Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Does weight really matter on flat roads?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Does weight really matter on flat roads?

Old 07-08-19, 05:16 AM
  #51  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1628 Post(s)
Liked 1,057 Times in 631 Posts
But why do pros often have a second lighter "climbing bike" for mountain stages? Why not just use the light bike all the time?
Lemond1985 is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 06:03 AM
  #52  
subgrade
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Saulkrasti, Latvia
Posts: 898

Bikes: Focus Crater Lake

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times in 204 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
Of course weight matters even on the flats... it doesn't keep moving all by itself without any input from the rider.

Try this exaggerated test: Pull an enclosed trailer while empty. (enclosed to maintain the same aerodynamics) Use an electric motor to get up to X speed. (to eliminate acceleration) Accurately measure speed and power output over a flat course.

Then repeat while adding weight inside the trailer. If weight really doesn't matter like some here are saying, you should be able to keep piling it on (hundreds of pounds!) and see no increase in power needed. Does anyone here really think that would happen?
Yes, as long as air resistance and rolling resistance would remain the same, it would indeed happen. Unfortunately, rolling resistance grows with added weight, as there are no absolutely hard wheels and roads in the real world. This is why railroads are the most effective means of transport over land: it takes quite a while for the locomotive to get the whole train rolling, but once it's moving, it is able to pull the thousands of tons quite easily, since the deflection in steel wheels and tracks is minimal.
subgrade is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 06:42 AM
  #53  
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 Lemond1985
But why do pros often have a second lighter "climbing bike" for mountain stages?
They don't (at least at the UCI level). They may have a climbing bike, but all bikes are at the UCI minimum weight.
asgelle is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 06:50 AM
  #54  
AlmostTrick
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times in 504 Posts
Originally Posted by subgrade
Yes, as long as air resistance and rolling resistance would remain the same, it would indeed happen. Unfortunately, rolling resistance grows with added weight, as there are no absolutely hard wheels and roads in the real world. This is why railroads are the most effective means of transport over land: it takes quite a while for the locomotive to get the whole train rolling, but once it's moving, it is able to pull the thousands of tons quite easily, since the deflection in steel wheels and tracks is minimal.
Increasing tire pressure when running more weight will compensate by restoring tire deflection to the same amount as it was with a lighter weight. But even if the extra weight does still increase rolling resistance, so what? It would be attributed to the weight itself, not some other factor.

It's funny you mentioned the train, because that was my first thought as a test. Place a smooth riding surface between the rails for a bike to ride on while towing a box car. Have locomotive push it up to 15 mph and release. Since (some believe) weight doesn't matter, it should be no problem for the cyclist to keep it rolling on a flat grade even after adding several tons, right?

Last edited by AlmostTrick; 07-08-19 at 06:55 AM.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 07:03 AM
  #55  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1628 Post(s)
Liked 1,057 Times in 631 Posts
Since (some believe) weight doesn't matter, it should be no problem for the cyclist to keep it rolling on a flat grade even after adding several tons, right?
Lemond1985 is offline  
Likes For Lemond1985:
Old 07-08-19, 07:25 AM
  #56  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
Increasing tire pressure when running more weight will compensate by restoring tire deflection to the same amount as it was with a lighter weight. But even if the extra weight does still increase rolling resistance, so what? It would be attributed to the weight itself, not some other factor.


It's funny you mentioned the train, because that was my first thought as a test. Place a smooth riding surface between the rails for a bike to ride on while towing a box car. Have locomotive push it up to 15 mph and release. Since (some believe) weight doesn't matter, it should be no problem for the cyclist to keep it rolling on a flat grade even after adding several tons, right?

That's not as simple as one might think. If you could isolate the resistance the cyclist overcomes to merely rolling resistance, I think a strong cyclist could keep it rolling. Unfortunately you can't separate the inherent level track components of rolling resistance, track or flange resistance, and oscillatory and miscellaneous frictional resistance.


However, back in 1926 the total of these (and other components) were derived empirically resulting in the Davis Formula, and revised in 1970 for modern equipment.


R (pounds resistance per ton) = 0.6 + 20/weight. weight in tons. For just the components which include rolling resistance.


With this modified Davis formula, the resistance added per added ton would be 3.1 pounds for an 8 ton train with about 25 pounds total resistance. As mentioned, rolling resistance is only a portion of that. It would seem feasible, right?


(The Application of the Davis Formula to set Default Train Resistance in Open Rails, Coals to Newcastle 20/11/2017)
wphamilton is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 07:42 AM
  #57  
Kevin R
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Trinidad West Indies
Posts: 32

Bikes: Raleigh Militis 3 Custom Build

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985
Kevin R is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 07:56 AM
  #58  
AlmostTrick
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times in 504 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton
That's not as simple as one might think. If you could isolate the resistance the cyclist overcomes to merely rolling resistance, I think a strong cyclist could keep it rolling.
I agree! But I think more weight is always going to require more power to keep it moving, even on a flat rail. As I understand it the math you presented (thank you!) agrees.

So getting back to the OP's question, yes, weight does matter, even on a flat road.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 08:19 AM
  #59  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
Increasing tire pressure when running more weight will compensate by restoring tire deflection to the same
It's funny you mentioned the train, because that was my first thought as a test. Place a smooth riding surface between the rails for a bike to ride on while towing a box car. Have locomotive push it up to 15 mph and release. Since (some believe) weight doesn't matter, it should be no problem for the cyclist to keep it rolling on a flat grade even after adding several tons, right?
If your bike weighs over one ton weight matters. If you’re talking about adding a few pounds then, no, it doesn’t matter. Yes, it might take an extra Watt of power but it won’t make any difference to your enjoyment of riding.

Not sure if people don’t understand physics or just have no common sense...
gregf83 is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 08:32 AM
  #60  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985
But why do pros often have a second lighter "climbing bike" for mountain stages? Why not just use the light bike all the time?
To the extent that may be true, it would probably be because there are aero features that weigh something, but are a bigger factor in determining top speed than the small amount of added weight.

The problem with so many of these discussions is that the question of whether weight is a factor (undoubted) gets conflated with whether it's the main factor to focus on--my opinion is that marketing has placed way too much emphasis on weight because it fits people's intuitions and they can feel it in the show room, while the importance of aero and tires are much harder to understand and can't be demonstrated by just lifting the bike.

It doesn't help that really aero bikes look weird and require positions that make their use somewhat limited for the non-racing rider.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 08:48 AM
  #61  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
I agree! But I think more weight is always going to require more power to keep it moving, even on a flat rail. As I understand it the math you presented (thank you!) agrees.

So getting back to the OP's question, yes, weight does matter, even on a flat road.
Yep we're always going to have rolling resistance, no getting around that. How much weight matters to that (proportional to total weight) is apparently hotly disputed.

Regarding the effort involved with the change in momentum to accelerate, it would seem energetically balanced with the extra momentum when decelerating provided you keep off the brakes. Although the metabolic efficiency (and cumulative fatigue from numerous accelerations) comes into question, you don't get that part back.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 08:53 AM
  #62  
subgrade
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Saulkrasti, Latvia
Posts: 898

Bikes: Focus Crater Lake

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times in 204 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
I agree! But I think more weight is always going to require more power to keep it moving, even on a flat rail. As I understand it the math you presented (thank you!) agrees.

So getting back to the OP's question, yes, weight does matter, even on a flat road.
The math that was presented clearly stated that rolling resistance is factored into it.

Weight matters insofar it increases rolling resistance (and in real world, it always does so) . The force that has to be applied for an object to keep moving at a constant speed acts solely to overcome the resistance, which, in this case, in broad terms falls under two categories - air friction and rolling resistance (not limited only to deflection of tire and track, as noted before). If there is no resistance, no force at all is needed to keep an object moving at a constant speed (that's inertia, Newton's first law). If the resistance is equal, the force needed to overcome it is equal as well.
subgrade is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 09:15 AM
  #63  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83
If your bike weighs over one ton weight matters. If you’re talking about adding a few pounds then, no, it doesn’t matter. Yes, it might take an extra Watt of power but it won’t make any difference to your enjoyment of riding.

Not sure if people don’t understand physics or just have no common sense...
What's even funnier about the box car example is that if the track is on flat ground, a box car pushed to 15 mph then released by the locomotive is actually going to roll by itself for quite some distance. Steel wheels on straight steel rails is a very low resistance road, and the momentum carries for quite a ways. If you ever see them hook up trains at a freight yard, they use this effect all the time.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 09:21 AM
  #64  
Alexbn921
Junior Member
 
Alexbn921's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
The answer is no, it doesn't matter. Not one little bit. Heavy wheels will still feel sluggish to accelerate but that is everywhere.
Alexbn921 is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 11:20 AM
  #65  
Last ride 76 
1/2 as far in 2x the time
 
Last ride 76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Northern Bergen County, NJ
Posts: 1,935

Bikes: Yes, Please.

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 499 Post(s)
Liked 285 Times in 222 Posts
Originally Posted by jamesdak
It's never a simple matter of weight alone, LOL! Too many other factors figure in. Today was a prime example. I took out the old SL tubed Ribble bike. It weighs 19.7 ozs and has on some 40mm deep and light carbon fiber tubular wheels. I did my normal base 25 mile route. I worked really hard today but the flex of this 1985 race built frame under my 175 lbs meant that no matter how hard I tried I couldn't hold the higher speed I wanted to. Ran 19.1 mph avg and it was work. It just wasn't there in this bike and it's current configuration. Yet two days ago I took out the PDG Series Paramount made with oversize Tange Prestige and rode the exact same route with another 3 mile diversion and finished with a 20.2 mph avg. Yet this bike is over 2 1/2 lbs heavier with a wheelset over a pound heavier and not as deep. Both bikes are 53/42T with identical 8 speed cassettes. The fit is the same in terms of saddle height, setback, crank arm length, reach, handlebar width, etc. The heavier bike is consistently one of my fastest. It also is one of my better climbers which totally goes against what the experts will say. A well designed bike can help offset a "weight penalty" IMHO.

I'm sorry, are you claiming IDENTICAL test conditions except for frame a that weighs 1 1/2 lbs more & built of different shaped tubes, with a wheelset that is heavier by a lb, and less aerodynamically efficient? And you attribute the 1.1 mph increase to different power transmission characteristics of the frames? Or are you saying that aerodynamic improvement in the frame alone, (not in your position on the bike) accounts for the difference? If you changed your position, absolutely, sure (LeMond/Fignon). Just the frame's power transmission and it's incremental aero improvement? Seems like there's a piece missing.
Last ride 76 is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 12:00 PM
  #66  
RFHOLLAND
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Weight/mass does not, for the most part, matter in this case.

Newton’s law, F=MA, refers to the amount of force required to accelerate a given mass. The question as stated has to do with a body moving at constant speed (zero acceleration).

The amount of force required by you to keep you and your bike moving at constant speed exactly equals the sum of the resistance forces (air drag, rolling resistance, etc.).

If you were to somehow ingest a massive amount of food equal to your weight as you travelled along, you would not have to supply an increased force to the pedals (perhaps the rolling resistance would increase a bit, but nothing substantial). Of course, you might not feel so great, so you could end up applying less force to the pedals and attribute it to the increased weight, in which case you’d be wrong.
RFHOLLAND is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 12:32 PM
  #67  
Luisloredo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think bike weight only matters after You have no more body weight to loose. The most important factor is that You have fun.
Luisloredo is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 12:33 PM
  #68  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by RFHOLLAND
The question as stated has to do with a body moving at constant speed (zero acceleration).
No, reread the OP. It just refers to the road being flat, it doesn't say anything about constant speed. In most places, riding along a road for any significant distance will require slowing, stopping and acceleration for stoplights, traffic, pedestrians, whatever. Even if there are no such interruptions, every ride starts with an acceleration. Why would you assume OP was asking about a hypothetical but impossible infinite ride?

The discussion above has mostly acknowledged that weight matters very little while running n the flat, but that acceleration is where it would make a difference. Most of the argument has been about how much that matters.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 12:38 PM
  #69  
jamesdak 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,823

Bikes: Paletti,Pinarello Monviso,Duell Vienna,Giordana XL Super,Lemond Maillot Juane.& custom,PDG Paramount,Fuji Opus III,Davidson Impulse,Pashley Guv'nor,Evans,Fishlips,Y-Foil,Softride, Tetra Pro, CAAD8 Optimo,

Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2300 Post(s)
Liked 4,764 Times in 1,725 Posts
Originally Posted by Last ride 76
I'm sorry, are you claiming IDENTICAL test conditions except for frame a that weighs 1 1/2 lbs more & built of different shaped tubes, with a wheelset that is heavier by a lb, and less aerodynamically efficient? And you attribute the 1.1 mph increase to different power transmission characteristics of the frames? Or are you saying that aerodynamic improvement in the frame alone, (not in your position on the bike) accounts for the difference? If you changed your position, absolutely, sure (LeMond/Fignon). Just the frame's power transmission and it's incremental aero improvement? Seems like there's a piece missing.
To put it simply, weight is only part of the equation.

Now the faster bike is red, white and blue and we know red makes a bike faster so yeah that's why!
__________________
Steel is real...and comfy.
jamesdak is online now  
Old 07-08-19, 02:01 PM
  #70  
AlmostTrick
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times in 504 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83
If your bike weighs over one ton weight matters. If you’re talking about adding a few pounds then, no, it doesn’t matter. Yes, it might take an extra Watt of power but it won’t make any difference to your enjoyment of riding.
So a few pounds doesn't matter, but will take extra power.

Originally Posted by livedarklions
What's even funnier about the box car example is that if the track is on flat ground, a box car pushed to 15 mph then released by the locomotive is actually going to roll by itself for quite some distance.
Right, it'll roll for "some distance"... while slowing down. It will require additional power to maintain 15 mph. Just like any bike. I'm pretty sure pulling my bike at 15 mph, even the heaviest one, would require less power than pulling a boxcar.

Originally Posted by RFHOLLAND
If you were to somehow ingest a massive amount of food equal to your weight as you travelled along, you would not have to supply an increased force to the pedals (perhaps the rolling resistance would increase a bit, but nothing substantial). Of course, you might not feel so great, so you could end up applying less force to the pedals and attribute it to the increased weight, in which case you’d be wrong.
Now we're getting somewhere. I wonder what would be the best source for this "massive amounts of food".

Originally Posted by Luisloredo
I think bike weight only matters after You have no more body weight to loose. The most important factor is that You have fun.
Ah-oh, You've done it now. But yeah, fun!
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 02:13 PM
  #71  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick

Right, it'll roll for "some distance"... while slowing down. It will require additional power to maintain 15 mph. Just like any bike. I'm pretty sure pulling my bike at 15 mph, even the heaviest one, would require less power than pulling a boxcar.
Really wasn't the point--the previous poster had pointed out that by increasing it to a few tons, you were obscuring the likelihood that a realistic change in bike weight wouldn't result in any PRACTICAL difference. My point was that the box car was not even a good example because the momentum is so great.

Basically, your straw man was kind of funny looking.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 04:33 PM
  #72  
jdsyachts
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Repressive CA
Posts: 14

Bikes: Trek Domane 4.3, Trek 7900, Sun EZ Tad 3, Canondale F400

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You'll be a bit slow to accelerate, but be able to maintain speed better, and take longer to decelerate.
jdsyachts is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 05:01 PM
  #73  
73SchwinnWV
73SchwinnWV
 
73SchwinnWV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
All weight matters. Now, rotating weight matters more. Furthest weight from your axles matters more than a full water bottle if your tires and tubes equal weight of water bottle...
73SchwinnWV is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 08:25 PM
  #74  
AlmostTrick
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times in 504 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Really wasn't the point--the previous poster had pointed out that by increasing it to a few tons, you were obscuring the likelihood that a realistic change in bike weight wouldn't result in any PRACTICAL difference. My point was that the box car was not even a good example because the momentum is so great.

Basically, your straw man was kind of funny looking.
The boxcar example, and the trailer one prior to that, were given as extremes that would demonstrate with ease that weight does in fact matter on the flat. A fact that I believe you agree with. They were posted as a way to rebut those claiming more weight doesn't matter... because clearly it does, whether you can notice it or not.

That a few pounds on the bike would require a much smaller amount of extra power to propel at X speed than the extreme examples, and may even be difficult for some to notice, was specified many times over by me.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous saying that equals a straw man.

AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 07-08-19, 08:33 PM
  #75  
Darth Lefty 
Disco Infiltrator
 
Darth Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,775

Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem

Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3126 Post(s)
Liked 2,102 Times in 1,366 Posts
Atomic weight matters most.
Darth Lefty is offline  

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.