New study finds that high cadence cycling offers no benefit to amateurs
02-19-19, 09:08 AM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 2,190
Bikes: Ti, Mn Cr Ni Mo Nb, Al, C
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 942 Post(s)
Liked 526 Times
in
349 Posts
That's the key right there IMO. So for someone who doesn't have a lot of power....If they just practice high cadence and do not incorporate power training, they are not going to be as efficient at a higher cadence relative to elevated HR....especially on hills.
02-19-19, 11:58 AM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
What goes around, goes around o... o... o...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0212120114.htm
Kind of a disheartening thing for me to read, as something I have been working on in my trainer sessions this off season is boosting my natural cadence.
Kind of a disheartening thing for me to read, as something I have been working on in my trainer sessions this off season is boosting my natural cadence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3918546/
My experience is that most people start to bounce in the seat if they pedal much over 90. And bouncing is highly wasteful. Better to shift up a gear and get more pedal resistance.
02-19-19, 12:46 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
When I'm climbing while seated I'll focus on smooth spinning as much as possible, but tend to stand to climb as soon as I feel myself bogging down. I'd like to blame the 39 front/25 rear combo as my limit, but nah... I've always been a weak climber, especially seated. If I'm gonna keep up any speed I'll have to use a bigger gear and stand to stomp the pedals. Cadence falls apart at that point so it's moot.
I keep a 52 - 42 - 32 crank ring combo on my road bike with a 14 - 34 alpine climbing freewheel in back which allows maintaining high cadence rates (75 - 95) on very steep climbs without excessively tiring the muscles due to overwork.
02-19-19, 01:45 PM
#79
Newbie racer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,406
Bikes: Propel, red is faster
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1575 Post(s)
Liked 1,569 Times
in
974 Posts
Depending on the "sampling" of who "most people" are.......they also don't have a good core workout routine to have the body to stay still either way. Or use all the power they make.
Serious cyclists need a good diet of core workouts, including a diet of all you can eat planks. If you have good bike fit and decent core, you won't bounce on the saddle at 100 rpm.
Also, being fast isn't only about efficiency. It's about having the physiology to make the power when you need it.
It's conjecture, but in the days of the grinding cyclist of early years....steroids and amphetamines were the go to cheats. Meaning possibly and advantage at lower rpm. In the Lance days of EPO and blood doping, you're souping up the oxygen carrying capacity. To maximize that advantage, the sucker spun like a damn top. That's my GUESS. Not fact. Just reading too many "tell all" books and internet drivel.
I think for the more serious rec rider/racer, the balance is somewhere in between.
I tend to stay around 90 if I'm in Z1/Z2 and the rpm goes up with the power zones. Z3/Z4 goes to mid 90's. Then Z5/Z6 goes to 100+. The higher the power the more the RPM's. 30/30 sprints certainly at 100 to 120 rpm.
Serious cyclists need a good diet of core workouts, including a diet of all you can eat planks. If you have good bike fit and decent core, you won't bounce on the saddle at 100 rpm.
Also, being fast isn't only about efficiency. It's about having the physiology to make the power when you need it.
It's conjecture, but in the days of the grinding cyclist of early years....steroids and amphetamines were the go to cheats. Meaning possibly and advantage at lower rpm. In the Lance days of EPO and blood doping, you're souping up the oxygen carrying capacity. To maximize that advantage, the sucker spun like a damn top. That's my GUESS. Not fact. Just reading too many "tell all" books and internet drivel.
I think for the more serious rec rider/racer, the balance is somewhere in between.
I tend to stay around 90 if I'm in Z1/Z2 and the rpm goes up with the power zones. Z3/Z4 goes to mid 90's. Then Z5/Z6 goes to 100+. The higher the power the more the RPM's. 30/30 sprints certainly at 100 to 120 rpm.
02-19-19, 02:11 PM
#80
Senior Member
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
This new study confirms previous research that concluded even experienced racers gain no real benefit from high cadences (100 - 100+) and had some other interesting observations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3918546/
My experience is that most people start to bounce in the seat if they pedal much over 90. And bouncing is highly wasteful. Better to shift up a gear and get more pedal resistance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3918546/
My experience is that most people start to bounce in the seat if they pedal much over 90. And bouncing is highly wasteful. Better to shift up a gear and get more pedal resistance.
02-19-19, 02:29 PM
#81
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,513
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4559 Post(s)
Liked 2,802 Times
in
1,800 Posts
Since you didn't say what type front rear setup you're running (2 - 13, 3-7, etc.) it's hard to know exactly what's happening, but my guess is that if 39/25 is your lowest gearing configuration, that's really too high for any seated climbing, especially if you're over fifty.
I keep a 52 - 42 - 32 crank ring combo on my road bike with a 14 - 34 alpine climbing freewheel in back which allows maintaining high cadence rates (75 - 95) on very steep climbs without excessively tiring the muscles due to overwork.
I keep a 52 - 42 - 32 crank ring combo on my road bike with a 14 - 34 alpine climbing freewheel in back which allows maintaining high cadence rates (75 - 95) on very steep climbs without excessively tiring the muscles due to overwork.
Beyond that I'd have to consider a much lighter bike. I tried a Specialized Tarmac last summer. Huge difference on hills where it felt significantly lighter than my 25 lb Ironman. And the frame and bottom bracket were stiffer, less wasted energy on flexing, but not harsh and uncomfortable. Felt like the bike was doing half the work on climbs. A bit pricey but I can see why it's so popular.
02-19-19, 03:56 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I tried a Specialized Tarmac last summer. Huge difference on hills where it felt significantly lighter than my 25 lb Ironman. And the frame and bottom bracket were stiffer, less wasted energy on flexing, but not harsh and uncomfortable. Felt like the bike was doing half the work on climbs.
02-19-19, 04:36 PM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
It confirms that efficiency is lower at high cadences, but perhaps not that they gain no real benefit. The maximal energy turnover rate was higher at 100 rpm than at 80 (while efficiency was 3.4% lower). In this old one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15503124 Whatever "maximal energy turnover rate" gets them, at least that's a gain in something.
Maybe. Or maybe it's kinetics jargon for "burns more calories," which would make a whole lot of sense.
02-19-19, 05:25 PM
#84
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
It confirms that efficiency is lower at high cadences, but perhaps not that they gain no real benefit. The maximal energy turnover rate was higher at 100 rpm than at 80 (while efficiency was 3.4% lower). In this old one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15503124 Whatever "maximal energy turnover rate" gets them, at least that's a gain in something.
Aerobic energy turnover rate (Watts) was calculated using the V̇O2 and the corresponding respiratory exchange ratio (R) (Zuntz 1901). In 3.6% of the measurements R was above 1, and 1.00 was used for the calculation. Anaerobic energy turnover rate (Watts) was calculated on the assumption that a 1 mmol l−1 increase in bLa− is equivalent to the energy released by an oxygen consumption of 3.3 ml kg−1 (di Prampero and Ferretti 1999). Net blood lactate accumulation was calculated as the difference between the peak post-exercise concentration and the bLa− at the onset of exercise. Blood lactate analysis was done on non-haemolysed blood. bLa− was therefore corrected assuming a fixed haematocrit (45%) and lactate concentration within the red blood cells to be 50% of that in plasma and independent of exercise intensity (Foxdal et al. 1990). Energy turnover rate (Watts) was calculated as the sum of the aerobic and the anaerobic energy turnover rate. Efficiency was calculated as gross efficiency (per cent) and defined as the ratio between external power output (Watts) and energy turnover rate (Watts).
I'd say the researcher's nuanced discussion is of importance is more helpful for us
It has been argued that gross efficiency is not the optimal measure of efficiency in cycling, since the energy expenditure used in calculation of gross efficiency includes energy for processes not directly contributing to the actual work accomplished. Instead it is suggested that delta efficiency, the ratio between the change in power and the change in energy expenditure is more applicable. Delta efficiency is held to be closer to true muscle efficiency and is shown to increase with increasing cadence, and, therefore, intuitively supports the fact that cyclists use a relatively high cadence (Chavarren and Calbet 1999). However, we argue that since maximal energy turnover rate, mostly determined by V̇O2max is a major limiting factor, gross efficiency is the most relevant measure of efficiency. Regardless in which organ the oxygen is used, the delivery must be accomplished by the circulatory system, which is the main limiting factor for whole-body energy turnover rate (Andersen and Saltin 1985). The simple (but exact) model we are using states that speed (metres per second) is determined by the energy turnover rate (joules per second) and the work economy (joules per metre) (di Prampero et al. 1986). In the laboratory setting, speed is equivalent to external power, and work economy is equivalent to gross efficiency. This model could be more detailed, dividing the energy turnover rate into different organs, for instance the working skeletal muscles and non-working tissues. In this setting, other measures of efficiency than gross efficiency must be used. However, given the types of measurements we conducted in the present study, including pulmonary V̇O2 only, this division will not add to the understanding. For instance, it is possible that energy turnover rate in non-contracting tissues changes as workload changes. Hence, gross efficiency is the relevant measure of efficiency in this kind of study.
During the time trials, the subjects utilised about 85% of their V̇O2max. For different reasons, cadence may affect this percentage. Given no effect of cadence on V̇O2max (i.e. the V̇O2maxmeasured at 90 rpm is valid for both 80 and 100 rpm), the fractional utilisation was higher at 100 compared to 80 rpm (P<0.05) (Table 4). The 1.8% higher HR at 100 compared to 80 rpm supports an increased blood flow to the exercising muscles at 100 rpm. Moreover, the difference is identical to the relative difference in aerobic energy turnover rate between 80 and 100 rpm. This indicates that the ability to work at intensities close to the V̇O2max is better preserved at a high cadence. This may be taken as reduced development of fatigue (better endurance). Reduced development of fatigue has been suggested in several articles, although none has directly measured fatigue during long term cycling. Takaishi et al. (1996) examined the effect of cadence on neuromuscular fatigue in moderately trained cyclists at ~85% ofV̇O2max with the use of EMG. They suggested that the lowest levels of neuromuscular fatigue are obtained at a cadence faster than the most efficient one. In support, Patterson and Moreno (1990) found a gradual decrease in the resultant force on the pedals with increasing cadence (up to 90–100 rpm), and suggested that this would minimise fatigue, even if the result would be a small increase in V̇O2. Further, Ahlquist et al. (1992) reported that glycogen depletion was greater in type II muscle fibres at 50 compared to 100 rpm after prolonged cycling (30 min) at ~85% of V̇O2max. This indicated a greater activation of the fatigue-sensitive type II muscle fibres at 50 rpm than at 100 rpm, thereby supporting the use of 100 rpm to avoid muscle fatigue. In summary, this study shows that maximal energy turnover rate is better preserved at 100 than at 80 rpm, indicating less development of fatigue at 100 rpm. However, this effect is small and cannot be extrapolated to higher cadences (Fig. 3C).
02-19-19, 05:57 PM
#85
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,631
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4729 Post(s)
Liked 1,531 Times
in
1,002 Posts
Still TL/DR.. pedal at cadence you're comfortalble at, as long as it's above 80rpm
02-19-19, 06:28 PM
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,481
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7648 Post(s)
Liked 3,465 Times
in
1,831 Posts
Cliff Notes: Once again, Science discovers nothing of value.
02-19-19, 07:14 PM
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,481
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7648 Post(s)
Liked 3,465 Times
in
1,831 Posts
02-19-19, 07:35 PM
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,481
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7648 Post(s)
Liked 3,465 Times
in
1,831 Posts
I was at a park/campsite/trailhead/raft run/lodge of some kind in (I think) North Carolina in (I think) the late 90s, while (I think) the U.S. junior road cycling team was training there. The coach was handing out photocopies of info on VO2 max to all the riders (some of which were ignoring them, which is why I snagged one ... (I think.))
Even the juniors were way into data even that far back.
But the study cited in the OP ... recreational/amateur/casual cyclists? No interest in VO2 max, and any cadence experiments are on the order of "I wonder if I am pedaling fast enough---I will try going faster."
I care some about cadence ... but the fact that 80-100 rpm have a similar efficiency when measured according to certain methods .... I do not care. I vary cadence to suit my legs or lungs.
Post #19 :
Someone also posted “Legs or lungs … which do you have and which can you use better?” which was also a brilliant summary.
The whole problem I had with any of this is simply that the headline and article, the part many people will see (the folks who know what’s up saw the 2005 research in 2005, no doubt) are seriously flawed.
A person who doesn’t ride much might actually hurt him- or herself by mashing too big a gear because “That study said faster is no good for ‘recreational’ cyclists.”
I object to the sensationalizing of science not to promote science but to sell science articles.
Several versions of this article have appeared online, all with ridiculously misleading headlines claiming things the study never showed, making money for lots of re-writers employed by the various cycling websites and magazines.
So, a person who rides a little and enjoys it sees the headline at a magazine rack at a grocery store and thinks he is riding wrong. At no point does the article mention that on a Real bike ride … it is likely cadence will vary to suit the individual’s and the road’s condition. How about climbing hills? Spinning up a short hill can be a lot easier on the body than trying to mash a big gear—but the study doesn’t even consider that, and the article implies that “recreational” riders shouldn’t try to spin—not mentioning the one time it might be best.
Anyway …. It isi mildly interesting to see that Under Lab Conditions there is limited efficiency loss or gain (depending on measuring methods) between 80 and 100 rpm.
I bet, though, that when a world-tor level pro starts riding, his or her cadence is closely monitored by the rider and the Directeur Sportif, and I bet that 2005 study is totally ignored because the riders and the DS know what cadences at various times in a race on various terrains work best for each rider on the team.
But … we are here for entertainment more than education … I hope. And … it has been something which could be loosely described as “fun” …. depending on the measurement system employed.
02-19-19, 07:59 PM
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times
in
230 Posts
I remember seeing this GCN video asking pros what data they looked at during a race. Nobody mentioned cadence as something they monitored in a race. It is possible that they look at it when training, but not when racing
02-19-19, 09:01 PM
#91
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,120
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1338 Post(s)
Liked 2,474 Times
in
1,449 Posts
It looks like they are only testing pedaling efficiency and blood oxygenation? That is only part of the equation. Muscular fatigue and recruitment is very different at low vs high cadence (especially as wattage goes up). Try a 500 or 600 TSS week at 60 rpm, you may technically be more efficient by some measures but you won't be able to sustain it. The reason for higher rpm is not solely muscular efficiency, it's reduced fatigue and faster recovery.
One has to train to spin faster but one can always elect to spin slower.
And then there is the hour record. I have witnessed several done by racing friends all amateurs and one set the elite record for women. Generally, the cadence of choice is around 100 rpm but there are exceptions i.e. some higher and lower. I asked one guy why 100 and not 80. He said, he likes to stay on top of the gear. IMO, it is a fatigue issue. Once fatigue starts to set in, it is easier make power at a higher cadence with less torque in the legs. Even doing a 2k pursuit, 2 gear inches too large can load up the legs during the last 500 meters while the right gear allows an acceleration of cadence and speed.
I have 10 years of power and cadence data. What I know is that I like white shoes.
02-19-19, 10:23 PM
#92
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,513
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4559 Post(s)
Liked 2,802 Times
in
1,800 Posts
Don't tell that to this directeur sportif. He won't take you to the cafe for a hot drink to warm up.
Now get out there, gear down and spin those legs!
02-20-19, 12:47 AM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times
in
230 Posts
Don't tell that to this directeur sportif. He won't take you to the cafe for a hot drink to warm up.
Now get out there, gear down and spin those legs!
Now get out there, gear down and spin those legs!
02-20-19, 12:53 AM
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times
in
230 Posts
Word.
One has to train to spin faster but one can always elect to spin slower.
And then there is the hour record. I have witnessed several done by racing friends all amateurs and one set the elite record for women. Generally, the cadence of choice is around 100 rpm but there are exceptions i.e. some higher and lower. I asked one guy why 100 and not 80. He said, he likes to stay on top of the gear. IMO, it is a fatigue issue. Once fatigue starts to set in, it is easier make power at a higher cadence with less torque in the legs. Even doing a 2k pursuit, 2 gear inches too large can load up the legs during the last 500 meters while the right gear allows an acceleration of cadence and speed.
I have 10 years of power and cadence data. What I know is that I like white shoes.
One has to train to spin faster but one can always elect to spin slower.
And then there is the hour record. I have witnessed several done by racing friends all amateurs and one set the elite record for women. Generally, the cadence of choice is around 100 rpm but there are exceptions i.e. some higher and lower. I asked one guy why 100 and not 80. He said, he likes to stay on top of the gear. IMO, it is a fatigue issue. Once fatigue starts to set in, it is easier make power at a higher cadence with less torque in the legs. Even doing a 2k pursuit, 2 gear inches too large can load up the legs during the last 500 meters while the right gear allows an acceleration of cadence and speed.
I have 10 years of power and cadence data. What I know is that I like white shoes.
Last edited by colnago62; 02-20-19 at 12:58 AM.
02-20-19, 01:03 AM
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
You put too much faith in the peer-review process.
Being peer-reviewed doesn't mean there aren't problems with the study. It's not like peer-reviewed studies are never proven incorrect.
It would be irresponsible to think that this one small study decides things once-and-for all (whether or not it was peer reviewed).
Being peer-reviewed doesn't mean there aren't problems with the study. It's not like peer-reviewed studies are never proven incorrect.
It would be irresponsible to think that this one small study decides things once-and-for all (whether or not it was peer reviewed).
02-20-19, 01:08 AM
#96
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,513
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4559 Post(s)
Liked 2,802 Times
in
1,800 Posts
02-20-19, 01:30 AM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
Do you have a better idea for vetting scientific communications?
Nobody ever suggested this. (I certainly didn't). What I find amusing is that any time someone posts some report of some study that says something at variance with the received wisdom on Bike Forums, it is immediately dismissed out of hand, often before anyone has even bothered to read the published article.
Exactly the same thing as this: https://www.bikeforums.net/training-...ones-risk.html and countless other examples.
By contrast, no vetting process, or indeed any standards, are required, as long as one is on the side of the received wisdom.
It would be irresponsible for me to make HIV an airborne virus, too. However, neither that, nor what you are claiming, has any basis in reality.
Nobody ever suggested this. (I certainly didn't). What I find amusing is that any time someone posts some report of some study that says something at variance with the received wisdom on Bike Forums, it is immediately dismissed out of hand, often before anyone has even bothered to read the published article.
Exactly the same thing as this: https://www.bikeforums.net/training-...ones-risk.html and countless other examples.
By contrast, no vetting process, or indeed any standards, are required, as long as one is on the side of the received wisdom.
It would be irresponsible for me to make HIV an airborne virus, too. However, neither that, nor what you are claiming, has any basis in reality.
02-20-19, 08:20 AM
#99
Senior Member
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
It's from 2005 so probably not news to everyone, but if you can sustain a higher percentage of VO2max at 100 rpm, I think that would be valuable to know.
1. The above is not from one of those "science articles" or "misleading headlines" that you're railing against.
2. Sustainable percentage of VO2max is sort of a holy grail for endurance training.
Regarding the snipped part, do you realize that you just wrote an internet article that mischaracterized the science of two studies, which isn't much different from what you're railing against?
02-20-19, 08:50 AM
#100
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts