Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1
    jceahodges
    Reputation: jceahodges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    56

    Smile Light front-end on Moto-Lite

    I need some feedback... I've got a medium 05 ML and I love it. I've recently had a couple of other folks ride it to get a comparison w/their bike. They have walked away impressed, but with one common assessment. The front-end is very light. I've noticed it myself to a degree, but just compensated for it. Soooooo, I've set forth trying to find out just why the front-end is so light. I've determined that I'm going w/a straight post instead of an offset (Thomson Setback on now). I also think I may need to use another stem (105mm Syntace F99 stem on now) and/or lower it (I use 6 regular size spacers). If I'm in the riding position, the "look thru the handlebar to the hub" test puts the front hub about 3/4 inch in fron of the handlebar. I have a TALAS (90-130) fork. Has anyone else noticed this? Is it also a function of it's slacker seat tube angle as well. Here are a few measurements to maybe help too... any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!!! Thanks.

    Measurements
    ----------------------------------------
    Inseam: 34.15
    Trunk: 24.85
    Forearm: 14
    Arm: 25.25
    Thigh: 24
    Lower Leg: 22
    Sternal Notch: 58
    Total Body Height: 69.75

  2. #2
    thats right living legend
    Reputation: blackagness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,378
    Quote Originally Posted by jceahodges
    I need some feedback... I've got a medium 05 ML and I love it. I've recently had a couple of other folks ride it to get a comparison w/their bike. They have walked away impressed, but with one common assessment. The front-end is very light. I've noticed it myself to a degree, but just compensated for it. Soooooo, I've set forth trying to find out just why the front-end is so light. I've determined that I'm going w/a straight post instead of an offset (Thomson Setback on now). I also think I may need to use another stem (105mm Syntace F99 stem on now) and/or lower it (I use 6 regular size spacers). If I'm in the riding position, the "look thru the handlebar to the hub" test puts the front hub about 3/4 inch in fron of the handlebar. I have a TALAS (90-130) fork. Has anyone else noticed this? Is it also a function of it's slacker seat tube angle as well. Here are a few measurements to maybe help too... any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!!! Thanks.

    Measurements
    ----------------------------------------
    Inseam: 34.15
    Trunk: 24.85
    Forearm: 14
    Arm: 25.25
    Thigh: 24
    Lower Leg: 22
    Sternal Notch: 58
    Total Body Height: 69.75


    IMO, it's mostly due to the seatube angle. I think going to the straite post should help the most.

  3. #3
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,665
    If you're using spacers below the stem, try removing one by one as long as fit doesn't get affected.

    Small steps go a long way here... I removed a 4mm spacer and it felt much better (on my Switchblade) but it may had been too much and I'm not the most sensitive person around.
    Check my Site

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    985
    Similar to Warp - I remedied the Front end lightness (FEL) by eliminating spacers - approximately 6mm. I experienced FEL when the handlebars and seat were the same height. I lowered the bars and the FEL went away. I also switched to a shorter stem. I went from a 110 to 100.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snoops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    66
    You are on the high end of the medium frame. How much seatpost is out? What is your saddle height to bar height? Are you correct that your hub is out from your bars 3/4 inch? That would put you back in the bike. Where is your knee cap in relation to you crank and pedal interface at 90 degrees?

  6. #6
    Deere Rider
    Reputation: titusquasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    717
    This brings up a point that gets under my skin as I scan through many forums across MTBR. Many people don't understand how to fit their bike properly! (It's not their fault if they haven't been informed but I see many recommendations to just move the seat back to stretch out your effective top-tube).

    Seat post set-back and saddle fore/aft position are often mistakenly used as a means to create a more comfortable top-tube length. NEVER use saddle position to correct for an improper stem or top-tube length. ALWAYS set your saddle position in relation to the cranks FIRST and everything else goes from there. For most mountain bike riding the proper range for the greatest pedaling efficiency is as follows: Saddle height and fore/aft position must be set together. As you move the seatpost up the saddle must come forward to retain the same position with the cranks. Position the saddle such that when seated with your forward crank arm horizontal and foot in the pedal you can drop a plumb-line (string with a weight on bottom) from the bottom of your knee-cap through the pedal axle. This is approximately the neutral position. If you like to spin your gears move the saddle forward so the knee-cap is up to 1-2" in front of the pedal axle. If you like to grind your gears move the saddle back so the knee-cap is 1-2" behind the pedal axle.

    NEVER place the seat so far back that you look as if you are riding on an Orange County Choppers creation as you see in some of the bike photos across the various boards. This then requires a ridiculously short stem which then creates other handling quirks. The exception, I suppose, is if you are primarily riding downhill shuttle runs and then having the seat exessively to the rear may provide an advantage. This will, however, make your front end seem ridiculously light and will provide problems on climbs not to mention that you will be working much harder than necessary to pedal on flat to rolling terrain.

    The biggest indicator for this issue is if you are riding a L or XL frame with a 90-100mm stem. This will be putting disproportionate weight to the rear of your bike as your saddle is probably too far back for optimum efficiency if your top-tube is fitting correctly. If your saddle is in the proper range and you still need a stem this short to get a comfortable reach you should have bought the next smaller size.

    The mountain bike industry is infatuated right now with the downhill/freeride look. Setback seatposts, short stubbie stems, handle bars set higher than the saddle, and jacked-up fork heights in relation to rear travel all create the tough laid-back look that all the sheep are following right now. The problem is that this makes you feel as if you are riding on top of the rear tire and makes it much more difficult than necessary to do any riding other than downhill shuttle runs.

    OK, enough with all that hot air... Hodges, if your front feels too light I would first check your saddle-crank position and get that right. Then get a longer stem if you need to move the saddle forward. Never again consider the "look through the handlebar to the hub" test as this is something that originates from road bikes and has little to no merit on today's full suspension mountain bikes. Also, experiment with handle bar drop in relation to saddle height (set the saddle height first and don't be afraid to run you bars 1+" lower at the top of the grips than the top of the saddle). After that I would suggest lowering the travel on the TALAS to 120mm (4.7" travel). This, in my opinion, would be a good match to the 5" on the Moto Lite for the majority of trail riding. Bump it up to 130mm when you're ready to rip it up on the way down. Good Luck!

  7. #7
    jceahodges
    Reputation: jceahodges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    56
    Thanks Titusquasi... I'm mostly there already. With a straight shaft post I've got the saddle position right and the plumb drop is dead on, however I may move it up a bit as I am a high cadence guy. My saddle height is dead on too. The stem is next and I believe it will need to be a bit longer rather than shorter. The top of bars is already lower than the saddle, but I'll check that as well. Bottom line... the bike fits well regardless, I'm just trying to get every ounce of performance I can out of positioning. Thanks for the suggestions.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    507

    120mm up front

    I find that my medium Motolite is pretty well balanced with the front fork travel set at 120mm. Definitely a noticeable difference on steep climbs vs. 130mm.
    I tried various stems and 100mm had the best handling and climbing characteristics for me.
    Not much drop from seat height to handlebar height.
    My saddle is set relatively far back.....
    Hope this helps.
    Goatman
    - It's not the destination that counts but how you get there -

  9. #9
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,888
    Quote Originally Posted by titusquasi
    The mountain bike industry is infatuated right now with the downhill/freeride look. Setback seatposts, short stubbie stems, handle bars set higher than the saddle, and jacked-up fork heights in relation to rear travel all create the tough laid-back look that all the sheep are following right now. The problem is that this makes you feel as if you are riding on top of the rear tire and makes it much more difficult than necessary to do any riding other than downhill shuttle runs.
    Just as the "industry" was infatuated with XC race fit before that. You know- 130mm stems, flat bars, KOP, all that roadie-fit crap.

    "Fit" is not the exact science people want it to be. A shop can measure your body all day, but in the end they are not taking into account your posture, flexibility, issues from past trauma, terrain or bike handling skills. And that’s just on road bikes- on a mountain bike you have the technical handling aspect. HANDLING not fit. What is good for handling is not always good for fit. In the end you have to take it all with a grain of salt and decide where YOU are willing to compromise. Having your weight forward will always be better for climbing just as having your weight back will always help with steep technical descents. And what is comfortable isn't always fast, just as what's good for steering isn't always good for pedaling. We are mountain bikers, not time triallers.

    I worked for a Serotta dealer and custom high-end Ti/Steel frame builder for 6 years, the whole time I was able to try fitting, desiging& racing my own bikes, so I know this stuff. I've also done 10k' of climbing off road in a day on a bike with a 70mm stem. All I'm saying is, YOU have to figure out what you like, don't let a salesperson with a tape measurer tell you whats right for YOU.

    /off soap box/ (Sorry Titusquasi )

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    263
    Hey Quasi, thanks for the in-depth description. That was very helpful.

  11. #11
    the 36 year old grom
    Reputation: demo_slug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,726
    my take. and I ride with a 130mm vanilla.

    ML has a more rear ward weight bias then a "real" XC bike. and with a highish BB and shortish chain stay. yes, the front end will lift on a climb. but you get a lot of traction. it doesn't seem to lift until i'm really inching along and mashing the pedals in the granny gear. ( pathetic, I know)

    and if you are climbing a lot of real consistently steep fire road/jeep trails, then the light front end can really be a source of irritation (my mid week rides are on a lot of that stuff), If I fail on a climb these days, it is due to the front end lift or fitness. or maybe I could blame it all on fitness, because if I had any gas left i could just lean over the bar more or keep a higher cadence.



    side note: I was almost ready to ditch the vanilla for a talas to reduce my light front end issue, ie, get a little more weight forward for the climbs using the travel adjust. well, that was until I raced the downieville XC. turns out that parts of the trail that I was having to fight to keep the front wheel down, lots of other riders were walking and even cheering me on. because mountain bikers are cool that way.


    final suggestion. just ride faster, keep your speed up and you shouldn't have a problem.

  12. #12
    thats right living legend
    Reputation: blackagness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,378
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Just as the "industry" was infatuated with XC race fit before that. You know- 130mm stems, flat bars, KOP, all that roadie-fit crap.

    "Fit" is not the exact science people want it to be. A shop can measure your body all day, but in the end they are not taking into account your posture, flexibility, issues from past trauma, terrain or bike handling skills. And thatís just on road bikes- on a mountain bike you have the technical handling aspect. HANDLING not fit. What is good for handling is not always good for fit. In the end you have to take it all with a grain of salt and decide where YOU are willing to compromise. Having your weight forward will always be better for climbing just as having your weight back will always help with steep technical descents. And what is comfortable isn't always fast, just as what's good for steering isn't always good for pedaling. We are mountain bikers, not time trailers.

    I worked for a Serotta dealer and custom high-end Ti/Steel frame builder for 6 years, the whole time I was able to try fitting, designing& racing my own bikes, so I know this stuff. I've also done 10k' of climbing off road in a day on a bike with a 70mm stem. All I'm saying is, YOU have to figure out what you like, don't let a salesperson with a tape measure tell you whats right for YOU.

    /off soap box/ (Sorry Titus quasi )


    You so hit the nail on the head FM. MTBing requires so much more from a pilot than just pedaling.

  13. #13
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,665
    I agree with both FM and Titusquasi... both of them make very valid points, but you gotta find the happy middle for your perfect fit/performance.

    OTOH... let's be honest to ourselves...

    Are 130mm travel really necessary to clear a climb? I don't think so and I find complaining about your X bike (not only the ML) wheelie happy when climbing at full travel a bit... uh... ah... like stretching the limits or asking for too much (nothing wrong with it anyway, it's the way technology progresses and we get to ride better bikes).

    It's so good that manufacturers are now making bikes that can climb with that much of travel and that allow to clear rougher climbs than before. But we gotta be concious that climbing at 120mm plus travel up front is already pretty good.

    Longer travel bikes make you have a higher center of gravity and that's not of help when climbing. The steeper the grade, the more noticeable.

    I think that a bike with 5" of travel or more either:

    a) Have an adjustable travel or lockdown
    b) Need some rider commitment / repositioning to climb succesfully.

    That's just my 2 cents and I'm positive many will disagree...
    Check my Site

  14. #14
    the 36 year old grom
    Reputation: demo_slug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Just as the "industry" was infatuated with XC race fit before that. You know- 130mm stems, flat bars, KOP, all that roadie-fit crap.
    FM what is your take on the real benefit of a short stem?

    seems to me, that in the old days most bikes came from the factory
    ready to climb. tossing a short stem made the bike more DH friendly. so
    if the bikes are coming from the factory with more rear ward bias, do
    we realy need to feed the short stem habit?

    seems to me that I like the way a longer stem 90mm+ works for faster swoopy-er corners where i need more front end bite and getting the bar
    more forward (and up) gets me more leverage on the bar for heavy
    braking. you know what I mean? I want to shift my weight to the front
    to get some traction on the front tire, but I also need to be back and
    low to put power into the brakes. on my supermoto, when I ran a 40mm
    stem, I had to let my weight slide forward as I let off the brakes to
    turn the corner. but with my 90mm stem i'm just kinda always in a good
    position and don't have to worry about it.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snoops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    66
    Compromises. When everyone doesn't get what they want. You still have to understand the impact of every position relative to each other and the only constant is the crank.
    I find I can get use to pretty much alot but to find the elusive compromise is a challenge.

    I do not put my saddle up to the tallest height for good power transfer. I have the balls of my feet slightly behind the knee to be able to apply mash and generate power as required. I do not like my head hanging over the front of my wheel and when I have to get weight back I would like to be able to do it quickly and with ease.

    Thank you Talas and I gotta get me one of those gravity droppers.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212
    I'm 5'8" with 30 inseam on a medium, with about 5" seat pole (straight) sticking up.
    I bounce between a 90mm stem and a 100mm stem.
    What stem does a medium typically use in theory?

    I find the 100mm twitchier in the switchbacks than the 90. I think it should be the other way around. This may mean something but I can't figure it out? Anybody know why? I run the 100 beacuse I'm more stretched out on the long climbs and gives me more weight for the fast corners.

  17. #17
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,888
    Quote Originally Posted by demo_slug
    FM what is your take on the real benefit of a short stem?
    I think 90mm is often a really good compromise for most "trail" riders. Go figure, it's half way between 50 and 130mm, which seems to be the range of length that most MFG's offer. Seems to me a 90mm stem offers a pretty good balance between keeping the front end down for climbs and being able to get the front end up & over technical stuff (presuming you frame fits correctly).

    Chainstay length is a huge factor too. Shorter chainstays mean more weight is required over the front end to prevent "looping out". Likewise long stays mean you can run a shorter stem without affecting the climbing so much. It seems like some frames (i.e. Nomad) are trending towards slacker angles, shorter top tubes and longer chainstays which still climb OK with shorter stems.

    Handlebars too- I really like WIDE bars. When I made the switch, I found they were actually pulling me forward since my my hands were getting moved outboard. So I found that a 90mm stem with 28" bars put me in about the same position as 26" bars with a 110mm stem.


    Again, many factors to consider so you can make a compromise that works for YOU.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212

    FM can you comment/help?

    FM, great post.
    What do you think of my situtation below? My bars are 26" and I run my stem upside down (if that matters). I have a two sapcers left under my stem I could remove. I know I'm borderline too small for the medium but didn't want a small being 215lbs loaded. The front of my knee is right over the pedals. I wish I could run a gravity dropper but 5" is not enough??

    Quote Originally Posted by All Mountain
    I'm 5'8" with 30 inseam on a medium, with about 5" seat pole (straight) sticking up.
    I bounce between a 90mm stem and a 100mm stem.
    What stem does a medium typically use in theory?

    I find the 100mm twitchier in the switchbacks than the 90. I think it should be the other way around. This may mean something but I can't figure it out? Anybody know why? I run the 100 beacuse I'm more stretched out on the long climbs and gives me more weight for the fast corners.

  19. #19
    Veni Vidi Vici
    Reputation: barelylegal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    995
    "Fit" is not the exact science people want it to be. A shop can measure your body all day, but in the end they are not taking into account your posture, flexibility, issues from past trauma, terrain or bike handling skills. And thatís just on road bikes- on a mountain bike you have the technical handling aspect. HANDLING not fit. What is good for handling is not always good for fit. In the end you have to take it all with a grain of salt and decide where YOU are willing to compromise. Having your weight forward will always be better for climbing just as having your weight back will always help with steep technical descents. And what is comfortable isn't always fast, just as what's good for steering isn't always good for pedaling. We are mountain bikers, not time triallers.

    I worked for a Serotta dealer and custom high-end Ti/Steel frame builder for 6 years, the whole time I was able to try fitting, desiging& racing my own bikes, so I know this stuff. I've also done 10k' of climbing off road in a day on a bike with a 70mm stem. All I'm saying is, YOU have to figure out what you like, don't let a salesperson with a tape measurer tell you whats right for YOU.

    /off soap box/ (Sorry Titusquasi )[/QUOTE]


    Your too good you are FM thanks for this info, it is really helpful for me...

    OT; thanks for the pm regarding my Marz AMSL set up that I asked you, I think it saved me from a near real freak crash last week... damn.. the set up ate up a 2 ft rut on the curve...running at around 50kph ( around 31 mph), thought I was going to fly in the downhill path fire road Thanks FM, Your the man

  20. #20
    ಠ_ಠ
    Reputation: dulyebr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,189
    I can't see any reason for the ML to feel any more light up front than most bikes in its same category. I'd be curious to see if the people who feel that way about it are comparing it to bikes with shorter travel forks.

    The only thing is that with my short femurs and ML's slack seat tube angle, I can't get to KOPS even if I wanted to. But, like FM (and Bontrager) said, fit it a matter of taste, not a science.

    By the way All Mtn. I'm 5'9 and went from a 0deg 100mm stem to 0deg 90mm. The difference I felt was that I could hit my 3 foot "hucks" more solidly.

  21. #21
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,888
    Quote Originally Posted by All Mountain
    FM, great post.
    What do you think of my situtation below? My bars are 26" and I run my stem upside down (if that matters). I have a two sapcers left under my stem I could remove. I know I'm borderline too small for the medium but didn't want a small being 215lbs loaded. The front of my knee is right over the pedals. I wish I could run a gravity dropper but 5" is not enough??
    Thats a tough call- again I don't think anyone but you is qualified to say what is correct for YOU! but, based on the fact that we are pretty close in size- I think a medium is the right size.

    depends on what thickness spacers & stem rise you are running, but I would at least try running your stem upright. Could be that running it upright w/o spacers might put yoru bars at teh same height.

    I've heard a lot of people say that wide bars slow you steering down, then a short stem helps speed it back up. I am not sure what to think about that. I really liked 26" bars for XC and only prefer the 28's for the nasty stuff. If I were you I woudl just try both stems and experiment with spacers, stick with whatever feels best!

    Oh yeah on the gravity dropper- give them a call. Wayne will custom make you a post at no extra cost- one that will allow you to get the max. drop and still get full extension. Definately go for 3-position- the -1" setting is great for pedally downhills, rock gardens, etc.

  22. #22
    the 36 year old grom
    Reputation: demo_slug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by FM

    I've heard a lot of people say that wide bars slow you steering down, then a short stem helps speed it back up. I am not sure what to think about that.
    .
    totally true. and easy to prove. if you think of the bar as a lever.

    the wider the bar the further you have to move the bar to turn the wheel. this also means you have more leverage at the wheel.

    the stem also does the same thing. but the leverage you get is basically the hypotenuse of the bar and the stem. longer stem does the same to your leverage as a wide bar.

    so if you want super fast steering go with a short bar and a short stem. but you wont have much power at the front wheel.

    but a long stem is not a replacment for a wide bar, you also have to account for the bio mechanical interface between rider and handle bar.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snoops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by demo_slug
    totally true. and easy to prove. if you think of the bar as a lever.

    the wider the bar the further you have to move the bar to turn the wheel. this also means you have more leverage at the wheel.

    the stem also does the same thing. but the leverage you get is basically the hypotenuse of the bar and the stem. longer stem does the same to your leverage as a wide bar.

    so if you want super fast steering go with a short bar and a short stem. but you wont have much power at the front wheel.

    but a long stem is not a replacment for a wide bar, you also have to account for the bio mechanical interface between rider and handle bar.


    Well said

    Wide bars not only provide leverage but would be a whole lot easier for balance. I'm surprised that FM can get away with them on some of the trails around here. He must have very much skill to jostle them through the trees.

  24. #24
    Deere Rider
    Reputation: titusquasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    "Fit" is not the exact science people want it to be. A shop can measure your body all day, but in the end they are not taking into account your posture, flexibility, issues from past trauma, terrain or bike handling skills.
    FM: I realize I may have been a bit overzealous during my rant. You made some valid points. That slice of "humble pie" never tastes good but it went down, nevertheless.

    Proper bicycle "fit" IS nearly an exact science if you know your intended application and personal preferences. Each individual's application of that exact fit is where the water begins to muddy. I will admit this. My irritation stems from recommendations to make an improper frame size fit by making adjustments that will be counterproductive.

    The most common instance of this is when the shop has a size too small or too big for you but they want to make the quick sale (I was a grease-monkey for four years and was always fighting the sales guys on this issue). You need a Large but get talked into a Medium because "you can just move the saddle back to get the fit" or "we'll just put on a stubbie stem to make that Large short enough." I have seen similar recommendations across these forums (though I don't remember one in the Titus section...yet) and this is where my rant stemmed from.

    Bottom line is to take anyone's recommendations, including mine, with a grain of salt. And know that there is a way to achieve a position of greatest efficiency for the majority of trail riding that mountain bikers do.

  25. #25
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,888
    Quote Originally Posted by titusquasi
    FM: I realize I may have been a bit overzealous during my rant. You made some valid points. That slice of "humble pie" never tastes good but it went down, nevertheless.

    Proper bicycle "fit" IS nearly an exact science if you know your intended application and personal preferences. Each individual's application of that exact fit is where the water begins to muddy. I will admit this. My irritation stems from recommendations to make an improper frame size fit by making adjustments that will be counterproductive.
    All good! I too got a little over-excited too

    I hear what you are saying- and agree with much of it- especially the part about people running layback posts on bikes with short stems to get stretched out enough. Thats never good!

    hey as for leverage and wide bars- the thing with wider bars is they do give you more leverage, which increases steering accuracy and actually makes it easier to "thread the needle". Anybody curious about them should give a try, you won't likely go back if you ride technical trails. The easton monkeylight carbon DH bars are a great, light choice for a wide XC bar., thats what I'm running on my motolite.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •