Originally Posted by
HarryLeach
Actually, it's sprung weight.
The benefit in regards to mass of a lightweight body is a lower CG, it's still mounted to the chassis, which is carried by the springs, so there's a reduction in
sprung weight, not a reduction in
unsprung weight.
The usual bench mark for a rubber tire on flat pavement in regards to G's pulled around a corner without aerodynamic aid is 1.3G. A formula one car generating 2.5 times the physical weight of the car aerodynamically will briefly touch 3.5 G.
Without a physical measurement, I would doubt a TC is pulling more than 2 G [on the high side] with a GBS body. Even with that, your logic is still flawed, as the major benefit is still from a lower CG, which would allow for more efficient cornering on a properly set-up car.
I agree with this.
Properly supported, the LW bodies to seem to hold up better, as long as any contact doesn't result in ripping the body, such as sharp track barrier corners, nails/screw heads, etc.
Tou sound like a serious know-it-all.
Formula one cars do touch 5g regularly:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...e-G-force.html 
Your right is that it it is sprung weight, but as there is so much flex within the shell and body posts, this is questionable.........it is not like it is a carbon shell fixed to the chassis with carbon posts, it is a flexible lexan held on with plastic posts. You try moving the shell from left to right with your hand and tell me it is 100% supported.
I did clearly state that the weight it replaced lower down on the chassis, lowering the cog.....not sure why you disagreed with this?
People share there opinions on here, some right, some wrong, but man, you side like a school teacher!!
