RE: More T*rsen education

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

i'm *not* going to get drawn into this thread again, but scott's
protestations of ignorance bring out the consultant in me ;-)
 
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:06:28 EDT
> From: QSHIPQ@aol.com
> - ---------------------------------------------------
> *  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".  

completely falacious argument of course.  on the basis of the
documentation on the race cars, we cannot say that a vc or a torsen was
or wasn't ever used.  that appears to be difficult for you to accept.
perhaps you should try and get used to it.

> 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.

errr...  please explain how a vc can be be statically rear biased and
*lock* rear bias.  enquiring minds want to know....

> 
> >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.  

wee scott, since you asked, and clearly are a self-professed torsen
virgin; yes, there are 4 different *types* of torsen that i am aware
off.  there are probably more.  claerly, this confuses you some.

all these torsen types are torque sensing in operation and have
different characteristics in operation, but all have a characteristic
bias ratio (obviously).  remember when you said that the bias ratio was
all that was important?  errr, nope.

i don't really want to commit the time and effort to be descriptive of
the different torsens, to help ease your ignorance, as this has, in the
past, been a complete waste of time.

you could do some more homework i guess...

> 
> >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.
> 

again no argument.  and when bintcliffe decided to use the torsen
because it's better for a particular circuit?  2 seconds thought would
reveal that this argument is a complete waste of time.  the fact is that
we don't know, and probably never will.  what we *do* know is that phil
said that the quattro a4 he looked at didn't have a centre diff (and no
scott, that doesn't mean a locker).

>
> 
> 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.

staying up nights recently, or just more talk? :-)
> 
> 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.   

mmm, mccrae doesn't seem to have any trouble with spins either.  perhaps
he should use a locker instead of those silly old active diffs.  you
know, those new-fangled smart diffs that shift torque every which way
depending upon available traction, and what they think the driver
requires.  wonder how he handles all the u-o-u-o-u-o????

after all the locker is simple and stupid.  mmmmmm......

scott, since you want to be obtuse about this, the point is that just
because it is good for a race-track *doesn't* mean that is is good for
the street.  i wonder when audi will begin marketing crash boxes as a
option for street a4's?  can't imagine why they would hold that
technology back from us?  or that 2l gti motor of theirs.  i'd love to
have access to a race-bread engine with no torque below 4k rpm and a
red-line @8k.  or braking systems which use up all of the passenger
foot-well.  need i go on?

> 
> 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, maybe you should talk to the roswell folks some more?  perhaps
you could also try to get *any* information out of a racing shop on
their diff setups?  i've tried last week-end with subaru.  if people
like "racecar engineering" can't get this information when the
technology is covered in cobwebs, is it any surprise that reviews of
last years wrc technology tells you nothing about tyres, springs/dampers
and diffs?

it's called competitive advantage scott....

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q