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

Cadence - When do you Lug?

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

Cadence - When do you Lug?

Old 08-12-19, 11:15 AM
  #51  
Koyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,765
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6882 Post(s)
Liked 10,871 Times in 4,636 Posts
Around here, I've ridden grades as steep as 37% - and I am not a very strong climber. So, I am accustomed to slogging away at a low cadence.

To the OP, I suggest that, if you are wondering whether you need lower gearing, you should just get it.


By the way, if you think that a cadence below 70 rpm (or so) is too low, imagine this. Here he is

Last edited by Koyote; 08-12-19 at 11:19 AM.
Koyote is offline  
Likes For Koyote:
Old 08-12-19, 01:39 PM
  #52  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 110 Posts
Originally Posted by Koyote
Around here, I've ridden grades as steep as 37% - and I am not a very strong climber. So, I am accustomed to slogging away at a low cadence.

To the OP, I suggest that, if you are wondering whether you need lower gearing, you should just get it.


By the way, if you think that a cadence below 70 rpm (or so) is too low, imagine this. Here he is in action.
37% is not anything that I have come even close to encountering (or even imagining).

In the meantime it is going to have to be a 34F/32R. I just bought a new Emonda SL6 and the ease of achieving this gearing (vs trying to do it on my upgraded 1996'ish Bianchi) was one reason (it was my only bike). One other reason was the fact that an attempt to move the nose of my saddle 1/16", resulted in me being without a bike for 5 days (see https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...st-seized.html for the full story).

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 01:43 PM
  #53  
Koyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,765
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6882 Post(s)
Liked 10,871 Times in 4,636 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC
37% is not anything that I have come even close to encountering (or even imagining).

In the meantime it is going to have to be a 34F/32R. I just bought a new Emonda SL6 and the ease of achieving this gearing (vs trying to do it on my upgraded 1996'ish Bianchi) was one reason (it was my only bike). One other reason was the fact that an attempt to move the nose of my saddle 1/16", resulted in me being without a bike for 5 days (see https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...st-seized.html for the full story).

dave
34/32 is pretty low, so you should be alright. If not, and you are running Shimano, you can probably put on a new rear derailleur (might not even need a new one) and an 11-34 cassette for a little extra oomph.
Koyote is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 02:03 PM
  #54  
smashndash
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times in 247 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC
I am also convinced that force (too much of it) is the important parameter here. But, even though force is the fundamental measurement being made by my power pedals, that number is not reported to me. But I can see power and cadence and can imply a relative force from those numbers. So power and cadence is how I look at this.

I could have asked 'how many newtons of force can you apply long term to your pedals before you fatigue excessively in long climb', but probably would not have gotten a useful response :-)

dave
Agreed. I’m actually shocked that pedal force is not a more common metric considering how important it is, and how easy it is to measure. I don’t have a power meter, but do modern power meters seriously not give you a live readout of torque or force?

low cadence is not inherently lugging. If you’re putting out 50W, 40rpm will not make you cross that force threshold that puts you into quick-fatigue territory.

I’ve heard (bro science most likely) that at a certain force threshold, your muscles cannot continuously contract to deliver that force. Instead, they rapidly twitch. This is extremely inefficient and causes huge amounts of fatigue. People here are talking about gearing but that will probably just make you weaker and allow you to go at a slightly greater speed in more comfort. If the goal is to get faster, strength training to specifically increase that force threshold will allow you to deliver more power regardless of the RPM, but it will help most on steep climbs where you are overgeared. And like some people have noted, even a 1:1 gear isn’t enough to spin the ideal 80-90 rpm that we want on all climbs. I have a climb near my home that’s about 3 miles of 10% average. 1 mile is at 12%. 1:1 gearing isn’t enough. You could put a 42 on the back, but those cassettes are heavy and the steps are huge.

also for me personally, I start to lug around 8% climbs. Maybe 6 or 7% if I’m fatigued. I’m comfortable at 80rpm or so but I can’t sustain that on many hills above 5% because I’m fairly unfit and have 34:28 gearing.
smashndash is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 02:25 PM
  #55  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by smashndash
I’ve heard (bro science most likely) that at a certain force threshold, your muscles cannot continuously contract to deliver that force. Instead, they rapidly twitch. This is extremely inefficient and causes huge amounts of fatigue.
This is true at any force. Different fibers cycle through contraction and relaxation. The greater the force, the more fibers are contracting at the same time. Similarly, at any force or tension, all fiber types are activated with the ratio changing based on the force and contraction speed required.
asgelle is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 02:31 PM
  #56  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by smashndash
If the goal is to get faster, strength training to specifically increase that force threshold will allow you to deliver more power ...
This runs contrary physiology. Strength is never a limiter with any reasonably geared bike. The maximum pedal force is no greater than to step up a single riser on a staircase. Anyone who can't walk up a flight of stairs is severely limited physically and wouldn't be cycling on the road.
asgelle is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 02:44 PM
  #57  
smashndash
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times in 247 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
This is true at any force. Different fibers cycle through contraction and relaxation. The greater the force, the more fibers are contracting at the same time. Similarly, at any force or tension, all fiber types are activated with the ratio changing based on the force and contraction speed required.
So would you say that it untrue that muscles become significantly less efficient after a certain threshold?

Originally Posted by asgelle
This runs contrary physiology. Strength is never a limiter with any reasonably geared bike. The maximum pedal force is no greater than to step up a single riser on a staircase. Anyone who can't walk up a flight of stairs is severely limited physically and wouldn't be cycling on the road.
I would disagree with the max force statement. In sprints and on steep (over 10%) climbs, I believe I exceed the force I would exert while climbing stairs and have to push or pull against the bars to counterweight. Though I wasn’t talking about peak power necessarily. I meant that one could sustain a certain amount of power for longer since it wouldn’t fatigue the muscles as much. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on that count.

But the main point of my statement was that a stronger muscle is more efficient at a given force level than a weaker one. So if you’re going to be delivering a certain amount of force regardless, and that force is in the “inefficient” territory, strength training can allow one to expand the “efficient” territory to include that amount of force. I’m sure some of this is bro science, so I’m curious to know more.
smashndash is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 02:47 PM
  #58  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by smashndash
I would disagree with the max force statement.
You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. There is plenty of data from power meters in the field and under controlled laboratory conditions showing that for geared bicycles the maximum pedal force is quite low. You can look up the references in PubMed or Google.
asgelle is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 02:50 PM
  #59  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by smashndash
But the main point of my statement was that a stronger muscle is more efficient at a given force level than a weaker one.
This is not true in the proper meaning of efficient (work done per energy consumed), I doubt it's true in whatever context you mean here (less fatiguing, more comfortable, what?) as well.
asgelle is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 02:51 PM
  #60  
smashndash
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times in 247 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
This is not true in the proper meaning of efficient (work done per energy consumed), I doubt it's true in whatever context you mean here (less fatiguing, more comfortable, what?).
Right, less fatiguing, sorry. Currently searching for research on max pedal forces.
smashndash is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 03:08 PM
  #61  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 110 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
This runs contrary physiology. Strength is never a limiter with any reasonably geared bike. The maximum pedal force is no greater than to step up a single riser on a staircase. Anyone who can't walk up a flight of stairs is severely limited physically and wouldn't be cycling on the road.
This sounds like a correct supposition and conclusion. OTOH, ask me to put out 240'ish watts on an 8% incline in a 34/32 gear, I'll go at around 7.3 mph and be able to do this for a good while.

Ask me to do the same speed on the same incline (therefore same power) in a 52/11, I doubt that I could do that for more than a minute (although I have never tried such a thing - on purpose anyway). This would be a tad under 20 rpm, BTW.

So force (as small as it might be relative to body weight/gravity) does matter (a lot). I assume that the average force on the pedals for a crank revolution is far different than the peak force. I wonder if that is an issue here?

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 03:09 PM
  #62  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by smashndash
Right, less fatiguing, sorry. Currently searching for research on max pedal forces.
An Oldie but Goodie. Why we don't use strength-endurance anymore ? aboc Cycle Coaching
asgelle is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 03:13 PM
  #63  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC
So force (as small as it might be relative to body weight/gravity) does matter (a lot). I assume that the average force on the pedals for a crank revolution is far different than the peak force. I wonder if that is an issue here?
Don't confuse force with strength (the maximum force or tension a muscle or muscle group can produce). I don't think any knowledgable person would dispute that performing at much higher than self-selected force (lower cadence) will result in very rapid fatigue, but that has nothing to do with strength.
asgelle is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 04:03 PM
  #64  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 110 Posts
Here are some numbers. Assume a 65 kg rider (143 pounds). If he/she puts out 250 watts on a 170mm crank, this is 156 Newtons of force (35 pounds). Drop the cadence to 20 rpm and the resulting required force is 702 Newtons. This person weighs 637 newtons, BTW.

To take the steps thought experiment, assume that the steps are a 45 degree incline (pretty steep steps). This required 450 Newtons And the force required to basically go up a ladder at a constant velocity is body weight (637 newtons) and continual ladder climbing is probably tiring.

So this all kind of makes sense, whether or not maximum (as defined by strength) is a factor or not. I will say that now that I am doing a lot more low cadence pedaling as training, I get the sense that some work on a 45 degree incline sled would be helpful (could be wrong, of course).

dave

ps. I am assuming that I did the high school physics stuff right - 1966 was a long time ago.
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 04:46 PM
  #65  
phillman5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
The balance between oxygen and glycogen is individual and can only be assessed through individual experience. That balance will always be slightly different for each course and length, which really complicates the issue.

I don't have a climber (and probably sprinter) build. I am about 6' and usually over 200 lbs. I have big thighs, 23.5" circumference. In '75 while training for a cross country ride with my older brother, I noticed on a good climb (12 miles, 2200 feet climb) the first day I used a low gear and was way behind my brother, couple days later on same climb I used a higher gear and dropped him. Of course this is relative to how he was doing both days. I notice that if I have lower gears I'll use them, but I don't think it makes me climb faster, as I'll be roughly at the same cadence, I guess, as some say, my engine mimics a diesel, constant cadence no mater what I throw at it, so for speed I might as well use the higher gears as I have the strength to push them. Note you can get the same power out with high force * low cadence or low force * high cadence.


To each his own.

Last edited by phillman5; 08-12-19 at 08:21 PM.
phillman5 is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 06:21 PM
  #66  
terrymorse 
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,002

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3335 Post(s)
Liked 3,436 Times in 1,737 Posts
Originally Posted by phillman5
Note you can get the same power out with high force * low cadence or low force * high cadence.
Yes, you can. But only when you're working well below your maximum. As the effort increases, pedaling with high force/low cadence will fatigue your muscles much more quickly than low force/high cadence.

Once again, the main purpose of a higher cadence is simple — to delay muscle fatigue.
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse


terrymorse is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 07:58 PM
  #67  
GuitarBob
Kit doesn't match
 
GuitarBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,057

Bikes: 5

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked 27 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC
In the meantime it is going to have to be a 34F/32R. I just bought a new Emonda SL6
Congratulations on the new bike. Lower gearing for challenging climbs gives you options -- so you can find what's right for you on that day, on that climb, on that km. Good going.
GuitarBob is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 08:25 PM
  #68  
phillman5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
Yes, you can. But only when you're working well below your maximum. As the effort increases, pedaling with high force/low cadence will fatigue your muscles much more quickly than low force/high cadence.

Once again, the main purpose of a higher cadence is simple — to delay muscle fatigue.
Did you read my whole post, or the one I quoted? High cadence is relative, optimum cadance/gear depends on the person, grade and distance. People with slow twitch muscles do better with lower cadence, higher gear, see LeMond's book.
phillman5 is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 09:36 PM
  #69  
balesmachine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Pedaling cadence is a personal thing. Lance started spinning after training proved it worked better for him. Ulrich was a diesel engine and wouldve probably blown up if he tried to spin. They were both amazing riders. My very good friend and riding buddy had a cadence of about 40 max. I always wanted to tell him that he was doing it all wrong, but I never could catch him!
balesmachine is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 10:23 PM
  #70  
terrymorse 
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,002

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3335 Post(s)
Liked 3,436 Times in 1,737 Posts
Originally Posted by phillman5
People with slow twitch muscles do better with lower cadence, higher gear, see LeMond's book.
Yes, self-selected cadence varies between people. That fact is not surprising.

But any individual, regardless of their amount of type 1 fibers, benefits from lifting the cadence when the effort is high enough.

Nobody time trials at a 60 cadence.
terrymorse is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 11:52 PM
  #71  
phillman5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
Yes, self-selected cadence varies between people. That fact is not surprising.

But any individual, regardless of their amount of type 1 fibers, benefits from lifting the cadence when the effort is high enough.

Nobody time trials at a 60 cadence.
Terry,
See post right above yours by balesmachine and his friend that had a cadence of 40. Many Time Trialists have a 56 tooth large chain wheel, and they are not doing 90 rpm with that.
phillman5 is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 07:58 AM
  #72  
asgelle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by phillman5
Terry,
See post right above yours by balesmachine and his friend that had a cadence of 40. Many Time Trialists have a 56 tooth large chain wheel, and they are not doing 90 rpm with that.
I know many people who've spun out a 56 at Gila. Also, chain line.

Last edited by asgelle; 08-13-19 at 09:21 AM.
asgelle is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 09:19 AM
  #73  
Cycle Tourist
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked 206 Times in 125 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveLeeNC
In principle I will be taking on some long and steep climbs in a couple of months. And the question of gearing is still on my mind.

In my case it seems to me that, assuming that I am putting out power somewhere in the range of my ftp, that a cadence down in the 70 to 75 range is where things start to become inefficient. I think that I could pedal at 80 rpm or 95 rpm (at around my ftp) without making a huge change in physiological effort. But somewhere in the 70 to 75 rpm range and (at the same power output) I will find that the time that I can spend at roughly ftp is going to go down. And things go downhill (as in harder to maintain) pretty quickly in a very small rpm range. E.G., there seems to be a huge difference between 67 and 72 rpm.

What have others found about this in their riding. I am just curious. A new RD (or not) for my bike is driving this question.

Thanks.

dave

ps. It is a difficult experiment to run in my case because I just don't have any climbs that are long enough to test this (everything around here is up and down constantly, so constant power/rpm is not something that I can achieve on our roads).

dave
Long climbs are much easier if you vary your climbing style. Spinning at 70 rpm with a low gear and standing with a 60 rpm. I usually go up a gear or two just before standing. The actual speed doesn't change but the cadence does. A lower cadence while sitting can really stress your knees and over time can cause injury. Depending on weight get as low a gear as nesssesary to keep moving without dropping below 65-70 and one that allows you to recover. Walking should never be an option. I carry a lot of weight and find a granny 24 and a 32t freewheel sufficient. Unloaded, obviously that will be unnecessarily low. The old adage of having but not needing is better than needing but not having is very fitting for cycling up steep, long hills.
Cycle Tourist is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 10:03 AM
  #74  
terrymorse 
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,002

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3335 Post(s)
Liked 3,436 Times in 1,737 Posts
Originally Posted by phillman5
Many Time Trialists have a 56 tooth large chain wheel, and they are not doing 90 rpm with that.
Are you sure they're not pedaling a 90 cadence with a 56 chain ring? Because I think they are — at least the best ones are.

The measured average cadence for a pro cyclist in a flat time trial is 92.4 ± 1.3 rpm (Lucia et al 2001). The lowest measured cadence was 86 rpm.

Lucia et al also measured an average speed in a time trial of 47.3 kph. At 92 cadence, that's about a 56/15 gearing. So yes, I think that the best time trialists can pedal a 90 cadence with a 56 chain ring.
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse



Last edited by terrymorse; 08-13-19 at 10:07 AM. Reason: typo correction
terrymorse is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 10:33 AM
  #75  
DaveLeeNC
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
DaveLeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716

Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times in 110 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
Are you sure they're not pedaling a 90 cadence with a 56 chain ring? Because I think they are — at least the best ones are.

The measured average cadence for a pro cyclist in a flat time trial is 92.4 ± 1.3 rpm (Lucia et al 2001). The lowest measured cadence was 86 rpm.

Lucia et al also measured an average speed in a time trial of 47.3 kph. At 92 cadence, that's about a 56/15 gearing. So yes, I think that the best time trialists can pedal a 90 cadence with a 56 chain ring.
Heck - a 56/21 at 90 RPM is about 19 mph. Seems to me that even the worst time trialists can pedal 90 in a 56 chain ring.

dave
DaveLeeNC is offline  
Likes For DaveLeeNC:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.