# help me build my giant tcx



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

here's the build that i am planning. i'd appreciate any input 
that folks might have. i plan on using this bike for a back-up to 
my road bike (thus for some road training) and for some racing 
come next cross season. in general, i am trying to 
find a nice compromise between weight, durability, and cost.


frame/fork/headset: 2005 Giant TCX
stem: Deda Elementi Newton OS
handlebars: Deda Elementi Newton OS
seatpost: Easton EC70
brakes: Shimano BR-R550 Cantis
shifters: campy centaur
f/r derailleur: campy centaur
crankset: FSA compact MegaExo
wheels: Sun ME-14A 32-hole rims 3x laced to Chorus Hubs

i'm set on the frame and running campy centaur, but advice
on wheels, etc. would be great.

-orbea04


----------



## Vanilla Gorilla (Mar 22, 2004)

I have campy centaur on my rig and like it just fine. How about some campy zonda wheels from www.cbike.com for $389.!!??? they would look super fly!


----------



## kingfurby (May 9, 2004)

The Easton EC-70 seatpost is too delicate for cross. I have three of them, but I wouldn't use them on a cross bike. Go for a Thomson, it has a better clamp and only weighs about 15 more grams than the Easton. If you're worried about shock absorption use tubulars or tubular clinchers.


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

I had a lot of seat post slipping on my giant. I found that mounting the shim with the slot forward and using a carbon post helped.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

kingfurby said:


> The Easton EC-70 seatpost is too delicate for cross. I have three of them, but I wouldn't use them on a cross bike. Go for a Thomson, it has a better clamp and only weighs about 15 more grams than the Easton. If you're worried about shock absorption use tubulars or tubular clinchers.


yeah, i've got the same hesitation about the carbon seatpost. i have an ec70 on my 
road bike though and it has performed really well without any slipping. the thompson
post's are great except that i want more set-back (i know that they offer a post
with set-back but it looks awful funky with the kink in it). i'm thinking about a ritchey 
wcs post now.


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 16, 2004)

I would go with a Syntace F99 stem (99 grams, $75) and a TTT Prima 199 handlebar (199 grams, paid $17 on ebay for mine). That combo is cheap and will hold up.

About the seatpost, i had a leftover seatpost from my weightweenie road build, and decided to try it on my cx bike. Its a New Ultimate seatpost, weighs 94 grams, and is working out fine it also cost like over $200. I'm not saying this is a wise purchase, but i am saying that i would be afraid to run a lightweight seatpost on a cross bike or even a carbon one. I was using the Woodman Carbo seatpost on my ride before the New Ultimate was mounted.

jeremyb


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

*zonda wheels?*



Vanilla Gorilla said:


> I have campy centaur on my rig and like it just fine. How about some campy zonda wheels from www.cbike.com for $389.!!??? they would look super fly!


i thought that the campy zonda wheels are fairly light (given the cost) and 
thus not so durable. perhaps, i am wrong about this.


----------



## Vanilla Gorilla (Mar 22, 2004)

ARe you gonna race this or use it as a commuter/ all around bike? All the serious racers at my last race had light aero wheels on their bikes I noticed, like K's Velomax, zipp's, and rolph's.. CAmpy wheels are some of the strongest most bombproof out there. 
If you want a more servicable wheel get some chorus hubs and build some up!


----------



## jnichols959 (Jan 22, 2004)

orbea04 said:


> yeah, i've got the same hesitation about the carbon seatpost. i have an ec70 on my
> road bike though and it has performed really well without any slipping. the thompson
> post's are great except that i want more set-back (i know that they offer a post
> with set-back but it looks awful funky with the kink in it). i'm thinking about a ritchey
> wcs post now.


the dura-ace post is in the same weight range as the wcs and the ec70 but a little more than the wcs. i went for that on my cross bike (really wanted a silver post - what can i say) and have been very happy with it for trails, road and cx.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

Vanilla Gorilla said:


> ARe you gonna race this or use it as a commuter/ all around bike? All the serious racers at my last race had light aero wheels on their bikes I noticed, like K's Velomax, zipp's, and rolph's.. CAmpy wheels are some of the strongest most bombproof out there.
> If you want a more servicable wheel get some chorus hubs and build some up!


like i said in my original post, i'm going to use this bike for some road training during the winter months and then next season i plan on racing cross with it. i'd appreciate any recommendations for good wheels. i've always thought that wheels came down to 
light, strong, and inexpensive....with the buyer able to pick 2 out of the 3. i don't really
want to shell out the money for zipp's or ksyrium ssl's, but perhaps there is something
between those and my default choice which were the sun rims laced to chorus hubs.


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

Isn't the rear spaced 135 mm on that bike?


----------



## kingfurby (May 9, 2004)

orbea04 said:


> yeah, i've got the same hesitation about the carbon seatpost. i have an ec70 on my
> road bike though and it has performed really well without any slipping. the thompson
> post's are great except that i want more set-back (i know that they offer a post
> with set-back but it looks awful funky with the kink in it). i'm thinking about a ritchey
> wcs post now.


Ritchey is a good choice, I used a Ritchey pro for two years with good results. I also like cabon fiber just as much as aluminum for riding off-road. 

I should have been more specific about why I don't like the Easton for cross. The glossy finish of the carbon fiber tends to slip down in the seattube unless you rub some chalk on it. This manages to keep the post in place but it eventually causes the finish to get scratched up and ugly. It also has a single bolt clamp for the seat which requires an incredible amount of torque to keep the seat from slipping back. If you have tubular titanium rails on your saddle there's a chance your going to break them eventually with all of the torque you have to put on the bolt.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

jroden said:


> Isn't the rear spaced 135 mm on that bike?


the 2004 tcx had disc-brake tabs and had 135mm DO spacing.
the 2005 version of the tcx loses the disk-brake tabs and according to my
local giant dealer, the drop-outs are 130mm.


----------



## morati (Jun 12, 2002)

*parts....*

Don't like the Easton post. If you wanna go cheap try the Salsa Shaft, it'll handle just about anything and is easy to adjust. Cut it to the length you need to save some weight. For wheels I would definately go tubular. The Chorus hubs are fine but lace them up to a pair of Mavic Reflex's (found on Ebay cheap), even better go with the ceramic Reflex's for better mud braking. Here's a tip I found really useful..... When I built my roadbike, I built it to be ridden on the hoods which is where you do most of your riding. However for the cross bike I built it to be ridden in the drops (I used more stack height and a handlebar one size wider and with less drop than my roadbike). Hope this helps! Oh yeah, for the cranks try going one size longer in arm length. If you normally run a 170mm road then go 172.5mm for cross and so on.....


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 16, 2004)

Here's a tip I found really useful..... When I built my roadbike, I built it to be ridden on the hoods which is where you do most of your riding. However for the cross bike I built it to be ridden in the drops (I used more stack height and a handlebar one size wider and with less drop than my roadbike). 
_________________________________________________________________________

I would argue the opposite, road bike=drops, Cross bike = hoods.

Its a matter of personal preference.

jeremyb


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

morati said:


> Don't like the Easton post. If you wanna go cheap try the Salsa Shaft, it'll handle just about anything and is easy to adjust. Cut it to the length you need to save some weight. For wheels I would definately go tubular. The Chorus hubs are fine but lace them up to a pair of Mavic Reflex's (found on Ebay cheap), even better go with the ceramic Reflex's for better mud braking. Here's a tip I found really useful..... When I built my roadbike, I built it to be ridden on the hoods which is where you do most of your riding. However for the cross bike I built it to be ridden in the drops (I used more stack height and a handlebar one size wider and with less drop than my roadbike). Hope this helps! Oh yeah, for the cranks try going one size longer in arm length. If you normally run a 170mm road then go 172.5mm for cross and so on.....


thanks. this was helpful. from everything i have read on this forum, your advice regarding tubulars seems right on. i think that i will opt for clinchers at this point 
and then add a pair of tubbies to the mix come next cross season when i really begin
racing on this bike. the easton post is definitely out....i'm thinking a ritchey wcs now.
as for riding in the drops versus hoods, my limited cross experience has shown that 
i prefer the hoods when off-road. when on the road, i also prefer the hoods but i go to 
the drops far more then. 

oh and w.r.t. crank length, i already run 175mm cranks on my road bike....is there
some concern with clearance running longer cranks?


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

*Yep, everyone's different*



jeremyb said:


> Here's a tip I found really useful..... When I built my roadbike, I built it to be ridden on the hoods which is where you do most of your riding. However for the cross bike I built it to be ridden in the drops (I used more stack height and a handlebar one size wider and with less drop than my roadbike).
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 
> I would argue the opposite, road bike=drops, Cross bike = hoods.
> ...


I actually spend a lot of time in the drops on both my road bike and cross bike. I even dismount and remount with my hands in the drops on the cross bike, just feels right to me.


----------



## morati (Jun 12, 2002)

*clarification....*

What I was trying to say regarding riding the 'cross bike in the drops is just this...the handlebars on the crosser should be higher in relation to a roadbikes so the full-tuck position isn't as drastic as on the road, this way you have more control in the dirt either in the drops or the hoods.
The WCS is a great post, it won't let you down. Clinchers are fine for training also, but yes get the tubbies for racing!
With regards to crank length I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "clearance issues". Are you referring to "toe box overlap". If so, this is definately something to be taken into consideration on smaller 'cross rigs (smaller than say a 54cm toptube). Mines 53cm and I do have some overlap but it only comes into play when maneuvering slowly around 90 plus degree corners. This situation doesn't occur much in cross races and when it does its easy to deal with. If you are running a larger than 54cm frame than its probably not going to be an issue. I run a 175mm crank on my 'cross rig and MTB and a 172.5mm on my road bike.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

my thought with regard to clearance was that a longer crank would 
reduce clearance while cornering. but i guess that this is not a concern
since (a) it is only 2.5mm difference, (b) i wont be leaning that much through 
the majority of cross corners, and (c) the cross bb is already raised enough 
to negate all of these concerns. 

if 177.5mm cranks are available, then i'll give them a try. in the past, many 
places have not had longer (> 175mm) crank arms in stock.


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

I just run the same length cranks as road (175 in my case) and it is not a problem. I bought a truematic brand crank and if I had it to do over would just continue to run a plain old ultegra w/ 39 - 48 chainrings, so I had a spare around if I need during road season. 

I'm using the froglesgs brakes this year and find they are pretty good brakes, not the cheapest or most expensive. I was using the new shimanos, but did not like the setup for muddy conditions.

I agree on the clinchers, it's good to get a set of training / pit wheels to get started and add a pair of race tubulars later on. If you have yet another pair of spare road wheels you can press into service, throw some semi slick type tires on so you have all your bases covered on race day. I like to have a 12-25 and a 12-27 cluster so I can swap out once I get a look at the course.

One thing to consider for wheels is it is nice to have a similar rim so the brakes will work if you switch during a race. I just get mavic box sections and use them for everything all year round, not sexy but effective.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

jroden said:


> I just run the same length cranks as road (175 in my case) and it is not a problem. I bought a truematic brand crank and if I had it to do over would just continue to run a plain old ultegra w/ 39 - 48 chainrings, so I had a spare around if I need during road season.
> 
> I'm using the froglesgs brakes this year and find they are pretty good brakes, not the cheapest or most expensive. I was using the new shimanos, but did not like the setup for muddy conditions.
> 
> ...


i'm going with the compact crank set (36x46), so that it can be easily converted
to a road crank set-up by putting a 52-tooth chainring on (w/ a 11-23 cassette). i'm going
with campy too, so no 12-27 option for me. and unless i go with a 13-29, there is no 
way that i can pedal with just a 39-tooth chain ring.

since my original post, i've actually changed my mind on the shimano brakes and
your comments only cement my decision. i'm now thinking of opting for Paul Neo-Retro
brakes. 

i don't know if the Sun ME-14A rims that i am looking at are very similar to mavic's
in terms of rim geometry. i'm leaning towards the Sun's because they are slightly
more aero than open-pro's and they don't have the reputation of developing clicking
noises that OPs do. it's a good point about having similar wheels so as not to have to 
adjust the brakes when makign a wheel change.


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

everything I have heard on this board suggests that the pauls are a good product, some people have mentioned using a different model rear brake, the "touring" I believe. I had the avid shorty's for a while a couple seasons ago and they tended to catch me right in the knee if I did a little dorky remount, so I swapped them out pretty quick in the back. 

I don' know if the suns are any good or not. One thing that I know I don't like is having a rim like a cxp that requires a special valve adapter or a long stem tube, I never seem to have all the correct crap around when I get a flat.

I am using the Tufo tubular clinchers this year and have to say they are a very nice tire. You really do notice the ride is less jaring, you can adjust the pressure down quite a bit for muddy conditions and they seems to hook up well. I also have the diamond tread tufos, I have not raced on them but they seem like a nice tire. It's nice to be able to just haul some decent wheels off the road bike, rip the rim strip off and run them for the cross season as race wheels. Real tubulars are maybe a little better, but I had a lot of problems with my glue jobs in the very wet conditions, must be my mistakes.

I hope you enjoy your new bike, I really love racing cross and find I use it quite a lot. I am on about my 6th. cross frame and they don't get much rest this time of year.


----------



## End_User (Aug 1, 2004)

*I just finished my 2004 TCX Build!*

Its basically done, did a road ride on it today. I did the Avid road disc thing, Ultegra FD/RD and shifters, and an FSA Carbon road triple. Ritchey Biomax II bar.

Note, I have seen the 2005 TCX frame at a CX race and the mechanics working on them clearly indicated the rear spacing is 132.5mm, not 130mm as mentioned here before.

Also, I bought a Thomson 30.8mm seat post and ditched the shim -- this fits LIKE A GLOVE and I have had absolutley no problems --- a perfect fit. I see no reason so use the shim unless you go for carbon.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

End_User said:


> Its basically done, did a road ride on it today. I did the Avid road disc thing, Ultegra FD/RD and shifters, and an FSA Carbon road triple. Ritchey Biomax II bar.
> 
> Note, I have seen the 2005 TCX frame at a CX race and the mechanics working on them clearly indicated the rear spacing is 132.5mm, not 130mm as mentioned here before.
> 
> Also, I bought a Thomson 30.8mm seat post and ditched the shim -- this fits LIKE A GLOVE and I have had absolutley no problems --- a perfect fit. I see no reason so use the shim unless you go for carbon.


did you have any problems with the seatpost shim? 

post some pics of your tcx! i'll post mine, but that will be a month or more down the 
line.


----------



## End_User (Aug 1, 2004)

orbea04 said:


> did you have any problems with the seatpost shim?
> 
> post some pics of your tcx! i'll post mine, but that will be a month or more down the
> line.


No problems -- but then again, I didnt really try it with a seat post using the shim. I just didnt like the idea of a shim from the get go. Thomson makes a great post in the right size, so I went that route.

I took some photos today (before I went riding and got it all muddy afterward). I'll work on getting them posted. 

I installed some Vredestein Campo tires on it today and man, they are great. I set them for 60 PSI and hit fireroads and some fairly technical singletrack and found the suspension provided was excellent. I was hitting 30 MPH on wet gravel roads and felt very confident, both on the hoods and in the drops. Handles as well as my old rigid MTB but way way faster! Ok, can you tell this is my first CX bike?


----------



## End_User (Aug 1, 2004)

*Photos here.*

Here's my newly built 2004 Giant TCX.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

very nice! i like the white saddle.


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

What's all that bright stuff in the picture? I have not seen sunshine in weeks here in western NY.


----------



## End_User (Aug 1, 2004)

jroden said:


> What's all that bright stuff in the picture? I have not seen sunshine in weeks here in western NY.



Would you believe it's in-- OREGON!?


I was not sure about the white saddle but it was on sale so I could keep the build cost down. It's a Flite Ti. I bet it won't stay white for long.


----------



## Tak962 (Oct 24, 2004)

deteled


----------



## jnichols959 (Jan 22, 2004)

End_User said:


> Here's my newly built 2004 Giant TCX.


Great looking bike! Looks very practical and fun. Sounds like you're enjoying it


----------



## End_User (Aug 1, 2004)

Tak962 said:


> Nice ride
> 
> What size frame is that? TT length?
> 
> -Tak


50cm Medium--

Head Tube Angle: 72 deg
Seat Tube Angle: 73 deg
TT Len: 21.9"
Head Len: 5.6"
BB Drop: 2.4"
Chain stay len: 16.9"
Wheel Base: 40.3"


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

End_User said:


> Note, I have seen the 2005 TCX frame at a CX race and the mechanics working on them clearly indicated the rear spacing is 132.5mm, not 130mm as mentioned here before.


so based on what you said, i bugged my local shop for the second time about the 
rear spacing. they double-checked with their giant distributor and got a reply of 130mm.
130mm makes some sense to me since there is no reason to run 135mm w/o disc
tabs and 132.5mm does not sound so smart on an Al frame. how were the mechanics 
measuring the spacing? seems like a ~2mm error could happen there.

i also checked on the seatpost dimension and for 2005 my lbs said that a standard
27.2 seatpost will fit....no shim needed. 

for what it's worth, my lbs happens to be wrenchscience.com (i live near berkeley, ca).


----------



## End_User (Aug 1, 2004)

orbea04 said:


> so based on what you said, i bugged my local shop for the second time about the
> rear spacing. they double-checked with their giant distributor and got a reply of 130mm.
> 130mm makes some sense to me since there is no reason to run 135mm w/o disc
> tabs and 132.5mm does not sound so smart on an Al frame. how were the mechanics
> ...



It sounds like your LBS is full of it. I called Giant directly a month or two ago and they claimed 132.5mm on the 2005. These were Giant sponsored team bikes at the maxxis tent, they had half a dozen of them -- they knew the spacing, not by measuring. But I admit, it seems dumb to use 132.5mm spacing if there are no disc tabs! I even asked about the aluminum "flex" to the mechanics and they said they thought it was no problem at all.

Also, I did not know they changed the seat tube diameter -- so I doubt this as well. The 27.2mm will work WITH the shim. That's what it is spec'd to be used. Although I can't say I recall the 05 frame seat post, so I can't confirm. 

I suggest you call Giant directly. I have found that you get different answers from different people there.


----------



## oldskoolboarder (Apr 16, 2004)

orbea04 said:


> yeah, i've got the same hesitation about the carbon seatpost. i have an ec70 on my
> road bike though and it has performed really well without any slipping. the thompson
> post's are great except that i want more set-back (i know that they offer a post
> with set-back but it looks awful funky with the kink in it). i'm thinking about a ritchey
> wcs post now.


I saw a guy break a carbon post remounting at one of the last races. Not a pretty sight. He wasn't too happy about it either...


----------



## outofthesaddle (Aug 15, 2002)

*was the guy riding a Redline?*



oldskoolboarder said:


> I saw a guy break a carbon post remounting at one of the last races. Not a pretty sight. He wasn't too happy about it either...


after the race I saw this guy with no saddle and was wondering what happened.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

End_User said:


> It sounds like your LBS is full of it. I called Giant directly a month or two ago and they claimed 132.5mm on the 2005. These were Giant sponsored team bikes at the maxxis tent, they had half a dozen of them -- they knew the spacing, not by measuring. But I admit, it seems dumb to use 132.5mm spacing if there are no disc tabs! I even asked about the aluminum "flex" to the mechanics and they said they thought it was no problem at all.
> 
> Also, I did not know they changed the seat tube diameter -- so I doubt this as well. The 27.2mm will work WITH the shim. That's what it is spec'd to be used. Although I can't say I recall the 05 frame seat post, so I can't confirm.
> 
> I suggest you call Giant directly. I have found that you get different answers from different people there.


thanks! i'll give giant a call today. they should have this info on their website...that is,
if giant ever got around to updating their website to have the 2005 info on it.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

*rear dropout spacing*

so i just got off the phone Aaron at giant-usa and he read to me the updates
to the tcx frameset from 2004 to 2005 which included 
- no more disc tabs (so as to be UCI legal)
- a conversion from 132.5mm spacing to 130mm spacing 
- seatpost bottle mounts in adddition to down tube mounts
- larger headtube on the XL
- and color (blue to grey)

no change in seatpost diameter that he could find, but he thought that it was 
27.2mm. 

meanwhile, i put in a call to another local shop to see what specs they would quote 
me. they are going to call giant today and get back to me...we shall see.


----------



## Vanilla Gorilla (Mar 22, 2004)

not to sound dumb but why is rear spacing so important?

Is that bike hard to shoulder?


----------



## End_User (Aug 1, 2004)

orbea04 said:


> so i just got off the phone Aaron at giant-usa and he read to me the updates
> to the tcx frameset from 2004 to 2005 which included
> - no more disc tabs (so as to be UCI legal)
> - a conversion from 132.5mm spacing to 130mm spacing
> ...



1. 2004's are 135mm, I measured mine myself. He cliamed it was 132.5mm -- lie.

2. Seat tube is 30.8mm and comes with a shim on the 2004 that brings it down to fit a 27.2mm post. (if you wish to use the shim)


----------



## oldskoolboarder (Apr 16, 2004)

outofthesaddle said:


> after the race I saw this guy with no saddle and was wondering what happened.


This was at the Pilarcitos #1. Maybe in A's? Broke it right at the double barriers. He was flying onto his seat and we heard a crack and then "S*&T!". He walked off the course after that.

I think in the C's group there was someone that day who broke a seat but kept riding. Now he's the man. I believe he finished.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

Vanilla Gorilla said:


> not to sound dumb but why is rear spacing so important?
> 
> Is that bike hard to shoulder?


the rear spacing dictates what hubs can be used. rear road hubs are 130mm in 
width and mountain hubs are 135mm. if the frame is 132.5mm, then it has to 
bend in order to fit either 130 or 135, and i'm not a big fan of bending on my Al
frames.

like all things it takes some getting used to before becoming efficient at
shouldering a compact frame. a couple of collisions with the crank arm
usually serves as a good reminder though. it also helps that i'm a taller 
rider, so my frame is bigger.


----------



## orbea04 (Oct 3, 2004)

End_User said:


> 1. 2004's are 135mm, I measured mine myself. He cliamed it was 132.5mm -- lie.
> 
> 2. Seat tube is 30.8mm and comes with a shim on the 2004 that brings it down to fit a 27.2mm post. (if you wish to use the shim)


yeah, i told the giant folks that i thought the 2004 was a 135mm spacing. he was 
not sure if the 132.5mm reflected a 2004B design or not. he simply had the 2005 specs
and some text that detailed the changes. and he had no info on the seatpost. 

giant has a good reputation for building quality bikes. but this is depressing. 
the specs for a bike should never be a question mark. i'm tempted to get my shop 
to order one after getting a direct quote from giant about the specs. then if 
they are different upon arrival, i'll have them send it back on giant's dime.


----------



## dlbcx (Aug 28, 2002)

outofthesaddle said:


> after the race I saw this guy with no saddle and was wondering what happened.


I saw the guy come by at the end of the C race, just before my race, M35+. Looks like the seat broke off since the rails were still on the post.
I heard that Pontoni showed up but I didn't hang around to watch the Elite race. However, my teammates did and were amazed...he put a whuppin' on the local guys! On Saturday, another guy and I were at a bike shop where Alan Coats worked and he was talking about racing with Pontoni, down in SoCal. Alan said that Pontoni just sat in the lead pack then he, as Coats said, "dropped the clutch" on them and left them behind!


----------



## chasbike (Jan 28, 2004)

*ec70 super strong*



kingfurby said:


> The Easton EC-70 seatpost is too delicate for cross. I have three of them, but I wouldn't use them on a cross bike. Go for a Thomson, it has a better clamp and only weighs about 15 more grams than the Easton. If you're worried about shock absorption use tubulars or tubular clinchers.


i' m big and use ec70 for last cross season and this.
that post is used on the honda dh bike, so no worries here.
just put one on my ht mtb too when i saw that.
saddle will break before post does.


----------



## unlsax (Nov 24, 2004)

*Fully built TCX Dura Ace*

My TCX is on RBR. Check it out.


----------

