knocking things back due to increased "have to have" expense, why are you bending here?


3- Mirrors - like others, would not stress over it, but I don't believe for a minute that it's NOT an advantage in some way. I'ver "heard" people quote it as a benefit to sell more aero mirrors. They were either crapping then or crapping now, one of the two? We should be able to come up with a similar to stock mirror replacement that is cheaper than stock if they need to be replaced?


4- Flywheel. Nobody can quantify the benefits, therfore how do you fairly quantify the penalty. It was never allowed in the rules, was there ever any confusion? Your potentially penalizing the rules abiding customers for others that chose (for many reasons I'm sure) to go elsewhere.


5- Accusumps - whatever. But does lead to that someone else suggested and that's other items like better cooling. I for one am completely stock and have yet to see my car run at a decent temp, with new radiator, new pump etc.


6- Cut off. Don't see the need to 'enforce' it. SHould be personal choice. I have one, so it's no benefit to me either way.


7- Cooling. I would like something for cooling, as mentioned above. I constantly lose power because my car runs hot. And I've spent money trying to rectify.


Have a good day fellas. Please don't fight. This should be healthy discussion only. And I would hope we all get a say in the rules, not just a select few.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim and I have spent a lot of time discussing and preparing these rules with three major objectives: First, to clear up "grey" areas and allow some non-performance related mods, especially for sarety or reliability, that would not force anyone to spend large amounts of money. Second, to allow compromise so that all of us would be able to race together without any group having a performance advantage or having to make extensive mods to their cars. Note that we are not changing the spec tire although other groups allow different tires. Since this is easily changable, if you feel other tires are better then you can buy a set to run in other groups. I think the standardization of tiires is proabably the single most important factor in equality of the cars and we do not intend to change the spec tire. And third, to not do anything that would cause major expense to current drivers to continue racing with us. In addition to tightening up these rules, we intend to be far more strict at the track. We will require up-to-date logbooks, impound all cars after races and weigh/inspect them. I agree with Jason that things have been very lax at the track, partly because of expense (when Technodyne took their scales we had no others). In that respect we will try to be lenient with people updating their cars. I cannot speak for Tim but the way I will enforce is that if I fine a violation (like the kill switch) at our next event it will be marked in the logbook and you will have until the next event to correct it. If it is not fixed by then and you have no extraordiary excuse, you will be disqualified from competing. Depending on the violation, you may be able to run but no points. I think this is fair and will allow people to meet the new rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I’d prefer to stay stock with everything. For safety or reliability some things should be optional.


My inputs:


Short Shifter, throttle cam – Not a big deal to me. I might want them if they make the car more fun to drive.


Accusump, radiator – Should be optional.


Weld cage to A & B pillars – NO.


Extended cage for foot protection, kill switch – Should be optional.


Mirrors – No. I want the cars to all look alike.


Flywheel - No, but I’m okay with a weight penalty that is reviewed each season. I'd really like to see larger starting grids.


Tim and Steve - Thanks for all the hard work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only point about tires was not to change from TOYO or add any other tire just that if "others" wish to run with us for points they NEED the TOYO's.

That's all,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...