Re: Hypnotized

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-04-24 12:10:06 EDT, you write:

<< Ditto.
 
 >YOU are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.  There are three
 >Torsen ur-quattro owners on this list, all of whom have tried to recreate
Phil writes:
me:>> Dave, several of us have tried to get you to understand, not
> >only the Torsen operation, but the limits of that operation as well.  It's
> >obvious you don't get it.

>Neither do I.
Without question.

>You haven't yet posted any physics.  Just some vague theorising taken
>from scruffy and blurred cut-away drawings - all of which theorising
>completely ignores real physics like inertia, friction, mass, etc.
I guess it helps when you have a copy of the original paper.  Blurred cut-
aways, that's how I sense your posts, sir.

Me>> A torsen hunts, it's designed to, ...

>No, there is no randomisation or search generation mechanism in a Torsen.
>It's a purely reactive device.
So a torsen doesn't hunt for traction in a straight line in low cf conditions?
Really?  It hunts because small differences in cf make it hunt.  A good thing,
or maximum traction?  No, Phil, it's not.  In a turn you don't necessarily
have a traction problem either, and yet the torsen is hunting.  What is it
reacting to?  Make sure you understand your own argument.  I assure you, my
definition of "hunt" hardly means the Torsen is a high level switching device.
It's dumb, really dumb, too dumb.  It can't see the real world of traction, so
you can't predict it's real world of switching.

>No.  If c/f is truly equal ('constant' is irrelevant) for all wheels,
>the Torsen will be in a steady state no matter what the input torque
>variation.
Darn that acceleration.  A lifted wheel to a torsen lost traction.  That is
not a cf equation, that is a chassis dynamics one.  So, that torsen "hunt"
most feel on snow, just really isn't.  Ok, got it.

>It's _NOT_ a switch.  A switch has discrete states.  A Torsen can be in
>any one of an infinite number of states between its limits, and can
>move between states at a variety of speeds.  It _cannot_ move between
>states in zero time - inertia prevents this.  During the movement, it
>passes through all of the intermediate states.  It does not and cannot
>"switch".
Based on inputs the torsen device switches torque between axles.  Ok, it's a
switching device that's not a switch.  Yeeha, not sure there's a point to the
above.  Since you don't know anything about the exact bias as a torsen is
switching torque, I'm not sure your point means much of anything, Phil.  At
50%f/50%r a torsen car understeers,  somewhere between that and 78r/22f that
is oversteer.  Your "discrete states" are irrelevent to the bite.  

]> tried it, and one in Area E.  That's _seven_.
Ok, there are 1200 on this list.  Many haven't experienced it.  Many don't go
with the "until I've been struck by lightning" argument you are making Phil.
TRIED WHAT, would be my first question.  You don't agree how a torsen works,
it's inputs or that a set of variables could make a bite.  So what exactly,
sir, are you TRYING to do?
 
 >It doesn't happen.  Null phenomenon.  No fault found.  Torsens went into
 >thousands of cars starting in 1987.  They're still being put into cars.
 >The driver's manuals don't mention "spider bites".  The high-performance
> driving courses that Audi run don't mention "spider bites".  Why?
You ignore MANY references to the bite phenomenon Phil, they've already been
posted.

A Torsen is an absolute traction device, operating in a world of variables
that dictates that an absolute traction device may not be desired and can be
fooled.  To think otherwise sure does ignore a lot of KNOWN chassis dynamic
principles of that device you don't call a switch.  

Your and Dave's expert testimony sure does selectively ignore some basic
chassis dynamics.  Debating and arguing from that perspective, says more about
the expert, IMO, than the event or nonevent.  Are there reasons that you can
see Phil, for audi to use 2 different torsens on an Urq and a v8?  ANY?  I can
see a lot.  And it's clear that the 'devices' are interchangeable.  Could you
see any problems with using the same torque distributing device in two
massively different chassis?  Could you see any reason why a bite in one might
occur under a different set of variables than the other chassis?  

This discussion is going back to where it was 6 months ago.  Personal.  The
device has flaws.  Why?  Cuz the world of the automobile rolls around in
reality, where all inputs to driveshaft speed differential are NOT, by
definition, traction variables.  Damn turns, darn ice, darn torsen.

Scott