Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Gearing - Radical Ideas

Recommended Posts

I've taken two of my recent postings on rideok.com forum and put them here, stuck together, for your viewing pleasure. I've had some really good results I'd like to share that are not what is commonly assumed or done, so you all might find the approach interesting and who knows.. maybe one or a few of you out there might go crazy and try the approach!

The last half gives the overal conclusion to the study. Here they are:

I stuck a 16-tooth front sprocket on Pukie the `95 KLR. I rode 65 miles last week setting a brisk pace around the north side of the Wichita Mountains. I have been extremely pleased with gearing this bike up from the stock 15-tooth front sprocket. Much better overall, especially at speed, and I can still do trials-speed stuff.

During that ride I spent 30 miles blasting down the road at 65-70 mph. I wished for a bit higher gearing for yet more relaxed touring because the motor can pull it (re jetted anyway). But how much? I like 'bracketing' in experiments, meaning going a presumed bit too far to see what happens. I have a 17-tooth front sprocket, but given the chain just touches the bottom frame rail with the larger 16-tooth sprocket, with a 17, the chain is going to slide over the rail significantly. I'll try it just to see if there are fitment problems beyond that, and report back with an update. I may have to machine a UHMWPE guide pad for the lower chain to run the 17-tooth sprocket longer term. We shall see.

A 44/17 = 2.58:1, a 6.5% increase in final drive ratio over the already higher 44/16 = 2.75 may be a bit high to pull highway speeds with head winds? One advantage of higher gearing is dropping into 5th to pass or maintain speed on hills and against head winds is much more reasonable. Fifth become a useable highway gear then 6th become like an overdrive. With the stock gearing of 44/15 = 2.93, 6th is already way too low and dropping into 5th results in a screaming motor with resultant hold-back.

BTW, final drive ratio with a 16-tooth sprocket is 6.5% higher than stock and a 17-tooth sprocket is 13.5% higher. Not that much, really.

My initial goal was to find a rear sprocket size for cruising on the highway to stay with larger bikes, 400-cc bikes, while being able to drop 1 or 2-teeth down on the front at the destination. So far gearing up to a 16-tooth front is a great compromise covering road and tight trail while keeping the stock rear sprocket. But it's possible a smaller rear sprocket could get me a bit higher on the highway with the 16-tooth while allowing a drop to a 15 or 14 at the destination.

For example, 40/16 = 2.50 and 40/14 = 2.85, making gearing higher than 44/17 for road and just a little higher than stock for off road. Perfect.

Of course there is no ideal given wind, terrain, and altitude changes, but anything is better than the unfortunate mentality of gearing down below stock for 'more power.' My son just bought a '98 KLR the previous owner geared way down for 'more power.' My son complained the bike feels instead like a 125 and way less powerful than geared-up Pukie, which he loved riding. 1st and 2nd are done by creeping speed, shifting is frenetic, fast, and done by 35 mph. Thereafter then the engine vainly screams. I told him, "Let’s start by putting the stock sprockets back on, and then go up from there."

Misunderstood is that power remains constant through a gear train. What changes is torque (a.k.a, moment), but not necessarily in the way one might think. Torque is like a force applied at the end of a lever, and the longest possible lever (lowest gearing) might seem to be the best, right? Not really. The lever length (like gearing) should strike a good balance between force and distance, or in the case of engines and gearing, the power and torque curves relative to rpm and speed.

Think of gearing as stair steps with rise and run. Say six speeds are like six steps. Close ratio and they are scrunched together horizontally. Low gearing and they are scrunched together vertically. Do your legs feel more effective going up scrunched and low steps? Not really. You have to slow down and rev up the legs, and you want to skip over the lower steps then you find yourself short of the door into the building (highways speeds).

The right rise for the available leg length and strength (the engine) is what’s effective and effective does not mean buzzing the engine. For some odd reason, the engineers or marketers or safetycrats have chosen almost always to scrunch up the steps and keep them low. Perhaps lots of rpm and vibration make for perceived power? But they do not equate to the more effective use of available power and torque.

I'm a contrarian, I know, but I've experimented with this for many years with road and off-road bikes. I’ve observed that what most people assume about gearing while intuitive is not really correct. Take the idea, for example, that lower gearing in all instances equals more power. It does not. Another myth is that very low gearing means you can negotiate obstacles at low speed better. Actually, too-low gearing can ‘hold you back’ and cause problems. In modern trials, we sometimes use second and third at creeping speeds, for example. Too-low gearing can be a mask for poor clutch skills, but it is not by default the answer to the tight stuff.

Anyway. Enough for now. Will try the 17-tooth front sprocket later.

---------------------

I have now closed the loop on my initial suspicion that 250cc dual sports are not too small for road commuting, but are instead geared wastefully for who know what reason?

I started out with stock gearing of 44/15 on this bike, but felt the bike was geared too low, shifting like a 125 Elsinore (for those of you old enough to know what that means). Later I tried a 16-tooth front sprocket and experienced a big improvement in overall feel and usability of the bike. Today, I went one farther - in fact as far as you can go with front sprockets on this bike - fitting a 17-tooth front sprocket. That gave me a final drive ratio 13.5% higher than stock. Results?

Conditions: Altitude 1,650 feet, 50 degrees F, 15 mph ground-speed wind from the NW. Clear skies with high air pressure. Stock `95 KLR 250 motor. Needle raised .045" and fuel screw liberated and set at 2 turns out. Air filter clean and oiled with Maxima FFT soaking then wrung out. No airbox snorkel. Premium fuel. About 80% worn out rear tire.

Started out doing tight trail work and blasting 30-foot steep gravel-pit hills. First was noticeably high when attempting to creep around no clutch. The result was not as good as 44/16 for tight stuff but still manageable. Blasting the hills in first with the mongo front sprocket actually turned out a little better. I didn't feel the ideal gear was between first and second. First was fine.

On gravel roads, 44/17 was clearly superior. Shift spacing was noticeably farther apart and even more relaxed than 44/16. I found myself going too fast because the bike was more relaxed with less noise and vibrations, begging to go!

On the highway, this gearing combo is very far and away better than stock! I did two runs, one down wind and one up wind. Down wind, flat ground, I went up to 85 mph (all speeds and rpms are as indicated) and just approached full throttle. Acceleration was quite brisk. Turning around and riding into the wind, I limited out throttle pinned at 72 to 75 mph, depending on the wind gusts. Then I continued against the wind up a slight rise at full throttle and was able to sustain 70 to 72 mph, my best results yet.

For your reference, 7,000 rpm = 73 mph and 8,000 rpm = 82 mph. Still quite a high engine speed.

I now have settled on my gearing scheme:

- 44/17 will be standard (trail to highway)

- 44/16 will be if the majority of the ride is tight stuff

- 44/15 is for gnarly high-altitude trail work only

Cool thing is you can swap front sprockets in only 5 minutes! You do not need to break the chain, just:

- Remove the front sprocket cover

- Loosen the rear axle nut

- Turn the snail cams full slack

- Remove the sprocket clip (or two screws if you have the stock sprocket)

- Pull the sprocket out while lifting the chain off

then...

-do the reverse with the new sprocket

With a newer chain my snail cam position with the 16-tooth sprocket was 5.5, and with the 17 is 4.5 notches. I bought Sprocket Specialists sprockets. They use a C-clip instead of the spline plate and two fasteners. Use their spacer or the thicker original spline plate behind the sprocket to take up lateral slop.

No problem fitting a 17-tooth sprocket in there. My assumption of chain rubbing against the frame turned out to be a non issue.

I've ordered a richer main jet for the Keihin to see if I can eke out a little more top speed. Will let you all know how that goes.

Last thing: Removed the second, pull throttle cable. Results were not as grossly noticeable as doing that to a Sherpa, but the throttle feel is improved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went the other direction, 14-tooth counter-shaft sprocket, emphasizing off-road capability and convenience.

While I can still keep up with the express lane traffic on the Interstate, as I could with stock (15-tooth C/S sprocket) gearing, don't particularly enjoy the scenario--seems like I'm flogging the beast excessively. Also, the harmonic vibes at speed kinda get to me.

For more highway-centric riding, the higher-count C/S sprocket may be desirable; after all, think of the 250 Ninja!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody goes 'the other direction' and 'flogs the beast excessively', which is why I titled the concepts as 'radical.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lump me, then, with "everybody." The torque multiplication of the lower gearing suits my riding environment better; also, the lower-tooth-count countershaft sproket means less wear on the clutch, less stress on the engine, and enhances the ability to proceed at lower speeds without stalling.

Glad you've found optimum gearing for your own riding environment and style; if lots of high-speed highway riding were in my scenario, I'd be inclined to higher gearing, at least to stock (15-tooth C/S sprocket), also.

Hard to imagine negotiating tight, steep trails with a 17-tooth C/S sprocket, without slipping the clutch a lot, or riding as slow as I'd like to sometimes without stalling the engine. Regardless, glad you've gone where others (like me) fear to tread, and received the reward of improved performance for your purposes. Granted: The KLR250 may be torquier at low rpm than I give it credit for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lump me, then, with "everybody." The torque multiplication of the lower gearing suits my riding environment better; also, the lower-tooth-count countershaft sproket means less wear on the clutch, less stress on the engine, and enhances the ability to proceed at lower speeds without stalling.

Glad you've found optimum gearing for your own riding environment and style; if lots of high-speed highway riding were in my scenario, I'd be inclined to higher gearing, at least to stock (15-tooth C/S sprocket), also.

Hard to imagine negotiating tight, steep trails with a 17-tooth C/S sprocket, without slipping the clutch a lot, or riding as slow as I'd like to sometimes without stalling the engine. Regardless, glad you've gone where others (like me) fear to tread, and received the reward of improved performance for your purposes. Granted: The KLR250 may be torquier at low rpm than I give it credit for.

you have all your beans in one pot except the logic on the c/t sproket. the lower you go the harder it is on the engine, chain, sprocket and the clutch. other than that you were right on the money. the chain has a tighter circle to go around. and a chain can only bend so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you have all your beans in one pot except the logic on the c/t sproket. the lower you go the harder it is on the engine, chain, sprocket and the clutch. other than that you were right on the money. the chain has a tighter circle to go around. and a chain can only bend so far.
I can see where the chain is stressed more with a shorter-radius countershaft sprocket; however, the overall gearing with fewer countershaft sprocket teeth is lower (higher numerically), the same trend as the concept that first gear is "lower" than second gear; thus, I'd maintain a lower tooth-count countershaft sprocket provides LESS sterss on the clutch, engine, and transmission components.

Otherwise, top gear would be less stressful than first gear is on clutch/engine/transmission, seems to me; and--doesn't look that way in my view.

If a higher gear ratio is less stressful on clutch/engine/transmission, why not start off in top gear, rather than first gear? If higher gearing is less stressful on the clutch, the clutch should slip less in top gear than in first gear; don't think that's the case.

If fewer countershaft sprocket teeth produce higher clutch/engine/transmission stresses, would additional FINAL drive sprocket teeth stress them more, also? I don't think so. A lower (higher numerical) final drive ratio reduces these stresses, I think; and--fewer countershaft sprocket teeth, or a greater number of final sprocket teeth, make for a lower (higher numerical) final drive ratio.

The geometry and additional leverage (mechanical advantage) of a countershaft sprocket with fewer teeth produces less stress on clutch/transmission/engine in my view; however, I respect contrary opinions. Corrections and clarifications sincerely welcomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. On my KL250 supersherpas, the stock gearing is 14/43. Which

is really about perfect for this bike. 60-65 is comfortable in 6th, not winding

out too high, and it will climb about anything in 1st or 2nd.

Since I have 2 of em, I have played with my gearing some also. Been running

a 15/43 combo on the street-mostly bike, and a 14/48 combo on the

dirt-mostly bike. I even tried 13/48 briefly, but it was way too low.

The 14/48 will just stand the bike bolt upright in first if I rev it a bit and drop

the clutch.

The bike with the 15/43 combo is great for commuting and still does fine

offroad, although it wont pop the wheel over logs and climb quite as easy as

the other, it still can do it all if needed.

Guess the clearance in the front sprocket area is yet another difference between

the sherpa and your KLR's, as there is no way a 16 or 17 tooth front would

even fit. But there is no need as with the 15/43 it will cruise 65/70 all day and

will hit 80+ if I push it a bit.

One thing that surprised me a bit, was the differrence in gas mileage.

I have been getting around 70mpg on the 15/43 bike in general use, and when

I took a 400+ mile highway ride last fall, it almost hit 80mpg.

The bike that is geared lower seems to get about 60mpg, but I ride it mosty

just to the trails, and then it is all the 1st 3-4 gears. (lots of 2nd....)

Guess the best plan is to play around, and pick the gears that work best for

whatever you are using that bike for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I was nucking futs before? Here's the latest in this downward - or rather upward - spiral of insanity as regards the KLR project and general gearing comments. Some comments below too on the KLX and Sherpas (the most different of the three in terms of gearing).

I did my calculations to match flexibility of gearing for my 80/20 street/trail use.

My testing so far has revealed no anticipated scenario requiring gearing lower than the equivalent of:

44/16 = 2.75:1 final drive ratio, 6.5% higher than the stock 44/15

This was from riding with 44/17 and finding starting off in first seeming still quite low, then having that irritating denial of another gear to shift up into when accelerating to highway speeds.

To provide maximum gearing flexibility, given swapping countershaft sprockets is so easy, and having an available wide range of 14 through 17, and finally, given I desire a 14-tooth rear sprocket to result in ~2.75:1, that produced a 39-tooth count on the rear sprocket or 5 teeth less than stock.

The below results. The percentages are the changes in final drive ratio converted to percentages higher (lower ratio by number) than the stock 44/15 = 2.93:1

39/14 = 2.78 = +5.4% (tight trails only)

39/15 = 2.60 = +12.7% (not sure I'll even use this)

39/16 = 2.43 = +20.6% (road and trail - may be standard setting)

39/17 = 2.29 = +27.9% (gravel and paved roads)

It will be interesting to find out if 20.6 or 27.9% geared up will make 5th gear a shift-down-to gear for hills or head wind or as a passing gear, and if 27.9% will be truly high enough to make 6th a cruising 'overdrive' gear. The low primary drive ratio and close-ratio gear box may never be able to produce a truly high overdrive effect.

By the way, the transmission ratios are the same between the KLR and the KLX, while the primary drive ratio is lower on the KLR:

KLR 67/23 = 2.913:1

KLX 84/30 = 2.800:1

The KL250 Super Sherpa is also has 2.800:1 primary drive ratio, but the transmission ratios are a little less close together than the KLR and KLX.

So, to do the same as the above with a KLX or Super Sherpa requires some thought. Also, the KLX, like the Super Sherpa, uses a Suzuki-made motor that does not take front sprockets as large as the KLR or larger than 15 teeth (Sherpa). Not sure about the KLX 250 but it may be the same.

I once geared a Yamaha XV920RH "Euro" or TR-1 ~30%, and also three Yamaha XS650s about 25%, all with huge improvements. One personality change to gearing is relaxation. There is a cheap thrill to close ratio shifting at high RPM, but the party is over at ~45 mph. Gearing up, especially when you go above 10%, mellows things out. I don't really mean acceleration, but rather shift spacing and the psychological effect that has. Your brain gets visual input that you are moving along fast, but the noise and vibration and shift frequency inputs are lower. It takes some recalibration to adjust, but the net effect on a dual sport single is to make it feel like a bigger bike, hugely better suited to an 80% street use scenario.

I don't know the KLR 650 very well, but I expect some degree of 'wasteful gearing' to be present there too, what with noise and vibration resulting at cruising speeds.

I'll report back on the above. I have to have this sprocket made by Sprocket Specialists so it will take a few weeks to get results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comment on the Sherpas and also gas mileage. I have two also, and currently both are 43/15. I've yet to experiment further with them, but since the geared up KLR walks away from them on the highway, I will.

The better mileage you found when you gear up is illustrating the idea that the little DPs are geared wastefully stock because the peak torque output is below cruising speed. Torque output, which is really more relevant than horsepower, is in part a function of the engine's ability to 'breathe in' and expell gasses. The faster a motor tuned to all-around riding turns, the less efficient 'breathing' becomes, just like us when we get winded running fast. Efficiency is thus increased with higher gearing.

That lesson has been firmly learned with automobiles, what with cruising engine RPMs on 4 to eight cylinder engines in the 2,000s. But the motorcycle market (thus design) is more oriented toward the passing pleasures of the exciting recreational 'buzz', and less about efficiency or being easy on the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the motorcycle market (thus design) is more oriented toward the passing pleasures of the exciting recreational 'buzz', and less about efficiency or being easy on the engine.
The phrase, "easy on the engine" needs definition.

My lexicon would say fewer countershaft sprocket teeth are "easier" on the engine, in that--less torque is required from the engine to turn the drive wheel against a load. The fewer countershaft sprocket teeth/more rear sprocket teeth, the more the engine torque is multiplied to the drive wheel.

If you subscribe to the theory that revolutions, or rpm, are inherently "hard" on the engine, I can see where the notion a higher (lower numerical) drive ratio (more countershaft/fewer rear sprocket teeth) is "easier" on the engine.

A too-high drive ratio stresses clutch/transmission/engine excessively (as in, "lugging" the engine), in my view; thus, the higher ratios (as in, more countershaft sprocket teeth/fewer rear sprocket teeth) seem "harder" on the engine, to me.

If I didn't believe this principle, I'd start off in 6th gear, in contrast to 1st . . .

I'd think steeper, tighter trails would be hard to negotiate at walking speeds with a 17-tooth countershaft sprocket without slipping the clutch or stalling the engine; but, my riding techniques and skills hardly qualify me as anyone's "role-model."

Nevertheless, I prefer to operate on the right-hand downhill slope of the torque curve, regarding rpm as a kind of "insurance."

And--a wide range of plausible drive ratios exist for everyone's riding style and environment; glad you found your own optimum ratios, einfahrt!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To rev or to load, that is the question! Yes, I subscribe to the philosophy that to buzz an engine's head off when you don't have to is hard on things.

As for increased torque on components, the designs can withstand that easily, so questions of sprocket and gear wear are mostly academic and beside the point. Starting off in 6th from a stop is an extreme example and not at all what I advocate. (I'm somewhat amazed that I have so far failed to make my point well and in balance??).

RPM is tied to load. You can float along in high gear at idle with little load, but increasing the load requires shifting down. Obviously riding your motor hard, heavy throttle, at 23 rpm is not good for it, just as trying to run with 30-foot strides is hard on the legs! And that's not what I propose. :applause:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, einfahrt; if a 17-tooth primary sprocket provides your optimum ratio for your riding style and environment, more power to you!

I'd imagine that gearing would stress the clutch/lug the engine (not recommended) on tight, steep trails where I sometimes ride; so . . . not the ideal compromise for me.

If extensive highway riding existed in my mix, I'd go stock (15-tooth C/S) or higher, but--with a 14-tooth C/S sprocket, I can buzz 75 mph + when necessary (rarely), and, when the situation calls for it, multiply needed torque on the trails, without stalling the engine (usually!) or burning the clutch.

RPM, to me, is insurance; not unlike altitude in aviation; and . . . a DOHC 4-valve engine, to me, is designed to rev . . . don't think the higher rpm abuses the mill excessively; but . . . I could be in error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not in error, just in the vast majority, which is always right, right? And you did not say what bike you have. 75+ on a stock KLR 250 with stock or lower gearing? Unstressed?

A major idea being missed here in the 'lugging' and strain department is throttle control. Any fool can chug an engine until it stalls, but put a skilled trials rider on a geared-up bike in tight trails and outside observers would nod their heads in approval at the assumed, 'socially correct' lower gearing. The engione would sound ever so unstressed.

To be sure, I'd rather not do really tight stuff all day long with a really high final drive ratio, despite advanced techniques borrowed from trials. But being able to swap a front sprocket for that day, or part of that day, while deriving the socially incorrect benefits for faster riding is what I'm aiming for, and getting.

A further development.

I was jazzed yesterday! After fitting a 122 main jet in the KLR 250, versus the stock 118 (a 3% increase by number, a 7% increase by fuel-swept area), I test rode the bike which is currently geared at the stock 44-tooth rear and 17-tooth front.

The added fuel of the larger main jet (on top of a liberated fuel screw and needle raised .050" and no airbox snorkel) REALLY perked the bike up! Overall it feels stronger and on the top end, much stronger. Max power, level ground highway test produced a quick acceleration to 87 mph, upon which I chickened out due to my rear tire being an old rag (this is the most used bike in my big stable). There was more left, about 90 mph I'd guess, before equilibrium with wind drag and torque curve drop-off due to the high rpm.

Rejetted, the bike has enough power to sustain even higher gearing than 44/17! Yes, the socially incorrect insanity continues.... After I fit the coming 40-tooth rear sprocket (and new tires), I'm thinking she can pass 100 mph. Why a 100 mph 250 dual sport, you may ask? I'm no speed lover. I don't like going that fast - I'm not Burt Monroe - and don't make a habit of it. Those blasts down the highway WFO are for jetting and gearing tests only. My goal is relaxed and brisk highway commuting capability in keeping with the nominal mandate of an 80/20 bike, with the ability to swap front sprockets for tighter trail work (a 5-minute job). I'm certainly getting there.

Here's a photo of the two largest sprockets available for the KLR 250:

KLRLargeCSSprockets.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, congratulations on your contrarian discoveries, contradicting "conventional wisdom," einfahrt, not unlike those of Copernicus.

Further, I salute your crowd-pleasing "trials technique," enabling you to negotiate steep, tight trails with a 17-tooth countershaft sprocket without stalling the engine or slipping the clutch, a technique I fear, alas, far beyond my limitations.

I may have given the wrong impression regarding my riding style; a 75 mph dash down the highway's the exception, rather than the rule, but . . . with a 14-tooth front sprocket and stock rear, my KLR250 turns just over a grand rpm per 10 mph; I forget the redline, but 80 mph plus seems well within the operational envelope, IF and WHEN necessary.

Correct or in error, I consider an engine operating within its range at nominal temperature with good oil pressure hardly abused at higher rpm; on the contrary, lugging an engine at rpm too low for the load appears potentially harmful, to me.

Understand you've reached your geometric limit with a 17-tooth primary sprocket; maybe a rear srocket with fewer teeth is available. If so, please share your experience and evaluation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a summary so you don't have to wade through all the evolutionary stuff on the 'Radical Ideas' thread. This is where I ended up on the KLR. The principles will apply to pretty much any dual sport, though the KLR 250 is especially suited to this mod and some are less suited.

I ended up with a 40 tooth versus stock 44 tooth rear sprocket. This required a shortening of the chain by 4 links. The five-minute gearing change range with this motor is an unusually wide 17-14 teeth on the countershaft.

With the largest front sprocket and highest gearing, the chain tension snail cams are all the way minum to position 1, then click progressively higher down as you drop front sprocket tooth size, all the way to 14 teeth.

You can trail ride OK with 40/16, but 40/15 is better and you have the option for 40/14. A good every-day setup (assuming you don't only do tight trails) is 40/16, with the long-trip option for 40/17. Carry the other sprockets and you can ride to the trails at a decent speed without trying to 'shift into 7th gear' all the time and do the swap when you get to the tight stuff.

At 40/17, and a new tire, I should be able to pass 100 mph if I want to. Did 87 mph the other night until the bald tire made me think twice and I shut off.

With the jetting fixes included, I now have a true highway-capable 250 (surprise), able to go over 90 mph top speed, and able to cruise at 65 to 75 mph, with a 5th gear that is useful for passing or hills. Even with 40/17, when around town or on gravel roads, you hardly notice the higher 1st gear. In fact, it allows you to take off like a rocket from a stop.

Had a very experienced off road racing fellow over this last weekend who rode the KLR. At 40/16 and only riding trails, he commented on how surprisingly powerful the KLR was.

The Sherpas are less flexible in this regard. You have no options but maximum 15 tooth front sprocket (will a 16 really fit?). The stock 43/14 is too low for the road, and 44/15, while better on the road but gives you a high 1st gear during trail work. not much bandwidth to play with. Stupid, tight-ratio gear boxes!

The KLR is bigger and more stable, and a more road capable machine than the Sherpa. Maybe I will find a more flexible compromise onthe gearing for the Sherpa also as I evolve my way through them also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×