Giant Revive first impression

[B. Sanders]

After reading all about the Giant Revive, I finally had a test ride on the
model with the enclosed drivetrain and Shimano Nexus 7-speed internally
geared rear hub.

First, it's a very sharp looking bike. The ergonomics do seem well thought
out. Seat and handlebar adjustments are a snap, and appear to be designed
for riders with limited mobility. The low step-over height also points to a
target market with limited mobility. This is a bike designed for aging
Boomers.

It's rather heavy, which should come as little surprise. That's the downside
to wide adjustability, stylized body panels, wheel covers, etc. I suppose
you could drop the weight quite a bit by removing all of the stylizing bits;
but that would be missing the point, I think. This is not a bike that was
designed to be carried up 3 flights of stairs to your urban apartment. Its
supposed to sit in a suburban garage, and be ridden on weekends.

I like the riding position; but as I had imagined, it is not good for making
power, and thus is slow. I tried several different seat heights and
handlebar positions to see if I could produce more power. Nothing doing.
Also, I noticed significant leg interference with the seat edge (which I had
expected, due to the low BB height). The only way to solve that would be to
use a much narrower saddle, but, again, that would be defeating the purpose.
This is not a racing bike.

The rear suspension seemed to suck up some power, and the Nexus hub was a
real power sink, too. The combination of the Nexus hub, rear suspension and
the non-ideal riding position conspire to make the Revive a "slow rider".
It's a cruiser, not a racer.

Somehow, I don't think the lack of speed is going to be a problem for its
intended target market. It wasn't designed to compete with the lowracers
out there. This is a "cruise around the suburban retirement community and
multi-use paths" bike. The intended market will appreciate the low stepover,
the can't-miss shifting, the comfy seat, and the head-turning looks of the
Revive. The grandkids will want to ride it, too, and that's when the wide
range of instant no-tools-required seat and handlebar adjustability will be
worth the price of admission. Would I recommend the Revive for older
riders? Absolutely.

All things considered, I expect the Revive to sell very well. The bike
received *lots* of attention during my test ride. People really like the
looks of the Revive. The superb ergonomics, comfy saddle, foolproof
shifting, zero-maintenance drivetrain and wide adjustability, combined with
the high head-turning factor will contribute to the success of the Revive.
The "aging Boomer" target market (as I imagine it) are people with enough
money that the price tag won't be a significant barrier to entry. They can
always opt for the less fancy versions. The price will probably come down a
bit as the market for semi-recumbents heats up. Giant has a well-deserved
reputation for dialed-in designs with superior component quality at every
price point in virtually every cycling niche market. I imagine they'll
continue that tradition with the Revive.

-Barry Sanders

[DH]

My LBG just rec'd my bike yesterday and I"ll pick it tomorrow. I saw it
today but he still has to put a lock on it as it came with nothing. I
also just came back from a bike fair in Utrecht and I saw a bike by Riese
and Müller which is a copy of the Revive. Actually, it seems it was the
other way around as the Riese and Müller came out with this style about
eight years ago according to the sales rep I spoke with. The model I saw,
the Equinox (blue) costs about 1,600 Euros which is close to $1800. This
model came with 7 (or 8) speeds and did not seem that heavy. So, it seems
this
style has been around for some time (which was news to me).

Go to http://www.r-m.de/english/1_katalog/frame.html and click on Equinox
to have a look.

[Edward Wong]

"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<XWUjb.158653$%h1.154908@sccrnsc02>...
> After reading all about the Giant Revive, I finally had a test ride on the
> model with the enclosed drivetrain and Shimano Nexus 7-speed internally
> geared rear hub.
>
> First, it's a very sharp looking bike. The ergonomics do seem well thought
> out. Seat and handlebar adjustments are a snap, and appear to be designed
> for riders with limited mobility. The low step-over height also points to a
> target market with limited mobility. This is a bike designed for aging
> Boomers.

Good observations. Funny thing though is if you follow how they've
been promoting this bike, you'll notice that just about all the images
of the Revive in printed literature and the internet show them being
ridden by young, physically fit folks. I think they do this to avoid
turning off any potential customers who have no "issues" with riding
any kind of bike but want something different. At the same time,
their advertising carries an almost "subliminal" message to those who
may fit that "aging boomer" market and can stimulate a thought process
like this. "Hey...now there's a bike I believe I can ride".

At the risk of sparking a debate, Giant is also very adamant about not
associating their new bike with recumbents. They don't even call it a
"semi recumbent". My theory on this is due to the fact that many
folks outside the recumbent circles consider bents to be precisely for
the aging and the physically infirm. You have no idea how many times
I've been asked when riding a bent during some of my club rides if I
do so because of some physical incapacity of some sort (ARRRGGG!!!).
I remember overhearing a conversation during a bike tour between some
DF riders who were examining a friend's Wind Cheetah as to how it
looked like "hospital equipment". I think this is what Giant is
trying to avoid.

Sorry to have taken this discussion a bit OT;-) I'm glad you had a
general good impression of the Revive. Like any bike, the more it is
ridden, the better one gets at it. It took me well over a week to
tweak it to where it's now totally comfortable. I find it more
comfortable than most if not all recumbents I've ever ridden. I'm
getting faster and find I can climb steep highway overpasses (6%-7%+
grade) in the middle range of the 8 speed drivetrain. I would like to
challenge myself one day with real hills for a change;-)

Edward Wong
Orlando, FL

[revivederek]

Hello, Sorry the Revive is not the bike for you. There are 100's of
bikes on the market, maybe you will find one you like.
I just wanted to comment on a couple of items from your list...


> First, it's a very sharp looking bike. The ergonomics do seem well thought
> out. Seat and handlebar adjustments are a snap, and appear to be designed
> for riders with limited mobility. The low step-over height also points to a
> target market with limited mobility. This is a bike designed for aging
> Boomers.
OK, limited mobility?
I think the Revive is designed for everyone to enjoy, not aging
boomers!
Just for the record, I'm 41 and weight 150lbs.
I can ride any bike I want!
>
> It's rather heavy, which should come as little surprise. That's the downside
> to wide adjustability, stylized body panels, wheel covers, etc. I suppose
> you could drop the weight quite a bit by removing all of the stylizing bits;
> but that would be missing the point, I think. This is not a bike that was
> designed to be carried up 3 flights of stairs to your urban apartment. Its
> supposed to sit in a suburban garage, and be ridden on weekends.

You may be right there, I would not want to carry my Revive dx up
stairs all the time, but I do lift it up to put it on the bike rack
and It's not really that heavy,I ride lots of hills here in St.Louis
and have no trouble!
I do live in a house with a garage and ride it almost everyday!
>
> I like the riding position; but as I had imagined, it is not good for making
> power, and thus is slow. I tried several different seat heights and
> handlebar positions to see if I could produce more power. Nothing doing.
> Also, I noticed significant leg interference with the seat edge (which I had
> expected, due to the low BB height). The only way to solve that would be to
> use a much narrower saddle, but, again, that would be defeating the purpose.
> This is not a racing bike.

True, it's not a racing bike, never will be. And the seat feels great
on my bum
The riding position feels wonderful. I can look around and behind me.
The lower crank makes it easyer to step on and off the bike which
really helps in traffic. Also, the 20" wheels gives it better center
of gravity.
>
> The rear suspension seemed to suck up some power, and the Nexus hub was a
> real power sink, too. The combination of the Nexus hub, rear suspension and
> the non-ideal riding position conspire to make the Revive a "slow rider".
> It's a cruiser, not a racer.

Again, True it's not a racer, what's your point!
The rear suspension is adjustable, it's sucks up the bumps. That's
what it is there for.The inter hub works great, I can change gears
even when I'm not moving, which makes it easy to put it in a lower
gear when you have to stop
in traffic.
>
> Somehow, I don't think the lack of speed is going to be a problem for its
> intended target market. It wasn't designed to compete with the lowracers
> out there. This is a "cruise around the suburban retirement community and
> multi-use paths" bike. The intended market will appreciate the low stepover,
> the can't-miss shifting, the comfy seat, and the head-turning looks of the
> Revive. The grandkids will want to ride it, too, and that's when the wide
> range of instant no-tools-required seat and handlebar adjustability will be
> worth the price of admission. Would I recommend the Revive for older
> riders? Absolutely.

Your killing me dude, I know I'm not 20 anymore, like I said I'm 41.
I have a 8 year old daughter and NO grandkids!
I do live in the Subs, and if you must know it's a uppermiddle class
Hood not I retirement community.
But, I would be nice to retire in a couple of years!
>
> All things considered, I expect the Revive to sell very well. The bike
> received *lots* of attention during my test ride. People really like the
> looks of the Revive. The superb ergonomics, comfy saddle, foolproof
> shifting, zero-maintenance drivetrain and wide adjustability, combined with
> the high head-turning factor will contribute to the success of the Revive.

"Yes" I think you got it! "Thank You"

> The "aging Boomer" target market (as I imagine it) are people with enough
> money that the price tag won't be a significant barrier to entry. They can
> always opt for the less fancy versions.

People with enough money, Dude, the DX cost around $800.00 US in know
road and maintain bikers that pay that much just on set of pedals that
don't come with their bike!

The price will probably come down a
> bit as the market for semi-recumbents heats up. Giant has a well-deserved
> reputation for dialed-in designs with superior component quality at every
> price point in virtually every cycling niche market. I imagine they'll
> continue that tradition with the Revive.

Maybe who is to say? But I'm sure the Revive is the wave of the
future.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest Barry.
Have a nice weekend.
Derek
http://www.revivedx.com
Join The Reviveolution

[B. Sanders]

"revivederek" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello, Sorry the Revive is not the bike for you. There are 100's of
> bikes on the market, maybe you will find one you like.

Thanks. I've been heavily into recumbents for about 7 years now. I'm on my
5th recumbent now, and have owned and ridden a wide variety of 'bents. I
can't (yet) afford some of the 'bents that I'd like to own: Velokraft Low
Racer,

I've also owned about 30+ DF bikes in the past 10 years (MTB's, road bikes,
touring, tandem - you name it) in every price and quality range all the way
up to an ultra-tricked-out Merlin. I have no vested interest in any
specific bike design. I try to be objective in my evaluations, as much as
possible. Every bike makes design trade offs to suit a specific purpose.

> I just wanted to comment on a couple of items from your list...
>
> > First, it's a very sharp looking bike. The ergonomics do seem well
thought
> > out. Seat and handlebar adjustments are a snap, and appear to be
designed
> > for riders with limited mobility. The low step-over height also points
to a
> > target market with limited mobility. This is a bike designed for aging
> > Boomers.

> OK, limited mobility?

Perhaps I should have said "limited range of joint motion." That's what I
meant. As we age, it's harder and harder to throw a leg over the bike for
mount/dismount, etc. The less joint motion, the more comfortable the ride.
Again, not a new idea. Look at European city bikes. The low "step through"
design is quite common.

> I think the Revive is designed for everyone to enjoy, not aging
> boomers!

That doesn't guarantee that everyone will like it as well as you do.

> Just for the record, I'm 41 and weight 150lbs.
> I can ride any bike I want!

I'm sure you can.

> > It's rather heavy, which should come as little surprise. That's the
downside
> > to wide adjustability, stylized body panels, wheel covers, etc. I
suppose
> > you could drop the weight quite a bit by removing all of the stylizing
bits;
> > but that would be missing the point, I think. This is not a bike that
was
> > designed to be carried up 3 flights of stairs to your urban apartment.
Its
> > supposed to sit in a suburban garage, and be ridden on weekends.
>
> You may be right there, I would not want to carry my Revive dx up
> stairs all the time, but I do lift it up to put it on the bike rack
> and It's not really that heavy,I ride lots of hills here in St.Louis
> and have no trouble!
> I do live in a house with a garage and ride it almost everyday!

That's an ideal situation. I envy you. I have no garage, and have to lug my
heavy,wide-stance tadpole trike up and out of a narrow, low cellar door when
I want to ride it. It's a royal pain; but it could be worse! I'm thankful
to have good health, storage space, and a place to ride my recumbents (and
DF bikes, too).

> > I like the riding position; but as I had imagined, it is not good for
making
> > power, and thus is slow. I tried several different seat heights and
> > handlebar positions to see if I could produce more power. Nothing
doing.
> > Also, I noticed significant leg interference with the seat edge (which I
had
> > expected, due to the low BB height). The only way to solve that would
be to
> > use a much narrower saddle, but, again, that would be defeating the
purpose.
> > This is not a racing bike.
>
> True, it's not a racing bike, never will be. And the seat feels great
> on my bum
> The riding position feels wonderful. I can look around and behind me.
> The lower crank makes it easyer to step on and off the bike which
> really helps in traffic.

Just happens to be ideal for riders with limited joint motion.

> Also, the 20" wheels gives it better center
> of gravity.

I would debate this assertion. The Revive didn't feel particularly stable
to me, but acceptably so. I didn't feel confident riding "no hands", for
instance. (forgot to mention that in the review)

> > The rear suspension seemed to suck up some power, and the Nexus hub was
a
> > real power sink, too. The combination of the Nexus hub, rear suspension
and
> > the non-ideal riding position conspire to make the Revive a "slow
rider".
> > It's a cruiser, not a racer.
>
> Again, True it's not a racer, what's your point!

That it's not a racing bike, so don't expect it to go fast. It's a design
trade off.

> The rear suspension is adjustable, it's sucks up the bumps. That's
> what it is there for.

Like most rear suspensions, it also sucks up pedalling energy.

> The inter hub works great, I can change gears
> even when I'm not moving, which makes it easy to put it in a lower
> gear when you have to stop
> in traffic.

I have a city bike with a Nexis 7 rear hub. I can really tell the
difference in energy efficiency between the internal hub and a derailleur.
(Also, being a "city bike" it has a less powerful riding position - again, a
design trade off.)

> > Somehow, I don't think the lack of speed is going to be a problem for
its
> > intended target market. It wasn't designed to compete with the
lowracers
> > out there. This is a "cruise around the suburban retirement community
and
> > multi-use paths" bike. The intended market will appreciate the low
stepover,
> > the can't-miss shifting, the comfy seat, and the head-turning looks of
the
> > Revive. The grandkids will want to ride it, too, and that's when the
wide
> > range of instant no-tools-required seat and handlebar adjustability will
be
> > worth the price of admission. Would I recommend the Revive for older
> > riders? Absolutely.
>
> Your killing me dude, I know I'm not 20 anymore, like I said I'm 41.

So am I, coincidentally.

> I have a 8 year old daughter and NO grandkids!
> I do live in the Subs, and if you must know it's a uppermiddle class
> Hood not I retirement community.

Low racers were designed for skinny, tall, muscular young European speed
freaks; but older, aero-bellied, American non-racers love them, too! (I
resemble that comment ;-)

> But, I would be nice to retire in a couple of years!

Retirement is a positive concept these days. The soon-to-be-retiring
boomers are a *huge* market. Lots of companies are marketing to them (and
that's nothing new).

> > All things considered, I expect the Revive to sell very well. The bike
> > received *lots* of attention during my test ride. People really like the
> > looks of the Revive. The superb ergonomics, comfy saddle, foolproof
> > shifting, zero-maintenance drivetrain and wide adjustability, combined
with
> > the high head-turning factor will contribute to the success of the
Revive.
>
> "Yes" I think you got it! "Thank You"

"You're welcome" "what's with the air quotes?" ":-)"

> > The "aging Boomer" target market (as I imagine it) are people with
enough
> > money that the price tag won't be a significant barrier to entry. They
can
> > always opt for the less fancy versions.
>
> People with enough money, Dude, the DX cost around $800.00 US in know
> road and maintain bikers that pay that much just on set of pedals that
> don't come with their bike!

True; but most people (in the US, anyway) buy their bikes at WalMart and
ToysRUs. Sad but true. $800 is a *lot* of money for most folks to spend on
a bike.

> The price will probably come down a
> > bit as the market for semi-recumbents heats up. Giant has a
well-deserved
> > reputation for dialed-in designs with superior component quality at
every
> > price point in virtually every cycling niche market. I imagine they'll
> > continue that tradition with the Revive.
>
> Maybe who is to say? But I'm sure the Revive is the wave of the
> future.

Perhaps. It is being marketed to consumers who should appreciate its
benefits. As someone pointed out on this NG, the Revive is not a new
design. It's just a more refined version of an existing design. The fact
that Giant has entered this market bodes well for this type of bike design.
They're a conservative company, for the most part.

> Thanks for letting me get that off my chest Barry.

NP. Always glad to discuss new things.

> Have a nice weekend.

You too, Derek. Nice website, BTW.

-Barry

[bentbiker]

I thought Barry's review was well balanced and not negative at all. It's
a cool bike, not real performance orientated, and probably perfect for
fitness and cruising around.

B. Sanders wrote:
> "revivederek" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Hello, Sorry the Revive is not the bike for you. There are 100's of
>>bikes on the market, maybe you will find one you like.
>
>
> Thanks. I've been heavily into recumbents for about 7 years now. I'm on my
> 5th recumbent now, and have owned and ridden a wide variety of 'bents. I
> can't (yet) afford some of the 'bents that I'd like to own: Velokraft Low
> Racer,
>
> I've also owned about 30+ DF bikes in the past 10 years (MTB's, road bikes,
> touring, tandem - you name it) in every price and quality range all the way
> up to an ultra-tricked-out Merlin. I have no vested interest in any
> specific bike design. I try to be objective in my evaluations, as much as
> possible. Every bike makes design trade offs to suit a specific purpose.
>
>
>>I just wanted to comment on a couple of items from your list...
>>
>>
>>>First, it's a very sharp looking bike. The ergonomics do seem well
>
> thought
>
>>>out. Seat and handlebar adjustments are a snap, and appear to be
>
> designed
>
>>>for riders with limited mobility. The low step-over height also points
>
> to a
>
>>>target market with limited mobility. This is a bike designed for aging
>>>Boomers.
>
>
>>OK, limited mobility?
>
>
> Perhaps I should have said "limited range of joint motion." That's what I
> meant. As we age, it's harder and harder to throw a leg over the bike for
> mount/dismount, etc. The less joint motion, the more comfortable the ride.
> Again, not a new idea. Look at European city bikes. The low "step through"
> design is quite common.
>
>
>>I think the Revive is designed for everyone to enjoy, not aging
>>boomers!
>
>
> That doesn't guarantee that everyone will like it as well as you do.
>
>
>>Just for the record, I'm 41 and weight 150lbs.
>>I can ride any bike I want!
>
>
> I'm sure you can.
>
>
>>>It's rather heavy, which should come as little surprise. That's the
>
> downside
>
>>>to wide adjustability, stylized body panels, wheel covers, etc. I
>
> suppose
>
>>>you could drop the weight quite a bit by removing all of the stylizing
>
> bits;
>
>>>but that would be missing the point, I think. This is not a bike that
>
> was
>
>>>designed to be carried up 3 flights of stairs to your urban apartment.
>
> Its
>
>>>supposed to sit in a suburban garage, and be ridden on weekends.
>>
>>You may be right there, I would not want to carry my Revive dx up
>>stairs all the time, but I do lift it up to put it on the bike rack
>>and It's not really that heavy,I ride lots of hills here in St.Louis
>>and have no trouble!
>>I do live in a house with a garage and ride it almost everyday!
>
>
> That's an ideal situation. I envy you. I have no garage, and have to lug my
> heavy,wide-stance tadpole trike up and out of a narrow, low cellar door when
> I want to ride it. It's a royal pain; but it could be worse! I'm thankful
> to have good health, storage space, and a place to ride my recumbents (and
> DF bikes, too).
>
>
>>>I like the riding position; but as I had imagined, it is not good for
>
> making
>
>>>power, and thus is slow. I tried several different seat heights and
>>>handlebar positions to see if I could produce more power. Nothing
>
> doing.
>
>>>Also, I noticed significant leg interference with the seat edge (which I
>
> had
>
>>>expected, due to the low BB height). The only way to solve that would
>
> be to
>
>>>use a much narrower saddle, but, again, that would be defeating the
>
> purpose.
>
>>>This is not a racing bike.
>>
>>True, it's not a racing bike, never will be. And the seat feels great
>>on my bum
>>The riding position feels wonderful. I can look around and behind me.
>>The lower crank makes it easyer to step on and off the bike which
>>really helps in traffic.
>
>
> Just happens to be ideal for riders with limited joint motion.
>
>
>>Also, the 20" wheels gives it better center
>>of gravity.
>
>
> I would debate this assertion. The Revive didn't feel particularly stable
> to me, but acceptably so. I didn't feel confident riding "no hands", for
> instance. (forgot to mention that in the review)
>
>
>>>The rear suspension seemed to suck up some power, and the Nexus hub was
>
> a
>
>>>real power sink, too. The combination of the Nexus hub, rear suspension
>
> and
>
>>>the non-ideal riding position conspire to make the Revive a "slow
>
> rider".
>
>>>It's a cruiser, not a racer.
>>
>>Again, True it's not a racer, what's your point!
>
>
> That it's not a racing bike, so don't expect it to go fast. It's a design
> trade off.
>
>
>>The rear suspension is adjustable, it's sucks up the bumps. That's
>>what it is there for.
>
>
> Like most rear suspensions, it also sucks up pedalling energy.
>
>
>>The inter hub works great, I can change gears
>>even when I'm not moving, which makes it easy to put it in a lower
>>gear when you have to stop
>>in traffic.
>
>
> I have a city bike with a Nexis 7 rear hub. I can really tell the
> difference in energy efficiency between the internal hub and a derailleur.
> (Also, being a "city bike" it has a less powerful riding position - again, a
> design trade off.)
>
>
>>>Somehow, I don't think the lack of speed is going to be a problem for
>
> its
>
>>>intended target market. It wasn't designed to compete with the
>
> lowracers
>
>>>out there. This is a "cruise around the suburban retirement community
>
> and
>
>>>multi-use paths" bike. The intended market will appreciate the low
>
> stepover,
>
>>>the can't-miss shifting, the comfy seat, and the head-turning looks of
>
> the
>
>>>Revive. The grandkids will want to ride it, too, and that's when the
>
> wide
>
>>>range of instant no-tools-required seat and handlebar adjustability will
>
> be
>
>>>worth the price of admission. Would I recommend the Revive for older
>>>riders? Absolutely.
>>
>>Your killing me dude, I know I'm not 20 anymore, like I said I'm 41.
>
>
> So am I, coincidentally.
>
>
>>I have a 8 year old daughter and NO grandkids!
>>I do live in the Subs, and if you must know it's a uppermiddle class
>>Hood not I retirement community.
>
>
> Low racers were designed for skinny, tall, muscular young European speed
> freaks; but older, aero-bellied, American non-racers love them, too! (I
> resemble that comment ;-)
>
>
>>But, I would be nice to retire in a couple of years!
>
>
> Retirement is a positive concept these days. The soon-to-be-retiring
> boomers are a *huge* market. Lots of companies are marketing to them (and
> that's nothing new).
>
>
>>>All things considered, I expect the Revive to sell very well. The bike
>>>received *lots* of attention during my test ride. People really like the
>>>looks of the Revive. The superb ergonomics, comfy saddle, foolproof
>>>shifting, zero-maintenance drivetrain and wide adjustability, combined
>
> with
>
>>>the high head-turning factor will contribute to the success of the
>
> Revive.
>
>>"Yes" I think you got it! "Thank You"
>
>
> "You're welcome" "what's with the air quotes?" ":-)"
>
>
>>>The "aging Boomer" target market (as I imagine it) are people with
>
> enough
>
>>>money that the price tag won't be a significant barrier to entry. They
>
> can
>
>>>always opt for the less fancy versions.
>>
>>People with enough money, Dude, the DX cost around $800.00 US in know
>>road and maintain bikers that pay that much just on set of pedals that
>>don't come with their bike!
>
>
> True; but most people (in the US, anyway) buy their bikes at WalMart and
> ToysRUs. Sad but true. $800 is a *lot* of money for most folks to spend on
> a bike.
>
>
>> The price will probably come down a
>>
>>>bit as the market for semi-recumbents heats up. Giant has a
>
> well-deserved
>
>>>reputation for dialed-in designs with superior component quality at
>
> every
>
>>>price point in virtually every cycling niche market. I imagine they'll
>>>continue that tradition with the Revive.
>>
>>Maybe who is to say? But I'm sure the Revive is the wave of the
>>future.
>
>
> Perhaps. It is being marketed to consumers who should appreciate its
> benefits. As someone pointed out on this NG, the Revive is not a new
> design. It's just a more refined version of an existing design. The fact
> that Giant has entered this market bodes well for this type of bike design.
> They're a conservative company, for the most part.
>
>
>>Thanks for letting me get that off my chest Barry.
>
>
> NP. Always glad to discuss new things.
>
>
>>Have a nice weekend.
>
>
> You too, Derek. Nice website, BTW.
>
> -Barry
>
>
>

[Ulall]

[i]
>--------------------------<[/color]
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Ulall]

[i]
>--------------------------<[/color]
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com