You have to change your attitude. You have made some statements which are not true. You want to sit in the front rows for a dime. You loose me if you want to argue. It is difficult to explain things to people who are not engineers.

 

https://dsportmag.com/the-tech/chass...ontrol-safety/

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2078

https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/i...is-flex.61594/

Apparently there is a difference in opinion\

 

Hmm, that is my impression as well.

NOT a chassis expert so will let those that are and have the software comment on a question I've had, reinforced by what Tadge had said in a number of posts!

BACKGROUND
My fist new car was a 1967 Corvair that I modified to minimize the inherit Oversteer in a 60% rear heavy car. I'd had a swing axle Corvair prior (they were cheap.) The parallelogram rear suspension on the 1965 and later Corvairs was better in regard to Oversteer issues. However GM still recommended 16 psi front tire pressure to promote some Understeer in high "g" turns. They also had a rear toe-in spec that ranged from 1/4 to 3/8 inches! Yep, that much as it acted like a cheap form of rear steer when the outside wheel in a high "g" turn was subjected to much higher loads. I had ordered the car with every HD option offered at the time that included in springs, shocks, quick steering, brakes and a HD sway bar etc. Folks were still getting in trouble if going too fast for a turn as if steering out of a high speed skid the way you would with A FE Understeering car you'd be quickly off the road- rear first. Had to learn IF you could correct it was with counter steering like a dirt track racer! Had a split second to do that and in fact if racing best to prepare to do it when you realized you were going too fast, if say forced from your preferred line . THIS is not Oversteer from driving foolishly like hitting the brakes in an apex forcing the rear wheels to lose traction!

I added Plus1, 14 inch wheels and high performance radial tires before Plus1 and low profile were words being used! Car was fun to drive and had about the same Oversteer issues of Porsche's of the day! We had a saying at the time, "If going too fast for a turn better to hit a tree with the rear than plow into it with the front!" It was a concern I had with the C8 AND Tadge expressed the same or even more concern! He said his Dad was a military pilot and drove his Porsche very aggressively. He said he learned all about Oversteer. His strongest statement was made in the 1 hour Autoline Interview where he said it was his "Biggest Fear" with the C8! He was very pleased they solved it.

QUESTION RE CHASSIS STIFFNES:
Tadge also mention in a magazine interview this concern about Oversteering in a rear heavy car. He said it took Porsche "decades to solve and they had to get it right the first time!" He said they managed to engineer it right BUT didn't say how! The only comment was in the Autoline interview where he said; the chassis can't act like an "undamped spring!" JUST my speculation but it would appear with the C8's stiffer chassis they can better predict the exact suspension changes in the transients where Oversteer could occur.

As I said, no chassis expert, don't have the software but wonder if a stiffer chassis, is not at least part of the answer and what Porsche learned over decades?

 

'78 TA

 

Right.
Corvettes could be better for a few people like me but it would not be good for the shareholders. Corvette engineers have a very difficult job because they design for the stock holders.
In that regard, the designs are brilliant. Are you familiar with Hooke's Law? On other threads they speak of lowering their C8s by adjusting the pre load facility on the coil/overs. If you increase the preload on the coil/over springs trying to lower the car, the necessary force for starting the spring compression bump start cycle, will increase. The resistance provided by a spring against deformation is known as restoring force, and is variable depending on how much the spring is deformed. As you suggest, this information is delt with
It is the same force in a chassis when you transfer a load while corner weighting. 'Warp Factor.' in your CAD model, you make it all work for you like Corvette has done.
The less stiff the chassis is, the less the restoration force and less able to transfer a load. This stored energy will bite you in certain frequency bumps when it is released and they can't be damped effectively. Drive a go cart that is poorly set up and you will know what I'm talking about. Have you driven a car with cowl shake? My neighbour has a new BMW X6 with cowl shake. Unbelievable in this day and age.
Don't corner weight your C5,6 and 7. You will energize the chassis without transferring the load. Don't mess with it on your C8 either.
The beauty of the C5, 6 and 7, is the suspension compliance and chassis flex. Contrary to all popular belief. If the price is to high to produce a stiff chassis, the engineer must optimise with what he has. The engine is not mid front engine like earlier Corvettes. It is placed over the front axle where the bending moment is the least. This was done because it had a long wheel base and the chassis would have to be heavy to accommodate for this load. The C8 has 40% of it's load in the front but what ever the chassis flex is, it may benifit front tire loading. Who knows? With any design, the main objective is to fully exploit the grip circle within the contact patch of the chosen tire. The above Vettes do this job marvelously. Side note: Un necessary grip is lost on the inside wheels because of the geometry but it is still amazing.
With two major mass centroids at either end of the flex chassis,the front and the rear suspension almost acts independently of one another. It is actually genius at work and by design. If you loaded the chassis differently, it wouldn't work. IE: engine back. My roll cage transformed the car completely.
A lot of work goes into the force pyramid before any designing begins. All your design objectives are represented by these 5 points. Once these points are established, the tire is selected. Tire manufacturers are not forth coming with the required tire dynamic specs. They have to be determined by a tire dyno. The roll center and couples are determined by the location of the Cg. The camber gains must match the tire properties.
The mass is going to be accelerated in all directions and the load transfers will take certain paths. Deflection in all the components that are loaded have to be accounted for and therefore the damping requirements. The stiffer the chassis, the loads are transferred more efficiently because of a higher restoration forces. Not possible in modern Corvettes including the C8 unless a substantial roll cage is installed. If you have lemons, you make lemonade.
Side note: To avoid 'energizing' the chassis on the above FE Vettes: After the car is corner weighted and weights and ride heights are noted, the back of the car must jacked to unload the rear tires. Note front corner weights. Then unload the front tires and note rear corner weights. If they measured the same as all four, that's cool. If the back is different, bring the corner weights at the back to the same as when the front was jacked up. You have just eliminated the stored energy in the chassis. You may want to put some tape on the door gaps and observe flex.


.