Replaceable vs. non-replaceable derailer hangers

  • Thread starter Paul Myron Hobson
  • Start date



P

Paul Myron Hobson

Guest
The road bike market seems split as to whether or not a bike should have
a replaceable rear der. hanger. Scouring some of the achieves, I found
claims that replaceable hangers aren't sufficiently stiff and bend with
normal use, which leads to poor indexing. To me, it seems like people
might just be laying their bikes drive-side-down and slowly bending the
hanger. Anyway...

Shop guys:
What are some of the pros of non-replaceable derailer hangers?
....Cons of replaceables?

Thanks,
\\paul
--
Paul Hobson
change the f to ph...
 
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> The road bike market seems split as to whether or not a bike should have
> a replaceable rear der. hanger. Scouring some of the achieves, I found
> claims that replaceable hangers aren't sufficiently stiff and bend with
> normal use, which leads to poor indexing.


That is not my experience.

> To me, it seems like people
> might just be laying their bikes drive-side-down and slowly bending the
> hanger. Anyway...


Huh?

>
> Shop guys:
> What are some of the pros of non-replaceable derailer hangers?
> ...Cons of replaceables?


Replaceable hangers have a weak spot, so they snap when something
happens saving the frame from any or further damage. You just replace
the hanger as I did after a chainsuck incident a couple of weeks ago. No
damage to the Al frame, just a 12 euro new hanger.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
 
On Dec 6, 3:30 pm, Paul Myron Hobson <[email protected]> wrote:
> The road bike market seems split as to whether or not a bike should have
> a replaceable rear der. hanger. Scouring some of the achieves, I found
> claims that replaceable hangers aren't sufficiently stiff and bend with
> normal use, which leads to poor indexing.


That would be pompous ******** on their part, Paul. If the bike's
aluminum, they're a good idea, if steel, they aren't needed. Simple as
that. Geez, you'd think people would just go all the way and start
selling us vertically compliant versions....
 

>
> That would be pompous ******** on their part, Paul. If the bike's
> aluminum, they're a good idea, if steel, they aren't needed. Simple as
> that. Geez, you'd think people would just go all the way and start
> selling us vertically compliant versions....


I saw a new bike at the LBS and when I asked about what's so great about it,
the salesman said it was vertically compliant. What the heck does that mean?
 
On Dec 6, 5:16 pm, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That would be pompous ******** on their part, Paul. If the bike's
> > aluminum, they're a good idea, if steel, they aren't needed. Simple as
> > that. Geez, you'd think people would just go all the way and start
> > selling us vertically compliant versions....

>
> I saw a new bike at the LBS and when I asked about what's so great about it,
> the salesman said it was vertically compliant. What the heck does that mean?



Was this the guy:

http://tinyurl.com/25ush3

or:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25ush3
 
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:16:55 -0600, "Pat" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>>
>> That would be pompous ******** on their part, Paul. If the bike's
>> aluminum, they're a good idea, if steel, they aren't needed. Simple as
>> that. Geez, you'd think people would just go all the way and start
>> selling us vertically compliant versions....

>
>I saw a new bike at the LBS and when I asked about what's so great about it,
>the salesman said it was vertically compliant. What the heck does that mean?


Dear Pat,

By "vertically compliant" the saleman meant that the bicycle's main
frame bends or compresses a little as it hits bumps in the road,
complying vertically with the bumps.

The sarcastic phrase on RBT is "stiff but compliant," the point being
that you can't make a frame that's both stiff and soft.

With a double-diamond frame, the compliance for typical forces is
usually impossible to measure without an impressive micrometer--the
metal tubes of a bicycle's main frame triangles just don't bend up and
down enough to be detected. They're in straight compression and
tension, not bending sideways, so they tend to "comply" about as much
as an anvil from an up-and-down point of view.

The same main frame that's so stiff vertically can bend visibly
_sideways_ as you pedal, but that's horizontal, not vertical. The
chain doesn't have much leverage, but it does pull the drive side of
the rear triangle sideways. Meanwhile, your weight on the pedal bends
the slightly tilted frame from side to side. In other words, jumping
up and down on an upright bicycle frame won't produce any noticeable
bending, but you don't want to lay the same frame flat across two
chairs and jump up and down on it.

Inflated tires, handlebars, seats, and even wheels "comply vertically"
far more than the main frame when you hit bumps. Sit on a bike, and
you can see the tires flatten. Pull or push on the handlebar, and you
can see it flex a little. Look up the calculations, and you'll find
that the round metal rims flatten ever so slightly (about the
thickness of a sheet of paper). But the double triangle doesn't bend
even that much under a vertical load.

One counter argument is that different frame materials can damp some
vibrations (road buzz) just as a wooden baseball bat doesn't sting
your hands as much as a metal bat.

Another counter argument is that there can be much more "vertical
compliance" (bending) when the fork is added to the main frame.

But lowering tire pressure 5 psi would probably have a greater effect
than anything claimed for magical forks and wonder frames.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Dec 6, 5:21 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 5:16 pm, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > That would be pompous ******** on their part, Paul. If the bike's
> > > aluminum, they're a good idea, if steel, they aren't needed. Simple as
> > > that. Geez, you'd think people would just go all the way and start
> > > selling us vertically compliant versions....

>
> > I saw a new bike at the LBS and when I asked about what's so great about it,
> > the salesman said it was vertically compliant. What the heck does that mean?

>
> Was this the guy:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/25ush3
>
> or:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/25ush3



You get a full on Spanky and his Gang salute for that one!

/me waves hand under chin
 
landotter wrote:
> On Dec 6, 3:30 pm, Paul Myron Hobson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The road bike market seems split as to whether or not a bike should have
>> a replaceable rear der. hanger. Scouring some of the achieves, I found
>> claims that replaceable hangers aren't sufficiently stiff and bend with
>> normal use, which leads to poor indexing.

>
> That would be pompous ******** on their part, Paul. If the bike's
> aluminum, they're a good idea, if steel, they aren't needed. Simple as
> that. Geez, you'd think people would just go all the way and start
> selling us vertically compliant versions....


but laterally stiff!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
 
> Shop guys:
> What are some of the pros of non-replaceable derailer hangers?
> ...Cons of replaceables?


On mid-priced bikes, which are subject to more abuse than higher-end models,
Trek uses replaceable derailleur hangers. On high-end road bikes, they still
use non-replaceable versions. Why? Because they're more rigid and shift
better. No other reason. My own experience bears this out.

I should also point out that it's slightly misleading to say that the
derailleur hangers on high-end Trek road bikes are non-replaceable. They can
easily be replaced, but only at the factory (which does, in fact, lead to a
fair amount of expense, time & effort, since you have to tear the frame
down, ship it to Trek to be repaired, and then wait for it to come back and
rebuild it).

I can't speak of why other manufacturers do what they do; my familiarity is
with Trek. And I know their engineers have been working on this issue for
years, and have yet to come up with an adequate replacement for the current
non-replaceable hanger. I've seen their testing jigs; they take this mission
very seriously. For what it's worth, I'd rather they were replaceable, even
at a slight decrease in shifting precision. After a while, you just get
tired of having to tell the story.

To answer a question not-yet-asked, we probably send 5-10 frames/year back
to Trek for derailleur dropout replacement. Trek charges $75, UPS shipping
is what really hurts, at $60 outbound, $20 return (the reason for the
much-more-reasonable return charge is that Trek gets much better rates than
individual shops... basically, UPS is in revenue-enhancement mode, and small
shops have zero negotiating power with them, whereas Trek does much better,
getting offers from multiple shippers (FedEx, UPS, DHL...).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
Thanks, Carl. The salesman just looked at me exasperated and said, "You
know! compliant!" and then he said, "All bicycle manufacturers will be going
to this shape in the future!"

BTW: it was the model called "Tarmac."

Pat in TX
 
On Dec 7, 11:23 am, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks, Carl. The salesman just looked at me exasperated and said, "You
> know! compliant!" and then he said, "All bicycle manufacturers will be going
> to this shape in the future!"
>
> BTW: it was the model called "Tarmac."
>
> Pat in TX


Whether you believe frames can be both or not (I happen to believe
that they can, see Ibis Bow Ti), the way he exposed his reliance on
catalog-speak is the rough equivalent of a guy at Foot Locker telling
you that more expensive hightops will make you more comfortable and
jump higher.

At least Specialized has the marketing savvy to make the Roubaix
model, which must be like a gravy train on biscuit wheels yet STIFF.

This reminds me of a recent encounter at a decent, mid- to high-end
shop here in NYC. I've got some well-used Ultegra 6500 9speed
brifters. Lately, in cold weather, the right brifter doesn't always
ratchet up. That is, when I push the brake lever to downshift, the
ratchet won't catch. It's hardly uncommon, and I should flush the
lever and see if I can extend it's life, but one day I happened to be
walking around this shop and noticed that Tiagra was now 9 speed.

A shop guy noticed I was eyeing a bike, and asked me if he could help.
With SRAM's different pull ration and all, I thought it possible that
maybe Shimano had changed as well and asked him if the Tiagra works
with older 9 speed shifting systems, plus the price on just the right
brifter. Clearly disappointed that I didn't want to just buy a whole
new bike, he asked me which system and I said Ultegra 6500 9 speed. He
begrudgingly asked the mechanic and, reporting back to me, said it
would work but I don't want Tiagra. I asked him why, wondering if they
had notoriously short lives, internals made of cardboard, wildly long
throws or what? He replied, "You're going from a high level to a low
level." I asked him to clarify the difference, to which he gave me an
exasperated shrug and spat out "Listen, you have a race lever now,
Tiagra is a recreational lever." I asked him what the price diff was
between a new Tiagra and an unused 6500 and it was $100. I don't know
if I wanted to beat him with a sock full of bb's for ignorance, or
trying to bully me into overpaying for something I didn't need to thin
their old stock.

What a maroon.

/s
 
> This reminds me of a recent encounter at a decent, mid- to high-end
> shop here in NYC. I've got some well-used Ultegra 6500 9speed
> brifters. Lately, in cold weather, the right brifter doesn't always
> ratchet up. That is, when I push the brake lever to downshift, the
> ratchet won't catch. It's hardly uncommon, and I should flush the
> lever and see if I can extend it's life...


Keep in mind that that's also the first sign of a cable that might be
fraying inside the lever. You want to check for this possibility before
anything else, because fishing a busted cable out of an STI lever can be a
not-very-fun task. (Of course, I don't think it makes much difference
whether the weather is warm or cold; I'm suggesting the weather could simply
be a coincidence).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Scott Gordo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fc909cc8-fa6b-405c-a68d-cc1ce4284c55@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 7, 11:23 am, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thanks, Carl. The salesman just looked at me exasperated and said, "You
>> know! compliant!" and then he said, "All bicycle manufacturers will be
>> going
>> to this shape in the future!"
>>
>> BTW: it was the model called "Tarmac."
>>
>> Pat in TX

>
> Whether you believe frames can be both or not (I happen to believe
> that they can, see Ibis Bow Ti), the way he exposed his reliance on
> catalog-speak is the rough equivalent of a guy at Foot Locker telling
> you that more expensive hightops will make you more comfortable and
> jump higher.
>
> At least Specialized has the marketing savvy to make the Roubaix
> model, which must be like a gravy train on biscuit wheels yet STIFF.
>
> This reminds me of a recent encounter at a decent, mid- to high-end
> shop here in NYC. I've got some well-used Ultegra 6500 9speed
> brifters. Lately, in cold weather, the right brifter doesn't always
> ratchet up. That is, when I push the brake lever to downshift, the
> ratchet won't catch. It's hardly uncommon, and I should flush the
> lever and see if I can extend it's life, but one day I happened to be
> walking around this shop and noticed that Tiagra was now 9 speed.
>
> A shop guy noticed I was eyeing a bike, and asked me if he could help.
> With SRAM's different pull ration and all, I thought it possible that
> maybe Shimano had changed as well and asked him if the Tiagra works
> with older 9 speed shifting systems, plus the price on just the right
> brifter. Clearly disappointed that I didn't want to just buy a whole
> new bike, he asked me which system and I said Ultegra 6500 9 speed. He
> begrudgingly asked the mechanic and, reporting back to me, said it
> would work but I don't want Tiagra. I asked him why, wondering if they
> had notoriously short lives, internals made of cardboard, wildly long
> throws or what? He replied, "You're going from a high level to a low
> level." I asked him to clarify the difference, to which he gave me an
> exasperated shrug and spat out "Listen, you have a race lever now,
> Tiagra is a recreational lever." I asked him what the price diff was
> between a new Tiagra and an unused 6500 and it was $100. I don't know
> if I wanted to beat him with a sock full of bb's for ignorance, or
> trying to bully me into overpaying for something I didn't need to thin
> their old stock.
>
> What a maroon.
>
> /s
 
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:30:11 -0500, Paul Myron Hobson
<[email protected]> may have said:

>The road bike market seems split as to whether or not a bike should have
>a replaceable rear der. hanger. Scouring some of the achieves, I found
>claims that replaceable hangers aren't sufficiently stiff and bend with
>normal use, which leads to poor indexing. To me, it seems like people
>might just be laying their bikes drive-side-down and slowly bending the
>hanger. Anyway...
>
>Shop guys:
>What are some of the pros of non-replaceable derailer hangers?


None that I'm aware of, unless you include steel frames. A steel
hanger (even one that's not trivially easy to replace) is hard to beat
for repairability, even by comparison to a bolt-on replacement. Steel
can almost always be bent back to a useful location, and a replacement
tab can be brazed on with ease if the tab is just too far gone.

>...Cons of replaceables?


Big problem: There's no standard design, and not all of them are easy
to get. Bend or break the tab, and you might be off the bike for
several days while a replacement is located and shipped in. (In some
instances, a universal tab can be temorarily installed, but there are
issues that can keep that from being a viable option.) Many
replaceable dropout tabs are easier to break than a non-replaceable,
which can put you entirely out of action in a fall or other mishap
that might not have bent a regular tab...and then you're back to the
"out of action until the replacement arrives" possibility already
mentioned.

Everything has trade-offs, but when it comes to aluminum frames, I'd
rather have the replaceable dropout (and have a spare in my toolbox)
than have to worry about the dropout getting mangled.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:23:58 -0600, "Pat" <[email protected]> may
have said:

>Thanks, Carl. The salesman just looked at me exasperated and said, "You
>know! compliant!" and then he said, "All bicycle manufacturers will be going
>to this shape in the future!"


Reminds me of the line a salesdroid used on my SO when she was
shopping for a minivan a number of years ago. She was looking at (but
fortunately did not buy) the Chevy Lumina, and she questioned the
reasoning behind putting the tail lights high next to the windows.
The salesthing promptly lied; he claimed it was a new requirement, and
all of the vans would have to be that way soon. Having a functional
sense of smell, she noticed the sudden intensification of a certain
bovine-derived bucolic aroma in the vicinity, and beat a hasty retreat
to a different dealership.

>BTW: it was the model called "Tarmac."


Ah. From Specialized, whose sales force have become world-class
contenders for the coveted Legless Reptile Lubricant Prize. Between
their Zertz (whose benefits they sing, but whose presence or absence
no one seems to be able to reliably detect) and their other nebulous
claims, they're bidding fair to sandblast the gloss off of what is
otherwise a damned fine line of equipment. They really need to ditch
the stupid hype and sell what they've actually got.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:56:47 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> may have said:

>... UPS shipping
>is what really hurts, at $60 outbound, $20 return (the reason for the
>much-more-reasonable return charge is that Trek gets much better rates than
>individual shops... basically, UPS is in revenue-enhancement mode, and small
>shops have zero negotiating power with them, whereas Trek does much better,
>getting offers from multiple shippers (FedEx, UPS, DHL...).


One caveat: IME, it is wiser to pay UPS $60 than to ship via FedEx
ground for free when the item being shipped has any significant value.
A business associate has over $2300 in unpaid claims pending with
FedEx over lost and damaged ground shipments for the past year, and
has recently swapped back to UPS for most of his shipping as a result.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:30:11 -0500, Paul Myron Hobson
> <[email protected]> may have said:
>
>>The road bike market seems split as to whether or not a bike should have
>>a replaceable rear der. hanger. Scouring some of the achieves, I found
>>claims that replaceable hangers aren't sufficiently stiff and bend with
>>normal use, which leads to poor indexing. To me, it seems like people
>>might just be laying their bikes drive-side-down and slowly bending the
>>hanger. Anyway...
>>
>>Shop guys:
>>What are some of the pros of non-replaceable derailer hangers?

>
> None that I'm aware of, unless you include steel frames. A steel
> hanger (even one that's not trivially easy to replace) is hard to beat
> for repairability, even by comparison to a bolt-on replacement. Steel
> can almost always be bent back to a useful location, and a replacement
> tab can be brazed on with ease if the tab is just too far gone.
>
>>...Cons of replaceables?

>
> Big problem: There's no standard design, and not all of them are easy
> to get. Bend or break the tab, and you might be off the bike for
> several days while a replacement is located and shipped in. (In some
> instances, a universal tab can be temorarily installed, but there are
> issues that can keep that from being a viable option.) Many
> replaceable dropout tabs are easier to break than a non-replaceable,
> which can put you entirely out of action in a fall or other mishap
> that might not have bent a regular tab...and then you're back to the
> "out of action until the replacement arrives" possibility already
> mentioned.
>
> Everything has trade-offs, but when it comes to aluminum frames, I'd
> rather have the replaceable dropout (and have a spare in my toolbox)


Or in the bag under the saddle, as the replacement is pretty light.
Kerry
 
>>... UPS shipping
>>is what really hurts, at $60 outbound, $20 return (the reason for the
>>much-more-reasonable return charge is that Trek gets much better rates
>>than
>>individual shops... basically, UPS is in revenue-enhancement mode, and
>>small
>>shops have zero negotiating power with them, whereas Trek does much
>>better,
>>getting offers from multiple shippers (FedEx, UPS, DHL...).

>
> One caveat: IME, it is wiser to pay UPS $60 than to ship via FedEx
> ground for free when the item being shipped has any significant value.
> A business associate has over $2300 in unpaid claims pending with
> FedEx over lost and damaged ground shipments for the past year, and
> has recently swapped back to UPS for most of his shipping as a result.


The NBDA (National Bicycle Dealer Association) e-list is littered with
complaints about UPS not handling claims properly, typically choosing to
drag them out so long that it's not worthwhile. And how did they do this
without hurting the image of their own company? By creating a separate
entity that just handles their shipping insurance. So if you complain to
UPS, they say sorry, that's not us, it's a separate company handling the
insurance. Yeah, right, separate company owned by UPS.

As I said, it's all about revenue enhancement these days. The small guy gets
stuck with the bills.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:56:47 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> may have said:
>
>>... UPS shipping
>>is what really hurts, at $60 outbound, $20 return (the reason for the
>>much-more-reasonable return charge is that Trek gets much better rates
>>than
>>individual shops... basically, UPS is in revenue-enhancement mode, and
>>small
>>shops have zero negotiating power with them, whereas Trek does much
>>better,
>>getting offers from multiple shippers (FedEx, UPS, DHL...).

>
> One caveat: IME, it is wiser to pay UPS $60 than to ship via FedEx
> ground for free when the item being shipped has any significant value.
> A business associate has over $2300 in unpaid claims pending with
> FedEx over lost and damaged ground shipments for the past year, and
> has recently swapped back to UPS for most of his shipping as a result.
>
> --
> My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
> Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
> Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
Werehatrack wrote:

> Ah. From Specialized, whose sales force have become world-class
> contenders for the coveted Legless Reptile Lubricant Prize. Between
> their Zertz (whose benefits they sing, but whose presence or absence
> no one seems to be able to reliably detect)


What? Ah, googling. Well, it probably isn't the game you are talking
about. Here it is. Oh, those silly plastic inserts in holes purposely
placed in the stays, seatpost (there's a dumb idea; cut a hole in the
seatpost, then fill it with plastic so you don't even save any weight).
They claim great reductions in vibration, then point you to a graph.
But the graph is not of how much the insert reduces vibration, but just
compare the vibration (with or without insert? Who cares?) levels
between the rear axle and the saddle, over a range of frequencies (0 to
600 Hz). They claim 80% reduction -- maybe meaning over the entire
range --- difficult to say since it's a logarithmic scale. But they
don't compare to an old-technology zertless frame, so it's not a
reduction based on the plastic insert.

The best part is their "graphic demonstration", showing a bike
supposedly bouncing along, wheels a blur of vibration, but the saddle
absolutely still. Very realistic.

--

David L. Johnson

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you
that mine are all greater.
-- A. Einstein
 

>
> One caveat: IME, it is wiser to pay UPS $60 than to ship via FedEx
> ground for free when the item being shipped has any significant value.
> A business associate has over $2300 in unpaid claims pending with
> FedEx over lost and damaged ground shipments for the past year, and
> has recently swapped back to UPS for most of his shipping as a result.


Oh. I am getting ready to box up a 27" TV set and ship it to another state.
I was going to use FedEx, but now you've made me wonder....
 
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:47:49 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
<[email protected]> may have said:

>Werehatrack wrote:
>
>> Ah. From Specialized, whose sales force have become world-class
>> contenders for the coveted Legless Reptile Lubricant Prize. Between
>> their Zertz (whose benefits they sing, but whose presence or absence
>> no one seems to be able to reliably detect)

>
>What? Ah, googling. Well, it probably isn't the game you are talking
>about. Here it is. Oh, those silly plastic inserts in holes purposely
>placed in the stays, seatpost (there's a dumb idea; cut a hole in the
>seatpost, then fill it with plastic so you don't even save any weight).
> They claim great reductions in vibration, then point you to a graph.
>But the graph is not of how much the insert reduces vibration, but just
>compare the vibration (with or without insert? Who cares?) levels
>between the rear axle and the saddle, over a range of frequencies (0 to
>600 Hz). They claim 80% reduction -- maybe meaning over the entire
>range --- difficult to say since it's a logarithmic scale. But they
>don't compare to an old-technology zertless frame, so it's not a
>reduction based on the plastic insert.
>
>The best part is their "graphic demonstration", showing a bike
>supposedly bouncing along, wheels a blur of vibration, but the saddle
>absolutely still. Very realistic.


Got it in one. Yes, that's one of their many attempts to market snake
oil instead of bikes. If they didn't actually make a decent bicycle,
I think their ludicrously overblown hype of obviously useless frills
would have buried them long ago. I think the reason they're getting
away with the patent-medicene-show junk is that their typical
long-term customer pays no attention to the whizbang in their
marketing.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 

Similar threads

P
Replies
4
Views
389
T