Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What of cheater skis?

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Spector

unread,
Sep 25, 2002, 11:38:37 PM9/25/02
to
It would seem that the discussion about shaped skis is over.

No one talks about cheater skis anymore.

Even the most dinosaur like of my friends who swore that nothing less than
205's would do are now on shaped 180's and the best are going down to 175
and even less.

Mike


pigo

unread,
Sep 26, 2002, 12:24:09 AM9/26/02
to

"Mike Spector" <mikes...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1jvk9.414069$Ag2.17...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...

As one of those:
I'm thinking about getting something in the low 190's. But the only time I
ski anymore is with people visiting, the wife, powder days. Seems the
performance isn't the issue it once was for me.


ant

unread,
Sep 28, 2002, 8:12:37 AM9/28/02
to
Mike Spector <mikes...@shaw.ca> wrote

> It would seem that the discussion about shaped skis is over.

yep. although here, my little lecture about the NEW skis still seems to be
news to 100% of my groups! Many learned to ski yonks ago, and are now coming
back to it for various reasons, and they wondered why the skis were shorter.

> No one talks about cheater skis anymore.

I mention this debate in my little lecture, and then note that we drive cars
now, rather than walking everywhere...

> Even the most dinosaur like of my friends who swore that nothing less than
> 205's would do are now on shaped 180's and the best are going down to 175
> and even less.

here (in Australia) people will still want to be on Very Long Skis
(specially men), so if they want to fight the snow/equipment/hill, good for
them.
Length does still play quite a big part...go too short, and in heavy fresh
you WILL pay the price (I did, bloody hell!), but it's about working with
the model of ski and who/what it was designed for, rather than simple
measurements.

My Stockli Ravers are 162cm, and are made for the heaviest, most aggressive
men. My Elan Whistlers are 160cm, and made for people slightly weedier than
I. And the length difference is half an inch! In old ski terms, the
difference is about 20cm, not kidding.

My new skis are a lot less sidecut than the Ravers (which were very fat at
both ends and a tad too narrow in the middle 120, 68, 110) which had a turn
radius of 11m. The newies are midfats, Stockli Easy Riders (I really wanted
to Stormrider, but the rotten things wouldn't turn at anything less than
mach .5), with measurements of 110, 72, 100. In modern terms, they're
almost a conventional again! Well, maybe not quite. They're brilliant, they
are like an X-Scream with precision and bounce.

In fact, I luv em so much, they just might go skiing in the fresh freshies
tomorrow. And the next day....and...

ant


lal_truckee

unread,
Sep 28, 2002, 12:18:13 PM9/28/02
to
"Mike Spector" <mikes...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<1jvk9.414069$Ag2.17...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...

Why are they skiing on kid's short skis? What wusses.

Actually I think trends have reversed - people are finally waking up
to;

1) a ski doesn't need to be short to have a soft lateral flex while
remaining stiff in torsion (cf Authier's last skis).

2) if your skis are longer you can narrow the ski while retaining
floatation, thus reducing turn effort without requiring a pile of
plates for leverage.

3) my ski is longer than your ski, nah-ne, nah-ne.

Scott Abraham

unread,
Sep 28, 2002, 3:07:59 PM9/28/02
to
The Queen of the Terrorists returns...with an innocuous post in the midst of
the wreckage of a once functioning newsgroup that she destroyed.
Such an obvious troll. One I shall pass on. How stupid do you idiots think
I am?
We shall wait. Then we shall poke. Fun, fun.

ant wrote :

Richard Henry

unread,
Sep 28, 2002, 4:46:09 PM9/28/02
to

"Scott Abraham" <scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B9BB4C1F.AE3D%scot...@hotmail.com...

> The Queen of the Terrorists returns...with an innocuous post in the midst
of
> the wreckage of a once functioning newsgroup that she destroyed.
> Such an obvious troll. One I shall pass on. How stupid do you idiots
think
> I am?
> We shall wait. Then we shall poke. Fun, fun.
>

What does this mean exactly? Please provide guidance. Should I put it in
the evidence folder, or the medical history folder?


Scott Abraham

unread,
Sep 28, 2002, 8:40:26 PM9/28/02
to
Richard Henry wrote :

Shove it up your ass. Then we shall poke. Fun, fun. I promise not to do
to Kerrison anything she hasn't done to me....and like her, I have some
friends waiting in the wings, waiting for the go-ahead.

Hero Horvath

unread,
Sep 28, 2002, 9:38:30 PM9/28/02
to
Scott Abraham <scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> How stupid do you idiots think
>I am?


Really Really Really REALLY REALLY and a lot more reallys, stupid.

You once flunked an IQ test.

If brains were money, you wouldn't have enough to pay attention.


--
Hero Horvath
Mill's Race Champion

I didn't get to be where I'm at by listening to idiots like you.


Hero Horvath

unread,
Sep 28, 2002, 9:39:22 PM9/28/02
to
Scott Abraham <scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>to Kerrison anything she hasn't done to me....and like her, I have some
>friends waiting in the wings, waiting for the go-ahead.
>


You got no friends.

Richard Henry

unread,
Sep 29, 2002, 1:16:55 AM9/29/02
to

"Scott Abraham" <scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B9BB9A0A.AFC8%scot...@hotmail.com...

> >
> Shove it up your ass. Then we shall poke. Fun, fun. I promise not to do
> to Kerrison anything she hasn't done to me....and like her, I have some
> friends waiting in the wings, waiting for the go-ahead.

Logged with full headers.

I'm still not sure about the other one, though.

>


ant

unread,
Sep 29, 2002, 7:39:35 AM9/29/02
to

Back Bay Rob <ocalhost@mackrel> wrote in message
news:fs9cpuobod1phdbnt...@4ax.com...

> What would you recommend for an intermediate New England Ski,
> downhill, with trips to the Rockies?

argh! you're kidding. um, just about any ski ever made...really.
Actually, the things I'm currently on just about fit the bill (Stockli Easy
Riders) as they are tortionally strong, for ice, (they sure go fast for a
soft ski) but are wide and longitudinallly soft for softer snow.
Then again, that'd just about cover the K2 Mod X /Axis thingies, and the
Salomons, and the Volkl vertigo series, and the current offerings from
Head... etc etc etc.

Demo, young man! Go forth and DEMO! (it's fun).

When I was in NE, those in the know had gone for the Vertigo G31s, big-time.

ant


Mike Spector

unread,
Sep 29, 2002, 10:50:43 PM9/29/02
to
 
> "Mike Spector" <mikes...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<1jvk9.414069$Ag2.17...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > It would seem that the discussion about shaped skis is over.
> >
> > No one talks about cheater skis anymore.
> >
> > Even the most dinosaur like of my friends who swore that nothing less than
> > 205's would do are now on shaped 180's and the best are going down to 175
> > and even less.
>
> Why are they skiing on kid's short skis? What wusses.
 
Easy, 'cause it's more fun.

>
> Actually I think trends have reversed
Not around these parts
 
 - people are finally waking up
> to;
>
> 1) a ski doesn't need to be short to have a soft lateral flex while
> remaining stiff in torsion (cf Authier's last skis).
 
Who cares?

>
> 2) if your skis are longer you can narrow the ski while retaining
> floatation, thus reducing turn effort without requiring a pile of
> plates for leverage.
 
Plates are a gimick. You really don't need 'em. But the short skis are just way easier in ALL conditions.

>
> 3) my ski is longer than your ski, nah-ne, nah-ne.
I am sure that you are right.  But as I am sure you have been told many times "size does not count" .
 
 
 

Aaron Daniel

unread,
Sep 30, 2002, 12:05:54 AM9/30/02
to
 
"Mike Spector" <mikes...@shaw.ca> wrote in message "lal_truckee" <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > "Mike Spector" <mikes...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<1jvk9.414069

>
> 2) if your skis are longer you can narrow the ski while retaining
> floatation, thus reducing turn effort without requiring a pile of
> plates for leverage.
 
Plates are a gimick. You really don't need 'em. But the short skis are just way easier in ALL conditions.
I agree that you don't need them. I also believe they are oversold. My peers at the ski shop sell plate bindings on top of skis with built-in plates and customers are clueless that the neither were designed to work together. That is a major reason why I like Salomon's Pilot system, Volkl/Marker's Motion system that completely integrate ski-binding and do not like drillable plates built into skis.
 
Anyway I do not agree that plates are gimmicks. They do work. Where your statement holds true is that they are oversold to people who will never benefit from them.
 
Aar 

AstroPax®

unread,
Sep 30, 2002, 12:43:26 AM9/30/02
to
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:05:54 GMT, "Aaron Daniel"
<ada...@triad.rr.com> wrote:

>short skis are just way easier in ALL conditions.

That's *your* opinion, and a flawed one at that!

-Astro

OPERATION: VERTICAL DROP
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/01-02/index.htm

Mike Speegle

unread,
Sep 30, 2002, 12:54:51 AM9/30/02
to
AstroPaxŽ wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:05:54 GMT, "Aaron Daniel"
> <ada...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> short skis are just way easier in ALL conditions.
>
> That's *your* opinion, and a flawed one at that!
>
> -Astro

I agree, that 55mph runout near the bottom part of a steep cruiser
does work all too well with shorties. :-( And Aaron, *please* don't post
in HTML. Thanks. ;-)
--
Mike
________________________________________________________
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often. Ski hard.
Spend *lots* of money. Then leave as quickly as you can.


Mike Speegle

unread,
Sep 30, 2002, 12:58:13 AM9/30/02
to
Mike Speegle wrote:
> AstroPaxŽ wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:05:54 GMT, "Aaron Daniel"
>> <ada...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> short skis are just way easier in ALL conditions.
>>
>> That's *your* opinion, and a flawed one at that!
>>
>> -Astro
>
> I agree, that 55mph runout near the bottom part of a steep cruiser
> does work all too well with shorties. :-( And Aaron, *please* don't
> post in HTML. Thanks. ;-)

DOH! does s/b doesn't. Sheesh, read BEFORE Send already.

Eeeewwwwwww! The abbreviation for "should be" now takes on a
disgusting tone, doesn't it? Ugh.

Mike Spector

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 12:15:08 AM10/1/02
to
I tried skis with and with out them an I have tosay that I could never tell the diff.
One instructor told me that they helped prevent booting out but only in exteme angles.
 
Mike

Mike Spector

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 12:18:01 AM10/1/02
to
 
"AstroPax®" <as...@skiutah.com> wrote in message news:u4lfpukpop1vhvkpj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:05:54 GMT, "Aaron Daniel"
> <
ada...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >short skis are just way easier in ALL conditions.
>
> That's *your* opinion,
Yes it is.
 and a flawed one at that!
and your evidence is....
I note that there are a lot of us who think this.

Mike Spector

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 12:19:06 AM10/1/02
to
Why should'nt I use HTML?

Mike

"Mike Speegle" <mikes...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:an8le7$c3qh1$1...@ID-130573.news.dfncis.de...

The Real Bev

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 12:44:21 AM10/1/02
to
Mike Spector wrote:
>
> Why should'nt I use HTML?

Because your next message looks like this to most of us:


---------------begin html post--------------------

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C268C6.A2D55B20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


"AstroPax=AE" <as...@skiutah.com> wrote in message =
news:u4lfpukpop1vhvkpj...@4ax.com...


> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:05:54 GMT, "Aaron Daniel"
> <ada...@triad.rr.com> wrote:

>=20


> >short skis are just way easier in ALL conditions.

>=20


> That's *your* opinion,
Yes it is.

and a flawed one at that!

and your evidence is....
I note that there are a lot of us who think this.=20

>=20
> -Astro
>=20

>=20

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C268C6.A2D55B20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"AstroPax=AE" &lt;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:as...@skiutah.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>as...@skiutah.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt; =
wrote in message=20
</FONT><A href=3D"news:u4lfpukpop1vhvkpj...@4ax.com"><FONT =

face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:u4lfpukpop1vhvkpj...@4ax.com</FONT></A><FONT =

face=3DArial size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt; On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:05:54 GMT, =
"Aaron=20
Daniel"<BR>&gt; &lt;</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:ada...@triad.rr.com"><FONT =

face=3DArial size=3D2>ada...@triad.rr.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>&gt;=20
wrote:<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; &gt;short skis are just way easier in ALL=20
conditions.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; That's *your* opinion,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#008080 size=3D2>Yes it =
is.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;and a flawed one at =
that!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#008080 size=3D2>and your =
evidence=20
is....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#008080 size=3D2>I note that =
there are a lot=20
of us who think this. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt; <BR>&gt; -Astro<BR>&gt; =
<BR>&gt;=20
OPERATION: VERTICAL DROP<BR>&gt; </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/01-02/index.htm"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/01-02/index.htm</FONT></A><=
BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt; </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C268C6.A2D55B20--

----------------end html message--------------------

pigo

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 1:13:36 AM10/1/02
to

"The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3D992825...@myrealbox.com...

> Mike Spector wrote:
> >
> > Why should'nt I use HTML?
>
> Because your next message looks like this to most of us:

Most?
It looked fine to me.
Maybe we can use HTML as some sort of code.

The Real Bev

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 1:28:38 AM10/1/02
to
pigo wrote:
>
> "The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:3D992825...@myrealbox.com...
> > Mike Spector wrote:
> > >
> > > Why should'nt I use HTML?
> >
> > Because your next message looks like this to most of us:
>
> Most?

"Some" is bad enough.

> It looked fine to me.
> Maybe we can use HTML as some sort of code.

Ssshhh. How do you think the Secret Decoder Rings work?

--
Cheers,
Bev
MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software.

JQ

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 10:56:48 AM10/1/02
to

"Mike Spector" <mikes...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:_m9m9.447993$Ag2.18...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...

> Why should'nt I use HTML?
>
> Mike
>
(snip)

Many people use plain text readers to read news group messages which does
not read HTML.

JQ
Dancing on the edge


Walt

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 11:06:48 AM10/1/02
to
JQ wrote:
> "Mike Spector wrote

> > Why should'nt I use HTML?
>

> Many people use plain text readers to read news group messages which does
> not read HTML.

And many of those whose readers do support html are *annoyed* by it.
Please, no HTML on usenet.

-Walt
--
//
//... as if I don't have enough to be annoyed at as it is....
//

Sir F

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 11:36:00 AM10/1/02
to
"Mike Spector" <mikes...@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:_m9m9.447993$Ag2.18...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:

<top posting fixed>

> "Mike Speegle" <mikes...@netscape.net> wrote in message

<snip>


>> does work all too well with shorties. :-( And Aaron, *please* don't
>> post in HTML. Thanks. ;-)
>> --
>> Mike
>>

> Why should'nt I use HTML?

Top posting in HTML. Don't suppose you're using MS Outlook (Express?) to
post to the group, are you? <sigh>

-T.O.M.-

JQ

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 12:12:30 PM10/1/02
to

"Sir F" <elan...@nospam.yeehaw.com> wrote in message
news:Xns929A61A7F1F...@64.0.17.11...

I read several other news groups and most top post and no one complains, it
is the accepted norm. Here it is not tolerated and for good reasons. Top
posting makes it harder to follow previous posts. When a post gets too long
or has been responded many times, snip what is not necessary. Just my 2
cents worth...

Sir F

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 12:54:57 PM10/1/02
to
"JQ" <j...@wadenet.com> wrote in
news:OPjm9.346966$216.14...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com:
>
> "Sir F" <elan...@nospam.yeehaw.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns929A61A7F1F...@64.0.17.11...
<snip>

>>
>> Top posting in HTML. Don't suppose you're using MS Outlook (Express?)
>> to post to the group, are you? <sigh>
>>
>> -T.O.M.-
>
> I read several other news groups and most top post and no one
> complains, it is the accepted norm. Here it is not tolerated and for
> good reasons. Top posting makes it harder to follow previous posts.
> When a post gets too long or has been responded many times, snip what
> is not necessary. Just my 2 cents worth...

Hehehehe. I would argue that most of the threads here are hard to follow
simply due to the scatter-brained tendencies of the participants (me
included!).

-T.O.M.-

bdubya

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 1:59:19 PM10/1/02
to
On 01 Oct 2002 16:54:57 GMT, Sir F <elan...@nospam.yeehaw.com> wrote:

>"JQ" <j...@wadenet.com> wrote in
>news:OPjm9.346966$216.14...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com:
>>
>> "Sir F" <elan...@nospam.yeehaw.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns929A61A7F1F...@64.0.17.11...
><snip>
>>>
>>> Top posting in HTML. Don't suppose you're using MS Outlook (Express?)

I still think mid-posting is the wave of the future.

bw

Sir F

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 2:24:15 PM10/1/02
to
bdubya <bdu...@interaccess.com> wrote in
news:aipjpus9vh0brtjb9...@4ax.com:

> On 01 Oct 2002 16:54:57 GMT, Sir F <elan...@nospam.yeehaw.com> wrote:
>
>>"JQ" <j...@wadenet.com> wrote in
>>news:OPjm9.346966$216.14...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com:
>>>
>>> "Sir F" <elan...@nospam.yeehaw.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns929A61A7F1F...@64.0.17.11...
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>> Top posting in HTML. Don't suppose you're using MS Outlook
>>>> (Express?)
>
> I still think mid-posting is the wave of the future.

Yeah, but you're a forward thinker.....

-T.O.M.-

Walt

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 2:37:59 PM10/1/02
to
Sir F wrote:
> bdubya wrote

> > I still think mid-posting is the wave of the future.
>
> Yeah, but you're a forward thinker.....

Of course. If he was a back-seat thinker his thoughts would race out
from under him and he'd do an intellectual yard sale. Not pretty.

Remember, keep your thoughts out in front.

-Walt
--
//
//...And don't wave your arms....
//

Skirecr2

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 11:16:26 PM10/1/02
to
in>Message-id: <B9BB9A0A.AFC8%scot...@hotmail.com>

Scott Wrote:

> I have some
>friends waiting in the wings, waiting for the go-ahead.>>

LOL--sure you do, Luv. Just lke you did two years ago when you emailed me
NUMEROUS times informing me you had learned my idenity and would do naughty
things if I continued to harass you. Im still waitttinggggggggggg :)

ToddD

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 12:14:17 AM10/2/02
to
in article 20021001231626...@mb-fx.aol.com, Skirecr2 at
skir...@aol.com wrote on 10/1/02 11:16 PM:

Still waiting here too. Well I'm actually not holding my breath. Just
figured if people were gonna get hurt, I'd offer my services. But nothing
but impotent yapping on rsa. Oh well.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

ant

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 1:51:29 AM10/2/02
to

Sir F <elan...@nospam.yeehaw.com> wrote

> Top posting in HTML. Don't suppose you're using MS Outlook (Express?) to
> post to the group, are you? <sigh>

I wonder why MS stuff defaults everything to HTML and top replies?
I always set my email and news to plain, and with >'s in front of the quoted
text, and for my email, it used to fight and argue, it didn't like doing it
at all. It would threaten all kinds of dire consequences.

ant


The Real Bev

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 2:32:19 AM10/2/02
to
ant wrote:
>
> Sir F <elan...@nospam.yeehaw.com> wrote
>
> > Top posting in HTML. Don't suppose you're using MS Outlook (Express?) to
> > post to the group, are you? <sigh>
>
> I wonder why MS stuff defaults everything to HTML

Because they're vicious bastards with no ethics or morals and form is more
important than content.

> and top replies?

Actually, that's OK. You normally work from the top down, answering the
bits you want to and deleting the rest. At least that's the way it's
supposed to work. I suspect that if the software positions the cursor at
the bottom of the post you're responding to, the temptation is to just type
a line and hit SEND rather than deleting the extranea.

--
Cheers,
Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Marketing Professional's Motto: "We don't screw the customers. All
we're doing is holding them down while the salespeople screw them."
-- Scott Adams

Tony2turn

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 3:51:12 AM10/2/02
to
>I tried skis with and with out them an I have tosay that I could never =
>tell the diff.

I got my second pair of Elan PSi shaped skis several years ago, and they
didn't perform like my originals. They were slower to turn... Luckily they had
Salomon 900s with the bigger riser. I put the shorter riser on(using the same
holes), and they performed like my originals... I've since tried to get my boot
as close to the ski as possible...Of course, I'm more of a short radius turn
type od guy...
-2turn
Those of you with back shop access...try it. ski a ski mounted with Solomon's
with that big yellow lifter, and then pop the binding off and replace that
yellow lifter with the red one..It's an amazing difference...

0 new messages