RE: More test questions

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Dave E writes:
>with all due respect jeff, you are ill-informed.
>1) wrt the torsen=torsen=torsen argument, (which is so facile as to 
belaughable)
>can you tell me for example that all torsens have the same bias ratio in
>acceleration or deceleration?

Dave, some more thought in your questions would be appreciated.  I'll add my 
two cents to this.  Regarding the above (we're laughing too:), the answer is 
"usually" not, however, maybe you can answer this wrt audis for us.

>or that all torsens have the same locking characteristics?

Not relevent to audis.  This is the quattro list.  For simplicity sake, why 
don't we all agree that the audi torsens locks 75/25/75.  Dave has used 70/30 
and 75/25, I have used 78/22, but for all calculations, we can agree on 75/25.

>or that all torsens have equal front/rear torque bias?

Not relevent to audis.  Found this in the archives tho:  The v8 application 
for the torsen differential (replacement on Etka) is the EXACT same part 
number as the 20vUrq.  So we certainly can make a compelling argument that 
audi discounted chassis as a design characteristic of the torsen application 
in a center diff.

>i assume you are not trying to tell us that these things are immaterial to
>the functioning of the device?  if you are, then a great number of engineers
>have wasted a great deal of their time, and lodged patents for nothing.

Relevency, see above.  With all due respect to your "white papers" Dave, 
maybe you ought to stick to the audi chassis only.  It appears you have a 
difficult enough time with the audi application.  The above are rather bland 
in the 'quiz' department.

>also, if you are at all familiar with the torsen, you will know that gleason
>is not now involved in it's developent nor has it been for a number ofyears.

Not news to Jeff or many others.  Trivia?  Or just not relevent again?

>i suggested you contact chocholek and ask him about his role with gleason,
>seeing as his name doesn't occur in the literature that counts.  simple
>question really.

Dave, you were asked to provide some type of documentation (what exactly is: 
"Literature that counts" - would that "not count" C36888?), again you failed. 
 Considering Jeff took the time to contact Chocholek himself (that's more 
than 'just' acquiring the white stuff and spreading it with no 
understanding), I'm inclined to read the interview as Jeff posted it.  More 
searching of the archives, shows Mr. E. with the same weak discredit  of 
Chocholek after Jeff's post.  Nothing new again.  Wonder why?  Read the 
interview, it's plain as day.

Whether Chocholek wrote the paper, tweeked a couple of screws, or just drank 
coffee, we could argue that he was the one who wrote the SAE paper, and 
"claims" (rather humbly by Jeff's interview) that he was involved in the 
development of the device, especially during audis inauguration of the 
device.  And he (in both the interview and the paper) has a firm grasp of the 
devices operating characteristics and 'possible shortcomings'.  I might 
venture to say that he has a better grasp of the device than you Dave.  
Correct?  

If yes, then maybe you can explain how Chocholek can accept a torsen can be 
fooled (with resulting U-O-U), and you can't.

If no, then maybe (other than discredit a "to date" credible source) you can 
explain how a torsen ISN'T fooled by relative slip angles (with resulting 
U-O-U).  

Bottom Line:  Relevent to audis applications, the Torsen design application 
is the same regardless of chassis.  Without further reference to the 
contrary, we can accept Chocholek's SAE paper AND his interview with Jeff G 
as a credible source wrt the operation of a torsen.

Scott Justusson