Physics

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

ckuo writes:
 >Models are 
>based on physics. If we are talking about law of thermodynamics, conservation
of 
>energy, etc., that is physics
>Anyhow, sorry for this long-winded expression. I do think that the debate
needs 
>to remain objective from both sides, and from what I see, there is no solid 
>answer as of yet.
>Off my engineering soapbox.
Mechanical operation of torque, work output, is a physics based operation.
Regardless of model, a 22/78/78/22 torsen can transfer 56% of total torque of
an engine between to axles.  That is physics of the gears (insert friction
loss only).  The MODEL is the spider bite.  Given the 56% transfer, do we
affect the chassis dynamics of the car?  Given the right variables in this
model we can show that a torsen will cause a chassis to understeer oversteer
and understeer all in the same turn.  Using a physics based work output and
friction input on the switch.

To say that my argument is not physics is debateable.  I only claim that the
torque transfer is a physics argument.   We could certainly take the same
physical arguments of slip angle and traction in terms of g forces, and make a
physical based argument that 56% torque transfer happens.  The how and when
are just the models of the variables.  The physics argument, is GIVEN the
mechanical switch, Tshift can happen.  When?  There's your model.  

So, not sure I totally agree on the model identity here.  I reference a model
with a whole buncho variables, that I have yet to be able to identify.
However, my excel spreadsheet and physics can certainly tell me what 56% of a
given torque is.  That is the physics of the switch.  Right now we are
debating the event vs the nonevent, right now, mired in statistics, cuz the
variables are monumental, so the model is not defined.  No one is debating the
physics of a torsen differential.  By physical properties of the switch,
Tshift CAN happen.  A model is needed to identify if and when it becomes a
chassis issue.  

My .02

Scott Justusson