Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 372
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    751
    I am 5'11" and ordered a large Atlas. My calculations point out it will be the right size for me, with a 90mm stem. Another 2 cts:

    Basing size/fit on toptube measurement alone is tricky. That's why more and more manufacturers are putting stack & reach measurements in their geometry tables.

    The thing is; I'd like to keep my seat height / horizontal distance of seat behind the BB / bar-seat distance + height the same across all of my bikes. That keeps my knee extension angles and upper body position the same. In other words: The seat tube angle does not dictate where I put my seat, my desired riding position does that.

    The result of that approach is: I do not care about the portion of the top tube that is behind the BB. I care about reach. The Devinci has a pretty slack seat tube angle, which puts a significant part of the top tube behind the BB. Much more than f.e. a Rocky Mountain Element that has a steep 74 degree STA. If you put the saddle in the same place, the size Large Rocky would stretch the same rider out even more.

    So.. the Large Devinci is not as large as the toptube suggests. If you have trouble fitting it, you'd have trouble on many size large bikes that have shorter ETT's. To me, Devinci's fit advice is not wrong. It's just based on averages, like every fit advice based on rider height. If you are in between sizes, be very careful if you have short arms and/or torso and/or have a very upright riding position.

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Billy Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Wolf View Post
    If you don't mind me asking, why did you choose a medium frame as Devinci recommends a size large for your height? 5"11" is at the very top end for a medium. For riders 5'10" and up they recommend a large.

    I, too, am 5"11" and I'm just under your weight. I ordered a large Carbon RC and just went to the LBS to take it for a spin. It feels huge to me. I feel as though I'm having to stretch to reach the handlebars, and that's with the seat adjusted forward and the seat post fairly low (moving it forward still), as well as the stock 90mm stem raised, which moves it rearward.

    There's less than a 1" difference in top tube length between a medium and large, and yet you noted that you felt cramped. If you go with a 100mm stem that should put you close to the same reach as the large I think.

    I'm debating on whether to exchange my large for a medium, but it sounds like you're going longer. Anyway, just wondering what factors led you to reach a decision of a medium vs. large
    My local BS did all the measurements on my current Scott Scale which is a large. And as you indicated we are tweeners. The measurements showed I could just make the medium Atlas work. I went with the medium due to the shorter wheelbase.

    I did a 4 hour ride last weekend with a few more tweeks and still on the 90mm stem and 100mm fork. I have really become comfortable on it and the measurements show I am within 5mm on reach of my Scott Scale setup and very close relative to BB pedaling position. My personal opinion would be that you try with a shorter stem to see how that feels. Upside of our height is you can make either size work pretty well.

    The more time I get on it the more I'm loving it. AMAZING being on a carbon wonder bike after riding a AL hard tail for long! The bike is so maneuverable in the tight sections and very plush through the rough rooty sections. Very good tracking with the I9 wheels and traction sitting or standing is excellent. Also pedal strikes have not been an issue at all for me at 170lbs in the rear shock on the low geo setting.

    There are plenty of amazing bikes out there but the Atlas has to be right up there considering the Split-Pivot suspension, short wheelbase and price.
    Last edited by Billy Davis; 03-28-2013 at 07:54 AM.

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    823
    I guess I don't put a lot of value on reach and stack because they are so dependent on fork A2C and even headtube length. They're also far more relevant to bikes where you stand most of the time. Since you'll hopefully be sitting a majority of the time, the top tube length is essential to the comfort of the fit, with the seat angle affecting the body's position over the BB. I for one hate slack seat angles, but they can be accommodated for if the seat tube length is long so that the dramatic increase in top tube isn't as noticeable. If you plan on standing more than sitting, or are looking at frames with dramatic, 59* seat angles, then yes, reach can be more important, but I'd much rather know that my bike is going to be about X long from my butt to my arms, than any relation from my hips to my hands when standing on my trail bike.

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    751
    I guess I have not been able to make my method clear to you. I do not let the seat tube angle of the frame determine where my seat is. It's where I want to put my seat in relation to the BB that requires a certain position in the seat post clamp and might even require extra setback in the seatpost.

    Seat tube angle is just a frame dimension. It determines what seat post extension, seat post setback and position of the saddle in the clamp I need to get my butt to where it needs to be in relation to the pedals. In other words: I do not care about which components are between my saddle and my BB, as long as they can be adjusted to where I want to sit.

    Is your concept of 'reach' correct? I do not recognise what you are saying about stack & reach at all... Especially the bit about standing up. I just use reach to determine what size frame would fit me and it's very useful, because ETT measurements are clouded by STA. Here's some extra information about the concepts and the limitations of using top tube lenght for fitting. Bike Geometry, Sizing and Fit - Cervélo

    (Yes, it's a roadbike brand, but the same goes for MTB)

    Offcourse it's OK if you have another fit method. For my method, stack and reach are the best determinators of frame size fit.

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    823
    No, we're on the same page.


    If the top of the headtube moves up due to a longer fork, reach and stack changes. If the top of the headtube moves down due to a shorter stack height via a zero stack headset or shorter headtube, it moves down. Unless I am mistaken...

    So, while they are important measurements, they also don't necessarily define fit alone, and I feel they are difficult to compare, brand to brand, unless you know specifically the axle to top of headtube measurements for both brands.

    Therefore...I still feel that top tube is a better measurement to size by, even though it's not the only thing that matters. Seat tube angle plays a role in that, but for me, I discredit any frame with a slack seat tube as one that is for all intents and purposes unrideable, so I don't need to bother sizing those. Also, if you can get your saddle where it needs to be, then seat angle is largely irrelevant....but that's a big IF with manufacturers sometimes.

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    16
    I had a lengthy phone conversation today with the fine folks at Devinci. The topic was the improper fit of the size large Atlas Carbon RC that I ordered, namely the super long reach. Standing 5'11" with an arm length proportional to height, on paper I'm a prime candidate for a size large, but on the saddle it's another story. I feel like I have T-Rex arms.

    What's the Devinci rep's take on this? It's a known issue. The build kits ship with 100mm stems. According to the rep, a stem of that length on a large frame is suitable for individuals standing 6'2" to 6'4". Well no wonder it's such a poor fit for me!

    The solution that was offered was to replace the 100mm stem with one having a recommended length of between 50mm to 70mm. It was also suggested to use the positive rise side of the stem (it was configured that way) and to replace the flat bars with wide riser bars to further improve reach and to increase steering responsiveness. 730mm bars were recommended. Yikes! The stock 700mm bars seemed wide to me as it was, especially after previoulsy riding 670mm.

    I readily admit that my knowledge of geometry and the cause and effect of changes in geometry is rather limited. I'm hoping that those wiser than me in this area can offer some thoughts on how reducing the stem length from 100mm down to between 50 - 70mm (a 30 to 50% reduction in length) will effect the steering performance characteristics. Also, can I expect snappier steering with a riser bar, and is there anything more to be gained from going wider other than stability? (as well as a ton of tree strikes!)

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    751
    We are on the same page. I guess we just approach size choice differently.

    Devinci does a good job providing different reach measurements for their different front travel setups and hi/lo suspension setting. Great stuff.

    You scared me a little by pointing out the ETT, just after I made the payment for my size large . It indeed is huge!

    I am confident I made the right choice, by looking at the reach measurement of the L in the 'Lo' setting, which I know I am going to use. It is exactly the same as the reach of a Trek Superfly 19", which I know I fit well.

    The 17,5" Superfly has a larger reach measurement than the medium Atlas (41.2 vs 40.3). I had a 17,5 Superfly and it was too small for me, so the medium Atlas would definitly be too small. Also, I am going to run a 120mm fork, which will shorten the reach a tiny bit further.

    Like I said, if you approach size choice like I do, you have to belong to the school of riders that position their saddle relative to the BB, regardless of what is in between. If your method is to let STA determine where the seat will be, better look at ETT.

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Wolf View Post
    I readily admit that my knowledge of geometry and the cause and effect of changes in geometry is rather limited. I'm hoping that those wiser than me in this area can offer some thoughts on how reducing the stem length from 100mm down to between 50 - 70mm (a 30 to 50% reduction in length) will effect the steering performance characteristics. Also, can I expect snappier steering with a riser bar, and is there anything more to be gained from going wider other than stability? (as well as a ton of tree strikes!)
    Here's my experience.

    Riser vs. non-riser - very limited change, only in feel and comfort due to cockpit height.

    Wider bar vs. narrower. There is a sweet spot for each rider, and you have to figure out what it is for you. In my experience, wider bars, to a point, are more comfortable and offer more direct control (more leverage). They also offer a benefit of more leverage for climbing, quite similar to bar ends. You may, therefore, add 30mm of bar and drop bar ends, and get a similar advantage on climbing, in my experience. That being said, I think there is a point of diminishing returns, where you start punching trees and any benefits to opening up your chest for easier breathing and adding leverage drop off rapidly. Right now, I'm riding 725mm raceface atlas AM bars, and I'm back and forth between believing they are just right and too wide. I live on the east coast, however, so my trails are far tighter and twistier than wide open, and descents are short and technical vs. fast and continuous.

    Top tube and stem length - This is a hard one. It's been my experience that extending the top tube and shortening the stem, while keeping the overall length of the cockpit the same, creates a plus minus effect on the bike's handling. On the plus side, it corners better. You feel more planted in between the wheels and steering feels natural, with direct response from your hands on the bars to the wheel in front of you. Steering slows a bit, so at speed you can carve up turns without feeling like the bar is going to rip out of your hands. The minus side is that the steering has a more twitchy feel at slow speed. As you crawl over rocks you may have to concentrate more on putting the bike where it's supposed to go. Climbing suffers, and this is a big one for me. You will likely have to get out of the saddle more often on technical climbs, as your weight has effectively been shifted back an inch. You're more likely to loop out or get wheel flop as you climb super steep grades. You'll have to concentrate on keeping the bar straight and getting your weight in the right position to climb well.

    To qualify, I typically ride a 23.5" top tube, but was offered a 24.4" bike in trade for a frame I hated. I decided to try it, and rode the bike with a 90mm and 55mm stem. The 90 was too long for my body, but the 55 was very comfortable. I felt like my climbing suffered immensely, and I was shopping for a 70mm stem when I decided to go back to an FS bike and gave up on the project. FWIW, I ran the bike with 730 and 670mm bars on the 23.5" TT, but only 670 on the 55mm top tube. I felt like I would have been most comfortable with a 65 or 70mm stem and 700mm bars.

    I hope that helps. Longer TTs and shorter stems are definitely more aggressive, but it's a trade off that you have to decide whether it's right for you. I think the negatives can potentially be mitigated, but for me, I'm quite happy back on a 23.5" tt bike with a 90mm stem. It lets me stay aggressive in the short steep climbs out here, but I'm still comfortable pointed downwards and carving up trail. Nothing is so fast out here that I give up much due to the length of my stem. Still, if I came across another scott scale in size large, I would give it a shot, as that bike was quite a handler.

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    295
    Can someone tell me what the shock's factory tune is for the 2013 Atlas?

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    751
    @vwvoodoo, what front mech are you using? Do you have enough clearance between the front mech cage and the tire when on the little ring?

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    91

    Devinci Atlas Carbon

    I'm starting to build mine next week, and are using a 60mm stem with 740mm riserbars. Bars has 12dgr backsweep. My frame is a Large and I'm 5,11. Building as a trail/AM bike with fox 34 talas. Very excited to how its gonna look and ride! Pics will be posted ones it is done.

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Nilsern View Post
    Pics will be posted ones it is done.
    Same here.

    I am between 5'11 and 6' and also expecting a Large. Will mount 710 Easton Haven bars an stem length is to be decided. It's going to have a 125mm travel Reverb.

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by JeroenK View Post
    @vwvoodoo, what front mech are you using? Do you have enough clearance between the front mech cage and the tire when on the little ring?
    Same question here. I'm considering one of these but have a little concern about comments regarding tire clearance. Can anyone post up info or pictures of tire/frame/derailleur clearance? I don't have the need or expectation of putting a 2.4 Ardent in there, but something like a 2.3 Ikon or Highroller on a wider rim would be nice. Any chance of that happening with room for frame/rim flex? I'd be willing to go 1x if necessary.

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    10

    Good job! My new ride.......

    OK boys, here's my two cents based on my maiden ride last night and my longer ride today on my Atlas SL.

    First off, don't use a 100mm fork unless you want a cross country ride, and if you do, don't even think of using the Lo setting. I want a cross country ride, but my first time out last night I was having my doubts. 100mm SID, Lo setting, and 30% sag all conspired to have me hitting my pedals constantly. ARGGGGH!

    Today, different story. Flipped the chip, 20% sag, no pedal strikes, and it's a love story. The bike feels like home. The first time I pointed it downhill on singletrack, then rocky, rutted double track just blew me away. The suspension eats it all up, feels like 5 inches travel and with a 105 17degree stem, the bike handles like my Intense 5.5 26" bike, but lighter and more stable. I was so happy, I didn't want to come home. I love steep head angles, especially on a 29er, I was able to whip the front wheel around switchbacks like it was a 26er.

    BTW, I'm 6'1, long legs, short torso, the frame fits me like it's a custom build. I only wish they'd make the head tube longer so I wouldn't need so many spacers. I don't know what builders are thinking, it's a lot easier to put flat/reverse rise stems on in order to have your bars low than it is to get your bars higher.

    Sorry re the white fork, got a killer deal on MTBR classifieds, wanted black, couldn't pass this up for $400.00!

    Here's my build:
    Atlas SL large frame
    Stans Race Gold Wheels, Maxxis Ignitor EXO 29x2.1
    Sid RCT3 dual air
    XT shifters and deraileurs 11/36 cassette
    XO AM carbon cranks 24/38
    XTR Race Brakes
    Easton EA70 carbon riser bars 20mm rise, 635 wide
    Easton EA70 seatpost
    Ritchey WCS stem 110 17degree
    Cutter carbon rail seat (165 grams)
    haven't weighed yet, rides very light, guessing 24.5 or so.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Devinci Atlas Carbon-atlas.jpg  

    Last edited by muzicman; 04-02-2013 at 06:21 PM.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    295
    Bump!
    Quote Originally Posted by savo View Post
    Can someone tell me what the shock's factory tune is for the 2013 Atlas?

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    91

    Devinci Atlas Carbon

    Quote Originally Posted by savo View Post
    Bump!
    Looks like HL.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Devinci Atlas Carbon-imageuploadedbytapatalk1364973390.562711.jpg  


  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    91

    Devinci Atlas Carbon

    My frame and fork. Waiting for wheels and cranks before buildingDevinci Atlas Carbon-imageuploadedbytapatalk1364973463.563536.jpg
    Last edited by Nilsern; 04-03-2013 at 01:53 AM.

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Nilsern View Post
    Looks like HL.
    Thanks!

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,350
    Any chance I could beg some of you guys to take pics/measurements of chainstay and derailleur clearance along with tire width? It would be greatly appreciated

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    262
    I am currently riding a Turner Sultan and love it, but it is a very heavy frame and extra long chainstays... Wondering if anyone out there has ridden the Atlas and also the Sultan? I have been demo-ing the new Niner RIP9 carbon RDO and it is very solid bike and has fairly short chainstays. I can definitely tell the difference, but I am having tons of pedal strikes and feel like it does not climb quite as well as the Sultan. Only two short rides so far.... but this Atlas has really caught my attention, but a little worried that it will not be as "point and shoot" as my Sultan. I will probably never be able to try an Atlas before buying, so I am trying to find out as much as I can before buying. I want to have a solid feeling bike, not one of these fragile feeling carbon bikes. I will be building it up with a Talas 34 140mm for a solid trail - leaning towards all mountain and want to find out if this bike will be capable.

    btw - can some post what size seatpost this frame takes? and does the rear comfortably accomodate the Nobby Nic 2.35 ?

    Thanks
    Last edited by shutterbug67; 04-04-2013 at 04:47 AM.

  21. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post

    I hope that helps. Longer TTs and shorter stems are definitely more aggressive, but it's a trade off that you have to decide whether it's right for you.
    Your reply was very helpful, Sandwich. Thanks very much!

    I'm uncomfortable making blind decisions for something of this cost. It would be so much simpler if the dealer stocked these bikes, but it is what it is.

    Anyway, if I'm understanding you correctly, a shorter TT with a 90 - 100mm stem would offer a more balanced compromise between slow speed/climbing and faster speed handling than would a longer TT with shorter stem. The shorter TT + longer stem would be a competent steerer overall, but it may be more bias toward slower speed/climbing handling.

    Is my interpretation correct?

  22. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    16
    Is anyone seeing cosmetic blemishes on their carbon frames? The Atlas that's on hold for me has blemishes on the frame that look like water spots, but its actually in the material. I had Devinci take a look at it and they say its normal. Since when are flaws that are prevalent in the finish "normal"?

    The flaws appear to be cosmetic only, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea of dropping this many Benjamin's on something that arrived with defects straight from the manufacturer. To me it's akin to buying a new car with paint flaws with assurances from the dealer that it's normal.

    If its true that the spotting is normal then some of you guys should see signs of it on your frames. Anyone?

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Wolf View Post
    Anyway, if I'm understanding you correctly, a shorter TT with a 90 - 100mm stem would offer a more balanced compromise between slow speed/climbing and faster speed handling than would a longer TT with shorter stem. The shorter TT + longer stem would be a competent steerer overall, but it may be more bias toward slower speed/climbing handling.

    Is my interpretation correct?
    That is my personal opinion. From my experience, after swapping around bikes with differing top tube lengths and stem lengths, but keeping the overall cockpit length virtually identical, was that with the shorter stem setup, I could carve turns and lean comfortably, getting fairly aggressive with cornering and feeling very natural the whole time. The downside was that seated climbing in particular became extremely difficult. I've honed my ability to find the sweet spot on the saddle and crawl up steep, technical climbs through the years, but that spot was gone, now an inch or so forward of the saddle, which meant standing climbing for those spots where I used to be able to sit and spin. Also, relaxed, prolonged climbing suffered as your weight is now further back and the front end gets wandery. You now have to remain focused on climbing where previously you could simply sit upright and spin.

    Could I have figured out a better solution? Probably eventually. If I were riding trails where it was a slow grind to the top followed by two hours of downhilling, I'd probably go for the short setup regardless. For a balanced ride though, one that I think can handle the ~5% time you actually spend carving aggressive turns, as well as the 75% time spent climbing (trying to be realistic), I think a slightly shorter TT and average length stem (80-100) is good.

    LeeLikesBikes has some good info on the topic: Lee Likes Bikes . He keeps saying "braaap" which is great if you primarily DH, but if you attack climbs as much as descents, I think you need balance, and "adjusting my form" for 75% ups vs. the bonus you get on 25% downs, doesn't seem right. I really like a short stem on my DH bike, and I think the handling improves dramatically in that case, but on a bike that goes up more than it does down, you really have to make a decision.

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    85
    Caveat...my comments are based on 2012 Aluminum, not carbon version. But from geo/tire clearance perspective, almost identical to carbon version. I have been on the bike since August. It is a size L, with Fox 120, wieghs 27.5lbs.

    First off I absolutely love the way this bike handles. The geo (HTA 69.5 with 120)short chainstays and split pivot make for a really fun ride. Compared to my former FS, an El Rey, this bike beats it in every way...except long seated climbs.

    As far as fit goes....I would say for me good, not great. I am 6'1 1/2" about 200 lbs., 34in inseam. I am using a 90m stem. In order for me to get to best pedaling position/height, seat is too far behind the BB. So I am riding the seat a little lower than normal. This is awesome when going down (in fact preferred), but less than optimal for seated climbs. Could get a dropper post I guess.

    As far as tire clearance, I have not figured it out yet. I have run 2.25 Nobby Nics and 2.3 Ground Control on rear and visibly should be OK. But 1-2 times on every ride I do get a tire buzz. Usually when loading up to hop something, or on a less than clean landing from a jump (no more than 3ft). I have a king/flow wheel, so wheel flex is not the issue. I was thinking it was rubbing the chainstay, but am now thinking it might be the front derailuer "collar" that attaches to the seat tube. This new info has me thinking to try a 1x set-up to eliminate. The Carbon version has a direct mount FD, so may not be a concern.

    For me, even with less than perfect fit and tire rub issues, I will say that hands down the most fun FS bike I have owned. Not sure it will ever replalce my SS, but the transition between the two is much easier now and it is getting more use than any other FS bike I have owned. .

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by NJ YetiMan View Post
    As far as tire clearance, I have not figured it out yet. I have run 2.25 Nobby Nics and 2.3 Ground Control on rear and visibly should be OK. But 1-2 times on every ride I do get a tire buzz. Usually when loading up to hop something, or on a less than clean landing from a jump (no more than 3ft). I have a king/flow wheel, so wheel flex is not the issue. I was thinking it was rubbing the chainstay, but am now thinking it might be the front derailuer "collar" that attaches to the seat tube. This new info has me thinking to try a 1x set-up to eliminate. The Carbon version has a direct mount FD, so may not be a concern.
    Have you tried deflating the shock and cycling the suspension through full compression?

    Anyone else have feedback on tire clearance? Inability to run a generous 2.25 is a deal breaker for me

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Devinci Atlas RC
    By S:Drive in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 11-16-2013, 04:27 PM
  2. 2013 Devinci Atlas carbon 29er
    By jhardeman in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-18-2013, 11:03 AM
  3. Devinci Atlas
    By jenndy in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-19-2013, 10:45 PM
  4. Mach 429 vs. Devinci Atlas
    By irishpitbull in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-14-2012, 09:27 AM
  5. Devinci Atlas
    By mtbmitch2 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 08:58 PM

Posting Permissions

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