By on December 8, 2014

 

My 98 booming with a trunk of funk, Don’t Believe the Hype. (photo courtesy: Ford)

GCH writes:

Sajeev:

Could you/somebody please explain what a “flat plane crankshaft” is in the new Mustang GT350, and older Porsches and Ferraris?

I have seen numerous references to it online and in print but nobody, including Wikipedia explains it in non-calculus terms.

Sajeev answers:

Dumbing it down sadly glosses over hundreds (thousands?) of salient details in casting technology and/or computer-aided design. But I left Engineering school for a reason, so let’s simplify: rest a flat plane crankshaft on a table and it’s flat like a sheet of paper.

Ok, maybe not “paper flat” with those boomerang counterweights at the ends…but compared to the crossplane crank in most V8 passenger vehicles?

Capture

LS9 crankshaft. (Photo Courtesy: General Motors)

Crankshafts, like damn near everything else in our lives, benefits from the KISS principle. A flat plane crankshaft has the potential for significant weight savings to optimize a motor’s moment of inertia and more even firing to benefit the exhaust stroke, allowing for more revs/horsepower. And that unique sound!

But NVH control is a problem: hence widespread adoption of crossplane crankshafts.

Which means flat plane crankshaft-ed Mustangs shall be completely pointless moot when trapped, idling at a red light in American surburbia…which is precisely where 88.7% of Mustang GT350s shall live. 

The stock Coyote V8 is a better option, cool/brag factor aside. Why? Because it’s got a damn good crank, and here’s 8000+ reasons why:

When comparing modifications side-to-side, will a modified GT350 rev harder and make more horses than a similar GT?  Probably.

Will it, in the process, lose valuable low-end torque needed on the street?  Probably.

So go kick some GT350 ass with the Mustang GT’s phenomenal aftermarket support, of which many retain the factory warranty. Come on Son, were you expecting breathless PR boosting for Ford’s latest hot one from TTAC?

[Images: Ford, General Motors]

Send your queries to [email protected]com. Spare no details and ask for a speedy resolution if you’re in a hurry…but be realistic, and use your make/model specific forums instead of TTAC for more timely advice.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

64 Comments on “Piston Slap: Flat Plane Crankshaft Design?...”


  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    They should change the name of the Flat Plane to the Fart Plank, since 97% of its reason for being is the unique (unique at this point in mass production, economies of scale, history) farting & belching sounds it makes at particular points in the revolution counter.

    It’s a hideous monstrosity and stark example of engineering anti-elegance with the MASSIVE counterbalancing weights hanging off the ends like massive abscess cysts.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Do you mean the cross plane crank? If so I somewhat agree, though the belching/farting noises are generally only at idle on engines with cams too wild for the street.

      The huge counterweights are no less elegant of an engineering solution than the balance shaft(s) that are required for flat plane V8s (and inline 4s).

      I am definitely for the flat plane. It will bring something unique to the segment.

  • avatar

    Sweet! Now I can pull up to the stoplights and brag to the Mustang dudes that my Dodge Neon also has a flat plane crank.

  • avatar
    raph

    Ford seems to be countering the loss of torque with increased displacement since the GT350 mill is 5.2 liters instead of 5.0.

    The Coyote is a great engine but it’s Achilles heel is a lack of cubes. It’s to bad Ford didn’t work on that a coyote V8 that displaced around 6 liters or more would be down right awesome in the average power department.

    In any event the slight bump and flat crank accomplishes one important caveat for the GT350 and that is an engine that is special to the car which is something every SVT ( err 999 or whatever crapping Ford has cookedone up ) should have.

    • 0 avatar
      Nessuno

      I somewhat feel the Coyote is 5.0 because 5.0 is a fantastic marketing tool for speaking to all the 80’s kiddies who used to sport hard ons for the foxes of the day. Not to mention it was the only way to do a BOSS 302, again marketing and history win…

    • 0 avatar
      maxxcool7421

      Sadly, it would not fit under the hood. it would need additional bulk and stroke. which would also limit the rpm from piston acceleration. so you’d end up with a 6500 rpm redline using ford’s manufacturing.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Day-gone-it, how’d this end up the ladder here?

  • avatar

    “The Coyote is a great engine but it’s Achilles heel is a lack of cubes. It’s to bad Ford didn’t work on that a coyote V8 that displaced around 6 liters or more would be down right awesome in the average power department.”

    +1…similar problem with the bore spacing on the Modular V8.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Yeah that bore spacing… When the coyote first rolled out Wiesco and K1 (IIRC) had a stroker kit to punch the coyote out to 351 cubic inches but the bore was getting on the thin side of things so I see JPC racing has a 344 cubic inch version of that kit. Expensive though at 15k for the short block.

    • 0 avatar
      olddavid

      I see you leaning on the Mark while bemoaning its lack of cubic inches. With a slight reflash, intake, injectors and exhaust, you can reasonably get 350+ from the 4.6. In our boulevardier car, why would you want more? I know you’ve seen the crazies who attain high 8’s and low 9’s with every last tweak applied, but I doubt they drive their cars on road trips or Sunday cruises. I like the FN especially because I can surprise more than a few hot shoes, and still feel like an adult while driving it. In Toronado Red.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Ultimate power isn’t what I think about when I’m talking large cubes. There is a lot of truth to the statement “no replacement for displacement” especially in the naturally aspirated world. Even with four valves and variable valve timing and variable runner intakes as well dual mode exhaust systems (all designed to broaden an engine’s torque curve).

        Take two engines where the peak power is the same (in this case consider if Ford’s 5.2 in the GT350 makes 500 horsepower compared to say the z/28 and its LS7 with 500 horsepower) but arriving at that power with largely different displacements even if the car using the larger engine is slightly heavier and has gearing that is a bit taller typically the larger engine will have more average power allowing it to perform better despite its slight disadvantage in gearing and weight.

        Its the average power or power under the curve or whatever people want to call it is what I’m thinking about when I look at Ford’s Coyote V8 and wishing it could be punched out to another liter or so.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Ford seems to be countering the loss of torque with increased displacement since the GT350 mill is 5.2 liters instead of 5.0.

        The Coyote is a great engine but it’s Achilles heel is a lack of cubes. It’s to bad Ford didn’t work on that a coyote V8 that displaced around 6 liters or more would be down right awesome in the average power department.

        In any event the slight bump and flat crank accomplishes one important caveat for the GT350 and that is an engine that is special to the car which is something every SVT ( err 999 or whatever crapping Ford has cookedone up ) should have.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    A 6 liter OHC V8 would be massive.

    All the folks saying the flat plane design reduces torque- explanation? If anything I would think it were the other way round with all the rotating mass of the cross plane design.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      I don’t think the flat plane crank itself us an issue ( somebody with a spreadsheet will probably be along shortly to correct me with something about angular displacement and so on) but the engine is using revs to make more power and even with VVT it’s no free lunch and tomato up for that added displacement will hide the loss of low end and mid-range power.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        That’s more just engine tuning than a consequence of the flat plane design though.

        I bet a flat plane LT1 would have just as juicy a torque curve as the cross plane one, with the same tuning.

  • avatar
    MR2turbo4evr

    http://jalopnik.com/what-is-a-flat-plane-crank-and-why-is-it-so-loud-an-ex-1659688239

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    Sajeev is just mad that Ford is hyping the GT350 but can’t be bothered with a Mark IX. I’m mad too.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    I would still want a GT350 if it had a circular plane crank.

  • avatar
    hubcap

    Maybe I’m a bit slow but I don’t see what the problem is. SVT gives it’s new GT350 an engine tuned a bit more for track than street and in doing so decide to use a flat plane crankshaft. That’s a bad thing because a large percentage of those will cars spend a great deal of time idling at stoplights?

    The Voodoo is reported to make at least 500 hp and at least 400 lb-ft. While it may not have as much aftermarket support as the GT I’m pretty sure the support it garners will be more than adequate.

    If for whatever reason you prefer not to have an engine that uses a flat plane crankshaft you have various other options. Ford using this in a car meant to derive some enjoyment at the track and to highlight SVT’s engineering chops and possibly serve as a test bed for another car (Ford GT) dose not pose a problem for me. I look forward to the high revving and responsiveness of the engine.

    And why use a crankshaft from a performance engine (LS9) and compare it to a Powerstroke diesel? The large counterweights (gee, why would a 6L diesel have those?) make it a bit more difficult to see the flat plane design. We’re any better illustrations available?

    I’d like to see a comparison between the Coyote and the Voodoo once we know a bit more about the latter.

    This kinda reminds me of when the Raptor was first released. Certain voices dinged the truck for lack of payload and towing ability while ignoring that it was built for a different purpose and if you needed to tow or haul other options were available.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Flat Planes are race engines. But in a mass production car? How_Dare_THey???

    Faster to rev, lighter rotating mass, lighter block, what’s to hate?

    It further separates sports car V8s from truck based.

    • 0 avatar
      olddavid

      Carroll Shelby said the GT40 had a truck engine. One fast truck. I see you subscribe to the same philosophy.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        At one time when people talked truck engines they were refering to industrial HD trucks as opposed to pickups. Shelby never actually used “truck” engines. IIRC the 260 V8 and 289 V8 were Windsor engines. Even though they were used later in pickups. 427 side oilers were a variant of the Fe engine and never were used in pickups. Most ran the cheaper 428 which was also an Fe engine. Both were not considered “truck” engines even though the 428 was used in pickups as well IIRC.

  • avatar
    Nessuno

    Good info here complete with moving diagrams… http://www.projectm71.com/Cross_FlatPlane.htm

  • avatar
    nickoo

    I will talk about straight 4 only, its the most simple. 3, 5, 6, cylinder don’t apply at all due to non 90 or 180 deg angles between strokes. Cross plane is better than flat plane. However flat plane is cheaper. All 4 cylinders use flat plane with the exception of the Yamaha gsr sport bike, which uses a cross plane, it also happens to be the smoothest 4 cylinder made. Cross plane eliminates inertial deadspots because two cylinders are at mid stroke moving the fastest, while the other two are one at top, one at bottom, where they must transition from moving one direction to the other creating dead inertia spots. Flat plane can rev higher but sounds like crap compared to cross plane, and runs rougher. With flat plane the two outer cylinders are at dead bottom while the two inner are at dead top of stroke, creating maximum possible inertial dead spots.

    • 0 avatar
      stuntmonkey

      If you look at Sajeev’s pictures of the two cranks, you can see the downside with the crossplane crank; the first pin is TDC when the pin is BDC; there’s a natural tendancy for the crank to “wobble” end-to-end. This is mitigated by the counterweights, but is also why a cross-plane V8 is not the be-all to engine smoothness in the way that a V12 is (…what else is?).

      Going to the flat-plane crank, the counterweights are lighter, meaning that crank has less rotational inertia -> faster engine response to throttle inputs. The downside is that the combined second order vibration of the two engine banks makes the engine rock side-to-side.

      That cross-plane i4 crank on the Yamaha R1 is an odd duck. It’s not made for power, it was intended for drivability… on a motorcycle. The difference between the transitional flatplane i4 crank and the R1 cross-crank is that the on a typical i4, the firing order is even throughout the crank rotation. Not so with with the cross-crank. The whole point was that the power delivery was more *uneven* so that the power would arrive that the rear wheel in pulses… the theory being that a motorcycle tire gets more traction that way… little pulses of power followed by “micro-rests”. There’s lots of experimentation in motorcycles with unorthodox cranks… “big bang” “long bang”, Honda’s 990cc V5, etc.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        When it comes to smoothness, nothing beats a straight 6, v12 or even v16 with proper bank angles. Damped second order vibrations and perfect balanced engines are nice. In my line of work, the prime movers are commonly straight 6 medium speed diesels and v16s for that very reason. Also, I’m not sure you can build a flat plane crank v8 without use of a balance shaft.

        • 0 avatar
          stuntmonkey

          Yep, it’s impossible unless you use balance shafts. For the same reason as in an i4… if you do the geometry, a piston head travels a further distance in the first 90 degrees of crank rotation from tdc compared to the last 90 degrees to bdc. Essentially that means that even with a smoothly rotating crank, there is an unbalanced acceleration up and down.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      You actually LIKE the sound of that droning crossplane crank Yamaha uses?????

      Against a backdrop of a 25 to 1 ratio of I4s (any given trackday or race up until not too long ago), the other configurations add more than they take away sonically; but, man, do they sound boring (maybe not the V4s….) in isolation, compared to a screamer hitting- the high notes…..

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        I think it’s the opposite. All the flat plane 4s sound the same. R1 stands out, like a V4 engine. I would buy it for that alone. In real life it sounds like a V8.

        Personally I am hoping for more V4 street bikes. Honda making affordable RCs instead of the outdated CBRs (to tie back to their MotoGP bikes and V4 heritage) is long overdue

  • avatar
    cdotson

    Here’s another link with a good explanation:

    http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/1412-what-is-a-flat-plane-crank/

    As you said Sajeev, flat-plan improves exhaust efficiency with even firing. This can be addressed on cross-plane designs with “180 degree” headers, but to my knowledge it is difficult and impractical to alleviate the similar adjacent/consecutive flow issue on the intake. Modern direct-injection engine (well even port-injected ones) probably don’t suffer as badly with dry intake flow but it makes acoustic pulse tuning an intake harder with uneven intake pulses on each bank.

    • 0 avatar

      IIRC the real estate need alone for 180 degree headers makes them a non-starter for most applications, especially for factory/OEM engineering.

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      With a modern long-runner intake design drawing from a common plenum, it’s irrelevant in which order the cylinders pull air from.

      The old school carbureted “dual plane” intake manifolds always paired up cylinders in consecutive firing order anyhow (the outer two cylinders on one bank with the inner two in the other form an “even-firing group”) and with a flat-plane crank, if you want to do something analogous, you just group the left bank together, and the right bank together). Tuning-wise, a flat-plane V8 becomes two conventional inline-fours.

      The main remaining issue is that the traditional 90-degree crossplane crankshaft largely cancels out secondary imbalance, and a flat-plane crank doesn’t. It will have the same twice-crank-speed “buzz” that a normal inline four has.

      On another website that has mostly traditional-V8 devotees, there is some mention that a flat-plane crank ends up being harder on its main journals, but I don’t understand why this should be the case.

  • avatar

    I don’t like the sound of that.

  • avatar
    korvetkeith

    The flat plane crank won’t make less torque at any engine speed assuming everything else equal. On the LT5 a flat plane crank was quoted as being good for 35ft lbs of torque. If that’s true at 8000 rpm, it will make 53 more horsepower.

    The nvh characteristics have to be tamed with lightweight rods and pistons. I’d expect titanium rods. I suspect this is the largest production flat plane V8 ever. But Ferrari isn’t far off now with the 458, which may have encouraged ford.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    You can get a custom flat plane for an Ls motor, there are some YouTube videos on it being tested. I Imagine you’d want to pair it with special 4 valve per cylinder heads special made for the ls to get the most at high rpm and use a short stroke. It a seems good for racing, but not for street driving.

    • 0 avatar
      CarnotCycle

      With no provision for balance shafts, an LS engine with such a crankshaft would be borderline unbearable vibration-wise.

      I have thought of that general idea though; a big, dumb push-rod motor, built to LS7-ish size and precision, but with flat-plane crank and shaft-balanced. It would be a really strange and unique engine, nothing like it I think has ever been purpose-built. I am guessing that’s probably for a reason; but still interesting to think about.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    Hasn’t the Ferrari V8 used a flat-plane crankshaft since the 80s?

    I certainly haven’t ever seen a bad-sounding V8 Ferrari…

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      AFAIK, the only Ferrari V8 that didn’t is the version used in the Lancia Thema 8.32. That one used a cross-plane crank for, surprise, NVH characteristics more suitable for a luxury car. I don’t believe any of the older Ferrari V8s had balance shafts either. No idea about the newer ones, they are way above my pay grade/interest level.

  • avatar
    DevilsRotary86

    I have to wonder if Ford will be using some sort of variable valve lift scheme in addition to variable valve timing. My Acura’s K20Z1 at least on paper looks like an almost perfectly scaled model of the new GT350’s engine. 201hp from 2.0L against 550ish HP from 5.2L and both having a redline of 8,000 RPM. But with a system that can at least crudely vary both duration and lift as well as timing, it actually idles nice and can generate at least 80% of its peak torque from 2,000 RPM. I wonder if Ford has done something similar here.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    Sounds a bit like the argument we used to have about having a Hemi or a big block wedge motor for your daily driver. Yeah, the Hemi had the bragging factor, but then you had to adjust valves and there were other issues, whereas the 440 was well suited to sitting at stoplights as you were going to work.

    • 0 avatar

      Well, I’m sure the flatplane Coyote will be mostly happy idling at stoplights, maybe 99% as happy as a Mustang GT if they do it right.

      HEMI’s bragging rights were far, far more hollow considering how high maintenance they were/are.

      • 0 avatar
        05lgt

        But once you put the blower on the Hemi made sense. (I was firmly in the 440 camp)

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          The way I hear it, the Hemi was a fantastic circle track and dragster engine, but the 440 was vastly superior on the street. I imagine a Boss 429 vs 460 would be similar.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            Indeed, the Hemi like Ford’s Boss 429 (the Boss even moreso) had overly large intake and exhaust ports. Not to mention that large chamber.

            To compound the hemi’s problem was a real lack of quench which exasperated low speed problems. Fords Boss 429 “crescent” head was an improvement over that with less chamber volume which meant less dome on the piston to accommodate higher compression and it had more quench area but suffered from too big intake and exhaust ports (as did the 351 Cleveland 4v and Boss 302 heads)

            The hemi’s centrally located spark plug is nice and I guess the minimzed surface area of the chamber but the real secret to the hemi’s success was the canted valves which deshrouded themselves as they opened (unlike a conventional parallel valve engine they traveled away from the cylinder and chamber walls). It also allowed for bigger valve diameters.

            Combined with those big ports they made good racing engines, as street engines those same ports lead to lazy airflow which had trouble keeping the air and fuel mixed and the open chamber exasperated the situation as the lack of quench lead to a loss of turbulence which also keeps things agitated and mixed.

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    The engine’s sound will sell this thing vis-a-vis the Coyote. Plus the feather-light revs when potential buyer revs motor before test drive. Not to mention the sonic announcement telling everyone how cool the Mustang is (especially compared to all the others) every time owner steps on the gas. One can aftermarket a Coyote, but cannot replicate the inertial and aural feedback of this engine; and that is part of the appeal in buying these kinds of toys.

    This engine also has interesting possibilities for all kinds of legacy rides as a crate motor if its bolt pattern and mounts match a Coyote’s, which I believe match older Ford Modular V8’s. A Panther that both sounds and goes like a Ferrari? Might be possible on the relative cheap with this engine – if one is into that kind of thing, of course.

    • 0 avatar

      I think you just made me care about this engine more.

      Nah, I’d rather have a regular Coyote in a big heavy Panther.

      • 0 avatar
        05lgt

        I don’t know, something about a Voodoo Maurauder makes sense.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          This engine in a Panther would basically be a restomod, given the age and creakiness of the platform. And like most restomods the chassis wouldn’t allow the engine to actually show what it can do.

          The creators of my very favorite restomod in existence, the Mechatronik M-Coupe, recognized this when they chose to fit a naturally aspirated 5.4L M113 V8 rather than the bonkers supercharged version, even though cost was no object with their car.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            Tell me more!

            That reminds me of this crazy restomod Volga thing I saw in a magazine, except I think that had a V12 from the BMW 850.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mechatronik-mercedes-benz-m-coupe-1970-280se-35-meets-modern-amg-v8-review

            I have a thing for all W111s and W116s. And I usually don’t even like old cars.

            These guys made the perfect W111 coupe. I would stick this in my garage without a second thought, and share my wife’s Forester for DD duties, if only I had the money.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4B9pJM1dg4

        Coyote on Whipple! Its for the 2015 with a front mounted intake and a jackshaft driving the rear of the blower.

        Its awesome that this engine is running an 11:1 compression ratio and 11 pounds of boost and spitting out around 650 hp to the rear wheels.

  • avatar
    relton

    There’s no magic about a flat-plane crank. It’s advantages are the potential for better breathing, but the drawback is inherent vibration, sort of like an inline 4. Early Cadillac, and then Lincoln, V8shad flat plane cranks because that’s how they thought of V8s back then – 2 inline 4s on the same crank. That’s why early Cadillac V8s weren’t considered in the same class as straight 8 Packards. Cadillac finally developed the 2 plane crank in the mid-twenties, and everyone, even Henry Ford, followed.

    Ferrari, and a few other exotics have used flat plane crank V8s in modern times, but they just accept the inherent vibration.

    Adding balance shafts can tame the vibration somewhat, but they soak up power, thus negating some of the power advantage of the flat plane crank in the first place.

    Race engine often use flat plane cranks for the better breathing and accept the vibrations. Formula 1 cars have a lot more to worry about than a few engine vibrations, but street machines, even Mustangs, wouldn’t be happy to watch their rear view mirror shaking when waiting at a light.

    Bob

  • avatar
    anomaly149

    I’m still struggling to picture the firing order for a flat plane vs a cross plane. Is the flat just 1-3-4-2 for each bank, but offset 90 degrees?

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    You’re deemed a failure if all you have to spend is your own money. A loser if you have to save BEFORE buying nice things. Or just basic things.

    I saved for about year to buy my 1st new car at 19 yrs old. Friends and acquaintances would bug me for what my payments were on the new 5.0.

    They couldn’t believe I could save for it with a job like their’s (plus mad overtime) on top of rent, etc. No way. So it had to invent a “payment” so not to get into a big discussion every time.

    And I couldn’t have insured the car if I didn’t own it outright anyway.

    But everyone is taught they’re sooo special and deserve what they want right now. Instant gratification. Leads to impulsive decisions.

    But while you’re saving, it gives you time to sort out what you REALLY want. So you won’t be buying one car, getting bored with it, switching to the next, then so on. Fu*kin’ waste.

    Get a specialty car, yeah it’s a lot more cash, but enjoy it, drive it into the ground, restore it every other decade.

    Edit: Oops wrong article. Sorry too tired to move it over.

  • avatar
    akatsuki

    I want to see an RTR vs GT 350 vs M3 face off.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Maybe this link will help in relation to cross plane versus flat plane cranks.
    http://www.ashonbikes.com/inertial_torque
    http://www.ashonbikes.com/cross-plane_crank

    Yamaha used to run a flat plane crank in the R1 sport bike. Power got to the point that tires could not find traction. Flat plane cranks were the norm for inline 4 sport bikes. The power deliver was too brutal as HP wars heated up. V4’s and V twins like the Ducati had a HP disadvantage but had a traction advantage. Yamaha went to a cross plane crank to negate the negatives of the flat plane banshee power delivery without loosing the RPM range of a flat plane.
    Unlike a bike, a car does not have it’s tire contact patch shrink in a corner. Also a car is much heavier and will not be unsettles as much as a bike with quick building RPM and more abrupt power delivery.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FreedMike: That’s a great deal, but I don’t think there are many people cross-shopping a ‘Vette...
  • ToddAtlasF1: How are CAFE compliant transmissions and small displacement turbo particulate emitting engines...
  • sgeffe: Just another way that Buick is losing it! (Oh no..let’s see if I can find this comment again! $&@/%*!!!)
  • Robotdawn: I like the new Corolla sedan, the Hatch not so much. On a lark, given I won’t be buying another...
  • volvo: I would imagine TOC is very important to rental car companies. Cost, maintenance and resale value. I think...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States