Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

And all running with around .001" rod bearing clearance.

No disrespect, but you obviously don't know much about Honda engines. Kinda obvious when you asked that first question, though:

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Now can you give me an example of a daily driving mass produced car that has around 100bhp per litre, hits 8,400 rpm most days and is expected to last past 100k miles. (There are a lot of 100k mile+ S65s out there)

Visit this thread and read some of the commentary http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=121272 then come back and comment on that .001 you mentioned.

All Honda B-series use the same bearings. Here they are listed in thickness, by color:

Rod bearing thickness by color
Blue 1.510-1.507 mm 0.0594”- 0.0593”
Black 1.507-1.504 mm 0.0593”- 0.0592”
Brown 1.504-1.501 mm 0.0592”- 0.0591”
Green 1.501-1.498 mm 0.0591”- 0.0590”
Yellow 1.498-1.495 mm 0.0590”- 0.0589”
Pink 1.495-1.492 mm 0.0589”- 0.0587”
Red 1.492-1.489 mm 0.0587”- 0.0586”

http://www.laskeyracing.com/shop/bearingthickness.htm

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Ronnydashore

So many people are basing their opinion on 3 posters on this site. BLind trust is a scary thing...get back to reality and the fact M knows what they are doing rather than assume they are complete morons

How do you explain putting such blind trust in BMW when you say blind trust is a scary thing?

Many posts ago I asked if you had any modifications to your car. I'd like to know just how far your blind trust in BMW goes. Do you have an ECU tune? Did you raise the redline? Did you remove the speed limiter? CAT delete? Cold start delete? Performance exhaust? Test pipe? Steering servo tuning? Big brakes?

You also claim to have the highest mileage in shortest amount of time M3 I've seen on any forum. According to your last post that got deleted, you have 70,000 miles on a 2012 M3, and 10,000 of those miles were put on in one week. You also claim that you drive the crap out of your car and constantly redline it. If those claims are true, then you'd be an ideal candidate to have your bearings inspected. I have a shop in LA who will do it for free for you and replace with new bearings, also free of charge. All you have to do is accept the offer to have your car inspected, bearings photographed and replaced, and all of the data verified as you've claimed it. Should I set it up?

I live in a city with tons of M3's and have met many with high mileage as well as spoke to my service department who has NEVER seen a bearing issue with the e9x m3.

That's odd because our local dealers sometimes see as many as three cars per week with bearing issues. I also have heard from dealers back east in NY and CT who have reported the same thing. Which dealer do you use? I have contacts in SoCal that know the service managers in most of the BMW dealers in the area. I'd like to have one of them verify your story.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I have a shop in LA who will do it for free for you and replace with new bearings, also free of charge. All you have to do is accept the offer to have your car inspected, bearings photographed and replaced, and all of the data verified as you've claimed it. Should I set it up?

As Lute would say,

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

No disrespect, but you obviously don't know much about Honda engines. Kinda obvious when you asked that first question, though:

Visit this thread and read some of the commentary http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=121272" rel="ugc" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://www.yellowbul...p?t=121272</a> then come back and comment on that .001 you mentioned.

All Honda B-series use the same bearings. Here they are listed in thickness, by color:

Rod bearing thickness by color
Blue 1.510-1.507 mm 0.0594”- 0.0593”
Black 1.507-1.504 mm 0.0593”- 0.0592”
Brown 1.504-1.501 mm 0.0592”- 0.0591”
Green 1.501-1.498 mm 0.0591”- 0.0590”
Yellow 1.498-1.495 mm 0.0590”- 0.0589”
Pink 1.495-1.492 mm 0.0589”- 0.0587”
Red 1.492-1.489 mm 0.0587”- 0.0586”

http://www.laskeyracing.com/shop/bearingthickness.htm" rel="ugc" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://www.laskeyrac...ckness.htm</a>

Lol, you are correct. I did a quick check on honda s2000 clearances in general and they were listed as .0008" to .0015". Mind you, those posts are referring to race engines which is not what's being discussed.

I know very little about Hondas which is sacrilege owing to the fact I can see the honda factory out of my bedroom window. Apologies for being too quick on the trigger.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Nascar rod clearances are hardly rocket science are they? Doing multiple laps at a constant speed on hot oil is a completely different scenario than a daily driver doing a couple of cold starts per day over a few years. How long would this wonder engine last in everyday use? BTW, the Honda S2000 runs .001" clearance...

...

So which Nascar engine designer is it that's saying BMW don't know how to design an engine? Do you have validity of the claim?Are you going to name this team?

That's not much of a full throated, vigorous defense of the article you're using. Either NASCAR is rocket science and they're taking bearing clearance to the next level with BMW following, or it's not rocket science and can't be compared to the BMW. But it can't be both ways.

It will take a little sleuthing (but not much) to figure out the name of the NASCAR team we've been talking about. All you have to do is read the previous posts and put one or two dots together. I'm not trying to be evasive, but I am trying to be respectful of people's privacy. But the clues are all there in the previous posts.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

That's a general rule of thumb for a modified engine. Come on, how much flex is there in an S65 or are you saying the blocks are also crap?

...

Mild performance use? I don't think 105bhp per litre and 180mph capability stock can be considered mild

See section in bold print. It has nothing to do with a modified engine. I'll assume this was an accidental oversight.

In my opinion, the M3 is pretty much at the lower end of true high performance cars on the market today.

I notice that you lay constant blame at the crank, not the Clevite bearings. Would there be any reason for that?

To lay blame on Clevite bearings, you'd have to prove that they either 1) manufactured the bearings incorrectly, 2) had a materials failure, or 3) failed to meet manufacturing specifications. None of the bearings inspected and photographed thus far have showed any signs of manufacturing defects or materials failure.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Are Clevite actually stating that BMW are going against their own recommendations by running 10w60? Didn't the two companies get together at the design stage? Will anyone at Clevite stand by this claim?

I hate to say it this way, but this is Manufacturing-101. As Kawasaki said, Clevite makes whatever the blueprint and spec sheet says. I doubt Clevite would have any idea how BMW plans to use the bearings or the journal size they lay over.

Before I answer any more questions, I think you owe me some answers to mine. I'd like a better defense of the NASCAR article by answering my specific questions. And although you wrote text in response, I didn't see responses to any of those questions. You also owe us the data on S54 failures broken down by year, mileage, bearing size, and oil type. If you want to play counterpoint, then you need to answer our tough questions too; it's not going to be a one way street.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

That's not much of a full throated, vigorous defense of the article you're using. Either NASCAR is rocket science and they're taking bearing clearance to the next level with BMW following, or it's not rocket science and can't be compared to the BMW. But it can't be both ways.

Nascar bearing development = pick a tolerance > hammer it for a few hundred miles> If bearings fail, give it a few more tenths clearance> Go out and retest>Job done. Then move onto the more important aspects of the engine. It sure as hell isn't difficult. Rod bearings rarely fail on race motors.

How long would you assume an Nascar engine would last on daily duties.

Taking bearing science onto the next level ? I don't think so

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Nascar bearing development = pick a tolerance > hammer it for a few hundred miles> If bearings fail, give it a few more tenths clearance> Go out and retest>Job done. Then move onto the more important aspects of the engine. It sure as hell isn't difficult. Rod bearings rarely fail on race motors.

How long would you assume an Nascar engine would last on daily duties.

Taking bearing science onto the next level ? I don't think so

You're not getting off this easy. If that NASCAR article is a counterpoint to demand us to explain why BMW can run tight tolerances then it has a built in assumption (as one guy alludes) that it may be the culmination of next generation technology and advances in materials science. You and others demanded an explanation why BMW can't do this if NASCAR engines can. So you can't have it both ways claiming it's bearing clearances and technology taken to the next level are what allows BMW to do the same, but then also argue that a street engine built to the same specs wouldn't last very long. The latter point seems to be closer to reality than the former.

You really need to answer our skeptical questions if you expect us to answer any more of your skeptical questions. It seems to me the deeper the counter argument becomes, the deeper they keep digging a hole for themselves with these fake claims, failure to read the background materials, and collegiate white papers about hypothetical engines with hypothetical combustion forces that don't seem to change with RPM increases.

I hope you don't mind, but all of these questions still need to be answered. If you give up on the NASCAR engine discussion, then at least give us the data you have on the S54 engine failures broken down by year, mileage, bearing size, and oil type.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Lol, you are correct. I did a quick check on honda s2000 clearances in general and they were listed as .0008" to .0015". Mind you, those posts are referring to race engines which is not what's being discussed.

http://garageninja.com/honda-s2000-f...haft-bearings/

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

http://garageninja.com/honda-s2000-f...haft-bearings/

Hmm. Tighter than I thought then. Thanks for the link

Main Bearing-to-Journal Oil Clearance

Standard (New): 0.017-0.041 mm (0.0007-0.0016 in.)
Service Limit: 0.050 mm (0.0020 in.)

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Hmm. Tighter than I thought then. Thanks for the link

Main Bearing-to-Journal Oil Clearance

Standard (New): 0.017-0.041 mm (0.0007-0.0016 in.)
Service Limit: 0.050 mm (0.0020 in.)

Just wondering....you respond to my posts quickly, but regular guy has been asking you for some data in the past few posts, and you haven't addressed them. Why is that?

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

You're not getting off this easy. If that NASCAR article is a counterpoint to demand us to explain why BMW can run tight tolerances then it has a built in assumption (as one guy alludes) that it may be the culmination of next generation technology and advances in materials science. You and others demanded an explanation why BMW can't do this if NASCAR engines can. So you can't have it both ways claiming it's bearing clearances and technology taken to the next level are what allows BMW to do the same, but then also argue that a street engine built to the same specs wouldn't last very long. The latter point seems to be closer to reality than the former.

You really need to answer our skeptical questions if you expect us to answer any more of your skeptical questions. It seems to me the deeper the counter argument becomes, the deeper they keep digging a hole for themselves with these fake claims, failure to read the background materials, and collegiate white papers about hypothetical engines with hypothetical combustion forces that don't seem to change with RPM increases.

I hope you don't mind, but all of these questions still need to be answered. If you give up on the NASCAR engine discussion, then at least give us the data you have on the S54 engine failures broken down by year, mileage, bearing size, and oil type.

I'm not 'Demanding' anything as you put it. I'm just asking questions. Don't take it so personally

In your original build thread (Which I enjoyed reading btw) you wrote:

Originally Posted by Pencilgeek

Checking the connecting rod side play

After assembling the crank plate and installing the connecting rods, it's time to check the connecting rod side play. The connecting rod side play is the amount of side-to-side play after the two connecting rods have been installed on the same journal. If the clearance is too small, then the connecting rods will rub against each other, create extra heat, and not allow enough oil to escape. It's a vicious cycle of generating too much heat. The side play is measured by spreading the connecting rods as far apart as possible and then measuring with a simple feeler gauge. If the side play is too tight, then the motor must be disassembled and adjustments must be made.

http://www.rcollins.org/m3/Stroker%2...y/DSC06584.JPG

Factory Measurements:

This is another one of those areas where BMW doesn't publish any specifications, so without measuing a few crankshafts and connecting rods, it's impossible to know what BMW intended. A typical measurement is 0.010" (ten-thousanths of an inch). For our application, we wanted a slightly different side-play tolerance. So we first had to measure the factory crank and connecting rods, then measure the stroker crank and connecting rods to see how they compare.

Adjusting the side play:
Even though Carrillo connecting rods are made to the highest standards, we did find a few of them were 1/2 of a thousanth of an inch different than the others (0.0005"). Since Van Dyne already planned to use his own tolerance specifications, this was our opportunity to make the necessary corrections. To ensure that Van Dyne machines the correct face of the connecting rod, each rod is marked with dye. The dyed face is the side that gets machined.

Then In this thread on page 1 you edited to add the slightly dubious and scary size of 'two hairs'. The words Shocked, disbelief and a few other over dramatic terms were added for good measure. Dare I ask why?.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Discovering rod bearing clearance issues wasn't the only adverse discovery we made while assembling this motor. In addition to measuring bearing clearances, Van Dyne also measures connecting rod side play, crankshaft end play, valve opening/closing angles, valve spring seat pressure, and many other things. Connecting rod side clearance is measured by sticking a feeler gauge between the connecting rods to see how much space is between them. Engine builders like to see the connecting rod side clearance in a very specific measurement range. The measurement is taken when the bottom end is mostly assembled: the crankshaft is in place, and the pistons and connecting rods are attached and torqued down. If the side clearance is too little, then oil cannot escape and extra heat is generated by the friction of the connecting rods colliding against each other.

The crankshaft itself can be damaged as well. When the rod side clearance is too tight, as the engine heats up, the rods will swell and the crank will shrink. The tight clearance gets smaller and smaller until the rods collide and start riding against the crankshaft journal fillet. The fillet can be worn down, and damaged by this process, and the metal shavings it produces will damage the connecting rod bearings and other engine parts as well.



To measure the connecting rod side clearance, Van Dyne instinctively grabbed the feeler gauge for the normal, industry-accepted side clearance measurement. The feeler gauge wouldn't fit. Van Dyne grabbed the next feeler gauge half the thickness of the first: it still wouldn't fit. He then grabbed the next feeler gauge half that size: it still wouldn't fit. After four different tries, Van Dyne finally found the feeler gauge that fit. The side clearance was approximately 1/4 the size of industry expected clearance. The clearance was the thickness of two human hairs.

Without hesitation, Van Dyne grabbed our spare set of Carrillo rods that had been in the motor previously. He grabbed them as if he expected to find evidence of possible damage. Within a split second, Van Dyne pointed to the side of the Carrillo rod and said:
See that tiny blue spot? That's caused by heat from these two rods rubbing together because they are so tight. See that scrape mark? That's also caused by these two rods rubbing together.
As Van Dyne (and kawasaki00) explained, proper rod side clearance is essential to allow oil to escape. As the engine heats up, the connecting rods grow and the crankshaft shrinks until the connecting rods are touching each other. The oil can't escape, and extra heat is generated by the friction of the connecting rod collisions. The side of the crankshaft journal could also be damaged by the collisions as well. To me, the situation sounded pretty serious, and I thought it was going to mean another multi-week setback for the project.

Van Dyne deemed the situation so serious that he asked if we could go 60-minutes across town and bring back a factory BMW crankshaft (ours was a billet "stroker" crankshaft) and some factory BMW connecting rods (we were working with two sets of Carrillos). Van Dyne wanted to measure the factory journal width, and factory connecting rod thickness to see if the stroker crankshaft or Carrillo connecting rods were to blame.


Measuring Connecting Rod Side Clearance

Almost in disbelief, Van Dyne started taking measurements. First he measured with a set of calipers. Then when he realized the measurement didn't lie, Van Dyne knew he had to take accurate measurements with micrometers so he could make the necessary calculations to fix the problem.



To make sure the measurements are accurate, first the micrometers were calibrated to a known good thickness.



Van Dyne then started to measure both crankshafts: our billet crankshaft, and the factory crankshaft. The journal thickness measurements both matched. Next, we need to check the connecting rods to see if the Carrillo's were machined thicker than factory rods.



Following the crankshaft measurements, Van Dyne measured the connecting rods to see how they compared. Van Dyne measured both Carrillo and factory connecting rods.



The measurements showed the Carrillo and factory connecting rods are the same thickness. This is positive proof that the factory BMW crankshafts are machined without enough rod side clearance AND without enough rod bearing clearance. It's a double-whammy against proper engine oiling and operation.



Finally, Van Dyne set out to "fix" the clearance issue. I was relieved when Van Dyne said he could fix the issue immediately – as I feared project would suffer another long delay. Without hesitation, Van Dyne pulled out the bottle of DYKEM and started color coating one side of the connecting rods. This would be the side he planned to machine, and the DYKEM would serve as a visual reminder which connecting rods were finished, and which ones weren't.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

Just wondering....you respond to my posts quickly, but regular guy has been asking you for some data in the past few posts, and you haven't addressed them. Why is that?

I've got no interest whatsoever in what clearance a Nascar runs. It's irrelevant.

And no, I don't have exact figures for S54 failures.

To be honest, this paragraph was confusing

Originally Posted by regular guy

You're not getting off this easy. If that NASCAR article is a counterpoint to demand us to explain why BMW can run tight tolerances then it has a built in assumption (as one guy alludes) that it may be the culmination of next generation technology and advances in materials science. You and others demanded an explanation why BMW can't do this if NASCAR engines can. So you can't have it both ways claiming it's bearing clearances and technology taken to the next level are what allows BMW to do the same, but then also argue that a street engine built to the same specs wouldn't last very long. The latter point seems to be closer to reality than the former.

Having taken on board this whole thread, my assumptions are to run M1 0w40 or 5w30 in winter and for daily duties, then run 10w60 TWS for track work. Simple as that really.

Apologies if my comments upset anyone, but you've got to ask questions to garner the facts. That's what forums are for.

[e92zero]

Thank you to the members that provided the references/sizes for the Honda engine so quickly.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

You really need to answer our skeptical questions if you expect us to answer any more of your skeptical questions. It seems to me the deeper the counter argument becomes, the deeper they keep digging a hole for themselves with these fake claims, failure to read the background materials, and collegiate white papers about hypothetical engines with hypothetical combustion forces that don't seem to change with RPM increases.

What would be the best outcome for you?
1. That you are right, BMW have screwed up and we are all f***ed.
2. That you are wrong and 99.5% of our M3 engines are going to be just fine.

From over here, with the way you aggressively confront any counter argument or scrutiny, it looks like 1.
You are so hung up on being right that you seem to be losing any perspective.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Z K

Honda did build some incredible NA engines!

Loved the B16A I had in my Civic. Tracked, autocrossed, drag raced it, drove it every day to work and put over 100k miles on it. 8200 rpm redline with over 100hp/liter. Never had an issue with the car. Just change oil regularly and you're golden. OEM fill was 5w30 Mobil 1. Ran like new until I sold it.

Compare that with the crap Honda sell now...

The K-series iVTEC engines are pretty stout, and I've seen them in a lot of swaps. Same for the B20B VTECs, the engine Honda *should* have produced, but didn't.

I'd love to see them go all VW and mate 2 B18Cs or 2 B20Bs or even 2 F20C blocks and let them share the same crank. That'd be one hell of a V8! But yeah, like you said...the new cars.....they suck. I've been a Honda/Acura guy for the majority of my driving life, but I don't see any offering from Honda worth purchasing in the past few years, save the 6MT Accord Coupe. Toyota (FRS) and Subaru (BRZ) and to some extent Hyundai (Genesis Coupe) have out-Honda'ed, Honda.

Sorry for the threadjack....

[e92zero]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

The K-series iVTEC engines are pretty stout, and I've seen them in a lot of swaps. Same for the B20B VTECs, the engine Honda *should* have produced, but didn't.

I'd love to see them go all VW and mate 2 B18Cs or 2 B20Bs or even 2 F20C blocks and let them share the same crank. That'd be one hell of a V8! But yeah, like you said...the new cars.....they suck. I've been a Honda/Acura guy for the majority of my driving life, but I don't see any offering from Honda worth purchasing in the past few years, save the 6MT Accord Coupe. Toyota (FRS) and Subaru (BRZ) and to some extent Hyundai (Genesis Coupe) have out-Honda'ed, Honda.

Sorry for the threadjack....

Completely agree. Would really be something if they mate 2 F20C and give us a 480 hp, 9000 rpm 4.0L V8.

Sorry for the threadjack too....

[Z K]

Originally Posted by e92zero

Completely agree. Would really be something if they mate 2 F20C and give us a 480 hp, 9000 rpm 4.0L V8.

Sorry for the threadjack too....

Sorry for going OT,

The closest thing we'll get is the new NSX but it looks like it'll be a AWD GTR competitor. Who knows how good it'll be... and the price tag isn't cheap. It isn't the heyday of Honda performance cars like in the late 90s and early 2000s.

[US///M3]

What did you guys figure out now?

[jcolley]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

What would be the best outcome for you?
1. That you are right, BMW have screwed up and we are all f***ed.
2. That you are wrong and 99.5% of our M3 engines are going to be just fine.

From over here, with the way you aggressively confront any counter argument or scrutiny, it looks like 1.
You are so hung up on being right that you seem to be losing any perspective.

I'd say if anything, he's probably frustrated with all the "can't see the forest for the trees" around here. I find it baffling so many people refuse to acknowledge what has been shown here. No, there is not 100% evidence for clearance and starvation being the cause, but the amount of experience, work, and effort that's been put into this is frankly, damned amazing.

There are however an incredible number of data points shown and if you start connecting the dots, there's a pretty clear line. Enough that I pulled mine and well...looks like these guys and this thread did me a favor.



If any of the skeptics were to refute the theory and present alternate explanations or mitigating actions, then it would really be even more useful. But to sit back and say "prove it" over and over is like listening to a car load of kids on a long trip.

When a bunch of enthusiasts with specialized knowledge come forward and put this kind of effort into documenting a potential design/operation issue, it benefits the community. I have no plans of getting rid of this car...ever. The more information I can get on potential issues and dealing with them early, the longer I can enjoy the car with less frustration.

If you can't do this type of work, it can be expensive, but weighing the longevity of the engine versus a set of nice wheels or exhaust...to me, that's a no brainer.

Thanks for the efforts guys, keep it coming.

[e92zero]

Originally Posted by jcolley

I'd say if anything, he's probably frustrated with all the "can't see the forest for the trees" around here. I find it baffling so many people refuse to acknowledge what has been shown here. No, there is not 100% evidence for clearance and starvation being the cause, but the amount of experience, work, and effort that's been put into this is frankly, damned amazing.

There are however an incredible number of data points shown and if you start connecting the dots, there's a pretty clear line. Enough that I pulled mine and well...looks like these guys and this thread did me a favor.

Attachment 936827

If any of the skeptics were to refute the theory and present alternate explanations or mitigating actions, then it would really be even more useful. But to sit back and say "prove it" over and over is like listening to a car load of kids on a long trip.

When a bunch of enthusiasts with specialized knowledge come forward and put this kind of effort into documenting a potential design/operation issue, it benefits the community. I have no plans of getting rid of this car...ever. The more information I can get on potential issues and dealing with them early, the longer I can enjoy the car with less frustration.

If you can't do this type of work, it can be expensive, but weighing the longevity of the engine versus a set of nice wheels or exhaust...to me, that's a no brainer.

Thanks for the efforts guys, keep it coming.

+1000 with everything you just said. What's your course of action after this and did you pull the bearings yourself? Any plan of DIY when you put the (new) bearings back in? Thanks.

[GIdriver]

Originally Posted by jcolley

I'd say if anything, he's probably frustrated with all the "can't see the forest for the trees" around here. I find it baffling so many people refuse to acknowledge what has been shown here. No, there is not 100% evidence for clearance and starvation being the cause, but the amount of experience, work, and effort that's been put into this is frankly, damned amazing.

There are however an incredible number of data points shown and if you start connecting the dots, there's a pretty clear line. Enough that I pulled mine and well...looks like these guys and this thread did me a favor.

Attachment 936827

If any of the skeptics were to refute the theory and present alternate explanations or mitigating actions, then it would really be even more useful. But to sit back and say "prove it" over and over is like listening to a car load of kids on a long trip.

When a bunch of enthusiasts with specialized knowledge come forward and put this kind of effort into documenting a potential design/operation issue, it benefits the community. I have no plans of getting rid of this car...ever. The more information I can get on potential issues and dealing with them early, the longer I can enjoy the car with less frustration.

If you can't do this type of work, it can be expensive, but weighing the longevity of the engine versus a set of nice wheels or exhaust...to me, that's a no brainer.

Thanks for the efforts guys, keep it coming.

[GIdriver]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

I see not much has changed around here.
This is me continuing to watch from the bushes.
Oh yea, we won another race yesterday in dominating fashion in Texas. Maybe one day we will get some of this "data" figured out.

Dominating performance indeed!