Device leaves thieves no means of direction

Press, 2 June 1989, Page 30

Device leaves thieves no means of direction

Frankly, I have not had much faith in car locks and the legions of antitheft devices that car accessory retailers offer car owners, because some years ago I inadvertently locked family and self out of our car on an outing to a city reserve.

However, fortunately help was almost instantaneously at hand, for while I was wondering what to do, two kind but suspiciously resourceful young men opened the car in a trice. In fact, the volunteer helpers went whistling on their way before I could thank them. As we drove northwards to Sunday tea reflecting upon my good fortune (in those days it used to cost me $l4 to have the agent from whom I had bought the car send a mechanic along to open it for me after I had accidentally locked myself out of it) I came to the conclusion that our saviours were probably less than honest young men who had directed their somewhat questionable talents to helping a motorist in distress in expiation for their questionable weekday activities.

Their ability to enter a locked car was such that I imagined that they would be capable of dealing with anti-theft devices — electronic or mechanical — just as effectively.

It seemed to me that the only way in which a car owner could immobilise a car so as to make it theft-proof was to remove an integral part from it of such a size that a theft could not conceal it about his/her person or that an owner could carry away without physical, or social embarrassment.

Thus, I was interested to read the other day that Grant Products, of America has come up with a disarmingly simple anti-theft device which is being introduced in this country by the Aucklandbased Autex industries, Ltd.

As everyone knows, a car cannot be driven without a steering wheel, at

BEHIND THE WHEEL

Peter Greenslade

least in the normal course of events. So the Grant Products people have come up with a steering wheel which can be fitted by anyone using conventional tools and who has absolutely no electrical knowledge. A primary mechanical lock, similar to that used by N.A.S.A. for rocket stage locks, is employed to keep the steering wheel safely attached when driving.

When the vehicle is parked, the wheel may be simply unlocked from the column and either removed from the car or simply stowed in the locked luggage boot. The wheel is replaced by a special Grant cap that locks over the top of the steering column to prevent any other wheel from being fitted. There is no damage to the steering system and the wheel can be refitted in seconds by the owner on returning to the car. “It is a highly visible anti-theft deterrent, because any would-be thief could see that the car was impossible to drive away just by looking in the window,” said Bill Hughes, general manager of the Autex automotive division. This device seems to be fundamentally sound, but before offering a conclusive opinion I would like to obtain the views of my two young helpers in that city reserve on a Sunday afternoon some years ago.

And talking about car thefts, it seems worth mentioning that 26,000 vehicles worth more than $129 million were stolen in 1987 and a fifth of them have yet to be recovered.

I guess any anti-theft device capable of lowering that total is of material value.

Although the West German Audi manufacturer more or less pioneered four-wheel-drive production cars, I was interested to hear Trevor Hudson, managing director of European Motor Distributors, forecast last week that four-wheel drive will feature on a much more

significant number of cars by next year. He acknowledged that the Japanese motor industry had advanced the four-wheel-drive cause. Thus it was a coincidence that, when I returned from the Audi launch in Auckland, among my correspondence was a press release from Orly Motors, Ltd, New Zealand’s Peugeot handler, announcing that all-wheel-drive Peugeot 405 s will become available here next year and that they have just been unveiled in Europe. Orly’s captain, John Wood, told me earlier this year that a four-wheel drive 405 was in the pipeline, but I didn’t think it

would show up for at least a couple of years. Peugeot has embraced four-wheel drive in quite a big way, it appears. Two types are being offered. There is an “all weather” system on the GR x 4 and SR x 4 models and a “high performance roadster” system on the 405 Mil 6 x 4. The difference between the two us that with the "all weather” system the driver must manually lock the central and rear differential to obtain optimum traction when road conditions are poor, such as in mud, snow or ice.

The Mil 6 x 4 system, on the other hand, automatically maintains maximum

traction under any conditions.

A fluid coupling, in parallel with the centre differential, automatically splits the torque optimally between front and rear axles and a Torsen (torque-sensing) mechanism in the rear differential then splits this torque between the rear wheels to match the adhesion of each. On the GR and SR four-wheel-drive Peugeots, there is controlled locking of the front and rear differentials.

Interestingly, the Mil 6 x 4, like the Audi Quattro, has standard anti-lock brakes. This is an optional feature on the lesser versions.

I have got a feeling in my bones that we are going to hear a lot more about A.B.S. (anti-lock brakes) and Torsen differentials as four-wheel-drive gains more prominence.

A.B.S. has, of course, been around for quite a time, but it has not gained widespread public acceptability because of price and has been generally offered as optional equipment on a select few European high performance luxury cars. It is probably because the Torsen differential is of American origin that it has not achieved as much popularity as it deserves in this part of the world. The point is that whereas American cars and automotive products generally were once the lifeblood of the local motor business the Japanese now dominate the scene, although the Europeans have also stuck their oar in a bit deeper lately, and automotively, at least, the American’s are the “lost race.”

The Torsen is the brainchild of Vernron Gleasman from Cleveland, Ohio, an inventor and mechanical engineer who holds more than 100 patents.

Gleasman realised that in all previous attempts to improve wheel traction —

standard bevel gear differerentials, limited slips and lockers — the gear complex was designed to lock on to one side while sacrificing the other.

The standard differential delivers all the input power to the terrain side, then loses the engine side out to the spinning wheel when one wheel encounters a slippery surface.

Limited slips offers additional tractions, but they have to “clutch out” the terraine side to lock in the engine. The third type, lockers, completely sacrifice terrain changes to maintain engine power. Gleasman pointed himself in the right direction by putting the forces in the opposite side of the gear complex. In other words, his objective was to lock on to the engine side to maintain engine torque at all times. A gear complex that would be flexible on the terrain side would allow the differential to maintain power on both sides of an axle, while turning, without allowing one wheel to spin.

Basically Gleasman came to the conclusion, from long years of experience, that a worm gear and wheel were required. This is unlike more conventional circular gears that can rotate each other and that is why winches, in which the gear turns the wheel of the drum but the drum’s worm wheel can’t turn the gear, and the cables on cranes and hoist’s can’t unwind.

The fly in the ointment that acted as a deterrent towards Gleasman’s practical development of his idea was that virtually every aspect of his new gear technology involved ideas that did not exist in traditional engineering handbooks.

For example, engineering handbooks cautioned that with less than 14 teeth on a gear, severe undercutting results, No gear-cutting machinery existed that could cut the gears Gleasman had designed so he bought cutting machines and re-

designed them and the hob to cut gears to his requirements.

The differential’s first patent was granted in 1958 and Gleasman started manufacturing it as a sideline. It was originally manufactured on a more business-like basis by Tripe-D Inc., of Cleveland, and was sold as an aftermarket accessory during the 1970 s to owners of Toyota Landcruisers, pick-ups, Chevrolet Blazers, Ford Broncos, other four-wheel-drives and racing cars. Its success prompted Gleasman to go to the Rochester, New Yorkbased Gleason Works in 1982. Gleason is the world’s leading authority on the engineering and manufacturing of ring, pinion and bevel gears used in differentials. Its machine cut 90 per cent of the bevel gears using by the world’s carmakers. It is said that the Torsen system is easy to maintain, requiring only occasional gear-oil changes. However, if repairs are required, they have to be undertaken at the Gleason works in Rochester, not that much can go wrong, because it has only eight moving parts!

On a dollar-for-dollar basis, a Torsen differential probably provides a greater traction improvement than any other market accessory.

Because its torque bias provides 200 per cent more traction than the best limited-slip differentials, it will do more for traction than larger tyres, extra horsepower or highlift suspension kits.

Famous people such as Mario Andretti, the American racing driver and Indianapolis 500 race winner, and film actor and racing driver, Paul Newman, have employed the Torsen differential with outstanding success and there is a strong, but unconfirmed, rumour that it is also used in the McLaren Formula One cars raced by Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost.