From QSHIPQ at aol.com Fri Dec 1 07:31:02 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Good discussion Message-ID: <79.cda40f8.2758f3e7@aol.com> In a message dated 11/30/00 6:05:02 PM Central Standard Time, eringelberg@hotmail.com writes: > This is why torsen is it's own list :) > > I find torsen to be much easier to turn-in with and exceptionally > predictable. Yes, oversteer and understeer with a chipped A4 is available on > command, and utterly benign. Interesting, I drove a chipped A4 at Motorsports park a couple of years ago (Pikes Peak audifest) of one Mr. Rudack, and I didn't find "utterly benign" to be my experience. Neither did Brendan. > The 4k is faster on the same course becuse of the lack of turbo lag, the > static camber, and the proportionally wider tires. It also has severe > understeer with the center locked (faster than unlocked). The turn-in is > much worse than my FWD-based 323gtx. Try locking the rear, understeer gets exponentially worse. Interesting that a 4k with 70 less ponies is faster. > I think the torsen issue is grossly overstated. I can't reproduce it. The > folks who say they can are all atither about exiting corner two in an > off-camber situation while punching the throttle. Hmmm. I think that even I > can induce bad handling in any car. The question is one about learning the > driving chracteristics of any vehicle. That being said, I too have high > hopes for REAL haldex variants. This will be vastly superior with good logic > circuitry from rally. Easy, come to steamboat. Even Scotty Davis (ex owner of the monster 20vt urq) didn't do so well with it in his tweeked 200tq20vt, and he lives at that track. The big problem with Haldex as I see it, is it needs to be disengaged to run abs. It currently disengages with brake application too (problem left foot braking). Rally cars don't run abs, so this "circuitry" will have to come from the street versions. This isn't going to be easy in terms of chassis dynamics. What I think might work (but would be a major step for the audi folks), would be a abs defeat switch, which allows a full time locking haldex, very similar to the Gen 1 system. > Racing professionally is a matter of different compromises. I want a spool > for reduced weight, reliability, and possibly 10/10th predictability. > 3-layer nomex on. The only issue with this argument is that cf and hp are the same thing. When you enter an 'emergency' situation, predictability of the center diff is the key, and lacking. Come to steamboat, you'll wish for the 4kq SJ From QSHIPQ at aol.com Fri Dec 1 08:02:04 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: Munchies Message-ID: In a message dated 11/30/00 9:49:23 AM Central Standard Time, mlped@uswest.net writes: > Jani - > > I think there is an old Finish saying that goes something like, "Sometimes a > single word can be the most dangerous thing...." > > And, as Groucho Marx would put it "You've said the secret word!!!" > > Mike "Won't talk about screens (but hey, I'm making progress)" P. No question in my mind that those of us crazy enough to create big bock S cars will be sharing secrets well known by many for years;). I also have my doubts that the stock secret word can handle long term the torque you will be applying to it Mike. They get hot, and they blows up, ask your laddy in CO, he's seen it personally more than once. I promise to only take good notes when you tackle *that* issue. Scott "screenman" J From QSHIPQ at aol.com Mon Dec 4 09:54:06 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Not the last Torsen note I guess Message-ID: <31.d6fb9ea.275d09a9@aol.com> In a message dated 12/1/00 11:36:59 AM Central Standard Time, panneton@xilinx.com writes: > Steven Searle wrote: > > > Could you achieve this torque split by running wheels with slightly > > different rolling diameters front and rear? > > Bingo! With a torsen center diff... > > Russ. > Audi did it. That said, you create more heat the more you try to fool the gears. Graydon spoke with a T engineer, and found that the shims can be modified to allow a specific torque split. Given that audi only sells the diff as a unit, you will be into some big money to do this. The tire thing is the easiest to do, however, I doubt you can acheive predictability by tire swap alone. Audi didn't. SJ From QSHIPQ at aol.com Mon Dec 4 09:55:02 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Good discussion Message-ID: In a message dated 12/1/00 1:59:42 PM Central Standard Time, kynf@yellowstonenuclearfree.org writes: > Fair enough, I can't dissect a problem I can't reproduce. The 4kq would be > the only car to take. It's pre-pranged for driver confidence. > ER > No fear, neither could audi. Too many variables in the matrix I suspect. SJ From QSHIPQ at aol.com Mon Dec 4 10:10:04 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Re: Munchies Message-ID: <90.cec846c.275d0ca9@aol.com> In a message dated 12/2/00 3:40:27 PM Central Standard Time, mlped@uswest.net writes: > Scott - > > Are you making allusions to the cars center differential? Its my current > understanding this may be the only really reliable way to get rid of the > T***sen spyders. Oversteer isn' a HP/torque equation only. It's only part of a matrix. Given that, in this matrix, HP=cf, what you will accomplish is more spyders in a drier environment. And, in that drier environment, you will have more applied load on the side gears and more frictional force on the invex gears. > You should applaud this as, the Right Rev. Jesse Jackson might say, > "This will be a safety "feature", not a safety failyur." I predict not. > BTW, are you really sure about this? Yes. The main reason you don't find torsens in the off road truck series. 100% failure rate. > Have you checked with Dave Eaton? Er, I forgot > Have you been destroying your rally rides with too much bhp? ..... No, that was Plesek > or has it been too much {sic.} "bock"? > Maybe Shiner Bock? ;-) A fine dark, but doesn't cloud the senses as much as Sierra Nevada Pale. > > Scott I am reliably informed by the elves in Munich, or is it the trolls in > Trollhatten, or it could have been the reindeer in Lapland that this is not > now, and will not be an issue. Your differential calculus to the possible > contrary not with standing. No BTDT, but I'm taking the elves, reindeer and > troll's advice on good faith. Plus the God Father has blessed me in this > endeavor. My BTDT is that used T units are quite available, and most yards will sell you one cheap, since they have no idea what it is. I would also share that just about every audi race car has a trans cooler and pump. SJ From QSHIPQ at aol.com Mon Dec 4 10:54:04 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Center diffs on dirt Message-ID: <59.3b74159.275d165f@aol.com> Ok Dave, all exceptions so noted (mercy). The facts remain to this day, that the lockers are consistently faster than T*, on dirt or pavement. StigB didn't use the T* cars, and beat WR in Drivers Points in '85, and won outright the drivers championship in 84. WR also used some specially tweeked T* units, to make them 'work' for 1 single win, as you noted. WR is also on record that he didn't care for the T units, and StigB is also on record with the same comments. Er, hello? Interesting too, the Audisport spec'd 1995 FIA S2 rally car I service doesn't have a center T unit in the parts bin (the logbook only shows a swap time for the center diff, but it's always locked), but no less than 6options for the front and rear (driver preference). All notations the contrary so noted, what comes forth in all these anecdotes is the stopwatch, it's the objective measure of all this BS. I enjoy hearing of quicker turn-in Oversteer, etc... Unfortunately, Lawson's interviews certainly indicate that this is a non discussion, as championships are still won with the old tried and true, Motorola Cup 2000, or WRC in 1984. WR is talented, but it would appear *objectively* that even he couldn't get a real handle on the predictability. Bottom Line: The U from locked diffs is more predictable v T, which makes the *consistently faster* rally or track. Lovin the anecdotes, it sure is tough to explain Motorola/Speedvision results(?). And tough to come to Steamboat and prove the contrary. SJ In a message dated 12/3/00 10:31:47 PM Central Standard Time, Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz writes: > nope, the factory s1?s ran torsen centres for rohrl and mikkola (see jouko?s > interview of hannu in the q-list archives). however, most of the > development effort was however focused on the pdk clutch and 6-speed tranny. > the pdk clutch was homologated by audi in 1984, and was used at times with > the sport, before the s1. > > the pdk clutch was the pre-cursor of the active differentials which every > wrc rally car runs. > > dave From graydon at apollo.kettering.edu Mon Dec 4 11:16:03 2000 From: graydon at apollo.kettering.edu (Graydon D. Stuckey) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Torsen torque split clarification In-Reply-To: <31.d6fb9ea.275d09a9@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 qshipq@aol.com wrote: > Audi did it. That said, you create more heat the more you try to fool the > gears. Graydon spoke with a T engineer, and found that the shims can be > modified to allow a specific torque split. Given that audi only sells the Just to clarify that, the engineer told me that you could change the torque _bias_ which as I understand it is the ability of the diff to transfer torque to the loaded wheel. As it is, it is a fairly light duty torque bias to preserve smoothness in everyday driving in a luxury car. If you increase the friction in the gears though, you can get it to act more like a racing differential, yet retain a fair amount of smoothness that most racing diffs don't have. It was _my_ opinion that if you adjusted the friction unequally (front vs rear), you could achieve a static torque bias to the rear so that more torque goes to the rear under all conditions. That might stop the instability of the centre torsen a little. I'd sure like to try it. Sincerely, Graydon D. Stuckey '86 RX7 Turbo II 2+2 ---FOR SALE--- '89 Thunderbird SC ---FOR SALE--- Check out the Garage Sale at... http://elektro.cmhnet.org/~graydon/ {Last changed 11/29/00} From C1J1Miller at aol.com Mon Dec 4 11:16:59 2000 From: C1J1Miller at aol.com (C1J1Miller@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Re: Munchies Message-ID: In a message dated Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:08:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, qshipq@aol.com writes: Big snip... << I would also share that just about every audi race car has a trans cooler and pump. SJ >> As I recall, Audi installed a cooler and pump to the manual tranny V8 with center torsen diff, as well. Must be due to excess heat with higher horsepower applications? Did they skip the cooler on the S4/6 etc. due to cost? Chris From QSHIPQ at aol.com Mon Dec 4 11:35:13 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: Torsen torque split clarification Message-ID: <9c.985863f.275d1e79@aol.com> In a message dated 12/4/00 9:54:25 AM Central Standard Time, graydon@apollo.kettering.edu writes: > It was _my_ opinion that if you adjusted the friction unequally (front vs > rear), you could achieve a static torque bias to the rear so that more > torque goes to the rear under all conditions. That might stop the > instability of the centre torsen a little. I'd sure like to try it. > Hmm. defining that might be tough graydon, and could very well bring more problems than solved. If you agree that a T* car has O at a given split, let's say 65r/35f, and you will have O from 65r/35f>78r/22f, then you shim for 71r/39f and have +/-6.5 torque transfer f/r. Any number other than that will cause a U problem somewhere in the torque applied traction equation, without a serious weight redistribution, which I consider a given. I think you are looking at it backwards, Jeff G looks at it correctly IMO. If you have a baseline chassis that is of fwd U character, looking at the above example, you could have 43r/57f +/-21.5 of predictable U, with a larger BR. Drive the car like a fwd car, stop trying to make an fwd car be a rwd car (thinking of how much money audi spent moving the A4 btcc engine 6in rearward comes to mind) Addressing any or all of this in terms of ABS/edl function is another consideration. If this doesn't allow abs function, then I'm not at all sure that the locker wouldn't end up being the better way to skin the cat. When you start working thru the practical engineering of this whole idea, that locker doesn't seem all that bad. That appears to be audis way of thinking to this day. Bensingers comments on "...reckons O to be at xx/xx split..." means that you have O and U in turns. This enfatuation with O in a U chassis car doesn't make any sense to me at all, you might have reduced the traction argument U slightly, but you haven't really addressed fully the problem of turning causing changes in torque allocation. In your example, raise HP or lower Cf, you are back to square 1 in terms of effective resultant chassis behavior. SJ From OorQue at aol.com Mon Dec 4 16:41:26 2000 From: OorQue at aol.com (OorQue@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: Torsen torque split clarification Message-ID: <3e.465e77b.275d675c@aol.com> >> It was _my_ opinion that if you adjusted the friction unequally (front vs >> rear), you could achieve a static torque bias to the rear so that more >> torque goes to the rear under all conditions. That might stop the >> instability of the centre torsen a little. I'd sure like to try it. It's been a long time since I've even thought about Torsens but off the top of my head, I don't think this is a workable solution. Assuming that it works -- and I'm not sure that it will -- I suspect it will wear out the diff in short order. The extra heat that it will dump into the gear oil won't help things, either. Porsche installed an oil cooler on the Type 016 they used in the 944T and that one didn't have a center diff! Audi also installed an oil cooler on the V8 tranny as well... > I think you are looking at it backwards, Jeff G looks at it correctly IMO. > If you have a baseline chassis that is of fwd U character, looking at the > above example, you could have 43r/57f +/-21.5 of predictable U, with a larger > BR. Drive the car like a fwd car, stop trying to make an fwd car be a rwd > car (thinking of how much money audi spent moving the A4 btcc engine 6in > rearward comes to mind) This was also my conclusion. If you think about it, both the Ur-Q and Type 44 chassis were originally conceived as FWD and AWD was added to them a few years later. IMO, both cars behave very much like the FWD versions (except they have better traction!) and with the engine hung out past the front axle line, I doubt that anything short of redesigning the car from the floorpan up -- remember the Trans-Am car? -- will ever allow it to behave like a RWD without giving up overall grip in order to achieve a more RWD-like front-rear balance. > Bensingers comments on "...reckons O to be at xx/xx split..." means that you > have O and U in turns. This enfatuation with O in a U chassis car doesn't > make any sense to me at all, you might have reduced the traction argument U > slightly, but you haven't really addressed fully the problem of turning > causing changes in torque allocation. In your example, raise HP or lower Cf, > you are back to square 1 in terms of effective resultant chassis behavior. Like I said, it's been a long time since I last thought about these matters but as I recall, I eventually came to the conclusion that the locked diff, while not being the ideal solution -- active diffs definitely appear to be the way to go -- is nevertheless the most driveable one due to its predictability. This is especially true for those drivers (like me!) who trail brake into corners and/or left-foot brake since the Torsen doesn't respond well at all to this sort of driving style. For people who drive up to a corner, get off the gas (thus causing the amount of torque to be distributed to drop off markedly), turn the wheel and then get back on the gas, the Torsen probably works well enough ... and since this also describes the way that most sane people drive their cars on the street, they work well there, too. In general, it's only on the track (or during unexpected emergency manuevers where my track-honed reflexes take over) that it causes any problems. I wouldn't install one on a racecar because of its lack of predicability and given the option, I probably wouldn't have opted for one in my street car, either. However, what's done is done and since my 200q only sees street duty these days, it's not worth the cost/effort to backdate to an early-style transaxle. BTW, my "oorque@aol.com" email address will be going away as of Dec. 10th; anybody wanting to reach me after then should use "audidudi@mindspring.com" until further notice. Jeffrey Goggin Scottsdale, AZ From QSHIPQ at aol.com Mon Dec 4 21:14:23 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: Not the last Torsen note I guess Message-ID: <6e.5853cbf.275da720@aol.com> In a message dated 12/4/00 3:26:15 PM Central Standard Time, s4audinut@aol.com writes: > OK, Tell me how to get a straight 40/60 split. Does anyone make a > center diff. to do this? > Rod VC is the only way to accomplish this or a custom torsen, but either way, only the beginning of your problems, and from a practical engineering standpoint, the locker is simpler, more bulletproof and cheaper. What about your edl, your 4 channel abs and your open rear diff? This mental exercise has little hope of practical fruition. Even if you could do it, you have a whole nother set of problems when you are looking at dumping it to purchase that used RS4.... Bottom Line: The torsen works, albeit with compromises. One of which is having to watch a properly tuned locker dude pass ya. For straight line Rod, you have the meow. For turns, stopping thinking in terms of rwd O in a fwd U designed car. You own the wrong car for that. SJ Chicago locker duder From S4audinut at aol.com Mon Dec 4 21:40:12 2000 From: S4audinut at aol.com (S4audinut@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: Not the last Torsen note I guess Message-ID: In a message dated 12/04/2000 9:04:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, QSHIPQ writes: > OK, Tell me how to get a straight 40/60 split. Does anyone make a > > center diff. to do this? > > Rod > VC is the only way to accomplish this or a custom torsen, but either way, > only the beginning of your problems, and from a practical engineering > standpoint, the locker is simpler, more bulletproof and cheaper. What about > your edl, your 4 channel abs and your open rear diff? > > This mental exercise has little hope of practical fruition. Even if you > could do it, you have a whole nother set of problems when you are looking at > dumping it to purchase that used RS4.... > > Bottom Line: The torsen works, albeit with compromises. One of which is > having to watch a properly tuned locker dude pass ya. For straight line Rod, > you have the meow. For turns, stopping thinking in terms of rwd O in a fwd U > designed car. You own the wrong car for that. > > > SJ OK if everyone can (?) agree to this, then the best way (short of a full cage and revised suspension) to get an s4 around a track quickly is get REAL big brakes, and build a REAL strong motor, and brake fully b4 drifting a line, then accelerate hard out (but dont count on making speed THRU the corner). If this is the way (slow in fast out) to do it (safely/predictably) in any less than a full race car, I will drive in this manner. I really never expected the car to handle like a Porsche or Lotus anyway, but hoped to make it handle with considerably less understeer. This strategy plays well to what I have done to this point in mods. Like I said b4, do the best with what you have. It may never be a slot car but it is still a helluva car (with enough HP anyway). Rod From urquattro at phoenixdsl.com Tue Dec 5 01:12:03 2000 From: urquattro at phoenixdsl.com (urquattro) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: Not the last Torsen note I guess References: <6e.5853cbf.275da720@aol.com> Message-ID: <012601c05e82$5e5d34e0$0201a8c0@phoenix> > VC is the only way to accomplish this or a custom torsen, but either way, > only the beginning of your problems, and from a practical engineering > standpoint, the locker is simpler, more bulletproof and cheaper. What about > your edl, your 4 channel abs and your open rear diff? ... seems to me the 959 and others used clutch packs to implement a variable F:R torque split ... ... I would by no means consider myself an expert on this stuff, but I thought I remembered hearing that the ABS and EDL algorithms treated each axle independently ... if that were indeed the case it wouldn't matter what the center diff was doing ... The V8 also has a torsen in the rear diff position ... if they generate so much heat it seems to me that there is more differentiation going on in the rear diff app. I haven't heard anything with regards to reliability of the rear torsen on the v8s ... AAMOF, IME they are dirt cheap used because there is so little call for them ... Steve Buchholz San Jose, CA (USA) From QSHIPQ at aol.com Tue Dec 5 09:34:09 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: Not the last Torsen note I guess Message-ID: In a message dated 12/5/00 12:12:35 AM Central Standard Time, urquattro@phoenixdsl.com writes: > ... seems to me the 959 and others used clutch packs to implement a > variable F:R torque split ... Don't forget that the early v8's used clutchpacks too. > > ... I would by no means consider myself an expert on this stuff, but I > thought I remembered hearing that the ABS and EDL algorithms treated each > axle independently ... if that were indeed the case it wouldn't matter what > the center diff was doing ... Kinda steve. The problem is that EDL can't cross the center axle, unless the center axle is open. The nature of the beast. The reason it doesn't cross the torsen, is that it can't. > > The V8 also has a torsen in the rear diff position ... if they generate so > much heat it seems to me that there is more differentiation going on in the > rear diff app. I haven't heard anything with regards to reliability of the > rear torsen on the v8s ... AAMOF, IME they are dirt cheap used because there > is so little call for them ... But the rear *never* supports full engine torque in a quattro ever, the most it will ever support is 78%. And think what that means in terms of WOT with 78% applied torque. Either you have a really tight turn, or you are on a low cf. Both conditions quickly result in breakaway, which lowers the torque supported by the diff. The more applied torque put to it, the more heat generated, by design. HTH SJ From QSHIPQ at aol.com Tue Dec 5 10:11:06 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re:Some more thoughts on traction Message-ID: <4c.d92d51d.275e5f3e@aol.com> What I find interesting in this seemingly endless "debate" is that my conclusions of the center diff, consistently complement the expressed presentations of both Chocholek and Bensinger. My thoughts on traction just put forth the obvious, not a revelation, just the practical chassis dynamic conclusion of a design presentation. Even Dave's 'insight' into his interview with Chocholek I find right on.. WRT Chocholek and Dave's conclusion that the problem with "it has more to do with weight distribution and U/O setup" is consistent. The problem is Dave, I consider quattro weight distribution to be a given, at static (and most dynamic) U - supported by Bensinger in Chris Millers website references. *IF* we could move the weight so we have a static O (man I hope BMW isn't reading this) chassis, then we maybe could apply a torsen center diff, and have O on throttle, with a understeer at the limit character. We don't have that, nor can we realistically get it. The triangulated swaybar in the 44 chassis cars doesn't help either. Since you claim to have a formal discourse with both Bensinger and Chocholek, maybe they can give you some insight into the Motorola/Speedvision '00S4 championship cars in terms of welded diffs being faster than their engineered device designed to go in it. Thinking of the freedoms in terms of weight distribution and HP levels in those cars, and they couldn't get faster times with the torsen, what does that mean for the street car guys realistically looking at the same thing. One can also easily look at any "torsens in racing" anecdotes, and say only that quattro dominates, and in the 80/90 chassis cars, it (torsen) was 'good enough' for winning races. I dare say that as we enter the mellinium, it isn't good enough anymore. Conclusions: Active diffs have come to WRX cars, M/S cars won the championship welding torsen diffs solid (lockers), and torsens aren't found anymore. Seems we have a step forward, a tried and true, and a passe respectively. Given the M/S report, I don't feel optimistic of a torsen winning championship coming quattros way again. Do you? Thanks for taking the time to put forth your opinions. Given Lawson's report, even you have to be questioning your own viewpoint. Objectively, stopwatches just don't lie: track, rally, street, or steamboat. Scott Justusson From Jani.Peltopuro at poyry.fi Tue Dec 5 10:26:03 2000 From: Jani.Peltopuro at poyry.fi (Jani.Peltopuro@poyry.fi) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Re:Some more thoughts on traction Message-ID: One contributing factor that the torsen cars did not do well in competition was the weight distribution, a good point Scott. Other group B cars went past with a middle engine layout. There were other design flaws as well in the SQ, no front spoiler (until S1, and what a spoiler it was!), too big overhangs etc. The Audi engine was the best in group B, on that there is concensus I think. So I don't think it is fair to say the T- diff was the decisive factor. A good post SJ anyways. I'm off celebrating Finnish indepence, we've kept the Russians on the right side of the border for 83 years now, as Igor knows... Jani qshipq@aol.com 12/05/00 05:09 PM To: torsen@audifans.com cc: Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz, s-car-list@egroups.com Subject: [s-cars] Re:Some more thoughts on traction What I find interesting in this seemingly endless "debate" is that my conclusions of the center diff, consistently complement the expressed presentations of both Chocholek and Bensinger. My thoughts on traction just put forth the obvious, not a revelation, just the practical chassis dynamic conclusion of a design presentation. Even Dave's 'insight' into his interview with Chocholek I find right on.. WRT Chocholek and Dave's conclusion that the problem with "it has more to do with weight distribution and U/O setup" is consistent. The problem is Dave, I consider quattro weight distribution to be a given, at static (and most dynamic) U - supported by Bensinger in Chris Millers website references. *IF* we could move the weight so we have a static O (man I hope BMW isn't reading this) chassis, then we maybe could apply a torsen center diff, and have O on throttle, with a understeer at the limit character. We don't have that, nor can we realistically get it. The triangulated swaybar in the 44 chassis cars doesn't help either. Since you claim to have a formal discourse with both Bensinger and Chocholek, maybe they can give you some insight into the Motorola/Speedvision '00S4 championship cars in terms of welded diffs being faster than their engineered device designed to go in it. Thinking of the freedoms in terms of weight distribution and HP levels in those cars, and they couldn't get faster times with the torsen, what does that mean for the street car guys realistically looking at the same thing. One can also easily look at any "torsens in racing" anecdotes, and say only that quattro dominates, and in the 80/90 chassis cars, it (torsen) was 'good enough' for winning races. I dare say that as we enter the mellinium, it isn't good enough anymore. Conclusions: Active diffs have come to WRX cars, M/S cars won the championship welding torsen diffs solid (lockers), and torsens aren't found anymore. Seems we have a step forward, a tried and true, and a passe respectively. Given the M/S report, I don't feel optimistic of a torsen winning championship coming quattros way again. Do you? Thanks for taking the time to put forth your opinions. Given Lawson's report, even you have to be questioning your own viewpoint. Objectively, stopwatches just don't lie: track, rally, street, or steamboat. Scott Justusson To unsubscribe, email: s-car-list-unsubscribe@egroups.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.audifans.com/pipermail/torsen/attachments/20001205/97ffcab6/attachment.htm From QSHIPQ at aol.com Tue Dec 5 10:35:03 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] TORSEN pissing contest truce proposal Message-ID: <43.d76eb25.275e6497@aol.com> Understand the device and it's limitations, that's my proposal. I'm here to learn from btdt and reference material, from which I draw conclusions, help (sometimes). The s-car list should have the most to gain from this discussion (or the most to lose if you have experienced some of my btdt wrt this device). Just a week ago, I put forth a very clear and concise q&a for a lister looking for information. I'm open to new and better, but don't consider this at all a debate, maybe part of my problem in presentation... Those with '00S4 should read Lawson's Vegas report with great interest, and think in context of what the champions concluded to become them. I read it with great interest too, since I doubted any audi sponsored teams would be allowed to 'go solid' 17years after the fact. I also accept the fact that audi has dealt this list a bit of a blow, in the context of ultimate traction in deference to the masses. I've explored several options for a S car customer wrt correcting (improving, modifying) the 'anomolies' that come forth when the locker guys are really starting to have fun. My summation of Torsen mods, VC's clutchpacks etc: Cost prohibitive, too many 'other' compromises short of full track regalia. This exploration (and Dave L report) just solidified my position that for full ordinance, the locker conversion makes the most sense. That said, short of full battle dress, we need to accept the compromises dealt. Understanding what they are, I hope is helpful with someone who finds a whole bunch of spiders in their lap with loved ones incidentally sharing the ride, whereever it ultimately leads, btdt. I respectfully offer thanks for *that* consideration. Scott Justusson In a message dated 12/5/00 8:31:34 AM Central Standard Time, jani.peltopuro@poyry.fi writes: > I too partly agree to this, though that is irrelevant, since I already > stopped the T-discussion from my part. Both sides have made their > arguments, let's get on with it. > > However, I don't think the T-word should be banned from the list, since it > is an integral part of s-cars, except S3. Maybe lockers should be banned > from negative spamming on the subject of T? Don't get me wrong, I welcome > Scott's first 3 posts on any (new) subject, he has useful info and genuine > btdt, but I skip the ones after that. > > So if anyone has ideas how to improve the drivetrain and suspension > behaviour, feel free to post to the list, IMO. But lets assume the basics > stay the same, I don't see anyone bastarding their lovely s-car to FWD, > RWD, locker, normally aspirated, or 1.8turbo for that matter. Oops sorry > S3 guys with your 1.8t... > > So I suggest that if some of you are so fed up with the T-word, don't read > any posts that include it. Most email program allow you to make filters. > We might use the full torsen-word, and you can make rule that moves all > mails containing word torsen directly to thrash. > > Jani From petersen007 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 5 20:17:36 2000 From: petersen007 at earthlink.net (John Petersen) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] adjusting bias Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20001205201738.00aa2ef0@mail.earthlink.net> Hi everyone, I'm new to this list, so I apologize for asking a question that has probably been asked dozens of times, but what is the easiest way to adjust bias on a torsen diff for an urS4? I should be getting my hands on one soon and want to change the bias so the car has a more over-steery nature while accelerating through corners. Thanks in advance for your help. -John '92 S4 From QSHIPQ at aol.com Wed Dec 6 15:43:10 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] static torque bias Message-ID: <5a.dfbbca7.275ffd9d@aol.com> The Helix gears are not available separately from audi. A 54% rear torque bias only solves a static chassis torque, dynamically it hasn't really solved anything, in fact... My .02 on this reason for change, is that the S4tt has the absolute worst quattro f/r static balance, of 60f/40r. A slight shift to the rear statically might give a slightly better turn in response with a nose heavy car (give the 'feel' of less understeer, but let's not confuse this with O), and also most likely lowers the front shift torque in a turn, then traction scenario. At RA this past September, my experience wasn't so enamoring, S4tt on rumble strips are nightmarish. Speaking of weight bias in quattros, a close, but interesting second (worst weight bias), the street SQ @ 59f/41. I also might note that Dave Lawson and I both have tried to find more data on the new S4 center diff in terms of published bias ratio. Anyone know for sure what the F&R torque shift limits really are? SJ In a message dated 12/6/00 1:23:23 PM Central Standard Time, Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz writes: > this can be done with a torsen. the s4tt has a static 46:54 rear torque > distribution. it is accomplished through different angles on the helix > gears. > > dave > '95 rs2 > '90 ur-q > -----Original Message----- > > In a message dated 12/4/00 3:26:15 PM Central Standard Time, > s4audinut@aol.com writes: > > > OK, Tell me how to get a straight 40/60 split. Does anyone make a > > center diff. to do this? > > Rod > From petersen007 at earthlink.net Wed Dec 6 15:59:43 2000 From: petersen007 at earthlink.net (John Petersen) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] [s-cars] static torque bias (torsen warning) In-Reply-To: <5a.dfbbca7.275ffd9d@aol.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20001206154756.00bf5d30@mail.earthlink.net> Hi Scott, I've also heard that the torque bias is 60f/40r, but the limits are different things, are they not? I seem to remember reading that the torsen could adjust the actual torque in [some quattro] between 66/34 and 34/66 if the situation included slip. -John >I also might note that Dave Lawson and I both have tried to find more data on >the new S4 center diff in terms of published bias ratio. Anyone know for >sure what the F&R torque shift limits really are? > >SJ From eringelberg at hotmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:20:08 2000 From: eringelberg at hotmail.com (Erik Ringelberg) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Racing Rod Message-ID: All, PLEASE clip the messages to get to the issues at hand. This is getting like the full list. TIA I fully agree that the weight location makes the q cars FWD. It is basically economically pointless to get the weight back where it should be. (Kill the FWD multilink, too!) So, maybe my support of the torsen is due to my FWD driving style. Regardless, unless we cut a couple of hundred pounds off the front axle line we are ultimately doomed to FWD characteristics. Fine, put wider front rims and tires at a lower profile up front, and cut all the extra weight off the front. The car will be a lot more neutral. Erik _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com From STEADIRIC at aol.com Thu Dec 7 02:22:03 2000 From: STEADIRIC at aol.com (STEADIRIC@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] static torque bias Message-ID: <50.e5bf81c.27609463@aol.com> In a message dated 12/6/00 1:44:13 PM, QSHIPQ@aol.com writes: >At RA this past September, my experience wasn't so >enamoring, S4tt on rumble strips are nightmarish. Bullshit. It's driver error. In October at GIR I had no problems with Gators, Rumbles, or FIA Curbs. The car is utterly predictable. Eric Fletcher '00 S4tt From QSHIPQ at aol.com Thu Dec 7 06:35:02 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: static torque bias Message-ID: <74.59f0138.2760cfba@aol.com> It would suffice to only point out that the Champion Drivers in the Motorola/Speedvision series would be holding stopwatches instead of being Biassed (tm - kirby). Given your claims on these lists, I find it amazing that even a hack like me can understand why the boys went 'solid'. I'm thinking about your conclusion in context of the Skippy Lead Instructor claim. Thanks for your input. SJ In a message dated 12/7/00 1:22:10 AM Central Standard Time, STEADIRIC@aol.com writes: > >At RA this past September, my experience wasn't so > >enamoring, S4tt on rumble strips are nightmarish. > > Bullshit. > > It's driver error. In October at GIR I had no problems with Gators, Rumbles, > or FIA Curbs. The car is utterly predictable. From QSHIPQ at aol.com Thu Dec 7 06:39:03 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: static torque bias (torsen warning) Message-ID: In a message dated 12/6/00 2:50:56 PM Central Standard Time, petersen007@earthlink.net writes: > Hi Scott, > I've also heard that the torque bias is 60f/40r, but the limits > are different things, are they not? I seem to remember reading that the > torsen could adjust the actual torque in [some quattro] between 66/34 and > 34/66 if the situation included slip. > > -John OR turning with power applied. The published data for all previous quattros is 78:22 (with some 75/25 'claims', but 78:22 is in all of audis TSM). John, my research indicates the torque bias is listed as 54r/46 the static weight balance at 60r/40. SJ From QSHIPQ at aol.com Thu Dec 7 07:00:03 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] TORSEN pissing contest truce proposal Message-ID: <9e.d09cbbb.2760d58f@aol.com> Thanks Chris, it certainly worked, I've just been trying to go thru the archive link on the main page. I've copied this to the list so others can follow the linkage as well. SJ In a message dated 12/6/00 8:27:50 AM Central Standard Time, C1J1Miller writes: > In a message dated Wed, 6 Dec 2000 8:45:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, QSHIPQ > writes: > > << > In a message dated 12/5/00 11:00:24 AM Central Standard Time, C1J1Miller@aol. > com writes: > Archives are readily available via a web browser. > Chris > Where? I see archives only for every 'other' list Scott >> > > http://www.audifans.com > then > "mailing list" > then > "mailman lists" > then > "torsen" > then > "torsen archives" > or direct: > http://www.audifans.com/pipermail/torsen/ > Each of the lists has similar format to reach archives: > http://www.audifans.com/pipermail/ (whatever list) > Chris > From Jani.Peltopuro at poyry.fi Thu Dec 7 07:04:02 2000 From: Jani.Peltopuro at poyry.fi (Jani.Peltopuro@poyry.fi) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Re: static torque bias (torsen warning)-has to be a spelling error... Message-ID: Scott, static weight balance at 60r/40??? In S4tt? Does that mean that the S4tt is almost as rear weight biased as the early 911s? I think it has to be 60f/40? What about the torque, is it 54r/46? Jani qshipq@aol.com 12/07/00 01:38 PM To: petersen007@earthlink.net, s-car-list@egroups.com, torsen@audifans.com cc: Subject: [s-cars] Re: static torque bias (torsen warning) In a message dated 12/6/00 2:50:56 PM Central Standard Time, petersen007@earthlink.net writes: > Hi Scott, > I've also heard that the torque bias is 60f/40r, but the limits > are different things, are they not? I seem to remember reading that the > torsen could adjust the actual torque in [some quattro] between 66/34 and > 34/66 if the situation included slip. > > -John OR turning with power applied. The published data for all previous quattros is 78:22 (with some 75/25 'claims', but 78:22 is in all of audis TSM). John, my research indicates the torque bias is listed as 54r/46 the static weight balance at 60r/40. SJ To unsubscribe, email: s-car-list-unsubscribe@egroups.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.audifans.com/pipermail/torsen/attachments/20001207/0143adae/attachment.htm From QSHIPQ at aol.com Thu Dec 7 07:42:02 2000 From: QSHIPQ at aol.com (QSHIPQ@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Static weight and torque bias of the S4tt - correction Message-ID: <60.977fb3c.2760df48@aol.com> In a message dated 12/7/00 6:03:33 AM Central Standard Time, Jani.Peltopuro@poyry.fi writes: > Scott, > > static weight balance at 60r/40??? In S4tt? > > Does that mean that the S4tt is almost as rear weight biased as the early > 911s? I think it has to be 60f/40? What about the torque, is it 54r/46? > > Jani > Jani hi: It's still early here, thanks for the catch. Let me do the correction this way: 2000>present S4 2.7ttq per AUDI AG: STATIC WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION: 60% front /40% rear STATIC TORQUE DISTRIBUTION: 46% front/ 54% rear CURB WEIGHT: 3593 Manual/3704 Tiptronic DRIVELINE: All wheel drive quattro with Torsen center differential/ open f-r, Electronic Differential Lock (2 channel), ABS 5.3, defeatable Electronic Stability Program (2001) That now clear (I double cked and turned on the coffee;), does anyone know the limits of torque transfer under power on the S4tt torsen? SJ From S4audinut at aol.com Thu Dec 7 13:38:02 2000 From: S4audinut at aol.com (S4audinut@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: (Urine all around) -Re: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] static torque bias Message-ID: <5a.e0ae391.276131d2@aol.com> In a message dated 12/07/2000 2:22:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, STEADIRIC@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 12/6/00 1:44:13 PM, QSHIPQ@aol.com writes: > > >At RA this past September, my experience wasn't so > >enamoring, S4tt on rumble strips are nightmarish. > > Bullshit. > > It's driver error. In October at GIR I had no problems with Gators, Rumbles, > > or FIA Curbs. The car is utterly predictable. > > > Eric Fletcher > '00 S4tt > Here we go again. I cant wait to meet you guys. (haha) Rod From tedebearp at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 20:31:15 2000 From: tedebearp at yahoo.com (Theodore Chen) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] static torque bias Message-ID: <20001208012634.15260.qmail@web803.mail.yahoo.com> --- qshipq@aol.com wrote: > The Helix gears are not available separately from audi. try torsen. they're the ones who made the differential, and in fact, their "University Special" sold to Formula SAE teams is very similar to the audi center differentials (main difference is that the audi unit is driven by a splined shaft rather than a ring gear). torsen 1 was used until 1995, and then the torsen 2 became the OEM center differential. i'm not sure if torsen will sell you the gears separately. although they do list prices for them, they also claim to sell only complete differentials. it would be simpler to change the torque bias by changing the gearing in the rear differential. i don't know what the rear differential looks like, but assuming it's a ring and pinion, you could change those to change the front to rear bias. as for torque biasing ratio, torsen says it's about 3.2:1 initially, and after the unit is broken in, about 2.6:1. you can change the TBR by changing the viscosity of the lubricant (higher viscosity lowers TBR, lower viscosity raises TBR), by changing the washers/bearings in the side gears to increase friction inside the differential, installing clutches (this is what the torsen 2-R does). FYI, torsen sells the university special at $360 to FSAE teams, compared to the $1600 that the audi dealer would charge. > My .02 on this reason for change, is that the S4tt has > the absolute worst quattro f/r static balance, of 60f/40r. that is the basic problem - weight distribution. the engine sits in front of the front axle, which is a big hose from a handling standpoint. as to the dynamic characteristics of the torsen, i'll leave it up to you guys to argue about it. i have yet to drive the S4 (or any other AWD car) at speed on a racetrack. scott, is it possible that a race team might weld the torsen (thus making it into a spool) or remove the torsen, more for reliability considerations than for performance reasons? helical gear differentials generate a lot of heat when differentiating, particularly under load. i haven't instrumented the torsen 2 in my mustang yet, but other people have managed to destroy their gear differentials in road racing behind high-powered engines without a differential oil cooler. wheelspin really heats up the gear oil. > I also might note that Dave Lawson and I both have tried to find more data on > the new S4 center diff in terms of published bias ratio. Anyone know for > sure what the F&R torque shift limits really are? the biturbo S4 uses a torsen 2. biasing capability for the torsen 2 in center differential applications is in the range of 1.5:1 to 2.5:1. that depends on the lubricant used, and the specific application. i don't know what audi specified, but i'd guess the higher end of the range. maybe you should email torsen and ask. FYI, the torsen 2 has lower max TBR than the torsen 1, though it has a wider range of possible TBRs. > > this can be done with a torsen. the s4tt has a static 46:54 rear torque > > distribution. it is accomplished through different angles on the helix > > gears. dave, are you sure about this? it seems to me that it'd be simpler to accomplish this by changing the rear final drive gearing. -teddy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From tedebearp at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 02:07:02 2000 From: tedebearp at yahoo.com (Theodore Chen) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Torsen torque split clarification Message-ID: <20001208070642.17321.qmail@web804.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Graydon D. Stuckey" wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 qshipq@aol.com wrote: > > > Audi did it. That said, you create more heat the more you try to fool the > > gears. Graydon spoke with a T engineer, and found that the shims can be > > modified to allow a specific torque split. Given that audi only sells the > > Just to clarify that, the engineer told me that you could change the > torque _bias_ which as I understand it is the ability of the diff to > transfer torque to the loaded wheel. torsen talks in terms of "torque biasing ratio" (which i mentioned in an earlier post). this number indicates how much more torque is sent to the high-traction wheel/axle than is sent to the low-traction (spinning) wheel/axle. it is expressed as a multiple. so if you have a TBR of 3:1, that means the high-traction wheel gets 3 times as much torque as the low-traction wheel can support. the high-traction wheel gets 75% of of the total torque, and the low-traction wheel gets 25%. so if the low-traction wheel can support 50 lb-ft of torque, the high-traction wheel gets 150 lb-ft. > As it is, it is a fairly light duty > torque bias to preserve smoothness in everyday driving in a luxury car. do you know the TBR for the torsen 1 in the UrS4? > If you increase the friction in the gears though, you can get it to act > more like a racing differential, yet retain a fair amount of smoothness > that most racing diffs don't have. to be more specific, it's the friction between the side gears and the housing. the torsen 1 has bearings in there. if you replace them with washers, thereby increasing internal friction, you can increase the TBR. you can also run lower viscosity oil to increase TBR, but if the torsen shares its oil with the gearbox, you're kind of limited there. i've been meaning to try redline super lightweight shockproof in my mustang's torsen, but that will have to wait until i finish sorting the suspension that i just put in. note that most of the TBR comes from the design of the unit itself and cannot be changed to a large degree. > It was _my_ opinion that if you adjusted the friction unequally (front vs > rear), you could achieve a static torque bias to the rear so that more > torque goes to the rear under all conditions. That might stop the > instability of the centre torsen a little. I'd sure like to try it. did you ask the torsen engineer about this? -teddy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From graydon at apollo.kettering.edu Fri Dec 8 08:20:04 2000 From: graydon at apollo.kettering.edu (Graydon D. Stuckey) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] static torque bias In-Reply-To: <20001208012634.15260.qmail@web803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Theodore Chen wrote: > they're the ones who made the differential, and in fact, their > "University Special" sold to Formula SAE teams is very similar to > the audi center differentials (main difference is that the audi unit > is driven by a splined shaft rather than a ring gear). torsen 1 was > used until 1995, and then the torsen 2 became the OEM center differential. Back in the 'old days' they supplied a 200Q centre diff which had no ring gear flange. We had to make a ring gear flange. IIRC, I think that the V8 5-sp was also listed as using the same center Torsen diff. > it would be simpler to change the torque bias by changing the gearing > in the rear differential. i don't know what the rear differential looks > like, but assuming it's a ring and pinion, you could change those to > change the front to rear bias. That's not the "right" thing to do though because then even when cruising, you would be wearing out the torsen. > FYI, torsen sells the university special at $360 to FSAE teams, compared > to the $1600 that the audi dealer would charge. They used to _give_ it away for free. > that is the basic problem - weight distribution. the engine > sits in front of the front axle, which is a big hose from a > handling standpoint. Therein is the biggest problem with Audis and Porsche 911s. It does make for great packaging for AWD though. Later, Graydon D. Stuckey Check out the Garage Sale at... http://elektro.cmhnet.org/~graydon/ {Last changed 11/29/00} From S4audinut at aol.com Fri Dec 8 20:28:04 2000 From: S4audinut at aol.com (S4audinut@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Seeking info on engines ( you do engines here too dontcha) Message-ID: I wish to hear the views on porting/polishing heads for AAN 20v turbos, from the point of view of which tricks are most beneficial besides a comp. valve job. I am wishing to flow 500-600cfm and have heard differing views on the subject. Is it necessary to port or extrude hone manifold w/this level of flow? If I do not lower compression is it necessary to coat pistons. I will be using a sport Q manifold so flow here should not be a problem. Big intercooler and appropriate 3" tubing. I am not looking to throw money away if not necessary. Car will have Carrilo rods and the pistons will be available, but is this a good idea. I raced drag cars in the past and we built everything to the max and turned up the boost and gigglegas, but I dont know if these cars need the same protection the Fords did. The turbo builds this flow at 16lbs boost and heat from it wont be a problem with a fast Tile wastegate. Any BTDT from you gearheads. This engine is getting expensive and I need too many other things to throw my resc. away. BTW if anyone has a good prepared head/intake for my s4 shoot me a post. I just bought part of a salvage late 94 s2 from England and have a 60,000km engine and "good" 6sp tranny with the heavy gear and mainshaft. If any need the s2 intake or any other pieces peculiar to the engine contact me. I know where to get the other pieces if anyone is trying to build a US s2 or RS2. Thanks, Rod From Steadi at swbell.net Fri Dec 15 20:03:04 2000 From: Steadi at swbell.net (Eric Fletcher S.O.C.) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Re: static torque bias In-Reply-To: <74.59f0138.2760cfba@aol.com> Message-ID: > It would suffice to only point out that the Champion Drivers in the > Motorola/Speedvision series would be holding stopwatches instead of being > Biassed (tm - kirby). Given your claims on these lists, I find it amazing > that even a hack like me can understand why the boys went 'solid'. I'm > thinking about your conclusion in context of the Skippy Lead Instructor > claim. Thanks for your input. The Boys went solid in RACE Cars on RACE rubber, in RACE Chassis... But I'm sure that you already knew that, and understand the implications that carries. But hey what does it matter, comparatively speaking you have zero experience in the S4tt, none as a professional race driver and none as a professional race instructor. In fact you have little experience in ANY of the cars that you bitch about. Most of your "knowledge" is a regurgitation of things that other people have told you or things that you have read, great on the surface but short on depth. It really shows when you flip-flop to suit your point. Eric Fletcher '00 S4tt Much too busy driving my "Flawed" Car and having to much fun doing it From jimmy at urs4.com Fri Dec 15 21:25:04 2000 From: jimmy at urs4.com (Jimmy Pribble, Managing Editor, UrS4.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] RE: [s-cars] Re: static torque bias In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >...and none as a professional race instructor. Huh? What the hell is THAT? I want to be one! Of course, I would want to be called a Race Consultant, so I could charge more. Jimmy From Steadi at swbell.net Sat Dec 16 09:41:12 2000 From: Steadi at swbell.net (Eric Fletcher S.O.C.) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Re: static torque bias In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> ...and none as a professional race instructor. > > Huh? What the hell is THAT? I want to be one! Of course, I would want to > be called a Race Consultant, so I could charge more. Actually when we are working with a driver one on one we are called "Coaches" Eric Fletcher '0 S4tt From S4audinut at aol.com Sat Dec 16 09:45:39 2000 From: S4audinut at aol.com (S4audinut@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] Re: [s-cars] Re: static torque bias Message-ID: <18.63d7118.276c8f28@aol.com> In a message dated 12/15/2000 8:03:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, steadi@swbell.net writes: > > thinking about your conclusion in context of the Skippy Lead Instructor > > claim. Thanks for your input. SJ > But hey what does it matter, comparatively speaking you have zero experience > in the S4tt, none as a professional race driver and none as a professional > race instructor. In fact you have little experience in ANY of the cars that > you bitch about. Most of your "knowledge" is a regurgitation of things that > other people have told you or things that you have read, great on the > surface but short on depth. It really shows when you flip-flop to suit your > point. > Eric Fletcher > '00 S4tt > Much too busy driving my "Flawed" Car and having to much fun doing it > They're back..... Merry xmas to you guys. From Jimzigg at aol.com Thu Dec 21 20:12:04 2000 From: Jimzigg at aol.com (Jimzigg@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:01:46 2003 Subject: [torsen] V8 setup Message-ID: <51.530b714.27740458@aol.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Jimzigg@aol.com Subject: 3 Questions Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:45:56 EST Size: 2153 Url: http://www.audifans.com/pipermail/torsen/attachments/20001221/a47d71ec/attachment.eml