Break in: Kid gloves or ride it like ya stole it?

[Guest ratchethack]

Very interesting thread so far. Pity I was away over the weekend - there was much to jump in on. So, a few more penn'orth.

 

First of all, a postulation: the wear between a new cylinder and rings follows an inverse logarithmic pattern. That is, the first stroke procudes the most wear. The next stroke quite a bit less. The next stroke a bit less again. And so on, until each stroke produces virtually no wear. Until, at some point in the future, some factor is exceeded that causes wear to accelerate again to the point of needing repair/replacement. A graph of the wear would look like a very open letter "U" with the right hand leg not rising as much as the left. Maybe a back-to-front letter "J" would be a better analogy. Is this generally agreed to be a reasonable picture of what goes on at the bore/ring interface, all conditions being normal?

 

If the above is true, it is the _very_ first strokes that cause most wear by a large margin.

 

This is where I find Motoman's logic to be flawed. By the time you have warmed up your engine (what? 20 minutes to get a decent sized lump up to temperature?) for the first time much, if not most, of the serious wear has already taken place.

. . .

For his hypothesis to be functionally true, one would need to have a system of externally warming the engine and then apply the procedure from the first cough.

Mike, Your reverse-J illustration is a good one, IMHO. But I disagree entirely with your last sentence above, and a few other items.

 

Here is where I find your HYPOTHESIS to be flawed. Again, please -- note MY use of this word, and I mean no disrespect by calling your attention to the meaning again, as previously discussed in this thread. You have improperly used this word above, just as you did previously. It's something that evidently bears repeating and closer attention here.

 

Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the correct use of this word in the context of this discussion:

 

HYPOTHESIS - a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

 

Please note that MotoMan IS NOT conducting an experiment in his description of how to break-in motors! Neither is he making any ASSUMPTIONS! The "testing" has long been completed and the RESULTS analyzed, as he presents them. As posted earlier, he has drawn CONCLUSIONS based on the RESULTS of his break-in procedure compared to the RESULTS of breaking-in motors via the usual OEM recommendations. The data used as the basis for his PROOF is drawn from the numbers he cites. Over 300 motors were disassembled after break-in, having been broken-in both HIS WAY and the OEM recommended way. IMHO, this is a statistically significant number of break-ins from which to draw conclusions that PROVE a hypothesis, which IMHO he has done. Once the PROOF is in, the word HYPOTHESIS no longer applies. Since you haven't provided any data numbers of your own on break-in analyses, we must assume that you have no similar statistically significant basis of data or RESULTS to test YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

 

Please note that per definition, you are putting your HYPOTHESIS up against what I consider MotoMan's PROOF.

 

Now, as discussed previously, it might be POSSIBLE that MotoMan has fabricated, skewed, twisted, stretched, falsified, and misrepresented all or part of what he presents on his Web page. After all, it's just a page on the Web.... As mentioned previously, it COULD BE that he's just done this for the purpose of promoting his book and newsletter.

 

Is there any REASONABLE expectation that he's fabricated a false set of data drawn from years of experience and analyiss (photos of which he clearly provides on his Web site) solely for the purpose of selling books and newsletters?

 

Hmmmmmm. We might reasonably ask if his findings seem to be OUT OF LINE WITH THOSE OF OTHERS.

 

Well, no. They aren't out of line with my own, for example, nor are they out of line with those of many other posters to his thread who have achieved results that would support the MotoMan break-in method, nor do they seem to be out of line with the experience of the Pro's whose business is maintaining Guzzi's, for example.

 

I don't want to seem to be belittling anyone's break-in method here, but we've had one poster who hasn't been bashful about posting his own experience and the results of an easy break-in "by the OEM recommendations". Sadly, his motor now suffers from chronic symptoms of improper break-in -- EVIDENTLY AS A RESULT -- exactly as MotoMan describes.

 

I know of MANY MANY people who have done the same and experienced the same results with not only moto's, but cars, boats, trucks, motor homes, etc. But that's just me...

 

So it would SEEM that MotoMan may actually be ON TO SOMETHING HERE, rather than deceitfully misleading people for his own nefarious means, n'est-ce pas?

 

Now let us move on to your comments about a 20-minute first warm-up, where "much, if not most, of the serious wear has already taken place..."

 

IMHO your point here is one that bears exploration, it cannot be dismissed, and it lines up well with comments by Greg and I think others. HOWEVER, it ignores the distinct possibility, even a strong liklihood -- which would seem to be well supported by the OBSERVED RESULTS of MotoMan, with his 300+ motors and countless others who have achieved the same RESULTS. That liklihood is that the initial wearing-in in the first few minutes at warm-up does NOT seem to be irreversibly damaging, nor does it seem to PREVENT a proper break-in to follow, because with NO LOAD YET APPLIED to the rings, it has only "cut off the peaks" of the highest of the high points on cylinder wall surfaces at that point, leaving behind lots of "mountains and valleys" which are still available to be worn-in with the very first application of high cylinder pressures and the resulting outward pressure of the rings against the "cross-hatched" new bores for THE FIRST TIME -- again, not achieved during warm-up! -- due to the FIRST LOADS placed on the motor, as described by MotoMan. The RESULTS he and so many others have achieved would seem to bear out this kind of scenario.

 

In a sense, it doesn't really matter what you do. At least, as far as the ring/bore interface is concerned. It's already done what it's going to do. For the rest of the machine, it may well be a different story. Putting aside the "special circumstances" of ring/bore seating, it seems that nobody disputes that the rest of the machine (gearbox, final drive, wheel bearings, all the walloping bits in the cylinder head, etc.) need to be treated gently to produce the best life. Motoman wants you to do exactly the opposite.

I couldn't disagree more here, and I believe the statistical data as well as the personal experience of thousands stands in your way here, Mike. As Pete has mentioned, plain bearing motors, especially today, including the Guzzi, with respect to "the rest of the machine (gearbox, final drive, wheel bearings, all the walloping bits in the cylinder head, etc.)" don't require ANY break-in wotsoever.

 

Is there an answer? Is there pills! The reason why some machines don't seal well? For me, I would be questioning exactly what happened to them in that first twenty minutes, when they were tested at the factory or run during a PDI. That's where the fate of your machine is decided.

There is no question in my mind that much of the success of a break-in happens within the first 100 miles. Fortunately, we have some expectations that the factory does what might be considered an effective job here. You would seem to be advocating loading the brand-new motor for break-in immediately without warm-up, Mike. This seems very counter-intuitive as well as counter-logical to me. But again -- I believe that a motor's "fate" -- it's performance and character, if you will, is LARGELY and IRREVERSIBLY determined from the point of first warm-up forward by the quality of the break-in treatment applied, whether on the dyno, track or on the road. As has been pointed out many times, the Guzzi has an extended break-in, which would seem to require more careful attention over more miles than other kinds of motors.

 

MotoMan either has something here or he's a complete Charlatan. I don't think there's much room for something in between. I DO think the results speak very well for themselves.

 

BAA, TJM, & YMMV

[dlaing]

 

Please note that MotoMan IS NOT conducting an experiment in his description of how to break-in motors! Neither is he making any ASSUMPTIONS! The "testing" has long been completed and the RESULTS analyzed, as he presents them. As posted earlier, he has drawn CONCLUSIONS based on the RESULTS of his break-in procedure compared to the RESULTS of breaking-in motors via the usual OEM recommendations. The data used as the basis for his PROOF is drawn from the numbers he cites. Over 300 motors were disassembled after break-in, having been broken-in both HIS WAY and the OEM recommended way. IMHO, this is a statistically significant number of break-ins from which to draw conclusions that PROVE a hypothesis, which IMHO he has done. Once the PROOF is in, the word HYPOTHESIS no longer applies. Since you haven't provided any data numbers of your own on break-in analyses, we must assume that you have no similar statistically significant basis of data or RESULTS to test YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

 

 

 

Where does Motoman say, that over 300 motors were disassembled after break-in, having been broken-in both HIS WAY and the OEM recommended way?

[Guest ratchethack]

Where does Motoman say, that over 300 motors were disassembled after break-in, having been broken-in both HIS WAY and the OEM recommended way?

YOU GOT ME, DAVE!! MY ERROR! Please forgive!

 

Here's wot he says at the top of his page:

 

I wrote "Break-In Secrets" after successfully applying this method

to approximately 300 new engines, all without any problems whatsoever.

Since he's presented photo's of pistons and discussion of "some number" of motors analyzed that were evidently NOT part of this 300, MotoMan hasn't presented data point numbers on his Web page. It would seem to be difficult to justify complete teardown of perfectly running motors to capture break-in data -- that is, unless the motors weren't broken in properly and had blow-by symptoms. Perhaps MotoMan is teasing us with a hook to buy his book or subscribe to his newsletter, where he may (or may not) present the numbers that he's observed. Perhaps he dreamed the whole thing up or fabricated their existence outright . . .

 

He does have a nice panoramic triptych (look that one up in y'er F&W) with expandable sections for close inspection of 14 pistons for comparison purposes with one below that he says came from a customer who he says claimed, "I don't understand how that happened, I followed the owner's manual break-in instructions 100% !!" Yeah, I know -- the 14 pistons could've all come from the same 14-cylinder motor for all we know. Errr, yeah. That's right.....

 

Maybe it's all smoke and mirrors -- MAYBE MOTOMAN IS A COMPLETE FRAUD!!

 

Do you think there's dastardly skullduggery afoot, perhaps a nefarious plot, or a conspiracy?

 

Does it appear that I've made a LEAP OF FAITH here????

 

Well, no. Not at all, actually. In my case, my belief hasn't been AT ALL based on FAITH....

 

I believe wot I believe here based FIRST on my own experience since before MotoMan was born, as previously noted.

 

Now if I hadn't had a lifetime of engine break-in experience that fits MotoMan's method perfectly, AND I also didn't know of many many others who've had the same exact experience, and I also didn't know of many many others such as yourself with the same symptoms after "break-in by the book", I might be suspicious. In this case I might want to subscribe to MotoMan's FREE magazine, whereby it looks like you get the previous 23 issues of Power News gratis.

 

But since I'm a long-term "believer", having proven MotoMan techniques to my own satisfaction personally many decades ago (repeatedly, consecutively, without exception over 2 dozen times), I reckon I'm not very interested. But you might be yourself?

[mike wilson]

 

 

Now let us move on to your comments about a 20-minute first warm-up, where "much, if not most, of the serious wear has already taken place..."

 

IMHO your point here is one that bears exploration, it cannot be dismissed, and it lines up well with comments by Greg and I think others. HOWEVER, it ignores the distinct possibility, even a strong liklihood -- which would seem to be well supported by the OBSERVED RESULTS of MotoMan, with his 300+ motors and countless others who have achieved the same RESULTS. That liklihood is that the initial wearing-in in the first few minutes at warm-up does NOT seem to be irreversibly damaging, nor does it seem to PREVENT a proper break-in to follow, because with NO LOAD YET APPLIED to the rings, it has only "cut off the peaks" of the highest of the high points on cylinder wall surfaces at that point, leaving behind lots of "mountains and valleys" which are still available to be worn-in with the very first application of high cylinder pressures and the resulting outward pressure of the rings against the "cross-hatched" new bores for THE FIRST TIME -- again, not achieved during warm-up! -- due to the FIRST LOADS placed on the motor, as described by MotoMan. The RESULTS he and so many others have achieved would seem to bear out this kind of scenario.

I couldn't disagree more here, and I believe the statistical data as well as the personal experience of thousands stands in your way here, Mike. As Pete has mentioned, plain bearing motors, especially today, including the Guzzi, with respect to "the rest of the machine (gearbox, final drive, wheel bearings, all the walloping bits in the cylinder head, etc.)" don't require ANY break-in wotsoever.

There is no question in my mind that much of the success of a break-in happens within the first 100 miles. Fortunately, we have some expectations that the factory does what might be considered an effective job here. You would seem to be advocating loading the brand-new motor for break-in immediately without warm-up, Mike. This seems very counter-intuitive as well as counter-logical to me. But again -- I believe that a motor's "fate" -- it's performance and character, if you will, is LARGELY and IRREVERSIBLY determined from the point of first warm-up forward by the quality of the break-in treatment applied, whether on the dyno, track or on the road. As has been pointed out many times, the Guzzi has an extended break-in, which would seem to require more careful attention over more miles than other kinds of motors.

 

 

 

Dave has made the point I was going to; that Motoman's examinations are considerably less than his builds, so it's not easy to draw real conclusions. WRT your penultimate paragraph above, I have to disagree. _All_ mechanical things need running in to some extent to get the best life and performance out of them. All we are discussing here is the methodology. One could argue that the high pressure line contact of gear teeth is a good analogue to the ring/bore interface and therefore needs the same treatment. The same for the roller bearings found in gearbox, drive and wheels.

 

I'm not suggesting for a moment that Motoman is doing anything scurrilous. I'm not even stating that he is wrong. I just find some of his statements to be somewhat ambivalent. I would also like to see some hard numbers. For instance, what is the difference in ring seating pressure between an engine at tickover and one at full throttle? Order of magnitude? Or less? Although it seems to make empirical sense that pressures will be much higher, will that increase make a practical difference to the bedding of rings? My contention is that the first minutes of an engine's life is what decides its fate. In that respect, it would make more sense for Motoman (not me.....) to advocate his methodology to be applied from first run. By advocating a preliminary warmup (which is where I think most effect will be) he is reducing, if not negating, the effect of the procedure. One may think that the procedure has worked when, in fact, it was the preliminary run at the factory that bedded the ring in. You were just lucky in your choice of dealer mechanic afterwards.

 

These two sentences:

As Pete has mentioned, plain bearing motors, especially today, including the Guzzi, with respect to "the rest of the machine (gearbox, final drive, wheel bearings, all the walloping bits in the cylinder head, etc.)" don't require ANY break-in wotsoever.

 

As has been pointed out many times, the Guzzi has an extended break-in, which would seem to require more careful attention over more miles than other kinds of motors.

 

seem to be rather contradictory.

[Guest ratchethack]

These two sentences:

As Pete has mentioned, plain bearing motors, especially today, including the Guzzi, with respect to "the rest of the machine (gearbox, final drive, wheel bearings, all the walloping bits in the cylinder head, etc.)" don't require ANY break-in wotsoever.

 

As has been pointed out many times, the Guzzi has an extended break-in, which would seem to require more careful attention over more miles than other kinds of motors.

 

seem to be rather contradictory.

Hmmmm. I don't find these sentences contradictory at all, but maybe that's just me. Note that MotoMan's Web page and all of the discussion thus far in this thread has centered around the critical wearing-in of cylinder walls and rings, which by comparison, far overshadows very nearly everything else in importance, making any consideration of driveline break-in, for example, for all practical purposes, negligible.

 

In my first sentence above, I was referring to Pete's comments on break-in [with respect to "the rest of the machine (gearbox, final drive, wheel bearings, all the walloping bits in the cylinder head, etc.)"]

 

In my second sentence above, I was referring to the focus of the topic of discussion both here and at MotoMan's site, the wearing-in of cylinder walls and rings.

 

The Guzzi nikasil bore and hone preparation at Mandello is notorious for requiring a longer than average break-in. Most Guzzisti seem to use 10K miles as the measure of complete break-in. Paying very close and careful attention to the behavior of my motor throughout break-in, I found that the motor continued to loosen up and smooth out well past 15K, tapering off finally at around 20K. During all of this period, I'd noticed that the idle RPM had a tendency to creep up, and I found myself adjusting it down on a fairly regular basis. By 20K miles, the "idle creep-up" had stabilized, and has remained stable ever since.

 

I think a valid point may be made that this requirement for a longer than average break-in for the "rough-honed" nikasil bores of the Guzzi would seem to shift more of the critical part of break-in past the initial hour or so of operation at the factory to the owner/rider, thereby leaving a far greater percentage of the burden and responsibility for proper break-in on the owner/rider to complete than with many other kinds of machines. for all I think anyone who would have a credible answer knows, or be willing to honestly say, , factory "break-in" may be a matter of tens of minutes, not hours. Porsche air cooled flat-6 motors traditionally required much the same attention to break-in over a longer span (and put a similar increased burden on the driver for proper completion) than the average car motor for the same reason.

 

NOTE: Ever get caught in traffic behind a 911 Porsche running up & down thru the gears in stop 'n go traffic, where a cloud of blue smoke engulfs everything in it's wake? Here in Southern California, The Land of the 911, I've er, experienced this countless times. Rumor has it that Sonny Barger and the Hells Angels San Berdoo Chapter (the original) would occasionally line up behind a 911 for a few miles for a rolling group chemical de-lousing, preferring this to the bother of taking baths. But of course, that's merely an unsubstantiated rumor.

[Guest Nogbad]

This is going to run and run. A bit like a properly broken in motor.

 

I would point out that the only part of a modern engine that really needs much of the break in is the rings and bores. All the other parts are mightily well finished. We are not talking the hand scraped Babbit metal bearings of yore.

 

I think the point of the Motoman warm-up is that you want the rings and bores to seat together when they are the shape they will normally be, i.e. their shape at operating temperature.

 

I don't think the Motoman way is hard on the donk anyway. There is no suggestion of prolonged heavy loadings, just a series of transient heavy loadings with time for temperature to fall and stabilise between, and extra lube to make it up there.

 

If I had followed the Buell break in instructions of no more than 2.5K rpm for 500 miles I would have died of boredom and probably ended with an oil burner.

 

I treated it as an guideline figure for the trip, so I gave it a few short bursts up to 4 or 5 followed by shut throttle during general pootling about in the lower 3rd of the tacho, and no, I never lugged it. Always accelerating in a gear that allowed WOT with a fairly quick rev build.

 

Anyway the bike runs like a champ and uses little or no oil.

[Guest ratchethack]

Anyway the bike runs like a champ and uses little or no oil.

Piffle. You're not trying to claim any credit for this -- are you, Nog?

 

You obviously got one that had been broken in previously by Eric and the Buell Boys.

[Guest Nogbad]

Piffle. You're not trying to claim any credit for this -- are you, Nog?

 

You obviously got one that had been broken in previously by Eric and the Buell Boys.

 

I don't think so, it was an early 05 model that I got at a massive discount at the end of the season because the dealer I used ordered a whole crate of 20 and had 4 left. I got a massive £2.5K off list. It had 2 miles on the clock.

 

I dunno if its piffle or not, maybe it is and I am just lucky. All I am saying is I didn't stick to the kid glove thing and my bike runs great. And it ain't a plain bearing engine either, its a really old school common crankpin V twin with forked conrods, a roller big end and cylinders in the same plane, unlike a Guzzi which has offset cylinders. The Buell version of the Harley mill is a triumph of evolution.

[dlaing]

From a sloppage sheet alignment thread:

I've taken to running it in the formerly dubious area just below where I once noticed that the inside o' my airbox looked like wot my sinuses feel like when I've got one of those "nose running like a faucet" head colds -- I'm talking about substantial post-nasal drip drainage -- that is, just over the full mark on the dipstick. Now there's no trace o' messy congestion wotsoever.

hmmmm? If you had post-nasal drip and used no oil then maybe I am not using as much oil as I feared to be problematic. I used 4 liters minus what I drained out from just above the full mark on the dipstick in about 5000 miles durring the last oil change cycle. So that probably means about half a liter. Is that worth new rings?

I thought you were running between the high dipstick mark and the sloppage sheet with a dry airbox like Greg Field's white glove tested airbox, but you run it where I run it, and you had oil in the airbox, too, which means you were using some oil, if only an ounce or two, compared to my half liter of consumption.

With the sloppage sheet you are probably only using a thimble of oil

Maybe those are not the warning signs of ring failure that I had feared and I only need to get a windage plate to reduce oil consumption to a few shot glasses

Sorry for the Guzzichondriacal attack. I thought my oil in the airbox was Abby-Normal

Thanks

[Guest Nogbad]

Dave, IMHO 0.5l in 5000 miles is perfectly fine. My V11 uses maybe 0.75 or 50% more than you, I haven't looked in the airbox! It sure doesn't sound to me like you need to strip the engine at all, and you may find as the mileage builds the consumption drops further anyway. I'm happy with my level of oil consumption

 

[Guest ratchethack]

I thought my oil in the airbox was Abby-Normal

Dave, at one point a few years back, long before the Roper plate became available, I had over-filled one time doing an oil change (as I recall, it was only slightly above the full mark on the dipstick) and ran it that way for about a week before discovering it. I drew out the excess until it was below the high mark. A week or so later (can't recall) I had the air filter off for a look in the airbox and there was the evidence of "spirited" riding with too much oil and no plate. It'd clearly puked quite a bit in there. To my knowledge, it's not done it since.

 

Since the Roper plate's been installed, I considered the principles at work and over-filled it on purpose this time. Haven't had the tank off yet for a look-see in the airbox, but the level hasn't changed in months, there's no sign of drainage, and I'll bet the airbox is clean as a whistle.

 

As I b'lieve I'd mentioned earlier, among my expectations for adding the plate were a much wider range of acceptable sump oil level on both the high and low side than without the plate, and much less frequent need to check the oil. That's still my expectation, though I probably haven't had the plate in there quite long enough to fully verify this.

 

Like Nog said, using only a half liter in 5000 miles is not excessive oil use by any means, and certainly NOT a reason to do a top end job! I don't recall you mentioning your oil use rate, but I'd somehow got the idea that you'd been using much more than this. I probably wouldn't be too concerned about double this rate, depending on how the plugs read and if it's smoking, but that's just me. As it is, mine's yet to show any use that I can detect between changes.

[dlaing]

I probably wouldn't be too concerned about double this rate, depending on how the plugs read and if it's smoking, but that's just me. As it is, mine's yet to show any use that I can detect between changes.

Thanks for the feedback.

The oil burning did get worse when I started filling above the dipstick.

The oil burning probably levels off about half way between the marks, and that is too low for the pickup.

So, a sloppalage sheet it is.

[Guest Nogbad]

Thanks for the feedback.

The oil burning did get worse when I started filling above the dipstick.

The oil burning probably levels off about half way between the marks, and that is too low for the pickup.

So, a sloppalage sheet it is.

 

Mine does EXACTLY the same. Fill it to the top mark and it will consume oil quite quickly until about halfway down, and then the oil consumption falls to a very low level. I only once ever managed to make the light flick momentarily. I keep the thing topped up to the mark using the official Guzzi method.

 

Question is, do I need a plate? I thought I didn't, given that it doesn't use a huge quantity of oil. If however the plate can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to stop this "top to middle" more rapid reduction in oil level, I may well invest in one.

[mike wilson]

 

The Guzzi nikasil bore and hone preparation at Mandello is notorious for requiring a longer than average break-in. Most Guzzisti seem to use 10K miles as the measure of complete break-in. Paying very close and careful attention to the behavior of my motor throughout break-in, I found that the motor continued to loosen up and smooth out well past 15K, tapering off finally at around 20K. During all of this period, I'd noticed that the idle RPM had a tendency to creep up, and I found myself adjusting it down on a fairly regular basis. By 20K miles, the "idle creep-up" had stabilized, and has remained stable ever since.

 

 

Most of the comments I've seen from Guzzisti referring to the 10-20K run in mark have been about the improvement of feel in the gearbox.

 

Although I feel that much of _that_ may stem from the acclimatisation period needed when adjusting from more, er, esoteric machinery....

 

Apologies for not participating in this as much as I would like - life is only allowing me very fleeting opportunities to sit and type at the moment. Not for bad reasons, though, so that's alright. 8-)

[Guest ratchethack]

Most of the comments I've seen from Guzzisti referring to the 10-20K run in mark have been about the improvement of feel in the gearbox.

 

Although I feel that much of _that_ may stem from the acclimatisation period needed when adjusting from more, er, esoteric machinery....

Agreed. IMHO the Guzzi 6-speeder punishes sloppy shifting -- but rewards deliberate shifting very nicely. If you don't learn the way she DEMANDS that you shift, you simply don't learn to shift her properly...

 

IMHO there are some gearboxes that appear to have left the works with less than close attention to finishing such items as selector cam plates and ratchet arms. This evidently makes for less than smooth and consistent gear changes until the sharp corners wear in. In my own case, mine appeared to have been finished to a level where I noticed no change wotsoever to wearing-in at any point.

 

The operation of my trans has improved noticeably ONLY under the following conditions, none of which had anything to do with break-in:

 

1. Switching from dino to "generic" synthetic.

 

2. Switching from "generic" synthetic to Redline Shockproof Heavy.

 

3. Lubing and adjusting the end-float of the shift lever shaft.

 

4. Tightening a loose linkage bolt/nut and threadlocking it.

 

5. Replacing the shifter rubber cover with a custom flat-sided "ergo" version.

 

I don't believe that wearing-in of bearings or gearsets, dogs, sliding muffs, or anything in the box has ever made a perceptible difference to my trans.

 

BAA, TJM, & YMMV