Results 1 to 37 of 37
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55
    That's too cool.

  2. #2
    No Fear
    Reputation: SABER_MTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,041

    My slef designed frame

    This year in university we have a unit which through it we learned a mechanical engineering software called Solid works. Like all the other units all students just wanted to pass the exam and get rid of it but I really got interested in the software .In university we only had time to learn the basics but at home I spent many of my spare time discovering it . The first thing that got in my mind was MTB components I have made many MTB components with it such as DH frames ‘ Forks (just the outer leg ‘ crown ‘ stanchion and steering tube ) disc rotors ‘ handle bars rims and ………
    But this time I attempted to make a frame with all standards and features . So I started dimensioning my Giant Iguana frame from the basic things like the diameter of the top tube to all the tiny and accurate distances . It took me 4 days to complete it ( each day I worked 2 or 3 hours on it ) and here it is . What do you think about it.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #3
    No Fear
    Reputation: SABER_MTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,041

    More pix

    And these are some other pics to show other angles and features.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • File Type: jpg a6.jpg (134.8 KB, 1739 views)
    • File Type: jpg a9.jpg (142.5 KB, 1734 views)
    • File Type: jpg a7.jpg (131.5 KB, 1721 views)

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    Excellent job!

    Solidworks is a great program to learn this early in your engineering career, so kudos to you for taking the extra time with your project. Obvioulsy the program is used around the globe, since you are in Iran! You might be able to continue working on this model once you take a course or two in finite elements - and you can import the geometry into programs such as ABAQUS or ANSYS. Thats where the engineers start to separate from the cad guys. ;-) Just looking at the features, though, I do see some very difficult areas to mesh, if not impossible. Perhaps you have a professor who has some experience in FEM and might be able to sit down with him and pick up some geometry tips?

    But you certainly have a great career in engineering coming up for you. Hope you get to continue working on bikes and other beneficial projects to mankind.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    189

    I like it!

    I'm not an engineer, but it sure would be fun to design, build and test frames. Looks good Saber. Keep going with your passion.

    Now for your next project, design a disc only SS with an eccentric BB. Steel or aluminum is fine, but I prefer Ti. I'd buy an affordable frame.

  6. #6
    Now broadcasting from CO
    Reputation: PAmtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,224

    Cool-blue Rhythm Looks Great!

    Now just build that baby up and you'll be ready to ride! Great job on the programming.
    Brought to you by rocks.

  7. #7
    E !
    E ! is offline
    .........................
    Reputation: E !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,094

    That's cool

    Keep it up. Who knows, one day.... saber mtn. bikes from Iran may be the new shizznit!
    the - E - dog

  8. #8
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,350
    Nice one bro!

    That is the key to college, leverage your passion to fullfill your learning. Certainly beats the fellow classmate's zombie walk to a degree. Also, others will pick up on your passion and will give you opportunities - which can lead to career moves.

    Nice one on the frame, I like the downtube logo details in the metal.

    Mr. P

  9. #9
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,830
    WOW!!!

    Awesome Dude!!!

    When I was leaving school Autocad was starting to be used in Mexico's government schools... and our school still wasn't incorporated. I learned some basics at work.

    Now I know what program to buy! Damn, it looks heavily cool!

    Congratulations, you'll be a great engineer!
    Check my Site

  10. #10
    Designated Bleeder
    Reputation: SpecialK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    307

    Nice Frame

    I spend all day in front of Solidworks as a design engineer. That's a nice model you put together there. Just a couple of things that you might want to consider going forward. Solidworks 2005 has a weldment plug-in so you can actually show welds in the model. Its pretty sweet but takes a bit of time to learn. But since you are already this far, you might as well just keep going.

    Its great to see people in school taking some real interest in engineering. And if you need any solidworks or 3-D modeling, I eat, sleep and breathe that stuff, just shoot me a PM.

    Nice work.

  11. #11
    No Fear
    Reputation: SABER_MTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,041

    Thanks

    Tanks a lok Special K I have saw the weld elements but i have started learninig it a few days ago . It seems to work only on support gussets .And about the Cosmos simulation it doesnt work on multi body parts why would it be so.
    But no worry ill chew all Solid works features and when its done maybe next year im looking forward on catya and Ansis but if i had questions ( i surely will have some) i will PM you . I really do like to work for a MTB company as a designer you know Im a rider my self i know the bike ' trail and rider demands and situations i think this would be a positive point for a bike frame designer.
    Again thanks a lot and happy X mas .

  12. #12
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    That looks fun. Maybe i'll do that some day. I just have a few weeks before i must apply for university. Mechanical engineering is what i am going to apply for.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  13. #13
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,830
    Quote Originally Posted by rkj__
    That looks fun. Mechanical engineering is what i am going to apply for.
    You will not regret it. If there is a career that's fun you have only to choose from Gynecology or Mechanical Engineering.

    With Gynecology you don't get to work on bikes... but you'll be able to afford nice bikes. With Mechanical Engineering ou get to work on almost every nice "toy" that comes to your imagination like bikes, cars, jet fighters, commercial liners, warships, you name it.

    To me, Mechanical Engineering gets the nod here!

    Seriously, the field of application of Mechanical engineering is too wide that you'll basically will find yourslef hard not to get a job.

    Go for it!! Live it, breath it! You'll not regret it. It won't be easy. There are few careers more dificult than this one, but it's worth every sleepless night spent studying.
    Check my Site

  14. #14
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    You will not regret it. If there is a career that's fun you have only to choose from Gynecology or Mechanical Engineering.

    With Gynecology you don't get to work on bikes... but you'll be able to afford nice bikes. With Mechanical Engineering ou get to work on almost every nice "toy" that comes to your imagination like bikes, cars, jet fighters, commercial liners, warships, you name it.

    To me, Mechanical Engineering gets the nod here!

    Seriously, the field of application of Mechanical engineering is too wide that you'll basically will find yourslef hard not to get a job.

    Go for it!! Live it, breath it! You'll not regret it. It won't be easy. There are few careers more dificult than this one, but it's worth every sleepless night spent studying.

    You sound like someone i would like to ride with Next time i am in mexico i'll give ya a shout. There is only the entirety of the USA between here and there haha
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knollybikes.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,435

    Your frame looks great!

    Solid works is a very very popular CAD package with a lot of support: It is quickly become THE default CAD package simply because it seems to nail the cost / performance balance nicely. It's probably the best software to learn right now: and your skills can transfer fairly easily to other packages (such as Pro-E) without too much trouble.

    Here's some suggestions from someone who has spent a LOT of time using this software (and who is still learning!).

    I noticed that your frame looks like it's one part model: you might want to think about making every "component" one part model and making your frame an assembly. This is nice because if you ever actually make your frame (or a different one), you can make drawings for every part (i.e. every tube, every CNC machined part, etc...) so that you know how to miter each tube and how to machine each part. This will also allow you to make vairable frame sizes while keeping the parts consistent.

    You can also use configuration tables to quickly lay out different sizes, or even different frame geometries for each size. This gets really cool, because you can have the software "miter" the tubes for you for each different frame size, put welding / heat treating breath holes in the correct locations, etc...

    Also, trust me on this one: take the time to lable ALL of your part features, parts and assemblies: I.e. if you make an extrusion for the head tube, then lable it "head tube". Then, if you make a revolve cut for the head set bearing seats, lable it "head tube bearing seats". Once your models and assemblies get fairly complicated, you'll spend a lot of time searching for a feature when you need to change it. Renaming it makes it way easier.

    Here's a couple of pictures of the V-tach frame that we manufacture: Photoworks and other plug-ins can be a lot of fun too, but can suck up a lot of time to get everything just right. I'm sure some people are really, really fast with photoworks, but I don't spend enough time with it to make it worth while

    Cheers and good luck!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Noel Buckley
    ------------------
    www.knollybikes.com

    Instead of PMs, please contact me here.

  16. #16
    No Fear
    Reputation: SABER_MTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,041

    Tanx

    That’s really cool .Thanks for all the advertises specially the feature labeling is a useful point . I have 2 questions from you first how did you design the coil of the rear shock I mean what feature should I use to make the coil have natural travel while I push the rear wheel trough its travel .You know when I design a coil its not flexible and its just like a solid part .
    Secondly how can I work with the photo works Im not familiar with it.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by knollybikes.com
    Solid works is a very very popular CAD package with a lot of support: It is quickly become THE default CAD package simply because it seems to nail the cost / performance balance nicely. It's probably the best software to learn right now: and your skills can transfer fairly easily to other packages (such as Pro-E) without too much trouble.

    Here's some suggestions from someone who has spent a LOT of time using this software (and who is still learning!).

    I noticed that your frame looks like it's one part model: you might want to think about making every "component" one part model and making your frame an assembly. This is nice because if you ever actually make your frame (or a different one), you can make drawings for every part (i.e. every tube, every CNC machined part, etc...) so that you know how to miter each tube and how to machine each part. This will also allow you to make vairable frame sizes while keeping the parts consistent.

    You can also use configuration tables to quickly lay out different sizes, or even different frame geometries for each size. This gets really cool, because you can have the software "miter" the tubes for you for each different frame size, put welding / heat treating breath holes in the correct locations, etc...

    Also, trust me on this one: take the time to lable ALL of your part features, parts and assemblies: I.e. if you make an extrusion for the head tube, then lable it "head tube". Then, if you make a revolve cut for the head set bearing seats, lable it "head tube bearing seats". Once your models and assemblies get fairly complicated, you'll spend a lot of time searching for a feature when you need to change it. Renaming it makes it way easier.

    Here's a couple of pictures of the V-tach frame that we manufacture: Photoworks and other plug-ins can be a lot of fun too, but can suck up a lot of time to get everything just right. I'm sure some people are really, really fast with photoworks, but I don't spend enough time with it to make it worth while

    Cheers and good luck!

    OMG that render is amazing, I'm designing a frame too, and believe or not I'm using Autocad ... It's because I'm studing Arquitecture and that's the program that we use all the time.

    Right now I'm deciding which Bearings to use, designing pivots, bolts, washers and all that stuff. The last stage will be learning how to use a FEA program and check if the Frame is strong enough.

    Bye.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  18. #18
    "Ride Lots" - Eddie Mercx
    Reputation: Yeti_Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,317

    the one feature both of you need to learn

    is the <File> <Save As> <Save As JPG>!

    then you can do away with the screen captures!

    other than that, looks really sweet. my problem is that after sitting in front of CAD 8 hours a day for work, the last thing I want to do when I get home is work on it some more...............

    YR

  19. #19
    "Ride Lots" - Eddie Mercx
    Reputation: Yeti_Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by SABER_MTB
    That’s really cool .Thanks for all the advertises specially the feature labeling is a useful point . I have 2 questions from you first how did you design the coil of the rear shock I mean what feature should I use to make the coil have natural travel while I push the rear wheel trough its travel .You know when I design a coil its not flexible and its just like a solid part .
    Secondly how can I work with the photo works Im not familiar with it.
    photoworks is an add in that may or may not be supported in your version of the SW.

    the coil would be built using a helical sweep. if you wanted it to be dynamic and not static you'd have to get relations set up in your assembly so that the height of the helix changes based on the compression setting. most likely, you'd have to adjust the rear wheel travel and then rebuild the model each time so it wouldn't be a smooth transition each time. not sure though. there are simulation packages that can make it look pretty but typically the CAD users are only concerned with the start, end, and maybe a point or two in the middle of the travel.

    YR

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knollybikes.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Yeti_Rider
    photoworks is an add in that may or may not be supported in your version of the SW.

    the coil would be built using a helical sweep. if you wanted it to be dynamic and not static you'd have to get relations set up in your assembly so that the height of the helix changes based on the compression setting. most likely, you'd have to adjust the rear wheel travel and then rebuild the model each time so it wouldn't be a smooth transition each time. not sure though. there are simulation packages that can make it look pretty but typically the CAD users are only concerned with the start, end, and maybe a point or two in the middle of the travel.

    YR
    Absolutely agree here: don't waste time on the coil. A helix is how I did it, I only have it rendered for the topped out static position. For sag, bottomed and flexible positions I have the spring suppressed as it rebuilds too slowly and is a big performance hit (AND it's not neccessary).

    Cheers,
    Noel Buckley
    ------------------
    www.knollybikes.com

    Instead of PMs, please contact me here.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock
    OMG that render is amazing, I'm designing a frame too, and believe or not I'm using Autocad ... It's because I'm studing Arquitecture and that's the program that we use all the time.

    Right now I'm deciding which Bearings to use, designing pivots, bolts, washers and all that stuff. The last stage will be learning how to use a FEA program and check if the Frame is strong enough.

    Bye.
    That model is amazing. Looks blalanced, and functional while still remaining aesthetic.
    I like how the rear suspension elements are so cut-and-dired insturial. while the fronts hold a more clean, frienly tube look. I has real heft. Like a motorcycle.

    I look forward to see more work.

  22. #22
    stay thirsty, my friends
    Reputation: LBmtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,130
    I have no idea on what that program is or how it's used but it's looks awesome! Good luck to you.
    "With that said, until you have done a STR group ride- YOU HAVE NOT LIVED!"
    - dino brown

  23. #23
    No Fear
    Reputation: SABER_MTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,041

    I got it

    I worked a little on the photo works and found the thing out . It has so many great features to make your part look cool. And thanks on the coil point ill go with the helix

  24. #24
    Brazen Dropout
    Reputation: Cloud9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    59

    parametrics, adaptive geometry, assemblies :) :) :)

    Very nice Saber, you're off to a great start. That rendering plugin is very nice as well, Knolly. I made the long gradual switch from Solidworks to Autodesks Inventor, and I have yet to be disappointed. Both SW & AI are brilliant programs after having grown up in the comparatively stickfigure-esque Autocad 9 (+) world. Every day sit down at the box, I thank the software gods for smiling down upon us.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  25. #25
    trekker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock
    Right now I'm deciding which Bearings to use, designing pivots, bolts, washers and all that stuff. The last stage will be learning how to use a FEA program and check if the Frame is strong enough.

    Bye.
    Am I the only one who notices a flaw in that rear suspension? I'm no expert, but it just doesn't look...efficient to me.

    Great work to all of you.
    Last edited by iliveonnitro; 12-28-2005 at 08:38 AM. Reason: typo

  26. #26
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,830
    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonnitro
    Am I the only one who notices a flaw in that rear suspension? I'm no expert, but it just doesn't look...efficient to me.

    Great work to all of you.
    Not less efficient that many frames out there.... looks just fine and nice... but I'm no expert.
    Check my Site

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,593
    Cosmos as included with Solidworks is a teaser.
    It does one part analysis to aid the designer in the design of a single part.

    As a package Cosmos is capable of doing the assembly analysis. Usually this happens when the designer hands the design to a stress guy who writes it up and tells the design guy where the design has to change to meet the stress requirements and factors of safety. For this capability, in addition to the engineer or operator, you pay about double the cost of SolidWorks.

    SolidWorks is the small shop 3D tool of choice. CATIA is still the aircraft manufacturer OEM design tool of choice. Probably due to the inertia of the past 20 years with CATIA IV and CADDAM. CATIA V looks much like SolidWorks. In fact it was not until Dassault bought Solidworks that version V of CATIA started to work very well. They sold what amounted to a BETA version for about two years that was total crap. We are all hoping that SolidWorks will not just become CATIA lite. There was a 'firewall' put into place when SW was purchased but for how long and how effective it will be is very questionable.

    ProEngineer was preferred for mechanical assemblies a few years ago but they stepped on their crank. Seems there were third party translators coming out for SW from and to ProE and Pro tried to incript their data set. It got so bad that Pro wouldn't even read Pro models from a different revision for a while and that torqued off their customers big time.

    I've heard Unigraphics has one of the better systems but don't know too many places that use it.

    For marketability and price vs. capability SolidWorks is sitting at the best point in the market right now.

    The keys to making it work at reasonable speed with large models are MEMORY, VIDEO and clean modeling, processer speed is important but very far behind the other three.

  28. #28
    Glorified Hybrid Owner
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,097
    I have tried doing the same thing with a similar program, Pro Engineer.

    Very cool renderings.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13
    Those frames are awsome. I just started to learn CAD and now Inventor but can't wait to be able to design bike frames and parts. They seem perty hard but well work it if it comes out anyhting close to those.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    23

    Looks good...

    except for the gussett on the downtube at the headtube. I'd suspect that any force likely to cause problems there might not be helped with the present design of your gussett - the downtube is thin and your gussett design looks like it concentrates the forces along edges of metal. Have you tried a simulation of loading the headtube?

    And yes, I work on solidworks for my engineering career...

  31. #31
    Eric the Red
    Reputation: edoz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    438

    I'm learning also

    Do you Solidworks guys mind answering a question now and then? I'm learning as well, but I'm going it alone. I work in metal fabrication, I'm a welder/ whatever else I need to be. From what little I've picked up so far, I've had some cool stuff cut out on our laser at work. Bottle openers/axle wrenches, keychains, and a couple of brake rotors. I'm working on a 5 year plan to get into CAD as a career instead of getting dirty all day. I also have 8 years until my little man needs to start college. I would greatly appereciate a helpful tip once in a while.

  32. #32
    R.I.P. DogFriend
    Reputation: jeffj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,547
    My best guess says that is a 2004 Iguana frame (maybe 2003)?

  33. #33
    Designated Bleeder
    Reputation: SpecialK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    307

    No problem

    No problem. Feel free to shoot over any Solidworks questions you have. Like I said, I spend a lot of time designing in Solidworks and since I work for a small design firm I don't have the luxury of having a CAD jockey to CAD up my stuff. I serve as design engineer, CAD guy and FEA guru. Its a tough job but someone's got to do it.

    I have been looking into designing some bike parts on the side (can you tell I have a 3-D modeling problem) and I would agree that the best bang for your buck is Solidworks (over Pro-E, Inventor or Unigraphics). I am a proficient Pro-E user as well but if I get my choice, I always come back to Solidworks. The interface is more intuitive and the processes are cleaner. That said, there are a lot of features in Pro-E that don't exist in Solidworks. Try updating assemblies of several hundred parts in Solidworks. Even with a killer graphics card and plenty of memory, it is still really slow. Pro-E definitely has a leg up on big assemblies.

    Back on bike stuff, you guys should check out this site:

    http://www.bikeforest.com/CAD/index.php

    Its basically a bike specific CAD system. The full version is $350 but they let you download the "light" versions for free. Its a cool little program. Its not really comparable to Pro-E or Solidworks but for screwing around with bike geometries, its pretty nice. Check it out.

    SpK


    Quote Originally Posted by edoz
    Do you Solidworks guys mind answering a question now and then? I'm learning as well, but I'm going it alone. I work in metal fabrication, I'm a welder/ whatever else I need to be. From what little I've picked up so far, I've had some cool stuff cut out on our laser at work. Bottle openers/axle wrenches, keychains, and a couple of brake rotors. I'm working on a 5 year plan to get into CAD as a career instead of getting dirty all day. I also have 8 years until my little man needs to start college. I would greatly appereciate a helpful tip once in a while.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,593
    That said, there are a lot of features in Pro-E that don't exist in Solidworks. Try updating assemblies of several hundred parts in Solidworks. Even with a killer graphics card and plenty of memory, it is still really slow. Pro-E definitely has a leg up on big assemblies.
    I'll agree with you on the fact that SolidWorks lacks features that can be had in ProE or CATIA, depending on your agreement. But you pay for every additional feature. (CATIA's agreements are particularly annoying. You pay for the software, pay again for annual maintenace and pay again for the right to use the software in commerce each year. (Those last two charges were almost double the cost of a seat of Solidworks.)

    You can run several hundred part SolidWork Assys. I'm not yet convinced that Pro or CATIA V is much better with the large assemblies, although they ought to be. I do know that I've run models of large chunks of airplanes including several hundred parts. A clean model with native components and no imported parts is best. Imported IGES or STEP files will use lots of memory and add major instabilities. The modeling packages are much more stable than the drafting packages. The mates in the assembly are another area that sometimes becomes a problem.

    CATIA in 1998-1999 tried to introduce V5 without a drafting package. When they were asked when it would include one they said 'paperless office, you don't need it'. Half the audience I was in got up and walked out, the other half said 'No when is it going to have a drafting package? Half the shops we subcontract to work off paper. We have to use paper copies for patients and copywrites. The paper copies are contractual deliverables to our customers.' The CATIA demonstrator team says reluctantly: Two years before the drafting package will be available.

    Now Boeing in particular is starting to include production notes in the models which means you can't build the part correctly without a full up seat of CATIA to read the notes describing grain direction, surface roughness and finish. Most of the translators/ readers still won't pull that information out of the models. It gets even uglier when you have to have the same add-on licenses as the person who created the model in the first place. I know people who have created models they couldn't read the next day due to licenses problems.

    Right now Solidworks give the most bang for the buck IMO.

  35. #35
    No Fear
    Reputation: SABER_MTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,041

    03 Iguana

    03 Iguana with slight aprovments.

  36. #36
    newly converted MTBer
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38
    I wonder how many egg-heads like me have their bikes solid modeled. It would be cool to see a thread with just pics. of production bikes solid modeled. I am also wondering how much trouble we'd be in if we shared the parts and assemblies. It's not like they're totally reverse-engineered mm for mm models-- mine isn't ---(yet)

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Timo
    I do see some very difficult areas to mesh, if not impossible.
    What geometry is hard to mess for FEA.

Posting Permissions

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