|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Behold: Future Shock
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:55:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:29:34 +0700, John B. wrote: On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:52:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Yep. For example, some older wheel tractors do not have any springs or shocks on the big rear wheels. Older models also didn't have them on the front wheel. The only real springs and shocks were in the seat. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-tractor-not-have-a-suspension-system Since the steering wheel was attached to the frame and therefore the rear wheels, any bump would be directly coupled to the drivers arms. Do you search out these weird sites or do they simply fall out of the sky. Are those the only two choices available? Falling out of the sky implies divine inspiration, for which I certainly don't qualify. Looking for weird sites is closer to the mark. Perhaps if I explain how it's done, you might find my examples worth emulating. I start with a simple Google word search and quickly switch to an image search. I don't look for weird sites, but rather look for weird pictures. When I see a picture that looks "interesting", I click on "View Image" and then "Visit Site". If the site and associated weird image corroborate my allegations, I add it to my Usenet posting. If not, I try again with another weird image. If I don't find anything, I simply link to the page full of images, which is more for entertainment value than corroboration. Having actually (gasp) driven tractors (even at the early age of 12) I can assure you that the reason tractors don't incorporated suspension is that they travel so slow that a "bump" is isn't a "bump" at all, it is simply an irregularity the ground and the tractor climbs up one side and down the other. Well, you certainly have more experience with tractor driving than me. I'm a city slicker but I went to an agricultural college (Cal Poly, Pomona). At one point, I took a series of agricultural classes in tractor driving and mechanics that were amazingly applicable to engineering. I may have held the record for doing the most damage with a Caterpillar D6 tractor. I also successfully destroyed about 50ft of chain link fence when I was bounced off a Ford 5000 wheel tractor by one of your non-bumps and the tractor continued on autopilot. Notice the total lack of any suspension. To be honest, this sounds like fiction. Or incredible ignorance. I might add that Yes, I have driven farm tractors and Yes, I have done considerable work around D-6's, and even 7's and 8's and 9's. When I worked at the Freeport copper mine in Irian Jaya (as it was then) they hired stone age savages who had never seen a mechanical device and within a month they were running D-9's with no problems. Of course, at the mine there weren't any fences and missing a turn was probably avoided. As Sam Johnson said "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully", and I suppose the possibility of driving off a 2,000 cliff would have the same effect. https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle&tbm=isch However, I will agree that bumps and lumps have little effect on the quality of ride on a wheel tractor, which is cushioned by the fat rear tires. Actually the large rubber tires are there to improve traction not to absorb bumps :-) I would also comment that I have driven a tractor built from a Model T Ford that had front suspension and it didn't result in the weird oscillation your cite talks about. Well, I also don't recall any oscillations, but they certainly can be created in bicycles. I had one bicycle when I was a juvenile delinquent that would shimmy violently at one particular speed. I thought it was normal for bicycles to do that, so I just sped through the resonance point and rode faster. https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/shimmy.html The picture your cite shows to describe how suspension would cause the tractor to rear up on it's hind legs" (as it were) ignores the point that the attaching point of the plow is below the rear axle centerline. Which of course results in a force that tends to rotate the axle in a direction that forces the body of the tractor toward the ground. True. Dragging a plow or other anchor behind the tractor does tend to stabilize things. Wheel tractors were simply not designed as a transportation device, but were designed to be dragging something. Since a wheel tractor has most of its weight over the rear wheels, there is a tendency for the tractor to lift the front wheels off the ground when overpowered or one of the rear wheels gets stuck. Dragging a plow helps. Even the really, really, old folks knew that. http://tinyurl.com/mzcyca4 The local steampunk group http://www.roaringcamp.com http://kineticsteamworks.org brings their machines over to Roaring Camp for exhibits. See the photo of "Pappy". It goes really really really slow. I'll ask them about the suspension and shimmy issues at the next exhibit. A Traction Engine, as it was known in England. I've never actually seen one but my grandfather owned a "gravel pit" and at one time owned a "Steam Shovel", which (again) I never saw in operation :-) Actually I doubt very much that specialized wanted to build a bicycle with a smooth ride. I suggest that what they actually wanted top do was make a bicycle that they could convince a lot of people to buy :-) They said as much on their Future Shock web page: https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock See under "Smoother is Faster". However, you're correct that sales is what drives all such innovation. If it doesn't sell, the money spent on the innovation is wasted. After smoothness, I presume that research into which color paint is faster, will follow. I've always understood that red was the fastest color. Although, come to think of it, the SR-71's were black. Your assertion that overloading a truck causes the shock absorbers to "blow out" seems strange as I've seem a large number of trucks grossly overloaded that seemed to have no problems. My 1972 International 1210 3/4ton truck was originally my service truck when I was in the land mobile radio biz. When the business collapsed, I ended up with the truck instead of back pay. At the time, I had switching to engineering and was therefore commuting with the big truck. The radio sites were on top of mountains serviced by chronically washed out dirt roads, for which the suspension on the truck was properly tuned. However, at freeway speeds, the shocks were too stiff. When it came time to replace the shocks, I installed some rather light duty shocks to give me a smoother ride on the freeway. That worked fine, until I had to carry an excessive load, and blew out all 4 shocks. They were replaced by heavy duty shocks and I installedr rubber shocks under the bench seat. Again, this seems, at best illogical. And yes, I've owned, and presently own. a 3/4 ton pickup. But I never noticed any difference in driving on rutted dirt roads or smooth freeways that could be attributed to shock absorbers. Unless, of course, one was driving at extremely high speeds on the "washed out roads", which seems rather (well) foolish. I remember a fleet of 1-1/2 ton trucks that were used to carry cargo from the port of Medan, North Sumatra to villages north of the city that were so overloaded that they bolted wooden blocks to the frames to prevent the truck bed from resting on the tires. We did much the same with a flat bed truck that we built from junk parts. It had an excessively wide axle that put the wheel well directly over the middle of the tires. So, we did some more body work, gouged out the wheel wells, and extended the wheel wells with plastic racing imitations. The front wheels never did track correctly on turns, but that wasn't an issue because the truck never left the yard. I'm not sure what you are saying here. The Indonesian trucks were quite obviously purchased with only the cab and the cargo bed was locally built with steel cross members and a plank cargo bed bolted on top. No "wheel wells". In fact this seems to be the norm here too. -- Cheers, John B. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Behold: Future Shock
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:22:53 +1000, James
wrote: On 06/04/17 02:52, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:23:05 +0700, John B. wrote: On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:46:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Not really. When riding your bicycle, you have 5 points of contact with the machine. Two arms on the handlebars, two feet on the pedals, and one posterior on the saddle. If you do anything to take the load off one or more of these, the load is simply transferred to the others. If a sprung handlebar were to apply an upward force on the hands for an extended period of time, the lost upward force would redistribute itself in additional force on the saddle and feet. You might get some temporary relief from gravity in the arms from a sprung handlebar, but when you return to earth from the initial launching, your arms will feel both the upward return force plus the original weight of supporting your upper body. That's what you feel when you jump and land. Sorry, no free lunch today. I see. You are telling me that the rather elaborate springs and shock absorbers under my wife's car are a waste of money? After all there are always just those four tires carrying all the weight? Yep. For example, some older wheel tractors do not have any springs or shocks on the big rear wheels. Older models also didn't have them on the front wheel. The only real springs and shocks were in the seat. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-tractor-not-have-a-suspension-system Since the steering wheel was attached to the frame and therefore the rear wheels, any bump would be directly coupled to the drivers arms. I thought that was standard practise for tractors. My Kubota tractor is certainly like that, as is my ride on mower! Even with horses the attaching point is below the center of gravity (as one might call it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sledge_2.JPG -- Cheers, John B. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Behold: Future Shock
On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:59:16 +0700, John B.
wrote: To be honest, this sounds like fiction. Or incredible ignorance. Inexperience, going too fast, not watching where I was going, debris on the field, and twisting one ankle so that I couldn't run after the tractor. Unfortunately, that was about 1967, before digital cameras became common, so I didn't take any photos. I might find one of me with crutches. It's also difficult for me to remember incidents from 50 years ago, but if there's something specific that seems lacking, I'll try to recall the details. Incidentally, notice the throttle on the Ford 5000 tractor: http://www.tractordata.com/photos/F000/266/266-td4-b02.jpg It's the lever to the right of the steering wheel. Let go of the throttle lever and it just keeps going and going and going. Here's a rear view of the tractor: https://www.tractorpartsasap.net/eqphotos/EQ-18052-D.jpg No suspension. I bounced over the low back of the seat, bounced off the left fender, and came down on an auxiliary hydraulic pump that was attached to the PTO (power takeoff). The hydraulic lift cylinders in the photos were not present. Looks like the seat was replaced in this photo: http://en.visonerv.com/cgi-bin/md/M11646/s3.pl I might add that Yes, I have driven farm tractors and Yes, I have done considerable work around D-6's, and even 7's and 8's and 9's. When I worked at the Freeport copper mine in Irian Jaya (as it was then) they hired stone age savages who had never seen a mechanical device and within a month they were running D-9's with no problems. As I previously mentioned, the few classes I took in tractor driving and mechanics at Cal Poly were the sum total of my experience with tractors. Add in a little dirty work over the years with a backhoe and small skip loader, but those don't really count. At Cal Poly, we had our own equivalent of stone age savages. They were foreign exchange students, mostly from Iran (before Shah Pahlavi was deposed). Being the sons of Iran's elite, they were not expected to do any manual labor or tasks that were deemed to be menial. A few brought their servants with them to do these things. Few had every operated a screwdriver, much less a complicated machine. Teaching them basic mechanical skills was challenging but most survived. Looking back, I think we could have done better with your stone age savages. Of course, at the mine there weren't any fences and missing a turn was probably avoided. As Sam Johnson said "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully", and I suppose the possibility of driving off a 2,000 cliff would have the same effect. We had the equivalent of the 2,000 ft cliff available. It was the nearby San Bernardino Freeway (I-10). One wrong turn from the practice field and the tractor would be climbing a short onramp into traffic. The school probably deduced that nobody would be dumb enough to try driving a tractor on the freeway, and therefore did provide any protective measures. Well, someone did try, survived, and was the inspiration for the chain link fence that I partially mangled. Actually the large rubber tires are there to improve traction not to absorb bumps :-) True. The tire pressure varied depending on what we were doing with the tractor. Quite a bit of classroom time was spent to the topic. As I vaguely recall, we used 17 psi on a wheel tractor with zero load on the hitch. I could see the tire bounce a little from the weight of the tractor, but nothing that would be considered a shock absorber. A Traction Engine, as it was known in England. I've never actually seen one but my grandfather owned a "gravel pit" and at one time owned a "Steam Shovel", which (again) I never saw in operation :-) I've had a little experience with steam engines. Mostly dirty work in trade for getting free rides and helping a college friend build a working steam car. After smoothness, I presume that research into which color paint is faster, will follow. I've always understood that red was the fastest color. Although, come to think of it, the SR-71's were black. There's been quite a bit of work on optimizing aerodynamic surfaces on anything that is expected to move rapidly. In theory, the ideal aerodynamic surface would look like a golf ball. https://www.google.com/search?q=mythbusters+golf+ball+car&tbm=isch The idea is to maintain laminar (non-turbulent) flow over the largest surface area. Color plays a small part by heating the air near the surface. Hot air is less dense than cold air, so hot air means slightly less air friction and wind resistance. The black SR-71 color was no accident where at Mach 3, little things like surface heating become important. The ideal bicycle frame would be dimpled and black. I'm sure Specialized has considered the possibilities, and immediately discarded them as unsellable. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Behold: Future Shock
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau
wrote: Thanks all! I would like to add that before asking, I did google. Here is what I found: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060051227 Unfortunately reading that felt like a setback. Could someone please interpret that page for me? No. I can't understand anything in the patent or what it has to do with bicycle tires. Rewind. The original article sorta, kinda, maybe, explained it: https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock Not All Compliance is Created Equal When it comes to compliance, there are two competing schools of thought. In one corner, there's splay. In the other, there's axial compliance. Essentially, splay is the fore & aft movement of the front axle, relative to the frame, as a result of any bending of the frame and fork. Meanwhile, axial (or vertical compliance) can be characterized as the movement of the handlebars, relative to the front axle, as a result of fork, frame, and stem compliance. We tested both along all of the critical performance metrics, and what we found is that, while splay certainly excels in the comfort department, it's neither the smoothest or fastest. Vertical compliance, however, was off the charts in relation to all of the aforementioned criteria, and thus, we had a runway to create a revolution in compliance: The all-new Future Shock. Reading between the lines of marketing gibberish, it would seem that compliance has something to do with the bending of the frame and fork. Decoding the buzzwords, my non-authoritative guess(tm) is that: 1. Radial compliance is the opposite of splay, which is the change in wheelbase length caused by the bending of the front forks. 2. Axial compliance is the opposite of the change in distance between the handlebars and the front axle caused by bending in the fork, frame, and stem. Note that I'm assuming that "compliance" is the same as "stiffness" which is the opposite of "bending". The mention of "revolution in compliance" seems to really mean "more stiffness". Duz this help? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Behold: Future Shock
On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 09:37:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:59:16 +0700, John B. wrote: To be honest, this sounds like fiction. Or incredible ignorance. Inexperience, going too fast, not watching where I was going, debris on the field, and twisting one ankle so that I couldn't run after the tractor. Unfortunately, that was about 1967, before digital cameras became common, so I didn't take any photos. I might find one of me with crutches. It's also difficult for me to remember incidents from 50 years ago, but if there's something specific that seems lacking, I'll try to recall the details. Incidentally, notice the throttle on the Ford 5000 tractor: http://www.tractordata.com/photos/F000/266/266-td4-b02.jpg It's the lever to the right of the steering wheel. Let go of the throttle lever and it just keeps going and going and going. Hand throttles were/are pretty common on tractors. But I never saw one that required the operator to maintain a death grip on it. Just pull/push to get the right RPM and you could work all day without touching it again. Here's a rear view of the tractor: https://www.tractorpartsasap.net/eqphotos/EQ-18052-D.jpg No suspension. I bounced over the low back of the seat, bounced off the left fender, and came down on an auxiliary hydraulic pump that was attached to the PTO (power takeoff). The hydraulic lift cylinders in the photos were not present. Looks like the seat was replaced in this photo: http://en.visonerv.com/cgi-bin/md/M11646/s3.pl At Cal Poly, we had our own equivalent of stone age savages. They were foreign exchange students, mostly from Iran (before Shah Pahlavi was deposed). Being the sons of Iran's elite, they were not expected to do any manual labor or tasks that were deemed to be menial. A few brought their servants with them to do these things. Few had every operated a screwdriver, much less a complicated machine. Teaching them basic mechanical skills was challenging but most survived. Looking back, I think we could have done better with your stone age savages. Of course. After all a "gentleman" cannot be expected to actually perform physical labour. Can he? Labour is preformed by them. Not US! This is noticeable in many societies. The Irians I mentioned were all "po folks". The Upper Class had large numbers of pigs and a sufficient number of wives to care for them :-) In fact, the mine caused an upheaval in the local societies that were effectively pre stone age as I never saw any of them with a stone or metal tool. The mine paid in cash but of course cash has no value in the mountains of Irian Jaya so there was a "company store" where one could exchange one's cash for material goods like Levi's and steel knives and axes. Can you imagine being the only one in a village with a steel axe? More better than a Cadillac Car! A Traction Engine, as it was known in England. I've never actually seen one but my grandfather owned a "gravel pit" and at one time owned a "Steam Shovel", which (again) I never saw in operation :-) I've had a little experience with steam engines. Mostly dirty work in trade for getting free rides and helping a college friend build a working steam car. After smoothness, I presume that research into which color paint is faster, will follow. I've always understood that red was the fastest color. Although, come to think of it, the SR-71's were black. There's been quite a bit of work on optimizing aerodynamic surfaces on anything that is expected to move rapidly. In theory, the ideal aerodynamic surface would look like a golf ball. https://www.google.com/search?q=mythbusters+golf+ball+car&tbm=isch The idea is to maintain laminar (non-turbulent) flow over the largest surface area. Color plays a small part by heating the air near the surface. Hot air is less dense than cold air, so hot air means slightly less air friction and wind resistance. The black SR-71 color was no accident where at Mach 3, little things like surface heating become important. The ideal bicycle frame would be dimpled and black. I'm sure Specialized has considered the possibilities, and immediately discarded them as unsellable. Actually the dimples in a golf ball aren't the whole story. Years ago, when I played golf, I came across an article in a British golfing magazine about a bloke who had done considerable experimenting with golf balls. The dimpled balls have to spin to increase the range. He had concocted a muzzle loading mortar to launch balls with and without spin and proved that a ball without spin wouldn't fly far. Something, I'm sure, that the golf ball manufacturers already knew :-) By the way, the SR's leaked fuel when on the ground. Not a downpour but a sort of drip, drip. We did a little work on them when I was in SAC prior to them being fully manned and according to their people once they got up to speed, or operating temperature one might say, they expanded and stopped leaking. -- Cheers, John B. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Behold: Future Shock
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 08:18:23 +0700, John B.
wrote: Of course. After all a "gentleman" cannot be expected to actually perform physical labour. It was a bit more complexicated than that. The exchange students were all sons of VIP's, government ministers, and the wealthy upper class. In the middle east, they were not expected to do any real work. However, their fathers seemed to consider this a bad thing, which is one reason they were sent to the US to get an education. To prevent the students from doing much besides studying, the fathers would drastically restrict the how much spending money they sent their sons. While they appeared obviously well off, they were also chronically short on cash. At the time, I was the local loan shark, loaning money exclusively to these students. That worked very well as they knew that they might get sent home if the fathers ever found out. Can he? Labour is preformed by them. Not US! This is noticeable in many societies. The Irians I mentioned were all "po folks". The Upper Class had large numbers of pigs and a sufficient number of wives to care for them :-) Different societies have different ideas of what constitutes wealth. In the US, wealth is marked by the number of coulombs of charge, saved in a rather volatile computer storage system, that represents the quantity of government paper that a person has accumulated. Pigs and wives would seem like a better and more reliable alternative. In fact, the mine caused an upheaval in the local societies that were effectively pre stone age as I never saw any of them with a stone or metal tool. One of my former friends (never loan a friend money) has a problem that might also appear in your pre-stone age workers. His father was an automobile mechanic and didn't want his son to grow up also being a mechanic. Every time his son tried to use a tool, his father would take it away. Predictably, his son grew up with absolutely no mechanical abilities and literally could not operate a screwdriver or hammer. I had always thought such skills were instinctive or easily learned, but apparently not. Did something similar happen with the pre-stone age workers when they tried to use metal tools? Actually the dimples in a golf ball aren't the whole story. Years ago, when I played golf, I came across an article in a British golfing magazine about a bloke who had done considerable experimenting with golf balls. The dimpled balls have to spin to increase the range. He had concocted a muzzle loading mortar to launch balls with and without spin and proved that a ball without spin wouldn't fly far. Something, I'm sure, that the golf ball manufacturers already knew :-) Yep. It would seem that the laminar flow would improve as the golf ball velocity increased. With rotation, it would also provide a more even distribution of air flow near the surface and eliminate stagnant air at the leading and trailing ends of the ball. I'm guessing, but spin does seem to be a good idea. Unfortunately, a spinning bicycle frame might be a little impractical. By the way, the SR's leaked fuel when on the ground. Not a downpour but a sort of drip, drip. We did a little work on them when I was in SAC prior to them being fully manned and according to their people once they got up to speed, or operating temperature one might say, they expanded and stopped leaking. http://www.historyinorbit.com/15-fascinating-facts-about-the-sr-71-blackbird-the-fastest-plane-on-earth/10/ So it is written, so it must be. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Behold: Future Shock
On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Snippeed http://www.historyinorbit.com/15-fascinating-facts-about-the-sr-71-blackbird-the-fastest-plane-on-earth/10/ So it is written, so it must be. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 Shouldn't that be the fastest manned plane above the earth? LOL VBEG Cheers |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Behold: Future Shock
On 4/8/2017 12:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 08:18:23 +0700, John B. wrote: In fact, the mine caused an upheaval in the local societies that were effectively pre stone age as I never saw any of them with a stone or metal tool. One of my former friends (never loan a friend money) has a problem that might also appear in your pre-stone age workers. His father was an automobile mechanic and didn't want his son to grow up also being a mechanic. Every time his son tried to use a tool, his father would take it away. Predictably, his son grew up with absolutely no mechanical abilities and literally could not operate a screwdriver or hammer. I had always thought such skills were instinctive or easily learned, but apparently not. Did something similar happen with the pre-stone age workers when they tried to use metal tools? I think there's a lot of individual variation. My favorite photo of my grandson was taken when he was, oh, maybe 1 year old. IIRC it was an age where he could walk, but not yet talk. Anyway, his non-mechanical dad and I were working on something outside. The little guy walked over to the open tool box, took out a Phillips screwdriver, toddled over to a bike that was parked nearby, and plugged the screwdriver into a Phillips screw on the fork blade and tried to turn it. And for a while, his favorite toy was a power screwdriver. His mom mentioned taking a shower while he was in the bedroom, coming out of the shower and finding one of the bathroom door hinges had been partly removed. Actually the dimples in a golf ball aren't the whole story. Years ago, when I played golf, I came across an article in a British golfing magazine about a bloke who had done considerable experimenting with golf balls. The dimpled balls have to spin to increase the range. He had concocted a muzzle loading mortar to launch balls with and without spin and proved that a ball without spin wouldn't fly far. Something, I'm sure, that the golf ball manufacturers already knew :-) Supposedly the purpose of the dimples is to add energy to the boundary layer, which allows it to stay attached further around the perimeter of the ball. IOW they delay flow separation. The detached low pressure area behind the ball is thus smaller, so aero drag is less. This works with other objects as well, independent of spin. Some airplane wings and some race car bodies have little "vortex generators" installed for the same purpose. Yep. It would seem that the laminar flow would improve as the golf ball velocity increased. With rotation, it would also provide a more even distribution of air flow near the surface and eliminate stagnant air at the leading and trailing ends of the ball. I'm guessing, but spin does seem to be a good idea. Unfortunately, a spinning bicycle frame might be a little impractical. I suspect that the big effect of spin is to increase lift, keeping the golf ball in the air longer. Backspin has a lifting effect by slightly speeding relative air velocity over the top, slightly reducing air velocity on the bottom. As Bernoulli predicts, the result is a net upward pressure. This action is obvious when (for example) playing table tennis. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rear Shock: Big Rider == Big Shock? | (PeteCresswell) | Techniques | 3 | January 19th 10 08:03 PM |
JIMMY MAC A SIGHT TO BEHOLD | yeahbaby | Social Issues | 0 | December 29th 05 07:07 PM |
Behold, I live and breathe | Not Responding | UK | 25 | November 15th 05 12:10 AM |
Behold, Tyler speaks | Jason Spaceman | Racing | 4 | May 1st 05 12:04 PM |
FS: Shock spring for Manitou Swinger rear shock | Todd | Marketplace | 0 | February 8th 05 03:51 AM |