Re: limited slip

[Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren@bayarea.net>]

>A question for you racers and time trialers:  is limited slip an
>advantage on the track?
>
>I know on a wet track limited slip can dramatically shorten the time it
>takes the rear end to catch up with (and pass) the front - not good.  It
>also seems to me that under normal conditions, short of having a very
>stiff race set-up, an open differential might help keep the back end in
>line if the inside rear wheel begins to lift.  Sort of an automatic G
>force limiter.

I can't answer whether the Alfa LSD on 105/115 series cars is an asset or 
a detriment to handling. I would have to believe that Alfa believed it to 
be an asset, otherwise why would they have fitted it? 

It is certainly a limited slip of a different order than the 
Hurst/Oldmobile I once had the horror of driving or of my experience with 
Jaguars. The H/O had a nearly complete locked up rear, which worked great 
on dry pavement and kept traction coming even at times when the rear axle 
was lifted on the inside, but was a terror in the wet. The Jaguar 3.4 and 
3.8, and the E-Types, I drove had a somewhat less severe engagement than 
that and were supposedly about an 80% slip differential, still a little 
sudden on low traction surfaces but much less frightening than the H/O. 

Alfa LSDs, at least according to the old Road & Track article from '71 or 
'72, are designed to maximize handling and have a relatively low power 
transfer ratio of about 20% to minimize unruly behavior on low traction 
surfaces yet allow some drive to be transferred even with the inside 
wheel well off the ground. 

What the truth of it is, well, I'll let those more knowledgeable in 
autocross and road racing tell me how far off my info is... ;)

Godfrey