Torque - my FINAL word on the matter

[paul.heneghan@bbc.co.uk (Paul Heneghan)]

First of all, many appologies to all those who are not enjoying this lively 
(and so far very well-mannered) debate on torque; please press the delete 
key immediately.  On the other hand, I haven't enjoyed a thread like this 
for quite some time.

Here is my FINAL word on the matter.

It would seem that there are some of us who believe that the 2079 extension 
is a torque multiplier, (i.e. torque at the nut is: Tn = Ttw x (TW + Ext)/TW 
(where TW is length of torque wrench and Ext is length of tool 2079)).

Members of this faction include the following:

Paul Heneghan
James Marriott
Trisha Blethen
Christopher Bender
DeWitt Harrison
Dave Weiss
Kent Crossley
Bob Cummings
Alan Cordeiro

There are others who believe that the 2079 extension is a torque 
transferring device (why is it needed in that case?) (i.e. torque at the nut 
equals torque indicated on the torque wrench, lengths of wrench and 
extension are irrelevant).

Members of that faction include the following:

Greg Woodard
Kirby A. Smith
Bernie Strub

Phil Payne (i'm not sure which side he's on) has however come up with the 
Audi originated figure (450Nm without 2079) which has made the whole of this 
debate irrelevant (while remaining fascinating).

While maintaining that my amateur applied mathematics (how cruel Phil) are 
correct, I vote with Phil on this one.  450Nm is probably the correct 
figure.  Audi realised this was too big for most TWs to handle, so they came 
up with the torque multiplier idea, hence tool 2079.  Providing this tool is 
used with a TW that is 3.5ft in length, then 350Nm becomes the correct 
reading.

If we must blame someone for this mess, let's blame Audi for coming up with 
an ambiguous, poorly explained and engineering-imprecise proceedure.

Happy torquing.

Paul
paul.heneghan@bbc.co.uk
1984 Audi 80 quattro
1989 Audi 100 Avant