It is currently 29 Mar 2024, 09:01


Previous  1, 2, 3  Next New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 15 Aug 2021, 20:48 • #26 
Master Guide
Joined: 07/21/21
Posts: 447
Location: Florida
Thanks guys … interesting points. If I have to get specific I’m interested in what DT lines work best on Eagle Claw rods. I’ve taken the advice on prioritizing quality fly line over the rod and reel. I’m using a Cortland 444 Peach DT 4w on a 7’6 Eagle Claw Crafted Glass and I am loving the results. My distance and presentation are much better than when I was using a WF line.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 15 Aug 2021, 22:31 • #27 
Master Guide
Joined: 03/20/07
Posts: 849
Location: US-TX
In my experience, progressive taper rods generally perform better with DT lines as each additional foot of line in the air loads the rod a little more.

Another rod with a much different taper design, for example, may have a point along their flex where is loads and shoots line best. For that rod, a WF line may work well.

There are a gazillion variations of this of course. Each rod seems to come alive when paired with just the right line. Part of the fun of this hobby for me is figuring out which line works best for each rod. I’ve had rods that I thought were terrible at first but once I found the right line, they came alive. One rod that is “ok” with a WF line may become fantastic with a DT. Try it and see.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 17 Aug 2021, 18:41 • #28 
New Member
Joined: 09/16/17
Posts: 24
Location: US-FL
The thing I don't hear any one talking about is front taper. How long or short is the front taper. And this determines how gently-vs-big fly and distance, you can set your fly down on the water. After the front taper, then you have your belly shape. Only a triangle taper has greater mass continually pushing less mass. A DT has an EVEN running line, and this is better than a WF because the rear taper on a weight forward line is actually increasing in size. which makes it even harder to turn over any thing. The reason weight forwards work is because modern fast taper rods can develop so much line speed and then you also need all the weight forward to get the fast action rod bending in the first place. This type of setup is only good for distance casting/fishing.

So, just try and forget about the rear 50' feet of the line because you are trying to save $20, and just focus on the section of line that will be delivering the fly, then you can determine very fast what your particular rod needs. Is it loading too easily, then you can get away with more of a triangle taper. Sweet. If you need a little more weight up front, then buy a line with a shorter front taper BUT still has an even running line. Rio Technical trout DT has a 9' or 10' foot taper and Gold has a 5'6" taper - but they both have even bellies after that front taper. But the bellies are not TOO long so if you actually want to hist a riser at 40-50 feet with your little glass rod, then you just might do it. That's pretty neat. You can really start to dial in what you need for your own particular rod. Orvis Pro Trout is a new TT hybrid, as is Airflo Tactical Taper. They work great on old school/new school.

If you haven't quite figured it out, and I don't mean that condescendingly, because it takes a lot to figure it out, but medium flexing rods, be they old school or new, like a Winston Pure, feel and fish much better with a DT or hybrid style line. More mass up front is nice for your short casting, but the belly also needs some weight too. It keeps the whole system feeling connected and your roll casts and reach casts are all very effective. Your line control doesn't disappear the father you get away from the mass bulge up front of the WF. Medium/medium-fast flexing rods are always going to fish well, fish best, with DTish style lines.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 17 Aug 2021, 20:41 • #29 
Master Guide
Joined: 07/21/21
Posts: 447
Location: Florida
proheli,
Great explanation, thanks.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 25 Aug 2021, 10:00 • #30 
Sport
Joined: 03/10/18
Posts: 86
The problem I had recently was with wind. I was fishing a dry fly with a 4 weight DT line, and the wind kept blowing it off course. Oh, the fishing distance was about 25 feet. Is the WF actually heavier than a DT in the first 10 or 15 feet? If so that might have helped defeat the wind, methinks.

Fish on!
Peter


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 25 Aug 2021, 10:49 • #31 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 12/05/06
Posts: 2089
Location: US-PA
1streamcaster:

IF it was a standard taper/standard weight DT it should have the same weight in the first 30 feet as the equivalent standard taper/standard weight WF version of that same line so you shouldn't feel any difference at 25 feet.

The problem is other than a very few select lines by a select few manufacturers, there aren't many DT/WF versions of the same line.

Also with wind, your leader can often be the culprit. Next time try a shorter overall leader, a shorter tippet, a stouter tippet or different type of leader or all of the above and see what happens.

Good luck!!


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 Aug 2021, 03:21 • #32 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/06/17
Posts: 2498
Location: South of Joplin
@ 1streancaster, as a mediocre caster, using 7.5'-8.5' "vintage" 'glass, I never use less than a 6wt line in any kind of wind. My thoughts are that I can't generate the line speed needed for lighter lines to cut through the stiff air resistance with both less than 9' lever and the softer bends of fiberglass, so I use mass to overcome that wind resistance. I think the stiffer action of carbon fiber generates higher line speeds by not bending, and the longer the stick the faster the end will move given the same angular velocity, thus longer modern rods tend to make higher line speeds. It's my thought that these high line speeds are what let modern anglers use ultralight lines <5wt. under any conditions. Even when I fished a 9' 5wt. Orvis graphite I often used 7wt DT line on it in any wind.
Of course a good caster might not need that extra mass, because of ability to generate a bit more speed through casting stroke.
I don't recall the exact science of it anymore but mass, velocity, and acceleration are all variables that determine the force needed to overcome the wind. With my relatively shorter softer levers resulting in reduced acceleration and lower line velocity, I turn to increasing the mass, even using a WF9F bass bug line on that 5wt. rod in gusty conditions. A long rambling way of saying that given your conditions I believe it was line weight rather than taper that caused your problems.
At 25' with a ~9'? leader and 8'? rod, you only have 7-10' of line in play, at that distance and using the same rod a 10wt standard line would have suited me, although I'd likely have used a 6wt or 7wt line that would let me cast farther without overloading the rod. I tend to think in terms cumulative mass rather than nominal size.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 Aug 2021, 12:30 • #33 
Sport
Joined: 03/10/18
Posts: 86
Bamboozle -- Yes, at 30' I would think DT and WF are the same. But as Trev points out, 9' leader plus 8' rod, I'm only using about 10 feet of line, and I would THINK that a WF would be heavier than the DT in that first 10 to 15 feet. With an SA Frequency DT and an SA Ultra WF, I think I'm comparing apples to apples. Or am I?

Trev -- I'm a little skittish anyway using a 6 wt in less than knee-deep water, and I was told by the local fly shops that this water was down (from the CA draught, heat, and 60% snowpack) to almost unfishable. So I took my 4 wt DT for delicacy and found wind. The riffle water was calf deep (1 1/2' or thereabouts) and I coulda/shoulda taken my FF79 with a 5 wt line and a 6 in reserve just to play with. Who knows? With a good cast and an extended leader, a 6 weight might not have scared fish.

As it was, I caught 3 brownies between 9 and noon, and I was happy.

Fish on!
Peter


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 Aug 2021, 15:21 • #34 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 12/05/06
Posts: 2089
Location: US-PA
1streamcaster (Sorry for the treatise):

Apples and oranges to a degree…

First off, comparing DIFFERENT line models from the same manufacturer isn’t always apples to apples. For example, comparing an SA Frequency DT to SA Ultra WF isn’t the same as comparing different tapers within the SAME line model but as I said, that isn’t always possible.

The reason a comparison may be a problem is there MAY be a difference between the length of the front tapers on the two options you mentioned. That has a huge effect on rod loading and subsequently presentation on short casts, which I will explain BUT FIRST…

…Assume there is no difference in front taper length between the SA Frequency DT and the SA Ultra WF.

Since they both appear to be standard taper/standard weight lines, there should be NO difference in the weight or the distribution of that weight in the first 30 feet of line whether you are casting all or some of it. That all goes out the window past 30 feet and on hybrid or complex taper DT’s & WF’s but that does not appear to be the case with these two lines.

However, the length of the front taper length CAN make a big difference on short casts. Most standard DT & WF lines have a 6” or so, level tip followed by a front taper before you get to the belly. Using a SA Mastery DT4 as an example the front taper is 5’6” long. Add the tip to that and you have 6 feet before you are into the belly of the line meaning you would have to have MORE than 6 feet of fly line out BEYOND the tip-top to be into the belly (and mass) of the line.

Now add a 9-foot leader to the mix and you are at 15 feet and more than halfway to your intended target. At 25 feet, you end up with 9 feet of leader, 6” of tip, 5’6” of front taper and 10 feet of belly working for you. Now imagine you are using a line with a longer front taper at say, 8 feet long. Using the same 9-foot leader and casting the same 25-foot distance, you have 6” of tip, 8 feet of front taper but only 7.5 feet of belly.

One caveat: The length of the rod doesn't come into play in this discussion UNLESS you are counting the reach of the rod as part of total casting distance versus the casting distance being defined as the distance from the tip-top to the target. If you ARE counting the rod length in your 25 foot distance, you barely have ANY line belly out.

This is why you have to compare apples to apples and look at front tapers when casting short.

The trick (if there is one) to short casts and not using a heavier line is to use a line with a short front taper COMBINED with a short leader to get as much belly out past the tip top as possible. I have a feeling if you try a 7 foot or shorter leader with the same DT4 line you will see a big improvement in a similar situation. I prefer the shortest front taper line I can find for all situations because I feel they are more versatile. I use leaders as short as 5 feet or less on small streams when short casts are the rule. If I feel delicacy is required, I can lengthen my tippet or leader and/or adjust my casting to compensate.

I never cared for long front taper lines, as they are one trick ponies.

In regards to heavier lines for bucking the wind, there are two schools of thought. The obvious is to use something heavier however; smarter folks than me say the issue is the line cross-section. In other words, a fatter line has more wind resistance. All I know is my real silk lines that are thinner buck the wind better than my plastic lines so maybe there is something to that although, I would never use a anything less than a 5 weight on a really windy day so maybe it’s a toss-up.

Good luck!!


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 27 Aug 2021, 06:02 • #35 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/06/17
Posts: 2498
Location: South of Joplin
No doubt a smaller cross section with the same mass is a better wind cheater, but given the same cross section the greater mass has the advantage.
I also don't much like long front tapers. So much do I like short tapers that if the fishing is all relatively close, I often just use the level six or seven. 5-6' of taper plus 5-6' of leader works for a lot of small stream fish, lengthening the leader as water depth increases, or becomes still.
From my perspective a 5'-6' leader is enough to put the line (even the DT9F that I used for trout the first ten years or so) out of the fish's sight in knee deep water, especially fast water, in deeper clear water the fish's vision circle is larger so the leader needs to be longer, perhaps, but in any case it's not line size that spooks fish for me it's line shadows. There is nothing in nature that would cause fish to associate line with danger, but every predator of fish makes a moving shadow, so when any shadow ripples across the bottom it alerts all the prey. Even the shadow of 5X leader has been enough to frighten fish in smaller streams.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 27 Aug 2021, 09:05 • #36 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 12/05/06
Posts: 2089
Location: US-PA
I realize not all situations and circumstances are the same but there was a guy on another FF board I once frequented who used to fish with about a foot of leader material to make a point. He posted pictures and the number of fish and the size of them was astonishing and a rude awaking.

In regards to shadows; when fish in my neck of the woods get super fussy, I make sure my tippet is below the surface by applying something to make the leader sink, even with dry flies. It's also one of the reasons I like fluorocarbon tippets and no, they don't pull my dry flies under the surface.

The reason being, from below a floating tippet looks like a knife edge cutting through the surface and it makes a much more pronounced shadow than a tippet riding below the surface.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 27 Aug 2021, 10:52 • #37 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/23/05
Posts: 4966
Location: US-MT
Stuff floats in the water all the time. A line floating in the water isn't gonna freak most fish.

I see no use for long leaders, they just make everything more of a hassle. 3-6ft is wonderful. If my leaders get too short, the fly starts turning over really hard when I cast any distance.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 27 Aug 2021, 22:43 • #38 
New Member
Joined: 09/16/17
Posts: 24
Location: US-FL
Hi 1streamcaster.

Your solution when you only have 15’ feet of line out and 10’ of leader, is line speed. That’s is always the same, You’ve got to have enough line speed to get a turn over.

Your final solution is to start going on the websites and studying the line taper diagrams that the companies publish. Front taper length, belly length, grain weight, Its all there. Once you understand what you have and what about it is lacking, then you can figure out the next line to try.

Lastly, I keep hearing people here say that the front part of a DT is the same as a WF. This isn’t true anymore. Most WF lines have a declining taper as they move away from the mass bulge up front, so I don’t know what they are talking about. Looking at the taper diagrams quickly shows you this not to be the case the majority of the time - anymore.

The only way through this is to start studying the taper diagrams on the various websites. Its not too long and a guy figures it out.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 28 Aug 2021, 07:07 • #39 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 12/05/06
Posts: 2089
Location: US-PA
People here don't say "the front part of a DT is the same as a WF," they say that IF they are standard taper lines (one front taper, one belly, one rear taper, not some hybrid) and IF the front tapers are the same, they are the same in the first 30 feet of line.

Those comparisons are difficult to make today with all of the wacky line profiles out there but when they can be made, they are still valid.

The problem with comparisons is DT's (when they can be found) typically have a single front taper and a level belly, while most "modern" WF lines today have two front tapers and/or two belly tapers. Even the aforementioned and now discontinued SA Ultra WF had two front tapers. This essentially makes them long front taper lines with uneven weight distribution in the first 30 feet as compared to a STANDARD DT. That long front taper exacerbates loading issues when casting short.

However, standard taper WF's are still available; the 406, AirCel and 444 Peach are a few examples and you CAN do the "the front part of a DT is the same as a WF," comparison between a 406 or 444 Peach DT & WF.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 29 Aug 2021, 11:49 • #40 
New Member
Joined: 09/16/17
Posts: 24
Location: US-FL
I Do agree with Bamboozle. The problem is we have several different types of WF lines at this point and no one has made a standardized description system.

Rio Gold, Rio Elite Gold, Winston Enregy are a few more WFs that that are the same as DTs in the first 30 feet.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 29 Aug 2021, 15:25 • #41 
Administrator
Joined: 01/10/06
Posts: 7811
Location: Holly Springs, NC
proheli wrote:
The problem is we have several different types of WF lines at this point and no one has made a standardized description system.

There is a very standardized system - the AFTMA line standards. But line makers don't follow the system, AFTMA doesn't enforce it, and marketers act like it doesn't matter. We now have a worse mess than the 50s before the line standards were adopted.

A decade ago I stated DT lines still met the AFTMA standards. Times change and now that isn't even true - Rio Mainstream Trout and Cortland's Trout Boss DT. At least the manufacturers publish line details on their websites (I won't vouch for their accuracy).

So what is a confused fly fisher supposed to do? What we've always done. Start with the fly you wish to deliver. What is an appropriate leader? What fly line do you need to deliver that fly/leader combo the way you wish? Which of your rods do you need to cast that fly line well? The answers are very angler dependent. My answers probably won't all work well for you.


Tom


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 29 Aug 2021, 20:40 • #42 
New Member
Joined: 09/16/17
Posts: 24
Location: US-FL
Hey Tom.

Yep, I agree. It's a confused mess and I am far enough along the path where I agree you start with the fly you want to deliver.

If a WF ( a DT with a front taper, even belly, and rear taper that narrows to a running line so you wouldn't overwhelm the rod as you got too much line ), then it would all much easier, especially on the new guy. And i hope by saying all of this I am not confusing any of the FFR members.

But now there are so many WF's that a new guy can't just get one. As good as a DT is to fish, there are hardly a handful of lines with the even non tapered belly. We need about 5 definitions for WF, that way we could have one called TWF, or Traditional Weight Forward, that would be the single end of the DT.

WF SFT - short front taper - increasing or descending belly.
WF SFT - even belly
WF MFT - medium length front taper - increasing or descending belly
WF MFT - even belly
WF Orvis hybrid - like Pro Trout
WF 1/2 Triangle Taper - Like Airflo Technical taper.

Okay that is 10 and I could keep going. I think that when trying to describe DT's to people that is just must be emphasized that it has an even taper belly.

Gregg


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 30 Aug 2021, 08:04 • #43 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/06/17
Posts: 2498
Location: South of Joplin
As I've said before, if it is not a "standard taper" WF that follows AFTMA weight standards, to me it is literally, not a WF it is a specialty line and most of them seem (I'm not sure all do) to have names indicating the specialty feature.
So, my comparison of a true WF and a true DT will always be for standard lines, and because they are standard that does not require mentioning, only if the line is nonstandard would the deformity need mentioning. I could only guess at a mislabeled/nonstandard line might compare. I suspect many of them cast like a lead plug on a spinning rig, but that's just a guess.
I'd bet that there is no more way to compare a WF with a "modern wf" specialty line than there is to compare a DT with such lines, profile drawings help such a comparison if they are available, and if they are accurate, But only active on the water use of both on the same rod and with the same lures would develop a real comparison and I think that would be largely subjective, a sense or belief of what the lines may be doing.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 30 Aug 2021, 08:35 • #44 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 04/20/07
Posts: 8920
Location: US-ME
Just for variety, I'll call it "conventional." These were the lines of the fiberglass era. They varied in finish and buoyancy but were plus or minus a foot or so in taper length, body length (the term I prefer to belly) and, running line if a WF. They were definitely "standard" and still are the starting point for any "vintage" 'glass rod and most "modern" ones. They are "standard" to most of us just as Trev described, but if we are "old school," then that makes them "traditional" to someone who learned with the profliferation of specialty lines desgined for specialty graphite rods. Conventional lines are still widely available, from companies like 406 whose lines were designed with 'glass in mind, and in many inexpensive lines that will give good service. Any of these are the nobrainer starting point for "vintage" 'glass rods and most "modern" ones. If a 6 weight 'glass fly rod won't cast any old DT 6 and handle that line weight well at fishable distance, it is not a 6 weight 'glass fly rod, or there is unnoticed damage to a guide or two, or a graphite-conditioned stroke is being applied to the more gradual loading of a 'glass rod.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 30 Aug 2021, 13:07 • #45 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 12/05/06
Posts: 2089
Location: US-PA
Something that has held true for me my whole life with all but a tiny fraction of my trout rod quiver is: "if the rod doesn't like a regular weight; standard/conventional/traditional taper DT or WF; I don't like the rod." As a result, I try my hardest to buy nothing but moderate to slow taper rods and all I use are standard taper DT's & a couple of standard WF’s for all of my trout fishing.

When I find a line I like, I record its taper on a spreadsheet along with other lines that meet the "standard" description so I can compare my preferred line to other offerings. If I can’t find the specific information on the line I am after, I call or email the manufacturer for that info. When I'm happy, I resist experimenting with something new that comes down the block if I am totally satisfied with what already works. I also NEVER assume I’ll like a line just because it is marketed as a “good old fashioned DT or WF” because you would be surprised at the differences, especially with the front tapers which is a big factor in my preferences.

Excluding the wacky tapers and overweight lines (which I avoid like cheap fortified wine) having a list allows me at a glance to know whether a line will appeal to me based on what I know I already like. That saves me a lot of time & money or asking questions and opens up my eyes to what is out there BECAUSE, it will only be matter of time before a line is discontinued or modified. When that happens, even the line profile info will disappear from the Internet to use for comparisons. I also buy additional favorite lines as insurance when I can get a deal, whether I need them or not.

Buying a fly line today is like shopping for potato chips. It stinks that things have got so complicated and there are so many choices, however for many folks things are better because there are so many line options to dial in a rod’s performance to an individual’s liking.

I’m just glad my rods like plain potato chips… ;)


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 30 Aug 2021, 13:57 • #46 
New Member
Joined: 09/16/17
Posts: 24
Location: US-FL
Trev, whrlpool, Bamboozle - and the rest.

Thank you Gentlemen. You are enlightening and clearing up some vital line information for me. I'm 55, and I did fly fish a bit in my 20's, but I didn't really study or understand it like I strive to do now. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel and "conventional" and "body" are now my preferred terms and I hope my use of the world "old school" wasn't as insulting as it sounded when I read it back just now. I'm sure I'll be able to pass some of this on in a way that clears it up fro some other people too: other post line-specialization guys. I spend time on the NAFFF and this same subject is always confusing, and not just to the new guys. Again, thank you for laying it out.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 30 Aug 2021, 16:55 • #47 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 04/20/07
Posts: 8920
Location: US-ME
Hahaha. Call me modern and I might be insulted, and I doubt anybody took "old school" the wrong way, and many would take it as a compliment. "Retro" and "vintage" are sometimes used as if synonyms of "old school," but they are not the same.

We just need a good acronym to call something new that has been around a long time because it works. It could be based on the excellent summary above "regular weight; standard/conventional/traditional taper DT or WF." RW # SCTT DT or RW # SCTT WF . That could work for the technobabble at the shop while us old school anglers are already out there. Level lines would be RW # SCTT NT (not tapered) OS. The OS is self explanatory.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 30 Aug 2021, 19:48 • #48 
Guide
Joined: 08/11/21
Posts: 208
Location: Tucson, AZ
Flyline manufacturers, while improving the products exponentially over the last several decades. almost appear to be confusing anglers deliberately. ..with so many options, strange terminology, etc.

If we find a shop with knowledgeable staff and a good selection of basic flylines, we should bring our business to them whenever possible. The tapers, coatings resulting in varied stiffness of the line..type of water we will fish, distance we will fish all play into our decisions on flylines.

Seems like we would want more supple lines, less dramatic tapers for most of our fiberglass rod fishing, but it is hard to generalize with each rod we choose to fish..the water, the flies we cast, show much wind, it seems bewildering, and it often is.

I just fished two lines on my brand new (to me) Silaflex 7'8" rod that cast a Rio Grande 5 wt very nicely...then a 15' sink-tip 6 wt equally well. The Rio Grande is a heavy, long-distance line made for fast rods, probably more a 5&1/2 in reality, but given the relatively crisp action of the Silaflex was a good match in the 5 wt.

I find Wulff Triangle Tapers cast well with bamboo, so hoping I get similar results with my fiberglass rods...any thoughts on this? I will try them and report back..but only have 5 wts in the Wulff right now, need to pick up a 6 at some point.

I also find fiberglass rods cast sink-tips very well, so I seldom have a complaint with those lines, once the correct weight is determined.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 30 Aug 2021, 20:09 • #49 
Master Guide
Joined: 08/03/14
Posts: 945
Location: central AR
Phil-a-Flex, if you read the box,
Rio Grand lines are a full line wgt heavy, so your “5” is a six wgt line.

Tim


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 31 Aug 2021, 06:05 • #50 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 12/05/06
Posts: 2089
Location: US-PA
A few years back, I was on the fence choosing a line for a new fast graphite I bought. I narrowed things down a bit on the manufacturer's websites then called folks at Rio & Sci Anglers and described my situation. I told them about the rod action, the fly sizes I was planning on throwing, how much line I wanted to aerialize, how far I was planning on casting, etc.

I made my choice based on their recommendations and was totally pleased with the results.

I had another situation where I thought a Triangle Taper would solve a problem I was having dialing in a particular rod so I asked the folks at Royal Wulff their opinion and they talked me out of buying one.

Bottom line, many times angler's neglect asking for advice from the people who often have the most information...

...the folks that make the stuff. ;)


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Previous  1, 2, 3  Next New Topic Add Reply



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


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

Jump to:  
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group