[s-cars] Herr Kluge

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Rob:
Don't feel too depressed, you should read the Jeff Goggin interview with
Chocholek (torsen practical application engineer of that mid 80's era), he
shared a couple years ago that audi was looking at replacing lockers and abs,
not at the effects ot it, or the desired engineering aspects.

I'm still intrigued by the device itself.  It appears from your posts that
the O1E is stronger than the 016, but IMU that the torsen "university
special" is good for about 400hp, and that it's design weakness is basket
related, not input or ourput related.  If that's the case, then the "3x"
power levels might be "before the basket", but not to include the basket.  Or
we could argue (as Mr. K just might) that the trans isn't necessarily the
problem, since torsen is added after the trans ouput shaft(?).

However, in my research the 016 appears to be a pretty robust trans.  The
problems the turbo applications seem to have is 3rd gear above 400hp.  The
problems the team LT1Q had, were more similar to the Grup B rally problems of
tearing up the front ring and pinion due to a packaging problem (size) vs
torque in the front.

Since the front ring and pinion didn't go thru any big design changes, I'd be
interested in Mr. K's comments in more detail.  I see major revisions to
trans torque drives when accomodating only 75lb/ft more torque.  In terms of
all the "hapersizing" (tm) that's going on around here, I'm thinking more
stuff is gonna break.  What's first (as apposed to first is first in the old
01E;)?  My bet is torsens (hehe), then front ring and pinion.  Care to ask
the master?  Downsides of taking out the DMF in terms of gear lash?

It might also be interesting to find out what experiences he could share wrt
to torsens in racing.  My Trans Am poster hangin in my office lists "Center
Differential:  Self locking Torsen or limited slip viscous coupling with
torque split".  Given the choice of the two, I'd surmise that one was never
raced, only used by the marketing group.  It's also interesting to note that
the Torsen was well hyped and documented to be introduced on the S1 as the
"variable torque transmission", and was to follow into the homoged SQ (even
the SQ microfiche shows it).  Why didn't that happen?

My extensive list of questions obviously could eclipse your welcome mat.
Feeling a bit less excommunicated from what you've shared already.

Thanks, good reading,  and I suspect that if one really wanted to lock up the
center, it could be done, remember, small bungalos have already been bought
and paid for by members of this list, Dave J may well be living in one by now
:)

Scott aka "torsenboy" J


In a message dated 12/6/02 9:23:10 AM Central Standard Time, rbraun at foni.net
writes:


I spoke at length with Mr. Kluge about lockers and
Torsens (that's when he told me why Audi changed
to Torsen) and actually got depressed listening to
all the negatives. Alas, you can't change a Torsen
equipped car to a locking diff for less than the price
of a 2 bedroom bungalo, so we have to live with
drawbacks of the Torsen.

HTH

Rob