or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › What - Intelligent Thought?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What - Intelligent Thought? - Page 3

post #31 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 2:18 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their
> money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course
> they can still be wrong).


I don't know about Canada, but the US is increasingly becoming a weird
Commie-Fascist hybrid poli-system. Which is to say, the guvmint makes
sure that the people who believe in something are encouraged not to
put up their own money, but instead, someone else's.
post #32 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 10:46 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> From:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html


> Disadvantages
> Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost
> basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or
> may not be cost competitive.


You should make the argument that fossil fuels are incorrectly priced
because of external costs. That is one of the favorite buzz-words for
intervention.

And also:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandh...potential.html
That is a lot of purple and blue in the east. ouch. That essentially
means high transmission costs, something doubtfully considered when
putting one's best foot forward, as below (I propose a new convention
in rbr-speak: best foot forward == doctoring the data filter).

Notice how completely vague is "have the potential to supply more than
one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United
States." I'll bet it is, except when you start considering
constraints C_1, C_2, C_3, C_4....C_N, lim N->inf. I'll put money on
it that it is some theoretical calculation that won't come close to
being acheived in practice, no matter how much money you throw at it.

I have nothing against wind power, I think it is great, but I'll bet
it can only meet perhaps 10% of current demand, when matched to most
of its cost effective applications. Yet energy demand will continue
to grow. Wants are never satisfied.

Even though the site you linked is one big sales pitch, I wish you'd
read it a little more closely. There are a lot of very hard problems
to solve. The batteries, when used, aren't "clean, no pollution."
The storage problem alone is major. It isn't magic. If people want
to cut carbon, but not cause major dislocations, I think they'll have
to go nuke-u-lar. France has gone nuke-u-lar, and we luv France,
don't we?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandh...ch_accept.html
"The Technology Acceptance activity works to provide information about
wind energy technology and its potential benefits to the stakeholder
community, to allow informed decision-making, and to reduce undue
barriers to wind energy's use."

Lingo like "stakeholder community" should be setting off the bull****
bingo lights in your head.
post #33 of 222
Thread Starter 

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
news:1171330746.481061.195940@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I have nothing against wind power, I think it is great, but I'll bet
> it can only meet perhaps 10% of current demand, when matched to most
> of its cost effective applications. Yet energy demand will continue
> to grow. Wants are never satisfied.


The Altamont Pass in the San Francisco bay area is one of the most perfect
spots in the USA for windpower. This was the first place to install wind
turbines in large quantities. And yet the turbines operate less than 25% of
the time, cost so much to maintain that as soon as the generators become
obsolete (meaning no more parts made for them) they are abandoned.

Right now perhaps 5% of the wind turbines there are inoperable under any
conditions and another 5% of them have been completely abandoned. Since it
isn't economically feasible to tear them down, these eyesores polute the
countryside.

When they are running the noise from the generators disturbs people in the
town of Tracy some 20 miles downwind.

Windpower Inc has been sagging along for two decades or more and never made
enough money to even wink at. They could never have been founded if there
hadn't been huge federal tax subsidies that allowed people tax write-offs
many times their investments. As soon as those subsidies disappeared all of
the companies except Windpower went out of business and sold off their stuff
to Windpower who just barely can keep their heads above water by employing
only a couple of personnel.

Let me reinterate on this since the clown here don't really read that well -
it costs more to build the towers, build the generators, build the props,
the control circuits, the distributions and put them all together and
maintain it then they can profitably make in the lifetime of the wind
turbine. What's more, in higher winds these wind turbines must be locked
down because if they spin up too fast (such as with failed control
mechanisms) they explode into pieces and the flying pieces can take down
several other wind turbines or worse, start a domino effect.

I initially became interested in windpower in the 70's and followed it
pretty closely since my uncle had a couple of patents pertinent to windpower
at the time. After careful study of the problems and costs involved it
became clear that while better than no power at all - that's why cattle
wells used to be pumped by windmills - wind power is far too spotty to use.

As for batteries - Ford and GM both ran battery development programs for
over a decade trying to make practical batteries for automobiles. For looked
into liquid sulfer batteries and GM worked on lithium cells. They really
TRIED to find the last word in batteries and in fact they did. The problem
is that the last word is that batteries will never be a practical way of
storing power except in special circumstances such as an automobile where
they aren't discharged much and the fact that they have a limited practical
lifetime isn't objectionable since they're cheap.That is definitely not the
case for power storage systems.

What they're referring to as "batteries" these days are fuel cells, often
hydrogen fuel cells. The problem with these cells is that they are expensive
to build, have a fairly limited lifetime and require several energy
conversions to use. These conversions are the real problem since they make
the power storage inefficient compared to other means.

So fuel cells will only be used in special circumstances as well since they
use more power than they can store.

Now all of these systems can be used to some extent under special
circumstances that make them practical in limited applications. But they
will not REPLACE oil, coal, or other carbon based power. And that's what it
will take to become "energy independent".
post #34 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 8:12 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
> perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.




****head -

It's from the Department of Energy. They know more about it than you.

From:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html


Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy
Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the
fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are
aimed
at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.


Advantages
Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind
energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on
combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind
turbines
don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or
greenhouse
gasses.


Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.


Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be
used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by
the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth,
and the earth's surface irregularities.


Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies
available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour,
depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the
particular project.


Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the
economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found.
Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind
turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners
make
rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.


Disadvantages
Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a
cost
basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may
or
may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has
decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires
a
higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.


The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the
wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is
needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and
not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity
demands.


Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from
cities
where the electricity is needed.


Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land
and
those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity
generation.


Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the
environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is
some
concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
(visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
plants.
post #35 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1171319579.286927.67170@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 11:48 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>> >perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

>>
>> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
>> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
>> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
>> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
>> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
>> in the near future - without subsidies.
>>
>> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
>> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...

>
> Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They
> don't know **** and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda
> purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal
> commie plotters.
> Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get
> anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people
> with no understanding of engineering would go there.
> Bill C
>


You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a fine
power source.
post #36 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article
YOURhoward-7D3D2D.22141711022007@com...a.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> In article <C1F535F5.204DF5%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> And your Queen ***** Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
>> windbags.

>
> The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a plane
> that
> will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White House
> says so
> too. What's the deal?
>
> _________________
> "As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of
> the
> members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House.
> The
> Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the
> leader of
> the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession
> to the
> presidency.
>
> "In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide
> military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and
> her
> district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that
> it
> continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California
> compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights
> for
> security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure
> communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the
> recommendation to
> use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of
> security
> for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that
> is
> exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a
> political issue."
> _________________
>
> http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php
>
> And:
> _________________
> "The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi.
>
> "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White
> House
> spokesman Tony Snow said.
> _________________
>
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/
>
> Try to keep up.



Because it does not fit in with her environmental arguments!
post #37 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/12/07 6:56 AM, in article dtudndCFDZEm4k3YnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@comcast.com,
"Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
>> it and that therefore man is evil.

>
> No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
> accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
> of this.
>
> -paul



Oh really?!?!?!?!
Where is this mentioned in the hysteria? At what percentage is the man-made
contribution compared to the cyclic climate changes going on now?
post #38 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/12/07 8:48 AM, in article h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax.com,
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>> perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

>
> I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
> wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
> being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
> economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
> in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
> in the near future - without subsidies.
>
> Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
> new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...



You have some kind of controls to keep the wind stable? Storage of power?
post #39 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.com> wrote in
news:a-adnWW4Coau30zYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com:

>
> You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a
> fine power source.
>


Not to toot my own horn, but although you invented it, I broke the wind.

--
Bill Asher
post #40 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/12/07 8:17 PM, in article
1171340279.755715.323770@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 8:12 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
>> perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

>
>
>
> ****head -
>
> It's from the Department of Energy. They know more about it than you.
>
> From:
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html
>
>
> Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy
> Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the
> fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are
> aimed
> at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.
>
>
> Advantages
> Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind
> energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on
> combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind
> turbines
> don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or
> greenhouse
> gasses.
>
>
> Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
> States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.
>
>
> Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be
> used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by
> the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth,
> and the earth's surface irregularities.
>
>
> Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies
> available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour,
> depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the
> particular project.
>
>
> Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the
> economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found.
> Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind
> turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners
> make
> rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.
>
>
> Disadvantages
> Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a
> cost
> basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may
> or
> may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has
> decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires
> a
> higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.
>
>
> The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the
> wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is
> needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and
> not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity
> demands.
>
>
> Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from
> cities
> where the electricity is needed.
>
>
> Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land
> and
> those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity
> generation.
>
>
> Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the
> environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is
> some
> concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
> (visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
> the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
> reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
> plants.
>
>
>


Well Hell!! I am SURE that is enough info for YOU to plunk down your initial
100K investment right?????
post #41 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <C1F69238.204E61%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article
> YOURhoward-7D3D2D.22141711022007@com...a.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C1F535F5.204DF5%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And your Queen ***** Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
> >> windbags.

> >
> > The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a
> > plane that will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White
> > House says so too. What's the deal?
> >
> > _________________
> > "As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security
> > of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the
> > House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities
> > as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the
> > line of succession to the presidency.
> >
> > "In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to
> > provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington
> > and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended
> > that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in
> > California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop
> > flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will
> > ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the
> > recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary
> > levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret
> > that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context
> > has evolved into a political issue."
> > _________________
> >
> > http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php
> >
> > And:
> > _________________
> > "The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi.
> >
> > "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White
> > House spokesman Tony Snow said.
> > _________________
> >
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/
> >
> > Try to keep up.

>
>
> Because it does not fit in with her environmental arguments!


!!!!!

Seriously, Steve, why is it so hard to comprehend the above info? Pelosi said she
was fine to take commercial flights - the security issues are what this is about.
Did you have a problem with Dennis Hastert using the same military flight
arrangements when he was Speaker of the House? The only difference is that she would
need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further.
It's really pretty simple.

By the way:

> >> And your Queen ***** Pilosi


No issues with women in power, Steve?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
post #42 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <mNTzh.629$tD2.233@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-7D3D2D.22141711022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <C1F535F5.204DF5%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And your Queen ***** Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
> >> windbags.

> >
> > The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a
> > plane that will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White
> > House says so too. What's the deal?

>
> The fact that she wanted to fly it to Virginia from Washington DC?


I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that she would
take commercial flights. The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives and
the White House believe she should fly on a military plane for security reasons.
Former Speaker Dennis Hastert had the same arrangement - the difference being the
plane Pelosi is to use needs greater fuel capacity for the longer flights. What's
the deal?

If you want to complain about a politician flying in military planes, why didn't
you complain about George W. Bush using an S-3B Viking to get to the USS Abraham
Lincoln back on 22 May, 2003?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
post #43 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

In article <iP5Ah.411$_73.269@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Paul Cassel" <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote in message
> news:dtudndCFDZEm4k3YnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
> >> causing it and that therefore man is evil.

> >
> > No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
> > accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
> > of this.

>
> Paul, the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any input
> into the situation.


Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)? They were
marked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal combustion
engines was in the 1880s.

> I cited a New York Times article from 1932 telling the world how we were
> going to burn up and drown by the 21st century. The article actually said
> that.
>
> Then another article was published in 1970 proclaiming that we were about to
> enter an ice age. The New York Times has only shown consistency in one
> area - leftist political propaganda.


There were a bunch of articles in many publications that seemed to indicate that
we would be using fling cars by now. They were wrong. So were those articles. Does
it seem reasonable to cherry pick those to suit your agenda and not mention the ones
that talked about the flying cars?

> There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhere: The earth
> isn't something that is easily effected by man.


Here your brush it aside, but earlier you were catastrophizing about the loss of
billions of lives. Hmm.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
post #44 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 12, 10:24 pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:


> > concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
> > (visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
> > the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
> > reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
> > plants.

>
> Well Hell!! I am SURE that is enough info for YOU to plunk down your initial
> 100K investment right?????




Dumbass -


I already stated that massive investment in wind farms would need
federal price supports because the energy market is subject to OPEC
manipulation. If they see too many alternative sources coming on line,
they raise production until the price goes down far enough to kill the
alternative projects (like the Exxon Colony project I referenced
earlier). Then they cut their production again after the alternative
projects are dead.

Nice to see that you are pro-OPEC.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
post #45 of 222

Re: What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 11:27 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YOURhoward-7D3D2D.22141711022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> > In article <C1F535F5.204DF5...@no.com>, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:

>
> >> And your Queen ***** Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
> >> windbags.

>
> > The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a
> > plane that
> > will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White
> > House says so
> > too. What's the deal?

>
> The fact that she wanted to fly it to Virginia from Washington DC?


Dude,

If you'd ever tried to drive through Tysons Corner,
you'd know that is a perfectly reasonable request.

Ben
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Road Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › What - Intelligent Thought?