What?

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

>1) i see that you now acknowledge that the vc is a speed sensing device that
>shifts torque.  it is not a torque sensing device.  the vc can only act once
it
>detects, by shaft rotational speed, that slippage *has* occured.  it is
>therefore a speed sensing [switching] device.  it will re-apportion torque
>until *speed* equilabrium (not torque) is re-established.  the torsen, as you
>know, is fundamentally different.  btw, you were going to post info on a vc
>which can act "within 1 revolution"?
Uh, what wasn't clear Dave?  1 revolution is what I posted the ref to.  A
torsen acts before TRACTION slip occurs.  Care to define your understanding.
So the torsen does this before rotation occurs, a VC doesn't.  Hmmm how much
slip do you give that torsen in a turn.  1 revolution or less?

>>2) you say you have a thorough grasp of the gleeson paper, and yet you try
and
tell me that the because its a torsen, because it has a certain bias ratio,
>then its the same.  re-read the paper scott.  for example, what decisions has
>audi made in selecting "engine braking bias ratios" as outlined in section 4?
>where these the same for all models?  clearly this could significantly impact
>>on the behaviour of the vehicle when cornering under engine braking.  you
(and
>i) don't know.  
For ACCELERATION arguments, I don't need to know it.  WE are not talking of
braking are we.  The article is correct that a torsen is a mechanical tie to
the front and rear driveshafts.  That is NOT wrong, your point.  It is true.
A torsen doesn't freewheel, regardless of BR on braking.  PERIOD.  Don't need
to know WHAT the braking BR is.  The same article made a comment about ABS
with fwd vs awd on the 90.  From 20ft the quattro took another 15feet.  Not
tied.  It exactly is.  Case in point

>we don't have the information from audi or gleeson.  your
>'physics' doesn't understand this.  another point, the number of invex gears
is
>chosen to help select the bias ratio, and also to handle the engine torque. 
>how many pairs of invex gears are there in the audi torsens?  was this
changed
f>or the high torque applications (v8, a8, rs2, ur-q), as opposed to the
others?
Dave, do you have ANY documentation that 78/22/22/78 is not used everywhere
but in the newest S4?  I don't, does anyone else?  AUDI claims it, that's all
we need.  

>3) you state that there is *no* change in design between a fwd/rwd and centre
>torsen.  bollocks.  there is a different design by definition, because the
bias
>ratio is different.
What is the difference between a 22/78/78/22 fwd/rwd torsen and a center one
in terms of design?  NONE.   Both distribute torque to two driveshafts.  Slip
angle and relative slip angle on one is a constant, and a variable on the
other.  How do you design the same BR to accomodate that Dave.  Think man.
Reread the paper.  The torsen isn't some hightech gizmo.  It's dumb.  All
inputs are interpreted as traction in a traction switch, variables and
constants.  It's DUMB.

>>btw, i confess that sometimes i read whole paragraphs which you're written,
and
i have not the faintest idea what you are on about (ref: statisical
>non-events), although i am pleased that you don't stand under trees in
storms.
Same argument.  A statistical non event, means you did this and it didn't
happen.  Addresses not the hypothesis, the physics, the model, the event, or
the methodology.  It means it didn't happen.  For it to be statistically
SIGNIFICANT to any of the data, it has to correlate to the above.  If it
doesn't, it's a statistical non-event.  It just didn't happen.  What does it
mean?  Nothing.

It didnt' happen to me doing this so it doesn't happen.  Well, not for a
minute am I going to stand under a tree in a lightning storm.  Tho
statistically I prolly could for every storm in chicago.  Doesn't change the
event or the significance of it.  It doesn't mean a darn thing.  A statistical
non event. See previous paragraph.

Scott Justusson