Ferrari 056

Ecclestone “anti, anti, anti, anti” 2013 engine rules

2013 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Ferrari 056
Ferrari 056

Bernie Ecclestone says he does not agree with F1’s planned change of engine formula in 2013.

He told journalists in Australia he is “anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula.”

F1 is moving to 1.6-litre, four-cylinder engines in 2013.

Ecclestone added: “We don’t need it and if it’s so important it’s the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing.”

According to Ecclestone only two thing are important in F1: “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.”

He said: “The rest of it is basically PR – it’s nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport.

“I’m sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I’m quite sure we’ll lose TV.

Ecclestone said he and FIA president Jean Todt were “at loggerheads” over the planned changes, saying:

“He’s not a promoter and he’s not selling Formula One to be honest.

“Jean and I are a little bit at loggerheads over this engine. I don’t see the reason for it.

“We had the KERS and this was supposed to solve the problem that Formula One is not green and now we’ve got something else.”

Image ?? Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

169 comments on “Ecclestone “anti, anti, anti, anti” 2013 engine rules”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. Quardruple negative? So I g

    1. a double, double negative. Which means, I assume that he agrees with them!

      I completely disagree with Bernie. F1 should be a turbo formula in my opinion, preferably with a fixed amount of fuel. Who needs DRS and KERS when you can choose to turn the boost up/down etc?

      1. Yes, a double double negative, which means he is actually in favor of the 2013 rules. He is getting a little old isn’t him?

        1. Getting a bit on uncertainty in it will never hurt, just to make backing down a bit easier.

          I guess Bernie is gradually pulling all tricks to get FIA and FOTA seperated and fractioned before they jointly push down CVCs earnings next year.

    2. Yeah. That was supposed to say “So I guess he agrees?” I’m not sure what happened.

  2. Sp he’s for the 2013 rules?

  3. I think Bernie should stop hiding what he really thinks and actually open up :P

    1. I agree with Bernie on this one. F1 is not the place to go green. Smaller engines are not going to save the world.

  4. I think (as always) he paints a bit of an overly dramatic picture. As stated before, I’m not a fan of the new engines, but its not like this is the first engine regulation change and F1 is still here. I love the sound of the old Ferrari V12s, but its not like I stopped watching F1 when they were discontinued. If the racing is good, the brands are big, the drivers stay the stars and there is enough action, I doubt many casual viewers would even notice (the commentary on tv is louder anyway).

    Seems like Mr E and Mr T don’t get back to being friends anymore ..

    1. Of course he overdramaticizes it, but seeing how many other people make a dramatic point out of F1 having to be “green” I’m completely on his side.

      The sound IS important if you’ve ever been at a racetrack. I’ve been to the Oldtimer GP at the Nurburgring several times, and when they roll out the late 70’s F1 cars it melts your brain with joy.

      The racing action in WTCC is brilliant now and then as well. Still nobody gives a hoop.

      The attraction of Formula 1 to the broad audience has always been the speed and glamour. If F1 cars use souped up Miata engines, then a big portion of that goes missing.

      1. I agree Dennis. The sound of the cars is the thing that keeps you watching when we have races like Bahrain, Germany and Abu Dhabi 2010. And I don’t think you need to be at the circuit to enjoy the sound. I’ve been before and it’s absolutely amazing, but even on TV the sound of 24 screaming Formula 1 cars flying past the camera is like my ecstasy! Some people don’t like the noise, but Bernie has a point. Everyone associates Formula 1 with extremely loud and high revving engines. There are only three things that I think are absolutely imperative in F1’s survival, and those are the sound, the sight and the speed.

        I can’t imagine hearing an F1 car with only 4 cylinders, and I’m not sure I ever want to. For me, this is one of the worst things that can possibly happen to the sport. :(

        1. It depends. The old 1500hp BMW turbos were four cylinder 1.5 litre engines, based on BMW 2002 blocks if I remember correctly! The cylinder number is not the problem here. I said months ago that F1 would be better off simply allowing 1.5 or 1.6 litre turbos of any cylinder number, restricting power through boost pressure or fuel flow. Even Ferrari were excited by turbos when they were first used, so a V6, or even V8 turbo would work well.

          But to say a 4 cylinder engine would be rubbish is to ignore the fire-breathing BMWs – they were anything but boring…

          1. I will have to find a video of this BMW you speak of. But will the 2013 cars sound like this?

          2. I’ll have to find a video of one of this BMW engine you speak of. But will the 2013 F1 cars sound like this, do you know?

          3. I wonder where people get the idea from, that these new engines will be anything like the BMW engines of the past. Those were not built with the environment in mind.

            The new cars won’t rev as high, won’t spit flames, won’t have NEARLY as much power and will have to last longer than just one race distance.

            Comparing these new engine rules with the powertrains from the 80’s is a disgrace.

          4. Comparing these new engine rules with the powertrains from the 80′s is a disgrace.

            That’s not what I wanted to read. Now I have basically no faith whatsoever in this new four cylinder formula.

          5. That’s exactly right. The number of cylinders doesn’t have that much to do with how cool something sounds. Often it’s to do with the interaction of different elements running at different rates, in particular the firing order and the offset.

            A Renault R22 for example sounds ‘better’ (or more interesting) than other contemporary V10s because of it’s 113 degree offset instead of the standard 72. The 72s have a two tone sound because the firing order relative to other cycles in the engine is a direct multiple, whereas the 113 in order to fudge good balance has some unusual cycles which you can hear as three tones with the lower two at 2/5 and 3/5 the firing rate.

            Add a turbo and you have a whole stack of extra complexity to the sound being added. I think you have to wait and see… the straight 4s may very well sound thinner than the v8’s, but they might end up sounding more interesting.

        2. ‘but even on TV the sound of 24 screaming Formula 1 cars flying past the camera is like my ecstasy!’
          Couldn’t agree more! i’m quite dissapointed when it changed from V10 to V8 but V4??

          1. @llama You sound like the sort of person that could explain to me why the pre-2002 V10s seemed to have an unusual wailing sound as they drove off into the distance. It almost sounded like a cry or something! But the 2002-2005 engines were the best sounding things I think I’ve ever heard in my life.

        3. Exactly.

          I can’t overstate the danger of going to a low-revving 4 cylinder turbo OR anything else that compromises the sound. I’ve taken people to live GP’s who couldn’t stand 5 minutes of F1 on TV, but after hearing F1 V8′s and V10′S live their eyes BULGED and they immediately became giddy like little children…it transformed them from indifferent to real fans in an INSTANT. It’s funny, when people hear the engines fire-up they instinctively break out into a little run before realizing they’re running and then slow to a self-conscious power walk. It’s hilarious. Trying to explain the experience of an F1 powerplant’s sound is futile. It must be experienced to be understood.

          Also, I cannot fully express how misguided this whole green craze is. What’s the point? Will ANYONE ever buy a car because a team improves it F1 mpg’s from 5mpg to 10mpg? Sorry, but those people aren’t F1 fans to begin with. It’s not F1′s job to promote green consciousness among the public either. It’s a fricking sport. Sure, be responsible and try to be environmentally friend where possible, but risk the character of the sport? No. Do you see the NFL or Manchester United risking their sport to promote green agendas? No!!!!!!!!!

          1. Joey Zyla (@)
            7th December 2012, 8:04

            It’s sound. It’s not important. Why do you even care?

    2. speed deamon
      19th March 2011, 17:42

      The whole point here is you are talking of the pinnacle of motorsports you dont want to put in 4 cylinder engines in these machines i dont know how it will sound but i have a very good feeling it’s not going to sound like the older ones.
      The FIA is only a governing body and they are suppose to make sure that all of them are within the rules that is their real job why the h*** do they have to go reducing engine size trying to make it a more greener sport i mean please so what next we run around with electric engines which make no noise at all…
      this is also going to considrably increase costs as evry time you change rules money has to be spent reseaching and developing a cutting edge component they have been tightening the rules so much that this is becoming horrible to say the least please leave the rules the way they are for god’s sake…

  5. I might for the first time ever agree with him. V12’s please!

    1. V12 engines are impractical. They’re heavy and they’re excessive when teams are trying to cut down weight. They’re also notoriously fiddly and prone to breakages.

      1. You forgot awesome.

        1. You don’t just bolt four extra cylinders on and go faster. It doesn’t work that way. There’s a reason why teams ran V8 engines when they were given the choice between V8s and V10s.

          V12s are not awesome. They’re excessive and they’re heavy and the power gained is not worth the increase in weight or difficulty.

          1. Oh yes they are. The very definition of awesomness! And if they are trickier to get right, so what? F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport can deal with it. They were more prone to breakages only because there was just 1 team(Ferrari) actively developing them. But make them mandatory for all teams and you’ll see the problems ironed out in no time. After all, every supercar manufacturer on the planet has V12 engines that do not pose any problems, so why can’t it be done in F1?

            And you cannot substitute the V12 F1 engine noise for anything. I know it sounds like a cliche, but V12 shriek reverbates inside your very bones, it shudders the essense of your being, touches your soul, etc-all is true. It’s the sound of pure extacy. The V8 sound is pale in comparison, and the very notion of the pinnacle of motorsport running on straight-4 engines of essentially the same type as the engine in the Fiat Bravo or VW Golf makes my heart sink. It also offends me deeply. And somehow I’m sure it’s not just me…

          2. Completely starting from 0 with small displacement turbo engines is not worth it either. So there.

            I rather have V12’s for the sake of sound, than an upscale Miata engine with a turbo.

            And the reason F1 has to decide how many cylinders the engines HAVE to have is beyond me, anyway.

          3. The teams were forced to run V8s instead of V10s because Mosley thought ghey could just slice off 2 cylinders making the engines cheaper. For your information a V8 is much more difficult to balance than a V10 and the engines are also forced to use a smaller v angle which further worsens the balance problem.

          4. the problem here is that becoause the limited number of engines, they don’t rev as high, and they lack in power.
            If they allowed the turbos to rev, and produce power like in the old days, i wouldn’t mind. The sound was good then, and it would be good in 2013.

          5. @Montreal95 and others.
            PM is perfectly right here. Ferrari went from V12 to V10 because it offered them a better, faster solution. Their V12 offered better power, but was also heavier and guzzled fuel, so the car was heavier and needed a bigger fuel tank. When they were running V10, Ford (cosworth) was already changing to a better optimized V8.

            Those in line 4 cylinder engines will be pretty far from production engines. Them producing about 500-650 hp will make them quite something to behold and they will sound pretty good i would expect.

            Certainly better than the farthing Renault we got on track now, and the coughing McLaren.

          6. DeadManWoking
            18th March 2011, 10:08

            The new cars won’t rev as high

            If they allowed the turbos to rev, and produce power like in the old days

            The 1980’s BMW turbos only revved to 11-12,000 rpm just as the 2013 engines will.

          7. Just repeating the phrase ‘souped up Miata engine’ over and over doesn’t mean you ‘win’ the argument. If the more cylinders an engine has means it is ‘better’, why is everyone saying that V12’s are the ideal? Why not V16’s or W16’s?

            I suspect the answer is “because I remember V12’s and through my rose-tinted glasses they were much better than any new suggestion someone else comes up with”.

            A genuine question; is it an American thing to be obsessed with cylinder numbers? I don’t know anyone in Britain who is so hung up on this and thinks that people won’t watch a formula with fewer cylinders – it isn’t like the cars have it written on the side.

            And the noise thing can be easily remedied for those too fickle to enjoy watching something that sounds different to what they are used to. My grandfather was deaf but it didn’t stop him loving watching F1.

          8. There’s nothing wrong with souped-up Miata engines – I own one. :D

            But I happen to think that a small V6 is the right way to go…

          9. @ BasCB: Ferrari were forced to go from V12 to V10 engines, because of the rule change between 1994 and 1995 that banned 3.5 litre engines. In 1994 Ferrari engine was by far the most powerful in F1. However the cut down to 3 litre took off some of the power while doing nothing for the V12’s bigger fuel consumption, so at the moment of the rule change, the Renault became the unqestionably the best engine, while nbefore they were tied overall. IN THOSE CONDITIONS there was no point with continuing with V12, but I’m sure that after 16 years there is a solution to make 3-litre V12 more economical and reliable.

            And I cant understand why they must be inline four turbos. Why don’t have V6 turbos? I don’t want F1 to be as close as they can be to the car I drive at home(of course with 600bhp +150hp KERS is not the same, thats why I’ve added “as close as”, so what’s the point?). In fact I want F1 to be as far from my day to day experience as possible, it’s part of what makes F1 exciting.

            Now, I don’t know when you last attended a Grand Prix, but I was at Spa 2009 and I thought the Renault, and espesially Mercedes sounded great! The only engine I didn’t like was the Toyota(by far the most quiet) and they’re gone now.

          10. Dear Rob,

            I’m neither american, nor am I obsessed with many cylinders. And the problem is not the 4-banger itself, but that F1 is basically running engines small displacement engines that could come from an F3 car.

            I also don’t want to “win” an argument. I would like to state my opinion. Thank you very much. Also, I own an MX-5 myself, among other cars… Just to get things into perspective.

            Limiting the engines to a certain point was necessary to cut costs. But we arrived at a point, where these new engine rules will cost a bunchload of money so that the treehuggers can calm down.

            You are right, that the average viewer will probably see no difference. So why change the engines at all? I am also puzzled by this sudden interest in the fuel consumption of F1 cars. I want to bet that 99 of 100 people have no idea about the fuel consumption of an F1, or of a race car in general for that matter.

          11. Why specify the engine configuration at all if you are genuinely interested in *developing* a more environmentally friendly formula.

            The real solution would be to limit the amount of fuel that could be used in a race to something small, and let the teams work out how to use that to complete the race as fast as possible.

            And for goodness sake, take the limits on KERS off. Let the teams develop that to the nth degree.

            If they want to run solar panels then let them do that too. Let them do anything they like to get the car going fast without consuming much fuel.

    2. I have almost never agreed with Ecclestone in the past, but this time I’m with him too,Victor. The average racing career of a driver starts with karting, and after all there is in between, he wants to get a seat in F1. But should F1 adopt the 4-cyl engines, it would almost take this driver back to where he started. If I were a car racer today, I would start looking into MotoGP, and not F1 anymore.

  6. “anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula.”

    Does that even make sense?

    1. As with much of what Mr E says; no it does not! He really is getting to old for his job, he needs to move on!

    2. Anti Engines – Against it
      Anti, anti Engines – Supports it
      Anti, anti, anti Engines – Against it
      Anti, anti, anti, anti Engines – Supports it

      So literally speaking, what Bernie said supports the proposed 4cylinder turbo engine, however, I suspect he was using the language technique of ‘repetition’ to enforce an aggressive stance on the issue.

      1. You ain’t not having no idea about no gangsta slang, yo.

      2. Maybe he was anti every one of the cylinders?

        1. yeah 4 anti for 4 cylinder does make scene :)

        2. Exactly, he would go directly to a EV series with big speaker boxes to amplify the sounds of a nice recorded V12 8)

      3. The irony of having 4 antis in there to symbolize those 4 cylinders, LOL.

  7. As has been pointed out my Mr. Saward elsewhere, F1 was hardly struggling in the 1980’s was it?

  8. Bernie must be losing his touch because he’s given away what this is really all about: politics.

    Max and Bernie were close allies, dictators from the same pod. Todt, for his few faults, is not of the same ilk. All this is pointing to some deeper issue and I suspect it’s the one of who controls F1. The negotiations over the new Concorde Agreement are expected to be quite explosive as Bernie, CVC and FOM face a tough fight to retain their share of the spoils and you can bet Todt will be on the side of F1 rather than the money.

    Bernie doesn’t really think people will turn off because there’s less noise. He’s frightened his own voice won’t make as much noise in the future of F1.

    1. Agree, this is purely yet another negotiating ploy from Ecclestone. Proof is that he says the TV companies will loose interest, which is obviously completely false because the broadcasters mute the engine sounds anyway.

      1. The sound of the engines is indeed compressed/limited and what not, to make sure it’s hearable and at the same time agreeable. If they didn’t do that, you would have a very distorted noise coming from your TV.

        That they make the sound good for your home Television set doesn’t mean that it is a very important aspect of watching a race.

        Bernie has a point, however the size and number of cylinders don’t matter so much , but the rev limit (only 12000) does.

        Having said that, it is clear that this is about politics. He only wants to echo Luca di Montezemolo, because that’s the guy he has lured with a big bag of money in the past.

        1. Yep. It’s clearly a political struggle. What I wanna know is why anyone still listens when garbage starts flowing from Bernie’s mouth like a clogged toilet. Maybe Todt will give him the giant metaphorical plunger in the next Concorde Agreement and get his pipes flowing smoothly again.

    2. Fully agree with what you say. Bernie is just trying everything he can to get to seperate the FOTA teams and the FIA and have a bargaining position.

  9. “it’s the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing.” and? you also find V8’s in saloon racing, they just have twice, maybe 3 times the seize of what the F1 engines have in displacement. F1 needs to go forward, not backwards. And i think that moving from V10, down to V8, and then a displacement seize down again (if i remember correctly). Is going backwards.

    I will even go as far as stating that in these times, any engine that is NOT turbocharged is old fashion. The only thing Turbo engines have less of compared to normally aspirated engines is noise and in some cases drive ability. I don’t like that the power will go down so much, but for me turbo engines is definitely the way forward. The only better solution, i can think of, is to move back to the V10 engines but i don’t see that happening.

  10. complete agree with him, next Todt will want them to run on electric to please the earth hugger’s. Wanted Todt get the topdog post cause he was running against that politician thwat but now getting a bit fed up with some his decisions.

  11. What was wrong with the sound of the 1.5 liter BMW 4 cylinder turbo of the eighties? I have heard it for real attending Grand Prix. And these engines gave 1000+ horsepower so I don’t see a real problem here.

    Besides, the F1 needs to go greener if it still wants to be the pinnacle of motorsports in 10+ years. The Le Mans Series is going greener (with hybrid engines) and is attracting the attention of car manufacturers which left Formula 1 (Toyota, Honda), so I think that is the way to go.

    And KERS does not make F1 greener, the way it is used. It is used as a supplement (power boost) and not as a replacement of fossil fuel. Only when it is used as a replacement (like the Toyota Prius hybrid car) it will make the F1 greener than it is today.

    1. They used 6-cylinder turbos in the 80s, not 4.

      1. And in some cases… 4. Use the googles.

      2. HounslowBusGarage
        17th March 2011, 20:26

        Brabham BT 50 in 1981 had a 4 pot BMW engine.

        1. Was Bernie running Brabham at the time?

          1. Exactly, maybe he lost his hearing from those engines?

    2. F1 won’t be the pinnacle of motorsports, when they limit basically everything about the engines to make the sport “green.”

      1. If the cars still lap circuits faster than any other racing cars, then by definition F1 will still be the pinnacle of motorsports.

      2. Motor racing was born out of car development. If the formula is not a test bed then it isn’t the pinnacle of motor racing.

  12. Why doesn’t F1 switch to Methanol Petrol or Diesel engines if it wants to become green.

    1. Because burning Diesel is about as green as lighting up the rainforrest.

  13. F1 is the fastest sport in the world. If an f1 car with a smaller engine than my dads vw passat then it’s going to sound a bit rubbish. for once I agree with bernie

    1. F1 teams have been required to use 2.4-litre V8 engines since 2006.

      my old truck is a 4lt V8, im driving a formula, yeaaah! (satrcastic tone)

      1. It’s not an F150 by any chance?? :P

        1. lmao that would be hilarious!

  14. “only two thing are important in F1: “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.” ”

    that’s very disrespectful comment from someone in Ecclestone’s position!

    1. I think thats the far more important part of what he’s saying.

      Who cares that bernies doesnt like the new engine format.

      What I care about is that bernie clearly still thinks F1 revolves solely around Ferrari! Thats a pretty outrageous statement to be making, can’t the other teams being too happy reading that.

      1. It’s pretty insulting and disrespectful of him, but that’s exactly what I expect of Bernie.

        1. ….and exactly why he said it… as with nearly everything that comes out of his mouth its all PR to get people talking

      2. Truth hurts, doesn’t it?!

        I’m kidding.

  15. Bernie is right. F1 is supposed to be cutting costs. Developing an brand new engine will be very costly. If it aint broke. Don’t fix it.

    Also bernie is right once again with the econess. The cars engines themselves only make up a small percentage of the total emissions of the whole of f1. The cars are just an easy target because they are the only things that are seen by the public. Maybe different regulations for the trucks that carry everything about may be a better idea

    1. Exactly. It’s all PR anyway, so why not start a huge campaign to reduce emissions with the logistics and freight? And I agree on your fist point. F1 is almost exactly where it needs to be as far as technology and power. All it needs is the occasional tweaking of the rules to keep it fresh. I would be happy if F1 cars were running the same engines as they are now in 50 years time, as long as it doesn’t mean switching to these horrible things. This engine thing is going to hurt me deeply, but the day F1 goes electric is the day I give it up forever. Its such a shame, especially considering how unnecessary this is. All the other rule changes serve a (some sort of) purpose, but this one is only to appease the minority of the world who think F1 is not green enough. Go Bernie!

      1. i agree 100%.

    2. Ferrari is the only team on the grid that produces its own engines (Renault isn’t Renault anymore). Therefore the budget for developing these new engines will not come out of F1, but the car (engine) manufacturers. They will foot the bill, because it is ultimately they who will benefit when the technology is transferred to their road cars.

      It’s not a cost issue, this is a convenient fallacy.

        1. Who are we all 100% agreeing with? :P

          1. Myself ;-)

            Icthyes in my case.

      1. What about Mercedes?

        1. Yeah, Mercedes uses Ilmor if I’m not mistaken, not the ‘real’ Mercedes R&D.

          1. I know this is an amazingly late response, but Mercedes bought that section of Ilmor which produced the F1 engines and took it over themselves a long time ago. Ilmor still exists but is no longer involved in F1.

  16. Ive never been into this `Green Agenda` balderdash, if it was the case we would be designing nuclear powered engines as this is the new green agenda that Friends of the Earth are blindly agreeing too as a replacement for fossil fuels, even though CO2 rises after the temperature rises, and theres been a decade of cooling, but thats for other forums.

  17. Why 4 cylinder.
    Why not go with a turbocharged V-6, or flat-6.

    1. I suppose because most ordinary road cars use inline-4s?

      1. There are a lot of 3 cylinder diesels as well!

      2. but why does F1 have to reflect ordinary cars? what on earth does F1 have anything to do with ordinary little shopping 4 cylinder granny cars? Answer is nothing. No matter what the politics say, F1 is never going to influence global warming in any way. Road cars are road cars, F1 cars are F1 cars. Simple and final fact.

        Back to the sound. Sound is important in motorsport as traditionally it has been one of the primary factors for attracting the audience to the sport and keeping the audience excited throughout. Is the 12,000rpm 4 cylinder going to generate enough excitement? I’m sure you’ll be able to hear it, but not as much as in the past. In the past (not so much now, but its still not too bad), you not only had to wear earplugs but also brace yourself from the mere vibrations that emanated from the car, because your whole body was f shaking from the noise! That is F1!

        1. what on earth does F1 have anything to do with ordinary little shopping 4 cylinder granny cars?
          Nothing, and it still won’t, how many 4cyl granny cars do you know with 600+ BHP revving to 12,000rpm.

  18. Fred Schechter
    17th March 2011, 19:50

    ….. and this is why I voted Bernie off of the island..

    Seriously, an acoustic engineer can’t make 950hp sounds awesome coming out of a smaller displacement engine? I find that ridiculous!

    Bernie,, please grow up.

  19. Talking out of his backside.

  20. I think too many people are beginning to worry to much on what the cars will sound like and think more about what the sports supposed to be, and thats how damn fast the cars can go.

    Seriously, the extreme majority of people watch F1 on TV, sound means little on this medium (with commentry going on) and going to F1 is probably out of a large% of peoples price range or not in their country. Yes, its nice that they are loud and boomy, but if the racing isnt effected then I dont mind so much what engines they use as long as (i repeat) the racing isnt effected.

    Bernie wants to sell tickets and TV revenue, thats fine, but most people watch F1 for more then what sounds they make. If he wanted to have descided this, he should have bought the FIA ;)

    1. I agree – previously people have complained that the lack of overtaking, the politics and bitching, and erratic stewarding decisions were ruining F1.

      Suddenly the engine rules are changing and everyone now says that it wasn’t any of those things, but the fact that the engines don’t sound like Motorhead playing a concert on an asteriod crashing into the Sun!

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.