Re: Additional torsen stability factor - was Alignment

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/19/99 4:49:59 PM Central Daylight Time, 
quk@isham-research.demon.co.uk writes:

> 
>  Oh, dear.
>  
>  The fronts did not need 'addressing' because the PO had the front
>  rebuilt about three months before I bought it.  Yes, it was well out of
>  specification (mainly right camber) but Martin reset it as a matter of
>  course.
>  
>  Short in theory, application and documentation?  Well, I think I'm the
>  only one who's posted complete specifications for any chassis.  In fact,
>  in straight fact terms, _YOU_ are the one seriously lacking.
>  
>  I've got a deal.  I'll get the Type 44 specifications, and we agree an
>  independent escrow from the list.  I send mine, you send yours, and the
>  escrow then publishes both.
>  
>  How about that?
>  

Hey I want to repeat *YOUR* bite fix.  You will find my data pretty boring, 
it's a standard issue alignment (with specific camber settings that are 
within range).  You indicate yours are different or superior.  I'm happy to 
accept that.  Please do tell, you were willing to before.  What's the issue?

Phil, until you agree that slip angle differences across a center axle cause 
the torsen to shift torque, sending this list anything is really a waste of 
time.  Let's get a baseline before we go to escrow

Scott J