By on January 9, 2009

I don’t even know where the 0-60 mph metric came from. Sounds like it was something Brock Yates would’va dreamed up after the Federal double knickle went into effect. But, it’s older than that. Anyhow, I bring this up because I relied on that chestnut pretty heavily for my WRX review. Why? Well, if I had to encapsulate the 2009 WRX into a single sentence it would go like this, “Everything’s worse than the 2005-2007 WRX, except that it’s so damn fast I love it.” But you know, when Farago says 800 words, he means 800 words. But I want you to understand my point. The good thing about the WRX is how freakishly it accelerates. No one records 0-75 mph times. But, we have an endless supply of 0-60 mph data for every car ever built ever (basically). So my choice was to either compare it to other fast cars you’re (hopefully) familiar with, or dig into the old metaphor bucket (Faster than Marion Jones on fresh dope. Faster than a speed freak on a roller coaster where both the speed freak and the roller coaster are on speed.). I chose the former, and man are y’all hammering me! And I can take it. Thick skin, broad shoulders, decent bench press at one point, etc. In fact, the barbs provide fodder for my QOTD, so I thank you. And so yeah, that’s my question. Is 0-60 mph a useful metric when reviewing cars. I say yes because who the hell gets to ever run a car flat out for a quarter of a mile? On public roads? But up to 60 mph? No prob. You?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

56 Comments on “Question of the Day: Should Car Reviews Mention 0 – 60 Time?...”

  • avatar

    0 to 60 tells me if i will get up to speed before the end of the on ramp.
    1981 911 SC (bone stock) 7.0 seconds except that damn 2nd gear syncro…..

  • avatar

    Because conditions can vary (driver skill, environment) and that a 0-60 number is less Indicative of performance in AWD cars there should be a standard calculation used based on a vehicles torque curve and curb weight that would produce a “variable torque output rating” or something at various speeds (15, 30, 60, 90 etc). But being that it would be pretty hard to work out, 0-60 is as good as anything I suppose. 0-60 does indicate more about a cars performance than the HP rating in my book.

  • avatar

    I have no problem with 0-60. Sure it doesn’t encompass all aspects of performance.

    Advantages of 0-60.

    Street legal speeds, you can do it yourself fairly easily. As arbitrary measures go, about as useful as anything else. Naturally when doing more complete testing, you do slaloms, skid pads, 1/4 mile, top speed breaking etc… as well.

    But for the average Joe, 0-60 makes sense and they can do it themselves. The only thing I don’t like about about 0-60 is a I would like a non drivetrain thrashing start number as well.

    It’s the internet, people over-react.

  • avatar


  • avatar

    Why not? Any measure, even horsepower made by the engine (at a certain altitude), is affected by the environment the car is tested in, who is driving, etc.

    Just go with the information. But make sure it’s from a similar source if you’re really going to compare it. I can guarantee that Consumer Reports and Sport Compact Car don’t test acceleration in the same manner.

    But it’s really useless as a too of argument/posturing, which is what this usually boils down to. A 126 hp Toyota Corolla has no trouble merging onto any highway in America, and can still go 100+ mph, in a country where 20 mph over the speed limit, whatever that may be (and isn’t more than 75 anywhere) will get your license revoked and a jail sentence gifted upon you. It irks me when people say that power/acceleration is a safety feature or makes one car inherently better than another. If you like power, buy power. If not, don’t. Doesn’t make one person right.

    I’ve driven Kia Rios and Hyundai Accents that had no trouble keeping up with traffic moving at 80 mph, with short on-ramps. I’ve been hemmed in by bumbling old people in 300 hp Northstar-powered Cadillacs doing 60 in the left lane for ten miles. Power isn’t everything.

  • avatar

    0-60 may not be perfect, but it’s the best that we have. Maybe 5-50 would be more useful for my personal use, since I’m unlikely to do many clutch-dumping launches.

  • avatar

    Despite all of the problems with it, it is a standard that had withstood the test of time. To say that a $25K car is capable to accellerate to 60 mph from a standstill in 4.7 seconds says a great deal. There is much more to a great car than this specification, but it is useful in a quick and dirty way to give the reader an idea of the swiftness of low-speed acceleration.

    Nice review, by the way.

  • avatar

    It’s even more telling that in societies where speeds are relatively unrestricted on the highways (i.e. Germany), you’ve got fleets of mass-market cars with 60-100 hp moving just fine. Sure, they might take a while to get to 100+ mph, and they might not be able to reach sixty in less than 15 seconds, but it works. The rest is just a status symbol, or hobby, depending on how you present yourself to the world.

  • avatar

    0-60 is fine when comparing econoboxes, but when you’re dealing with performance vehicles, it means a lot less. The WRX is a performance vehicle. If you compare its performance for the 1/4 mile to the M3, you’re going to see it’s performance isn’t even close to that of an M3, even if its 0-60 time says so. The 0-60 is also limited by traction. The more horsepower you have, the harder it is to put it to the ground.

  • avatar

    0-60 goes way back. I found a straight, flat, unused piece of road and tested my slightly hopped up, 1955, Studebaker V-8, white over yellow, Coupe to see if I could touch the, then very impressive, 10 second mark.

    I backed up a bit to get the longest run, revved the little V-8, and popped the clutch. Bang!!! Unfortunately, I had forgotten to shift from reverse to low. I almost broke my nose on the steering wheel. No seat belts or air bags then.

    The best I could time with a stopwatch in my left hand was that I was just about on the 10 second mark.

    I still regret selling that car to my little brother. He ruined it in no time and never fully paid me for it.

  • avatar

    I’m all about 0-60. And then some.

  • avatar

    Stupid metric, tells me nothing meaningful about the car.

  • avatar

    If you’re only doing 60 by the end of the on-ramp, you’re still a bit under the speed limit (in most parts of the country)…please stay in the right lane.

    How about a 5-75mph acceleration test? 75mph is pretty much the max speed limit in the US, and the 5mph start accounts for a rollout from an intersection, or merging lane.

  • avatar

    Keep it in, Jonny!

    …and I would hasten to add that 60-0 times are equally important (for safety, insurance rates and license protection)!

    BTW, will the 2009 STi show in equally impressive increase in acceleration?


  • avatar

    The speed limit in most parts of the USA is 65mph.

    Therefore, I think listing the 0-60 of every car is a good thing because it tells us how long it will take a car to get to 50~60mph on our highways.

    Quarter Mile times don’t mean anything to me unless I’m buying a performance car and planning to race everyone. For performance cars, I supposse the measurement might as well be 0 -100mph.

    But not only do I want to know 0-60 time, I want to know 60 – 0 TIME AS WELL !
    Hard to bring your car to a stop if you don’t know how it handles and its acceleration/decceleration.

    AND YES – I do like to use posted 0 -60 times to argue that one car is better than the next. Its impossible to argue with numbers that are based on real world tests and it helps make a case as to why I should go for an SRT8 rather than just getting a HemiC.

  • avatar

    0-60 times should definitely be tested and reported; objective (or at least relatively objective) information is always critical. Without objective testing reviews would just be, as Lieberman points out, analogy ridden babbling.

    However, that objective information should not influence the subjective review. “Hey, I thought this car was a complete piece of shit, but then I saw in Car & Driver that it’s quicker than something really expensive.” That perception of the review is possibly what people were objecting to in Lieberman’s review of the WRX.

    Take, for example, the Top Gear comparisons. The three pundits, or at least Clarkson, all go around the track and say which car they prefer. And then the stig shows which is actually quickest.

    The subjective reviews wouldn’t be as valid and interesting if the stig did the timed tests first (although for all of Top Gears credibility he probably does).

  • avatar

    The 0-60 MPH rating has been around for so long it seems a waste to stop measuring it now. I agree with what some previous commentors have said already, it does provide a more useful figure than HP or Torque alone. We know that anything built today can accelerate well enough and hit legal-speeds without effort (except for the Aveo). I doubt the masses purchasing Civics, Accords, Camry’s and all other transportation vehicles even ask about this stuff as opposed to their bigger concerns with reliability and MPG.

  • avatar

    It’s useless for real performance cars, chiefly because the runs are so short that outside factors detract from the car’s real capabilities. Anything RWD that’ll break 5.0 is liable to be traction-limited for at least part of the run. Once you get into the fours and threes, the shift time to second becomes such a significant factor that some manufacturers will equip a tall first gear that ends just after 60 mph. Things happen so fast that the natural variability between hotshoes and weather conditions can skew the times significantly. When 200 more horsepower only make the car a tenth of second faster, what’s the point?

    Turbocharged and AWD cars present another problem. I’m not interested that a WRX will make 60 in 4.7 if you drop the clutch at 6000 RPM from a standing start. It’s rare the urge strikes me to destroy my transmission. Far more interesting are the street start (5-60) and highway passing times, both of which take the launch out of the equation and show the flexibility of the engine. Likewise, the quarter-mile trap speed is probably the best gauge of an actual power-to-weight ratio short of a dyno run and a set of scales.

    More broadly, 0-60 was originally intended to determine if the car was capable of reaching highway speeds in a reasonable time. These days, there isn’t a car on the road so slow as to be hazardous. If people want a metric to differentiate performance characteristics, it should be a higher number. 80 MPH, say.

  • avatar

    First-gear acceleration, while fun, is grossly overrated. Zero-to-60 times are largely a measure of first gear acceleration.

  • avatar

    I personally like waftable torque. To me, there’s nothing like accelerating briskly without breaking 2000 rpm and hardly tipping the throttle. Some companies still make peaky engines, stiff accelerator pedals and don’t design in a fast throttle tip-in. But 0-60 is still a decent metric for how much waft I can get.

  • avatar

    0-60 mph is good enough for Ohio. For those of us in the real world, we need 0-80.

  • avatar

    I think its a good basis for comparison as it is something most drivers can relate to.

  • avatar

    Yes it is important my friend, because it shows how fast a car goes from 0km/h to 100km/h(which is where the 60mph comes from I believe), and yes, there are times when I find myself going from nada to 60mph in real-world traffic…

    I don’t know how old this standard is but 100km/h seems like a good place to go. In metric, the number 100 seems to be significant: 100degrees Celsius is the boiling point of water, 100 centimeter is one meter, etc

    What does that mean to an ordinary driver? Well, it means how well your car can do an onramp of a busy and/or antiquated freeway, like the I-110(the oldest freeway in U.S.???) in L.A.( as in Highland park/Mt. washington area, if you know what I mean…).

    The 0 to 60mph time will be a good indication of whether you’re car is quick enough for such occasion, so you don’t get mauled by the on-going traffic when you merge with them.

  • avatar

    There are only two acceleration statistics that really matter.

    1. 30 to 70 mph, for highway merging
    2. 0 to 30 mph, for shooting past that little bastard in the Honda with the giant tailpipe when the light turns green, and then watching with delight as he eventually screams past you in front of the police.

    ’nuff said.

  • avatar

    Throw me in for a “yes” vote.

    Granted, testing conditions and driver skill vary, but it’s still a decent estimate of how much hustle a car’s got.

  • avatar


    Comment of the day!

  • avatar

    0-60 has been the de facto whip-it-out-and-see-who’s-is-better metric for so long, I just don’t know how to replace it.

    When you get into the 7 second range and start comparing tenths, there’s just so many variables.

    Personally, I’m a fan of 0-100-0. Mitigates a lot of variables, separates out a lot of pretenders, and I think brakes matter.

    The downside of over reliance on acceleratiopn numbers is, of course, the ringers. Back in the 70’s every one of those ‘musclecars’ tested by a magazine was balanced, blueprinted, ported, polished, flowed, relieved, over-cammed, acid-dipped body, Q-ship.

  • avatar

    While I agree with comments like those from Don1967, the 0-60 number effectively combines those measures and gives you a fair idea how it will handle both.

  • avatar
    Philip Lane

    FWIW, the use of 0-60 as a testing procedure is credited to Tom McCahill, who is also credited with the invention of the journalistic road test itself.

    The question here is whether 0-60 is a useful metric for readers.

    Sure. When I was six years old and began subscribing to Motor Trend, 0-60 times were good numbers for me to remember when comparing performance.

    When I turned eight, I got a subscription to Car and Driver, and I learned something new.

    First, I learned there was more to cars than horsepower and 0-60 numbers. Second, I learned that you could infer some of those things from the numbers.

    In the post-WWII period when McCahill created the test, most cars delivered their power in a similar, uninspired fashion, and McCahill generally tested them with a standard foot-to-the-floor procedure. If you compare among McCahill’s figures, the information can be useful, but you’ll never learn more than which car is quicker than another when accelerating to 60 mph from a stop.

    Ignoring the editorial content of the publication, I think we can agree that C/D has historically published the best test results of the major auto rags, because (at least before that last redesign) they offered up the most information. In a road test, Car and Driver would give acceleration times at 10 mph graduations up to a car’s top speed. A clever reader could tell where a car was limited by gearing or aerodynamics. At the same time, they also published top gear acceleration numbers from 30-50 and 50-70. While some cars were (are) limited by gearing (e.g. 6-speed Corvettes), comparing these numbers gives a small picture of where in the rev range a car makes the most power: higher, lower, or more constantly.

    Near the end of Csaba Csere’s term as Technical Director, C/D began performing a test that is more germane to our discussion of 0-60: the 5-60 Street Start. (“Csaba’s Excellent Acceleration Test”, April 1991, p. 46)

    The 5-60 Street Start is exactly what it sounds like: accelerate like hell from a 5 mph roll with the clutch engaged. No high-RPM turbo-lag cheating, clutch-burning tricks. Just the best numbers the car can produce on the move. By comparing the 5-60 number with the 0-60 number, you can tell just how hard it is to get the most out of a car.

    Yeah, I think 0-60 is relevant. I think it’s way more useful if it’s packaged with the 5-60 and top gear acceleration numbers, but if you’re limited to 800 words, then it may be best to leave them out.

  • avatar

    it’s just a measure of performance. that’s all. everyone just get over it. i’m thinking that there are more important things about cars.

  • avatar
    johnny ro

    Bike mags used to a have better quant measure. They did 1/4 mile time, with graph showing speed at each point in time on a curve. At least thats how I remember it. Cant say I have seen that in a while.

    0-60. Well it lets you know fast vs sluggish so thats necessary, right?

    Report of track time for every car regardless of how inappropriate driving on track is? Well even that lets you know whats up with how it drives. It does seem funny sometimes to have to work through description of track handling for soft slow cars and trucks.

  • avatar

    0-60 is cool but it’s the quarter mile time is the dumbest metric.

  • avatar

    I like graphs.

    I’m far more interested in a dyno chart of rpm vs torque and horsepower than a 0 to whatever time. Oh, and 1/4 mile time vs speed would be interesting too. I’ve never seen that before.

    Lap times are not very meaningful because each track is different.

  • avatar

    If the point of 0-60 mph time is to judge merging potential, wouldn’t 0-60 mph distance be more relevant, in the same way the 60-0 mph braking distance is relevant? I’m not looking at my stopwatch when driving, I’m judging distances and car spacing by eye. Hopefully, 0-60 mph (or 0-80 mph) distances can be used to redesign the stupidly short merge lanes here in SE Michigan.

  • avatar

    To measure 0-100 km/h(ca 0-60mph) has been done since the stoneage ;)
    It may not be the most important measure, but it´s a yardstick that you can use to compare cars from all times, so yes.
    I keep hearing that in usa you need fast acceleration to get on the highway.
    What´s up with that?
    Is the onramps very short?

  • avatar

    Yes. I prefer to see both 0-60 (or 0-100 km) and quarter mile figures (both ET and trap speed). 0-60 is a useful metric just because it’s been used for 60 years, while the standing quarter mile (or standing 400 m) gives a good idea of the shape of the torque curve.

  • avatar

    0-60 is cool but it’s the quarter mile time is the dumbest metric.

    And why is that? It tells you more about a performance car’s capabilites than 0-60.

    1/4 with trap speed and time tells you a lot about a car’s performance. The WRX may have a low trap time(mid 13’s), but if the MPH are low too(which is usually is comparatively) than you can tell it’s zippy off the line, but slows down at higher speeds.

    1/4 mile time tells me more than 0-60.

  • avatar
    Stephan Wilkinson

    It’s been 30 years since I actually cared how long it took a car to reach 60.

  • avatar

    @ konaforever

    1/4 with trap speed and time tells you a lot about a car’s performance.

    What does it tell you about the driving experience?? Anyone can go in a straight line “really fast” and the trap speed (power – not torque) is meaningless in most countries other than Germany.

    Americans are (were?) obsessed with the quarter.

    I’d rather have dyno sheet.

  • avatar

    What does it tell you about the driving experience?? Anyone can go in a straight line “really fast” and the trap speed (power – not torque) is meaningless in most countries other than Germany.

    And 0-60 for performance cars doesn’t tell you much. You’re barely in 2nd gear for most cars. Still in first for some.

    Trap speed is an indicator of the car’s capabilties. Why have 500 HP if you’re just going to go to 60?

    Just sounds like you have a bias against drag racing. The 1/4 is useful.

    Dyno is useful, but doesn’t include gearing.

  • avatar

    No. But like the 1/4 mile and MPG, it’s an easy way to metrics against other cars./

    0-100-0 needs to make a comeback!

    Dave Coleman, formerly of Sport Compact Car, wrote an editorial about 0-60 times a while back. He used a speed/acceleration graph, which dip during gear changes, and observed they all hit 62 (100kph) at the top of 2nd gear, since a shift takes away from 0-60 times.

    Granted, they were all budget sport compacts, I like to see more cars with proper gearing as opposed to cars with a super-short first gear and a long 2nd gear designed to reach 62 without shifting.

  • avatar

    If you want to report on cars for people who use them you’ll need to include 0-60 data. Its something everyone going through puberty thinks about while dreaming of their “first” cars.

    If you’re catering to eggheads and stylists, those who think cars are something more than mere transportation, you’ll need a lot more space than you’ve been allotted. Stick with something that’s been around for at least six decades, or plan on losing the larger part of your audience. Its that simple. Your choice, of course.

    Good review.

  • avatar

    Oh, and I think using 0-60 is fine. What I have a problem with in Jonny’s review is that it was the end all be all of performance numbers that he used to compare cars. How much space does 1/4 mile time add?

  • avatar

    To get a somewhat good idea of a performance of a car, you need all of the common tests. 0-60 by itself doesn’t mean much, but adding 1/4 mile times, slalom tests, etc, gives you as good an idea as you can, without driving the cars yourself.

  • avatar

    0-60 is religion, grew up on it. Not the only thing mind you, but just one thing that tells me how I might enjoy that part of a car’s performance equation.

    When shopping for cars, I use 0-60 comparison sites to eliminate inadequate cars when narrowing down the list to look at.

  • avatar

    A far better measurement is 50-100.

    First, you get the 50 MPH start, which ensures that there’s next to no added stress on anything.

    Second, you get the 100 MPH finish, which will show up power or aerodynamic deficiencies.

    Third, it takes a relatively long time (5-30 seconds) and allows cars of broadly similar performance to be separated.

    Fourth, it allows you to see the differences between cars in the range where power is most important in street use . Most cars are traction-limited until 30 now.

    Finally, it’s not something that can be tricked easily – you don’t get to fiddle with staging or timing gear, and applying full power at 50 MPH doesn’t break traction on anything that doesn’t need a measure of straight-line performance that includes speeds over 130 MPH…

  • avatar

    The two most fun cars I’ve ever had were a 82-bhp Mazda 323 and a 164-bhp Ford Probe GT. Neither would impress anyone with their 0-60 times, but I didn’t give a damn. Acceleration metrics are a good indicator of relative performance, but to me “fun” is immeasurable.

  • avatar

    I think 0-60 should be advertised more often. Not many people know that “lowly” Chevrolet has cars capable of sub 6 second 0-60 times that cost about 15k-22k (Cobalt SS and Impala SS). If this fact was marketed more GM would be a little better off than what it is now.

  • avatar

    It’s a figure that can quickly be used to pique one’s attention, or not, like a guy hearing the new girl at the office is a “36-22-36” [sorry, ladies]. Neither data point is the end-all. It is just an attention-getter, requiring additional checking out before a decision is reached. In my view.

  • avatar

    0-60, 1/4 mile times, skidpad numbers, braking distance etc should always been included. So many reviews are subjective. I appreciate some numbers in simple black and white.

  • avatar

    0-60 is just an indicative figure that IMO prevents companies from developing more advanced and fuel efficient gearboxes. Reason is that the 0-60 mph is such a commanding figure in the mind of every petrolhead that overshadows almost every other aspect of a car’s performance. And the marketing people of every company are demanding a sound 0-60 number.

    I think anyone who has driven in Germany will have noticed that the vehicles going flat-out are usually Audis, BMW and Mercedes with a TDI, d or CDI badge. The 50-100 figure in a 335d for example, is in supercar territory mainly because of the 428 pound feet of torque. The 6 seconds for 0-60 is so relative: It takes a 911 to keep up with the 335d on the motorway.

    Even a Golf GTD will cruise happily at +110 mph while the 0-60 is a mediocre 10 seconds. The 0-60 is indicating pretty much… nothing.

  • avatar

    Nice story about German Autobahns and agree with your examples for that type of environment.

    However I’d rather focus on reality when looking at benchmarks during a period when I’m looking to buy. Almost all the time, that involves the feel, abilities and satisfaction provided by the car I’m driving. And 0-60 covers off the acceleration “feel” part much better than those others, because I’m living in that range +/- 20. Oh there could be variants too, like 5-60, 20-75 or whatever.

    Its hard after so many years with an established standard of measurement to create a new one. Mind you, everyone’s priorities are different so nobody is going to influence anyone. If driving satisfaction comes from less capable but more fuel efficient gearboxes, then enjoy.

  • avatar

    What about the numbers ?
    It should be noted that the the 0 to sixty is the auto equivalent of a 110 meter sprint. In a lot of cars that can be accomplished in 2nd gear alone. It tests the engine but not the transmission. More than that it is probable that manufacturerers select gears for that metric and tune gear ratios accordingly.

    Sixty mph can be accomplished by holding 2nd gear until 7100rpm in a 1.8L Corolla XRS. It sure looks like the 2nd gear of 1.88 with 4.7 final was chosen to meet this benchmark.

    The average buyer is probably satisfied with a 0 to sixty time of 8 seconds which at a linear accel rate covers 352 feet.
    However the performance driver will want to see a little more power, speed and some clutch action factored in. For that there’s the 1/4 mile.

    The 1/4 mile of 1320 feet should predict a terminal speed for the XRS around 120mph with the same acceleration but for the torque dilution of 3rd and 4th gear even with 164Hp under the hood. This of course is where the really powerful cars can differentiate themselves with the 1/4 mile metric since they will probably be able to top out in third gear.

  • avatar


    I agree everyone’s priorities are different. But, R&D is influenced by market(ing)demand. In Europe, you just cannot e.g. sell a new hot-hatch without 0-60 in the sub-8 second area. It is a selling point – even if it means compromising the rest of the gearing.

    Another point: With most modern diesel cars you can drive around town all day with 3rd gear engaged with all that torque. What metric to use for that? I know, you are right, it is (0-60) the established standard and almost impossible to change. It is just so limited. And depending on so many factors: Try to “confirm” the official figure for a Honda S2000 with worn out tires.

  • avatar

    trap speed
    trap speed
    trap speed

    this tells me what the car is actually capable of

    0-60 tells me what Billy can do when he takes his mom’s car out to cruise stoplight to stoplight.

  • avatar

    Yes, but since 0-60 time in a review is more important for discerning the car’s feel than for predicting racing success, the review should also qualify the 0-60 time with questions such as:

    1) How much wear and tear was imposed on the car/tires to get that time?

    2) What would the 0-60 time be if you drove the car like you owned it (and not like you stole it)? This could be the same as 5-60 time.

    3) How many shifts were required? Does the car test especially fast because it’s geared to get to 60 just before the shift to 3rd?

    4) 0-30 time vs 30-60 time? Does it punch you in the chest and then let off (muscle car), or does it really pick up once the revs are up (Honda VTEC)?

    And, btw, I think you’d be hard-pressed to buy a new car that truly has trouble merging onto the freeway.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: You are arguing for the continued use of vehicles that for the most part are decades old in design. Ford has...
  • sgeffe: The Penske and U-Haul small and medium-size box trucks I see are mostly GMC-Chevy cutaways. Do they make...
  • BrentinWA: What I find is most effective is to lay down a coat of “Bug Barricade” by Griot’s Garage before a road...
  • EBFlex: “ I am glad I got the Maverick,” Lol
  • MRF 95 T-Bird: This has been endemic on a number of GM vehicles. Back in 1990 my father purchased a new 91 S-10...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber