TheAMCForum.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Competition > Drag Racing
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Weight transfer for stock suspensions
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Click for TheAMCForum Rules / Click for PDF version of Forum Rules
Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.

Weight transfer for stock suspensions

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
amcenthusiast View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jul/02/2012
Location: SW Atlanta GA
Status: Offline
Points: 1778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote amcenthusiast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/03/2020 at 11:04am
Chassis design is all about 'center of gravity' and how the chassis reacts to load (basically by power or braking)

The basic principal is this: the car goes nowhere until the center of gravity moves. (everything else is generally considered to be 'undesirable gyrations' -hotly debated though)

There is no 'snowball effect' caused by the springs. Rather, the 'snowball effect' is what happens by raising the car's center of gravity -best example of this is to study 'forklift safety' = its far easier to topple the weight if the forklift's center of gravity is raised higher. -the more the weight is thrown back, the less resistance there is against it.

(what K.P. is trying to describe is related to how springs are made, and how that affects their spring rate: different diameter steel rod, different 'free lengths' and different amount of coils/how the coils are wound creates a lot of variety in relation to how a spring performs it's job -one may learn this by studying and comparing valve springs)

-This is main reason why many AF/X racers in the sixties ran lifted front ends; the center of gravity topples easier to the rear of the car when the car moves forward (same thing on a forklift, but more dramatic)

Doing a similar thing, I put V8 Matador front springs on my Javelin and yes; they lifted the front end and the car got more traction.

With regard for drag racing, there used to be a really good article written by a Chrysler engineer who was involved with the Dodge Ramchargers drag racing effort. (but unfortunately the website is down now)

He explained many things they did to improve traction on those cars.

One is to 'dial in' the contact patch 'footprint' of the car. If I remember correctly, he prescribed more 'footprint' pressure on the left front tire (which applies more pressure to the right rear) -this bag of tricks can be done with 'wheel scales' in order to measure how much chassis weight is riding on each wheel.

Another interesting thing he described is 'the chain test' (!)

They made a special brace on the car in order to attach a chain near the car's center of gravity (with other end of chain attached to fixed anchor) ...then they could try various mods to improve traction, discover what does not work etc.

Pinion angle is another chassis mystery many people don't study much. This is 'tunable' on AM cars with factory torque link traction bars. (note: some of the first AM cars with torque links did not have adjusting slots) As a general rule of thumb, when the rear u-joint of the driveshaft is oriented 'down', this increases 'bite'. When the pinion angle is oriented 'up', this decreases 'bite' -it's a verbose awkward thing to describe all the geometry involved, but it has much to do with 'calculating the torque of an angle'.

Something I remember from way back when, was people used to cut brass bushings for the front suspension -so the front wheels could 'drop'.

One might try is torquing all the front suspension bushings tight with the front end lifted up; they act like springs on their own. -When you set the car back down, the bushings will preloaded, making it easier for the front suspension to drop.

Maybe try using the smaller 'one piece' strut rod bushings; less rubbber bushing there to allow more 'droop'. (forget urethane; they are 'rock hard', to limit movement)

...typically, the front suspension bushings are 'so tight', they make 'drag shocks' ineffective (as if they  are a waste of money... but it's not the shock's fault; it's the tight bushings)

You can experiment on AM torque link cars by preloading the torque links -by adding weight inside the trunk, to tighten the torque link arm bushings where you like it.

One could experiment with the leaf spring clamps; remove them on the back? add a thicker one on the front of the leaf spring?


443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/
Back to Top
ADAM12MATADOR View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Dec/03/2011
Location: New City, N.Y.
Status: Offline
Points: 518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ADAM12MATADOR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/03/2020 at 5:26pm
The Ramcharger cars had a more tuneable suspension. They were able to use 6 cylinder torsion bars to help weight transfer. They wee also able to preload the torsion bars which helped in tuning. For the rear suspension, they used an adjustable pinion snubber  to cut down on axle wrap. Remember Direct Connection? That was the Chrysler outlet for Hi-Po parts. You were able to by Super Stock spring kits for your Mopar. I do agree in your comments about suspension looseness and spring mods. Similar to what i stated in an earlier post.
Back to Top
tached_out View Drop Down
AMC Nut
AMC Nut


Joined: Feb/08/2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tached_out Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/03/2020 at 8:42pm
Originally posted by Ram Air Rick Ram Air Rick wrote:

  I have a few questions regarding what can be done, to stock suspensions without true modifications to help with weight transfer?

 I , like NO2 Joe and TX AMX race at the Pure Stock Drags.

 All three of us especially, and others too, have a hard time launching our cars consistently with manual transmissions on relatively skinny tires. We've all improved with starting line technique, but that only gets you so far. 
The goal there for a good start to a race is to lay down consistent sub 2 second 60' times, which of course is not easy again on the skinny tires.
 
 Better weight transfer of course can greatly aide traction. 

 What are your suggestions to get the front ends floppin? Again with stock trunnion pre 70 and A arm post 70 suspensions?

 We've heard things like 6 cylinder springs but wonder why a spongy spring would be any better than one that can store energy to push the front end weight up.

 When you take the motors out , the front ends hardly move at all.
 
 What can we do to both the front and rear suspensions to rectify this for better weight transfer?

 Keep in mind we cannot really modify the suspensions as its a stock class of racing.
 
 


Ken Parkman answered this pretty well, but please allow me to put it into simpler terms.

Both a six cylinder spring and a V8 spring store the exact same amount of energy if loaded with the exact same weight. The big difference (and what works to your advantage if you want weight transfer) is, the six cylinder spring will compress more under the same weight. That means it will travel further as it unloads. As the car accelerates and the front springs begin to extend, six cylinder springs simply continue to lift the front of the car. They lift it more and do it over a slightly longer time.

A stiffer V8 spring on the other hand, since it compresses less under the same weight, will unload after it has only provided a small amount of weight transfer and then it stops working for you.

Glenn
Back to Top
tached_out View Drop Down
AMC Nut
AMC Nut


Joined: Feb/08/2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 328
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tached_out Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/03/2020 at 8:55pm
I'd also recommend 90/10 drag racing shocks on the front of the car. The 10% dampening is on the rebound so there's very little resistance to extending the shock. It happens quickly giving a fast weight transfer and then with 90% dampening on the jounce it settles the front slowly and gently after the launch.

Glenn
Back to Top
Ken_Parkman View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted


Joined: Jun/04/2009
Location: Ontario
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Ken_Parkman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/04/2020 at 11:28am
What - me confusing? I'm hurt!! OK, I'll survive.
amcenthusiast - do a force diagram at the rear tire contact patch, including the inertia forces about the CG. You will see there is a lot to be gained in "managing" the upward acceleration forces. This is why you do not see the high front end with stiff springs in current racing. And if you start thinking about this as the car moves you will also see the gains become losses as the car goes downtrack; why what works for some cars does not work as the car gets faster. Why a SS car often wants a wheelstand, but not a Pro-Stock.
 
Another thing that happens is the torque reaction on the rear axle from the drive shaft loads, and this also depends on the type of suspension. Inherently the torque reaction lifts the passenger side rear wheel reducing traction for that wheel. Why the drivers side front wheel is first off the ground.
 
On the Hornet I had worn out 4 cylinder front springs heated to lower the ride height (that's tricky) and badly worn out stock shocks. The front shocks were also spaced a bit to increase suspension travel. Rear suspension was slapper bars, stiff shocks, and there was offset ballast inside the rear bumper with an extra leaf on the passenger side. The rear shocks were also slightly spaced for more travel, but you want to be careful with this. Do not have the suspension "jar" the car. It took some effort, learning, and tuning, but at the end that thing was deadly consistent. I could hook with a 10' tire on a stinking hot slippy track when big tire cars slower than me could not. I have logbook days with the 60's within .01 over 12 passes. And the best part was there was not a single expensive component!
Back to Top
PHAT69AMX View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jul/07/2007
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 5926
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PHAT69AMX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/04/2020 at 3:47pm
Already had this typed up from a 1969 TSM:

1969 AMC FRONT COIL SPRING SPECIFICATIONS
....................................................... Rate LBS. per
........................................................ Inch After
Series and .. Equipment ........... Wire .... Loaded ..... Loaded .. Color
Engine Type . Model ... Location .. Dia ..... Height ..... Height .. Identification

Javelin Series

Six Cylinder . Light .. Left ..... .496" .. 9.84" @ 850# .. 93# .... White Stripe
..per IPM?. 319 1040 ............................................... All Coils
..per IPM?. 319 1040 .. Right .... .496" .. 9.84" @ 800# .. 83# .... Red Stripe
.................................................................... 4 Center Coils

.............. Heavy .. Left/Right .505" .. 9.84" @ 850# .. 100# ... White Stripe
........... 319 1069 ............................................... 4 Center Coils

.............. WAC .... Left ..... .496" .. 9.84" @ 890# .. 93# .... Yellow Stripe
........... 317 8922 ............................................... All Coils
........... 317 8923 .. Right .... .496" .. 9.84" @ 850# .. 93# .... White Stripe
.................................................................... All Coils 

Javelin Series
V-8 .......... Light .. Left/Right .505" .. 9.84" @ 975# .. 100# ... Blue Stripe
........... 318 5128 ............................................... 4 Center Coils

.............. Heavy .. Left/Right .513" .. 9.84" @ 975# .. 115# ... Yellow & Red Stripe
........... 319 1471 ............................................... 4 Center Coils

................ WAC .. Left/Right .513" .. 9.84" @ 1010# . 115# ... Red Stripe
........... 319 1039 ............................................... All Coils

AMX .......... Light .. Left/Right .505" .. 9.84" @ 850# .. 100# ... White Stripe
........... 319 1069 ............................................... 4 Center Coils

.............. Heavy .. Left/Right .513" .. 9.84" @ 935# .. 115# ... Blue Stripe
........... 318 5129 ............................................... All Coils

.............. WAC .... Left/Right .513" .. 9.84" @ 1010# . 115# ... Red Stripe
........... 318 5128 ............................................... All Coils

1969 AMC RAMBLER SERIES - FRONT COIL SPRINGS

Six Cylinder RAMBLER FRONT COIL SPRINGS

.317 2895... . Light .. Left ..... .471" .. 9.84" @ 830# .. 80# .... Orange Stripe
.............. WO/AC ............................................... All Coils
.316 9815 All Models .. Right .... .471" .. 9.84" @ 800# .. 80# .... Yellow Stripe
.................................................................... 4 Center Coils 

316 9814 ..... Heavy .. Left/Right .505" .. 9.84" @ 850# .. 100# ... White Stripe
319 1069  All Models ............................................... 4 Center Coils

317 2894 ....... WAC .. Left/Right .496" .. 9.84" @ 850# .. 93# .... White Stripe
317 8923  All Models ............................................... All Coils


V-8 RAMBLER FRONT COIL SPRINGS

.....317 8922. Light .. Left ..... .496" .. 9.84" @ 850# .. 93# .... White Stripe
.....318 8923 Sedans ............................................... All Coils
....... And Hardtops .. Right .... .496" .. 9.84" @ 890# .. 93# .... Yellow Stripe
.................................................................... All Coils 

...317 8923... Light .. Left/Right .496" .. 9.84" @ 890# .. 93# .... Yellow Stripe
..... Station Wagons ............................................... All Coils

...318 5129... Heavy .. Left/Right .513" .. 9.84" @ 935# .. 115# ... Blue Stripe
......... All Models ............................................... All Coils

...318 8923..... WAC .. Left ..... .496" .. 9.84" @ 890# .. 93# .... Yellow Stripe
............. Sedans ............................................... All Coils
...318 5129 &Hardtop .. Right .... .513" .. 9.84" @ 935# .. 115# ... Blue Stripe
.................................................................... All Coils 

...318 5128..... WAC .. Left/Right .505" .. 9.84" @ 935# .. 100# ... Green Stripe
..... Station Wagons ............................................... All Coils
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
information believed accurate but not guaranteed - ckt
AMC FRONT COIL SPRINGS 080608 - ckt
from 1969 AMC Technical Service Manual Section 12 page 12-33
------------------------------------------------------------

====================================

1969 AMX WHEEL RIM TIRE TRACK WIDTH INFO

Copy and pasted this info I have for 1969 AMX... Unaware if 1970 is the same....

1969 AMX Stock Wheels and Tires

Opt - Tires = E or F-70-14 with Rims
    = 6.0 x 14 with 4.00 Backspacing (measured mine)

Std - Tires = E-78-14 (6.95x14) with Rims
    = 5.5 x 14 with ?.?? Backspacing

6" rim measues 7 inches wide / 2 = 3.5 b.s. when there is 0.0 Offset
so stock 6" rims with 4" backspace have 1/2" Offset
so Hub to Hub is greater than Track Width by 2 times 1/2 offset, or 1 inch

Hub to Hub, both front and rear, is 1.0 inch greater than
stock Track Width dimensions based on stock wheel offset.

1968-69 Dims
59.38 inch = Front Hub to Hub = 58.38 Stock Front Track + 1.0 inch
58.00 inch = Rear  Hub to Hub = 57.00 Stock Rear  Track + 1.0 inch

1970 dims from AMA Data sheets
60.30 inch = Front Hub to Hub = I6 59.30 Stock Front Track + 1.0 inch
60.70 inch = Front Hub to Hub = V8 59.70 Stock Front Track + 1.0 inch
58.00 inch = Rear  Hub to Hub = 57.00 Stock Rear  Track + 1.0 inch

AMX Trim Rings are 2.5" wide
AMX Center Caps are 1-7/8 tall, 2-3/4 base dia & 2-1/4 top dia
Dish is 1/4 deep x 1-7/8 top & 1-3/4 btm dia
Goodmark Part # 4012-588-691S for 1968-74 Chevy II Nova SS
appear to be the same or very similar.

==================================
END OF DOCUMENT


Edited by PHAT69AMX - Feb/07/2020 at 2:39pm
Back to Top
PHAT69AMX View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jul/07/2007
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 5926
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PHAT69AMX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/07/2020 at 7:06pm
Just for discussion, this is from the 4-part 1969 Car Craft S/S AMX Clone build series of articles:

When Hurst Performance Products produced the original AMX Super Stockers for the factory, they performed extensive suspension changes to make the cars competitive.  Since we at Car Craft hadn't had any previous experience with this particular car, we followed the Hurst recommendations to the last nut and bolt.  All the suspension components are available from Hurst, allowing the do-it-yourself group, like ourselves, a one stop location for coordinated components.

Starting with the front end of the car, the stock shocks were removed and replaced with  90-10 Cure-ride units.  These shocks have two inches extra travel, allowing for proper suspension travel and wheel snatching starts.  The Hurst part number for these units is #D-1040.  To keep the car tracking straight while under power, toe-in should be set at 1/8-inch, with caster between o and 1 degree positive.  Camber setting is a secondary consideration for drag racing, and should be set as close to zero as possible with the above caster setting.

Also available from Hurst are specialty designed rear springs.
These are not only a lot stiffer than the stock parts,
but also feature revised geometry to aid traction.

Setting up the rear suspension is another story altogether.  We removed the rear springs and discarded them as they are inadequate for Super Stock racing.  The main problem with the stock springs is that the spring rate is too soft, and with seven grand starts the rear wheels bounce like a basketball.  To counteract this situation the Hurst engineers designed s special rear spring for optimum wheel loading.  These springs also raise the rear of the car several inches, creating better traction by raising the center of gravity.  One note of advice: don't use any additional traction assists with these springs, as they may  hinder performance.  This means no lift bars, kits, clamps, or what have you.  The springs are only part of the package that Hurst supplies.  In conjunction, 1-3/8-inch diameter 50/50 heavy duty rear shocks are used.  These are similar to the units that the Hemi MoPars use, and carry Hurst part number D-1044, while the springs carry numbers D-1037 and D-1035 respectively.

To gain more traction, the Hurst Performance team experimented with different springs and spring eye locations.  In fact, the original prototype car of the fifty that were built had five optional adjustment holes on each side, for mounting the front spring eyes.  It turned out that the best locations were with the right spring eye in the top hole and the left one in the second hole from the top.  The measurements were then duplicated on the "production" run of the other fifty-two cars.  The new super stock type leaf springs have been stiffened, and also re-cambered to provide more rear axle control.  Next came a set of Monroe 1-3/8 inch heavy duty shocks, specially valved for the Hurst AMX and also staggered with the left one mounted behind the axle and the right one forward of it.
  To match the two-inch increase in rear height, the stock 390 front springs were bolstered up by air conditioning type spacers at the top.  Howard Maseles has special plans for those spacers.  He intend to chuck them and also wants to get lower tires on the front end, all in an effort to get the nose down and cut wind resistance.  In the meantime, the spacers were complemented by matching shock absorber rod extensions which help extend their maximum travel.

... The tree came down, the r's went up, the clutch came out, and... Bang !  One broken U-joint, and the driveshaft was laying on the ground.  A close inspection revealed that the center section of the rear axle housing had twisted to the point where the U-joint was at an impossible angle, and had failed.  The tubes for the housing are only held in with spot welds, so if you intend any hard usage we recommend that the tubes be heliarced all the way around.

Back to Top
WesternRed View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Aug/03/2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WesternRed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/07/2020 at 8:04pm
Interesting stuff, one thing that stands out is that this information is for trunion front ends and the spring rates from the TSM are way lower than those listed for Moog later model non-trunion from suspension, but obviously the spring location is different as well. 

I’m thinking I will pull one of my front springs and have a go at testing it at work since I have access to a bunch of compression testing machines. I also have some 71 Javelin springs (presumably stock) that I can use for comparison. My Gremlin was originally a six cylinder car, but was converted to V8 sometime in the distant past. It also has Kelsey Hayes discs up front and I would guess originally came with drums, so I can only guess what springs are in there now. I have 3 way adjustable shocks all round, set 90:10 in the front and 50:50 in the rear with the staggered arrangement. Slapper bars and presumably stock rear springs.
I've finally given up drinking for good...........now I only drink for evil.
Back to Top
amcenthusiast View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jul/02/2012
Location: SW Atlanta GA
Status: Offline
Points: 1778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote amcenthusiast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/08/2020 at 11:29am
This argument in favor of using a six cylinder front coil spring, implying that the 'lighter' spring will keep on working as the car raises it's front end, but the 'heavier' V8 spring does not ...is in analogy, just like what we'll find by studying valve springs for the engine.

The 'lighter' six cylinder spring is only 'lighter' to support the weight of a lighter engine.

The 'trick' (of words here) is the implication that the six cylinder spring has a greater 'free height' for it 'to keep on working' as the front of the car rises (hopefully)

Now all we need is a side by side comparison of which spring, 6cyl or 8cyl has a greater 'free height'.

If the 6 cylinder spring has no more free height than the V8 spring, it's 'myth busted'.

If the 6 cyl spring does have more free height -that it is actually a longer spring, it is a viable argument; the longer spring will continue to contribute towards lifting the vehicle more than a shorter spring.

I don't think they are though. I think the six cylinder springs are merely a smaller wire diameter to support less weight, not necessarily a longer spring.

IMO, it's a partial 'mythomania' effect, (not 'snowball effect') made up by people who don't change their front springs when they make an engine swap -the car now raises more by the power of the bigger engine, not because they're using the 6cyl springs.

Yes with a Mopar torsion bar front suspension, one could 'dial in' the same ride height with a lighter rate six cylinder spring to get a longer working range (overworking the spring though, which weakens the spring by 'hysteresis' -the spring treated steel coil 'wire' only has so much elasticity; if we overstretch it, it will nevertheless permanently deform) Those Mopar springs were set up with different geometry, so I avoided getting into that aspect because this original question is about 'street stock' -where he probably can't alter the car to install longer leaf springs. -The only aspect which applies to stock type AM leaf springs are the clamps = why I mentioned that only, not to divert the gist of the thread.

The thing is though, IF the car doesn't get enough 'bite' to prevent excessive wheel spin with stock type tires, very little weight transfer will happen and the center of gravity's relationship to the rear tires won't move much at all.
443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/
Back to Top
amcenthusiast View Drop Down
AMC Addicted
AMC Addicted
Avatar

Joined: Jul/02/2012
Location: SW Atlanta GA
Status: Offline
Points: 1778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote amcenthusiast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb/08/2020 at 12:15pm
Sure, a 'real' drag race front spring could be purpose built with a greater free height and the suspension drop could be extended etc etc.

Notice how when we jack up the front of the car, the stock V8 front springs still max out the extension of the front shocks.

Basically all that will happen by installing six cylinder springs is the front end ride height will drop slightly.*

Where the center of gravity is located approximately where the floor mount shifter handle is, this will 'unload' the rear drive wheels to reduce 'bite' by tilting the center of gravity slightly forward.

*Based on my personal experience though (!) when I installed a Jeep Wagoneer 401 into a 258 six Hornet hatchback, the front end actually lifted; the V8 swap increased the front end ride height (!)

This implies that the six cylinder engine is heavier than the V8.

-it is a heavier crankshaft, and the block has two more main webs.

-and, one of the main purposes in favor of V8 design is to reduce weight from an inline eight configuration. (rotating assembly)

Anyway, the '66-'91 AMV8 is not much heavier than the '64-up inline six...

What is it?

About twenty five pounds heavier?

Still, on my car? A 401 swap, with cheapie headers, made the front end rise... just a little, but it was visually noticeable.

What's the point?

The six cylinder spring rate is not much different than the V8 springs, plausibly, almost the same.

Again, I don't believe AMC made them have two different 'free heights' -as if the six cylinder springs are longer than the V8 springs.

I think (but I could be wrong) both springs have the same 'free height', it's just that the V8 spring may have a slightly thicker 'wire size', which affects spring rate enough to support a slightly heavier engine (*not much heavier than AM six though -maybe 25 lbs/approx 'generic' weights)

443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
All content of this site Copyright © 2018 TheAMCForum unless otherwise noted, all rights reserved.
PROBLEMS LOGGING IN or REGISTERING:
If you have problems logging in or registering, then please contact a Moderator or