Electrify America Network

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
Seriously? You are unaware of why EA exists?

There is a major difference between the SC and EA; The SC was built with Tesla's money. EA is being built with our money.
SC is private, intended to establish a monopoly. Why do you think Tesla's stock price is so high? Market value 4X that of Ford motor?

Nissan is the only Chademo company left standing in the USA. Nissan is not going to build out a Chademo network, nor is anyone else by choice. EA forced to fund a single Chademo per location is about the best you might hope for, and that's not by choice.

VW was under some compulsion to do something like to fund EA, but the prime motivation for EA is for VW to have a future. If the only nationwide charging network is Tesla, that's going to be most of the market.
Tesla Superchargers are private only because Tesla asked for the other manufacturers to help pay for the infrastructure costs if they wanted to use the supercharger system and all the other manufacturers declined. All the other manufacturers decided to leave charging infrastructure to third parties with predictable results.

VW created EA as a requirement of the Dieselgate settlement. The initial funding was about 3 Billiion dollars and will eventually grow to 11 Billion. Both EPA and CARB required that the stations installed by EA be standards agnostic as to charging protocols. EA complies with this by installing 1 Chademo plug per location thus meeting the letter of the law. EA is clearly biased toward CCS and have stated as much publicly. Jaguar, Volkswagen, Porsche, Renault, General Motors, BMW, Daimler, Ford, FCA, Tesla Europe, Kia and Hyundai all use CCS. Chademo is seen as primarily a Japanese standard although Tesla's also use it with a $500 adapter. VW did not do this voluntarily or for the benefit of the company. It was forced on them by court order. EA is being built with VW's money. not public funds.
 
johnlocke said:
Tesla Superchargers are private only because Tesla asked for the other manufacturers to help pay for the infrastructure costs if they wanted to use the supercharger system and all the other manufacturers declined. All the other manufacturers decided to leave charging infrastructure to third parties with predictable results.
There more to it than that, at least with what Elon's stated publicly. See https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=457610#p457610. Who knows if he has some other conditions beyond what he stated publicly?
johnlocke said:
Jaguar, Volkswagen, Porsche..., General Motors, BMW, Daimler, Ford, FCA, Tesla Europe, Kia and Hyundai all use CCS.
Yes, partly true. But, VW and BMW ship or have shipped EVs with CHAdeMO for the Japanese market. As I posted at https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=571026#p571026, the Mercedes EQC I saw at Tokyo Motor Show had J1772 (not SAE Combo) and CHAdeMO.

Ford and Daimler currently in the US ships no vehicles w/CCS. In fact, Ford has no EVs shipping in the US any longer. They barely supported CCS with the minuscule in sales gen 2 FFE (gen 1 couldn't be DC FCed). FFE was pretty much a compliance car given its puny sales. FCA has never shipped a DC FC capable consumer vehicle in the US. I can't speak to elsewhere. Daimler has also never shipped a DC FC capable consumer vehicle in the US.

Tesla Europe went a different route before. Kia has shipped CHAdeMO vehicles before. HyunKia is clearly not serious about selling BEVs in the US if one looks at https://insideevs.com/news/343998/monthly-plug-in-ev-sales-scorecard/ and https://insideevs.com/news/344007/monthly-plug-in-ev-sales-scorecard-historical-charts/. VW brand and HyunKai's vehicles for the US market so far are CA/CARB compliance vehicles judging by the states in which they're available.
 
johnlocke said:
WetEV said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
Seriously? You are unaware of why EA exists?

There is a major difference between the SC and EA; The SC was built with Tesla's money. EA is being built with our money.
SC is private, intended to establish a monopoly. Why do you think Tesla's stock price is so high? Market value 4X that of Ford motor?

Nissan is the only Chademo company left standing in the USA. Nissan is not going to build out a Chademo network, nor is anyone else by choice. EA forced to fund a single Chademo per location is about the best you might hope for, and that's not by choice.

VW was under some compulsion to do something like to fund EA, but the prime motivation for EA is for VW to have a future. If the only nationwide charging network is Tesla, that's going to be most of the market.
Tesla Superchargers are private only because Tesla asked for the other manufacturers to help pay for the infrastructure costs if they wanted to use the supercharger system and all the other manufacturers declined. All the other manufacturers decided to leave charging infrastructure to third parties with predictable results.

VW created EA as a requirement of the Dieselgate settlement. The initial funding was about 3 Billiion dollars and will eventually grow to 11 Billion. Both EPA and CARB required that the stations installed by EA be standards agnostic as to charging protocols. EA complies with this by installing 1 Chademo plug per location thus meeting the letter of the law. EA is clearly biased toward CCS and have stated as much publicly. Jaguar, Volkswagen, Porsche, Renault, General Motors, BMW, Daimler, Ford, FCA, Tesla Europe, Kia and Hyundai all use CCS. Chademo is seen as primarily a Japanese standard although Tesla's also use it with a $500 adapter. VW did not do this voluntarily or for the benefit of the company. It was forced on them by court order. EA is being built with VW's money. not public funds.

There are several ways to look at the money. BUT...its not EA's money. EA was formed to manage "our" money. Its not VW's money any more. It was taken from them by the DOJ.

And my whole point is that I am not happy with how my money is being spent. Right now VW is building a network for cars that are not here. Even "they" have next to nothing here and will continue for the rest of this year and nearly all of next year. So that is two years of a network sitting underutilized.

The reality is they skirted the DOJ spinning the punishment into their advantage and no one cares.

This is no different than I getting a fine from the court and instead of giving them money, I decide to do community service for a company that I own to pay off the fine. But that is the of the world. If you got enough money, you dictate your circumstances. You are above the law. We only need look at the White House for one of many examples of that.
 
cwerdna said:
johnlocke said:
Tesla Superchargers are private only because Tesla asked for the other manufacturers to help pay for the infrastructure costs if they wanted to use the supercharger system and all the other manufacturers declined. All the other manufacturers decided to leave charging infrastructure to third parties with predictable results.
There more to it than that, at least with what Elon's stated publicly. See https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=457610#p457610. Who knows if he has some other conditions beyond what he stated publicly?

Obviously we can only speculate but that isn't all that tough considering

All billing, recognition, etc. is done "in" the station. IOW; no external ID or billing system. These means manufacturers "must" give up the name and info of their customers or require the customers to register directly with Tesla. The manufacturers would create a device that reports user info to the SC station.

This requires other manufacturers to give up a lot of data on their customers. IOW; the offer sounded good but it was essentially a no go from Day one.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
And my whole point is that I am not happy with how my money is being spent. Right now VW is building a network for cars that are not here. Even "they" have next to nothing here and will continue for the rest of this year and nearly all of next year. So that is two years of a network sitting underutilized.

The reality is they skirted the DOJ spinning the punishment into their advantage and no one cares.
Yep. It seems very underutilized. A bunch of SAE Combo models are either CARB compliance cars or discontinued (e.g. Spark EV and gen 2 FFE). Every time I see someone post a video of themselves charging at an EA site, it seems like nobody else is there. And, I don't like how they (being VW-controlled) are stacking the deck in favor of their own cars and trying to screw CHAdeMO cars.

I've brought it up a bunch of times at TMC and funny enough, a couple people, including Nissan-hater Sage (I guess not so surprising coming from him) basically want to kill CHAdeMO and/or are ok w/the skewed deployment. Start from around https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/electrify-america-fast-chargers-huh.133558/page-18#post-4359410 and go forward. A few folks there also feel the ratio is unfair (e.g. at https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/electrify-america-fast-chargers-huh.133558/page-19#post-4360736).

I've gathered that ChargePoint wasn't happy when VW got the go-ahead to spend $ like this for dieselgate instead of the $ being spread across multiple network providers, preferably more standards agnostic. ChargePoint filed some lawsuits (e.g. https://blogs.duanemorris.com/greenip/2018/01/16/ev-charging-station-company-loses-partnership-bid-sues-winner/). I haven't followed the status of that.
 
Not only does EA only have one CHADeMO, but where I live, even once EA opens their sites, they will be a single point of failure.

To me a single station with a single charger is a no-go for trips. Of course I knew that going in and my 2018 Leaf was not meant for trips.

But looking to the future I will not do trips until I have both multiple chargers (which could be taken care of by my next EV by having a CCS), multiple charging stations, and a 300 mile range. My area is too remote to have a single point of failure like it is now. A failure would mean a 100+ mile tow. So even if I had a CCS, a single EA site is a no-go for me personally. I've seen plenty of videos where the whole EA site is non functional and there are zero alternatives here as of now. (Actually, not now, but when EA opens up)


So I would agree with tagging the EA site on Plug share any time the charger is in use, because its essentially a failure as you can't charge. And that failure is as noted due to their greed. Yes yes I understand they are not motivated to do anything besides CCS but this was suppose to be a penalty and community service of sorts.
 
As I mentioned in the EVgo To Add Tesla Connectors At Fast Charging Stations thread, the most recent "Plugged-in with Tom Moloughney" segment on E for Electric discuses Tom's recent visit to EA's head office, where he interviewed Electrify America's CEO and other executives. Certainly worth a watch and explains a lot of the things discussed in this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJQXSl7fKUs
 
I believe EA still helps as it offers an additional option. As more state and competing programs come in line (like in Iowa) you get your redundancy. There have been already many cases were the EA entire site is inoperable, so we need the redundancy anyway.

With the 200+ mile cars, you can actually already often make it across 2 stops with EA in itself giving some redundancy. I do wish they would put level 2 at all stops just for a fail over to let you limp to the next stop.
 
cwerdna said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
And my whole point is that I am not happy with how my money is being spent. Right now VW is building a network for cars that are not here. Even "they" have next to nothing here and will continue for the rest of this year and nearly all of next year. So that is two years of a network sitting underutilized.

The reality is they skirted the DOJ spinning the punishment into their advantage and no one cares.
Yep. It seems very underutilized. A bunch of SAE Combo models are either CARB compliance cars or discontinued (e.g. Spark EV and gen 2 FFE). Every time I see someone post a video of themselves charging at an EA site, it seems like nobody else is there. And, I don't like how they (being VW-controlled) are stacking the deck in favor of their own cars and trying to screw CHAdeMO cars.

I've brought it up a bunch of times at TMC and funny enough, a couple people, including Nissan-hater Sage (I guess not so surprising coming from him) basically want to kill CHAdeMO and/or are ok w/the skewed deployment. Start from around https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/electrify-america-fast-chargers-huh.133558/page-18#post-4359410 and go forward. A few folks there also feel the ratio is unfair (e.g. at https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/electrify-america-fast-chargers-huh.133558/page-19#post-4360736).

I've gathered that ChargePoint wasn't happy when VW got the go-ahead to spend $ like this for dieselgate instead of the $ being spread across multiple network providers, preferably more standards agnostic. ChargePoint filed some lawsuits (e.g. https://blogs.duanemorris.com/greenip/2018/01/16/ev-charging-station-company-loses-partnership-bid-sues-winner/). I haven't followed the status of that.

Definitely strange. In case no one else is seeing the 30 foot high billboards,

EA is coming out with the plug and charge system to match Tesla. Doing this requires "intimate" knowledge of car and driver. Does anyone think Tesla will give that up? Chevy? Well, I don't.

What I do see is EA becoming nearly a proprietary network used almost exclusively by the VW group of cars.

What is clear is the desire for ease in public charging will create situations where personal data will need to be shared. How that data will be shared will become an interesting challenge between the manufacturer and the public charging company but when the public charging company is a front for a competing manufacturer this creates a whole new issue. One I do not see being resolved easily any time soon.

As it is; the EA app system is very easy to manage. I don't need anything more convenient than that.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Obviously we can only speculate but that isn't all that tough considering

All billing, recognition, etc. is done "in" the station. IOW; no external ID or billing system. These means manufacturers "must" give up the name and info of their customers or require the customers to register directly with Tesla. The manufacturers would create a device that reports user info to the SC station.

This requires other manufacturers to give up a lot of data on their customers. IOW; the offer sounded good but it was essentially a no go from Day one.

What are you talking about? it works exactly like any other charging station network. There's an ID number and a credit card attached to that ID number. in the case of Tesla the ID is transmitted over the network and is your VIN number.

It would be no different with a Nissan leaf on the Tesla network if they had the hardware on board to transmit the VIN number to the Tesla charge station. You would register your VIN number on their system along with a credit card attached to that VIN number. and then you drive up plug in and it's all automatic.
 
He's baaack, from a great trip to Yosemite. To catch up, per WetEV 3 sites are open, making 6 for the month and 384 total: Denver, CO (I-70 ex. 278, just W. of I-270 Jct.); Truckee, CA (I-80 ex. 185); Pismo, Beach, CA (U.S. 101 ex 189/190A).

The Denver site mainly serves to boost capacity and convenience, as there are now 6 or 7 sites surrounding the city. Truckee isn't strictly necessary as there are a lot of Drive the ARC EVgo sites along I-80 including one at the same Save Mart in Truckee, but more capacity/redundancy is always welcome, especially with a town which is the turnoff for North Lake Tahoe and lots of ski resorts. Pismo Beach extends 101 southwards, and although it's a bit of a stretch it's possible to reach the sites in Van Nuys (164 mi.) or Los Angeles (172 mi.).
 
To jump into the discussion late, I agree with EA/CARB's rationale for the likely distribution of CCS/CHAdeMO-equipped cars in the (near) future, barring some major Japanese company such as Toyota putting CHAdeMO in cars for this market. That being said, a single CHAdeMO charger per site is clearly unacceptable, as anyone who actually needs to get somewhere isn't going to be willing to depend on a single charger being both available and operational - two CHAdeMO per site seems like a good compromise. The LEAF certainly can't carry CHAdeMO by itself in this country going forward.

Re Tesla's SCs rationale, it wasn't done to give Tesla a monopoly: way, way back Elon said that they were building the SC network because they couldn't afford to wait for someone else to build one. For BEVs to be useful for more than local use, especially expensive ones with longer ranges, you've got to have a QC network, and as there wasn't then (and probably still isn't yet) any profitable business case for such sites, Tesla decided to build them essentially as a marketing expense. If they didn't think it was critical to have them, they never would have built them themselves.

Re charging priced solely by the kWh, I disagree with Dave (in his blog post). Doing so brings simplicity and transparency to charging pricing, as opposed to the variety of pricing methods (time, kWh, occupancy and connection fees etc.) currently employed, which make it difficult if not impossible to compare prices. If every station prices by the kWh it's easy to compare, and people worried about the cost will look for the cheapest cost charging just as they do with gas now - occupancy fees for people who don't move are fine. Any inefficiency as some people wait to fill up very slowly will just need to be accepted for now, in hopes that the simplicity will spark a charger building boom that will eliminate the problem (see below).

Segregating cars by rate of charging would be easy as well. EA essentially does that now, and just as people who only need regular don't buy premium, someone with a car that can only take 50kW is unlikely to choose a 350kW charger. What's critical is to establish a profitable business model for QC'ing, because only then will we see stations proliferate rapidly as for-profit businesses start building them. As it is, they're all still built (slowly) with government money, either directly by subsidy or indirectly, like EA in lieu of paying the money to the government in higher fines.
 
GRA said:
To jump into the discussion late, I agree with EA/CARB's rationale for the likely distribution of CCS/CHAdeMO-equipped cars in the (near) future, barring some major Japanese company such as Toyota putting CHAdeMO in cars for this market. That being said, a single CHAdeMO charger per site is clearly unacceptable, as anyone who actually needs to get somewhere isn't going to be willing to depend on a single charger being both available and operational - two CHAdeMO per site seems like a good compromise. The LEAF certainly can't carry CHAdeMO by itself in this country going forward.

Re Tesla's SCs rationale, it wasn't done to give Tesla a monopoly: way, way back Elon said that they were building the SC network because they couldn't afford to wait for someone else to build one. For BEVs to be useful for more than local use, especially expensive ones with longer ranges, you've got to have a QC network, and as there wasn't then (and probably still isn't yet) any profitable business case for such sites, Tesla decided to build them essentially as a marketing expense. If they didn't think it was critical to have them, they never would have built them themselves.

Re charging priced solely by the kWh, I disagree with Dave (in his blog post). Doing so brings simplicity and transparency to charging pricing, as opposed to the variety of pricing methods (time, kWh, occupancy and connection fees etc.) currently employed, which make it difficult if not impossible to compare prices. If every station prices by the kWh it's easy to compare, and people worried about the cost will look for the cheapest cost charging just as they do with gas now - occupancy fees for people who don't move are fine. Any inefficiency as some people wait to fill up very slowly will just need to be accepted for now, in hopes that the simplicity will spark a charger building boom that will eliminate the problem (see below).

Segregating cars by rate of charging would be easy as well. EA essentially does that now, and just as people who only need regular don't buy premium, someone with a car that can only take 50kW is unlikely to choose a 350kW charger. What's critical is to establish a profitable business model for QC'ing, because only then will we see stations proliferate rapidly as for-profit businesses start building them. As it is, they're all still built (slowly) with government money, either directly by subsidy or indirectly, like EA in lieu of paying the money to the government in higher fines.

When we have sufficient plugs to handle "normal" demand, a per kwh billing standard could work. But we don't and we won't and that will likely last at least a decade. So what we have is a vital resource in very short supply and we abandoning a billing process (by the minute) that encourages people to only get what they need and get off. How is that making sense to anyone?

As for your "acceptance" statement; we don't have it now in case you hadn't noticed and its a much smaller problem now. This per kwh law will greatly increase the "lack of acceptance"

It has gone so far that people have taken it upon themselves to

**decide who has the right to plug in at all (AKA as Hybrid bashing)

**decide when the charging car has had enough ( AKA Charging above 80% SOC is wrong)

Now all these issues is due to one thing; an inadequate charging network. Too many cars, not enough plugs. So anything that will remove any incentive to charge as little as possible is going to be a problem.

Maybe we are looking at this wrong? Maybe its time to put out a bunch of 20 KW charging stations for all those micro battery EVs? TBH; frequently I am rushed to get personal things done while charging simply because I will receive what I need in less time than it takes for me to pee, drink and eat.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
GRA said:
<snip>

Re charging priced solely by the kWh, I disagree with Dave (in his blog post). Doing so brings simplicity and transparency to charging pricing, as opposed to the variety of pricing methods (time, kWh, occupancy and connection fees etc.) currently employed, which make it difficult if not impossible to compare prices. If every station prices by the kWh it's easy to compare, and people worried about the cost will look for the cheapest cost charging just as they do with gas now - occupancy fees for people who don't move are fine. Any inefficiency as some people wait to fill up very slowly will just need to be accepted for now, in hopes that the simplicity will spark a charger building boom that will eliminate the problem (see below).

Segregating cars by rate of charging would be easy as well. EA essentially does that now, and just as people who only need regular don't buy premium, someone with a car that can only take 50kW is unlikely to choose a 350kW charger. What's critical is to establish a profitable business model for QC'ing, because only then will we see stations proliferate rapidly as for-profit businesses start building them. As it is, they're all still built (slowly) with government money, either directly by subsidy or indirectly, like EA in lieu of paying the money to the government in higher fines.

When we have sufficient plugs to handle "normal" demand, a per kwh billing standard could work. But we don't and we won't and that will likely last at least a decade. So what we have is a vital resource in very short supply and we abandoning a billing process (by the minute) that encourages people to only get what they need and get off. How is that making sense to anyone?

As for your "acceptance" statement; we don't have it now in case you hadn't noticed and its a much smaller problem now. This per kwh law will greatly increase the "lack of acceptance"

It has gone so far that people have taken it upon themselves to

**decide who has the right to plug in at all (AKA as Hybrid bashing)

**decide when the charging car has had enough ( AKA Charging above 80% SOC is wrong)

Now all these issues is due to one thing; an inadequate charging network. Too many cars, not enough plugs. So anything that will remove any incentive to charge as little as possible is going to be a problem.

Maybe we are looking at this wrong? Maybe its time to put out a bunch of 20 KW charging stations for all those micro battery EVs? TBH; frequently I am rushed to get personal things done while charging simply because I will receive what I need in less time than it takes for me to pee, drink and eat.


Re small battery EVs, my take is that PHEVs will simply use (much cheaper-priced) L2. At the moment small battery BEVs are dead in the water, as most people want BEVs that can compete with ICEs for range, as long as they cost more than ICEs. I recognize that there's a problem with charger availability now, but the whole point of having a problem is that someone will see an opportunity to fix it and make a profit. If there is simply no profitable business case that can be made for QC equal or cheaper than gas, then BEVs will never expand beyond a tiny niche (barring government mandates). That's more likely a problem in the U.S. with our low fuel taxes than in say Europe, where they can adjust taxes to suit.
 
GRA said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
GRA said:
<snip>

Re charging priced solely by the kWh, I disagree with Dave (in his blog post). Doing so brings simplicity and transparency to charging pricing, as opposed to the variety of pricing methods (time, kWh, occupancy and connection fees etc.) currently employed, which make it difficult if not impossible to compare prices. If every station prices by the kWh it's easy to compare, and people worried about the cost will look for the cheapest cost charging just as they do with gas now - occupancy fees for people who don't move are fine. Any inefficiency as some people wait to fill up very slowly will just need to be accepted for now, in hopes that the simplicity will spark a charger building boom that will eliminate the problem (see below).

Segregating cars by rate of charging would be easy as well. EA essentially does that now, and just as people who only need regular don't buy premium, someone with a car that can only take 50kW is unlikely to choose a 350kW charger. What's critical is to establish a profitable business model for QC'ing, because only then will we see stations proliferate rapidly as for-profit businesses start building them. As it is, they're all still built (slowly) with government money, either directly by subsidy or indirectly, like EA in lieu of paying the money to the government in higher fines.

When we have sufficient plugs to handle "normal" demand, a per kwh billing standard could work. But we don't and we won't and that will likely last at least a decade. So what we have is a vital resource in very short supply and we abandoning a billing process (by the minute) that encourages people to only get what they need and get off. How is that making sense to anyone?

As for your "acceptance" statement; we don't have it now in case you hadn't noticed and its a much smaller problem now. This per kwh law will greatly increase the "lack of acceptance"

It has gone so far that people have taken it upon themselves to

**decide who has the right to plug in at all (AKA as Hybrid bashing)

**decide when the charging car has had enough ( AKA Charging above 80% SOC is wrong)

Now all these issues is due to one thing; an inadequate charging network. Too many cars, not enough plugs. So anything that will remove any incentive to charge as little as possible is going to be a problem.

Maybe we are looking at this wrong? Maybe its time to put out a bunch of 20 KW charging stations for all those micro battery EVs? TBH; frequently I am rushed to get personal things done while charging simply because I will receive what I need in less time than it takes for me to pee, drink and eat.


Re small battery EVs, my take is that PHEVs will simply use (much cheaper-priced) L2. At the moment small battery BEVs are dead in the water, as most people want BEVs that can compete with ICEs for range, as long as they cost more than ICEs. I recognize that there's a problem with charger availability now, but the whole point of having a problem is that someone will see an opportunity to fix it and make a profit. If there is simply no profitable business case that can be made for QC equal or cheaper than gas, then BEVs will never expand beyond a tiny niche (barring government mandates). That's more likely a problem in the U.S. with our low fuel taxes than in say Europe, where they can adjust taxes to suit.

The problem with a forward looking view is getting run over by existing EVs already on the streets.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
GRA said:
<snip>

Re small battery EVs, my take is that PHEVs will simply use (much cheaper-priced) L2. At the moment small battery BEVs are dead in the water, as most people want BEVs that can compete with ICEs for range, as long as they cost more than ICEs. I recognize that there's a problem with charger availability now, but the whole point of having a problem is that someone will see an opportunity to fix it and make a profit. If there is simply no profitable business case that can be made for QC equal or cheaper than gas, then BEVs will never expand beyond a tiny niche (barring government mandates). That's more likely a problem in the U.S. with our low fuel taxes than in say Europe, where they can adjust taxes to suit.

The problem with a forward looking view is getting run over by existing EVs already on the streets.


But how many of them have CHAdeMO? After all, you're on your 5th LEAF. Granted, one was totaled, but you've still gone through 3 by yourself to get to this point, and what is the utility of the older ones? How many are still on the road, and is anyone crazy enough to use them for road trips?
 
Back
Top