RE: torsen naderism

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

sigh.  jeff, scott - a couple of things here.

>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?

1) phil and i have only various people's experience on the type 44
chassis to verify that there is the behaviour you attest to.  i have
never driven a type 44, and don't intend to start now thanks very much.
so we say that it could happen on the type 44.  i've never said that it
*does*.  i've had no experience.

2) even if it does occur on a type 44, you are completely wrong to
attest that an occurance on a particular chassis means an occurance on
all chassis.  overlaping design parameters of all sorts of things
(tyres, roll stiffness, torque charactereistics etc. etc) will mean
totally different results.  by definition.  the paper says this.  it's
also obvious.

for example, you talk about the understeer characteristic of your torsen
type 44 chassis as though that is part and parcel of the torsen.  of
course it's not.  for example, the torsen ur-q exhibits totally
different handling characteristics to the non-torsen one (much less
understeer), and the type 44 i attest.  my old s2 understeered *more*
than my ur-q.  i've also read test drive articles of recent quattro
audis where the tester says the chassis only exhibits understeer at the
limits of adhesion (ref: a6q test in latest car mag).

i simply cannot understand the statement that "since it occurs on one
chassis, it must occur on all".  this is just pain wrong/ignorant.  if
you continue to accept that this statement is true, then turn it around
(it doesn't occur on one chasis, so it can't occur on any), and the
opposite must be true as well.

fact is that audo had *quite* different design ideals for the type 44
than for the ur-q, the s2 and the rs2 (the chassis which i've owned).
markedly different characteristics.  even between these 3 cars.

other examples of the fallacy of this argument :-

- if an abs system cuts in too early on one chassis, will the same abs
system cut in early on another?  errr, no.

- if lift throttle oversteer occurs on an 318i, does it mean that it
will occur on a m3?  errr, no.

-if a water pump/radiator is sufficient to cool a 2.2l n/a 90 coupe at
full power,  would the same cool an s2 at full power? err, no.

in each of the above examples, the same physical properties of each
device are influenced by other factors and so exceed the design
"envelope". 

as the paper makes quite clear in the preface, the art of engineering
design is to optimise the various *overlapping* systems to produce
desired effects, supress undesired defects, and reduce cost.  all at the
same time.  it also makes quite clear (and its obvious) that these
factors in an awd application include a long list of chassis dynamics.

so, is it possible to have an occurance on one chassis, and not on the
other?  damn right.

this is one of the reasons i object very strongly to your "science".  it
isn't [science].  the thing i learned very early in my chemistry was
that you had to be very careful with your null hypothesis so that you
isolated just the factor you were after *without* any overlapping
condition ruining your results.

> Dave E. writes
> >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.
> 
> Are you sure you have Phil's concensus on that?  I'm laughing if this
is the
> case.  The reality is, that's the corner.  Given the description of
the
> device, and your admition that it *can* happen in the 44 chassis, the
> discussion is really over.  You don't get that.  Fine.  I suggest a
reread of
> the conclusion of the Zexel paper for help here.
> 
> >we're supposed to just take your word for the bite on all chassis?
> 
> NO.  I'm an idiot.  So is the device.  A torsen doesn't know or care
that it's
> in a 20vurq OR a v8q.  This is just a simple logical argument.  A 44
chassis
> car can exibit the behavior (you and phil agree, tho virginally admit
never
> experienced).  The device is the same.  End of argument.  Dave you are
in a
> corner.  You can debate me all day long as to YOUR interpretation.
The
> problem is, you already made my argument regarding the torsen.
> 
> >this, "i'm the master, i understand" sort of bullsh*t?
> Not the point.  The understanding of what is written is rather simple
in this
> case.  There is no N in an audi chassis described by Zexel, that's
YOUR
> interpretation.  Not what was written nor implied.  
> 
many road testers disagree scott.  check out the reference above.

> 
> Ah, yes Dave, let's change the argument.  You deny it happens all
together.  I
> can plant you in ANY torsen car, put you on a track and bite your
white dress
> on EVERY single turn.  Just using the best venue for a non believer.
I assure
> you sir, my argument hasn't changed.  Your corner has.  

you can't have it both ways scott.  you accuse me of saying it happens
on one chassis and not on the other, and now you say i deny it
all-together.  get it straight.

[snip]
> >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.
> 
> Given Obdurate and Disingenious (tm- Dave E.), maybe so.  A "dumb gear
jamming
> frictionAL (<get it right sir if you are quoting) device"  according
to the
> Zexel boys is "anticipating".  Gee dave, how can it be smart enough to
know
> WHAT is is anticipating.
> 

err, re-read the text of jeffs chocholek transcription scott.  he said
"friction device".

[snip]

>Problem.  The device in the Urq and the V8 are the same.  It happens in
the 44
>chassis.  YOUR CLAIM:  It doesn't happen in the urq.  Chassis don't
distribute
>torque sir, overloading the rear tires ability to maintain traction
resulting
>in a sudden loss of traction at the back of the car.

chassis don't distribute torque??????.. mmmmmmm....

>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?

actually, there is a time to leave the theory.  and let oberservations
become input into a new understanding.  because the theory doesn't,
*can't* explain all that we're seeing.  so, i'll continue to play.  

the so notwithstanding...

> Scott Justusson
> QSHIPQ@aol.com
>_______________________________________________________________________
_
>    _                _
>   / |      _| o    | \       _| o  Jeffrey Goggin
>  /__| | | / | | __ |  | | | / | |  audidudi@mindspring.com
> /   | |_| \_| |    |_/  |_| \_| |
http://www.mindspring.com/~audidudi/
>_______________________________________________________________________
_