Evoms
#31
09-28-2006, 12:37 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 639
Rep Power: 87 
I am assumimg all these cars we are talking about are running stock gear ratio's?
Before I revised the gears in my GT700 I noticed a definate lag going from 3rd to 4th as the RPM's dropped off. With my new gearing I have no lag at all now, and I am always at the perfect RPM point for the turbo's.
Gearing has a huge impact on this....it may not make my car faster to 130 but it sure feels that way up to 180.
BTW: I have decide after talking with Brain C to put in a new Ruf tall 6th gear, as at the moment 6th is too short and a I long for a 7th gear
Before I revised the gears in my GT700 I noticed a definate lag going from 3rd to 4th as the RPM's dropped off. With my new gearing I have no lag at all now, and I am always at the perfect RPM point for the turbo's.
Gearing has a huge impact on this....it may not make my car faster to 130 but it sure feels that way up to 180.
BTW: I have decide after talking with Brain C to put in a new Ruf tall 6th gear, as at the moment 6th is too short and a I long for a 7th gear
#32
09-28-2006, 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by sharkster
I'm also not going to get into a "tuner war" thing here- there's no point
I'm also going to put my hands up and say that I have honestly have never driven or ridden in any comparative Protomitve built car to do a real comparison since we don't have any here in the Bay Area. I'm going to say this though, as far as the GT700 kit goes, there are over 100 of them (we've only done around 20 plus of those here) in the US (Mike told me yesterday) and the kit has been around for quite some time. In my opinion it _is_ the best kit that EVO has, especially for the guys that daily drive their cars in our parts. Plus it's a proven 10 second car with really useable power since it uses a smaller-style hot-side. In other words lag is not an issue on this kit. A lot of the guys in my area go to the Road Course where laggy big cars would be a concern/problem but they thoroughly enjoy the way these are set up and say for their needs it works. It did also win the Excellence Magazine shoot out in Vegas in 2004 and to my knowledge there are cars that have around 80,000 miles with this kit and still going strong! So I'm sure it has a much wider install/user-base.
I'm also going to put my hands up and say that I have honestly have never driven or ridden in any comparative Protomitve built car to do a real comparison since we don't have any here in the Bay Area. I'm going to say this though, as far as the GT700 kit goes, there are over 100 of them (we've only done around 20 plus of those here) in the US (Mike told me yesterday) and the kit has been around for quite some time. In my opinion it _is_ the best kit that EVO has, especially for the guys that daily drive their cars in our parts. Plus it's a proven 10 second car with really useable power since it uses a smaller-style hot-side. In other words lag is not an issue on this kit. A lot of the guys in my area go to the Road Course where laggy big cars would be a concern/problem but they thoroughly enjoy the way these are set up and say for their needs it works. It did also win the Excellence Magazine shoot out in Vegas in 2004 and to my knowledge there are cars that have around 80,000 miles with this kit and still going strong! So I'm sure it has a much wider install/user-base.
#33
09-28-2006, 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by BigBadBen
I am assumimg all these cars we are talking about are running stock gear ratio's?
Before I revised the gears in my GT700 I noticed a definate lag going from 3rd to 4th as the RPM's dropped off. With my new gearing I have no lag at all now, and I am always at the perfect RPM point for the turbo's.
Gearing has a huge impact on this....it may not make my car faster to 130 but it sure feels that way up to 180.
BTW: I have decide after talking with Brain C to put in a new Ruf tall 6th gear, as at the moment 6th is too short and a I long for a 7th gear
Before I revised the gears in my GT700 I noticed a definate lag going from 3rd to 4th as the RPM's dropped off. With my new gearing I have no lag at all now, and I am always at the perfect RPM point for the turbo's.
Gearing has a huge impact on this....it may not make my car faster to 130 but it sure feels that way up to 180.
BTW: I have decide after talking with Brain C to put in a new Ruf tall 6th gear, as at the moment 6th is too short and a I long for a 7th gear
#34
09-28-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
Is there a tuner war here? Not that I can see. I'm only comparing data between different cars for the purpose of discussion. I would do it regardless of what tuner I use, or what car I drove. I simply enjoy this type of discussion. I also think this thread has been very civil..and complimentary to both tuners being discussed...as it should remain.
I think this is a good one as well. Remember I don't make the kit here and even though I'm a bit different to a "consumer" I still "choose" what I install and when so I feel I'm no different to you guys....
#35
09-28-2006, 12:53 PM
The foregoing ¼ mile statistics are interesting and entertaining, but I am not sure just how meaningful they are for purposes of comparing cars and/or tuning packages. For example, Scott states that he did his 10 second passes at 79 degrees ambient temperature. Scott did not disclose the humidity (in this thread), but given the location of the track, the humidity was likely low. In contrast, Cleve states that it was 98+ degrees and 99%+ humidity when he did his run. Joe states that he did his run in the upper 80 degree range and, although he does not state the humidity (in this thread), it was likely very high given that the run was done in the Arizona desert. No one has posted elevation for their runs (in this thread).
I am the least knowledgeable of anyone when it comes to the impact of heat, humidity and elevation on performance/horsepower/1/4 mile times. Therefore, I will defer to A. Graham Bell, who wrote the following in his landmark book entitled “FORCED INDUCTION: Performance tuning”
"Heat expands air. Consequently at sea level 40 degree Celsius air is less dense than air at 5 degree Celsius. Therefore, our 3 liter engine will make less power on hot air than cold air. Another RULE OF THUMB: you LOSE 1% hp for EACH 7 degree Celsius INCREASE in AIR TEMP."
"....... it should follow that a 3 liter engine will fill its cylinder with 3 liters of air at 10,000ft just as it does a sea level. However, at altitude, because those 3 liters of air contain less oxygen (about 26% less), the engine will produce substantially less power. In fact a RULE OF THUMB is that hp will DECREASE 3% for EACH 1000ft."
“High humidity will also decrease engine power in much the same way altitude does, but not as greatly unless combined with elevated temps. eg. 65% humidity and 35 degrees Celsius at sea level reduces the oxygen content similar to that at 100ft elevation.”
Based on the conclusions of Mr. Bell, who is likely far more knowledgeable than any of us on these issues, it appears that both Cleve and Joe would have generated considerably more power running under the same conditions as Scott. Given all the variables, I will not endeavor to calculate or even estimate the precise power gains/losses arising from the differing conditions, but keep in mind that on Joe’s and Cleve’s cars, each 1% translates to a loss of 7 horsepower. That adds up quickly. A loss of 25 horsepower is, IMHO, meaningful. According to one random online horsepower/ET/Trap calculator I pulled up, these differences in heat and humidity, and the resulting loss of horsepower, have a significant impact on ETs and traps (over a tenth reduction in ET, and a couple of mph reduction in the trap speed). That may not seek like a lot, but when we are here dissecting and extrapolating the data to the extreme and debating miniscule differences, these variables likely have meaningful consequences that should be taken into account for purposes of accuracy (to the extent possible).
All of the foregoing completely omits three other critically important factors impacting ¼ mile ETs and traps: (1) tires, (2) launch skills, and (3) shifting skills (assuming all have the same gearing). I know that Scott did his 10 second runs on Drag Radials, which are generally considered the best street legal tire available for ¼ mile runs. I do not know what tires Cleve and Joe used, but if they were not Drag Radials, they were inferior for purposes of ¼ mile runs. Both Scott and Joe are accomplished ¼ mile drivers who have extensive experience launching cars at a ¼ mile track. I am informed that Cleve is a novice at ¼ mile driving. As to the shifting variable, I have no idea which of the three referenced drivers has better skills. However, I will observe that power shifting a car, as opposed to traditional clutch lift shifting, can dramatically improve ¼ mile times.
I guess my only point is that comparing ETs and traps from different tracks, on different days, with different temps, humidity, altitude, drivers and tires, may be interesting and entertaining, but I question the ultimate value of the comparisons, particularly when these numbers are being used to exalt one tuner over another. IMHO, the only way to get an accurate comparison is to run the cars on the same day, at the same track, on the same tire. Apparently Joe is trying to set this up in December.
Craig
I am the least knowledgeable of anyone when it comes to the impact of heat, humidity and elevation on performance/horsepower/1/4 mile times. Therefore, I will defer to A. Graham Bell, who wrote the following in his landmark book entitled “FORCED INDUCTION: Performance tuning”
"Heat expands air. Consequently at sea level 40 degree Celsius air is less dense than air at 5 degree Celsius. Therefore, our 3 liter engine will make less power on hot air than cold air. Another RULE OF THUMB: you LOSE 1% hp for EACH 7 degree Celsius INCREASE in AIR TEMP."
"....... it should follow that a 3 liter engine will fill its cylinder with 3 liters of air at 10,000ft just as it does a sea level. However, at altitude, because those 3 liters of air contain less oxygen (about 26% less), the engine will produce substantially less power. In fact a RULE OF THUMB is that hp will DECREASE 3% for EACH 1000ft."
“High humidity will also decrease engine power in much the same way altitude does, but not as greatly unless combined with elevated temps. eg. 65% humidity and 35 degrees Celsius at sea level reduces the oxygen content similar to that at 100ft elevation.”
Based on the conclusions of Mr. Bell, who is likely far more knowledgeable than any of us on these issues, it appears that both Cleve and Joe would have generated considerably more power running under the same conditions as Scott. Given all the variables, I will not endeavor to calculate or even estimate the precise power gains/losses arising from the differing conditions, but keep in mind that on Joe’s and Cleve’s cars, each 1% translates to a loss of 7 horsepower. That adds up quickly. A loss of 25 horsepower is, IMHO, meaningful. According to one random online horsepower/ET/Trap calculator I pulled up, these differences in heat and humidity, and the resulting loss of horsepower, have a significant impact on ETs and traps (over a tenth reduction in ET, and a couple of mph reduction in the trap speed). That may not seek like a lot, but when we are here dissecting and extrapolating the data to the extreme and debating miniscule differences, these variables likely have meaningful consequences that should be taken into account for purposes of accuracy (to the extent possible).
All of the foregoing completely omits three other critically important factors impacting ¼ mile ETs and traps: (1) tires, (2) launch skills, and (3) shifting skills (assuming all have the same gearing). I know that Scott did his 10 second runs on Drag Radials, which are generally considered the best street legal tire available for ¼ mile runs. I do not know what tires Cleve and Joe used, but if they were not Drag Radials, they were inferior for purposes of ¼ mile runs. Both Scott and Joe are accomplished ¼ mile drivers who have extensive experience launching cars at a ¼ mile track. I am informed that Cleve is a novice at ¼ mile driving. As to the shifting variable, I have no idea which of the three referenced drivers has better skills. However, I will observe that power shifting a car, as opposed to traditional clutch lift shifting, can dramatically improve ¼ mile times.
I guess my only point is that comparing ETs and traps from different tracks, on different days, with different temps, humidity, altitude, drivers and tires, may be interesting and entertaining, but I question the ultimate value of the comparisons, particularly when these numbers are being used to exalt one tuner over another. IMHO, the only way to get an accurate comparison is to run the cars on the same day, at the same track, on the same tire. Apparently Joe is trying to set this up in December.
Craig
Last edited by Craig; 09-28-2006 at 12:56 PM.
#36
09-28-2006, 12:53 PM
Originally Posted by sharkster
Not at all. I was just responding to the original post which stated "tuner war" and so I was agreeing with it and I said "I'm also not going to get into a tuner war etc... " and put a smiley I think this is a good one as well. Remember I don't make the kit here and even though I'm a bit different to a "consumer" I still "choose" what I install and when so I feel I'm no different to you guys....
I think this is a good one as well. Remember I don't make the kit here and even though I'm a bit different to a "consumer" I still "choose" what I install and when so I feel I'm no different to you guys....And yes...I agree that you are pretty much just one of the boys. You just happen ot have a better job than most of the other boys.
#38
09-28-2006, 01:08 PM
Originally Posted by Craig
The foregoing ¼ mile statistic are interesting and entertaining, but I am not sure just how insightful they are in terms of comparing cars and/or tuning packages. For example, Scott states that he did his 10 second passes at 79 degrees ambient temperature. Scott did not disclose the humidity (in this thread), but given the location of the track, the humidity was likely low.. In contrast, Cleve states that it was 98+ degrees and 99%+ humidity when he did his run. Joe states that he did his run in the upper 80 degree range and, although he does not state the humidity (in this thread), it was likely very high given that the run was done in the Arizona desert. No one has posted elevation for their runs (in this thread).
I am the least knowledgeable of anyone when it comes to the impact of heat, humidity and elevation on performance/horsepower/1/4 mile times. Therefore, I will defer to A. Graham Bell, who wrote the following in his landmark book entitled “FORCED INDUCTION: Performance tuning”
"Heat expands air. Consequently at sea level 40 degree Celsius air is less dense than air at 5 degree Celsius. Therefore, our 3 liter engine will make less power on hot air than cold air. Another RULE OF THUMB: you LOSE 1% hp for EACH 7 degree Celsius INCREASE in AIR TEMP."
"....... it should follow that a 3 liter engine will fill its cylinder with 3 liters of air at 10,000ft just as it does a sea level. However, at altitude, because those 3 liters of air contain less oxygen (about 26% less), the engine will produce substantially less power. In fact a RULE OF THUMB is that hp will DECREASE 3% for EACH 1000ft."
“High humidity will also decrease engine power in much the same way altitude does, but not as greatly unless combined with elevated temps. eg. 65% humidity and 35 degrees Celsius at sea level reduces the oxygen content similar to that at 100ft elevation.”
Based on the conclusions of Mr. Bell, who is likely far more knowledgeable than any of us on these issues, it appears that both Cleve and Joe would have generated considerably more power running under the same conditions as Scott. Given all the variables, I will not endeavor to calculate or even estimate the precise power gains/losses arising from the differing conditions, but keep in mind that on Joe’s and Cleve’s cars, each 1% translates to a loss of 7 horsepower. That adds up quickly. A loss of 25 horsepower is, IMHO, meaningful. According to one random online horsepower/ET/Trap calculator I pulled up, these differences in heat and humidity, and the resulting loss of horsepower, have a significant impact on ETs and traps (over a tenth reduction in ET, and a couple of mph reduction in the trap speed). That may not seek like a lot, but when we are here dissecting and extrapolating the data to the extreme and debating miniscule differences, these variables likely have meaningful consequences that should be taken into account for purposes of accuracy (to the extent possible).
All of the foregoing completely omits three other critically important factors impacting ¼ mile ETs and traps: (1) tires, (2) launch skills, and (3) shifting skills (assuming all have the same gearing). I know that Scott did his 10 second runs on Drag Radials, which are generally considered the best street legal tire available for ¼ mile runs. I do not know what tires Cleve and Joe used, but if they were not Drag Radials, they were inferior for purposes of ¼ mile runs. Both Scott and Joe are accomplished ¼ mile drivers who have extensive experience launching cars at a ¼ mile track. I am informed that Cleve is a novice at ¼ mile driving. As to the shifting variable, I have no idea which of the three referenced drivers has better skills. However, I will observe that power shifting a car, as opposed to traditional clutch lift shifting, can dramatically improve ¼ mile times.
I guess my only point is that comparing ETs and traps from different tracks, on different days, with different temps, humidity, altitude, drivers and tires, may be interesting and entertaining, but I question the ultimate value of the comparisons, particularly when these numbers are being used to exalt one tuner over another. IMHO, the only way to get an accurate comparison is to run the cars on the same day, at the same track, on the same tire. Apparently Joe is trying to set this up in December.
Craig
I am the least knowledgeable of anyone when it comes to the impact of heat, humidity and elevation on performance/horsepower/1/4 mile times. Therefore, I will defer to A. Graham Bell, who wrote the following in his landmark book entitled “FORCED INDUCTION: Performance tuning”
"Heat expands air. Consequently at sea level 40 degree Celsius air is less dense than air at 5 degree Celsius. Therefore, our 3 liter engine will make less power on hot air than cold air. Another RULE OF THUMB: you LOSE 1% hp for EACH 7 degree Celsius INCREASE in AIR TEMP."
"....... it should follow that a 3 liter engine will fill its cylinder with 3 liters of air at 10,000ft just as it does a sea level. However, at altitude, because those 3 liters of air contain less oxygen (about 26% less), the engine will produce substantially less power. In fact a RULE OF THUMB is that hp will DECREASE 3% for EACH 1000ft."
“High humidity will also decrease engine power in much the same way altitude does, but not as greatly unless combined with elevated temps. eg. 65% humidity and 35 degrees Celsius at sea level reduces the oxygen content similar to that at 100ft elevation.”
Based on the conclusions of Mr. Bell, who is likely far more knowledgeable than any of us on these issues, it appears that both Cleve and Joe would have generated considerably more power running under the same conditions as Scott. Given all the variables, I will not endeavor to calculate or even estimate the precise power gains/losses arising from the differing conditions, but keep in mind that on Joe’s and Cleve’s cars, each 1% translates to a loss of 7 horsepower. That adds up quickly. A loss of 25 horsepower is, IMHO, meaningful. According to one random online horsepower/ET/Trap calculator I pulled up, these differences in heat and humidity, and the resulting loss of horsepower, have a significant impact on ETs and traps (over a tenth reduction in ET, and a couple of mph reduction in the trap speed). That may not seek like a lot, but when we are here dissecting and extrapolating the data to the extreme and debating miniscule differences, these variables likely have meaningful consequences that should be taken into account for purposes of accuracy (to the extent possible).
All of the foregoing completely omits three other critically important factors impacting ¼ mile ETs and traps: (1) tires, (2) launch skills, and (3) shifting skills (assuming all have the same gearing). I know that Scott did his 10 second runs on Drag Radials, which are generally considered the best street legal tire available for ¼ mile runs. I do not know what tires Cleve and Joe used, but if they were not Drag Radials, they were inferior for purposes of ¼ mile runs. Both Scott and Joe are accomplished ¼ mile drivers who have extensive experience launching cars at a ¼ mile track. I am informed that Cleve is a novice at ¼ mile driving. As to the shifting variable, I have no idea which of the three referenced drivers has better skills. However, I will observe that power shifting a car, as opposed to traditional clutch lift shifting, can dramatically improve ¼ mile times.
I guess my only point is that comparing ETs and traps from different tracks, on different days, with different temps, humidity, altitude, drivers and tires, may be interesting and entertaining, but I question the ultimate value of the comparisons, particularly when these numbers are being used to exalt one tuner over another. IMHO, the only way to get an accurate comparison is to run the cars on the same day, at the same track, on the same tire. Apparently Joe is trying to set this up in December.
Craig
-As far as humidity, I don't know what it was during my run. If I did, I would have posted it. It wasn't very high though, I know that for sure. Regardless...we aren't comparing 1/4 mile times. We're comparing where each car accelerates the strongest, relative to it's own 1/4 mile time, and then comparing those numbers to see where each car makes the majority of it's own power. Big difference. So even if it's hot, cold, dry, or humid...the area in the run that the car accelerates the strongest shouldn't change all that much. Only the overall time will change, but not the proportions of that time.
Heck...I even compared my car's back-half speed from when it was an EVOMS Stage 2 car, which, even though it ran a much slower 1/4 mile than it does now, still had a very fast back-half speed of 29 mph....which shows that at the time, it was was making most of it's power up top (which is very surprising for K16's).
-How much power you lose in hot/humid weather will vary not only on weather conditions, but also on the efficiency of your cooling system. Another variable we aren't taking into account. Some will lose more than others. *By the way, I have the same book by Corky Bell. Great resource.
-You can't accurately use ET calculators that take into account altitude (like the one you used for the figures above), when comparing these cars. Turbocharged cars create their own atmosphere, so the ET calculators skew the results in the wrong direction (in the "generous" direction)...the same way that that SAE correction skews dynos of turbocharged cars.
-Cleve used R-compounds for his runs...and achieved better 60' times than I did using drag radials (1.69 for Cleve, compared to 1.80 for me). Thus, giving him the advantage over me in both tires and launch. Not the other way around. Had I pulled a 1.69...I'd have been in the 10.4 range. Great driving, Cleve!
Also, according to his proginal post, the temp/humidity was 95 degrees and 95% humidity. Very hot, nonetheless:
about 95 degrees and 95% humidity...gotta love the central Georgia furnace
But all of this moot...since like I said, we aren't comparing 1/4 mile times from one car to another. We're comparing where each car is strongest relative to it's own 1/4 mile time...and then comparing where each car makes most of it's power. So temp, humidity, tires, etc...really shouldn't matter to any degree of importance in this comparison.
Finally, none of this is being "used to exalt one tuner over another". I'm surprised you would say that to be perfectly honest. The only reason I posted this was because I read an eariler post about the Protomotive cars possibly being laggy. I was posting this information to show that they are no more laggy than EVOMS as far as I can tell from theee numbers. And from what I gather, I doubt either Protomotive or EVOMS are particularly laggy. Especially with me coming from a single-turbo Supra.
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 09-28-2006 at 01:53 PM.
#39
09-28-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
I know, Alex. I mainly posted that because I didn't want others that are reading it to mistakenly think this thread was something it's not.
And yes...I agree that you are pretty much just one of the boys. You just happen ot have a better job than most of the other boys.
And yes...I agree that you are pretty much just one of the boys. You just happen ot have a better job than most of the other boys.
Thanks for the kind words hehe...
#40
09-28-2006, 01:52 PM
Basic Sponsor
Originally Posted by cgmeredithjr
I would have thought my car would have been faster in the 1/8 since I have the smaller GT700 turbos...maybe I am not shifting fast enough? I do like my large MPH gain on the back half though.
Cleve
Cleve
One thing I have to say.. is... that Im trying to keep this between stock motors... so using cgmeredithjr's car may not be fair... since he has engine work... other then that... I think these two tuning kits are very close to each other...
the only way to really find out how they stack up is to run them together...markski
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
#42
09-28-2006, 02:01 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,753
Rep Power: 112
Originally Posted by Jean
RenntechV12, VRAlex is a great guy I am sure, but I don't know him more than you do, although I would love to.
Based on the numbers, it does seem like my car would make yours look like it is standing still
BTW, it covers 103-130mph in less distance than VRAlex as well, so don't feel too bad. I am not doing a tuner war here, just discussing temperature and performance facts. I am a lousy drag racer, and I admit it, no big deal.
Based on the numbers, it does seem like my car would make yours look like it is standing still
BTW, it covers 103-130mph in less distance than VRAlex as well, so don't feel too bad.
I am not doing a tuner war here, just discussing temperature and performance facts. I am a lousy drag racer, and I admit it, no big deal.
If you want to compare cars, use the same measuring stick. The NHRA dragstrip (while you may not personally like it) is the only calibrated way that guys all over the country and the world can run on an equal, unbiased track. Markski and Scott realize this fact, why don't you? While you are dazzled by your "extrapolations" it doesn't mean anything to us. If it did, there would be a thread titled "6speed AX-22 standings". I know that if Scott ran 10.65 at an NHRA track, that his run is not open to interpretation or tampering. At least run your car at a dragstrip to see the trapspeeds, they have nothing to do with your less than adquate "launching abilitites", then you'll be comparing apples to apples.
Last edited by RennTechV12; 09-28-2006 at 02:05 PM.
#43
09-28-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
Finally, none of this is being "used to exalt one tuner over another". I'm surprised you would say that to be perfectly honest.
I NEVER stated that you (or anyone else) was exalting one tuner over the other, and I apologize if that is what my post inadvertantly implied. The purpose of this thread, as evidenced by the original title and post, was to compare two different tuners. The initial posts focused on comparing the components of the different packages. However, the thread subsequently turned to the 1/4 mile comparisons. The purpose of my post was merely to observe that comparisons of 1/4 mile times achieved under wildly different conditions are fraught with ambiguity and should not be used as the basis to exalt one tuner over the other. I was not accusing you, nor anyone else, of actually doing this. To the contrary, the fine members of this forum, including you in particular, know better.
Craig
#44
09-28-2006, 02:45 PM
My apologies then, Craig. I mistakenly thought that's what you were implying in your post, and I was understandably bothered by it. I appreciate the clarification very much. Thank you for the reply.