RE: diffs and opinion II

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Dave E writes:
>so scott, don't worry about not attempting to explain in easy steps about
>how to get the "bite".  you clearly are unable to, either that or it must
>take more than the 200 lines of text which is the effort you are prepared to
>put into *not* describing it for the rest of us.

It's in the archives already, your challenge 2) isn't, please make the 
effort.  So, also are my posts claiming no torsens in racing (San Remo the 
only "question"), but open for documentation - that was 2 years ago, still 
looking.  What I find somewhat more amusing, is someone so 'learned', asking 
me to "just" regurgitate the findings of a paper.  Where's the thought in 
that? *YOU* brought up the 80q v 80q paper.  Happy to "discuss" the 
'findings' of that paper, and point you in the direction of the bite.  You 
obviously own the paper, Jeff will put it up on his site.  Do you still want 
me to 'answer' your questions about that paper in your 'challenge'?  They 
require the same little effort.  The questions I asked you about that paper 
require comprehension of it, not regurgitation.  A much tougher concept.  
Care to take a stab?

>i will now give up on this attempt to obtain information from you...
>i note also that the spinning of a quattro in the rain is now construed as
>evidence for the bite.

Ah, a statistical anomoly?  What about the lack of lockers exibiting the same 
behavior?  Better drivers or more predictable center device?  The reason for 
the above is in your "white paper", put it up.

>  its getting like 60 minutes isn't it [mike]?redux:
>1) phil (mb torsen ur-quattro) fails to find evidence of the bite in 18
>months of driving. hard.

Who is Phil?  Who is Stig?  Who am I?  Who is Jeff?

>2)phil obtains a type 44 and gets a spider bite.  immediately.  chorus of
>approval from various interested parties noting application of scientific
>method, honesty, integrity etc, right phil :-)

He'll be back

>3) phil looks at rear chassis setup and finds it well out of wack
>4) chassis setup fixed, and car behaviour exhibits no further evidence 
ofbite.
>any other positive contributions?  for instance, i would like to hear from
>other type 44 owners who have had a similar experience to phil, and/or who
>have changed their chassis setup in any way and what their experiece of the
>vehicle behaviour is...

Since I regularly do alignments (myself, usually at a track), I find the 
above just amazing.  I've also added bilstein sport shocks and linear rate 
coil over conversions to the rear of many 44 chassis cars, with a variety of 
alignment setups.  I'm happy to be the tester, let me have the data.

To make this all fair, I certainly might not have done the same alignment 
specifications as Phils wrenches (the alignment specifications have a range, 
maybe Phil's boys found the "exact").  A better post from Phil, would be the 
alignment settings he used, that eliminated the "bite" phenomenon.  Easily 
reproduced across any pond.  Unfortunately and ironically, the very "white 
paper" Dave presented for 'quiz' discounts Phil's 'discovery'.  I wonder if 
audi tried the alignment rack on the TBT (to be torsen) race cars?

Next action:  Dave puts up the white paper on Jeff's site.  Phil posts the 
"after" alignment settings he used to eliminate the bite.  

Dave, your the best, the next step is yours.  YOU can PROVE me wrong, do it 
man!  You are sooo close....
:)

Scott Justusson