Fire in the hall - FLO of golf shaft do have a influence

[Howard_Jones]

37 minutes ago, DYOS4 said:

Like Stuart pointed out, mental side of this stupid game can have a big effect. On the physical side, a bad night of sleep can have a couple mph clubhead different vs feeling good.

Its already written, but i might use others words to explain it better..

When the player experienced better dispersion and direction, that gave some of them confidence to swing faster than they normally would, since that often ended bad before, so YES, the mental part IS present.

I understand the wish for test done "in a vacuum", but for me thats almost like shaft testing in a robot, and we are not robots, and we dont play golf in a vacuum, and the mental part of golf should not be needed to mention, so if we boost the players confidence, and the difference is seen forward in time (not just that day), the player should be happy and satisfied, and thats whats its all about in the end.

[Jim53]

This is fascinating, is there any way to check FLO without fancy equipment? I would love to try this on my Driver but only have a very basic shop.

[Stuart_G]

3 minutes ago, Jim53 said:

This is fascinating, is there any way to check FLO without fancy equipment? I would love to try this on my Driver but only have a very basic shop.

 

It's easy to check FLO - but the problem is that if you don't have a freq meter, you can't tell the difference between the strong (spine) and weak (NPB) axis.

[Ri_Redneck]

Very interesting data. I have never been a Flo/Spine advocate, so I have no intelligent comments to give in that arena. However, I am a very "swing-minded" golfer. So my first thought was "What made these people swing the club faster after the shaft had been FLOed?  In the test Howard posted, every single individual swung the club faster after the adjustment was made. In my mind, that means every single golfer felt more confident when swinging the club after the adjustment was made. We swing faster when we are relaxed and confident. We swing slower when we feel we are not in control.

 

I would REALLY be curious to know if the distance increases happened immediately, or after a few swings.... when the golfer realizes that they feel much more "in control" and swung more freely. I suspect the distances and speeds listed were averages of several swing as is typical with such testing, so it's possible the first few swings MAY have been in line with the previous set, and then increases began as they felt more confident in their control.

 

Just thinking, but I am following this thread big time!

 

BT

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, doctor220 said:

Exactly. Or the data is falsified, improperly measured,  etc. too good to be true. 
 

if I can get 20 meters carry by lining my shaft up on some voodoo axis, sign me up 

 

No offense, but due to your 10 years between posts (or are a lot of your posts missing due to board changes ?), you might want to re-consider suggesting possibly falsified information being posted by one of the more respected and experienced posters, especially on equipment, fitting, etc, we have on the board.

 

OTOH, I'm happy to see there's finally something on the board you like to add your 2 cents to.

 

 

1 hour ago, doctor220 said:

Could be something as simple as the people literally walked in and hit their driver 5 times cold and then it got aligned and they swung it again. Some of these people gained like 10-12 mph ball speed. It seems pretty ludicrous to think people were swinging the driver 7-8 mph at minimum faster due to it being aligned differently. 

 

Frankly, HJ seems to have a fair bit of respect for his student, who collected the stats.

 

I daresay it's unlikely the data was collected in such a sloppy manner as you're suggesting.

 

And personally, while I'll sign up right away for an additional 7-8 mph due to shaft orientation as well, I'll wait until all the thread/data sorts itself out before addressing it quite the way you have.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, grochol17 said:

Every one of the 28 players saw a pretty big jump in performance.  But, at least a couple of the players should have, by random chance, already had a shaft that was aligned properly (or very close to it) so that nothing really changed when their shaft was reinstalled.  The fact that everyone improved definitely makes me think there was a bump in confidence from knowing that their club was "better than before."  Like Stuart mentioned, this is interesting, but needs blind testing before we can say for sure that the improvements are due to the FLOing rather than being psychological. 

 

There are actually a lot of reasons about possible testing methodologies - other than confidence - that could account for a second session being consistently better than the first session.

[Stuart_G]

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

I understand the wish for test done "in a vacuum", but for me thats almost like shaft testing in a robot, and we are not robots, and we dont play golf in a vacuum, and the mental part of golf should not be needed to mention, so if we boost the players confidence, and the difference is seen forward in time (not just that day), the player should be happy and satisfied, and thats whats its all about in the end.

 

Robot testing is only important if you want to take away any "feel" aspect to the effect on the results.  That can be important to some aspects of how alignment might effect the results.   But that's very different from the mental aspect that blind tests is designed to avoid.   A good fitter can make a player feel good about anything with the right interactions - so that's not what we want or need to test with respect to shaft alignment.

 

 

[LongNwrong27]

6 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

No offense, but due to your 10 years between posts (or are a lot of your posts missing due to board changes ?), you might want to re-consider suggesting possibly falsified information being posted by one of the more respected and experienced posters, especially on equipment, fitting, etc, we have on the board.

 

OTOH, I'm happy to see there's finally something on the board you like to add your 2 cents to.

 

 

 

Frankly, HJ seems to have a fair bit of respect for his student, who collected the stats.

 

I daresay it's unlikely the data was collected in such a sloppy manner as you're suggesting.

 

And personally, while I'll sign up right away for an additional 7-8 mph due to shaft orientation as well, I'll wait until all the thread/data sorts itself out before addressing it quite the way you have.

Unbelievable data deserves to be treated unbelievably. Every single user seeing significant improvements from a change is inherently statistically unlikely. As has been pointed out, at least a few people were like pretty close to their flo line , so you’d expect to see some people with no change or even a few with losses with reasonable, reliable data. 
 

 

 

[Mr. Magix]

https://www.facebook.com/madebyrosenberg

Hi my name is Thomas Rosenberg owner of Made by Rosenberg
www.madebyrosenberg.dk
The report that Howard has posted is one I made. Player only came with their Driver nothing else !
Customers warmed up and struck 15 strokes. I asked if that's what they saw out on the field? Yes it was.
I rotated the shaft so that the soft side sits behind out & hard side is in impact direction.
Now players began to see the ball look more alike.
When this happens, you relax more and want to gain more speed
I spent 1 hour on each customer,everyone got better ball speed less spread better carry.
Secret is that spine should be 9 to 3, the problem on the web is that they say spine should be 12-6.
See my profile there I have posted pictures before and after.

Works with 18 pro player. ECCO Tour Challenge TOUR DP World

Link is to someone who tells what this is all about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA-d1VA8ohk

Player hit 230 meter carry to 260 meter carry
There is no pressure in the ball with a driver assembled incorrectly
Link:https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=566779918780607&set=pcb.566780138780585

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=566779892113943&set=pcb.566780138780585
Young player
228 meter carry to 260 meter carry

 

We can't use the connector if the shaft is not set correctly.
 

[DYOS4]

22 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Its already written, but i might use others words to explain it better..

When the player experienced better dispersion and direction, that gave some of them confidence to swing faster than they normally would, since that often ended bad before, so YES, the mental part IS present.

I understand the wish for test done "in a vacuum", but for me thats almost like shaft testing in a robot, and we are not robots, and we dont play golf in a vacuum, and the mental part of golf should not be needed to mention, so if we boost the players confidence, and the difference is seen forward in time (not just that day), the player should be happy and satisfied, and thats whats its all about in the end.

@Howard_Jones, I agree with you completely. Whatever makes the player perform better.

 

But we are trying to figure out if spine alignment actually helped. Placebo can have the same effect on player confidence.

 

Please give Thomas a thanks from his internet golf friends for taking this on.

[Mr. Magix]

3 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

 

There is rather large difference between "gained carry", both as distance and %, so its not like they all gained 15% or 30 yards. I dont have more details until Thomas chimes in here himself, but we can assume that all this clubs came with logo up from OEM

A test like this CANT be done as a blind test, its the players own club, its not "similar shafts", its THE shaft the player got, and to say it like i feel it, its really THAT question most players seeks the answer to, not how a "shaft X" that dont belong to the player works "before and after" for 10 or 20 players.

The reason for my thinking here is the typical question....
"ive been fitted for....should i pay the extra for PURE or FLO?
I really think thats the question most of us wants the answer to, or said with other words, if we by fitting find a good shaft, can it be improved any further this way?

Its also quite a spread on HDCP, so Thomas should add if the player was fitted for the actual club/shaft, or if it simply was the club they once bought without fitting. 

Another claim from Thomas during our chat was that for some of this players, the adjustable hosel settings "did not really work as they should", before the shaft was aligned, but again, details must be added by him.

Thomas is both a club maker, club fitter, and swing trainer, so he must also tell us if he made any changes to the players swing who could "muddy the waters" here, but as i understood it, this project was strictly shaft alignment, and what happened when done.

The young player who has HCP 3.1 was surprised that I didn't change his swing. The player could start letting go in the turn. Many players hold back in the swing to keep the ball in the fairway.

[Mr. Magix]

4 minutes ago, DYOS4 said:

@Howard_Jones, I agree with you completely. Whatever makes the player perform better.

 

But we are trying to figure out if spine alignment actually helped. Placebo can have the same effect on player confidence.

 

Please give Thomas a thanks from his internet golf friends for taking this on.

You can't make a placebo effect on a shaft that doesn't work right

[DYOS4]

1 minute ago, Mr. Magix said:

You can't make a placebo effect on a shaft that doesn't work right

That's what we are trying to figure out, what made for these changes. For you to conclude that spine aligning was solely responsible for these improvements needs to be further examined, to say the least. 

 

Thanks for taking on this topic! 

[LongNwrong27]

38 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Its already written, but i might use others words to explain it better..

When the player experienced better dispersion and direction, that gave some of them confidence to swing faster than they normally would, since that often ended bad before, so YES, the mental part IS present.

I understand the wish for test done "in a vacuum", but for me thats almost like shaft testing in a robot, and we are not robots, and we dont play golf in a vacuum, and the mental part of golf should not be needed to mention, so if we boost the players confidence, and the difference is seen forward in time (not just that day), the player should be happy and satisfied, and thats whats its all about in the end.

You could easily get two of the same shafts, FLO one and don’t FLO the other. They have interchangeable tips , like essentially all modern drivers do. 
 

you have players hit them without knowing which shaft is which. Document results. 
 

Yes it’s a decent amount of effort for average person to do, to purchase two shafts etc but if you’re truly trying to show a difference this would be quite superior. Of course there are subtle variances in each individual shaft but would definitely better show a correlation. Also if you can find the FLO you could purposefully turn the shaft away from it as well and test that right ? There’s a reason people don’t do tests like this, they don’t want the results which will show it’s not a meaningful thing ( or literally every shaft OEM that has looked into it, would do it). 

[nsxguy]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Magix said:

Secret is that spine should be 9 to 3, the problem on the web is that they say spine should be 12-6.

 

Just so I understand, "9" would be the shaft pointing to the club head at address.

 

In the picture below, is this how you see it ? "12" would be the target line, correct ?

 

[Mr. Magix]

8 minutes ago, DYOS4 said:

That's what we are trying to figure out, what made for these changes. For you to conclude that spine aligning was solely responsible for these improvements needs to be further examined, to say the least. 

 

Thanks for taking on this topic! 

We need to see a shaft that will deliver power in the direction we want. Imagine if you put a shaft 90 degrees wrong. then athletes will be thrown in the wrong direction

[DYOS4]

1 minute ago, Mr. Magix said:

We need to see a shaft that will deliver power in the direction we want. Imagine if you put a shaft 90 degrees wrong. then athletes will be thrown in the wrong direction

/cdn-cgi/mirage/854a37a3f2b63acfc1dea848abf9bf148794c23d120f06c1a85ab15c390ea437/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/854a37a3f2b63acfc1dea848abf9bf148794c23d120f06c1a85ab15c390ea437/1280/https://wrxcdn.golfwrx.com/uploads/monthly_2023_01/stankspring.jpg.7e6f5da43b0262f829b5ae9fe8a2769d.jpg

By that logic, I should never hit a good shot! 

[Mr. Magix]

3 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

 

 

10 minutes ago, doctor220 said:

You could easily get two of the same shafts, FLO one and don’t FLO the other. They have interchangeable tips , like essentially all modern drivers do. 
 

you have players hit them without knowing which shaft is which. Document results. 
 

Yes it’s a decent amount of effort for average person to do, to purchase two shafts etc but if you’re truly trying to show a difference this would be quite superior. Of course there are subtle variances in each individual shaft but would definitely better show a correlation. Also if you can find the FLO you could purposefully turn the shaft away from it as well and test that right ? There’s a reason people don’t do tests like this, they don’t want the results which will show it’s not a meaningful thing ( or literally every shaft OEM that has looked into it, would do it). 

If you can give the player 8 mph in ball speed with the same shaft, then this is proof enough that this works.

[DYOS4]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Magix said:

 

If you can give the player 8 mph in ball speed with the same shaft, then this is proof enough that this works.

Or you could give a lesson, have a fitness session, watch a long drive tournament, get a massage, have a beer or two, a sexual favor, and produce the exact same (better, faster) results with the initial, unspined club. 

 

Again, thank you for examining this option, but there need to be testing protocols in place if you are going stand by your concrete conclusions. 

[SwingBlues]

1 hour ago, Mr. Magix said:

https://www.facebook.com/madebyrosenberg

Hi my name is Thomas Rosenberg owner of Made by Rosenberg
www.madebyrosenberg.dk
The report that Howard has posted is one I made. Player only came with their Driver nothing else !
Customers warmed up and struck 15 strokes. I asked if that's what they saw out on the field? Yes it was.
I rotated the shaft so that the soft side sits behind out & hard side is in impact direction.
Now players began to see the ball look more alike.
When this happens, you relax more and want to gain more speed
I spent 1 hour on each customer,everyone got better ball speed less spread better carry.
Secret is that spine should be 9 to 3, the problem on the web is that they say spine should be 12-6.
See my profile there I have posted pictures before and after.

Works with 18 pro player. ECCO Tour Challenge TOUR DP World

Link is to someone who tells what this is all about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA-d1VA8ohk

Player hit 230 meter carry to 260 meter carry
There is no pressure in the ball with a driver assembled incorrectly
Link:https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=566779918780607&set=pcb.566780138780585

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=566779892113943&set=pcb.566780138780585
Young player
228 meter carry to 260 meter carry

 

We can't use the connector if the shaft is not set correctly.
 

 

Welcome to the Golf WRX forum, it's very much appreciated that you are sharing your findings/testings 👍

[Jim53]

3 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

It's easy to check FLO - but the problem is that if you don't have a freq meter, you can't tell the difference between the strong (spine) and weak (NPB) axis.

I have always just went logo down and roll with it, can't say if I have left anything on the table but the results Howard showed are very interesting and since he and his protege are highly trained master club fitters it is certainly worth a look.

 

In the past I have had one set of irons built and PURED, they were fantastic. Another set I had PURED and were nothing special, but all that being said it could well have been a good match shaft wise in set #1 for me and a not so good match on #2 since they were different shafts and builders.

[Godfather]

I call bullxxxx on this data. It is either fabricated or cherry-picked or something else has been done. I could go on, but this data is straight BS. I’m not saying there isn’t some potential merit to this idea, but this data is nonsense. 
 

Edit: no disrespect to the OP, who is super knowledgeable and a great contributor here. It’s just the data is misrepresenting reality, either purposely or through a confounding variable or whatever. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Godfather

[Jim53]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Just so I understand, "9" would be the shaft pointing to the club head at address.

 

In the picture below, is this how you see it ? "12" would be the target line, correct ?

 

@Mr. Magix can you speak to this point please, I have always felt this was the way and I believe the way PURED sets the shafts to the head.

[Howard_Jones]

10 hours ago, Godfather said:

I call bullxxxx on this data. It is either fabricated or cherry-picked or something else has been done. I could go on, but this data is straight BS. I’m not saying there isn’t some potential merit to this idea, but this data is nonsense. 
 

Edit: no disrespect to the OP, who is super knowledgeable and a great contributor here. It’s just the data is misrepresenting reality, either purposely or through a confounding variable or whatever. 

I read what you say, but what is "reality"?

Is it a scientific test done in a "vacuum lab" where the same science and numbers cant be transferred to the Golf course, or is it what we observe and experience during play?

A example of the first is SPIN LOFT.
Its nothing wrong with "the science" behind, but we want be able to use it outside that lab.

What we do know about shafts, feel and the player, is that shaft properties FORCES the player to adjust his swing, or make him able to swing like he should.

Again, this IS Science, what we observe and experience, and that DOES something with the player, so what we see is the summary of it.

If the same test was done using a Robot, we would most likely NOT se any difference of importance, since a robot dont care "how it feels", and "confidence" is not even a parameter he was created with.

What you guys should have asked for was, the changes seen, was they transferable to the golf course? What changes was seen during play for carry, dispersion and fairway hits.

Thats the only thing that matters here, did the player get lasting improvements on the course, and how large is that difference.

Thomas is now on this board, so lets get a answer to THAT, if possible as a copy of the players own words.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, Howard_Jones said:

Is it a scientific test done in a "vacuum lab" where the same science and numbers cant be transferred to the Golf course, or is it what we observe and experience during play?

 

"vacuum" is a poor word. 

 

How test results might translate to the course is, of course, an important question.  But there are lot of things we do know for a fact about basic testing principles.

 

First of all - these statements do assume proper testing methodology is used.

 

Actual testing on course would be nice but is too uncontrollable to provide any statistically significant results.  Too much can else can change with the player over the time it would take to collect enough statistically significant data to offset the variable nature of outdoor play.

 

Robot testing (assuming the robot mechanics is close enough to actual human mechanics) tells us how the equipment aspects being tested directly effect the results.   They take out the "human factor."   These types of test influences will always be valid in both the testing environment and on the course.   The downside is that there could be additional influences from the human factor that can also be compounded with the test results.  It might add to it or completely overshadow it.   In short, what it tells us is always true (on and off course) - but it's just not always the full story.   This is great for R+D testing for equipment designers - but not always best to help figure out what might be best on course.

 

Studio or range tests involving players do include the influences of the human factor.   But those human factor influences can be potentially skewed by the differences between the testing environment and the normal on course environment.   However, if the variables can be properly isolated (that means blind testing) - good statistical results from a large enough sample size have the highest possibility of showing up on the course.    So this really is the best way to try and figure the best way to help the player get the best results on the course.

 

There is no way to get 100% confidence that the results will translate to the course.

 

 

The further the methodology gets from the ideal - the lower the percentage that the results will translate to the course.  Even down to 0% if the methodology is extremely poor.

 

And it's been poor or questionable (or just undisclosed) testing methodology that has been the root of pretty much every controversy associated with shaft alignment.

 

For example, in this case, all the data shows is that the results tend to be better in the second test session than it was in the first.   The problem is that there was nothing done to isolate the shaft alignment as the reason for this improvement.   There are way too many other variables here and differences between the first and second session that could potentially explain the improvements seen.

 

And that is completely independent of the question as to why the alignment might  influence the results.   How much might have been feel or how much might come from the underlying forces and motion of a asymmetric shaft bending and recoiling.   You can't even start to look at that question until AFTER you can show that the alignment makes a significant difference to the results.

 

So while I applaud the effort and intent, unfortunately the specific methodology made these results highly suspect and the conclusions unfounded.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Stuart_G

[jomatty]

I understand what everyone is saying athat it would be better if done blind.  A simple way to do that might be to not necessarily worry about having a perfect fitting but to get something like a few different shaft, two of each and flo one of each.  Mark which one is which under the grip or some way that the player won’t know which is which.  Randomly give each player different clubs to hit and track the results.  Of course each shaft is not identical and it is still far from a valid scientific experiment.  It would however, be fairly convincing if the results followed what was seen in the first experiment.  It would be a lot less work and expense than doing a truly valid scientific experiment.

Even with a few shortcomings this information is very thought provoking and I appreciate it being shared.  It is difficult for me to believe that the results could be as significant as the test showed simply because the amounts are so great that people would notice it very easily if flo-ing a shaft added 10 or 15 yards.  That’s so much that I believe it would be very well accepted as significantly better if that was the case.  I definitely would like to see others continue testing on this sort of thing though.  
Big thanks to @Howard_Jones for sharing and @Mr.magix for sharing this incredibly interesting information.  The bad news is it is going to cost me either effort or $$ when I get my shafts aligned the way Thomas suggests.  The information is compelling enough that I don’t want to take a chance on missing out on some yardage…

[LongNwrong27]

8 minutes ago, jomatty said:

I understand what everyone is saying athat it would be better if done blind.  A simple way to do that might be to not necessarily worry about having a perfect fitting but to get something like a few different shaft, two of each and flo one of each.  Mark which one is which under the grip or some way that the player won’t know which is which.  Randomly give each player different clubs to hit and track the results.  Of course each shaft is not identical and it is still far from a valid scientific experiment.  It would however, be fairly convincing if the results followed what was seen in the first experiment.  It would be a lot less work and expense than doing a truly valid scientific experiment.

Even with a few shortcomings this information is very thought provoking and I appreciate it being shared.  It is difficult for me to believe that the results could be as significant as the test showed simply because the amounts are so great that people would notice it very easily if flo-ing a shaft added 10 or 15 yards.  That’s so much that I believe it would be very well accepted as significantly better if that was the case.  I definitely would like to see others continue testing on this sort of thing though.  
Big thanks to @Howard_Jones for sharing and @Mr.magix for sharing this incredibly interesting information.  The bad news is it is going to cost me either effort or $$ when I get my shafts aligned the way Thomas suggests.  The information is compelling enough that I don’t want to take a chance on missing out on some yardage…

People wear magnetic bracelets. Lots of snake oil out there. To think that changing the axis the shaft is installed is going to give you 10 mph more ball speed or that the shaft manufacturers haven’t tested this out, well I got some oceanfront property in Kansas if you’re interested. 
 

things that are too good to be true usually are

[Stuart_G]

16 hours ago, Mr. Magix said:

We need to see a shaft that will deliver power in the direction we want. Imagine if you put a shaft 90 degrees wrong. then athletes will be thrown in the wrong direction

 

 

Don't confuse direction with power delivery.  They are two completely different things from the standpoint of the physics.

 

Your logic is flawed.    If, during the swing, the shaft loaded and unloaded on a single axis, there might be some valid basis to this line of thought.  But even then, you'd still have to show that the deviation from using the wrong axis was significant enough to influence the results.    That pole jumper isn't going to care if he's thrown in the wrong direction by only a millimeter or two.

 

However, the shaft does not bend on single axis during the swing.  The shaft rotates through the swing and the loading actually rotates through almost all axis of the shaft at one point in time or another.   And how exactly it does that is going to be different for different swings. So even if there is a "right" and "wrong" axis, the shaft will always be bending on both those axis during the swing regardless of how you orient the shaft.

 

It's certainly possible that one axis direction might be slightly more important than another or one point in time during the swing might be more important than another.  But you'd need to come up with a valid theory for why to help figure out which one is more important - as well as prove that the difference in the results is not negligible.  And then, even if that was the case a single orientation would not necessarily work for every player equally.  The orientation would likely have to be tuned for each players swing.

 

The bottom line and main point here is that what is really happening in the shaft during the swing is a LOT more complex than most people believe are able to understand.   It's easy to make improper assumptions and generalizations so one has to be very careful about avoiding those pitfalls.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Stuart_G

[mstuewe]

One solution to a practical way of testing could be test and control groups.  Have 28 players do an initial assessment.  Properly FLO 14 shafts and improperly FLO the other 14.  Tell them all you did “something” to improve the performance of the club.  Repeat the assessment and compare.  

[ChaosTheory]

I spined and Flo’d a lot of clubs.  On some poorer quality shafts, I did notice better results.  Sometimes it would fix that one bad iron in the set.  

 

The most obvious improvement came on shafts that had two hard spines 180 degrees apart.  The shaft really wanted to stay in the plane that was in between those spines.  This used to be a fairly common type of graphite shaft.  When I found one, I’d be happy because I felt the shaft would be very stable when installed correctly.
 

As time went on, shaft quality improved and I decided it wasn’t worth doing.  It might be, but I can’t say.

 

As to the clock orientation, 12:00 is the toe of the club.  For a right handed club, the face points to 9:00.  I always put the spine at 3, but I have no idea if that was the best.  There were advocates for 3 and 6, mostly.  I don’t recall anyone who used 9 but it could work.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Snowman9000