Wagonwheeled bicycle showdown – Surly Krampus vs. ECR

A lot has been written on the comparison of Surly’s two 29+ bikes (like this, or this) – that is, its two frames designed around plus-sized, 29 x 3” tires – the Krampus and the ECR. A year ago, I join this cult of alt-cyclists when, on a whim, I purchased an ECR. After riding the trails around Smithers, British Columbia, I shared some early impressions.

Surly ECR

Surly ECR


Surly Krampus

I enjoyed my ECR for some 7000km in 2014. But, one fateful afternoon, while riding down from Lorna Pass on day two of a three day trip in the South Chilcotins, the ECR frame broke. I don’t mean to share this as some inherent, detrimental feature of the ECR, so much as part of the story.

The weld at the joint of the non-driveside chainstay to the dropout broke clean through. I don’t think anyone wants to pedal around a bike that no one could break. It would be an over-engineered monster. That I broke it without crashing – a fatigue failure if I’ve ever seen one – might be more concerning. These being blue-collar steel bikes, had anything like this happened on long tour, I would have had it repaired. That is, after pushing those same 30km to the nearest road, and talking a hunter (the only people out there) into driving me a few hours to the nearest town with a welder.

A busted up Bullwinkle.

A busted up Bullwinkle. (Also note the missing adjustment knob from the Avid BB7 brake, which disappeared a month earlier, while pushwhacking through dense shrubberies on the Coast Mountain bikepacking trip. Unfortunately the clicks that prevent the pads from self-adjusting while riding are in the missing plastic bit. Time for a replacement, with some of these.)

After that gruelling day of pushing, I brought the ECR into Mighty Riders, whence I purchased it, and was offered an exciting opportunity: replacement with any Surly frame. I’d already been exploring the possibility of adding front suspension to my ECR, but finding a straight-steerered, 90mm 29er fork is difficult at best. For this reason, and others, I already suspected that I belong on a Krampus. Two days later it arrived. (I also upped sizes to XL.)

I’m now in the somewhat unique position of having ridden an ECR and Krampus, with identical component set-ups on the same trails. We already know from Surly that the Krampus was designed to be a trail bike, and the ECR to be a touring bike. They were never intended to compete with each other. But, due to their common wheel size, they’ve been thrown into the same division. And for those who share my affinity for bikepacking, which lies somewhere on the spectrum between trail riding and touring, hashing out how Surly’s designs compare might help choosing which bike will suit you better.

ECR at Elfin Lakes, British Columbia

ECR at Elfin Lakes, British Columbia

On Bicycle Geometry

The differences in geometry between the two frames are obvious by just looking at the numbers: the Krampus has a longer top tube than the ECR, a high bottom bracket, and shorter chainstays. These differences are largely what makes one a trail bike and the other a touring bike. But I didn’t really know why or how these bikes would ride differently.

Bottom Bracket Height

I’ll start with the most obvious. The BB is 20 mm higher (assuming identical wheels/tires) on the Krampus. Low bottom brackets make it feel like you’re riding in the bike rather than on it, higher BBs give more pedal clearance. I love the low, stable feel of the ECR on smooth bermed corners, and could usually time my pedalling to avoid pedal-striking while riding the bike unloaded. With any sort of overnight load, handling is always at least a little bit slower, and it takes more pedalling to keep rolling. At these times, I felt the lowness of the ECR BB would negatively impact my riding. I’d pedal-strike and often walk rough sections that I’d ride while unloaded for this reason alone. On the faint alpine horse trails I rode as part of my Coast Mountains Bikepacking Route, pedal-strikes became a major nuisance. Keep in mind that the ECR’s  80mm BB drop mostly rules out the option of using regular (2.0″ – 2.4″) tires for any off road riding.

I’ve not yet ridden the Krampus with an overnight load, but on the same trails where I had 4 or 5 pedal-strikes in as many hours, a year ago, I can now ride without any pedal-strikes at all. In fact, I’ve pedalled hard through the same cobble-strewn trail sections that afforded me those few pedal-strikes last year on my ECR, without paying a thought the location of my pedals.

The Krampus does ride higher, and feel different in corners. But, there are other factors that affect its cornering that confuse a clear comparison of BB height. My Krampus, being of a larger size and having a longer frame design, has a monstrous wheel base. This also lends it a certain stability, while making it a little difficult to coax around switchbacks at low speeds. (The key to descending switchbacks seems to be to go in hot, lean hard, and hold on. The Krampus as a way of rewarding this riding style in general.)

Top Tube and Chainstay Length 

Rider weight is balanced more heavily on the rear wheel of the Krampus, and more equally front-to-back on the ECR. Long top tubes and short stems are a considered the latest trend in geometry (though for some reason Gary Fisher’s original Genesis geometry wasn’t cool when they tried this in the late ’90s). It gives a nice backseat security while bombing steep descents, but it needs to be carefully balanced with climbing ability. Get that stem too short, and weight to far back, and you’ll find your front wheel lifting off the ground on steep climbs. But get too far forward, and you lose weight and therefore traction on the rear wheel.

For me, it was not so much about finding cutting edge, gravity-oriented geometry as finding that sweet spot for climbing, while still being a competent descender. (Both bikes clearly aim to hit this balance with their medium-slack 69.5° headangles). Nonetheless, I went for the XL to get that long top-tube/shorter stem combo, and perhaps more importantly for my kinds of adventure, to maximize frame bag space.

My ‘short stem’, at 80mm, is actually considered monstrously long by modern gravity riding standards. Set up with a set-back Ritchey seat post and my bars level with my saddle, I am right on the cusp of having my front wheel lift off the ground while climbing seated. Having a light front end while climbing is great for lifting the front wheel over obstacles, but I am still a bit too close to losing all steering with my front wheel in the air. I can either drop my handlebar lower, or move my saddle forward (perhaps with a straight-pin seatpost) and switch to a 90mm stem to shift my weight a hair farther forward. Either way, my current set up is very close to that sweet spot of maximum rear wheel traction, and a front end that stays light, but on the ground.

My ECR, by comparison, with the same set-back seat post and a 100mm stem (corresponding to a top tube 20mm shorter), was set up for a very similar riding position, but had a very different weight balance on the wheels. With its 5mm longer chainstays, and a shorter wheelbase, my weight sat in the middle of the frame. This made for a front end that was harder to lift over obstacles, and less rear-wheel traction while climbing. I found myself getting out of the saddle earlier on climbs because the heavier front end was harder to manhandle over obstacles while seated. I also think the heavier front was also partly responsible for a harsher ride when rolling over roots. But, only partly responsible. More on that later…

In theory, the front wheel may tend to wash out more while cornering in loose stuff when the rider’s weight is further back. But, since I am usually out of the saddle on any serious corner, my seated weight balance isn’t relevant. Besides, out of the saddle, I usually have my weight further forward on either bike, and I haven’t noticed a difference, on this point, between the two frames.

My touring set-up in Patagonia: ECR with small panniers and bikepacking bags. A winning combo.

My touring set-up in Patagonia: ECR with small panniers and bikepacking bags. A winning combo.

My ECR set up for the Coast Mountains trip.

On Butts and Tubes

The geometric differences between the Krampus and ECR can all be seen and understood on paper. It was eye opening to feel how these differences played out on the trail, but nothing about it was particularly surprising. What I didn’t expect – I hadn’t even considered it beforehand – was that the different tubesets, the actual construction of the frames, would give each bike a very different feel on the trail.

The Krampus feels like a lighter bike than the ECR. I haven’t weighed either, so I can’t say for sure, but I highly doubt that is the case. My ECR was a smaller frame size, but its drop-outs are made with a massive amount of metal. At best, the frames come in pretty close to each other in weight. But the Krampus feels lighter.

The heavy feel of the ECR probably has more to do with the stiffness of the frame than its actual mass. Overly stiff frames can feel hard to accelerate and a bit dead. The ECR, as Surly promises, is built for touring – for carrying a lot of stuff. It has longer butt lengths, and in some places, larger tube diameters. This is a good thing if you’ve got a traditional touring load – four bursting panniers, a handlebar bag, and maybe a small mountain of stuff piled on top of the rear rack. Unloaded, however, it makes for a harsh ride.

When I first got the ECR, I was used to 26x 2.3″ tires. The 29+ wheel/tire format made everything feel soft and smooth. Now I’m used to the wagon wheels, and now I can really feel the harshness of an unloaded ECR compared to a Krampus. The Krampus feels livelier and dampens bumps better, when unloaded. Put 30kg of gear on both bikes, and the ECR will feel comfy, the Krampus like a wet noodle. For bikepacking loads, rarely greater than 15kg, the Krampus is a going to be the clear winner. Though I haven’t ridden the Krampus with any sort of load yet, I know that it was the ECR’s stiffness, especially in the fork, that had me wishing for suspension on the horse trails of the South and West Chilcotins. While part of my inspiration for the frame switch was to be able to use a suspension fork (a 1 1/8″ steerer, 90mm 29er fork that can clear 3″ tires doesn’t exist), I already find the suspension afforded by the Krampus’ lighter tubeset gets me most of the way there.

My Krampus, shredding frozen dirt below Mt Hudson Bay, BC, in -10C weather.

My Krampus, shredding frozen dirt below Mt Hudson Bay, BC, in -10C weather.

Which One For Bikepacking?

Having realized how beefy Surly went for the ECR’s tubeset, I can’t help but think they went a bit too far. The people I’ve met who tour with the kind of load the ECR seems to be designed for are the same people who will generally avoid bumpy, unpaved roads to begin with. Light travellers seek rough roads. This makes the ECR an odd sort of niche bike. The Krampus however, lacks the braze-ons to that make the ECR so desirable for bikepacking. It’s a trail bike, and has holes for two water bottles and fenders, and no more.

In many ways the ECR is a bike destined for any sort of adventure. Whether day rides, bikepacking trips, fully loaded cross-continent tours, or as a trailer-towing pedal powered family vehicle, it has enough braze-ons, and versatile dropouts, to allow it to don any mask at a moments notice. But, now that I’ve felt how perfect the stiffness of the Krampus is for riding hard on singletrack, I can’t forgive the ECR for how sore I was, and how much pushing I did, on the singletrack sections of the Coast Mountains trip. Despite its lack of braze-ons – a problem that can be solved by installing riv-nuts or using hose clamps – the Krampus is a clear winner on singletrack, and no worse on gravel roads than the ECR.

On the Carretera Austral, riding with a large front handlebar pack, an frame bag, and small (“front”) panniers on a rear rack, the ECR was the perfect bike. Even so, I think using a Krampus on that sort of trip would only open up opportunities for more bikepacking side trips.

I’m likely to tour with small rear panniers again at some point, and I think the Krampus will remain a capable bike with that sort of load. But, with anything more, an ECR or an Ogre would be a better choice. In the end, the ECR is much more similar to an Ogre than a Krampus. Only tire clearance really distinguish these two. If you’re carrying a full, four-pannier touring load, and sticking mostly to maintained roads (dirt or otherwise), are 3″ tires really needed? I loved them in Patagonia, but 99% of the time, they didn’t really provide a performance advantage over a 2.4″ tire.

All things considered, I find the differences in geometry to be of less consequence to how these bikes behave as bikepacking rigs than the tubesets. Sure, on rough trails, the higher BB of the Krampus does become an advantage. On hard descents, its long top tube and wheelbase inspire confidence even if on multi-day trips, I tend to descend quite conservatively.

Despite Surly’s best attempts to be transparent in their marketing of these bikes, I was convinced the ECR was a bikepacking bike. A bikepacking bike is by definition a mountain bike, and the ECR is not. It is a touring bike. I’d rather tour on a mountain bike, than mountain bike on a touring bike. And so, since if I have to choose just one (and I do), it’ll be a Krampus for everything.



The Krampus goes fast.


Call Lake, frozen hard, leaves me dreaming of a full-on fatbike with studded tires. But 29+ is still the ultimate platform for a huge array of conditions.


29 thoughts on “Wagonwheeled bicycle showdown – Surly Krampus vs. ECR

  1. Skyler, this is a great discussion. I just discovered the new Genesis Longitude frame yesterday, the successor to their Foritude bikepacking 29er. It seems like the perfect union of the ECR, Krampus, and Ogre, as it claims a mild trail geometry and a whole host of attachment points on a non-suspension corrected design (long TT, but also long chain stays and medium BB drop). It still precludes the inclusion of most suspension forks with an 1 1/8″ HT, but you could add a straight-steerer Reba with 2.3-2.4″ tires. And, the bike is sold with the new 35mm Alex TR rims and 2.4″ tire. It is an exciting addition, and my new go-to recommendation for anyone looking for a small step up from the Ogre.

    Genesis Longitude: http://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/bikes/adventure/expedition/longitude

    I agree with the feeling of lifting the front wheel. I spent a lot of time hunched over the bike, semi-horizontal to achieve steep climbs. On the steepest and most technical, the Fox Talas fork comes in handy, which can be retracted down to 90-95mm travel and significantly drops the front end. I’m not sure if I’d buy another Talas as I suspect a Float (or similar) would have a slightly nicer feel. In general it is a nice fork. I’m sure you’ve got a list of options sorted.

    I also don’t know why Surly don’t include a third bottle cage on the Pugsley, ICT, Krampus, and KM. It does not automatically make it a touring bike to add a third bottle cage mount, but it is real convenient with the addition of a framebag, which they are now selling in quantity. I’ve now drilled holes in the DT of three separate frames, two from Surly.

    On another note, a friend recently broke an Ogre frame in transit from AK, currently in Arizona. I haven’t seen it, but it has been described to me and I think it is similar to your failure.

    • Most of this is double dutch to me as a newb to bikepacking (coming from alot of road), but I have one of the new Genesis’ and was interested to compare to the Ogre on a recent trip with a friend. Mostly happy with my choice, I’d say the Longitude is a shade more more mtb/off road and less straight tour than the Ogre, but alot depends on terrain and skills obvs – he was often ahead of me. The Longitude is heavier, slower, less twitchy in the steering, more float (bigger tyres is all). Feels lazier all round, less upright, which I don’t mind. Toobs are alot chunkier than the Ogre, so weight isn’t just the skinnier tyres on my pal’s Surly… 2 penneths from a beginner, for what it’s worth.

      • David, The laziness you refer to may be the similar to what I sometimes feel on the Krampus when climbing or riding flats as low-med speed. Sometimes, I feel like I am steering a bus rather than guiding a bike. But on the descents, the bike becomes natural and nimble. This is some of the way the bikes angles (esp. the headtube angle) affect the handling.

        Regarding the weight of the tubes, it is always possible to swap for lighter tubes as long as punctures aren’t an especially big problem in your area (live in the desert?). Otherwise, you’ve got tubeless ready rims so standard tubeless procedures should drop some weight from the wheels in addition to a host of other benefits. Those rims are also heavier (and wider) than what comes stock on the Ogre. Wheel weight can also explain the lazy feeling.

      • Yea, that ‘slackness’ I quite like tbh. Headtube angle is way more pronounced than the ogre, which feels and looks quite ‘penny farthing’ by comparison – the riding position is way more over the front wheel on the Ogre. Was considering a front wheel upgrade to 3” from 2.4” once the dirt wizards finally arrive, but I’ll need more trips to confirm my need for that. In the meantime, 3” of fresh snow was no bother at all. Will be a while before I get to tubeless I think! It can feel a bit like a bus, but it’s a fun ride, itching to get back out again. Cheers.

    • Yep. Exact same failure point on my Ogre as your ECR Skyler. I’m hoping it was just an unlucky weld. Some have speculated it related to having a Rohloff disc hub which puts huge torque on the rear triangle, but it looked pretty burly to me.

      I didn’t get the “pick any frame you want” replacement option unfortunately. My solution to creating a good mix of heavy duty bikepacking/touring/trail bike was to recently install the Krampus fork with braze-ons onto my Ogre frame, running a Knard 27tpi in the front and a Maxxis Minion 2.5″ in the rear. Both on Blunt 35mm rims. Just road the Camino del Diablo in Arizona through some pretty sandy terrain and it did great! I know the Ogre fork can fit a 3″ tire, but the Krampus fork is slightly longer and has a little bigger offset so it effectively slacked out the front wheel by a good chunk. Bike feels way more fun on steep descents now but still climbs reasonably well on steep stuff… Plus I got to keep the gazillion braze-ons from the Ogre (way too many!).

      Great post by the way. I know the ECR vs. Krampus discussion has been widespread lately. Another newcomer onto the 29+ scene that I drooled over while in a shop near Phoenix was Niner’s new ROS 9 Plus:


      But not easily Rohloff compatible with the rear thru axle. Alas.

  2. Pingback: vikapproved | Surly Krampus vs. ECR

    • Yeah, any frame can break. That’s why it makes sense to travel with a steel bike. That Surly replaced it so promptly was all one could ask for.

      Re: the Jones 29+. I kind of like it when frame makers just commit to it being a rigid bike, because it allows them to maximize frame bag space, and build a lighter, more supple rigid fork. Jones seems to have aced this (especially with a thin-tubed truss fork). And I like the idea of an adjustable BB height through the eccentric bottom bracket. I just think the whole range of adjustment is too low for trail riding on the Jones. BB drop ranges from 76m to 88mm. that means depending on how much you need to turn it to tension your chain, you could be forced to run it at 82mm drop – even lower than the ECR. If it ranged between 60mm and 72mm drop, I’d be all over this.

  3. I think the Ogre is probably more trail ready as it is the same Geo as the Monkey. I think they mixed the Krampus, the Ogre and the LHT and ended up with a strange beast. Love the Krampus. Liked my Ogre I got out of for the Krampus. But Surly is nothing if not willing to explore segments that don’t exist. We are all lucky for it.

  4. Thanks for the comparison Skylar! I piloted my XL Krampus down a gnarly Nelson DH trail full of slabs, drops and roots today. I was blown away by how competent it was. My cockpit is a 50mm Chromag BZA stem paired with a matching BZA carbon bar and ESI xtra chunky grips. The carbon bar/ESI grip combo does wonders for rigid mtb descending. In part thanks to you and the Gypsy I’m now planning on hitting the Chilcotins on my Krampus this year. By the way, the Dirt Wizards are due to arrive in BC in mid January, and I believe that their profile will work better with suspension forks. Thanks for blogging!

    • Ned the Krampus is a great Chilcotins bike. The big tires smooth out the roughness nicely and get your through the less well trodden sections of trail easier than a typical MTB. The Knards work really well except for off-camber loose sections where some aggressive side-knobs like on the DW would be welcome.

      The DWs are supposed to be a full 3″ casing like the Knards plus the more aggresive knobs. I’m not getting the feeling they will fit a suspension fork any better and I suspect they’ll be worse.

      I’m holding out for some Maxxis Chronicles which seem like a good mix of the Knards fast rolling and the DW’s knobbiness.

      — Vik

  5. Do you have any experience with the Troll? You seem to have a good grasp specific bike’s suitability so I’m wondering where the Troll would fit on the MTB——touring bike continuum (despite Surly’s marketing).

    • I think Surly’s marketing is pretty accurate. It just still took me some riding time to have a basis for comparison/understanding how they define touring/trail riding.

      I had actually ordered a Troll frame when I bought my ECR. I walked into the shop to pick up my new frame, and ended up test riding an ECR while waiting for them to retrieve the Troll frame from upstairs. The ECR sold itself. I never did even end up looking at that frame I’d ordered. I decided that spending $700 more on a bike that would get be really excited to go for a ride around the block was worth it.

      Surly puts the Troll, Ogre, ECR, and LHT/Disc Trucker under the same heading of ‘touring bikes’. It’s not that the first three bikes are anything like the Long Haul Trucker (which is a classic, road touring bike). The Troll is an “expedition touring bike” that can take tires up to 3″ wide, and handle rough roads. But I’m pretty sure the tubeset will have been chosen for carrying heavy loads, and might be a bit on the stiff side for rigid mountain biking. That said, adding a suspension fork to a Troll may make it the best of both worlds. We’ve found older Marzocchi open-bath, coil sprung forks to be exceedingly reliable, and safe to travel with abroad.

  6. Pingback: Surly ECR 29+ Dirt Road Tourer Owner Build

  7. the krampus tube set is heavier duty than ECr, you can tell by tube diameter as it is a dead giveaway. i would attribute your soreness after the ride to your poor body position and recommend either a more swept back bar or shorter stem on the ECR (i.e. you mentioned the shorter stem on the krampus was more comfortable when accommodating for the TT length difference between bikes, well if you considered reach instead you position changed dramatically more than the difference in TT, and thus remedied some of the issues causing soreness on the ECR). the Ecr’s lower bb and longer chain stays makes it feel more sluggish, and less “playful” not the tubeset. furthermore, the slacker HT on the krampus makes it more confident descender, but less confident at low speed maneuvering on flat or climbs, this is where the ECR is a designed as a more stable handler with longer CS and a steeper HT that is more predicable at low speed.

    in the end it sounds like your riding style fit the krampus better than the ECR, not that the ECR was a lesser bike for bike packing, IMO.

    • Both bikes have the same head angle of 69.5 degrees. Also, Surly confirmed that the Krampus was built with thinner tubing and shorter butt lengths. The ECR, like the Troll, Ogre, and LHT, was built with a heavy touring load in mind.

      The L ECR’s reach is 18mm shorter than that of an XL Krampus. My stem is 20mm shorter on the Krampus. I made sure my riding position is identical (or within 2mm). The only change is where the wheels are under me.

      I think your final comments depend mostly on what you define as bikepacking – a term that is still being thrown around and not often defined. If dirt road touring with a light load counts as bikepacking, I totally agree with you. For riding singletrack with camping gear, the ECR’s bottom bracket height can be a problem.

      • thanks for the reply.

        thanks for clarifying the reach question, how did you accommodate for the difference in ETT length? The two bikes have 30mm diff TT length, so, did you move you seat forward on the Krampus? How did you find the same pedaling position?

        As far as the AtoC on the two bikes being 20mm diff, and HT being 5mm diff, did you drop the stem down to the heaset to find the same position for the bars? Or because the stack was is about the same, you just removed 5mm of spacers or flip the stem?

        in regards to tube spec, do you think that the thicker tube is stronger or just heavier and more durable? I would assume the tube with a larger diameter to be stronger.

        • Oh yeah…I also slid my seat forward a bit on the rails to help match the ETT. Part of the stack matching is in the higher BB of the Krampus. Stack is only different by 2mm or so. I didn’t do anything to about my stem height, because 2mm felt close enough.

          As for the tubeset, I’m not an engineer, but here’s the extent of my understanding – stiffness relates to tubing diameter, tube thickness and length. The Krampus downtube is definitely a large diameter, but it is much longer than that of ECR, and therefore probably less stiff. The butts are at the end of tubes where there is a sleeve of another tube inside to build a thicker welding surface. Making these internal sleeves longer means more of the tube length is effectively double thick, and the tube will be stiffer. Strength is different stiffness – this is where my lack of engineering background will really show. Thin, large diameter tubes might be equally stiff to smaller, thicker ones, but might dent easier. So, maybe the ECR is more durable against denting. Maybe not. My understanding is that all Surlys are way over-built and super strong. My ECR failed at a weld right at the rear drop-out. The Krampus has a bridge between the chainstay and seat stay on the brake side to move the stress-riser off that weld.

          • I’ve ridden a medium Krampus with a variety of loads. It’s not a stiff frame with a heavier load. I would not particularly expect it to be given where it sits in Surly’s line up. If the ECR was as flexible or more flexible than the Krampus it would make a poor “pack mule” which is what Surly calls it.

            For lightweight bikepacking [to me that’s frame bags and minimalist-ish gear] a flexible frame is desirable as is a higher BB for technical riding.

            Matching frame flex to intended mission is critical in getting the performance you want from a bike.

  8. Pingback: Peachy, Beachy, Patagonian Business | Velo Freedom

    • Reading past the “No. Well, mostly no…”, Surly answers the question, though vaguely. Back in 2012, when the Krampus came out and that Surly blog post was published, there were no suspension forks that officially, certifiably, had space for a 29×3″ tire. Many people modified regular 29er Fox forks with great success. These days, no such modifications are needed. The Manitou Magnum is designed specifically around 29+ and the 100mm travel version mates extremely well with a Krampus. Rock Shox has promised two 29+ compatible models for the coming year. Their fat bike fork, the Bluto, will also safely clear a 29+ wheel, though it requires a 150mm wide fat bike hub. With the exception of the MRP Stage fork, other forks that can officially be used on a Krampus have Boost 110mm wide front hubs.

  9. Hi Skyler,
    Bumped into this post today trying to figure out if the ECR and the Krampus can share a frame bag?, is the geometry on both bikes similar enough to do that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s