|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On 10/31/2017 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:24:04 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: John B. writes: On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:52:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/30/2017 10:04 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote: You rarely have to worry someone is actually going to run you over. After all if might get blood on their car that they'd have to wash off. But the continuous threats are tiring. When I get back from a long city ride - say my home down to Palo Alto along Hesperian then back again - some 50 miles - I will be threatened at least two dozen times with cars trying to nudge me off the road. Even with open lanes they could easily pass in. Another thing is that you will be riding along and a car will come up behind you fast, swerve around you and turn directly into a driveway that causes you to slam on the brakes. Usually a store or something. I can only say that the U.S. must be different. I've ridden in Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and have never, repeat NEVER, had anyone threaten me, either by word or action. I also rode in New Hampshire and Southern California, but that was a long time ago and I can't be sure but I certainly don't remember any acts that were threatening. I can only say that other parts of the U.S. must be different, because what Tom describes almost never happens to me. Although my "other parts of the U.S." statement needs some modification, since I've ridden all the way across it, and ridden at least a little in 47 states so far. The last irritating incident that happened to me was three weeks ago, on a 50+ mile ride. Ohio has a new law requiring three feet passing clearance. One car passed closer than that when there was plenty of room to go around. But as someone said, I probably shouldn't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. If the police were to ticket these people the state would never again have to raise taxes. And it would have the side effect of increasing road safety. But the drivers would not stand for it. Locally one of the people who was caught by a red light camera wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. He was outraged that they were using cameras to record miscreants. There were a dozen follow-ups by others agreeing with him and not ONE comment to the contrary. In our area, the camera issue was speeding, not red lights. Yes, there were online complaints about the fact that the cops were giving tickets for being 13 mph over the 50 mph limit on the city-center freeway. But here, to counter the over-privileged bitching, there were several individuals posting "Don't be stupid, just drive slower." I was one of those. I mentioned that the time saved by speeding had to be less than three minutes. In W. Australia, and probably the rest of the country, they had "speed Cameras" which were mounted on portable tripods along roads ranging from city streets to "way out in the country". I was told by my mate, who's daughter was employed by the Perth Police in a clerical position, that these cameras communicated with the police in some manner and transmitted data on speeding cars which the police computer turned into a speeding ticket which was mailed to your house. The attitude seemed to be "stay under the speed limit" rather then "I'm being persecuted". But the U.S. attitude, which admittedly I only see posted in Internet articles, about some sort of leeway on obeying laws seems odd. If it is O.K. to drive 15 mph over the posted limit then why a lower posted limit. Why not simply a posted 65 mph limit? The federalization of speed limits had something to do with this attitude. Back in the 70s the federal government mandated a nationwide 55 mph speed limit that had little support from state or local governments. I recall an "unofficial" speed limit where I lived of about 70 mph -- if you didn't drive faster than that on the highway you hardly ever got a ticket, even if the state police were right behind you. If I remember correctly the 55 mph limit was an effort to counteract the 1973 oil crises and was initially hoped to decrease gasoline use by as much as 2.2% while it actually had a far lesser effect. Between 1/2 and 1%. The Federal 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which was signed into law on 2 Jan 1974, was repealed in 1995 and speed control has been a state responsibility since then. It might also be noted that a survey by the Associated Press found that, as of Wednesday, January 2, 1974, only 12, of the 50 states had State speed limits as high as 55 mph. 9 states had 50 mph speed limits and 29 states had a limit of less then 50 mph. In fact as the legislation required 55 mph speed limits on all four-lane divided highways. In some cases, like the New York Thruway, the 50 mph speed limit had to be raised to comply with the law. -- Cheers, John B. In the 1970s, Montana and Nevada charged a $5 'energy violation' for travel over 55 mph and even those were rarely imposed. One nice thing about 55mph was that the greater bulk of the nation simply ignored it. Once repealed, and with slightly higher limits, infractions are charged and convictions routinely ruled to a greater extent, at greater cost, to more people. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/31/2017 6:08 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/31/2017 4:36 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:27:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/31/2017 10:29 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 10/30/2017 10:37 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:52:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/30/2017 10:04 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote: You rarely have to worry someone is actually going to run you over. After all if might get blood on their car that they'd have to wash off. But the continuous threats are tiring. When I get back from a long city ride - say my home down to Palo Alto along Hesperian then back again - some 50 miles - I will be threatened at least two dozen times with cars trying to nudge me off the road. Even with open lanes they could easily pass in. Another thing is that you will be riding along and a car will come up behind you fast, swerve around you and turn directly into a driveway that causes you to slam on the brakes. Usually a store or something. I can only say that the U.S. must be different. I've ridden in Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and have never, repeat NEVER, had anyone threaten me, either by word or action. I also rode in New Hampshire and Southern California, but that was a long time ago and I can't be sure but I certainly don't remember any acts that were threatening. I can only say that other parts of the U.S. must be different, because what Tom describes almost never happens to me. Although my "other parts of the U.S." statement needs some modification, since I've ridden all the way across it, and ridden at least a little in 47 states so far. The last irritating incident that happened to me was three weeks ago, on a 50+ mile ride. Ohio has a new law requiring three feet passing clearance. One car passed closer than that when there was plenty of room to go around. But as someone said, I probably shouldn't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. If the police were to ticket these people the state would never again have to raise taxes. And it would have the side effect of increasing road safety. But the drivers would not stand for it. Locally one of the people who was caught by a red light camera wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. He was outraged that they were using cameras to record miscreants. There were a dozen follow-ups by others agreeing with him and not ONE comment to the contrary. In our area, the camera issue was speeding, not red lights. Yes, there were online complaints about the fact that the cops were giving tickets for being 13 mph over the 50 mph limit on the city-center freeway. But here, to counter the over-privileged bitching, there were several individuals posting "Don't be stupid, just drive slower." I was one of those. I mentioned that the time saved by speeding had to be less than three minutes. In W. Australia, and probably the rest of the country, they had "speed Cameras" which were mounted on portable tripods along roads ranging from city streets to "way out in the country". I was told by my mate, who's daughter was employed by the Perth Police in a clerical position, that these cameras communicated with the police in some manner and transmitted data on speeding cars which the police computer turned into a speeding ticket which was mailed to your house. The attitude seemed to be "stay under the speed limit" rather then "I'm being persecuted". But the U.S. attitude, which admittedly I only see posted in Internet articles, about some sort of leeway on obeying laws seems odd. If it is O.K. to drive 15 mph over the posted limit then why a lower posted limit. Why not simply a posted 65 mph limit? One wonders, is it O.K. to steal if it is only a little?Â* Or even commit murder... in a small way? In the Land of the At One Time Free and the Now Not So Brave, we select the best citizens for public office: https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/m...eeding-ticket/ Exemplary. Funny thing - around here, it was a Republican rather than a Democrat, and it was for drunk driving instead of speeding. No video, though, AFAIK. -- - Frank Krygowski We now have had two club members struck by cars and had video recorders on and turned this over to the police who say they can do nothing. That's liberal California for you. But Frank tells us that 20 year olds speeding around are Republicans. Speaking as a generally hard-boiled and cynical cyclist, I am absolutely amazed at the vicious comments people post to local news sites after a cyclist crash or death. Hating cyclists, texting whilst driving (drunk or doped up notwithstanding) and generally flaunting bad behavior seems to cut across party lines. I'm sure there are differences, and some demographer could coax them out, but overall as a nation we just suck at being human. You could argue it's worse, much worse, elsewhere (or better. whatever), but we are not who we were either. I recently read up on "rolling coal" - that is, using modifications of a pickup truck's diesel engine to purposely shoot dense black clouds of unburned diesel fuel out the exhaust. I'd seen it done many times, but had it done to me (and the folks I was riding with) only once. The comments in the articles were disheartening. I didn't realize that most of the people "rolling coal" are intent specifically on abusing people who choose not to pollute. The comments bragged about taunting Prius drivers, economy car drivers and bicyclists. One source said there are no laws against this practice in other countries, since they're not needed. Nobody else does it; it's just American jerks. Yes, we are not who we were. Generally any diesel will smoke, to some extent, under some operating conditions so I'd guess that no engine modifications would be necessary. But more to the point, why in the world would anyone be worried about whether someone else was emitting more or less contaminates? -- Cheers, John B. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:18:04 +0700, John B.
wrote: On the other hand is the alternate is a 1,000 ft drop off the side of the mountain it has a sort of comforting sound :-) Not to worry. NASA is working on a solution: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/ed15-0373-32.jpg "Jake brake contest 2014 (Full)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHTrEwRk0MU The winner delivered about 130dB SPL which is what a jet taking off produces at 100 meters: http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~bsapplec/Fire/SPL01.jpg http://elephanttech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/decibel-levels-erar-plugs.jpg Don't get too carried away with those decibel charts. The sound of a jet engine at full throttle is very noticeably different depending on where you are standing. In an engine test cell where you can walk around the running engine standing a distance in front of the engine results in very much lower sound levels then standing the same distance behind the engine. Yep. The noise is somewhat proportional to the change in air velocity. The exhaust velocity is much higher than the intake. I have no idea which end of the engine the 133 dB SPL refers to. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 10:17:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: I recently read up on "rolling coal" - that is, using modifications of a pickup truck's diesel engine to purposely shoot dense black clouds of unburned diesel fuel out the exhaust. I'd seen it done many times, but had it done to me (and the folks I was riding with) only once. The comments in the articles were disheartening. I didn't realize that most of the people "rolling coal" are intent specifically on abusing people who choose not to pollute. The comments bragged about taunting Prius drivers, economy car drivers and bicyclists. One source said there are no laws against this practice in other countries, since they're not needed. Nobody else does it; it's just American jerks. Yes, we are not who we were. Generally any diesel will smoke, to some extent, under some operating conditions so I'd guess that no engine modifications would be necessary. This is an order of magnitude worse than "to some extent." For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYPMbLO4pAY But more to the point, why in the world would anyone be worried about whether someone else was emitting more or less contaminates? You'd worry about the "more contaminants" if you were being forced to breathe it. Why would these jerks care if someone emits less? I think they think that pollution is patriotic. If you can call that thinking. - Frank Krygowski |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 10:17:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote: On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: I recently read up on "rolling coal" - that is, using modifications of a pickup truck's diesel engine to purposely shoot dense black clouds of unburned diesel fuel out the exhaust. I'd seen it done many times, but had it done to me (and the folks I was riding with) only once. The comments in the articles were disheartening. I didn't realize that most of the people "rolling coal" are intent specifically on abusing people who choose not to pollute. The comments bragged about taunting Prius drivers, economy car drivers and bicyclists. One source said there are no laws against this practice in other countries, since they're not needed. Nobody else does it; it's just American jerks. Yes, we are not who we were. Generally any diesel will smoke, to some extent, under some operating conditions so I'd guess that no engine modifications would be necessary. This is an order of magnitude worse than "to some extent." For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYPMbLO4pAY It appears to be the usual diesel smoking on acceleration that all diesel engines do to some extent. It does seem excessive as it is right in your face but we have basically the same thing on some of our older buses. But more to the point, why in the world would anyone be worried about whether someone else was emitting more or less contaminates? You'd worry about the "more contaminants" if you were being forced to breathe it. Gee here is was trying to be politically correct and cover all options and you complain. Why would these jerks care if someone emits less? I think they think that pollution is patriotic. If you can call that thinking. - Frank Krygowski Yes they are "jerks" but I suggest that if there is any thought taking place it is probably "Hey! Look! Look! Everyone! Look at ME!" -- Cheers, John B. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 21:11:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/31/2017 8:58 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:24:04 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: John B. writes: On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:52:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/30/2017 10:04 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote: You rarely have to worry someone is actually going to run you over. After all if might get blood on their car that they'd have to wash off. But the continuous threats are tiring. When I get back from a long city ride - say my home down to Palo Alto along Hesperian then back again - some 50 miles - I will be threatened at least two dozen times with cars trying to nudge me off the road. Even with open lanes they could easily pass in. Another thing is that you will be riding along and a car will come up behind you fast, swerve around you and turn directly into a driveway that causes you to slam on the brakes. Usually a store or something. I can only say that the U.S. must be different. I've ridden in Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and have never, repeat NEVER, had anyone threaten me, either by word or action. I also rode in New Hampshire and Southern California, but that was a long time ago and I can't be sure but I certainly don't remember any acts that were threatening. I can only say that other parts of the U.S. must be different, because what Tom describes almost never happens to me. Although my "other parts of the U.S." statement needs some modification, since I've ridden all the way across it, and ridden at least a little in 47 states so far. The last irritating incident that happened to me was three weeks ago, on a 50+ mile ride. Ohio has a new law requiring three feet passing clearance. One car passed closer than that when there was plenty of room to go around. But as someone said, I probably shouldn't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. If the police were to ticket these people the state would never again have to raise taxes. And it would have the side effect of increasing road safety. But the drivers would not stand for it. Locally one of the people who was caught by a red light camera wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. He was outraged that they were using cameras to record miscreants. There were a dozen follow-ups by others agreeing with him and not ONE comment to the contrary. In our area, the camera issue was speeding, not red lights. Yes, there were online complaints about the fact that the cops were giving tickets for being 13 mph over the 50 mph limit on the city-center freeway. But here, to counter the over-privileged bitching, there were several individuals posting "Don't be stupid, just drive slower." I was one of those. I mentioned that the time saved by speeding had to be less than three minutes. In W. Australia, and probably the rest of the country, they had "speed Cameras" which were mounted on portable tripods along roads ranging from city streets to "way out in the country". I was told by my mate, who's daughter was employed by the Perth Police in a clerical position, that these cameras communicated with the police in some manner and transmitted data on speeding cars which the police computer turned into a speeding ticket which was mailed to your house. The attitude seemed to be "stay under the speed limit" rather then "I'm being persecuted". But the U.S. attitude, which admittedly I only see posted in Internet articles, about some sort of leeway on obeying laws seems odd. If it is O.K. to drive 15 mph over the posted limit then why a lower posted limit. Why not simply a posted 65 mph limit? The federalization of speed limits had something to do with this attitude. Back in the 70s the federal government mandated a nationwide 55 mph speed limit that had little support from state or local governments. I recall an "unofficial" speed limit where I lived of about 70 mph -- if you didn't drive faster than that on the highway you hardly ever got a ticket, even if the state police were right behind you. If I remember correctly the 55 mph limit was an effort to counteract the 1973 oil crises and was initially hoped to decrease gasoline use by as much as 2.2% while it actually had a far lesser effect. Between 1/2 and 1%. The Federal 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which was signed into law on 2 Jan 1974, was repealed in 1995 and speed control has been a state responsibility since then. It might also be noted that a survey by the Associated Press found that, as of Wednesday, January 2, 1974, only 12, of the 50 states had State speed limits as high as 55 mph. 9 states had 50 mph speed limits and 29 states had a limit of less then 50 mph. In fact as the legislation required 55 mph speed limits on all four-lane divided highways. In some cases, like the New York Thruway, the 50 mph speed limit had to be raised to comply with the law. -- Cheers, John B. In the 1970s, Montana and Nevada charged a $5 'energy violation' for travel over 55 mph and even those were rarely imposed. One nice thing about 55mph was that the greater bulk of the nation simply ignored it. Once repealed, and with slightly higher limits, infractions are charged and convictions routinely ruled to a greater extent, at greater cost, to more people. Before the 1970's I remember being stopped on the New York Thruway, with the base pistol team, on the way to the National pistol matches. We were stopped for going 5 mph over the 50 mph limit but when the cop saw the uniforms hanging in the window he let us go... with a warning. -- Cheers, John B. |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On 11/1/2017 1:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 10:17:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote: On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:23:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: I recently read up on "rolling coal" - that is, using modifications of a pickup truck's diesel engine to purposely shoot dense black clouds of unburned diesel fuel out the exhaust. I'd seen it done many times, but had it done to me (and the folks I was riding with) only once. The comments in the articles were disheartening. I didn't realize that most of the people "rolling coal" are intent specifically on abusing people who choose not to pollute. The comments bragged about taunting Prius drivers, economy car drivers and bicyclists. One source said there are no laws against this practice in other countries, since they're not needed. Nobody else does it; it's just American jerks. Yes, we are not who we were. Generally any diesel will smoke, to some extent, under some operating conditions so I'd guess that no engine modifications would be necessary. This is an order of magnitude worse than "to some extent." For example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYPMbLO4pAY It appears to be the usual diesel smoking on acceleration that all diesel engines do to some extent. It does seem excessive as it is right in your face but we have basically the same thing on some of our older buses. But more to the point, why in the world would anyone be worried about whether someone else was emitting more or less contaminates? You'd worry about the "more contaminants" if you were being forced to breathe it. Gee here is was trying to be politically correct and cover all options and you complain. Why would these jerks care if someone emits less? I think they think that pollution is patriotic. If you can call that thinking. - Frank Krygowski Yes they are "jerks" but I suggest that if there is any thought taking place it is probably "Hey! Look! Look! Everyone! Look at ME!" -- Cheers, John B. Uh, it's an intentional modification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF2zCXAQ3u0 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On 2017-10-31 07:43, wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 8:14:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/30/2017 6:53 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-29 17:09, Frank Krygowski wrote: ... let me repeat: I've had some motorists act displeased when I've ridden at lane center. I've never had one run me over. I've never known another cyclist who had that happen. I knew two personally who have been hit from behind. They survived but one lost a kidney and the other had a ruptured spleen. Then there was the woman here who got rear-ended in the right lane at high speed. Died. Numerous others down in the valley, including an off-duty police officer who was catapulted off his road bike and died. And I can double check my list, but I think it's now up to nine friends who were killed in motor vehicle accidents. Zero on bicycles. We can trade anecdotes (and you frequently do) but I give more credence to unbiased data. It doesn't pay to be timid. Man up. Why take the risk when there are alternatives such as this? https://goo.gl/maps/XJk1gMRC2eA2 Here's why I "take the risk," Joerg. First, the risk of being hit while riding lane center is extremely low. Most of those hit that way seem to be unlit cyclists riding at night, probably drunk or nearly so. Data's a bit soft, but that does seem to be what it shows. But more important: If I waited for "alternatives" such as the one you show to be built, I would have missed about 45 years of enthusiastic adult riding. I'd have missed riding in about a dozen different countries, 47 states and hundreds of different towns and cities. I wouldn't have been able to ride my bike to work at four different jobs. I'd have missed wonderful vacations with my family, and I'd have missed making at least a hundred good cycling friends. I know many people have bought the "Danger! Danger!" mantra and never leave the nice, safe (and horridly boring) bike path. I chose instead to learn to be competent on ordinary roads. And I'm damned glad I did. We pretty much agree with this. I don't have to worry any more about riding a bike around dangerous drivers than I would driving a car. But that is a clear and present danger because the police no longer enforce driving laws. Yesterday I was driving up the street and some woman pulls a large SUV out of her driveway directly in front of me forcing me to slam the brakes on. It is common for women especially to pull out of parking lots or other driveways looking to the right when traffic comes from the left. With me that happened yesterday. School bus from the other side, driver backed out of driveway with gusto into the school bus' path, the bus driver swerved around and into my lane. If I had been lane center I'd be in the hospital or morgue today. Luckily I rode AFRAP, the hydraulic brakes of my MTB came on prontissimo and I was able to leave the road without crashing because, well, it was an MTB. Yes, the offending driver was a woman but I've seen guys do that as well. She was visibly shaken by all that. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Why do some forks and frames have brake rotor size limits?
On 2017-10-31 07:27, wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:53:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-29 17:09, Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] It doesn't pay to be timid. Man up. Why take the risk when there are alternatives such as this? https://goo.gl/maps/XJk1gMRC2eA2 A bike lane plus segregated bike path plus bicycle bridge, all seamlessly connecting to the Folsom bike path system and the American River bike trail. Plus a lot of parks. That area is a cyclists paradise. During rush hour it gets quite busy. So what you're saying is that the percentage of bicyclists deaths can be changed from nearly nothing to nothing? It isn't nothing. About one a month in our local paper. However, again, this is not only about deaths but also serious injury. I personally knew people who have had that happen, usually by being hit from behind. One woman wasn't able to ride for years because she ended up underneath a Ford F-150. Later she never regained her old performance level because some stuff didn't heal. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: High End Wheels / Rotor Cranks / Frames / TT Helmet etc. | Mike | Marketplace | 3 | April 24th 05 04:30 AM |
FS: Wheels / Rotor Cranks / Bike Frames etc. | Mike | Marketplace | 0 | January 21st 05 09:28 PM |
FS: Wheels / Frames / Aerobars / Rotor Cranks etc. | Mike | Marketplace | 0 | January 13th 05 02:41 PM |
disc brake rotor size, 6 or 8? | Colin Song | Mountain Biking | 9 | October 28th 03 10:35 PM |
Disc brake rotor size | Michael | Techniques | 9 | July 14th 03 04:43 AM |