Wolverine front load

461 views
Skip to first unread message

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 21, 2018, 2:04:51 AM5/21/18
to 650b
Does anyone have experience with the wolverine and a rando bag? Considering this or a grand randonneur for my new frame, but worried about shimmy/ riding without hands. Front won't always be loaded

I was relatively set on the GR, but I've been reading on this group that it's pretty prone to funky handling.

Another option I've been considering is taking my trek 510 650b conversion and brazing on rack mounts and maybe canti posts, but I'm not sure what the trail is on my bike.
I'm a little lost here, so I'd appreciate the help

Palmer

unread,
May 21, 2018, 8:37:13 AM5/21/18
to 650b
Hi Nathan,
I had a v1 Wolverine and used upright Soma Oxford bars. I had if front racked with a basket for a while and it was fine. If I had drop bars I think I would not like it from other drop bar bikes. Probably just a leverage and weight distribution thing. I really liked that bike and only sold it because I wanted wider tires for what I bought it to do- light off-road touring. My current rig for this is a Redline Monocog 29er with 2.4 rear and 3.0 front tire with a Surly ECR fork. Have you ridden a front loaded bike, are you going to rear load as well? I have settled on 70% front and 30% rear loading for road touring and bikepacking type frame/saddle/fork leg bags with light stuff lashed to the handlebar for trails and dirt if I want more mountain bike type riding.
Back to the Wolverine, many have felt it a little stiff, I did not. I even liked it best on rough roads and dirt with my lightest whelks and 700x42 Continental speed ride tires. It felt like I was riding a gun bike always. I even rode it on a group ride once that averaged 16.5 mph.
Hope you find something that works for you.
Tom Palmer
Twin Lake, MI

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 21, 2018, 11:33:49 AM5/21/18
to 650b
Hey thanks for your input! Im not planning on doing any really tough terrain; just some gravel or dirt roads. I'm probably going to end up with most of my load up front. Thinking a rando bag most of the time and two front panniers for camping. I'm not opposed to a rear load, it just seems like that is more prone to produce weird handling issues with a front bag.

I think my first step might be to find out what trail my current bike has and how it handles a bag up front

rcnute

unread,
May 21, 2018, 11:43:37 AM5/21/18
to 650b
Never tried a Wolverine but tried a GR at the bike shop and the handling seemed fine to me (and like my other low trail bikes).

Ryan

Sven-Olof Johansson

unread,
May 21, 2018, 11:51:27 AM5/21/18
to 650b, Nathan Briles

I’m riding a 1:st generation GR, and normally there’s not any noticeable shimmy.
I’ve only gotten it to wobble once, and that was when I severely overloaded my Carradice saddle bag.
It seems like the GR doesn’t like to carry a heavy swaying load behind the rider, but as long as I put the heavy stuff in the handlebar bag, it handles just fine.

/s-o
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Matt White

unread,
May 21, 2018, 1:50:21 PM5/21/18
to 650b
I have a Wolverine with Soma Sparrow bars and a porteur rack. It’s normally fine unless my arms are unusually tired or I really load it up and even then it just feels a bit floppy at low speed, but nothing unmanageable. I also think I’m being helped out by the leverage of my upright bars.

-Matt

Justin Hughes

unread,
May 21, 2018, 7:35:50 PM5/21/18
to 650b
I had a Wolverine with 46cm rando bars, Haulin Colin rack and tubeless SBH ELs. Poor recipe for me. No fun at all with a load. I didn't do any JRA with that bike. I did one week of bikepacking and immediately sold it. It was a placeholder from the start, but I wasn't going to spend another mile on it. Soma/Surly geo is not my bag. Given the number of their bikes I see with short stems and lots of spacers under them it would seem they're a compromised fit for the majority of users.

I can't imagine the criteria one would have that narrowed the choices to only a Wolverine or Grand Rando. That would make me think that person is unaware of a lot of bike choices out there.

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 21, 2018, 9:24:09 PM5/21/18
to 650b
Ok that's good to know! What are some 650b framesets you would suggest in the sub ~$500 category that have low trail geometry? I don't think there are very many

Jeff Bertolet

unread,
May 21, 2018, 9:50:51 PM5/21/18
to 650b
I would consider modding your existing bike. Maybe someone has a Kogswell or GR fork you could try with the Trek. I have a low trail canti fork from a L’avecaise. PM if interested.

Sub $500 framesets are not much of an improvement over a decent vintage Trek/Fuji/etc., in my opinion.

Low trail without a front load is unpleasant for me. A porteur rack and basket is enough to tame the handling, or a small rack, bag, and 2 lbs of gear.

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 21, 2018, 10:11:52 PM5/21/18
to 650b
This is totally something I would be interested in doing, but I don't know the exact geometry for my current frame because I can't find it in the old trek literature.

Ideally, I would get canti mounts brazed on the frame, get a new fork with canti mounts and powder coat. I havent been able to find any production low trail 1" forks.
Although, I don't wanna spend $200 on a fork then $200 on powedercoating and braze-ons and come up with something I don't like and I can't resell.

If I could find the trek in a the books that certainly help put me on the right track.

Alex Wetmore

unread,
May 22, 2018, 10:59:24 AM5/22/18
to Nathan Briles, 650b

Do you have a photo of your old Trek?  I'm pretty good at figuring out what they were based on pictures.


alex


From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Nathan Briles <nbril...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:11:52 PM
To: 650b
Subject: [650B] Wolverine front load
 

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 22, 2018, 12:40:13 PM5/22/18
to 650b
I don't have any at the moment, but it looks almost identical to the 1985 trek 510, but it has greyish decals not red. Also, my frame has a 53cm seat tube center to center which isn't included in the 1985 brochure.
I'm can hardly find any images of this frameset with the same color decals, so it's pretty weird.

Alex Wetmore

unread,
May 22, 2018, 1:20:11 PM5/22/18
to Nathan Briles, 65...@googlegroups.com

Send me a photo, I'm curious and can probably figure it out.  Try to take it pretty square on, and also take a photo of the fork crown and tops of seatstays.  I've owned a lot of old Treks, including some models that weren't in catalogs.


If it takes 57mm reach brakes with the pads at the bottom of the slots then it may already be moderately low trail (most of those bikes made until 1984 were made with 55mm offset).  


Trek catalog sizes are center to top, 53cm C-C is a 22.5" frame, which is their most common size.  The 1985 catalog lies about how they measure, but 1984 and 1986 both get it right.


1985 Trek 410 came in scarlett red, 73 degree HTA, 45mm offset.  You could re-rake to 65mm offset for low trail, but will lose a few mm of tire clearance.  It'll still fit 650B x 38 nicely after re-raking, and those bikes don't fit 650B x 42mm with enough clearance in the rear triangle anyway.


1985 bikes had the model number on a sticker on the chainstay, so it isn't uncommon for it to be gone.  You may still have a tubing decal though, which helps you figure it out.  The first number is the general quality level (400=entry, 500=mid, 600/700=higher end), but second is a clue towards the purpose and geometry (00 = road, 30 = touring, 10 and 20 are more all purpose, 60/70 are racing bikes).  Even the 400 series bikes rode nicely.


alex


Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:40:13 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Wolverine front load
 
I don't have any at the moment, but it looks almost identical to the 1985 trek 510, but it has greyish decals not red. Also, my frame has a 53cm seat tube center to center which isn't included in the 1985 brochure.
I'm can hardly find any images of this frameset with the same color decals, so it's pretty weird.

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 22, 2018, 2:59:25 PM5/22/18
to 650b

Ok I'll take a photo when I get home. It definitely is a 510, it still has the sticker on the chainstay, I'm just confused by the decal coloring not being listed anywhere and the somewhat inaccurate geometry chart (might not be inaccurate if they're measured c-t, didn't check that).
I'm currently using the tektro 559 brakes and they're all the way down at 73mm, just barely clearing the tires.

I would love to retake the fork to achieve a lower trail, I didn't really know you could do that tbh. I don't forsee myself running tires larger than 38 any time soon, so that's not too much of a concern.

If you Google 1985 trek 510, the black frameset with red decals seems to be exactly the same, just with different colored decals for some reason

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 22, 2018, 3:15:41 PM5/22/18
to 650b
Here's one not great picture I had on my phone. Will post more later
Trek 510 https://imgur.com/gallery/VuCqkT4

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 22, 2018, 6:56:01 PM5/22/18
to 650b
And here's some slightly better ones. Sorry quality sucks

https://imgur.com/a/70Kq0LY

Jeff Bertolet

unread,
May 22, 2018, 7:27:42 PM5/22/18
to 650b
The decals probably just faded to gray. 

I indented the chainstays a little on my '85 Trek 600. It barely clears 42's with the wheel all the way back in the dropouts. If I can find someone locally to indent it more professionally, I will. Then I would probably use 38's and fenders.

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 23, 2018, 1:05:34 AM5/23/18
to 650b
So i'm fairly certain that my bike is a 1985 510 in size 21"

Using some random trail calculator I found, I'm showing a trail of 69mm. I found a Soma Grand Randonneur fork for $150 with a ~70mm offset, giving me a trail of 35mm (the same as the GR). This Trek also has shockingly similar geometry to the GR, with the most noticeable difference being bb drop. I do experience some pedal strike, but my crankset is 175mm.
So, now I'm really considering getting that fork, canti braze on's for the trek frameset and powercoating the whole thing... Just have to decide which has better tubing, the trek or the GR.

I really appreciate your help, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks!

Daniel Jackson

unread,
May 23, 2018, 7:15:37 AM5/23/18
to 650b
Alex Wetmore saves yet another soul!

Alex Wetmore

unread,
May 23, 2018, 11:13:53 AM5/23/18
to Nathan Briles, 650b

The short head tube also makes me think it is a 21" frame.


You can save your money on cantis, since the rear brake doesn't do a lot of work there isn't much reason to switch instead of just using the long reach brakes that you are using today.


The Reynolds 501 that Trek uses is 9/6/9 tubing in standard diameter (1" top tube, 1.125" downtube).  Tubing specs are listed in this part of the catalog:

http://vintage-trek.com/images/trek/85TrekIntroduction.pdf

I can't tell what the diameter of the Soma GR tubing is from their product photos.


alex


Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:05:34 PM

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 23, 2018, 11:57:46 AM5/23/18
to 650b
I was thinking of getting canti's just because having two different brake types seems weird to me, but I agree that it's probably not a huge upgrade. The frame could use some new paint anyways. There's a little co-op thing nearby that can do the braze on's, and if they can do it cheap then it might be worth it to invest in this frame a little more.


I'm also considering what you said about altering the rake on the current fork. Can it be safely raked further to achieve a ~40mm trail or should I just spend the money on a new fork?

Alex Wetmore

unread,
May 23, 2018, 12:07:38 PM5/23/18
to Nathan Briles, 650b

40mm is a lot to add.  The Trek forks that I've reraked started with 55mm of offset and I re-raked them to 65mm of offset (dropping trail from about 50mm to about 40mm).


Using a large radius bender adding 10mm of offset to the 1983 Trek forks resulted in about 2mm of clearance loss.  There are some photos here:

https://photos.alexwetmore.org/Bicycles/Fixtures/Fork-Re-raking/i-wztKv38


The grey and gold forks started out identical, the one was from a 1983 Trek 620 and the other a Trek 630.


alex


Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:57:46 AM

To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] Wolverine front load
I was thinking of getting canti's just because having two different brake types seems weird to me, but I agree that it's probably not a huge upgrade. The frame could use some new paint anyways. There's a little co-op thing nearby that can do the braze on's, and if they can do it cheap then it might be worth it to invest in this frame a little more.


I'm also considering what you said about altering the rake on the current fork. Can it be safely raked further to achieve a ~40mm trail or should I just spend the money on a new fork?

Sam

unread,
May 23, 2018, 12:17:30 PM5/23/18
to 650b
FWIW, Ive had a number of older mid eighties treks with mismatched decals/or slight variations in coloring from the catalog spec. I think that occasionally they would use up old stock of decals etc.

as an example, I had a 1985 Trek 620 touring bike (blue one with the mile long stays) with the silver headtube and elance decal from a 400 series, but it said 620 on the chainstays.... 

so variations exist. 

Sam

Matt White

unread,
May 23, 2018, 12:27:05 PM5/23/18
to Alex Wetmore, Nathan Briles, 650b
http://boulderbicycle.bike/soma-grand-randonneur.html

"Soma GR frames in the small to middle size range use 8/5/8 skinny tube tubes and 9/6/9 skinny downtubes.”

-Matt

> On May 23, 2018, at 8:13 AM, Alex Wetmore <al...@phred.org> wrote:
>
> The short head tube also makes me think it is a 21" frame.
>
> You can save your money on cantis, since the rear brake doesn't do a lot of work there isn't much reason to switch instead of just using the long reach brakes that you are using today.
>
> The Reynolds 501 that Trek uses is 9/6/9 tubing in standard diameter (1" top tube, 1.125" downtube). Tubing specs are listed in this part of the catalog:
> http://vintage-trek.com/images/trek/85TrekIntroduction.pdf
>
> I can't tell what the diameter of the Soma GR tubing is from their product photos.
>
> alex
> From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Nathan Briles <nbril...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:05:34 PM
> To: 650b
> Subject: Re: [650B] Wolverine front load
>
> So i'm fairly certain that my bike is a 1985 510 in size 21"
>
> Using some random trail calculator I found, I'm showing a trail of 69mm. I found a Soma Grand Randonneur fork for $150 with a ~70mm offset, giving me a trail of 35mm (the same as the GR). This Trek also has shockingly similar geometry to the GR, with the most noticeable difference being bb drop. I do experience some pedal strike, but my crankset is 175mm.
> So, now I'm really considering getting that fork, canti braze on's for the trek frameset and powercoating the whole thing... Just have to decide which has better tubing, the trek or the GR.
>
> I really appreciate your help, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
> Thanks!
>
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:20:11 AM UTC-7, Alex Wetmore wrote:
> Send me a photo, I'm curious and can probably figure it out. Try to take it pretty square on, and also take a photo of the fork crown and tops of seatstays. I've owned a lot of old Treks, including some models that weren't in catalogs.
>
> If it takes 57mm reach brakes with the pads at the bottom of the slots then it may already be moderately low trail (most of those bikes made until 1984 were made with 55mm offset).
>
> Trek catalog sizes are center to top, 53cm C-C is a 22.5" frame, which is their most common size. The 1985 catalog lies about how they measure, but 1984 and 1986 both get it right.
>
> 1985 Trek 410 came in scarlett red, 73 degree HTA, 45mm offset. You could re-rake to 65mm offset for low trail, but will lose a few mm of tire clearance. It'll still fit 650B x 38 nicely after re-raking, and those bikes don't fit 650B x 42mm with enough clearance in the rear triangle anyway.
>
> 1985 bikes had the model number on a sticker on the chainstay, so it isn't uncommon for it to be gone. You may still have a tubing decal though, which helps you figure it out. The first number is the general quality level (400=entry, 500=mid, 600/700=higher end), but second is a clue towards the purpose and geometry (00 = road, 30 = touring, 10 and 20 are more all purpose, 60/70 are racing bikes). Even the 400 series bikes rode nicely.
>
> alex
> From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Nathan Briles <nbril...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:40:13 AM
> To: 650b
> Subject: Re: [650B] Wolverine front load
>
> I don't have any at the moment, but it looks almost identical to the 1985 trek 510, but it has greyish decals not red. Also, my frame has a 53cm seat tube center to center which isn't included in the 1985 brochure.
> I'm can hardly find any images of this frameset with the same color decals, so it's pretty weird.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/UUTJCvNqmBA/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

Eamon Nordquist

unread,
May 23, 2018, 1:31:12 PM5/23/18
to 650b
Maybe the bigger difference is that the Soma appears to have a beefier rear triangle than any Treks from that era that I'm familiar with. The fork also has stouter blades than the Trek. Whether those things matter to you is, of course, another question.

Eamon

p.s. I have an '83 Trek 520 with 9/6/9 std. diameter tubing in the main triangle, and the 55mm offset fork - I think Trek got it pretty right in those years.

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 23, 2018, 8:11:04 PM5/23/18
to 650b
Ok so I dug through a crazy long thread on here about tubing thickness and planning so now I have a little more information about that, which should be helpful.

The Soma, in smaller sizes, uses 8/5/8 while my current 510 (Reynolds 501) uses 9/6/9. I think that might be a noticeable upgrade in tubing from my current trek.

I also called that local co-op that I mentioned earlier. Apparently they aren't doing any extra services anymore. No more brazing, no powdercoating, no classes whatsoever. Theyre probably going under soon. Sad day in Eugene, OR.

It's looking like the Soma GR, or the Velo Routier, might be my entry into low trail. I'd probably be more excited about the Velo Routier, I just don't like the blue.

Cary Weitzman

unread,
May 23, 2018, 8:50:01 PM5/23/18
to 650b


Nathan Briles wrote:
> The Soma, in smaller sizes, uses 8/5/8 while my current 510 (Reynolds 501) uses 9/6/9. I think that might be a noticeable upgrade in tubing from my current trek.

Don't forget to take into account tubing thickness as well. That OS
8/5/8 on the Wolverine is going to be stiffer than the 1" 9/6/9 on the Trek.

Cary
PTBO.ON.CA

Cary Weitzman

unread,
May 23, 2018, 8:51:03 PM5/23/18
to 650b


Cary Weitzman wrote:
> Don't forget to take into account tubing thickness as well.

Oops, I meant tubing diameter.

Cary
PTBO.ON.CA

Edd Bread

unread,
May 23, 2018, 11:39:09 PM5/23/18
to 650b
I've used the v2.1 with a tubus front rack and a VO Front Rack, drop bars. It rides ok, but certainly isn't optimal. I think Crust have some good budget options for low trail forks and frames: https://crustbikes.com/products/1-threaded-fork/ also you can order a GR fork from Soma.
Message has been deleted

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 24, 2018, 1:26:04 PM5/24/18
to 650b
I've considered swapping forks on the wolverine to reduce the trail, but in another thread people were saying that the head angle of the wolverine might lead to issues in stearing? I don't know enough about it, but pretty much everyone advocated against that route for the wolverine.
I still kinda like the idea, though and that crust fork is so freaking sweet

Also, that fork has the wrong size steerer for the wolverine. The Soma low trail fork would fit though

Alex Wetmore

unread,
May 24, 2018, 1:44:55 PM5/24/18
to Nathan Briles, 650b

My commuter bike has a low trail fork with the same 72 degree HTA as the larger Wolverines.  It works well.  I intentionally built it with a little slacker head tube angle to support a larger porteur rack.  The slacker HTA moves the front wheel forward and farther under the load.


The Soma disk fork with 65mm offset looks like it would be a good match.  I can't find the A-C of the stock Wolverine fork, but the through axle one is 403mm (vs 398mm for the low trail disk fork).  The slightly shorter fork will increase the HTA a hair (probably around a quarter degree), which won't hurt.  


If possible I'd measure your bike first to see if the angles meet the specs.  The only Soma that I've bought had very different measurements than specs, but that was a long time ago.


alex


Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:26:04 AM
To: 650b
Subject: [650B] Re: Wolverine front load
 
I've considered swapping forks on the wolverine to reduce the trail, but in another thread people were saying that the head angle of the wolverine might lead to issues in stearing? I don't know enough about it, but pretty much everyone advocated against that route for the wolverine.
I still kinda like the idea, though and that crust fork is so freaking sweet

Also, that fork has the wrong size steerer for the wolverine. The Soma low trail fork would fit though

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 24, 2018, 9:49:25 PM5/24/18
to 650b
The wolverine, in the size I need, would have a 71 headtube. You don't think that is too slack? There was a separate thread where people were pretty strongly against it.
Are there any other good frameset options for less than $1000? I went to my LBS and rode a Soma double cross today and it felt pretty stiff and lifeless. If the GR is similar, I think it'd get the itch to upgrade pretty quickly and I still feel like there are a lot of options that I don't know about.

Edd Bread

unread,
May 25, 2018, 12:55:08 AM5/25/18
to 650b
There are plenty of esoteric options out there. I found my Wolverine rides best with mid loads, and it really flies unloaded (but I've hardly ever done that.) Also I did an experiment and ran a 47c in the rear and 2.1s/ 54c in front for a couple of commutes, it handled better and rode faster (or maybe that was a placebo effect.) If you're in Washington and can wait 3 months, I'd go for a Elephant NFE.

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 25, 2018, 3:18:36 AM5/25/18
to 650b
I've considered the NFE and I've been lusting after Crust's offerings, but I really need to keep it under $1000.

Ill be in Portland in a little over a week, so Ishould try and find a grand randonneur and a wolverine to test ride

Justin Hughes

unread,
May 25, 2018, 12:40:39 PM5/25/18
to 650b
My 2 cents would be to postpone purchase until you can afford the extra few hundred dollars to get what you want. I recommend against settling for any Soma frame. 

Nathan Briles

unread,
May 25, 2018, 6:40:56 PM5/25/18
to 650b
I'm starting to think that waiting might be the best option, but I also definitely want to keep it under $1000.
It seems like there aren't a whole lot of options in my price range. There's Soma's in different variations, the velo Routier, Black mountain cycles (which has no low trail options) and at the very top of my budget the Crust Evasion. Definitely open to other options though

rcnute

unread,
May 25, 2018, 7:31:46 PM5/25/18
to 650b

Marvin Davis

unread,
May 30, 2018, 3:16:32 PM5/30/18
to Nathan Briles, 650b
Seems most 650B frames below ~56mm go to slack head tube (~71 degree) and steep seat tube (~74 degree). The frame geometry on the Raleigh Redux (https://www.raleighusa.com/redux-135658) is very interesting as unlike most other frames, it maintains a 72.5 head angle / 73 seat angle across all sizes and on the small frame it has a sweet 70mm BB drop. 
 This might be a case where the small frame has the best frame geometry?

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Nathan Briles <nbril...@gmail.com> wrote:
The wolverine, in the size I need, would have a 71 headtube. You don't think that is too slack? There was a separate thread where people were pretty strongly against it.
Are there any other good frameset options for less than $1000? I went to my LBS and rode a Soma double cross today and it felt pretty stiff and lifeless. If the GR is similar, I think it'd get the itch to upgrade pretty quickly and I still feel like there are a lot of options that I don't know about.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

- Marvin Davis
  Semper Birotas
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages