RE:RE: Nicked and wishbone thinking

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Dave E writes:
>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".

Problem:  We, as a list (the torsen list isn't full of "bite proponents", 
only nerds looking to understand a complicated torque allocating device), 
wanted to accept your formulas and "fundementals", unfortunately, using the 
formulas you presented, put us at a discussion impass.  Why?  Because the 
formulas you "tabled" can't be plugged in to work, even to some of your own 
presentations.  When we asked *YOU* to do it, you left.  At which point, you 
had an *outstanding* position, in more ways than the obvious.  Then the 
torsen list looked to one at the forefront of the debate, for more depth.  
Bottom Line:  What you have presented clearly contradicts 885140, *AND* your 
own claims posted here a couple weeks ago.  Blunt question:  Now what?

>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.

Problem:  The engineers that wrote the conclusions in 885140, specifically 
and exactly don't agree that the torsen is locked before the bias ratio.  You 
chose *not* to support your position.   Dave L did a very thorough and 
compelling job of presenting the formulas used in 885140.  AND he did a 
thorough job of mathmatically explaining *your* position.  Clearly the 
formulas you presented to the list, were either incomplete, invalid, OR 
885140 as a whole is invalid.  When we "asked" you which was it (with the 
applied math to help us understand), you bailed.  The question still remains. 
 Could you just be *wrong*?  Or that the *engineers* you referenced might 
have oversimplified a formula?  Or both?

>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.

WRT your *thinking* on the wishbones vs the multilink in the 44 chassis cars, 
you find yourself without *support*.  Since you don't have a 44 chassis with 
which to compare, a quick paruse of ETKA might help you.  If you really have 
an interest in supporting your "claims," you can do some basic research by 
measuring both the steering arm length attached to the strut, and the tie rod 
length that attaches it to the subframe on your 80/90/Urq/4k chassis.  Then, 
when you get to the 44 rear chassis, ck the length and placement of the toe 
out adj, and the length, placement and load dynamics of the rear lateral 
links.  Why is your 2.3-16 a multilink rear suspension (albiet simpler than 
the 44chassis), instead of a simpler, cheaper and *better* (per Dave E) 4k 
chassis wishbone?

When one sees *more* torsen claims to the motherlist wrt wishbones vs 
multilink (which has no validity in concept or engineering), we start to 
wonder about the source of these "claims".  To date, many sources 
specifically contradict your conclusions.

Finally, to help us resolve the impass you created on the torsen list, would 
you please give us some help, so that the rest of us *can* continue?  If 
indeed *your* engineers are exactly correct (no axle slip during acceleration 
torque allocation), is 885140 an invalid paper, since they clearly 
mathmatically conclude (and fig 6 presents) there is axle slip during torque 
allocation?  If so, which paper/s should we be concentrating our efforts on?  
Then, don't we also need to discard *all* papers that mathmatically indicate 
that the torsen allows axle slip before the bias ratio?  Then, what do we do 
with your BR chart you posted here a couple weeks ago?  Doesn't plugging in 
*your* formulas to your chart create an invalid BR plot?  Help us out Dave.

I predicted a while ago, that your 885140 source was going to 'bite' you.

Scott Justusson