Load Transfer Distribution
Do you guys run the data on this?
The idea is to load the tires so that you get the maximum total grip under varying cornering loads and especially at max cornering load, and flatten the LTD vs G's curves... The LTD % can be moved around from front to back and such with track width offsets, different tire size offsets, springs and wheel rate splits, shocks, ARB's, packers (rate and timing), roll center trim, camber, etc. Optimum-G focuses more on this than RC location/migration numbers, although that's part of it.
https://optimumg.com/our-seminars/ap...icle-dynamics/
Last edited by AZSP33D; Sep 4, 2025 at 01:46 AM. Reason: Added OptimumG reference.
I believe you need to have a car heavier in the rear.
After you have done all you can to do move weight to the rear, you may have to add weight to get there.
A car should be 50/50% side to side, loaded with driver, and approximately 52% on the rear.
When you have these numbers, this is your minimum weight.
Sometimes weight is needed in the right rear to get to your numbers.
In braking you will have a little more than 50% on the front. In acceleration you will have 54% on the rear.
I have people disagree with me.

And you are correct, these threads do not last long.
I’m not writing a textbook or teaching anyone here, just winging it with ideas I come up with as I type on my phone..
I wanted to study the subject more, but I didn’t want to go as far as attending the OptimumG seminars (I’m sure that’s very expensive too) Was looking to come up with something beyond the Milliken & Milliken RCVD text book standard that’s now over 30 years old (and probably outdated tire models). The emphasis on load transfer distribution may be the next level, as it integrates a lot of geometry and dynamic aspects into one focused idea.
An example may be when people looking at more caster for better performance with improving camber gain in roll without so much upsetting braking with excessive camber. By itself, it sounds like a great idea. But then how does that work with the rest of the geometry and so the direction may be if we’re looking at it from a load transfer distribution perspective… we would also consider overloading the front outside tire with a quick steering input before the chassis takes a set, or we can be introducing excessive twisting force into the chassis (big issue on earlier generations of Corvette prior to the with a more flexible chassis) which certainly influences load transfer issues… or adding to front roll center jacking issues, or heavy ARB jacking issues. Anyway, the point is we can get lost in theories, so the primary perspective is load transfer distribution that ties it all together in a very practical way.
While looking for additional reference on the subject, and came up with a book “The Science of Vehicle Dynamics: Handling Braking and Ride of Road and Race Cars.” By Massimo Giggiani… this guy is a professor on the subject and closely interacts with leading engineers, so I should certainly learn something. Ordered it but yet to receive it or read it.
Last edited by AZSP33D; Sep 4, 2025 at 01:46 AM. Reason: Added AMAZON link to the book and preview of index and introduction
Targets (front share of lateral load transfer) For fast CAM-S on 200TW, RWD, big power: Turn-in (0–0.4 g transient): 46–48% front – enough bite to point the car. Mid-corner (0.9–1.2 g steady): 40–44% front – keeps rear planted so you can pick throttle early. Power-on exit (≥0.8 g with throttle): 38–42% front – traction biased. You won’t “hold” one number through the whole corner; use springs/leaf twist and bump engagement to bias the curve this way, then use shocks to shape the transients. How much “geo %” to assume? Use 12–15% as your baseline when you’re doing paper calcs. If you raise RCs or run very small roll angles, the geometric fraction creeps up; if you soften the platform, it goes down. Where you are now (based on our runs) Springs: Kf=1004 (MR=0.55), Kr=620 (MR=0.95) Roll multipliers for C4 transverse leafs: try front 1.25–1.30, rear 1.20 Bumps: front bump stop active with no space With mF=1.25, mR=1.20 and geo 10–15%, you’ll sit roughly 41–43% front once the front bump is in—good mid/exit bias. You’ll want a little more front share right at turn-in. How to hit the targets (order of operations) Lock geometry (geo % baseline): keep RC ≈ 4"/3" (front/rear). That’s ~12–15% geometric on total LTD for this platform—don’t chase geo to tune balance unless you need a big swing. Set elastic (steady-state) split: Front leaf roll-mult: 1.25–1.30 Rear leaf roll-mult: 1.15–1.20 (you already moved to 1.20; good) This should put mid-corner front share in the low-40s% with 10–15% geo—right in the window. Use bumpstops to curve the balance vs travel: Front bump: keep it, 0–0.25" gap. Early engagement gives a small rise in front share = better turn-in without murdering traction. Rear bump: keep removed or, if you reinstall, run a 0.5–0.75" gap so it’s a late ramp only on big compressions. Early rear ramp drives the balance too rear-biased mid-corner. Shape transients with shocks (most important for autocross): Entry rotation: add rear rebound 1–2 clicks (holds rear down on weight transfer) or reduce front rebound a touch. That nudges turn-in toward 46–48% front momentarily. Mid/exit traction: back rear rebound off a click and/or add a touch of rear compression so the inside-rear comes down cleanly—keeps effective front share in the high-30s/low-40s under power. If it pushes on initial turn: +rear rebound or −front rebound. If it’s too loose mid-corner: −rear rebound or +front rebound. Fine *****: Tiny front bar (or +front roll-mult) if you still lack entry bite after shock tweaks. Tire pressures/temps: a quick way to move 1–2 points of balance without touching hardware. Front camber (you’re at −3.0°): don’t give this up; it buys front grip without jacking LTD.
Last edited by AZSP33D; Sep 6, 2025 at 05:54 PM.
another interesting thing about looking at dynamic load transfer distribution is that the ideal distribution changes from entry to mid to exit. Once we see/observe the data, changes can be made for the desired effect… for example by the use of linear rate foam bump stops and spacing at ride height (I use the 2.25” Integra Urethane for example. Nice feature of the urethane foam style bumpstops or packers is that they have a lot more force in compression than extension/rebound so the shocks are not so confused or conflicted on what spring rates they need to manage rebound.




I believe you need to have a car heavier in the rear.
After you have done all you can to do move weight to the rear, you may have to add weight to get there.
A car should be 50/50% side to side, loaded with driver, and approximately 52% on the rear.
When you have these numbers, this is your minimum weight.
Sometimes weight is needed in the right rear to get to your numbers.
In braking you will have a little more than 50% on the front. In acceleration you will have 54% on the rear.
I have people disagree with me.

And you are correct, these threads do not last long.
My '69 (without driver weight) is f/r 52%/48 % (1400#/1300#). Would I like the percentage to be just the opposite? Absolutely, but not at the penalty of carrying around 200# of ballast in the back of the car to get that ratio. Similarly, I'd love to have a 50/50 left/right weight distribution (I've moved the alternator and battery to the right side.), but I'm not willing to add weight to the right side and degrade cornering even further just for some numbers.
Weight is the enemy. I reduce it wherever I can, relocate what I can, and tune the suspension to work with the resulting balance/bias/ratio.
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts




another interesting thing about looking at dynamic load transfer distribution is that the ideal distribution changes from entry to mid to exit. Once we see/observe the data, changes can be made for the desired effect… for example by the use of linear rate foam bump stops and spacing at ride height (I use the 2.25” Integra Urethane for example. Nice feature of the urethane foam style bumpstops or packers is that they have a lot more force in compression than extension/rebound so the shocks are not so confused or conflicted on what spring rates they need to manage rebound.
My '69 (without driver weight) is f/r 52%/48 % (1400#/1300#). Would I like the percentage to be just the opposite? Absolutely, but not at the penalty of carrying around 200# of ballast in the back of the car to get that ratio. Similarly, I'd love to have a 50/50 left/right weight distribution (I've moved the alternator and battery to the right side.), but I'm not willing to add weight to the right side and degrade cornering even further just for some numbers.
Weight is the enemy. I reduce it wherever I can, relocate what I can, and tune the suspension to work with the resulting balance/bias/ratio.
to continue related discussions… Obviously in racing where there are (almost always) minimum weight rules, and if the car is underweight. But also see the performance of the very heavy Tesla 3 performance, with so much of the weight very low.
My car was always faster around the autocross course with a passenger, and the passenger seat is very near the rear axle.
I’ve had a front wheel autocrosser with a cross bar structure in front that ties the four LCA attach points together. Filled it with lead shot and the performance improvement was significant.
But I’m not referring to how the vehicle is loaded static, but more about load transfer distribution, the emphasis is on how the tire loads are transferred to maximize total grip. Not just a single number to say how much the tire is loaded, but also how the tire is loaded, shape of the pressure pattern, transient loading, things like that. The static load is just in two dimensions when it’s sitting on the scales, there’s so much more to it, like a third dimension of height and the transient effects, the moments of the components that make up the whole, there’s geometric loading, aero load, load per square inch of tire. one way to look at it is that performance only exists when the tires are loaded, and performance increases if the total load can be increased without overload. Look at the top fuel dragsters, the key to performance was that they had to figure out how to be able to load the tires significantly more to accelerate to 340mph in 3.7 seconds. Performance is really all about being able to load the tires.
I sent a note to the original poster on his questions and we had a good phone conversation on his examples.
I find it difficult to get the point across in a post.
I am Jim Mckamey in Portage IN
jt.mck@comcast.net
219-742-7456
If you want to give me a call, I think I can better explain my point.
Thanks Jim M.
LTD (for example ~48–49% front with RC geometry included at say 12%) is evaluated for tire size distribution (295/315) so you can see if you’re under- or over-supporting a corner. Or if you're under or over loading a tire. Or if you want to improve corner entry, or mid corner, or corner exit grip.









