base gt-r 7:27 @ 'ring (on spec-v wheels)
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 140
From: Pennsylvania
Rep Power: 28
Personally I love the GT-R. I think its an amazing piece of kit, and would totally consider owning one.
Also, lets give credit where credit is due. Suzuki is a great driver. Even if he didn't do well in F1, he still made it there. You have to be a great driver for that. Also, as we have seen very clearly this season, that if you put any of those drivers in a good car, they will lap very quickly.
Just to be clear, I do not trust Porsche's timing of the car. Especially with WR. He is the same person that just took a new GT3 3.8 around the ring at 7:40, and then proceeded to say that its faster than a 430 Scuderia which he got a 7:45 in. HvS posted a supertest time of 7:39 in the Scuderia. Its all nonsense. A non manufacturer driver laps faster in a car than the main tester of a competing manafucturer in the same car. What would happen if Marc Gene took the car on the ring, had he had the same ring experience as WR or HvS?
Btw, a few years back, I happened to be at the ring when they were testing the R34 V-Spec, and was lucky enough to have met HvS.
Also, lets give credit where credit is due. Suzuki is a great driver. Even if he didn't do well in F1, he still made it there. You have to be a great driver for that. Also, as we have seen very clearly this season, that if you put any of those drivers in a good car, they will lap very quickly.
Just to be clear, I do not trust Porsche's timing of the car. Especially with WR. He is the same person that just took a new GT3 3.8 around the ring at 7:40, and then proceeded to say that its faster than a 430 Scuderia which he got a 7:45 in. HvS posted a supertest time of 7:39 in the Scuderia. Its all nonsense. A non manufacturer driver laps faster in a car than the main tester of a competing manafucturer in the same car. What would happen if Marc Gene took the car on the ring, had he had the same ring experience as WR or HvS?
Btw, a few years back, I happened to be at the ring when they were testing the R34 V-Spec, and was lucky enough to have met HvS.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 140
From: Pennsylvania
Rep Power: 28
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,571
From: Kirkland
Rep Power: 179
Why does no one remember the R33 " Ring " time debacle? And why does no one realize Nissan basically made up the " Ring " time competition, which does not officially exist....there is no " Ring " time official record for production cars.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 140
From: Pennsylvania
Rep Power: 28
I don't get why it matters so much. Let Nissan, Porsche, Ferrari, etc. etc. say whatever they want. All of them are fast cars... and 90% of the time their owners will not be getting anywhere near their full potential on a track. Just buy what you want, and enjoy what you have. All these arguments about ring times are so stupid.
How many people here have actually driven on the ring with any car, much less a powerful one?
Maybe there needs to be some event organized for 6speeders on the ring. That way, all this animosity towards each other will dissipate, and everyone will just enjoy being car lovers. Cars are like women. Everyone has different taste. If they didn't, alot of manufacturers would go bust, and in the same light, there would be a lot of lonely people in the world. Diversity is good.
How many people here have actually driven on the ring with any car, much less a powerful one?
Maybe there needs to be some event organized for 6speeders on the ring. That way, all this animosity towards each other will dissipate, and everyone will just enjoy being car lovers. Cars are like women. Everyone has different taste. If they didn't, alot of manufacturers would go bust, and in the same light, there would be a lot of lonely people in the world. Diversity is good.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,571
From: Kirkland
Rep Power: 179
I agree, I don't base one iota of my purchase decision on " Ring " times. To me cars are a canvas and I like to start with a really good base, and then modify them as I see fit.
It's great to have so many choices, cars that corner like centrifuges with Nasa like thrust and Navy carrier hook brakes. And alot of choices quite a ways under $100k that will roll your socks up and down.
It's great to have so many choices, cars that corner like centrifuges with Nasa like thrust and Navy carrier hook brakes. And alot of choices quite a ways under $100k that will roll your socks up and down.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 31
From: Kansas City
Rep Power: 19
Found this post kinda interesting:
A lot to read but very good points. I underlined the 15% drivetrain loss assumption because Nissan claim that the GTR only losses around 10%, which would mean that it would only need around 124HP on average to overcome aerodynamic drag, making a car with 20% more drag then the GTR at a 33HP disadvantage.
Well I can't belive i'm still following this trainwreck, but since some technical analysis was requested I thought I might add some value.
The FORCE due to drag is given by :
Fd = (0.5)*p*(velocity)^2*CdA
where :
p = mass density of air = 1.3kg/(cubic meter)
CdA = drag coefficient times frontal area
Therefore, since power = force * velocity, the HORSEPOWER needed to OVERCOME drag is given by :
HPd = (0.5)*p*(velocity)^3*CdA
Note that power needed to overcome drag is proportional to velocity CUBED, whereas force is proportional to velocity SQUARED. But all relationships are directly proportional to CdA.
So the first immediate conclusion is :
AT ANY GIVEN SPEED, the horsepower required to overcome drag is directly proportional to CdA of the vehicle in question.
The GT-R has a Cd of 0.27, and a frontal area of 22.5 square feet, for a CdA of 6.075 square feet. I find it easier to do most of these calculations in the metric system, then convert back at the very end (if desired). Let's do the calculation for 160 mph, understanding that the HP required to overcome drag is proportional to velocity CUBED, and different vehicles can be compared by the direct proportionality of CdA.
NISSAN GT-R :
CdA = (0.27)*22.5 sq ft = 6.075 sq ft = 0.564 sq meters
160 mph = 71.5 meters/sec
Fd = 0.5*p*(velocity)^2*CdA
Fd = 0.5 *(1.3 kg/cubic meter)*(71.5 meters/sec)^2*(0.564 square meters)
Fd = 1874 Newtons = 421 pounds
Power to overcome drag :
P = Fd*velocity
P = (1874 Newtons)*(71.5 meters/sec) = 134,000 Newton*meters/sec
HP = 180 HP
Now, this is HP measured at the road/tire interface (the power propelling the car). Assuming about 15% drivetrain loss, we find :
FOR THE NISSAN GT-R, the power required (at the motor) to overcome drag at 160 mph is about 210 Horsepower.
Other cars can be compared based on direct-proportionality of CdA, and other speeds can be compared based on velocity cubed (for power). For example, at the same speed of 160 mph, a car with 20% more drag will require 20% more power, or 252 HP. Also, at 180 mph, the Nissan loses 300 HP just to overcome drag, whereas a car with 20% more drag will lose 360 HP.
We've now provided reasonably-detailed technical info, concerning at least TWO factors OTHER than HP and weight that will impact lap times at the 'ring:
1. Shift speed : 100 millisecond difference (resulting from power interuption, or absence thereof) for 60 shifts equates to 6 seconds
2. Aerodynamics : 20% difference in drag coefficient amounts to 60 HP at 180 mph
We haven't even dug into (quantitatively, anyway) other factors like : weight distribuiton, and AWD traction during cornering (and the impact on corner-exit speed), brakes, shape of the torque curve and gearing, etc.
And yet, some people ... in strong denial ... are STILL convinced that HP/weight ALONE should be able to predict 'ring time to within 2% (10 seconds) ?????
Absolutely stunning.
The FORCE due to drag is given by :
Fd = (0.5)*p*(velocity)^2*CdA
where :
p = mass density of air = 1.3kg/(cubic meter)
CdA = drag coefficient times frontal area
Therefore, since power = force * velocity, the HORSEPOWER needed to OVERCOME drag is given by :
HPd = (0.5)*p*(velocity)^3*CdA
Note that power needed to overcome drag is proportional to velocity CUBED, whereas force is proportional to velocity SQUARED. But all relationships are directly proportional to CdA.
So the first immediate conclusion is :
AT ANY GIVEN SPEED, the horsepower required to overcome drag is directly proportional to CdA of the vehicle in question.
The GT-R has a Cd of 0.27, and a frontal area of 22.5 square feet, for a CdA of 6.075 square feet. I find it easier to do most of these calculations in the metric system, then convert back at the very end (if desired). Let's do the calculation for 160 mph, understanding that the HP required to overcome drag is proportional to velocity CUBED, and different vehicles can be compared by the direct proportionality of CdA.
NISSAN GT-R :
CdA = (0.27)*22.5 sq ft = 6.075 sq ft = 0.564 sq meters
160 mph = 71.5 meters/sec
Fd = 0.5*p*(velocity)^2*CdA
Fd = 0.5 *(1.3 kg/cubic meter)*(71.5 meters/sec)^2*(0.564 square meters)
Fd = 1874 Newtons = 421 pounds
Power to overcome drag :
P = Fd*velocity
P = (1874 Newtons)*(71.5 meters/sec) = 134,000 Newton*meters/sec
HP = 180 HP
Now, this is HP measured at the road/tire interface (the power propelling the car). Assuming about 15% drivetrain loss, we find :
FOR THE NISSAN GT-R, the power required (at the motor) to overcome drag at 160 mph is about 210 Horsepower.
Other cars can be compared based on direct-proportionality of CdA, and other speeds can be compared based on velocity cubed (for power). For example, at the same speed of 160 mph, a car with 20% more drag will require 20% more power, or 252 HP. Also, at 180 mph, the Nissan loses 300 HP just to overcome drag, whereas a car with 20% more drag will lose 360 HP.
We've now provided reasonably-detailed technical info, concerning at least TWO factors OTHER than HP and weight that will impact lap times at the 'ring:
1. Shift speed : 100 millisecond difference (resulting from power interuption, or absence thereof) for 60 shifts equates to 6 seconds
2. Aerodynamics : 20% difference in drag coefficient amounts to 60 HP at 180 mph
We haven't even dug into (quantitatively, anyway) other factors like : weight distribuiton, and AWD traction during cornering (and the impact on corner-exit speed), brakes, shape of the torque curve and gearing, etc.
And yet, some people ... in strong denial ... are STILL convinced that HP/weight ALONE should be able to predict 'ring time to within 2% (10 seconds) ?????
Absolutely stunning.
I think i'll extend the aerodynamic analysis a bit further (cuz i've apparently got nothing better to do for the next few minutes).
DISCLAIMER : This analysis will NOT be as exact as the previous analysis at a SPECIFIC speed.
I want to find the "average" power loss-to-drag of the GT-R around the 'ring, rather than a "specific" power loss at a "specific" speed. To do that, i have to make an assumption, and the assumption is this : the car's velocity is evenly distributed between 20 mph and 180 mph. I don't think this is too crazy, for a few reasons :
1. The limits are about right. The car's max speed around the ring is 180 mph, as already established. And i'm pretty sure it never goes below 20 mph.
2. The average value works out with remarkable accuracy. The 'ring is 12.9 miles long, and a lap time of 7 minutes 40 seconds corresponds to an measured average speed of (12.9 miles)/(7 min 40 sec) = 101 mph. And the average of a velocity, evenly distributed between 20 mph & 180 mph is, in fact, 100 mph
So, all that we need to do is integrate the power function (as function of velocity), and divide by the average velocity to find an estimate of the average power loss due to aerodynamic drag.
I'll spare the details of the calculus, but the result is :
The average power required for the GT-R to overcome aerodynamic drag around the 'ring is : 131 HP (at the motor, assuming 15% drivetrain loss)
How about a car with 20% more drag? The average power required to overcome drag around the 'ring for this vehicle will be : 157 HP
So this basic, first-order analysis (admittedly a bit crude, due to that assumption about uniform velocity distribution) indicates that a car with 20% more drag than the GT-R is immediately at a disadvantage of 26 HP (on average) around the 'ring ... due to aerodynamics ALONE. We're talking about cars with approx 500 HP, so this represents a power loss of about FIVE PERCENT ... due to aero drag ONLY, from a 20% increase in drag coefficient.
Tell me again how we can expect TWO PERCENT accuracy, from HP & weight ALONE ????
DISCLAIMER : This analysis will NOT be as exact as the previous analysis at a SPECIFIC speed.
I want to find the "average" power loss-to-drag of the GT-R around the 'ring, rather than a "specific" power loss at a "specific" speed. To do that, i have to make an assumption, and the assumption is this : the car's velocity is evenly distributed between 20 mph and 180 mph. I don't think this is too crazy, for a few reasons :
1. The limits are about right. The car's max speed around the ring is 180 mph, as already established. And i'm pretty sure it never goes below 20 mph.
2. The average value works out with remarkable accuracy. The 'ring is 12.9 miles long, and a lap time of 7 minutes 40 seconds corresponds to an measured average speed of (12.9 miles)/(7 min 40 sec) = 101 mph. And the average of a velocity, evenly distributed between 20 mph & 180 mph is, in fact, 100 mph
So, all that we need to do is integrate the power function (as function of velocity), and divide by the average velocity to find an estimate of the average power loss due to aerodynamic drag.
I'll spare the details of the calculus, but the result is :
The average power required for the GT-R to overcome aerodynamic drag around the 'ring is : 131 HP (at the motor, assuming 15% drivetrain loss)
How about a car with 20% more drag? The average power required to overcome drag around the 'ring for this vehicle will be : 157 HP
So this basic, first-order analysis (admittedly a bit crude, due to that assumption about uniform velocity distribution) indicates that a car with 20% more drag than the GT-R is immediately at a disadvantage of 26 HP (on average) around the 'ring ... due to aerodynamics ALONE. We're talking about cars with approx 500 HP, so this represents a power loss of about FIVE PERCENT ... due to aero drag ONLY, from a 20% increase in drag coefficient.
Tell me again how we can expect TWO PERCENT accuracy, from HP & weight ALONE ????
The real message is this, I think :
How accurately can we PREDICT the performance of a vehicle on a track ... ANY track? There are, of course, SEVERAL "independent variables" to consider. Some will be VERY significant ... including power & weight. Others may be LESS significant ... but it doesn't take very many of the less-significant variables to cause deviations by a few percent. And "a few percent" is all we are talking about, when we are discussing 10 seconds out of 8 minutes.
Look at it this way : There's a simulator called DRAGSIM that's often used to predict quarter-mile performance. And I think we would all agree that going in a straight line, for a quarter mile, involves FEWER variables than a road course (with the exception of launching). And yet, DRAGSIM includes dozens of variables BEYOND simple power & weight : gearing, shape of the torque curve, shift-speed, aerodynamics, air temp, tire profile & composition, etc. I'm sure you will find that you can't even predict straight-line performance to within 2% based on power & weight alone!
I don't mind spending a little time to help QUANTIFY some of these other variables. I think I've been able to show that aerodynamics ALONE around the 'ring can easily account for a few percent, and transmission shift-speed can also impact a laptime by a percent or two. And we haven't even begun to quantify AWD weight distribution and it's impact on corner-exit speed, brakes, shape of the torque curve & gearing, etc.
The bottom line : you just can't predict 'ring performance accurately enough (based on power & weight alone), to support the hypothesis that Nissan is lying (or using a ringer) because their laptimes are maybe 10 seconds faster than power & weight would indicate.
I really don't know what more can be done to prove this point ... qualitatively or quantitatively.
How accurately can we PREDICT the performance of a vehicle on a track ... ANY track? There are, of course, SEVERAL "independent variables" to consider. Some will be VERY significant ... including power & weight. Others may be LESS significant ... but it doesn't take very many of the less-significant variables to cause deviations by a few percent. And "a few percent" is all we are talking about, when we are discussing 10 seconds out of 8 minutes.
Look at it this way : There's a simulator called DRAGSIM that's often used to predict quarter-mile performance. And I think we would all agree that going in a straight line, for a quarter mile, involves FEWER variables than a road course (with the exception of launching). And yet, DRAGSIM includes dozens of variables BEYOND simple power & weight : gearing, shape of the torque curve, shift-speed, aerodynamics, air temp, tire profile & composition, etc. I'm sure you will find that you can't even predict straight-line performance to within 2% based on power & weight alone!
I don't mind spending a little time to help QUANTIFY some of these other variables. I think I've been able to show that aerodynamics ALONE around the 'ring can easily account for a few percent, and transmission shift-speed can also impact a laptime by a percent or two. And we haven't even begun to quantify AWD weight distribution and it's impact on corner-exit speed, brakes, shape of the torque curve & gearing, etc.
The bottom line : you just can't predict 'ring performance accurately enough (based on power & weight alone), to support the hypothesis that Nissan is lying (or using a ringer) because their laptimes are maybe 10 seconds faster than power & weight would indicate.
I really don't know what more can be done to prove this point ... qualitatively or quantitatively.
Last edited by Tokyotuner; May 1, 2009 at 04:19 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 560
From: Sydney
Rep Power: 41
Except the fact that Nissan claims 7:26 while everyone else can only achieve 7:50's or the fact that Nissan's test car was some 11mph faster on a long straight than a bog stock standard car.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 560
From: Sydney
Rep Power: 41
Personally I love the GT-R. I think its an amazing piece of kit, and would totally consider owning one.
Also, lets give credit where credit is due. Suzuki is a great driver. Even if he didn't do well in F1, he still made it there. You have to be a great driver for that. Also, as we have seen very clearly this season, that if you put any of those drivers in a good car, they will lap very quickly.
Also, lets give credit where credit is due. Suzuki is a great driver. Even if he didn't do well in F1, he still made it there. You have to be a great driver for that. Also, as we have seen very clearly this season, that if you put any of those drivers in a good car, they will lap very quickly.
A good driver is a good driver the same as the private individual who drove the GTR around the ring at 7:57, too bad the GTR was simply not fast enough to get close to Nissan's inflated time.
Just to be clear, I do not trust Porsche's timing of the car. Especially with WR. He is the same person that just took a new GT3 3.8 around the ring at 7:40, and then proceeded to say that its faster than a 430 Scuderia which he got a 7:45 in. HvS posted a supertest time of 7:39 in the Scuderia. Its all nonsense. A non manufacturer driver laps faster in a car than the main tester of a competing manafucturer in the same car. What would happen if Marc Gene took the car on the ring, had he had the same ring experience as WR or HvS?
Rally legend Walter Röhrl has just added to his fund of great stories
12th November 2007
Driving at the Ring recently in a Ferrari 599 GTB (Porsche had it for appraisal), he found himself gradually gaining on a black car in the distance. Eventually he is a metre from the back bumper of what turns out to be another 599. Into one of the last corners, its driver makes a mistake and Röhrl dives up the inside. Later the black car draws alongside, its window winds down and the driver calls Röhrl a ‘lunatic’. Mind, Michael Schumacher never was a good loser…
12th November 2007
Driving at the Ring recently in a Ferrari 599 GTB (Porsche had it for appraisal), he found himself gradually gaining on a black car in the distance. Eventually he is a metre from the back bumper of what turns out to be another 599. Into one of the last corners, its driver makes a mistake and Röhrl dives up the inside. Later the black car draws alongside, its window winds down and the driver calls Röhrl a ‘lunatic’. Mind, Michael Schumacher never was a good loser…
Btw, a few years back, I happened to be at the ring when they were testing the R34 V-Spec, and was lucky enough to have met HvS.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,571
From: Kirkland
Rep Power: 179
Fanboyism is a bad disease, it makes you question facts. It makes you question the driving ability of one of the best drivers of our time and it makes you believe companies never proven to lie decided to start lying.
Also it makes you discount time traces that clearly show that its physically impossible for two cars with the same power to have such huge mph discrepancies.
We get it the GTR is great, its amazing, its makes lunks look like Lewis Hamilton. But no matter how much supposed fact is shoved down my throat, there are other choices out there. Cars that involve the driver more.
Also it makes you discount time traces that clearly show that its physically impossible for two cars with the same power to have such huge mph discrepancies.
We get it the GTR is great, its amazing, its makes lunks look like Lewis Hamilton. But no matter how much supposed fact is shoved down my throat, there are other choices out there. Cars that involve the driver more.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 88
From: Oz
Rep Power: 29
Personally I love the GT-R. I think its an amazing piece of kit, and would totally consider owning one.
Also, lets give credit where credit is due. Suzuki is a great driver. Even if he didn't do well in F1, he still made it there. You have to be a great driver for that. Also, as we have seen very clearly this season, that if you put any of those drivers in a good car, they will lap very quickly.
Just to be clear, I do not trust Porsche's timing of the car. Especially with WR. He is the same person that just took a new GT3 3.8 around the ring at 7:40, and then proceeded to say that its faster than a 430 Scuderia which he got a 7:45 in. HvS posted a supertest time of 7:39 in the Scuderia. Its all nonsense. A non manufacturer driver laps faster in a car than the main tester of a competing manafucturer in the same car. What would happen if Marc Gene took the car on the ring, had he had the same ring experience as WR or HvS?
Btw, a few years back, I happened to be at the ring when they were testing the R34 V-Spec, and was lucky enough to have met HvS.
Also, lets give credit where credit is due. Suzuki is a great driver. Even if he didn't do well in F1, he still made it there. You have to be a great driver for that. Also, as we have seen very clearly this season, that if you put any of those drivers in a good car, they will lap very quickly.
Just to be clear, I do not trust Porsche's timing of the car. Especially with WR. He is the same person that just took a new GT3 3.8 around the ring at 7:40, and then proceeded to say that its faster than a 430 Scuderia which he got a 7:45 in. HvS posted a supertest time of 7:39 in the Scuderia. Its all nonsense. A non manufacturer driver laps faster in a car than the main tester of a competing manafucturer in the same car. What would happen if Marc Gene took the car on the ring, had he had the same ring experience as WR or HvS?
Btw, a few years back, I happened to be at the ring when they were testing the R34 V-Spec, and was lucky enough to have met HvS.
For a manufacturer that does make some fantastic machines they do indulge plenty in childish name calling.
Few people recall HVS' shock when he could not run better than 7:54 in a PCCB'd and Sport Cup'd 997 turbo in perfect conditionns. Isn't it strange that the same time has been brought up again...... by Porsche against Nissan?
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 140
From: Pennsylvania
Rep Power: 28
Porsche is making a habit of treading on other Manufacturer's performance claims. They should stick to making their own and leaving it at that.
For a manufacturer that does make some fantastic machines they do indulge plenty in childish name calling.
Few people recall HVS' shock when he could not run better than 7:54 in a PCCB'd and Sport Cup'd 997 turbo in perfect conditionns. Isn't it strange that the same time has been brought up again...... by Porsche against Nissan?
For a manufacturer that does make some fantastic machines they do indulge plenty in childish name calling.
Few people recall HVS' shock when he could not run better than 7:54 in a PCCB'd and Sport Cup'd 997 turbo in perfect conditionns. Isn't it strange that the same time has been brought up again...... by Porsche against Nissan?
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 140
From: Pennsylvania
Rep Power: 28
He got in there by paying his way and having cashed up Japanese investors desperate for a Japanese F1 champion. Suzuki was promptly fired after two races where he finished close to last on every single practice, qualifying and races.
A good driver is a good driver the same as the private individual who drove the GTR around the ring at 7:57, too bad the GTR was simply not fast enough to get close to Nissan's inflated time.
Well Walter Röhrl was able to beat and pass Ferrari's main test driver (Michael Schumacher) around the ring, both using a Ferrari 599.
If you dont mind me asking.......what was the fastest time for the R34 V-Spec?
A good driver is a good driver the same as the private individual who drove the GTR around the ring at 7:57, too bad the GTR was simply not fast enough to get close to Nissan's inflated time.
Well Walter Röhrl was able to beat and pass Ferrari's main test driver (Michael Schumacher) around the ring, both using a Ferrari 599.
If you dont mind me asking.......what was the fastest time for the R34 V-Spec?
If a private individual can get 7:57 with a GTR... and he knows the Nord well... that makes sense. Just like when I commented on my friend doing 8:25 in his tuned Turbo. He knows the track extremely well. That car with a pro driver is capable of 7:56. So thats what? 29 seconds? What is 7:57 minus 29 seconds? 7:28? Lol. Have you ever been to the ring? Pushed a car there? Or even been in a car lapping at 8 minutes? Do you have any idea how fast that is? Or how shocking even at that time it is that a car has that much grip at such huge speeds? Or taking the Schwedenkreuz at 250kmh, then threshold braking after the crest and going into a slow hard right under the bridge? Try it first.
MS doesn't know the Nord like WR. Compare WR to Suzuki who has lapped the Nord much more than MS. Lets compare apples to apples. They should get Marc Bessang to drive all of the said cars like he did with the supercars... then lets see.
I wish I could tell you. I was there on vacation, and HvS wouldn't reveal the times. Told my friend in German to wait for the magazine. I can say that the car was limited to 112mph... which was strange to see as it came down Dottinger Hohe. Must have affected the time for sure.
Last edited by PRS29; May 1, 2009 at 08:38 PM. Reason: can't get this responding to certain things in quotes quite right...