RE: Nicked (again) - (torsen content)

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

no, the graph was from a mathematical *model* of the torsen developed and
described in freeman's paper.

as for the 3 separate papers, you say that perhaps they come from the same
source?    i've heard that the engineers were mistaken, that they got their
physics wrong, that they were allowed to "fudge" their words regardless of
their reputation.  so, this *is* a new theory...

the trouble with all this is that when you start 2nd guessing, playing "what
if" games with the only factual sources we've got, others just begin to
question motives, and impartiality.  let alone ruining any chances of a
discussion which has any chance of progress...

btw, i wonder how you would react if i unearthed a paper which, in
engineering terms, described the bite as a fundamental property of the
torsen?  would you still question the credentials of the authors?  i still
shaking my head at the person who a couple of months back, accused me of an
"ad homium" attack on chocholek, and then proceeded to tell me 2 weeks ago,
when i pointed out that he states that the torsen is locked prior to the
bias ratio, that was an case of chocholek knowingly using "weasel words".

btw, are you retracting your statement of 2 weeks ago [below]?

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

----------------------
From: Orin Eman [mailto:orin@WOLFENET.com]
Sent: Thursday, 4 November 1999 15:54

"So, I am in perfect agreement that below the bias ratio, the
shafts are locked.  But, for real world roads, transients in the
torque reactions from the wheels may well cause the bias ratio
to be reached and allow transient slips.  Averaged out, it would
look like you have a little slip at below the bias ratio."
---------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Orin Eman [mailto:orin@WOLFENET.com]
Sent: Monday, 15 November 1999 11:36
To: Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz
Cc: quattro@audifans.com
Subject: Re: Nicked (again) - (torsen content)



> 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".

But you contradicted yourself with a described graph which required
0.5 rad/s difference in shaft speed to reach the bias ratio.
Which is it?  Completely locked below the bias ratio or
a fuzzy zone with some slip as described in your graph?

As for 3 separate papers, I don't know.  Depends on the sources
they used.  If they all used the same source, it becomes
rather irrelevant if there is one or one hundred.