The full and the Monty

[quk@isham-research.demon.co.uk (Phil Payne)]

In message <257b5288.359b1dbc@aol.com> QSHIPQ@aol.com writes:

> Let's stop the 'subjective', cuz that's been done.  The non eventsters have
> really *not* explained how Jeff and I and chocholek and Zexel have such a
> common conclusion of said device.

You have a handling phenomenon, which no one has ever denied.  Something
happens in a Type 44.

You have blamed this behaviour on the Torsen differential.  And you have
a theory to explain this behaviour that satisfies you.

However - there is a Torsen application that _doesn't_ exhibit this
behaviour.

You have to find out why.  Regurgitating huge volumes of theory on why
it _HAS_ to happen is unhelpful, because it simply _doesn't_ happen. In
all of the extremes I've been to, steering all over the place with
power on and off, I've never felt the slightest hint of hunting.

Now - it's _your_ theory. Not mine.  It's not my responsibility to find
the flaw(s) in it.  But I would appreciate the ending of all the snide
remarks about my intelligence.

I've long since given up hope of achieving anything in this thread.  I
feel like I'm talking to "Sixty Minutes" - no matter how much input goes
in, it's all ignored.  Well, I _know_ what rubbish the generalised
centre Torsen theory is.  Where and what the flaw is I know not, nor do
I much care.  I've satisfied myself that my ur-quattro is not going to
'bite' me, and I propose to carry on driving it in the same manner.

--
 Phil Payne
 Phone: 0385 302803   Fax: 01536 723021
 (The contents of this post will _NOT_ appear in the UK Newsletter.)