Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Top Tube Length (Does 12mm really make a difference?)

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Top Tube Length (Does 12mm really make a difference?)

Old 12-04-11, 09:06 AM
  #1  
randall356
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Top Tube Length (Does 12mm really make a difference?)

Hi all,

Today I got measured as I planned to get a 2011 Specialized Allez Elite in a sale at my LBS. I was certain I was going to be a 54cm as I am 5' 9". Unfortunately when I got sized I realised I must have a small inseam as I was 'nestling' the top tube so the store suggested I would need a size 52 frame. They measured me on a Tarmac with a 52cm frame and a 53.7cm top tube which fit great with a 110mm stem.

I have been offered a Spesh Tarmac SL for sale however it is a 52cm frame (ideal) but has a shorter top tube at 52.5cm. I didn't want to let on to the LBS that I was thinking about this second hand bike whilst I was being sized! I did enquire about shorter top tubes and they said I couldn't go any shorter as the stem would be too long and I might not get the seat angle I require above the BB (don't really understand that part).

My question is as I can get the 2009 Spesh Tarmac SL (Ultegra group set) for the same money as a new Allez Elite should I go for it or will I notice a big difference in a 12mm shorter TT?

Thanks for any help.

Stu

Last edited by randall356; 12-04-11 at 09:16 AM.
randall356 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 09:16 AM
  #2  
AEO
Senior Member
 
AEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: A Coffin Called Earth. or Toronto, ON
Posts: 12,258

Bikes: Bianchi, Miyata, Dahon, Rossin

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
for all practical purposes, those two are the same size.
The smaller frame plays with head tube and seat tube angles to get a top tube shorter on paper, but in actuality, 54cm is the shortest a top tube will be for 700c bikes.

The smaller bike is unlikely to fit you properly without an extra setback seatpost, so go with the larger one.
Typically, a person who is 5'9 would be on a 56cm bike.
__________________
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
https://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...ger-photos.htm
AEO is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 09:17 AM
  #3  
rollin
Sua Ku
 
rollin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hot as hell, Singapore
Posts: 5,705

Bikes: Trek 5200, BMC SLC01, BMC SSX, Specialized FSR, Holdsworth Criterium

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Effective tt yes. Make sure you're measuring like for like. A 120mm is not excessive. Also think head tube, the smaller frame may have you further crouched, which if you're new could be an issue.

If the "nestling" was their only reason for putting you on a smaller frame then I'd seek a second opinion.
rollin is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 09:21 AM
  #4  
Herbie53
Senior Member
 
Herbie53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,621
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
IMHO a 120mm stem is not too long. It will make handling a bit more benign (some would say better for sprinting), but you may not even notice. I'm not sure what they mean about the angle to the BB. That will not be different if the seatube angles are the same.

If the rest of the fit is ok (how about stack height?), your friend's bike sounds like a good option.
Herbie53 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 09:28 AM
  #5  
DaveSSS 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Loveland, CO
Posts: 6,514

Bikes: TWO Cinelli superstar disc with SRAM Force AXS

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked 339 Times in 274 Posts
The frame reach is defined by the TT length and the seat tube angle. Whether the shorter TT creates a shorter reach depends on the STA. If the STA is steeper, then the reach may not be as short as you think. In this size range, each degree that the STA is steeper increases reach by 8-9mm.

54cm is not the shortest TT length for a 700C bike. Cervelo really pushed the limits with the early model years of the R3 frame. The 51cm size had a 53cm TT and a slack 73 degree STA, creating a really short front-center and the 49cm frame was even shorter.
DaveSSS is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:05 AM
  #6  
wkg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AEO View Post
for all practical purposes, those two are the same size.
The smaller frame plays with head tube and seat tube angles to get a top tube shorter on paper, but in actuality, 54cm is the shortest a top tube will be for 700c bikes.

The smaller bike is unlikely to fit you properly without an extra setback seatpost, so go with the larger one.
Typically, a person who is 5'9 would be on a 56cm bike.
Don't listen to this guy. He has some pretty messed up ideas about fit and stem length and so on.

And he clearly never worked in a bike shop where he was sizing people on bikes every single day if he thinks a person who is 5'9" would typically be on a 56 cm. Around 5'11" is 56 territory and some people at that height actually go to a 54 and use the long stem.

I would probably put you on a 54 or a 52 depending on your proportions. More than likely I'd put you on the 52 first and see how that felt as a 54 might be too large a starting point. If you're in between sizes it's better to go smaller than larger.
wkg is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:06 AM
  #7  
wkg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
And yes stem length does affect handling. AEO will probably argue extensively to the opposite, but he rides a drop bar mountain bike so he's never riding 20+ mph in a paceline or descending at 40 mph. In these situations the stem length really does make a huge difference in handling.
wkg is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:13 AM
  #8  
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Posts: 6,400
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AEO View Post
The smaller bike is unlikely to fit you properly without an extra setback seatpost, so go with the larger one.
Typically, a person who is 5'9 would be on a 56cm bike.
By who's sizing? I'm a shade over 5'10 and ride a 55 if available. Otherwise I'm as likely to go down as up.
canam73 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:23 AM
  #9  
vermilionx
Senior Member
 
vermilionx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: San Fernando Valley, LA county
Posts: 908

Bikes: '11 Fuji SL1 Pro

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
im 5'9" and i ride a 50cm.

i have about 1.8 inches of clearance when i stand over the bike. they told me it's a good clearance. is that a good clearance? or too much?

i've only been riding a little less than a month but i feel comfy on it.
vermilionx is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:25 AM
  #10  
randall356
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks for everyone's help but I think it is actually making me more confused.

I have been to three different bike stores all have said 54cm when I have first arrived and all have decided on 52cm by the end.

If it helps I have used the Competitive Cyclist Fit calculator and my results are here https://www.competitivecyclist.com/za...C_ANSWER_8=174

Also the bike with the smaller TT is here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2509420794...#ht_500wt_1304 it is a bit strange as the only Spesh Tarmacs I could find with a 525 TT was a 50cm frame not a 52

Hope this can shed some more light on my decision.
randall356 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:25 AM
  #11  
AEO
Senior Member
 
AEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: A Coffin Called Earth. or Toronto, ON
Posts: 12,258

Bikes: Bianchi, Miyata, Dahon, Rossin

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by wkg View Post
Don't listen to this guy. He has some pretty messed up ideas about fit and stem length and so on.

And he clearly never worked in a bike shop where he was sizing people on bikes every single day if he thinks a person who is 5'9" would typically be on a 56 cm. Around 5'11" is 56 territory and some people at that height actually go to a 54 and use the long stem.

I would probably put you on a 54 or a 52 depending on your proportions. More than likely I'd put you on the 52 first and see how that felt as a 54 might be too large a starting point. If you're in between sizes it's better to go smaller than larger.
okay, so it was 55cm.
sizing according to dave moulton.


handling:
sizing:
__________________
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
https://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...ger-photos.htm
AEO is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:38 AM
  #12  
wkg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Dude I'm not going to watch 16 minutes of youtube video for you. And I have no idea how that guy came up with that geometry chart nor do I really care. The OP is interested in a typical compact geometry road bike and while you come from some sort of theoretical standpoint where you watch youtube videos and read other people's charts I've actually spent a huge amount of time putting people on bikes, having them ride them, getting their feedback, putting them on another size, having them ride it, getting their feedback.

That chart says a person who is 5'9.5" needs a 55 TT with a 120 mm stem. That is waaay too much. Unless that rider has very short legs and a very long upper body they would be too stretched out. 90% of people would be too stretched out on that bike.

To the OP: the link doesn't go to your CC fit results, it goes to the start page for the fit calculator. It sounds like all the bike shops have come to the conclusion that you need a 52 so it would probably be best to go with that. Sometimes if it's a new employee selling you the bike they aren't the best at fitting, so ask a manager or someone known to have a lot of experience for a second opinion. And like multiple people here have already said, if you're in between sizes it's better to go smaller than larger.
wkg is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:39 AM
  #13  
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Posts: 6,400
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Wow. That Moulton chart would finally put me on a 'big boy bike'.
canam73 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:52 AM
  #14  
randall356
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I am def a 52 cm, I have gotten second opinions from various different people in the same shop.

Attached is my CC fit. All i really want to know is if the bike in my eBay link will fit me (with a 525mm TT), or if i should get a new allez with a 537mm TT.

Thanks.
Attached Files
randall356 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 10:59 AM
  #15  
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Posts: 6,400
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Something seems goofy in your fit chart. Unless you are kermit the frog. Your calculated TT seems out of wack.
canam73 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 11:40 AM
  #16  
DaveSSS 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Loveland, CO
Posts: 6,514

Bikes: TWO Cinelli superstar disc with SRAM Force AXS

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked 339 Times in 274 Posts
Here's the Allez geometry:

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...01&scname=Road

Here's the Tarmac SL geometry:
https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...01&scname=Road

I don't seen any significant difference.


One problem these days is that many frames are no longer sized according to either of the traditional methods (c-c or c-t). One brand's 52 and another's 54 may be the same, so you can't talk about frame size as an absolute.

The modern trend is to use stack and reach values the are more universal. Unfortunately, it's easy to get confused with those because reach values can only be compared directly, if the stack heights are the same. If the stacks are not the same, then an adjustment must be made to correct one of the reach values to the same stack height as the other. The Specialized charts have a perfect example, where the 52 and 54cm frames sizes have the same reach of 385mm. To compare the frames properly, you have to subtract 6mm from the reach of the smaller frame, to account for the 20mm difference in stack height. The difference in reach is still small, at only 6mm. It's more common to have a 10mm difference, or maybe a little more.

Even if the OP posts his cycling inseam and overall height, it will only point to a range of possible sizes. Over the years, I've ridden frames that ranged from 55cm (c-t) to 51cm (c-c). I've got long legs and a short torso. In the early years of my cycling, most people suggested a frame sized based on my long inseam and ignored my short height. As I got smarter about the subject, I started buying smaller frames that were a better fit for my torso. I found that I could tolerate a large 9-11cm saddle to bar drop, so the smaller frames with shorter head tubes worked better than the larger frames. Some riders have a problem with anything larger than a 5cm drop.
DaveSSS is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 11:47 AM
  #17  
randall356
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
DaveSSS, Yes the Tarmac and Allez geometry are pretty much identical. The 52 frame Allez fit me great. For some reason the one on eBay (check my link posted previously) has a shorter TT length of 525mm instead of the stated 537mm and I'm trying to find out if that will cause me any problems.
randall356 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 11:52 AM
  #18  
DaveSSS 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Loveland, CO
Posts: 6,514

Bikes: TWO Cinelli superstar disc with SRAM Force AXS

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked 339 Times in 274 Posts
Originally Posted by randall356 View Post
DaveSSS, Yes the Tarmac and Allez geometry are pretty much identical. The 52 frame Allez fit me great. For some reason the one on eBay (check my link posted previously) has a shorter TT length of 525mm instead of the stated 537mm and I'm trying to find out if that will cause me any problems.
You're assuming that the info posted on E-bay is correct. The link below suggests that it's not.

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...7&menuItemId=0
DaveSSS is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 12:14 PM
  #19  
randall356
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveSSS View Post
You're assuming that the info posted on E-bay is correct. The link below suggests that it's not.

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...7&menuItemId=0
I think you might be right. I don't know what it is but something isn't quite right about that advert. The bid count and price is very low for what it should be and the sizing does seem a bit off. It looks as if it has a TT nearer a 50cm frame than a 52cm frame. Maybe it is one of those too good to be true deals. At least with eBay I am protected with Paypal etc.
randall356 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 12:28 PM
  #20  
Campag4life
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1187 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
You are 5'9. You either have a long torso and short legs...sounds like it if you are challenged for standover on a 54. What that means is you have a 5'10"-6' tall torso length. Conclusion? 52 is much too small for you. The top tube will likely be more than 12mm shorter than what you need with a long stem. My personal view is a 54 will have a marginal top tube for you.
Get the 54...at least...even if your business is pushed up a bit provided you aren't PBone pressing into the top tube.
Fit trumps a dollar saved. A lousy fitting bike is a bike you will regret owning. We learn from each bike we own what works and what does.
As to the chart that AEO posted...from Dave Moulton. Dave Moulton has forgotten more about bike fitting than anybody on this forum. Certainly look at what his sizing reference is for your body. Lance Armstrong is 5'10" on a good day and rides a 58cm Trek. He is mostly legs and yet he still needs a 57+cm top tube and 120mm stem. His torso is likely shorter than yours OP because LA is more legs than torso and you are the opposite. Translation? You need as long a top tube as you can get for a bike you can stand over. 52cm= no good.
Campag4life is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 02:07 PM
  #21  
DaveSSS 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Loveland, CO
Posts: 6,514

Bikes: TWO Cinelli superstar disc with SRAM Force AXS

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked 339 Times in 274 Posts
The larger frame only has 6mm more reach, but the head tube is 20mm taller. The reach gets a little help, and the maximum saddle to bar drop goes down by 20mm. Going to the larger frame is not much of a solution. Those needing more reach should try a 130mm stem and long reach bars before resorting to an overly large frame.

As for a 58cm Trek, it's not nearly as tall as that frame size number would suggest. Trek is another brand that uses an oddball method of measuring frame size. The head tube and stack height on a 58cm can be as short as other brand's that are 3-4cm smaller.
DaveSSS is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 02:51 PM
  #22  
Right Said Fred
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wkg View Post
And he clearly never worked in a bike shop where he was sizing people on bikes every single day if he thinks a person who is 5'9" would typically be on a 56 cm. Around 5'11" is 56 territory and some people at that height actually go to a 54 and use the long stem.
I'm 5-9, both of my current bikes are 54s (TT c-to-c with a 110 stem) and every shop I have been to has suggested a 54 in multiple brands, so I would tend to agree with you.
Right Said Fred is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 04:13 PM
  #23  
rbart4506
You blink and it's gone.
 
rbart4506's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundas, Ontario
Posts: 4,436

Bikes: Race bike, training bike, go fast bike and a trainer slave.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AEO View Post
for all practical purposes, those two are the same size.
The smaller frame plays with head tube and seat tube angles to get a top tube shorter on paper, but in actuality, 54cm is the shortest a top tube will be for 700c bikes.

The smaller bike is unlikely to fit you properly without an extra setback seatpost, so go with the larger one.
Typically, a person who is 5'9 would be on a 56cm bike.
No way!

I have two Tarmacs, 2008 and 2010...Both 54's and I'm a hair under 5'9"...A 54 or a 52 will work, you just need to adjust stem length accordingly...56 will be too big, stem will be too short and you will have next to no saddle to bar drop...
rbart4506 is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 04:26 PM
  #24  
Banded Krait
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Malvern, Pa.
Posts: 439

Bikes: Trek Pilot 5.9

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You are 5'9. You either have a long torso and short legs...sounds like it if you are challenged for standover on a 54. What that means is you have a 5'10"-6' tall torso length. Conclusion? 52 is much too small for you. The top tube will likely be more than 12mm shorter than what you need with a long stem. My personal view is a 54 will have a marginal top tube for you.
Get the 54...at least...even if your business is pushed up a bit provided you aren't PBone pressing into the top tube.
Fit trumps a dollar saved. A lousy fitting bike is a bike you will regret owning. We learn from each bike we own what works and what does.
As to the chart that AEO posted...from Dave Moulton. Dave Moulton has forgotten more about bike fitting than anybody on this forum. Certainly look at what his sizing reference is for your body. Lance Armstrong is 5'10" on a good day and rides a 58cm Trek. He is mostly legs and yet he still needs a 57+cm top tube and 120mm stem. His torso is likely shorter than yours OP because LA is more legs than torso and you are the opposite. Translation? You need as long a top tube as you can get for a bike you can stand over. 52cm= no good.
I am 5'9". I am in my mid-fifties. I bought my first bike in 35+ years this past April. I visited 6 bike shops. Most recommended a 54 cm frame. However, I went with a 52 cm frame on the recommendation of the bike shop which seemed most professional about the fitting process. This turned out to be a disaster. The bike was just way too small for me. As soon as I started to ride any appreciable distance, I suffered from debilitating numbness in my hands because the saddle-to-bars drop was just too large for me.

To make a very long story short: I ended up buying a 56 cm Trek Pilot 5.9 frame from a bike shop and they swapped the components from the 52 cm frame to the new frame. I am much happier on the 56 cm frame. I did have to go with a shorter stem.

I have attached a copy of the Competitive Cyclist bike fit analysis I had done. As you can see, I went with the taller "French" fit. This was a better match for an older rider like me.

You may like the ride of a 52 cm frame. But it was a severe mismatch for me, and I would hate to see another rider make that kind of expensive mistake without considering all the data. Good luck, and I hope you find a bike which fits you well.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
Bike_Fit_Analysis.jpg (98.1 KB, 24 views)
Banded Krait is offline  
Old 12-04-11, 04:49 PM
  #25  
DaveSSS 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Loveland, CO
Posts: 6,514

Bikes: TWO Cinelli superstar disc with SRAM Force AXS

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked 339 Times in 274 Posts
A large saddle to bar drop might cause too much pressure on the hands, but so will inadequate midsection strength and other fitting mistakes, like placing the saddle too far forward. The most common fix for that mistake is to raise the bars with a larger frame, a taller head tube or a steep stem angle. You end up with two mistakes to produce a tolerable position.

I've been riding for over 25 years and used a saddle to bar drop of 9cm for a long time, but actually increased it to 11cm a few years ago, when I was 55.

The bottom line is that you can't predict the best frame size or bike setup by measuring a person.
DaveSSS is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.