SIC Guide Sets

Started by Midway Tommy, January 31, 2020, 04:06:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rivverrat

Quote from: The Fishing Hobby on February 04, 2020, 11:51:44 AM
By experimenting I mean trying off brand (cheap) components. You can't do that for a customer because you have a reputation you have to protect...... 

   Right on ! That makes perfect sense... Jeff

Rivverrat

#31
Quote from: Swami805 on February 04, 2020, 10:56:42 PM
On my conventional rods I'd almost always used # 20 or # 25 for a stripper transition down to #8 for my salt water caster rods. The last year or so I've switch to a # 16 with a tall frame transitioning down to #6 single foot guides. Maybe it's mental but I'm getting more distance it seems like and the rod feels more responsive.

 It's not all in your head. Single foot guides allow the rod to bend & load much better. The high frame 16 begins to get your line coils from spool under control much sooner than say a KW 20 or 25. I no longer use 25 guides on any of my conventional rod builds.
A 20 guide will work better on most reels. I've yet to build a rod for a 50 size reel. A 25 might be better here. The high frame in a 16 just seems to work very well with a lot of reels of different size for a stripper.

The rod will feel noticeably better. You could in some cases see easier casting using the same type lay out you for a lite conventional or casting reel...Jeff

Jeri

There seem to be two distinct discussions going on here, one on the virtues of various grades of ceramic insert, the other on weight of guides; and how these effect the performance of a rod.

SiC over lower grades is a matter of heat dissipation, they are just so much better at dealing with heat generated by friction of fast moving lines, whether that be during casting or fish running. It is a matter of material density and the ability to get a microscopically fine smooth surface. Add in a economics factor, in that time spent in a diamond grit polishing machine will add to the overall component cost.

Lower grades, and I only mention Fuji components, Alconite ( actually reinforced Aluminium Oxide), Fazlite and hard Aluminium oxide are all progressively weaker in the friction and heat dissipation stakes, but progressively cheaper in cost – hence the attraction – in part.

What we have found to be an aspect of the range of ceramic inserts is their effect on the longevity of the lines being used, especially braids. The microscopically smoother the guide insert, the longer the braid lasts, which in some commercial instances can be a factor in what is optimal to use on any given rod. Obviously, for cheaper products with little concern whether the client is using braid or nylon, then cheaper, lower quality guides are popular.

What we have also found is that in some instances with our powerful surf casting rods the quality of the ceramic insert can have an effect on reliable distances being attained. During a 'power cast' line is travelling through the guides at approaching 100 mph at times, and this will be influenced by friction and heat dissipation, small, but measurable, so there is virtue in considering the lowest friction components.

On the weight of guides, again in our experience with surf rods, we have found a significant improvement in casting performance by simply switching out the guides on the upper third of a rod to single leg, over twin leg guides. But, this cannot be done in isolation, as the guides earlier on the rod need to be working in harmony with that concept. Which is where we have worked with the Fuji KR Concept to achieve strong line control over the braids during the cast (no wind knots) and then having the line travelling over the upper third of the rod in a near straight line – no spiral coils. What we have achieved through our experimentation is a hybrid KR scheme of guides, heavy and robust where they do not impact on the performance of the overall product, but light and small on the area most likely to be influenced by the weight of the guides. To the point where we are using size 6 & 8 for the upper guides, even when we are using 50lb braid and 150lb braid casting leaders – to no ill effect.

Having developed this scheme on our long rods of 14-15' long, we have taken the same scheme parameters and used them on 12' and even 9' rods, and have found the performance gains to be consistent. Only then do we look at the end user aspect to decide whether to go for Fazlite, Alconite or SiC. We haven't done the work with titanium frames or Torzite inserts as the very robust environment of fishing in Africa, doesn't warrant such levels of expense, but feel sure that the advantages of the scheme would be present.

A footnote on closing, Fuji have recently introduced a 'slim' version of the SiC inserts to further offset the weight of the earlier designs.

Jeri

Quote from: Swami805 on February 04, 2020, 10:56:42 PM
On my conventional rods I'd almost always used # 20 or # 25 for a stripper transition down to #8 for my salt water caster rods. The last year or so I've switch to a # 16 with a tall frame transitioning down to #6 single foot guides. Maybe it's mental but I'm getting more distance it seems like and the rod feels more responsive. I originally tried to reduce weight with the single foot guides on a few light rods and like the results so carried it over to the heavier 30-40 lb stuff. To me the decrease in weight was noticeable too on the balance of a 10' rod
The only downside so far is the single foot guides aren't nearly as durable but no big trick to putting on a new one

We have gone down a similar avenue with our long surf rods for fixed spool (spinner) reels, now using a hybrid set of guides for 50lb braid and 150lb braid leader which consists of LC16M, LC10, LC8, KL6x5, works a dream and almost silent during the cast, which hopefully indicates less friction. Long since abandoned the idea of big guides on spinning rods, as the performance gains have been so significant.

Swami805

Jeri was very generous with his time and advice on guide layouts with me when I started looking into this, thank you. Opened my eyes to what was possible. That's the beauty of this site, people willing to share their hard earned knowledge
Do what you can with that you have where you are

jurelometer

#35
I don't doubt Jeri's experiences  (he probably builds and tests more rods in a month than I have in my lifetime), but there is a difference between correlation and causation.  The manufacturers' claims  for causation seem dubious to me.

There is so much energy lost  from the coils wedging on the spool, turning the spool (conventional) lifting line over the lip of the spool (spinners), coils slapping guides and blank, etc.,  that it seems hard to believe that differences in ceramic guide surface coefficient of friction is going to be great enough to make  a noticeable difference.  The cynic in me is calling shenanigans when the manufacturers make claims but do not supply the data.

Sliding friction is a function of coefficient of friction (smoothness of the two mating surfaces)  and force (how hard the two surfaces are pressed together).  Note that velocity does not matter for  most materials (friction is weird).   There is not much force from the line  on the insert surfaces after the release of a cast (the rod is not bending), so the effect of coefficient of friction is minimized on the cast. How fast the line is moving at a given point in time should not affect the amount of friction.  Line slapping against the front of a guide is a different story -  here we are using impact force which is a function of velocity. But the insert type does not affect line slapping. Also damage from line slap should have an effect on line wear, so attributing line wear to insert materials if the frames are differently shaped or located is probably not accurate.


Re heat: heat is the result of friction in this situation- but I am claiming that there is not much friction on the insert surfaces during the cast.  Here is a test:  Take the cheapest chrome plated stainless guide, and the fanciest high end SIC guide,   check the temperature on the ring surface before and after a cast  with an instant read thermometer.  This would show if there was any significant heat dissipation going on.  If there is enough heat being generated to damage the line, the stainless guide would have to get hot. Also note that nylon and UHMWPE (the stuff braid is made from) are not easily damaged by heat -  these are plastics that can be melted to be reused.   The line could elongate a bit if it got up over 200F or so.  So the heat thing seems unlikely.  

Moving the line across the insert at high drag seems to be a more reasonable argument for heat effect, as there is now force on the inserts which has a multiplier effect on friction,   but I would like to see the same heat test (or a wear test.  This could be done pretty easily with a  big game reel, a guide clamped in a vice and a power drill, or similar to de-spool.   Take a couple hundred runs under load and compare the before and after on the line breaking strength and surface.)  

I could never find coefficient of friction data on the insert material from any of the manufacturers (makes me suspicious :) ), but there is hardness data.  

Hardness is a key contributor to resistance to wear.  While all ceramics grades are very resistant to normal wear,  surf casting with braid might be a different story.  Fine grains of sand will get trapped in the braid (maybe worse with coated braid ?),  and winding the line in under even marginal load would be like rubbing sandpaper on the insides of the guides.   Here, a significantly harder surface would better resist getting rough scratches.  These rough scratches are the sort of thing that will fracture the braid fibers at a rate much higher than even a badly polished surface.  So this is a possible argument for SiC for surf casting.

And I think it is important to note  that smaller differences in guide weight or smoothness will not even have a  chance to be an issue  until you are trying to cast a rod for maximum distance.   A tiny bit more effort on shorter casts to achieve the same distance is probably not noticeable.   And on every rod, guide placement, ring size, and height will probably make a much greater difference in both casting and fish fighting ability.  There was a good thread on this topic not too long ago with lots of interesting viewpoints from Jeri and others.

For me, the best guide is the most durable.  I value a reasonably long cast, but I am not competitive casting.  The low end Fujis (hardloy/aluminum oxide) have worked well for me for the type of fishing that I do.  I don't do much freshwater fishing, so lightness is not as big a factor on my conventional rods.   Improved corrosion resistance would be nice, but not at the expense of insert durability.

On  fly rods, any kind of ring guide is at a large disadvantage when it comes to  clearing tangles in the fly line (happens more often than I would like to admit when clearing the line on fast running fish), so only my (wire) snake guide rods get any use for the type of fly fishing that I do.   No chance for ceramics here.

-J


Jeri

Morning all.

While some of the knowledge Jurelometer shows on friction is a very welcome and valued contribution, I believe that he may have overlooked some of the forces present in his evaluation, specifically on lines during a cast with a fixed spool (spinner) reel. The line has a very strong circular force acting upon it, which does contribute to the friction experienced on the guides of a rod during casting. The number of guides that experience this friction element' can be reduced significantly in some layouts, in others it might well be across all the guides in a train. Here the offset in design compromise is between taking all the circular forces out over 2 or 3 guides or spreading it out over 6 or 7 guides, but it is still a factor.

'Line slapping' is basically a function of a poorly designed rod, and while what might be happening is valid, it has little bearing on theoretical performance as it is just not right in the first place. We have seen rods of this type brought to the workshop for an upgrade, and on completion seen clients gain 15-20% improvement in performance and line slapping removed completely.

The comments on surf casting and braid with fine sand entering the equation, misses the obvious issue in fresh water that has any silt components – we are not all fortunate enough to fish in crystal clear streams, so any murky river systems equally have the problems attributed to surf sand. However, being part way through an investigation into the use of uncoated braids (white, unadulterated microfibre), we are initially finding better wear characteristics from these braids over coated variants. But, there is nothing definitive at this time, as the whole investigation has been made slightly more complicated by the introduction of un-coated hollow braids for casting. We are fortunate enough to have a 'braid weaving' company that is prepared to experiment with different options of braid – so watch this space............... 😊

The comments about using the lower grades of insert in guides would be fine, and I would agree for all nylon monofilament applications, we used to use a lot of BMNOG and BMNAG guides for our surf rods when we were focussed on multipliers (conventional) reels and nylon, however our market place has considerably changed in the last 7-8 years to almost entirely fixed spool and braid. Our first investigations showed that 'O' series guides were quite abrasive on coated braids, and were soon dropped from our build systems. @a' series guides from Fuji were significantly better, and had the benefit at the time of being the first 'A' series to have the more advanced guide frames, which significantly reduce the issue of popping the insert out of the frame. Subsequently we looked at possible benefits from SiC, being the first to have the new frame design, and the slightly lighter/slimmer insert. It has been an evolution of design, because we have embraced newer concepts of guides used in a different manner, to gain performance optimum performance from any given blank, whether they were for social anglers or competition anglers.

The question of lighter guides on the upper third of the blanks, with the use of single leg guides, rather than twin leg guides has been equally significant in producing an increase in performance as well as ease of usage. I've commented before on the development of a light surf rod we build, which being just 12' long and designed for just 3oz sinkers and small baits, and the development of that blank from achieving 90 metres in test casts on traditional single leg guides, to then 100 metres+ using KWAG guides, and then 130 metres with a mixture of Low Riders and low single leg guides to our current evolution that uses the Fuji KR system but slightly changed to accommodate our local conditions, which is now frequently casting over 140 metres on our test ground – this rod now uses 6 tiny size 5.5 KLAG guides – through all this evolution, the blank has not been changed at all. One aspect that did stand out in all the various incarnations of this rod, were that progressively the noise of the braid travelling through the guides became less as to the point where with some of the SiC models, they are silent – might one equate the lack of line noise with friction?

Ultimately, there is no single element that improves performance on any given blank, but a combination of factors which all work together contributing small but significantly to the overall performance of the rod, and within that scheme grades of guide inserts do have a part.

There is no definitive answer to all fishing rod designs and applications, we just need to experiment a little more and challenge what are 'accepted' theories, so we can improve.

Cheers from sunny Africa

CapeFish

I don't buy any casting rods (multiplier and spinning) anymore with eyes other than fujis of the appropriate design for the reel. It is an expensive mistake, changing the eyes cost a fortune, even just knocking one out requires taking the rod in for repairs and sitting without it for ages and that alone can cost quite a bit of money. I got a very nice phenix 9ft spinning rod I liked a lot, alas, it was a poor caster and had no name brand eyes on and it cost me a packet to have it changed to fuji anti tangle guides and it now is an absolute pleasure to use. A friend of mine bought a cheap surf spinning rod with fake low ryder eyes, it is simply horrible to cast and I doubt he gets 70m with enourmous effort, even using a bionic finger, so he gets no advantage from using an expensive spinning reel with braid. The layout of the eyes is totally wrong. To me that is simply a complete waste of money. I still have two rods with Pac Bay zirconium eyes, but I am very careful with them, they are very prone to breaking. When or if they need a refurb they will get much smaller fuji eyes and I am pretty sure the casting distance will go up a lot. As it is they both can belt a sinker pretty far.

jurelometer

#38
Allow me to drop some quick outlines of the key terms involved in this debate:


FRICTION
is the force that is resists the motion of one object against another (or through a fluid such as water or air).    For two solid objects, friction generally comes from all the pockets, nubs and ridges on the two objects engaging and impeding motion.  These imperfections can be plainly visible or even microscopic.   This amount of force required will change based on the smoothness of the object surfaces (coefficient of friction), and the amount of force pressing the objects together.  it will NOT change due a change in velocity or surface area.  This is counter-intuitive, but it is a scientific fact.

COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION

This is a unitless number that describes the combined smoothness of the two mating surfaces.  Both surfaces matter- there is no such thing as a coefficient of friction for only one surface.   Multiplying the force pressing the surfaces together by the coefficient of friction gives us the amount of friction (in lbs, kilos, grams, etc).    If you  also know the amount of distance this friction is occurring, you can calculate the energy being lost due to friction.  Note that it is not just the raw materials that determine the coefficient of friction, but also how the surfaces are treated, polished and/or contaminated.

IMPACT FORCE

Describes the force of one object striking another.   It is a function a the mass of the object and the velocity of the object (note how this is different from friction where mass and velocity is irrelevant).    I have a (less than) rudimentary understanding of of how impact affects materials, but the basic idea is that if the collision is fast enough,  the materials will be less elastic than normal during the collision, and therefore more likely to fracture fracture instead of stretch.   This is why hammering a nail will drive it into wood more effectively than pressing on the nail with a hammer with the same load.  It is also worth noting that braid fibers are stiff  (this is why braid is hard to knot) and probably susceptible to impact damage.


---------

Why this is important for our discussion:

When the line is being cast, it is passing through the guides, but not in a perfect straight line,   Some of the energy in the cast will be lost to to the line sliding over the rings (friction),  and some will be lost to coils or waves in the line striking the guide or blank surfaces (impact).  

Friction will generally not be high during the cast, as there is little force pressing the line against the guides.  The materials involved will have a very low coefficient of friction (e.g. UHMWPE (braided line) over polished aluminum oxide (ceramic insert). Impact forces will be highly variable depending on the reel used (spinner vs conventional)  guide location, height and ring size, and the stiffness/memory of the line used.  

My theory is that most of the improvements in modern ceramic guides comes from decreasing impact forces vs. decreasing the coefficient of friction on the inserts.  The practical value of this point is that modern guide frames with lower end insert could be as effective the same frames with high end ceramics, while being more  durable (less brittle inserts) and cheaper.   But right now these modern frames are focused on the high end market (with the more expensive inserts)  with some movement toward the midrange.

And now some replies to Jeri's comments:


Quote from: Jeri on February 06, 2020, 07:32:15 AM
Morning all.

While some of the knowledge Jurelometer shows on friction is a very welcome and valued contribution, I believe that he may have overlooked some of the forces present in his evaluation, specifically on lines during a cast with a fixed spool (spinner) reel. The line has a very strong circular force acting upon it, which does contribute to the friction experienced on the guides of a rod during casting.

I believe that you are describing impact force and not friction.   The coils are whacking  the edge of the ring.  While the reduced coils might be providing some additional pressure (force) against the insert surface,  I would think that this would be minimal relative to the effect of impact(s).   Whack, whack, whack... 

Quote
The number of guides that experience this friction element' can be reduced significantly in some layouts, in others it might well be across all the guides in a train. Here the offset in design compromise is between taking all the circular forces out over 2 or 3 guides or spreading it out over 6 or 7 guides, but it is still a factor.

'Line slapping' is basically a function of a poorly designed rod, and while what might be happening is valid, it has little bearing on theoretical performance as it is just not right in the first place. We have seen rods of this type brought to the workshop for an upgrade, and on completion seen clients gain 15-20% improvement in performance and line slapping removed completely.

I may need to be more accurate here:   by "line slapping" I am referring to the effect of both  coils and the waves that can form in the line as it passes from the reel through the guides.     With the new design you are minimizing both by choking the coils down in the first guide or two, small ring sizes, proper guide height etc.   The slapping now occurs on a much smaller scale now, which is reducing the energy lost to impact force, and decreasing damage to the line during the cast.

Quote
The comments on surf casting and braid with fine sand entering the equation, misses the obvious issue in fresh water that has any silt components – we are not all fortunate enough to fish in crystal clear streams, so any murky river systems equally have the problems attributed to surf sand. However, being part way through an investigation into the use of uncoated braids (white, unadulterated microfibre), we are initially finding better wear characteristics from these braids over coated variants. But, there is nothing definitive at this time, as the whole investigation has been made slightly more complicated by the introduction of un-coated hollow braids for casting. We are fortunate enough to have a 'braid weaving' company that is prepared to experiment with different options of braid – so watch this space............... 😊


Good point!    I assumed that silt with its finer grain size would be less abrasive than beach sand, but just realized that I have no data to back this up.   Dragging the line though the material (surf casting) will expose the braid to more material under force, but silt often contains some amount of clay and it seems to stick to some materials more than sand. I would like to go with my gut and claim that typical beach sand is worse,  but I can't take off my science hat just when it is convenient. :)

BTW - I am not conceding that insert surface degradation is a real world problem.  There are lots of things that can damage braid other than insert abrasion.  

Less dirty braid would be a good thing no matter what.

Quote
The comments about using the lower grades of insert in guides would be fine, and I would agree for all nylon monofilament applications, we used to use a lot of BMNOG and BMNAG guides for our surf rods when we were focussed on multipliers (conventional) reels and nylon, however our market place has considerably changed in the last 7-8 years to almost entirely fixed spool and braid. Our first investigations showed that 'O' series guides were quite abrasive on coated braids, and were soon dropped from our build systems. @a' series guides from Fuji were significantly better, and had the benefit at the time of being the first 'A' series to have the more advanced guide frames, which significantly reduce the issue of popping the insert out of the frame. Subsequently we looked at possible benefits from SiC, being the first to have the new frame design, and the slightly lighter/slimmer insert. It has been an evolution of design, because we have embraced newer concepts of guides used in a different manner, to gain performance optimum performance from any given blank, whether they were for social anglers or competition anglers.

So the problem here is that you are trying both the new frames and the new inserts at the same time.  I understand that you don't have a choice.  

But there is an easy test to get a ballpark idea on the change in the amount of friction.    Take a rod, turn it upside down so that the guides are facing down,  String a section of the  braid that you plan to use through all the guides.     take two test tubes or similar containers, fill one or the other with salt, tungsten powder or whatever, until both weigh the same.  Tie one to each end of the line.  Now add powder to one of the tubes until it is able to pull the line through the guides.   The difference in weight of the tubes is your base static friction.  Repeat the same experiment, but this time start with the tube moving and determine how much weight must be added to allow the tube to keep moving.   This is your dynamic friction, and will be less than your static.   Repeat on both ends of the rod and see if you are getting consistent numbers.  Now repeat tests with rod using different type of inserts.  If you are using two rods with the same number of guides, the frame shape shouldn't matter too much for testing with light weights .


This will show the difference in friction but will not tell us how important the difference is.    BUT there are more fun tests.    Use different braids, coating worn off,  dirty braid etc, and see how much difference the line makes.  I would not be surprised to find out that the difference in friction from changes in the braid  is much greater than the difference from ceramic materials or quality of finish on the insert surface.

I expect that Fuji and other big manufacturers have done more sophisticated versions of these tests, and have found it in their best interest not to share the data.

Quote
The question of lighter guides on the upper third of the blanks, with the use of single leg guides, rather than twin leg guides has been equally significant in producing an increase in performance as well as ease of usage. I've commented before on the development of a light surf rod we build, which being just 12' long and designed for just 3oz sinkers and small baits, and the development of that blank from achieving 90 metres in test casts on traditional single leg guides, to then 100 metres+ using KWAG guides, and then 130 metres with a mixture of Low Riders and low single leg guides to our current evolution that uses the Fuji KR system but slightly changed to accommodate our local conditions, which is now frequently casting over 140 metres on our test ground – this rod now uses 6 tiny size 5.5 KLAG guides – through all this evolution, the blank has not been changed at all. One aspect that did stand out in all the various incarnations of this rod, were that progressively the noise of the braid travelling through the guides became less as to the point where with some of the SiC models, they are silent – might one equate the lack of line noise with friction?

The friction surfaces are so smooth that I would expect that they generate little noise.   I would bet that the decrease in noise is coming from decreasing  impact.   Easy enough to test in the shop if you care.
Quote

Ultimately, there is no single element that improves performance on any given blank, but a combination of factors which all work together contributing small but significantly to the overall performance of the rod, and within that scheme grades of guide inserts do have a part.

There is no definitive answer to all fishing rod designs and applications, we just need to experiment a little more and challenge what are 'accepted' theories, so we can improve.

Cheers from sunny Africa


Thanks for sharing your hard earned knowledge!   Hope you don't mind me challenging a few of the accepted theories myself.

-J

Jeri

Morning Jurelometer,

No problem with your comments, my life in engineering was in a different discipline, so you sharing your knowledge and point of view is perfectly acceptable; and gives me more insight to use terminology correctly.

Our own challenge to the accepted theory is that the first guide in nearly all of the trains we have developed is more than 50% up the effective length of the rod, when related to the reel position. This we believe is the most significant factor. Especially when considering guide layouts for reducing extraneous power/energy losses in casting, along with using increasingly smaller guides.

Having got to a point where we are reasonably satisfied with the guide issues, we are now looking at the braid side of the equation, and un-dyed braids and even hollow braids are yielding some encouraging results. But the work continues to build the better mousetrap..... :)

Cheers from sunny Africa.

Rivverrat

 The river here is all sand. I gave up using coated braid. The beach I fish in Texas is worse at times with certain braids picking up micro debris more so than others.

The Fishing Hobby

Quote from: Rivverrat on February 07, 2020, 05:55:44 PM
The river here is all sand. I gave up using coated braid. The beach I fish in Texas is worse at times with certain braids picking up micro debris more so than others.
Does the 8 strand braid help? Seems like the braid would be tighter with more strands and maybe it wouldn't pick up or hold as much. I don't really have that problem in the places where I fish, just thinking about your situation and wondered if the number of strands would make any difference.

Rivverrat

You know I'm not sure of the effect strand count would have. I've only ever 12 & 16 strand... Jeff

jurelometer

Quote from: Jeri on February 07, 2020, 09:21:13 AM
Morning Jurelometer,

No problem with your comments, my life in engineering was in a different discipline, so you sharing your knowledge and point of view is perfectly acceptable; and gives me more insight to use terminology correctly.
[snip]


I have to fess up.  Not my discipline either.  Just learning as I go to improve my projects.  Take those definitions with a grain of salt.   Probably OK for building rods, but definitely not for building dams, bridges, aircraft, nuclear power plants... ;D

BTW - really enjoyed this thread!  Hopefully we haven't wandered too far from Tommy's original post. 

-J

Jeri

Quote from: jurelometer on February 07, 2020, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: Jeri on February 07, 2020, 09:21:13 AM
Morning Jurelometer,

No problem with your comments, my life in engineering was in a different discipline, so you sharing your knowledge and point of view is perfectly acceptable; and gives me more insight to use terminology correctly.
[snip]


I have to fess up.  Not my discipline either.  Just learning as I go to improve my projects.  Take those definitions with a grain of salt.   Probably OK for building rods, but definitely not for building dams, bridges, aircraft, nuclear power plants... ;D

BTW - really enjoyed this thread!  Hopefully we haven't wandered too far from Tommy's original post. 

-J

I didn't need many of those terms building bridges, dams or power stations. Soil mechanics chaps might have had some need for friction issues, but above ground we pretty much worked on other stresses.