99 Schwinn Peloton 650B candidate?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by gooserider, Jan 19, 2006.

  1. gooserider

    gooserider Guest

    I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
    bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
    B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
    I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
    difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
    are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
    has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
    rack, but what can I do for fenders? It's either convert this one or sell it
    to finance a Surly. Exactly which Surly is up in the air right now. The
    Cross-Check, Long Haul Trucker, and Karate Monkey all meet my needs.They can
    run big fat tires AND have beaucoup eyelets. What do you guys think, is it
    worth it to convert the Schwinn? It's a nice 853 frame, just too racer for
    me.

    Mike
     
    Tags:


  2. Luke

    Luke Guest

    In article <U%[email protected]>, gooserider
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
    > bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
    > B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
    > I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
    > difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
    > are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
    > has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
    > rack, but what can I do for fenders?


    Faced with a similar situation here's what I did. Using an inexpensive
    Planet Bike full fender kit, I modified the front fender stainless
    stays, fashioning the loops (meant for fastening by bolt to the
    eyelets) into a hook which then was clipped just above the fork dropout
    - no hardware required for mounting and the setup was quite secure. The
    mounting hole within the front fender's tab intended for fastening to
    the fork crown required enlargement with a rat tail file to accommodate
    the brake caliper's recessed Allen mounting nut.

    As for the rear fender, a dollar or two worth of all purpose clamps
    mounted on the seatstays will serve as pseudo eyelets. On the right
    seatstay, position the clamp so that it doesn't interfere with the
    chain. If the frame lacks a chainstay bridge (near the bottom bracket),
    you can either dispense with fastening the fender at this point, and
    possibly trimming it so that it fits tightly between the chainstays
    directly aft of the BB shell; or, tie the fender down using a cord (or
    twist tie) routed through the bracket and underneath the chainstays.

    This is one of those tasks requiring jiggling, bending, and filing;
    but, if done properly, works just as well as on a bike with the
    requisite fittings.

    Luke
     
  3. Nate Knutson

    Nate Knutson Guest

    gooserider wrote:
    > I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
    > bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
    > B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
    > I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
    > difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
    > are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
    > has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
    > rack, but what can I do for fenders? It's either convert this one or sell it
    > to finance a Surly. Exactly which Surly is up in the air right now. The
    > Cross-Check, Long Haul Trucker, and Karate Monkey all meet my needs.They can
    > run big fat tires AND have beaucoup eyelets. What do you guys think, is it
    > worth it to convert the Schwinn? It's a nice 853 frame, just too racer for
    > me.
    >
    > Mike


    As was mentioned, you can eventually get fenders working on it fine by
    going nuts with p-clamps, taking diagonal cutters to the fenders to get
    it fitting right everywhere, getting it secured crudely with zip ties
    in various places, etc. You can actually do this without going to 650B
    by using/making special fender-splitting brackets to get around the
    brakes
    (http://www.rivercitybicycles.com/product_info.php?cPath=130&products_id=613),
    but you still wouldn't be able to run larger than a 28 tire probably.

    I haven't ridden a 650B conversion and don't really know what can be
    expected as far as how the bike's handling will change. The steering
    trail on 650B conversions is reduced, which is generally the opposite
    of what one wants to get out of the deal, and that bugs me although I
    don't know how big of a deal it is in practice.

    Long Hauls are really cool frames. If you want a classic do-it-all
    bike, that's where I would go. Cross-check if you want the racier
    geometry and Karate Monkey if you want to go mountain biking with it or
    do something that needs horizontal dropouts or discs.
     
  4. gooserider wrote:
    > I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
    > bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
    > B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
    > I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
    > difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
    > are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
    > has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
    > rack, but what can I do for fenders? It's either convert this one or sell it
    > to finance a Surly. Exactly which Surly is up in the air right now. The
    > Cross-Check, Long Haul Trucker, and Karate Monkey all meet my needs.They can
    > run big fat tires AND have beaucoup eyelets. What do you guys think, is it
    > worth it to convert the Schwinn? It's a nice 853 frame, just too racer for
    > me.
    >
    > Mike


    I agree with the others in saying P-clips and such can easily and
    securely mount a rack and fenders to a bike without eyelets. I used
    four P-clips to mount a rack onto a bike for brevets. I used P-clips
    to mount fenders onto my touring bike. It does not have a chainstay
    bridge so I used #12 electrical wire, hot, between the chainstays where
    the bridge should be. Works just fine. And it all looks OK too.

    Now, if you are really just asking for encouragement to get a new bike
    and build it up. Then do it. Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
    only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
    loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
    gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
    frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
    driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
    price.
     
  5. landotter

    landotter Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    >Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
    > gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
    > frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
    > driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
    > price.


    The Surlys are mostly double butted 4130 double butted cromoly, hardly
    "gas pipe". I would agree if someone ventured to comment that they're
    overpriced--a simple powder coated steel frame brazed up in Taiwan
    shouldn't cost more than $200-250.

    I'd also consider a Soma Smoothie ES:

    http://store.somafab.com/somasmoothiees.html

    Fully butted Reynolds for about $375, and somewhere in the style
    between an Audax bike and a Touring ride. Accepts 32mm tires with
    fenders, and uses long reach brakes.
     
  6. Nate Knutson

    Nate Knutson Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > gooserider wrote:
    > > I have the above listed bike, but I don't really use it much. It's a nice
    > > bike with an older 105 gruppo, with brifters. I put a Technomic on it and a
    > > B17, but I still ride it very seldom. My Gunnar is set up pretty BoBish, and
    > > I find it very comfortable. Fatter tires and fenders made a world of
    > > difference to me. The Schwinn has Continental Ultra 3000 700x25 but they
    > > are pretty narrow and hard. I was considering converting it to 650B, but it
    > > has no eyelets. A Carradice and a Bagman can take the place of a proper
    > > rack, but what can I do for fenders? It's either convert this one or sell it
    > > to finance a Surly. Exactly which Surly is up in the air right now. The
    > > Cross-Check, Long Haul Trucker, and Karate Monkey all meet my needs.They can
    > > run big fat tires AND have beaucoup eyelets. What do you guys think, is it
    > > worth it to convert the Schwinn? It's a nice 853 frame, just too racer for
    > > me.
    > >
    > > Mike

    >
    > I agree with the others in saying P-clips and such can easily and
    > securely mount a rack and fenders to a bike without eyelets. I used
    > four P-clips to mount a rack onto a bike for brevets. I used P-clips
    > to mount fenders onto my touring bike. It does not have a chainstay
    > bridge so I used #12 electrical wire, hot, between the chainstays where
    > the bridge should be. Works just fine. And it all looks OK too.


    Flimsy little vinyl-coated P-clamps for lower rack eyelets? Even on a
    lightly loaded rack, I'd be sketched about that...

    > Now, if you are really just asking for encouragement to get a new bike
    > and build it up. Then do it. Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
    > only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
    > loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
    > gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
    > frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
    > driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
    > price.


    I don't know what gas pipe is made of, but if it's butted cromo then
    I'd happily ride it in my frame. Surly's markup is high for Taiwanese
    butted cromo frames, and most of that is indeed because Q wants to make
    money, but cromo frames cost more to produce than al and Surly doesn't
    sell a huge volume of them, which makes the frames cost them more and
    forces them to sell each higher to cover their costs. The other thing
    is that, other than the instigator, they all come as framesets with
    nice-quality forks that retail for $80-$100 anyway, although that'd be
    more like $60-80 for comparable non-Surly-branded forks. Few of the
    other cheap frames out there come with forks. And then there's the fact
    that all the Surly frames are marked by the fact that they have stuff
    going for them that's pretty unique, which is the real reason why they
    manage to get so many people to pay the high markup.
     
  7. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
    > only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
    > loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
    > gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
    > frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
    > driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
    > price.


    Surly bikes are about uncommon but desirable features, not fancy
    materials. Things like ample fat tire clearance and horizontal
    dropouts are generally not available on cheaper no-name frames, even if
    they are equally well-made.

    I was all set to buy a Nashbar steel MTB frame when I heard they made a
    23" model. Then I looked over the specs, and found that the 23" frame
    has a 23" top tube! That's the kind of oblivious design feature that
    lets me know there will be other issues with it as well.

    Chalo Colina
     
  8. Luke

    Luke Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Nate Knutson <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Long Hauls are really cool frames. If you want a classic do-it-all
    > bike, that's where I would go. Cross-check if you want the racier
    > geometry and Karate Monkey if you want to go mountain biking with it or
    > do something that needs horizontal dropouts or discs.


    All versatile frames. Peripheral to the topic, I don't understand why
    Surly spec'ed the Long Haul with vertical dropouts. Double eyeleted
    horizontal dropouts, a la the Crosscheck, would've added the option of
    SS/FG conversion to the LHT's list of attributes without conferring any
    liabilities or extra cost.

    Luke
     
  9. Chalo wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > >
    > > Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
    > > only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
    > > loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
    > > gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
    > > frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
    > > driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
    > > price.

    >
    > Surly bikes are about uncommon but desirable features, not fancy
    > materials. Things like ample fat tire clearance and horizontal
    > dropouts are generally not available on cheaper no-name frames, even if
    > they are equally well-made.


    But why make it out of poor materials? I looked at the Surly website.
    The 58 cm c-t Pacer road frame is TIG welded and lists a weight of 4.75
    pounds. My Waterford 1200 lugged steel frame, 58 cm c-t, is 4 pounds.
    Why did Surly use extra, extra heavy gauge pipe for the frame? TIG
    welded frames should be much lighter than lugged frames due to the
    weight of the lugs. I figure there is 1 pound of extra steel in the
    Surly pacer tubing. Why? Is this one of those desirable features you
    mention?

    The fork for the Pacer is listed at a bit over 2 pounds. My Reynolds
    531 fork is 1.5 pounds. The Pacer fork does have 1.125" steerer
    compared to 1" on mine. But still that is a lot of extra steel in the
    Pacer fork. Why use such heavy gauge pipe for a fork?

    I understand this desirable features thing. But when QBP puts these
    desirable features on a frame made out of heavy gauge pipe, doesn't
    that defeat the purpose? QBP is selling the options and accessories on
    the Surly frames, not a quality frame. And the people who buy them are
    paying for options and accessories, not a quality frame. Do you buy a
    car based on the options only? If it has air conditioning and
    automatic, and moonroof, and V8 engine, its a great car? Never mind
    its a Pinto or Citation or Gremlin or Pacer. I know these cars did not
    have many or any of these options.

    I'd prefer to buy a plainer but high quality frame and forego the
    options and accessories on a Surly, given the same price point.
    Ideally I'd get a quality frame with the options too.

    >
    > I was all set to buy a Nashbar steel MTB frame when I heard they made a
    > 23" model. Then I looked over the specs, and found that the 23" frame
    > has a 23" top tube! That's the kind of oblivious design feature that
    > lets me know there will be other issues with it as well.
    >
    > Chalo Colina


    I have a 58 cm c-t Nashbar aluminum road frame. 57.5 cm top tube.
    73.5 head, 72.5 seat. Pretty close to perfect geometry. It carried me
    successfully through 400 km one day. And shorter rides too. No
    eyelets, but 4 P-clips mounted a rear rack to the frame easily and
    securely for brevets. With the bike I own, and have ridden thousands
    of miles, I do not find any obvious design faults or other issues.
     
  10. gooserider

    gooserider Guest

    "Luke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:200120061757598187%[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Nate Knutson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Long Hauls are really cool frames. If you want a classic do-it-all
    >> bike, that's where I would go. Cross-check if you want the racier
    >> geometry and Karate Monkey if you want to go mountain biking with it or
    >> do something that needs horizontal dropouts or discs.

    >
    > All versatile frames. Peripheral to the topic, I don't understand why
    > Surly spec'ed the Long Haul with vertical dropouts. Double eyeleted
    > horizontal dropouts, a la the Crosscheck, would've added the option of
    > SS/FG conversion to the LHT's list of attributes without conferring any
    > liabilities or extra cost.
    >
    > Luke


    Especially since the bike is designed to be fendered. I think changing a
    rear tire on a fendered, fully loaded LHT would be much easier with
    Cross-Check dropouts. Any bike designed for fenders should have front-entry
    horizontal dropouts, if it has horizontal dropouts. Seems like a no-brainer.
    I don't understand the obsession with rear-entry dropout "track ends".
     
  11. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > Chalo wrote:
    > >
    > > [email protected] wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
    > > > gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
    > > > frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
    > > > driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
    > > > price.

    > >
    > > Surly bikes are about uncommon but desirable features, not fancy
    > > materials. Things like ample fat tire clearance and horizontal
    > > dropouts are generally not available on cheaper no-name frames, even if
    > > they are equally well-made.

    >
    > But why make it out of poor materials? I looked at the Surly website.
    > The 58 cm c-t Pacer road frame is TIG welded and lists a weight of 4.75
    > pounds. My Waterford 1200 lugged steel frame, 58 cm c-t, is 4 pounds.
    > Why did Surly use extra, extra heavy gauge pipe for the frame? TIG
    > welded frames should be much lighter than lugged frames due to the
    > weight of the lugs. I figure there is 1 pound of extra steel in the
    > Surly pacer tubing. Why? Is this one of those desirable features you
    > mention?


    If the desire is for a stiff, rugged frame rather than a light, limber
    frame, then that implies a different choice of tubing diameters and
    gauges. You don't know whether the properties of Surly's alloy aren't
    actually superior to that of your Waterford, now do you? I haven't
    bent my 1x1 frame yet, so I really can't say how strong it is except,
    "probably strong enough". For me, that's better than average. I bent
    the fork while fooling around doing nose wheelies, but that's par for
    the course for the OEM forks I've had.

    Dave Bohm spared no expense to make my bike's custom frame from the
    best available butted tubing that would do the job. It weighs 7.25
    lbs., but that is not a reflection on its build quality or materials.
    It fits me better and rides better than my 5.4 lb. Surly frame, but I
    guess since it's heavier it must be made of lesser materials. Right?

    Note that Nashbar's cheap steel MTB frame weighs 1.2 lbs. more than the
    superficially similar Surly 1x1 frame in an equivalent size. Both are
    made from butted 4130 CrMo steel; I'd guess that the Nashbar one is
    built heavier to make it easier to miter and weld quickly. The Surly's
    weight savings come a lot cheaper than your Waterford's, but the
    Nashbar frame is probably the stiffest, strongest, and most durable of
    the three-- and only $130 for a 6.2lb. frame and 3.1 lb. fork.

    > The fork for the Pacer is listed at a bit over 2 pounds. My Reynolds
    > 531 fork is 1.5 pounds. The Pacer fork does have 1.125" steerer
    > compared to 1" on mine. But still that is a lot of extra steel in the
    > Pacer fork. Why use such heavy gauge pipe for a fork?


    Maybe because it's stiffer and that feels right for the application;
    maybe because it cuts down on JRA-type failures. Maybe because it's
    cheaper to make that way. And maybe, just maybe, because the material
    is weak enough that it must be that heavy to do its job. But I
    wouldn't bet on the latter option. 4130 chromoly tubing and Reynolds
    531 have almost identical tensile strength-- both about 120,000 psi
    ultimate.

    > I understand this desirable features thing. But when QBP puts these
    > desirable features on a frame made out of heavy gauge pipe, doesn't
    > that defeat the purpose?


    No, it doesn't. No matter how strong the material might be, the
    stiffness of a frame (and thus its resistance to twisting and flexing)
    is directly related to how much material is in it. If you want to make
    a steel bike of a given size stiffer, you can use one of two
    approaches: make the tubes thicker-walled, or make the tubes larger in
    diameter. Larger diameter means the tubes will be much easier to dent
    or buckle, and much more expensive. But the only downside to making
    the tubes thicker is that they get heavier, roughly in proportion to
    how much stiffer they get.

    The market that includes folks who want single speed MTBs-- and fixies
    that can take fat tires, and 'cross bikes that can take _really_ fat
    tires, etc.-- is not one that generally would trade durability for an
    insignificant decrease in frame weight. Nor is it, I'd guess, a market
    of folks who think a flexible frame is a sign of quality construction.


    For an official Surly view on frame weight, see this rant:
    http://www.surlybikes.com/spew1.html

    > QBP is selling the options and accessories on
    > the Surly frames, not a quality frame. And the people who buy them are
    > paying for options and accessories, not a quality frame.


    I think you underestimate the degree to which features (though not
    necessarily _useful features) drive the price of most frames. And I
    think you grossly overestimate the degree to which frame weight is an
    indication of material quality.

    Chalo Colina
     
  12. gooserider

    gooserider Guest

    "gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Luke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:200120061757598187%[email protected]
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Nate Knutson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Long Hauls are really cool frames. If you want a classic do-it-all
    >>> bike, that's where I would go. Cross-check if you want the racier
    >>> geometry and Karate Monkey if you want to go mountain biking with it or
    >>> do something that needs horizontal dropouts or discs.

    >>
    >> All versatile frames. Peripheral to the topic, I don't understand why
    >> Surly spec'ed the Long Haul with vertical dropouts. Double eyeleted
    >> horizontal dropouts, a la the Crosscheck, would've added the option of
    >> SS/FG conversion to the LHT's list of attributes without conferring any
    >> liabilities or extra cost.
    >>
    >> Luke

    >
    > Especially since the bike is designed to be fendered. I think changing a
    > rear tire on a fendered, fully loaded LHT would be much easier with
    > Cross-Check dropouts. Any bike designed for fenders should have
    > front-entry horizontal dropouts, if it has horizontal dropouts. Seems like
    > a no-brainer. I don't understand the obsession with rear-entry dropout
    > "track ends".

    Err, please disregard. The LHT has vertical dropouts. It's the Karate Monkey
    that has "track ends" and eyelets. My mistake.

    >
     
  13. Nate Knutson

    Nate Knutson Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > But why make it out of poor materials? I looked at the Surly website.
    > The 58 cm c-t Pacer road frame is TIG welded and lists a weight of 4.75
    > pounds. My Waterford 1200 lugged steel frame, 58 cm c-t, is 4 pounds.
    > Why did Surly use extra, extra heavy gauge pipe for the frame? TIG
    > welded frames should be much lighter than lugged frames due to the
    > weight of the lugs. I figure there is 1 pound of extra steel in the
    > Surly pacer tubing. Why? Is this one of those desirable features you
    > mention?


    Is that a reasonable comparison given that the Waterford is made out of
    much higher end tubes and has a much higher end price? Again, it's true
    that Surly's are expensive for what they are in a lot of ways, but they
    pretty much weigh what butted cromo frames with an eye towards
    versatility, hard use, and lifespan weigh.
     
  14. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >>Of the Surly bikes you mention, I would
    >>only consider the Long Haul Trucker as good if I were building a true
    >>loaded touring bike. Otherwise all Surly bikes are fairly pedestrian
    >>gas pipe tubing. I'd prefer to start with quite a bit higher level of
    >>frame at the price point you are talking about. If cheap is your main
    >>driver, then nashbar sells cheap aluminum frames for 1/3 the Surly
    >>price.


    Chalo wrote:
    > Surly bikes are about uncommon but desirable features, not fancy
    > materials. Things like ample fat tire clearance and horizontal
    > dropouts are generally not available on cheaper no-name frames, even if
    > they are equally well-made.
    > I was all set to buy a Nashbar steel MTB frame when I heard they made a
    > 23" model. Then I looked over the specs, and found that the 23" frame
    > has a 23" top tube! That's the kind of oblivious design feature that
    > lets me know there will be other issues with it as well.


    I'm sorry, could you explain? I'm not an expert on offroad
    geometry. I just looked at Bianchi's Oetzi offroad geometry
    where the seat tube is 21" and the very sloped top tube is
    effectively 24 inches ( imaginary horizontal top tube).

    Are you saying that 23x23 is too short a top tube?

    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971
     
  15. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    A Muzi wrote:
    >
    > Chalo wrote
    > >
    > > I was all set to buy a Nashbar steel MTB frame when I heard they made a
    > > 23" model. Then I looked over the specs, and found that the 23" frame
    > > has a 23" top tube! That's the kind of oblivious design feature that
    > > lets me know there will be other issues with it as well.

    >
    > I'm sorry, could you explain? I'm not an expert on offroad
    > geometry. I just looked at Bianchi's Oetzi offroad geometry
    > where the seat tube is 21" and the very sloped top tube is
    > effectively 24 inches ( imaginary horizontal top tube).
    >
    > Are you saying that 23x23 is too short a top tube?


    That's right. 23x23 would be good for a road bike, but it way too
    short in the top tube for any MTB ordinarily proportioned rider who
    needs a 23" frame. Consider that their 15" frame-- 8 inches shorter in
    the seat tube-- has a top tube just 1.75 inches shorter.

    Chalo Colina
     
Loading...
Loading...