RE: A new look at torsens

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

err, scott, it was *you* who said that wheelbase (and weight) was a factor.
today you seem not to be so sure.  perhaps you could tell us when you have
made up your mind, or at least have a statement you're not going to change
when someone calls you on it?

scott 2 days ago:
>>In a straight line, equal distribution front rear.  while taking the
corner, what will
>>the ratio be?
>
>Depends on wheelbase, cf, rate of acceleration, weight of vehicle and
radius of turn.

wrt audi's use of the torsen, perhaps you could explain why audi used 4
seperate torsen's for their range of cars?  five, counting with the one for
the '00 s4.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 07:55:35 EDT
From: QSHIPQ@aol.com
Subject: RE:  A new look at torsens

Dave E writes:
>ummm, weren't you the person who has so stoutly being saying that chassis
is
>not a factor in this???  i appreciate the public retraction...

Problem:  If you take a gander at Dave L part numbers, chassis is not a
factor in the design of the torsen for an audi application?  How could it
be,
the wheelbase of a v8q and an Urq aren't the same.  I discount chassis
because the torsen BR in a turning input is fooled into allocating torque.