BMW i4 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I recently drove from Amsterdam to Rome. A trip of about 1650 kilometers. A very nice trip via the "no speed limit Autobahn" of Germany, the mountains of Switzerland and the North of Italy, the turning roads of Italy and the hills of Tuscany. And do not forget the city trafic to get out of Amsterdam and into Rome. A great city by the way.

The iDrive7 system of my nicely revving 330i Touring registered that I did it in 13 hours and 15 minutes. I had to keep my foot down. I always went about 10% faster than the official speed limit (I like to keep my driving licence) and where there would be no speed limit (main part of Germany) I would hold on to a steady 190 kilometers p/hour. Trafic was fine.

The iDrive7 system did not record my stops but it must have been something like this:
  • 1st stint of 275 km
  • 15 minute stop for coffee, bathroom and leg stretching
  • 2nd stint of 275 km
  • 30 minute stop for coffee, a quick sandwich and to fill up the petrol tank
  • 3rd stint of 275 km
  • 15 minute stop because my wife was complaining
  • 4th stint of 275 km
  • 30 minute stop for dinner and a full tank
  • 5th stint of 275 km
  • 15 minute stop because my wife needs to freshen up a bit
  • 6th stint of 275 km

So we stopped for a total of 1 hour and 45 minutes, bringing the total travelling time to exactly 15 hours. It was fun, especially on the left lane of the Autobahn and in the mountains on the border of Switzerland and Italy. Petrol was pumping through my veins.

Which brings me to my question. How long will it take with the i4? Any ideas?

Car Wheel Tire Vehicle Hood
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Hi Hans,

We did Ams - Zürich in 3 stops in iX3 and back Zurich - Ams in 2 stops only! Start full charge, arrived to IONITY about 3-4% so really yolo’ing it.
I4 will be more aerodynamic than iX3, so I believe the limiting factor will be the bio breaks and added complexity of always stopping at IONITY (now you could just time the gas station stops).
Normally charging was faster than a regular toilet break + grab some food stops.
 

·
Registered
BMW 6 series coupe F13, BMW X3 G01
Joined
·
336 Posts
I recently drove from Amsterdam to Rome. A trip of about 1650 kilometers. A very nice trip via the "no speed limit Autobahn" of Germany, the mountains of Switzerland and the North of Italy, the turning roads of Italy and the hills of Tuscany. And do not forget the city trafic to get out of Amsterdam and into Rome. A great city by the way.

The iDrive7 system of my nicely revving 330i Touring registered that I did it in 13 hours and 15 minutes. I had to keep my foot down. I always went about 10% faster than the official speed limit (I like to keep my driving licence) and where there would be no speed limit (main part of Germany) I would hold on to a steady 190 kilometers p/hour. Trafic was fine.

The iDrive7 system did not record my stops but it must have been something like this:
  • 1st stint of 275 km
  • 15 minute stop for coffee, bathroom and leg stretching
  • 2nd stint of 275 km
  • 30 minute stop for coffee, a quick sandwich and to fill up the petrol tank
  • 3rd stint of 275 km
  • 15 minute stop because my wife was complaining
  • 4th stint of 275 km
  • 30 minute stop for dinner and a full tank
  • 5th stint of 275 km
  • 15 minute stop because my wife needs to freshen up a bit
  • 6th stint of 275 km

So we stopped for a total of 1 hour and 45 minutes, bringing the total travelling time to exactly 15 hours. It was fun, especially on the left lane of the Autobahn and in the mountains on the border of Switzerland and Italy. Petrol was pumping through my veins.

Which brings me to my question. How long will it take with the i4? Any ideas?

View attachment 1518
ABRP estimates a little less than 17h (14h driving + 3h charging with 10 stops of 12~21 min per session). Simulated using the BMW i4 alpha (not sure if accurate, namely consumption and charging curve), 110% speed, 150kg extra weight (extra persons + luggage) and 7% minimum charge level. you can try other settings.

Comparing with your experience stopping time would, with this simulation results, be greater. Then if you stop more time to have a dinner probably you would charge more and avoid a charging stop (but will nonetheless take more time overall).


World Map Font Terrestrial plant Screenshot


you might want to check some Tesla Bjorn road trips on YouTube (1000km videos) where he compares in a excel in the end the travel time of a phev (kia I think) with several electrical cars, to get a sense of comparison
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
There is truth in both replies. @Jcm78 came very close but there is more to this. Much more.

Thanks to @rangerek I took a closer look at the free version of A Better Route Planner. Not a bad app after all that gives you a couple of variables to play around with. Which I did of course.
The app has an "alpha profile" for the i4, which means that it has not been finalised yet. They do not mention whether this profile fits the eDrive40 or the M50, but as they use a reference consumption of 176 wH/km at 110 km/h I expect this is the base for the final eDrive40 profile.

Changing variables like maximum speed, reference speed and your preferences for longer or shorter stints may give you great insights in the actual travel time when going long distance. I will share my insights. Keep in mind that the following app settings were "fixed" at all time:

Font Number Screenshot Rectangle Document


I don't know about you but I have been living with the idea that long distance travelling with an EV is just no fun. I consider it a sacrifice for an otherwise very entertaining car. Youtube videos by semi-pro's have reinforced this idea: long distance travelling works best at 90 km/h. But it does not seem to be true. Of course it will give you the best range, but it is definitely not the fastest way to travel over long distance. At least if ABRP is something to go by.

So let's get to the results right away. Here's our trip from Amsterdam to Rome again, this time I'm driving the BMW i4 (alpha):

Rectangle Slope Font Plot Parallel


What can we learn:
  1. The slowest way to Rome is by maintaining the speed limits at all time and never going faster than 100 km/h. Total travelling time approximately 19,5 hours. A whopping 4,5 hours slower than my 330i Touring. On the other side only 5 charging stops needed which seems to be great (but it is not, more later). Also 3 hours slower than what @Jcm78 calculated. So he already knew what I would be writing down here. But I have not finished yet. You too @Jcm78 are way too slow.
  2. Speeding up to 130 km/h where possible works very well. You will have to make one extra stop, but the extra speed more than compensates. A reduction of total travel time of 2 hours. Are you impressed?
  3. Well you shouldn't be. Main part of our voyage is going through Germany and "die unübertroffene Autobahnen". No speed limits so we can easily increase speed to 160 km/h. We save 36 minutes in driving time. A simple equation learns us that we must have passed by 416 kilometers of unlimited Autobahn in order to realise this time saving. Downside is that we need one extra stop, 7 in total. So in the end we save just an extra 21 minutes of travel time.
  4. Nothing can be gained by increasing the speed even further to (exactly) the maximum speed the eDrive40 is capable of. Pedal to the metal reduces the driving time less than expected while Porsches and Audi's are still overtaking at warp speed (250 km/h). The same number of charging stops (7) but we need to charge longer. Exactly the same travel time as in the "max 160 km/h alternative" but just maybe a lot more fun?
So a preliminary conclusion is that you should not drive like your grandma, whatever Bjorn is telling you. Increase your speed to at least the maximum speed allowed at all times. And when in Germany increase your speed to at least 160 km/h where allowed. That is if your goal is to travel as fast as possible, not if you just want to be as economic as possible. And maybe in the mean time you can actually have some fun. But never more fun than 190 km/h!

Of course there are many more insights to be found. More to follow 😀
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,078 Posts
As I recall from an old video of Bjorn Nyland the optimal speed for most cars, if you want to reach your destination quickly (driving time+waiting time) was very fast. Like 170+ Km/h.
(So I guess this translates to drive as fast as possible at all times)
I don't have ABRP but fiddle with it if it is true in the simulation.

P.S. So I agree with Hans' latest post.
 

·
Registered
BMW 6 series coupe F13, BMW X3 G01
Joined
·
336 Posts
There is truth in both replies. @Jcm78 came very close but there is more to this. Much more.

Thanks to @rangerek I took a closer look at the free version of A Better Route Planner. Not a bad app after all that gives you a couple of variables to play around with. Which I did of course.
The app has an "alpha profile" for the i4, which means that it has not been finalised yet. They do not mention whether this profile fits the eDrive40 or the M50, but as they use a reference consumption of 176 wH/km at 110 km/h I expect this is the base for the final eDrive40 profile.

Changing variables like maximum speed, reference speed and your preferences for longer or shorter stints may give you great insights in the actual travel time when going long distance. I will share my insights. Keep in mind that the following app settings were "fixed" at all time:

View attachment 1526

I don't know about you but I have been living with the idea that long distance travelling with an EV is just no fun. I consider it a sacrifice for an otherwise very entertaining car. Youtube videos by semi-pro's have reinforced this idea: long distance travelling works best at 90 km/h. But it does not seem to be true. Of course it will give you the best range, but it is definitely not the fastest way to travel over long distance. At least if ABRP is something to go by.

So let's get to the results right away. Here's our trip from Amsterdam to Rome again, this time I'm driving the BMW i4 (alpha):

View attachment 1527

What can we learn:
  1. The slowest way to Rome is by maintaining the speed limits at all time and never going faster than 100 km/h. Total travelling time approximately 19,5 hours. A whopping 4,5 hours slower than my 330i Touring. On the other side only 5 charging stops needed which seems to be great (but it is not, more later). Also 3 hours slower than what @Jcm78 calculated. So he already knew what I would be writing down here. But I have not finished yet. You too @Jcm78 are way too slow.
  2. Speeding up to 130 km/h where possible works very well. You will have to make one extra stop, but the extra speed more than compensates. A reduction of total travel time of 2 hours. Are you impressed?
  3. Well you shouldn't be. Main part of our voyage is going through Germany and "die unübertroffene Autobahnen". No speed limits so we can easily increase speed to 160 km/h. We save 36 minutes in driving time. A simple equation learns us that we must have passed by 416 kilometers of unlimited Autobahn in order to realise this time saving. Downside is that we need one extra stop, 7 in total. So in the end we save just an extra 21 minutes of travel time.
  4. Nothing can be gained by increasing the speed even further to (exactly) the maximum speed the eDrive40 is capable of. Pedal to the metal reduces the driving time less than expected while Porsches and Audi's are still overtaking at warp speed (250 km/h). The same number of charging stops (7) but we need to charge longer. Exactly the same travel time as in the "max 160 km/h alternative" but just maybe a lot more fun?
So a preliminary conclusion is that you should not drive like your grandma, whatever Bjorn is telling you. Increase your speed to at least the maximum speed allowed at all times. And when in Germany increase your speed to at least 160 km/h where allowed. That is if your goal is to travel as fast as possible, not if you just want to be as economic as possible. And maybe in the mean time you can actually have some fun. But never more fun than 190 km/h!

Of course there are many more insights to be found. More to follow 😀
That is a great exercise Hans!

Not sure what would be the impact (it depends on what charge level the simulation loads and if takes or not the charging curve into consideration) but the only thing I would change from your "fixed settings" would be the Charger Max SoC to around 70 to 80%. This is because the charging curve slows down a lot after 80% and from what I been hearing (mostly from Bjorn) it compensates more to move to the next charger and avoid the "slower charging zones" of the battery (in some cars even below 10% is a slower zone).

Analyses the iX3 on ionity
BMW iX3 - 8-100% charging at Ionity analyzed - YouTube

And here Bjorn on the iX3 versus other brands.
BMW iX3, VW ID4, Audi e-tron and MB EQC charging comparison - YouTube

BMW didn't even release data for the i4 of charging curve after 80% but you can see where it's going.
Slope Rectangle Font Parallel Engineering
 

·
Registered
BMW 6 series coupe F13, BMW X3 G01
Joined
·
336 Posts
As I recall from an old video of Bjorn Nyland the optimal speed for most cars, if you want to reach your destination quickly (driving time+waiting time) was very fast. Like 170+ Km/h.
(So I guess this translates to drive as fast as possible at all times)
I don't have ABRP but fiddle with it if it is true in the simulation.

P.S. So I agree with Hans' latest post.
This one ;) fastest was 190kmh and charge 10%-60% - but much greater consumption as expected ;)

Optimal cruising speed for Model 3 Performance - YouTube

Font Material property Temperature Parallel Number


Green Vehicle registration plate Automotive tire Font Line
 

·
Registered
335i convertible, BMW K1600b mc
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
That is a great exercise Hans!

Not sure what would be the impact (it depends on what charge level the simulation loads and if takes or not the charging curve into consideration) but the only thing I would change from your "fixed settings" would be the Charger Max SoC to around 70 to 80%. This is because the charging curve slows down a lot after 80% and from what I been hearing (mostly from Bjorn) it compensates more to move to the next charger and avoid the "slower charging zones" of the battery (in some cars even below 10% is a slower zone).

Analyses the iX3 on ionity
BMW iX3 - 8-100% charging at Ionity analyzed - YouTube

And here Bjorn on the iX3 versus other brands.
BMW iX3, VW ID4, Audi e-tron and MB EQC charging comparison - YouTube

BMW didn't even release data for the i4 of charging curve after 80% but you can see where it's going.
View attachment 1528
I find in my Kona EV, It charges at a higher rate between 20-70%. I make more short charging stops but I don't care about going faster and depleting my SOC, cuz charging is quicker. I've never fully timed it all out but it definitely feels quicker doing it the Bjorn way. And it gets boring , charging for too long hehehe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
Nice comments, some very interesting stuff there.
Another way of looking at this is the "man versus machine" point of view.
If we look again at my Amsterdam - Rome trip with the petrol swallowing 330i (first post in this topic), we see I had to take breaks for 1h 45 min or 11,7% of total travel time.

Take note that
charging time = survival time (food and bathroom) = rest time = quality time.

What happens when we change the Sapphire Black 330i Touring for an i4 (alpha) in any color you like?

Rectangle Product Azure Slope Plot


I consider the breaks we took on our previous trip to Rome the minimum required. Allthough the machine could go much faster (2x 10 minute fuelling stop would be sufficient for the 330i) the human driver can not. By the way, our actual breaks may have been longer than what I calculated here, 30 minutes is not much for dinner.

Look at the graph, when driving the i4 (alpha) in "range anxiety mode" our resting stops are only 8,8% of total driving time. In other words, you would be on the roads for 19,5 hours and you get 5 stops of 20 minutes each. Killing! I know I would be really tired after such a journey (and the next day) and I do not even get to carry 2 adolescents in the back any more.

So speeding up is necessary in order to create more time for relaxation. Our trip should be fun, right?
Looking at it this way, again I conclude that driving as fast as you can is the intelligent thing to do. Starting at a "minimum max speed" of 130 km/h relaxation time is equal or better than what I did on my previous trip. And allthough a max speed of 190 km/h did not reduce travel time compared to 160 km/h, it does increase total quality time during your travels (that is if you and your wife are still talking to each other).

So again, don't be like your grandma. Drive your EV like you would any other car :)

One more note. The only reason we get this (slightly surprising) outcome is that the i4's charging is so efficient. Yes, the battery will be drained quickly when going at 190 km/h. But it charges really quick too. Actually it charges faster than I can have dinner. So while we are all focussing on maximum range (look at all advertising and reviews), we should actually only be focussed on getting the fastest charging EV we can afford.
 

·
Registered
BMW 6 series coupe F13, BMW X3 G01
Joined
·
336 Posts
I have been looking for the video(s) where Bjorn explains this. But there are just too many (long) video's on his website so I have not been able to find it yet. Does anyone have a link?
Check this one at 15:20
Race between e-Niro and e-tron with @krisrifa - YouTube

What I understand is that if the battery is "cold" the charging speed is limited - what he calls "coldgate".

Ideally, if the car has in the GPS that is arriving at a charging point it should heat up the battery - I believe Tesla does this, not sure about BMW.

This "yolo" workaround consists of quick accelerations that generate high energy discharges and heat up the battery before charging.

ps: he has a couple of videos with "races" Kris Rifa in Norway where there is a mirror version of Kris, which is a fun concept. See here:
Audi E-Tron VS Kia e-Niro 1000km Range Challenge feat. @Bjørn Nyland (EV-King) - YouTube
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
So the big question remains. Can we go even faster?.

In a regular ICE you would just plant your foot down. This will result in higher speed, shorter travel time, higher risk of speed tickets.
An EV will add an extra factor. Longer charging times and/or more stops.

ABRP let's you play with the "reference speed". Default is 100%, which means that you will allways drive at the maximum speed allowed. A reference speed of 110% for example means that you always drive 10% faster than allowed.

Where I live there are speed cameras everywhere you go, and fines are really expensive. Therefore I like a reference speed of 110%. It is what I do most of the time. 55 km/h in the city. 110 km/h on the Dutch motor ways from 6AM to 7PM. And 143 km/h in France and at home from 7PM to 6AM. Combined with the wonderful and money saving "Flitsmeister" app, it means that the risk of shockingly high fines or worse (losing you driver licence) stays within acceptable limits. Boring? Hell no! I floor the pedal in every sharp corner I see. Ask my wife, she will tell you it's true.
Just remember @poterico2, straight line speed is overrated.

We still have to beat the best time of @Jcm78 so I played around with reference speeds of 100%, 110% and 120%. I do not advise the latter, this will be at your own risk.

Rectangle Slope Font Plot Parallel


What can we learn? Your i4 will reward a slightly more agressive driving style with reduced travel time. Just like your ICE used to do.
A reference speed of 110% will save you up to 40 minutes on our Amsterdam to Rome trip or 3,9% of total travel time compared to the 100% reference. The non advised 120% speed will save you even another 19 minutes.

So there it is. We have beaten @Jcm78 by 21 minutes @110% reference speed. And we are only 1,5 hours slower than the soon to be forgotten 330i Touring.
Overall conclusion: An i4 M50 is, despite it's M badge, exactly 10% slower than a 2019 330i Touring. Who would have thought that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
One extra conclusion can be drawn from the graph in the prevous post. There seems to be an optimal balance between (high) speed and (low) charging time at 160 km/h. In our calculations travel time will be shortest at this speed.

Not far off from Bjorn's conclusions!

As I recall from an old video of Bjorn Nyland the optimal speed for most cars, if you want to reach your destination quickly (driving time+waiting time) was very fast. Like 170+ Km/h.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
One extra conclusion can be drawn from the graph in the prevous post. There seems to be an optimal balance between (high) speed and (low) charging time at 160 km/h. In our calculations travel time will be shortest at this speed.

Not far off from Bjorn's conclusions!
great thread Hans. In reality though, some extra factors will be your anxiety as you get to low SOC (and your risk aversion) and discipline (no unnecessary pee breaks if not IONITY or some other proven 250+ kWh HPC station), plus added randomness like traffic along your HPC route and/or really bad weather or headwind. From personal experience ABRP is rather modest when it comes to iX3 and perhaps i4, so maybe possible to beat those times. We will do AMS - Barcelona soon, so will upload my times, number of stops etc
 

·
Registered
BMW 6 series coupe F13, BMW X3 G01
Joined
·
336 Posts
I was playing around on ABRP with the average speed above speed limit (reference speed) and here's the results structured in a different way:

Font Parallel Number Rectangle Slope


Key highlights:

1. If you depart w/ 100% and charge on the way between 10% ~ 80% (to avoid the slower charging curve zone) there is a considerable difference (in time and km) between the 1st leg (ie from departure to the 1st charger) and the next legs.

2. The average km / leg (107~131 km) or time / leg (43min ~ 69 min) is considerable shorter than what would be the normal stops for an ICE car trip. There are even some legs with travel times as low as 32, 33 or 34 min, which are very short legs by ICE cars standards. This is specially a point to take in consideration if traveling with family and kids, as some might like the stops but some may not, and in the end you need to manage them all (on top of the chargings) ;)

3. The vehicle advertised range (400km~500km, of course dependent on many factors, epa, wltp - whatever) has nothing to do with real leg range on long trips, specially if you take into account using the 10% to 80% charge levels between legs. The stops are considerable shorter and you end up doing legs of ~130km or around ~100km if you go faster.

For long trips it is what it is. Personally, it doesn't bother me, as I would nowadays rather take a plane or a fast train on a >1.000km trip (family or professional), so for 250~400km weekend / break trips is perfectly manageable with one or two stops.

Maybe someone with real experience in electrical cars and long trips can comment better :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
I've been driving Tesla M3P for nerly 2 years. The longest trip I've done in that time is about 150 miles (300 round trip). That would usually entail only one charging stop, which was usually at my destination whilst having lunch. I went London to Birmingham 2 weeks ago, which also only needed one stop. I generally stop to charge after about 2-3 hours, as that's when I also want a break. Speeds faster than about 140 kph tend to get you noticed by the authorities in this country, so I tend to hover around 120-130.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
In reality though, some extra factors .....
Fair point.

Obviously my calculations are very theoretical and there are a number of variables that need to be taken into account (trafic, weather and as you say extra built in security). My analysis aims to show the effects of changing a limited number of variables while all other remain constant.

But you are right, there is nothing like real life experience. So that's what makes your experience with the iX3 very valuable. Keep it coming! The i4 will probably do that and even more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Interesting point of view. Some remarks on your analyis below:

1. If you depart w/ 100% and charge on the way between 10% ~ 80% (to avoid the slower charging curve zone) there is a considerable difference (in time and km) between the 1st leg (ie from departure to the 1st charger) and the next legs.
I guess this makes sense. The first leg starts with 100% battery charge. Suppose the average leg would use the battery for 60% (from 70% to 10%), then in the first leg you would have 90% available (from 100% to 10%). A factor 1,5 more. On top of that the first leg is in the Netherlands. Speed is relevantly lower and chargers are really close to each other, so you would never have to take an early stop because the next charger is too far away.

2. The average km / leg (107~131 km) or time / leg (43min ~ 69 min) is considerable shorter than what would be the normal stops for an ICE car trip. There are even some legs with travel times as low as 32, 33 or 34 min, which are very short legs by ICE cars standards. This is specially a point to take in consideration if traveling with family and kids, as some might like the stops but some may not, and in the end you need to manage them all (on top of the chargings) ;)
The number of stops you have calculated is very high. Let's have a look at the "100% reference speed". You calculated 11 charging stops, versus 5 to 7 in my calculations. I guess it has to do with your maximum speed of 200 km/h. This speed is higher than the optimum of around 160 km/h. So shorter stints, and longer travel time.

3. The vehicle advertised range (400km~500km, of course dependent on many factors, epa, wltp - whatever) has nothing to do with real leg range on long trips, specially if you take into account using the 10% to 80% charge levels between legs. The stops are considerable shorter and you end up doing legs of ~130km or around ~100km if you go faster.
We are searching for "the fastest voyage". Obviously the manufacturers will only publish the range for the much slower and more economic WLTP traject.
Legs of 100 km will only happen at excessive speed. I guess 200 km/h should from now on be considered excessive.

For long trips it is what it is. Personally, it doesn't bother me, as I would nowadays rather take a plane or a fast train on a >1.000km trip (family or professional), so for 250~400km weekend / break trips is perfectly manageable with one or two stops.
It is what it is, for sure. My calculations were meant to show the effects of high speed, which is why I chose the voyage through Germany. For the record, in real life I never went to Rome.
And let's not forget, as @Rincewind already mentioned, most of us will be bound by speed limits somewhere between 100 and 130 km/h.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 · (Edited)
For those who are interested the average driving time and kilometers per stint, in my calculations based on a realistic 110% reference speed:
Rectangle Slope Font Plot Parallel


For many of us a top speed of 130 km/h will be most realistic. A little over 2 hour drive over 237 km's, followed by a 24 minute stop. Not far off from current ICE life.
In this scenario ABRP calculates the following charging sessions:

1. from 18 to 70%, 20 minutes, 350kW
2. from 5 to 67%, 23 minutes, 350kW
3. from 5 to 68%, 33 minutes, 150kW
4. from 5 to 80%, 33 minutes, 350kW
5. from 5 to 75%, 28 minutes, 300kW
6. from 5 to 59%, 19 minutes, 350kW

I set the maximum charging level to 100% in the app settings, so interesting to see that ABPR "knows better" and does not go past the 80% charging level.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top