Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    9

    New team & new 29er ECDM to the forum

    New team & new 29er ECDM to the forum-old-stage-rd-2014.jpg My wife and I just took delivery of our new 29er ECDM frame today from Timberline Cycles in Colorado Springs. Our pictured hardtail tandem will soon be up for grabs as my wife is ready for a more comfy ride on the back.

    New team & new 29er ECDM to the forum-tandem-frame.jpgHere is our new baby decked out in Carbon Black. We got a couple of upgrades which includes powdercoating the rear triangle to match the rest of the frame and I wanted the rearend configured with the 142 x 12 thru axle. Now the tough part....to nail down the parts list. I've been peepin' in on teams opinions for a couple of weeks now but I'd like to hear some updated dream build recommendations.

    I'm leaning towards these components so far:

    Chris King hubs w/stainless steel bodies. Not sure of hoops and spokes
    Non-tandem rated fork, Rokshox Pike or Fox 34 or 36 Talas
    3x10 drivetrain, I could go Sram or Shimano. I do like Gripshift though
    WickWerks chainrings, a buddy of mine designs them
    Shimano Saint or Sram Code brakes

    I'm trying to get over a cold so I think I'll call it a night. I look forward to everyone's input.

    Hrod

  2. #2
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,349
    From what I am reading on the trials forums, the previous gen Saints, the 810 series are the powerful ones. The Code series use Taper Bore and seems to have a hit or miss reputation. The current Guide series do not use Taper Bore, but the new Timing Port Technology.

    I have not ridden the Guides yet, but have the DB5's on a bike. Uses the Timing Port Tech and so far the levers engage consistently in the same point.

    Guide performance is on par with the current 820 series Saints.

    Should be a solid build.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by hrod View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Old Stage Rd 2014.jpg 
Views:	110 
Size:	128.6 KB 
ID:	963749 My wife and I just took delivery of our new 29er ECDM frame today from Timberline Cycles in Colorado Springs. Our pictured hardtail tandem will soon be up for grabs as my wife is ready for a more comfy ride on the back.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tandem frame.jpg 
Views:	127 
Size:	118.6 KB 
ID:	963751Here is our new baby decked out in Carbon Black. We got a couple of upgrades which includes powdercoating the rear triangle to match the rest of the frame and I wanted the rearend configured with the 142 x 12 thru axle. Now the tough part....to nail down the parts list. I've been peepin' in on teams opinions for a couple of weeks now but I'd like to hear some updated dream build recommendations.

    I'm leaning towards these components so far:

    Chris King hubs w/stainless steel bodies. Not sure of hoops and spokes
    Non-tandem rated fork, Rokshox Pike or Fox 34 or 36 Talas
    3x10 drivetrain, I could go Sram or Shimano. I do like Gripshift though
    WickWerks chainrings, a buddy of mine designs them
    Shimano Saint or Sram Code brakes

    I'm trying to get over a cold so I think I'll call it a night. I look forward to everyone's input.

    Hrod
    Totally agree with the King hubs( we fried a number of others and so far after 5 seasons the Kings are trouble free and easy to maintain) and I like the X9 Grip shift as I can grab a handful of gears when necessary. I am interested in the type of front end you decide on. Please keep us in the loop as your build progresses.
    Ed and Pat Gifford
    the Snot Rocket tandem
    (Grinch Green ECDM 26'er)

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    765
    Hrod,
    That frame looks awfully familiar just sayin...

    You won't get any arguments here on the CK hubs. Hoops, I like wider profiles personally. I hear the MTX 33 is rock solid. We've had good results with the Velocity p35 (now Blunt 35).

    I've had good luck with the Fox 34. We may upgrade to the 36 at some point, just b/c its available now.

    I've only used Maguras on the mtb tandems to date and they have worked as expected.

    I think you can flip a coin on the SRAM Shimano drivetrain.

    Congrats on the new frame! Hopefully you can get it built soon and get out and play! Maybe later this spring, you can come up our way and bring Terri & Kevin along?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    9
    ds2199, glad you like the familiar frame! We rode a few weeks ago with Kevin and Terri at Pueblo Resevoir and had a great time. Kevin invited me for a ride today but I've had the cold of my life that I can't seem to shake. Beautiful weather makes it even worse!

    I've been focusing on the fork this evening and I think we will go with the Fox 34 TALAS 29,140 FIT CTD Remote for several reasons. The wife says it's pretty, I can configure both the shock and the fork on one handlebar remote, will accept a 203mm rotor and it has adjustable travel.

    The RS Pike is limited to 200mm rotor, has too much travel (140) and is not adjustable. Great price though compared to Fox. The Fox 36 Talas is what I wanted to use but I am too lazy to deal with the front wheel removal, no remote option and no lockout or CTD function.

    Have I missed anything? Anyone draw different conclusions?

    hrod

  6. #6
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,349
    Not praising nor condemning your fork choice. Just consider that, and I base this on your photo above, the tandem will not float the front wheel over a feature, you appear to be a larger person. If you ride fast or technical stuff, you might welcome the added rigidity of a 36 so you deal with less flex.

    Only an opinion not a must do.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: switchbacktrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    60
    I've been focusing on the fork this evening and I think we will go with the Fox 34 TALAS 29,140 FIT CTD Remote for several reasons. The wife says it's pretty, I can configure both the shock and the fork on one handlebar remote, will accept a 203mm rotor and it has adjustable travel.

    The RS Pike is limited to 200mm rotor, has too much travel (140) and is not adjustable. Great price though compared to Fox. The Fox 36 Talas is what I wanted to use but I am too lazy to deal with the front wheel removal, no remote option and no lockout or CTD function.

    Have I missed anything? Anyone draw different conclusions?
    The Fox 34 seems a bit light and flexy to me. Do you need a remote on the shock when you have a stoker?

    We are running a Pike 26" with 203 mm rotors. I don't think the extra 3mm will make much difference as it's only 1.5mm extra "fork loading" on something that's not even tandem rated by the manufacturer.

    You can get the travel reduced to 120mm by swapping the air shaft for one of these "I think"

    11.4018.026.003 Air Shaft PIKE Solo Air 150mm travel 26/140mm Travel 27/120mm travel 29 (can be used to change travel to 150mm on 26/120mm on 29) A1

    Have a look at page 55 https://sram-cdn-pull-zone-gsdesign...._spc_rev_a.pdf

    This is only for the Solo Air and not the travel adjust fork, then again, I'm not convinced on the need to change the fork travel for climbing with a tandem, due to the long wheelbase having less effect on the geometry.

    I agree that having to use tools for wheel removal on the Fox 36 seems like a backward step to me .

    I would have another look at the Pike before you make your mind-up.......................It should save you a few 's, or $$$$$'s in your case

    We are using the new Saints as well..............very pleased with them.

    And Mavic EX729 rims.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    9
    Switchbacktrog (I love that name BTW), you and PMK have certainly given me more to think about but I guess I'm hung up on the adjustable travel option and here is my logic on that.

    When we rode some friends 26" ECDM a couple of months ago it was equipped with the 6 inch travel Maverick fork. On that initial ride I realized the importance of more travel to soak up the stairsteps since you can't exactly wheelie over them. The 29er ECDM is said to be ideally suited for 120mm fork. I like that notion of being able to run at 120 for mild, level riding and have the bike handle more optimally, then as we crest a long climb be able to adjust the travel out to 150 to handle a rocky descent.

    DS2199 is running a 34 Talas and I never got the impression from him that the fork was too lightweight. I think his complaint was some creaking and occasional maintenance issue. I would really like to run the new 36 Talas but I cannot believe they regressed in the wheel removal department. At $1200 I shouldn't have to worry about loosing a mounting bolt or potentially stripping out a magnesium lower threaded hole while changing out a flat on the trail somewhere. Man that's like changing the channel w/o a remote! haha I bet Fox changes that in a year.

    I have re-thought the RockShox Pike option too. I'm just not sure what size travel to run. Switchbacktrog, I re-read your comments and realized you are running this fork. Would this be your recommendation? If so, what size travel....and why?

    I'm not trying to overthink this whole build but I've never had the opportunity to build a bike up before and this thing is going to cost more than my car so I want to get it right. If you have any dream build ideas on components, I'm all ears.

    I have nailed down one component though. I think for brakes the Shimano Saint M820's calipers and levers are my first choice. Can't run the Saint rotors though as they are only available in center lock and I will need a standard 6 bolt to mount to the Chris King ISO disc hubs in 142x12 spacing. I think XT rotors in 203mm are the next best option, model RT86.

    hrod

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    324
    Hrod, we too use a Fox 34, non talas, with a fit damper cartridge. At a team weight of 280, we can pretty easily overwhelm the Fox with the right combination of speed and techy terrain. As mentioned, we get a LOT of creaking and popping which has really started to concern me as the fork is NOT tandem rated.

    I have looked hard at the Pike and the new Fox 36 but agree that the wheel removal isn't ideal. I have seen an aftermarket 15mm skewer for the new Fox that makes it a quick release.

    I will be buying a new fork this Spring and it will most likely be the new MRP Stage. It is tandem rated, 120-160mm of travel, 35mm stanchions and has gotten great reviews.

    I've been a fanboi of how the Fox made our tandem ride. However, I've become more and more concerned over the past 2 years about the safety and reliability factor. We like to ride hard on rough singlet rack with some races thrown in and I can't imagine what would happen if that fork failed. YMMV.

  10. #10
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,349
    Quote Originally Posted by mhopton View Post
    Hrod, we too use a Fox 34, non talas, with a fit damper cartridge. At a team weight of 280, we can pretty easily overwhelm the Fox with the right combination of speed and techy terrain. As mentioned, we get a LOT of creaking and popping which has really started to concern me as the fork is NOT tandem rated.

    I have looked hard at the Pike and the new Fox 36 but agree that the wheel removal isn't ideal. I have seen an aftermarket 15mm skewer for the new Fox that makes it a quick release.

    I will be buying a new fork this Spring and it will most likely be the new MRP Stage. It is tandem rated, 120-160mm of travel, 35mm stanchions and has gotten great reviews.

    I've been a fanboi of how the Fox made our tandem ride. However, I've become more and more concerned over the past 2 years about the safety and reliability factor. We like to ride hard on rough singlet rack with some races thrown in and I can't imagine what would happen if that fork failed. YMMV.
    Failure is not really an option...

    In regards to the fork, a well setup less travel fork will easily out run a longer travel fork that is vague.

    With a tandem, I never expected any of the forks we have run, to work well off-road, out of the box on a tandem.

    There is a difference between tandem rated and tandem performance. The lighter and less aggressive the team, plus the less technical the terrain the more easily a production fork with no mods will handle the call to duty.

    I still hold fast that on a hardtail those big clunky ATC forks when modified to work better are one of the best forks for a hardtail. When on the ECDM it was fine with the RP series rear shock, but once the rear got real good the fork could not keep up.

    For me, the Fox 40 is the brute get it done, whether controlled, uncontrolled, over the top with style or not fork.

    You hang on to confidence...and the first few parts of confidence is grips, bars, stem, fork, most else, like your stoker is along for the ride sometimes.

    Buy strong, go on a diet to save weight...

    All the best whatever you decide.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    IMO, I think a dual crown fork is the standard on a tandem. I have had 4 tandems over the years( Curtlo hardtail, 1 ECDM and two El Testigo's) on the Curtlo, we did run a single crown fork, that's all there was at the time, but all the others, I've run Hanebrink, RockShox Boxxer and a Fox 40.
    That all being said, I don't believe there is a dual crown for the 29er, but I would run the stiffest single crown available if it were me.
    In our prime, we were a 300 lb team, slightly heavier than that now.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: switchbacktrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    60
    I have re-thought the RockShox Pike option too. I'm just not sure what size travel to run. Switchbacktrog, I re-read your comments and realized you are running this fork. Would this be your recommendation? If so, what size travel....and why?
    The Pike is a great fork but I'm not sure what travel to recommend at the moment. Currently we are running at 140mm which gives a higher BB height and reduces pedal strikes, but the handling is still not as good as the demo bike we rode with a Fox 36 at 120mm. We had to add a couple of "bottomless tokens" to prop the front up a bit more with the Pike, but I think the're shipping them with them added now as everyone was adding them anyway. Here's another thread about the geometry
    ECDM Geometry

    Edit: Just realised your are running 29" rather than our 26" so I would think that 120mm would be just right.


    I have nailed down one component though. I think for brakes the Shimano Saint M820's calipers and levers are my first choice. Can't run the Saint rotors though as they are only available in center lock. I think XT rotors in 203mm are the next best option, model RT86.
    Exactly the same as us.............
    Name:  15939425364_c8fc42778c.jpg
Views: 210
Size:  87.5 KB

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    690
    So we have the WB 100mm fork that comes standard on the Fandango. I see a lot of discussion on using solo forks as tandem forks. It seems like there are more cons to using a non tandem rated fork than there are pros.

    I weight 200#, my wife is a svelte 150#, we ride steep, technical terrain and the WB handles it with no creaking, it has great dampening, and it never bottoms or bobs.

    All of the solo forks on the market are targeted at a weight range of 120-180#, so even a 200# person like myself has to tweak a fork to make it work well.

    Why not use the WB? Is it because it's only 100mm? Do you really want to use 120mm on a tandem? Five inches of front suspension, that's a whole lot of energy loss and boom drop.

    It sounds like the MRP Stage is worth waiting for...

    Devil's advocate here, just adding another opinion.

    Also, I just started running Guide CSR on my 29er FS and I relaly like them, super powerful, great feel, awesome adjustability.

    Quote Originally Posted by mhopton View Post
    Hrod, we too use a Fox 34, non talas, with a fit damper cartridge. At a team weight of 280, we can pretty easily overwhelm the Fox with the right combination of speed and techy terrain. As mentioned, we get a LOT of creaking and popping which has really started to concern me as the fork is NOT tandem rated.

    I have looked hard at the Pike and the new Fox 36 but agree that the wheel removal isn't ideal. I have seen an aftermarket 15mm skewer for the new Fox that makes it a quick release.

    I will be buying a new fork this Spring and it will most likely be the new MRP Stage. It is tandem rated, 120-160mm of travel, 35mm stanchions and has gotten great reviews.

    I've been a fanboi of how the Fox made our tandem ride. However, I've become more and more concerned over the past 2 years about the safety and reliability factor. We like to ride hard on rough singlet rack with some races thrown in and I can't imagine what would happen if that fork failed. YMMV.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane Jeff View Post
    I don't believe there is a dual crown for the 29er...
    FWIW, here ya go, Jeff.

    Dorado | Manitou

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,669
    Awww, forgot about the Manitou....think White Bros had one a few years back also.

  16. #16
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,349
    The ATC fork is able to accommodate all wheels sizes, and if new triple clamps and axle were made, it would work on a fat bike.

    This guy wants a QR front wheel with large axle so that rules out ATC.

    ATC stock is a hit or miss, modified they work pretty well and are Energizer Bunny reliable.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    9
    So I've nailed down my fork choice for our 300 lb. team. Tomorrow I'm picking up a 2015 Fox 36 Float in 140mm. I really wanted to get the Talas version which would give me adjustable travel but I got talked out of it for various reasons. We will ride the fork for a bit at 140 but if we don't like the handling we might adjust it down to 130 or 120mm travel. This is done internally. Going to run the 20mm thru axle too.

    I was really hung up on the lack of quick release but surfing the web I found this:
    Q36R Quick Release | FlowZone

    After talking with Ethan at Mavericksuspension.com about his quick release I decided to go ahead and purchase the fork with the QR already installed for a pretty good price.


    I also pulled the trigger on a wheelset. I'm getting them built up at Colorado Cyclist. Getting Chris King ISO disc hubs front and rear. 20mm thru axle on the front and 142x12 on the rear with the stainless steel upgraded shell. 36 hole with double butted spokes and brass nipples on Stan's No Tubes Flow EX rims, 30mm wide. I wanted to go with the Blunt 35's but they didn't carry those. I've seen other 29er tandems with this rim so I'm hoping they will be adequate.

    Now on to cranks. I have a buddy who designs these WickWerks rings: https://wickwerks.com/products/mountain-triple-443322/
    so I thought I would run these with his new 34 teeth timing chainrings with a bashguard on the front timing ring. That was a easy decision.

    What is difficult is deciding on the cranks. It seems the three choices are Middleburn, Profile or Divinci. I really didn't want to use the old square taper design spindle in 17mm when current designs use 24 or even 30mm spindles. Road cranks have the wrong BCD to run a tooth count that is low enough for off road use apparently. Any suggestions for me on this?

    I've decided to run Shimano Saint brakes. Does anyone know a part number for the caliper adapter on the rear so I can run 203mm rotors? Also, I imagine that the brakes won't come with long enough hydraulic hose. Any recommendations there?

    I welcome everyone's input on this build!

    hrod

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: switchbacktrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by hrod View Post

    I've decided to run Shimano Saint brakes. Does anyone know a part number for the caliper adapter on the rear so I can run 203mm rotors? Also, I imagine that the brakes won't come with long enough hydraulic hose. Any recommendations there?

    hrod
    Just get a new one made up. I would go for a braided hose to reduce the "spongey" feel on the lever that is caused by the long length.

    Rear adapter on ours is SM-MA-R203 P/S ............
    Name:  30035.jpg
Views: 149
Size:  20.6 KB

    You may need one for the front as well, as it looks like the 36 is made to accept 180mm as standard.

  19. #19
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,349
    After some photos I have seen about failed Shimano mounts, I would go with the sexy Hopes.

    Saint Failure - Trials Chat - Trials-Forum
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: switchbacktrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    60
    I would imagine that the brake loading on a trials bike would be much more abrupt, especially when landing with the brake already applied hard. I might swap to a Hope just in case though.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    765
    I wish there were more options for tandem cranks. Square taper seems to be the norm. My personal experience has been with DaVinci and they have worked well. I think that Middleburns are very comparable.

    I was eyeing that adapter for the Fox fork to add QR. Looks like a good solution and Ethan has done nothing but impress me to date. My only personal reservation on that Fox 36 fork is that I understand that there is not a lock out. Is that the case?

    FWIW - I have yet to use the braided hydraulic hose and never felt the "spongy" feel, but maybe I just don't know what I'm missing?

  22. #22
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,349
    Quote Originally Posted by switchbacktrog View Post
    I would imagine that the brake loading on a trials bike would be much more abrupt, especially when landing with the brake already applied hard. I might swap to a Hope just in case though.
    Agree, though the Avid and Hopes are not known to fail. FWIW, few trials guys run 200mm discs.

    This guy is not afraid to build a nice bike, so may as well do it nice especially out west and a bigger team.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by PMK View Post
    After some photos I have seen about failed Shimano mounts, I would go with the sexy Hopes.

    Saint Failure - Trials Chat - Trials-Forum
    I think my takeaway after checking out the Saint adaptor failure is that maybe a beefier adapter-other than Shimano-might be in order. BTW, switchbacktrog, thanks for sending me the adapter part numbers!

    Picked up my Fox 36 Float today from Ethan at Maverick Suspension. Ethan spent quite a bit of time schooling me on the fork. Based on my input and application he took the fork apart and added some volume spacers and set it up for me. Hopefully I won't have to do much to it other than cutting the steerer tube and playing with a few clicks here and there.

    The fork doesn't have a lockout or the Climb Trail Descend (CTD) mode so I've read here: 2015 Fox 36
    that many riders use the low speed compression adjustment to to firm it up on a climb. I would have preferred a lockout of some sort but it seems no fork that I considered had every feature that I wanted.

    Anyone have any additional info on crank options for me?

    hrod

  24. #24
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,349
    Not crank related, in regards to the fork, we do not run lock out on the 40, but a properly set up low speed compression with the correct spring rate or air volume / pressure will be a pretty stable platform that performs well.

    Lock out seems in my opinion is more a function to use when standing. Our tandem riding involves little standing and mostly just coordinated pedal strokes.

    As for cranks, if you go Profile, you may be the first. I looked into it a while back and opted out. While not what you want, you may be trapped into square tapers.

    Both of our tandems are turning older Race Face cranks. The ECDM is square tapers and the CoMotion is on ISIS. They may be out there but seem pretty rare. Especially the 175 stokers. I have a set of spare RF cranks in 175 / 170 ISIS black. If I could find a set of 175 black ISIS RF stoker cranks I would convert both bikes to ISIS and deal with it.

    Assuming you will need the stiffer cranks, what are your current favorite cranks? Consider that it is very viable to use those cranks in the front and rethread the pedal bores. Then, on the rear, run the middleburns for your stoker. May need to get the best BB possible since Shimano is not offering high end square BB any longer.

    I installed Origin 8 BB's in the ECDM recently, before install I fully disassembled, greased the bearings, and found they work well and spin very free. We do have a recent creak and I am suspect it is one of the BB cups.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    324
    Just a comment on the lockout, we have that feature and even on long fire road climbs, we aren't using the lockout.

    The new Fox 36 should have much better support to keep it higher in its stroke than the older damper versions. I'm not sure if it uses a mid-valve or is just properly tuned.

    I'll be very curious to hear your opinion of the fork once up and running.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Santa Cruz Mountains Cycling Team 2013 Season Video (X-Post from Norcal Forum)
    By RyanMTB in forum NICA - High School - Collegiate Racing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2013, 10:45 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2012, 07:57 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-20-2011, 05:33 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 05:55 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-26-2011, 07:21 AM

Posting Permissions

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