Jump to content


Photo

S30 - Racing and Period mods


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 NZeder

NZeder

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,291 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 28 May 2012 - 09:41 AM

Guys thought we should have a new thread - maybe a sticky?

The concept of this thread

1. Share info on period mods to the S30
2. Post period and early 80's pictures of race cars for reference
3. Discuss current class regs and how the s30 fits in them.

So if you have info to add or know anything that will help fellow racer build a car to suit class rules this is the place for it :D

#2 NZeder

NZeder

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,291 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 28 May 2012 - 09:50 AM

HS30-H has some excellent knowledge on the period raced cars in Japan so lets hope Alan will share some info that is considered public knowledge or should be public knowledge.

Like wise with any Ozzie have info on s30's that raced in Australia in the 70's that would be great.

So far the first date of a s30 competing is 18th Jan 1970 - which I assume was the Japanese Grand Prix - I have a book at home showing pictures of the Z432-R from this event - however as these are the copyright of the publisher I can't post the images here - so guys please respected the copyright owners and seek permission on posting images - I am not a copyright lawyer so not sure what the legalities are around linking to a picture already hosted on other sites.

Common things we know.

1. Nissan had homologation papers 3023 and extensions for the s30 in 2 seater form - does anyone know the number for the 2+2
2. Via these papers the sumitomo MK63 4 pots were approved for use in non-vented and vented form.
3. R180 and R200 in a number of ratios and LSD were also approved via FIA papers.
4. Nissan had a sports option catalogue that listed items like the LSD, suspension, 4 pots and these could be ordered from the Dealer

I believe the issue with the Historic SC class in Australia is you need to prove these items from the sport option catalogue could be installed on the car before purchased for the first time? I understand the Porsche boys have original sales documents for their sport options parts that show they were fitted on to a car on first purchase? This is the issue the s30 have with the SC rules no one has proof the parts were fitted before the car was first sold? So they were always added post purchase?


#3 dat2kman

dat2kman

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,031 posts
  • Location:Newport Waters Qld
  • Tagline:going sailing, see ya later!

Posted 28 May 2012 - 11:27 AM

Pretty spot on Mike!
With Aus historics, to clarify, Sb class is up to December 30 1969, car must have been sold by a dealer.
Sc class is from Jan1st 1970 to end 1976, again dealer sold.

Little anomalies have arisen, whete a single MG dealer, in UK, APPARENTLY fitted a single sidraft DCOE Weber, to a NEW MGB, and sold at least one. When asked to show proof, today, or paperwork as required by the Historic Elegibility commission, to establish fact, it has all been water under bridge, done approx1990, but 'cos they all have the Weber now, it must be gospel truth.

I fail to see how a pukke Brit dealer, would think a inferior Itie part, would be better than the greatest carbie in the world, the SU!

Next we have Porsche, Alan Hamilton in Richmond Vic dealer, sold them new with the option of wider rims, some folk took up that option, at time of order and delivery, now, what did have 6" rims fitted at factory, can run 7" front and 8" rear rims, with a low profile tyre.

DeTomado Pantera, one variant rhe GTS, had 8"/10" rims, the std one had just 8", CAMS will not permit the factory produced GTS4, that is a hotrod.

Morgan Plus 8's apparently, again, had an options parts list, and Mr Morgan, in early 1990's was able to write a letter stating rhat some cars were sold new, with all the options fitted. Go back to mid to late 60's Morgan advertising, not one mention by Mr Morgan of these option parts being available to "hot up" the car. It was sold as a staid gentlemens tourer.

Our Datsuns have a huge list of option parts, you could walk into a dealer, slap down $4300 for a new 240z, then walk next door, and fill the boot with a gazzillion new good gear items, to make your NEW Z into a Circuit Warrior, or a Rally Weapon, but sadly, no, as the parts were not fitted to the car at time of purchase, anywhere in the world, and someone for fcuk's sake prove me wrong, we are not allowed one single thing.

Oh, but, thete was one dealer, in south east Melbourne, who did sell one 240Z with 7" Jelly bean mag rims, the Sumitomo four pots, vented rotors, to a then young chap, i have been lent photos, original sales reciept, warranty book, and other paperwork, but the only item of proof, the green customer copy of the sales reciept is very very faded, and will need some sort of enhancing to show the option parts as fitted, with their part numbers.
CAMS has been advised, but the response was, that i must show multiple sales of that model with that fitted, i then asked, "show me the documentation for MGB with Weber, and i will match whatever you required the MG racets to provide"
Nil answer from CAMS
This has been ongoing since 1994
Other Datsun at issue here is the Datsun Sports 2000, it is Sb, it is a giant killer, when a goid one turns up, ie the dark blue car of David Stone/Howard Fletcher, from 1990 tp 1993. It won plenty. The Group British mob dont like the Datsuns to win "their" races.
I copped a tremendous spray from the pukke Austin Healey club of Victoria, when i took my Datsun 2000 down to Phillip Island, for the first time, in 2010, because their exalted superstar did not show 3 litre Healey domination, in the Victorian Tourist Trophy race, which is designated to commemorate sports car races of the 50 & 60's , which, not only was my Datsun the ONLY genuine raced car from 1968, the rest are replica fakes, but it won all four events.
It is standard as permitted by rules and the regulations, for the class it is in, but many claim it is highly modded!
When Fletcher took his car down, mid 90's it won too.

They will do what they can to prevent the underdog from showing best value bang for buck.
It seems, you want to really win, buy a $250,000 911 Porka.
There is no prizemoney, but sometimes a bit of shiny plastic and wood or a tin cup on offer. Meh!

My spray for now, someone else have a go!!!

#4 PZG302

PZG302

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,751 posts
  • Location:Brisvegas or the Big Durian

Posted 28 May 2012 - 01:08 PM

For us on the west island, you can get the FIA homologation docs from CAMS, now at a cost of around $80 IIRC. The only problem is that they have generally been used for the rally boys previously, so unfortunately have some good bits covered up with "not vaild for PRC" written across them. I don't know if CAMS has a clean copy available without the Group 4 and 5 parts covered up.

For building a car to CAMS category 2B they are the definitive parts book as they list all the bits that are eligible for use in FIA racing.

Some highlights include, 10" wide rear wheels, 8" wide fronts. 4 spot front brakes and rear disk brakes. An L28 injected motor can be fitted to a 240 shell as the documents state that the injected motor was available as an option from body number S30 00000001 or whatever the first car would be. The only downside is that the L28 was homologated with EFI only so a careful perusal of appropriate rules would be in order before racing a triple carbied L28 for sheep stations.

Also includes various panels made from FRP and I think plexiglass windows.

IIRC the only aero in the papers is the ZG nose, flares and rear bob tail, in my opinion erroneusly called the BRE spoiler because BRE used the nissan rear spoiler without the ZG front on their cars to comply with SCCA rules.

And finally, from what I can remember a homologated weight of about 930kg for a 240, 260, 280.

I have a copy of the papers, as this is the first thing I get when building a car to make sure I can make the best use of the rules for the category I am looking at racing in.

On another tangent, through using homologation documents I have raced what is to be believed to be the only factory fuel injected 180B SSS in Australia. Racing it in 3J street sedans in NSW in the late 80's early 90's.



#5 NZeder

NZeder

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,291 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 28 May 2012 - 07:40 PM

Here in NZ we have a few different classes to build a car to. If you are interested the rules can be found on Motorsport NZ Manual appendix 6 (or s.e.x as you think we say it)

Most classes are T&C as this was created in the early 90's I believe and allowed for a bit of scope of modifications - however over the years a number of people took the words "free" too far so Motorsport NZ over the years have tidied up the rules and clearly defined works like "free", "era" and "period". So given we can use FIA papers, Catalogues/Option lists, sale documentation, and even "period" magazine articles we are lucky under T&C.

But as stated our T&C rules have been tightened up over the last few years for example it now states "All panels, bumpers, mouldings, spoilers must be made of the original materials as per STANDARD series production vehicle e.g. steel panels must be maintained if originally fitted" it also states only rear spoiler fitted are permitted - so no factory/dealer fitted front spoilers. This has changed to this same rule about 18 months ago that states almost the same but added "original materials maybe substituted for alternative materials if original materials can't be sourced". So 2 years go you could have fibre glass front guards but today you can't.

If you read the Schedule K rules this is like your Sx (ie SB, SC) rules - cars must be one of 2 things, this is how I read it, the schedule K cars are either standard cars as left the factory or "the" race car from the day in the same config as it raced in the day with the correct parts from the day. This does not mean you can build a replica of "the" car and run in schedule K - it has to be the correct car. This is how I read schedule K. If you build a period replica it can full under either schedule T&C or schedule CR. Schedule CR is for replica's or retrospective replica's (a retrospective replica is a car that could have been built and run in the era in question - but again must use all the correct parts from the era in question).

There have been cars locally in NZ that have been granted schedule K status and even FIA HTP papers but are a fresh built race car with no history and with mods our side of the era - ie wilwood calipers, suspension and body works mods that were never used together on the same model of car - ie the suspension with standard body work or standard suspension with body work mods but not the modified suspension and body work mods together in the era. So even forgetting schedule K rules it should not be granted schedule CR either as a replica of given car - it could be classified as a retrospective replica - it could have been built like that in era but never was. If you want to know it is a German car but not a rear engined one.

My new 260z race car is all steel, does not have spoilers, currently fitted with RB as I purchased it but that is making way for a more period correct L28 - and under T&C I can run triples on this - engine is "free" ie if the mod was available in period then I can use it. And I can also increase the cc 12.5% so 2753cc + 12.5% =  3097cc aka 3.1L however at 3.1L you move up from the under 3.0L class and run with V8's so better to keep it under 3.0L. Wheels are factory fitted + 1" and must be in the standard body work so 15x8 it is then ;) brake are "free" ie if available in period I can run with that. Now that is where it gets interesting. The way I read the "free" and other definitions as stated - if available in period and I can prove it was fitted to the model in question I can run with it. Now I have spoken to one of the organisers of a class and they are allowing Wilwood calipers on the following grounds

Wilwood purchased the rights to JFZ at some point (then sold them on later to Sierra) - JFZ were available in "period" so Wilwoods can be used as a replacement - this class does not allow mono block calipers even if available in period. (I have done a bit or research and can't find any proof that jfz and wilwood did come together. However I did find out the owner/designer of jfz was the brake engineer who worked for airheart/hurst and designed their 4 pot calipers the team/department he worked for was then joined by a young Bill Wood aka wilwood so that is how it all connects.)

Now I don't 100% agree with that - but I am going to run with that. Now I know AP were fitted in period to the S30 (Datsun Competition in USA had lockheed and 11.75 or 11.5" rotor 1.1" on their option list) also I know SuperSamuri's were fitted with Lockheeds from Landrovers, and the FIA sumitomo Mk63's. Then BIG SAM was fitted with CAM-AM brakes in 74 - now I can't find out what spec 73-74 CAM-AM brakes are but I know AP's or Girlings were used 17/4 or something and rotor size I guess would be 11.75" x 1.25" ie under 15" rims as that is what BIG SAM had.

So back to class that is allowing Wilwoods - this is what gets me - I have seen a car built to the new class rules (which is meant to be T&C but with the we allow Wilwoods) but it has 6 pots calipers - now I don't think 6 pots were ever available in the era in question ie pre 31 Dec 1977. Again not that it bothers me - but if you are going to follow a set of rules at least be consistent.

If they get tough on brakes I either fit the FIA approved stuff or historic AP which can be purchased new still - however they are a monoblock so if they are going to be tough then I will argue they are "period correct" vs wilwoods etc.

So I guess we are lucky to have T&C for modified classic cars.

#6 260DET

260DET

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,153 posts
  • Location:Warwick
  • Tagline:Tribal Elder

Posted 30 May 2012 - 06:34 PM

"Oh, but, thete was one dealer, in south east Melbourne, who did sell one 240Z with 7" Jelly bean mag rims, the Sumitomo four pots, vented rotors, to a then young chap, i have been lent photos, original sales reciept, warranty book, and other paperwork, but the only item of proof, the green customer copy of the sales reciept is very very faded, and will need some sort of enhancing to show the option parts as fitted, with their part numbers.
CAMS has been advised, but the response was, that i must show multiple sales of that model with that fitted, i then asked, "show me the documentation for MGB with Weber, and i will match whatever you required the MG racets to provide" "

All it might take is the right sort of letter from a lawyer to point out to the relevant committee that decisions such as the eligibility of parts have to be made fairly and consistently which includes the giving of reasons, such decisions can be subject to judicial review. Seems to me that there has been no real determined effort to push such issues, just a lot of complaining about anti Datsun officials.

#7 NZeder

NZeder

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,291 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 30 May 2012 - 07:36 PM

Has anyone written to Nissan in Japan asking for and info they have on the sales documents? 40 years on a long shot but better than no shot.

I have a magazine article from the 70's that the publisher takes the office car a 240z and purchases lots of items from the sports option catalogue installs them then write the article about how the car is transformed. I need to find that again as  I think it has a copy of the sales receipt but not sure if my memory is correct.

#8 MaygZ

MaygZ

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Website:http://www.viczcar.com/forum/index.php/topic,7841.0.html
  • Location:Springfield, Victoria
  • Tagline:We all started somewhere. Where are you Lurch???

Posted 31 May 2012 - 12:32 PM

All it might take is the right sort of letter from a lawyer to point out to the relevant committee that decisions such as the eligibility of parts have to be made fairly and consistently which includes the giving of reasons, such decisions can be subject to judicial review. Seems to me that there has been no real determined effort to push such issues, just a lot of complaining about anti Datsun officials.


Time for me to nerd up!  The Administrative Law Act 1978 places obligations on people or bodies that make determinations.  This Act defines any person or body that makes a decision that affects another person or body as a tribunal.  Section 8 (I think) allows a person who is affected by a decision to require, either orally or in writing, a written reason for the decision of that tribunal.  This reply must be within 14 days - although there are procedures to extend this to 28 days in some circumstances.  If they fail to supply the reasons, they commit an offence.

I have typed this from memory, so forgive me if there are slight errors.  I can't recall if this is State (Vic) law or Commonwealth Law.  I don't have acces to Acts of law at the moment as I'm back at the farm.  It could be worth making an enquiry with your lawyer and get your reply before chasing it further.

Be aware that this same law (certainly in Vic) can be of assistance if you find yourself in difficulty at work or get passed over for promotion.

Simon

#9 dat2kman

dat2kman

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,031 posts
  • Location:Newport Waters Qld
  • Tagline:going sailing, see ya later!

Posted 31 May 2012 - 02:29 PM

Simon, we are dealing with the Hysterical Division, of the Confederation Against Motor Sport here!
To get an answer in 14 days, let alone 14 months, would be a miracle of infinitessimal proportions.

I have over the years, made a number of formal submissions, to the Hysteric Division, alas, those wheels grind with the speed of two snails having a head butting race.

#10 dat2kman

dat2kman

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,031 posts
  • Location:Newport Waters Qld
  • Tagline:going sailing, see ya later!

Posted 31 May 2012 - 02:45 PM

Has anyone written to Nissan in Japan asking for and info they have on the sales documents? 40 years on a long shot but better than no shot.

I have a magazine article from the 70's that the publisher takes the office car a 240z and purchases lots of items from the sports option catalogue installs them then write the article about how the car is transformed. I need to find that again as  I think it has a copy of the sales receipt but not sure if my memory is correct.

Mike, when i went over two years ago, in speaking with two fairly high guys at Nismo, and Nissan Zama facility, i explained the issue. They provided cars to dealers, it was up to a dealer what he did. Nissan ran with low profit/high volume, as such thete was not much "cream" for a dealer, and dealers just had to move as many units as possible.
Japan keept no records, however, right up the back of Zama, is the remaining Gnose Tokyo Police car, restored, these were made available, at some sort of "gift" to the police in late 1969 early 1970, but so were Toyota 2000 GT's. They have no remaining documentary evidence to establish supply/sale of these cars, but assured that the first Fairlady Z with six cylinder 2litre were distributed in late '69. If proof of sales exist for this, then all Z derivatives, due to model run on rules qualify for Australian Group Sb ( pre Dec 1969 sales).

Yes also it was quite common to just buy the car, then a purchaser would go to spare parts, and buy a bootfull of goodies, as i stated above, that is not acceptable, the goodies had to be fitted BY THE SELLING DEALER at time of sale.

Salty on hete has verbal recant of this happening at Globe Motors in Sydney, but unless we can get it all originally documented, and confirmed, we wont get anywhere.

I also have early and late homologation papers that show all items allowed, the "not valid PRC" does not apply to circuit cars.

FWIW, jump onto the Victorian Historic Racing Register forum on vhrr dot com etc, scroll for thread "Winton festival of speed" thete are comments about true genuine historic cars, not being allowned to run.
In Melbourne I know of at least 7 cars, three of them Z's, that would be rejected, if they entered. These are all true historic Group T race cars, WITH a genuine history. Have a read, maybe sign up and comment, ie "yes, give them a go" etc




#11 PZG302

PZG302

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,751 posts
  • Location:Brisvegas or the Big Durian

Posted 31 May 2012 - 03:22 PM

Whilst I would like to sign on to the VHRR forum and say my 2 cents worth about pulling group T cars back to Group S specs and not destroying the car (WTF is that  guy on!!!?!?!?!?!?) and how that Group S being the most popular category, those competitors should have preference over pukkah historic cars, the administrator of the forum has pulled the pin on registrations.

#12 NZeder

NZeder

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,291 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 31 May 2012 - 05:47 PM

There is some good info on theroaringseason.com this has lots of info on different racing from all around the world - some good stories, some excellent period photos of cars etc.

Ok so now other forums a side.

Back on topic. In the USA it was well know Dealers installed lots of things to improve their margins - aftermarket rims, BRE supplied front and rear spoilers all dealer fitted before first purchase. So we need to find someone in the USA who purchase a car with all the mods you require and has these listed on the sales receipt that is still legible some 40+ years later. Yet the MG guy does not have to prove anything to fit his weber?? How is that fair?

#13 dat2kman

dat2kman

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,031 posts
  • Location:Newport Waters Qld
  • Tagline:going sailing, see ya later!

Posted 31 May 2012 - 08:04 PM

It is called "Group British"

They have successfully separated the early Sa and Sb, from the later Sc, which contain Porsche, Datsun Z, Alfa GTV, DeTomaso
Sa/Sb is primarily British cars, with the odd Alfa 104, Datsun Sports 2000, a few early Porsche and Corvette, and the Shelby Mustang ( 'cos the re was a two set badic rental Mustang that entered a couple of SCCA (usa) sports car races, and the 'Stang boys could prove it.

Yes NZeder, if we could get multiple various dealer evidences of new sales, with various parts fitted, new, anywhere in the world, we have a good chance of getting brakes, rims, carbs , bodywork.

I emailed Carl East quite some time ago, but no response, maybe us Aussies dont rate, due to the low numbets of enthusiasts.
Current USA historic racing is very alive, and they allow all option parts to be fitted.

Original D and C Prod racers, which then became IMSA GT and GTU cars are elegible to race in Aus, but they wont come cheap, if it has history, prior to Dec 1981, it is definately, in Aus, a Group T car


#14 260DET

260DET

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,153 posts
  • Location:Warwick
  • Tagline:Tribal Elder

Posted 01 June 2012 - 04:28 PM

My impression is that the eurofag car owners are prepared to do the hard yards to dowhatever it takes to get their pet parts accepted, no surprise that clever persistence pays off and whinging does not. The way forward for Datsun owners is pretty clear but......................

#15 dat2kman

dat2kman

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,031 posts
  • Location:Newport Waters Qld
  • Tagline:going sailing, see ya later!

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:08 PM

My impression is that the euronancy boy car owners are prepared to do the hard yards to dowhatever it takes to get their pet parts accepted, no surprise that clever persistence pays off and whinging does not. The way forward for Datsun owners is pretty clear but......................

Provide us the documentary evidence, like what was very easily available for said Nancy's of Euro!

The continual "whinging" is designed to elicit a positive response, from someone, anyone, anywhere!

Salty, on here, has told me that a dealer did fit option parts to a new car, verbal third hand heresay is insufficient, it needs to be more than one piece of paper, ie a single sales reciept, we need multiple.
Globe Motors in Sydney were supposedly fitting items, but no records kept, and staff working thete, at the time are  no longer able to supply any documents.

What other suggestions?

#16 260DET

260DET

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,153 posts
  • Location:Warwick
  • Tagline:Tribal Elder

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:43 PM

My first post Jason, #5, plus what MaygZ said ie any applicatioin to have higher performance parts allowed is required by law to be properly treated and responded to.

Not having a go at you particularly Jason, you seem to be having a go which is more than others seem to have done.

#17 dat2kman

dat2kman

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,031 posts
  • Location:Newport Waters Qld
  • Tagline:going sailing, see ya later!

Posted 01 June 2012 - 10:05 PM

No no Richo, i know you are not having a go at me, but as i am involved quite heavily in CAMS processes, and know how it operates, and in regard to Maygz's "better git a lawyer, son, git a reel good one" sorts post, we do have to put a case forward WITH material that will support the case put.

Those who have tried in past, and i have some CAMS file copy of prior submissions and requests, are met with " show proof". There is not much point flogging a horse as has already occured.
By letting others know of this plight, and i do reckon we will get thete, just maybe, something will come to light.
Who knows.

Odd thing certain cars that one would thing be elegible for Group N tourers, are not, 'cos the variant was not sold in Aus, BUT in group S, it does not have to have been sold in Aus.
Take the blue 280Z, perfect case in point!
It is sometimes hard to comprehend CAMS's policies, but i am pretty sure we can get somewhere!

#18 MaygZ

MaygZ

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,456 posts
  • Website:http://www.viczcar.com/forum/index.php/topic,7841.0.html
  • Location:Springfield, Victoria
  • Tagline:We all started somewhere. Where are you Lurch???

Posted 02 June 2012 - 09:43 AM

Jason,  my post wasn't about go and git a lawyer.  All you need to do is some research into that Act to ensure I have the Section number right and that is applicable to your State.  Then you simply write them a letter, quoting the relevant Section and making the request for the reasons for their decision.

It is quite amazing how quickly a decision can change when they have to try to explain that their reason was not much better than 'just cause'!

I understand the frustration when dealing with govt bodies or other groups that are a law unto their own.

I have used this Act successfully on a few occasions; local council when planning/building permits were dealt with poorly.  As an example when told in Brunswick that I needed to build a car park in the back of my 5.5 m wide block and the telephone reason was because about 4 streets away there was a shortage of parking - comply or withdraw your building application!  The written response when asked pursuant to the Act was; that was an admin error and there is no longer a requirement for a parking space.

In short, you have tried everything else.  What do you have to lose?  It's amazing how the 'bullying' stops when required to put it into print.

MaygZ

#19 PZG302

PZG302

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,751 posts
  • Location:Brisvegas or the Big Durian

Posted 02 June 2012 - 10:28 AM

Jason,  my post wasn't about go and git a lawyer. 


That's because you forgotr to mention to also........

Get yourself a suit and tie
Get your hair cut way up high
Get yourself a lawyer son
Better get a real good one

;D

Sorry couldn't help myself....
Nothing to see hear move along

#20 chartoo

chartoo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:13 AM

Why dont you try a thread ever at hybridz. Maybe the yanks can help you find documentary evidence




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users