SRAM X-Sync Steel Chainring - Review

Jan 6, 2016
by Richard Cunningham  
SRAM X-Sync Steel Chainring 2015


SRAM's successful campaign to eliminate the left shifter also doubled the amount of wear and tear on the one chainring that now has to shoulder the burden of every pedal stroke. Worse yet, the switch to smaller chainrings puts more pressure on the sprocket teeth. Add the regular use of exaggerated chain angles and you'll get a perfect recipe for rapid sprocket wear. No secret there. Three rides in and the anodizing will be carved off half the teeth of most aluminum narrow-wide sprockets.

SRAM has a simple and very inexpensive solution to that wear issue - one that cassette makers have known for years: steel sprockets. SRAM's long wearing X-Sync Steel chainrings are available in 30 and 32 tooth options in its 94-millimeter bolt circle, and a direct-mount 28-tooth chainring is offered in SRAM's most popular 6-millimeter offset. All three use the crank's existing hardware and cost around $20 USD.


X-Sync Steel Details:

• Material: Stamped steel
• Finish: Black
• Compatibility: all SRAM one-by cranks (direct-mount and 94mm bolt-center-diameter (BCD)
• Warning: Direct-mount 28 is not compatible with BB30 cranks that require a zero-offset chainring
• Sizes: 28-tooth direct-mount w/6mm offset, 30-tooth 94mm BCD, 32-tooth 94mm BCD
• Weight: 110g (32t), 96g (30t), 133g (28t direct-mount)
• MSRP: $19.99 USD
• Contact: SRAM
SRAM X-Sync steel chainrings 2016
The 28-tooth chainring is available as a direct-mount option only.


SRAM X-Sync Steel Chainring 2015
The direct-mount 28t sprocket (left) attaches to the crankarm with three Torx screws. The more conventional 94mm BCD chainring is 100 grams lighter, but when the weight of the aluminum spider and hardware is added, the sum total is 180 grams - 47 grams heavier than the direct-mount.


Trail Report

Installing the 94-millimeter BCD chainring does not require the mechanic to remove the left crank arm, which makes the job quite simple. The steel sprocket only cradles half of the chainring bolts, but everything cinches up well. As mentioned, SRAM's stock hardware interchanges with the steel sprockets.

Switching out the chainring to the 28-tooth direct-mount necessitates removing the crankset - also a simple task, as SRAM's left-side arm in self-extracting via an eight-millimeter Allen key. To install the 28t, simply slde the bottom bracket axle out, unscrew the three Torx 25 screws that retain the crank spider, and replace the spider with the X-Sync steel sprocket. Any home mechanic who is familiar with bike basics should have no problem installing either option.

Under power, the steel chainrings are marvelously quiet. I spent most of the test time riding the 30-tooth, as that is my preferred gearing, and also because I could switch it out without removing the crankarm from the bike. After the better part of a month on a wide variety of trails and a spate of rain and mud, I can report that the chain never jumped the chainring and, while some of the black finish is beginning to show signs of wear, the steel teeth remain unaffected. With equal time and similar conditions, the aluminum X01 chainring was aleady showing flat spots on the outer faces of the teeth.

SRAM X-Sync Steel Chainring 2015
A slight offset keeps the chain from contacting the crank spider.
SRAM X-Sync steel chainrings 2016
Almost a month of winter riding, the teeth looked like their first ride.


Pinkbike's Take:

bigquotesRiders willing to trade weight for durability should be quite happy with SRAM's steel chainring options. So far, they are out-wearing aluminum rings well over two to one (by my estimate) and at one fourth the cost. Comparing SRAM's lightest aluminum direct-mount chainrings with the steel options is a bit sobering: the XX1 28t is only 66 grams, while the lightest (overall) steel direct-mount 28t option weighs 133 grams. Consider the value, however, and a longer-lasting, 20-dollar chainring makes a lot of sense for riders on budgets, or for those who suffer bad weather and routinely grind 90-dollar aluminum sprockets into paste. I'm a fan. - RC



MENTIONS: @SramMedia



238 Comments

  • 461 2
 Trading weight for durability!, well hell, you have basically outlined my dating approach.
  • 3 24
flag BrightBulbPhoto (Jan 6, 2016 at 21:06) (Below Threshold)
 Got to bring the weight of them carbons back up.
  • 5 0
 Haha, amazing.
  • 10 6
 now we won't know whether it's its first time. the ring just claim it's its first time.
  • 5 1
 One of the funniest comments in a long time, haha.
  • 36 0
 Do you go for the direct mount?
  • 21 1
 I guess 32 teeth is the only option, unless it hit a rock or something
*dentist joke*
  • 1 0
 hahaha You made me fell from my bed XD
  • 95 1
 $20! That is cheaper than one brake pad. I think I need this because of the great price. I'm
  • 82 4
 you're
  • 89 0
 father
  • 33 2
 not quite
  • 45 1
 NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
  • 18 2
 Father
  • 39 1
 Your
  • 21 1
 I'm
  • 28 0
 Okay, let's start over!
  • 24 0
 Luke
  • 26 0
 eat
  • 19 2
 I am
  • 16 0
 For
  • 42 1
 Jetfuel
  • 21 1
 lamp
  • 11 1
 when
  • 16 2
 Ray Allen
  • 6 100
flag XCMark (Jan 6, 2016 at 19:44) (Below Threshold)
 Discobrake pads, $11USD for Sintered 'pair', $6 for semi-metal 'pair'. I've never had issues with them and, the price is great. I think they have pads for most every caliper available. The first pair of semi-metal I bought for my Saint calipers lasted longer then the OE pads. A Consumer.
  • 11 0
 lost
  • 3 50
flag fecalmaster (Jan 6, 2016 at 20:00) (Below Threshold)
 Anyone that rides bmx is familiar with the cheap steel sprocket alternative. That being said 7075 alum vrs steel chain is always a sure bet. Bargin on drivetrain price is a sure way to a hospital stay.
  • 13 1
 Out
  • 13 2
 of here
  • 7 38
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 6, 2016 at 20:09) (Below Threshold)
 Jeez I'm glad I never make any mistokes.....
  • 11 0
 with
  • 36 3
 Mistokes. It's like a mistake whilst toking.
  • 20 1
 Funniest thread I've ever seen.....
  • 9 0
 ever
  • 11 0
 seen
  • 9 0
 Period
  • 8 0
 !!!
  • 6 0
 Your
  • 6 0
 insanely
  • 7 0
 screwed
  • 22 3
 I leave for 8 hours and this happens
  • 4 0
 Welcome
  • 9 0
 steel laughing!
  • 4 0
 platypus!
  • 3 1
 Hair pie
  • 5 0
 Groot!
  • 3 0
 I am
  • 4 0
 hello
  • 6 0
 It's me
  • 3 0
 your favorite
  • 2 0
 and
  • 3 1
 is it me you're...
  • 2 0
 Pickle
  • 6 0
 Almonds
  • 4 1
 got eeeeeeeeemmmmmm!!
  • 3 0
 roasted
  • 2 0
 salty
  • 2 0
 From
  • 2 0
 an ancient
  • 2 0
 belief
  • 5 0
 turtle
  • 2 0
 ninja
  • 5 0
 Oceanman
  • 4 1
 BATMAN
  • 2 2
 Bullet proof underwears
  • 2 1
 crusty
  • 2 36
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:17) (Below Threshold)
 Ok
  • 2 37
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:18) (Below Threshold)
 I'm
  • 3 38
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:18) (Below Threshold)
 Sorry
  • 1 37
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:18) (Below Threshold)
 I...
  • 2 36
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:18) (Below Threshold)
 Fucked
  • 2 35
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:18) (Below Threshold)
 Up
  • 2 35
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:18) (Below Threshold)
 The
  • 2 35
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:18) (Below Threshold)
 Theme
  • 2 35
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:19) (Below Threshold)
 Stop
  • 2 36
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:19) (Below Threshold)
 Neg-ing
  • 3 36
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:19) (Below Threshold)
 Me
  • 5 38
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 7, 2016 at 19:19) (Below Threshold)
 Please
  • 19 1
 ...aaand that kids is how wolf-amongst-lambs killed the thread
  • 2 0
 yesterday
  • 2 0
 touching
  • 2 14
flag wolf-amongst-lambs (Jan 8, 2016 at 5:27) (Below Threshold)
 Lmfao @dropoffsticks ...
  • 3 0
 slowly
  • 3 0
 putting
  • 6 0
 Sausage casserole
  • 5 0
 to sleep
  • 2 0
 on your
  • 2 1
 garage floor
  • 1 2
 ALIENS!
  • 2 1
 Ant Farm
  • 1 0
 Areolas
  • 1 0
 inside me
  • 1 0
 That it was
  • 2 0
 and
  • 1 2
 Jam roleypoley
  • 1 0
 creampie
  • 72 1
 Steel of a deal
  • 32 1
 Ring me up for one!
  • 8 21
flag Bencanrideabike (Jan 6, 2016 at 18:13) (Below Threshold)
 Chain pun!
  • 23 1
 You chainbreaker, you!
  • 6 18
flag kd233009 (Jan 6, 2016 at 19:33) (Below Threshold)
 If only our girlfriends knew what we talked about on Pinkbike...
  • 44 1
 Really grinds my gears when people break the pun streak
  • 24 2
 Girlfriends? Huh? Guys on message boards don't actually have those do they?
  • 15 0
 I know what you mean @nvonf. It makes me pretty cranky.
  • 6 2
 These people trying to offset the chain of puns with their extreme angles really wear on me. That they are so narrow minded in such wide ranging ways can really get a guy cranked up.
  • 8 1
 @nvonf yeap, he probably still lives with his granny
  • 4 0
 Girlfriend? You better put a ring on it before it spins out of your life.
  • 4 0
 My bike is my girlfriend. I try to get her all the nicest things. Most of the time she is nice to me. She's only pushed me to the ground from time to time. For sure not my fault.
  • 66 0
 I really like it but if it's not avaliable in 104 then it's useless to me.
  • 5 0
 Man You read my mind.
  • 6 0
 I'll make my email asking for 104bcd.
  • 11 0
 $100!!!
  • 1 0
 just wait 20 minutes. someone will be doing this soon enough.
  • 4 4
 Surly steel rings are US$30 and come in 104 bcd.
  • 2 0
 Surly $30 rings are not narrow-wide profile although still a great ring that will outlast many chains.
  • 2 0
 416 Stainless Steel is very hard to machine and the cost reflects that. This also why you don't see many (if at all) titanium chain rings anymore, not many wanted to pay close to $300 for a single ring. The upside, they last f o r e v e r.
  • 1 0
 Used to be able to buy Ti chainrings here for $130, but I believe he stopped

www.pinkbike.com/u/rogersjoe14

He does have a 28t cg for sale now made from hardened tool steel though
  • 1 0
 Profile and RNC used to make ti bmx rings and they were far from 300 quid..
  • 1 0
 @Myfianceemademedoit: Those are 104 BCD. XX1 requires 94 BCD. See, they gotcha.
  • 33 0
 Enduro version is 40$
  • 19 0
 The weight penalty is pretty much nil. Yes they are twice as heavy but we are talking about doubling a small amount.

An extra 67g or so is 0.147 lbs.

Lets say one owns a mountain bike weighing 25 lbs. 0.147lbs is an 0.588%. Not enough to really consider a weight penalty. If half a percent wight penalty is an issue then a good way to fix that would be to get out riding a few more times and lose a few lbs around the mid section!

I really like when products aim for durability, really makes the sport more accessible financially!
  • 2 0
 Plus this is so close to the crank axle, it's in the one place on the bike where extra weight has the least impact - not much rotational inertia like adding weight to tires or rims, not much swing weight (as the crank is the oivot point between rider and bike).
  • 23 1
 WTF is steel?
  • 33 1
 It's that heavy stuff people leave in back alleys for other people in really old pickup trucks to take and sell for beer money
  • 11 2
 Its how you make a carbon bike heavy.
  • 2 0
 You don't understand
  • 14 1
 When are we going to see steel Oval chainrings? Anybody?
  • 2 1
 Now we're taking!
  • 1 2
 You know that is a good question. I haven't tried oval chainrings on my roadbike so I cannot say if I like them or not. Sound like an interesting concept and quite a few pros are on board with them now. It is a lot of fun to see things from road come over to mountain biking and then things from mtb come over to road.
  • 11 0
 SRAM's attempt at the most sensible product of the year awards winner?
Where's the 34t spider-less version??
  • 10 2
 Awesome! Tough and $20! Oh wait... everyone's riding Race Face Cinch, oh well...
  • 4 0
 Aluminum chainrings wear faster because the chainring is a weaker metal than the chain leaving marks on the teeth, even after just a few rides. If you use a steel chain ring, where the chainring is now the harder metal, what will this do to the durability of the chain?? Will it chew away at the chain the same way a chain chews away at an aluminum ring?
  • 2 0
 nice question. I would like to know more about this
  • 2 0
 I don't expect a big difference. The cassette is already made of steel. No issues there. The wear of a chain is usually not at the outside of the rollers, where they hit the chainring and sprockets, but at the pin-roller interface. The forces on the chain will be the same independent of the material. A worn chainring will put a lot more force on the individual rollers because it does not spread the force out as well over multiple links. So all in all, I'd be willing to bet a few beers there's no lifetime difference for the chain compared to alloy rings, or at least not in favor of the alloy.
  • 6 0
 Wow. These will sell like hotcakes
  • 47 1
 When was the last time you bought hot cakes? Heck, I've never even seen hot cakes for sale. Do they even sell them? I feel like hot cakes are a major fail.
  • 7 1
 You have a valid point. These will sell like *Trek Session
  • 5 0
 @ratedgg13, are there Denny's in Canada? They sell hotcakes.
  • 4 0
 way to tear down a mainstay of our culture...honestly...
  • 3 0
 although, thanks for the image of some guy in a SRAM apron standing at the griddle in my kitchen, spatuala in hand, flipping fresh chain rings....
  • 2 0
 If they don't sell like hotcakes, maybe they'll go like gangbusters.
  • 1 0
 Tim Hortons sells hotcakes!!! (for the Canadians)
  • 1 0
 hotcakes at Tim Hortons?! You mean cold donuts? lol Not a huge fan of Tim but never saw hotcakes....
  • 8 2
 These chainrings are a steel
  • 3 0
 Someone should see if these fit on 96bcd XT cranks. The half circle bolt holes and 1mm per corner difference makes me think it could work. I can't find 96bcd steel chainrings anywhere so it might be worth a shot.
  • 2 0
 Sram and Shimano?
  • 1 0
 Sram makes 94bcd cranks that fit the chainrings, Shimano makes 96bcd cranks but there are limited chain ring options and no steel chain ring options. So yes, I wonder if the half circle bolt holes would allow for a 1mm difference. Would be a nice bodge if it did work.
  • 18 0
 Someone just tried this in North Korea, big boom.
  • 1 0
 You could get one and file out the holes a little. You'd only need to file off 1mm from the outside of each hole.
  • 2 0
 The exact reason I would never buy that XT crank with the silly chain ring sizing. For me it is either 104mm BCD or spline drive. I want to be able to choose watever parts I combine, instead of being stuck to only having options from one manufacturer. Same point where Shimano failed with the centre lock system: people are choosing different hubs because they want to be able to swap the discs from their other bikes. Actually seen people replace brand new centre lock hubs on their completes just for this reason.
  • 1 0
 Works Components do a 96bcd narrow wide. I didn't realise my bike came with the stupid sized cranks until it arrived and I tried to do the 1x conversion.
  • 1 0
 I have a 96bcd blackspire snaggletooth that works awesome. But I would like the added durability of a steel ring because it's on my winter "b"-bike.
  • 2 0
 I have a Shimano SLX triple - FC-M672 - with 96bcd. I also think that these chainrings should fit, so I've ordered a 30t one. As soon as it arrives and I mount it, I will get back here and reply with images / images links.
  • 2 0
 Fingers crossed it works.
  • 3 0
 Chainring arrived, installed on 96BCD Shimano crank. Haven't ridden it yet, will do tomorrow, but by the looks of it, I expect zero issues. Pictures:
prikachi.com/images/725/8575725R.jpg
prikachi.com/images/724/8575724Y.jpg
prikachi.com/images/726/8575726n.jpg
prikachi.com/images/727/8575727y.jpg
prikachi.com/images/728/8575728q.jpg
prikachi.com/images/732/8575732d.jpg
  • 2 0
 Nice! Thanks for being the guinea pig. I'm gonna order one now
  • 2 0
 First I was like "why review another n/w ring, we already know they all work". But then I saw the price! Super stoked to see a 20 dollar n/w ring that will last extra long! Will be buying this one day for sure when my current rings wear out.
  • 5 0
 Except for the lack of 104 BCD option I see. Guess I will not be buying this then
  • 5 1
 One Up will make one surely!
  • 2 0
 Sooo... 67g heavier = 70$ cheaper. Seems about right - the usual amount of money you pay for having lighter parts on your bike.
In my book, it's well worth the money saved - chain rings that wear out under 1000 miles are a joke, especially in 1-by configurations.
  • 3 0
 Small sprockets should be made from steel. Pleasantly surprised by sram making a sensible and affordable product. Btw. Race face also makes steel chain rings. But not single speed .
  • 1 0
 This is my one concern, managed to get the X1 1180 cassette and XX1 chain for xmas (didn't ask for it, only really needed the X1), but I still need the front ring, was debating on the Aluminium 34t X1 Ring, then saw this review and would go for the steel, but its going to batter the chain right? So its either Alu ring or Steel ring plus a £20 chain and save the good chain till summer?.. Anyone feel differently? cheers.
  • 2 0
 That XX1 chain is a beast of a chain. Run it.
  • 1 0
 @recardeeps Ok, cheers man. Steel or Alu though? would be nice to save £££ but not if its going to cost me a chain. (Note, Had the original Groupo since Oct 2014, and I'm on 2nd chain (and that was pre-worn) yet to fit the new stuff!)
  • 1 0
 I'm still on 2x9 and always stuck to the steel 32t Deore ring for 9 euros. Never saw the point of going for alu there. This may be a proper equivalent for those running a single front ring. But now that there is this one-up thing, couldn't they just go back to narrow-narrow and make it last even longer (at pretty much the same price). That would be good Smile .
  • 4 0
 Are they going to make these with a 76mm bolt circle diameter, to replace my obscenely expensive XX1 chain ring?
  • 3 0
 been using this chainring 30t for a couple of weeks now. i'm not one of those weight weenies... heavy metal is going to last \m/
  • 2 0
 This chain ring is great if you are unsure of trying out a new chainring size or just don't feel the need for a super light chainring! Mine has been great!
  • 2 0
 "Three rides in and the anodising will be carved off half the teeth of most aluminium narrow-wide sprockets". To the one I have it happened from the first ride.
  • 3 1
 Are there any technical downsides to steel chain rings like this one? (other than weight) E.g. poor tolerances, quicker wearing chain (and your $400 cassette), etc...
  • 3 2
 Less bling-bling is less endurbro-swag. That endurbro-swag makes you feel high which makes you ride faster. Side-effects of endurbro-swag are shrinking genitals.
  • 1 0
 For those of you that run 104BCD and 32T there's a way. Praxis Works make a 32T NW 104BCD steel chainring.
Now get it tiger!
www.praxiscycles.com/product/32t-steel-104bcd
  • 3 0
 But... IS IT PROPERLY MACHINED?! @raceface
  • 3 1
 Pretty sure these are stamped, but the question is still... Are they round enough? @raceface
  • 2 1
 "Warning: Direct-mount 28 is not compatible with BB30 cranks that require a zero-offset chainring"

And that's when this chainring became useless to me...
  • 2 0
 For me when they decided not to do a 104 BCD
  • 1 0
 I've been hoping this would come out. Pretty much the only reason I bout the Shimano M8000 was because it wasn't an aluminum ring.
  • 1 0
 could I run this to convert my X0 2x10 drivetrain to 1x10? Specs say it's only for X01 / X1 / GX1 though. Is it the chain that couldn't fit both chainring and cassette?
  • 1 0
 Race Face, Chromag, MRP, e13, etc - please all take note of this and offer us steel and not just aluminum for every chain ring mounting option out there!
  • 2 0
 The cheapness (priceless) is great
  • 2 1
 Pricewise*
  • 1 0
 Price*
  • 6 3
 Steel is real
  • 2 0
 is steel better? longer lasting and stronger?
  • 3 1
 Don't forget it will also wear your chain out quicker.
  • 8 1
 Hmm... I don't know for certain, but I'm reckoning the chief reason for chain wear is ring wear - as the teeth wear down, the gaps become wider, allowing the chain to develop stretch between each tooth. Chains don't wear down through abrasion but through stretch. Solid teeth /should/ help. Two pence and all that...
  • 4 0
 Chains as they wear do get longer but there is no stretching going on. The length increase is from wear between the rotating parts of the chain (pins, rollers, etc.). If the chain was actually stretched that would mean there had to be enough force to deforme the side plates.
  • 1 0
 Untrue @bluechair84. Chains don't stretch. It is the pins wearing down that enlargens the length of the chain, making it seem like it is stretched to the naked eye. But in the meanwhile it has nothing to do with stretch at all. Google it if you don't believe me
  • 1 0
 I'm a huge fan! Will be my next ring . . . . when my (excellent) $100 Wolftooth SS ring wears out . . .
  • 1 0
 The anodizing on the aluminium rings wears off incredibly fast. It's just for looking good in the shops.
  • 1 0
 Why can't they stamp aluminum (instead of machining) and have $20 aluminum rings?
  • 1 0
 104mm and 36tooth and SRAM - take my money (if still be 20 bucks, otherwise I will consider) Smile
  • 3 5
 Why steel? I thought they said the n/w alu rings they've been selling us were the best, never drop a chain, long lasting, etc, etc...Does this mean that alu n/w rings don't last and will drop chains?
  • 6 1
 I don't know? My RaceFace aluminum n/w has well over 500 miles with no issues and still going strong.
  • 4 0
 its part of the gx line. Steel chain rings are cheaper to produce and lasts longer
  • 2 0
 Here's how your alloy chainring will start to fail (I just had my first in 2 seasons wear out). When you are in the granny gear, or the next 1-2 down you will hear a grinding noise. That or you will drop a chain when you otherwise wouldn't have. Both of these occurred for me at about the same time. According to my LBS alloy rings last 1-2 seasons of decent riding. My theory is that more wear occurs when in the larger gears as the chain line is wacky thus putting more stress on the ring.
  • 2 0
 Nice article
  • 1 1
 And....there should be a market for 2 and 3 by versions as well......knock knock.
  • 1 0
 Now they need a direct mount oval version in bigger sizes.
  • 1 0
 Excellent choice if you need the durability. Way to go SRAM!
  • 1 0
 I guess us 104 BCD guys just aren't cool enough for that club.
  • 1 1
 REAL STEEL!!!!!!!!????????????????????
  • 1 1
 No it's made of cheese..
  • 2 2
 1/4lb 32t chainring. That's American.
  • 1 0
 miiinghiiiieee
  • 6 9
 Sweet. Inexpensive and long lasting. Let's hear it you shimano fan boys. What's wrong with it this time?
  • 2 0
 That's what she said
  • 9 0
 It's not RaceFace.
  • 6 0
 As a Shimano fanboy, why the hell did they make these with 94mm BCD and not make a 104mm version?
  • 4 0
 Rust?
  • 2 0
 @m47h13u - Because it's SRAM making rings for SRAM cranksets. They should make them for 104bcd to sell more, but it makes sense that they'd first target their own cranksets.

@justincs - $100 is in a whole different ballpark from $20
  • 1 0
 @M47h13u - as if Shimano didn't intruduce the new bolt pattern with latest cranksets. The difference is, you can remove the spider from most SRAM cranks, giving you more options. So if you have such crankset, you can buy the 104BCD spiderfor it and off you go.
  • 2 0
 @Alias530: I just managed with a little bodging to fit one of these chainrings on my Saint cranks so that's a bump up from 94bcd to 104bcd. Taken for a few rides now and it's nothing short of fabulous!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.061792
Mobile Version of Website