[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Misquoting the spiderman (and his cohorts)
I keep swearing this torsen thing off, but it's becoming comical at this
point. Dave doesn't even read my replies anymore, but for the edification of
those still 'interested' in this...
Sir David, from high atop his RS2 writes:
>yes matt, another well written and thoughtful contribution...
So sincere... :-)
>1) what happened to the car tested by performance car magazine is a *good*
>thing. it is *supposed* to happen. the car is trying to get traction in a low
>cf environment. it is trying to maximise traction whereever it can get it. want
>to talk about what the locker would do in the same situation?
Yes, it is good, and it is supposed to happen. In a straightway. But is there
a cutout switch fer when the ole tiller ain't pointed dead ahead? Not on my
boat. Mine will hunt dead ahead AND in corners. You only need relatively low
cf at one wheel to trigger it. Nothing magic about that. We all know what the
locker does. And that's the whole point. The locker IS predictable.
>2) as i've said (and re-said), the issue is *not* the low cf environment. as
>has been stated and re-stated, it's spider bite (aka uncontrolled torsen
>'hunt') occuring at 7/10th's in a dry tarmac curve. want to talk about that?
Oh, well I drive in all environments, not just dry. That's reason I still
drive audi quattros. But regardless, slip angle and wheelspin can cause Torsen
to hunt, wet or dry. I mean, the whole point in torsen is to hunt for
traction. Therefore: OS, US, OS in the same corner, as torsen hunts. Locker
remains flat - and predictable. Care to go into specific detail as to how the
preceding two sentences are false? Torsens's sole mission is to hunt out
traction from axle to axle. It's system of logic is finite and sometimes
fallacious, therefore it becomes confused at times. (I'm holding back on
drawing a rather personal parallel here). :-)
>3) as well, i'm supposed to believe your experience of spider bite (of which
>you have never elaborated, but presumably it wasn't caused by the application
>of the handbrake on a wet slip road), but you don't accept the experiences of
>ur-quattro owners who say "nope, donesn't happen in our cars?" lets see, how
>many ur-quattro (torsen) owners are we talking about here? 2 directly (phil
>and myself), 30-50 indirectly (via uk ur-q club)?
By that logic: Let's see, we have Scott, Jeff, Eric, Matt, and myself (among
others) attesting to the existence of the spider bite. And then there's those
1,000 odd QCUSA members in type 44 and 89 cars, too... C'mon. You don't really
think that validates anything do you? Really?
BTW, the handbrake sets up the slip angle in underpowered cars. Evidently that
point is still in a holding pattern over your head somewhere. Fortunately for
you, underpowered cars aren't an issue. I won't (and haven't) comment(ed) on
your cars, since I don't have seat time in them. How much seat time do you
have in modified US spec 200q's and 5ktq's? I thought so.
Yet you insist we are all dreaming this up. A very haughty position to take,
given your lack of experience with the cars we are talking about, eh? I mean,
wouldn't it be preposterous for me to tell you exactly what your cars will and
will not do, given they have never left a tread mark on our shores? How many
times have we said that the Ur-Q 20v and RS2 may be so dynamically different
as to largely preclude spider bite, at least to the extent that it is far less
likely in those cars? plenty. I'm not convinced it's impossible to be bitten
in your cars, as you have a torsen center and open f/r diffs, like mine. But
there are enough differences to say that it may be significantly less
pronounced in your cars. Yet your position ignorantly professes wisdom beyond
your experience. You're overreaching your own knowledge, telling us our cars
don't do this, while lacking comparative seat time in said US cars. Bite
happens in our cars. You have no BTDT to refute it with. But hey, 2 ur-q
drivers can't be wrong, especially regarding cars they don't even know very
well. Huh? exaclty.
>all to attempt to re-create
>an event which nobody can describe in enough detail to get someone else to
>reproduce? this despite the diatribe that "this is physics". theres a message
>in there somewhere...
Your memory is good, but short. I described in detail how I 'infinitely'
recreated it at the track in the 91 200q. Also once where I was surprised at
the way the car reacted to power after handbrake-induced oversteer. Wooooo...
But that was just an immature stunt, can't blame torsen for being confused
under the circumstances. Fine, but it still did what it did, unlike the
locker. Here's the point: the torsen equipped car hunted for traction at the
wrong axle in that instance, to my surprise. In my previous years in the 5ktq,
the locker had never responded like that. But that's okay, dismiss it as
irrelevant b/c it was an immature act. I was in highschool for God's sake.
PPPPhhhhh. Like you've never used the handbrake to 'initiate' a turn. Nooooo,
never, not you - whatever. Go ahead and dismiss the physics involved because
they don't fit your hampered understanding of physics or maturity. I don't
follow your equation of "Immature actions + physics = Immature actions". No
physics there? Your loss. That was a repeatable test knocking on your door.
Just ignore it, it will go away...
>4) in all this debate, i am not aware of *any* contribution that you have made>
>other than saying "yup, happened to me". meaningful dialogue? substantive
>discussions? yeah, right. i, at least, have contributed theory and my own
>practical experience, and taken the heat for it.
Matt made a pretty good point regarding your Walter-crutch and the nature of
the relationship which brought him to your presence, which you did not merit
responding to. Sure looked like a plea of "nolo contendre" to me. And, to your
credit, you aren't using it any more. Funny how you discredit Matt's
"happened to me" account while so highly relying on your own position of
"didn't happen to me". Good thing you're not one to toss about accusations of
hypocrisy. Oh, sorry, that's only in private mail. ppphhhhhh! And Matt's
mention of the torsen hunt in a straight line is both germane and telling. If
it hunts in a straight line, how not so in the corners? Care to explain that
one? Presuming it hunts in the corners, please explain how it understands
variables like slip angle and individual wheel spin? That's one explanation I
gotta hear! Far as I know torsen is a mechanical device, not hooked up to any
yaw-control system and things like abs sensors. It is mechanical, it relies on
the open diffs for info, and therefore sometimes draws erroneous conclusions
as to where the torque really is.
>i, like a lot of other people i'm sure, would welcome meaningful contributions
>to this topic. want to start?
Somebody has to...
I'm done with this. For a few days anyway. I'm off to compete in 'world's
largest yacht race' (5-600 boats - Newport-Ensenada), so there will be no
rebuttle on this end (what's that, applause I hear :-)). Four days and no one
to argue Torsen with. No more WOB from me...
Whatever to do.... Ah yes, Boat Drinks...
91 200q Spyder