|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:28, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote: On a steep uphill I sure want my rear light as bright as it gets. On winding uphill stretches the risk of being seen too late is highest. Have you ever bothered to get a friend to ride your bike at night, then observe your bike's lights and reflectors as you drove your car? I've done things like that many times, with my family, with friends, with bike club members. And as mentioned, I've gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists. All of this testing has showed that a cyclist does NOT need super-bright lights or high tech equipment to be perfectly visible. During the day he does. As a motorist I am always thankful for oncoming cyclists to have bright lights. I see them so early that I can plan on it, move AFRAP with my car, giving oncoming cars lots of space and their drivers, in consequence, give the cyclist lots of space. Really? Are you legally blind? Eight out of ten times I will see a fluorescent jersey before I see a DRL. And as a rider, IME, there is a low correlation between being seen and safe passes. I get close passes with or without my very bright L&M VIS 180 rear light. The modern paranoia calling for super-bright lights is silly. It's spouted by people who haven't done simple tests. Nonsense. I did tests. If you want to be able to pull up to 15mph on singletrack or 25mph on a road with occasional debris on it those 1000 lumen lights are a safety feature. Because you see stuff. For slowpokes that is, of course, a different story. Depends on the road and the rider. I'm sure there are plenty of PBP riders with dynos doing 25mph in the dark. But sure, the faster you go, the more light you need -- particularly if the road is more like a trail. But for the majority of commuters, super-bright lights are not needed for riding at night. Super-bright DRLs are totally unnecessary IMO. On dreary days I'll run a blinky, but in bright sunshine -- no. -- Jay Beattie. |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 2:53:08 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2017 1:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-16 09:16, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 10:34 AM, Joerg wrote: No, cyclists get run over. Doesn't matter whether hill or not. A vehicle that travels at 1/4 the speed of motorized traffic or less is always at higher risk in the lane than traffic going at same speed. The risk goes up as the speed goes down. More bull****, Joerg, or at least, more ignorance of data. Motorcyclists have a fatality per hour rate roughly 30 times higher than bicyclists. You can't say that risk goes up as speed goes down. As an engineer you should at least try to find the real reasons. They can be summed up in videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtjexSg0SM meh. If that guy grows a pair he could working delivery on a fixie in NYC. Warning! Bicycle content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N-I8fpBx-4 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Note that in the video from 3:10 on they're riding AT NIGHT without any lights (never mind mega-lumens lights, or reflectors and they're doing that in heavy traffic and whilst breaking many traffic laws yet they didn't get run over. LOL Oh, where I ride at night on trails or off road I can ONLY see my way until the next bend or steep section = no extra amount of light is going to increase the distance Icansee. Onthe open road it's a different story and somtimes I'd like a light with more range so that I could see critters like skunks on or near the road earlier. In the meantime I just slow down a bit so that my light shows me what I need to see when I need to see it. Joerg's riding is different from most everyone elses. Cheers Cheers |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On 9/16/2017 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 11:54, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 2:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-16 09:16, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 10:34 AM, Joerg wrote: No, cyclists get run over. Doesn't matter whether hill or not. A vehicle that travels at 1/4 the speed of motorized traffic or less is always at higher risk in the lane than traffic going at same speed. The risk goes up as the speed goes down. More bull****, Joerg, or at least, more ignorance of data. Motorcyclists have a fatality per hour rate roughly 30 times higher than bicyclists. You can't say that risk goes up as speed goes down. As an engineer you should at least try to find the real reasons. They can be summed up in videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtjexSg0SM But by your simplistic statement ("The risk goes up as the speed goes down") he would be in more danger if he slowed down! Put your thinking cap on for once. It is obviously the speed _differential_ that matters. Joerg, I was quoting what YOU said. Perhaps you should put your thinking cap on before you post? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On 9/16/2017 2:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:28, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote: On a steep uphill I sure want my rear light as bright as it gets. On winding uphill stretches the risk of being seen too late is highest. Have you ever bothered to get a friend to ride your bike at night, then observe your bike's lights and reflectors as you drove your car? I've done things like that many times, with my family, with friends, with bike club members. And as mentioned, I've gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists. All of this testing has showed that a cyclist does NOT need super-bright lights or high tech equipment to be perfectly visible. The modern paranoia calling for super-bright lights is silly. It's spouted by people who haven't done simple tests. Nonsense. I did tests. If you want to be able to pull up to 15mph on singletrack or 25mph on a road with occasional debris on it those 1000 lumen lights are a safety feature. Because you see stuff. For slowpokes that is, of course, a different story. At night, I don't often hit 25 mph. I don't know many cyclists who do. But when I've done it I don't recall trouble seeing adequately with my Busch & Muller Cyo headlights. BTW, I do have one friend who completed Paris-Brest-Paris a couple times, over ten years ago. (He's one of the guys who finished my double century with me.) PBP is hilly riding in dark and remote Brittany, with lots of night riding. His lighting equipment was very, very ordinary, and nothing at all close to 1000 lumens. However, I note a subtle shift in the topic of conversation. Upthread you were claiming a nighttime road cyclist needs glaring lights to _be seen_. Now you're switching to fast-riding cyclists needing 1000 lumens to see where they're going. I think you'll dance around any and all topics in your effort to "prove" that riding a bike is very, very dangerous. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 8:03:56 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 2:34 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-16 09:28, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote: On a steep uphill I sure want my rear light as bright as it gets. On winding uphill stretches the risk of being seen too late is highest. Have you ever bothered to get a friend to ride your bike at night, then observe your bike's lights and reflectors as you drove your car? I've done things like that many times, with my family, with friends, with bike club members. And as mentioned, I've gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists. All of this testing has showed that a cyclist does NOT need super-bright lights or high tech equipment to be perfectly visible. The modern paranoia calling for super-bright lights is silly. It's spouted by people who haven't done simple tests. Nonsense. I did tests. If you want to be able to pull up to 15mph on singletrack or 25mph on a road with occasional debris on it those 1000 lumen lights are a safety feature. Because you see stuff. For slowpokes that is, of course, a different story. At night, I don't often hit 25 mph. I don't know many cyclists who do. But when I've done it I don't recall trouble seeing adequately with my Busch & Muller Cyo headlights. BTW, I do have one friend who completed Paris-Brest-Paris a couple times, over ten years ago. (He's one of the guys who finished my double century with me.) PBP is hilly riding in dark and remote Brittany, with lots of night riding. His lighting equipment was very, very ordinary, and nothing at all close to 1000 lumens. However, I note a subtle shift in the topic of conversation. Upthread you were claiming a nighttime road cyclist needs glaring lights to _be seen_. Now you're switching to fast-riding cyclists needing 1000 lumens to see where they're going. I think you'll dance around any and all topics in your effort to "prove" that riding a bike is very, very dangerous. -- - Frank Krygowski My experiences riding off road in the dark is that once you get to a certain brighness of light with a good beam pattern (not flashlight-type narrow beam)that more lumens do nothing because due to trees, twists/turns on the trail, you can NOT see any further anyway. You have LONGER viewable distances on most roads than you do on most trails. BTW, I wear eyeglasses and I now wear a pair of flip-up sunglass lenses on them at night when riding so that when a bicyclist or motor vehicle with blindingly bright lights approaches I can flip the lenses down to avoid being blinded. Cheers |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 07:46:10 -0700, Joerg
wrote: On 2017-09-15 19:48, John B. wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:59 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-15 12:43, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/15/2017 2:43 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-15 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] ... This system is permanently mounted on the bike, just like the corresponding components on a car. It's ready at the flick of a switch and it's extremely reliable, requiring not even tending to batteries. How does it keep the lights at full brightness during a long uphill slog? Like some of these sections: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/5041564 The variation in brightess from, say, 6 mph to 20+ mph isn't really that great. But more important, when a person is riding uphill slowly, they don't need to see 1/4 mile ahead. Having a headlight that's slightly dimmer uphill is no disadvantage. Until the soused redneck in his dilapidated pickup truck comes tearing along and doesn't see you in time. But why should a "red neck" driving a pickup be soused? any more than a bicyclist? After all: https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eaths/?mcubz=1 Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body, according to a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study that examined fatal bicycling accidents in New York City from 1996 to 2005. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...facts/bicycles Among bicyclists ages 16 and older who were killed in 2015, 23 percent had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent. http://www.bhsi.org/alcohol.htm Blood alcohol levels were estimated from medical records, visits to crash sites and testing of 342 passing bicyclists for breath alcohol. At the .08 grams/deciliter level, legally drunk in most states, the odds of a fatal or serious injury rose by 2,000 per cent. The risk rose as alcohol rose, beginning at a 600 per cent increase if the blood level was only .02 grams/deciliter, equivalent to one drink. The .08 level is typically associated with four to five drinks. Sounds like it isn't the Redneck we have to look out for it is the drunken bicyclist. Drunken cyclists are a problem, especially since many people resort to a bicycle after losing their license due to DUI and then they don't really know how to handle a bicycle in traffic. However, I can't remember any of the hit-from-behind or hit-from-the-front fatal accidents here reported as being caused by a drunken cyclists. They were caused by drunken motorists, reckless ones, aggressive ones and people fleeing from police or a crime scene in a car. No matter, Frank can lament all day long, I know for a fact that since I have bright lights front and back the number of close calls has substantially dropped. So as far as lighting is concerned, mission accomplished. And that is largely "your problem". You have a preconceived notion and rather then research the question to see if you can discover the truth of the matter you simply argue from a position of ignorance. Akin to arguing that 1 + 1 is not 2... because you don't want it to be. You put on super bright lights and the number of close calls has substantially dropped. And you know this. Can you document it? Say 10 close calls a day before the bright lights and only one since you installed them? Or "you just know that it is so". I find it interesting that after reading all the blather here I did make a test of it. First a week riding with no lights at all and then a second week riding with, not one but two, bright lights on the handle bars and two (count them), TWO of the brightest blinking red lights I could buy on the rear. My findings? There was no difference at all, None! And note that I was making a deliberate test of the value of lighting, writing notes in a little book, counting on my fingers, etc. And I might add that this was riding in Bangkok city traffic which is usually rated as the first, or second most, chaotic traffic in the world. http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/auto...ies/index.html Notice that the only U.S. city mentioned is Los Angeles which is rated 14th out of 15. I can only assume that you are unique. That all the danger in the universe is collectively hanging over your head. -- Cheers, John B. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On 9/17/2017 2:17 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 07:46:10 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-15 19:48, John B. wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:59 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-15 12:43, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/15/2017 2:43 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-15 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] ... This system is permanently mounted on the bike, just like the corresponding components on a car. It's ready at the flick of a switch and it's extremely reliable, requiring not even tending to batteries. How does it keep the lights at full brightness during a long uphill slog? Like some of these sections: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/5041564 The variation in brightess from, say, 6 mph to 20+ mph isn't really that great. But more important, when a person is riding uphill slowly, they don't need to see 1/4 mile ahead. Having a headlight that's slightly dimmer uphill is no disadvantage. Until the soused redneck in his dilapidated pickup truck comes tearing along and doesn't see you in time. But why should a "red neck" driving a pickup be soused? any more than a bicyclist? After all: https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eaths/?mcubz=1 Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body, according to a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study that examined fatal bicycling accidents in New York City from 1996 to 2005. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...facts/bicycles Among bicyclists ages 16 and older who were killed in 2015, 23 percent had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent. http://www.bhsi.org/alcohol.htm Blood alcohol levels were estimated from medical records, visits to crash sites and testing of 342 passing bicyclists for breath alcohol. At the .08 grams/deciliter level, legally drunk in most states, the odds of a fatal or serious injury rose by 2,000 per cent. The risk rose as alcohol rose, beginning at a 600 per cent increase if the blood level was only .02 grams/deciliter, equivalent to one drink. The .08 level is typically associated with four to five drinks. Sounds like it isn't the Redneck we have to look out for it is the drunken bicyclist. Drunken cyclists are a problem, especially since many people resort to a bicycle after losing their license due to DUI and then they don't really know how to handle a bicycle in traffic. However, I can't remember any of the hit-from-behind or hit-from-the-front fatal accidents here reported as being caused by a drunken cyclists. They were caused by drunken motorists, reckless ones, aggressive ones and people fleeing from police or a crime scene in a car. No matter, Frank can lament all day long, I know for a fact that since I have bright lights front and back the number of close calls has substantially dropped. So as far as lighting is concerned, mission accomplished. And that is largely "your problem". You have a preconceived notion and rather then research the question to see if you can discover the truth of the matter you simply argue from a position of ignorance. Akin to arguing that 1 + 1 is not 2... because you don't want it to be. You put on super bright lights and the number of close calls has substantially dropped. And you know this. Can you document it? Say 10 close calls a day before the bright lights and only one since you installed them? Or "you just know that it is so". I find it interesting that after reading all the blather here I did make a test of it. First a week riding with no lights at all and then a second week riding with, not one but two, bright lights on the handle bars and two (count them), TWO of the brightest blinking red lights I could buy on the rear. My findings? There was no difference at all, None! And note that I was making a deliberate test of the value of lighting, writing notes in a little book, counting on my fingers, etc. And I might add that this was riding in Bangkok city traffic which is usually rated as the first, or second most, chaotic traffic in the world. http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/auto...ies/index.html Notice that the only U.S. city mentioned is Los Angeles which is rated 14th out of 15. I can only assume that you are unique. That all the danger in the universe is collectively hanging over your head. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lk_Excerpt.png -- - Frank Krygowski |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On 2017-09-16 16:51, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-16 11:54, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 2:28 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-16 09:16, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 10:34 AM, Joerg wrote: No, cyclists get run over. Doesn't matter whether hill or not. A vehicle that travels at 1/4 the speed of motorized traffic or less is always at higher risk in the lane than traffic going at same speed. The risk goes up as the speed goes down. More bull****, Joerg, or at least, more ignorance of data. Motorcyclists have a fatality per hour rate roughly 30 times higher than bicyclists. You can't say that risk goes up as speed goes down. As an engineer you should at least try to find the real reasons. They can be summed up in videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtjexSg0SM But by your simplistic statement ("The risk goes up as the speed goes down") he would be in more danger if he slowed down! Put your thinking cap on for once. It is obviously the speed _differential_ that matters. Joerg, I was quoting what YOU said. Perhaps you should put your thinking cap on before you post? Learn how to read in context. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On 2017-09-16 23:17, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 07:46:10 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-15 19:48, John B. wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:59 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-15 12:43, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/15/2017 2:43 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-15 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] ... This system is permanently mounted on the bike, just like the corresponding components on a car. It's ready at the flick of a switch and it's extremely reliable, requiring not even tending to batteries. How does it keep the lights at full brightness during a long uphill slog? Like some of these sections: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/5041564 The variation in brightess from, say, 6 mph to 20+ mph isn't really that great. But more important, when a person is riding uphill slowly, they don't need to see 1/4 mile ahead. Having a headlight that's slightly dimmer uphill is no disadvantage. Until the soused redneck in his dilapidated pickup truck comes tearing along and doesn't see you in time. But why should a "red neck" driving a pickup be soused? any more than a bicyclist? After all: https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eaths/?mcubz=1 Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body, according to a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study that examined fatal bicycling accidents in New York City from 1996 to 2005. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...facts/bicycles Among bicyclists ages 16 and older who were killed in 2015, 23 percent had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent. http://www.bhsi.org/alcohol.htm Blood alcohol levels were estimated from medical records, visits to crash sites and testing of 342 passing bicyclists for breath alcohol. At the .08 grams/deciliter level, legally drunk in most states, the odds of a fatal or serious injury rose by 2,000 per cent. The risk rose as alcohol rose, beginning at a 600 per cent increase if the blood level was only .02 grams/deciliter, equivalent to one drink. The .08 level is typically associated with four to five drinks. Sounds like it isn't the Redneck we have to look out for it is the drunken bicyclist. Drunken cyclists are a problem, especially since many people resort to a bicycle after losing their license due to DUI and then they don't really know how to handle a bicycle in traffic. However, I can't remember any of the hit-from-behind or hit-from-the-front fatal accidents here reported as being caused by a drunken cyclists. They were caused by drunken motorists, reckless ones, aggressive ones and people fleeing from police or a crime scene in a car. No matter, Frank can lament all day long, I know for a fact that since I have bright lights front and back the number of close calls has substantially dropped. So as far as lighting is concerned, mission accomplished. And that is largely "your problem". You have a preconceived notion and rather then research the question to see if you can discover the truth of the matter you simply argue from a position of ignorance. Akin to arguing that 1 + 1 is not 2... because you don't want it to be. You put on super bright lights and the number of close calls has substantially dropped. And you know this. Yes, I know this. Can you document it? Say 10 close calls a day before the bright lights and only one since you installed them? Or "you just know that it is so". I have no GoPro and also no nee to document. I know what I experienced and that's good enough for me. If you don't believe me, fine. I find it interesting that after reading all the blather here I did make a test of it. First a week riding with no lights at all and then a second week riding with, not one but two, bright lights on the handle bars and two (count them), TWO of the brightest blinking red lights I could buy on the rear. My findings? There was no difference at all, None! Thailand != USA And note that I was making a deliberate test of the value of lighting, writing notes in a little book, counting on my fingers, etc. And I might add that this was riding in Bangkok city traffic which is usually rated as the first, or second most, chaotic traffic in the world. http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/auto...ies/index.html Notice that the only U.S. city mentioned is Los Angeles which is rated 14th out of 15. There are huge differences between countries. For example, in France it was (is?) popular to drive around town at night with just the position lights on, no low beam. Worked. Because drivers pay attention and are use to this. Here in the US the attention of drivers has majorly changed with the advent of smart phones. That's just how it is. I can only assume that you are unique. That all the danger in the universe is collectively hanging over your head. No, I am simply using common sense. Better light = seen better. Every traffic safety expert. Some self-proclaimed ones, however, ... -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?
On 2017-09-16 13:05, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-09-16 09:28, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/16/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote: On a steep uphill I sure want my rear light as bright as it gets. On winding uphill stretches the risk of being seen too late is highest. Have you ever bothered to get a friend to ride your bike at night, then observe your bike's lights and reflectors as you drove your car? I've done things like that many times, with my family, with friends, with bike club members. And as mentioned, I've gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists. All of this testing has showed that a cyclist does NOT need super-bright lights or high tech equipment to be perfectly visible. During the day he does. As a motorist I am always thankful for oncoming cyclists to have bright lights. I see them so early that I can plan on it, move AFRAP with my car, giving oncoming cars lots of space and their drivers, in consequence, give the cyclist lots of space. Really? Are you legally blind? Eight out of ten times I will see a fluorescent jersey before I see a DRL. Can you visit clients in your fluorescent jersey? Commuter cyclists out here where khakis and stuff. Same when I visit a client, then I wear clean and fairly new black jeans and a decent shirt. For some people a bicycle is more than just a rolling gym. ... And as a rider, IME, there is a low correlation between being seen and safe passes. I get close passes with or without my very bright L&M VIS 180 rear light. My experience is different. With bright lights I only get deliberate close passes, usually when a driver is p....d because I took the lane for too long and such. The modern paranoia calling for super-bright lights is silly. It's spouted by people who haven't done simple tests. Nonsense. I did tests. If you want to be able to pull up to 15mph on singletrack or 25mph on a road with occasional debris on it those 1000 lumen lights are a safety feature. Because you see stuff. For slowpokes that is, of course, a different story. Depends on the road and the rider. I'm sure there are plenty of PBP riders with dynos doing 25mph in the dark. In France you normally do not have lots of debris from construction worker pickup trucks lying in the way. I have lived in Northern Europe and cycled there, a lot. ... But sure, the faster you go, the more light you need -- particularly if the road is more like a trail. But for the majority of commuters, super-bright lights are not needed for riding at night. Super-bright DRLs are totally unnecessary IMO. On dreary days I'll run a blinky, but in bright sunshine -- no. Well, I always do. Hence I always make sure the Li-Ion batteries of the bike are adequately charged. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
unicyclepics.co.uk updated... | petit_pierre | Unicycling | 63 | November 5th 06 02:10 PM |
FAQ Mirror Updated | hippy | Australia | 0 | November 18th 04 06:30 AM |
Six-Day Site Updated | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | August 20th 04 02:48 AM |
Six-Day Site Updated | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | August 14th 04 08:11 PM |
Updated please take a look | Gumbo | Unicycling | 7 | September 9th 03 09:26 PM |