[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: torsen naderism
>> >but what beggars belief is that you then state that this proves that the
>> >"bite" *must* happen on all chassis, because of it's alleged occurance
>> >on a type 44 chassis.
>> If you accept the basic principle of operation, then it's a given. Like I
>> said, what happens to the car AS A RESULT OF THE TORSEN's operation is
>> another matter altogether. Some cars may handle this better than others;
>> some cars may not be affected at all.
>Reality check. What do you all understand by 'bite'. Seems to me
>that Scott and Jeff have been defining it as an inappropriate
>distribution of torque, regardless of whether it has any adverse
>effects on the handling of the car whereas Dave and Phil are requiring
>something nasty to happen, regardless of what the torque distribution is.
I won't argue with this nor would I argue with the summary that SS posted
yesterday ... understanding how the Torsen operates *isn't* rocket science
(although designing one might be). :^)
/ | _| o | \ _| o Jeffrey Goggin
/__| | | / | | __ | | | | / | | email@example.com
/ | |_| \_| | |_/ |_| \_| | http://www.mindspring.com/~audidudi/