Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. mikef

    mikef

    Committee Member


    • Points

      27

    • Content Count

      968


  2. Peter G

    Peter G

    Forum Member


    • Points

      26

    • Content Count

      921


  3. oipigface

    oipigface

    BARCS Member


    • Points

      21

    • Content Count

      2,032


  4. Phil.Taylor

    Phil.Taylor

    BARCS Member


    • Points

      16

    • Content Count

      1,937



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 19/06/19 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    Today was a real roller coaster! Losing 11s per round to Mark R in the first three today left me thinking it was all over. But such is Levisham, the next one was decent for me and I finished with two good ones Totally chuffed. Thanks to Mark Treble & Jon for CDing and to Rich, T9 & MKS for the fabulous prize!
  2. 7 points
    But he already has John, it therefore must be you he's filtered out Stu.
  3. 7 points
    Hi all, I'm very confused by the discussion and try to understand first where is coming from this new rule stating that the reflight is now mandatory since the beginning of the year. I just looked at the CIAM website, section sporting code https://www.fai.org/page/ciam-code F3 soaring code: https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/sc4_vol_f3_soaring_19.pdf The rule (5.8.17. Weather Conditions and interruptions) is saying: "If these conditions arise during the flight the contest director must interrupt the contest and the competitor is entitled to a re-flight." The word "ENTITLED" is still used, so I'm totally lost ! I was also surprised at La Muela when during the briefing the CD told us about this rule. It was presented as a new 2019 rule, but in this document all changes are flagged with a double bar on the right side of the page, and there is nothing for the section 5.8.17 I did the exercise to look at every year rule and the last change of this particular section was end of 2016, applicable from the 1st of January 2017. I have attached section of each document so you can see by yourself. The wording changed from: "If these conditions arise during the flight the competitor is entitled to a re-flight." to: "If these conditions arise during the flight the contest director must interrupt the contest and the competitor is entitled to a re-flight." So first question about interpretation is about the second sentence: contest must be interrupted and the competitor is entitled to a re-flight. It doesn't say "competitor HAS to re-flight". Personally all interpretation are possible like: the DC can interrupt the contest after the pilot declined the reflight and finish his flight... Second point: Since this change has been introduced january 2017, and if the meaning of the wording is that re-flight is mandatory, then many FAI contests were illegal proposing the re-flight instead of imposing it ! ... There are many points in the F3F rules that are opened to interpretation, the most famous one was in 2000 when the VKR organiser started to apply the joker at round 4, and not after round 4. Maybe I missed something ... Thanks in advance for any explanation, clarification, feedbacks Cheers, Pierre
  4. 7 points
    Congrats to Pete, JP and Mark for their podium places - well deserved after three days of challenging F3F in a variety of conditions. And many thanks to Mark, Jon and Rich for the splendid organisation - the extra goodies at the end were a nice touch. Some photos, including 'After Hours' in Whitby: https://rc-soar.smugmug.com/F3F/2019/North-of-England-Open-F3F/ PS John, the elixir of life is always the next comp
  5. 6 points
  6. 6 points
    A few images from Interglide 2019
  7. 5 points
    Another 6 rounds today on levisham to make a total 15 rounds. Congratulations to Peter, John and Mark! 1 Peter Gunning 1000.0 2 John Philips 996.32 3 Mark Redsell 993.67 4 Dave Woods 989.97 5 Stefan Bertschi 965.3 6 Mark Treble 964.5 7 Rich Baygo 961.39 8 Clayton Landells 958.76 9 Mike Evans 945.76 10 George Young 937.0 11 Stefan Bernardy 931.4 12 Arjen Van vark 922.18 13 Tony Livingstone 921.4 14 Brett Larrett 916.76 15 John Treble 914.31 16 Rick Ruijsink 910.93 17 Eric Heine 908.23 18 Andy Burgoyne 904.54 19 Keith Wood 904.02 20 Paul Garnett 901.35 21 Mike Shellim 897.48 22 Dave Watson 896.7 23 Graeme Mahoney 896.5 24 Paul Stubley 891.31 25 Bruce Hudson 876.43 26 Les Wood 873.33 27 Nigel Witchalls 861.55 28 Jon Edison 840.94 29 Robert Carson 818.43 30 Bob Dickenson 731.1 31 Jason Bioletti 703.33 32 Dave Rumble 690.46 33 Maria Freeman 619.69 34 Alvaro Silgado 0.0 35 Pete Burgess 0.0 Fastest time: 32.83 by Mark Redsell in round 12
  8. 5 points
    Getting busy on the slope now Swiss air & JP arrived
  9. 5 points
    Marc - if it's a really big issue for you, then just browse the site logged out.
  10. 4 points
    I just got fed up with someone's too frequent twittering.
  11. 4 points
    The only change in the rules as far as I can see is that a pilot 'must' be given a reflight as opposed to previously being 'entitled' to a reflight when; a)the wind speed is below three (3)m/sec or more than twenty five (25)m/sec for at least twenty (20)secondstwo (2) metres above the ground at the flight-line. b)the direction of the wind constantly deviates more than 45 degrees from a line perpendicularto the main direction of the speed course. c)In the case of rain. I don't really know what I think about the why and wherefore, but I know I would be gutted if my good flight in a thermal was chopped off. This is of course far more likely on very marginal days so I can see why the rule was introduced. However, we need to apply the rules and get used to it. The biggest effect I see it having is that it makes the CD's job even more difficult as there is bound to be alot of dissapointment for the pilot. This puts more onus on the measuring equipment to make the CD's job as easy and consistent as possible and we (GBSRA) definately need to invest in a wind meter that can be mounted at 2m remote from the CD position if necessary with a clear remote read out. The rule says below 3ms for at least 20s so I'm not sure whether an average over 30s is good for this? An audible alarm below 3ms or 45 degrees off would be useful and then the CD could be monitoring it closely. It is probably possible with the right equipment / software to get this fully automated and the timing gear tells you when you have a reflight. I suppose this would be the ideal, it would be more difficult to get annoyed with a tablet than a person! I hadn't noted that rain is also included now... I can think of a few quick flights this year that might have been chopped off if that were applied! It was also tricky at the cliff in Eastbourne as the CD was sitting in rotor and a hand held meter that could be seen would have been giving a totally wrong reading. So lets spend some GBSRA cash and make the CD's job easier ASAP. I had a good look about last night and the best looking device I could see was this one - Navis Wireless Windy B Cup Anemometer Wind Direction by Smartphone Connection - https://ebay.us/DFmY4L Mark T & Jon will undooubtedly be in the best position to know if the specs. are what we need and whether it could be integrated with the timing gear.
  12. 4 points
    I think you have found it already John. Getting out there and competing at a high level in the uk and abroad and making a good job of it.
  13. 4 points
    Well done Pete, and Mark & John Treble. Good flying today. John was also punching above his weight with the locals.
  14. 4 points
    Another 6 rounds flown today on the south bowl. Some wind today and lots of sun. 1 Peter Gunning 1000.0 2 Mark Treble 983.67 3 Stefan Bertschi 977.67 4 Rich Baygo 972.56 5 John Philips 970.49 6 Dave Woods 970.23 7 John Treble 953.74 8 Mark Redsell 948.39 9 George Young 931.33 10 Mike Evans 928.83 11 Andy Burgoyne 926.92 12 Tony Livingstone 917.85 13 Stefan Bernardy 915.85 14 Keith Wood 913.85 15 Paul Stubley 913.23 16 Clayton Landells 912.54 17 Arjen Van vark 909.4 18 Paul Garnett 901.62 19 Mike Shellim 900.52 20 Eric Heine 900.06 21 Bruce Hudson 897.25 22 Dave Rumble 893.46 23 Dave Watson 893.4 24 Rick Ruijsink 889.06 25 Maria Freeman 887.21 26 Brett Larrett 880.03 27 Nigel Witchalls 875.31 28 Graeme Mahoney 873.99 29 Les Wood 855.39 30 Jon Edison 855.13 31 Jason Bioletti 829.7 32 Robert Carson 827.23 33 Bob Dickenson 746.65 34 Alvaro Silgado 0.0 35 Pete Burgess 0.0 Fastest time: 40.51 by Tony Livingstone in round 7
  15. 4 points
  16. 3 points
    Two 4mtr F5J MAXA PRO Models for Sale Model 1 Flying Weight 1750 kg schambeck 1025 motor ,YGE esc, Airtronics servo on flaps ,Rudder ,elevator ,ailerons Mks 6100. (Just add Rx and height limiter ) £1250 Model 2 Windy Version Flying Weight 1.9kg expensive leomotion motor 4s YGE esc Mks 6100 throughout (just add Rx and height limiter) both models include wing /fuz covers £1250
  17. 3 points
    I’m just going to chime in here and say it’ll be very disappointing if anybody is offended enough by this thread to remove it . . .
  18. 3 points
    Never mind the colour - look at that number on the wing root 42 its the answer to everything
  19. 3 points
    If F3F competition is to continue standing the test of time, the rules should keep F3F fun. Cancelling low wind flights that the pilot does not want to cancel, making rounds last twice as long just for the sake of some kind of re-invention of the thermal lottery, is not fun. As for improving fairness - the thermals are still there - just that even fewer people will get them. And conditions can change more over a longer round. And group scoring kicks in if 30 mins break is exceeded. And the consecutive flying order is disrupted. So fairness is worse, not improved.
  20. 3 points
    Hi Phil The problem is the 3m/s rule is to help pilots to have a re flight when there is not enough lift and not for any other reason. It was never intended to stop a pilot from achieving a personal best time. At the last Eurotour there were a number of pilots who got really good thermals and were on for a PB but the thermal drew the wind in a certain direction that the monitoring device registered below 3m/s, so they were forced to have a re flight. You might think this is good as it levels the field but a few flights later someone would get a thermal and the wind would happen to still stay above 3m/s and they would get a really good flight. So it did nothing to level the playing field. The thermal can effect the wind at the centre differently depending on its location but it can still give a pilot a good time either way. For me, if the air is buoyant and you are on for a good time, then you should be allowed to keep that time if you wish. Brett
  21. 3 points
    Interesting to study the recent trends!
  22. 3 points
    Gary thanks for your efforts . Hope to see you at a competition soon. G
  23. 3 points
    Hold the wig root in your hand and the wing vertical. Smack it down onto your hand. If you put that slug in, put it in the other way round. There is a thread in the other side. Fix a self tapping screw into a rod and then you can screw it into the lead and pull it out
  24. 3 points
    It would seem to me that the aim of the new rule regarding thermal lottery is aimed at getting rid of the very fast and very slow time. Hence averaging out rounds a little. This is obviously only aimed at low wind competitions, which seems silly as thermals have an equal effect on windy comps too. Unfortunately in a sport that requires wind and relies on weather input, the best pilot is not always guaranteed to win. No two flights are ever equal. But saying that, the better pilots always win! Not necessarily the one who thinks he is the best, but the one who flew his conditions the best. You need an element of luck to win and not having any flights in good/reasonable air will not result in a win, but surely it wasn't meant to be your day! It is definitely a shame that we saw a good run being cancelled by thermal influence. That could be .... disheartening...
  25. 3 points
    I know I'm not competing anymore so probably don't have right to comment, this decision should remain with the pilot. A good thermal can pull the wind in any direction and also lower the wind speed, doesn't mean it will result in a bad time. If the pilot is informed before the flight, they clearly state what they want to do If reflight is awarded after the flight, they should not be told the time until they have confirmed what they want to do.
  26. 3 points
    Had a top weekend! Huge congrats to Pete, John & Mark. I couldn't have called the top 4 pilots, let alone places!! Levisham was throwing some curveballs for sure this weekend! As was the Hole actually.... It was an honour to be a part of the winning team with Rich and JP and I was so relieved to have been able to play a decent part after a very good day on Levisham Sunday. Stoked that I managed to claw my way into the top 10 after being 29th after 3 rounds on the first day. Massive thanks to Mark T for Directing the comp and to the NYMSRC for hosting us so well. As always it was fantastic to spend some quality time with all of you in the sun on a beautiful hillside .
  27. 3 points
    Another fantastic weekend for the North of England Eurotour and World Cup event sponsored by T9HobbySport and MKS Servos. Report, including results spreadsheet and models flown here :- http://www.nymrsc.org.uk/Club News.htm Jon
  28. 3 points
    Thanks Pete. it was an interesting comp. My 3rd from last round I got 54 sec. then the next round 34 sec, that was almost entirely due to a nice big thermal,, it just shows you the effect of good air. If you were lucky it was a very satisfying comp, but for some it was a bit disappointing. At least we had a lot of flying and good weather and thanks to Mark Treble and Jon Edison a smoothly run comp. I enjoyed my new PB., and flying the Pitbull 2 in some good air. Well done to the top 3, it was very close in the end. David
  29. 3 points
    Here we go with the stage 1: Looking at numerous fuselage failures, it appears the mass of the tail feathers, with it’s inertia causes a high percentage of failures just in front of the tail area. This leads me to thinking the typical round/oval section is not the ideal for resisting these forces. It also appears that failures at slower speed occurs when there is also a wing tip ground contact involved I.e. a spin/sideways twisting at moment of impact. Resultant drag from different sections is typically small (assuming similar cross section areas) so a roughly triangular section was settled on. This gives a flat top with two small radiused corners for strength where compression failures could occur, and a semi elliptical lower shape which would be under tension at moment of impact. Adding a significant fin skeg also helps with the transition from the mass of the tail to a relatively thin boom. The logical step was to incorporate 40mm of fin base into the fuselage design, leading to selection of an all moving stab too. As far as I’m concerned, the aerodynamics improvement in an AMT is probably countered by the less than perfect joint between the stab and fin sides, but nothing’s perfect! The flat top also lends itself to top wing seating and a better transition at the trailing edge. Working forwards, the triangularish section under the wing is not conducive to gripping during launching so grip groves were designed under the wing seat. Typically the hatch is also a weak area and is the main restriction in width for gear/ batteries etc. Logically, continuing the same fuselage shape forwards would help here too. The top edges of the hatch cutout need to be as straight as possible and contain a corner, all be it radiused (stronger in compression than the typical curved hatch sides). Also stringers of carbon tube can be moulded in along these edges from nose to wing leading edge. Result is that the hatch is almost as wide as the fuselage max width and very stiff. Transitioning to round at the nose finishes my theory of a good shape for form and function, strength and stiffness. No doubt others will have differing views which I would like to hear. I’m fortunate in having a powerful CAD system able to create the 3D model and able to save it as an STL file ready for 3D printing software.
  30. 3 points
    Nice one RICHY!!! Homeboy kickin some ass !, He,s desperate to get them servo,s back in the shop lol!
  31. 3 points
    Bringing it back to the original purpose of Steves post rather than debate about costs.....this chart was an original post on FB and shows a very limited selection of models and their specs. For example they have left off the Explorer which is currently the most flown F5j model worldwide and also reigning F5j European Champion. The source of this table has come from someone close to the Sense F5j project. It is clear to see from the models selected for the chart that they are going very much towards the 3.9m and just under 4m range. I find it very interesting to note that when the Plus was originally inrtroduced as an inverted V it was only 3.7m. When it didn't sell it was made an X-tail and stretched to just under 4m There are one or two slightly smaller models out there such as the Infinity which is a successful and popular model and also the Crozilla which is a lot less known and not so successful yet. One other trend happening that some are following and some are not is the big flap theory. Also dihedral angles are going up (or at least there is a choice between lower angle for wind and higher angle for increased circling ability in lighter winds) Right now is a time when manufacturers are realising that a lightweight lay-up of an F3j model can be improved upon for the F5j rules. Particularly in light wind light lift conditions. Samba for example. It is also interesting that some manufacturers are producing slightly smaller models on the theory that they don't quite have the hang time of a bigger model but can use and work smaller bubbles of lift more easily like a DLG. There is no doubt the forthcoming WC has boosted model development but it will still be the best pilot that wins the 2019 WC not what model he is flying ! The good thing about F5j is it is more about pilot skill and reading air than any other RC thermal soaring class.
  32. 3 points
    These models are expensive but it's unlikely that a manufacturer is likely to get rich at this end of the market. My worry is that the cost prevents youngsters coming into the hobby. It would be okay if there was a cheaper 2nd division class, a kind of starter class, but all attempts to do so have failed to thrive. I had hope that F3K might be the solution but even these gliders now cost a fortune. I fear that once we've kicked the bucket there won't be an F5J class anymore.
  33. 3 points
    They are £50 each or join and you get a couple free.
  34. 3 points
    To all involved, thank you for organising a great weekends thermal soaring event with the setting, weather and international spirit self evident to all. The competition its self was certainly a game of two half’s with Saturday’s conditions generally favouring the more aggressive pilots being very active even allowing me to get away from a 19m launch due to an unexpected motor cut!! Sunday conditions however, was very different being over cast with very little pronounced thermic activity requiring much higher launches and favouring more conservative flying tactics which did catch one or two of the previous days leading pilots out. The fly off conditions proved very challenging for everyone, with no real everdent feeds to plan against and gauging ballast and launch heights even more critical. It turned out to be classic F5J compromises between working very low level lumpy air that disapated as soon as it reached the back headge row and then returning back up wind in the following sink was a real challenge for all pilots willing to take the risks. Thanks as always, to my team mates for there help and guidance and thanks again, to everyone involved in running a great event. Cheers, Steve p.s. it was a gem of an idea to organise the Spitfire to fly past and perform aerobatics all weekend !
  35. 3 points
    Pete Mitchell out for a test flight with his Valdimir's Models PLUS. Originally a pusher, he said he converted it to a tractor because, 'it bit me'. That's the countdown display Pete made between the booms....
  36. 3 points
    It's starting to look like an international contest.......
  37. 3 points
    As a competition & event organiser, I find the ability to see who is looking or has recently looked at my posts at any given time very helpful indeed. For myself personally If this ability were to be taken away, the forum would for me lose all sense of interaction / conversation between everyone. The forum would lose a significant amount or all of the enjoyment I get from it. With respect Marc, should yourself or any forum member for whatever reason not want anyone to see what they are looking at, simply browse the site logged out. Maybe some already do this ? Stu,
  38. 2 points
    Maybe these types of posts can go in the discussion forum under Other Subjects - General Discussion. You're not selling anything so don't put it in FS/W, but you are highlighting something that someone else may be interested in, just what forums are for. Just got to find an appropriate section
  39. 2 points
    I realise that most people on this forum are competition orientated, but some of you may also fly scale gliders. Anyway, there is a new venue for scale aero tow - Sherlowe in Shropshire, very near to High Ercall (google maps ref 52.737785, -2.602407) or Postcode TF6 6LT) and you have to approach it from the High Ercall side as the lane from Cotwall Road (Telford side) is a private road, narrow and gated, which are sometimes shut. It should be large enough (although it is no Middle Wallop) as Bob, the owner, flies his 1:1 Beech Baron Twin in and out of there. A two day event is being set up for August 3rd and 4th. Camping, caravans and motor homes all ok, there are flush toilets and a kitchen available as well as a full size aircraft hangar for over-night glider storage, just like at Milson. The charge is optional, but suggest a £10 donation in the bucket which will go to the air ambulance or another charity like the local Hope House hospice. The more flyers, the merrier please as if this goes well this year, then I have secured the option of a number of weekends for us to use next year. Looking at Aerotows, a BMFA scale event , GPS triangle , F5j etc. so it could be a very good new site for all types of soaring/model flying. Electric powered gliders are ok, but just one IC tug in the air at a time. Just need your support - let me know if you can make it please, or any questions email me at j.minchell@btinternet.com .
  40. 2 points
    Some of you may know that John Hovell and I are tinkering with design and build of an F5J. To that end, the split in resources is that John does the wings, I do the Fuselage. Not wanting to reinvent the wheel so to speak, we have extracted some very useful ideas and methods from Colin & Kevin and the Pro Glide project (many thanks to them for reducing our workload ) Getting to the point: I successfully produced a plug (the master shaped solid model) of the fuselage using a 3d printer which Colin thought may be of interest to others crazy enough to walk this path. As the plug is used to produce the mould for laying up the final job, the finish needs to be as good or better than the finished fuselage. I think this is the main point Colin was found of interest as 3d prints don’t have the best surface finish; possibly the size management was also of interest. So here goes! This is a list of initial considerations: (and a taster of things to come). 1/ Basic design for lending itself to 3D printing and best form/function (only my opinion so don’t shoot me down; just take any positive ideas and adapt them as you wish) 2/ 3D filament to use for the best results/minimum work. 3/ What printer to use. 4/ How to create a long plug from a smaller printer. 5/ Finishing methods for the surface. 6/ Laying up the mould. 7/ creating the final fuselage. (Not there yet!) I’ll also cover the pitfalls encountered on the journey to help others avoid wasting time and cash. As my time is limited, and I’m no expert at typing, these points will be spread over separate posts in the next few days. Apologies to those of an impatient disposition, but family life comes first! Photo is the first incarnation as an appetiser. Neil P
  41. 2 points
    Here are some photos thanks to Pete Beadle for on the field shots and Pete Mitchell the presentations IMPORTANT Everyone except John Hovell went home winners! A first in my recollection in that they all won at least one group/slot.
  42. 2 points
    I was just remembering that LaMuela has form for new interpretations of the rules... A few years back I seem to recall they marked out a very specific landing area and handed out zero scores to anyone who missed! More of a landing competition than a safety thing afaik. That was pretty unpopular too. Within the rules but not really in the spirit of f3f.
  43. 2 points
    Irony... Writing an unclear reply about a rule that's unclear...
  44. 2 points
    So can I put this scenario .......pilot launches into 3m/s + in a load of sink because weve all waited for the thermal to go and now were in the infill.The windspeed is above 3m/s all flight but pilot struggles to get any speed or height and does 10 legs and cant get above the horizon, plane has no ballast to speak of . Do you then score a zero ? And dont say this cant happen because weve all seen it , all that happens is you get a reflight in perfectly legal conditions You cannnot deal in absolutes
  45. 2 points
    I think that Brett has it right. As a pilot of limited & apparently declining skill, I feel that thermals & their use are a nescesary part of the competition. Hoping & ballasting for good air is a tactic or skill. Surely, if the windspeed drops below the limit yet the pilot still wishes to fly, then he/she should be allowed to do so. In other words, being entitled to a reflight should not mean that the current flight is auomatically negated, unless the pilot accepts the choice of a reflight Nic Wright at one time considered that thermals ruined competition, I consider he was wrong :- variations in lift produce a luck element which encourages participation by lesser talented individuals. Bob
  46. 2 points
    Thanks Simon, Yes I did see your Porter at Milson & it is very quiet, I do hope you can make it. At this stage I just want to get the weekend to work, have a good showing and not have any issues with the owner. We can fine tune procedures, numbers and types of tug and what have you, as we go along. John M
  47. 2 points
    Eventually got a flight with Pete Beadle at the Beacon. Not quite the actual Solstice but the next day so not too far off in Geological calendar terms! The wind was set up for the SW bowl which involves quite a brisk walk to get to the flying area. With this in mind I decided to only take two models, my Ahi and a ~4m RES glider, plus my camelback (containing a packed lunch as well as the obligatory water), umbrella, wind/waterproof jacket, extra sun cream and of course a transmitter. Quite a load!!! We got to the flying area and I then discovered that I had omitted to bring any spare batteries My Ahi was bound to a different transmitter and refused to enter bind mode with the onboard 4.8v pack. The receiver is a combo telemetry unit and needs a 6.0v battery to bind properly. I should have asked if any of the other guys there had a 5S Nixx I could use but I got flustered and forgot. So after all that I was down to one model... It's a good job it stayed up! It may have a 4m wing but it's a heavy old lump and needs to keep moving or it gets wallowy and 'feels' like it's about to spin in if you get too rough with it. I had a couple of close calls but Ivinghoe was nice and offered up some usable thermals as well as the slope lift. Once or twice I was caught out and had to scurry back for a quick landing. One was even upslope round at the South slope. While on the subject of the South slope, a few of us decided that was the better area to be in. At about 1400 I was ready to pack up but Pete was doing well with his smaller glider and there was another ~4m jobbie staying up so I decided to have that "one last flight". Normally something of a mistake, not this time though, I launched on the SE slope and after scratching away I rounded the corner onto the South slope with some others. It ended up being my most enjoyable flight of the lot The South slope has a nice landing area but small. I had two fly throughs before I managed to get it down. Might have to make the airbrakes a bit bigger! Nice to get another site under my belt Tony
  48. 2 points
  49. 2 points
    So are we, Stu. Hope the operation goes well and does the job.
  50. 2 points
    They’re all too busy watching you... Whatever you do, don’t click the ‘follow Marc Sinclair’ button. More seriously, it’s like a virtual clubhouse isn’t it. If we were all meeting in a room I’d be able to see who you were talking too, or what you were doing, so I can’t get that exercised about it.
This leaderboard is set to London/GMT+01:00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.