|
I think we're all oversimplifying in this thought experiment. The analyses of vehicle stability by Scibor-Rylski, Gilhaus and Hoffman, and Barnard (to pick just 3) are complicated, with lots of calculus--because they depend on understanding not just forces and moments in three directions, but the derivatives of these forces and moments with respect to angular speed of body rotation, steering angle, and tire slip angle (i.e. the problem of lift and stability cannot be brushed away with a simple, "Imbalance of lift is the issue"; there are many more variables in play). Each comes up with a slightly different set of equations and parameters; S-R calculates a "critical velocity" for stability and a "static margin" (note, this is different than the static margin used in aeronautics); G and H reference two other authors who calculated a "stability index." Barnard doesn't bother with either of these, choosing to reference other authors' work instead and summing up, "In addition to the reduction in drag that usually accompanies a reduction in lift, the favourable stability characteristics of low or negative lift provide good reasons for reducing the (positive upward) lift coefficient of vehicles."
The conclusions of these authors are similar: lower lift is better than higher; balanced lift is better than unbalanced; lower rear lift than front is preferable to the reverse.
We can sit here and debate, but I don't think we will somehow arrive at a conceptual solution better than these, especially since none of us here are even considering all the variables introduced in these sources (or, at least, I haven't seen anyone mention them in this thread). We need actual comparison of a high-lift and low-lift vehicle on the road, or the same vehicle in different configurations, to answer the initial question.
|