Any longer travel FS 29ers on the horizon?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 43 of 43
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Any longer travel FS 29ers on the horizon?

    So when Chumba is going to listen to 29er freaks wanting long travel 29ers? 120-140 Reba tapered 120mm TA and Marzocchi Zoke 140mm tapered as well. Even Rocky Mountain did a very good 29er. What about Chumba? Onyl HT for 29ers?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134
    I think if we could get enough interest we could look at doing one - what would people want - all carbon fiber? a macstrut - or a multilink?
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Too much thinking and not enough work. Go and make 29er versions of your 26ers. Make it Alu and Carbon versions and please at least SEVERAL VERSIONS not just one 29er and you call it done like Santa Cruz or Intense! Make 4" racer 5" light trail bike or longer travel XC and 6" burly just like 6" Lunchbox with tapered HT and 35mm stanchioned wb fork.
    Do you need more instructions? If so read my posts I give instructions to everyone :P I know what is good for all of us

    Deal?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Too much thinking and not enough work. Go and make 29er versions of your 26ers. Make it Alu and Carbon versions and please at least SEVERAL VERSIONS not just one 29er and you call it done like Santa Cruz or Intense! Make 4" racer 5" light trail bike or longer travel XC and 6" burly just like 6" Lunchbox with tapered HT and 35mm stanchioned wb fork.
    Do you need more instructions? If so read my posts I give instructions to everyone :P I know what is good for all of us

    Deal?
    I am liking the idea of a 29 inch EVO.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    DC, off the coffee please...and maybe get a job as well. Can you focus on bothering just a couple of manufacturers at a time? OR, just get a Lunchbox and start riding for once.

  6. #6
    BMJ
    BMJ is offline
    "55 lbs and climbing!"
    Reputation: BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,033

    Yum!

    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    I am liking the idea of a 29 inch EVO.
    Hook me up!
    While your at it.... get Fox to make a 29er Van 36 RC2 to match.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779

    Dh from Niner. Come on Chumba!

  8. #8
    BMJ
    BMJ is offline
    "55 lbs and climbing!"
    Reputation: BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,033
    DAMN! Who's rig is that? The forks worth more than the rest of the bike!

  9. #9
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Too much thinking and not enough work. Go and make 29er versions of your 26ers. Make it Alu and Carbon versions and please at least SEVERAL VERSIONS not just one 29er and you call it done like Santa Cruz or Intense! Make 4" racer 5" light trail bike or longer travel XC and 6" burly just like 6" Lunchbox with tapered HT and 35mm stanchioned wb fork.
    Do you need more instructions? If so read my posts I give instructions to everyone :P I know what is good for all of us

    Deal?
    Hey Alan,
    Looks like you have a potential investor for your future R&D!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by scruffylooking
    Hey Alan,
    Looks like you have a potential investor for your future R&D!
    Great! Cleared the financing hurdle!

    -A.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    115
    just when I thought there was no way to make the evo more of a terd. Of course, 29 inch wheels. That would do it. That would give the evo about 2 feet of bottom bracket clearance. Perfect.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Larsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    285
    Easy: VF2-9r
    Last edited by Larsey; 08-01-2009 at 04:15 PM.

  13. #13
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by redspotff
    just when I thought there was no way to make the evo more of a terd. Of course, 29 inch wheels. That would do it. That would give the evo about 2 feet of bottom bracket clearance. Perfect.
    Have you ridden an EVO? Numbers don't always tell you everything. And not the prettiest bike but they're pretty awesome in the handling and suspension departments.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by redspotff
    just when I thought there was no way to make the evo more of a terd. Of course, 29 inch wheels. That would do it. That would give the evo about 2 feet of bottom bracket clearance. Perfect.
    Just so you know - the EVO's bottom bracket has been lowered with an option for a new rear triangle that is included with all new EVOs sold. You can even get below 14". What else makes it a "terd" to you - or put another way - what other issues do you find with it?
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by scruffylooking
    Have you ridden an EVO? Numbers don't always tell you everything. And not the prettiest bike but they're pretty awesome in the handling and suspension departments.
    Right Scruffy - it's suprising how people make assumptions about that bike - it is easily one of the most underestimated bikes in its class -
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    11
    I have a 2008 evo it does looks a little strainge, but rides very well for a trail bike.I have raced for all the big brands here in our country for 20 years.And i think the evo is as good as anythig you can buy out there .

  17. #17
    BMJ
    BMJ is offline
    "55 lbs and climbing!"
    Reputation: BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,033
    Isn't "terd" spelled..."Turd"?

    I like the high bottom bracket. Hear in the North East, we have alot of high rock and boulder to contend with. I've found that I can clear alot more of it than the guys I ride with because of the unusually high BB. I have tried the new rear triangle that Alan sent me to lower the BB. I found I prefer to stick with the stock set-up. The low BB rear triangle lowers it a fair amount and I ran into troubles with tech stuff I was clearing before. It also slows the geometry more than I like for our local tight trails. The other thing to consider with the lower BB rear triangle is that it brings the axle more in line with the virtual pivot location which is approximately just behind the front derallier in line with the middle chain ring. It will make it so the axle becomes almost exclusively vertical where the stock set up has an initial rearward axle path into vertical. A better set up for reacting to the on comming impact. This is my diagnosis.

    Style wise... It's very unique and grabs attention. I've got the only one in my area and it always draws out a question or two.

    Still a GREAT climer for a pig of a bike at 36lbs too.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19
    Dedspotff is obviously another forum sniper. If he ever gets out in my direction, i would let him ride my EVO which would change his mind

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by BMJ
    Isn't "terd" spelled..."Turd"?

    I like the high bottom bracket. Hear in the North East, we have alot of high rock and boulder to contend with. I've found that I can clear alot more of it than the guys I ride with because of the unusually high BB. I have tried the new rear triangle that Alan sent me to lower the BB. I found I prefer to stick with the stock set-up. The low BB rear triangle lowers it a fair amount and I ran into troubles with tech stuff I was clearing before. It also slows the geometry more than I like for our local tight trails. The other thing to consider with the lower BB rear triangle is that it brings the axle more in line with the virtual pivot location which is approximately just behind the front derallier in line with the middle chain ring. It will make it so the axle becomes almost exclusively vertical where the stock set up has an initial rearward axle path into vertical. A better set up for reacting to the on comming impact. This is my diagnosis.

    Style wise... It's very unique and grabs attention. I've got the only one in my area and it always draws out a question or two.

    Still a GREAT climer for a pig of a bike at 36lbs too.
    Yes BMJ,

    BB Height is largely a function of the type of terrain you ride and personal preference - having pedal strikes on technical climbs as you describe is def. a drawback to the BB being too low. The new XCL linkages are a good compromise - where you can adjust the BB height and headangle with a different shock position.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUMBAevo
    Just so you know - the EVO's bottom bracket has been lowered with an option for a new rear triangle that is included with all new EVOs sold. You can even get below 14". What else makes it a "terd" to you - or put another way - what other issues do you find with it?
    So I was not in the wrong for thinking the BB was high? Sounds like you made some sound improvements to the bike since I demo'd one. The one I rode I did not care for, obviously this is the wrong forum to try to slam a Chumba, I understand that. I took it out on real trails and not just a parking lot evaluation. I wanted it to work, as I was looking to buy one, but compared to the competition...Maybe it was the setup of the bike, but my opinion is still 29 wheels on an evo would not make a great bike. Sorry to offend anyone, not trying to "snipe" any forums.

    So what does the new rear end do to the HA?
    Is the new rear any lighter?

  21. #21
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by redspotff
    So I was not in the wrong for thinking the BB was high? Sounds like you made some sound improvements to the bike since I demo'd one. The one I rode I did not care for, obviously this is the wrong forum to try to slam a Chumba, I understand that. I took it out on real trails and not just a parking lot evaluation. I wanted it to work, as I was looking to buy one, but compared to the competition...Maybe it was the setup of the bike, but my opinion is still 29 wheels on an evo would not make a great bike. Sorry to offend anyone, not trying to "snipe" any forums.

    So what does the new rear end do to the HA?
    Is the new rear any lighter?
    respotff,
    Appreciate the reply. Fair enough. No such thing as a bike that everyone likes. I rode a demo for several trail rides and really enjoyed it here in So Cal. That thing was so smooth through rock gardens.

    This is actually the forum for you to slam on a Chumba (if you do it like a good forum citizen) but this is probably the wrong thread. It's probably moot, though, since there probably isn't a long travel FS 29er on the horizon for Chumba unless DC decides to fund the project.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CHUMBAevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by redspotff
    So I was not in the wrong for thinking the BB was high? Sounds like you made some sound improvements to the bike since I demo'd one. The one I rode I did not care for, obviously this is the wrong forum to try to slam a Chumba, I understand that. I took it out on real trails and not just a parking lot evaluation. I wanted it to work, as I was looking to buy one, but compared to the competition...Maybe it was the setup of the bike, but my opinion is still 29 wheels on an evo would not make a great bike. Sorry to offend anyone, not trying to "snipe" any forums.

    So what does the new rear end do to the HA?
    Is the new rear any lighter?
    Well - BB heights are largely personal preference - so we have options for ppl who want to go lower now - the headangle will also slacken as the bike is lowered - I don't think it's any lighter though.

    -A.
    Simple | Proven | Reliable

    http://chumbaracing.blogspot.com/

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by scruffylooking
    respotff,
    Appreciate the reply. Fair enough. No such thing as a bike that everyone likes. I rode a demo for several trail rides and really enjoyed it here in So Cal. That thing was so smooth through rock gardens.

    This is actually the forum for you to slam on a Chumba (if you do it like a good forum citizen) but this is probably the wrong thread. It's probably moot, though, since there probably isn't a long travel FS 29er on the horizon for Chumba unless DC decides to fund the project.
    Yes, it was good in the SoCal rock gardens, I will give you that. Dont get me wrong, I think if I had to ride one I could make it work. But I dont. The new rear end sounds like it might help with some of the dislikes I had with the bike. The bike is sort of a "jack of all trades master of none" which is par for the course when looking at AM bikes, I was just hoping it had higher "averages". I would partly contribute the performance (or lack of) to the set up of the demo I had. Without swapping parts I'll never know. Like I said, I wanted it to work. They obviously have a fan base so people like them. Thats great, would love to swap bikes sometime with someone to see. Ever tried a DW link?

  24. #24
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by redspotff
    Yes, it was good in the SoCal rock gardens, I will give you that. Dont get me wrong, I think if I had to ride one I could make it work. But I dont. The new rear end sounds like it might help with some of the dislikes I had with the bike. The bike is sort of a "jack of all trades master of none" which is par for the course when looking at AM bikes, I was just hoping it had higher "averages". I would partly contribute the performance (or lack of) to the set up of the demo I had. Without swapping parts I'll never know. Like I said, I wanted it to work. They obviously have a fan base so people like them. Thats great, would love to swap bikes sometime with someone to see. Ever tried a DW link?
    Are you in So Cal?

    My DW experience is pretty limited. I've ridden a Mojo and a 7 Point 7. What are you riding? I'm on a gen 2 Nomad right now.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by scruffylooking
    Are you in So Cal?

    My DW experience is pretty limited. I've ridden a Mojo and a 7 Point 7. What are you riding? I'm on a gen 2 Nomad right now.
    I am on a mojo with a lyrik on the front, very happy with it. I had a gen 1 Nomad before that.

  26. #26
    nerfherder
    Reputation: scruffylooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,674
    In OC by any chance? On a medium? I think you may have been on another thread where I mentioned that I felt that the Mojo was too steep with a 140mm fork. Would be interested in trying it with a 160. Just for fun.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by scruffylooking
    It's probably moot, though, since there probably isn't a long travel FS 29er on the horizon for Chumba unless DC decides to fund the project.
    Do you really think we need to wait another decade for long 29" FS? Do we have to ripen for having big wheels and long travel? Why not stir people up now? Let the Chumba shell out and make a considerable investemnts for compete with the 6" Lunchbox but with full 1,5" HT and Fox 36 or custom WB 155mm and 1,5"

    Has anyone of you naysayers ridden a lunchbox 6" for a longer time? If so tell me more about it

  28. #28
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,512
    There is one other important thing about a high bottom bracket. Bear with me here, I cant figure out how to make this into a sound byte. Bottom line is they climb better.

    Imagine a theoretical 3" travel bike. Now stretch that to a 6" bike and make no other changes to the bike. What happens? Probably the front of the bike goes up because of the longer fork. The rear is leveraged and probably does not raise much. And with the front of the bike going up, your handlebar goes up with it. For FR/DH riders, this is all good. Most still want higher rise bars and a lower seat to take this position further in that direction.

    But this is not so good for the AM rider who wants to climb. For climbing power you want to get a position more like you had on the 3" bike with the seat higher relative to the bars. The only way to do that as you raise the handlebar is to raise the BB along with it. I wish I could do a flash animation!

    To me, this is the essence of "All Mountain". A long travel bike that retains the pedaling efficiency of a short travel bike. If you read the reviews, you will see people marveling at the climbing prowess of the Evo, and its high BB contributes to this.

    You will read similar reviews of the Ellsworth Id, I bike I also had, it is great 6" climber. It had a notoriously high BB. But it also had a steep head angle and the frame was XC lightweight. It was really a long travel XC bike even though most saw the 6" travel and called it freeride. The Evo takes the right approach with a slacker head angle and a beefy frame.

    Intense addresses this on the many of its bikes by using a 1.5" headtube. At Interbike a few years back they explained that the main idea behind the 1.5" head tube is NOT that you will use a 1.5" steerertube, although you certainly can. The idea is that you can use a flush 1.5-1 1/8" adapter headset, that is how they spec their stock builds. That lowers the stack height and lowers the riders position on the front of the bike.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Here it's a 165mm Lunchbox
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=543749
    Bring your Evo 29er Chumba and use this 165mm for the start till big wigs join with 66, totems and Lyriks. Good Luck. Remeber I am supporting you

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Wazzup Chumba http://twentynineinches.com/2009/09/...inal-frontier/ another DH 29er. Make your Evo fast and use WB 150 or 165mm to embellish that frame.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    There is one other important thing about a high bottom bracket. Bear with me here, I cant figure out how to make this into a sound byte. Bottom line is they climb better.

    Imagine a theoretical 3" travel bike. Now stretch that to a 6" bike and make no other changes to the bike. What happens? Probably the front of the bike goes up because of the longer fork. The rear is leveraged and probably does not raise much. And with the front of the bike going up, your handlebar goes up with it. For FR/DH riders, this is all good. Most still want higher rise bars and a lower seat to take this position further in that direction.

    But this is not so good for the AM rider who wants to climb. For climbing power you want to get a position more like you had on the 3" bike with the seat higher relative to the bars. The only way to do that as you raise the handlebar is to raise the BB along with it. I wish I could do a flash animation!

    To me, this is the essence of "All Mountain". A long travel bike that retains the pedaling efficiency of a short travel bike. If you read the reviews, you will see people marveling at the climbing prowess of the Evo, and its high BB contributes to this.

    You will read similar reviews of the Ellsworth Id, I bike I also had, it is great 6" climber. It had a notoriously high BB. But it also had a steep head angle and the frame was XC lightweight. It was really a long travel XC bike even though most saw the 6" travel and called it freeride. The Evo takes the right approach with a slacker head angle and a beefy frame.

    Intense addresses this on the many of its bikes by using a 1.5" headtube. At Interbike a few years back they explained that the main idea behind the 1.5" head tube is NOT that you will use a 1.5" steerertube, although you certainly can. The idea is that you can use a flush 1.5-1 1/8" adapter headset, that is how they spec their stock builds. That lowers the stack height and lowers the riders position on the front of the bike.
    the fact of the matter is that the low bar heights of modern AM bike setups enable excellent technical climbing abilities even if the BB is on the lowish side. My nomad2/lyrik has around a 13.8" BB height and routinely climbs steep rocky sections that my other bikes (or bikes ridden by other riders) have difficulty with. I've owned bikes w/ 5-6 inches of travel and a higher BB height that were worse in these sections. The 'sky scraper' effect screws up balance on truly technical uphills.

    the other factor here is pedal-induced squat. that can lower the rear end of the bike on the uphills, which slackens the HA and lowers the effective BB height. Fortunately there are more AM suspension designs (e.g. DW link) that tend not to have this negative trait,

    you need to consider both the static measurements (BB height, HA) and the measurements under actual tech climbing situations.

    glad to see the EVo has a lower BB option now, since many folks (including me) rejected it because of the old-school skyscraper BB height.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  32. #32
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,385
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDad
    It was really a long travel XC bike even though most saw the 6" travel and called it freeride.
    Actually, Ellsworth called that bike a Freeride bike. They said you could run a DC fork on it. Ellsworth used the bike magazine article that compared it to the RFX, ASX and Switch. Ellsworth did mis-represent the bike (they changed a lot of words around in the bike article and inserted stuff that never was there in the first place), but Ellsworth most certainly definined that bike as "freeride".

    After the first few years (when they saw the need for the Moment) they stopped referring to it as such and called it what it was.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    There are some good 140mm stroke 29er forks. What about an AM 29er frame 140mm? Anyone?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Chumba are you there man? Will ya give us a 29er frame with 140-160mm travel? Remember Intense 2951 has 203mm of travel?

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hunrugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    331
    Are you serious? You would actually consider buying a Chumba these days?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nate3510's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by hunrugger View Post
    Are you serious? You would actually consider buying a Chumba these days?
    Buying a Chumba!!!

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by hunrugger View Post
    Are you serious? You would actually consider buying a Chumba these days?
    the op is an idiot.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dibbs_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,091
    Maybe the new lawyer team can come up with a 29er design.

  39. #39
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Well, Chumba will have one customer, don't know if Copperfield can keep them solvent though. They truly deserve each other.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nate3510's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    Well, Chumba will have one customer, don't know if Copperfield can keep them solvent though. They truly deserve each other.
    Maybe Copperfield can work his magic and bring Chumba back from the dead!!

  41. #41
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    I thought they already had one in the works?

    The Scumba29, with all new Chumpa Triple Link Technology, 5.5 or 6" of travel or maybe just 5".
    beaver hunt

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nate3510's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter View Post
    I thought they already had one in the works?

    The Scumba29, with all new Chumpa Triple Link Technology, 5.5 or 6" of travel or maybe just 5".
    Amount of travel is based on the size of the dent you put in the seat tube. The bigger the dent the more travel you got. It other words this bike is totally user friendly!!

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    ...The bigger the wheel the wider the dent migth become...

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.