RE: torsen naderism

[Eaton Dave <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:08:34 EDT
> From: QSHIPQ@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Prenuptual agreements
> 
> In a message dated 98-06-16 03:34:51 EDT, you write:
> 
> << > Hey davey, if the 44 chassis bite (your claim) but not Urq's, how
'bout
>  > experiencing one so that you know what it is.  Then we have a
better
>  > baseline of understanding.  Kinda like talking about sex to a
virgin...
[snip]
>  
>  >Sunshine - you're the virgin here. >>
> 
> Appreciate the kind words sweetcheeks, but I hardly know you....
> From another arachnoid virgin that's just read about the bite, and
never
> experienced one, and flat denies it happens.  
> 

no, phil and myself are not doing that scott.  we're saying it doesn't
happen on *our* chassis.  open mind on the type 44.  *you* are the one
saying it happens on *all* chassis.  reality check brother.

we're supposed to just take your word for the bite on all chassis?
this, "i'm the master, i understand" sort of bullsh*t?

scott, you have *never* explained the bite.  you've never set out step
by step what it is thought to be.  jeff has and, based on jeff's
description (tight corner with rear oversteer on entry), and
re-producing the manouever, i have tried to reproduce the bite on both
my chassis, to no avail.  so, apart from a awesome amount of verbiage,
you've contributed very little fact, and a hell of a lot of other stuff
(hint: think brown and smelly).  and we still don't have a reproducable
event on a number of audi chassis.  it says much for your application of
the scientific method that you refuse to countenance that you may be
wrong/mistaken.  you have as much to do with scientific study as ralph
nader or 20/20 does for that matter.

> Come play with us at Steamboat fellas.  It's much safer car sex than
the
> 'fondling'  you two have been "trying" to replicate, let's go all the
way.
> Hope you find the torsen to be everything you claim, cuz many here
haven't.

intersting how the ground has moved from 70% effort on a dry road, and
the bite will happen, to "see you at steamboat".

fwiw, i *did* play with my ur-q and the wrx's on a nice flat grassy
field scott.  no bite.  *hell* of a lot of fun.  doing it again in 2
weeks.  did i spin?  sure.  was it unexpected?  nope.  but hell, those
wrx's are just using dumb vc's.

i'm going looking for answers here buddy.  from where i'm sitting,
you're not.  your usual arrogance notwithstanding.
> 
> You guys don't have to wear white, it gets so messy with those bite
stains....
> 
> Given my number of 'affairs' with the 'widow', I'm laughing too, that
one
> would address me virginally.  Appreciate, as always Phil, your
consistent
> denial of the dark side of the center torsen phenomenon, so explained
by Stan
> the Torsen Man, the Zexel thesaurus brothers, Jeff, and myself.  At
least
> something is consistent in YOUR torsen equipped urq while turning....
> 

i'll use the word disingenious scott to describe your recital of the
zexel paper.  can't think of a more polite way.  especially the way that
everyone is on your side (i guess i must have missed zexel's explanation
of the bite).  laughable really.

news also that chocholek is the torsen man.  remember that he said he
hated vc's/any limited slip diff as well?  sort of puts all his comments
in perspective really.  i'm sure that his views would be interesting to
a wrc rally/touring car/formula 1 team.  perhaps he might learn
something.  

and this recital of yours about a "dumb gear-jamming friction device".
what the hell else would you call it?    using the same standards, i
can't think of a single component in a car which is smart.  even the
ems.  i'm beginning to think 'mericans use a different dictionary or
something.

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q