RE: torsen naderism

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

jeff/scott,

this seems beyond simple.  you state that the torsen just takes input
torque and spreads it around.  apart from the different torsen designs
which audi used (which you seem to ignore; my rs2 uses a different
torsen than my ur-q for example), and the simplistic assumption that all
torsens are the same (clearly they're not, as a simple visit to the
zexel web site would show).  anyway, apart from these things i agree.
that is siple and obvious.

but what beggars belief is that you then state that this proves that the
"bite" *must* happen on all chassis, because of it's alleged occurance
on a type 44 chassis.

so, you assert that the the following have *no* influence on the
torsen's input parameters:

1) the ability of the chassis to put power to the ground (and keep it
there).
2) the ability of the chassis to provide good levels of steering
response when cornering
3) the roll stiffness of the chassis (keeping tyre contact patches on
the ground)
4) the type and quality of tyre used
5) the fundamental dimensions of the chassis (wheelbase, track etc).
6) the torque characteristics of the engine

and then you assert that a visit to steamboat is required to "really
show the bite" ie. in a low cf environment.

thereby implicitly accepting that at least some of the above factors are
required!

reality check brothers.  on all of the above 6 points, the zexel
engineers disagree with you.  hell, what would they know...

for all we know, it's the *inability* of the type 44 chassis to do some
of the above things "consistently" which produces the bite, where it is
simply non-existant on other, better balanced, chassis.

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q

> >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.
> 
> Once again, I disagree.  You need to separate how the device itself
operates
> from how a car -- ANY car -- with said device installed operates.  The
> operational properties of a Torsen diff are the same regardless of
whether
> it's installed in a FWD, RWD or AWD car; that various cars may or may
not
> respond differently to its presence isn't a reflection of the device
but the
> whole system of which it's but one small part.
> 
> The Torsen allocates torque based on the input signals it receives
from the
> driveshafts ... nothing more, nothing less.  Assuming identical design
(and
> this appears to be true of every Torsen Audi used in a center diff
> application), they'll respond identically to the same set of input
signals
> from the driveshafts.  It doesn't matter whether it's set up on a test
rig,
> in a FWD car, RWD car or AWD car ... the results are ALWAYS the same,
> provided the input signals are the same.
> 
[snip]