| Author |
Message |
    
Deadduck
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 11:16 am: | 
|
nevermind |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 01:28 pm: |
|
What part of the product manufacturing process do YOU not understand?
The scenario you describe with the Arai RX7 helmet would exist only in a narrow window of time. Why? Manufactures cannot afford to receive a negative rating from an independent safety testing organization particularly in "safety gear". The models on the market would be tested to the new standards, the results would be known, then the company must decide based upon those test results whether to redesign the helmet or not. If the helmet is deemed to require redesign, you can bet that the new helmet will be a 5 Star helmet. Why? Because the company would send pre-manufacture samples out for testing prior to final manufacture sign-off. They may even perform some or all of the testing in-house before they send them over.
Do you really believe that the NHTSA 5 Star rating is a surprise to the auto manufacturer when they roll a new car off the line? They know the result before the tests are even started. If they received less than a 4 or 5 Star rating, the manufacturer wouldn't allow it on the market because they wouldn't sell. If NO ONE or FEW received a 5 Star rating, the standards would be called into question.
Secondarily, I HAVE NEVER NOR AM I NOW COMPARING SNELL TO SHARP.
There is not a single post here or anywhere where I have done so. Jon's post didn't either. His statement as well as mine and the one YOU QUOTED all state the same thing, that price isn't a factor in safety assuming ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. Jon isn't saying that a helmet meeting SNELL's standard is equal to one meeting SHARP's standards. He IS saying that two helmets meeting the SAME standard, whatever it might be, are equal in safety regardless of price. A $70 Zox meeting the SAME standard as a $600 Arai is no less safe. If BOTH are meeting the same standard including SHARP's, they are equally safe.
That can't be that hard to figure out.
NO ONE is questioning SHARP's standards or the positive influence they will have on the marketplace. NO ONE is equating SHARP's standards to SNELL's.
The only person who seems to be confused is you. |
Freezerburn
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 02:18 pm: |
|
|
Scott_in_nh
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 02:55 pm: |
|
He IS saying that two helmets meeting the SAME standard, whatever it might be, are equal in safety regardless of price. A $70 Zox meeting the SAME standard as a $600 Arai is no less safe.
The above is incorrect - 2 helmets both meeting snell, might not (most likely will not without further development from the manufacturer) receive the same star rating from SHARP.
The SHARP tests seem more comprehensive than snell and the two helmets might test out to both be 5 star or there could be a variance where they both meet snell, but one gets a 2 star and the other gets a 5 star.
The 5 star helmet tested to different standards than snell but also snell rated will be the safer helmet.
If BOTH are meeting the same standard including SHARP's, they are equally safe.
If they both meet snell and have the same SHARP star rating then I would agree that, as far as testing can determine using state of the art technology, they are both equally safe and should be selected on fit, finish and budget.
Fat, I don't agree with snells second impact testing either and need a new helmet. That alone is enough for me to be very interested in SHARP. If it ends up that their testing is in disagreement with snell and therefore a helmet cannot possess both ratings, I will buy the nicest SHARP 5 star helmet I can afford for street riding and buy an inexpensive snell helmet for when I go to the dragstrip where snell is required. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 03:45 pm: |
|
The above is incorrect - 2 helmets both meeting snell, might not (most likely will not without further development from the manufacturer) receive the same star rating from SHARP.
The SHARP tests seem more comprehensive than snell and the two helmets might test out to both be 5 star or there could be a variance where they both meet snell, but one gets a 2 star and the other gets a 5 star.
The 5 star helmet tested to different standards than snell but also snell rated will be the safer helmet.
I agree. I AM NOT COMPARING SNELL TO SHARP!
Apples to apples two helmets meeting the SAME set of standards are equally safe regardless of price. If they are BOTH being tested under SNELL and are found to meet the SNELL standard, they are equal under SNELL. If they are BOTH being tested under the SHARP standards and are found to be 5 Star, they are equal under SHARP.
SNELL does not equal SHARP. SHARP's testing procedures exceed SNELL's. |
Scott_in_nh
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 04:02 pm: |
|
SNELL does not equal SHARP. SHARP's testing procedures exceed SNELL's.
So you agree that being equal under snell is not the same as being equal under SHARP?
2 helmets that meet snell only means that they both meet snell. Upon further testing using the SHARP standard, one is found to be superior.
So apples to apples - both helmets meet snell but one is now proven to be safer than the other.
Being equal under snell is not the same thing as being equally safe.
A $70 Zox meeting the SAME standard as a $600 Arai is no less safe.
This is incorrect when speaking of the snell rating. Either could be superior or they could be equally safe. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 04:29 pm: |
|
So you agree that being equal under snell is not the same as being equal under SHARP?
2 helmets that meet snell only means that they both meet snell. Upon further testing using the SHARP standard, one is found to be superior.
So apples to apples - both helmets meet snell but one is now proven to be safer than the other.
Being equal under snell is not the same thing as being equally safe.
This is incorrect when speaking of the snell rating. Either could be superior or they could be equally safe.
I AM NOT COMPARING SNELL TO SHARP.
Comparing one item to one standard and another to another standard is not apples to apples.
This is incorrect when speaking of the snell rating. Either could be superior or they could be equally safe.
They either meet the standard or they don't. You can question whether the standard is sufficient, but the standard is the standard. If I have a choice between two cars both having a 5 Star rating from NHTSA, they are equally safe based upon the standard. If I believe that the 5 Star rating is an accurate standard suitable for identifying the safety of a vehicle, then they are equal. One may be a Toyota Siena mini-van and the other could be an Aston Martin Vanquish. Obviously, based upon the NHTSA standard, I could buy the Vanquish, but paying more for that car doesn't necessarily provide me with more safety judging by the standard.
If you really wanted to determine which helmet was safest, you would test until only one model remained and all others failed.
Ultimately, the only test that is meaningful is the one that provides the level of safety that covers the highest probability of situations the rider might encounter. Having a helmet that will survive a 300MPH crash for someone on the street is overkill. It adds expense without really adding any safety. Having a helmet that would survive a 175MPH crash is probably sufficient based upon street usage. At more than 175MPH, other injuries will probably kill you before the head injury would.
If you could buy a helmet that protects the rider to 300MPH and were willing to pay the price, you could claim that you have a safer helmet than one that only protects to 175MPH. The problem is that you will never ride your bike to 300MPH. Therefore, the additional "safety" is wasted and unnecessary for the sake of discussion. |
Scott_in_nh
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 04:58 pm: |
|
If I have a choice between two cars both having a 5 Star rating from NHTSA, they are equally safe based upon the standard.
Fat, I agree with most of what you say but not this!
They "BOTH MEET THE STANDARD" this is NOT THE SAME THING AS THEY ARE "BOTH EQUALLY SAFE" - YOU GO ON TO SAY SO YOURSELF!
This has been the whole point you continue to argue even though you agree! ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 05:11 pm: |
|
A standard is a standard. You either meet the standard, exceed the standard, or miss the standard.
If the standard is relevant, exceeding the standard isn't relevant.
If the standard isn't relevant, you could argue that you would need a helmet that exceeds the current standard.
If I found a helmet that was a SHARP 5 Star rated helmet, should I care if there were one that was an 8 Star helmet available? How would you know?
Do you know that a SNELL rated Zox helmet didn't perform better than an Arai if both are SNELL rated?
If SHARP doesn't specifically innumerate the results of the tests but provides only the Star rating system, you would have no way of knowing by how much one helmet exceeds the standard over another in each test parameter.
Therefore, the standard must be encompassing enough to be relevant and simple enough for the average consumer to compare products simply and effectively. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 06:36 pm: |
|
Scott, thank you for saving me the time and effort. Clearly you understand the efforts of the SHARP system.
Fat, best I can suggest is you contact the British Government. Either to argue your points, or sell them your services. They're lost without you.
Rocket |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 06:46 pm: |
|
I understand what SHARP is trying to do. I applaud.
Let's plan to discuss again in 5 years. |
Scott_in_nh
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 07:02 pm: |
|
A standard is a standard. You either meet the standard, exceed the standard, or miss the standard.
Agreed
If the standard is relevant, exceeding the standard isn't relevant.
More or less agree, but relevance is a moving target. Snell is no longer on target (IMO). Is DOT relevant? Are all DOT full face helmets of equal safety? You might agree that some DOT helmets are crap and some may be better than the snell standard in the real world.
If the standard isn't relevant, you could argue that you would need a helmet that exceeds the current standard.
I guess I am saying snell isn't relevant but for now is all we have.
If I found a helmet that was a SHARP 5 Star rated helmet, should I care if there were one that was an 8 Star helmet available? How would you know?
Yes you should care and you find out by reading the standard and asking questions. I disagree that all helmets would have to be 5 star. I have 3 jackets, 2 pairs of pants and 3 pairs of gloves and they do not all have the same level of protection, but I wear them depending on weather and the type of riding I expect to be doing.
I would have a 5 star helmet fro riding with my Buell buddies, a snell for the track (unless they started accepting SHARP) and a modular helmet that might only have a 2 or 3 star rating for my Wednesday night beach ride.
Do you know that a SNELL rated Zox helmet didn't perform better than an Arai if both are SNELL rated?
No, I never said or implied the Arai was better.It might be, but it might not be too.
Here is the Crux, Jon said "Protection wise, they are all about the same, as they have to pass the same standard tests. ", this is not true.
If he said or you mean that "Any helmet that has the snell rating supplies sufficient protection whether it is a $70 Vox or a $600 Arai as they both meet the same standard", that is fine so long as you are expressing an opinion as too what is sufficient.
If SHARP doesn't specifically innumerate the results of the tests but provides only the Star rating system, you would have no way of knowing by how much one helmet exceeds the standard over another in each test parameter.
I would imagine what it takes to achieve each level will be very clear to anybody interested enough to do the research.
Therefore, the standard must be encompassing enough to be relevant and simple enough for the average consumer to compare products simply and effectively.
Relevant enough - agreed.
Screw the average consumer. He/she only wears a DOT helmet because the state requires it! I want to know the details.
DOT - some helmets aren't good enough to put on your dog riding in a sidecar - others probably offer better real world protection than snell, but I won't buy one because how do you know for sure?
SNELL - pass/fail doesn't let us know what is really better. MY brother used to race midget cars http://www.nemaracing.com/
Belted in like they are, if their helmets impacts the roll cage, there is a good chance that it will hit the same spot on the helmet and roll cage again as there are only so many places you head can reach. They need the double strike protection.
On my motorcycle I would rather have a helmet that destructs enough to protect my brain from serious G's (speed is irrelevant, G forces are what matters). I doubt I will hit my head in the same spot twice and am willing to take that risk knowing the danger. I am Forced to wear a helmet at the track that is contrary to this. I still at this time choose to wear SNELL because DOT is not relevant enough for me to know the great helmets from the bad ones. From what I have read about Euro standards I was already liking them better and if the work for MotoGP and F1 - I'm listening.
SHARP - is good news, I want to know more. to argue against it or its rating system at this point is silly as we don't have all the facts yet. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 07:06 pm: |
|
I believe Rocket is right on that. The British government needs help. 
( So does ours, but isn't that a given? No matter what country you're from. Shangri La was not such a great place if you liked steak )
So the argument here is that a 5 star rating on 2 helmets means you can't tell them apart? ( as far as the rating system goes )
A DOT rated polycarbonate wallyworld special is not as good a helmet as my DOT rated exotic fibre Suomy. ( which is rated on a Brit testing standard, but not snell )
You can't tell by the rating.
I look forward to these new tests, I'm interested in knowing if they can improve things. |
Buellerandy
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 07:42 pm: |
|
If sharp comes through and becomes a standard in rating protective headwear in any of our countries, I believe it to be an improvement no matter what. Just like the Underwriting Lab's safe ratings. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 09:36 pm: |
|
As the best rating we have, I believe SNELL to be the best. SHARP will be better because the tests are more inclusive compared to SNELL.
SNELL will probably improve their testing parameters as well.
If you believe SNELL to be irrelevant, then one SNELL approved helmet could in fact be below your requirement for safety vs. another SNELL approved helmet. Agreed completely.
For the record, I AM NOT A SNELL FAN. I believe their standards provide for protection in one specific parameter to the detriment of others. I am glad SHARP is coming. I hope manufacturers adopt the standards here. Not all European manufactured helmets are SNELL approved. I wonder how many US manufactured helmets will be SHARP rated.
If SHARP does all the rating independently rather than by request, it will be great.
In a few years, we will probably be having the same debate as to whether a 5 Star helmet is equal regardless of price.
Until then, I lie in wait.  |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 11:21 pm: |
|
SHARP is not meant to be a new testing of helmets required by law. SHARP is set up to give the consumer better clearer information, hopefully above and beyond the legal testing requirement, to enable the consumer make a better safer choice.
If every helmet SHARP tests get a five star rating in 5 years from now or in 5 months from now, it simply means that every helmet SHARP tested achieved their highest mark. Given the SHARP test sets out to better the minimum legal UK test requirement for crash helmet approval, then all helmets achieving 5 star status don't have to be equal in safety. One can still be more safe than the other, it just means ALL have reached at least a SHARP 5 star safety standard. As it sits today, that is not the case. But at least when all helmets achieving 5 star ratings under the SHARP scheme are purchased by the consumer, said consumer knows the helmet is of the highest rating awarded by SHARP. Whatever the consumers choice, SHARP is not saying all helmets are equal at whatever star rating. SHARP are simply saying they are passing a test at a certain level, and one which the consumer can rely upon to be informative to their choice. Why anyone has to argue the equality within the 5 star level is irrelevant. If all helmets make 5 stars then they're all at least 5 star safe, which is the best information SHARP can give the consumer.
Rocket |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 12:20 am: |
|
If all helmets make 5 stars then they're all at least 5 star safe, which is the best information SHARP can give the consumer.
I agree completely. |
Deadduck
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 03:07 am: |
|
I agree completely.
YAYYYY!!!!!!!!!
 } |
Bad_karma
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 03:34 am: |
|
Test would be more relevant to me if they determined the level at which failure occurred and reported this data. Meeting or exceeding are two different things and don't really help when you are trying to narrow the field on which helmet to try. Not saying do away with current rating. Wanting additional information. Besides why are governments doing the testing, can't the industry provide self testing?
Joe
(Message edited by bad_karma on December 14, 2007) |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 10:59 am: |
|
Test would be more relevant to me if they determined the level at which failure occurred and reported this data.
Zackly!
Once you set a standard and test to that standard, you lose the ability to quantify performance above that standard. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 01:49 pm: |
|
Once you set a standard and test to that standard, you lose the ability to quantify performance above that standard.
What's your point Fats? We should not test at all? All tests are useless once everything passes the test?
Did you bother reading the FAQ,s?
Why is the rating system being introduced?
Our research shows that there are real differences in the safety performance of motorcycle helmets available in the market. We believe that providing objective advice concerning the level of protection a motorcycle helmet provides will assist riders when making this very important purchasing decision.
What are the current standards a helmet has to meet, and are these not enough?
In the UK there are two helmet approval standards in use - BS 6658:1985 and UN ECE Regulation 22.05. Both of these standards ensure that all helmets on sale in the UK offer at least a minimum level of protection to the wearer in the event of an accident. However, there will always be some products that exceed these minimum requirements. SHARP will keep motorcyclists' informed of these differences in performance so you can make a more informed choice when buying your next helmet.
So what is different about the SHARP assessment?
SHARP has brought together some of the best aspects from the available standards and defined more rigorous tests and assessments than are currently used for the minimum approval standard.
We'll be testing protection at a much wider range of impact speeds - just like those found in actual accidents in the real world. We have not just looked at 'impact energy management', but also considered the areas of the helmet most likely to be struck and the risk of brain injury from that impact. We have developed a suite of enhanced test procedures and assessment criteria for helmets, so that a helmet performing well when assessed against it would offer real and significant increases in head protection in the real world.
UN ECE Regulation 22.05 has only one impact velocity whereas SHARP assesses the helmet performance at both a higher and a lower velocity to establish its effectiveness over a greater range of scenarios.
Why change things anyway?
As motorcycles have advanced, so has the kit you have to wear to be safe on them. However, in the past the testing of motorcycle helmets - probably the most important piece of biking kit that you will own - has only really had a 'minimum' standard. SHARP will give you the helmet buyer more information with which to make your purchase.
Is the safety rating the only thing to consider when I buy a new helmet?
No. It is important that the helmet fits correctly and is comfortable. An uncomfortable/poor fitting helmet can distract you when riding and may offer reduced protection in an accident.
How do you know that the helmets that you have tested are representative of the one that I can buy?
Our helmets are purchased from motorcycle dealers and are therefore taken from normal shop stock.
Where can I find out more about SHARP and helmet ratings?
Visit www.direct.gov.uk/sharp or ask your dealer from Spring 2008.
What's the research behind the testing?
In-depth real world accident studies have allowed us to link specific laboratory impacts with real world injury so that our tests address specific risk of head injury.
What's the most common form of head injury that SHARP is trying to protect against with these tests?
We believe that the most common injury results from a direct blow to the head that can damage the brain. SHARP seeks to identify the extent to which the helmet can reduce the shock that the brain receives.
How does the SHARP assessment differ from Regulation 22.05?
The main difference is in the impacts that the helmet is exposed to. Regulation 22.05 has only one impact velocity whereas SHARP assesses the helmet performance at both a higher and a lower velocity to establish its effectiveness over a greater range of scenarios.
Does SHARP assess all of the parameters that are assessed by the current regulation?
No, we have not looked at the protection offered by the chin guard or at the retention system (chinstrap). We believe the regulatory requirements adequately assess these parameters.
Does the SHARP assessment include a penetration test?
No, while some standards do assess the helmet's ability to withstand this type of impact we have concentrated on the helmet's energy management as severe shock to the brain is a more common cause of injury.
Why are you only striking the helmet once in each impact site when some standards strike the same site twice?
We do not have any evidence to suggest that in a motorcycle accident helmets suffer repeated impacts on the same site. We do see that helmets can receive multiple impacts and that is why the SHARP assessment does involve more than one impact on helmet but at a different point.
Rocket |
Freezerburn
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 02:03 pm: |
|
Rocket - Me thinks Fatty is stating that it would be nice to see what helmets just meet or actually exceed the standard.
I don't expect that the standards set are so high that exceeding them is pointless. Maybe on some parameters.
The SHARP system sounds like it is an improvement to me over SNELL. I still find it frustrating with the rating systems that standards only have to be met. You don't know how much they are exceeded by. That could affect purchasing decisions. |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 02:47 pm: |
|
Mr Shoei saved my head so he gets my vote!
Plus they're the only helmets that fit my head properly, they're a bit noisy though.
When you try a helmet make sure you wear your bike jacket, glasses, shades, ear buds or whatever to make sure they all fit together.
Buy the best you can that fits properly, you only got one head (well most of us do) look after it. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 03:12 pm: |
|
What's your point Fats? We should not test at all? All tests are useless once everything passes the test?
Not at all. I'm glad to see someone looking at other testing procedures. I don't think DOT has been relevant for quite a while, and I believe that more needs to be tested than the standards SNELL sets forth.
My comment was that the raw results data in each and every parameter is the only real way to compare one helmet to another. These results tell us not only that they met the standard but exceeded the standard and by how much. The problem is that when you are standing in front of the wall of helmets at Cycle Gear (or the UK equivalent) a page of testing statistics is going to be tough to compare from helmet to helmet. SHARP has therefore devised the star rating system. This makes comparisons much easier but blunts the data flow of actual test results. A 5 Star helmet will then only mean that they met the 5 star requirements but there is no way to know if the helmet exceeded this standard and by how much. It's the same with the current SNELL rating. You know it met the standard, but you don't know if it exceeded the standard and by how much.
Many have questioned whether the SNELL standard is even relevant. Others believe that it's the only standard that matters. It's a delicate tight rope. You want to have a standard that is relevant to the protection protocols you are trying to encourage and yet one that is reasonable for helmet manufacturers to attain and that reflects real world risk exposure.
There will always be helmets that exceed any standard set. The question is whether the amount by which the helmet exceeds the standard is relevant.
If you wrap your item in bubble wrap, place it in a tear proof envelope, stuff it inside a plastic container, and then pack it inside of a fire proof box, your item will be secure, but at what cost.
If you are shipping your item to your Mom across town, you have probably provided too much protection for the need at hand and have paid to much to wrap and send your item. If you are shipping your item to Baghdad, then you might need all those layers of protection. If not, you have spent more to protect your item than you needed.
Same with helmets. You could buy a helmet that surpasses every protocol you could imagine and some you hadn't thought of, but the majority of the circumstances where the helmet's added protection would be warranted would never be experienced by the average Joe. That helmet might cost $1,500.
Here in the US, we are infatuated with excess capacity. We buy SUVs that will climb 45* mud slopes, pull 12,000 lbs, and haul 52 people just so Mom can pick up the kids at soccer. If people knew that there was a helmet that was the absolute safest possible under any conceivable condition, they would spend $1,500 to get it. I'm cool with that. It doesn't mean that they are any more safe than another helmet under real world conditions. It just means that the conditions under which the helmet they own is capable of providing protection extends beyond the real world into the uber-real world. When it saves your life, you don't really have any way of quantifying the excess margin of error provided by your $1,500 helmet, and at that point you really won't care.
I have no concerns about trying to find a helmet that will survive a 300MPH crash. I don't possess a motorcycle that will do 300MPH. If I and my bike are traveling at 300MPH, we left real world a long time ago and someone has probably shot us out of a cannon.
I won't be buying a $1,500 helmet. I WILL be buying the best price value 5 Star helmet available.
I hope they are available at the super market. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 04:46 pm: |
|
The simple fact is, SHARP is pushing towards a 5 star standard for every helmet. Reading between the lines SHARP are saying 5 star is their minimum and you buy less than a 5 star rating at your peril. Nothing could be simpler. At least not to me.
Where anyone gets the idea a helmet can offer too much protection is beyond me. We are not talking some goofy over designed super strength steel cabinet one places their head in when going for a motorcycle ride. We are simply talking rating helmets as we know them already, of which many offer inadequate protection even for the simplest of journeys. Knowing at what point a helmet failed to achieve a 4 star rating but gained a 3 star rating is irrelevant. SHARP want the standard set for all to achieve the highest. That's 5 star, which can just as well be awarded to a £59.99 Takashi helmet or a £399 Arai RX7 helmet. Are SHARP not saying, if you manufacture a helmet it should not be beyond reason to make it 5 star safe, but if the manufacturer fails to improve their helmet accordingly then the consumer should ignore such a helmet because of a lesser rating? Thus the manufacturer risks going out of the helmet business, or gaining sales by making and bringing a better helmet to market.
Rocket |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 04:50 pm: |
|
I agree completely. The 5 Star Rating will become the only relevant rating and protection in excess of the 5 Star rating really won't matter or be quantifiable.
Eventually all helmets will have to attain the 5 Star rating if they hope to compete (in the safety vs. fashion arena anyway). |
Doerman
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 04:59 pm: |
|
After all that back and forth I almost feel like stepping outside and have a smoke. It was a mighty fine sparring match to watch!
I'll call it a (5 star) draw  |
Hexangler
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 06:36 pm: |
|
I'm still cig free!!!!!!!!!!
Hex |
|
