The C-Brats Forum Index
HomeForumsMy TopicsCalendarEvent SignupsMemberlistOur C-DorysThe Brat MapPhotos

How about...a Marinaut 25?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The C-Brats Forum Index -> All Marinauts, All The Time
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SENSEI wrote:
from the response you are getting here it looks like one of the most important items after a enclosed head is a table for four. there have been several references to my 25 interior
I am throwing it out to you Les, to come over and have a looksee at her.
she sits here in the Barn and is out of the weather.
I like the Idea of the offset door.by having an offset door you can then use a sliding door and that gives you more room in the cockpit for chairs or crab & shrimp pots, or Ice chests or fish lockers ,etc.


Thanks for the invite Roger. I'm pretty familiar with it but if I get the opportunity I'll give you a call.

Great thoughts, I appreciate them.

Les

_________________
Les

www.marinautboats.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:22 pm    Post subject: Re: How about...a Marinaut 25? Reply with quote

Will-C wrote:
self draining decks seem to be the norm on the east coast anyway, if you can do it in the design phase I think it would be a good idea. Otherwise folks would feel the need to keep the back covered if moored or on a dock with out shore power.
D.D.


I think that's going to be the compromise quite frankly. If you look at the drawing of the Marinaut 255 I posted you'll see the level of the cockpit floor is below the waterline. Changing that would fundamentally change the boat's design.

We don't want a step-down into the cabin so that means either the cockpit sole is low and at the height of the cabin sole, or the cockpit sole is higher (and self-draining) and the cabin sole it raised to meet it. The second choice makes the boat much taller (like the Rosborough RF-246).

I don't think a cockpit cover is a bad thing and it would also keep the bird poop, some dust, and dirt out too. The cockpit would stay much cleaner and it likely adds to some security (out of sight, out of mind sort of thing). Maybe we'd make the cockpit cover standard along with two good-sized bilge pumps.

There's still time to contemplate it; thank you for the comments.

Les
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thataway wrote:
OK, I get the concept that you want simple and light--and if folks want more-it can be done. I am a bit torn on that issue--since I always end up loading up a boat--because we do at least month trips--and want semi luxuries, as well as storage. That also fits with those who are retiring and doing the loop--and still want light weight boats for towing....

Getting back to the seating--and what Bill Uffelman suggested on the layout of the North Pacific 28. It has the side settee. We made an RV in a van expanded to 8 feet, using just that type of settee, and it was our main bunk (folding out to 48" wide) as well as dining for 4. How important is a forward facing seat?--or can one put a pedestal seat forward if it is essential (for example I have a helm type of seat on the forward platform of my Caracal, which is early removed). On the other hand, Marie rarely sat in the forward seat of the C Dory 25 or Tom Cat--often sat athwart ships in the rear seat with a good book.

The 6' 6" settee on the port side, which easily seats 4--two tables easily removed from pedistals--and light weight will give the eating room. This still preserves the isle. The bottom cushion is in 3 sections--two make the back rest, and fold down when in bunk mode.

Isn't the interior "semi custom" anyway--since currently it is done by hand? So the interior design could be fit to what ever the buyer wanted? For example I might want the port side head, wider, and the settee/gaucho and a long galley, instead of the dinette, stb side head and shorter galley.

As for self bailing; It was impressed in my brain by my father about 70 years ago that a self bailing cockpit was very desirable in any offshore boat. I considered that a "weakness" of the C Dory 22--but in reality, it never was a problem (but we kept the back covered most of the time with canvas).
Most fishermen do like the self bailing feature--wash down the deck to get rid of the blood and scales! Safety wise, with a light boat, and the way these are used--maybe not as much of an issue. I would buy a 255 without a self bailing cockpit.

One final comment on the head. We found the C Dory 25 to harder to use (related to my size @ 6' 2" 180 lbs) that the Tom Cat--and there is only a few inches difference--plus some headroom less in the 25. As for showering--it was rare we showered in either, but sponge baths were common--less water, and less mess.

Certainly an interesting discussion!


Hi Bob,

Great stuff as always!

I think we'll be able to accomplish boat goals on a M25; it seems like we can get it light enough and simple enough to answer those needs but it will be nice enough that we can outfit it quite a lot and make it more fitting for longer times aboard.

I did one layout (drawing) of the RF-246 with a side settee (actually L-shaped like Dene's Devlin 27) and I like that arrangement better than a traditional dinette. The cabin is long enough that you could have a side settee long enough to be a berth and still have a copilot seat forward. The copilot seat could be on a cabinet at the forward end of the settee. The cabinet could also have a "foot locker" in it so that the settee could be a bit shorter and still have the length needed for sleeping. Or you could use a copilot seat on a pedestal, the issue with that being where to put it once it's pulled (and nice comfortable seats are large enough to be awkward and a bit heavy).

The boats are semi-custom; even the Marinaut 215. The issue might be that the "floor pan" isn't. It's from a mold that can't be changed at will so we're going to have some things built into the mold that will dictate (at least to some degree) what goes where. For instance the central passageway height is the same as the cockpit (or darn close) but the side areas where the galley counter is mounted, where the head is, and where the dinette (or whatever) is mounted are raised sections (platforms) to either side of the passageway.

In addition the center passageway has an offset in it. Since the head compartment needs a bit more room, and the storage compartment across from it less, the platform on the starboard side is a bit wider there than further forward; on the port side the platform is more narrow at the aft end and widens under the dinette area.

So, as it stands now, there is a lot of semi-custom work we can do (or will be able to do) but due the the raised platforms there will be limitations...like I can't just move the head to the port side but it's quite likely we can do a side settee rather than a dinette.

My experience with self-bailing is the same as yours. It's convenient in a fishing boat but I've never been able to slop a significant amount of water into the cockpit on a CD22, an Arima, and of our GlasPlys, Olympics, Boston Whalers, or similar boats. A self-draining cockpit would be more convenient for moored (in-the-water) boats but without a considerable change in the design we can't get the cockpit sole level that high.

Thanks for the comments on the size of the head compartment.

Les
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:14 pm    Post subject: Re: How about...a Marinaut 25? Reply with quote

Will-C wrote:
We were at a boat show in Newport R.I. a couple weeks ago and saw a Rosbourgh(sp?) that had a hull extention built under the outboard motors bracket. They said it helped keep the bow down. The scuppers for the self bailing cockpit came right thru the hull extention and stuck out to the rear of it about three inches. They had flexible hoses clamped on to the the ends of the scupper drains with a small cord attached to the far end of the hose so you could pull up on the hose so it would fold over and be up out of the water so that if you had a extra weight or people in the cockpit these hoses being folded over would prevent water from entering the scupppers. They had a little cord lock set up so you could let the hose fall back straight and the scuppers could drain normally. You can always furnish drain plus for scuppers but I don't know if what I saw was a Rosborugh deal or something the dealer who I believed was from Maine had rigged up. The boat had twin 115hp ETEC's
D.D.


What you saw was Rosborough's Power Hull Extension, they've been doing it for years. In the early days the boats were built with inboards or I/O engines. Once in awhile they'd do one with a motorwell. Eventually after the larger 4-stroke outboards became more common and folks started asking for them on their Rosborough they used some Armstrong brackets. That was ok for relatively light singles (and they still use them for that) but didn't work so well with big twins so they came up with the Power Hull Extension. It's an all-fiberglass unit that Rosborough manufacturers themselves.

By the way, we're a Rosborough dealer just in case anyone was unaware.

Last year they decided to redo the Power Hull Extension and increase the width clear out to the side of the boat (before it stopped a few inches short), when they did that it covered the cockpit scuppers so they extended them through the Power Hull Extension and added the fold-over drain tubes. I can't remember when I first saw those but it was 40 or 50 years ago so they've been around a long time (and likely way before that even).

Les
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill Uffelman wrote:
Les I wasn't suggesting the 28' for you to build, someone had a wish list and I thought of the 28' as a boat that met that list.

I'm all for the M25 as described.

Bill Uffelman
In Ocean View DE for a couple of weeks


Mr. Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hardee wrote:
Les, WOW, you have really taken on the tiger by the tail. So I still have, and love my CD-22. My wish list for it is a head and shower. (Not a sun shower in the open cockpit Embarassed . So Don't know if that will ever happen but here you are starting out fresh so how about;

To decrease some weight, water and tankage requirement? An Air Head. No holding tank requirements, and no flush water required. There are several in service on the C-Dory fleet and I have not heard anything but good about them.

Not sure if it would work to combine the air head and a shower enclosure, but if so, that drain would go to a gray water tank, like the same as the sink drain, eliminating the black water holding tank, macerator pump, and the extra flush water usage.

I agree that a 4 seater table with a forward facing copilot seating is a must. (either a reversible seat or a permanent one) and maybe you can get more table side length with a parallelogram shape than a rectangle. If the acute angle was on the outside, forward port corner, there might be rom for a pedistile type mate seat closer to center, but not blocking v-birth access. Just my thoughts.

Wishing you the best,

Harvey
SleepyC Moon

I think I would like to stay with the smaller, lighter version of build.


Thanks Harvey...good stuff! Thumbs Up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rogerbum wrote:
Les, on further thought and reflection, what you really need to build is the Marinauti-cat. Wink


Hmmm...I have a cat here I can make into a couple of monohulls! Disgust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just when you thought it was safe...

He's back!!!! Mr. Green

I wasn't able to get online much over the weekend so that's why you got a respite.

Anyway...

Thanks to all for all the great input. It's meaningful and helpful, and much appreciated.

I'll think on all this quite a bit more but my take on it at the moment is that we'll need a couple of models to cover it.

We need something about 25' that's really similar to the Marinaut 215 but is 6" wider and has the extra length for a 6' 6" berth, an enclosed head/shower, and a bit larger cockpit. But it also needs to be kept light to make it towable with a smaller truck (maybe the one you have now).

In base form the M25 would be simple, pretty much equipped as the M215, but with an enclosed head compartment with a portable toilet (and of course the extra room). It would have a larger dinette able to seat 4 (if at all possible), it would have a longer fixed v-berth (6' 6"), and a larger cockpit.

However, we'd also be able to build the M25 with a marine toilet (or AirHead) and a full shower. We could offer more water capacity as well. We could also offer a lot more upgrades for those seeking a higher level of luxury (teak & holly floor, carpet, trim work, curtains, etc.).

We can do all this in one boat pretty easily since we build them one at a time for each customer.

Secondly, we need something like an M27. It would be very similar to the M25 but stretched a couple of feet. This one will be a bit tougher because it seems some folks would be happy with the M25 cabin and add the extra length (2') in the cockpit; others would perhaps like a bit more cockpit (say 1 to 1.5 feet) but would like to see some extra space added to the cabin (say .5 to 1 foot). Having both would require a second set of molds and that won't likely happen; we'll have to find a compromise and a consensus in here somewhere. But this one can simmer for awhile since we can't develop two boats at once easily. Well, we can probably develop them simultaneously but we'll need to win the lotto to afford having both plugs and both molds built together! If anyone feels an urgent need to invest in a boat building company right way let me know! Smile

Thanks once again...

Les
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rob & Karen



Joined: 24 Nov 2006
Posts: 353
City/Region: Franklin
State or Province: TN
C-Dory Year: 2007
C-Dory Model: 22 Cruiser
Vessel Name: Life of Riley
Photos: Life of Riley
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:41 pm    Post subject: Re: How about...a Marinaut 25? Reply with quote

Les Lampman wrote:
We don't want a step-down into the cabin so that means either the cockpit sole is low and at the height of the cabin sole, or the cockpit sole is higher (and self-draining) and the cabin sole it raised to meet it. Les


Why don't you want a step down in to the cabin? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I am curious about your thoughts on this issue.

Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ddenver



Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 377
City/Region: Quilcene
State or Province: WA
C-Dory Year: 2008
C-Dory Model: 23 Venture
Vessel Name: C-Renity
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Les.....First of all, although I fully understood why you could not make it (being super busy at the time finalizing things on the M215), I was disappointed to not have finally met you at the September Sequim CBGT. Hopefully, I can resolve that issue at a future time (and get to meet you) although the Sequim CBGT offered ample personal time due to the smaller nature of the gathering.

Anyway, from my point of view, as to the point of avoiding the step down into the cabin - that is the lone factor in making my wife dislike the C-Dory 25. Since she is fairly short the step down in the 25 results in poor visibility for her whereas - in our Venture 23 - she has much better visibility.

As far as other points mentioned, we also hope to someday (if the present economy ever allows us to retire!) do lots of long distance traveling on the boat such as the Great Loop, Lake Powell, attending other non-PNW CBGTs, and the canals in upstate NY and eastern Canada.

With our hoped for someday long distance - and longer time period - boating adventures in mind (since we do not fish at all), we obviously would prefer the additional space and storage geared towards making longer term cruising more comfortable.

The idea of being able to avoid upgrading our tow rig and still windup with a larger boat offering better visibility then the C-Dory 25, a shower and also possible alternatives to the porta-potty (the Airhead sounds interesting), and less expensive then a much larger (although extremely beautiful) Ranger Tug is definitely attractive.

Good luck in your endeavors Les!

Take care,
Dan, Tanya, and Hannah on C-Renity
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NORO LIM



Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 875
City/Region: Olympia
State or Province: WA
C-Dory Year: 2006
C-Dory Model: 23 Venture
Vessel Name: NORO LIM (sold 12/12/14)
Photos: NORO LIM
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:07 pm    Post subject: Re: How about...a Marinaut 25? Reply with quote

Rob & Karen wrote:
Les Lampman wrote:
We don't want a step-down into the cabin so that means either the cockpit sole is low and at the height of the cabin sole, or the cockpit sole is higher (and self-draining) and the cabin sole it raised to meet it. Les


Why don't you want a step down in to the cabin? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I am curious about your thoughts on this issue.

Rob


I don't know about Les' reasons, but I can tell you from personal unpleasant experience, that a step up to get out of the cabin through a doorway that's already too short can be a serious threat to consciousness. Especially for a taller fellow hurrying to get to the cockpit. I have a two layer foam pad taped to the top of the jamb. Now. I also have a significant crease in the top of my balding head. Crook

The difference in levels on our Cape Cruiser 23 is not that much, but the cabin sole is just enough lower than the cockpit sole that I have to "over duck" so to speak when exiting.

I am generally very much in tune with Les' basic thinking on keeping a 25 light and simple. I don't know what the dimensions of the chain locker are on the M215, but I wish I had a more room for a longer rode on my boat. For cruising in the NW, particularly up the inside passage and into Alaska, longer rodes are essential.

_________________
Bill, Formerly on NORO LIM
2001 CD 16, 2001-2006
2006 CC 23, 2006-2014
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sea Wolf



Joined: 01 Nov 2003
Posts: 8650
City/Region: Redding
State or Province: CA
C-Dory Year: 1987
C-Dory Model: 22 Cruiser
Vessel Name: Sea Wolf
Photos: Sea Wolf
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I prefer a boat without a raised cockpit floor, at least in the 20-25 foot range.

Beside the head knocker issue, I also like to stand down lower in the boat, on the inside of the hull directly. It feels more secure and safer. Raised decks make you feel like you're on the launching ramp to the man overboard drill!

Also, when you do get a significant thickness in the raised cockpit floor, there arises the need to use this space to hide essential equipment there in inaccessible places that are almost impossible to seal off from water intrusion and the host of problems this brings. So what do designers put down there? Gas tanks, black water tanks, bilge pumps, batteries, gray water tanks, fish boxes, water heaters, shower sumps, hydraulic pumps for trim tabs, etc..............! What a great relief to have a boat with absolutely none of these features locked down in a hell-hole below the cockpit floor!

My 2cw fwiw Laughing

Joe. Teeth Thumbs Up

_________________
Sea Wolf, C-Brat #31
Lake Shasta, California

"Most of my money I spent on boats and women. The rest I squandered'. " -Annonymous
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:39 am    Post subject: Re: How about...a Marinaut 25? Reply with quote

NORO LIM wrote:
I don't know what the dimensions of the chain locker are on the M215, but I wish I had a more room for a longer rode on my boat. For cruising in the NW, particularly up the inside passage and into Alaska, longer rodes are essential.


That's a great question; I don't know the ultimate capacity either. I installed 200' of 1/2 rope and 25' of 1/4" chain on Betty Ann and I had a fair amount of room left. Just guessing I'd be pretty comfortable with going for 300' of rode.

Les
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Les Lampman
Dealer


Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 779
City/Region: Whidbey Island
State or Province: WA
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan, Bill, and Joe covered a lot of the points I would make about a raised aft deck.

I have no desire to stuff tanks and equipment under the aft deck, much of the philosophy of the Marinaut is keeping things accessible for ease of maintenance and repair (and building in the first place).

Many of our customers are of the Baby Boomer generation and most of us are getting to the age where things like hips, knees, and backs aren't what they used to be. It's one thing to deal with getting on or off the boat in the first place but once aboard it's very nice not to have to deal with steps all the time.

Personally I don't care for the "down in the hole" feeling I get on a C-Dory 25. [BEFORE YOU THROW ROCKS AT ME...that's NOT saying that makes it a "bad" boat or anything like; it's just a personal opinion about how I react to the boat.] I much prefer the more open feeling I get in the Tomcat or the Rosborough RF-246 (both of which have same-level cockpit and cabin decks).

Aesthetically I don't like the slab-sided look you get on boat under about 28' if you go for a meaningful height to the aft deck (to make it self-bailing and have tanks/storage under) and a meaningful depth to the cockpit. It's particularly bad on a boat in the 22 to 25 foot range. The way to avoid that look (somewhat) is to keep the cabin deck up at the same level as the cockpit and make the whole boat taller (like the RF-246) and that's not the aesthetic vision I have for the Marinaut 25. The other way is to keep the side lower and sacrifice the depth of the cockpit, which is what they decided on the CD25 (then added rails for security).

Another part of it comes from what James Wharram calls the design spiral. The gist of which if you change one thing it spirals through the whole design, which begets another change that spirals throughout, which begets another change, ad infinitum.

One of the main goals of the design is to keep the M25 as light as possible in order to operate nicely on lower horsepower, which in turn means a lighter engine, which in turn means better fuel economy, which in turn means less fuel needed for a decent range, which in turn means less weight in fuel, which in turn means lower weight for the boat, which in turns means less horsepower needed, and so on. And all of that means it's an easier boat to tow, or at least that it can be towed by vehicles with less towing capacity. Every 500 pounds or so we can reduce the towing weight means another category of tow vehicle is able to be utilized. There's a significant difference in the vehicles available to tow (say) 6,000 pounds versus 8,500 pounds, or 10,000 pounds.

If we opted for a raised aft deck that would mean taller sides (by about 14" to 16"), which would increase the hull depth, which increase the weight of the boat, which increases the cost of the boat. And the extra weight increases the weight you have tow 100% of the time since it's always there. If we raise the aft deck and put the fuel tank under then we have to design access to the fuel tank, which means a removable deck section, which requires structure to attach to, which means more material and weight. We've also compromised the integrity of the one-piece floor plan which is part of the Marinaut design philosophy. And we've raised the cost again with the removable deck section and it's support structure.

We've also compromised the "keep it simple" design philosophy of the Marinaut boats; there's no question that an under-the-deck fuel tank is a much more complex system than the two side saddle tanks. Think about replacing fill, vent, or supply hoses in the future. Or if the tank(s) develop a leak (a lot more likely for a bilge mounted tank), the under deck tank would leak into the bilge spaces and it would be hard to detect except from odor. The side tanks by comparison are in the open and any leakage would be spotted on the deck right away (and the fumes wouldn't be trapped in the bilge spaces).

One thing I've known from my time in the boat business and is being reinforced with our Marinaut endeavor is that you can't build a complex boat at a high quality level and keep the price down. Every little thing you do adds to either time or material and keeps increasing the price. Complexity also tends to add weight. So my goal is to keep refining and simplifying the design to wring out all the excess cost and weight. Then we can afford to build it with the best materials and still offer it for an attractive (or at least competitive) price.

So the question for me is always "is this (insert subject) worth the cost to make it happen; either in terms of money, or weight, or time"? Take the raised aft deck for instance; my rough analysis is that it would add about $3,000 to the boat and several hundred pounds. It also adds to the complexity of the boat while building it and for subsequent repair and maintenance. I don't think it's worth the dollars, the time, or the weight. I'm perfectly willing to admit that's my take on it and I'll have to gamble that potential buyers agree.

Les
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Sea Wolf



Joined: 01 Nov 2003
Posts: 8650
City/Region: Redding
State or Province: CA
C-Dory Year: 1987
C-Dory Model: 22 Cruiser
Vessel Name: Sea Wolf
Photos: Sea Wolf
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Les-

Well said above!

Maybe the Marinaut should be unofficially dubbed the "Marinaut KISS 25"!

(Or the Marinaut KISS MY 25) ( MY = Motor Yacht ) Laughing

Joe. Teeth Thumbs Up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The C-Brats Forum Index -> All Marinauts, All The Time All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
     Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Page generation time: 0.1075s (PHP: 82% - SQL: 18%) - SQL queries: 33 - GZIP disabled - Debug on