More non T*rsens

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Dave writes:

>and your point is scott?
Well since you missed it, let me requote Mr. Nas for you and then draw a
logical conclusion for you Dave:
----------------------------------
Tom Nas writes regarding audi claims:
"Mittendifferential: Torsen Sperrdifferential, wahlweise
Viscosesperrdifferential mit Momentenverteilung
Differential Vorne: Viscosesperrdifferential
Differential Hinten: Lamellensperrdifferential

Approximate translation:

Centre diff: choice of Torsen or visco locking diff (syncro, really?)
distributing torque
Front diff: visco locking diff
Rear diff: locking diff with blades (anyone know a better translation for
this device?)"
---------------------------------------------------
*  I read into this (and could be exactly correct) that a Torsen could have
NEVER been used.  What we can't read into this, is that a VC was never used,
can we?  That's my point Dave.  Claiming your options, means you don't ever
need to put the Torsen anywhere but on paper.  Where is the "other"
documentation, my challenge specifically to you, Dave, for quite some time.
We certainly see documentation of the "disadvantaged VC" you speak of...  And
we have first hand (or specifically 'no hands' per your post:) knowlege of the
Torsen in the street cars.  Big leap in that "or".  

>that if they race it, it's got to be good for the street?  like crash
>gearboxes?  face it, we (you, me, us) know *nothing* about the diffs in
>these cars except for the generic technology chosen.  and that tells us
>virtually nothing.  or are you trying to say that a torsen==torsen and a
>vc==vc?

Whoa Dave, old stuff here.  We know nothing about a Torsen ACTUALLY being used
in a factory audi race effort.  A torsen OR VC that locks and creates O and U
in the same turn has a potential problem.  Both fooled.  Now a VC that is
statically rear biased and locks rear bias can be really good. So could a
torsen.  So there must be another reason why VC was chosen by Bincliff over a
torsen, don't you think?  Especially, given your "known" shortcomings of a VC
device.

>after discussion with a number of parties, i am aware of 4 *different*
>types of "torsen" diffs.  each with *different* characteristics and
>engineering/physics, although each proportions torque at the bias ratio.
>goodness knows how many types of generic vc's are out there.

Wait, hold on a minute.  4 different "types"?  What is ">the< bias ratio" to
which you refer?  All LSD's have a BR, "the" makes no sense.  4 different
"types" of torsens could be 4 different BR's.  So not sure what this means in
plain english.  A Quaife is a DGFD, but that's not what's in our audis.  Let's
not complicate things here Dave.  

>mmmm....  maybe i could have told colin mccrae that when i talked to him
>last week-end.  told him to leave the active diffs, front, centre and
>rear, and use the diffs that subaru put in the street cars.  don't
>subaru think that the street technology is good enough?  mmmm wonder
>why?

Cuz it's better, sorry, my point sir.  Why would Bincliff use a VC with all
your so posted "shortcomings" if a Torsen were better.  "mmm  wonder why?"
I'm totally with your argument so far Dave, in fact I've already used it.

>can't wait to try the gearbox for the a4 racer.  no synchro, but hey if
>its good for the track, gotta be good for us...

I heard the price of oil in Japan is up 10 yen too.  Er, ah, what do A4
sychros have to do with the price of oil in Japan?  Or anything else for that
matter...

>wrt the rear-biased vc and braking, i could discuss this with you, but
>it'd be a waste of time i guess...

Be very careful here Dave, you tried this already.  You would have to explain
why every Torsen audi thru 1992 used a 3 channel abs system.  Interesting to
note, at the same time ALL fwd audis from 1987 with abs, used a 4 channel
system.  Why not 4 channel on the early Torsen cars Dave?  Isn't 4 channel
"better"?  Then why 4 channel on the later torsen cars Dave?  What was changed
to accomodate that 4 channel abs system and why? You could discuss vc and
braking, but you best understand audis systems first.  If you need the audi
technical training manuals, I believe Scott M still has some left.  Then we
should first establish your understanding of abs in fwd vs rwd vs awd vs
static weight dist.  Then we can go to the VC based systems vs torsen.  Right
now "premature" comes to mind.  Waste of time?   I'm with you all the way
there too.

I'm just one that looks for consistency.  Right now audi takes all "options"
on claims.  Thank goodness some documentation arises now and then that clears
things up.  Just the fact this is a hot debate to you Dave, indicates to me,
that audi was very effective in the Spin Doctor department, especially in
racing.  Then again there are 'spins' in Torsens too.  Another effective
marketing tool?  Or just a DGJFD that has better options than we have been
offered.   

In closing, I find it interesting that we got EXACTLY what was raced in the
first generation lockers, and is documented as used way past the "option" of
the Torsen.   "mmmm wonder why?"  What's changed since the intro of the Torsen
that we can't get the racing developments anymore? 

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ@aol.com
'87 5ktqwRS2
'84 Urq