Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms
| [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241142] |
Mon, 24 February 2014 14:50  |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
New discussion:
One of the benefits of the OEM air bag system is that it telegraphs middle
wheel loading to the rear wheel. That supposedly improves the ride, as
demonstrated by the famous railroad ties demonstration.
However, that design turned out to impose a serious problem also: During
braking, the middle wheel "pole vaults", raising the rear of the coach.
That raising lightens the vertical force on the rear wheel so that it is
incapable of generating as much retarding force as the middle wheel -- so
it tends to slide prematurely. An even WORSE consequence of the OEM design
is that the air bag, dependent on the center wheel's vertical bag arm to
react the rear wheel up-force, now finds that reaction missing -- the
center wheel "pole vaulted" it away.
Thus the development of the different 4-bag (Quad Bag, etc) systems.
Despite other claimed benefits, IMHO the major benefit of those systems is
the fact that the center pedestal preserves a reaction member for the rear
wheel. While pole vaulting of the center wheel still reduces the possible
braking force on the rear, at least it's not totally eliminated as with the
OEM.
SO, if there's validity to my argument that pole vaulting led to, and
justified, the 4-Bag systems, should we not consider that, with pole
vaulting eliminated by reaction arms, there was/is no justification for
4-bag systems?
Since I've run the 4-bag system since long before the development of the
reaction arms, I'm purely speculating when I propose that reaction arms
make 4-Bags redundant -- and perhaps even detrimental to ride quality. I'd
like to hear from those who've tried all the combinations -- even though
I'm not about to give up either upgrade.
WOW! -- And all with 1 finger!
Ken H.
Americus, GA
'76 X-Birchaven w/Cad500/Howell EFI & EBL
www.gmcwipersetc.com
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241155 is a reply to message #241142] |
Mon, 24 February 2014 16:21  |
Dave Mumert
Messages: 272
Registered: February 2004
Location: Olds, AB, Canada
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Ken
I am thinking the 4-bag system has no effect on the weight transfer between the rear wheels. Her is why I think that.
The force of the air bags (Dual or Quad) creates a rotational force (torque) at the bogie pin, the weight on the wheel creates an
equal and opposite torque.
The brake torque is applied at the wheel axle which creates an upward force on the bogie mount (leading wheel) and an equal and
opposite force on the wheel. No torque appears at the bogie pin so no force is directly applied to the air bags.
If the brake torque on the leading arm raises the coach both air bags in the quad system will need to expand the same amount so will
still provide the same downward force on the wheels. The trailing arm would be similar except it is adding weight to the bogie
mount.
Does this make sense?
Dave Mumert
'76 Eleganza II
Alberta, CA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Ken Henderson
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:51 PM
> To: gmclist
> Subject: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms
>
> New discussion:
>
> Thus the development of the different 4-bag (Quad Bag, etc) systems.
> Despite other claimed benefits, IMHO the major benefit of those systems is the fact that the center pedestal preserves a reaction
> member for the rear wheel. While pole vaulting of the center wheel still reduces the possible braking force on the rear, at least
it's
> not totally eliminated as with the OEM.
>
> Ken H.
> Americus, GA
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241209 is a reply to message #241155] |
Mon, 24 February 2014 19:14 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave, Without a lot more thought, and maybe vector diagrams, I can't
thoroughly refute your argument, but I'm sure of a couple things:
With the OEM system, the bogie pins create an isolated torsional system of
the two wheels, the two arms, and the bag; there can be NO brake torque
applied to the chassis.
With the 4-bag, there are two independent torsional systems, each
consisting of a wheel, an arm, a bag, AND the beam (consisting of the
pedestal and chassis) between the bag attachment and the front tire patch.
That's an oversimplification w/o shocks, tires, etc, of course.
My point is, of course, that the long lever arms significantly the response
of the system and, I suspect, refute your hypothesis. I'll be
thinking onit. :-)
Ken
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Dave Mumert <dave@mumert.com> wrote:
> Hi Ken
>
> I am thinking the 4-bag system has no effect on the weight transfer
> between the rear wheels. Her is why I think that.
>
> The force of the air bags (Dual or Quad) creates a rotational force
> (torque) at the bogie pin, the weight on the wheel creates an
> equal and opposite torque.
>
> The brake torque is applied at the wheel axle which creates an upward
> force on the bogie mount (leading wheel) and an equal and
> opposite force on the wheel. No torque appears at the bogie pin so no
> force is directly applied to the air bags.
>
> If the brake torque on the leading arm raises the coach both air bags in
> the quad system will need to expand the same amount so will
> still provide the same downward force on the wheels. The trailing arm
> would be similar except it is adding weight to the bogie
> mount.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Dave Mumert
> '76 Eleganza II
> Alberta, CA
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org [mailto:
> gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Ken Henderson
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:51 PM
> > To: gmclist
> > Subject: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms
> >
> > New discussion:
> >
> > Thus the development of the different 4-bag (Quad Bag, etc) systems.
> > Despite other claimed benefits, IMHO the major benefit of those systems
> is the fact that the center pedestal preserves a reaction
> > member for the rear wheel. While pole vaulting of the center wheel
> still reduces the possible braking force on the rear, at least
> it's
> > not totally eliminated as with the OEM.
> >
> > Ken H.
> > Americus, GA
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241239 is a reply to message #241142] |
Mon, 24 February 2014 21:00 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Good Lord,
I wish I had retained the pages I wrote about this when I joined the forum.....
Story...
Shortly after we acquired Chaumière, I was in a hard stop and the braking alarmed me. I took all four brakes apart and found nothing that was not as it should have been. Then I went out and did some tests. Fortunately, I had not purchased all new tires yet. I realized the issue might be an artifact of the design. Even though the braking had been heralded in the RV journals of the 70's (I worked for Thetford then and Frank Sargent got one of the first), I soon realized that this was a condition not isolated to my coach.
I still had software that was "borrowed" from employers and enough computer power at home to run serious engineering analysis at home. (Even if the poor thing had to run over night to finish by noon.) Those analysis packages were capable of instant vector, multi-bar elemental and finite element reductions. With power like that, I should have been able to figure out how to fix anything. So, I did measurements. About 30 or 40 all to the nearest mil (0.001"). That catalog and the software was what kept me sane the first of the two years I was the sole keeper of two of my son's toddlers. (60yos should not be rangling toddlers.) While sitting on the other side of the wall of the room they where in and supposed to be asleep, I had a lot of time to work.
Hours of analysis proved that the coach didn't actually lift at the friction load limit of an 8.750R16.5, but the load transfer from the intermediate to the rear was on the order of 1500# - EACH. The intermediate brake overloaded and could contribute no more and the rear was a lost cause. I ran lots of scenarios of changing parts and changing brakes and, and, and....
Strangely I thought about the same problem I had had with the braking the rear wheel of my dirt bike years before. There, I converted the rear brake to a cable operated floating backplate that had a stay arm to the frame. It was a world beater. I could dive into a corner with power on and still get to a velocity to stay in the burm a bike length ahead of my competition. First problem was that it destroyed rear tires. They were only getting ripped in one direction before and now they had two.... And the next year, the new fleet of rice rockets had more power than I could ever hope to develop. That was that.... I put lights on it and went trail riding.
I did several runs with the backing plates floating and anchored to the frame. It had great promise. So much that I look at this long and hard, but could not envision a means to isolate the backplate from the swing arm that would not cause wear severe enough to make the system unreliable. Unreliable and brakes are two works that should never be close together.
One scenario that had promise was to decrease the actuating force of the rear and maybe increase it on the intermediate brake, but the brake was still overloaded and this could only provide a modicum of correction, but I had decided to put it on the list with the next brake over haul. One other scenario that looked promising was to isolate the suspensions. That had some charm as it would be relatively simple to do, but it really did get that much of an improvement, and it did hurt the ride evaluation to some extent, but I could not really quantify that without instruments I couldn't get (free).
Then I saw the data that Tom and Jim had collected with the hardware they showed us at Amana. If I had had the spare cash that day, I would have taken a kit home. I did do foundation brakes for a very short time. I hated the work. But, if I had walked in the managers office and said I know how we can get another tenth of a G for very little cost, that would have been a day to remember. I have it now.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241291 is a reply to message #241239] |
Tue, 25 February 2014 08:20 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Matt,
I'm not sure how many here completely understood that...but I do, and I've
tried 'em ALL+. Only the "...backing plates floating..." (reaction arms)
improved the brakes.
But still no one's addressed whether reaction arms eliminate the need for 4
bags.
Ken H.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Matt Colie wrote:
>
>
> Good Lord,
>
> I wish I had retained the pages I wrote about this when I joined the
> forum.....
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241299 is a reply to message #241291] |
Tue, 25 February 2014 09:00 |
corleyw
Messages: 130
Registered: June 2007
Location: Battle Ground, WA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Push a stick down the street, then drag it. Pushing it digs in, dragging it tends to bounce over obstacles. That is the main difference in the center and rear wheels response to braking.
That simple geometry is still there, single bag, 4 bag, sully bag or quad bag. Unless the bogie pivot point is moved down to the level of the road surface, you can't eliminate that simple geometrical problem. Reaction arms are the best effort at counteracting that problem.
JMHO
PS I still run the stock system, with stock bags, so it's all theory to me... Therefore, take my opinion with a grain of salt. (I do have larger wheel cylinders on the front bogies, and larger calipers on the front wheels, and am very happy with that setup. But I also leave lot's of room in front of me, realizing that I really only have 2 wheels of really effective brakes, 2 wheels of helpers, and 2 wheels of terrible brakes on panic stops.)
Corley
'76 Glenbrook
29 other vehicles
[Updated on: Tue, 25 February 2014 09:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241305 is a reply to message #241142] |
Tue, 25 February 2014 09:38 |
 |
Bill Freeman
Messages: 122
Registered: March 2004
Location: Colerain, NC
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"One of the benefits of the OEM air bag system is that it telegraphs middle
wheel loading to the rear wheel. That supposedly improves the ride, as
demonstrated by the famous railroad ties demonstration."
The single bag system works like a walking beam suspension which divides
the rise or fall of a bump at the wheel to half that at the bogie attach point.
That is bound to soften the ride over bumps.
"However, that design turned out to impose a serious problem also: During
braking, the middle wheel "pole vaults", raising the rear of the coach.
That raising lightens the vertical force on the rear wheel so that it is
incapable of generating as much retarding force as the middle wheel -- so
it tends to slide prematurely. An even WORSE consequence of the OEM design
is that the air bag, dependent on the center wheel's vertical bag arm to
react the rear wheel up-force, now finds that reaction missing -- the
center wheel "pole vaulted" it away."
I think the effect of the pole vaulting is amplified at the rear wheels because
the coach rises, plus the front bag attach point moves forward which even
further reduces spring loading at the rear wheels.
"Thus the development of the different 4-bag (Quad Bag, etc) systems.
Despite other claimed benefits, IMHO the major benefit of those systems is
the fact that the center pedestal preserves a reaction member for the rear
wheel. While pole vaulting of the center wheel still reduces the possible
braking force on the rear, at least it's not totally eliminated as with the
OEM."
It may or may not be the major benefit, but it is probably beneficial to
braking. There should be somewhat more load on the rear wheels than
with a single bag.
"SO, if there's validity to my argument that pole vaulting led to, and
justified, the 4-Bag systems, should we not consider that, with pole
vaulting eliminated by reaction arms, there was/is no justification for
4-bag systems?"
There are other good reasons for the 4 Bag like not dropping so low if a tire goes flat.
"Since I've run the 4-bag system since long before the development of the
reaction arms, I'm purely speculating when I propose that reaction arms
make 4-Bags redundant -- and perhaps even detrimental to ride quality. I'd
like to hear from those who've tried all the combinations -- even though
I'm not about to give up either upgrade."
Maybe at the next rally run some real world braking tests between a
stock single bag system, a 4-Bag, a 4-Bag with reaction arms and a single
bag with reaction arms. If you throw in all the possible brake configurations like,
drum, disk, 80mm calipers etc,
it will take a lot more than 4 test
vehicles. It would be interesting to see the results.
Bill Freeman
78 Royale 73 Sequoia
Colerain, North Carolina
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241332 is a reply to message #241291] |
Tue, 25 February 2014 12:45 |
|
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Ken Henderson wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 09:20 |
Matt,
I'm not sure how many here completely understood that...but I do, and I've tried 'em ALL+. Only the "...backing plates floating..." (reaction arms) improved the brakes.
But still no one's addressed whether reaction arms eliminate the need for 4 bags.
Ken H.
|
Ken,
I'm glad you understood all that, I will admit that I has some concern there. There is a writing time/tech level balance that is not always easy.
Unfortunately, I did all this analysis before I even knew about the four-bag mod. I didn't even consider that as possible solution. I did do one run with the intermediate and rear suspension springs isolated, but honestly all I remember is setting the element conditions.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241337 is a reply to message #241319] |
Tue, 25 February 2014 13:43 |
mikethebike
Messages: 331
Registered: January 2014
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
100% agreement here.
I tend to relate everything to go fast cars and back in the 60's a company named Traction-Master made bars for the GT-350 Shelby Mustang. These bars were called 'traction' bars but they were not the old 'slapper' bars that everyone bolted to their leaf spring cars. They bolted to a welded on bracket right at the forward leaf spring mounting point and under braking they loaded the rear tires with their reaction to the braking forces. I went one step farther with mine by using Koni Coil-overs, removing the leaf springs and installing a Watt-Link. That and a 1.75" dropped upper arm with a 15 degree wedge on the upper ball joint, 620 lb front springs and the right stabilizer bars and I had the most neutral steering 1965 Mustang on the planet.
I think, admittedly without ever doing it on a GMC, the forward 'reaction' arms should be the most bang-for-the-buck you can get for your brakes.
| A Hamilto wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 11:36 |
| Ken Henderson wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 08:20 |
Matt,
I'm not sure how many here completely understood that...but I do, and I've tried 'em ALL+. Only the "...backing plates floating..." (reaction arms) improved the brakes.
But still no one's addressed whether reaction arms eliminate the need for 4 bags.
Ken H.
|
Ken,
I'll take a shot.
No.
The quad bag has other stuff selling it. Jim B seems to like the ride (and others), and sells the idea of limping someplace other than the side of the interstate to change a tire.
To be honest, I never made a connection between the quad bag and improved braking until I read your post.
I never plan to go to the quad bag, even though being able to move to a safer place to change a tire has a LOT of value. I believe in the OEM concept for climbing up/down obstacles such as bumps and potholes.
As far as I am concerned, the type of airbag system you install is a separate decision from the reaction arm. And the reaction arm is a separate decision from rear drums or disks. The reaction arm stands alone as THE brake upgrade that everyone should do. The rest of the hype about number of bags and drums vs disks is just time killing discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241344 is a reply to message #241319] |
Tue, 25 February 2014 14:22 |
Jim Bounds
Messages: 842
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Personally, installing the quad bag system seriously works. I feel the only suspension mod you need is that. But it does not do what the reaction arm system does. My feeling about that is slow down man--- don't get your butt in that kinda crack! The reaction arm system only comes into play in a serious braking situation. The quad bag can be felt at any speed and stabilizes the rear suspension--- reaction arm system does not do that at all-- only on braking.
If you wanna only get one, get the quad bag system, I see the reaction arm deal as a bonus, the quad bag is a must for all.
Jim Bounds
----------------------
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:48 PM, A. <markbb1@netzero.com> wrote:
Ken Henderson wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 08:20
> Matt,
>
> I'm not sure how many here completely understood that...but I do, and I've tried 'em ALL+. Only the "...backing plates floating..." (reaction arms) improved the brakes.
>
> But still no one's addressed whether reaction arms eliminate the need for 4 bags.
>
> Ken H.
Ken,
I'll take a shot.
No.
The quad bag has other stuff selling it. Jim B seems to like the ride (and others), and sells the idea of limping someplace other than the side of the interstate to change a tire.
To be honest, I never made a connection between the quad bag and improved braking until I read your post.
I never plan to go to the quad bag, even though being able to move to a safer place to change a tire has a LOT of value. I believe in the OEM concept for climbing up/down obstacles such as bumps and potholes.
As far as I am concerned, the type of airbag system you install is a separate decision from the reaction arm. And the reaction arm is a separate decision from rear drums or disks. The reaction arm stands alone as THE brake upgrade that everyone should do. The rest of the hype about number of bags and drums vs disks is just time killing discussion.
--
'73 23' Sequoia For Sale
'73 23' CanyonLands For Sale
UA (Upper Alabama)
CanyonLands most likely for a parts coach. Sequoia being restored to service.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241352 is a reply to message #241349] |
Tue, 25 February 2014 15:25 |
Jim Bounds
Messages: 842
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Guys please, I am about to really upset some of you. Don't modify your brakes like that! You are assuming all the liability of stopping a 12,000 pound projectile! If Jim K. offers something like that I will mark him as a fool!
You might laugh at my comments and call me chicken-- it has happened but there IS a serious liability problem with modifying DOT approved, tested and insured safety devices.
I know this is rain on the parade but it really is true. Of course everything can give liability but it's just so true on brakes. My brake parts are to factory design and even at that I have liability.
Lets talk about less scary stuff,
Jim Bounds
----------------------
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:54 PM, Matt Colie <matt7323tze@gmail.com> wrote:
A Hamilto wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 15:33
> <snip>
> I wonder if anyone will ever tackle anti-lock brakes for these old beauties.
I would hope so, and I even found a 6 wheel processor at one time, but adding the speed pickups required would be a real bear and then the specialized master cylinder could be a real tough fit.
If someone figures out the kit, I'm all for it.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - Members GMCMI, GMCES Going to MontgomeryThe majestic, once snow covered glacier Chaumière is in for the winter.
'73 Glacier 23 With 4 Rear Brakes that pull as they should
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] 4-Bags & Reaction Arms [message #241353 is a reply to message #241352] |
Tue, 25 February 2014 15:37 |
mikethebike
Messages: 331
Registered: January 2014
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm thinking of calling Wilwood to see what they have as far as pads or upgraded calipers. I have their brakes on a 77 XLCH mated to a 1997 FLH Brembo M/C and the CH now stops on par with late model go-fast bikes and only two fingers needed instead of a KingKong death grip on the lever. My hope is they will have a bolt on that will be an improvement.
| Jim Bounds wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 15:25 |
Guys please, I am about to really upset some of you. Don't modify your brakes like that! You are assuming all the liability of stopping a 12,000 pound projectile! If Jim K. offers something like that I will mark him as a fool!
You might laugh at my comments and call me chicken-- it has happened but there IS a serious liability problem with modifying DOT approved, tested and insured safety devices.
I know this is rain on the parade but it really is true. Of course everything can give liability but it's just so true on brakes. My brake parts are to factory design and even at that I have liability.
Lets talk about less scary stuff,
Jim Bounds
----------------------
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:54 PM, Matt Colie <matt7323tze@gmail.com> wrote:
A Hamilto wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 15:33
> <snip>
> I wonder if anyone will ever tackle anti-lock brakes for these old beauties.
I would hope so, and I even found a 6 wheel processor at one time, but adding the speed pickups required would be a real bear and then the specialized master cylinder could be a real tough fit.
If someone figures out the kit, I'm all for it.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - Members GMCMI, GMCES Going to MontgomeryThe majestic, once snow covered glacier Chaumière is in for the winter.
'73 Glacier 23 With 4 Rear Brakes that pull as they should
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Oct 10 01:27:18 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02785 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
