lorenzo to leave ducati?

JKant · Apr 29, 2017

birdman said:
Carmelo allowed Aprilia to field a SBK in MotoGP when he screwed up the control tyre decision and lost Suzuki and Kawasaki as a result.

This again? If you like I can repost the article quoting the Kawasaki boss where he expressed unequivocal support for the single tyre rule. And the one where Suzuki made it perfectly clear that they were only taking a hiatus due to economic factors and had every intention of returning to MotoGP.

Gigi abandoned Aprilia for Ducati, he knows more than us. Aprilia may Spring a surprise at some point, at present they simply make up the numbers and benefit from the competition. Just like tyre suppliers would have if they were allowed to hang around. The real point for being there, not the trophies.

So Bridgestone would have willingly taken design direction from Aprilia at the expense of someone like Stoner?

Now in my previous post I acknowledge I made an error. A top rider on top tires did win 2007. The entire problem which led to the control tyre was it was assumed a lesser rider on a top bike and top tires won in 2007. It was being reported all over the place at the time. The PlayStation boy, winning with electronics. Rossi was outraged that this could happen. Yes Rossi, he believed in it vehemently. Stoner was a lesser rider. Wasn't trying 100%. He believed it right up until that fateful day at the end of 2010 at the Valencia test. He had to believe it, or no way in hell would he have signed up for Ducati. By then it was way too late, both for him and Carmelo.

Carmelo also believed strongly in what Rossi was saying. A lesser rider had won the championship, and set about preventing any recurrence. The fans tune in to watch the yellow mr T. rex, they aren't interested in skippy the kangaroo. Dinosaurs are far more entertaining. But by ensuring you got your fix of T. rex every week he completely destroyed the product of MotoGP to the point we had factory Honda and Yamaha vs CRT. In his desperation Carmelo actually started to push for a return to prototype or development tyres in 2012. They needed something. Interesting they looked so quickly to the tyres. They must be important.

If Rossi retires in 2018 will you subsequently change your position on the single tyre rule? If not, then Rossi isn't relevant to the debate which is about the underlying principle.

Having the whole thing so badly screwed up, hardly any competitive teams left, Carmelo had no choice at all but to go control ecu. This is nothing like control tyre. Electronics are horrendously expensive, while tyres are relatively cheap. How many electronics techs did satellite teams have vs factory. This was the artificial handicap the factory teams cared about, not tyres. Only Rossi and Carmelo cared about tyres.

The lack of competitive teams had little to do with Dorna and much more to do with the skewed balance of power with MSMA. Please refer to David Emmett's articles from the era for further elucidation.

But the most obvious thing is 2016. We had much better competition. How can that be? Control ecu was a major factor yes. The other was Michelin. After years of development with Bridgestone, do you understand what the difference was with Michelin? A totally new tyre. The equivalent of a development or prototype tire.

Except of course that Ducati was competitive in 2015 as well, despite running Bridgestones.

They may not have scored any wins but they secured plenty of podiums and ended the season will almost as many manufacturer points as it scored in 2016.

JKant · Apr 29, 2017

michaelm said:
Take out the other riders then. Stoner's results deteriorated with the control tyre. He didn't seem to have lost any talent going by his results when he went to Honda

Why? Surely the dip in performances of the other riders is equally relevant.

The consensus as I've found everywhere, including on this forum, has been that Stoner's riding was masking the fundamental problems with the Desmosidici (much like Marquez last year). Some of that may have been down to his riding style; he found the frameless GP9 to be the best bike on the grid, while Hayden was completely at sea on it but getting exclusive support from Bridgestone wouldn't have fixed that.

The basic issue with the control tyre - serving the needs of different riders with different styles & preferences - still applies here. Without the monetary upside.

Gaz · Apr 29, 2017

JKant said:
The crux of the debate was whether the other manufacturers are capable of being competitive without the crutch of a custom tyre. The last two years have proven that they can and that's no more of an aberration than 2006 was.

Geez I have to disagree with the statement.

Look at 2015 where it was all systems normal and at 2016 where there were tyre changes in manufacturer that had a major impact (hell, we had satellite bikes winning for the first time in 10 years).

IMO, 2016 is an aberation, pure and simple as with the number of changes involved there was bound to be anomolies in results etc ........... 2017 is a true test of competitiveness come season end.

2015 saw no race wins for Ducati and around 9 podium results (17% of all podiums) for a team supplying near a quarter the field (24% or so) and whilst yes, they are an improvement an improvement does not correlate to competitive which in this sport is winning races and titles as I am sure Ducati want to achieve (fair is fair - they should have had better 2016 results however).

Again the elephant in the room is the point that you cannot rebut which is when smaller manufacturers (Ducati, Suzuki and Kawasaki) had access to a tyre supplier interested in them only, Ducati won plenty of races and a title, and Suzuki scored their last race win (up until the return of Michelins a decade later).

You can believe that spec equipment increases competitiveness and you may well be borne out to be true but as history has also shown, it can just as readily work the other way if allowed

michaelm · Apr 29, 2017

JKant said:
Why? Surely the dip in performances of the other riders is equally relevant.

The consensus as I've found everywhere, including on this forum, has been that Stoner's riding was masking the fundamental problems with the Desmosidici (much like Marquez last year). Some of that may have been down to his riding style; he found the frameless GP9 to be the best bike on the grid, while Hayden was completely at sea on it but getting exclusive support from Bridgestone wouldn't have fixed that.

The basic issue with the control tyre - serving the needs of different riders with different styles & preferences - still applies here. Without the monetary upside.

This is like someone disputing your account of your experience of the city of Cardiff in the days around the rugby world cup match you went to there in 2007 on the basis of what newspaper clippings collected by a third party they can find about the game itself 10 years later.

No, Stoner found the frameless Ducati on the Bridgestone tyre it was co-designed with better in his hands than the trellis frame bike it replaced, the 800 version of which no-one else could really ride either. The trellis frame bike was an artisanal product, and they were unable to make 2 of them which were the same even for Stoner their lead rider. He of course had no way of knowing anything about the performance of a factory 800 Honda or Yamaha and whether they were inferior to a frameless Ducati because he had never encountered such a bike. There was much talk of how surprised he was by how much easier a factory Honda was to ride once he got on one.

The actual consensus at the time rather than in retrospect after Rossi couldn't ride the Ducati was that Stoner was a flawed rider who couldn't set up a bike; why do you think Rossi went to Ducati as Birdman says?

The frameless bike may well have been a flawed concept from the get-go, although Stoner said years later and after he had gone to Honda that he thought it still had considerable potential, and Ducati themselves said at one time they could have solved the problems of their bike with a suitable tyre, but what would they know in comparison with David Emmett? He has changed his tune several times about the problems with the Ducati in any case. As I have recently posted it became completely non-viable regardless of tyres once the engine limitation rule came in, because the engine was integrated with the chassis, and obviously being carbon fibre could not be adjusted once manufactured, with flex etc being fixed, and I would make a wild speculation that one of the phenomena in response to which it could not be adjusted was tyre changes.

danski · Apr 30, 2017

michaelm said:
The frameless bike may well have been a flawed concept from the get-go, although Stoner said years later and after he had gone to Honda that he thought it still had considerable potential, and Ducati themselves said at one time they could have solved the problems of their bike with a suitable tyre, but what would they know in comparison with David Emmett? He has changed his tune several times about the problems with the Ducati in any case. As I have recently posted it became completely non-viable regardless of tyres once the engine limitation rule came in, because the engine was integrated with the chassis, and obviously being carbon fibre could not be adjusted once manufactured, with flex etc being fixed, and I would make a wild speculation that one of the phenomena in response to which it could not be adjusted was tyre changes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but afaik the engine and mounts are made from cast aluminium. The frameless 'chassis' was bolted to the engine so could have been adjusted or remade without interfering with the engine as per the rules.

michaelm · Apr 30, 2017

danski said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but afaik the engine and mounts are made from cast aluminium. The frameless 'chassis' was bolted to the engine so could have been adjusted or remade without interfering with the engine as per the rules.

I may well be wrong and you have corrected me then because I thought they couldn't remove the engines.

danski · Apr 30, 2017

michaelm said:
I may well be wrong and you have corrected me then because I thought they couldn't remove the engines.

I read further about this. The headstock and air box were one cf moulding which would bolt to the cylinder heads , the swing arm and rear sub frame bolted to the rear crankcase.
I think one of the major issues was lack of flexibility in the cf components.

yamfan · Apr 30, 2017

Surely the flex has to be able to be put where it's needed to absorb bumps etc when the bike is leaned over and the suspension isn't able to. Just look back to pics of Rossi's Yamaha where it was clear they'd taken material away from the beams to induce vertical flex when leaned over.
Just engineering movement at engine mounts is unlikely to suffice and would possibly introduce unwanted "hinge like" movement to the chassis around said mounts.

michaelm · Apr 30, 2017

danski said:
I read further about this. The headstock and air box were one cf moulding which would bolt to the cylinder heads , the swing arm and rear sub frame bolted to the rear crankcase.
I think one of the major issues was lack of flexibility in the cf components.

As yamfan said and as I think I said earlier the flex was said to be the problem, and the fact it couldn't really be adjusted once the cf frame elements had been manufactured. The 2009 version still seemed to be competitive, if for Stoner only, when he was healthy.

JKant · Apr 30, 2017

Gaz said:
Geez I have to disagree with the statement.

Look at 2015 where it was all systems normal and at 2016 where there were tyre changes in manufacturer that had a major impact (hell, we had satellite bikes winning for the first time in 10 years).

IMO, 2016 is an aberation, pure and simple as with the number of changes involved there was bound to be anomolies in results etc ........... 2017 is a true test of competitiveness come season end.

The Aprilias & Suzukis were still evolving in 2015 but the Ducati GP15 was quite competitive - Dovizioso started the season with the three straight 2nd places, and Iannone was always within the top 5.

As for 2016, the race results at Assen & Brno were abberations (particularly the latter) but the rest (Silverstone, Red Bull Ring, Phillip Island, Sepang) were all well deserved clean wins.

2015 saw no race wins for Ducati and around 9 podium results (17% of all podiums) for a team supplying near a quarter the field (24% or so) and whilst yes, they are an improvement an improvement does not correlate to competitive which in this sport is winning races and titles as I am sure Ducati want to achieve (fair is fair - they should have had better 2016 results however).

Competitiveness is about having the pace. Rossi, for example, has won only 2 out the last 2 dozen races and its been 14 races since his last win and years since his last title. Yet few (in general, not on this forum) would say that he's not competitive today. Ducati may have been supplying a quarter of the grid but they were still only running two factory bikes while fielding zero 'aliens'. In three years on a factory Honda, Dovizioso scored only one win, in the wet - that doesn't make the machinery Honda supplied to him uncompetitive, so why hold Ducati to a different standard.

Again the elephant in the room is the point that you cannot rebut which is when smaller manufacturers (Ducati, Suzuki and Kawasaki) had access to a tyre supplier interested in them only, Ducati won plenty of races and a title, and Suzuki scored their last race win (up until the return of Michelins a decade later).

Question is - how does one come to the conclusion that this is a 'natural' state of affairs under an open tyre rule (rather than a transitory phenomenon)? Or that even within the fold, Bridgestone treated all its riders at par or close to it?

Gaz · Apr 30, 2017

JKant said:
Question is - how does one come to the conclusion that this is a 'natural' state of affairs under an open tyre rule (rather than a transitory phenomenon)? Or that even within the fold, Bridgestone treated all its riders at par or close to it?

The same could very well be asked now could it not?

Or that even within the fold, Michelin treats all its riders at par or close to it?

Facts that are in competition not everyone gets treated the same, of that I am sure we can agree (finally, something) but if you allow Bridgestone (as an example) to work with Ducati to develop a tyre that works for their bikes you are likely to see improvements in their overall results.

This is not about all riders as no manufacturer (bike, tyre or condom) will manufacture a product for each and every rider (based on that rider's feedback) as instead they will base an improvement on (as example) Rider A's feedback or data, develop and design, then implement and if Rider B, C and D benefit then awesome otherwise they have an option to stick to their current preferred options. Much like HRC (again as an example) have done for years with frames which are offered to both based on the feedback of 1, even though both may have been whinging or demanding the change.

Your point about equity in terms of input to the development (if I read that point right) is as idealistic as that which you have accused me of in the past as I have no doubts whatsoever that Michelin do not approach MarcVDS, KTM, Aprilia, GP15 riders etc with their plans but rather HRC, Yamaha and maybe, maybe Ducati/Suzuki (although with the two highest profiles in Yamaha and HRC I would not be surprised if it stopped there (unofficially).

JKant · Apr 30, 2017

michaelm said:
This is like someone disputing your account of your experience of the city of Cardiff in the days around the rugby world cup match you went to there in 2007 on the basis of what newspaper clippings collected by a third party they can find about the game itself 10 years later.

No, Stoner found the frameless Ducati on the Bridgestone tyre it was co-designed with better in his hands than the trellis frame bike it replaced, the 800 version of which no-one else could really ride either. The trellis frame bike was an artisanal product, and they were unable to make 2 of them which were the same even for Stoner their lead rider. He of course had no way of knowing anything about the performance of a factory 800 Honda or Yamaha and whether they were inferior to a frameless Ducati because he had never encountered such a bike. There was much talk of how surprised he was by how much easier a factory Honda was to ride once he got on one.

It was Stoner's 4th year in the class and 3rd year on a Ducati and he had a fair bit of experience at the point. Whether or not, the GP9 was objectively the best bike on the grid, Stoner believed it to be the best bike and more importantly was confident he'd have taken the title on it. (Actually, if you exclude the rounds that he didn't start, he would end up taking the title.)

Hayden meanwhile would have finished the season dead last in the rider standings, if not for the satellite GP9s and a badly struggling Toseland. Not a gap that can be bridged by fiddling with the tyres.

JKant · Apr 30, 2017

Gaz said:
The same could very well be asked now could it not?

Or that even within the fold, Michelin treats all its riders at par or close to it?

In the open tyre environment, the suppliers have a very clear financial incentive to take exclusive direction from riders capable of podiuming while the same doesn't apply to a control tyre environment. Everyone in parc ferme & on the podium next week will be wearing a Michelin cap and posing with a Michelin placard, regardless of who they ride for.

Facts that are in competition not everyone gets treated the same, of that I am sure we can agree (finally, something) but if you allow Bridgestone (as an example) to work with Ducati to develop a tyre that works for their bikes you are likely to see improvements in their overall results.

So how does one rig the rules to ensure that only the smaller manufacturers are able to exploit the advantage of custom tyres?

Gaz · Apr 30, 2017

JKant said:
In the open tyre environment, the suppliers have a very clear financial incentive to take exclusive direction from riders capable of podiuming while the same doesn't apply to a control tyre environment. Everyone in parc ferme & on the podium next week will be wearing a Michelin cap and posing with a Michelin placard, regardless of who they ride for.

Believe that if you must but I would be quite comfortable in saying that today a rider of Rossi's stature has far more input to the tyres than does Jack Miller, Marquez far more than Esparagaro, and so forth.

Yes, every rider wears a Michelin hat and yes one could say who cares who wins as all on the podium are wearing the same hat, but Valentino Rossi wearing your hat will sell your product better than would Jack Miller, Scott Redding and so forth.

JKant said:
So how do you rig the rules to ensure that only the smaller manufacturers are able to exploit the advantage of custom tyres?

You don't need to rig it or change the rules, just allow the smaller teams to work with a tyre manufacturer with the same opportunities applying of course to the larger teams as the tyres are but one component of a true race winning package.

Again, history has shown that smaller teams working with a manufacturer to achieve the best outcome can win a title, no matter how much it can be spun, facts are facts and Bridgestone did it with Ducati, and won a race with Suzuki (Suzuki's last race win up until 2016).

Yet during the Bridgestone control tyre era Ducati wone few races (Stoner being the only race winner), Suzuki won none so given that, where do you think the resources of that company in a control tyre era went?

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind somewhere but no doubt the concentration moved to other higher profile riders, teams and manufacturers as when they win, they return a better ROI

JKant · Apr 30, 2017

Gaz said:
Believe that if you must but I would be quite comfortable in saying that today a rider of Rossi's stature has far more input to the tyres than does Jack Miller, Marquez far more than Esparagaro, and so forth.

Yes, every rider wears a Michelin hat and yes one could say who cares who wins as all on the podium are wearing the same hat, but Valentino Rossi wearing your hat will sell your product better than would Jack Miller, Scott Redding and so forth.

Development riders might get more say than satellites - that's to be expected given that the bikes are still evolving and need to factor the tyres into development (unlike the satellites that are running mostly sorted out bikes).

Sure Rossi attracts more attention on the podium but a more competitive grid, results in more 'action', thus attracting more viewers and therefore leading to better visibility for the brand.

Also, despite his considerable influence, Rossi was still forced to go into the first two rounds of the season running a tyre that he was explicitly unhappy with pre-season. And another compound will not be available for testing until post-Jerez (and it remains to be seen if that one will get adopted).

In any case, Rossi will around for maybe only another two seasons or so, the tyre regulations will be effective for much much longer.

You don't need to rig it or change the rules, just allow the smaller teams to work with a tyre manufacturer with the same opportunities applying of course to the larger teams as the tyres are but one component of a true race winning package.

With only two tyre suppliers available what happens if they each tie up with a top team to fight for the podium. The top teams are able to secure the best riders because they can give those riders a shot at wins & podiums if not the the title (and they can pay the most). Tyre suppliers are in the same shoes.

Again, history has shown that smaller teams working with a manufacturer to achieve the best outcome can win a title, no matter how much it can be spun, facts are facts and Bridgestone did it with Ducati, and won a race with Suzuki (Suzuki's last race win up until 2016).

And caught the big teams napping. But Honda & Yamaha weren't going to play along with that as a new normal. They pulled their weight and got their top riders Bridgestones the very next year, but even if they hadn't they would have made a routine switch the year after.

Yet during the Bridgestone control tyre era Ducati wone few races (Stoner being the only race winner), Suzuki won none so given that, where do you think the resources of that company in a control tyre era went?

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind somewhere but no doubt the concentration moved to other higher profile riders, teams and manufacturers as when they win, they return a better ROI

Went to coping with the financial crisis perhaps. Exacerbated by the rapidly inflating yen.

It isn't just the publicity when they win but the fact that they have a better shot of winning in the normal course of events (bigger budget and, usually, better riders).

Gaz · Apr 30, 2017

JKant said:
With only two tyre suppliers available what happens if they each tie up with a top team to fight for the podium. The top teams are able to secure the best riders because they can give those riders a shot at wins & podiums if not the the title (and they can pay the most). Tyre suppliers are in the same shoes.

Who says 2 tyre suppliers?

We have had Dunlop in the past as well .............. open up opportunity and one does not know who may come along.

And if they each tie up with a top team then so be it as there will be another Bridgestone/Ducati success story in the making when another unheralded supplier comes along ............. just as history has shown.

JKant said:
And caught the big teams napping. But Honda & Yamaha weren't going to play along with that as a new normal. They pulled their weight and got their top riders Bridgestones the very next year, but even if they hadn't they would have made a routine switch the year after.

Not quite caught napping, more caught the big two being arrogant in not seeing a challanger

HRC got Pedrosa Bridgestones half way through the year and DORNA encouraged Bridgestone to take on Rossi at season's start (plenty of articles around reporting that Bridgestone said no, then yes ........... why was that)

So, am going to ask ............. how is Krop?

JKant · Apr 30, 2017

Gaz said:
Who says 2 tyre suppliers?

We have had Dunlop in the past as well .............. open up opportunity and one does not know who may come along.

And if they each tie up with a top team then so be it as there will be another Bridgestone/Ducati success story in the making when another unheralded supplier comes along ............. just as history has shown.

Well Dunlop had all but disappeared before the single tyre rule was imposed. They're running the Moto2 & Moto3 classes and appear to be satisfied on the RoI. The kind of R&D require to compete in a tyre war is of another order altogether and Dunlop didn't bother bidding for the MotoGP contract when it came up in 2014.

But lets assume you had three suppliers. That still leaves half of the manufacturers in the field out in the cold. Not only are they starting from behind, they'll end up with limited-to-no say in tyre direction.

Not quite caught napping, more caught the big two being arrogant in not seeing a challanger

HRC got Pedrosa Bridgestones half way through the year and DORNA encouraged Bridgestone to take on Rossi at season's start (plenty of articles around reporting that Bridgestone said no, then yes ........... why was that)

Production capacity issues? Or maybe the publicity involved in having Stoner & Ducati's performance chalked up to their tyres knowing they were going into the next season as favourites? Or maybe something else?

But what if Stoner hadn't been signed to ride a Ducati for 2007? Or what if Honda had offered to put 'Bridgestone' in huge print on all their rider suits, bikes and misc materials? Or had offered Stoner $15 mil to ride for them in 2009? What if Rossi had offered to get the Bridgestone logo tattooed on his neck or face?

Point is, whatever the tyre supplier's price, a wealthy factory team will almost always be in a better position to pay it. In 2007, Ducati was fortunate to have Stoner riding for them, putting them in an unusual position of leverage, but in general the best riders will be found riding for the biggest/best teams.

Gaz · Apr 30, 2017

JKant said:
Well Dunlop had all but disappeared before the single tyre rule was imposed. They're running the Moto2 & Moto3 classes and appear to be satisfied on the RoI. The kind of R&D require to compete in a tyre war is of another order altogether and Dunlop didn't bother bidding for the MotoGP contract when it came up in 2014.

But lets assume you had three suppliers. That still leaves half of the manufacturers in the field out in the cold. Not only are they starting from behind, they'll end up with limited-to-no say in tyre direction.

Who says that manufacturers will be left out?

FACTS JK are that Bridgestone, Michelin and even Dunlop have supplied multiple teams so they would like do so again, and even if they chose to restrict involvement then teams can (could) have the capability to purchase tyres, all has been done in the past and guess what ............ we styill hadt he top two so far in front, well un until 2006/2007 anyway

JKant said:
Production capacity issues? Or maybe the publicity involved in having Stoner & Ducati's performance chalked up to their tyres knowing they were going into the next season as favourites? Or maybe something else?

Production capacity is the exact reason they said No.

Then mysteriously changed their minds and said yes, but only for one more ............ and who was that again?

Where or why did they suddenly have the capacity?

JKant said:
But what if Stoner hadn't been signed to ride a Ducati for 2007? Or what if Honda had offered to put 'Bridgestone' in huge print on all their rider suits, bikes and misc materials? Or had offered Stoner $15 mil to ride for them in 2009? What if Rossi had offered to get the Bridgestone logo tattooed on his neck or face?

If my aunt was a bloke she would be my uncle

FACT again.

Stoner signed for Ducati and they won the title.

People whinged and whined as it was not supposed to be done by Ducati, by Bridgestone or by some .... from the southern hemisphere as the great one was beaten for two years in a row by a relatively unsung combination.

Here are a couple of hypothetical for you as you seem so wishing to ask, ....... what if DORNA never bought the sport all those years ago?

Or another, What if Valentino turned out to be 'just another rider'?

JKant said:
Point is, whatever the tyre supplier's price, a wealthy factory team will almost always be in a better position to pay it. In 2007, Ducati was fortunate to have Stoner riding for them, putting them in an unusual position of leverage, but in general the best riders will be found riding for the biggest/best teams.

Disagree with wealthy but accept strong team but again, Ducati had no leverage as they seeing the way DORNA were heading in 2009 wanted to go to Michelin but were rebuffed.

A strong leverage would have seen it happen (ie. getting a manufacturer capacity increased, changing mid year etc) but it did not, thus they had little leverage for as we all know, leverage and use thereof is extremely restricted in the sport as to benefits to the organisation.

michaelm · Apr 30, 2017

Gaz said:
Who says 2 tyre suppliers?

We have had Dunlop in the past as well .............. open up opportunity and one does not know who may come along.

And if they each tie up with a top team then so be it as there will be another Bridgestone/Ducati success story in the making when another unheralded supplier comes along ............. just as history has shown.

Not quite caught napping, more caught the big two being arrogant in not seeing a challanger

HRC got Pedrosa Bridgestones half way through the year and DORNA encouraged Bridgestone to take on Rossi at season's start (plenty of articles around reporting that Bridgestone said no, then yes ........... why was that)

So, am going to ask ............. how is Krop?

I noticed the "kroposphere" in the sig as well.

I am sure David himself has got better things to do than feign ignorance of MotoGP on here several hours a day.

Gaz · Apr 30, 2017

michaelm said:
I noticed the "kroposphere" in the sig as well.

I am sure David himself has got better things to do than feign ignorance of MotoGP on here several hours a day.

Yep, and I doubt it is David at all as he is still around a few other places I frequent plus the thing for me is that feigning ignorance is harder than feigning knowledge, so totally agree

Search

Search

lorenzo to leave ducati?

JKant

JKant

Gaz

michaelm

danski

michaelm

danski

yamfan

michaelm

JKant

Gaz

JKant

JKant

Gaz

JKant

Gaz

JKant

Gaz

michaelm

Gaz

Similar threads

Recent Discussions