Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fitting Your Bike
Reload this Page >

Long legs, short torso - Go go gadget legs

Notices
Fitting Your Bike Are you confused about how you should fit a bike to your particular body dimensions? Have you been reading, found the terms Merxx or French Fit, and don’t know what you need? Every style of riding is different- in how you fit the bike to you, and the sizing of the bike itself. It’s more than just measuring your height, reach and inseam. With the help of Bike Fitting, you’ll be able to find the right fit for your frame size, style of riding, and your particular dimensions. Here ya’ go…..the location for everything fit related.

Long legs, short torso - Go go gadget legs

Old 06-11-17, 12:45 AM
  #1  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Long legs, short torso - Go go gadget legs

Hi,

I have massive legs, and a normal torso. This is causing me a big headache trying to find a bike that fits, and I am getting conflicting advise from my LBSs.

My options appears to be:

1. Big bike (XL / 61 / 59" top tube) - pull bike in with shorter stem and saddle forward. Pros, can accommodate the leg length that I need. Cons, bike feels huge!
2. Smaller bike (L / 59 / 27" top tube) - saddle to the max, push bike out with long stem. Pros, bike does not feel huge to me. Cons, very high saddle to fit 82cm pedal to saddle, leads to very aggressive riding position.

Both shops have agreed that an endurance type geometry is needed for me to attain a relatively 'normal' position on bike and not end up super aggressive due to saddle height relative to torso length.

I would hugely appreciate advise from you all to whether to go smaller and extend, or go larger and pull in. I am looking at buying either a 2017 Roubaix, Domain, and also considering the Canyon Endurance.

My dimensions are:

Height: 191 cm / 6'2"
Inseam: 99 cm / 39"
Weight: 76kg / 12st
Torso: 63 cm / 25"
Shoulder Width: 41 cm / 16"
Arm Length: 73 cm / 29"

Many thanks!
mrvague is offline  
Old 06-11-17, 03:42 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 938

Bikes: Curve Grovel v2 ti

Liked 91 Times in 75 Posts
I'd rule out the Canyon immediately as its stack and reach figures make it a longer frame than the Domane and Roubaix.

The Domane has the best numbers out of the three, for a short-reach, tall-stack frame.

Personally, with your proportions, if you were considering spending a few thou on that bike, then I'd be looking at custom frame builders. A no compromises frame. Carbon would be too much. Ti (China built?) maybe. Steel; somewhat heavier.
tangerineowl is offline  
Old 06-11-17, 08:35 AM
  #3  
Veteran, Pacifist
 
Wildwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,560

Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?

Liked 5,163 Times in 2,347 Posts
I'm your height and have a hard time believing the 39" inseam, but assuming it is correct, the XL sizes that result in a less aggressive position sound a much better fit. When descending at speed a frame that is on the 'too small side' feels less stable (to me) than one on the 'too large side'.

$1,000 buys a custom steel road frame at:
.Curtlo Cycles - Handmade bicycles. Custom Mountain Bike, Road, Cyclocross, Tandem bikes

edit: oooops, saw the reference to weight in stones so the American framebuilder is probably not your lowest cost option. I'll bet lots of custom builders in UK. Do Mercian offer custom?
__________________
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.

Last edited by Wildwood; 06-11-17 at 08:41 AM.
Wildwood is offline  
Old 06-11-17, 09:51 AM
  #4  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 43,595

Bikes: 8

Liked 1,361 Times in 867 Posts
stubby short stem...
fietsbob is offline  
Old 06-11-17, 08:26 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
What a Long legged rider needs in a frame is the back half of the frame built for their legs and the front half of the frame built for their reach. A line drawn up from the centre of the bottom bracket is the division.

The advice to get the bigger frame AND move the saddle FORWARDS, is DUMB advice. Don't take it.

The best choice of a bad selection is to get the bigger frame and use a short stem. Don't move your saddle forwards to adjust the reach. Position the saddle for your legs.

A custom frame would be a good choice.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 06-12-17, 12:14 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Stamford, CT; Pownal, VT
Posts: 1,140

Bikes: 2015 Trek Domane 6 disk, 2016 Scott Big Jon Fat Bike

Liked 9 Times in 6 Posts
I would go for the smaller frame, and I favor the Domane for you.

I am of similar proportions, albeit smaller, and the rule of thumb I have found that works for me is to size by my torso, not my height. So, at 5'9", people kept trying to put me on a 54, or even 56, but it really didn't work for me. The Domane in a size 52 was *perfect* and I felt it the moment I first got on the bike. And during my fitting, all I needed was a 10mm longer stem. (Oh, and wider bars. But that's about my shoulder width, not the size of the bike.)

Have a look at the Domane sizing Chart. It shows me being on the high end of a 54, or the low end of 56. Both were totally wrong for me.

You are exactly 5" taller than me, and with a 5" longer inseam, and I would expect the 58 Domane to fit you pretty well, and maybe not need much of a stem increase. (They offer a 60, too, and that might be the best compromise, but you don't mention that in your OP.) I think the 62 would feel pretty huge, and end up requiring a very short stem.

The taller head tube of the Domane would likely not make the bar drop all that extreme even in 58. I ended up dropping my bars a lot over time, and I'm a not particularly flexible 56 year-old.

Good luck!
Wheever is offline  
Old 06-12-17, 12:25 PM
  #7  
Keep on climbing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Marlborough, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,193

Bikes: 2004 Calfee Tetra Pro

Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Any suggestion regarding moving the saddle to accommodate reach is insane; you position the saddle so that your legs are able to deliver maximum power to the pedals. You move the handlebars (via the stem) to accommodate the reach.

I'm 6'2" and have longish legs as well, although not to the extent of the OPs. I went the fully custom route a few years back. The head tube is a bit taller on my bike than "normal" for a more "endurance" than "performance" fit, but you should be able to obtain the same affect on a regular stock bike.
KevinF is offline  
Old 06-12-17, 08:58 PM
  #8  
Veteran, Pacifist
 
Wildwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,560

Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?

Liked 5,163 Times in 2,347 Posts
To [MENTION=462884]mrvague[/MENTION] - I've been thinking about this fit dilemma, being the same height almost. If you are willing to look for an older, quality frame = there may be some possibilities far less expensive than new or custom. (Your torso and arm measurements are useless without knowing flexibility and riding style.)

I have a Batavus = Seattube: 59.5cm ctc; toptube: 56.5cm; headtube: 18cm

For a similarly sized (seat tube) bike in my collection the top tube is at least 1cm longer. For a bike at 61/62/63cm for your leg length you may find vintage bikes with fine quality steel that better fit your proportions.
__________________
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.
Wildwood is offline  
Old 06-13-17, 02:35 AM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
maddog34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 3,225

Bikes: !982 Trek 930R Custom, Diamondback ascent with SERIOUS updates, Fuji Team Pro CF, Specialized Sirrus Gravel convert '09 Comencal Meta 5.5

Liked 854 Times in 614 Posts
Woman-specific bikes have the dimensions you seek...

OR... you could locate a STEEP angled stem for the 59cm bike... try a couple different lengths...

OR... find a 61cm bike with a healthy rearward slant of the top frame tube,,, this will raise the steering/cockpit, and reduce the "huge" factor.... then find a stem that fits you... they come in 10mm size steps, and are available down to 60mm or even less! then flip it upside down to lower the cockpit....

whatever you decide, DON'T let that LBS buffalo you into buying whatever they happen to have in stock.... there are always other shops.

seat rails have a range of adjustments for good reason, and there are "no setback" seat posts that will give you a more forward position, so consider that, too!

most important... make the bike fit YOU, not some image.

Last edited by maddog34; 06-13-17 at 02:40 AM.
maddog34 is offline  
Old 06-13-17, 05:56 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by maddog34
Woman-specific bikes have the dimensions you seek...
WSD bikes are SOLD as having the kind of frame geometry that would suit the OP but when you actually assess the geometry data you find its all a fudge. Even if they did do it right WSD sizes stop at a smaller size than the OP needs.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 06-17-17, 03:04 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
What a Long legged rider needs in a frame is the back half of the frame built for their legs and the front half of the frame built for their reach. A line drawn up from the centre of the bottom bracket is the division.
Well put.

I'm 6'2" and also have a 820mm bb-to-saddle height (inseam is hardly 39" though...). I prefer to size down so I get adequate weight on the front wheel and feel balanced front/rear, while making sure the head tube (stack) is tall enough. Domane (2017) and Roubaix are good choices. Also on my radar: Cervelo C3, Gunnar Sport, Kona's steel offerings, Soma Fog Cutter. There are gobs of used Roubaixs available, and sell if you had to, at minimal loss.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 06-18-17, 07:53 PM
  #12  
vol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,815
Liked 21 Times in 15 Posts
I had the same issue, esp. I like to have my legs almost fully extended on down pedaling. My new bike is of smaller frame per advice of an experienced LBS staff ("It's easier to make a small bike larger than to make a large bike smaller"), then I bought a longer seatpost separately, and replaced the stem with a steep angled one so it makes the handlebar both closer and higher. It feels much better now. (Though I later replaced a thicker seat so the old seatpost works fine now)
vol is offline  
Old 06-19-17, 01:04 AM
  #13  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Custom Frame

Thank you for all the advice. Women's frame do indeed meet the geometry, but don't come in big enough sizes unfortunately.

For pre built bikes the Domane seems to be the best of the bunch. Conflicting opinion from two LBS on size I would need, between 60 and a 62. The 62 gets the legs sorted, but worried it's huge. No stock to try them out.

I'm now verging towards a custom build, looking at an Enigma Evoke custom geo Titanium bike. I think this might be the best call to ensure I get one that fits well. They are only an hour down the road from me which is helpful!

Anyone got experience with a custom build ti?

Last edited by mrvague; 06-19-17 at 01:12 AM.
mrvague is offline  
Old 06-19-17, 09:21 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by mrvague
Thank you for all the advice. Women's frame do indeed meet the geometry, but don't come in big enough sizes unfortunately.

For pre built bikes the Domane seems to be the best of the bunch. Conflicting opinion from two LBS on size I would need, between 60 and a 62. The 62 gets the legs sorted, but worried it's huge. No stock to try them out.

I'm now verging towards a custom build, looking at an Enigma Evoke custom geo Titanium bike. I think this might be the best call to ensure I get one that fits well. They are only an hour down the road from me which is helpful!

Anyone got experience with a custom build ti?
I don't want to put you off a custom frame if thats what you want. I just want to get the facts straight. If the 62 cm frame fits your legs then its not a HUGE frame. The 62 cm frame is only 5mm longer in reach than the 60cm frame. ALL the rest of the top tube length difference is behind the BB (bottom bracket). This is good. Fitting a stem that is 10-20mm shorter than standard is neither here or there in fit or balance terms.

If I were you I would be test riding some 62cm frames with a slightly shorter stem fitted.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 06-19-17, 08:28 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
The 62 cm frame is only 5mm longer in reach than the 60cm frame. ALL the rest of the top tube length difference is behind the BB (bottom bracket). This is good. Fitting a stem that is 10-20mm shorter than standard is neither here or there in fit or balance terms. If I were you I would be test riding some 62cm frames with a slightly shorter stem fitted.

62 frame looks 10mm longer to me, and all in front (factor in the huge stack difference, or just compare wheelbase & chainstay lengths). I'd personally be looking at a 60 if I were you. But yeah, demo.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 06-19-17, 09:18 PM
  #16  
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,553

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Liked 1,731 Times in 958 Posts
I'm hung up on the numbers. 39" inseam (which I'm assuming is a "cycling inseam," from floor to crotch) + 25" torso length = 64". Subtract that from a 74" total height, and the OP's head and neck are just 10" tall. I'm also 6'2" and have about 3" of neck, so he would have a 7" tall head. Like a little nub.

Also, the arm length measurement should be to a grasped object (almost in line with the knuckles, not to the wrist) so if the OP's shoulder-to-knuckle is 29", he may be a T-Rex. I have slightly longish arms for my height, but they are about 4" longer than the OP.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 01:47 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryder1
62 frame looks 10mm longer to me, and all in front (factor in the huge stack difference, or just compare wheelbase & chainstay lengths). I'd personally be looking at a 60 if I were you. But yeah, demo.
The number to compare is right on the specification sheet. Its called, Reach. The 62cm has only 5mm more reach than the 60cm. The 62cm also has a more relaxed seat tube angle so the top tube extends further behind the BB on the 62cm frame.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 02:52 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
The number to compare is right on the specification sheet. Its called, Reach. The 62cm has only 5mm more reach than the 60cm.

Frame reach alone is insufficient for comparisons. Like I said, that huge stack delta must be wrestled with. By itself, it's creating a frame reach difference of ~7mm. Also, I don't see 5mm on the spec sheet - I see 3mm more reach on the 2017 62 vs 60. 7+3=10mm.


This is confirmed by looking at the wheelbases and chainstay lengths (10mm wb difference, identical stays), so 10mm must be coming the front-center difference. And with identical headtube angles, we're seeing a 10mm difference for the rider's reach (once saddle and h-bar position is controlled for between bikes).


This is also confirmed by looking at the ETT delta of 14mm. Controlling for the .3* STA difference, I'll guestimate the difference at 10mm or a little less.


Originally Posted by AnthonyG
The 62cm also has a more relaxed seat tube angle so the top tube extends further behind the BB on the 62cm frame.

True but irrelevant assuming rider has settled on a preferred bb-to-saddle-nose offset (as KevinF rightly encouraged) and is able to achieve that position on the given frame.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 02:55 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
I'm hung up on the numbers. 39" inseam (which I'm assuming is a "cycling inseam," from floor to crotch) + 25" torso length = 64". Subtract that from a 74" total height, and the OP's head and neck are just 10" tall. I'm also 6'2" and have about 3" of neck, so he would have a 7" tall head. Like a little nub.

Part of the problem is total height: 191cm is a bit over 6'3" (not 6'2" as listed in OP).
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 06-20-17, 05:19 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryder1
Frame reach alone is insufficient for comparisons. Like I said, that huge stack delta must be wrestled with. By itself, it's creating a frame reach difference of ~7mm. Also, I don't see 5mm on the spec sheet - I see 3mm more reach on the 2017 62 vs 60. 7+3=10mm.


This is confirmed by looking at the wheelbases and chainstay lengths (10mm wb difference, identical stays), so 10mm must be coming the front-center difference. And with identical headtube angles, we're seeing a 10mm difference for the rider's reach (once saddle and h-bar position is controlled for between bikes).


This is also confirmed by looking at the ETT delta of 14mm. Controlling for the .3* STA difference, I'll guestimate the difference at 10mm or a little less.
Wheel base doesn't tell you everything. There is also head tube angle to consider. Reach is supposed to be a fixed number that can be compared but who knows how they calculate it. If as you say the head tube length becomes a factor then its only working to reduce the reach on the larger frame. SO, as I was saying there is negligible difference in the reach between the 60 and 62 cm frames.

I may have been looking at a different year specs. I don't know.




Originally Posted by Ryder1
True but irrelevant assuming rider has settled on a preferred bb-to-saddle-nose offset (as KevinF rightly encouraged) and is able to achieve that position on the given frame.
Who said the rider has settled on a saddle setback distance? I don't think the OP knows what we are talking about.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 12:48 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
Wheel base doesn't tell you everything.
Agreed. That's why above I considered reach, stack/HT, HTA, WB, ETT, CS, STA.

Originally Posted by AnthonyG
Reach is supposed to be a fixed number that can be compared [...]
No it isn't. I debunked this common misconception in my last post. This is my entire point.

Originally Posted by AnthonyG
[...] but who knows how they calculate it.
I thought Reach 101 was a prerequisite for this class.

Originally Posted by AnthonyG
If as you say the head tube length becomes a factor then its only working to reduce the reach on the larger frame.
Exactly, which is why you must then take HT (stack) into account (i.e. factor it out) instead of relying solely on "reach." You're not. Consider: your 2016 frame breaks and you get a replacement but this year's model has a 20mm longer HT. Are you going to use the same stem spacers as before? No, you're going to adjust the new bike's stem and/or stem spacers so it fits/rides just like the old one, and yet the new frame's listed "reach" is shorter.

Originally Posted by AnthonyG
Who said the rider has settled on a saddle setback distance?
Regardless, once OP decides where he likes his saddle, STA won't matter because a frame's STA doesn't affect fit/size, but you must account for it when comparing ETTs (which was my 3rd method of determining effective rider reach difference to be 10mm).
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 01:10 AM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Mr. Vague, my apologies for farting up your thread. Hey, if you can't demo a Domane in 60 or 62, how about demoing a 58mm Roubaix? Should be some in shops. It looks about the same size as a 60 Domane, which might help you get a sense of what size you need. I think the Specialized Diverge has identical sizing/geo to the Roubaix, if so, demoing that bike could serve the same purpose.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 06-21-17, 08:41 AM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
"Reach" and "Stack", are supposed to be figures that are calculated in an Industry standard manner that takes into account any variables so that they CAN be compared directly. This is to get around the issues of comparing top tube length or head tube height that ARE susceptible to many variations and influences.

If your claiming that "Reach" and "Stack" aren't comparable without taking factors such as wheelbase into account then your accusing bike manufacturers of getting it wrong. Maybe your right, yet without the evidence that they are deliberately getting it wrong when quoting "Reach" and "Stack" then I think that Ryder1 is getting confused.

There is VERY little difference in "Reach" between the 60cm frame and the 62cm frame. Nothing that a 10mm shorter stem wouldn't account for.
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 06-23-17, 11:01 PM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
"Reach" and "Stack", are supposed to be figures that are calculated in an Industry standard manner that takes into account any variables so that they CAN be compared directly.
It's not "Reach" and "Stack" - it's "Reach and Stack." In conjunction. Perhaps Stack can be compared directly to Stack (for front height), but not Reach vs. Reach. This is the point you're failing to grasp: Reach (as measured) is (in part) a function of Stack (unless the head tube angle is 90*), and so Stack should be considered (mathematically) in conjunction with Reach when analyzing a bike's size/geo (the original point of this thread). It's usually a small difference (depending on stack delta), but is not debatable (it's math).

This debate has been taken up many times elsewhere and always comes down on my side. Here's a recent example from BF:
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycli...ame-sizes.html
Pay special attention to posts # 6, 10, 11, 13, and the final post, in which the OP sees the light (i.e. stack and reach are interdependent) and buys the smaller size.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 06-24-17, 03:53 AM
  #25  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryder1
It's not "Reach" and "Stack" - it's "Reach and Stack." In conjunction. Perhaps Stack can be compared directly to Stack (for front height), but not Reach vs. Reach. This is the point you're failing to grasp: Reach (as measured) is (in part) a function of Stack (unless the head tube angle is 90*), and so Stack should be considered (mathematically) in conjunction with Reach when analyzing a bike's size/geo (the original point of this thread). It's usually a small difference (depending on stack delta), but is not debatable (it's math).

This debate has been taken up many times elsewhere and always comes down on my side. Here's a recent example from BF:
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycli...ame-sizes.html
Pay special attention to posts # 6, 10, 11, 13, and the final post, in which the OP sees the light (i.e. stack and reach are interdependent) and buys the smaller size.
Here's the fundamental problem Ryder1. "Reach", and "Stack", mean EXACTLY what the bicycle industry has decided that they mean. NOT what YOU think they mean. "Stack" is NOT head tube length. That's the whole point. "Stack" has taken factors such as head tube angle and the size of the headset bearings and anything else that's required into account in an "INDUSTRY" agreed manner. When 2 different bike manufacturers quote "stack" you can guarantee that they are directly comparable. If a manufacturer didn't want to quote a figure that was directly comparable then they woudn't have quoted "Stack".

Reach is EXACTLY the same. Ryder1. Its time for you to learn what "Stack" and "Reach" mean. Stop trying to tell everyone else what they mean.

Again. "Reach" and "Stack" mean't NOTHING to bicycles until the bicycle INDUSTRY decided what they mean't.

Last edited by AnthonyG; 06-24-17 at 04:03 AM.
AnthonyG is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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