A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Carbon Bikes and Quality Control



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 29th 17, 04:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

Quality control for metal bikes is relatively easy - especially for steel since all of the important connection can be seen on the workmanship.

But carbon fiber bikes are another matter. No matter how well the factory is trying to make no errors these can be made. And once made they are almost invisible.

John seems to want to argue that you can get crystal clear epoxies with viscosities down to 200 when my source says that they are limited to 1200 to 1600. This makes little difference since these particular epoxies are usually only used on the surface layer of the frames for purely decorative effect..

But those are the last layers laid on the inflatable bladder that is used for the inside mold of a one piece frame or fork.

The inside layers are the sources of danger. High end bikes use many very thin layers and the lay-up is completed as rapidly as possible. A bubble can be caught or a section of cloth may not be properly wetted. This makes an area where movement between the layers can begin and this can break down the surrounding resins.

Now my experience has shown me that CF is not reliable. But companies whose engineers I respect and my own research have shown that carbon fiber without any errors in construction can be much stronger and lighter than steel and have as long if not longer life.

So what we need is more information on the percentages of CF bikes that are having quality control problems.

And you can bet that the companies that make these bikes are going to remain tight lipped on this even if only one bike in a thousand have quality issues.

Question - are the pro level bikes that are breaking so often custom built in their company's racing labs so that the quality control is much lower than the assembly lines in China or Taiwan? If so with increasing familiarity with the material we can expect the racing teams to have progressively less trouble with their mounts.

Once constructed there is almost no way of detecting fatal flaws in the construction and that is a bonus for the American legal system in which a broken fingernail can end in a million dollar settlement.

So until we have tort reform we have little way of knowing just how safe a carbon fiber frame and fork are.

So you make your choice and you take your chances. And please don't hire a lawyer the day you buy a new super-light bike.
Ads
  #2  
Old May 29th 17, 07:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,349
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Quality control for metal bikes is relatively easy - especially for steel since all of the important connection can be seen on the workmanship.


Quality control for metal bikes is easy? With brazing and lugs, no longer used, you cannot see or tell if the brass/silver has covered the entire inside surface of the lugs. Just have to hope. And with welding, TIG, the surface weld is not the only story. You have to look at the inside too. This will tell if the penetration is correct. The surface can be nice and neat but if the weld does not penetrate the correct amount, then its just appearance and its a poor weld. Do you think every frame company takes a microscope or camera and looks at the inside of every weld? Or more likely the guy taking the frame off the welding rack just glances at the welds and says looks good.




Now my experience has shown me that CF is not reliable.

So what we need is more information on the percentages of CF bikes that are having quality control problems.



I assume others have asked, but please enlighten us about all the experience with carbon fiber you claim to have. I'm guessing the experts have chemical engineering degrees and have observed hundreds or thousands of controlled experiments involving carbon fiber. Have you owned thousands of carbon frames and thousands of carbon handlebars and thousands of carbon cranksets and thousands of carbon rims from many, many makers? That must cost you millions and millions of dollars to buy these test samples. And the time to test all these samples must be enormous.

I suspect the percentage of carbon frame bikes having problems is the same percentage of aluminum or steel frames having problems.



Question - are the pro level bikes that are breaking so often custom built in their company's racing labs so that the quality control is much lower than the assembly lines in China or Taiwan?



Pro bikes break often? Now I have seem a few frames break on TV races. When there is a big crash at 35 mph and ten riders and frames all go flipping into the air and sliding on the pavement, some of the bikes break. But usually you see a rider with half his clothes ripped off and blood running down his legs, arms, and face try to get back on his still operating bike and ride down the road. Sometimes someone will come off the sidelines and grab him and make him stop because he is wobbly and has a concussion. But the bike still works after the crash. Pro teams may retire/scrap the frame that night because after the crash it is just not trusted anymore. And does not look good either.
  #3  
Old May 29th 17, 11:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,369
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:40:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Quality control for metal bikes is relatively easy - especially for steel since all of the important connection can be seen on the workmanship.

But carbon fiber bikes are another matter. No matter how well the factory is trying to make no errors these can be made. And once made they are almost invisible.

John seems to want to argue that you can get crystal clear epoxies with viscosities down to 200 when my source says that they are limited to 1200 to 1600. This makes little difference since these particular epoxies are usually only used on the surface layer of the frames for purely decorative effect.

But those are the last layers laid on the inflatable bladder that is used for the inside mold of a one piece frame or fork.

The inside layers are the sources of danger. High end bikes use many very thin layers and the lay-up is completed as rapidly as possible. A bubble can be caught or a section of cloth may not be properly wetted. This makes an area where movement between the layers can begin and this can break down the surrounding resins.

Now my experience has shown me that CF is not reliable. But companies whose engineers I respect and my own research have shown that carbon fiber without any errors in construction can be much stronger and lighter than steel and have as long if not longer life.

So what we need is more information on the percentages of CF bikes that are having quality control problems.

And you can bet that the companies that make these bikes are going to remain tight lipped on this even if only one bike in a thousand have quality issues.

Question - are the pro level bikes that are breaking so often custom built in their company's racing labs so that the quality control is much lower than the assembly lines in China or Taiwan? If so with increasing familiarity with the material we can expect the racing teams to have progressively less trouble with their mounts.

Once constructed there is almost no way of detecting fatal flaws in the construction and that is a bonus for the American legal system in which a broken fingernail can end in a million dollar settlement.

So until we have tort reform we have little way of knowing just how safe a carbon fiber frame and fork are.

So you make your choice and you take your chances. And please don't hire a lawyer the day you buy a new super-light bike.


I don't get your point about the American legal system, tort reform and knowing whether CFRP frames/forks are safe. People break forks and sue. I've defended those cases. Failures are also reported to the CPSC and may result in a recall. Go to the CPSC website and search for "bicycle fork." There is also a CPSC requirement for fork strength, but it's pretty minimal. ISO/CEN/ASTM have more rigorous standards. Again, this does not mean every fork that comes off the line is flawless.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #4  
Old May 30th 17, 02:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Mon, 29 May 2017 11:39:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Quality control for metal bikes is relatively easy - especially for steel since all of the important connection can be seen on the workmanship.


Quality control for metal bikes is easy? With brazing and lugs, no longer used, you cannot see or tell if the brass/silver has covered the entire inside surface of the lugs. Just have to hope. And with welding, TIG, the surface weld is not the only story. You have to look at the inside too. This will tell if the penetration is correct. The surface can be nice and neat but if the weld does not penetrate the correct amount, then its just appearance and its a poor weld. Do you think every frame company takes a microscope or camera and looks at the inside of every weld? Or more likely the guy taking the frame off the welding rack just glances at the welds and says looks good.


When "sweating" pipe joints it is fairly easy to see whether he joint
is fully brazed by watching the inside while applying the brazing
material from the outside. You can actually see the brazing material
arrive at the other end of the joint... assuming of course that you
can see the other end.

The usual method of inspecting welds made in structures that you
really don't want to break like gas pipelines and probably bicycles is
to X-ray them. Then the films are inspected using a light table to
ensure that the weld is within specifications.

Having said that a competent welder can usually pretty well tell
whether he is getting 100% penetration using stick or TIG but I doubt
many production bike frames are welded that way. From looking at the
usual bike welding I'd say that it is MIG.




Now my experience has shown me that CF is not reliable.

So what we need is more information on the percentages of CF bikes that are having quality control problems.



I assume others have asked, but please enlighten us about all the experience with carbon fiber you claim to have. I'm guessing the experts have chemical engineering degrees and have observed hundreds or thousands of controlled experiments involving carbon fiber. Have you owned thousands of carbon frames and thousands of carbon handlebars and thousands of carbon cranksets and thousands of carbon rims from many, many makers? That must cost you millions and millions of dollars to buy these test samples. And the time to test all these samples must be enormous.

I suspect the percentage of carbon frame bikes having problems is the same percentage of aluminum or steel frames having problems.



Question - are the pro level bikes that are breaking so often custom built in their company's racing labs so that the quality control is much lower than the assembly lines in China or Taiwan?



Pro bikes break often? Now I have seem a few frames break on TV races. When there is a big crash at 35 mph and ten riders and frames all go flipping into the air and sliding on the pavement, some of the bikes break. But usually you see a rider with half his clothes ripped off and blood running down his legs, arms, and face try to get back on his still operating bike and ride down the road. Sometimes someone will come off the sidelines and grab him and make him stop because he is wobbly and has a concussion. But the bike still works after the crash. Pro teams may retire/scrap the frame that night because after the crash it is just not trusted anymore. And does not look good either.

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #5  
Old May 30th 17, 02:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,967
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Mon, 29 May 2017 15:54:30 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:40:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Quality control for metal bikes is relatively easy - especially for steel since all of the important connection can be seen on the workmanship.

But carbon fiber bikes are another matter. No matter how well the factory is trying to make no errors these can be made. And once made they are almost invisible.

John seems to want to argue that you can get crystal clear epoxies with viscosities down to 200 when my source says that they are limited to 1200 to 1600. This makes little difference since these particular epoxies are usually only used on the surface layer of the frames for purely decorative effect.

But those are the last layers laid on the inflatable bladder that is used for the inside mold of a one piece frame or fork.

The inside layers are the sources of danger. High end bikes use many very thin layers and the lay-up is completed as rapidly as possible. A bubble can be caught or a section of cloth may not be properly wetted. This makes an area where movement between the layers can begin and this can break down the surrounding resins.

Now my experience has shown me that CF is not reliable. But companies whose engineers I respect and my own research have shown that carbon fiber without any errors in construction can be much stronger and lighter than steel and have as long if not longer life.

So what we need is more information on the percentages of CF bikes that are having quality control problems.

And you can bet that the companies that make these bikes are going to remain tight lipped on this even if only one bike in a thousand have quality issues.

Question - are the pro level bikes that are breaking so often custom built in their company's racing labs so that the quality control is much lower than the assembly lines in China or Taiwan? If so with increasing familiarity with the material we can expect the racing teams to have progressively less trouble with their mounts.

Once constructed there is almost no way of detecting fatal flaws in the construction and that is a bonus for the American legal system in which a broken fingernail can end in a million dollar settlement.

So until we have tort reform we have little way of knowing just how safe a carbon fiber frame and fork are.

So you make your choice and you take your chances. And please don't hire a lawyer the day you buy a new super-light bike.


I don't get your point about the American legal system, tort reform and knowing whether CFRP frames/forks are safe. People break forks and sue. I've defended those cases. Failures are also reported to the CPSC and may result in a recall. Go to the CPSC website and search for "bicycle fork." There is also a CPSC requirement for fork strength, but it's pretty minimal. ISO/CEN/ASTM have more rigorous standards. Again, this does not mean every fork that comes off the line is flawless.

-- Jay Beattie.


Would you care to comment whether, based on the court cases you are
failure with and the C.F. bicycles you are aware of, C.F. bike
breakage, disregarding severe crashes which would likely damage a
metal frame, appear to be a significant problem?
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #6  
Old May 30th 17, 04:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,876
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
The inside layers are the sources of danger. High end bikes use many very thin
layers and the lay-up is completed as rapidly as possible. A bubble can be
caught or a section of cloth may not be properly wetted. This makes an area
where movement between the layers can begin and this can break down the
surrounding resins.


Very true. However, this "movement" is what allows ultrasonic and
vibration testing to find flaws in adhesive connections much easier
than finding breaks in welded connections. If there is no mechanical
connection between parts, ultrasonics will not transfer between them.
Even if the two parts are physically touching and comprise an
interference fit, ultrasonics will not couple all the energy through
the connection. Only when there is some adhesive, that will transfer
the energy across the boundary zone, will there be coupling. This can
easily be seen on a pass through or reflection ultrasonic test. It
will also show up on a vibration test, where the resonance pattern
will be very difficult if there are voids or discontinuities in the
bonding.

Presumably, such testing is done at the factory, but might be lacking
or sample tested to cut costs. I don't know. I've never visited
China to see for myself. My guess(tm) is that the inspection is so
simple, quick, cheap, and easy, that it would foolish to eliminate it.
At worst, simply shaking or banging on the frame, and looking at the
resonance waveform on an FFT vibration analyzer, to compare it with a
known good frame, would be sufficient to detect a problem.

Incidentally, in my dealings with a local plastic furniture factory, I
ran into similar testing. The testing wasn't to detect glue voids or
other imperfections. It was to detect when someone forgot to glue a
joint. That happened a few years previously causing a chair to
collapse under someone, allegedly causing grievous injuries sufficient
to inspire expensive personal injury litigation. After that was over,
I'm fairly sure that the factory considered QA and inspection rather
seriously.



--
Jeff Liebermann

150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #7  
Old May 30th 17, 04:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,876
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Mon, 29 May 2017 20:31:17 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
(yada-yada-yada)

I was looking for some numbers on CF related lawsuits. I still
haven't found anything useful, but I did blunder across this article
in a legal blog, which has some relevent data and sample lawsuits:
"Improper Bicycle Assembly and Defective Bicycle Parts"
http://floridacyclinglaw.com/blog/archives/improper-bicycle-assembly-and-defective-bicycle-parts

Bicycle recalls are another marginal source of failures:
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls-0 (12 pages)
Interesting. There's even a recall for defective rim tape. However,
I found very few CF related recalls. Some for fork failures and none
for CF frame failures. For example:
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2016/02/19/enve-recalls-carbon-road-disc-forks
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2015/12/17/focus-recalls-some-izalco-max-over-fork-issue
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/recalls/2015/12/02/felt-recalls-645-bikes-carbon-fiber-seatposts-can-crack
No epidemic here.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #8  
Old May 30th 17, 02:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 11:39:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Quality control for metal bikes is relatively easy - especially for steel since all of the important connection can be seen on the workmanship.


Quality control for metal bikes is easy? With brazing and lugs, no longer used, you cannot see or tell if the brass/silver has covered the entire inside surface of the lugs. Just have to hope. And with welding, TIG, the surface weld is not the only story. You have to look at the inside too. This will tell if the penetration is correct. The surface can be nice and neat but if the weld does not penetrate the correct amount, then its just appearance and its a poor weld. Do you think every frame company takes a microscope or camera and looks at the inside of every weld? Or more likely the guy taking the frame off the welding rack just glances at the welds and says looks good.




Now my experience has shown me that CF is not reliable.

So what we need is more information on the percentages of CF bikes that are having quality control problems.



I assume others have asked, but please enlighten us about all the experience with carbon fiber you claim to have. I'm guessing the experts have chemical engineering degrees and have observed hundreds or thousands of controlled experiments involving carbon fiber. Have you owned thousands of carbon frames and thousands of carbon handlebars and thousands of carbon cranksets and thousands of carbon rims from many, many makers? That must cost you millions and millions of dollars to buy these test samples. And the time to test all these samples must be enormous.

I suspect the percentage of carbon frame bikes having problems is the same percentage of aluminum or steel frames having problems.



Question - are the pro level bikes that are breaking so often custom built in their company's racing labs so that the quality control is much lower than the assembly lines in China or Taiwan?



Pro bikes break often? Now I have seem a few frames break on TV races. When there is a big crash at 35 mph and ten riders and frames all go flipping into the air and sliding on the pavement, some of the bikes break. But usually you see a rider with half his clothes ripped off and blood running down his legs, arms, and face try to get back on his still operating bike and ride down the road. Sometimes someone will come off the sidelines and grab him and make him stop because he is wobbly and has a concussion. But the bike still works after the crash. Pro teams may retire/scrap the frame that night because after the crash it is just not trusted anymore. And does not look good either.


Excuse me Russel - if you don't know how to tell that a brazed joint is totally filled you aren't a metal worker. Within ten minutes of using a torch I could tell you. This isn't anything difficult. A brazed joint is not a weld. They are not referred to as a weld.

And yes I have asked. But companies are not forthcoming about this. Privately I'm told that the super-lights have a LOT of breakage. I assumed this to be normal breakage but after researching the material more discovered that as the engineers at these companies are saying, properly done these CF frames can last a lifetime. This leaves the only excuse for the amount of breakage the almost impossible task of quality control on a frame that is built from the inside out and hence having all of the mistakes covered up where they can't be seen. Some companies are using ultra-sound to detect problems but they still seem to have problems. I assume this is because the defects that cause problems are simply too small for ultra-sound to detect.

If you don't know what's breaking in the pro peloton then you aren't going to be convinced by me telling you that I've chased this around and heard from pro mechanics about massive failures of these bikes. That many of the riders go through a dozen bikes in a grand tour. That all you have to do is compare the "retirement" list of modern races with those from the time of LeMonde.
  #9  
Old May 30th 17, 03:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:54:34 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:40:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Quality control for metal bikes is relatively easy - especially for steel since all of the important connection can be seen on the workmanship.

But carbon fiber bikes are another matter. No matter how well the factory is trying to make no errors these can be made. And once made they are almost invisible.

John seems to want to argue that you can get crystal clear epoxies with viscosities down to 200 when my source says that they are limited to 1200 to 1600. This makes little difference since these particular epoxies are usually only used on the surface layer of the frames for purely decorative effect.

But those are the last layers laid on the inflatable bladder that is used for the inside mold of a one piece frame or fork.

The inside layers are the sources of danger. High end bikes use many very thin layers and the lay-up is completed as rapidly as possible. A bubble can be caught or a section of cloth may not be properly wetted. This makes an area where movement between the layers can begin and this can break down the surrounding resins.

Now my experience has shown me that CF is not reliable. But companies whose engineers I respect and my own research have shown that carbon fiber without any errors in construction can be much stronger and lighter than steel and have as long if not longer life.

So what we need is more information on the percentages of CF bikes that are having quality control problems.

And you can bet that the companies that make these bikes are going to remain tight lipped on this even if only one bike in a thousand have quality issues.

Question - are the pro level bikes that are breaking so often custom built in their company's racing labs so that the quality control is much lower than the assembly lines in China or Taiwan? If so with increasing familiarity with the material we can expect the racing teams to have progressively less trouble with their mounts.

Once constructed there is almost no way of detecting fatal flaws in the construction and that is a bonus for the American legal system in which a broken fingernail can end in a million dollar settlement.

So until we have tort reform we have little way of knowing just how safe a carbon fiber frame and fork are.

So you make your choice and you take your chances. And please don't hire a lawyer the day you buy a new super-light bike.


I don't get your point about the American legal system, tort reform and knowing whether CFRP frames/forks are safe. People break forks and sue. I've defended those cases. Failures are also reported to the CPSC and may result in a recall. Go to the CPSC website and search for "bicycle fork." There is also a CPSC requirement for fork strength, but it's pretty minimal. ISO/CEN/ASTM have more rigorous standards. Again, this does not mean every fork that comes off the line is flawless.


If people want to take a chance on super-light frames that use construction techniques that cannot be properly quality controlled then they should not have the right to sue the companies that are doing the best job possible. They should be forced to PROVE that these companies are not doing the best possible jobs.
  #10  
Old May 30th 17, 03:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Carbon Bikes and Quality Control

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:30:35 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
The inside layers are the sources of danger. High end bikes use many very thin
layers and the lay-up is completed as rapidly as possible. A bubble can be
caught or a section of cloth may not be properly wetted. This makes an area
where movement between the layers can begin and this can break down the
surrounding resins.


Very true. However, this "movement" is what allows ultrasonic and
vibration testing to find flaws in adhesive connections much easier
than finding breaks in welded connections. If there is no mechanical
connection between parts, ultrasonics will not transfer between them.
Even if the two parts are physically touching and comprise an
interference fit, ultrasonics will not couple all the energy through
the connection. Only when there is some adhesive, that will transfer
the energy across the boundary zone, will there be coupling. This can
easily be seen on a pass through or reflection ultrasonic test. It
will also show up on a vibration test, where the resonance pattern
will be very difficult if there are voids or discontinuities in the
bonding.

Presumably, such testing is done at the factory, but might be lacking
or sample tested to cut costs. I don't know. I've never visited
China to see for myself. My guess(tm) is that the inspection is so
simple, quick, cheap, and easy, that it would foolish to eliminate it.
At worst, simply shaking or banging on the frame, and looking at the
resonance waveform on an FFT vibration analyzer, to compare it with a
known good frame, would be sufficient to detect a problem.

Incidentally, in my dealings with a local plastic furniture factory, I
ran into similar testing. The testing wasn't to detect glue voids or
other imperfections. It was to detect when someone forgot to glue a
joint. That happened a few years previously causing a chair to
collapse under someone, allegedly causing grievous injuries sufficient
to inspire expensive personal injury litigation. After that was over,
I'm fairly sure that the factory considered QA and inspection rather
seriously.


Jeff - on the Apple assembly line they were actually whipping workers to work faster. Do you really think that that attitude is somehow less prevalent with bicycle manufacturers? I would bet that one out of ten bikes are quality tested with ultrasound or vibrational testing which I would have little faith in since the lay-ups are so thin that if the problem isn't obvious you would be hard pressed to detect it with vibration. Remember that the inside and outside coats are probably fine. A small bubble couldn't be detected by either method.
 




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
Quality Control: Not impressed with "Brooks of England" Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 22 April 2nd 09 09:42 PM
Quality Control: Not impressed with "Brooks of England" Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 0 April 1st 09 02:45 AM
GMail quality control? Squashme UK 3 December 16th 08 12:33 PM
AD: FS Control Tech Carbon Wheelsets! [email protected] Marketplace 0 December 31st 04 03:08 PM
Spoke Quality Control John Everett Techniques 4 November 10th 04 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.