Just giving a simple lesson in pertinent geometry.Stan Pope wrote:Without arguing all the details, I don't see this "aligned" definition transferring to PWD cars. You are defining almost, but not quite, best target states for camber and weight distribution.
Are you stating that "dead-on" (and I guess this to mean all angles 0 and squared) is the superior choice?Stan Pope wrote: My observations indicate significant friction and tracking superiority when alignment is "dead-on", and significant time advantage when weight distribution matches track's geometry but stays just within the wheel's traction limits ("death rattle" avoidance).
Even though I no longer have children who race (they are both in a troop now), giving out inclusive advice is not something I usually do. Merely I will try to explain to someone what he or she can accomplish, how it will make their experience better and send them on their way. This way they live it for their self.Stan Pope wrote: However, I am happy for my opponents to follow your direction to the letter, so I won't argue vehemently.
And on another note: when we were building cars to race, for one year for each boy (they are 2 years apart) I made sure that every possible details was covered. On those years they not only won every race at every level, but the wins were quite decisive. I'm talking to the tune of car lengths. And quite honestly for myself it was embarrassing.