[SomeRandomer123]

I believe the X6 can show live torque vectoring control through the iDrive and I was just wondering if the X3 did this.

[Nahoa]

You mean some kind of graphic showing what the vehicle is doing with the xDrive, yes? X3 doesn't have that. Would be fun, though!

[pault]

I'm not sure I could cope with the distraction..... I've driven a Pirus a few times and found myself fascinated by the graphics of energy going from the engine to the wheels, or as I brake it heading back to the batteries, to the point of not looking where I was going.

[SomeRandomer123]

Originally Posted by pault

I'm not sure I could cope with the distraction..... I've driven a Pirus a few times and found myself fascinated by the graphics of energy going from the engine to the wheels, or as I brake it heading back to the batteries, to the point of not looking where I was going.

Haha yeah I can imagine! Shame the X3 doesn't show the Torque Vectoring - would have been interesting to see where the power was going, especially when off-roading.

[ManMachine]

it's not real torque vectoring like X6. it's basically braking the inside wheel when making a turn. no point for showing this on a video screen.

[mole7374]

Originally Posted by ManMachine

it's not real torque vectoring like X6. it's basically braking the inside wheel when making a turn. no point for showing this on a video screen.

+1 and then some

Thanks MM b/c you saved me a longer post.... unfortunately for us X3 is not a torque vectoring machine...(that would be through a mechanical process) The x3 fakes out torque vectoring (via what MM says) in an electronic process... just a TAD bit different process.... it's still good, but please don't call it torque vectoring.... my AWD bones shivver b/c of this...

[Nahoa]

Okay, call it power vectoring, which it is. Torque vectoring is a made up phrase associated with other systems for marketing purposes -- it's not a "thing". It doesm't really make sense because the torque vector associated with individual wheels will be different. The resultant of those vectors does not represent the "overall torque of the vehicle" You can vary the overall force vector on the vehicle a number of ways. The breaking approach has a different impact on vehicle attitude and momentum and tends to reduce overall energy.

[mole7374]

Originally Posted by Nahoa

Okay, call it power vectoring, which it is. Torque vectoring is a made up phrase associated with other systems for marketing purposes -- it's not a "thing". It doesm't really make sense because the torque vector associated with individual wheels will be different. The resultant of those vectors does not represent the "overall torque of the vehicle" You can vary the overall force vector on the vehicle a number of ways. The breaking approach has a different impact on vehicle attitude and momentum and tends to reduce overall energy.

I like the power vectoring phrase...I think that actually has more meaning in terms of x-drive.

Although I totally see your point and can "mostly" agree with that view, I would agrue though that in the "true sense" torque vectoring is kinda sorta in some ways (is that vague enough) a "thing" indeed...however you need to be on a purest AWD forum for others to hash painfully through this topic. True torque vectoring is associated with true mechanical systems (Land Rover, Quattro, Subaru) whereas I think the power vectoring (I still like that BTW) is associated with electronic systems.

Net effect... similar but not the same.... case in point.....if you drove a 335xi (power vectoring) and an STI (torque vectoring) around a track b@lls out hard, you would certainly appreciate what a "thing" it really is. The first time I tried to drive a 335xi around the track the way I do my STI it was very clear. Take nothing away from the 335 b/c for 99.9% of the driving we do, true torque vectoring or power vectoring is good enough....however it is a thing

[Nahoa]

I can't discuss the different systems because I don't know them like you do. My point is that "torque" vectoring is a marketing term that has limited basis on physics. It's almost certainly derived from "thrust vectoring" from fighter aircraft that makes sense.

Torque over time is power. So comparing power and torque vectoring is just nonsense for that reason and more. Comparing the performance of the cars -- different. I've got no experience there, so defer to those of you who know.

[mole7374]

Originally Posted by Nahoa

I can't discuss the different systems because I don't know them like you do. My point is that "torque" vectoring is a marketing term that has limited basis on physics. It's almost certainly derived from "thrust vectoring" from fighter aircraft that makes sense.

Torque over time is power. So comparing power and torque vectoring is just nonsense for that reason and more. Comparing the performance of the cars -- different. I've got no experience there, so defer to those of you who know.

Yep that's fair and definitelya valid point/position. BTW....I'm definitely not trying to be argumentative/combative here...please don't take that way....just providing some additional color and depth to the topic...all good.

I also like the thrust vectoring phrase too...and honestly it highlights your point that the "TV" phrase is for the most part marketing over abused and everyone eventually just back it into something tangible! Wait...isn't that the genious behined marketing...to get us to assign tangible aspects to something which is as ambiguous as a phrase!! (point taken...) And once again....the marketing brains have left us all debating symantics instead of technical specs that are tangible!

Seriously though for driving purposes you are right...net affect is generally the same...that is part of the beauty of X-drive in my opinion....to be able to (somewhat) achieve in electronics/software what more advanced systems do mechanically. Good stuff here

[Razel]

Originally Posted by mole7374

Yep that's fair and definitelya valid point/position. BTW....I'm definitely not trying to be argumentative/combative here...please don't take that way....just providing some additional color and depth to the topic...all good.

I also like the thrust vectoring phrase too...and honestly it highlights your point that the "TV" phrase is for the most part marketing over abused and everyone eventually just back it into something tangible! Wait...isn't that the genious behined marketing...to get us to assign tangible aspects to something which is as ambiguous as a phrase!! (point taken...) And once again....the marketing brains have left us all debating symantics instead of technical specs that are tangible!

Seriously though for driving purposes you are right...net affect is generally the same...that is part of the beauty of X-drive in my opinion....to be able to (somewhat) achieve in electronics/software what more advanced systems do mechanically. Good stuff here

One example of scary scenario. Engineering student gets his degree and then goes into Marketing.

[mole7374]

Originally Posted by Razel

One example of scary scenario. Engineering student gets his degree and then goes into Marketing.

LMFAO...nice one

Ironically with me it's the reverse...I got my degree in business/marketing and I then went ahead and went into engineering! (well in IT..but still engineering)

[ManMachine]

Usually the cost of the option will tell you whether it's good stuff or not.

[clarence]

Basically, all these marketing terms (i.e. BMW's Torque Vectoring, Audi's Sport Differential, Mitsubishi's Active Yaw Control etc) point to an electronically controlled rear diff, which can vary torque between a pair of wheels depending on the amount of grip each wheel has.
On the other hand, Performance Control is a marketing term for eLSD which is just a standard open diff system using ESP/ABS sensors & braking to manipulate torque distribution between the pair of wheels.
Btw, Performance Control can be retrofitted according to the latest BMW ETK.

[mole7374]

Originally Posted by clarence

Basically, all these marketing terms (i.e. BMW's Torque Vectoring, Audi's Sport Differential, Mitsubishi's Active Yaw Control etc) point to an electronically controlled rear diff, which can vary torque between a pair of wheels depending on the amount of grip each wheel has.
On the other hand, Performance Control is a marketing term for eLSD which is just a standard open diff system using ESP/ABS sensors & braking to manipulate torque distribution between the pair of wheels.
Btw, Performance Control can be retrofitted according to the latest BMW ETK.

Yes but that's over simplifying a bit....Although electronics plays a bit role in how the power etc gets "sensed" (ie sensors) that's not a full view of the entire system...Example...see exactly how the STI works per the below:

The STI uses an electronically managed multi-plate transfer clutch and a mechanical limited-slip differential in conjunction with a planetary-gear-type center differential to control power distribution between the front and rear wheels. Featuring manual and three automatic modes, DCCD is normally configured at a 41/59 split front to rear. Sensors monitor parameters such as wheel slippage, steering angle, throttle position, and braking to help determine torque distribution and direct it to the wheels with optimum traction. DCCD also features a limited-slip helical front and Torsen rear differential.

So just saying electronically controlled rear dif is not telling the whole story...everything is electronically controlled (meaning directed...meaning the electronics tell the mechanics where to send power) But unlike a lot of systems that just have electronics do most of it's functions (actual power distrubtion) to the wheels, the above STI example shows that after the electronics identifies where to send the power, the mechanics actually control the output to the wheel. Man we're way in the weeds here...good stuff.

[Nahoa]

You're blowing marketing smoke, friend. In the weeds? Not even close. If you like the other systems, great. Enjoy them. But give it a rest regarding telling folks how these systems work when you haven't a clue.

[mole7374]

Originally Posted by Nahoa

You're blowing marketing smoke, friend. In the weeds? Not even close. If you like the other systems, great. Enjoy them. But give it a rest regarding telling folks how these systems work when you haven't a clue.

uh ok...not sure what you mean exactly but ok.....I just grabbed a paragraph from Subaru's site so that wasn't even all my thoughts really...so I'm sure thats correct. But at any rate not the point here..I was just adding some additional content not looking to drop any fudd out there...so not sure why i'm getting attacked but ok... And for the record I love and enjoy x-drive very much...more so than most others!

[Nahoa]

Yeah, don"t copy marketing language and toss it out as engineering details. If all you're doing is reading the Subaru web page, you should probably lighten up on telling people how BMW and Subaru systems differ in design and performance.

[mole7374]

Originally Posted by Nahoa

Yeah, don"t copy marketing language and toss it out as engineering details. If all you're doing is reading the Subaru web page, you should probably lighten up on telling people how BMW and Subaru systems differ in design and performance.

Wow dude relax....why so hostile...man I'm not preaching to anyone (ie the need to lighten up) or just throwing around other people's content as mine... it was just the quickest and easiest place to go for a brief explanation..thats it. Am I an expert...no way...was the point to just throw out what I do know for the beterment of others..yea that was intent, but obviously taken the wrong way by you so sorry if that's the case.

not sure if something is coming off the wrong way but sorry if it is...not meant to. Obviously a thread that isn't going in the right direction so next topic I guess.

[Nahoa]

Hey, well, others might value the smoke you blow but not me. Relax yourself, elsewhere.

[clarence]

Originally Posted by mole7374

Yes but that's over simplifying a bit....

That's what I'm trying to do. Most of us are not automotive engineers or designers & what's important to most of us are their basic principles of operation.
Multiplate clutches or not, it's just a matter of whether the sensors operate an electronic diff or the brake on the inside wheel.
Please note that I'm only talking about the rear diff section of the 4wd system, cos if we introduce the centre diff (& front diff in rare cases) into the equation then things may get complicated if we only use words to express their inner workings.

[mole7374]

Originally Posted by clarence

That's what I'm trying to do. Most of us are not automotive engineers or designers & what's important to most of us are their basic principles of operation.
Multiplate clutches or not, it's just a matter of whether the sensors operate an electronic diff or the brake on the inside wheel.
Please note that I'm only talking about the rear diff section of the 4wd system, cos if we introduce the centre diff (& front diff in rare cases) into the equation then things may get complicated if we only use words to express their inner workings.

Gotcha and agree...
I've always loved reading (and continually leanring) on this topic, and for anyone who is interrested I do have a few really good links & summary docs I've saved from referenced type sources/sites that go and break this stuff down very well...fun reads. I'll be happy to share just PM me as I'll avoid posting anything else here and risk offending...but certainly happy to share. Thanks!