Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 147
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668

    Broken Niner RIP9

    I don't huck or catch mutch air, but I am a farily large gentlemen. Riding along the trail today on my 6 month old RIP and ride over a good sized rock. As soon as the rear tire hits it, CRACK, seat tube shears in half. When I bought it, I had a hard time finding any RIP's that had broken, just wondering if this is a common failure or I'm just a MF'er on equipment.


  2. #2
    bt
    bt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,379
    stuff happens.

    niner will back it up I would assume.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Breaking Down's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    52
    Looks like a stress riser due to the welding of the shock bracket and derailleur hanger. Design flaw...maybe. Probably should go with a WFO for the next go around.

  4. #4
    Closekids.com
    Reputation: BoomingSooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    882
    been on the same bike for 3 years and active on mtbr.... first i've ever seen like this.
    Me to my riding buddy, "Want to ride this afternoon?"
    Him, "I can't. I have to chop this guys foot off at 2".

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    73
    I'm 215, at least, huckng mine around in SW Va and never seen anything like this or felt any flex that would give me any hint of something like that. What's with the top tube? Was it damaged in a crash as a result of the seat tube giving up or stressed by the failure? Looks like a sideways bend to me. I've thrashed the hell out of mine for 2 years. No problems. If it blows up, I will very likely get another RIP9.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    Top tube must have buckled after seat tube sheared.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: five5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    461
    Wow! Never have seen anything like that ever! Sorry dude!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    51
    Looks pretty dangerous to have bike frames break on you like that.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tripp88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    287
    Oh boy I'd be quite upset.. Hope your alright!! Mentally and physically
    Current Ride:2012 BAMF Full Nelson

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,458
    Hopefully Niner takes care of you.
    konahonzo

  11. #11
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,053
    Bad luck mate, sounds like you came off unscaved which is the only good thing. Hopefully niner comes to the party in a way yous are both happy.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CYCLEJCE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    660
    Bash guard looks like its been doing its job. How big a boy(gentleman) are ya? Just curious... I hover around 225, and ride a Niner I bought second hand. Something like that wouls F my day up good. I hope you come to a resolution soon.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,395
    That sucks man. Hope it works out in your favor!

  14. #14
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,117
    That happened a lot on the early RIP9s, but this is the first hydroformed one I have seen go.

    If you are a big guy it might be worth grapping the WFO as a replacement. The geo is almost the same (the diff on paper is due to different length forks). It is also less than 1lb heavier.

    That lb gives you more stiffness and large flexibility on what shock you mount.

    Swapping my custom tuned RP23 to a Manitou ISX was a HUGE change, the DB air also looks interesting.

    Since swapping my rip (with same issue) to the WFO I have been very happy.
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12
    Ouch!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    I'm 6'4" and 325 lbs. I fear I may have to upgrade to a WFO for strength's sake. I don't really want that much bike though. I'm going to talk to Niner and see if they have any advice on how to approach it.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    38
    that's just a fluke. Replacement frame from Niner should be coming your way. make sure you call or email them to see what can be done. Warranty on Aluminum is 2yrs.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    So what do you guys think? What are the disadvantages of the WFO vs the RIP? Do you think the RIP will pedal better?
    -

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    I guess another thing to consider is the fork. I only have a 120mm fork and I'm not buying a new one. I guess the WFO would just turn into RIP geometry with a 120mm fork?

  20. #20
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch1413 View Post
    So what do you guys think? What are the disadvantages of the WFO vs the RIP? Do you think the RIP will pedal better?
    -
    Based on your dimensions and screen name, you my friend are a perfect candidate for a WooF-O. The RIP will be a bit lighter, but the WFO is a great pedalling bike. I actually prefer the WFO to my tallboyC for rocky technical climbing. I'm 6'4" and 205 and ride a L WFO FWIW....it's a lot of bike and will pretty much mow down anything in it's path.

  21. #21
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838
    325 lbs. and you need "that much bike," whether you want it or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  22. #22
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Breaking Down View Post
    Looks like a stress riser due to the welding of the shock bracket and derailleur hanger. Design flaw...maybe.
    Yeah, that welded derailleur hanger is a doosie.

    Why say anything if you're going to just pull something out of your ass?
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  23. #23
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,285
    325lb. That's Ventana semi custom territory with heavy gauge tubes.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    325 lbs. and you need "that much bike," whether you want it or not.
    The major question I have is if the WFO seat tube is really any stronger. From pics I don't see any further gusseting, and the seat tube seems to be the same wall thickness. No reason to get a bigger bike if its not any stronger. I need to confirm with Niner that the WFO is stronger in the places that I need it to be stronger.

  25. #25
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch1413 View Post
    the seat tube seems to be the same wall thickness.
    Based on what?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch1413 View Post
    I need to confirm with Niner that the WFO is stronger in the places that I need it to be stronger.
    Good call
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    290
    I've seen a few similar breaks on the older RIP's before they went to hydro forming. Usually on larger frames with larger riders... Niner replaced the frames no questions asked... These same guys also broke seat posts and wheels. I use them as testers - if it holds up for them there is no way I could break it (5'6", 140 lbs)...

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Based on what?
    Seatpost diameter and seatpost clamp size are the same between the two. Unless the tube gets thicker as it goes down, they are the same size.

  28. #28
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    20,033
    Not a Niner fanboi to say the least however, have to ask..were you sitting when you went over this "good sized" rock and how big is a good sized rock to you? I refrained on commenting, up until I read "325lbs"!

    You weigh 325lbs and you're a mechanical engineer, do the math.

    How can you expect to ride a bike that is designed for riders of a normal size, Seriously? Just think about the logic of this and designing a bike frame that can handle that sort of weight range, what it would mean is that it's way over built for normal riders to accommodate you large riders and that plain just doesn't make sense. If you had to design purpose built stuff like this you'd cuss and not do it. You don't shop in the same clothing store as normal sized people, you can't sit on the same lightweight chair as they can, so why would you expect to be able to ride the same lightweight bicycle and parts they can???

    Now your quibbling about gaining 1-1.5lbs in frame weight, SERIOUSLY? You're twice my phucking weight and yet you are worried about a frame that's 1-1.5lbs heavier. Since you seem to turn your brain off once you leave the office and the engineer in you dies, let me do the math for you....You worried about a 0.5-0.75% increase in frame weight relative to your weight. For the frame it's a 12-15% weight gain, yet you outweigh the "avg" person this was design for by nearly 200%
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  29. #29
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,513
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    325lb. That's Ventana semi custom territory with heavy gauge tubes.
    That was my thought when I read he weighed 325. That's custom bike frame territory for sure. In fact, I think the Fox rear shock on the RIP targets 160-190 pound riders out of the box - so it would need some custom tuning for a rider at 325.

    I fear the WFO may end with the same result, but a custom bike from Ventana, with wheels and components all matched for that kind of riding weight would certainly be worth it for longevity and safety.

    BB

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Not a Niner fanboi to say the least however, have to ask..were you sitting when you went over this "good sized" rock and how big is a good sized rock to you? I refrained on commenting, up until I read "325lbs"!

    You weigh 325lbs and you're a mechanical engineer, do the math.

    How can you expect to ride a bike that is designed for riders of a normal size, Seriously? Just think about the logic of this and designing a bike frame that can handle that sort of weight range, what it would mean is that it's way over built for normal riders to accommodate you large riders and that plain just doesn't make sense. If you had to design purpose built stuff like this you'd cuss and not do it. You don't shop in the same clothing store as normal sized people, you can't sit on the same lightweight chair as they can, so why would you expect to be able to ride the same lightweight bicycle and parts they can???

    Now your quibbling about gaining 1-1.5lbs in frame weight, SERIOUSLY? You're twice my phucking weight and yet you are worried about a frame that's 1-1.5lbs heavier. Since you seem to turn your brain off once you leave the office and the engineer in you dies, let me do the math for you....You worried about a 0.5-0.75% increase in frame weight relative to your weight. For the frame it's a 12-15% weight gain, yet you outweigh the "avg" person this was design for by nearly 200%
    LyNxy LyNxy, I'm so happy that you could misconstrue my concerns into an angry email against fat stupid engineers. You have enlightened me to a level that I could have never reached without your extremely informative response. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    I just talked to Niner. They assured me that there is thicker tubing and more reinforcement in that area of the frame and others. I could care less that its gonna be heavier, just concerned about pedaling efficiency and frame geometry running a 120mm fork. I've been happy with the RP23 on the RIP and how its handled my weight. The WFO comes with a Monarch RT3 which has a lower max design pressure than the RP23, so that may be another issue.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    530
    Hey Sasquatch, you have 90lbs on me and are 5 inches shorter, I have been running a WFO for the past 3 seasons. I've broken 10 frames in 8 years before the WFO and am pleased with how it has held up. You will learn that for a super clyde like yourself you will need FR/DH parts to be used as a trailbike. When you get a WFO get rid of the 120 fork you had on the RIP and replace it with a Fox 34 or Manitou dorado. I feel that anything less burly in the fork area will break under your weight causing you severe injury, most likely at speed. Also while you are Ebaying your fork, add the Monarch too and go with a coil if possible CCDB, Manitou etc, I have an Elka that has been really good as well on the WFO. It's just not worth risking these parts to fail on you, I mean you did see what you did to your RIP right?!

    As far as pedaling efficiency goes, the WFO is an excellent pedaler, especially the more technical the trail gets. It does have the same CVA susp as the RIP so expect the same efficiency with a little more plush feel from the inch more travel. Also I am not sure if you went with a Maxle out back but I would recoment that as well.

    Good luck on your WFO build, send us a pic when it's all built up.

    -Nolan

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    Nasty break!

  34. #34
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Breaking Down View Post
    Looks like a stress riser due to the welding of the shock bracket and derailleur hanger. Design flaw...maybe. Probably should go with a WFO for the next go around.
    to anonymous neg repper who left this:
    "Sounds like you might not be that knowledgeable about materials and the effects of tempering due to the heat of welding. If you research the subject you might find the comment a bit more relative than you think. Just sayin'"

    Could you point me to the welded derailleur hanger in that photo?
    TIA

    Also, I actually am moderately knowledgeable in materials science, having studied materials in engineering school and TA'd materials lab, which is why "tempering due to the heat of welding" makes zero sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  35. #35
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,285
    Now that's settled, I will offer some unsolicited advice

    Wheels - ENVE AM, 32 hole, Alpine III spokes and Hadley or DT 440 hubs.

    Fox 34 fork with custom valving

    Your cranks look fine

    Geax TNT tubeless tires - Saguaros or Gatos or the Ardent LUST

    Thomson post

    I'll second posting your build. I've broken many frames because I run a long post, weigh anywhere from 220 to 250, utilizing poor technique and from having strong legs

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    Thanks for the unsolicited advice, but the rest of the bike is burly. Thomson stem and post. DT 440 rear hub, 36 hole MTX 33 rims, alpine spokes out back. Kris Holm 36 hole XC rim, hope 20mm hub, and alpine up front. DH bars. Time pedals. WTB Dissent out back and 2.4 ardent up front. As pointed out, the only thing not DH is the Reba XX 20mm maxle fork up front. I'm experienced in breaking frames and "light" parts. I picked the RIP cause its a burly frame, just not burly enough apparently.

  37. #37
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch1413 View Post
    I guess another thing to consider is the fork. I only have a 120mm fork and I'm not buying a new one. I guess the WFO would just turn into RIP geometry with a 120mm fork?
    I'm not sure exactly what the geometry of the WFO with a 120mm fork would be, but I doubt it will suck. My guess would be similar HA to RIP, slightly lower bb.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    Thats what I figure. The WFO geom with a 140mm fork has a 69 HTA. RIP with a 120mm is a 70.5 HTA. I doubt that going to 120 on the WFO will steepen by 1.5 degrees, probably less than a degree. So I'll be slacker than the RIP. Not sure how trail will compare though.

    Still waiting on Niners confirmation of warranty. Bike shop told me that XL WFO's are out of stock, so it might be a wait if I go that way. I'm glad I have a spare bike

  39. #39
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Now your quibbling about gaining 1-1.5lbs in frame weight, SERIOUSLY? You're twice my phucking weight and yet you are worried about a frame that's 1-1.5lbs heavier. Since you seem to turn your brain off once you leave the office and the engineer in you dies, let me do the math for you....You worried about a 0.5-0.75% increase in frame weight relative to your weight. For the frame it's a 12-15% weight gain, yet you outweigh the "avg" person this was design for by nearly 200%
    I think you may be a overselling this a bit. I thought his questions were pretty legit. He didn't seem too concerned about the weight of the WFO, just wanted to make sure it was stronger where he broke his last frame.

    BTW...Lynx, personally I love your flair for the dramatic, keep up the good work!

  40. #40
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch1413 View Post
    Thats what I figure. The WFO geom with a 140mm fork has a 69 HTA. RIP with a 120mm is a 70.5 HTA. I doubt that going to 120 on the WFO will steepen by 1.5 degrees, probably less than a degree. So I'll be slacker than the RIP. Not sure how trail will compare though.

    Still waiting on Niners confirmation of warranty. Bike shop told me that XL WFO's are out of stock, so it might be a wait if I go that way. I'm glad I have a spare bike
    I'm 6'4" and I am running a L with a 70mm stem FWIW. I don't know how you like to run your bikes though. I tend to run mine on the smaller side.

  41. #41
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by nolan17 View Post
    When you get a WFO get rid of the 120 fork you had on the RIP and replace it with a Fox 34. Also while you are Ebaying your fork, add the Monarch too and go with a coil if possible CCDB.
    These ideas don't suck, and I think you'll find swapping rear shocks may be helpful for someone of your size.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    668
    Got confirmation from Niner that they will be warranting frame. Should be here today. Almost three weeks from break to new frame, not bad I guess.

    Stuck with the RIP. WFO had too many unknowns and would require new components or upgrades. Focusing on getting smaller to eliminate the problem rather than band-aid it with a stronger bike.

  43. #43
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,646
    I've seen that happen to non-Niner bikes when a clyde runs their rear shock with back pain and/or comfort in mind, relatively soft (low pressure) for their weight with gear on, and hits something that bottoms out their shock, with their legs rather straight and weight back. Basically with the shock's travel fully spent and the rider's body not really soaking up any of the force, the weakest link ends up trying to absorb the force, which happens to be the seat tube in this case, due to the way the axle path and linkage works (pushing the pivot point on the seat tube forward during that part of the stroke).

    Considering the RIP 9 has a linear progressive leverage ratio curve with a very high bottom out point on the forces curve (has a very low leverage rate at its end stroke), I have to say I'm surprised by what clydes can break. Good on Niner for warrantying it, even though it would be reasonable for other brands to claim that it's abuse. CVA is a great design that I rank higher than Maestro, which is probably the most similar competing design, mainly because there's virtually no pedal kick back in the CVA design, which is a rare feat for a dual link system.

  44. #44
    small member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    610
    R.I.P. Rip9!

  45. #45
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,117
    Glad Niner sorted you out, think the WFO would have been better, it pedals amazinly (far better than the tallboy lt)
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    530
    Hey Sasquatch,

    I think that you went the wrong way in getting the RIP again IMO. You will break the frame again, no doubt about it and you will be without a bike for another 3 weeks again. However I wonder if your fork will hold up longer than the new frame will? I hope it does because when that thing goes you will crash hard and could be injured. Even if you loose more weight lets say 50lbs, you will be in better shape and riding harder causing even more stress on the bike than before. Im just looking out for your safety in the long run. Plus getting a WFO with longer travel for will make it more fun on the DH without loosing climbing efficiency. A few guys that I know who upgraded to the WFO from the RIP thinks it climbs better especially in the tech.

    My .02

    -Nolan

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    to anonymous neg repper who left this:
    "Sounds like you might not be that knowledgeable about materials and the effects of tempering due to the heat of welding. If you research the subject you might find the comment a bit more relative than you think. Just sayin'"

    Could you point me to the welded derailleur hanger in that photo?
    TIA

    Also, I actually am moderately knowledgeable in materials science, having studied materials in engineering school and TA'd materials lab, which is why "tempering due to the heat of welding" makes zero sense.
    I always thought heat treatment was done to the frame after welding? Wouldn't that eliminate any "tempering due to the heat of welding"? Also its always a bad idea to weld a clamp on deralier to a frame.

  48. #48
    NMBP
    Reputation: gfs69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch1413 View Post
    Focusing on getting smaller to eliminate the problem rather than band-aid it with a stronger bike.
    That is a GREAT plan, good for you! Good luck!

  49. #49
    Life Is Short
    Reputation: fatcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,430
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Not a Niner fanboi to say the least however, have to ask..were you sitting when you went over this "good sized" rock and how big is a good sized rock to you? I refrained on commenting, up until I read "325lbs"!

    You weigh 325lbs and you're a mechanical engineer, do the math.

    How can you expect to ride a bike that is designed for riders of a normal size, Seriously? Just think about the logic of this and designing a bike frame that can handle that sort of weight range, what it would mean is that it's way over built for normal riders to accommodate you large riders and that plain just doesn't make sense. If you had to design purpose built stuff like this you'd cuss and not do it. You don't shop in the same clothing store as normal sized people, you can't sit on the same lightweight chair as they can, so why would you expect to be able to ride the same lightweight bicycle and parts they can???

    Now your quibbling about gaining 1-1.5lbs in frame weight, SERIOUSLY? You're twice my phucking weight and yet you are worried about a frame that's 1-1.5lbs heavier. Since you seem to turn your brain off once you leave the office and the engineer in you dies, let me do the math for you....You worried about a 0.5-0.75% increase in frame weight relative to your weight. For the frame it's a 12-15% weight gain, yet you outweigh the "avg" person this was design for by nearly 200%
    wow kinda cruel. But with the 325lbs I'd recommend the Lenz Lunchbox or PBJ
    for a 29er (they are crazy strong, but somewhat $$$) Good luck, and to the OP's
    comment about "normal sized people" What's normal? Nothing's normal.
    Kim Kardashian's face is plastered on magazines. What is she known for?
    Acting, singing, stripping? Nothing! Is that normal? LOL

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch1413 View Post
    Focusing on getting smaller to eliminate the problem rather than band-aid it with a stronger bike.

    Love the attitude. Best of luck!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •