Changing Z4 Alignment - Bimmerfest - BMW Forums



Go Back   Bimmerfest - BMW Forums > BMW Model Discussions > Z Series > E85 / E86 Z4 (2003-2008)

E85 / E86 Z4 (2003-2008)
E85 Z4 Roadster, E86 Z4 Coupe, E85 Z4 M Roadster, and E86 Z4 M Coupe talk with our BMW gurus here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2005, 11:16 AM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
Changing Z4 Alignment

I've been searching the various BMW forums and am surprised to find 'very little' discussion about the Z4 suspension settings.

I recently bought an Alpina Roadster S (Z4 with 3.4 litre engine, Alpina chassis), but despite Alpina's work on every other element of the car I'm not convinced about the chassis. Alpina ditch the RFTs and fit 19" Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tyres 235 front 265 rear, but they retain the stock Z4 Sport suspension settings which are nearly -3 degrees on the rear with just under 1 degree negative camber on the front (with nearly 6 degrees caster at each end, and a slight amount of toe-out at both ends). I realise that the Z4 has a lower CofG than my M3 CSL, but these settings are very different to what I'm used to. I run -2 degrees front and just over -1 degrees negative camber on the rear of my M3 CSL.

Can anyone give me a good reason why the Z4 is set-up so differently? (usually I work on the rear being 1 degree of so 'less' in camber than the front).

I've read some conjecture about the amount of negative camber on the rear being due to the siffness of the RFT sidewalls but that doesn't add up to me, I've also got a Mini Cooper S Works with RFTs and the latest sporting 1, 3, and 5 series models don't seem to use excssive negative camber either.

I'm likely to change it to run nearer -2 degrees camber on the front, retain some toe-out then reduce rear camber to around -1.5 degrees and give the rear a smidgen of toe-in. Any experiences?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 12-27-2005, 11:53 AM
Mr Paddle.Shift Mr Paddle.Shift is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: bmw
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,848
Mein Auto: bmw
Woah...-3 for the rear is very aggressive. Did you verify the specs with a third-party alignment services? What's the front/rear offset of the Alpina Dynamic wheels?

Not that I have a chance to see a Roadster S in the US, but I have seen 19s on a Z4. Visit technikpower.com and look under Gallery. They have a Z4 SR with 19s which I have a chance to sit in frequently and observe up close. From what I recall, you do need some camber to avoid fender rubbing.

I can't think of a reason why camber is so aggressive in the rear yet it's not so in the front. Did you consult Alpina for an explanation?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-27-2005, 12:14 PM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
I'm not entirely sure what the offset of the Alpina Dynamic wheels is, but I tried out my CSL wheels and they splayed out beyond the wheel arch (at both top and bottom), so I believe the Alpina axle is identical to the standard Z4 axle and therefore works within the same range of offsets that work on a standard Z4.

The Alpina aligment settings are contained within the Alpina owners manual and are:

Front:

Toe: 0 deg 14' +/- 08
Camber: -0 deg 35' +/- 30
Caster: 5 deg 43' +/- 30

Rear:

Toe: 0 deg 22' +/- 06
Camber: -2 deg 15' +/- 15


So my apologies, they're actually the same settings as the non-Sport suspsension Z4.

I still cannot understand why so little front camber but so much rear camber. Likewise the amount of rear toe (out) would probably explain why the rear tramlines so much under power.

I'd like to understand why BMW/Alpina made the choices they did before I change them, but I've read several views (incuding those from TC Kline) which rate the Z4 as being the best handling BMW of recent years but that doesn't add up in my experiences when comparing to my M3 CSL. Maybe these odd alignment settings are the reason why?

p.s. picture of my Alpina Z4 with the CSL wheels on ...



And then with the 19" Alpina Dynamic wheels...

__________________

Last edited by Steved; 12-27-2005 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 12-27-2005, 12:42 PM
Mr Paddle.Shift Mr Paddle.Shift is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: bmw
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,848
Mein Auto: bmw
Thanks for the pics. I was too shy to ask for them. My other nickname is alpina.nut and that's how folks used to address me on this forum. Is Neil still the sales manager for Alpina GB?

If you look at the insides of the Dynamic wheels, there should be a "ETXX" embossed imprint of some kind. "XX" is usually a pair of numerical values and that represents the offset. Reason why I brought up offset is because I have a set of Alpina Classic Stylings 18s for E46 and they have some of the most conservative offsets in the market: ET47 and ET50. Basically the higher the number means the less the wheels protrude out towards the edge of the fenders. It's hard to tell from the pictures but I thought maybe Dynamic wheels have a smaller offset.

I can't think off the top of the head why more rear camber will help but I am guessing it has to do with the Z4 vehicle structure and its unique handling dynamics. I do think that suspension tuning is a black art itself. I am not sure how deep you're going into delve into this. I've got a feeling Alpina's the reply will probably be "this is the way we align the car for best handling". If you're looking for that particular handling characteristics and you're not feeling it, then go all out and perform an alignment. After which, go for a drive (track if I may suggest). Repeat procedures if necessary. IMO, it's just vehicle dynamics. You might experience different tire wear otherwise no big deal really.

I will dig out my Z4 BMW tech documents and see if I can find anything related to the alignment specs.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-27-2005, 12:48 PM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
Thanks. I've raced cars and set-up my race and road cars for more than 20 years so not a newbie to this stuff, but am surprised I can't find more information on the reasons why the standard settings are chosen. I will change them, not least because I drive my cars much more quickly than the average driver so can cope with more negative camber and less understeer bias without adversely affecting tyre wear.

I'm not sure if Neil is still Sales Manager at Alpina UK, I personally found them pretty terrible to deal with (and next to useless in terms of technical knowledge).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-27-2005, 01:10 PM
Mr Paddle.Shift Mr Paddle.Shift is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: bmw
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,848
Mein Auto: bmw
Ah then you probably know more about suspension tuning than I do.

I found something...So it turns out that the Roadster S has a thicker front sway bar (which is actually a M3 CSL part). Having a stiffer front bar means a tendency to oversteer (given of course all other variables are fixed). And in order to keep the car still "safe" to handle, they increased the rear -ve camber and reduce the front -ve camber in order to induce a tad bit more understeer.

PS: Apparently they shuffled some personels at Sytner.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-27-2005, 02:19 PM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
Actually, the Alpina uses the 'same' anti-roll bars as the Z4 with the sports suspension (i.e 25mm and 19mm) but uses the alignment settings of the non-sport Z4, so it's a bit of a mish-mash really. The M3 CSL uses a hollow anti-roll bar of some 30.5mm diameter, with a 22mm rear. The Alpina Roadster uses special Eibach springs which are 4mm lower than a standard Z4, and of course it uses non-runflat tyres (which will have softer spring rates and probably allow more transient dynamic camber change.

I would be interested in finding out what settings are used for the TC Kline racing Z4s and how far these differ from the standard balance. Is the chassis balance 'so much' different to the 3-series on which it's based or is this just a compromise BMW have chosen for the road?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-27-2005, 07:25 PM
dwm's Avatar
dwm dwm is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: White Lake, MI
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,358
Send a message via AIM to dwm Send a message via Yahoo to dwm
Mein Auto: 2002 M roadster
Have you checked the alignment, or are you just looking at documents? The specs in the TIS are all toe-in.

As for not being what you're used to... off the top of my head, I can't name a BMW in recent history that didn't come with more negative camber in the rear than the front in stock form. Including the CSL.
__________________
Daniel
2002 M roadster
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-28-2005, 03:57 AM
Pinecone's Avatar
Pinecone Pinecone is offline
M Mad
Location: Maryland
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 10,479
Mein Auto: M Roadster/M3
Mainly because this is one way to ensure understeer, which is safer for street driving, but not as quick as possible.

I am running -3 degrees front and about -1.25 to -1.5 in the rear on my M3. Too much rear negative camber means less grip under acceleration.

On the track I can increase the front up to about -4.5 degrees, which can be helpful when trying to make up for the limitations of the camber curve challenged BMW strut suspension.
__________________
Terry Carraway

'95 Alpine M3 LTW
'00 Dakar M Roadster
'02 Topaz M3
Red/White SRF #4 (Chassis 561)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-28-2005, 03:58 AM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
The settings on my CSL (which are within manufacturer tolerances) are:

Front camber (-1:60')
Front toe (-0:02', -0:02' with a total toe of -0:04')
Toe out on turns (-1:55')
Front castor (+7:14')
Rear camber (-0:55')
Rear toe (+0:02', +0:03' with a total toe of +0:05')


So, it's not designed with the static rear camber being set greater than the front and I see no reason why it should unless you drive in straight lines all the time (which I rarely do).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-28-2005, 04:05 AM
Nick325xiT 5spd's Avatar
Nick325xiT 5spd Nick325xiT 5spd is offline
Registered User
Location: Bethesda, MD
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,856
Send a message via ICQ to Nick325xiT 5spd Send a message via AIM to Nick325xiT 5spd Send a message via Yahoo to Nick325xiT 5spd
Mein Auto: M3 & 323i/999 KP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinecone
Mainly because this is one way to ensure understeer, which is safer for street driving, but not as quick as possible.

I am running -3 degrees front and about -1.25 to -1.5 in the rear on my M3. Too much rear negative camber means less grip under acceleration.

On the track I can increase the front up to about -4.5 degrees, which can be helpful when trying to make up for the limitations of the camber curve challenged BMW strut suspension.
Yeah, but on the track, the M3 burns off the rear tires with the camber set to less than 3 degrees on track.

As for the Z4's alignment settings, here's my suspicion: The Z4's short wheel base makes it less stable than, say, the M3, especially at high speeds. Using boatloads of rear negative camber is a way of making the car "safer" for stupid drivers. I'd dial in 3 degrees up front and call it a day.
__________________
2006 GMC Sierra 2500HD 4WD Duramax LBZ/Allison 6-speed
2002 BMW M3 Alpinweiß/Black
1999 323i KP/GTS2 Alpinweiß
1990 325is Brilliantrot/Tan
1989 325is S50B30US Alpinweiß/Black
1989 M3 Alpinweiß/Black S50B32 (321hp, ITBs)


Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-28-2005, 04:12 AM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick325xiT 5spd
Yeah, but on the track, the M3 burns off the rear tires with the camber set to less than 3 degrees on track.
The CSL doesn't. -2 degrees is enough on the front to achieve quite consistent temperatures across the tread. Rear tyres are completely uniform in wear and temperature. Perhaps that's due to the CSLs lower weight and CofG.



So you reckon it's just a method to combat a tricky chassis?

With most cars I just adapt the settings to suit my style of driving, but with the Z4 I'm inclined to throw them away and start again. Castor seems too low, camber is back to front and the toe settings seem rather high. It all ends up with a car that lacks steering feel and darts around on any less than smooth road. Can it be this obvious? Surely BMW didn't drop the ball so deliberately on what was 'meant' to be a sporting car?
__________________

Last edited by Steved; 12-28-2005 at 04:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-28-2005, 09:35 AM
Mr Paddle.Shift Mr Paddle.Shift is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: bmw
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,848
Mein Auto: bmw
Steve, I have a few contacts in Europe and one of them works at Alpina. As mentioned they did only change the front sway to the CSL part. As far as my contact told me, there hasn't been a change since they produced the Roadster S.

Unless of course maybe yours is a different production or something.

I think a quick call to TC Kline might help. Those folks aren't that bad to talk to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steved
Actually, the Alpina uses the 'same' anti-roll bars as the Z4 with the sports suspension (i.e 25mm and 19mm) but uses the alignment settings of the non-sport Z4, so it's a bit of a mish-mash really. The M3 CSL uses a hollow anti-roll bar of some 30.5mm diameter, with a 22mm rear. The Alpina Roadster uses special Eibach springs which are 4mm lower than a standard Z4, and of course it uses non-runflat tyres (which will have softer spring rates and probably allow more transient dynamic camber change.

I would be interested in finding out what settings are used for the TC Kline racing Z4s and how far these differ from the standard balance. Is the chassis balance 'so much' different to the 3-series on which it's based or is this just a compromise BMW have chosen for the road?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-28-2005, 09:35 AM
Ron Stygar's Avatar
Ron Stygar Ron Stygar is offline
19,585 Miles
Location: CT
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,141
Mein Auto: Z4 M Coupe 6LL93033
CSL Alignment specifications


Last edited by Ron Stygar; 11-15-2008 at 03:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-28-2005, 10:19 AM
Ron Stygar's Avatar
Ron Stygar Ron Stygar is offline
19,585 Miles
Location: CT
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,141
Mein Auto: Z4 M Coupe 6LL93033
Z4 Alignment specifications






Last edited by Ron Stygar; 11-15-2008 at 03:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-29-2005, 08:57 AM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
That's very helpul Ron, thanks.

Everyone who owns a CSL (certainly in the UK) extends the front camber by moving the strut to it's maximum inwards position, this gives around -2 or sometimes -2.15 degrees negative camber. If you don't do this then the Cup tyres will be screwed in just a handful of laps around a track. BMW dealers now routinely reset it to this position after so many owners complained that the factory settings were wrong (Michelin supplied their instructions to owners stating that the Cup tyres need between -2 and -3 degrees front camber on the CSL, and BMW couldn't be seen to contradict this given that Cup tyres were the standard fitment).

I have just done likewise with my Alpina Roadster using the same approach as outlined in Mike (Madrussian's) guide, and it much better. Just a slight change in front toe and camber makes a big difference on these cars. You can now see some visible camber on the front where before the tyre looked vertical.

Whereas before I was finding lots of tramlining from the front, making it a bit of a bum-clenching moment overtaking on a bumpy road, now there's poise and stability - a glassy stillness compared to the hyperactive but tiring response of before.

The steering now has some FEEL!, not lots mind you but it's like comparing a whisper to silence, at least I can now make out the words. There's additional weight to the steering much more in tune to the weighting of other controls. Overall my heart rate must be a few beats lower when driving this car, it's calm and enjoyable to punt along even in these icy conditions because I can now feel the chassis talking.

Whereas before it was quite difficult to hold the steering with both hands because just the weight of my hands would cause the car to change direction, now the balance of steering torque is more equal and the steering only moves when I choose it to.

Finally I used to find that if I accelerated hard that the balance and traction of the rear would be out of sync with the front, so the front end would squirm around and require constant steering correction. Now it stays still.

My suspicions are vindicated that there is far too little camber on the front end compared to the rear, and that this causes an in-balance dynamically. For 20 mins of spanner work, I'm well pleased.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-04-2006, 10:00 AM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
Just to update this thread, the change in cambers from this adjustment on my Alpina Roadster have been as follows:

Front (L/R) -ve 1 deg 8' / -ve 1 deg 12'

Rear (L/R) -ve 1 deg 29' / -ve 1 deg 30'

I'm surprised that the rear cambers were nowhere near the specification (they were at least 0.5 degree shy of tolerance).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-04-2006, 06:11 PM
Pinecone's Avatar
Pinecone Pinecone is offline
M Mad
Location: Maryland
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 10,479
Mein Auto: M Roadster/M3
Did the weight the car properly?

BMW alignment specs are based on wieght in both seats, radiator crossmember and trunk lip. Lowers the ride height and increases negative camber.
__________________
Terry Carraway

'95 Alpine M3 LTW
'00 Dakar M Roadster
'02 Topaz M3
Red/White SRF #4 (Chassis 561)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-05-2006, 06:52 AM
Steved Steved is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 193
Mein Auto: AMG ML63, M3 CSL, B7 RS4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinecone
Did the weight the car properly?

BMW alignment specs are based on wieght in both seats, radiator crossmember and trunk lip. Lowers the ride height and increases negative camber.
Having only ever measured with a weighted car it's surprising how much difference a lack of 150kg of weight can make.

Anyway, (with dunces cap firmly on) here are the revised figures..


Front (L/R) -ve 1 deg 21' / -ve 1 deg 15'

Rear (L/R) -ve 1 deg 56' / -ve 2 deg 5'
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-26-2019, 03:24 AM
Jager66 Jager66 is offline
Registered User
Location: UK
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 3
Mein Auto: Z4 3.0 Si
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinecone View Post
Did the weight the car properly?

BMW alignment specs are based on wieght in both seats, radiator crossmember and trunk lip. Lowers the ride height and increases negative camber.
Do you know how much the weight increases -ve camber?
Had my Z4 3.0 Si sports suspension on a Hunter machine recently and max rear adjustment on the cam was -2 deg 15 min (full tank) but wasn't weighed down.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:35 PM
Andyz4 Andyz4 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Orlando, FL
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 209
Mein Auto: 2006 Z4 3.0si
Good info here, but this thread is 13 years old! I am running Pilot 4S tires on stock 17" wheels on factory suspension settings. Steering feel is precise on track and have none of the tramlining issues I read about with the 18" staggered wheels, guessing the 19" setup only makes it worse. Or at least, more touchy on getting the right settings.
__________________
[SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-27-2019, 01:18 PM
Jager66 Jager66 is offline
Registered User
Location: UK
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 3
Mein Auto: Z4 3.0 Si
Resurected

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andyz4 View Post
Good info here, but this thread is 13 years old! I am running Pilot 4S tires on stock 17" wheels on factory suspension settings. Steering feel is precise on track and have none of the tramlining issues I read about with the 18" staggered wheels, guessing the 19" setup only makes it worse. Or at least, more touchy on getting the right settings.
You are right, it is an old one, but is referenced on an other Z4 forum as a good guide to alignments.
I recently swapped out the Bridgestone RE050 runflats on 18" staggered wheels for non-runflat Good Year F1 Asymetric 5. They are superb too. None of the tram-lining of the RFT's and hold the road well too. I just want to preserve the life of them (and mine) by gettingh the alignment set up somehwere near what it should be, but can't on the rear with the stock rear camber arm as the cam is on full cam and I am short of the BMW spec, unless the extra weight is going to rectify that, or perhaps the apparently good rear bushes are not actually in that good condition i.e. gone soft, hence the inability to push the bottom of the rear wheels out to get the right camber.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-27-2019, 02:48 PM
janole janole is offline
Registered User
Location: sonoma ca
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 36
Mein Auto: 2007 z4 3.0si
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andyz4 View Post
Good info here, but this thread is 13 years old! I am running Pilot 4S tires on stock 17" wheels on factory suspension settings. Steering feel is precise on track and have none of the tramlining issues I read about with the 18" staggered wheels, guessing the 19" setup only makes it worse. Or at least, more touchy on getting the right settings.
what size tires are you running on the 17", same on all four corners?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-27-2019, 09:05 PM
Andyz4 Andyz4 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Orlando, FL
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 209
Mein Auto: 2006 Z4 3.0si
Janole, yes same on all 4 corners: 225/45 - 17

Jager, agree the runflats with their stiff carcasses play a part in the tramlining issue. Are you getting uneven tire wear in rear? Not sure why it won't adjust out, this thread might be helpful https://www.zpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=866263
__________________
[SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-27-2019, 09:53 PM
janole janole is offline
Registered User
Location: sonoma ca
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 36
Mein Auto: 2007 z4 3.0si
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andyz4 View Post
Janole, yes same on all 4 corners: 225/45 - 17

Jager, agree the runflats with their stiff carcasses play a part in the tramlining issue. Are you getting uneven tire wear in rear? Not sure why it won't adjust out, this thread might be helpful https://www.zpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=866263
and you are running those on the track? Would love to go to those for the street, but worried about sidewall flex on the track
Reply With Quote
Reply

See More Related BMW Stories


Forum Navigation
Go Back   Bimmerfest - BMW Forums > BMW Model Discussions > Z Series > E85 / E86 Z4 (2003-2008)
Today's Posts Search
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spartanburg newspaper quotes some of us about Z4 Coupe dwaynemosley E85 / E86 Z4 (2003-2008) 38 09-18-2005 09:25 AM
Z4 Styling Hurting Sales... Big Incentives Offered sp330i General BMW Questions 44 08-13-2004 12:35 PM
NYT Z4 review nate General BMW Questions 18 11-19-2002 05:59 AM
Bmw Announces The Winner Of The First Z4 Roadster Jon Shafer General BMW Questions 12 10-22-2002 06:00 PM
Prices for New 2003 Z4 Roadster ChrisTO E36/7 Z3 (1996-2002) 0 09-19-2002 07:04 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
© 2001- VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.