Talk:Automobile handling

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rich wiki50300243.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great new article! If you don't mind one suggestion, however, I think the article should use the more common spelling, tire. Without debating American vs. British spelling, our goal is to create a seamless encyclopedia, and any encyclopedia should remain consistent. Since Wikipedia's article on tires is located at tire (while Tyre simply includes a brief mention that it is an alternate spelling), that standard should probably be reflected throughout the encyclopedia. Otherwise this is a terrific start on a great new article!! Cribcage 14:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll yield, there are more cars in America -- Solipsist 14:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We've gone back to tyre now. The Manual of Style recommends maintaining consistent spelling within an article. -- Solipsist 11:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I changed all references of "tyre" to "tire," excepting the picture, which obviously, I cannot change. I understand the need for consistency regarding word choice within an article. However, to much of the English-speaking world, Tyre means something totally different (see Tyre). As such, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable instance to make an exception.Sixtus LXVI 01:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

But it would not be reasonable to waste our time reverting between equally good styles of spelling. The suggestions in WP:MOS National varieaties of English are helpful. Meggar 02:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

If reverting between two equally good styles of spelling is a waste of time, then why bother reverting it back again so it uses tyre? I continue to stand by the argument I made previously, even though the Maunal of Style recommends otherwise. To restate (and slightly modify) Cribcage's post at the begining of this thread, Wikipedia's article on tires is located at tire while the page Tyre contains no mention (as of my most recent checking) of tyre being as another spelling. I believe this is enough to warrant the use of tire. Regardless, I shall acquiesce to what appears to be the majority opinion. Sixtus LXVI 05:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It took me a while to get it, but there are two good reasons that it is here tyre not tire. One is that Wikipedia policy is that the spelling should be consistent with what was originally used. The important reason is that Americans are not interested in car handling but British are. When one wants to learn, one should always encourage the experts to talk. An article on Airbags should be in American English. David R. Ingham 07:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

To help ease this important spelling issue between tire and tyre, both articles now go to the same article tire. Links above have been updated. The commonly used article about the Lebanese city is now available at Tyre. Widefox 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

As it stands now, I find the spelling rather distracting, for reasons not the least of which that in certain sections the spelling shifts from American to British and back again Car_handling#Center_of_gravity_height. I'm in favor of converting the spelling variety to American English, primarily since all related articles use this variety (see Suspension, Steering, Oversteer, etc). Most automobile enthusiast publications also appear to use American English (a search on Road & Track and Car and Driver's websites for "tire" results in a number of hits, while "tyre" results in no hits). The assertion that Americans are not interested in car handling is absurd and should not be used as justification for keeping the spelling as is. Discordant 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Discordant, I see that you are a new editor. After a short while here we come to accept that there is no preference among the major national varieties of English; none is more “correct” than any other. There is a well written guideline on that here. Meggar 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems that someone has decided to impose American English on this article despite this discussion. Unless I hear good reason to do otherwise, I shall revert it. Additionally. I think this article is also a little misleading in places (it suggests that lower inertia is better, but there is a limit and some cars have handling issues due to too little yaw inertia). Nasty (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the article, it's informative. Only as I am neither a native speaker nor an engineer, would you perhaps add explanations for some technical terms? What's a sway bar, a wheel camber and what does it mean for it to be negative, and what's a toe in? Also, for the table heading, what do you mean by oversteer correction? That the measure described below (a) compensates for oversteering or 9b) corrects towards oversteering? TIA. Simon A. 11:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, I agree. I'm not a car mechanic either, but at least I'm a native speaker. I think an excellent idea would be to illustrate some of these concepts with diagrams. But that will take some time, so short answers off the top of my head

• sway bar - or more accurately an 'anti-sway bar' and also known as an anti-roll bar or stabilizer bar. I've never been totally clear on how these work. They are part of the suspension and help to prevent the car from leaning too much during cornering. There is more here.
• wheel camber - is setting the wheels so that the top of the wheel is not directly above the bottom. If the top leans towards the centre of the car it is negative camber. In principle you want the base of the tyre to be completely flat to give the best contact with the road and setting a negative camber would seem to force the car to run on the inside edge of the tyre. However, as the body of the car moves upwards, either whilst hitting a bump or through aerodynamic lift at speed, then the axle will bend upward bringing the tyre to a true vertical at that time.
• toe in - refers to standing with your toes pointing together. So in this case the front of the tyre doesn't exactly align with the back of the tyre, but instead is pointed a degree or so towards the centre of the car. Again, in principle you would think you want all the tyres exactly aligned and pointing forwards for best grip. If the wheels toe in, the point of contact at the base of the tyre will always be sliding sideways a little when travelling in a straight line. However, if you turn to the right, the tyres on the left (or the outside of the turn) will be better aligned with the direction of motion during the turn and so give better grip than the tyres on the inside. Since you often need the most grip when turning rather than braking in a straight line, it can make sense to set the wheels to toe in or toe out as required.

In simple oval based car racing like NASCAR, they often set up the car so that the tyres on one side toe in and those on other side toes out, such that the car is always trying to turn in the direction of the track.

• oversteer correction - means '(a) compensates for oversteering'. I'll change the heading to make it clearer.

User Kay, has recently made some informed additions to the oversteer article, so might be a good person to ask for more input. -- Solipsist 13:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The radio control model car link I added at the bottom of the article may also help. --David R. Ingham 19:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure when it changed, but the article currently opens "A ground vehicle's handling..." Whilst I appreciate the desire to expand the scope beyond cars, the phrase is a little awkward. There are also problems in that the opening para should use the article's title in bold, and later any redirect to the page should also be in bold. And second, the discussion only really applies to wheeled vehicles, wouldn't 'ground vehicle' also include tanks and other tracked vehicles?

The previous phrasing of "A car's handling..." wasn't brilliant either, because the bolded portion doesn't exactly match the title, and as observed, much of the discussion applies to lorries and vehicles other than cars.

I'm stuggling to come up with a better alternative, but how about;

Car handling and vehicle handling is a description of the way wheeled vehicles perform transverse to their direction of motion, particularly during cornering and swerving.

and then put in a redirect from vehicle handling. This has the downside that 'vehicle handling' is a bit too general, but if in future someone else wants to describe the handling of other types of vehicle then they can change the redirect and make the opening phrase here more specific. Oh, but then I'm forgetting motorbikes. -- Solipsist 20:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think the term handling applies to tanks and tracters too and some of the discussion applies to them, if they can get going fast enough. Of course tank drivers do forsee having to make violent manuvers. I have ridden in a Bradley, but only worked on the electonics. Some of it applies to bicycles, but body lean and center of gravity are entirely different. I learned a lot about the faults of cars when I drove a U-Haul trick. It made them so much clearer. Yes your leading line sounds fine. The reason I changed it is, of course, that SUVs are often not refered to as cars, even when they serve the same function Thanks for helping.--David R. Ingham 22:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the spelling. I tend to run everything through my (American) spelling checker without thinking. --David R. Ingham

No worries. More important than spelling is adding good content, and that's coming along nicely. -- Solipsist 20:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thinking about it, it does seem much more appropriate that an article about handling should use British than American spelling. Feel free to change any of my spelling and usage. This will be more consistent with the main literature on the subject. --David R. Ingham 06:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that is a little extreme. I saw Porsches in a slalom doing just fine with their wheel a foot off the ground. I had a friend whose TR3 lifted its wheel sooner than mine did, and he just got used to it and didn't mind it any more.

The TR3 changes handling in the height of the rubber stop, while the Porsche wheel picks up when its load gets to zero and after that the weight transfer continues to increase in the rear but the front just continues to be held up by the outside tyre. So it is just the rate of change of oversteer that takes a jump in the 911 while it is the oversteer that jumps in the TR3.

http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/staff/TomRobinson/physicspages/po2001/Handling/balance.html gives a 911 as the example of good handling, but I don't see an email to discuss it there.

I am not clear on whether bigger rear tyres and a smaller front anti-roll completely bar fix the problem. Maybe there are models where it is fixed. I didn't include the bathtub because there were few cars in those days that handled as well as it did. Germans were used to oversteering cars back then.

The main point is that all road vehicles should be optimised for going beyond the driver's previous experience, not for lulling him/her into a sense of false security. --David R. Ingham 18:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

In all likelihood, the wheel lift was due to a reltively soft rear anti-roll bar and a relatively stiff front anti-roll bar, intended to reduce oversteer. In response to a lateral force, the unequal roll bars transfer weight from the inside front to the outside rear tire, which as mentioned induces understeer. By compensating for oversteer with bigger tires, they could firm up the rear rollbar, and the liftoff problem was reduced. But the prosche is by no means the only car to do this--many modern high-performance cars will lift their wheels slightly under hard cornering, but the early 911s did tend to do it dramatically. Many modern front-drive cars also have the same problem, but in reverse--they lift their rear wheels in corners, because of extremely soft front suspension used to combat understeer (and the lack of space/price issues for just using bigger tires).--71.146.94.72 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Remeber that the angular inertia impedes the car's straightening out as well as its starting to turn, so it is not always causing understeer. I still don't believe there is really much down force at anything like US legal speeds. In Germany, maybe. Cars without any rear devices tend to be aerodynamically unstable, and of course this contributes to high speed oversteer. The Peugeot 403 was said to be aerodynamically unstable, and then people criticised the 404 for having fins when they were out of style! David R. Ingham 20:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

It can work the other way, though; bad aerodynamics can give a car too much lift at legal US highway speeds which can be a problem, if not on dry pavement then at least on slippery and/or wet, which aerodynamic aids can fix. I'm thinking of my late lamented Mitsubishi Sapporo which had kind of a receding chinline which packed air under the front and made it squirrely, until a Kamei front air dam fixed it. I imagine an original VW Beetle would be another example. Gzuckier 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

So you could clearly feed the difference? I don't have a rule handy to estimate it. My brother's Beetles did have foul handling, especially at the upper end of their speed range and in cross winds, and maybe that did contribute. David R. Ingham 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it definitely felt better with the air dam, to the point where I kept replacing it as it would get crunched... But the squirrelliness would only begin to kick in right around 55. Drop back to 50, and I couldn't tell any difference. of course, i would never exceed the very reasonable 55 mph limit, but if I did I'm sure the effect would have been more noticeable. Gzuckier 05:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Added a refrence with some angular inertia formulas. Should back up information stated. <ref"Moment of Inertia." Hyperphysics. Web.</ref>

That above remends me that I noticed in Road safety and Speed limit that the US with speed limits has around once and a half the motorway (freeway) deaths that Germany does with no limit. Sertainly speed limits and passive safety help, but apparently not as much as paying attention, expert instruction and active safety do. A German told me he had never seen anyone eat while driving. David R. Ingham 16:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to whoever corrected my erroneously changing "A arm" to "An arm". Of thousands of similar edits, this is the second of two errors, I hope those of a charitable disposition will see that my mistake as quite understandable. It seems to me that hyphenation to "A-arm" as in "An A-arm or wishbone..." would be appropriate here. A quick google suggest that this is common [1]. That will certainly prevent a repitition. I won't make the change myself, instead I will leave this to the judgement of a better informed editor. Gaius Cornelius 13:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll remove the quotes and insert the hyphen. David R. Ingham 05:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is with all the references in this article to this specific car? I'm removing them, you can revert if you want. -- 67.32.202.43 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A good call I suspect. This isn't an article to promote any particular car. -- Solipsist 21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are correct I think. I wanted to show that even a conventional luxury car maker agrees with enthusiasts that smaller cars are more fun. I re-inserted the material in a more general form. David R. Ingham 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Greater width, then, though it counteracts centre of gravity height, hurts handling by increasing angular inertia. Some high performance cars have light materials in their fenders and roofs partly for this reason."

This strikes me as misleading at best. You ALWAYS increase the track to the maximum allowed, so far as I am aware, for handling. Does anyone have any counterexample? Also to be honest I can't remember anyone giving a monkey's about roll inertia.

Greglocock 08:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Will some please mention roll center as it pertains to center of gravity and handling? Also, I noticed that front toe-in is increased to reduce understeer? Please tell me whoever wrote that was kidding!

It's unfortunate that the article/entry is unsuitably entitled "car handling" because the definition is independent of the type of road/trail vehicle. In the definition of "handling" we could be talking about a Formula-1 race car; pickup-truck-based SUV vs. car-based minivan, (see Talk:Sport_utility_vehicle ); airport fire-engine; Baja racer; military amphibious vehicle; "double-bottom" tractor-trailer truck; and so on. (We could even be talking about aircraft while they are being operated on the ground; some have had notorious problems because aircraft engineers have been less familiar with this subject.)

I don't know what's involved in changing an entry name, but "Wheeled, non-tracked vehicle handling" would seem more appropriate, except of course something less bulky is needed while not limiting it to "car". Thanks. -- truthdowser (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article is already too long, largely because it is full of fanboi witterings. I'd suggest that you figure out a sensible title for an article, then start a NEW page with that title, and then steal the more general content from this one, include a subsection on car handling in your new page with a main article link back here. How about Handling of ground vehicles? The problem is that handling has at least two main meanings. In the real world we call it vehicle dynamics, but that is fortunately already taken. Dynamics of ground vehicles? Greglocock (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The proper encyclopedic term should be as broad as possible, with the article then dividing off into sub-articles for the specifics within. Therefore this article should be titled vehicle handling ... which is currently just a redirect back to here. DMahalko (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

In the unsprung weight section is the following statement:

"the Citroën 2CV had inertial dampers on its rear wheel hubs to damp only wheel bounce."

Inertial dampers are the theoretical opposite of ballast, and do not exist. There is currently no known technology to dampen the effects of inertia, unless of course we happen to live in the Star Trek universe:

• http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Inertial_damper

I don't know what the editor was really trying to say since I am not familiar with the vehicle, but this is totally wrong and needs to be deleted. DMahalko (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you do some research, in the real world as opposed to star trek. Greglocock (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suspect, despite the condescending tone here in one man's wikipedia, what was meant actually exists. Namely inertially valved dampers or maybe inertial dampers. I have one on my bicycle. Perhaps you should do research beyond the first half dozen google hits(including wikipedia article on fictional devices). They are uses to damp out resonance. For instance:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=gIRHd5R_UoMC&lpg=PA240&ots=_fK-XbgczF&dq=inertially%20valved%20dampers&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q=&f=false

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.15 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not too sure about the inane snarkiness. However the Citroen 2CV was launched with devices that can sensibly be described as inertial dampers. Greglocock (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added additional sources in the article to explain Suzuki's claim that Consumer Reports rigged the rollover testing of the Suzuki Samurai. There's hundreds of pages of original source material on this topic, including videos, legal journals, transcripts, trade journals, plus several complete court decisions, so I hope that I don't have to keep adding more and more source material. What I've added should cover it adequately. Santamoly (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

It remains a Suzuki CLAIM that the test was rigged. Inserting more and more source material is within your editing privleges, but NPOV requires that ALL "majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." Furthermore, this section may already constitute undue weight . I'm of the opinion that a few sentences on the lawsuit and the outcome are all that's needed in the article. ThatSaved (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Normally, I'd agree. However, it was more than just a claim. The issues were admitted by the defendant. However they claimed a constitutional right to set up their tests as they saw fit, and to adjust their handling tests until they achieved the result they were after. This tiny little handling issue became a block-buster, eight-year long legal wrangle of immense expense and effort. It wasn't decided at the first level, but see-sawed back and forth right to the California Supreme Court. Regardless of the handling issues, the legal case was hugely complicated. The handling issues may have been minor, but the best legal precedents are nearly always based on important little issues like this. Out of all the handling issues noted in this section, this was the only handling issue that exploded into a horrendous legal battle that went on for almost a decade. Santamoly (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The settlement included no admission of liability or error, damages were not paid, and the defendant stood by its tests and evaluation, so these purported 'issues admitted by the defendant' and a desire to 'achieve the result they were after' are not obvious. Even if one concurs with your conclusions, this is an article on car handling, and IMHO a few sentences on the lawsuit and the out of court settlement are all that's needed. The fact the NONE of the other lawsuits involving the Samurai, some of which resulted in jury verdicts for damages, are mentioned is further evidence that there is excessive emphasis on this issue. ThatSaved (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm OK with including any other lawsuits in this discussion (if you can find any) because it's a fascinating topic for auto engineers. The Suzuki lawsuit more than any other issue, describes that fine differences between good handling, lesser handling, and bad handling. The Samurai was probably just fine for a farm truck (which is technically what it is), but not as good as the average Lotus Seven. We still need to be able to define "good handling", and this lawsuit is rich with useful info on how to test handling qualities. Santamoly (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

(5 months later) ThatSaved, we're still waiting for you to produce cites to "other lawsuits involving the Samurai". Have you been able to find anything on topic? Santamoly (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You've already done it! This link you inserted into another article is about a Suzuki Samurai lawsuit. [2]

Here are others. Malautea v. Suzuki Samurai 987 F.2d 1536 [3] Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corporation 936 SW 2d 104 [4] Even as late as 2009, Car and Driver mentions Samurai lawsuits[5] ThatSaved (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The "Suzuki lawsuits" listed are not "handling" accidents. The first was an appeal of a default judgment in a case in which a Samurai was up-ended after a collision, and the appeal was about abuse of the discovery process and nothing at all about handling. The second was a drunk driving (Samurai) accident in which Suzuki was not permitted to introduce evidence on drunk driving. And the Car & Driver blog was just exaggerated gossip, no facts. On the other hand, the video is about C/R's testing of handling, very much on topic. I don't object to the links you bring (which have nothing to do with handling) if you'll withdraw your objection to the video (which is entirely about handling). Does Wikipedia permit bargaining over links? Santamoly (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Huh? A lawsuit is filed with a plaintiff alleging that defects in the Samurai caused or aggravated his injuries and you say this it was not about handling? What defects do you think were being alleged? A lawsuit regarding a accident in which the Suzuki General Counsel mentions 'judging the Samurai' isn't about the vehicle's handling? The simple statement that a particular vehicle was the subject of several lawsuits is 'exaggerated gossip', but a video produced by a publicity firm isn't cause for concern? I don't see how lawsuits regarding design defects in vehicles that have rolled over can be considered not to be about handling.

I'm sure Wiki permits editors to reach consensus by compromise, although there is no guarantee that a currently uninvolved editors won't raise objections. However, I stand by my statement of five months ago. A few sentences on the filing of the lawsuit and the settlement are all that's needed, and the emphasis on this one lawsuit is evidence of undue weight. We are not improving this article by inserting more and more links and getting further off topic. ThatSaved (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

One final comment regarding the video you wish to insert. My concerns about using videos on MySpace remain , see WP:ELNO "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid: Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook)" along other wiki guidelines elsewhere linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSaved (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was just a matter of waiting a few years for the videos to turn up again. We truth-seekers are a patient lot! They're now on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6_1o_FxsNs&feature=related - I'm suggesting the links be put back in the article because it clearly shows how Consumer Reports rigged the Samurai tests to predetermine the result they wanted. Santamoly (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also interesting to note is that both of the lawsuits I could access (Malautea and Rodriguez) were filed several years after the highly publicized rollover tests, and thus CU's results could easily have influenced these trials.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The videos have been on YouTube and other sites since before this discussion began. In an effort to find a source of this video acceptable to all, I contacted Gladstone International, who referred me to Suzuki. In response to my question the Suzuki contact informed me that the video remains under copyright and the CANNOT legal be made available to anyone due to the settlement reached with Consumers Union, who are under the own restrains in referencing the subject. I'd like to think were all truth seekers here. I simply don't think going against wiki guidelines is the correct means of doing it. ThatSaved (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a PS let me note that my communication with these parties happened some time ago. I'm also patient ;-) ThatSaved (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have added a section explains variable vs linear spring rates and how they affect handling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich wiki50300243 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Automobile handling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101011227/http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_product_safety/001236.html to http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_product_safety/001236.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011214458/http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com:80/tech/0506_sccp_making_it_stick_part_1/index.html to http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/tech/0506_sccp_making_it_stick_part_1/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hudson did not use a torque tube in 1948 and did not use helical springs. Keaau749 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply