The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support RTM Racing
Please Support STM Tuned

Clutch Too Aggressive? Here's a way to calm it down, requires a little fabrication

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

I don't have to search it, it's what I do everyday, but I would appriciate if you could in any sort of an article backing your claims. As far as real world info, that's laughable. It's certainly not something your going to measure on any tuner shop's dyno.
[...]

I absolutely had to stop reading right there. Math * your statement - logic = ROFL

If it isn't measurable, it isn't real is it not mister science, or should we have faith ?

This has been a great read, now I am informed that DSMs make more torque than your standard trucks, I wonder why no one uses them to tow ?
 
I love how people always assume they have more experience then anyone else.

Ive know about the slipper for years and have used it extensively. In he end, its that fully time activation that made me take i off. Your experience might be different because you're runing a twin where you need full time engagement, but standard organics and pucks, imo, dont require it nor help too much in the realms of their power potential.

If you don't have enough power or clutch to break parts, benefits of a clutch buffer on the shifts may get lost on you.

No experience, however, with the magnus piece.

Use an in-line restrictor like the Magnus for launches? I wouldn't recommend any races with pro-tree, arm drop or "flashlight" style starts.
 
This has been a great read, now I am informed that DSMs make more torque than your standard trucks, I wonder why no one uses them to tow ?
Why is everyone ignoring the part where the engine is not making that much torque but it is combined torque from engine and rotational inertia and that it only has that effect for a fraction of a second? Rotational inertia creates torque. Spin up a 20lb disk to 5000RPM, try to stop it and then tell me there's no torque behind it. Rotating mass stores energy. The higher the RPM, the more energy is stored. If we double RPM, we multiply stored energy four times, because it is a squared factor (2squared is 4). All that stored energy is put through the driveline when the clutch is engaged. This is basic basic physics guys.
 
Last edited:
If you don't have enough power or clutch to break parts, benefits of a clutch buffer on the shifts may get lost on you.



Use an in-line restrictor like the Magnus for launches? I wouldn't recommend any races with pro-tree, arm drop or "flashlight" style starts.
I'm making over 800whp on my setup. My "make it or brake it" starts and ends at the line and almost all of that is taken care of with a line lock(staging brake) and preloading. I see no issues on the shifts. Dont get me wrong, I've broken tons of axles in the past, but thats because of the weak factory axles and my reluctance to purchase expensive aftermarket ones.

I'd like to hear your opinion on the Magnus piece as to my understanding, they accomplish the same goal of slipping the clutch.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to hear your opinion on the Magnus piece as to my understanding, they accomplish the same goal of slipping the clutch.

If your desire is to slow down your clutch engagement rate throughout the entire range of pedal travel, the Magnus will do that. The downside to that design is that it also slows the throwout bearing's initial release travel, the deadband area where the clutch travels through the "air-gap" from pedal stop to the point of initial engagement. The more slip you add, the more lag from the time you release the pedal until the clutch starts to grab. This is why pro-tree, arm drop or flashlite starts are a bad idea with the Magnus.

My device has a mechanical reference to pedal position. This is key, as it allows setting the precise point in throwout bearing travel from where the delay becomes active. There is no delay in how quickly your clutch initially hits, as the throwout bearing still initially moves as quickly as you can remove your foot from the clutch pedal. From there simply dial how much unrestricted pedal travel (initial clutch pressure) you want to make available for launching the car, then separately adjust how quickly the pedal travels from that point, adding clutch pressure to complete lockup. If lockup occurs too early causing the car to bog, simply add a little lockup delay until the bog is gone.
 
If your desire is to slow down your clutch
engagement rate throughout the entire range of pedal travel, the Magnus will do that. The downside to that design is that it also slows the throwout bearing's initial release travel, the deadband area where the clutch travels through the "air-gap" from pedal stop to the point of initial engagement. The more slip you add, the more lag from the time you release the pedal until the clutch starts to grab. This is why pro-tree, arm drop or flashlite starts are a bad idea with the Magnus.

My device has a mechanical reference to pedal position. This is key, as it allows setting the precise point in throwout bearing travel from where the delay becomes active. There is no delay in how quickly your clutch initially hits, as the throwout bearing still initially moves as quickly as you can remove your foot from the clutch pedal. From there simply dial how much unrestricted pedal travel (initial clutch pressure) you want to make available for launching the car, then separately adjust how quickly the pedal travels from that point, adding clutch pressure to complete lockup. If lockup occurs too early causing the car to bog, simply add a little lockup delay until the bog is gone.

I never looked at it from this perspective with the added delay in the "deadband". However, the only issue I see with this is where people are just dropping the clutch(which all DSMer's know is a bad thing). In my situation, and many others who know how to launch with preloading and light slips, I see no real drawback to the magnus piece. "Deadband" is already effectively eliminated and the device disengages after the launch.

As I said, I have no experience with Magnus piece, though I plan on picking one up in the future. From what I gather it has no drawbacks with my practices of preloading.

I like your device, as I've used it in the past as a cheap type of launch control. It works, and it works well. Its just the full time engagement I dislike.
 
If you were pre-loading when using my device, that's a problem. If adjusted for a good launch, that would cause it to add more/additional slip on the shifts. This is because the pedal release stroke would be longer when shifting vs launch.

Sounds like you are not using anything to buffer the clutch right now?
 
Why is everyone ignoring the part where the engine is not making that much torque but it is combined torque from engine and rotational inertia and that it only has that effect for a fraction of a second? Rotational inertia creates torque. Spin up a 20lb disk to 5000RPM, try to stop it and then tell me there's no torque behind it. Rotating mass stores energy. The higher the RPM, the more energy is stored. If we double RPM, we multiply stored energy four times, because it is a squared factor (2squared is 4). All that stored energy is put through the driveline when the clutch is engaged. This is basic basic physics guys.

Objects in motion like to stay in motion yes, I'll agree with you there.

I feel like, there would be some measurable thing somewhere with actual data. Like maybe on a dyno ?

Cause there is this car
You must be logged in to view this image or video.


And now I'm worried for the earth when it puts its torque load inertia thing down, cause that's like a 60lbs flywheel with a 3000+ ft/lbs motor. Don't think the pavement pulls up on launch though so I'm confused again, how does this work ????
 
To the people who cant comprehend torque load by inertia maybe its easierto understand it by looking at bunge rope vs a static line. A 180lb person would not jump on a 200lb static line as the persons weight/ or potential velocity would multiply exponentially depending on distance traveled and speed.

In a car that is the torque and weight of the reciprocating components(person) directly interacting with a static environment of a standing car(static rope). The device acts like a bungie cord, which in his case, delays engagement window reducing shock load to the drive train.


__________

As for my current setup, im no longer using any buffer device and rely solely on preloading
 
Hak, if you had an understanding of measuring torque, you'd see why these things are basically unmeasurable. The closest thing is probably like kiggly did it with a strain gauge on the motormount, but the data analysis will be a nightmare because of how dynamic this is.

How is it immeasurable, yet you have math ? Very very confusing.

The thing I don't get is the 'shock inertia'. Because a clutch disc, unless it has substantial instantaneous 100% grip friction force, actually ends up slipping. Then you start to loose your force no ? What about tire flex ? What about the car suspension ? There are IMHO way more moving parts to 'absorb' this magic shock, than I'd care to take a bat at. To say that apart from the motor and clutch, everything is 100% and then you can't measure what we're talking about but its there, takes more faith IMHO than just watching a single video of a nitro cars rear tire flexing and watching all that energy disappear.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.


I'm also sorry but a man jumping onto a static rope, still has muscles, ligaments and joints that move. To say his entire weight, the second his hand grabs the rope is multiplied is ridiculous. They wouldn't be able to hold the rope and slip, ie: what a clutch would do in the same scenario. The only time that mans weight is going to be multiplied is when his fat ass hits the ground in one gigantic splat cause the earth certainly isn't going move.

Pretty sure that's why all the nitro cars design a clutch system that welds itself together down the strip.
 
To say that apart from the motor and clutch, everything is 100% and then you can't measure what we're talking about but its there, takes more faith IMHO than just watching a single video of a nitro cars rear tire flexing and watching all that energy disappear.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.
The energy does not "disappear." It is loaded into the tires which then act as an energy storage device in the form of a spring. When the tires unwrinkle or untwist that energy is released over a time period. Nonetheless it is still recovered and used to drive the car forward.
 
The energy does not "disappear." It is loaded into the tires which then act as an energy storage device in the form of a spring. When the tires unwrinkle or untwist that energy is released over a time period. Nonetheless it is still recovered and used to drive the car forward.

Those wrinkles in the tire are not going to spring or propel the vehicle. The wrinkles are going the wrong way for that to happen. The wrinkles are the tire buckling under power and it running itself over. The tire is rotating in the direction the driver wants the car to go. So the wrinkles "spring effect" are actually going to go in the opposite direction of the force applied to them... backwards.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Also this is can induce tire shake if you didn't know, and is one of the many parasitic power robbers of the drive train. I chose this exaggeration to emphasize that there is wasted energy and it goes places other than putting power down and propelling vehicles forward.

It's simple physics, if your interested I listed several readings you can look at. There is no time delay on a clutch, you drop the hammer and it takes what ever torque it holds to slip. Yeah there is some give in the system, but everyone knows of you drop the hammer on a Dsm driveline sh** breaks. It's inertia that causes that issue. Considering you don't have a Dsm at the point, all I can guess is that your just trolling for some personal vendetta.

I don't waste my time with my head in books sorry. Amassing knowledge without experience is completely and utterly useless for anything except inflating ones head.

Inertia is breaking stuff at the line because you have no more give on your footprint. It takes more force to take a resting object and move it, than an object already in motion.

So delaying your clutch engagement or slipping it longer, while your vehicle starts to move forward is going to help you not break crap at the line. Most of the people I know who go fast, already understand this concept ?? Are we mechanizing the clutch pedal because we don't understand these basic principles of driving ? It is a great idea no doubt.

I remember an old article about Shep when he was in 10s, asking him how the car is holding together so well during the season, and his answer was his shifting technique.

Finding better ways to get more power to the ground, rather than wasting it trying to move an object at rest is a good idea no doubt. But trying to nerd it up and make yourself a pillar to stand on is just a waste of time Kurt. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, no ? ^_~


Might go a lot better talking like this instead,
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
 
Last edited:
I think that this has become an un-winnable argument rather than a discussion. Since everyone in here hates physics and thermodynamics can't you just accept the thought that your drivetrain is experiencing a large torsional load and slipping your clutch is better than breaking transmissions? There's no arguing that. The entire point of the thread is to inform the community there is a device that allows consistent clutch slipping and you can build it and tune it yourself. What do you even get if you win the argument?
 
How is it immeasurable, yet you have math ? Very very confusing.

Getting overall torque data from a dyno is easy, the hard part is that no commonly used dyno has a sensor that can separate which component of that torque data came from a stored inertia energy discharge vs torque that the engine was making directly. You need math to come up with the number.
 
As for my current setup, im no longer using any buffer device and rely solely on preloading

Sounds like your clutch isn't too aggressive or need calming down, probably operating near it's maximum capacity. Preloading alone works because it's slipping enough on it's own without adding more engagement delay. Adding more power/torque you will likely have you looking for a clutch upgrade, that clutch will likely need a buffer to keep from breaking parts.
 
Those wrinkles in the tire are not going to spring or propel the vehicle. The wrinkles are going the wrong way for that to happen. The wrinkles are the tire buckling under power and it running itself over. The tire is rotating in the direction the driver wants the car to go. So the wrinkles "spring effect" are actually going to go in the opposite direction of the force applied to them... backwards.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

If you remove the force applied to those wrinkled tires, they relax and "spring back" to their original shape. They were storing energy.

Also this is can induce tire shake if you didn't know, and is one of the many parasitic power robbers of the drive train. I chose this exaggeration to emphasize that there is wasted energy and it goes places other than putting power down and propelling vehicles forward.

This power robbing you speak of is downstream from the clutch, the transmission's input shaft still sees the full effects of the torque spike. The transmission itself is fairly efficient, it will pass along most of this spike to the rest of the drivetrain. The most effective way to deal with this is to minimize the spike before it's created, which leads to more efficient use of the drivetrain's overall capacity.

I don't waste my time with my head in books sorry. Amassing knowledge without experience is completely and utterly useless for anything except inflating ones head.

Inertia is breaking stuff at the line because you have no more give on your footprint. It takes more force to take a resting object and move it, than an object already in motion.

If consistency is any concern, using tire spin to keep from breaking stuff is not the best way to go.

So delaying your clutch engagement or slipping it longer, while your vehicle starts to move forward is going to help you not break crap at the line. Most of the people I know who go fast, already understand this concept ?? Are we mechanizing the clutch pedal because we don't understand these basic principles of driving ? It is a great idea no doubt.

I remember an old article about Shep when he was in 10s, asking him how the car is holding together so well during the season, and his answer was his shifting technique.

More likely his clutch or the way it was used.
 
Good thread IMO. A little math never hurts. BTW knowledge without experience is the basis for much of what happens in college, and although not immediately relevant, leads to higher average lifetime income, and the potential ability to buy more stuff to break
 
If you remove the force applied to those wrinkled tires, they relax and "spring back" to their original shape. They were storing energy.

Yes they will spring back, but they will not propel the vehicle forward like you previous said. Not a play on words, but more so an accurate description of what is happening. Those tires sure are storing energy, in the wrong way, i would just say that's a parasitic loss.

This power robbing you speak of is downstream from the clutch, the transmission's input shaft still sees the full effects of the torque spike. The transmission itself is fairly efficient, it will pass along most of this spike to the rest of the drivetrain. The most effective way to deal with this is to minimize the spike before it's created, which leads to more efficient use of the drivetrain's overall capacity.

This is where you and I will disagree.

If your theory is correct, then taking the car off the ground, and dumping the clutch, in a situation that would break things, when its on the ground. Would still break things in the air, but it doesn't.

And why is that (serious question) ?

I don't profess myself to be a very edumacated man, but to me the force isn't immediately applied. Otherwise it should break off the ground but it doesn't. There is a transfer of force, and feedback much like a resistor in a circuit board but becomes less and less as the object becomes moving.

I think a water dam, that magically disappears and the water starts to flow down into a river, and that river starts to create resistance to the water so that allows the water to build up pressure upon the landscape as it is sculpted.


So when I see a power transfer from the engine to the transmission, I see torque build and travel downstream to the tires, which then causes preload in the drive train since the tires don't want to move. Once there is enough torque to over come the frictional load of the tire to the pavement in relation to the vehicles weight, it will start moving.

I also disagree that the inertial forces in the flywheel/motor are not multiplied by the motors torque in relation to the clutch/transmission. Addition yes, but certainly not multiplication.
 
I also disagree that the inertial forces in the flywheel/motor are not multiplied by the motors torque in relation to the clutch/transmission. Addition yes, but certainly not multiplication.

It's actually an EXPONENTIAL formula called moment of inertia. It's not complicated. Essentially, for a brief period of time something within the driveline DOES completely absorb ALL the moment created until it overcomes the weakest point. First gear is geared the lowest so the tires can overcome the force the ground can apply from friction, common sense there but that and all the factors everyone keeps listing are beyond the point in time being described.

What is being stated is that on a clutch dump you see a substantially larger initial force from angular momentum and it's true. A spinning objects mass continues to try and move when acted on by another force. That mass' displacement along with the engines torque determines the force applied. A dyno doesn't tell you anything about a flywheels moment of inertia so everyone claiming this car with x torque does this or that doesn't understand the flywheel has its own torque which stacks on top of the engines torque.
 
Yes they will spring back, but they will not propel the vehicle forward like you previous said. Not a play on words, but more so an accurate description of what is happening. Those tires sure are storing energy, in the wrong way, i would just say that's a parasitic loss.
I'm not the guy that put forth an argument using a tire example, but I will say that some portion the energy put into deforming a tire is lost due to parasitic internal friction (heat), but energy is also returned to help propel the car.

This is where you and I will disagree.

If your theory is correct, then taking the car off the ground, and dumping the clutch, in a situation that would break things, when its on the ground. Would still break things in the air, but it doesn't.

And why is that (serious question) ?

When you dump the clutch at WOT with the car in the air, engine rpm does not dip as low as it would if the car were on the ground. RPM lost is an indicator of the amount of stored inertia energy being discharged from the rotating assembly.

Remember the crankshaft/flywheel/pressure plate are all connected, and effectively form a single flywheel. If you had that assembly spinning at 6000rpm on a set of bearings, how much torque do you think it would induce on your wrist if you grabbed the crank snout with the intent to bring them to a stop instantly? Way more than you think, your arm would likely end up looking much worse than the rubber band on an old wind-up toy airplane.

Let's start by supposing that it produces 400ft/lbs of arm twisting torque to slow that rotating assy from 6000 to 4000rpm in .2 seconds. If we want to slow that same assembly twice as fast (reducing the time period to .1 second), it will produce twice the torque (800ft/lbs). Now cut that time in 1/2 again (.05 second), torque produced doubles again (1600ft/lbs). Time period cut in 1/2 again, 2000rpm drop over .025 seconds produces 3200ft/lbs of torque. Basically, the quicker a clutch engages, the more the potential to break parts.

Now consider going the other way. It's also possible to reduce the torque produced from a 2000rpm drop in speed by increasing the time period over which that rpm drop occurs. 400ft/lbs produced in .2 seconds drops to 200ft/lbs if the time period is extended to .4 seconds. Double the time period again, torque produced drops to 100ft/lbs over .8 seconds. See where this is going? A 2000rpm drop over .025 seconds produces 3200ft/lbs, but that same 2000rpm drop stretched over .8 seconds produces only 100ft/lbs. Which spike is more likely to break parts?

Delaying clutch lockup not only effectively decreases peak torque produced from an rpm drop, it also decreases the amount of rpm drop, further reducing the net amount of torque spike produced. Pro Stocks typically use about 1 second of clutch slip to help mitigate the torque spike that comes from rpm drop, they also favor 5 speed transmissions instead of 4 speeds to further reduce rpm drop between shifts. Their clutches are purposely adjusted to slip on the shifts, even though they use clutchless transmissions.

I don't profess myself to be a very edumacated man, but to me the force isn't immediately applied.

If rpm dropped, that indicates force already went somewhere.
 
Last edited:
It's actually an EXPONENTIAL formula called moment of inertia. It's not complicated. Essentially, for a brief period of time something within the driveline DOES completely absorb ALL the moment created until it overcomes the weakest point. First gear is geared the lowest so the tires can overcome the force the ground can apply from friction, common sense there but that and all the factors everyone keeps listing are beyond the point in time being described.

What is being stated is that on a clutch dump you see a substantially larger initial force from angular momentum and it's true. A spinning objects mass continues to try and move when acted on by another force. That mass' displacement along with the engines torque determines the force applied. A dyno doesn't tell you anything about a flywheels moment of inertia so everyone claiming this car with x torque does this or that doesn't understand the flywheel has its own torque which stacks on top of the engines torque.

Why is the flywheel torque exponential to the motor when it is the motor that is adding to its inertia ? Now I know a big ass wheel spinning holds inertia, and its proportional to its weight and circumference. I just can't see in my minds eye, how it is some kind of factor of anything from the output of the motor. The motor literally just applies force to it, and adds to the inertia, its a wheel without any reduction gearing at all so I can't see it applying anything more than what it has in it.

If you put a 4:1 gear ratio from the crank to the flywheel on a bearing on the outside of the crank, sure, now the motor has leverage against it to have multiplication.

Maybe I'm just not clearing up what I'm trying to say well enough. I can't see the flywheel being an exponent or multiplier of any sort, of the motor its attached to. It literally is just the means of which to transfer energy into the transmission which actually has gear reduction ratios to multiply torque.

I'm not the guy that put forth an argument using a tire example, but I will say that some portion the energy put into deforming a tire is lost due to parasitic internal friction (heat), but energy is also returned to help propel the car.

When you dump the clutch at WOT with the car in the air, engine rpm does not dip as low as it would if the car were on the ground. RPM lost is an indicator of the amount of stored inertia energy being discharged from the rotating assembly.

Remember the crankshaft/flywheel/pressure plate are all connected, and effectively form a single flywheel. If you had that assembly spinning at 6000rpm on a set of bearings, how much torque do you think it would induce on your wrist if you grabbed the crank snout with the intent to bring them to a stop instantly? Way more than you think, your arm would likely end up looking much worse than the rubber band on an old wind-up toy airplane.

Let's start by supposing that it produces 400ft/lbs of arm twisting torque to slow that rotating assy from 6000 to 4000rpm in .2 seconds. If we want to slow that same assembly twice as fast (reducing the time period to .1 second), it will produce twice the torque (800ft/lbs). Now cut that time in 1/2 again (.05 second), torque produced doubles again (1600ft/lbs). Time period cut in 1/2 again, 2000rpm drop over .025 seconds produces 3200ft/lbs of torque. Basically, the quicker a clutch engages, the more the potential to break parts.

If rpm dropped, that indicates force already went somewhere.

Well this is what I'm talking about. There is respect to time, if time is involved there's no way in my minds eye, that 100% of the actual force is immediately transferred from the front to the back. It has to have feedback otherwise there's nothing to overcome and no force is realistically applied in any great number to anything between the flywheel and the wheels that are spinning.

And since we both agree that the ground is applying force back to the drive train, how do you not agree with me that the force is actually built up, but rather immediate ?
 
Why is the flywheel torque exponential to the motor when it is the motor that is adding to its inertia ? Now I know a big ass wheel spinning holds inertia, and its proportional to its weight and circumference. I just can't see in my minds eye, how it is some kind of factor of anything from the output of the motor. The motor literally just applies force to it, and adds to the inertia, its a wheel without any reduction gearing at all so I can't see it applying anything more than what it has in it.

I understand why you would think that because it is only for a specific time when this scenario is true and it is very short, but it is what is being discussed. The flywheel does not impact torque until you try to bring it to a hault. Essentially you have a motor producing the torque and the flywheel sustaining it. Spin the motor out to 6k and take the flywheel out of the equation and you still have a rotating assembly spinning and creating a good bit of torque. So the motor is applying its torque still. Now you add in the mass integrated from the center of the flywheels moment to the outside of the flywheels parameter to determine its mass distribution. Take that mass distribution and multiple it by the integral of angular velocity across the same cross section and you have the integral of torque/time. Ok so that flywheel torque is basically nonexistent because it is potential. It requires a resistance to become real, and in this case we're discussing the resistance in a rate form. eg. resistance/time

As a general idea, at 6k rpm the outside of your flywheel is spinning at 261.8 ft/s (roughly 180 mph). Assuming you have a concentrated force of 1lb on that area, well that's 261.8 ft lb/s. That's just a single area. Now use integration and you can figure out the angular velocities and masses everywhere on the flywheel and add them together to get your potential torque. The potential torque is the absolute max that can be applied to the drivetrain and assumes an instantaneous stop. The idea behind the product is to bring the resistance rate to a point where you can only pull enough torque to launch the car and retain the rest of the potential in the rotating assembly.

The flywheel torque is enough to get a factory dsm a 1.7 60 foot with a 5500 rpm launch. So a car launching with about 100 instant lbft plus flywheel weight can overcome the 3200 lbs of potential energy and drivetrain loss because of this instantaneous torque spike.
 
Why is the flywheel torque exponential to the motor when it is the motor that is adding to its inertia ? Now I know a big ass wheel spinning holds inertia, and its proportional to its weight and circumference. I just can't see in my minds eye, how it is some kind of factor of anything from the output of the motor. The motor literally just applies force to it, and adds to the inertia, its a wheel without any reduction gearing at all so I can't see it applying anything more than what it has in it.
?
Ok I think I see where you are getting confused. The flywheel does not multiply engine torque and is not multiplied by engine torque, rather the RPM at which the motor is spinning the rotating assembly is what multiplies the torque. It is the speed of the rotating assembly that multiplies the torque produced by the rotating assembly. The torque it produces has nothing to do with the torque the engine is producing. The only thing the engine can do to increase the torque the rotating assembly puts out is spin faster. The faster it spins the more inertia the more torque is produced completely independent of torque produced from the engine itself.
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top