This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Question about Traction Control vs Horsepower

Jumkie

Jumkie

Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Question about traction control vs horsepower.

I was having a discussion with a friend regarding traction control. We were debating about the importance of horsepower vs. tire grip/traction in relation to electronic package that governs traction control for the bike.

To me it seems tire grip/traction is the limiting factor because engineers can produce more and more horsepower. However, my friend argued that more horsepower is always better, though I felt a finer tuned traction control system will result on a faster bike.


Here is the question. If traction control systems reduce tire spin, has a threshold of horsepower reached a limit? In other words, has horsepower reached the limit (or close to the limit) where it has become less important than the electronic system that regulates it because tire grip is the limiting factor?

What do you think is more important?

1. Horsepower
2. Traction

Does the bike with more horsepower always have the advantage over the bike that has a better traction control system?

Or does the bike that have a better traction control system have the advantage over a bike with ample horse power to activate the system but has less horsepower than another bike?


Please answer the following question:

If two identical bikes with an identical traction control system were open full throttle down the longest straight of any current track in GP, which bike would be faster??? —Assuming all elements are identical/equal except one has more horsepower than the other, and the condition that both have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction control system. In other words, both have more than enough horse power to spin the tire the entire length of the straight, however, one has more horse power than the other, which would be faster if all else was identical except one has more horse power than the other.


I would like to know what you think.

Here is my answer: (As I understand traction control, I admit my understanding is limited to what I read, perhaps somebody here understands it better and can shed some light on this enigma).

I think both bikes will be equal down the straight; same top speed and acceleration even though one has more horsepower. Why, because both have activated the traction control system which governs horsepower output in relation to tire grip/traction, in effect limiting the horsepower to the tarmac according to how much the tire grip can handle. Since grip is the limiting factor, and assuming both bikes have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction system, then it seems to me the extra horse power of the other bike, no matter how much more it may be, is negated (rendered ineffective) because the electronics would limit the available horsepower down to maintain grip.


Here was the other position, the other side of the debate:

More horsepower always equals more acceleration and therefore top speed. He couldn’t explain why but he was sure that it made sense because otherwise why would engine builders try to make more horsepower if it didn’t help.


What do you think?
 
Jumkie, this is an impossible question. If there was a right answer everyone in GP would be doing the same thing.
<


As far as the straightaway acceleration, TC doesn't come into play. To go fast down the straight you have to stay out of wheelie control. I bike with a forward weight bias accelerates better. Kwaker and Yamaha try to exploit this strategy. Assuming that a bike has the power to spin the wheels when vertical and exerting little or no lateral force isn't really realistic. If they can loop a GP bike at low speed (max accel rate) they can certainly get an extra 10hp down at 300kph.

However, when accelerating out of a turn, the bike with good TC can probably get more power down and make a run on the bike with more hp.

It's hard to say which is best. In the 990's hp meant little. All the extra hp didn't help Ducati. They were almost always fastest down the straights. They couldn't get the power down in the turns though (tires maybe & too much chassis flex?).

However, now that TC systems are highly effective, and displacement is down. HP seems to rule supreme again. And let's not forgot fuel effeciency too, that's something else Ducati has more of than everyone else.

Which is better. Toss up imo. If you have an 800 making 990 power, you can't bet against it, b/c the 800s still run slower on raceday that the 990s. However, if you can't make a huge hp advantage, then TC is probably better to sort out.

Imo, racing is way better when the cost/benefit ratio of more power goes down, because engine prices fall and more people get to enter. That was the old 2 stroke era. Right now we have the exact opposite. HP is everything and companies seem willing to throw a majority of their budget at it so racing is expensive. Oh well, it will change again hopefully.
 
TC activated in 6th gear on a straight? More power gives you more acceleration at the top end. Better grip/power delivery/tc/wheelie control/power modulation/etc give you more acceleration in lower gears. You need both. They make you faster in different situations.
 
If i may, although I am not in any way an expert, just a casual observer.

You seem to have answered your own question
<


The amount of grip/traction available is the limiting factor. I'm sure that engineers are ALWAYS finding ways to get more HP & Torque in the ground within the limits of grip/traction.

In your given example, the 'extra hp' that grip can't accommodate will be capped by either the rider (by using less throttle) or the traction control. To answer you question regarding who will be faster on the straight, it will be the bike which managed to put the most amount of HP in the ground in the duration of the run for the available grip. If grip was infinite, then for sure the one with the most hp will win hands down.

If you follow motorsports and try to simplify what all the technologies are doing, it all boils down to getting the most power on the ground (i.e. cars use contraptions such as wings/spoilers to get more grip so they can lay more power on the ground, teams will play on wheel bases, weight distribution, etc). and then of course there is aerodynamics, but that's a different subject altogether
 
My apologies in advance for not answering your question in the prescribed format.

First of all, HP usually means peak HP. What is more important is usable HP. What that means is bike that has higher HP over a range of RPM may be faster than a bike with a (very peaky but) higher peak HP.

Also, traction of the tire is not constant. A tire that is leaned over has less traction than one that is not. Hence, factories are always tuning the the engine so that max HP is avilable in the RPM that they need it at. There is really no point if the traction control, cuts in -- they are just wasting HP. You are better of trying to take that HP (at that partuicular RPM where it is in excess) and use it elsewhere where it is needed.

On a given lap of a track, the engineers wish they had more traction in som parts and on other parts they wish they had more HP. Now, if you give all the engineers enough time, they will be able to tune their bikes so that they perform almost identically. However, in reality they almost always don't have enough time to get all the setting right before the race. which is typically why most riders post much better lap times a day after the race.

To answer your question, I think HP is more important than TC. Why? Because, a damn good rider will be able to post the same lap times with or without TC. But, change the HP and lap times will change.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Sep 27 2007, 11:12 PM) [snapback]93329[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Question about traction control vs horsepower.

I was having a discussion with a friend regarding traction control. We were debating about the importance of horsepower vs. tire grip/traction in relation to electronic package that governs traction control for the bike.

To me it seems tire grip/traction is the limiting factor because engineers can produce more and more horsepower. However, my friend argued that more horsepower is always better, though I felt a finer tuned traction control system will result on a faster bike.
Here is the question. If traction control systems reduce tire spin, has a threshold of horsepower reached a limit? In other words, has horsepower reached the limit (or close to the limit) where it has become less important than the electronic system that regulates it because tire grip is the limiting factor?

What do you think is more important?

1. Horsepower
2. Traction

Does the bike with more horsepower always have the advantage over the bike that has a better traction control system?

Or does the bike that have a better traction control system have the advantage over a bike with ample horse power to activate the system but has less horsepower than another bike?
Please answer the following question:

If two identical bikes with an identical traction control system were open full throttle down the longest straight of any current track in GP, which bike would be faster??? —Assuming all elements are identical/equal except one has more horsepower than the other, and the condition that both have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction control system. In other words, both have more than enough horse power to spin the tire the entire length of the straight, however, one has more horse power than the other, which would be faster if all else was identical except one has more horse power than the other.
I would like to know what you think.

Here is my answer: (As I understand traction control, I admit my understanding is limited to what I read, perhaps somebody here understands it better and can shed some light on this enigma).

I think both bikes will be equal down the straight; same top speed and acceleration even though one has more horsepower. Why, because both have activated the traction control system which governs horsepower output in relation to tire grip/traction, in effect limiting the horsepower to the tarmac according to how much the tire grip can handle. Since grip is the limiting factor, and assuming both bikes have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction system, then it seems to me the extra horse power of the other bike, no matter how much more it may be, is negated (rendered ineffective) because the electronics would limit the available horsepower down to maintain grip.
Here was the other position, the other side of the debate:

More horsepower always equals more acceleration and therefore top speed. He couldn’t explain why but he was sure that it made sense because otherwise why would engine builders try to make more horsepower if it didn’t help.
What do you think?


It might also be worth considering the bikes actual mechanical grip suplied by its chassis design. The best TC in the world can help a rider optimise the acceleration of a bike from a corner, but it can't create grip that isn't there already.
 
What jumkie is saying is this...In layman’s terms...and that is: fast bikes with lots of HP are never good around a tight race track and the bikes that are fast and intelligently setup like the Ducati are always fast and will win races every time on whichever track there on!!!...that’s it nothing more to be said!!! Jumkie please get off the grass!!! And don’t bore us with all your analytical garbage!!!...its all physics!!! What goes up must come down!!!...haven’t you learned that by now!!!
<
<
<
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Sep 27 2007, 11:12 PM) [snapback]93329[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Question about traction control vs horsepower.

I was having a discussion with a friend regarding traction control. We were debating about the importance of horsepower vs. tire grip/traction in relation to electronic package that governs traction control for the bike.

To me it seems tire grip/traction is the limiting factor because engineers can produce more and more horsepower. However, my friend argued that more horsepower is always better, though I felt a finer tuned traction control system will result on a faster bike.
Here is the question. If traction control systems reduce tire spin, has a threshold of horsepower reached a limit? In other words, has horsepower reached the limit (or close to the limit) where it has become less important than the electronic system that regulates it because tire grip is the limiting factor?

What do you think is more important?

1. Horsepower
2. Traction

Does the bike with more horsepower always have the advantage over the bike that has a better traction control system?

Or does the bike that have a better traction control system have the advantage over a bike with ample horse power to activate the system but has less horsepower than another bike?
Please answer the following question:

If two identical bikes with an identical traction control system were open full throttle down the longest straight of any current track in GP, which bike would be faster??? —Assuming all elements are identical/equal except one has more horsepower than the other, and the condition that both have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction control system. In other words, both have more than enough horse power to spin the tire the entire length of the straight, however, one has more horse power than the other, which would be faster if all else was identical except one has more horse power than the other.
I would like to know what you think.

Here is my answer: (As I understand traction control, I admit my understanding is limited to what I read, perhaps somebody here understands it better and can shed some light on this enigma).

I think both bikes will be equal down the straight; same top speed and acceleration even though one has more horsepower. Why, because both have activated the traction control system which governs horsepower output in relation to tire grip/traction, in effect limiting the horsepower to the tarmac according to how much the tire grip can handle. Since grip is the limiting factor, and assuming both bikes have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction system, then it seems to me the extra horse power of the other bike, no matter how much more it may be, is negated (rendered ineffective) because the electronics would limit the available horsepower down to maintain grip.
Here was the other position, the other side of the debate:

More horsepower always equals more acceleration and therefore top speed. He couldn’t explain why but he was sure that it made sense because otherwise why would engine builders try to make more horsepower if it didn’t help.
What do you think?


In the circumstance you mentioned the two bikes in question would be the same speed on the straight. However it is unrealistic for a bike to be able to activate its traction control system in all gears down the straight.

Between Horsepower and electronics i would take electronics right now. Electronics make a bike easier to ride over a race distance, easier to set up and easier on its tyres. A horsepower hike will most likely do the opposite of that and therefore create other problems for the rider/engineers to deal with.

Like i said earlier though i think you have overlooked chassis design completely. It is the chassis design that will determine how much grip the bike has, and the limit at which the TC will come in and it is the chassis design that will determine the bikes tendancy to wheelie when opened up.
 
I have a feeling the bike with least hp would slightly edge the other...
reasoning--- the bike with less hp would not need as much traction control as the more powerful one thus feeding the contact patch with more consistent drive.
 
Thanks guys for taking the time to grapple with this question. Your responses are appreciated. I realize this question is complex; therefore, I wanted to focus on the straight-line acceleration and speed rather than other aspects of performance of a bike around a track. As I understand acceleration, once grip is lost, in other words, wheel spin, then acceleration is reduced. This is because friction is less once the grip/traction is broken past the static coefficient. Think of it as reverse anti-lock brakes. The reason anti-lock brakes exist is because once the tire locks and slides, much less friction is produced therefore stopping power is reduced and inefficient. The same principle applies to acceleration.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Sep 27 2007, 04:51 PM) [snapback]93333[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>

As far as the straightaway acceleration, TC doesn't come into play. To go fast down the straight you have to stay out of wheelie control.

Assuming that a bike has the power to spin the wheels when vertical and exerting little or no lateral force isn't really realistic.


For the sake of discussion, when I say “traction control”, I’m including all the electronic mechanisms that attempt to maintain maximum grip and forward acceleration down the straight. Staying out of “wheelie control” in effect is staying out of “traction control” because the sensors that activate TC monitor discrepancies between front and rear wheels. So once the front wheel starts to lift, it slows down, and activates TC/Wheelie control (as I understand the electronic mechanism, however, I may be wrong, but it makes sense to me).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mattsteg @ Sep 27 2007, 08:34 PM) [snapback]93338[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
TC activated in 6th gear on a straight? More power gives you more acceleration at the top end. Better grip/power delivery/tc/wheelie control/power modulation/etc give you more acceleration in lower gears. You need both.

Really? I’m not sure this is correct or unrealistic because the current bikes (certainly last year’s bike) have enough power to spin the tire down the entire straight on any current track. This is why I’m asking the question about TC vs HP. I’m saying that bikes still have the power to spin the tire down the straight, the entire straight. And based what I know about friction, it makes sense not to spin the tire to maximize acceleration. It may or may not be enough to activate the traction control mechanism, but if it is, then any extra horsepower is negated. And so the question becomes, what is more important, an electronic system that MATCHES the available power to the available grip, or more horsepower?

Maybe, I’m missing something, but it seems that engine builders are trying to create more power but I think there is a point where it will not longer be relevant because it will be overshadowed by the electronic mechanisms that match power to traction.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(crvlvr @ Sep 27 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]93344[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>

To answer your question, I think HP is more important than TC. Why? Because, a damn good rider will be able to post the same lap times with or without TC. But, change the HP and lap times will change.


Perhaps. However, TC is a rider’s aid, and usually if engineered precisely, can overcome any rider flaws by maximizing the law of physics to make the most of bike performance. But again, what use is extra horsepower if it goes beyond available grip? Actually, the extra horsepower may be a liability because the more spin reduces the friction coefficient, which means less acceleration—much like At least as I understand it, but then again, maybe I’m missing something here, and that’s why I’m asking. Remember, I am only focusing on the straight.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wise_mumu @ Sep 27 2007, 08:56 PM) [snapback]93339[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
To answer you question regarding who will be faster on the straight, it will be the bike which managed to put the most amount of HP in the ground in the duration of the run for the available grip.


Right. So if both bikes have identical traction control (which I assume means an electronic aid that “managed to put most amount of HP in the ground” then why would a bike with more horsepower be necessary beyond the amount of power “managed” by TC?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Sep 28 2007, 07:38 AM) [snapback]93383[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
It is the chassis design that will determine how much grip the bike has, and the limit at which the TC will come in and it is the chassis design that will determine the bikes tendancy to wheelie when opened up.


I agree, however, surely not just the chassis determines how much grip the bike will have, but I concur that it is of paramount importance. I get that, but as I said, I realize we can introduce many many factors, this is why for the sake of discussion, I said both bikes would be ‘identical’ so I we can focus on the traction control vs. horsepower issue.

So again I ask:

If two identical bikes with an identical traction control system were open full throttle down the longest straight of any current track in GP, which bike would be faster??? —Assuming all elements are identical/equal except one has more horsepower than the other, and the condition that both have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction control system.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Sep 28 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]93333[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Jumkie, this is an impossible question. If there was a right answer everyone in GP would be doing the same thing.
<


As far as the straightaway acceleration, TC doesn't come into play. To go fast down the straight you have to stay out of wheelie control. I bike with a forward weight bias accelerates better. Kwaker and Yamaha try to exploit this strategy. Assuming that a bike has the power to spin the wheels when vertical and exerting little or no lateral force isn't really realistic. If they can loop a GP bike at low speed (max accel rate) they can certainly get an extra 10hp down at 300kph.

However, when accelerating out of a turn, the bike with good TC can probably get more power down and make a run on the bike with more hp.

However, now that TC systems are highly effective, and displacement is down. HP seems to rule supreme again. And let's not forgot fuel effeciency too, that's something else Ducati has more of than everyone else.

Which is better. Toss up imo. If you have an 800 making 990 power, you can't bet against it, b/c the 800s still run slower on raceday that the 990s. However, if you can't make a huge hp advantage, then TC is probably better to sort out.

Imo, racing is way better when the cost/benefit ratio of more power goes down, because engine prices fall and more people get to enter. That was the old 2 stroke era. Right now we have the exact opposite. HP is everything and companies seem willing to throw a majority of their budget at it so racing is expensive. Oh well, it will change again hopefully.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(crvlvr @ Sep 28 2007, 06:36 AM) [snapback]93344[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
First of all, HP usually means peak HP. What is more important is usable HP. What that means is bike that has higher HP over a range of RPM may be faster than a bike with a (very peaky but) higher peak HP.

Also, traction of the tire is not constant. A tire that is leaned over has less traction than one that is not. Hence, factories are always tuning the the engine so that max HP is avilable in the RPM that they need it at. There is really no point if the traction control, cuts in -- they are just wasting HP. You are better of trying to take that HP (at that partuicular RPM where it is in excess) and use it elsewhere where it is needed.

On a given lap of a track, the engineers wish they had more traction in som parts and on other parts they wish they had more HP. Now, if you give all the engineers enough time, they will be able to tune their bikes so that they perform almost identically. However, in reality they almost always don't have enough time to get all the setting right before the race. which is typically why most riders post much better lap times a day after the race.

To answer your question, I think HP is more important than TC. Why? Because, a damn good rider will be able to post the same lap times with or without TC. But, change the HP and lap times will change.



I think the guys have covered all the bases here jumkie. It seems to be down to one word, compromise. The thing that a good set up in racing is all about. Tyre selection, chassis set up and HP vs. TC. This is the best way I can think of to answer your question....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>On a given lap of a track, the engineers wish they had more traction in some parts and on other parts they wish they had more HP.

Crvlvr has nialed it. I'd take my chances with more HP. In my humble opinion, traction control is more about tyre conservation than assisting a good rider to better his lap times. Over a full 45min race distance then the bike with better TC is the one to be on. Over a 10 lap sprint, I'll take the horsepower.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Sep 28 2007, 11:23 PM) [snapback]93421[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>


So again I ask:

If two identical bikes with an identical traction control system were open full throttle down the longest straight of any current track in GP, which bike would be faster??? —Assuming all elements are identical/equal except one has more horsepower than the other, and the condition that both have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction control system.


The difference, if any would come down to the engine characteristics. To have more power the second bike would have to have a different power curve, so one of the bikes could in theory be at a higher RPM than the other if its power delivery allowed rpm to increase more smoothly. I don't know enough to understand or predict which one it would be though
 
<
<
Boorrrinng????...jumkies post...as Roge says!!!...jumkie says allot but for the f__ck of all of us we wish we knew what he was talking about!!!...
Come-on jumkie!!!...traction control is here to stay!!! And if the other manufacturers can’t get with it then it’s there bad luck!!!...Yamaha, Suzuki, Ducati and Kawasaki did it in superbikes so what s the problem in motoGP?
There is NO excuses jumkie!!
<
<
!


You talk .... jumkie!!!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CSCVAW @ Oct 2 2007, 05:35 AM) [snapback]93519[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Boorrrinng????...jumkies post...as Roge says!!!...jumkie says allot but for the f__ck of all of us we wish we knew what he was talking about!!!...

You talk .... jumkie!!!


Your posts on this thread are totally irrational, silly, and absurd. I didn’t think a thread with a fairly thought-provoking subject could be infused with your ridiculous gibberish because frankly there didn’t seem to be any aspect of the subject as to elicit such a senseless response by you. All the poster on this thread had something relevant to say except you. I have tried to stomach your posts because sometimes they are funny (granted I’m usually laughing at you not with you). There really is no point in trying to reason with you. I prefer more intelligent exchanges of which it seems you have neither the ability nor the capacity to undertake.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Sep 28 2007, 11:23 PM) [snapback]93421[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>

So again I ask:

If two identical bikes with an identical traction control system were open full throttle down the longest straight of any current track in GP, which bike would be faster??? —Assuming all elements are identical/equal except one has more horsepower than the other, and the condition that both have more than enough horsepower to activate the traction control system.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 1 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]93468[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
The difference, if any would come down to the engine characteristics. To have more power the second bike would have to have a different power curve, so one of the bikes could in theory be at a higher RPM than the other if its power delivery allowed rpm to increase more smoothly. I don't know enough to understand or predict which one it would be though


I'd agree with Tom on that - power delivery is extremely relevant to this.

I'm assuming that RJ's premise for the above question is that the HP is sufficient that the TC comes in on the straight, ie the "wheelie control" part of TC is actually occurring all the way down the straight.

Usually TC is most effective when exiting corners, whether this be in the actual getting round the corner aspect (this is when the ECU determines that the rear wheel speed is greater than the front wheel and then the ECU decides (depending on its calibration) to advance the timing (retarding) to reduce power or to not allow more power in order to slow the wheel gradually to the correct speed), or in the wheelie control once the throttle is nailed.

I think that those who have posted that it is about compromise are correct - it wouldn't make sense to increase the peak HP to such an extent that the TC had to be in play all the way down the straights.

Quote crvlvr "To answer your question, I think HP is more important than TC. Why? Because, a damn good rider will be able to post the same lap times with or without TC. But, change the HP and lap times will change."

I completely agree with crvlvr assuming that the HP is not so huge to mean that the whole lap has to use TC (which if it played a major part on the straights, I'd assume it would).
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(frosty58 @ Oct 2 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]93619[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
good reading..... except zippy's of course.

<
<
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(yamaka46 @ Oct 2 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]93616[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>

I think that those who have posted that it is about compromise are correct

Thanks, very insightful.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(frosty58 @ Oct 2 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]93619[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
good reading..... except zippy's of course.

Like I said, very insightful.
<
 
Surely the bottom line of the arguement is how a bike puts it's power down on the track. You can have all the power in the world, but if the bike is spinning up out of the turns, it's not putting the power down. If you look to motocross, with the 2 stroke vs 4 stroke arguement, the 4 strokes put the power down smoother than the "on off" delivery of a 2 stroke. It's a characteristic of the engine. You can open the throttle faster without looping the bike over your head. Anything that allows the rider to put the power down quicker is going to be an advantage. The secret is quite rightly getting the balance between the two, horsepower and traction control.

I'm not a fan of all these new power mangement systems on bikes, I believe that the race should be won by the fastest rider, not the best electronics, but, it's the way racing is going.

A dog slow bike with clever electronics is going to get eaten alive by a bike with monster horsepower on the straights, but a bike of similar power is going to have the upper hand. A fast bike with clever electronics is going to be the package to go for. Obviously, having a fast rider is essential in the mix!

I dunno if this sheds any light on the debate, but I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring.

Pete
 

Similar threads

M
New Ducati 890cc V2
Replies
1
Views
164
mylexicon
M
M
New Direction for World Superbike?
Replies
3
Views
910
JFM01
J
M
Next Generation Supersport: KTM RC 990
Replies
0
Views
585
mylexicon
M
M
WSBK Introduces Combined Weight, Fuel Flow Limit and More for 2024 and Beyond
Replies
3
Views
707
mylexicon
M
M
Motorcycle Racing Industry: Reading the Tea Leaves
Replies
44
Views
3K
Hollywood
Hollywood

Recent Discussions