[Randy Blaylock]

You want to set up the car as it will run, including assuming a certain fuel load. Of course you want to do the corner balance with the driver, and ideally this means you will even do the alignment with the actual driver or a representative weight. Even representative weights are compromised however because of the way a body spreads it's weight out. One exception is if a person will always have a passenger, then sometimes it's better to scale without a driver or representative ballast.

The thing is though, most production car chassis are so flexible that the margin of error is quite large. Tube frame fabricated race cars are an entirely different beast, where chasing a few pounds or percentage points in cross will actually be discernable in balance.

FWIW, we did do the balance with Craig in the car, that's the principle reason the RR corner is heavy.

It's true that there are as many opinions about the scaling methods and objectives as there probably are about tires or brake pads. I just happen to feel that compromising the cross equity for even front weights has practical benefits in 911s in particular, with their static and dynamic weight distribution biases.

Many of the formulas don't account for the objective of trying to equalize the front weights to promote maximum braking capabilities. On the face of it, it would seem that a heavy RR would destabilize the chassis under acceleration, but the G sum that can be reached on the brakes will always be vastly higher than any acceleration the engine can produce.

Just my 2 cents.