Jump to content
Battlefield.no
sadolf

Formel 1 - NERFet i hel?

Recommended Posts

Er formel 1 blitt så amputert av regler og drit at det ikke er noe gøy mer? (Se, en topic som ikke handler om fotball/boling!) Jeg mener at "motor sportens ypperste klasse" også burde få bruke det de vil av "det ypperste innen teknologi".

Men gjør de det? Neida! Turbo og mønster i dekkene ble forbudt for mange år siden. Nå kan man heller ikke bytte dekk mer, bytte motor på 2 race. Samt masse begrensninger om spioler høyde, bredde, traction kontroll osv.. Er F1 på vei til å bli ødelagt av begrensninger og nerf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Det første som slår meg på det bildet der er de nye bøyde drittspoilerne de har fått foran på bilene i år, kun for å redusere marktrykket på bilen, slik at den må kjøre saktere i svingene. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeg mener det var kjedeligere for noen år tilbake, da Schumacher og Ferrari var så jævla dominerende. I år er det litt mer spennende nå som Ferrari ikke holder tritt med Raikkonen og Alonso . Godt å se at loseren Barrichello ikke gjør det så bra, men jeg hadde håpet at Schumacher og Montoya kunne hengt litt mer med.

Er enig med deg Sadolf i at den nye downforce-regelen er ødeleggende for sporten. Ang. forbudt med dekkskifte og motorskifte har vel noe med at de små teamene skal kunne klare seg bedre økonomisk, men for min del kunne de godt fjernet team som Minardi. De kommer aldri til å vinne løp og har omtrent bare betal-førere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dekkskifte og motorskifte reglene er noen utrolig tåpelige regler.. Dekkskift reglen vil trolig ikke være med neste år..

Sjøl syns jeg det er bra at de begrenser litt, om noen har sett klassen under formel 1 er det utrolig mye side om side kjøring og MYE forbikjøring,

pleier å være utrolig gøy å se på ..

Formel 1 er det gøyeste innen motorsport, og selvfølgelig RallyCross :hmm:

Men syns at de burde sette inn andre regler enn dekk og motorregler, downforce regelen, og vingeregelen syns jeg godt kan tre i kraft.

Det vil sansynligvis hjelpe til litt mer action og drama noe som gjør det litt gøyere å se på om det er litt kamp om tetpossisjonen.

Sånn som de har vingene nå er det veldig vanskelig å holde baken til en bil gjennom en rask sving og på en langside pga vingene trenger såpass mye luft så man mister alt av marktrykk og det blir som å kjøre på såpe..

Håper også det kommer flere team og dekklevarandører inn i F1,

kommer jo nytt team til neste år, og er jo snakk om at GoodYear også kommer

til neste år..

Få inn reglene så det blir litt mer dramatikk..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Formel 1 er i grunn som utfor og hopp....

Du bare venter på at en ekker annen skal kræsje/falle, og slå seg skamløs.

Et hopprenn uten nakkebrudd er et dårlig hopprenn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Det er jo derfor ein venter til etter racet og ser oppsumeringa.. Sport uten frekvente dødsfall fenger ikkje meg!

Edit: skjeldent folk dauer i formel1, men krash er uansett somoftast spektakulært!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

det er jo selvfølgelig føreregenskapene som skal være i fokus i et F1 løp.

nerfing av div. egenskaper på bilen er med på å fremheve dette.

hvis ikke de ledende kreftene i F1-sirkuset hadde begynt å begrense teamenes muligheter til å implementere ny teknologi tidlig på 80-tallet så hadde vi hatt førerløse biler som gikk tett oppunder 600km/t i dag. hvor moro hadde det vært da? man kunne like greit filmet et bilbanerace og spolt fort fremover når man så på opptaket etterpå, så interresant hadde det vært.

men jeg skal være enig i at å gå for langt den ene veien er like gale som å gå for langt den andre veien når det kommer til akkurat dette, det må være et element av fare involvert for at dette skal være noe som er verdt se på.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadde jo vore kult med ein friklasse der einaste kravet var førar av kjøtt og bein!

Hadde forhåpentligvis blitt sånne ville tilstander som det var på 40-50 tallet. Det var jo og med på å presse teknologien framover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man kan ikke annet enn å beundre F1 førere fra 40, 50 og 60 tallet. det var gutter med baller av betong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F1 ble goy igjen naar schumaker begynte aa tape litt igjen. F1 er mye goyere enn alle andre bilsporter iallefall, til tross for all nerfingen. Er enig i at det har blitt litt for mye i det siste, men goy er det fortsatt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NASCAR, der har du sport som kun er til for krasjene.

1027532[/snapback]

Hadde vi bare hatt noen kanaler som sender det ! :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Det at de innførte mønster i dekkene istedenfor slicks og de nye vingene med mindre marktrykk, var akkurat for å gjøre sporten mer interessant å se på. Problemet var at bilene gikk for fort slik at forbikjøring i svingene nesten ble umulig. Tanken var at bilene skulle gå saktere i svingene, slik at forbikjøring skulle bli lettere og mer underholdene for både førere og publikum..

En annen ting med med "nerfingen" er jo også kostnadene. Begrensninger på teknologi, antall dekk og motorbytter skulle gjøre sitt til at flere team kunne være med og delta i toppen. Hadde utviklingen bare fortsatt uten at noen satt foten ned, så hadde det ikke vært mange team igjen..

Er enig i at det har blitt mer gøy å se på i år enn de siste årene hvor Schumacher eide alt og alle i hvert løp.. Nå er det ihvertfall fler som kan kjempe om seieren..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Det kommer til å skje mye innen formel1 nermeste årene, allerede neste år er det V8 som gjelder og ikke V10 slik som idag. Det betyr i prinsippet en hel ny bil som alle teamene er igang med untatt ett team som har fått dispensasjon fra regelen og får stille med V10.

Viktigste punkter som FIA vil ha igjennom fram til 2008:

-Standard ECU (Engine computer unit) for å innføre forbud av traction control

-Standard girkasser med mekaniske skift og clutcher.

-Reduksjon av aerodynamisk marktrykk til 10! % av det vi har nå.

-En dekkfabrikant for å holde hastighetene nede og få tilbake slicks.

-Standard bremser.

-Forbud mot Pit-til-bil telemetri.

-Selvhjulpet startsystem. Fører skal kunne starte bilen uten assistanse.

-Forbud mot spare-bil

-30.000 km test limit pr. lag.

-Muligheten for at lag kan kjøpe chassis fra andre lag.

Full Statement from the FIA

Thursday, 16 June 2005 15:44

Spoiler
QUOTE

Full Statement from the FIA

Thursday, 16 June 2005 15:44

Proposed Changes to the Rules for the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship

Introduction

Traditionally, Formula One rules have been written by the engineers. Save in very exceptional circumstances, the Concorde Agreement (Clause 7.1) prevents anyone except the team technical directors making technical rules. This may no longer be the best approach. A better method might be to specify what we want the rules to achieve and only then allow the engineers to make proposals. The purpose of this note, therefore, is to suggest objectives together with some new rules to achieve them. Safety, fairness, keeping the current six major car manufacturers involved, preserving the independent teams and ensuring that the public continue to enjoy Formula One are the five principal challenges for the Formula One World Championship in 2008. Everyone is agreed on the need for the first two; the last three are more controversial.

The need to cut costs

On the face of it, costs need to be cut. We have lost two independent teams and one major manufacturer in the last three years with no replacement in sight. However, some manufacturers are opposed to any economy measure which might curtail technical exploration. Five of the six competing car manufacturers are very large companies. Each assumes it has the money and technical expertise to win the Formula One World Championship alone or in partnership with an independent team. Each is apparently prepared to spend large sums to do so.

The manufacturers' dilemma

The problem is that however much money the six manufacturers collectively spend, only one can win, while each season one at least is going to finish with cars in 11th and 12th places or worse. Dr Helmut Panke, Chief Executive of BMW, said recently "We are not satisfied with the sixth and seventh places and we are in intensive discussions on how to do better". But if all six manufacturers and their twelve cars stay in Formula One, one of them will have to be content with sixth or seventh place each year and two or three of the remainder will be even less successful.

The simple truth is that whether the six manufacturers collectively spend €1.5 billion or (at the extreme) €150 million, the result will be the same. The one with the cleverest engineers, the best-managed team and the best drivers will win, the others will fail. At the end of the season and after each race, manufacturers' cars will be placed all the way down to 11th and 12th and possibly worse if there are one or two good, fully independent teams. But the Championship will look and feel the same whether €1.5 billion or (again, at the extreme) €150 million is being spent. Indeed it might be better with €150 million, because the gap between first and last would probably be less. So, arguably, some €1.35 billion is being completely wasted in Formula One each year by the six manufacturers.

Are costs the FIA's business?

Some say this is no concern of the governing body; how the manufacturers spend their money is their business. But surely it is the duty of the governing body to do what it can to keep all the manufacturers involved, indeed to try to attract new ones. Manufacturers whose cars finish in 7th, 8th and so on, down to 12th place or below (which means at least half our current six manufacturers) are more likely to stay if their average annual expenditure is, say, €25 million rather than €250 million.

A 90% reduction in manufacturers' costs without diminishing the spectacle of Formula One would probably be possible, given close and rational collaboration with the manufacturers and teams concerned. But even without such collaboration, the FIA must at least reduce costs to levels which independent teams can afford. If we fail, we will lose the independent teams. Should costs continue at present levels or, worse, escalate in the next ten years at the same rate as the last ten, we risk simultaneously driving out the independent teams and some of the less successful manufacturers. The result would be non-Formula One cars on the grid or, possibly, the collapse of the Championship.

To be clear, in suggesting a reduction from €250 million to €25 million, we are speaking of just the costs to a manufacturer of supplying engines to a single team. The cost of running the team must be added to this to arrive at the total cost of putting the cars on the grid. It is extraordinary, but true, that some manufacturers are spending upwards of €250 million just to supply engines. That this could be reduced by 90% or more is evidenced by the fact that Cosworth will be able to supply a fully competitive 2006 engine for less than €20 million and are even able to supply (to Red Bull) an engine to race and qualify in the top ten under this year's relatively free-spending rules, for less than one tenth of the expenditure of some major manufacturers. It does not follow that expenditure is necessary merely because it is allowed.

A money-spending competition?

Formula One must not be allowed to become a money-spending competition. We need more emphasis on rules which allow a clever but under-funded team to defeat a less competent but richer rival. It must not be possible simply to buy success. This is essential for the survival of fully independent teams which rely on sponsorship and income from the commercial rights holder. An independent team will never have the same resources as a team backed by a major car manufacturer, but they are nevertheless an essential element of Formula One. In addition to being part of the tradition, they provide an entry point for young drivers and team personnel and bring colour and interest to the paddock.

It is probable that rules aimed at keeping all six manufacturers in the Championship will also make it possible for the independent teams to survive. Conversely, failure to introduce these rules risks the simultaneous loss of the independent teams and some of the manufacturers. The case for getting costs under control appears strong.

Resistance to cost-cutting

There has been a tendency for well-funded teams to resist cost-cutting, because the higher the costs, the smaller the number of teams which are their potential competitors. But rules which allow too steep a slope on the curve of performance versus expenditure must eventually result in the richest team dominating and the remainder unable to compete. This has happened in the distant past. If it were allowed to happen today, Formula One would quickly lose its international television audience. Collapse would soon follow. Even the best funded teams should support drastic cost-cutting in order to preserve Formula One in the medium and longer term.

Formula One has become divorced from reality. If you ask a man in the street how many people devote their entire working lives to putting two Formula One cars on the grid 17 times a year, he will probably reply 20 or 30, plus maybe some part-timers. The reality is about 300 for a small team and up to 1000 for a top team, all full-time employees. Most of these highly skilled and expensive people add nothing to the spectacle or to the sporting contest. They are working on things which the public never see and even enthusiasts are unaware of. Hundreds of talented people, all duplicating each other's efforts in the different teams, all to no purpose. It is difficult to justify this on any rational basis.

Dumbing down?

It is sometimes suggested that reducing the scope for expenditure in Formula One reduces its technical interest or "dumbs it down". The immediate question is: reduces its technical interest to whom? It may fascinate the relevant engineers that by spending millions of Euros they can build a new gearbox with ratios that are 0.25mm thinner, but no-one else knows or cares. There is no additional value for the watching public who, ultimately, pay for the whole thing. If we eliminate pointless (but very expensive) engineering exercises, there will still remain huge areas of technical interest, some of which can be directly relevant to automobile engineering. For example, a breakthrough in chassis dynamics (more probable with very low downforce) or the reduction of engine internal losses would give a big advantage to the team which made it. It would also be more generally relevant than generating huge levels of downforce or making an ultra-small gearbox.

Keeping the public interested

If we manage to control costs and retain a reasonable number of competing cars, we must also think about the public appeal of Formula One. Everyone considers themselves an expert on this, but until very recently there has been no serious attempt to find out what the public think. This is extraordinary when one remembers that the commercial success of Formula One would disappear overnight if the public were to lose interest. We hope that the survey which the FIA is conducting in conjunction with AMD will provide an insight. In the meantime we have taken a conventional approach and aimed at (i) closer racing through a drastic reduction in downforce combined with significantly increased "mechanical" grip; (ii) a more competitive field by reducing costs and hence the competitive disadvantage of the smaller teams; (iii) eliminating electronic driver aids to give greater importance to classic driver skills. If these objectives are achieved, Formula One should at least be able to maintain its current level of popularity.

Keeping speeds under control

In addition to containing costs, we hope to contain speeds. Excessive speeds in Formula One not only endanger the drivers, they also cause problems for the race organisers. This is because increased speeds necessitate upgrading circuit safety measures. Safety work increases the organisers' costs without producing any additional income. Indeed moving the public further away from the action on track, which is increasingly necessary for safety reasons, makes spectating less attractive and risks further reducing the organisers' income. This is an additional reason for rules which restrict the rate of increase in performance.

A tight schedule Once matters of principle have been decided, it becomes easier to write rules. However, not all the manufacturers and teams have joined the discussions during the first four months of the year. The FIA cannot continue to wait for proposals, because it is obliged to publish the 2008 Formula One Technical Regulations before the end of 2005. In practice this means the new rules must be finalised by the fourth week of September for submission to the World Motor Sport Council and the FIA General Assembly at the end of October. This, in turn, means we can allow the whole of July for comments from stakeholders, but final preparation of the rules must begin internally on 1 August.

Some suggested objectives

We have prepared a first draft of the 2008 rules with the following objectives:

- the rate of increase in performance of the cars should not exceed the rate of improvement in measures to protect the public, marshals and competitors;

- the rules and the means of enforcing them should be clear so that everyone competes on the same basis;

- the rules and methods of enforcement must be sufficiently flexible to deal with unforeseen technical innovation;

- costs should be contained in order to (i) decrease the likelihood of a manufacturer leaving after poor results (ii) enable a private team to be competitive without the support of a major manufacturer and (iii) reduce the performance deficit of the less well-funded teams;

- expensive technology which is invisible to the public and known only to a tiny band of specialist engineers should be eliminated where possible;

- expensive materials or designs should not be used as a substitute for good engineering;

- driver aids should be eliminated as far as possible. In particular the use of electronic devices should not be allowed to replace driver skills;

- downforce should be drastically reduced and "mechanical" grip increased substantially for closer racing.

This, then, has been our approach to 2008. Criticism, constructive or otherwise, is welcome. All comments received during the July consultation period will be carefully considered when the FIA technical department finalises its proposals, which it will do in consultation with those teams and race organisers which have indicated their intention to participate in the Formula One World Championship from 2008 onwards. We will also take full account of the results of the FIA/AMD survey of public opinion. Once finalised and approved by the World Motor Sport Council and FIA General Assembly, the rules must be published before the end of 2005 as required by the Concorde Agreement. Thereafter the 2008 technical regulations cannot be changed without the agreement of everyone concerned.

Changes for 2009 will still require two years' notice (ie publication before 31.12.2006). Thereafter notice of changes which affect the design of the car (sporting or technical) will be announced no later than 30 June to come into force for the next-but-one season (ie a change for 2010 will be announced before 30.6.2008).

Summary of the main changes proposed for 2008

ENGINES

- All components of the engine will be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification

- The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators as specified by the FIA

- All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA - The control system wiring loom connectivity will be specified by the FIA

- A 3 litre V10 engine will remain an option for teams unable to obtain a 2.4 litre V8, but subject to similar strict performance limitations as in 2006 and 2007

Reasons

- to eliminate the use of driver aids such as traction control

- as teams will not be able to develop their own ECUs, expenditure on electronics will be considerably reduced

- to allow the FIA to check testing mileage and other elements

- to keep engine costs low for the smaller independent teams

GEARBOXES

- All cars will be fitted with gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification

- Gear changing will only be permitted by the use of a manually operated mechanical linkage to the gearbox

- Clutches will only be operated via a foot pedal connected mechanically to a release mechanism

Reasons

- to restore control over the clutch and gear changing to the driver

- the use of standard gearbox internals will result in a very significant reduction in expenditure

BODYWORK

- Downforce will be reduced to approximately 10% of current levels

- Drag will be maintained at current levels

- Overall car width will be increased

- By stipulating maximum and minimum dimensions cars will be "cleaned up" with devices such as barge boards, flip ups, winglets and other small add on parts removed

- Total advertising area on the car to remain unchanged

Reasons

- to reduce the reliance upon downforce as a means of improving performance

- by increasing mechanical grip the likelihood of one car being able to follow another closely in corners, and hence be in an attacking position at the end of the following straight, will be increased

- eliminating winglets, bargeboards, etc, will reduce costs as well as the danger of debris on the circuits

- drag should remain unchanged in order to ensure straight line speeds do not increase significantly

WHEELS AND TYRES

- Tyres will be supplied by one manufacturer appointed by the FIA after an invitation to tender. Such an appointment will be conditional upon:

- a suitable supplier being available;

- a suitable system to ensure tyre testing is carried out in an equitable manner;

- no team being disadvantaged by the appointment of a single supplier (detailed regulations will be written to ensure this would not be the case);

- there being no legal impediments during the process of appointing a supplier

- Slick tyres will be introduced for use in dry weather

- Lower profile tyres will be introduced

- Significantly larger wheels with minimum and maximum sizes stipulated for front and rear will be permitted

- Tyre blankets and other heating devices will be prohibited

- All tyre regulations will reside in the Technical Regulations

Reasons

- a single supplier would allow a bigger safety margin

- the absence of competitive tyre testing would reduce costs

- as relatively small differences in tyre compound and construction can have a significant effect on lap times, a single tyre supplier would simply ensure that no team would be adversely affected by being contracted to the "wrong" supplier

- slick tyres would be re-introduced as a part of the low-downforce and high-mechanical-grip package

- lower profile tyres would be introduced in order to give the wheels and tyres a more modern look and also permit more freedom on brakes and suspension

- a ban on tyre heating devices would eliminate this significant but unnecessary expenditure

CHASSIS

- The minimum height of the centre of gravity of the chassis will be specified

- The minimum weight for a chassis will be specified

- Energy of all impact tests will be increased

- Loads for all static tests will be increased

- Side intrusion test requirements will be increased

- Ballast will be reduced to minimal levels

Reasons

- to ensure that weight is distributed throughout the chassis

- the centre of gravity requirement should result in less pure ballast being used, the minimum weight will have to be achieved by the construction of a stronger chassis

- by raising the impact test speeds, the static load criteria on structures such as roll hoops and increasing the penetration resistance, drivers will be even better protected than they are at present

BRAKES

- All cars will be fitted with brake discs, pads and callipers which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification

Reason

- to reduce the cost of continual development of new materials and designs, the FIA specified products will be designed to work on all types of track and last an entire Grand Prix weekend

DATA ACQUISITION AND TELEMETRY

- With specific exceptions, any data acquisition system, telemetry system or associated sensors additional to those associated with the ECU will be physically separate and completely isolated from the control electronics

- Pit to car telemetry will be prohibited

Reasons

- to ensure that any data acquisition system used by a team cannot interfere with the FIA specified ECU and sensors

- to ensure teams are unable to send messages to a car and potentially affect its performance

MATERIALS

- Limitations, similar to those within the 2006 engine regulations, will be imposed on all parts of the car

Reason

- costs will be reduced as research into exotic materials will be unnecessary

STARTER

- All cars will be equipped with a driver operated starter which is capable of starting the car without outside assistance a minimum number of times

Reasons

- to simplify the operation of starting a car, at present it is massively complex

- to give the driver a chance of starting a car unaided in the event of it stopping on the track

- to reduce the number of personnel needed at an Event and hence reduce costs

NOTICE OF CHANGE

- Notice periods for changing the rules will be related to the effect (if any) of a change on the design of a car rather than an artificial distinction between "sporting" and "technical" regulations. There will no longer be a distinction between changes to the engine, transmission or chassis.

Reason

- to ensure that changes may be made to the regulations in a timely and more realistic way

SPARE CARS **

- Spare cars will be prohibited, i.e. no team may have more than two built-up cars available at an Event at any one time. Spare chassis will be permitted but precisely what constitutes a car in this context will be clearly defined

Reason

- by taking one car less to races teams will be able to save considerable sums of money as, apart from the cost of the car itself, fewer personnel will be needed

TESTING **

- Testing will be limited to 30000km per team between 1st January and 31st December, subject to a single tyre supplier being appointed

Reason

- To reduce the enormous amounts of money currently being spent on testing

CAR ACQUISITION **

- Teams will be free to buy a complete car or any part of a car from another constructor

- How constructor's points are to be allocated will be clearly defined after further discussion

Reason

- to enable a team to buy a complete car, or any part of a car, from another constructor. As a result teams will be able to save considerable sums of money on the design and development of their cars

Personlig tviler jeg på at FIA klarer å gjennomføre det, men har som sagt begynt prosessen. Mange av forslagene er helt klart med på å fremme førerdyktighet osv, men hvis dette er planen blir jo F1 ChampCar2 (ChampCar er USA sitt svar på F1 men bilene er betydelig dårligere og alt er manuelt). Den retningen er litt drastisk og det mumles allerede om en GPWC som vil fortsette i rette F1 ånd hvis ting ikke bedrer seg fram mot 2008.

Dette er så innviklete greier, men mener det meste er bedre enn nå, dekksikkerheten er jo under en hver kritikk som følge av "1par dekk prinsipp" regelen. Er noe hakkande galt en plass når sånne regler blir innført.

Skal bli spennende å se framover hva som skjer, eneste spennende nå er å se hvor langt shumi er bak feltet :hmm:

Button ftw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

formel 1 burde være det ypperste av teknologi som overhodet kan plasseres på en løpsbane!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
formel 1 burde være det ypperste av teknologi som overhodet kan plasseres på en løpsbane!

1027970[/snapback]

Syns det kommer litt an på om vi ønsker å se en demo av hvor bra en bil kan bli, eller om det er et løp der den beste føreren vinner.

Når det er budsjettet som avgjør hvem som vinner, blir det ikke særlig god underholdning. Og F1 handler om penger og TV....

Men for meg virker det som om de er inne i en tid med prøving og feiling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
formel 1 burde være det ypperste av teknologi som overhodet kan plasseres på en løpsbane!

1027970[/snapback]

Det er det som kjernen på problemet, teknologien har gått så langt at F1 rett og slett er blitt kjedelig. For en normal borger så er hotel cesar minst like intressangt. Uten TV rettigheter ville ikke F1 eksistert idag, så publikumsvennlig må jo det være. Stort dilemma som jeg ikke ser svarene på :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...