Originally Posted by
400units
I disagree with your premise. Why do you suggest that reducing roll too much causes traction rolling? The physics should be the same regardless of the surface type. Less roll= less weight transfer= less traction, not less roll to a certain point and then massive traction kicks in.
I think your combining roll center, camber link position, and camber gain, the length of the camber link. However, if we take your example, it sounds like your assuming the camber at corner entry is at 0 and at the apex it reaches a +4. That scenario might work on a very high grip surface where you need to "reduce traction" in the corner to allow the car to rotate or prevent traction rolling. In most off road scenarios, the car is set up with a negative camber, less traction, and as the car transfers weight in the corner the camber gets closer to zero, or the greatest amount of traction.
In my view weight transfer doesn't depend on roll or springs. Physics say that weight transfer occurs from cornering forces applied at the center of gravity and only track width and ride height affect weight transfer. The springs can't add or remove any forces to the tires since the downforce can't exceed the weight of the car.
Now if you study the roll resistance of the front versus rear that is where you can see how traction moves around. The softer end gets the most traction because more of the weight is distributed to each tire versus the stiff end which may have one wheel off the ground in extreme cases.
This may differ than conventional tuning wisdom, but this is the basics. More complex discussions can involve camber and tire issues, but in my view its important to take a step back and understand the basics. If your car is rolling, lower the ride height, add aero forces, increase track width, reduce traction, or slow down.