# Modular Fighting Rigs:  CF seeking 3 combos, 1600-1800 each



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2009)

This, from MERX:


> The department of National Defence has a requirement for three (3) different systems of modular fighting rigs with components and specialized pouches. The systems have to be military off the shelf or commercial off the shelf and in accordance with the Purchase Description dated September 2009.
> 
> Firm Quantity:
> This requirement is for System A which includes quantity 180 C9 gunner kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kit, qty 12 marksman kit, qty 180 confined space kit, qty 850 rifleman kit. System B which includes quantity 850 rifleman kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kits, qty 12 marksman kits, qty 180 confined space kit. System C which includes quantity 850 rifleman kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kits, qty 12 marksman kits, qty 180 confined space kits, qty 180 C9 gunner kits. Requirement also includes specialized and medical pouches.
> ...



As usual, some interesting background from the bid document:


> The Afghanistan operation introduced significant changes to the Army's Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) in order to adapt to the asymmetric characteristics of the threat presented by the operation. These changes have imposed considerable changes on the way in which soldiers fight, the way they select what fighting load is necessary for the mission, the way they carry their load, and their ability to frequently adapt their load to different missions.  Consequently, the current Tactical Vest (TV) has proven inadequate to respond to this requirement, and requires immediate replacement.
> 
> 4. Recent operational experience has generated many observations concerning the inadequacy of the TV. The complaints have centered on the inability of the infantry soldier to configure pouches and pockets, and to personalize for ease of use for assigned tasks/roles (e.g.
> C7 M-203 gunner; C-9 gunner, etc) and on the capacity of the pouches.
> ...



It appears there's three combinations of kit:


> System A consists of five main components including three front panel assemblies and two back yokes. The front panel assemblies and the back yokes are compatible and interchangeable. Torso Circumferential sizing is accomplished through the number of PALS/MOLLE columns. Torso height adjustment is done through adjustments to the shoulder straps. There is a Front and Back Ballistic Plate carrying capability. System A offers easy donning and doffing via front side release buckles.





> System B is made of three main components. Main components are a split panel (both left and right) including two supplementary shoulder straps to support the split panel when used alone and a waist strap to support the front panel and stabilize the load, and a back yoke. A collection of matching pouches and equipment holders, have also been identified to ensure design compatibility.





> System (C) consists of two main components. This design consists of a front chest rig panel with a bib style harness which can be worn up or down and accommodate a front ballistic plate. This front panel can be worn on its own. Load capacity can be increased by the addition of the Chest Rig Back panel which can also accommodate a back ballistic plate. A collection of matching pouches and equipment holders have also been identified to ensure design compatibility.



A bit more here.


----------



## BDTyre (8 Nov 2009)

My platoon was given a little guide (part of which was blatantly printed off of websites) outlining I think 3 or 4 options.

The first batch is from SORD (an Aussie company) and the final option was for the TT MAV.  We were told we could go ahead and purchase these options, or  wait and see...rumour mill says January for a trial issue.


----------



## Farmboy (8 Nov 2009)

> rumour mill says January for a trial issue.



These rigs aren't even due to be finished being delivered until March.

The tender also allows for substitutes, all of which will be judged on quality and price.  So they could end up with the TAG MOLLE Split Chest rig from me or MOFCR from CP Gear or a knock off from Fellfab (which is more likely), and a mix of pouches from different suppliers.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Nov 2009)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> These rigs aren't even due to be finished being delivered until March.
> 
> The tender also allows for substitutes, all of which will be judged on quality and price.  So they could end up with the TAG MOLLE Split Chest rig from me or MOFCR from CP Gear or a knock off from Fellfab (which is more likely), and a mix of pouches from different suppliers.



Whilst the tender does allow for substitutes instead of name brand products, the substitutes must have meet the essential technical design specifications as outlined in the tender.  Seeing as how SORD uses a propriety variation on the PALS system which is patented, and that this unique system is spec'd in the tender, it's hard for somebody to bid on the System A or C component of the tender without either a license from SORD to build the pouches with that system, or to submit a bid withSORD stuff itself, or to build the stuff themselves with no license agreement and risk legal action by SORD.

Conceivably Systems B (The Tactical Tailor stuff) and D (HSGI and CTOMS pouches) could be built by just about anybody, but when you consider that the tender specifies that all bidders must also provide material samples of all articles in the respective system they're bidding on, the timeframe is quite limited.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2009)

I can't really make heads or tales of all that System A system B talk.

TO dumb this down, we're looking at 3 seperate styles of modular "tacvests"?
Are these made to order or will they be aftermarket chestrigs?

The SOAD and TT Mav are possible choices??

Do we have any pictures of what's being tested or anything?


----------



## PaulD (9 Nov 2009)

Because these foreign-designed rigs will have to be manufactured in Canada, how much additional cost will getting the license to fabricate them incur?


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I can't really make heads or tales of all that System A system B talk.  TO dumb this down, we're looking at 3 seperate styles of modular "tacvests"?



From my read, I understand it'll be 3 different combos to be purchased, between 1600 and 1800 per combo.  I'm guessing that will give troops the option to choose (or commanders the option to dictate, I suppose).  




			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Are these made to order or will they be aftermarket chestrigs?  The SOAD and TT Mav are possible choices??


The bid mentions "military off the shelf" and "commercial off the shelf", so I'll take that to mean aftermarket rigs could be acceptable - if that's the case, I think it would be pretty hard to keep a competitive price making custom-made rigs.



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Do we have any pictures of what's being tested or anything?



No graphics I've seen - the best I could do is the 60 page PDF excerpt from the bid document outlining what will be part of which rig.


----------



## Farmboy (9 Nov 2009)

A competitive bid...............

.........that specifies exact attachment methods for the pouches  ???

It allows for substitutions, but not on the attachment method, so Tactical Assault Gear, Blue Force Gear, London Bridge Trading, HSGI (in some cases), Blackhawk, SOTech, 215Gear, ATS, Paraclete, ICE Tactical, CP Gear are all out of the question unless they change their attachment system. 

 So you have one Canadian company that is supplying SORD.   Should get a competitive price alright  :


----------



## Fusaki (10 Nov 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Seeing as how SORD uses a propriety variation on the PALS system which is patented, and that this unique system is spec'd in the tender, it's hard for somebody to bid on the System A or C component of the tender without either a license from SORD to build the pouches with that system, or to submit a bid withSORD stuff itself, or to build the stuff themselves with no license agreement and risk legal action by SORD.



How does SORD's attachment system differ from regular MOLLE?

About 3/4 down this page is a review of SORD's Freefall Rig, with Blackhawk, SOTech, and Maxpedition pouches attached:
http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/2ndline2.html

In this discussion on LF.net, there's no mention of compatibility issues between SORD gear and the MOLLE standard:
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2106044761/m/7011040681?r=7011040681#7011040681


----------



## Farmboy (10 Nov 2009)

> How does SORD's attachment system differ from regular MOLLE?



It doesn't. Everyones webbing is 1.5" except for Drop Zone and LOF which is 1.75".


What differs, is on their pouches, and many other manufacturers pouches, is the attachment method.

HSGI, CTOMS, TT use malice clips






TAG and Paraclete use a strap that tucks under itself





Eagle, LBT and most knock offs of them use a strap with push button





SORD, TAD and Oakley use a strap with velcro closure





Blue Force Gear uses a cross between the TAG and SORD style





Drop Zone and LOF use snake straps

Some other pouches like don't come with anything letting you choose between malice, Tac Ties and Speed Clips.









They will all work with each others systems except for Drop Zone and LOF whos vests won't accept pouches larger than 3 MOLLE colums


----------



## Fusaki (10 Nov 2009)

> It doesn't. Everyones webbing is 1.5" except for Drop Zone and LOF which is 1.75".
> 
> 
> What differs, is on their pouches, and many other manufacturers pouches, is the attachment method.



Thanks for the explanation.

So where is the conflict between SORD rigs and pouches from other manufacturers?  What you've posted suggests that (aside from DropZone gear) any MOLLE or PALs style pouch will mount.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Nov 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> So where is the conflict between SORD rigs and pouches from other manufacturers?  What you've posted suggests that (aside from DropZone gear) any MOLLE or PALs style pouch will mount.



If you read the tender document, it states that no deviations or variances will be tolerated from the design characteristics of the articles specified.  Meaning that if you were to bid on the System A (SORD SCS fronts and back and pouches), System B (Tactical Tailor stuff), System C (SORD Chest Rig front and back and pouches), or System D (High Speed Gear and CTOMS pouches) that the pre-award samples you must provide along with your bid paperwork must be clones of the original proucts they built the spec on, i.e. webbing type, PALS attachment method, interior pocket details, etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Nov 2009)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> A competitive bid...............
> 
> .........that specifies exact attachment methods for the pouches  ???
> 
> ...



Is anyone really shocked over this?
Thinking no.

After 10 years of crying about out POS tacvst and probably thousands of those 'this piece of kit doesn't work' forms soldiers have filled out, the CF finally decide soldiers need a better set up.
Sadly I see the 'business'  end slowing everything down and screwing stuff up.


----------



## PaulD (10 Nov 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> ...the pre-award samples you must provide along with your bid paperwork must be *clones* of the original proucts they built the spec on, i.e. webbing type, PALS attachment method, interior pocket details, etc.



Will TT, HSGI, and SORD be getting any royalities from this?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Nov 2009)

I would assume that if any of their products which are specified for this tender have any associated applicable patents, or other such intellectual property, then some sort of license/royalty arrangement would have to be made by the bidder/contractor.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (14 Dec 2009)

I was just informed by the PWGSC official in charge of this procurement that it's currently cancelled and awaiting re-tendering, because none of the bidders were deemed to be compliant with the technical specifications.  A new delivery date (later than March 31st) will be determined by DND as they do the re-tender paperwork.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Dec 2009)

Have I missed something? The forces did a trial, selected the stuff they wanted, circulated all sorts of paper and wrote the RFP. Is the non-compliance of the bidders because of technical reasons, inability to deliver in the time frame requested, too expensive or what?

Can the government do anything right? This is not a trick question.


----------



## Loachman (14 Dec 2009)

This was explained in previous posts.

I can only see this as a good thing. Perhaps a little extra time will give the writers a chance to get the specifications right this time.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2009)

A bit more from the _Ottawa Citizen_, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> .... Sources told Defence Watch that none of the bidders met the evaluation criteria and as such were deemed non-compliant, specifically in reference to providing proof of the equipment requested being in service with an ABCA (America, Britain, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand) military force.
> 
> The Modular Fighting Rig (MFR) is a load-bearing piece of equipment that allows individual soldiers the flexibility to tailor their equipment and ammunition as dictated by their task and mission.
> 
> ...


----------



## Farmboy (18 Dec 2009)

> the design feature requirements/essential characteristics will not change.



  :


----------



## DirtyDog (18 Dec 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I was just informed by the PWGSC official in charge of this procurement that it's currently cancelled and awaiting re-tendering, because none of the bidders were deemed to be compliant with the technical specifications.  A new delivery date (later than March 31st) will be determined by DND as they do the re-tender paperwork.


Big suprise.  Unbeleivable.  

As much as I'm happy DND recognised the need for something I'm extremely dissapointed in their attempts to procure and fill that need.

After being repeatedly told NOT to go out and buy a rig by my CoC because one was going to be provided for me, I'm glad I got over my intial hesistation and bit the bullet and forked out the cash for one(thanks Matt).

Now... should I buy 3 OTW shirts or will those arrive as promised ?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Dec 2009)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Now... should I buy 3 OTW shirts or will those arrive as promised ?



The tender for the CF's version of the OTW shirt has also been pushed back to December 28th to close, and as such, delivery will likely also be pushed back to the point where TF 1-10 will likely receive these after they've been in theatre for some time.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Dec 2009)

This just out today via MERX (bid deadline - 14 Jan 09, 1400 Eastern Standard Time EST) - note, also, the change from "modular fighting rigs" to "modular vests":


> .... The department of National Defence has a requirement for three
> (3) different systems of modular vests with components and
> specialized pouches. The systems have to be military off the
> shelf or commercial off the shelf and in accordance with the
> ...



I've attached a bit of the bid document to give a bit of a sense of what they're looking for (no pix) - pg 2 & 3 describe what's part of the A, B, C, and D combos.


----------



## BDTyre (4 Jan 2010)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> The tender for the CF's version of the OTW shirt has also been pushed back to December 28th to close, and as such, delivery will likely also be pushed back to the point where TF 1-10 will likely receive these after they've been in theatre for some time.



About a third of my platoon has received the CF OTW shirt; we've heard rumours they were done by Drop Zone.  Most guys seem to like them but the arm pockets have a tendency to come unstitched quiet quickly.  And the CADPAT is a wierd yellow-ish hue and looks somewhat like mustard.


----------



## DropZone (5 Jan 2010)

"About a third of my platoon has received the CF OTW shirt; we've heard rumours they were done by Drop Zone.  Most guys seem to like them but the arm pockets have a tendency to come unstitched quiet quickly.  And the CADPAT is a wierd yellow-ish hue and looks somewhat like mustard."

I do not beleive those shirts are ours, we did the T & E samples over the last two years for another CF vendor. We were led to believe the design was approved.

We were then told CF changed the design that was submitted by the vendor we worked for. 

They eliminated our zip sleeve pocket in favor of a flapped Velcro­ pocket. They also went with a set sleeve as opposed to raglan sleeve.

My understanding is that the only thing kept from the design we submitted was the collar. I must confirm I have not seen the approved shirt, but based on the bid documents, the information I have is correct.

To be sure ...if it has raglan sleeves, if the sleeve pocket is zipped, the "pen" pocket is near the left cuff, and there is no label in it ...its ours. 

Kind Regards
Brian Kroon


----------



## Matt_Fisher (6 Jan 2010)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> About a third of my platoon has received the CF OTW shirt; we've heard rumours they were done by Drop Zone.  Most guys seem to like them but the arm pockets have a tendency to come unstitched quiet quickly.  And the CADPAT is a wierd yellow-ish hue and looks somewhat like mustard.



From what I've been told by various sources, the CF OTW shirt was designed primarily by Performance Textiles out of North Vancouver, BC who had an R&D contract with DND for clothing items.  The initial trial shirts were produced by ANK Apparel out of Vancouver.

The 'yellow-ish hue' CADPAT material is likely a Kermel-Viscose blend fire retardant fabric.  Aramid fibres such as Kermel don't respond to dyeing procedures very well, and as such, trying to achieve perfect colour matches can be quite complicated and difficult.
From what I understand, the torso material on the initial trial shirts was a FR knit fabric done by Polartec, however it was changed to a cotton/nylon blended 'no-melt/no-drip' knit fabric by the textile folks at DSSPM because they had concerns about the Polartec material pilling, and that the cost of the Polartec fabric was significantly higher than the cotton/nylon.
The overall design of the shirt was loosely based on the British UBACS shirt, which DLR used as its initial point of reference.


----------



## BDTyre (6 Jan 2010)

Definitely not yours then.  The sleeve pockets are indeed velcro - basically identical to the ones on the standard-issue CF tunic.   I believe there is a label, but I don't have an example of the shirt handy right now.

Most guys seem to be happy with them other than the colour and the sleeve pockets falling apart.  In terms of comfort most guys seem to think they're on par with the CP and ICE shirts.



			
				DropZone said:
			
		

> I do not beleive those shirts are ours, we did the T & E samples over the last two years for another CF vendor. We were led to believe the design was approved.
> 
> We were then told CF changed the design that was submitted by the vendor we worked for.
> 
> ...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Mar 2010)

An update to this.  Looks like there's been another procurement hurdle, as the third attempt at this has just been put onto the MERX...again.
https://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24PR-707-50052&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&hcode=jMWX4mmWg1Sw6gW8qiW7Ug%3d%3d

The tender has been altered significantly in scope:
-looks like all of SORD Australia's and CTOMS kit is not included with this tender.
-2 piece MAV, X Harness, and associated pouches along with some HSGI (Universal Mag Pouches, Double Universal Mag Pouches, and Nalgene Pouches) are all that is being spec'd now.
-*New requested delivery date is July 2nd, 2010*, so for TF 1-10, it looks like you guys will be winding down your tour, with TF 3-10 well into pre-deployment training before any of this stuff hits the system.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2010)

Good catch, Matt - yet again through the sausage machine....

The bid package annex outlining the different combos (~25 pgs) is attached for whoever's interested.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Apr 2010)

Just hunting for something else, when the winners popped up here:


> (....)
> *Amount  	$1,758,539.35 CAD*
> 
> (....)
> ...



and here:


> (....)
> 
> *Amount  	$72,711.98 CAD*
> 
> ...


----------



## Crapgame (19 Apr 2010)

So Canadian Forces are going to a USMC gear format, one set of coyote brown kit for wear with TW or AR CadPat?

I find it amazing DND would contract with a firm halfway around the world instead of finding a Canada-based firm to produce your kit.

I just hope the co in Australia doesn't sub it out to someplace in Singapore or Hong Kong, the airsoft junk capital of the world.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Apr 2010)

Crapgame said:
			
		

> So Canadian Forces are going to a USMC gear format, one set of coyote brown kit for wear with TW or AR CadPat?



Negative.  The official party line from DND is that this equipment is being procured for a load carriage study which will be taken place in the Afghanistan theatre of operations, whereby they wanted to purchase commercial off the shelf stuff for expedited delivery (rather than have to wait for the fabric mills that produce CADPAT to ramp up production), and Coyote Brown and Khaki were deemed to be suitable for operational use in lieu of CADPAT - AR (Arid Regions).  In my opinion it's essentially a UOR for an interim load carriage system to replace the tac-vest for work up training and operations in Afghanistan, but dressed up in such a way that lets the bean counters feel ok about spending the money on it.

In a few years time when ISSP starts to come on line and the foundations of what this study validated are applied to the load carriage system which ISSP will be based on, it will likely be produced in both CADPAT TW and CADPAT AR, provided that a different camouflage pattern hasn't been developed to replace the current CADPAT ones.

In the meantime, again, the official party line is that the CF Tac-Vest is to be used for training and operations other than Afghanistan.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Apr 2010)

This out Monday, via MERX:


> Supplier Information:
> Dave's Surplus Ltd.
> 742 12th St.
> New Westminster
> ...


----------



## greazyjungle (8 May 2010)

As I read the lengthy .pdf document posted above, it seemed Tactical Tailor had the edge since in the document it listed TT items as already meeting the criteria...  Then it looks like the contract went to SORD in Australia...?  Did I read that right?  Could the contract to Dave's Surplus (DSTactical) be for TT rigs...?


----------



## greazyjungle (18 Jul 2010)

Anyone know if this rolled out and the modular rigs are being issued yet?


----------



## REDinstaller (18 Jul 2010)

Not to my knowledge.


----------



## Illegio (20 Aug 2010)

Anyone has a DWAN address, PM me and I'll email you an update, if it hasn't already trickled down yet. Don't know if it's open-source yet. I was pretty frosted when I opened my inbox, as this particular solution was banned, in no uncertain terms, for C-Coy on TF 1-08 *after* I had already paid out of pocket for it, having been told it was good to go. Goes to show that everything that's old is new again...


----------



## Wolf117 (29 Aug 2010)

So what is the latest that anyone has heard in reference to this project?  I REALLY hope we get something sooner rather than later.

As long as it's built tough, modular and covers a large area of the body.

I'm not a fan of just a chest rig because it doesn't generally allow you to fit kit to your back.  I figure as long as whatever we get has MOLLE on the front, back and sides, then the user can tailor it to what he needs.


----------



## alexgold (27 Oct 2010)

A large part of the BG for TF 3-10 got issued 1 of the 3 combos for tour.  We have to give it back at the end of the tour so DLR can run tests on them.  It comes with 3 possible fronts and 2 possible backs for different combinations.  It is completely MOLLE and comes with 27 pouches for the basic soldier.  Extra pouches are issued to commanders, machine gunners, etc...  So far everyone loves them.  They are coyote brown.  The maker is an australian company called SORD.

They told us that the next roto after us (whatever kind of roto it will be) will be getting the 2nd of the 3 combos for trials.


----------



## Illegio (28 Oct 2010)

Wonder what the third MFR op trial is going to look like, then... I've already seen 3VP guys on TF 1-11 with the current MFR, and even the guys in our Bn going on the NEO tasking are getting it as well.

In any case, doesn't look like we will see the end result of the MFR trial and development for a few years at least.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (28 Oct 2010)

I'm curious as to how they're going to score the characteristics of each one of the MFRs against each other, seeing as how the trial participants will only be getting to use one particular version, rather than get a chance to use all 3 systems in training and operations.

All MFRs and associated pouches will likely score leagues above the current issue Tac-Vest, but the whole purpose of this trial is to identify a set of characteristics (other than being modular) which will be specified for the eventual (read 5-10 year timeframe) replacement of the tac-vest.  i.e.  Will it be a 1-piece chest rig, or a 2 piece MAV looking thing, or will it have different front setups and different back setups?  How do you decide what style of rig you're going to go with, or pouch design when they're all scoring 3-4/5 on a survey sheet because the only thing the user has to compare against is the Tac-Vest.

This would sort of be like holding an ice cream judging contest wherby you get 3 people to participate who've only ever had vanilla ice cream before.  You sit them down individually in a room and let each one of them try only one type of ice cream:  Rocky Road, Neopolitan, or Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough.  Then you take their test scores and try to decide which ice cream is the best.  Kind of hard to do without having let the testers try each one of the flavours, right?

As far as the kit being returned at the end of the trial, I have a feeling that a significant amount of what is issued to the troops will be accounted for as 'combat losses' when it comes time to turn the stuff in.


----------



## R031button (9 Nov 2010)

Today B Coy 1 VP was issued TT MAV "rifleman kits". Looks like exactly what was previously outlined in the MFR RD from Feburary, with the additon of CTOMS slim line med pouches.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Nov 2010)

R031button said:
			
		

> Today B Coy 1 VP was issued TT MAV "rifleman kits". Looks like exactly what was previously outlined in the MFR RD from Feburary, with the additon of CTOMS slim line med pouches.


Fire off some pics?


----------



## R031button (15 Nov 2010)

sorry, was waiting until I was allowed to play with it before I posted pictures










The two Tac Tailor shingles are hidden behind an ATS pouch I use for comms stuff (not issued, I put it and was too tired of molle to take it off for the picture), but you can pretty much see it all on there. CTOMS Slimline is fantastic, probably a much better use of the Snap Dragon buckle then for anything you're going to have to do up in a hurry.










Frankly I'm very impressed the army actually looked into different pouches from different manufacturers rather then a mass buy from one company.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (15 Nov 2010)

R031button said:
			
		

> Today B Coy 1 VP was issued TT MAV "rifleman kits". Looks like exactly what was previously outlined in the MFR RD from Feburary, with the additon of CTOMS slim line med pouches.



How much leeway are you guys given to customize your rig setups, or is there going to be a 'battalion/company standard' layout for specific weapons types?

If you or any of the other guys that were issued these are interested in a bib/admin pouch that'll work with the 2 piece MAV, let me know and I'll get you some information on something I'm working on.

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## R031button (15 Nov 2010)

I won't comment on standardization for fear of jinxing it.


----------

