 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Corvette / January 2006What's after Z06?
Man, the more I read about the Z06, the better it gets! I'm wondering how can Cheverolet improve on it? Like what's the next model gonna be like? Here's the things I can think of, I'm probably way off base, but I like to dream: 1. Mid-engine Corvette 2. Carbon Fiber body frame 3. Sequential Manual Gearbox 4. Supercharged 5. Carbon fiber driveshaft How can they make this car any lighter than it is? Perhaps swapping out aluminum parts for magnesium? What do you think guys? How can they impvoe on this car? Maby this is ? http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffrkits/GTM/GTMkit.html > Maby this is ? > > http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffrkits/GTM/GTMkit.html So, all you have to do is buy a C5, a Porsche, and this kit, and put a years labor into it to get a homemade streetable car that drives like a C5 and looks sorta like a cross between a C6, a GT40, and an NSX? heres a future concept type... for the corvette.. they call it the C12... thats double of C6.. :-) http://www.fast-autos.net/callaway/callawayc12.html heres more.... http://www.callawaycars.com/ > Here's the things I can think of, I'm probably way off base, but I like > to dream: Interesting thoughts. If I may throw in an engineer's perspective: > 1. Mid-engine Corvette My personal guess is the Corvette will stay with the traditional front engine layout. It's too much a part of the car's character. Actually, I think the C6's engine is far enough aft to qualify as a front-mid engine layout. > 2. Carbon Fiber body frame OMG the cost! OMG the difficulty of repair! And I'm not sure the energy dissipation characteristics of carbon fiber would make for a very good crash test. > 3. Sequential Manual Gearbox Ya betcha. Or an infinitely-variable box. > 4. Supercharged Maybe if 500 hp isn't enough... but bet they can get more than that out of the 7L V8. > 5. Carbon fiber driveshaft I thnk the Corvette's drive shaft is already pretty light. One of the advantages of the aft gearbox is that the driveshaft needs to transmit much less torque, thus is much thinner and lighter. Only payback is higher RPM of the shaft.... > How can they make this car any lighter than it is? Perhaps swapping > out aluminum parts for magnesium? Ummmm... magnesium is lighter than aluminum but not as strong for its weight. And although it casts well and can can be machined it doesn't form very easily in other production processes. I think in most cases a good aluminum alloy is stronger for its weight than a magnesium alloy, and also likely more cost-effective. Magnesium's also more vulnerable to corrosion than aluminum. > What do you think guys? How can they impvoe on this car? Hard to do at the cost - it's awesome. -- V > > 1. Mid-engine Corvette > My personal guess is the Corvette will stay with the traditional front > engine layout. It's too much a part of the car's character. Actually, I > think the C6's engine is far enough aft to qualify as a front-mid engine > layout. Careful - similar comments were heard for years about the hide-away headlights... (Several months back there was a discussion here about GM's styling and I commented the Corvette looked to me like a Viper. And I still think the new C6 looks awfully similar to the Viper. Look at the issue of R&T, or was it Motor Trend, or was it Car and Driver,... with the GT-40, Viper and C6 comparison. Fold the pages so you can see both pictures of the individual Corvette and Viper on their description pages and tell me the C6 doesn't strongly resemble the Viper - headlights, nose air inlet, side fender vents... Yes there are certainly differences, but not like when you look at the GT-40!) Here's waving to ya - \|||| Owen ___ '67BB & '72BB -- not affiliated with JLA forum in any way -- alt.autos.corvette is original posting -- ___ "To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring." -- Ann Hayman Zwinger Very much Viper-ese. But if you look at the whole Chevrolet line-up, or all of GM's for that matter, you see that GM Design has lost the ability to think for themselves and are copying a lot of look from elsewhere. Most of it isn't a good look they are copying. Bill Mitchell must be turning about 6500 rpm in his grave over some of this stuff. GM Design was usually fresh and occasionally radical. There were often copying of traits of others in parts, but so does everyone else. But the overall design never copied. The press accused the '63 Sting Ray of copying the Jaguar XKE, but it really was derived from the '59 Stingray. The XKE was a natural progression from the XK-D and D-Type. The '68 Corvette coupe was often described as copying Ferrari's roof line and fender line, however, the '68 Corvette was based on the '65 Mako Shark. Ferrari probably copied that and simply executed the design faster than Chevy. Camaro, while it copied the basic Pony Car design, copied no one with that front end that looked almost like one wide grill. But today, Chevy is using Toyota Corollas and their trucks look like abortions from mixed Japanese truck unions. The Impala, once a fresh look that lead the way, with over 800,000 Impalas alone produced each year in the '60s (not counting the same bodyline in Bel Air, Biscayne, and so on), is relegated to a Toyota Camry clone. And I wonder why I can't find a car I want to buy new. And GM wonders why they have to tighten their belt on their expenses because they are having trouble selling cars. >> > 1. Mid-engine Corvette >> My personal guess is the Corvette will stay with the traditional front [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > "To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring." > -- Ann Hayman Zwinger > Very much Viper-ese. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > they have to tighten their belt on their expenses because they are having > trouble selling cars. = = = = = = = I wouldn't look for the situation to change. For the last 15 years, GM styling has been "focus grouped" to death. Good example of this was the Olds Aurora. Solid, well-integrated design--attractive car with a marvelous amount of utility as it came out of the styling salon and hit the exhibition turntable. The underlying platform was well matched to the design (but not "universal" enough to support two or three other "badge" cars.) The executive board then crammed that design through focus groups to "guarantee" its financial future and broaden its "badgeability." Result, a vanilla offering where head clearance and sill height ruined the excellent lines from the salon. When the executive committee looks at fresh designs, they tend to recall financial disasters like the Chrysler Airflow, the Tucker, the Kaiser Darin, the Studebaker, and the Edsel (I don't vouch for its jukebox freshness but did persuade my Dad to take me crosstown to an Edsel dealer for opening night.) Result, we get things like the Packard Patrician, Olds Aurora, the Buicks, Mercury etc. With the current financial situation at GM, the paranoia and paralysis will probably continue. Possibly right into bankruptcy. One thing that Corvette has going for it in this "extrusion" process is that GM has a goal of taking the car global. Its focus groups will therefore include some Euro, Latin, Asian and Islandia thinking. Taken in context by good designers who can still keep the design integrated rather than a "horse designed by a committee" it might survive and prosper in the marketplace. Sorry to say this but if it doesn't prosper it's gone. Good driving over the holidays--please stay safe and be back here in January. I'll cover 2000 miles in the next week--much of it in "Stabilitrac" country with the 'vettes home in the garage. C'ya and I'll be wavin' in January.  Signature…PJ ’89 HookerCar, ’02 E-blu 6-spd Coupe = = = = = = = > >>>>1. Mid-engine Corvette [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >>"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring." >> -- Ann Hayman Zwinger "But today, Chevy is using Toyota Corollas and their trucks look like abortions from mixed Japanese truck unions." Youre right ! I actually hated the new corvette design, especially the open headlights. (trying too hard to be ferrari ?) The flip headlamps have been to me a defining element of the corvette since the stingrays. Hard to see one without the flip lamps. But I recently drove the C6 and it does perform like a corvette. Got me from 0-60 in about 5 seconds. (yes, my driving is terrible!) So it redeems itself in performance. The look still screams japanese wannabe. (don't know why) but thats ok.. i guess >Very much Viper-ese. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >copying of traits of others in parts, but so does everyone else. But the >overall design never copied. They ripped off the PT Cruiser, the Ford Mustang and Ranchero pretty much... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? While I'm inclined to agree with "Tom in Missouri" that the front end of the C6 Vette has some styling cues similar to the Viper, you have remember who had what first. Vette had the front end and hood treatment before Viper, but Viper had the headlights first. The sides of both have some similarities, the most prominent being the cooling ducts at the rear of the front fenders. Having said that, I think the Vette's ducts look better. The rear end is quite distinct between the two and I personally like the Vette better. In fact, the Vette kicks serious Viper a.s! Now, getting on to lab~rat's comments, lab~rat must be too young to know where Chrysler got the retro design for the PT Cruiser. Check out these three links and you'll see that the PT Cruiser had its origins in the Chevy Sedan Delivery, which I believe was made in this design from 1947 to 1952. Here are three links for you youngsters: http://www.hotrodscustomstuff.com/holdrite.html http://www.calcruisingauctions.com/auction/XcAPViewItem.asp?ID=5899 http://www.classictrucksweb.com/features/0405cl_urban/index.html So I'd suggest to you that GM's HHR is not a ripoff of the PT Cruiser, but a reclamation of a style GM created in the 40's!!! Now as far as the Mustang and Ranchero are concerned, I have no idea what lab~rat is referring to. The Mustang was certainly the first so-called pony-car, but my recollection is that Ford (John De Lorean) created it because Ford had no competitor for the Corvette and Ford wanted a low-cost alternative for sportscar lovers. My recollection of the Ranchero is that it was created in 1957 and ran until the late 70's ('79?). Assuming that lab~rat is comparing the Ranchero to the El Camino, I believe the El Camino ran from1959 until 1987. The El Camino may have been (and probably was) created to compete against the Ranchero, but the cars looked nothing alike in 1959. IMHO the Ranchero was a much nicer looking vehicle in '59. So there you have it, polite, sincere and accurate recollections from someone who was there. > While I'm inclined to agree with "Tom in Missouri" that the front end > of the C6 Vette has some styling cues similar to the Viper, you have [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > it, polite, sincere and accurate recollections from someone who was > there. Let's change De Lorean (a GM guy through and through) to Lee Iacocca (father of the Mustang in the mid-60s -- before he went on to fame at Chrysler.) The Mustang grew into a pony-car but started out as a compact small personal car, with rather chintzy interior trim. At that time Chevrolet was dressing up their rear engined Corvair, transforming it from an economy sedan into a sporty turbocharged coupe and convertible. The Mustang commitment started as an anemic 6. A four was considered. The 289 arrived on the scene and the rest is history. Classically, in the Ford product line, the Thunderbird was positioned against the Corvette as an upscale personal automobile. Two distinctly different cars but they each had their own devotees. I think the Ranchero - El Camino comparison is valid. Trivia: The El Camino served as a flower car for many upscale funeral directors in the 60s. Signature…PJ ’89 HookerCar, ’02 E-blu 6-spd Coupe PJ, that's the problem with old age - I get some of the names right, some of the time! <lol> You are indeed correct - it was Lee Iacocca who pushed development of the Mustang. Launched at the 1964 World's Fair in New York, the Mustang immediately became known as Ford's new "pony car". Here's an informative link: http://home.comcast.net/~gt69registry/history.html As you pointed out PJ, the base Mustang engine was a 170 cubic inch inline 6 cylinder and the optional V8 was the 260 cubic incher that went on to become the 289 cubic inch engine in May of 1964. While you are right that "the Thunderbird was positioned against the Corvette", the T-Bird was only considered to be a sports car in its 1955-1957 2 seater years. In 1958 it became a personal luxury 4 seater, although it certainly competed against Corvette and took away a lot of business from them. John De Lorean was of course most well known for developing the Pontiac GTO option in the redesigned Tempest for 1964. Some would argue that the GTO was the first factory muscle car. >I think the Ranchero - El Camino comparison is valid. Trivia: The El >Camino served as a flower car for many upscale funeral directors in the 60s. I didn't realize that. For all the bluster about bringing back the Chevy F body, I'm surprised that the public is so tacit in requesting a new Elky. They seem like the perfect vehicle to reintroduce. Of course I may be biased since I have a '66... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >Now, getting on to lab~rat's comments, lab~rat must be too young to >know where Chrysler got the retro design for the PT Cruiser. Check out >these three links and you'll see that the PT Cruiser had its origins in >the Chevy Sedan Delivery, which I believe was made in this design from >1947 to 1952. Here are three links for you youngsters: Thanks for calling me young, because my odometer's about to roll over another digit in a couple of weeks. Those vehicles may be before my time, but I AM aware of the design influences. My comment was based on the retro incarnation of them. I doubt GM would have came up with theirs had the PT not been wildly successful. My wife bought one and we took a bath with it. They don't hold their value. Oh well, live and learn... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >Thanks for calling me young, because my odometer's about to roll over >another digit in a couple of weeks. <lol> My odometer just rolled over again last week! >Those vehicles may be before my time, but I AM aware of the design influences. I'm happy to say that they were before my time too, but I remember seeing one or two hotrodded. We used to call them "Bun Wagons" because of their popularity with local grocers. >My comment was based on the retro incarnation of them. I doubt GM would have came up >with theirs had the PT not been wildly successful. I can't disagree with you there lab~rat. Chrysler took an old GM design as the pattern for their retro vehicle and probably sold more PT Cruisers than GM sold the original Sedan Delivery. Now that the PT Cruiser has dominated this market segment, the light belatedly came on at GM. Sad really. > Careful - similar comments were heard for years about the hide-away > headlights... A fair point! > (Several months back there was a discussion here about GM's styling and > I commented the Corvette looked to me like a Viper Yeah. But part of this is engineering - both cars are designed for the same purpose in solving the same challenges (low drag and minimum surface area in a front-engine sports car) and with a given state of the art there's usually one optimum solution to a problem. If two organizations use similar processes optimizing their work they'll likely converge to similar designs. The closer you move towards the state of the art's optimum solution the less latitude there is. Thus they have similar layouts, a similar shape, similarly placed openings, etc. By the same principle American and Japanese fighter designs began to converge at the end of WW II, the Space Shuttle looks a lot like Buran (the Soviet shuttleski), and Concorde looks a lot like the TU-144. -- V > Interesting thoughts. If I may throw in an engineer's perspective: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think the C6's engine is far enough aft to qualify as a front-mid engine > layout. I'd love to see this happen; make a car that handles awesomely, and make it even better. > > 2. Carbon Fiber body frame > OMG the cost! OMG the difficulty of repair! And I'm not sure the energy > dissipation characteristics of carbon fiber would make for a very good > crash test. Yeah, I don't know what I was somking. Perhaps if the manufacturing costs ever go down, this can be an alternative, say in the 2050 Z06 Corvette. > > 3. Sequential Manual Gearbox > Ya betcha. Or an infinitely-variable box. When do you think SMG will happen? I heard the infinitely variable boxes can't handle over like over 200 HP, at least the one Audi developed. > > 4. Supercharged > Maybe if 500 hp isn't enough... but bet they can get more than that out > of the 7L V8. I read somewhere, they bore the cylinders so large that the walls between the cylinders are very thin. > > 5. Carbon fiber driveshaft > I thnk the Corvette's drive shaft is already pretty light. One of the > advantages of the aft gearbox is that the driveshaft needs to transmit > much less torque, thus is much thinner and lighter. Only payback is > higher RPM of the shaft.... Wow, that's cool. I didn't read about the gearbox being in the back. > > How can they make this car any lighter than it is? Perhaps swapping > > out aluminum parts for magnesium? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and also likely more cost-effective. Magnesium's also more vulnerable to > corrosion than aluminum. There's probably an alloy waiting to be found with magnesium to make it a viable, lighter alternative? Here's what I found on the web: Specific Weight: Auminum: 2.55-2.80 Magnesium: 1.73 Young's Modulus: Aluminum 69 Magnesium 45 So taking 2.55 for aluminum, and 1.73 for Mg, Magnesium is about 67% lighter, yet 65% weaker. So, you'd save yourself maybe 2% in weight savings when you thicken the magnesium beams to match aluminum strength? Perhaps that's not right since volume, hence weight goes up by a cube, and strength goes up the the square (cross sectional area.) There has to be some alloy out there. As far as rust goes, the new Pagoni Zonda F uses magnesium rims instead of aluminum rims for weight savings. Maybe owners of a Zonda don't care about rust and having to replace their rims every 6 months? I doubt it. There has to be room for some kind of magnesium application in a vette. Right? > > What do you think guys? How can they impvoe on this car? > Hard to do at the cost - it's awesome. Yeah, for the cost, it's awesome. Maybe they can work on the interior some. Perhaps they will make a environmentally friendlier Vette by introducing displacement on demand, a 'new' engine technology GM is developing. Which would be cool: imagine a vette that also does 32mpg highway cruising. thanks for your thoughts. > Perhaps they will make a environmentally friendlier Vette by > introducing displacement on demand, a 'new' engine technology GM is > developing. Which would be cool: imagine a vette that also does 32mpg > highway cruising. I'm told the current LS-2 engine casting is fitted for DOD, it's just not in use. And my C6 gives 28.3 mpg at 75 mph cruise, 30.5 at 70, and 33+ at 65. For comparison my old '67 VW Bug gives 33-35 at 60 and 28 at 70. I think the Corvette's fuel figures are fabulous for a high-performance car, especially one that performs without having to be driven like you're mad at it. -- V > I read somewhere, they bore the cylinders so large that the walls > between the cylinders are very thin. Not true, better read it again, you might be thinking about the cylinder flange. >> > 5. Carbon fiber driveshaft >> I thnk the Corvette's drive shaft is already pretty light. One of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wow, that's cool. I didn't read about the gearbox being in the > back. That happened in the last century, you need to catch-up with the present day Corvette before you start making it better. There was also magnesium wheels available as an option for the C5, didn't sell well and was dropped. >> > How can they make this car any lighter than it is? Perhaps >> > swapping [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> vulnerable to >> corrosion than aluminum. Don't forget its ability to crack at any time it wants to because of the corrosion, not on my list of improvements (?). > There's probably an alloy waiting to be found with magnesium to make > it [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 32mpg > highway cruising. Which it does now without the garbage that would be added for DOD. I wonder if that has anything to do with the cost that makes it so awsome? > thanks for your thoughts. > "DaLoverhino" <DaLoveRhino@hotmail.com> wrote in message > That happened in the last century, you need to catch-up with the > present day Corvette before you start making it better. Yes indeed. You recommend any Corvette history books? I've just been fed a bunch of German crap from friends and ads for awhile, that one day, I was just browsing cars, and started reading about the Vettes. And I looked at the numbers and prices and went, "HOLY COW!" > There was also magnesium wheels available as an option for the C5, > didn't sell well and was dropped. Why? Were they ugly? > > Perhaps they will make a environmentally friendlier Vette by > > introducing displacement on demand, a 'new' engine technology GM is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wonder if that has anything to do with the cost that makes it so > awsome? Really? I've read it does 26mpg, I think on edmonds. If it does better than that, that's pretty cool. My 2004 BMW 6 is quoted at doing 26mpg too, but in reality it does much less, like 19mpg, no matter how much I try to feather the gas. It's 4.5L displacement is less than a Vette, but the Vette gets better mileage! Wow. (That and the fact that my BMW is a slug compared to the Vette.) > > thanks for your thoughts. >> "DaLoverhino" <DaLoveRhino@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> That happened in the last century, you need to catch-up with the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > day, I was just browsing cars, and started reading about the Vettes. > And I looked at the numbers and prices and went, "HOLY COW!" A nice handy referance book is the Corvette Black Book, available from Amazon. Also take a look in http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/portal/ >> There was also magnesium wheels available as an option for the C5, >> didn't sell well and was dropped. > > Why? Were they ugly? There you go again, why do they need to be ugly? They were expensive, I think around $3,000, but a good looking wheel, YMMV. >> > Perhaps they will make a environmentally friendlier Vette by >> > introducing displacement on demand, a 'new' engine technology GM [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> wonder if that has anything to do with the cost that makes it so >> awsome? I have to admit that I was working at getting good mileage on a 625 mile trip when it got 33.8. Most of the time it stays between 28/30 after it had 10K on it. > Really? I've read it does 26mpg, I think on edmonds. If it does > better than that, that's pretty cool. My 2004 BMW 6 is quoted at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Vette, but the Vette gets better mileage! Wow. (That and the fact > that my BMW is a slug compared to the Vette.) Not many machines on the road that are made better than the BMW, just not my bag. SignatureDad 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd > Man, the more I read about the Z06, the better it gets! I'm wondering > how can Cheverolet improve on it? Like what's the next model gonna be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What do you think guys? How can they impvoe on this car? CONVERTIBLE! 1. They already make a convertible. and 2. Aluminum doesn't like being flexed so they aren't going to cut the top off the Z06. >>Man, the more I read about the Z06, the better it gets! I'm wondering >>how can Cheverolet improve on it? Like what's the next model gonna be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > CONVERTIBLE! >1. They already make a convertible. >and >2. Aluminum doesn't like being flexed so they aren't going to cut the >top off the Z06. I could live with some type of roll bar or whatnot.... >>>Man, the more I read about the Z06, the better it gets! I'm wondering >>>how can Cheverolet improve on it? Like what's the next model gonna be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> CONVERTIBLE! -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? Take a look at the Mosler MT900S, and you'll see how GM could improve, and lighten the vette. http://www.moslerauto.com >Man, the more I read about the Z06, the better it gets! I'm wondering >how can Cheverolet improve on it? Like what's the next model gonna be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >What do you think guys? How can they impvoe on this car? You mean GM should pump the price up to $189,000 and go back to the old 5.5 liter engine? Hmmm, and you think that will improve sales?! I didn't mean GM should copy the MT900, but the could learn alot in how to save weight, since the Z06 is a bloated 3000+ pound car, and the MT900 weighs in at 2300 pounds. Oh, and the LS6 is a 5.7L engine, plus the 7.0L engine will bolt right in too, we're running one of those in the yellow car. >You mean GM should pump the price up to $189,000 and go back to the old >5.5 liter engine? Hmmm, and you think that will improve sales?! >I didn't mean GM should copy the MT900, but the could learn alot in > how to save weight, since the Z06 is a bloated 3000+ pound car, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > right > in too, we're running one of those in the yellow car. I think the C6R weighs in at 2,425 with the '05 Z06 steel frame and can't imagine how the mt90 can be that heavy and be competitive. May just be their choice of engines that keep them in the running. They need to go to GM and find out how to build a car that is affordable and forget that bloated feeling they are driving. SignatureDad 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd >>I didn't mean GM should copy the MT900, but the could learn alot in >> how to save weight, since the Z06 is a bloated 3000+ pound car, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >need to go to GM and find out how to build a car that is affordable >and forget that bloated feeling they are driving. Hahaha...thats 2300lbs in street trim, ac, power windows, stereo, two seats, etc.. In race trim the MT900R needs weight added, to meet the minimum :) Sub 2000lbs is no problem, if only they would let us run that light. > Take a look at the Mosler MT900S, and you'll see how GM could improve, > and lighten the vette. > > http://www.moslerauto.com > >>Man, the more I read about the Z06, the better it gets! I'm wondering I would hope the car is less of a "work in progress" than the web site--long on menus, fotos and Flash, short on content! Signature…PJ ’89 HookerCar, ’02 E-blu 6-spd Coupe >> Take a look at the Mosler MT900S, and you'll see how GM could improve, >> and lighten the vette. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I would hope the car is less of a "work in progress" than the web >site--long on menus, fotos and Flash, short on content! Try http://www.mt900.de the german site is brand new, although the specs do vary a bit in the US. So what is your relationship to Warren? >>> Take a look at the Mosler MT900S, and you'll see how GM could improve, >>> and lighten the vette. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Try http://www.mt900.de the german site is brand new, although the > specs do vary a bit in the US. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.