Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 80

Thread: Unlimited Class Race Car

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by wwgkd View Post
    Drivers don't check fuel weight at each corner........
    Edit: Obviously I realize that's a huge simplification of the process, so don't go bothering me with reality.
    Confusing engineering with driving.
    A driver "feels" all aspects in one way or another.
    It's the complex evaluation going on every movement and every input.
    It's why it is NOT a simple "task" turning it into a control system.

    NOTHING in the 599x will keep it off the barriers if driving over the limit.
    AND NOTHING will stop it doing exactly the SAME THING next time around !

    Yes, A HIGE SIMPLIFICATION.
    and to quote ...

    "for every complex problem there is a simple solution ..... and IT IS WRONG"
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post

    But in that case isn’t the car just taking the X that the driver chose and plugging it into an equation and finding the correct Y. That is relatively easy even with very complex equations. The problem is when you have some Y (output) and want to know what the correct X (input) is to get generate that output. Then you have to find the inverse function and that can be very tricky. Without the driver the car only knows what the next correct position of the vehicle should be, it must then calculate backwards to find the right input. Or does the car just guess and check itself down the track? I ask because I never studied ‘controls’.

    The bulk of the work to do this(the optimum drving around a track) is done relatively accurately nowadays, without actually having a computer doing the driving on the actual track of course. The work flow nowadays for top level racing simulation(ie, not simulation as in games, but simulation to determine setup and whatnot). Know the track layout(GPS, laser scanned...blah blah), know the car layout(all the physics variables, tire data, downforce map...etc), have historic data available from previous years(if available). And its just thousands of iteration in sim, to derive the optimum setup, run the car in 7 post rig to validate on the bench. Run the sim with corelated windtunnel data, and when you get to the track let the driver drive it to fine tune the setup, while at the same time, collect new data, put into the sim back at base, and continue to refine the process. The new data will give them updated info like bump, grip level, weather condition and so on. There are very little "guess work" left in this.

    Computer will lack the ability to make "decision" on the fly, and all its work will be to compensate for what it can't do compare to the ideal line. In the control theory there is the whole overshoot/undershoot vs a target and how to mathematically correct it, thats a whole different thing in itself, but its a well developed science and based on the level of information/technology/processing power available, they can get close to it.
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    "get close to it" ... yeah like the same way any of us could drive an F1 car .... into a spin and barrier on the first corner

    First GPS and "laser reading of surface" is only accurate to a few inches So most of the bumps that actually give car isntability in braking/turn in just arent' mapped. EVER.

    THEN the dynamics are what makes car racing hard. If it was like scalextric then it woudl be as easy. Used to be abel to take corners flat out in scalextric every lap. NOT REAL WORLD

    "well developed science" ... erm NO. It is that case with a limited set of known variables and accurate assumptions on control lag. THe number of assumptions are HUGE.

    "guess work left" .. sorry , but there are HUNDREDS of variables that are ignored.
    Study some chaos theory math and not the much simplified math-classroom equations.
    TINY inputs can through dynamic systems off completely.

    I come back the the basic EVIDENCE. The military can barely manage to make semi-autonomous vehicles and spend billions to get there. Not because it's EASY, but because 80% of it is easy, the other 20% is a nightmare. We're just not there yet.

    Remember we're trying to be REAL WORLD not computer simulation world
    THere's a reason why driver improve with experience and age ... it's because those unwritten unidentifiable skills develop based on open feedback learning. Until we have that then we are playing approximations. GOOD approximations, yes, but based on the number of inputs I know *I* consider when driving without even thinking about it, then computers aren't up to it yet and I'm not even that good

    ALastor touched on the crux, but I think you've taken it then the wrong way.
    You can't look at every issue as an equation to add.
    ALready pointed out if there are 500 inputs then thir are 500 TO THE POWER 500 decision points that equations have to "map".
    WHat you propose RM, works but not any help for racing.
    If you have an increase in slip angle on the inside of the outside tyre on turn in but don't cope with it then you can't stop a race, go back to the lab, run equation modification steps to add/modify and then come back to the race
    No, because on getting it "wrong" and only having equations to run by you've just ended up in the barrier
    Last edited by Matra et Alpine; 09-28-2010 at 08:36 AM.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Ever the practical one

    Here .... Audi to climb Pikes Peak without a driver - Technology & science - Tech and gadgets - msnbc.com

    So the BEST at the moment seems to be a possible 130mph on Salt Lake flats.
    Perfectly smooth, no corners to turn, nothing to avoid

    Will look forward to see what time it manages on Pikes Peak, but two clear messages ...
    first, they're not expecting THAT fast as they are using "computer algorithms that let the car make real-time adjustments to the terrain and calculate how fast it can go without spinning out of control." IN a TT, will be interestign to see times/speeds.
    second, "set a goal of creating fully autonomous vehicles by 2028," think about WHY they think it will take 18 YEARS to develop the tech and algorithms and control systems ? AND that's only to do street stuff at street speeds

    Gonna be worth digging out mates who're at Stanford .......
    EDIT: NIce shot at 2:28 of creating the AUdi logo at Salt Lake
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTcL0d7eQXc&feature=channel"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTcL0d7eQXc&feature=channel[/ame]
    From the PC in car it looks as if their goal is to keep the car to a gps track, no clear indication of any video augmentation.
    Last edited by Matra et Alpine; 09-28-2010 at 09:04 AM.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    I am sorry Matra, I can't agree with most of that. I am not talking about la-la land here. Most of this is done, if not entirely integrated, but at least exists as individual part of a system. Cars now are already making decisions for the driver in dynamic situation based on the known, monitored variables and making correction/adaptations to whats presented to it. A lot of the sports car now already have a pretty intensively modeled dynamic model to work with their VDC. While compare to what we are talking about here it might be completely rudimentary, the principle and effect of it is the same, if not with an extra addition of liability consideration(lawsuit is a bitch). In road vehicle they also have the extra variable of a possibly completely ignorant driver, who may not always do the "right" thing and the system usually have to cope with that until it runs out of options. All the active-driver aids stuff in a lot of modern cars are taking into the inputs, looking at the data, comparing it to a known set of library, and decided what is happening to the car, then looking at its options(be it as AYC, Active Roll Bar, individually braked wheels, active steering...etc) to actually affect a vehicle's trajectory and attitude that the driver may or maynot be correcting properly. Unlike on a track, it doesn't have a set target line, grip level or where the edge of the corner is, but it has an idea of what the acceptable behavior is based on the model and tries to correct for that. Now not to say that is fool proof and can save anyone from themselves all the time, but I am just saying that to a degree, this is in use.

    I understand that the complexity of this is not to be underestimated, but as far as the domain of lapping a vehicle on the track, which for all intents and purpose, is a closed environment with somewhat limited scope and variable, a huge chunk of understanding is already being used right now, and I think it is entirely within the level of the capability to be able to have a controlled vehicle driven quite fast on it. I can't emphasize enough though that this is quite different in the scope compare to something like a DARPA-type challenge, where you are devising something that has to problem-solve its way from point A to point B. In this you are giving the system as much known as you can give it and also programmed in a pre-determined course for the vehicle to take. You are leaving much less decision making to the vehicle. The entire scope of human knowledge and experience on this is not ignored neither, since that is the basis for the vehicle's programming. And I don't believe you would do all the aero/suspension/diff setting on the fly. Your baseline would've been optimized much like how they arrive at a track with a "developed" setup right now in F1, with aero package tailored to a circuit. That stuff could've been programmed to the car, with set gains adjustable as extra "knobs" for the engineers or the car to turn to give it more control over a given condition.

    The main thing why something like this is NOT done, is just because it serves no purpose. Ultimately there are little to be gained from doing something like this...

    Side bar though, a lot of car companies are doing something in this domain albeit not as extreme. Simply they are trying to replace a human in something like a durability testing when driving around a proving ground loop at set speed. So they don't have to worry about fatigue and whatnot being a factor....
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Addendum to your follow up post....Pikes Peak is still less of an controlled environment I guess compare to a circuit. And if not a greater challenge....loose gravel is much less predictable than asphalt....

    They crashed a camera chopper for that thing didn't they? BTW I think they have unmanned helicopters now, which is quite impressive in itself in how sensitive it is to fly one in a very unstable vehicle in itself....and lots of steady state flying...
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    RM, "cars" are NOT making those decision with any reliability at speeds of 150mph + and with levels of grip and decision making time of a race car.

    End of my involvement.

    I've presented CLEAR evidence showing one the issues, two the "state of the art" and three the "experts" view that it'll be 18 years before we get it even capable of road driving.

    AM out of this

    erm, Gravel is EASIER as it's at much lower speeds and because of the continuous level of much lower grip it involvles less precise inputs. In drift/loose it's totally less involved. It only may LOOK that way . Go drive gravel and try track and compare. Night and day.

    "unmanned choppers" ... let me repeat ... getting an error of a foot in the air is not an issue, plenty of flight space. Make it in a race car and it's a barrier. Are we not getting this point at ALL ? Flight is MUCH easier because it doesn't have such strict consequences of out of limits. Re choppers too, most of them are running auto stabilisers so making their control "simpler" at the high level decision making. But think it through all the way please and no guessing or over simplification on comparisons please as I'mn having to repeat the same things ten times over. THe suggestionwas on RACE CARS AT GREATER THAN CURRENT RACE SPEEDS. Stop bringing in trivial drive at 50mph from point a to b cases.THat is easy
    Last edited by Matra et Alpine; 09-28-2010 at 10:44 AM.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Yeah, it's all there already ........
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q162as5r19g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q162as5r19g[/ame]
    NOT

    PS: It was meant to stop BEFORE hitting the dummy
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    IA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by wwgkd
    I have to admit I stole the sonar idea from Ford, who uses it on their parallel parking system. They say highfrequency sonar works better than the radar systems that have been used before. BMW came out with a similar system immediately following Ford so there's probably something to that.
    I like the sonar/radar idea because it would be well suited to locating other cars on the track, as well as determining how close those cars are and if they are getting closer or father away. So certainly the same sensor array could be used to map the course as well.

    Although I like the idea of using the precision GPS solution and low resolution/range sonar/radar device for vehicle detection.


    Quote Originally Posted by wwgkd
    With F1 resources why not use their solution of multiple channels? Although controlling the cars through something so easily effected by radioshack gadgets may not work...
    I guess I was thinking in terms of visual image/radar/sonar processing which would require large amounts of bandwidth and very low latency.

    Quote Originally Posted by RacingManiac
    Computer will lack the ability to make "decision" on the fly, and all its work will be to compensate for what it can't do compare to the ideal line. In the control theory there is the whole overshoot/undershoot vs a target and how to mathematically correct it, thats a whole different thing in itself, but its a well developed science and based on the level of information/technology/processing power available, they can get close to it.
    But isn't the question how can the computer make actually make decision on the fly to determine what is the best line at given time/condition and keep the car at the absolute limit?
    "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wishing I was in Moscow, Idaho
    Posts
    2,585
    Matra you keep saying the military is spending billions to develop an autonomous car. They're not. If you look at the DARPA challenge budgets many of them are so small as to be laughable for a Le Mans team.

    They spent a lot of money on UAVs, and we have them. Several kinds. But they all have humans in ultimate control because nobody trusts a computer flying around with a bunch of munitions under its own control. There's a similar problem for the ground vehicles and as a result there's even less push for that, aside from a few oddities like mine clearing, and we have working versions of those, although the military isn't using them yet. The DARPA challenge at this point is more of a science project with possibilities for the future than a huge push by the US military to get autonomous vehicles out as soon as possible. Much of the research being done for that is actually intended for other projects, and they're just using this as a development platform.

    You point out what Audi is doing, but again they're not pouring a ton of money into this trying to get the worlds fastest race car, they're looking into future possibilities of cars that drive themselves on public roads, which is a whole different animal. Driving from point A to point B isn't actually that hard, true. But dealing with the other idiots on the road is why there are so many automotive deaths every year. That's ultimately what they're trying to develop. And I'm willing to bet that their budget for that is much smaller right now than their autosport budget.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    But isn't the question how can the computer make actually make decision on the fly to determine what is the best line at given time/condition and keep the car at the absolute limit?
    That's what testing sessions are for. As RM says they'd get a rough idea before they show up and then test to get their final setup. The car could sense changing conditions and adjust, wouldn't be all THAT different from maximising the course that a human driver is setting. Rain or something drastic like that would probably throw it for a loop, though. Eh, adjust to different settings as you tell it to come in to swap tires.
    Big cities suck

    "Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,104
    So let's say we have the use of the Ferrari F10 as it stands, as well as say a billion dollars (or we could make it the yearly budget of an F1 team for one year or something, or if you want to make it impossible, the yearly budget of the highest paid driver) to develop a system to make that car go around a given track about as fast as Ferrari's best driver, and the hottest driver in F1 at this very instant Fernando Alonso.

    Would that be doable?

    Matra has left the building I think though.
    Last edited by Kitdy; 09-28-2010 at 09:55 PM.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by wwgkd View Post
    Matra you keep saying the military is spending billions to develop an autonomous car.
    NEVER ONCE SAID THEY WERE MAKING CARS.

    HAVE said they spend billions on "UAVs" and next gen autonomous.
    Every smart bomb is autonomous once launched

    Still missing the point and need to think how FAST things happen on a race track. Sonar ? At VERY short distances the error increases the lower the frequency of the pulse and the pulse gaps. So unlike parking which can wait 1/4s in it's control loop then you've hit the car beside you in turn one BY THE TIME YOU'VE WORKD OUT he's there

    "remote" can never work as so much of the real time control be a driver is that difficult to quantify "feel". In a light weight car you can feel fuel slosh in a tank in quick esses. It's why any serious race/sprint caterham etc run race fuel tanks in place of the road one. Without that feel then the loop is too slow to react having to wait until the OUTCOME of the movement, THUS why I keep pointing out that thinking flight ( which is where lots of research on autonomous control is on ) isn't useful at all. Because the consequences in flight are nothing. On track at higher race speeds than we now see ... it's a barrier - or the car beside you.

    Also there's a feel that "testing sessions" are about sorting out the control system and I don't see that as in the remit of RACING. Sorting out the car setup yes, as that's what happens now. But how coudl it be "racing" ( which is where the remit of the thread went to ) if a team are allowed to effectively BUILD a different car for each track ? ie fundamentally change add/remove control features to match the one track in question. I'd say that's cheating the original premise.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    no Kitdy, just left RMs pov which I dont think is looking outside the box

    Putting it as explicit as that then I think we can use "history".
    Our goal is NOW to make a car that can drive as fast as Alonso.
    So question one is "WHAT makes Alonso fast/hottest" ?
    EVERY other driver uses the same control loop, interact with the car and the surroundings and react to move fast.
    SO, WHAT makes Alonso "better" than the rest ?
    Can't be that "simple" control loop then can it
    By empirical evidence. Q-E-D

    So, it now has to be the "fuzzy logic", the semi-automatic functions that our subconscious and learned muscle memory perform and on top of that the strategic planning "inteligence". These are the "edge" he has. But at the beginning of the season Webber had the "edge" and do we think the brains of Webber and Alonso work the same ? No. So - I digress - to BEAT Alonso we'd need the amalgam of ALL those logic/function/learning/intelligence and a system to determine at each moment WHICH was the best to apply given circumstances in the near future, the immediate future and the 'now'. Phew, never been done ( and we've spent 40 years on "Artificial Intelligence" )

    Back to Alonso though.
    Do we agree that to be as good as Alonso in the same machine that we need a control system that is better than him ?

    The mechanical response is a candidate - a machein coudl turn the wheel quicker - BUT that input is limited by the seperate loop of the tyre/tarmac grip so even turngin it twice as fast doesn't mean the car can react twice as fast. Tyre dynamics dictate that AND the mass of the vehicle.

    Knowledge of the surroundings is another candidate - where the car is, where the competition are, what the track is like. Some of these come from vision. Again give another top-class-driver input. Jackie Stewart attribute PART of his ability to his exceptional peripheral vision. He is quoted as saying he can identify a face in an F1 crowd as he passes a stand. So his "vision" on his surroundings was another level. Can we match that ? Not anywhere near real time Even face recognition is seconds ( unless you believe the BS of film and tv ) and that's a dedicated machine/algorithm.
    Does "face recognition" make JYS faster, no .. BUT he acknowledges that SOMEWHERE in that visual ability he is better placed to make the right choices on the race tracl. HOW do you buidl that in to an autonomous control system ?
    Worse, is somethign similar at play for Alonso - or not ? We don't know.

    Now, I hear the "ask the driver" suggestion. Spent 40 years in R&D in computing espsecially making critical control decisions for "autonomous" telecoms networks and have personally funded research that tries to "capture the expertise". Guess what, when you ASK and expert how he does it then after a few months of daily research you reach a point where EVERYONE wil say "dont' know, it jsut is" ... or "gut feel" ... or "feels the better answer". So askign Alonso isn't going to help us decide HOW to make a faster Alonso. Never mind the fun debate of is it possible for someone to know how to make a better thinking themself

    GPS etc isn't useful in RACING. As already stated MANY posts before, it's just too slow and not accurate enough ( even WITH differential ). Vision ( and physical feedback ) is about the only solution to fine tune the best outcome. Some of the issues on timing on the math already been given. Sample rates of video capture needs to be an order of magnitude higher than we have at reasonable cost/weight. QUality needs to be equally as top-notch. So now we're looking at processing 270 degrees of vision at >HD quality at frame rates wll in advance of 30fps and identify objects in those frames. Again, are we even CLOSE to doing that in real time at low res and low frame rates. BARELY.
    I'd looked into the multi rotor device I'd posted showing some good advances recently. NOTE the colour of the rooms and the colour of the frames they flew through. THEN spot the either cameras or (more likely) infra red illuminators. So again, we can't even take much from THAT as our remit is race on a race track with trees, leaves and in some cases even priests in kilts !!

    What do we get for a billion.
    Well first off a QUARTER of that is spent each year JUST on having a car designed and built that has the driver. A tiny fraction of the complexity we're goign to place on it.
    Let's assume that we coudl use current off-the-shelf hardware ( doubtful on computing ) and the rest needs us to develop the control system at a cost of 3/4 billion on software. ( 'Wrong way round' I know but let's do some lateral thinking for a sec ). Now 1M gets you 5 software engineers for about a year in R&D so we need to find 3700 software engineers for a year. THEN we'll need to double that for the interfacing and then double it again at least for the management at least. We now have a small company of 12000 people for a year to crank this out. THAT I suggest is why VaG say 2028 !!!

    Now, back from DoBono land excursion

    Reminder on the premise.
    Have a race car that can RACE a track faster than currently possible.
    Some of the aspect have got caught in the small-problem thinking and yes can see solutions for tunring the wheels, even doign best to avoid other cars and account for situations we get in to ( eg starting to spin or wheels locking up etc ).
    BUT, that's not how we drive fast ( or do anything fast ) we do fast things by PREDICTING what is going to happen in the near future, immediate future and now.
    So where is the biggest hurdle to faster ? It's in that determination of HOW to know what the near and immediate ARE. Given we - in theory - can know all about the 'now'
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    There is a varying definition of success here, I guess ultimately for the topic at hand, as in racing(driving around the track, at speed, with other vehicle, with actual competition in trying to best one another, etc)the ultimate car. In that extent, Matra is correct, I don't think that is within the grasp yet. Computers can't decide when or where to pass, anticipate each other's driving(offensively or defensively), and no way of to be "better" than the pre-determined "ideal", which is a huge part in the human psyche and their ability to be "better". I still maintain though that putting a car around the track, at speed on the limit, with an autonomous driver, with predetermined programming and whatnot is not out of the reach. Yes it has not been done, but no one is spending money like an F1 team on this topic neither. Not because its not doable(since when that has stopped anyone), but simply because there isn't much to be gained from the exercise.

    GPS based traction control is in used already though, Moto GP being the main user since some of the more traditional control logic for TC is kinda useless on a bike. Though they have other sensors also to poll data from it....

    To Alastor's previous question, the line is programmed in. Same way they programmed the Audi to draw circle. That portion of my argument is very much in use at the moment, in that they all run lap-time simulation already to figureout the ideal line to develop their car setup to do rig testing. And the drivers now take that into account when they go to a track.

    I am not at all advocating that making an AI to go racing, there are no intelligence at all in my exercise. And yes you would have to make the program to run each track differently. Although to say that is cheating the premise is not quite fair. They already make different cars for different tracks. A Monaco car is no where near the car they run at Spa or Monza nowadays....
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Monaco, v Spa v Monza are spring and damper settings, ride hieght, downforce, tyre pressures, wing settings. The basic car is the same, thus why we get some chassis are better at some circuits.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Favorite James Bond Automobile
    By toyota_trevor in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 12-06-2019, 03:14 PM
  2. Famous Touring Cars
    By motorsportnerd in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 353
    Last Post: 07-04-2010, 08:57 AM
  3. Lotus Evora Cup
    By Ecnelis in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 11:38 AM
  4. 2007 Bathurst 12 hour
    By motorsportnerd in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-13-2007, 12:24 AM
  5. V8 Supercars: Round 6 Hidden Valley, NT
    By fpv_gtho in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-01-2005, 03:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •