Soviet,
Please don't take any of the following in the wrong way, but I do think you have your wires crossed a little here.
Your spot on that lower CofG is beneficial, but rarely at the expense of increased unsprung mass for several reasons. Also in this circumstance I think that the relative reduction in CofG height would be almost immeasureable.
A reduction of total vehicle mass will aid direction change. However, there is no sense in trying to reduce the sprung mass by increasing the unsprung mass in any circumstance, be it 1/10 scale or real cars.
Second to that we are usually running to a minimum weight limit and so we are stuck with a total mass for the vehicle.
Unsprung weight is a term used to describe the parts of any vehicles mass that is directly connected to the wheels and therfore isolated to the chassis (sprung mass) through the suspension. So wheels, tyres, wishbones, uprights, wheel bearings etc are all unsprung mass. The spring is the only exception to this as it is part spung, part unsprung.
As unspung mass increases, greater inertia builds in the suspension system, SLOWING DOWN its ability to respond to fast direction changes and degrading traction due to the reduced ability of the suspension to control the minute and high pitched occilations you see on the tyre surface contact patch with the road.
All in all, light unspung mass is definately No1. Formula 1 teams do not spend hundeds of thousands of $ manufacturing light weight carbon fiber wishbones and exotic alloy uprights when the car is already 75kgs underweight for no reason.
If you gain 0.1 - 0.3 seconds a lap by turning your shocks upside down, i'd like to fly to the US and marry you!
Last edited by Spud_J; 05-11-2005 at 06:34 AM.