Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Another Valve Shim Question

Recommended Posts

Hi folks, 

 

I haven't posted much - but have lurked and searched shim and valve subject matter - including some great, basic descriptions and definitions when it comes to shim stacks, cross-over shims, float...etc. Still I'd like to direct some questions based on my own shim stack and what I'm feeling on my 45mm MZ Shivers. I'm riding a 650 XChallenge that I recently converted to a full Shiver using cartridges/internals from a 07' Aprilia RXV550. I've already gotten some help and have beefed up my springs to match riding/bike weight - my SAGs seem to be pretty close.

 

The one thing that seems a common theme with these cartridges with 4 small ports in the piston - seems to be harshness. I know there are many factors/variables that affect this, but I wanted to share my shim stack and ask some theoretical questions just to see if I understand things correctly.

 

I have 11 shims in my compression valve stack - from valve face out;

 

.10 x 23

.10 x 23

.10 x 11

.10 x 22

.10 x 20

.10 x 18

.10 x 16

.10 x 13.5

.15 x 12

.20 x 11

.20 x 11

 

1) As I understand terminology, the .10 x 11 (#3) is my cross-over shim, correct?

2) This stack represents a dual stage stack. Do the first two shims affect low speed compression damping?

3) As I understand things - the number of shims in total affect compression damping overall, so if I were to remove, say one of the .20 x 11mm shims, would this would soften/slow the overall stack/damping speed?

4) What would the affect be of moving the cross-over shim up or down the tapered stack?

 

I'm running 10W (VI around 35) Silkolene at around 95mm air gap. I plan to move to 5w (VI near 23) and possibly increase the air gap to 100mm due to those very small port holes. has anyone had any luck trying to increase the size of those ports (stock MZ Shiver Factory works (2007)) - looks like you could only increase the existing diameters by a very small amount so I don't know if its worth it.

 

I guess for now, I just want to get an idea of whether this stack overall would be considered "stiff" and if there is anything easy to try as a first step to help the harshness. I think the Aprilia RXV 550 was a lighter bike than the XChallenge, butI'm not sure how much difference this makes as Ive already beefed up the spring (.48 n/mm - .52)

 

Thanks for your patience and help with a few nOOB questions...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . . . I wanted to share my shim stack and ask some theoretical questions just to see if I understand things correctly. . . . etc.

 

I like questions like this.  Good basic questions.  And it sound like you would like short, definitive answers that don't include theory or opinion.  The funny thing is, you will probably get about 10 different answers / opinions on how a shim stack works.  Obviously, if all 10 opinions are the same, you might think they are correct.  But my guess is you will get 10 different opinions, each being different.

 

Here is my 2-cents worth.  Here is your shim stack.  We like to record the shims in a familiar format.  Everyone has their own method of recording the stacks, and they are equally good, it's just a matter of getting used to something.

 

shim_question_01.png

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

To answer your questions.

1. yes

2. no

3. yes and yes

4. make it different

 

 

We were being facetious with answer 4.  That is a very difficult question to answer.  All the shims above and below the crossover shim have a huge impact on how it works.  Basically, there is no accurate way to describe exactly what any crossover shim does unless you physically measure each stack.  In other words, it's hard to have a quick rule of thumb to explain the crossover.

 

You also asked this question:

"I guess for now, I just want to get an idea of whether this stack overall would be considered "stiff".

 

That could almost be consider that a trick question.  There are too many other factors in your suspension unit that need to be understood before you can say a particular shim stack is too stiff.  But, if we were to try to answer that, here is one suggestion. 

 

First, we would need some way to determine the 'exact' stiffness on any given shim stack, based on the diameter and thickness of the shims, and the number of shims in the stack.  For example, here are 3 stacks that are easy to decipher:

 

1 - - - - -

10 - 23.1

11.2 b

 

2 - - - - -

15 - 23.1

11.2 b

 

3 - - - - -

20 - 23.1

11.2 b

 

In this simple example, we can see which is stiffer.  A better way to view the stacks would be to measure each stack to see how stiff it was. For example:

1 - - - -

32 lbs

 

2 - - - -

40 lbs

 

3 - - - -

48 lbs

 

 

That would make it simple.  You could apply the same system to any stack, regardless of the number of face shims, crossover, high speed shims etc.  Each stack would ultimately have a 'stiffness' that could be measured.  Once you did this, they all could be compared against each other, and you could then decide if one looked 'too stiff' for a particular application. 

- - Shims are nothing more than flat springs.  Springs are more common, and can easily be measured (spring raters are readily available).  Shim stacks harder to measure, but it is possible.

 

So, that's my 2-cents.

 

kevin

Edited by kevinstillwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin,

 

Thanks for taking the time to help me along with my understanding. I kinda knew I was asking simple, basic questions, but also understand its much more complex than appears as it is only a part of a system. It's all part of moving along the learning curve for me....and I'm all about understanding basics before things move on. This is my first dive into ANY front suspension work and I'm having some good fun with the conversion I did and starting to increase my knowledge and vocabulary a bit..(albeit ever so dangerous).. :D

 

I like the map of my stack that you did - makes it easier to understand for sure. On my question #2 that you answered "no" - is that a no to being a dual stage stack or a no to affecting low speed compression damping? Or no to both? In your map you refer to those first two face shims as "low speed" stack, so I'm just a little confused (or maybe my question was asked/worded incorrectly?). Can you give me a little more explanation?

 

Yeah, I thought I may have been asking a loaded question about overall stiffness of the stack. What you wrote certainly makes sense.

 

Did you have any thoughts regarding the piston port sizes - is this where most folks upgrade to aftermarket valves to increase flow capacity? Thinking that the more flow you have also, the more shims you may need to oppose that flow to dial in feel. I'd like to stick with simple (ya, right) changes to what I have for now just to get an idea of the impact of each change. I don't mind playing around a bit - and I don't expect perfection - just want to get a little better compression damping for dual sport riding (moderate low speed technical or higher speed two track/road washboard/pothole kinda stuff). What I have now is better than the original setup for sure (at least I have a platform that I can adjust now).

 

 

Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. On my question #2 that you answered "no" - is that a no to being a dual stage stack or a no to affecting low speed compression damping? Or no to both?

 

 

2. Did you have any thoughts regarding the piston port sizes - is this where most folks upgrade to aftermarket valves to increase flow capacity?

 

1.  I was a bit quick with the answers.  To answer your first question.  I thought you were making a statement about the dual stage stack, not asking a question.  But yes, this stack represents a dual (two) stage stack.  And, the first two shims do effect the low speed compression damping.  They obviously effect all the compression damping.  I replied 'no' in the sense that I hear many say that the first two shims have 'more control' over the low speed compression damping. . . . .

 

This might be a better explanation.  It's commonly thought / said that the shims in the low speed stack effect mostly low speed, and the shims in the high speed stack effect mostly high speed.  Thinking along this line, one might say you could take a couple shims out of the low speed stack, stick them in the high speed stack and adjust the damping curve (removing the low speed shims would decrease low speed comp force, and putting them in the high speed stack would increase high speed compression force).  But, it doesn't really work like that.

 

2. I'm not familiar enough with your forks to give an answer.  The obvious is that small holes are stiffer, and larger holes would make it softer. But there are many factors that need to be known to answer for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kevin,

 

No problem on question #2. The flow path looked awful - essentially 4 sets of 2 - 90 degree intersecting holes.  I say looked, because I took the liberty of some slight modifications and I think improved this a bit. It wasn't all spur of moment, I had discussed this a bit with the local suspension guy and he commented along the same line (restrictive path/port holes). We'll see.

 

Thanks for expanding on your answer to question #1. At least I know I was referring to my stack correctly. Speaking of which, I missed a shim in my original posts - not that it makes a difference for sake of our discussion so far. The revised stack has 12 shims as listed below (had 3 of the same base shims .vs. 2);

 

.10 x 23

.10 x 23

.10 x 23

.10 x 11

.10 x 22

.10 x 20

.10 x 18

.10 x 16

.10 x 13.5

.15 x 12

.20 x 11

.20 x 11

Edited by mtncrawler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a bunch of work on the Shiver 45 forks on Huskies, I assume yours are quite similar.  They have some weird things that require work, but once you make some changes I think they work really well for woods/enduro.  Some specific responses to your questions:
 

The one thing that seems a common theme with these cartridges with 4 small ports in the piston - seems to be harshness. I know there are many factors/variables that affect this, but I wanted to share my shim stack and ask some theoretical questions just to see if I understand things correctly.


There are several different base valve piston designs in the Shiver 45s; I have personally seen 3 different designs, but there may be more out there.

If you look at the side of the damper rod and crunch some numbers (or do some restackor sims), you will see that at higher fork speeds the port size can become a restriction. I don't know how much harshness this adds, but I think it's not good so I always drill these pistons out when I revalve the forks. I do not believe that aftermarket valves are necessary, although there are some good options out there (Racetech, Rider's Edge) if you want to go that route. Depending on the base valve, the ultimate size that you can drill to varies quite a bit. If you try to go too big, you can/will chip the shim seat(s) and ruin the values. Here is an example on how large I was able to go on a newer style valve, from my 2006 TE610 (only one port drilled in this picture for comparison):

IMG_0387.JPG
 

1) As I understand terminology, the .10 x 11 (#3) is my cross-over shim, correct?


Yes.
 

2) This stack represents a dual stage stack. Do the first two shims affect low speed compression damping?


Yes, it is a dual stage stack. Yes, the first two shims affect low speed, but not just the first two (actually three, given your correction, but it's of no significance on a theoretical level). The crossover size also has a big influence; diameter effects the first stage's stiffness, thickness effects how long it "lasts." Finally, I'd note that a first stage like that will close really quickly (because it's pretty soft), so above "very low" speeds, the stack has basically become single stage.
 

3) As I understand things - the number of shims in total affect compression damping overall, so if I were to remove, say one of the .20 x 11mm shims, would this would soften/slow the overall stack/damping speed?


Be careful about "soften" and "slow." Usually "slow" means more damping, and "soften" means less.

If you're talking about removing one of the 11 x 0.20 shims at the bottom of the shack, those are called clamp shims, and removing ONE of them will have zero effect on the stack (see caveat below). Removing BOTH of them will make the stack stiffer, because the clamp size will change from 11mm to 12mm.

Caveat: The thickness of the clamp shim(s) and/or the shims below the clamp shims (some forks use spacer shims there) can have an indirect influence in some forks because some fork designs allow the face shims to touch the valve body after they bend back, effectively limiting the shim travel. In the Marz 45s the base valve bodies have LOTS of space behind the shims, so this isn't an issue.
 

4) What would the affect be of moving the cross-over shim up or down the tapered stack?


Changes the high/low transition in the 2-stage stack. Further down makes the first stage stiffer and "longer lasting," and vice-versa. Moving the crossover has very little effect on highspeed damping, because once the crossover closes it has very little influence. Note that changing the crossover thickness can effect damping across the board because you have a bigger gap when the crossover closes.
 

I'm running 10W (VI around 35) Silkolene at around 95mm air gap. I plan to move to 5w (VI near 23) and possibly increase the air gap to 100mm due to those very small port holes. has anyone had any luck trying to increase the size of those ports (stock MZ Shiver Factory works (2007)) - looks like you could only increase the existing diameters by a very small amount so I don't know if its worth it.


Going to 5W is a good move, IMO.

As I said above, I do drill these out. Yeah, you're limited on how much you can do that, but because the area of a port is a function of the square of the radius/diameter, a little increase can be a big help. If you decide to drill them, be super careful!

Oh, and I don't understand your comment about increasing the air gap due to the port size; those two things are not really related. I'd try running a lower oil lever (110-120mm) and see if it bottoms. It might, but it will give you some information.
 

I guess for now, I just want to get an idea of whether this stack overall would be considered "stiff" and if there is anything easy to try as a first step to help the harshness. I think the Aprilia RXV 550 was a lighter bike than the XChallenge, butI'm not sure how much difference this makes as Ive already beefed up the spring (.48 n/mm - .52)


In my opinion, that is possibly a soft stack for a larger bike like the XChallenge, but that's very subjective and a matter of preference. That would probably be a good plush woods stack for a 2-stroke or a smaller 4-stroke, as a point of reference.

I'd be happy to make some stack recommendations, but would need some info about how you ride, what the bike feels like, what you want, etc. As a point of reference, I use a stack that looks something like this (going from memory) in my TE610:

23.1 (6X)
14.1
23.15
21.15
19.15
17.15
15.15
12.1

So, compared to yours I have more face shims and all 0.15s (3X as stiff) in the high speed stack, and a larger clamp. I ride the bike aggressively (as a dirt bike, not a dual sport), in rocks it's borderline too stiff with the clickers wide open, and in sand and whoops it's really good with the clickers halfway open. I previously had 3X face shims and it was really plush but a bit soft in sand/whoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kyle  - thank you for the thorough and informative response. I wish I could figure out how to multi-quote and answer each one of your questions (like you did mine) and comments - but being the noob that I am - it'll have to come with time. Let me try and just review in order;

 

1) Thanks for including that pic - very similar to mine - see pic below. I can't tell if that is the same one as mine (only see one side of yours) but mine looks just like that on one side (4 holes in the face) and you can see what the other side looks like on mine. My port diameters measured about .122". I was able to open mine up to .141" and I also changed the angle of the intersecting hole to modify the 90 degree intersection. I went in at about a 45 degree angle (perpendicular with that beveled face) and then on top of that went in with a tapered "cone" shape burr tool. I can actually see daylight now looking down through 4 holes.  Essentially straightening that flow path out a bit.

 

i-bqHK2Xv-M.jpg

 

2) Thanks for the further explanation of the stack and how it impacts (no pun intended) performance. My bad on the slow and soften terminology - thanks for setting me straight. I was thinking about removing a clamp shim, but will not now. I was thinking that any shim removal affected things - so I'll need to rethink that based on your explanations. Again, I'm pretty early on the learning curve.

 

3) Nice explanation of the cross-over shim. So in my stack, if I moved the cross over down one in the stack, I would be prolonging the low speed compression portion of the damping - but it would be stiffer in low speed damping areas? Am I thinking correctly here?

 

4) I am going for the 5W oil for sure - I didn't mean to confuse things when I combined the air gap in the same sentence.  From others I talked to increasing those piston ports (and improving flow path) combined with lighter oil VI, means relatively better hydraulic flow. IN terms of air gap, what I hear is that increasing that gap gives more of a softer feel in the bottom on the fork stroke - as opposed to more oil and harder feel - less compression of air. Hope that makes sense. Thinking that when the fork approaches bottoming its softer, but I still need adequate oil as to not bottom completely.

 

5) In terms of riding style - I'm probably not thrashing it around as a pure off road dirt bike like your description of your riding the Husky. I'm setting this up for dual sport touring (mainly dirt road, two track, BLM, some single track from time to time) loaded with gear/xtra gas (40lbs??). So not going so hard, but want to decent comfort performance for long days off road, that'll still take a hit when needed. I'd love to do LA-Barstow to Vegas - but without all that gear. I am an intermediate rider I would say. 175lb without gear. XChallenge is 320 lb dry.

 

6) I certainly would be interested in what your stack calculator gives for those conditions. IT would be nice to know if I'm close. I've already beefed up the fork springs (.52 kg/mm) based on those weights/riding (may even increase again, but I'm waiting to ride more first). Preload is close - SAGs look OK. I had some good local help on the spring selection.

 

Hope that helps shed more light - I'm certainly open to learning/trying more things!

 

Forks go back together tomorrow night - I'll leave the stack as is, drop in the 5W oil, increase the oil gap to 110mm, new C piston ports, and I'm throwing in a little more spring preload too. (2.5MM)

Edited by mtncrawler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right on, for the most part!

 

Those pistons are similar to mine, although the "other" side (the side that faces the base valve check plate) is different.  That should be of no consequence, though.  The port mods you did sound good, I expect that they will not be a significant flow restriction for you at this point.

 

You're completely correct about the crossover, and the oil level.

 

I believe that the stack could stand to be stiffer, given the size of the bike; however, you might not "need" it because you're not jumping/racing the bike.  It's probably going to come down to preference with regard to softness vs. control.  If it was my bike I would probably start by adding a face shim or two, and changing some/all of the high speed stack from 0.10 to 0.15 thick shims.

 

The one thing we haven't discussed here is the midvalve.  All of the Marz Shiver 45s that I have worked on had a checkplate on the compression side of the mid, and that is the assumption that I have been operating under.  However, there is a small chance that the Aprilia forks are different and have an active mid.  Probably worth checking that next time you have the forks apart.  Might also be worth looking at the rebound stack, I am not sure how much you changed the spring rates but the rebound is sometimes pretty light on those forks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right on, for the most part!

 

Those pistons are similar to mine, although the "other" side (the side that faces the base valve check plate) is different.  That should be of no consequence, though.  The port mods you did sound good, I expect that they will not be a significant flow restriction for you at this point.

 

You're completely correct about the crossover, and the oil level.

 

I believe that the stack could stand to be stiffer, given the size of the bike; however, you might not "need" it because you're not jumping/racing the bike.  It's probably going to come down to preference with regard to softness vs. control.  If it was my bike I would probably start by adding a face shim or two, and changing some/all of the high speed stack from 0.10 to 0.15 thick shims.

 

The one thing we haven't discussed here is the midvalve.  All of the Marz Shiver 45s that I have worked on had a checkplate on the compression side of the mid, and that is the assumption that I have been operating under.  However, there is a small chance that the Aprilia forks are different and have an active mid.  Probably worth checking that next time you have the forks apart.  Might also be worth looking at the rebound stack, I am not sure how much you changed the spring rates but the rebound is sometimes pretty light on those forks.

 

Thanks Kyle,

 

 

Embarrassing as this is to admit - I screwed up my "revised" stack above. I was thinking correctly, but copied and pasted the face shim instead of a clamp shim; The NEW - ultimately correct stack is;

 

.10 x 23

.10 x 23

.10 x 11

.10 x 22

.10 x 20

.10 x 18

.10 x 16

.10 x 13.5

.15 x 12

.20 x 11

.20 x 11

.20 x 11
 
Darn, I should have at least looked at and recorded the rebound stack when I was adding my travel reducing spacers - next time I'll check them out. FYI - My spring rate change was from .48 to .52 kg/mm.  The stock springs would have worked - but felt with my SAGs as they were and knowing I was shooting for dual sport travel with gear - I opted for the increase. I may even step up to .54's depending on how these feel/work when setup with weight. For now though, I ultimately need time in the saddle before making further moves.
 
Thanks for the thoughts on stiffening the stack. Curious, if I did want to purchase some thicker high speed damping shims - where do I go to purchase? Also, does my FINAL (I swear its right this time... :thumbsup: ) stack edits change any of your recommendations? Assuming not, since its a clamp shim, but it is one less face shim in the low speed damping section.
 
Thanks again!
Edited by mtncrawler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Embarrassing as this is to admit - I screwed up my "revised" stack above. I was thinking correctly, but copied and pasted the face shim instead of a clamp shim; The NEW - ultimately correct stack is;

 

.10 x 23

.10 x 23

.10 x 11

.10 x 22

.10 x 20

.10 x 18

.10 x 16

.10 x 13.5

.15 x 12

.20 x 11

.20 x 11

.20 x 11

This change will not effect the way that the forks work at all.

You already have an 11mm clamp; the clamp shims don't deflect at all, the other shims just deflect around them. So, adding another 11 mm clamp under the one you already have doesn't do anything except make the stack a bit taller.

And, this brings up an interesting nuance: one some forks, including all the Shiver 45s I've seen, the clamp shims sit on a cylindrical "boss" on the base valve body. This boss (on the units I have seen) is about 11 mm in diameter, and about 1.5 mm tall. In effect, this boss functions as the clamp shim, regardless of what the stack looks like. So, if you put a 12 x 0.1 shim at the bottom of the stack, you might think you're clamping on a 12, but you'll just bend around the boss and clamp on 11 mm. This basically limits the maximum size of clamp you can run with normal stack construction. In theory, you could run a really thick backer shim or clamp shim that had enough stiffness to create a new base, but the base valve taps on those forks are usually way too short to allow this.

 

Darn, I should have at least looked at and recorded the rebound stack when I was adding my travel reducing spacers - next time I'll check them out. FYI - My spring rate change was from .48 to .52 kg/mm.  The stock springs would have worked - but felt with my SAGs as they were and knowing I was shooting for dual sport travel with gear - I opted for the increase. I may even step up to .54's depending on how these feel/work when setup with weight. For now though, I ultimately need time in the saddle before making further moves.

I think that 0.52 is probably not a bad starting point, given the bike size/weight. Check your sag and see how the bike feels, but it ought to be close.

 

Thanks for the thoughts on stiffening the stack. Curious, if I did want to purchase some thicker high speed damping shims - where do I go to purchase? Also, does my FINAL (I swear its right this time... :thumbsup: ) stack edits change any of your recommendations? Assuming not, since its a clamp shim, but it is one less face shim in the low speed damping section.

Lots of places to buy shims, but Jeremy at MX-Tech is good to work with, stocks a lot of stuff, and is happy to sell small volumes (at least, last time I needed shims).

I don't want to say I know what stack would work well in your bike, because it's so subjective; however, for "average" conditions, rider, etc, the recommendations I posted is probably about where I would start, if I was going in blind. Since you already have a stack in the bike, some feedback about how it works would allow for a more educated guess.

Edit: As a starting point, I'd add some face shims. I think 6X total face shims would be a good starting point that should still be quite plush, but will help control the big bike better.

Edited by Kyle Tarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This change will not effect the way that the forks work at all.

You already have an 11mm clamp; the clamp shims don't deflect at all, the other shims just deflect around them. So, adding another 11 mm clamp under the one you already have doesn't do anything except make the stack a bit taller.

And, this brings up an interesting nuance: one some forks, including all the Shiver 45s I've seen, the clamp shims sit on a cylindrical "boss" on the base valve body. This boss (on the units I have seen) is about 11 mm in diameter, and about 1.5 mm tall. In effect, this boss functions as the clamp shim, regardless of what the stack looks like. So, if you put a 12 x 0.1 shim at the bottom of the stack, you might think you're clamping on a 12, but you'll just bend around the boss and clamp on 11 mm. This basically limits the maximum size of clamp you can run with normal stack construction. In theory, you could run a really thick backer shim or clamp shim that had enough stiffness to create a new base, but the base valve taps on those forks are usually way too short to allow this.

 

I think that 0.52 is probably not a bad starting point, given the bike size/weight. Check your sag and see how the bike feels, but it ought to be close.

 

Lots of places to buy shims, but Jeremy at MX-Tech is good to work with, stocks a lot of stuff, and is happy to sell small volumes (at least, last time I needed shims).

I don't want to say I know what stack would work well in your bike, because it's so subjective; however, for "average" conditions, rider, etc, the recommendations I posted is probably about where I would start, if I was going in blind. Since you already have a stack in the bike, some feedback about how it works would allow for a more educated guess.

Edit: As a starting point, I'd add some face shims. I think 6X total face shims would be a good starting point that should still be quite plush, but will help control the big bike better.

 

 

Thanks Kyle,

 

I ordered my SKF seals through MX, so I'll check with Jeremy on individual shims. In your edit, by "6x total face shims" I'm assuming you mean all 6x .10 x23's total? (My existing face shims)

 

Here's a few pics of of my base valve assembled - you can see the face that the clamp shims are in direct contact with.

 

i-frmLJqv-M.jpg

i-rgnS58Z-M.jpg

 

I'm going to throw them back together with the stack unchanged - maybe order up some shims in the mean time - get some good riding in and then play a little with shimming from there. Even if it feels good, it would be good to change it up and see the affects for my own learning purposes.

 

Hey, what do you know, no stack edits this post... :D

 

Thanks again - both you and Kevin - for the help!

Mike

Edited by mtncrawler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to tell from those pictures if that base valve body has the step that I have seen on a lot of other Marz Shiver 45s. Anyway, just be aware that some of them are like that, so clamp shim changes don't always do what you expect.

Yeah, I meant 6x 23x0.10 face shims.

I think it's a good idea to ride it and play with shims. Lots of people have suspension setups that they think are good but actually aren't, and you'll never know until you try some changes! Like Racetech says, the best you know is the best you've ridden, so you might not know what you're missing out on.

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

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×