ballast

[STIG_RS6]

which way is which?
is - front and + rear? It's not made very clear.

 

[xX_F Alonso_Xx]

Yes - is front and + is rear.

 

[TeddyBear-420]

what if its up/down not front/rear... seriously.

 

[budious]

It is front to rear. -50 is front axle, +50 is rear axle. Calculate how you want to distribute rate on a scale of 0.00 (-50) to 1.00 (+50) so 0.62 (62%) weight on rear from ballast would be position +12.

Ballast 100KG @ +12
Front: 100KG x 0.38 = 38KG
Rear: 100KG x 0.62 = 62KG

 

[skylinefx]

If you look at the picture and the position of the +/-, its pretty clear...

 

[freedomweasel]

what if its up/down not front/rear... seriously.

It's not... seriously. Look at the picture. Why on earth would you want to add weight to the roof anyway?

 

[ElSecundo]

It's not... seriously. Look at the picture.

Agreed.

Why on earth would you want to add weight to the roof anyway?

Weight transfer, roll center, that kind of thing. The common misconception is that a lower center of mass is always better, but that's not always the case. Coupled to that misconception is the other misconception that setting the rear tires farther apart is always better, and it isn't. The height of the center of mass and the car's track width go hand-in-hand.

If you took a car with perfect handling, and then set the rear track width wider, the handling would get worse (it would have more tendency to slide). To counter the loss of grip due to the wider track width, you'd either have to switch to grippier tires, or raise the center of mass.

 

[freight48]

In which case does it make sense to put 200kg on the roof?

 

[freedomweasel]

Agreed.


Weight transfer, roll center, that kind of thing. The common misconception is that a lower center of mass is always better, but that's not always the case. Coupled to that misconception is the other misconception that setting the rear tires farther apart is always better, and it isn't. The height of the center of mass and the car's track width go hand-in-hand.

If you took a car with perfect handling, and then set the rear track width wider, the handling would get worse (it would have more tendency to slide). To counter the loss of grip due to the wider track width, you'd either have to switch to grippier tires, or raise the center of mass.

Not saying you're wrong, but I've never heard of anyone raising the center of gravity to improve handling. I'm aware that lower center of gravity doesn't automatically equal "better", but I'm not sure how higher would ever be better. The reason why vans and SUVs roll is because the high COG.

Could you supply a source or specific example?