RE: Torsen Tech

["Dave Eaton" <Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz>]

err scott, if you really understand what you are saying here, then you'd
appreciate that the locker at the point where the torsen is at bias ratio,
is *more* likely to have an oversteer moment due to it's inability to stop
biasing torque to the rear.  it will keep sending torque to the rear on
power inputs until something gives up.  major change in cf?  you need to
think that through a little for the locker scenario before you write too
much more here ;-o

i think that you are so used to arguing, that you're just doing it out of
habit...

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
'88 mb 2.3-16

-----Original Message-----

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:46:11 EDT
From: QSHIPQ@aol.com
Subject: RE:  Torsen Tech

Dave E writes:
>whatever, while there is no way to know how much *more* traction the rears
>can support, you know that the fronts can support *no* more.  which means
>that they are much more likely to spin up first...

You say much more 'likely'.  That opens up the discussion that it's
*possible* to change from a turning radius variable to a traction variable,
and it's *possible* the rears won't support anymore traction.  Both Jeff and
I don't have a problem with "unlikely", in fact, we support that claim (it
explains non events for us).  It's the *possible* and the *can* that we are
concentrating on in our bite scenarios.  The informal list survey over the
past years, would indicate *unlikely* is more common, but the *unlikely* has
happened to plenty of us.  Steamboat anyone?  We could help quantify
*unlikely* with a major change in cf.