Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    I spoke to soon.... the creak is back.

    So, I was having problems w/ my horst-link pivots creaking. I pulled them apart, regreased, and snugged them down and this seemed to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the noise started coming back after 50 or so miles. I completely pulled apart the suspension to regrease everything on the off chance it was some other pivot, but after reassembling and riding the creaking was still there. Sigh.....

    I spoke to folks at Turner and they're sending me new horst-link pivots and bushings which should hopefully clear up the problem.

    As an aside, when I pulled the suspension apart, the rocker arm pivots looked absolutely brand new. Not a BIT of discoloration or wear. The main pivot behind the BB didn't fare nearly as well. Visible wear on the shaft and it was pretty nasty down there. I rotated one of the pristine shafts down to the BB; hopefully this will allow me to get a bit more use out of them.

    Dave

  2. #2
    .
    Reputation: frank n. beans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    So, I was having problems w/ my horst-link pivots creaking. I pulled them apart, regreased, and snugged them down and this seemed to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the noise started coming back after 50 or so miles. I completely pulled apart the suspension to regrease everything on the off chance it was some other pivot, but after reassembling and riding the creaking was still there. Sigh.....

    I spoke to folks at Turner and they're sending me new horst-link pivots and bushings which should hopefully clear up the problem.

    As an aside, when I pulled the suspension apart, the rocker arm pivots looked absolutely brand new. Not a BIT of discoloration or wear. The main pivot behind the BB didn't fare nearly as well. Visible wear on the shaft and it was pretty nasty down there. I rotated one of the pristine shafts down to the BB; hopefully this will allow me to get a bit more use out of them.

    Dave
    Nothing worse than a mystery creak.

    Shot in the dark here - did you try removing, cleaning, put a little grease on it and reattaching the rear derailleur hanger? I spend a good part of my saturday chasing down a creak on my Titus before I figured out that it wasn't actually the pivots, but the removable derailleur hanger. Anyways just thought I'd mention that - I had completely overlooked the hanger (while doing a time consuming teardown-clean-reassemble-testride on each of the pivots). Apparently the interface between the hanger and the frame was dry and gritty enough (2+ years w/o being removed) that it would creak on hard climbs.

    Initially, I was quite confident that it was my horst link pivots making the noise - different bike, but you get the idea. Good luck.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    Thanks for the advice... I'll try anything!

    Nope, didn't try that, but I will now!

    Thanks,
    Dave

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,364
    If there's one disadvantage to full suspension it's all the moving parts and the additional maintenance associated with it, and nothing drives me battier than an unidentified sound. I've had to eliminate sounds emanating from the following parts on my Spot: (1) between the housing ferrules (sp?) and the cable guides on the frame, particularly when I ran metal ferrules, (2) between the spring and collar at the Romic, (3) out of the Romic itself, (4) the bottom bracket, (5) the seat post, both at the frame and the saddle (6) rotor rub & squeals. Granted some of these aren't full suspension related, but still.... Good luck and let us know what you eventually find.

  5. #5
    Start slow and taper off
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    790

    as stupid as it sounds

    I know cable ferrules were mentioned, but also try the actual housing for creeks.
    It took me a couple of weeks to diagnose a creak on my frame, and finally discovered it was the actual HOUSING creaking as the suspension moved! What took so long was as the housing shifted slightly, it wouldn't always creak. Once I replaced the housing no more creaks.

    Good luck.

  6. #6
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056
    Quote Originally Posted by neveride
    I know cable ferrules were mentioned, but also try the actual housing for creeks.
    It took me a couple of weeks to diagnose a creak on my frame, and finally discovered it was the actual HOUSING creaking as the suspension moved! What took so long was as the housing shifted slightly, it wouldn't always creak. Once I replaced the housing no more creaks.
    .
    Good tip.

    I've even had housings rub against each other cause creak-like sound. I spotted them moving at the precise moment of the noise. This may not apply to MSC's problem but it's a good thing to keep in the mental toolbox.
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    159

    My Burner was creaking before I did my first trail ride...

    I isolated the noise to the top shock bolt. It looks like the shock was bolted to the rockers while the paint was still slightly tacky, as some of the paint is stuck to the chrome spacers on the shock. I lightly sanded both the spacers and the corresponding area on the rockers, lightly greased and reassembled and no more creak.FWIW

  8. #8
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056
    Quote Originally Posted by mtber36
    ...It looks like the shock was bolted to the rockers while the paint was still slightly tacky, as some of the paint is stuck to the chrome spacers on the shock. ...
    I think all the rockers are anodised. That may be where the creak came from, and there may have been something on the alu eyelet reducers, but it seems unlikely it was paint from the rockers.
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    159

    Thanks for the clarification

    Regardless, the interface between the rockers and eyelets was dry as a bone out of the box. Could it be that whatever grease they use dried up? Hmmmm

  10. #10
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056
    Quote Originally Posted by mtber36
    Regardless, the interface between the rockers and eyelets was dry as a bone out of the box. Could it be that whatever grease they use dried up? Hmmmm
    I'm just thinking out loud. I don't wish to appear to be argumentative.

    I'm not entirely sure there was grease on that interface on my bike either. I was under the impression that particular part did not require it. That is because the Romic manual says "Note: Never apply grease to Reducer or Eye Bearing." Perhaps the reducer wear is it's own lubrication?

    That said I have put a thin coat on the face of the reducer in the past, but last time I had them out I put them back in dry. My guess is it's more critical the inner eye/reducer interface is dry to keep it from rotating and creating wear on the inner eye bearing surfaces...but I really don't have the slightest idea.

    In any event you found the creak an eliminated it so you must have done the right thing...right?
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  11. #11
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056

    We the people ...

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    I don't think he's referring to that. I think the lateral faces of the rockers and the reducers was what he was talking about, if I'm not mistaken.
    So was I.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    But I think it wouldn't be to anyone's advantage for it to be greased because you want those surfaces to move together, not slide against one another.

    I'm a little confused about this bit. The inside vertical face of the rocker should slide over the outside vertical face of the recucer eyelet. It would be a bad thing for the reducer eyelet to rotate within the shock eye because the inner shock eye bearing would wear and it is not easily replaced. Plus if either the inner eye bearing or inner reducer shaft wore, that would introduce play and allow the shock/rocker to click slightly when cycling. It would only get worse over time, as more movement would create more wear.

    So in short, you want the rocker to move (rotate) over the face of the reducer b/c you can replace those quite easily and can eliminate any lateral play by keeping the bolts tight. The reducers shouldn't move once pressed into the shock eyelet b/c any movement will create destructive wear, vertical play, and noise. None of which can be controlled by bolt torque.

    Well that's how I see it anyway, I could be wrong.
    You may want to download the Romic PDF if I wasn't too clear: http://www.romicmfg.com/iexplore/index.php[/color]]Romic Manual
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    159

    No worries, you were not argumentative

    You did give me clarification. I did not realize the rockers were anodized!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    159

    I think we are all on the same page

    Steve3 is correct. I lubricated the outer surfaces of the eyelet reducer. The inner surface of the rockers where they contact the eyelets have a good amount of wear considering that the bike has less than 50 miles on it. Not serious, just cosmetic marks from where the reducers have been rubbing on them. The reducers themselves have a black crust on the outside, probably the worn off coating from the rockers, which I first thought might be paint. In any case, I would think that interface would need some lube, which it did not have. Thanks for the feedback. I'm new with full suspension and didn't even know what the eyelet reducers were called Please let me know if you all see anything wrong with what I have done!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    161

    Trouble ahead...

    I really think you guys are headed for trouble by setting up your shock mounting pivots this way. If you think about it, what are the parts in this system that are designed to take the wear? If the reducers are fixed in the shock eye, then the interface of the reducers and the rockers/frame flanges is the spot that will wear out. If you put grease on that interface, you are hastening the wear by attracting dirt. Eventually, that interface starts to wallow out, so you tighten it down more, leading to distortion of the frame flanges and rockers. It's only a matter of time/miles at that point.

    Rather, the cheap and easily replaced parts in this linkage are the reducers and the DU insert in the shock eye. Why else would there be a replaceable bushing coated with an self-lubricating anti-friction material in the shock eye? When setup properly, the reducers, frame flanges (or rockers) and the fixing bolt are the fixed axle about which the shock rotates on the DU bushing. Compare this to the other pivots in the suspension linkage; all have a replaceable axle and bushings, the frame is never in contact with the moving parts.

    I have seen a couple of frames that were setup the way you are describing; the result was wallowed out holes in a swing link where the reducers had been rotating against it. Replacement costs for a set of reducers and a eyelet bushing is what, $8. Replacement costs of wallowed out rockers and/or frame flanges; the sky's the limit.

    steve3 has it right. I would be curious to hear what Turner has to say about it.

  15. #15
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056
    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    Wow, I was trying to understand, but this is getting complicated. i think we're talking about the same thing, Bikezilla.

    I'm under the assumption that the surfaces he lubricated are the inner face of the rocker to outer face of the shock reducer. At I understand it, you want as much friction as possible between the rocker and the reducer because the reducer is supposed to move within the bushing in the shock eyelet, not at the rocker. If it moved at the rocker, that would cause wear on both mating faces, while not allowing the reducer to rotate within the bushing. In effect, the bushing to reducer surfaces are supposed to be the thrust surfaces, not the rocker to reducer faces.

    Meanwhile, we're probably talking about the same thing
    Yes, It sounds like he lubricated the inner vertical face of the rocker and outer vertical face of the reducer...that's okay from my perspective...

    But as for what you're saying (if I understand it correctly) I think we are talking 180 degrees out of phase... This is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

    The reducer and should NOT rotate or move in any way within the eyelet. This is because:
    a) the inner eyelet surface would wear and it is difficult to replace.
    b) the wear will create room for play which will create vertical movement as the shock moves. This will also accelerate the wear and create creaking and clicking.

    What I'm trying to say is we WANT the rocker to rotate over the face of the reducer. The reducer should remain motionless, fixed, static, welded with static friction, fitted tightly within the eyelet of the shock. The only thing that should be rotating is the rocker.

    Unless I'm totally wrong here.
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    Hmmm... I think you're wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    What I'm trying to say is we WANT the rocker to rotate over the face of the reducer. The reducer should remain motionless, fixed, static, welded with static friction, fitted tightly within the eyelet of the shock. The only thing that should be rotating is the rocker.

    Unless I'm totally wrong here.
    The shock reducers fit into a replacable sleeve which is pressed into the shock both of which are replaced on a regular basis. I think that this is designed to rotate slightly in the reducer, wear out and be replaced every once in a while.

    I also think I might have fixed my creak. I think it was:

    1) The horst links were too tight.
    2) The main pivot needed to be cleaned and regreased (first time I've pulled my pivots apart in over a year, so I guess that's OK )
    3) My crank was making noise. I swapped the crank from my spare bike onto it and it seems to be quiet. I've been totally hit-and-miss w/ Shimano cranks. Some make noise, some don't.

    I haven't had a chance to ride on the trail yet, but riding it up and down the street and honking on the pedals does not generate any creaking. I hope this has fixed the problem!

    I told the guy @ Turner that I thought my HL pivots were roached and he sent me a new set gratis 3 day mail. I feel a little bit guilty since it might not be the HL pivots afterall. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't feel too bad since I've bought two frames from them in the last year and a half.

    Take it easy.

    Dave

  17. #17
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056

    Woahboy now this gets tricky...

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    ...If you think about it, what are the parts in this system that are designed to take the wear? If the reducers are fixed in the shock eye, then the interface of the reducers and the rockers/frame flanges is the spot that will wear out. If you put grease on that interface, you are hastening the wear by attracting dirt. Eventually, that interface starts to wallow out, so you tighten it down more, leading to distortion of the frame flanges and rockers. It's only a matter of time/miles at that point.
    I understand the point about grease attracting dirt. I agree and think that is part of why Romic recommends against greasing it.

    But I see the reducers as the expendable and softer material here, I would think the hardened and hard anodised rockers would have no problem with wear against the face of the very soft recucers. Mine don't show any real wear. OTOH the recucers and eyelet bushings would wear each other out quickly and any wear would immediately create vertical movement that could not be compensated for and accelerate the wearing as well as create micro-shock impacts on the eyelet surfaces as it slammed up and down in the gap created by the wear.

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    Rather, the cheap and easily replaced parts in this linkage are the reducers and the DU insert in the shock eye. Why else would there be a replaceable bushing coated with an self-lubricating anti-friction material in the shock eye? When setup properly, the reducers, frame flanges (or rockers) and the fixing bolt are the fixed axle about which the shock rotates on the DU bushing. Compare this to the other pivots in the suspension linkage; all have a replaceable axle and bushings, the frame is never in contact with the moving parts.
    I understand your point, but I would figure if they wanted to discourage the rocker from rotating on the outer face of the reducer they would have somehow keyed or scored the interface. I recall when I took my shock off to send in for servicing, the reducers felt like they were pressed in...darned tight. If they were designed to rotate I would think they'd be looser.

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    I have seen a couple of frames that were setup the way you are describing; the result was wallowed out holes in a swing link where the reducers had been rotating against it.
    Scary thought...but consider that the lower shock mount moves very little throughout the whole stroke, and that some pivoting probably takes place on the bolt shaft, and that hardened 6061-T6 can kick the tar out of whatever scrap metal they use for the reducers.

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    Replacement costs for a set of reducers and a eyelet bushing is what, $8. Replacement costs of wallowed out rockers and/or frame flanges; the sky's the limit.
    $8 I wish. My shock came back with some loose fitting old reducers (not the sparkly tight fitted ones I sent them in with.) I requested and received some new ones and then promptly lost them before installing them. I owned up to my blunder and ordered some new ones today. Brian at Romic quoted me $15 bucks. Seems kinda steep but then a new set of C-bros cleats is $19 at Nashbar and they only last a season, so I guess It's all relative.

    Now what do they charge for the eyelet bushing inserts? and are they easily replaceable like the reducers are?

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    steve3 has it right. I would be curious to hear what Turner has to say about it.
    Yeah one call should settle this. Romic would be the better source but they can be difficult to get on the phone at times, and I'd rather they spend their time gettign people's shocks back to them.

    Boy this started out so simple too.
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  18. #18
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056
    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    "I think you're wrong..." The shock reducers fit into a replacable sleeve which is pressed into the shock both of which are replaced on a regular basis. I think that this is designed to rotate slightly in the reducer, wear out and be replaced every once in a while.
    I might be. You Alibi and Steve3 make some valid points. I'll have to pull it apart again and look at the wear patterns on all the bits. And maybe call Turner and/or Romic.


    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    I also think I might have fixed my creak. I think it was:
    Cool! chasing creaks sucks! they hide in the most unusual places and sometimes seems unrelated to where they sound like they are coming from. But thanks to this discussionI bought a torque wrench that cost 2X more than the pair of Diadoras I just got.

    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    I haven't had a chance to ride on the trail yet, but riding it up and down the street and honking on the pedals does not generate any creaking.
    Don't forget the midnight basement test...there, I can hear which knobs on my tires are worn . Creaks drive me crazy!

    Meanwhile I'll be sprinkling some salt on my new shoes...just in case I have to put one of them in my mouth.

    Cheers gears and beers!
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jennasdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502

    Another voice in the wilderness

    Let's see if this adds to the confusion. BETD sells a really nice shock bushing. It has a solid shaft, or pivot, for the shock to rotate on. You slip a small collar on the one end to complete the assembly. The shaft has a shoulder on it that the small collar will rest against. The distance "A" is where the shaft will ride in the bushing of the shock. This distance is a hair wider than the bushing that is in the shock eye, so, when you slip on the collar, no matter how hard you squeeze the two ends of the shaft assembly together, the shock still pivots smoothly on the shaft. (I have my two stock shock inserts and a shock eye bushing. The inserts actually bottom against each other before hitting the ends of the bushing. Like the BETD, I can squeeze the two inserts together as tight as possible and the bushing stills spins freely on the inserts. The bushing is afterall a bearing.) This is not unlike the Turner pivots where, when you torque the bolts, say on the swingarm/bb, the pivot/swingarm become one assembly that pivots in the frame bushing. Likewise, when you tighten the shock mounting bolts the pivot arms and shock inserts (or pivot shaft in the BETD case) become one unit and pivot on the shock bushing. So, it would seem you do not want the rockers pivoting on the shock inserts but rather the rockers/shock inserts become a unit that pivots on the shock bushing, just like the Turner pivots. My $.02.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  20. #20
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056
    I'm seeing the point here.

    What y'all are telling me is that like the bushing pivots elsewhere on the frame, the eyelet reducers act as a axel shaft turned by the rocker arm and rotate within the shock eyelet. The bolt torque buts the two reducers against each other and the rocker faces and they act as a single part.

    I understand it. The warning against grease is imaterial in determining what the intent is as the Turner instructions recommend greasing the pivot shaft face as well as the bushing outer vertical face, even though the pivot shaft should be locked against whatever is turning it. We'll have to get Tscheezy's perspective on why the instructions say grease the shaft face...probably to control creaking.

    Still, I think it would be easier to control play and slop by allowing the rocker to rotate on the reducer face rather than let the reducer core and inner eyelet bushing dry-wear each other out. In any event I'll follow the instructions and leave it all dry.

    Tnx!
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    161

    more fuel....

    Here's a post from a few days ago, in which the poster states that someone at Fox told him that the reducers are supposed to be fixed in the eyelet:

    which pivots DU or bolt?

    I don't buy it.

    And, Bikezilla, FYI; replacement of the DU bushings in a shock eyelet is a 2 minute job with the correct tool, 5 minutes with a homemade setup.

    Please let us know what conclusions you come to; I know from your posting history that you will get to the bottom of this.

  22. #22
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056
    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    ...Bikezilla, ...Please let us know what conclusions you come to; I know from your posting history that you will get to the bottom of this.
    Well the good news is I have to call Romic anyway...

    The bad news is it's because I found my long-lost new reducers... just a few hours after I placed the order for replacements. Isn't that always the way? It's not like I wasn't turning the place upside down for the last week.

    The arguement you all present gets more convincing as I reread the discussion. But I'll let you know what I find out, and what I see when I replace my current reducers.
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  23. #23
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,056

    Idea! And the answer is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Well the good news is I have to call Romic anyway...
    Y'all owe me a beer!

    I just spoke with Brian at Romic, he was quite specific, and certain that the intent is as I described: The recucer is not designed to rotate within the shock eyelet. While the eyelet does have a bushing insert, and it does create a powdery coating, the shock assembly is to remained fixed. He further confirmed that the rocker is intended to rotate on the face of the reducer.

    He mentioned that if the reducer rotated it would wear out the internal assembly, and if they wanted rotational movement they would have used bearings. He said it is similar to the arrangement in a car shock in that the bushing is not intended to rotate there either.

    The arguement to the contrary is nevertheless convincing, and I don't find it hard to believe either side, so I do not regard any of you who may remain unpersuaded as stubborn. In fact, I encourage you to get evidence to the contrary.

    But for the moment, I'll be taking my betting tips from Mr. Ed.

    And of course, my spare order shipped already, so to cut my losses...I'll be expecting a six of Stout from y'all

    Cheers Gears and Beers!
    Countdown to Whistler 2012...
    July can't come fast enough!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452

    Spare Order?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Y'all owe me a beer!

    I just spoke with Brian at Romic, he was quite specific, and certain that the intent is as I described: The recucer is not designed to rotate within the shock eyelet. While the eyelet does have a bushing insert, and it does create a powdery coating, the shock assembly is to remained fixed. He further confirmed that the rocker is intended to rotate on the face of the reducer.

    He mentioned that if the reducer rotated it would wear out the internal assembly, and if they wanted rotational movement they would have used bearings. He said it is similar to the arrangement in a car shock in that the bushing is not intended to rotate there either.

    The arguement to the contrary is nevertheless convincing, and I don't find it hard to believe either side, so I do not regard any of you who may remain unpersuaded as stubborn. In fact, I encourage you to get evidence to the contrary.

    But for the moment, I'll be taking my betting tips from Mr. Ed.

    And of course, my spare order shipped already, so to cut my losses...I'll be expecting a six of Stout from y'all

    Cheers Gears and Beers!
    Did you order a second Romic as a spare?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jennasdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502

    ... and if we just ... My head hurts

    Well this discussion certainly deserves a few beers! So, should the shock mounting bolt just be snugged up to allow the rockers to rotate against the surface of the inserts rather than really tighened up? (I'll need a couple of beers to believe that one!). And, if you had found your bushings before ordering them do you think you would have gotten the same answer from Romic? One of Murphy's Laws should be: The quickest way to find a part you've misplaced is to order a new one.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. how not to hurt your back this season
    By rpl3000 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2004, 06:13 PM
  2. Back Problems!!
    By Mooty in forum Passion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-07-2004, 07:11 AM
  3. Disc wheel build : lacing question
    By Nick. in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-03-2004, 06:03 PM
  4. Oy, my aching back & ******
    By Addy in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-25-2004, 05:05 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-20-2004, 06:45 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
  •