GM-VOLT.COM Moderator Participates in Blogger Interview with Nick Zielinski, Chief Vehicle Engineer of the Volt and Gary Smyth, Director Powertrain Systems

35 Responses to “GM-VOLT.COM Moderator Participates in Blogger Interview with Nick Zielinski, Chief Vehicle Engineer of the Volt and Gary Smyth, Director Powertrain Systems”

1. 
   
   

   Steve F Says:
   June 7th, 2007 at 9:06 pm

   Thanks for sharing this information. I know there are many people that do not believe GM is really going to build and delivery the Volt, but for myself I believe. I can see there is a big difference in attribute within GM compared to the delivery of the EV1. We are leaving in a different world.  
   
   (Quote)

2. 
   
   

   Jack the R Says:
   June 7th, 2007 at 10:11 pm

   Design – What works with the Volt’s styling is the Camaro-like proportioning. I’m not sold on the detail work. The grill and lights are too tame (and the lights are too small. The character line in the middle of the door is unnecessary and clutters things up.

   I like that it’s not a Prius, but there’s loads of room for improvement.

   Battery packs – Non-swappable? How do you make a non-swappable battery pack? If GM doesn’t offer it, the aftermarket will figure it out. It can’t be harder than putting a V8 in a Solstice.

   Solar – Again, if GM doesn’t want to offer it, the aftermarket will and maybe Toyota will too. Remember how it was the aftermarket and early adopters who got the whole PHEV ball rolling? We’ll see which of the Big Two learned the lesson best.  
   
   (Quote)

3. 
   
   

   Brian Says:
   June 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pm

   I think by “non-swappable” he meant not quickly swappable, like at a gas station to “refuel.” I’m sure the battery can be replaced if there is a problem with it, or maybe if a better battery becomes available.  
   
   (Quote)

4. 
   
   

   Stan Says:
   June 7th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

   Thanks for conveying your feelings about them. I will trust that they are sincere. I\’ll be interested to learn if they are going to use one or two electric motors. Maybe the working prototype will reveal the mechanicals.  
   
   (Quote)

5. 
   
   

   R. Santos Says:
   June 7th, 2007 at 11:58 pm

   I just do not know about you guys, but I do believe and I do not mind to wait for a car that is GREEN AND GOOD. I agree with Steve F. “WE are living in a different world.” I do believe in the new spirit of GM. I also believe that GM is not just building a car here with the Volt. They are building a legacy. I want to be part of that legacy. I am want to be part of the reVOLTlution.  
   
   (Quote)

6. 
   
   

   Doug Korthof Says:
   June 8th, 2007 at 3:24 am

   1. The three prototypes are pretty pathetic, using it’s said a golf-cart drivetrain. Doesn’t GM have any expertise left? Is this the best they can do?
   What’s keeping GM from making progress?

   2. It’s easy to claim that there are “problems” with the Volt, but knowing now that the EV works, what does GM claim the “problems” are, and, if they are ignorant, what GM needs to do to get schooled in EV technology. Up until now,
   GM has sneered at battery engineers as not real car guys, but as “wire benders”. What’s different now?

   3. What is GM doing about the Battery Management System? It seems now to be relying upon Chevron’s cobasys as system integrator for
   the A123 contract; is this wise? If GM were serious, wouldn’t they want this expertise in-house, where it can be controlled like any
   other business practice? The fact that they are farming it out, like a “black box”, indicates that they just don’t have the expertise, but want to look like they are interested in purchasing it. To use Chevron is really, really bold and egregious. Chutzpah…

   4. Why is GM continuing to sue states wanting higher emission standards, if it is planning the Volt? Why still fighting higher CAFE standards? You know, Toyota fought to stop higher CAFE standards, but went on to make superior mpg cars; it’s almost as if
   Toyota was fighting for GM’s right to commit business suicide by relying only on gas-guzzlers. I know, they will talk about their
   high-mpg cars, but it’s bogus: GM’s center of gravity is in the big iron.

   5. What’s with relying on Chevon’s cobasys unit to team with A123 for one of the first two potential Lithium suppliers, do they really
   expect us to believe that Chevron will put itself out of the oil business? Chevon’s past history with GM seems to indicate otherwise.

   6. GM let out the contract for a potential third Lithium supplier, CP. Doesn’t this look like flopping around, directionless, and make
   it look like GM has no clue when it comes to batteries?

   7. The last time they dealt with Chevron, it was to kill the Nickel batteries developed by Toyota. Why would Chevron now change its
   spots? Has GM? Or are they really just doing the same thing, only now killing Lithium?

   8. What are they doing about marketing? Why not getting lists of the 460,000 people who expressed an interest in the Volt after the
   auto show? Why not contacting EV1 drivers?

   9. Explain why GM isn’t using Nickel or Lead batteries; and we now know that their answers so far have been deceptive or non-responsive.
   –serial hybrid cycling is like an EV, not like Prius, and the batteries scale
   –lead acid would do fine, so would Nickel
   –upgrading is possible, many drivers will start with smaller batteries

   10. Just two years ago, GM crushed the last of the EV1 cars, and arrested two would-be EV1 buyers. GM stated that liability issues
   made it impossible to sell the Electric car then, even though Toyota had sold over 300 RAV4-EV. What’s different now, that eliminates
   the liability issue? No vague pap about “it’s a different world” or “it was a boner” or “the battery is smaller”. The same liability
   issues would exist now, if they existed then; or would GM admit that it lied about the reason for not selling the EV1?

   Well, Mr. Nick, how about it? More mealy-mouthed pap about why it can’t be done?  
   
   (Quote)

7. 
   
   

   Ryan Says:
   June 8th, 2007 at 3:53 am

   Well, I’m one of those “early adopters who got the whole PHEV ball rolling”. First regarding some of the other comments, the numbers on vehicular PV just don’t add up unless you drive an RV, install 12kW or 24kW of PV on you home rather than 0.12kw on your car which can’t work under ideal conditions. The Volt should have a single motor and differential just like the EV1 and other production EV’s, unless they go for all wheel drive or try out hub motors, that’s not really an issue for today, production is.

   As far as “Zielinski noted the enthusiastic response the concept vehicle appearance has gotten” I think the design was the least of the reasons for the concepts overwhelming demand. We Want Something That Plugs In! Anything! Personally having rented and driven the EV1, and being the owner of an Insight and a PHEV Prius the appearance should follow the function of such a vehicle so low air drag should take priority over “bold lines” and whatnot.

   Regarding “battery range is pegged at a 40 mile range, because more range means more batteries, more weight, and thus less performance.” and the “battery hold 16 KWH” comment… That assumes 2.5kWh/mile at 100%DOD, so it’s real electric range will be somewhat less, high 20’s, mid 30 miles? Anyway the point is that with Lithium at about 100Wh/kg it’s a 160kg/350lb battery, 50% more is only 175lbs or one passenger worth, and brings it to “60 miles or range” or an easy 40 real world usable range with a more mild DOD regiment. btw, with 1kW to 2.5kW/kg it sounds more like they want to use the smallest battery possible to meet their peak power requirements, just like has been done with the hybrids, as opposed to it being about the range people desire.

   Then there’s “7. The Plug: The car will come with an adapter to allow it to plug directly into your home 110 V wall outlet.” An “Adapter”?, do they mean a drop cord? Are they going all proprietary on us like the $5000+ Magnecharge (Bad Idea) again, didn’t they learn? What if I want to install a 16kW Manzanita Micro PFC charger for   
   
   (Quote)

8. 
   
   

   Ryan Says:
   June 8th, 2007 at 4:05 am

   2.5kWh/mile

   40 miles and 16kWh is 0.4 kWh/mile or 2.5 miles/kWh, far more realistic… (I was thinking .25m/kWh) Still the argument holds true regarding the minimal weight increase for 60 miles of range and the apparent minimalist approach to battery size.  
   
   (Quote)

9. 
   
   

   Ryan Says:
   June 8th, 2007 at 4:13 am

   humm, got cut off, What no preview? I promise I’m finished after this…

   …”Adapter”… What if I want to install a 16kW Manzanita Micro PFC charger for Chevy Revol(t)ution once it actually begins and not a moment before.  
   
   (Quote)

10. 
    
    

    Ryan Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 4:16 am

    one last time, really…

    …”Adapter”… What if I want to install a 16kW Manzanita Micro PFC charger for sub 1 hour recharging? Be smart like the Toyota RAV4 EV and give us an “easy after market charger connection point”.
    “will come with Adapter”??

    In the end, I’m hopeful with their apparent enthusiasm and parallel design/production schema. I’ll be slightly more convinced when I see an actual prototype and production date, what no scrapped EV1 power trains lying around for the concept car? But I’m not going to buy any of GM’s Green Washed PR Lines until I get to test drive a Volt at my local dealer. Better yet GM, pick one of your many brand lines and make all it’s models PHEV, a compact, mid, full, sport, minivan, SUV, and truck please. I would like to have a choice among PHEV’s, the wife is going to make it tough to get a Volt when we really need a minivan next. Reuse drive and battery components and drive down the production costs in a hurry. I’ll believe the Chevy Revol(t)ution once it actually begins and not a moment before.

    ps/note to webmaster: nobody use a “less than” sign in their text… here’s for learning from experience.  
    
    (Quote)

11. 
    
    

    Ryan Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 4:21 am

    Thank you R. Santos for re-coining the GM slogan, this is exactly what I’ve been thinking in as few words as I can.

    I’ll believe the Chevy Revol(t)ution once it actually begins and not a moment before.  
    
    (Quote)

12. 
    
    

    Tom Moss Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 7:19 am

    Once again again I want to express my enthusiasm for the “Volt.” Please do not think that the manufacturers of the rice burners will take this lying down.It will not take much for them to convert their present autos to plug-ins. We in America have to take control of our own destiny and I only see this as a starter. The less foreign oil we purchase form Saudi Arabi, the less money the terrorists will have to kill Americans.For my sake and the sake of all Americans, PLEASE get this car OUT and into production
    GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!  
    
    (Quote)

13. 
    
    

    Tim Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 9:01 am

    I’m proud of GM and this brilliant team that will bring e-Flex to the world. GMs quality fit & finish has been steadly improving over the last 10 years and I can “feel” a change in the air. I believe that this time, they will fulfill their promises to their faithful customers and show the world that they are still a force in the global economy. Dare to dream, GM! The world is dreaming right along with you.  
    
    (Quote)

14. 
    
    

    nick federspiel Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 9:26 am

    Where is all the power coming from to charge lets say 3 to 10 million VOLTS at 15-20kwh each? – enough VOLTS to make a difference in imported oil and the GDP by 2012-15? I think GREEN cars are “in” but GREEN power is questionable. I call “transporation power” Green-Er-gas and E-gas. reference ADAPT Power Project page on the listed URL. If GM is serious about VOLT (and I hope it is) GM needs to be serious about the “whole market” profile to achieve a EV second effort grand slam. nick  
    
    (Quote)

15. 
    
    

    Dean Anderson Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 10:31 am

    Personally, my request for features of the Volt are:
    1.areodynamic styling
    2.accesibility to battery pack as back up power to my solar generation system which will also provide the recharge.  
    
    (Quote)

16. 
    
    

    Doug Korthof Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am

    The idea of the Volt is superior to the Prius, whether or not GM is honest about making it. Probably, they are not honest, have not stopped trying to kill the EV. But let’s prod them, force them, into actually understanding the concept and maybe someone will produce it. Who knows, maybe even GM.

    One key reason for thinking GM is lying is that they claim the battery for the Volt is much more difficult to do than the Toyota RAV4-EV, or the GM EV1, or the Honda EV-plus, because, GM argues, the Volt battery “cycles vastly more” than an EV battery.

    But the argument that serial hybrids cycle vastly more than regular EVs is false.

    A PARALLEL hybrid’s tiny battery cycles each time you accelerate and brake, because it’s tied to the gas engine and can’t run at highway speed on the battery alone. The battery and motor just provide a tiny boost of help for the gas engine, which is logically prior to the motor, in the bass-ackward Prius.

    But we know that real EVs work; and that’s what a serial hybrid like the VOLT resembles. It starts at 100% full, and drives solely on the battery, until that battery is, say, 10%. Then, and only then, does the gas genset chime in, and only to charge the battery or run the EV directly. That’s ONE deep cycle of the battery, and normally, if the battery size is chosen correctly, that’s ALL you’d do in a normal day. ONE deep cycle.

    GM, in its verbiage, is correct that most driving is done in a radius amounting to a small distance from home, perhaps 40 miles. You choose the battery size for the daily commute. So if the daily commute is 100 miles, put in a battery like the 120-mile-range Toyota all-electric RAV4-EV, many of which are just ticking over 100,000 trouble-free miles. If the daily commute, like most, is only 40 miles, put in a 40-mile battery, or a 60-mile battery for a small margin for doing errands.

    That means, only one cycle per day, usually.

    If you charge up at the destination, perhaps your job (called “convenience charging”, although most charging is done off-peak at night, when electric goes begging for customers) that would be exactly TWO cycles per day.

    Hence, the folks arguing that the Volt “cycles vastly more” really mean they don’t understand that the SERIAL plug-in hybrid runs like an EV, not like a gasoline internal combustion (”IC”) car.

    And for GM to argue that “excessive cycling” is the reason they aren’t producing the Volt until 2010, or 2012, or 2015, or ever, is just false. Blatantly false, and GM should not be allowed to get away with it.

    If there’s something holding back GM from producing the Volt with Lead or Nickel batteries right now, it’s not the cycling issue; it must be something ELSE. That’s what’s worrisome; Nick Z. has not answered the tough questions, he’s only been posed the softball fawning questions.

    The Prius runs like an IC, but the Volt, whether or not it’s produced, runs like an EV.

    The Volt allows you, conceivably, to drive oil-free, but the Prius will always be just a more efficient IC car. All of the Prius energy comes from the GASOLINE PUMP, ultimately.

    The Volt, or any plug-in serial hybrid, allows you to choose a battery size suited for your daily grind, but also use the same vehicle for occasional gasoline trips, although, as one recent story in the Wall Street Journal points out, most families use one car for the daily grind, and a second gas-guzzler for long trips. So, really, the argument that an EV must go 300 miles to be viable is a humbug; but the Volt removes even that objection.

    The Volt restricts the gasoline IC engine just to occasional use, and needs very little IC maintenance.  
    
    (Quote)

17. 
    
    

    Susan K Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    If you can’t do more than 40 miles range between charges, thats fine, at least get it out there. Theres lots of us, (80%) who don’t need more, to get to work and back.

    (Maybe offer a higher priced version with a longer range the way that Tango does.)

    Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just get a middleclass priced EV on the road NOW.

    And quit those ads directed at stupid SUV drivers in California to kill our Clean Car Feebates! The clean car feebates are what will get more drivers in your Volts.

    You need to get everyone on board with the program. Take one side or the other. Distrust is sown by this “both sides of the fence” strategy. One day you join USCAP, the next day you fund some Faux news crapola about climate and hire lawyers to kill the CA mandate.

    This EV is fabulous technology. Go forward. Embrace science: theres more of us. Abandon your ignorant base.  
    
    (Quote)

18. 
    
    

    MattJ Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    My question about the battery would have been something like -

    If the energy density increases in advancing battery technology, will GM use a battery that can get better than the proposed 40 mile range on a charge?

    I think 60-80 miles should be a good target, so that more ‘realistic’ driving would then be able to get a realistic 40 mile range.

    I also wonder about load from peripheral devices, such as climate control and exterior lighting. HID headlights and LEDs everywhere else will likely have to be used to conserve power, but what about the HVAC? We all know creating heat takes a LOT of current, and I’m sure an A/C compressor will suck some juice.

    I’d also like the idea of different levels of battery capacity being available. You pay more for a larger capacity battery. If 20 miles will do you for a day, you pay $X. For the 40 mile battery, you pay more. For a 60 or 80 mile battery, more still.

    Anyway, I’m very happy to see positive comments from GM about this vehicle. If they make it, they will sell MANY of them. I’d welcome some good ol’ AMERICAN ingenuity and initiative. I’d LOVE to have an AMERICAN car company back on top.  
    
    (Quote)

19. 
    
    

    George K Says:
    June 8th, 2007 at 8:41 pm

    Wow! There are a lot of negative Nells out there. If I were on the Volt team, I think that would actually spur me on.

    Regarding the question of a 40 mile range battery, I would suggest a 20 mile battery at first, to get the car out the door earlier. Indeed, there are many people who don’t need a 40 mile electric range, especially if the Volt is their second car. I would certainly buy it if it meant I could get the car a year earlier. The Price may be an issue to some, as well.

    Good luck to the Volt team! Oh and, by the way, hurry!  
    
    (Quote)

20. 
    
    

    chevyvolt Says:
    June 9th, 2007 at 11:13 am

    Doug
    I appreciate your enthusiasm. We can argue the NiMh v Li-ion debate forever. The engineers at GM seem want the higher power density and increased ability to deep cycle discharge that Li-ion provides. Thats it. They will not consider lead acid or NiMh..straight from the horses mouth, those technologies are dead to them for the Volt.

    We did discuss them suing state regarding CAFE. It was described purely as a business decision. They couldn’t produce 50 different cars for each model, one to meet each states requirement. They want it Federally mandated so its uniform.
    LD  
    
    (Quote)

21. 
    
    

    louis Says:
    June 9th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    does this mean that volt will be produced with a solar panel that will only power the cooling system and fans. i think that is a cool idea because it will safe some battery energy.  
    
    (Quote)

22. 
    
    

    Matt986 Says:
    June 10th, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Louis,

    I doubt there will be a solar panel on the Volt, even if it does run the HVAC and such… It would be too expensive. They need to keep the costs down.  
    
    (Quote)

23. 
    
    

    Brian Says:
    June 10th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    THANK YOU MATT986

    Nobody here seems to understand that solar panels are too expensive for a car and offer little increased efficiency. Hey, why doesn’t GM put a fusion reactor on the car, that will make it really efficient!  
    
    (Quote)

24. 
    
    

    Susan K Says:
    June 10th, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    “They couldn’t produce 50 different cars for each model, one to meet each states requirement. They want it Federally mandated so its uniform.”

    So why not get kudos for wanting it to be the uniformly GOOD standard, the California waiver that every other state is piggybacking on now.

    Theres bills now to make the California waiver the Federal mandate for fuel effirciency. If you said that should be the law of the land, you would get so much great publicity bringing even more customers than the half million you have waiting now.

    Or does Cheneys state DEMAND that you guzzle a prerequisitely large amount of gas?

    Every driver in EVERY state wants low carbon fuel efficiency: You’ve got it! Flaunt it!

    What other car company comes close? This is your competitive advantage.

    You undermine your credibility by siccing lawyers and astroturf groups on us, supposedly demanding fuel INefficiency!  
    
    (Quote)

25. 
    
    

    nimh Says:
    June 11th, 2007 at 6:16 am

    Guys doing the interviews, please ask this question: how will Volt be significantly different from this car:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#EV1_series_hybrid

    electric, 4 seats, range with APU 400 miles, showcased first in 1998.

    what has changed that made it a bad idea in 98, but a “revolutionary” idea do tout in 2007 ?
    And dont repeat the line about NiMH durability issues. Like widely reported, RAV4EVs are running north of 100K mile marks with the original batteries still in them.  
    
    (Quote)

26. 
    
    

    Tim Says:
    June 11th, 2007 at 10:29 am

    nimh: The answer is simple. A turbine with a recuperator, and foil bearings is 3X more efficient than even the best piston engine when both are running at optimal RPM like in a genset. Turbines only have 1 moving part. They save fuel and don’t break down and that’s why the airliners us them for onboard power. GM doesn’t want to use them simply because their dealers will lose service $$. It’s another GM effort to protect profits. You may call a leopard a dove, but it’s still a leopard. That’s their business model. It GM can’t do it half-way, they won’t do it at all.  
    
    (Quote)

27. 
    
    

    Matt986 Says:
    June 11th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    nimh, The deal with NiMH batteries is that to get the 16kWh out of them, they’d need to be much bigger than LiIon batteries. If the chassis design of the car calls for a battery THIS big being LiIon, you’d need considerably BIGGER NiMH batteries to get close to the same range.

    LiIon is going to be the better/best choice.

    I’d venture that what made a ’serial hybrid’ version of the EV1 a bad idea a decade ago was again, probably the battery technology available at the time.

    As for using a reciprocating piston engine instead of a gas turbine – I’m not very knowledgeable about a turbine, but I know they’re more efficient per unit fuel. What I would surmise might be emissions.

    Anyway, a reciprocating piston engine would be relatively easy for GM to produce (or procure) and could be made even simpler than ICE powered cars due to not needing fancy systems like variable valve timing and all that jazz. The engine would be set to run at it’s optimal speed, thus the cam timing, injection and spark would not need to be varied.

    The idea of the ’serial hybrid’ in the Volt vein has been around for quite some time. I remember my father telling me in the 70’s, he saw plans for an electric car that had an onboard generator to charge the batteries when it could not be plugged in.

    The Volt will likely be the FIRST mass produced and socially mass accepted one, though.

    It’s a good start. Let’s not knock it too much.  
    
    (Quote)

28. 
    
    

    MikeBike Says:
    June 11th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    - What I’m wondering is why it takes Democracy to get this car built. Why do we have to push and prod GM to build this thing? GM needs to be more like Apple, hire the BEST and Ship the best. Instead of the general public, in blogs and forums coming up with Better Idea’s then they’ve come up with. This is scary. Maybe it’s time the federal government started up an “Open Source” Engineering Solution for a Future Car.

    - Can a turbine be made small, safe and quiet enough to be put into a car and run?  
    
    (Quote)

29. 
    
    

    MikeBike Says:
    June 11th, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    - I just want to add solar panels have just hit 40% efficiency.  
    
    (Quote)

30. 
    
    

    nimh Says:
    June 12th, 2007 at 2:55 am

    ::The deal with NiMH batteries is that to get the 16kWh out of them, they’d need to be much bigger than LiIon batteries.

    Which is wrong. Lithium phosphate batteries considered for Volt, i.e. A123 have energy density of roughly 100wh/kg.
    Large-format NimHs top at 80Wh/kg. “much” is not an appropriate qualifier here.

    If you are talking volume, not mass, then again: phosphate lithium has about 250Wh/litre, NimHs go up to 300Wh/Litre.

    ::LiIon is going to be the better/best choice.

    “better” is the eternal enemy of good enough.
    By the way, dont lump all lithium batteries in one. Lithium cobalt batteries, the common ones in laptops etc, are definitely a WORSE choice for cars, due to safety issues. Yes you can engineer around them like Tesla does, but at what cost ?

    There are no “best” choices in engineering, there are always tradeoffs between this or that technical parameters and costs.  
    
    (Quote)

31. 
    
    

    nimh Says:
    June 12th, 2007 at 2:56 am

    Mike:- Can a turbine be made small, safe and quiet enough to be put into a car and run?

    Look at the Wikipedia link i posted, it WAS put in EV1 and run as well. Hey, they even put a STIRLING engine in it which is even more efficient than turbine and runs on practically any energy source/fuel that can generate heat.  
    
    (Quote)

32. 
    
    

    Tim Says:
    June 12th, 2007 at 9:10 am

    According to this September 1993 issue of the US Gov’t D.O.E.s Office of Transportation Technology’s HEV Technical Advisor paper… “After investigating both the Gas Turbine and the Stirling Engine, the choice of the HPU (Hybrid Power Unit) was narrowed to the Stirling engine.” GM completed this work in 1993 for God’s sake! http://www.p2pays.org/ref/16/15287.pdf

    Technology marches on and the new gas turbines produced since 1998 with newer alloys, a recuperator, and foil bearings is at least 3X more efficient than even the best piston engines when both are running at optimal RPM like in a genset. Yes, GM did put this in the EV1: http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm Turbines only have 1 moving part and that’s why the airliners us them for onboard power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

    There is so much smoke at GM that we can’t even find the mirrors.  
    
    (Quote)

33. 
    
    

    GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site » GM Expands Chevy Volt/E-Flex Leadership Team Says:
    October 19th, 2007 at 9:25 am
34. 
    
    

    GroovyGreen.com - Start Today :: Save Tomorrow » Blog Archive » Challenge X Competition Says:
    November 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
35. 
    
    

    Bacek Says:
    March 15th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    Хм… что-то у меня ссылка не открывается, которую указали. Это у всех так?  
    
    (Quote)

Leave a Reply