Gday Mark,

Sorry Mark. I was deliberately trying to get down to the root
fundamentals on this without diflocks being involved, they only muddy
the waters even more, the only variations I concentrated on were a VC
and solid shaft comparison. Hence my specifically composed comments and
questions.

So from your reply, I take it you mean that with a VC, nearly full
torque is available at whichever wheel set is gripping, which for a VC
is clearly not both at the same time (i.e., if rear set are gripping,
there should be little or no torque transfer to the front wheel set by
the VC). Conversely, with a solid shaft in the same scenario and rear
wheels gripping AND the solid shaft coupled, does that provide full
torque to both wheel sets or does it equally divide (split) available
torque between both gripping wheel sets? That is the conundrum. Any
thoughts please?

Cheers.

Ken

--- In Syncro@yahoogroups.com, Mark Drillock <drillock@...> wrote:
>
> Right, Ken, with a stock Syncro we have nearly full torque available
in
> front and rear depending on conditions. The exact situation varies
with
> use of the locking diffs, rear and front, if so equipped. The solid
> shaft replacement for the VC makes this even more true.
>
> Mark
>
>
> Ken wrote:
> > Gday Mark,
> >
> > Yes I've often wondered too what's fact and fiction about torque
> > potential at each wheel of a syncro, depending on any scenario.
> >
> > For example, a stock standard syncro with a rear wheel spinning,
> > wouldn't the torque be 100% thereabouts at the front wheels? Then by
> > extension, one back and also one front wheel spinning at the same
time,
> > that means no torque anywhere.
> >
> > Then in my case when the front solid shaft is coupled, wouldn't the
> > torque potential at each wheel change in say two different
scenarios,
> > first with no wheel spinning and then the other, one rear wheel
> > spinning.
> >
> > Or is it simply that torque isn't split, meaning 100% torque
potential
> > is available everywhere that wheel sets are gripping?
> >
> > Or is this also just more conjecture? Perhaps there is a known
> > authoritative source on all this?
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
>