PDA

View Full Version : 6 stud toyota stub axles for trailer



YarrD
22nd Jul 2009, 05:55 PM
Dear All

Am I kidding myself if I think it is an easy (and cheap) job to convert my 5 stud Ford stub axle, 4 wheel trailer to 6 stud toyota stubs so that I can use the same wheels as my Hilux?

Fossil
23rd Jul 2009, 12:44 PM
I did the same thing with my off road trailer, so I could fit 16" Toyota split rims. Best thing I ever did to that trailer. I got the hubs from my local trailer fabricator guy as second hand units for $10.00 each. They fit straight on Ford stub axles/bearings

YarrD
23rd Jul 2009, 10:23 PM
brilliant, thanks. I am off to see the wrecker/trailer man now

Burnsy
23rd Jul 2009, 10:25 PM
brilliant, thanks. I am off to see the wrecker/trailer man now

gee your trailer man is open late:oo:

soundman
23rd Jul 2009, 11:27 PM
you do need to be aware that you have to derate your axles if you go over 14" wheels.

cheers

echnidna
24th Jul 2009, 12:05 AM
can you explin that soundman?

SurfinNev
24th Jul 2009, 01:13 AM
This should explain derating.

http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=79721

Nev

Fossil
24th Jul 2009, 11:42 AM
you do need to be aware that you have to derate your axles if you go over 14" wheels.

cheers



I haven't found that to be an issue at all. I think the ford bearings are beefier than the holden bearings anyway.

I have a rubber suspension axle setup on mine. The type that is used in some horse floats. I don't like springs and shackles hanging down in an off road trailer.
I have had my trailer loaded up several times with a pallets of dry press common bricks, and it didn't hasn't missed a beat.

I am in the process of slightly modifying and repainting my trailer at the moment.
The wheels are off, and the stub axles and bearings are all as good as new.
I pack the bearings with the best grease available, which I think is the key to longevity.

Just my opinion though.

soundman
24th Jul 2009, 02:10 PM
Axle load ratings are calculated on the basis of a certain size wheel.

generaly all wheels below 14" are considered the same, above 14" the actual wheel diameter gets considerably bigger and thus the possible bending forces ( side thrust forces) on the axle stub.

for the most part the axle strength is determined by the strength of the smallest parts of the axle stub... which is determined by the inside diameter of the bearings used.

and yes ford bearings are much stronger than holden bearings

the maximum strength of a holden bearing axle is 1 tonne on 14" rims........but many consider that to be generous.

Ford bearing axles are genearly considered capable of 1.5 tonnes....... but many will limit them to 1.2 tonnes on 14" rims.

both should be derated when using larger wheels.

cheers

Fossil
24th Jul 2009, 02:24 PM
:rolleyes:As long as you have decent axles as well, it seems that Ford bearings are rated for considerably more weight than 1.2 tonnes on 14" rims.

The attached table link shows a tyre diameter of 790mm (diam on my trailer) with a 50mm axle having a load capacity of 1.8tonnes.
http://www.campertrailers.org/axles_bearings.htm
This seems plenty when considering tyres will probably be the week link in a setup as indicated above.
My tyres (7.5 x 16 LT) can carry a maxcimum load of 1160kg at 65 psi at 95kmh.

As I mentioned above.... I have loaded her up without any problems. I had it loaded in 2007, with 700kg of crap, and drove it up and down Frazer Island without incident. Hell of a lot of stress plowing through soft sand, and no problems except for ripping the jockey wheel off.

Fossil
24th Jul 2009, 03:08 PM
Just found this info which states that the max axle load is 1500kg for 14" wheels, and to drop that to 1250kg for 16" wheels. Goes along way to support what soundman is saying.

FYI

Fossil

http://www.alltrailerspares.com.au/uploadimages/Information%20Sheets%20For%20The%20Web%20Site.pdf

soundman
24th Jul 2009, 09:49 PM
remember that the bearings them selves will probably stand much higher loads as will the wheels.

the limitation is the mild steel axle and the thinnest part of that axle.

also the permisable vertical may also be much greater but the transverse loading also has to be considered.......if used for off road applications that increased transverse loading has to be considered.

the tyres were mentioned....if those are pasenger tyres, it will be on thing, but light truck tyres will carry a great deal more.

so it all come down to the axle being the weakest point......probably followed by the wheel studs.... because all of the standard trailer hube rely on the wheel studs to carry the load, where many of the vehicles on the road carry the main load on the hub centre its self.

cheers

Yonnee
24th Jul 2009, 11:38 PM
the limitation is the mild steel axle and the thinnest part of that axle.


Not exactly mild steel...



generaly all wheels below 14" are considered the same, above 14" the actual wheel diameter gets considerably bigger and thus the possible bending forces ( side thrust forces) on the axle stub.

Generally "passenger" car wheel & tyre combinations are considered the same whether they're 14", 15-16-17".

soundman
25th Jul 2009, 11:36 PM
Well put it this way, the steel in the axles supplied for trailer fabrication is soft enough to be machined, and as far as i know is not high tensile and those I have seen show no signs of post machining heat treatment... so even if it isn't true mild steel it will be a low order steel product.


as for the wheel sizes
the documentation provided by several of the trailer parts suppliers most certainly specify clearly that the axle ratings are different for different wheel size groups.

follow the link already posted at all trailer spares for details.

cheers

Yonnee
26th Jul 2009, 12:02 PM
OK, see the words "Trailer Bloke" next to my Avatar... and the bit in my signature about "Trailer specialist"...

Seeing as I worked in the Trailer & Caravan industry for nearly 10 years, and most of them were with the two biggest axle manufacturers and undercarriage parts suppliers in the country, I think I know a little of what I'm talking about without having to read about it on a web page!!

If you read the company profile for All Trailer Spares, you'll see it states "The business is primarily a wholesaling warehouse for trailer spare parts, and offering advice...", which means they are not the "be all and end all" of the trailer industry, and are just repeating what most of the people in that industry already know, and they are even using other companies photos and diagrams taken from AL-KO International's and Industrial Spring Engineer's parts books.


Well put it this way, the steel in the axles supplied for trailer fabrication is soft enough to be machined, and as far as i know is not high tensile and those I have seen show no signs of post machining heat treatment... so even if it isn't true mild steel it will be a low order steel product.
Let's put it this way, the bar stock used for trailer axle manufacture is either SAE 1038 or SAE 1045 Medium Carbon steel, commonly used in the manufacture of a range of automotive components such as Con rods, and steering and suspension components. This SAE range of steel can be quench hardened for even greater strength, but not cost effectively for the Trailer & Caravan industry.


the maximum strength of a holden bearing axle is 1 tonne on 14" rims........but many consider that to be generous.

Ford bearing axles are genearly considered capable of 1.5 tonnes....... but many will limit them to 1.2 tonnes on 14" rims.

Who's this "many" you refer to? Not something I've come accross in the trailer & caravan industry, and certainly not something that AL-KO and Melbourne Trailers care to state about their axles.


as for the wheel sizes
the documentation provided by several of the trailer parts suppliers most certainly specify clearly that the axle ratings are different for different wheel size groups.
This "documentation" is unchanged from a time when passenger car wheels were 13" or 14", and Off Road vehicles had 15" or 16" wheels with big heavy tyres. Now with the increasing variety of passenger car wheels and tyres ranging from 14" to 24", the generalisation that all rim sizes larger than 14" will derate a trailer axle is simply not true! It is the extra unsprung weight of a heavy off road tyre that derates its rated carrying capacity!!

.RC.
26th Jul 2009, 04:35 PM
I would have thought the landcruiser/patrol 6 stud hubs would be made with a lot heavier stub axle then a holden or ford 5 stud hub...Seeing the 7.50X16 tyres are rated to carry a lot more..

Yonnee
26th Jul 2009, 07:43 PM
I would have thought the landcruiser/patrol 6 stud hubs would be made with a lot heavier stub axle then a holden or ford 5 stud hub...Seeing the 7.50X16 tyres are rated to carry a lot more..

They can. With the 6 stud pattern, you can have axles made that have a rated capacity of 2000Kg and 3000Kg per axle. But the bearings are so much more expensive, as is the additional sized axle and heavier hubs. To give you an idea on price, a 2000Kg rated unbraked axle is 130% dearer than its 1450Kg counterpart, and the 3000Kg is 30% dearer again.

The thing with the Holden/Ford bearing'd axles and hubs is that the outer diameter of the bearing cups is the same for both, so the one set of hubs can be drilled to most stud patterns made, and then you fit either the Holden bearings, or the Ford bearings, or a combination of both (called Composite, it has a Holden inner, and a Ford outer, and is rated at around the 1250Kg mark), depending on what axle size you're running. So if you just want to match your 6 stud wheels from your 4WD tow vehicle to your current trailer axle, then all you need is a pair of hubs and new bearings and seals(assuming you've checked all the clearances to chassis and guards). You just have to bear in mind that your carrying capacity will be reduced. If you then want to carry more weight, then you have to up the axle size, and make sure the rest of the trailer is up to the task, such as the integrity of the chassis and drawbar, the springs, coupling, etc., etc.

.RC.
26th Jul 2009, 07:57 PM
They can. With the 6 stud pattern, you can have axles made that have a rated capacity of 2000Kg and 3000Kg per axle. But the bearings are so much more expensive, as is the additional sized axle and heavier hubs. To give you an idea on price, a 2000Kg rated unbraked axle is 130% dearer than its 1450Kg counterpart, and the 3000Kg is 30% dearer again.



Probably be cheaper to buy some front wheel hubs from a wrecked patrol/landcruiser and turn up some spindles to suit....Spindles are pretty easy to make...I have made a few over the years...

Yonnee
26th Jul 2009, 08:13 PM
If that's your cup of tea, by all means, go ahead. You wouldn't be the first. Particularly due to the fact that you can carry one set of spare bearings for both your tow vehicle and trailer. BUT... some registering authorities are requiring that you prove what carrying capacity your axle is, more so if you ever have an accident with the trailer where the axle breaks.

soundman
26th Jul 2009, 10:15 PM
Lets face it the trailer industry is singularly price fixated. certain suppliers and manufacturers especilay, and one would not consider the trailer industry to be the pinicle of engineering sofistication.

AND

various engineers will make different engineering calls and judgements particularly when it comes to safety factors.

personaly I am unimpressed by ALCO's offerings & I'll leave that there.

The engineers at ATS have obvioulsy made (with public and products liability considerations in mind) certain recomendations, which if one were building using their components one would be wise to follow.

they have chosen to make certain recomendations, derating some of their axles with increased wheel size is one of their engineering calls.
They plainly publish a document detailing those recomendations and the reasons why.

they are not alone
if you go to www. vehiclecomponents.com and download their catalogue... on page 9, there is a detailed reference page concerning axles and hubs.

there is a tabulation of recommended loadings for axles of various sizes with various bearing arrangements.....all of those arrangements bear maximum wheel size specifications.....some of those wheel sizes specify different loadings for different wheel sizes.

The load ratings of the "Knott" branded axles are in some cases higher than those quoted by ATS and ALCO for their product. This difference is possibly a reflection of the difference in materials and engineering, and very likley qulaity control.

the vehicle components axle page is an education and shows where the limitations of the various axle / bearing combinations lie

with the holden bearing it is definitely the axle stub, with the ford tapered bearing the limitation given a sufficient axle is the bearing, with the ford parallel bearing it is the spindle but only just........but this applies to their product.

Other manufacturers may use different quality steel or whatever. But the specs are what the specs are, and I am more likley to believe the one that gives a considered engineering explanation or a solid amount of engineering data.

cheers

chips63
26th Jul 2009, 10:47 PM
I have just done a complete refurb on my trailer including, white wheels/tyres,new axle/hubs,bike tracks etc........and found these guy's to be very competitive even with freight costs to Newcastle

www.marshall-eng.com.au

.RC.
26th Jul 2009, 11:28 PM
If that's your cup of tea, by all means, go ahead. You wouldn't be the first. Particularly due to the fact that you can carry one set of spare bearings for both your tow vehicle and trailer. BUT... some registering authorities are requiring that you prove what carrying capacity your axle is, more so if you ever have an accident with the trailer where the axle breaks.

The ones I made were for an unregistered trailer...

.RC.
26th Jul 2009, 11:31 PM
they are not alone
if you go to www. vehiclecomponents.com and download their catalogue... on page 9, there is a detailed reference page concerning axles and hubs.



try this link http://www.vehiclecomponents.com.au/content/contentdetails.asp

YarrD
27th Jul 2009, 08:49 AM
oh, thanks. What does this mean?

Yonnee
27th Jul 2009, 09:34 PM
Lets face it the trailer industry is singularly price fixated. certain suppliers and manufacturers especilay, and one would not consider the trailer industry to be the pinicle of engineering sofistication.

AND

various engineers will make different engineering calls and judgements particularly when it comes to safety factors.

personaly I am unimpressed by ALCO's offerings & I'll leave that there.

The engineers at ATS have obvioulsy made (with public and products liability considerations in mind) certain recomendations, which if one were building using their components one would be wise to follow.

they have chosen to make certain recomendations, derating some of their axles with increased wheel size is one of their engineering calls.
They plainly publish a document detailing those recomendations and the reasons why.

they are not alone
if you go to www. vehiclecomponents.com and download their catalogue... on page 9, there is a detailed reference page concerning axles and hubs.

there is a tabulation of recommended loadings for axles of various sizes with various bearing arrangements.....all of those arrangements bear maximum wheel size specifications.....some of those wheel sizes specify different loadings for different wheel sizes.

The load ratings of the "Knott" branded axles are in some cases higher than those quoted by ATS and ALCO for their product. This difference is possibly a reflection of the difference in materials and engineering, and very likley qulaity control.

the vehicle components axle page is an education and shows where the limitations of the various axle / bearing combinations lie

with the holden bearing it is definitely the axle stub, with the ford tapered bearing the limitation given a sufficient axle is the bearing, with the ford parallel bearing it is the spindle but only just........but this applies to their product.

Other manufacturers may use different quality steel or whatever. But the specs are what the specs are, and I am more likley to believe the one that gives a considered engineering explanation or a solid amount of engineering data.

cheers
:banghead: *** post deleted, due to the fact that some of the things I wanted to say here would get me banned. Some people should stick to their area of expertise, instead of quoting website links to things they know little about, but seem to have an opinion! The problem arises when the people who are asking the question get conflicting information from those that have an opinion, and those whose field of expertise this is. *** :banghead:

Yonnee
27th Jul 2009, 09:45 PM
oh, thanks. What does this mean?

I means you can swap your 5 stud hubs for 6 stud hubs, and provide everything clears, bolt your Hilux wheels on.

Being a tandem, you'll probably have brakes on one axle, which means you'll need a pair of lazy hubs, and a pair of drum to suit the brakes you've got.



The ones I made were for an unregistered trailer...

:2tsup:

aussietrueblue
4th Aug 2009, 07:32 PM
I would like to mention here has anyone considered the offset of the rims you are about to change?

soundman
4th Aug 2009, 09:53 PM
:banghead: *** post deleted, due to the fact that some of the things I wanted to say here would get me banned. Some people should stick to their area of expertise, instead of quoting website links to things they know little about, but seem to have an opinion! The problem arises when the people who are asking the question get conflicting information from those that have an opinion, and those whose field of expertise this is. *** :banghead:

With all due respect.......One thing I have learned is .....you have absolutely no idea of the background or competencies of people posting on forums particularly this one.

If you are unable to post FACTS backed by manufacturers specifications and application information... you should pull your head in.......I have simply posted FACTS quoted from documents published by manufacturers as one would when doing any serious research or arguing any engineering or legal point.

If it came to a court case concerning a component failure the only leg you have to stand on is manufacturers specifications.....

if one reads the information from several suppliers and finds differeing opinions concering similar products.....one has to consider reasons, not throw ones hands in the air in a huff.

The fact remains that more than one manufacturer publishes a considered engineering opinion.....and that opinion considers wheel size in calculating axle ratings.

Unless one is a structrual engineer with specific knowelegde on the materials and processes a specific manufacturer uses and specific industry knowleldge of the applications..........one should consider the published engineering opinions superiour to ones general knowelegde or anecdotal experience.

As we may have all found, common industry practice is often not best practice.

There is no way in the world I with tell someone that they could stick larger wheels on an axle without proper engineering consideration.......not even with $6 000 000 public and products liability to back me up.

We have no idea of the brand or quality of the components in question.......in the absence of a superior engineering opinion......we have to consider the worst published case......which as I see it is ATS, and they state that an axle machined for holden bearings should be derated if it is fitted with wheels larger than 14" rims..... so they are rating their holden bearing axles at a maximum of 1 tonne with 14" or less rims, if the rims are larger they clearly state that that should be 750Kg.





Now onto the matter of rim offset.

Now because I have not seen rim offset mentioned and a load consideration.....and the load vector, the bearing outline and the rim in all cases I have seen will fall well within the footprint of the tyre.......I think it is probably safe to consider it safe that offset has either already considered in the engineering or that it is not significant.

however the HT holden wheel offset has possibly the shortest hub to rear bead backspace commonly available.
Most other wheels will protrude behind the hub considerably more..... particularly toyota.....particularly if the wheels are wider than original.

so if you put you hilux rims on your current holden axle....it is very likley they won't clear..............it would be most wise to check first.

I now this because of my current trailer project.....axle fitted by the manufactuerer sized as per HT holden offsets, hubs fitted for corrona wheels by the manufacturer and they scrubed before the prevoious owner bashed in the sides of the trailer to make them clear.

I got out some rulers and started measuring wheel backspaces and there is quite some difference.
Remember at no time, at any state of travel should tyres contact any part of the trailer structure or bodywork.



so here is my advice

determine the load capacity of the existing axles.....how, your problem.....catalogues as a guide might be valid......stamped on the VIN plate would be real good

check that you have adequate clearance for the proposed hubs......vehicle components have recommendations and a guide.....rulers will tell you the truth.......

determine the axle loadings of your trailer.

In the absence of definite information about the manucfacturer and their specifications, go with the recomendations of ATS as detailed in their link as posted above.

Hmmm......its probably going to be the clearance that will scupper the whole thing.

There are some suppliers that have reduced backspace falcon pattern rims available.

AHH now here is another complication....if your trailer has a VIN plate or specification plate on it......it will specify tyre size and profile and preasure.

So to fit other rims you will have to have it re-engineered and either and alteration plate affixed or a replacement spec plate fitted.

So it is always more complicated than it seems.

cheers

Fossil
5th Aug 2009, 06:08 PM
Remember to take a very deep breath Yonnee (http://www.woodworkforums.com/member.php?u=16103) :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes:

Calm
5th Aug 2009, 06:23 PM
Sometimes you read things on this forum and go :wtf1: or even ::

Yonnee
6th Aug 2009, 06:43 PM
Remember to take a very deep breath Yonnee :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes:

Thank you Fossil...


...in...



...out...



...in...



...out...
:throw:
Nup... didn't work!

soundman
10th Aug 2009, 11:24 AM
Yonnee... you are presumptious in deed. you know little of my background........you make assumptions about my background.......I may have worked in the transport metal working trade, I may have close family with current engineering and transport industry background, I may have close friends who have substantial engineering qualifications and resources that I call upon and discuss such matters as a matter of habit, I may have a very good understanding of engineering principles, I may also have the ability to read a specification and a manufacturers application instructions.

all the above are true.

you will find.. as I warned.. on this board particularly there are a great deal of people who have considerable understanding and experience outside of their declared occupation.

on the one had you espouse an elitist attitude, saying that one should be qualified to give advice... on the other hand you seem to favor your experience over the declared and published specifications of manufacturers.

If you can only sprout your opinion without evidence.. it remains just that an opinion.
I have given my opinion and backed it with evidence from two sources that I would be happy to go to court with......how about you.

So you claim to have specific training and or experience, A great many people claim likewise.......well you are the one claiming to have superiour qualifations....are you a transport engineer, or perhaps a coach and body builder or something equavalent...if not you are no more qualified than I

If your opinion was bassed on reaserach how come you are not aware of the two credible sources that I quoted.

Now those who have been on this board a while will know, I generaly check my facts. And away from here have a reputation for asking hard questions.......many times I have checked what is widely assumed to be fact......by going to the source the manufacturer or regulator have found the truth to be otherwise.

Do not turn you nose up at google.....it is simply an index....and unlike years ago... a great deal of quality engineering data is available on line.......no longer do we have to depend on what we are told......in many cases we can check the facts for ourselves quickly and easily.............note I have only quoted manufactures or wholesalers sources and not unqualified reference sites.

as for the engineering decisions being bassed of rim size norms of the past........I dont see anything has changed......the engineering will be bassed on total wheel and tyre diameter... besides the vast majority of trailers will still be fitted with the same wheel choices of 20 years ago. In particular the Vehicle components specifications are made on total wheel diameter.
A 15 or 16 inch 4wd rim and tire remain considerably heavier and much larger in diameter than a standard 13 or 14 inch pasenger wheel & tire typicaly used on trailers... the engineering considerations remain the same.....the relivence to original post remain the same.

The argument for derating for total wheel diameter remain the same.

I dont know about your state but the tyre size on a vin plate or tyre plackard are more specific than a minimum.....from my understanding any substitute wheel should retain the same total wheel diameter within a certain tolerance.........further wheel tyre substitutions on most self driven vehicles will not be as drastic as proposed here....( i'll check the details with my local inspectors as time allows).......should there be an axle failure and it goes to court......where do you stand.


Now remember it is not I that turned this into a pissing contest.


The real question that we should be asking is.....why is there a varation between manufacturers on their published considered engineering opinion, on axle strength and the wheel size consideration.
We should be questioning why, not arguing over who is right.

Yonnee
10th Aug 2009, 09:30 PM
OK, I'm done.

echnidna
10th Aug 2009, 10:06 PM
Well if I want advice about trailers I'll ask Yonnee coz he is a professional trailer builder.

Why on earth would I want to consult a hi-fi man about building a trailer?

btw if soundman has a friend who is a dentist that doesn't mean soundman is capable of pulling teeth

soundman
10th Aug 2009, 11:25 PM
I keep going back to manufacturers published specifications and application information.

Who are you going to believe......the manufacturer who has to stand by what they publish in court should there be an engineering failure.......... or anybody on an internet chat forum... me included.

we live in an age where litigation and public liability expectations are a given....especialy should an insurance company become involved.

anybody constructing a trailer would be wise to have and keep documentary proof justifying why they made the engineering decisions for that trailer, especilay on such items as running gear, couplings and brakes.

should the worst come to the worst and you have to stand up in court, what are you going to say to defend yourself..........the guy at the trailer shop told me this........this is what some guy told me.......this is what I was taught as an apprentice.........or this is what a company I used to work for did.... or.......These are the brands and models, and I sourced the items from these suppliers and here are the manufacturers specifications and the items were used according to these specifications and the application recomendations.

Anybody had to stand up in court recently.........they don't care how smart you think you are or how much you know..............they don't want to hear your opinion they want proof................and they will say........a prudent person would have done............ .such...........which will be a very conservative outlook.

if you are an engineer, you had better be able to fully justify your engineering...... because you can bet your boots the insurance company opposing you will have plenty of money to spend on a more prominent and more ellequent engineer than you.......

the best you can hope for is to lay the blame for the component failure at the feet of the component supplier.....the only way to do that is documantation supporting your use of those components according to manufacturers specifications.


I used to do some work for an insurance company auctioneer some time ago, and I used to get talking to the mechanic who ran the impound.........they had a horse float that was held as evidence in a matter of a disputed claim.....seems there was a problem with the coupling not being right.........they held this float for many years.......because that is how long the dispute went on...........and we are talking the possible refusal of the total claim.
The trailer, the towing vehicle, livestock and anybody and anything involved.........the owner could have been potentialy ruined, having to bear all liabilities of the accident and all court costs.



remember this is the internet.... I do not depend a single thing that is not supported by some form of varified information or that I can otherwise prove myself.

The prudent person uses internet chat boards as a pointer to reliable information and nothing more.

when we undertake to build or modify a trailer, we are buying into a minefield of litigation and possible financial doom........the big trailer manufacturers have a company and public liablity insurance to stand behind.....those of us that build in our own right stand on our own poor and naked before the law......so we would be wise to be exceptionaly carefull.

Now
If anybody has an argument with the referenced manufacturers information I have posted please by all means bring that argument forward, and either bring your engineering justification or your manufacturers technical notes.

If anybody has an argument with recommendations I have made or opinions that I have given, please post your reasons and preferably your reference information you have found.

If however you think you can play the man and not the ball, or simply try and tell me you are smarter than me, or know more than me.....think again.....

This is or at least was a friendly forum, known for its robust but friendly discussion, discussions aimed at improving the understanding of all.

best wishes and cheers to all.

Oh BTW.....if soundmans brother was a dentist, he would probably have a fair idea of the causes of tooth decay, and be perfectly qualified to express opinions concerning dental hygeen and post links to internet sites, from dental experts on dental matters.


cheers

watson
10th Aug 2009, 11:59 PM
Sodomising Flies.
Thread Closed.