EDIT: Please read this post and all of my responses a few times until you fully understand what is going on. This will save your time and mine.
Thank you.

In my quest for 1000+ horsepower, I've come to the point of trying to pick the turbo. Looking at every dyno of 4 and 6 cyl. engines making that much HP/TQ, they still run ~40 PSI. Just a big ol' turbo, lag, and 40psi...

I remembered an old "Technobabble" column from SCC ("Turbos of the Future"), so I went and read it again... Anyway here's the interesting part, talking about the "Low Speed Turbo" for the diesel trucking industry.

I'm quoting Dave Coleman here:

"It's a common mistake to think of a turbos work in terms of boost, but the turbo doesn't care how much boost comes out of it, just how much more the air is compressed than when it came in. If that air happens to start out at 15 psi, as it might on a cold thick night in Death Valley, a turbo compressing air 2:1 will discharge air at 30 psi of absolute pressure. Since boost is defined as the pressure above ambient, you have to subtract atmospheric pressure to get boost. 30 minus 15 is 15 psi of boost.

But add a second compressor and things get interesting. With both compressors doing the same amount of compressing, you might instinctively expect twice the boost. But instead of 30psi, you end up with 45.

How's That? Remember, air going into the second compressor is already at 30psi(absolute), and compressing that 2:1 brings it up to 60psi. Subtract the 15psi of ambient pressure and you have 45psi."

Anyway, that got my gears going and I went and did some research.

I was looking at some diesel turbo systems and saw an aftermarket twin turbo system where the turbine outlet is connected to the inlet of another turbocharger, the second turbo pushes boost INTO the first turbo. Where the PSI is multiplied.

IMHO, this system is less than optimal for a few reasons...

Forcing exhaust gas to pass thru a second turbine before exiting slows BOTH turbines considerably...
Also, Lag still exists. More so than with just a big single. Yeah there is ALOT more boost, too. I know.
There is also still one exhaust. Two turbos, with 2 separate 3"exhausts would flow more than even a 6" exhaust...

Anyway, lets say we were talking about a straight six(in my case), or even a V6 I guess, having two identical turbine housings, sized on the ~smaller~ side for each 3 cylinder section. The compressors, also identical, would be compressing into one or the other.
Anyway, using the numbers from above, theoretically, could you have ~45psi with reasonable spool?
The only limitation I see is: Let's say we are shooting for over 1K HP(which I am), each "3cyl engine" is going to be making roughly 500 HP, would the turbine housings still need to be sized hella big to allow the amount of exhaust flow needed? Also. as stated above, you could run 2 separate 3" or 4" exhausts that would flow more than any single exhaust ever could. This would help spool and power at the same time.

Overall, I see this as a better alternative to a large framed single turbo.
I am looking for someone to tell me:
A: Why this would or would not work.
B: If anyone has done anything like it, gas or diesel.
C: How do I hook up the wastegate or gates on this monstrosity.

So, let's start a nice technical discussion. I'll be back later, I'm off to the GFs house. Try not to ruin the thread while I am gone.

p.s. I know the post is long, and a bit rambling, but read it through, twice before responding.

Alex





Modified by JalopySiR at 7:58 PM 8/29/2005

 

uh you lost me there...why are you trying to make 1000hp. stupid if you ask me.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mike93eh &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">uh you lost me there...why are you trying to make 1000hp. stupid if you ask me.</TD></TR></TABLE>

ok i dont think he was asking for smart *** comments he needs info, as he stated "try not to ruin the post while im gone" you have started it.

sorry JalopySiR but i have no useful info on your question.

but twin turbo's with two exhaust's sounds good if you are concerned with spool time. but what are your goals with the set up? would be helpful to people who can actually help you. whats most important etc.....it would seem spool time but 1,000 HP and quick spool dont really go hand in hand.

 

What kind of a straight 6 are we talking about here? If it's a supra motor, throw a T400 or a glide at it with a big stall and a trans brake, then say "What turbo lag?"

If it's any other inline 6, I don't really care

 

i would have to agree^^, but yeah need more info on the car/engine/trans etc.

 

Staged turbo's have been done on gas engines.I think the supercharger/turbo has more promise.Two turbo's in series lose efficiency down the line.The smaller turbo becomes a restriction unless you can bypass it as exhaust volume increases.It becomes a little complex for the gains.
Glenn

 

Well, I was all exited on the trip back from my GF's house.
I went and made myself a tuna sandwich, then switched on the computer...
And I find this...

I mean the first friggin' response.
What has this forum come to?

O.K. first off: It doesn't matter what car we are talking about. At all.
Secondly, I asked 3 questions.
If you don't understand the questions or what I posted, sit back, be quiet, and learn, Like I am trying to do.

Apologies to "agrn93ls" who had the most helpful post thus far.

Finally, to the person who "TRIED" to help the most...
I think you completely missed the point.
Where did I mention staged turbos?
Like the post says, read it twice. Then show me where I mention staged turbos.

I really don't think I can dumb it down more than I already did, but I'll try...
It's kinda like 2 completely separate 1.5liter enginesbeing boosted to 30+psi each. With Identical turbos... they just happen to share a crank and drivetrain...
Does that help?

O.K. now I'm going to make another tuna sandwich.
Please refrain from getting mad at me for pointing out the fact that none of you know what you are talking about thus far.
Let's try to get this back on track.

 

To answer your questions ... Of course it will work. That is, if you have the necessary fuel management to boost the 45psi. Your final description in your last post of 2 3cyl motors each at 30psi is wrong. It is one six cylinder motor at 45 psi, using your example, that just happens to have "dual stage" compressing twins. You don't have to run the exhaust from the entire motor through both turbos. You could easily do two 3cyl setups. Not being an engineer, I don't know which would be more efficient. I could imagine you are correct that the losses of going the other way would be quite large. On the other hand, they may not. Only experimentation would tell. You may run into the problem that turbo's small enough to spool on only 3cyl will not have the flow to supply your big six, especially hooking them up the way you desire. Again, you may not. It's hard to tell.

But, in theory, I can't tell you the best way to do it -- but sure. Why not? It'll work.
You'll obviously set the wastegate on the first turbo to whatever the first turbos maximum efficiency boost level is, then use the second to regulate overall pressure -- or some combination of the above -- but I bet what I just said would work.

Good luck.

Matt


PS- you better show pictures of this whatever it is ... if you actually go through with it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JalopySiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I was looking at some diesel turbo systems and saw an aftermarket twin turbo system where the turbine outlet is connected to the inlet of another turbocharger, the second turbo pushes boost INTO the first turbo. Where the PSI is multiplied.

IMHO, this system is less than optimal for a few reasons...

Forcing exhaust gas to pass thru a second turbine before exiting slows BOTH turbines considerably...
Also, Lag still exists. More so than with just a big single. Yeah there is ALOT more boost, too. I know.
There is also still one exhaust. Two turbos, with 2 separate 3"exhausts would flow more than even a 6" exhaust...
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Are you sure you were looking at it correctly?

Sounds like you may have been looking at a sequential setup. IN a sequential setup both turbine inlets share all the exhaust flow coming from the motor. But the exhaust flow is diverted away from the secondary turbo at low RPM's. So that means the primary turbo is getting all of the exhaust flow. A valve going to the second turbo is opened a little bit to allow some exhaust gas to the secondary turbine so that it can be prespooled. Once the right conditions are met, then the valve leading to the secondary turbo is fully opened, and now both turbos are turning. When it is just the primary turbo providing boost, the secondary turbos compressor outlet is usually sealed shut with a valve so that the primary turbo doesn't loose boost through the secod turbo. Once the secondary turbo starts providing boost, the valve on the secondary turbo's compressor outlet opens up so that both turbos start sending boost to the motor. I dont know what kind of system you were looking at, but what I described above is basically how a sequential system works on an FD RX-7, and probably a MKIV TT too.

 

I know when Dodge Cummins Turbo or Gm Powermax or Ford Powerstroke diesel truck owners modify their motors--they usually go with a giant twin-turbo system. On the Cummins Turbo (Dodge) site---they are running 55-58 lbs. of boost. I assume its one turbo feeding another (although I don't know for sure) They make 500-700 hp--and 1000-1100 lb/ft torque!! (on the 5.9 L inline-6 Cummins, at least) Believe it or not, there is computer chip/controller (from Bullydog maybe?) that is just a little box that interfaces with the factory engine controller on the Cummins trucks. They make about 300 hp, 550-600 lb/ft stock--with the controller-you can choose any power level from 1-10, right from the cab. 1, assume being stock, and 10, well--lets assume a BIT more power. Even on an UNTOUCHED stock motor/turbo--this little "box" can ADD 500 hp and prob. 300 lb/ft!! Not total--IT ADDS that much power when you choose power level 10!! I guess it just works by holding the wastegate closed, so the boost shoots up to over 50 lbs!! This is on a 100% stock--unopened motor/turbo!! Apparently though, according to people who have used this system--it will only work on level 10 for like 2 minutes before the motor melts down--the exhaust gas temps. go through the roof. The highest you can reliably put it up to on a stock motor and turbo is like 3 or 4--which will still give you a considerable boost. When you beef up the motor and put twin turbos on it--you can reliably run it at 10--over 55 lbs. of boost!! These trucks can run a 13 second quarter mile, while towing 5000 lbs.!!! I didn't believe it first--but research some of the Turbo Cummins--5.9 straight 6--websites--they are insane!!

 

JohnnyQuest,
I AM talking about doing two 3cyl. setups. Being boosted at X/whatever psi.
I'm not an engineer either, but I ~THINK~ that 2 seperate turbo setups with seperate exhaust's and housings would be more efficient.
You're getting warmer.

BlueShadow,
Here is the link to the system I found online:
http://www.bd-power.com/ram/pr...t=ram
There are some pics, but It's pretty simple to figure out by looking at it.

EVERY OEM automotive twin turbo system is either parallel, or sequential.
What I am talking about is Twin Turbos run in SERIES.

Just so everyone is clear, if we were theortically talking about a 3.0 straight 6, I am talking about diverting 3 cylinders into one turbine housing, and the other three into another (i.e. 2, 1.5liter 3 cyl. engines) The compressors would be set up so that one is pumping INTO the other (multiplying the pressure), then to the intake manifold. As a sidenote, I plan on running 2 completely separate 3" exhausts off of each turbine housing.

I believe this would be a MORE efficient way to BIG HP, than a large frame turbo.
I am not sure how much effect on reducing lag it would have, as I'm sure the A/Rs on the 2 turbine housings would have to be sized on the large side. After all, the "2, 3cyl. engines" would be making ~500HP (If we use the nice round figure of 1000HP)

I'm glad this thread has been put back on track. I'd like to keep it going.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JalopySiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Forcing exhaust gas to pass thru a second turbine before exiting slows BOTH turbines considerably...
Also, Lag still exists. More so than with just a big single. Yeah there is ALOT more boost, too. I know.
There is also still one exhaust. Two turbos, with 2 separate 3"exhausts would flow more than even a 6" exhaust...
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think if you try to force the exhaust gas through one turbine first, then through the second one, then you wont slow both of them down. The first turbine would experience some turbine backpressure because of the second turbine which is causing a restriction to the first. I would think that the first turbo would be moving slower then the secondary turbo, because the second turbo has no turbine backpressure, but the first one does. The secondary turbo might be runnig slower then it normally does too, because even though it has no backpressure, the exhaust gas it recieves from the first turbo might have a little less velocity then the exhaust gas coming directly out of the motor.

One other thing I would be worried about is whether this type of turbo sytem can generate equal amounts of pressure from each turbo. Since the turbos might be moving at different speeds, there is a chance one turbo might be creating more boost pressure then the other. You have to look and see how this affects the air in your charge piping in terms of velocity and turbulence.

 

d16dcoe45,

While ~mostly~ off topic, a bit exxagerated, and about 1/2 true, I appreciate your post.
Yes, Turbo Diesels are nasty.
Check the link I posted.

 

BlueShadow,

What you quoted was what I think is WRONG with the setup I provided you a link to. It is NOT what I am looking to do.

I realize I posted just milliseconds before you repsonded to the older post.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JalopySiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Just so everyone is clear, if we were theortically talking about a 3.0 straight 6, I am talking about diverting 3 cylinders into one turbine housing, and the other three into another (i.e. 2, 1.5liter 3 cyl. engines) The compressors would be set up so that one is pumping INTO the other (multiplying the pressure), then to the intake manifold. As a sidenote, I plan on running 2 completely separate 3" exhausts off of each turbine housing.

I believe this would be a MORE efficient way to BIG HP, than a large frame turbo.
I am not sure how much effect on reducing lag it would have, as I'm sure the A/Rs on the 2 turbine housings would have to be sized on the large side. After all, the "2, 3cyl. engines" would be making ~500HP (If we use the nice round figure of 1000HP)

I'm glad this thread has been put back on track. I'd like to keep it going.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I posted my previous reply before reading your above post. But you said that one compressor would be feeding into the other one. I dont think anyone caught onto the before.

So basically you would have to find a secondary turbo that can further compress the air coming out of the primary compressor outlet. I have to get ready for work, but if I had to size turbos for something like this, I think off the top of my head the primary turbo would have to be a small one, and the secondary turbo would have to be a huge one. The exhaust sides on both would be sized so that the first smaller turbo has a larger A/R and the second larger turbo has a smaller A/R. If we are talking about an Inline-6, then I dont know if matching up the cylinders 3 to a turbo might be necessary. Maybe 2 cylinders can be matched up to the small turbo, and 4 cylinders can be matched up to the larger one? exhaust pulse pairing is something you would have to look at if you do this. Should you try to pair up the turbos to cylinders with exhaust pulses far apart? or do you just pair uyp the cylinders to the turbos for ease of turbo placement in the engine bay?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JalopySiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
"It's a common mistake to think of a turbos work in terms of boost, but the turbo doesn't care how much boost comes out of it, just how much more the air is compressed than when it came in. If that air happens to start out at 15 psi, as it might on a cold thick night in Death Valley, a turbo compressing air 2:1 will discharge air at 30 psi of absolute pressure. Since boost is defined as the pressure above ambient, you have to subtract atmospheric pressure to get boost. 30 minus 15 is 15 psi of boost.

But add a second compressor and things get interesting. With both compressors doing the same amount of compressing, you might instinctively expect twice the boost. But instead of 30psi, you end up with 45.

How's That? Remember, air going into the second compressor is already at 30psi(absolute), and compressing that 2:1 brings it up to 60psi. Subtract the 15psi of ambient pressure and you have 45psi."
</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is the key.
Take a look at a compressor map. They read in PR (pressure ratio). If we take 2:1, like the example states, I would need 2 IDENTICAL compressors that plop me right in the fat spot of a compressor map at a 2:1 PR.

The first turbo compresses the air 2:1, the second take the ALREADY compressed air and compresses it at the same rate, 2:1.
It's doing the SAME work. This would be the WHOLE POINT of this setup.

Just so everyone is on the same page, please read the original post again a few times.
I Just want to get everyone on the same page so we can move forward, and not in circles.
Let's keep it up

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by d16dcoe45 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I know when Dodge Cummins Turbo or Gm Powermax or Ford Powerstroke diesel truck owners modify their motors--they usually go with a giant twin-turbo system. On the Cummins Turbo (Dodge) site---they are running 55-58 lbs. of boost. I assume its one turbo feeding another (although I don't know for sure) They make 500-700 hp--and 1000-1100 lb/ft torque!!</TD></TR></TABLE> There is a guy down here with a diesel excursion which runs 13(would be faster but he has to coast over the line due to speed limiter).. He has a big *** turbo and has ran the ~50#'s of boost.. But the thing you need to remember.. These are v8's and I'm pretty sure (some one correct me if im wrong) but they have a high/er compression ratio.. So the exhaust flow is there to spool the big ******* up unlike our little 4bangers.

 

The point of this thread is to see if ~50psi is possible from 2 smaller turbos.
I have the decency to read your innane responses, comprehend them, then respond.
Please extend me the same courtesy.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JalopySiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
This is the key.
Take a look at a compressor map. They read in PR (pressure ratio). If we take 2:1, like the example states, I would need 2 IDENTICAL compressors that plop me right in the fat spot of a compressor map at a 2:1 PR.

The first turbo compresses the air 2:1, the second take the ALREADY compressed air and compresses it at the same rate, 2:1.
It's doing the SAME work. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Is this correct? Or would the secondary compressor need to be matched to a higher airflow i.e. larger?
If the quote in the original post is correct, then I tend to think not...

I'm leaning toward the theory of 2 identical compressors that do 2:1 (~14-15psi) very efficiently.

When you take your turbo car out for a spin in the cold, you boost higher. This is a fact. This is because the ambient pressure is higher, (cold air is more dense). The turbo setup hasn't changed at all, and the compressor is still doing the same amount of work. This is why I think this idea will work...

So so far I'm at:
Would the compressors be the same?
The sizing of the turbine housings would still need to be fairly large to flow roughly ~500HP worth of exhaust each (if we use 1000hp) right?
I'm still leaning toward this plumbing nightmare being more efficient than a big single pushing high boost...

I know there are a few people in the forum who can follow this.
I gotta say, I'm kinda dissapointed thus far.
Page 1 looks to be a wash...

 

The first problem you have here is you are equating psi with horsepower.

PSI is a measurement of backpressure in the intake system.

If you took your intake manifold off and welded your ports shut to the size of a dime, your boost would go up, your power would go down.

Make everything flow well (head, intake, throttle body, intercooler) and PSI will go down but power will go up.

I love reading about guys whose goal is "only 7psi" or 40psi. Turbos are fitted by air flow not PSI. Turbo goals should be HP not boost.

Your next problem is your twin 3 inch pipes flow more than one 6 inch pipe.

Do a little research on figuring out area of a circle. A 6 inch pipe should flow roughly 4 times what a 3 inch pipe flows. Think about this, arrange 4, 3inch pipes into a bundle or X shape, you should almost be able to side them inside the 6 inch pipe.

The idea of pumping one compressor into another may add PSI but the flow will be dictated by size of the turbo closest to the air filter. The second turbo won't be able to compress any more air than the 1st turbo sends it.

The next thing to think about is compressing air heats it. You are talking about heating, heated air. That is probably where some of the new found boost is coming from. Hotter air is bigger and takes up more space in your intake manifold causing your boost gauge to go up.

Lets assume that you are going to run a compressor big enough to flow the 1000hp you want on both turbos. You are talking about driving them with turbines that are small enough to be driven by a 1.5 liter each. I think your lag will still be high.


What if you just asked your question to the guys who own the page where you saw the diesel system?

 

Well, you're trying I'll give you that.
I'm not trying to be rude, But I'm sure that I am coming off that way.
Please re-read the original; post a few more times.

Please quote me where you saw me do this.
Your first problem is to think of a turbos work in terms of boost.(PSI)

I am well aware that increasing volumetric efficiency will allow for the required HP goals wihill runnning less boost. Please stop getting yourself tripped up on numbers.

You may be right about this. Do you know of anyone running a 6" exhaust? I was using it as an example, perhaps a poor one, but nonetheless, 2 3" exhausts sill flow more than a 4" which is about as big as I've seen on gas engines... It'd probably flow more than 5", too, which I've seen on diesels, but that is besides the point.

This is contrary to everything I've read thus far. I'd like to see where your research shows you this is the case. You may be right, but you're the only one who has said this. The fact that I provied a real world example that shows this to be untrue is also interesting.

This is what intercoolers are for.
I also feel running 2 compressors at a 2:1 PR where they are smack dab in the middle island on their efficiency map will heat the air a hell of alot less than running ~40psi on a huge turbo.

This is probably your only valid point, and one that was raised earlier by myself.
However, I still believe, 2 turbines with 2 seperate side exit 3" pipes will flow more air that a single large A/R turbine housing with a 4" exhaust.

The diesel system I showed is completely different than what I want to run. I simply used it as a real world example of 2 compressors having a multiplication effect on PSI when run in series.
I'm actually sorry I brought it up.
This forum used to have some really smart ***** in it.
Lately, I have been dissapointed.

 

PLEASE READ EVERY POST UNTIL IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, THEN YOU CANNOT HELP IN THIS DISCUSS.
JUST SIT BACK AND TRY TO LEARN.

I really don't think anyone has fully read and comprehended even the original post I made, nevermind my own responses...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JalopySiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This is probably your only valid point, </TD></TR></TABLE>


You pompous *****, I did help you. You're just too full of yourself to see it. It's obvious how full of **** you are by the location you put into your profile, "of pure genius" think again.


What did you want me to say?


Yes it will work great, better than anything ever conceived. You are clearly the smartest guy on the planet

I understand what you said and what you are trying to do. Every point I made was 100% valid.

Another thing you don't understand is that diesels ignite their fuel with compression. The higher boost they use is compressed at ratios in the 14:1 to 22:1 range inside the engine. So high in fact that when the fuel is added it ignites without a spark plug.

The reason the turbines in the pictures you linked to is because turbos are driven by the heat energy that is wasted out the exhaust pipe. The sequential systems are just trying to get the most use of that wasted energy.


Don't get all pissy because someone pointed out your flawed thinking. It's not my fault you're wrong.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JalopySiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">EDIT: Please read this post and all of my responses a few times until you fully understand what is going on. This will save your time and mine.
Thank you.

In my quest for 1000+ horsepower, I've come to the point of trying to pick the turbo.

Modified by JalopySiR at 7:58 PM 8/29/2005</TD></TR></TABLE>


1000+ horsepower is the goal of this whole discussion, correct? Along with picking a turbo to fulfill that goal, right? You keep telling everyone to read, and re-read your post. Yet you, as well as others, haven't even hit on your original topic, 1000+ hp. That hp goal is obtainable in several ways. Is your real question efficiency? I find it funny that you belittle everyone who responds, I'm sure I'm next, for trying to give you advice on a discussion that has no definitive topic. Why don't you more clearly state what you're looking for instead of trying to trap everyone in by your superior intellect? Each person so far has said one thing and you've countered with the opposite. If you have all the right answers, then why are you even asking?

 

Calm down buddy,
Please, If you feel you are right, feel free to quote me, as I did you, then SHOW me how I am wrong.
This is waht I want.
You pointed out NOTHING that I did not point out myself already.

Why do people get mad when you show them they have no idea what they are talking about.
I gave you credit where it was due, then asked for proof to counter the information I have provided on the points where I think you are wrong.

I really don't think I was rude, and I certainly didn't personally attack you, like you did me. I merely pointed
As I said I WANT someone to provide some PROOF one way or the other.
Right or wrong.
I am TRYING to have a technical discussion.

I just need you to point out where the thinking is flawed and back it up.
That is all. You haven't done so.
Calm down, gather yourself, then come back and bring something to the table.

Was it Shakespeare that said "Better to let everyone think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"?

I'm really a down to earth guy. I'm a friggin' cook for christ's sake...
Sorry to get your panties in a bunch.