Re: torsen: just a lot of hot air

[Randall Markarian <asenna@accessus.net>]

eliot wrote:

> at this point one has to wonder why the 60/40 data is considered "true"
> while the initial revelation about the use of torsen in racing is
> considered false.  hmmmm
>
> then there is some mumbling about how a torsen that splits 50/50 is evil
> while the racing team knew better and used some other split.  so where is
> the evidence that the racing cars are more benign than the evil road
> cars??
>
> W H E R E ? ? ?
>
> do we have testimony from mr stuck, beila or bintcliff?  nope!  aha, "i've
> raced before in the past, so i *KNOW* that the racing audis are much
> better behaved than the evil road cars". (see above)
>
> seeing that the campaign is rapidly crumbling it's time to grasp at the
> straws, or rather the holy grail of the torsen documents.  let's pretend
> to quote from it and spew out reams of incomprehensible gibberish in the
> desperate hope that the poor confused saps will give us the benefit of the
> doubt.  who falls for it, i wonder?  anyone?
>
> ok, so a 75-25-75 torsen audi can misbehave given a specific set of
> conditions.  BFD!! is any one else here aware that in a 911 if you lift
> off at the limit you will go into the hedge backwards?  some people
> actually like that!

Great job eliot!  I think that it is about time that we decide that anyone on
the list can feed a bunch of bs to the list and we DON'T have to believe it.
I think that the torsen has become a scapegoat for drivers errors.  We all
make those and if anyone can look me in the eyes and say, "hey, I have never
made a driving mistake."  Then I will show you a liar or someone who is too
arrogant to be believed at any time.

Way to go eliot!

Randall