[03whitegsr]

While I do agree with your general sentiment, there is a strong argument that the "balance" might not be as conservative as many believe.

For example, natural frequency. 2.0-2.5Hz up front and ~10% higher in the back is a pretty well backed number to shot for by every suspension engineering book out there. However, in types of racing that have very high transition rates (autoX), most of the guys winning are actually higher than this range. This is also ignoring cars with heavy aero work that can generate considerable down force but that can be very pitch or roll sensitive.
There is a reason for it too and while the softer suspension might be ideal, depending on the car, going to a higher spring rate (natural frequency) might allow you to lower the car further before you have issues with the tire running into things. Ultimately, it's the tire here driving this as well because if you are taking this approach, you have also likely tried to stuff as much tire as physically possible under the car. You can only do so much within the rule set to fit a wide tire on a production based car, so often upping the spring rate lets you get away with a little extra meat under the car without having to raise it up.

I'm also not sure why you say a lower car ends up with all the weight on the outside 2 tires when that is also true with a higher car. At the theoretical limit, all of the weight is on the outside 2 tires due to the center of gravity being above the roll center. For a production based car, that's the reality, the center of gravity will (and should be) above the roll center. The difference between a lower car and a higher car here though is the lateral load that is required to put all that weight on the outside tires. A lower car, at the same lateral acceleration rate will actually distribute the weight more evenly and will not transfer all weight to the outside tires until a higher lateral acceleration rate.

Bump travel is often where an overly lowered car really has problems. The car might only have 1 to 1-1/2” of bump travel before slamming into a hard suspension travel limit. In this case, absolutely, the car is too low. But the alternative here is to shorten the shock bodies so you get that travel you need. Then after that, you likely run into the tire running into things. It’s one thing after another...

However, I will take a lower stiffer car that has adequate bump travel and poor roll center height (but corrected bumpsteer) over a higher car with an “ideal” roll center height. Getting that adequate bump travel is the key though and where it becomes difficult on a production car. Thus, there are definitely limits to what works. It is just my opinion though that roll center height should not be the number 1 concern here.
1. Adequate bump travel
2. Proper steering geometry (bumpsteer)
3. Maximize tire grip
4. Lower Center of Gravity
5. Proper roll center and suspension geometry


Wheel width and stretch is all about the tire used. Some tires simply do better with some stretch. The R-S3 for example has a soft side wall that kills steering feel. Put it on a wide wheel (top of the recommended wheel width or just slightly more) and the tire actually gets to be very responsive without having to raise tire pressure way up. Other tires however perform better on a wheel that sits in the middle of the recommended range. It all depends on the tire.

As for beating guys on overly lowered cars, the reality is, it's probably driver ability more then anything else. I see guys with stock EVOs nearly taking FTD against national champions at local autox events. A decent car (in autox) can do very well when put in the hands of a great driver against even a great car in the hands of another good driver. The car often in this case is a secondary item in determining who wins.