pgtr

Intentional confusion re DSC/TC/LSD and HP?

The following (see below) is quoted from another thread that quoted it as part of whatever excuses were being made re the HP 'thing'.

In it I found several curious points that seem to be confusing:

I thought a limited slip diffy was standard on 6 spds and optional on autos.

A limited slip differential IS a mechanical traction control device.

But then the article suggests there is a separate independent traction control system. This is suggestive of an electronic traction control device that would act independently on each rear wheel via brake HU/CM. Now WHY would you need such a system if you already have LSD???

Makes no sense. Redundant. Possibly enhancement via throttle control is all I can see added but in the function of TC - it's otherwise REDUNDANT.


=================

There is another mention of DSC - which I presume is Mazda's acronym for yaw control. Again confusion reigns in this piece. They do make a good point about it possibly impinging upon accurate dyno readings.

Fair enough - it should be mentioned for that reason.

But have we forgotten that there are many AWD and 4WD cars that can be measured on modern dynos.

I sounds to me like a fluff piece making excuses for poor HP ratings. It also sounds like an admittance that neither DSC or TC can be truly turned off. Just 'kinda-sorta' turned off or at least a button that says it's turned off when it isn't. IN using this as an excuse for HP or lack thereof - it seems they are admitting to what may be worse problem for some including myself - a DSC/TC that cannot be truly turned off by the operator.

Not a bright move IMO.

If anybody is highly familiar w/ modern DSC or TC systems in general or Mazda's variant in particular I'd like some more follow-up commentary.

And have we forgotten about the many AWD/4WD or DSC equipped cars that dont' seem to have any problem posting the claimed HP figures?

And how does all this back pedaling apply to cars taht aren't equipped w/ DSC/TC?


thanks!



Still operational? THen HOW can they call it "disabled"? Is it half-disabled? Is turning it off the same as disabling or do you need a wire snipper to do this? What language are these people speaking? Do they need to lookup the meaning of the word "disabled"?

That's rich! Now it's "COMPLETELY disabled" yet is it? What kinda double speaking is this?

Now I always thought ABS was fully independent of DSC as far as control and the only overlap was both dependended on the same single hydraulic system. True? False?

They do make a fair point if this is the case but then I'm now disappointed that TC or DSC cannot be optionally turned off as they kinda-sorta suggest. If so the moral of all this is to order a car w/o such gimmickry and stick w/ good ol' fashioned limited slip diffy. That or find the magic wire and put a toggle switch because the factory was too silly not to.

These DSCs cut both ways. THey can be very handy in some situation and unacceptably intrusive in others. Depends on your preferences and driving skills and situation. But to redundantly (partially redundant) install TC on top of LSD and then not provide a "complete" on/off function is well... you get the picture.

For me, this kind of unswitchable DSC/TC that misrepresents it's true on/off status is probably MORE perplexing especially for someone who autocrosses or attends track events or drives on wet or snowy conditions than the whole optimistic HP ratings but maybe w/ the right toggle switch on the right wire - it can be more fully and correctly installed the way the factory SHOULD have done it?

Psylence

Ummm.... if you hold that button down for 5 seconds, the DSC and the TCS lights will both come on, indicating that both systems have been disabled.

You can then test this for yourself by inducing oversteer in a corner.. In this mode, the RX8 has never stopped any of my "exuberant" driving. No matter what.

O.R.A.

A limited slip diff is indeed a "traction control device", but it only works on the limit of the tires. If the car has enough power to break the traction of both tires, then the LSD won't completely eliminate wheelspin. They are a "traction control device" up to a point.

pgtr

The cars I'm familiar w/ that are equipped w/ TC dont' have a redundant LSD device. They have open axles and control wheelspin thru an HU/MC to the rear brake(s).

Such a system as I've described is redundant to an LSD or Torsen or whatever.

THe only thing that might go 'beyond' an LSD for add'l control is the electronic throttle control 'feature' (that apparently can't be turned off).

But 'IF' the TC has an HU/CM as is implied the LSD itself is certainly redundant - the same functionality could be achieved purely thru TC alone and a simple open axle will do just fine.

One advantage to both might be the presence of an LSD if you 'turn off' the TC. It's implied you can turn off the TC insofar as the brakes are concerned so if that's true then the LSD finally get's to actually do something potentially. It's no longer clear to me whether the TC can be fully or partially turned off but if it can insomuch as the brakes are concerned - that's the one scenario where at last the LSD is not redundant.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Same for DSC - can it 'really' be turned off?

Gord96BRG

Just because you're not familiar with them doesn't mean they don't exist! O.R.A. explained it, but you apparently weren't paying attention.

A LSD minimizes rotational differences in rear axle speeds, right? If one wheel starts to rotate faster than the other, torque will be transferred to the other wheel. Now think about driving on snow/ice - the LSD can do a perfect job of keeping the left and right wheels turning at the same speed, yet they could both be spinning at 50 mph with the car standing still. That's where an electronic traction control system comes in. Simple, right? Also not redundant, they serve two different purposes.

PS - yes, the DSC and TC can really be turned off entirely and completely, as far as providing stability and traction control are concerned. That doesn't necessarily mean that the sensors are disabled, just that their inputs are not being utilized to control stability or traction.

Regards,
Gordon

O.R.A.

I do understand your point, pgtr.

How about this:

You have one rear wheel on a slippery surface.

With an open diff, you stay stuck spinning the wheel on the slick surface.
With the LSD, power is transfered to the wheel that has grip and the car moves.
With traction control and NO LSD, the computer cuts power to the spinning wheel to keep it from spinning, but it can't send power to the other wheel, right? So you are still stuck, only no tire is spinning.
Or would the nature of the open diff make it so that since you have the brakes on the slick wheel, the path of least resistance will be the other wheel and the car would move? Interesting. I don't know the answer. I wish we could try this.

rxevolve10

VSC on Toyotas (Vehicle stability control) can apply the brake to each individual wheel. So if you have one spinning out it would brake that individual wheel and let the other(s) do the work.

I believe the TC system does the same thing.

O.R.A.

How would it let the other wheel do the work?

You have one wheel spinning on ice and the other on dry pavement and you have an open diff. The traction control applies the brakes to the spinning wheel (and I imagine it can only apply a certain percentage of brake force also, not 100%) and it keeps that wheel from spinning. Now you have both wheels not moving. The car is still stuck, not moving. What did TC do to get the car out? Nothing, right?

Now, with an LSD, the wheel on ice spins, power is transfered to the wheel on dry pavement and the car moves.

pgtr

Oh? So if I wasn't paying attention to ORA's post - please show me exactly where he explained the differences between TC via HU/CM or mechanical TC (LSD is mechanical TC) and how one can truly be shut off if throttle response is still affected - same for yaw control. Since you seem to be positioning yourself as having paid more attention to ORA's post - please post the quotes that I missed?

OK so you've shown us you understand LSD 101 - let's get beyond the basics shall we?

So are you saying definitively that Mazdas' HU/CM TC system does NOT apply a brake to the side that loses traction as it does in most any other TC equipped car? If so, don't dance around it w/ unneccesarry explanations of LSD 101 class - simply say it. I'd like to know this for sure one way or the other.

Gordon to put it simply if not diplomatically is that you appear to not be familiar w/ the subtleties of traction control based upon HU/CM or mechanical devices like LSD or Torsen.

"THe only thing that might go 'beyond' an LSD for add'l control is the electronic throttle control 'feature'"

In case you didn't get it - electronic control over throttle or power is the other half of the TC equation. That is precisely what can come into play w/ both wheels slipping.

Still, the LSD is redundant if the TC is turned on and applying brakes via HU/CM.

Unless you flat out state that TC does not act upon the left right rear brakes to limit slip - that statement holds true. It IS REDUNDANT.

OK. So please tell us Gordon WHAT exactly slows the throttle down if it is fully turned off. You've eliminted DSC and TC so what is the mystery system acting upon the throttle in a wheel slip condition Gordon?

[quote]That doesn't necessarily mean that the sensors are disabled, just that their inputs are not being utilized to control stability or traction.[quote]

And what does that have to do w/ the price of tea in China? If the sensors are on BUT "the DSC and TC can really be turned off entirely and completely" as you say - what other system is monitoring these sensors and manipulating throttle or power?

And what is your reference on the sensors remaining on while the DSC/TC is turned off?

Just what do sensors that are 'left on' have to do w/ anything w/ a turned off DSC/TC?

So by your own admission if it is turned off but the sensors are turned on - please do tell us about this mystery system that is acting upon the sensors and manipulating the throttle or power of the engine since you claim the DSC/TC is truly turned off? THIS is exactly the kind of info I'm after.

pgtr

How about this:



You had it up to that point. But note the article stated the TC was an HU/CM based system. It therefore controls hydraulics. It simply applies the brake to the wheel that is spinning. In an open axle - that immediately transfers torque back to the other side that had traction in your example. Thus it behaves EXACTLY like an LSD. The end result is the same - instead of a clutch pack slipping inside a carrier (or whatever teh Torsen equivalent is) a brake is applied to the wheel. 6 one way, half-dozen the other.

Some makers are returning to traditional open axles and TC systems and dropping their LSDs - probably because it's cheaper.

see above...

Bingo! Better and more succinct that the way I put it above! Thanks!

Yes it is interesting.

From teh articel I arrived at a whole number of possible conclusions - some good, some bad and some in between.

First, the good: the LSD is perhaps redundant and redundant is OK by me. Why? Because IF(and we dont' know this for sure) you can turn off DSC/TC - then you still have a good old fashioned LSD to depend on regardless and it FINALLY gets to do something on it's own. It also simplifies manufacturing as all cars get it regardless of whether they get DSC/TC.

Second, the DSC/TC may only be 'partially' turned off. From teh article I deduce that only the "HU" portion is turned off. The "CM" portion still can be pesky and intrusive upon engine/throttle control. That IMHO is a problem. I don't care about dyno's but when I'm on a track I want to be able to turn off an intrusive DSC/TC and TRULY have it turned off. Not merely 1 of it's 2 primary sub-systems. I suppose if one is into cheap tires and doing burnouts at the drive-in to impress the yokels it could also be a problem - but I wouldn't know

Third, the DSC may be fully independent of the TC. The TC in turn is not truly an HU/CM as was stated but merely a more basic CM only system (contradicting the article) and the system does NOT include HU. IF that is the case then it would not be redundant to the LSD and in fact would simply be complementing it by de-powering the engine in a full tandem rear wheel spin condition.

Fourth - I have to draw somewhat of a blank at the DSC system. I can only presume that it is a full yaw control system that montitors each of the four wheels independently possibly with another directional sensor detecting the actual yaw attitude of the vehicle. I can't speak for why it would affect throttle as the article implies but typically it would at the least apply hyrdaulic pressure to each of the wheel indepentenly in attempting to straighten the car out. (On a dyno there should not be a loss of yaw control detected by the system) I would speculate that any DSC control over throttle would be subtle compared to that of TC control over throttle.

DSC and TC are very software intensive systems, they perform uniquely different functions but they both largely focus on independent braking action (in the case of TC, also throttle - not sure about DSC). Porsche and Corvette ushered in sophisticated systems early on. However they can be intrusive and less than ideal in certain competitive or slippery conditions at times. I think some DSC variants can be troublesome in snow for example.

How good Mazdas DSC is compared to some others that have matured over the years - I don't know. In the past tests have reported differencs from make to make and year to year. The implication that Mazda may not be allowing you to fully turn off the DSC/TC (e.g. the throttle is still affected) doesn't suggest a very mature system in that regard at least. Also the fact that DSC/TC cannot be turned off independently is a bit of a concern. Personally in slick, icy or snowy conditions I would like to turn off DSC but leave TC on perhaps.

Spirited driving may not yield any obvious control over throttle w/ the DSC/TC turned on (or off?). I suggest having the rear wheels over a known slippery location - it could be ice or packed snow or a slick wet spot of concrete known for algae growth - try punching the throttle w/ it on and off. The TC (not DSC) should have a notable 'detuning' affect upon the engine I would think as it detects extreme rear wheel spin. As part of retaining traction, the TC 'lifts' the throttle ostensibly because the driver doesn't know any better. DSC doesn't really care, yaw control of the vehicle is maintained and you are probably hardly moving anyway. Now does the engine feel like it's being throttled back with the system on or both on and off? If it is in both cases of being on and off - then I'd suggest teh TC does NOT get fully 'turned off' if it's overriding throttle/power. My limited experience suggests that exerting control of the the throttle in other cars is usually only in flagrant rear wheel spin - a little slip here and there is hardly noticeable and would not result in any easily detected seat of the pants difference in throttle response.

I'd like to see more technical info on Mazda's DSC and TC as well as a comparison to other systems on sports car currently in the market place. Hopefully it would answer some of the questions I've raised. Some folks may be able to address TC questions thru some simple tests once the snow starts but DSC may be a bit trickier to figure out.

Personally I don't care for most TC systems - I prefer the same function being provided by an LSD or Torsen and I have enough sense to lift the throttle myself w/o a CM doing it for me.

But yaw control via DSC can be intriguing in spirited driving in dry conditions. That would be something I'd like to play w/ more myself given the opportunity. It can also be effective in quite emergency avoidance maneuvers.

pgtr

I use the term "TC" generically to apply to traction control. Every manufacturer has their own little gimicky term to describe 'their' traction control that includes electronic control over hydraulics to the brakes for the driven wheels as well as possible control over engine throttle. I don't know what Mazda's term is: Is it "TC" or "TCS" or something else?

- actually the torque jsut transfers to teh wheel on dry pavement and the car begins to move forwards. This is essentialy identical to the way an LSD clutch pack works as well.

THis is precisely why TC w/ an LSD or Torsen is redundant. But that's not necessarily bad thing.

A TC equipped car w/ open axle will essentially perform identically to a car w/ only an LSD presuming the driver does not needlessly stand on the throttle and spin the tires like an idiot.

If the driver does 'stand on it' in both cases then the TC would perform better as it will compensate for a bad driver who doesn't know to lift off the pedal. Presuming the given TC system has electronic override control over engine throttle or power or whatever.

O.R.A.

I see. Thanks for helping me understand it better.

Having played with a few cars with yaw control systems, I have not experienced a system that I didn't feel where I could do better than the system. I understand that this is personal preference.

You make an excellent point about the redundancy of the LSD on a car with the TC/DSC system. Maybe it's just a matter of keeping the car's Bill Of Materials shorter? Although, I expect that most RX-8's sold will have the TC/DSC system.

You have definitely raised my curiosity about how the system in the RX-8 works and if it uses brakes AND throttle or only one and which system uses what and under what conditions. Hopefully someone else can provide more details for us.

ChrisW

pgtr,

you're confusing yourself unnecesarily by taking this Mazda statement serously. It's simply an attempt, on Mazda's part to discourage people from taking the dyno results too seriously and generally muddy the waters over this horsepower issue. From the work that Canzoomer has done we KNOW that this article (in as far as it can be said to make any logical sense at all) is not true. We also know this because the measured results on wheel dyno's are broadly consistent with the measured performance of the car and gtech results on the road.

The TC/DSC can be completely switched off. No review of the car I have read has suggested otherwise. Why would Mazda provide a button and claim it switches the system off but prevent it from actually doing so?

As for the LSD being redundant. Well, I am sure that in theory some form of TCS can do everything that an LSD can do and more, but in reality, at the current level of technology, they tend to be a bit crude and keen drivers seem to prefer actual mechanical LSD's. TCS is fitted basically as a safety feature as it stops inadvertent wheelspin of both driven wheels, when accelerating from standstill, in wet/icy conditions (which of course an LSD cannot do). And if you find it too intrusive, then you can switch it off (yes completely) and you still have the benefits of the (now no longer redundant) LSD.

pgtr

ORA - I too wondered about the simplification in manufacturing and whether it was cheaper than using two different rear axle arrangements in manufacturing.

But I'm not going to look a gift horse too much in the mouth as the apparent redundancy is OK by me especially once the DSC/TC is tuned off (?). I sure wouldnt' want ot be left w/ an open axle!

Perhaps we should also take that article w/ a grain of salt - it was not that well written and had an apparent agenda of offering excuses for the HP situation. The article is not the best defense of the HP situation, it ignores Rx8s not equipped w/ DSC/TC as well as the many AWD/4WD and other sports car equipped with similar DSC/TC systems that have no problems wtih checking out on dynos. It almost suggests the fundamental measurements of torque and calculation of HP do not apply to rotaries. Maybe other car makers saw fit to install switches that actually turn the darn system off for real?

The lack of context for it's limited explanation of DSC/TC as an excuse for HP testing only serves to raise further questions in those areas w/o really addressing the HP claim to boot.

Perhaps a white paper or magazine will provide some more in depth knowledge on DSC and TC. Or perhaps another member of this site will dig into the details further. At the very least, the functionality and switching off/on of the TC can probably be put to rest given time and an oncoming winter.

And in a worst case scenario it may also inspire a TRUE cutoff switch for DSC/TC as a retrofit option from some aftermarketeer. Maybe not. Definately some unanswered questions.

thanks,

Gord96BRG

Who said anything, anywhere, about the throttle being manipulated when DSC/TC is turned off? The answer is NOTHING is slowing the throttle down when those systems are turned off.

What MAY be happening, based on Mazda's statement and a few other statements from research by Yaw and canzoomer, is that the ECU is falling back to a safe mode with richer fuel maps and retarted timing maps, and therefore the engine is making somewhat less power at full/peak power in this safe mode. There's nothing acting upon the throttle, however - WOT is still WOT.

I'm not sure why you also insist that DSC/TC can't be truly turned off. It snowed here a week ago, and I've spent a fair bit of time driving in the ice/snow conditions, including some parking lot slide practice. The DSC/TC intervention is obvious, as is the complete lack of intervention when they are turned off/disabled.


Regards,
Gordon

pgtr

CHris, I didn't realize this had been debunked elsewhere but glad to hear that - thanks for the sanity check. Yes, the HP side of it was rediculous too and I just don't care too much about that. It just raised qeustions w/ respect to DSC/TC functionality.

I also appreciate your mention that it is COMPLETELY shut off. That is it no longer overrides engine functions when off in addition to brakes. The article certainly implied this was the case which I was surprised by - appreciate your setting that straight.


As for the LSD being redundant. Well, I am sure that in theory some form of TCS can do everything that an LSD can do and more, but in reality, at the current level of technology, they tend to be a bit crude and keen drivers seem to prefer actual mechanical LSD's.[/quote]

I've not read or seen anything that correlates to that statement. Makers have in fact completely dropped LSDs from certain lines and replaced them soley w/ TCs. In my opinion it is not quite as fast or good as a mechanical LSD device but it's arguably not that detectable or "crude" as you say either. That is to say I doubt the overwhelming majority of averge or typical drivers could detect a difference between the two. Not saying it can't be detected but typically that it won't be.

BMWs for example have swithced to open axles in many of their lines and depend soley on their variant of TC to substitute reasonably well for lack of LSD.

Do you have anything to cite that describes these systems as crude and such? If so I'd like to read them as I hadn't run across any.

Your mention of "both" is a key point.

I would only say that at best it can mitigate simultaneous rear wheel spin in the case of a bad driver that stands on it. Doing this by attenuating a throttle-by-wire system or reducing injector action etc...

A prudent drive nudges the accelerator gently on ice - a less patient driver stomps on it and waits for the TC to reduce engine power thru watever control it has over the engine to slow down wheelspin and regain control.

Another way of looking at the redundancy with an LSD is to consider any individual hydraulic brake control over a driven wheel the the TC is redundant. I think a good TC could be had in a car that already has LSD that simply controls the engine speed in simultaneous rear wheels spin. Individual rear wheel spin would ALREADY be eliminated by the LSD. A TC by nature is going to be 'slightly' slower in response time to any decent mechanical system I would think.

That's why I sorta think the article is flat out wrong w/ respec to TC having control over hydraulics. Can you verify this? It woudl seem to make the most sense and logically eliminate any redundancy.

That or I bet the hydraulic portion of the TC never gets a workout because the LSD has already taken care of that.

Another possibility is that the TC in addition to having any control over engine power or RPM may also hit BOTH rear brakes simultaneously to slow down rear wheel spin and regain traction.

DSC would be another story altogether of course.

thanks,

pgtr

Uh, the article said essentially that Gordon. I even provided the specific quotes in teh first post - yet you continue to miss this. That was the whole premise of the article. Remember? Again, you need to pay more attention to what is being posted yourself before challenging other folks attentiveness. Your posts hardly put you in a position to cast such stones or apply such labels.

OK.

You said: "That doesn't necessarily mean that the sensors are disabled" - what's the difference and what does this have to do w/ anything?

SO you are saying that when it's turned off the engine is being electronically 'detuned' as a safety feature? How um, ah, 'imaginative'.

So let me get this straight about turning off the DSC/TC:
A) "the ECU is falling back to a safe mode with richer fuel maps and retarted timing maps"
B) "There's nothing acting upon the throttle"
C) "NOTHING is slowing the throttle down when those systems are turned off"

Now riddle us this Gordon: How does an engine operate at the same optimal power level for a given throttle position when it has been enriched from the norm and retarded?

And while your at it, based on such 'logic' as this - do you now want to admit that you secretly wrote this article? :D

I'm not sure either since I didn't make the insistance, the article did. I'd just like to verify it or debunk it is all.

Since you seem fond of calling attention to reading comprehension you need to CAREFULLY re-read the posts. let's try reading more carefully now shall we Gordon?

Obvious in what way? Can you bettery quantify the specific differences between on and off? Did you detect any obvious difference in throttle response while spinning the rear end w/ the system on or off. I'm hoping so and that should clearly debunk the claims of the article.

Gord96BRG

You misunderstood the article, and the Mazda system. Granted, the quotes you include aren't clear. There are two 'disable' modes - a single quick push of the DSC button disables the DSC stability control system, but leaves the TC enabled. Another full disable mode (undocumented in the owners manual) is accomplished by holding the DSC button for over 5 seconds, and lights both the 'DSC OFF' light and another TC warning light.

In the first mode, TC is not disabled, and traction control via throttle modulation and brake action is in use. In the second mode (full off), no DSC or traction control is in effect, there is NO throttle intervention at all.

Quote:

You said: "That doesn't necessarily mean that the sensors are disabled" - what's the difference and what does this have to do w/ anything?

The difference is that the DSC/TC systems are taking the sensor inputs and applying corrective measures as determined, when the systems are active. When the DSC/TC systems are disabled, it would still be possible for the ECU to be aware of their inputs, and even though no stability control or traction control is active, the ECU could be using those sensor inputs for separate action - like triggering a safe mode for fuel and timing maps as appropriate.

Quote:

SO you are saying that when it's turned off the engine is being electronically 'detuned' as a safety feature? How um, ah, 'imaginative'.

I'm not saying that - Mazda, Paul Yaw, and others have said that.

Quote:

So let me get this straight about turning off the DSC/TC:
A) "the ECU is falling back to a safe mode with richer fuel maps and retarted timing maps"
B) "There's nothing acting upon the throttle"
C) "NOTHING is slowing the throttle down when those systems are turned off"

Now riddle us this Gordon: How does an engine operate at the same optimal power level for a given throttle position when it has been enriched from the norm and retarded?

Power output is not solely determined by the throttle position. What happens to your power output at full throttle when you hit the rev limiter? Either fuel or spark are cut to prevent the engine from over-revving, yet you're still at full throttle. Similarly, an overheated catalytic converter, too high coolant or oil temperatures, and more can trigger the engine ECU to reduce available power on some ECU systems (BMW for example). That protection/safe mode has nothing to do with throttle control - the engine is not modulating signals to the throttle body, just reducing the available maximum power at full throttle. If you had a mechanical cable connected to the throttle, nothing would be acting upon the throttle - the ECU would be managing timing and fuel, NOT throttle opening.

Nobody said the engine operated at the same optimal power level for a given throttle position - I said the throttle position wasn't being 'managed'. I said that the power output would be affected by the fuel and timing used, as in the more extreme case of hitting the rev limiter.

Quote:

Obvious in what way? Can you bettery quantify the specific differences between on and off? Did you detect any obvious difference in throttle response while spinning the rear end w/ the system on or off. I'm hoping so and that should clearly debunk the claims of the article.

Two noticeable effects are present with the DSC/TC - brake intervention (and I haven't tried to separate stability control or traction control intervention, but it is at specific corners of the car), and the throttle is cut in some scenarios as well (cornering for DSC or straight ahead acceleration for TC). With the system disabled (the 5+second button hold, rather than just turned 'off' with the single quick button push), then there is no brake intervention, and no throttle intervention.

By the way - I'm not sure why, but you've obviously decided to take an incredibly snotty and condescending tone in corresponding to me. This despite the fact that you still haven't understood the 'article' (which you failed to link to, so aside from your quotes we don't really know exactly what you're talking about). You're mocking the suggestion that there are two modes of 'off', yet those modes have been discussed and are common knowledge here on the forum for over 5 months. If you wish to have me answer any more questions, I would appreciate if you would try a more civilized tone as you use with the other participants in this thread.

Regards,
Gordon

pgtr

No I didn't. I quoted it precisely and I used the word "implies" as to what the article was implying regarding DSC/TC and HP. Understanding what the article is attempting to construct as an 'excuse' for HP and saying it is 'correct' are two entirely different things.

The implication is quite clear for any attentive or just reasonable reader to discern. But then there's always one...

But those quotes were ALL I had to go on.


Now that's cute Roger. You introduce external information not included in the article and you accuse me of misunderstanding the articles clear implications because I did not have prior knowledge of the 'extra' information you are now bringing to light that was not included in the article. Now that's mighty big of ya there Gordon.


Now let me get this straight - when the DSC/TC is turned off...
So you tell us the TC is a "safety device" then when it's turned off it can still read the sensors and trigger "safe modes" for fuel and timing maps "as appropriate" - whatever that means. SO it CAN interact w/ engine management and ostensibly affect throttle response and power 'for our safety' when it's off according to what you are saying. But it CANNOT affect braking action 'for our safety' when off. What gives?

That's funny Gordon. I provide "quoted" material from a well discussed article and you accuse me of making such insistances when it was the article all along. But you pawn off your imaginative suppositions casually on others.


Gordon I must say you do thrive on subterfuge in attempting to apply the logic and research of others to your own imaginative twists and turns. I get the feeling you'll sit here and slice and dice semantics and hang on any ol' word for all it's worth if it will provide you w/ an out.

You now seem to be getting hung up on throttle "position" - news for ya Gordon: It's "throttle" as in throttle response before and "throttle position" now - why the sudden interest in focusing on throttle *position*. Since you seem so bent on slicing any semantic you can to weasel along let's put things very clearly: power level as a function of a given accellerator input.

Gordon, when NORMAL people talk about throttle, throttle response or 'power level as a function of a given accelerator input - we are talking about the nominal power the engine makes for a given input (accelerator) from the driver. Get it? So let's get off this "throttle *position*" semantic schtick and magic bullet scenarios Gordon - it wasn't part of your original statement - no need to introduce it and provide further subterfuge.

Let's also clarify a couple of other things you said shall we Gordon?

YOU said the engien fuel mixture goes into this "rich" mode when the DSC/TC is turned off. That states that this "rich" mode is relative to the 'norm' - I used the term 'optimal' but we can equally use 'norm' etc to try and divide all your chaffe from the wheat.

YOU said the engine ignition timing goes into a "retarded" mode when the DSC/TC is turned off. THat also states that the timing is "retarded" relative the norm - I used the term 'optimal' but we can equally use 'norm' etc to try and divide all your chaffe from the wheat.

When YOU use terms like "rich" or "retarded" those are relative terms and make it clear they are deviations for the norm or optimal or standard or nominal or median or preferred or ideal or whatever term fits. Get it? They are 'relative deviations'. W/ you slicing and dicing semantics I don't think I can speak carefully enough apparently.

Then YOU said the system does NOT affect engine throttle EVEN THOUGH it does affect fuel mixture and timing. Now in all my years of working with carburetors and FI I'd like ot know how one can "retard" an engine and crank up the fuel/reduce air flow to achieve a "rich" state and maintain identical throttle response when applying the same accelerator input? I am STILL awaiting your answer...

Again w/ the "position" schtick - you are the one that simply stated "throttle" was unnaffected and now you seem to be modifing it by saying "throttle position". Boy you jump around more than a jackrabbit don't ya!

Not only do you attempt to mis-attribute stuff to me - you try and take credit for things you never said. You never said anything about throttle "position" you simply keyed on teh word "throttle" as in throttle response and insisted it wasn't affected.

The fact is that if one holds the throttle of an engine at say the mid-point and the engine is magically enriched/retarded per the 'Gordon theory of DSC/TC disabling' then the engine will NOT be putting out as much power as it would if it were left in it's optimal normal standard ideal state of tune prior to being "enriched" and "retarded" presuming all other conditions are left the same (so we can dispense w/ overreved burning catalytics and other 'magic bullet' theories).

Since you seem to have conveniently forgotten here's exactly what you did say:
First you want to rewrite this and say throttle position...

...now you want to sue the word "throttle" as in 'throttle response' or 'power' - sheesh - I've NEVER seen someone SPIN the word "throttle" in so many different ways as you. Whatever happened to normal communication? Dude, you shoot as straight as a dog's hind leg.

But thanks for the additional info I requested. THis was the answer I was looking for. Cutting the throttle (reducing power regardless of throttle position) is precisely the way a TC should work when it detects simultaneous rear wheel spin. In a drive by wire system it is easily done by overriding the driver's pedal position e.g. 'ignoring' it. In a non-drive-by-wire engine - it is done somewhat more indirectly by affecting the fuel delivery regardless of throttle. End result is the same: Actual throttle response is reduced while the throttle position is relatively (too) high for retaining or regaining traction.

The flip side of the scenario I would 'expect' and you have also corroborated (thanks) is that w/ the TC turned off the throttle can just hummm along and by seat of the pants operate unabated while you spin 'brodies' [sic?] on the ice all day long. E.g it's a traditional car capable of spinning it's wheels to any teen's heart's content - This contradicts the article and makes MUCH more sense to me as the article simply didn't sit right. I think we can all safely put that so-called 'article' to bed and move on.

============

Actually YOU were the one that came in and accused me of not understanding another contributors response. You went on to make several statements that made it pretty clear you rushed past a number of posts and hadn't taken the time to read the thread. And YOU accuse ME of being "snotty" while you accuse me of not being capable of understanding basic traction concepts while you quite simplistic limited slip '101' stuff. And I'm the one being "snotty"??? Get a grip Gordon. Afterall it was YOU that started casting stones in a glass house - NOT me.

Either take a good look at yourself Gordon or grow a thicker skin. You reap what you sow dude.

...yeah and I'm the one being snotty. Sheesh give it a rest man!

What I did was take the article at presumed face value as being authoritatively correct and THEN w/ the aide of other contributors went thru an logical constructive process of debunking it w/ respect to DSC/TC.

Outside of your one single paragraph on actual driving of the TC on and off w/ ice - YOUR net contribution has been one that was unconstructive, rudimentary, accusatory, utterly uninformative but the magic bullet tangeants have been wonderfully imaginative though some leave me wondering what they had to do w/ the price of tea in China. I submit that other than that one passage - every post you have made and every response I have made could be utterly deleted and the thread would have been a nifty constructive piece on the truth about DSC/TC w/ respect to that silly article.

Now you sit here and again accuse from on high for my lack of understanding yet once again you cannot provide a single salient quote that illustrates or backs up your pointless need to keep applying such labels to me.

BWAH HAH HAH HAH HEH HEH heh heh tee hee - sure you don't know what article I'm talking about Gordon. Sure. You talk about all this 5 month old common knowledge floating about and you don't know about an article that has generated reams of discussion? Chris and others seem to know. But Mr. 'Common Knowledge' Gordon himself doesn't? You wait until your fourth post to suddenly get amnesia and wonder aloud just what is being discussed? Do you really expect people to believe this tripe about how innocent you are. 'Oh poor little ol' me - that dude is raking me over the coals over some article - maybe he just made it up... boo hoo'. Gordon Gordon Gordon, let's get back to reality shall we?

Again, SHOW US this purported "mocking"... I'm waiting... The article as I stated earlier does NOT provide the proper technical context for it's claims and is poorly written and presumptive. You unfortunately seem to be equally presumptive in the opposite extreme. Your posts are repetive in their statement that "[I] dont' understand..." it's really a bore. I'm unfortunately stuck in the middle having not decided whether or not I'll be springing for an Rx8 and am hear to learn. And I've even managed to glean a nugget of corroboration from your blubberingly imaginative posturing. No I don't know anything about any buttons or seconds and I'll freely admit it - I'm hear to learn. The article does NOT say anything about turning off each system discretely nor does the FAQ on this website last time I checked. Apparently unlike you I don't spend every waking moment combing thru every single post here to have developed this vaunted "common knowledge" you seemingly demand of others you deign respond to. Frankly if there is any common knowledge I'm aware of it's too much negativism and mis-information floating about this website over diddly doo-dah issues (like semantics?) and HP claims and such that get really old. So much for your "common knowledge" claims.

You haven't answered my previous questions save one in any kind of coherant fashion - why would I possibly want you to attempt to provide further tangents for any more questions? Civilized? Most of your responses are diminutive and meander off on pointless discussions of technical semantics w/ magic bullet scenarios. You are the one that has been casting stones in a glass house of your own construction. And when you don't like the response you deservedly reap - you start weaseling by slicing semantics to a nauseating degree to reduce this thread to the flatulence I find us both engaged in. I've never seen someone posture so much based on such speculation and continue to dodge the tough questions like you by hanging on every nuance and semantic of every word as you do. Sheesh - I wouldn't dare speak in normal English w/ you. 'Answer' more questions - please let's not!

islandsoon

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm unfortunately stuck in the middle having not decided whether or not I'll be springing for an Rx8"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, summing it up;
Buy the RX8. Push and hold the button. Don't read the threads that bore you. Continue to write with passion. Have a thick skin.

Gord96BRG

Right here from your first post, *******:

PS - do you consider knock sensor intervention in engine timing also to be a form of throttle manipulation and traction control? From your rantings, apparently you do. But what the hell - you still don't understand the basic points that others made on the relative benefits of LSD vs. traction control, much less sensors providing input to multiple systems, engine management vs. traction control vs. throttle control (suddenly it became throttle response rather than throttle position or just manipulating throttle, eh?), and when someone suggests that you didn't understand something you'd rather go on the attack than ask for clarification.

Whatever. Obviously You're just a pathetic jerk looking for a fight. I'm not interested, so you just earned the honour of being the second person on my ignore list. Have fun.

pgtr

My my Gordon, not being satisfied w/ brandishing your usual arrogance and the repetitive and unvalidated "you don't understand" mantra over and over you are at last reduced to...

Cute Gordon, real cute. Just keep it comin!

Oh and there's nothing "mocking" about the quote. It's based on the information available from the article which is freely admitted - get over it man!

Dang - I spoke to soon! Here we go again, Gordon's same old material for his timeless mantra yet where are the relevant quotes that demonstrate this 'lack of understanding'?

Oh it's all quite understandable. I've carefully watch you intentionally try and create subterfuge by deliberately mixing in apparent references to pure engine management vs DSC/TC critical path initiated engine management - you have done so w/ a great degree imprecision which I suspect was deliberate on your part and was wondering when you would step up and start to clarify your own subterfuge w/o any prompting from me. That's a hole of your own digging.

"throttle position" - sigh - again you seem to creatively introduce these terms. Throttle POSITION is YOUR term that you tried to retroactively sneak in there. We use "throttle" as in response or power level - then YOU change it to purely 'throttle position' and then jump back to throttle response as in power levels. Again. Back and forth as it suits you in your attempts to slice and dice my semantics at every turn.

Actually I have repeatedly in almost EVERY response asked for just what it was you believe I don't understand - and to provide quotes as to what it was I don't understand. What is this 5? 6 times on your part and you STILL haven't done it. Give it a rest man!

In all honesty you don't seem interested in providing clarification - you seem much more interested in attempting to validate this claim that '[I] don't understand' - THAT seems to be your true motivation here - not constructive information.

You can go around slapping your labels on people w/o taking the time to read threads and understand their context. But you'll reap what it sows. Deal with it.

And Gordon if you don't like reaping what you sow, you could also conduct yourself in a more constructive manner and actually read threads before dispensing w/ your labels and perhaps provide actual on-topic clarifications and insights and just see what kind of response that garners vs arrogant name calling and such. Just a friendly piece of constructive advice, do w/ it what you will Gordon.

Afterall after 4+ posts of your arrogant flatulance that said little or nothing you finally provided us w/ a nugget of worthwhile ontopic constructive information. Getting to that point was like pulling teeth w/ you. Had you A) actually read the various posts w/ a little more detail and B) been a little more open and giving of info than dispensing arrogant labels from on high - might have been much nicer for us all - don't ya think?

But this ongoing whining about reaping what you sow? What goes around comes around.

Oh Gordon it just gets entertaining watching boy racers dispense their internet derived suppositions upon the unworthy masses w/ haughty arrogance. Lighten up, it can actually be fun watching people like you hijack threads for pure ego gratification when you come to expect it now and then.

Not interested? - after how many posts of labeling me and now calling me an
- why the sudden loss of interest after so many labels and insults?

Delude yourself to your heart's content but Gordon if this is the way you normally conduct yourself in dispensing your knowledge to us of the lowly masses - somehow I don't think you'll be missed.

Next time lose your interest much earlier why don't ya - it would be better for all parties.

You may very well have worthwhile information to share - but if this is the price you demand for it - it just ain't worth it. My advice son is to work on your delivery.