Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 68
  1. #1
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009

    A nice comfy road bike.

    Last edited by pvd; 01-18-2013 at 08:16 AM.

  2. #2
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,600
    Care to elaborate on the headtube and driveside chainstay?
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  3. #3
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    Segmented drive side on OX Platnum chainstays. Super lateral stiffness. Custom bent.

    IS41/EC44 tapered headtube brings the HT diameter down to 1.500" for improved astetics over 'beer can' headtubes.

    Seatstays are bent very slightly.

    BB86 bottom bracket.




  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    Segmented drive side on OX Platnum chainstays. Super lateral stiffness. Custom bent.
    Very interesting. Are you just creating a butt joint where the tubes are joined end-2-end or is there some sort of internal support? I really like the way this looks, do you have any concerns about strength for this type of joint.

    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    IS41/EC44 tapered headtube brings the HT diameter down to 1.500" for improved astetics over 'beer can' headtubes.
    Very nice!

  5. #5
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    No concerns. Years ago we debated this technique on this forum. I've done some destructive testing since and belive using proper technique it's an extremely stiff and strong solution.

  6. #6
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    ... using proper technique...
    Hmmm;

    I would imagine that many people would consider any butt-welded joint in a tube to be verboten. That being inferior to an uninterrupted tube for reasons of strength. I would further imagine that your conversation at that time included such opinions. Seems like a pretty simple job on the face of it, but I'd be interested to hear some of the points you would list under the heading of "proper technique" for such tube joinery?
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    137
    Peter -- curious on the front-end geometry here. Your saddle position is very close to my own for road riding, but I'd want another 50mm or so to the bars... Anyway, my curiosity centers on the fairly low trail, with a middling-short stem. For me, I'd have close to 50% of my weight on the front wheel (okay, my CG is 14cm in front of the saddle nose, however that works out on this overall geometry). Not sure where yours lies, but it just seems that short trail + higher percentage of weight on front wheel = not as comfy. Of course this is coming from some one with "book learnin" on frame geometry, and riding experience on about 15 frames or so...

  8. #8
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    I've been meaning to do a weighing on this bike. It should be close to 45%F/55%R as I'm a little on the heavy side. That was measured a few bikes ago and saddles have changed a lot since then (I've tried to compensate for that). I do need to measure again though.

    Lots of modern seats have longer noses so going by setback is a mistake. You need to base position on the sitting bones. Thus, an older saddle will be 260mm and a fairly centered sitz location. A WTB Silverado is 280 but the nose is extended 20mm not the sitz location. This Cutter saddle is "285mm" with an additional 5mm of nose extention. The point, don't use setback unless all the saddles are the same. Fyi, I'm only running the Cutter as I had it as a donation and didn't want to buy another Silverado for financial reasons. The Siverado is more comfortable.

    WTB » Products – Saddles – Racing – Devo
    WTB » Products – Saddles – Racing – Silverado
    Cutter Bikes » Racing Saddle

    I show mechaical trail. Ground trail would be 57mm. It would go up a mm or two by slacking the head tube to 73 degrees.

    The bike rides great. The best road bike I've done yet. I'm actually as stretched out as much as I can stand with my toes grazing the wheel. My belly and comfort wont let me go lower. I may move the saddle forward a few mm.
    Last edited by pvd; 01-15-2013 at 04:55 PM.

  9. #9
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,462
    Did you run out of head tube stock?

  10. #10
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab View Post
    Did you run out of head tube stock?

    Interpreted as what's with the 25° stem
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  11. #11
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    What's wrong with a 25° stem on a road bike?

    **see update on website.

  12. #12
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,600
    Well, it's an odd choice for a from scratch frame. Why not a longer head tube?
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  13. #13
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    Is the head tube not long enough to allow the bearings to support the front end loads? Is that what you are saying?

  14. #14
    Harrumph
    Reputation: G-reg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,600
    Nope, from a headset bearing perspective we could all probably due with 30mm headtubes. Especially with the bearings you're using.

    The question is why use a 25° stem when a few cm longer headtube would achieve the same bar position with a lower rise stem? Question applies doubly when you turn your own tapered headtube for looks (and it does look like a very nice tube!).

    You prefer the look of the stem vs a longer headtube/higher toptube? Or something els ?

    I only continue to ask because you quite obviously don't do things in a just because manner.
    Slowly slipping to retrogrouchyness

  15. #15
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,462
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    What's wrong with a 25° stem on a road bike?

    **see update on website.
    Everything. You built this bike just for you, with all kinds of custom touches, JUST FOR YOU. Why on earth could you not have added another 2cm of head tube to get rid of that god awful stem. That bike looks like it was built for somebody else and your trying to force it to fit you.

  16. #16
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    The reason that I turn this question around is that folks seem to have an 'idea' that a rise stem is a bad thing. I see it all the time, folks with 50mm of spacers so that they can run level stems. Where is the sense in that? Where is the basis folks use for stem selection? Looks. They want it to look the way they are used to. You are right that I do everything for a reason. As my head tube is perfectly adequate to handle the needs of the loads and bearings there is no reason for it to be any longer than it is. Then it's all about placing the handlebar. Simple enough. In engineering we use a little trick we like to call 'a straight line'. An aquantance of mine came up with that a while ago. His name was Pythagoris.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythago...gorean_theorem.

    It's funny that I see the exact sentimate in mountain bike builds. As you may know, I build up a bike with a rise stem and flat bars on all my bikes, even all mountain type bikes. Why run a 90 degree stem and rise bars when you can do the exact same thing directly with a stem and flats? Also givin that flat bars are lighter, stronger, and cheaper than rise bars it leads to the question; Why would you not do it the way I do?

    There's even more reasons. It's a lighter setup as there is less steerer and spacer. The mass of the bike is lower than standard. The smaller triangles in the frame make it stiffer geometrically, allowing for smaller diameter tubes to acheive the same desired stiffness. I also get a lot of body room over the bike and space when porting the bike into my house, up stairs, and into the godawful bike trays on the Golden Gate Transit buses I take to work.

    So. I've given a few good reasons why I do it my way. I invite you folks to come up with a compelling reason for a longer head tube and flatter stem. I looks like garbage when you think like an engineer. The worst reason in the world is "that's how we've always done it". So....why?

  17. #17
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,462
    If your in the business of educating cyclists about what's better that's great. If your in the business of actually making bikes that people want to buy you might want to change your tune.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jay_ntwr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by customfab View Post
    If your in the business of educating cyclists about what's better that's great. If your in the business of actually making bikes that people want to buy you might want to change your tune.
    Peter has always said he doesn't want to sell anything so it's a non-issue I suppose. I like the work PVD does for sure and see his points on the stem thing but it just looks weird to me. He's right though, 95% anyway. I dock him the 5% because you can't get most stems in the rises that he uses but then he always finds a stem that will work.

    Nice looking bike, Peter! What size tires are those? I couldn't find that in your description anywhere unless I just overlooked it.

  19. #19
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    Why would I want to make a bike that a novice was interested in buying? Iwould I waste my time building commodities. I'm designing and building progressive bicycles. Have you read my wiki? Anybody can just copy old junk or techniques. My style is based on true learning.

  20. #20
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    The tires are heavy Continental Gatorskin 25c. Most of my road riding is commuting so a light tire isn't worth it. On my FBR I use the 28c version for more aggressive riding.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jay_ntwr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    The tires are heavy Continental Gatorskin 25c. Most of my road riding is commuting so a light tire isn't worth it. On my FBR I use the 28c version for more aggressive riding.
    I like the Gatorskins. I'm sure it rides nicely.

  22. #22
    Who turned out the lights
    Reputation: Francis Buxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,127
    I don't mind the stem. I, personally might have used a 10 degree rise stem by adding maybe 100 of head tube above the TT, but I like where the TT is positioned for easy on/off of the bike. It's all about what your goal for the bike is and what your personal preferences are.

    I think the bike looks good and the head tube blends very well into the rest of the bike.

  23. #23
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,873
    Hey;

    Conventions are useful for those to whom it does not occur to think.

    Ask yourself why riser stems are frowned upon by so many? If the only thing you can come up with is "that they look funny"... aaah-k. I pronounce it po-TAY-to.
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  24. #24
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,462
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    Why would I want to make a bike that a novice was interested in buying? Iwould I waste my time building commodities. I'm designing and building progressive bicycles. Have you read my wiki? Anybody can just copy old junk or techniques. My style is based on true learning.
    I never said anything about a novice buying your bike. If anything they would be more apt to buy it because they are less likely to realize it's bucking the norm. The more avid a rider gets the more they attach themselves to tradition.

    I could tolerate your wacky stem if they were possible to get as quality parts. Last I check no stem manufacture makes anything in that steep of a rise past entry level parts. That alone is enough reason to ditch it. Have you actually done the math to show how much better your slightly more compact front triangle is, how much lighter your setup is. Or are you just throwing out generalized claims like the big bike manufactures do?

    Steep rise stems are around in limited supply to get fat people on hybryds more comfortable. Is that what your bike is about?

  25. #25
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    I find that Ritchey, Salsa, and Profile make perfectly good stems**. They cost very little, they are light, and they are strong. Why would you pay more? I see lots of people with $200+ stems that don't fit them but they are stuck with as they've invested so much in. Also, these expensive stems aren't much lighter or stronger. Why do you think this is so important?

    **Provided the steerer clamp faces have been squared on a lathe.

  26. #26
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,462
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    I find that Ritchey, Salsa, and Profile make perfectly good stems**. They cost very little, they are light, and they are strong. Why would you pay more? I see lots of people with $200+ stems that don't fit them but they are stuck with as they've invested so much in. Also, these expensive stems aren't much lighter or stronger. Why do you think this is so important?

    **Provided the steerer clamp faces have been squared on a lathe.
    Try and sell the general cycling public on this and let me know how it pans out for you.

  27. #27
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    Just because people are stupid doesn't mean that I should act that way.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    111
    We spec stems on our AllRoad/Adventure bike with a rise stem. One reason is that if you find yourself getting leaner and more flexible and feel you want to increase your drop, it's a lot easier to do if you're not running a flat stem to start with.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eric Malcolm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    896

    Functionality vrs Style

    When I first saw the design and picture, I originally dismissed this bike as an ugly effort from a person who should know better. You know, steep sloping top-tube and riser bar stem as pointed out above. However, Peter is smaller than I am, and I have used various means of reducing the size of a bike visually to look not so big.

    I understand the rationale, and also can see the view of the 'conventional look' that is contemporary. Is Peter's bike marketable? It would probably be an orphan sitting in the back corner of a display in a bike shop. But, he clearly built it for himself, with a spec suitable for his application, and any builder would do this for his client as a one-off, given the brief received. I just wouldn't publish it........critical public and all.

    By the way, there are huge weight savings to be had reducing mass at the head tube by keeping it short. I have done the numbers on a frame that would have needed a 240mm HT to be used to comply with convention. I halved the length to 120mm, steerer stem also halved, which is heavier than the HT and constructed a triangular stem/bar 1 piece that looked much more elegant and saved 300grams in the process, sorry, no picture The seat tube and seat stays were also reduced in length giving an over-all weight of 1750g for a Columbus Zona tubed frame.

    Eric
    If I don't make an attempt, how will I know if it will work?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    137
    Hey Peter, I'm with you on the riser stem. All my customs (one Paul Barkley and two TiCycles, all Softrides) were designed with a riser stem in mind for the very reasons you cited. I might lessen the rise a little bit, but my position is pretty settled after 35 years of saddle time. +10, or even +15, is no affront to my sense of style, but any means.

  31. #31
    Plays with tools
    Reputation: customfab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,462
    Quote Originally Posted by briderdt View Post
    Hey Peter, I'm with you on the riser stem. All my customs (one Paul Barkley and two TiCycles, all Softrides) were designed with a riser stem in mind for the very reasons you cited. I might lessen the rise a little bit, but my position is pretty settled after 35 years of saddle time. +10, or even +15, is no affront to my sense of style, but any means.
    10 to 15 is one thing, 25 is another deal.

  32. #32
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,097

    Pete's not in business

    For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with riser stems, and it might be worth checking to see whether someone is, or isn't actually selling bikes before you criticize them based on marketability. It's fine not to like the look (I don't particularly either) but arguing the point on and on is lame, especially when you're doing so based on false premises.

    OT: PVD, as usual, nice work.

    -Walt

    Quote Originally Posted by customfab View Post
    Try and sell the general cycling public on this and let me know how it pans out for you.
    Waltworks Custom Bicycles
    Park City, UT USA
    www.waltworks.com
    waltworks.com/blog/
    instagram.com/waltworks/

  33. #33
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    @CustomFab, care to put your frames up for critique? How about the bike setups you are riding?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,768
    I think it looks great.

    It's a road bike for mountain bikers.

    Reminds me a lot of Paul Brodie's personal bike. Paul Brodie

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    860
    For most people a road bike should have a sloping top tube. For a long time the sport clung to level top tubes but right now pretty much all the top of the line road bikes have sloping top tubes.

    Stems are similar. In time sloping stems will become as normal as sloping top tubes. Basically unless you need a super low position a level stem does not make much sense. I expect that eventually the top pros will be on sloping stems in the larger sizes for all the reasons that PVD mentioned plus it lowers the front end of the bike for better aerodynamic profile in the context of a thinner stem for the raised bit vs the big fat head tube. The bikes are also lighter using this approach.

    Great job on the bike BTW.

  36. #36
    Team Captain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,326
    Any plans to make a custom stem with integrated headset bearing cap?

  37. #37
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    @ScaryJerry.
    Went through that phase a few years ago. It looks cool, but it's a bad direction to go and is not correct route to go. I strongly recomend not doing it now. The reason is that it tends to trap the bike into one stem or stem/bar situation. Forget about passing the bike on to someone else, a rider will float around various setups as time goes by. During the season you may want low. In the winter you may want high. Best to stick to commercially available parts for ease of change.

    PVD WarBird SS - Pvdwiki
    PVD TIE Advanced X1 - Pvdwiki
    PVD Bird of Prey - Pvdwiki

  38. #38
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,391
    FWIW, I think the the stem looks fine. In fact, I like the look of the whole bike. Screw what all the lemmings think you should have for a stem, that's just stupid.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NorseRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    174
    I like it a lot. Nice work.

    Truls

  40. #40
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    Simple enough. In engineering we use a little trick we like to call 'a straight line'. An aquantance of mine came up with that a while ago. His name was Pythagoris.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythago...gorean_theorem.
    If you're going to be pedantic you could at least spell it right. The Pythagorean theorem is about calculating the sides of right triangles. It doesn't justify your stem choice - you picked the stem rise first and drew a straight line to your steerer tube at that given angle. You're not using the wisdom of the ancients or doing any sort of mathematical optimization here.

    The smaller triangles in the frame make it stiffer geometrically, allowing for smaller diameter tubes to acheive the same desired stiffness.
    Moving the top tube closer to the down tube along the head tube increases the leverage the fork the fork has on the frame. And one could argue that you're adding flex back with the longer stem.

    I don't have a problem with it though, I think the bike is very PVD and fits his style and 'terroir'.
    Last edited by dr.welby; 01-17-2013 at 10:34 AM.

  41. #41
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,107
    Do you have a print or straight-on photo of the chainstays?

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jon Edwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    439
    I'm going to pick up on something a little different from the stem...

    Compact road frames. As in properly compact, not "oh lets drop the TT 1/2" at the seatcluster and call it compact". Why so few of them?

    Other than aesthetics/tradition, I can't see any advantage to a gate of a frame, when you could make it with smaller, lighter, stiffer triangles and then use a nice long , flexy, comfortable seatpost. The only limiting factor I can see is the ability to fit the rear brake in the conventional position and get the fixing bolt in.

    Off the top of my head, I can only think of PVD and English Cycles, Santa Cruz (I have a 2002 Roadster - its lovely) and possibly Giant (original OCR?) who seem to do the job properly.

    I had a chat with a well respected South of England frame builder on the same subject, and his response was "it'll ride like crap". When asked why, "it just will".

    So what am I missing?

    Cheers!

  43. #43
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    Two things:
    1. Being a respected framebuilder has little to do with knowing how to design a good bike.
    2. Most folk in the industry don't even know why top tubes have traditionally been level.

  44. #44
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,391
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    2. Most folk in the industry don't even know why top tubes have traditionally been level.
    Why were they?
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,768
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd View Post
    @CustomFab, care to put your frames up for critique? How about the bike setups you are riding?
    What happened to CustomFab's response to this?

    deleted?

    Cuts up PVD's bike but won't show is own? Lame.

  46. #46
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards View Post
    Why so few of them?
    Structurally you're generally better off with trusses than cantilevered members. Double the length of the seatpost and you double the weight of the shaft. But you've also doubled the stress so you have to make the seatpost even heavier. You save some weight from the smaller frame, but again the loads on the frame are higher so the shorter tubes might also have to be thicker.

    Given the narrow range of choices in tubing and components (especially at the OEM level) there might be some combinations that save weight - there might be some that don't.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,948
    Quote Originally Posted by dr.welby View Post
    Structurally you're generally better off with trusses than cantilevered members. Double the length of the seatpost and you double the weight of the shaft. But you've also doubled the stress so you have to make the seatpost even heavier. You save some weight from the smaller frame, but again the loads on the frame are higher so the shorter tubes might also have to be thicker.

    Given the narrow range of choices in tubing and components (especially at the OEM level) there might be some combinations that save weight - there might be some that don't.
    Yes... but no. While thats true, theres no such thing as a "compact" seat post... ie, you dont buy a stronger seat post because you have a compact frame with a foot of post showing. The featherweight regular seat posts work just fine in compacts. Also compact frames are light weight.

    Theres lots of traditional full size frames that break at the tt/st point, and lots of compacts that dont. Some of those compacts are lighter too..

  48. #48
    Most Delicious
    Reputation: dr.welby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    you dont buy a stronger seat post because you have a compact frame with a foot of post showing
    Actually, you unknowingly do. The manufacturer has adjusted for the longer seat post by making the wall thickness thicker to handle the larger load.

  49. #49
    Randomhead
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,160
    when top tubes were horizontal it was a lot less common to see broken top tubes at the seat cluster

  50. #50
    pvd
    pvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pvd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,009
    When top tubes were horizontal, a road bike weighed 25 lbs.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •