RE: Creating confusion - a challenge

["Dave Eaton" <Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz>]

perhaps scott, lets keep this simple and forget the (long winded) theory?

challenge (1):
just tell the list about how to experience this "bite"?  then we could all
have a go.


i'm also tired of your assertion that i do not understand the torsen, and
that you do.  therefore i propose a little test (in part to make this arcane
discussion more accessible to other listers).

challenge (2):
lets look at 2 cases (with an audi 80q torsen and 80q locker - identical
apart from the centre differential):
1) both 80q's with good traction accelerating in a straight line on a wet
surface.
2) both 80q's with good traction accelerating in a turn, on a dry surface.

what torque behaviour and chassis dynamics (slip, weight transfer etc) would
you expect scott (the generation 1 80q with centre open and centre locked)?

time to demonstrate your understanding of the devices.

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
'88 mb 2.3-16


-----Original Message-----

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:51:20 EDT
From: QSHIPQ@aol.com
Subject: Creating confusion - where's the haldex now?

Dave E writes:
>bingo scott, you've got it.  same torsen, different chassis.  some
affected,
>others not.  as the zexel paper states.  let me see, spring rates on the
>type 44 vs the type 85?  weight distribution?  torsional stiffness?
>suspension kinematics?  all different and will never be the same.

Problem:  Neither will cf.  No one has made the matrix complete, "optimal
will be a compromise" really rings too true.  In terms of torque split, we
could certainly argue that a lower swing in torque might be transparent to a
couple of chassis (if the maximum torque shift rear still creates U, you
can't have U-O-U..~  in a turn).  However, part of the "optimal compromise"
is to straight line traction, without question.  I'm having difficulting
understanding how, once all the chassis matrix is done, slip angle
differences fooling a torsen are "corrected" in any way.  Torque shift still
happens, from 78f to 78r when the device is fooled.  How exactly can't the
device be fooled, is my question? Please identify that matrix, so we can all
correct our "other"' cars.
[snip]
 >all
>stated as important by zexel.  hence you have to accept that the bite will
>never happen on some chassis where it can happen on another.

[snip]