I'm no expert, just hear to learn, so take it as you will, but here are some thoughts based on what I've gathered so far.
Originally Posted by
fredswain
The further rearward the center of gravity, the easier it is to turn the car. You've got tons of leverage over the bulk of the weight. Moving weight backwards favors oversteer while moving weight forwards favors understeer. Heresy! You're an idiot! Stop spreading such lies!!! I know it sounds strange so hear me out.
This reminded me of a rickshaw, with all the weight over the rear wheels making it easier for someone to pull. Also, if you've ever driven a Ford Bronco, to me, when turning, they always seemed to pivot around the rear wheels, instead of somewhere towards the middle. Which imo made them a bit scary to drive, felt easy to tip over, in a 3wheeler sort of way, and too sensitive to steering input or twitchy.
Originally Posted by
fredswain
I know when people complain that they don't have enough steering or front end grip the usual advice is to add weight up front, shifting the cg forwards. The importance in this isn't in the fact that there is more weight up front but rather what is happening with the effective roll stiffness. I've found with 2wd buggies that when a balanced spring rate is used, the car will have a high tendency to oversteer under braking while understeering under corner exit acceleration. I believe some of this has to do with the excessively high amount of front end rake run on 2wd cars which has also led me to believe that we really don't need much of it.
Would agree here, the rake promotes front end dive, opposite of anti-squat. One concern would be lowering it, with the inherent lightness of the 2wd, it might bring up issues with approaching bumps and jumps. With out the added weight, like in a 4wd, and the decreased angle on the suspension, it could have more of a jarring effect. Basically the side effect, less dive, vs ability to handle bumps would be my concern.
Originally Posted by
fredswain
So then you may gather that since we have wheels all the way out as far as legally possible, the best option is to run a near 50/50 weight balance. That may be fine for a 4wd car but on a 2wd we need weight on the rear wheels for traction. This is a problem for mid motor cars and the reason why many mid motor 2wd cars don't hook up well on slippery tracks. Also, if a true 50/50 balance were achieved, I'd personally argue in favor of all 4 tires being the same size rather than narrower up front.
Not sure the as wide front would be needed. Since the front tire is only dealing with turning. The rear tire is dealing with side grip and forward grip. A tire only has so much grip, the rear tire has more traction needs, than the front, during acceleration while turning at least. Toss in more unsprung weight, and rolling resistance, and I would think the compromise would outweigh the gain. In 4wd its a bit flipped on this perhaps, has more to do with the front needing less steering traction, since they are driven wheels compounded with the added weight over them?
Thanks again for this thread, it's been very interesting and informative.