<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 2006 Cannondale Rush</title>
	<link>http://www.thebikinghub.com/mtb/2006-cannondale-rush/</link>
	<description>Mountain bike news, reviews, and original features</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2</generator>

	<item>
 		<title>Comment on 2006 Cannondale Rush by: Some more thoughts on the 2006 Cannondale Rush 2000 &#187; The Biking Hub</title>
		<link>http://www.thebikinghub.com/mtb/2006-cannondale-rush/#comment-176</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thebikinghub.com/mtb/2006-cannondale-rush/#comment-176</guid>
					<description>[...] Judging by the popularity of our entries on the 2006 Cannondale Rush, it looks as though Cannondale made lots of good decisions when planning their new cross country racer. Dan&amp;#8217;s initial impressions of the Rush 1000 were quite positive and other, similar assessments are starting to pop up around the Internet. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] Judging by the popularity of our entries on the 2006 Cannondale Rush, it looks as though Cannondale made lots of good decisions when planning their new cross country racer. Dan&#8217;s initial impressions of the Rush 1000 were quite positive and other, similar assessments are starting to pop up around the Internet. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
