A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Minnesota Winters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 27th 08, 03:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
A Muzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,551
Default Bearing damage?

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
A Muzi wrote:

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:
Tom Keats wrote:

smack. Brinelled bearings. specifically unjoyous deployment of
a 4lb hammer when the car's own function can serve the purpose,
and not damage anything.
How come bottom bracket bearing do NOT have this problem when a
hammer is used to drive cotter pins in [1] and out on cranks?
[1] No, tightening is NOT done with the nut with attaching a
cottered crank.
When cotter pins have to be pounded in, there's something horribly
wrong. It usually happens from the bike shop who doesn't quite
have the exact match of what you require, and gives you what they
consider the next closest thing. It's an all too common
occurrence.
Anyway, bearings get ruined by being used dry of grease/lubricant.
I'd like to hear more about that. Who rides with lubricant free BB
bearings?
A number of Pacific Northwesters who frequently ride through deep
puddles and torrential rainfalls, and don't maintain their bikes as
well as they should for the prevailing conditions.
Besides, no matter how you brace the spindle when pounding in
cotters, the shock reaches the ball or two under the spindle. In
You shouldn't have to pound them in. If you have to pound them in,
they don't fit. Maybe tap them in a little, sure -- but to ~pound~
them in?! Nay.
I see you don't work with these. They must be pressed in with
enormous force to give enough preload and insure no "lift-off" from
the small cotter face under hard torque. Those of us who lived
through the steel crank + cotters can recall how they failed with
excess torque if not installed forcefully enough.
I can recall dealing w/ missized/misshaped cotters because
they were all you could get. I also recall occasionally
finding the proper cotters to match the bore.

They must be driven in with a hammer or a special press.
Oh God, that's such a devastation. I just stick well-fitting
cotters in with my thumb.

Not only
that, the also needed to be filed to the right wedge angle to match
the other crank in a one side replacement. The off-the-shelf cotter
not being ready to install. The flat taper was only an indication of
where the flat belonged because the threaded end was offset to pass
under the spindle flat.
You know what's going on here -- you're trying to force the
wrong-sized/wrong-shaped cotters to do the job of the
right ones.

Again, it is a retention nut, not one that
can be used to install the cotter, it having insufficient strength for
that task.
If the cotter pin is the wrong size, of course trying
to tighten it will fsck it up. Trying to get it out
will be even worse.

addition, I saw many cranks secured without more than a 1/2 lb
hammer held under the crank, yet no dents in the spindle resulted.
Of course. The cotters were being smote with a hammer, not the
spindles. I don't think I've ever seen a dented spindle. I've seen
spindles with badly scoured cones, though. Because the bearings
were run dry of lube.
Where do you suppose the reaction force went if not through the
spindle to the bearing cups?
BBs can be done delicatately. Or at least, the violence can
be tightly mitigated. As opposed to stuck handlebar stems.

I still have cottered crank spindles lying around that have no sign
of Brinelling although I have a few head sets where both top and
bottom ball bearings as well a roller bearing ones have fretting
dimples.
In these rainy Pacific Northwest climes, the lower headset bearing
gets the brunt of the weather, especially when unprotected by a
front fender. The cup serves to guide splashed-up water into the
bearing, washing the lube out.
And it's a sneaky effect, because as long as the upper headset
bearing is fine, everything can appear to be good.
I don't think you analyzed the head bearings correctly. If they were
being bathed in water, they would rust solid when parked. On
And yet they generally don't. Go figure.


cheers,
Tom

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG


A bit of grease on the contact between the primary and secondary lever?

I'm wondering where those water bottles have been.


Yes, grease on the cam of the long arm (near the blue frame's BB in photo)

I avoided the recent 'water bottle' thread but we use two castoff
bottles on each desk. Tall for pens, markers, scissors, small files,
etc, short for valve caps and a Campagnolo crank extractor.

The two bottle shown are antiques, made by Eugenio Rampinelli (REG) many
years ago.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ads
  #52  
Old December 27th 08, 04:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default Bearing damage?

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:31:01 -0600, A Muzi
wrote:
[snip]

I avoided the recent 'water bottle' thread but we use two castoff
bottles on each desk. Tall for pens, markers, scissors, small files,
etc, short for valve caps and a Campagnolo crank extractor.


[snip]

Dear Andrew,

Typical water-bottles used to store valve caps:
http://www.freelandind.com/figalvtanks.htm

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
  #53  
Old December 28th 08, 03:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Keats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,193
Default Bearing damage?

In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when the
assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins properly.


For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins
into straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a
few in my stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and
there's no widening in their middles. Straight taper pins;
straight taper holes. As it should be, as long as there's
a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by drawing
up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and deform the
pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.


We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and
loose (or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service
the BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but
that goes with the territory. And there's an acquirable
"touch" for avoiding that. Well, it's mostly luck.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
  #54  
Old December 28th 08, 04:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Keats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,193
Default Bearing damage?

In article ,
(Tom Keats) writes:
In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when the
assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins properly.


For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins
into straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a
few in my stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and
there's no widening in their middles. Straight taper pins;
straight taper holes. As it should be, as long as there's
a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by drawing
up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and deform the
pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.


We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and
loose (or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service
the BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but
that goes with the territory. And there's an acquirable
"touch" for avoiding that. Well, it's mostly luck.


It just occurred to me: most of my bikes have been Japanese
imports, or Japanese/Canadian collaberations (especially
Apollo and Sekine.) I'm a Vancouverian canadian, and we've
had our own localized bicycle trade. So maybe our bicycle
design experiences differ from that.

If cotter pins were to be barrel-chested, it seems to me
they should be made of a softer & more pliable metal than
hard steel, that would spread like butter under pressure,
the better to fill in the gaps, while still retaining
enough interface.

But to anyone else reading this: don't let your LBS
flog-off unto you the wrong cotter pins.


cheers again,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca





  #55  
Old December 28th 08, 04:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,751
Default Bearing damage?

Tom Keats wrote:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.


Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S
couplers:


http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality
Sugino cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of
riding when the assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press
the pins properly.


For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins into
straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.


You are conjuring up unreal circumstances. The Best cotters were from
"Acier Dupratnik" and were of high strength steel. Just the same,
they were designed to be filed or machined to identical flats and they
could be pushed through the bare crank with little effort. The press
fit comes when the spindle is in the crank and the cotter inserted to
arrest it in a rotationally fixed position that must be identical for
both cranks or sprinting would impractical.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a few in my
stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and there's no widening
in their middles. Straight taper pins; straight taper holes. As it
should be, as long as there's a perfect fit with no slop.


It would be unimaginable that Acier Dupratnik would go to all the
trouble of machining these cotters from high grade steel bar stock
that wasn't straight. The way you say that, I become ever more
certain that you have no experience with high quality racing bicycle
cotters, the mainstream when I began bicycling over longer distances.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by
drawing up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free
and deform the pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at
all.


We saw many of these from people like you who could not visualize how
great the forces are in this interface and that one crank puts the
major load on the narrow part of the cotter-flat while the other did
so on the widest part. You have your choice. My choice was to have
the retaining nut on the trailing face of the crank at the top of the
stroke.

We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and loose
(or loosening) everywhere else.


Well you can't do that anyway, because that would not leave cranks
180° apart as they should be.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service the
BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.


Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but that goes
with the territory. And there's an acquirable "touch" for avoiding
that. Well, it's mostly luck.


That's the classic demise of cotters. That is why one doesn't extract
them without a pair of new ones in the event of a squashed thread.

Jobst Brandt
  #56  
Old December 28th 08, 04:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Bearing damage?

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when the
assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins properly.


For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins
into straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a
few in my stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and
there's no widening in their middles. Straight taper pins;
straight taper holes. As it should be, as long as there's
a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by drawing
up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and deform the
pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.


We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and
loose (or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service
the BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but
that goes with the territory. And there's an acquirable
"touch" for avoiding that. Well, it's mostly luck.

If I had a bike with cotter cranks that needed servicing, I would take
it to the shop with proper tools, such as Mr. Muzi's. A cotter pin that
does NOT require significant force to insert will NOT form a press fit,
which is what this interface requires to function as intended.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll
  #57  
Old December 28th 08, 04:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default Bearing damage?

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:29:26 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

Tom Keats wrote:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast
steel press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts
out about 80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a
better approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.


Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S
couplers:


http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when
the assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins
properly.


For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins into
straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.


You are conjuring up unreal circumstances. The Best cotters were from
"Acier Dupratnik" and were of high strength steel. Just the same, they
were designed to be filed or machined to identical flats


yeah, good luck on the fantasy of /that/ ever being achieved.



and they could
be pushed through the bare crank with little effort. The press fit
comes when the spindle is in the crank and the cotter inserted to arrest
it in a rotationally fixed position that must be identical for both
cranks or sprinting would impractical.


red herring.




But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a few in my
stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and there's no widening in
their middles. Straight taper pins; straight taper holes. As it
should be, as long as there's a perfect fit with no slop.


It would be unimaginable that Acier Dupratnik would go to all the
trouble of machining these cotters from high grade steel bar stock that
wasn't straight.


eh? what's that got to do with subsequent inaccuracy meted out at the
hands of the lbs???



The way you say that, I become ever more certain that
you have no experience with high quality racing bicycle cotters, the
mainstream when I began bicycling over longer distances.


cotters were fundamentally misconceived. your defense of them is bizarre
given your favorite hobby-horse of pedal thread fretting, yet apparently
you're oblivious to the same effects in this application.





Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by
drawing up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and
deform the pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.


We saw many of these from people like you who could not visualize how
great the forces are in this interface and that one crank puts the major
load on the narrow part of the cotter-flat while the other did so on the
widest part. You have your choice. My choice was to have the retaining
nut on the trailing face of the crank at the top of the stroke.


yeah. trouble is though jobst, the greatest area of contact ran the other
way...




We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the length
of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and loose (or
loosening) everywhere else.


Well you can't do that anyway, because that would not leave cranks 180°
apart as they should be.


eh??? all you need is to have the pins finished the same and oriented
correctly - this is not rocket science.



And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate grease)
is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service the BB. They
don't fail from inadequate greasing.


Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but that goes
with the territory. And there's an acquirable "touch" for avoiding
that. Well, it's mostly luck.


That's the classic demise of cotters. That is why one doesn't extract
them without a pair of new ones in the event of a squashed thread.


you got that bit right at least. ridiculous design.

  #58  
Old December 28th 08, 04:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Bearing damage?

"jim beam" wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:29:26 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

[...]
The way you say that, I become ever more certain that
you have no experience with high quality racing bicycle cotters, the
mainstream when I began bicycling over longer distances.


cotters were fundamentally misconceived. your defense of them is bizarre
given your favorite hobby-horse of pedal thread fretting, yet apparently
you're oblivious to the same effects in this application.
[...]


Where did Jobst defend cotter cranks as being a good design? I missed
that. Please provide a citation.

Obviously, when Jobst took up serious cycling (late 1940's or early
1950's?), there were no quality alternatives to cottered cranks. From
Jobst's postings, it appears he abandoned cottered cranks shortly after
quality square taper cranks became available.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll
  #59  
Old December 28th 08, 04:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default Bearing damage?

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:55:04 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:

"jim beam" wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:29:26 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

[...]
The way you say that, I become ever more certain that you have no
experience with high quality racing bicycle cotters, the mainstream
when I began bicycling over longer distances.


cotters were fundamentally misconceived. your defense of them is
bizarre given your favorite hobby-horse of pedal thread fretting, yet
apparently you're oblivious to the same effects in this application.
[...]


Where did Jobst defend cotter cranks as being a good design? I missed
that. Please provide a citation.


serious social perception issue there tom! discuss that with your medical
professional.




Obviously, when Jobst took up serious cycling (late 1940's or early
1950's?), there were no quality alternatives to cottered cranks. From
Jobst's postings, it appears he abandoned cottered cranks shortly after
quality square taper cranks became available.


as did we all. stupid design.

  #60  
Old December 28th 08, 05:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Keats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Bearing damage?

In article ,
writes:
Tom Keats wrote:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast ste=

el=20
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out abou=

t=20
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better=20
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.


Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S
couplers:


http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality
Sugino cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of
riding when the assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press
the pins properly.


For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins into
straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.


You are conjuring up unreal circumstances. The Best cotters were from
"Acier Dupratnik" and were of high strength steel. Just the same,
they were designed to be filed or machined to identical flats and they
could be pushed through the bare crank with little effort.


That's how it should be. Or should be rendered.

The press
fit comes when the spindle is in the crank and the cotter inserted to
arrest it in a rotationally fixed position that must be identical for
both cranks or sprinting would impractical.


I have enough hand-to-eye coordination and feel to do that.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a few in my
stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and there's no widening
in their middles. Straight taper pins; straight taper holes. As it
should be, as long as there's a perfect fit with no slop.


It would be unimaginable that Acier Dupratnik would go to all the
trouble of machining these cotters from high grade steel bar stock
that wasn't straight. The way you say that, I become ever more
certain that you have no experience with high quality racing bicycle
cotters, the mainstream when I began bicycling over longer distances.


The way /you/ say it, you can't even get cotter pins in without
a fancy hydraulic press and a bunch of fussy alignment.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by
drawing up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free
and deform the pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at
all.


We saw many of these from people like you who could not visualize how
great the forces are in this interface and that one crank puts the
major load on the narrow part of the cotter-flat while the other did
so on the widest part. You have your choice. My choice was to have
the retaining nut on the trailing face of the crank at the top of the
stroke.


I guess the nut is always on top of the cotter pin, and there's
nothing anyone can do about that.


We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and loose
(or loosening) everywhere else.


Well you can't do that anyway, because that would not leave cranks
180=C2=B0 apart as they should be.


Oi, bloody hell! Please, not the Q-factor thing again!
How does how convexly tapered pegs in squarely tapered
holes fit, do with crank spacing anyways?

Sometimes metal components should have some leeway between
them. Other times, they shouldn't.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service the
BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.


Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but that goes
with the territory. And there's an acquirable "touch" for avoiding
that. Well, it's mostly luck.


That's the classic demise of cotters. That is why one doesn't extract
them without a pair of new ones in the event of a squashed thread.


Ones that actually & properly fit in the first place.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Minnesota Winters Paul Weaver General 3 December 16th 08 11:40 PM
Minnesota Winters Tom Keats General 2 December 13th 08 01:21 AM
Minnesota Winters Tom Keats Mountain Biking 2 December 13th 08 01:21 AM
Minnesota Winters Tom Keats Australia 2 December 13th 08 01:21 AM
Minnesota Winters Hank General 0 December 12th 08 11:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.