[torsen] Re: [urq] RE: Quattro handling

QSHIPQ at aol.com QSHIPQ at aol.com
Mon Apr 15 09:40:06 EDT 2002

In a message dated 4/15/02 4:09:18 AM Central Daylight Time, 
Dave.Eaton at clear.net.nz writes:

>no.  think of the situation with a locked centre diff in a car where one
>front wheel has just hit a patch of ice...

Dave, for the purpose of these discussions, a constant cf (pick one) of 4 
wheels would be a more productive scenario.  No one disagrees that either 
axle on a locked car *can* support 100% of torque.  That said, you hit a 
patch of ice, the chances of it being exactly 99in long would require a lot 
more luck than any torque shift because of it.  Assuming it to be LONGER than 
99inches, whether you have 100% torque at a rear axle or 78% of torque on the 
rear axle, sounds very, er, "optimistic" wrt one "outperforming" the other in 
terms of control.

IF we continue the discussion, I believe it's premature to discuss adding a 
multi wheel cf matrix into the variables.  Even audi didn't do that in any of 
there SAE publications.  Maybe cuz it's so rare, or maybe because it's adding 
overwhelming input to a overwhelming matrix?  99in wheelbase torsens aren't 
at all scarce here in the USA.   Remember too, that in the matrix of 
"affecting" variables, Trg = cf.  Specific to the "handling", you can either 
have high trg with a higher cf OR have a low trg with a low cf.  BTDroveT

Scott Justusson 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.audifans.com/pipermail/torsen/attachments/20020415/a8e5c730/attachment.htm

More information about the Torsen mailing list