EVs Guilt free lead foot? [Genuine technical question]
Discussion
So in a petrol / diesel powered car, we are all pretty much on board with the idea that accelerating at full throttle is not very efficient. But does the same apply to an electric car powertrain?
Perhaps I should be more specific:
If we want to get up to speed to cruise (legally of course) at 60mph in an ICE car, we know that it’s more fuel efficient to accelerate for longer period of time, at a lower rate of acceleration, than it is to do a shorter burst of full-throttle acceleration.
I think the logic is that:
1) Under full throttle / peak acceleration the engine air/fuel mix is adjusted to run richer – making sure that all the oxygen in the cylinder is fully used to make maximum possible power, even if a little fuel gets wasted (whereas at part throttle / low load the engine can run lean and prioritize using all the injected fuel efficiently, with oxygen to spare)
2) Under full throttle / peak acceleration the engine will be operating at higher engine speeds (in a lower gear) that are less efficient due to pumping losses – which I only really understand to the extent that there is more energy lost pumping the gasses into and out of the engine at 6,000 rpm than at 1,750rpm
3) Under high load conditions, the engine sometimes over-fuels to actually use spare fuel to keep the in-cylinder temps down.* (*Not sure if that would happen during a single short burst of acceleration up to 60mph, or only during prolonged ‘enthusiastic’ driving)
All of which is a bit of a shame, since accelerating briskly up to the legal speed limit is, well, fun.
But do the same ‘rules’ apply for an electric powertrain?
In short, there is no air/fuel ratio, there is no ‘more efficient higher gear’, and there is no immediately obvious parallel to over-fuelling**
(**The only immediately obvious issue would be if greater electrical energy was consumed to keep the motor / battery cool under hard acceleration – but would that really be needed during / after a brief (4.5 second ?) 0-60mph run?)
I already enjoy the fact that I can zip away from the lights indecently quickly without the noise / drama / potential subsequent finger pointing (“who does that tw*t think he is, Nigel Mansell”), I’d enjoy it even more if I knew I could accelerate rapidly up to my cruising speed without even paying an efficiency penalty..
(and yes – I appreciate that I’d be likely to be eating away my expensive tyres more rapidly, and therefore not being efficient in that respect..)
I’d appreciate any educated insights!
Neil.
Perhaps I should be more specific:
If we want to get up to speed to cruise (legally of course) at 60mph in an ICE car, we know that it’s more fuel efficient to accelerate for longer period of time, at a lower rate of acceleration, than it is to do a shorter burst of full-throttle acceleration.
I think the logic is that:
1) Under full throttle / peak acceleration the engine air/fuel mix is adjusted to run richer – making sure that all the oxygen in the cylinder is fully used to make maximum possible power, even if a little fuel gets wasted (whereas at part throttle / low load the engine can run lean and prioritize using all the injected fuel efficiently, with oxygen to spare)
2) Under full throttle / peak acceleration the engine will be operating at higher engine speeds (in a lower gear) that are less efficient due to pumping losses – which I only really understand to the extent that there is more energy lost pumping the gasses into and out of the engine at 6,000 rpm than at 1,750rpm
3) Under high load conditions, the engine sometimes over-fuels to actually use spare fuel to keep the in-cylinder temps down.* (*Not sure if that would happen during a single short burst of acceleration up to 60mph, or only during prolonged ‘enthusiastic’ driving)
All of which is a bit of a shame, since accelerating briskly up to the legal speed limit is, well, fun.
But do the same ‘rules’ apply for an electric powertrain?
In short, there is no air/fuel ratio, there is no ‘more efficient higher gear’, and there is no immediately obvious parallel to over-fuelling**
(**The only immediately obvious issue would be if greater electrical energy was consumed to keep the motor / battery cool under hard acceleration – but would that really be needed during / after a brief (4.5 second ?) 0-60mph run?)
I already enjoy the fact that I can zip away from the lights indecently quickly without the noise / drama / potential subsequent finger pointing (“who does that tw*t think he is, Nigel Mansell”), I’d enjoy it even more if I knew I could accelerate rapidly up to my cruising speed without even paying an efficiency penalty..
(and yes – I appreciate that I’d be likely to be eating away my expensive tyres more rapidly, and therefore not being efficient in that respect..)
I’d appreciate any educated insights!
Neil.
Edited by shedtastic on Wednesday 29th May 20:04
There won’t be much in it, but accelerating gradually will be more efficient. Hard acceleration results in added electrical resistive heating, greater drivetrain gear and bearing friction, and added tyre distortion, which all sap energy. Accelerating quickly up to cruising speed also means that you’re spending more time at higher speed overcoming greater aerodynamic drag.
Engines are actually most efficient at close to full load.
But most efficient doesn't mean "uses less fuel", as using 10bhp at 10% efficiency is still using less fuel than 100bhp at 20% efficiency.
Same with an EV really. Accelerate harder and you'll use more power, so use more energy over a given time period.
However as noted above, if you're charging at home and don't need the range, the difference in cost is not worth worrying about.
But most efficient doesn't mean "uses less fuel", as using 10bhp at 10% efficiency is still using less fuel than 100bhp at 20% efficiency.
Same with an EV really. Accelerate harder and you'll use more power, so use more energy over a given time period.
However as noted above, if you're charging at home and don't need the range, the difference in cost is not worth worrying about.
ICE...
The most efficient way to accelerate an ICE car is with high torque and low rpm.
So near full throttle is fine, in fact it's desirable, as long as you change gear before the rpm threshold where efficiency starts to drop.
If you accelerate too gingerly, you will never get the engine into its peak efficiency regime.
This may seem counterintuitive based on your opening post, but the numbers don't lie.
Don't be afraid to use lots of throttle during acceleration, just don't use all the revs if you want to save fuel.
The map below will give you an idea where that regime is for a modern turbo 4.
It's one of the few that was produced with efficiency values rather than BSFC values.
At 3000 rpm and about 75% torque, the engine will operate at about 37% efficiency (on a dyno).
Not quite what you'll get at the wheels of course, once gearbox and other transmission losses are accounted for.
EV...
As mentioned by Dave, high torque is achieved by a high current supply to the windings, increasing the I2R losses in the stator and, to some degree, in the power electronics feeding the motor.
For passenger car drive cycles this is not really an issue, simply because it's impossible to demand high acceleration all the time without either rapidly reaching the top speed of the car or for a drive cycle with lots of braking events.
For a one-off max attack acceleration event, the motor torque demand is more than an order of magnitude higher than the torque to keep the car at a constant speed, at least up to 100 mph anyway.
For example, a BMW iX requires just 66 bhp to cruise at 100 mph, it will however require around 660 bhp to accelerate it at 0.5g (or 11 mph increase per second) from 90 mph to 100 mph.
Do the same comparison at 50 mph, and it's just 15 bhp to cruise and 330 bhp to accelrate at 0.5 g.
Having the peak efficiency of the motor/drive system at low torque and high rpm is desirable, as it minimises the energy consumption to cruise the car at speeds where significant aero drag is constantly present.
For tyre rolling resistance, the cruise speed doesn't make any meaningful difference to the energy consumption per mile, as it remains as a very low fixed (and constantly present) torque demand at the driven wheels.
You can do your own calcs to get a better idea of exactly how much power is required for both acceleration and rolling resistance using these two universal relationships:
Power to accelerate = 6 bhp per ton per mph per g.
Power to overcome rolling resistance = 6 bhp per ton per 100 mph.
Both have a linear relationship to speed, hence the 'per mph' component.
Power to overcome drag doesn't have a simple universal relationship, as it has a cube law relationship with speed, and it also depends on air temperature, but no direct relationship to the car's mass.
The key criteria for calculating it is the car's frontal area multiplied by the coefficient of drag, or CdA.
Anyway that's where the energy goes, now, to understand the difference between the ICE and the EV, here is an example efficiency map for a single speed motor, meaning you can relate the motor speed directly to the road speed.
Not that at 4500 rpm it enters into a fixed power regime, with the torque decaying as the speed increases.
Below that it can deliver full rated torque for maximum acceleration.
Typically that switchover point is positioned just above 60 mph, which is why many EVs have blistering 0-60 times and then the propulsion system derates to minimise size/cost/losses, etc.
To achieve the very best efficiency during acceleration, a low torque demand throughout would be preferable, say 25% torque.
If it's simply to accelerate the car once down the slip road for a long motorway trip, I'd say floor it.
The most efficient way to accelerate an ICE car is with high torque and low rpm.
So near full throttle is fine, in fact it's desirable, as long as you change gear before the rpm threshold where efficiency starts to drop.
If you accelerate too gingerly, you will never get the engine into its peak efficiency regime.
This may seem counterintuitive based on your opening post, but the numbers don't lie.
Don't be afraid to use lots of throttle during acceleration, just don't use all the revs if you want to save fuel.
The map below will give you an idea where that regime is for a modern turbo 4.
It's one of the few that was produced with efficiency values rather than BSFC values.
At 3000 rpm and about 75% torque, the engine will operate at about 37% efficiency (on a dyno).
Not quite what you'll get at the wheels of course, once gearbox and other transmission losses are accounted for.
EV...
As mentioned by Dave, high torque is achieved by a high current supply to the windings, increasing the I2R losses in the stator and, to some degree, in the power electronics feeding the motor.
For passenger car drive cycles this is not really an issue, simply because it's impossible to demand high acceleration all the time without either rapidly reaching the top speed of the car or for a drive cycle with lots of braking events.
For a one-off max attack acceleration event, the motor torque demand is more than an order of magnitude higher than the torque to keep the car at a constant speed, at least up to 100 mph anyway.
For example, a BMW iX requires just 66 bhp to cruise at 100 mph, it will however require around 660 bhp to accelerate it at 0.5g (or 11 mph increase per second) from 90 mph to 100 mph.
Do the same comparison at 50 mph, and it's just 15 bhp to cruise and 330 bhp to accelrate at 0.5 g.
Having the peak efficiency of the motor/drive system at low torque and high rpm is desirable, as it minimises the energy consumption to cruise the car at speeds where significant aero drag is constantly present.
For tyre rolling resistance, the cruise speed doesn't make any meaningful difference to the energy consumption per mile, as it remains as a very low fixed (and constantly present) torque demand at the driven wheels.
You can do your own calcs to get a better idea of exactly how much power is required for both acceleration and rolling resistance using these two universal relationships:
Power to accelerate = 6 bhp per ton per mph per g.
Power to overcome rolling resistance = 6 bhp per ton per 100 mph.
Both have a linear relationship to speed, hence the 'per mph' component.
Power to overcome drag doesn't have a simple universal relationship, as it has a cube law relationship with speed, and it also depends on air temperature, but no direct relationship to the car's mass.
The key criteria for calculating it is the car's frontal area multiplied by the coefficient of drag, or CdA.
Anyway that's where the energy goes, now, to understand the difference between the ICE and the EV, here is an example efficiency map for a single speed motor, meaning you can relate the motor speed directly to the road speed.
Not that at 4500 rpm it enters into a fixed power regime, with the torque decaying as the speed increases.
Below that it can deliver full rated torque for maximum acceleration.
Typically that switchover point is positioned just above 60 mph, which is why many EVs have blistering 0-60 times and then the propulsion system derates to minimise size/cost/losses, etc.
To achieve the very best efficiency during acceleration, a low torque demand throughout would be preferable, say 25% torque.
If it's simply to accelerate the car once down the slip road for a long motorway trip, I'd say floor it.
I love the depth and generosity of GT9's informative posts!
Not much can be added to that, other than to expand the original question about 'guilt'.
The easiest way to have a real life appreciation of how much extra juice is wasted nailing an EV to 60mph, is to look at how much extra it costs you in terms of running the car. And it's very, very little.
My 550hp EV costs around £7 to charge and will do about 240 miles driven like a saint. If I drive it without and particular care, including full throttle several times along a journey to return to cruising speed after having to slow, it'll do about 200 miles for the same £7 charge. So I've wasted about 20% of my range, or about £1.40 of the retail value of electricity - clearly not very much in financial terms so by extension not very much value in the wasted energy and not really any 'guilt' to speak of.
The same works if you look at the cost of driving a fast ICE car, fast. The wallet hit is huge by comparison. Thrash an ICE performance car and you can drop straight into single digit mpg, easily.
For me a major appeal of a fast EV is the ability to actually use and enjoy the performance as often as you wish, without worrying about the fuel bill. Or, as you say, attracting wagging fingers.
Just be careful if you indulge, there are other ways rapid acceleration can result in guilt...
Not much can be added to that, other than to expand the original question about 'guilt'.
The easiest way to have a real life appreciation of how much extra juice is wasted nailing an EV to 60mph, is to look at how much extra it costs you in terms of running the car. And it's very, very little.
My 550hp EV costs around £7 to charge and will do about 240 miles driven like a saint. If I drive it without and particular care, including full throttle several times along a journey to return to cruising speed after having to slow, it'll do about 200 miles for the same £7 charge. So I've wasted about 20% of my range, or about £1.40 of the retail value of electricity - clearly not very much in financial terms so by extension not very much value in the wasted energy and not really any 'guilt' to speak of.
The same works if you look at the cost of driving a fast ICE car, fast. The wallet hit is huge by comparison. Thrash an ICE performance car and you can drop straight into single digit mpg, easily.
For me a major appeal of a fast EV is the ability to actually use and enjoy the performance as often as you wish, without worrying about the fuel bill. Or, as you say, attracting wagging fingers.
Just be careful if you indulge, there are other ways rapid acceleration can result in guilt...
SWoll said:
You will pay an efficiency penalty for rapid acceleration.
If you don't care about absolute range and are charging at home cheaply it's not something worth worrying about in the slightest though.
Even more so if your lease deal includes maintenance. If you don't care about absolute range and are charging at home cheaply it's not something worth worrying about in the slightest though.
It's so cheap that the the only limitation is your own judgement.
Might be worrying when the Model 3 Performances get into council ASBO territory price wise.
Edited by ChocolateFrog on Thursday 30th May 02:13
Edited by ChocolateFrog on Thursday 30th May 02:13
Edited by ChocolateFrog on Thursday 30th May 02:14
Kawasicki said:
It’s the tyre dust that you should feel guilty about. Rapid acceleration definitely makes more.
But then when you rapidly brake to have another go, you generate next to no brake dust 
Does an powerful EV 0-60 sprint actually generate more tyre dust than an equivalent ICE? I'd have thought less in that scenario as the EV's slip their wheels far less.
TheDeuce said:
Thrash an ICE performance car and you can drop straight into single digit mpg, easily.
I was thinking about making this point in my opening post.Unless you are an Indy 500 driver, any acceleration event is usually matched by a similar deceleration event where energy is lost without doing useful work.
If the kinetic energy is not used to coast the car, it's either going into the friction brakes, or in the case of the EV, back to the battery.
The near-zero round trip efficiency of turning fuel into heat in the brakes of an ICE car (in terms of contributing useful energy towards covering a certain distance) is the main reason why the consumption plummets.
At least in the EV, you get a fair amount of this back, regardless of how aggressive the braking and acceleration is.
It would of course be better to accelerate less aggressively, and in an ideal world, use all the kinetic energy for coasting, but as you've said, the high average efficiency of the propulsion system, both during acceleration and regen makes the energy and financial penalty far lower.
Apologies to those who've heard it before, but it's worth reiterating that the same applies to the carbon footprint for using the car where electricity grids are already substantially decarbonised.
In that respect, there is no better propulsion system for guilt-free enthusiastic and/or high speed driving.
That is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.
If green hydrogen or e-fuel ever gets to the point of being a truly low-carbon alternative at affordable cost, then it's because the electricity to produce it is plentiful, cheap and 100% renewably-sourced.
In which case, battery production footprints also shrink substantially and the usage phase footprint for an EV shrinks to zero.
The EVs carbon footprint always stays several steps ahead of the alternatives, because 'efficiency'.
Kawasicki said:
It’s the tyre dust that you should feel guilty about. Rapid acceleration definitely makes more.
Someone posted a very technical response to that question a while ago around why EVs emit less of that too. Can't remember the exact details but it related to nature of individual power pulses in an ICE compared to the 'smooth' power of a motor.
TheDeuce said:
Kawasicki said:
It’s the tyre dust that you should feel guilty about. Rapid acceleration definitely makes more.
But then when you rapidly brake to have another go, you generate next to no brake dust Does an powerful EV 0-60 sprint actually generate more tyre dust than an equivalent ICE? I'd have thought less in that scenario as the EV's slip their wheels far less.
Kawasicki said:
TheDeuce said:
Kawasicki said:
It’s the tyre dust that you should feel guilty about. Rapid acceleration definitely makes more.
But then when you rapidly brake to have another go, you generate next to no brake dust Does an powerful EV 0-60 sprint actually generate more tyre dust than an equivalent ICE? I'd have thought less in that scenario as the EV's slip their wheels far less.
That is different to your point about general high torque levels during more typical driving - although I'd dispute that too, driven sensibly in 'eco' modes a decent EV is very good at controlling torque and it would be odd if it was setup to deliver a higher rate of acceleration in any circumstance than they tyres would appreciate - because doing so would harm efficiency.
Kawasicki said:
More accessible torque, more of the time, means more tyre slip and more tyre wear. Even if you have a perfectly smooth torque delivery, if you put more force through a contact patch you will wear the tyre faster.
Well, here's a question relating to a 0-60 run.Car A supplies a constant 3000 Nm of low oscillation torque to the rear wheels, but the car weighs 20% more.
Car B supplies a variable and high oscillation torque, peaking at over 5000 Nm to the front wheels, with a torque discontinuity at 35 mph to change gears.
The area under the torque curve for car B is slightly higher due to the high peak wheel torque.
The area under the torque curve of what is actually converted to acceleration force is likely to be higher for car A because there is no traction loss.
Car A carries a 'nameplate' peak torque value of 310 Nm at the motor.
Car B carries a 'nameplate' peak torque value of 350 Nm at the engine.
Neither nameplate value accounts for gearing between the motor or engine and the wheels.
Both reach 60 mph within approximately the same time.
Both are mainstream VAG cars.
Which one suffered higher tyre wear?
To assist, the wheel torque vs speed graphic below is a simplification of the actual torque at the driven wheels, as well as the sort of oscillations around nominal torque due to the nature of the prime mover providing the torque.
GT9 said:
Kawasicki said:
More accessible torque, more of the time, means more tyre slip and more tyre wear. Even if you have a perfectly smooth torque delivery, if you put more force through a contact patch you will wear the tyre faster.
Well, here's a question relating to a 0-60 run.Car A supplies a constant 3000 Nm of low oscillation torque to the rear wheels, but the car weighs 20% more.
Car B supplies a variable and high oscillation torque, peaking at over 5000 Nm to the front wheels, with a torque discontinuity at 35 mph to change gears.
The area under the torque curve for car B is slightly higher due to the high peak wheel torque.
The area under the torque curve of what is actually converted to acceleration force is likely to be higher for car A because there is no traction loss.
Car A carries a 'nameplate' peak torque value of 310 Nm at the motor.
Car B carries a 'nameplate' peak torque value of 350 Nm at the engine.
Neither nameplate value accounts for gearing between the motor or engine and the wheels.
Both reach 60 mph within approximately the same time.
Both are mainstream VAG cars.
Which one suffered higher tyre wear?
To assist, the wheel torque vs speed graphic below is a simplification of the actual torque at the driven wheels, as well as the sort of oscillations around nominal torque due to the nature of the prime mover providing the torque.
shedtastic said:
So in a petrol / diesel powered car, we are all pretty much on board with the idea that accelerating at full throttle is not very efficient. But does the same apply to an electric car powertrain?
Perhaps I should be more specific:
If we want to get up to speed to cruise (legally of course) at 60mph in an ICE car, we know that it’s more fuel efficient to accelerate for longer period of time, at a lower rate of acceleration, than it is to do a shorter burst of full-throttle acceleration.
I think the logic is that:
1) Under full throttle / peak acceleration the engine air/fuel mix is adjusted to run richer – making sure that all the oxygen in the cylinder is fully used to make maximum possible power, even if a little fuel gets wasted (whereas at part throttle / low load the engine can run lean and prioritize using all the injected fuel efficiently, with oxygen to spare)
2) Under full throttle / peak acceleration the engine will be operating at higher engine speeds (in a lower gear) that are less efficient due to pumping losses – which I only really understand to the extent that there is more energy lost pumping the gasses into and out of the engine at 6,000 rpm than at 1,750rpm
3) Under high load conditions, the engine sometimes over-fuels to actually use spare fuel to keep the in-cylinder temps down.* (*Not sure if that would happen during a single short burst of acceleration up to 60mph, or only during prolonged ‘enthusiastic’ driving)
All of which is a bit of a shame, since accelerating briskly up to the legal speed limit is, well, fun.
But do the same ‘rules’ apply for an electric powertrain?
In short, there is no air/fuel ratio, there is no ‘more efficient higher gear’, and there is no immediately obvious parallel to over-fuelling**
(**The only immediately obvious issue would be if greater electrical energy was consumed to keep the motor / battery cool under hard acceleration – but would that really be needed during / after a brief (4.5 second ?) 0-60mph run?)
I already enjoy the fact that I can zip away from the lights indecently quickly without the noise / drama / potential subsequent finger pointing (“who does that tw*t think he is, Nigel Mansell”), I’d enjoy it even more if I knew I could accelerate rapidly up to my cruising speed without even paying an efficiency penalty..
(and yes – I appreciate that I’d be likely to be eating away my expensive tyres more rapidly, and therefore not being efficient in that respect..)
I’d appreciate any educated insights!
Neil.
On the contrary... accelerating at full load is pretty efficient. It just uses a lot of fuel!Perhaps I should be more specific:
If we want to get up to speed to cruise (legally of course) at 60mph in an ICE car, we know that it’s more fuel efficient to accelerate for longer period of time, at a lower rate of acceleration, than it is to do a shorter burst of full-throttle acceleration.
I think the logic is that:
1) Under full throttle / peak acceleration the engine air/fuel mix is adjusted to run richer – making sure that all the oxygen in the cylinder is fully used to make maximum possible power, even if a little fuel gets wasted (whereas at part throttle / low load the engine can run lean and prioritize using all the injected fuel efficiently, with oxygen to spare)
2) Under full throttle / peak acceleration the engine will be operating at higher engine speeds (in a lower gear) that are less efficient due to pumping losses – which I only really understand to the extent that there is more energy lost pumping the gasses into and out of the engine at 6,000 rpm than at 1,750rpm
3) Under high load conditions, the engine sometimes over-fuels to actually use spare fuel to keep the in-cylinder temps down.* (*Not sure if that would happen during a single short burst of acceleration up to 60mph, or only during prolonged ‘enthusiastic’ driving)
All of which is a bit of a shame, since accelerating briskly up to the legal speed limit is, well, fun.
But do the same ‘rules’ apply for an electric powertrain?
In short, there is no air/fuel ratio, there is no ‘more efficient higher gear’, and there is no immediately obvious parallel to over-fuelling**
(**The only immediately obvious issue would be if greater electrical energy was consumed to keep the motor / battery cool under hard acceleration – but would that really be needed during / after a brief (4.5 second ?) 0-60mph run?)
I already enjoy the fact that I can zip away from the lights indecently quickly without the noise / drama / potential subsequent finger pointing (“who does that tw*t think he is, Nigel Mansell”), I’d enjoy it even more if I knew I could accelerate rapidly up to my cruising speed without even paying an efficiency penalty..
(and yes – I appreciate that I’d be likely to be eating away my expensive tyres more rapidly, and therefore not being efficient in that respect..)
I’d appreciate any educated insights!
Neil.
Edited by shedtastic on Wednesday 29th May 20:04
economy and efficiency are different things.
Kawasicki said:
GT9 said:
Kawasicki said:
More accessible torque, more of the time, means more tyre slip and more tyre wear. Even if you have a perfectly smooth torque delivery, if you put more force through a contact patch you will wear the tyre faster.
Well, here's a question relating to a 0-60 run.Car A supplies a constant 3000 Nm of low oscillation torque to the rear wheels, but the car weighs 20% more.
Car B supplies a variable and high oscillation torque, peaking at over 5000 Nm to the front wheels, with a torque discontinuity at 35 mph to change gears.
The area under the torque curve for car B is slightly higher due to the high peak wheel torque.
The area under the torque curve of what is actually converted to acceleration force is likely to be higher for car A because there is no traction loss.
Car A carries a 'nameplate' peak torque value of 310 Nm at the motor.
Car B carries a 'nameplate' peak torque value of 350 Nm at the engine.
Neither nameplate value accounts for gearing between the motor or engine and the wheels.
Both reach 60 mph within approximately the same time.
Both are mainstream VAG cars.
Which one suffered higher tyre wear?
To assist, the wheel torque vs speed graphic below is a simplification of the actual torque at the driven wheels, as well as the sort of oscillations around nominal torque due to the nature of the prime mover providing the torque.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff