Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Minimum wheelbase

    So I've laid out a bike with a relatively aggressive geometry specifically for crit racing. I'm not a big guy and I went for 74-74 angles. The problem is that this, when accompanied with short chain stays, make for a pretty short wheelbase.

    So here's the question. If toe overlap is not a big deal (I'm gonna have that regardless), what kind of wheelbase would the experienced builders see as a minimum?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Nessism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    My Bikes
    Homebuilt steel
    Posts
    2,324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    How about some more details such as top and seat tube length, BB drop, fork offset, etc. It's easier to discuss frame geometry taken as a whole, not just looking at one parameter such as wheelbase.

    As a general recommendation for a mid sized frame that's going to be used for crits, I don't think you need to stray very far off standard road geometry; I'd shoot for steering trail somewhere in the 5.3-5.5 cm range, BB drop of 6.8-7.0 cm, and use a 41 cm rear end. Seat tube angle should be set based on proper KOP guidelines (or close anyway) and the top tube length should be based on the riders proportions. A good general purpose frame that is slightly skewed toward providing good cornering clearance and decent mobility is all you need for running crits in my opinion.
    Last edited by Nessism; 10-25-09 at 08:20 AM.
    Becareful buying/selling bike parts on-line. I learned the hard way. :(

    Good/Bad Trader Listing

  3. #3
    Tell it as it is Silverbraze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in a cave
    My Bikes
    ones that I ride
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    I would start with this question first

    why do you need 74/74 to race crits?
    The saddle set back position has to be where it has to be and seat tube angle is what it needs to be to fit this via the seat post.
    Why is it 74? {it might need to be but is it really the case**
    Next
    74 head tube angle does not make you faster around corners by magic
    A crit bike just needs to be a normal road racing bike, handle well etc.
    Maybe, lifet the BB to 65 or 60mm pending crank length.
    A bike that does a u turn when you sneeze does not make you faster.
    A good bike just hangs on the corners when you point it there, no stress.
    A bike does not need to be fought the whole race, just like a good point score and madison bike on the track.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Silverbraze; 10-25-09 at 05:45 PM. Reason: too many hours on the CAD programs
    it's steel
    it's lugs
    let the others get on with the madness
    www.llewellynbikes.com
    www.framebuilders.org

  4. #4
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OK, here goes.

    I've drawn this in CAD and here are the numbers. I have basically tried to mix attributes of a 54cm Waterford R-33 and a 54cm Cannondale Six13 (my present bike).

    Top tube 53.3cm
    Reach 38.2cm (C'dale is 38.3)
    BB drop 7.0cm (same as R-33 and C'dale is 6.9, pedal clipping isn't a big issue for me, my shoe hits first, and it's not that ugly)
    172.5mm cranks
    Chainstays at 40.1cm (plenty of tire clearance, even for 25's)
    Front center at 55.6cm (OK by Paterek numbers)

    The C'dale ST is at 73.5 deg, but I went with the steeper number to shorten the top tube and provide a tick more clearance for the rear tire. I'll put my saddle in the same spot with respect to the BB centerline as I do on my present bike.

    I went with a short headtube. 120mm (the C'dale is 140 and the R-33 is 112). I'll only ride this bike an hour at a time, and I want to be very low when in the drops. Most of the time in a crit I'm on the hoods, but when it comes time to get low, I want to be dumped.

    With a fork rake of 43mm, I have a total of 52.8mm of trail, but a 40mm offset fork could make for a more stable front end, should I want it.

    Stick all of this together, and it comes out with a 951.5mm wheelbase. This is similar to a 48cm C'dale frame, but both bikes I borrowed from are at 975mm wheelbases. Now stability is never an issue for my C'dale, so maybe the added agility would be a good thing or maybe it would "do a U-turn every time I sneeze" like Silverbraze said. That's why I've tried to get a feel for things by bouncing ideas off of people who have been there.

  5. #5
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Any further thoughts on this one?

  6. #6
    Tell it as it is Silverbraze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in a cave
    My Bikes
    ones that I ride
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    Any further thoughts on this one?
    Ok, this may sound harsh but I tell it as it is
    15 years of racing, {two years in France and I hated those Friday night two hour crits**
    20 years of frame work
    14 years with the Aussie national team as a mechanico
    tells me there is no such thing as crit bike
    the crit bike is an North American marketing invention that would have you believe that some special angles and things makes the bike faster.
    It was all to market a product and we made it different to sell to you because you need this to race crits faster around corners etc...........................
    riders make the bike corner, not the bike.
    A twitchy bike is not faster around corners, when you are nailed after one or two hours of hammering, then the bike should just be pointed and it will flow through the corners, how much you back off going in is how fast you come out.
    Smooth is the key.
    Floating on a wheel smoothly is what a real racer does all the time, it is all about conservation of effort for releasing when really needed, attacking, getting across gaps and the gallop. Even sprinting is about getting it down the road smoothly.
    {I have seen tons of SRM data on this while working at the Australian Institute of Sport**
    The only thing that may need to be different to a normal good sensible road racing machine is perhaps 5 mm higher BB.
    But then I have seen Robbie McEwen smoke crits on his normal bike with 75mm drop
    and of course with his normal road position.
    Cavendish does not change bikes and position for crits.
    Changing one's proper road position to ride crits does not make sense.
    Get the right position plotes. {not too low**
    One bends the arms when hitting the front!
    Floating on a wheel one can be in the drops but one relaxes more, straighter arms.
    Having the bars too low is not useful and not faster.
    Design the frame to fit under a good position
    Use standard rear centres of 410 to 415mm so your gears all work and the bike will track best when hanging hard on the fast sweepers, espeically if there is cobbles or rain on the circuit.
    Front end, do the same as a normal road bike.

    556mm front centre is bad
    also use mm for these dimenions, not cm
    also there is more to stability than trail. 74/20, 73/45, 72/50 has the same trail but handle different inside the whole sum of the bike
    any questions?

    Cheers Dazza
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Silverbraze; 10-27-09 at 11:52 PM.
    it's steel
    it's lugs
    let the others get on with the madness
    www.llewellynbikes.com
    www.framebuilders.org

  7. #7
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don’t particularly care if you’re harsh if you’re useful. Some of the stuff you wrote is useful, so let’s get to that.


    • I have 2 road bikes, a C’dale and 1990 Schwinn Paramount. The C’dale is a 2006 Six13, but it has the same geometry as the latest SuperSix or CAAD9. The C’dale is the bike I race.
    • I’ve been professionally fit to my bikes and they have the same setup. The fitter actually prefers the position available for me with the Paramount because it has a shorter head tube and can get me in a more aggressive position.
    • I know a guy that raced a Waterford R-33 (essentially the updated version of my Paramount). Due to team changes, he had to switch to a high-end Trek. Even though it’s a little heavier, he claims he misses the R-33 because, “It just does everything right”. I can kind of understand what he means, because I like the feel of my Paramount.
    • I don’t expect to change bikes and all the sudden become Robbie McEwen. I don’t have your race experience, but I’ve had enough that I know it’s about the decisions I make in the pack and the power in my legs. The easy thing to do would be to just go buy a Trek, C’dale, Specialized, Giant, Waterford, etc. and be done with it. Easier yet would be to just stick with what I currently have. If either were my goal, I wouldn’t be on the framebuilders forum, though, neither would anyone else.
    • OK, so I’ve tried to take dimensions off of the C’dale and R-33 to build a bike best suited to what I want. The problem is I’m not really sure how to get from here to there. That’s why I’m asking you guys.
    • I used cm because The Paterek Manual and the C’dale website used cm. The Waterford website uses mm. If you would rather use mm, I’ll struggle through the conversion.
    • Chainstays at 410-415mm. OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Why? Both the R-33 and C’dale are at 405. Nearly every new bike I’ve looked at are 395-405mm. There might be a 410 in there every once in a while, but they’re not common on race-oriented bikes built for a 23-25c tire.
    • A 556mm front center is bad. Why? This gets back to the original question. What dimensions are considered a minimum and at what point do things tend to ‘tip over’? I don’t have the experience that you guys do, so that’s why I’m asking. I understand that as you change one variable it affects every other, but if I have a front center dimension that is a good ‘minimum’, then I can set my head tube angle around that and the necessary fit dimensions.
    • I wasn’t design ‘around’ a trail number. I have relatively easy access to 40 and 43mm offset forks. I’m willing to take a stab at either.
    • I come from a car background. I’ve built racecars from the ground up doing everything from the drawing to the welding. When you’re designing a car you have 4 things that define the design. They are track width, wheelbase, tires and weight distribution. These are your coarse-threaded adjusters. Everything else, even the type of suspension, can be considered fine-thread compared to the first four. In laying out the bike I took the same approach. I know what track doesn’t exist, I know what tires I’m going to use and I was trying to address weight distribution. That leaves wheelbase, which was my initial question. Now front end geometry may be a very big deal, but it sounds as if there are a variety of ways to get a good, but not overpowering front end.
    • You don’t like the term ‘crit bike’. Well, that’s what it’s going to be used for, so what the hell else should I call it? If it were a time trial bike, I’d call it that. I don’t do many road races, so that’s why I didn’t call it that. To me, there are sacrifices that you can make on a ‘crit’ race bike that you may not want to make on a ‘road’ race bike. It can be built a little less on the comfort side in terms of stiffness and upper body fit. It can be a little more agile/twitchy, I’m not going to be in feed-zones or taking a jacket off in the middle of the pack. I also don’t have to deal with big downhills or high top speeds. At the most I see 40 mph, and that is for literally seconds at a time. 99.9% of the time is below 30 mph. There might be other things I’m missing, but that is just my approach.


    So have I cleared things up a bit, or just muddied the waters further? Hopefully, this will have addressed what I’m trying to do and keep the conversation going.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Road Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    My Bikes
    Terraferma 650b, Mondonico SL and ELOS, Masi Gran Criterium, Trek 610, Breezer Liberty, Georgena Terry Classic
    Posts
    11,202
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Seems to me that since bikes are so small compared to the rider, it is more critical to consider the rider contact points as an interrelated whole before addressing wheel loading. Wheelbase is a result of the design.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    49
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fat boy, I used to take the young carpenters working for me aside after i'd watched them struggle with tool placement in thier nailbags and give them the shake down, placing all the tools in an easy to reach, unlikely to spill location. almost everyone of them looked at the new arrangement for a moment and then just said 'thanks'. Dazza just did this for you, thanks was all you needed to say.
    I've been down the road you are on; using existing listed geometry to build a new bike for myself,
    the trouble comes from blending two of them, at that point you may as well draft your own. go to Strawberry racing cycles and use the fit calculator to draft yourself a new bike. It will show you how to measure your self to get the fit right.
    If you have the time you might poke around here some: http://www.llewellynbikes.com/main.htm
    Its awsome that he is spending time here.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Nessism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    My Bikes
    Homebuilt steel
    Posts
    2,324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My suggestion:
    72.5 or 73 head angle with 45 mm rake fork - this will reduce toe overlay over your original 74 degree head angle
    41 - 41.5 cm chain stays to put a little more weight on the front wheel and add a smig of flex to reduce real wheel skipping that can occur with an overly stiff rear end.
    68 mm BB drop for cornering clearance
    ST angle based on leg proportions
    Head tube length based on how low you want the riding position to be
    Last edited by Nessism; 10-29-09 at 12:25 AM.
    Becareful buying/selling bike parts on-line. I learned the hard way. :(

    Good/Bad Trader Listing

  11. #11
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    KNEEL,

    You've mistaken what I was trying to get across in my posts.

    The dimensions of a particular bike or a particular tool placement is interesting, but ultimately little more than a curiosity. While what you did for the young carpenters might have been well meaning it only lets them use that particular set of tools. If, however, you were to explain the logic behind the tool placement then this same thought process could be used to set up a lathe work area, a garage or possibly an entire manufacturing plant. Does it take more time to convey, yes, but it can be time well spent.

    In terms of the bike that I've drawn up, some of the individual measurements I arrived at seemed 'off' to me. That's why I'm here. Saying, "556mm front centre is bad" is an interesting comment, especially coming from someone with such a strong background. It does not impart any of the thought process of why that may be true or that it takes to design a frame. Keep in mind, when I say design, I don't mean to apply a variety of 'rule of thumb' principles. I mean to make conscious choices and compromises on each critical dimension to arrive at an end product which has the traits you set as targets. These two approaches are not the same even if they produce the exact same end product.

    I'm fortunate in that I have been professionally fit to a bike. My fit dimensions are pretty much a known quanity, so an online calculator is not going to be a substitute for the work I've done with my coach. The only possible unknown on fit is head tube height, seeing as my coach feels my present bike puts my hands in too high of a position. Yes, you can always bend your arms more, but by bending your arms too much, you give away some power and you fatigue quicker. Now the Strawberry website is pretty cool, thanks for the nudge in that direction, I'll spend some time there. Having said that, it also has an A, B, C, <a miracle occurs here>, Z feel to it.

    I have no idea if what I'm trying to get across here is getting any traction at all, so let me try this a different way.

    Accepting that a bike design has to fit a rider in a physiological sense, what are the other primary considerations of frame design and what are the compromises to be made with respect to those considerations?

  12. #12
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nessism,

    I just took about an hour to write my last post. Let me digest what you wrote and I'll get back to it tomorrow.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    49
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Fat Boy,
    I'm sorry if I cost you an hour, I probally need to work on my delivery a little. Your last post was extremely concise and well written, The last two lines completely make sense and are a totally valid question.
    I would like however to defend my analogy a little bit though, The simple placement of six or seven carpenter tools in all in a position that streamlines thier use came from years of my own experience. This is similar to a Professional Bike Fit, that takes the years of your coaches experience and places you in what he feels is the optimal position on the bike(I am not detracting from him here) By using the strawberry system you can measure yourself and It will give dimensions to draft a bike from which may either confirm or dispute what your coach/fitter says.
    The important thing here is that it is a second opinion. I used it and my current bike set up was with in millimeters if not right on from what came back from the fit program. I have never been fit to a bike, I just let it develop over the years into what it is now. You also dont say how long you've been riding/racing, this can have a ton of impact on your position as it will change over the years as you develop different muscles.
    anyway, I have to go to work, I'll check back in later. it wasn't my intention to put you on tilt and I look forward to seeing what you come up with on your project
    Kneel

  14. #14
    Recreational Commuter
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Central Ohio
    My Bikes
    Two brand-less build-ups.
    Posts
    1,002
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <unlurk>
    I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, but I'm learning a TON! Thanks!!
    </unlurk>
    Riding the Ohio MS Central Ohio Challenge tour, July 12th.

  15. #15
    tuz
    tuz is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto/Montréal
    My Bikes
    Homemade mixte, track, commuter and road, Ryffranck road
    Posts
    1,160
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, great discussion!

    Your physiological parameters (femur, leg, torso, height, forearm, arm, etc. lengths) should give you the following parameters on the bike: saddle setback, seat height, saddle-to-bar, bar drop and (perhaps to a lesser extend) crank length. Those in turn should give you an idea of the seat angle/saddle, seat tube, top-tube+stem, seat/head tube, respectively.

    Now of course there is an acceptable range for those parameters. I.e. +/- 5mm and perhaps more is irrelevant IMO. Be in the ballpark and any rider will adapt to it reasonably quickly.

    Now enter the handling and stiffness considerations of the frame design. Tubing type, chainstay length, wheelbase, front-centre, weight distribution, head angle, trail, BB drop, curved vs straight fork blade, sloping vs flat crown, etc. It's a bit of can of worms as there is no consensus and I'd say the rider is the bottleneck. I'll echo Dazza: give a touring bike to Lance or Robbie and they'll win regardless!

    That being said, there are no reason why you shouldn't go with what YOU fell is right. There is certainly logic in getting a steeper ST since on a short intense event you'd likely be "riding the rivet" on a stage-type bike. That indeed will allow you to tuck the rear wheel closer and shorten the rear-end and wheelbase. If the latter has a significant effect on stiffness and quicker turning I don't know.

    A short front-centre might counterbalance the short rear-end by removing a bit of weight off the front. But your stem length will influence that as well. Front weight affects wheel-flop (the falling of the wheel as you lean), which is also reduced by a steep HT (again I don't know if it is significant).

    And there is the obvious effect of steering trail that adds to the flop, and so on...

    okay now I'm confused!

    I'll conclude that there is a large amount of fashion in frame design, and a lot of gray areas!
    homebuilt commuter, mixte, road and track (+ Ryffranck road)
    bla bla blog

  16. #16
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Silverbraze View Post
    also there is more to stability than trail. 74/20, 73/45, 72/50 has the same trail but handle different inside the whole sum of the bike
    Quote Originally Posted by tuz View Post
    Front weight affects wheel-flop (the falling of the wheel as you lean), which is also reduced by a steep HT (again I don't know if it is significant).

    And there is the obvious effect of steering trail that adds to the flop, and so on...
    OK, I ran a little math here.

    First, Dazza's numbers:

    Headtube angle and fork offset (fork rake if you prefer) gives the same trail.

    74/40 (he wrote 20, but I think meant 40)= 50.95mm trail
    73/45 = 51.33mm trail
    72/50 = 51.67mm trail

    As he says, they're all the same (or at least close enough for the girls I date).

    However, that's not the whole story. When steered, this trail is rotated at an angle and causes the head tube to fall slightly. This is most easy to visualize with a 'chopper' style motorcycle, but it happens with anything that has these geometries. You can measure it at any angle, but I've chosen to 'normalize' the head tube drop at 1 radian or 57.3 degrees (not that we spend much time there, it's just a good number mathematically to use for a comparison).

    74/40 = 7.5 mm of drop @ 1 rad
    73/45 = 8.0 mm of drop @ 1 rad
    72/50 = 8.5 mm of drop @ 1 rad

    {OK, so now I've got more reasonable numbers, I need to go back on what I originally wrote, but I wrote it and I don't like it when people go back later and change the entire premise of a post as things evolve, so I'm not going to do that. There is a difference is head drop due to these different geometries, but from stem to stearn we're looking at a total of a 1mm (12%) change. I can't say with any certainty that this will be an over-riding factor in the feel of the bike. Especially after digging into some of the tech papers. I think there are ways to do a pretty good job of predicting a bike design's stability (at least comparatively), but it's not an easy task.**

    So looking at these numbers, it shouldn't be any surprise that they act differently when riding. They are different. Likewise, as we add front weight, we change the amount of work necessary to straighten the bars. At some point, the potential energy of this mass that has the ability to drop is greater than the kinetic energy supplied by the tire scrub as the bike rolls forward and gravity takes over. The 'flopping' trait is going to be greater at low speed when the kinetic energy is low and less of a problem as the bike speeds up.

    Also, as we increase trail for a given heat tube angle we change the amount of head tube drop and the lever arm that the tire works through to straighten the steering with scrub. I'm sure there's some sort of trade-off going on there due to a variety of factors. It's a little beyond me right now.

    I'd be happy for anyone to check my math. I could have fat-fingered any part of it. If anyone's interested, I'll post my equations.
    Last edited by Fat Boy; 10-30-09 at 12:54 PM.

  17. #17
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've been checking out the tech papers on the 'net that describe bike stability. Wow, I'm a little swamped by the shear volume of stuff out there. It's gonna take some time to soak it in. The good news is that the heavy lifting on a lot of this stuff is already done (mathematically speaking). It's now a matter of applying these concepts.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Road Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    My Bikes
    Terraferma 650b, Mondonico SL and ELOS, Masi Gran Criterium, Trek 610, Breezer Liberty, Georgena Terry Classic
    Posts
    11,202
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd be very interested in seeing equations and sharing in how you will proceed to understand stability.

    I think the best papers out there are by Jim Papadopoulos and Andy Ruina. They have a model that solves for bicycle eigenvalues. Heavy lifting indeed!

  19. #19
    Senior Member Nessism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    My Bikes
    Homebuilt steel
    Posts
    2,324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The main difference I notice with the different front end geometry numbers is at parking lot speeds. For example, using a 73/52 head/fork set up, the wheel felt like it wanted to flop at ultra low speeds. The bike handled beautifully and was used for crits quite nicely.
    Becareful buying/selling bike parts on-line. I learned the hard way. :(

    Good/Bad Trader Listing

  20. #20
    tuz
    tuz is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto/Montréal
    My Bikes
    Homemade mixte, track, commuter and road, Ryffranck road
    Posts
    1,160
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes it seems that when as soon as you are going reasonably fast, bikes in "normal" angles and rake track very well. I've tried 72/45 (touring), 72,5/58 (custom), 74/45 (Gios "crit")... ( and a few others too but not enough).

    Can't say there are HUGE differences. The 72/45 does flop in slow cornering, and the 74/45 needs a bit more input when cornering faster. The 72.5/58 seems to be in a sweet spot. Enough but not too much flop for mindless cornering. But I'm talking for up to 25mph... it's flat around here. Furthermore those bikes have different weight distributions and tires.

    I don't think bike stability is that well understood... lots of variables! Weight distribution, head angle, trail, pneumatic trail, speed... And an important one that is very hard to model: the user and its adaptability. So if there is a combination that you have tried and liked, it might be the optimal one.

    Anyway your numbers seem good. I used BQs flop is proportional to trail*cos(head)*sin(head).
    homebuilt commuter, mixte, road and track (+ Ryffranck road)
    bla bla blog

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •