[Wil Ferch]

Since I may have inadvertantly offended bkreigsr or others....let me at least describe a Cliff's note version of this whole mess. ( although it ends up a bit long...can't help that).

Our cars have the major mass components located within certain areas of the car...and this means the "two-adjacent-wheel" total weight (rule) will always be the same. For example, our cars are typically 40/60 front to rear weight distribution, and no amount of weight jacking or corner balancing will alter that.

Let's use a test case....

original weights
LF 550 RF 530
LR 830 RR 860

total weight is 2770. fr/rr balance is 39%/61%

Lets "jack-in" some weight on the RF corner..and "add" (say) 20 lbs. Notice, we're not really adding mass like a brick of lead, we're simply ( for example) raising the RF corner height so it will "press" down more on that corner by 20 lbs.

What happens? This happens ---> the RF will add 20 lbs but so will the opposite diagonal. Let's do the math.....remembering that ANY TWO ADJACENT wheels must add up to the same amount.

New numbers
LF 530 RF 550
LR 850 RR 840

Notice that the RF went up 20 lbs ( original intent) and that its diagonal... the LR.... went up 20 lbs from before, too. The TOTAL front weight of the car must remain unchanged, so to get the same FRONT TOTAL of 1080 ( as before)...then the LF must compensate by coming down 20 lbs. However, remember that whatever happens on one corner also happens on * its * diagonal. So, if the LF compensated by going down 20 lbs...so did the RR. It also went down 20 lbs.

So...what do we have? Same total weight ( 2770 lbs). Same front weight ( 1080 lbs). Same rear weight ( 1690 lbs). Same fr/rr distribution ( 39/61). Also, same total left-to-right distribution. Etc. BUT..... each CORNER is now carrying a different weight.

So ...we can see what a diabolical tail-chasing game this all becomes !

If this result is undesired and too big of a change, then maybe what we wanted was only to add 10 lbs (to start) on the RF...instead of 20 lbs...and we do the whole thing over again. In this case, the new numbers are--->

LF 540 RF 540
LR 840 RR 850

These seem to be "better" corner balance numbers..as the four corners are each carrying a more equal weight compared to their sideways-neighbor than before. But...we're still not done...here's where I had the epiphany in my dialogue with Randy Blaylock in the other thread.

Bear with me on this --->

The "pure" idea of corner weighting is to apportion each corner of the car with the weight it SHOULD have...based on where the heavy masses are located. If the steering hardware and battery (in the LF fender) make the LF a bit heavier altogether...then the "ideal" corner balance would be if the LF actually...in fact...carried a bit more weight than thr RF. These are not symmetrical Formula 1 cars, the weights are in odd places...so the "ideal" is not to have each corner carry the equall weight of its sideways-neighbor.

OK...that was my argument in the Blaylock thread and it's still valid. HOWEVER....from a PRACTICAL point of view.....what happens under heavy braking is more important than if the car turns-right or turns-left the same way ( if perfectly corner balanced).

So.....although most 911's *should* have a slight LF weight bias...if you ( instead), purposely "weight-jack" the car to show IDENTICAL front left and right weights.....the car will NOT be perfectly corner-balanced...but it would NOT tend to lock up one wheel under heavy braking. Negatives?..Yes !....you've now introduced a "weight jacking" to the car ( the corners are NOT apportioned their appropriate weight; perfect corner balancing is now compromised)...and the car will behave slightly different in left-to-to-right turns ( the whole point of corner-balancing). BUT...the trade-off for better braking is usually a better deal than trying to achieve "perfect" corner balance...since one-wheel locking of brakes is more of a problem than how much steering angle you dial in for that perfect corner balance....


Makes sense ..????

Easy peesy stuff...eh ??