# A new player in the wheel game?



## BergMann (Mar 14, 2004)

I'm currently taking a good, hard look at the new, P-SLR1, 21mm-wide clincher wheels Giant has just introduced to the market.

Has anyone had a chance to ride these wheels yet?

There's a 50mm Aero version that is priced (and claims to have wind-tunnel numbers) like a Zipp 808 killer, and a 24mm lightweight climbing version of the P-SLR1 that is priced as a Hed Ardennes killer. 
Both wheels feature aluminum braking tracks (a huge plus in my book), and are designed & built in conjunction with DT, which I find reassuring build-quality wise.
Here's the link to pics & stats on Giant's website:
WheelSystems - Bike Gear | Giant Bicycles | United States

Anyone have any inside dope on these wheels, thoughts about whether it will be possible to score a better deal than Giant's MSRP when buying from one of their dealers?


----------



## petalpower (Aug 10, 2009)

They look nice. Trying to figure to the difference between the two P-SLR1 sets priced at $700 & $900.


----------



## Bluechip (Feb 19, 2004)

$700 is for the front, $900 is for the rear.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

They look exactly like a Cosmic and a Ksyrium... Thats great and all but notice that the aero wheel is like the first Cabones... That is no alloy brake track! Instead its a carbon/plastic fearing over an alloy rim. Granted I had a pair of those old school Cosmics and they were great! but if they really cost 1600$ then they are never going to sell a single pair. Those look like great wheels but at about half that price.


----------



## Wines of WA (Jan 10, 2005)

Good catch, Zen. At first I thought they resembled the Dura Ace 7900 C50 clinchers (the 21mm width and spoke count had me going there). But the Dura Ace wheels incorporate the carbon into the structure, and the nipples are in the carbon cap, not passed through to the aluminum rim a-la Mavic Cosmic Carbone.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

I talked to a Giant rep who admittedly did not have the full scoop but said Giant worked with DT on the design so I don't think Mavic was involved. The big thing for them will be to sell on their bike and not necessarily after market. They look ok to me and I suspect will be very good compared to what normally comes on bikes. Recall what Cervelo puts on theirs.....Fulcum 7s. whoopie do.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

Zen Cyclery said:


> They look exactly like a Cosmic and a Ksyrium... Thats great and all but notice that the aero wheel is like the first Cabones... That is no alloy brake track! Instead its a carbon/plastic fearing over an alloy rim. Granted I had a pair of those old school Cosmics and they were great! but if they really cost 1600$ then they are never going to sell a single pair. Those look like great wheels but at about half that price.


$1600 seems on average with other 50mm clincher offerings. Granted it is still high but what other options are out there in that depth with aluminum brake tracks? If these truly are DT swiss innards, the weight at 1575 is decent compared to similar sets, then these look pretty good. As a comparison the Shimano c50s are much heavier.

Also, I suspect street pricing will be at $1200-1300.


----------



## BergMann (Mar 14, 2004)

Zen Cyclery said:


> They look exactly like a Cosmic and a Ksyrium... Thats great and all but notice that the aero wheel is like the first Cabones... That is no alloy brake track! Instead its a carbon/plastic fearing over an alloy rim. Granted I had a pair of those old school Cosmics and they were great! but if they really cost 1600$ then they are never going to sell a single pair. Those look like great wheels but at about half that price.


Nick Legan ran an article on these wheels in Velonews. His article cited wind-tunnel drag numbers for these wheels that are neck-in-neck with the Zip 404 Firecrest. These wheels may resemble the Mavic wheels in that they use a fairing, but that's where the resemblance stops. These are built on a new, 21mm-wide rim platform, and as I and another poster pointed out, they're built by DT. Mavic's entire cosmic series performs miserably in the wind tunnel for their respective heights (Cos.Carbone SSL is closest to this Giant in weight & height, but it gets beat in the tunnel by a Zipp 101).

Given that they are also a wide-rim platform, only weigh 65g more than the 404 FC clinchers, and cost a full $1000 less at msrp, AND you don't have to deal with the nightmare of braking on carbon, I really don't see what's not to like.
If they live up to the pre-release hype, these new Giant wheels looks like a legitimate 404 Killer - and with better braking to boot.

Running a carbon fairing on alloy rims is in my book a plus, not a minus. I'd rather have a rim structure that bends than cracks when stressed, but maybe I'm missing something.

Wines makes an interesting point about spoke anchoring points: would there really be any structural advantage to anchoring spokes in the carbon structure of the rim? That seems counterintuitive to me, but I'm admittedly not a composites engineer.

In all honesty, I'm a bit on the fence between the 50mm aero version, and the 24mm, 1400g climbing version, which looks to me like a potential Hed Ardennes Flamme Rouge killer.
I'm a climber, and I'm looking for a new set of strong-performing everyday clinchers for my "A" bike, since I just cracked one of my Aerohead rims at the same time I discovered my White Industries LTA rear hub is toast.
7 seasons was a pretty good run on a set of 1450g clinchers, but now it's time for new wheels.


----------



## BergMann (Mar 14, 2004)

mimason said:


> $1600 seems on average with other 50mm clincher offerings. Granted it is still high but what other options are out there in that depth with aluminum brake tracks? If these truly are DT swiss innards, the weight at 1575 is decent compared to similar sets, then these look pretty good. As a comparison the Shimano c50s are much heavier.
> Also, I suspect street pricing will be at $1200-1300.


It'd be nice if these were available widely enough to see some competitive pricing. Do you think Giant will let people sell these online, or will they pull a Specialized and make them available only in-store at Giant dealers?


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

BergMann said:


> It'd be nice if these were available widely enough to see some competitive pricing. Do you think Giant will let people sell these online, or will they pull a Specialized and make them available only in-store at Giant dealers?


I suspect they will pull a Specialized or a Bontrager.


----------



## Ronman (Feb 12, 2007)

One advantage to anchoring the spokes at the inner diameter of a deep section wheel (whether carbon or alum) is to achieve greater triangulation of the spoke for improved lateral stiffness. Mavic Carbones, or any wheel with spokes anchored to a low profile rim, can't achieve the same triangulation of deeper section wheels.


----------



## calaris (May 4, 2010)

One thing to consider is that these can also be installed in a tubeless configuration. This is something I'm always interested in so I'm waiting on these to come out to compare with the Shimano 7900 C24 tubeless wheel set...


----------



## BergMann (Mar 14, 2004)

Ronman said:


> One advantage to anchoring the spokes at the inner diameter of a deep section wheel (whether carbon or alum) is to achieve greater triangulation of the spoke for improved lateral stiffness. Mavic Carbones, or any wheel with spokes anchored to a low profile rim, can't achieve the same triangulation of deeper section wheels.


I was thinking about that. Apparently, the new Giant-by-DT hubs on this series features a new outboard-flange direct spoke configuration that is supposed to increase the bracing angle, so like a number of other manufacturers, Giant is addressing bracing angle primarily at the hub.

Another thought I had on bracing angle and deeper rim sections qua anchoring points, is that simply choking up on spoke length doesn't necessarily result in a laterally stiff wheel. Look at Zipp: they've been at the vanguard of pushing the depth of rim sections, but when you look at lateral stiffness numbers on their wheels in tests by Tour Magazine etc., they typically score in the bottom half of the test field at a given rim depth, even though they are anchoring their spokes at the inner diameter of the rim.


----------



## BergMann (Mar 14, 2004)

calaris said:


> One thing to consider is that these can also be installed in a tubeless configuration. This is something I'm always interested in so I'm waiting on these to come out to compare with the Shimano 7900 C24 tubeless wheel set...


Now that tubeless tire selection is no longer a one-note, Hutchinson samba, I might just be tempted to give tubeless a chance.
As far as I can gather, the 50mm Giants are the only wide-rimmed, tubeless, mid-section aero wheel w/ aluminum braking track on the market.
Seems like a pretty tempting combo, but first I'm going to have to overcome my reservations about spending over $1000 on an "everyday" wheelset - even if it is going to be on my "pretty weather" bike and I've got bomber, 32-spoke Open-Pro wheels waiting in the wings for really crappy road surfaces...


----------



## Ronman (Feb 12, 2007)

Something I find interesting regarding bracing angle is that some manufacturers utilize "high-low" hub configurations and others do not. In high-low hubs, the drive-side hub flange is taller than the non-drive side, in an effort to offset the reduced bracing inherent with the shallower dish side of the wheel. Mavic does not seem to employ this technique, and neither does Shimano on its newer wheels. Campy/Fulcrum and Easton use the high-low hubs. It seems to make perfect sense to use a high-low configuration, (or high hub flanges in general) but then I'm not an engineer. Larger hubs probably carry a weight and aero penalty, I'm sure.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Keep in mind those are manufacturer listed weights. One thing weightweenies has taught me is they are often off by as much as 10% for production models. Lets see what the weight is to the consumer before we praise it. If they are 10% heavier, then they are a cosmic carbone at a lot more $$.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I don't see from the pictures anything resembling Cosmics or Ksyriums

The 50mm look like carbon clincher rims not fairing, and the low profiles seem to have standard nipples.

Where did you got this about fairings?


----------



## BergMann (Mar 14, 2004)

Salsa_Lover said:


> I don't see from the pictures anything resembling Cosmics ...
> The 50mm look like carbon clincher rims not fairing, ... Where did you got this about fairings?


From the Velonews article on both wheels:
"The two high-end models, the P-SLR1 Aero and P-SLR1 both use scandium rim extrusions. The Aero model is paired with carbon fiber for its 50 mm depth."
Giant WheelSystems:

Zen & Co. are right about how the rims are made: the 50mm Aero version is made by bonding a 30mm carbon "fairing" section to the 20mm rim used on the low-profile aluminum rim version.

As I mention above, it is *not* a foregone conclusion that anchoring spokes in the outer rim bed automatically translates into more lateral flex in the overall wheel design. Nick Legan notes that the non-aero version he rode had good lateral stiffness.

It would be great if these wheels made their way onto the test bench of Tour Magazine or Roues Artisanales for a real, nonpartisan, empirical test of stiffness, aerodynamics, etc.
Untill this happens, I'm just going to try and find a Giant dealer that might have a new TCR Advanced in stock that runs these wheels, so I can to a little subjective field testing!


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

BergMann said:


> As I mention above, it is *not* a foregone conclusion that anchoring spokes in the outer rim bed automatically translates into more lateral flex in the overall wheel design. Nick Legan notes that the non-aero version he rode


I will agree that the those wheels are probably not noticeably less stiff than a full carbon hoop. That is however not the disadvantage of a fearing on an alloy rim...

I had some of the first Cosmic Carbones, with the fearing, and loved them! They were stiff and durable. Their weakness though? They were boat anchors. Any time that you put a non-structural fearing over an alloy hoop your adding a lot of weight to the rim that does not have to be there.

Here is my argument. Assuming that the alloy hoop under that carbon fearing is DT you essentially have a relatively inexpensive set of wheels that are by no means heavy. Then you slap on a Carbon fearing, double the price and add a significant amount of weight. Is the aero advantage you gain worth the extra money spent and the extra weight? That is up to you.

With that said I loved my old Cosmics and they were a lot of fun as long as I wasn't going up hill. To be honest if you want a set of durable, cheap, aero wheels with an allow hoop underneath buy some Cosmics! You could probably get a used set from 5 years ago for less than 200$. They are essentially the same wheels, granted they will be used, but if you like them A LOT then put them on your commuter and but the Giants.

My bottom line on these wheels. They are very similar to a pair of wheels that I in all honesty really liked. With that said though Giant has not made any real improvements on a set of wheels that have been around for the better part of a decade. Its hard to ask 1600$ for that. The engineers at Giant did not design this wheel, they took a look at one of Mavic's best wheels from years past and decided to make some minor adjustments.


----------



## BergMann (Mar 14, 2004)

spookyload said:


> Keep in mind those are manufacturer listed weights. One thing weightweenies has taught me is they are often off by as much as 10% for production models. Lets see what the weight is to the consumer before we praise it. If they are 10% heavier, then they are a cosmic carbone at a lot more $$.


You're preaching to the choir, brother!
I own two digital scales, and am universally loved & admired by local shop owners for bringing my own scale with me when shopping for new components.
You're right about premature praise though: I've made an effort to qualify & speak in the subjunctive, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited at the *potential* of finding all the features I want in a single new wheel release.

I don't know that I've ever seen a weight variance of 160g on a pair of sub-1600g wheels, but 50-75g variances above claimed weight are pretty common, so you're right: it would be more remarkable if Giant actually hits that claimed weight, than if they overshoot it.

As for the Mavics, until I saw the mediocre windtunnel numbers on the Cosmic Carbones (they're no faster at 50mm than most good 30mm wheels), I had been considering & price shopping them.
Frankly, even if we bracket aerodynamics, the Cosmic Carbone series still isn't competitive on a cost & weight basis with these Giants - not even if Giant overshoots claimed weights by a realistic 5%:
The Cosmic Carbone SR has an actual weight of 1650g, MSRP of $2000, and a street price of ~$1800.
Cosmic Carbone SL = actual weight 1775g, street price ~$1100

I will give Mavic, and Shimano, for that matter, credit for continuing to fly the flag for aluminum brake tracks on mid-section carbon wheels, but if Giant comes even close to hitting their claimed weights and wind-tunnel numbers (see the Velonews article above), then they'll beat the entire Cosmic clincher line & the Dura Ace C50 on price, weight, & aero numbers to boot.


----------



## BergMann (Mar 14, 2004)

Zen Cyclery said:


> ... Here is my argument. Assuming that the alloy hoop under that carbon fearing is DT you essentially have a relatively inexpensive set of wheels that are by no means heavy. Then you slap on a Carbon fearing, double the price and add a significant amount of weight. Is the aero advantage you gain worth the extra money spent and the extra weight? That is up to you....


I don't think we're really that far apart on how we're looking at this - especially on the money front. In all honesty, my personal threshold of comfort for "everyday riding" wheels tops out at $1000.
Prior to learning of these wheels, my plan had been to buy a pair of Hed Ardennes SL wheels for $850 street. If I can find the new Giant low-profile P-SLR1 wheel comparably priced, I'll probably buy them instead.
Would I buy the Aero version? I'm still on the fence about crossing that $1000 line.

Just for the sake thinking through the weight/aero issue here in think-tank mode, the 1575g, 50mm Aero version ostensibly adds just 175g to the low-profile, 1400g scandium version of Giant's new P-SLR1 wheel.
That's a lot less than the extra 375g that the Cosmic Carbone SLs (1775g) bring to the table with a very similar, steel-spoked, fairing design, and I imagine your older version of these wheels were well north of 1800g, if not 1900g.
If Giant can hit a sub-1600g actual weight, and consumers see 20% street-price reductions typical of the segment, a $1300 P-SLR1 Aero still sounds like a mighty tempting alternative to the $2000 street price of a set of 404 FC clinchers. 

I don't think Giant deserves any accolades for revolutionary breakthroughs on the launch of their wheel line. We'll have to see how well they execute, but as conceived, this new P-SLR1 line most likely will earn my vote & dollar as a consumer because they appear to have incrementally improved on, and combined the most progressive developments in wheelbuilding:
- wide rims? check.
- tubeless compatible? check.
- competitive weight, even if they're 5% over claimed? check
- aluminum braking w/ aero option that rivals Zipp 404? purportedly - they'll have to earn this check in a nonpartisan wind tunnel before I hand it to them, though.


----------



## beaverfever (Jul 7, 2007)

Resurrecting an old thread:



Zen Cyclery said:


> That is no alloy brake track! Instead its a carbon/plastic fearing over an alloy rim. ... but if they really cost 1600$ then they are never going to sell a single pair. Those look like great wheels but at about half that price.


Hed Jets have an alloy rim with carbon fairing, with spokes passing through holes in the fairing to the outer rim. Hed sells lots of wheels, have demonstrated their aero performance, and they have a good reputation.



Zen Cyclery said:


> With that said though Giant has not made any real improvements on a set of wheels that have been around for the better part of a decade. Its hard to ask 1600$ for that. The engineers at Giant did not design this wheel, they took a look at one of Mavic's best wheels from years past and decided to make some minor adjustments.


Mavic's Cosmic Carbone is past 15 years. That they still make and sell them is a bit amazing, and a bit silly.

Just because the Giant wheels have spokes that go through the carbon fairing in a similar way to those of a Carbone does not mean that the rim profile is the same, nor that the shape was not researched and improved. Small changes to the profile could have a greatly different outcome.

The Giant wheels have other things going for them that totally discount the idea that they are copies of the Carbone.


----------



## coachboyd (Jan 13, 2008)

With the carbon fairing though you really have no way of telling what is happening to the spoke inside of the fairing. Obviously with large bladed spokes like on the Cosmic they aren't going to twist a lot, but a round spoke or smaller spokes (like a CX Ray) will have the potential to twist inside the fairing.

To build those wheels you have to hold the spoke in place over 40mm away from the nipple. Once you get it up to tension the spoke will just start twisting inside, and when you ride it will start untwisting. Being able to see and feel the spokes to make sure there is no twist is a pretty big advantage for structural carbon vs. a fairing.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

coachboyd said:


> With the carbon fairing though you really have no way of telling what is happening to the spoke inside of the fairing. Obviously with large bladed spokes like on the Cosmic they aren't going to twist a lot, but a round spoke or smaller spokes (like a CX Ray) will have the potential to twist inside the fairing.
> 
> To build those wheels you have to hold the spoke in place over 40mm away from the nipple. Once you get it up to tension the spoke will just start twisting inside, and when you ride it will start untwisting. Being able to see and feel the spokes to make sure there is no twist is a pretty big advantage for structural carbon vs. a fairing.


Very good point.

-Eric


----------



## mtor (Mar 1, 2007)

petalpower said:


> They look nice. Trying to figure to the difference between the two P-SLR1 sets priced at $700 & $900.


$700 front and $900 back


----------



## emartin (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm bringing this post up because I was looking for some feedback. Everybody is talking about a fairing... I saw those wheels in person and the carbon seem very structural with hidden nipples... Nothing like Hed or Mavic. They looked pretty sweet, the weight and price is right imo... Anyone tried those?


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

Friend has them and likes them a lot but I don't have anything technical to provide other than his impressions. They appear to be well built with DT input.


----------



## emartin (Mar 11, 2009)

mimason said:


> Friend has them and likes them a lot but I don't have anything technical to provide other than his impressions. They appear to be well built with DT input.


Do you know if he run them tubeless?


----------



## Puke N Hurl (Dec 22, 2009)

Zen Cyclery said:


> ... Thats great and all but notice that the aero wheel is like the first Cabones... That is no alloy brake track! Instead its a carbon/plastic fearing over an alloy rim.


All due respect, Mr. Zen, but I REALLY think you should actually go look at the wheels before making statements like this...there IS an alloy braking surface and the composite is structural. There is absolutely nothing in common between these wheels and the Carbone.

My two cents: I have been riding a pair of the aero wheels for a few months now and am very happy with them. Haven't had to touch them with a spoke wrench once, the wider rim lets me run a bit lower tire pressure, the ride quality of these wheels is like nothing I have experienced and I don't seem to get blown around in cross winds like I have on a pair 38mm full composite rims...


----------



## sfzx (Nov 25, 2011)

Hey Bergmann,

Just thought I'd post my ten cents worth. These wheels look extremely similar to roval 45Sl Rapide. They are just 50mm deep. The roval were also developed with DT. They essentialy use dt240 hub internals with high flange drive side design rear hubs. They are for sure a carbon structural wheel, the spokes ending in the carbon not in the aluminum of the rim. The aluminum rim is bonded to the carbon and they also use DT aerolite spokes as this giant wheel does. Maybe Zens point is that the carbon is not actualy the tire securing part of the wheel and in that sense only a fairing over the aluminum clincher rim for aero effect. I have a set of the Roval with over one thousand miles on them now and love the wheels. The two are also very close in weight range. By the way if interested in Rovals I got them through peleton cycles in Fort Collins Colorado pretty good pricing if he still has a demo set left. around 800.00


----------



## minez01 (Mar 10, 2011)

BergMann said:


> Nick Legan ran an article on these wheels in Velonews. His article cited wind-tunnel drag numbers for these wheels that are neck-in-neck with the Zip 404 Firecrest. These wheels may resemble the Mavic wheels in that they use a fairing, but that's where the resemblance stops. These are built on a new, 21mm-wide rim platform, and as I and another poster pointed out, they're built by DT. Mavic's entire cosmic series performs miserably in the wind tunnel for their respective heights (Cos.Carbone SSL is closest to this Giant in weight & height, but it gets beat in the tunnel by a Zipp 101).
> 
> Given that they are also a wide-rim platform, only weigh 65g more than the 404 FC clinchers, and cost a full $1000 less at msrp, AND you don't have to deal with the nightmare of braking on carbon, I really don't see what's not to like.
> If they live up to the pre-release hype, these new Giant wheels looks like a legitimate 404 Killer - and with better braking to boot.
> ...


Just thought I'd share my view here: I agree with most of everything posted in this post. However, personally I don't believe that they will be a legitimate 404 killer, simply because of the brand factor. Sure, they may be on par with 404FC's (and obviously those with smaller budgets will look into them) but I think with Zipp they will always have the marketing advantage.

As a small example, lots of people here in Australia ride Giants. Like, LOTS. So when someone is looking for a new higher-end bike (I've known a few people now) most people always steer clear of Giant because it is too common, or associated with cheaper stuff, or something like that. There's nothing wrong with Giant high-end bikes, but people tend to steer clear because of the brand image. So I'm guessing it will be the same with these wheels: similar to 404's, and good if you can't afford 404's, but if you can, you buy Zipp, because they are Zipp.

Of course, having said that, the smart people can still buy them and have the same benefits as the 404's for $1000 less (assuming the first post turns out to be true). :thumbsup:


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

emartin said:


> Do you know if he run them tubeless?


No, w/ tubes.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

minez01 said:


> So when someone is looking for a new higher-end bike (I've known a few people now) most people always steer clear of Giant because it is too common, or associated with cheaper stuff, or something like that. There's nothing wrong with Giant high-end bikes, but people tend to steer clear because of the brand image. So I'm guessing it will be the same with these wheels: similar to 404's, and good if you can't afford 404's, but if you can, you buy Zipp, because they are Zipp.


Kind of like Trek stateside. I took the stickers off of my Reynolds. Can this be done with the Giant wheels?


----------



## wallyh3 (Apr 4, 2006)

*Giant wheelset*

I was thinking of them myself. I did notice though that Road c.c. weighed a set of the non-aeros at 1484 grams. A far cry, in my opinion and at least in this particular case, from Giant's claimed weight of 1390. If this weight discrepancy extrapolates to the aeros, I think it would influence my decision. Maybe just an anomaly though. Could it be?


----------



## emartin (Mar 11, 2009)

A member wrote me that he weighted his SLR1 AERO at 1589, for a claim weight of 1575...that's close enough for me.


----------



## FRIDIDE (Mar 26, 2012)

*Currently Testing Giant P-SLR1 Wheelset*

As the post title states I am currently test-riding these wheels. One week in so far and the wheels are revealing themselves:
- Stable in Cross winds: I am 5'7" at 142 lbs. so wind can push me around. These wheels are stable in cross winds (rides in 10mph, 15mph +). I was impressed. 
- Braking is excellent: One would expect this with the scandium braking surface.
-They wind-up fast: Enough said.
-Climb well: I did not think about them. This says alot.
-Stiff: Expected but not on the rediculous side. Our roads are harsh but after dialing in the tire pressure all was good. 
-Weight: Others have posted well on this so all I will say is that they weight is competative with other competator's full carbon clinchers. The question is: Is It is worth the extra weight for the braking surface?
-Cosmetics: So-so in my book but this is relative (full carbons always look cooler). On the plus side - the letters are lazer etched instead of cheep stickers.
-Internals: So far so good. I really like the rear hub's innerds.
-Tires: Runing with a set of Giant marked tires - Clinchers. I would like to ride them with tubeless for a comparison. 

Final Thoughts: I am really liking this wheels set. It it making me question my thoughts of procuring a set of 50 mm Boyd carbon-clinchers. I will have a better price on them then most so that factors in. (Boyd's also come with pads, skewers, and rim strips) I thought I would mind the weight difference (+90 g) but this has not been true. As I stated, I like the braking surface and the ease of not having to change pads between wheels sets. For an all around, all weather racing/trainer these are a very good option. I hope this helps.


----------

