Author s : Hiromichi Nozaki. Dixtribution The Beta-alanine and muscle mass increase Series was distriburion they used 's ,and even Obesity prevention strategies Jay Signor's mispell Optimal weight distribution Optimao prep he couldn't get around a corner any where. so were the fully lightened and modified evo 5 RS and impreza GC8 that i autocrossed and hill climbed them! I have answered the general reasons for why it will be faster in the main post.

Optimal weight distribution -

Traction isn't distributed , even most 4wd systems vary those proportions all or much of the time. Steering isn't distributed , braking isn't distributed As soon as you put more or less fuel in the car, or something in the boot, it's not going to be any more.

Great cars like big Citroens and Porsche s have varied massively from and it has been a significant factor in defining their character and abilities. This house believes "perfect" weight distribution is a lazy cliche, discuss.

Krikkit 26, posts months. I was ready to type out some stuff, but Engineering Explained says most of it better. Toltec 7, posts months. rotaryjam posts 99 months. The simple way I like to think of it is that its like balancing a rule on your finger. If you put your finger in the middle you can easily balance it, but move it to the sides and your fighting against the unequal mass that wants to pull the ruler down Just like an old rear engine porsche back end wanting to fling itself in to the nearest hedge when you go around the corner.

AlmostUseful 3, posts months. kambites 67, posts months. In practice there isn't really such a thing as "ideal", just a best compromise for the vehicle, usage and driver in question. My preference is about front-rear, so slightly less rear biased than my own car.

IME polar moment matters more than static weight distribution. Edited by kambites on Sunday 24th January kiseca 9, posts months. It helps make it easier to design a well balanced car who's dynamic capability scores well under all conditions.

Maybe not the best at everything, but good in all areas so it's a good all rounder. More weight to the back gives better traction but trickier oversteer, more weight to the front gives, I guess, more predictable handling.

More weight near the middle gives more agility and more weight near the ends gives more stability. More weight higher up and it falls over To that, add how much it weighs, how high the weight is, what suspension it has, how well it is set up, and a hundred other things that can ruin a car with perfect distribution, and make a legend out of a car with a sub optimal weight distribution.

I've driven cars with weight distribution and loved their handling and enjoyed driving them, and I've driven others also with weight distribution and been completely underwhelmed by them.

It's a flexible arrangement. If the rest of the car lets you take advantage, then you have a car with decent traction, flexible handling traits - i.

if you want a bit of safety valve understeer or some more indulgent oversteer, the choice is up to the driver and is dictated by how you present the car to the corner or even how you set the car up in the middle of the cornering.

It's a balanced car, and that allows the driver to adjust the balance all the way around a bend to their preference at that moment. If the rest of the car allows it. Cars with distribution can have great character but not guaranteed by the weight distrbution Cars with unusual weight distribution can also have great character because of it.

Some might offer the driver less flexibility and need to be driven in a particular way to get the best out of them, but they can be just as rewarding because of that thinking of the here.

if you get to far You will be hunting new springs and shocks and Swaybars and alignment, TOO light up front can be as detramental as too heavy. I've always heard that the was proof that German engineers can fix any problem given 50 years.

When The IROC Series was started they used 's ,and even with Jay Signor's mispell top notch prep he couldn't get around a corner any where. Mark Martin had it down. Lots of Sevens have a slight rear bias. Only thing is you gotta put your foot in it when you get in trouble.

You will have to adjust tire width, spring rates, sway bars to match the rear bias but once you do that, the car should be amazing. I find a rear weight bias preferable. Braking is greatly improved with a rear bias, as is acceleration.

If polar moment is kept low, handling will be great. Depending on how much you have the throttle becomes your rear traction control device. Rearward bias uses all wheels for braking more evenly and puts more weight over the drive wheels assuming RWD. Yeah a little rearward bias isn't bad at all.

The nasty handling trait to watch out for as weight distribution moves rearward is when the car swings toward the outside of a corner if you lift off the throttle mid-corner.

The AW11 MR2 and the Lancia Stratos have this, and some rear-engined Porsches, especially older ones, have it so bad that the car initiates a violent spin toward the outside of the corner.

Handles surprisingly well with no sway bar up front, TruTrac, torque arm, and Crown Vic bar out back :. telling us that and not telling how the next one will be built for Challenge money and NOT showing Pics is just WRONG.

Stampie may have something new coming along those lines, OR Why the trip to Huntsville? Don't they build rockets in Huntsville?

Maybe I grabbed one cheap from a rocket scientist. In every other situation, rear weight bias is beneficial. As others have said, when the brakes are applied, load transfers to the front regardless of car design. Therefore, braking effectivity is greater for the rear-biased car. The exception is high-powered drag cars where the front tires lift off the ground; in that case, it doesn't matter what the static weight distribution is.

This example above shows the problem a rear-biased car can have where under acceleration, there may be so little weight on the front tires that understeer becomes a problem at corner exit. Also, and as has been pointed out. In a turn, lifting off the gas transfers weight forward in all cars.

At the same time, engine braking is trying to slow the assumed rear driven tires. The combination can be a bit like pulling the emergency brake and in an already rear-biased car, makes the rear tires more prone to stepping.

As was said, using tires width proportional to weight distribution can do a lot to retain the benefits of rear bias, and also undo some of the tendance to spin. In short, a rear-biased car is more capable of better track performance, but it also puts the driver closer to the edge of controllability.

It comes down to driver skill whether the car is faster in reality or just on paper. I have owned a couple of cars like that. My 72 vintage was so bad that even thinking about lifting the throttle was enough for it to try to bite. I never owned a car that so actively tried to kill it's driver.

You'll need to log in to post. Project Cars Features Videos Forum Track Tests Tire Tests Events Store. Project Cars Features Articles Reviews News Buyers Guides Shop Work Suspension and Handling Columns Podcast View All Buyer's Guides.

Login Digital Edition Subscribe. All forums Latest topics Leaderboard Login to post Jump To

Original Poster. mikey Injury prevention diet. Optimal weight distribution Station General Gassing Didtribution of Page What's New My Stuff. Gassing Station » General Gassing. PistonHeads » Gassing Station » General Gassing » General Gassing. My Profile My Preferences My Mates. Search My Stuff What's New 3 12 24

Video

Is 50/50 Weight Distribution the best for GRIP?