|
grover posted:Pretty inexcusable that in this day and age, you still need an OBDII reader to tell you what turned on the CEL; something that important should be blazing in plain english on the dash. You're never going to see repair manuals built into the car, though; they don't want you to fix it yourself, they want to you to come back to the dealer so they can charge you $150/hr. What triggered the CEL isn't necessarily a root cause, and honestly, I'd much rather it was just a sad face and a trip to the mechanic than something scary involving "manifolds" or "cats." Cars aren't just for gear heads.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Lazor posted:I agree with the post above saying we should have varying licenses for the larger SUVs and trucks because they are harder to drive and putting just any driver behind the wheel becomes a danger ... a small car up to Mazda5 size would satisfy that need for the vast majority of the population and if they really need a truck then they could get licensed for it. I suggested almost this exact scheme once while hanging out with some friends, and got called a communist  MATLAB 1988 posted:Automakers already complain that the millennial generation isn't buying and that they care more about their cellphones than driving. I read an article a while back where they interviewed a bunch of kids (well, 16-25 year olds) about what they wanted in a new car and nearly all of them were most concerned with how well it integrated with their iPhone/iPad whatever. The big quote I remember was something like "my whole life is on my iPhone, so my car is really just an iPhone accessory." I know those responses are basically designed to piss of auto enthusiasts, but still. I would also question whether modern kids really get the same experience out of a car as people did in the past. The roads are denser, the cars are more automated, the fines and by-laws are stricter, and the cost of ownership is going through the roof. There's hardly any way anymore that a kid can find a junker, fix it up in the back yard on money he saved from the pizza place, and cruise around with his friends on empty farm roads. [e] BonzoESC posted:What triggered the CEL isn't necessarily a root cause, and honestly, I'd much rather it was just a sad face and a trip to the mechanic than something scary involving "manifolds" or "cats." Cars aren't just for gear heads. But some cars are, so how about a system where you can choose either "sad face" idiot light or a "debug" mode with more detailed information? Computers have worked like that for decades now. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Hashal posted:Let's say it becomes a legal responsibility to have a rear view camera with display. Does your car then need to be 25 years old to avoid it, like emission laws in California? How long is this technology expected to last without the need for repair? Do you have to get it inspected every 2 years, and repair it if it doesn't pass, or it's deemed non-road worthy? Is it legal to remove? Do you make it illegal to remove? Do you have to pay to have it calibrated every so often? Does it need an automated wiper blade when it rains so your vision isn't obstructed? Are all citizens going to pay extra DMV fees to regulate and maintain this? How does this affect the bottom 25% of the population that have trouble keeping their cars mechanically working, let alone electronically? If the camera malfunctions and you unknowingly rely on false information, whose fault is it in an accident? A lot of your concerns are a little far-fetched. I'm saying, "the regulation, which mandates rear-view cameras on new cars, is a good idea." You're saying, "well, regulations X, Y and Z are bad ideas." I agree with that, but there's no evidence that regulations X, Y and Z would even be attempted. Maybe the US is different, but Canada has a lot of regulations for new cars that don't apply to cars that aren't being sold as new (DRLs, just as an example), and I see no reason why this regulation would suddenly be applied retroactively and include mandated camera inspections. As written, it is JUST about equipment installed on new cars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:What triggered the CEL isn't necessarily a root cause, and honestly, I'd much rather it was just a sad face and a trip to the mechanic than something scary involving "manifolds" or "cats." Cars aren't just for gear heads. The point is that it's bullshit to have to buy a thing to "decode" error codes that typical nav systems/center consoles already have access to. I seriously doubt that giving more information about the car is a bad thing. Do you think "stupid car people" know the difference between a blinking check engine light vs a steady one? Or what if the water pump goes out and the temperature gauge skyrockets, but there's no CEL until the engine blows a gasket?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Canada has a lot of regulations for new cars that don't apply to cars that aren't being sold as new (DRLs, just as an example), and I see no reason why this regulation would suddenly be applied retroactively and include mandated camera inspections. As written, it is JUST about equipment installed on new cars. True that if you have an old Canadian car without DRLs you don't need to get them installed. However, if you IMPORT an identical car from the USA, and it's less than 15 years old, you have to meet a large number of regulations that the Canadian car gets waived. DRLs must be installed and functional, also a child seat anchor point and hardware kit, a metric odometer label, dual-language airbag stickers, and a few other things I can't remember. And if the car is newer than 2007 it has to have an electronic immobilizer installed, regardless of original equipment. Now, not every inspection centre will actually know all these things or indeed even care about their presence (usually it's just DRLs and whether the air bags work), but that is the letter of the law. But my point is that there are absolutely examples of legislation that requires you to arbitrarily retrofit new features onto an old car. (I will admit that it is nice that in Canada you can get anything more than 15 years old on the road with very little hassle -- just has to have a VIN and pass a provincial safety inspection) Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:(I will admit that it is nice that in Canada you can get anything more than 15 years old on the road with very little hassle -- just has to have a VIN and pass a provincial safety inspection) Canada, home of the Skyline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
grover posted:Wow. That's going to be a bitch to repair when it inevitably breaks, though. I was on my way out of work a week or two ago and one of the guys had the good fortune of getting an engine swap on a 7 series twin turbo. A fuel injector broke and got stuck open and one of the rods ended up bending or something. He ended up spending like 30 hours on putting the new engine in because there was so much going on. He had done them before on the older models and could do those in a lot less time. That 3 turbo set up looks like it would suck a lot to replace/inspect the turbos he also told me how much the engine cost and god drat
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Here's a video of the BMW tri-turbo system. "In the upper rev range..." *tachometer indicates 2600 RPM* Oh, diesels
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
I don't think the 3 turbos are really that big of a deal, the engine is an inline-6, it's ideal for this sort of thing. I'm surprised that 2 of the turbos are variable geometry though, wasn't variable geometry supposed to solve the problems of needing multiple turbos? Well now you have more turbos and variable geometry. What's next, meth injection from the factory?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What's next, meth injection from the factory? Jim: Hey Mike, have you heard about this new Direct Meth Injection? Mike: Yea, I have. And from what I've been reading, it makes breaking bad. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I read an article a while back where they interviewed a bunch of kids (well, 16-25 year olds) about what they wanted in a new car and nearly all of them were most concerned with how well it integrated with their iPhone/iPad whatever. The big quote I remember was something like "my whole life is on my iPhone, so my car is really just an iPhone accessory." I know those responses are basically designed to piss of auto enthusiasts, but still. A car is a big box that requires dedicated storage spaces, is too expensive to just throw away and replace every two years, and is mostly a place to sit and get frustrated at other drivers in. Is it any wonder they're not interesting to people who don't sperg about them like we do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
ppp posted:The point is that it's bullshit to have to buy a thing to "decode" error codes that typical nav systems/center consoles already have access to. Why is it bullshit? You have to invest substantial time and knowledge to understand the "decoded" codes once you've spent the $20 on the reader anyways. Hiding complexity makes the car easier to use and easier to support. Manufacturers bear the costs of customer complexity from support costs, initial reliability ratings (see JD Power and MyFord Touch or w/e), and such. Unless it's a frighteningly common user error like gas caps (which Ford fixed with a self-closing gas cap), it doesn't really matter to the user beyond "gently caress YOU STOP NOW I'M SELF-DESTRUCTING" vs. "Call a mechanic in the next day or so."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I read an article a while back where they interviewed a bunch of kids (well, 16-25 year olds) about what they wanted in a new car and nearly all of them were most concerned with how well it integrated with their iPhone/iPad whatever. The big quote I remember was something like "my whole life is on my iPhone, so my car is really just an iPhone accessory." I know those responses are basically designed to piss of auto enthusiasts, but still. Why shouldn't cars integrate nicely with electronic devices? Again, it doesn't compromise the experience of the auto enthusiast in any meaningful fashion, and if a tiny weight gain bothers you, just rip the entire loving stereo system out. I don't understand the sentiment around here that you have to like stripped-down, optionless cars to be an enthusiast. Obviously iPhone integration wouldn't be my first criterion for selecting a new car, but a lovely system or no system at all could be a pretty big deal-breaker now that I'm used to having SYNC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
This interesting tidbit just came across the news ticker a few minutes ago: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=83144ea9-a980-4d44-8e70-6100d38bae92?icid=autos_2475 Nissan may revive the Datsun brand in 2014 according to a Japanese news outlet. Don't expect anything spectacular though, according to the source, essentially it'd be for bargain line vehicles. So it'd be like the Geo line to GM. keykey fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why shouldn't cars integrate nicely with electronic devices? Again, it doesn't compromise the experience of the auto enthusiast in any meaningful fashion, and if a tiny weight gain bothers you, just rip the entire loving stereo system out. I don't understand the sentiment around here that you have to like stripped-down, optionless cars to be an enthusiast. Because electronics change so fast that in five years, things like iPod/iPhone integration will seem as obsolete as a built-in car phone is today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Because electronics change so fast that in five years, things like iPod/iPhone integration will seem as obsolete as a built-in car phone is today. But with wifi and bluetooth cars can talk with any generation of electronics along the way, regardless of how fast they change. The best example out there right now is using a bluetooth connector to your OBDii port that can stream data to your android phone using this app called Torque. https://market.android.com/details?id=org.prowl.torque&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsIm9yZy5wcm93bC50b3JxdWUiXQ.. The beauty is that the software itself can continue to evolve to take more advantage of your vehicles computer to give you information. All we are asking for is that to be built in to the car. If you have a built in Nav system, whats wrong with having an option to check out stuff about your car? I think the idea that simpler is better because the masses don't give a poo poo about their car is just plain stupid. How hard is it to display on a screen - "There is a problem, service required" and then a button below for more info. Users that don't care about the additional info don't have to press the button and can take it straight to the mechanic. Just because some people may not use a feature, don't mean it should excluded. And the Torque app above proves it wouldn't be very expensive to implement as the cars are already making the data available, the app just turns that data into information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why shouldn't cars integrate nicely with electronic devices? Again, it doesn't compromise the experience of the auto enthusiast in any meaningful fashion, and if a tiny weight gain bothers you, just rip the entire loving stereo system out. I don't understand the sentiment around here that you have to like stripped-down, optionless cars to be an enthusiast. Well, that was the point. They asked the people what their MOST important feature was in a new car, and a majority of them said "iPhone integration". Above fuel economy, performance, comfort, or anything else that has to do with the actual vehicle's functionality. Sure, it's nice to have your car integrate with the electronic device of your choice, but it's just kind of sad to see people literally treating their vehicle like a big rolling iPhone accessory. It also seems to imply that while driving they're putting most of their attention on the iPhone, not the road. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uesxF3UoaYE Oh, and this too Hashal posted:Just because some people may not use a feature, don't mean it should excluded. Yeah. It's disingenuous to say "well it takes so much training to understand the meaning of CEL codes that we should just hide them from anybody but the professionals." First, there are plenty of people like myself who are not professional mechanics but can do the majority of the work their car requires themselves; second, some people might want to learn these things, and preventing them from doing it for their own good or whatever is just retarded. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
When I rented a Fiat Punto a month or so back, it had a USB port to integrate with the head unit... but it didn't work with an iPhone. Now that's just plain backward. I understand the comment about how easily technological integration can become obsolete, but with intelligent choice of the hardware implementation (for example, the USB port above or wifi/bluetooth like Hashal said), you can maximise the useful life. Besides, car manufacturers are selling new cars to new car buyers, things only have to be relevant to them for the period they'll own the car. No-one cares if it's obsolete a few years after the primary customer has sold it on. On the subject of an integrated output of error data from OBDII ports, look at it this way: If you were a car manufacturer, how is it a selling point to be able to say "Our car tells you exactly what's wrong when it breaks" to people? It really isn't the image they want to put forward. What I think you will see is aftermarket products to let you route the OBDII into the information/entertainment system in cars with a good enough display to make it work (and the number is growing all the time), it's a question of whether they'll be able to do it - OBDII might be standardised, but the other proprietary electronics you'd need to deal with aren't necessarily going to be so easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:First, there are plenty of people like myself who are not professional mechanics but can do the majority of the work their car requires themselves; second, some people might want to learn these things, and preventing them from doing it for their own good or whatever is just retarded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Because electronics change so fast that in five years, things like iPod/iPhone integration will seem as obsolete as a built-in car phone is today. Ergo, new cars get iphone jacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
grover posted:Manufacturers don't care how obsolete their cars seem on the used market 5 years from now, they just want to sell new cars today. In fact, the worse the obsolescence, the better, because that's more incentive for consumers to buy new cars. All I really want is a USB connector (with software support for iPod/iphone, USB mass storage and charging) and a 3.5mm jack as a fallback for audio input/output. I can see how a basic Bluetooth system could appeal for convinience but to be honest I'm fine with plugging a couple of cables in. Those sync type systems add absolutely nothing but extra complication - cars are not the place you should be making phone calls/sending email/tweeting/posting on Somethingawful and any voice control should be handled on the phone rather than by the car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
dissss posted:All I really want is a USB connector (with software support for iPod/iphone, USB mass storage and charging) and a 3.5mm jack as a fallback for audio input/output. I agree, it's annoying that my car has bluetooth for making phone calls. It'd be much easier if all I had to do was reach into my pocket and pull out my phone while sitting, unlock my phone, goto my contacts and call the person I want to talk to while having a hand off the steering wheel. Or I could press a button on the steering wheel and tell the car who I want to call.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:I agree, it's annoying that my car has bluetooth for making phone calls. It'd be much easier if all I had to do was reach into my pocket and pull out my phone while sitting, unlock my phone, goto my contacts and call the person I want to talk to while having a hand off the steering wheel. Or you could just wait until the end of your journey and make the call then. Cars are for driving in and people have a bad enough time doing that even without any distractions (whether they be hands free or not)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:By doing the work yourself, you are not paying money to the dealership service center. Why in the world would they help themselves lose money? It pays to keep the car as inaccessible as possible so you're forced to go back. Some manufacturers go as far as to design special fasteners and service items that could not be removed/accessed without dealership-specific tools. They sure do. And you support this? You think it's just generally a good idea to use proprietary fasteners and service tools instead of standardized items that you could get anywhere? Stealth Like posted:I agree, it's annoying that my car has bluetooth for making phone calls. It'd be much easier if all I had to do was reach into my pocket and pull out my phone while sitting, unlock my phone, goto my contacts and call the person I want to talk to while having a hand off the steering wheel. All the studies done on this show that the problem is not where your hands are, but the fact that your brain is engaged with the phone instead of the road. Driving with one hand on the wheel doesn't affect your ability to pay attention to the task, but yelling at your kids or whatever does. This should be obvious. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
dissss posted:Or you could just wait until the end of your journey and make the call then. Cars are for driving in and people have a bad enough time doing that even without any distractions (whether they be hands free or not)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
dissss posted:Or you could just wait until the end of your journey and make the call then. Cars are for driving in and people have a bad enough time doing that even without any distractions (whether they be hands free or not) They're going to make phone calls anyway so it might as well be made safer, just like they're going to pick it up when people call them. Some people have the ability to do more than one thing at a time (like listen to music!). Edit: I put a barrier up in my car anytime there's anyone else in it so they don't accidentally talk to me, breaking my concentration and causing me to wreck. Woolwich Bagnet fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:They're going to make phone calls anyway so it might as well be made safer, just like they're going to pick it up when people call them. Some people have the ability to do more than one thing at a time (like listen to music!). I would 100% support a hypothetical system to block all cell phone usage by the driver of a car. Pull the gently caress over. Listening to music is a really poor comparison, too -- it doesn't take the focus or creative mental effort that maintaining a conversation does. A better example would be yelling at your kids or answering a quiz game or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:They sure do. And you support this? You think it's just generally a good idea to use proprietary fasteners and service tools instead of standardized items that you could get anywhere? The fasteners thing is a red herring, though. People soon come out with suitable tools - with software/diagnostics stuff, it's a lot harder to make a tool to replicate the functionality of a dealer's equipment. quote:All the studies done on this show that the problem is not where your hands are, but the fact that your brain is engaged with the phone instead of the road.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I would 100% support a hypothetical system to block all cell phone usage by the driver of a car. Pull the gently caress over. I honestly don't see how people can be so against cell phones or whatever, but be perfectly fine with cars having passengers in them. And is maintaining a conversation really that taxing for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
Your passenger has better situational information on when they should STFU.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Your passenger has better situational information on when they should STFU. The people in the back aren't going to see someone ahead of you slam on their brakes, and your passenger is probably looking at you while they talk so I don't really see how that's a reasonable argument either, whereas when you're on the phone you can look straight ahead the entire time and just stop talking if anything happens. I guess I just expect too much out of people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:I honestly don't see how people can be so against cell phones or whatever, but be perfectly fine with cars having passengers in them. And is maintaining a conversation really that taxing for you? Pretty sure a phone call has a different (more distracting) effect on the driver than passengers actually inside the car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC%20White%20Paper%20-%20Distracted%20Driving%203-10.pdfquote:While this paper shows the distraction of cell phone conversation, many people understandably wonder how this risk compares to talking with passengers or listening to a radio. InitialDave fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:http://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC%20White%20Paper%20-%20Distracted%20Driving%203-10.pdf Do you have any references that aren't so obviously biased? (I know that doing anything else while driving adds some sort of risk for collision and I'm not saying it doesn't but I'm wondering what the real numbers are now) On page 11 it has in huge green text a quote that you're 4 times more at risk when on a cell phone, then goes back to smaller font without any bold words like every preceding paragraph to quote other studies that show its significantly less than that, then discredits them based on limitations found in their own testing methodologies (and leave them out of appendix A). They also use themselves as self references for some of the statistics. Additionally only 3 of their studies have a sample size above 100 people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:I honestly don't see how people can be so against cell phones or whatever, but be perfectly fine with cars having passengers in them. And is maintaining a conversation really that taxing for you? It's a good question. Studies show that maintaining a conversation with a passenger does decrease your road attentiveness somewhat, but not that seriously...whereas driving while talking on the phone is comparable to driving drunk. Maybe it's the nature of the conversation? Chatting offhandedly to a passenger doesn't require the same focus as talking on the phone with a specific purpose? Maybe you could compare the cell phone to having a serious conversation with your passenger about the upcoming business meeting or whatever. Personally, I normally have no problem having conversations with my passengers, but there are a few times where I've gotten into a more complicated or heated discussion with them and run a stop sign or stopped at a green light. All this "it's my right, I can do it, you all just aren't good multitaskers  " poo poo is just being willfully ignorant of the realities. If you don't have 100% of your attention on the road, no matter where the attention is going, you are reducing your ability to drive. Period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:If you don't have 100% of your attention on the road, no matter where the attention is going, you are reducing your ability to drive. Period. Personally, I rarely talk on the phone when driving. Mostly because I don't talk on the phone period, but I don't think that it is a terrible hazard for everyone. It is true that often times when you see someone driving like a douche, they are on their phone. However, the reverse isn't necessarily true. Try it sometime, look at everyone as you go by them and take note of how many people are on their phones, but driving like reasonable people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
I use SYNC to do exactly two things: call people I'm meeting when I'm stuck in unusually bad traffic to let them know I'll be late, or if it's a very long drive so they'll have an idea of when to expect me, or to change the music. You could argue that I shouldn't be using my phone, even hands-free, but there's a difference between being stopped in traffic and cruising down a freeway at 100 km/h. As for controlling the music, it's not distracting and it seems much safer to do it by voice instead of by fiddling with stereo controls and looking at the display. If people are making phone calls when they need to be paying attention to the road, that is their own problem, not the car's fault. I would also argue that the nature of one's phone conversation affects how distracting it is. "I'm here, I will be there in X minutes," is different than, "Where do you want to go for dinner? How are the kids? Do we need groceries?" A short phone call where you, the driver, are not receiving information from the person you've called is different from a conversation. If it's something that requires your input you should say, "I'm driving, I'll call you back." A lot of things people are asking for, like simple USB input and/or line-in instead of iPhone integration, is already available with the system as it is right now. There is additional support for iPhones, because a lot of people have them, but they aren't required. Bluetooth media is also available, if you don't want to plug things in, but the voice control won't select individual songs. PT6A fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:Do you have any references that aren't so obviously biased?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 10:56
|
|
|
dissss posted:All I really want is a USB connector (with software support for iPod/iphone, USB mass storage and charging) and a 3.5mm jack as a fallback for audio input/output. Just so you're aware, bluetooth often gives better sound quality that jacks & cables, the digital signal is sent from your phone to the head unit, then turned into an analogue signal by your dedicated hundreds-of-dollars audio system, not converted by the DAC chip in your phone that costs pennies, sent through a pair of 10c jacks, down a 10c cable to your head unit, which then takes the 2-channel sound & guesses which of your 6+ speakers to send it to. I wish I had bluetooth in my car, as it is I had to hack the tapeplayer to accept a 3.5mm jack 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
I'm going to be buying myself an adapter that plugs into my CD changer port on the head unit to give me a connection for my iPhone - it'll mean losing the CD changer, but that's no hardship, and it seems to be tempremental at best anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 11:57
|
|