[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Adding Fuel
Dave E writes:
>mmmmm.... and what scott, apart from personal experience, have you bought to
>this debate? never once have you volunteered any new information from any
>verifiable source. you also have never even acknowledged the gaps in your
>knowledge of this device (i could go into details but i won't).
? And here I was convinced that I brought the exact spider bite phenomenon
described to the table (with many scenarios), referencing *your* 885140. I
acknowlege a bunch of gaps in my knowlege of this device, it's called
predictability. The micro management of the device operation isn't necessary
Dave, a few really basic questions are all that are necessary. The *result*
is a chassis dynamic: U or O, that's really all you need to understand.
>phil on the other hand has clearly demonstrated that alignment was the cause
>of his "bite" on a 200q. your back-pedalling on his experience once it
>resolved into an alignment issue would make a politician proud, and imo, is
>pretty demonstrative on your position in all this.
>you should take a reality check.
I'm thinking differently, see DLawson's post. I see a 'trained scientist'
presenting a "conclusion" based on his "experiments". Those "experiments"
have no pre or post data. I'm happy to explore and possibly "accept" the
alignment argument (so archived), but isn't data necessary (and blatently
missing)? Couldn't a scientist reasonably conclude that changing other
variables in the torsen matrix (maybe you should add that to your 6 variable
list Dave, you missed it the first time) would mirror the 'misalignment'
allocation of torque? Didn't many scientists in your papers, specifically
exclude mentioning alignment specs and protocol, cuz they are really basic to
I'm all for simple solutions. Phil's experiments lack replicable pre and
post data and btdt by me and others (alignment to audi revised TSB specs). I
tried a few times to explore his summary. After a many rebuffs, I figure we
just acknowlege that Phil has an opinion (without data, he has no
experiments, without review of the relevent research, his null has no
validity), and the conclusion is somewhat, er, premature. I have no problem
with that, and am happy to move on.