RE:aktiv Suspension - F1 and MTB Collide

 Hell yea baby !!!!! Foes FTW !!

 Yes- this has been attempted many times. But we (Trek) licensed a very special valve from Penske that does the job well. It is different than the Foes fork.

 @djcrossmax, @deemax1 is actually onto something. Foes used a patented position sensitive technology from Curnutt to achieve a similar goal. Not to say that the Penske designed system isn't a completely different way of solving the same problem, but the F1 fork does have technology to reach the same goal. Google is your friend, you should learn to use it.

www.foesjapan.com/cnt.html

The foes history page goes quite a bit into their partnership with Curnutt, and the technology they crafted into their suspension.

foesracing.com/bikes/index.php/history

Regardless, its great to see technology being benchmarked from other purposes and trickling down to mass production in bikes!

 Yes there are similar technologies that have been done before but this has the backing to really be great. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that this is going to be better but with engineers from Fox, Trek, and Penske this defiantly has great potential to be a good shock. I really look forward to riding one of these bikes and see how it feels. However I do have to say that I am not happy about the new axle standard 148x12 they are doing on some of the 2015 bikes. All we need is yet another axle standard!!!!!

 Penske hasn't raced in Formula 1 for about 40 YEARS, and only did so for about two years! This technology that they are referring to, that carried from Formula 1 over to IndyCar, is equally as old. Definitely marketing B.S. to sell the new Fuel EX. I'm sorry, but c'mon guys....

 I retract my previous statement, I was confusing Penske Racing Team with Penske Racing Shocks, completely different branches of the Penske Group. My bad

 did you say Ridgelineservice that trek are using a custom size rear axle on there 2015 bikes? so maybe they could make there own custom size head tube and bb to go along with the DRCV shock and 148mm axle, then that would be the complete package of reason's why not to go near there bikes.

 Right now I don't see it as anything special its all marketing. You can achieve that curve with a rebuild and oil weights and as said there are other similar systems already around. What I find funny is this steep progressiveness initially still has a trade off of initially for traction and supper small bumps it does not eliminate that trade off. The only other worry with this curve is you have a stiff enough initial than not enough support as it regresses. That said I will reserve my judgement on this shock until it is ridden and we have some good ride tests out I think its unwise to judge a shock based on this small article. It is great to see fox branching out to one of the renowned tech in the racing world though, any collaboration and new technology is only going to be good for the sport and technology in the long run.

 This really dampens my spirit

 Well it obviously did Foes the world of good......they're selling ship containers full of bikes right?

 All I say is "Brain"

 So where's the foes fork now? Why hasn't it continued to develop and be successful now?

 i ride one of these Foes F1 forks and it is the best fork i have ever ridden....

 The Foes fork, and all SPV/CVT damping do not actually provide regressive damping, they provide heavily digressive damping (aka "platform" damping). It is not the same thing as what Penske are doing here.

@slidways you cannot achieve this curve with "a rebuild and oil weights" or even major reshimming of any valve geometry currently on the market. Call it what you want, but Trek's claim that this is actually different from anything currently in the bike world is objectively correct. Whether it's actually better than Terralogic/Brain technology in the real world though is anyone's guess at this point, but it wouldn't be hard to improve on the Brain, to put it nicely.

Question for Mr Camp and also Penske - given Penske's push over the years to minimise hysteresis through pressure balancing, how did you get around the issues you'd expect from the massive hysteresis inevitably found in regressive mechanical valves?

 @Vorsprung - I'm no engineer but can't you get the same result by setting up a 'regular' shock with lots of low speed and little high speed compression? That's how I run my CCDB, with exactly the same reasoning behind it: feedback from terrain when pumping or cornering while being able to soak up rocks and roots.

 @ Vorsprung: I'm glad someone here actually knows what they're talking about. I don't, I am sad to admit, but I know enough to know that this is different from platform damping, and different from speed sensitive shims, and all the "this is just marketting bs" comments are a little bit presumptive, especially given Penskes involvement with the project.

I'd love to know exactly how it differs from a more normal shock, but I guess I'll have to wait. And I wait with baited breath. I ride a Session myself, and it is absolutely f*cking awesome. I couldn't be happier, but I do find myself maxing out the LSC at both ends on smoother flow/jump (boring) tracks to get the maximum pop off of lips etc and make it more fun, but then have to wind it all back off again when I ride a proper manly track. This system sounds like it might offer exactly the performance I am looking for without all the fiddling. Can't wait to see more

 Isn't that (rock and root I assume) handled by the high speed compression?

 Yeah, but LSC takes a little force to blow off and open the HSC shims. Too much LSC and you feel more of a "punch" through the bars/pedals at the point of impact with root/rock/whatever. Suspension will still compress, but it feels a little more skittish through repeated hits. I don't imagine this system will eradicate the problem entirely, but it looks to me like a step in the right direction.

 You can't get the same curve by running lots of LSC with little HSC. The curve will still increase all the way through the stroke. Regressive uses very clever valve geometry that can REDUCE force as shaft velocities increase. No shim valve or CCDB valving can do that.

Please wait and ride one before passing judgement.


@Vorsprung Suspension- We never really chased down the hysteresis... It has some, but less than you might think- as the valve slows down at the end of a bump event, the valve still flows oil pretty easily since it has already cracked open. The huge pressure buildups/differential are only on opening the valve.

 Where are people seeing this 148 x 12 axle? looks like all the new fuels have 142 x 12

 What's wrong with making a better bike and selling more of them, whether it's new or not

 This video told me absolutely nothing about how this shock is better.

 I've been waiting for a 27.5 Fuel. I currently have a 2011 26" Fuel (X7 spec). After demo'ing a 27.5 Giant Trance (float x & talas & carbon frame with 6" travel) I know I don't need 6" travel. Can't wait to buy this new fuel. I'm a big F1 & Indy & Penske fan too , just icing on the cake. Only remaining question I have is whether I should wait for a remedy 27.5 w/ this new shock. Thanks Trek, for being so cool.

 thanks guys noe i know a lot more on these technologie!!!

 Their and their. They make great bikes. If you don't like them just ride something else and chiiiiiiiill.

 @Dave, fair call, maybe it's not too big a deal. The hysteresis in regressive valves tends to be partially the inverse of normal hysteresis (where the HS closing characteristic is stiffer than the HS opening characteristic), but during the low speed part can be really very large due to the high valve displacements required for such a mechanism to work - as the valve closes, it not only shuts off the oil flow through the HS circuit but due to its own displacement, forces oil to accelerate substantially through the LS circuit. As a result, damping curves like this occur (note the hysteresis and dynamic instability of the rebound curve) shop.penskeshocks.com/images/D/adj%20reg-a%20curve.jpg

 Yeah, the hysteresis never showed up anything like those graphs you've posted... Besides, we are pretty much out of space in the standard Fox package, so any other valves/flow paths would require a major redesign of the entire shock package. $$$$

An interesting thing to think about is that even though those graphs you posted have terrible hysteresis in rebound, the cars are still going faster using them. I think Bill says it in one of the videos, but Penske would rather just bolt a shock on a car and see what the lap times do rather than analyse graphs for months. I tend to agree with him on that front

  There's nothing as good as real world results. I swear the number of cracked frames rose briefly at about the same time FEA started to be heavily used in the bike industry.

"Look, the computer says we can remove over 2 lbs of material without any negative side effects!! Oh shit, best warn the warranty dept...."

 I regress my previous statement. I was thinking today hey wouldn't the ideal curve be one that increases to sag point than regresses after that point ie giving supple traction before the sag that ramps up to sag for pedaling efficiency than providing softer suspension after the sag point for bumps. As soon as I had this thought I realized this is what this shock does and suddenly this makes brilliant sense to me. Evidently there is marketing involved but I think I unacknowledged this shock too early and is much less marketing than I thought originally., this is a brilliant design and I really hope we see it developed further.

 scratch that I was thinking leverage curve not dampening curve.

 Also those who said you cannot get this digressive curve with oil and shim stacks here
www.shimrestackor.com/Code/Sample_Applications/Damping_Profile/damping-profile.htm

You can, maybe it wont be as effective as this as it uses certain ports but you can get a shock to follow this same curve.

 slidways, what you're looking at is a DIGRESSIVE curve (and the graph on the left actually shows curves that are so close to linear that it's irrelevant anyway). The graph on the right doesn't plot force vs velocity, but rather damping coefficient vs velocity. It is not the same as what Trek are doing. Also, dampening means making things a little bit wet, damping is what a damper does

@dave - I agree, if there is a net benefit then it's still an improvement overall even if some aspects are theoretically (or even practically) worse. I'm interested to try one of these things.

 yeah i have been writing dampening all day instead of damping, but you know what I mean. What I understand with this curve is that it wont actually improve traction initially because the curve is very heavily damped it is mostly going to effect the ending of the LSC and the transitional forces from low speed into mid and high speed. I think people are assuming this will maintain very initial traction while giving a stiff platform which from what I can tell it wont, it will give a very stiff platform that than softens up later. Essentially all they are doing it removing that draw back when your run very high LSC that adjustment usually crosses over into the mid and high speed compression velocities, so this will drastically improve the performance of high LSC after the point where the shock can no longer only use LSC circuts but while you are still using the LSC and very low velocity compressions it will be very stiff. This is going to benefit more your transitional compression into mid and high than the low speed ones. So the draw back of lower traction still stands initially with higher LSC. But this will come down to how it is tuned and at what point the valve opens to regress. I can see it working but it will need to be very specifically tuned to regress at the right point for each rider.

 They fool usevery time, don't believe them: the boost valve never made any dump valve noise. Sad.

 I stopped reading when they didn't call it Formula UUUUUNNN.

 just did the module about an hour ago

 #trekemployeethings

 Can you give us a physical description of how the valve works?

 How does it work, dcamp2?

 What keeps Fox from using this technology on their future shocks? Would it be possible to transfer the shock to another bike, or is the tune setup specifically for a remedy?

 @MaxBerkowitz The technology is licensed to Trek, meaning it probably hasn't also been licensed to Fox.

 @Terrafire makes sense.

 Those answers though

 The first version of this shock made very similar claims, but once it made it to the end users and on to the trail it turned to have some major flaws. Why weren't those flaws recognized before release?
www.pinkbike.com/news/Push-Industries-Air-Volume-Tuning-Kit-for-FoxTrek-DRCV-Forks-and.html

What makes this situation any different? re: - the prehype marketing campaign and then the potential for a major let down on once this hits the trail.

Why should you be trusted?

 Why the hell do we need a new axle standard?

Also will the bb again be very high? Why won't we get a trailbike that feels in corners at least like a dh bike from 5 years ago. Spesh did it with the Pitch quite some time ago

 Valve explanation:
The valve uses different pressure area's when open and closed to create this buildup of pressure and then blowoff effect. When the valve is closed, oil pressure is pushing through a few small holes which are blocked by a plate held down by a spring. When oil pressure over-comes the spring pressure, the plate moves back and oil can start to flow through the holes and through the plate (which also has holes in it). When this happens, oil pressure is now exposed to the full face area of the plate- instead of the small holes- so the plate is blown back, creating a much easier/larger flow area for oil, and you get the decrease in force.

TL/DR: The valve uses clever geometry and layout to give lots of LSC damping, then blowoff on highspeed hits.

@terrafire- he got it about the licensing

 Hey man thanks for the explanation sounds great, but complicated; therefore hard to service. do you think is something your average mechanic can handle without blowing it up and having to be sent to fox to be fixed?

 @dcamp2

The article talks about this not being a speed sensitive valve, but your description implies it's very similar to a LSC, but with a blow off. What prevents this (fairly high level) of LSC from causing high speed chatter to transmit straight to the rider? it seems that it would be hard to get the "stand up" effect without reducing shock travel during small hits. Corollary question: does this valve affect the entire stroke of the shock, or does it engage at a certain point in the travel, like a mid valve?

 uhhh it's only speed sensitive... The valve generates lots of low speed compression damping, then blows off so you don't get a huge spike when you hit something. When you are hitting chatter bumps- the shock shaft velocity is fairly high, even though the shock isn't using that much travel. The high shaft velocity makes the shock generate LESS damping, so it isn't harsh. Obviously descending rough trails in Climb mode will give you lots of chatter- that is why there is a descend option.

 good answers sir, thank you.

 @dcamp2 hey thanks for answering questions on here, as a fluid mechanics guy it's really cool to get more details on it!

In terms of system response and ride feel, how would you say this differs from Spec Brain (for example)? I would think maybe faster/less noticeable blowoff threshold, since it doesn't have to move a mass before flow can start? Also very cool that it accomplishes the similar concept without need for a remote unit all the way at the back wheel. Any thoughts on how this will compare performance- and feel-wise?

Is there a patent (or patents) I could look up to learn more?

 hmmm, as I understand it, in the brain, shock pressure or fluid flow NEVER moves the mass, the inertia of hitting terrain moves the mass, allowing the shock to cycle.

 Yeah I worded that badly. I wasn't saying that the fluid moves the mass, I'm saying that the mass has to get out of the way for fluid flow to start, and by that time the rear wheel is already a fair bit of the way into the first big bump. OTOH pressure increase in an incompressible fluid is instantaneous, so I would think Trek's gate would disengage before any wheel displacement has taken place (as soon as it touches something, basically). I would think a force-based blowoff would activate quicker than a momentum-based one, basically.

I had a spec epic for a while and actually liked the brain a lot, but I was also a worse rider then so I don't necessarily remember the nuances of shock feel and all that. Loved being able to seamlessly transition from rocks to pedaling short smooth sections without hitting switches.

 @bkm303 correct. This reacts pretty much instantly.

The brain shock feels like it is switching the lockout lever off and on. This shock just feels efficient and settled but without the off/on switching feel of a brain shock.

shop.penskeshocks.com/files/downloads/ETM%2012.1%20REG-A.pdf

 After reading the PDF, it seems like you'd want to set your fork up with more LSC, because otherwise you're going to end up with the front diving (to use the terminology in the PDF, upsetting the chassis) while the rear remains stable, which is an uncomfortable bias in MTB. which means you're going to have to live with more chatter through the bars. I'm guessing I'm citing an example of this damping being more pronounced than it is here, since the fork not having regressive damping was a known quantity for the project. Which just means that they had to compromise on how strong the blowoff is, because you can't pair this with a fork using the same damper.

 @dcamp2 thanks! Sounds like exactly what I want out of a shock (or fork, really). Sounds like a productive partnership.

 @groghunter yeah I was just thinking matching this up with a fork would be kinda tough. Unless Trek is looking to bring this into the fork game too... this tech in front and rear would be SICK on climbs and flowy stuff. And no more climb switches!

 Well, I'm guessing the valve doesn't have a pronounced enough effect to cause this sort of chassis upset, because it would have become rapidly obvious in testing that it was causing a poor front/rear bias. That said, if it was tunable(it probably isn't) you might be able to run something like a Avalanche cartridge with a mid-valve, and be able to crank up the blowoff pressure without upsetting the balance between the front & rear.

 I don't see why Trek's valve wouldn't be tuneable, you'd just need a screw to alter the preload on the plate blocking the orifice. Specialized has the "brain fade" adjustment, this would be like that. Good point though, if the imbalance was a huge problem they wouldn't release it.

 I'm not saying it couldn't be tunable (just replacing the spring behind the plate is a possibility, though I'm guessing you'd need a different plate with different diameter/quantity of holes as well) I'm saying that there's likely too little cost/benefit for them to justify the added expense of adding an adjuster for it. same reason why so few products have all four compression/rebound types adjustable.

 @groghunter the CTD lever is the tuning on this damper- you are adjusting spring preload on the valve. I played with a number of different springs, so it is tunable in that regard, but you'd have to pull everything apart, find a compatable spring and then rebuild the shock.

You are very correct about the cost issues. We had to fit into our standard DRCV package and retain all standard adjusters. anything else and the project would have been killed due to the shocks costing way too much.

 @dcamp2

Are you able to discuss any testing or plans to add this damping to the forks?

It seems like a decent idea to have it matched on both ends.

I am very interested to ride this once I saw that it will be available on the Remedy too.

 No comment. It works well on Remedy- especially with some PUSH spacers...

 LOL, thought that might be the case

 "The valve uses different pressure area's when open and closed to create this buildup of pressure and then blowoff effect. When the valve is closed, oil pressure is pushing through a few small holes which are blocked by a plate held down by a spring. When oil pressure over-comes the spring pressure, the plate moves back and oil can start to flow through the holes and through the plate (which also has holes in it). When this happens, oil pressure is now exposed to the full face area of the plate- instead of the small holes- so the plate is blown back, creating a much easier/larger flow area for oil, and you get the decrease in force."

this is EXACTLY how the MoCo IS works..... which is like 7-8 years old.

 That's how the MoCo lockout/blowoff works, but in normal operation it's just regular compression damping (no threshold switch). Or at least that's what I thought.

 Sure, there's a threshold switch- say if your in position 5 or 6 which has the LSC ports holes half-open/half-covered, when the impact is strong enough, it will still lift the plate and fully open the orifices as well as additional orifices to slam fluid by the HSC shims.. The LSC knob dictates that threshold. This penske/trek koolaid is just tweaked LSC, that's it. Just fine by me, I understand they need more acronyms to sell more/new stuff.

 I'll take the neg props as someone drunk on haterade- you'd respond if i was wrong.

 Not sure if you're still reading this dcamp2, but are you saying that the LSC is fixed, and the blue lever only changes the preload on on the blowoff?

 It's not the same as MoCo, although I can see why you'd think that. Regressive valves often (not sure if this is the case in this particular damper) use ports that are perpendicular to the valve's displacement in order to allow fluid flow only once pressure (applied elsewhere) has displaced the valve poppet beyond that port. You can then apply the pressure of that fluid to a different surface area elsewhere in the assembly that it previously wasn't exposed to in order to hold the valve open more easily (or open it further). Motion Control however has substantial lag before any damping kicks in at all (noticeable if you crank the thing to lockout), Penske's method allows for more precisely controlled low speed damping but less precisely controlled high speed damping. However, lower precision should NOT be confused with lower performance - while these types of valves tend to be dynamically unstable from a mathematical point of view, if the improvements outweigh the negatives then you still end up with a net improvement.

(It should also be noted that in terms of control precision, Motion Control ranks as the all time lowest of any damper I've ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's not better than a simple ported damper - more precision does not necessarily mean superior performance, but it can help).

 precisely why I stepped down in spring rate and run my fork anywhere from 5 to 2 clicks (of 11 positions) open from fully closed. I'm not picky about the LSC performance end of things, a loose and fast style can compensate, but I do appreciate the last half of travel being accessible and well-controlled

 So, did you guys just license and adapt Penske's VB Piston to work with MTB demands?(www.customaxisshocks.com/techsheets/TSVariableBleedPiston.pdf)

I've used Penske shocks on my motorcycles, they are expensive but they work well with minimal fuss as far as tuning. I wonder how they will do with Fox and Trek knowledge added on top of their damping knowledge. Bring on the demo dates!

 @groghunter- LSC is controlled by the CTD lever the amount of LSC and the blowoff point are very much connected. Look at the graphs in the vital feature- might help clear some things up.

@okayh that is a different piston and valve assembly. We used the 'Regressive' valve from Penske.

 Thanks dcamp2. Those graphs do help make sense of things quite a bit.

 dcamp2,

Late entry into the conversation but do you feel this regressive damper has a larger tune window for us fatty riders?

 Haha, atleast someone knows! It's stupid indie car, not even close to F1

 Glad to see another American knows the difference! I'm a die-hard F1 fan. I don't like Indy Car...

 Apparently they do actually have shocks on proper F1 cars, Nico Rosberg's for instance. So yes it is formula 1

 Dont be condescending
www.formula1news.net/the-2014-f1-turbo-cars-pictures-and-specifications
Look at the Mercedes W05
Dampers: Penske
see also Force India, Torro Rosso and Caterham

 Why would Penske lie about producing shocks for Formula 1? The Director of R&D states they supply 8 of the 13 teams with product. The footage may be of Indy but it is clearly stated they supply F1, Indy and NASCAR. Watch the video and pay attention.

 There are 11 F1 teams... And I know they provide shocks for F1 I was referring to the video. The headline made it seem as if there would be F1 footage

 That was the frustrating part was how they kept mentioning formula 1 and showed indie cars. I wasn't saying they didn't make formula 1 dampers. It would've been nice for some actual explanation what they did to the shock to make it so much better.

 Haha nice pun!

 "ANOTHER DAMN axle standard"

^^^^This

 double post

 Mosley and Leov must have in Scotland, performed pretty well I'd say.

 So what? First Scotland was pretty pedally so a stroung platform helps. Second, I don't ride like those two and may not want their suspension setting (just like WC DH bikes would be way too harsh for us).
But this is all speculation, and I'd be interested to try.

 Tell me about it. Happy I got the last Rem 9, don't have to worry about weird sizes..

 What? You no want cheap wheels?

 I just watched the video on 148, I can understand the goals, but wouldn't going to 150mm be even better and mean no mess with new standards? I could be missing something with chain lines etc, just a though...

 I'll embrace the 148 if they get rid of the shitty old Maxle. Concentric pivot nuts + the ridiculously large Maxle quick release stick out so far.

 I would bet Trek is offering dropouts of other sizes to accommodate any hub spacing, just like they do for every other model.

 The BC rider is Davis English.

 He has answered to many things in the past but Elroy was never one of them.....

 I'm the rider, had a lot of fun on the bike! It's a pretty capable little shredder for it's category.

 That was my question. Not to dwell too much on vapid marketing-speak, but I had to chuckle when the narrator said something like "previous suspension systems could only hope to do what this does blah blah blah" and it's not like Trek hasn't offered rear suspension before. Not *everything* old is crap.

 DRCV is the airspring.

Re:Aktiv is the damper.

 Its basically a fancy word for a stiffer "dampening" with a softer spring.... so more "support" ( doesn't dive easily ) but when the blow off activates ( bump ) the softer spring goes into action with a supple feeling. Pretty much an inertia valve, Its nothing new... Just like Spesh's brain. It might seem like the ticket but that breakaway or blow off point is the drawback, you need to find the compromise between a higher threshold ( better pedaling, more support and staying higher in the travel ) and a blowoff that will activate faster for better bump compliance but less support, pedaling...Etc

 Right, so its probably riding pretty stiff and then sudden sag. Is it better than lockout / fulltravel? Does it actually make crappy damper less crappy? Doubtful.

 @brakesnotincluded 'damping'. we aren't wetting things here.

But yes- you can maybe go down a little in springrate and still have efficient pedaling. It is not an inertia valve like Specialized' brain shocks.

@wakaba it is not like that at all. You should ride one before passing judgement

 @ dcamp2
Im sorry if you can get things wet

But please enlighten me on how a regressive spring curve not work with an "inertia valve" ( in all is possible aspects ) ?? I guess suspension dynamics must evade me, and I never said it was bad.... Just marketing going nuts again over something not so new...

 @dcamp: It's nothing new, it's a bypass in the meteringblock and you delay pressure peak. So its probably a junk of rubber with a tiny hole.

 'a junk of rubber with a tiny hole'. Yep that's how it works

 Decarbon is so done since 1947.

 The pics posted by another site showed 6 Fuels, 3 27.5 and 3 29. Same story for the Remedy.

 new damper valve. it is an improvement on what was on the bikes last year. ride one.

 Check the Norco Killer Range 2013 650B..... looks like me2

 I believe you are mixing up digressive and regressive there. In a digressive damping curve, the damping coefficient (but not damping force) reduces above a certain speed. In a regressive damping curve, the actual damping force drops to a lower value at a higher speed.

 You got it. Digressive has been done a lot, and works very well. Regressive is maybe the next step forward.

 dcamp2- What's really funny is that four years ago I was posting about Penske and regressive damping and how it would apply to mountain bikes and the difference between digressive and regressive. I would just get blank stares from people when I talked to them about it...

 You are free to buy whatever bike you like best

 You need to read some more of this thread. dcamp2 explained in detail how it works a ways up in this thread.

The main difference the best that I understand and can summarize:

Spec Brain uses the inertia of a brass weight balanced with a spring, activated from wheel impact (all mounted in a remote location) to open/close shock valving.

vs

Trek RE:aktiv uses a special spring and washer configuration (in the main shock body) activated based on shock speed to control valving. Firm for slow shock motion (i.e. pedaling forces), open for fast shock motion (i.e. real bump absorption.)

The Trek system should be less troublesome than the remote Brain, and may actually react with less delay than what occurs when the Brain is set firm. It takes a good hit to open up if set firm which makes a solo bump or the first hit in a series bigger than without the Brain.

I love the concept. I'm going to test ride to see if reality matches the claims.

 Perfect description. Thank you for reading!

 do you mean "re:aktivated"?

 @finnrambo do you mean "RE:aktivated"?

 ENOUGH WITH THE PUNS FOR GODS SAKE!

 Sorry, I didn't think those puns would rebound off you like that.

 ha. that one was actually pretty good.