Changed Gearing, Easier Climbing

[Roy Zipris]

A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not too
badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and I slow
down to the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires with
105 triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52), and on
the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I consider
to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and it's not
getting any easier. Thanks. Roy Zipris

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not
> too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and I
> slow down to the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires
> with 105 triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52),
> and on the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I
> consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and
> it's not getting any easier. Thanks. Roy Zipris

My Fuji Touring has the same front as yours (Tiagra instead of 105, but the same tooth range), but
has an 11-32 rear cluster. You might give something like that a try, but you will probably need to
replace your rear derailleur; I don't think a 105 will handle that kind of range. My Fuji uses a
Deore (mtb) rear der and it works great.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Rosco]

"Roy Zipris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not
> too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and I
> slow down to the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires
> with 105 triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52),
> and on the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I
> consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and
> it's not getting any easier. Thanks. Roy Zipris

Specialites TA makes a 24 tooth inner ring that should fit on a road triple. Of course you have to
be aware of the spec's on your front and rear deraileurs to make sure it can handle the extra range.
A 30-25 is about 32 gear inches while a 24-25 is about 25.5 gear inches. Changing out the cassette
to either a road 12-27 or mt. bike 11-32/34 would also give you even lower gearing, but then the
jumps between gears becomes larger, and you end up with an even less useful 52-11 high gear.

 

[David Storm]

"Roy Zipris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not
> too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and I
> slow down to the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires
> with 105 triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52),
> and on the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I
> consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and
> it's not getting any easier. Thanks. Roy Zipris

On my new Trek I had the LBS switch me over to an 11-32 cassette and XTR rear mountain derailleur.
Works great, but XTR derailleur are pricey....could go with cheaper XT. On my old Cannondale I've
got an Ultegra triple with an 11-32 cassette. The triple derailleur can handle that setup, but just
barely....grumbles at bit when using 32 cog.

 

[John Rees]

"David Storm" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
|=20
| "Roy Zipris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not
| > too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and
| > I slow down =
to
| > the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires with 105
| > triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52), and on
| > the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I
| > consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and
| > it's not getting any =
easier.
| > Thanks. Roy Zipris
|=20
| On my new Trek I had the LBS switch me over to an 11-32 cassette and XTR rear mountain derailleur.
| Works great, but XTR derailleur are pricey....could go with cheaper XT. On my old Cannondale I've
| got an Ultegra triple with an 11-32 cassette. The triple derailleur can =
handle
| that setup, but just barely....grumbles at bit when using 32 cog.

I think the XT rear plus an 11/32 or 12/32 are a good, and easy to do = combo. I did this on my
wife's bike so I could swap back and forth between a = 12-27 for riding around here, or the 12-32
when she's in very hilly = conditions.

However, if you are finding yourself rarely in the 52, why not move all = three front rings down a
notch, and keep close spaced gearing? Swap the = 105 crankset for a mountain crankset, like an LX or
a Deore. You would = end up with a 44 as your big ring, and something like a stump pulling 24 = for
your granny.

To do this, you would need to change the crankset and the front = derailleur. The part you have to
be careful on with the front = derailleur is you need a BOTTOM PULL mountain (or hybrid) model,
since = most mountain bikes use a top pull. =20

Also, the newer Shimano mountain cranks use the ES71 splined bottom = bracket, which has deeper
splines than the original Octalink. So, you = would have to either get a bottom bracket or go with
mountain crankset = that mates with the original octalink. Most bike shops have 'take offs' = from
mountain bikes that were upgraded when purchased. You should be = able to find a crankset that
matches your existing bottom bracket at a = reasonable price. John Rees

 

[Werehatrack]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:08:00 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> may have said:

>My Fuji Touring has the same front as yours (Tiagra instead of 105, but the same tooth range), but
>has an 11-32 rear cluster. You might give something like that a try, but you will probably need to
>replace your rear derailleur; I don't think a 105 will handle that kind of range. My Fuji uses a
>Deore (mtb) rear der and it works great.

Concur on the 105; I had one in a box of used parts that was given to me, and it did not have the
capacity for a low gear that large. Most mtb and many comfort and touring rear ders will handle it
nicely, though.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

 

[Rich Clark]

"Roy Zipris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not
> too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and I
> slow down to the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires
> with 105 triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52),
> and on the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I
> consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and
> it's not getting any easier. Thanks. Roy Zipris

On my Airborne, which I use for everything from centuries to commuting, I have a road front mech
like yours and a MTB rear (XTR derailleur, XT cogs, 12-34). I find this setup sufficient for
everything -- even hilly roads like Route 320 -- and I totally suck as a climber.

This bike has heavy touring wheels and tires, a steel fork, a rack and a rack trunk that tends to be
full of stuff.

By contrast, I also have a Fuji Roubaix Pro with a 105 triple, and a 12-27 cassette. Much lighter
bike with lighter wheels (fairly comparable to your Lemond, I think), and I carry minimal gear when
I ride it. I find I can do pretty much the same climbs on this bike that it takes the lower gearing
on the heavier bike to do. Some of that may be mental, however (I feel more "racerly" on the Fuji).
Also, I'm more of a spinner than a masher.

You could change cassettes to a 12-27 without changing anything else, so it's a relatively risk-free
experiment.

Swapping RD's and going to an even wider-range cassette is also relatively inexpensive; LX
derailleurs are often on sale for $30 or so. A 12-32 9-speed cassette, an LX derailleur, and a
new chain would run $80-100. The downside: less-crisp shifting, more weight, and coarser range
of ratios.

RichC

 

[Trent Gregory H]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Roy Zipris wrote:

> A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not
> too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and I
> slow down to the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires
> with 105 triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52),
> and on the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I
> consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and
> it's not getting any easier. Thanks. Roy Zipris
>

If you're really just looking for one more extra gear, you might consider swapping your 30-tooth
small ring for a 26, which is (I think) the smallest you can use in conjunction with a 52/42 big/mid
combination. That's pretty cheap, around $20 + labor or so. If you don't find yourself using your
big ring that much, you might while you're at it replace the other two chainrings with 48 and 38
rings, which would let you go down to a 24 with ease. That's the combination we have on all of our
bikes around here.

Trent

 

[Paul Southworth]

In article <[email protected]>, Roy Zipris <[email protected]> wrote:
> More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires with 105 triple components; the
> front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52), and on the rear, nine cogs
> (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I consider to give me that
> extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and it's not getting any
> easier. Thanks. Roy Zipris

I suggest a 12-27 cassette, or a 28t small chain ring, or both.

 

[Greg Evans]

Roy Zipris wrote:

> More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires with 105 triple components; the
> front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52), and on the rear, nine cogs
> (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I consider to give me that
> extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs?

I had the same exact setup and I, too, found that I rarely used the 52 and would like lower gearing
for the hills. I switched the rings to 26-38-48 (TA rings, really nice-looking as an added bonus).
This gives me very usable, tightly spaced gears and works perfectly with my 105 shifters and
derailers.

HTH Greg Evans

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. --Frank Zappa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My photos: http://members.aol.com/photog0314/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:52:24 +0000, Roy Zipris wrote:

> What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I consider to give me that extra gear to spin a
> bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and it's not getting any easier.

I know what you mean. I will chime in with many others who suggest swapping the chainrings/crankset
rather than the cassette. Changing the cassette to a very wide range will require a mountain-bike
rear derailleur. It will also give you much bigger jumps between gears, which is not good IMO.
Further, there will be so much overlap, so many essentially identical gear ratios between the three
chainrings, that you will have only 15-18 really different gears, not the 27 you paid for.

I would first swap the crankset/chainrings only. Get a new front derailleur if the current one does
not work well enough with the new cranks.

I use a double (also in SE Pennsylvania), with 46/30 rings. It's an old-style mountain-bike
"compact" crank, 94/58mm bolt circles. I can put a 20 or 22-tooth granny on as well for touring, but
most of the time I use a 12-23 cassette with the double.

If you do something like this, you have lots of choices. Standard 110mm bolt circle gives lots of
chainring options, with as large a big ring as you have now, if you want, down to about a 24 minimum
on the granny. 94mm chainrings are a bit more limited in the big end, with a 48 being the largest
you can find cheaply. But the middle goes down to 30, and the granny to 20. Ain't no hill you can't
get up with those, believe me. The new 4-arm Shimano-esque cranks only have limited chainring sizes
available, which is bad, and the splined bottom bracket is not the best design.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can _`\(,_ | only be cured by
something racy and Italian. Bianchis and (_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis
and Ferraris. -- Glenn Davies

 

[Ken]

"David Storm" <[email protected]> wrote in news:KBalb.187899
[email protected]:
> On my new Trek I had the LBS switch me over to an 11-32 cassette and XTR rear mountain derailleur.
> Works great, but XTR derailleur are pricey....could go with cheaper XT. On my old Cannondale I've
> got an Ultegra triple with an 11-32 cassette. The triple derailleur can handle that setup, but
> just barely....grumbles at bit when using 32 cog.

Any Shimano MTB derailleur will work for you. Choose the price/quality level you want. The road
derailleurs work for some people with 32 cogs, but not for others.

 

[Kenny Lee]

> Roy Zipris wrote:
>
>> More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires with 105 triple components; the
>> front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52), and on the rear, nine cogs
>> (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I consider to give me that
>> extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs?

Last year I did a mountainous event on my tour bike which was setup with a Tiagra triple (26t
granny) and a SRAM 11-34 cassette. I finised the climb within the allotted time limit. This year
for the same event I rode my race bike which has 53/39 front rings with a 13/29 cassette. Needless
to say my legs went dead within 3ks of the summit. I have bitten the bullet and will go to a
triple crankset, 50/40/26. The triple crank comes standard with a 30t granny, but since this is
Campy gear the biggest cog I can get on the rear is a 29. Believe me the 26 feels a whole lot
better than the 30.

Kenny Lee

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, "rosco"
<reverse-the-following"ocsor_g"@hotmail.com> says...
>
> "Roy Zipris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not
> > too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and
> > I slow down to the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos
> > Aires with 105 triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use
> > the 52), and on the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear
> > gears could I consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm
> > getting older and it's not getting any easier. Thanks. Roy Zipris
>
>
> Specialites TA makes a 24 tooth inner ring that should fit on a road triple. Of course you have
> to be aware of the spec's on your front and rear deraileurs to make sure it can handle the
> extra range. A 30-25 is about 32 gear inches while a 24-25 is about 25.5 gear inches. Changing
> out the cassette to either a road 12-27 or mt. bike 11-32/34 would also give you even lower
> gearing, but then the jumps between gears becomes larger, and you end up with an even less
> useful 52-11 high gear.

I use my 52/11 quite a bit; a LOT more than I do the 30/32 granny. There are several hills on my
regular rides where I spin out in the
52/11 going down, and climb them in the 42/21 or 42/24. If I'm tired, I might drop to the 30/24 or
30/28, but I only use the 30/32 if I'm really lazy.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"trent gregory hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Roy Zipris wrote:

> > A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania) not
> > too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too long and
> > I slow down to the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos
> > Aires with 105 triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use
> > the 52), and on the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear
> > gears could I consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm
> > getting older and it's not getting any easier.

> If you're really just looking for one more extra gear, you might consider swapping your 30-tooth
> small ring for a 26, which is (I think) the smallest you can use in conjunction with a 52/42
> big/mid combination. That's pretty cheap, around $20 + labor or so. If you don't find yourself
> using your big ring that much, you might while you're at it replace the other two chainrings with
> 48 and 38 rings, which would let you go down to a 24 with ease. That's the combination we have on
> all of our bikes around here.

This is probably the best option, and the cheapest. Plus, ramps and pins don't matter in the inner
position, so you can use any old cheap chainring. If you look around, you might find one for under
ten bucks.

This will probably solve your low end problems. From there, you can move on to tweaking the rest, as
mentioned above.

As suggested, a wider range may exceed your derailers' capacity.

A couple of others have mentioned using MTB derailers. That's fine for the rear, but AFAIK, MTB
front derailers won't work with STI.

Matt O.

 

[Zog The Undenia]

rosco wrote:

> Specialites TA makes a 24 tooth inner ring that should fit on a road triple. Of course you have
> to be aware of the spec's on your front and rear deraileurs to make sure it can handle the
> extra range.

Not many FDs will handle more than a 26T difference. My XT one doesn't, so I'm limited to 52-42-26
on the touring bike. Of course the OP could drop to a 50T big ring, but that's a lot more money.

 

[Bfd]

"John Rees" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "David Storm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> |
> | "Roy Zipris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
> | > A recreational club rider, I climb the hilly, rolling terrain around here (SE Pennsylvania)
> | > not too badly, but sometimes wish I had one more gear to shift into when the hills get too
> | > long and I slow down
> to
> | > the mid-single digits. More of a masher than a spinner, I ride a Lemond Buenos Aires with 105
> | > triple components; the front chainrings are, I think, 30-42-52 (but I rarely use the 52), and
> | > on the rear, nine cogs (12-25, I think). What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I
> | > consider to give me that extra gear to spin a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older
> | > and it's not getting any
> easier.
> | > Thanks. Roy Zipris
> |
> | On my new Trek I had the LBS switch me over to an 11-32 cassette and XTR rear mountain
> | derailleur. Works great, but XTR derailleur are pricey....could go with cheaper XT. On my old
> | Cannondale I've got an Ultegra triple with an 11-32 cassette. The triple derailleur can
> handle
> | that setup, but just barely....grumbles at bit when using 32 cog.
>
> I think the XT rear plus an 11/32 or 12/32 are a good, and easy to do combo. I did this on my
> wife's bike so I could swap back and forth between a 12-27 for riding around here, or the 12-32
> when she's in very hilly conditions.
>
> However, if you are finding yourself rarely in the 52, why not move all three front rings down a
> notch, and keep close spaced gearing? Swap the 105 crankset for a mountain crankset, like an LX or
> a Deore. You would end up with a 44 as your big ring, and something like a stump pulling 24 for
> your granny.
>
> To do this, you would need to change the crankset and the front derailleur. The part you have to
> be careful on with the front derailleur is you need a BOTTOM PULL mountain (or hybrid) model,
> since most mountain bikes use a top pull.
>
> Also, the newer Shimano mountain cranks use the ES71 splined bottom bracket, which has deeper
> splines than the original Octalink. So, you would have to either get a bottom bracket or go with
> mountain crankset that mates with the original octalink. Most bike shops have 'take offs' from
> mountain bikes that were upgraded when purchased. You should be able to find a crankset that
> matches your existing bottom bracket at a reasonable price.

Alternatively, instead of swapping out your crank/bb to a "mt" one, a simplier solution may be to do
what others have said and downsize your current chainrings. The 105 triple crank has a 130/74mm bcd.
That means you could do something like the following: big chainring 52 -> 48 or 46 middle chainring
42 -> 38 (smallest middle ring size) small/inner chainring 30 - >as low as 24 Something like a
48/38/24 with your 12x25 in the back should gear you down low enough....

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:27:02 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> from Warren Rogers
Associates wrote:

>
>I use my 52/11 quite a bit; a LOT more than I do the 30/32 granny. There are several hills on my
>regular rides where I spin out in the
>52/11 going down, and climb them in the 42/21 or 42/24. If I'm tired, I might drop to the 30/24 or
> 30/28, but I only use the 30/32 if I'm really lazy.

I climb hills in a 42/16. Then I go down them in a 42/16. On the flats, I use a
42/16. And what's this thing I see where people can stop pedaling while they ride? I don't get that.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com What's the MATTER Sid? ... Is your BEVERAGE
unsatisfactory?

 

[Mike S.]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:52:24 +0000, Roy Zipris wrote:
>
> > What changes to the front and/or rear gears could I consider to give me that extra gear to spin
> > a bit more on grueling climbs? I'm getting older and it's not getting any easier.
>
> I know what you mean. I will chime in with many others who suggest swapping the
> chainrings/crankset rather than the cassette. Changing the cassette to a very wide range will
> require a mountain-bike rear derailleur. It will also give you much bigger jumps between gears,
> which is not good IMO. Further, there will be so much overlap, so many essentially identical gear
> ratios between the three chainrings, that you will have only 15-18 really different gears, not the
> 27 you paid for.
>
> I would first swap the crankset/chainrings only. Get a new front derailleur if the current one
> does not work well enough with the new cranks.
>
> I use a double (also in SE Pennsylvania), with 46/30 rings. It's an old-style mountain-bike
> "compact" crank, 94/58mm bolt circles. I can put a 20 or 22-tooth granny on as well for touring,
> but most of the time I use a 12-23 cassette with the double.
>
> If you do something like this, you have lots of choices. Standard 110mm bolt circle gives lots of
> chainring options, with as large a big ring as you have now, if you want, down to about a 24
> minimum on the granny. 94mm chainrings are a bit more limited in the big end, with a 48 being the
> largest you can find cheaply. But the middle goes down to 30, and the granny to 20. Ain't no hill
> you can't get up with those, believe me. The new 4-arm Shimano-esque cranks only have limited
> chainring sizes available, which is bad, and the splined bottom bracket is not the best design.
>

I was wondering when someone was going to suggest this...

I like the idea of a 110mm double a lot better: lighter and more choices for rings. As an added
bonus you don't have to run a mtn rear derailleur.

As long as you can remember the formula: one tooth in the back is worth three in the front, you can
figure out what changes you'll have on your gearing if you change sizes. ie: 39x23 feels like 42x21
(-ish), etc. --

Mike
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> __o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can _`\(,_ | only be cured by
> something racy and Italian. Bianchis and (_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis
> and Ferraris. -- Glenn Davies

 

[Mike S.]

> >I use my 52/11 quite a bit; a LOT more than I do the 30/32 granny. There are several hills on my
> >regular rides where I spin out in the
> >52/11 going down, and climb them in the 42/21 or 42/24. If I'm tired, I might drop to the 30/24
> > or 30/28, but I only use the 30/32 if I'm really lazy.
>
> I climb hills in a 42/16. Then I go down them in a 42/16. On the flats, I
use a
> 42/16. And what's this thing I see where people can stop pedaling while
they
> ride? I don't get that.
>
>
Knees? We don't need no steeenkin' knees!

Having said that, you only get as strong as your easiest gear...

Mike

> --
> real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com What's the MATTER Sid? ... Is your BEVERAGE
> unsatisfactory?