[Randy Blaylock]

Wil,

I don't follow the logic that having an objective of nearly equal front corner weights is congruous with a left/right balance.

Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post, you define side to side balance or equity as a sum of front and rear weights, compared to each other.

These are two separate states. I have already articulated that I am willing to accept a RR bias as part of a compromise package that includes the objective of even front weights and diagonals. I target nearly equal front weights for a specific reason that I also articulated, not related to the objective of equal side to side, front and rear sum equality.

I also articulated that there is a compromise between my two objectives of equal front weights and diagonal equity. The inherent flexibility in a production chassis helps mitigate the margin of error of this compromise. It's a matter of opinion, I guess, about the priority of objectives, I happen to see these two things at the top of the list.

Any chassis with weight jacked into it diagonally will handle differently in right turns versus left turns. The degree is dependant upon chassis stiffness and resistance to torsional bending of course, so naturally a production chassis will not exhibit the tendency as much as say a late model stock car or F1 car. A chassis with a LF/RR bias will almost always turn left better, and the same is true for a RF/LR bias.

I agree with your point about sway bars, of course the bars were adjustable and subject to attachment without preload after balancing.