Cheers,
Craig.
Hello All,
I'd like to ask what is difference between
Dedion and proper IRS on track (bumpy track?)? Did anyone make any sort of real comparition? Head to head track test? (assuming all rest is the same)
Thank you
Ted
Ah, I replied to the post on the chassis forum... I guess this is the correct place though so I'll go and get it and post it here. I suggest you
delete the duplicate post on the other forum before ChrisW(Webmaster) spots it...
Cheers,
Craig.
(Moved from Chassis forum)
I'm a de-dion advocate but I would expect (theoretically only) that IRS would be preferable to de-dion on a bumpy circuit.
With de-dion the bumps would affect both wheel's geometry even if only one wheel hit the bump. This would be particularly damaging to lateral
grip if the inside wheel hit a bump mid-corner and caused the outside wheel to gain positive camber and hence lose grip. With IRS this shouldn't
happen unless you had a very tight anti-roll bar in place.
On a smooth circuit and good quality main roads I would expect de-dion to give better traction on acceleration (both off the line and out of corners)
as wheel geometry is not affected by squat when the power is turned on as it is with IRS.
I guess it comes down to how bumpy your road or track is likely to be but if it's that bumpy then maybe you need an off-road vehicle
instead...
Hope this helps,
Craig.
I've posted in Chassis forum. How the hell did you move yours Craig?
P.s. It was before I read this. How spooky........
:edit:
It would take a very experienced driver to make any significant differences to lap times with a well set up dedion car versus a well set up IRS.
I personally favour dedion (but I have a car with it, so I would......
), but it suits my car and what I want from it. I personally think dedion is
the best way to get A LOT of power to the road. With a good, well designed beam, traction is truly amazing. But IRS is very good on bumpy surfaces,
especially around corners (it's surprising how bumpy some race tracks are at high speed....), not that there is a problem with dedion, but a tidy
IRS probably has the edge. As for weight, live axle is your best bet. Good handling can be got from these as well.....
Hurrah, I did it!
Thanks Craig....
[Edited on 25/8/03 by Stu16v]
Cut and paste in this topic, delete the old one?
Some interesting remarks from Clive Roberts of Caterham on why they went with DD:
http://7faq.com/owbase/ow.asp?deDionOrIRS
This backs up remarks by Craig and Stu (assuming Stu's post survives the move ).
Pete
Thanks for your opinions! Special thanks to Pbura - great link.
Ted
PS: Sorry for posting it in many forums
just wanted more replys/opinions
quote:
Cut and paste in this topic, delete the old one?
) computer, or the 'system' wouldnt let me do it. I guess it's my computer then....
Stu,
Go to your old post, press the edit post button and then click in the box with the post in it. Press Ctrl-A to select all and then Ctrl-C for copy.
Then just tick the delete post button at the bottom and click the edit post button at the bottom of the form.
Now go straight to the other forum and create a new reply, click in the text box and press Ctrl-P to paste the text in. Now just post the reply.
Simple...
Cheers,
Craig.
Hi All,
Just found a good answer to this little discussion:
that was quoting the racing
driver Phil Hill. Phil was driving a factory GTO. He was asked about
the "old fashioned" 5-link, solid axle rear suspension under the very
successful GTO, including some less than wonderfully smooth courses
like Mille Mille (I know that is not the correct spelling). I remember
his answer was something like: "A truly excellent independent
suspension can be better than the best a solid axle can be. But the
solid axle 5-link suspension is much easier to tune to a very high
state of excellence, and a very good solid axle is better than a
mediocre independent any day."
Cheers
Ted
Yep, I agree with that 100% and is one of the deciding factors why I went with De-dion. Maybe for future builds (gulp!) when possibly I know what
I'm doing, I may build an IRS chassis but more likely I'll just buy a good IRS design and build from there. Now that I've (almost)
built a chassis from the ground up I don't see the point in doing it again.
Cheers,
Craig.
I started looking at the de Dion because my donor car is IRS and I wanted to (A) use my parts, and (B) keep the design work simple.
If I had a donor with a solid axle, I would use that, but I'll be happy to have a de Dion because of the low unsprung weight and good camber
control.
A couple of good links for seeing how a de Dion is constructed:
http://au.geocities.com/phil1rowe4/rear.html
http://www.newtier.com/graber/mid-engine/Images/Rear_Drive_Cradle/index.html
Best of luck,
Pete
quote:
Originally posted by pbura
Some interesting remarks from Clive Roberts of Caterham on why they went with DD:
http://7faq.com/owbase/ow.asp?deDionOrIRS
quote:
from the link above
Neither Reg Price nor I felt that we had the knowledge or resources to design and develop a really good IRS system, considering the stages of concept, design, development and validation (including durability testing). In the early 80's, without today's PCs and modelling software, it needed either a vast amount of experience to lay down the right geometry from scratch, or a lot of time (and money) to get there by trial and error testing. ....
We didn't feel confident of getting it all right with little time or money, so went for the system that gave us a head start.
...
Pete
Astonishing!...
So how did some of us designed IRS's back in the 70ies without any PC's at all? (by hand and sliding rule of course).
A DeDion axle is either a well thought option or a mistake; a live axle is much simpler an IRS is much better (the thesis of dD wheel perpendicularity is crap...).
I still can not see the complexity of IRS; it's a mere 2 wishbone setup with a different upright/hub carrier. Is this much more complex than making a huge tube that holds hub carriers together?
I guess I'm being provocative, sorry.
Cheers
Joćo Matoso
Stu16v - 30/8/03 at 10:34 PMNothing wrong with being provocative...it promotes discussion.
The design/building and subsequent setting up of IRS is more compicated than a live axle system.
With a live axle, all you have to do is make/fit parallel trailing arms, and a panhard rod that is parallel when the car is at the desired ride height. Subject to the right spring/shocker choice, you will have something that is pretty much guarenteed to work, and work quite well too.
The dedion is merely exploiting the benefits of the live axle, whilst losing some of the downfalls, i.e. unsprung weight (the biggie) and the ability to play with the wheel geometry (even if it is only in the manufacturing stage).
With double wishbone IRS there is so many variables that it is possible to end up with a strange handling car if the wrong choices are made. All of a sudden the designer has an real influence on how the suspension is going to perform, which can be good or bad.
I was originally planning to convert my Westy from live axle to IRS, but I am so impressed with the dedion on my Locost that it looks like my other toy will be going the same way.
JoelP - 30/8/03 at 10:52 PMIf i were to start again i'd do it dD, does seem easier to put together than IRS.
jcduroc - 30/8/03 at 10:54 PMSure it is
quote:
Originally posted by Stu16v
The design/building and subsequent setting up of IRS is more complicated than a live axle system.
With a live axle, all you have to do is make/fit parallel trailing arms, and a panhard rod that is parallel when the car is at the desired ride height. Subject to the right spring/shocker choice, you will have something that is pretty much guarenteed to work, and work quite well too.
The dedion is merely exploiting the benefits of the live axle, whilst losing some of the downfalls, i.e. unsprung weight (the biggie) and the ability to play with the wheel geometry (even if it is only in the manufacturing stage).
I completely agree with you. But that is (at leasa as far as I am concerned) the beauty of the DIY car building...
quote:
Originally posted by Stu16v
With double wishbone IRS there is so many variables that it is possible to end up with a strange handling car if the wrong choices are made. All of a sudden the designer has an real influence on how the suspension is going to perform, which can be good or bad.
Cheers
Joćo Matoso
pbura - 31/8/03 at 12:11 AMquote:
the thesis of dD wheel perpendicularity is crap...
Not sure I understand your meaning here, Joćo. Do you mean that the wheels are not perpendicular to the road? Or that it doesn't matter? Would appreciate your explaining your reasoning.
With computers and CAD, designing an IRS is not as difficult as it used to be, even for the home builder. Whether to do so or not boils down to what your priories are, how much you care to spend, and what you're willing to screw around with. You pay your money and you take your chances
I would also agree that a new car manufacturer would have to be nuts to design a de Dion for mass production. Expensive parts being used for a humble purpose...a little more Locost magic!
Pete
[Edited on 31/8/03 by pbura]
leto - 31/8/03 at 06:19 AMquote:
Originally posted by pbura
.............
I would also agree that a new car manufacturer would have to be nuts to design a de Dion for mass production. Expensive parts being used for a humble purpose...a little more Locost magic there!
Pete
Speking of humble purpose...
At least some Volvo 340/360 have a deDion. Unfortunately the gearbox is built into the diff and to big to fit in a locos.
Cheers Leif
craig1410 - 31/8/03 at 10:33 AMYes IRS is the mass produced way to go but in Locost building we have a different set of problems and the lightness of the chassis makes unsprung weight much more of an issue than it would normally be on a 1.5 ton family saloon. You should look at unsprung weight in terms of the percentage of total vehicle weight to get a good comparison. 100% unsprung = no suspension which would be very skittish indeed. 0% unsprung is impossible obviously but would be nice if it could be achieved. Basically you need minimum unsprung weight without sacrificing strength in the wheels/hubs/brakes etc.
Live axle is generally lighter overall but has higher "unsprung" weight than de-dion. IRS is generally the heaviest overall but should have slightly lower unsprung weight again than de-dion.
Probably the biggest reason I can see for going the de-dion route is the lack of live axle donor's available today compared with 5 or 10 years ago and the fact that ratios and LSD options are more limited. In another 10 years the Sierra will be thin on the ground too as a donor so another "Locost" solution will probably be required. For today though, you can use a Sierra diff, shafts and hubs with a de-dion axle and still enjoy the simplicity, quick build time and ease of setup of a 5 link suspension system.
The chances of building an IRS system from scratch and have it perform as good as a bog standard live or de-dion system is virtually nil in my opinion as there are so many parameters which can fundamentally affect handling. This is exactly what you want if you have the experience, knowledge and equipment to set IRS up correctly but for most of us on this forum this is simply not the case.
Anyway, 'nuff said from me.
Cheers,
Craig.
sgraber - 31/8/03 at 03:28 PMI've been reading this thread with interest as my deDion equipped middy is within weeks of driving under it's own power.
I made the decision to go with deDion over IRS almost 2 years ago because of the 'idiot-proof-ness' (is that a word?!) in designing one. I read Phil Hills quote at that time and I was sold.
It's important for first timers and newbies to note that vehicle suspensions have to be designed as a'System'. The front is not seperate from the rear as far as vehicle dynamics is concerned. If you make a fantastic front design but screw up the rear with too low of an RC and something that squats terribly under acceleration, then your car as a whole will be an ill handling pig and you will hate it.,.
That said - If you decide that you have the skills and determination to build an IRS then an IRS design that I think looks very simple to adapt to a Lowcost chassis' is Alan B's Meerkat IRS. Standard trailing arms (using rose joints) and 3 more links on each side. For you front engine builders look at the attached image, remove the engine from your minds put a differential in it's place and just imagine the rear of the diff structure being beefed up to attach the brackets. and the inboard links getting located further forward, where the rear of your differential would be.
(edited later...) Alan - I hope you don't mind that I posted this image. I realize that I should have asked for your permission, since it is your intellectual property. My apologies if this upset you...
[Edited on 8/31/03 by sgraber]
craig1410 - 31/8/03 at 07:23 PMNeat design, certainly very different from anything else I've seen. I guess the unconventional arrangement of the "wishbones" is to increase the space available in the engine bay. I wonder whether the design is as effective as a conventional IRS design with double wishbones? I expect the geometry will take a bit of studying to figure out what to adjust to get the desired results.
Cheers,
Craig.
Alan B - 1/9/03 at 01:19 AMCraig:
Thanks.
I'll let everyone know how it works in due course..
Steve:
No problem. It's already on my site
anyway.
More finished picture.....
Alan B - 1/9/03 at 01:23 AManother view:
jcduroc - 1/9/03 at 03:53 PMquote:
Originally posted by pbura
quote:
the thesis of dD wheel perpendicularity is crap...
Not sure I understand your meaning here, Joćo. Do you mean that the wheels are not perpendicular to the road? Or that it doesn't matter? Would appreciate your explaining your reasoning.
[Edited on 31/8/03 by pbura]
Hi Pete
Sorry for the delay in answering but yesterday was a very busy Sunday being my eldest grandaughter's 4th anniversary.
I guess I must clarify my statement. In normal (smooth) circunstances a dD axle keeps the wheels perpendicular to the ground but that is not allways (seldom?) the case. Any irregularity in the road (bump) afects both axle wheels equally as will a very stiff front axle compared to the rear one, especially if the chassis is not very very torsionally rigid.
With an IRS you have more freedom to preview all those situations and hopefully care for them; the problem is, as you stated, the complexity involved. An IRS also gives less unsprung weight than dD which, I agree, has less unsprung weight than a pure live axle as at least it sprungs the diff.
As to being simpler or not I cann't make a statement as I've never built a dD but I did IRS's.
As in almost everything it is open to discussion: technically or just a matter of taste. Otherwise all the Locosts would be yellow!...
Cheers
Joćo Matoso
Noodle - 1/9/03 at 07:05 PMquote:
In normal (smooth) circunstances a dD axle keeps the wheels perpendicular to the ground
A de-dion axle keeps the wheels at a fixed camber to the ground under normal circumstances. You can set your axle to be anything you like at normal ride-height.
Cheers,
Mr. Pedant.
jcduroc - 1/9/03 at 08:23 PMquote:
Originally posted by Noodle
quote:
In normal (smooth) circunstances a dD axle keeps the wheels perpendicular to the ground
A de-dion axle keeps the wheels at a fixed camber to the ground under normal circumstances. You can set your axle to be anything you like at normal ride-height.
Isn't that what I said? OK. You can make it with some camber angle; I referred to 0ŗ camber.
This doesn't change my statement which is: "a dD axle doesn't change camber (relative to the tube being paralell to the ground, if it isn't that's another story)"
Joćo
pbura - 1/9/03 at 09:14 PMquote:Well, yes, Joćo, for bumpy road conditions, IRS would be preferable.
In normal (smooth) circunstances a dD axle keeps the wheels perpendicular to the ground but that is not allways (seldom?) the case. Any irregularity in the road (bump) afects both axle wheels equally as will a very stiff front axle compared to the rear one, especially if the chassis is not very very torsionally rigid.
With an IRS you have more freedom to preview all those situations and hopefully care for them; the problem is, as you stated, the complexity involved. An IRS also gives less unsprung weight than dD which, I agree, has less unsprung weight than a pure live axle as at least it sprungs the diff.
As to being simpler or not I cann't make a statement as I've never built a dD but I did IRS's.
As in almost everything it is open to discussion: technically or just a matter of taste. Otherwise all the Locosts would be yellow!...
Agreed with your last paragraph, too!
craig1410 - 1/9/03 at 09:42 PMMy view on all this, for what it is worth, is that I am preparing my car to perform optimally on the track for the occasional track day and hence bumps should be less of a problem. Even on main roads, where the maximum potential of the car should not really be explored, bumps should not be a major problem. In any event, a car with only 2 inches of suspension travel and 4 or 5 inches of ground clearance should be considered a car for smooth conditions and therefore should be designed to handle smooth conditions, not bumpy conditions.
Cheers,
Craig.
jcduroc - 1/9/03 at 10:03 PMquote:
Originally posted by craig1410
My view on all this, for what it is worth, is that I am preparing my car to perform optimally on the track for the occasional track day and hence bumps should be less of a problem. Even on main roads, where the maximum potential of the car should not really be explored, bumps should not be a major problem. In any event, a car with only 2 inches of suspension travel and 4 or 5 inches of ground clearance should be considered a car for smooth conditions and therefore should be designed to handle smooth conditions, not bumpy conditions.
Cheers,
Craig.
Craig, I can only agree with you.
The fact is that I have to keep in mind the framework of my project (as in any project) and, believe me, we have (in Portugal) some very "bumpy" national roads and my Locost's susp has to be prepared to deal with this situation.
I guess that if/when I go to a track day I may adjust my susps stiffness (springs, arb's and shocks) accordingly.
Cheers
Joćo
Tudor (Ted) Miron - 2/9/03 at 08:26 AMHi Craig and All,
I must say that when tolking about bumps I didn't mean public roads - I meant race tracks. Guys who have race track expireance will agree on how bumpey race track could be at speed.
Main disadvantage - IMHO- is dedion tends to snap camber changes. Imagine going through fast chicane and attaking FIA curb - you hit it with uladen wheel which is OK with IRS - it's not doing much anyway. Very different story with live axsel/dedion - you get instantenious camber change on laden wheel. Just what racing tire likes list - rapid changes. Assuming you're on the very limit this leads to very unpleasent events. In reality you'll just have to take that chikane slower, attaking that curb less and losing ground.
Just my 2 roubles
Ted
PS: sorry for my English
[Edited on 2/9/03 by Tudor (Ted) Miron]
craig1410 - 2/9/03 at 11:54 AMTed,
Yes that's a fair point but again I would say that unless the kerbs were very low then you shouldn't be hitting them anyway on a car with so little suspension travel, and in this case the camber angle won't change much anyway. The beauty of de-dion compared with Live axle is that you can build the system with negative camber and a bit of toe-in so that you can tolerate a bit of positive camber change without getting unrecoverable breakaway of the backend mid corner.
As for tracks, yes I am aware (from experience) that these can be bumpy but in my experience the sort of bumps that I have seen tend to be across the entire track surface and thus would be handled by de-dion fine.
Remember my original argument was that most people who are building a Locost car won't have the equipment or experience to set up a home built IRS system properly and would be better with live or de-dion. You may well find that a typical de-dion equiped car would corner faster than the poorly setup IRS car WITHOUT even touching the kerbs...
Anyway, I appreciate your comments and respect your opinion. I should find out in 12 months or so whether you are correct...
Cheers,
Craig.
stephen_gusterson - 2/9/03 at 01:12 PMI can agree with the IRS is hard to set up argument.
I will likely have my car set up professionally at a 4 wheel alignment centre once its passed sva.
Trying to improvise at home, setting up camber, castor and toe isnt at all accurate or easy!
atb
steve
craig1410 - 2/9/03 at 07:36 PMSteve,
Yes a professional alignment is fully justified but what settings do you go for? Do you set it up as per a westfield or a caterham or just guess? To me the infinite variables created by the process of building a Locost mean that each car will require different settings to get it close to optimum. My car will have a V8 and thus be a bit nose heavy compared to a 1.3 x-flow car so I will need stiffer springs at the front for example. I'm sure that optimum geometry will also be affected by things like engine choice.
Don't get me wrong, you are much much better to get a professional alignment done and set it to sensible settings such as rear toe-in intead of toe-out and a bit of negative camber, not positive etc etc
You can then experiment from a known stable configuration to get the handling you want.
It'll be interesting when we all get our cars on the track to see what ACTUAL differences all these variables and different suspension systems make...
Cheers,
Craig.
jcduroc - 17/9/03 at 10:22 PMquote:
Originally posted by craig1410
My car will have a V8 and thus be a bit nose heavy compared to a 1.3 x-flow car so I will need stiffer springs at the front for example. I'm sure that optimum geometry will also be affected by things like engine choice.
Cheers,
Craig.
Craig
I think you're talking of two different issues here:
1. Weight (let's rather say Mass, which is more correct) and it's distribution dictate your springs & shocks (and anti-roll bars) and, of course, weight transfer and, therefore, charge on each wheel (dynamics);
2. Suspension geometry is merely kinetics, ie, dictate how your wheels will move in bump & rebound (hence in roll).
What I mean is that you can design your susp geo to gain -3ŗ camber in 100mm bump but if the anti-roll stiffness rates will only allow a maximum of 40 mm outer wheel bump in full roll (let's say 1ŗ30'
Of course susp geom dictates RC height and this is a factor in weight transfer.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
pbura - 18/9/03 at 04:43 AMquote:
Originally posted by jcduroc
Suspension geometry is merely kinetics, ie, dictate how your wheels will move in bump & rebound (hence in roll).
What I mean is that you can design your susp geo to gain -3ŗ camber in 100mm bump but if the anti-roll stiffness rates will only allow a maximum of 40 mm outer wheel bump in full roll (let's say 1ŗ30'
Of course susp geom dictates RC height and this is a factor in weight transfer.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Weight transfer, etc., is a fascinating area, of which I hope to have a fuller understanding before I get to the point of specifying springs and anti-roll bar.
It's possible to predict how much your car will roll in response to lateral Gs, and how much weight will be tranferred via the front and rear suspensions, respectively. Smithees Race Car Technologies in Oz has a weight transfer worksheet on their website that is truly mind-expanding:
http://www.smithees-racetech.com.au/wttransworksheet.html
This site has great information about weight transfer, roll resistance, and roll couple distribution:
http://members.aol.com/sccacuda/cars/1SmthTa.html
One last thought: If you can get your front and rear suspensions to want to roll at the same rates, in terms of degrees of roll per G of lateral acceleration, the chassis does not have to be as stiff!
One thing that would help in dealing with weight transfer issues would be tire charts, showing tractive force at different levels of vertical load. The big-time racers get these.
Track testing is the only way to tune a car's handling. However, it sure would be nice to have 90% of the job done, and to avoid built-in handicaps, with a good initial setup.
If I can be self-disciplined enough, I'd like to weigh all the major pieces going into the car. That way, I'll know how much unsprung weight there is at each end of the car, and have some idea where the mass centroid axis lies (for selecting roll centers).
The other data for these calculations, chiefly weight distribution and Cg location, can be gathered when the car is built up.
Food for thought!
Pete
Stu16v - 18/9/03 at 09:29 AMquote:
One last thought: If you can get your front and rear suspensions to want to roll at the same rates, in terms of degrees of roll per G of lateral acceleration, the chassis does not have to be as stiff!
But most of the info that I have took on board over the years warns against this. A slight difference in RC heights will discourage the car from rolling in the first place, and it gives the designer another opportunity to load axles as required mid corner.
Even more food for thought....
And I still think Dedion is the way forward
pbura - 18/9/03 at 02:14 PMquote:
Originally posted by Stu16v
quote:
One last thought: If you can get your front and rear suspensions to want to roll at the same rates, in terms of degrees of roll per G of lateral acceleration, the chassis does not have to be as stiff!
But most of the info that I have took on board over the years warns against this. A slight difference in RC heights will discourage the car from rolling in the first place, and it gives the designer another opportunity to load axles as required mid corner.
Even more food for thought....
And I still think Dedion is the way forward
No argument here!
This would be a function of Cg height, weight, roll center height, and roll stiffness at each axle (independently). In other words, you could have low roll stiffness at the rear, but if the RC is high, the rear end will still only want to roll 2 degrees for a 1G turn, the same as the front
This really helps make the case for a higher rear RC.
I haven't yet worked out how to do these roll calculations, btw, but hope to by the time I get to the rear axle linkage. I'm thinking of doing a Mumford link, like the Superperformance (http://www.superformance.com/s1_more.asp), because it allows you to put the rear RC where you want it. A Panhard rod may be good enough unless there's a special need to lower the RC some more.
Also, de Dion rules!
Pete
craig1410 - 20/9/03 at 12:21 PMquote:
Originally posted by jcduroc
Craig
I think you're talking of two different issues here:
1. Weight (let's rather say Mass, which is more correct) and it's distribution dictate your springs & shocks (and anti-roll bars) and, of course, weight transfer and, therefore, charge on each wheel (dynamics);
2. Suspension geometry is merely kinetics, ie, dictate how your wheels will move in bump & rebound (hence in roll).
What I mean is that you can design your susp geo to gain -3ŗ camber in 100mm bump but if the anti-roll stiffness rates will only allow a maximum of 40 mm outer wheel bump in full roll (let's say 1ŗ30'
Of course susp geom dictates RC height and this is a factor in weight transfer.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
My view is that you can't really look at anything in isolation as everything is part of the same system. You must of course try to break the system down into smaller and simpler sub-systems to enable incremental improvements to be made and measured. My point in my previous posting was that there are no "correct" suspension settings available for our individual cars unless of course we build accurately to a tried and tested design.
After all there is no point designing your geometry to give you the -3deg camber during suspension bump in your example when your choice of engine has made the car heavier at the nose, raised the front CoG, increased roll and now needs -4 degrees.
All I want to try to achieve is a good solid foundation from which to build and I am confident that using the de-dion system gets me closer, more quickly to that goal than if I had gone the IRS route.
Oh and by the way, in case you are worried, I do know the difference between Weight and Mass
Cheers,
Craig.
jcduroc - 22/9/03 at 11:24 PMquote:
Originally posted by craig1410
Oh and by the way, in case you are worried, I do know the difference between Weight and Mass
Cheers,
Craig.
Craig please do not misunderstand me I did not mean to correct you in any way. It was just a precision for when we are talking about kilos: kg f or Newtons or kg (mass) to avoid confusions.
Excuse me anyway.
Cheers
craig1410 - 23/9/03 at 08:23 PMNo worries, I could see that you were only being precise and not pedantic, I was just kidding hence the two cheeky faces at the end.
It'll take a lot more than that to offend me I'm happy to say
[No that's not a challenge guys!!!]
Cheers,
Craig.
