hueyhoolihan

IME, one need only concern themselves with three measurements WRT the bike. saddle height, reach, and handlebar height. the last two are somewhat interrelated and all are adjustable on any bike. to avoid exceeding the inherent limits imposed by the design it is a good idea to get a bigger one if you are on the taller side and a smaller one on the shorter side.

tom cotter

Neil good job putting down Trek and Surly! There is nothing new in your post that wasn't already said. We agree that Co motion makes a high quality bike. We agree it is worth every dime ( american workers supporting local economies. Get to pick your own colors etc etc etc). We disagree that it a good value. My point being, the Treks and Surly's aren't as bad as you guys make them out to be. They aren't bad at all! They are well engineered,well built bikes. IMO there isn't enough seperation in quality to justify the cost differences. That is IF there is a quality difference at all. After-all it's not as if Co Motion doesn't have any warranty claims. We both know they do. As do Trek and Surly.

You know better than most that the 520 has crossed this country more than any other brand or model. It is the longest lived bike in Trek's lineup. Trek, as mega producer is interested in one thing only - Margin! The bike has to produce or it's gone. Yet, that "Just get by" 520 has survived for what is it, 30 years? There is a reason for that. Its a good product!

As for the custom fit, that's a nice thing. How does that work out as you age and your body geometry changes? Back to Co Motion for a reweld?

Seriously, the question was advantages of the customs versus off the rack. Both sides weighed in and the best answer going for High end is I've got the money and i want one!

As for the wheel, already covered. I was mistaken. 12 years things get fuzzy and i was wrong. And, I did the very unbike forums thing of admitting i was wrong! That said, you know as well as I, that if needed, a stronger wheel could be added to a 520.

tom cotter

BTW, over on the 50 plus forum there is thread about a guy who has put 21,000 trouble free miles on Sora components. Call it the anti custom bike thread if you'd like. But there is point to be made. Lower cost doesn't necessarily mean less utility or durability.

NeilGunton

I wasn't putting them down. They are fine touring bikes for what they are. It's just that people often spout this meme about how there's no difference between a Surly and a Co-Motion, so why bother paying so much more, and it's simply wrong. There are significant differences in terms of design, materials, customizability and overall strength.

I want to emphasise that I'm not disagreeing with you. What I don't like is when someone has a favored product, and then feels a need to denigrate other products based on "it works for me, so why would anyone need more". If the Trek or Surly works for you, then great, fantastic, they are good touring bikes at their level. But there are better bikes out there, if you want/need those features then it does a disservice to everyone to try to pretend they all bikes are equal just because one particular one works for you. I have actually tried a few in my quest for a touring bike that would work for me. I test rode the 520, and LHT back in Eureka and Bend OR prior to going up to Eugene to test ride the Americano. I also owned the Novara Safari, Rocky Mountain Sherpa, Bruce Gordon Rock'n'Road, and test rode many others over the years. The Americano was different. I speak from experience, not theory.

I don't see the relative proportions of my body changing fundamentally in the near future. Flexibility and core strength could change, I guess. If the fit changes, then yes, I would have to revisit the bike... but that is akin to saying "what if the sky falls". Yeah, anything could happen, but in the meantime I get to finally have a bike that actually fits me for the first time in my life. Trust me, this is a Good Thing.

Well, yes, but not quite. You cannot put an un-dished 145mm tandem wheel on a Trek 520, because that bike has a more standard spread of 135mm (or 130, or whatever - definitely less than 145mm, though). The point about the 145mm is that it allows the wheel to be undished, which makes the wheel MUCH stronger, since the spokes on both sides can be evenly tensioned. As I'm sure you're aware, one of the reasons why people see more drive-side spoke breakage is due to the fact that on dished rear wheels, the drive side spokes have to be at higher tension than the non-drive side. So with an even tension on both sides, this makes the Americano wheel a lot stronger. The Trek 520 cannot take such a wheel, though it is true that you can build a nice strong wheel for that bike too, just it won't be undished. Another example of how you can get a very good result with the off-the-shelf Trek or Surly etc, but there ARE differences (not just perceived, but actual, functional differences) if you step up to something like the Americano.

Neil

Walter S

Can you reasonably expect to ride a surly LHT around the world including both paved and unpaved routes and expect to finish without significant mechanical problems? If so then what will you be saying as you explain why you wish you had taken something better?

djb

I see the big advantage is the custom sizing for people whose torsos or legs are not fitting in with a certain sized frame, and too much out of stem changes etc.

that said, one thing about stability etc, my old late 90s Rockhopper is alu framed, but it is like the Cannondale tourers, with big fat chain stays and whatnot. I have ridden this bike a lot, toured a little on it, and of all my bikes, it is the most solid with one pannier on it with a bit too much weight in that pannier, I'm sometimes surprised by how sturdy it is and doesnt wobble around or flex with only a rear load.
I travelled a bit with this bike with about 25lbs in the rear panniers, up really steep hills and going fast down curvy downhills and it handled very very well.

the only reason i bring this up is to show that a stock frame can work very well as a tourer as well, but in the end, spending a bunch on a nice bike is a lot cheaper than buying a sportscar, any new car, or even any used car. I personally dont need a custom bike or want to spend so much more than a "regular" production model, but can see how folks appreciate the craftmanship of a custom type bike.

tom cotter

Neil, not denigrating the brands? "fine touring bikes for what they are' and Just get by" with 520... How else could that be read?

Nowhere did i say that Co motion wasn't a high quality bike. What i said, is in the context of the question asked by the OP, the value propostion supporting Co motion doesn't make sense. The bike is at least 3x the cost of either a Trek or Surly. IOW, it's not that Co motion isn't a good bike, it's that Trek, Surly, Fuji, and the rest aren't as bad as you make them out to be. Co motion, if it's better at all, certainly isn't 3x better. or, are you going to tell me it is?

Oh, and speaking from experience, unfortunately, your body will change. Just one of those things!

tom cotter

Again, a guy on the 50 plus forum has put 21,000 miles on low end components without a major issue. Now, that's over 7 years not seven months. Stilll, it's impressive. Every long tour is going to have its mechanical issues. Regardless of brand. Surly is a good brand that many people use to do long distance extended tours.

NeilGunton

Look. I have outlined the differences between a Trek or Surly frame and a Co-Motion. There's the tubing - oversized, large diameter, the same stuff they use on their tandems, and I don't think anyone disputes that Co-Motion knows a thing or two about how to build tandems. I have had a close-up look to compare the monster chainstays on an Americano with the more standard size chainstays on the Treks and Surlys. There's the 145mm rear triangle, which makes for stronger wheels. There's the fact that the frame can be customized, both for attachments and fit, not to mention color (admittedly not one of the major points for me personally, but it matters to some). The forks are substantially more beefy than those you find on the off-the-shelf bikes. Their component selection on the complete bikes is high end, definitely better than what you get on a 520 or LHT. The Co-Motion is simply a better bike. Does that mean I am disparaging Trek and Surly? No, not at all.

How about this analogy. I think my Subaru Legacy is a great car, I love it, but I can say that while at the same time acknowledging the sacrilegious thought that there are better cars out there - BMW, Mercedes, Bentley, Tesla, there are many cars that are just... better than my plucky little Subaru. Does admitting that disparage Subaru? Does telling someone "if you can get by with the Suby then that's great" make the car any less than it is? No. There are better cars, but my Suby does the job and it's great for me, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. BUT THERE ARE STILL BETTER CARS OUT THERE. Do I need them? Not really, not at the moment. I'd like a Tesla, sure, but they are too expensive for me. Does that mean I have to go on car forums telling everyone that there's no point in laying out money for the Tesla because my humble Suby can get me from A to B just fine? No. I just accept that there are superior cars in the world, and they cost more (sometimes a lot more), and I'm at peace with that. There might be some bike out there that is the superior of my Co-Motion - I'm open to argument. If someone laid it all out (as I have tried to do with you here) and told me why this other bike is better than my Divide or Americano, then great - it's no skin off my nose. I'm not Co-Motion (and I'm no shill either - apart from an ad on crazyguyonabike, I have no deal with them to promote their bikes in any way). If this person told me "sure, you can get by with an Americano, but the HerpDerp Fabrication Black Ops Cobra touring bike is better for those of us who want/need the built-in machine guns and grenade launchers", then I'd go hmmm, that's cool, another good touring bike out there, have to keep an eye on that one. I wouldn't go around telling people that it's not worth the money to have a grenade launcher on a bicycle. Ok, my analogy is starting to break down, but you get the idea.

Trek and Surly are fine bikes. Co-Motion make better bikes, materially and functionally. Do you need a Co-Motion? Evidently not. That's ok. Does this mean you have to go to such great lengths to try to rationalize your choice such that it's not placed below anything else? Well, I guess that's your call. It's your time.

For myself, I just saw your original wrong comments about the non-dished wheel not being standard on the Americano, and that it wasn't available 12 years ago, and it irked me that you should be posting such strong opinions from such obviously shaky knowledge. I've said my piece, and have no desire to keep going around in circles on this, so I'll just leave it there.

Neil

tom cotter

Neil and i apologised to the group twice for getting the wheel wrong. Which is all I can do. one misstatement, that doesn't change the basis of my premis. That is the while the quality may be there the value isn't. So if you want be irked, go for it!

You did disparage the Trek and Surly with your choice of words. Which, IMO were an implied put down.

Regarding your Subaru, i made the opposite point in my post. That is, BMWs are not better than Subaru. They are bought by people who believe they are better cars. A misconception backed up by a big wallet, and apparently the inability to read road test results. That said, BMWs are good cars just not better.

Tourist in MSN

I would like to thank Neil Gunton for adding valuable factual information to the debate on higher end bikes, specifically the Co-Motion Americano.

I would also like to thank Neil for other valuable services he has provided for over a decade to the bike touring community by helping to disseminate useful bicycle touring information on the internet to others. His work has helped countless bike tourists in planning their trips. And it has informed others about bicycle touring.

djb

What's neat about bikes, and we all agree on this, is that bikes are pretty nifty machines. I like all bikes, and it is neat that if you have a frame that you like, you can put any set of wheels, derailleurs or whatever, so to a large extent it's pretty open. I think for a lot of people, me included, getting a complete bike is just easier and less cost--so whatever works, and it's great to be able to change stuff as you want or when things wear out (which in my case usually takes a long time)

RR3

BMW not better than Subaru?

Seriously. How many miles have you put behind both wheels? What criteria? Reading road tests as a basis for comparison is a bit lame even if the cars were in the same class but I would like to play. The WRX is not even as good as a VW.

2015 Subaru WRX vs. 2015 Volkswagen GTI ? Comparison Test ? Car and Driver

Oh wait, a Camaro is also better from zero to sixty, too.

tom cotter

I've owned six BMW cars and seven BMW motorcycles. The cars included two 5 series, a seven series lemon, one M3, one 325i, and one 1975 2002. All bought new and pounded for 40,000 to 50,000 miles. With the exception of the lemon 7 series which was gone in 8 months.

I don't own a WRX, but have driven a friend's, who has owned two.

In the past i've owned everything from Mercury station wagons to Porsche 911s. My favorite cars were a Mini Cooper S, and two Mustang SVT Cobras. Currently i have a new edge 2003 Mach 1. We've got time slips for mid 12s right now and will be working to get it into the elevens this year. I want the car to a compliant street car so there in is the rubb!

I hope that answers your question.

RR3

It does. Your criteria is the drag strip.

tom cotter

LOL!!!! Seriously, I respect Neil for everything he has done for bicycle touring. His site is a fantastic resource. And when he does post here i usually find myself nodding in agreement. That being said, it doesn't mean I have to sit quietly while he puts down off the rack brands. Or drives me into the dirt for a fuzzy memory.

Let me say, that I never stated that Co motion was a bad bike. Only that IMO, it is not worth 3x more than one of these store bought brands. Neil's comments, if anything reinforce that opinion. Neil gave us the history of Co Motion. They started out building high quality tandem bikes. To build tandem bikes, using a clean sheet, they researched, designed, developed, and manufactured those bikes from the ground up. Which is why they were able to produce a superior product. However, if I read Neil's commentary correctly, when it came to the Americano, they essentially used what they already had and built a single version of a tandem bike. That is, no clean sheet. No ground up research and developement. Not even purposed developed materials, or parts. They used what they had laying around. In car manufacturing the term for this is parts bin car. That is, a car that didn't go through the multi billion dollar developement process, and was built from parts of other vehicles cobbled together. At best the Americano is a parts bin bike. That doesn't make it bad, just not individually developed for it's purpose. And, because there is no R&D writeoff to recapture, or specialized single purpose manufacturing costs involved, harder to justify it's cost difference with other options. In fact it is this parts bin process that enables mass maufacturers to hold cost down.

From a business POV, it was very smart of Co Motion to do this. Essentially drive more sales for little investment. A page ripped out of the world's top auto manufacturer's play book! I like that! If onlythey had taken the next step and transferred that savings to their customers I'd agree that it is good deal!

I know this isn't going to sit well, but I did read that right - they are using tandem bike parts to build the Americano?

tom cotter

No, it's over-all performance, as well as build quality. They WRX does well going through the twisties. My criteria doesn't include creature comforts. BMW doesn't bill itself as the Ultimate comfortable car with the best sound system. Nor are they the Ultimate riding machine. They market themselves as "The Ultimate Driving Machine." I mentioned the WRX because it too is a performance sports sedan and i'm familiar with it. No doubt we can each come up with a list that outperforms it. But to the point, people pay more money for BMWs than for these other cars. For those buying into the Ultimate driving machine marketing, they aren't getting that. BMW has gone soft to capture market share. That is 20 and 30 somethings who don't care about performance they just want the emblem. mention that on any BMW driver enthusiast forum and they will track you down and flick their Gold cards at you until you are a bloody pulp!!!!

That said, BMWs can be modified to deliver as well!

RR3

The M3 keeps getting slower and slower over the years.

It could not possibly match the 14 second 0-100mph of the WRX.

Even the 335i bests the WRX by 2 seconds in the 0-100 tests. Ever wonder why there are few/no comparison tests between BMW and WRX?

You did notice that the VW is a better car then the WRX?

German cars fit me. Cars from Japan do not.

Similar to custom frames vs. many stock frames. This type of creature comfort is priceless if a rider needs it. From a utilitarian perspective, both will get you where you need to go. Comfort and aesthetics are important to me when determining what vehicle (bike or car) are best for me. For instance, I really wanted to buy a Toyota Land Cruisier but the seats just did not go back far enough much like my problem with almost all bike frames off the rack. So, a best in class vehicle is not best for me.

tom cotter

My comment was made with a stock 325/8 in mind. There are many factors that go into a buying decision. As you can see with BMW I'm a fan of the brand. I wasn't picking on them. Only using them to make a point. And only because of how they promote themselves!

I totally agree with going custom if there is a fit issue. That trumps all other considerations.

I'm an odd fit on a bike. I have shorter than usual legs for someone my height. So long torso short legs. That presents a serious fit problem with some brands. Yet, the 520 fit me well. AS does the lemond where the geometry is made for people built like me.

The interesting thing in this entire debate is that i do see both sides from a position of experience. I have bought the best of class. So i get it! I owned a Litespeed Tuscany. Dropped a lot of cash on that bike and no complaints! Loved it dearly until the day I rode the Lemond and realized that even though these two bikes were almost $2500 dollars a part in price, they were no where near that far apart in ride, handling etc. SO, I sold the Litespeed and kept the Lemond. In retrospect i should have kept both bikes. But my reasoning was, for what i could sell the Tuscany for the Lemond was like getting a free bike, plus cash in my pocket. My business mind sometimes won't leave me alone. it definately wasn't going to let me sleep owning an expensive bike I had no use for.

tom cotter

My comment was made with a stock 325 in mind. There is are many factors that go into a buying decision. As you can see with BMW I'm a fan of the brand. I wasn't picking on them. using them to make a point. And only because of how they promote themselves!

I'm an odd fit on a bike. I have shorter than usual legs for someone my height. So long torso short legs. That presents a seriuos fit problem with some brands. Yet, the 520 fit me well. AS does the lemond where the geometry is made for people built like me.

The interesting thing in this entire debate is that i do see both sides from a position of experience. I owned a Litespeed Tuscany. Dropped a lot of cash on that bike and no complaints! Loved it dearly until the day I rode the Lemond and realized that even though these two bikes were almost $2500 dollars a part in price, they were no where near that far apart in ride, handling etc. SO, I sold the Litespeed and kept the Lemond. In retrospect i should have kept both bikes. But my reasoning was for what i could sell the Tuscany for the Lemond was like getting a free bike plus cash in my pocket. My business mind sometimes won't leave me alone. it definately wasn't going to let me sleep owning an expensive bike I had no use for.

NeilGunton

The point is that you are taking a very strong position which is obviously based on knowing very little about the subject matter. You very confidently spouted off (not once, but multiple times) about the wheel on the Americano, but you were wrong. Completely, utterly, 100% wrong. So this makes us wonder what else you are wrong about. I don't mind people being wrong; and I don't mind people with attitude (when they have the goods to back it up). But something about people who are wrong, but still have an attitude... that is just irritating. What else are you wrong about?

You know, you keep saying how I am denigrating Surly and Trek, but you are doing a pretty good job of denigrating Co-Motion. Even more so given that a) you looked at them 12 years ago, b) you don't even remember accurately what you did see, and c) you obviously have some kind of chip on your shoulder about your Trek being just as good as a bike that costs 3x as much.

I think I have established why the Co-Motion American/Divide/Pangea are technically and functionally better bikes than whatever Surly or Trek has in their touring lineup. So the question you raise is "Are they worth it?". Well, of course any price is subjective. Maybe there's someone else out there who looks at your $1500 Trek 520 and thinks "wow, what sort of chump would lay down that sort of dough for a bike like that? I can buy three mountain bikes from my local bike shop for the same money, is the Trek three times as good?". And there's probably a person looking at the $500 mountain bike thinking "Wow, why would anyone lay down all that dough when I can get the same bike (well, it LOOKS the same so it must BE the same, right?) from Wal-Mart for half the price?". And there's probably someone else sneering at the Wal-Mart bike, saying "Why would you waste your money on a crappy new bike when I can get a totally awesome second hand 80's hipster tourer for $40 and do it up by scrounging parts from the local bicycle co-op? Hah, chumps".

How on earth do you quantify what "worth it" means? Maybe the Americano is worth it to me because it simply works and rides better than any of the other touring bikes I've tried. And I've tried a few over the years, let me tell you. Maybe you are satisfied with your Trek 520, and so the Americano isn't worth the extra money - and that's fine. But why do you keep rattling on about how "it's not worth 3x the price" and castigating me for supposedly denigrating Trek and Surly, when it's obvious that you are just here to do some kind of hatchet job on Co-Motion? I give you a nice little analogy about how there are better cars than my Subaru, and the point seems to have gone WHOOSH over your head - your only response was how BMW's are not actually better than Subaru. Hello? Did you understand what I was trying to say? The point isn't BMW vs Subaru, it was that although my Subaru is a great car, There Are Better Cars Out There, And They Cost More, And I Am Fine With That. So why do you have such a bug in your ear about Co-Motions being better bikes than off-the-shelf fare, and that they cost more? They are high end bikes, made in America, of course they are going to cost more than mass produced bikes made in Asia, duh.

Co-Motion being hand-made in America is probably a lot of the reason for the higher price, but it's also because They Are Better Bikes. You get more. Do you get 3x more? That is something only the market can quantify. I guess if they felt they could charge 10x as much, then Co-Motion would charge that for their bikes - I mean, why not? If the market can bear it, then why not. But they charge what they do, and they are a successful company, so I guess the answer has to be "Yes, they are worth 3x the price, otherwise Co-Motion wouldn't be in business". Are those bikes worth 3x to YOU? No, evidently not. Are they worth 3x to other people who look at functionality and decide it's worth the extra? Yes, obviously. Does this mean that all the added value is just in the head of the buyer? No, not at all. Those bikes ARE quantifiably better than off-the-shelf. How much better is in the eyes of the market, and the market has decided that 3x the Treks or Surly's of the world is a sustainable price point.

What? (Where's that "scratching my head" emoticon?)

Ok, now it's obvious that you're just digging your heels in and rationalizing whatever comes your way to make it fit your argument. So now the fact that the Americano has a tandem heritage makes it a "parts bin bike", with zero research and development. Who's denigrating now? And to what purpose? You keep saying you acknowledge Co-Motion makes good bikes, but then you come back with crap like this.

Here's the reality: The people who started Co-Motion came from a tandem heritage, yes. What this taught them was how to build bikes that are able to support multiple people on two wheels. Think about that for a moment, and consider how strong a tandem has to be in order to resist the flex and other forces associated with having multiple people pedaling away on a single machine. It's an engineering problem. The wheels have to be stronger, as do the chainstays, bottom brackets, downtubes, top tubes, head tubes, and every other aspect of the thing. It takes real engineering know-how to make a good tandem, and Co-Motion tandems are acknowledged as some of the best out there. And applying this knowledge to making a single touring bike is somehow ... bad? I think all this demonstrates is the human capacity to take any argument and twist it around to reinforce your own point of view. Congratulations, slow clap etc.

Really? It sure sounds bad. Parts bin bike, LOL. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

What is the purpose of a touring bike? Answer: To carry a touring load, i.e. a person and their luggage, in a way that makes the bike comfortable and stable to ride all day long, day after day, on an extended bicycle tour. I'd say a bike that comes from a tandem heritage is just that very thing. Of course Dwan Shepard and co didn't just take a tandem and cut it in half, they took their KNOWLEDGE as engineers and builders of tandem frames and applied it to a single bike. How you can twist this around to being a negative thing is beyond me.

Yes, and you have detailed knowledge of Co-Motion's R&D process, do you? But in any case, I wouldn't say that the development process for building a new bicycle has much in common with the process for building a new car. The car has thousands of different components, and it all has to be specified to deal with the stresses of handling the power that an internal combustion engine puts out, and all the shock and stress associated with traveling on the road at 80 mph or more, not to mention all the safety regulations associated with putting a vehicle on the road.

The technology involved with building a touring bike, on the other hand, is not really all that different from one bike to the next, except in terms of materials, geometry and components, all of which are fairly well understood by now. It's true that out on the bleeding edge of carbon fiber / composite racing frames there is probably a fair amount of R&D and innovation going on, but for a steel frame bicycle, it's pretty well understood already. So a company like Co-Motion simply doesn't have to invest millions of dollars into building a new bike, because as any frame maker will tell you, your accumulated knowledge gained from building previous framesets is largely applicable to any new design. It's not rocket science.

So what you're basically claiming here is that Co-Motion is a huge marketing scam, whereby they put together a parts bin bike from scraps and sold a bill of goods to a gullible public for 3x the price of what you can get off-the-shelf. And yet I am the one who is doing the denigrating. I think my head just exploded.

At this point it's obvious that what you read has little to do with the arguments that come out the other end. Whatever I say, you'll just ignore what is inconvenient and focus on some little thing (like BMW vs Subaru) that totally misses the point, and then go off again on the same old circular argument about how Co-Motions aren't worth 3x the price because you don't think they are.

To which the only reasonable response would seem to be "Whatever".

Neil

RR3

To me, best and cost are weakly correlated once you hit a certain place.

Best depends upon your needs and those are often unique.

Trek frames are proven good tourers, nobody can dispute that.

There are more expensive bikes than the 520 and nobody can dispute that.

Whether a particular more expensive bike is better then the Trek 520 comes down to personal factors. For instance, I would not want discs on my touring bike, period. If my comparison was a 520 versus the Cro Motion offerings with disk brakes, the Trek is better to me because it meets my criteria. The Trek has BarCons compared to BRifters and to me, better for touring. Others will have a different perspective

How about comparing the lowest end BMW (325) to the lowest Subaru. The Subaru WRX was worse than the VW GTI, you did notice.

djb

You guys do realise that for me, this discussion has become kinda like the teacher in Peanuts....

NeilGunton

Yes! This. Trek and Surly are fine bikes. Co-Motion are higher end, but saying that doesn't invalidate the Trek 520 as a good touring bike.

FWIW, last time I looked, I'm pretty sure Co-Motion can make their bikes with either disc or rim brakes, your choice. They don't list it as an option on the Americano page, but perhaps that's just an omission. I'm sure that if they were building you a bike, you could get rim brakes if you wanted that. When they made both my Americano and the Divide, I had to think about whether or not I wanted disc brakes. I eventually went with discs just because that's what Dwan recommended - he thinks they are better, as someone who commutes to work on his bike through the wet and messy Eugene winters. I think he got tired of wearing out rims. My personal feeling is that for most touring, rim vs disc brakes aren't that important, because most tours happen in better conditions than winter commuting. But still, there's something nice about knowing you're not slowly wearing out your rims every time you apply the brakes... that being said, I do wish I had asked for a wheelset made with rims that had a braking surface, because then I'd be able to try out one of these cool gadgets:

VELOGICAL RIM-DYNAMO

There's always something else to tweak on a touring bike!

Neil

NeilGunton

wa wa, wa wa wa wa. co-motion wa, wa wa wa waa wa. trek wa wa. wa wa wa delusional wa wa nuh-uh wa wa wa uh-huh wa bmw whatever wa.