Lal Bikes' Did Efficiency Tests on the Supre Drivetrain - An Update

May 4, 2022 at 8:03
by Seb Stott  
Lal bikes have been testing a twelve-speed version of the Supre drivetrain on a hardtail test bike (the last version we saw on a bike was 11-speed).

For those who don't remember, Lal Bikes' Supre drivetrain won Pinkbike's 2021 Innovation Of The Year award. It's the brainchild of Canadian engineer, Cedric Eveleigh, and the idea is to improve the reliability and efficiency of derailleur drivetrains for high-pivot bikes, by moving the chain tensioner pulley to the bottom bracket, out of harm's way. You can read about the details here or even more here, or find out why we thought it was the best innovation of 2021 here.

0% Loaded prev 1/3 next


Production bikes featuring the Supre drivetrain aren't due until 2023, but Cedric has been doing some interesting tests and we thought it was time for a little update.

One of Cedric's aims is to improve upon the efficiency of conventional drivetrains on high pivot bikes. Because the chain passes over the idler wheel while under a lot of tension, high pivot bikes are less efficient than conventional bikes, and so a little slower uphill. In a recent test, I found a high pivot bike with an idler was about 2% less efficient than a comparable "low pivot" bike.


But Cedric claims to be able to narrow this efficiency gap with his drivetrain. That's partly because the gear-selecting and tensioning pulleys are larger than those in a conventional derailleur, and the larger pulleys mean the chain pins don't have to articulate through as much of an angle when they wind their way through them. For the same reason, the 22-tooth idler pulley is larger than most high pivot bikes, plus it's further away from the cassette, which minimises cross-chain angles at either end of the gearing range. Finally, the frame-mounted tensioner uses a hydraulic damper instead of a friction clutch like you'd find in most derailleurs; this allows the chain tension to be reduced, without causing excessive chain slap, and lower chain tension further reduces friction.

A conventional "low pivot" drivetrain.
Lal bikes' Supre drivetrain.
A high pivot drivetrain with a conventional derailleur but the same 22-tooth idler in the same location as the Supre drivetrain.

To prove the efficiency of his drivetrain, Cedric tested it on a purpose-built test rig in Germany, alongside a conventional derailleur drivetrain without an idler. He also tested a high pivot drivetrain with a conventional derailleur, but the same large idler pulley that the Supre system uses, placed at the same position relative to the cassette (you can think of this as a best-case scenario for a drivetrain with an idler and a normal derailleur). According to Lal Bikes, the Supre drivetrain was on average about 0.9% less efficient than a conventional low-pivot derailleur drivetrain, but slightly more efficient than the "best-case" high-pivot drivetrain with a conventional derailleur.

According to Lal Bikes, their Supre drivetrain only wastes 0.9% more of the rider's power than a standard low-pivot derailleur drivetrain, and it's slightly more efficient than a high-pivot drivetrain with a standard derailleur, even one using the same oversized idler pulley as the Supre system.

The advantage compared to the "best case" high pivot drivetrain may be tiny, but given most high pivots use 16-18 tooth pulleys (not 22-tooth), have the idler closer to the cassette, and in many cases also require a lower roller guide, the real world efficiency of many high pivot drivetrains could be considerably lower. If the efficiency test I did is anything to go by, a conventional high pivot with a 16-tooth idler and a lower guide is around 2% less efficient than a conventional low pivot drivetrain. Whereas, according to Lal bikes' numbers, the Supre drivetrain more than halves this disadvantage to less than 1%.

As always, take any manufacturer's claims with a pinch of salt (even if they have a nice graph), but it seems reasonable to assume the Supre drivetrain will be more efficient than existing high-pivot systems. Given its main selling point is the promise of better reliability, that's a nice bonus.


111 Comments

  • 133 0
 Great to see folk trying to bring an alternative to the market. Good luck old bean.
  • 20 0
 Super grateful for people innovating and iterating... ALL ideas welcomed, good, bad, ugly, silly, pointless.... the arrow is pointed in the right direction regardless.
  • 31 27
 @diggerandrider: All ideas welcome except Ebikes ;P
  • 13 6
 @DDoc: why are they even here?ebikers need to stop riding the coat tails of mtber's
  • 64 0
 "Is that a Supre?!"
  • 3 24
flag kinematix (May 5, 2022 at 11:23) (Below Threshold)
 You mean: Looks like a Supre.
  • 24 4
 There are more advantages to this than just the 2% increase in efficiency.

✅There is no exposed derailleur to get hit by rocks or catch a stick and damage the drivetrain.
✅The derailleur is out of the way so water from puddles won't splash on your chain so easily and contaminate your drivetrain, so your chain should last longer.
✅Your derailleur isn't near as likely to get bent out of alignment, so shifting is more reliable overall.
✅Because the chain isn't as likely to get hit by rocks or other obstacles, it's l likely to get tweaked or broken, leading to a more reliable and safer drivetrain. Less likely to break a chain in your race run.
✅The increased overlap of the chain on the rear cassette means you aren't as likely to have chain skipping problems when you put a new chain on an old cassette.
✅High pivot bikes aren't pretty, but the bike looks better without the rear derailleur hanging down almost to the ground.
  • 17 7
 Also:
- You need a special derailleur produced by a small company
- Works only on high pivots, so quite a niche product and will remain niche forever
- Bike using it probably will not work with normal derailleur, so when the company runs out of business your bike is a garbage

So in general you bet that it will never break (or you'are gonna wait for parts because no one will stock them) and that this niche company will survive at least your bikes lifetime.
This is a great idea, but it must be able to get wide adoption to make any sense.
  • 2 0
 And you can skip chainguide.
  • 8 1
 @lkubica: It doesn't need wide adoption to make sense. It makes sense for Lal to take a shot at this. It's a passion project, not a get-rich project. Nobody who buys one of these will have naively wandered into the bike shop. They'll know what they're getting into, so it makes sense for them also. It is risky for both Lal and the buyer, but everybody knows that going in. And it makes sense for us to watch this from the sidelines for now and see if this ends up as a standard or just another fun engineering/art project dead-end in the MTB world.
  • 4 0
 And the most important advantage:

✅ No more frivolous class-action lawsuits!
  • 8 9
 In 25 years of DH racing I never fatally damaged a derailleur or wanted a gearbox.
  • 2 1
 @Marquis: Eventually it will have to become profitable to survive. And if everybody just like you will watch from the sidelines, it will not happen. It's great that they have passion, abilities and are smart, but it's also important to invest this passion in things that have a chance to last.
  • 9 0
 @suspended-flesh: That settles it then.
  • 5 0
 @riderseventy7: we say n=1, but he'll claim his experience as n=25
  • 1 0
 You really think most chain breaks come because something hit the chain in the lower run and damaged it? There is very little tension there, the chain is just going to move away, not take damage.

More cassette wrap is not really going to help with an old cassette and new chain. It doesn't skip just because it's worn, it skips because it's worn to a different chain pitch. Having more chain of the "wrong" pitch in contact isn't going to help, might make it worse.
  • 2 1
 @justinfoil: Chain twisting from impact might be rare on a non e bike but it has happened to me on my e bike so I included it. Sometimes you can also get a little stick stuck in your pulleys(cause it's so close to the ground) that will jam itself in there, get stuck, and cause the chain to twist as it forces it's way through. It might not twist much but enough to cause a click every revolution. This has happened to me on my e bike. Derailleurs that practically drag on the ground do not belong on e bikes, it's so stupid it's laughable.

I think the overlap would help. Even with the different pitch, you are going to have more friction and force resistance with more overlap.

✅More force resistance on the chain should also help with chain life, because the forces are more spread out over more link pivots.
  • 2 0
 @lkubica: You could say similar things back when dropper posts were invented. Yet here we are.

The derailleur can be mass produced. High pivots are desirable for descending fast, definitely not a niche product now and set to be even more popular in the future with this invention.
  • 2 0
 @Marquis: I reckon he will get rich from this. He is working with a manufacturer on a production bike with this and I expect others will be lining up to get their hands on the technology as well.
  • 20 0
 "Production bikes featuring the Supre drivetrain aren't due until 2023."
Any word on if this will be a new bike built by Lal Bikes' or a collaboration with an another brand?
  • 14 1
 I believe he said in an earlier interview that he's in talks with a somewhat big bike brand if I recall correctly
  • 14 0
 Cédric said that his goal is to licence the system so I would lean towards a "collab". My bet is either WAO or Devinci
  • 12 0
 Forbidden IMO.
  • 1 0
 @mechatronicjf: DEVINCI has recently been bought or is in process of. I would be suprised they would invest in such a major change right now.
  • 65 0
 @SATN-XC We're focusing on the drivetrain parts, which we'll manufacture here in BC and provide to bike companies with Supre Drive equipped bikes. Can't say yet who the bike companies are though. We're happy to work with any bike company to help them design frames for the Supre Drive. Our current collaborations are going very well and exciting stuff will be revealed soon!
  • 4 0
 @mechatronicjf: I'll take that bet and raise you Commencal tup
  • 12 0
 My bet is on Nicolai at the moment... Its them who's doing all the efficiency testing for him (well a company owned by Kalle Nicolai).
Check his last insta
  • 1 0
 He has been talking to brands. He states that in an interview here on PB somewhere or maybe in the podcast.
  • 19 0
 @Jonesey23: Not quite - I operated the equipment and did the efficiency tests, but with their equipment. I'm really grateful for their help and for letting me use their equipment.
  • 3 0
 @Afterschoolsports: good guess! Forgot about forbidden haha
  • 3 0
 @stej29: the aluminum bikes are still made in Quebec so I'm thinking they're a bit more flexible with retooling. No idea if the new owners will stick with Quebec manufacturing
  • 3 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: count me in mate, I'm in line for the first of the crop!
  • 3 0
 @stej29: Who's buying Devinci? Haven't read any rumors of the sort although I might have missed them..
  • 1 0
 My money would be on Knolly. I reckon they’re the right mix of a small-to-medium sized company that’s into goofy-looking, engineer-driven products to be taking a punt on something like this.
  • 1 0
 @speedfreek: I mean, their bikes are already alu so they seem to focus on durability. Good guess.
  • 18 1
 You heard it here first, the next big thing™ for mountain biking are high pivot hard tails!
  • 58 0
 This particular model is called the Supre Hard. Smile
  • 9 0
 PB’s original -2% efficiency findings are inaccurate as it uses a Forbidden with a E13 lower chain guide. The E13 guide is massively inefficient and by far the majority of the drag in the system vs just the top idler pulley. The idler pulley is larger and runs on a smooth bearing. The lower e13 guide is a cheap plastic bushing with a loose chain jamming all friction on friction design. Once binned the Forbiddens pedal substantially better. No lower guide necessary.
  • 1 1
 Precisely
  • 1 0
 Can I pull the lower chain guide and not drop a chain? I'm on a large how many chain links need to come out?
  • 1 0
 @rsmisko: I have been running a LG Dreadnought with the stock chain length and without lower guide for 10 plus rides. A couple rides with a 28t Wolf Tooth Camo bash ring set up but had to ditch that as the chain ring folded under power during a climb, back on stock 32t sram ring. Everything from sea to sky to high speed Kamloops trails and have not dropped the chain once. I would guess you could lose 3-5 links and still be fine but I am still experimenting without issue.

I actually just re-installed the lower guide today to see if there is any noticeable difference...
  • 1 0
 @sfd656: great to hear! I’m on a Druid and might give this a try
  • 9 0
 My dream is to own a Kavenz VHP16 with one of these. Ground hugging high pivot bike with an ultra reliable and quiet drivetrain, sign me up!
  • 2 0
 Count me in on that! The only thing I can see myself upgrading/improving on in the medium-term future
  • 8 3
 All the "never tried but meh" naysayers make me sick. They keep haunting me since my RS Mag 21 ("who needs suspension anyway"- "there is no problem to be solved" -"heavy more moving parts, expensive"- "If you want smooth riding, ride on the road".)

It went on with discbrakes, droppers, inserts, 1x11 etcetcetc. Now i bought an O-chain, total overpriced crap, noone needs, (complete rippoff). First ride on a fairly high pivot bike without idler: turns out its absolutely great for enduro / dh riding suspension works way better. Destroyed my best time on my hometrack,i have been riding for seven years now, on the first run.

Next day all naysayers reunite here to bash supredrive ("whats the problem", complicated, expensive, jadajadajadajada).

Yes some things dont work, but you dont know until you try and the probability of a small group of passionate bikenerds wanting to rip you off is pretty small.

Just try and until you did stfu.
  • 4 2
 STFU works pretty well too.
  • 1 0
 Seems like your metric for excellence is Speed but what about Fun and Reliability?
I like speed but I also want to enjoy myself when I’m not going fast and don’t want to have to replace proprietary parts when something breaks.
  • 1 0
 @blackthorne: Having raced DH for a long time, i am always finding myself measuring fun in speed, which is of course to some extend stupid. Having started in the 90s i am prety sure modern bikes are much more reliable then 90s or 00 bikes. I remember flatting all the time and adjusting rimbrakes and shifting after every ride. Bars, seatposts and cranks would snap eventually too. Proprietary parts are bad but part of innovation i guess. Right now proprietary parts dont bother me too much, sram and shimano should have agreed on a bottom bracket and directmount standard (maybe driver too), but other than that, you can mix a lot of things.
  • 8 0
 This is so sick. Would love a bike with this
  • 8 0
 Just put the cranks on the upper pivot. Solved.
  • 4 1
 Some of the comments here are depressing. If you don’t understand why high or moderately high pivot bikes offer some advantages that deserve a place in the market, fine, but don’t impose your decision on the entire market. His innovation was to look at the high pivot drivetrain, step back, and engineer an elegant solution with improved chain wrap on cogs and chainring, improved efficiency, and, a way to separate the Shifting duties from the Chain Tension duties of a conventional derailleur. Any engineer can understand the resulting benefits. The more protected location of the derailleur is merely a side benefit.
  • 2 0
 It's great to have this data, although just testing a standard HP arrangement would have been better imo since many have ridden those. The idea that we might be able to cut the drag penalty in half while getting HP benefits is exciting. GL Cedric!
  • 3 0
 Good point for sure. I plan to run those efficiency tests in the future.
  • 3 1
 Why is there any efficiency penalty at all in 1st gear/ lower gears? The rear derailleur is barely touching the chain, no articulation that I can see in 1st gear.

In 1st gear you just have the HP itself & the clutch, both with large radii which would seem equivalent to a standard derailleur regarding overall drivetrain losses.

Is there additionally a friction loss resulting from the number of total teeth engaged at any moment? Does a longer chain cause more friction? I feel like the efficiency loss in 1st gear needs to be understood to determine what it would take to get the efficiency down everywhere. Really with the improved chain angle I might have guessed 1st gear efficiency with the Supre to even be better than a standard derailleur.

If the Supre can get within a hair of the efficiency of a standard derailleur and the chain remains cleaner to boot meaning efficiency stays higher for longer in the real world, it's really a slam dunk.

In my limited experience, current HP bikes give up too much efficiency to make good trail/ AM bikes as they sit.
  • 8 0
 The chain's engaged with the derailleur pulley in all gears including the first gear. As soon as there's any amount of chain wrap around a sprocket (such as the derailleur pulley) the chain links articulate when they engage and disengage with the sprocket. Along these lines, the amount of chain wrap around a sprocket doesn't affect the amount of drag, and neither does the total length of chain. What does matter however is the pivoting angle of each chain link as it engages and disengages with sprockets. The pulleys in the Supre Drive are big and that decreases the pivoting angles of the chain links which in turn improves efficiency.

You make a good point that the Supre Drive remains cleaner. The chain's farther from the ground and doesn't drag on the ground like what we see in some huck to flat videos with conventional derailleurs.
  • 3 0
 This on a Druid update would have my attention. I ride up and down on mostly boringish trails... I clutch my pearls at the idea of less efficiency, so I think this is cool.
  • 1 0
 Interesting how the curve flattens out, or even dips a bit on the low gear side of the graphs. I assume this is cross chaining loss canceling out the gains of the larger cassette sprockets?

Out of curiosity, what was the chainline for the tests?
  • 6 0
 Exactly, in the low gears, cross chaining decreases efficiency and the increased sprocket size increases efficiency. Good question about the chainline. The chainline is 52mm at the chainring and Super Boost at the rear. This is the configuration for the 12-speed Supre Drive, and I used the same when testing the other types of drivetrains to make the comparison fair. An example of a bike with this configuration is the We Are One Arrival.
  • 1 0
 On my high-pivot bike I doubt the efficiency loss is something I could notice, but I do notice the extra noise from the drivetrain after a while. There is a psychological component since as soon as the noise hits a certain level, the bike becomes "less efficient". If the noise is reduced with Supre Drive, I'm in (as a serial derailleur smasher).
  • 1 0
 I'm interested in the test setup for this. Torque meters and load cells you'd need to measure that sort of efficiency difference are pretty whiz bang. I'd like to know the accuracy of the instruments and what sort of DAQ was used. It would certainly shed some light on the data presented here.
  • 1 0
 The test rig has HBM T40B torque and speed sensors. I provide more info here: lalbikes.com/efficiency
  • 2 0
 For the non-French speakers out there, is Supre pronounced like the English word "super?" Totally asking for an ignorant friend.
  • 4 1
 It's pronounced supreh (or supré in French). By eh, I mean the good old Canadian eh. In case you didn't know, supre isn't a French word; it's actually an Esperanto word. It means "above" in Esperanto.
  • 1 0
 Pronounced more like a Toyota Supra The Esperanto 'language' was created in the late1800s and this word 's root is from the Latin 'Super'
  • 2 0
 @suspended-flesh: Apparently, the e in Esperanto is pronounced like the e in bet. So I was wrong, it's not like the Canadian eh. en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Esperanto/Appendix/Alphabet_and_pronunciation
  • 1 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: haha awesome. Now you can pronounce you’re own product. I would do the exact same thing ☺️. Stoked on this. Looks amazing.
  • 1 0
 I need to work on my Pinkbike grammar.
  • 4 4
 I know they claim it prevents derailleurs from getting f*cked up by sticks and stuff but those sticks seem to get stuck in some pretty hard to access places so I’m sure this design isn’t immune to it. It’s a pointless and ugly design IMO, sorry.
  • 3 1
 so therse f*cking sticks seem to get stuck in hard to access places, i see.
  • 1 0
 Yeah thats true. I get more stick in the rear wheel, but rarely the derailleur. The derailleur also can take much more abuse from sticks than the spokes before something breakes. Just my observation.
  • 3 0
 How times were each test points repeated?
  • 1 0
 and different RPM plus wattage. I have no idea what 200W or who can do it.
  • 8 0
 @Devbot123 Good question. For each test point (in other words, for each set of test parameters), the drivetrain was cycled for 90 seconds without data recording, to let things stabilize, and then data was recorded for 60 seconds at a sample frequency of 600 Hz. So each test point is an average of 36,000 data points.
  • 3 0
 @mtb-scotland: To answer what 200W means, that is what a reasonable fit rider can do for an hour (this metric is called FTP or Functional Threshold Power). To see more of how 200W looks, here is a link: www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2018/06/how-does-your-cycling-power-output-compare. I know when I've read up on efficiency tests that do test multiple wattages and RPM, no meaningful differences were noted (ie while the exact efficiency numbers for 200W vs 300W will change the difference between them will stay at the same magnitude). In other words, I would be very surprised to see that .9% change with different wattages and RPM.
  • 7 0
 @QuantumIce: I travelled to Germany to do these tests, and by the time I had the test rig running and the procedures developed, I lacked time to collect data for different parameters than those presented here (200W, 70rpm). At some point, I'll have efficiency test equipment in-house at Lal, and that'll give me much more time for running various tests. It'll also give me an opportunity to experiment with design modifications to improve efficiency even more. I have some interesting ideas for this.
  • 1 0
 That isn’t me then lol @QuantumIce:
  • 1 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: Thanks for the response Cedric. So I assume you ride arrive at steady state take some samples and take the central tendancy. Is that correct? And if so it would be cool to see a plot of the Standard Deviation.

Another cool thing to see would so see a frequency spectrum. Seeing as we are talking about dampers it would be cool to see frequency domains of the different systems.
  • 2 0
 @Devbot123: After the 90 second dwell, I record continuously for 60 seconds and then average that data. The damper generally only functions when riding over bumps (desirably) and when shifting (undesirably), neither of which are relevant to the efficiency results.
  • 1 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: uncertainty bars would be nice but they very well could be too small to resolve.
  • 2 0
 @dirtyburger: That would be misleading, because I think the main concern is systematic uncertainty, and that isn't quantified.
  • 1 0
 While I'm happy to see anyone doing efficiency tests they all seem a bit crap to me. I'm pretty sure all drivetrains are going to have two losses we should be measuring. A simple parasitic loss that is relatively independent of power. So for example a couple of Watts to turn everything over, and a loss which is proportional to the power being transferred which it would be reasonable to state as a simple percentage efficiency.
Doing multiple tests at different power levels would be a great way to clarify this.
There is a big difference between losing 2% of any effort and always losing 4watts, but at 200W these might appear to be the same thing.
  • 1 0
 There is so much going on with that frame fabrication. It is machine age beautiful. I guess it is a work in progress, hope it rides well.
  • 1 0
 Might be nice of the frame manufacturer that offers Supre to allow the CS to accept both a regular derailleur & the Supre as a back up option.
  • 2 0
 This seems like an awful lot of effort to justify a more complicated, expensive, heavier, less efficient design.
  • 3 0
 Where update?
  • 5 0
 I believe its the efficiency data. same design, just more testing has been done
  • 3 0
 Good luck Cedric!
  • 1 1
 Nice, really into getting the RD out of the way.
More mtb need powermeters (imo, otherwise it's all about pb comments and feeling* the resistance arbitrary)
  • 2 0
 Power meters at the cranks or pedals only measure input power - you also need output power (at the wheel) to calculate efficiency. This is technically feasible though. It would be cool to have efficiency measured on a bike out on trails.
  • 5 5
 Who the fukk wants all that chain and pulleys on their bike? Looks like a mess and adds more headache to maintenance. Nah, no thanks!
  • 2 0
 Not a single pulley more than a regular high pivot bike and the cain lenght seems to be about the same aswell.
  • 1 0
 That looks wild! I like and dislike it! ha So cool to see how this develops and how it would work on a full suss!
  • 1 0
 More energy, need MORE ENERGY! But this gave me a really great idea that I have not seen in a bike yet... hum
  • 2 0
 I still fail to see the point of this. Just looks too complex and heavy
  • 4 4
 What problems does this solve? To me it just looks more complicated but can’t see the benefits.
  • 3 5
 Exactly! Reading through the majority of responses indicates everything that’s wrong with the bicycle industry. People constantly trying to “fix” “problems” that don’t actually exist….with “innovation” that no one is asking for. And as you can see there’s always an abundance of people that somehow seem to think they now need it to be better, simply for the only reason that they’re told it’s better.
It’s seriously laughable…..and sad all at the same time.
Meanwhile there’s literally millions of people out there somehow shredding on “less efficient” systems with less worry and complexity.
  • 2 0
 Give that bottom bracket a few rides with al the spray that builds up around the bb and that chain will be hangin down all droopy dog...
  • 2 0
 @bikebike69: 90s bikes were pretty bad -let me tell you that, this was until this sad thing called "innovation" kicked in.
  • 1 0
 @bikebike69: This is not "the bike industry", it's a dude who had an idea and actually put in work to make the idea a reality. And now he's putting in more work to prove that it's not worse then existing solutions, at least in this aspect, power transfer efficiency, which seems to be a pretty important one to many people.

Someone asked for this innovation, the guy who made it.

No one is saying the others systems don't work, this is just an alternative. I suppose you would have said the same bullshit when narrow-wide rings came out, and clutch mechs, and 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 speeds. And index shifting, and trigger shifters. Every single time, there were people absolutely shredding on the old systems, but someone had an idea to make it "better" (maybe, hopefully; considering better is both relative and subjective) and they worked to make it real. And then people started shredding on the new systems, and maybe since they also lowered the barriers to entry and also made things more reliable and/or flexible, they helped got even more people shredding, period, and everyone was shredding even more as well.
  • 1 0
 Big props for providing probably the first acceptable graph it PB history.
  • 2 2
 So bad-ass. The remote spring for the tensioner is especially genius.
  • 2 1
 the spring tensioner is not new or genius or part of his patent., its just a long spring for a linear counterbalance.
  • 1 1
 @DDoc: the use of it in this application is new. Of course I know people have put springs in tubes and/or at the end of cables. Haven't seen one used to fit a tensioner in the limited space around the BB area. That's the interesting part.
  • 3 3
 Goodluck with that mess you invented. No thank you.
  • 1 0
 I was just going to say what a mess.
I think every opinion is valid, especially to the guy/company that’s putting their money on the line.
Below threshold threads are hidden





You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2022. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.016727
Mobile Version of Website