RE: Torsen defined

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Dave E writes:
>nope sorry not even close.  btw, the only comment i will make about your
>"research" scott, is that i have't seen any evidence of it...

REALLY? It's in *your* referenced paper.

>the basics once again:
>1) in any turn the torsen locks the front/rear output shafts together and
>proportions torque to the rear of the chassis.  based on traction inputs
>(i.e. front/rear slip).  **as does the locker**.

No true as stated.  

>2) only when the torsen hits the bias ratio of output shaft torque
>differences will it limit torque transfer (at the bias ratio) and allow
>output shaft speed variances.  unlike the locker which cannot limit torque
>transfers....

Not relevent

>3) neither the locker or the torsen have any knwoledge of slip angles.  they
>proportion torque based solely on tractive differences between the front and
>rear axles (front/rear slip).  both allocate torque to the axle with the
>most traction.
NO.  A torsen is fooled into allocating torque based on a turning radius.  
The conclusion is *not* that the torsen is allocating torque to the axle with 
the most traction.  It's only allocating torque to the axle with the highest 
resistance to torque.  That *can be* based on either a traction or a slip 
angle variable.  Once the traction variable causes the axle with the highest 
resistance to torque do to slip angle variable, to then have the lowest 
resistance to torque do to traction variable, the torsen reallocates torque 
front.  If this forward realloation results in increasing tractive force 
rear, turning radius will cause the torsen to reallocate torque rear based on 
turning radius.  Next step, torque allocation v U and/or O

>4) it is realtively simple to construct scenarios for **both** the locker
>and the torsen for u-o-u in a turn.  based only on tractive inputs.  for
>example.  locker in a high speed/high cf turn sends most torque to the rear.
>oversteer slide, torque must then go to the front overloading traction.
>rears have recovered tractive ability (torque is now at the front) and get
>the torque back again.  easy huh?  and i haven't even mentioned low cf.

I argue you are missing a basic here.  Hence, my request to stay with a 
torsen for now.  A torsen *can* u-o-u based on tractive inputs only.  Not 
*my* presentation of the bite (happy to explore that later).  My presentation 
has to do with two variables perceived as the same, where one variable 
presents a relatively constant oversteer condition in terms of chassis 
dynamics, the other a different variable causing an understeer condition in 
terms of chassis dynamics. 

After rereading 885140, I don't understand how my scenario *can't* happen.  
Maybe if you walked thru your *exact* objection, we could modify the 
statement.  885140 would indicate my conclusion is exactly valid.  What data 
conflicts those statements?

Scott Justusson