RE: Torsen Tech

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Dave E writes:
>whatever, while there is no way to know how much *more* traction the rears
>can support, you know that the fronts can support *no* more.  which means
>that they are much more likely to spin up first...

You say much more 'likely'.  That opens up the discussion that it's 
*possible* to change from a turning radius variable to a traction variable, 
and it's *possible* the rears won't support anymore traction.  Both Jeff and 
I don't have a problem with "unlikely", in fact, we support that claim (it 
explains non events for us).  It's the *possible* and the *can* that we are 
concentrating on in our bite scenarios.  The informal list survey over the 
past years, would indicate *unlikely* is more common, but the *unlikely* has 
happened to plenty of us.  Steamboat anyone?  We could help quantify  
*unlikely* with a major change in cf.

:)

Scott Justusson