Logistics 101

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

>I see no point in that.  I'm quite happy to accept that the Type 44
>exhibits this behaviour - it was never intended as a rally car.
Amazing how it won Safari 1987, and the same chassis got 2nd.  And 3rd behind
the lancias in Monte Carlo 1987.  No point?  Read the last few sentences of
"Dave's" Zexel paper in terms of "given engine torque and given cf".  There is
a point, just missed.

>What I do object to is the instant dismissal of my input as
>"subjective".  There ain't no opinions involved, believe me - I take
>_every_ opportunity, when it's safe, of provoking the sort of thing
>that's been seen on the Type 44.  I drove 300 miles in the ur-quattro
>on Monday, and had two really good chances on large expanses of wet
>tarmac with no one in sight for miles.
The problem with the above, is you have opportunity to 'experience' the
phenomenon you *admit can* happen in a 44 chassis car.  Phil, you have also
posted you haven't ever experienced it.  Hey I got an idea...  There is only
instant dismissal of "your" input, cuz the device is the same.  Sorry, your
microfiche confirms it.

>I'll keep trying.  But note that I'm being objective, not subjective.
No, you have already documented that there is no bite on the Urq.  Many times.
That is subjective, cuz objectively, the torsen is the same, and it can be
fooled.  This isn't anything new.  This is logical extension.  I suggest a
retraction of the 44 "event" possibility.  That would make your argument a bit
more objective.

'>Subjective' is when someone who's never even _seen_ a car like mine
>presumes to tell me how it handles.

"'Subjective' is when someone who's never ever _seen_ a car like a 200tq
presumes to tell us how it *can* handle".  You can't have it both ways Phil.
You haven't experienced it in the Urq, so it doesn't bite (your conclusion).
But you haven't experienced it in a 200tq, yet it *can* (your conclusion)?
ER, ah, care to tell the list what is different in the arguments here.  Other
than Jeff and I have presented the documentation that would indicate that the
reverse argument is exactly true.

Explain the event.  We understand all your claims of non-events.  We just have
a problem with the conclusions drawn.  It's in YOUR own argument.

Scott Justusson

P.S.  Interesting post from one unsubbed...