Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Practical limit for number of rear cogs in the future?

Notices
Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

Practical limit for number of rear cogs in the future?

Old 06-01-17, 09:08 AM
  #76  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 489

Bikes: 2014 Bruce Gordon Rock&Road, 1995 Santana Visa Tandem, 1990 Trek 520, 2012 Surly LHT

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 43 Times in 35 Posts
Just to be argumentative, but in the future you wont need gears, we will all be riding electric bikes. Actually, I agree with Andy K's discussion of the physical limits, no matter what marketing wants. In fact, I can see a day where marketing starts pushing fewer gears as better to sell bikes to people that already have them.
Eggman84 is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 09:09 AM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1332 Post(s)
Liked 316 Times in 214 Posts
Originally Posted by mongol777
I went through all the post to make sure I did not miss it somehow and realized no one mentioned it.
Yep, 636% range (more than my Rohloff), rated for 60 000 kms.
Only downside for me personally - no easy retrofit to non-Pinion specific frames and so no easy way to transfer between bikes (right now it takes me about 2 hrs to relace rohloff to different rim and put it on another bike, I switch once or twice a year between cross frame and 29+ frame)
Sadly most, but not all, of Pinions models have huge gear jumps in the 20%+ range. That imo is too much. A few have gear jumps around 17%.
Racing Dan is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 09:28 AM
  #78  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,054 Times in 634 Posts
IMO anything over 9 speeds is just plain over kill. With a triple in front that makes 27 gears. Why in the world could you want or need more.
rydabent is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 10:14 AM
  #79  
Mostly harmless ™
 
Bike Gremlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,424

Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times in 127 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
IMO anything over 9 speeds is just plain over kill. With a triple in front that makes 27 gears. Why in the world could you want or need more.
Not really. You get about 15 different gear ratios. But you do get a wide range of gear ratios and they are reasonably tightly spaced.


Bicycle gear ratios - speeds, gear inches
Bike Gremlin is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 11:54 AM
  #80  
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,691

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7287 Post(s)
Liked 2,362 Times in 1,381 Posts
It is too bad the 10mm pitch drivetrain didn't catch on, but on the other hand, it makes sense, because it changes everything.

Weight matters to some and not to others, but given two bikes that are functionally identical and at the same price, the one that is three pounds heavier is a lot less desirable, even to non-aficionados. Weight matters to everyone, to some degree.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 02:54 PM
  #81  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Compacts match the range of a triple with a little less complexity and weight. Unfortunately, the middle range is handled rather poorly by compacts. A 38-42 ring is far superior to a 34 for flats.

I ride on flat and rolling terrain and it's very inconvenient shifting from 34 to 50 as you increase speed from the high teens to low twenties. Not only do you shift rings but you upshift 3 gears in back; not fun when you don't have multi shift. And then back again as your speed slows. It's frustrating and I don't know why more riders don't complain about it.

So, you have to settle either for: riding a bit slower and/or at higher cadence in the small or dealing with a lot of noise and lower efficiency drivetrain if you stay in the big. These problems don't exist with a 38 to 42 ring.

I think even a 36 would be an improvement; perhaps I can swap rings for a 50/36 setup?
speshelite is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 03:20 PM
  #82  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,054 Times in 634 Posts
IMO people also tend to over think gearing. Both my bent and trike have triples in front. My simple method of shift is--------------shifting across the rear with each of the sprockets in front. Granny for going up steep hills and sometimes into the wind. Center ring used most of the time on the flats or easy hill. Large chain ring for down hill and with the wind. Pick the chain ring in front according to the terrain, and shift across the rear according to feel.
rydabent is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 03:57 PM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,370

Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked 434 Times in 331 Posts
In terms of actual numbers I have no idea. But consider this. Your innermost cog has to be somewhere to the right of the centerline of the hub or the wheel will collapse. The centerline through the single chain ring, or the bisection of the distance between double rings, or the center ring of a triple, has to bisect the cassette. So increasing the width of the axle to maintain the integrity of the rear wheel constrains the reduction of Q-factor. Also, in extreme cases, the width of the rear tire also plays into this. The innermost chain line has to clear the rear tire.

Then there's the chain angle that stresses the chain, enhances friction, and can cause the chain to rub against the next larger cog. Chain angle increases as chain stay length decreases.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 03:57 PM
  #84  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094

Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
IMO people also tend to over think gearing. Both my bent and trike have triples in front. My simple method of shift is--------------shifting across the rear with each of the sprockets in front. Granny for going up steep hills and sometimes into the wind. Center ring used most of the time on the flats or easy hill. Large chain ring for down hill and with the wind. Pick the chain ring in front according to the terrain, and shift across the rear according to feel.
To some people they'd say that YOU are overthinking gearing.

A 1x is comparatively much simpler (coming from somebody who doesn't like 1x setups for most people). Shifting goes as follows. "If it's too hard, hit this lever, if it's too easy, hit this lever."
corrado33 is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 05:01 PM
  #85  
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,553

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4905 Post(s)
Liked 1,731 Times in 958 Posts
Originally Posted by corrado33
To some people they'd say that YOU are overthinking gearing.

A 1x is comparatively much simpler (coming from somebody who doesn't like 1x setups for most people). Shifting goes as follows. "If it's too hard, hit this lever, if it's too easy, hit this lever."
Hey, I'm one of those 1X guys-- and with SRAM Rival, if it's too easy, I push the lever, and if it's too hard, I push the lever... more. My brain is still trying to get used to DoubleTap.

I made a gradual shift to 1X, going from 50/34 to 48/34 to 46/34 and then finally a single 42T in the front. I don't miss that front derailleur at all. Plenty of range, and I'm apparently still young enough to survive with "big" steps between the gears.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 05:41 PM
  #86  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I wouldn't mind a road 1X. Something like 44/11-40, 13 cogs.
speshelite is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 06:06 PM
  #87  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
The thing about road 1x is that it's impractical to start with 2T jumps if you want tight spacing, and if you start with 1T jumps, it's impossible to avoid annoying ratio jump discontinuities even if you are totally non-limited by cog count.

You could solve the problem by doubling the sizes of all the sprockets, but that's impractical with a half-inch-pitch chain. You could switch to itsy-bitsy chain pitch, but then the costs would shoot way up and sprocket life would be reduced.

With the capabilities of modern derailleurs, the flexibility of modern chains, and with e-shifting and synchro-shift becoming a thing, personally I'd like to see a modern take on half-step.

50-46
11-13-15-18-21-25-29-34-40-46-54



But, some people might still say that you lose the smooth shift pattern at the outer edges if you want to avoid cross-chaining.

SO.

Wild solution: Switch the chainrings around. Put the big ring on the inside and the little ring on the outside!
46-50
11-13-15-18-21-25-29-34-40-46-54



Even, reasonable-chainline shifting all the way from 46-11 (~110GI) to 50-54 (~24GI). 20 gears with step sizes of around 8%.

HTupolev is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 06:59 PM
  #88  
Senior member
 
Dan Burkhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 8,108
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked 652 Times in 367 Posts
Originally Posted by corrado33
I'm going to point out that the above page is posted on sheldon's "joke" page full of false advertisements for things like hollow ball bearings and knives that attach to bar end shifters.
I suppose there might be one or two newbies here that might have needed to have that pointed out, but I would have just let them wonder about it.
Dan Burkhart is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 07:21 PM
  #89  
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,625

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)

Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Liked 2,560 Times in 1,574 Posts
Originally Posted by rm -rf
A modest proposal:
Make 1/2 inch pitch chain obsolete.


The 12.7mm -- 1/2 inch pitch chain is way too big. It's heavy and limits the cog choices.

It's time to bring back the Shimano "10 pitch", 10mm chain. Or even smaller.

Make the chain narrower, too. Now you can fit 15 cogs.
In 1/2 inch equivalents, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 25 28 32 36. Lots of close shifts and gears for steep hills.

Since we are redesigning everything, allow for more variation in the chainring sizes. Not fitting smaller than 34 chainrings was short sighted.

12.7mm vs 10 mm equivalent ratios (rounded to the nearest whole tooth):
10 tooth cog is the same as a 13 cog in 10mm.
20 tooth to 25
30 tooth to 38

34 chainring to 43.
50 chainring to 64

There's a limit to the diameter of the smallest cog that still fits on the cassette body. So the whole assembly can't just shrink down to 80% of the current sizes. Or can it?
You're starting to sound like @Kimmo.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 07:33 PM
  #90  
Senior Member
 
70sSanO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,768

Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1935 Post(s)
Liked 2,148 Times in 1,312 Posts
I might be possible to eliminate cross chaining with a high cog cassette 1x by electrically moving the chainring laterally inboard or outboard to optimize chainline depending on what cog is selected. I could imagine the chainring could be attached to a splined carrier on the crank.

John
70sSanO is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 07:42 PM
  #91  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OK, all I want for now is 2X12 or 2X13 wireless eshifting with up to 6 cog multi shift in both directions. And maybe double the battery life of current Di2.

But y'all are playing 4D chess. Some of you should be engineers for Shimano SRAM and campy instead of posting here with these skillz.
speshelite is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 07:56 PM
  #92  
Passista
 
Reynolds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,584

Bikes: 1998 Pinarello Asolo, 1992 KHS Montaña pro, 1980 Raleigh DL-1, IGH Hybrid, IGH Utility

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked 711 Times in 392 Posts
Originally Posted by 70sSanO
I might be possible to eliminate cross chaining with a high cog cassette 1x by electrically moving the chainring laterally inboard or outboard to optimize chainline depending on what cog is selected. I could imagine the chainring could be attached to a splined carrier on the crank.

John
Too complicated.
Reynolds is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 08:24 PM
  #93  
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,553

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4905 Post(s)
Liked 1,731 Times in 958 Posts
Not to mention unnecessary-- my chainline is perfectly straight when on the 6th cog, so there are 5 above and 5 below. It's only 35mm total between the center of the 1st and 11th cogs, so the chain is never deflecting more than 17.5mm, roughly 3/4". Unless carefully shifted, I imagine a triple would have greater amounts of possible deflection. Which is why I don't favor a triple-- above and beyond the duplicate ratios, there are gear combos you simply can't/shouldn't use.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 08:51 PM
  #94  
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,370

Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked 434 Times in 331 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
The thing about road 1x is that it's impractical to start with 2T jumps if you want tight spacing, and if you start with 1T jumps, it's impossible to avoid annoying ratio jump discontinuities even if you are totally non-limited by cog count.

You could solve the problem by doubling the sizes of all the sprockets, but that's impractical with a half-inch-pitch chain. You could switch to itsy-bitsy chain pitch, but then the costs would shoot way up and sprocket life would be reduced.

With the capabilities of modern derailleurs, the flexibility of modern chains, and with e-shifting and synchro-shift becoming a thing, personally I'd like to see a modern take on half-step.

50-46
11-13-15-18-21-25-29-34-40-46-54



But, some people might still say that you lose the smooth shift pattern at the outer edges if you want to avoid cross-chaining.

SO.

Wild solution: Switch the chainrings around. Put the big ring on the inside and the little ring on the outside!
46-50
11-13-15-18-21-25-29-34-40-46-54



Even, reasonable-chainline shifting all the way from 46-11 (~110GI) to 50-54 (~24GI). 20 gears with step sizes of around 8%.

Half-step was popular in the '60s and some of us were still using it in the early '70s. It makes a lot of sense from the rear derailleur's point of view since it gives you more gear range with less chain slack for the rear derailleur to take up. For example, 52-42 with a 13-21 on the back is 18t, which gives you the same range as 52-48 with 13-24, 15t.

On the other hand, it requires two shifts to get the single-step gear change that keeps you from getting dropped, and when going hard front derailleurs balked at dropping the chain to a ring that was only three or four teeth smaller.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 11:02 PM
  #95  
Mostly harmless ™
 
Bike Gremlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,424

Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times in 127 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
Not to mention unnecessary-- my chainline is perfectly straight when on the 6th cog, so there are 5 above and 5 below. It's only 35mm total between the center of the 1st and 11th cogs, so the chain is never deflecting more than 17.5mm, roughly 3/4". Unless carefully shifted, I imagine a triple would have greater amounts of possible deflection. Which is why I don't favor a triple-- above and beyond the duplicate ratios, there are gear combos you simply can't/shouldn't use.
A triple actually allows a straighter chainline, thanks to the "duplicate" gear ratios. Similar is the standard double. Compact doubles, without "duplicate" gears are worse on that account.
Bike Gremlin is offline  
Old 06-01-17, 11:57 PM
  #96  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by oldbobcat
Half-step was popular in the '60s and some of us were still using it in the early '70s.
Related 1.5-step shifting is a pretty common consequence of many gearing schemes, sometimes even today. It's a useful thing to know how to do in lots of cases where you have a wide-range cassette and a ~10T gap between two chainrings.

and when going hard front derailleurs balked at dropping the chain to a ring that was only three or four teeth smaller.
What's the issue that comes up?

I haven't personally used a half-step system, but my general experience is that small gaps make for good shifting. When going up, the chain has less ramping to do, quicker to catch the teeth and get fully in the new ratio.
I haven't really thought about the big->small jump, as coercing the chain to drop down isn't generally very problematic. If anything, I'd think a small leap would help the chain get reliably caught, less likely to drop off the inside.
HTupolev is offline  
Old 06-02-17, 01:03 AM
  #97  
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1332 Post(s)
Liked 316 Times in 214 Posts
Originally Posted by speshelite
Compacts match the range of a triple with a little less complexity and weight. Unfortunately, the middle range is handled rather poorly by compacts. A 38-42 ring is far superior to a 34 for flats.

I ride on flat and rolling terrain and it's very inconvenient shifting from 34 to 50 as you increase speed from the high teens to low twenties. Not only do you shift rings but you upshift 3 gears in back; not fun when you don't have multi shift. And then back again as your speed slows. It's frustrating and I don't know why more riders don't complain about it.

So, you have to settle either for: riding a bit slower and/or at higher cadence in the small or dealing with a lot of noise and lower efficiency drivetrain if you stay in the big. These problems don't exist with a 38 to 42 ring.

I think even a 36 would be an improvement; perhaps I can swap rings for a 50/36 setup?
Didnt like my 50/34 + 11-32 either. Not enough low gears from the big ring and not enough high gears from the small ring. > constantly shifting up and down on the rings (+ cassette) to get a half way decent chain line.

I notice that a lot of riders just cross chain from the big ring to the bigger cogs on the cassette. Not sure they even notice or care. From a gearing perspective a triple is hard to beat, but it has fallen out of fashion long ago. Decent stock bikes with triples are few and far between.
Racing Dan is offline  
Old 06-02-17, 01:31 AM
  #98  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18319 Post(s)
Liked 4,487 Times in 3,337 Posts
Originally Posted by Jeff Wills
I think Porsche has a GPS-enable transmission algorithm that "looks ahead" and anticipates what gear will be needed "next". Combine that with some sort of heart-rate or glucose-level monitoring technology and you could have a bicycle transmission that would figure out what gear is "optimum".

But riding until you're stupid is half the fun, ain't it?
How about adding direct nerve stimulation.

Thus, one doesn't even have to think about pedalling or resting. The bike will do that for you too No slacking
CliffordK is offline  
Old 06-02-17, 01:55 AM
  #99  
Mostly harmless ™
 
Bike Gremlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,424

Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times in 127 Posts
Originally Posted by Racing Dan
Didnt like my 50/34 + 11-32 either. Not enough low gears from the big ring and not enough high gears from the small ring. > constantly shifting up and down on the rings (+ cassette) to get a half way decent chain line.

I notice that a lot of riders just cross chain from the big ring to the bigger cogs on the cassette. Not sure they even notice or care. From a gearing perspective a triple is hard to beat, but it has fallen out of fashion long ago. Decent stock bikes with triples are few and far between.
For non-racing cyclists, a compact would make more sense with a 14-32 (or 14-28) cassette. Enabling a lot less cross chaining from the big ring on flats.

However, such cassettes are a lot less widely available in shops and usually cost about double the price of "ordinary" (11, or 12 T starting ones).
Bike Gremlin is offline  
Old 06-02-17, 05:43 AM
  #100  
Senior Member
 
Retro Grouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225

Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 642 Times in 363 Posts
The problem with a question like this is that it's asking to predict the future.

We can reason based upon our experience with the components that are available today but new ideas are coming up all the time. Who knows where that's going to go. My prediction is that the bike of the future will have one front and one rear sprocket and a belt drive. How it provides for different gear ratios I have no idea.

Yeah and this is coming from a retro grouch. The techno wienies are probably thinking computer chips.
__________________
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
Retro Grouch is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.