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

Will GRX handle a 11-46 cassette?

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

Will GRX handle a 11-46 cassette?

Old 10-08-19, 08:29 PM
  #1  
BigPoser
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
BigPoser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 599

Bikes: BAHL Giro, BAHL Uno, BAHL GVL, Cuevas

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Will GRX handle a 11-46 cassette?

Getting GRX for my gravel build and want to put an 11-46 cassette on it. Thinking that an adjustment of the B screw would allow it.

I can't find anything that shows if it's possible.

Anyone know first hand if it will work? My other option would be to use an XT rear mech.

Thanks in advance.

Brandon
BigPoser is offline  
Old 10-09-19, 03:46 AM
  #2  
Racing Dan
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1332 Post(s)
Liked 316 Times in 214 Posts
GRX and mtb parts are not compatible. GRX is road spec.

Last edited by Racing Dan; 10-09-19 at 03:49 AM.
Racing Dan is offline  
Old 10-09-19, 06:33 AM
  #3  
Marcus_Ti
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
 
Marcus_Ti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331

Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked 406 Times in 254 Posts
Originally Posted by BigPoser
Getting GRX for my gravel build and want to put an 11-46 cassette on it. Thinking that an adjustment of the B screw would allow it.

I can't find anything that shows if it's possible.

Anyone know first hand if it will work? My other option would be to use an XT rear mech.

Thanks in advance.

Brandon
Nope, per official numbers The 1X11 GRX RDs top at at 11-42, officially. The 2x11 top out at 11-34.

https://www.coloradocyclist.com/shim...ear-derailleur


Features


  • For use with single ring crankset, 11-speed
  • Weight: 264 grams
  • Adjustable chain stabilizer prevents chain slapping and drops
  • Toggle clutch ON/OFF to match the terrain
  • Switch stabilizer ON/OFF to match the terrain
  • Gravel-tuned clutch tension
  • Total capacity: 31T
  • Low sprocket: Maximum 42T/Minimum 40T
  • Top sprocket: Maximum 11T/Minimum 11T
  • Cassette Size: 11-40t to 11-42t
Marcus_Ti is offline  
Old 10-09-19, 07:56 AM
  #4  
Bryan C. 
nothing to see here
 
Bryan C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Antioch, CA
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked 145 Times in 78 Posts
Originally Posted by BigPoser
Getting GRX for my gravel build and want to put an 11-46 cassette on it. Thinking that an adjustment of the B screw would allow it.

I can't find anything that shows if it's possible.

Anyone know first hand if it will work? My other option would be to use an XT rear mech.

Thanks in advance.

Brandon
Originally Posted by Marcus_Ti
Nope, per official numbers The 1X11 GRX RDs top at at 11-42, officially. The 2x11 top out at 11-34.

https://www.coloradocyclist.com/shim...ear-derailleur


Features


  • For use with single ring crankset, 11-speed
  • Weight: 264 grams
  • Adjustable chain stabilizer prevents chain slapping and drops
  • Toggle clutch ON/OFF to match the terrain
  • Switch stabilizer ON/OFF to match the terrain
  • Gravel-tuned clutch tension
  • Total capacity: 31T
  • Low sprocket: Maximum 42T/Minimum 40T
  • Top sprocket: Maximum 11T/Minimum 11T
  • Cassette Size: 11-40t to 11-42t
The gravel/cyclocross forum may he a better place to ask this. Someone there may already be running the same thing.

But, it's well known that Shimano is conservative with its max cog capacity of their rear derailleurs. Most likely it will work fine with some b-screw adjustment.

I'm contemplating a similar set up for my gravel bike. Please report back with how it works out for you.
Bryan C. is offline  
Old 10-09-19, 08:57 AM
  #5  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,538

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10902 Post(s)
Liked 7,391 Times in 4,148 Posts
Originally Posted by BigPoser
Getting GRX for my gravel build and want to put an 11-46 cassette on it. Thinking that an adjustment of the B screw would allow it.
I can't find anything that shows if it's possible.
Anyone know first hand if it will work? My other option would be to use an XT rear mech.
Are you looking at 1x or 2x? Either way an 11-46 is too large to officially work. But if its 1x, then there is at least a chance since its 4t larger than the stated max.

For what its worth, a 30/34 bailout is the same as a 40/46 bailout in terms of gear inches. So a simple 46/30 crank mated to an 11-34 cassette will give you the same bailout gearing as a 40/46 while also giving tighter shift jumps and more overall gear range.

But hey, you do save a whopping 50g by going 1x, so if that is the driving motivation, it makes sense(2068g vs 2108g).
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 10-09-19, 02:41 PM
  #6  
BigPoser
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
BigPoser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 599

Bikes: BAHL Giro, BAHL Uno, BAHL GVL, Cuevas

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Thanks all. I'm going Di2 and 1x. Mtn Di2 rear derailleurs will most certainly work with road Di2 shifters. Common actually.

I ended up finding a 38t chainring from Wolftooth so I'll go that route with a 11-42 in the back. Should be good enough for just about everything out there.
BigPoser is offline  
Likes For BigPoser:
Old 10-09-19, 05:32 PM
  #7  
john.b
Senior Member
 
john.b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ragbraistan
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Unfortunately, Shimano killed Di2 for 12-speed MTB. Otherwise, that new 10-45 MTB cassette plus a 12-speed Di2 RD and the new GRX Di2 brifters would’ve been perfect for 1x gravel.

Honestly, for all the fuss Shimano made this past spring about their big “gravel listening tour”, I still don’t think they get it.

Last edited by john.b; 10-09-19 at 05:37 PM.
john.b is offline  
Likes For john.b:
Old 10-10-19, 01:04 AM
  #8  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by john.b
Unfortunately, Shimano killed Di2 for 12-speed MTB. Otherwise, that new 10-45 MTB cassette plus a 12-speed Di2 RD and the new GRX Di2 brifters would’ve been perfect for 1x gravel.

Honestly, for all the fuss Shimano made this past spring about their big “gravel listening tour”, I still don’t think they get it.
How many people riding gravel need lower than 31×34 really?
redlude97 is offline  
Old 10-10-19, 01:33 AM
  #9  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
How many people riding gravel need lower than 31×34 really?
Probably a large majority of people who ride any kind of mountainous stuff. In my area, we've got plenty of gravel climbs that average 12% or more over a mile at a time. And check out this gorgeous road that one of my friends recently found:



I suppose "need" is a strong word, but if it's a question of what's optimal, I actually think that most road bikes in hilly areas should come with ratios of 1:1 or lower, whether intended for gravel or otherwise. Even in the paved lowlands around here, I see tons of people badly bottomed out on their gearing during climbs, and people avoiding very fun roads simply because the gradients get steep. That's awful.
Ideally, common chainring combinations would span a much wider range than they currently do. From what I can tell, a majority of people on road bikes have very little use for the top-end on modern road bikes. For the weaker riders, a 42-26 or even 40-24 would offer adequate top-end in a 1x-plus-granny scheme, while permitting a comfortably tight-spaced cassette.
HTupolev is online now  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 10-10-19, 06:29 AM
  #10  
Marcus_Ti
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
 
Marcus_Ti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331

Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked 406 Times in 254 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
How many people riding gravel need lower than 31×34 really?
Depends on the surface, and how big your tires are.

I have a 30/32 bailout and with 700Cx42mm tires I've needed it if not a bit lower. Could not stand for more power without just spinning the wheel. 15% farm MMR with pea gravel are mean.
Marcus_Ti is offline  
Likes For Marcus_Ti:
Old 10-10-19, 07:32 AM
  #11  
Bryan C. 
nothing to see here
 
Bryan C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Antioch, CA
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked 145 Times in 78 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
How many people riding gravel need lower than 31×34 really?
I run a 1x system with a 34x46 low gear on my diverge. Works well as most of the gravel around me is regularly accompanied by 10% + grades for extended periods.
Bryan C. is offline  
Likes For Bryan C.:
Old 10-10-19, 10:48 AM
  #12  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
Probably a large majority of people who ride any kind of mountainous stuff. In my area, we've got plenty of gravel climbs that average 12% or more over a mile at a time. And check out this gorgeous road that one of my friends recently found:



I suppose "need" is a strong word, but if it's a question of what's optimal, I actually think that most road bikes in hilly areas should come with ratios of 1:1 or lower, whether intended for gravel or otherwise. Even in the paved lowlands around here, I see tons of people badly bottomed out on their gearing during climbs, and people avoiding very fun roads simply because the gradients get steep. That's awful.
Ideally, common chainring combinations would span a much wider range than they currently do. From what I can tell, a majority of people on road bikes have very little use for the top-end on modern road bikes. For the weaker riders, a 42-26 or even 40-24 would offer adequate top-end in a 1x-plus-granny scheme, while permitting a comfortably tight-spaced cassette.
My experience with mtbers and other gravel riders is that a very small fraction will want to ride that type of terrain whatever their gearing. You still need to be able to put out a lot of power to able to get up something like that. All the hard gravel rides have like 5-10% of the participation numbers compared to the easier less hilly rides, and we have lots of mounatains here in the PNW. To me shimano is targeting the 90%+ of the market, the other 5-10% of us have to make do with some tinkering, for example I use an rx800 rd with a 50/34 11-40 with no modification at all for gravel. Could easily go to 46/30 11-42, but still only round up 1-2 other racers to go somewhere that type of gearing is even needed
redlude97 is offline  
Old 10-10-19, 11:54 AM
  #13  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
My experience with mtbers and other gravel riders is that a very small fraction will want to ride that type of terrain whatever their gearing. You still need to be able to put out a lot of power to able to get up something like that.
All the hard gravel rides have like 5-10% of the participation numbers compared to the easier less hilly rides, and we have lots of mounatains here in the PNW.
That particular hill is an extreme case, but...

This is partly a chicken-and-egg issue. By and large, you don't need to be able to put out a lot of power to get up steep hills, if you've got appropriate gearing. I've seen very few people fail to have a blast on foothills gravel rides out here, but it's hard to get people to do it if their bike isn't suitable for the job.

This is true even for the lower paved hills in the populated areas. There's zero technicality to paved climbing; if someone says that a paved hill is "hard to get up", that's a problem with their bike.

Last edited by HTupolev; 10-10-19 at 11:57 AM.
HTupolev is online now  
Old 10-10-19, 01:45 PM
  #14  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
That particular hill is an extreme case, but...

This is partly a chicken-and-egg issue. By and large, you don't need to be able to put out a lot of power to get up steep hills, if you've got appropriate gearing. I've seen very few people fail to have a blast on foothills gravel rides out here, but it's hard to get people to do it if their bike isn't suitable for the job.

This is true even for the lower paved hills in the populated areas. There's zero technicality to paved climbing; if someone says that a paved hill is "hard to get up", that's a problem with their bike.
Sure, I mostly agree with this. I just don't think gearing is what is holding back the majority of people in the gravel scene. There's been an explosion in that area even before shimano made lower gearing feasible, and certainly Sram and campy haven't taken over in that regard with lower gearing, so as a whole the market doesn't really see it as necessary yet to appease the market
redlude97 is offline  
Old 10-10-19, 02:10 PM
  #15  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
There's been an explosion in that area even before shimano made lower gearing feasible, and certainly Sram and campy haven't taken over in that regard with lower gearing, so as a whole the market doesn't really see it as necessary yet to appease the market
This issue doesn't have anything specifically to do with gravel, gravel just puts a bit of additional pressure on it. Insufficient low gearing has been a blind spot in road cycling fashion since the dawn of time. Rivendell Reader 34 is fourteen years old but still very interesting, look at page 26 here: Kozo Shimano admits that 53-39 was standard on recreational bikes mostly because the perception from the company leaders was that cyclists would want cranks that didn't look like Lance's cranks, and also admits that he had a better experience on smaller rings. In other words, he knew that gearing was a problem, but assumed that fixing the problem could be a marketability issue.

I don't know what the solution is, but I don't find the lack of standard options for smaller rings to be good evidence that gearing isn't a significant hindrance here.
HTupolev is online now  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 10-10-19, 02:53 PM
  #16  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
This issue doesn't have anything specifically to do with gravel, gravel just puts a bit of additional pressure on it. Insufficient low gearing has been a blind spot in road cycling fashion since the dawn of time. Rivendell Reader 34 is fourteen years old but still very interesting, look at page 26 here: Kozo Shimano admits that 53-39 was standard on recreational bikes mostly because the perception from the company leaders was that cyclists would want cranks that didn't look like Lance's cranks, and also admits that he had a better experience on smaller rings. In other words, he knew that gearing was a problem, but assumed that fixing the problem could be a marketability issue.

I don't know what the solution is, but I don't find the lack of standard options for smaller rings to be good evidence that gearing isn't a significant hindrance here.
I guess I don't see the gravel market as being something that caters towards racers or that persona, which is different from the road side of things in a lot of ways. They picked gearing range choices based on where they think the majority of the marketplace would be interested in. Its not like they don't have the capability to do otherwise since they essentially just changed the pull ratio and cage lengths of their MTB designs to work with road shifters. They have the cassettes already, if they thought there was a huge market and people would be happier with 46-30 11-42 they could have put that out instead
redlude97 is offline  
Old 10-10-19, 03:28 PM
  #17  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
I guess I don't see the gravel market as being something that caters towards racers or that persona
Perhaps not, but the "gravel" equipment is still making only incremental changes from current road arrangements. 50-34 to 46-30 is 1-2 shifts out back.

They have the cassettes already, if they thought there was a huge market and people would be happier with 46-30 11-42 they could have put that out instead
A lot of people don't need anywhere close to a 115" top gear even for paved riding, and could be more comfortable on tighter spacing than an 11-40 offers. What I'd like to see is more practical crank options that support tiny chainrings (smaller than 46-30) and a road q-factor.

I'm not saying that there is a market. I'm saying that there probably should be, and that it's frustrating that the big brands have been so hesitant to even test the waters. Pretty much every mainstream attempt to reduce standard chainring road chainring sizes over the last half-century has succeeded, but it's been baby steps the whole way. That's silly, like watching a programmer script a linear search when a binary search would be far more appropriate.
HTupolev is online now  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 10-10-19, 09:19 PM
  #18  
katsup
Senior Member
 
katsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,775

Bikes: 1995 ParkPre Pro 825 2021 Soma Fog Cutter v2 and 2021 Cotic SolarisMax

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked 557 Times in 317 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
...for example I use an rx800 rd with a 50/34 11-40 with no modification at all for gravel. Could easily go to 46/30 11-42, but still only round up 1-2 other racers to go somewhere that type of gearing is even needed
You think a rx800 can clear a 42T? I have read a lot of reports of it clearing 40T, but very few regarding 42T.

Been thinking about a RX800 GS or M8000 with a tanpan.
katsup is offline  
Old 10-10-19, 10:37 PM
  #19  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by katsup
You think a rx800 can clear a 42T? I have read a lot of reports of it clearing 40T, but very few regarding 42T.

Been thinking about a RX800 GS or M8000 with a tanpan.
Probably with a 46/30 or a 48/31. 50/34 11-40 required a full length uncut chain and the b-screw maxed out on my CAADX. You could flip the b-screw or use a road link easily
redlude97 is offline  
Old 10-10-19, 10:48 PM
  #20  
katsup
Senior Member
 
katsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,775

Bikes: 1995 ParkPre Pro 825 2021 Soma Fog Cutter v2 and 2021 Cotic SolarisMax

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked 557 Times in 317 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
Probably with a 46/30 or a 48/31. 50/34 11-40 required a full length uncut chain and the b-screw maxed out on my CAADX. You could flip the b-screw or use a road link easily
Chain rings are 48/36 currently so I should be OK there, was just curious if the rx800 cage can clear a 42T with the b-screw alone. I guess one way to know for sure is try it, then buy a roadlink if it fails.
katsup is offline  
Old 10-11-19, 10:12 AM
  #21  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by katsup
Chain rings are 48/36 currently so I should be OK there, was just curious if the rx800 cage can clear a 42T with the b-screw alone. I guess one way to know for sure is try it, then buy a roadlink if it fails.
Would probably work by why not throw a 34t on there and use the closer spaced 11-40 cassette?
redlude97 is offline  
Old 10-11-19, 11:33 AM
  #22  
katsup
Senior Member
 
katsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,775

Bikes: 1995 ParkPre Pro 825 2021 Soma Fog Cutter v2 and 2021 Cotic SolarisMax

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked 557 Times in 317 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
Would probably work by why not throw a 34t on there and use the closer spaced 11-40 cassette?
Just trying to use the parts I have first, only missing a rear derailleur currently. I may end up going that route eventually.
katsup is offline  
Old 10-11-19, 12:18 PM
  #23  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by katsup
Just trying to use the parts I have first, only missing a rear derailleur currently. I may end up going that route eventually.
got it, wouldn't hurt to get an inner chainring even if you go with the 11-42. They are usually under $20
redlude97 is offline  
Old 10-11-19, 12:32 PM
  #24  
katsup
Senior Member
 
katsup's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,775

Bikes: 1995 ParkPre Pro 825 2021 Soma Fog Cutter v2 and 2021 Cotic SolarisMax

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked 557 Times in 317 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
got it, wouldn't hurt to get an inner chainring even if you go with the 11-42. They are usually under $20
I was wrong, it does have 48/34T chain rings currently. I'll probably go to a 11-40 cassette once I wear out my 11-42.
katsup is offline  
Old 10-11-19, 01:34 PM
  #25  
Sy Reene
Advocatus Diaboli
 
Sy Reene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,613

Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,526 Times in 997 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
That particular hill is an extreme case, but...

This is partly a chicken-and-egg issue. By and large, you don't need to be able to put out a lot of power to get up steep hills, if you've got appropriate gearing.
Do I misunderstand what power means? Isn't it true that for a given hill, you need the same amount of power to get up that hill, regardless of what gearing you have? I suppose the limiting factor is speed you're going and if you can keep the bike upright at eg. sub 3mph speeds or whatnot.
Sy Reene 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.