RE: Nicked (again) - (torsen content)

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

scott,

i left the torsen list quite simply because the "bite proponents" chose to
disregard, ignore or dispute very clear statements made in 3 separate
engineering papers i tabled about the fundamental properties of the torsen.
rather than accept these, you chose to continue with your own "facts", and
then expected me to accept these, instead of those in the papers.  a
discussion on these terms is the oxford definition of a "waste of time".

you accuse me of making unsupported claims.  i have made no claims.  the
only claims are those in the papers which i've tabled (specifically in this
case, that the torsen is locked before the bias ratio).  therefore, your
dispute isn't with me, it's with the engineers who wrote these papers.  i'm
sure that's not a dispute you will enter into.

scott, if you want a pissing contest, you're on your own as i have no
further interest in these discussions.  just watch the wind.

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

-----Original Message-----

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:57:16 EST
From: QSHIPQ@aol.com
Subject: RE:  Nicked (again) - (torsen content?)

I'm intrigued that you would make *any* more torsen statements, given the
unsupported claims you posted to the torsen list, caused you to leave the
list all together.  I'm further
intrigued by the fact that you seem to *accept* the bite happening on one
chassis and not the others.  Given that turning radius of *any* chassis
causes TBR rear, I find the above to be someone simplistic, and given the
suspension geometry of the 44 chassis cars v others, not a valid conclusion.