Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

Look, any further discussion is moot until we have photos.

Relax my mans, the people wanna talk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 2:07 AM, allanp said:

I agree that a planetary drive would be very good for the CAT. They could use the ones from 42099. Unless it's pneumatic I'm not sure what new parts it really needs.

I'm not sure if the hub from 42099 will fit. That one is a combination planetary reduction + Steering knuckle. Unless they package it somehow in a new housing.

Still, curious to see how they'll manage that. In the end, I'm after 'function+realism', and all dozers I've worked on do have a final planetary (multi-stage) drive.

Edited by DrJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DrJB said:

I'm not sure if the hub from 42099 will fit. That one is a combination planetary reduction + Steering knuckle. Unless they package it somehow in a new housing.

Still, curious to see how they'll manage that. In the end, I'm after 'function+realism', and all dozers I've worked on do have a final planetary (multi-stage) drive.

The sides can be connected to beams, and the ball joints can be connected to the ball socket arms often seen in suspension setups. There’s no technical hurdle here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2021 at 6:46 PM, Bartybum said:

The sides can be connected to beams, and the ball joints can be connected to the ball socket arms often seen in suspension setups. There’s no technical hurdle here

Correct, the 42099 planetaries can be retro-fitted,  but you missed the point. My argument is more about 'realism'. I work on Construction machines for a living, and the Final drive is a heavy/bulky gearbox that is attached to the dozer's chassis. For $450, I would expect TLG to come up with somewhat of an 'authentic' design. Also, another piece of 'realism' that is totally missing in 8275 is the fact that the two track frames are 'articulated'. This is done to allow the dozer to travel easily (and not lose grip) on uneven terrain, where the two tracks need not be parallel to one another. In the picture below, the sprockets (with teeth) are on the left, and they connect to the final drives (where I hope they'll put planetaries) i.e., fixed to the chassis. To the left, there are smooth wheels (no teeth, called idlers) and those can move up down (with the track frames) to accommodate for uneven terrain. Those idlers are mounted on spring-loaded 'tensioners' for recoil. In the middle, the equalizer beam in red is attached to the chassis in the middle, and with cylindrical joints to the left and right track frames... Just a quick/short lecture on dozer kinematics :)  

As you can see, for $450, I have high expectations ... beyond the remotes and fancy App.

 

jA7OKSJRMVgUGmUR2M53YCp0H8Azj7i0nm9darfS.jpeg

Edited by DrJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, I never imagined tracked vehicles had rocker suspensions! I always thought they were always fixed, for simplicity and toughness, and their slow speeds meant they didn't need anything fancier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DrJB said:

Also, another piece of 'realism' that is totally missing in 8275 is the fact that the two track frames are 'articulated'.

CAT has those drive gears on the "top" middle. So, I supose, it has something different. Articulation then shoud be around those points, it they are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AVCampos said:

Cool, I never imagined tracked vehicles had rocker suspensions! I always thought they were always fixed, for simplicity and toughness, and their slow speeds meant they didn't need anything fancier.

Excavators does have the same system for tension on the tracks ,all the idlers have a spring ,its also for safty on the tracks whan there is something blocked between the tracks .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking about tracks (and sprockets) I have made some calculations; since real machine has some 1200mm sprockets and Lego are some 56mm it means that Cat will be some 1:21,5 scale like Xerion and Mack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jurss said:

CAT has those drive gears on the "top" middle. So, I supose, it has something different. Articulation then should be around those points, it they are there.

Correct. There are many reasons why the CAT has 1 sprocket and 2 free idlers. One of such reasons is better durability. Also, that concept is found primarily on large machines. On small machines the configuration is 1 sprocket and 1 idler only (as in the picture I posted). For sure though, the left and right track frames are articulated though a bit different from what I showed. 

One of the consequences of such elevated final drive design is, because the tracks wrap around the sprocket over a smaller angle, the teeth on the sprocket must be much stronger, to deliver the needed/high tractive forces against the ground. One more detail. the CAT machine most likely has a fully mechanical transmission i.e., the power is transferred from the engine to the final drives via gears, and there is a mechanical differential between the left and right tracks. On smaller machines, the transmission is typically hydro-static i.e., the left and right tracks are fed by a combination of hydraulic pump+motor, both with variable displacements. In such case, the differential is purely hydraulic. There are pros/cons for each design and some machines use fancy closed/loop controls to assist in straight line-driving and steering. Those machines use very fancy mechatronic solutions and we have software engineers working full-time on optimizing their performances. In your typical car, it's very easy to travel in a straight line. In a hydro-static transmission, and uneven ground (one side of the machine traveling on mud, the other on gravel), one needs very fancy control algorithms.

The recoil springs serve multiple purposes. For example: if a hard rock gets trapped between the track and the sprocket, the springs offers some 'flexibility' so the system does not self-destruct, as it enables the track to 'jump' teeth. I have to call a colleague of mine to remind me of the other functions of such spring. Needless to say, there is a lot of engineering and safety features built-in such machinery.

Edited by DrJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bartybum said:

The sides can be connected to beams, and the ball joints can be connected to the ball socket arms often seen in suspension setups. There’s no technical hurdle here

You don’t even need to connect to the ball joints to anything. The sides connected to beams will provide sufficient reinforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the actual likelihood of us getting planetary final drives? The smallest possible planetary would be 5 studs wide at the ring, 7 studs wide at the mounting flange, using 8 tooth gears. Mounting any wheel, sprocket included, would bump the diameter to 9 studs wide minimum, possibly 8 studs but I doubt Lego would deviate from the odd-number spacing of sprockets. With 9 stud wide hollow sprockets for a planetary gear, that would bump the scale up from a potential 1:21.5 to a 1:16.6 scale, resulting in an absolutely massive model. This gearbox would either have to be a fully custom assembly, which I don't see Lego doing, or would be a very limited gearset due to the fact that it's only 8 tooth sun and planet gears with a meshing ring, which again I don't see Lego doing due to very narrow scope of usability. If Lego were to give us a planetary gearset, I think they'd end up giving us a miniaturized version of 24121, the 11x11 curved rack that's a quarter of a full ring, due to being more flexible in gear ratios, rather than a fixed ratio of the smallest options. 

What's the likelihood of having any form of idler that's compatible with the current track system? This would have to be 3 studs in thickness to have the idler rollers located on the outside of the chain of the track, as there's no way to locate an idler in the current tracks without it slipping out. I don't think Lego would deviate in this way, as it doesn't match the sprockets at all. This also compounds with the likelihood of a proper suspension, Lego would probably say a properly taut suspension, which would help locate a non-grooved solid idler, may stress the track pieces beyond what they were designed to do, and thus an illegal building technique; the tracks are designed to have a specific amount of slop between two sprockets, with a three sprocket system being possible but slightly out of designed tolerance. There's also the option of Lego developing an entirely new track system to implement proper idlers and rollers, but I don't see this happening either due to high investment cost for making the parts that won't see a high volume of use, and due to the limitations and design choices around implementing an idler into the already-existing track system, I don't see that part being made either, unless that idler wheel is also compatible with tires, which would greatly expand how often the part is used. 

Also keep in mind cost associated with this set. I wouldn't be surprised if CAT has some hefty licensing fees, though probably not as high as Disney's. This set will also more than likely include PoweredUP, and if it mimics the D11T, it'll have 6 motorized functions, left and right drive, blade lift and tilt, and ripper lift and tilt, all of which come with their own higher price tag. If we look at the D11T, we can see that both tilt actuators are roughly equal size, ripper lift is shorter, and blade lift is longer, if we see any new parts, we'll probably see a large linear actuator if all of this is motor driven, or the return of the dual cylinder bracket if pneumatics are used. 

Due to sizing and costs, we probably won't see anything new within the track system, we might see a new actuator or the return of long-dead pieces, and there's a possibility we might see blade and ripper pieces similar to how we have large, single piece buckets. The rest will more than likely be an enclosed body, with a specific engine assembly, and 6 PoweredUP functions. Then a ton of decals for CAT and D11T branding. I'll be surprised if Lego does give us any new pieces for the current track system, an entirely new track system, or a small planetary gearset that works as the final drive in an extra large hollow socket. If we do see anything new within the track system, it'll probably be some kind of rubberized coating or a rubberized piece that isn't a massive bump or a rubberized stud, but even expecting that is a bit of a stretch. Expectations of realism like this just aren't realistic when you look at the simplicity of Lego, this kind of realism would be more in-line with a dedicated scale model. Expecting this level of realism would be akin to asking Lego to produce a single piece body shell for the supercars, or asking Lego for a limited slip differential, or a torsen differential, when we all know either form of differential will never fit within the scope and design language of what's already established; reasons why a miniature planetary gearset that comes as an assembly is unlikely. 

While I would also like these realistic parts, I know they're not going to happen, and the only reasonable way to get this level of realism in Lego is to 3D print your own custom parts. Always ask yourself if a part idea fits within the established ecosystem, and if it doesn't then don't expect that idea to become a reality. Excavator buckets are really the only major deviation from this, but it's a reasonable deviation due to the geometry of those buckets being improbable to achieve with standard liftarm building techniques, especially with the smaller buckets, plus the one-piece buckets adds play value to a set as objects can be picked up with no gaps in the bucket; Lego is a children's toy after all, the buckets make sense. Whereas one-piece body shells, extremely intricate assemblies for miniaturized planetary gearsets, and small planetary gearsets that will only have a single gear ratio do not make sense. Lego gearing has a specific pattern, tooth count follows a rotational symmetry of 4, and each size alternates between spur and bevel; with ring gears being the only slight deviation from this rule, for obvious reasoning. Lego gearing is also extremely flexible in what you can do with it, given that you have liftarm mounts that allow for it, where a single ratio planetary would deviate from this, thus it doesn't fit the ecosystem of parts. Any new parts are going to fit the needs of high versatility in usability, and need to match Lego's own design language. This is also why one-use parts like a single piece body shell for a car do not exist within the scale and scope of Technic. But this is why single piece buckets do exist, as they're highly functional in play value. Thus why I believe the want for realistic components will lead to nothing, they're too limited in use, and don't necessarily fit the design language of the part ecosystem. 

So let's be realistic. We're getting a set that resembles the D11T. With functions that resemble the D11T's functions. With branding that resembles the D11T. With functions being remote controlled through PoweredUP. With the set more than likely being based on a 1:21.5 scale, using the 42529 XL sprocket as the basis of the scale. With new(er) parts to enhance the resemblance and to expand an already existing line of parts, a large linear actuator in the linear actuator line, or expanding the usability of parts, reintroducing the double cylinder bracket for pneumatics. Nothing more, nothing less. This is an entirely reasonable expectation, as this is what Lego typically does, and why I would be surprised if we get any super specific new parts that have a very narrow scope of usability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose there could well be a piston engine, just as something fairly simple to add, though it would have to be driven by only one drive motor, or through an adder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Xan326 said:

What's the actual likelihood of us getting planetary final drives? ...

Fascinating, isn't it?

Here we are talking about desired features (wishes) and realism ... and you come with your visionary comments and negate all of It? 

Bravo, if you knew enough about Technic as the many on here, you'd have noticed the past several flagships, starting with 8448 all had new/specialized parts. It's Ok for us to dream, and it's Ok for you as well to spend $450 on a big box of common parts. Heck, enjoy your hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think designers should focus on the blade and makesure it has the freedom of momevement of the real machine. With that what I mean is it should have blade elevation control, tilt, rotation and not just simplified up and down elevation and also the same for the ripper or maybe alternative rear attachment such as grapple for instance.

Rezultat iskanja slik za dozer rear attachments

Edited by kristl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DrJB said:

Fascinating, isn't it?

Here we are talking about desired features (wishes) and realism ... and you come with your visionary comments and negate all of It? 

Bravo, if you knew enough about Technic as the many on here, you'd have noticed the past several flagships, starting with 8448 all had new/specialized parts. It's Ok for us to dream, and it's Ok for you as well to spend $450 on a big box of common parts. Heck, enjoy your hobby.

You seem offended, maybe don't resort to flaming.

The point of my post was that functional pieces with very limited scope in implementation generally do not exist. Look at almost any, if not every, functional Technic piece and look at how usable it is outside of its original implementation in it's original set. This is why a miniature planetary does not make sense, it only has a singular intended use that doesn't match the ecosystem of parts. If a miniature planetary were to exist, it'd also need it's own ecosystem of accessory pieces to mount onto the flange outside of the ring gear, thus more parts and more investment. Similarly, track suspension does not make sense in the way that most tracked vehicles implement it, between idlers, in the current track system Lego provides; if the suspension was based on extension of the rollers instead, then it'd make more sense. Keep in mind that Lego also requires an ROI on every piece they develop, meaning super specific pieces just do not make sense, especially when the new pieces need an entirely new system to make any sense, such as proper idlers and idler-based suspension in a track system. I don't see Lego investing that amount of money into something that has a very narrow scope of usage. When instead Lego can develop a set as they typically do, have any gear reduction using already-existing parts within the body of the set, then drive a solid wheel, and budget money elsewhere. Keep in mind that ROI also comes with a higher price tag on sets. 

Look at the Liebherr, we're more than likely getting that in the form of a dozer, minus one function. $450 price tag, dual PoweredUP hubs, left and right drive, with 4 functions; where the Liebherr had an additional swing function that the D11T doesn't need. With probably a new single-piece blade, and possible newer pieces within the ripper. Possibly with a newer large linear actuator for blade lift if the model is going to properly represent the real life model. Any new parts would have a larger scope of usability throughout the theme, and a single-piece blade would have higher playability value (see previous post, in case you didn't read it all) which adds value to the piece even if it has limited use. 

A miniature planetary and proper track components would just be expensive for parts that have a very narrow scope. Where else would a miniature planetary gearset be used? A powered turntable perhaps, but we already have parts that fill that need. Just like the current sprockets are good enough to be used in place of idlers, rather than developing an entirely new system. What you're asking for is approaching levels of proprietary pieces that the Radio Control subtheme of Racers had, and we all remember how long those lasted, don't we? Or similarly, the x928cx1 piece from the Hockey subtheme of the Sports subtheme; or really anything from the Sports theme's larger sets could apply to this argument to be fair. Super proprietary pieces with limited scope historically do not work well. 

If you had read the entire post at all, you would've noticed that I also wish for these realistic pieces to exist. But I also understand that they won't exist due to scale, scope, and the current ecosystem of parts. Don't get offended over your wishes not being compatible with what's currently provided. You want realism but can't even have realistic expectations, how ironic. If you really want these parts, go and 3D print your own, then witness how they're either too complex (as in, an assembly of smaller non-Lego-esque pieces that only adapts to other Lego-esque pieces), too limited (as in, one-use pieces that have near to no scope of implementation outside it's original intended use, or does not meet a volume of sets that would use the part that makes investment make sense), or just outright do not work with what's currently available (such as a track idler, the same width as current sprockets, either slipping off of tracks or being tensioned to the point of stressing the hooks in the tracks, thus an illegal building technique), then 3D print a system that allows these ideas to work flawlessly (as in, developing an entirely new track system that makes idlers and sprockets of the same dimensions, minus sprocket teeth, work within a track, thus an entire system of parts), then apply your new knowledge to the development process Lego uses, and the costs associated with that; foresight is an extremely useful tool that'll show you why the ideas are impractical, and if you lack foresight, dumping a significant amount of money (keep in mind Lego's investment would be orders of magnitude larger than your own) into ideas that don't work out will give you the hindsight to understand the issues. At the end of the day, it's just impractical for these pieces to exist, and the realism factor is unreasonable for these to exist. The amount of unrealistic expectation here is similar to asking Lego for proper 45° helical gears, which we all know will never happen within the current era of Technic.

This is why I'm only expecting a large linear actuator, a single-piece blade, and maybe new ripper pieces, to be the only new pieces. A large linear actuator already fits the ecosystem, as it's just a larger variant that already exists. A single-piece blade would add playability value, just like the single-piece bucket pieces do, as Lego is a children's toy; similarly with newer ripper pieces, something that's more sturdy than some axles with a couple bushes on them. This is why I also say a smaller version of the 24121 piece is our most likely chance of seeing a planetary set, as it fits the ecosystem of parts and has flexibility in internal gear ratios.

Rather than get offended and provide a non-argument, maybe provide an actual argument. You mention 8448 had new/specialized parts, which is correct, but look at the parts it provided and look at the scope of usability for the parts. Every 'specialized' part 8448 provided can be used an endless amount of times, and has had a very wide scope of usability, either as the original part themselves or as a successor to the original part. Now apply that to the idea of fitting a planetary gearbox within a wheel, that really only has one use, and any other use the part provides already has parts being used for that use, thus a very limited scope of usability, thus why I don't think that'll ever actually exist, and thus why I say a smaller version of 24121 is probably the smallest planetary we would ever see. Unless Lego suddenly has a high volume of implementation for a piece with such a small scope of usability, it's impractical for it to exist. Look back at x928cx1 for an example of why limited scope pieces fail when they don't have a high volume of usability. This is why I say these ideas are unrealistic, because they factually are, which is why I also say to look at a proper scale model if you do want levels of realism that're unrealistically high for Lego. Similar arguments are also why one-piece body shells for the supercars don't exist, and why you should look at a different hobby if you want that amount of realism.

But what would I know, clearly I don't know enough about Technic, Lego, or the hobby. All it takes is a bit of logical thought to determine what expectations and wishes are and aren't realistic. Fascinating, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I have little patience with long posts... though sometimes I write paragraphs myself.

Yes, I did read your post more carefully this time, but there are 2 points:

1. My first wave of comments was about 'wishes' or hopes/dreams ... it was not about what I think TLG will do.

2. Your logic/math about ROI and why it does not make sense for TLG to invest in specific parts is a bit 'out-of-touch' with reality, at least if one looks at all the new flagship sets in recent years.

TLG has on many occasions issued specific parts that they used only ONCE in specific sets. Some of those parts were re-usable, other not much so. The portal hubs of the Unimog had very limited reusability. Many of the Bionicle parts (which some view as an extension of Technic) had zero re-usability. There is another popular thread (Lego for Kids and Reusability) where the consensus is that nowadays, TLG is after 'build it once and display it'. If you believe that, then who cares about reusability? Do you think the many new panels/fairings (and color) of the Sian are reusable? Not for me ... but then again, I'm not a MOCer and cars do not appeal much to me. 

Yes, you have your own expectations (with longer LA's and a custom blade) and own version of reality and 'eco-system'. All of that is defendable/respectable, and that is what diversity is all about. Let's just be patient and hope that TLG will deliver on BOTH of our expectations ... whether they make ROI sense or not .... In the end, relax my friend, this is just a hobby, and you're free to dream/speculate and build whatever comes to your imagination. ;)

*peace*

On 2/14/2021 at 12:21 AM, jorgeopesi said:

That is why I love machinery because is more than you can see at first sight, my old caterpillar d11 and komatsu d575 used that configuration.

I browsed some of the builds on your brickshelf account. Those MOCs are truly fascinating. If I may though, would be nice to link some pictures as those would 'entice' more people to go and visit.

Thank you for sharing. :)

Edited by DrJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are talking about possbile new parts, I think nobody mentioned one seemingly obvious novelty: the recent buggy had a new 15L beam with perpendicular axle holes, which seems something that should be abundant intechnic as it would simplify many builds. I’d expect these new large models to introduce more of that in various lengths and colors, it seems like an obvious direction of evolution. What do you think about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 2:13 AM, DrJB said:

 Also, another piece of 'realism' that is totally missing in 8275 is the fact that the two track frames are 'articulated'. This is done to allow the dozer to travel easily (and not lose grip) on uneven terrain, where the two tracks need not be parallel to one another.

(Thanks for a great post explaining it)
Apart from Jorgeopesi's models, another example of the articulated tracks from a Liebherr Loader, with a cross-beam attached to the chassis in the middle, with cylindrical joints to the left and right track frames:

16350346137_d13fe903d3_c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kristl said:

I think designers should focus on the blade and makesure it has the freedom of momevement of the real machine. With that what I mean is it should have blade elevation control, tilt, rotation and not just simplified up and down elevation and also the same for the ripper or maybe alternative rear attachment such as grapple for instance.

Rezultat iskanja slik za dozer rear attachments

Yes, you're absolutely correct.  On the larger dozers, the blade typically has at least 3 degrees-of-freedom: up-down (connected to the track frames), pitch, and yaw. Would for sure love to see that replicated someday.

42 minutes ago, Milan said:

(Thanks for a great post explaining it)
Apart from Jorgeopesi's models, another example of the articulated tracks from a Liebherr Loader, with a cross-beam attached to the chassis in the middle, with cylindrical joints to the left and right track frames:

16350346137_d13fe903d3_c.jpg

Beautiful! Thank you for sharing. You can tell for sure (between the spring-loaded sprockets and equalizer bar) that the designer has spent a lot of time researching dozer kinematics. Are the instructions available? Never mind it, found its own thread.

2 hours ago, Xan326 said:

...  Look back at x928cx1 for an example of why limited scope pieces fail when they don't have a high volume of usability ...

Is that x928cx1 one of your favorite parts? .... Mine too ... together with other parts waiting to be used someday ... :) 

If I recall, those spring loaded axle connectors x928cx1 were used primarily with Hockey players. Not sure they were introduced within the Technic theme ... but then again, I could go and check BL quickly to confirm.

The black parts in the top middle, seem to be the earlier version of suspension springs for system (not technic) .... they do have a very short travel though.

Favorite_Parts

 

Edited by DrJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

Since we are talking about possbile new parts, I think nobody mentioned one seemingly obvious novelty: the recent buggy had a new 15L beam with perpendicular axle holes, which seems something that should be abundant intechnic as it would simplify many builds. I’d expect these new large models to introduce more of that in various lengths and colors, it seems like an obvious direction of evolution. What do you think about that?

You're absolutely right. I saw that part a while back on a Chinese copykat and thought TLG will never make it as the mold is a bit more complex than the straight lift-arm (due to perpendicular holes). Glad to have more options available to us. 

Edited by DrJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DrJB said:

I browsed some of the builds on your brickshelf account. Those MOCs are truly fascinating. If I may though, would be nice to link some pictures as those would 'entice' more people to go and visit.

Thank you for sharing. :)

Thank you for take a look and for the advice, if someone wants to see ugly functionaly machinery there I am :wink: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 2:13 AM, DrJB said:

Correct, the 42099 planetaries can be retro-fitted,  but you missed the point. My argument is more about 'realism'. I work on Construction machines for a living, and the Final drive is a heavy/bulky gearbox that is attached to the dozer's chassis. For $450, I would expect TLG to come up with somewhat of an 'authentic' design. Also, another piece of 'realism' that is totally missing in 8275 is the fact that the two track frames are 'articulated'. This is done to allow the dozer to travel easily (and not lose grip) on uneven terrain, where the two tracks need not be parallel to one another. In the picture below, the sprockets (with teeth) are on the left, and they connect to the final drives (where I hope they'll put planetaries) i.e., fixed to the chassis. To the left, there are smooth wheels (no teeth, called idlers) and those can move up down (with the track frames) to accommodate for uneven terrain. Those idlers are mounted on spring-loaded 'tensioners' for recoil. In the middle, the cross-beam in red is attached to the chassis in the middle, and with cylindrical joints to the left and right track frames... Just a quick/short lecture on dozer kinematics :)  

As you can see, for $450, I have high expectations ... beyond the remotes and fancy App.

I learned something new today, thank you for this insight. It might come useful in my future tracked MOCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.