Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

52x36 vs 50x34

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

52x36 vs 50x34

Old 08-30-19, 12:18 PM
  #76  
eduskator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 242

Bikes: TCR Advanced Pro 0

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 22 Posts
US of A. Ronald's playground. Can't say a BigMac ain't good though!
eduskator is offline  
Old 08-30-19, 01:07 PM
  #77  
CarloM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 336

Bikes: 2019 TCR Advanced SL1 Disc; 2018 Cervelo S3 SRAM eTap HRD

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked 74 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
Yeah, I've no idea what the ideal would be, they just report on what is. I routinely see folks on bikes that are $10K+ and could stand to lose 30 or more pounds. My bikes are nowhere near that price point, but I'd be doing amazing if I dropped 20. Though in defense of my relative fatness, two doctors have basically said my current weight is a "non issue," despite a BMI of 26.7. I think they're concerned much more with what's going on in the blood.
Bloodwork is undoubtedly important. But waist-hip ratio has replaced BMI as a better indicator of health and as a predictor of the likelihood of cardiac event:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29482851

For example, my BMI is squarely in the normal range. BMI is a formula of weight compared to height.

But when I started cycling my WHR was 0.94. This is measuring the circumference of widest part of your waist without sucking in, so let it all hang out, and divide it by the circumference at the widest part of your hips. To be classified as "normal" it needs to be 0.90 or lower. In the 3 months I've been cycling, my WHR is down to 0.915 (lost about 3/4" off the waistline), but I weigh exactly the same due to I'm going to guess adding muscles in my legs. So my BMI would be the same but WHR is improving.
CarloM is online now  
Old 08-30-19, 02:59 PM
  #78  
bruce19
Senior Member
 
bruce19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 6,543

Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Liked 163 Times in 104 Posts
Originally Posted by eduskator View Post
An average 5'9'' male weighting 198lbs? That person's either on steroids or very fat...

The average 5'9'' cyclist should be more around 170lbs...
FWIW, at age 73 I have lost 3" in height and am down to 5'8". I weigh 189 lbs depending on the day. I have a 36" waist and am neither on steroids or fat. No love handles and a 43" chest. People are built differently. I don't think I look fat here.....
bruce19 is offline  
Old 09-02-19, 12:55 PM
  #79  
phillman5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by dagray View Post
I rarely use the bottom three gears on the cassette (11-28), and usually ride on the big chainring except when climbing or fighting wind.
Originally Posted by MKahrl View Post
If you rarely use the smallest three cogs with a 50x34 you will use them even LESS often with a 52x36.
OP, correct me if I am wrong, but I read original post "bottom 3 gears" that you don't use the largest three rear gears. Then with a 52x36 would start to use at least the 3rd from largest.

I come from a 53x39 on a 1988 LeMond that I had updated with Chorus components, to a new Ti bike that came with a compact crank, I really disliked the compact crank. It seems when shifting the 53x39 when the terrain warranted it, was just fine. With the 50x34 I would almost always have to shift the rear too. Just recently I changed out the whole crank, going from a 172.5 to 175 at the same time going from 50x34 to 52x36. Couldn't be happier. We have lots of mountains here in Albuquerque, so I use 'them all'.

A note on crank length. The LeMond had 175's also. I read up a lot of 'advise' on crank length and found three different calculators that for me suggested anywhere from 165 to 180's. Go figure. I do think with the 172.5 I had no knee pain, and with the 175's a slight amount. NOTE: I am concerned about it and watching it.
phillman5 is offline  
Old 09-02-19, 01:03 PM
  #80  
phillman5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by CarloM View Post
But waist-hip ratio has replaced BMI as a better indicator of health and as a predictor of the likelihood of cardiac event. . . . But when I started cycling my WHR was 0.94. This is measuring the circumference of widest part of your waist without sucking in, so let it all hang out, and divide it by the circumference at the widest part of your hips. To be classified as "normal" it needs to be 0.90 or lower. In the 3 months I've been cycling, my WHR is down to 0.915 (lost about 3/4" off the waistline), but I weigh exactly the same due to I'm going to guess adding muscles in my legs. So my BMI would be the same but WHR is improving.
Hmm, interesting, never heard of WHR. Is that your 'waist' or the largest part of your belly? Now after a several year hiatus from cycling and adding up to 40 lbs and a 1.0 WHR, its been keeping the pants up, they keep sliding right off my butt as I work around the yard, definitely have to wear a tight belt.

Last edited by phillman5; 09-02-19 at 01:06 PM.
phillman5 is offline  
Old 09-02-19, 03:45 PM
  #81  
CarloM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 336

Bikes: 2019 TCR Advanced SL1 Disc; 2018 Cervelo S3 SRAM eTap HRD

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked 74 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by phillman5 View Post
Hmm, interesting, never heard of WHR. Is that your 'waist' or the largest part of your belly? Now after a several year hiatus from cycling and adding up to 40 lbs and a 1.0 WHR, its been keeping the pants up, they keep sliding right off my butt as I work around the yard, definitely have to wear a tight belt.
Yes, it's the largest part of your belly, not holding your stomach/breath in, and letting the measuring tape have a bit of slack (so not cinching it tight around your waist).

It can be a depressing number, when I first started tracking WHR and cycling I wore size 32 jeans...but my waist was 35.5, which when taken as a ratio to my hips which measure 38, made my WHR .934. So while I was in the "normal" BMI range, WHR said I was in the overweight range. In just six weeks I've managed to take my waist down to 34.5 (I likely could have made bigger gains but I do love food) but only recently have I lost a couple of pounds. The first 0.5" that I lost, I was the same weight (presumably because I was converting fat to muscle). So you can already see the problem with BMI. I lost a half-inch off my waist but my BMI number wouldn't have changed at all.

0.9 WHR would be 34.2...but looking down at my current 34.5 waist...I wouldn't be happy with that. I'm going to aim for 33.
CarloM is online now  
Old 09-03-19, 07:38 AM
  #82  
Rides4Beer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: SC
Posts: 580

Bikes: Revolt | Tarmac

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 309 Post(s)
Liked 105 Times in 70 Posts
My road bike is 52/36 (11-28 out back), my gravel bike is 48/32 (11-36). Have no problems doing fast road rides on the gravel bike, def climbs better, but just a touch more topend would be nice. It spins out around 35mph, would be nice to be able to push a lil more on the backside of rollers, on big descents I'm rolling 40+ anyway so there's no need to pedal. On my new road bike build, I opted for a compact, and will run 11-34 out back, should give me plenty of gear for climbing and still enough topend.
Rides4Beer is offline  
Old 09-03-19, 08:26 AM
  #83  
zjrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,101

Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1992 Trek 1400, 1998 Cannondale R200, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 39 Posts
Originally Posted by CarloM View Post
Bloodwork is undoubtedly important. But waist-hip ratio has replaced BMI as a better indicator of health and as a predictor of the likelihood of cardiac event:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29482851

For example, my BMI is squarely in the normal range. BMI is a formula of weight compared to height.

But when I started cycling my WHR was 0.94. This is measuring the circumference of widest part of your waist without sucking in, so let it all hang out, and divide it by the circumference at the widest part of your hips. To be classified as "normal" it needs to be 0.90 or lower. In the 3 months I've been cycling, my WHR is down to 0.915 (lost about 3/4" off the waistline), but I weigh exactly the same due to I'm going to guess adding muscles in my legs. So my BMI would be the same but WHR is improving.
43 around the belly button, relaxed. 45 at the hips, over my pants. Giving me a .95. I've list 132 pounds the past 15 months... So I was probably in 1.09 range, if my memory holds for measurements back then.
zjrog is offline  
Likes For zjrog:
Old 09-03-19, 08:29 AM
  #84  
zjrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,101

Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1992 Trek 1400, 1998 Cannondale R200, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 39 Posts
Originally Posted by bruce19 View Post
FWIW, at age 73 I have lost 3" in height and am down to 5'8". I weigh 189 lbs depending on the day. I have a 36" waist and am neither on steroids or fat. No love handles and a 43" chest. People are built differently. I don't think I look fat here.....
No sir, I can't imagine anyone saying you're fat. I too have shrunk. 6'3" down to a bit over 6'1"... Bad knees, broken back, all the weight I used to carry around all conspired to shrink me...
zjrog is offline  
Old 09-03-19, 09:48 AM
  #85  
bruce19
Senior Member
 
bruce19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 6,543

Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Liked 163 Times in 104 Posts
Originally Posted by zjrog View Post
No sir, I can't imagine anyone saying you're fat. I too have shrunk. 6'3" down to a bit over 6'1"... Bad knees, broken back, all the weight I used to carry around all conspired to shrink me...
I lost my 'height thanks to a lower back problem, age and a broken neck as a result of a bike crash. Had C1 & C2 fused. If only I had lost the weight to go with it.
bruce19 is offline  
Old 09-03-19, 09:48 AM
  #86  
eduskator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 242

Bikes: TCR Advanced Pro 0

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 22 Posts
After switching from a 50/34 to 52/36 last week, I can confirm that the difference is noticeable, especially when climbing. Evidently, it's no big surprise.

I got used to it pretty quickly however. My lowest gear feels more like my other bike's second or third lowest one. I had to adapt to keep a steady climb.

Last edited by eduskator; 09-03-19 at 09:56 AM.
eduskator is offline  
Old 09-03-19, 01:49 PM
  #87  
colnago62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 29 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by phillman5 View Post
Hmm, interesting, never heard of WHR. Is that your 'waist' or the largest part of your belly? Now after a several year hiatus from cycling and adding up to 40 lbs and a 1.0 WHR, its been keeping the pants up, they keep sliding right off my butt as I work around the yard, definitely have to wear a tight belt.
I have heard doctors state that a waist larger than 40 inches increases your chances of heart disease.
colnago62 is offline  
Old 09-03-19, 02:04 PM
  #88  
dagray 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
dagray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Boardman, Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,643

Bikes: Orbea Orca,Raleigh Talus 29er, Centurion Le Mans 12 speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked 17 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by phillman5 View Post
OP, correct me if I am wrong, but I read original post "bottom 3 gears" that you don't use the largest three rear gears. Then with a 52x36 would start to use at least the 3rd from largest.

I come from a 53x39 on a 1988 LeMond that I had updated with Chorus components, to a new Ti bike that came with a compact crank, I really disliked the compact crank. It seems when shifting the 53x39 when the terrain warranted it, was just fine. With the 50x34 I would almost always have to shift the rear too. Just recently I changed out the whole crank, going from a 172.5 to 175 at the same time going from 50x34 to 52x36. Couldn't be happier. We have lots of mountains here in Albuquerque, so I use 'them all'.

A note on crank length. The LeMond had 175's also. I read up a lot of 'advise' on crank length and found three different calculators that for me suggested anywhere from 165 to 180's. Go figure. I do think with the 172.5 I had no knee pain, and with the 175's a slight amount. NOTE: I am concerned about it and watching it.
by bottom I mean the gears furthest away from the spokes.
__________________
If you see an old fat guy levitating through town with his legs pumping furiously... well don't worry there is a bicycle underneath me.
dagray is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 12:00 AM
  #89  
SpeedyBlueBiker
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Redmond, WA & Bangkok, Thailand
Posts: 35

Bikes: 1999 Giant ATX MTB, 2002 Lemond Zurich, 2018 Fuji Transonic 2.3, 2019 Specialized Tarmac Disc Expert

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
I had a 52/42/30 on my 2002 LeMond Zurich. It seemed a lot of people were using triples back then. It's a 9 speed. On the back had a 12-25. Rarely used the 30 but nice to know I had it. When my rear cassette needed replacing I went to a 12-28 which was really nice.

This year I upgraded to a carbon fiber frame bike 52/36 up front and an 11-30 in the back. Typical new 11 speed. It's really nice and I climbed quite a few long hills in the mountains near where I live including a couple of centuries.

I'm 5'10" and was rolling at 208. Spent the winter in Thailand riding my road bike almost everyday. I dropped 23 pounds while there from all the riding. Have gained some back but am currently weighing in at 190-195 on most days. Most of my riding is done between 18-20mph. Of course hills and wind can change that. Just hit the big 60 in July. Almost 40 years ago and 50 less pounds I ran a 4:09 mile, low 14 5000, and barely a sub 30 10000. Never did marathons though.
SpeedyBlueBiker is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 08:06 AM
  #90  
zjrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,101

Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1992 Trek 1400, 1998 Cannondale R200, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 39 Posts
I'm going to try an experiment this weekend. My local unofficial cycling club has a .5 mile section they use as a "challenge" My best time so far is 42 seconds, someone has screamed through there in only 25...

My best time is on my old steel bike with 50/34 and 12-30 cassette, at 25 pounds, 1 ounce. I will ride my CAAD8 through the same section, 52/39 and 12-32, at 18 pounds 5 ounces.... I might even drop the 11-27 cassette in place for this test.

If I felt truly strong and silly, I could scream through on my 29er... Can't believe I don't know the crankset on that. I think it's running a 12-34 9 speed cassette. Might be interesting to see how it does...
zjrog is offline  
Likes For zjrog:
Old 09-04-19, 09:36 AM
  #91  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 506

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Ridley, Factor, Cervelo

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 48 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by zjrog View Post
I'm going to try an experiment this weekend. My local unofficial cycling club has a .5 mile section they use as a "challenge" My best time so far is 42 seconds, someone has screamed through there in only 25...
Must be downhill ...
0.5 miles in 42 seconds is 43 mph.
0.5 miles in 25 seconds is 72 mph.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 10:03 AM
  #92  
CarloM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 336

Bikes: 2019 TCR Advanced SL1 Disc; 2018 Cervelo S3 SRAM eTap HRD

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked 74 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
Must be downhill ...
0.5 miles in 42 seconds is 43 mph.
0.5 miles in 25 seconds is 72 mph.
Someone left their Garmin/Wahoo on in their pocket after getting in their car...or that's a 45 degree downhill drop.
CarloM is online now  
Likes For CarloM:
Old 09-04-19, 02:39 PM
  #93  
zjrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,101

Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1992 Trek 1400, 1998 Cannondale R200, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 39 Posts
Originally Posted by CarloM View Post
Someone left their Garmin/Wahoo on in their pocket after getting in their car...or that's a 45 degree downhill drop.
I may need my eyes adjusted, I swore it said .5 mile. But nooooooooo...

So. I was incorrect on the distance...
zjrog is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 02:50 PM
  #94  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,493
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1837 Post(s)
Liked 118 Times in 87 Posts
Originally Posted by zjrog View Post
I may need my eyes adjusted, I swore it said .5 mile. But nooooooooo...

So. I was incorrect on the distance...
0.2 miles in 42 seconds is 17.1 mph.
0.2 miles in 25 seconds is 28.8 mph....shouldn't be anywhere near the 11t
redlude97 is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 08:12 PM
  #95  
zjrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,101

Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1992 Trek 1400, 1998 Cannondale R200, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 39 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
0.2 miles in 42 seconds is 17.1 mph.
0.2 miles in 25 seconds is 28.8 mph....shouldn't be anywhere near the 11t
Bloody hell!!! I know I went through there faster than that!!! Hahahaaaa! Well, now I HAVE to go give a max effort on my light bike!!!
zjrog is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 08:23 PM
  #96  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 506

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Ridley, Factor, Cervelo

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 48 Times in 28 Posts
Originally Posted by zjrog View Post
Bloody hell!!! I know I went through there faster than that!!! Hahahaaaa! Well, now I HAVE to go give a max effort on my light bike!!!
0.2 miles may be rounded down, so you could have been faster. Does the app give you an average speed for the segment?
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 09-04-19, 10:06 PM
  #97  
zjrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,101

Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1992 Trek 1400, 1998 Cannondale R200, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked 50 Times in 39 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
0.2 miles may be rounded down, so you could have been faster. Does the app give you an average speed for the segment?

21.9 sounds a hair high, but I was putting it down pretty hard...
zjrog is offline  
Old 09-05-19, 06:46 AM
  #98  
colnago62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 29 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
Must be downhill ...
0.5 miles in 42 seconds is 43 mph.
0.5 miles in 25 seconds is 72 mph.
I was thinking that these guys must be world class Kilo riders.
colnago62 is offline  
Old 09-05-19, 08:17 AM
  #99  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,379
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 792 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by eduskator View Post
An average 5'9'' male weighting 198lbs? That person's either on steroids or very fat...

The average 5'9'' cyclist should be more around 170lbs...
LOL no! 5'9" and 198 would be considered quite skinny for someone in a strength sport. Some weighing 230 wouldn't be uncommon at that height. You didn't start seeing "fat" people until you get up to the 250-270 range. One big difference between the tested and untested competitions was with those big guys. Untested competitions would have guys who were 275 but still quite lean. Tested would not.

I doubt any of these guys are over 5'9".
and they are competing at ~ 205 which means their day-to-day weight is likely 215 or 220. Drug use is possible, but this is a tested competition.
My 5'9" friend who was competing at roughly 220 (and thus typically walking around at 230)
definitely wasn't taking any drugs.
Me at 5'8" and ~185 walking around weight:
note how I'm just about the skinniest guy there. People would joke about how "lanky" I was. I certainly wasn't being accused of taking drugs.

People tend to gravitate to what they are good at. Thick, big boned, mesomorphs, the kind of people you don't see doing endurance sports like cycling, can easily be 5'9" and 200 without being fat.
OBoile is offline  
Old 09-06-19, 11:28 AM
  #100  
bruce19
Senior Member
 
bruce19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 6,543

Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Liked 163 Times in 104 Posts
This is why I ignore BMI. Can you imagine telling an NFL running back at 5'9" and 230 lbs that he's obese?

Last edited by bruce19; 09-06-19 at 11:34 AM.
bruce19 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.