Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: Tumbleweed

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385

    Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed Bicycle Co.

    I have no affiliation with Tumbleweed Cycles but was curious what you fatties thought.

    Looks like 135 rear spacing, 73mm bottom bracket, clearance for 4 in tire with an internal hub or SS. 29+ works with standard derailleur drivetrain.

    Seemed interesting to me for those that want a fat bike using mostly normal parts.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,110
    Looks good.

    I'm part of its target market.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  3. #3
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,785
    Curious.

    Obsessed with the need to NOT use any "special parts" in an industry flush with said parts to a degree that they are no longer special, or more $.

    Yet the tires and rims are not standard till you get to the same place where you find all those other, "special" parts, known as a fat bike. Strange that they ignore this self created dichotomy.

    Also, it's easy to not have a big Q factor if you run the bike SS as he is in the pics.

    All good, cool they're offering US made stuff too.

    But don't do pointless fluff marketing to try and differentiate.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,501
    I'd like to get a frame weight on these bikes once they have some production models. The only thing I've heard so far was "tank". Based on where they are at with development that could have been a prototype thing.

    I've got a soft spot in my heart for a steel fatty, but I'd want light enough tubing to have a lively ride. "Tank" would not be what I am after.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    I think in the photos on the website he is running a Rolhoff (special equipment in my mind) but other more affordable internal hubs could be used.

    The prototypes, from what I heard, were a bit tanky but it should be reduced on the production models. Hopefully?

    MendonCS--not sure where the pointless fluff marketing comes in. What are you referring to?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,501
    They are also talking about domestic and Taiwanese built frames so there is the opportunity to offer lighter tubesets and chunkier tubesets to hit different price points. As long as they keep the more lively frames away from custom prices that could work.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  7. #7
    Not the fake Jay Leno
    Reputation: Chinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    362
    Looks pretty cool! I wouldn't expect the frame to weigh more than a Pug frame. With the Rolhoff hub, it ain't going to be cheap, but maybe they'll have a SS option!

  8. #8
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Matterhorn View Post
    MendonCS--not sure where the pointless fluff marketing comes in. What are you referring to?
    Making a bunch of "We're different" statements, most of which, aren't all that different.

    Kind of like a hipster opening a restaurant that markets itself with "hand curated sandwiches", like there's any other way to make a sandwich than with your hands?

    Great, you started a fat bike company, awesome, welcome aboard.

    Focus on what's actually value added, like US or foreign sourced price points, perhaps unique attributes, whatever.

    With so many fat bikes and components out there now, their marketing claims fall flat. Would probably have been valid in 2005 when Pugsleys were the only game in town, but now? I hear no one complaining about not being able to source any "special components", and other than a 100 mm BB, the Pug fixed that *problem* 10 years ago!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    As someone looking for an SS fat bike this does seem notably different to me. First I can use 135mm rear hub which from what I understand are cheaper and more durable. Second I like EBBs on SS bikes. Third, I have a 73mm crankset sitting idle and it will not fit on any other fat bikes but will fit the Tumbleweed. Lastly it looks like the geo will fit me as a tall dude better than a lot of current fat bikes. Tried an XXL Moonlander, which fit, but it was kind of a nightmare (hilarious nightmare) on speedy descents.

    So marketing aside I'm hopeful.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    123
    The name and web pics don't match its Oakland headquarters.
    Just enjoy the ride...

  11. #11
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Matterhorn View Post
    So marketing aside I'm hopeful.
    Me too, hope it works out for you

    As someone who's been around this block a few times, just my input. Market what's truly unique, frankly, I think you did a better job of pointing out differences.

    Easily said that Pug/Moonie will set up SS.

    But they aren't an EBB, if this has more "modern geometry" that's worth really pointing out, etc.

    Other than modern 2 piece cranks, there are 100 mm BB's for all other 3 piece type.

    All good, if it makes you happy, rock it. Just funny to hear a company disparaging "unique, hard to find, expensive components" (implied, not a direct quote) while trying to sell you a fat bike with unique, expensive rims and tires.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  12. #12
    Big wheels keep on rollin
    Reputation: senor_mikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I'd like to get a frame weight on these bikes once they have some production models. The only thing I've heard so far was "tank". Based on where they are at with development that could have been a prototype thing.

    I've got a soft spot in my heart for a steel fatty, but I'd want light enough tubing to have a lively ride. "Tank" would not be what I am after.
    Vik... check out the Ritchey Commando, heat treated steel frame with lighter tubing. Pretty happy with mine, except it could use a few more braze-ons ( easily remedied with hose clamps)

    mike

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    Had one other thought tonight while riding regarding the 73mm bottom bracket. I did notice a slight increase in pedal strikes (or at least it required attention) while riding the Moonlander due to the wide stance. My ECR, even with its laughable low (not really my opinion) bb does not have issues in the same areas. Maybe the narrower bb is good for rock gardens and entrenched trails as well?

    I think the Tumbleweed will have something closer to "new school" geometry.

    Still anxious to see how it shakes out.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    The only special part about a 100mm BB is the crank shaft. I'd probably expect the frame to crack before the crank shaft. The cups themselves can be any old regular 68mm/73mm just with no sleeve. Also if you're trying to be international part safe, shouldn't the designer be running a square taper bottom bracket? If you're already running an XT, with cups, the whole point is out the window. Might as well be running at 100mm with cups.

    I've yet to see anyone say they can't FatBike because of the 100mm BB. It's more so a getting used to a new thing.I can however understand 120mm being hard on some people as it's closer to double.

    And marketing jargon aside, this is a 29+ touring bike. With a special case for internal hubs. The only thing this bike has going for it, is that the Pug's might be out of production.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,501
    Quote Originally Posted by senor_mikey View Post
    Vik... check out the Ritchey Commando, heat treated steel frame with lighter tubing. Pretty happy with mine, except it could use a few more braze-ons ( easily remedied with hose clamps)

    mike


    Thanks. Good to know. I'm okay without all the braze ons. I'm trying to keep my bikes light and stripped down...even on tour.

    Commando Fat Bike Frameset | Ritchey

    Anyone know the price point[s] on the Tumbleweed bikes or are production bikes still too far out for that?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Steve Balogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Making a bunch of "We're different" statements, most of which, aren't all that different.

    Kind of like a hipster opening a restaurant that markets itself with "hand curated sandwiches", like there's any other way to make a sandwich than with your hands?

    Great, you started a fat bike company, awesome, welcome aboard.

    Focus on what's actually value added, like US or foreign sourced price points, perhaps unique attributes, whatever.

    With so many fat bikes and components out there now, their marketing claims fall flat. Would probably have been valid in 2005 when Pugsleys were the only game in town, but now? I hear no one complaining about not being able to source any "special components", and other than a 100 mm BB, the Pug fixed that *problem* 10 years ago!
    Actually Mark Gronewald had a narrower BB on his earlier Wildfires. Mine is from 2007 with a 100, but someone else on this board had an earlier one with a smaller BB. I'm curious how this Tumbleweed is fitting a 135MM symmetrical rear with a small BB and fits a 4" tire. I'm thinking the narrow Panaracer FBN's on a 50MM rim might work, but if Tumbleweed is doing as what's said here, he's overcome the issues the early fat bike makers struggled with. Both Wildfire and Pugsley had offset rears. Maybe I'm missing something, but his website doesn't provide much info.

    EDIT: I missed in the video in order to use 4" tires, Rohloff speed hub is required. A friend of mine had one of those early "SNOOTS", where he had to still use a Nokian 3.0 Gazza in the rear. SO - this guy used the same concept but I'm not clear on what rim width he is using. If it's a 65MM rim with a standard 4" rear tire, yes, he will make a few people happy. (Looks like Marge Lites in the pics) I've met a few people who's hips cannot handle wide Q-factors of fat bikes. If the Puglsley and offset rear wheels go the way of the dinosaurs, this might be the only option for some people wanting a fat bike.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    The Fat+Plus+Skinny do-it-all FAQ

    Looks to me like Walt has several solutions for those who like narrower q-factors as well. No Rohloff needed. Surely other 135 internal hubs would work in the Tumbleweed as well. No?

    Tumbleweed is supposed to have more info and preorders coming soon. No official word on price point.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,214
    Quote Originally Posted by l3eaudacious View Post
    1. Shouldn't the designer be running a square taper bottom bracket?

    2. I've yet to see anyone say they can't FatBike because of the 100mm BB. It's more so a getting used to a new thing.I can however understand 120mm being hard on some people as it's closer to double.

    3. And marketing jargon aside, this is a 29+ touring bike. With a special case for internal hubs.
    1. OMG, no. No more square taper please, there's no need with currently available fatty specific thru axle cranksets. In this case, there have been 73mm wide thru axle cranksets for years. What does SQ offer? Less stiffness for more compatibility? Spindle is too flexy and the best options for new are still cheap cranksets, less than 50 dollars new I would think. *with very few notable exceptions

    2. IIRC, the 120mm BB is press fit with the bearings inside the shell. The q-factor for the 100mm thru axle would be the same as the outboard bearing cups are outside the shell. Each external cup is 10mm, roughly. I recently replaced the OEM square taper for a RF Turbine EXI where the chainline for the RF is slightly less than the OEM SQ crankset and the q-factor is about the same in difference.

    3. I agree. This is really a plus size ride, with the option to roll fatties as a SS or with an internal geared hub.

    Still could be a cool bike option, rollin' with the tumblin' tumbleweeds has a nice sound to it as an answer to the mrs when she asks what you've been doing with your afternoon.
    Last edited by dbhammercycle; 03-14-2016 at 08:26 AM.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    1. OMG, no. No more square taper please, there's no need with currently available fatty specific thru axle cranksets. In this case, there have been 73mm wide thru axle cranksets for years. What does SQ offer? Less stiffness for more compatibility? Spindle is too flexy and the best options for new are still cheap cranksets, less than 50 dollars new I would think.

    2. IIRC, the 120mm BB is press fit with the bearings inside the shell. The q-factor for the 100mm thru axle would be the same as the outboard bearing cups are outside the shell. Each external cup is 10mm, roughly. I recently replaced the OEM square taper for a RF Turbine EXI where the chainline for the RF is slightly less than the OEM SQ crankset and the q-factor is about the same in difference.

    3. I agree. This is really a plus size ride, with the option to roll fatties as a SS or with an internal geared hub.

    Still could be a cool bike option, rollin' with the tumblin' tumbleweeds has a nice sound to it as an answer to the mrs when she asks what you've been doing with your afternoon.
    I'm not advocating square taper, the designers whole idea behind the bike is part availability in remote or less modernized area's with no "bike shops". I've never been to Mongolia, so I can't speak to their stock of 68/73mm external cups.

    Not all 120mm BB are press fit. Im currently running a 100mm BB with external cups, and the cranksets having additional 10mm spacers on each side. Definitely is not the same Q-factor as a standard 100mm BB.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yoreskillz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    297
    Specs on the Tumbleweed were recently posted and pre-order is up on the site now for those that were interested:

    The Tumbleweed ? Tumbleweed Bicycle Co.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    I'm still interested.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,709
    I love this: ...eliminating the need of any proprietary fat bike specific components.

    Then about two paragraphs later this:

    The Tumbleweed is built around a special 73mm version of Phil Wood's eccentric bottom bracket, made just for us.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: scot_douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    I've got a soft spot in my heart for a steel fatty, but I'd want light enough tubing to have a lively ride. "Tank" would not be what I am after.
    Fat Bike
    https://www.instagram.com/radbicycleco/

    Matt would be happy to build you something at a great price.
    Howell, Michigan

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,214
    That Rad Grizzly looks nice and I like the threaded BB.

    @Vikb Another steel option might be the Advocate Watchman.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    I love this: ...eliminating the need of any proprietary fat bike specific components.

    Then about two paragraphs later this:

    The Tumbleweed is built around a special 73mm version of Phil Wood's eccentric bottom bracket, made just for us.
    What does "proprietary fat bike specific" mean anymore any way? There are quite a few manufacturers of just about any fat bike part you can imagine. On the other hand if you eliminate the need for fat bike parts like say tires and rims well it's pretty much not a fat bike. Why do people let their marketing gurus write this stuff?
    Latitude 61

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,709
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    What does "proprietary fat bike specific" mean anymore any way? There are quite a few manufacturers of just about any fat bike part you can imagine. On the other hand if you eliminate the need for fat bike parts like say tires and rims well it's pretty much not a fat bike. Why do people let their marketing gurus write this stuff?
    Agreed. Probably their marketing guru goes by Pabst and they hired him from the liquor store on the corner.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133
    My first thought is that my Pugsley with offset fork does this better, for less money.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1
    Hi everybody, Daniel here.

    There seems to be some confusion regarding what I mean by "proprietary fat bike specific parts".

    What I mean are extra wide cranksets that only work on fat bikes with 100 or 120mm bottom bracket shells, and extra wide or offset wheels that only work on fatbikes. If there is a catastrophic failure with a wheel, I can put on a 29er rear wheel on the front or back and be back on the road.

    The idea of the Tumbleweed was to make the ultimate international off road touring bike. I've designed it around existing and widely accepted wheel and crankset formats. My main gripe with 'standard' fat bikes is the excessively wide pedaling stance and the lack of a Shimano crankset available. In the last five years, fatbikes have gone from offset 135mm rear wheels to 170QR, to 177TA, to 190QR to 197TA, and I don't want any part of the 'new standard' game. I know that if I'm in Mongolia, or India or Chile and something happens to my Tumbleweed, I can get back on the road somehow, whether it means a new wheel, or BB, or crankset. I check out the bike shops whenever I go on an extended bike tour, just to see what is available and I've found 29er wheels and tires and cranksets in all of these places.

    Anyway, thats the concept, and so far it's working out great. Please feel free to get in touch if you have any questions.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    My first thought is that my Pugsley with offset fork does this better, for less money.

    Second thought?

    I was always laughing with terror when I rode the Moonie downhill. Maybe the Pugs is different?
    I'm looking for an SS fattie that I can use for some night laps in the desert around my house and take on longer bikepacking trips. Seems like a reasonable choice.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    Although having Walt make a 27.5 X 4.5 version of an ECR seems reasonable too.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    Saw a preproduction Tumbleweed today. Took a brief spin. Sharp looking bike that could easily replace my ECR. I made that offer but was refused.

  32. #32
    Ambassador of Chub
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,839
    The Tumbleweed is a pretty interesting bike, imo, and I really like some of the thought that has gone into it. If I was looking for a new 'do it all' fat expedition bike, this would be on my short list to check out.

    A recent review here, if you haven't seen it already: Tumbleweed Prospector: An All-Terrain Masterpiece - Bikepacker
    "The only way we can truly control the outcome of a ride is not going on it, which is a choice I'm unwilling to make." -K.B.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rcnute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    195
    Has anyone ridden both a Jones and a Tumbleweed who can compare handling?

    Ryan

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    Class Gilbert can answer that question. He's spent a lot of time on both.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RFrahm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    62
    Id love some updates on the Prospector vs the Jones? Im deciding between the two or stepping up for custom (not sure I have preferences nailed down enough for that).
    I can build up a Prospector cheaper because I already have a rear wheel and several other parts that will work, but I have the Jones SWB complete and like it quite a bit. My wife is getting the SWB because its just a bit too small for me (medium). It seems the rear of the Prospector will fit larger tires than the Jones and I do like that option. Id be running either bike single speed probably 90% of the time. The higher stock on both is what I like because Im 61 with 36 inseam. In the back of my mind I just keep thinking I could get a complete Krampus for $100 more than either frame and get Oddity to make some sweet riser bars...

    Any thoughts, comments, experiences welcome. Thanks in advance!

    I did just see a post on bikepacking.com that showed Cass on his Jones still so maybe that is saying something...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,898
    Quote Originally Posted by RFrahm View Post
    Id love some updates on the Prospector vs the Jones? Im deciding between the two or stepping up for custom (not sure I have preferences nailed down enough for that).
    I can build up a Prospector cheaper because I already have a rear wheel and several other parts that will work, but I have the Jones SWB complete and like it quite a bit. My wife is getting the SWB because its just a bit too small for me (medium). It seems the rear of the Prospector will fit larger tires than the Jones and I do like that option. Id be running either bike single speed probably 90% of the time. The higher stock on both is what I like because Im 61 with 36 inseam. In the back of my mind I just keep thinking I could get a complete Krampus for $100 more than either frame and get Oddity to make some sweet riser bars...

    Any thoughts, comments, experiences welcome. Thanks in advance!

    I did just see a post on bikepacking.com that showed Cass on his Jones still so maybe that is saying something...
    It comes down to tires. If you want/need fat tires sometimes, than go Prospector. If yo're good with up to 29x3.25, than go Jones. That brings up an interesting point, I wonder if the Jones LWB would fit a 27.5x3.8 tire on a 50ish mm rim? They measure out at more like 3.5", so maybe?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,501
    Quote Originally Posted by RFrahm View Post
    In the back of my mind I just keep thinking I could get a complete Krampus for $100 more than either frame and get Oddity to make some sweet riser bars...

    Any thoughts, comments, experiences welcome. Thanks in advance!
    I like the Krampus + HIGH riser bar idea. It would look sweet and save you a lot of $$.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RFrahm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    62
    Probably the way to go, thank you. I guess I could maybe find an older pugs to satisfy my fat needs/desires...

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RFrahm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    62
    I am curious about the Jones and 27.5x3.8 as well! Not sure I need fat, I havent found 26x4 to float much better than 29x3. Daniel said these are the frames for this year so I need decide soon!

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by RFrahm View Post
    I am curious about the Jones and 27.5x3.8 as well! Not sure I need fat, I havent found 26x4 to float much better than 29x3. Daniel said these are the frames for this year so I need decide soon!
    I've got 27.5x3.8s on a Tumbleweed. I ran the bike like this with a derailleur and short cassette through Kyrgyzstan this past summer. Likely to get dressed up in 29x3 soon. Love the versatility.

    Tumbleweed-dsc_0796.jpg

    Cass shows up randomly on IG with a Tumbleweed, Jones, ECR and a Pugsley aside from whatever else he's testing. What a life.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RFrahm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by nowhereyonder View Post
    I've got 27.5x3.8s on a Tumbleweed. I ran the bike like this with a derailleur and short cassette through Kyrgyzstan this past summer. Likely to get dressed up in 29x3 soon. Love the versatility.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0796.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	333.1 KB 
ID:	1238256

    Cass shows up randomly on IG with a Tumbleweed, Jones, ECR and a Pugsley aside from whatever else he's testing. What a life.
    Great looking bike!

    Class does seem to have some options! Im sure a lot of us here wish we could have that life.

Similar Threads

  1. Tumbleweed
    By Matterhorn in forum Bikepacking and Bike Expedition
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-30-2016, 11:50 AM
  2. Tumbleweed Tuesday
    By Blazing Saddles in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2013, 03:35 PM

Members who have read this thread: 87

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.