[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]


>For those for whose reality involves getting bitten, that's none too
>but whatever property of the Torsen (if indeed it's the guilty party)
>their circumstances, that property reliably fails to generate the problem for
>other people with other setups or at other places and points in time. Physics
>holds the car to the road, physics pushes it off, but I'll accept the "it's 
>physics, end of argument" assertion only when I see a model that contains
>imponderable, every parameter, every circumstance. Until then, Scott's
>will remain not "The Physics", but just "One possible physical element".
>'94 S4, which no doubt just adds another datapoint to Qhip's dislike of the
>and its drivers.
Geoff, interesting post.  Well thought out, actually.  And subjectively, the
S4 is a fine Audi choice.

Let's back up and understand my point regarding the arachnophobes.  What you
fail to mention in your summary, is that my presentation includes your and
others NON-events.  Anyone here can use the same reference material to come to
the same physics conclusions I did regarding Tshift.  My presetation is of
what can happen, given the physics of a center torsen, and the identification
of variables on that Tshift.  Prediction is your only asuage?  Wish I could
sir, several of us are still trying.  We have certainly focused on the
limitations of an absolute traction device through a turn.  And found
interesting results, and why.

A non-event doesn't upset me.  A 'testimonial' that we should ignore the
physics because of a non-event, might be stretching things.  I only ask, "Can
it happen" given physics?  Sure it can, we are talking about a shift of 56% of
engine torque between a steered wheel and a non steered wheel.  Not a leap of
faith or math for that conclusion.

>Personally, as far as I have been able to replicate Scott's description of
>circumstances (backed up by Dave's method of going round and round the 
>roundabouts), it doesn't happen to my car, under any circumstances I have yet
>been able to generate.
My conclusion is wrong or the methodology is wrong.  You did what Dave did and
verified that non event.  Ok, so specifically, the conclusion is that given
the "roundabout" exercise, a non-event occurs (can we define that exercise
some so that we are sure it's repeatable).  The matrix might be more complex
than that one event.  Or simpler too.

To answer, specifically and emphatically say, "no it can never happen, cuz of
my non-event" seems to be a little more misleading to me.  That isn't an
argument of the physics OR the event.  That is just a statistical non event.
This event has happened to me, btdt.  And several others so posted.  Jeff G
and I took the time to analyze the phenomenon.  Why?  Because we want to be
able to not only PREDICT the event, but correct it with chassis tuning.
Unfortunately, a somewhat more lofty matrix than my pentium can really crunch.
The variables are cf, suspension, wheelbase, cog, tires, slip ange rear, slip
angle front, relative slip angle, throttle position.  Happy to have someone
else figure out that model.

So, my conclusion is that a warning will suffice to those non-event believers.
Not putting down or ignoring non-events.  Just presenting physics of a center
torsen that shows Tshift happens, and that it can, under the right variables,
bite you in the butt.  To date, no one has argued the physics presentation.
That is the only argument in my opinion.  If you agree that Tshift can happen
based on physics, that's all I need to explain my event and your non-.  

Jeff put it well in regards to this thinking.  "Hey if you have seen Jesus or
a UFO, hard to convince one that hasn't that you have."  I wholy accept that.
Torsen Centers aren't a conspiracy, it's a corporate choice in engineering an
absolute traction device.  Do the advantages outweigh the 'bite'.  Maybe to
most.  However, those that have been bitten:  A) aren't at the limit, in fact
by definition aren't even close, B) found the helplessness in control to be
somewhat disconcerting, and C) come to the conclusion that respect the tool,
cuz in the wrong set of variables, it is only a traction device, which could
be the wrong tool for the variables.  My only point.  Conclusion:  Given the
right set of variables, an absolute traction device doesn't aid in chassis
dynamics while turning.  In fact...

To make this out to be an event v non-event issue is fine, that is a
statistical argument.  I don't make the leap that a non-event changes those
with the event.  Nor do I argue that an event changes the non events.  'Hasn't
happened to me, so it doesn't happen' is an much bigger conclusion.  Do you
accept that it could?  'Has happened to me and here's the physics involved',
and I accept by that same thinking that it hasn't happened to you.  Expert
testimonies of non-events are statistics only.  They don't address the
variables or the physics.  The physics CAN happen.  Does that translate into a
chassis issue?  It can.  Does it?  Well, did to me.  Well, didn't to me.  Ok.
So, no danger exists untill it happens to me. I don't stand under trees in
lightning storms.  

We can by the same physics, take Tshift and translate it into g forces of
acceleration and cog in a given chassis.  Already posted those formulas.  No
interest, hey fine for me.  I have nothing to prove.  I already showed without
contradiction what can happen, and had the event, and explained the non-.  I
look to the non folks to explain the event, and explain how, given the
physics, it CAN'T, no way, happen, bttt. No answer to that.  Hey fine too.
Jeff and I did a lot of work on this, where's the beef from the non-
eventsters.  Driving experience testimonials?  Please.  

Give me the model with all the variables that make it an event?  Well, let me
say, I can't do it yet.  Does that discount the conclusion or the physics?
Me, I look for more beef from the other side.  Argue the physics or the
conclusion, not the statistical non event as physics or conclusion.  That's
statistics, not anything else.  I've tried this and it didn't happen the way
you say.  Me- "variables weren't right".  Er, ah, well, I think we need a more
scientific strategy from both sides of this issue before we can draw a
definitive conclusion there.  Hanging the tail out in the rain hardly makes
for a physics agument.

Can it happen based on the physics?  The rest is just logical extension, not

Scott Justusson