quattro in reverse?
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
"eBob.com" <eBob.com@totallybogus.com> wrote in message
news:VzbPb.31848$OM2.9008955@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> I've often wondered, does the quattro work in reverse? I.E. does quattro
> give me better traction when backing up on snow or ice?
Yes.
> (Yes, I know ... I do have too much time on my hands.)
Yes.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)
news:VzbPb.31848$OM2.9008955@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> I've often wondered, does the quattro work in reverse? I.E. does quattro
> give me better traction when backing up on snow or ice?
Yes.
> (Yes, I know ... I do have too much time on my hands.)
Yes.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:12:53 GMT, "eBob.com" <eBob.com@totallybogus.com>
wrote:
>I've often wondered, does the quattro work in reverse? I.E. does quattro
>give me better traction when backing up on snow or ice?
>
>(Yes, I know ... I do have too much time on my hands.)
Is there even such a thing as a uni-directional differential?
wrote:
>I've often wondered, does the quattro work in reverse? I.E. does quattro
>give me better traction when backing up on snow or ice?
>
>(Yes, I know ... I do have too much time on my hands.)
Is there even such a thing as a uni-directional differential?
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
daytripper wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:12:53 GMT, "eBob.com" <eBob.com@totallybogus.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I've often wondered, does the quattro work in reverse? I.E. does quattro
>>give me better traction when backing up on snow or ice?
>>
>>(Yes, I know ... I do have too much time on my hands.)
>
>
> Is there even such a thing as a uni-directional differential?
No, but there are all-wheel drive systems that use electronically
controlled clutches instead of differentials, and I'd imagine that these
might not operate in reverse. It could be that the OP doesn't know or
understand the difference.
--
Mike Smith
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:12:53 GMT, "eBob.com" <eBob.com@totallybogus.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I've often wondered, does the quattro work in reverse? I.E. does quattro
>>give me better traction when backing up on snow or ice?
>>
>>(Yes, I know ... I do have too much time on my hands.)
>
>
> Is there even such a thing as a uni-directional differential?
No, but there are all-wheel drive systems that use electronically
controlled clutches instead of differentials, and I'd imagine that these
might not operate in reverse. It could be that the OP doesn't know or
understand the difference.
--
Mike Smith
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:100qrsl6n46p9d5@news.supernews.com...
> daytripper wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:12:53 GMT, "eBob.com" <eBob.com@totallybogus.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've often wondered, does the quattro work in reverse? I.E. does
quattro
> >>give me better traction when backing up on snow or ice?
> >>
> >>(Yes, I know ... I do have too much time on my hands.)
> >
> >
> > Is there even such a thing as a uni-directional differential?
>
> No, but there are all-wheel drive systems that use electronically
> controlled clutches instead of differentials, and I'd imagine that these
> might not operate in reverse. It could be that the OP doesn't know or
> understand the difference.
Exhaust pipes at the back, and the seat with the round hand-rail faces the
front?
;o)
(Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
--
Hairy One Kenobi
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!
news:100qrsl6n46p9d5@news.supernews.com...
> daytripper wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:12:53 GMT, "eBob.com" <eBob.com@totallybogus.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've often wondered, does the quattro work in reverse? I.E. does
quattro
> >>give me better traction when backing up on snow or ice?
> >>
> >>(Yes, I know ... I do have too much time on my hands.)
> >
> >
> > Is there even such a thing as a uni-directional differential?
>
> No, but there are all-wheel drive systems that use electronically
> controlled clutches instead of differentials, and I'd imagine that these
> might not operate in reverse. It could be that the OP doesn't know or
> understand the difference.
Exhaust pipes at the back, and the seat with the round hand-rail faces the
front?
;o)
(Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
--
Hairy One Kenobi
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> (Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
> rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
> outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
Yes, but that's only *if* the clutch engages. Given that they're
electronically controlled in such systems, the electronics could easily
be programmed not to engage the clutch while in reverse.
--
Mike Smith
>
> (Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
> rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
> outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
Yes, but that's only *if* the clutch engages. Given that they're
electronically controlled in such systems, the electronics could easily
be programmed not to engage the clutch while in reverse.
--
Mike Smith
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:100rtg4od6s5u67@news.supernews.com...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >
> > (Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
> > rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
> > outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
>
> Yes, but that's only *if* the clutch engages. Given that they're
> electronically controlled in such systems, the electronics could easily
> be programmed not to engage the clutch while in reverse.
But /why/ would someone do that..? Why would a rational engineer increase
the cost of a product in order to reduce the performance, efficiency and
safety?
It makes no sense.
H1K
news:100rtg4od6s5u67@news.supernews.com...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >
> > (Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
> > rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
> > outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
>
> Yes, but that's only *if* the clutch engages. Given that they're
> electronically controlled in such systems, the electronics could easily
> be programmed not to engage the clutch while in reverse.
But /why/ would someone do that..? Why would a rational engineer increase
the cost of a product in order to reduce the performance, efficiency and
safety?
It makes no sense.
H1K
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> "Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
> news:100rtg4od6s5u67@news.supernews.com...
>
>>Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>>
>>>(Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
>>>rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
>>>outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
>>
>>Yes, but that's only *if* the clutch engages. Given that they're
>>electronically controlled in such systems, the electronics could easily
>>be programmed not to engage the clutch while in reverse.
>
>
> But /why/ would someone do that..? Why would a rational engineer increase
> the cost of a product in order to reduce the performance, efficiency and
> safety?
What makes it cost more to disable the clutch operation? It's all
software anyway. It probably looks something like this (just a
wild-***-guess example):
if (wheelslip > THRESHOLD)
{
if (speed < CUTOFF)
engage_clutch(MODE_ONE);
else
engage_clutch(MODE_TWO);
}
....uh, or something. If they allowed operation in reverse, they might
very well have to add more code, like this:
if ((wheelslip > THRESHOLD) or (wheelslip < REVERSE_THRESHOLD))
{
if ((speed < CUTOFF) and (speed > REVERSE_CUTOFF))
engage_clutch(MODE_ONE);
else
engage_clutch(MODE_TWO);
}
That's a little bit more code that someone has to write, someone has to
maintain, someone has to test, one more thing to screw up, etc. Maybe
it's just simpler (and better for the bottom line) to disallow operation
of the clutch pack while in reverse gear.
--
Mike Smith
> "Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
> news:100rtg4od6s5u67@news.supernews.com...
>
>>Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>>
>>>(Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
>>>rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
>>>outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
>>
>>Yes, but that's only *if* the clutch engages. Given that they're
>>electronically controlled in such systems, the electronics could easily
>>be programmed not to engage the clutch while in reverse.
>
>
> But /why/ would someone do that..? Why would a rational engineer increase
> the cost of a product in order to reduce the performance, efficiency and
> safety?
What makes it cost more to disable the clutch operation? It's all
software anyway. It probably looks something like this (just a
wild-***-guess example):
if (wheelslip > THRESHOLD)
{
if (speed < CUTOFF)
engage_clutch(MODE_ONE);
else
engage_clutch(MODE_TWO);
}
....uh, or something. If they allowed operation in reverse, they might
very well have to add more code, like this:
if ((wheelslip > THRESHOLD) or (wheelslip < REVERSE_THRESHOLD))
{
if ((speed < CUTOFF) and (speed > REVERSE_CUTOFF))
engage_clutch(MODE_ONE);
else
engage_clutch(MODE_TWO);
}
That's a little bit more code that someone has to write, someone has to
maintain, someone has to test, one more thing to screw up, etc. Maybe
it's just simpler (and better for the bottom line) to disallow operation
of the clutch pack while in reverse gear.
--
Mike Smith
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:100tnq51l6p70d3@news.supernews.com...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> > "Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
> > news:100rtg4od6s5u67@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >>Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>
> >>>(Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
> >>>rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
> >>>outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
> >>
> >>Yes, but that's only *if* the clutch engages. Given that they're
> >>electronically controlled in such systems, the electronics could easily
> >>be programmed not to engage the clutch while in reverse.
> >
> >
> > But /why/ would someone do that..? Why would a rational engineer
increase
> > the cost of a product in order to reduce the performance, efficiency and
> > safety?
>
> What makes it cost more to disable the clutch operation? It's all
> software anyway. It probably looks something like this (just a
> wild-***-guess example):
>
> if (wheelslip > THRESHOLD)
> {
> if (speed < CUTOFF)
> engage_clutch(MODE_ONE);
> else
> engage_clutch(MODE_TWO);
> }
>
> ...uh, or something. If they allowed operation in reverse, they might
> very well have to add more code, like this:
>
> if ((wheelslip > THRESHOLD) or (wheelslip < REVERSE_THRESHOLD))
> {
> if ((speed < CUTOFF) and (speed > REVERSE_CUTOFF))
> engage_clutch(MODE_ONE);
> else
> engage_clutch(MODE_TWO);
> }
>
> That's a little bit more code that someone has to write, someone has to
> maintain, someone has to test, one more thing to screw up, etc. Maybe
> it's just simpler (and better for the bottom line) to disallow operation
> of the clutch pack while in reverse gear.
You've made my point, but then missed it. How about if you replace the code
with:
<Absolutely nothing>
Which seems even easier to design, code, and maintain ;o)
H1K
news:100tnq51l6p70d3@news.supernews.com...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> > "Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
> > news:100rtg4od6s5u67@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >>Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>
> >>>(Semi-non-facetious bit: like brakes, clutches only operate in one
> >>>rotational and one linear dimension. Direction is irrelevant, just the
> >>>outcome. A bit like a politician.. ;o)
> >>
> >>Yes, but that's only *if* the clutch engages. Given that they're
> >>electronically controlled in such systems, the electronics could easily
> >>be programmed not to engage the clutch while in reverse.
> >
> >
> > But /why/ would someone do that..? Why would a rational engineer
increase
> > the cost of a product in order to reduce the performance, efficiency and
> > safety?
>
> What makes it cost more to disable the clutch operation? It's all
> software anyway. It probably looks something like this (just a
> wild-***-guess example):
>
> if (wheelslip > THRESHOLD)
> {
> if (speed < CUTOFF)
> engage_clutch(MODE_ONE);
> else
> engage_clutch(MODE_TWO);
> }
>
> ...uh, or something. If they allowed operation in reverse, they might
> very well have to add more code, like this:
>
> if ((wheelslip > THRESHOLD) or (wheelslip < REVERSE_THRESHOLD))
> {
> if ((speed < CUTOFF) and (speed > REVERSE_CUTOFF))
> engage_clutch(MODE_ONE);
> else
> engage_clutch(MODE_TWO);
> }
>
> That's a little bit more code that someone has to write, someone has to
> maintain, someone has to test, one more thing to screw up, etc. Maybe
> it's just simpler (and better for the bottom line) to disallow operation
> of the clutch pack while in reverse gear.
You've made my point, but then missed it. How about if you replace the code
with:
<Absolutely nothing>
Which seems even easier to design, code, and maintain ;o)
H1K
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: quattro in reverse?
Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> You've made my point, but then missed it. How about if you replace the code
> with:
>
> <Absolutely nothing>
>
> Which seems even easier to design, code, and maintain ;o)
Then how does the system determine when to engage?
--
Mike Smith
>
> You've made my point, but then missed it. How about if you replace the code
> with:
>
> <Absolutely nothing>
>
> Which seems even easier to design, code, and maintain ;o)
Then how does the system determine when to engage?
--
Mike Smith