[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: torsen naderism
This really seems quite simple to me. If you dont like torsens, then buy a
car without one. If you do, then buy a car with one. Simple physics that.
Now, if you have to spend this amount of time arguing about it, I can only
assume you are unsure about whether you would really be better off with the
other. Just accept that they are different, and in the words of Jasper
Carrot, 'when I get my quattro out on the road, I'm going to drive drive
drive'
As for all these spider bites, get some insect repellent.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey J. Goggin <audidudi@mindspring.com>
To: quattro@coimbra.ans.net <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>
Cc: dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>; qshipq@aol.com
<qshipq@aol.com>
Date: 17 June 1998 14:23
Subject: RE: torsen naderism
>>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.
>
>If it happens on one chassis -- *any* chassis -- then it must be happening
>on ALL chassis. To what extent it is noticeable (or even detrimental) is
>another matter entirely but the Torsen's behavior itself isn't changed --
>CAN'T be changed -- just because it's installed in a different car. How
>could it be?
>
>Mind you, I'm NOT suggesting the design parameters can't be optimized for
>any given chassis and/or particular set of operating conditions (although,
>interestingly, it appears Audi hasn't seen fit to do this) merely that the
>Torsen's basic operating principles remain the same regardless of how
and/or
>where it's used: FWD, RWD or AWD.
>
>For both Scott and myself, this position is non-negotiable yet yours seems
>to dance around it. On occasions, your statements have suggested that you
>accept this premise but whenever this is specifically pointed out, it
>appears that you back away from it immediately. Why?
>
>>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.
>
>A minor correction: I don't remember ever suggesting that corner-entry
>oversteer and/or a tight corner is a pre-condition for experiencing a
Torsen
>"bite." In fact, if you'll recall, I questioned how anyone gets an Audi to
>oversteer on corner entry ... given the opportuntity, both of mine
>consistently understeer. If I'm trying, I can usually get them to
oversteer
>but driving them this way isn't the quick way around the corner hence it's
>not something I indulge in frequently. Sideways driving is definitely fun
>but not fast...
>
>>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.
>
>Actually, Dave, re-read some of your earlier posts ... you might be
>surprised by how your position has moved over the past few months. It
>wasn't that long ago that you didn't have a firm grasp on the concept of
>"slip angles" and as I'm sure you'll now agree, this is central to any
>discussion of the Torsen's performance as a center diff in an AWD
>application. (No flame intended. Honest.)
>
>>intersting how the ground has moved from 70% effort on a dry road, and
>>the bite will happen, to "see you at steamboat".
>
>Big deal ... a low cf surface simply makes it easier to demonstrate the
>effect. I can do it on pavement any time I want -- Yes, I've been
>practicing! -- and I'd be happy to demonstrate it to you here in the desert
>if you'd prefer. Seeing that I don't own a winter jacket, I don't have any
>plans to go to Steamboat myself!
>
>>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.
>
>Skip the real-world stuff and focus on theory for a bit. The design of the
>Torsen dictates how it operates, period. It doesn't know whether it's in a
>FWD, RWD or AWD car; it doesn't know whether it's in a Type 44 or Ur-Q
>chassis; it doesn't know anything about the surface you're driving nor does
>it know anything about what the driver is trying/hoping to accomplish or
>their driving style. It's dumb, right?
>
>Given this, my radar lights up when I see words like "anticipate" in a
>technical paper ... how does it know? How could it know? This statement
>goes too far and, in my opinion, smacks of cheerleading, which brings the
>impartiality of authors and/or the true purpose of their paper into
question.
>
>Why the fixation about what the paper does or doesn't say? Do you really
>think any paper written by Zexel or Gleason before them is going to openly
>admit to the Torsen having ANY shortcomings? Years ago, I wrote a few
>technical papers for a company as a freelancer and my instructions clearly
>included glossing over the trouble areas, particularly about the fact that
>they had compromised reliability in favor of performance by running a few
of
>the devices well beyond the manufacturer's ratings. Why should it be any
>different for a differential than a mere audio product?
>
>Maybe I'm more cynical than most but I think that until we find a piece
>written by an independent third-party -- one who doesn't have an axe to
>grind or a marketing person to answer to -- it's unlikely that you will see
>any criticism about the Torsen in any technical paper. Remember, the only
>reason these papers are written in the first place is to promote the
>manufacturer's products and not necessarily to educate the public at large;
>that's generally a secondary goal at best.
>
>>i'm going looking for answers here buddy. from where i'm sitting,
>>you're not. your usual arrogance notwithstanding.
>
>Alas, the problem with attempting to answer a question that nobody else has
>answered is that you can't simply look it up in a book or paper. In
>college, I had a physics course where the tests and quizzes were open-book
>and open-note and the prof gave you a "cheat sheet" with every formula you
>might need. And as if that wasn't enough, you didn't have to actually
>answer a question in order to get credit so long as everything was set up
>correctly ... piece-of-cake, right?
>
>Hardly. You see, before you could answer the question, you first had to
>figure out what it was, which wasn't as easy as it might seem. If you
>misinterpreted the question, then your answer usually ended up being wrong,
>however "correct" it might be otherwise.
>
>I sense the same thing is happening here. We've seen two papers, neither
of
>which specifically addresses the question we (okay, some of us) want
>answered, and therefore we've been forced to extrapolate our answers from
>the points they DO address. Where I went to school, this was most
>definitely part of the "scientific method" since they were teaching to
teach
>us how to THINK and not merely how to regurgitate pat answers from a book.
>
>Personally, I don't discount the value of Scott's input simply because he's
>not a published author; likewise, I've spent a lot of time pondering yours
>as well and not just so I can figure out ways to refute it. There's
>definitely something going on here, whether you accept it or not, and while
>you may find this hard to accept, the truth is that both Scott and myself
>will readily (but perhaps not cheerfully) admit to being wrong should
>anybody ever be able to conclusively explain to us exactly where we've gone
>off course. Hasn't happened yet, I'm afraid. :^(
>
>________________________________________________________________________
> _ _
> / | _| o | \ _| o Jeffrey Goggin
> /__| | | / | | __ | | | | / | | audidudi@mindspring.com
> / | |_| \_| | |_/ |_| \_| | http://www.mindspring.com/~audidudi/
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>