[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: Torsen defined
>Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:03:05 EST >From: QSHIPQ@aol.com >Subject: RE: Torsen defined > >Dave E writes: >>nope sorry not even close. btw, the only comment i will make about your >>"research" scott, is that i have't seen any evidence of it... > >REALLY? It's in *your* referenced paper. errr yes, my point precisely... >>the basics once again: >>1) in any turn the torsen locks the front/rear output shafts together and >>proportions torque to the rear of the chassis. based on traction inputs >>(i.e. front/rear slip). **as does the locker**. > >No true as stated. what isn't true scott? certainly you have previously stated that the locker is a fixed torque splitting device. it isn't of course, it is a torque proportioning device. you have never acknowledged your mistake. are you still saying that? >>2) only when the torsen hits the bias ratio of output shaft torque >>differences will it limit torque transfer (at the bias ratio) and allow >>output shaft speed variances. unlike the locker which cannot limit torque >>transfers.... > >Not relevent au contraire, it is entirely relevant. both the locker and the torsen can only use front/rear slip as inputs to their torque proportioning. the locker can't limit torque transfers, while the torsen can. seems very relevant to me. mind you i can understand your assertion to the contrary, given your position :-) your wish to ignore the characteristics of the locker are rather disingenuous. the behaviour of the locker is entirely relevant. i have shown that the locker and the torsen use the same inputs to produce similar results except that the torsen limits torque proportioning while the locker can't. i ave also shown that your bite scenario is just as easily made with reference to the locker, rather tan the torsen. if the bite doesn't happen with the locker (and we've had at least 2 people on the list who claim that it has), then we have a chassis argument. which is phil's precise claim. so, sorry, but the behaviour of the locker is entirely relevant to this discussion. dave '95 rs2 '90 ur-q '88 mb 2.3-16
|
