Christopher May : So in terms of our backlog, Dan, that commentary related to our recent three year backlog we release so for ‘23, ‘24 and ‘25. This program launches in the latter part of the decade, but it does not change our view on how we are going to market for the products we supply, both from components and drive units. But obviously large drive units, e-Beam Axles have a very high content per vehicle for us to articulate. It can be as high as $25 plus per vehicle. I would put when you have large applications such as this, it would be $2,500 plus, plus. So this will clearly weight towards on a dollar perspective versus a component side, but it does not change how we think about the products we sell into the market and the customers we continue to work with more.
Dan Levy: More so in terms of does this shift your focus a bit more to some of the larger pieces of content as opposed to the sub-assemblies, which are lower contents? Or is it still sort of a balanced approach throughout all EV opportunities?
David Dauch: No, Dan, this is David. Let me be very clear. We’re going to maintain a balanced approach. As we said, we’re one of very few suppliers that can approach the marketplace different ways here where we can supply components. So think gears and shafts, sub-assemblies, think differentials, which we’re already supplying both of those segments today to the industry. We’re also supplying gearboxes, which is the third item, and then the integrated systems, whether they be EDUs or e-Beam. So we’re going to continue to service the market. There’s a demand out there in the market for those areas and we’ll do it in balance.
Dan Levy: Great, thanks. If I could just squeeze one more in. If you could maybe just comment on the CapEx requirements for a program like this, or more broadly if you’re pursuing more drive unit win.
Christopher May : Yes, certainly, Dan. this is Chris and we talked a little bit about this at our Technology Day earlier in the year in terms of some of our goals from a capital perspective, and that was to keep the capital intensity of new wins in the electrification space at a consistency and an intensity level very similar to our traditional product. Look, a big program, a big driveline program, of course, requires capital to launch, but from a goal perspective, it’s to keep that capital intensity very similar to our traditional products. But large programs require capital to invest in, as do small ones. But intensity level is what’s key here. Optimizing the buy also, when you get into some of this, think of this as a beam X award that we announced here that obviously leverages the core products we do today on the traditional side.
So we have a great opportunity to leverage existing equipment through this process as well. But again, from an intensity perspective, we would expect it to be similar.
Operator: And our next question comes from Tom O’Brien from RBC
Tom O’Brien: Hi. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Along similar lines of questioning on the EBITDA bridge, the Q1 bridge and then the full year one, you guys gave in Q4. So on volume, it looks as though that the remainder of the year, obviously should see a pretty sizable kind of ramp relative to Q1. I think you guys called that out. And then pricing, it looks like the reverse. And I don’t know if things maybe have changed since then, but it looks like you call out, like, a negative $40 million EBITDA headwind on price for the full year. And then it was only negative $5 million for Q1. So curious if you could talk to those two, volume and price, if anything’s changed since Q4, maybe the dynamics in the remainder of the year for those on EBITDA.
