No physics? Ok for me

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

Phil writes:
>I hold the opposite view.  Until I can recreate the problem to my own 
>satisfaction, it doesn't exist.
>I have too much experience (a lot of it recent, since I'm becoming known as
the 
>UK's MB engine expert) of people coming to me and describing symptoms that I 
>can't understand, can't reproduce on my own car, and finally can't even 
>reproduce on _theirs_.
NOT the case here sir.  I claim to be able to reproduce it on anyones car.
It's not that difficult.  Slip angle and Traction aren't that difficult, and
the Tosen itself is dumb and not that difficult.  I don't claim to be any kind
of superior driver.  I DO have a lot of experience in low cf conditions, and
driving way beyond the limits of a given chassis.  The thing about this center
torsen, is that by physics and btdt, I don't have to be anywhere close to
"beyond" the limits to get the Torsen to behave badly.  Regardless, I find
"can't" understand to be a little confusing.  Not sure I go there with you (a
couple of "deaf" service managers come to mind here).  If you look hard
enough, "can't" hardly means it doesn't exist.  Ignoring physics is hardly a
way to advocate learning.  If, at this point Phil, you don't understand what
has been explained, I might argue "can't" is the wrong word.  Jeff, me and
several others here don't doubt for a second, you haven't been bit.  We have,
and hard, and think we "understand" why.  Doesn't mean we ignore that the
physical limitations of Center Torsens aren't REAL.  Only NOT experienced.
Two different concepts.  I advocate learning what the limitations of a given
chassis are.  And share it often here.  I found a huge limitation of Torsen,
and spent thousands of bytes helping others learn the why and what.  You want
to "deny" it all because in your 80,000km you have NEVER experienced it.  Ok,
in my 800,000+ miles, I've NEVER been in an accident.  What exactly is the
point?  How bout the issue of the physics of a Center Torsen.  This isn't
about people, you, me or Jeff.  This is about physics sir, plain and simple.
 
.>As I've posted several times - I've thrown the ur-quattro about so much over
.>the last four years and 80000 miles that I'm _certain_ I would have seen
this 
>hypothesised effect.  I haven't.  Hopefully, I'll have my car back tomorrow
or 
>Friday, and then I can try some experiments.
>Dave couldn't find a problem with his RS2 - Roger Galvin didn't find a
problem 
>with his 200TQ.  By the weekend, I should know more about the ur-quattro.  
And those that have experienced this MANY times over the past millions of
miles go, hey Phil's one lucky dude.  We don't need to do experiments.  Why?
Because, predicting it is hardly an easy task.  By the definition of a Center
Torsen, IN the paper written by Torsen Gleason.  I'm not sure "experiments"
are valid.  And if "Roger Galvin" didn't find it, we need another
"experiment", cuz in a 200tq I can get spiders to fly on a wet road.  We have
a lot of variables to consider.  But please, happy to find one who tries.  Me,
I'm happy that I've experienced it, learned it's intimate details (thanks for
posting the ref btw, Jeff), and can come to the conclusion that I understand
it, understand it's limitations, and it's benefits.  Physics are cold to
people.  It's not a personal thing.  Here I would argue more a statistical
analysis of who's been there and back without incident (luckies), who's been
there and didn't come back (tythes), and those who just haven't been there
(luckies).  Statistically sir, you would fall into the latter of the three
categories.  

If you have NEVER experienced it, are you sure you want to discredit all of
those that have as 'bad' driving?  Not sure I'd want to go there with you, if
you "can't" understand what those who experienced this are talking about.  

C'mon Phil, it's physics, that's all.  I advocate discussion of the issue, not
the people.  Come on over stateside, I have a line of folks to put spiders in
your lap.  Guarantee you'll understand...  :)

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ@aol.com