Re: Re: Hypnotized on the web

[ckuo@sprynet.com]

"Switch" terminology

I have to agree with Robert Houk on this. The terminology "switch" is totally 
inappropriate, and is misleading in trying to understand operation of the 
torsen. The torsen is an analog device, has an infinitely variable output and 
has a finite response time/slew rate. Personally, I think treating the torsen as 
an analog device provides a better model for trying to prove by analysis spider 
bite.

Ditto for "torsen is a reactive device". There are no logical or sequential 
states in the torsen. It does not think; it does not make decisions. It reacts 
almost purely to traction induced torque on both of its output shafts. I would 
guess most people who have read the Gleason white paper would agree with this.

Even though the Type 44 and UrQ drivetrains could be similar, I gotta think the 
differences in polar moment, inertia, and mass play a big role in why less or 
none of the UrQs seem to not exhibit bite and some type 44s exhibit the bite. I 
know from comparing my extremely short and lightweight Scirocco to my long and  
heavy 5K wagon, there is a huge difference in turn dynamics. I can toss the 
Scirocco into a turn with impunity and it just "loves" to recover. When I lose 
it with the wagon, it takes a "long-long-long" time for it to come back, if it 
does.  I'm not sure the type 44 was meant for such turn tossing. But relative to 
other cars of similar characteristics, I believe the type 44 is a very good 
handling car.

This torsen thread is making me feel better about my non-quattro, non-turbo 
under-powered wagon all the time. Not!

If Audi-Dudi can get in contact with the Gleason engineer, perhaps the debate 
can take a forward step.

Chauncey Kuo