Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-10-2014, 07:10 PM   #341
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
A factor illustrated by the Fortress tests was that though all anchors were tested with exactly the same test regime and were each tested a number of times each design performed differently to other anchors of 'supposedly' a similar design.

The 3 'roll bar' anchors were completely different, the Spade/Ultra lookalike anchors were completely different, the 2 convex anchors completely different and the 2 fluke anchors at 32 degrees, both successful - but completely different.

People have tended to say the Ultra is a copy of the Spade (and I would have gone along with that) - but they perform so differently in this test any similarities do not show through in soft mud. Equally the roll bar anchors were also completely different, one was a disaster, one was less so and one would give you a totally false sense of security. Same with the CQR/Delta both convex - but how could you classify them together (except that neither are much use in soft mud). The Claw and Boss, different again and all the concave anchors, lumped together - all different to each other.

So those who categorise all convex anchors as being the 'same' know little about anchor performance, in the same way we can now differentiate concave roll bar anchors - they have the same characteristics to a greater or lessor extent but all perform differently.

Now we need Brian to do the same tests in soft sand then hard sand, forget corporate profits, spend money on testing! It might be that a weakness in an ability to perform in soft mud is similar in soft sand but these same 'poor' design characteristics allow that same anchor to shine in hard sand (as most anchors seems to at least work in harder substrates). Possibly all underlining - anchors are a compromise, no one design will suit all seabeds - so being prudent, do not put all your anchoring ability into one design of anchor.


Peter, I think your categorising the Super SARCA alongside the Rocna, Supreme and Mantus is the first time I have seen such a grouping. Peter Smith will be having a fit! Apart from other differences the SS has a mini fluke between roll bar and shank that, I believe, stops the anchor settling into soft seabeds and allows it to roll over. I think this secondary fluke is patented (not that this would stop anyone using something similar.) Maybe Rex can tell us more.
__________________
Advertisement

Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 07:30 PM   #342
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,701
GOOD OBSERVATION bangi,
If everyone would make such observations we could really get something out of this test. And yes bangi more tests (even so so tests) would be great but the motivation money just isn't there. Unless you could tap the government in the name of public safety. They don't sell enough magazines or anchors to finance more anchor tests than what we've been accustomed to.

And most boaters have and keep the anchor that came w the boat. I'll bet even few TF members have changed anchors as a result of our anchor talk. But I'm very analytical and enjoy talking and analyzing the designs so full speed ahead as far as I'm concerned.

Bangi it sure would be nice to know what city you live in and what boat you have. And no boat is fine.
__________________

__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 07:33 PM   #343
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,853
Again ....I'm A LOT LESS LIKELY to worry about test results as I am about real world feed back from known world class cruisers as to the effectiveness of certain anchors.

If this test showed the ABC anchor to never hold under any circumstance at any time...but was used often by regular cruisers who used it under a variety of circumstances...I would be a lot more likely to believe the users than the testers,

That said...go back to the first 2 pages ....Some here knew up front what this test and others would probably produce in terms of results. So there's not much use in "theoreticals" as not much new has been revealed in this test or most of the other tests to people who have been using a variety of anchors for decades.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 08:34 PM   #344
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
I pay pretty close attention to anchors and at least in my marina, there are more Ultras on boats than Rocnas, more Rocnas than Supremes, and more Claw/Bruce than all of the above.
Closest thing to a "new generation" anchor at our dock:



Here, the most common dual combination is claw and plow.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 08:57 PM   #345
Guru
 
caltexflanc's Avatar
 
City: North Carolina for now
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Small Incentive
Vessel Model: Boston Whaler 130 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,783
Some of you may remember Phil Rosch from the T&T days. Phil probably anchored out more nights than any four or five average TF members combined, all up and down the east coast and all over the Bahamas. Had two CQRs (!!!) on his pulpit, and an Ideal dual horizontal windlass with a vertical capstan to boot, all chain rodes. . Here was Phil's official anchoring advice "power down your anchor, pay out your scope, pour yourself a drink, enjoy your drink, come back and set your anchor" that was the long version. He once told me he maybe used the second anchor twice.
__________________
George

"There's the Right Way, the Wrong Way, and what some guy says he's gotten away with"
caltexflanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 09:11 PM   #346
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,701
Mark I'm quite sure that top pic is of a Bugel anchor.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 09:47 PM   #347
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,665
Here's a freebie for you anchor designers. Think storm anchor here...

Consider incorporating a shear device that holds the flukes at a certain angle to imbed the flukes, but when the load increases, the shear device breaks and allows the flukes to rotate to a greater angle, almost perpendicular to the shank.

You'd probably what a retrieval line on this one to pull it out...
Northern Spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 09:59 PM   #348
Guru
 
Daddyo's Avatar


 
City: Cruising East Coast US
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Grace
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddyo View Post
Chesapeake mud? I'm putting my money on the Danforth. During Irene I didn't even come close to budging.
This was my original two cents. I didn't mention Hurricane Sandy Danforth, never leave home (port) without one
__________________
Mark Bowerman
Brokerage owner and cruiser
Esse Quam Videri
http://graceyachting.com/
Daddyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 10:29 PM   #349
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,701
Haha I've thought of variable fluke angle devices. How-about a push button remote control of hydraulic and electrical hardware to always have the appropriate fluke angle.

Another way to look at it would be to consider why one wouldn't have the 45 degree fluke angle as standard. The anchor would probably jack itself up in the water and fail to set. There are very heavy anchors that do have a fixed wider angle (45 degrees) whereas the weight forces the fluke down so setting takes place. Lot's of variables.

But a simple spring loaded fluke that would keep the angle low until it buried itself and then sufficient force widened the fluke angle to the optimum soft bottom angle. But you'd be getting the wide angle in hard bottoms too. And of course that would'nt fly very well.

I don't see anything but fixed flukes in the future.

Mark I have three.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 10:50 PM   #350
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddyo View Post
This was my original two cents. I didn't mention Hurricane Sandy Danforth, never leave home (port) without one
AGREED!

If I may add: I've "tested" (consistently used) Danforth anchors all decades of my boating life... (as you do too) I feel extremely secure in Danforth's setting and holding ability. I plan to purchase a Fortress FX-23 and test it too. Due to its 45 degree shank to fluke angle I believe the FX should set easier/quicker, dig deeper, and hold stronger than a similar sized Danforth with its 33 degree angle - in mud that is.

For setting and holding, the extra Danforth weight (double) as compared to FX-23 is a factor. But, the FX light weight for handling is appreciated and the 45 degree FX angle is the big deal I see for better accomplishing setting and holding in mud conditions.

Reason I am doing as stated above is because for last six years and for foreseeable future we anchor in very muddy bottom areas only, i.e. SF Bay Delta Sloughs and Delta's small island bays.

Plan to report my FX-23 mud-anchor findings when completed... don't hold your breath though. I'm in no rush... with plenty of various sized Danforth design anchors already on our Tollycraft. Four are now aboard... and, just sold an original old-school 30 lb Danforth.

Happy setting/holding/pulling Daze - Art
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 10:59 PM   #351
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
My words of wisdom. Don't get between a man and his anchor.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 07:05 AM   #352
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Djbangi Wrote;

Peter, I think your categorizing the Super SARCA alongside the Rocna, Supreme and Mantus is the first time I have seen such a grouping. Peter Smith will be having a fit! Apart from other differences the SS has a mini fluke between roll bar and shank that, I believe, stops the anchor settling into soft seabed’s and allows it to roll over. I think this secondary fluke is patented (not that this would stop anyone using something similar.) Maybe Rex can tell us more.

Rex Wrote:
Djbangi, I am not sure if this is worth going through all over again, I have gone over the roll bar thingy many times, no one really seems to be interested, Brian from Fortress has also been also pounding out a message that is marginally related to the following, one more time, Sarca roll bar was before Rocna , Manson Supreme, I am talking probably 10 years.


So we had worked on and developed the roll bar design for many years and found in soft mud just as is what Brian is saying, if landing in a previous dibit , trench, or hollow from the drag of a previous anchor, a roll bar design can end up upside down, this can happen either two ways, it lands upside down or is flipped, the roll bar in soft mud then acts like a rudder and pulls the anchor down upside down creating a very slow drag, So we invented –design and Patented a secondary fluke plate that absolutely works a treat, it lifts the anchor up when its on the roll bar to allow-employ the anchors natural centrifugal weight advantage to right the anchor.

In a change of wind or tide, or both-- Rarely do anchors break out when pivoting around, breaking out is most caused by flipping the anchor, if it is c logged it will drag until most of the previous hold material is dispersed, if in soft mud a roll bar design can drag very slowly for incredibly long distances due to being clogged or upside down unless you give the throttle a stab to right it.


Roll bar anchor designs are all different, just remember this and you will see, easy to make your conclusion when you look at Brian’s graphs as to what choices you have in roll bar anchor designs and as to how they performed.
Roll bar sizes, (I am talking circumference not thickness) The mall roll bar clogs easily and can drag upside down, (end result poor performance) larger roll bar,( better performance due to less clogging but is still prone to dragging upside down).


Now the largest roll bar design on the market, noticeably much larger, has low but consistent performance over the first two roll bar designs, the low holding power in soft mud is marginally due to fluke design and shank base and throat height, the above can be confirmed by looking again at the charts, the other major difference is this, the manufacture of this large roll bar design has done a great job of ensuring the anchor lands the right way up, unlike the other roll bar designs that can land on their side or back.


This is why it is a consistent performer, keep in mind they do recommend very big anchors for small boats, just maybe they should have been heavier and larger anchors as to their competitors to produce good figures, (just sayaing) why all of this looks positive the unknown can still, will get you, if a large roll bar design is flipped in soft mud look out, you may then wish you had a smaller roll bar design, as mentioned when on their roll bars create drag, a very slow drag, but an anchor with a larger roll bar will sink-be dragged in deeper creating even more drag and somewhat slower, the larger the roll bar the more difficult to right themselves with a thump of the throttle.


This company has also stated you do not need their roll bar? True until you drift directly over it in a wind shift or tide, then my friends no amount of thumping the throttle will right it. All anchors can drag upside down at some time or another,difference being a roll bar with out a self writng secondary fluke can be a problem.


In firm or hard soils only shallow penetration is needed to supply a sufficient hold of which all three can offer, really not much chance of clogging regardless of roll bar size, they all have very sharp entry points to cope with this and there is really no one with a major advantage over the other.


Yes I know I am an opposition, but I am here in Australia, no threat to anyone, but before the big three roll bar anchors were invented or being marketed worldwide we were selling the original Sarca in New Zealand probably 5 years prior.


Just so you know, the original Sarca was concave before--------- and was a dead ringer, we turned it up the other way into a convex design, as in its original concave format was a mud bucket and clogged in soft mud, fact not fiction.


I included the latter just to give me some credibility on what I have commented on.


You know if you look closely at more than just holding power in Brian's test there really is alot to learn.


Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 07:29 AM   #353
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art View Post

I plan to purchase a Fortress FX-23 and test it too.

For setting and holding, the extra Danforth weight (double) as compared to FX-23 is a factor. But, the FX light weight for handling is appreciated and the 45 degree FX angle is the big deal I see for better accomplishing setting and holding in mud conditions.

Are you not considering an FX-37 at all?

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 09:26 AM   #354
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger42c View Post
Are you not considering an FX-37 at all?

-Chris
Hey Chris

Thanks for asking. I have considered FX-37. However FX-23 is already one step larger than what Fortress recommends for boat our size, i.e. 34', 22K lb. gross, Tollycraft tri cabin cruiser. We plan to use FX anchor as a back anchor in very muddy bottom of SF Delta. FX-37 (I've held that model fully assembled in my hands at WM)... I'm sure the 37 would provide even more chance for setting/holding in the mud-bottom locations we traverse... however, it is also the light weight of the FX-23 that plays heavily in my decision. We currently have and use a light weight old-school (1970's) aluminum Viking anchor (same approx. size and weight as FX-16). It holds fairly well in mud bottom as back anchor, but, has let lose and therefore I still do not feel totally secure enough when we leave boat for many hours while cavorting around Delta in our fast runabout. The unique fashion in which we usually anchor at Delta islands' slough sides makes it imperative that both front and back anchor do not let go.

I feel fairly confident that FX-23 with considerably larger fluke area than our current Viking anchor, as well as its increased 45 degree fluke to shank angle, will do the trick! If not - then I may purchase an FX-37??? Storage aboard in a non-intrusive location on boat is also a factor as well as light weight for handling. FX-37 is getting into the pretty big range! Time will tell. I'll post results after repeat tests... maybe mid to end summer 2015.

Art
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 10:23 AM   #355
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
From the detail of his posts, it is worth stating that Rex of Anchor Right has painstakingly designed and thoroughly tested his anchors of multiple types, and as I have mentioned previously, I consider him to be a pioneer in this field.

Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 11:07 AM   #356
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art View Post

I'm sure the 37 would provide even more chance for setting/holding in the mud-bottom locations we traverse... however, it is also the light weight of the FX-23 that plays heavily in my decision.

I feel fairly confident that FX-23 with considerably larger fluke area than our current Viking anchor, as well as its increased 45 degree fluke to shank angle, will do the trick! If not - then I may purchase an FX-37??? Storage aboard in a non-intrusive location on boat is also a factor as well as light weight for handling. FX-37 is getting into the pretty big range!

Yeah, it's bigger but also heavier. I don't find the weight to be overwhelming, but that's in comparison to our larger/heavier primary anchor. FWIW, we store our FX-37 dismantled and in the bag, and that doesn't take up much space.

OTOH, it's not instantly available, either. Not a problem for us, since it's our first back-up, but we never (so far) deploy a stern anchor so ours sounds different from your situation.

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 03:16 PM   #357
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger42c View Post
Yeah, it's bigger but also heavier. I don't find the weight to be overwhelming, but that's in comparison to our larger/heavier primary anchor. FWIW, we store our FX-37 dismantled and in the bag, and that doesn't take up much space.

OTOH, it's not instantly available, either. Not a problem for us, since it's our first back-up, but we never (so far) deploy a stern anchor so ours sounds different from your situation.

-Chris
Chris

SF Delta anchoring design I established for our boat is considerably different than most anchoring situations.

I spent 20 years anchoring in salt water bays, channels, and even off shore in not too deep locations of New England. I also anchored boats in SF Bay. Nearly all times front anchor allowing full swing was all I used or needed.

April 09, when we moved our Tolly boat into SF Delta fresh and warm swimming waters, I ran into a MUDDY bottom as I'd never before been accustomed. This stuff is feet deep of the finest silt-like bottom mud I've ever seen... black, wet, sticky talcum powder is best comparison I can think of.

Sooo... I quickly devised another anchoring technique that included the nearly unlimited availability to small islands' above water land mass in conjunction with a stern anchor in muddy bottom for nearly negated swing. When both anchors are positioned correctly this puts boat at 90 degrees to island shore and nose of boat within 10 to 15 feet of island edge (still having 4 to 5 feet water under bow - because island edges drop off suddenly and deeply). To boat rear 15 to 25 feet depth remains off swim step. My "dual anchor" process works wonderfully as long as the rear anchor does not let lose. Because, if it does, via tidal current the boat can swing parallel with island's shore as tide change begins toward high or low. A "high and dry" grounding could occur if we were asleep or away in our runabout and current changed toward low tide. In the Delta there is often a very high tide followed by the next high (or groups of highs) up to 2' lesser in height. That could mean it may take days or even weeks to wait for a tide that would "refloat the boat"... if she'd been grounded parallel with shore from results of a very high tide wherein current swung her against shore as it headed toward low.

A specially placed small front anchor firmly secured into island "growth", on dry land never fails! It's the rear anchor taking hold in that yucky mud that simply MUST also never fail.

FX-37 would give even more security than the FX-23... but, whichever anchor I chose will need to be able to hang assembled on my bow rail clips to be deployed easily and quickly by bring it to rear and fastening chain end's SS clip onto its shank-hole. We'll use it nearly every time we anchor out swimmen and playen in and around the Delta.

Boating Cheers! - Art
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 03:32 PM   #358
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,701
Rex,
What a very interesting post. I love a post that makes me think and I got my head around most all of it eventually. There's stand up comedy and stand up anchors and you've got one of them there uppers. There seems to be no end of mysterious and form follows function intrigue.

You wrote;
"In a change of wind or tide, or both-- Rarely do anchors break out when pivoting around, breaking out is most caused by flipping the anchor, if it is c logged it will drag until most of the previous hold material is dispersed, if in soft mud a roll bar design can drag very slowly for incredibly long distances due to being clogged or upside down unless you give the throttle a stab to right it."
B
For the Supreme or the Rocna to develop it's maximum holding power I would imagine it to be "clogged" as you say. As I've stated earlier the roll bar clogging (forcing the substrate through the "hole" between the roll bar and the fluke) probably produces a good portion of it's resistance. Resistance it is .. but far from the holding power of a good fluke. Your SARCA is far less subject to this "jam the substrate through the slot" kind of "after effect holding power" function that powers the Supreme and the Rocna to a great extent.

When I finish experimenting w my Supreme it will no longer be a roll bar anchor.

And your point about consistency of performance being important is under stated IMO. Of course an anchor could be so weak that holding power could trump consistency but most anchors probably generate enough holding power so as to render consistency or/and dependability as the #1 performance feature of any boat anchor. And I know of no anchor that appears to deliver more consistency than your SUPER SARCA.

What company has stated their roll bar is not needed?

And did you abandon the concave fluke completely for environmental reasons?
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 10:46 PM   #359
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Mannyboats Wrote:
Rex,
What a very interesting post. I love a post that makes me think and I got my head around most all of it eventually. There's stand up comedy and stand up anchors and you've got one of them there uppers. There seems to be no end of mysterious and form follows function intrigue.

Rex Wrote:

Thank you Eric and Brian for your kind words, in my last post I set out to answer Djbangi question, after I had sent the post I sat down and re read it, unfortunately my passion got the best of me and I commented on more than I should have, so if I offended any of the opposition I apologize. Plenty of room for all designs to satisfy many opinions.

Eric wrote:
What company has stated their roll bar is not needed?

And did you abandon the concave fluke completely for environmental reasons?

Rex Wrote:

Roll bar not needed what company? No Im not naming but it is Easy one for you Eric.

Yes Eric I abandoned concave for a number of reasons; if you want to collect eggs then that’s the way to go, try holding eggs on a convex design.

Same with fist size rocks, concave drags them in and collects, weed , mud, all the same, we were first supplying trailer boats when we started with the old concave sacra, when anchored in mud it was almost impossible to break free and then hoist up with a fluke packed—clogged with heavy mud, trailer boats did not have winches then, further we found a fluke design( CONVEX) can easily disperse clutter therefore is more likely -- readily take hold if resetting from a break out is required.

As far as the environment is concerned, well the concave sacra was never going to make it with our fisherman in Westernport, every time we hauled them up we removed large dibits of the weed beds, a large fishing chandlery at the time, Boronia Marine refused to put them in, so Eric, you could say there were a few good pointers that persuaded us to change.

Good luck with your anchor theories Eric, what you will find in designing it is like giving with one hand to be robbed by the other, sometimes going in reverse is better than forward thinking when it comes to anchor designing.

If we gave our wives this much attention we would all have smiles on our faces and maybe, forget about anchors.


Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 01:55 AM   #360
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
While this will be interesting, let's everyone keep in mind that it will not be any sort of defining test as to the best anchor. When you get testing done by a brand, they're obviously smart enough to test in all conditions that show their product best. Yes, independent review of results, but not an independent choice of conditions. Still, I look forward to the results. Just won't read more into them than they are. They are a test of anchors in one specific setting chosen by Fortress.
Exactly No mater what happens here it has to be suspect. If the funding is by one of the contestants and conditions are limited or selected in any way by a financially interested party only the na´ve could consider the testing unbiased. Now if Fortress established a blind fund earmarked for anchor testing by a independent third party selected for objectivity and not knowing where the $ came from then maybe we have unbiased testing. When it comes to companies selling products and claims related to the same in our society it pays to be a major skeptic. This in no way makes a statement about the quality or ability of the anchor but says much about the likely value of the intended tests.
__________________

eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012