Quote:
Originally Posted by bradleyland
Having seen swamp2's contributions in other threads, I'm nearly positive that was just a transpositional error. He meant 60-rear, 40-front distribution.
|
Yes, thanks, I could have and should have been more clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330
While 60/40 might be significantly better, do we have some independent confirmation of that?
|
40F:60R, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Year's_End
This creates a lighter nose with sharper turn-in, aids rear wheel traction during acceleration, and creates a more even load distribution under braking.
|
Bingo all three are important factors. This is why generally speaking the higher performance and more track oriented a car is, the more rear weight bias it will have compared to 50-50. F1 is not the best example since they develop absurd aero downforce, but they too must handle at low speed without crazy downforce. They too have a significant rear weight bias. Sure, you can always find cars that handle well with 50-50 or even a slight front bias but they are fighting the physics...