Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

Bottom bracket type reliability durability

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

Bottom bracket type reliability durability

Old 02-08-11, 10:50 PM
  #1  
One legged rider
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Moraga, CA
Posts: 1,390

Bikes: Kuota Kharma, Surly LHT, CAAD9, Bianchi fg/ss

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Bottom bracket type reliability durability

I have a square taper bottom bracket on my touring bike, no mechanical experience much with them, and sealed bearing BBs? (extends beyond the frames BB, i dont know much about BBs) on all my other bikes. I'm getting ready to rebuild my touring bike with a strict focus on reliability and robustness but this is one bike part I just don't know much about. Does anyone have any information regarding whether one type verses the other tends to be more reliable and low maintenance over the long term? Being a cheap part, I have never paid much attention to them since it is a 30 buck, 20 minute replacement but now I am looking at long term remote places where replacement may not be so easy. Thanks in advance for any info.
benajah is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 07:31 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
The gold standard for BB reliability is Phil Woods.
The Shimano square taper unit is pretty good and much cheaper. Most commuters get 3-5 years out of them. There is nothing between these two that is really worthwhile.
Chris King is a bit more expensive but has a nifty grease injection port, useful if you ride through deep rivers or get muddy.

As which is better, square taper or external?
External bearings have a few disdadvantages.
-The bearing seals are exposed inside the BB shell to trapped water.
-The shell needs much more accurate facing.
-Reports from the MTB world suggest that there is a problem with long term reliability in muddy conditions.
MichaelW is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 09:02 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,162

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3448 Post(s)
Liked 1,447 Times in 1,128 Posts
I have never had a bottom bracket failure. But if I was going to the middle of nowhere, I would consider using an old style type with cups and spindle. These are completely rebuildable with a bit of grease and some extra ball bearings. (I usually have reused the old ball bearings instead of replace.) If you get one of these, make sure you also have the plastic dust fitting that would prevent any particulates floating around within your frame tubing from getting into the bearings.

Or, carry one of the old style as a spare in case your cartridge unit fails?
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 09:59 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
actually SKF, not phil wood, is hands down the best bottom bracket. They are designed and warranteed for 65000 miles or ten years, and use roller bearings on the drive side.

otherwise there is no reason to spend more than the 30 dollar shimano.

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2011/0...rld-exclusive/
positron is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 11:42 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SE Penna., USA
Posts: 1,173

Bikes: Too many! Santana tandems and triplet; MTBs; touring bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked 19 Times in 15 Posts
+1 on the Phil Wood. I'm still running an original Phil Wood square-taper BB that came on an MTB I bought USED in 1987! I keep switching it from frame to frame and it keeps on running smoothly. They are crazy expensive and not nearly the lightest out there, but I think are very good long-term values.

I would conjecture that square-taper BBs would be more durable than newer styles, as the axle is essentially a solid block of metal and the bearing setup is pretty straightforward. I've also had very good experiences with higher-end Shimano square-taper BBs, like XT level (if you can still find them), and they are a lot cheaper than Phil BBs.
Philly Tandem is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 11:50 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,435

Bikes: IF steel deluxe 29er tourer

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
+1 on SKF. But ISIS nearly impossible to get in the US. PW doesn't make an ISIS.

Square taper bottom brackets may be more available if you need to replace one on the road.
Cyclesafe is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 12:01 PM
  #7  
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Those SKFs look really great. I love roller bearings when the application warrants them. That said, there is a difference between offering a long guarantee and earning the respect of the industry, at least over here. That's the first I have heard of those BBs. I guess the advantage to the Phil is that they are considered foolproof. A better design is great, it's about the details though. I have some Bike Nashbar BBS, and they seem really nice, cost 8.95, sealed bearings. Machining is nice, but the actual details of grease and rubber seals etc.. I mean it's a sad story but there could be a reason why they were considering discontinuing their presence in this segment. In that price range it's mostly about reputation. Another example is I bought a white industry BB to go with the WI Eno crank I may run with my Rohloff, White does great machining, and I don't see any reason why they should be incapable of sourcing a bearing. I have to say I way prefer that solid sleeve in the SKF, but my point is WI is a well respected name, and yet never mentioned in the same breath as Phil.
NoReg is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 12:12 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Uh, SKF makes all the bearings for F1 cars,

they have been the top bearing maker in the world for a hundred years or so...

pretty sure they can get a BB right.

plus the seals are actually... seals.
positron is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 12:21 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
NukeouT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446

Bikes: 1996 LeMond Yellow Jersey, 2013 Soma Saga, 1980 Zebrakenko Wind, 1980 Nishiki Ultimate

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
I have never had a bottom bracket failure. But if I was going to the middle of nowhere, I would consider using an old style type with cups and spindle. These are completely rebuildable with a bit of grease and some extra ball bearings. (I usually have reused the old ball bearings instead of replace.) If you get one of these, make sure you also have the plastic dust fitting that would prevent any particulates floating around within your frame tubing from getting into the bearings.

Or, carry one of the old style as a spare in case your cartridge unit fails?
I actually had a critical (old style BB) faliure couple weeks ago when I fell in cleats. Fell once to the right, fell once to the left, opened up BB couple days later to find both bearing retainers were sheared open like flowers. Im just glad that they kept the bearings away from free floating in the middle, otherwise my crank would have siezed up in traffic. So yeah, now im moving up into the world of sealed BBs which are safer, more durable, and almost maitenence free.
NukeouT is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 12:27 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NukeouT
I actually had a critical (old style BB) faliure couple weeks ago when I fell in cleats. Fell once to the right, fell once to the left, opened up BB couple days later to find both bearing retainers were sheared open like flowers. Im just glad that they kept the bearings away from free floating in the middle, otherwise my crank would have siezed up in traffic. So yeah, now im moving up into the world of sealed BBs which are safer, more durable, and almost maitenence free.
those bearing retainers only help hold the bearings during installation.

in a cup and cone BB, the bearings are actually held in place by the bearing races (think about it for a second, it has to be this way to work...)

back in the 'good ol days', we would pull the bearing "cages" out, and toss in slightly larger ball bearings for increased durability.

In all likelihood, your bearing cages were screwed up for a long time before your falls. Those things always failed eventually.
positron is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 12:56 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You should never have trapped water in your bottom bracket shell. Drill a small drain hole if one doesn't already exist. The bottom bracket shell has open holes to the seat tube, down tube, and the chain stays. You wouldn't get much water in there from rain and you wouldn't normally submerge part of your frame in water, but there needs to be a way for it to escape just in case.

I wouldn't compare bottom bracket longevity with mountain bikes that see lots of mud and deep water. That's a whole different game.

I prefer outboard crank bearings because the crank spindle has less flex under load.
xyzzy834 is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 04:56 PM
  #12  
-
 
seeker333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,865

Bikes: yes!

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 36 Posts
SKF may be an international leader in bearing design and manufacturing, but they're no leader in BBs, in my limited experience. I bought one of their ISIS BBs 3-4 years ago. It did not fit well from the beginning on 2 different bikes which have had no trouble with 3-4 other makers BBs. It would bind slightly and not spin well. No amount of loosening on the nondrive cup would remedy the problem. QBP carried SKF BBs only 1 season, and I'm speculating that it's because they got fed up with returns and warranty claims.

Positron - wanna buy a SKF ISIS BB, installed twice and hardly any use (<100 miles)? I paid $60, I'll let you have it for $20+ship.

AFA other BB recommendation goes, square taper BBs are very reliable. I own several UN72s, never had a bad one. The problem with ST lies in the crank/BB interface. Over time they can get loose, the square can get wallowed out, then the crank is ruined. Normally the spindle is steel and the crank is Al, so it goes first. This was an issue with ST cranks/BBs back in the '90s, mostly on MTBs.

This is why ISIS BBs were invented. The isis interface has about 3X the engagement area with crank arm than a ST. I've never heard of an ISIS crank arm getting wallowed out. However, ISIS has it's own problem. The larger diameter spindle (in the same diameter BB cartridge, restricted by the diameter of a std frame BB shell), forces you to use smaller diameter balls in the cartridge bearing, and they tend to not spin as easily or last as long. This causes premature BB failures, especially in MTB application.

This shortcoming eventually led to the development of the now popular outboard bearing style of BB, branded as Shimano, Truvativ, FSA etc. Moving the cartridge bearings outside lets you use bigger balls. The wider bearing points support the spindle better, although at the expense of greater Q factor.

You can still buy any of these three bb/crank systems, although choices are limited for the older two (ST, ISIS). Most any will work for touring if installed and maintained properly. If you're a strong, big person, then consider the current outboard bearing style BB/cranks since they have the strongest, best supported spindle.

I had a new experience last week. Twenty miles into a ride I noticed the front derailleur was rubbing chain on top ring. I guessed the cable was fraying and stretched, and hoped I'd get home before it broke. Instead I found the crank arm fixing bolt loose. The ISIS crank arm looked OK, no major damage, tightened it up and back to riding. I might not have got away with that on a ST.

BTW, Nashbar sells a good value ISIS BB, branded Nashbar ISIS (actually made by TH Industries / FSA).

OP - I may have overlooked it, but it's worth mentioning that each BB type requires it's own special tool, some of which cost as much or more than the BB itself. Park is a good source of these tools.

Last edited by seeker333; 02-09-11 at 05:10 PM.
seeker333 is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 05:34 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
was it the "high end" SKF, with the roller bearings, or the cheaper one? I cannot comment on the cheaper ones... the better ones have red ano cups.

scratch that, you got it from QBP, so it must have been the cheaper one, they never sold the roller bearing BB.

PS, no thanks on the ISIS, destroyed way too many of those (due to small bearings) to ever use them again on any bike.
Sorry to hear you had a bad experience. First Ive heard of.
positron is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 08:35 PM
  #14  
-
 
seeker333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,865

Bikes: yes!

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by positron
was it the "high end" SKF...
I spoke to the SKF CS rep at the time. He gave me weak justification for the higher cost model, which he explained had a SS shell and spindle, the only difference separating it from the less expensive model. It was not a pertinent material difference to me, since none of my BBs were ever retired due to corrosion.

They all used same SS roller bearings, AL cups and seals (the 600 got red anodized cups because many bicyclists are idiots and buy those kinda things).

In fact, I think it was SKF's novel use of a roller bearing that killed this BB. Roller bearings don't suit BBs well because the slightest misalignment of the threading/cups on the two sides cases the bearing to bind - that's why everyone else uses ball bearings (in a narrower cartridge). Which is probably why mine didn't work.

I'm almost certain QBP carried all 3 different models that were offered at the time, all that were listed on the promotional web page.

Just to prove to myself that my memory is still intact, I googled "skf bottom bracket", and here is link to very first hit:

https://www.skf.com/files/241246.pdf

This is the 2006 pdf describing the product line. Note the product differences are just as I described.

The fact that the seller linked below can claim to be the sole worldwide distributor of skf bottom brackets should tell you something about their success in this endeavor.

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2011/0...rld-exclusive/
seeker333 is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 08:39 PM
  #15  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 43,598

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 197 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7607 Post(s)
Liked 1,355 Times in 862 Posts
I have always had square taper BBs, had a Sachs SKF BB for awhile,
it was a good design ,
the cartridge sealed bearings were behind a second set of shaft seals around the axles
I traded it to someone who needed is more than my parts bin.
fietsbob is offline  
Old 02-09-11, 11:05 PM
  #16  
Professional Fuss-Budget
 
Bacciagalupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked 24 Times in 14 Posts
For what little it's worth my impression is that a halfway decent and well-maintained BB is highly unlikely to have any issues. If you're worried, make sure to include checking / repacking the BB in your pre-tour tuneup.

Where are you going that is so remote that prompts this inquiry?
Bacciagalupe is offline  
Old 02-10-11, 09:49 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
robow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,865
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked 280 Times in 191 Posts
It will be interesting to see if the external bottom brackets are here to stay. The industry is sure excited about them at this time but you know how that goes. I'm in the process of building up a cross bike for lighter touring and am waffling about using another crank with an external bb as I did in my last build or go retro with square taper. If only my chrystal ball were a bit more clear.
robow is offline  
Old 02-10-11, 09:54 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: SE Penna., USA
Posts: 1,173

Bikes: Too many! Santana tandems and triplet; MTBs; touring bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked 19 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by seeker333
This is why ISIS BBs were invented.
I believe ISIS came about in response to Shimano's Octalink interface. The bike industry at large saw that this type of BB was gaining popularity over the old-style square taper, and responded by developing a sort of "open source" BB standard in ISIS (International Splined Interface Standard).
Philly Tandem is offline  
Old 02-10-11, 11:55 AM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Singapore
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
some of my mountain biker friends did share with me that their personal view of ISIS standard, sucks over square taper anytime. if i remember correctly, it was either square taper, or octalink; external bearings might come before ISIS.

for one, i'm convinced by the Rotor SABB - external AND self-aligning. revived my aluminum MTB which i'm using as a tourer by slapping on a rear rack - and ride occasionally offroad as well.
sehsuan is offline  
Old 02-10-11, 01:05 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm replacing my Fuji Touring frame with a Soma Saga frame. (Explanation to wife: I'm not getting a new bike, just replacing a component or two). I'm transferring most of the parts to the new frame, but I'm taking the opportunity to upgrade a few things in the process.

I don't tour in 3rd world countries. Since I do almost all of my own build/repair work, I feel confident fixing or getting along with just about any failure I could have on a tour, given available tools and parts. I won't start a tour with obviously worn tires or worn out components. Therefore, I evaluate the possibility of component failures on tour as catastrophic (can't ride, must walk/push, or worse) or inconvenient (fixable or a rideable "limp mode" exists).

For example, I'm finally ditching the bar end shifters with a friction option for Tiagra brifters. I love the STI shifters on my other bikes and they've given me many miles without failure. If I do get a shifter failure that I can't fix in the middle of nowhere, I can always engineer a bit of cable hacking or fool with the limit screws to lock the front or rear derailleur into a middle fixed gear. That gives me either a 1x9 or 3x1 drivetrain, depending on which shifter is broken. That's certainly good enough to get me to the next bike shop or even complete my trip if the terrain is suitable.

Square taper bottom brackets and their associated crank arms can potentially be in my catastrophic category, although very unlikely with proper tightening and maintenance. The square hole in the crank arm leave 4 high stress points in the corners, but manufacturers engineer in plenty of metal to compensate. Over-tightening, under-tightening, or riding a loose crank arm is bad news, but generally avoidable.

Splined crank spindles are a much more secure interface to the crank arms. I'd place them in my inconvenient category of failure because just about the only bad thing that can happen is bearing failure. In that case, you typically get lots of warning that things are going bad and, especially with cartridge bearings, they may complain loudly and roughly, but they continue to be rideable to the next bike shop without destroying anything else.

I go a step farther for myself and prefer the modern outboard bearing bottom brackets. I'm a pretty big guy and not at all sensitive to requiring a narrow Q-factor. The outboard bearing bottom brackets combine the splined (or permanently attached) interface to the crank arms with large, supportive bearings widely spaced for good crank spindle support. They're drop-dead easy to install and require no adjusting. If anything does fail on a tour, the next bike shop will almost certainly have the parts and knowledge to get me going again.
xyzzy834 is offline  
Old 02-10-11, 09:42 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 839
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 35 Posts
The outboard BBs are the most convenient. Although rarely if ever necessary on a tour, you can remove and install the whole crankset with just a 5mm allen wrench. I'd use this system on my bike if I didn't already have a square taper system that keeps on running smoothly.

In the end, if either system is set up properly, you'll likely travel thousands of trouble-free miles.
niknak is offline  
Old 02-11-11, 04:11 AM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Splined systems (octalink/isis) just dont have the durability for touring. The bearings are tiny.
MichaelW is offline  
Old 02-14-11, 03:53 AM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
NukeouT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446

Bikes: 1996 LeMond Yellow Jersey, 2013 Soma Saga, 1980 Zebrakenko Wind, 1980 Nishiki Ultimate

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by positron
those bearing retainers only help hold the bearings during installation.

in a cup and cone BB, the bearings are actually held in place by the bearing races (think about it for a second, it has to be this way to work...)

back in the 'good ol days', we would pull the bearing "cages" out, and toss in slightly larger ball bearings for increased durability.

In all likelihood, your bearing cages were screwed up for a long time before your falls. Those things always failed eventually.
Shows you how much I know my way around BB tech so far, lol! I'll consider putting in larger bearings by themselves just like you said now that I know more. Thanks.
NukeouT is offline  
Old 02-14-11, 10:11 PM
  #24  
-
 
seeker333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,865

Bikes: yes!

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by MichaelW
Splined systems (octalink/isis) just dont have the durability for touring...
I beg to differ. I currently have >17,000 miles on the cheapest ISIS BB in the world, a Nashbar unit I got for $19. That would carry you across the TransAm route 4 times!

You can (or eventually will) get duds on any of these cranks and BBs. You can get good ones too, if you're lucky or persistent.

I go with what works and is inexpensive, and sometimes this turns out to be gear that was misunderstood, misused, and eventually displaced by the next greatest thing. This doesn't preclude the older tech from still being useful, or even excellent, to certain users in certain applications. I've had generally good luck with ISIS, despite 3 dud bottom brackets from FSA, Race Face and SKF. I got 22,000 miles on a single Truvativ ISIS BB, sadly long since discontinued. And now similar performance from a BB that from all outward appearance should be a total piece of junk.

This whole argument is practically moot since no one is selling ISIS cranks anymore. You'd have to look long and hard to find a decent NOS ISIS triple crank.

Last edited by seeker333; 02-14-11 at 11:28 PM.
seeker333 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Cyclist0108
Bicycle Mechanics
29
06-03-19 05:37 PM
The Golden Boy
Bicycle Mechanics
7
01-27-14 09:09 PM
rimbo
Bicycle Mechanics
44
05-03-13 09:35 PM
cutter57
Bicycle Mechanics
4
07-31-12 01:58 AM
ibo
Bicycle Mechanics
14
05-13-10 10:03 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.